RC/ReC/ElC/CC Policy Changes

[TomeWyrm]

Given how well the update checker went over, I doubt this to be viable. As soon as I implement such a feature it is going to me met with as much criticism from pack makers as the update checker was. In fact, probably more, as it will probably be characterized as "punishing the pack maker for deviating from 'muh vision'".

That was quite literally my first thought upon seeing the proposal as well. Nice idea, it'll blow up in Reikas face judging by VERY similar previous circumstances re: "nagging the user".

I approached it more informally: I'd have a single main thread for my pack, and it would be in big bold blue letters. The gist would be "Reika allowed this because he's nice to you and the pack wouldn't work otherwise, but if you have a normal-world game running you'll probably appreciate it more with the default settings."

The big problems I see with this are the inevitable actions of the community. If (and here's the weak point) a pack becomes popular with this wuss mode, then the realistic version is severely diminished simply because nobody will want to play it, which will make all popular packs have it on, and then why even have realism as a core principle. The casuals "won" and anyone that doesn't want to play casually has lost. If one more person says "you can change configs yourself" I am going to scream, by the way. There are plenty of safe options for power, ReC is unique in that it tries for realism and consequences for failure. Giving in (and that's what it would be, this kind of wuss mod has been suggested before, even if not implicitly; one of the biggest complaints/cons about Reika's mods is how "hard" they are) would quite likely worsen the experience for anyone playing Reikas mods right now that actually enjoys the current gameplay. Options that become popular become PACK DEFAULTS which is how the VAST majority of users are exposed to mods. This will, if it becomes popular (which the MC community LOVES making things easier and have fewer consequences), force ReC into a significantly changed experience... which the author doesn't want, and I don't think most of the current players that enjoy the design aesthetic would enjoy either (I wouldn't mind either way. But I'm strange).

That's what you might be missing here. This option, judged via the lens of past stated community opinion, has real danger of becoming the majority option. Which pollutes the artistic vision of the mod. So while the implementation is trivial, and it fits a use case? The risk is too great for the reward.

 

[Reika]

That was quite literally my first thought upon seeing the proposal as well. Nice idea, it'll blow up in Reikas face judging by VERY similar previous circumstances re: "nagging the user".
The big problems I see with this are the inevitable actions of the community. If (and here's the weak point) a pack becomes popular with this wuss mode, then the realistic version is severely diminished simply because nobody will want to play it, which will make all popular packs have it on, and then why even have realism as a core principle. The casuals "won" and anyone that doesn't want to play casually has lost. If one more person says "you can change configs yourself" I am going to scream, by the way. There are plenty of safe options for power, ReC is unique in that it tries for realism and consequences for failure. Giving in (and that's what it would be, this kind of wuss mod has been suggested before, even if not implicitly; one of the biggest complaints/cons about Reika's mods is how "hard" they are) would quite likely worsen the experience for anyone playing Reikas mods right now that actually enjoys the current gameplay. Options that become popular become PACK DEFAULTS which is how the VAST majority of users are exposed to mods. This will, if it becomes popular (which the MC community LOVES making things easier and have fewer consequences), force ReC into a significantly changed experience... which the author doesn't want, and I don't think most of the current players that enjoy the design aesthetic would enjoy either (I wouldn't mind either way. But I'm strange).

That's what you might be missing here. This option, judged via the lens of past stated community opinion, has real danger of becoming the majority option. Which pollutes the artistic vision of the mod. So while the implementation is trivial, and it fits a use case? The risk is too great for the reward.

As usual, phrased better than I can. +1.

 

[Pyrolusite]

Player: GameX would be dumbed down if you made it accessible to casual and younger players.
Dev: I'm providing an option that lets casual and younger players enjoy the mod. Its off by default.
Player: My game is ruined! Even though I don't plan on actually using the config.
Dev: OK but don't forget that because all pack-makers are inherently stupid they're all going to use my new config and ruin your game. Presumably you'll a) decide to play those packs for some reason, and b) forget how to revert back to the default.
Player: GameX is stupid now.

I admit you've got a point there.

However, we're talking about a mod that fits into a peculiar niche.
Something with its own identity, of rewarding players for really knowing what they are doing - and punishing them when they do stuff really wrong.
Reactors exploding when done wrong is part of that, and allowing a config option is against this philosophy, against the identity of the mod.

That's the same reason why you don't see a franchise like Monster Hunter displaying a health bar on its monsters.
Hell, I even find the game/mod comparison a bit inappropriate. A mod is an extension (or an overhaul) of an already existing game, that fits the needs of a certain part of the community. Said part of the community didn't get what they wanted and/or thought they could improve the game, so a mod got created by them and for them.
Said extensions are not enforced, and alternatives can and will be made for other parts of said community.

Speaking of alternatives, there's a plethora of mods out there that provides easier alternatives to what RoC does.
Want infinite durability tools ? Use Tinker's Construct and put a moss modifier everywhere, use Thaumcraft and its repair enchantment, or grab a mod dedicated for that - you could even Minetweak it if the recipe was too cheap.
Want ore processing ? Mekanism can allow you to get up to x5 ore output.
Want reactors ? IC2, BigReactors, Atomic Science (I don't even know if this mod still exists).
Want defense mechanisms ? ICBM, MFFS.
And the list could go on an on. RoC/ReC don't have the monopoly about these things.

My point is : You can't make a mod like RoC more accessible and more popular without sacrificing what made it unique in the first place.
Sacrificing identity and creative freedom for popular standards is not a good thing at all, especially since we have so many easier options out there for this game.
And that's probably why any changes related to "uniform this to X standard" and "make it less punitive" will be met with skepticism at best.

-------------------------------

Now :

- I'm aware this argument is somewhat pointless, because removing the "exploding" part of the Tokamak - and other reactors - doesn't remove the fact that you need to gather enough knowledge, and ressources, to assemble them, and make them work. That's a very minor thing that won't screw the mod entirely. But, knowing that your reactor could potentially blew at your face - and your whole progress -, it's an additionnal motive for people to do it properly, and that's why I'm not fond of having the possibility of, basically, negating the consequences of a bad design.

- I honestly think the problem is not in the lack of config options, but first the lack of in-game countermeasures - which is being worked on I guess - and second the lack of proper tutorials, especially video tutorials, that are way more accessible and explains faster than in-game books. If there were as many tutorials for "building a Tokamak" or "making a proper Extractor setup" on YouTube as tutorials for "easy automated ore processing with Thermal Expansion", we wouldn't be worried about people blasting a nuke on their foot when building a reactor.

- I will not intervene on the subject of reactor meltdown config anymore, because it ends up being all opinions and not enough solutions. And I'm not a nuclear engineer, nor remotely knowledgeable on the subject, to make any suggestions whatsoever that doesn't involve writing "false" in ReactorCraft.cfg.

EDIT: My bad. x5 ore duplication, not x6, for Mekanism.

 

[Pyure]

The big problems I see with this are the inevitable actions of the community. If (and here's the weak point) a pack becomes popular with this wuss mode, then the realistic version is severely diminished simply because nobody will want to play it, which will make all popular packs have it on, and then why even have realism as a core principle. The casuals "won" and anyone that doesn't want to play casually has lost.
.....
That's what you might be missing here. This option, judged via the lens of past stated community opinion, has real danger of becoming the majority option. Which pollutes the artistic vision of the mod. So while the implementation is trivial, and it fits a use case? The risk is too great for the reward.

Thanks for your feedback Tome.

I'm not missing this at all, its always foremost in my mind. What is escaping me is the progression of thought of the people pushing this notion.

There's a logical breach in the train of thought. It goes:
a) Nobody wants to play realistically
leads somehow to
b) Those who want to play realistically lose out. Even though its all based on the premise that nobody(?) wants to play this way.

Personally I think a lot of people want to play "realistically."

The mod will get usage corresponding precisely to how many people want to play in the way they want to play. For your non-casual players, they're all going to play the realistic version. That version is going to exist because they want it to. If nobody wants to play non-casually, then why the hell do we care about the mod in the first place? You're making the argument that everyone hates Reika's mod.

There's no diminishing here. The only thing that happens is that the people who want to play casually play casually.

Moreover its been demonstrated that popular packs absolutely do not always favor casual-mode for mods. Google "hardcore" (AND "MINECRAFT", don't get fired/expelled from your job/school if you try this at work and get it wrong) and you'll see more instances than you can count of packs presenting high-difficulty as its main draw.

Pardon me if I don't want to do the same thing as all these other packs.

 

[Pyure]

However, we're talking about a mod that fits into a peculiar niche.
Something with its own identity, of rewarding players for really knowing what they are doing - and punishing them when they do stuff really wrong.
Reactors exploding when done wrong is part of that, and allowing a config option is against this philosophy, against the identity of the mod.

They're tangent to *a* philosophy and *a* identity. ReC has the capacity to be bigger and better than it is, and not limit itself.

 

[Reika]

Moreover its been demonstrated that popular packs absolutely do not always favor casual-mode for mods. Google "hardcore" (AND "MINECRAFT", don't get fired/expelled from your job/school if you try this at work and get it wrong) and you'll see more instances than you can count of packs presenting high-difficulty as its main draw.

You are forgetting two major things.

One, my mods are not a good fit for a hardcore environment because they are too powerful. A hardcore environment, almost by necessity, requires that the player never reach a "god mode" state, something my mods provide. Eyamaz himself said this was the reason RC was excluded from BnB, rather than licenses or similar.

Two, though hardcore packs are popular, you would have to be blind not to see the massive push towards simplified gameplay that this community is currently experiencing. RF-all-the-things is the most visible and dramatic face of that, but there are also strong forces fighting against ideas like machine failure or, in the example most egregious to me, a machine having hard-set requirements without which it will not function, instead working "worse" even if completely misused. Mods like BR explicitly cater to that design aesthetic (build a reactor completely without coolant? 20% efficiency loss!), and ReC was specifically designed, among other things, to violate it.

 

[Pyure]

New content to provide a change to existing content. Therefore still changing existing content.

This is logically valid if....and only if...the change I suggests directly and provably alters existing content. And it doesn't. The existing content remains completely unchanged.

This is easily and scientifically proven: if the config is implemented, then nobody's game is affected in any way or form. You need to explicitly opt-in to see a change.

People can semantically tear this apart and apply jargon to make it work in their favor, but I'm only interested in cold, hard facts.

lolz@therest

One, my mods are not a good fit for a hardcore environment because they are too powerful. A hardcore environment, almost by necessity, requires that the player never reach a "god mode" state, something my mods provide. Eyamaz himself said this was the reason RC was excluded from BnB.

Strongly agree. Some sort of massive power inflation would need to be involved to make all that output useful.

Hint, hint.

Two, though hardcore packs are popular, you would have to be blind not to see the massive push towards simplified gameplay that this community is currently experiencing.

I see both ends being pushed hard. For every you-will-lose survival game I see a love-and-ponies-breed-RF pack.

There's a good possibility that some ambitious designer of a simplified gameplay pack will try to incorporate your mods, but like all such things its liable to be a gateway. Younger kids may stick with the casual version, while a decent proportion of clever enthusiasts will be drawn into the real deal.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

They're tangent to *a* philosophy and *a* identity. ReC has the capacity to be bigger and better than it is, and not limit itself.

So instead it should limit itself to the whims of what the community demands?

Yes it has the capacity to be bigger. That doesn't always mean better.

'better' is subjective, but best defined by improving upon or working towards your parameters for successful design objective.​

Now obviously if your success is largely defined by popularity and mass appeal, then making it bigger and catering to communal demand is indeed making it better.
However popularity isn't the only- and certainly not the definitive- measure of success.

lolz@therest

Well that actually says a lot. Thank you for your time.

 

[Reika]

Strongly agree. Some sort of massive power inflation would need to be involved to make all that output useful.

Hint, hint.

...? That would make it less fitting, not more...

This is easily and scientifically proven: if the config is implemented, then nobody's game is affected in any way or form. You need to explicitly opt-in to see a change.

I take it you either did not see or are completely forgetting or discounting the "packs setting this without players' knowledge" counterpoint?

 

[Plasmasnake]

As a long-time user of ReactorCraft, I can tell you that it actually takes effort for me to make a reactor violently fail. In all of my survival worlds, I have never once had a reactor meltdown and have never used control rods. The headache of a meltdown is meant to deter casual use of reactors as an 'easy' source of power. It requires effort and thought to get a design operational and safe, and that is because you can quite literally never worry about your power situation ever again. This type of design is at the very forefront of Reika's big mods - RotaryCraft, ReactorCraft, and ChromatiCraft. I don't mean power generation in particular: you can obtain unlimited ores and rocks with the borer, unlimited and completely hands-free farming with the fans, you can even create quarries with lightning! Naturally however, this type of high-risk and high-requirement for a high-reward gameplay is going to turn off a bunch of people, the one group I want to point out here are the 'casuals'.

To entice those who play casually, you need to dumb down the difficulty and complexity of the content. How else could you do it? There is no reason in doing this since it would completely invalidate anything Reika has previously ever done with the mods. I'll put it bluntly because it is the only way I can express it: 'casuals' should not be playing with RoC, ReC, and even CC. I'd rather the mod be exclusive in this way... because this is how I personally love it--- and suspect other users of the mods to enjoy it this way too. I think that the actual problem here is the lack of easily-accessible know-how and documentation. If everybody knew what I knew, then nobody would have an issue with fatally screwing up. This problem kind of falls upon the community to solve however. I can and will be willing to make that effort when v7 comes around though.

That was on principles, but to be more specific: @Pyure, you have requested to have implemented a config option to disable the main hazard of reactors in ReactorCraft. How will this change encourage more players to try out ReC and entice more pack makers to include the mod?

Because, to even start a standard fission reactor, you need to be near the end-game of RotaryCraft. You need bedrock ingots for the centrifuge and all of the infrastructure that comes with it. If you are at this point, there is no way that you could consider yourself to be casual. Even if you wanted to start at a HTGR (whose hazards are fairly negligable compared to a fission reactor), you need a friction heater for the fuel. I do not remember the temperature required to make TRISO right now, but the point is that you need infrastructure to do that as well. At this point, the effort of making sure a reactor won't blow up in your face is trivial.

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but your intention is to try to get more people to use and play with Reika's mods? Well, then I think that to do this, you would need to alter drastically some pretty essential core designs and that would definitely remove the charm of the mod for many people and Reika himself. I do not think that it is worth it: maybe these mods aren't meant to be as popular as your TE or TC. As a content creator myself, I know that I loved every single download and couldn't care less that my stuff wasn't super popular or on the top 10 lists. I wouldn't sacrifice my passion and design ideas to get more popular.

 

[Reika]

As a long-time user of ReactorCraft, I can tell you that it actually takes effort for me to make a reactor violently fail. In all of my survival worlds, I have never once had a reactor meltdown and have never used control rods. The headache of a meltdown is meant to deter casual use of reactors as an 'easy' source of power. It requires effort and thought to get a design operational and safe, and that is because you can quite literally never worry about your power situation ever again. This type of design is at the very forefront of Reika's big mods - RotaryCraft, ReactorCraft, and ChromatiCraft. I don't mean power generation in particular: you can obtain unlimited ores and rocks with the borer, unlimited and completely hands-free farming with the fans, you can even create quarries with lightning! Naturally however, this type of high-risk and high-requirement for a high-reward gameplay is going to turn off a bunch of people, the one group I want to point out here are the 'casuals'.

To entice those who play casually, you need to dumb down the difficulty and complexity of the content. How else could you do it? There is no reason in doing this since it would completely invalidate anything Reika has previously ever done with the mods. I'll put it bluntly because it is the only way I can express it: 'casuals' should not be playing with RoC, ReC, and even CC. I'd rather the mod be exclusive in this way... because this is how I personally love it--- and suspect other users of the mods to enjoy it this way too. I think that the actual problem here is the lack of easily-accessible know-how and documentation. If everybody knew what I knew, then nobody would have an issue with fatally screwing up. This problem kind of falls upon the community to solve however. I can and will be willing to make that effort when v7 comes around though.

That was on principles, but to be more specific: @Pyure, you have requested to have implemented a config option to disable the main hazard of reactors in ReactorCraft. How will this change encourage more players to try out ReC and entice more pack makers to include the mod?

Because, to even start a standard fission reactor, you need to be near the end-game of RotaryCraft. You need bedrock ingots for the centrifuge and all of the infrastructure that comes with it. If you are at this point, there is no way that you could consider yourself to be casual. Even if you wanted to start at a HTGR (whose hazards are fairly negligable compared to a fission reactor), you need a friction heater for the fuel. I do not remember the temperature required to make TRISO right now, but the point is that you need infrastructure to do that as well. At this point, the effort of making sure a reactor won't blow up in your face is trivial.

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but your intention is to try to get more people to use and play with Reika's mods? Well, then I think that to do this, you would need to alter drastically some pretty essential core designs and that would definitely remove the charm of the mod for many people and Reika himself. I do not think that it is worth it: maybe these mods aren't meant to be as popular as your TE or TC. As a content creator myself, I know that I loved every single download and couldn't care less that my stuff wasn't super popular or on the top 10 lists. I wouldn't sacrifice my passion and design ideas to get more popular.

All of this is true.

This is our point, Pyure. Concern with the permanence of a meltdown in certain gameplay environments is a valid one, hence the discussion of radiation cleanup and containment. But you are arguing for something far more fundamental and heavy-handed, and which pushes ReC directly into a category it was designed to fight, and which could well start a chain reaction that sees it locked there, and which multiple people have experiences that make them see it as likely. You are also apparently either not realizing or ignoring the fact that this is hardly the only stumbling block or criticism that the 'casual' player - I admit I dislike the term because I consider myself a casual player as well - will have, necessitating far more sweeping changes later on.

On that topic, actually, about 'casual'. I consider myself a casual player. My server is geared to be so easy and non-stressful that multiple people have complained about it. And yet my mods fit perfectly.

Thus, that leads me to wonder if this is really less about "casual" players and more about the kind of players who really would push for things like RF power.

 

[Pyure]

So instead it should limit itself to the whims of what the community demands?

Is your argument here really that expanding the number of possible use-cases is limiting?

...? That would make it less fitting, not more...

Reika, you just said that the pack doesn't belong in harder-mode packs because it gives you god-mode. Perhaps you misunderstand me, but I've hinted that an interesting solution to that is to decrease the purchasing-power of energy.

In that sense, by your description, we're agreed that it makes it more fitting, not less.

I take it you either did not see or are completely forgetting or discounting the "packs setting this without players' knowledge" counterpoint?

Why would I set something without player's knowledge? I specifically said I'd announce it at the top of my lungs and plug the default settings till I'm blue in the face, purely to appease you.

 

[Reika]

Is your argument here really that expanding the number of possible use-cases is limiting?

When those use-cases will start to trample the original ones, yes.

Reika, you just said that the pack doesn't belong in harder-mode packs because it gives you god-mode. Perhaps you misunderstand me, but I've hinted that an interesting solution to that is to decrease the purchasing-power of energy.
In that sense, by your description, we're agreed that it makes it more fitting, not less.

Those uses would have to supply something very powerful, worsening the "god problem".

Why would I set something without player's knowledge? I specifically said I'd announce it at the top of my lungs and plug the default settings till I'm blue in the face, purely to appease you.

And I said it was not just about you. Any config I add can be used by anyone.


Also, please address PlasmaSnake's point above. I know earlier you said a lack of response to posts was you not feeling it was sufficient to warrant one, but that is both insulting - especially when the argument is not some emotional appeal but an attempt at a rational discussion - easily mistaken for not seeing it (or purposely ignoring it), both of which are problems I deal with constantly in these sorts of discussions, and/or too easily abused in the form of "I do not have a good response to this, so I will just ignore it and say it was too silly to merit a reply". Also, ignoring a direct question, even if you do not feel it is a good argument, is rather unkind as it comes across as "you are not worth my time".

 

[lucariomaster2]

One minor note - to anyone scared of having their base replaced with a nice new radioactive crater, there's nothing stopping you from making your reactor a few kilometers away from your main base and sending the power through a Tesseract.

 

[Reika]

One minor note - to anyone scared of having their base replaced with a nice new radioactive crater, there's nothing stopping you from making your reactor a few kilometers away from your main base and sending the power through a Tesseract.

Or, depending on the mods and desired transfer methods, a World Rift, a long wire, and more.

 

[Plasmasnake]

One minor note - to anyone scared of having their base replaced with a nice new radioactive crater, there's nothing stopping you from making your reactor a few kilometers away from your main base and sending the power through a Tesseract.

I'd always recommend to those that are weary of messing up and/or are scared to overload on the cooling of a reactor.

The old saying, "better safe than sorry".

 

[Pyure]

All of this is true.

This is our point, Pyure. Concern with the permanence of a meltdown in certain gameplay environments is a valid one, hence the discussion of radiation cleanup and containment. But you are arguing for something far more fundamental and heavy-handed, and which pushes ReC directly into a category it was designed to fight, and which could well start a chain reaction that sees it locked there, and which multiple people have experiences that make them see it as likely.

I've crossed out the part where you're either stubbornly misunderstanding me or being a deliberate liar. Presumably the former.

Everything I desire matches your vision as described above, with a reduction in scale. I've said specifically I have no problems with parts of the reactor melting down. Its large-scale catastrophes that encourage reloading a game that I'm fighting against.

I've also indicated that I don't mind segregation and containment. I said that above as well.

Any scenario that puts players into the meta-game of actually exiting Minecraft, copying backup files, and re-entering the game is not tolerable for the scenario I'd want to create.

As a long-time user of ReactorCraft, I can tell you that it actually takes effort for me to make a reactor violently fail. In all of my survival worlds, I have never once had a reactor meltdown and have never used control rods.

I can't swear this, but a quick google search on forum threads suggests I've played it longer That's mostly teasing, it obviously doesn't speak to the sheer quantity of experience with the mods.

To entice those who play casually, you need to dumb down the difficulty and complexity of the content. How else could you do it? There is no reason in doing this since it would completely invalidate anything Reika has previously ever done with the mods. I'll put it bluntly because it is the only way I can express it: 'casuals' should not be playing with RoC, ReC, and even CC. I'd rather the mod be exclusive in this way... because this is how I personally love it--- and suspect other users of the mods to enjoy it this way too. I think that the actual problem here is the lack of easily-accessible know-how and documentation. If everybody knew what I knew, then nobody would have an issue with fatally screwing up. This problem kind of falls upon the community to solve however. I can and will be willing to make that effort when v7 comes around though.

Point already fully debunked repeatedly above. The players who enjoy the explosions the way there are are unaffected. The arguments that they're affected indirectly are debunked by precedent. I'm not dealing with this point anymore. There is no new information to bring to the table.

That was on principles, but to be more specific: @Pyure, you have requested to have implemented a config option to disable the main hazard of reactors in ReactorCraft. How will this change encourage more players to try out ReC and entice more pack makers to include the mod?

Precedent. Ask yourself how so many players on the FTB forum ever get involved with something like GregTech.

In my case its due to FTB kitchen-sink packs that offer a very watered-down version of the GT experience. Some players are ok with that version, but others yearn for the real thing. That's how a gateway works.

Correct me if I am wrong on this, but your intention is to try to get more people to use and play with Reika's mods? Well, then I think that to do this, you would need to alter drastically some pretty essential core designs and that would definitely remove the charm of the mod for many people and Reika himself.

Ok you gotta understand something here: I'm a bit of a patriot, and Reika's a dude that lives just down the street from me. I could probably be at his place in an hour if I figured a couple beers would talk him around. So while its not my main goal to expose his mods to some huge audience, I'd be pretty ok with it if that was the nice side effect.

My actual goal is to use an existing fission-based mod with dynamic design principals with a risk/reward balance suited to my pack design. Big Reactors "sorta" does this, but I'd prefer at least a tiny element of risk. Its also brutally over-used. IndustrialCraft has risk, but I don't care for the outdated mod, and it encourages players to download designs from the internet instead of applying creativity. ReactorCraft almost encourages creativity, but it makes you do it in Creative or face the penalties.

Also, please address PlasmaSnake's point above. I know earlier you said a lack of response to posts was you not feeling it was sufficient to warrant one, but that is both insulting - especially when the argument is not some emotional appeal but an attempt at a rational discussion - easily mistaken for not seeing it (or purposely ignoring it), both of which are problems I deal with constantly in these sorts of discussions, and/or too easily abused in the form of "I do not have a good response to this, so I will just ignore it and say it was too silly to merit a reply". Also, ignoring a direct question, even if you do not feel it is a good argument, is rather unkind as it comes across as "you are not worth my time".

I'm falling behind on my correspondence due to RL.

And I'm not going to repeatedly point out to people that their points have already been debunked. You may be worth my time, but not all of your arguments are.

When those use-cases will start to trample the original ones, yes.

Well, fortunately, they don't. This is proven by reality. Hurray. I can direct you to a number of former colleagues in the gaming industry who would be more than happy to discuss this with you.

 

[TomeWyrm]

Google "hardcore" (AND "MINECRAFT", don't get fired/expelled from your job/school if you try this at work and get it wrong)

I Google without safe search and it is such an enjoyably enlightening experience.

I've also indicated that I don't mind segregation and containment. I said that above as well.

Wait, then why are we still having this discussion. We're halfway to a workable implementation of containment already.

 

[Plasmasnake]

Ok you gotta understand something here: I'm a bit of a patriot, and Reika's a dude that lives just down the street from me. I could probably be at his place in an hour if I figured a couple beers would talk him around. So while its not my main goal to expose his mods to some huge audience, I'd be pretty ok with it if that was the nice side effect.

My actual goal is to use an existing fission-based mod with dynamic design principals with a risk/reward balance suited to my pack design. Big Reactors "sorta" does this, but I'd prefer at least a tiny element of risk. Its also brutally over-used. IndustrialCraft has risk, but I don't care for the outdated mod, and it encourages players to download designs from the internet instead of applying creativity. ReactorCraft almost encourages creativity, but it makes you do it in Creative or face the penalties.

There is a roadblock here. How do you design it so that the risk allows the majority of players tackle it creatively, while they also do not google designs and do not experiment in creative mode? A step in the right direction is radiation containment and cleaning, which has been brought into this discussion and seems promising.

The rest of your post, well to be honest I think we will be at odds with each other indefinitely. I think by now, after pages and pages, both sides have offered most if not all what they had to say and Reika is the one who will make the call.

 

[Reika]

Its large-scale catastrophes that encourage reloading a game that I'm fighting against.

Any scenario that puts players into the meta-game of actually exiting Minecraft, copying backup files, and re-entering the game is not tolerable for the scenario I'd want to create.

We do not disagree on this.

I've said specifically I have no problems with parts of the reactor melting down...I've also indicated that I don't mind segregation and containment. I said that above as well.

I had gotten the exact opposite impression given your repeated statements that the latter would be insufficient and a persistence for a config for the former.

If you really are satisfied with improved containment, and a way to clean radiation in survival, then the conclusion has already been reached. Some containment implementation needs to be created, as does the cleaning, and a config to flatly disable meltdowns is not going to be added.

Sufficient?

Ok you gotta understand something here: I'm a bit of a patriot, and Reika's a dude that lives just down the street from me. I could probably be at his place in an hour if I figured a couple beers would talk him around.

I do not drink. (But there have been people who have met with me before, usually for lunch, some of whom took the opportunity to argue for certain things to be changed or implemented).