eradicator wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:21 am
There's a different between "not worth it" and not wanting to. Look at anything related to hand crafting - devs want you to automate so they refuse to make hand crafting more comfortable. Only the devs know what the devs think about chests.
I understand that. Well, at least I can make a suggestion, and, if the thunk the devs did was originally not in favor of my suggestion, probably sway it the other way, as that would be convenient for me personally and for a bunch of other players who end up using gigachests.
Though, I'd argue that altering hand crafting as a gameplay element i.e. altering game design, and an internal optimization that does not (in theory) alter absolutely anything about gameplay design except potentially bring more UPS or save CPU cycles, are two different things, and "not wanting to" do the latter - assuming it's possible and doable and the devs just don't want to for no valid reason - doesn't sound right.
But I don't know if there is a valid reason or not, nor how reasonably was such a decision assessed or reassessed the last time, nor when that last time was, nor if the potential various methods of optimization were considered or not, nor whether it makes sense or not to optimize it at all (it
sounds like the kind of a thing that will bring UPS benefits even in vanilla steel chests due to them having whole 48 slots, most often filled with 1 type of item and empty slots, but I can't know).
I am providing my own opinion, since the devs provided a way for me to, in hopes of having the game improved for many other players beside myself (if such an optimization applies to vanilla chests), or at least a few like myself, because I love the game. At least it'd be heard and considered, which in itself is neat.
eradicator wrote: ↑Tue Apr 20, 2021 1:21 am
So don't be suprised if the "optimization" ends up limiting max size down to 1000 or something.
Honestly, that'd be neat. It kind of feels weird to have a system that is made and optimized for one workflow, yet allows another workflow, but that another workflow is not recommended even though it's implemented and allowed... You are making a fair point of it being not that binary, but honestly, I personally would prefer it to be that way! A definite "yes, we support and optimize for it" or "no, we don't allow it".