Mineral Storage

[Mephistos_chan 26]

I've done a little research through the forum and I'm quite surprised nobody has mentioned this before.

Minerals take up a huge amount of storage space in their nugget form, would it be possible to store these in the same way as charcoal? Specifically, right clicking to form a pile and using a shovel to recover nuggets? This is potentially very handy as many minerals have no present function but could be stored until they do.

Obvioulsy, leaving them in the ground is an option at the moment but this can interfere with prospecting for other resources.

[stringburka 72]

You can store them in chests. I was actually hoping it'd get a bit harder to store mineral ore effectively, making storing it more like storing logs. EDIT: A 2-block chest holds up to 288 large ores or double the amount of small ores.

[Mephistos_chan 26]

You can store them in chests. I was actually hoping it'd get a bit harder to store mineral ore effectively, making storing it more like storing logs. EDIT: A 2-block chest holds up to 288 large ores or double the amount of small ores.

You could actually do away with nuggets in chests in the same way as logs, then you wouldn't have them clogging up chest space in a storage room, I already have chests full of cinnabar, Olivine and Sylvite, if I could put them in piles outside my compound rather have random chests I think it would be thematically more logical.

[Just_Another_Guy_:) 1,066]

cinnabar

Psst, psst... try crafting it alone in the crafting grid... that's redstone. A stack of redstone equals a stack of the ore, so it's the same to store it in either way.

[transcengopher 349]

so it's the same to store it in either way.

So, there's no point in breaking cinnanar into redstone, and I'd rather have both in case alchemy will ever find its way in mod.

And I will finally be able to craft me some mercury-infused cloaks.

[stringburka 72]

You could actually do away with nuggets in chests in the same way as logs, then you wouldn't have them clogging up chest space in a storage room, I already have chests full of cinnabar, Olivine and Sylvite, if I could put them in piles outside my compound rather have random chests I think it would be thematically more logical.

BTW, if you want more effective storage - why not turn them into ingots? I've never gotten enough to check how many ingots stack, but I assume it's at least 8 - which is 32 ores, or 128 small ores. Isn't that enough in a single slot in a chest?

[halfmaster1 77]

He wants ores to take up MORE room, I think.

[ECC 508]

I would be intrested in this if it did nto interfere with being able to be placed in chests. putting a pile of metal outside your mine just kinda fits, you know?

[renadi 258]

I'd prefer these magic chests pretty much vanish for most things and just have individual storage methods like log piles for everything else.

[ECC 508]

but that leads to harsher gameplay. Lol, I like the mix of it, not the totality of one or the other.

[renadi 258]

Is there a large drive to avoid harsher gameplay around here?

[Kimbblesrath 503]

There is no drive for or against harsh gameplay really. The drive is towards believability, and often, harsher gameplay is a consequence of that. Really, it is just a side effect and usually comes with believability. That being said, there is no point in adding harsh gameplay for the sake of making it harder. There is of course, a line between realism/difficulty and playability.

There is no 100% necessity to remove chests altogether. The point is to push you away from chests and move to better storage solutions. For example, There is no 100% necessity to use iron once you have it; it is just far easier than sticking to tin. There is a *push* to move forward.

I don't think chests should be removed. In fact, I agree with ECC. It WOULD provide for harsher gameplay. But, I am fine with harsh gameplay. Without harsh gameplay, this mod wouldn't be what it is now. But what I don't agree with is the premise of removing chests. While it does make for harsher gameplay, the difficulty is unnecessary. If we focused on just making the game harder, what we would get is an insanely hard game that, while being realistic or believable or whatever, crosses the line between fun and too hard to be fun.

Most, if not all (IMHO) difficulty in TFC was not the primary goal of that feature. The goal of that feature was for better game play. And the difficulty was a healthy side-effect.

EDIT: Whoops....

[renadi 258]

I have made the mistake of saying exactly what you are in front of dunk and he reminded me in few words harsher gameplay is in fact the goal. lol

[Kimbblesrath 503]

I have made the mistake of saying exactly what you are in front of dunk and he reminded me in few words harsher gameplay is in fact the goal. lol

Oh...the FULL goal? WOW. Was I wrong....It seemed that way, whoops.