Minecraft Forums

Quote from Sylf_

The start of my Super Meat Boy fandom area, filled with parkour and lots of things that kill you Thoughts?

A pity there isn't walljumping.

Quote from Zephyr0s

-ultrasnipofdoom-

Okay so a few things:

1. This is awesome. It seems that you're making a really good map with great aesthetics and unique gameplay.

2. People in CTM's sometimes dislike adventure mode, as it takes out a lot of survival aspects and limits the player. If you can, I'd recommend you make it be in survival mode as it's in general preferred.

3. I'd recommend you put traders in your map, as it seems that with the style that you're going with traders would fit quite nicely.

Other than that, you're doing a pretty good job. Even if the map may be pretty short, it seems that it'll be a good one.

Thanks for the feedback guys! It's going to help heaps seeing as I haven't made maps in ages

@infinity8miner

I know going for adventure mode was a bit of a stretch, so I might have to fix that and I have a whole loot system/trading system typed out in a word document ready to go! Thanks

@TheXhen

Thanks for the advice about the lair, it is a bit bright And the way the water works in this game is quite in depth, but here is a summary:

After being in the water for 1 second: player receives poison lv1
After being in the water for 3 seconds: player receives poison lv2
After being in the water for 7 seconds: A school of "pirahnas" (baby zombies with water breathing and a sharpness III weapon) are summoned a few blocks away from the player.

Ultimately, the water is meant to be more survivable than falling in lava without fire protection, but can still kill you if you stay in it long enough

@Fangride

THANKS! Mine fatigue is just brilliant!

@Krose

This is the by Dragnoz on youtube that explains how its done

Quote from Zephyr0s

@Fangride

THANKS! Mine fatigue is just brilliant!

Mining fatigue also affects how fast you can attack......

Quote from Fangride

- Instead of forcing the player into Adventure Mode, why not simply place Mining Fatigue on the player, and stop them from breaking, but allow placing to still continue?

no one seems to remember that in adventure mode you CAN place blocks. You can also break blocks if you have the appropriate tool for them.

Quote from Apollo9898

no one seems to remember that in adventure mode you CAN place blocks. You can also break blocks if you have the appropriate tool for them.

This depends on whether the map is in 1.8 or not, and the commands that Zephyros uses seem to be 1.8 commands.

I am having issues with Falling Sand these days.

/summon FallingSand ~ ~10 ~ {TileID:4,Motion:[0.0,0.0,0.0],Time:1}

This creates a Cobblestone falling sand entity. But I don't want to use the TileID of 4 anymore since they are doing away with using the numerical values. If I try "TileID:cobblestone" it doesn't work and just uses sand (the default block).

Do you folks know what I am doing wrong?

Quote from jimEYE

I am having issues with Falling Sand these days.

/summon FallingSand ~ ~10 ~ {TileID:4,Motion:[0.0,0.0,0.0],Time:1}

This creates a Cobblestone falling sand entity. But I don't want to use the TileID of 4 anymore since they are doing away with using the numerical values. If I try "TileID:cobblestone" it doesn't work and just uses sand (the default block).

Do you folks know what I am doing wrong?

You've got the TileID right, you just need to add a "minecraft:" before it, so it becomes "TileID:minecraft:cobblestone". I believe Dinnerbone said this change was in preparation for the eventual Plugin API.

Quote from Fangride

Hmm, so since I still want to be able to launch Septum Immoriel in around a month or two, I'm thinking about doing a weekly "featurette" of sorts on the areas for the leadup to getting this monster out/in open beta. Still a few areas to do and spawners in another few areas, but I feel confident I can pull it off, and think it'd be fun to discuss mechanics and ideas in-depth.

Anyone interested?

That sounds yummy.

My opinion on the aesthetics discussion: I think that aesthetics are the most important piece of any CTM map

Personally, gameplay, even though it does enhance the fun-ness of a map, that's all it is, an enhancer

If you don't enjoy the base, survival/adventure aspect of a ctm map, the enhancing is not going to make it all that much better for you

For those who do like ctm, gameplay is usually very important, but not as important as aesthetics

Aesthetics make the player excited and ready to continue on through the map, and make the survival part of minecraft more fun than it is.

If I am going to be pushing my way through an ugly area, that may be a bit more fun than breaking spawners and killing mobs, just to get to another ugly area, I'm going to hate the map

Also aesthetics includes atmosphere of a map.

There are other ways to push the player to continue, but none feel as genuine as finding a beautiful area.

Thanks

Quote from soupbob

My opinion on the aesthetics discussion: I think that aesthetics are the most important piece of any CTM map

Personally, gameplay, even though it does enhance the fun-ness of a map, that's all it is, an enhancer

If you don't enjoy the base, survival/adventure aspect of a ctm map, the enhancing is not going to make it all that much better for you

For those who do like ctm, gameplay is usually very important, but not as important as aesthetics

Aesthetics make the player excited and ready to continue on through the map, and make the survival part of minecraft more fun than it is.

If I am going to be pushing my way through an ugly area, that may be a bit more fun than breaking spawners and killing mobs, just to get to another ugly area, I'm going to hate the map

Also aesthetics includes atmosphere of a map.

There are other ways to push the player to continue, but none feel as genuine as finding a beautiful area.

Thanks

I think of it as exactly the opposite; aesthetics are (by far) secondary to gameplay. I'm happy to play a map that doesn't look good, as long as it's fun. If it's frustrating as hell, though, I'm going to stop, no matter how good it looks. This is why I never beat, for example, Pantheon.

Quote from Eisenia

Your approach may hold true for the peaceful areas like intersections and bases, where the player can be at ease and admire the surroundings. But in the combat areas the 'looks'a need to be functional first and foremost. The player needs to be able to tell where to go, where NOT to go (especially in large areas where you don't plan on rewarding exploration), what to look for, how to encounter the dangers and challenges, whether the area can be conquered/pacified or not, and whether it holds something that should be put to use later on (blocks/resources/food).

I've had tons of fun in straightforward stone areas, because playing the game in those areas worked out great. And I've ragequit in dazzlingly pretty areas because playing the game just didn't work out.

The fact is you can do all that stuff you mentioned and still make an area look pretty. I know because, if i can be so bold as to say, I've done it myself.

Quote from yelkca_

That sounds yummy.

Omnomnom.

But seriously, I think that's a great idea fang.

@asthetics stuff:
If your map is ugly, I might not play it, or I might. It depends how good the gameplay is.
The opposite is true with gameplay.

One can compensate for the other, but if any is truly lacking, then I'm just not playing your map. Priorities don't matter, because 0 * X = 0

My two cents on aesthetics:

Aesthetics are what make me want to play a map. Ever since the beginning, I've been drawn to CTMs and custom maps in general because of the screenshots on Vechs's Super Hostile thread. Even to this day I often enjoy simply flying around a map in Creative, occasionally more so than if I play normally, merely because I enjoy the looks and want to see more, faster. Aesthetics are what keep a player playing- if you begin with a series of incredibly beautiful areas, only to have the second intersection be constructed entirely out of dirt and stone checkerboards, a player often won't want to continue further, simply because you've shown that you have the skill and drive to create fantastic environments, but have chosen not to for one reason or another.

Another note: I've been considering making a CTM map for a long time now. I won't be making one for at least another year or two, for two main reasons: 1. Time. I don't have any of it. And 2. A lack of commitment to aesthetics. I feel that I could make a really great map in terms of gameplay- I have some great ideas (no I won't tell you) and have played enough CTMs to have a good feel for when loot should be handed out. However, I sincerely doubt I could make good enough aesthetics to complement the map, and to me, a map with good gameplay but rough or uncreative visuals is not something I would want to call my own.

Just a few thoughts.

Quote from soupbob

My opinion on the aesthetics discussion: I think that aesthetics are the most important piece of any CTM map

Personally, gameplay, even though it does enhance the fun-ness of a map, that's all it is, an enhancer

I absolutely disagree. That's like saying that sound is the main part of a film, and that story, acting, and writing are enhancers.

However, I think that if a mapmaker wants to focus on visuals for their map, it's okay, because the fun gameplay of Minecraft itself already exists. It's inherently a part of the map. So, I kind of see where you're coming from that statement.