But food requires almost no effort to obtain and you should be able to have hundreds of Steak or some other high quality food before you have an enchanting table. This seems unnecessary.
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!
I agree with Badprenup. In casual game food is usually not a problem: at most at the very beginning you may have some hard times if you play in hard difficulty due to the fact that starving will make you lose hearts.
No support. If anything, I'd almost prefer food be more difficult to obtain, since past the very early game it's a complete non-issue. I'd like to see obtaining food, and food choice, matter more and for longer, particularly through the mid-game before you start attaining redstone farming capabilties.
I disagree, food is already easy to obtain, why does it need enchantments?
I'd like to see a mechanic where crop growth became biome specific, to make it harder to get, in a logical way.
it doesn't make sense that you can grow wheat fields in a tundra or an ice spikes biome, in fact farmland in these regions should be inert due to the ice and low sunlight. Forcing players to kill animals or move to a different biome if they want large quantities of food.
I don't want food spoiling, although in a newer difficulty mode it would be interesting to see.
If we're going to start questioning why food doesn't spoil in the current experience, do we also question why most blocks are able to float in mid air? or why there are monsters when in real life the closest analog to monsters would be dangerous criminals?
I do think there should be some hard limits on what kind of realism is introduced to the game, at least in the current experience.
So to that end I don't want enchanted food, the enchanted golden apple was already OP enough.
Save enchantments for armour and tools only, unless you count potions.
it doesn't make sense that you can grow wheat fields in a tundra or an ice spikes biome, in fact farmland in these regions should be inert due to the ice and low sunlight. Forcing players to kill animals or move to a different biome if they want large quantities of food.
This is one of my most-disliked types of suggestion; biomes should not impose such severe restrictions on gameplay as to make nobody ever want to be in them (among other extremely hated suggestions in general, "thirst", "heatstroke", "frostbite", etc). Also, what stops a player from placing a farm underground or in a building? That should certainly NOT be impacted by the biome (fun fact: in TMCW village farms in cold biomes are inside green houses so the water doesn't freeze), and since I always do this myself (indoor farms are also safe from mobs) I'd likewise see no impact, making this change useless and only a hindrance very early on, which is still enough to make many players absolutely hate biomes that restrict farming (think of how many players state they simply create a new world if they spawn in e.g. desert or ocean - yourself included).
This is one of my most-disliked types of suggestion; biomes should not impose such severe restrictions on gameplay as to make nobody ever want to be in them (among other extremely hated suggestions in general, "thirst", "heatstroke", "frostbite", etc). Also, what stops a player from placing a farm underground or in a building? That should certainly NOT be impacted by the biome (fun fact: in TMCW village farms in cold biomes are inside green houses so the water doesn't freeze), and since I always do this myself (indoor farms are also safe from mobs) I'd likewise see no impact, making this change useless and only a hindrance very early on, which is still enough to make many players absolutely hate biomes that restrict farming (think of how many players state they simply create a new world if they spawn in e.g. desert or ocean - yourself included).
Good point, but then they could just introduce a mechanic forcing players to build (with sufficient lighting via torches, lanterns or the like) greenhouses or farms underground if they wish to grow crops in tundras or ice biomes to circumvent this biome limitation I suggested.
it is my opinion although you're free to disagree, that tundras, snowy taiga and ice spike biomes shouldn't let players easily grow crops outside, because otherwise it doesn't encourage sensible farm building.
And it makes sense this way, in polar regions it's hard enough for algae to grow, let alone grass or any bigger plant.
The two major reasons why plants have such a hard time growing in frozen wastelands is because of poor sunlight and subzero temperatures, which is worsened by blizzards or icy winds. Most plants would die if they were exposed to conditions like this in real life.
No support. If anything, I'd almost prefer food be more difficult to obtain, since past the very early game it's a complete non-issue. I'd like to see obtaining food, and food choice, matter more and for longer, particularly through the mid-game before you start attaining redstone farming capabilties.
I think the same - player has surprisingly low food consumption needs compared to the production capabilities.
Some diversity, like division into protein (high regen), carbohydrate (more hunger points restored) and vitamins (improved negative status effect cleansing) would require more planning, but also give an advantage if used correctly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dwarf gamer found:
Buildings - square, not round
Materials - from rubble mound
Dark caves - lit 'n' cleaned out
Settlements - deep underground
Farmability - to grinder bound
Shields - made creepers but sound
Axes and crossbows - taking mobs out
I think the same - player has surprisingly low food consumption needs compared to the production capabilities.
Some diversity, like division into protein (high regen), carbohydrate (more hunger points restored) and vitamins (improved negative status effect cleansing) would require more planning, but also give an advantage if used correctly.
but if we're going to make the diet matter in the game, why not add stamina and obesity into the game also?
this way players would need to remain active to burn off those carbohydrates, or suffer the consequences and end up with a reduced overall sprinting capability, meaning their sprint time had been reduced, until those excess calories had been burned off.
This could be measured in hunger points. If players stay within their hunger and saturation limit, or if they exceeded it only slightly but recently burned off those excess calories, they're in no danger of reducing their stamina, but if they persistently go over the calorie limit and don't burn off enough within a set amount of time, they gain weight, which in turn reduces their stamina making them unable to sprint for as long as they did previously.
This may not be what you're going for, but if you're going to make diet matter in the game to the extent you're suggesting,
then why not impose a mechanic where players had to keep fit?
Stamina
Regen
Negative status effect reduction
Hunger
Your suggestions already expand on the stats in terms of buffs or debuffs.
I'm suggesting that in order to make the food system more of a challenge, players would need to plan their diet more carefully.
but if we're going to make the diet matter in the game, why not add stamina and obesity into the game also?
this way players would need to remain active to burn off those carbohydrates, or suffer the consequences and end up with a reduced overall sprinting capability, meaning their sprint time had been reduced, until those excess calories had been burned off.
This could be measured in hunger points. If players stay within their hunger and saturation limit, or if they exceeded it only slightly but recently burned off those excess calories, they're in no danger of reducing their stamina, but if they persistently go over the calorie limit and don't burn off enough within a set amount of time, they gain weight, which in turn reduces their stamina making them unable to sprint for as long as they did previously.
This may not be what you're going for, but if you're going to make diet matter in the game to the extent you're suggesting,
then why not impose a mechanic where players had to keep fit?
Stamina
Regen
Negative status effect reduction
Hunger
Your suggestions already expand on the stats in terms of buffs or debuffs.
I'm suggesting that in order to make the food system more of a challenge, players would need to plan their diet more carefully.
Bruh, the player most of the time is literally slaving in mines, constructing buildings, cutting down trees with nothing but axe or engaging in brutal fights.
Even the more complex and braintaking long-term kinds of work are comparable to working on high voltage lines or physical work at factory. And it's can't be done forever, so sooner or later the player goes back to slaving in mines or running here and there in heavy armor and killing things that move.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Dwarf gamer found:
Buildings - square, not round
Materials - from rubble mound
Dark caves - lit 'n' cleaned out
Settlements - deep underground
Farmability - to grinder bound
Shields - made creepers but sound
Axes and crossbows - taking mobs out
You can enchant any food (steak, bread...) with infinity and the food will not end up (potion not included)
But food requires almost no effort to obtain and you should be able to have hundreds of Steak or some other high quality food before you have an enchanting table. This seems unnecessary.
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 agree with Badprenup. In casual game food is usually not a problem: at most at the very beginning you may have some hard times if you play in hard difficulty due to the fact that starving will make you lose hearts.
No support. If anything, I'd almost prefer food be more difficult to obtain, since past the very early game it's a complete non-issue. I'd like to see obtaining food, and food choice, matter more and for longer, particularly through the mid-game before you start attaining redstone farming capabilties.
I disagree, food is already easy to obtain, why does it need enchantments?
I'd like to see a mechanic where crop growth became biome specific, to make it harder to get, in a logical way.
it doesn't make sense that you can grow wheat fields in a tundra or an ice spikes biome, in fact farmland in these regions should be inert due to the ice and low sunlight. Forcing players to kill animals or move to a different biome if they want large quantities of food.
I don't want food spoiling, although in a newer difficulty mode it would be interesting to see.
If we're going to start questioning why food doesn't spoil in the current experience, do we also question why most blocks are able to float in mid air? or why there are monsters when in real life the closest analog to monsters would be dangerous criminals?
I do think there should be some hard limits on what kind of realism is introduced to the game, at least in the current experience.
So to that end I don't want enchanted food, the enchanted golden apple was already OP enough.
Save enchantments for armour and tools only, unless you count potions.
This is one of my most-disliked types of suggestion; biomes should not impose such severe restrictions on gameplay as to make nobody ever want to be in them (among other extremely hated suggestions in general, "thirst", "heatstroke", "frostbite", etc). Also, what stops a player from placing a farm underground or in a building? That should certainly NOT be impacted by the biome (fun fact: in TMCW village farms in cold biomes are inside green houses so the water doesn't freeze), and since I always do this myself (indoor farms are also safe from mobs) I'd likewise see no impact, making this change useless and only a hindrance very early on, which is still enough to make many players absolutely hate biomes that restrict farming (think of how many players state they simply create a new world if they spawn in e.g. desert or ocean - yourself included).
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?
Good point, but then they could just introduce a mechanic forcing players to build (with sufficient lighting via torches, lanterns or the like) greenhouses or farms underground if they wish to grow crops in tundras or ice biomes to circumvent this biome limitation I suggested.
it is my opinion although you're free to disagree, that tundras, snowy taiga and ice spike biomes shouldn't let players easily grow crops outside, because otherwise it doesn't encourage sensible farm building.
And it makes sense this way, in polar regions it's hard enough for algae to grow, let alone grass or any bigger plant.
The two major reasons why plants have such a hard time growing in frozen wastelands is because of poor sunlight and subzero temperatures, which is worsened by blizzards or icy winds. Most plants would die if they were exposed to conditions like this in real life.
I think the same - player has surprisingly low food consumption needs compared to the production capabilities.
Some diversity, like division into protein (high regen), carbohydrate (more hunger points restored) and vitamins (improved negative status effect cleansing) would require more planning, but also give an advantage if used correctly.
Dwarf gamer found:
Buildings - square, not round
Materials - from rubble mound
Dark caves - lit 'n' cleaned out
Settlements - deep underground
Farmability - to grinder bound
Shields - made creepers but sound
Axes and crossbows - taking mobs out
but if we're going to make the diet matter in the game, why not add stamina and obesity into the game also?
this way players would need to remain active to burn off those carbohydrates, or suffer the consequences and end up with a reduced overall sprinting capability, meaning their sprint time had been reduced, until those excess calories had been burned off.
This could be measured in hunger points. If players stay within their hunger and saturation limit, or if they exceeded it only slightly but recently burned off those excess calories, they're in no danger of reducing their stamina, but if they persistently go over the calorie limit and don't burn off enough within a set amount of time, they gain weight, which in turn reduces their stamina making them unable to sprint for as long as they did previously.
This may not be what you're going for, but if you're going to make diet matter in the game to the extent you're suggesting,
then why not impose a mechanic where players had to keep fit?
Stamina
Regen
Negative status effect reduction
Hunger
Your suggestions already expand on the stats in terms of buffs or debuffs.
I'm suggesting that in order to make the food system more of a challenge, players would need to plan their diet more carefully.
Bruh, the player most of the time is literally slaving in mines, constructing buildings, cutting down trees with nothing but axe or engaging in brutal fights.
Even the more complex and braintaking long-term kinds of work are comparable to working on high voltage lines or physical work at factory. And it's can't be done forever, so sooner or later the player goes back to slaving in mines or running here and there in heavy armor and killing things that move.
Dwarf gamer found:
Buildings - square, not round
Materials - from rubble mound
Dark caves - lit 'n' cleaned out
Settlements - deep underground
Farmability - to grinder bound
Shields - made creepers but sound
Axes and crossbows - taking mobs out