I'd honestly miss the jetpack =/
Although i will admit that not having it does add something to the game, it makes many things very easy.
The future of FTB Modpacks pt 2
- Thread starter slowpoke
- Start date
-
The FTB Forum is now read-only, and is here as an archive. To participate in our community discussions, please join our Discord! https://ftb.team/discord
- Status
I'd honestly miss the jetpack =/
Although i will admit that not having it does add something to the game, it makes many things very easy.
ModularPowerSuits can run off of MJ with an MJ charging block KingLemming added to TE at her request, but I can't remember the name of it unfortunately. I think I'm going to try to go IC2less as well.
Energetic Infuser.
Of course, you technically don't need a charger at all, you can put a kinetic generator on the suit and run around to refill it.
Creative Mode style flight is far far worse than IC2 flight - this is what things like the Graviplate, Thaumcraft, Ars Magica all use.
Modular Power suits flight manages to be worse. A feat I originally thought impossible.
My biggest concern at this point is that this new policy doesn't do anything to reduce the risk of future spats between the mod makers; as it stands, the policy essentially says "mod X and mod Y can go into all the code wars they want to, as long as the user's world isn't corrupted and the game doesn't crash"--note how it specifically allows the modmakers to "weaponize" their code to get what they want. The problem with this is...well, let me use the GregTech vs. Tinker's Construct conflict as an example.
If Greg hadn't designed his code to specifically crash the game, Tinker's Construct would have successfully altered the wood plank recipe back to normal. Under the policy Slow has outlined in the original post, Greg and mDiyo could have reverted and unreverted each others' code over and over again, with the recipe potentially changing and reverting with every single update, and neither of them would be breaking the rule because the mod developers' actions would fall under their protected ability to "add code to a mod which is targetted at preventing their mod from being used in a way against their wishes as long as they take all reasonable measures to protect the integrity of a players world and where possible ensure that the end user is sufficiently warned in advance." Likewise, they could add screens and screens of update messages arguing with each other and warning the player not to use the other's mod, and it would fall within that definition.
Now obviously, I doubt Slow and the others on the modpack team would allow that kind of behavior, especially since it would affect the user's experience in a negative way. But it's still a loophole, and I'm worried that somewhere down the line someone is going to end up trying to abuse it, which will result in another stressful revisit. Better to close it now, in my opinion.
I also think the word "allow" should be included somewhere in the actual ruling, to remind the mod authors that yes, you are allowing their mods into your pack just as much as they are allowing you to use their mods. It's a two-way street. As it stands, you're somewhat undercutting your own authority, which is unfortunate.
On another note, just so I can get a complete view of everything that's been said, is there any sort of video archive of the livestream Slow did with Dire I can see? Just so I can be sure I'm not completely misunderstanding anything.
If Greg hadn't designed his code to specifically crash the game, Tinker's Construct would have successfully altered the wood plank recipe back to normal. Under the policy Slow has outlined in the original post, Greg and mDiyo could have reverted and unreverted each others' code over and over again, with the recipe potentially changing and reverting with every single update, and neither of them would be breaking the rule because the mod developers' actions would fall under their protected ability to "add code to a mod which is targetted at preventing their mod from being used in a way against their wishes as long as they take all reasonable measures to protect the integrity of a players world and where possible ensure that the end user is sufficiently warned in advance." Likewise, they could add screens and screens of update messages arguing with each other and warning the player not to use the other's mod, and it would fall within that definition.
Now obviously, I doubt Slow and the others on the modpack team would allow that kind of behavior, especially since it would affect the user's experience in a negative way. But it's still a loophole, and I'm worried that somewhere down the line someone is going to end up trying to abuse it, which will result in another stressful revisit. Better to close it now, in my opinion.
I also think the word "allow" should be included somewhere in the actual ruling, to remind the mod authors that yes, you are allowing their mods into your pack just as much as they are allowing you to use their mods. It's a two-way street. As it stands, you're somewhat undercutting your own authority, which is unfortunate.
^^^^This should be included in the official ruling. This right here needs to be THE number 1 rule for anything regarding anything FTB-related, period.
On another note, just so I can get a complete view of everything that's been said, is there any sort of video archive of the livestream Slow did with Dire I can see? Just so I can be sure I'm not completely misunderstanding anything.
That is exactly the policy and exactly the intent. The solution for your concerns? Dev's requesting to not be shipped with GregTech.
Speaking of which, has King Lemming found out that Greg nerfed the TE Sawmill yet?
GregTech intentionally crashing the game is no different than it being defective. A defective mod would be removed from the pack or reverted to an earlier version until it's fixed.
If it comes to people feeling they need to disassemble his mod to ensure he's removed such code, then the lack of trust should reflect on whether the mod should be included anymore, regardless.
If it comes to people feeling they need to disassemble his mod to ensure he's removed such code, then the lack of trust should reflect on whether the mod should be included anymore, regardless.
i though KL stated that sawmill giving 4 planks was a bug. or its something different that`ve missed?
if FTB team has disabled TiC`s config for wood
Due to the disaproval from how hard/tedius GT makes the game from the people of the server I am admin on, we would be disabling such things in GT config anyway. But there are so many very awesome new blocks with it, that I really would hate to lose it altogether, if its possible to use it with unleashed. I'd never give up Thaumcraft for GT though. I r wizard at heart. Thanks for the reply :]
...well, with GT, it could choose to crash at anytime for any reason.[DOUBLEPOST=1374321134][/DOUBLEPOST]
Oh does the 4 planks predate GT nerfing of wood? I never noticed.
the 4 planks thing was quite a while ago. so you`re saying that recent wood nerf also nerfs TE sawmill?
if that`s the case, i expect more drama coming...
- Status