[Kirara 3.0] - A series of well-made GT hardmode servers. --- Official Random Thread.

    Quote from keda

    Some last minute issues before the rebirth of Kirara: RLD is out - doesn't work with custom chest loot anymore, and nobody other than me and Kosyak seems to have interest in it. IHL is very likely going out at least temporarily, unless it can be tweaked or configured or fixed. If you have any more requests or objections get them in fast because KR will be released early this week.

    I don't know how you plan to do the "real start", but please don't tell me it is "All planned changes done, reset map, now everyone can start. Maybe drop a small notification in the forum."
    Something like that would result into a chaos start.
    1. After all planned changes are done, before going online for real there must be some time. It allready failed that way in KHC. After all planned changes are done, inform everyone potenially starting there about it and give them 4-6 days for a double check if everything is ok. (No votes for mods or something like that anymore, but forgotten config options, exploids and stuff are important to find all first)
    2. The start needs a starting time announced a few days early. This time can be used for finding teams. Planning a bit ahead. And the important final check time.


    It was done like this when Kirara 2.0 started and worked really fine. On start of KHC there were some issues that could only be fixed by map reset, so they stay even now. Also players joining the server spread over a period of about a week often ends like this: No others close to spawn and no prearranged teammates. Tries some hours on it's own and leaves forever. There might be others that might have agreed to join in a group or if close together in the beginning they might have helped each other just by that. I'm sure a oganized start results in easily 20-25% more players just because of this.

    ^ I completely agree with BloodAsp, planning goes a long way in making servers sustainable.


    If TC4 is no longer supported I can simply disable infusion enchanting, which I believe would be an unpopular move. It's actually a very simple exploit anyone can do - and it can't be fixed with a minetweaker/modtweaker script without disabling that entire mechanic. My proposal is to just declare it against the rules to use that particular exploit and run off the honor system and assume people wouldn't make the cheaty tools, much as how we run off the assumption people won't just xray all the ores or raid the bases of other players.


    As for IHL and GC: as long as IHL does not interfere with GT I am ok with having it in the pack. Mind you I still consider IHL a poorly executed mod, but my stance on mods that I don't like has always been that as long as you aren't forced into having to use their content then they don't matter. For Galacticraft this can be fixed by actually moving the moon/mars oregen so you can still find them in the overworld, just not as frequently. Makes no sense that you have to travel to other planets to get Uranium, an early-mid game resource. I'm fine with incentivizing travel to different celestial bodies, just not the current approach of forcing players to do it or be denied access to a significant portion of GT content.


    Also, because we have no EnviroMine, move some of the Caves oregen to OW/TF.

    Quote from Nonotan

    If TC4 is no longer supported I can simply disable infusion enchanting, which I believe would be an unpopular move. It's actually a very simple exploit anyone can do - and it can't be fixed with a minetweaker/modtweaker script without disabling that entire mechanic. My proposal is to just declare it against the rules to use that particular exploit and run off the honor system and assume people wouldn't make the cheaty tools, much as how we run off the assumption people won't just xray all the ores or raid the bases of other players.


    I wonder if i could add a check for entcanted items above a certain limit to be deleted. :D As part of the inventory unification that should not be too difficult.

    Quote from Blood Asp

    I wonder if i could add a check for entcanted items above a certain limit to be deleted. As part of the inventory unification that should not be too difficult.

    That would be pretty awesome.

    Quote from Nonotan

    If TC4 is no longer supported I can simply disable infusion enchanting, which I believe would be an unpopular move.

    I wouldn't actually mind disabling infusion enchanting, at least until some other solution is found. We have vanilla enchanting table, we have fishing golems who can fish you some nice enchantment books. While relying on people's honor for not abusing exploits is good (well, when I'm playing Kirara I assume that my base won't be raided and griefed for example), I hope you remember what you said yesterday on IRC about abusing IHL. When it comes to game exploits that don't affect other people's wellbeing but could speed your own progression you can't really prohibit people from using them.


    Quote from Nonotan

    Makes no sense that you have to travel to other planets to get Uranium, an early-mid game resource. I'm fine with incentivizing travel to different celestial bodies, just not the current approach of forcing players to do it or be denied access to a significant portion of GT content.

    Small fix, uranium is hardly early-game resource with reactor itself being EV. But I agree, it makes sense to add some small amount of uranium veins to overworld.

    IHL abuse is actually using the mod's content as it was designed in order to get imbalanced returns due to its inherent overpowered-ness. This is literally a bug that lets you infinitely stack enchantments for almost nothing which is absolutely not how infusion enchantment is designed to work. Completely different in nature - otherwise killing stuff using qsuit to take zero damage would be considered an "exploit" because ic2 quantum is overpowered compared to vanilla armor.


    Well, the fishing core is disabled, so all we have is the vanilla enchanter for now. I don't know if Bloody's magical energy converter drains enchants from items like the old GT magic generators did, but if it doesn't we have no way of removing bad enchants from valuable tools.

    I would suggest removing the TC enchants, but keep the runic enchants and the thaumium fortress stuff (which is unlocked thanks to the TC enchant research).
    I've tried using the same bug for runic enchantment, it whipped off my enchants and only put runic protection I (or whatever it's called)

    Quote

    Java script, which happens to be the language in which minecraft is coded

    Don't forget we'll have some of those nifty TC addons, such as Thaumic Exploration, Thaumic Bases, Tainted Magic, Forbidden Magic, Technomancy and Electro-Magic Tools.
    Though I wasn't really looking into them mainly because I would like to learn them by myself directly in gameplay, thus I summon Ishi to explain me (us) only about possible tweaks (try to not spoil the content, please <3). I'm certainly sure at least 2 of them have some enchanting system extension (also new enchants) thus it needs a look.
    Speaking about Electro-magic Tools (yes, I took a look on this one), Gravisuite could be unnescessary. This mod feels outdated anyway. Kinda against it now even though Idea of it is really nice.

    Quote from Blood Asp

    I wonder if i could add a check for entcanted items above a certain limit to be deleted.

    That's just cruel. Maybe if enchant level >5 then it'll nullify all enchants on item? < Would be crappy for creative testing.

    Quote from Nonotan

    IHL abuse is actually using the mod's content as it was designed in order to get imbalanced returns due to its inherent overpowered-ness.

    For the love of God. You keep saying that IHL is abusable and exploitable but you haven't named a SINGLE exploit or abuse. Could you be more specific instead of repeating "I don't like this mod, this mod is bad" like mantra?

    I already gave you the rare metals from chalcopyrite without sacrificing its copper output and the teleporters, as well as the tool durability issue long before that. I'll list more exploits under the condition that for every exploit I name, you will refer to me as Lord Nono for a week, and agree to give up 50% of your in-game acquisitions during that same time period. If IHL is as balanced as you claim then you should have zero problems taking this offer.

    Quote from Nonotan

    I already gave you the rare metals from chalcopyrite without sacrificing its copper output

    Check the spreadsheet, I run some calculations specially for you. It's 24M EU IHL way vs 19M EU GT replicator way. Not to mention that for IHL way you have to use non-renewable chalcopyrite (even if it is quite common) against scrap which can be get from renewable sources. You call that an abuse? Then what is Thaumcraft or OpenComputers? On top of that, if other people complain about it, it can be easiliy tweaked in configs, there is even no need to use Minetweaker.


    Quote from Nonotan

    the teleporters

    1st thing, teleporter can be configured in configs for energy stored/energy for item moved. 2nd thing, they can be simply disabled if they are that OP. Good thing, teleporter is not the only thing in IHL.


    Any other accusation of exploits and abuses?

    I only used IHL in the early days of K2.0 so i'm not perfectly sure about all additions since then. But afaik it allmost only adds stuff that has the same functions than other things that exist allready somewere else but in a more difficult way. The result: No one uses it besides for 1-2 things. So it should not really be missed when out. But also it does not really hurt to have it in. The biggest argument i have for taking it out is: Less mods = more stable pack.

    Quote from Blood Asp

    I don't know how you plan to do the "real start", but please don't tell me it is "All planned changes done, reset map, now everyone can start. Maybe drop a small notification in the forum."
    Something like that would result into a chaos start.
    1. After all planned changes are done, before going online for real there must be some time. It allready failed that way in KHC. After all planned changes are done, inform everyone potenially starting there about it and give them 4-6 days for a double check if everything is ok. (No votes for mods or something like that anymore, but forgotten config options, exploids and stuff are important to find all first)
    2. The start needs a starting time announced a few days early. This time can be used for finding teams. Planning a bit ahead. And the important final check time.


    It was done like this when Kirara 2.0 started and worked really fine. On start of KHC there were some issues that could only be fixed by map reset, so they stay even now. Also players joining the server spread over a period of about a week often ends like this: No others close to spawn and no prearranged teammates. Tries some hours on it's own and leaves forever. There might be others that might have agreed to join in a group or if close together in the beginning they might have helped each other just by that. I'm sure a oganized start results in easily 20-25% more players just because of this.

    Good points. Starting time will be announced 5 days in advance in this thread once the RTG/TC issue is resolved, and if any issues show up during this time, the starting time can be postponed (depending on the nature of the issue).


    Regarding the enchantment exploit, I'm favour of disabling infusion enchanting, but I'd like to hear everyone's opinion on this so I'm adding a voting row in the spreadsheet.

    All your nerfs are belong to us

    The current idea is disable Infusion Enchanting but add back in infusion recipes for enchanted books, so you can still do infusion enchanting in a way but are not able to use that specific exploit.


    This does allow me to tier the research for the different enchantments, though I don't know if people would like to research the enchantments separately.

    To whom it may concern: there is a vote ATG vs RTG in the kirara spreadsheet. RTG is alpha and is in active development. It does not generate large biomes, and biomes transition sometimes look strange. The picture generated is nice, but there is an argument that it would be hard to walk by, especially w/o smart moving. Server launch was already delayed for a week, so please make your choice: new picture with some risk or the same terrain as on KHC.

    It is worth waiting when we know what exactly we are waiting for and how long approximately that will take.
    We do not know even know if RTG author is planning on implementing such a thing as configurable biome size and even he does, it might take unknown amount of time. Another month, two, three.

    # COMING SOON!!! 4 = Default World Type; 6 = Large Biomes World Type [range: 4 ~ 6, default: 4]
    I:"Size of Biomes"=4
    He does. I don't think it will take much time. Quite a fundamental thingy.

    Quote from Airam

    # COMING SOON!!! 4 = Default World Type; 6 = Large Biomes World Type [range: 4 ~ 6, default: 4]
    I:"Size of Biomes"=4
    He does. I don't think it will take much time. Quite a fundamental thingy.

    As far as I know those lines in RTG config were there for monthes. It could come in 1 week, it could come in 3 monthes.