This isn't going anywhere really. We're fighting a proxy war on Reika's shoulders.
Project E and Reika's Mods
- Thread starter trajing
- 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
- Status
Celestialphoenix
Too Much Free Time
Thats fair enough. I did twist the definition there.
Its worth noting if the brute force method [when repeated] is significantly harder/longer/more resource intensive than the intended method, then in itself its not a design issue. You can keep mining with a wooden pickaxe if you want to too.
The issue at hand is a singular brute force event (or fluking it if the player doesn't know what s/he is doing) being significantly easier than doing it properly, than that singular event being combined with a duplication mechanic.
*sigh* assumptions (now where have I seen that before?)
Which particular power nets are you comparing to?
When you go up a level; its redesigned. Things can be rearranged to make a more streamlined system- this process challenges and engages the player. Given the power grid itself works best as a decentralised system, there isn't exactly miles and miles of cabling to replace- so unless you've deliberately used a tonne of extra shafts there comparatively few parts to switch out.This is why its important to actually play a game before you form an opinion on the matter- reading about it or comparing to other tiered systems is a poor substitute a best.
Reika is not the only mod author that is currently requesting something in another authors mod as the P:E team are [non verbally] requesting EMC values for Reika's mod items. That request has been refused (as is every author's right).
This line of logic itself is a stalemate as it applies equally to both sides of the coin- to the point where names can be switched and the statement still identically valid.
(actually the entire topic is locked in a stalemate; which is why its ran this hot for this long)
Last edited:
This is my first post on the subject here, and likely my last. Quite frankly I didin't even know this debate was going on till someone tagged me. A few points id like to bring up:
I have nothing against RotaryCraft and think its a rather cool mod.
Using ProjectE is a choice from the user/pack author, If you want a OP pack great use it, if you want balance you have three choices, adjust ProjectE configs, dont include the mod at all, or use EE3. I personally find it a lil odd that someone would want to use ProjectE aside a mod like RotaryCraft, but that's not my choice, and I'm not going to stop players from doing so.
Creating a copy of a item requires obtaining it in the first place to learn it or use it as a condenser target, the only way to bypass this is to use creative to obtain the tome, or enable the recipe which is disabled by default, this config option was actually added as a response to Reika's initial complaints.
The API that allows mods to add and remove EMC values for its items was removed as we introduced a new mapper to ProjectE, because of this change EMC related API calls have to be rewritten. We did not block RotaryCraft, we simply dont have the API calls that it and a few other mods were using.
ProjectE does not use ASM or anything else to modify other mods, we do not "hack" RotaryCraft.
ProjectE in its stock form only has EMC values for vanilla items, and some OreDict entries, however it will use those base values that it knows to create EMC values. It does this by seeing if a item has a recipe which the mats of all have EMC values, if even one item in the recipe is missing a EMC value the item in question does not get a value. We do not and will not implicitly register EMC values for RotaryCraft items, however its possible for a user to add them via config files.
ProjectE is open source, if you have doubt as to any of these claims please see: https://github.com/sinkillerj/ProjectE
I have nothing against RotaryCraft and think its a rather cool mod.
Using ProjectE is a choice from the user/pack author, If you want a OP pack great use it, if you want balance you have three choices, adjust ProjectE configs, dont include the mod at all, or use EE3. I personally find it a lil odd that someone would want to use ProjectE aside a mod like RotaryCraft, but that's not my choice, and I'm not going to stop players from doing so.
Creating a copy of a item requires obtaining it in the first place to learn it or use it as a condenser target, the only way to bypass this is to use creative to obtain the tome, or enable the recipe which is disabled by default, this config option was actually added as a response to Reika's initial complaints.
The API that allows mods to add and remove EMC values for its items was removed as we introduced a new mapper to ProjectE, because of this change EMC related API calls have to be rewritten. We did not block RotaryCraft, we simply dont have the API calls that it and a few other mods were using.
ProjectE does not use ASM or anything else to modify other mods, we do not "hack" RotaryCraft.
ProjectE in its stock form only has EMC values for vanilla items, and some OreDict entries, however it will use those base values that it knows to create EMC values. It does this by seeing if a item has a recipe which the mats of all have EMC values, if even one item in the recipe is missing a EMC value the item in question does not get a value. We do not and will not implicitly register EMC values for RotaryCraft items, however its possible for a user to add them via config files.
ProjectE is open source, if you have doubt as to any of these claims please see: https://github.com/sinkillerj/ProjectE
Last edited:
For the record, the same is true for me and ProjectE.
This is good to hear, and solves the worst of my concerns.
Now, in light of the last many posts - where reading and replying to the thread has actually been the burden people say my efforts are doomed to be - I am not going to debate this further or take further actions.
However, if I catch anyone complaining about and blasting me for PE-enabled issues of their own creation, I will crucify them, and if that person is someone with clout in the community - such as a major pack dev, an admin of a popular server, or (though this is unlikely to occur), another mod author, I will spread word of their dishonesty and/or stupidity with the end goal of destroying any influence they have.
I was all for what you were saying until this.
I was going to make comment on it. But I think it's best for everyone I don't.
Don't you already do that?!?!
All joking aside I think this might be a good time for us all to close this discussion before it gets worse.
Is this even worth 2 cents?
(EDIT: The last three posts -- including Reika's -- were not there when I started writing this. It took me that long to write.)
Warning: Wall of text incoming.
TL;DR at the end.
So lets start with the most basic 1st step. Does the end user have the right to use any collection of software? Can I use Firefox and Microsoft office? Can I use Optifine and Tinkerer's Construct? Can I use the eventual full version of PFAA and ReactorCraft/RotaryCraft/ElectricCraft/GalactiCraft?
Reika's first complaint, and it's a very, *very* valid one: He had to deal with reports from people because his mod caused problems.
If you think that this is not a valid complaint, then we can agree to disagree.
This was not a case of a server operator selling items for cash, only to have their server destroyed. This was, apparently, people following in the "more mods make a better server, more mods make a better modpack, throw everything in for user play choice!" behavior. The only mod author I've seen that does anything to stem this is Xcw, who requires some form of original contribution before permitting Mystcraft in packs.
Are you going to say, "It's the server operator's fault, they should have researched things before putting them into the pack"? Seriously?
*Do you have any idea how few mods are properly documented?*.
I am excluding no one from that statement. No one. Far too many mods say "You have to learn this mod, we won't actually document it in detail". I don't care if you're talking about "You have to learn how to use an extractor", "This reactor changes every 3 releases", "The deep dark is a surprise, just bring torches", "You can make gazilions of different carts" (resulting in, apparently, being the poster child for over-powered, even though when I was playing with it I could barely make things function and saw no actual use for about 1/3rd of the stuff in Steve's Carts -- I wanted it for improved railroads without playing a train construction simulator aka RailCraft).
Heck, even something as simple as Snowfall, with it's teaser, "Can you handle Ice Age mode!", would not, at first, explain what Ice Age mode was. Eventually, it was revealed -- instead of snow layers being limited to one stack of 8 layers that pretends to be height 7/8ths of a block (that's vanilla behavior, it's why you walk through a single layer of snow), it was letting snow pile up deeper, so that you could get a 9th layer of snow in the next block up, letting the snow layers stack higher and higher without limit. (EDIT: Rechecked. There is, now, a limit -- it's just very very high.) At least, until it melted in the sun.
Mods that don't document themselves are the norm.
Let that be understood as the cornerstone of the problem here. A server operator, or modpack maker, sees a mod's brief description, thinks, "Hey, that sounds interesting", doesn't fully understand the mod, can't find documentation, can't determine what the actual assumptions or effects are, puts them together, and then a report is filed to the mod author, rather than to the pack maker.
Until this is solved -- until mods are willing to say, "This is what I do; this is how you use me; there are no surprises or spoilers", this issue will continue. Or can you actually say that you know everything that can be done in ThaumCraft, Extra Utilities (nothing new has been documented in several revisions there), or Chromatic Craft (I know that I know not that one)?
And this doesn't even begin to address the other side of the coin: If you have a modded pack/server, how do you explain things to the end user? ThaumCraft kinda assumes that you know "Avoid the purple stuff until later"; Chromatic Craft kinda assumes you know "Avoid the pylons until you get started, and even then be careful". Where do you have any sort of "This will explain things to new players"?
Where do you have any in-game ability to provide players with documentation about a modpack / server config, other than "Lost Books" -- and that requires completely gutting the standard default config of that mod, and requires people kill lots of mobs to get the books that you have to write to describe the mods on the pack, because there's no way for a mod to say "Here are the docs for this mod" in-game.
Heck, a mod cannot even provide a tutorial quest line for non-hardcore mode HQM, because HQM doesn't let you combine multiple quest lines written separately into a single pack's quest compilation.
** There is no way for mods to document themselves in-game **
* There is a social norm in this community of "Let the user discover through play" *
* There is no way for most server operators to properly research what the mods will actually do before play *
* Heck, people generally assume "Everyone has NEI installed, so just check the recipes in-game". *
Are there even two other people, besides myself, that have taken so much time to try to research what mods are going to be used, how worldgen mods are actually going to affect things, etc, that the target minecraft version has moved from 164 to 1710, and those very same worldgen mods have undergone major revisions to the point of needing to be re-learned and re-understood?
Now keep in mind that some people have others -- a staff, effectively -- that do research and assembly for them, even getting customized versions of the mods for them and their play. (Direwolf 20, Etho, are the first two that come to mind here, although there is a pair of people responsible for "diggy diggy hole" that others enjoy.).
----
So we have pack assemblies that send reports to the mod author, because mods can't be properly understood by the end user and assembler. That doesn't address the second big point: Should an alchemist be allowed to transmute raw material A into raw material B?
Well, lets ask a question: What is a raw material?
Is an iron ingot a raw material? Is a piece of lapis a raw material?
Or, is an uncooked item of raw iron a raw material? And why do blocks such as lapis, redstone, etc, drop usable items instead of some raw item?
Why are any ore blocks owned by any mod?
Should you actually find blocks of tin ore, or silver ore, or iron ore? At all? Or should you find blocks that contain some mix of materials that have to be processed to generate the final output?
Let that question sink in for at least, oh, 200 ticks/10 seconds.
So 10 seconds later, you pull your answer out of the furnace.
100% of vanilla ore-processing technology is the furnace, at 10 seconds per smelt.
I mentioned a mod named "PFAA". Most of you won't know it by that name. Translated from Latin, it means "Through crafting, to the stars". Currently, it is in the form of "Geologica" -- an attempt (very good, actually) to place ores in the ground in a realistic manner. This means blocks of Limonite (two types), Pyrite, Hematite, and Magnetite, rather than "iron ore". This means that, since you don't actually find silver ore in the ground, you find blocks that have ores that contain silver in them. Now, at the moment, since the processing mods are not yet written, you smelt everything. (fn 1)
Well, Tungsten is a real world raw material. Should you be able to smelt it out of some rock?
I'd love to go through a list of things in electric craft, or reactor craft, or even GalactiCraft, compare that to the list of real-world ore blocks in Geologica, and show how the Geologica blocks map. But first, I don't know geology well enough, and second, I can't find enough documentation on Reika's mods. But I can ask if GC should permit PFAA Bauxite ore blocks to be used instead of it's Aluminum, and copper, silicon, and tin are in at least half-a-dozen mods by now.
But as a raw material, is Tungsten A equal to Tungsten B?
If PFAA has the goals that its name implies, does this mean that GalacticCraft should generate it's own ores, or let people use PFAA-generated ores?
Heck, what if I wanted to prevent any oregen from Reika's mods in favor of a more realistic behavior from Geologica?
(Side note: I bring that point up specifically because Reika has gone to great lengths to make sure that some equivalent to his ores do exist in the ore dictionary, and if they don't, to force his ores to generate. I can, using COG, override that behavior, in most cases (COG still has the occasional missed chunk, sadface), but I have to use another mod. I cannot say "I don't want mod X to own block Y". And yes, this means that any mod that affects the underground has to be given double scrutiny as it cannot be removed later.)
Does Steel A equal Steel B? Does a steel ingot from Railcraft have the same function as the steel from Rotarycraft?
Here, the answer is a real-world no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-strength_low-alloy_steel -- something Reika posted a while back, that was a learning lesson for me. Real world has many, many different grades of steel, with many different properties. It is very, very believable that a steel produced in a low quality-control environment won't be equivalent to one produced in a high quality-control environment.
Reika uses Tungsten both as a real-world raw material, and as a "You have demonstrated use of tech level X, now you have access to tech level Y". Another mod might make a different way to generate Tungsten from raw resources in the ground. Compatible?
Does it make sense to use raw materials as a gating system?
Does it make sense to restrict the use of raw materials?
Consider what I started this section with. Why should iron and gold blocks drop themselves, and the other vanilla ores drop usable material? Fortune Ores lets iron and gold blocks drop "thingies", with drop rates affected by the fortune enchantment; you still smelt those thingies to get the ingots, but they are item thingies instead of block thingies. "Reasonable Realism" (side note: RC3 is still messing up on a dedicated server, but behaves very well single player -- it's close) gives you thingies that turn into nuggets instead of ingots -- and you get *LOTS* of them.
Why are some things "pre-processed"? Auto-smelt seems to be a popular enchantment for picks, yet smelting is not the only processing tool in various mods. Why not an auto-grinder, or an auto-macerator enchantment? Why not have everything need to be processed?
Does it make sense to say "This mod lets you turn X into Y, for some set of X and Y"? Sure.
Will everyone agree on what X and Y? No.
Can you say "Raw materials are OK"? Not unless you can define a "raw material".
And "I can get the block out of the ground" doesn't work, as a rare, hard to find block can be as easy as an auto-mining setup, even if the auto-miner never finds that rare block.
===
TL; DR:
1. Mods do not properly document themselves; this makes it effectively impossible to assemble packs without problems.
2. Packs with problems result in reports being sent to the mod makers, not to the pack people.
3. Even if it did go to pack people, they would need a staff to keep up with the mods.
4. Alchemic transmutations from raw material A to raw material B first has to understand what a raw material is.
5. Vanilla assume that all ore processing is just a smelt.
6. Different tech mods make different ways to process (or in some cases, generate) raw materials.
7. It is bad to assume that a tech mod "owns" a resource block or the processing of that block (see PFAA/Geologica).
8. A real-world material is (usually) not mined from the ground. Some complex compound containing it is, and that is processed.
At what point do you say "This is the transmutable item", and "this is the non-transmutable processed item"? Are there different grades and quality of steel? (yes). Is tungsten an element (number 74)? Yes. Is tungsten transmutable?
===
Some references:
1. PFAA/Geologica: http://www.minecraftforum.net/forum...t-mods/1293751-per-fabrica-ad-astra-geologica
35 types of metal ore, found in various types of deposits, in stone, sand or clay form.
25 types of industrial mineral in stone, sand or clay form.
4 types of oil, oil shale, oil sands and natural gas.
See http://pfaa.wikia.com/wiki/Ore for examples of what blocks it places.
As for ore processing: "Geologica does not yet implement any ore processing steps. Instead, it registers the ores with the ore dictionary, with the expectation that other mods will provide the necessary recipes". Noogenesis has confirmed that he is working on the processing system.
2. Reasonable Realism: http://reasonable-realism.wikia.com/
3. Snowfall/ice age mode: http://www.minecraftforum.net/forum...-2-2-1-can-you-handle-ice-age-mode?comment=41
(EDIT: The last three posts -- including Reika's -- were not there when I started writing this. It took me that long to write.)
Warning: Wall of text incoming.
TL;DR at the end.
...
So lets start with the most basic 1st step. Does the end user have the right to use any collection of software? Can I use Firefox and Microsoft office? Can I use Optifine and Tinkerer's Construct? Can I use the eventual full version of PFAA and ReactorCraft/RotaryCraft/ElectricCraft/GalactiCraft?
Reika's first complaint, and it's a very, *very* valid one: He had to deal with reports from people because his mod caused problems.
If you think that this is not a valid complaint, then we can agree to disagree.
This was not a case of a server operator selling items for cash, only to have their server destroyed. This was, apparently, people following in the "more mods make a better server, more mods make a better modpack, throw everything in for user play choice!" behavior. The only mod author I've seen that does anything to stem this is Xcw, who requires some form of original contribution before permitting Mystcraft in packs.
Are you going to say, "It's the server operator's fault, they should have researched things before putting them into the pack"? Seriously?
*Do you have any idea how few mods are properly documented?*.
I am excluding no one from that statement. No one. Far too many mods say "You have to learn this mod, we won't actually document it in detail". I don't care if you're talking about "You have to learn how to use an extractor", "This reactor changes every 3 releases", "The deep dark is a surprise, just bring torches", "You can make gazilions of different carts" (resulting in, apparently, being the poster child for over-powered, even though when I was playing with it I could barely make things function and saw no actual use for about 1/3rd of the stuff in Steve's Carts -- I wanted it for improved railroads without playing a train construction simulator aka RailCraft).
Heck, even something as simple as Snowfall, with it's teaser, "Can you handle Ice Age mode!", would not, at first, explain what Ice Age mode was. Eventually, it was revealed -- instead of snow layers being limited to one stack of 8 layers that pretends to be height 7/8ths of a block (that's vanilla behavior, it's why you walk through a single layer of snow), it was letting snow pile up deeper, so that you could get a 9th layer of snow in the next block up, letting the snow layers stack higher and higher without limit. (EDIT: Rechecked. There is, now, a limit -- it's just very very high.) At least, until it melted in the sun.
Mods that don't document themselves are the norm.
Let that be understood as the cornerstone of the problem here. A server operator, or modpack maker, sees a mod's brief description, thinks, "Hey, that sounds interesting", doesn't fully understand the mod, can't find documentation, can't determine what the actual assumptions or effects are, puts them together, and then a report is filed to the mod author, rather than to the pack maker.
Until this is solved -- until mods are willing to say, "This is what I do; this is how you use me; there are no surprises or spoilers", this issue will continue. Or can you actually say that you know everything that can be done in ThaumCraft, Extra Utilities (nothing new has been documented in several revisions there), or Chromatic Craft (I know that I know not that one)?
And this doesn't even begin to address the other side of the coin: If you have a modded pack/server, how do you explain things to the end user? ThaumCraft kinda assumes that you know "Avoid the purple stuff until later"; Chromatic Craft kinda assumes you know "Avoid the pylons until you get started, and even then be careful". Where do you have any sort of "This will explain things to new players"?
Where do you have any in-game ability to provide players with documentation about a modpack / server config, other than "Lost Books" -- and that requires completely gutting the standard default config of that mod, and requires people kill lots of mobs to get the books that you have to write to describe the mods on the pack, because there's no way for a mod to say "Here are the docs for this mod" in-game.
Heck, a mod cannot even provide a tutorial quest line for non-hardcore mode HQM, because HQM doesn't let you combine multiple quest lines written separately into a single pack's quest compilation.
** There is no way for mods to document themselves in-game **
* There is a social norm in this community of "Let the user discover through play" *
* There is no way for most server operators to properly research what the mods will actually do before play *
* Heck, people generally assume "Everyone has NEI installed, so just check the recipes in-game". *
Are there even two other people, besides myself, that have taken so much time to try to research what mods are going to be used, how worldgen mods are actually going to affect things, etc, that the target minecraft version has moved from 164 to 1710, and those very same worldgen mods have undergone major revisions to the point of needing to be re-learned and re-understood?
Now keep in mind that some people have others -- a staff, effectively -- that do research and assembly for them, even getting customized versions of the mods for them and their play. (Direwolf 20, Etho, are the first two that come to mind here, although there is a pair of people responsible for "diggy diggy hole" that others enjoy.).
----
So we have pack assemblies that send reports to the mod author, because mods can't be properly understood by the end user and assembler. That doesn't address the second big point: Should an alchemist be allowed to transmute raw material A into raw material B?
Well, lets ask a question: What is a raw material?
Is an iron ingot a raw material? Is a piece of lapis a raw material?
Or, is an uncooked item of raw iron a raw material? And why do blocks such as lapis, redstone, etc, drop usable items instead of some raw item?
Why are any ore blocks owned by any mod?
Should you actually find blocks of tin ore, or silver ore, or iron ore? At all? Or should you find blocks that contain some mix of materials that have to be processed to generate the final output?
Let that question sink in for at least, oh, 200 ticks/10 seconds.
So 10 seconds later, you pull your answer out of the furnace.
100% of vanilla ore-processing technology is the furnace, at 10 seconds per smelt.
I mentioned a mod named "PFAA". Most of you won't know it by that name. Translated from Latin, it means "Through crafting, to the stars". Currently, it is in the form of "Geologica" -- an attempt (very good, actually) to place ores in the ground in a realistic manner. This means blocks of Limonite (two types), Pyrite, Hematite, and Magnetite, rather than "iron ore". This means that, since you don't actually find silver ore in the ground, you find blocks that have ores that contain silver in them. Now, at the moment, since the processing mods are not yet written, you smelt everything. (fn 1)
Well, Tungsten is a real world raw material. Should you be able to smelt it out of some rock?
I'd love to go through a list of things in electric craft, or reactor craft, or even GalactiCraft, compare that to the list of real-world ore blocks in Geologica, and show how the Geologica blocks map. But first, I don't know geology well enough, and second, I can't find enough documentation on Reika's mods. But I can ask if GC should permit PFAA Bauxite ore blocks to be used instead of it's Aluminum, and copper, silicon, and tin are in at least half-a-dozen mods by now.
But as a raw material, is Tungsten A equal to Tungsten B?
If PFAA has the goals that its name implies, does this mean that GalacticCraft should generate it's own ores, or let people use PFAA-generated ores?
Heck, what if I wanted to prevent any oregen from Reika's mods in favor of a more realistic behavior from Geologica?
(Side note: I bring that point up specifically because Reika has gone to great lengths to make sure that some equivalent to his ores do exist in the ore dictionary, and if they don't, to force his ores to generate. I can, using COG, override that behavior, in most cases (COG still has the occasional missed chunk, sadface), but I have to use another mod. I cannot say "I don't want mod X to own block Y". And yes, this means that any mod that affects the underground has to be given double scrutiny as it cannot be removed later.)
Does Steel A equal Steel B? Does a steel ingot from Railcraft have the same function as the steel from Rotarycraft?
Here, the answer is a real-world no. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-strength_low-alloy_steel -- something Reika posted a while back, that was a learning lesson for me. Real world has many, many different grades of steel, with many different properties. It is very, very believable that a steel produced in a low quality-control environment won't be equivalent to one produced in a high quality-control environment.
Reika uses Tungsten both as a real-world raw material, and as a "You have demonstrated use of tech level X, now you have access to tech level Y". Another mod might make a different way to generate Tungsten from raw resources in the ground. Compatible?
Does it make sense to use raw materials as a gating system?
Does it make sense to restrict the use of raw materials?
Consider what I started this section with. Why should iron and gold blocks drop themselves, and the other vanilla ores drop usable material? Fortune Ores lets iron and gold blocks drop "thingies", with drop rates affected by the fortune enchantment; you still smelt those thingies to get the ingots, but they are item thingies instead of block thingies. "Reasonable Realism" (side note: RC3 is still messing up on a dedicated server, but behaves very well single player -- it's close) gives you thingies that turn into nuggets instead of ingots -- and you get *LOTS* of them.
Why are some things "pre-processed"? Auto-smelt seems to be a popular enchantment for picks, yet smelting is not the only processing tool in various mods. Why not an auto-grinder, or an auto-macerator enchantment? Why not have everything need to be processed?
Does it make sense to say "This mod lets you turn X into Y, for some set of X and Y"? Sure.
Will everyone agree on what X and Y? No.
Can you say "Raw materials are OK"? Not unless you can define a "raw material".
And "I can get the block out of the ground" doesn't work, as a rare, hard to find block can be as easy as an auto-mining setup, even if the auto-miner never finds that rare block.
===
TL; DR:
1. Mods do not properly document themselves; this makes it effectively impossible to assemble packs without problems.
2. Packs with problems result in reports being sent to the mod makers, not to the pack people.
3. Even if it did go to pack people, they would need a staff to keep up with the mods.
4. Alchemic transmutations from raw material A to raw material B first has to understand what a raw material is.
5. Vanilla assume that all ore processing is just a smelt.
6. Different tech mods make different ways to process (or in some cases, generate) raw materials.
7. It is bad to assume that a tech mod "owns" a resource block or the processing of that block (see PFAA/Geologica).
8. A real-world material is (usually) not mined from the ground. Some complex compound containing it is, and that is processed.
At what point do you say "This is the transmutable item", and "this is the non-transmutable processed item"? Are there different grades and quality of steel? (yes). Is tungsten an element (number 74)? Yes. Is tungsten transmutable?
===
Some references:
1. PFAA/Geologica: http://www.minecraftforum.net/forum...t-mods/1293751-per-fabrica-ad-astra-geologica
35 types of metal ore, found in various types of deposits, in stone, sand or clay form.
25 types of industrial mineral in stone, sand or clay form.
4 types of oil, oil shale, oil sands and natural gas.
See http://pfaa.wikia.com/wiki/Ore for examples of what blocks it places.
As for ore processing: "Geologica does not yet implement any ore processing steps. Instead, it registers the ores with the ore dictionary, with the expectation that other mods will provide the necessary recipes". Noogenesis has confirmed that he is working on the processing system.
2. Reasonable Realism: http://reasonable-realism.wikia.com/
3. Snowfall/ice age mode: http://www.minecraftforum.net/forum...-2-2-1-can-you-handle-ice-age-mode?comment=41
Last edited:
You will do no such thing. You will calm down and let it go. You are in a bit of a glass house, and you and I both know what I am referring to. People make judgement errors, people get annoyed, and RoC isn't your life. If it is, you need to step back and re-evaluate. I also encourage you to take a look and see how well such things worked out for FlowerChild. (It didn't.)
Oh, and Happy Easter (Really, I mean that.)
OK, I should probably have been clearer. I do not mean that "as soon as someone does something stupid, I will jump on them and start a witch hunt". I mean that people who are acting dishonestly - i.e. even after they realize it is their own doing, continue to blame me and try to turn opinions against me - will reap the criticism such actions deserve. And people in positions of power doing that - while fortunately rather less likely - make this doubly true, because someone abusing their platform to baselessly harass someone else does not deserve said platform.
I am talking about things like what some people have done regarding rumors about my mods (usually involving crash code for detection of certain mods, person-targeting DRM, or extreme lag when the real cause was "I filled a chunk with engines"), knowing full well that what they are saying is false, but saying it anyways to further their own position. Things like going around replying to every crash log they can find with "maybe it's Reika, he crashes with Minetweaker", or questions about lag with "try removing RC, it's incredibly laggy", or using platforms like twitter to say things like "If you have RC, consider removing it, your FPS will thank me" or their influence to try and pressure mod authors and/or pack makers to take actions against me such as add anti-RC code or forbid them from using my mods in their pack. All of these things have actually happened before.
There is no reason that someone, just because they have many followers, should be able to say whatever they like, true or not, and have it be believed, repeated, and acted upon. Such behavior is dishonest and is not something to be allowed. (For a real-world example, this is akin to a politician abusing their power to harass personal enemies, or a student council enacting policies that marginalize a disliked part of the student body [eg the council consisting primarily of students from department A, and trying to cut the funding of department B], and these are both things I have seen happen).
This is not just in my own defense; I criticize anyone acting that dishonestly no matter the victim, both online and in the real world. Does it endear me to some people? Certainly not. But unless they are in the position to screw me over (eg an employer), I see no reason to care.
And I do not mean that if someone acts like this, I will just go around telling everyone how bad of a person they are; I mean refuting their claims wherever they make it, and if a relevant discussion comes up with someone repeating the same or very similar claims, making reference to "it sounds like you are quoting this, and that was a lie".
As for glass houses, there are major differences between this sort of behavior and that code about the disenchanter. One, there was never malice intended - I did not and do not have anything against skyboy or MFR, nor have I ever intended to harm the mod, its reputation, or generate hostility towards its authors. Two, that code was removed as soon as I was informed of the problems with it, which was less than 18 hours after writing (which includes 6 hours of sleep and 8 hours of being away from the computer for other reasons), and never made it to release (and if it had, would have been immediately hotfixed). Three, that was done because I at the time could think of no other way to fix an exploit (that people were harassing me over), not as any sort of "screw you" to MFR.
Put simply, motives strongly matter, and ignorance, while something to be corrected, is not enough to warrant criticism (unless said ignorance is willful). Dishonesty, especially to further a goal against someone else, very much is.
As for FlowerChild, all of his drama predates my playing modded MC, so I have no direct knowledge of it. However, from what I have heard (which very well may have been embellished), I see little in common with what he did (which I was told involved things like personal crusades and doxing) and what I intend to do ("Person X is lying, and here is the proof. All of you people who believe what he says without question should step back and re-evaluate that.").
You too.
Last edited:
Wrong holiday to throw that around...
*trajing slow clapsWrong holiday to throw that around...
I second this motion. This topic won't go anywhere now, the respective sides are in agreement and it has calmed down, the only thing that might arise from this is an ideological war.
Reminder, especially because the moderation landscape is changing: the Report button is the primary way to get moderation attention/action on a thread for whatever reason. =)
Thread locked.
Thread locked.
- Status