Universal Electricity vs IC2 pros & cons
- Thread starter Lonewolf187
- 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
Aye, it used to also cause massive lag, previously. Prolly just needs a little fixing by their respective authors. Still kinda annoying, though...I try to stick to one kind of wiring per type of power generation (at most), if I can help it. Keeps things consistent. Also, irritating derail is becoming irritating.
Well, I'd really like a proponent of IC2 show the other side of the coin here, as long as he didn't resort to ad-hominem, strawman, and No True Scotsmen methodologies. Debate is no good if only one side is represented.
I'd really like to meet someone willing to engage in open and friendly debate who doesn't start attacking the skill level of anyone who doesn't agree with him in his opening paragraph, and who is willing to extol the virtues of IC2 rather than simply start bashing everything else. Mudslinging is not a good way to win a reasoned debate (despite the overall success it demonstrates in the political field), you have to make your side stand up for something other than 'the other side sucks worse' if you want to encourage people to use it.
but on a brighter note if it wasnt for buildcraft and industrial craft we probably would'nt have the technology mods we have now but sometimes things arent just as simple and times will say that new ones will always better the old guard but thats just me
Probably the best corner stone point that you can make on the topic. IC2, in mod terms, is old. And no, it hasn't had much content added onto it for awhile. But somethings that are often overlooked are still very neat from a player perspective. For example, on my 1.5.2 world, I have a black exterior for my base, but a white coated inside, with only 1 block thick walls. This is possible via the Obfuscator and Construction Foam harden blocks. Simply pick the texture I want to apply, and paint the CFoam blocks like so. Sure, it's a bit expensive in EU to use, but considering that aesthetic design is a bit of an end-game luxury anyway, it's not half bad. And certainly better than trying to get said design via microblocks. Plus, having a machine spit out building blocks for almost every important resource in the game is also a powerful tool as far as resource management goes. The only thing the alternatives offer is carving up the Minecraft world in nice squares, or tedious puzzle games playing Gregor Mendel...
Infinite life tools, compact food usage, renewable energy application, these are other things that IC has classically offered in Minecraft. Yet, when people often talk about IC2, the opponents of the mod only focus on the resource penalties that come with using it, and seem to toss these other benefits aside as 'dated relics' in Minecraft history. Perhaps if one side of the argument wasn't so demanding to get the game design that they wished, sensible discussion about IC2 could be commonplace. But again, this is the internet: where no one knows you are a dog, and everyone else's opinion about the matter must be incorrect...
Tons of people make their living either by owning or working for firms involved in Java development. It is serious in a wide variety of contexts.
---Sorry guys what I wrote below is a bit long, maybe even a bit preachy. I don't mean it to be preachy (I know I don't make the rules of polite minecraft discourse). Feel free to ignore everything below (but if you haven't played Engineer's Toolbox the footnote might be interesting).
I think the mod being a hobby is not what excuses "bad game design". I think that the fact that player, thunderdark et al are responsible for the mod (is it still owned by Alklaba?) is what allows them to do whatever they want with it, even if that involves bad game design. However, just because a piece of work submitted to the public is the product of a hobby does not exempt it from being judged harshly. So long as the tone of criticism isn't overly rude and/or personal/gratuitous it doesn't even really need to be constructive. Besides this forum is largely for players of the FTB and the mods. Only a few mod authors make threads here. Here I think it is definately ok to make unconstructive criticisms of a mod because that is just people sharing their opinions and you're not badgering the devs with repetitive, gratuitous complaints at their own place on the internet. (It would probably be rude and unnecessary to go over to Emasher's thread in mod discussions and say "Engineer's Toolbox is rubbish because it sucks" without giving a constructive explanation why though - same reason I wouldn't go to wherever player makes himself contactable by IC2 users and badmouth his mod [constructive criticism is obviously ok]).
Besides, the tone of this thread (besides a couple of small exchanges that were caught by a moderator) has been fairly civil. Besides, if the thread was full of vitriol it would have been locked long before it reached 8 pages. If it was full of people just bad mouthing IC2 and giving no reason it would probably died long before it reached 8 pages because because those threads are boring. The fact that this discussion is so long suggests that many people are interested in the topic and want to read and share opinions with other forum members. (Did I just get off-topic? It's late where I live <need a tired face smiley>).
Footnote:
I actually love Engineer's Toolbox. I have been using it extensively in my 1.5 world and it has been great. For those dissatisfied with IC2 and want more interesting and new tech mods, if you haven't already, check out Emashers mods. In fact, even if you are still a fan of IC2 you should still check it out! They are different to all mods I have played before and by the looks of it they improved drastically in 1.6.4.
Last edited:
But not in Minecraft UNLESS you work for Mojang. (and even then, I personally think that's a bit debatable)...
No, stop right there. Responsibility over WHAT? Your ability to be entertained? The way the mod is created? The features it has? The color of the blocks? No, there is a difference between responsibility and obligation. Yes, they are responsible for the content they create. But, they are not responsible for your enjoyment of it. If you find it's not your cup of tea, then don't drink it. You can request that they change something if you dislike it, but at the end of the day it's up to them to decide if they are going to listen to your proposal or not. Patronizing them just because they didn't accept your suggestive action does nothing but start discontent with the state of the mod as is, and gives the player-base a false impression of the mod. Thankfully, neither Greg nor Thunderdark or Player are the types of people who worry about pleasing the populous over every executive decision in the manner.
And thankfully, there are alternatives to IC2 in some functions. That is the beauty in this community: that not everyone has to play with the same set of mods in Minecraft. Nor should they have to, as Minecraft is a very big sandbox as-is. The user should be allowed to decide for themselves what mods they like, and should be encouraged to try out the mods for themselves without second-hand bias. If they find they don't like something, then by all means remove it. But don't just bandwagon against something just because "everyone said so." Take the time to find out why. The only difference in this new E-Net system is that you have to throttle your generation outputs with transformers before they get to your Storage blocks. Plus, with the removal of the EU packet system, spamming renewables on a server is much less laggy than in the past. This helps encourage green energy in server play, and allows server admins to remove previous restrictions or require add-on's for using those types of EU generation online.
Yes, IC2 requires careful planning. Yes, you have to ensure correct wiring methods in order to prevent destroying your setups. But the bar is not set at impossible levels. You can still power your set-ups, and still run machines in a smooth, systematic manner. Some people enjoy brainstorming and idea, drawing up preliminary designs, and implementing their blueprints to their worlds with concise precision. But, then again there are those that don't...
If that is the case, then by all means play with something else. Just don't discourage the interested on your way out, though...
I mean responsible as in they are writing the mod. I felt uncomfortable using the word "own" because I don't know who owns IC2 and IC2-ex (is it Alklaba, is it player? I just wanted to avoid making that particular mistake).
I thought about what you said about not "discouraging interest on my way out" (way out of what?). I don't think I actually expressed an opinion about IC2 in my post. You might say that I told people how to behave (although with the disclaimer that I wasn't trying to preach, I have no right to expect others to go about to my standards after all) but I never told people how to think. I did edit my foot note though because I realised that you can enjoy Engineer's Toolbox without ditching IC2.
Finally, patronize isn't a synonym for criticize. Your usage of the word is confusing because in addition to describing a way of talking to or about something that is condescending, it also means to regularly support something like a business or organisation or a person.
For example, Homer Simpson patronizes Moe's Tavern, King Charles I patronizes Rubens, I patronize COFH for Thermal Expansion updates.
Are people really being condescending to the IC2 devs. Yes some people might say mean things about them but that just means they are saying mean things.
Starting a new post because this one has a different theme.
I happen to enjoy planning my builds and they are often very complicated. I haven't actually played IC2-ex so I should be careful about expressing opinions on it. From watching Direwolf20s forgecraft videos I can't say that IC2 is the thing attracting me the most to an eventual 1.6 update. I stopped having fun with classic IC2 a few months ago when I made a mistake. I had made this crazy complex resource processing room. It probably had about 30 machines from different mods and I think I used about 5 or 6 different item transport systems to each perform specialised tasks. It was all running on buildcraft power from my boiler room. I wanted to hook up a mass fab in there after awhile so I started setting up the recyclers. I actually really like the recycling mechanic. That was quite fun. Then I put down my mass fabricator which was a bit of a boring magic box to be honest (I know they have changed it but has UU matter been fully implemented yet?). However, it was still fun to hook it up to my item transport system because I was learning logistics pipes. I didn't want to set up a seperate IC2 power gen so I used meks universal cable which was receiving power from my boilers. I ended up feeding too much power into the mass fab by mistake and it exploded with the force of a nuke inside the resource processing room, obliterating that complex build and ruining a huge chunk of the rest of my base. I admit, it was my mistake which led to the explosion, but knowing that doesn't make me any happier about it. At least now I put another contingency plan into my builds. Avoid IC2.
OpenBlocks allows you to color in 256 bit rather than 16 bit, and permits you to apply stencils to be able to not only color each side individually, but do patterns within each face.
Mekanism also has all of these. Well, except for the compact food usage, which was obviated by Vanills's baked potatoes.
What 'other benefits' are being touted as 'dated relics'? You're beating up on strawmen again.
Ad Hominem attack, accusing people in favor of Mekanism of demanding to get the game design they wished, and attacking their worthiness to debate the issue rather than the issue at hand.
And this is a classic Argumentum ad martyrdom, or Galileo Gambit. I am persecuted, therefore I must be right.
Shall we dispense with the logical fallacies and debate the matter at hand?
So far, you have cited infinite life tools, compact food usage, and renewable energy application as supporting IC2. Yet Mekanism also has energy-based tools (for that matter, so does TiCo, and theirs can run off of IC2 power or off of the new TE3 Redstone Flux) and renewable energy application. As far as compact food usage, vanilla fixed that when they permitted food to stack. Canned food was really only that important back when that was not the case. A stack of baked potatoes, for example, holds far more food value than a stack of canned food does. Therefore, canned food no longer holds any viable value, and you are literally paying for the privilege of being screwed as it also costs tin for the cans and more resources for the canning machine, and the energy to run it.
So, what else do you have to propose in favor of IC2?
What part of "classically offered" did you not understand?
At least you have the ability to explain a rational thought behind your emotions against the mod. I'm sorry your base was completely destroyed. I imagine that it was hideously infuriating. In a case like that, I can see why 'exploding machines' may drive someone from a mod. But, and I don't expect you to do this either, maybe it's just better to accept that it was just a simple accident and leave the issue be at that? Yes, I know you lost alot of work from that incident, and yes, it made you terribly upset. But this is a game of blocks. A sandbox of infinite possibilities. Why get so bent out of shape over something like that in a video game?
But nonetheless, I thank you for explaining your thought process on the issue. It is certainly alot better to see the emotion first hand in a text than having to click the ignore button due to dead end egotism. Perhaps in your case, an alternative would be better suited, and I don't blame you for doing so, considering what you encountered. I've not had anything like that happen to me with IC2, but hey, I guess your mileage may vary...
Last edited:
To me the only reason why I had to ditch IC2 was because... ITS JUST THAT DAMN BUGGY... in fact I was playing creatively to test the limits of my mods I found out that IC2 is making me lag severely... yeah and thats for IC2 experimental I suffered in IC2 for 1.5.4 was the mass fab spamming my forge log
I think there was an issue of console spam that was resolved not to long ago, but idk if it's on the last version of 1.5.4. Kinda pointless now, unless you still play on that version of Minecraft...
Also: in the Jenkins changelog...
#303 (Nov 14, 2013 10:20:36 AM)
- disable machine explosions until the energy net is capable of simulating the voltage properly — player / detail
- merge bottler code with InvSlotConsumableLiquid — player / detail
How long that will last is anyone's guess...
I have decided to make a suggestion on behalf of some of the people on this forum for a change in the machine exploding mechanic on the IC2 forums. AS I've had time to sleep on the matter more, I will admit having craters appear in your machine rooms is beyond infuriating, and detracts from game-play. However, as I am a person that prefers such a penalty to be in place, I have offered an alternative to said effect, so that overcharging a machine can be a bit more forgivable when dealing with additive voltages...
As a replacement, I'd suggest perhaps having the machines not explode, but simply break, requiring some kind of craftable, single-use item to restore them to a functional state. Perhaps even have different "restoration modules" for different machine tiers, with the higher tier ones being more expensive; ie: requiring advanced circuits and more expensive cables over a simple circuit + tin cable combo. That way, your machine still breaks when you apply a higher voltage than it can withstand, but its not as angering as blowing a hole in your base.
Best not to assume.
I followed the link and while the suggestion doesn't remove explosions entirely it does, however, reduce the explosion radius to practically only the block itself with the possibility of fires to close-by flammable materials. While I, myself, don't find that optimal, it is a far better solution than the current implementation where a single mistake can destroy an entire IC2 base due to the current e-net mechanics.
Remember that progress comes a step at a time. A step in the right direction is still better than no step at all.
- Status