Perfect then. 1.5's performance was drastically improved because of those limitations. I don't think you understand the situation at all. With a slower tick rate, people build more machines anyway. The funny thing is that I already discussed this with you on 1.5, and you're repeating the exact same unsubstantiated FUD that you've spread previously. Frankly, most of your suggestions seem to pivot around selfishly making it primarily easier for you. You're afraid of chunk loader limitations because you are afraid that you will "fall behind" in progress compared to others, because you apparently revolve around "beating everyone in Minecraft." We've done run MC servers for many years now, and we know what we're doing. There are no perfect solutions to every problem, and instituting chunk loader limitations is a compromise to make it so that everyone can enjoy the game as much as possible, without having to worry about extremely slow server performance.
Not quite. I have less of an invested interest in keeping chunk loaders then others, since I don't even use automining. But im kind of done trying to argue reason in such a debate, that is obviously emotional in nature, else you would probably see my point. Go ahead, try and do what you see fit, and lets hope my fears are like you say unsubstantiated and it will improve. I highly doubt it, but its your server and you get to decide the direction its heading towards, even if its a bad one.
I have been right for four versions of Minecraft now. You have been wrong for four versions. For this fifth time, will I or you be right? I've given a fact. You've only given imaginary possibilities. Who's using reason here?
people afking chunks are unloaded on restart so in reality it technicality solved the issue but it dues spoil some fun not having chunk loaders whenever logged out so i like the trending compromises 12 hours after logout
You keep using ad hominem attacks, so thats a minus. Im drawing from the experience I gathered with such policies in the past, not only on your server, but on others as well. I made my arguments a bunch of times by now. If you really think im unreasonable, you should tackle them seperately, rather then beeing like "But you want it for yourself" Also, I question the sense of this debate. Its not like I could force you or the MPT to change their minds. I've given my input, and thats about as much as I can do.
I think it's pretty well established that changes/limitations are going to be applied to chunk loaders. So, why argue?
I think if it's all the same, I agree with button's 8-12 hour idea more than a full day. It would benefit players, by allowing some time for things to finish, while at the same time, reducing server load in a reasonable amount of time. The only things I worry about are the quarries situation, and the fact that if they needed to be replaced, would players lose the materials, seeing as under current quarries, you can't replace the quarry, as it is a one use only machine.
Do you not know what ad hominem fallacies are? Mentioning a person in an argument does not automatically make it an ad hominem fallacy. If you think it is, then you need to re-learn your logical fallacies. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy when it involves an irrelevant fact about a person. If someone has tried to perform some task for 50 times and has failed 50 of those times, it is NOT an ad hominem attack to say that the person will likely fail the 51st time due to his or her record. It would be an ad hominem attack to say that the person will likely fail the 51st time due to his/her dislike of cats. Of course, if that task was petting a cat, then it wouldn't be an ad hominem attack after all. Whether something is actually a fallacy is far more nuanced than it appears. The reason why I do not attack individual points of your argument is because it is based on a premise I believe to be flawed. For example, if I make a big deal about how the colors of the blinds on a newly built ocean linear are all wrong, when that ship is clearly sinking into the water, I've entirely missed the point. Your premise is that people will make more machines because of limited chunk loaders, when the alternative is that people will make more machines anyway because of low tick rate. Because your entire argument is based on that premise, I am only interested in discussing that premise. The colors of the blinds can be discussed later only if the ship is still relevant. I draw past experience from our server in order to apply policy for our server. I believe this is considerably more relevant than experience of other server owners for other servers. This is, especially, after all, that we have various tools at our disposal if various situations arise. From what I've heard, you run some sort of pay-to-win server or so where you have to / are suggested to drop real life money in order to, for example, buy Ultimate Solars. That is a very different server from ours. More importantly, you are approaching this as if it's some debate. Your purpose should be to convince me, not try to "define arguments" and "point out fallacies." That is not how you convince people. You take this approach every time you talk to me or someone on the ModPack Team, which is extremely uncooperative.
Considering how annoying disabling chunk loaders was in the last map, and that no solution for them was put forth other than to wait until this map came about, this maybe should have been researched a bit more before it came to the implementation phase, but I know jack-all about programming, so I'll chuck this up to a Mulligan. Just so long as chunk loaders aren't disabled again, or the solution isn't a major hassle or hardship, I'm fine with whatever the consensus is. The bigger issue is single players taking up obscene amounts of cpu capacity with no apparent attempt by anyone to moderate that, but obviously the less chunks loaded the better, it'd be depressing to have it like it was last map, where half the server's just taken up by afk idlers while block lag is stupid high, while you try to beg a mod for a restart.
My two cents: Chunk loaders are nice to have, primarily while actually being logged in. It's a huge help having a base loaded while doing other things, like mining. While it is nice logging in to the server to find that some task is complete due to chunk loading, I think server resources should be available to those players who are actually logged in. That might lead to more idle players, but that has not been a huge issue in the past.
We usually check up on single players, but towards the end on 1.5, everyone was busy or away so no one was doing the usual checking that happens. That's the reason why 1.6 took so long to come around.
On Quarries: Would it be possible to have a quarry (mod) that removes lava and water, and/or prevents fluids from spilling in to them? Also could we maybe limit their size to 3x3 or 9x9 chunks? and/or limit it to 1 per base? I don't know if it's possible to track who has placed a quarry in the mining or pull up a location for each in storage. But if people want to live together then strip mining in a group while running a quarry should generate a ton of resources. if a person is using alts simply remove or do not issue a quarry. The reason I suggested bases is because it would be silly and highly unlikely to have an alt not on chunk claims. While I know the this might be a minor factor in the larger issue I feel since it can be a cumilitive effect wiht 40+ players on it should not be overlooked too quickly. On Chunkloaders: I know that the community changes as time goes on and I've only been around since the last 6 months of 1.2.5, but if the majority player base is 1-2hrs or weekend warriors perhaps we should adjust the configs accordingly. I understand a lot of tech mods require you to invest "idle" time, and shortening this would reduce the life span of the map/server. I've heard some members on TS mention that GregTech is adding more steps early game. While I do enjoy GregTech and I understand he is not the only offender on this point of discussion I feel he is the biggest one. I don't feel the idle time is realistic for the majority of gamers, however we have to factor in how long do we want the server to go 6 months or a year. Perhaps in this version we should pay close mind to when players reach 'endgame' for respective mods. Thermalexpanison I'd say Resonant Energy Cells, GregTech: Fusion and so on. I don't know if it's possible to track total time on the server or not, and it's not an exact means of measurement it does narrow down your guesstimation quite a bit on whether or not to speed up or slow down a particular mod. On AFK kick: I have mixed feelings on this my work allows me to work from home and play. I would hate to be banned because I got more focused on my work. At the same time having someone just AFK get kicked and auto- join all day is not acceptable either. I think if a person joins has done or attempted to make progress they shouldn't be banned. Now if they just make a machine well they should be banned outright. —The trouble with the above is what is defined as progress. Overall: I think finding out what mod is the least server intensive for it's functions is always the way to go, if for example: I recently changed over to Ender IO pipes (TE would be nicer on my energy storage and transfer for 1 machine) If AE + TE turn out to be less server intensive for powering and moving items I would like to know ASAP so I can make the adjustments. Part of my reasoning behind not doing GregTech this time around is not so much of the time of start up to endgame, but more out of a fear since it seems like IndustralCraft does not have it's shit together and given the issues in 1.5 I just don't trust the mod. Not being a mod myself I don't know what exactly you guys do to help players in terms of their server load but maybe it would help to have someone focused on just that reducing server load from newer or less experienced players.. And before you say that's why we have a University, how many people have actually gone to it for more than just the Thaumcraft shop?
