I disagree with a gun doing twice the knockback, especially if you already have a weapon that has twice range.
Which brings me into the next topic- extra reach weapons.
No. Just no. I don't care if they do half a heart each punch, they're unacceptable. Extra reach weapons either require your enemy to charge a bow (or in this case, fire a gun), or require you to carry an extra reach weapon as well.
If the only counter to a weapon is itself, or something that is hardly a counter at all(bow, because to be honest, who would use a bow in close range while they're smacking you to death?)
No one would even bother with swords except as a starter weapon anymore- it might take longer to kill, but it certainly would be a lot easier, since anyone without a bayonet/gun/bow would effectively be screwed with your god-reach.
Wow, did you actually read my entire suggestion on the first page? I said both styles should do roughly the same amount of damage on average. I am using the ratios for the gist of whether a gun is faster at reloading than drawing a bow. Historically, bows could be fired at a faster rate than muskets.
So bows still have the advantage, in that it can knock you back 4 times with the time it takes to reload a musket that knocks you back once, but 2x the distance to the distance of knockback of bow.
The bow can deal 4 fully charged hits with one reloading time of a musket.
Bayonets have 2x the range of sword, but does 0.5x damage of a sword. Bayonet can break just like swords, so it is wiser to use swords to farm mobs since swords do 2x the damage of a bayonet. The bayonet's 2x range is only tactical! You don't need tactics to kill dumb mobs.
I am not intending these to be the actual damages or knock backs distances, but I intend them as conceptual models for the gist of the ratios of damage and knock back between bow and musket, to make them different and realistic. The actual damage is up to the person who writes the algorithms.
There is a reason why bows and guns exist in the real world, which is because of their different uses.
Please read the suggestions before arguing against guns with arguments that were addressed within these suggestions, or else people have to repeat things in the suggestions over and over again.
I don't see the need to read your full suggestion- I skimmed it a day or two ago, but since you recapped it I assumed from the recap.
Why would I talk about the 2x range against mobs? Nowhere in the whole post did I even MENTION mobs.
If you're farming mobs, anyways, please explain why you're even using a sword? Is it that hard to make them climb a little higher and be one hit kill?
Also, I don't know why you even bothered posting all that stuff in the beginning about guns- I didn't mention guns besides the idea of 2x knockback.
2x range is overpowered, and there's no way to counter it. Any player PvPing you would have NO hope at all without a ranged weapon. Sword users would be left at a huge disadvantage- who cares how much damage they do if you can't hit them at all? That leaves the only counter to a MELEE weapon as a ranged weapon(hardly preferable since melee weapons have much higher damage output) or itself(which isn't really a counter, because it pretty much requires everyone to carry it, killing diversity)
I don't see the need to read your full suggestion- I skimmed it a day or two ago, but since you recapped it I assumed from the recap.
Why would I talk about the 2x range against mobs? Nowhere in the whole post did I even MENTION mobs.
If you're farming mobs, anyways, please explain why you're even using a sword? Is it that hard to make them climb a little higher and be one hit kill?
Also, I don't know why you even bothered posting all that stuff in the beginning about guns- I didn't mention guns besides the idea of 2x knockback.
2x range is overpowered, and there's no way to counter it. Any player PvPing you would have NO hope at all without a ranged weapon. Sword users would be left at a huge disadvantage- who cares how much damage they do if you can't hit them at all? That leaves the only counter to a MELEE weapon as a ranged weapon(hardly preferable since melee weapons have much higher damage output) or itself(which isn't really a counter, because it pretty much requires everyone to carry it, killing diversity)
You can counter them with bows or bayonets or muskets. Bayonets do 0.5 the damage of swords.
You can post the EXACT SAME argument against bows. The only way to counter bows is with a ranged weapon. So what is wrong with needing a bow or bayonet or musket to counter bayonets?
To make a musket, you need iron for the musket barrel, then you can only use the bayonet's 2x range ability once it is attached to to musket.
Also, the musket shots do 2x knockback, not the bayonet. I will compensate by having the bayonet do 0.5x the knock back of a sword.
Sword will not be useless because it does more damage. During PVP, If you can hide behind an obstacle, such that people cannot attack through walls, you effectively have the higher dps when you fight around obstacles. Imagine yourself in a cave, 2x distance of bayonet is useless if the person being hit is against a wall, so that person using a sword can kill the guy who is using a bayonet due to higher dps.
Further more, a bayonet can only hit players or mobs 2 blocks away from them. If a mob or player is within 0x<range<2x where x is the range of sword, or if the mob or player is at a range>2x, then the bayonet won't be able to hit the player or mob. The bayonet only hits mobs or players at a block distance of range equal to 2x the sword. So it takes some skill to use a bayonet.
I can't help but completely agree with Vaylen, but i wish to add on to his idea, in that the bayonet be compared to an iron sword, and takes 2x the damage a bow does after each firing, and the bayonet gives it the same damage as an iron sword. 2x range than a bow is fair, as well as 2x damage, but .75 accuracy. and i'm indifferent between automatic reloading, and reloading in the 2x2 crafting grid.
Sword will not be useless because it does more damage. During PVP, If you can hide behind an obstacle, such that people cannot attack through walls, you effectively have the higher dps when you fight around obstacles. Imagine yourself in a cave, 2x distance of bayonet is useless if the person being hit is against a wall, so that person using a sword can kill the guy who is using a bayonet due to higher
See the thing is though sacrificing a little damage for range isn't much of a sacrifice when they're wearing enchanted iron or regular diamond. You already do so little damage, why not trade for range? That being said, it doesn't sound too hard to keep people back with one.
See the thing is though sacrificing a little damage for range isn't much of a sacrifice when they're wearing enchanted iron or regular diamond. You already do so little damage, why not trade for range? That being said, it doesn't sound too hard to keep people back with one.
Read the paragraph of my post after the one you quoted.
Below is a lengthy reply toward Vaylen, for the sake of reader sanity, I have enclosed it in a spoiler. Thank you for your time.
Gun reload/cooldown is a horrible gimmick to distance itself from it's contemporary.
1) For the duration of the cooldown, you are basically a sitting duck. This makes them ineffective when facing a group. Bows do not have this problem and a skilled player can remove the group before it becomes problematic.
2) If you MISS, you are even worse off.
3) Generally this cooldown is to balance off a 1-hit kill scenario (you really can't balance that).
4) If you bring a second gun that would have a seperate reload time, then you still would have to have 2 guns to equal the effectiveness of a bow.
Knockback of a gun on a cooldown would likewise be pointless as any extra distance you would've gotten would be squandered waiting for the damn weapon to reload.
Adding spread would be a death sentence for a weapon with a load time, not only do you have to WAIT after your shot, but the chances of you missing the target are increased. Lord help you if your errant bullet hit an enderman aimed at that skeleton.
Bayonet sounds like an interesting idea, but I'd prefer it have the same range as a sword at the half damage, it already has a benefit of being attached to a gun making it a competent ranged and melee item, there's no reason to give it more benefit than it needs. My greatest fear is that the gun would form nothing more than a spear because the ranged aspect is abyssmal at best.
Please read the suggestions before arguing against guns with arguments that were addressed within these suggestions, or else people have to repeat things in the suggestions over and over again.
Oh, ok, jeez man, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you was the only person posting on this thread. My bad.
BadPrenup is in charge of this thread, if things are found to be repeated, have him add it to OP instead of screaming in size=7 red text.
Arrow trajectory are curved, but musket shots are less curved.
They still fire toward a target in a straight line from A to B without deviation outside of the Y.
Bow cannot melee, so you carry a sword. Musket and bayonet can both melee and range with left or right click, respectively.
My response is above.
Your definition of new mechanics seems to revolve around "if a bow can be implemented to do the same thing, then you are not adding anything new".
Incorrect, sir. My definion of new mechanic is "if a bow IS CURRENTLY implemented to do the same thing, then you are not adding anything new". If Bob creates a toaster and Jim, 3 years later, creates a slotted device with variable settings to brown breakfast breads, who is innovating? Bob already created the toaster, why is Jim doing the same thing? To show "me too!"? Well, that's good and all, but it doesn't change the fact that the device has already been invented to take care of that convenience. If you give the toaster a paint job, it doesn't very well change the fact that it is a toaster.
Well then, following that logic, why not remove the pickaxe and give bows an arrow that can mine.
1) because that's not my logic, and 2) that defies game design principles.
You can see how ridiculous that logic is,
Yes, I do. Which is precisely why I don't use it.
As far as I was aware, the only thing I presented was that REMOVING THE BOW to facilitate a clumbsy and less effective firearm would be ridiculous, not borderline, but would be developmental suicide.
which furthermore would result in the over-milking of bow as an item.
You're right. Wood is totally used in everything, Mojang has totally over-milked that, let's remove wood and replace it with discarded snake-skin. Who cares that it is inferior and flimsy comparatively.
Thus, the above things I mentioned along with others, should be more than enough to classify musket and bayonets as uniquely a new combat style, and not to mention that more ideas are to come.
Except adding reloads would be self-defeating toward any other possible mechanic in addition to WASTING the player's time. Unfortunately, the reloading mechanic is the linchpin that holds your suggestion together, without it, you have no balancing mechanism for improved damage (which isn't new, it's that new color on the toaster I was telling you about) or improved knockback.
The bayonet idea is still solid, but it's not a means to redefine gameplay, just to supplement existing gameplay.
The problem here is that the butthurt people against guns have no real reason.
I'm against guns, I'm not butthurt, but I hope I've given you at least ONE good reason why the concept needs to be further improved. In fact... You know what... I've been here for nearly 2 years. After that much time, anyone would grow tired of beating the same tired drum on why guns are bad. After the 5th or 6th time explaining your position, it kind of gets old.
Please read the previous gun threads with my personal reasons why I disagree before lumping me in with everyone else with the presumption that I don't think about things. I am only saying this because despite the dozens of other posters besides myself, I pretentiously think I'm the only one here that matters.
You get the point? How that makes you look like an asshat? Don't do that. It makes you sound insipid, petulant, and myopic.
Their main argument is a single syllable long. Is "no", as an argument, enough to convince you that easily?
I thought I wrote a 2 paragraph speil about my point of the word "no" as a criticism. It's kind of hard to find though, I think it's buried somewhere in the STICKIES. Here, lemme do an exhaustive search of the top of the forum for you, no really, I insist.
Unfortunately, "no"-- while valid (a statement of dislike, which means that the suggestion is not perfect)-- is not a very helpful criticism. Where does the poster improve his suggestion? What hallmarks does he go by?
edit: Remember that one-word and two-word responses like "no" and "don't like" are against the rules. The reasoning is very simple; they do not help. Yes, they are your opinions and they are criticisms; but they help in the same way as the engine light coming on in a car. Yes, there is a problem... Now... Where?
To effectively criticize, it is important to have your personal views and beliefs take a back seat. Remember that this is a suggestion for inclusion into the game for ALL players. The OP may not have back-seated his bias, but a critic should. While cases of "I personally don't see myself using this." or "I do not prefer this mechanic" are definitely valid arguments, the OP CANNOT use this to strengthen his post. How can he improve it if you are fundamentally opposed to the basic premise? you can't? Exactly! Backseat your concerns.
What "actual" reasons do you have to say no? Difficulty? Mechanics? Cost? Fundamental problems?
Keep in mind that even if you say YES to a suggestion, it is desirable to post criticisms to further cement and improve the idea.
Finally, if you can't find a good thing to say about the suggestion; it takes less energy to press back and ignore it than it does to reply with "no". If you're going to be lazy, don't half-ass it.
Gun reload/cooldown is a horrible gimmick to distance itself from it's contemporary.
1) For the duration of the cooldown, you are basically a sitting duck. This makes them ineffective when facing a group. Bows do not have this problem and a skilled player can remove the group before it becomes problematic.
2) If you MISS, you are even worse off.
3) Generally this cooldown is to balance off a 1-hit kill scenario (you really can't balance that).
4) If you bring a second gun that would have a seperate reload time, then you still would have to have 2 guns to equal the effectiveness of a bow.
Knockback of a gun on a cooldown would likewise be pointless as any extra distance you would've gotten would be squandered waiting for the damn weapon to reload.
Adding spread would be a death sentence for a weapon with a load time, not only do you have to WAIT after your shot, but the chances of you missing the target are increased. Lord help you if your errant bullet hit an enderman aimed at that skeleton.
Bayonet sounds like an interesting idea, but I'd prefer it have the same range as a sword at the half damage, it already has a benefit of being attached to a gun making it a competent ranged and melee item, there's no reason to give it more benefit than it needs. My greatest fear is that the gun would form nothing more than a spear because the ranged aspect is abyssmal at best.
Oh, ok, jeez man, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you was the only person posting on this thread. My bad.
BadPrenup is in charge of this thread, if things are found to be repeated, have him add it to OP instead of screaming in size=7 red text.
They still fire toward a target in a straight line from A to B without deviation outside of the Y.
My response is above.
Incorrect, sir. My definion of new mechanic is "if a bow IS CURRENTLY implemented to do the same thing, then you are not adding anything new". If Bob creates a toaster and Jim, 3 years later, creates a slotted device with variable settings to brown breakfast breads, who is innovating? Bob already created the toaster, why is Jim doing the same thing? To show "me too!"? Well, that's good and all, but it doesn't change the fact that the device has already been invented to take care of that convenience. If you give the toaster a paint job, it doesn't very well change the fact that it is a toaster.
1) because that's not my logic, and 2) that defies game design principles. Yes, I do. Which is precisely why I don't use it.
As far as I was aware, the only thing I presented was that REMOVING THE BOW to facilitate a clumbsy and less effective firearm would be ridiculous, not borderline, but would be developmental suicide. You're right. Wood is totally used in everything, Mojang has totally over-milked that, let's remove wood and replace it with discarded snake-skin. Who cares that it is inferior and flimsy comparatively.
Except adding reloads would be self-defeating toward any other possible mechanic in addition to WASTING the player's time. Unfortunately, the reloading mechanic is the linchpin that holds your suggestion together, without it, you have no balancing mechanism for improved damage (which isn't new, it's that new color on the toaster I was telling you about) or improved knockback.
The bayonet idea is still solid, but it's not a means to redefine gameplay, just to supplement existing gameplay.
I'm against guns, I'm not butthurt, but I hope I've given you at least ONE good reason why the concept needs to be further improved. In fact... You know what... I've been here for nearly 2 years. After that much time, anyone would grow tired of beating the same tired drum on why guns are bad. After the 5th or 6th time explaining your position, it kind of gets old.
Please read the previous gun threads with my personal reasons why I disagree before lumping me in with everyone else with the presumption that I don't think about things. I am only saying this because despite the dozens of other posters besides myself, I pretentiously think I'm the only one here that matters.
You get the point? How that makes you look like an asshat? Don't do that. It makes you sound insipid, petulant, and myopic.I thought I wrote a 2 paragraph speil about my point of the word "no" as a criticism. It's kind of hard to find though, I think it's buried somewhere in the STICKIES. Here, lemme do an exhaustive search of the top of the forum for you, no really, I insist.
1. lolpierandom was directly attacking my suggestion, so it makes sense that he should have read my suggestion first. It was also directed to anyone thinking of arguing against something in this thread that has already been stated. Anything about guns in other threads don't matter, because this is the official gun thread. I thought this was a pretty important matter and required big, bold, red letters, which i intended it as a matter of typographic design choice, not an expression of anger.
2. Bow is not wood. My impression of your logic still holds true. The only similarity between a musket and bow is that they are ranged. Since bow is already ranged, you say there can't be possibly any better use for adding another ranged weapon, which is where you are wrong.
3. You DON'T have to be a sitting duck. There is something called taking cover and running to reload. When fighting against a melee opponent, you can use your bayonet to keep him at bay, which you need to do skillfully as I have mentioned in my suggestion. Depending on how well you use the bayonet, sword players may or may not be able to attack you. Depending on how sword players play, they may or may not beat a bayonet and musket player, e.g. sprinting can close the sword user within 1 block range such that bayonets are ineffective and does no damage.
4. I never said I was the only one posting in this thread, that is why the "suggestions" I wrote is PLURAL.
5. Exactly my point, no is not a very helpful argument, yet you are advocating the side that uses no as an argument. Your main argument is subjective, in that guns are lame, boring, overused in gaming, and uninspiring(Well, someone has been playing too much call of duty and halo). I, myself, have never played a halo or call of duty game. The only FPS I have enjoyed and played for a long time was counter strike several years ago.
You are also arguing from the standpoint that people cannot run and hide and sprint. You assume that all combat is head to head, everyone stand in place, then fight each other, which is not how it works. Given people can sprint, hide, and run, everything works out a bit better.
A mix of bow, sword, and musket and bayonet is also good, but comes at a price.
Furthermore, the musket and bayonet is not even in the game, how can you so easily presume how it works. For the suggestions, we are only suggesting how something would work. The musket is to knock back the opponent to a range where you can deal with them with your bayonet. If your opponent uses a sword and is 1 block within range of you, you can't attack him with your bayonet because he or she is too close. Then you would have to knock him or her back with your musket to a knockback of 2x of the bow, which should be more than enough range of about 2 blocks. Than you can attack him or her with your bayonet melee, and he can't touch you if he just runs at you constantly. If he runs and hides, or sprints, then he can close the gap back to 1 block, then the musket and bayonet user has to run and sprint away. This is quite balanced.
Yes, I want you to miss when using a musket and bayonet, I want you to have a long reloading time, so that it takes more skill to use it than your sword and bow. But if you know how to use a bayonet and musket with skill, it can be more tactically rewarding than the sword and bow.
Of course you would have gotten most of what I had to say here if you read carefully, what I suggested, hence I had it in big, bold, red letters.
It has nothing to do with being overpowered (which it would be) hard to make, or a dumb crafting recipe (which it would be), or slightly different from the bow. Most people say (or say that people say) that it is an Anachronism. It isn't that.
How about this. You want a gun? We take you, lock you in a room, with nobody to talk to, no internet to consult. We give you a hammer, a chisel, saw, iron, flint, gunpowder, ect. and tell you to try and make a gun. If you can even make something that will fire, try getting it to not blow apart in your face. If you even could get it to no blow up in your face, it wouldn't shoot straight.
Now, the same thing, only you're given a hammer, a chisel, saw, and wood, while locked in a room, I bet you'd be able to make some kind of a door, and it would probably be OK even. People can figure out how to make many things on their own with little to no outside help, and firearms aren't one of them. Explosives are more easily made this way, as durability is not an issue, and aim/safety isn't either.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
It has nothing to do with being overpowered (which it would be) hard to make, or a dumb crafting recipe (which it would be), or slightly different from the bow. Most people say (or say that people say) that it is an Anachronism. It isn't that.
How about this. You want a gun? We take you, lock you in a room, with nobody to talk to, no internet to consult. We give you a hammer, a chisel, saw, iron, flint, gunpowder, ect. and tell you to try and make a gun. If you can even make something that will fire, try getting it to not blow apart in your face. If you even could get it to no blow up in your face, it wouldn't shoot straight.
Now, the same thing, only you're given a hammer, a chisel, saw, and wood, while locked in a room, I bet you'd be able to make some kind of a door, and it would probably be OK even. People can figure out how to make many things on their own with little to no outside help, and firearms aren't one of them. Explosives are more easily made this way, as durability is not an issue, and aim/safety isn't either.
Your definition of whether something should be added, is that it should be able to be made by a single person locked in a room with given materials. I just want to say this is a failure of an argument. How did you make an iron sword? How did you make a diamond sword? How did you make a diamond armor? How did you make a minecart? How did you make booster tracks?
You are trying to impose strict realism to minecraft as a filter for suggestions, which is invalid.
Your definition of whether something should be added, is that it should be able to be made by a single person locked in a room with given materials. I just want to say this is a failure of an argument. How did you make an iron sword? How did you make a diamond sword? How did you make a diamond armor? How did you make a minecart?
You are trying to impose strict realism to minecraft as a filter for suggestions, which is invalid
I'm just saying given all of the required materials and tools, by almost any stretch of logic is it possible that someone could make something (EDIT: without having instructions on how to)? In most crafting recipes, like say the iron sword, it would be possible for someone to make with very little knowledge on how to make a sword. It would, however, require some way to melt the iron together and make the edge, but that is left out for simplicity. The diamond is more of a stretch, but, being only 1 tier of tools that would not be realistically made, with others that could, it is ok. I'm not saying "strict realism" so it is not invalid, if anything I'm saying surrealism and logic, catering more toward "what works" in a video game.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
I'm just saying given all of the required materials and tools, by almost any stretch of logic is it possible that someone could make something (EDIT: without having instructions on how to)? In most crafting recipes, like say the iron sword, it would be possible for someone to make with very little knowledge on how to make a sword. It would, however, require some way to melt the iron together and make the edge, but that is left out for simplicity. The diamond is more of a stretch, but, being only 1 tier of tools that would not be realistically made, with others that could, it is ok. I'm not saying "strict realism" so it is not invalid, if anything I'm saying surrealism and logic, catering more toward "what works" in a video game.
Confined in a room to make resourceful use of given materials is not surreal. Do you even know what surreal means? And what do you mean by "logic", a lot of things in minecraft are not logical within the real world. Why do guns have to be limited to real world logic then? Again, your argument is invalid, but to play along, I will tell you how I would make a projectile and propeller system based on gunpowder, A.K.A. the gun.
I would be able to make a simple gun if I was given the materials. I would have a mold for the gun barrel, make a hollow cylinder. At the end of a hollow cylinder would be a hole for lighting the gunpowder. I would make small round iron balls as well. Then I make the stock, which supports the barrel, or anything that is good for holding. Then I throw some gunpowder down the barrel, and use it to cushion the iron bullet. Light the gun powder through the hole in the back, and bam, you got a propeller and projectile system based on new chemistry from the bow. The chinese did it at around 1000 A.C.E., and I believe they called it "fire lance".
The bayonet would just be a stick protruding out of the stock, which is simple to do as well.
It is also obvious you don't know how guns work, so you say you cannot hand-make guns in a confined room, and that you believe guns to have this magical quality that separates them from things you do understand in minecraft.
FYI, if you want realism, bows require mastery, and guns don't require as much. The process of learning to use a musket and bayonet can be a few weeks, while the process of learning to master the bow can be a few years. This is why muskets and bayonets took over the battle field. Death of a bow man is the death of a guy who took very long to train, which is worst than the casualty of a musket and bayonet user.
Furthermore, the reason why guns did not take over earlier is because of their poor accuracy and range in their early models. Ammunitions were also not massively manufactured. A hundred bow man could fire several shots before a musket user could even come within range of fire.
So ask yourself, why is it so easy to shoot a bow in minecraft? If you gave a bow to a man in a confined room, how long would it take for him to master archery? A few years realistically, so why so fast in minecraft? Thus your argument is invalid both ways.
Confined in a room to make resourceful use of given materials is not surreal. Do you even know what surreal means? The ability to craft guns is within the logic of minecraft. I would be able to make a simple gun if I was given the materials. I would have a mold for the gun barrel, make a hollow cylinder. At the end of a hollow cylinder would be a hole for lighting the gunpowder. I would make small round iron balls as well. Then I make the stock, which supports the barrel, or anything that is good for holding. Then I throw some gunpowder down the barrel, and use it to cushion the iron bullet. Light the gun powder, and bam, you got a propeller and projectile system based on new chemistry from the bow. The chinese did it with the fire lance at around 1000 A.C.E., I believe they called it "fire lance".
The bayonet would just be a stick protruding out of the stock, which is simple to do as well.
Yes, it means real-life elements presented in an unreal or warped way. Like how dreams occur, or how many sci-fi movies are. Not fully realistic, containing both elements of fiction and non-fiction.
I only say confined in a room to be equal to the game how you're stranded within a world with no way to receive knowledge or talk to others. I doubt you would be able to do so, and I'm pretty sure you were just at the wikipedia page to find out all of that info.
But even if you weren't, and you could do all of that, my point is that if you could do that, it took more than basic logic or experimenting. It took the building of knowledge within civilization, which in Minecraft, there currently is no real "civilization" you can gain knowledge from.
EDIT: @ all of the things you're saying about mastery and realism: this is exactly why I said "surrealism and logic, catering more toward "what works" in a video game." Some things just aren't fun as a gameplay element to include. Such as bow mastery. Sure, you could add it, but then it gets annoying starting a new world, or joining a new server. And if it carries over, suddenly it is unfair to everyone else instead of you now. Then you'll get people who don't like it because it makes MC feel more like an RPG. This also is something Minecraft wasn't made after. I'm pretty sure nowhere in the life of Minecraft has Mojang even thought of adding skills and mastery.
I never said I wanted strict "this is life" Minecraft. Yet you keep trying to impose that onto me. Then you say "Your argument is invalid" when you fail to realize what I'm trying to say, and affixed to what you want me to be saying.
Also you added "how do you make booster tracks" to something I've responded to. I'd like to note, I hate booster tracks, as they are underpowered and are in no way explainable (with the gold).
So what I'm trying to say overall: Crafting recipes should be logical and mostly realistic, gameplay should be logical but not realistic, and game elements should be logical for someone with no place in society, and should serve a distinct purpose, that is not a different version of something already in the game.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
I'm just saying given all of the required materials and tools, by almost any stretch of logic is it possible that someone could make something (EDIT: without having instructions on how to)? In most crafting recipes, like say the iron sword, it would be possible for someone to make with very little knowledge on how to make a sword. It would, however, require some way to melt the iron together and make the edge, but that is left out for simplicity. The diamond is more of a stretch, but, being only 1 tier of tools that would not be realistically made, with others that could, it is ok. I'm not saying "strict realism" so it is not invalid, if anything I'm saying surrealism and logic, catering more toward "what works" in a video game.
It has nothing to do with being overpowered (which it would be) hard to make, or a dumb crafting recipe (which it would be), or slightly different from the bow. Most people say (or say that people say) that it is an Anachronism. It isn't that.
How about this. You want a gun? We take you, lock you in a room, with nobody to talk to, no internet to consult. We give you a hammer, a chisel, saw, iron, flint, gunpowder, ect. and tell you to try and make a gun. If you can even make something that will fire, try getting it to not blow apart in your face. If you even could get it to no blow up in your face, it wouldn't shoot straight.
Now, the same thing, only you're given a hammer, a chisel, saw, and wood, while locked in a room, I bet you'd be able to make some kind of a door, and it would probably be OK even. People can figure out how to make many things on their own with little to no outside help, and firearms aren't one of them. Explosives are more easily made this way, as durability is not an issue, and aim/safety isn't either.
It has nothing to do with being overpowered (which it would be) hard to make, or a dumb crafting recipe (which it would be), or slightly different from the bow. Most people say (or say that people say) that it is an Anachronism. It isn't that.
How about this. You want a gun? We take you, lock you in a room, with nobody to talk to, no internet to consult. We give you a hammer, a chisel, saw, iron, flint, gunpowder, ect. and tell you to try and make a gun. If you can even make something that will fire, try getting it to not blow apart in your face. If you even could get it to no blow up in your face, it wouldn't shoot straight.
Now, the same thing, only you're given a hammer, a chisel, saw, and wood, while locked in a room, I bet you'd be able to make some kind of a door, and it would probably be OK even. People can figure out how to make many things on their own with little to no outside help, and firearms aren't one of them. Explosives are more easily made this way, as durability is not an issue, and aim/safety isn't either.
Leaving aside the preposterous nature of your scenario and the fact that your position clearly by your own statements hinges on making assumptions about game mechanics before said mechanics even exists, you are incorrect. How exactly do you think the first firearms were made? The "gun" predates modern methods of manufacturing by a few thousand years. That means that, by nature, firearms can be made with only simple tools. They had to have been invented somehow, which means that it only takes an understanding of how gunpowder works (or more accurately black powder), and not consulting others and/or the internet. Now, I will concede that early firearms may not have been as accurate as modern ones. However, they clearly were not so unreliable as to be useless, or the concept would have been abandoned long before modern firearms came to be.
There's one last problem with your assumptions, however. We aren't talking about what you or I or anyone else on this forum can do. We're talking about Steve the Minecraft guy the one who's like friggin' MacGyver or the professor from Gilligan's Island . How about we put you in a room by yourself, with only simple tools, wood, and a diamond. Now make a jukebox. Here's a mine cart and a box for smelting metal...make a coal-fed locomotive, too. Oh, also make that door you were talking about. It must have a self-closing latch and proper hinges...made from wood...and it has to open both ways. You probably can't do any of that, can you? Even if we removed the simplifications Minecraft uses and gave you the proper materials, and even a wide selection of tools, how many could you make? Yet Steve is able to do all those things as asked. So one must assume that he has both greater technical skill and knowledge, and is capable of greater craftsmanship, than any "normal" individual. So the question isn't "could we make a gun with our skills and knowledge", but rather, "could Steve make a gun with his"...to which the answer would appear to be a resounding yes, given he is already creating more difficult devices with less appropriate means.
Furthermore, since sensible proposals for firearms already assume that the player would be dealing with simple early styles of firearm, as opposed to precisely machined modern ones, your argument has even less merit. Those difficulties of manufacture you mention are already being taken into account, and adjusted for in any reasonable suggestion. Even then, though, it's a game, an abstraction. Conditions will not perfectly reflect reality, and simplifications have to be made in order to facilitate entertaining gameplay. That's why you can make a coal engine out of a furnace, or the entire internal structure of a phonograph player from a diamond. It's why you aren't mandated to play a minigame every time you make a sword to determine whether or not it comes out hopelessly bent. At a certain point, you have to put aside "is this realistic" in favour of, "does this warrant suspension of disbelief".
1. lolpierandom was directly attacking my suggestion, so it makes sense that he should have read my suggestion first. It was also directed to anyone thinking of arguing against something in this thread that has already been stated. Anything about guns in other threads don't matter, because this is the official gun thread. I thought this was a pretty important matter and required big, bold, red letters, which i intended it as a matter of typographic design choice, not an expression of anger.
Fair enough. Pardon my inferrence.
2. Bow is not wood. My impression of your logic still holds true. The only similarity between a musket and bow is that they are ranged. Since bow is already ranged, you say there can't be possibly any better use for adding another ranged weapon, which is where you are wrong.
... First of all. I created a scenario using another material with an abundantly common usage to highlight the absurdity of your argument. I never made an analogy that they were similar. I plainly made an analogy that they were both common and both had a high number of uses which is why I used wood as the point of analogy. Hell, I could've done the same thing with coal, iron, or stone. In this point, you are so close-minded, you fail to see how someone could turn the same broken logic you use against you; instead you use powerful debating skills (strawmanning your opposition) to further cement your claim (bravo!). Because I can clearly see how you would say "you say there can't be possibly any better use for adding another ranged weapon which is where you're wrong. If I recall correctly, and... since I'm the one that wrote it yesterday I should,
I'm against guns, I'm not butthurt, but I hope I've given you at least ONE good reason why the concept needs to be further improved.
Notice the striking lack of the words "can't possibly", but a proactive lean on "idea needs improving". This argument is also not about a claim of guns vs bows, but of the absurdity in removing an enjoyable mechanic simply so there'd be no opposition to your proposal. The major impetus has never been on why they can't coexist, but why one needs to be greatly improved before it can coexist. I do believe that guns and bows can one day coexist, but not through the methods that you showcase.
3. You DON'T have to be a sitting duck. There is something called taking cover and running to reload. When fighting against a melee opponent, you can use your bayonet to keep him at bay, which you need to do skillfully as I have mentioned in my suggestion. Depending on how well you use the bayonet, sword players may or may not be able to attack you. Depending on how sword players play, they may or may not beat a bayonet and musket player, e.g. sprinting can close the sword user within 1 block range such that bayonets are ineffective and does no damage.
The major question I have, and one you have not responded to yet: Why would a player want to take cover/retreat to reload when they can use a bow without those limitations? A bow can also thwack enemies at close range, not ideal, but even dashing fist attacks perform powerful knockback. So the choice is "Do high damage with a high cooldown" or do repeatable moderate damage with no cooldown.
4. I never said I was the only one posting in this thread, that is why the "suggestions" I wrote is PLURAL.
I'll concede this point.
5. Exactly my point, no is not a very helpful argument, yet you are advocating the side that uses no as an argument.
Wait? What? Are you daft?! Where the hell have I ever said that?! I want you to provide me proof in this thread where I have ever made that statement or direct correlation. I want to see absolute, uncircumstantial proof that I advocate someone to break the rules.
Your main argument is subjective, in that guns are lame, boring, overused in gaming, and uninspiring
My main argument is that the mechanics that are commonly used to balance guns are ineffective, unbalanced, and uncreative. The fact that it makes guns lame, boring, and uninspiring is an offshoot of that.
(Well, someone has been playing too much call of duty and halo)
Sounds like someone shouldn't talk out of his ass. Also, if I was hardcore CoD and Halo, don't you think I'd be somewhat more aligned with the idea of guns as that's my preference in games? In this case: assuming makes an ass of u and me. Stick to the presented facts instead of reaching into that bag of straw for another imaginary tool to argue with.
I, myself, have never played a halo or call of duty game. The only FPS I have enjoyed and played for a long time was counter strike several years ago.
Which is important to the discussion how? Again?
You are also arguing from the standpoint that people cannot run and hide and sprint.
I'm arguing from the standpoint that currently, player's don't need to, with your provided solution, they would practically be forced to.
You assume that all combat is head to head,
No I don't.
everyone stand in place,
No I don't.
then fight each other,
No I don't.
which is not how it works.
You are correct, which is why I don't assume this ******** that you say I do. Stop strawmanning the argument, it's getting trite.
Given people can sprint, hide, and run, everything works out a bit better.
Which is important currently. Adding your proposed weapon doesn't make these mechanics any bit more desirable, just more necessary.
A mix of bow, sword, and musket and bayonet is also good, but comes at a price.
What's the price? Example?
Furthermore, the musket and bayonet is not even in the game, how can you so easily presume how it works.
From the same way you presume how it would work. We are all working from our own experience from playing the game, we can create logical hypotheses of various conditions. I am highlighting the negative aspects of YOUR suggestion. I would figure instead of strawmanning me, you would have TAKEN these negatives and used them to expand your suggestion so it would be much stronger and convincing.
Instead of even DEFENDING these points (you probably spend about 1 paragraph out of your entire reply countering the weaknesses I've seen), you instead opt to attack me in an attempt to discredit my opinion. I don't think this has ever worked against me.
For the suggestions, we are only suggesting how something would work.
And my job is to inspect the boat and ensure there's no holes before you try to have the ***** tread water. For all the world, I managed to point out several whole SECTIONS of the boat missing, large catastrophic holes found elsewhere. Instead of FIXING these problems; you have denied that these large obvious holes exist and instead demand to see credentials proving that I know a ****ing hole if I see one.
The musket is to knock back the opponent to a range where you can deal with them with your bayonet. If your opponent uses a sword and is 1 block within range of you, you can't attack him with your bayonet because he or she is too close. Then you would have to knock him or her back with your musket to a knockback of 2x of the bow, which should be more than enough range of about 2 blocks. Than you can attack him or her with your bayonet melee, and he can't touch you if he just runs at you constantly. If he runs and hides, or sprints, then he can close the gap back to 1 block, then the musket and bayonet user has to run and sprint away. This is quite balanced.
Why the minimum distance? Why can you just butt the monster with the stock of the weapon?
Yes, I want you to miss when using a musket and bayonet, I want you to have a long reloading time, so that it takes more skill to use it than your sword and bow.
Alright, this part is explained...
But if you know how to use a bayonet and musket with skill, it can be more tactically rewarding than the sword and bow.
We need examples of how it can be rewarding. Or is it just a warm fuzzy you get when using an inferior tool to beat a user with superior tools?
... First of all. I created a scenario using another material with an abundantly common usage to highlight the absurdity of your argument. I never made an analogy that they were similar. I plainly made an analogy that they were both common and both had a high number of uses which is why I used wood as the point of analogy. Hell, I could've done the same thing with coal, iron, or stone. In this point, you are so close-minded, you fail to see how someone could turn the same broken logic you use against you; instead you use powerful debating skills (strawmanning your opposition) to further cement your claim (bravo!). Because I can clearly see how you would say "you say there can't be possibly any better use for adding another ranged weapon which is where you're wrong. If I recall correctly, and... since I'm the one that wrote it yesterday I should, Notice the striking lack of the words "can't possibly", but a proactive lean on "idea needs improving". This argument is also not about a claim of guns vs bows, but of the absurdity in removing an enjoyable mechanic simply so there'd be no opposition to your proposal. The major impetus has never been on why they can't coexist, but why one needs to be greatly improved before it can coexist. I do believe that guns and bows can one day coexist, but not through the methods that you showcase.
The major question I have, and one you have not responded to yet: Why would a player want to take cover/retreat to reload when they can use a bow without those limitations? A bow can also thwack enemies at close range, not ideal, but even dashing fist attacks perform powerful knockback. So the choice is "Do high damage with a high cooldown" or do repeatable moderate damage with no cooldown.
I'll concede this point.
Wait? What? Are you daft?! Where the hell have I ever said that?! I want you to provide me proof in this thread where I have ever made that statement or direct correlation. I want to see absolute, uncircumstantial proof that I advocate someone to break the rules.
My main argument is that the mechanics that are commonly used to balance guns are ineffective, unbalanced, and uncreative. The fact that it makes guns lame, boring, and uninspiring is an offshoot of that.Sounds like someone shouldn't talk out of his ass. Also, if I was hardcore CoD and Halo, don't you think I'd be somewhat more aligned with the idea of guns as that's my preference in games? In this case: assuming makes an ass of u and me. Stick to the presented facts instead of reaching into that bag of straw for another imaginary tool to argue with. Which is important to the discussion how? Again?
I'm arguing from the standpoint that currently, player's don't need to, with your provided solution, they would practically be forced to.
No I don't.
No I don't.
No I don't.
You are correct, which is why I don't assume this ******** that you say I do. Stop strawmanning the argument, it's getting trite.
Which is important currently. Adding your proposed weapon doesn't make these mechanics any bit more desirable, just more necessary.
What's the price? Example?
From the same way you presume how it would work. We are all working from our own experience from playing the game, we can create logical hypotheses of various conditions. I am highlighting the negative aspects of YOUR suggestion. I would figure instead of strawmanning me, you would have TAKEN these negatives and used them to expand your suggestion so it would be much stronger and convincing.
Instead of even DEFENDING these points (you probably spend about 1 paragraph out of your entire reply countering the weaknesses I've seen), you instead opt to attack me in an attempt to discredit my opinion. I don't think this has ever worked against me.
And my job is to inspect the boat and ensure there's no holes before you try to have the ***** tread water. For all the world, I managed to point out several whole SECTIONS of the boat missing, large catastrophic holes found elsewhere. Instead of FIXING these problems; you have denied that these large obvious holes exist and instead demand to see credentials proving that I know a ****ing hole if I see one.
Why the minimum distance? Why can you just butt the monster with the stock of the weapon?
Alright, this part is explained...
We need examples of how it can be rewarding. Or is it just a warm fuzzy you get when using an inferior tool to beat a user with superior tools?
What's your point? If you have nothing to add, say nothing at all. Go away.
If you let the musket man hide and shoot, hide and shoot. You will lose. This is because the musket does 2x the damage of bow. So every encounter, the bow man may have shot the musket man once, but the musket man has shot the bowman 2x the damage of bow. So if musket man is hiding behind a tree to reload, the bowman is going to be forced to go to that tree to melee him close range or find an opening to shoot him with bow.
The bowman would win in a place with no obstacles, you can't run, sprint, and etc. This is how using bayonets and musket works. I want you to run and use guerrilla tactics against bowman users. Doing this will over power bowman. This is why this is a tactical style. The game forces a lot of things onto players, what makes guerilla warfare a worst scenario? Please explain.
My impression of you does not make it a strawman. You just have not presented your argument clearly for me to understand what your main argument is, which is mainly because you are arguing all over the place.
"My main argument is that the mechanics that are commonly used to balance guns are ineffective, unbalanced, and uncreative". I don't write the algorithms to the game, balancing the game is not my job. I am merely suggesting the approximate ratios between musket and bow, which I have explained to someone else who argued against me.
"why can't you hit the mob with the stock of the weapon". You can butt him with the stock of the weapon. I will add musket butting for the actions you would take when an opponent is within 2x>range>0x where x is the range of the sword. Butting with musket does less damage and uses up your musket durability as I have suggested. Butting would do 0.25x the damage of the sword, but does the 1x the knock back of the sword. If you move back and rifle butt at the same time, you would be approximately at a range far enough to damage the opponent with bayonet. Then the opponent would be forced to use a bow, so now the musket man hides to reload. This called guerrilla tactics.
"Sounds like someone shouldn't talk out of his ass." No need to get mad, I was assuming you would have played cod or halo, because you said guns were overused in gaming. Nonetheless, It seems to me that for some reason, you want to use other games as a standard for what is to be added to minecraft.
A bowman will just spray at you with arrows, but if you play guerrilla tactics right with musket, you will win a tactical victory.
The main point of arguments is to discredit the other side. You seem to be disturbed by this fact.
Why should gun be added instead of any other weapon? Well what other infantry weapon can you add that existed around the same time that the bow was massively used as a range weapon? Crossbow comes to mind, but that is too similar to the bow. What other candidate than the gun for a more different combat style?
Napoleon had greater firing power, greater numbers, and thus greater rates of fire. But when he tried to invade Spain, as I recall, guerilla militia of Spain, units armed with muskets or some other weaponry, inflicted heavier casualties upon Napoleon through guerilla warfare. Same thing happened in the Vietnam war, although casualties might be different. I am using history, as basis for the guerilla warfare style of musket and bayonet, which although slow, as proven in history, can still be fatal when one uses it tactically.
Throughout history, the most different ranged infantry weapon, from the bow, around the medieval era (circa 500 A.C.E to 1500 A.C.E)was the gun, which was not used widely. So it makes sense, that a different weapon style should be of the gun. No other infantry weapon existed, that was different from the bow beyond that of a crossbow (I am not saying crossbows should not be added).
As other people said, I think guns are unnecessary.
We have the bow, that's good enough.
Maybe when Minecraft has more features and more mobs, guns should be added.
Of course it is unnecessary, especially when you only add features to the bow and sword, and over-milking it as the only way of combat. We need new weapons to mix things up, but it doesn't have to be today. I am not predicting minecraft to have swords and bows as the only weapons until the end of time. So I am advocating guns as the possible new weapon to accommodate the sword and bow.
As other people said, I think guns are unnecessary.
We have the bow, that's good enough.
Maybe when Minecraft has more features and more mobs, guns should be added.
I find this argument insufficient. Imagine if we applied the same logic to other things in Minecraft...
There is no need for five tiers of sword. One melee weapon is sufficient.
Similarly, it is redundant to have more than one of each tool.
It might even be too redundant to have more than one tool period.
There is no need for more than one kind of stone. Cobblestone, Stone Brick, circlestones...these are all unnecessary.
We do not need four kinds of wood that all do the same thing.
Why have two kinds of pressure plate?
Charcoal is redundant to coal.
Panes of glass are not needed because we have glass blocks.
Porkcohps fill the need for food. We should not have beef, mushroom stew, cake, bread, or anything else.
Now, I'm not saying any of this is true. However, it follows the same kind of logic. Why have more than one thing for the same purpose? The answer is, of course, that it makes the game more interesting.
Wow, did you actually read my entire suggestion on the first page? I said both styles should do roughly the same amount of damage on average. I am using the ratios for the gist of whether a gun is faster at reloading than drawing a bow. Historically, bows could be fired at a faster rate than muskets.
So bows still have the advantage, in that it can knock you back 4 times with the time it takes to reload a musket that knocks you back once, but 2x the distance to the distance of knockback of bow.
The bow can deal 4 fully charged hits with one reloading time of a musket.
Bayonets have 2x the range of sword, but does 0.5x damage of a sword. Bayonet can break just like swords, so it is wiser to use swords to farm mobs since swords do 2x the damage of a bayonet. The bayonet's 2x range is only tactical! You don't need tactics to kill dumb mobs.
I am not intending these to be the actual damages or knock backs distances, but I intend them as conceptual models for the gist of the ratios of damage and knock back between bow and musket, to make them different and realistic. The actual damage is up to the person who writes the algorithms.
There is a reason why bows and guns exist in the real world, which is because of their different uses.
Please read the suggestions before arguing against guns with arguments that were addressed within these suggestions, or else people have to repeat things in the suggestions over and over again.
Why would I talk about the 2x range against mobs? Nowhere in the whole post did I even MENTION mobs.
If you're farming mobs, anyways, please explain why you're even using a sword? Is it that hard to make them climb a little higher and be one hit kill?
Also, I don't know why you even bothered posting all that stuff in the beginning about guns- I didn't mention guns besides the idea of 2x knockback.
2x range is overpowered, and there's no way to counter it. Any player PvPing you would have NO hope at all without a ranged weapon. Sword users would be left at a huge disadvantage- who cares how much damage they do if you can't hit them at all? That leaves the only counter to a MELEE weapon as a ranged weapon(hardly preferable since melee weapons have much higher damage output) or itself(which isn't really a counter, because it pretty much requires everyone to carry it, killing diversity)
You can counter them with bows or bayonets or muskets. Bayonets do 0.5 the damage of swords.
You can post the EXACT SAME argument against bows. The only way to counter bows is with a ranged weapon. So what is wrong with needing a bow or bayonet or musket to counter bayonets?
To make a musket, you need iron for the musket barrel, then you can only use the bayonet's 2x range ability once it is attached to to musket.
Also, the musket shots do 2x knockback, not the bayonet. I will compensate by having the bayonet do 0.5x the knock back of a sword.
Sword will not be useless because it does more damage. During PVP, If you can hide behind an obstacle, such that people cannot attack through walls, you effectively have the higher dps when you fight around obstacles. Imagine yourself in a cave, 2x distance of bayonet is useless if the person being hit is against a wall, so that person using a sword can kill the guy who is using a bayonet due to higher dps.
Further more, a bayonet can only hit players or mobs 2 blocks away from them. If a mob or player is within 0x<range<2x where x is the range of sword, or if the mob or player is at a range>2x, then the bayonet won't be able to hit the player or mob. The bayonet only hits mobs or players at a block distance of range equal to 2x the sword. So it takes some skill to use a bayonet.
I believe this solves the issue.
I have added this to my main suggestion.
See the thing is though sacrificing a little damage for range isn't much of a sacrifice when they're wearing enchanted iron or regular diamond. You already do so little damage, why not trade for range? That being said, it doesn't sound too hard to keep people back with one.
Read the paragraph of my post after the one you quoted.
1) For the duration of the cooldown, you are basically a sitting duck. This makes them ineffective when facing a group. Bows do not have this problem and a skilled player can remove the group before it becomes problematic.
2) If you MISS, you are even worse off.
3) Generally this cooldown is to balance off a 1-hit kill scenario (you really can't balance that).
4) If you bring a second gun that would have a seperate reload time, then you still would have to have 2 guns to equal the effectiveness of a bow.
Knockback of a gun on a cooldown would likewise be pointless as any extra distance you would've gotten would be squandered waiting for the damn weapon to reload.
Adding spread would be a death sentence for a weapon with a load time, not only do you have to WAIT after your shot, but the chances of you missing the target are increased. Lord help you if your errant bullet hit an enderman aimed at that skeleton.
Bayonet sounds like an interesting idea, but I'd prefer it have the same range as a sword at the half damage, it already has a benefit of being attached to a gun making it a competent ranged and melee item, there's no reason to give it more benefit than it needs. My greatest fear is that the gun would form nothing more than a spear because the ranged aspect is abyssmal at best.
Oh, ok, jeez man, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you was the only person posting on this thread. My bad.
BadPrenup is in charge of this thread, if things are found to be repeated, have him add it to OP instead of screaming in size=7 red text.
They still fire toward a target in a straight line from A to B without deviation outside of the Y.
My response is above.
Incorrect, sir. My definion of new mechanic is "if a bow IS CURRENTLY implemented to do the same thing, then you are not adding anything new". If Bob creates a toaster and Jim, 3 years later, creates a slotted device with variable settings to brown breakfast breads, who is innovating? Bob already created the toaster, why is Jim doing the same thing? To show "me too!"? Well, that's good and all, but it doesn't change the fact that the device has already been invented to take care of that convenience. If you give the toaster a paint job, it doesn't very well change the fact that it is a toaster.
1) because that's not my logic, and 2) that defies game design principles. Yes, I do. Which is precisely why I don't use it.
As far as I was aware, the only thing I presented was that REMOVING THE BOW to facilitate a clumbsy and less effective firearm would be ridiculous, not borderline, but would be developmental suicide. You're right. Wood is totally used in everything, Mojang has totally over-milked that, let's remove wood and replace it with discarded snake-skin. Who cares that it is inferior and flimsy comparatively.
Except adding reloads would be self-defeating toward any other possible mechanic in addition to WASTING the player's time. Unfortunately, the reloading mechanic is the linchpin that holds your suggestion together, without it, you have no balancing mechanism for improved damage (which isn't new, it's that new color on the toaster I was telling you about) or improved knockback.
The bayonet idea is still solid, but it's not a means to redefine gameplay, just to supplement existing gameplay.
I'm against guns, I'm not butthurt, but I hope I've given you at least ONE good reason why the concept needs to be further improved. In fact... You know what... I've been here for nearly 2 years. After that much time, anyone would grow tired of beating the same tired drum on why guns are bad. After the 5th or 6th time explaining your position, it kind of gets old.
Please read the previous gun threads with my personal reasons why I disagree before lumping me in with everyone else with the presumption that I don't think about things. I am only saying this because despite the dozens of other posters besides myself, I pretentiously think I'm the only one here that matters.
You get the point? How that makes you look like an asshat? Don't do that. It makes you sound insipid, petulant, and myopic. I thought I wrote a 2 paragraph speil about my point of the word "no" as a criticism. It's kind of hard to find though, I think it's buried somewhere in the STICKIES. Here, lemme do an exhaustive search of the top of the forum for you, no really, I insist.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
1. lolpierandom was directly attacking my suggestion, so it makes sense that he should have read my suggestion first. It was also directed to anyone thinking of arguing against something in this thread that has already been stated. Anything about guns in other threads don't matter, because this is the official gun thread. I thought this was a pretty important matter and required big, bold, red letters, which i intended it as a matter of typographic design choice, not an expression of anger.
2. Bow is not wood. My impression of your logic still holds true. The only similarity between a musket and bow is that they are ranged. Since bow is already ranged, you say there can't be possibly any better use for adding another ranged weapon, which is where you are wrong.
3. You DON'T have to be a sitting duck. There is something called taking cover and running to reload. When fighting against a melee opponent, you can use your bayonet to keep him at bay, which you need to do skillfully as I have mentioned in my suggestion. Depending on how well you use the bayonet, sword players may or may not be able to attack you. Depending on how sword players play, they may or may not beat a bayonet and musket player, e.g. sprinting can close the sword user within 1 block range such that bayonets are ineffective and does no damage.
4. I never said I was the only one posting in this thread, that is why the "suggestions" I wrote is PLURAL.
5. Exactly my point, no is not a very helpful argument, yet you are advocating the side that uses no as an argument. Your main argument is subjective, in that guns are lame, boring, overused in gaming, and uninspiring(Well, someone has been playing too much call of duty and halo). I, myself, have never played a halo or call of duty game. The only FPS I have enjoyed and played for a long time was counter strike several years ago.
You are also arguing from the standpoint that people cannot run and hide and sprint. You assume that all combat is head to head, everyone stand in place, then fight each other, which is not how it works. Given people can sprint, hide, and run, everything works out a bit better.
A mix of bow, sword, and musket and bayonet is also good, but comes at a price.
Furthermore, the musket and bayonet is not even in the game, how can you so easily presume how it works. For the suggestions, we are only suggesting how something would work. The musket is to knock back the opponent to a range where you can deal with them with your bayonet. If your opponent uses a sword and is 1 block within range of you, you can't attack him with your bayonet because he or she is too close. Then you would have to knock him or her back with your musket to a knockback of 2x of the bow, which should be more than enough range of about 2 blocks. Than you can attack him or her with your bayonet melee, and he can't touch you if he just runs at you constantly. If he runs and hides, or sprints, then he can close the gap back to 1 block, then the musket and bayonet user has to run and sprint away. This is quite balanced.
Yes, I want you to miss when using a musket and bayonet, I want you to have a long reloading time, so that it takes more skill to use it than your sword and bow. But if you know how to use a bayonet and musket with skill, it can be more tactically rewarding than the sword and bow.
Of course you would have gotten most of what I had to say here if you read carefully, what I suggested, hence I had it in big, bold, red letters.
It has nothing to do with being overpowered (which it would be) hard to make, or a dumb crafting recipe (which it would be), or slightly different from the bow. Most people say (or say that people say) that it is an Anachronism. It isn't that.
How about this. You want a gun? We take you, lock you in a room, with nobody to talk to, no internet to consult. We give you a hammer, a chisel, saw, iron, flint, gunpowder, ect. and tell you to try and make a gun. If you can even make something that will fire, try getting it to not blow apart in your face. If you even could get it to no blow up in your face, it wouldn't shoot straight.
Now, the same thing, only you're given a hammer, a chisel, saw, and wood, while locked in a room, I bet you'd be able to make some kind of a door, and it would probably be OK even. People can figure out how to make many things on their own with little to no outside help, and firearms aren't one of them. Explosives are more easily made this way, as durability is not an issue, and aim/safety isn't either.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Your definition of whether something should be added, is that it should be able to be made by a single person locked in a room with given materials. I just want to say this is a failure of an argument. How did you make an iron sword? How did you make a diamond sword? How did you make a diamond armor? How did you make a minecart? How did you make booster tracks?
You are trying to impose strict realism to minecraft as a filter for suggestions, which is invalid.
I'm just saying given all of the required materials and tools, by almost any stretch of logic is it possible that someone could make something (EDIT: without having instructions on how to)? In most crafting recipes, like say the iron sword, it would be possible for someone to make with very little knowledge on how to make a sword. It would, however, require some way to melt the iron together and make the edge, but that is left out for simplicity. The diamond is more of a stretch, but, being only 1 tier of tools that would not be realistically made, with others that could, it is ok. I'm not saying "strict realism" so it is not invalid, if anything I'm saying surrealism and logic, catering more toward "what works" in a video game.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
Confined in a room to make resourceful use of given materials is not surreal. Do you even know what surreal means? And what do you mean by "logic", a lot of things in minecraft are not logical within the real world. Why do guns have to be limited to real world logic then? Again, your argument is invalid, but to play along, I will tell you how I would make a projectile and propeller system based on gunpowder, A.K.A. the gun.
I would be able to make a simple gun if I was given the materials. I would have a mold for the gun barrel, make a hollow cylinder. At the end of a hollow cylinder would be a hole for lighting the gunpowder. I would make small round iron balls as well. Then I make the stock, which supports the barrel, or anything that is good for holding. Then I throw some gunpowder down the barrel, and use it to cushion the iron bullet. Light the gun powder through the hole in the back, and bam, you got a propeller and projectile system based on new chemistry from the bow. The chinese did it at around 1000 A.C.E., and I believe they called it "fire lance".
The bayonet would just be a stick protruding out of the stock, which is simple to do as well.
It is also obvious you don't know how guns work, so you say you cannot hand-make guns in a confined room, and that you believe guns to have this magical quality that separates them from things you do understand in minecraft.
FYI, if you want realism, bows require mastery, and guns don't require as much. The process of learning to use a musket and bayonet can be a few weeks, while the process of learning to master the bow can be a few years. This is why muskets and bayonets took over the battle field. Death of a bow man is the death of a guy who took very long to train, which is worst than the casualty of a musket and bayonet user.
Furthermore, the reason why guns did not take over earlier is because of their poor accuracy and range in their early models. Ammunitions were also not massively manufactured. A hundred bow man could fire several shots before a musket user could even come within range of fire.
So ask yourself, why is it so easy to shoot a bow in minecraft? If you gave a bow to a man in a confined room, how long would it take for him to master archery? A few years realistically, so why so fast in minecraft? Thus your argument is invalid both ways.
Yes, it means real-life elements presented in an unreal or warped way. Like how dreams occur, or how many sci-fi movies are. Not fully realistic, containing both elements of fiction and non-fiction.
I only say confined in a room to be equal to the game how you're stranded within a world with no way to receive knowledge or talk to others. I doubt you would be able to do so, and I'm pretty sure you were just at the wikipedia page to find out all of that info.
But even if you weren't, and you could do all of that, my point is that if you could do that, it took more than basic logic or experimenting. It took the building of knowledge within civilization, which in Minecraft, there currently is no real "civilization" you can gain knowledge from.
EDIT: @ all of the things you're saying about mastery and realism: this is exactly why I said "surrealism and logic, catering more toward "what works" in a video game." Some things just aren't fun as a gameplay element to include. Such as bow mastery. Sure, you could add it, but then it gets annoying starting a new world, or joining a new server. And if it carries over, suddenly it is unfair to everyone else instead of you now. Then you'll get people who don't like it because it makes MC feel more like an RPG. This also is something Minecraft wasn't made after. I'm pretty sure nowhere in the life of Minecraft has Mojang even thought of adding skills and mastery.
I never said I wanted strict "this is life" Minecraft. Yet you keep trying to impose that onto me. Then you say "Your argument is invalid" when you fail to realize what I'm trying to say, and affixed to what you want me to be saying.
Also you added "how do you make booster tracks" to something I've responded to. I'd like to note, I hate booster tracks, as they are underpowered and are in no way explainable (with the gold).
So what I'm trying to say overall: Crafting recipes should be logical and mostly realistic, gameplay should be logical but not realistic, and game elements should be logical for someone with no place in society, and should serve a distinct purpose, that is not a different version of something already in the game.
"I'm an outsider by choice, but not truly.
It’s the unpleasantness of the system that keeps me out.
I’d rather be in, in a good system. That’s where my discontent comes from:
being forced to choose to stay outside.
My advice: Just keep movin’ straight ahead.
Every now and then you find yourself in a different place."
-George Carlin
TNT
Dispenser
Pistons
TNT
Dispenser
Pistons
Leaving aside the preposterous nature of your scenario and the fact that your position clearly by your own statements hinges on making assumptions about game mechanics before said mechanics even exists, you are incorrect. How exactly do you think the first firearms were made? The "gun" predates modern methods of manufacturing by a few thousand years. That means that, by nature, firearms can be made with only simple tools. They had to have been invented somehow, which means that it only takes an understanding of how gunpowder works (or more accurately black powder), and not consulting others and/or the internet. Now, I will concede that early firearms may not have been as accurate as modern ones. However, they clearly were not so unreliable as to be useless, or the concept would have been abandoned long before modern firearms came to be.
There's one last problem with your assumptions, however. We aren't talking about what you or I or anyone else on this forum can do. We're talking about Steve the Minecraft guy the one who's like friggin' MacGyver or the professor from Gilligan's Island . How about we put you in a room by yourself, with only simple tools, wood, and a diamond. Now make a jukebox. Here's a mine cart and a box for smelting metal...make a coal-fed locomotive, too. Oh, also make that door you were talking about. It must have a self-closing latch and proper hinges...made from wood...and it has to open both ways. You probably can't do any of that, can you? Even if we removed the simplifications Minecraft uses and gave you the proper materials, and even a wide selection of tools, how many could you make? Yet Steve is able to do all those things as asked. So one must assume that he has both greater technical skill and knowledge, and is capable of greater craftsmanship, than any "normal" individual. So the question isn't "could we make a gun with our skills and knowledge", but rather, "could Steve make a gun with his"...to which the answer would appear to be a resounding yes, given he is already creating more difficult devices with less appropriate means.
Furthermore, since sensible proposals for firearms already assume that the player would be dealing with simple early styles of firearm, as opposed to precisely machined modern ones, your argument has even less merit. Those difficulties of manufacture you mention are already being taken into account, and adjusted for in any reasonable suggestion. Even then, though, it's a game, an abstraction. Conditions will not perfectly reflect reality, and simplifications have to be made in order to facilitate entertaining gameplay. That's why you can make a coal engine out of a furnace, or the entire internal structure of a phonograph player from a diamond. It's why you aren't mandated to play a minigame every time you make a sword to determine whether or not it comes out hopelessly bent. At a certain point, you have to put aside "is this realistic" in favour of, "does this warrant suspension of disbelief".
Fair enough. Pardon my inferrence.
... First of all. I created a scenario using another material with an abundantly common usage to highlight the absurdity of your argument. I never made an analogy that they were similar. I plainly made an analogy that they were both common and both had a high number of uses which is why I used wood as the point of analogy. Hell, I could've done the same thing with coal, iron, or stone. In this point, you are so close-minded, you fail to see how someone could turn the same broken logic you use against you; instead you use powerful debating skills (strawmanning your opposition) to further cement your claim (bravo!). Because I can clearly see how you would say "you say there can't be possibly any better use for adding another ranged weapon which is where you're wrong. If I recall correctly, and... since I'm the one that wrote it yesterday I should, Notice the striking lack of the words "can't possibly", but a proactive lean on "idea needs improving". This argument is also not about a claim of guns vs bows, but of the absurdity in removing an enjoyable mechanic simply so there'd be no opposition to your proposal. The major impetus has never been on why they can't coexist, but why one needs to be greatly improved before it can coexist. I do believe that guns and bows can one day coexist, but not through the methods that you showcase.
The major question I have, and one you have not responded to yet: Why would a player want to take cover/retreat to reload when they can use a bow without those limitations? A bow can also thwack enemies at close range, not ideal, but even dashing fist attacks perform powerful knockback. So the choice is "Do high damage with a high cooldown" or do repeatable moderate damage with no cooldown.
I'll concede this point.
Wait? What? Are you daft?! Where the hell have I ever said that?! I want you to provide me proof in this thread where I have ever made that statement or direct correlation. I want to see absolute, uncircumstantial proof that I advocate someone to break the rules.
My main argument is that the mechanics that are commonly used to balance guns are ineffective, unbalanced, and uncreative. The fact that it makes guns lame, boring, and uninspiring is an offshoot of that. Sounds like someone shouldn't talk out of his ass. Also, if I was hardcore CoD and Halo, don't you think I'd be somewhat more aligned with the idea of guns as that's my preference in games? In this case: assuming makes an ass of u and me. Stick to the presented facts instead of reaching into that bag of straw for another imaginary tool to argue with. Which is important to the discussion how? Again?
I'm arguing from the standpoint that currently, player's don't need to, with your provided solution, they would practically be forced to.
No I don't.
No I don't.
No I don't.
You are correct, which is why I don't assume this ******** that you say I do. Stop strawmanning the argument, it's getting trite.
Which is important currently. Adding your proposed weapon doesn't make these mechanics any bit more desirable, just more necessary.
What's the price? Example?
From the same way you presume how it would work. We are all working from our own experience from playing the game, we can create logical hypotheses of various conditions. I am highlighting the negative aspects of YOUR suggestion. I would figure instead of strawmanning me, you would have TAKEN these negatives and used them to expand your suggestion so it would be much stronger and convincing.
Instead of even DEFENDING these points (you probably spend about 1 paragraph out of your entire reply countering the weaknesses I've seen), you instead opt to attack me in an attempt to discredit my opinion. I don't think this has ever worked against me.
And my job is to inspect the boat and ensure there's no holes before you try to have the ***** tread water. For all the world, I managed to point out several whole SECTIONS of the boat missing, large catastrophic holes found elsewhere. Instead of FIXING these problems; you have denied that these large obvious holes exist and instead demand to see credentials proving that I know a ****ing hole if I see one.
Why the minimum distance? Why can you just butt the monster with the stock of the weapon?
Alright, this part is explained...
We need examples of how it can be rewarding. Or is it just a warm fuzzy you get when using an inferior tool to beat a user with superior tools?
What's your point? If you have nothing to add, say nothing at all. Go away.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
If you let the musket man hide and shoot, hide and shoot. You will lose. This is because the musket does 2x the damage of bow. So every encounter, the bow man may have shot the musket man once, but the musket man has shot the bowman 2x the damage of bow. So if musket man is hiding behind a tree to reload, the bowman is going to be forced to go to that tree to melee him close range or find an opening to shoot him with bow.
The bowman would win in a place with no obstacles, you can't run, sprint, and etc. This is how using bayonets and musket works. I want you to run and use guerrilla tactics against bowman users. Doing this will over power bowman. This is why this is a tactical style. The game forces a lot of things onto players, what makes guerilla warfare a worst scenario? Please explain.
My impression of you does not make it a strawman. You just have not presented your argument clearly for me to understand what your main argument is, which is mainly because you are arguing all over the place.
"My main argument is that the mechanics that are commonly used to balance guns are ineffective, unbalanced, and uncreative". I don't write the algorithms to the game, balancing the game is not my job. I am merely suggesting the approximate ratios between musket and bow, which I have explained to someone else who argued against me.
"why can't you hit the mob with the stock of the weapon". You can butt him with the stock of the weapon. I will add musket butting for the actions you would take when an opponent is within 2x>range>0x where x is the range of the sword. Butting with musket does less damage and uses up your musket durability as I have suggested. Butting would do 0.25x the damage of the sword, but does the 1x the knock back of the sword. If you move back and rifle butt at the same time, you would be approximately at a range far enough to damage the opponent with bayonet. Then the opponent would be forced to use a bow, so now the musket man hides to reload. This called guerrilla tactics.
"Sounds like someone shouldn't talk out of his ass." No need to get mad, I was assuming you would have played cod or halo, because you said guns were overused in gaming. Nonetheless, It seems to me that for some reason, you want to use other games as a standard for what is to be added to minecraft.
A bowman will just spray at you with arrows, but if you play guerrilla tactics right with musket, you will win a tactical victory.
The main point of arguments is to discredit the other side. You seem to be disturbed by this fact.
Why should gun be added instead of any other weapon? Well what other infantry weapon can you add that existed around the same time that the bow was massively used as a range weapon? Crossbow comes to mind, but that is too similar to the bow. What other candidate than the gun for a more different combat style?
Napoleon had greater firing power, greater numbers, and thus greater rates of fire. But when he tried to invade Spain, as I recall, guerilla militia of Spain, units armed with muskets or some other weaponry, inflicted heavier casualties upon Napoleon through guerilla warfare. Same thing happened in the Vietnam war, although casualties might be different. I am using history, as basis for the guerilla warfare style of musket and bayonet, which although slow, as proven in history, can still be fatal when one uses it tactically.
Throughout history, the most different ranged infantry weapon, from the bow, around the medieval era (circa 500 A.C.E to 1500 A.C.E)was the gun, which was not used widely. So it makes sense, that a different weapon style should be of the gun. No other infantry weapon existed, that was different from the bow beyond that of a crossbow (I am not saying crossbows should not be added).
We have the bow, that's good enough.
Maybe when Minecraft has more features and more mobs, guns should be added.
Of course it is unnecessary, especially when you only add features to the bow and sword, and over-milking it as the only way of combat. We need new weapons to mix things up, but it doesn't have to be today. I am not predicting minecraft to have swords and bows as the only weapons until the end of time. So I am advocating guns as the possible new weapon to accommodate the sword and bow.
I find this argument insufficient. Imagine if we applied the same logic to other things in Minecraft...