Enhanced Configuration

[Aldebaran 8]

I would like to see some enhanced configuration options for players to modify the game to their tastes...

 

Preservation/Decay

While the game currently has decay configuration settings, it isn't exactly that customizable.  You can decrease or increase the overall decay rate of food in the game but this is very much an all or nothing option.  As a player, I would personally like the option to build a food surplus without removing the decay option entirely, as I actually like the fact I can't leave a chunk of raw meat laying in the hot summer sun and expect it not to decay. 

 

To this end I would like to suggest the following.  An option to control the decay rate of foods which have been preserved somehow either by salting,cooking, or possibly in the future pickling or dehydration. 

 

Pros...

 

Encourage Varying Playtypes: Minecraft, in its vanilla flavor is less about survival and more about building.  In this build of the game, survival takes a much larger role, technological advancement eats up even more playtime leaving even less time for building.  Many people who play minecraft enjoy the engineering aspect of the game and TFC is amazing for people like this given the wide variety of resources they have at their disposal to work with.  The ability to build up enough of a surplus of food without completely turning off the decay mechanics (so the game still maintains the unique feel of TFC) so that a play can concentrate upon building their own Rome/Carthage/Athens/insertanotherancientcityhere)

 

On the alternate side, players that wanted to go hardcore survivalist could reduce the effects of these processes an extent to suit their desires to that surviving a winter might perhaps be an even greater struggle for survival.

 

This type of configuration option would allow players to adjust the game to cater more to the play-style they themselves want to play.

 

Interpretation Representation: It is not a stretch to guess that if three people claim they are going to cook a steak of the exact same cut that you will end up with three different steaks entirely.  One might cook it well done, another leave it slightly pink in the middle and the last might be hiding behind a tree gnawing angrily upon a chunk of raw meat and foaming at the mouth (Uncle Bobby Jo is a strange one).  By this I mean that when someone says pickled, cooked, salted or dehydrated a great many things can come to mind.  For example one person might think of salting as lightly salting the exterior of a piece of meat to make it less appetizing to the friendly neighborhood micro-organisms... someone else might think of it as caking the meat in a salt block until all liquid has been sucked out and the slightest bite of it will spell instant heart attack due to high sodium intake. 

 

This type of configuration would allow the world to reflect mechanically what the player envisions in their mind's eye.

 

Player Driven Goals: In sandbox games of all types, there are seldom major goals that confine a player and the player is left up to their own devices to determine what their own personal goals are.  It is the player, and not the game, which determines what it means to 'win the game'.  The ability to adjust these decay rates for some preservation methods lower than their current rates would allow players to set the goal of establishing a large enough food supply to the point they no longer needed to be concerned about food.  This is as worthy a goal as any and one I personally think should be afforded to players. 

 

This type of configuration would allow players a wider set of goals which they could ultimately set for themselves to achieve as part of their own personal terms for victory.  Greatly enhancing player engagement for those who find satisfaction in this. 

 

Cons...

 

Salt Becomes Over Powered if it Stops Decay Entirely: It is not hard to see how someone might view the ability to preserve food indefinitely as game-breakingly overpowered which alters game balance.  To this, I offer the following rebut...  In games where you spawn randomly fairness between two players is at best highly unlikely.  Not all resources are equally valuable and just because you are in the same world, doesn't mean that you have access to the exact same materials as someone else depending upon where you are located and how far you have advanced.  The best example I can provide is this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPruuGTwxTw&list=UU8jNBqFhT2rgiMmTAqC-SqA&index=18

This poor fellow had to walk almost two days in game to find GRASS.  I must say that starting out, I would prefer grass and the ability to build a shelter over the ability to preserve food indefinitely.  Additionally, it is not as if adding this as a configurable option means that a player must use it, it simply means that those who want to, can. 

 

 

Average Global Temperature

 

As it stands currently, there is no option to alter the climate of the world at large in Terrafirmacraft.  By this I mean an option that lets you modify the temperature across all biomes by a set amount.  By this I mean... if the player chose -5, in a biome where the normal temperature would be 15 degrees, it would now be 10.  This could additionally be done as a percentage instead of a flat decrease.

 

Pros...

 

Customized Planet: The player can have a world of their choice generated every time they enter the game.  If a play wants to attempt to scrape by upon a frigid world akin to the ice world of Hoth or the extreme heat Tatooine they may do so.  They can additionally alter the temperature to reflect their own conditions.  If they want to try and survive during the ice age this would become a possibility, if they want their world to be a post apocalyptic world ravaged by the effects of global warming they can do.  Given that trees withering and plant growth are dependent upon certain temperatures the world also conform to the world they envision.

 

Cons...

 

?... I actually can't think of a con for this one save for perhaps that it might be difficult to implement...

 

The Rest of the Saplings

 

Currently in TFC there are three trees which do not drop saplings when the leaves are cut...these being Acacia, Kapok, and Sequoia.  I would like to see a configuration option which allows these to be turned on as drops from the leaves. 

 

Pros...

 

Enhanced Builder Playstyle: As I mentioned previously, there are a great many players of minecraft who primarily enjoy the building aspect and many would and do enjoy the challenge brought in from the many other features of the TFC build.  That being said, one of the things which would draw them to the game would be the plethora of different resources they have access to with which to build anything they can imagine.  That being said, there are resources which many players view to be renewable with proper care, and chief amongst those renewable building resources is lumber.  The option for these additional wood types would allow a player to build more things and potentially enhance the experience of a player that wants to use these resources extensively.

 

Realism: I know that I used the vile "R" word but bare with me here.  The truth of the matter is that some players enjoy TFC is no doubt because it is far FAR more realistic than vanilla minecraft.  And while a number of species of tree are regrettably endangered, it is not because of the harvesting of lumber... it is because of the irresponsible harvesting of lumber not because the trees actually don't reproduce.

 

Awesome Assets:  Quite frankly the Acacia tree is one of the coolest looking assets in the game.  Hands down the most well designed tree.  Allowing it as an option will allow players who want to, to have more of them in their world than the set quantity which spawn on world generation... and put them in other locations.  I have no doubt that a few players might enjoy planting once of these plants in another location so as to build themselves a massive treehouse to live in. 

 

Cons...

 

Overpowered:  I will not dispute it.  If a player sets the configuration to allow these trees to be renewable they will never, ever, ever, have to worry about a lumber shortage again the moment they get a single sappling... but my rebuttal to this is why not?  If it is easy to implement and it could make some players happy isn't it worth implementing such a thing just to enhance those 'players who want it's experience?

 

 

Time Frame

 

I know that game design is tough and I am not suggesting that this necessarily be in the next patch, or the next patch, or even the next one after that.  My suggestion is that these things be implemented simply at 'some point' to make full use of the potential that the game can have to appeal to players of all stripes.  I am also aware that more players will not use any given one of these than will, but those who do will enjoy the fact that they can completely cater their experience to what they themselves want. 

 

I would even go so far as to suggest that these types of features should be implemented only when the vast majority of game mechanics are fully in place, preventing any major overhauls for these configurations being necessary every time an update is released.  This is especially significant given that any given one of these configurations might only appeal to a small handful of players that want to do so.

 

Sure, some of these options may make the game a bit overpowered, but allowing a player to tailor their experience more precisely to their desires, more players will enjoy the game...

The more players who enjoy the game, the more new people they will tell...

The more new people they tell, the more people will play the game...

The more people that play the game, the more renown the game will get...

The more renown the game gets, the more likely the developers will get the respect owed to them for taking a game that, was entertaining yet monotonous, and turning it into arguably one of the best damned survival games out there AND doing it without pay...

 

Comments, Concerns, Prayer Requests and Awkward Facial Expressions all much appreciated...

[RedwoodChopper 1]

I still have meat from 3 years ago (yeah 3) and it's even without salt. I just live around -11000 and i have no problem at all in food preservation (i actually have 12 vessels filled with 160oz pieces).

Salt actually exist and it cut by half food decay.

For me it's already super-easy, don't get why you ask more options to decrease decay rate. 

 

Honestly i think that it's not a matter about how many resources there are in vanilla or in TFC. The good thing in TFC is that there is a complete new "believable" crafting system, which is fun to explore and play. But in the other hand TFC gives FAR less building freedom than vanilla because everything takes too much grind to acquire resources that vanilla and this isn't good in my hopinion because at the same time the "survival" aspect isn't really changed. Indeed all that armors and weapons TIERS are actually pretty pointless, since there isn't a progression like i.e. in Terraria where the next armor TIER is actually NECESSARY to survive badass mobs and bosses. Bed is still overpowered, day is totally safe etc.

TFC just need some "difficulty tiers" to force the player to focus to gear upgrade instead of building-oriented playtype which isn't at all in the TFC philosophy. So don't expect changes in that directions.

 

About global temperature. It's actually possible to choose in what biome and avg temperature you want to live, you just have to look at Z coords. In my hopinion it's better to have an option to change biome size for people who don't want to run for 10000 blocks just to find the desired type of crop.

 

 

TFC main goal was to make survival "as it should be". Authors said that vanilla survival is a "creative on hard". Well for me TFC is still a "creative on hard", or better an "hard creative". If TFC was born to make survival harder then i expect more tweaks and addictions to make it harder, like rarer food, disease to animals, unpredictable crops grown, special event like Terraria's bloodmon, more enemies, bosses, etc. Everything to make survival micro-management harder not easier like decay slow down.

[Aldebaran 8]

 

I still have meat from 3 years ago (yeah 3) and it's even without salt. I just live around -11000 and i have no problem at all in food preservation (i actually have 12 vessels filled with 160oz pieces).

Salt actually exist and it cut by half food decay.

For me it's already super-easy, don't get why you ask more options to decrease decay rate. 

 

Honestly i think that it's not a matter about how many resources there are in vanilla or in TFC. The good thing in TFC is that there is a complete new "believable" crafting system, which is fun to explore and play. But in the other hand TFC gives FAR less building freedom than vanilla because everything takes too much grind to acquire resources that vanilla and this isn't good in my hopinion because at the same time the "survival" aspect isn't really changed. Indeed all that armors and weapons TIERS are actually pretty pointless, since there isn't a progression like i.e. in Terraria where the next armor TIER is actually NECESSARY to survive badass mobs and bosses. Bed is still overpowered, day is totally safe etc.

TFC just need some "difficulty tiers" to force the player to focus to gear upgrade instead of building-oriented playtype which isn't at all in the TFC philosophy. So don't expect changes in that directions.

 

About global temperature. It's actually possible to choose in what biome and avg temperature you want to live, you just have to look at Z coords. In my hopinion it's better to have an option to change biome size for people who don't want to run for 10000 blocks just to find the desired type of crop.

 

 

TFC main goal was to make survival "as it should be". Authors said that vanilla survival is a "creative on hard". Well for me TFC is still a "creative on hard", or better an "hard creative". If TFC was born to make survival harder then i expect more tweaks and addictions to make it harder, like rarer food, disease to animals, unpredictable crops grown, special event like Terraria's bloodmon, more enemies, bosses, etc. Everything to make survival micro-management harder not easier like decay slow down.

 

 

I don't think you understand quite the point I am attempting to make.  Is less about if any given person would like or make use of a specific feature than...

 

-If a feature configuration option is possible to add...

 

-If the option is something that could potentially be useful to a player (not necessarily to you, me or any given person, but to someone in general)...

 

-If the option is something that could allow them to tailor the game more to their own designs...

 

-If this option could be done in a user friendly way without effecting the stability of the game...

 

-Then is it not worth implementing such a feature...

 

-When implementing such a feature would not put a strain on larger projects

 

-When the effort to reward for such a feature would be in the developers favor (i.e. near the ending of development when rewriting such features would no longer be a concern)

 

-To achieve the end of giving players the choice to better customizing their experience to what they want to experience

 

 

I gather from your post that you would like the game to be harder and I fully believe you should have that option, but if a player wants to tailor their game to their own desires, making it easier in the process, and their ability to do that in no way, shape, or form would effect your experience unless you actually WANTED it to and implemented it yourself, why would you be opposed to it?

 

I would also go so far as to say that the more customizable a game is the more players tend to enjoy it.  We needn't look any further than Bethesda's Elder Scroll series where literally thousands of mods exist which a player can choose to add to their game to tailor their experience more to their own personal desires.  For example, Morrowind came out in 2003 and there is still a very active community of modders for the title.  These mods keep the game fresh and enjoyable and I am willing to bet that you could have played the game every other year since it's release and have had a completely different experience simply because of the controls you have over the game. Unfortunately TFC doesn't seem to have a very large add-on community which would can help improve the longevity of the game, but any kind of options that allow a player to customize their experience will help in performing the exact same function. 

 

Games aren't judged by the high concepts they address, 'artistic integrity, graphics, music or any other standalone concept.  They are judged by only one thing, how much fun does the player have.  Now, I am not saying that TFC isn't fun, in fact, it is very enjoyable.  That said though, if a simple feature could be implemented that would in no way effect the experiences of players who didn't want to make use of it, and could enhance the experience of those who did, is that feature not worthwhile to the overall 'value' of the game regardless of whether you or I personally would make use of it?... and on that end my answer is a resounding YES

[GopherAtl 22]

With several of these suggestions, I think it's with "-When implementing such a feature would not put a strain on larger projects" that yer grossly underestimating the complexity. Moving parts break. Going through a static piece of code and adding tons of little conditional switches based on config settings isn't inherently that difficult, in general, but in doing so you're taking a static piece of code, which is (relatively) easy to test and debug, and turning it into a more complex bit of dynamic code, which can be many, many times more difficult to test and debug. The result is more time spent testing and less time spent implementing new features. This is especially true of anything affecting world generation on a macro scale, as it is already rather time-consuming to generate worlds over and over and over again and inspect large areas of the world to ensure it generated as desired; having to repeat this whole process with every possible permutation of configuration tweaks would take that into the realm of completely unreasonable.

[Aldebaran 8]

With several of these suggestions, I think it's with "-When implementing such a feature would not put a strain on larger projects" that yer grossly underestimating the complexity. Moving parts break. Going through a static piece of code and adding tons of little conditional switches based on config settings isn't inherently that difficult, in general, but in doing so you're taking a static piece of code, which is (relatively) easy to test and debug, and turning it into a more complex bit of dynamic code, which can be many, many times more difficult to test and debug. The result is more time spent testing and less time spent implementing new features. This is especially true of anything affecting world generation on a macro scale, as it is already rather time-consuming to generate worlds over and over and over again and inspect large areas of the world to ensure it generated as desired; having to repeat this whole process with every possible permutation of configuration tweaks would take that into the realm of completely unreasonable.

 

I am aware that game development is quite complex.  and by "When implementing such a feature would not put a strain on larger project" I more accurately mean "When major in-game feature additions are done"  This is for two reasons... the primary one being so that manpower can be devoted to more challenging development project.  The secondary reason is so that once all major in-game features are added, a person can step back, look it over, and see where they could add options to help tailor to game to the player. 

 

I don't believe I cited anything that would effect world generation.  To the best of my knowledge temperature control is a dependent of coordinates primarily and as such altering temperature wouldn't remove biomes from world generation.  It would just mean that what tropical plants you find would be wilted and in 'fall/winter" mode year round and you wouldn't be able to regrow them if you set the temperatures low enough.  I am no programmer so you may be right.  I do understand that all these configurations would no doubt require test, but I would venture a guess that testing something like this was far less complex than testing features regarding soil PH and the taste of food.  I also want to stress that I am not talking about over the top configuration options to alter features such as biomes pigs spawn in, the value of a chunk of ore of a given quality or the recipes for a given tool.  I am trying to only propose things which would be possible via toggling between true and false or adjusting a rate by a set percentage or set value.  I.e. in the case of salt it would be an alteration to the .5x modifier to decay... in the case of temperature it would be a constant modifier of -x or +x  to the ambient temperature (possibly adjusted by percentage if that would be easier).  I want to keep this as simple as possible. 

 

I would like to stress, I am not meaning this as something that should be added in a near approaching update.  Not the next update, or the one after that or probably the next dozen.  I am talking about something that would only be beneficial once all major features are developed and the game is more or less out of the development phase and more onto the 'polishing' phase and possibly towards end of the polishing phase when the 'great bug hunt' finally begins to come to a close. 

[RedwoodChopper 1]

I don't think you understand quite the point I am attempting to make.  Is less about if any given person would like or make use of a specific feature than...

 

-If a feature configuration option is possible to add...

 

-If the option is something that could potentially be useful to a player (not necessarily to you, me or any given person, but to someone in general)...

 

-If the option is something that could allow them to tailor the game more to their own designs...

 

-If this option could be done in a user friendly way without effecting the stability of the game...

 

-Then is it not worth implementing such a feature...

 

-When implementing such a feature would not put a strain on larger projects

 

-When the effort to reward for such a feature would be in the developers favor (i.e. near the ending of development when rewriting such features would no longer be a concern)

 

-To achieve the end of giving players the choice to better customizing their experience to what they want to experience

 

 

I gather from your post that you would like the game to be harder and I fully believe you should have that option, but if a player wants to tailor their game to their own desires, making it easier in the process, and their ability to do that in no way, shape, or form would effect your experience unless you actually WANTED it to and implemented it yourself, why would you be opposed to it?

 

I would also go so far as to say that the more customizable a game is the more players tend to enjoy it.  We needn't look any further than Bethesda's Elder Scroll series where literally thousands of mods exist which a player can choose to add to their game to tailor their experience more to their own personal desires.  For example, Morrowind came out in 2003 and there is still a very active community of modders for the title.  These mods keep the game fresh and enjoyable and I am willing to bet that you could have played the game every other year since it's release and have had a completely different experience simply because of the controls you have over the game. Unfortunately TFC doesn't seem to have a very large add-on community which would can help improve the longevity of the game, but any kind of options that allow a player to customize their experience will help in performing the exact same function. 

 

Games aren't judged by the high concepts they address, 'artistic integrity, graphics, music or any other standalone concept.  They are judged by only one thing, how much fun does the player have.  Now, I am not saying that TFC isn't fun, in fact, it is very enjoyable.  That said though, if a simple feature could be implemented that would in no way effect the experiences of players who didn't want to make use of it, and could enhance the experience of those who did, is that feature not worthwhile to the overall 'value' of the game regardless of whether you or I personally would make use of it?... and on that end my answer is a resounding YES

 

 

I agree that more configurable options could be great for TFC. But you were asking for options that conflicts in my hopinion with the TFC's core philosophy. A way to decrease the decay is already there in the cfg, don't get why you want another one. 

I love to customize things in videogames but i think TFC isn't the case. It's already a total conversion of vanilla and his main goal (make survival harder/better) isn't really achieved in my hopinion. If you want more options to make it even easier, i really suggest to play some other modpacks like FTB. Way better.

 

 

I'm sure community will grown and i think that currently there aren't many mods just because TFC is only in a "pre-beta" stage. People like Strongcraft's author has stopped mod's development because he don't know in which direction TFC is going (1.7 upgrade etc.). I'm sure many mods will be released in the future for TFC, and i can't wait for them.

[Kittychanley 1,002]

I would also go so far as to say that the more customizable a game is the more players tend to enjoy it.  We needn't look any further than Bethesda's Elder Scroll series where literally thousands of mods exist which a player can choose to add to their game to tailor their experience more to their own personal desires.  For example, Morrowind came out in 2003 and there is still a very active community of modders for the title.  These mods keep the game fresh and enjoyable and I am willing to bet that you could have played the game every other year since it's release and have had a completely different experience simply because of the controls you have over the game. Unfortunately TFC doesn't seem to have a very large add-on community which would can help improve the longevity of the game, but any kind of options that allow a player to customize their experience will help in performing the exact same function. 

 

One major disconnection that I want to point out here. You shouldn't be comparing TFC to Elder Scrolls because TFC isn't a standalone game. The correct comparison is Minecraft to the Elder Scrolls series. If you want to make a correct comparison, it should be TFC and one of the Elder Scrolls mods. You can enhance your TFC experience by adding in other Minecraft mods that aren't specifically TFC addons.

[Aldebaran 8]

I agree that more configurable options could be great for TFC. But you were asking for options that conflicts in my hopinion with the TFC's core philosophy. A way to decrease the decay is already there in the cfg, don't get why you want another one. 

I love to customize things in videogames but i think TFC isn't the case. It's already a total conversion of vanilla and his main goal (make survival harder/better) isn't really achieved in my hopinion. If you want more options to make it even easier, i really suggest to play some other modpacks like FTB. Way better.

 

 

I'm sure community will grown and i think that currently there aren't many mods just because TFC is only in a "pre-beta" stage. People like Strongcraft's author has stopped mod's development because he don't know in which direction TFC is going (1.7 upgrade etc.). I'm sure many mods will be released in the future for TFC, and i can't wait for them.

 

 

"A way to decrease the decay is already there in the cfg, don't get why you want another one."...

 

As stated previously...the method that is there currently is all, or nothing and adjusts a globally standardized formula for decay, an option such as this would let the player drastically speed up the global decay rate so things go bad quickly, but drastically reduce the decay rate of salted/cooked things etc making it more imperative that they make use of these processing methods.  It isn't JUST something that could make it easier as numbers can be raised and lowered.  Once again, as stated previous, this would allow a player to get exactly what they wanted out of the game, which could aid in broadening the appeal. 

 

I would ask that you not think of this as a "something I could make use of" suggestion as much as a "game design" suggestion... 

If something could be added that could benefit the overall value of a game (whether you yourself would make use of it) and it could be implemented in a manner in which it would in no way interfere with your experience (either delaying other features or forcing you to use them).  Then why should this feature NOT be added?

 

 

One major disconnection that I want to point out here. You shouldn't be comparing TFC to Elder Scrolls because TFC isn't a standalone game. The correct comparison is Minecraft to the Elder Scrolls series. If you want to make a correct comparison, it should be TFC and one of the Elder Scrolls mods. You can enhance your TFC experience by adding in other Minecraft mods that aren't specifically TFC addons.

 

I agree it is an unfair comparison but made with valid intentions.  TFC is a mod for minecraft but the comparison is basically that of chess and checkers... yes the board upon which you play(at least in most of the Anglo-centric parts of the world) is basically the same, but the underlying rules are so vastly different that the similarities basically end there.  While I am obviously aware that TFC is a mod but in my mind it has fallen prey to the Boat of Theseus paradox where so many of the original pieces have been removed and new ones added that it completely stopped being the game it was originally. 

 

I also understand that comparing the capabilities of a game produced by a multimillion dollar studio that are free to capitalize their creations  to a small group that is only able to request donations is a tad unfair and I am fully aware of it.

 

The reason why I used TES is because of the notoriety of the franchise and because it is the 'top dog' of series which have greatly taken advantage of customizable enhancements (in their case in the form of mods).  Most PC gamers tend to have played them or, at least, be familiar with the extensive modding community for them.  They were used n this example because, presumably, more people would be familiar with them. 

 

On a more comparable level with simply adding re-playability and longevity to a game via configuration options I would cite Civilization 4 which (granted, it was through addons) allowed a player to have far more extensive control over terrain, climate, sea level and dozens of other features.  This configuration added a great deal of depth to the game that was lacking originally and allowed, myself (and others presumably) to feel as if the world created really reflected the type of world we wanted to play with.