Hail, hail would behave like snow balls when falling, it would deal 0.5 damage but if you have blast protaction, it will just bounce off.] 8% on mountains, 0.4% in swamps and forrests and 0.08% near beaches.
flood, a flood will happen when theirs thunder or hail. floods would make water level up to 5 blocks higher, and can move blocks (up to 30 blocks) like wood and wool and course iron to rust, making it so when you turn iron block back to iron you would have a 18% chance of getting 2 nuggets instead. Floods would have a 0.8% chance of happening in area like mountains a 2% chance near more flat land like swamps or forrests and 5% chance near areas really close to water like beaches.
I agree with Senpian. Natural disasters that are destructive or harmful shouldn't be a thing, unless there are very early and easily performed options to prevent it--at which point, why have it?
Hail might be okay as an attack for some kind of new ice mob, but I wouldn't have it as a weather effect.
Alternatively, there could be a new dimension rife with natural disasters and highly dangerous mobs with incredible rewards.... but that's kind of like the Nether, now. Also, lots of people have a strange opposition even to well-thought-out new dimensions, so one whose sole purpose is to allow natural disasters to exist in the game isn't going to get a lot of support.
People really need to start searching before suggesting this.
This idea has been hated for years. I don't want my buildings/world trolled by these things. no thanks.
If the floods were limited to 5 blocks from a river side caused by heavy rainfall, don't you think you should use a bit more common sense and build more defensively in order to keep your work? some people are inevitably going to disagree with you.
We already have a weather type that can potentially destroy builds, thunderstorm, if a lightning bolt strikes a flammable block at just the right time, when rain is about to end, the fire will spread and damage your property, that's why non flammable blocks exist, among other reasons like lava.
Some of us don't mind a little extra challenge as a result of more types of weather being introduced to the game, at least have it as a world option. If you limit features like this to mods only, then you're alienating others in the community who do want these things in the game.
We already have a weather type that can potentially destroy builds, thunderstorm, if a lightning bolt strikes a flammable block at just the right time, when rain is about to end, the fire will spread and damage your property, that's why non flammable blocks exist, among other reasons like lava.
Thunderstorms aren't very common, let alone lightning. Then there's all the blocks loaded that can be struck: and it just so happens to choose a flammable one a few seconds before the storm ends? I'm no mathematician, but I'd give that at least a one in 300,000 chance. Maybe even one in a million. Compare that to floods, which would be thousands of times more likely to occur and could cause much more damage than fire (since fire spreading was severely nerfed to prevent entire forests from burning down).
Some of us don't mind a little extra challenge as a result of more types of weather being introduced to the game, at least have it as a world option. If you limit features like this to mods only, then you're alienating others in the community who do want these things in the game.
And some members of the community don't want to worry about the environment griefing their builds. If you limit features like that to outside sources only, then you're alienating others in the community who don't want those things in the game.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
Thunderstorms aren't very common, let alone lightning. Then there's all the blocks loaded that can be struck: and it just so happens to choose a flammable one a few seconds before the storm ends? I'm no mathematician, but I'd give that at least a one in 300,000 chance. Maybe even one in a million. Compare that to floods, which would be thousands of times more likely to occur and could cause much more damage than fire (since fire spreading was severely nerfed to prevent entire forests from burning down).
And some members of the community don't want to worry about the environment griefing their builds. If you limit features like that to outside sources only, then you're alienating others in the community who don't want those things in the game.
If some people won't agree to it being a world option then we're not compromising, are we?
Besides, not all dry land areas of the Minecraft overworld are less than 5 blocks above river level, many are actually higher ground than this so there is a good chance you wouldn't have to worry about the floods ruining your area. Also like all weather, if you happened to use a bed at night time, the storm would end, it wouldn't just become daytime, lightning would stop, and presumably newer types of weather would be changed to clear with it.
I also advocate a massive overhaul of the world generation system to ensure most dry land areas were above 5 blocks from river surface, this would give players a fair shot at collecting enough dirt, sand, stone, gravel and what have you to keep their favoured biome terrain out of the water, and during the heavy rainfall I don't believe the flood should be allowed to creep up more than 5 blocks from where the river originally started from, if it were allowed to rise more than this then yes, it would be a broken suggestion and it would ruin everybody's world, obviously.
If some people won't agree to it being a world option then we're not compromising, are we?
If it's controllable via a gamerule or world type, what's the point of not adding everything? Toggle the 1.9 Combat Update in its entirety, add natural disasters, make massive dragons spawn in the overworld. Why not a cake dimension if it's toggleable by world type? Why not a world type that makes chickens drop diamonds? Or creepers don't damage the terrain and will blow up hostile mobs?
Yes, that is an extreme answer. But it has to be to prove my point. The reason all major features have to be consistent between difficulties / world types is for balance purposes. Could you imagine if every update from this point on had to be balanced for both pre-Combat Update and post-Combat Update worlds? How much of a nightmare it would be coding and debugging that? The same applies to a world type with floods or other natural disasters. For starters, rivers would no longer be a valid place to spawn structures. It'd be pointless for it to immediately flood. Then swamps would become pointless. And they couldn't add any more biomes mostly made of water without either struggling to make flooding properly register or bugging other worlds (as Minecraft tends to break features like this).
Before you say "only river BIOMES would flood", then what's the point of the idea? River level is ocean level. If a river biome leads into an ocean, there'll be an ugly 5-block tall wall of water. It'd have to be semi-consistent.
If it's controllable via a gamerule or world type, what's the point of not adding everything? Toggle the 1.9 Combat Update in its entirety, add natural disasters, make massive dragons spawn in the overworld. Why not a cake dimension if it's toggleable by world type? Why not a world type that makes chickens drop diamonds? Or creepers don't damage the terrain and will blow up hostile mobs?
Yes, that is an extreme answer. But it has to be to prove my point. The reason all major features have to be consistent between difficulties / world types is for balance purposes. Could you imagine if every update from this point on had to be balanced for both pre-Combat Update and post-Combat Update worlds? How much of a nightmare it would be coding and debugging that? The same applies to a world type with floods or other natural disasters. For starters, rivers would no longer be a valid place to spawn structures. It'd be pointless for it to immediately flood. Then swamps would become pointless. And they couldn't add any more biomes mostly made of water without either struggling to make flooding properly register or bugging other worlds (as Minecraft tends to break features like this).
Before you say "only river BIOMES would flood", then what's the point of the idea? River level is ocean level. If a river biome leads into an ocean, there'll be an ugly 5-block tall wall of water. It'd have to be semi-consistent.
Then either the terrain generation system would need to be changed, or a new biome would need to be introduced specifically with this feature. No I don't want oceans being affected, or even a lake, swamp or lagoon in the middle of a jungle biome, they should only rise by 1 block, not 5 (lakes only, not ocean), as I suggested in my weather suggestion thread. But Minecraft would be more interesting with more types of weather, I don't agree with the hail suggestion, that would be extremely annoying to be damaged just by being outside of your house, worse if it was allowed to destroy blocks also, essentially making houses worthless at protecting you.
But I do think there is some merit to the flooding suggestion, if implemented properly I could see it being an interesting phenomenon happening in the Minecraft environment.
Lots of different update suggestions over the years would be difficult for developers to code into the game without it breaking it, remember cubic chunks? the problem with that suggestion is it would continuously generate terrain skywards, and the entire overworld floor was essentially inside of a gigantic cave system, but not yet generated and was invisible until you ventured up far enough.
But just because something is difficult to program doesn't mean it can't work, it just means more time would be needed to remove the game breaking flaws and make it practical.
The hail suggestion is definitely broken though and shouldn't be introduced under any circumstance, as it would be an almost impossible hazard to evade early game (you need to be outside if you're hunting or gathering food),
and blast protection enchantments are only intended to protect you from explosions, not falling material.
Well you can have it as a optional feature like fire spread and tnt exploding, it would automatically turned off when using multiplayer but if turned on it will limit how many can join.
Well you can have it as a optional feature like fire spread and tnt exploding, it would automatically turned off when using multiplayer but if turned on it will limit how many can join.
These 2 are true on default if i am not mistaken. Anyway i think tnt is less of natural desaster then enderman.
Im not against more features at all, every new option is valuable.
Random flood events would defenetly be cool. Especially for someone who tries minecraft first time,
seeing his house flushed away by minecrafts "peaceful" nature. ^^
I enjoy beeing crushed by surprise, ngl.
But flood sounds like a lot of blockupdates the way i think about it. And Mojang has to think about compatiblity for vanilla minecraft multiplayer.
That i think is most important. When you have a cool game, you want to play it with your friends. Otherwise the feature won't pay off.
I mean the flood could be the next big aquatic update feature.
What they don't need to think about is how a new feature could effect a certain genre. Like Citybuild or something.
These groups have to fix issues themselve if they want to jump on the next update.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My projects:
-are abandoned for now. I might pick 'em up in the future.
For now i'm working on a private modpack that suit's my own playstyle.
I am gonna stay in modded 1.12.2 untill my potato dies. No mercy! :Q
Well you can have it as a optional feature like fire spread and tnt exploding, it would automatically turned off when using multiplayer but if turned on it will limit how many can join.
and it wouldn't be an impossible to avoid situation even if it were imposed
there is a way to implement it without it griefing existing player builds, like lowering the existing river and ocean level.
Also floods should have a cap or a limit on how much the water levels of rivers, lakes and ocean can rise.
In the 1.17 update we are being given the ability to make lightning rods to protect wooden structures during thunderstorm.
So surely if floods were made a thing in Minecraft, there could be a similar mechanic that prevented player builds from being ruined.
After floods were introduced in Minecraft though players should be expected to use common sense and build at a specific height above rivers or lakes, if they refuse to then the consequences are on them.
It wouldn’t even be much of a problem cause all you need is some stone / cobblestone and the chances of it would be low enough that you should be prepared by the time it does happen (unless your unlucky) this idea is just like phantoms, yeah their annoying but it’s simple to fix the problem but people still complain about them
It wouldn’t even be much of a problem cause all you need is some stone / cobblestone and the chances of it would be low enough that you should be prepared by the time it does happen (unless your unlucky) this idea is just like phantoms, yeah their annoying but it’s simple to fix the problem but people still complain about them
and who builds their houses below sea level anyway?
usually when you first start out in a world it's more trouble than it's worth to build your homes at below Y 63 unless it is underground.
I'm talking as an experienced builder in the game, my builds generally start at Y 64 unless they are underground ones like sewers or mineshafts.
There's a lot of terrain to shift away with shovels to make it all flat enough for a town that doesn't involve any blocks to jump over on pathways or farmland. Don't even get me started on how much of a nuisance mountains are to remove, if you have experience with leveling terrain in the game you're already aware of this.
and who builds their houses below sea level anyway?
usually when you first start out in a world it's more trouble than it's worth to build your homes at below Y 63 unless it is underground.
I'm talking as an experienced builder in the game, my builds generally start at Y 64 unless they are underground ones like sewers or mineshafts.
There's a lot of terrain to shift away with shovels to make it all flat enough for a town that doesn't involve any blocks to jump over on pathways or farmland. Don't even get me started on how much of a nuisance mountains are to remove, if you have experience with leveling terrain in the game you're already aware of this.
To fix this it just exactly what I said 2 sentences ago of it being optional
To fix this it just exactly what I said 2 sentences ago of it being optional
I do agree with it being optional,
I'm just pointing out that the majority are unlikely to be affected by it even with it on
who actually takes the time to lower a large amount of local terrain to below sea level? e.g Y 60? which would be below sea level < Y 63? it's a lot of work with little incentive to do so.
You could say people who do a lot of mining would do this by digging out a large crater, but in general I doubt this is for building farmland or cities on top of.
(V1.2.2)
Hail, hail would behave like snow balls when falling, it would deal 0.5 damage but if you have blast protaction, it will just bounce off.] 8% on mountains, 0.4% in swamps and forrests and 0.08% near beaches.
flood, a flood will happen when theirs thunder or hail. floods would make water level up to 5 blocks higher, and can move blocks (up to 30 blocks) like wood and wool and course iron to rust, making it so when you turn iron block back to iron you would have a 18% chance of getting 2 nuggets instead. Floods would have a 0.8% chance of happening in area like mountains a 2% chance near more flat land like swamps or forrests and 5% chance near areas really close to water like beaches.
People really need to start searching before suggesting this.
This idea has been hated for years. I don't want my buildings/world trolled by these things. no thanks.
I agree with Senpian. Natural disasters that are destructive or harmful shouldn't be a thing, unless there are very early and easily performed options to prevent it--at which point, why have it?
Hail might be okay as an attack for some kind of new ice mob, but I wouldn't have it as a weather effect.
Alternatively, there could be a new dimension rife with natural disasters and highly dangerous mobs with incredible rewards.... but that's kind of like the Nether, now. Also, lots of people have a strange opposition even to well-thought-out new dimensions, so one whose sole purpose is to allow natural disasters to exist in the game isn't going to get a lot of support.
If the floods were limited to 5 blocks from a river side caused by heavy rainfall, don't you think you should use a bit more common sense and build more defensively in order to keep your work? some people are inevitably going to disagree with you.
We already have a weather type that can potentially destroy builds, thunderstorm, if a lightning bolt strikes a flammable block at just the right time, when rain is about to end, the fire will spread and damage your property, that's why non flammable blocks exist, among other reasons like lava.
Some of us don't mind a little extra challenge as a result of more types of weather being introduced to the game, at least have it as a world option. If you limit features like this to mods only, then you're alienating others in the community who do want these things in the game.
Thunderstorms aren't very common, let alone lightning. Then there's all the blocks loaded that can be struck: and it just so happens to choose a flammable one a few seconds before the storm ends? I'm no mathematician, but I'd give that at least a one in 300,000 chance. Maybe even one in a million. Compare that to floods, which would be thousands of times more likely to occur and could cause much more damage than fire (since fire spreading was severely nerfed to prevent entire forests from burning down).
And some members of the community don't want to worry about the environment griefing their builds. If you limit features like that to outside sources only, then you're alienating others in the community who don't want those things in the game.
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
If some people won't agree to it being a world option then we're not compromising, are we?
Besides, not all dry land areas of the Minecraft overworld are less than 5 blocks above river level, many are actually higher ground than this so there is a good chance you wouldn't have to worry about the floods ruining your area. Also like all weather, if you happened to use a bed at night time, the storm would end, it wouldn't just become daytime, lightning would stop, and presumably newer types of weather would be changed to clear with it.
I also advocate a massive overhaul of the world generation system to ensure most dry land areas were above 5 blocks from river surface, this would give players a fair shot at collecting enough dirt, sand, stone, gravel and what have you to keep their favoured biome terrain out of the water, and during the heavy rainfall I don't believe the flood should be allowed to creep up more than 5 blocks from where the river originally started from, if it were allowed to rise more than this then yes, it would be a broken suggestion and it would ruin everybody's world, obviously.
If it's controllable via a gamerule or world type, what's the point of not adding everything? Toggle the 1.9 Combat Update in its entirety, add natural disasters, make massive dragons spawn in the overworld. Why not a cake dimension if it's toggleable by world type? Why not a world type that makes chickens drop diamonds? Or creepers don't damage the terrain and will blow up hostile mobs?
Yes, that is an extreme answer. But it has to be to prove my point. The reason all major features have to be consistent between difficulties / world types is for balance purposes. Could you imagine if every update from this point on had to be balanced for both pre-Combat Update and post-Combat Update worlds? How much of a nightmare it would be coding and debugging that? The same applies to a world type with floods or other natural disasters. For starters, rivers would no longer be a valid place to spawn structures. It'd be pointless for it to immediately flood. Then swamps would become pointless. And they couldn't add any more biomes mostly made of water without either struggling to make flooding properly register or bugging other worlds (as Minecraft tends to break features like this).
Before you say "only river BIOMES would flood", then what's the point of the idea? River level is ocean level. If a river biome leads into an ocean, there'll be an ugly 5-block tall wall of water. It'd have to be semi-consistent.
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
Then either the terrain generation system would need to be changed, or a new biome would need to be introduced specifically with this feature. No I don't want oceans being affected, or even a lake, swamp or lagoon in the middle of a jungle biome, they should only rise by 1 block, not 5 (lakes only, not ocean), as I suggested in my weather suggestion thread. But Minecraft would be more interesting with more types of weather, I don't agree with the hail suggestion, that would be extremely annoying to be damaged just by being outside of your house, worse if it was allowed to destroy blocks also, essentially making houses worthless at protecting you.
But I do think there is some merit to the flooding suggestion, if implemented properly I could see it being an interesting phenomenon happening in the Minecraft environment.
Lots of different update suggestions over the years would be difficult for developers to code into the game without it breaking it, remember cubic chunks? the problem with that suggestion is it would continuously generate terrain skywards, and the entire overworld floor was essentially inside of a gigantic cave system, but not yet generated and was invisible until you ventured up far enough.
But just because something is difficult to program doesn't mean it can't work, it just means more time would be needed to remove the game breaking flaws and make it practical.
The hail suggestion is definitely broken though and shouldn't be introduced under any circumstance, as it would be an almost impossible hazard to evade early game (you need to be outside if you're hunting or gathering food),
and blast protection enchantments are only intended to protect you from explosions, not falling material.
Well since 1.17 has new heights and local water levels the idea makes even more sense to add
list of things that can destroy builds:
TNT
Creepers
Endermen
Lightning
Lava
Flint & Steel
And Wither
Thing is I am not advocating that something be uncontrollable with regards to destruction to biomes or builds.
There would be ways to prevent a flood
such as a stone barrier next to river banks and sea shores
Or building at a specific height above sea level.
This could even be implemented in a way that lowers existing sea level so players don't have their current builds ruined.
I don't know... When you know the flood hight, you can build save, yes. I like the idea.
Instead of having things destroyed, the blocks could be "pushed" around.
But what about lag becouse of big floods? Imagine this mechanic on servers. That could cause serious issues.
I don't think having this as a global weather would work for multiplayer.
My projects:
-are abandoned for now. I might pick 'em up in the future.
For now i'm working on a private modpack that suit's my own playstyle.
I am gonna stay in modded 1.12.2 untill my potato dies. No mercy! :Q
Well you can have it as a optional feature like fire spread and tnt exploding, it would automatically turned off when using multiplayer but if turned on it will limit how many can join.
These 2 are true on default if i am not mistaken. Anyway i think tnt is less of natural desaster then enderman.
Im not against more features at all, every new option is valuable.
Random flood events would defenetly be cool. Especially for someone who tries minecraft first time,
seeing his house flushed away by minecrafts "peaceful" nature. ^^
I enjoy beeing crushed by surprise, ngl.
But flood sounds like a lot of blockupdates the way i think about it. And Mojang has to think about compatiblity for vanilla minecraft multiplayer.
That i think is most important. When you have a cool game, you want to play it with your friends. Otherwise the feature won't pay off.
I mean the flood could be the next big aquatic update feature.
What they don't need to think about is how a new feature could effect a certain genre. Like Citybuild or something.
These groups have to fix issues themselve if they want to jump on the next update.
My projects:
-are abandoned for now. I might pick 'em up in the future.
For now i'm working on a private modpack that suit's my own playstyle.
I am gonna stay in modded 1.12.2 untill my potato dies. No mercy! :Q
and it wouldn't be an impossible to avoid situation even if it were imposed
there is a way to implement it without it griefing existing player builds, like lowering the existing river and ocean level.
Also floods should have a cap or a limit on how much the water levels of rivers, lakes and ocean can rise.
In the 1.17 update we are being given the ability to make lightning rods to protect wooden structures during thunderstorm.
So surely if floods were made a thing in Minecraft, there could be a similar mechanic that prevented player builds from being ruined.
After floods were introduced in Minecraft though players should be expected to use common sense and build at a specific height above rivers or lakes, if they refuse to then the consequences are on them.
This is survival mode, not creative.
It wouldn’t even be much of a problem cause all you need is some stone / cobblestone and the chances of it would be low enough that you should be prepared by the time it does happen (unless your unlucky) this idea is just like phantoms, yeah their annoying but it’s simple to fix the problem but people still complain about them
and who builds their houses below sea level anyway?
usually when you first start out in a world it's more trouble than it's worth to build your homes at below Y 63 unless it is underground.
I'm talking as an experienced builder in the game, my builds generally start at Y 64 unless they are underground ones like sewers or mineshafts.
There's a lot of terrain to shift away with shovels to make it all flat enough for a town that doesn't involve any blocks to jump over on pathways or farmland. Don't even get me started on how much of a nuisance mountains are to remove, if you have experience with leveling terrain in the game you're already aware of this.
To fix this it just exactly what I said 2 sentences ago of it being optional
I do agree with it being optional,
I'm just pointing out that the majority are unlikely to be affected by it even with it on
who actually takes the time to lower a large amount of local terrain to below sea level? e.g Y 60? which would be below sea level < Y 63? it's a lot of work with little incentive to do so.
You could say people who do a lot of mining would do this by digging out a large crater, but in general I doubt this is for building farmland or cities on top of.
People just complain about anything that could be a slight inconvenience. (Might be repeating myself)