Darmo

We do have jute, I'm not sure all this talk of hemp and flax is necessary when we already have a fiber crop, which, once you've made your first few leads and your farming skill gets better, becomes a bit redundant.  My understanding is we can currently make burlap from it, which currently has no use.  Seems like a good hemp/flax analog. In current system though, not really realistic to have enough jute before first winter to make clothes I think.

The thing about this clothes discussion is, there's not really a point to clothes unless/until a body heat mechanic of some sort is added. If/when that happens, clothes will become relevant. 

If it does happen, there will need to be a decision about how it fits into game progression.  There either needs to be enough ways to make clothes to survive the first winter, or if the options are limited it has to be assumed that the player will have to migrate far enough south to survive the first winter if they can't find any of those limited options. Bark clothing won't do anything against winter, hide is the best option, really, for first winter. It'll make the early game a race to get to the leather-working stage, and get enough leather to make clothes.  Which would be good for increasing leather usefulness, as right now the need for it is pretty minimal.  Although really leather by itself is not warm either, if it has no fur.  The current leather-making mechanic kind of gives the impression that the leather has been scraped on both sides I think. 

Perhaps all animals get their own raw hides like a sheep, with fur still on, and the player can either scrape the fur off for smooth leather to make bellows and armor and quivers, or tan them with fur on, for warm clothes.  There could be tiers of warmth; bear>sheep>wolf>deer>horse>pig.  Pig hide maybe wouldn't have any fur at all.  Unless pigs get changed to be wild boar.  As long as it's a reasonable surety that the player will be able to get flux before fist winter to make limewater, they will probably be able to get enough furs to survive it.  Then later the player can make wool clothing.  Which would not be as warm as bear, but warmer than all the others.  If the early game plays out at all like current TFC, I think it would be reasonable to expect the player to be able to gather enough hides to survive the winter and travel.  They might have to do less building the first year than they'd like, but all they'll need is enough metal for a saw, a source of flux, and animals.

If non-leather options are desired, it might be necessary to allow the player to line their bark books with straw.  You can actually make some straw clothes - hats, capes, winter boots - entirely from straw.  Honestly I'd say straw is a better option than bark, since it already exists in game.  Straw boots were done as recently as WWII for sentries.  Might reduce mobility, and I'm not sure how you craft them in a 2x2 grid though.  In the current system I think you'd need to use the 3x3 grid to be able to have the recipe shape versatility to make clothes, so unless something about the early grid and the way it is gained changes, it can be assumed the player will have a saw and all related items when they are making clothes.

If it is *not* desired to force the player into having a saw before first winter in order to make clothes, then something about the grid might have to change, or the new clothes materials will have to have a custom GUI, or it just has to be assumed they'll have to move south to survive the first winter sometimes.

variable y-level rivers is going to be so amazing.

I...don't suppose there's any chance you could flip z and y axis, and make north of equator positive y, and south of equator negative y?  The engineer in me rages a little bit every time I have to deal with the y and z axis as they are now.  The x axis is my only refuge of sanity.

I'd definitely love to see fantasy creatures - orcs, giants, stuff like that.  More variety than the same 'ole zombies and skeletons.  Even better if they have set-piece fortresses that would increase their spawning, until the player destroyed it.  Not as wild about magic items.  Definitely be interesting to see how the fantasy element shakes out.

That's weird, I always go pick, pro pick, saw

Definitely good if you know of some exposed copper, or just-under-the-dirt copper. Without ladders and support beams its kind of difficult to do any deep mining.

Ah, I think I get it now, that it's not about what's actually next to the lava when it drops, it's about the 'potential' - the nearest next-block-down.  I also noticed that lava doesn't seem to set plank blocks, logs, or lumber on fire.  Is that just because I'm in creative mode?  The minecraft wiki suggested lava checks around it for wood blocks to burn.

Have you read, understood, and followed all of the rules: ya

TFC Version #: .79.21 Forge Version #: 10.13.4.1448   SinglePlayerHave you deleted your config files or are using default configs and are still able to reproduce this bug? haven't changed them Do you have any mods other than Forge and TFC installed? Waila If you have Optifine or Cauldron installed, can you still reproduce the bug after uninstalling them? don't use those

I was experimenting in creative with lava, and noticed some kind of odd behavior and wanted to see if there are any guidelines I'm missing as to how it works. Basically, I was trying to make lava channels to move it around.  I noticed that when I drop it down a level, It doesn't always take all the available channels.  I had one case where there were 3 channels at 90 degrees, and it only took one of them.   In another case, I had four available channels, and it took 3 of them, but not the other. 

I found that in the second case for example - 4 channels - if I blocked off the 3 channels it preferred to take, it would indeed take the fourth when it dropped.  And if I then broke open the preferred channels after it had dropped,  it would take them, resulting in lava in all four channels.  However, if I blocked off the shunned channel, let the lava fall and fill the others, and then broke open the shunned channel, the lava still would not flow into it.  I could detect no rhyme or reason to how the lava chose which channel(s) to take. 

I'm not saying there's a bug or anything, but I was wondering if there are guidelines, or maybe this is a mechanic that hasn't really been examined and could be cleaned up to be more consistent, or what.

Here's an example of the first case, where the lava chose to take only 1 of the 3 available channels. 

It will take others if you block off the preferred channel.  If you then break the block obstructing the preferred channel it will flow into it.  But  if it is already in the preferred channel, opening up other channels will not make it flow into them. 

My impression right now is that the devs don't want to get quite so granular as nails, hinges, bands, etc.  They seem to keep things pretty broad-brush right now.  Once you start adding that detail stuff, it could be slippery slope. 

It'd be interesting though, in that right now, I think everyone uses their first 100 units of metal to make a saw. If hardware were added, it may be that the first tool would be a pick to get more metal - because lumber would be useless without it - and then people would actually use their stone anvil for making some copper/bronze hardware to make doors, chests, barrels, and plank blocks, as opposed to using the stone anvil to weld up their copper double-ingots and then getting rid of it.  People would actually do some smithing on early anvils, which right now I think never happens except for armor, and that's probably always bronze.  

People would have to get by longer with crude shelter methods.  Which might make it more worthwhile to come up with other options.  They'd also probably have to make a lot more large clay vessels, until they could get chests. I feel like on chests you'd probably have too much resistance, as right now I think most people use TONS of chests to organize all their hoarding of materials.  It'd be kind of rough if that got worse.  But it'd definitely make each door, chest, and barrel more valuable.  You'd need to provide greater returns on higher level materials, otherwise people would never make hardware from anything other than copper and bronze probably. 

And ya, I doubt the devs want to add an adze just to make canoes.  Best to keep it generalized in the stone age probably.

I think it would be reasonable if it took 30 seconds to work a log with a stone tool to get 1-2 plank.Not efficient at all, but you could still get a boat early on without metalurgy.

That's a decent idea, and would fill a valid need - early boat.  But I still think it'd be best to keep the player from getting planks with stone-age tools.  A door only takes six planks and make shelter SO much more efficient.  I'd never build another large clay vessel if I could get stone-age planks.  Barrels are way better.    

To go back to my earlier idea, how about if the player places 3 logs in a line on the ground with the ends facing each other (not up) they can then whale away at it with a fresh stone axe, and it'll take a long time and use the entire axe, but at the end they get a boat out of it.  This would basically simulate hollowing out a log canoe.  Allows early game boat, but still keeps the saw as a huge step up in technology.

I think taking damage no matter the water depth is a bad idea.  Early on I was a bit incredulous myself that 1 meter of water prevented damage from any height.  But I grew to enjoy it.  Cliff diving is too much fun, and doesn't really hurt any kind of balance imho.

then have a clay block instead. 1 clay block, 1 dirt, 1 sand. = 6 daubs? 

I think they removed clay blocks, due to their easy-to-obtain yet anti-gravity properties.

If you want a new early-game material, ExtraFirma (http://terrafirmacraft.com/f/topic/4581-tfc-0789-extrafirma-addon-v104/) has adobe bricks which I think are pretty well balanced (and tbh look more like bricks than the brick blocks we currently have) .  It does have a bunch of other stuff you may or may not want.

If you want w-d for the look rather than early-game alternate, just make it use an expanded crafting grid.  A material that requires as many sticks as you're describing is probably metal age anyway, as gathering sticks can be a bit tedious in the stone age.  In a 3x3 grid that would be four sticks, 3 sand, 2 dirt, or something like that.  But it'd probably need to be nice looking, or nobody would use it in the metal age. 

There is definitely a gap though, in terms of materials to fill in around logs, so that half-timber housing can be done better.  Smooth stone blocks don't look right, and raw stone of the right color can be a bit hard to come by as there's only 3 or 4 that are white enough imo, plus if you make a mistake, you have to disassemble everything around it.  And if it's touching other raw stone, you just lost some raw stone.  I do agree that some sort of wattle and daub, or plaster block (4 sand + 5 lime in brick fashion, or 6 sand and 3 lime if you want to be more 'accurate') would be a nice addition to the game for half-timber builds.

Edit: If we want an early-game alternative, sod might be an interesting choice.  Perhaps five dirt blocks yields 2 sod blocks (Sod blocks would have a fixed color, rather than having one for every dirt type).  Or, maybe the player has to use an axe on a dirt block.  It takes longer than shoveling dirt, but less time than chopping a wood block.  It immediately yields a block of sod.  This could only be done on dirt blocks with grass.  You could even limit it to blocks with an actual grass tuft on top.  This would require the player to come at it from the side - coming at it from the top would destroy the grass.  Sod would not slip like dirt/sand/cobble blocks do, but it would have to have something under or it would fall (so no unsupported sod roofs).  That kind of behavior may be a new one though, as I think currently all blocks that fall also slide.

Figures.  I guess I don't want to rehash too much so stop me if I get into that territory, but would the idea be worth considering if there was someone to do the texture work?  It'd still be a lot of new blocks, I know (paintable blocks x number of colors)

There's a fair amount of desire for more block colors, from what I've picked up in various threads.  There are specific discussions about paint in the other suggestion forum.  But it seems it always comes down to having to make tons of new blocks for every single block you want to be paintable. 

Would it be a ridiculous notion to have textures reworked in TFC2 such that there was an underlying base texture, and then a sort of alpha-mask overlay?  So for instance, a raw stone block could be one base texture, as they are now.  turning them into bricks or stone blocks could just involve that same underlying texture, with an overlaid alpha mask that gives it the mortar lines or smoothed edges, maybe a few stipples for character.  Then, if you wanted to paint the block, the mask stays the same, and only the underlying base color texture changes - to basically just a smooth paint base that's really easy to whip up.  You'd still see the alpha mask of smoothed edges or mortar lines, which would show it's a painted block.  Same idea for painted plank blocks and planks. It seems to me this would greatly reduce the number of separate textures needed to implement paint well.  I'm not sure what other effects it might have on processing, chunk loading, fps, etc.

Just thought I'd toss it out there, as paint would probably help out a lot of people in terms of their builds.

The poll needs to have an option in both parts for 'neither, it's fine how it is'.  My opinion is that it's fine how it is now.  3x3 seems to suffice to craft things, allow for vareity, put a tool in the recipe, etc.  There was a conscious decision made to move away from the crafting bench, and I think that was a very, very good decision.   I would support 5x5 crafting grids in certain specialized implementations, as part of a specific process block.  But as a general crafting bench, I don't like it. The game has sacrificed realism to steamline construction - stone and dirt and so forth stack to 32 and fit in vessels - and I think that's how it should be.  Unless I can see specific examples where 3x3 grid is insufficient, I don't see the need.

The google doc you linked in the first bullet point, it has green bars in categories from 'low' to 'max'.  are those height ranges, or maybe moisture ranges?  There's a lot at 'max' so I was thinking maybe it was not height...

Edit: also do you know specifically which species will share models?  It might be useful to know which ones will have their own unique models, at least initially, so we can get you at least one model of every tree, rather than making lots of duplicate models that will be shared between a few tree types.  Initially.

The idea would give access to plank blocks basically immediately from the start, right?  Which seems like it would mess up the sense of accomplishment and progression when you get your first saw, and can finally expand the crafting grid, plank blocks, and doors so that your temp shelters don't take forever to demolish.  You'd be able to expand your grid the first day. Unless it's made so that you can only do this with a metal axe, but then what is the saw used for?  The saw literally has one use right now afaik.

I'm not a fan of this idea, purely due to the large number of plank blocks needed if one wants to build a nice house, because the method described seems to me like it would increase the time required for that substantially.  Also, it's not a good representation of making lumber, it's a representation of making firewood.

As far as moving away from the crafting grid - what if instead of the stump-and-split idea, instead what the player does is place a number of logs end-to-end laying down (minimum of 3, max of say 8).  Then they use the saw and can just hold the use button on one of the horizontal logs.  Depending on how many there are, after a certain amount of time, they all pop off as planks.

This keeps the progression of needing a metal tool, keeps the saw having it's main use, and gets out of the crafting grid, but at the same time depending on how much time it takes to saw them up, I don't think it would increase the time required terribly much because it allows you to do multiple logs at once.

As far as continued need for pottery goes, I thought I saw mention somewhere of a possible plan for casseroles.  If those are better than sandwiches, maybe they are the best way to keep pottery a thing, via some sort of breaking dish.  Rather than the inferior salad that is only really a thing until you get a quern.  Like someone said earlier, I prefer to not even make salads at all.  Just get to sandwiches as fast as possible.  Also if there were decorative items of clay - flower pots and such - that might help keep clay in use longer.

I think the tropics would be greatly improved by a savannah biome.  Having just started a multiplayer server with spawn at about z1200, it seems like about 90% of what's between z +-6000 is jungle.  Which is challenging.  But a bit tedious.  More desert and savannah would break it up and give some variety.

ill vote the 25% chance. using 20 clay is imo a nice balance for the stupid amount collected and not used mid- to late-game.

Just to clarify, statistically speaking all 3 options will use the same amount of clay over time. But the 25% breakage option means that 1 bowl will (hopefully) last four salads.  So that one bowl is the same as 4 current bowls, but will still only take one place in the pit kiln.  Which does make it the most efficient option in terms of pit kiln materials.  Just wanted to clarify that clay useage statistically won't be any different.

I think one problem with this idea is, if we want the iconic sandstone formations like ones sees in certain badland and desert areas of the world, there will need to be several different types of sandstone, with different colors. Can TFC's rocklayer algorithms be changed to do everything the way it is, EXCEPT for this one specific type, and then it has to do it in layers?  So it would require not only specialized coding for just these areas, but also probably 4+ separate block types just for this?  It'd be great and all, but how code-feasible is that I wonder? 

I don't think having one block, with a layered texture, would work very well.  I've seen it in some other texture packs and frankly I think it looks terrible.  There's just too much repetition.

The other problem, If I understand correctly, stone layers are a separate thing from climate.  So you will have sandstone layers under jungles, forests, plains, and everywhere else. Any area with thick soil and gravel layers won't really gain anything visually.  I'm not clear as to how exactly the game determines soil and gravel thickness.  I feel kind of like to be as impactful as it is in real life, it would need to be a rare rock type - if it appears to often I'm afraid it will feel like TerraFirmaDrSeuss.  But that would make it unlikely to be seen in it's full glory, matched with a thin covering, preferably little to no sand.

If there were a way to bridge geology and climate, it might get interesting.  For example if a certain density of lava pockets and/or hot springs influenced the local geology in some way to be sandstone, and also the climate to be kind of barren. But I'm guessing rocks and climate are generated *before* lava and springs as it stands, so idk.  I think it's generally a good idea to separate geology from climate, so I'm not sure if there's a good way to tie sandstone in to light soil/sand cover, and absent that I feel like it might be hard to have it make an impact on the world.

Overall it's a fun idea, but seems really complicated.  I think there's a lot of other things that would be more beneficial to the game.

I think seaweed basically fulfills the "I'm not finding any food at the beginning" function.  Not that they wouldn't be fun additions.  But things that are fun but don't server a need or purpose are probably low priority for the foreseeable future I'd guess.

Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. If we assume mammoths would become full-fledged mobs in the mod -- and they serve as an integral part of a viable playstyle -- slapping a configuration option whether to allow mammoth spawning in the game world is a little... counterproductive to that playstyle, and the overall purpose of the gameplay, don't you think?

I would clarify that my config setting suggestion would have been *on* by default, so the default game would have them.  It could be set to off, for people who have a problem with them being there.  That servers everybody's interests very well actually - only those who care about them would ever touch the config.  Within the scope of this thread I've not seen anything that makes mammoths 'integral' to any but some outlier thematic game experiences, so I don't see them as necessary to the point where a config would mess anything up mechanically.

The devs have already put in many config options for many things, to allow people to customize their worlds the way they like.  To me, configs are in fact very productive and good.  Although it does seem like they then require Kitty to remind people they exist oftentimes...

The varied starts sounds good and all, but I think a lot has to happen for the game to support it. 

 

If you're looking to do a spoiler cut, press the "Special BBCode" button and select it. Or just do this manually:

[spoiler]thing you want to hide[/spoiler]

Thanks Lianinna!  I wasn't actually wanting to find those other minerals, they're either useless or duplicative in terms of ore type.  I was just listing them for completeness, to describe just how many ores types there are around that spot.  I'll spoiler in some graphite coords in the op.

In the end, if the devs decided to put them in, they could simply put a variable like they do for a great many things.  I this case, there could be a variable the says "yes there are mammoths" or "no mammoths".  I think the vast majority of people who play this game would have no problem with mammoths being here.  Just people with a very strict sense of 'believability'. I mean, there's zombies and skeletons, lava in buckets, fantasy metals, trees that go from weed to behemoth in a bit over a week.  It's a game, there's going to be some suspension.

I think the bigger issue is, what do they bring to the game?  If they're limited to the poles, how many people will ever see them?  I personally probably would not make a 5k block trek just to kill a mammoth.  Not more than once anyway. 

Would they support a certain style of gameplay?  Possibly.  If someone wants to do an arctic survival game, the mammoth might be a big part of that.  If the bones and fur could be used to build shelter, it would be very distinct.   But I wonder how many people would be interested in that. 

It'd be a great idea if there were a dozen devs on this full time.  But surely with the limited dev time, there's better uses of their time, even better animals to make if we're wanting new animals. 

New mobs are always great. But, would there be a compelling reason to go after them?  A guy can only brine so much meat, honestly.  The rest goes bad.  Fur might be useful when/if body temperature comes into play. How many people would go after them because they need them, vs just for the thrill?  Trophies would be fun of course.  TFC taxidermy?

Why all complicated new GUIs and blocks? Just put a tool head into a large fired clay vessel, add tons of coal/cyanide inside, put into a kiln and fire it

A definite possibility.  I was thinking of it as a significant step for a blacksmith's shop, so I thought it should be on par with the bloomery at least, in terms of having to invest some time and material in making it, rather than being more akin to 'clay-tech' technology associated with tier 1 and 2 metals, especially if tier 1 and 2 metals cannot be case hardened.  I'm kind of a sucker for the complicated setups, I'll admit, even though the disappearing iron sheets of the blast furnace enrage me. 

There could be both - pit kilned for middle tiers, special setup for upper tiers.