According to the wiki, sometime in the future, spawning items using their IDs instead of the new name mechanic will be removed. I think this is a horrible idea. This will break old maps for no reason. There is also the problem of things with longer names being easier to enter as item ids, and the fact that the technical name used by the game of certain things is different from its in game name. For example, the music discs would not only be harder to spawn because of their longer names, but the name used to spawn the music discs in is also bothersome.
Do you think that the old way of spawning in items should be kept in along side with the new one, or that the old one should be completely removed and save a handful of kilobytes of space?
From the wiki-
Quote from Minecraft Wiki »
Block/Item ids can now be referred to with names instead of ids
Well I think that they should keep both of the way's to spawn stuff in. I find that some thing's are easier to spawn using there name's and number's. And then everyone will be happy.
The new ID system is integral to a future Plugin API to prevent the shifting or replacing of block IDs. It may be annoying to get used to for a while, but it's done for the best of Minecraft and its future in mind, same with the SP/MP merger and resource pack system and all that.
As an aside, it's actually funny that people complain that no work is being done on the API when with every update it's the little things like this that are slowly building it up.
As an aside, it's actually funny that people complain that no work is being done on the API when with every update it's the little things like this that are slowly building it up.
People complain about that because nobody hinted that these changes are building it up.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
ohaikthxbai and stuff ~~~
lol/Rant/Whatever of the…!: Beyond: Two Souls is a sad/depressing game. Not like the ending of Mother 3 isn’t more sad.
To all of you people who think Notch is still working on the game, he stopped working on Minecraft in late 2011. Get your facts straight and stop spamming his twitter about Minecraft updates.
I think basically this is only a problem for lazy people. Why? Because for me it is a way better method, people won't need to be constantly checking a useless data value list, losing time they can use for something better, they can just know how to summon any block anywhere.
But lazy people has to work to redo the maps and that seems to be too hard, seriously dude, if you need more than 3 seconds to write "record_mellohi" (for example), you need more practice. I think this is a really good improvement to make our map-making life way easier and faster, if you know what you're doing, believe me, you will get used pretty fast.
Basing data on numbers is not practical, because learning every single one of them takes a very long time and you won't always remember all of them, so you have to look in a data value list, which makes you lose more time, but we already know how the blocks are called just because we play the game.
WHAT?!?! THIS IS HORRIBLE!!!!!!
Oh wait-you got this from the wiki? In that case,a stupid prankster probably got on the Minecraft wiki and put "Will soon be the only way to go" in the changelog so he could see the reaction from Map Makers. Seriously,unless Mojang actully reveals this thereselfs,im gonna consider this fake.
Although I don't have a source, I believe the devs themselves have said that it is necessary for this to happen for the Modding API; we are heavily limited on item IDs at the moment.
I'm not against this change, but my concern is if/when it is implemented is how you will be able to use sign mods that use an item id? Signs currently have a character limit, so the id is generally used in it's place....example Chest Shop.
My main problem is... This needs more symbols to type. Now before you call me lazy hear me out!
The chat input has a cap, the command block input has the same cap. I already reach this cap currently thanks to custom lore and stuff, i dont want to type the IDs as their full name because this leaves me whit less space for custom data.
id:312 is shorter than id:diamond_sword. 10 symbols shorter which i could use (as example) to set the base attack of the sword to 9. Or to write 10 symbols longer lore. Or formatt the lore, as &3 etc need symbols too.
sure, but also that's why they're extending the characters cap, and probably will extend it even more in the future
Wanna know how FAKE this really is? It doesn't say ANYTHING about this on the Minecraft Wiki,which is where the OP claims to have got the info.
And how do we know that you didn't just remove it from there? Anyways, wiki aside, this is actually going to be the case, whether it's in yet or not, it will be part of the steps taken towards preparing the mod API.
Wiki isn't made by the developers so stop taking it as the main information source, what is posted here was said by jeb itself on his tweets, you can read about it in the news sections of the forums, the ones talking about 1.7 snapshots. Don't want to believe it? then don't, who cares, just don't come here talking as if you were some kind of knowledge god because you read the wiki lol
Technical reason raw ID values won't be good in the future: They are basically just an index on an array. If that array is loaded dynamically via the Mod API instead of being statically coded, the ID values become volatile. I'm going to assume that in the world data they will add some sort of lookup array that will tie the raw ID from the block and item data to the 'real' text id so that worlds don't break in funny ways when you load them up with different mods.
What this means to you muggles: The ID number will no longer be a fixed value. This means that Dirt might be ID:1 in one save and ID:42 in another. minecraft:dirt however will be the same no matter what.
"Strong Pokémon. Weak Pokémon. That is only the selfish perception of people. Truly skilled Trainers should try to win with the Pokémon they love best."
Just wondering, how would removing item IDs and replacing them with a string name help? Honest question. Also, is there a list of what all the blocks are referenced as in the code? I can't figure out the name for spawning blocks such as hardened/stained clay.
Do you think that the old way of spawning in items should be kept in along side with the new one, or that the old one should be completely removed and save a handful of kilobytes of space?
From the wiki-
As an aside, it's actually funny that people complain that no work is being done on the API when with every update it's the little things like this that are slowly building it up.
lol/Rant/Whatever of the…!: Beyond: Two Souls is a sad/depressing game. Not like the ending of Mother 3 isn’t more sad.
I'm serious, someone explain why we can't have both.
Not any more
But lazy people has to work to redo the maps and that seems to be too hard, seriously dude, if you need more than 3 seconds to write "record_mellohi" (for example), you need more practice. I think this is a really good improvement to make our map-making life way easier and faster, if you know what you're doing, believe me, you will get used pretty fast.
Basing data on numbers is not practical, because learning every single one of them takes a very long time and you won't always remember all of them, so you have to look in a data value list, which makes you lose more time, but we already know how the blocks are called just because we play the game.
Although I don't have a source, I believe the devs themselves have said that it is necessary for this to happen for the Modding API; we are heavily limited on item IDs at the moment.
And how do we know that you didn't just remove it from there? Anyways, wiki aside, this is actually going to be the case, whether it's in yet or not, it will be part of the steps taken towards preparing the mod API.
...but that's just like, my opinion, man.
What this means to you muggles: The ID number will no longer be a fixed value. This means that Dirt might be ID:1 in one save and ID:42 in another. minecraft:dirt however will be the same no matter what.
It did before. Someone edited it away.
But if it has to go in the name of future improvement, then so be it.