Hyena Grin

To prove my point about how average players won't even notice, you state that you don't notice any change in hunger depletion rates. When in fact, since thirst was originally implemented, thirst has been depleting faster when the player is sprinting. Hunger also already decreases faster just like in vanilla each time that a player does an action such as breaking a block, or using a tool. If you don't believe me, spend a long session gold panning and pay attention to just how quickly your hunger depletes.

 

Edit: To clarify, the suggestion was originally to make hunger deplete based on player movement such as standing still, walking, and running. That is the suggestion that I was arguing against.

I actually did not say that. I said that I did not notice a change in rates when standing still. I realize you are kind of half arguing with me and half with the OP, but let's be careful to address the things that are actually said.

(Edit: I see where you might have gotten a different impression when I mentioned mining vs standing around. I was trying to emphasize 'standing around' not talk about mining vs not mining. I am aware that while sprinting and performing certain actions, that your hunger and thirst decrease more quickly)What I said, is that periods of genuine, actual inactivity should result in lower hunger/thirst depletion. I don't see a problem with having another factor which helps to determine depletion rates. Other than the fact that you appear to believe that what is implemented is 'enough.' Obviously I disagree, and I'm assuming the OP disagrees.

It still makes perfect sense to slow hunger/thirst depletion when standing still. It makes perfect gameplay sense, and cheerfully, it also accurately reflects reality. 

Again, seems like a no-brainer, and I haven't actually seen an argument against the suggestion. Would the game be worse if this suggestion were implemented? Is it impractical to implement? Surely it's a minor thing to track whether the player is moving or not. So why is the existing hunger depletion mechanics an argument against further tweaking of those mechanics to reflect reality a little better and also make the entire food/hunger system in the early game slightly more manageable? To Hubertus, no matter what hunger/food system is implemented, you will always be able to reach a point where you have more food than you need, that's not really an argument.

Because that is over complicating a mechanic that really adds nothing to gameplay. Also, standing still is still an "activity" that burns calories. Even just being alive burns calories. Even when a person is comatose in a hospital, they still have to get nutrition through a feeding tube because they are still burning calories.

 

As for the valid gameplay reason, look at my signature. Unless it's going to add a whole new, very noticeable feature to the game, it is not worth the effort to try and code something new that the average player won't even notice or utilize.

I didn't say that you don't burn calories while being still. I said pretty specifically that it should reduce the speed at which your hunger decreases. And it should. Because it does - significantly. And with good reason. 

As for your latter comment, it's a very noticeable feature to me, in that its absence struck me as immediately conspicuous and kind of annoying, and I consider myself a pretty average player, so you might want to reconsider your response, because from my perspective it's a little baffling!

It's not like this is a concept without precedent. The Long Dark makes a pretty big deal about burning calories through activity and conserving energy is an important part of gameplay/survival. They aren't identical games, but TFC does often (particularly in the beginning) include periods of inactivity, such as waiting through nights, or waiting for things to cook/melt. It makes sense to adjust the tick of hunger/nutrition based on these kinds of factors, because its absence has a huge impact on how we play. If you are constantly mining for 24 hours straight you SHOULD require more food than someone who spent half the day indoors waiting around. It also gives a little extra breathing room for the early game, when food is scarce and periods of inactivity are more common. Later on, when lots of food is available, you can spare the extra food to maintain activity throughout the night and day cycle.It seems like a no-brainer to me.

Activity burns calories, degrees of activity burn more or less calories. That is the reality of things. So what is the actual argument against this suggestion? 'Just log off' is not actually a valid response to what the OP is suggesting. There needs to be a valid gameplay reason to not implement this before it can be so easily dismissed.

I have also wondered why we don't have a system where the game recognizes when you are not moving and adjusts hunger rates accordingly. Conserving energy should be a valid strategy.

I realize on the face of it that the processing requirements for this may be prohibitive, so grain of salt:

Water has a way of passing through permeable substances and even minute fissures in hard rock. I feel like digging very near to water sources should be more involved. Basically, water should begin to seep through semi-solid and solid blocks given the right circumstances. Basically, the deeper the water on one side of the block, the more penetration the water would have through adjacent blocks.

Basically, water blocks would need to be aware of how many water blocks are above them, then pass that information to all solid blocks adjacent to them horizontally and beneath. This would flag solid blocks with a 'waterlogged' trait that checks a threshold (this could be different for different material types, lower for dirt/sand/gravel, higher for natural stone, higher again for masonry and certain other block types). If the threshold is surpassed, the block then passes half of its 'waterlogged' value to blocks adjacent to them horizontally and beneath. If there is open space instead of a solid block, it will generate 'moving' water, or a waterfall effect. Blocks that receive more than half of their threshold (but less than the amount to allow water to seep through) will 'weep,' causing droplets to form on the wall or ceiling - a harmless indication that digging the block out will almost certainly result in water forming.

Legend:

W~ = Water

G = Gravel

~ = Seepage

+ = No seepage

0    |  1   |  2   |  3  :  0 = Water column, 1 = First block column, etc.

W~ | G+ | G+ | G+ : 1 horizontal block deep, no seepage (perhaps weeping walls but no water formation)

W~ | G~ | G+ | G+ : 2 H-Block deep, water will seep through adjacent block, forming a waterfall effect in 2nd block column if dug out.

W~ | G~ | G+ | G+ :

W~ | G~ | G~ | G+ : 4 H-Block deep, water will seep through two adjacent blocks, creating waterfall in 3rd block column if dug out.

W~ | G~ | G~ | G+ :

W~ | G~ | G~ | G~ : 6 H-Block deep, water will seep through three adjacent blocks, as above.

G~ | G~ | G~ | G+ : 7 H-Block Deep, 1 V-Block deep. Water can only travel three blocks away from source at this depth.

G~ | G~ | G+ | G+ : 8 H-Block deep, 1 V-Block deep. Diagonal fall-off of seepage is more pronounced.

G~ | G+ | G+ | G+ :

G+ | G+ | G+ | G+ : 10 V-Block deep, water no longer penetrates.

This would make digging around lakes, beaches, rivers, etc, a little more interesting, making accessing certain clay deposits somewhat more complicated, and also simulate a rudimentary 'aquifer' type effect in some areas.

I do realize that this might not be practical in terms of performance or coding, it's just something I've been kicking around in my head without the benefit of coding experience in Minecraft.

Thank you kindly!

Version #: 0.79.6.279

SSP/SMP (Single/MultiPlayer):

SSP

Suggested Name:

Debris Duplication

Suggested Category: Severe-Annoying-Minor

Annoying

Description:

When 'breaking' rocks and sticks (debris) on the ground, two objects are spawned. Notably, when you pick one of the two objects up, both disappear and only one object is placed in the inventory. This appears to happen with all rocks I have tested it with, including nuggets of ore.

Have you deleted your config files and are still able to reproduce this bug?:

Yes

Do you have any mods other than Forge and TFC installed?:

No. Fresh install (deleted .minecraft folder and started from scratch), nothing but Forge and TFC.

If yes, which mods?

N/A

If you have Optifine or Cauldron installed, can you still reproduce the bug after uninstalling them?
I do not have either installed.

Pastebin.com link of the Crash Report:

No crash report.

I think that 48 hours makes a lot of sense in the context of a game that has additional lighting options.

I originally voted that I like the mechanic and use the default values, but I am thinking about changing that to 'edited config to make it easier.'

I think that until we have some longer-lasting options (candles that do not have to be relit as frequently but have a smaller light radius. Lanterns that use some manner of fuel and can last for a very long time as long as they are full) I think a good compromise might be to make torches last longer until more lighting options are available.

72 hours per torch might be a little easier to deal with in larger settlements. When we have other options for lighting our settlements that will be less labor-intensive, we can drop the torch burn-time back down to 48.

Just a thought.

Honestly I'd like to see a longer period where you are 'starving' but not 'dying.' It takes a long time to die of starvation!

Maybe reduce movement speed, reduce damage the player deals to enemies, increase damage enemies do to the player, maybe apply a greyish filter to the player's vision as a visual indicator that you are in a poor state. This would make it extremely desirable to avoid being in this state.

The handful of times where I have died to starvation have been pretty annoying, and it's usually because I lost track of things while exploring and have low health already, and suddenly I have very little time to get back to a source of food before I die.

Just a thought.

I think they are planning on changing the way lava works so that it is less of a persistent thing. I don't know the exact details (maybe someone else does) but they have talked about geological instability and earthquakes and volcanoes and things.

I never liked that lava was persistent. Lava cools into stone pretty quickly and it's rare to have a source of lava pushing to the surface for very long. Lava should turn into obsidian after a while of being exposed to air (with the exception of lava pockets below a certain Z level).

... as you can probably tell I don't really like the idea of lava blocks providing an infinite, intense heat source. Heh. Just my opinion though.

I also like this idea, but it will probably just result in people carrying around a half dozen tools so that they don't have to stop to sharpen every time. And that causes inventory stress.

I have a hard time imagining a way of implementing it without the net result being people finding tedious and non-fun ways around it. Which would just make people complain.

Unfortunately.

Because it is a good idea, in principle.

There's no point in restricting inventory until there's infrastructure in place to support moving stuff around. Any reduction in inventory capacity is going to annoy somebody. You can't really expect otherwise until more thought has gone into how you're going to alleviate inventory stress in a way that fits in with the TFC theme. Wagons, pull carts, ways to expand inventory, etc.

I like it! I'd keep them to a relatively small size so as not to completely dwarf the need for rock salts, but it'd give players a reason to explore deserts. Since at present they don't usually offer much in the way of stuff to gather (beyond endless sand for glass).

Perhaps a pale red (pink) and pale yellow dye made from the flowers that spawn? They don't need to be attractive, just available.

I think his point is that he tried to forget all his knowledge in order to try and simulate an entirely new player's experience, and he found that TFC was not noob friendly. He has a point that the player shouldn't have to adapt to the game, the game should be inutitive enough that the player doesn't have to, as least not that early.

I am inclined to agree where it comes to games that people pay for.

But when you're talking about a mod, where the developers are working within the framework of another game, and trying to build a specific experience, I start to disagree.

The game is not terribly intuitive, but with like a great many free/roguelike/mod type games, the learning curve is entangled with the community. The forums, the wiki. That's how you learn to play these things. That's not a bad thing, that's a space that mods have always occupied.

Love it. I would use the heck out of this if it were implemented.

I have a bad memory for the most part, so I like to organize things. Color coding ceramic vessels would make inventory management a lot easier for me. And also storage of items outside of the inventory, potentially. And frankly it would just look nice.

The first night of all MC games, vanilla or mod, all have mobs on the first night. It's not exactly a surprise. I'd be more shocked if someone came to the game not having played Minecraft, and not being fully aware that the first night is a hurdle to get over. It sounds like you had a particularly frustrating experience, but I'm not sure I would extrapolate that to every single first-time-player's experience.

Yeah TFC requires you to do more prior to surviving the first night, but it's not that hard. I have literally never died the first night in TFC and I've played it a lot.

That said, I'm not explicitly against removing or decreasing the number of spawns on the first night. It just may be a lot harder to do than you think. You should go to the Suggestions forum if you would like to discuss that as a possibility.

I have to admit I kind of liked the potion effects with meals. It was a nice little thing to explore. Yeah there's still some exploration, but it's sort of like with Diablo; finding items with +4 damage or whatever was alright, but what was really interesting was the special effects that rare items would have, that other items didn't.

Maybe food isn't the right place for potion effects. I wouldn't mind seeing that switched to alcohol brewing, maybe. Brewing alcohol could be expanded upon to make room for potion effects.

I would really, really, really like to be able to adjust the length of days. They're too short, I agree. By about five minutes or so.

It'd be really nice if the length of the days vs nights could be modified by the calender, so in the winter nights are longer and in the summer days are longer. This would also kinda help with the First Day Problems that crop up with newer players, where it's tough to get enough done in the first day to survive the first night (since the game starts in the summer).

Sadly, I dunno how feasible that is. I should look for a mod that does this and see if it's even possible.

The crashing etc isn't really all that relevant re: new player perspective. Neither is spawning in the ocean. These are bugs that only got introduced in the last week, and are being rapidly patched. If you're having problems you should head over to the technical forum.

As for mobs, I'm not sure what to say. Sometimes it happens. It happens in regular minecraft too. Sometimes the mob spawns aren't too bad - I've had nights where I had no trouble avoiding mobs, and I've had nights where it seemed like the entire world was on top of me.

Does this lead to boring nights in a crappy shelter? Yes, just like in vanilla MC, but at least you have to put more thought into it in TFC. And frankly, as you progress, there's a lot more you can do in the safety of your shelter than you ever could in MC.

TFC is supposed to be a slower game, a more challenging game. If a new player is turned off by that, then it might just not be the mod for them. They can either stick it out and accept some 'tips and tricks' for surviving the first few nights, or they can play something else. TFC isn't trying to be all things for all players.

New updates is what generally brings me back to playing the game after a hiatus, it's what keeps things fresh and interesting.I know some people have servers and worlds they are understandably reluctant to restart. My thinking, though, is that people are not required to update. They can keep running older versions until they are ready to restart, and if archived older versions are available to download (which they are, if memory serves) then I don't see an issue with shorter updating frequency.I've been rather looking forward to Build 78, and check the site almost daily for an update even after all this time, but I am also patient and realize that this is a project of love, and you guys can only dedicate so much time to it. So I would say this: update when it's ready. The people who want to start new games will start new games. The ones who don't will wait and keep playing on whatever version they have.

That's a pretty wild exaggeration. =P

Cannons were extremely powerful weapons, they had no trouble hitting large defensive structures from pretty significant distances. They would eventually completely change naval warfare, and render traditional defensive fortifications obsolete, changing the face of warfare forever. After the development of rifling cannons became extremely accurate, but obviously anything that went into the game would no doubt be pre-rifling. In the period, cannons were pivotal in the sieges of Constantinople in the 14th and 15th centuries.

Muskets and other hand-operated firearms were very inaccurate (in that their purpose was shooting a relatively small target, and they were bad at it), but cannons were quite capable of hitting the relatively larger targets that they were used for.Firearms and cannons etc have come up quite a lot, and thus far there hasn't really been a good reason to implement them. I think there's more potential for a cannon than for handheld firearms, however. The upkeep of iron for ammunition and significant amounts of gunpowder would make them costly to use (yes many devices of this kind used dense, polished stone, but for the purpose of balance I'd think iron would make a better requirement), and most people would actually have little use for them. They'd really only be useful in PvP to bring down player-made fortifications, as I can't see them being used against mobs at all. 

That said, a catapult, trebuchet, or ballista would more than adequately fill the same role, except you wouldn't as easily be able to lock these types of siege weapons behind rare resources. They were pretty much built with readily available materials, and used stones as ammunition.

I have often wished that the thatch block wasn't so blocky. Being able to fashion them into stair blocks to make them a little cleaner for roofing seems like a perfectly good idea.

Bows were indeed superior weapons compared to early firearms. They were far more accurate when used by a skilled bowman, could go through many types of armor, could fire faster, and were effective weapons at longer ranges. But skilled bowmen were hard to come by, as you said. Crossbows were faster to fire than guns, and could be aimed and shot in much the same manner as guns - they required little skill to use. There was one particular kind of heavy crossbow that was banned by the pope because of its ability to allow an untrained peasant to kill an armored noble. It was considered unfair. Which is funny. Nobody considered it unfair when heavily armored nobles were riding down unarmored peasants with pitchforks. =P

Anyway, crossbows were actually more difficult to produce than firearms. It was actually remarkably easy to build firearms - they were not complicated by any measure and their barrels and firing mechanisms were mass produced using metal casting. It took little craftsmanship, and many guns could be produced rapidly. Early firearms had almost no moving parts. Crossbows required hand manufacturing and fine tuning by skilled craftsmen, as they are quite intricate pieces of engineering.

So yes, no argument from me that bows and crossbows were, individually, superior weapons. They clearly were. But if you needed to put together an army, you don't want to require skilled archers (which were always in woefully short supply), and you want to spend as little time and money producing their weaponry as possible. Manpower was cheap, their weapons and training was not. Thus the gun was clearly the best choice. it was capable of halting cavalry charges, wiping out lines of heavy infantry, and anyone and their mother could fire the things.

When you are talking about what is 'better,' you kinda have to look at cost - whether that is in training or production time/resources. The Panther tank was so far ahead of its time we hardly knew how to respond to the thing. Instead of producing a copycat American version of the Panther, they designed a cheap, mass-producable tommy-cooker, which couldn't go toe-to-toe against a Panther in a million years. Why? Because they didn't need a better tank. They knew (hoped) that German Industry would never be able to keep up with production. They were 'better' because on a strategic level the Sherman exploited a cost weakness in the expensive enemy tanks, in the same way that guns exploited the cost weakness of archers and crossbowmen. In war, a cost weakness is as real a weakness as is firing more slowly, or being less accurate. In the end it's hard to say that guns weren't 'better' weapons, especially since they did completely replace the latter. 

Are you sure about that? Most medieval army was composed of poorly trained and equipped peasants. At the same time, many of the gunpowder-era armies went though hard drills to make soldiers able reload and shoot fast even under fire and extreme stress. Also, early gunpowder soldiers usually integrated with melee, simply because early guns were both expensive and not that effective.

 

If we want to discuss guns, we should differentiate between modern semi-automatic guns and early gunpowder front-loaded guns. Because there is huge difference in effectivness and usage.

 

And if we are discussing skill, then why is usage of bow practically from the point of view of experienced archer? Because who else could be able to hit exactly where you aim while in the middle of the jump?

Most medieval armies consisted of conscripted peasant skirmishers backed by highly trained nobility wearing the finest in period armor. Highly trained mercenary armies were also quite common at the time.

What the smoothbore firearm did was allow those skirmishers, who were once rather ineffective at fighting armoured nobility whether on horseback or not, suddenly capable of utterly destroying entire cavalry charges.

While the British trained rigorously with their weapons, this wasn't done to better fight traditional armies. The French and Austrians and others had already made the shift to firearm conscripts by that time, because the musket et al had already rendered the 'elite' nobility and professional mercenary armies obsolete. They could train a conscript army in hours and it would crush a traditional army. Mainly because the firearms they were using didn't need to be aimed. Indeed, after the first one or two volleys you could hardly see the enemy through the powder smoke anyway. It didn't matter. When you have a few hundred people firing, many of those shots will find targets. And that was pretty much how most of Europe did their thing.

What the British did was perfect a strategy for beating other armies who were also using firearms. Their strategy was also insane, because they would march through volley after volley of fire until they were very close and then they would fire all at once. It worked because they knew the enemy wouldn't be able to fire accurately, and they would progressively blind themselves as the British approached. Then when the Brits were close enough to see their enemies (the whites of their eyes) they would stop, fire all their volleys in short succession, and the vast majority of the time the entire enemy line would crumble.

But doing that didn't take a whole lot of skill. It took enormous, giant balls of steel. They pulled that off with rigorous drill.

If you want something to do with gunpowder, how about crude thrown bombs that do a small area of effect explosion. Capable of dislodging a few blocks of dirt or whatever, but mostly for killing grouped enemies.

Well, somehow this thread got revived. I've been eyeing the posts (I get email notification) and had planned to not get involved again.I'm seeing old ideas rehashed (no offense KJGinger, but as far as inventory suggestions go, you've been beaten to the punch. To put it lightly), old arguments being repeated long after they'd been concluded, concerns brought up that have already been addressed in this thread, and even a vaguely bizarre arguments against something that was never suggested in the first place (I dunno who the 'a lot of people' we are referring to are, but I don't recall armor weight coming up in this thread at all. Kind of a weird point of contention against a nonexisting argument).

Here's my take on this; the whole notion of the thread was to talk about inventory management as an existing problem that deserves a solution, and hopefully get Bioxx and Dunk to look at it. It's pretty obvious they've seen the thread, seen the arguments, and I suspect may have already experimented with some of these ideas. For example, (technically from the sister thread: http://terrafirmacraft.com/f/topic/4675-transportation-infrastructure/ ) Dunk mentioned that they experimented with roads giving speed buffs and decided it didn't work. Although I remain unconvinced by that and admit being.. rather disappointed - it's ultimately their mod. 

I have no doubt that they plan to adjust how inventory works in the future, whether it be by tweaking of stack sizes or more of an overhaul as some of the suggestions in this thread. But I have a feeling they've probably already worked out what they want to do with inventory in the future. They haven't popped in to say one way or another, but I do have that feeling. Also there hasn't been any mention of inventory changes (that I am aware of, please correct me if I'm wrong), so if they do have plans they are probably not for the immediate future. Whatever the case, I'm not convinced that rehashing old arguments serves much purpose. But then, it doesn't really need to.

If people really want to continue to use this thread to talk about inventory, have at it. Personally I'd be content to hear from Bioxx or Dunk on whether they've settled on something (even if that is no change at all), because my only real point is that the game could benefit a great deal from inventory restrictions, and it'd be nice to know if there are any plans to address it. For my part I think I'll avoid getting embroiled in more arguments/discussions on the subject, particularly ones I've already had. The discussion around my original post was pretty thorough, and I'm pretty sure that there's a decent chance that any complaints or concerns (at least about my idea, and my opinion of some other ideas, such as weight limits) - already have a personal response buried somewhere within these three pages.