Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Implementation: Raw Ore Items as Ore Drops #2502

Merged
merged 33 commits into from
May 22, 2024

Conversation

Ethryan
Copy link
Contributor

@Ethryan Ethryan commented Feb 21, 2024

This is a pull request that adds Raw Ores as itemdrops for the different ore blocks in Gregtech 5, this means regular, granite, marble, netherrack and end ores all drop the same item that would then be processed down into crushed ore.
image
For now, The large ore drilling plant isn't affected.
image

In discussions on discord, 4 options on what to do with this material needs to be decided.

Previous running ore processing chains will continue to work, and the new items should just join the old blocks since they got the same oredict. Previous setups probably needs editing since singleblocks refuse to work with this enabled, so I reverted it.

All the following options are available as config options in Gregtech.cfg
1: The full new raw ore system is implemented with support for fortune enchantment and all ores now drop a unified raw ore item.
2: The new system is implemented without fortune support.

3: Unified drop per dimension (all ore blocks in the OW drop the stone variant, Nether drops netherrack variant, End drops endstone variant)

4: The whole system is scrapped and ores continue to work as before.

Depending on the vote result I will modify this pull request to fit.

@Ethryan Ethryan added need to be tested Affects Balance Change affecting balance. Requires admin approval before merging. labels Feb 21, 2024
@Ethryan Ethryan changed the title Implementation: Raw Ore Items as Ore Blocks Implementation: Raw Ore Items as Ore Drops Feb 21, 2024
@Caedis
Copy link
Member

Caedis commented Feb 21, 2024

My ranked vote is:

1
3
2
4

Unranked vote is option 3

@chochem chochem marked this pull request as draft February 21, 2024 17:20
@JustAlkaid
Copy link

JustAlkaid commented Feb 22, 2024

I like the 1st option. (Oh sorry I just confused the option 1 and 2)

In my opinion the raw ore should be unified in all dimensions and output only the first byproduct in HV and higher macerator. In other words, there is no need to make the raw ore able to output any type of stone dust. For ores generated in other dimensions like the nether and the end, simply have them drop double the amount of raw ore to make the output the same as before.

How would the small ore be changed?

The texture of the ore should perhaps be more varied? The metal raw ore can use the vanilla raw ore texture, while some ores such as the niter ore and sulphur ore can use another texture, and the gems with another texture(like the picture shows).

@Ethryan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ethryan commented Feb 22, 2024

I like the 2nd option.

In my opinion the raw ore should be unified in all dimensions and output only the first byproduct in HV and higher macerator. In other words, there is no need to make the raw ore able to output any type of stone dust. For ores generated in other dimensions like the nether and the end, simply have them drop double the amount of raw ore to make the output the same as before.

How would the small ore be changed?

The texture of the ore should perhaps be more varied? The metal raw ore can use the vanilla raw ore texture, while some ores such as the niter ore and sulphur ore can use another texture, and the gems with another texture(like the picture shows).

Small ores isn’t changed and still drops crushed ores, and dusts.

@Dream-Master
Copy link
Member

If we not use the fortune option why it will be worth to add it at all. I don’t see the benefit. I start the game in 2.5.1 and the few orestone variants I had wasn’t a problem to handle . If we add it we should use the fortune option but balance it to avoid mid/lategame balance.

@Ethryan
Copy link
Contributor Author

Ethryan commented Feb 22, 2024

If we not use the fortune option why it will be worth to add it at all. I don’t see the benefit. I start the game in 2.5.1 and the few orestone variants I had wasn’t a problem to handle . If we add it we should use the fortune option but balance it to avoid mid/lategame balance.

Agreed

@chochem
Copy link
Member

chochem commented Feb 22, 2024

Yea, my choice would also be to no do this at all.

The only potential change that got a good amount of support among devs in #meta-dev was option 3. It's not a huge change, so yea I guess, whatever. But if dream doesn't like it then it is out too.

@JustAlkaid
Copy link

I like the 2nd option.
In my opinion the raw ore should be unified in all dimensions and output only the first byproduct in HV and higher macerator. In other words, there is no need to make the raw ore able to output any type of stone dust. For ores generated in other dimensions like the nether and the end, simply have them drop double the amount of raw ore to make the output the same as before.
How would the small ore be changed?
The texture of the ore should perhaps be more varied? The metal raw ore can use the vanilla raw ore texture, while some ores such as the niter ore and sulphur ore can use another texture, and the gems with another texture(like the picture shows).

Small ores isn’t changed and still drops crushed ores, and dusts.

Bro I just confused the 1st option and the 2nd one sorry :(

That means this change only have a little benefit to the players' backpack. There are voices saying that to fully save players' backpack we should totally replace other ore variants with the stone one(I don't agree this at all and DreamMaster said the ore was not a problem too). In my own view, if we can find a way that enable players to get raw ores instead of annoying crushed ores and dusts(if you are mining in the twilight forest, your backpack would easily be filled by crushed gem ores and gem dusts because almost all kinds of gem small ores generated there), it would be better. But the original plan is still good and if we don't reach an agreement about how to change the small ores, we can just use the original one and do nothing on the small ore at all.

And the option 3 looks very reasonable now after some discussions I had done in other place to fetch more info about the raw ore .

@Dream-Master
Copy link
Member

Yea, my choice would also be to no do this at all.

The only potential change that got a good amount of support among devs in #meta-dev was option 3. It's not a huge change, so yea I guess, whatever. But if dream doesn't like it then it is out too.

What i mean is we add a new system we not realy use. Why not use the fortune on hand mined level and disabled it with the miner (multi miner not the single block) so eraly game will buffed a bit late and midgame untouched. At Ev and ore drill you not mine the full blocks anyways.

@Dream-Master
Copy link
Member

If we add this to gt we can disable the behaviour on drills i would guess.

@Caedis
Copy link
Member

Caedis commented Feb 22, 2024

This PR doesnt affect multiblock miners at all, this is only for manual mining and the single block miners that give the ore block.

Multiblock miners will still to continue to give crushed ores and the like

@Caedis
Copy link
Member

Caedis commented Feb 22, 2024

Small ores are also unaffected

@Dream-Master
Copy link
Member

This PR doesnt affect multiblock miners at all, this is only for manual mining and the single block miners that give the ore block.

Multiblock miners will still to continue to give crushed ores and the like

so they not affected by the new system at all?

@Caedis
Copy link
Member

Caedis commented Feb 22, 2024

Correct. The original idea behind the PR was to give fortune an actual use besides small ores.

@Dream-Master
Copy link
Member

Correct. The original idea behind the PR was to give fortune an actual use besides small ores.

ok then i would say choose option one but we need to dicuss the drop rate to make it not that op. And all quests need a rework :(

@Caedis
Copy link
Member

Caedis commented Feb 22, 2024

To make sure this is noted, the raw ores will still have the same oredict as the ore blocks so oredict based ore processing wont be affected

@Dream-Master
Copy link
Member

To make sure this is noted, the raw ores will still have the same oredict as the ore blocks so oredict based ore processing wont be affected

did it not replace oreblock drop or did i read it wrong ? Or did it need a macerator ?

@boubou19 boubou19 added the ongoing freeze - do not merge PR tagged with this do not meet the requirement to be merged during a freeze. label Mar 10, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@Connor-Colenso Connor-Colenso left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Needs additional discussion in #meta-dev after 2.6.0 given the prior vote result.

@Dream-Master Dream-Master removed the ongoing freeze - do not merge PR tagged with this do not meet the requirement to be merged during a freeze. label Apr 28, 2024
@Dream-Master Dream-Master dismissed Connor-Colenso’s stale review May 22, 2024 19:42

Vote time is over result 13 to 8. The great merging begins now

@Dream-Master Dream-Master merged commit 2cf455a into GTNewHorizons:master May 22, 2024
2 checks passed
@Ethryan Ethryan deleted the rawOres branch May 22, 2024 19:46
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Affects Balance Change affecting balance. Requires admin approval before merging.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants