It would be nice to have that on any item that holds energy.
[GregTech-5][1.7.10-FORGE-1355+][Unofficial but approved Port][Stable] Even GT5 Experimental is slowly getting stable.
-
-
Display More
Personally I feel that the efficiency stat adds an unnecessary level of design fluff. Efficiency is already a factor of energy produced over fuel consumption, an additional level doesn't contribute anything. Game-design-wise, you can accomplish the exact same thing simply by increasing the fuel consumption.In the industry we call that "streamlining" :p
As soon as BA feels his branch is stable, I'm gonna replace GT5 with (OpenGT5? GT5-UNLEASHED? GT5-THENEXTGENERATION????) and tweak it accordingly. All "efficiencies" will be set to 100% or ignored in computation. Basic generators will consume fuel at a less-ideal rate than more advanced generators.
I will never have to consider older, crappy tech to be superior again
I figured the efficiency settings already affected the fuel consumption rather than the output. As far as "balancing", it actually seems a bit more realistic to me for it to be a tradeoff, where one would choose two of the following three attributes for a power generation setup: compact, fast, efficient.
-
I still save gt-5.07.07-dev build, whom should take away, may be useful
-
I figured the efficiency settings already affected the fuel consumption rather than the output. As far as "balancing", it actually seems a bit more realistic to me for it to be a tradeoff, where one would choose two of the following three attributes for a power generation setup: compact, fast, efficient.
They probably do, that's what makes it silly. There's no need to slap on repeated layers of efficiency. Just have input/output and have done.You make a good point about realism. The problem isn't actually realism too much, more game design. When we talk about flavours of machines (different types of macerators for instance) there's two ways you can "grow". You can grow progressively (where you accomplish higher tiers of technology via aluminium, stainless steel, etc) or laterally (adding addons to a machine to make it do different things)
The problem is that GT sort of gets the two mixed up. Greg tries to combine the notion of higher technology with overclocking, but they're two different concepts. In game design, a progression-based change should always meet the criteria "better is better." If you *earn* stainless steel technology via a tech tree, it should be *better* than what came before it. Conversely if you *choose* to add addons to an existing machine (overclocks) that *can* justifiably be a balanced change.
Right now an advanced macerator is just an overclocked macerator. The pros (faster, smaller space, fewer lossy eu-connections) are offset by the costs (inefficient energy consumption).
A better design (ahem, one that makes money in gaming) is that an advanced macerator is equal to or better than the basic macerator in every way. That does not mean triple productivity over and over again. It could be that each machine only increases speed by 20% or something. But this is something that everyone wants.
To have his cake and eat it too, Greg (or blood asp!) could add back overclockers as a feature. These are lateral-improvements. It absolutely makes sense for these to increase the output rate of a machine at some cost (efficiency or resources or space or whatever)
Huh, a space-based lateral overclocker...that would be so amazing if you had the option to plonk a 4 block-multiblock attachment to a macerator to increase its production speed by 25% and no efficiency degradation.
-
Blood Asp, tiiiiiiiiiny little item: Can you change subject to "Unofficial" instead of "Inofficial" (which isn't a word)
-
Blood Asp, tiiiiiiiiiny little item: Can you change subject to "Unofficial" instead of "Inofficial" (which isn't a word)
Fixed that for him.
-
Blood Asp, tiiiiiiiiiny little item: Can you change subject to "Unofficial" instead of "Inofficial" (which isn't a word)
You sure? I was sure inofficial was a Word, when I edited the formatting of the Title.
-
A quick google search proves that inofficial is a misspell .
-
A quick google search proves that inofficial is a misspell .
That Site looks very inofficial, are you sure it uses official Dictionaries?
-
When I searched for the word, I found indications that it's an alternate spelling. Less common maybe, but still valid: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inofficial (I got it to show in the "free" version this time, but it's usually limited to the unabridged version) and http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Inofficial
Also, even if it wasn't a word before, we could decide to make it a word now. -
Hmm... a longer search gave me the doubt . Whatever. I like unofficial more.
Either way, just [google]inofficial vs unofficial[/google] and take your own conclusions. (this is the first time that this google bbcode is "useful" to me lol)
-
Funny thing with words is, any word can be called "proper" if enough people decide it is.
That said: you'll never, ever find a published book written in English (fiction, non-fiction or technical) with the word "Inofficial" in it, except in parody, or as a typo. To me that's the criteria for "proper."
-
I just read that "inofficial" is a rare form of spelling, not ever found on your common english. Obsolete.
-
I just read that "inofficial" is a rare form of spelling, not ever found on your common english. Obsolete.
Damn straightBlood Asp, you should throw the mod up on github. Who knows, I might issue a pull request here and there.
-
The Google button actually works? The more you know.
-
Keep up the good work or else.
-
your mod is weird: w/o gregtech i can create a world w/o any problems, but when i add your version this happens: http://paste.ubuntu.com/10871851/
