Getting opinions on RotaryFlux and my responses

[Ieldra]

The tiering for the magnetostatics far more severely nerfs the from-RF conversion than the ratio does.

I don't know the new recipes, but I find that hard to imagine. Even should the T5 version now require a Nether Star to build.

You realize that interchangeability on RC tungsten with the ore, or bedrock/bedrockium, or tritium, or so on, will again cause severe balance problems? Not as severe as RotaryFlux, mind you, but severe nonetheless?

I wouldn't necessarily apply this to XU's bedrockium, since XU never wanted to be realistic or balanced, and it's a fantasy material anyway. In the other things, yes, I do realize that. I admit that there's no solution to this that will satisfy both balance and consistency. On the other hand, I see attempts to maintain balance in a configurable multi-mod environment as ultimately futile without the active collaboration of all mods in the pack, and a basic agreement about what exactly should be the principles of the balance a modpack aims to achieve. The extreme measures you have to take in order to keep RoC's tech tree unbroken are evidence of that. For me personally, the critical line was overstepped after you gave magnetostatics a warm-up period in the old v24 - a few days after I posted about them being uniquely suited for on-demand autocrafting because they were the only powerful RoC engines without a warm-up period. From that point onward, I couldn't do reasonably fast on-demand autocrafting with AE using RoC engines any more.

Anyway, before I talk more about this I should probably play the new version. Which I will do, but it may take a while.

 

[Reika]

I don't know the new recipes, but I find that hard to imagine. Even should the T5 version now require a Nether Star to build.

It is not cost but required infrastructure:
Old and new recipes:

Crafting------------Crafting+Magnetizer---Crafting-----------Blast Furnace------Blast Furnace

On the other hand, I see attempts to maintain balance in a configurable multi-mod environment as ultimately futile without the active collaboration of all mods in the pack, and a basic agreement about what exactly should be the principles of the balance a modpack aims to achieve. The extreme measures you have to take in order to keep RoC's tech tree unbroken are evidence of that.

That has always been my goal, to handle all of that on my end, since I know how to do so without breaking my or someone else's mods.

For me personally, the critical line was overstepped after you gave magnetostatics a warm-up period in the old v24 - a few days after I posted about them being uniquely suited for on-demand autocrafting because they were the only powerful RoC engines without a warm-up period. From that point onward, I couldn't do reasonably fast on-demand autocrafting with AE using RoC engines any more.

That was another suggestion (someone pointed out that it was odd they were immune to the spinup) and it was realistic. Also, the period is less than a couple seconds, so I fail to see how this is a severe hindrance.

 

[RedBoss]

So this is just a Power Converters mod for RoC?

 

[Reika]

So this is just a Power Converters mod for RoC?

More than that. As the first post states:

This is not a new converter engine, this is direct conduit-to-machine connections.

This makes RotaryCraft machines run directly off of RF, with no regard to the torque/speed mechanics of the power system at all.





Also, another point I just realized:
The fact he says it is configurable is meaningless. Not only does it have to match the magnetostatic's conversion ratio to avoid severe exploits, but consider this:

Unlike RF, which is technically energy, RotaryCraft's power system is actual power, i.e. unit over time. This means that there is no such concept as "watts per RF", only "watts per RF/t". Because, however, the RF power system has no concept of voltage or current, this means that the only way this could be implemented is a "any RF more than [some threshold] makes [some amount] of shaft power".

It is useless if it cannot power the popular machines, so it will be always configured to do that. Most of those machines are fairly high-tier, meaning it will also by proxy be configured to power just about everything else, making it effectively infinite shaft power from RF. Just hooking up more than that threshold RF/t will be "enough power to run whatever you want".

 

[RedBoss]

Is he doing anything blatantly wrong other than avoiding some of your progression? I've read this post, but I don't know code. Its not my background at all. If he'd given you bad advice on your 401k allocation, then maybe I could help.

Has he stolen code or done anything malicious? Has he done anything that'd make you threaten legal action like player did to the Simply Jetpacks dev? If he hasn't, I just see more drama if you go after him.

 

[Reika]

Is he doing anything blatantly wrong other than avoiding some of your progression?

He completely guts the power system, not just imbalancing RotaryCraft but fundamentally changing its identity and removing any of its original design or appeal. I used the analogy on the reddit thread of "a mod to make all ThaumCraft crafting on the vanilla table and research as mob drops", but on closer consideration this is "all ThaumCraft crafting on the vanilla table, research completely unnecessary for making things". Let me put it this way: Had this mod been released and popular in the early days of FTB Monster, most people here on these forums would have not even looked at nor liked RotaryCraft, as the people who do like it would have seen no appeal in it and the RF community would have deemed it hideously unbalanced.

Has he stolen code or done anything malicious? Has he done anything that'd make you threaten legal action like player did to the Simply Jetpacks dev? If he hasn't, I just see more drama if you go after him.

He has done base edits or ASM (in-RAM class editing) to RotaryCraft code, so there is a strong undertone of "subversion". That said, no, he has not clearly demonstrated malice yet, hence why my initial reactions have been to contact him and ask him to stop than directly blocking it.

 

[King Lemming]

Diplomacy. If that doesn't work, let me know. RF is my API and it exists for integration, *not* subversion.

Throw an elbow if you have to, but don't go crazy.

 

[GreenZombie]

He has done base edits or ASM (in-RAM class editing) to RotaryCraft code, so there is a strong undertone of "subversion". That said, no, he has not clearly demonstrated malice yet, hence why my initial reactions have been to contact him and ask him to stop than directly blocking it.

All mods perform base edits / ASM of "other code" by definition the entire modding scene is based on this. Ok. Mods don't do this directly any more they get forge to do it on their behalf.

Quoting this: https://account.mojang.com/documents/minecraft_eula

I get

If you make any content available on or through our Game, you must give us permission to use, copy, modify and adapt that content. This permission must be irrevocable, and you must also let us permit other people to use, copy, modify and adapt your content. If you don‘t want to give us this permission, do not make content available on or through our Game. Please think carefully before you make any content available, because it will be made public and might even be used by other people in a way you don‘t like.

 

[Kotaro]

All mods perform base edits / ASM of "other code" by definition the entire modding scene is based on this. Ok. Mods don't do this directly any more they get forge to do it on their behalf.

Quoting this: https://account.mojang.com/documents/minecraft_eula

I get

I think you're misunderstanding this a bit. The fact that this thread exists means that Reika would want to handle this in a good way rather than just blocking the mod from working. To me, it sounds like he went "wait, is this even within my rights to do anything to stop or change this mod?".

If he really wanted to, he could have just made the changes to his code without creating a discussion about it, and that would be the end of it.

That being said, this would have happened eventually even if RC wasn't involved. The discussion is more important as it'll serve as a discussion future mods can refer to.

 

[King Lemming]

All mods perform base edits / ASM of "other code" by definition the entire modding scene is based on this. Ok. Mods don't do this directly any more they get forge to do it on their behalf.

Quoting this: https://account.mojang.com/documents/minecraft_eula

I get

The EULA could also say, "You must also give us your house, SSN, and bank account." And just like the mod stance, it's unenforceable. The EULA was written by Mojang pre-Microsoft buyout. Which basically means, they didn't know wtf they were doing and wanted to appease/scare people as appropriate. It doesn't hold up as it violates international copyright law and is far too vague. The real meat of the EULA handles servers and the pay-to-win style stuff. And they got that right, since there's not really a gray area.

Technically, very little content is actually available on/through the game, as Forge/FML is *actually* the requisite platform. I don't really make Minecraft mods. I make Forge mods. Reika does too. It's enough of a distinction that any actual in-court challenge would quickly get torpedoed.

Even so, it's beside the point. Content isn't being adapted or modified here, it's being hijacked, and it'e entirely via an external API that has no relation to Minecraft in any way. There aren't even class references in the RF API, it's all interfaces, and the side orientation is done via ForgeDirection.

Mods should in no way be forced to adopt code or features against the will of the author(s). And if this truly ended up in a courtroom, there'd be a much stronger case here involving malware and cyberterrorism than there ever would be with upholding the badly constructed EULA.

 

[ICountFrom0]

• Exploit: This mod adds a massive 680000x power feedback exploit because it wildly differs from the conversion ratio built into RotaryCraft.

That loop alone is enough to make my thoughts firmly against the other modder.

• Design: RotaryCraft's power system is core to its identity. Removing that for the sake of trivial convenience is akin to removing all of ThaumCraft's research, and is very, very unkind to the effort the developer has put into their mod.

This clearly shows that the add on is detrimental to your work.

That they went deep into your code to gut it shows either intent or ignorance.

May we all hope that it is ignorance, and that it can be cured.

I wish you the best of luck.

 

[GreenZombie]

That being said, this would have happened eventually even if RC wasn't involved. The discussion is more important as it'll serve as a discussion future mods can refer to.

By eventually, you mean already? We've had mods adding DRM in the past and lived through all the drama associated with that. @Reika himself has been on the wrong side of previous DRM attempts iirc. This never ends well.

@King Lemming - normally I respect your opinion totally but here you are just being disingenuous. Using an abstraction layer to isolate code from the platform is a technical, not a legal, consideration.

 

[Bagman817]

Ok. To ignore the ethics for a moment, DRM (and this proposal is DRM) is always taken badly by this community. @Reika having been the target of it before.

So theres that.

The opinion of the community is worth considering (which is what Reika is doing with this thread), but ultimately a content creator needs to make his own decisions regarding his work.

Next, there is the spirit of the modding community :- mods change the game. more mods change it more. Each mod perturbs the balance expectations of the other mods and players will add mods for this very purpose.

So theres that.

While true, not relevant to the question of the rights of a content creator in regards to his own work.

Then there are the ethics of it. There are a number of cases where an "Artist" relinquishes control over a work - they maintain copyright, but for most other purposes, having sold a work, cannot control how the content is used. If I buy a painting I cannot duplicate it and sell the duplicates. But I can choose to hang it upside down in my company lobby, or tear it up and hang the ribbons If I so desire.

Comparing a tangible painting to software is a poor analogy, I'm afraid. A (slightly) better example is writing (my profession). If I sell a piece to a magazine, I sell "one time serial rights", which means they pay me for the right to publish the piece in their magazine once. If they want to publish an anthology of works that appeared in their magazine, they would need to purchase the rights to do that separately, so I do indeed "control how the content is used". Regardless, the question at hand is not what you can do with Reika's mod, but what Reika can do with his own mod. While the author of the "add-on" is entitled to make his mod, I continue to maintain that Reika is entitled to defend against it.

Now, modders do not sell their mods - and the recent Steam fracas has proven that, for now, the larger gaming community do not approve of that idea at all. None the less they release their mods into a public space (and must conform to the license agreements of the products they mod) and thus, while they retain copyright, they have no moral, ethical or legal right to engage in 'behaviour control' over how their mods are used.

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I'll not comment on the legal aspects (see King Lemming's post regarding Mojang's EULA), but I feel that you're confusing "moral and ethical rights" with "my opinion of how people should behave." A large portion of the community seems to feel that mod authors work for the community in some way. Considering they're not being compensated (I suppose some may be getting rich off "that ad-fly money, yo"), that doesn't seem to be a defensible position. Even if they were being compensated, they would still be working for themselves, not the community. Ultimately, the less we respect creator rights, the less content we'll have.

 

[Kotaro]

By eventually, you mean already? We've had mods adding DRM in the past and lived through all the drama associated with that. @Reika himself has been on the wrong side of previous DRM attempts iirc. This never ends well.

@King Lemming - normally I respect your opinion totally but here you are just being disingenuous. Using an abstraction layer to isolate code from the platform is a technical, not a legal, consideration.

I'm more talking about a mod that is intended to drastically alter a very specific mod to short circuit its mechanics. I feel like this would eventually happen, just this one happened to be the first. It might have happened before, but I cannot think of any.

This conversation is pretty important, especially to myself as someone who wants to become a new modder. I'm asking myself a lot of similar questions, like what would I do if someone changed how my mod worked because they didn't agree with it? I might end up with an open license, but it'd still take offense to it. If they were creating a full addon to it, sure, that'd be better. But to create a mod to invalidate something I made would get to me.

 

[King Lemming]

By eventually, you mean already? We've had mods adding DRM in the past and lived through all the drama associated with that. @Reika himself has been on the wrong side of previous DRM attempts iirc. This never ends well.

@King Lemming - normally I respect your opinion totally but here you are just being disingenuous. Using an abstraction layer to isolate code from the platform is a technical, not a legal, consideration.

You believe that technicalities don't hold any weight in courts? They most certainly do, and the overall construction of the document is completely questionable.

For example, by the EULA's own admission, if you don't have the game installed, most of the sections do not apply to you. That includes the "Content" section, as it is not one of the three explicitly stated to continue in the event of termination. Which, funny enough, means that "irrevocable" isn't.

The crazy thing about this is that it muddies the waters way too much in terms of what is allowed and when. Uninstalling the game changes how your mod can be distributed/used/whatever?

What if you never installed the game and have contributed to development of a mod? What are your rights then?

As far as the ownership thing goes,

Any tools you write for the Game from scratch belong to you. . Modifications to the Game ("Mods") (including pre-run Mods and in-memory Mods) and plugins for the Game also belong to you and you can do whatever you want with them, as long as you don‘t sell them for money / try to make money from them.

Also, content is very specifically not allowed to infringe on the rights of anyone. A strict reading of that is going to side with "mods are not allowed to hack other mods," in the absence of some sort of modder agreement.

This is not my first rodeo. The EULA as written is vague and also cedes to international copyright (bottom paragraph). Mods running on Forge is a legitimate distinction as otherwise they would not operate with Minecraft. It's the same thing as Microsoft trying to claim ownership of Java programs, since they run on Windows. Except they don't, they run on the JVM which happens to run on Windows.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Mods running on Forge is a legitimate distinction as otherwise they would not operate with Minecraft. It's the same thing as Microsoft trying to claim ownership of Java programs, since they run on Windows. Except they don't, they run on the JVM which happens to run on Windows.

This is completely true. We could make the Forge API with higher abstraction to run on other voxel games, which Nova is trying to do, thus it cannot be claimed that Mojang owns mods, or Forge for that matter. As that would be like MS claiming any program running on their OS, or even any language they created

As far as the ASM goes, that is clearly wrong. It violates most licensing agreements and owner's rights, let alone the ethical issues with it. Mods can ASM into forge because it is allowed and it has been agreed that it is sometimes necessary. This is clear subversion of author's rights

 

[GreenZombie]

This is not my first rodeo. The EULA as written is vague and also cedes to international copyright (bottom paragraph). Mods running on Forge is a legitimate distinction as otherwise they would not operate with Minecraft. It's the same thing as Microsoft trying to claim ownership of Java programs, since they run on Windows. Except they don't, they run on the JVM which happens to run on Windows.

This is not your first rodeo? This isn't even the rodeo yet. Have any of these arguments actually ever reached court?

Until and unless some (total idiots) are willing to pony up for real lawyers all this talk - by me or anyone else - as to what constitutes "legal" is all just fanciful theory.

We can however look at the mojang EULA to get to get the spirit of what _they_ wanted for the modding community. And there, they bluntly say, if you don't want your content being altered by someone else, think carefully before releasing it for their game. And, as clumsy as their wording is, you can't say that a mod - especially one as large as RoC - is not content.

mods are, to me, an example of remix culture. And it takes - in my opinion - a special kind of arrogance to remix someone elses thing, and then claim the result to be immune to remixing. In this case "RotaryCraft+Minecraft" being @Reika's remix of Minecraft.

 

[Strikingwolf]

This is not your first rodeo? This isn't even the rodeo yet. Have any of these arguments actually ever reached court?

Until and unless some (total idiots) are willing to pony up for real lawyers all this talk - by me or anyone else - as to what constitutes "legal" is all just fanciful theory.

Not true, many of us have read in detail licenses and Eulas and how they work, as it is almost required if you want to be a large dev

We can however look at the mojang EULA to get to get the spirit of what _they_ wanted for the modding community. And there, they bluntly say, if you don't want your content being altered by someone else, think carefully before releasing it for their game. And, as clumsy as their wording is, you can't say that a mod - especially one as large as RoC - is not content.

mods are, to me, an example of remix culture. And it takes - in my opinion - a special kind of arrogance to remix someone elses thing, and then claim the result to be immune to remixing. In this case "RotaryCraft+Minecraft" being @Reika's remix of Minecraft.

Hahahahaha, opinion and opinion

 

[Kotaro]

This is not your first rodeo? This isn't even the rodeo yet. Have any of these arguments actually ever reached court?

Until and unless some (total idiots) are willing to pony up for real lawyers all this talk - by me or anyone else - as to what constitutes "legal" is all just fanciful theory.

We can however look at the mojang EULA to get to get the spirit of what _they_ wanted for the modding community. And there, they bluntly say, if you don't want your content being altered by someone else, think carefully before releasing it for their game. And, as clumsy as their wording is, you can't say that a mod - especially one as large as RoC - is not content.

mods are, to me, an example of remix culture. And it takes - in my opinion - a special kind of arrogance to remix someone elses thing, and then claim the result to be immune to remixing. In this case "RotaryCraft+Minecraft" being @Reika's remix of Minecraft.

That line in the EULA doesn't mean that you have no rights. That means if you make a mod, don't go complaining to Mojang if something or anything happens. They're just waiving responsibility (as they should) and covering themselves. Nowhere does it say that your intellectual property rights are null and everything you create must be in public domain.

It's not arrogance either. If I don't want someone to completely change how my mod works, why would it be arrogant to change my mod to prevent unwanted behavior? Do I have to change my philosophy in order to serve other people's wishes?

 

[GreenZombie]

That line in the EULA doesn't mean that you have no rights.

What rights exactly? Copyright prevents others claiming your work as theirs.
This guy is not distributing RoC or claiming it as his own.
What actual right is @Reika claiming here?

All of the usual "though shalt not reverse engineer" bullcrap is added to licensed software with EULAs. And, in installing RoC (that one time, long ago when I did), there was no EULA. So copyright stands. But I'm not at all sure why @Reika is asserting I should not be permitted to open his .jar with a zip tool. Or view the .class files therein in a binary viewer. Or disassemble the bytecodes. None of these activities infringe @Reika's clear and manifest copyright claim.

This is nothing about the other "modder". This is about end users. @Reika appears to be claiming that end users who install RoC should be prevented from installing some other mod? Because its author opened the roc.jar file?

Where does this pervasive idea that because I am using your software, you get to control my mind, come from? Keep out my head. And out my mod collection. The other mods I choose to put in my pack are no concern of anyones.