Minecraft Forums

Quote from AMPPL50»

Because, in the end, it's an opinion, rather than a fact, and thre's also plenty of people who feel that the lack of them is weird in a game in which gunpowder not only exists, but is naturally occuring and needs more uses.

There can be many different ideas for gunpowder that doesn't involve making a gun.

Mojang has already said that they will never add guns to the game.

Guns have no place in the game.

Honestly, if people's only excuse to remove the AFK Fishing is that it gives free EXP, then you might as well remove all of the mob farms. Especially Enderman farms since they give a lot of EXP. In fact, just remove EXP in general. We'll see how long that lasts.

No one should require to ask to take the crops when they are just there to take. You're talking about a whole new step just to get a few crops early game which is more of a hassle.

Taking books from the library is one of the best ways to get books early. No one complains about taking stuff from the villages except you.

There is a benifit since killing villagers means that they will breed and get new villagers. Even if they don't, no one wants a useless villager in their village.

Tell that to the people who make golem farms.

You don't understand what I mean. By keeping the villager inside, the villager DOESN'T get killed by zombies. Why spend time freeing the villager every day just to trap them in again every night? It's too much of a hassle to just do so every single minecraft day. It's much easier to just keep the villager inside where it's safe.

Why would anyone buy the chest in the blacksmith just so they could open it? Mojang put that chest there so people can open it and get loot. No one wants to buy what's in the blacksmith's chest. And no one is going to have emearlds early game so they won't be able to buy from the blacksmith.

The least thing Mojang wants is to tick people off. And adding these laws in WILL tick people off because it will limit what they can do in the villages.

This is a big NO for me.

Stealing crops is one of the easiest way to get carrots, potatoes, Beetroot and Wheat early.

People steal bookcases and furnaces.

People kill villagers that are useless to them

People kill the golems for iron. Though they shouldn't since the golem is the village's only protection.

People block doors so the villager they like doesn't get out and get killed by a zombie.

People open the chest at the blacksmith for loot. If they can't do that, then Mojang might as well remove the blacksmith.

Adding this in would only anger a lot of people since you're limiting what they can do in a village. This would be better off as a mod instead of being added to the base game.

The problem with adding food from another country is that every other country will want to add their food in. And we really don't need another food item in the game.

Vegans don't need a special mode catering to them. If you don't want to eat meat, then don't kill animals. PETA mode is not needed.

It would add a bit of life into the dull Mesa biome.

Support.

I don't think it's OP at all.

Quote from 9314265068»

Ask yourself this: Why are Mojang making the problem worse instead of fixing it?
This is exactly why I don't like the combat parts of 1.9, pretty much everything they added combat-wise makes problems worse.

Quote from jamescoolcrafter15»

There are tons of things in Minecraft that can influence kids and are not really right, and guns seem like a kids toy compared to them (not actually serious).

Assuming that you mean that experiences in Minecraft could lead to the information aquired being applied to a real world scenarios, here is my take on it.

• Destroying terrain to build structures.Destroying terrain to build structures is an interesting point, considering it's something we do in real life regardless of if it was in Minecraft or not, people have to live somewhere. That certainly doesn't make it right, but what are we supposed to do? We make a living fixing and building homes. I personally don't see that as a bad influence.
• Chopping down trees to build structures. I live in a place surrounded by logging areas and paper mills. IRL you can't just go chopping down trees anywhere, there are specific areas for that. Unless it's your own yard, and still, it's not like a child young enough to be influenced by that would have acsess to a axe,, or even be strong enough to swing it.
• Steak gives the most food in the game, encouraging you to kill Cows. Gonna quote myself for this one-- "I suppose it depends on your personal beliefs, but as long as it's being done in a humane and non wasteful way, then eating meat shouldn't be considered cruel." Also, if for some crazy reason the child just tried to hurt the cow, they'd likely get stomped. Cows can be dangerous.
• Automatic mob farms are a thing. Well, i guess it depends on what kind of farm you're referring to. It could be compared to factories,
• TNT and Flint and Steel (equivalent to a lighter) are in the game. They might not nesscesarily associate Flint and Steel with a lighter, but ignoring that, in the United States,(Don't know about Canada) you can't legally buy a lighter until you're 18. Also, i don't think TNT is a particularly harmful influence, seeing as it's not something you can go out and get IRL.

You could go on...

Of course, those are just my opinion, and i could be wrong. But i really hope people know the difference between real life and games enough for it to not matter. My logic is just that if it's not an easily acsessible danger, it should be fine.

Quote from AMPPL50»

Fire charges have other properties apart from just setting entities on fire, such as setting blocks on fire (Which would make it a great forest-burning tool), and not being affected by gravity.

What's with this fixation on you wanting a gun or some gun-like object in the game? Why is that so important? Pretty much what Calico said. Why does "gunpowder has few uses" need to equal "there needs to be a gun to fill the void". That's like saying "I don't think paper has enough uses, so we need to have paper airplanes!! >=["

Quote from Calico»

It doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. It doesn't belong in Minecraft. Many have stated that repeatedly. I don't understand why people don't listen.

Quote from AMPPL50»

Because, in the end, it's an opinion, rather than a fact, and thre's also plenty of people who feel that the lack of them is weird in a game in which gunpowder not only exists, but is naturally occuring and needs more uses.

No, it doesn't "need" more uses. People want more uses. Those "plenty of people" don't seem to understand that "need" and "want" are, in fact, not the same thing. We have TNT, fireworks and splash potions and fire charges - at least two of those are things are extremely useful. If players are thinking guns are a good idea just to give gunpowder an extra use, they better make sure they don't enter game design.

Quote from AMPPL50»

You're using a bizarre slippery slope fallacy, as well as assuming that guns would seriously have any more effect than how much the game incentivates animal cruelty, not to mention that it's literally a game, and even kid-friendly games can have guns. Nobody is suggesting to do things such as incentivating the player to shoot baby villagers, add blood from gunshots, or anyhting that could be any more violent than what the game already has. In fact, one would argue that guns would be less violent than bows, as the latter keep their arrows stuck, showing injury.
Similarly, a game with guns doesn't have to become a CoD clone at all (In fact, the fact that there's plenty of non-shooter games with guns on them should be a giveaway).
As for fitting, the description implies that it's some sort of muzzle-loading gun, likely a musket or even an arquebus, and those existed in the Middle Ages, and, in fact, would actually fit more than most of what Redstone does (And, even then, one could link guns and redstone so it gets to not fit), or jukeboxes.

It doesn't really matter if you're giving incentive to do it or not, we could use that as an argument for the fact that they refuse to add things like sharks or lions. Also, how to they incentivate animal cruelty? I suppose it depends on your personal beliefs, but as long as it's being done in a humane and non wasteful way, then eating meat shouldn't be considered cruel. It is also entirely possible to do a vegetarian or vegen playthrough. Or do you perhaps mean something else? I'm genuinely curious.

Quote from AMPPL50»

As for fitting, the description implies that it's some sort of muzzle-loading gun, likely a musket or even an arquebus, and those existed in the Middle Ages, and, in fact, would actually fit more than most of what Redstone does (And, even then, one could link guns and redstone so it gets to not fit), or jukeboxes.

Something "fitting" more in a time period sense still doesn't make the idea that much better. I'd rather have a futuristic light up jukebox from the year 2050 than have guns.

Is it really an upgrade over crossbows? Read the OP. It essentially paints an awful weapon that is easily worse than the crossbow or the bow at everything but range, and the Crossbow already has a lot of range (Not to mention that it can also pierce mobs and shoot fireworks, while the bow, when enchanted with Power V becomes a murder factory that makes crafting the crossbow pointless because it's much weaker. On top of this, most mobs can't even see you beyond 16 blocks, and Ghasts see you from 100 blocks away). If anything, the gun as written in the post seems like it'd need a buff to be worth using, rather than making bows and crossbows obsolete.

If it's "worse" than the crossbow, why do we even need this? Minecraft has a really awkward, lackluster sense of combat because of how blocky and clunky the game's design is. The last thing it needs is freakin' bullets.

I also can't get over this thread's title. "New weapon idea", then suggests something that's been rightfully hated for almost a decade.

Looking at the idea from a real world standpoint, guns would probably offend a lot of people's personal views, too.

For instance, parents who let their small children play the game. As a parent sees it, what in Minecraft could teach their child bad behavior regarding real world scenarios, or teach them things in general that differ from their views. Most harmful things in Minecraft, such as swords or bows, are entirely unrealistic and as such don't encourage the child to do anything bad, for the most part

. Guns however are a very real part of life, and could be a bad influence on behavior.

Even people who support guns don't want to encourage use of them outside of safety and responsible hunting. They are not something to be taken lightly, shooting things or people is never a joke or a game, despite ridiculous games like Call of Duty or Battlefield trying to make a joke out of war, and desensitizing people in the process. Even if some or most people are responsible in explaining that to their children, still there will be some that are not, and it could be a bad influence.

Besides, guns are a controversial topic, seeing as they've been banned in the UK and how the United States is divided on the subject, with a few people somehow thinking it'll be safer without them, despite how horribly wrong that went elsewhere. The point is, guns being added would mean Mojang, and by extension Microsoft, would be making a political statement, even if unintentional . That would undoubtedly cause them to lose some business, even if not significant.

Personally, i doubt they'd want to risk making else money, considering how they've already made bedrock into a greedy pay-to-play app with the Marketplace.

Before, mods and texturepacks were completely free, (still are, if you play Java, which i can't because my PC would crumple) but now you pay for things like a knockoff Crayfish Furniture mod with worse textures, not to mention you can only use it in one world. The system itself is broken, child accounts can't buy a texture pack and parent accounts can't share them with their children, you have to make the children adult accounts and then buy it on all accounts!

If they're so ridiculous that they have to make addons a money grab, can you imagine them doing anything to deprive themselves of even more wealth? I can't, at least..

Quote from Ghost00»

I believe a zoologist is different from a zoo keeper, correct me if im wrong

Also, in order to teach someone not to go hunting, you must first know why they shouldnt. So if we are going to use mojangs logic about "people may do whats done in a game in real life" do tell me how a zoologist doesnt lead to 1 of the many reasons we shouldnt hunt animals? At least not to the point of extinction

You're suggesting a villager that improves by being around animals. Zoologists typically study how a particular species interacts with the ecosystem rather than having general knowledge about animals. So yes, a zookeeper.

Mojang's logic is also flawed. They refuse to add whales or sharks, they change cookies to kill parrots as real life. Correct. However, they also insist that carrots breed rabbits (spoiler: carrots are quite deadly to rabbits in real life) and let polar bears drop fish when killed. Even with their fictional creatures. You invade the Shulkers' home, kill them, then stuff them for personal profit.

What my post was meant to read as is "I doubt anyone will read far enough into the zoologist/zookeeper villager's existence to think of it as a message to follow in real life as opposed to just another profession, especially when you consider Minecraft is, at its very core, a survival game".

Honestly? I'd love the idea of a giant beast roaming the world, provided it was neutral and didn't grief. However, I'd need more specifics to support a suggestion like this.

I’m not a fan of suggestions that add more survival elements to the game, especially mechanics that no real benefit. Adding diseases doesn’t fix a problem with the game, it just adds additional difficulty for no reason.

I mean how did this thread even become a thing. It was a blanket statement saying it was bad. I remember when suggestions here had to have an outlined idea for implementing or fixing things followed with ideas and/or steps to improve it. It mitigated most arguing and actually talked about the real suggestion.