And seriously, what do you plan on doing with the 50 stacks of iron and gold blocks you've collected?
What do I plan to do? Build a minecart railroad all over the multiplayer server I'm on, connecting everybody's houses with the spawn area and with each other. That's what I think is fun.
Right, because spelunking, jumping over lava, fighting monsters, and experiencing the joy you get when you find a bunch of a rare ore is so lame compared to sitting afk collecting iron and gold for an hour.
You think jumping over lava, etc., is more fun than building railroads. I think that building railroads is more fun than jumping over lava. Up until this proposed nerf, you and I could both play Minecraft in the way we think is fun. You could do your spelunking; I could do my building. They are proposing -- and you are supporting -- only permitting one of those kinds of fun, and prohibiting people who have been having fun doing something else (building railroads,for instance) from doing what they have been doing up until now.
Let me ask you this: If I've got an iron farm in a SSP game, or in a SMP game on a server you don't play on, how does it effect your game experience? How does it make the game worse for you if someone you don't play with is having fun with it in a different way than you are? Conversely, if I can't have fun anymore -- if I have to do something boring instead -- how does that make your experience better? What changes in your game if someone else has to play differently, or not at all? Cui bono?
What do I plan to do? Build a minecart railroad all over the multiplayer server I'm on, connecting everybody's houses with the spawn area and with each other. That's what I think is fun. You think jumping over lava, etc., is more fun than building railroads. I think that building railroads is more fun than jumping over lava. Up until this proposed nerf, you and I could both play Minecraft in the way we think is fun. You could do your spelunking; I could do my building. They are proposing -- and you are supporting -- only permitting one of those kinds of fun, and prohibiting people who have been having fun doing something else (building railroads,for instance) from doing what they have been doing up until now. Let me ask you this: If I've got an iron farm in a SSP game, or in a SMP game on a server you don't play on, who does it effect your game experience? How does it make the game worse for you if someone you don't play with is having fun with it in a different way than you are? Conversely, if I can't have fun anymore -- if I have to do something boring instead -- how does that make your experience better? What changes in your game if someone else has to play differently, or not at all? Cui bono?
I don't know, why were sand farms a problem? They exploited features and were game breaking.
And what if someone has an iron fam on a SMP server I DO play on? Suddenly, they have a huge advantage over me. Should I sacrifice my own enjoyment and build an iron farm to regain my advantage?
What do I plan to do? Build a minecart railroad all over the multiplayer server I'm on, connecting everybody's houses with the spawn area and with each other. That's what I think is fun.
You think jumping over lava, etc., is more fun than building railroads. I think that building railroads is more fun than jumping over lava. U
If the server admin is OK with everybody having unlimited iron (which is what you get from full-auto farms) then they can just give it to you. Or, if it's rails, they can give you unlimited rails, or play with a mod that makes rails very cheap (The programming part of that takes about 5 minutes.) SSP, of course, you can just /give yourself iron.
The argument about full-auto iron farms isn't about getting iron; there are plenty of ways to get unlimited iron in minecraft. Creative, mode-switching, /give, and mods.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
The only problem with the Minecraft community is that if there is a disagreement, many will speak their minds. These are the almost all of the comments you see because the people who like the updates don't complain on it. Many don't thank them for the good updates, though some do. Earlier today I actually saw a post thanking Mojang for the updates. It's just in human nature to complain more than thank, right? People often speak their opinions, and that's alright, but some people tend to be a little more harsh than necessary. But you must also remember that not everyone is so bad. I may not have completely agreed with some of the updates, but I've never complained.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
......What? Were you expecting my signature to be funny, interesting, or include an advertisement for a server or YouTube channel? Nope.
One of the challenges a game designer faces, is if they release something that in turn becomes abused or overpowered, it is very difficult to fix it without facing player backlash from those who benefit from the game behavior.
The efficiency 5 shovels on wood comes to mind... I remember hearing someone say that if shovels hadn't worked on wood as soon as enchanting was added, nobody would have cared. But everyone had made a habit of using shovels on wood to save a diamond, and suddenly its removed. Cue huge -storm
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pointy end up, flamey end down. If both ends are flamey, we call that a 'minor error'." -A very wise rocket scientist
Humans ARE the apex predators on this planet. Even mother nature quakes before us. Mojang's getting hate because they became great. When it was a niche game, it was different because the player base wasn't mainstream and it was small. In some cases (like this one), the bigger you get, the louder your opposition becomes.
The problem that you face is that the ones who need to hear and internalize your post, never will. So you're just preaching to the choir, really.
I don't know, why were sand farms a problem? They exploited features and were game breaking.
They were game breaking? People were unable to play because they existed?
And what if someone has an iron fam on a SMP server I DO play on? Suddenly, they have a huge advantage over me.
That's between you and the server owner. There are servers that allow PvP. There are servers that do not allow PvP. I'm not seeing anyone saying that PvP should be prohibited in the code because they don't want PvP on their server, nor that PvP should be required despite the wishes of all the other players because they want to PK. Having mob drops without manually killing a mob as a config option is great; I fully support that. But requiring it for all players, single-player or multi-player, whether they and the people on their server want it that way or not, just because some people want it to be different? No. Just no.
Also, "a huge advantage"? In that I can ... um ... build a railroad? If you're playing on a competitive SMP server, and that is an issue, then they could add a gamerule that the server owner could set to take care of it. "gamerule MobDrops false" or something. Then your enjoyment of endlessly clicking on blocks would give you back the advantage, the way you want it. But you're insisting on taking things away from players you don't know, things that don't affect you in any way,
Should I sacrifice my own enjoyment and build an iron farm to regain my advantage?
You're demanding that other players sacrifice their enjoyment -- to the point of wanting to leave the game, because instead of spending a few hours building an iron farm like you would have to do in that scenario, they have to spend all the rest of their playing time, forever, getting iron by endlessly clicking on blocks so that they can, very briefly, do something fun -- so you can have things the way you want them.
And this, getting back to the actual subject of this thread, is where the problem comes in. People are only looking at anything from the point of view of what they want for themselves. There's no attempt at even understanding other people's playstyles, because each person thinks they are doing everything the One True Way and everybody who isn't doing things exactly the same way is wrong. So we bicker and fight. Not many people can look at things like "well, yeah, it doesn't hurt me but it really screws over Joe, so that's bad" -- the only thing they care about is the effects on their own gameplay.
Let's go back to the rose/poppy thing. People had roses. They liked roses. Mojang took out roses and put in a different red flower, with a different name, different appearance, and different significance. There are, I would venture to guess, few if any people who really preferred the poppy over the rose. Players seemed to fall into two categories: "meh, it's a red flower, I can still make dye out of it" and "my gardens look bad now, and iron golems handing poppies to villagers is just wrong." That is, people whom it affected neutrally, and people whom it affected negatively. The latter, of course, were not happy about it. One would expect that the former would agree with them -- if something doesn't matter to me, but hurts you, that's a bad thing. But not all of them did. Some of them, possibly for the reasons described in the moderately famous essay "Mud Wimping", supported the removal of roses just because the devs did it. They didn't care that it brought no benefits to themselves or anyone else. They didn't care that it did actually harm other players. They didn't even care how, or if, it affected other players. The devs did it, so they cheered it ... some because they'd cheer for anything the devs did due to some odd some sort of hero worship, but more disturbingly, some because it gave them an excuse to treat other members of the community badly and claim to just be supporting the Powers That Be.
I think, there, that the fact that a lot of people here tend to be on the younger and sometimes less socially adept end of the scale has something to do with that. Some of those people get a rush from being able to be, frankly, mean to other players, to do everything short of calling them names (and sometimes not even short of calling them names, and now have the infractions to prove it) and say "I'm just telling them how it is. This is how Mojang wants it." Now, I may be an optimist here, but I'm pretty sure what Mojang wants is not an army of yes-men marching out to treat their customers like dirt ... even when the yes-men are in agreement with them and the customers being treated like dirt are the ones objecting.
That's what the problem is with "the community" (to the extent that such a thing even exists): Not that we disagree over whether iron farms should be possible or not, but that an awful lot of people can only see things from their perspective, not any other player's, and especially that there are some very vocal people who use disagreements like this as a good excuse to treat their fellow players badly. And that ends up in a lose-lose for everyone.
If the server admin is OK with everybody having unlimited iron (which is what you get from full-auto farms) then they can just give it to you.
I don't have unlimited iron. I have a few thousand iron, yes, but far from unlimited.
Or, if it's rails, they can give you unlimited rails, or play with a mod that makes rails very cheap (The programming part of that takes about 5 minutes.) SSP, of course, you can just /give yourself iron.
But I don't want unlimited rails. I want to do something fancy and elaborate to produce iron to make my rails. Sure, in SSP I can just /give myself anything I want. But I don't. It's not fun for me that way. Building an iron farm is fun. Watching the iron slowly accumulate is fun. /give isn't fun.
And that's been my point the whole time: we all have fun differently.
The argument about full-auto iron farms isn't about getting iron; there are plenty of ways to get unlimited iron in minecraft. Creative, mode-switching, /give, and mods.
You're right, it's not about getting iron. It's about whether Minecraft is a game, to be played one way and one way only, like Monopoly, or whether Minecraft is a toy, to be played with however the player wants and/or multiple players agree together. In a very real sense, this is an argument about the future of Minecraft -- as I've said, whether it will continue to be a first-rate toy, or be turned into a third-rate game.
You're right, it's not about getting iron. It's about whether Minecraft is a game, to be played one way and one way only, like Monopoly, or whether Minecraft is a toy, to be played with however the player wants and/or multiple players agree together. In a very real sense, this is an argument about the future of Minecraft -- as I've said, whether it will continue to be a first-rate toy, or be turned into a third-rate game.
It's not that either. Minecraft has four ways to be used as a "whatever-you-want" sandbox; creative, mode-switching, cheats, and mods. It has one way to be used as a kind of challenge mode: no-cheat survival. No matter what restrictions Mojang puts on no-cheat survival, it doesn't affect any of the other modes. So no restriction Mojang puts in survival, no matter how stringent, affects the ability to do "whatever you want" in Minecraft. You'll still be able to build transcontinental railroads, omni-sorters, or self-constructing castles. You just wouldn't be able to claim it's a no-cheat survival build.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
Quite frankly I see why Mojang removed the ability for iron/gold farms to function, i mean sure it would stop some players playing the way they want (i.e. having strangely elaborate afk Iron/gold farms) but would push that minority of players in the direction of which the developers imagined and dreamed of their game being played.
Now the rose on the other hand, i personally prefer the poppies, but seeing the rose go was a bit sad, although the sacrifice of 1 for the rise of many (all the new flowers) was in my opinion a more than fair swap.
Now back onto the topic of this thread, it seems that their are less immature people than i had previously thought, I'd like to thank everyone for keeping everything so civil, even though this is not my thread or my forums, i am sure the creator of the thread, and the forum moderators would be glad the thread has panned out the way it did, rather than what was originally expected. Kudos to you all.
Humans ARE the apex predators on this planet. Even mother nature quakes before us. Mojang's getting hate because they became great. When it was a niche game, it was different because the player base wasn't mainstream and it was small. In some cases (like this one), the bigger you get, the louder your opposition becomes.
The problem that you face is that the ones who need to hear and internalize your post, never will. So you're just preaching to the choir, really.
Exactly.
The bigger you get the louder your opposition, couldn't have said it better.
honestly i'd like to see how mojang would change the game if there was no community input for a month i think that would make an interesting test. then run updates that are similar to the ones they did and see how the community reacts to each update that mojang makes. and by the end of the month see if the two are even remotely similar depending on community input
It's not that either. Minecraft has four ways to be used as a "whatever-you-want" sandbox; creative, mode-switching, cheats, and mods. It has one way to be used as a kind of challenge mode: no-cheat survival. No matter what restrictions Mojang puts on no-cheat survival, it doesn't affect any of the other modes. So no restriction Mojang puts in survival, no matter how stringent, affects the ability to do "whatever you want" in Minecraft. You'll still be able to build transcontinental railroads, omni-sorters, or self-constructing castles. You just wouldn't be able to claim it's a no-cheat survival build.
I don't claim that it's anything. I don't care what it's called, so long as I can continue playing the way that I, and the other people in my multiplayer game, enjoy.
So no restriction Mojang puts in survival, no matter how stringent, affects the ability to do "whatever you want" in Minecraft.
Sure it does. It affects my ability to produce iron using the game mechanics, rather than /give, etc. This is the part so many people are missing: there are obviously a lot of people (most notably those getting upset on Reddit) who enjoy using the game mechanics to produce iron. They've been playing the game that way, and having fun, and Jeb proposed taking that away from them.
But again, we're getting away from the topic. Whether people should be allowed to have fun with their box of Legos however they want, or whether they should all be required to play their Monopoly game the same way,
...would push that minority of players in the direction of which the developers imagined and dreamed of their game being played
I'm not so sure it's a minority. But whether or not it is, when did Minecraft get a "direction" that it's supposed to be played? That's never been what Minecraft is about. It's never had One True Way. You don't win the game, nor lose it for that matter. I have a friend who's building a cathedral ... full-sized. (or as close as the build height limit will permit) I have another friend who is doing elaborate things with redstone, and building a really awesome base. I'm building a railroad, and waiting for another friend with a lot more architectural talent than me to build a fancy railroad station for one end. Probably none of us are doing exactly what you would do. If we were playing Halo, we'd all have to play it the same way. But we're not; we're playing Minecraft, and we aren't playing the game, we're playing with the toy.
Let me explain this another way:
Let's say that Jeb had never proposed any of this. Would you have quit playing Minecraft because it was still the game you bought? Would the fact that Jeb didn't do anything have changed your game experience at all? Or would it have continued being the game you bought, and your experience would have continued being what it was last week, last month, last year?
That's what people who object are looking at: Some of them would quit if it isn't the game they bought anymore. If Jeb nerfs drops, it will change their game experience, and change it very drastically. Jeb does nothing: nothing changes for you. Jeb nerfs drops: a lot changes for them. You don't lose anything if the status quo stays quo; they lose a lot if it changes.
But we've gotten far away from the point of this discussion. "Should Jeb treat players as customers to be entertained, or adversaries to be thwarted?" has been discussed to death in other threads. We don't need to bring it in here, too. I've been trying (okay, and failing) not to talk about that.
The point of this thread is the community (if there is one) and "its" behavior (as if it were monolithic, if it even exists) And look around in this thread. Look at our behavior. I'm seeing a lot of people who are looking only at how something will benefit themselves (if it does) or, worse, looking at something like the rose/poppy issue as an excuse to behave badly towards other Minecraft players.
"You don't want roses taken away, so you are bad and you should feel bad" has been the tone of many, many posts I've read over the past couple of months. The people posting couldn't care less what the flowers were called or what they look like. It doesn't change their game one iota if they're roses or poppies or mutant petunias. What they see is a chance to be vicious to some other player and still stay on the right side of the rules. Some people -- I suspect people whose real lives involve constantly being told what to do, for arbitrary reasons, by people they don't respect -- really get a rush out of doing this. (you've probably met this kind in real life at the DMV office) They savage the people who want their roses back, not because it matters to them about the roses, but because it matters to them that they can be hurtful to another player.
That's our problem, community-wise.
Not what little red flowers are called.
Not whether we can get iron in any particular way.
But the fact that some of us are looking for any excuse to treat others of us badly. From my perspective, there are people here who are dancing around, thumbing their noses, and going "nyah-nyah!" when some change which negatively affects other players is proposed or announced, solely because it negatively affects other players. I think we all need to look in the mirror here. Do you want to be that kind of person?
Consider griefers. The fundamental trait of a griefer is that they get off on making other people unhappy. A griefer's day isn't complete if he didn't make someone else cry (or at least imagine that's what they did) by ruining a game for them. They're the kind of person who would see two people playing chess in the park and dump their chessboard on the ground, just to be cruel. And that's the kind of person who cheers to see someone else being hurt in some way, even if it doesn't help themselves.
That's the thing to look for in that long, searching look into the mirror: Is a little of that creeping into our attitudes? Are we sad to see that someone else's enjoyment of a game is being spoiled, or are we going "nyah-nyah" in the back of our minds? If we're saying "well, other people should be playing the right way" is it really because we think it's so important that other people play the game the same way we do, even if it'll never affect us in any way, or because we're enjoying, for whatever reason, someone else's unhappiness?
If we're going to be a community, instead of a bunch of greedy, pushing, shoving, bullying brats, that's something we need to think about. It's something we need to really reflect on. And for some of it, it's something we need to change.
I had mixed feelings for the Iron Farms, they felt a little OP, but they are not easy to make. It's not like a noob can start their world and make a Gigantic 5,000 iron per hour farm or something ridiculous like that and never need to mine again. I think if Mojang wanted to make it fair they should've done something like making certain redstone blocks like pistons need to be maintained for long-term use, rather than just breaking the iron farms altogether. I think that people should be able to play however they want, and if you want to make these mega factories, that's awesome, if you want to mine and go caving, that's awesome too. I understand what people mean about /give being different to this kind of farm. It's the same thing that makes Cookie Clicker addictive. Some people, including me, get this feeling of satisfaction when we just watch as the numbers rack up.
I agree with you on the community part, but not all of us are bad. It's like us nerds and the #swagsters. There are probably way more nerds than swag, it's just that the swag people are so loud and obnoxious that it feels like there is waaaaaay more of them.
I would honestly like to see Mojang say that they're tired of the community constantly complaining and that they are going to stop updating Minecraft, but not really, just to fake everyone out. They can go a month while looking like all Minecraft development has stopped, and then They can come out and say "We were just faking, but please remember that we're giving these updates to you for free, and we can stop updating the game whenever we want, so please just be thankful for what you get." Hopefully that would teach all the complainers a lesson. That said, there's nothing wrong with complaining about something, but when you take it too far, that's when it becomes a problem. There's nothing wrong with saying "They changed roses to poppies, aww, I like the rose better, oh well." and moving on, but it is wrong to say "WHAT?!?! The took away roses? Wow, this is the worst update ever! I hate Mojang!". So, it's okay to voice your opinion, but you also need to figure out that it's just you opinion, and this is Mojang's game, and they don't have to do whatever you want them to do to the game.
Also, about the iron/gold farms, I don't use them, but I do think it would be better to keep them. Some people, such as myself, enjoy going into caves and mining, but some don't. What they do enjoy though, is building these farms, figuring out how to build them. I just think it's a different way of playing. Plus, it's sorta kinda like some one on earth saying "We shouldn't have factories that build car parts! We should just build them all by hand!" It's not a perfect illustration, but you get the point.
If we're going to be a community, instead of a bunch of greedy, pushing, shoving, bullying brats, that's something we need to think about. It's something we need to really reflect on. And for some of it, it's something we need to change.
This was the reason for this whole; getting folks to understand what it's like to be in a community. I mean the discussions of iron farms and flowers, they are examples of what I'm trying to say, but this sentence here is the purpose of this whole thread.
How did I not see this reply at all… Off-topic was one of the main things that kicked my backside into realizing exactly what a debate is… To Off-Topic: Spread yer knowledge to all of the forums, you will be the saviors of this community.
Not that the nerf is still active anymore... Though they removed the trench form of an iron farm from working.
The removal of trench form is an appeasement to both sides of the farm debate…? You can still farm for those who want to… And then an 'easier(?)' form of farming is removed…? I mean, it could make sense.
I guess you guys are right. Updates aren't always better, but I don't really care. I still like the game and I just deal with it.
Also people may complain that things in Minecraft look out of place, but after a month or so people accept that the new features have become a part of the game, almost like they were there from the beginning, and then it's not so bad any more.
Tell me if I'm wrong, people may still be raging about the new biomes.
I think people are still arguing over Extreme Hills...
Nothing wrong with iron farms, you can mine iron faster, but the farm is more of a convenience for hard work.
Same goes with gold farms
Enchanting has become way OP and because of that I see the xp system getting nerfed which makes no sense at all!
What I think is going on is jeb buffed the enchanting system so much, now he has an excuse to nerf the xp system by a whole lot.
Nothing wrong with iron farms, you can mine iron faster, but the farm is more of a convenience for hard work.
Same goes with gold farms
Enchanting has become way OP and because of that I see the xp system getting nerfed which makes no sense at all!
What I think is going on is jeb buffed the enchanting system so much, now he has an excuse to nerf the xp system by a whole lot.
Jeb is ruining minecraft.
I… I can't tell if you're being sarcastic and being supportive or not… I think I need an adult...
I am serious, jeb is ruining minecraft, and yes the community is a monster.
I do not want this post to result this into a "jeb ruining Minecraft" flamewar. I'm not saying it's true/false or that its not something worth debating, it's just not for debating here.
Nothing wrong with iron farms, you can mine iron faster, but the farm is more of a convenience for hard work.
Same goes with gold farms
Enchanting has become way OP and because of that I see the xp system getting nerfed which makes no sense at all!
What I think is going on is jeb buffed the enchanting system so much, now he has an excuse to nerf the xp system by a whole lot.
Jeb is ruining minecraft.
This, people, is an unfortunate example of what was just being discussed.
What do I plan to do? Build a minecart railroad all over the multiplayer server I'm on, connecting everybody's houses with the spawn area and with each other. That's what I think is fun.
You think jumping over lava, etc., is more fun than building railroads. I think that building railroads is more fun than jumping over lava. Up until this proposed nerf, you and I could both play Minecraft in the way we think is fun. You could do your spelunking; I could do my building. They are proposing -- and you are supporting -- only permitting one of those kinds of fun, and prohibiting people who have been having fun doing something else (building railroads,for instance) from doing what they have been doing up until now.
Let me ask you this: If I've got an iron farm in a SSP game, or in a SMP game on a server you don't play on, how does it effect your game experience? How does it make the game worse for you if someone you don't play with is having fun with it in a different way than you are? Conversely, if I can't have fun anymore -- if I have to do something boring instead -- how does that make your experience better? What changes in your game if someone else has to play differently, or not at all? Cui bono?
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
I don't know, why were sand farms a problem? They exploited features and were game breaking.
And what if someone has an iron fam on a SMP server I DO play on? Suddenly, they have a huge advantage over me. Should I sacrifice my own enjoyment and build an iron farm to regain my advantage?
If the server admin is OK with everybody having unlimited iron (which is what you get from full-auto farms) then they can just give it to you. Or, if it's rails, they can give you unlimited rails, or play with a mod that makes rails very cheap (The programming part of that takes about 5 minutes.) SSP, of course, you can just /give yourself iron.
The argument about full-auto iron farms isn't about getting iron; there are plenty of ways to get unlimited iron in minecraft. Creative, mode-switching, /give, and mods.
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
The efficiency 5 shovels on wood comes to mind... I remember hearing someone say that if shovels hadn't worked on wood as soon as enchanting was added, nobody would have cared. But everyone had made a habit of using shovels on wood to save a diamond, and suddenly its removed. Cue huge -storm
"Pointy end up, flamey end down. If both ends are flamey, we call that a 'minor error'." -A very wise rocket scientist
Humans ARE the apex predators on this planet. Even mother nature quakes before us. Mojang's getting hate because they became great. When it was a niche game, it was different because the player base wasn't mainstream and it was small. In some cases (like this one), the bigger you get, the louder your opposition becomes.
The problem that you face is that the ones who need to hear and internalize your post, never will. So you're just preaching to the choir, really.
They were game breaking? People were unable to play because they existed?
That's between you and the server owner. There are servers that allow PvP. There are servers that do not allow PvP. I'm not seeing anyone saying that PvP should be prohibited in the code because they don't want PvP on their server, nor that PvP should be required despite the wishes of all the other players because they want to PK. Having mob drops without manually killing a mob as a config option is great; I fully support that. But requiring it for all players, single-player or multi-player, whether they and the people on their server want it that way or not, just because some people want it to be different? No. Just no.
Also, "a huge advantage"? In that I can ... um ... build a railroad? If you're playing on a competitive SMP server, and that is an issue, then they could add a gamerule that the server owner could set to take care of it. "gamerule MobDrops false" or something. Then your enjoyment of endlessly clicking on blocks would give you back the advantage, the way you want it. But you're insisting on taking things away from players you don't know, things that don't affect you in any way,
You're demanding that other players sacrifice their enjoyment -- to the point of wanting to leave the game, because instead of spending a few hours building an iron farm like you would have to do in that scenario, they have to spend all the rest of their playing time, forever, getting iron by endlessly clicking on blocks so that they can, very briefly, do something fun -- so you can have things the way you want them.
And this, getting back to the actual subject of this thread, is where the problem comes in. People are only looking at anything from the point of view of what they want for themselves. There's no attempt at even understanding other people's playstyles, because each person thinks they are doing everything the One True Way and everybody who isn't doing things exactly the same way is wrong. So we bicker and fight. Not many people can look at things like "well, yeah, it doesn't hurt me but it really screws over Joe, so that's bad" -- the only thing they care about is the effects on their own gameplay.
Let's go back to the rose/poppy thing. People had roses. They liked roses. Mojang took out roses and put in a different red flower, with a different name, different appearance, and different significance. There are, I would venture to guess, few if any people who really preferred the poppy over the rose. Players seemed to fall into two categories: "meh, it's a red flower, I can still make dye out of it" and "my gardens look bad now, and iron golems handing poppies to villagers is just wrong." That is, people whom it affected neutrally, and people whom it affected negatively. The latter, of course, were not happy about it. One would expect that the former would agree with them -- if something doesn't matter to me, but hurts you, that's a bad thing. But not all of them did. Some of them, possibly for the reasons described in the moderately famous essay "Mud Wimping", supported the removal of roses just because the devs did it. They didn't care that it brought no benefits to themselves or anyone else. They didn't care that it did actually harm other players. They didn't even care how, or if, it affected other players. The devs did it, so they cheered it ... some because they'd cheer for anything the devs did due to some odd some sort of hero worship, but more disturbingly, some because it gave them an excuse to treat other members of the community badly and claim to just be supporting the Powers That Be.
I think, there, that the fact that a lot of people here tend to be on the younger and sometimes less socially adept end of the scale has something to do with that. Some of those people get a rush from being able to be, frankly, mean to other players, to do everything short of calling them names (and sometimes not even short of calling them names, and now have the infractions to prove it) and say "I'm just telling them how it is. This is how Mojang wants it." Now, I may be an optimist here, but I'm pretty sure what Mojang wants is not an army of yes-men marching out to treat their customers like dirt ... even when the yes-men are in agreement with them and the customers being treated like dirt are the ones objecting.
That's what the problem is with "the community" (to the extent that such a thing even exists): Not that we disagree over whether iron farms should be possible or not, but that an awful lot of people can only see things from their perspective, not any other player's, and especially that there are some very vocal people who use disagreements like this as a good excuse to treat their fellow players badly. And that ends up in a lose-lose for everyone.
I don't have unlimited iron. I have a few thousand iron, yes, but far from unlimited.
But I don't want unlimited rails. I want to do something fancy and elaborate to produce iron to make my rails. Sure, in SSP I can just /give myself anything I want. But I don't. It's not fun for me that way. Building an iron farm is fun. Watching the iron slowly accumulate is fun. /give isn't fun.
And that's been my point the whole time: we all have fun differently.
You're right, it's not about getting iron. It's about whether Minecraft is a game, to be played one way and one way only, like Monopoly, or whether Minecraft is a toy, to be played with however the player wants and/or multiple players agree together. In a very real sense, this is an argument about the future of Minecraft -- as I've said, whether it will continue to be a first-rate toy, or be turned into a third-rate game.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
It's not that either. Minecraft has four ways to be used as a "whatever-you-want" sandbox; creative, mode-switching, cheats, and mods. It has one way to be used as a kind of challenge mode: no-cheat survival. No matter what restrictions Mojang puts on no-cheat survival, it doesn't affect any of the other modes. So no restriction Mojang puts in survival, no matter how stringent, affects the ability to do "whatever you want" in Minecraft. You'll still be able to build transcontinental railroads, omni-sorters, or self-constructing castles. You just wouldn't be able to claim it's a no-cheat survival build.
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
Now the rose on the other hand, i personally prefer the poppies, but seeing the rose go was a bit sad, although the sacrifice of 1 for the rise of many (all the new flowers) was in my opinion a more than fair swap.
Now back onto the topic of this thread, it seems that their are less immature people than i had previously thought, I'd like to thank everyone for keeping everything so civil, even though this is not my thread or my forums, i am sure the creator of the thread, and the forum moderators would be glad the thread has panned out the way it did, rather than what was originally expected. Kudos to you all.
Exactly.
The bigger you get the louder your opposition, couldn't have said it better.
IP: play.ecc.eco
Website: https://ecocitycraft.com
Wiki: https://ecocitycraft.com/wiki
Shop: https://ecocitycraft.com/shop
Discord: https://ecocitycraft.com/discord
I don't claim that it's anything. I don't care what it's called, so long as I can continue playing the way that I, and the other people in my multiplayer game, enjoy.
Sure it does. It affects my ability to produce iron using the game mechanics, rather than /give, etc. This is the part so many people are missing: there are obviously a lot of people (most notably those getting upset on Reddit) who enjoy using the game mechanics to produce iron. They've been playing the game that way, and having fun, and Jeb proposed taking that away from them.
But again, we're getting away from the topic. Whether people should be allowed to have fun with their box of Legos however they want, or whether they should all be required to play their Monopoly game the same way,
I'm not so sure it's a minority. But whether or not it is, when did Minecraft get a "direction" that it's supposed to be played? That's never been what Minecraft is about. It's never had One True Way. You don't win the game, nor lose it for that matter. I have a friend who's building a cathedral ... full-sized. (or as close as the build height limit will permit) I have another friend who is doing elaborate things with redstone, and building a really awesome base. I'm building a railroad, and waiting for another friend with a lot more architectural talent than me to build a fancy railroad station for one end. Probably none of us are doing exactly what you would do. If we were playing Halo, we'd all have to play it the same way. But we're not; we're playing Minecraft, and we aren't playing the game, we're playing with the toy.
Let me explain this another way:
Let's say that Jeb had never proposed any of this. Would you have quit playing Minecraft because it was still the game you bought? Would the fact that Jeb didn't do anything have changed your game experience at all? Or would it have continued being the game you bought, and your experience would have continued being what it was last week, last month, last year?
That's what people who object are looking at: Some of them would quit if it isn't the game they bought anymore. If Jeb nerfs drops, it will change their game experience, and change it very drastically. Jeb does nothing: nothing changes for you. Jeb nerfs drops: a lot changes for them. You don't lose anything if the status quo stays quo; they lose a lot if it changes.
But we've gotten far away from the point of this discussion. "Should Jeb treat players as customers to be entertained, or adversaries to be thwarted?" has been discussed to death in other threads. We don't need to bring it in here, too. I've been trying (okay, and failing) not to talk about that.
The point of this thread is the community (if there is one) and "its" behavior (as if it were monolithic, if it even exists) And look around in this thread. Look at our behavior. I'm seeing a lot of people who are looking only at how something will benefit themselves (if it does) or, worse, looking at something like the rose/poppy issue as an excuse to behave badly towards other Minecraft players.
"You don't want roses taken away, so you are bad and you should feel bad" has been the tone of many, many posts I've read over the past couple of months. The people posting couldn't care less what the flowers were called or what they look like. It doesn't change their game one iota if they're roses or poppies or mutant petunias. What they see is a chance to be vicious to some other player and still stay on the right side of the rules. Some people -- I suspect people whose real lives involve constantly being told what to do, for arbitrary reasons, by people they don't respect -- really get a rush out of doing this. (you've probably met this kind in real life at the DMV office) They savage the people who want their roses back, not because it matters to them about the roses, but because it matters to them that they can be hurtful to another player.
That's our problem, community-wise.
Not what little red flowers are called.
Not whether we can get iron in any particular way.
But the fact that some of us are looking for any excuse to treat others of us badly. From my perspective, there are people here who are dancing around, thumbing their noses, and going "nyah-nyah!" when some change which negatively affects other players is proposed or announced, solely because it negatively affects other players. I think we all need to look in the mirror here. Do you want to be that kind of person?
Consider griefers. The fundamental trait of a griefer is that they get off on making other people unhappy. A griefer's day isn't complete if he didn't make someone else cry (or at least imagine that's what they did) by ruining a game for them. They're the kind of person who would see two people playing chess in the park and dump their chessboard on the ground, just to be cruel. And that's the kind of person who cheers to see someone else being hurt in some way, even if it doesn't help themselves.
That's the thing to look for in that long, searching look into the mirror: Is a little of that creeping into our attitudes? Are we sad to see that someone else's enjoyment of a game is being spoiled, or are we going "nyah-nyah" in the back of our minds? If we're saying "well, other people should be playing the right way" is it really because we think it's so important that other people play the game the same way we do, even if it'll never affect us in any way, or because we're enjoying, for whatever reason, someone else's unhappiness?
If we're going to be a community, instead of a bunch of greedy, pushing, shoving, bullying brats, that's something we need to think about. It's something we need to really reflect on. And for some of it, it's something we need to change.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
I agree with you on the community part, but not all of us are bad. It's like us nerds and the #swagsters. There are probably way more nerds than swag, it's just that the swag people are so loud and obnoxious that it feels like there is waaaaaay more of them.
I love this response, its beautiful…
Thank y'all for the feedback, this is great!
This was the reason for this whole; getting folks to understand what it's like to be in a community. I mean the discussions of iron farms and flowers, they are examples of what I'm trying to say, but this sentence here is the purpose of this whole thread.
How did I not see this reply at all… Off-topic was one of the main things that kicked my backside into realizing exactly what a debate is… To Off-Topic: Spread yer knowledge to all of the forums, you will be the saviors of this community.
The removal of trench form is an appeasement to both sides of the farm debate…? You can still farm for those who want to… And then an 'easier(?)' form of farming is removed…? I mean, it could make sense.
I think people are still arguing over Extreme Hills...
Same goes with gold farms
Enchanting has become way OP and because of that I see the xp system getting nerfed which makes no sense at all!
What I think is going on is jeb buffed the enchanting system so much, now he has an excuse to nerf the xp system by a whole lot.
Jeb is ruining minecraft.
I… I can't tell if you're being sarcastic and being supportive or not… I think I need an adult...
I am serious, jeb is ruining minecraft, and yes the community is a monster.
I do not want this post to result this into a "jeb ruining Minecraft" flamewar. I'm not saying it's true/false or that its not something worth debating, it's just not for debating here.
This, people, is an unfortunate example of what was just being discussed.
My fan fiction of the game: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1957118-programmer-my-first-fan-fiction/#entry24096758