New Forestry 2.0 Farm Blocks aare a PITA
- Thread starter wipiid
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
ever looked through a world hole with xycraft enabled? And you see each and every single piece of quartz in your render distance? even if they're buried on all sides.
turning quartz into an ore block that drops a crystal would be soooo much better :/ not all of us have a beast of a pc :/
Right on - I didn't mean to imply that it's not possible to be OP in a sandbox game, only that it changes based on what you decide the point of your game is. Since that wasn't my main point I probably shouldn't have started out by mentioning it.
The original thing Sengir was calling OP, if I read him correctly, was self-sustaining farms without input. I'm claiming that this is not OP if the game you're playing is not, "maintain the farm," but rather, "figure the farm out." It seems to me one of two things is true: either you consider apatite a resource required to build the farm in the first place, and it uses so little that you can essentially consider it done, or you need to regularly go back to fill the farm with apatite. In the first case, the apatite is incidental to the farm, and doesn't end up fixing the problem he's trying to fix. You might as well not have it over some other resource like copper or iron. In the second case, the farm is intended to be more like a resource in an RTS where the goal is not to figure it out, but rather to keep the whole thing working by collecting and spending resources. This seems to be the way he's attempting to go by moving the complexity to the UI - you essentially just plop the farm down and go, just keep supplying apatite.
I think a lot of these discussions about what is and isn't OP are also based a bit around how much time the player has to play. For example, the reason I disable Gregtech, or at least disable its hard recipes, is because if I kept them in, then I would spend all my time just collecting resources for these recipes and crafting them. I would never get to build anything interesting. For someone whose endgame is to acquire a Quantum Suit, this might make sense. But my goal isn't to get a Quantum Suit, and I in fact don't care much about it. I'm building interesting things inside of resource constraints, and the Quantum Suit might help me but isn't the point. Likewise, if I have to keep filling the farm with apatite, then I'm not sure I'm getting much benefit, time-wise, above just chopping down my trees manually and replanting - the time I want to be collecting resources for the next cool build is instead spent collecting and resupplying apatite.
This is why I don't think there can be just one metric for what's OP, although I'm fully on board that given a broad outline of end goals, you can determine if something is or is not OP - I agree that we want to avoid mods that swing you over to near creative mode, especially since creative mode actually already exists. The problem may be that these different play styles can't be balanced in the same mod pack simultaneously. The people who want a Quantum Suit are going to be bored by the mod pack for people that want to build complicated things, and the people building complicated things are going to the the Quantum-Suit-resource-gathering mod pack is too onerous.
This is such a load of crap I don't even know where to begin. XyCraft, as has been demo'd on forgecraft, is currently OP. Suggesting that the fact that it's current state as articulated is somehow immune from judgement is so wrong it's basically thoughtcrime.
If we were talking about something that was actually in the mod pack and available to play with like EE3, for example, then you would be right. As it is though, what is being demo'd in the forgecraft server is not available for us unwashed masses to play and is very much a work in progress. As such we can't really say if it's currently OP by design or by convenience for testing. It's like complaining about testers leaving in a debug menu while they're working on the game - of course it's gonna be there so they can more easily test it.
Sure we can. Convenience for testing is spawning in the blocks. I get the impression if left to their own devices, Soaryn and Chickenbones would generally err on the side of 'bling before balance'. This is an obvious game system approach different from, say, Covert or Sengir. Carrington's criticism is warranted, as the cost relative to power of several of the blocks has been discussed plenty on FC, and we've all had a chance to see it.
But hey, don't discuss it, Lambert said so.
hurr durr :/
if you want to discuss something that you have very little clue about, go for it, you just make yourself look like an idiot in the process
Turning "Advanced OpenGL" to Fast in Optifine fixed alot of that lag for me - it makes it so your game only renders what it sees
One thing that makes me a little nervous, yes you made apatite spawn more, and in huge chunks so that it's hard to run out, but it is possible to run out.
Would you allow an industrial or bee production path to more apatite?
I haven't played with the multiblock farms yet, or the new worldgen, but if you can get 3 stacks of apatite from one vein, that's up to 48 stacks of fertilizer. At that rate, finding another vein would be far less effort than setting up any automated production line.
Mystcraft^^. Well based on how fertilizer works there could be other sources for it, but Apatite is pretty common, even more if you mine it with Fortune.
Based on that criticism XyCraft basically is the most experimental Mod on ForgeCraft. The Green Plant-Growth-Blocks are well... not sure how many soaryn placed over each other for endless Reeds but on the other hand most things that grow naturally are easy to option anyway.
The Tanks are pretty fair, they are cheap, but well a BC-Tank stores 10 Buckets in a single Block for 8 Glass, the Fabricator isn't finished, an Soaryn already mentioned that Fabrication might use energy or take some time etc. so he still is figuring out the right place for the fabricator. And even the recipies are not finalized... not even nearly.
There are two things most people miss.
1. Nobody balances the Modpack. That can happen to a limited extend via the configs but the Modpack is just a compilation and the only source of balance issues comes from the interaction of mods with each other.
2. Sengir clearly said that the farms weren't fun for him and he did not use them in his latest worlds. So if the creator of a mod is unhappy with his creation he will change it. And as it seems Sengir wasn't happy with the old farms. The new farms have some advantages exspecially since they are far more flexible.
And yes you can of course stack them on each other, there is just a bit more room required (not sure if the multiblocks can touch each other). But how about building them 5x3 and leave one side open? If the Blocks can touch each other it would be possible to make a layer only 4 blocks big.
The biggest issue with stacking them would have to be tree farms, but then that can easily be remedied by not stacking tree farms and placing them on the top and having it plant massive trees. I will give the new farms this - you really shouldn't need as many of them as before, so stacking them shouldn't be as big of an issue. I can definitely see where these new farms have merits over the old ones - however that doesn't change how I currently feel about them. And to be fair, everyone can have their own opinion on something.
You already couldn't stack tree farms without significant space in between, though.
This has gotten off topic enough, but the reason I think this is fair game where a debug or convenience recipe would not be is Soaryn's had plenty of time to articulate that these items are placeholders, on camera and on mic, and has in fact spent a great deal of time explaining why he thinks multitanks, for instance, are balanced. He's given no indication at all that he considers the design a work in progress. If he comes out and says 'hey, it was in dev, I'm making it more expensive now' then of course I'll withdraw my criticism.
Not completely off topic, because one of Sengir's reasons for deprecating the old farms is he thinks they're OP - so it's useful to know how we determine whether something's OP, and I think multitanks might put a point on the difference in philosophy and expectation between various determinations. It surprises me that you think they're OP as shown on Forgecraft.
By you're own heuristic above:
How do we determine the "time-effort value" of storing lava? It's not something you can do in vanilla minecraft - you just have to manually shuttle it back and forth, which would take ages and probably make storage prohibitively expensive. Does this make IC2's storage tanks OP as well? Maybe your starting point is Railcraft? How do we know what the starting point should be?
There are tons of things like this that are, as I see them, purely judgement calls depending on what your end goals are. If you can explain why you think multitanks are OP, then that might help inform the framework you and people like Sengir, Greg, etc, are using to balance mods.
Actually storing of fluids is possible in Vanilla, via iron buckets in a chest. This isn't precisely equivalent to the applications that have developed as mods have expanded, but it presents a baseline for why railcraft tanks are balanced and multitanks are not. BC tanks are the first step upward, providing 16 bucket storage for 8 glass - or 8 sand + 1 coal and 80 seconds of machining time, as compared to 3 iron/6 sticks/30 seconds for 1 bucket. Railcraft generates, with a slight increase in resource costs and a large increase in machining/time/fuel costs, a system that increases the storage yet further. I'm ignoring mining time because it'd be some average of travel + locating + mining + retrieval anyway, but it's important to note that mining time exists in this equation. All tanks have some assembly time involved, and this will vary from application to application in a roughly equivalent fashion so it can be counted as a wash.
Then we have multitanks. As articulated, multitanks require walls comprised of any solid block with a small blacklist of acceptables. Now we have removed most of the mining time, because a mulittank can be constructed out of the ground as it exists naturally. Because xycraft ores currently demonstrate no elevation restrictions (beyond perhaps being sub-64, I haven't looked into whether spawning in mountains is an intended behavior) and are produced in fairly significant abundance, and it currently requires a single node of ore to generate a valve block, the material cost is also exponentially lower than that of the other associated mods.
Xycraft is, in essence, not even balanced against vanilla minecraft particularly well. Currently it fits into that psuedo-creative space already occupied to some extent by EE. There's nothing wrong with this particular design philosophy but it does not interact well with a more purely survival mindset. As others have suggested elsewhere, 'survival' and 'creative' are arbitrary end points on what is essentially a sliding scale of playstyles; however, it seems to me that most of the modders whose work is included in FTB are by-and-large toward the survival end of the spectrum. XyCraft is, by contrast, toward the other end.