Compatibility and feature roadmap with BetterJunimos (incl. Forestry)

[tvolin]

Hi! I'm working on some enhancements to BetterJunimos and BetterJunimosForestryRedux.
I can't really tell how much functional overlap there is here. I feel like it could make sense for a player to want/use both BJ+BJF and Junimatic, just like they would use BJ+BJF and automate.
Some new functions though I think might be on both of our minds.
Can we use this issue to sort through those?
e.g. I am planning to add Pet Bowl Watering to BJ. It also seems like the kind of thing Junimatic might do.
Not that it's a problem. I just want to cooperate/coordinate our efforts in improving the Junimoverse.
Thoughts?
Better Junimos fork
Better Junimos Forestry Redux fork
Junimo Dialog fork

[NermNermNerm]

Hi, maybe we could set up some time to chat on voice? Then we could try and distill some notes into here. (I'm NermNermNerm on Discord too, and can meet up most any time after 10am Pacific. I'm retired. Scheduling is usually easy.)

One of the big topics for discussion is simply this: Are we creating a situation where the Junimos just play the game for the player?

One thing about designing a game is that the "fun" of the game can be hard to find. Just looking at pet bowl watering, as an example. Could you code it up? Sure. No doubt you could, and maybe some players would be jazzed by seeing the little Junimo tote a watering can over to the bowl. But doesn't that also make it so the player really needn't expend any agency at all and yet get max pet love? Is that a good thing?

I think some players would think it's fine. But then, I feel like a lot of players might cheer for a mod that puts a big red "I WIN" button in the middle of the screen and pressing it takes them directly to the end-credits.

Junimatic differs from Automate in that you don't get xp or achievements for things the Junimos do. Again, I could have coded it otherwise. Heck I copied a lot of stuff from the Automate code and I could have copied that too. It was a choice where I thought Automate stepped over the "playing the game for you" line and I actively edited that out of my mod. Pet bowl watering (simply because it impacts player-love) would actually be a case where there's a fundamental design-principal clash. On a tiny little thing.

But I also think a lot of folks would say I play the game wrong. I play every game like a speed-run; I try to decorate and the like but I just lose interest and generally fail miserably at it. I think that puts me in a minority. I think most players put decor and charm first. I think perhaps the janky behavior of the Junimo hut is by-design to please that audience.

Perhaps, rather than having the Junimos fill the pet watering dish, it might be better if the Junimos and pets played and chased each other around the farm?

[tvolin]

I'm in Central European Summer Time, 9 hours later than you. Since you're retired, I think we can make it work almost any weekday at noon Pacific. It'll be interesting to hear your thoughts. I agree with you completely about things like not giving experience. As far as "playing the game wrong" I don't think there's such a thing. For some people, especially on their nth playthrough, it's more fun to do intricate engineering with automate than it is to hand-water and hand-harvest. Been there, done that. The tractor mod is very OP, but if it helps somebody get more pleasure out of SDV because they're tired of watering over and again, I get it. Anyway, I'll get together my backlog and purpose a time on Discord (MisterT). It will probably be a week from now. I have another commitment right now. Thanks for collaborating!

…

On Sun, Jun 15, 2025, 7:02 AM NermNermNerm ***@***.***> wrote: *NermNermNerm* left a comment (NermNermNerm/Junimatic#32) <#32 (comment)> Hi, maybe we could set up some time to chat on voice? Then we could try and distill some notes into here. (I'm NermNermNerm on Discord too, and can meet up most any time after 10am Pacific. I'm retired. Scheduling is usually easy.) One of the big topics for discussion is simply this: Are we creating a situation where the Junimos just play the game for the player? One thing about designing a game is that the "fun" of the game can be hard to find. Just looking at pet bowl watering, as an example. Could you code it up? Sure. No doubt you could, and maybe some players would be jazzed by seeing the little Junimo tote a watering can over to the bowl. But doesn't that also make it so the player really needn't expend any agency at all and yet get max pet love? Is that a good thing? I think some players would think it's fine. But then, I feel like a lot of players might cheer for a mod that puts a big red "I WIN" button in the middle of the screen and pressing it takes them directly to the end-credits. Junimatic differs from Automate in that you don't get xp or achievements for things the Junimos do. Again, I could have coded it otherwise. Heck I copied a lot of stuff from the Automate code and I could have copied that too. It was a choice where I thought Automate stepped over the "playing the game for you" line and I actively edited that out of my mod. Pet bowl watering (simply because it impacts player-love) would actually be a case where there's a fundamental design-principal clash. On a tiny little thing. But I also think a lot of folks would say I play the game wrong. I play every game like a speed-run; I *try* to decorate and the like but I just lose interest and generally fail miserably at it. I think that puts me in a minority. I think most players put decor and charm first. I think perhaps the janky behavior of the Junimo hut is by-design to please that audience. Perhaps, rather than having the Junimos fill the pet watering dish, it might be better if the Junimos and pets played and chased each other around the farm? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#32 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABAK6AMLWRZTKVL2BEDPPBD3DT47HAVCNFSM6AAAAAB7J3IKBKVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDSNZTGQ4TONJUGI> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>