Stone Bricks are useless. Paintings are useless. Why aren't you fighting about them?
Seriously, read through the thread before you start making blant stupid posts, k? Stonebricks have decoration Value, as for carpets mess with everything when you try and use them.
When carpets are working as they should, they will be a very very useful addition to the game. It's actually something I've wanted for a long time.
They'll fix em before 1.6, I guarantee it. I'm excited about carpets!
Not a great example, as no one in Minecraft would ever build stairs or inclined surfaces with full blocks. Heck, the table choice doesn't have to be a fence post one. You've essentially built a room in which carpet cannot be used properly. Now don't get me wrong, seeing fences interact with carpet like they do with snow layers in optifine would be sweet, but this example would be like me "proving" quartz is ugly by using it with the most horrid colour scheme I can possibly come up with.
No one would ever do that, eh? That's funny, because I do it for colleseum builds. So if I do it...well, maybe I am the only one on the planet.
To the ones saying carpets will replace fence gates in farm conveyors, well, carpets probably won't do that. These carpets do not have hitboxes, so you can litterally walk through them, so while they would have been cool for all kinds of adventure "moving corridors" and farm animal conveyors, they won't be able to be used like that. We wish lol!
Carpet fixes:
#1 - The recipe is the most ovious one here.
It should be 2 wool = 2, 3 or 4 carpets, not 1.
Why?
In Minecraft, 2 principles often apply in recipes: first is preservation of material for simple stuff.
Check the slabs recipes: 3 stone will give you 6 slabs. In other words, 3 blocks will give you 3 blocks (because 2 slabs fit into a single block), ergo 1 block input = 1 block output. And the recipe is fuly reversible.
Another example: 1 clay block gives 4 clay alls which can be reshaped again into the initial clay block, or cooked intpo 4 bricks which can then be reshaped into 1 bricks block. So we still get this "1 block = 1 block" principle.
But there is also a second "principle" that is "waste of base material goes along with complexity of end product".
Check the fences recipe. 6 sticks for 2 fences means essentially 3 planks for 2 fences. Ergo, 3 "full" blocks of input give only 2 "blocks" of output. And those are not even "full" blocks, too. And the recipe is not reversible.
Now check the stairs recipe. 6 blocks of input = only 4 blocks of "3/4 filled" output. Again, you get only 2/3 the number of output blocks, and those are neither reversible back to the original cobblestone, nor fully "fill" the output blocks.
For stone and mosy stone walls, 6 input blocks give 6 output blocks, so there is less of a "loss" there, 1 input block gives 1 output block, but still, again not reversible and not "full" output bloks. Despite the apparent "more volume filled" of walls compared to fences, the recipe choice was probably based on "symmetry" 6 blocks for 6 of the fece/walls.
Now check the fence gates: 4 sticks + 2 planks (essentially, 4 planks) to give only 2 fence gates. Compared to fences, the "block input" cost goes up from 3 to 4, while the output goes down from 6 to a mere 2. Ergo, you have 4 input bocks for only 2 ouput blocks, a "loss" of half (only for the input-blocks to output-blocks ratio, that is in addition to the non-reversibility and and partial-fill of the output blocks). Again, the same reason: fence gates are even more "complex" than mere fences, so the recipe is less "efficient".
Then check painting: 8 sticks (meaning 4 planks blocks) + 1 wool = 5 input blocks, to get only one output block. An even worse ratio, but for an even more "complex" item (because it's an item entity ot just a bock!).
Now let's check chests and furnaces: 8 input blocks for 1 output. But those items are much more "complex", each having it's own special interface.
There is also 3 other "principle" I could see:
- Density: wood seem to constitute an excetion. The recipes seem to be based on the input size of either planks, of "half wood". This is because the game gives 4 planks per wood instead of only 1 or 2, so this tends to "color" more wastage on many wood-based recipes. But this is less important than the following "pricniple" below.
- Similarity: similar recipes should give similar numbers and behave similarly. Fences and stone walls come to mind.
- Usability: "small but popular to use objects" give more output. 1 coal + 1 stick (i.e. about 1.5 input "blocks", using planks as the baseline of wood volume instead for the sticks) = 4 torches, so here we actually have about 3 times more "output blocks" than "input blocks" here.
So for the carpets, what kind of complexity should we be talking about here?
If it works only as a simple 1 thick wool-colored-and-textured "snow cover", then it's in the range of fences and the like, so a loss between 33% and 50% would be the target here. However, we also have to remind ourselves of the udsability and similarity: the idea that the carpets are "very thin" is not a weird one, so we could also easily double the output using this. However, carpets not being a "simplest" block, it shouldn't give much more than that. Personally I'd go with 2 wool = 3 carpets, at least that way you have a reason to use carpets instead of wool for big "middle of room" rugs: less material cost (despite wool being so easy to have in large quantiyties anyway).
#2 - Make carpet able to be placed in the same block as furniture too.
I'm mainly talking about beds, chests, and fences and walls, and paintings-that-go-all-the-way-down-to-floor-level here. Everything that is often placed in a house.
If carpet instead worked as item entities, then their recipe is as complex as for paintings. So the current recipe, 2 wool to get only 1 carpet, is more than fine & generous and we should not gain more than 1 carpet if they can be item entities. maybe the current cost is only seemingly very costly because Mojang already planned that carpets could "eventually" get this "entity"' upgrade as a "still undecided" future update. After all, it's a lot more complex coding that the current carpets.
As for the lag issue of having all those item entities (lots more carpets than paitings in many popular builds), a couple other posters already wisely adressed the issue: just have the carpet be placed as a block if it is replacing an air block, but automatically place itself as an item entity if occupying the same spot as another block from a list of "carpet compatible blocks". If breaking a block with carpet entity in same block volume, then the carpet entity reverts to a block (unnoticeably so). If placing a block from the compatibility list on a carpet block, it is swapped to an item entity carpet (again, unnoticeably). And finally you can't place any other block not on the special carpet list without first breaking the carpet, just like say for example when trying to place a bed over snow.
So the only "item entities" you'd get would be those under furniture - a relatively short list of "compatible" blocks. It would mostly work ok then, but I guess the added complexity of a "dual existence" block (both as a block and as an item entity) will initially means lots of carpet-related bugs.
Finally, full support for the borders of carpets to be more darkly colored than the carpets. Heck, for these borders to not reach fully outwards so you can see a little the true floor underneath. and the "matching" wouldn't ake color into account so you could make big "patterned" rugs with the borders showing only on the sides of the rug, not at each color change. Of you could make table cloth that still show the tabe material underneath. Just 1 or 2 texture pixels of width revealed like that would be fine. However, I strongly doubt we'll see that kind of detail level.
Seriously, read through the thread before you start making blant stupid posts, k? Stonebricks have decoration Value, as for carpets mess with everything when you try and use them.
That is absolutely an opinion and one that you can't hold to anyone else. Just because something doesn't have an outward aesthetic purpose for you doesn't mean that someone else can't envision how to incorporate carpets into a veritable Minecraft masterpiece.
Considering that carpets haven't even been out for all of a week, it's highly irrational to judge their full aesthetic purposes when we have seen little done with them by some of the more skilled builders and Redstone experts out there. Making a ten second build where carpets couldn't do any justice even if they tried isn't proof at all that they're useless for builds.
Phycozz really is right in the matter in saying that it was a long requested feature that does exactly what it says on the tin. People wanted carpets, they got carpets. They're a simple addition to the game that don't need some grandiose purpose. If more functionality is added, that's fine and dandy, but to say they're useless to everyone is laughable at best and asserting a very early opinion on to other people.
To the ones saying carpets will replace fence gates in farm conveyors, well, carpets probably won't do that. These carpets do not have hitboxes, so you can litterally walk through them, so while they would have been cool for all kinds of adventure "moving corridors" and farm animal conveyors, they won't be able to be used like that. We wish lol!
Carpet fixes:
#1 - The recipe is the most ovious one here.
It should be 2 wool = 2, 3 or 4 carpets, not 1.
Why?
In Minecraft, 2 principles often apply in recipes: first is preservation of material for simple stuff.
Check the slabs recipes: 3 stone will give you 6 slabs. In other words, 3 blocks will give you 3 blocks (because 2 slabs fit into a single block), ergo 1 block input = 1 block output. And the recipe is fuly reversible.
Another example: 1 clay block gives 4 clay alls which can be reshaped again into the initial clay block, or cooked intpo 4 bricks which can then be reshaped into 1 bricks block. So we still get this "1 block = 1 block" principle.
But there is also a second "principle" that is "waste of base material goes along with complexity of end product".
Check the fences recipe. 6 sticks for 2 fences means essentially 3 planks for 2 fences. Ergo, 3 "full" blocks of input give only 2 "blocks" of output. And those are not even "full" blocks, too. And the recipe is not reversible.
Now check the stairs recipe. 6 blocks of input = only 4 blocks of "3/4 filled" output. Again, you get only 2/3 the number of output blocks, and those are neither reversible back to the original cobblestone, nor fully "fill" the output blocks.
For stone and mosy stone walls, 6 input blocks give 6 output blocks, so there is less of a "loss" there, 1 input block gives 1 output block, but still, again not reversible and not "full" output bloks. Despite the apparent "more volume filled" of walls compared to fences, the recipe choice was probably based on "symmetry" 6 blocks for 6 of the fece/walls.
Now check the fence gates: 4 sticks + 2 planks (essentially, 4 planks) to give only 2 fence gates. Compared to fences, the "block input" cost goes up from 3 to 4, while the output goes down from 6 to a mere 2. Ergo, you have 4 input bocks for only 2 ouput blocks, a "loss" of half (only for the input-blocks to output-blocks ratio, that is in addition to the non-reversibility and and partial-fill of the output blocks). Again, the same reason: fence gates are even more "complex" than mere fences, so the recipe is less "efficient".
Then check painting: 8 sticks (meaning 4 planks blocks) + 1 wool = 5 input blocks, to get only one output block. An even worse ratio, but for an even more "complex" item (because it's an item entity ot just a bock!).
Now let's check chests and furnaces: 8 input blocks for 1 output. But those items are much more "complex", each having it's own special interface.
There is also 3 other "principle" I could see:
- Density: wood seem to constitute an excetion. The recipes seem to be based on the input size of either planks, of "half wood". This is because the game gives 4 planks per wood instead of only 1 or 2, so this tends to "color" more wastage on many wood-based recipes. But this is less important than the following "pricniple" below.
- Similarity: similar recipes should give similar numbers and behave similarly. Fences and stone walls come to mind.
- Usability: "small but popular to use objects" give more output. 1 coal + 1 stick (i.e. about 1.5 input "blocks", using planks as the baseline of wood volume instead for the sticks) = 4 torches, so here we actually have about 3 times more "output blocks" than "input blocks" here.
So for the carpets, what kind of complexity should we be talking about here?
If it works only as a simple 1 thick wool-colored-and-textured "snow cover", then it's in the range of fences and the like, so a loss between 33% and 50% would be the target here. However, we also have to remind ourselves of the udsability and similarity: the idea that the carpets are "very thin" is not a weird one, so we could also easily double the output using this. However, carpets not being a "simplest" block, it shouldn't give much more than that. Personally I'd go with 2 wool = 3 carpets, at least that way you have a reason to use carpets instead of wool for big "middle of room" rugs: less material cost (despite wool being so easy to have in large quantiyties anyway).
#2 - Make carpet able to be placed in the same block as furniture too.
I'm mainly talking about beds, chests, and fences and walls, and paintings-that-go-all-the-way-down-to-floor-level here. Everything that is often placed in a house.
If carpet instead worked as item entities, then their recipe is as complex as for paintings. So the current recipe, 2 wool to get only 1 carpet, is more than fine & generous and we should not gain more than 1 carpet if they can be item entities. maybe the current cost is only seemingly very costly because Mojang already planned that carpets could "eventually" get this "entity"' upgrade as a "still undecided" future update. After all, it's a lot more complex coding that the current carpets.
As for the lag issue of having all those item entities (lots more carpets than paitings in many popular builds), a couple other posters already wisely adressed the issue: just have the carpet be placed as a block if it is replacing an air block, but automatically place itself as an item entity if occupying the same spot as another block from a list of "carpet compatible blocks". If breaking a block with carpet entity in same block volume, then the carpet entity reverts to a block (unnoticeably so). If placing a block from the compatibility list on a carpet block, it is swapped to an item entity carpet (again, unnoticeably). And finally you can't place any other block not on the special carpet list without first breaking the carpet, just like say for example when trying to place a bed over snow.
So the only "item entities" you'd get would be those under furniture - a relatively short list of "compatible" blocks. It would mostly work ok then, but I guess the added complexity of a "dual existence" block (both as a block and as an item entity) will initially means lots of carpet-related bugs.
Finally, full support for the borders of carpets to be more darkly colored than the carpets. Heck, for these borders to not reach fully outwards so you can see a little the true floor underneath. and the "matching" wouldn't ake color into account so you could make big "patterned" rugs with the borders showing only on the sides of the rug, not at each color change. Of you could make table cloth that still show the tabe material underneath. Just 1 or 2 texture pixels of width revealed like that would be fine. However, I strongly doubt we'll see that kind of detail level.
I have enjoyed reading this post! It was quiet worth the time I love all your ideas put forth, I am glad you have actually taken the time to read the thread unlike others too! Thank you for your input! I really hope these ideas get implemented.
Seriously, read through the thread before you start making blant stupid posts, k? Stonebricks have decoration Value, as for carpets mess with everything when you try and use them.
They'll fix em before 1.6, I guarantee it. I'm excited about carpets!
No one would ever do that, eh? That's funny, because I do it for colleseum builds. So if I do it...well, maybe I am the only one on the planet.
Nah your not, don't worry, I do it for many builds aswell.
Nope, because the damage value is already taken up to specify the color.
Carpet fixes:
#1 - The recipe is the most ovious one here.
It should be 2 wool = 2, 3 or 4 carpets, not 1.
Why?
In Minecraft, 2 principles often apply in recipes: first is preservation of material for simple stuff.
Check the slabs recipes: 3 stone will give you 6 slabs. In other words, 3 blocks will give you 3 blocks (because 2 slabs fit into a single block), ergo 1 block input = 1 block output. And the recipe is fuly reversible.
Another example: 1 clay block gives 4 clay alls which can be reshaped again into the initial clay block, or cooked intpo 4 bricks which can then be reshaped into 1 bricks block. So we still get this "1 block = 1 block" principle.
But there is also a second "principle" that is "waste of base material goes along with complexity of end product".
Check the fences recipe. 6 sticks for 2 fences means essentially 3 planks for 2 fences. Ergo, 3 "full" blocks of input give only 2 "blocks" of output. And those are not even "full" blocks, too. And the recipe is not reversible.
Now check the stairs recipe. 6 blocks of input = only 4 blocks of "3/4 filled" output. Again, you get only 2/3 the number of output blocks, and those are neither reversible back to the original cobblestone, nor fully "fill" the output blocks.
For stone and mosy stone walls, 6 input blocks give 6 output blocks, so there is less of a "loss" there, 1 input block gives 1 output block, but still, again not reversible and not "full" output bloks. Despite the apparent "more volume filled" of walls compared to fences, the recipe choice was probably based on "symmetry" 6 blocks for 6 of the fece/walls.
Now check the fence gates: 4 sticks + 2 planks (essentially, 4 planks) to give only 2 fence gates. Compared to fences, the "block input" cost goes up from 3 to 4, while the output goes down from 6 to a mere 2. Ergo, you have 4 input bocks for only 2 ouput blocks, a "loss" of half (only for the input-blocks to output-blocks ratio, that is in addition to the non-reversibility and and partial-fill of the output blocks). Again, the same reason: fence gates are even more "complex" than mere fences, so the recipe is less "efficient".
Then check painting: 8 sticks (meaning 4 planks blocks) + 1 wool = 5 input blocks, to get only one output block. An even worse ratio, but for an even more "complex" item (because it's an item entity ot just a bock!).
Now let's check chests and furnaces: 8 input blocks for 1 output. But those items are much more "complex", each having it's own special interface.
There is also 3 other "principle" I could see:
- Density: wood seem to constitute an excetion. The recipes seem to be based on the input size of either planks, of "half wood". This is because the game gives 4 planks per wood instead of only 1 or 2, so this tends to "color" more wastage on many wood-based recipes. But this is less important than the following "pricniple" below.
- Similarity: similar recipes should give similar numbers and behave similarly. Fences and stone walls come to mind.
- Usability: "small but popular to use objects" give more output. 1 coal + 1 stick (i.e. about 1.5 input "blocks", using planks as the baseline of wood volume instead for the sticks) = 4 torches, so here we actually have about 3 times more "output blocks" than "input blocks" here.
So for the carpets, what kind of complexity should we be talking about here?
If it works only as a simple 1 thick wool-colored-and-textured "snow cover", then it's in the range of fences and the like, so a loss between 33% and 50% would be the target here. However, we also have to remind ourselves of the udsability and similarity: the idea that the carpets are "very thin" is not a weird one, so we could also easily double the output using this. However, carpets not being a "simplest" block, it shouldn't give much more than that. Personally I'd go with 2 wool = 3 carpets, at least that way you have a reason to use carpets instead of wool for big "middle of room" rugs: less material cost (despite wool being so easy to have in large quantiyties anyway).
#2 - Make carpet able to be placed in the same block as furniture too.
I'm mainly talking about beds, chests, and fences and walls, and paintings-that-go-all-the-way-down-to-floor-level here. Everything that is often placed in a house.
If carpet instead worked as item entities, then their recipe is as complex as for paintings. So the current recipe, 2 wool to get only 1 carpet, is more than fine & generous and we should not gain more than 1 carpet if they can be item entities. maybe the current cost is only seemingly very costly because Mojang already planned that carpets could "eventually" get this "entity"' upgrade as a "still undecided" future update. After all, it's a lot more complex coding that the current carpets.
As for the lag issue of having all those item entities (lots more carpets than paitings in many popular builds), a couple other posters already wisely adressed the issue: just have the carpet be placed as a block if it is replacing an air block, but automatically place itself as an item entity if occupying the same spot as another block from a list of "carpet compatible blocks". If breaking a block with carpet entity in same block volume, then the carpet entity reverts to a block (unnoticeably so). If placing a block from the compatibility list on a carpet block, it is swapped to an item entity carpet (again, unnoticeably). And finally you can't place any other block not on the special carpet list without first breaking the carpet, just like say for example when trying to place a bed over snow.
So the only "item entities" you'd get would be those under furniture - a relatively short list of "compatible" blocks. It would mostly work ok then, but I guess the added complexity of a "dual existence" block (both as a block and as an item entity) will initially means lots of carpet-related bugs.
Finally, full support for the borders of carpets to be more darkly colored than the carpets. Heck, for these borders to not reach fully outwards so you can see a little the true floor underneath. and the "matching" wouldn't ake color into account so you could make big "patterned" rugs with the borders showing only on the sides of the rug, not at each color change. Of you could make table cloth that still show the tabe material underneath. Just 1 or 2 texture pixels of width revealed like that would be fine. However, I strongly doubt we'll see that kind of detail level.
That is absolutely an opinion and one that you can't hold to anyone else. Just because something doesn't have an outward aesthetic purpose for you doesn't mean that someone else can't envision how to incorporate carpets into a veritable Minecraft masterpiece.
Considering that carpets haven't even been out for all of a week, it's highly irrational to judge their full aesthetic purposes when we have seen little done with them by some of the more skilled builders and Redstone experts out there. Making a ten second build where carpets couldn't do any justice even if they tried isn't proof at all that they're useless for builds.
Phycozz really is right in the matter in saying that it was a long requested feature that does exactly what it says on the tin. People wanted carpets, they got carpets. They're a simple addition to the game that don't need some grandiose purpose. If more functionality is added, that's fine and dandy, but to say they're useless to everyone is laughable at best and asserting a very early opinion on to other people.
I have enjoyed reading this post! It was quiet worth the time I love all your ideas put forth, I am glad you have actually taken the time to read the thread unlike others too! Thank you for your input! I really hope these ideas get implemented.
Mostly moved on. May check back a few times a year.
it should have been "CARPETS, JUST ADDED AND ARE STILL BEING UPDATED"
sorry we didn't understand what you really meant to say