TheGatesofLogic

Home, I highly recommend you check out the base

Good news everyone! I've fixed the poison slime pipes! Seriously though, i fixed my network issue and will likely be on in the near future, probably tonight or tomorrow!

I'm really sorry for STILL not being on for the last week. My network setup is doing ridiculous things and I can't seem to get my internet working properly for any reasonable length of time. I'm still trying though! I'll figure it out eventually

I am SO sorry I haven't been on lately. The lab supervisor dumped a ton of work on me before Christmas and I had a stupid amount of family obligations. I'll be on soon, hopefully some today, but I'm still not sure how much. Feels terrible not having played a ton after JUST getting into the server. I'm usually a dedicated player on servers, so hold on. I've got a huge plan in the works. Anyone know where to find limestone if there is any?

I may have figured it out. I think it has to do with my mac linking me to the old version of the apple java 6 runtime instead of the current version. The current version is simply a directory change to match with current java 7 and java 8. This would explain a lot. Nope. But I did figure out an annoying workaround. I simply downloaded the linux launcher, it fixed it.

Checked again. I am running a mac and Java 6 WAS still present after installing Java 8, so I deleted it directly (not very hard to do). Unfortunately this made my situation worse as I am now unable to open the minecraft applet as I receive a message notifying me that "You need a Java SE 6 Runtime to run this app. Would you like to download one now?" which obviously is not something that would help my situation... This also makes no sense as I DO have a Java RE installed and operational... I'll have to go and figure this out...

Nope, just checked. Was running 7 though so I updated to 8. Still no luck. I still have the same issue. Ignore that. Give me a minute

Version #: .79.13.468 SSP/SMP (Single/MultiPlayer): SSP (did not test on SMP) Suggested Name: SSP Server D/C On Chisel Detailing Suggested Category:Severe Description: While using the fine detail mode of the chisel to chisel a stone brick block (uncertain if it matters what type of block is being chiseled) in singleplayer the internal server decides to shut down immediately. This, oddly enough, returns me to the multiplayer server selection screen, rather than the title screen despite it being an issue in singleplayer... I checked and I was not in LAN mode so that was out of the question as the source of the issue. At first I assumed it was a local issue and tried to reinstall and it happened again. Since there was no crash I can not include a crash report so instead I included the relevant secton of the game output occurring immediately after using the chisel on the block. It seems now to be an actual bug, though how it hasn't been noticed so far eludes me. 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 Pastebin.com link of the Crash Report:http://pastebin.com/Nwg8Sg6e

Age: 28 Minecraft Username: GxLogic Why would you like to join?:I'd like to join because I've always enjoyed the companionship of fellow players in minecraft and because I love getting involved in huge projects, either alone or with others, that can be seen and admired by others. The converse is true as well, I love admiring the hardwork of other players and getting inspired by their designs. Also, working on a project generally feels so much more rewarding when you know that other people were a part of it and that it's not purely yours but a combination of the efforts of several people. What previous experience do you have with TerraFirmaCraft and Minecraft in general?:I've played Minecraft since Beta 1.3 and have played TerraFirmaCraft since before build 60 (somewhere in the 50's, maybe 55? idk). I've played on quite a few servers, all of them modded, but only one of them a TFC server. This server was IcyNewYear's TFC server (youtuber, Server wasn't on the forums). I even played on the legendary (at least to BTW players) Official BTW Server for a while. I like to build big things and make them heavy on detail. To me, a giant dwarven-style fortress is only complete when you have carved runes into the stone until you decide that performance is probably a good thing to have. Don't take this the wrong way though. Having used a weak machine for with Terrafirmacraft more often than not I am pretty careful about not overdoing the detailing on builds as well. Any additional information that would help your case:I'm a physicist if that interests you? I enjoy literature, philosophy, and coding as well. If you meant with respect to minecraft though then I would like to say that I am always more of a giver than a taker on servers. I've often just asked people if I can redesign their dirt/cobble structure just so that it looks cleaner and prettier, and I always ask them how they would like it to look. Furthermore It's not often I refuse people some resource when they just ask for it, although it does bug me when they take without asking first. Oh, and I forgot to mention, I'm a master with the ProPick Time zone, location, name(*Optional):Time Zone: Central US Time (Chicago), Location: South Bend, IN. USA, Name: Though my name is Ian, I prefer to go by GatesThanks for considering!

May i join Please? IGN: GxLogic (make sure the capitals are right) Main Interests: Video Games, Physics, Books, and Philosophy. Also a nice glass of scotch. I've played quite a bit of TFC in my day. No worries there. Age: 28 Build Style: Precise and Massive are the best words to describe my build style. I enjoy building things with intricate detail, but also enjoy building things on huge scales. I usually have to do less intricate work than I would like however, because it eats away at performance so much. Never mind, guess I'm too much of an old fart

You're right Gopher, he didn't prove anything with that, he merely explained his earlier point. You on the other hand assumed that his analogy was an argument and strawmanned him by attacking said analogy which makes your argument invalid since you tried to prove an entirely different point. Accordingly your argument is actually that not all players enjoy BTW, nothing else. I agree with that, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. You seem to have missed his point entirely. His point was that when a game engages the player it is a good thing. Everything else was explanatory analogy. You also seem to not understand the difference between correlation and causation. You have OBSERVED that the most common complaints are about hardcore beds and Hardcore spawn, this does not prove in any way that taking beds away makes the game less fun. There are several reasons for this: Firstly, these complaints are collected from a convenient sample and are likely to have a very significant level of bias. That bias is there because people who speak out on complaints are statistically likely to have far stronger opinions than those who choose to complain in silent. Secondly, you cannot generalize such an observation to anything other than BTW itself because BTW is a special case. Furthermore your point that the biggest complaints from BTW players are hardcore beds and Hardcore spawn is ridiculous because if they don't represent the demographic of BTW players who do enjoy said features in any way shape or form, for all you know they could be less then a tenth of a percent of the demographic, and you can't generalize from a tenth of a percent of a demographic to the whole demographic if the way you chose that tenth of a percent is through the feature you are trying to generalize to that demographic. That's circular reasoning at its finest right there. As to his point, that when a game engages a player it is good, this is true, because it is self-evident. Personally I'm not making my argument from the standpoint of someone who would prefer beds were removed because of BTW, but because I remember the days before the bed in vanilla minecraft and see so much potential for the same types of emergent gameplay to arise in TFC because there is more encouragement for the type of gameplay that led to the emergent gameplay we saw before beds in vanilla than there ever was in vanilla. If you don't want to encounter hostile mobs then why would you be playing on anything other than peaceful? That is precisely what peaceful is for. Referring to the use of the word FORCE, did you know that TFC FORCES you to drink water? Do you realize that TFC FORCES you to store food for winter if you're in temperate climates? Do you understand that TFC rewards killing hostile mobs? Your point is moot because FORCING someone to do something in a game isn't inherently bad. You also are making your own argument in your next paragraph a hypocrisy as well, since these players who don't like encountering hostile mobs in TFC are also a tiny subset of the modded-client minecraft world, which is a tiny subset of the pc minecraft world, which is a tiny subset of the minecraft player community as well. You simply can't make those types of generalizations from that type of data.

I'd like to discuss a few more things regarding what you're saying. I didn't make this point in my previous mention of the appeal to popularity part of your post. Yes, you can destroy your community if you piss off the player base, but changing some aspect of a game almost never does that unless it explicitly reveals some underlying extremism behind the game or the game developers opinions (ie if you support naziism in a direct and nonambiguous manner with clear intentions), or the change is so dramatic that it hardly resembles the game it used to be. You may make some players unhappy initially with that feature, but that does not mean they will stop playing the game. To explain what i mean I'll draw an analogy: I have disliked nearly every single update of minecraft since 1.0.0 because in almost every single update since then the features that have been added have not added a significant amount of gameplay in any way, but i still play it. When adding a new feature in particular loss of the player base is almost never an issue, because almost nobody will go from enjoying a game to actually hating the game inherently without a serious change inthe direction of it's development.Bad features don't make a game bad, every game has them, and players don't stop playing just because they don't like a single thing, but poor gameplay and baddirection of development does. It is also important to note that I still do not think that removing night as it stands will make the gameplay better, but that doesn't mean it's a bad development step right now. Development is, by definition, a process, and so removing a feature now that may make the game less enjoyable now can still make sense in the long run if it's purpose is to facilitate the expansion of an aspect of gameplay that said feature conflicts with (as to why the CHOICE of whether or not to sleep actually still conflicts with gameplay see my other post) In fact one of the biggest problems with popular input when it comes to development is that players frequently seek instant gratification from updates and get upset when a feature seems bad, when that feature may very well be part of the implementation of a much broader system that adds a large amount of gameplay value that they are not aware of because they are not privy to the specifics of the development plan. If developers cave in to these complaints they shoot themselves in the foot by completely breaking apart a plan that may very well have been excellently executed, but which now falls short because one important feature can no longer play it's part. A good example of something like this is with rock salt in TFC. People complained constantly about the lack of rock salt and frequently requested simplifying salt by allowing it to be gathered from oceans, but the plan was to implement it the way it is purposefully as a useful rarity in the context of numerous other methods of preservation that were to be added later. It seemed like a poorly implemented feature, but people only saw an incomplete portion of the whole. Luckily in this case the dev did not cave.

I never had any premise that stated the night is enjoyable, because itISN'T. The only premises i had that might be misread as such was when i said that the night has thepotentialto be a very enjoyableaspect of the gameplay experience or that night adds tension to the game which is an enjoyable aspect of it, the first being impossible to misinterpret as such and the latter being true regardless of whether the night is enjoyable since the night is scary regardless of whether you skip it or not.

it's a strawman because it misrepresents my argument and then countermands that misrepresentation. It does not apply when my actual argument is taken into consideration, since removing night-skipping is not the premise of my argument but the conclusion. My argument pointed out that the best way to expand an existing gameplay feature (night) is to add functionality to that feature, but if night can be skipped altogether then that new functionality, which in the case of night usually can't be restrictive to night, will be moved to a safer period of time. But Night is enjoyable in the game because it adds significant tension, so skipping the night removes a source of tension that leads to potential emergent gameplay (check my OP to see the emergent gameplay stuff). gameplay is enjoyable, so allowing night to be skipped removes a source of enjoyment. To clarify: the fact that you have a CHOICE at all, even if you choose not to skip night makes such gameplay no longer emergent, but decisive, which is almost always less enjoyable. Making people building certain types of structures because they are necessary is a much better way to provide gameplay than giving them the choice to do so, because it makes people think about how they want to customize a basic element so that it is unique and valuable to them, whereas allowing people the choice makes the value of such a project significantly less in the player's mind, because there is a subconscious understanding that it is not truly necessary. THAT was my point, when you juxtapose all of my previous conclusions into a single argument as the premises, and it is completely misrepresented when one says you can choose either way, because that is exactly the argument i'm countering. It's actually one of the most inaccurate strawman arguments i've seen because it knocks my argument down with the contrary to my conclusion. It's a misrepresentation of my argument specifically because it implies that part of my argument is that skipping sleeping is not a beneficial feature of the game as it stands, when in fact that part of my argument is that skipping the night is not a beneficial feature in the context of adding features to the night to make it a better source of enjoyable gameplay.As it stands I actually agree that sleeping is a beneficial feature because the night has potential, but does not have significant gameplay value except for as a source of time-based tension.

a mob-repellent type feature is exactly the type of feature that would improve a sleepless night, particularly if it required mainenance (ie resource requirement) and especially if it was implemented in conjunction with other night-time features. edit: appeal to popularity is one of the biggest mistakes many game developers make. The fact is, the average player doesn't actually know what will lead to a balanced, pleasurable gameplay experience. They know what they enjoy OUTSIDE the game, and they know which things they enjoy outside the game are most relevant to the game, but they frequently fail to consider how it effects gameplay in an emergent scene, and also how it affects the balance and consistency of the game. The very best game designers (since game design is really what we're talking about, not game development) are not just fantastically good at adding inherent gameplay, rather they are reasonably good at adding inherent gameplay, but masters at manipulating features such that gameplay emerges naturally without implicit intention. The most important aspect, however, of why the average player's suggestions are frequently "bad" is how it affects the ability to develop the rest of the game. Any implemented feature takes time, and a huge portion of player suggestions are not very valuable because they add a limited amount of gameplay at the cost of a relatively large chunk of time. The best game designers understand this and look for ideas with the biggest bang for their buck in terms of gameplay and time. Features like, for example, adding a new type of vegetable to the game do not add significant gameplay value, but require a not-insignificant amount of time to implement (in this case it's not much, but it's still not worth the time) when they could have implemented a similarly simple feature with inherently more gameplay value.