The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

A place to talk to other users about the mod.
User avatar
Toyi
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Toyi »

FlowerChild wrote:No, I really don't want this to get into other mods.

The only reason I mentioned the BC pipes thing was that was the incident that precipitated me leaving the Forge, and thus is directly related to the history between BTW and RP.
Yes, I thought you would want it to keep it between BTW and RP, since you didn't mention the IC's electric furnace in the other thread.

Well, I think it's done, check it please and tell me if I need to add/change/remove something.
dawnraider wrote: Ah, yes. I always love gathering info through violence ;) Anyways, nice job on starting this up!
Image
tom_savage
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by tom_savage »

Very well put together. I hate to suggest more, but perhaps adding citation links would be beneficial. Otherwise it's very easy for anyone to call 'bullshit'.

I very much enjoyed reading this though. I hope this can sway or at least enlighten some of the forge community.
User avatar
Graphite
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:12 am

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Graphite »

>> no longer applicable <<
Last edited by Graphite on Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Breathesleep
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 5:16 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Breathesleep »

Graphite wrote:If you're going to compare windmills with windmills:
Spoiler
Show
Image
If someone could copy this to a free imagehost somewhere before linking it around, I'd be grateful, btw...
Ah, to be fair, I think both windmills are just using the vanilla wool texture, so....
That isn't to say its any less unoriginal, technically, heh
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by FlowerChild »

Yup, that's exactly right: they're both vanilla wool.

Hence why I never mentioned the texture. Rather it was the sail dimension that struck me as rather "coincidental", as well as the materials of course.
User avatar
Graphite
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:12 am

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Graphite »

Trashing the image then to avoid it causing more misinformation.
User avatar
elustran
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:17 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by elustran »

I never got around to experimenting with them, but as best as I can tell, it seems like RP frames are a fair bit different from BTW platforms. Frames seem to be for generally moving blocks around - people have made drilling rigs and such with them.

I also think the mods that got 'ripped off' the hardest by RP were probably BC and IC more than BTW.

Of course, I understand RP did things a bit differently and had some of its own content, and that there's nothing inherently wrong with basing things off of other people's ideas - that's how the games industry and every other entertainment industry has always worked. However, while you can criticize some of the design as being unoriginal, my understanding was that the 'theft' part came more from something else.

Now, it's been a while, but as I recall, the conflict with Eloraam stemmed more from her pushing for Forge API hooks from the other major modders so she could use them herself, and her general role in pushing Forge-bloat, is that correct?

Also, is this thread going to be useful to FC, or is it going to mostly be a source of wank for the forums and stress for FC?
User avatar
Magnavode
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:51 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Magnavode »

Some conflicts that I think should be proven or disproved:
1 - pumps / screw pumps.
2 - light sensor / detector block.
3 - creating stone bricks variants by running a liquid next to them. (RP functionality is explained in video: here)
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by FlowerChild »

elustran wrote:I never got around to experimenting with them, but as best as I can tell, it seems like RP frames are a fair bit different from BTW platforms. Frames seem to be for generally moving blocks around - people have made drilling rigs and such with them.
Yes, of course the functionality provided is different. However, the pattern is largely this: Eloraam creates new functionality based on similar *base* concepts, and uses a similar *visual* design to draw comparisons with what exists in other mods.

I've never bitched about Frames being a "rip off" of BTW Platforms. However, the visual similarities are quite noticeable, which again, becomes a question of "why do that?" unless it is to provoke.
elustran wrote: I also think the mods that got 'ripped off' the hardest by RP were probably BC and IC more than BTW.
I agree. However, I'm the only one that publicly complained about it, other than Albaka doing so briefly when it first started happening, then recanting. I'm also the one that is now having *me*
copying Eloraam's features being used as justification for ripping off my entire mod, and my response to those accusations is largely what this thread is about.
elustran wrote: Of course, I understand RP did things a bit differently and had some of its own content, and that there's nothing inherently wrong with basing things off of other people's ideas - that's how the games industry and every other entertainment industry has always worked. However, while you can criticize some of the design as being unoriginal, my understanding was that the 'theft' part came more from something else.
This isn't the "game industry". This is a bunch of hobbyists working towards providing free content for the MC community. Thus, I do not think using justifications for it based on competitive business practices is a valid line of argument.
elustran wrote: Now, it's been a while, but as I recall, the conflict with Eloraam stemmed more from her pushing for Forge API hooks from the other major modders so she could use them herself, and her general role in pushing Forge-bloat, is that correct?
There were many factors, but the "copying" of features was the primary reason I left the Forge. As I've said on many occasions, the straw that broke the camel's back was when she copied BC's pipes after "getting drunk on absinthe" (as she says in her own blog). She knew what she did was wrong there, otherwise there would be no need to say that she did it while drunk.
elustran wrote:Also, is this thread going to be useful to FC, or is it going to mostly be a source of wank for the forums and stress for FC?
You're treading on very thin ice here man.
User avatar
elustran
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 11:17 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by elustran »

FlowerChild wrote: Yes, of course the functionality provided is different. However, the pattern is largely this: Eloraam creates new functionality based on similar *base* concepts, and uses a similar *visual* design to draw comparisons with what exists in other mods.

I've never bitched about Frames being a "rip off" of BTW Platforms. However, the visual similarities are quite noticeable, which again, becomes a question of "why do that?" unless it is to provoke.
I understand, but it was getting listed at the top and I wasn't sure it belonged there because I was under the impression it provided a different sort of functionality. My guess is that if anything was meant to be provocative, it was probably the RP windmill.
FlowerChild wrote: I agree. However, I'm the only one that publicly complained about it, other than Albaka doing so briefly when it first started happening, then recanting. I'm also the one that is now having *me*
copying Eloraam's features being used as justification for ripping off my entire mod, and my response to those accusations is largely what this thread is about.
I agree, that's a total bullshit excuse for BTF trying to clone BTW. I mean, we have to accept that certain ideas converge from time to time. I really hope I didn't give you a different impression. I'm not here as an apologist for RP, and even less for BTF. I was just trying to take a level look at frames.
FlowerChild wrote: This isn't the "game industry". This is a bunch of hobbyists working towards providing free content for the MC community. Thus, I do not think using justifications for it based on competitive business practices is a valid line of argument.
Really, none of this is justification for BTF, to be clear. RP making pipes, for example, and handling them only slightly differently is stealing bits and pieces. Parts of RP are original (I think, but I'm not exactly a follower of RP). BTF is stealing wholesale.
FlowerChild wrote: There were many factors, but the "copying" of features was the primary reason I left the Forge. As I've said on many occasions, the straw that broke the camel's back was when she copied BC's pipes after "getting drunk on absinthe" (as she says in her own blog). She knew what she did was wrong there, otherwise there would be no need to say that she did it while drunk.
That makes sense. I think I remember you telling that story now. I also seem to remember a lot of your complaints about Forge had to do with bloat and her abusing the API for her own needs, that was part of it, right? I'm not totally mis-remembering here, am I?
FlowerChild wrote:
elustran wrote:Also, is this thread going to be useful to FC, or is it going to mostly be a source of wank for the forums and stress for FC?
You're treading on very thin ice here man.
Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression by any of this. The point was that I can scarcely imagine how stressful it's been to deal with all of this bullshit, so I want to make sure that anything we do here with regards to BTF, Forge, etc is going to be something that serves to support you. I'm mostly wondering if taking a shot at RP is going to meet your (and our) needs or if it's just going to be a source of stress that dredges up old woulds and distracts from the conflict with BTF.

BTW is the first mod that had enough in it for me to want to install it. I still remember how cool it was to build my first windmill (started with a watermill back in those days before we needed glue and such) and my first bits and pieces of BTW automation. And while I haven't commented much on these forums, I have been a member and reading them since their inception.

For whatever it counts, you have my support in this. Just remember we're all in this thing together.
User avatar
Toyi
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Toyi »

tom_savage wrote:Very well put together. I hate to suggest more, but perhaps adding citation links would be beneficial. Otherwise it's very easy for anyone to call 'bullshit'.
Fair enough, I will add a small note in the OP with links to the changelogs, and each version cited will be linked to the relevant post in the MCF. Since Eloraam used to announce her updates via the lost "eloraam.com" blog, I tried to do my best with the comments of the community (from thankful buddies and day-1 bug reports).

Edit: her blog is up and running again.
dawnraider wrote: Ah, yes. I always love gathering info through violence ;) Anyways, nice job on starting this up!
Image
Locke
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:52 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Locke »

Thank you, this is a definitive, researched source and approved by at least one of the mod authors. I have been needing one of these. :D
FlowerChild wrote: Hehehe...BTW: Making Minecraft a little more vile with each release :)
Spoilered for convenience :)
Spoiler
Show
Image
User avatar
Toyi
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Toyi »

The OP was just updated with the latest dates.

By the way, look here

That really rustled my jimmies, I used to have a lot of respect for DireWolf20.
dawnraider wrote: Ah, yes. I always love gathering info through violence ;) Anyways, nice job on starting this up!
Image
Ozziie
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 2:41 am

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Ozziie »

Toyi wrote:The OP was just updated with the latest dates.

By the way, look here

That really rustled my jimmies, I used to have a lot of respect for DireWolf20.
EDIT: For those unable to watch the video, Direwolf20 is doing a Let's Play of a prerelease of RedPower. He approaches a vertical windmill and says, "I can't think of any other mod that adds a vertical wind mill like this."

Odd.. He goes from being very civil and answering one of the questions on the AMA he did with:
Direwolf20 wrote:Question: Would you consider doing a playthrough of Better Than Wolves?
Answer: BTW Looks like an awesome mod. I've not had a chance to play it, and don't really think I could fit it in.
And follows it up a few days later with a little stab like this. There's been a clear shift in direction recently from people around Lex. People that some of us either had respect for or at least people we would be civil with in the community. Shame it's in the morally wrong direction...
Last edited by Ozziie on Fri Dec 21, 2012 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sarudak
Site Admin
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Sarudak »

RP just gets even more and more OP... Love the canvas bag. She ripped off forestry and made it even more powerful. For the low low price of one stack of string you too can get a portable chest that carries anything. -_-

EDIT: Also if you watch the second part of the video he mentions that forge has incorporated the liquid API into itself. I think they really are trying to kill buildcraft. Also with his tunnel bore at the end it's easy to imagine expanding that out. For only a handful of easily acquired resources you can setup a quarry equivalent that takes virtually no power to run and operates at 10x the speed. What is she thinking? O.o
User avatar
Toyi
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:47 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Toyi »

Sarudak wrote:RP just gets even more and more OP... Love the canvas bag. She ripped off forestry and made it even more powerful. For the low low price of one stack of string you too can get a portable chest that carries anything. -_-
And it seems that Krapht's Logistic Pipes gone MIA with the new and shiny Manager; another slap in the face to IC2 with high-voltage, transformers and the minor Charging Bench addon been "adopted"; the battery box keep its charge when removed like with ThermalExpansion's Redstone Energy Cell...
Oh, yeah, but after almost a year since she promised a compatibility bridge between IC2 and RP2, she delivers one for BC instead.
dawnraider wrote: Ah, yes. I always love gathering info through violence ;) Anyways, nice job on starting this up!
Image
User avatar
Sarudak
Site Admin
Posts: 2786
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 7:59 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Sarudak »

Ok guys in regard to the comment on the video. "I can't think of any other mod that adds a vertical windmill like this." While better than wolves does have vertical windmills they're a recent addition and he may not have been aware of it. Notice he made no such comment when he went over to the horizontal windmill.
User avatar
Magnavode
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:51 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Magnavode »

Ozziie wrote:EDIT: For those unable to watch the video, Direwolf20 is doing a Let's Play of a prerelease of RedPower. He approaches a vertical windmill and says, "I can't think of any other mod that adds a vertical wind mill like this."

Odd.. He goes from being very civil and answering one of the questions on the AMA he did with:
Direwolf20 wrote:Question: Would you consider doing a playthrough of Better Than Wolves?
Answer: BTW Looks like an awesome mod. I've not had a chance to play it, and don't really think I could fit it in.
And follows it up a few days later with a little stab like this. There's been a clear shift in direction recently from people around Lex. People that some of us either had respect for or at least people we would be civil with in the community. Shame it's in the morally wrong direction...
I think you're looking to much at the details regarding Direwolf. The guy is making a video to promote RP. It is obvious he isn't using a script (a bullet list of things to cover at best), meaning his choice of words aren't the most carefully chosen ones. (Also, have you ever made a video while trying to commentate? It's freaking hard.) Therefore I think he is not trying to take a stab at BTW, but rather saying the first thing that comes to mind.
Last edited by Magnavode on Fri Dec 21, 2012 5:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by FlowerChild »

As I mentioned over on MCF, I don't think that this thing with Direwolf is relevant the the topic at hand or the overall situation.

I'd ask people to just drop it (or take it to an off-topic thread). Whether he meant it as a slight towards BTW or not really doesn't matter.
User avatar
Kazuya Mishima
Posts: 411
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:09 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Kazuya Mishima »

Not sure this classifies but apparently there is an eloraam specific enchant that increases decapitation chance as well as general damage. It's not technically a block or an item though.
Spoiler
Show
about 2:40
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by FlowerChild »

Kazuya Mishima wrote:Not sure this classifies but apparently there is an eloraam specific enchant that increases decapitation chance as well as general damage. It's not technically a block or an item though.
No, it doesn't qualify. I think the list presented pretty accurately represents the history, and I see no reason to try and expand it further as the connections would only become increasingly tenuous and water down what's already there.

I'm pretty intimately aware of the history between BTW and RP guys, thus I don't really need additional items to be pointed out.
deathangelkiller
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 2:34 am

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by deathangelkiller »

I have some things to say and I feel that you should consider them FC.

One thing RP2 is its own mod and by judging from the machines it implements it needs a pipe/tube network to have a effective use of those machines so why can't she add a form of item transport like that? If it is needed for her mod design why is it "copying others ideas to have something like that in the mod. It is like calling a Ferrari a copy and ripoff of the Model T.

On the fact of windmills. Someone had to add them to there mod when you decided to refuse to be compatible with any other mod. That gives anyone free rain to take any part of your mod and implement it into there mod because someone some where may want some things that have the functionality that your blocks have but were yours doesn't have compatibility with anyone else's mod theirs does.

Also as a side note I completely understand your logic of not being compatible with any mod which is, BTW as a mod in its whole is a solo concept and very few mods would work well / be fun to play coupled with this mod.

To rap up my statement I would like to conclude with this comment: Elloram never said RP2 was to be an addon to buildcraft or any other mods that she "Ripped off" blocks/items from she is her own mod so she wants her mod to work without needing buildcraft pipes to be used with her machines thus she added them. Also wind-power is a very easy concept of a power source and the design you used for the windmill is almost as basic as it gets when thinking of primitive wind power production. Also another thing is she added the vertical windmill for the same reason you did: to give players a aesthetic choice.

You have a great mod but really it is not the center of the universe in which every idea that came from it was first which is a very cocky way to think of things.

P.S. I hope you don't want me pulling a call that you copied early humans with using wind power to grind up things and to produce friction power, because this is almost the exact concept.
User avatar
FlowerChild
Site Admin
Posts: 18753
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:24 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by FlowerChild »

deathangelkiller wrote:P.S. I hope you don't want me pulling a call that you copied early humans with using wind power to grind up things and to produce friction power, because this is almost the exact concept.
Yeah, goodbye mister troll.
User avatar
Battosay
Posts: 2043
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 7:37 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by Battosay »

deathangelkiller wrote:One thing RP2 is its own mod and by judging from the machines it implements it needs a pipe/tube network to have a effective use of those machines
Erg. This is so sad to read stuff like that.
Because off course, there's no other way to do that when you're creative.
Like Azanor in TC3. He had to use Pipes too. He just decided to hide them in a golem's butt so you can't see them ;)
tom_savage
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2012 1:48 pm

Re: The BTW vs RP conflict: a historical approach

Post by tom_savage »

Love the new citations. Excellent job Toyi, kudos to you. Thanks for doing this!
Post Reply