Posts by The_Paragon

    So how does that sound?

    I would likely use this system over IC2s system, I really like it. The star-trek-ian remote acquisition concept is a stroke of genius.

    The only part I'm remotely ambivalent about is the teleport beacon, specifically the "unpowerable" booster blocks that can be placed in the world. I like the idea of boosting or dampening your "entanglement acquisition signal" - or whatever pseudosci we're throwing at the wall here - but placing a block down, even if it ends up costing you the block seems like it would too easily defeat an infrastructure-tied signal dampening system. Say you're trying to prevent teleports into and out of a region, so you set up these dampening towers tied to your eNet. All would be well and good, but if Jonny Trollsalot is carrying around 64 singal-booster blocks, he can circumvent your infrastructure with little to no preparation ahead of time. Perhaps moving the signal booster to an infrastructural block (tied to an eNet) would be better? Just a thought. Or, how about a compromise: The more signal-booster items that a player has in their inventory, the better the chance that their signal has of overcoming whatever environmental dampening is happening. Perhaps make the "beacon" item nonstackable, so that the player is effectively trading "likeliness of successful teleportation" for "amount of stuff they can take with them".

    So, in a nutshell: Signal dampening block, requires EU, reduces chance of player's successful teleport in area. Signal boosting block, requires EU, increases chance of player's successful teleport. Tricorder Signal Beacon item, unstackable, kept in inventory to boost individual player's chance of successful transport.

    Anyways, the whole idea sounds awesome. I'll make the textures :D

    Oh, I like that! Not necessarily for the IC2 builtin teleporter, but I might write it as an addon. Unsure what I'd name it, "cheap teleporters", maybe?

    ACME Teleporters! Quick! Cheap! Safety not guaranteed! Not sure about naming, but I agree that this is an idea for an addon rather than for IC2.

    How about if the player is careless in how they set their destination(s), the device offs them and spawns rotten flesh on the teleporter pads?

    CrafterOfMines is objectively correct. It would be cheaper to set up a teleporter network if one teleporter could link each to multiple destinations. The way it is now, if you have 3 destinations you want to be able to teleport between, you need a minimum of 4 teleporters. One in the first destination, one in the second destination, and two in the third to serve as a hub. If your suggestion is taken, it would only need 3, since you could travel directly between any two.

    What we have here are two different design philosophies, each leading to different conclusions. IC2's teleporter implementation is 1:1 as far as source:destination goes, whereas Mike's is unspecified. IC2's mechanic favors the construction of teloportation hubs, one centralized teleporter area leading to many subsidiary destinations. Mike's suggestion would favor a decentralized distributed teleporter system, with one teleporter in every viable destination. Since one could potentially connect to all, no need to make any kind of central hub.

    Silly idea: Perhaps some kind of hybrid mechanic would work. Say, the player sets the teleporter's frequency manually, but the source:destination ratio is preserved at 1:1. Two teleporters on the same frequency would be able to link. This way, if the destination's frequency is known the player could change their local teleporter to that frequency. Of course, they should take care not to have more than two viable destinations, lest the player be allocated evenly between the two of them.

    Lead has many industrial applications! Nearly half of the lead production in the United States is used in making lead-acid batteries (millions of tons). Lead has been used in the past to make pigments, ducting, roofing, pipes, and more recently is being used in semiconductors for making photovoltaic cells.

    Also, I could have sworn that sufficiently hot reactors damage the player now, and that one of the things a Hazmat suit does is protect you from it.

    EDIT: Forgot a few uses for lead! It's used for solder, it has been added to fuels to reduce engine knock (now banned in most countries due to environmental damage), and interestingly is used in electrical cord insulation (Lead-doped PVC). Also, if/when industrium conflict drops, ammunition.

    I have better things to do with my time.

    So go and do those better things with your time! Unless you truly believe that something of value is accomplished when users login and berate every useless suggestion... which is exactly what I'm arguing against. If it's a bad suggestion, let it just sit there and rot. I'm suggesting that users expend no energy in fighting these suggestions and simply let them fail on their own lack of power. Absolutely nothing is accomplished by replying to the numerous repeatedly denied suggestions. Having 5 different forum regulars replying to the same post with the same exact "ALREADY DENIED AND IS ALSO A BAD IDEA" spam is just as pointless as the "bad" suggestion itself.

    I don't see what's so difficult to grasp about what I'm saying, so I guess I'll work with the example you provided, and illustrate what I mean about brainstorming. The lightning rod. Okay, the lightning rod terrible idea. But what does the idea mean? Why is it being put forward in the first place?

    The suggestion is for a means to an end. - Means: Machine to gather energy from lightning. End: Production of bonus energy. The suggestion implies that the suggestor believes there is a need for new power generation methods in IC2, or perhaps a method of generating "bonus" power under certain conditions. If you've followed my train of thought so far, we now have a malleable concept we can work with, that being: A machine that provides a method of attaining a quantity of "bonus" power if certain environmental conditions are met. Cue the storming of brains!

    There's a big culture of "NO" surrounding IC2 suggestions. I can't remember the last time a suggestion was used, implemented, or even considered. That is obviously because IC2 is perfect, and needs exactly zero improvements!

    I don't think your idea is objectively bad, JackSprat. In fact, I think it is objectively good: helpful, convenient, easy to implement. It's just that the IC2 community has no need or no desire to listen to your ideas. As I said, IC2 is already perfect.

    Here's a suggestion: Let's rename the "SUGGESTIONS" forum to something else, say, "BRAINSTORMING", since suggestions are accepted by community or dev approximately never, defeating the entire purpose of a place to put forth suggestions. As it exists now, the forum is a place for OP to post a random idea, and for all the forum regulars to gather around and shoot it down. Kinda like a town-square stoning from back in the good old days! The trouble is, that kind of hostile environment is generally stagnant and unproductive. Let's not build any strawmen here - I'm not saying bad ideas should be coddled by the community. I'm saying that the community, when it sees a bad idea, should brainstorm over it and attempt to convert it into a good idea, instead of just screaming NO. In short - let us, as a community, change it from a place where bad ideas are shot down and forgotten into a place where bad ideas are considered, rehashed, and converted into a good idea.

    But I suppose that would require a forum culture change as well, so forget it. HAYO!

    What I means about CASUC is the fact that it won't affect your gameplay but the new way is just more "technological"

    That's what I'm trying to say, you said it better than I did. Why not apply that same thinking to the Recycler? To use your words - Change it in such a way that it won't affect your gameplay, but the end result will be more "technological".

    So because its "Dynamically Balanced" its an entirely different suggestion? Hahaha no.

    No, pookums. I never said it was a different suggestion. What I said was: "Yes, similar ideas have been brought up in the past but that alone isn't a reason to throw the idea away." Now, to clarify, in words with two or fewer syllables:

    "This has been thought of before. Maybe we could improve the idea if we thought about it some more."

    See how that works?

    Not really tre if you consider the fact they implemented LZH/RSH as a way of replacing Waterbucket for CASUC. And Al said that it has been implemented because he prefer a "more technological way of cooling".

    We're both saying the same thing here. Yes, CASUC still exists. It exists in a new form, i.e. an overhaul. It's much better than before, no? And there are more gameplay options available to people not interested in spamming the same thing over and over again, yes? Why not apply the same thinking to the cobblegen->recycler->masfab production tree?

    I actually like this idea, and I have never understood the arguments against it. Yes, similar ideas have been brought up in the past but that alone isn't a reason to throw the idea away.

    The most common theme to this set of ideas is "Why not rebalance [insert gameplay mechanic here]?" and to that I say, "Yes, let's". Be it by binding scrap return chance to item "value" or to recycling history, I think the Recycler is in need of a tune-up. Remember what happened to Nuclear? The concept was being abused; everybody was spamming the same damn waterbucket-CASUC reactor design, so the devs came in and made a much-needed overhaul. With recyclers, everybody is spamming the same damn cobblestone->recycler->massfab design, so why not apply that same thinking to this situation?

    I am operating under the assumption that an increase in the variety of game mechanics leads to a numerical increase in feasible playstyles, which leads to an improvement in overall gameplay experience. Doesn't it get boring to build the same constructs in every single game? It does for me. Why not make more playstyles feasible by improving the game mechanics?

    I wonder why there isn't a place for coding suggestions? It seems like we have at least a dozen people that understand IC2's code and have ideas as to how to improve it, but I have never seen any of their suggestions put into use (or, at least it's not being acknowledged). I mean, if there's one place that the devs should look at from time to time, it would be that place.

    The only thing I really dislike about the new steam stuff is that there are no dedicated pipes in Railcraft. I dislike Buildcraft, so the steam system (which requires pipes to use) is basically useless to me.

    I'm not sure about this. v1.106 is the most recent official version of IC2, so I don't think we can fault people for sticking to that version until a new official version is released. Restricting bug submits to the most recent version is just going to frustrate the issue, is it really such a big deal to reply with "Fixed in most recent beta?"