Reika's Update Checker

[Celestialphoenix]

no, I'm saying for the hypothetical of a server, why would I be dropping an individual mod or config instead of a full updated pack?

Depends on what the hypothetical server is running- might be one or two mods [negating the need for a fully fledged pack], or running a well known pack with a customised config setting [very common thing to do].

And now it's even easier than what it use to be.
Add mods to an FTB pack, start server. Server has crashed due to conflicting IDs. &^$#. Ok. Lemme go fix that. Restart server. Server has crashed due to conflicting IDs. (&$@. Ok, finally fixed it, server boots up. Cannot connect to server, client has conflicting IDs. (#&$.
...Why is that tree made out of ender chests?

Was mostly referring to end users installing mods on the client [either SSP or to join a server], not for setting up a server itself [a little more complex, but again there is a lot of help and guidance available].

Though willingness to learn is equally valid in either way.​

 

[Reika]

Also, remember: one of the main arguments made by the FTB team about lesser mod counts in their packs now is that adding mods is trivial for the end user, so customization is simple and expected. This is fundamentally incompatible with the argument made earlier that only the technically inclined elite can make packs.

And again, as said by @Celestialphoenix , adding a mod now is so incredibly simple, and with as many tutorials and guides as exist,that anyone unable to meet even that very low bar are either unwilling to learn or incapable of doing it even when told exactly what to do, and people like that really are not worth considering. And as I have been saying, this is doubly true for highly technical mods like mine.

 

[Kotaro]

Also, remember: one of the main arguments made by the FTB team about lesser mod counts in their packs now is that adding mods is trivial for the end user, so customization is simple and expected. This is fundamentally incompatible with the argument made earlier.

Yep, the whole idea behind the new pack style and the curse launcher is to help make packs more a la carte. You know, this isn't just a Reika's mods issue, the new style is going to create false/incorrect bug reports to most devs across the board.

 

[Reika]

Also, I have been doing some more reading, and I am finding more and more people, including major pack devs, saying things like the following:
[In regard to a "Disable all notifications for everyone forever" option/mod]

Because then everyone would turn it off and no one would see any notifications.

Oh wait, that's what we want.

That did not come from someone random. That did not come from a pack dev who wants to make a pack then forget it. That comes from an extremely well-respected member of the community in charge of managing many packs.

Now, the question this leads me to: If they are saying it, are you still so sure that the people who want to just ignore updates as long as they please are only the ones who do not know what they are doing?

 

[ljfa]

Also, I have been doing some more reading, and I am finding more and more people, including major pack devs, saying things like the following:
[In regard to a "Disable all notifications for everyone forever" option/mod]

CC @Watchful11

 

[Reika]

CC Watchful11

I was avoiding calling him because I did not want to waste his time with him responding to this...


But yes. Argue all you want about the ability to hide it from end users or lengths of grace periods or the risk of updating too rapidly. These are legitimate arguments that can be discussed.
Hopefully, however, people can now see why I so deeply do not want a total disable config, because it is clearly not just random people I have to be afraid of doing things like updating to v19 when v22 is out and then six months later updating to v23 when v25 is out.

 

[SynfulChaot]

Also, I have been doing some more reading, and I am finding more and more people, including major pack devs, saying things like the following:
[In regard to a "Disable all notifications for everyone forever" option/mod]


That did not come from someone random. That did not come from a pack dev who wants to make a pack then forget it. That comes from an extremely well-respected member of the community in charge of managing many packs.

Now, the question this leads me to: If they are saying it, are you still so sure that the people who want to just ignore updates as long as they please are only the ones who do not know what they are doing?

He likely wants that option for the same reason *I* do. To hide update notifications from the end user as they're not the pack maintainers. He knows what he's doing, just as I do. To allude that he doesn't know what he's doing is pretty insulting as he has a *hell* of a lot more experience with modpacks than you do.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Because then everyone would turn it off and no one would see any notifications.
Oh wait, that's what we want.

In all honesty this could mean two things; the second being turn it off so end users don't see notifications [whilst still visible to pack devs]
...and ninja'd by Synful.

 

[Reika]

He knows what he's doing, just as I do. To allude that he doesn't know what he's doing is pretty insulting as he has a *hell* of a lot more experience with modpacks than you do.

...What? What?

One, my whole point is that he does know what he is doing, and that makes his stance of "I never want to see a notification again" so much worse on this - that it is not just people who do not know what they are doing. Please stop skimming my posts then freaking out over your misreadings of them.

And two:

the second being turn it off so end users don't see notifications [still visible to pack devs]

He likely wants that option for the same reason *I* do. To hide update notifications from the end user as they're not the pack maintainers.

Go back and read the thread it was in response to - and @SynfulChaot, you have no excuse, having replied to his comment to disagree with it there - and you will very clearly see that that is not the case.

Plus, again, what about abandoned packs? I notice the "pack maker may not know when the last update is" argument made by someone else also went unaddressed.


And before anyone accuses me: I am not against a "pack maker only" display. I am talking about a "hide it even from the pack maker" option.

 

[SynfulChaot]

...What? What?

One, my whole point is that he does know what he is doing, and that makes his stance of "I never want to see a notification again" so much worse on this - that it is not just people who do not know what they are doing. Please stop skimming my posts then freaking out over your misreadings of them.

Perhaps work on your clarity, then, as I'm not the only one who misinterpreted your statement.

Go back and read the thread it was in response to - and @SynfulChaot, you have no excuse, having replied to his comment to disagree with it there - and you will very clearly see that that is not the case.

I recall that thread quite clearly. I believe he was making use of hyperbole and thus my 'disagreement' or, to be more accurate, me defining it a bit more specifically.

And before anyone accuses me: I am not against a "pack maker only" display. I am talking about a "hide it even from the pack maker" option.

Which is why I'm in hesitant agreement with your intentions provided there isn't an expiration on said option.

 

[Celestialphoenix]

Forgive me if I've missed something, but even in the context of the whole thread; said post is somewhat ambiguous as to which side of the fence it lands.

 

[Reika]

Which is why I'm in hesitant agreement with your intentions provided there isn't an expiration on said option.

The expiration is for primarily for abandoned packs. I know you said that you would personally turn it on at the end of your maintenance "term", but again, the "what if the pack maker leaves unexpectedly" argument has not been addressed (come to think of it, nor has my argument about refusing support to 95% of packs!), nor are you in the majority. I do not cater to the minority, and I am very willing to cost 15 seconds of their time every few months to save me hours at the hands of the majority. If that makes me selfish, then so be it.

The only other option I can think of right now - and I know this is a terrible idea already - is some way to mark a pack as abandoned from my end and trigger the warnings remotely. That is not going to fly, obviously.

 

[keybounce]

I also want to see my server point acknowledged, having made it like 10 times now without it being responded to, addressed, quoted or mentioned.

Ok:

If a server owner is either unable or unwilling to even consider updating mods, they are not fit to run a server.

Depends.

What I'd *love* is, in single player, alongside "Open to LAN", is "Open to internet". Let me specify a port number, open up, and then my friends connect.

I have decided that being part of a large community of strangers that will grief me is not of interest. I tried those servers. Being repeatedly killed, everything I had stolen -- we even tried setting up a base by swimming to the bottom of the ocean and digging in from there, only to be wiped out -- no, random internet players is not for me. As far as I can tell, you have to be a part of a guild that is able to have at least some 24/7 presence, and there are guilds that can do that.

If I was running a single-player game? Then I might actually have a modified RoC that didn't limit engines to 4. Open to Lan? Open to internet? Forestry is in my pack because one person is an ex beekeeper, another is a genetics student (biology grad student, technically). I just want the wood colors for decorations. None of them want RoC, and I don't really want to breed bees. (The Ex Bee Keeper is a "space player", if you are stuck at home. So breeding the perfect gene sequence is just right for him).

So, I run a server. Target audience is about 5 people. I tried, back in 147, to keep it up to date constantly, and one of my players had trouble installing my update pack (to the point that on two separate occasions, I had to use teamviewer to connect to his computer and update him.)

Ease of "type this code into the launcher and you're done"? Wonderful.
Older, "You can only update once a week/we are behind schedule" difficulty with that system?

The new system of "Anyone can submit a pack, and update it at will"? Should make things so much easier. Of course, that launcher won't even run on my system yet .

Yes, I know that part of the appeal of packs is point and click downloads with no further effort,

But, even if server operators could be expected to update their servers, the practical upshot of that is they would no longer be running a server with FTB pack "X". They would be running some custom pack that would require the users to manually patch their mod lists to match. And the user dropoff there is massive.

Up until the new launcher, I'd agree with you.
With this new launcher, I'd say "Maybe not".

Strictly wait and see.

I use FTB packs as a baseline and then add or remove stuff from there,

Which is fine for single player.
Not so much for groups.

Also, 95% of configs are serverside only.

Last time I checked, minetweaker client-side did not use the server's configs. RfTools, until recently, also had a "client-side wins" behavior.

I think the number of server-side configs are much, much higher than 95%. But I think the number of "these are mods that people want to use" may be lower than 95. I don't know.

I do know that I ship customized configs to my players. Because I have not tested my changes against the defaults. Which makes me wonder -- I know item configs are sent from the server to the client, but biome ID's are supposed to be fixed/static -- if, for example, my client config said "Firefly forest is 42", or "Rainbow biome is 55", and the server thought it was something else, what would my client display look like?

As I said: I never tested, I also shipped configs to my players. Back in 147, it was required.

===

As much as my target audience is just a few people, I have a secondary target audience. I'd love to have other people play this pack, on their own. I am going to great effort to customize things, to make what I think will be a more enjoyable game, and I'd like others to enjoy that.

My Jampack 2 submission is basically an early test of some of those ideas. (Ok, not the restricted overworld resources -- that's strictly for jampack.)

 

[Reika]

Ok:

That is not the point I meant, but points for trying. My point I was referring to was this:

the argument - which has still not been acknowledged - that the alternative is "unless you are this specific pack I know keeps up to date, don't bother with support, I do not care".
If I allow modpacks to sit idly by months out of date, with the ability for the author to totally say "I don't care, I like the old version better/I update once a year, that's plenty/If the mod author wrote better code then they wouldn't need me to update", while 5000 users are reporting bugs I fixed longer ago than half my mods existed?
Then I am going to just tell packs they are ineligible for tech support. Do you want that?
Of course not. That will lead to more complaining and accusations of pack hating.
So stop and think.
What exactly is it you want? Because it is starting to sound like people are demanding - but not willing to openly say - they want both tech support and the ability to host old versions as long as they please.

Last time I checked, minetweaker client-side did not use the server's configs. RfTools, until recently, also had a "client-side wins" behavior.

I do not know if this has always been the case, but MT is server side controlled, and RFTools configs being overridden by the client sounds like a bug for most configs.

I may be using a custom RC version

Maybe, but you are the minority and are not who I have in mind when designing policies. Also, doing so both makes you totally ineligible for support anyways and means you are more competent than the majority.

 

[xbony2]

See, there's your problem. You still have faith in humanity!

SO being added to my signature

Random opinion, but the FTB Team SHOULD give an update to old packs like Monster, Unleashed, Ultimate, etc. Considering modders and users have mostly ditched that version, updating each pack should be pretty painless, since there aren't a ton of mods that have been updated. They'd probably only have to do it only once, although there is a small movement of minor interest in older versions

 

[Reika]

SO being added to my signature

Random opinion, but the FTB Team SHOULD give an update to old packs like Monster, Unleashed, Ultimate, etc. Considering modders and users have mostly ditched that version, updating each pack should be pretty painless, since there aren't a ton of mods that have been updated. They'd probably only have to do it only once, although there is a small movement of minor interest in older versions

I am more concerned by the fact that there are still tons of people playing Monster, and most of them never updated beyond 1.1.1, proving that even if the pack updates there is no proof the users will.

Which by the way is another point I would like to see @SynfulChaot and others respond to, seeing as this is something even most pack devs do not want to see be the majority.

 

[Padfoote]

Random opinion, but the FTB Team SHOULD give an update to old packs like Monster, Unleashed, Ultimate, etc. Considering modders and users have mostly ditched that version, updating each pack should be pretty painless, since there aren't a ton of mods that have been updated. They'd probably only have to do it only once, although there is a small movement of minor interest in older versions

The time requirement for testing each of those updates would make that nearly impossible. The team isn't large enough to provide that kind of manpower for packs that are being replaced anyway. Even if they called the entire PT to assist it would still take a very long time.

 

[xbony2]

The time requirement for testing each of those updates would make that nearly impossible. The team isn't large enough to provide that kind of manpower for packs that are being replaced anyway. Even if they called the entire PT to assist it would still take a very long time.

Eh, they would only need to test probably less then 5-10 mods.

 

[Padfoote]

Eh, they would only need to test probably less then 5-10 mods.

That means nothing. One mod being updated introduces the potential of breaking half of the other mods present. Increasing the number of mods being updated increases that chance.

 

[RedBoss]

People like old versions. Even Mojang acknowledges this by offering versions back to Alpha from the vanilla client. You can't make people do what they don't want to do. You can only inconvenience them to the point they drop your mod.