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

[Reika]

But if you compare that to recipe changes made in some HQM packs that's very limiting.

To be fair, a lot of HQM packs try to make every mod require every other mod ("want to make a shaft? You need a silverwood wand core!"/"What do you mean, I need an ore magnet to craft a pulverizer?"/"Why does the recipe for a sludge boiler include a singularity?"), and I am not willing to allow this with RC. Additionally, I find it to be terrible design, and more of a lazy "look I made balance" attempt than anything requiring real design effort.

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.

Editing the techtree does not usually cause crashes. It causes things like dependency loops or exploits, neither of which are going to be reported with "oh yeah, I changed this".

 

[GamerwithnoGame]

To be fair, a lot of HQM packs try to make every mod require every other mod ("want to make a shaft? You need a silverwood wand core!"/"What do you mean, I need an ore magnet to craft a pulverizer?"/"Why does the recipe for a sludge boiler include a singularity?"), and I am not willing to allow this with RC. Additionally, I find it to be terrible design, and more of a lazy "look I made balance" attempt than anything requiring real design effort.


Editing the techtree does not usually cause crashes. It causes things like dependency loops or exploits, neither of which are going to be reported with "oh yeah, I changed this".

I both agree and disagree with this.

Main point: you're absolutely right to want your mod to not be compromised in that manner, as you have a very particular vision of it.

I also have not seen a lot of HQM packs, so cannot make any statement on them.

Counterpoint: A couple of examples of it done in a way I think is good are from Blood N Bones; machine frames requiring copper coils (not entirely unreasonable), and pistons needing red alloy. BnB has more, but these two I particularly liked, as they still made a sort of "sense" to me.

Also, it can be interesting to see normality subverted - so machines being made by Thaumcraft infusion, for example. This is clearly not what was intended by the mod authors, BUT in a particular setting it can be a fun hook that ties a pack together.

But.

As you've pointed out before, these packs are NOT a good way to learn a mod. They are in fact the opposite - to give people who are very familiar with mods a new challenge.

TL;DR, I actually don't disagree, I just think that with a coherent vision in a modpack designed to deviate from the norm, such integration can have its place; RoC, ReC et al are an exception to this though.

 

[Reika]

Counterpoint: A couple of examples of it done in a way I think is good are from Blood N Bones; machine frames requiring copper coils (not entirely unreasonable), and pistons needing red alloy. BnB has more, but these two I particularly liked, as they still made a sort of "sense" to me..

As long as the design of the mod is not damaged, I have no problem in theory with changes like this. That said, in practice, selective allowance is not currently viable politically.

 

[Lethosos]

Why do you think I'm working out a reasonable alternative to Bedrock? That was made sacronant in Vanilla, and I'd like to keep it that way for special reasons. Of course, it'll be at the same tier as RFTools, which is meant to be higher than ReactorCraft...

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

 

[psp]

Why do you think I'm working out a reasonable alternative to Bedrock? That was made sacronant in Vanilla, and I'd like to keep it that way for special reasons. Of course, it'll be at the same tier as RFTools, which is meant to be higher than ReactorCraft...

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

I can't understand this...?

 

[Lethosos]

Ignore the last part, it's a modpack thing. I'm just trying to tier things around for my needs.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Reika]

Ignore the last part, it's a modpack thing. I'm just trying to tier things around for my needs.

Sent from my SGH-T769 using Tapatalk 2

If you are talking about a replacement for bedrock in RC, you will find no such replacement. And expensive or behind another mod is not sufficient - I do not care how many units resource you need to dump in or how much work in GT it takes to make bedrock, but how much RC you need to do.

 

[Lethosos]

Whelp. There goes both RotaryCraft and ReactorCraft. And here I was thinking about using Tungsten done in an exotic blend to create Resonant Ender via Blast Furnace and use that simultaneously as the bedrock replacement and shove RFTools and some other items up to a higher tier.

I suppose I'm just leery of giving players possible access to specific Bedrock tools that would make mods I introduce earlier redundant. After all, I actually do care about internal balance and want to work with the mods--I just can't compromise on me needing Bedrock to remain unbreakable no matter what.

 

[Reika]

I suppose I'm just leery of giving players possible access to specific Bedrock tools that would make mods I introduce earlier redundant

My mods are generally designed around the idea of their endgame being both much later and more powerful than most other mods. You are designing exactly against that, and are never going to find a solution.

I just can't compromise on me needing Bedrock to remain unbreakable no matter what.

Why? Are you using it to shield areas?

 

[Someone Else 37]

Would a config for the Bedrock Breaker be possible that would cause it to not actually break the bedrock, yet still produce dust at the normal rate/power cost? This would circumvent Lethosos' concern about breaking bedrock, and wouldn't unbalance RoC much, since the breaker can mine infinitely already.

 

[Reika]

Would a config for the Bedrock Breaker be possible that would cause it to not actually break the bedrock, yet still produce dust at the normal rate/power cost? This would circumvent Lethosos' concern about breaking bedrock, and wouldn't unbalance RoC much, since the breaker can mine infinitely already.

It is also wildly unrealistic, as it spawns material from nothing.

 

[HeilMewTwo]

It is also wildly unrealistic, as it spawns material from nothing.

*Cough* Light bridges *Cough*

 

[Reika]

*Cough* Light bridges *Cough*

One, that is at least not fabricating from nothing.
Two, the light bridges are an early block that may well see total redesign.

 

[ScottulusMaximus]

Editing the techtree does not usually cause crashes. It causes things like dependency loops or exploits, neither of which are going to be reported with "oh yeah, I changed this".

Then what's the issue? You'll know if something in YOUR mod causes "dependency loops or exploits", if someone reports something either ignore or respond with you changed something, no support.

But seriously, why did you even bother starting this thread, you clearly have no intention of changing your mind. Your attitude is the exact opposite of what is required for a mod PACK so as I see it you have 3 options:

1. Keep the current course, admit to yourself you have no desire to see your mods in packs, go total conversion and go the way of GT. Even pull permission to use the mods in any packs.
2. Keep the current course, ignore the trolls and save all of us the irritation.
3. Open it up! Let people do what they want, play how you want and leave other people to play how they want. Encourage cross-mod interaction, imagine RC add-ons *drool*...

Personally I'd love to see #3 because I love Rotary/Reactorcraft, but the sum total of cross-mod interaction with it in my last world was AE import and export buses... That's not conducive to any modpack.

 

[ljfa]

Well he wanted to find a compromise which satisfies both him and people who want to make recipe changes.
If he didn't want to see them in packs he would be denying all requests.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Then what's the issue? You'll know if something in YOUR mod causes "dependency loops or exploits", if someone reports something either ignore or respond with you changed something, no support.

https://sites.google.com/site/reikasminecraft/modifications

go total conversion and go the way of GT. Even pull permission to use the mods in any packs.

Reika doesn't want to change vanilla stuff, and Greg has open permissions. It sounds like you're throwing stuff about to stir up trouble rather than contributing to the discussion.

Open it up! Let people do what they want, play how you want and leave other people to play how they want.

Which is the point of this thread; Reikas using it as a sounding board to see if and what could be done without compromising design integrity or draining dev time.

but the sum total of cross-mod interaction with it in my last world was AE import and export buses...

Thats most likely a chronic lack of imagination or a sub par pack.

 

[psp]

Then what's the issue? You'll know if something in YOUR mod causes "dependency loops or exploits", if someone reports something either ignore or respond with you changed something, no support.

But seriously, why did you even bother starting this thread, you clearly have no intention of changing your mind. Your attitude is the exact opposite of what is required for a mod PACK so as I see it you have 3 options:

1. Keep the current course, admit to yourself you have no desire to see your mods in packs, go total conversion and go the way of GT. Even pull permission to use the mods in any packs.
2. Keep the current course, ignore the trolls and save all of us the irritation.
3. Open it up! Let people do what they want, play how you want and leave other people to play how they want. Encourage cross-mod interaction, imagine RC add-ons *drool*...

Personally I'd love to see #3 because I love Rotary/Reactorcraft, but the sum total of cross-mod interaction with it in my last world was AE import and export buses... That's not conducive to any modpack.

People just can't use them in HQM modpacks. I personally find HQM modpacks to be boring, dull, and repetitive. I have RoC, ReC, and ElectriCraft in a modpack I made, it fits the theme perfectly.
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/thr...f-or-eu-industrialization.74600/#post-1050953

 

[Arminius]

Regarding bedrock, could you perhaps add a config option so that the bedrock breaker breaks XU bedrockium blocks instead of actual bedrock? As far as I understand you, your objection to changing bedrock recipes is not because you want those to be gated behind bedrock itself, but behind the bedrock breaker machine, which requires a lot of RoC infrastructure to run.
This seems like the most reasonable compromise between "let people use something other than actual bedrock for RoC" and "don't get rid of the bedrock breaker". It would also make the bedrock breaker feasible on void worlds.
I don't know if you'd accept such a suggestion, but I just wanted to throw it out there.

 

[Geckogamer]

Regarding bedrock, could you perhaps add a config option so that the bedrock breaker breaks XU bedrockium blocks instead of actual bedrock? As far as I understand you, your objection to changing bedrock recipes is not because you want those to be gated behind bedrock itself, but behind the bedrock breaker machine, which requires a lot of RoC infrastructure to run.
This seems like the most reasonable compromise between "let people use something other than actual bedrock for RoC" and "don't get rid of the bedrock breaker". It would also make the bedrock breaker feasible on void worlds.
I don't know if you'd accept such a suggestion, but I just wanted to throw it out there.

Plus it will make it possible to use roc/rec /ec in skyblock maps properly

send from a thing

 

[Reika]

People just can't use them in HQM modpacks. I personally find HQM modpacks to be boring, dull, and repetitive. I have RoC, ReC, and ElectriCraft in a modpack I made, it fits the theme perfectly.
http://forum.feed-the-beast.com/thr...f-or-eu-industrialization.74600/#post-1050953

You can use them in HQM packs, just not the kind that require every mod be fundamentally altered.

Regarding bedrock, could you perhaps add a config option so that the bedrock breaker breaks XU bedrockium blocks instead of actual bedrock? As far as I understand you, your objection to changing bedrock recipes is not because you want those to be gated behind bedrock itself, but behind the bedrock breaker machine, which requires a lot of RoC infrastructure to run.
This seems like the most reasonable compromise between "let people use something other than actual bedrock for RoC" and "don't get rid of the bedrock breaker". It would also make the bedrock breaker feasible on void worlds.
I don't know if you'd accept such a suggestion, but I just wanted to throw it out there.

This is potentially viable, though I would likely make this drop less dust. What is bedrockium made of?