RC/ReC/ElC/CC Policy Change Suggestion - Your thoughts?

[n0rw0lf]

You touch on another point, though:
Where does it end? Remember, unlike some mods, RC has a very strong design ethic, even if backlash were not an issue, that I do not want compromised - both the balancing structure, the powerful endgame, and the realistic design. While a person could theoretically change all the recipes and still leave it balanced if they really knew what they were doing, that design could be severely hampered.

I am well aware that this argument of artistic vision carries a lot less influence with most people, but it still is something I consider strongly.

You are right, it would be difficult to limit how much modification would be done to the mod, and too much modification would essentially ruin the mod. I would like to think that wouldn't happen a whole lot, and the people who do make larger than average changes would do so with plenty of foresight. After all, why even bother with this mod if you don't like a challenge?

But, again, I think those incidents will be isolated cases, with a larger amount of the time people will be appreciating the mod.

edit: Redacted. I might have had a bit of wishful thinking. I suddenly remembered that most people are content with Big Reactors. But the following solution might work.

One thing that might work, in your license, you could explicitly allow MineTweaker, but set a limit to the number of recipes changed, with removing and adding counting as 2. This would enforce only minimal changes. You could also make a blacklist of recipe changes that are disallowed. For example, anything regarding bedrock.

As for anyone else that needs more complicated editing, you force them to follow #2. You'd probably find that would reduce your workload tenfold.

 

[Reika]

You are right, it would be difficult to limit how much modification would be done to the mod, and too much modification would essentially ruin the mod. I would like to think that wouldn't happen a whole lot, and the people who do make larger than average changes would do so with plenty of foresight. After all, why even bother with this mod if you don't like a challenge?

But, again, I think those incidents will be isolated cases, with a larger amount of the time people will be appreciating the mod.

One thing that might work, in your license, you could explicitly allow MineTweaker, but set a limit to the number of recipes changed, with removing and adding counting as 2. This would enforce only minimal changes. You could also make a blacklist of recipe changes that are disallowed. For example, anything regarding bedrock.

As for anyone else that needs more complicated editing, you force them to follow #2. You'd probably find that would reduce your workload tenfold.

This is the closes to my ideal solution (and to that explained in the first post), that has a few certain things "off limits", and I can specify rules like "must not dramatically change the design of the mod" and "if it generates bug reports, you lose permission", but allows things like "add a diamond to a recipe" or "change a steel ingot on a drill to obsidian". It is also why the no-bytecode rule exists, so that people do not do things like changing engine outputs or internal math.

 

[n0rw0lf]

Yup, its very close. But it doesn't require screening everything, thus reducing the workload.

 

[epidemia78]

Well I tried ProjectE, didnt like it. So blacklist away because it wont affect me. And while I really do like the power that minetweaker gives, I use it to make recipes more complicated. Magnum torches in my world requires an infusion altar for example. But theres no need for that in Rotarycraft. So again, whatever you decide wont matter to me. I should have kept my mouth shut, lol.

 

[Reika]

Well I tried ProjectE, didnt like it. So blacklist away because it wont affect me. And while I really do like the power that minetweaker gives, I use it to make recipes more complicated. Magnum torches in my world requires an infusion altar for example. But theres no need for that in Rotarycraft. So again, whatever you decide wont matter to me. I should have kept my mouth shut, lol.

I do hope this proves a point.

 

[Blood Asp]

How about asking StanH from MineTweaker for cooperation?
I have no idea if he agrees to do that, but maybe he could add a blacklist to the MT API for you, so you can exclude certain items from modification.
Best 2 Blacklists. One for items that should not be removed and one for items that should not be output of new recipes. Using items as input should not be blocked.

That whould make it possible to allow the usage of minetweaker without any need to check all scripts for permission. Also it should be quite easy to implement.
Also you could show a message on server login like: "Rotarycraft recipes are manipulated. No Bugreports permitted as long this massage is shown".

And finally, in the case someone could convince you to allow a recipe change that contains a blacklisted item: The checksum of an permitted script gets written in the config, checked online like the version check and then the scripts checksum is tested. Is everything allright, the allowed item will not be added to the blacklist.

 

[Reika]

How about asking StanH from MineTweaker for cooperation?
I have no idea if he agrees to do that, but maybe he could add a blacklist to the MT API for you, so you can exclude certain items from modification.
Best 2 Blacklists. One for items that should not be removed and one for items that should not be output of new recipes. Using items as input should not be blocked.

That whould make it possible to allow the usage of minetweaker without any need to check all scripts for permission. Also it should be quite easy to implement.
Also you could show a message on server login like: "Rotarycraft recipes are manipulated. No Bugreports permitted as long this massage is shown".

And finally, in the case someone could convince you to allow a recipe change that contains a blacklisted item: The checksum of an permitted script gets written in the config, checked online like the version check and then the scripts checksum is tested. Is everything allright, the allowed item will not be added to the blacklist.

I actually already have talked to him. He definitely seemed willing, and mentioned that it may get done in the near-ish future. For now, I have my own implementation.

 

[Blood Asp]

I actually already have talked to him. He definitely seemed willing, and mentioned that it may get done in the near-ish future. For now, I have my own implementation.

So with an blacklist for all the problematic Items implemented, there should only be an need to decide how to hande usage exceptions for the problematic Items?

Also, is there an reason for machines only be craftable in the worktable besides makeing them unremoveable? Not being able to autocraft or at last shift click them in from the ME System is one of the biggest annoyances while playing rotarycraft for me (Right after the big holes in the documentation/wiki).

 

[ljfa]

Also, is there an reason for machines only be craftable in the worktable besides makeing them unremoveable? Not being able to autocraft or at last shift click them in from the ME System is one of the biggest annoyances while playing rotarycraft for me (Right after the big holes in the documentation/wiki).

There is a config option for that.

 

[jenniferstrife]

(Please forgive my bad English, I'm Italian and that's why I just lurk around here.

I think you should do what makes you feel better. Mod making should be fun, not stressful.
I heard a lot of negative stuff about your mods. They crash, they lag, they are too complicated, Reika is crazy, mean, and yada yada. I just tried them and I can say they don't crash or lag more than others, there is nothing so impossible to understand if you take a moment to look at things and think a bit, and I always see your replies as polite and reasonable. One can agree or not, but the hate is really weird. Yes, many people are stupid, or toooo young, or just weird. If you enforce your rules, they will attack you more. No doubts about that. Of course, a rule without enforcement can be broken. So it's on you and there is not something right or wrong, it only depends on what is more important to you I guess.
I use your mods and I'm not a genius, but I respect your terms. I use minetweaker but I don't with your mods, because I don't feel like it's needed and because you don't want me to. Simple as that. If you change something, I guess it won't matter to me because I already respect your rules. And I think that who already does mostly won't ever care about that.
I'm sorry that the community is so hard on you, but there are people that just love your work even if they don't write anything on forums and stuff. So thank you for that, you make my game better and I'll respect any decision you'll make.

 

[frogfigther]

(Please forgive my bad English, I'm Italian and that's why I just lurk around here.

I think you should do what makes you feel better. Mod making should be fun, not stressful.
I heard a lot of negative stuff about your mods. They crash, they lag, they are too complicated, Reika is crazy, mean, and yada yada. I just tried them and I can say they don't crash or lag more than others, there is nothing so impossible to understand if you take a moment to look at things and think a bit, and I always see your replies as polite and reasonable. One can agree or not, but the hate is really weird. Yes, many people are stupid, or toooo young, or just weird. If you enforce your rules, they will attack you more. No doubts about that. Of course, a rule without enforcement can be broken. So it's on you and there is not something right or wrong, it only depends on what is more important to you I guess.
I use your mods and I'm not a genius, but I respect your terms. I use minetweaker but I don't with your mods, because I don't feel like it's needed and because you don't want me to. Simple as that. If you change something, I guess it won't matter to me because I already respect your rules. And I think that who already does mostly won't ever care about that.
I'm sorry that the community is so hard on you, but there are people that just love your work even if they don't write anything on forums and stuff. So thank you for that, you make my game better and I'll respect any decision you'll make.

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[Reika]

Given that support of these ideas was lukewarm at best - of the people (a minority) who expressed any opinion at all, few people were openly in support, and most of the ones that were either misinterpreted the rules to mean a total carte blanche for modification or saw it is as a stepping stone to that result - and the fact that none of my concerns about the idea have been met with solutions that are both enforceable and not going to backfire horrifically, I think it is safe to say that this idea has been shelved, at least for the time being, until opinions change or some new information or ideas are supplied.

Also, as was perhaps not clearly explained in the first post, most of my concern lies not with pack makers - the majority of whom do at least put some work into making the pack, and who I can imagine being potentially able to tweak things without breaking the mod - but server admins, who rarely actually redesign a pack, instead trying to make it "fit" their ideas of balance or good management whose edits are more along the lines of "X is OP, disable it" or "X could be used to grief, disable it", and who are in my experience a lot less likely to be the kind of people who put more than 5 minutes into such decisions, and who get much more hostile than pack makers do when things break, as they have a world that is now suffering, and players complaining to them, as a result.

 

[GamerwithnoGame]

Given that support of these ideas was lukewarm at best - of the people (a minority) of people who expressed any opinion at all, few people were openly in support, and most of the ones that were either misinterpreted the rules to mean a total carte blanche for modification or saw it is as a stepping stone to that result - and the fact that none of my concerns about the idea have been met with solutions that are both enforceable and not going to backfire horrifically, I think it is safe to say that this idea has been shelved, at least for the time being, until opinions change or some new information or ideas are supplied.

That seems sensible. Stick to your guns, you're well within your rights to operate under the conditions that you have been.

 

[InfinityRaider]

Given that support of these ideas was lukewarm at best - of the people (a minority) who expressed any opinion at all, few people were openly in support, and most of the ones that were either misinterpreted the rules to mean a total carte blanche for modification or saw it is as a stepping stone to that result - and the fact that none of my concerns about the idea have been met with solutions that are both enforceable and not going to backfire horrifically, I think it is safe to say that this idea has been shelved, at least for the time being, until opinions change or some new information or ideas are supplied.

Also, as was perhaps not clearly explained in the first post, most of my concern lies not with pack makers - the majority of whom do at least put some work into making the pack, and who I can imagine being potentially able to tweak things without breaking the mod - but server admins, who rarely actually redesign a pack, instead trying to make it "fit" their ideas of balance or good management whose edits are more along the lines of "X is OP, disable it" or "X could be used to grief, disable it", and who are in my experience a lot less likely to be the kind of people who put more than 5 minutes into such decisions, and who get much more hostile than pack makers do when things break, as they have a world that is now suffering, and players complaining to them, as a result.

I am fully in favor for tweakability and modifying mods, but I also understand your views and philosophy about the matter and will respect this, however I have the following suggestion. If your main concern is server admins meddling with things you don't want being meddled with, I see the following possibility. Say you make an uncompiled tweak mod and you could provide it, on your terms, to anyone who you deem is qualified to make modifications. They can then change some fields, call some methods and then compile it.

Yes this is a wild suggestion, and it's pretty far fetched, but in the end it would be something that fits your will as well as gives some flexibility towards pack makers.

 

[Reika]

I am fully in favor for tweakability and modifying mods, but I also understand your views and philosophy about the matter and will respect this, however I have the following suggestion. If your main concern is server admins meddling with things you don't want being meddled with, I see the following possibility. Say you make an uncompiled tweak mod and you could provide it, on your terms, to anyone who you deem is qualified to make modifications. They can then change some fields, call some methods and then compile it.

Yes this is a wild suggestion, and it's pretty far fetched, but in the end it would be something that fits your will as well as gives some flexibility towards pack makers.

Java knowledge is neither a requirement for or proof of reasonable intent and/or mindset.

 

[InfinityRaider]

Java knowledge is neither a requirement for or proof of reasonable intent and/or mindset.

I can see that, but you don't need java knowledge to change some numbers or values.

 

[Reika]

I can see that, but you don't need java knowledge to change some numbers or values.

But to compile, you reasonably do. And changing some numbers and values could also be done by anyone capable of using Minetweaker, which does crap all to ensure their sanity and effort.

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

If it was me I'd give full access to change anything, put deep in the code somewhere something that'll let you(and only you) know if something was changed in a crashlog. Put a disclaimer on your website, forum threads, twitter etc etc that NO/NONE/NADA/FUCKALL support will be given if ANYTHING is changed. Then when people start complaining just ignore and they'll burn themselves out or only respond with that disclaimer.

Restricting people on the internet rarely ends well...

If people wanna break the progression let them. You play and build your mod exactly how you want, let others play how they want...

And remember never feed the trolls(whether they're actually trolling or just ignorant/lazy/angry etc it doesn't matter)

 

[psp]

I read through the first two pages and it was interesting...
One question though, if you want a HQM pack, or any other pack that is going to be heavily changed with minetweaker, why not balanced the pack around RoC, ReC, and ElC? That seems the logical answer to me. That trifecta adds enough content that you could easily use it as your main progression system. The only catch in my eyes, is that you would need to seriously change some things in rf or eu mods.

 

[ljfa]

I read through the first two pages and it was interesting...
One question though, if you want a HQM pack, or any other pack that is going to be heavily changed with minetweaker, why not balanced the pack around RoC, ReC, and ElC? That seems the logical answer to me. That trifecta adds enough content that you could easily use it as your main progression system. The only catch in my eyes, is that you would need to seriously change some things in rf or eu mods.

That's a bit problematic because Reika's mods are "special snowflakes" as in everything has to be balanced around them. Imagine if other mods picked up similar policies. It would make balancing impossible.
And it's not always about balance - what if you want to make RoC's tech tree dependent on another mod? Reika provides a config option to change the blast furnace's recipe to use some other material. But if you compare that to recipe changes made in some HQM packs that's very limiting.