It certainly is. Kinda sad. Anyone from the 3rd party pack team willing to say anything about quality requirements?Looks like having permissions for all the mods is what matters the most there.
It certainly is. Kinda sad. Anyone from the 3rd party pack team willing to say anything about quality requirements?Looks like having permissions for all the mods is what matters the most there.
I made a pack once. It was not very good. Got on the launcher.It certainly is. Kinda sad. Anyone from the 3rd party pack team willing to say anything about quality requirements?
Well the majority is only accessible through pack codes right?I made a pack once. It was not very good. Got on the launcher.
Yes, but still. FTB is supposed to be the launcher for good, high quality packs. Btw, there are many packs not updated since January last year. I suggest a cleanup.Well the majority is only accessible through pack codes right?
But on the other hand the people who approve packs obviously don't have time to test every single pack thoroughly.Yes, but still. FTB is supposed to be the launcher for good, high quality packs.
That's true, but it should be some requirements. Maybe a tool autochecking the amount of differences between original configs and the current configd?But on the other hand the people who approve packs obviously don't have time to test every single pack thoroughly.
I would guess pack quality is not really correlated to the number of config changes.Maybe a tool autochecking the amount of differences between original configs and the current configd?
No, but the amount of effort may be partially measured in how much config tweaking is done. I just realised that the most important for me isn't the quality, but the effort put into it.I would guess pack quality is not really correlated to the number of config changes.
No, but the amount of effort may be partially measured in how much config tweaking is done. I just realised that the most important for me isn't the quality, but the effort put into it.
It certainly is. Kinda sad. Anyone from the 3rd party pack team willing to say anything about quality requirements?
That's understandable. If it's possible, I would enjoy if packs last updated in January last year was removed though.As far as I know, the only requirements are permissions. The team doesn't have the time to play each pack to look for quality in them. That would be hundreds of hours per week easily, and as they're just volunteers, that won't happen. If you really want to know, maybe @Gideonseymour will chime in. Maybe.
That's understandable. If it's possible, I would enjoy if packs last updated in January last year was removed though.
No, but the last post was a over a year ago in some of them. A few of them didn't even have one reply. I don't really think too many users still use the pack.Keep in mind people still use previous MC versions. Not everyone can or wants to be on the latest version of MC.
No, but the last post was a over a year ago in some of them. A few of them didn't even have one reply. I don't really think too many users still use the pack.
My hierarchy is: Eclipse > MultiMC > FTB > ATLauncher > NEVER!Meh, ever launcher's gonna have its shite packs. At least the FTB launcher looks like it was designed by halfway competent people. Though, in terms of design, MultiMC beats 'em all. My hierarchy is MultiMC > FTB > ATLauncher > Technic.
Technically 2-legged ones are WYVERNS"Skyrim dragons"
EWWWWWW. No! No two-legged pesudo-dragons! All dragons must be quadrupeds!
...Yeah, that's my only real stylistic beef with Skyrim. I can't take the dragons seriously as a threat when they can't even preen over me like a proper, majestic creature the size of a skyscraper ought to be. Otherwise, they're just stupid-looking, featherless birds that so happen to breathe fire.
(Why, yes, I am a Blood Knight, why do you ask?)
I really dislike it. It's just so AAAARGH!!!Man, Technic is just the best.
*run and hide from CoolSquid's wrath*
Why?I really dislike it. It's just so AAAARGH!!!