That feature is only mentioned on the FTB wikis. The IndustrialCraft wiki pages about Industrial TNT and dynamite do not explicitly promise a 100% drop rate, so maybe that was changed somewhere along the line to use vanilla explosion mechanics instead.
Well, I guess it is a bug then. Since in single player it does give 100% drop, but moment I goes to my own server, it become 33%..
That is inconsistent with single player behaviour..
That's an inherent risk of mining with exposives
But isn't dynamite sticks (in IC2) is supposed to drop all blocks being destroyed?
If you said were true, that dynamite sticks should behave exactly the same as vanilla TNT, then why it is dropping all blocks being destroyed in single player?
I am not asking about vanilla TNT, I'm asking about dynamite sticks in IC2
Minecraft version 1.7.10Using server: cauldron-1.7.10-1.1206.01.170
I installed IC2 experiemental 2.2.825
In multiplayer. I used dynamite stick to mine. But I noticed it is only giving 33% of the blocks being destroyed, instead of all of them.
I made a test with 9 gold ore arranged in 3x3
And the result of blowing them up with dynamite only gives 3 gold ores at any time.
When I try to confirm this, I got 9 golden ores instead of 3.
Is there an option that manages the drop rate of dynamite stick in multiplayer?
Thanks before hand.
I personally don't see much reason to be so complex on this subject. The effort x feature ratio is just not worth it.
The reason I brought this up is because I noticed IC2 exp is attempting to complicated most things we already have.
Which is great in some aspect...
But after that, eventually people will conquer all of the difficulties you had created and make everything so "simple" again...
So, I am thinking that, instead of complicates everything by hard coding everything, why dont we just make it dynamic?
Without some what dynamic gaming experience, players eventually will get bored very quickly and DEV had to complicates everything even more (without dynamics) and you see the endless loop..
It is not a good loop..
It simply trying to save experience player by giving worse gaming experience to new players (who have no idea how everything works)
But eventually, old players will leave; yet no more new players are joining this game or mod anymore... That will be the end, an unhappy end..
All I am trying to do is to break that unhappy loop. And that is my reason. (Assuming IC2 DEV will get that far.. if IC2 development is abandoned.. oh well...)
Please note that this suggested feature is not intended to break linear progression...
You can have whatever linear progression you like.
Even though I hate where IC2 exp is going to right now...
What I am trying to do here is to make things feels a bit more different every time, even with same set of machines
Instead of thinking DEV determines what game experience players will have.
Why don't just leave it to them?
After all, I still don't get why this feature don't work...
If you simply mean we can try it out in creative mode without losing anything.. thats how players do it.. and thats how real world do it! That is even how human life works!
What else can it be? Everything else in IC2 works the same way like that, except they are whole lot simpler and much more conrete than this system I am suggesting.
The difference is what you describe would be a lot of coding work for people not to use. Especially when dev time is precious with how busy everyone is, and how much still needs fixing that's already in.
And the difference between this and that is that
DEV are forcing people to use what they want them to use, which makes IC2 not fun anymore...
Also, if you really want to avoid "lot of coding work for people not to use", there shouldnt be any programming..
Because in what ever way, people will find a way that all your hard work become useless...
Say: creative mode...
Yeah! you can get whatever you want in creative mode.. mostly... why install IC2? why install random mod that only add items but not features?
Like I said: if someone like to spoil their own fun, just let them do it!
That's self defeating. Either you have it completely random or not random at all. Being able to change it won't make people bother trying to experiment with something when it's not even necessary.
Fine, a player could spend hours and lots of resources in their survival mode world to get what they want. Or, duplicate the world and test it in creative, to know exactly what they want, thus not spending anything more than time doing so. Or, not bother at all, as they see no benefit in doing it over what is already there.
That is what a player would do.
If that is the way they do it, we can't stop it.
Literally, even if we came up with various brilliant ideas. You can just simply smash that words at them so you can ruins everything single ideas.
What is the point of that?
If players would like to spoil their own fun, should we stop it?
That's self defeating. Either you have it completely random or not random at all. Being able to change it won't make people bother trying to experiment with something when it's not even necessary.
The whole concept of random is the fact:
"We know something is determining its behavious, but we don't know what it is! So we will assume it is random"
That is the random we are talking about.
If you are keep thinking that everything must be explicitly stated as a rule or something, then it is impossible to talk about anything big. Because, you can't describe infinitely many stuffs with finite rules and finite space
*** Add ***
Don't think from programmer perspective yet..
Just pretend that you are a player who has no idea what programming is!..
*** Add ***
QuoteBeing able to change it won't make people bother trying to
experiment with something when it's not even necessary.
This system will be useless if there are existing blocks and items with fixed capacity and other specs in the way...
So, my recommendation is to make the spec of those blocks and items depends on this new system as well..
So, it will be necessary to do some research...
Since seed remains the same per client (or per server).
So, there blue prints will be universal across player's map...
And since there will be a DEFAULT seed...
therefore, blue prints will be universal to some degree..
Also some server, say PVP server, may like to negate the advantage of universal blueprints to prevent op items and encourage research or looting blueprints
it is totally NOT like ic² cropbreeding, cropbreeding gets you a random result every time you breed, this is(in one world, anyway) with the same components always the same, so one combination in one world gets always the same storage medium quality.
And that one is optional..
Players who hosts Server have option to set a key so that there server will be universal with other server..
(Just like seed used for map generation)
*** Add ***
If this will be implemented, I suggests that storage medium carries 4 values: capacity, discharge rate, efficiency and degradation factor
(Maybe we can add a charge rate? So we can have stuff that charge extremely fast but discharges awfully slow)
So game does not have to evaluate how mediums behaves every time (and they will not be affected by changing seeds as down side.. or a feature if you like)
I suggests use vanilla minecraft and IC2 items for storage medium composition, for simplicity.
Because people will get lost if the player side of this whole system gets too complicated. (We can make a complicated system that is very easy and intuitive for users, this has been done in many games; Heart of Iron III has the most complicated but user friendly system I have ever seen)
What you're describing doesn't sound that fun at all, it's basically IC2's Crop breeding mechanic but for batteries.
Yes, you can put it in that way if you like.
The horrible randomness sounds even more frustrating than outright hardness gameplay wise.
Uh... Please describe the frustration?
If you simply means the blue prints are not universal thingy is frustrating; I did mention that one should be optional..
Also, it is really not random..
To players, it seems random, but there are trends.. if it is totally random, then it is meaning less to add such system..
It would be much simpler to just roll a random capacity whenever energy storage item or block is created/placed..
i guess he didn't write his suggestion down completely, but referred to a non-posted part of it in his post. i think he suggests some kind of storage medium item which is created by mixing several possible materials for several components(maybe depending of the way the medium stores energy), like being able to combine nickel and cadmium into a battery, but also all the other things you can use to make batteries i don't remember right now, not necessarily in the combinations used in RL, and every choice impacts the performance of the medium somehow(it might end up with either 3 or 4 components with this "hash-function" thingy, 3 if you can make different ways of storing energy(like batteries and flywheels), that would use one of the 4 values to determine the way of storing the energy.
Yes, I didn't write down complete idea..
Even whatever is there is kinda messy since I got overwhelmed by the idea of "using hash function to create some random value so everything get randomized"
Let me try to clarify a bit..
There are some raw materials in game, say iron, carbon fibre, acids and so on
There are machines to process them (order of processing matters) to give them different properties (which are hidden from user; or can be viewed through some way)
There is another machines that put processed materials together, to produce storage medium with different properties; a blueprint for that storage medium is produced as well
There will be new machine that takes 2 input: blueprint of storage medium, raw materials. Outputs: storage medium
There will be a new machine for crafting items that can store energy; which will needs storage medium along with other raw materials.
Energy storage item with different storage medium will have different capacity, different discharge rate, different life-span and different degradation factor
To achieve that, I proposed: Lets use a hash function, or a set of hash function which takes some information and returns 4 different values in a fixed range (to prevent overpower problem)
The "some information" is to be determined... Maybe is how items are aligned, or maybe there are random hidden properties stored along with those random items..
And I am doing this because I would like to increase play time of IC2 while ensures gaming experience.
Because, IMHO, simply making everything harder to do will surely ruins gaming experience
*** Add ***
I just checked tinker construct..
And yes, it is very similar to tinker construct..
But the difference is, rather than hard code how ABCD behaves.
Games will calculate how they behaves according to some algorithm (I proposed to use hash function, which maps from some space to 4 natural numbers)
Thus, we can do some research, like how blub called it. (I like it!
Similar idea can be applied to nano tech or quantum tech..
Where randomness are needed..
*** Add ***
Quotebut maybe something like "storage casings" with different tiers could be added
The basic idea here is to get rid of hardcoded-tiering
Make tiering more dynamic... let game rate a tier for every single thing you have discovered..
Already the cost is 3 iridium to get either silk touch or fortune on the drill, so something similar for the saw would make sense. Unless you wanted to completely change it.
The main point I am confused about is the logic of how "wearing out" the enchantment would work. It seems a very extreme way to make the higher tier tools less useful, unless there was a way to perhaps regenerate the enchantment in a new machine at the cost of EU. Then I'd like the idea more.
Sorry about suddenly dying away..
Enchantment "wearing out" by destroying blocks or timers.
There are 2 ways enchantment runs out:
- Time
- Destroy blocks
E.g. enchanted a drill. Time is 10 second, block limit is 5 blocks. (This is just an example)
If 10 seconds has passed since the enchantment is applied, enchantment will be gone forever, and drill turns into a normal drill
If drill mined 5 blocks within 10 seconds, drill turns into a normal drill; regardless how much time it has left..
Period.
There would be a better way is that, there are some amount of magic power on drill.
e.g. enchant a drill. Has Magic Power 100. For every seconds, Magic Power decrease by 1, for every blocks it destroys, Magic Power decreases by 10..
When Magic Power goes down to 0, drill turns into a normal drill
Period.
This is how the "wearing out" mechanism works...
I am sorry..
Yes! Randomized(deterministic)!
* Okay, everything in short!
Make a function that takes something as input and generates 4 numbers that belongs to an item, that can be filled into energy storing items/blocks, which will determines how energy storing item/block behaves so that players can invent new materials which allow them to store more energy in limited space. THE END.
* Everything in long!
I am learning hash table in CSCB63...
My teacher described hash function as a beast that takes in anything and spit out some number in fixed range...
I ring a bell - Lets tame that beast so that it takes something and spit out 4 numbers that are in fixed range...
Make energy storing items and blocks works according to those 4 numbers, those 4 numbers are:
- efficiency (ratio of energy that are lost when storing into it)
- capacity (yes! how much energy it can store)
- discharge rate (how fast energy is released)
- degrade factor (some random number to be feed into another beast that wiil changes those 4 numbers per every single EU charged or released)
That will be battery fillings, or battery acids, or whatever you like to call it...
Basically, they will be the stuffs that is stored in battery, that is used to store energy.
It is good because: it is randomized!
You can make discovery: "this combination works! because it has high efficiency! high capacity! high discharge rate! low degrade factor!"
Then someone else may claim: "mine works better!.. because blah!"
(So, Material physics-ish)
This idea is good because:
- It destroys deterministic property of IC2 gameplay! (If you know how to use it)
- Yeah, that is the only one I can think of...
But, by that way, you no longer needs to keep enlarging energy storage capacity for some device because some players needs it, or games mechanics needs it...
Just let them discover a way to get those 4 numbers bigger....
*** Now! What is BAD? ***
- Re-work for energy storage system
- New energy storage system is much more complicated, so development time is long. (But it is not hard except the beast function)
- Energy storage blocks needs to be changed
- Needs dedicated blocks and items to make this idea works
- Extra art, and art takes time.. A LOT OF TIME...
*** THE END ***
Now, some of my random words:
Please make an option so that blue prints are not universal across all server...
PS: This is just a quick idea... I am bit burnt out right now..
I'm trying make a mod which needs to use IC2 API to includes IC2's item (since IC2 is popular)
So, I look into the API..
But I found there are no list of string which I can use (Even though on the website it says there is one down below)...
Then, I am here, after searching over the internet and ended up with nothing...
Thanks for the help.. even if you just viewed this..
Mine does really stands for mining..
it means this is mine! my world, I can do whatever I want in it...
We can experience life in minecraft just as we do in real world, but with more freedom and flexibility.
If IC2 exp is going to take all of that away, it is not going to be fun at all...
And that is the way where IC2 EXP is heading into..
requires more ores which forces us to do boring MINING even LONGER...
comepletly destroys the fun of IC...
could enchantments be placed on something else.. IE the backpack? or does it have to be the drill itself?
i understand enchantments like effeciancy and unbreaking etc etc would be worthless, but silk touch woudl be good.. maybe there are other ways to use the enchanting book at a extreme cost to add it to a drill/saw?
perhaps unbreaking let the enchantment last longer
and efficiency reduces EU cost..
Suppose they are, and they are all sticking together..
Then you got a HUGE runaway redstone wire network...
I'm not against the idea, I just can't see how it would work
Since i am not familar with how NBT tag works...
But I am going to assume NBT tag can store an integer; and assume the EU remains are stored using NBT tag as well...
Suppose a 32 bit integer.
We can assign 16 bits for EU storage (up to 65535 EU) (or use as floating point, which stores a percentage)
then 10 bits for the remaining time or usage (up to 1023 blocks or seconds).
And rest of 6 bits are used as to identify what type of enchantment it has received.
*** else ***
I think the identifying what enchantment it has may be redundant, excessive.
Since the IC2 items can already be enchanted with cheat, using NEI or similar means.
If theres no need of identifying the what enchantment it holds, then we can simply assign 16 bit for EU and 16 bit for magic remains.
Or arrange it in whatever ways you want.
But the code may be complicated, since I have no idea of how to work with high word or low word in Java (I'm quite noob in java...)
Idea originated from how WinAPI in C++ manage to store 2 parameters in 1 integer.
If NBT tag can store multiple stuffs..
Awesome!..
*** Add ***
Use TAG_Int_Array ???
*** Add * Sorry ***
Sorry if I misunderstood you...
You are left with something which is completely useless over the previous tier. There needs to be something which makes the massive price of the iridium drill worth it.
I am not talking about balance of drills here..
I am talking about enable IC2 items can be enchanted with limitations.
And I am also saying how should items be treated (equally or individually)...
Not balance issue...
The discuss of balance issue comes after this idea being accepted.. furthermore the settings of drills are completely independent with this feature. They are related, however, as I mentioned earlier, that comes after the idea being accepted.
I do not like to get ahead (or get irrelevant) when the basis is not set... because they are irrelevant at this moment.
----------------------
I know you might say: they are relevant, because we need to fit them in.
My answer to that is: there are always ways to fit them in, but what matters is whether this feature appropriate.
If appropriate, then we starts working on details and determine what to change in order to make more fun.
Not just begin with an idea then think about "what happens with this and that.." it will work eventually but it is messy and inefficient.
Summary: After idea gets accepted, then talk about what should we do about iridium coated drill and similar...
Ore dictionary based specification is currently only supported for ingredients, not the output. Just use IC2:itemDustCoal instead of OreDict:dustCoal.
Thank you, problem solved..
I actually decided to use minecraft:coal instead...
Thanks anyway.
