Couldn't care less about it. Auto-farms are outlawed on most servers anyways due to the massive lag they create, as it is on mine. Have farms, don't have farms, its a game, have it your way.
sandbox game eh? its your world, do what ever you want with it. It is almost like giving sethbling redstone and telling him he cant make anything with it because he makes op stuff.
Agreed.
I can say there are a lot of things added that I wasn't a fan of, but I simply either avoided or did not use them. The entire concept of decor blocks being ignored because they don't have a purpose puzzles me. They are decor, they don't need a function other than being background!
decore!
main functionality = DECOR! i hate when people say "no use :(" blah blah.
Personally I supported the nerf and think the game would be better if iron golems had never been given drops. They were for defense, not creating infinite iron. Creative mode is for people who want infinite resources and no limitations. Survival mode is for people who want to play within limitations.
Unfortunately once a feature is released that's overpowered it's too late to revert it because a vocal minority of players will go ballistic. Hopefully the devs will think about this when planning future releases with new mobs. Otherwise someday we might end up with diamond farms, emerald farms, and who knows what else.
Personally I supported the nerf and think the game would be better if iron golems had never been given drops. They were for defense, not creating infinite iron. Creative mode is for people who want infinite resources and no limitations. Survival mode is for people who want to play within limitations.
Unfortunately once a feature is released that's overpowered it's too late to revert it because a vocal minority of players will go ballistic. Hopefully the devs will think about this when planning future releases with new mobs. Otherwise someday we might end up with diamond farms, emerald farms, and who knows what else.
I love how many people use the creative mode comparison as if it makes any sense. Creative mode you get unlimited EVERYTHING for free. In Survival you have to work for it, EVEN when you build a farm to do it. The farm doesn't build itself. The resources to build it are not gathered by itself. All resources are also not unlimited. Can anyone spot which one is not like the other? Think real hard ... cause some of you really need to apparently.
People try to use some common freaking sense. Or is sense not so common anymore?
If you don't like them .. don't use them. It's as simple as that. It's not even hard to do, because you don't have to do anything at all. Just do nothing! Problem solved XD. Don't build it.
If you don't like iron golem farms and you build one ... that just makes you really silly. Using the word silly to put it nicely.
If dispensers that fired Arrows, Fire Charges, Snowballs, Splash Potions, flint and steel and TnT are fired out like the right-click action of the items carried by a player. and would act as "last hit" by a player, wouldn't this be the perfect fix?
(ok definitely not eggs, maybe not flint and steel? maybe not arrows? not eggs because a small chicken farm > hopper > dispenser would not consume resources. maybe not flint and steel because 1 flint and 1 iron = 65 uses, maybe not arrows because skelly grinders are an infinate source of arrows that could be skelly ginder>hopper>dispenser>skelly ginder loop)
It would make these contraptions require resources, and be automatic. Input>output design?
If you don't like them .. don't use them. It's as simple as that.
I love how many people use the "If you don't like them don't use them" argument as if it makes any sense. Let's put in mobs that drop diamonds so people can have automatic diamond farms, and mobs that drop emeralds so people can have automatic emerald farms, and mobs that drop Bottle o Enchanting so people can have an automatic xp farms. Let's add in a recipe for an item dup machine -- you put in an item and it spits out 10 duplicates.
Why should anyone complain about any of that being added? After all, just like you said -- if you don't like them you don't have to use them.
Really what we should do is just forget having separate survival and creative modes. Just allow everything in one mode and people can just not use what they don't want to use. It all follows the "If you don't like them don't use them" design philosophy. By that logic no game balancing will ever be needed.
Heaven forbid anyone lose anything that is unintentionally overpowered. The world of minecraft would come to an end without automatic infinite iron farms apparently.
I love how many people use the "If you don't like them don't use them" argument as if it makes any sense.
That's probably because it does.
Let's look at a simpler and less contentious example: horses.
There are people who think adding horses to the game was a bad thing, because "it doesn't feel like Minecraft if you ride a horse," because it's a better alternative to saddles on pigs, or because it's more flexible than a minecart railroad. However, the mere existence of horses does none of these things. Unless you choose to ride them, horses are just background graphics: there, but serving no use. If you choose to ride one, a horse might change the feel of the game, supersede pigs, or be better than railroads. But this only happens, again, if you choose to ride one. If you don't, then nothing changes except some animals wandering around the plains, and you can kill them if you find them aesthetically displeasing.
Let's put in mobs that drop diamonds so people can have automatic diamond farms, and mobs that drop emeralds so people can have automatic emerald farms, and mobs that drop Bottle o Enchanting so people can have an automatic xp farms. Let's add in a recipe for an item dup machine -- you put in an item and it spits out 10 duplicates.
Why should anyone complain about any of that being added? After all, just like you said -- if you don't like them you don't have to use them.
Exactly. If I think the game will be more fun if I do, or don't, build a diamond farm, then I'll build, or not build, accordingly. I'll play the way I find fun in my game, and I'll play on servers where the server owner has set up the kind of game I find fun, and not demand that things be taken away from other players because I don't want to use them.
Really what we should do is just forget having separate survival and creative modes. Just allow everything in one mode and people can just not use what they don't want to use. It all follows the "If you don't like them don't use them" design philosophy.
There re more differences between survival and creative than availability of items.
Building an iron farm in survival mode is not the same thing as having an infinite amount of iron. I know; I have one. One in my SSP game and one in the multiplayer game I play in, actually. And, ironically, I have almost no iron in the multiplayer game because I traded it all to another player who's building a beacon. I chose to spend my time building my iron farm (and I built it in Extreme Hills, so this was an insane amount of work!) instead of mining because I think crafting is more fun than mining. The person with the beacon feels the other way around, so we had a good trade.
Heaven forbid anyone lose anything that is unintentionally overpowered. The world of minecraft would come to an end without automatic infinite iron farms apparently.
Now you're just being rude.
Let me ask you, again: how are you personally hurt by people having iron farms?
You're not compelled to build one in any way, so they can't affect your SSP games, any more than the fact that Mrs. Grundy of Peoria sneaks peeks at her cards (the physical kind) when she plays Solitaire affects your Solitaire playing. And in multiplayer games, whether they're possible should, like everything else, be up to the server owner, so what you're dealing with is not MC features you don't want, but someone running a server in a way you don't like. Just like the horses, it would be unreasonable to demand that horses be removed from the game because your server owner allows them and you don't want them in there, so he should be forced to run the game the way you want it, not the way he (and the other players) wants it.
How will the game be more fun for you if I can't play the way I want, or Joe Schmoe in Kokomo can't play the way he wants? You don't play with either of us, so how does this affect you?
(again, this post is the opinion of Akynth the Minecraft player, not Akynth the moderator, who live in the same body but are sometimes entirely different people)
I love how many people use the "If you don't like them don't use them" argument as if it makes any sense.
Makes perfect sense actually. I suppose it's ok if you don't understand it though.
Let's put in mobs that drop diamonds so people can have automatic diamond farms, and mobs that drop emeralds so people can have automatic emerald farms, and mobs that drop Bottle o Enchanting so people can have an automatic xp farms. Let's add in a recipe for an item dup machine -- you put in an item and it spits out 10 duplicates.
If they put mobs that drop diamonds, then that is up to the game devs. Taking advantage of it, that is up to the player. It effects you personally in no way.
As for emeralds, you can pretty much already get infinite emeralds with villagers with hardly any work due to the more simpler farms like wheat. Soooo ... yaaaaa. To late! XD
Last I checked you can get bottle o enchanting from villagers ... considering you can get infinite emeralds .. think it's to late for that as well. Though it's much quicker to use a enderman farm.
Duplicating an item is very very different. Duplicating means you are getting items from doing absolutely nothing. At that point, you might as well just play in creative. Farming is nothing like that though. You have to work to build these farms, and you are limited to only what that farm is able to do. You are not going to get infinite diamonds from building an iron golem farm.
Why should anyone complain about any of that being added? After all, just like you said -- if you don't like them you don't have to use them.
No one should complain, because no one is forcing them to use it, nor are any of these things being "added". Iron golem farms have been around for a very very very long time. Think it's to late you just noticed them ... and to late that they are all of a sudden some how a burden to you. lol to bad. XD Sucks to be you that you let these things bother you.
Really what we should do is just forget having separate survival and creative modes. Just allow everything in one mode and people can just not use what they don't want to use. It all follows the "If you don't like them don't use them" design philosophy. By that logic no game balancing will ever be needed.
You must have failed at reading my whole post. Already covered this sort of argument. Good job =^.^= ... you get an A+.
Creating an iron golem farm in survival is not the same thing as playing in creative. Not to mentions both modes work vastly different.
Heaven forbid anyone lose anything that is unintentionally overpowered. The world of minecraft would come to an end without automatic infinite iron farms apparently.
Define overpowered? I see many people use that word for Iron Golem Farms. But tell me how exactly is it OP? There is already so much iron in the world of minecraft that whether you get it from an Iron Farm or from mining, it hardly makes a difference. Some people use the excuse that iron is a limited resource .. and I laugh because WHAT LIMIT? Who in their right mind could use ALL the iron in a single world? You couldn't ever reach that limit so it might as well be infinite to begin with.
The only thing an iron golem farm does is makes iron a tad bit easier to get. Hear that? A tad. It isn't hard to get iron to begin with. It just takes more time, and holds you up from doing other things. So instead of building that amazing build you are working on ... NOPE .. you are mining.
So again .. please ... tell me how iron golem farms are OP .. because I hardly see how that is the case.
I'm pretty sure they aren't un-nerfed. True, Pigmen and Golems drop their loot as they did prior to the 1.8 snapshot changes; however, doors are going to go through a different process before being recognized by villages. This will require some testing before we can say conclusively, but I suspect that this newest change will nerf the iron farms even more than before. Gold farms should be fine.
I'm actually far less disturbed by changing the door/house recognition system, even though it's going to break my iron farm.
The way I look at it, while the current "doors" are counted as doors by the game, even though they only open onto solid blocks, they really shouldn't be. That's just a bad algorithm, and while I'll happily make use of its effects, I don't expect them it to remain bad forever. It's much like the issue with BUD switches: they're making use of quirks in the code, which might change at any time. I'll have to do some rebuilding so that my doors open into real houses, but to me, that feels like par for the course.
Removing iron golem drops, on the other hand, had no purpose other than to break iron and gold farms. It was a matter of a developer (Jeb, in this case) saying "you all have to play the way I want you to play, not the way you want to play." It was Vision(TM) over gameplay, and we all know how well that worked for SOE. (SW:NGE, to be exact) It felt like a slap in the face to those people who had worked out how to build farms, and spent the days or weeks it took to build them (it took me four days just to catch a couple of villager zombies for mine). It was taking options and alternatives away from players solely to take those options away from players, and try to force them into all do things the same way. If what they were concerned about was farms being on mult-player servers where they're not wanted, they would have just added a gamerule; instead, they tried to take it away from all players, both those who didn't want them and those who did. That's like saying "You can't use your box of Legos to build a giant robot. You can only build rocketships." Naturally people got angry (except for those people who like the idea of other players being forced to do things the same way they do)
As I said earlier, I don't know anyone who, deciding between two games in the store, has said "well, this one gives me fewer options than that one, so I'll buy this one."
Speaking of forcing other people to do things the way you do: Take it from me, the older you get, the worse that seems to be (certain ideologues and extremists, mostly in politics, to the contrary). First, there's the fact that a person, a government, or a system that can force other people to act how you want can, in turn, force you to act how other people want. The HOA that you support when they tell your neighbor he can't paint his house one color is the same HOA that will tell you that you can't paint your house another color, and you're the one who agreed that this was a good idea ... except you thought it would only apply to other people, not yourself. If I've learned anything in life, it's that there is no One True Way. My language is a language, not the language. The food I like is my favorite, not the best. Take everything from clothing style to religion,and there are as many options as there are people. I've been seeing a lot, in these threads, people who don't recognize that; they automatically assume their preferred gameplay style is the right one. And they're wrong. There is no One True Way.
That's what's so cool about a sandbox game -- a toy, not a game -- we can all play with the same parts, but make different things out of them. I think that's something we don't want to lose.
Really what we should do is just forget having separate survival and creative modes. Just allow everything in one mode and people can just not use what they don't want to use. It all follows the "If you don't like them don't use them" design philosophy. By that logic no game balancing will ever be needed.
You can't really balance a sandbox game, it wouldn't be a sandbox game anymore.
That's what's so cool about a sandbox game -- a toy, not a game -- we can all play with the same parts, but make different things out of them. I think that's something we don't want to lose.
Compare it with lego. There are people who only build what the box was intended to be according to the instructions. They can have a lot of fun with that. One of my three children prefers to play like that. Then there are people who like to build whatever they want and put together bricks from various boxes. My two other children are like that.
MineCraft is similar. Some people like to play it how it is 'intended' to be played (if there is even such a thing) while others like to use it how they please and exploit all the nice mechanisms in the game.
Greetings,
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Author of RFTools, RFTools Control, RFTools Dimensions, Deep Resonance, Immersive Craft, CombatHelp, NICE, Aqua Munda, Ariente, XNet, Interaction Wheel, The Lost Cities, Lost Souls, Need To Breathe, EFab, The One Probe and co-author of Not Enough Wands and RF Lux.
Compare it with lego. There are people who only build what the box was intended to be according to the instructions....
And I'm so old, when I got my first Lego set as a kid, there was no "intended to be..." on the box; it was just an open-ended set of bricks, to build whatever you wanted. (come to think of it, I built a lot of rectangular buildings) The whole idea of Legos as sort of blocky model kits (and now also pink slightly-less-blocky model kits, to remind girls that they're not allowed to play with real Legos) came much later.
Maybe that has influenced how I see Minecraft. My first Lego set wasn't "intended" to build a pirate ship or a rocket ship; it was intended to build ... stuff. Whatever stuff I could imagine. We've been teaching our kids the idea that constraints are a good thing -- you should only build what the picture on the box shows. Do only what you're told. Construct, but don't invent. That can't be good for their imaginations.
do we view great books as words on paper?, no, do farms make people view minecraft as bits and bytes of code?, YES, and that harms the game.
You have a good point there. In games that are supposed to be telling a story (like Skyrim, for example) I prefer to simply play it as it is, respecting the feel of the atmosphere. However, in all other kinds of games (especially competitive ones) I enjoy digesting the mechanics to the bones. Its true that the game is little by little stripped of its atmosphere leaving only the code behind, but that's how I like it. I suppose I just like the feeling of knowing exactly whats going on. At first you process all the data and mechanics consciously, but after a while it goes back to the back of your brain and you analyze the game as it goes subconsciously. At that point the atmosphere returns, but as opposed to being one of uncertainty and skepticism it becomes one of sharpness and clarity.
Some people want to play Minecraft as an immersive world in which they envision themselves as Steve. Some want to feel like minor deities telling Steve what to do. Some want to treat Minecraft as a giant box of Legos. Some want to do other things entirely. One of the reasons for the great success of Minecraft is that it isn't selling to just one of those market segments; not just to the people who want the immersion, or the godhood, or the Legos, or any of the other things; it's selling to all of them, because the game -- the toy -- is different for every player who plays it, or plays with it, differently.
Funny how a game's community can completely dictate the future updates of that game on behalf of the developers.
I don't take that view. I don't think the community is responsible for the change in irons farms. You never heard any uproar about iron farms being evil before Jeb first mentioned his desire to nerf them. That's when suddenly the hypocrisy started and the most vocal people in here against iron farms are also the ones you can't find anywhere before Jeb started mentioning this issue.
In marketing there is the notion of creating an artificial need where before there was none. It's a great achievement if you come up with a product that generates a new need. It follows that should also be possible to create an artificial dislike where before there was none.
What really happened is that the developers took a stand and an action. It's their prerogative to do so, I'll agree. But there was really never a concrete reason for this change. Most of the arguments the developers use could also be applied to such bug related features as bud switches or water elevators; things we know they won't change. And because of this change -- and because of the inconsistent argumentation by the developers that was never fully analysed by the community -- suddenly a number of Minecraft players were stripped of a mechanism and saw half of the community against them. From being lauded as inventive and creative, they suddenly became cheaters and people who play Minecraft the wrong way.
More troubling than the actual iron farms being nerfed, is this notion we all learned from these threads on the iron farms nerf, that there is a new generation of players who can't really understand Minecraft. People -- almost all relative newcomers to the game -- who didn't experience the days of wonder and discovery, when Minecraft was looked upon as a game of inventiveness and full creativity. And the vibes we are getting from the developers (including Jeb) is that indeed that game is going to die. The new Minecraft will be a game about rules and constrained creativity. All for the sake of... I'm not really sure what anymore.
More troubling than the actual iron farms being nerfed, is this notion we all learned from these threads on the iron farms nerf, that there is a new generation of players who can't really understand Minecraft. People -- almost all relative newcomers to the game -- who didn't experience the days of wonder and discovery, when Minecraft was looked upon as a game of inventiveness and full creativity. And the vibes we are getting from the developers (including Jeb) is that indeed that game is going to die. The new Minecraft will be a game about rules and constrained creativity. All for the sake of... I'm not really sure what anymore.
I think a big part of the problem is that longer-term players (and a few of us newbies; I've only been playing since last summer) are used to Minecraft being a toy: as I've said so many times, like a giant box of Legos. Newer players don't recognize that; they think Minecraft is a game, like Monopoly, and in a game, everyone does the same thing the same way. With a toy, if you don't like playing with it one way ... you don't want to build giant robots ... you just play it another way ... you build spaceships. (or whatever else you like) With a game, your only real choice is to play a different game.
A part of it, I think, is that the earlier players are chronologically older. When I was a kid, your box of Legos was just that, a big box of multi-colored bricks, This ad has been making the rounds:
Now, though, Legos have been turned into sort of blocky model kits. When I wandered through the Lego stuff in Target the other day (I was checking to see if they had the MC ones, okay?) there were just all sorts of item-specific kits: you can build this robot or that space station, but the whole point is to replicate what you see on the box. It used to be there was no right and wrong way to play with Legos; now there is. Doing what the box shows is right; not doing it is wrong. The people who use them learn how to construct, but not create.
That's carrying over into the same people's reactions to the nerfs in Minecraft. They think there is only one right way to play with a toy, because that's what they've been taught by the toys they play with. In fact, for a lot of them, everything they do is structured by outsiders. They grew up with "play dates" with neighborhood children; we just went out and played. They have organized sports, encouraging strict adherence to a set of rules, instead of a football game with however many people happen to be there. And they don't understand why other people shouldn't be required to do things exactly the same way they do them, because isn't that how everything is?
And no, it isn't. You don't just build "Gorzan's Gorilla Striker" with Legos; you build whatever the heck you want. Except, of course, if the box only has the pieces to make that bike ... which is how Legos are now. And it's what Jeb wants to turn Minecraft into.
I never used iron and gold farms. I always found it easier to go mine.
Also, considering the Reddit community raged at Jeb like a bunch of 5 year olds not getting their vanilla icecream, I'm not surprised he changed it back. He probably got so shocked seeing how immature the community could be that he reverted the [much needed] change.
main functionality = DECOR! i hate when people say "no use :(" blah blah.
Unfortunately once a feature is released that's overpowered it's too late to revert it because a vocal minority of players will go ballistic. Hopefully the devs will think about this when planning future releases with new mobs. Otherwise someday we might end up with diamond farms, emerald farms, and who knows what else.
I love how many people use the creative mode comparison as if it makes any sense. Creative mode you get unlimited EVERYTHING for free. In Survival you have to work for it, EVEN when you build a farm to do it. The farm doesn't build itself. The resources to build it are not gathered by itself. All resources are also not unlimited. Can anyone spot which one is not like the other? Think real hard ... cause some of you really need to apparently.
People try to use some common freaking sense. Or is sense not so common anymore?
If you don't like them .. don't use them. It's as simple as that. It's not even hard to do, because you don't have to do anything at all. Just do nothing! Problem solved XD. Don't build it.
If you don't like iron golem farms and you build one ... that just makes you really silly. Using the word silly to put it nicely.
(ok definitely not eggs, maybe not flint and steel? maybe not arrows? not eggs because a small chicken farm > hopper > dispenser would not consume resources. maybe not flint and steel because 1 flint and 1 iron = 65 uses, maybe not arrows because skelly grinders are an infinate source of arrows that could be skelly ginder>hopper>dispenser>skelly ginder loop)
It would make these contraptions require resources, and be automatic. Input>output design?
I love how many people use the "If you don't like them don't use them" argument as if it makes any sense. Let's put in mobs that drop diamonds so people can have automatic diamond farms, and mobs that drop emeralds so people can have automatic emerald farms, and mobs that drop Bottle o Enchanting so people can have an automatic xp farms. Let's add in a recipe for an item dup machine -- you put in an item and it spits out 10 duplicates.
Why should anyone complain about any of that being added? After all, just like you said -- if you don't like them you don't have to use them.
Really what we should do is just forget having separate survival and creative modes. Just allow everything in one mode and people can just not use what they don't want to use. It all follows the "If you don't like them don't use them" design philosophy. By that logic no game balancing will ever be needed.
Heaven forbid anyone lose anything that is unintentionally overpowered. The world of minecraft would come to an end without automatic infinite iron farms apparently.
That's probably because it does.
Let's look at a simpler and less contentious example: horses.
There are people who think adding horses to the game was a bad thing, because "it doesn't feel like Minecraft if you ride a horse," because it's a better alternative to saddles on pigs, or because it's more flexible than a minecart railroad. However, the mere existence of horses does none of these things. Unless you choose to ride them, horses are just background graphics: there, but serving no use. If you choose to ride one, a horse might change the feel of the game, supersede pigs, or be better than railroads. But this only happens, again, if you choose to ride one. If you don't, then nothing changes except some animals wandering around the plains, and you can kill them if you find them aesthetically displeasing.
Exactly. If I think the game will be more fun if I do, or don't, build a diamond farm, then I'll build, or not build, accordingly. I'll play the way I find fun in my game, and I'll play on servers where the server owner has set up the kind of game I find fun, and not demand that things be taken away from other players because I don't want to use them.
There re more differences between survival and creative than availability of items.
Building an iron farm in survival mode is not the same thing as having an infinite amount of iron. I know; I have one. One in my SSP game and one in the multiplayer game I play in, actually. And, ironically, I have almost no iron in the multiplayer game because I traded it all to another player who's building a beacon. I chose to spend my time building my iron farm (and I built it in Extreme Hills, so this was an insane amount of work!) instead of mining because I think crafting is more fun than mining. The person with the beacon feels the other way around, so we had a good trade.
Now you're just being rude.
Let me ask you, again: how are you personally hurt by people having iron farms?
You're not compelled to build one in any way, so they can't affect your SSP games, any more than the fact that Mrs. Grundy of Peoria sneaks peeks at her cards (the physical kind) when she plays Solitaire affects your Solitaire playing. And in multiplayer games, whether they're possible should, like everything else, be up to the server owner, so what you're dealing with is not MC features you don't want, but someone running a server in a way you don't like. Just like the horses, it would be unreasonable to demand that horses be removed from the game because your server owner allows them and you don't want them in there, so he should be forced to run the game the way you want it, not the way he (and the other players) wants it.
How will the game be more fun for you if I can't play the way I want, or Joe Schmoe in Kokomo can't play the way he wants? You don't play with either of us, so how does this affect you?
(again, this post is the opinion of Akynth the Minecraft player, not Akynth the moderator, who live in the same body but are sometimes entirely different people)
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
Logic!
The way I look at it, while the current "doors" are counted as doors by the game, even though they only open onto solid blocks, they really shouldn't be. That's just a bad algorithm, and while I'll happily make use of its effects, I don't expect them it to remain bad forever. It's much like the issue with BUD switches: they're making use of quirks in the code, which might change at any time. I'll have to do some rebuilding so that my doors open into real houses, but to me, that feels like par for the course.
Removing iron golem drops, on the other hand, had no purpose other than to break iron and gold farms. It was a matter of a developer (Jeb, in this case) saying "you all have to play the way I want you to play, not the way you want to play." It was Vision(TM) over gameplay, and we all know how well that worked for SOE. (SW:NGE, to be exact) It felt like a slap in the face to those people who had worked out how to build farms, and spent the days or weeks it took to build them (it took me four days just to catch a couple of villager zombies for mine). It was taking options and alternatives away from players solely to take those options away from players, and try to force them into all do things the same way. If what they were concerned about was farms being on mult-player servers where they're not wanted, they would have just added a gamerule; instead, they tried to take it away from all players, both those who didn't want them and those who did. That's like saying "You can't use your box of Legos to build a giant robot. You can only build rocketships." Naturally people got angry (except for those people who like the idea of other players being forced to do things the same way they do)
As I said earlier, I don't know anyone who, deciding between two games in the store, has said "well, this one gives me fewer options than that one, so I'll buy this one."
Speaking of forcing other people to do things the way you do: Take it from me, the older you get, the worse that seems to be (certain ideologues and extremists, mostly in politics, to the contrary). First, there's the fact that a person, a government, or a system that can force other people to act how you want can, in turn, force you to act how other people want. The HOA that you support when they tell your neighbor he can't paint his house one color is the same HOA that will tell you that you can't paint your house another color, and you're the one who agreed that this was a good idea ... except you thought it would only apply to other people, not yourself. If I've learned anything in life, it's that there is no One True Way. My language is a language, not the language. The food I like is my favorite, not the best. Take everything from clothing style to religion, and there are as many options as there are people. I've been seeing a lot, in these threads, people who don't recognize that; they automatically assume their preferred gameplay style is the right one. And they're wrong. There is no One True Way.
That's what's so cool about a sandbox game -- a toy, not a game -- we can all play with the same parts, but make different things out of them. I think that's something we don't want to lose.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
You can't really balance a sandbox game, it wouldn't be a sandbox game anymore.
Compare it with lego. There are people who only build what the box was intended to be according to the instructions. They can have a lot of fun with that. One of my three children prefers to play like that. Then there are people who like to build whatever they want and put together bricks from various boxes. My two other children are like that.
MineCraft is similar. Some people like to play it how it is 'intended' to be played (if there is even such a thing) while others like to use it how they please and exploit all the nice mechanisms in the game.
Greetings,
Author of RFTools, RFTools Control, RFTools Dimensions, Deep Resonance, Immersive Craft, CombatHelp, NICE, Aqua Munda, Ariente, XNet, Interaction Wheel, The Lost Cities, Lost Souls, Need To Breathe, EFab, The One Probe and co-author of Not Enough Wands and RF Lux.
YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYMg1JQw3syJBgPeW6m68lA?view_as=subscriber
Support me at my Patreon page (http://www.patreon.com/McJty) or directly on my Paypal account ([email protected]). Thanks
And I'm so old, when I got my first Lego set as a kid, there was no "intended to be..." on the box; it was just an open-ended set of bricks, to build whatever you wanted. (come to think of it, I built a lot of rectangular buildings) The whole idea of Legos as sort of blocky model kits (and now also pink slightly-less-blocky model kits, to remind girls that they're not allowed to play with real Legos) came much later.
Maybe that has influenced how I see Minecraft. My first Lego set wasn't "intended" to build a pirate ship or a rocket ship; it was intended to build ... stuff. Whatever stuff I could imagine. We've been teaching our kids the idea that constraints are a good thing -- you should only build what the picture on the box shows. Do only what you're told. Construct, but don't invent. That can't be good for their imaginations.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
You have a good point there. In games that are supposed to be telling a story (like Skyrim, for example) I prefer to simply play it as it is, respecting the feel of the atmosphere. However, in all other kinds of games (especially competitive ones) I enjoy digesting the mechanics to the bones. Its true that the game is little by little stripped of its atmosphere leaving only the code behind, but that's how I like it. I suppose I just like the feeling of knowing exactly whats going on. At first you process all the data and mechanics consciously, but after a while it goes back to the back of your brain and you analyze the game as it goes subconsciously. At that point the atmosphere returns, but as opposed to being one of uncertainty and skepticism it becomes one of sharpness and clarity.
Some people want to play Minecraft as an immersive world in which they envision themselves as Steve. Some want to feel like minor deities telling Steve what to do. Some want to treat Minecraft as a giant box of Legos. Some want to do other things entirely. One of the reasons for the great success of Minecraft is that it isn't selling to just one of those market segments; not just to the people who want the immersion, or the godhood, or the Legos, or any of the other things; it's selling to all of them, because the game -- the toy -- is different for every player who plays it, or plays with it, differently.
It would be a bad thing to change that.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
I don't take that view. I don't think the community is responsible for the change in irons farms. You never heard any uproar about iron farms being evil before Jeb first mentioned his desire to nerf them. That's when suddenly the hypocrisy started and the most vocal people in here against iron farms are also the ones you can't find anywhere before Jeb started mentioning this issue.
In marketing there is the notion of creating an artificial need where before there was none. It's a great achievement if you come up with a product that generates a new need. It follows that should also be possible to create an artificial dislike where before there was none.
What really happened is that the developers took a stand and an action. It's their prerogative to do so, I'll agree. But there was really never a concrete reason for this change. Most of the arguments the developers use could also be applied to such bug related features as bud switches or water elevators; things we know they won't change. And because of this change -- and because of the inconsistent argumentation by the developers that was never fully analysed by the community -- suddenly a number of Minecraft players were stripped of a mechanism and saw half of the community against them. From being lauded as inventive and creative, they suddenly became cheaters and people who play Minecraft the wrong way.
More troubling than the actual iron farms being nerfed, is this notion we all learned from these threads on the iron farms nerf, that there is a new generation of players who can't really understand Minecraft. People -- almost all relative newcomers to the game -- who didn't experience the days of wonder and discovery, when Minecraft was looked upon as a game of inventiveness and full creativity. And the vibes we are getting from the developers (including Jeb) is that indeed that game is going to die. The new Minecraft will be a game about rules and constrained creativity. All for the sake of... I'm not really sure what anymore.
I think a big part of the problem is that longer-term players (and a few of us newbies; I've only been playing since last summer) are used to Minecraft being a toy: as I've said so many times, like a giant box of Legos. Newer players don't recognize that; they think Minecraft is a game, like Monopoly, and in a game, everyone does the same thing the same way. With a toy, if you don't like playing with it one way ... you don't want to build giant robots ... you just play it another way ... you build spaceships. (or whatever else you like) With a game, your only real choice is to play a different game.
A part of it, I think, is that the earlier players are chronologically older. When I was a kid, your box of Legos was just that, a big box of multi-colored bricks, This ad has been making the rounds:
Now, though, Legos have been turned into sort of blocky model kits. When I wandered through the Lego stuff in Target the other day (I was checking to see if they had the MC ones, okay?) there were just all sorts of item-specific kits: you can build this robot or that space station, but the whole point is to replicate what you see on the box. It used to be there was no right and wrong way to play with Legos; now there is. Doing what the box shows is right; not doing it is wrong. The people who use them learn how to construct, but not create.
That's carrying over into the same people's reactions to the nerfs in Minecraft. They think there is only one right way to play with a toy, because that's what they've been taught by the toys they play with. In fact, for a lot of them, everything they do is structured by outsiders. They grew up with "play dates" with neighborhood children; we just went out and played. They have organized sports, encouraging strict adherence to a set of rules, instead of a football game with however many people happen to be there. And they don't understand why other people shouldn't be required to do things exactly the same way they do them, because isn't that how everything is?
And no, it isn't. You don't just build "Gorzan's Gorilla Striker" with Legos; you build whatever the heck you want. Except, of course, if the box only has the pieces to make that bike ... which is how Legos are now. And it's what Jeb wants to turn Minecraft into.
Of course some of us don't like that.
The golden age: it's not the game, it's you ⋆ Why Minecraft should not be harder ⋆ Spelling hints
Also, considering the Reddit community raged at Jeb like a bunch of 5 year olds not getting their vanilla icecream, I'm not surprised he changed it back. He probably got so shocked seeing how immature the community could be that he reverted the [much needed] change.