Decreasing research effectiveness (random chance of failure)

[kc7zzv]

I am very interested in EE3, but I would really like to tweak the balance so that researching takes more "samples".

The idea is that the config would have an option that lets the server owner configure the chances of research working. If the research "fails" then the item is destroyed and you don't get the research.

The reason I'd like this is to allow for more interesting strategic choices. Say that your server has the chance set to 20%. You've managed to collect a ghast tear. Do you spend it in a recipe, or do you risk your single tear in hopes of being able to make more?

Mostly, I want the ability to force players to risk losing an item rather than have EE3 research always be the best choice when you get something rare.

[KilloZapit]

I guess so. :3

[MercuriusXeno]

I am being rigid, I don't want to do that. I see your point about throwing things on the ground, but in-world transmutation is something we want for flavor. It doesn't have to be the final product. In fact we don't want it to be, because we know it's not the most convenient thing. We're with you, trust me.

[KilloZapit]

Makes me wonder if mass transmutation would be a interesting idea for in-world stuff. Kinda like Thaumcraft's Equal Trade wand focus, you can start converting a building form dirt to stone bricks or something.

[MercuriusXeno]

To be fair, EE had that first. Mercurial Eye could do it long before equal trade was a thing. And we didn't do it as pretty, but in my opinion, it was roughly as useful, if not more, because our AOE had depth and wasn't restricted to visible blocks. It had several modes with which to control the field shape and orientation as well.

[MercuriusXeno]

And we had the Philosopher's stone, which has always had the inbuilt power to transition mundane materials to similar mundane materials, in world. We've had that since EE2 and we're not planning on getting rid of it. Ever probably.

[KilloZapit]

Yeah but I mean, what if you used chalk to draw points on the ground and could convedrt whole buildings at once. :P

[MercuriusXeno]

Short answer is yes, I want something like that. Who wouldn't? That sounds rad.

[KilloZapit]

Ignoring how unbelievably griefy all this could end up being, maybe you could also mark big spaces and convert everything in it to EMC directly. :3

[MercuriusXeno]

I imagine like many things, server owners will want to turn the majority of EE3 off. It's sad but true. It's something we're just gonna have to accept.

[Divineaspect]

Learning experiences as a counter to rng gods. Failing an transmutation charges you with a "learning experience" potion buff. If you attempt to transmute it again, you halve the failure chance, if you study the thing again you gain more skill with that transmutation.

Alternately, how about transmutation domains rather then tracking each item? Everything made of stones is a domain, mob drops, metals, and the reason diamonds are so hard is that it's them emeralds and netherquartz in a domain, not exactly full of options

Also, being able to render a whole area down to EMC, and save that pattern and rebuild it would make an interesting and magical variation on quarries and builders. Also the ability to throw up a wall would make a great reference to the source material.

The catalyst problem seems to be the same problem as any other additional type of EMC in addition to the current linear system. The only way that works is if the special EMC or catalyst is determined automatically, much as DynamicEMC currently does EMC, otherwise it would overwhelm lazy pack authors, etc.

[MercuriusXeno]

The idea of an "epiphany" or breakthrough with an item is sort of still in the RNG rut, which I'm seeing met with resistance - but what isn't? And I don't dislike the idea, I think a bonus for subsequent attempts is actually a great idea for a compensation mechanic, if we did decide to go the RNG route. It would give the player more recourse.

The idea of "domains" or having items with a common thread is one I can definitely get behind, especially if it's intuitive what those domains are. This lends itself to the catalyst idea as well.

The catalyst doesn't have to be determined automatically; the absence of a catalyst could simply imply that the item has no definable characteristic that requires one and thus no bar of entry. I misread what you were saying about pack operators - I can see how this would create work, but honestly, that's part of the tuning process. If we wanted to, we could incorporate community managed libraries that help find meaningful defaults. Over time, this would become a non-issue I think.

[MercuriusXeno]

Combine the domain idea with the catalyst idea. Define basic domains (maybe restrict it to less than 12, or less than 10, or less than 7. The number is not important, but the simplicity of it is) and assume that all items are catalysts within that domain. The better the item [EMC value], the stronger the catalyst?

This would force pack authors to pick domains for materials that weren't already mapped, but I think there needs to be some meet-in-the-middle here.

[Divineaspect]

I feel like purely linear catalysts would be missing an opportunity.

At the same time a few needed catalysts for vanilla progression could really draw out the mod with the challenges. One for after iron, one for after gold, one for after diamond (and hence including allmost all modded items) could do a lot to tier the mod into meaningful pieces.

Catalysts don't have to be items, they could also be processes, distillation devices, arrays of sigils, alternate circles, chalk of exotic forms, pillars representing the laws of nature, murals which are alchemical diagrams, salamander, homunculus, or familiar. Or better yet the first form could be an item, and the advanced form is unconsumed.

[MercuriusXeno]

In fact, I sort of enjoy the idea of the catalysts being specific items because I feel like having some stability and continuity makes the mod easier to learn. I don't want to complicate things and in the end, you have to pick something. We've gone around in circles more than once in this discussion.

Ash - lowest String - very low Sugar - low Charcoal/Coal - low/mid Redstone - mid Glowstone - mid/high Gunpowder/Blaze Powder - high Ghast Tear/Blaze Rod/Mobius Fuel [if it exists] - very high Nether Star/Aeternalis Fuel [if it exists]- perfect

or similar. The catalysts could be universal instead of by domain. They could be tiered by EMC rather than any arbitrary domain and thus it would require player knowledge to know which to use, generally. Or you could substitute catalysts of a lower tier in larger quantities for a greater catalyst if you provided enough.

I like the idea that processes could be catalysts. What if processes took the above items and turned them into specifically "catalytic" items, to be used specifically for the mod. You would have to prepare catalysts in advance to perform alchemy, but you could stockpile them and stash them for use.

What if using higher quality catalysts than necessary for a transmutation had a better chance of the catalyst not being consumed in the process?

At this point I'm just throwing ideas at the wall.

[kevin8082]

if I go into chemistry a bit ussually catalysts means something that trigger reactions between certain things/elements and since in a way both chemistry and alchemy are the same thing at their heart(does this sound weird?), so is that basically what you are going for @x3n0ph0b3 ?

[KilloZapit]

I agree catalysts need to be general or automatically be calculated. In general I think it should require very very minimal configuration if any. I think it's probably possible to calculate a number of them though looking up of the item's crafting recipes though. Just figuring out the most common root item for a item and it's properties would help.

[MercuriusXeno]

Not all items have crafting recipes which immediately disqualifies that as a magic bullet.

[KilloZapit]

Not all items have EMC values either. There can be no magic bullet. All a program can do is use guides to help figure out what a reasonable default should be, and if it can't find one deal with that. That's the same idea behind autocalculating EMC after all.

[MercuriusXeno]

Let's stick to general, if we go this way at all. Let's assume the items are configured in a way that makes them very straightforward. A catalyst could be defined as

"Item" - itemstack definition, including meta.

"Potency" - how good a catalyst is this? numerically what this represents is the limit of EMC that can be processed, as a baseline, using this catalyst. This could even be a range instead of a flat "x or less". Catalysts could be "too good for X", but I was thinking more along the lines of just "1 to x" being acceptable.

"Efficiency" - how many times (items) can this catalyst be used to process in a single transmutation? The more items a single catalyst can produce at once, the more efficient it is. This determines the max batch size without using additional catalysts.

"Attenuation" this mechanic I can flex on, but I was thinking "how perfect is this catalyst". A catalyst could have a chance of failing or rebounding that is inherent to the catalyst, and has nothing to do with the items you're attempting to transmute. The lower this is, the higher the opportunity for a transmute using this catalyst to fail.

A config file would look something like minecraft:dirt 1 - can only handle transmuting items with an EMC of 1 or less. 4 - can handle up to four items at a time, which isn't great. 0.7 - has a 30% chance of rebound or sub-optimal result, which is terrible

_minecraft:porkcooked 32 - can handle transmuting items with an EMC of 32 or less 16 - can handle up to four items at a time which is mediocre. 0.8 - has a 20% chance of rebound or sub-optimal result, which is bad

minecraft:redstone 64 - " 32 - half a stack, kind of decent 0.9 - pretty good chance it won't backfire, but the risk is there

minecraft:glowstone 128 - " 16 - just pointing out that not all catalysts have to be linear here 0.95

minecraft:gunpowder 2048 64 0.78

etc.

Also thinking maybe potency and efficiency could be combined in a way that makes a catalyst "good up to a certain EMC" and that flat EMC could determine the max amount of material the catalyst can process, rather than a flat stack size (eg. drop efficiency as a stat, or even drop potency and make it ignore EMC entirely) - nothing here is sacred.

[Divineaspect]

I think things below a certain EMC shouldn't need a catalyst to form, say EMC 16? Then... looks up and sees the post edited.

I like attenuation as a measurement of catalyst purity, but I'm just going to refer to catalysts below, to avoid confusion.

Catalyst buffers out backlash effects for items with an EMC less then their maximum on one hand (at a cost of their degrading to ash), and having a success boost chance for a single domain on the other. You then need to have small piles of catalysts as cosmetic raw materials around or in your magic circle.

As for processes generating the catalyst, I think that reduces complexity over having the apparatus nearby, so should clearly be stage two of that process.

We can then make putting things through those processes produce superior catalysts, such as the legendary magnum opus.

[MercuriusXeno]

I'm going to extrapolate on the alchemical process for a while and see if it sounds fun. Design docs to follow.

[Mrkol]

@pahimar, you are absolutely right, I 100% agree with you. But absolute equivalency and being able to get what you want straight from the beginning is not what I was talking about at all. I've seen some suggestions about failures meaning completely loosing the ingredients you've tried to transmute, and this is what I strongly disagree with. They shouldn't go into the abyss all of a sudden, annihilating matter should be the most complicated type of alchemy, not the easiest one! If one lacks alchemical skill/knowledge, ingredients should change form and shape unexpectedly, become unusable junk, liquefy or gasify all of a sudden, but not annihilate. Breaking things down for studies should follow this concept too, break them down into components, with a slight loss even, but not annihilate completely. At least that's my opinion on this matter.

I also really like @x3n0ph0b3's catalyst idea. It sounds booth like a logical lore thing and a nice gameplay mechanic.

[kc7zzv]

I like these ideas, but I think they are defeating the point of my original request. My goal was to try to make EE3 not be the easiest way to create every item, even if you have an unlimited amount of EMC.

I want to configure the server so that I have to lose more than of that exact item to be able to create that item. The reason is that I've always liked how modded minecraft has lots of different strategic choices, where there is no best choice.

So, for a moment, let's pretend that "researching" consumes an average of 3 of the item[2]. Here are some choices that it opens up (I'm assuming that the player has "lots" of EMC, since really, EMC tends to be pretty easy to get):

Ghast tear: I can either create an auto-spawner (using 2 tears) and spawn more to farm the 2-4 tears, or I can keep searching the nether for a 3rd.

Nether star: I can either use my nether star to create ExU wings, so I can fly and collect skulls easier, or I can just collect 3 stars, so I can transmute stars, and then make wings.[1]

Portal Gun: I found a portal gun in a chest. It's really cool. Do I want to risk my only way of creating portals, or do I wait for a better source of nether stars?

Enter pearl: I've got 2 pearls. Should I try to farm another, or should I make an ender chest for my quarry?

Dark Matter: Do I want to create a nifty tool now, or do I want the convince of being able to create dark matter from EMC? (In other words, "condensing" dark matter only makes sense if you have at least 3 dark matter worth of EMC that is extra items)

The whole point of this request was originally to force the user to decide if they want to risk the destruction[3] of their 1 item in achemy, or if they would rather use that item right now.

[1] Some people will see he hole in the Nether star example, where it's smarter to create wither skulls, and use those create wither skulls to farm nether stars. Similarly, if you have 1 diamond, you could break your diamond into diamond nuggets, create more of those, and re-assemble them into diamonds. This could be addressed by either the server-owner blacklisting items, or another feature where you can say some items have prerequisites.

[2] Some people have objected to RNG, because they don't want to be "stuck in RNG hell". First, there's RNG in most of minecraft. Just an an example, I've also played games where it took me forever to do something because I couldn't find a: Nether Fortress, Carrot, Pumpkin, slime, Blaze, diamond, Redstone (15 diamonds, and no redstone? Really?), or coco beans.

Even if you don't agree with that argument though, I don't see a problem going with the earlier suggestion for "progress". The only reason I had avoided "progress" in my suggestions, was to avoid having to track more game state, per player. I guess the effect is probably minimal, if the state is kept in a (multi?)block, that can only research one item at a time. (And when you finish the research, the knowledge is saved in your player/book)

[3] Some people don't want items to be destroyed, thinking it's against the theme of the mod. I don't care, either way, so if that bothers you, just make research turn the item into a "useless blob of matter" that has some EMC value (or you could give the player some fuel that's appropriate to the level of the item)

I'd rather not go down the "deconstruction" route, since components of a recipe are sometimes more valuable than the result, and I'd rather not turn this mechanic into a quirky wacky deconstruction table.

[MercuriusXeno]

Fundamentally, we're circumventing your original request because we're making the assumption that no mechanic in its current state is sacred - it renders the spirit of your original request obsolete, because we're talking about broad sweeping mechanical changes that make your interpretation of research costing too little moot. This isn't a dig at the original request - we're thinking bigger than research. You have to look at the cost of this system holistically and stop assuming we're keeping one mechanic while simultaneously suggesting new ones.

Obviously you're part of the conversation, since starting this thread, so.. welcome to the party.

The difficulties we're trying to overcome range from oversimplification being unfun, to overcomplication being unfun and difficult to learn or use, to the problems with a system that forces you to "grind", to the problems with a system that doesn't. One person thinks it costs too little while the next person thinks it costs too much, and configuration concerns are a priority as well. How difficult is it to tune a pack? How difficult is it to calibrate recipes? How difficult is it to add to and take away from as content designers?

We have balance and cost constraints to consider, we have mechanical complexity and code debt (maintainability) to consider. We have "pointless crafting for the sake of crafting" to consider. We have unnecessary tiering to consider.

When I say holistically, by god, I mean holistically. You can't attack one piece of this problem. You have to hit all of it.

[kc7zzv]

we're talking about broad sweeping mechanical changes that make your interpretation of research costing too little moot.

@x3n0ph0b3 I would disagree. The changes I've heard suggested are ways to change how EE3 works in the context of itself, and vanilla. It's talking about changing things when you are pre-darkmatter. My goal is to try to have people spend more time in mod X, if they want rewards from mod X.

Your suggestions make progressing through EE3, more interesting, but don't do much of anything to the effect "finishing" EE3 has on other mods. I find what you've said to be interesting, but ultimately it's "solving a different problem" since your mechanics can be circumvented with EMC, rather than playing the mod.

[MercuriusXeno]

I don't follow you, care to elaborate? "but don't do much of anything to the effect "finishing" EE3 has on other mods" Please explain to me how this is actually possible without first discussing how to get there? You want us to skip to the end and talk about that first? We could, you know.

Edit: If what you're saying is "fix mod interaction" before we even discuss whether we have "good self interaction", I'm afraid you're putting the cart before the horse. if that's the case, I'll abandon this thread entirely and leave it until it's time to address this. We're not here yet.

Edit 2: Not to beat a dead horse, but at the time of writing this, your opening post doesn't say one word about mod interaction. It's speaking specifically about a research system having arbitrary failure rates (and we're brainstorming that in addition to other things here).

[DeathOfTime]

I agree with this being a creative mode enabling mod. I find a lot of mods to be like that though. Even parts of common mods seem like that. Once a self maintaining system is in place to pull in materials then it has essentially become creative mode.

Whether it be EE or the Ender Quarry. it all comes down to the same thing. Extremely little to no effort is going into the gaining of materials and maintaining the systems through which the materials are acquired. At this point the portion of the game dealing with material acquisition is nearly at a end.

It has gotten to the point where I try to hold off automation as long as possible to make that part of the game last longer. I slowly give in and start using farms, quarries, etc though. I think a lot of the issue is on my side and my inability to take full advantage of all the game elements that Minecraft has to offer. It would be helpful though if there were practices in place that don't seem to exist in most mods as of yet.

• Device maintenance. blocks have durability like equipment and need to be repaired and maintained to be kept at top efficiency. If they aren't kept in good repair they can and will break.
• Lossy systems. Mods do their best to prevent loss. They even take it one step further and try to provide more then what was started with.
• Fully equivalent cost. This goes along with lossy systems. Every thing should be taken into account with what the machine, device, or equipment does and has to offer, and its cost should be adjusted accordingly. This is both for its crafting and operation.

There are so many potential ways to change mods without changing the core features of the mods themselves. It is just that a lot of careful thought needs put into it.

[KilloZapit]

Maybe some people just don't like the gaining of materials phase of Minecraft very much. I mean why else would people use so many farms and mods and things to automate it? But it's still fun to work up to that point, it's still fun to explore around in survival mode, and it's a fun design challenge to work in all these farms, machines or magical things that you need to get beyond the point that you need to go out yourself and gather materials.

You don't like those types of mods? That's fine. And in large multiplayer servers maybe they aren't needed because there might be people that can go out and gather materials for you, or make the game less fun because there is so many materials being thrown around by so many people with identical farming and mining setups that they are kind of worthless so there is no economy or anything.

But that's not the only way to play Minecraft. Me? I play singleplayer and sometimes I feel like Equivalent Exchange is almost required to deal with mods that just make you wonder around for more and more rare things over and over in order to get anywhere in them. I tried starting my newest world without it just to see and the result is basically chests and chests of junk I don't need that I have gathered just exploring around and hardly anything I do need. I am trying to get into Applied Energistics but I have yet to get that one rare crystal I need.

[DeathOfTime]

You don't like those types of mods?

I do like these type of mods. I like a lot of different mods. I just can't play with a lot of them or it will detract from my gaming experience. Mods that basically give everything for just about free do that to me. I won't take them out of a pack. I won't tell others not to use them. I just won't use them myself anymore. It isn't about not liking them. I like them and find them very interesting. It is just they bypass the very elements of the game that I find interesting.

I try playing vanilla and last all of a day of real time (little of that is actual play time. four hours, possibly) I can play a modpack for a month of real time (whole tons of play time, averaging twelve hours every day.) I enjoyed setting up a EE system, multiple times. I enjoyed getting the stuff for Ender Quaries, and Laser Drills then setting them up. It was even fun to automate all the processing for all the materials that were coming in. Then after I had all that set up my attention went else where. Lots of it is my play style. I don't build for the sake of building. I'm not a builder. I'm more the crafter sort.

This is in multiplayer. Even if it is just one other player. We have separate bases most the time now and don't trade all that much. Mostly we just play the same game to show off to each other what we have accomplished. We've enjoyed the game a lot more since we stopped sharing resources.

The biggest money makers out there are deadly. They will kill. People like them a lot though and go for them do to how much they like them. They don't care that those items shave half a century off their life expectancy and drastically reduce their quality of life. It isn't always good to use something just because I like it. I like smoking a lot, the smell of it, the feel of it. It isn't even all that expensive for me (about $50 a month). It is still something I don't do because it reduces how much I enjoy life. I like drinking too. Found I like coconut flavored stuff. It plays hell with my meds though. So I stay away from it. Not because I don't like it. but because I wouldn't enjoy life as much with it in there.

Still working on that with soda. I never have truly quit that. Spent $300 on soda last month (which is really close to half my monthly income). I am still drinking the stuff though. I like the hell out of it. I really need to stop drinking it though.

It isn't about what is liked. It is about what makes it a worthwhile experience altogether.

[KilloZapit]

"Like" and "worthwhile experiences" are concepts that tend to overlap, but I get your point. But I think I should remind you that everyone has their own opinions and value systems. There are people who like more challenge and more fiddling with things, and people who like reducing the complexity of gathering stuff so they can focus on what they want. Heck, there are people who rather eat fatty food and drink lots of soda now then worry about health risks later for that matter, and I think those people should be able to live how they like as well. :P

I am not saying that the whole "if you don't like it, don't use it" is the final word on the subject of course. But this IS a GPLed project, so maybe I could say "if you don't like it, fork it and see if you can improve it" at least. But I could say the same of myself if it changes. The GPL is awesome. :3

[Borkmeir]

Here are my musings on the subject.

I don't think there should ever a complete loss from a failed transmutation. Rather I believe there should always be a result, just perhaps not the one the player wanted. Mostly I feel that this would be better for the player because they at least got something out of it. As a player I would still be upset at the loss, but at least I might be able to use what I got out of it for something else.

So, for example: Player researches a diamond, which is consumed in the process, and attempts to transmute another, resulting in say, a gold ingot. According to current values this would be a loss of 6,144 EMC. Obviously this is a failure. If I needed a diamond it would be upsetting, but at least I got a gold ingot out of it. So it wasn't a total loss.

I think it is possible to make research more interesting if it is changed a bit from how it is now. Rather than focusing specifically on the result of the transmutation, I think it might be better to look at the process as a whole. What if there were extra EMC costs for both breaking down an item and transmuting an item based on a players level of understanding or "research."

Basically, I'm saying there should be research for breaking down an item, and research for transmuting it. Until the research is complete on a given item, EMC penalties are imposed on the breaking down or transmutation of that given item. For an item you haven't broken down much you would suffer a loss of EMC from breaking it down until it was fully researched. For items you hadn't transmuted often you would be forced to pay a higher EMC cost to transmute them until fully researched. To be clear I am suggesting there be two types of research for each item.

I will try to elaborate on this with an example: I've just researched gold ingots(2,048 EMC) and now I want to break some down to make a diamond(8,192 EMC), which I had also researched recently. Because I as an veteran player know that in a perfect transmutation one diamond will take four gold ingots that's how many I use. Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with either gold ingots or diamonds, so my transmutation fails and instead I get 8 iron ingots and 32 coal(or 4,096 EMC worth of whatever materials I happen to have researched).

The reason I failed is two-fold, first I didn't have enough knowledge(research progress), in gold ingots to extract the maximum EMC value from them, so I only got half the EMC they were worth. Second, I don't have much knowledge on diamonds either, so I couldn't have made them even if I had the full EMC of the gold ingots because they would have cost, say 50% more(12,288 EMC) than normal due to my lock of knowledge about them.
As a result, because I could not make the diamond due to a lack of EMC, I was instead given an assortment of items I knew how to transmute from the EMC generated by the gold ingots. In this case lets say I was given exactly 4096 EMC worth of items because I had excellent knowledge of both iron ingots and coal, but if I didn't, I would have gotten less back due to loss from inefficiency.

However, as as result of this failure, I gain knowledge(research) on breaking down gold ingots, and transmuting diamonds. So if I were to attempt it again, I would extract more EMC from the gold ingots, and the cost of making a diamond would be less than the previous attempt. I would probably fail again if I used items in the exact same proportions as before, but I would learn from them again.

Now let's say I realize my failure is due to loss from inefficient breakdown of the gold ingots and a lack of experience with transmuting diamonds. Instead I use triple the needed gold ingots for a perfect transmutation. As a result I get a diamond, and some other random junk to use up the EMC from the process. I would once again gain knowledge about breaking down gold ingots, and knowledge about transmuting diamonds. I would also gain knowledge about transmuting whatever other junk I got out of the transmutation, if my knowledge on it wasn't already complete.

Now for catalysts. I think catalysts are an intriguing idea. If it were me I would base the catalysts on some kind of Element System, be it an existing concept or an entirely custom one. In my opinion, I think EE3 should probably use the Feng Shui five element system as a base, Fire, Earth, Metal, Water and Wood. These elements lend themselves well to Minecraft in general and seem quite appropriate to the mod. Depending on what you want to do you may consider adding two more elements, Life and Death.

I would think the best way to use catalysts would be as anchor points on an large(7x7, 9x9?) Alchemic Array. With different Array's and Catalyst combinations getting different results, and/or different specific setups being required for certain specific items, but otherwise being able to handle transmutation of most common items fairly efficiently. Some arrays could be perfect for some items and other arrays less perfect but capable for a small increase in EMC cost. Eventually leading up to a perfect array/catalyst combination that becomes the Transmutation Tablet, and/or gets absorbed by a Minium Stone to create a Philosopher's stone.

I also believe that catalysts should never be used up in the process, but they could be insufficient for the task being attempted, thus requiring better quality catalysts, or greater quantity of catalysts to get the job done. You only really need up to 8 arrays, each allowing a different number of anchor points for the catalysts from 0-7. You could get quite a decent amount of complexity out of only 8 arrays and 7 catalysts. I would think however that you would want multiple levels of catalyst so maybe three tiers, resulting in 8 arrays and 21 catalysts. Some kind of mechanic for creating catalysts should be sussed out as well.

The research system could even take Catalysts and Arrays into account and not progress beyond a certain level of research knowledge for any valuable item(64+ EMC?) without the use of Arrays and Catalysts.

So for Progression purposes: Alchenomicon/Research table + basic arrays. - Early Game. Advanced Arrays + Catalysts. - Mid Game. Philosopher's Stone + Transmutation Tablet. - Late Game.

Well, these are just my ramblings.

[MercuriusXeno]

So far, I've done what I feel to be a halfhearted job trying to include all of what has been discussed here - I can't win them all, but so far the plan I've laid out has fat that needs trimming. I observed the "theoretical" outline as overly complex, sort of offhandedly; in retrospect I feel this was a good thing. I don't want to make the system "convoluted" in an attempt to add some flare to it; that's pretty counter-intuitive.

Things I'm sticking with so far are: Catalyst Using energy in the system is a nice secondary cost that doesn't mess with overall server balance, and it can be as thick or as thin as servers want it to be. Some specifics are still muddy but I even have some math in mind. The idea still needs pruning.

Research Destruction For the most part, I've gotten consensus that this mechanic is good: maybe we can put in config options for anyone this hackles, but a 1-to-learn loss rate has more apologists than anything involving loss via RNG. It doesn't mean we can't have it through configs as well; the default will be somewhere in the middle of these two configs, but I don't oppose the idea of partial loss-by-RNG being in the configs by default.

Yet vetted concepts, at the moment: Research Minigames - we're not using Thaumcraft as the model for this; I'm actually trying to keep it as close to its current simplicity-level as possible; what I wanted to introduce instead was a means to make manual research [don't assume automatic research is intended but I am considering it] slightly more interesting and give the player a reward [over the current system] for "just standing there". Attending to your research and being more aware of it by actively participating should give you a bonus.

Potential bonuses I'm considering at the moment are speedups, instant progressions, free research (item doesn't break) or a buff for clarity which reduces the time for future research temporarily. I also think based on the mathematical designs of the catalyst, the amount of time it should take to research something should be formulated based on its value, which I am [dubiously] equating to complexity. Definitely non-linear; in fact I plan on abusing the log2(emc) for a few things, as I feel it is a pretty forgiving curve.

I'm also considering potential maluses for failing to "react" in time for the research quicktimes, for lack of a better word, but I don't intend to make them too hard to accomplish. They primarily will exist to reward you for taking part in the research. Also I think they should give a little experience as a bonus (again, log-base-2 emc).

Finally, I think it would be pretty cool if you could skip item destruction by spending experience levels instead, similar to enchantment. (again, log-base-2 emc) - if you have exp in short supply, item destruction is your only means of conveyance, but if you stockpile experience, you can save yourself items in exchange for those levels. This would require some UI retooling for the research station, but I think it would go a long way in making the process more interesting, slightly faster, and a bit more rewarding for the user.

PS: As an aside to my complaints earlier about MC experience, I admit I've changed my stance on using it: As long as EE3 is putting in EXP, I don't feel bad about consuming it.

[reapersremorse]

Ill start with, this is the farthest post i have read to in this long conversation...

A mini game (eg: thaumcraft...) can become cumbersome in nature. I would propose the research to need all of the materials that would be needed to craft the item/block inside the research table. You would have to have the right ammount of items needed in order to craft the item or block within the gui. Eg: put coal, sticks, 7 pieces of cobble, glass, 4 iron, redstone, 3 planks.

You would have a chance to get a crafting table, torches, pickaxe, piston. Ect ect. But if you have not learned the basic materials like coal or planks then you couldnt obtain the sticks or coal needed for torches. Im a bit tired so sorry if im not making since. You could also configure the "minigame" to look for a low emc value item first.

I would also like to see a multiblock for the research table. 3x3x3 not hollow.

Top AAA mid AAA bot AAA

Click top or side with chalk to initiate the multiblock forming. The gui could look almost like the alchemy tablets gui, probibly 12 slots for researching items, 1 slot for tome of knowledge, text area to inform you that a research has unlocked. Also maybe show the last few researched items. On Jun 3, 2016 2:33 PM, "x3n0ph0b3" notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm going to throw my hat in the ring here. Minigames get repetitive and there are an increasingly large number of items to be researched as raw materials in any given mod set which includes EE, ranging from basic vanilla materials to massive sweeping worldgen alterations from other mods. With that in mind, it is imperative to respect the player's time. Introducing a mechanic to bottleneck research, no matter how clever or interesting it might seem at first, may [and likely will] become tedious and grueling on a long enough timeline. Being able to ramp up that "difficulty" artificially by forcing random failures will be defined by many as a copout to a more fascinating [or actually difficult] mechanic. This is grinding. It presents the illusion of difficulty. I'm not saying this is intrinsically bad, but consider seriously whether this is something you want to do hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

— You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/pahimar/Equivalent-Exchange-3/issues/1010#issuecomment-223657813, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AGBcEQWcmK84jclwl5w4cqhJlU6tk9Rcks5qIHNngaJpZM4GL3jj .

[MercuriusXeno]

A recipe scrape makes me think twice, but I don't dislike the premise. In my last post (I didn't realize you hadn't read it): "we're not using Thaumcraft as the model for this"

(Paraphrasing mode, activated - this post is too long) I only want to speed it up. I think the cost should be configurable for people who want it expensive, but my issue with it is it's boring. So far, the ideas I've seen address the boringness, but always with added complexity; imo, sometimes too much.

I don't want it tied to the alchemy system of creating things either; I prefer them separated. My reason for this is dubious but it boils down to complexity. Taking it down the roads of "trial and error is how you learn" or "just another crafting system" aren't ideas I can get behind, but I want to make it clear they are not 100% "bad". There are components of them I like.

Let me say it straight: I don't know how to make a capacitor, but I can still use one to fix a circuit. I'm not going to force a player to know all the inputs to learn a recipe. It isn't difficult, to scan in the inputs - in most cases it isn't particularly expensive either. It's just an inconvenience. I'm actively avoiding inconvenience.

I like certain parts of Thaumcraft's research system: it occurs at a table, it uses paper and ink, it requires the player to actually be there, clicking buttons, doing things, it remembers progress.

I respect other parts of Thaumcraft's research system. These are my opinions: Well balanced, meaningful progression, sophisticated/interesting/elegant/fun (I can only speak for myself here, there is a dominant strategy/puzzle to every research and I find it fun - it is a cool minigame, but everyone has their limits - I'm no exception).

What I don't like about it is that it forces you to stop; it kills your momentum. Sometimes it kills it for extended periods of time. And it keeps coming back to that Thaumometer. At first it's exciting, but after a while I start to hate that thing. I resent having to use it for the two-hundredth time. Similarly I think people will resent having to drop a few hundred items into a table and just stand there. I don't think we need to make the research system harder, I think we need to make it more expensive [for some, with configs] and involve the player more, but in as simple a way as we can.