Vanilla Feature court - Session 1 - Analog Redstone

[FlowerChild]

Ok, I want to try something a little different here.

Imagine a couple of months ago, if someone would have popped up on these forums and suggested analog redstone before it was ever announced for vanilla.

Now, for the sake of this hypothetical scenario, let's also imagine that I didn't immediately lock the thread and ban the person who suggested it ;)

What I would like to ask the community is this: what would you think of the idea, and would you have thought it would have been a worthwhile inclusion in the mod? If I would have popped up out of nowhere with it as a new feature in BTW, what would your reaction have been?

The question I've been asking myself quite a bit as of late is "would you have put this in the game?"

In the case of analog redstone, I think the answer is no, I wouldn't have. I would have considered it a dilution and unnecessary complication of the existing mechanics, and I can't see myself ever having been keen enough on the idea to want to implement it. It's likely the kind of idea I would have written off with a "yeah...whatever", followed by a quick lock/ban, and that would have been that.

But, I'd like to hear what other people think of it within the above context. Is this a feature you would have wanted in Better Than Wolves?

Please keep things civil and polite. I realize that this is likely a topic some will be passionate about, but I'd really like to hear people's opinions on it without it turning into a riot :)

[BlackCat]

Yes, I've been seeing more and more useful applications for it, and I really don't see any unbalance.

Edit: sorry still sleepy, I must have only half read the OP
It's not detracting or over complicating it much because you're not forced to use it, it's an advanced concept, obviously not for 'beginners.' I don't see any reason why it would be worthy of removal.

[warmist]

Short answer: no
Long answer: redstone is most developed and stable thing. In my opinion what could be added is only some minor things that emit redstone signal or react to it in some way. Having it depend on signal strength complicates otherwise quite clear and clean redstone design. I also feel that current implementation lacks signal space and/or distance and comparator is "super magnificent tool". That being said a lot of things that was not possible (due to redstone being on/off only) can now be done. Is this something that we need? I think not. Is this something that we want? Maybe (more toys to play with is always fun except when it breaks other toys)
What my final verdict is as it is implemented it's too powerful (comparator especially) and there is no nice way (at least i don't see it) to disentangle redstone from analog redstone (i.e. adding new redstone-like thing just for analog signals is in my opinion a bad idea) but some functionality from this would be welcome.

[Thalarctia]

I'm not the best redstoner out there, but I do at least have a couple of automated builds behind me, and generally tend to come up with some unusual designs, and I can honestly say that since it was announced for Vanilla, I have been unable to come up with a single (practical) scenario where signal strength would matter, or where something similar could not be achieved with the basic on/off version we have now. To me it serves as an unnecessary complication to a system, which at the moment has a pretty nice balance of complexity and ease of use.

[Solymr]

No, there are no real uses for analog redstone.
Usually you'll want to check if a chest is full or not, not how full it is, and you implemented that with hoppers emitting a positive signal if they're full.
And as for checking what music disc is in the jukebox... it isn't a valid reason at all to make redstone signals analog.
The only real use for it is determining how far from the power source/repeater is the comparator, and I feel there is another way to do it without implementing an overly complicated and limited feature.

Besides all that, I like the concept of redstone as it is, and the electronic macrochips you can develop with it.

[Simurgh]

Having it depend on signal strength complicates otherwise quite clear and clean redstone design.

This. ^^

I think Redstone is/was a very clear, straightforward mechanic. Anything that muddies the water with it without adding to the system is just unnecessary in my view. I like rules to be rules, keep it simple, make it happen and all that nonsense.

• A redstone signal will run for 15 blocks. Becomes;
• A redstone signal will run for a maximum of 15 blocks but the output will vary depending on the input source and the strength of input, please see the relevant page for the output type and the various strengths of outputs.

That kind of sums up how I see the addition I guess, redstone is a complex system derived from its interaction of simple rules, not rules like the above.

The most valuable thing I think that could be done with redstone is possibly more output/input devices or more ways for the features to interact - look at the repeaters update. Now look at the comparator page on minecraft wiki. Or the weighted pressure plate page. Any single block that takes so long to explain is too complicated. If it was boiled down to digital functions (place next to a storage device, if storage device is full = 1 type thing) then it would be very simple to use and would add to the current system - although probably overpowered.

If you had added this as a new feature of the mod I'd have been watching for where this was leading, it seems like slippery slope to making a simple concept something you'd need a degree in engineering to master.

[Sage]

Actually, the idea of analogue redstone is kinda neat, the first time I used it, I thought that dispenser and such responded differently to different input strength, and pressure plates had different output levels, before realizing that there was no way of manipulate a signal level in logic gates (both torches and repeaters reset the signal strength). In fact, Mojang implemented it in a very inelegant way (the comparator), while they could simply do some version of the torch that responded to a signal p with a signal (1-p), and that would have sufficed. So I'm not totally opposed, but I don't like how it turned out.

[devak]

I see analog redstone as a useful system for detectors (Light, itemstack). That's it. A small gimmick with some uses, but mainly a digital signal.

[The Phoenixian]

Speaking for myself, This is a feature I could get behind.
The implementation may have been flubbed, but the concept has always felt to me like a very natural extension of how redstone's logic system works. Adding multiple signal states to single wires is something I had seen from time to time in advanced Redstone uses even before Analog Redstone had come around and the need to be highly aware of pulse strength does likewise come up from time to time. I also recall at one point you mentioned the possibility of modifying BTW hoppers to send different power signals and I remember having great enthusiasm for the idea. (I had missed the ability to count items in roughly stack sized units that had been lost with the bricks in hopper changes.)

On your post: I'd like say a few things from my perspective Simurgh:

A redstone signal will run for 15 blocks. Becomes;
A redstone signal will run for a maximum of 15 blocks but the output will vary depending on the input source and the strength of input, please see the relevant page for the output type and the various strengths of outputs.

One can easily make this rule simple again by breaking it up into the more basic rules which have always underlain it.
A redstone signal will decay in strength for each block it passes.
The maximum value is 15.
A given source in a given state will always behave consistently.

The rules are still simple, they're just less abstract and closer to what's on the bottom.

There's also another question that I think needs to be brought up, as it seems there might be a divide in our understanding here: In this hypothetical, would Flowerchild be introducing VMC analog devices, tweaking them, outright replacing them with his own versions?
I'd been assuming something between the latter two and a big part of my reasoning here is based on my trust in FC's skill but if we're talking about adding the VMC devices straight I can definitely see the case for not adding it at all.

[Foxy Boxes]

I don't see any reason to it personally. Every (pre 1.5.0) redstone device has always been either on or off, and the most useful use post 1.5.0 is probably knowing how many items are in a chest, by magic apparently. So basically it'd feel out of place with existing redstone devices and really, what can you do with analogue redstone? Have a piston not push some many blocks or something? It might just be me, but I can't see any uses worth the time investment.

[ignika42]

Redstone, as it exists in pre-1.5 vanilla presents a simple set of rules that can be used together to create complex results. Redstone in post-1.5 vanilla presents that same system, but with an additional set of complex rules that provide rather underwhelming results.

An analog system within minecraft certainly has the potential for interesting uses, as with most things. However I do not think that it should have been implemented as part of the already existing redstone system; redstone loses a lot of its consistency when special case rules like those added by the current analog features are tossed into the mix. Some other material being used for this property instead, possibly with a block to bridge the two, would have been preferable. The whole half-heartedness of the current analog features also seems to me like a side effect of them trying to cram it into redstone rather than adding a separate analog material.

If I would have popped up out of nowhere with it as a new feature in BTW, what would your reaction have been?

If you had implemented it as it exists in vanilla, my reaction would have been hope, that it would turn out to be an important part of something awesome you had in store for the future that we just couldn't see at the time.

Is this a feature you would have wanted in Better Than Wolves?

No, not as a direct modification of redstone. It's too immersion intrusive, consistency damaging, and incomplete feeling as-is.

[The Phoenixian]

Oh, One thing I should have added to my above post but was too confused by this whole "interpersonal communication" thing to do so:

The exact reason I was excited by that theoretical hopper change, and would also be for any bulk item counting functionality up to and including sticking a comparator to the side of a hopper (flawed as that would be) Is that it would let me actually work a build that I could never figure out otherwise:

My problem was that Auto-Cauldrons dump out absolutely everything when they tip, processed or not, so it had occurred to me way back when that to be fully automatic they would either need to re-sort items coming out for wastage and then either moving items upwards or disposing of the unreacted stuff, or by inputting items in exact amounts. This kind of counting would allow a way to do that in bulk and at long intervals.

I can't say whether it's a good thing or not but being able to solve that specific problem was why this felt like such a good idea to me.

[nmarshall23]

I'm on the fence.

On one hand it would be nice to separate out circuit Logic and interaction with the world. Mean that logic gates have On / Off states. But actuators might have a threshold of signal, before they activate. And sensors might give analog signals.

Some examples:

• weak input signal means that Redstone Lights are dim.
• Detector blocks, give a strong signal when light shins on them, but that signal is weakened as more transparent blocks block the light.
• Hopper, give stronger signals the fuller they are.
• Item Dispenser (Can we rename this to Item Tosser?), shot strength depends on signal received.
• There are a few circuits that having low vs high vs no signal is useful.

On the other hand, why rebalance redstone, it's fine it works. I'm not sure that the added complexity is worth the bother. The analog features in 1.5 vMC, are so underused, it's simpler to just cut it out. It might be more appropriate for an addon.

[PatriotBob]

At first glance analog redstone sounds like it would open the door for more advanced redstone contraptions. But I think it's going about it wrong. Here's the thing. I can't use and/or/xor gates on an analog system, these are digital concepts. So mixing the two together only serves to further complicate redstone.

If you wanted to put a mechanism into the redstone mechanics to pull more information out like with the comparator it should be done a different way. (Personally I would have rather seen an additional tier to redstone wiring/circuitry that supported complex data transfer but hey)

I would also say that it might feel a little more in place if we where given the ability to have control over all redstone output levels. Torches, repeaters, etc all output full. Which is fine by default, but the separation just makes the analog system feel hacked in.

In short: The goal, creating tools for more complex redstone circuitry, is solid and is not a bad idea. That could mean adding analog, increasing redstone wiring density and giving blocks multiple outputs (Please forgive me, but something similar to RedPower's bundled cable), or something completely different. But I think that analog was the wrong way to go. Good intentions, bad execution type thing.

[BobSlingblade679]

The way FC is asking us makes me think he's not excited about what this adds to the game. If this is the case, I suspect it should just be forgotten, so FC can keep working on things he's excited about.

However, really considering it, it seems to me more like adding complexity/realism for the sake of it. I have nothing against the comparator or the concept of analogue if it has a purpose. The thing is, I don't really see it having a purpose. Rather, I see they made a new item, and then added purpose for it afterward.

[savagelung]

A lot of responses in this thread have simply been claims that nothing can really be done with analog signal. The closest thing to a counterexample has been:

Speaking for myself, This is a feature I could get behind.
Adding multiple signal states to single wires is something I had seen from time to time in advanced Redstone uses even before Analog Redstone had come around and the need to be highly aware of pulse strength does likewise come up from time to time.

I have used vMC's implementation of comparators and analog redstone for many purposes, including:

- Like The Phoenixian mentioned, carrying multiple distinct pulses on a single line. Previously you would have needed a delay-based decoder, whereas now you can decode via signal strength.
- Much more compact means of computing decimal operations including counters and decimal-binary conversion
- Comparators specifically have compacted some designs: I've seen tiny XOR gates, pulse extenders, monostable circuits, etc.
- Someone on r/redstone even made a functioning capacitor at some point

The inventory measuring mechanic has always felt a little meta-gamey to me, but I could see it in devices that include redstone in their recipe. I've had the idea, for example, to make a combination lock using records, since the redstone output of a jukebox now varies its signal strength according to which record you insert.

I hope I've demonstrated that analog redstone isn't totally useless. The question becomes, I think, whether the possibilities added by analog redstone are worth the complications in the context of Better than Wolves. I'm not prepared to give a straightforward opinion on this. I have used vMC analog signal in making multi-destination minecart stations, so there is at least one application. I could also see a use in storage and filtration systems, as well as platform elevators.

[BrainNoMore]

The main reason I love redstone is the fact that such simple system has such vast potential. Analog redstone has few handy features but… if not implemented as separate system I am most likely to give it a chance, and then do my best to ignore them as much as possible.

[Xeo]

I feel this messes up the view that Redstone is a conduit of state, without actual "power." To give Redstone an analog value makes it more like something transferring tangible energy, as certain energy levels are required and different things produce different power levels. From a Redstone builders perspective I want to like analog Redstone as it does open up a lot of possibilities but it just doesn't feel right to me.

So I would have to say No, analog Redstone brings a lot of power to Redstone contraptions but at the sacrifice of a clean system, just because something allows you to do something or do it better doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[Equitis1024]

This is not a feature I would have wanted in Better than Wolves.

I know I could make us of it, but I think it's a very bad idea. I think an analog system in itself is fine, but tacking it onto a digital system just seems like a lazy implementation that detracts from the elegance of redstone. That's a subtle cost, but it's definitely a real one. Redstone is already very complex, due to all the different ways that it interacts with blocks. However, at the abstract level it is extremely simple, and being able to grasp the underlying concept with such ease makes it much more approachable for beginners.

The trouble with features like this is that their benefits are obvious to their intended audience (in this case, expert redstone users), but the damage they cause is much harder to positively identify.

I think your gut reaction of "lock and ban" on this one is absolutely correct.

[FlowerChild]

It's not detracting or over complicating it much because you're not forced to use it

Yikes...I must admit feeling a sense of despair when I woke up this morning to find that the first post to this thread was using "the wolfaboo gambit" as a counter-argument :)

My problem was that Auto-Cauldrons dump out absolutely everything when they tip, processed or not, so it had occurred to me way back when that to be fully automatic they would either need to re-sort items coming out for wastage and then either moving items upwards or disposing of the unreacted stuff, or by inputting items in exact amounts.

That feature was designed with the former method in mind, and my own auto-Cauldron build within my world works precisely that way. It's really not too complicated and the intent was to further encourage the use of Platforms as item elevators.

So, for me this acts as an argument against actually, as it indicates to me that analog redstone will potentially throw many aspects of the mod out of balance by introducing methods of doing things that were never anticipated when I designed the mod's redstone blocks.

The way FC is asking us makes me think he's not excited about what this adds to the game. If this is the case, I suspect it should just be forgotten, so FC can keep working on things he's excited about.

My intention is to at the very least rip the analog aspect out of 1.5 for now, and evaluate it for inclusion in BTW at a later date. I created this thread to get that process rolling slightly ahead of time so I can start collecting more data with which to make the final decision on it.

I certainly won't include it until I have a chance to play around with it and BTW together extensively and make a decision as to whether I am willing to commit to reworking many of the mod's blocks to fully integrate the concept.

So yeah, I posted this thread because I *do* want to hear people's opinions on this topic so that I can make a more informed decision down the road.

[Solymr]

I'm curious about how would leaving/ripping the analog part of redstone affect the performance when having lots of redstone contraptions around.
If checking for signal strenght slows the game I'd vote for axing it entirely. Otherwise I don't really have much to say.

[Calcifire3691]

as a "typical" redstone user (IE. I use it for simple gates and powering stuff, I'm not some sort of god who can make a fully working computer in MC), my opinion of it is the same as the concept of friction being applied to BTW, it's interesting, but it's not THAT interesting, I can't think of any uses of analogue redstone being used for anything that digital can't, and most of the uses that I can think of involve polish, for example, scaling the speed on a booster rail or the light level emitted from a lamp block, or... erm... that's about it really...

if you were amazing at redstone, it would probably be pretty useful, but for a good portion of the playerbase it wouldn't really matter. I've kind of chalked it up to another of the "for the mapmakers" features or a "look at what you can do in minecraft" features.

so to answer the question of "would I want it in BTW?" the answer would be "only if FC were to make it an important part of it"

[FlowerChild]

It's not detracting or over complicating it much because you're not forced to use it

To elaborate further on this point now that I've had my first cup of coffee:

If it detracts from the overall level of quality and play experience of the game/mod, then I'll rip it out. "If you don't like it, don't use it" is not a valid counter argument to that, because if it is present in the game, people will of course feel compelled to use it whether they are "forced" to or not, and whether it results in them having less fun or not.

If it significantly changes redstone device design, I think it needs to also be asked whether that is for the better or not. We are all very quick to criticize other mods for the inclusion of overpowered devices that change the nature of redstone as a system, and I think we should be just as critical of vanilla systems that do the same.

Sure, you can make more compact gates and such with this feature, but is that a good thing? Is it actually more fun or is it just diluting down what was an extremely interesting system because Dinnerbone thought it sounded like a cool idea at the time without fully thinking through the ramifications?

IMO, this, if done right (which it isn't at present), is a fairly fundamental shift in how we'll be designing devices in the future. If I embrace that, then we're looking at a great deal of work to redesign and rebalance the mod blocks (and vanilla ones too given this was only really a half-ass implementation) to take advantage of it. So, before embracing at it, I really need to ask myself "is this more fun?"

Not whether it is more powerful and useful in game. It most certainly is, and I wouldn't argue otherwise. But will it lead to us having more or less fun designing redstone devices in the future?

I think a big part of why people enjoy BTW so much is that I don't just automatically implement any old idea to give the player more power without first considering the impact that will have on the overall play experience. I really don't think I should be any less critical of features coming out of Mojang. If anything, given their track record now, I probably should be far more suspicious of them because I can be fairly certain they haven't been properly thought through.

[FlowerChild]

I can't think of any uses of analogue redstone being used for anything that digital can't, and most of the uses that I can think of involve polish, for example, scaling the speed on a booster rail or the light level emitted from a lamp block, or... erm... that's about it really...

And the sad part is, that last one on the lamp block wouldn't be possible without 16 blockIDs, because blocks can't vary in light level with the way the game is currently architected.

So yeah...even some of the uses people perceive for analog redstone aren't really feasible, which is another reason this feels like a very "tacked on" addition to the game.

[warmist]

<disclaimer: i'm quite drunk>
That is what i fear/love about BTW the most. Even if you say some overly stupid idea (e.g. how much would you mind the suggestion to change the farming and bonemeal mechanic?) somehow you make it work and integrate nicely. So what i'm trying to say is: can you share a suggested alternative for this implementation? This is because current implementation is both overpowered and confusing. Maybe voting for a better idea would be more sensible? (i mean voting in a more general sense because we are not voting)

Anyway i would love to see more stuff added to redstone. BUT! It's way harder to add to it (in a non-overpowered, and consistent way) and I don't see it happening in this instance. So my feeling: rip it out (for now?) and if you find (or like any way) to add a consistent mechanic then go ahead.