RC/ReC/ElC/CC Policy Changes

[Pyrolusite]

I'd like to understand why reactor meltdowns are a "design flaw". IC2 had exploding machines and reactors way back then and it wasn't seen as such.
This argument sounded more like "everything different from [insert mainstream tech mod mechanic here] is a design flaw".

I like the "sanctionned modpack" idea though. If they want their modpack to become popular, they will be obliged to have your approval anyway, because I doubt publicly saying "screw this modder entirely" and being denied support from him/her is beneficial for said modpack dev.

 

[Strikingwolf]

I'd like to understand why reactor meltdowns are a "design flaw". IC2 had exploding machines and reactors way back then and it wasn't seen as such.
This argument sounded more like "everything different from [insert mainstream tech mod mechanic here] is a design flaw".

I like the "sanctionned modpack" idea though.

To clarify what they are saying. The reactor meltdowns are not a design flaw, not allowing them to be configurable is. I love reactor meltdowns, but they don't fit certain packs.

 

[ljfa]

I'd like to understand why reactor meltdowns are a "design flaw". IC2 had exploding machines and reactors way back then and it wasn't seen as such.
This argument sounded more like "everything different from [insert mainstream tech mod mechanic here] is a design flaw".

Punishing the player overly hard for small mistakes can be considered a design flaw. IC2 reactor explosions can be contained fairly easily and I would consider it negligent to not surround a freaking reactor with a containment of reinforced stone. No such luck for ReC reactors, when they explode the whole area is doomed for a long time.
Bedides that, I don't like it that other IC2 machines create such huge explosions when you connect them to the wrong power line. It may destroy the machine itself and maybe directly surrounding blocks fwiw, but please not blow apart the whole building. I still remember when that happened to me the first time ^^

 

[Strikingwolf]

A guy on Reddit claimed that all mods not using RF are doing it wrong yesterday.

The cringe is real...I don't frequent Reddit so I forgot about the toxicity there...

 

[Pyrolusite]

To clarify what they are saying. The reactor meltdowns are not a design flaw, not allowing them to be configurable is. I love reactor meltdowns, but they don't fit certain packs.

The concept of "design flaw" is very subjective, then. Being rewarded by a nuclear explosion when failing at building and using a machine that powerful doesn't feel wrong to me.
We're not talking about a slightly upgraded furnace wiping a few biomes when using zombie flesh instead of coal to make it work. We're talking about a reactor producing an insane amount of power, requiring tons of ressources and a huge space.

Why couldn't it fit certain packs ? It can fit everywhere as long as its user know what he/she's doing. If meltdown happens, you're pretty much better restarting the map anyway, regardless of the modpack you're using, considering how many resources you extracted from it and the probability unique structures and stuff were spawned in that radius. Plus, you're not even obliged to make one, and if you were because of a modpack design, I'm pretty sure it's creator would ensure that you make it and use it sucessfully.

Punishing the player overly hard for small mistakes can be considered a design flaw. IC2 reactor explosions can be contained fairly easily and I would consider it negligent to not surround a freaking reactor with a containment of reinforced stone. No such luck for ReC reactors, when they explode the whole area is doomed for a long time.
Bedides that, I don't like it that other IC2 machines create such huge explosions when you connect them to the wrong power line. It may destroy the machine itself and maybe directly surrounding blocks fwiw, but please not blow apart the whole building. I still remember when that happened to me the first time ^^

Well, small mistakes can make disasters IRL too, and realism (within the limit of Minecraft's capabilities of course) is somewhat a key principle of the mod iirc.
But otherwise, as I said above, considering how powerful the machine is, it does not feel unfair to me. Especially since the amount of ressources you're going to invest in the reactor, you should probably make sure you are not spending said ressources for nothing... or worse.


And yeah... don't go on Reddit. The RF masterrace is real down there.

 

[Strikingwolf]

The concept of "design flaw" is very subjective, then. Being rewarded by a nuclear explosion when failing at building and using a machine that powerful doesn't feel wrong to me.
We're not talking about a slightly upgraded furnace wiping a few biomes when using zombie flesh instead of coal to make it work. We're talking about a reactor producing an insane amount of power, requiring tons of ressources and a huge spaaaaaace.

Why couldn't it fit certain packs ? It can fit everywhere as long as its user know what he/she's doing. If meltdown happens, you're pretty much better restarting the map anyway, regardless of the modpack you're using, considering how many resources you extracted from it and the probability unique structures and stuff were spawned in that radius. Plus, you're not even obliged to make one, and if you were because of a modpack design, I'm pretty sure it's creator would ensure that you make it and use it sucessfully.

Instead of reiterating what others have said...

Here's the thing. If a reactor melts down, it become chernobyl. There's a big explosion and the land becomes inhospitable. This could be a really bad thing for a pack where say you're flying on a ship in outer space and the ship has a reactor that powers it. If that melts down, the ship explodes and s exposed to the outer void. It also causes the ship itself to become toxic. This is not ideal for this sort of pack. Also in a skyblock situation where you have limited resources and space is more expensive than just walking a few hundred blocks, an explosion in the wrong place could be game over. The rector and most of everything else would be hard earned and would be a massive setback if it exploded, especially since that area is now toxic.

other forms of failure don't cause a game over, you can live with the requirements not changing, and the gating you'd have to conform to anyways in a modpack built around RoC. The reactor meltdown config isn't trying to change the mod as a whole, it's just what's right for certain packs where loss of items/land is a huge deal and you don't have the resources or space to make a new one any time soon.

Well, small mistakes can make disasters IRL too, and realism (within the limit of Minecraft's capabilities of course) is somewhat a key principle of the mod iirc.
Otherwise, as I said above, considering how powerful the machine is, it does not feel unfair to me. Especially since the amount of ressources you're going to invest in the reactor, you should probably make sure you are not spending said ressources for nothing... or worse.

I completely understand the design, it is great design in fact. But sometimes it doesn't fit with the kind of experience the modpack author is intending to create

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Config options are in themselves optional. Especially when it comes to the significant/substantial gameplay identity of one's design.

(obvious exception to controls and graphics/performance if applicable)
​

As with ReC, all the meltdowns and explosions are ultimately and entirely a result of player skill/interaction. (as opposed to any RNG event or non-player influence).
From what I understand, ReC meltdown occurs above a certain temperature. Unless you've done something monumentally stupid*you'll have time to shut down and readjust the design. Also if you watched a few of Reika's videos, you'll see hes added a few real world safety mechanisms.

 

[Strikingwolf]

That doesn't make it a design flaw. I'm quite sure the situations mentioned aren't the ones Reactorcraft was made for. If something is made for one situation, you can't call it a design flaw when it doesn't work perfectly in another situation.

That is not the design flaw. It was designed for that situation perfectly. But not adding the other option is the design flaw. Expanding scope so that people can use your mod to create a vast variety of experiences is a good thing, not allowing that is a design flaw if enough people want the other option (within reason of course, nothing like RFing RoC).

Let's say we have a program called 5zip. 5zip is made for opening zip files, but due to rar files being similar to zip files, it can open rar files too. However, when opening a rar file, some weird errors get printed to the log. Is that a design flaw?

Spoiler: logical fallacy, but I'm fine with that

The thing is that the situation is much more complex than that. RoC isn't designed for one thing, 5zip is. The very fact that RoC is used in many different situations shows that it isn't. RoC as I see it is designed as a different take on the standard tech mod. You can have configuration within that boundary.

Also, the 5zip program is not fulfilling its full potential, there is a point where either you are to specific or to general. RFing RoC is to general, turning off reactor meltdowns isn't. In 5zip's case opening a file is the same to the user, the average user doesn't care about the type of file; therefore it is too specific to limit it to just zips.

One of the hardest thing in software design to me is deciding how specific you want your software to be. There is a very fine line there, and everyone thinks that they've found the line, but most likely no one actually has.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Expanding scope so that people can use your mod to create a vast variety of experiences is a good thing, not allowing that is a design flaw if enough people want the other option (within reason of course, nothing like RFing RoC).

Allowing it could equally be considered a design flaw; you're watering down a key gameplay mechanic and your design identity to appease a secondary/tertiary audience.

 

[Reika]

Your talk of "opening doors" to dramatic changes is absolutely insane. Its like apple refusing to add video capability to their phones because people might ask for internet capability next. So the hell what if they do? YOU COMMAND THE CODE.

I may have ultimate control over what gets put in, but - and this is the part you seem to have missed - people still make demands, and act like I am unreasonable for refusing them. Noone reasonable suggests the things on the further end of the scale now, but what if I open the door and then someone like - just as an example - Watchful or Iskandar asks for bigger changes to be configurable? I am not going to have the same power to refuse as I do now, because turning THAT down is all too easily painted in the light of an egotistical control freak with no regard to others' desires. As soon as anyone influential asks for something, I am going to be put in the same position as now: Either put it in or be criticized and ridiculed for it.

Your concerns about overarching principals are likewise bizarre. You control the default settings. And you've already said a million times that almost nobody uses the configs, so now you're contradicting yourself. You cannot have it both ways.

Almost no end users use the configs. Packs use them all the time. And that pairing together is why this is such a big deal. And you yourself have criticized me for config option behavior you thought was default, in a debate where you were trying to argue that noone reasonable makes that mistake! Before you paint it as such, that is not me holding a grudge, that is me remembering that incident as a very good example of the kind of thing I am talking about.

Here's the thing. If a reactor melts down, it become chernobyl. There's a big explosion and the land becomes inhospitable. This could be a really bad thing for a pack where say you're flying on a ship in outer space and the ship has a reactor that powers it. If that melts down, the ship explodes and s exposed to the outer void. It also causes the ship itself to become toxic. This is not ideal for this sort of pack. Also in a skyblock situation where you have limited resources and space is more expensive than just walking a few hundred blocks, an explosion in the wrong place could be game over. The rector and most of everything else would be hard earned and would be a massive setback if it exploded, especially since that area is now toxic.

other forms of failure don't cause a game over, you can live with the requirements not changing, and the gating you'd have to conform to anyways in a modpack built around RoC. The reactor meltdown config isn't trying to change the mod as a whole, it's just what's right for certain packs where loss of items/land is a huge deal and you don't have the resources or space to make a new one any time soon.

To me, this is not an argument against meltdowns themselves, but an argument in favor of adding radiation cleaning ability. THAT is something I am much more willing to do.

Config options are in themselves optional. Especially when it comes to the significant/substantial gameplay identity of one's design.

(obvious exception to controls and graphics/performance if applicable)
​

As with ReC, all the meltdowns and explosions are ultimately and entirely a result of player skill/interaction. (as opposed to any RNG event or non-player influence).
From what I understand, ReC meltdown occurs above a certain temperature. Unless you've done something monumentally stupid*you'll have time to shut down and readjust the design. Also if you watched a few of Reika's videos, you'll see hes added a few real world safety mechanisms.

This. A meltdown is never going to occur because of bad luck, especially in light of one major thing I forgot to mention.

@Pyure: Does the fact I got reactor chunkloading to work - thus eliminating what has historically been your biggest complaint with the meltdown mechanic - affect your position? What about with the above response to goreae?

The thing is that the situation is much more complex than that. RoC isn't designed for one thing, 5zip is.

Actually, it is. To provide realistic high-end energy generation for RotaryCraft.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Allowing it could equally be considered a design flaw; you're watering down a key gameplay mechanic and your design identity to appease a secondary/tertiary audience.

You're not watering it down, because it's optional

 

[Reika]

You're not watering it down, because it's optional

Once a pack sets it, it is effectively mandatory for most of the pack's players (see above). If that pack gets really large, like Monster did, it effectively becomes both the standard and the main driver of perception.

 

[Strikingwolf]

Once a pack sets it, it is effectively mandatory for most of the pack's players.

Considering many of the types of players that would enjoy reactor meltdowns I would guess they could edit a config file...in fact I think that should be possible for almost any user

If that pack gets really large, like Monster did, it effectively becomes both the standard and the main driver of perception.

Standards are meant to be set by you, that doesn't mean that it is the common implementation. LISP has a standard, Common LISP is the implementation

No time

 

[Celestialphoenix]

You're not watering it down, because it's optional

You're still watering down, because that's precisely what gameplay options do.

 

[Reika]

Considering many of the types of players that would enjoy reactor meltdowns I would guess they could edit a config file...in fact I think that should be possible for almost any user

You have seen how many users react to having to edit configs themselves. Half cannot find the file, half of the remainder cannot figure out how to edit it, half of the remainder cannot figure out how to change a value (or what to change it to), and so on. Also, though people who like meltdowns are more likely to be able to make the edit, the fact remains that most will not even think to, because they will be unaware the mechanic even exists.

Standards are meant to be set by you, that doesn't mean that it is the common implementation. LISP has a standard, Common LISP is the implementation

This does not disprove my point.

 

[Pyrolusite]

Let's say we have a program called 5zip. 5zip is made for opening zip files, but due to rar files being similar to zip files, it can open rar files too. However, when opening a rar file, some weird errors get printed to the log. Is that a design flaw?

This is a bad example.
From a developper stand point, if you implement a feature but said feature works weirdly, it's not about bad design. It's failing to deliver said feature, thus requiring a bugfix to make it work properly.
Here we're talking about a config option which isn't implemented - in other words, a non-existant feature. The dev is not forced to deliver said feature, because it's not about a feature that doesn't work and must be fixed as a result, it's about a feature he/she didn't even code.
+ what StrikingWolf said.

EDIT: Derp. About the rar/zip files, keep in mind that features a dev code may includes additionnal features that are implemented as a result, and these must be fixed or removed, since they are here and you want your program to work properly. But yeah, since nuclear meltdown disabling is a non-existent feature and not an half-implemented one or not working one, my post should be relevant still.

 

[keybounce]

keybounce you're one of the sharpest peeps i know on the forum so i'll just link wikipedia and let you sort it out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution.

The simple answer: All creatures are dependent on their environment. Richard Dawkins calls this the "extended pheonotype". As a quick example, you can be a super-successful, long-lived tree, but if you are dependent on one species of bee to polinate, and one species of rodent to open your nut, then you are only as successful as the existence of those. (Macadamia nut tree).

My other point: No matter how successful a mule is at earning a living, and being able to easily survive, it will never have offspring, and the "species" dies out each generation.

That's why evolution is not concerned with "who is better at living"; it is concerned with "who is better at reproducing in this current environment".

In minecraft terms, if there was no RF standard for interchange, and every tech mod mad a unique power system -- kinda like that current tech mod (in it's 4th version now) based on portable, hand-held batteries that have to be recharged at various places in the world and requires researching all of the tech items you can make with it, including better batteries and tools to get more power out of the batteries -- then, having a special power system based on fans rotating in the wind would not be a problem. But, in an environment where "Everything is interchangeable!", those special power sources get mods into trouble. People just want to use pink dye to power everything because "Overexcited Ponies for the win!".

(If you did not get the references: Thaumcraft, ExU's pink generator, and My/Mine Little Pony. And, while I don't know of an RF interface for Thaumcraft, I believe there is one for another magic mod based on pools of water and flowers.)

True, however that inherently means that unless we change the environment it is better. Thus it is the best solution because changing an environment is much harder than changing parts of it

Being a better mod in environment X does not mean better.
Being better in an environment where everything else is "RF or die!" does not mean a better mod.

Is Big Reactor a better mod than ReactorCraft?
How does CofhWorld compare to Custom Ore Generation compare to Reasonable Realism compare to Geologica or Sweden U's mod?
(Note that each of those steps is basically one step farther from vanilla oregen towards more real-world style -- and I'm not sure how the last two differ/compare.)

Is Thaumcraft better than Botania? I think there's RF conversion for Botania but not Thaumcraft. Both are "magic" mods, which just means reskinned tech.

Ah, the classic argument against modpack's selecting what is good or bad. The problem with this mentality is that the user makes a conscious decision to play a modpack. Therefore modpacks are sorted by natural selection and thus lists of mods + configs are sorted by natural selection resulting in individual mods being selected.

Umm ...

I really, really don't know how to respond to this. The logical fallacy is ...

A person does not select a modpack based on "I like all these mods".
Modpacks will generally fall into two groups: the re-configured type, and the "stock" type.

For "Stock" types, aka kitchen sink packs, it may range from "Hey, this is what Etho is playing!" to "My friends are on this server, and I want to play with them.", as well as "Hey, the description of what I can do sounds decent, I don't have to try to hunt down mods".

Hunt down mods.

There are too many mods out there to be able to keep track of all of them. It is basically a full time paid job for JadedCat to actually play with everything that shows up on the forums. Most people do not have the time or energy to learn every mod, and make a decision. So, they rely on someone else making that decision for them.

Hence, the power of the gatekeeper / pack assembler.

Therefore modpacks are sorted by natural selection and thus lists of mods + configs are sorted by natural selection resulting in individual mods being selected.

Yes. They are selected based on ... what? You claim "mod quality". I claim "pack notoriety and descriptions".

A "sufficiently diverse", along with "Interesting description", bar for the whole pack and not for any single mod in the pack.

This actually points me towards an open license where derivative works would have to have a tribute to the original somewhere noticeable.

Gee, how useful is that? A single line and link in the modpack description?

My biggest issue with modpack descriptions is that they are, after the paragraph of fluff, usually just (and this seems to be the standard for curse packs) an alphabetical list of mods and a link, with no explanation of what a mod is/does.

Level of usefulness, on a 1-9 scale: 2.

Because in order to become a popular modpack it must be a good modpack or else if it was popular by the name attached to it its popularity will decrease dramatically after launch. Therefore the end gameplay experience was better than the original. That doesn't mean every user tried the old version, it means that the users that did, the active and informed who play newly released modpacks and determine if they become popular, enjoyed it more and then that snowballed into more users trying it and either liking it or disliking it. Assuming we have the above open license then if they disliked it they could try the initial mod

I ...

Because in order to become a popular modpack it must be a good modpack or else if it was popular by the name attached to it its popularity will decrease dramatically after launch.

Maybe someone wants to play with friends, and doesn't care about 35% of the mods in the pack (quite reasonable -- imagine a pack with 4 different magic mods, 5 different tech mods, 10 different decorative worldgen thingies from dungeons to forts to plants to ... -- are you going to play with everything in there, or just the stuff that you are at least partially introduced to?)

"Good" modpack? How does "popular" equate to "good", when "stuff another mod in" generally means more people can play what they want at no cost to those that don't want to use that just added mod?

In fact, I can probably stop (I won't) at that point. If adding another mod to the pack only increases the potential range of players with no disadvantage, then we expect packs to be dominated by "biggest range of players".

That's like saying "I can configure Thaumcraft so that there's no purple zones of death in the world, but I can't configure ChromaticCraft so there's no zapping colored death, so Thaumcraft wins" -- not because one mod is better, but because one mod won't cost players and the other will.

Therefore the end gameplay experience was better than the original. That doesn't mean every user tried the old version, it means that the users that did, the active and informed who play newly released modpacks and determine if they become popular, enjoyed it more and then that snowballed into more users trying it ...

Two errors in this segment. There is nothing about "gameplay experience is better than the original". Very few modpacks document anything in-game. It can be hard to get documentation on mods from web sites/wikis (not a joke. Many mods are basically "load it up and give it a try".) So with many mods having little documentation, it becomes "what behaves the way you expected?". Reika's mods generally don't behave the way people used to "Just plug the machine in and you're done" expect.

The second? Your comment (bolded) about some people basically spreading the word about certain mods -- Direwolf20, EthoSlab, etc. Gatekeepers of a different kind.

It's still about "what's popular because X", where X has nothing to do with "mod is good", and only "mod is liked by popular person Y".

Have you ever...ever...developed professionally in the private sector?

Your talk of "opening doors" to dramatic changes is absolutely insane. Its like apple refusing to add video capability to their phones because people might ask for internet capability next.

Apple said, flat out: "No Flash. Period".
People say "Apple, let us do what we want with our device", and Apple says, "Jailbreaking is illegal, voids warranty, and you agreed not to when you agreed to the TOS".

This is _EXACTLY_ how the private sector behaves now. "We control what you can do with what you paid for". You pay Reika $0, and Reika says "Here is the TOS".

 

[Reika]

Is Thaumcraft better than Botania? I think there's RF conversion for Botania but not Thaumcraft. Both are "magic" mods, which just means reskinned tech.

I am in agreement with everything else in your post, but there is one correction here:

There are ways of converting RF to aspects. I believe Technomancy had one, and I remember playing with a mod on my 1.6.4 pack that had a way. I will fully admit I used it quite a great deal, because aspects were rare and hard to find but RF was trivial because of my fusion reactor.

 

[keybounce]

I had no idea that there was an RF to Thaumcraft aspects.
I did think that there was two-way between Botania's magic pools and RF.
(And, that's about my limit of knowledge of Botania -- magic pools to operate magic flowers to do things.)

 

[Pyure]

I may have ultimate control over what gets put in, but - and this is the part you seem to have missed - people still make demands, and act like I am unreasonable for refusing them. Noone reasonable suggests the things on the further end of the scale now, but what if I open the door and then someone like - just as an example - Watchful or Iskandar asks for bigger changes to be configurable? I am not going to have the same power to refuse as I do now, because turning THAT down is all too easily painted in the light of an egotistical control freak with no regard to others' desires. As soon as anyone influential asks for something, I am going to be put in the same position as now: Either put it in or be criticized and ridiculed for it.

You're talking in a tangle here. We're talking about evaluating user input. Your current stance in these posts appears to be "saying any input is good and worth implementation is a bad idea because it sets a bad precedence." I know that's not your actual stance, so its annoying when you use it as your argument.

Almost no end users use the configs. Packs use them all the time. And that pairing together is why this is such a big deal. And you yourself have criticized me for config option behavior you thought was default, in a debate where you were trying to argue that noone reasonable makes that mistake! Before you paint it as such, that is not me holding a grudge, that is me remembering that incident as a very good example of the kind of thing I am talking about.

I'm not sure how this is even connected to the feasibility and logic of adding trivial configuration.

To me, this is not an argument against meltdowns themselves, but an argument in favor of adding radiation cleaning ability. THAT is something I am much more willing to do.

You've rejected this notion on your RoC suggestions thread. Also, its still not workable in a static map pack where the player has a tiny amount of space to work with. They can't be blowing holes in the walls of their vessel, which is the entire universe, and losing the game because of an experimentation gone wrong.

This is a no-argument scenario where its absolutely critical that the tools available to the player do not create instant-lose scenarios.

@Pyure: Does the fact I got reactor chunkloading to work - thus eliminating what has historically been your biggest complaint with the meltdown mechanic - affect your position? What about with the above response to goreae?

It makes a really big difference Reika, honestly it does. But there's zero place for area-of-effect explosions or radiation contamination in the scenario I'm attempting to construct. It's just not workable, period. If the blocks vanished or stopped working or turned into something like Lava, I'd totally get it. But one mod cannot destroy all the works the player has done around it.

What is the current radius of effect of a meltdown? I may be misremembering the area of effect, in which case I'd concede the problem isn't as bad as I think.

That's why evolution is not concerned with "who is better at living"; it is concerned with "who is better at reproducing in this current environment".

Ok so I think we're agreed on this point? But the problem is that I think you're assuming there's no other valid competitors in that environment, and there are.

Apple said, flat out: "No Flash. Period".
People say "Apple, let us do what we want with our device", and Apple says, "Jailbreaking is illegal, voids warranty, and you agreed not to when you agreed to the TOS".

This is _EXACTLY_ how the private sector behaves now. "We control what you can do with what you paid for". You pay Reika $0, and Reika says "Here is the TOS".

And take that a step further. What happens when Microsoft does it, or Blackberry? The person who provides the best deal for my zero dollars gets my business.

Obviously Reika doesn't care about my "business", but he does prefer to hold onto his product. He doesn't, and I don't, want the rug pulled out from under him.

In that regard, out of respect for the enjoyment I used to get from his mods, I constantly try to help him with that effort. This one tiny change would bring me back to a suite of mods I haven't played since 2014 and I would love to tinker with again.

I don't envision any scenario where it causes a negative cascade of effects. He has entire threads supposedly devoted to user input and ideas. How is this any different?