Posts by Two


    So again I ask if you actually READ the license, or only skimmed the first few lines and went "screw this, I'm to lazy to actually read the whole thing!".


    So maybe we read in different ways. Does it say "The download and the way to get there must be ... ad free" in this line or not?
    And if it does, does that mean that the download and the way to get there must be ad free?
    Now if my mod-pack is on Curse, and Curse puts a shitload of ads on their page, is that way to download then ad free?


    Quote

    Player is good, but he isnt god, he cant test fastcraft with every possible combination of mods out there, so he has to rely on us users to help him discover issues he might have missed.


    Exactly my point. So he will release something that is perfectly stable with Minecraft and all mods he tested and he will call that a "stable release". Now let's imagine that then my very strange combination of mods and configurations turns out to interfere with Fastcraft in a way that the game crashes, then obviously this is obviously not Player's fault. Now let's assume Player is on vacation or not doing any updates for whatever reason for three weeks, then I would be forced by the license to remove Fastcraft for the time being, because he released a version called "stable release" and I would have to update to that.


    Now I am pretty sure what I highlight here is not what Player wants to archive with his license, that is why I am asking for a change.

    ]Now the bolded section is plainly false, YOU cant include it if you are unwilling to follow the licence but there is no such limit on users adding fastcraft to the pack manually.


    That is exactly what I said: I cannot include Fastcraft because of the license issue, so I can only recommend it but not include it. This however is rather annoying for the users of the pack and many are either not reading that part or it is too annoying/complicated for them to do.


    Quote

    Further, you choose the launcher for your pack, so you can guarantee the license is followed


    I do not choose a launcher for my pack, I can select one of those available. This is an important difference, because I cannot make sure that a launcher will have the required options and I especially cannot make sure that a launcher still has such an option in 1 year. So if I have to limit my options just because of one mod, that mod won't be in the pack.


    Quote

    As to "the page I'm hosting on ad-free", did you actually READ the requirements, ALL of them?


    Yes I did, but you are obviously not a legal expert.
    "The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free"
    Free of charge I can do, but ad-free is beyond my abilities if I host that mod let's say on Curse, because it is up to them to decide whether there will be ads or not. And again I cannot guarantee that it will be ad-free now or in the future, so I cannot include Fastcraft again.


    Quote

    if you as a pack creator are unable to even check this forum once every three weeks you should not be making mod-packs in the first place


    For once have you considered that this is not my job? I might have other things to do or be on a business trip for a month or two, or even just have vacation somewhere, where I can not check this. And then the license also says that I would be forced to include the latest Fastcraft version even if that completely breaks the mod-pack. So again, as the license is very strange here, it is better to not have it in the pack in the first place.


    Quote

    When it comes down to it, if you are unable to agree to the license as is, especially on the topics you described as the major issues so far, then you obviously are not capable of handling the work of a pack-author in the first place.


    Here is another theory: I am an expert on software development and project management and just know a lot more about licenses, legal issues, update hassles and potential pitfalls than you are even aware of. And because of that my request is actually very valid. The fact that most other mod-packs do not include Fastcraft for the very same reasons is a good hint that the license as it stands right now is probably not very fitting.

    You are only required to have stable versions of fastcraft in your update chain, and stable fastcraft is not updated THAT often you know...


    And then I have to do that within 3 weeks, which is not always possible (especially when I am not actively playing Minecraft for a while), I would have to check every time I update for potential license changes, I cannot guarantee that the page I host the mod is ad-free (close to impossible nowadays), and I cannot guarantee that all mod-pack systems actually have the ability to disable the use of fastcraft, put the notice in the description or mention it's use in bug reports.


    So currently I do what most other mod-pack creates do as well: say that Fastcraft cannot be included because of the license. But that feels kind of stupid to me, therefore my question to ease the restrictions.

    I'd like to include FastCraft in a modpack, however the license terms feel very restrictive, complicated and partially impossible to fulfill (like: I can't update my modpack every 3 weeks just because of FastCraft).


    Is there a way that you remove/alter some of the more strange license parts (basically everything staring from the part with the banner) or grant special permission to my modpack?

    Some mods are using the structure generation code wrongly, not having properly updated their code when the structure-gen changed.
    fastcraft is not so much causing the error as exposing it due to its optimisations.


    I removed all mods, still the same crash during village generation. This is definitely a FastCraft issue.


    Mode crash info (version without mods, just FastCraft):

    Using FastCraft 1.19 causes a crash on placing multi-block structures (namely Ars Magica 2 Obelisk, couldn't test with others because the world doesn't load anymore).


    Crash report: http://pastebin.com/vjaMXEss


    What I did: Placed down an Ars Magica Obelisk (which is a multi-block structure) on the ground. The game crashed instantly and every time the world is loaded. I have not tested it with other structures, but I am pretty sure it will be the same, as no part of the stack trace hints to Ars Magica doing anything wrong.

    Nonotan : I neither need to answer your questions nor backup my personal opinion.


    MagusUnion : you are vastly over-estimating the importance of IC2 in my life. I actually didn't even play it for over a year, just thought: why not give it another try, just to learn that some people massively and (imo) very badly changed it. So I am giving advice, but all I face is a single developer, who not only seems to be the only one left, but as well thinks of himself way too high, plus his fanboys. This is pretty close to the state IC2 was in about a year ago, just that there is no Alblaka left to fix it this time.


    Just seeing how many people actually participated in this discussion, tells me in which state the mod is: claimed by someone who just stepped into way too big shoes, but fails to admit it, yet has a bunch of people, ready to bark at anyone who disagrees. It will effectively kill IC2 eventually, if that false illusion of everything being just fine isn't corrected soon. Currently the mod is lacking development, it lacks a concept and it lacks a vision, and the details are designed for a very small minority, which effectively excludes many players who previously enjoyed IC2. And without an audience, the interest to continue this mod will as well fade away eventually, causing it to die from the very same path, that caused death to many other projects before, and most likely many projects in the future.


    The problem with life-experience however is that everyone needs to make his own, so no matter what I say or how much of it, you'll either listen in the first place, because you have learned the lesson to listen already, or you never will. As we are on page 6 with no relevant progress, I assume it will be the later. So go forth, do your thing, and either prove me wrong, or - should I be right - learn from it.

    Are 2 hoppers and 2 chests that expensive?


    2 hoppers won't do it. I can automate the metal former with it, but then I first need to have >64 iron so that automating even makes sense. And I need to have an idea what to actually craft for the future setup. And I need a form of power generation that is capable of forming more than 2 iron ingots. If I have all that, then yes: 2 hoppers are definitely affordable.


    Quote

    You don't need Chunkloaders to go Mining, while having your Workshop running. Just mine where you live, or live where you mine.


    You assume that everyone is digging down and does strip mining, but some people just enjoy following caves. And your house is very fast out of chunk range if you do follow a cave or a mine-shaft. And then I do build my house in places that I like visually, and not where it happens to be most efficient.


    Not everyone is playing/enjoying the game exactly as you do, and that should be taken into account when designing this mod.

    There is no "need" for people to play this mod, only for people to maintain it. Mods "die" when people stop doing updates, not when they stop being "popular".


    If mods are less popular, people are less interested in maintaining them, so there is a relation. And if I have a look at the "frequent" updates, and that IC2 is still stuck at MC 1.5, and that Alblaka has gone missing... it doesn't look very alive to me.


    Quote

    Wait, so the MINUTES you would need to smelt Iron into refined Iron for Machine Blocks, which were needed before, are irrelevant to you?


    The difference is that for once I could just use other ways of smelting (like my own advanced furnace mod), or I could just quickly build like 8 furnaces to speed things up, because the material cost for a stone furnace is basically non-existent. I could theoretically build several metal formers, but the cost for one is not minor, I need to wire them, and they still drain ridiculous amounts of energy to work. If I had 4 metal formers, I'd be busy running back and forth fetching lava.


    Quote

    I think people don't get that they are not supposed to stare their machines do their work, but automate them just a bit so you can order it to do a big work


    I'd love to, but for that I need resources, so in the beginning I just have to stare at them, waiting for them to complete. Especially if I have no chunk loader mod installed. You could even say that without other mods, IC2 in the experimental form is forcing you to stare at machines till they are done.


    Quote

    The idea is to make people think ahead, planning which resources are going to be required in the future and prepare for it.


    Beside that I don't really want to do excel spreadsheets to play a game, I don't even know what the resource costs are, because the CraftGuide support is still messed up.

    Quote

    The metal former is really fast


    What is it? Like 6 seconds per ingot formed? That's 48 seconds if I want to make a new machine block, or about 6 1/2 minutes for a stack of iron. Double that time if you need the double-folded plates. You're one of these people who consider continental drift to be "damn fast shit" right?


    Quote

    Adapt or Die


    I am not going to die from bad changes to the mod, but the mod will.

    You can btw disable each modifier in Mystcraft config (like I did). In addition you have the option to not use anything you consider overpowered or for any other reason unusable. One can argue however that given the rarity of the diamond ore modifier, that if the time it takes to find one would have been spent on mining instead, you would have enough diamonds as well.