Minecraft Forums

Working out the concept. Instead of the original "tier 1" swords being crafted, they're acquired by evolving a new line of base swords.

Of course, since I'm going to be doing this more in-line with the original, I suppose I'll be including a module that brings back the ol' MM/BTT stuff that makes mobs healthier and harder to kill :B

Quote from StarshadesJack»

I think I'll keep it mostly how it is, save for a single tweak, unless more people complain they don't like it.



Also, took a stab at a basic GUI. I think I'll use this as the sort of general crafting block for the mod:

Looking good as always. Glad to see you have gone with a more 'vanilla' and 'simplistic' approach!

Quote from calebmanley»

Looking good as always. Glad to see you have gone with a more 'vanilla' and 'simplistic' approach!

And it's even open-source with a don't-be-a-jerk-butt license :v

Link again: https://github.com/StarshadesJack/VisionsOfBlades

Quote from StarshadesJack»

And it's even open-source with a don't-be-a-jerk-butt license :v

Link again: https://github.com/StarshadesJack/VisionsOfBlades

So cool. I'll have to check it out and learn 1.8 from it soon.

Quote from calebmanley»

So cool. I'll have to check it out and learn 1.8 from it soon.

1.8 is virtually little-different from 1.7. The only difference is that you need 3 JSON files for blocks (block model, block states [aka meta], and Item form) and 1 JSON for items.

The real fun is that if you have a syntax error ANYWHERE in a model JSON file, the model mesher or bakery or w/e object will kind of just.... pppbbbbbttthhh and Minecraft will render a standard purple-and-black-checkerboard simple cube. If you have a mathematical error, however, HFGL figuring it out. I've literally math'd so wrong, the game rendered nothing at all. And no errors because the math IS valid.

Oh, and also you write JSON with specific in-block-space XY and texture UV coordinates for everything. And it will scale a texture to fit if needed.

♬ Everything is awful~ ♬

AAAANYWHO:

Question time:

Should the basic mod swords (which are just "tier-up" weaponry from the vanilla weapons) be metal-based only or should there be some small variation? E.g., Iron Blade which goes along the Great/Titania line or Megaera line and Iron Katana which can do Inoue and ... that other one...? Or would it just be one Iron Blade and extra elemental permutations?

Hey Starshades! It's been a while. I see you've been busy. Actually, I stopped by to ask you a question. I was wondering when you plan to update Visions of Blades to a more recent MC Version? Are you going to wait until you get some more work done on the mod before updating what version it works on or are you waiting until there is a stable version of forge for 1.8 before doing so? I'm not rushing you or anything, I'm just curious.

Edit: Actually if you're just taking your time with the mod's development, I understand. We all have lives outside of the digital world after all!

Quote from DragonMaster16»

Hey Starshades! It's been a while. I see you've been busy. Actually, I stopped by to ask you a question. I was wondering when you plan to update Visions of Blades to a more recent MC Version? Are you going to wait until you get some more work done on the mod before updating what version it works on or are you waiting until there is a stable version of forge for 1.8 before doing so? I'm not rushing you or anything, I'm just curious.

Edit: Actually if you're just taking your time with the mod's development, I understand. We all have lives outside of the digital world after all!

Erm, if you haven't read the past two pages SSJ is updating VoB (in a modified form) to 1.8 already >_>

Sorry it just kinda irks me when people post without reading first.

Quote from StarshadesJack»

1.8 is virtually little-different from 1.7. The only difference is that you need 3 JSON files for blocks (block model, block states [aka meta], and Item form) and 1 JSON for items.

The real fun is that if you have a syntax error ANYWHERE in a model JSON file, the model mesher or bakery or w/e object will kind of just.... pppbbbbbttthhh and Minecraft will render a standard purple-and-black-checkerboard simple cube. If you have a mathematical error, however, HFGL figuring it out. I've literally math'd so wrong, the game rendered nothing at all. And no errors because the math IS valid.

Oh, and also you write JSON with specific in-block-space XY and texture UV coordinates for everything. And it will scale a texture to fit if needed.

♬ Everything is awful~ ♬

I had a feeling it wouldn't be as difficult as everyone is making it out to be.
I don't know much about JSON, I'll have to look into it. I've made small changes to JSON code before and such, but never fully understood it.

Quote from calebmanley»

I had a feeling it wouldn't be as difficult as everyone is making it out to be.
I don't know much about JSON, I'll have to look into it. I've made small changes to JSON code before and such, but never fully understood it.

Yeah, it's not difficult. Just a pain in the buttocks if you're not quite sure what you're getting yourself into. A lot of things can go wrong and when they go wrong, they don't necessarily go wrong in a nice way.

I should also append my prior statement and inform you that, yes, Minecraft can crash on a JSON syntax error. That is apparently actually a thing. Also, it apparently does give some useful output to the stdout (or console-out or w/e) for debugging the issue.

I think the real reason people are getting really up-in-arms over the JSON modeling format is that it's so gosh-darn repetitive. You're literally hard-coding your visuals and it seems to be increasingly unsympathetic with your actual game-state. You can't really have a dynamic rendering keyed to specific details. You have to hard-code the visuals for every valid circumstance. Case in point, the vanilla Fire block. It has about 95 model files for all the possible visual states it can have. GG no RE, Mojang.

On the plus side, however, JSON modeling is extremely hotswappable. You can develop and debug block and item models (and maybe even block states?) while the game is running as any modification you make to the JSON files can be reloaded into Minecraft with F3+S. That's incredibly handy for people like me who tend to go the "tiny change -> test" route with many things ^^;; (though, if you reload a JSON file with a crash-worthy syntax error, RIP sanity!)

I guess while we're on the subject of 1.8, I'll casually point out that FML is now a direct child of Forge, meaning the package locations should be imported as net.minecraftforge.fml rather than cpw.mods.fml. It may not be apparent, though, as I think the old packages still exist and won't red-line in any class files. At least not until another major version of Forge is released (probably for MC 1.9).

ANYWAY, back to the subject of my mods:

The mod base swords need some kind of perk. Or, the vanilla swords need some kind of nerfing. Basically, a reason to upgrade (or as Kurtjmac would say, oopgraud!) from using cheaper vanilla swords to using more expensive base mod swords.

I was thinking they'd probably be more durable and stronger (and this mod would probably have mob health boosts built-in to counter it) but is that really sufficient enough to offset their costs? (Or, more precisely, enable them as valid weapons and not just intermediates on the sword upgrade path?)

Quote from StarshadesJack»

-snip-

I'm pretty sure they will eventually find a way around this. Whether it be a separate API or forge. I don't see this being the best way to deal with things!
It is nice that you can test modifications to JSON files like that, I can see that being extremely handy for myself as well.

I myself would nerf the vanilla swords. They are extremely overpowered as is if you really think about it. I don't see many other effective ways of increasing the incentive to want the new swords besides the "cool" factor.

Quote from calebmanley»

I'm pretty sure they will eventually find a way around this. Whether it be a separate API or forge. I don't see this being the best way to deal with things!
It is nice that you can test modifications to JSON files like that, I can see that being extremely handy for myself as well.

I can confirm that folks on the #minecraftforge IRC channel are working towards an alternative for block and item modeling. In fact, there already is a PR to the Forge GitHub for alternate block models. However, the caveat is that it uses OBJ (WaveFront model); your alternate option is using blender-made files instead of cobbling JSON together.
I'm not really sure what, if anything, will be done to make the modeling more dynamically oriented (less hard-coded). What I do know is if you're expecting to get back Tessellator/OpenGL direct control in rendering your blocks and items, think again. LexManos refuses to allow that back into Forge.

Quote from calebmanley»

I myself would nerf the vanilla swords. They are extremely overpowered as is if you really think about it. I don't see many other effective ways of increasing the incentive to want the new swords besides the "cool" factor.

Then I guess I'll probably remove the vanilla recipes and create new vanilla swords. They'll look the same, they'll just be weaker or something. Though, I feel like if I made wood swords any weaker, they'd be no more powerful than a literal stick.... Which I guess makes sense, they kind of ARE literally sticks, heh.

Quote from StarshadesJack»

I can confirm that folks on the #minecraftforge IRC channel are working towards an alternative for block and item modeling. In fact, there already is a PR to the Forge GitHub for alternate block models. However, the caveat is that it uses OBJ (WaveFront model); your alternate option is using blender-made files instead of cobbling JSON together.
I'm not really sure what, if anything, will be done to make the modeling more dynamically oriented (less hard-coded). What I do know is if you're expecting to get back Tessellator/OpenGL direct control in rendering your blocks and items, think again. LexManos refuses to allow that back into Forge.


Then I guess I'll probably remove the vanilla recipes and create new vanilla swords. They'll look the same, they'll just be weaker or something. Though, I feel like if I made wood swords any weaker, they'd be no more powerful than a literal stick.... Which I guess makes sense, they kind of ARE literally sticks, heh.

Well thats a little disappointing...
Sorry for being rather off-topic, but whats your opinion on this? Do you think they're taking it in the right direction?

I don't think you should lower the damage on the wooden sword, but lessen the durability for sure. I don't even think anyone uses wooden tools to be honest. The only time I use wooden tools is to mine for cobble for cobble tools...

Quote from calebmanley»

Well thats a little disappointing...
Sorry for being rather off-topic, but whats your opinion on this? Do you think they're taking it in the right direction?

Who? Lex and the Forge people? Or Mojang? Well, I guess I'll give my opinion on both:

Mojang
At some point, someone somewhere royally goofed. Everything they are doing, they are doing for their own gain. You'll occasionally hear (or at least used to hear) the word "workbench" or "plugin" or "api" get thrown around by the developers, but it's not what you are wanting or expecting. Minecraft will never have a modding API. It just won't. However, what Mojang are going to do is add more and more customization to the vanilla circuit. Things like the custom block models and states recently implemented. They're going to add more and more functionality and design changes to the game that enables map makers and the like to get more bang for their buck. Or... just to make something easier on the developer end. And that's it. Nothing will be done in the name of actual modding. If you want modding, you're gonna have to keep looking to the community. Proof of point: the JSON model system.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, this brings the situation ever closer to a dreaded and potentially fatal impasse. As I just said, Mojang are giving little to no regard for modders. Thus, they'll keep twisting and warping and redoing the game code without any concern for how it influences the modding world. While the changes may never be fatal programatically, they'll certainly be fatal psychologically. Essentially, it'll always be possible to mod Minecraft and it'll always be possible to update our community toolkits and APIs and whatnot. We just won't have the desire to do so. Namely, due to our work being fundamentally in-vain and our efforts compounded with each passing version.

I'm not really sure what the actual mentality is within their company or their newly bonded parent company. What I do know, however, is that they're making particularly egregious mistakes with their development path.

Minecraft Forge Team (Lex et Any Others)
I have no complaints. Lex has stated that Forge will not ever "undo" a design decision of the game. Forge is hooks. It's designed to give modders extra control over existing systems. It is not designed to override and replace existing systems with another (with OreDict Recipes being a potentially arguable exception). Ergo, I wouldn't consider it in bad taste to not reimplement ISBRH or other such "direct" GL rendering since that isn't just a case of adding hooks into the game.

Quote from calebmanley»

I don't think you should lower the damage on the wooden sword, but lessen the durability for sure. I don't even think anyone uses wooden tools to be honest. The only time I use wooden tools is to mine for cobble for cobble tools...

Fair point. I'll fiddle around with that stuff over the weekend, perhaps. I'll make a nice chart or something to really visualize it all in the grand scheme of things

Quote from Laskeri»

Erm, if you haven't read the past two pages SSJ is updating VoB (in a modified form) to 1.8 already >_>

Sorry it just kinda irks me when people post without reading first.

Sorry but If I haven't been on for a very long time I don't have the time to go through all of the posts that I haven't seen since the last time I was on.

Quote from Ninjakill»

I'll just point this out.

Probably won't be the case when the new rework-rework gets an officially released jar. The rework-rework mod's already open-source with a don't-be-a-jerk-butt license so I may as well go the full nine yards and allow it in mod packs. However, the only stipulation is that the mod pack in question doesn't earn any sort of revenue (ad.fly etc).

*

I'm working on another block model. It's currently ugly and half textured. Will post pics when it's less ugly or more textured or both.

Still a WIP, really, but it'll do for now. At least it's nicer than the stupid half-slab of eons ago

Quote from StarshadesJack»

-snip-

I mostly agree with you on all of that. It's sad but true.
In regards to forge, I never knew about that, but it makes sense!