stringburka

That's an interesting notion. Not being able to drink unrefined sea water would really change the way one chooses how to set up camp.

spikes would be really easy to do to, just taking a standard nonsolid block that occupies a little more width than a fence and about .7 blocks high, and adding the cactus damage aura with slightly reduced range. pit falls can be made manually i think already, by setting up landslides, but it takes a lot of work for little payoff.

If people still want the 2x2x16 block, why not make the stick item placeable as a 2x2x16? Doesn't need to be wood-type based, one color is enough. And then let the planks be 4x4x16 or 4x8x16 or something like that?

Oh, spoil it is! Now that you mention it I realize that I already knew that, just couldn't find the word in my mind xD Yes, B is the one I meant. It'd decently simple yet will really affect gameplay. It'd be even more awesome if it was affected by the temperature of the surroundings, that is, either the adjacent blocks or the biome.

Oh, I'm not intending to recode TFC, lol, I don't even have any programming skills at all. I'm not looking to upset the dev's or anything. Sometimes getting mods to work together can require nothing more complex than changing a few settings in the config that comes with the mod, it was more if anyone knew if something like that had to be done - I'm not aiming to do a crossover mod or anything like that.

I don't know what's seen as best on these forums, necroing old threads or starting new threads on topics that have been up before, so I'll chance and bump this up. I REALLY think a limit to how long food is good would be a great addition to the game. It'd really increase the "survival" part of the game, make different foods have different uses (meat being effective but with limited longetivity et cetera). (quick note on the word: I don't know what the english word for "how long food stays edible" is, and google translate from Swedish gave "durability", "permanency" et cetera which feel weird - longetivity is the closest word I know, so I'll be using that for "how long food stays edible". if someone could tell me what the english word is I'd be happy) My suggestion for how it could work: Almost all food will have an initial longetivity depending on type, measured in days. For simplicity's sake it could just decrease the longetivity once at midday every day, so it doesn't have to care about exact time of dropping. So, at midday it decreases the longetivity of all food by 1. If a food has 0 longetivity at midday, it turns into a rotten variant (simply rotten flesh for any meat, and a "compost" item for any vegetable) that is unedible. Or, it could simply disappear, whichever works best. The longetivity would be displayed on the item in the same way as heat is displayed when putting an item in a fireplace; each food item would have a "Longetivity: ****" or similar, with one red star for every week and one white star for every day in excess of those weeks. Raw meat items would have very limited longetivity - 2 or 3 days (maybe 2 for porkchops and chicken and 3 for beef?). Cooked meat would have a longetivity of 4 days, but it would be reset at the moment of cooking. Eggs would have a decent longetivity, like 4 weeks or so, while cooking them sets their longetivity to 3 days. Milk would have like 4 days longetivity. Fruit would have varying longetivity, from a week (bananas) to unlimited (rice etc, no reason to set like a year-long durability) I don't think it would be that difficult to implement, and I think it would really enhance gameplay, force new strategies for food supplies etc. Animals could keep the same amount of drops, or even have increased amounts of drops as they aren't edible forever. Animals would be more useful if you're many people splitting it than when you're alone. In a future stage, other food preservation methods could be introduced, like salting, smoking, pickling etc. There could also be methods of storage that protect them, such as storing them in underwater containers for keeping them cool, or even adjusting it by biome. That's more "advanced" stuff though.

Maybe this has been done before, but couldn't find anything in the collection thread nor among the latest threads otherwise... This is a pretty small thing, but I feel the "pick up a fist-sized rock, replace it as a cubic meter of cobblestone" feels really weird. It also means one of the easiest to access early materials (easier than dirt!) is massive cobblestone walls, which doesn't really feel right. My suggestion is simple: 9 stones in a cube in the crafting table to create a piece of cobblestone. Stones are still used by themselves in most recipes (much like how plank items are compared to vanilla plank blocks now). What do you think?

As the system is right now though, I feel that even though combat _action_ is pretty limited, the very nature of minecraft makes combat _tactics_, especially when there's more than two combatants, both interesting and important. While combat can have different goals, there are many things that are more relevant in minecraft than in many other modern PvP games. Not in the least teamwork. Basically, in a game such as minecraft, if there's a 5v5 match, there's little use for lone wolves - because healing is available and hit points quite high compared to damage, and it's easy to get up a shelter from ranged attacks, you can't one hit KO people easily, compared to other PvP games like CoD or whatever. I can see several tactics that are very useful in minecraft. On placement and movement: Since ambushes are pretty easy in minecraft due to 3rd person modes, easy modification of terrain etc, moving spread out makes one very vulnerable to such things. I don't know how easily traps are made in TFC, but they're also a factor. Travelling close together however, makes you vulnerable to ranged attacks and especially potion flinging. Having high ground is useful as travelling upwards is quite obnoxious and you have an easy time getting cover, but you're also easily seen - one option might be to dig out a hill a bit to have a hole to hide and use 3rd person mode to see the enemy. If it's possible, getting a few snow golems ready is fantastic for stunlocking opponents. If inside, setting up cave-ins can be wonderful, at least in vanilla and I see no reason why it would work worse here. It can both slow down and hurt the enemy, and as soon as you see them start getting out you're ready with arrows. On ranged combat: Ganging up is basically mandatory due to the high hit points. Everyone should carry a ranged weapon, preferably a bow - the javelins do lousy damage and are very cumbersome. Spreading out is important, it makes it both much more difficult for the opponents to hit you and makes it harder for them to build shelters since the attacks come from different directions. With the decent knockback (if we get enchanting, knockback is going to be awesome) they might even get pushed out of cover. Likewise, when you're under ranged attack, it's important to quickly put up cover or respond with your own ranged attacks. Cobblestone is non-flammable and that's nice, but takes more time than wood since it falls down. Better stone is of course preferable. Personally, I have a hard time hitting the right people if they're in melee, especially with as slow-moving missiles as minecraft arrows, so charging the closest archer can probably be an alternative if they're close - probably they'll just run though, which makes it quite useless. On melee combat: Again, ganging up is useful, but here it's harder as you have to surround the opponent. Keeping a tight line makes that harder for the opponent, so that's what I would recommend. Splash potions, if available, are awesome at tight formations, as can something as simple as flint and steel be (if available in TFC?). Now, a while into combat everything will be chaos and there'll be random blocks and random fire everywhere and coordinated tactics won't work as well, but by then, most combats will have been decided already and it's mostly "mopping up" left.

Now, I know this ain't going to happen but discussion can be fun anyways so... Going by what I've read on the other topics combined with the vanilla potions and my (albeit limited) experience of vanilla PvP, I don't really see why anyone would want to restrict themself to a single setup. Equipment choice heavily depends on what you're aiming to do. Whenever you fight outside and thus can move freely, light armor and a varied weapon setup will always win over heavy armor and short-range weapons, when potions are available - anyone that can outrun an enemy can also quickly heal and boost themself, not to speak of maneuvering to more beneficial positions - a large part of the strategy in any pvp where the health is high compared to damage (as in minecraft). I think everyone will use certain potions in combat that just are too good to skip (8 minutes each of +20% speed and damage? Yes please!). If you're in a cave, mineshaft or structure of any kind, mobility will be of much more limited use and there's a large risk of traps (if TFC has traps? haven't come far enough to reach that tech level, except of course for bug-traps like torch-sand traps), which means heavy armor will almost always be preferable. And in any kind of battle, everyone will want a bunch of snow golems. Without actual skills or similar, there's really no use for specialization, apart of course from an economic standpoint - but even so, the bow has to be cheap enough to allow mid-tech players to afford one, and that means it's hard to prevent high-tech players from having both that and melee weapons. And if someone can afford two dozens of potions, surely the warrior and ranger types will be able to afford a few. Whether this is a good thing or not is a matter of taste, but I prefer that to rewarding uber-specalization. The one thing that would benefit specialization is enchanting, as it's harder to keep up many good enchanted pieces. EDIT: Added a few more thoughts. EDIT2: Even more.

I installed the latest version of TFC, latest version of player API and latest version of forge. The only other mod I have is optifine. I'm having weird issues of stuttering - I can move fine for a second or two, then there's a stop for maybe .1 second, then I can act normally again. It's weird, and optifine's "smooth fps" does not help. Anyone having similar issues? This is the first time I play TFC (love the music btw), and while I've played a lot of other mods and modpacks I've never encountered this before. Thanks for any help you can give me!

I could also help with swedish.

Can they remove it easily though, without having to change a whole lot of things otherwise?But if they do, I REALLY hope they change the size of the loose planks! Having to spend a whole log to get a thin, thin layer of planks seems very counterintuitive (or nearly three logs if using an axe).

Thanks! EDIT: Magiclauncher states D3 is not compatible, and the other thread mentions d4 and d5 are also bugged, does anyone know how to get optifine running with TFC? Running TFC without now, but I do lose out on FPS compared to when playing Technic and I miss 32x texture packs (not to talk about Better Grass but I guess that doesn't work in TFC regardless).

EDIT: Just now realized thread is very old. Sorry bout that. Can't see any way to delete my post though.

Since it's forge compatible, wouldn't it be possible to code a mod that does exactly this and relies on the TFC items for crafting? I understand if Bioxx doesn't want this in his mod, but maybe someone else can do it and those that want it can use both mods?

Thanks for the answer. I would search, but something with my browser or similar prevents me from using this forums (and many other's) search function; I had to use the google site: search and it did not yield any results. But thanks

Right now, this is the case, from an optimal viewpoint (with a saw, in other words): 1 log = 8 planks 4 planks = 1 plank block 1 log = 2 plank blocks This makes me think that a plank block is not assumed to be solid, but rather hollow - since the 1 cubic meter of wood is enough for 2x 1cubic meter of planks. (EDIT: I don't know if hollow cubes of planks has ever been used for construction historically, but it's not like there wouldn't be benefits of doing that. Decent insolation from the stale air between the planks, broad as to make construction quite simple and them being walkable, quite high durability since it reinforces itself et cetera. Of course there are some huge penalties with it too, but I don't find them so outlandish as to be unbelievable.) Due to this, I think it's more fair to base the size of planks (which are solid) on their relation to logs rather than plank blocks, from a verisimillitude standpoint. From a gameplay perspective, it would be nice if planks where more useful since right now they're very very small (2*2*16). It's nice if blocks are easy to place without getting weird; because of this I think it's preferable to have the same thickness even though it doesn't fit the normal view of what constitutes a plank (in other words, making them x*x*16 and not x*y*16). Currently, there's 64 planks on one cubic metre, which IMO is far too many. If they where doubled in size to be 4x4, there'd be 16 of them on a cubic metre and you could fill one side with four of them - that seems acceptable to me, but still means you only get half a cubic metre from a cubic metre of log with a saw. While you lose some wood when you chop up a log, it's not nearly half (I've done this a fair bit myself due to my previous work). However, making them larger without breaking the "minimum of 8 per square meter" means they'll either have to be non-symetrical (for example 4x8 pixels) or not fit perfectly on a full square meter (for example 5x5 pixels). The former is unwieldy, and the latter is really really bad. There is one additional option, and that is making them fit a full side; making them 2x16x16. This woud make them 8/square meter and make them useful, but I feel they might be TOO useful since most monsters don't care if a block is one pixel or 16 pixels thick. Giving them a useless explosion resistance might work but might not be that good idea still. I guess my opinion is that there are three decent sizes for planks, ignoring changes in amounts gained per log 4x4 pixels - "wastes" quite a lot of resources, and makes less sense than the others, but is easy to place and gameplaywise probably the best. 4x8 pixels - makes sense resourcewise, hard to place, and feels the most like a real plank. 2x16 pixels - makes sense resourcewise, easy to place, but might be too good gameplaywise Any of these three would in my opinion be large improvements to the current amount. EDIT: I just realized there might be another option that might be superior to those earlier, if it is possible at all (no idea). It'd be a quite a radical implementation, but what if they where actually 4x4x32 pixels? Being two blocks long? It would feel like a good proper long plank (or more like a beam, but I feel that's fine), make sense resourcewise and be very useful for quickly getting up a lot of wood.