-TK-

I still think that there should certainly be some tradeoff for using surface ores. And this is perfectly fine a tradeoff too.

WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ALL MY LIFE ON THESE FORUMS?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I LOVE YOU.

because

a) you don't get offended with my grammar and bad humor and

you seem to be obsessed with multiblocks/placeable interactables (like me)

I LOVE EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS THREAD.

You should marry and have kids.

It's roughly 4 small ores to a single large one. Roughly.

Its so rough and varied that someone should really do research on this.

Well regardless, it's certainly derailed the thread, and you haven't done much to bring it back.

Anyway,

As I see it, tree grafting would involve adding a sapling to an existing tree. While it would be cool, I don't see the point as you could just plant another tree, as fruit trees grow fast enough that an improvement is probably not necessary (although I would use it anyway).

Well, how about making trees take longer to grow? And give fruiting trees a maturing season when they don't produce fruit normally? It's a bit useless for tfc though.

It would just push people to using other sources of food.

Yea Ok, that works for me. Just wondering, is spoilt or spoiled correct, I've seen both.

There used to be rules on the usage of these words but they are apparently now officially obsolete and you can use any one of those two, it mainly is dependant on whether it sounds right to you.

Yea I did more research. The question comes inside the quotes If and Only If the question is part of the quote. Which in this case it was not. I understand.

I think "spontaneous combistible?" is a suitable title for you . What was that bout reading past the first sentence you see on wikipedia? I think the rule needs to be extended.

On the contrary, the title of "adventurer" doesn't suit me in any way. Mainly because my definition of adventurer (and many concepts/words) is vastly different to anything you would find in a dictionary. I quite like following the logic of: If most people think one thing and you disagree, make your own rule set and be happy.

-snip-

Fresh-Fresh*-Fresh**-Stale-Stale*-Stale**-Old-Old*-Old**-Spoiled-Spoiled*-Spoiled**-Compost.

-snip-

Should be:

Fresh** | Fresh* | Fresh | Stale ** | Stale * | Stale | **Old | *Old | Old | **Spoilt | *Spoilt | Spoilt | **Rotten | *Rotten | Rotten | Compost

Why so many one-liners? You should do stand-up comedy.

If that was to be a joke, it was the worst joke in existence.

Then you write wrong.

Here are sample sentences.

He said, "the cat ate the rat". WRONG

He said, "the rat ate the cat." CORRECT

Facepalm, well done Sherlock, you solved the puzzle, I'm not following the rules, its not like I just wrote that.

That rule makes no sense and is literally the only rule I don't follow when I'm writing something and ensuring its grammatically correct.

If I actively decide not to follow that rule then that means I don't care that it makes my grammar incorrect otherwise I wouldn't be doing it would I?

English grammar states that punctuation be placed inside quotation marks. That does not mean they get included.

Here is what I intended:

Spontaneous Combustible

That rule makes no sense and is literally the only rule I don't follow when I'm writing something and ensuring its grammatically correct.

Me being a programmer it seems to me like writing

a_void_function_also_known_as_a_procedure(this_is_a_parameter, this_is_another_parameter;)

instead of

a_void_function_also_known_as_a_procedure(this_is_a_parameter, this_is_another_parameter);

Hmm, interesting that they both make emoticons. And then there's the ;} - now that just looks creepy.

Back on topic, however.

How many small ores does it take to make a large one?

A small ore is 1/9 to 1/12 of an ingot.

A large ore is 1/3 to 1/4 of an ingot.

So that's 4 I think?

9/3=4?

either way, it seems to be a thing of believability and fun of playing. I mean without the surface ore you cannot mine without mining you cannot obtain big amounts of ore....and so on, also i think that the surface ore thing comes from the fact that metals, and the art of smithing smithing were discovered because someone picked up a piece of metal ore and found it to be quite harder than rock.

My 2 cents.

hard

/härd/

Adjective

Solid, firm, and resistant to pressure; not easily broken, bent, or pierced.

Adverb

With a great deal of effort.

Synonyms

adjective. tough - severe - difficult - heavy - stiff - firm

adverb. heavily - hardly

Metal is not resistant to pressure and is malleable meaning it can be bent into shape.

Wrong choice of words.

Nobody actually knows how they were discovered but since gold was likely the first one to be discovered then that makes your choice of words really far off. No worries though

Although I would never call someone on this forum a lazy idiot for asking how to install a mod I do notice that more and more posts are turning from "I tried hard to do it myself" to "I'm bad with computers so you do it for me"i rarely respond to the first type but I would never bother with the second. If you are too lazy to even try it try again then you don't deserve help.

I think Google makes an account on every forum they find so they can map it out to improve searches for the forum via Google.

So, when I said that I wasn't talking about RL, you obviously took that to mean that I was talking about RL.

...I'm not.

I was supporting your point that comparing reality to this mod is silly since even the base mechanic is completely unrealistic.

...In the game. The game.

I'm not talking about RL ore d6eposits

Irl the general idea of rocks leading to ore makes no sense. Rocks are deposited on plains by rivers when they flood. Generally they just stay in the river until eventually the current is weak enough to not make the rocks move any further. These rocks get transported from upriver where they were orifinally mountains. Surface rocks should therefore in no way be an indicator of ores.

Sorry if you feel like I'm an arsehole, if you want to continue this 'conversation' without memes I'm at the IRC. Otherwise I'll try to keep this on-topic. Thank you anyway.

Hmm, a comment which is not based on defensive aggression. I guess that's settled then.

Good day to you too.

what?... Just what? You didn't even had any argument there.

hmmm I see...

Difficult is to endure your lack of sense and the duration of this arguing. Why do I keep responding to trolls?

Plus if you don't know you should read Crysyn's rules for this forum. http://en.wikipedia....Wheaton.27s_law

Hmm, since words wouldn't work I tried using links and pictures.

Also, nice scapegoat there. You lost an argument so you call me a troll. And on top of that an arsehole, I remember somewhere some guy making a remark about stones and glass houses.

I can't help myself to not respond...

Go back in the first response I gave you, so now I'm a part of that team and actually know the development process of a 2D engine, not a big one, but I don't think we're talking about that, are we? No I never tried to make one, but you didn't try to make a PCG (procedural city generator) also, right?

I wasn't saying it is not difficult, they can both be easy or be hard as hell, depends on what you want to do, if you want to make a simple asteroids game then making the engine would be harder.

Time is the main variable, because I've learned in this experiment that it is not difficulty that unables something to be developed but time, with time I can with some certainty make almost anything, surely somethings could take a lifetime and those are out of the table. See, before this, I was making a reservoir simulator, I'm no programer, no... I'm a petroleum engineer undergraduate, so this simulator first worked on forward Euler, which is a basis for some physics engines out there, but the simulation took so long to give an output that we've switched to an implicit method with sparse matrix, which then proved to give better results and faster, with that we've tried to go to 3D simulation, well let's say that that is difficult! The physics behind it is freaking hard but the coding side it was simple enough, I'm still working on it. What I want to say with that is that for me that was hard, not to program it but to develop the numerical analysis behind it, that was challenging and it didn't took so long... In this case it is the opposite, I have a lot of little things to develop with no extended numerical analysis behind it, if I want to make it better then I could optimize it, but it is all about discovering things, how thy work and how you can use it. Making an engine is something like working on an engine, but you're working on openGL or whatever, unless you want to be REAL hardcore about it and THAT would be HARD! Otherwise, is just about finding out how you can solve your problem with the tools you have.

I do have to take every aspect of what I'm developing because I need to make it viable to the user make his own content, btw I'm even considering on making an building editor, this last script is my best work up until now, maybe I'll make it... It would be really nice though, maybe with some help I can focus on this.

http://www.thefreedi...y.com/difficult

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/arduous

"Testing severely the powers of endurance"

http://www.thefreedi...y.com/endurance

duration

http://www.thefreedi...ry.com/duration

"time"

Hmm.

And then there's: "I do have to take every aspect of what I'm developing because I need to make it viable to the user make his own content, btw I'm even considering on making an building editor, this last script is my best work up until now, maybe I'll make it... It would be really nice though, maybe with some help I can focus on this."

Hmm.

I never said that, au contraire, I've said that it takes a long time to make an engine and I'm not making it because of that, you keep insisting on which is easier, is not about difficulty it is about pleasure and time, now I don't have the time to develop an engine, since as I've said I know it takes a lot of time to do it right, and my pleasure is making games, so what do I do?.You can figure that out for yourself, I'm sure of that, and I don't like to repeat myself and you're insisting me to do that over and over again so I'm not going to continue to talk some sense into you.

Ecc, I like the new version! You should try the short-stories.

Ok, firstly you are arguing about something you have no experience in and making statements on what you think is right.

Secondly, saying its not about difficulty and about time is exactly like saying its not difficult, by removing the variable of difficulty from the argument you are distinctly disagreeing with its significance therefore saying that the difficulty is the same.

Thirdly, I never disagreed with your time argument, time is not the factor, you can make a text based interface and you can make a graphical interface and the graphical might take more time but the difficulty is the same. When making a game engine you must take into consideration every aspect of what you might use the engine for, this is much more difficult than just using the engine. (at least when working alone or with comparable workforce) If I am doing a tile engine I need to ensure to take every aspect of what might be drawn using it into consideration. When I'm using said engine I already know what I can and can't do and therefore know how to use it. It is much more difficult to invent something than to use it or even replicate the result. Please stop beating a dead horse, stop being so solid on your point, there is no more points to make. Iv'e even took the time to discuss your argument in real life with friends who program themselves and this argument has been mocked many times. You can try to "beat sense" into me all day, but unless you actually state a valid argument without being overly protective of what you do then I will not listen.

Also, because you do seem to think that I am somehow trying to lower the status of your effort, I liked this project until you started making circle logic invalid arguments that partially had nothing to do with what the argument was started about.

Good for you! I want to make this game not an engine.

Yeah, I don't care that you want to make a game not an engine, that has no place in this argument, you stated that it is just as easy to make a game engine as it is to make a game using a ready engine... This is incorrect, In addition how would you know if you had only done one of those 2 things and not both.

Actually, a normal size ore takes up 1 meter-cubed block, the same size as a block of cobble.

A small ore takes up a rock on the ground.

As of build 76, 4 rocks make 1 cobble block, and breaking it with a pick yields 4 rocks back. That would mean that the amount of space taken up by a small ore is likely about 1/4 the space of a regular ore

Ok I get it! This was over a few days ago. Give it a rest. Trolling I don't need and or want to participate with. Therefore I will not respond to this issue anymore. I wish the OP the best of luck in getting this implemented.

Nobody here was trolling, at least by my definition.

This is what I was talking about. You should not be able to store those items. How does it make any sense to store something that takes you 2 blocks in a <1 block space.