why would he remove it from survival? it doesnt even make sense, its just stupid. I bet he likes to troll all of us saying, Oh! you like it? well I took it out LOLOLOL cry me more! bitches Im rich already thanks and die!
WHAT IS THE REASON TO DO THAT? that ORE was the NEW THING! something that makes you happy when you found one... well NOT ANYMORE LOLOLOLOLO CRY CRY CRY!
If Jeb removes something like emerald ore, he just made it 3 times harder to get, plus it's always nice to have an extra ore! Less complainers, also if he really thinks he should remove something because of like what? Seven people, than he listens to the community a little too much.
But the thing is that Emeralds are extremely rare and exclusive to one biome. It's very hard to go mining and to come out a rich man, emerald wise. If they were as common as Diamond, then you would have a point, but they're not. They are very difficult to find. And heck, even with a Fortune III Pick, you'll still be lucky to get two Emeralds from it. Yes, you're right that if they stay as rare as they are, there's no real problem. But, for one, it brings up threads and threads of people complaining that they're too rare, which I suppose isn't a real problem; it's just annoying. But you also have to consider, as I said before, that if they're that rare, rather out of proportion with their value, what's the point of having them at all? If you have something rarer than diamonds, it needs to have an appropriately big "woo!" moment. Considering emeralds are barely worth anything, I just don't see the point. The game doesn't need more useless things.
And not to mention that again, leaving them exclusive to trading still makes them unobtainable in worlds generated without structures. But in a world without structures, why would you want emeralds? Their only use is trading with villagers. (Also, why do people make worlds without structures anyway? I've never gotten that.)
And Jeb made it very clear that he'll remove them because people complained they were too rare, and not understanding their main use. His point was that everybody was telling him to make them more common, while all along the point was to get them through trading. Nobody got that they needed to be rare in order to function, and so he took them out so people would understand that the best way to get emeralds is by giving villagers stuff.
That doesn't make sense. Gold and silver are mineable (in reality) and have served as currencies in numerous cultures. Furthermore, we can already trade renewable resources for emeralds, so allowing emeralds to be mined makes them no more renewable than they already are. First, I didn't say anything about renewable. They need to be renewable to work. To address your other point, gold and silver in real life were far, far harder to get. You can't simply punch a tree, get a pick, dig down and end up with a fortune in real life. In Minecraft, with easy mining for all, they don't work so well.
Since I seem to be the only person against this, I'll let you have it your way. If the entire community wants the ore back in the game, that rather outweighs my objections. I'm not thrilled, but it's better that everybody else be happy. I don't have the right to deny you your feature.
I remember when diamonds was so rare to find, and when you finally find one, you hear a "choir of angels". Then diamonds were not rare anymore, you can find them and have stacks of them oh! diamonds! nice! whatever!
Then they announced a NEW ore, very rare to find, I downloaded the snapshot and played alone to find one of those green emeralds, took me a while, when finally I found one, I almost hear that "choir of angels" again... suddenly they decided to remove it... because... BECAUSE! BECAUSE?...