PSA: Mod of the Month Modpack

[tfox83]

Due to arising issues found with this months "Mod of the Month Modpack" we decided it would be best to temporally remove it from our launcher and Curse Voice. Any previous world saves resulting from the pack being live for a few hours will be able to work with the new version once we re-release the pack. As I speak we are working behind the scenes to fix all reported bugs and errors with this pack as well as taking the opportunity to complete the quests in whole before re-releasing. Unfortunately due to Minecon an the Holiday weekend I am not able to give you an ETA.

We really would like to succeed with this tutorial style series but after seeing last months actions and the amount of content we are currently working on, I feel that moving this series away from a monthly release and making it every few months would be better for us with development and testing, and better for our players in the community. I would like to extend the voting period by a week, so two weeks total to give everyone a chance to submit their votes. As always feel free to suggest mods for the next poll in that thread. See here for next months poll. Also I believe we should shoot for one of these releases every three months as it will make a much better end product for you all and give us plenty of time for testing so we do not repeat the mistake that was made today and this last month.

I thoroughly believe in trying new things and introducing new content to our community in a timely manner, some of these new things do not go quite as planned, and this is a good example of that. Like the great W. E. Hickson once said, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again." I will continue to work hard and learn for my mistakes to bring our community new and exiting content. Once again I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused anyone and look for a re-release of MoTH: Botania 1.1.0 in the upcoming days.

 

[electrifeye]

Glad something was done about this. The idea had so much potential, but the pack was just incomplete, so I'm glad you're switching the time frame to something more realistic.

Also, one thing I did think when I played the pack for the few hours it was live: don't know about others, but if I play a mini-modpack built around a single mod, I just want to do quests and such for that mod, without having to do the usual vanilla things which are found in the first hour of any pack under usual circumstances - caving mainly. I needed gold for about the third quest, so my session pretty much had the first 20 minutes of food and flower gathering, 10 minutes of quests, before I had to go on a caving trip. I'd suggest the best way to combat this would be to just increase ore spawn rates dramatically in addition to the existing dense ores, so it's far easier to get resources and purely focus on the main mod. Caving can be fun and all, but if I'm playing a pack based around a single mod, I want to play that mod, and not vanilla. The pack just seemed too vanilla-y.

 

[Tepig4321]

Maybe make it every 2 months?

 

[Succubism]

Good lord.

 

[Smug Apple]

This turn-around is actually what I love about FTB.

They realise and admit it when things could have been done better, and they do them better.

Really happy to see these Mod of the Month (Quarter? Season?) packs will get the time they deserve to be super fun and educational and highlight the hidden nuances of many different mods

 

[FyberOptic]

I feel like you're overthinking it. Not every modpack needs quests. The idea of a tutorial is fine in principle but it's unrealistic for a monthly modpack, particularly when you guys already have a pretty full plate of them to maintain. I'd even completely overlooked that part of the description of what the MotM packs were going to be about. I thought it would just be a small set of mods, with minimal config tinkering, to encourage the player to play in ways they might not normally do so. They could fool around for a few weeks, maybe learn a new mod (or become much more familiar with one), and then move on to the next MotM pack with a new map and no regrets. Almost a disposable modpack, if you want to go that far. If you wanted to explain the pack or point them in an initial direction, just a regular written book would probably do fine. This way, the effort going into making the pack would roughly equate the amount of time that the person is likely going to use it. If you're going to go three months between packs then it kind of loses what made the idea unique, and you're basically releasing one more HQM modpack, which people will probably be done with long before the next one is ready.

But that's just my two cents, as someone who does indeed start new worlds probably more often than average folks, which is why this idea appealed to me.

 

[JohnnyMayHymn]

I was also intrigued by the short timeline and in favor of reducing scope over increasing time between iterations.

I for one, had a ton of fun playing the Terra pack. Then I had a ton of fun reverse engineering it; and, I think it would be awesome to have some smaller packs sprinkled in here and there.

 

[MULTIK]

I am glad when I see how you work on your modpacks. Can´t wait on Moth

 

[electrifeye]

I'd say 2 months is a good interval for the modpacks. all the Jampacked entrants had two months to make their packs, and the best were fully fledged modpacks. I don't see why the FTB team can't achieve this. That said, if the pack is looking like it needs more time, it's better to take more time than release something unfinished. Just it really shouldn't take more than 2 months to make a mini-modpack.

 

[tfox83]

I'd say 2 months is a good interval for the modpacks. all the Jampacked entrants had two months to make their packs, and the best were fully fledged modpacks. I don't see why the FTB team can't achieve this. That said, if the pack is looking like it needs more time, it's better to take more time than release something unfinished. Just it really shouldn't take more than 2 months to make a mini-modpack.

I understand that JP2 only had 2 months to create a pack, but the difference between me and them is I am working on about 6 different modpacks as well as maintaining multiple others over that two month period. So it is impossible for me to dedicate 2 months to just one pack.

 

[BrickVoid]

I thoroughly believe in trying new things and introducing new content to our community in a timely manner, some of these new things do not go quite as planned, and this is a good example of that. Like the great W. E. Hickson once said, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again." I will continue to work hard and learn for my mistakes to bring our community new and exiting content. Once again I apologize for any inconvenience this has caused anyone and look for a re-release of MoTH: Botania 1.1.0 in the upcoming days.

"... new and exiting content ..."

Well, in that regard, you're certainly succeeding, despite typos!

I like the idea of the MotM concept, but it feels like it needs a bit of a reworking. Modpacks usually aren't focused just on one mod, they usually focus on creating an enjoyable experience for the user. Who cares if other mods are in that experience, if it adds to the overall feel of the modpack and showcases the modpack in question I think you should include the mod, even if it does seem a little overpowering.

I find myself that whenever I start a new world in a particular pack that I'm often concentrating on a particular mod or it's most used components and mostly or totally ignoring other mods or just using them as utilization to the mod I'm focusing on. If I get what I'm focusing on using a particular mod working using that mod, I might move onto a different mod or switch to a different pack. It certainly doesn't hurt to vary the experience, in fact if done properly it can help your learning experience for mods in modpacks.

With that in mind, can I ask a favor of you? Could you either provide the option to switch between various mod terrain generation options, or have it set up so that the user of the modpack can pick whichever terrain generation style they're most familiar with? Mod-specific focus is one thing, but for me, if I'm going to be in a world for any length of time, I like to see variety in terrain generation, even if it is just considered scenic. I depend on being able to fit a base location into a particular kind of scene, and that varies depending on what location I usually start to build out a base at. It'd certainly be nice to be able to vary the terrain generation style once in a while.

Cheers ...

BrickVoid

 

[dragon_fang101]

How long will it be on the launcher cause ill be in Italy for a month, and I want to play it or is there going to be some code t get it back?

 

[tfox83]

"... new and exiting content ..."

Well, in that regard, you're certainly succeeding, despite typos!

I like the idea of the MotM concept, but it feels like it needs a bit of a reworking. Modpacks usually aren't focused just on one mod, they usually focus on creating an enjoyable experience for the user. Who cares if other mods are in that experience, if it adds to the overall feel of the modpack and showcases the modpack in question I think you should include the mod, even if it does seem a little overpowering.

I find myself that whenever I start a new world in a particular pack that I'm often concentrating on a particular mod or it's most used components and mostly or totally ignoring other mods or just using them as utilization to the mod I'm focusing on. If I get what I'm focusing on using a particular mod working using that mod, I might move onto a different mod or switch to a different pack. It certainly doesn't hurt to vary the experience, in fact if done properly it can help your learning experience for mods in modpacks.

With that in mind, can I ask a favor of you? Could you either provide the option to switch between various mod terrain generation options, or have it set up so that the user of the modpack can pick whichever terrain generation style they're most familiar with? Mod-specific focus is one thing, but for me, if I'm going to be in a world for any length of time, I like to see variety in terrain generation, even if it is just considered scenic. I depend on being able to fit a base location into a particular kind of scene, and that varies depending on what location I usually start to build out a base at. It'd certainly be nice to be able to vary the terrain generation style once in a while.

Cheers ...

BrickVoid

There isn't enough Biome IDs to include all the terrain generation mods by default, that's why we don't do it.

 

[parkyopy]

how activate nick?

 

[Bashful Giant]

How long will it be on the launcher cause ill be in Italy for a month, and I want to play it or is there going to be some code t get it back?

There's no ETA as for when It'll arrive on the launcher, but when it does, it'll be available indefinitely (as with almost all FTB packs). I believe the plan is for different MotM packs to be selectable in the version drop down for the MotM pack.

 

[CaptPanda]

I do find it weird that FTB's approach to packs is 'if it ain't kitchen sink, it's HQM'. It's almost as if you're dependant on the mod to give it more texture.

I have tried the same thing myself, making packs that have a focus on a small set of mods (there's links in my signature if you are so inclined), and I've wondered if they needed HQM to really draw people in, or if I just had poor execution of promoting my packs.

If you really want to try and have some semblance of a progression mod, then for this I would really, REALLY suggest 'simple achievements', since you can inform people on what they can try to achieve in the form of a handy dandy checklist, and you don't have to add rewards to try and convince them to complete them. People like to tick checklists.

 

[Dylz101]

I do find it weird that FTB's approach to packs is 'if it ain't kitchen sink, it's HQM'. It's almost as if you're dependant on the mod to give it more texture.

I have tried the same thing myself, making packs that have a focus on a small set of mods (there's links in my signature if you are so inclined), and I've wondered if they needed HQM to really draw people in, or if I just had poor execution of promoting my packs.

If you really want to try and have some semblance of a progression mod, then for this I would really, REALLY suggest 'simple achievements', since you can inform people on what they can try to achieve in the form of a handy dandy checklist, and you don't have to add rewards to try and convince them to complete them. People like to tick checklists.

It's a great mod but I think the purpose of the modpack was to teach players who are new to the mod through it, step by step. (Correct me if I'm wrong)
It's teaching you the mod without you having to run of to look for tutorials and such, the Simple Acheivements mod doesn't really get as much info across to the player as the HQM mod does, with the author being able to write a lot more for each quest.

 

[buggirlexpres]

I do find it weird that FTB's approach to packs is 'if it ain't kitchen sink, it's HQM'. It's almost as if you're dependant on the mod to give it more texture.

Although we have done primarily Kitchen Sink and HQM in the past, we've moved away from (at least the HQM portion of it). Several of our upcoming packs (and several already released packs, such as Trident and Departed) aren't kitchen sink packs, but highly focused packs which aim to enhance the experience of a single mod or provide a entirely new experience by combining several mods together. Although we do enjoy a kitchen sink here and there, we've been branching out. Besides that, Mage Quest is the only pack we've had before with HQM in it.

We selected HQM for the Mod of the Month Packs because there is no other good way to provide the player with usable information while guiding them along a set path. Sure, we could go along the Departed route with Enchiridion, but then there's no way to provide the player with a sense of progression or to reward them for it. Simple Achievements lacks the ability to provide the necessary information, leaving us with HQM as the most viable path.

If we were doing a pack where the goal was less to guide the player through everything, Enchiridion would be a great fit. If we weren't doing a pack where the goal was to inform the player about what the mod was and how to use it, Simple Achievements would be brilliant. But, due to the nature of the pack, HQM is really all we could go with to fulfill our vision.

 

[CaptPanda]

Although we have done primarily Kitchen Sink and HQM in the past, we've moved away from (at least the HQM portion of it). Several of our upcoming packs (and several already released packs, such as Trident and Departed) aren't kitchen sink packs, but highly focused packs which aim to enhance the experience of a single mod or provide a entirely new experience by combining several mods together. Although we do enjoy a kitchen sink here and there, we've been branching out. Besides that, Mage Quest is the only pack we've had before with HQM in it.

We selected HQM for the Mod of the Month Packs because there is no other good way to provide the player with usable information while guiding them along a set path. Sure, we could go along the Departed route with Enchiridion, but then there's no way to provide the player with a sense of progression or to reward them for it. Simple Achievements lacks the ability to provide the necessary information, leaving us with HQM as the most viable path.

If we were doing a pack where the goal was less to guide the player through everything, Enchiridion would be a great fit. If we weren't doing a pack where the goal was to inform the player about what the mod was and how to use it, Simple Achievements would be brilliant. But, due to the nature of the pack, HQM is really all we could go with to fulfill our vision.

Avoiding the whole 'using the lexica botanica' argument, I would say that you can indeed give description on how to craft the item in simple achievements, after looking at Sky Factory 2 for trying to find out how to format the configs. The author of the pack gave an introduction in the book, showing that you can indeed use descriptions within that mod. Enchiridion I am completely unfamiliar with, but after looking at the mod in departed, it actually looks pretty awesome. it seems like a great mod for documentation.

If anything, though, I don't see why MotM has to be about guiding the players through everything ever, I thought it was going to make players discover the mod by themselves and not baby them through every step. I may have got the wrong impression, and if so, my bad, but I would think that giving players some loose objectives and letting them work out their own way would be a good experience for them.

 

[BrickVoid]

There isn't enough Biome IDs to include all the terrain generation mods by default, that's why we don't do it.

How difficult is it to write a swappable configuration file and have the files, including the terrain generation mod files, swapped out simply by having the user select them in the 'Edit mod pack' tab of the Launcher? From what I understand, if they simply can be swapped around from one generation type to another, then all that need be taken care of is whether the world needs to be started anew if the terrain generation mod is changed between world saves, and it might be feasible for you to look into locking the terrain generation mod to a world save file and prohibiting changes once selected.

Terrain generation is something I tend to think of as 'I like this generation type, and want to use it exclusively or only for this world seed' and that was what I was wondering if you could do. Perhaps it's too complicated for a MotM pack, okay then, but I brought it up because I was hoping some packs might be able to make use of it.

Cheers ...

BrickVoid