Discussion of realism in MC

  • Well ... this guys seems to have an answer for everything ... (I didn't say a logical/inteligent answer)
    So let's think the Dev team about it. But I guess it's going to be denied/non-considered ...
    At least, just think: would make it funnier than actually ? What would it really change ? I guess very few things, and not the gameplay.


    Soon with Molten Salt Reactors, right ? :D
    NERF THA FUSION REACTOR!

  • Heat is a FORM of Energy. Kinetic, I think..
    (Sorry for the one-liner, needed to be done)
    Slightly-in-line with what MattLaPatate said, this won't change much, and to me, that seems unnecessary.

    Haikus are poems

    They don't always make sense

    Potato

  • to conclude this.
    You could have said "you can carry megatons of any material in your pocket, that's not realistic, change the inventory size to 1 slot" from the start.
    Minecraft is a game that Was never meant to be realistic, you start off by chopping a tree with your bare hands, make useable planks out of it just by putting a log of wood into your magical "4x4 grid pocket factory thingy 9000".
    all of the generators could work by magical dwarves dancing inside it (when you give them coal, lava or anything acceptable by that generator), pleasing notch, who sends Eu trough the output.
    It's just code! it has no mechanical inner workings whatsoever!
    if you don't like it, you have 2 options:
    1) Uninstall ic2
    2) Re-code it so the reactor is called "magic radiating box 'O hayo"
    Minecraft realism isn't the kind of realism you understand as realism.
    Minecraft and IC2 aren't called "mining and industry simulator" for a reason.
    Oh, and before you start japping about bugs and balance, your suggestion won't make it any better. Your suggestion woud cause tons and tons of new bugs and the maintenance/Eu ratio for reactors right now is just right, enough to run lots of advanced machines or a massfab, it's the most powerfull ic2 generator afterall.

  • I think you should read discussion first, before "concluding" it, instead of just reading a title and fantasize the rest. Because I never said or meant anything you imply.


    But I really like your therm "Minecraft realism". What does it mean, exactly?

  • I think you should read discussion first


    I see no discussion, just lots of long metaphoric posts secretly flaming you and your horribly misplaced thread, you can't cause some sort of revolution in this forum, you get flamed and denied to the ground real quick.

    But I really like your therm "Minecraft realism". What does it mean, exactly?


    I meant that minecraft is some trippy place where common sense and reality don't apply.
    And why am i actually still commenting on this? The first two replies pretty much buried your idea six feet under.

  • I have to agree with this. I see this a lot in another mod that I will not name here. Who gives a crap about RL.. I mean shit if its that important then step outside and get a frigan shovel lol. I would rather have sci-fi and less RL this and RL that. Let the devs spend 100 times more researching on what things are and a lot less coding would just be also silly :P


    Suggesting some changes are fine say a recipe seems a bit fake but you have a better suggestion works but no point trying to make a REAL life simulator.

    Check out Our Brand New GT New Horizons Server .:Here:.
    Check out Our Brand New GT New Horizons Let's Play Series .:Here:.

  • Conclusion.
    1. 9 of 10 people write in topic after reading only title and may be one or two first posts.
    2. I should avoid using word "realism" on IC forum at all costs. Especially in title or first two posts of topic.

  • I *have* read the entire thread, so I'll throw in my two cents. What if, as a compromise, the reactor's texture was changed so that it looked like there was a turbine/generator built into it?

  • I *have* read the entire thread, so I'll throw in my two cents. What if, as a compromise, the reactor's texture was changed so that it looked like there was a turbine/generator built into it?


    What sort of stupid compromise is that if everyone and their dogs can re-make any and all IC2 textures, including the nuclear reactor?


    And more importantly, compromise of what?

  • What sort of stupid compromise is that if everyone and their dogs can re-make any and all IC2 textures, including the nuclear reactor?


    And more importantly, compromise of what?


    Compromise for people bitching about how it looks like magic. Derp.

  • Conclusion.
    1. 9 of 10 people write in topic after reading only title and may be one or two first posts.

    Conclusion: because you were a bit flamed, you have to expose us some easy-wrongs reason of it. The point is if you hadn't replied and replied again, you wouldn't have been flamed.

    2. I should avoid using word "realism" on IC forum at all costs. Especially in title or first two posts of topic.

    Yes, you should. IC² Forum members are tired of that type of title, maybe because it's one of the word we can see 3 time a month.

    Yes, I think it can be just left as it is. Not that there is something TERRIBLY wrong with it, and most people don't mind that it is "nuclear reactor" in name only, so...

    Everybody read it, again. But the discussion has turned a bit. It's normal, even if it shouldn't be. It happen in almost every thread. And even if you didn't say "IC has to be more realistic", you did it for Nuclear Reactor, and assuming it wouldn't happen anything better for Nuclear Reactor, most of us just applied it to all IC², to argue with it.


    Soon with Molten Salt Reactors, right ? :D
    NERF THA FUSION REACTOR!