If you could add one thing to any mod...?

[Bibble]

I think that the main point is that all it does is allow the use of storage elements in the nested network, there's no crafting or exporting that can be done, it's not a full-featured system by any stretch of the imagination.

So, if you want, say, to have an MFR network to supply farm-like stuff, you need to have everything (fertiliser, bonemeal, etc.) available to that subnetwork, which would mean generating it there, or using channels, and giving that area of the network access to the place that everything else is stored.

It means that you can segregate networks, and it means that for the complex machines, you need channels, but if it's just a massive storage system, it's a fairly trivial matter.

 

[Ieldra]

Soaryn made a huge ssd and Direwolf20 said the same thing but mod creator was like no that's intended.

One does wonder, in that case, why the channel mechanic exists at all, if another mechanic exists inteded to circumvent it, especially since managing a large network with channels is rather more involved than chained subnetworking.

Apart from that, chained subnetworking would make the proposed change - one channel per storage cell - superfluous since getting around it with subnetworking is as easy as getting around the limitations of channels everywhere else. The only people adversely affected would be those who actually like to work with the channels.

 

[Ieldra]

I think that the main point is that all it does is allow the use of storage elements in the nested network, there's no crafting or exporting that can be done, it's not a full-featured system by any stretch of the imagination.

So, if you want, say, to have an MFR network to supply farm-like stuff, you need to have everything (fertiliser, bonemeal, etc.) available to that subnetwork, which would mean generating it there, or using channels, and giving that area of the network access to the place that everything else is stored.

It means that you can segregate networks, and it means that for the complex machines, you need channels, but if it's just a massive storage system, it's a fairly trivial matter.

You can use subnetworking as easily to supplant the P2P system in autocrafting setups. Suppose you have several autocrafting setups using 6 channels each. Instead of either using a dense cable or implementing a P2P network, you can just plonk down one interface for each autocrafting setup and subnetwork the main network to it with a storage bus. I'd say if there's anything OP in AE2, it's subnetworking.

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

Don't make assumptions about what I do and do not know how to do. Excessive subnetworking is, as far as I'm concerned, a cheat to get around having to use the channels.

So your personal preference based on an assumption makes my idea "impossible" and "invalidate all pre-configured storage cells systems". Hardly....

To my knowledge the mod author said in response to soaryn when he did this that it's not an exploit or cheat and that it was functioning as intended.

That^^

One does wonder, in that case, why the channel mechanic exists at all, if another mechanic exists inteded to circumvent it, especially since managing a large network with channels is rather more involved than chained subnetworking.

Apart from that, chained subnetworking would make the proposed change - one channel per storage cell - superfluous since getting around it with subnetworking is as easy as getting around the limitations of channels everywhere else. The only people adversely affected would be those who actually like to work with the channels.

The SSD can only be applied to storage systems. An SSD is a LOT more expensive with all the storage buses and interfaces than using the channels normally , it's balanced, you can choose. My idea would make it even more expensive, and the chests would give even more opportunity to use channels "properly" as a line of 8 chests(which is more expensive and bulky) would use 1 channel, 8 drives with one channel the bigger expensive way or 1 drive, 1 channel the compact and cheap way. Balance.... ME chests and drives are not balanced in the slightest, there is no reason to not use a drive, that is bad game design.

This is not an attack on your way of playing, based on my experimentation with AE2 the drives are horribly unbalanced compared to the chests.

Hell you could even give the drives 8 slots, people could then choose to only fill 6 so you could SSD or fill it with 8 and use up the channels.

You can use subnetworking as easily to supplant the P2P system in autocrafting setups. Suppose you have several autocrafting setups using 6 channels each. Instead of either using a dense cable or implementing a P2P network, you can just plonk down one interface for each autocrafting setup and subnetwork the main network to it with a storage bus. I'd say if there's anything OP in AE2, it's subnetworking.

You can't do that with on demand crafting, only "keep x items stored" style auto-crafting. You also can't do autoprocessing with the SSD system, it's specifically there for storage.

 

[asb3pe]

If I could add one thing to the IC2 mod, it would be GregTech. Having played GT modpacks in the past, and most recently playing the Infinity modpack which has IC2 but no GT, it's both a bit astonishing and a bit sad how few recipes there are for the IC2 machines. The Extractor has only 7 recipes, as opposed to the 1700 or so (that's a guess but it's probably close) recipes in a GT modpack.

Just had to get that off my chest. I guess I need to wait tho, because I know Greg is right in the middle of a big version update, meaning I can either go play a pack with an obsolete and unfinished GT version, or else I have to wait until the current version is in a playable state.

 

[Bibble]

If I could add one thing to the IC2 mod, it would be GregTech. Having played GT modpacks in the past, and most recently playing the Infinity modpack which has IC2 but no GT, it's both a bit astonishing and a bit sad how few recipes there are for the IC2 machines. The Extractor has only 7 recipes, as opposed to the 1700 or so (that's a guess but it's probably close) recipes in a GT modpack.

Just had to get that off my chest. I guess I need to wait tho, because I know Greg is right in the middle of a big version update, meaning I can either go play a pack with an obsolete and unfinished GT version, or else I have to wait until the current version is in a playable state.

Oooooh boy, this'll be fun.

For the record, while there is a lot that Greg adds, it also creates a lot of issues. The matter has been debated many-a-time, and will probably only be avoided this time due to the current row about channels in AE2.

 

[Ieldra]

This is not an attack on your way of playing, based on my experimentation with AE2 the drives are horribly unbalanced compared to the chests.

I'd change that by making the chests more useful, rather than making the drives less useful. I guess it's a matter of style, but I see subnetworking as an unelegant brute-force solution, and having to use it to make storage systems upwards of a certain size is highly unappealing. Also, the compactness of its storage has always been AE2's main attraction, compromising that would be undesirable.

 

[asb3pe]

Oooooh boy, this'll be fun.

Oh I know full well my words are like poking a hornet's nest around here. That's part of the fun of posting em I guess. hehe But I did have to get it off my chest, because in playing Infinity modpack for the past few months, I feel like I'm getting a bit (dare I say it) bored with it. I know that says much more about me than it does about the modpack or the mods, so I'll just quit while i'm way behind. grin

 

[asb3pe]

Okay, here's a simpler and less controversial add-request...
In AE2, I'd make it so the ME Interfaces had more than 9 slots available for crafting patterns - perhaps a chest's worth of slots, 27. I often run out of slots and sometimes don't have any more faces on the machine to attach anything to. Then I have to add a second machine just so I can add more crafting recipes. I guess the same goes for the Molecular Assemblers, the 9-slot ME Interface is why I see some people building towers of the Assemblers. Looks cool, but can't we cut down on some of that clutter?

 

[malicious_bloke]

Any mod like Advanced Genetics.

There should be an option to splice bits of animals into other animals.

Suicide Cowpers would be a great stealth weapon...

 

[Baron_Falcon]

Oooooh boy, this'll be fun.

For the record, while there is a lot that Greg adds, it also creates a lot of issues. The matter has been debated many-a-time, and will probably only be avoided this time due to the current row about channels in AE2.

I'll weigh in on this one. Gregtech will probably never be in modpacks that have Tinkers Construct. There's a very good reason for that, but I'll let you do your own research. Word to the wise, you may want to avoid adding gregtech to a modpack that has Tinkers.

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

I'll weigh in on this one. Gregtech will probably never be in modpacks that have Tinkers Construct. There's a very good reason for that, but I'll let you do your own research. Word to the wise, you may want to avoid adding gregtech to a modpack that has Tinkers.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Ieldra]

Okay, here's a simpler and less controversial add-request...
In AE2, I'd make it so the ME Interfaces had more than 9 slots available for crafting patterns - perhaps a chest's worth of slots, 27. I often run out of slots and sometimes don't have any more faces on the machine to attach anything to. Then I have to add a second machine just so I can add more crafting recipes. I guess the same goes for the Molecular Assemblers, the 9-slot ME Interface is why I see some people building towers of the Assemblers. Looks cool, but can't we cut down on some of that clutter?

I second that. Maybe to keep things balanced, you could make a second-tier interface with 27 slors out of three regular ones and an engineering processor

 

[Baron_Falcon]

Yeah I agree, so combining our ideas into a early game AE addon you would get.

1. Basic ME chests have an internal size without a storage cell. Would it need power?
2. This chest can then be upgraded to a standard ME chest that takes a cell.
3. You can place 8 ME chests next to each other while only using one channel.
4. Drives are made more expensive, each cell will require it's own channel and size reduced to 6 slots(so it's possible to sub-network/SSD them).

Personally I think this brings AE a bit earlier in the game without making it OP and adds a tier system to the storage that'll be fun to work with

This is may be a bit more than my original intent for an early game AE storage and I'm not crazy about multiple ME chests. My idea doesn't completely get rid of having to use barrels and chests because it won't have enough storage. It allows you to have more items in one inventory and be able to craft from it, much like Draconic chest (In fact, Draconic chest would be perfect if it wasn't so dam big, I either have to make everything tiny and hard to see if I want NEI to show, or do without NEI). I also think in order for the modmaker to even consider it, it needs to be simple to execute, which is why I think giving a cell case a small storage value is a good plan. 64 slots with a limit on stacks per slot like maybe 3.

 

[Baron_Falcon]

Utter nonsense.

I could easily disprove that statement, but this is not the place to do it.

 

[asb3pe]

I second that. Maybe to keep things balanced, you could make a second-tier interface with 27 slors out of three regular ones and an engineering processor

Bravo, bravo! Love it.

 

[Baron_Falcon]

Soaryn made a huge ssd and Direwolf20 said the same thing but mod creator was like no that's intended.

My apologies, I'm just trying to understand here, a bunch of SD's connected together that use a single network channel is considered a subnetwork?

 

[Ieldra]

My apologies, I'm just trying to understand here, a bunch of SD's connected together that use a single network channel is considered a subnetwork?

I don't know what "SD" stands for, but subnetworking is the technical term for connecting two networks by use of a storage bus by one network that points at an interface of another one. If the interface is not configured to export specific items, you will be able to see and access (depending on the storage bus settings) the contents of the subnetworked network from the one that uses the storage bus. This can be use to create chains of drives with interfaces and storage buses attached (each a network of three elements), where each sees the contents of all the ones further down. That way you can chain an unlimited number of drives and connect them to your network at the end of the chain with one single cable, using only the one channel you need for the last storage bus in the chain.

 

[Baron_Falcon]

I don't know what "SD" stands for, but subnetworking is the technical term for connecting two networks by use of a storage bus by one network that points at an interface of another one. If the interface is not configured to export specific items, you will be able to see and access (depending on the storage bus settings) the contents of the subnetworked network from the one that uses the storage bus. This can be use to create chains of drives with interfaces and storage buses attached (each a network of three elements), where each sees the contents of all the ones further down. That way you can chain an unlimited number of drives and connect them to your network at the end of the chain with one single cable, using only the one channel you need for the last storage bus in the chain.

I was incorrectly referring to ME drives as storage drives. So two unconfigured storage buses facing each other between ME drives. Thank you.

I would like to see the massive system requiring enough ME drives to warrant doing this. I have been unable to max out the different configurations of ME controllers I've built.

 

[Padfoote]

Word to the wise, you may want to avoid adding gregtech to a modpack that has Tinkers.

You can have the two in a pack together. I've done it, and it causes no issues; ScottulusMaximus is correct on this.

My advice, however, is to avoid bringing up what was done in the past. It always causes issues and I'd rather not have to clean up drama today.