If Autocrafting is making complex aggregate of working machines, it is quite more interesting than Babysitting some number of machines you use from time to time.
If IC2 would force people to use creative/peaceful modes to evade breakdown many players would be forced to stuck on previous version.
If you really want to babysit machines make it as a benefit to use, not as burden.
[Suggestion] Machine wear/breakdown mechanic
- LastRespawn
- Closed
-
-
If Autocrafting is making complex aggregate of working machines, it is quite more interesting than Babysitting some number of machines you use from time to time.
If IC2 would force people to use creative/peaceful modes to evade breakdown many players would be forced to stuck on previous version.
If you really want to babysit machines make it as a benefit to use, not as burden.Yes, I don't agree with you, exept on the fact weardown shouldn't change with creative/peaceful etc ...
But in my opinion, weardown should be integrated to a system making machine working as Nuclear reactor: depending on the config (as suggested at the beginning of this topic, it would need a GUI, wich would be bigger for advanced machine)
you could have very quick operation but high power cost and increased weardowns, or slow, but less-consuming EU etc ...
I think it should be something with different gears/circuit/etc ... for each type of operation, making you able to get multi-operation machine but as the cost of efficienty (EU consumed), duration of the components (because it would take more space, and you couldn't use as much as cooling/oiling things as you want, as for Nuclear reactor that aren't able without mod to make infinite cycle with 10 ura cells for example ...So you would have a limited space to smelt, macerate and others, increase efficienty (EU-consumption and possibly multi output), speed and you would need a part of it place to cooldown/oil ...
So it wouldn't totally avoid automation (just making it more difficult because of components needed or making process slower to integrate the cooldown time to the factory) and would help a bit and making it possible with only IC² (multi-process). Moreover, simple usage in your base would be very easy, as your not using your machine all the time because your mining etc ... so you wouldn't be annoyed by cooldown ...
As for weardown, it would only happen on overheating/non oiled machine, so with the little usage you do at first, in wouldn't do any effect on you, and for autmation, it would just need more cooling components/oiling system/anything else Alblaka would include. -
A basic gripe I have with a machine weardown mechanic is: I don't see it being fun.
After all, everything you implement in a game has the ultimate goal of being fun in some way. Of course, sometimes you decide to make it harder for the player so that they feel a sense of accomplishment when they beat your challenge. But something like "Oh man, I have to craft a new macerator soon" is artificial hassle. Such things work best if you make them benefits. I liked how the engine tuning in Hot Rod and Hot Rod 2 was handled.
You'd basically just re-adjust a little line to touch the red line in the center, nothing big. Whenever you drive, the line moves away a bit. If you drive a lot without re-adjusting, you won't achieve max speed. So why not adjust turn momentum and frequency of a macerator? Say, the difference between an unattended machine and a machine that's maintained after each operation is 50% (As in: the worst part is 100, the best one is 150). It could be about operation EU cost alone, doesn't need to improve speed.
-
in my opinion, weardown should be integrated to a system making machine working as Nuclear reactor
If you suggest new better machine which would work different based on internal parts while old processors works good - it is benefit.
If you want old processors to break unattended - it is burden.
To build complex system is fun, to search for a break in it is not. -
I don't know about adding any "difficulty" to the game if the machines were to break. What I mean is that IC2, BC, RP2 etc are all about automation so in the "long" run it would only be a slight nuisance. However if you're not using miners, quarries, frames and you're manually mining then it would be a BIG hit losing machines like that. Just think of how annoying the wrench can be if it fails to dismantle a machine at early stages in the game.
-
Well, I'd be careful to mention IC2 is about automation on this particular forum...
-
I don't know about adding any "difficulty" to the game if the machines were to break. What I mean is that IC2, BC, RP2 etc are all about automation so in the "long" run it would only be a slight nuisance. However if you're not using miners, quarries, frames and you're manually mining then it would be a BIG hit losing machines like that. Just think of how annoying the wrench can be if it fails to dismantle a machine at early stages in the game.
Well, I'd be careful to mention IC2 is about automation on this particular forum...
You are both confusing Industrial-craft with Build-craft. Industrial craft is NOT about automation, it doesnt even have a transport system, and the redpower transport sucks.
Strong points:
Buildcraft- Automation
Industrial-craft- Electricity
Redpower- Redstone and aestheticsIndustrialcraft is centered around the electricity, and its system its the best.
-
How about making old machines slower\consuming more energy per operation, small operation fail chance (loose item) instead of breaking it completely ?
That wuold still alow to make fully automated factories (less effective though)
There should also be universal repair kit (recipe is wrench, some circuits, ets. use scrapbox as ammo ?)
-
With "automation" I mean machines like the miner, pump, crop-matron etc. They require no user input once set up. Not sure I see the difference between BC and IC2 in this regard?
<edit> But yes, I prefer to think of IC2 as something else, beside automation, I love the machines(and now also love the farming) and I can't imagine playing minecraft without IC2, hence I'm still playing 1.2.5. It's the top mod for me. I barely even use BC since I don't like how the fuel, oil etc works and that the machines aren't compatible across the mods, which makes it tedious and annoying to use "cross-over" mods, because they're just awful and clutter up the world with even more machines.
-
Why not make it the way people are suggesting by just boosting the speed they work at for some time?
Machine Oil
When applied a machine works 20% faster at the same power consumption for 2 hours.Technically this would be the same as break-down just reverse: your machines work 20% slower if you do not keep them well-oiled/use spare parts/whatever on a regular basis. The difference is that people who do not want to babysit their machines don't have to. If they don't the machines still work as we are used to right now, just that those people sacrifice 20% speed they could have gained almost for free.
-
You'd basically just re-adjust a little line to touch the red line in the center, nothing big. Whenever you drive, the line moves away a bit. If you drive a lot without re-adjusting, you won't achieve max speed. So why not adjust turn momentum and frequency of a macerator? Say, the difference between an unattended machine and a machine that's maintained after each operation is 50% (As in: the worst part is 100, the best one is 150). It could be about operation EU cost alone, doesn't need to improve speed.
Why should it only concern the EU cost ? There's no argue for it.
If you suggest new better machine which would work different based on internal parts while old processors works good - it is benefit.
If you want old processors to break unattended - it is burden.
To build complex system is fun, to search for a break in it is not.Yeah, I would like to get funny machines to spend more time on GUI like nuclear reactor, but the "it would be too hard to run with old processors" is not totally true: It would just be like nuclear reactor. And instead of using 4 machines, you could use only one advanced machine with 4 process, what would moreover make that you will lag less because of less Right-Clicking on machine to enter the GUI. And I think a simple machine able to turn 1 items into an other without others component to cooldown, increase efficienty, decrease EU-consumption, in one word, if you use it as a regular machine, it won't be so laggy/CPU-consuming.
I don't know about adding any "difficulty" to the game if the machines were to break. What I mean is that IC2, BC, RP2 etc are all about automation so in the "long" run it would only be a slight nuisance. However if you're not using miners, quarries, frames and you're manually mining then it would be a BIG hit losing machines like that. Just think of how annoying the wrench can be if it fails to dismantle a machine at early stages in the game.
Have you ever used the Mining Laser in Horizontal or Scatter + Lappack ?
And think about (Iwon'tsaywhatIthinkaboutthem) guys using Forestry (a bit cheated in my opinion) or EE (It ... just completly break the game) ?You are both confusing Industrial-craft with Build-craft. Industrial craft is NOT about automation, it doesnt even have a transport system, and the redpower transport sucks.
Just about the RP2 things, before Greg says it: Redpower tubes can be considered as more complicated as the BC-ones, but they are more useful. (Refering to problems with overcrowded machines for example)
How about making old machines slower\consuming more energy per operation, small operation fail chance (loose item) instead of breaking it completely ?
It should be a part too. But breaking would occure only on extreme overheating (with what I suggest)/non maintaining.
Technically this would be the same as break-down just reverse: your machines work 20% slower if you do not keep them well-oiled/use spare parts/whatever on a regular basis. The difference is that people who do not want to babysit their machines don't have to. If they don't the machines still work as we are used to right now, just that those people sacrifice 20% speed they could have gained almost for free.
Seriously, the game is actually so easy, I agree machine has to be buffed if this system is added, but it's because of the fact we're making them breakable/others things ...
I get the quantum in 10-12 hours with Mining Laser + Lappack + Diamond Drill + Fortune II sapphire pickaxe + 3 MF running on scrap with a CASUC. So add weardown would increase my time played (even in PvP).Edit: Why not adding a way to make miner able to mine more than 9*9, or to add a "Bonus loot", increase (or decrease, for heating reasons) mining speed depending on the config you're using in the GUI ?
-
What's the problem with it being easy? Minecraft isn't the place for over-zealous balancing: If it's fun, it's fun. When I feel tech-styled Minecraft is too easy, I play TerraFirmaCraft for a while. Or I take a look in the config files as to what I can make harder.
Minecraft, and IC2, too, have a playful approach to a realistic scenario. We fly around in body armor made of materials we gained from pure energy, powered by nuclear reactors.
Maybe I should say this again. We fly around in body armor made of materials we gained from pure energy, powered by nuclear reactors.
Let it be a game, a game with configurable difficulty. Tediousness is not difficulty, it's lazy difficulty. Recipe output tweaking, difficulty setting-dependent Generator efficiency, more use for player experience, that'd be ideas to make the game harder and thus more fun. That's what we want, isn't it? Make it harder and thus more fun.
IC2 is complicated enough. Being all stuck-up about people using automation whereas IC2 hardliners are against that is childish. If IC2 were designed as an opposition to automation, why is my geothermal generator BC compatible? Why do we have cells?
If you want to hear my idea on how to make the game harder: I first must admit that there's loads of config file features I don't know about. Still, if they were to expand, we should just release a set of, let's call it, "Tournament rules". Want a suggestion?
- Wind mills have a high chance to break. Its average lifespan is two in-game weeks before turning into a regular machine block.
- Geothermal generators don't accept pipes and output only 10 EU/t while not consuming lava slower than now.
- Geothermal generators have a chance to leak if over-filled. A Generator that's filled over 25% is expected to turn into a lava source block within the week.
- Solar panels have greatly fluctuating output. A single packet can be as large as 33 EU, so regular setups are expected to explode within three weeks.
- If not repaired early enough, Nano armor is destroyed when its energy depletes.
- Extracting resin gives 2 rubber.
- Every energy storage loses 2% of its current energy every tick.
- Bronze tools and armor are weaker and less durable than their iron counterparts.
- Macerating an ore only has a chance of doubling the output, but it's not a guarantee.
- Equipment left in a charging station can overheat and be destroyed.
- An active nuclear reactor will damage you unless you wear full nano or quantum armor.
- No rubber saplings.
- Lappack storage is halved.
Or things like that, I don't know, these are just spontaneous ideas. I'd prefer we challenge ourselves in a Minecraft-ish way instead of artificially making the game
hardtedious and annoying. -
Every energy storage loses 2% of its current energy every tick.
actually this mean that a storage unit lose around 33% of his charge every second...
Stating at full charge, it takes 15 seconds to be near empty...
how this is supposed to be a STORAGE unit that way? -
Then change the number...
-
^ make it max_packet_size per tick. That's 0.08% for a batbox, a bit more than 0.02% for an MFE and just over 0.005% for an MFSU, which seem like reasonable rates (and a good push for higher-end storage).
X-Heiko, I think this idea of "tournament rules" could do well in its own thread -- would you be kind enough to start that?
-
With "automation" I mean machines like the miner, pump, crop-matron etc. They require no user input once set up. Not sure I see the difference between BC and IC2 in this regard?
But yes, I prefer to think of IC2 as something else, beside automation, I love the machines(and now also love the farming) and I can't imagine playing minecraft without IC2, hence I'm still playing 1.2.5. It's the top mod for me. I barely even use BC since I don't like how the fuel, oil etc works and that the machines aren't compatible across the mods, which makes it tedious and annoying to use "cross-over" mods, because they're just awful and clutter up the world with even more machines.
Well, according to that logic, furnaces are also automated...
-
X-Heiko, I think this idea of "tournament rules" could do well in its own thread -- would you be kind enough to start that?Done and done.
-
Industrialcraft more micro update xd. Now just like in starcraft you can reach 300+ apm to keep your machines running.
Now that would be fun wouldnt it? Just make it a config option for the ppl that want it.
-
What's the problem with it being easy? Minecraft isn't the place for over-zealous balancing: If it's fun, it's fun. When I feel tech-styled Minecraft is too easy, I play TerraFirmaCraft for a while. Or I take a look in the config files as to what I can make harder.
The fact is: the more the game is hard, the more the time you can play it is long. Why do you think there are so many PvP servers ? Because IC² is funny, but after 15 hours of game, you aren't playing for getting the next Tier, having the full Q-Suit etc ... you're just trying to find things to do, and it's annoying. The only thing you can do after having quantum suit that is not boring (hard, raging but not boring ^^) is IC²-Agriculture. With the Industrium Conflict release, this time I already mentionned should increase because of the end of Quantum-Invicibility (is that english ? ^^). And why not simply using config to make it harder ? Because to be accepted by player, things bringing difficulties also must bring buffs. I say it because I am in this case: I wouldn't like Alblaka to decrease all Generator-Output, unless for example he increase the EU-generated by all non-renewable energy. (Ex: instead of allowing the Geogen to output 20 EU/t, it would be 10 but 1 lava cell would provide 30 000 EU [without using pump, I know there is a setup to get 30 000 EU/lava using cells + IC²-pump]. This is an example, of course it could really be easier than now with that, it's just for the Idea) It's good to make the game harder, but the aim is not just to decrease all output etc ... and increase all damages, cost etc ...
Let it be a game, a game with configurable difficulty. Tediousness is not difficulty, it's lazy difficulty. Recipe output tweaking, difficulty setting-dependent Generator efficiency, more use for player experience, that'd be ideas to make the game harder and thus more fun. That's what we want, isn't it? Make it harder and thus more fun.
Most of the players using IC² aren't using config. Stop with thinking this is the way to solve any problem. (I'm not saying IC² has problem, I love it as it is, but it could be even better).
If IC2 were designed as an opposition to automation, why is my geothermal generator BC compatible? Why do we have cells?
... That was a test for compatibility ... And I don't think automation is bad. I simply think that having complete Factory generating what you want with just Farms of Solar Pannels is making the game closer than Equivalent Exchange (except IC²-UUM generation is very slow compared to EE). And everyody know that EE= evil
So what I suggest wouldn't totally avoid automation, it would simply make it harder, slower and needing correct configs.An active nuclear reactor will damage you unless you wear full nano or quantum armor.
An active Overheating reactor already damage you unless you're wearing full nano or quantum. (And it decrease the energy of it in the case you're wearing it, so it's just the same as if you were damaged by Zombies).
