Since the mod is still heavily in development, I feel like this is the best time to make suggestions. They are provided as-is, based on my opinion and playing experience. For all suggestions made, I aim to provide an example of how I would do it; but if you like the suggestion but not my example, that's fine as well. They are mostly aimed at improving the nebulous concept of "user experience" - improving accessibility, simplifying uneccessarily confusing things, improving the fun factor and modernizing outdated mechanics to today's accepted modding standards.
1.) Replace all references to "voltage" with "power". Only EU/t remains under the new e-net; talking about anything else only confuses the player. Thankfully, only few instances remain ingame. A lot of them are replaced with either "tier x" or an EU/t figure already. What remains are mostly transformers. Instead of "LV transformer", for example, we should maybe have a "LP transformer", or a "tier 1 transformer".
2.) Remove step-up functionality from transformers. Stepping up is performed automatically by the e-net, by simply connecting multiple sources to the same cable. Setting them to fixed step down mode by default and removing access to the transformer GUI will do it. (Right now, the transformer GUI is only an invitation for user error.)
3.) Rework the crop system. Yes, potentially big change, but you can do a lot to make it more usable with very little effort. The biggest issue with it currently lies in the cryptic and counter-intuitive mechanics related to biome choice and elevation dependency. Simply removing that, and basing performance completely on the current biome's temperature and humidity, will instantly result in the whole system becoming vastly more accessible and logical. As another change, making the crops compatible with Forestry farms (again, they used to be but are not anymore) could provide an automation solution. Players can put crop-matrons just above the plants on a multifarm in order to provide water, fertilizer and weed-ex as needed.
Here's a more detailed collection of ideas on how things could work:
Remove all dependency on y-level/height.
Instead of having all plants behave equally better or worse depending on your biome choice, as it is now, plants could have individual preferences.
Three existing plant stats: growth, gain and resist (Rename "gain" to "yield" to make its purpose clearer)
Additional new plant stats: desired temperature, desired humidity
For simplicity, desired temperature/humidity stats could be species locked and not passed on through crossing like the other stats are.
If desired temperature and desired humidity match the biome exactly, plant grows with all base stats at their full rated values
If desired humidity is higher than what the biome offers, growth stat is reduced proportionally
--> if player/crop-matron supplies water, this is ignored, but water is consumed based on difference between desired and actual humidity
If desired temperature is higher than what the biome offers, growth stat is reduced proportionally
--> if player/crop-matron supplies fertilizer, this is ignored, but fertilizer is consumed based on difference between desired and actual temperature
If either (or both) desired stats are lower than what the biome offers, growth stat is kept full but resistance and gain/yield stats are lowered proportionally
--> plant will not consume fertilizer/water if biome is hotter/more humid, even if provided
For example, a cactus-like plant would desire hot temperatures and low humidty. If planted in normal or cold biomes it would grow more slowly unless provided with fertilizer. If planted in biomes that are not dry, its resistance would decrease and it would not give as much produce.
Special requirements (ore block beneath plant etc.) can still work normally with this system.
Applying weed-ex works as it does now, preventing weeds regardless of resistance but damaging the gain/yield stat if overused
As an additional neat thing, the cropnalyzer (or a new tool designed for the purpose) could graphically scan a growing plant to determine its water, fertilizer and weed-ex levels in a similar way to how Terrafirmacraft hoes read out nutrient levels in the farmland:
4.) Add iridium ore to all loot chest types. Currently, there is a chance of 4.5% to discover iridium ore in a dungeon loot chest - a roughly 1 in 22 chance on average. However, dungeon loot chests are only a small subset of the loot chests the player can find in the world. Currently you cannot find any iridium ore in abandoned mineshafts, in nether fortresses, in strongholds, in desert temples, in jungle ruins or in NPC villages. As a result, it's a perfectly realistic expectation to have to open over 50 chests without finding any iridium ore at all. I would know, I opened 60 chests without luck and then gave up and cheated some ore in.
Content gating by random number generator is a really, really bad idea. For example, you won't find any MMOs where, upon creation of a guild, the game randomly decides that the guild will be allowed to raid boss X but not boss Y or boss Z. Unfortunately, IC2 currently does exactly this - a fair number of players will be locked out of the entire endgame of the mod through no fault of their own, simply because of bad luck streaks in both world generation and loot list population. Adding equal ~5% chances for iridium ore to all chest loot types will still result in streaks of 30+ unlucky chests with regularity, but at least the player will have a chance to discover some ore regardless of which types of loot chests the world generator decides to give them.
5.) Re-tune the UU-matter system. The division by six when using scrap always results in terrible numbers that are hard to memorize and unintuitive to handle; in addition, the value of scrap is so low that making UU-matter to replicate a single item takes entire quarries' worths of recycleable blocks. This promotes (or even enforces) the cannibalizing the landscape and creating hundreds of laggy automatic cobble generators by the player, both of which are things that make the player extremely unpopular in the eyes of server admins.
I made this suggestion before in a discussion thread; I have replicated the details in the spoiler here for convenience.
- Make the energy bonus from scrap a five-fold multiplier instead of a six-fold one. This makes amplifier a bit weaker but results in much easier to handle numbers.
- Multiply the amount of amplifier gained per piece of scrap or scrapbox by 4. That means 20k/180k instead of 5k/45k.
- Reduce the uu-matter cost of iridium from 42 buckets to 32 buckets. Diamonds could probably also use a reduction from 20 to 16. Overall, tighten up the spread of prices by bringing the larger numbers down - this compensates the reduced amplifier bonus.
Here's a comparison of the effects these changes will have:
Classic:
166,667 EU + 34 scrap per uu-matter (~272 recycled blocks, +12,240 EU)
1,166,667 EU + 234 scrap per iridium ore (~1,872 recycled blocks, +84,240 EU)
46,666,667 EU + 9,334 scrap per quantum suit (~74,672 recycled blocks, +420,030 EU)
OR
1,000,000 EU per UU-matter
7,000,000 EU per iridium ore
280,000,000 EU per quantum suit
Current:
1,666,667 EU + 334 scrap per uu-matter (~2,672 recycled blocks, +120,240 EU)
71,000,000 EU + 14,000 scrap per iridium ore (~112,000 recycled blocks, +5,040,000 EU)
2,839,999,999 EU + 560,000 scrap per quantum suit (~4,480,000 recycled blocks, +201,600,000 EU)
OR
10,000,000 EU per UU-matter
420,000,000 EU per iridium ore
16,800,000,000 EU per quantum suit
Proposed:
2,000,000 EU + 100 scrap per uu-matter (~800 recycled blocks, +36,000 EU)
65,000,000 EU + 3,200 scrap per iridium ore (25,600 recycled blocks, +1,152,000 EU)
2,600,000,000 EU + 128,000 scrap per quantum suit (1,024,000 recycled blocks, +46,080,000 EU)
OR
10,000,000 EU per UU-matter
321,000,000 EU per iridium ore
12,840,000,000 EU per quantum suit