• 9

    posted a message on Botania - An innovative natural magic themed tech mod (Not in beta any more!)
    Quote from TooDAMNMuch»

    it only seems that things that are good get changed, you can't argue with that, you shouldn't try, quite frankly, i'm amazed you did this well with the poor choice of GUI-less, which is still obnoxious, frequently, either way, i don't see the point in continuing to use botania, anything that's useful becomes a net loss before long.


    i had forgiven the design choices before nerfs began targeting me, done now.


    For one, could you perhaps enlighten me as to how a GUI would actually benefit Botania? Hell, how do they benefit ANY mod, to be fairly honest. Essentially they cause you to either automate everything (making the experience not actually a game, but a simulator), or they cause you to not interact with the world because you're spending all your time sitting in popup screens. How is this beneficial?


    Secondly, if you feel Vazkii's changes are targeting you specifically...perhaps you're doing it wrong. Mods like Botania have a planned progression and if a specific part of said progression needs to be nerfed, it's probably because things aren't working as intended. If you don't enjoy the experience as its intended to be played, don't play the mod. Nothing forces you to enjoy the same experience the mod author does, but nothing entitles you to have it your way either. Go make your own mod.


    All in all, if you're "done" ... I am glad.

    Posted in: Minecraft Mods
  • 5

    posted a message on Redux - Create mods via resource packs and command block-like scripting.
    REDUX
    By Quiddity Modding

    Welcome to the new home of Redux.

    Redux is a mod that allows authors to use the Minecraft 1.8 asset system (block states/models/textures) alongside a command block style scripting system to create new content for Minecraft. It runs on top of Forge/FML and in fact all Redux content packs are actually loaded as sub-mods of Redux, allowing there content to be treated as if they were any other mod's content. This is accomplished by using what are essentially custom resource packs that include a few additional JSON files which provide the pack and content definitions for the pack. Redux can load multiple such content packs by adjusting its main config file and each such pack is a new sub-mod.

    This initial release is a work in progress developer release of the mod to get feedback and testing for bugs. Our documentation will be developer-based design documents, open source code, and the like. If you have any questions or issues with the mod, feel free to post here on the forums, contact us at #Redux (on Esper net IRC), or file an issue on our GitHub.

    Without further adieu, the links!

    Posted in: WIP Mods
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from GoldK

    Are you implying the minecraft community doesn't want public servers at all and only play to show off power? Why bother setting up servers for them anyway if they only use servers to be elitist and not because they genuinely like server contents? That insight of yours gave one more reason why we should support the EULA. I think this will be a wonderful step in stopping elitism in the community when public servers are gone.

    Common sense is mojang allows priority access. Period. You are grasping at straws at this moment in trying to validate your claim that p2w is better than equal gameplay with limited server access for free users. If you ask me, I would rather play in a server where everyone has equal power and I have the option to pay if I find the server interesting enough to have access anytime. If I don't have money, I will just have to wait and play during less crowded time or camp until one free player leaves. The server owner also saves money by maximizing player slots and adjust the free slots size to adjust income to server popularity. Everyone wins.

    With the upcoming changes, it won't be as easy to ask for donations which is why I am suggesting to use other means if you really want to help a charity. Minecraft charity is not as big as more traditional charity out there so it will barely have any effect in the grand scheme of things. Beside, not all servers are going to run for charity. You said it yourself servers need money to operate and the overwhelming majority of the server will be used for profit instead of charitable purposes.


    Honestly, GoldK, what does it matter to you? You don't want to play on a server where money can equal power, we get that. Why should noone be allowed to? If that happens to be an environment a chunk of the community prefers, who are you to say it is wrong? Them playing that way doesn't hurt you at all.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    I really wish people would actually evaluate the result of Mojang's actions rather then blindly siding with Mojang. I asked a question openly, to multiple people and the best I got was, "We'll still be allowed to play Minecraft." This is just ridiculous. Why do you agree with Mojang's decision if you cannot even give me a reason why it will benefit the community?

    I stand by one of my earlier statements in that those that are against pay for perk features are jealous of those that were able to pay for such features, because all I hear is complaints against said feature without any actual good reasons as to why. It's a crude way to look at it, but honestly they dodge any direct request for a reason, so what else am I to think?

    However, I can actually explain multiple reasons as to why it is BAD for the community. It could potentially (and according to one large server that has posted, may actually) cause people to lose their jobs (which could potentially make people/families homeless), it could inhibit the gameplay of such servers as they are forced to use alternative means for income beyond gameplay features. It actually directly stifles creation by limiting what you're allowed to make (no capes). It creates a bad impression that Mojang will take away from the community at any time for any reason without negotiation. I've got plenty of reasons its NOT good for the community. I cannot really find one reason its good.



    One thing I'd like to keep mind for those that reply to me, I don't play on large servers. I design mod content and art. I'm the original creator of the Ender Storage mod, I occasionally twitch stream and I've been contributing my other ideas to various other mods over the years (be it art or gameplay concepts). I don't actually lose much myself by these restrictions, but I am still speaking against them. I also am acting and not just speaking by actually moving my content creation to a open source platform (http://minetest.net) which will give me the ability to make content and have rights over said content.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from GoldK

    Because they know their game better and know what's good for it. You have to trust mojang on this one. They don't want minecraft to fail as much as we do but us and them have different ideas about it. If it works for them, then good. If not, they may change a few rules to bring back old monetization schemes. We will just have to wait and see and it would be better if the community doesn't actively destroy minecraft for not getting what they want like a spoiled child destroying everything after the parents denied him of what he wants.


    You didn't actually read what I posted or you continued to choose to ignore it.

    I specifically asked HOW it is good for the community. All you've explained is that Mojang has the right, which I don't believe ANY of us disagree with. They own the game, of course they have the right to choose how its used. I cannot trust Mojang when they do something as hap-hazzard as change something a large portion of the community relies on, without actually creating any kind of discussion with the community first.

    If you're going to continue to quote me and respond to my posts, would you please at least answer the question I asked, rather then continue to repeat the same thing over and over?
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from GoldK

    Not true. Good ideas sprung up regardless if the server is public or private. I have several ideas myself how to play multiplayer minecraft in a different way w/o ever running a public server or inspired by playing in one. Public servers do not cause creative maps and concepts but the players themselves.

    I would rather use a priority access server instead of selling power. Before this even happen, I was thinking of making a server where there is no selling of power and everyone is equal just to be unique. The EULA FAQ reminded me that priority access is the fairest since non paying players get to play in the server while paying members get guaranteed access even with a full server while keeping everyone equal inside the server itself.

    The EULA has been there for a long time and people simply took it for granted because good guy mojang allowed people to feed on minecraft's popularity by selling power in servers. Now that mojang is simply trying to return the control back, people started biting the hand that feeds them. I don't really mind about public servers actually because I get more enjoyment playing with a single friend on a private vanilla server than any large and fully modded public server.

    From my understanding, the new EULA actually loosened up things a bit. Instead of outright banning monetization, they prefer limited ways to monetized the servers. If you want an outright ban of monetization by supporting the old EULA then be my guest. I'll just play minecraft whenever and however I feel like it and having no public servers to play on doesn't bother me one bit.


    You've either accidentally, or intentionally ignored my question. How does Mojang restricting paid perks actually benefit you? How does it benefit servers overall? How is it a good thing? Game balance isn't a good reason as people have the option to make their own servers and as you said, those people that do not want to have paid perks could fund the server via donations and non-paid perks.

    This only hurts those people who liked the ecosystem as is, it doesn't benefit anyone that already had the option to play it without. The funny thing about that is the largest/most played servers with the most custom content and entertainment, are those with paid perks. Its not hard to see that by eliminating the very thing that allowed these servers to offer such an awesome experience that they grew into essentially MMOs, will actually hurt the community.

    So tell me, how is this a good thing?
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from GoldK

    Are you serious? There is no way minecraft multiplayer will fail as long as mojang provides the server files for free for those who paid for the game. Sure it might kill public minecraft but no one is stopping you from making a small temporary server and playing with a small group of people. Not everyone who plays minecraft plays it for the public style multiplayer.

    For those people pushing to fight the EULA, you only look like greedy people who can't accept things have changed. Reminds me of 19th century american rich people protesting when slavery became illegal and they tried fighting against it because they don't know what to do without their slaves working for them.


    Greegy? Really? Wanting to be able to make a living providing other people entertainment (most of which is free) makes a server host greedy? In addition, you seriously likened pay for perks to slavery? How is anyone supposed to take you seriously?

    Quote from Omio9999

    Kinda glad for this. Too bad it'll butcher the crap out of a lot of servers, but... ...oh well.


    Why?

    What possible benefit does this have to you?
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from lceEye

    the problem is there are not just a "few bad servers" and the servers you praise are the minority. Each server that offers perks for money does not encourage competitiveness and fun. nothing is fun about working hard and progressing though the game, getting awesome gear so you stand a change. only to have some random person join and do it all in 2 seconds because they payed 20 bucks for a kit. That's not competitiveness, its not fun. And the only way to get rid of the bad servers is to make these rules.


    I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Just because a server offers paid perks, does not mean it discourages competitiveness. If the perks are not balanced against non-paying players then perhaps it could, but not all servers are that way. In many cases, a paid perk is simply a slight head start (such as iron tools, an exp boost, a different class accessible). What you are doing is over generalizing a point and it makes it just not true.

    Also, changing the rules the way they are being changed is NOT the only way to remedy the situation. They could find other sensible solutions to the problem, but they don't seem to care to. They took a heavy handed approach to what is essentially a parental issue and that is really disappointing. I expected a lot more from Mojang.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Winter_Mage

    Honestly just end that argument there, what I said and probably what you said is just pure anecdotal things that can't be taken as arguing points. if people find p2w unfair and most servers seem to be p2w, then surely an outcome of trying to stop pay to win will have a good effect. Maybe Mojang does need to compromise more, however, they shouldn't just drop the whole think and keep it the way it was before.

    Should they?


    Why not?

    The server community essentially is a collection of different communities that all want to play their way. If the majority of servers are P2W currently (and honestly, I think we disagree on what exactly P2W is), then wouldn't it stand to reason that the majority of the community is supporting that style of play? If there is a large enough group of people that dislike this style of play, they will create their own community over time and as such create their own play style.

    Who's to say either is wrong as long as both are enjoying themselves?
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Winter_Mage

    Who knows, I was on the server and everyone who wasn't a donor seemed to act rather... young.... Maybe younger users are not aware of the p2w fairness issue. While people who are discussing on this thread are.


    If they are still enjoying themselves, does it honestly really matter? So what if they don't understand that so and so is more powerful, if that ignorance allows them to still have a ton of fun along those that enjoy the extra power, who are you to tell them the should change it?
    Posted in: Discussion
  • To post a comment, please .