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

Suggestion for better future tweakability - CraftTweaker support #447

Open
yuval380 opened this issue Jun 15, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

Suggestion for better future tweakability - CraftTweaker support #447

yuval380 opened this issue Jun 15, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@yuval380
Copy link

Hey.
I think it would be great to add craftweakrt support for very fine tune configurability without having a big and complicated configuration file

it will enable modpackers to use this mod without concerns as they can solve any conflict/balance issue themselves.
I found 2 very annoying conflicts with very common mods:
thermal foundation + tinkers construct: constant alloy recipe conflicting with "cuppernikel" (there must be a way ti disable copper-nickel alloy in smeltery)
actually additions: tiny coal and charcoals recipe conflicts with coal/charcoal nuggets. (tiny coals burns exactly 1 item, making them superior for efficiency over the nuggets that burn 9/10 of an item forcing an unavoidable 1 nugget loss)

crafttweaker is a well-known tool for modpack builders.

this issue is similar to
#374

@dshadowwolf
Copy link
Collaborator

Actually... we have a plan for a config system that will be terse but powerful and allow for disabling individual items/blocks/fluids from each material - it is just going to take a bit to get right. See this for an idea. (That code represents the initial idea - the final idea is going to be different)...

Come to think of it, doing it as a CraftTweaker addon might be better...

@dshadowwolf
Copy link
Collaborator

I've talked to @jaredlll08 and @kindlich and both have given some input on the idea - it looks like it'll be easier than going the full custom route, but would require CrT for the full customization...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants