You have one set of "clothing" (armor degrades during normal usage and needs to be replaced after a while). You don't get your clothing dirty because very few blocks in this game pass their material on a non-full-block level. Therefore, you cannot get "dirt" on you as a single dirt block, which is the smallest level of dirt you can have, would be half your size.
Quote from jofy »
[...]mowing the grass[...]
Make a hoe, and till the soil. If you don't water the tilled soil, it'll turn back into untilled ground and grass will grow on it again.
Quote from jofy »
[...]raking[...]
Currently there is no seasonal change to the trees as there are no reasons. We merely have normal, and snowy. As the trees have all of their leaves in the snowy conditions, I'd say it's safe to say that they're evergreens, and thus don't need to be raked up after.
Although you could always count beating the leaves off of the tree as raking if you'd like.
Quote from jofy »
[...]pay the rent.
My rent cost me 13$ for the entirety of my minecraft life (well, unless it's released on Steam, then I'll buy another copy just to support Notch).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fire And Ice
Some say the world will end in fire
Some say in ice
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire
But if it had to perish twice
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice
If I had to do it every 24 mine craft hours or less, it would be more of an annoyance, thats just me. I approve of the idea, but not of the time tables. I think, although its not really realistic, drinking once a day, and food every other.
If I had to do it every 24 mine craft hours or less, it would be more of an annoyance, thats just me. I approve of the idea, but not of the time tables. I think, although its not really realistic, drinking once a day, and food every other.
Well, realism is not going to be balanced in the game, and still be fun.
I think once a day to eat is plenty, but much longer than that would still have the problem of "more food than you need." The times required to eat are completely speculative, and would more than likely be different to this should the idea be implemented. The general idea is more the presentation rather than the fine details... but yes certainly, I am thinking more than once a day would be annoying unless it was reserved for hard mode.
If I had to do it every 24 mine craft hours or less, it would be more of an annoyance, thats just me. I approve of the idea, but not of the time tables. I think, although its not really realistic, drinking once a day, and food every other.
Really? Heck, I usually can have a few slabs of pork within my first day (mostly in case I need them, as I've had a few first days end with massive firefights). I could understand if the frequency seems annoying at first, but we are dealing with a survival game. And, hopefully, it can be disabled/modified by itself in an Advanced Game menu in the options.
~~~
Quote from synapseshock »
Thirst: I don't approve, simply because water isn't always readily available and it doesn't replenish. If you happen to spawn far from water, you have to either run there every time you get thirsty, or waste a lot of iron building buckets (and you would still need to refill them eventually).
I do actually rather side with you on this one, except for the exact inverse reason. Food items are almost never walked upon randomly whilst out jogging to keep that two block figure in check. Maybe once in a blue moon I'll find a port chop on the ground dropped by a pig that had a wee wee bit too much to drink last night and fell to its death from the Cliff Of Pig Self Slaughter.
Water, on the other hand, is almost always so plentiful that it's absurd to think that I should even need a reminder to go touch the stuff. While underground, more often than not I'll run into a cave system with an underground stream. If I spawned in an area with NO water at all, I'd have to be in the twilight zone as I've never spawned out of sight of water (even it it required I turn around,, and see the massive ocean behind me).
In reality, such a system is already imbalanced and, thusly, is never going to add to gameplay. We should be able to assume that the player drinks water whenever he reaches a water block, and this happens often enough, anyways.
Quote from synapseshock »
Hunger: Yes, I think we need hunger. However, I would prefer for the effect to be limited to health only, no walking/mining/digging speeds or visual effects.
I would rather have it reduce half a heart every ten minutes (i.e. half of a day/night cycle), thus:
Include a ten pip hunger meter, either over your health bar (shift the air bar above this) or above the armor bar. Lose a half pip of hunger every half minute. When your hunger bar reaches zero, take away half a heart and refill the hunger bar to full.
1 heart per 20 minutes
10 hearts per 200 minutes / 3 hours 20 minutes
So this is a reasonable rate. I don't think I've ever spent more than 3 hours in a cave without surfacing to save all my collected ores, and this is more than enough time for me to just grab a few pieces of bread or grilled pork.
Eating food just replenishes your health for the normal amount and restores your hunger bar to full. I'm thinking about adding a colored border around your hunger bar which gives you a ten minute grace period (hunger does not decrease) but to be honest I don't like this idea at the moment.
This is actually where I was thinking of taking this discussion a few days ago. In fact, I don't think we even need a hunger bar, as we already have a "health" bar. Going hungry would be an aspect of being unhealthy, thus it makes sense that hunger would lower your health.
Personally, I'm hoping that we have an Advanced Gameplay options submenu in the options menu that'd allow us to fine tune this aspect of the game, but until then we'd just need to set it high and see if most of us even notice.
That aside, we could have hunger make dark red half-hearts and hearts that added up over the period of time (replacing your normal full happy hearts in the same way as if you were losing health), but eating would restore your health, removing the darkened hearts with proper normal hearts. But while you did have those dark hearts, they'd act as lost health in cases of fall damage, attack, etc.
Quote from synapseshock »
Peaceful: No hunger bar.
I disagree here. I think that game difficulty level should not disable this feature. We should have an independent way to disable the feature (as an override, allowing us to modify the specific difficulty level of the game).
Quote from synapseshock »
Easy: Hunger can only bring you down to 5 hearts minimum. If you have less than 5 hearts, the hunger bar goes down to zero and stays there but doesn't take away any health.
Normal: Hunger can only bring you down to 1/2 heart minimum. If you only have 1/2 heart left, the hunger bar goes down to zero and stays there but doesn't take away any health.
Hard: Hunger can kill.
This would all need to be playtested to see if it was stable enough to be used.
Quote from synapseshock »
The idea of this is to make hunger have an actual effect on the game, but (unless you're on Hard) it doesn't actually stop you from just mining and enjoying the game. Basically, you can ignore it unless you're going to be fighting (intentionally or not) or if you want some extra health to survive falls.
Even on easy, being at five hearts would be a dangerous place to be while mining. I try and avoid having any damage, especially when you just happened to stumble upon a skeleton dungeon.
That aside, we'll need to play around with the general idea to see what we can do about it. I think we have a good idea laid out, though!
~~~
Quote from jofy »
but seriosly adding this wouldn't be much different then adding doing the laundry.
maybe if it was on a special mode
Yes, it would. We currently have the system in place to support this feature with some backend code changes.
We currently have no clothing (armor isn't clothing) to wash, no washing machine, and no balanced reason to even add laundry as a function.
That aside, if you want laundry just toss out your armor after a few days of using it, or just into a lake and swim around for a few minutes to simulate the cleaning process (don't forget the spin cycle!).
Yes, though, I do think that this (as well as a lot of other features that people wish to add) should be listed under an "Advanced Gameplay" menu in the options area. The ability to disable hunger changes no aspect of the game for anyone, but allows those that don't want to deal with it to not have to deal with it. While we are in survival mode, and such things ARE survival-based, it's still a video game designed for enjoyment, so the most amount of customization possible would be for the best.
~~~
Quote from Failchon »
There is no "no" option you twit :V
Your disturbing rudeness aside, I assume you are replying to the original poster, right? I seriously suggest that you consider READING a topic's posts before replying next time, as most of us have suggested ways to disable such a thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fire And Ice
Some say the world will end in fire
Some say in ice
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire
But if it had to perish twice
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice
Engage brain before posting.
Also, guswut, "twit" is far too jestial an insult to warrant action.
Yeah, I was on the fence about it, personally, so I flipped a coin. From now on, I'm taking the OPPOSITE choice of what the coin says. Thank you, though, for assisting with this matter!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fire And Ice
Some say the world will end in fire
Some say in ice
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire
But if it had to perish twice
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice
Do not want = no. I guess it could be clearer, but the last three options really are either an "I don't care" or "no".
Also, doing laundry is not required for survival. Mowing lawns of paying rent are not essential to survival. Not eating food kind of makes you starve to death eventually.
I also agree that thirst is probably going overboard. Hunger though, certainly holds merit as proven thus far by the poll results and rational people (you know who you are) posting in this thread.
People who think food is not essential for a survival game, have never played a real survival game.
1 heart per 20 minutes
10 hearts per 200 minutes / 3 hours 20 minutes
So this is a reasonable rate. I don't think I've ever spent more than 3 hours in a cave without surfacing to save all my collected ores, and this is more than enough time for me to just grab a few pieces of bread or grilled pork.
I think that 1 heart every 20 minutes is just a little bit too slow. I think it should be every 5 minutes, maybe even a little bit less. It's for the same reason that we don't include a thirst meter with the current mechanics. It's just too easy to carry food. You can carry a stack of wheat with you into a cave and make bread as you go along. If that mechanic were changed... well, even then it would be a bit slow. I have spent a long time in caves before, but never anything even approaching 3 hours. I think I spend an hour and a half once. At the rate you listed, that'd be just two loaves of bread. I mean it would be little more than an annoyance then. It should be something that you seriously have to watch if it's enabled.
And I agree with Guswut that thirst would be pointless since we come across it so often. More importantly, all water is the same, be it a stagnant pond, an "ocean", or a cave stream. If there was a difference having to drink would be more viable. But that got me thinking how to implement thirst that would work and generally make sense. Why not add a still? With or without different water types this idea would work, but with would work much better. There could be a thirst meter that requires you to drink clean un-salted water every so often. But even drinking spring water has it's risks. So you can drink spring water as you are getting started, but once you've advanced enough and you want to eliminate the risk altogether you can craft a still and turn some of your crops into alcohol that can be carried in flasks or skins on any venture. It makes sense, especially from a thematic point of view.
Perhaps the "hunger" could be thwarted by either food OR water... that way if you are underground with no food, you can drink from an underground water source? Effectively, water would just be another source of "food".
I'm of the belief that a single need/bar would be sufficient. A second, distinct need might be over cumbersome, and, as has been stated, water as it is is too common presently for a thirst need to be relevant. Should there ever be a desert biome, of course, that might change.
Though I think, perhaps, that in the future the only use for food should be staving off hunger, with healing, in most cases, at least, relegated to the future 'alchemy' addition and medications.
Of course this speed could vary depending on the difficulty setting (of course there would be a master on/off switch). And I don't see any reason why the varying difficulties couldn't be really distinguished from one another by this, among other things. If the hunger bar was activated, Easy would have a long fuse. Normal would see the hunger bar decrease substantially faster. And Hard could be eating once a day or more. It doesn't need to be in it's own seperate mode, and if you're going on hard, it should but just that; hard. Hard, as in; difficult, as in; NOT easy.
All I have to add is this, the game is called survival, but as of yet it feels more like "free roam" instead of "survival"
Exactly this.
It's not hard to survive.
Start new map... dig 10 dirt blocks.... make 10x1x1 tower to stand on. Leave game running for 3 months, come back, still alive (game possibly crashed due to memory leaks). You can survive forever within 25 seconds of starting a brand new game, having never crafted a single item.
Hunger is not a dumb idea. It works perfect for a "Survival" game mode. What is dumb is the Hunger Bar - this isn't The Sims.
Want me to care about having to eat food? Then you need to make losing hearts "easier". Food is mainly used to heal yourself, and in a survival based game what should be at a minimum is hearts, not how much your tummy growls. Don't forget that the game doesn't need to be Man v. Wild and you ship real life into it.
The concept of having your hearts be depleted at a slow rate (like, on easy you lose a half a heart every 3/4 a day, normal and hard you lose a half heart each 1/2 day) is in my opinion the best idea. And maybe if you wear armor, the rate of loss is lessened. It doesn't 'waste' your food in this way. With a hunger bar, you'd be eating up your pork chops on hand to keep yourself from dying of hunger but then lose out on the healing properties because you still had all 10 hearts filled at the time. It's a waste. And yea you can say "well you should have had -that- food on hand rather then the only bowl of mushroom soup." But it just seems really trollish that you could die of hunger, regardless of having 10 hearts.
I don't want to have to start micromanaging my hunger and/or stopping what I WANT to do just because I NEED to go find a pig to kill.
Nor do I want to have to worry about balancing Health versus Hunger.
"I have one more Pork Chop left, and I'm at half a heart. But I'm not Hungry yet and getting back to base to get another chop for my hunger later runs the risk of killing me!"
I agree totally. Hunger bar, no... hunger system requiring food to be consumed to stay alive, yes.
Quote from sabata2 »
This topic = Lost In Blue Minecraft
I don't want to have to start micromanaging my hunger and/or stopping what I WANT to do just because I NEED to go find a pig to kill.
Nor do I want to have to worry about balancing Health versus Hunger.
"I have one more Pork Chop left, and I'm at half a heart. But I'm not Hungry yet and getting back to base to get another chop for my hunger later runs the risk of killing me!"
Who said anything about micromanaging? Eating once a day is hardly micromanaging... it's eating about once every 15-20 mins. Spend one day hunting to eat for a Minecraft week, or even a month. Nobody said anything about having to micro manage... so, what do you propose food gets used for? Wearing as a hat?
You have one set of "clothing" (armor degrades during normal usage and needs to be replaced after a while). You don't get your clothing dirty because very few blocks in this game pass their material on a non-full-block level. Therefore, you cannot get "dirt" on you as a single dirt block, which is the smallest level of dirt you can have, would be half your size.
Make a hoe, and till the soil. If you don't water the tilled soil, it'll turn back into untilled ground and grass will grow on it again.
Currently there is no seasonal change to the trees as there are no reasons. We merely have normal, and snowy. As the trees have all of their leaves in the snowy conditions, I'd say it's safe to say that they're evergreens, and thus don't need to be raked up after.
Although you could always count beating the leaves off of the tree as raking if you'd like.
My rent cost me 13$ for the entirety of my minecraft life (well, unless it's released on Steam, then I'll buy another copy just to support Notch).
Some say the world will end in fire
Some say in ice
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire
But if it had to perish twice
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice
Well, realism is not going to be balanced in the game, and still be fun.
I think once a day to eat is plenty, but much longer than that would still have the problem of "more food than you need." The times required to eat are completely speculative, and would more than likely be different to this should the idea be implemented. The general idea is more the presentation rather than the fine details... but yes certainly, I am thinking more than once a day would be annoying unless it was reserved for hard mode.
~Sol
maybe if it was on a special mode
Really? Heck, I usually can have a few slabs of pork within my first day (mostly in case I need them, as I've had a few first days end with massive firefights). I could understand if the frequency seems annoying at first, but we are dealing with a survival game. And, hopefully, it can be disabled/modified by itself in an Advanced Game menu in the options.
~~~
I do actually rather side with you on this one, except for the exact inverse reason. Food items are almost never walked upon randomly whilst out jogging to keep that two block figure in check. Maybe once in a blue moon I'll find a port chop on the ground dropped by a pig that had a wee wee bit too much to drink last night and fell to its death from the Cliff Of Pig Self Slaughter.
Water, on the other hand, is almost always so plentiful that it's absurd to think that I should even need a reminder to go touch the stuff. While underground, more often than not I'll run into a cave system with an underground stream. If I spawned in an area with NO water at all, I'd have to be in the twilight zone as I've never spawned out of sight of water (even it it required I turn around,, and see the massive ocean behind me).
In reality, such a system is already imbalanced and, thusly, is never going to add to gameplay. We should be able to assume that the player drinks water whenever he reaches a water block, and this happens often enough, anyways.
This is actually where I was thinking of taking this discussion a few days ago. In fact, I don't think we even need a hunger bar, as we already have a "health" bar. Going hungry would be an aspect of being unhealthy, thus it makes sense that hunger would lower your health.
Personally, I'm hoping that we have an Advanced Gameplay options submenu in the options menu that'd allow us to fine tune this aspect of the game, but until then we'd just need to set it high and see if most of us even notice.
That aside, we could have hunger make dark red half-hearts and hearts that added up over the period of time (replacing your normal full happy hearts in the same way as if you were losing health), but eating would restore your health, removing the darkened hearts with proper normal hearts. But while you did have those dark hearts, they'd act as lost health in cases of fall damage, attack, etc.
I disagree here. I think that game difficulty level should not disable this feature. We should have an independent way to disable the feature (as an override, allowing us to modify the specific difficulty level of the game).
This would all need to be playtested to see if it was stable enough to be used.
Even on easy, being at five hearts would be a dangerous place to be while mining. I try and avoid having any damage, especially when you just happened to stumble upon a skeleton dungeon.
That aside, we'll need to play around with the general idea to see what we can do about it. I think we have a good idea laid out, though!
~~~
Yes, it would. We currently have the system in place to support this feature with some backend code changes.
We currently have no clothing (armor isn't clothing) to wash, no washing machine, and no balanced reason to even add laundry as a function.
That aside, if you want laundry just toss out your armor after a few days of using it, or just into a lake and swim around for a few minutes to simulate the cleaning process (don't forget the spin cycle!).
Yes, though, I do think that this (as well as a lot of other features that people wish to add) should be listed under an "Advanced Gameplay" menu in the options area. The ability to disable hunger changes no aspect of the game for anyone, but allows those that don't want to deal with it to not have to deal with it. While we are in survival mode, and such things ARE survival-based, it's still a video game designed for enjoyment, so the most amount of customization possible would be for the best.
~~~
Your disturbing rudeness aside, I assume you are replying to the original poster, right? I seriously suggest that you consider READING a topic's posts before replying next time, as most of us have suggested ways to disable such a thing.
Some say the world will end in fire
Some say in ice
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire
But if it had to perish twice
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice
Yeah, I was on the fence about it, personally, so I flipped a coin. From now on, I'm taking the OPPOSITE choice of what the coin says. Thank you, though, for assisting with this matter!
Some say the world will end in fire
Some say in ice
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire
But if it had to perish twice
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice
Option 4 is intended as "no".
Do not want = no. I guess it could be clearer, but the last three options really are either an "I don't care" or "no".
Also, doing laundry is not required for survival. Mowing lawns of paying rent are not essential to survival. Not eating food kind of makes you starve to death eventually.
I also agree that thirst is probably going overboard. Hunger though, certainly holds merit as proven thus far by the poll results and rational people (you know who you are) posting in this thread.
People who think food is not essential for a survival game, have never played a real survival game.
~Sol
I think that 1 heart every 20 minutes is just a little bit too slow. I think it should be every 5 minutes, maybe even a little bit less. It's for the same reason that we don't include a thirst meter with the current mechanics. It's just too easy to carry food. You can carry a stack of wheat with you into a cave and make bread as you go along. If that mechanic were changed... well, even then it would be a bit slow. I have spent a long time in caves before, but never anything even approaching 3 hours. I think I spend an hour and a half once. At the rate you listed, that'd be just two loaves of bread. I mean it would be little more than an annoyance then. It should be something that you seriously have to watch if it's enabled.
And I agree with Guswut that thirst would be pointless since we come across it so often. More importantly, all water is the same, be it a stagnant pond, an "ocean", or a cave stream. If there was a difference having to drink would be more viable. But that got me thinking how to implement thirst that would work and generally make sense. Why not add a still? With or without different water types this idea would work, but with would work much better. There could be a thirst meter that requires you to drink clean un-salted water every so often. But even drinking spring water has it's risks. So you can drink spring water as you are getting started, but once you've advanced enough and you want to eliminate the risk altogether you can craft a still and turn some of your crops into alcohol that can be carried in flasks or skins on any venture. It makes sense, especially from a thematic point of view.
~Sol
Though I think, perhaps, that in the future the only use for food should be staving off hunger, with healing, in most cases, at least, relegated to the future 'alchemy' addition and medications.
My Pathfinder Campaign for the denizens of MCF: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1939035-where-are-we-sandbox-pathfinder-campaign-ooc/
Constricting of what?
Exactly this.
It's not hard to survive.
Start new map... dig 10 dirt blocks.... make 10x1x1 tower to stand on. Leave game running for 3 months, come back, still alive (game possibly crashed due to memory leaks). You can survive forever within 25 seconds of starting a brand new game, having never crafted a single item.
~Sol
Want me to care about having to eat food? Then you need to make losing hearts "easier". Food is mainly used to heal yourself, and in a survival based game what should be at a minimum is hearts, not how much your tummy growls. Don't forget that the game doesn't need to be Man v. Wild and you ship real life into it.
The concept of having your hearts be depleted at a slow rate (like, on easy you lose a half a heart every 3/4 a day, normal and hard you lose a half heart each 1/2 day) is in my opinion the best idea. And maybe if you wear armor, the rate of loss is lessened. It doesn't 'waste' your food in this way. With a hunger bar, you'd be eating up your pork chops on hand to keep yourself from dying of hunger but then lose out on the healing properties because you still had all 10 hearts filled at the time. It's a waste. And yea you can say "well you should have had -that- food on hand rather then the only bowl of mushroom soup." But it just seems really trollish that you could die of hunger, regardless of having 10 hearts.
Thats just, my opinion man.
BlueMinecraftI don't want to have to start micromanaging my hunger and/or stopping what I WANT to do just because I NEED to go find a pig to kill.
Nor do I want to have to worry about balancing Health versus Hunger.
"I have one more Pork Chop left, and I'm at half a heart. But I'm not Hungry yet and getting back to base to get another chop for my hunger later runs the risk of killing me!"
I agree totally. Hunger bar, no... hunger system requiring food to be consumed to stay alive, yes.
Who said anything about micromanaging? Eating once a day is hardly micromanaging... it's eating about once every 15-20 mins. Spend one day hunting to eat for a Minecraft week, or even a month. Nobody said anything about having to micro manage... so, what do you propose food gets used for? Wearing as a hat?
~Sol
I really don't know how you expect anyone to make a proper vote on your poll.
Atleast a no option would have helped.
Endorsement:
One Sided Windows: http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27244
Compasses & Grand Magnets: http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24619