Really stupid things that people have said about Modded MC(Off topicness makes moderators tired)

[pc_assassin]

What if the pack was behind adf.ly? Is that any different from a website because of the amount of ads?

See this is exactly what I'm trying to figure out? Why do somethings matter but others not?

-----------------------------------------------
Sent From Something That You Won't Care About Using Tapatalk 2

 

[Celestialphoenix]

I make a mod pack, afterwards I place a download link to the modpack on my website that has ads.

Depends on individual mod's terms (a fair few allow non-intrusive ads to cover hosting costs, but not for personal gain).
Would also depend if your site is the official front/distribution centre for your pack.

What if the pack was behind adf.ly? Is that any different from a website because of the amount of ads?

Adfly is somewhat intrusive/annoying [compared to a small banner ad at the side].

Also I've heard a lot of things about malicious content being linked in the ads.​

 

[pc_assassin]

Depends on individual mod's terms (a fair few allow non-intrusive ads to cover hosting costs, but not for personal gain).
Would also depend if your site is the official front/distribution centre for your pack.

So if my site was say a secondary place I had my pack and the main was this forum to allow for discussion, bug reports, etc. Then would you say its fine?

Adfly is somewhat intrusive/annoying [compared to a small banner ad at the side].

Also I've heard a lot of things about malicious content being linked in the ads.​

Yes adfly has a lot of malicious content, I speak from experience....


-----------------------------------------------
Sent From Something That You Won't Care About Using Tapatalk 2

 

[CoolSquid]

So if my site was say a secondary place I had my pack and the main was this forum to allow for discussion, bug reports, etc. Then would you say its fine?

You can have a small banner. Not anything intrusive though.

 

[pc_assassin]

You can have a small banner. Not anything intrusive though.

Ok so its just how obvious the ad is?

-----------------------------------------------
Sent From Something That You Won't Care About Using Tapatalk 2

 

[ljfa]

Ok so its just how obvious the ad is?

I guess everyone will be giving different answers here.
I think it's bad if the ad is not recognizable as such, but it should also not be annoying and intrusive.

 

[Azzanine]

I had an idea. What about replacing the marquee with a hoverable "<!>" and a special config file where you need to specify a 10-character alphanumeric string (supplied by the hover text) for a given mod to turn off its display, where the <!> disappears if all mods are either up-to-date or are marked?

This string would change from version to version.

People complain my updates are too infrequent, and you complain they are too rapid. This whole thing is unwinnable for me.

No, the marquee is fine, perfect actually. It's the marquee's persistence that I personally find irritating (and I heavily assume is the problem others have with it).

Also, everything in life is unwinnable if your goal is to please all. I say update as much as you have been but this permanent marquee is nothing but obnoxious.

I think you have to face the music man, you have a somewhat popular piece of work. You are destined to get derisive streams... no torrents of crap squirted at you from detractors.
You might need to learn to ignore the vast volumes of crap thrown at you and learn to take solace in the praise you get. You seem to take a lot of things to heart that you needn't take on, if you are confident in your own decisions and the quality of your work it shouldn't matter what a few thousand morons think of your work.

You need to learn to be a bit more ignorant towards morons, for all you know you probably feed their torrents of BS by reacting/ responding. You should try just responding to stupid complaints with "cry more" for a month. It can't possibly give you more bad press then you currently get.

 

[ljfa]

You need to learn to be a bit more ignorant towards morons, for all you know you probably feed their torrents of BS by reacting/ responding. You should try just responding to stupid complaints with "cry more" for a month. It can't possibly give you more bad press then you currently get.

I think he's already doing that, but he still has to figure out who's making a useful suggestion and who's just whining.

 

[Reika]

Unless that turns it off for the mod and persists through all sub-version updates (like v4a, v4b, v4c, etc would all stay off). That's acceptable to me, as long as it's not generated completely randomly. If I can't supply my pack users with this update notification display turned off, you're missing the point of this entire debate

This file could be shipped.

if my players log in and see an update notification, I've failed something somewhere. My players should NEVER have to see an update notification, it's not their job to deal with the modpack. As pack maintainer and server admin that would be my job.

Both you and the players would see this notification at the same time, as it would be fetched from the online version file.

Also, being visible to end users is critical, because as you no doubt realize, many packs do not give a damn about remaining updated or just get discontinued but remain being played.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

"Its impossible to please everyone. Unless you're a whore. In a gangbang. Then she tries really hard"

 

[ljfa]

Also, being visible to end users is critical, because as you no doubt realize, many packs do not give a damn about remaining updated or just get discontinued but remain being played.

Makes sense. If the pack author is not launching the game then they won't see the message.

 

[Reika]

After a bit of further thought, here is the problem:

Criteria:

• The pack author, if maintaining the pack, must be made immediately aware of any updates
• Players playing packs that are no longer maintained must be made equally aware of any updates
• The notification must be sufficient to motivate all users to actually make an effort to update, not just "eh, forget it, let's set this config off now"; that is, ignoring the update message must be more work than actually updating
  
• The system must be able to distinguish legitimate "holding off" from laziness or apathy and make accommodations for the former and only the former

Constraints:

• Players playing packs that will be updated soon need not see the notification and must either have a way of turning it off or never seeing it in the first place; the latter is preferable but possibly impossible
  
• Under no circumstances may it be possible for a pack maker or server admin to set a "ignore all updates" flag and happily use old versions months after their release

 

[SynfulChaot]

After a bit of further thought, here is the problem:

Criteria:

• The pack author, if maintaining the pack, must be made immediately aware of any updates
• Players playing packs that are no longer maintained must be made equally aware of any updates
• The notification must be sufficient to motivate all users to actually make an effort to update, not just "eh, forget it, let's set this config off now"; that is, ignoring the update message must be more work than actually updating
  
• The system must be able to distinguish legitimate "holding off" from laziness or apathy and make accommodations for the former and only the former

Constraints:

• Players playing packs that will be updated soon need not see the notification and must either have a way of turning it off or never seeing it in the first place; the latter is preferable but possibly impossible
  
• Under no circumstances may it be possible for a pack maker or server admin to set a "ignore all updates" flag and happily use old versions months after their release

No offense, but a firm stance like that will have practically no pack run with your mods, as good as they may be. You're basically trying to strongarm all modpack makers and server admins to always run the newest version period, even when they have valid reasons *not* to. So instead of putting up with your intrusive attempt at strongarming them, they'll just abandon your mods.

And once again, you prove that you don't understand modpacks or servers in teh slightest.

 

[1M Industries]

No offense, but a firm stance like that will have practically no pack run with your mods, as good as they may be. You're basically trying to strongarm all modpack makers and server admins to always run the newest version period, even when they have valid reasons *not* to. So instead of putting up with your intrusive attempt at strongarming them, they'll just abandon your mods.

And once again, you prove that you don't understand modpacks or servers in teh slightest.

Um. If you create a launcher, you can force users to update, which can be as simple as just clicking the flashing button marked "UPDATE NOW". This allows you to update one place, without tech support, making for extreme ease of use for the pack maker and the user. Also, making a launcher takes about two hours, vs many, many more doing tech support without a custom launcher. Just my two cents. Also, great job on the update marquee, @Reika, it looks good.

 

[Padfoote]

Alright so I've been thinking about this whole version checker debate for a little now and was comparing it to the other mod communities I'm involved in (TES: Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, KSP) and realized they don't have issues with it, or for that matter, update checkers in most cases. KSP has a plugin that allows update notifications to be activated for several plugins, but I can't think of more than a handful that have their own system built in, much less activated by default. I actually don't think there's an update checker available for Skyrim and New Vegas short of the NMM launcher and systems that require the user to click a button to check.

My primary question is why is there such a difference in communities when it comes to this and other things, but I don't think anyone will be able to give a solid answer on that. My other question relates to the upcoming Curse launcher and if that could be used to check for mod updates. Now, I know as much about this launcher as you guys (probably less actually), so I don't know if it's something Curse is looking at doing or will even consider, but if the launcher were to come with the ability to check the installed mod version and compare to their database, would that eliminate some of the arguing on both sides over this? I'm thinking about it being something along the lines of the Nexus Mod Manager (picture attached below for reference) where it would show the installed version next to the current version, as well as a notification if a mod is out of date. This way it's visible before launch, isn't present during gameplay, and cannot be missed unless you don't use the Curse launcher. Obviously, users not using the launcher is still a concern, but this will hopefully eliminate some of the problems that come from FTB modpack users.

So would this solve any problems and make people a bit happier about this whole situation?

Spoiler

 

[Celestialphoenix]

The pack author, if maintaining the pack, must be made immediately aware of any updates

Required as a 6th agreement to redistribute your mods;

"I accept full responsibility to field all tech support enquiries relating to my pack, and to use the most recent update as humanly possible"​

The system must be able to distinguish legitimate "holding off" from laziness or apathy and make accommodations for the former and only the former

You mentioned a keycode access earlier- would it be viable to use similar system to grant specific legacy access to packs that legitimately need it.
(cue the favouritism whiners though its no different to giving the initial permissions)

So instead of putting up with your intrusive attempt at strongarming them, they'll just abandon your mods.

Abandoning or updating; either way that would make his life a lot easier; which is the crux of the problem.

 

[Mattasdqwe]

How about ditching the marquee and going for a screen showing info on out of date mods between clicking play, and actually entering a world.
Similar to this:
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forum...149411-launchgui-a-way-to-notify-your-players
This could show everytime they entered a world and imo be less intrusive whilst still accomplishing the same results.

 

[ljfa]

My other question relates to the upcoming Curse launcher and if that could be used to check for mod updates. Now, I know as much about this launcher as you guys (probably less actually), so I don't know if it's something Curse is looking at doing or will even consider, but if the launcher were to come with the ability to check the installed mod version and compare to their database, would that eliminate some of the arguing on both sides over this?

You can access CurseForge's database with the Curse client and download the latest mod versions. As of now it doesn't seem to notify on updates (as far as I can tell) but I think it's planned.

 

[1M Industries]

Alright so I've been thinking about this whole version checker debate for a little now and was comparing it to the other mod communities I'm involved in (TES: Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas, KSP) and realized they don't have issues with it, or for that matter, update checkers in most cases. KSP has a plugin that allows update notifications to be activated for several plugins, but I can't think of more than a handful that have their own system built in, much less activated by default. I actually don't think there's an update checker available for Skyrim and New Vegas short of the NMM launcher and systems that require the user to click a button to check.

My primary question is why is there such a difference in communities when it comes to this and other things, but I don't think anyone will be able to give a solid answer on that. My other question relates to the upcoming Curse launcher and if that could be used to check for mod updates. Now, I know as much about this launcher as you guys (probably less actually), so I don't know if it's something Curse is looking at doing or will even consider, but if the launcher were to come with the ability to check the installed mod version and compare to their database, would that eliminate some of the arguing on both sides over this? I'm thinking about it being something along the lines of the Nexus Mod Manager (picture attached below for reference) where it would show the installed version next to the current version, as well as a notification if a mod is out of date. This way it's visible before launch, isn't present during gameplay, and cannot be missed unless you don't use the Curse launcher. Obviously, users not using the launcher is still a concern, but this will hopefully eliminate some of the problems that come from FTB modpack users.

So would this solve any problems and make people a bit happier about this whole situation?

Spoiler

That is exactly the system that I meant. I am using it for the modpack that I currently use, and it works very well.

 

[Antaioz]

After a bit of further thought, here is the problem:

Criteria:

• The pack author, if maintaining the pack, must be made immediately aware of any updates
• Players playing packs that are no longer maintained must be made equally aware of any updates
• The notification must be sufficient to motivate all users to actually make an effort to update, not just "eh, forget it, let's set this config off now"; that is, ignoring the update message must be more work than actually updating
  
• The system must be able to distinguish legitimate "holding off" from laziness or apathy and make accommodations for the former and only the former

Constraints:

• Players playing packs that will be updated soon need not see the notification and must either have a way of turning it off or never seeing it in the first place; the latter is preferable but possibly impossible
  
• Under no circumstances may it be possible for a pack maker or server admin to set a "ignore all updates" flag and happily use old versions months after their release

how hard is it to timestamp releases and feed that info into minecraft along with the update check?

If you can distinguish between a pack maker and a user by using something similar to Coolsquid's method, then perhaps one way to not bother users of up-to-date packs is to have something like a 2-week* grace period for them. Users of out-of-date packs would usually be using mod versions that are over two weeks old*, so they'll be asked to update. When this happens, you can remove the 'user' status so it has to be restored by a pack maker supplying an update.

In this way:
- People not using a mod pack, or pack maintainers, are immediately notified of updates (if they load up).
- People using an out-of-date pack are no longer flagged as 'users' if the version one above the one they're using is over two weeks old*, meaning they will start to receive update notifications just as a pack maker would. (so if I'm a user using v4a, I'll be notified when v4b is over two weeks old*)

Edit: third point invalid .

The only thing unaccounted for is 'holding off' rather than laziness, which could be hard to detect. Although it does allow 'holding off' for up to two weeks*, which could probably be deemed 'enough'

* it doesn't have to be two weeks.