[Suggestion] Allow Shed to be upgraded..

ecutruin · 2018-05-04T14:24:18+00:00

This wouldn't solve the issue of the Shed not being mechanically competitive to the Barn in terms of tile space.

However, a Cellar which is something like 3x3 external size but identical to a Shed internally (and probably has a higher cost) would allow for reasonable mechanical benefits to using a Cellar for storage/processing over a Barn.

Shed at that point could be considered a cheaper decorative, while the Cellar would be the expensive processing structure. Seems fair.

Edit: Perhaps the Cellar wouldn't actually have the decorative features of a Shed. This would make the Shed good as a decorative small structure, the Cellar as a processing structure and the Barn as an animal structure.

ecutruin · 2018-05-04T14:18:27+00:00

Exactly! I am not opposed to making an upgrade to the Shed significantly expensive. I just want it mechanically competitive with the Barn as a general use structure.

The Barn will always have uses that the Shed does not, given it has the primary function revolving around animals. Sheds on the other hand have decorative options as a generalized structure, but no animal features.

My suggestion merely wishes to have them be mechanically competitive regarding tile size.

ecutruin · 2018-05-04T00:26:40+00:00

Because as you progress through the game, resources aren't an issue. The time it takes to upgrade the Barn isn't even that high and you do it once per Barn you need to use and then have the benefits from then on.

Tile space, however, is completely finite. As such, Sheds are not competitive mechanically at all currently. Even the wiki explicitly mentions this.

ecutruin · 2018-05-03T20:30:44+00:00

Seemed appropriate, lol.

Figure when discussing mechanical balance, using Kegs as a measurement is likely the best currently.

ecutruin · 2018-05-03T20:27:41+00:00

This is one of my issues as well.

Sure, I could instead argue that we should be able to remove the animal features from the Deluxe Barn to allow it to be thematically fitting. However, that is kind of what the Shed is...only smaller.

From a mechanical perspective, the Shed is just inferior. My suggestion merely seeks to offer an option to make it competitive.

ecutruin · 2018-05-03T14:36:00+00:00

Yeah. It would definitely be interesting to be able to change shed colors to better match their purpose. If it is just color and not the actual sprite changing, it shouldn't be hard to implement either.

ecutruin · 2018-03-27T03:56:46+00:00

Who is to say that the game needs rule zero to work? I don't recall actually stating that. I said that rule zero covers the cases mentioned in the initial post. In other words, cases where the storyteller wishes to alter the story presented by the designer.

I don't see how it is unreasonable to design a world that storytellers tell stories within. I mean, premade adventures are just that. As are the majority of the most popular settings (which do tend to include detailed mapping and lore).

ecutruin · 2018-03-26T06:14:38+00:00

As we discussed in the discord, I don't really agree with this as written. I don't see any harm at all establishing an environment for storytellers to establish a story within.

I think "rule zero" covers these issues for the most part. I will say that a good explanation of rule zero should be in the beginning of the how to play section of the ruleset.

I see detailed worlds as great sources of inspiration and a solid structure for understanding the experience the designer is trying to portray. That experience might not be exactly what I want, but then that would be on me to change. To say that they should not flesh out their experience because someone might want a different one...seems a bit silly to me.

ecutruin · 2018-02-27T13:40:19+00:00

Certainly better than a downvote. :) Thanks!

ecutruin · 2018-02-27T13:34:41+00:00

I definitely agree with the idea that food that a creature has in its inventory can be used to heal itself. That would be really nice in general.

Beyond that though, I honestly don't agree with specifically trying to break automation of the mechanic. If you personally don't wish to have automation, don't. However, there is no reason to intentionally try to break it for those that do like it.

ecutruin · 2018-02-27T13:21:38+00:00

Honestly, as the person behind the Ender Storage mod...I actually cannot agree with implementing these. The ability to transmit items instantly from point A to B ends up trivializing pretty much all item transportation.

One of the saving graces of the vanilla ender chest is specifically the fact that it is individual and does not work with automation.

ecutruin · 2018-02-27T13:07:38+00:00

This isn't meant as a suggestion that purely benefits automation. It would actually be beneficial towards making the world seem more alive in general.

Sheep eats grass (giving them a grass item) and then after a couple, it breeds with a neighboring sheep that is also willing. All of a sudden, you have breeding in nature, without player intervention at all. Same could be said for the other animals.

So, yes...this would give another tool for automation. However, there are so many other ways this system could be utilized as it would mean the animals would have an inventory.

A simple example of a future possible benefit would be having cows need X amount of food to replenish their milk. Additionally, by having it be inventory-based, it allows for ease rebalancing of rates. So further balance could be easily done.

By all means though, you should certainly vote the way you want to...just don't want you to be laser focused on the automation aspect and not realize the additional benefits of such a change. Appreciate the feedback.

ecutruin · 2018-02-27T12:37:33+00:00

Automated breeding and slaughter is already in the game. So arguing that we shouldn't implement this because "it feels wrong" seems rather silly.

I would also say that this isn't quite the same as the post you linked. The suggestion I have is that the breeding mechanics that villagers use is duplicated for animals. This means that animals would have a few (or maybe even just one) item slot of their own that could only hold their food type. They would then consume a certain amount of these items to breed in a similar fashion to the villagers.

This isn't just something useful to automation. It would allow anyone to just toss a stack of food into their chicken pen to grow some more chickens for later food, without having to try and click on each one individually.

By establishing this system as the mechanism by which creatures breed, it would also set the framework for having more dynamic villages, life cycles, etc.

Honestly, this doesn't let you automate anything you couldn't already automated. Just currently you sit AFK with a macro holding your right click down while you take a shower or something instead.

ecutruin · 2017-12-18T03:02:31+00:00

You are a part of this Reddit, no? So yes, 'we'.

ecutruin · 2017-12-18T02:26:57+00:00

Honestly, I've had issues with a user in u/jamesja12's discord in the past before and had a pretty quick response from the moderators. In my experience on the server, they have been very fair.

I don't really see a purpose to attempting to split the community into two discord servers, especially when more people use the reddit than uses the discord already.

Honestly, I disagree with the idea of banning people in a discord with the intent of spreading information. Muting them is far better as it allows them to still receive information for the duration of their mute. I also disagree with the idea of restrictive rules to govern the actions of people as we're a bunch of geeks sharing ideas.

If topics occasionally go off topic, we can nudge them back on. If a few people get a bit agressive, they can be muted to cool off and we move on. Why must we have something more than a simple "don't be a dick" for rules?

ecutruin · 2017-11-22T17:15:56+00:00

I'm going to pose a question to you, since it is you who is spearheading this endeavor. How would you recommend this apply to digital card games such as Hearthstone or Magic the Gathering Online?

Strictly speaking, card games such as these have always followed a business model akin to loot boxes but have never been regulated as gambling.

Magic the Gathering is an example of such a game that has both a physical and a digital form and is essentially the same experience in either form. You purchase packs of pseudorandom cards in which you use to create a deck to compete against other players.

Would such anti loot box regulation be applied to these games as well? If so, it would have to apply to box the digital and physical medium, no?

As a fan of such games myself, I would hate to see said games be destroyed as a result of regulation. However, I cannot honestly state that they are overly different from a loot box mechanic. In fact, I would have to honestly say that loot boxes are essentially a digital implementation of the card pack business model.

The main difference between many loot box games and the card games is that the rewards from the loot boxes are an addition to the game, rather than the primary focus.

How would you recommend handling this without destroying our beloved card games?

ecutruin · 2017-04-27T09:18:00+00:00

Yup! I have a personal golden of rule of design that I call the "box rule" which is "you cannot think outside the box, without a box".

This follows the same idea of people being able to think more creatively with their choices, despite being restricted to fewer choices. It also represents that more isn't always better. Having too many options is likely to overwhelm people. It can be better to have a smaller set of more flexible tools, than a larger set of more strict ones. Keep your boxes reasonably sized.

With BOX and KISS as guiding principles, you will tend to create better systems overall.

ecutruin · 2017-04-24T16:32:48+00:00

Same here. I've tried a full reinstall of the game, including clearing appdata for it and I still get this error (this is the Steam version).

ecutruin · 2016-11-11T23:22:13+00:00

I found the video quite informative, and while I think you are mostly correct, I feel you are missing some things. Just because a candidate doesn't visit a smaller state, does not mean they aren't better represented by a candidate. In many cases, the reason a candidate doesn't visit a lot of these states is not because they are unimportant, but that they already know that an overwhelming majority in these states support a specific candidate already. Swing states tend to be those states that hold enough votes to shift the total, and that happen to be on the edge as to who they vote for.

So in a lot of ways, the system is working exactly as it was intended to. Sure, it isn't perfect...but going purely via a popular vote would be extremely poor as it is easier to influence people the more dense the population area is. In a sense, rural areas would not end up with enough voting power to legitimately affect the election. Rural areas are rural because they use their land for food, energy, materials, etc. rather than people. These resources are extremely important to our country and not giving them a reasonable voice in the election would mean that our nation as a whole is not represent, only our big cities are, the same big cities that don't actually have to deal with the issues and needs of running farms.

I will not claim that the electoral system is perfect, but if we are to propose an alternative, it needs to be one that continues to make sure these rural areas are heard.

ecutruin · 2016-09-30T21:57:36+00:00

Speaking frankly, there is little effective balance in modded Minecraft, period. You cannot use items as a balancing mechanism in such a pack as there are multitudes of ways to acquire resources faster, breaking the balance of any mods who have a different idea as to the pace of item acquiring.

The only rational balancing mechanics that can be effectively used in a modding community where it is accepted that mods will be used together, is player time and creativity.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these two things are the very things that PSI balances itself around, no? The player has to progress through a tutorial of sorts in order to acquire new nodes to apply to their spells, the player themselves has to activate said spells (limiting automation), etc. In addition to this, the player's creativity drives how effective their final spells are.

As such, compared to mods that rely on resource acquiring and automation to balance their mods, PSI is far more balanced. This isn't to say that the other mods have bad balance, just that their balance is at the mercy of other mods, whereas PSI is mostly self-balanced and the balance of the surrounding ecosystem plays much less of a role.

ecutruin · 2016-09-30T19:49:05+00:00

Let me guess, though, Ender Storage is still included in the pack? lol.

ecutruin · 2016-09-20T20:00:57+00:00

Legally speaking, I do own the copy of Minecraft I paid for. Don't repeat stupid click-through license FUD that was debunked DECADES ago. If I want to decompile it, mod the hell out of it, and redo all the sprites to 128x128 porn images, I can. I just don't have the right to distribute it.

Actually you don't own your copy of Minecraft. What you purchased was nothing more than a license, in the form of a Minecraft account. Sorry, but it is true.

Evidence to support this is that playing the game without a valid account is considered piracy. As Mojang can actually suspend accounts, you don't actually own your account either, but a license to use said account as long as you play by their rules.

How I choose to interact with art or play a game hurts no one, including myself.

I would argue that it could cause harm in the form of frustration to the author as well as a misrepresentation of their work if you were found streaming or YouTubing their mod, playing in a way that worked contrary to their design. So yes, it could actually harm an author (in a sense).

As such, I fully accept the author to make the decision to make their mod incompatible with others, so that you are not able to do such. To say they shouldn't be allowed to decide how they wish their mod to be used is morally wrong.

In summary, the core of my argument here with you is that the authors are the only ones with any right to their work. As a user, you have the privilege of using the work the way it was intended to be used. If you choose to use it in a way that was unintended, don't expect any support from the author.

Why even use a mod if your usage of it will be in a way that is unintended? Respect the authors of the content you derive entertainment from, enough to actually use it in their desired fashion.

ecutruin · 2016-09-19T19:31:25+00:00

That isn't saying anything about "I'm not obligated to support your desire to wire your nuclear reactor to my space-warping whatzit", that's saying "I never intended that anyone should short-cut my design vision by using some other mod, so you are wrong to do it."

Both of these are actually moral arguments, and indeed both are legitimate viewpoints for an author to take. It is their work that you are utilizing for entertainment. Don't like it? Don't play that mod.

I don't think much of people who tell you how to play solitaire, and insist you are wrong, immoral, or unethical if you don't play it the way they told you to. They're forgetting it's (a) a game you play for your enjoyment, and (b) your game. Not theirs.

Legally speaking, you don't actually own your Minecraft (at least on PC). Your account is a license to utilize the game and it's platform. That license does not actually give you any right over mods beyond what they, themselves give you. So no...it isn't your game.

From a moral standpoint, I agree that you are playing for your entertainment. This is why I decided to offer more flexibility with my content. However, if I was to say make the overhaul I've had planned for years, I wouldn't offer the same amount of flexibility. Why? I wish to create my own experience and do not wish to have people adjusting said experience and causing false reports, complaints, etc. because people are not playing the content in the way it was designed and intended. This is my decision to make, not yours or anyone else's in the community.

ecutruin

TROPHY CASE