[GregTech-5][1.7.10-FORGE-1355+][Unofficial but approved Port][Stable] Even GT5 Experimental is slowly getting stable.

  • Well, the way reactorcraft destroys the nature with an added fog/smog effect would be nice. But that is just the visual, not the functional part. Both are nesseary for an good implementation.


    Well if tree farm nerfs is the primary goal then you just have to aggressively destroy wood and sapling blocks.

  • Or just prevent sapling placement/growth, environment too hostile.
    All tree sapling blocks are destroyed every once in awhile (thus greatly reducing or even impossibiliting tree farms)

  • What i'm hoping for is some "treeGrowthEvent" notice in the game. Should that exist i could randomly prevent trees from growing up, or replace some parts of the wood with unusable dead wood.


    Then somehow lowering the effect of bonemeal would also be nice.


    But still, that is not all. Powering a base only with lava pumped from the nether or large scale oil burning should also be limited.

  • Feature request: replace an empty drill's battery with full.
    Simplest implementation would be:
    On shift-rightclick:
    Ensure that drill's inner battery is empty.
    Search player's inventory for exactly the same battery and "move" it's energy to drill.

  • I really like this Idea. Its both challenging and realistic....

  • I agree that there are many players that try to exploit certain mechanics, and should take the time to advance or work within the spirit of the game/mod. BUT again forcing someone to play a different way that we see as right is WRONG! making it harder to do such large scale setups make sense, but forcing it on them isn't in my opinion. personally I would do a TFC style no bone mealing of trees/plants myself, witch would stop most tree farming, other than the forestry and maybe a few others. and don't get me started on MFR, to me trying to play with it and GT is just bad form. so if someone is doing that, then there is really no helping them. also Axle's idea of pollution would defiantly help with stopping, or hindering this kind of game play with the air pollution caused from burning all that charcoal.

  • Some of the ideas being tossed around to address treefarm abuse are good but they've been considered and rejected for code limitation reasons.



    Here is another fun fact:
    it only takes 4.5 B/s of hot coolant to make 60 B/s of superheated steam in the LHE. Much like lava this input is lower than expected for the given output. I'm not complaining but in this case the difference is significant (25%).


    How does this play against the numbers I posted earlier in the week? I pointed out that the LHE seems to be doing what its supposed to do, minus the x2 difference. Does your findings correspond? (Sorry, I can't triple check atm, I'm at work)



    Сoefficient can be 2x not 4x, or even 1.5x. Numbers does not matter. All tiers should have same amount of eU per item.


    I agree, but iirc the machine works on energy-per-time. To make it the same amount of eU per item, either the energy needs to drop, or the speed needs to increase. Often we can't make the energy drop due to tiering reasons, which leaves us with increasing the speed.
    Feel free to correct any misconceptions here, I haven't looked at this code.



    PS
    I'm interested in idea of pollution, but it shouldn't be the way to force players to go to next tier. Next tier should be better by itself.


    Good news: no pollution plans force anything on anyone. Forced tiering is heavily linear, lacks dynamicism, and constitutes what we called a "hard control." I only develop soft controls.


    In this case, a player might notice a small decrease in industrial performance if the only way they generate power is lava, and if they try to produce two-to-three tiers above their current tier worth of lava power. So, trying to produce HV-type power during the steam age.


    Since nobody needs to use lava to get anywhere, they're not forced to do anything. They can still use lots of lava. Or some. Or none. I personally use mostly filthy charcoal and a bit of solar during the bronze age. Creosote and coal coke if RC is present.



    :)
    I feel like a character in the walking dead, standing on the roof of a van surrounded by zombies.



    On the other hand, the great news is that the majority agrees that the pollution scheme is interesting, inspires you to improve, and is flat out exciting. Everyone on this thread? Nope, there's a few really pissed off people who won't tolerate the fact that I can't code all their conflicting hopes and dreams on initial rollout.


    Friendly reminder folks: People said they didn't want to discuss it here anymore. This is the last time I'm indulging in destructive criticism on this thread. If I say I can't do environment impacts during initial rollout and people lose their shit...screw em. There's a long lineup of genuinely good peeps who have constructive things to contribute. I code for them. There seems to be an unfortunate number of people here who prefer to use insults and destructive comments. Tearing peeps down is lame. You're no longer involved in my discussions on the topic.

  • What i'm hoping for is some "treeGrowthEvent" notice in the game. Should that exist i could randomly prevent trees from growing up, or replace some parts of the wood with unusable dead wood.


    Wouldn't be easier/cooler to change Leaves blocks to Dead leaves blocks, which doesn't drop saplings?

  • @Blood


    The visuals are secondary for me( but for and exloding reactor they are awesome:D). But i like how i works codewise. Basicly these are clouds of Entites which effect the enviroment like real "pollution"particles would do. My Idea would be that some machines in GT become Pollutionproviders which emit those clouds based on their workload. This would effect everything from Water to Air and Players etc....



    Waterblocks get polluted -> machines wont get the right watertype



    Airblocks get polluted -> Solars and other Machines loose efficiency



    Crops die / grow slower




    etc, etc...





    @all



    I think Pollution could be a chance to require a player to explore all possibilities in GT and dont stick those 30 or so boilers. There are many ways to reward the player for a pollution reduced / free gameplay! And those who don like it can turn it of via config,

  • I agree that there are many players that try to exploit certain mechanics, and should take the time to advance or work within the spirit of the game/mod. BUT again forcing someone to play a different way that we see as right is WRONG! making it harder to do such large scale setups make sense, but forcing it on them isn't in my opinion. personally I would do a TFC style no bone mealing of trees/plants myself, witch would stop most tree farming, other than the forestry and maybe a few others. and don't get me started on MFR, to me trying to play with it and GT is just bad form. so if someone is doing that, then there is really no helping them. also Axle's idea of pollution would defiantly help with stopping, or hindering this kind of game play with the air pollution caused from burning all that charcoal.


    You're conflicting with yourself. Axle's idea is the same as mine. 100%.


    I charted it out last night before I went to bed. They follow the exact same design path.


    The differences? His is broader. Even in the target final phase, his is broader. He has ideas that cannot be implemented sanely because of either code limitations or design breakage. In every other respect, they're identical. They both have the exact same effect: nobody is forced to do anything, everyone is subtly nudged. You're saying I "force" people, but he only "stops and "hinders them". Screw anyone who thinks this is fair.


  • Good ideas Briareros.


    Funny aside: "Clouds of entities": this is nearly identical to something Blood wants to do, and it bears a disturbing resemblance to the acid-clouds that we've discussed adding. There's absolutely no reason this can't happen. In fact Blood will probably thump me if I don't, and then he'll just do it himself.


    Someone (Axle?) mentioned the affects of air pollution on solar in particular already: I think this is a really good idea. Its less effective on servers because people tend to skip generators that only work during the day, but that's not a big deal.


    Negatives:
    I'm not convinced we can do polluted water. I alluded to this previously, but there are some odd repurcussions if we try to do a different "type" of water. I am a huge fan of the idea but the cost/benefit analysis throws up some massive red flags. Once the core mechanics are in place I plan to revisit this and see if there's a "can do" implementation that makes sense.

  • I'm just discussing ideas, if they're implementable, nice. If not, detail a bit why they can't. We might be able to get to something if we talk enough about it.
    I don't want you or anyone to fully implement the dreams or whatever of everyone in one go. You're human and you can only do so much with your time on your hands.
    By now I am far too used to how "slow" is GT and IC2 development are, I don't expect you to be any faster, not at all. Afaik you also have a job too, so even less time.


    I'm still against simplistic pollution though, its better if people have a more flavorful experience, even if that takes more time to be developed.
    "A bad game is always bad, a delayed one will eventually be good"


    charcoal,Lava,oil,gas issue: Make their generators burn less efficiently as pollution rises (lower oxygen quality).
    LHE doesn't suffer from this, big boilers and large turbines can accept fluid oxygen to boost efficiency back to max.


    About solar and water pollution: solar produce less or refuse to work if pollution too high.
    Water-based recipes refuse to work if pollution is too high, requiring distilled water (there are alternate recipes that use them, you can add something to block the regular water recipe I believe?)


    Also blood. You're implementing oil deposits based on chunks, right?
    What about geothermal spots that follow the same line? Those would be indefinetely extracted and would allow to have realistic geothermal green energy.




    PS: ideas are just like opinions, you may not like them.

  • And guys, I don't want to touch this again, but if pollution is a way to encourage less machine spamming, the 2xEU/tier consumption (and the decreased generators efficiency) encourage us to spam;
    Will we have to choose between pollution and efficiency or cleanness and inefficiency? Or all that will have an overhaul as well?


    That said, as a regular (solo) player, the only machine I needed to spam was 16LV generators, before I built my large Turbine, because GT kinda forced me to do it. I love how the Large turbine is more efficient than those LV ones, really felt like an upgrade. Would be better if I was encouraged to change LV turbines to MV, and MV to HV before going to the Large Turbine (hint: change turbines ef. from (85,75,66) to (66, 75 and 85) ). I would feel more like I am progressing.

    The only other thing that might force me to spam machines again, it is the fusion reactor, because Deuterium and tritium REQUIRES LV machines to process having a positive gain EU gain. And I hate this design.
    Give me a efficient Multiblock machine to process those, and I will fell like I'm progressing (the processing array is still spam machine to me).


  • I'm just discussing ideas, if they're implementable, nice. If not, detail a bit why they can't.
    I don't want you or anyone to fully implement the dreams or whatever of everyone in one go. You're human and you can only do so much with your time on your hands.
    By now I am far too used to how "slow" is GT and IC2 development are, I don't expect you to be any faster, not at all. Afaik you also have a job too, so even less time.


    I'm still against simplistic pollution though, its better if people have a more flavorful experience, even if that takes more time to be developed.


    What the hell do you mean by "simplistic" pollution here? It really smacks of "I don't get all my ideas in, so its not good enough." Nothing here you're talking about runs against the grain. Its all simplistic.
    From a coding perspective: You HAVE to start with vanilla. We add flavours iteratively. In industrial jargon, its the development life cycle.



    charcoal,Lava,oil,gas issue: Make their generators burn less efficiently as pollution rises (lower oxygen quality).


    Ok, done? Its already in the design.



    LHE doesn't suffer from this,


    Essentially already in the design? People have been asking for LHE+Lava to have some penalty. Who knows what degree it will be, it already emits pahoehoe as a byproduct after all. So, if there's a penalty, it will be negligible.



    big boilers and large turbines can accept fluid oxygen to boost efficiency back to max


    We can possibly do the oxygen thing if someone explains why it makes tons of sense, and why it adds gameplay value. I don't mind it as a pollution workaround because acquiring the oxygen generates its own problems.


    The idea itself also has a minor design conflict that would need to be resolved: the plasma turbine accepts various chemical liquids for reactions. Currently Oxygen is NOT one of those inputs. If we implemented this, either
    a) we could never use oxygen in a reaction, or
    b) we would have to exclude the Plasma variant from the "large turbines that need liquid oxygen" scheme.
    or c) we'd have to design a new hatch, or a method to flag a hatch as the oxygen hatch


    (b) would be the best option, but "exceptions to the rule" should always be a last resort in game design.



    Water-based recipes refuse to work if pollution is too high, requiring distilled water (there are alternate recipes that use them, you can add something to block the regular water recipe I believe?)


    THIS is what I mean by a "can do" implementation of dirty water. It works. If there's a pollution factor nearby, machines can't use normal water anymore. Keep it on the board.


    NEGATIVES: It totally lacks Axle's flavour. Its only 10% in the fun direction whereas I'd prefer to take it further: where real, dirty water is actually a thing.

  • And guys, I don't want to touch this again, but if pollution is a way to encourage less machine spamming, the 2xEU/tier consumption (and the decreased generators efficiency) encourage us to spam;
    Will we have to choose between pollution and efficiency or cleanness and inefficiency? Or all that will have an overhaul as well?


    That said, as a regular (solo) player, the only machine I needed to spam was 16LV generators, before I built my large Turbine, because GT kinda forced me to do it. I love how the Large turbine is more efficient than those LV ones, really felt like an upgrade. Would be better if I was encouraged to change LV turbines to MV, and MV to HV before going to the Large Turbine (hint: change turbines ef. from (85,75,66) to (66, 75 and 85) ). I would feel more like I am progressing.

    The only other thing that might force me to spam machines again, it is the fusion reactor, because Deuterium and tritium REQUIRES LV machines to process having a positive gain EU gain. And I hate this design.
    Give me a efficient Multiblock machine to process those, and I will fell like I'm progressing (the processing array is still spam machine to me).


    100% agree in every respect.

  • +I am not attacking anyone especially you Pyure, I am just trying to have a sane discussion on the implementation of pollution. the main difference as I see it between your ideas and Axles is forced progression, and game play, rather than an obstetrical to over come that will encourage progression. I also never said that everything needed to be perfectly coded on roll out. no one has that I have seen, we are stating over all vision. If any of what we hope for is impossible to implement then fine, but that should make a reason for electrical machines to create pollution, rather than burners of carbon based fuels. I have stated many times here and in my videos that I can't code and those of you that do I admire for the ability. that being said making things for the whole community rather than just a small group should be, in my opinion, the best way to do things. unless making a separate addon, witch is then optional rather than hard coded in. one last thing, the only difference between an argument and a discussion is the inability to listen to other opinions.

  • Pyure: I'm getting exactly 60 B/s of SHS for 4.5 B/s HC. I don't remember your numbers but I was under the impression that "double" would be 60 B/s SHS for 6 B/s HC

  • +I am not attacking anyone especially you Pyure, I am just trying to have a sane discussion on the implementation of pollution. the main difference as I see it between your ideas and Axles is forced progression, and game play, rather than an obstetrical to over come that will encourage progression. I also never said that everything needed to be perfectly coded on roll out. no one has that I have seen, we are stating over all vision. If any of what we hope for is impossible to implement then fine, but that should make a reason for electrical machines to create pollution, rather than burners of carbon based fuels. I have stated many times here and in my videos that I can't code and those of you that do I admire for the ability. that being said making things for the whole community rather than just a small group should be, in my opinion, the best way to do things. unless making a separate addon, witch is then optional rather than hard coded in. one last thing, the only difference between an argument and a discussion is the inability to listen to other opinions.


    Let me attack this from a different angle mate.


    Can you explain in two sentences or less why you think the design as described above would force you to do anything, more so than the "stopping and hindering" you mentioned with respect to axle's grand scheme?

  • Pyure: I'm getting exactly 60 B/s of SHS for 4.5 B/s HC. I don't remember your numbers but I was under the impression that "double" would be 60 B/s SHS for 6 B/s HC


    Latest version?
    Any integrated circuits?