Darmo

I would not necessarily assume temperature will be the same. In TFC1 it scales in a linear fashion from equator. But TFC2 is confirmed to have climatic regions for each island (tropical, sub-tropical, temperate, sub-arctic, arctic). I am guessing that a given island will have a uniform temperature (at sea level). Bioxx also said once he even intends for different islands to experience their own weather, so the whole world won't necessarily be raining at once. One of the benefits of this system of uniform island climate is having no more acacia forest lines at a certain Y coord. Regarding fur-lined armor, that may make for a simpler interface, but more customize-able means more item ids (assuming it can't be done with metadata) and graphics (unless the look does not change) . Every modification will double the number of item ids required, and that's assuming you can only make 1 modification to a piece of armor. From the player standpoint, the player will have more control if the items are separate. That steel armor took a lot of time to make. Rather than force the player to make a second fur-lined suit of armor for the winter, why not simply allow them to put on warm clothes as well, and use the same set of armor? It might also be an option to allow the fur to be removed, though it would either need to have no durability, or code would have to track the durability for both fur and armor, on the fur-armor item, so that when they're separated the fur gets it's own durability. The math I might have to comment on later. But in short, I'm not sure I'd agree with armor multiplying cold. I'd probably argue that worn items should only add heat.

Any thoughts on other aspects aside form weapon/armor enchants? Summoning, temporary buffs, other utility magic that isn't weapon/armor based? Would it be practical to pursue metal weapons, but magical summoning or buff spells? A player could kind of mix-and-match magic and mundane things? And would there be mundane parallels to the other magics, such as alchemy (parallels magic buffs) and engineering (parallels summoning via constructed automatons)? And presumably a player could pursue these things in whatever mix they wish?

Well, I don't know if you were interested in any comments from me given that I've already commented quite a bit on your other threads. But knowing that you advocate for allowing simultaneous pursuit of all skills, I'm interested in how you envision the division between Sam and Conan actually working. You talk of Conan using natural armors and weapons. But what's to stop him from using metal ones? Are only natural weapons and armor enchantable? I'm curious if you're envisioning more than just roleplay separating Sam and Conan?

I am not aware of any cart mechanics being revealed. Only that they will exist. Hopefully the player won't be able to climb a ladder with one, at the very least. I think it would be interesting if the player was not allowed to jump while pulling one. Then travel is dealt with in one of two ways: the player gains the ability to simply walk up 1-block rises while wearing the cart, or, they could have to 'pave' themselves a path with half-slabs and/or stairs. This would kind of simulate cart paths, rather than just having them be totally offroad vehicles. It would also make players naturally stick to low-slope terrain with the carts, which is believable. This would give mules a parallel purpose, in being able to off-road it. If this were the method it'd be good if half-slabs could be made of dirt, sand, and gravel in order to make as natural a path as possible, But even if cobble half-slabs was as 'natural' as it got, that would probably work. At least their stone type could match the terrain. And the hand cart could be an early-game mine cart, as long as the player builds a sloping passage with stairs. It would of course hold far less than an actual minecart.

Slight addition; as Bioxx mentioned in the OP, he is also adding hand carts. So that's another transportation method. It's been awhile since I read this thread, but I don't remember mounts ignoring weight being brought up as an issue. I'd assume Bioxx can code it so that mounts have a weight limit where appropriate (maybe mine carts are unlimited). Junk piles would be quite humorous, but I don't really think they're probably necessary. Players will have some early game storage options. If carried containers reducing weight became a thing, it might be good to add a durability to the container, reduced every time the player removes and/or adds something. If containers wear out, then the player will have to remake them, and maybe it becomes worthwhile to add the resources necessary, which could be as simple as leather (stone-age-makeable) or reeds for basket weaving. As opposed to if they never wear out, in which case the player makes one and it lasts forever, and if they can do that in the stone-age, you practically may as well just not have it, it becomes almost as superfluous as javelins.

As Stroam mentioned, the north-south coordinate is the Z coordinate. In defiance of the precedent of basically the entire rest of the engineering and scientific world. And yes, if your Z is at 0, you are right in the north-south middle of the equator, always. X coordinate is how far east or west along the equator you are. And Y is your elevation above bedrock.

Have you read, understood, and followed all of the rules listed in large text at the top of the suggestions forum?(Yes/No): YES So, this thought largely came about as I was thinking about how one might limit the number of skills a player can reasonably pursue, per the Exclusivity of Trades Post I made awhile back. It involves a couple possible different ways to limit the number of trades a player could pursue with a given character. I searched the old TFC suggestion forums and found no discussion of this in the first few pages, but even if it had been, TFC2 right? STAT POINTS The player could have stats. Could be full-on D&D-style Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma. Could be different. But the idea would be that different trades require different stats to be good at, or maybe even have flat-out stat-gates. GAINING POINTS The player might start with 1 in all stats, and then they get a stat point for every X levels they attain. I'll use 5 as an example. So when the player *first* reaches level 5, they get a stat point, which they apply to the stat of their choice in the appropriate tab of the inventory/skill/etc screen. THIS ONLY HAPPENS ONCE. If they die and attain level 5 again, they do not get another point (but they do keep points already earned, maybe). They get their second stat point at level 10, and so forth. This makes experience levels very important, as opposed to how they are now, just a kind of nice hp bonus. I'm not sure what the hard/practical level limit is. Some googling turned up a lot of answers, but it seemed like many felt the practical limit is about 50. Players may not like being limited by level advancement though. STAT GATES Stats *could* come into play via 'hard' gates. So a smith for instance, can work copper (tier 1) with 1 or 2 strength, depending on the desired balance. Tier 2 metals require another point of strength. Tier 3 another, etc. If the player does not have sufficient strength, they just can't work the metal period. This can probably be applied to other trades as well, such as magic, but perhaps using intelligence in that case, for example. STAT SLOPES Stats could also be a 'soft' limiting factor, if the systems inherent in each trade become more difficult with lower stats. So in the case of smithing, perhaps the unseen target numbers for each tier of metal get higher and higher. A copper pick might have a target (in a specific seed) of 50. A bronze pick 250. Iron 500, steel 1000. But the amount that the smithing buttons moves the pointer also changes depending on the player's strength. A weak player will have to spend more and more hits to work higher tier metals, as their strength lags behind 'the slope'. While a player that keeps their strength in line with the tier slope, has to expend much fewer hits. So weak players will spend more hammers, and more time just getting up the vicinity of the target, leaving less time to find the sweet spot before cooling. If a system such as exhaustion came into play, the weak player would also become exhausted sooner, as each hit would reduce that meter (Increasing constitution would increase the player's exhaustion meter, obviously). In this way, a player *could* still smith metals without pumping STR, but they will pay a price in efficiency. Other major trades - magic for instance - can have similar things. But minor crafts could also be affected. For instance if gemology became a fairly complicated craft, it could play off of dexterity. There could be an entirely separate branch of smithing for jewelry (mainly for enchantment) that relies on dexterity rather than strength. If there were perhaps different branches of magic, some might play off wisdom instead. The agriculture skill could involve wisdom (bonus seeds only with high skill+wisdom). Looms could use dexterity (introduce a chance to fail and lose half the thread). Butchering could have reduced yield for low dexterity. Scraping the hide has a chance to reduce leather yield by 1, or ruin it entirely, with low dexterity. Arrows could have some random error introduced, reduced by higher dexterity. There's a lot of minor ways to influence these non-trade tasks. Whether stat 'gates', or 'slopes', or a combination, I think this system would allow the player to customize their character to a degree. Maybe they spread out their points so they can do some low-tier smithing, and also low-tier magic. Or they go all-out on constitution and strength and become a smithing machine. The hard part is making sure all stats have a good amount uses (charisma may not make the cut) TRADE FRICTION Trade Friction is the concept that some trades could conflict with others directly, discouraging or preventing the player from pursuing multiple trades. I suggested this in my nature magic post, in the magic thread. In that case, pursuing blacksmithing a lot 'contaminates' the player with pollution, bumping up a hidden meter that, if it goes to high, starts to interfere with or prevent certain nature magics. If nature magic and arcane magic both existed, arcane magic could also have a similar taint, to discourage a player doing both kinds of magic. So a player smith would have a harder and harder time, the further they try to go in nature magic. The problem with this is it might be hard to rationalize a reason in some cases, and the more trades there are, the harder it becomes. So why would magic interfere with the smithing trade? It could be that the magic of TFC2 is heavily earth/magnetism based, and that all this messing with geomantic forces gives them a personal quasi-magnetic field. This field alters smithing, such that rather than the target number being consistent for the mage for any given product, it has a chance to be different sometimes. And if the mage delves too far, eventually the smithing target is different every single time, for the same product. Maybe some move buttons will even start to randomize. Eventually it would become prohibitively difficult for the mage to do smithing. But if alchemy became a full-on profession separate from magic, what then? It could probably be argued to still pollute vs nature magic. Maybe even have contaminating effects on arcane magic. But why would it impede smithing? So that's kind of an issue with the trade friction concept. There could also be trade completion order issues, which must be watched for. The friction would need to be constant, in everyday use of the trade. Otherwise, if there were for instance just gates where a druid can't progress if they're polluted too much, but otherwise pollution has no other effects, the player could complete the druid ladder first and then start smithing, with no issues, having passed all the druid 'friction gates'. By incorporating pollution checks into every spell use and item creation, the player cannot continue to be a great druid if they then contaminate themselves. Yet, if nature magic did not have a static effect vs arcane magic, the player could complete the nature magic tree, and then do all the arcane tree. Losing their powerful nature magics, but doing all the arcane, effectively completing two full trees in one playthrough. This may or may not be a concern, but an LPer could complete both tracks in one LP. So those were my thoughts on this so far. I don't know if any of this is of interest to the devs, but to do it right, it would probably need to be planned from the start across many areas, so I wanted to get the thought out there.

In a nutshell, it already does. TFC doesn't have biomes in the same way vanilla does. The topography - plains, hills, mountains - generates independent of anything else. Which makes perfect sense. Then, temperature varies based on distance north-south. And beyond that, there is moisture - my understanding is that this is independent of z coords. So what happens is the topography is the baseline, then the game checks the temperature and moisture, and generates animals and trees based on these three factors. So the current TFC already changes plants an animals depending on z coords. Animals also respond to topography, while trees respond to rainfall. Both factors independent of z coords (to the best of my knowledge). Now in TFC2, my understanding is that each island will have it's own uniform climate. There will be tropical in the center, then sub-tropical, temperate, sub-arctic, and arctic, these will be both north and south of the tropical equator. So rather than having specific temperature ranges, the plants and animals will (presumably) have certain climates that they appear in. One of the benefits of climates as opposed to north-south temperature gradients, is that you won't have that abrupt line of acacia that TFC1 has at a certain z coordinates

The problem is those are universal values that don't account for different players. And while it's a simulation of rl skill loss, it might be a poor game mechanic for player enjoyment. When people work hard for something, especially something like building up a skill, I think they won't react favorably to losing it. I've seen the strongest reactions to loss of skills, rather than loss of gear. Personally I can go on a rl building spree for days. I'd not appreciate losing hard-won skills just because I was trying to improve the atmosphere of the server, and I think it would tend to disincentivize such projects, unless the time cushion was extremely long. That said, it does sound like it'd be easy-ish to add, and easy to get rid of with a couple configs. It's definitely a viable option. Plus - and this is I think the biggest bonus of this method - it allows a player to re-align if they find that one chosen 'career' path isn't actually all that much to their liking. It's more adaptable.

Also the growing menagerie of critters. Witness Therighthon's llama - light years ahead of Mojang's, and shearable to boot! And Konlii's fantastic camel, a much more sensible mount than a llama, which irl cannot generally carry a grown human, much less one with gear. Just two animals out of many.

I like the idea of skill degradation. I could see where that might be a soft system of specialization. Sounds really hard to balance to me, but that's just me. The give-and-take idea sounds a bit convoluted to me. I'm not sure how that's better than a stat point system where you can choose to put all your points in one or two stats and super-specialize, or spread them across the board the be mediocre at many things. I guess you get to be great for awhile and then mediocre, but that doesn't seem like a great progression arc imo. As for the 'non-combat' roles, that stuff could either be somewhat related to the primary profession via commonality of stat points, or it could be entirely unrelated if progression were via skill web. in a SMP environment, if someone wanted to focus on farming then that would be entirely doable. They could have other people doing the risky combat stuff, and they focus on their farming. SMP would be ideal for that. In single player, you'd need to have at least some aggressive skills in order to progress down the island chain. But that's SP. It's known that you're on your own in that case. The progression can be designed such that a player can progress in their primary profession, and also several trades. They could even be entirely separated, so that professions use an entirely different set of points from trades. So in a skill web scenario the player might gain a profession point every level, and also a trade point. Profession points can only be used in the primary combative tracks - fighter, mage, etc. Trade points are used for non-combative things. Farming, animal husbandry, gemology, glassmaking, etc. So then every player has a combat profession provided for, but also some 'hobbies', as it were. They could be a focused fighter that dabbles in many hobbies, a fighter/mage/alchemist that is the best gemologist in the world, or anything in between. I don't see builder as a coded skill. The game is basically about building and I don't think it's a good idea to prevent anyone from building. I think it would be better if one person cannot make the very best weapons and enchant them with the very best magic. I don't mind someone making mediocre weapons and enchanting the with mediocre magic. But if the only way to get top notch weapons with top notch enchantments is via SMP, I'm ok with that. It could get people out playing and trading in a community. Forming adventuring bands of varied skills. As long as the generalist can still progress in SP, I see no harm in their being limited. To me smithing is part and parcel of a 'warrior' profession, so a smith would never be penalized for combat. Smithing skills would be part of the profession progression. I think skill degradation could run into issues with the fact that different people have different playstyles. Some might go on long exploration trips, socialize a lot, spend a lot of time building (this would be the biggest problem I think), or just not generally be as 'on-point', and would suffer for it. While the players who grind the most would see the benefit. So it's got it's own problems imo. But I do like the aspect of being the softest of the soft specialization systems.

With regards to preventing island-hopping, I think the last plan we'd heard is that a player won't be allowed to mine or place blocks on new islands. They first have to find a fortress and defeat the 'boss' of that fortress, which then releases a part of the island for the player to mine/build on. My impression is that each island will be controlled by a humanoid race of some kind, that uses weapons and armor. The player will be forced to craft weapons and armor of sufficient quality to beat these mobs and take over the island. So if this is how things pan out, there will be no 'easy' island-hopping, and no under-ocean tunneling at all. The build/mine prohibition thing isn't exactly the smoothest or most believable mechanic, but it does pretty neatly address the island-hopping issue.

If the game is designed for it, I think stats can work. But the game would definitely have to be designed and balanced around the notion. I can't find the post it was discussed in now, but the idea was that Every class can do some basic things. This includes magic users being able to smith metals up to bronze (or higher in the 'soft slope' scenario). So the divergence doesn't take place immediately. A mage can still smith lower tier tools. They aren't dependent upon other players entirely for that. And they'll be able to tan hides, make alcohol, basically all the stuff in the current version of TFC except high tier metal working. Beyond that, the notion of whether or not someone else is "required" depends on what one thinks the goal of the game is. TFC2 ostensibly seems to have the goal of progressing east and west across the islands to access higher tier materials. In general, all this requires is defeating higher tier mobs. And so as long as a magic user can defeat those mobs, and obtain materials, they can progress. So yes, the mage class does need to be balanced such that they can accomplish this alone. If there is to be a goal beyond this, I've not picked up on it. But even within this context, I think there could be some islands inhabited by mobs that are resistant to either magic or weapons. Because the player has 9 different avenues to proceed in one direction. So if one island is too hard, move north or south and try again. The key is to make sure the player can progress. If gemology became a significant side-trade, it would simply need to be arranged that it provides bonuses, not blockades. So if higher quality gems were used to make magic wands with more durability/more charges, that's a bonus, but if a player is a mage and is not themselves, nor do they have access to a professional gemologist, they can still make wands and staves and such. They'll just have to make more of them. If a player is not a master level animal tamer, they may not be able to keep care of a huge menagerie of exotic animals in their home base (those tropical giraffes keep getting sick and dieing in the player's sub-arctic base) but they can still get the stuff they need with the animals native to the region, and maybe an occasional foray into the tropics. The player might not be able to be a master horticulturalist and cultivate the rarest herbs, but they can buy them from npcs in far-off lands. The key here is to differentiate between a full-on profession, and bonus trades. I would define a profession as something that has an aggressive mode of operation allowing progress through he islands. Weapons and magic are the two obvious ones, and should be relatively easy to balance. More exotic professions would be alchemist, and engineer. The alchemist would have a variety of potions and poisons, and maybe even crude guns. The engineer mechanical weapons, and eventually automatons. Perhaps an animal tamer can train super-strong animals to fight for them. the more exotic the trade the harder to balance (and tons more work for devs obviously). But each actual profession must have the ability to progress across the islands on their own, absolutely. But SMP is where differentiated professions would shine I think. Others will mumble in awe as you fly by one your magic carpet (mage only) pegasus/griffin/chimera/dragon (tamer only) or gyrocopter (engineer only). Smiths would be the tank, and basically the default, least complicated class. They might not be as flashy, but they would be in demand as all other classes would get bonuses from well smithed products. Now if the goal is assumed to be to master everything, then yes obviously that's directly opposed to the notion of trade/profession divisions. I might argue it's better to have the divisions baked into the game, because it'd be far easier to remove the barriers, for those who don't like them. If stat points are involved, this would be as simple as removing the stat gates form certain skills, or pumping up the stat point gain rate in a 'soft division' scenario. I think some separation would improve the SMP aspect. The problem I've experienced in SMP is there's no economy. Everyone can get/make everything. The only things people trade in a meaningful way are difficult to get things like sequoia saplings or graphite. And when I say trade I mean actually bartered trade. Not just giving away stuff, which happens a lot. I think it would be great if people could actually produce things that other players on the server simply cannot produce themselves, and hence have somewhat of an economy. I think this would also help keep people interested. Because right now you join a server, join a town, there's nothing you can do that everyone else can't. If people had an actual role and felt like the town depended on them for things, maybe they'd be more prone to stay around. It all depends on the dev's goals, in the end. They've expressed a desire in the past to focus on small-group multiplayer, and I think division of trades/professions would help this play style as well.

Ok, I get where you're coming from now. The druid/shaman mining wasn't you, that's me from another thread. The idea wasn't necessarily blacklisting, but I see you replied to the stat point/trade friction thread, so I'll address that there.

So as you head east or west, the islands have progressively choppier water, requiring better and better ports? Because if the player has to build a port to leave every island, the tier 0 port is going to have to be pretty simple I think. The player won't have a lot of resources at that island. And if you don't have to upgrade each island, it probably won't be too hard for the player to just bring the materials for the new port with them, if it never has to improve beyond tier 0 tech. Well, aside from the weight mechanic. Moreover, depending on spawn parameters, if players are allowed to spawn on islands in a broad range of climates (which I think would be good) you'd have to make sure that at least early ports don't require resources that may be specific to one climate, such as wool, hemp, or reeds (though in actuality I would like to see these products each attainable in all climates). So a player in the arctic needs to be able to build a dock with things found in that climate. Your tier 0 raft port may need to be basically just sawn planks and some cobble riprap, both of which require metal tools, which would be attainable in any climate. Or even no port required at tier 0. Just hollow out a log canoe, or make one of hide stretched over bones. Overall it kind of seems like a complicated system to me, just to leave the island. I feel like it'd be enough to have a few tiers of ports for high level boats that have storage and animal transport options, faster transport time, etc. That way, if the player moves between islands via simpler methods, the ports can require possible rare materials like rope, cloth, and tar right from the start, because the player has a chance to hop some islands to find all these things. Players will still want these things, just because they like progression. I also think it'd probably be better to make the larger ships stationary, just to avoid the code headaches of large ship movement. Especially if this makes it easier for the player to customize their ship to a degree, for instance by putting barrels of fresh water and food where they want, and maybe carpeting their cabin, etc. So in that scenario, the player builds a port, constructs a large ship. They then can sail to adjacent regions. If the regions does not have a port, the ship is simply placed offshore anchored. Each of the four sides has an 'anchort spot', and the ship is placed on the one adjacent to the region from which the player arrived. Perhaps the player can move between the four offshore anchor points, and additionally any ports that are built can be added to the list for the region. The ship has a rowboat which the player can use to get to shore. In this way players could explore new regions without ports. But since they only have four fixed locations per (unported) island, they still would need to get in their rowboat to thoroughly explore. Ship repair could be accomplished by the player bringing cloth, rope, and tar with them. These could perhaps physically disappear as the ship accumulates wear from travel. So the player needs to check every so often and replace the missing pieces. If too much disappears, the ship wrecks, possibly becoming a permanent fixture on the bottom of the ocean! I hear ya on the minigame. That indeed might be a good idea, if fixed teleport times are the order of the day. Chasing down rats, fishing, maybe even crafting stations on larger ships. And ya, I'd agree that the port checks for the parts each time a boat is made/docked/repaired whatever. The lighthouse could perhaps have tiers, and higher tiers give a travel speed bonus. It'd be even better if the code could check the destination port for a lighthouse type, and so have two lighthouses factoring into travel. Though really a lighthouse is more of a benefit for arriving in a port than leaving. So maybe it only benefits travel time if the destination port has a lighthouse.

Ya, it'd definitely be good to have customization and more depth. Things that could be affected are damage, durability, swing speed, and crit chance (remove vanilla jump-crits). I'd previously suggested case hardening to increase durability, and pattern welding to increase damage, though I think that could also make sense for crits. I think it'd be great to have more processes, although I think it'd be best if the benefit was commensurate with the effort involved. Tempering could be a process controlled by the oil supply. Thereby giving a better incentive than just lamps. Which for me was never really worth the effort. Of course TFC2 could theoretically have other sources of oil (i.e. animals). I don't know that hardies would be enough of a justification to make smithing easier. Depends on the process to make them. But if you just make them by smithing an ingot, well, that's pretty easy to do. I previously suggested trip hammers as a tool for enlarging the smithing target, or otherwise simplifying smithing. But trip hammers would need a power source and a lot of metal. I was envisioning them as next-tier tech. I could definitely see hardies as being a prerequisite for certain tools. Mushroom, fuller, swage, cutoff, each tool, weapon, and armor could require a specific one, and hardies could wear out, as opposed to the anvil which does not. They'd be a bit like the tuyere, in that they're an expendable component. Another interesting thought would be if hardies have specific affects on the numbers. One might add 1, another might add 10%? 20%? and commesurate subtractions. I don't know the exact number involved. But in this scenario, smithing could probably be more randomized, because the player could use hardies to modify the numbers and thereby achieve any target. There'd probably need to be a disadvantage though, such as a number of moves penalty, which is enhanced by hardies. That way it's still best to use normal moves whenever possible. My previous experience with smithing, where I recorded the moves necessary for a variety of tools, was that it took anywhere from 9 to 13 moves to hit a variety of tool/weapon/armor targets. That's a fairly narrow range, and so I think it'd be reasonable to have penalties for an excessive amount of moves. Runes does sound like a good prerequisite for enchanting. A good use for acid, which might be made with some of the currently more useless minerals like bismuth, sphalerite, or cassiterite.

I like it. The captain's log idea is very interesting. Boat travel is definitely one of the more tedious things, so automating that a bit like riding a minecart would be great. Plus I like more uses for books. The mini-game idea is fun. Although the only really plausible min-game I can think of is a pirate/monster attack, where the player can help the crew fend off the attackers in a large pre-gen ship that they cannot leave. And maybe the player gets a reward depending on how many of the crew survive (especially the captain). This of course would only apply in a paid passage scenario. I can't really think of much for a small boat solo journey. It's not going to be big enough for deck combat. I think there would be a risk of annoying the players with mini-games that are not sufficiently entertaining/rewarding. I think many people would rather just take the manual boat ride than risk having a shipwreck because they failed a minigame. That would be super-annoying, especially if they lost goods they were transporting. On the other hand, if the barrels were washed up on shore, and it wasn't too insanely hard to rebuild the ship, it might be somewhat interesting. Even more interesting might be if the 'shipwreck island' were it's own world, like the nether, and procedurally generated each time a player wrecks there. The island is small-ish, and contains the things necessary for the player to escape, and once they leave they cannot return. Such an island could have unusual mobs and resources. The player might be able to have less chance of this by having better navigational equipment. Weather could also affect the chance of wreckage. I'm not entirely clear what the benefit of the port is. Or is it a requirement to build the biggest/best ships? I hate to mandate a certain structure though, as that kind of limits creativity imho. And I'm not sure it's necessary to make it unfeasible for single players. A lot of lets-players would lose out if that were true, and I think a lot of people find TFC via single-player lets-plays (I did). What if the port consisted not necessarily of specific layouts (and I'm not familiar with Gregtech to if I'm describing what they do, oops) but a series of certain single blocks? So it doesn't check for if you have a 6x6 harbor master hut and a lighthouse of this specific design etc all in a certain arrangement. It checks if you have a single lighthouse lens block - which is a complicated glass construction (perhaps using the glass blowing trade). A chest containing 128 pieces of rope, and a chest containing 64 pieces of cloth (each are reduced with each ship built), and a cartographer's table, which might be a series of six tables in a 2x3 arrangement, each containing 8 pieces of paper and one quill+ink (for a total of 48 paper and 6 quill&ink). Now these items don't have to be in any particular arrangement (aside from the tables being 2x3). They just all have to exist in, say, a 100x100x50 area. They basically are intended for a lighthouse, a sail loft, and a captain's cabin. That way the player can arrange them however they like, in buildings of whatever design they like. Maybe say that they cannot be within 10 blocks of each other, just to prevent the player from just cramming them all in a tiny hut or something. The lighthouse lens must have nothing other than glass obstructing it for a 101x101 block plane centered on it, and must have a completely unobstructed path to the chunk border on at least one side. If desired, one could add a requirement for a drydock, which must be a 30x10 level area at least 5 blocks below sea level, with a 40x10x5 vertical (salt?)water channel on one end (this is where the boat appears). This might require specialized 'tarred wood' blocks or something, to make the code search easier. Now historically boats were also built on land and just rolled into the water, so the drydock may be a bit much. But the basic idea is try to make the port a 'kit of parts', rather than a rigid mega-structure. If players make a lazy ugly port, that's their problem. They still had to invest the resources and time in the basic parts. It'd be nice if there were more benefits though, for such a large undertaking. Unless the boat it allows you to make is just THAT awesome!

Some good detailed thoughts there. It looks like you're kind of trying to have two separate progression paths there. First I'll drop a couple links to a couple old posts I made on a similar vein. One regarding Exclusivity of Trades, the other Stat Points and Trade Friction. They might be relevant. Here's a post regarding trades, and here is what I think is the main post regarding Magic. I'm not suggesting you should have posted in these threads. I just thought you might be interested in the things discussed in them (if you haven't already seen them). There's been some other good posts especially regarding skills/professions, but this is what I could find quickly. It sounds like your idea is kind of for a more 'civilized' tech path, and then a more shamanistic/druidic path. I'm very into that. And it also sounds like you're advocating for some separation, so that one player cannot simultaneously pursue both paths. I think This would enhance the replay-ability of the mod, and make SMP more fun, so that not everyone ends up basically the same. I think a parallel system of weapons and armor focused on bone, hides, chitin, and scales, would be great for the more shamanic path. I think at the most basic level, the game should have these two trades. Though as mentioned in the other thread(s), I think there could be more. The next level might be to have a civilized path which has smithing and chemist/engineer sub-paths, while the magic path then has druidic vs dark magic sub-paths. A lot of ideas are mooted in those other threads. As to your specific ideas, I don't know if your examples were meant to be specific, or were just sort of broad-brush to give an idea of your vision. It seems to me like white crabs and north face flowers may be a bit more specific than the devs want to get, but I don't know. And 'months' to complete an altar is probably a bit much, unless it's simply a matter of finding the right components taking awhile. I think a large infusion of plants and herbs, along with the already in progress animals, combined with mined minerals, could be the main ingredient sources for both paths. And I do like the idea of moon cycles playing into the magic. I do admit that a druid mining does seem a bit out of place. But I think the underground component of the game is such a huge part of it, that it would be a shame to exclude one path entirely from it. There could be underground plants and mushrooms though perhaps, to draw druids underground. And there's the notion of underground crystals, which I floated in the Magic thread. My problem is I come from a heavy Dungeons and Dragons background. So my magic ideas are heavily colored by this. I enjoy seeing other peoples' takes on magic, from a non-D&D background, which it seem like maybe you are. In summary, I agree with having two separate mutually exclusive paths, one magic, the other not, and I like the idea of a very naturalistic magic.

Ok, again, what you describe does not happen. Picking up surface stones does not reveal secret ore underneath them. The ore has it's own nuggets that show up on the surface. You'll see them laying on the ground, just like you see stones. You just have to run around searching till you find them. If you're getting propick readings on the surface, without finding nuggets, then I'd imagine you're getting readings of non-metals (gypsum, Kaolinite, etc), which do not leave nuggets on the surface. Because in order to get propick readings, the metal must be close enough to the surface to leave nuggets.

For one, TFC2 isn't out yet. I might suggest taking a look at this post I made awhile back, which contains links to some of the most important topics and dev posts regarding the direction of TFC2. It should give you a good idea of the major differences known at this point.

Ore blocks look different from normal rock. There's no ore 'hidden' inside a normal looking stone block. Prospectors pick only tells you when ore is near. You still have to search around to find it. If the block you propicked does not show ore veins, you will get no ore from it. You might want to find a good lets-play series and watch it, to get an idea of what to expect.

From my observations, I think veins spawn from a single point. They then generate upwards and outwards, like a splash, or cyclone. I say this because it seems like the densest part of a vein is almost always at the bottom, and it gets more spread out and diffuse as it goes up. and then it suddenly stops right below that dense point. It seems like this represents around 75% of veins. And in this context, as the vein generates upward, if it crosses into another rock type, and that rock can also host the mineral, then it keeps generating. I think that in theory you could have a vein in three or four rock types, if you were on a horizontal as well as vertical rock boundary.

Take a look at this past thread on tree farming. It should be applicable to current version afaik.

Another thread on the same subject, with exact same title right down to the exclamation point. This is why it's good to search the forums before posting.

He means a log block (tree trunk). Raw wood. I think part of the reason you can't chisel logs is that the texture would likely show bark on the interior faces. So you'd end up with odd looking textures I'd bet. I'm guessing that in order to be chiseled, a block must use the exact same texture on all faces (and of course be logical to allow it to be chiseled)