dunkleosteus

I don't know if I've ever talked about it here in any capacity. I've been working on a fork of TFC for 1.7.10 which I'm calling TFC+. I didn't really know where else to post this on the forums. If anyone's interested, they can find information and updates on the pack at reddit.com/r/tfcplus. Downloads of the mod are available at minecraft.curseforge.com/projects/terrafirmacraftplus.

The mod contains new features such as plaster of paris made from gypsum, which you can use to cover planks to fireproof your house, changes to fishing mechanics, more wood from trees, improved glass work including glass blowing, the ability to cast sheets of metal directly, changes to weapon damage, weapon reach and hunger and thirst. I'm actively working on the mod and will continue to do so. If you're interested in a continuation of the original TFC, please check it out  

You can also join our discord: https://discord.gg/DanFd9

Thanks to Bioxx for permission to continue the project we used to work on together.

Hey, it's me again. I'm going to upload content about TFC soon! But until then, here's some Civ 6

When I try to sleep in a bed on the freebie server I often take 4 points of damage and get kicked out of bed. I can manage to sleep like 5% of the time.

Thanks

I listen to the in-game music ;-;

once every 1000 chunks is not true...

That could be a great idea. I was actually thinking that we should have an app like that the other day while trying to decide what to make for dinner. 

 

I would like to have a way to exclude some foods too (allergies/I just don't like that (see cauliflower ))

thats part of the plan, you should be able to define any number of exclusions based on your diet

We're designing an app for a school project, and so I really would appreciate any feedback you guys have about the idea- would you use it or not, why, what would be your biggest issue with it?

The idea is to have an app you take with you while grocery shopping. Pull up the app, scan the barcode on a product and you get a list of recipes with pictures and short descriptions, a list of the other ingredients you need to make the meal and the nutrition information.

Thanks for the feedback

I could see this being functional. A good slinger would be OP though, since rocks would probably do crush damage rather than piercing, and then slings would be a ranged weapon strong against skeletons (arrows and javelins do no damage to skeletons). If accuracy was difficult, I could see this being pretty cool though. (my bad, I thought this was TFC1 sorry about the confusing bit about dev stopping)

Back when I was a developer for TFC and in charge of animals, I had lengthy discussions with Bioxx and I think Kitty about the feasibility of such a feature. Being a shepard/herdsman back in the day was a full time job. Adding the familiarization mechanic means that players at least had to acknowledge their animals once a day until they are tamed, but it really doesn't approach the sort of interaction that is possible. Most of the time, we arrived at the same conclusion, that this feature would suffer the same problem that many other features might: time scale. If any significant time passes while you're offline (say on a server) your animals could go a long time without any care. Taming an animal does take a while, but the feature is designed so that a player who really cares can do it in one sitting (about an hour or two of real time for wild animals, and not to fully tame). The other issue is the scale of time in TFC. A day is 20 minutes, and half of that is night. Without good protection, working at night can be very dangerous. We try to approximate or represent real events in TFC, but you can only do that so much. An in-game hour is 50 seconds long, and you have about 12 of them to get everything done in the day. Moving around is done in real time, so that really drags down productivity. In real life, walking a kilometer (1000 blocks) might take you 10 minutes at an even pace. If that was scaled to in-game time, that would take less than 10 seconds. In reality, it takes 12 in-game hours.

Basically, players can't be online all the time and it just becomes one more thing to take up all the time you have in a day.

As far as the functionality, this means that it couldn't be required for animal survival. One of the approaches I looked into was using it as an efficiency tool, which probably fits better into the style it took in real life- thousands of years ago, shepherds herded mouflon or primitive sheep through the low hills and mountains, grazing them on grasses. Wild animals in real life do graze to sustain themselves, eating the grasses and vegetation that naturally grow. Obviously it's incredibly high maintenance if you're taking your animals out of their pens and leading them somewhere to eat (as well as dangerous- mob AI is finicky and difficult, and there are wolves and cliffs and bears-- it's not a good idea). Instead, the animals would eat grass blocks as they currently do. Animals do in fact have an internal hunger value that determines whether they'll heal or regrow wool, and they restore it by eating grass. Wolves have to be fed meat. Each block of grass they consume gives them one day's worth of hunger, and if they're less than a day's worth from max, they can do all those things I just mentioned.

The proposal was to modify this system so that they might only eat tall grass, which would have to grow at a semi-predictable rate. Then, based on the amount of tall grass they eat and its growth speed, you could calculate how many grass blocks an average sheep would need in an enclosure to sustain itself. Feeding would only be necessary if there wasn't enough grass for the animals to sustain themselves. It means that if you leave your animals unfed, they /would/ die, but only until they reached natural equilibrium again. There are obviously inherent flaws in this system, and it might be better to fudge it and just calculate if the animals can eat based on proximity to other animals and the number of grass blocks around them (less reliance on AI, but potentially harder on memory, not sure). Regardless, I think we decided that it just wouldn't work terribly well.

The other option is to make it non-mandatory, and only a bonus. Feeding animals might increase their production rate of wool or milk or eggs or maybe make them fatter to give more meat. Something like that.

Since I've left the TFC team I have no more say in the matter, but I thought I'd give my two cents.

SHould this be in the bug part of the forums?

This is really cool!

Gun control was brought up. I think gun control in America is complicated because there is a large portion of the population that believe it is their born right to carry or own a gun and because so many of these weapons are already in the country. Guns are dangerous. They're like the nuclear weapon of person-to-person combat; they're definitive and deadly. In some places in America today, people legitimately need weapons to protect themselves, their family and their property from violence. These are honest, hard working, tax paying citizens and strict and blanketing gun laws would put these people in danger. And that's the problem. It's almost like an addiction, and stopping cold turkey is going to send the country into withdrawal (where honest citizens can't get guns and criminals can). There is no way that America could phase out guns in less than a couple decades, in my opinion, and the first step is NOT to ban guns, but to make it harder for criminals to get guns without affecting the good citizens of the country. Purchasing, owning and carrying guns should be more difficult or require a longer process designed to vet people deemed unfit to carry a weapon. Licenses should be required at all times, as is required for driving a car. The honest man that takes the proper safety courses, applies for a license and successfully receives one can be given a gun.

Another change that could facilitate gun control (remember, we're not trying to prevent Americans from owning guns, only the criminals in America) is to have gun production designed around a made-to-order situation. A person that has received a gun license can order weapons or ammunition of their choice for delivery. A database will record the serial number of the weapons produced and how much ammo is being purchased. Any weapons found or linked to crimes can be traced to the purchaser, who is deemed the owner of the weapon: selling guns will become a licensed operation to ensure that a gun's serial number is always linked to the current owner. Because gun purchases must be for personal use, we can limit the number of guns that may be purchased in a given time period (no one needs 20 handguns in a 3 month period).

I do not believe there is any issue with having records of the guns and ammunition that each citizen purchases- without criminal intent, this information cannot be used to indict anyone- it's just numbers. Later, it could be required that citizens report any times they've discharged their weapons. It could be as simple as "I went hunting with my 12-gauge, serial number XXXXXXX and fired 12 times." Simple, but it lets the government account for how ammo is being used. If someone was circumstantially linked to a crime, all they'd have to do is show that the only ammo they were missing was the ammo they'd reported themselves and they would be off the hook.

Really, the system needs to be designed so that good people don't get screwed. If this system screws you, maybe you should rethink what you're doing with your guns. 

Let me back up a second, you're positive that rights and freedoms are so important that they should never be sacrificed under any circumstances? I interpret this to mean that all rights have equal value (the highest value) and that no right can take priority over another, and that there is nothing anyone could offer you that could ever be better than one of those rights- rights that you would never exercise trump something like financial security (not saying this is something in real life, just for example). Having the right to poop on top of mount Everest for example (you have to pay your own way there and hire guides/gear/etc) is more important than something like protection from debt fraud. Because to me, you've said that all rights and freedoms trump securities.

Also, I accept that you feel this way (not saying you're wrong) but I want you to explain to me (without saying something like "because" or "rights are good" or anything like that) why rights are the most important thing for a person to have. Why is absolute liberty the only way that a person can truly be happy and why should every person in America feel the same way you do? What about all these rights fulfills you? What about it puts food on your table and lets you sleep at night knowing your future is safe and your children will live happily? I just want a better idea of where you're coming from.

Hey man, I don't want to get into an argument here, I just want to share the perspective of someone who sees America from the outside. I think that talking about the quality of life in America in the past is great, but I'm not sure that traditional values and systems can always work the same way in a changing and growing global economy. America used to house large factories and production and produced many of the world's best technologies and innovations, yet now those same companies that fueled the country's growth outsource work to countries with cheaper labor. The internet makes it possible for every person to be heard when 50 years ago, they wouldn't have been able to. I think the current state of technology makes clear the issues the country has had for a very long time. I think many of America's largest issues come from poor regulation of corporations and the exploitation of your country's environment and people. You're right, you would be sacrificing certain rights with a larger government but are you so sure that every right is equally important? Freedom of speech is great- the government should have no say in what you think or vocalize, but if your government (like mine) said it was illegal to single out a minority or group and defame them or treat them with less kindness and respect than you treat others without due cause, would you be up in arms? Take a look at our charter of rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Features here our rights are limited because we're not allowed to impede anyone else's rights. If you judge someone on their race or religion rather than their own character, you can be penalized here. I don't think that's so bad. What's so important about having the right to be a jackass? Especially because if I have the right to be a jackass, everyone has the right to be a jackass to me, and I think I could deal with being less of a jackass if it meant everyone else would be too.

Back to a topic I mentioned earlier, the largest companies in America exploit the American people. Pharmaceuticals, Money lenders, banks, tobacco, and many others pay lobbyists and your government to overturn laws that would hurt their business by protecting people from them. Your judges are elected in a popularity contest rather than by the merits of their actions. The entire system in the united states is dog-eat-dog if you're one of the unlucky few at the bottom, and your system requires those people to exist- to work at minimum-wage jobs like fast food restaurants or as janitors or as waitresses or anything else- your system deliberately puts a percentage of your people in a position where they can't afford health care or medical bills, or to get out of debt- there are so many things wrong with your country, and as you said, it was once so good (or seemed that way, again the problems are more visible now) either way, America used to be at the forefront of every industry and field- it used to be the country with a plaque that read

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

and I think the whole world agreed that was a great country. I don't think it's liberalism that has made your country worse, I think it's a failure to adapt to the changes and problems that were growing within yourself.

Episode 2

Socialism is at its heart a system of compassion- it endeavors to help those who have lost the ability to help themselves for the betterment of all, but it is easy to exploit, especially when the system is bogged down in levels of bureaucracy rather than an overall attempt to help others.

In a discussion about socialism I had the other day, I used a boat with rowers like a galley as an example. In an ideal socialist system, if a person falls overboard, they are thrown a rope and pulled back in and given a towel to dry off before getting back to rowing with everyone else. Those trying to exploit this system might instead opt to be simply pulled by the rope behind the boat instead of getting back in to row. The ideal is that each person who falls on hard times can be helped back to their feet to continue to contribute and work for a better society and economy. I don't mean to say this is communism, because it's not intended to represent a system where everyone is treated equally, only where the community supports those that are in trouble and helps them recover. A communist system might have a bunch of swimmers with harnesses pulling a boat. With better regulation, it's possible to have a functioning and healthy socialized government, but only when the policies and spending of such a government are for the benefit of the majority of the population.

As American politics currently stand, I don't believe there is a socialized system or socialized practices that could be employed successfully, you would need to make drastic and far reaching changes to the core of how politics are practiced before that became reasonable.

EDIT: small government is at it's heart, detrimental to the American people. Assuming a non-corrupt government, the impetus for laws and regulations is the improvement of the economy and the protection of a nation's people. Nations aren't businesses and for the most part would not unjustly impede the growth of their own corporations. Instead, laws and regulations are intended to ensure people aren't victims of scams, or fraud, aren't misled and cheated or otherwise tricked. A system that puts the majority of a nation's vital infrastructure in the hands of profit-driven entities can't be as successful as one that puts them in the hands of a well-run government- the government- which is at its heart a non-profit entity supremely interested in the well-being of it's people. I can speak from a non-American perspective when saying that our tighter hold on banks largely protected us from the 2008 collapse, and stricter regulations on businesses in general help protect people from being cheated out of their money. Companies don't have your best interests in mind, they want your money and simply want to convince you to give it to them. The governments job is to make sure they do this fairly.

Security and surveillance is a separate issue though.

Canadians coming in and messing up your results :^)