I like ScotsMiser 's describing of a phrase of "trading life," being a thing for villagers. It's an Interest Filter, feels like to me (of these New stuff, regarding Villagers).
Some of the people will get bored, of waiting 1 /2 to 1 MC day (10-20 min's. I guess not 5-10 of its daytime), and not-bother to Trade, as much. Some will get-annoyed at having-waited - Traded - but then having to re-wait.
To me, the clearest indication that Mojang's attempting to validate this waiting Itself - "patience is its own reward," I just hope it's not-only rewarded by more patience - is the "Hero of the Village" Effect, after ending a Raid By killing the Illagers (dunno if "drinking Milk" is still a-thing, for that, countering that "Bad Omen," Effect), when the Trades are better-deals I think Both ways (buying /selling), for the Player. It's Trying to give us reasons to wait-around, Rather-than retreat-out of Village-range entirely, to Bases-wherever, more-or-less immediately.
I plan on carrying about a half-Stack or more of Emeralds (gleaned from former-Trading, likely across-Villages, Definitely gonna need Nether Portals, between-multiples, perhaps-even going in a row, when-better, a.k.a. "triangle /quadrangle trade") to take-advantage of this, Whenever possible - Just "On Me" (in Inv'y. - say Ender Chest, for safekeeping - yeah) - all the time. But it's like a "half-life," or something, and now it's not-just the resources-gathering, and quick relatively-little trips in-and-out, Trading.
We gotta - like - "set up a 'store (or at least storehouse) '," for ourselves, make "strongholds" (of our own), now that there's an entier "economic system," being created /so-far Tested, in the Snapshots (for 1.14). And more-collaboratively Trade - not just in stuff-and-Emeralds - but preserving (most of, clearly also from above) the lives of the Villagers or learning how-to get-away with Not-fully doing-so, and part of me's wondering whether it's worth it to Lead-in a couple of Iron Golems, for longer Trading trips, via Nether (Wiki doesn't say we can't: just ".. bats, Cod, Salmon, squids[Java, and Legacy Console editions only], skeleton horses, and turtles. Additionally, villagers and hostile mobs ..").
We'd not be Wandering Traders. Either not just Randomly-Wandering, and /or not-just only-ever Traders (and other would-be - of - former Trading mechanics, alone).
Yilante, is there a reason you over-format your posts so much? There's so much extra marking up in there (combined with you using that marking up as an excuse to not make actual sentences) that it actually makes your post very difficult to read. I literally looked your post over and wanted to comment about it, but I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say at all, because literally every sentence you put in there was chopped up by another sentence in parenthesis, underlines, and quotes that aren't necessary.
You could get as many trades as you want out of a villager, which is the entire point. There is literally no reason to change it to where they only restock twice per day except to deliberately target the endgame players that have the resources to make trading networks.
Firstly, I and all other console players can't "just play on 1.13.2", we're forced into whatever the latest update is. Secondly, doing so would mean we'd never get updates again, and if you thought about that for more than two seconds you'd realize how massive of a sacrifice that would be.
I don't see how these new mechanics are a problem for villager trading halls AT ALL.
The only changes that will need to be made will be:
- Add more farmers, as the other guy said already.
- Give the villagers workstations in their respective slots.
- Possibly add Wandering Traders to halls.
I'm not a fan of the new "restock only twice a day" mechanic, but honestly, how many trades could you get out of a villager, per day, before?
Yes, that's what I thought.
Also, if you don't like the new trading mechanics anyway, just play on 1.13.2 and never play on a later release. It's not that hard!
The changes for a trading hall will more likely be:
each villager will require a 2x2 area rather than a 1x1 (each requires a bed, a valid space next to the bed and a workstation). [This may drop to 1x3 if work stations can be part of the walls]
Farmers may also need at least a square of tilled land (thi spoint is not clear at present).
The above effect (taken alone) raises the space needed per villager from 3x2 (incuding walls on three sides and figuring the fourth is provided 'free' be the next trading station) to 4x3 (same assumptions), an increase of 100% [If 1x3 is viable this drops to a 67% increase (5x2 stations)…]
This does not include access aisles for the player or 'on-site' storage for trade goods.
Further, because villagers now seem to lock completely on a regular basis, a rationaly designed farm will need provisions for removing and replacing villagers on a regular basis. [With the old system total trade locking was so rare as to be ignorable, and villagers were generally only moved into a trade station once. Under these conditions, much simpler systems for getting the villagers into and out of the hall are acceptable as (while the time spent on moving a villager may be significant) this was usually a one time cost.]
This will mean that a simple trading floor (floor proper, two levels for the villagers/player, roof) will now also require an addition al 6 layers minimum (three above to insert villagers & three below to remove them). The hall will thus increase from 4 levels to 10, a 250% increase.
The assumptions above about the size of individual trading stations did not included the insertion/removal mechaninisms; the simplest of these would be sticky pistons and would increase the minimum width of the player access aisle from one to either three or four (300% of 400% increase) [As the pistons would normally need to be extended, adding/removing RSblocks would not be viable.]
Next the number of trades available needs to be factored in.
Villagers sleep ~11/24 of the MC day (ticks 13000-24000) ~46% of the time during which no trades are available.
Assuming a trade can be used 2-12 ties before locking [anectodal information suggests this aspect has also been subject to griefing, but hard & reliable numbers are not available {AFAIK}], this gives an average of 14 uses for a trade per day assuming the villager does not lock up and need to be replaced.
In comparison, a single villager in pre-1.14 could be traded with for 2-12 times as many times as one cared to refresh the trades and had trade goods with which to do so. As example:
144 paper trades in ~10 IRL minutes is easily achievable, with glass being used as the reset trade. [Typical results for a 24paper/5glass librarian turn a chest of paper (3456 items) into ~7 stacks (448) glass blocks at a net gain of ~1/4 stack 16 emeralds.]
Making the same number of trades under the new 'improved' 1.14 system would require ~10 MC days (3-1/3 IRL hours) assuming no lock-outs. [This also assumes that one would be trading with an optimal librarian (24paper/5glass), highly unlikely when the average villager seems to lock-up after only a few cycles.]
Not relevant to game mechanics, but this shift also encourages players to move from a paradign of seeing villagers as a talent pool from which they 'hire', protect, value, and trade with (on a long term basis) the most competent villagers to an exploitive paradigm where maximum profit /success is attained by treating villagers as a succession of 'average' 'units' to be used until they drop (lock-up) and then replaced.
Hardly in keeping with the image one would think MS/Mj wants to project. [Or one into which parents would wish their children to become indoctinated…]
WRT the "if you don't like the new trading mechanics anyway, just play on 1.13.2 and never play on a later release" crack:
The reverse of this sentiment is that: "If MS/Mj wishes to grief villager-tech and iron farming, just relaese an official mod pack and leave the mainline game forever free of such bilge."
If you advance the one argument, you must accept the other.
If one accepts both (either one of which would fragment the MC community even further), it raises the question of which of the corporate startegies outlined here MS/Mj is pursuing…
…or whether they have indeed gone "out of there minds".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
As someone who has never made a giant Villager trading... Thing (I don't know what you would call it), I'm curious as to the end goal of it. I mean the end goal is obviously to get lots of specific items quickly, but how many of the items are actually worth it and for how long? Yeah a Mending book is an awesome thing to get early but how many do you need? Maybe 20, which is basically enough for 2 sets of Diamond armor, and 2 swords, bows, picks, axes, shovels, and tridents.
I don't know enough about this to say if it is good or bad, but there just seems like a point where doing large scale villager trades would run out of usefulness. I mean, most of the items offered are things I would never want to buy or farm to sell to begin with.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
As someone who has never made a giant Villager trading... Thing (I don't know what you would call it), I'm curious as to the end goal of it. I mean the end goal is obviously to get lots of specific items quickly, but how many of the items are actually worth it and for how long? Yeah a Mending book is an awesome thing to get early but how many do you need? Maybe 20, which is basically enough for 2 sets of Diamond armor, and 2 swords, bows, picks, axes, shovels, and tridents.
I don't know enough about this to say if it is good or bad, but there just seems like a point where doing large scale villager trades would run out of usefulness. I mean, most of the items offered are things I would never want to buy or farm to sell to begin with.
I think it depends on your interests, abilities and environment.
As a slightly clumsy laptop owner, a collection of smiths and librarians sounds like a good, if expensive, insurance policy. (I've been avoiding combat for most of the past year.)
As someone who has never made a giant Villager trading... Thing (I don't know what you would call it), I'm curious as to the end goal of it. I mean the end goal is obviously to get lots of specific items quickly, but how many of the items are actually worth it and for how long? Yeah a Mending book is an awesome thing to get early but how many do you need? Maybe 20, which is basically enough for 2 sets of Diamond armor, and 2 swords, bows, picks, axes, shovels, and tridents.
I don't know enough about this to say if it is good or bad, but there just seems like a point where doing large scale villager trades would run out of usefulness. I mean, most of the items offered are things I would never want to buy or farm to sell to begin with.
The items are only one third of the equation. The other two thirds are rapid easy exp for enchanting and repairing mending tools/armor/elytra, and emeralds for beacons.
With the incoming changes to villager trading as they stand now, only the item portion of the equation will be only moderately affected, while the exp and emerald parts will become not even a sad limp shadow of their former selves, hence my loud protesting.
I'm not a fan of the new "restock only twice a day" mechanic, but honestly, how many trades could you get out of a villager, per day, before?
I regularly trade an entire inventory's worth of wheat and sometimes other items (e.g. I kill around 200 chickens to wear down a diamond sword so i can use it to repair my main sword, which is otherwise too expensive unless I use 1-2 single diamonds) for emeralds when I return to my main base in my first world; I accumulate the wheat at a secondary base and craft several stacks of hay bales by the time I return; and since 18 wheat can be traded for an emerald this means that I can trade upwards of 100 times within a few minutes (I still play in 1.6.4 so you can have "perfect" villagers, meaning that when their final offer becomes locked you can just close the GUI and wait a few seconds for them to refresh their trades, then trade again, over and over).
In my case I also just trade for fun, with the exception of getting my own version of Mending in a modded world (based on 1.6.4), which is the only time I've intentionally traded for an item which is otherwise difficult to get (only found in chest loot in this case) and I consider to be absolutely necessary (in my first world I started trading for diamond gear, of which all pieces can be bought (so this isn't even the first nerf to trading since then), when I came across a villager selling diamond pickaxes more than two years after I started playing; diamonds themselves are like coal to me in that I mine far more than I can ever use though normal gameplay despite not using Fortune).
Of course, I'm also very against change, as evidenced by the fact I still play in a 5+ year old version and "update" the game on my own (I call 1.7 "the update that ruined the underground"), with the additions to TMCW mostly being for fun or to show how I think Mojang could have implemented something (e.g. Mending as a direct replacement for the ability to rename an item and keep the cost down, instead of magically repairing items with any number of enchantments for the same rate; or diamond items being nerfed and replaced with a higher tier which is only obtainable by mining or very rare mob drops to offset diamond being easy to obtain for me; I'm also very much of the "Minecraft is about caving/mining" mentality and have nerfed resource farms, which I never use, including XP farms (trading also yields no XP in 1.6.4), to that effect; villager trading is not the same since I have to put a lot of time into manually growing and harvesting materials, which shows up when comparing my average mining rates to overall playtime (a good estimate of the amount of time I actually spend caving) for my first world to worlds where I don't trade).
As someone who has never made a giant Villager trading... Thing (I don't know what you would call it), I'm curious as to the end goal of it. I mean the end goal is obviously to get lots of specific items quickly, but how many of the items are actually worth it and for how long? Yeah a Mending book is an awesome thing to get early but how many do you need? Maybe 20, which is basically enough for 2 sets of Diamond armor, and 2 swords, bows, picks, axes, shovels, and tridents.
I don't know enough about this to say if it is good or bad, but there just seems like a point where doing large scale villager trades would run out of usefulness. I mean, most of the items offered are things I would never want to buy or farm to sell to begin with.
Not tremedously importtant to the discussion, but "trading hall" is the term I find most commonly used.
DapperDinosaur has pointed out the utility as a ready source of Xp (probably replacable by the new furnace mechanics) and emerald blocks (I use iron for beacons generally, but find using emerald blocks for the corners of nether builds helps make them visible [and cuts down on Eek, a ghast moments. ;P ]).
For trading as trading, I think it is useful to distinguish between SSP and SMP scenarios, with SMP being essentially additioning some further considerations.
While the number of Mending books needed is comparatively small, a pre-1.14 villager will only allow a trade to be used 2-12 times before it needs to reset. Even for one player, I think the 20 count is low: this may be a playstyle thing as I like to keep a sword optimized for a specific use at each mob farm (eg. Bane5/etc at a spider farm); keep separate sets of armor & equipment for nether use.
Mending is, however, one of the most used books; many others (Flame, Smite, Bane, Looting) are much more special purpose.
None of this addresses the main issue that it is not the ability to get scads of a particular enchantment, but the ability to have a long term reliable source when one does need a book.
There are other items where villager trading can greatly reduce the need to waste due to haulage (and avoid 'environmental damage'): ie moving a 24paper/5glass librarian (or near to this) to the site of a large build and setting up a cane farm.
Lapis (for dye pre1.14), glowstone, redstone are also in this catagory. (Adding saddles and nametags for the non-auto-fishers.)
Ender pearls are a special case as they are only difficult to come by in the pre-Dragon-killed phase(s) of the game. During those phases, however a reliable way to get a pearl or two can save a great deal of boredom (particularly post MobB).
All of the above also apply in SMP at a more intense level as the demand from one player is multiplied. (In PvP scenarios demand gets much high due to regular loss/destruction of equipment and – potentially – villagers.)
Villager breeders and trading halls will become larger.
Villager breeders and trading halls will become more numerous.
Computational load (and associated lag) will increase.
A new form of griefing will be created.
Large SMP servers will become rarer.
Many mods will not be updated.
Player cooperation (and interaction will) decline.
To which I will add:
Long term world development will be adversly impacted.
For the second major update in a row MS/Mj has made changes to longstanding game rules (the basic 'physics') that govern what is/is not possible and useful/fun to build in a world. (Hunger was introduced in Beta 1.8 and may be seen as coming before the actual official release [1.0.0], the only other comparable change was 1.9 combat [which continues to be divisive more than three years later]. Changes to enchanting and brewing were both comparatively minor, one could still 'get' all the old stuff, just through an additional hoop.)
For most players (those who spend only a few to several hours a week playing) this means that they will not be able to bring their worlds forward into the new editions without either a long IRL period (or a shorter period of creative 'cheating') devoted to fixing all the things MS/Mj has decided to grief. Such players will have three basic options:
1) ignore the new edition at the cost of further fragmenting the MC community;
2) abandon their work, which calls strongly into question the wisdom of building anything time consuming or costly in the new version as that too is likely to be griefed when the newer new version is released;
3) waste their playtime rebuilding to the new rules of the moment.
There is also a 'meta' impact to be considered.
Teaching children [the game is rated E10] that hard work and careful effort can be arbitarily griefed by an unanswerable governing body may [sickening as that prospect is] be an accurate introduction to 'the real world', but is antithetical to the principles on which advanced civilization is founded.
(The changes made to the 1.14 golem generation rules just after docm77 illustrated how high efficiency iron farms were still possible after the first round of nerfing/griefing also leave a very bad taste of MS/Mj specifically targeting a certain class of players.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
As much as I think Scot is fearmongering and being a bit of a drama queen (think of the children, really?), the gist of what he said is accurate. There is no upside to the villager changes other than their trades being visible from the start.
The only way I can see these changes being a net positive is if the supply and demand cost really can go all the way down to 1, as mentioned by another user. That will be the ONLY situation where these changes won't just be an enormous unwarranted and unwanted net nerf to the whole thing.
As much as I think Scot is fearmongering and being a bit of a drama queen (think of the children, really?), the gist of what he said is accurate. There is no upside to the villager changes other than their trades being visible from the start.
MS/Mj introduced "think of the children" as a valid argument when they justified not adding sharks.
If MS/Mj is going to claim credit for socially responsible actions, it is only fair and logical that they accept blame for socially irresponsible actions…
(Or those that can be seen as such.)
As to it being a hyperbolic rhetorical technique, again MS/Mj introduced this when it was in furtherance of their desired objective. [Nor were they the first to do so, the whole 'violence in video games is bad' movement is based on logic far more strained than I employ.]
Again, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
Not to mention that the opportunity to hoist said parties by their own petards is not to be lightly foregone…
Now bringing in Winnie Churchhill and Elie Wiesel, that would have been fearmongering worthy of a drama queen… [Glad to see the PC thought police don't yet have that one on their list.]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
Yes, and literally everyone called that stupidity out immediately. Following suit is not in your best interest when presenting an argument. It removes validity from you when the other side just sees a bunch of hyperbole.
Yes, and literally everyone called that stupidity out immediately. Following suit is not in your best interest when presenting an argument. It removes validity from you when the other side just sees a bunch of hyperbole.
You might want to check the meaning of the word "literally"… literally.
While it is true that a great many who share our opinion of the inapplicability of the argument were quick to point out their positions, some of the most important people (ie the developers emplying the argument) would seem likely to have sprained their shoulders (two each) patting themselves on the back. [An activity in which they were joined by a number of players…]
It should also be noted that hyperbolic language is that which "exaggerates or overstates the truth" ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbolic ), thus leaving the basic idea that teaching the futility of "hard work and careful effort" under conditions subject to arbitrary change is contrary to the best interest of society intact. [I appear to have more confidence than do you in the ability of the reader to separate the rhetorical flourish from the basic truth.]
As you raise the subject of 'best practices' for advancing one's agenda, we appear to differ not only on the utility of rhetorical flourishes, playing a long game on multiple fronts, and injecting an element of humor into one's arguments, but also the advisibility of name-calling and attacking one's allies-of-the-moment…
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
MS/Mj introduced "think of the children" as a valid argument when they justified not adding sharks.
For a little bit of background, I'm a casual user, I play MC with my 6yo boy and I'm strongly against overprotecting children IRL since I prefer to teach him how to act safely and in a responsible manner rather than removing all possible threads.
That being said, I have a somewhat middle ground position regarding the "think of the children others" argument here. On one side, I think children can make a distinction between the game world and the real world. And I'm not too worried about building a mob farm. On the other hand, related to personal family history, I understand some people around me would be shocked by the idea or "raising" villagers. We may argue if they would be shocked for valid reasons or not regarding our point of view. But they would be shocked.
For me, Minecraft is a game that encourages creativity and that stimulates cognitive abilities. But that remains a game. Something to be done for pleasure. If we have to reduce a little bit our pleasure to reduce other people's discomfort, it does not seem a price that high to pay. Especially in that case, since, if I understand it well, it just makes things harder, not impossible. And making a thing harder is a way to make it less popular, hence dismantling the idea it is the normal way of playing.
I've also been very vocal about hating the new trading system, but my wife and I started a new world yesterday and found a village right off the bat and I figured it was time for me to get a little serious about trying the new trading, especially with the little bit of polishing. And after a few hours, I had 2 Master librarian, master Farmer, and master tool smith. Right off the bat put a ton of sugar cane down and it spreads and expands quickly so that got the two librarians to master before the end of session.
And my thought on them were that it was easy as pie to "master" them, but a whole world slower then before, that resetting up to 2 times per day, which was more like 1 time per day was ungodly slow, but doable, and extremely sad that both of them only had 2 enchanted book options as compared to 3 before, also pulled a mending too :D. But as for master weapon smith, he started asking for coal and iron, the coal is hard to come by so quickly, and I hadn't yet realized that he levels up slow with the weaker trades, once I finally was willing to part with iron that I'm usually stingy with, he shot up to master and had his diamond axe and sword unlocked easily and quickly, just a couple weapon smiths on the world and spending a tiny bit of coal and iron and they level up to master with ease, but still slower then before. Then the farmer is wayy slower then before, and not so easily exploitable, but still sooo easy to trade with, numbers aren't quite as favorable either, but with them having "sales" it gets crazy, 5 pumpkins for an emerald is easy to max out per day, along with melons, which my guy sells for 3. So between melons, carrots, pumpkins, wheat, potato, and beets should be maxed out every single day.
Resetting that everyday, is also a different approach, there'd be trading sessions before where I'd spend as many emeralds with some villagers unlocking the trades I want, now you just give it time and don't waste emeralds, and on top of that with all the extra trades they've added in it's a catch. More trades for emeralds, less worry about having to spend emeralds to hope for a reset, rather time and work station takes care of that.
It is what it is, it's slower, but a little bit of thinking and extra work and you can reap benefits very similar. More likely to stack up on farmers and such rather then just rely on one single version.
That's at least my thought on starting a new world and working with trading exclusively for the first few hours, my experience would of only been better and faster had I already had crops, or farms, or tools to speed up the process.
You might want to check the meaning of the word "literally"… literally.
While it is true that a great many who share our opinion of the inapplicability of the argument were quick to point out their positions, some of the most important people (ie the developers emplying the argument) would seem likely to have sprained their shoulders (two each) patting themselves on the back. [An activity in which they were joined by a number of players…]
It should also be noted that hyperbolic language is that which "exaggerates or overstates the truth" ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbolic ), thus leaving the basic idea that teaching the futility of "hard work and careful effort" under conditions subject to arbitrary change is contrary to the best interest of society intact. [I appear to have more confidence than do you in the ability of the reader to separate the rhetorical flourish from the basic truth.]
As you raise the subject of 'best practices' for advancing one's agenda, we appear to differ not only on the utility of rhetorical flourishes, playing a long game on multiple fronts, and injecting an element of humor into one's arguments, but also the advisibility of name-calling and attacking one's allies-of-the-moment…
I didn't see a single non-Mojang person defending or echoing the reasoning behind not adding sharks in the 11+ page topic it had at the time, and everywhere else it was mentioned were in posts dripping with disdain and sarcasm for said reasoning. I think it goes without saying that "literally everyone" is a valid statement when people hired by Mojang obviously had no power to speak their mind about it without fear of repercussions.
You WERE using hyperbole. Children are not going to be affected in any way by any of the changes being made to the game. You admitted that it's a stupid argument and the only reason you made it is because Mojang did it first, when by all accounts as already discussed, it was a stupid, flawed, and weak argument. You claiming children will in any way change or learn behaviors based on what happens in Minecraft IS hyperbole, not to mention grandstanding. That's like the people that say kids shoot up schools because they play violent videogames, despite not one single scientific study backing that statement up and dozens discrediting it.
"rhetorical flourish" meaning extreme nitpicking?
When I said you were a drama queen, I did say "a bit". It was a comment about the absurdity of your reference to children being affected by these decisions, it was very mild at worst. I also did not attack you, I said I disagreed with your approach while I simultaneously sided with your general viewpoints.
If you really wanted to see what it looks like when I attack someone, it would have to be on a forum that doesn't have the most overreaching moderation among any forum I've ever been to.
That seems to be largely in accord withsome of my predictions:
Villagers lock trades when 'maxed out' and are slow to reset, requiring many more villagers for a player to get the same throughput as before.
This, however, suggests to me a very different playstyle from what is being blocked.
Quote from ChewsGrind »
Resetting that everyday, is also a different approach, there'd be trading sessions before where I'd spend as many emeralds with some villagers unlocking the trades I want, now you just give it time and don't waste emeralds, and on top of that with all the extra trades they've added in it's a catch. More trades for emeralds, less worry about having to spend emeralds to hope for a reset, rather time and work station takes care of that.
Even early-on with purely manual farms, I've never found emeralds to be the constraining factor.
What the new system does is require either greatly expanded halls/breeders (with comensurate lag increases) or greatly increased expenditure of player time (most of it waiting for trades to renew). [Or some combination.]
It will be interesting to see if the problems with villagers fully locking (and not then unlocking) earlier reported have been fixed… if so, the need to jealously guard one's special librarians would largely be removed.
[The new limits on throughput for quantity items remain problematic, however.]
§ § § § §
@DD
Please avoid putting words in my mouth. (Or presuming to know the minds of others…)
My claim that children will learn behaviors from playing games is born out by various examples [In one case a woman cited the need to replant trees to ensure a continuing supply of torches as teaching her youngster about preplanning/sustainability. see also https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Tutorials/Minecraft_in_education (Non-MC examples aboud as well, including such things as teaching addition and basic numeracy as part of movement in Monopoly®.)]
That the negative example I cited cannot (yet) be proved does not prevent it from being a reasonable prediction.
That a misuse of an argument*1 forever invalidates reasonable uses of the argument is also incorrect.
BTB, the proper meaning of literally is "using the real or original meaning of a word or phrase" thus "literally everyone" would properly mean everyone in the lteral sense of all persons without exception.
You might find looking up the meaning of "rhetorical flourish" to also be useful. ["Hoist with his owne petar." could also be informative, but requires a bit more familiarity with debate tactics than I am seeing…]
*1ie that adding sharks a dangerous-in-real-life (but very rare) interaction to a game that already includes many similarly dangerous-in-real-life behaviors (many comparatively common ie working high above ground, solo caving, diving without a buddy etc) represents unacceptable risk
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
I would like for a different approach with say seeds/crops being tiered or otherwise instead of the villager levels if it were me implementing it, but I know how annoying it would be rather than accessible since making it tiered makes it awkward. Like for example Wheat is tier 1, but obviously Carrots, Potatoes are top tier, Beetroot isn't used too much, Sugar Cane & Cactus I'm not too sure as it depends on the World Gen. We do have tiers for items/blocks like Golden Apples, Beacons with the Blue, Purple and Yellow text, and Advancements to make it clear what you can do in the game/have goals so I guess a tier system could work but not blocking out the past ways to get them with Wheat seeds from grass still and Carrots/Potatoes/Beetroot being in Villages but for special potion kinds maybe? But at the same time would players want that, I don't think so but it would give you a reason to trade I guess... To me if I have say Iron over Diamond I'm not disappointed if I struggle to get any or don't always have the patience/luck of finding them inbetween mining runs with breaking picks all the time, at least so it's why I got to thinking tiers for trades to add depth, on top of the roles with Villager tiers of belt buckles existing already.
Repeating a bit of the tier idea:
I'd say for 'Crop Trades' I'd have it where Wheat is tier 1 but is accessible with grass anyways still, carrots, potatoes and beetroot are at villages or from zombies now but could be different tiers but I know it could ruin accessibility, you don't use beetroot much anyways besides a bowl and red dye and Carrots and Potatoes are great and have enough to them for what you want out of them so it could work there. I feel if they gave them the depth I'd consider it would be locking out things too much but would give the Trades a purpose, but at the same time guides you as long as the trades are easier to go with 2 seeds or so (for example sake) to get a carrot maybe?
Other Thoughts:
The problem with trades maybe is when you get a mob farm and trade mob drops for emeralds (thinking Release 1.8+ era trading) it was ok but as someone that doesn't make mob farms I rarely bothered to get emeralds not because I didn't always have the mob drops but also never knew what to trade like many players I guess.
I find mob drops in mods to be awkward where I don't find a witch that rarely spawns for me to be an obstacle, or a modded mob I never see much if the biome doesn't come up, but I can craft it instead even if a bit tedious so I guess an obstacle like a trade and accessible crafting option could work but it would be pointless maybe for 2 instead of 1 way to get something, I don't know.
To me the roles are greater than before and the levelling to get more trades or discounts existing from the village saving is good, but trades are going to be tricky no matter what to balance I think, or at least the way Mojang goes about it makes me think it is harder than it seems when it really shouldn't be.
I don't know what to think, and how they can balance it, but still make it accessible or clear what is the goal of getting an item but with trades.
Note: I had to re-type this 3 times to make sure I knew what I wanted to say so if it's off that's why.
I like ScotsMiser 's describing of a phrase of "trading life," being a thing for villagers. It's an Interest Filter, feels like to me (of these New stuff, regarding Villagers).
Some of the people will get bored, of waiting 1 /2 to 1 MC day (10-20 min's. I guess not 5-10 of its daytime), and not-bother to Trade, as much. Some will get-annoyed at having-waited - Traded - but then having to re-wait.
To me, the clearest indication that Mojang's attempting to validate this waiting Itself - "patience is its own reward," I just hope it's not-only rewarded by more patience - is the "Hero of the Village" Effect, after ending a Raid By killing the Illagers (dunno if "drinking Milk" is still a-thing, for that, countering that "Bad Omen," Effect), when the Trades are better-deals I think Both ways (buying /selling), for the Player. It's Trying to give us reasons to wait-around, Rather-than retreat-out of Village-range entirely, to Bases-wherever, more-or-less immediately.
I plan on carrying about a half-Stack or more of Emeralds (gleaned from former-Trading, likely across-Villages, Definitely gonna need Nether Portals, between-multiples, perhaps-even going in a row, when-better, a.k.a. "triangle /quadrangle trade") to take-advantage of this, Whenever possible - Just "On Me" (in Inv'y. - say Ender Chest, for safekeeping - yeah) - all the time. But it's like a "half-life," or something, and now it's not-just the resources-gathering, and quick relatively-little trips in-and-out, Trading.
We gotta - like - "set up a 'store (or at least storehouse) '," for ourselves, make "strongholds" (of our own), now that there's an entier "economic system," being created /so-far Tested, in the Snapshots (for 1.14). And more-collaboratively Trade - not just in stuff-and-Emeralds - but preserving (most of, clearly also from above) the lives of the Villagers or learning how-to get-away with Not-fully doing-so, and part of me's wondering whether it's worth it to Lead-in a couple of Iron Golems, for longer Trading trips, via Nether (Wiki doesn't say we can't: just ".. bats, Cod, Salmon, squids[Java, and Legacy Console editions only], skeleton horses, and turtles. Additionally, villagers and hostile mobs ..").
We'd not be Wandering Traders. Either not just Randomly-Wandering, and /or not-just only-ever Traders (and other would-be - of - former Trading mechanics, alone).
Yilante, is there a reason you over-format your posts so much? There's so much extra marking up in there (combined with you using that marking up as an excuse to not make actual sentences) that it actually makes your post very difficult to read. I literally looked your post over and wanted to comment about it, but I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say at all, because literally every sentence you put in there was chopped up by another sentence in parenthesis, underlines, and quotes that aren't necessary.
I don't see how these new mechanics are a problem for villager trading halls AT ALL.
The only changes that will need to be made will be:
- Add more farmers, as the other guy said already.
- Give the villagers workstations in their respective slots.
- Possibly add Wandering Traders to halls.
I'm not a fan of the new "restock only twice a day" mechanic, but honestly, how many trades could you get out of a villager, per day, before?
Yes, that's what I thought.
Also, if you don't like the new trading mechanics anyway, just play on 1.13.2 and never play on a later release. It's not that hard!
Who's that behind you?
You could get as many trades as you want out of a villager, which is the entire point. There is literally no reason to change it to where they only restock twice per day except to deliberately target the endgame players that have the resources to make trading networks.
Firstly, I and all other console players can't "just play on 1.13.2", we're forced into whatever the latest update is. Secondly, doing so would mean we'd never get updates again, and if you thought about that for more than two seconds you'd realize how massive of a sacrifice that would be.
The changes for a trading hall will more likely be:
each villager will require a 2x2 area rather than a 1x1 (each requires a bed, a valid space next to the bed and a workstation). [This may drop to 1x3 if work stations can be part of the walls]
Farmers may also need at least a square of tilled land (thi spoint is not clear at present).
The above effect (taken alone) raises the space needed per villager from 3x2 (incuding walls on three sides and figuring the fourth is provided 'free' be the next trading station) to 4x3 (same assumptions), an increase of 100% [If 1x3 is viable this drops to a 67% increase (5x2 stations)…]
This does not include access aisles for the player or 'on-site' storage for trade goods.
Further, because villagers now seem to lock completely on a regular basis, a rationaly designed farm will need provisions for removing and replacing villagers on a regular basis. [With the old system total trade locking was so rare as to be ignorable, and villagers were generally only moved into a trade station once. Under these conditions, much simpler systems for getting the villagers into and out of the hall are acceptable as (while the time spent on moving a villager may be significant) this was usually a one time cost.]
This will mean that a simple trading floor (floor proper, two levels for the villagers/player, roof) will now also require an addition al 6 layers minimum (three above to insert villagers & three below to remove them). The hall will thus increase from 4 levels to 10, a 250% increase.
The assumptions above about the size of individual trading stations did not included the insertion/removal mechaninisms; the simplest of these would be sticky pistons and would increase the minimum width of the player access aisle from one to either three or four (300% of 400% increase) [As the pistons would normally need to be extended, adding/removing RSblocks would not be viable.]
Next the number of trades available needs to be factored in.
Villagers sleep ~11/24 of the MC day (ticks 13000-24000) ~46% of the time during which no trades are available.
Assuming a trade can be used 2-12 ties before locking [anectodal information suggests this aspect has also been subject to griefing, but hard & reliable numbers are not available {AFAIK}], this gives an average of 14 uses for a trade per day assuming the villager does not lock up and need to be replaced.
In comparison, a single villager in pre-1.14 could be traded with for 2-12 times as many times as one cared to refresh the trades and had trade goods with which to do so. As example:
144 paper trades in ~10 IRL minutes is easily achievable, with glass being used as the reset trade. [Typical results for a 24paper/5glass librarian turn a chest of paper (3456 items) into ~7 stacks (448) glass blocks at a net gain of ~1/4 stack 16 emeralds.]
Making the same number of trades under the new 'improved' 1.14 system would require ~10 MC days (3-1/3 IRL hours) assuming no lock-outs. [This also assumes that one would be trading with an optimal librarian (24paper/5glass), highly unlikely when the average villager seems to lock-up after only a few cycles.]
Not relevant to game mechanics, but this shift also encourages players to move from a paradign of seeing villagers as a talent pool from which they 'hire', protect, value, and trade with (on a long term basis) the most competent villagers to an exploitive paradigm where maximum profit /success is attained by treating villagers as a succession of 'average' 'units' to be used until they drop (lock-up) and then replaced.
Hardly in keeping with the image one would think MS/Mj wants to project. [Or one into which parents would wish their children to become indoctinated…]
WRT the "if you don't like the new trading mechanics anyway, just play on 1.13.2 and never play on a later release" crack:
The reverse of this sentiment is that: "If MS/Mj wishes to grief villager-tech and iron farming, just relaese an official mod pack and leave the mainline game forever free of such bilge."
If you advance the one argument, you must accept the other.
If one accepts both (either one of which would fragment the MC community even further), it raises the question of which of the corporate startegies outlined here MS/Mj is pursuing…
…or whether they have indeed gone "out of there minds".
As someone who has never made a giant Villager trading... Thing (I don't know what you would call it), I'm curious as to the end goal of it. I mean the end goal is obviously to get lots of specific items quickly, but how many of the items are actually worth it and for how long? Yeah a Mending book is an awesome thing to get early but how many do you need? Maybe 20, which is basically enough for 2 sets of Diamond armor, and 2 swords, bows, picks, axes, shovels, and tridents.
I don't know enough about this to say if it is good or bad, but there just seems like a point where doing large scale villager trades would run out of usefulness. I mean, most of the items offered are things I would never want to buy or farm to sell to begin with.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
I think it depends on your interests, abilities and environment.
As a slightly clumsy laptop owner, a collection of smiths and librarians sounds like a good, if expensive, insurance policy. (I've been avoiding combat for most of the past year.)
The items are only one third of the equation. The other two thirds are rapid easy exp for enchanting and repairing mending tools/armor/elytra, and emeralds for beacons.
With the incoming changes to villager trading as they stand now, only the item portion of the equation will be only moderately affected, while the exp and emerald parts will become not even a sad limp shadow of their former selves, hence my loud protesting.
I regularly trade an entire inventory's worth of wheat and sometimes other items (e.g. I kill around 200 chickens to wear down a diamond sword so i can use it to repair my main sword, which is otherwise too expensive unless I use 1-2 single diamonds) for emeralds when I return to my main base in my first world; I accumulate the wheat at a secondary base and craft several stacks of hay bales by the time I return; and since 18 wheat can be traded for an emerald this means that I can trade upwards of 100 times within a few minutes (I still play in 1.6.4 so you can have "perfect" villagers, meaning that when their final offer becomes locked you can just close the GUI and wait a few seconds for them to refresh their trades, then trade again, over and over).
In my case I also just trade for fun, with the exception of getting my own version of Mending in a modded world (based on 1.6.4), which is the only time I've intentionally traded for an item which is otherwise difficult to get (only found in chest loot in this case) and I consider to be absolutely necessary (in my first world I started trading for diamond gear, of which all pieces can be bought (so this isn't even the first nerf to trading since then), when I came across a villager selling diamond pickaxes more than two years after I started playing; diamonds themselves are like coal to me in that I mine far more than I can ever use though normal gameplay despite not using Fortune).
Of course, I'm also very against change, as evidenced by the fact I still play in a 5+ year old version and "update" the game on my own (I call 1.7 "the update that ruined the underground"), with the additions to TMCW mostly being for fun or to show how I think Mojang could have implemented something (e.g. Mending as a direct replacement for the ability to rename an item and keep the cost down, instead of magically repairing items with any number of enchantments for the same rate; or diamond items being nerfed and replaced with a higher tier which is only obtainable by mining or very rare mob drops to offset diamond being easy to obtain for me; I'm also very much of the "Minecraft is about caving/mining" mentality and have nerfed resource farms, which I never use, including XP farms (trading also yields no XP in 1.6.4), to that effect; villager trading is not the same since I have to put a lot of time into manually growing and harvesting materials, which shows up when comparing my average mining rates to overall playtime (a good estimate of the amount of time I actually spend caving) for my first world to worlds where I don't trade).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Not tremedously importtant to the discussion, but "trading hall" is the term I find most commonly used.
DapperDinosaur has pointed out the utility as a ready source of Xp (probably replacable by the new furnace mechanics) and emerald blocks (I use iron for beacons generally, but find using emerald blocks for the corners of nether builds helps make them visible [and cuts down on Eek, a ghast moments. ;P ]).
For trading as trading, I think it is useful to distinguish between SSP and SMP scenarios, with SMP being essentially additioning some further considerations.
While the number of Mending books needed is comparatively small, a pre-1.14 villager will only allow a trade to be used 2-12 times before it needs to reset. Even for one player, I think the 20 count is low: this may be a playstyle thing as I like to keep a sword optimized for a specific use at each mob farm (eg. Bane5/etc at a spider farm); keep separate sets of armor & equipment for nether use.
Mending is, however, one of the most used books; many others (Flame, Smite, Bane, Looting) are much more special purpose.
None of this addresses the main issue that it is not the ability to get scads of a particular enchantment, but the ability to have a long term reliable source when one does need a book.
There are other items where villager trading can greatly reduce the need to waste due to haulage (and avoid 'environmental damage'): ie moving a 24paper/5glass librarian (or near to this) to the site of a large build and setting up a cane farm.
Lapis (for dye pre1.14), glowstone, redstone are also in this catagory. (Adding saddles and nametags for the non-auto-fishers.)
Ender pearls are a special case as they are only difficult to come by in the pre-Dragon-killed phase(s) of the game. During those phases, however a reliable way to get a pearl or two can save a great deal of boredom (particularly post MobB).
All of the above also apply in SMP at a more intense level as the demand from one player is multiplied. (In PvP scenarios demand gets much high due to regular loss/destruction of equipment and – potentially – villagers.)
I mentioned a number of likely effects in an earlier post in which I was primarily concerned with the SMP environment: (see https://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-java-edition/recent-updates-and-snapshots/2952602-are-mojang-out-of-their-minds-with-the-new-trading?comment=12 for explanations/expansions of the points.)
Villager breeders and trading halls will become larger.
Villager breeders and trading halls will become more numerous.
Computational load (and associated lag) will increase.
A new form of griefing will be created.
Large SMP servers will become rarer.
Many mods will not be updated.
Player cooperation (and interaction will) decline.
To which I will add:
Long term world development will be adversly impacted.
For the second major update in a row MS/Mj has made changes to longstanding game rules (the basic 'physics') that govern what is/is not possible and useful/fun to build in a world. (Hunger was introduced in Beta 1.8 and may be seen as coming before the actual official release [1.0.0], the only other comparable change was 1.9 combat [which continues to be divisive more than three years later]. Changes to enchanting and brewing were both comparatively minor, one could still 'get' all the old stuff, just through an additional hoop.)
For most players (those who spend only a few to several hours a week playing) this means that they will not be able to bring their worlds forward into the new editions without either a long IRL period (or a shorter period of creative 'cheating') devoted to fixing all the things MS/Mj has decided to grief. Such players will have three basic options:
1) ignore the new edition at the cost of further fragmenting the MC community;
2) abandon their work, which calls strongly into question the wisdom of building anything time consuming or costly in the new version as that too is likely to be griefed when the newer new version is released;
3) waste their playtime rebuilding to the new rules of the moment.
There is also a 'meta' impact to be considered.
Teaching children [the game is rated E10] that hard work and careful effort can be arbitarily griefed by an unanswerable governing body may [sickening as that prospect is] be an accurate introduction to 'the real world', but is antithetical to the principles on which advanced civilization is founded.
(The changes made to the 1.14 golem generation rules just after docm77 illustrated how high efficiency iron farms were still possible after the first round of nerfing/griefing also leave a very bad taste of MS/Mj specifically targeting a certain class of players.)
As much as I think Scot is fearmongering and being a bit of a drama queen (think of the children, really?), the gist of what he said is accurate. There is no upside to the villager changes other than their trades being visible from the start.
The only way I can see these changes being a net positive is if the supply and demand cost really can go all the way down to 1, as mentioned by another user. That will be the ONLY situation where these changes won't just be an enormous unwarranted and unwanted net nerf to the whole thing.
MS/Mj introduced "think of the children" as a valid argument when they justified not adding sharks.
If MS/Mj is going to claim credit for socially responsible actions, it is only fair and logical that they accept blame for socially irresponsible actions…
(Or those that can be seen as such.)
As to it being a hyperbolic rhetorical technique, again MS/Mj introduced this when it was in furtherance of their desired objective. [Nor were they the first to do so, the whole 'violence in video games is bad' movement is based on logic far more strained than I employ.]
Again, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.
Not to mention that the opportunity to hoist said parties by their own petards is not to be lightly foregone…
Now bringing in Winnie Churchhill and Elie Wiesel, that would have been fearmongering worthy of a drama queen… [Glad to see the PC thought police don't yet have that one on their list.]
Yes, and literally everyone called that stupidity out immediately. Following suit is not in your best interest when presenting an argument. It removes validity from you when the other side just sees a bunch of hyperbole.
You might want to check the meaning of the word "literally"… literally.
While it is true that a great many who share our opinion of the inapplicability of the argument were quick to point out their positions, some of the most important people (ie the developers emplying the argument) would seem likely to have sprained their shoulders (two each) patting themselves on the back. [An activity in which they were joined by a number of players…]
It should also be noted that hyperbolic language is that which "exaggerates or overstates the truth" ( https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hyperbolic ), thus leaving the basic idea that teaching the futility of "hard work and careful effort" under conditions subject to arbitrary change is contrary to the best interest of society intact. [I appear to have more confidence than do you in the ability of the reader to separate the rhetorical flourish from the basic truth.]
As you raise the subject of 'best practices' for advancing one's agenda, we appear to differ not only on the utility of rhetorical flourishes, playing a long game on multiple fronts, and injecting an element of humor into one's arguments, but also the advisibility of name-calling and attacking one's allies-of-the-moment…
For a little bit of background, I'm a casual user, I play MC with my 6yo boy and I'm strongly against overprotecting children IRL since I prefer to teach him how to act safely and in a responsible manner rather than removing all possible threads.
That being said, I have a somewhat middle ground position regarding the "think of the
childrenothers" argument here. On one side, I think children can make a distinction between the game world and the real world. And I'm not too worried about building a mob farm. On the other hand, related to personal family history, I understand some people around me would be shocked by the idea or "raising" villagers. We may argue if they would be shocked for valid reasons or not regarding our point of view. But they would be shocked.For me, Minecraft is a game that encourages creativity and that stimulates cognitive abilities. But that remains a game. Something to be done for pleasure. If we have to reduce a little bit our pleasure to reduce other people's discomfort, it does not seem a price that high to pay. Especially in that case, since, if I understand it well, it just makes things harder, not impossible. And making a thing harder is a way to make it less popular, hence dismantling the idea it is the normal way of playing.
Please, support the sledgehammer tool!
I ♥ Linux. Thanks Mojang for providing a game that runs natively on that OS!
I've also been very vocal about hating the new trading system, but my wife and I started a new world yesterday and found a village right off the bat and I figured it was time for me to get a little serious about trying the new trading, especially with the little bit of polishing. And after a few hours, I had 2 Master librarian, master Farmer, and master tool smith. Right off the bat put a ton of sugar cane down and it spreads and expands quickly so that got the two librarians to master before the end of session.
And my thought on them were that it was easy as pie to "master" them, but a whole world slower then before, that resetting up to 2 times per day, which was more like 1 time per day was ungodly slow, but doable, and extremely sad that both of them only had 2 enchanted book options as compared to 3 before, also pulled a mending too :D. But as for master weapon smith, he started asking for coal and iron, the coal is hard to come by so quickly, and I hadn't yet realized that he levels up slow with the weaker trades, once I finally was willing to part with iron that I'm usually stingy with, he shot up to master and had his diamond axe and sword unlocked easily and quickly, just a couple weapon smiths on the world and spending a tiny bit of coal and iron and they level up to master with ease, but still slower then before. Then the farmer is wayy slower then before, and not so easily exploitable, but still sooo easy to trade with, numbers aren't quite as favorable either, but with them having "sales" it gets crazy, 5 pumpkins for an emerald is easy to max out per day, along with melons, which my guy sells for 3. So between melons, carrots, pumpkins, wheat, potato, and beets should be maxed out every single day.
Resetting that everyday, is also a different approach, there'd be trading sessions before where I'd spend as many emeralds with some villagers unlocking the trades I want, now you just give it time and don't waste emeralds, and on top of that with all the extra trades they've added in it's a catch. More trades for emeralds, less worry about having to spend emeralds to hope for a reset, rather time and work station takes care of that.
It is what it is, it's slower, but a little bit of thinking and extra work and you can reap benefits very similar. More likely to stack up on farmers and such rather then just rely on one single version.
That's at least my thought on starting a new world and working with trading exclusively for the first few hours, my experience would of only been better and faster had I already had crops, or farms, or tools to speed up the process.
I didn't see a single non-Mojang person defending or echoing the reasoning behind not adding sharks in the 11+ page topic it had at the time, and everywhere else it was mentioned were in posts dripping with disdain and sarcasm for said reasoning. I think it goes without saying that "literally everyone" is a valid statement when people hired by Mojang obviously had no power to speak their mind about it without fear of repercussions.
You WERE using hyperbole. Children are not going to be affected in any way by any of the changes being made to the game. You admitted that it's a stupid argument and the only reason you made it is because Mojang did it first, when by all accounts as already discussed, it was a stupid, flawed, and weak argument. You claiming children will in any way change or learn behaviors based on what happens in Minecraft IS hyperbole, not to mention grandstanding. That's like the people that say kids shoot up schools because they play violent videogames, despite not one single scientific study backing that statement up and dozens discrediting it.
"rhetorical flourish" meaning extreme nitpicking?
When I said you were a drama queen, I did say "a bit". It was a comment about the absurdity of your reference to children being affected by these decisions, it was very mild at worst. I also did not attack you, I said I disagreed with your approach while I simultaneously sided with your general viewpoints.
If you really wanted to see what it looks like when I attack someone, it would have to be on a forum that doesn't have the most overreaching moderation among any forum I've ever been to.
That seems to be largely in accord withsome of my predictions:
Villagers lock trades when 'maxed out' and are slow to reset, requiring many more villagers for a player to get the same throughput as before.
This, however, suggests to me a very different playstyle from what is being blocked.
Even early-on with purely manual farms, I've never found emeralds to be the constraining factor.
What the new system does is require either greatly expanded halls/breeders (with comensurate lag increases) or greatly increased expenditure of player time (most of it waiting for trades to renew). [Or some combination.]
It will be interesting to see if the problems with villagers fully locking (and not then unlocking) earlier reported have been fixed… if so, the need to jealously guard one's special librarians would largely be removed.
[The new limits on throughput for quantity items remain problematic, however.]
@DD
Please avoid putting words in my mouth. (Or presuming to know the minds of others…)
My claim that children will learn behaviors from playing games is born out by various examples [In one case a woman cited the need to replant trees to ensure a continuing supply of torches as teaching her youngster about preplanning/sustainability. see also https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Tutorials/Minecraft_in_education (Non-MC examples aboud as well, including such things as teaching addition and basic numeracy as part of movement in Monopoly®.)]
That the negative example I cited cannot (yet) be proved does not prevent it from being a reasonable prediction.
That a misuse of an argument*1 forever invalidates reasonable uses of the argument is also incorrect.
BTB, the proper meaning of literally is "using the real or original meaning of a word or phrase" thus "literally everyone" would properly mean everyone in the lteral sense of all persons without exception.
You might find looking up the meaning of "rhetorical flourish" to also be useful. ["Hoist with his owne petar." could also be informative, but requires a bit more familiarity with debate tactics than I am seeing…]
*1ie that adding sharks a dangerous-in-real-life (but very rare) interaction to a game that already includes many similarly dangerous-in-real-life behaviors (many comparatively common ie working high above ground, solo caving, diving without a buddy etc) represents unacceptable risk
The leveling up traders takes to much time. Why try to fix something that wasnt broken (imho)
I guess to add 'depth' *shrugs*.
I would like for a different approach with say seeds/crops being tiered or otherwise instead of the villager levels if it were me implementing it, but I know how annoying it would be rather than accessible since making it tiered makes it awkward. Like for example Wheat is tier 1, but obviously Carrots, Potatoes are top tier, Beetroot isn't used too much, Sugar Cane & Cactus I'm not too sure as it depends on the World Gen. We do have tiers for items/blocks like Golden Apples, Beacons with the Blue, Purple and Yellow text, and Advancements to make it clear what you can do in the game/have goals so I guess a tier system could work but not blocking out the past ways to get them with Wheat seeds from grass still and Carrots/Potatoes/Beetroot being in Villages but for special potion kinds maybe? But at the same time would players want that, I don't think so but it would give you a reason to trade I guess... To me if I have say Iron over Diamond I'm not disappointed if I struggle to get any or don't always have the patience/luck of finding them inbetween mining runs with breaking picks all the time, at least so it's why I got to thinking tiers for trades to add depth, on top of the roles with Villager tiers of belt buckles existing already.
Repeating a bit of the tier idea:
I'd say for 'Crop Trades' I'd have it where Wheat is tier 1 but is accessible with grass anyways still, carrots, potatoes and beetroot are at villages or from zombies now but could be different tiers but I know it could ruin accessibility, you don't use beetroot much anyways besides a bowl and red dye and Carrots and Potatoes are great and have enough to them for what you want out of them so it could work there. I feel if they gave them the depth I'd consider it would be locking out things too much but would give the Trades a purpose, but at the same time guides you as long as the trades are easier to go with 2 seeds or so (for example sake) to get a carrot maybe?
Other Thoughts:
The problem with trades maybe is when you get a mob farm and trade mob drops for emeralds (thinking Release 1.8+ era trading) it was ok but as someone that doesn't make mob farms I rarely bothered to get emeralds not because I didn't always have the mob drops but also never knew what to trade like many players I guess.
I find mob drops in mods to be awkward where I don't find a witch that rarely spawns for me to be an obstacle, or a modded mob I never see much if the biome doesn't come up, but I can craft it instead even if a bit tedious so I guess an obstacle like a trade and accessible crafting option could work but it would be pointless maybe for 2 instead of 1 way to get something, I don't know.
To me the roles are greater than before and the levelling to get more trades or discounts existing from the village saving is good, but trades are going to be tricky no matter what to balance I think, or at least the way Mojang goes about it makes me think it is harder than it seems when it really shouldn't be.
I don't know what to think, and how they can balance it, but still make it accessible or clear what is the goal of getting an item but with trades.
Note: I had to re-type this 3 times to make sure I knew what I wanted to say so if it's off that's why.
Niche Community Content Finder, Youtuber, Modpack/Map Maker, Duck
Forum Thread Maintainer for APortingCore, Liteloader Download HUB, Asphodel Meadows, Fabric Project, Legacy Fabric/Cursed Fabric, Power API, Rift/Fabric/Forge 1.13 to 1.17.
Wikis I Maintain: https://modwiki.miraheze.org/wiki/User:SuntannedDuck2