• 0

    posted a message on Always allow mixed wood types in recipes

    I see a simple solution to this:


    - Crafting sticks in a 2x2 shape will give you composite wood


    - Composite wood can craft doors, trapdoors, etc and has a hue in-between Oak and Spruce.


    - Composite wood's doors and trapdoors would have a simple, generic feel to them. The door would be a bland flat door possibly useful for closets and bedrooms/bathrooms where something like Dark Oak or Spruce would look off.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Some Farming Oriented Ideas

    While I think on their own some of these would be nice to plant in a giant field such as the corn, I don't think Minecraft really needs new food in its current state. The game does not encourage eating new foods, and in fact, it instead encourages eating the most powerful food item you can craft if possible.


    Going through this list:


    Corn is a food item I could see being very useful. The mod you stole a screenshot of actually makes those corn plants difficult to walk through like cobwebs, which makes them actually useful for corn mazes. I think it'd also be interesting if corn brewed a Thick Potion, which would then be used in brewing certain types of potions. (This would be in reference to Corn's use in High Fructose Corn Syrup)


    Rice, while it might be nice for the Chinese audience that wanted the Panda, would not be as useful as a food item. We already have one grain crop, and while the idea of sashimi sounds nice, I don't know that it's enough to justify a new crop at this moment in time.


    Fruit Trees are very unnecessary. While I like the idea of taking Apples off Oak Trees and having fruit tree leaves that could be reused as "leaves with Christmas Ornaments", I don't think we need 5 new kinds of fruit.


    Using Garlic to fend off zombies sounds like an interesting idea, but crops need a consumable use and this isn't one.


    We don't really need new berries, although it's worth noting that Strawberries grow on vines which might at least make it an interesting crop to farm.


    I don't see a particularly good need for pineapples. Maybe if you could place them they might make a nice tropical decoration, but I think that's still a stretch.


    Pumpkin Variants sound interesting, and I like the idea of the new torches, but I don't really see the point in purple melons or white pumpkins. At most I could see how a white pumpkin might be useful as a skull-like decoration in conjunction with some bone blocks, but I still don't know that I'd get a lot of use out of it.


    I don't have a problem with new flowers. I do think it'd be nice if the game placed them nicely though. It might be nice if Minecraft would generate fields of flowers on plains out of complimentary colors.


    I don't like having to use scarecrows to keep my crops safe. I think they might make a nice decoration, but I don't want to have to either find and grow corn or put my crops in a greenhouse in order to keep them safe, that seems like a dumb requirement.


    I don't have a problem with cheese, but it needs to be more useful than you've presented.


    I like palm trees, but I don't think the game needs coconuts at the moment.


    I like the idea of candles, though I think it'd be more interesting if you made candles out of tallow dropped from pigs. This would give pigs an alternative use as right now their sole use is to provide meat when you can't find any nearby cows.



    To conclude, I like some of the ideas presented, but I think you need to show that some of these new foods can be more useful than just sprites we shove in our face, whether this be by making the crop itself useful or by making the food item useful in things like potions or non-food crafting recipes.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on The Netherforge, a furnace to make nether living more practical.

    I sort of like the idea albeit I think I can propose a bit of an upgrade to the idea:


    Netherrack Furnace: Made from 8 Netherrack the way you would craft furnaces or chests. It allows you to smelt all items a furnace can cook.


    Netherforge: Made from 7 Nether Bricks and 1 Gold Block. (Nether Scraps are kinda expensive for a blast furnace copy.) This would act as you suggest, smelting ores and Netherrack quickly, possibly with some additional crafting recipes or benefits. (Maybe smelting Netherite tools in the Netherforge would give them some kind of super-powered version of Fire Aspect for a brief period of time, doing additional damage?)


    The benefit to either would be:


    - Fitting in aesthetically with other Nether blocks

    - Being able to craft them with materials found in the Nether, in the event you don't have Overworld materials on hand.


    Support.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 2

    posted a message on verticals slabs

    I despise this idea put out by Mojang that vertical slabs would "inhibit natural creativity", while at the same time they add blocks in all 16 colors of dye... four times. (Both Hardened Clay and Concrete were added because the previous 16-color block wasn't satisfactory)



    Now, I won't pretend to not understand the argument that restricting what the player can do with his materials encourages creativity, and I agree with that. Building in Minecraft is more fun than 3D modeling in actual 3D modeling software, and part of that has to do with the fact that the player is placing down blocks in a first-person view, and that he needs to get creative when certain blocks can only exist in certain conditions, or when certain types of blocks are not available. (This is especially true of furniture)


    That being said, it's not like Mojang is drawing a clear line in the sand between what stuff they will add and what stuff they won't add, and why they draw the line there. For example, Mojang claims that they don't want to add furniture, but we already have multiple pieces of furniture within the game, including non-functional items like flower pots and paintings. You could say that some of these are necessary such as bookshelves which no amount of "natural creativity" can really replace given all of Minecraft's other blocks, but I would argue that there are plenty of chairs, stools, tables, beds, etc. which also cannot be satisfactorily represented by the blocks provided in the game. Unfortunately, Mojang has drawn an arbitrary line where chairs, tables, stools, etc. cannot be added, but flower pots, paintings, bookshelves, etc. can be.



    I would argue the same is true of vertical slabs. We already have horizontal slabs and stairs, it would logically follow that vertical slabs would be in the game. In addition, unlike chairs, stools, and tables, vertical slabs would be useful in tons of situations as opposed to the one or two that new furniture items would be useful for. Want to make rounder circles? Thinner walls? More detailed fake furniture? Want to add some extra detail to your wall? Perhaps you want to take your current house and build a sideways version?



    There are plenty of reasons to add vertical slabs, far more than furniture or more 16-color blocks. (Though concrete slabs and stairs would be nice)


    Support.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Posse: A mod for people with no friends!

    This is Jay the Mouse.


    Jay just completed his big new house! It has two bedrooms and a big balcony for staring into the abyss:



    Jay has a problem, however: his house is very big and he is very small. Jay tried asking other people to live with him in his house, but he had some issues with his potential housemates:


    Standy the Stand:



    Standy was very nice but also very quiet. To make matters worse, if you right-clicked her face it would pop off and you'd have to stick it back on. She never wants to follow Jay on an expedition or anything and just keeps making that confused blank face.


    Villy the Villager



    Villy was not as nice. He kept sleeping in Jay's bed and kept trying to get Jay to make some shady trading deals. He kept making grunting noises and when Jay wanted him to go on an adventure, he tried to offer him a loan on two pieces of redstone with a small down payment of 99.99 emeralds. Clearly he was not a fit roommate.


    Jay tried asking other players to play with him, but nobody wants to play with the lonely mouse.


    That's where a new mod comes in...


    Posse: A mod for people with no friends!



    The Posse mod would add a new mob, the Party Member. You might be tempted to call them an NPC, but that would be an inaccurate name as we'll see later.




    Appearance:


    The Party Member looks exactly like a player, albeit perhaps with a nametag colored light gray or yellow or in italics to remove some confusion.


    In Survival Mode, the Party Member will spawn with a few included skins based on Steve and Alex and with some names included in a configuration file.


    In Creative Mode, the player can customize the skin and name, either using some of the included skins or an online image. (Perhaps additionally, Party Members spawned in survival mode can also spawn with skins if the URLs are linked in the config file.)


    Behavior:


    What separates these Party Members from NPCs is that the player can swap places with them using a configurable keybind, similar to how one might do so in a Lego game:



    On the technical side, the player will swap skins, inventories, and his position with this mob, giving the appearance that the player is now playing as the Party Member and the player's first character has become a Party Member.


    In Survival Mode, Party Members can be instructed to either stay in place or come along with you. They act very similarly to tamed wolves when following you in that they attack hostile mobs and players that attack the player. If the player enters a boat, the Party Member will attempt to get in a boat in order to follow, placing one down from its inventory if necessary. If the player enters a Nether Portal, the Party Member will also attempt to enter the Nether Portal. Party Members will drop their inventory if killed (unless keepInventory is turned on) and respawn at their "Party Host's" bed.


    If the Party Member cannot travel to wherever the player is or if the player dies, they will switch into "stay here" mode and alert the player that they can't pathfind to where they are. This is to make sure that Party Members do not act like portable ender chests.



    In Creative Mode, additional options are provided allowing you to give more advanced commands to Party Members such as sitting down, sleeping in beds, saying certain lines of dialogue in chat when they are being interacted with by another player or performing some kind of action, etc. You can also customize certain entity tags such as Invulnerability.


    Spawning


    In Survival mode, all Party Members are found in Villages in a "lonely" state. In this state, they will not respawn and do not have a "Party Host", and they act somewhat like Nitwit villagers. This can be changed by paying them a small price of a couple of emeralds to get them to join your Party, at which point they will immediately begin following you around.


    In Creative Mode, Party Members can be spawned in via Spawn Egg and upon right-clicking on them, you need only click a button to get them to join your party, however, you may customize them without letting them join your party.


    Bonus Points:


    • It might be interesting if you could tell a Party Member to avoid common mob traps like pressure plates or open trapdoors if at all possible unless the pathfinder can't find a way around.
    • It might also be interesting if the Party Member had the ability to jump over 1 or 2 block gaps.
    • Party Members can be taught to prefer more powerful (Diamond/Enchanted Sword), less expensive (Snowballs) or less dangerous (Bow) weapons and whether or not to automatically attack mobs.
    • I feel like the ability for Party Members to mine blocks is overpowered, though potentially this could be allowed through a config. (This wouldn't be some kind of difficult-to-code intelligent system, more like "Please mine this area from coordinates ABC to coordinates XYZ")
    • Support for some weapons, tools, and armor from other mods like Immersive Engineering or Simply Jetpacks might be nice. Elytra support goes under this heading too.
    • MorePlayerModel support would be nice.
    • Possibly limited to Creative mode, but it would be useful if you could configure which skin overlays are being displayed on a Party Member through a GUI of some kind, similar to how the player can customize his/her own.
    • Seeing as this mod is called "Posse", which is a term often associated with cowboys... well... it only makes sense to add a new armor item.

    Posted in: Requests / Ideas For Mods
  • 1

    posted a message on Why can't blast furnaces smelt sand?
    Quote from GDog_0»

    They added blast furnaces for ores only for a reason. They made the time faster, but lowered the experience. Regular blocks usually don't give much experience, so this would be an unbalanced suggestion. I don't really think there is a very good way to get around the unbalance of this.


    No support.


    What exactly is the balance problem here? That you'll earn less experience from smelting the same amount of sand, just in a faster period of time?


    The Minecraft Wiki seems to say nothing about blast furnaces having XP loss, but a quick Google search shows other users saying that the blast furnace gives only half of the XP while cooking twice as fast. This seems balanced enough, you're getting the same amount of XP/unit of time, vs XP/unit smelted. (Personally though I don't see why it'd be so bad if it still rewarded the same amount of XP, unless this is what you want?)

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Request

    The houses of the "inhabitants" (by which I assume you mean the Villagers) are meant to be simplistic. Not every house in the village is meant to act as a used, inhabited house because the Villagers are not programmed with an idea of property ownership, just a simple AI to hide indoors and sleep in a bed when darkness arrives.


    Fortunately very recently, Mojang has changed villages to include more useful houses, as almost every house contains a workstation a villager needs to stand next to in order to restock their trade items. I think this is about as advanced of property management as we can hope for the intentionally simplistic Villager AI, unless you have a more detailed suggestion on how it could be better implemented.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Chairs and tables.
    Quote from SmugSmirk»


    It's an aesthetic addition. What intelligent argument are you supposed to come up with?


    Well for one, an argument that engages the counterarguments as my post did. An argument contains three things: a claim, evidence or reasoning for the claim, and a rebuttal to counterarguments. The argument here presents a claim, 'we should add furniture to Minecraft', but doesn't go into detail about the reasons for adding furniture or making a rebuttal of any the counterarguments. (It does try to compromise with the minimalism complaint a bit when it says "Designs for furniture don't have to be complicated...", but other than that it's not making a strong case.)

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Chairs and tables.
    Quote from Wolftopia»

    I think furniture should be customizable, but without hundreds of items. We can have "in-world crafting."


    I would disagree a little bit here, I think better than 100s of complex variants consisting of lots of combinations, I think it'd be better to have a few chairs that suit almost all needs, for example a



    While not necessary, it's also nice when furniture serves a real purpose, such as beds letting you skip the night, chairs (in my suggestion) letting you skip the day, bookshelves enhancing enchanting tables, doors keeping out mobs, etc.



    For the record, I would actually argue bookshelves are an example of a furniture item that should be in the game because of the limitations of 1x1 meter blocks, even if purely for aesthetics. They are the only block that represents a bunch of items on shelves. (I think more shelf blocks would be nice too, a bunch of glass bottles or plates or something would be nice)



    I think it's okay to have a furniture item in Minecraft if it fits a relatively medieval to mid-industrial-age style and it's very difficult or impossible to represent with blocks on a player-scale. (And as long as it's something the general public would understand, obviously a vague unknown piece of machinery would be out of place)

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Summary of Featureset Sold as Game Extension
    Quote from wattahay»

    It sounds like I need to find a way to propose the idea directly to Microsoft/Mojang if it is going to be a paid extension.


    You could, but I doubt they'd pay attention to that since if they intended to add DLC to the Java Edition, I imagine they would've done so by now.


    In my opinion, you have alluded to one central point: it comes down to an ultimate vision of what the game is.


    I will try to address your points in another reply, but in this post, I will focus on the vision.



    Okay. (boldface is kinda passive-aggressive in 2020 but eh I don't care)


    One could see Minecraft as an incomplete game, where every aspect of it points to having a much larger scope. ie: It saves processor/memory resources by being pixelated. Thus it was meant to be zoomed out on much further for wider purposes. There is a lot of magic in this idea if you catch the vision. If you do not, then you simply will not like it.



    Yes and no. While you can certainly argue that the restriction to a grid of cubed meters shows how the game is meant for players to focus on large structures, I don't think the pixelated graphics point in this direction. The pixelated graphics (which only really save a tiny amount of processor power and RAM, I think most people in 2009 could run hi-res texture packs without much problem) are more of a stylistic choice, and I think they exist more to emulate older video game graphics. It's a lot easier to imagine this when you see the bright saturated textures in the Alpha and Beta stages of the game.



    I could suggest that it is Mine"Craft" as in Star"Craft" or War"Craft", but that would cut the vision short of just being a strategy game extension. Yet that would illustrate the power of these features. Imagine a game like StarCraft, except that mere "upgrades" to technologies are actually your own ingenuity and Minecraft building skills which are effecting efficiency and power.



    The fact that Minecraft shares a suffix with two Real Time Strategy games is not an argument in favor of turning Minecraft into a Real Time Strategy game. Lots of media share similar titles and have nothing to do with each other.

    Yes, the player should be able to turn the game into a strategy game if he/she takes that path, but the player should also be able to take another path altogether.

    Mojang already has to develop a whole bunch of "paths" in the game, but they can manage them because a lot of them are very small and don't require a lot of balancing (such as Redstone, Creative Mode construction, Command Blocks, etc.) but an entire separate game that distracts from the gameplay of Survival Mode, especially an RTS, would require huge amounts of balancing and a near complete overhaul of the game. This is why at that point, it would be easier to just create a new game.

    To reinvent a whole separate voxel game just to do this is crazy. Google could introduce such a game for Stadia for instance, but they would also have to come up with separate creation processes and imitations without infringing on Microsoft's intellectual property. Much better for both the users and Microsoft to do this. These features make use of the developed techniques of playing Minecraft.

    Actually it's completely legal to create a voxel construction game of your own, and has been done in the past before. Minetest, Terasology, heck, they've been coming out almost as long as Minecraft's been out, and they still are.



    They allow players to take them to new purpose-driven levels. If you do not want that purpose-driven game-play, the new features do not make much sense anyway.



    This is ironically an argument against your own suggestion. You're implying that the previous game did not emphasize a real purpose, therefore to add a purpose as you would like to do would change the direction of the game entirely.

    After the vision, only repeated iterations of testing and tuning can really get the nitty gritty balance right. Perhaps this is something that only Microsoft can truly do right. People will pay for the convenience and completion of professional extensions. The versioning and installation complexities etc. would be eliminated. (But once again, perhaps that makes this thread outside the scope of this website)

    Why not let Microsoft focus their time and resources on the free updates, though? Or on making a totally new game that doesn't leave in pieces and parts of an old game?

    Minecraft is old now, and pretty saturated with customizations. These features make for a bold move to reinvigorate the game, but once again, on an opt-in basis.

    The thing is, there's an easy opt-in system that would work just as well: create a new game from scratch designed from the ground up to be an RTS/City Builder game with voxel graphics, then release that to the public as a separate game from Minecraft.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Summary of Featureset Sold as Game Extension
    Quote from wattahay»

    • This is a crucially interwoven layer of features.
    • They create new highly generalized and extensible modes of game-play.
    • Although it is a major programming endeavor, the featureset is optimally plausible in proportion to the creative possibilities it enables.
    • Usage scenarios are very sensible.
    • Features are all opt-in.
    • The user develops at his/her own pace.
    • The learning curve is low-risk, and quickly returns on investment to be rewarding
    • Yet the featureset can scale into being extremely detailed and empowering.

    I know that nowadays there are very few good suggestions to learn from, but most quality suggestions here are formatted in a bit of an essay format, with images, tables or lists inserted every so often to help get the message across.


    This, on the other hand, is not a great way to start a suggestion. The terms you're using are vague business terms that do not refer to actual pieces of gameplay and are difficult for the average Minecraft Forum-level reader to understand. "Rewarding investment", "empowering", "interwoven layer of features", etc. Not only that, but you don't even go into what the actual suggestion is, just the side effects of the implementation. (Which kinda sounds like self-praise when you're putting this at the front of the post as though it's the most important part.)



    A set of tools to use a finite set of new special buildings.



    Okay, this is the first indication of what the suggestion is about and we already have problems:


    - First of all, most people would refer to a building with a function as a multiblock, like the dimension portals or like the smelteries and other machines in Tinkers' Construct or Immersive Engineering. Now, most of those multiblock structures are not building-sized, granted, but the term multiblock would still be appropriate for a building that does a specific thing.


    - Second of all, are you going to force people to construct an exact multiblock sized and shaped in the exact correct way in order to have the special functionality? Do you just need to place a few blocks within a building in order to convert it into a special building? Will any building built in a certain shape out of certain materials be converted into a multiblock similar to the Tinkers' Construct Smeltery?


    Fortunately for me, you do get into this later so I guess I'm just nitpicking right now. I'll refer to these later.





    These special buildings enable new empowering forms of game-play, such as:

      • Automated mining and soldiering through training settlers


    You haven't actually gone into specifics yet, but right away I should be concerned because whether or not automation should be allowed in the game is currently up for debate. (I used to find myself on the pro-automation side, but over time I've kinda decided that anti-automation arguments make more sense since all of the methods used for automation in-game are exploits. Obviously this would change if Mojang were to implement automation, but as it stands I don't think automation is an intentional addition to the game)



      • City planning


    I'm not sure why you need a building to do city planning considering city-planning can be done via a map of your Minecraft world and a paint program.



      • Inter-city infrastructure for automated travel and trade


    What you're suggesting would involve massive new features and tons of programming, but let's ignore that.



      • Topographical views for war strategy and routing purposes
        • tophographical views should show specific types of map data layered over a zoomable vantage point over the actual game landscape
        • (Minecraft's characteristic graphical simplicity would be maintained)


    As much as I'd enjoy a game like what you're suggesting, I think you misunderstand Minecraft. Even if you're a magic man who can punch trees and build floating buildings using his hands, you're still just one man and your main task within the world is to survive. This is a far cry from a city building game or an RTS where you control local governments, construction agencies, and armies.



    Special buildings are introduced in one or more purchasable extensions, which makes them opt-in as well as worth the extra programming effort. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$



    Right away this is a big fat No Support from me. I don't mind an expansion to a game that costs a little bit of money for extra features or levels, I don't really mind memberships either albeit I probably wouldn't play a game that costs a membership to play, but promising a complete game for 30-60 dollars and then turning around and asking for more money to access the rest of the game is a crappy thing to do to your customers.


    Not only that, but the modding community could throw a wrench into this money-making plan by implementing these paid features either exactly as you want them implemented or better, and for free.


    In addition to that "not only that", how is this not incredibly unbalanced? You're offering a building that automates mining and allows players to create armies if they feed Mojang money. A few years ago Mojang specifically made it illegal in their EULA for server owners to make a profit off of selling diamond gear to people who paid real-life money to them. How is this not the same thing but far worse?



    Why special buildings?


    Only a predefined area assigned to a directed purpose can allow the optimal features and convenience leading to their benefits. Additionally, these do not take away the ability to create anything as has been normally done in the original game. There is a total of 22 special buildings that one can build. (There is an ok reason for this number, but it is not super important)



    You never actually answered your own question. Let's read that again.


    Only a predefined area assigned to a directed purpose can allow the optimal features and convenience leading to their benefits.

    Okay but- why is a predefined area required to allow the [I think you meant optional] features and convenience?


    Remember that you're currently trying to make the case to me that we should implement special buildings, so if I see a question labeled "Why special buildings?" I expect to be told why we should implement special buildings and not some alternative feature like a single specialized block or item.


    By the way, why 22? You never even bothered to list all 22 buildings in your post or the reason why it should be 22 buildings.



    Each new special building has individual conditions that blocks can fill to augment or detract from the buildings' capacities. The size limitation of the buildings means that only blocks placed within the defined size limit effect the buildings' capacities. Blocks outside the size limit will only serve normal purposes of aesthetics and/or armour.



    This is an interesting way to implement a multiblock and I do like it, albeit I think this is a bit odd. In addition to that, what if I want to build a specific building but I want to build it out of mushrooms or weird alien spaceship blocks to fit the building style of the rest of my big mushroom/alien city? Are you still going to force me to use the required blocks that fit a single aesthetic?



    This featureset enables a subsequent proliferation of possibilities in terms of game-play, which normal buildings do not allow.


    22 Cornerstones serve as function declarations of a sort, for 22 special buildings.


    The cornerstone defines:

    • the owner of the building
    • the best biome to place the building in
    • the most advantageous combinations of blocks to use in its construction
    • any special items/structures that are enhanced by, or enhance, the building itself (by placing them inside the building boundaries)
    • the working size/boundaries of the building
    • the number and types of inputs/outputs the building can have crucial effects on.

    • These attributes are set at the time of the cornerstone's creation.


    Hold on, are you saying that the game randomly picks a "best biome" and the "best blocks to use in construction" every time you build a new cornerstone? Isn't that a little bit unfair if you wanted to build your base in a nice snowy biome but you got a Cornerstone that's best used in a Mushroom Island biome? (Really though, any Cornerstone that benefits best by being placed in a Mushroom Island is complete trash at that point, since it'd be hard to find and control a Mushroom Island if people are marching soldiers around conquering them.)


    As for blocks, what if I want to build a medieval base but the Cornerstone benefits from the use of glass and concrete? If I want to build a Mushroom base, do I have to keep creating Cornerstones until I find one that's enhanced by using Mushroom blocks?



    • Although these attributes never change, new, more powerful cornerstones can be swapped to replace older ones.

    Cornerstones only have one x,y,z orientation. They show the name of their owner (player) upon visual inspection, yet they can be hidden from view by other blocks if desired.


    There are three primary types of special buildings


    1. Interactive buildings hold special items like lecterns which players click on in the building in order to open special interfaces. These require the player to be present in the building.


    That's fair, this is reminiscent of a normal multiblock.



    2. Training buildings take in settlers through doorways in order to train them - then send them out another door.



    Y'know it would've done you well to introduce these "settlers" (where to find them, how to talk to them, etc.) before just throwing them out there like we're all on the same page.



    3. Resource buildings serve as tidy boxes in which to extensively build out chest storage systems or materials refinement operations into highly functional, practical and usable locations. Players can build out systems that would otherwise be larger than the building itself, and only awkwardly interactive. Yet players still build these systems using the same items they always have. This liberates the player to use item features to the fullest.

    (Some buildings serve more than one of these purposes.)



    I'm confused what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that these resource buildings effectively act as chests and sorting systems but with more space than the actual blocks would provide on their own?



    There are approximately 11 buildings that require the player to acquire a correlating relic in order to build. These relics surround the cornerstone creator on stands (much in the same way bookshelves surround the enchanting table.)



    This sounds very magic-y, which I don't like as I've already stated, because what if I want to build modern or futuristic builds? (Or for that matter just realistic medieval builds)



    Learning Curve: Custom Algorithms


    The most unfamiliar aspect of these upgrades for users will be the interface for customizing training algorithms for task automation. All of the buildings that enable training will have the same interface for this. However each building will have narrowed options to choose from according to the specific role the special building is training for.



    So what you're essentially suggesting is having these programmable drones similar to what OpenComputers or ComputerCraft have. That's kinda cool but it also removes a lot of the core gameplay from the game. Heck, if I can just program my drones to mine and build for me, I could probably program one that builds new training buildings for me, effectively removing the need for me to do any work at all.



    Default algorithms should exist that will make settlers become guards or miners for instance. However the player can benefit greatly from tweaking the algorithms to become more nuanced and purposeful. (Microsoft has already developed a graphical programming interface for kids, and it is even related to controlling Minecraft animals.)



    If you're going to implement programmable villagers, at least commit to the job. I've played Colobot, an open-source game which actually has programmable robots, but I never bother programming the robots in the game because the robots can be manually controlled, and the more complicated tasks like finding Titanium Ore are already programmed for me.



    Learning Curve: Other New


    In addition to the custom algorithm interface, these new special buildings would take advantage of 2 more primary types of interfaces. However, they give an incredible amount of new creative and technical power to the user. These features can be used in conjunction in order to build some amazing creations.


    1. Algorithm Interface
    2. Topographical Interface
    3. Blank Slate 3D Creative Mode for designing, "Boxing", and "Scaling"

    This new 3D Creative Mode will be very similar to the existing Creative Mode. It will consist of an non-mine-able flat plain on which designs can be constructed as in normal Creative Mode. However, these designs can then be communicated to trained settlers who then gather the necessary resources and build the structure in the actual game world. The player can manifest designs into survival mode, that took great time and patience.


    Additionally, you can reused designs over and over again - create modular structures that repeat (like wall sections) - perfect designs - and still add details later.



    You're spending a lot of time talking about interfaces and implementation like you're talking to developers (you're not, this is a forum for amateur game designers to critique your ideas. Mojang only reads their official feedback website now AFAIK.) and that means you're failing to convey what kinds of features I'm signing up for.



    What is "Boxing"


    "Boxing" means that you can design something in the blank slate Creative Mode and then manifest it into the game as a black box with the minimal set of inputs and outputs necessary for it to correctly interact in the Minecraft world around it. This is primarily useful for very complex redstone circuits that have a couple important redstone wire inputs and/or outputs to control something else. It is also useful for manufacturing and materials refinement processes.


    Although the resulting manifested box is almost certainly much smaller than the design behind it, the box still costs at least the amount of resources as was involved in constructing its innards in Creative Mode.



    This sounds interesting albeit I feel like this is either going to be incredibly exploitable or incredibly limited in scope. (By the way, what's wrong with building these same constructions in Survival Mode using individual blocks? Isn't it a bit cooler to successfully mine and put together parts in survival and then watch it work correctly than to build something to exact specifications or however I would "manifest" this thing into the game?)



    What is "Scaling"


    "Scaling" Is almost what it sounds like, except that what is manifested from the Creative Mode into Survival Mode becomes a single object in the process. The blocks it is made of no longer act as individual blocks.


    This process of conversion allows for scaling large things like ships down to a npc-friendly size while allowing for slightly greater detail in design. In this way, the same simple block building method still applies.


    Most excitingly, the conversion also gives the game a chance to include moving wheels and parts to these designs. These moving parts are merely represented by special blocks in Creative Mode. However once manifested into Survival Mode, they become pivoting axles, wheels, cogs, levers, pulleys, rope, etc.


    Unlike with Boxing, the resources required to manifest these objects into Survival Mode is not the same as in the Creative Mode. Resource demands are scaled down according to the same proportions as the design is scaled down. Scaling can take place at 2-to-1, 4-to-1, and 8-to-1 ratios . . . maybe 16-to-1. You get the picture.


    If scaling up is desirable, it might maintain block behavior of each individual voxel - only scaling up 1-to-2 will require 4 blocks in Survival Mode for every 1 in Creative Mode.



    This sounds incredibly complex and exploitable albeit interesting, and if this were the main focus of the suggestion I might talk about it more, but I've already spent a lot of time on the other stuff and there's not that much detail here.




    Do These Features Change the Game?



    Um... Yes.


    These features should only be introduced after the player has gone through hell to develop certain materials and technologies. The clear bottleneck here is the ability to construct a cornerstone creator.



    Since you seem to have been programmed like a robot to use business or programmer terms and not game design terms, lemme shorten this sentence for you: "These features are balanced by the cost required to construct the Cornerstone creator."


    I should mention that this form of "incredibly OP feature requires massive amounts of grinding to get" type of balancing is highly frowned upon. Draconic Evolution is a Minecraft mod that depends on this form of "balancing", where you can effectively get armor that will make you completely invincible, a reactor that will negate the need for any other Redstone Flux generator and other similar items as long as you grind for long enough to find the required materials.


    (Similar complains have been lodged at Reika's RotaryCraft mod, which has a machine that can allow for up to 17x ore processing. While it's true that the machine is incredibly expensive and time-consuming to get, I would still argue that such a machine is very unbalanced no matter the cost, though I do appreciate the work put into RotaryCraft and I think it is a really good mod, albeit it is only for 1.7.10.)


    Now, that doesn't mean all arguments of "X is balanced by Y" are bad. Minecraft even depends on them. That being said, I think that these arguments do not override arguments of redundancy ("X feature makes Z gameplay aspect redundant") or of lacking challenge ("You only have to do Y once to earn X, then you'll never have to do Y again.")



    These features should only work through the use of the expensive Special Buildings which can take time to make. That's all in the nitty gritty details of prudent game design.



    As in the nitty-gritty details I was hoping you'd go into more detail about, but that you've neglected.



    Minecraft is a kids' game. It should not be too difficult. When merged into the game correctly, these features should not disrupt that level of difficulty. The features should inspire players to create amazing things, and maybe even learn programming concepts via a 3D game.


    Thank you. I would be glad to contribute whatever ideas I can, and respond to posts with more details.




    So in conclusion, I support absolutely no monetization of gameplay experiences, especially after I've bought a complete game already, and I'm totally against that aspect of the suggestion. I would enjoy playing a game with these cool structures, the idea of playing a game where I can go from worrying about my own hunger to building buildings to expand my empire sounds amazing, but it's far beyond the scope of Minecraft, which is more of a building game with a survival aspect.


    As for scaling and boxing, these sound like interesting concepts but I don't think you've really conveyed how these would work well. I think these concepts deserve their own suggestion.


    As stated before, No Support, albeit I at least appreciate the effort put into this suggestion.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Why can't blast furnaces smelt sand?

    Personally I think the best way to solve this issue would be to rename the Furnace into the Kiln. The Kiln would smelt Clay, Cobble, Sand and other "stone-like" items as fast as the Blast Furnace or Smoker smoke their respective items, in addition to being useful as a rudimentary food and metal cooker. (Alternatively, remove food-smelting abilities from the Kiln because of the existence of the Bonfire.) This would make Furnaces useful endgame while also allowing you to smelt large quantities of sand and cobble quickly.


    (The reason it would be renamed into the Kiln is because... sand, clay and stone are often smelted in kilns, albeit when something like limestone is cooked in a kiln, it's actually done to create lime. This would make it somewhat easier for players to pick up on what the Kiln smelts best.)

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 3

    posted a message on Chairs and tables.

    This is nowhere near a complete, intelligent argument for furniture in Minecraft, but I do agree that Minecraft could stand to use furniture.


    But the player is supposed to be creative with blocks!


    Why is the player supposed to be creative with blocks though? Why are Minecraft players so quick to dismiss any new block idea, especially furniture, with "well you should just be creative with the blocks you already have!"


    We need to minimize the number of blocks in the game to prevent bloating the game with niche or useless features!


    This is a noble cause, but seeing as Mojang intends to keep updating this game seemingly indefinitely, and seeing as the game already contains a lot of bloated and useless features, at what point does this argument become moot?


    Now, I understand that Minecraft is not Terraria, a game filled with a lot of blocks and furniture that serves almost no purpose whatsoever. However, Minecraft has already made moves that would put it closer to this kind of game: doors now come in different wood variants that reflect different door designs. Glazed Terracotta allows you to use pre-defined patterns in builds. Would it be that out of place to, say, add wooden chairs that reflect 6 different chair designs?


    Chairs would break Minecraft's simplistic voxel graphical style!


    You mean the one that's already broken by all of the furniture items already in the game like Brewing Stands, Flower Pots, Enchanting Tables, Fences, etc.? Or the style that's already broken by Boats and other complicated entity models?


    Minimalistic chairs and tables would at most be out of place in the game for a few days after their announced addition to the game.


    Chairs and Tables are nice and all, but what if you want to make a piece of furniture that isn't either of those? Do you just use blocks again? Doesn't that make the old furniture look out of place?


    The thing is, you could say the same thing about the doors in the game. "Well I wanted to make a sliding glass door for my building, so I had to resort to pistons! We should remove regular doors so all buildings have equally ugly doors"


    Let's take an example I think about frequently when thinking about this, lawn/pool chairs. Obviously, if you added regular chairs, but you were limited to building lawn chairs out of stairs and slabs, this would make my lawn chairs look out of place. That being said, there are a lot of things you can't build well with Minecraft's current set of blocks. (I struggle to find any block that could possibly resemble a microwave over my furnace "oven".)


    I do consider this one of the most valid criticisms, but think about how useful even a simple chair with 4 legs and a flat back would be. That'd cover most kitchen chairs, and by proxy most restaurant chairs. Adding a back composed of bars would be a nice addition, but not entirely necessary. This chair would also not be out of place in a school setting, albeit it might be missing a desk attached to the chair, but this is a minor loss since the old chair design didn't have this either.


    On why we should add chairs and tables and possibly other furniture:


    It looks less stupid: I would be far more pleased to be looking at a house with real chairs and tables than one with blocks that resemble chairs and tables if you squint really hard and you're told beforehand what it's supposed to be.


    It allows you to add non-armchair chairs, shorter tables, etc to your house: Let's be honest, what block could you possibly implement into the game that resembles a kitchen chair but isn't one? How are you going to represent a coffee table using anything but a slab?


    Not everyone wants to build a mansion: Having smaller chairs and tables means people don't have to build massive dining rooms just to fit a whole family of people around a table without building a stair couch, nor do people have to increase the height of their ceilings just to make sure the top of their wool sofa doesn't touch the ceiling.


    How we should add chairs:


    Maybe I'll write up a detailed suggestion about this, who knows.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Items descriptions
    Quote from Jancrash»

    Legacy consoles got away with two sentences to a paragraph of text every time you looked at a block.


    Fair enough.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Items descriptions
    Quote from t_4_s»

    this could be a good idea for stuff like enchantments and giving the player some info about the item
    the way you would see this is by just hovering your mouse over the item and it would be right under its name



    While there may be a few items that could use a description, consider the fact that this written description needs to be translated into various languages. This is why there are very few large in-game blocks of text beside the End Poem perhaps. I suppose that you might be able to hire a few translators on the team and pay them full-time, but it'd be cheaper to get the graphic designer to make some diagrams for these things, and perhaps you could find these diagrams on paper items in chests or something.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.