So wrench failures. Let's talk about them.

Well, do keep in mind that this IS Minecraft, so the absurd does run rampant.

But, on topic, the wrench was added so that the player had to think about the placement of the machine in question. Honestly, I like the mechanics of this. It's adds a more... personal touch to the game (besides building), if you will. If I break my expensive teleporter or reactor, then it was definitely my fault, and am 'punished' by having to rebuild it.

But, all in all, I'm pretty sure the wrench is here to stay.

Quote from Kuudere

The wrench itself is fine. I like the wrench. I liked it even more when I discovered the electric wrench, even though it looked like a middle schooler's bad dick joke.

But the wrench should not break things. I should not have to be terrified to experiment with my factory layout. I should not have to watch entire stacks of items vaporize because a wrench slipped.
20 copper
20 iron
30 copper wire
4 coolant cells
20 advanced alloy
8 glowstone dust
8 lapis
30 redstone

What happened to it all? Oh, I stripped a bolt. It's ruined.
Using TMI feels like shit, but not as shit as all that.

I mean, I did think about where to put my reactor. It was exactly where I needed it. But you can't remove a chamber without wrenching the whole damn thing, so that's what I did.

Not to mention every week there's a new patch or a new incompatibility and everything needs to be rearranged. I shouldn't be punished for that.

Display More

In this case, yeah. I know where your coming from on this. Instead, I think that the wrench should just dismount machines guaranteed, but have the machines possess a failure percentage that is proportional to how many materials were needed to craft the machine.

Eg.
The Nuclear Reactor/Chamber -- 10% chance to break
Macerator -- 50%

I'm setting these as suggestions based roughly on how difficult it is to get the resources needed. And if the machine fails, it just drops it's contents, no components. UNLESS it drops only a portion of the materials.

PS. Yeah, I honestly think that the reactor should be treated as separate components, but still be linked in some way. But if the main chamber went down, the whole thing goes.

TBH I would just config it in. There is going always be the group of people who don't want to much the RPG style. I get why you do it I agree with it and will use it. But for them eh is it worth having this argument and fight and using up your time? Everyone is unique and different might as well give both parties what they want.

If not recommend someone to create a mod if their is enough mod support for such a feature already haha.

Quote from Alblaka

IndustrialCraft was meant as an industrial mod.
In real industry, you quite never move machines or factory. You actually carry all components to the location and assemble the machine right there.
Originally, in the early IC1, players couldn't remove machines without "loosing" them at all.
Upon quite frequent popular demand i've agreed on adding a special tool, capable of removing the machines without destroying them, to some degree.

However, the concenpt of "machines are meant to be immobile" remains and as such the chance for wrenches to fail will not be removed.

The only exception are machines MEANT to be moved frequently. Most trivial case is the miner. For these sort of machines wrenches will work to 100%.

Quoth the IndustrialCraft Wiki page for "wrench":

Quote

We do not guarantee that your machines will always be dismounted without any trouble.

Quote

There is some chance that when you do, the machine will not be successfully removed and instead you'll be left with a gutted Machine.

its simple you dont like a mod you dont use it. problem solved.

Yes in real factories you don't need to move the machines, but in real factory you don't have updates, patches, fixes etc which would force you to rebuild or change parts of your factory.
Anyway I also think that, this should be a parameter option in the config file.

Thanks for the super wrench. A future configuration flag option is still a good idea IMO if it adds to the enjoyment of many players.

Quote from Kuudere

I think you need to take a step back from how you've been thinking up to this point and ask yourself: How do (semi)immobile machines contribute to gameplay?

I think that 90% of newer IC players, including myself until just now, have no idea that immobile machines is even supposed to be a gameplay concept. Wrench failures are just a random bit of pain to make life a little less enjoyable, and immobile machines don't feel the least bit "realistic" when all machines are the size of a microwave.

Plus, when most machines were a box of iron, a circuit, and some random garbage, a broken machine was a nonissue.

Breaking a nuclear reactor or an MFSU is game ruining.

Display More

You can't lose an MFSU. Or at least, I don't think you can. I've moved them hundreds of times and never lost one. I use them along with lapotrons to power my miners.

Thanks Drashian, You pretty much solved this issue

About those that don't check the forum: oh well, their loss. I love the fact that IC2 and BC now have their own forums. Both mod's communities seem to have exploded with that addition.

I have a thought about these failures. They tick me off when it happens, and when I'm playing a map like a Planetoid generated one, this gets exponentially more frustrating because I have to go searching for those meager scraps of tin and copper, or hope my recycler can manage to spit out a few chunks of the stuff.

My suggestion is that instead of everything just disappearing, it just becomes dismantled into it's base components (maybe minus 1-2 (types of) parts).
Because... Really? If you DO have to move something that is meant to have a permanent residence, don't you have to take it apart at least partially? This will require you to head back to the workbench and rebuild the machine (and replace missing parts). It's a more minor punishment for moving your shit, but it's still more of a pain in the butt than *click, move, click*.

If the machine should break, it would be akin to some parts getting lost in the dis-assembly process, right? The way it is now, sometimes ALL the parts go missing except the metal case the machine came in. Perhaps wrenching a "less-mobile" machine should drop the components of the machine with the chance of some failing to drop. While penalizing not planning ahead, this would be much less devastating than "well you found the metal box, but all the parts inside seem to have escaped through one of those instantaneous tiny black holes in the fabric of the universe, along with your pencil and your left sock."

This is still assuming normal circumstances though, the issue of version changes causing issues is still a problem. Still, losing a plating or two wouldn't feel so bad as losing both chambers as in the OP's situation. And then maybe there could be a couple more tiers of wrench (advanced alloy and iridium plate seemed reasonable tier 2 and 3 materials) with less chance of losing components and/or lower maximum possible number of components lost. The better wrenches more reflect the expertise level of the industrial engineer than actual quality of tool. Not sure how feasible all that is with the programming, but just my friend's and my four cents.

I know industrial machines are normally assembled and dis-assembled by teams of people to prevent property destruction and deal with heavy weight. But remember Steve is one man in a world of monsters. One man who could wash up on a sandy shore, punch down a tree with his bare fists, saw the logs into planks with his bare hands, punch the wool of a sheep to make his bed (r.i.p. punching wool off of sheep), and build a house before the first night fell. He clearly has Norrisian strength and at least some expertise in construction. I think he can be given the benefit of the doubt at least a little bit.:P