- Registered Member
Member for 5 years, 7 months, and 12 days
Last active Fri, Jul, 3 2015 05:01:06
- 1 Follower
- 20 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
Oct 13, 2014JinxiMinx posted a message on -Aesthetic Feature- Make Wooden-Swords Dyeable!!! [Added Banner] [85+ SUPPORTERS]Posted in: Suggestions
I am aware... If all you can do is keep attacking the same little bit of everything else I wrote, then you're being a bit defensive (if not unnecessarily rude with the sarcasm). I'm not trying to argue or force my point of view on you, so please don't do the same toward me. I know that's likely not your intention, but it's how it comes off. As I previously stated I'm ALL FOR aesthetics, however in my opinion I feel like this would be wasted time because not many people would bother using it. It seems much more fitting an optional mod than taking the time to put it in game where very few people would bother with it considering it's only wood. I'm not saying it HAS to have a use, but if it's not something that a fairly decent chunk of people feel like supporting, perhaps it's simply not worth taking the time to implement.
Oct 12, 2014JinxiMinx posted a message on -Aesthetic Feature- Make Wooden-Swords Dyeable!!! [Added Banner] [85+ SUPPORTERS]Posted in: Suggestions
As I said countless time that this suggestion simply is not suitable for vanilla survival. Just think about how much "dyed leather armor" is used when its the "weakest" armor in minecraft. The thing your saying about how wooden swords are useless in minecraft is true, as I didn't even craft a "wooden sword" and went straight to "stone sword". BUT this is only in "Vanilla Survival". This feature could be used in maps and servers, similar ways to how "dyed leather armor" are used. Plus, think about painting a stone-sword or a wooden-sword in real life. witch will be easier?
Okay, this is simply confusing to me. First off, it states nowhere in your original post that you thought it wasn't suitable for vanilla survival. Unless I've read this literally 5+ times and missed it, there's nothing fairly obvious stating this, whatsoever. As for the dyed leather armor thing, I can honestly say I have never seen nor heard of anyone bothering to use it, but that doesn't mean much.
To be honest, I simply view this as best made into a simple mod, so that people will have the choice for this being in the base game or not. I don't think it belongs, because if it's going to be a multiplayer option, then it will be in the base vanilla game as well, obviously. Your idea in and of itself would make a quick and easy mod, but to be in the base game just doesn't seem fitting / useful enough. As for the question of painting stone vs wood, I'm not even sure why I'm being asked that. .-. I wasn't trying to say you should be able to dye stone instead, I was just pointing out that not many people would use this feature seeing as wood is the worst sword you can make.
Oct 10, 2014Posted in: MCX360: Discussion
I have to disagree here.
UpUp brought up the example of Monopoly, and there's a good parallel there: the "Free Parking" space. What is supposed to happen if you land there? Absolutely nothing. It's a no-op space. But in virtually every Monopoly game I have ever played, the house rule was that all money paid for Chance and Community Chest cards was put into the center of the board, and when you landed on "Free Parking" you got it. I would venture to guess that more people play Monopoly that way than by the official rules -- that is, instead of the way the designers intended.
The designers can go hang. I bought the game, I'm playing it, and I'm entitled to enjoy it however I want. If I want to have a house rule that you get all the money when you land on "Free Parking", or that you're entitled to reload the Civilization game if that goodie hut only gave you a map of the area you already explored, that's up to me. My game. I'm playing it. In a single-player game, it's nobody's business but mine how I play.
As for "playing as intended" ... I have a little story for you.
Once upon a time, there was a tabletop wargame called Chainmail, published by a little company (actually a couple of guys in their spare time) called Tactical Studies Rules, and played by a small handful of wargaming enthusiasts here and there in the US. In the back of the Chainmail rulebook there was the Fantasy Supplement, because some people, instead of just doing medieval battles, wanted to do, say, the Battle of the Five Armies from Tolkien, so stats and unit data were provided. Now, there was a fellow who got tired of just running ordinary battles at his local club. Instead, he decided to take the whole thing underground. And since there wasn't really room for armies, he used the hero-character concept from Chainmail to have people play individual characters, rather than marshaling armies on open battlefields. This was a huge hit with the players, and they wanted him to do it again. They kept the same characters, in a continuing campaign. He hacked up the rules to make them work for what he was doing. He wasn't playing as intended; far from it. He was turning Chainmail into a whole new game. You've heard of it: it's called Dungeons & Dragons. The guy who didn't play as intended was Dave Arneson, the man who invented it. The other guy was E. Gary Gygax, who published and popularized it. And forty years after Dave Arneson didn't play as intended, it's still going strong.
Oct 9, 2014JinxiMinx posted a message on -Aesthetic Feature- Make Wooden-Swords Dyeable!!! [Added Banner] [85+ SUPPORTERS]- Support DeniedPosted in: Suggestions
The only use I saw in this was the multiplayer game suggestion for colored team swords, however I don't see this making it into the game outside of a simple mod. I say this mainly because who uses wooden swords for longer than the first few minutes to an hour of gameplay? o_o Stone is relatively easier to acquire, and wood is the lowest of the low. It just seems rather silly to acquire dye (much more "high end" to acquire material) and apply to something as lowly as a wooden sword, which depletes rather quickly.
I'm all for aesthetics, but more-so on things that will last / matter more than a wooden sword.
Oct 8, 2014It all depends on how you look at it.Posted in: MCX360: Discussion
I look at it as if you're not playing the game the way the designers intended, taking advantage of "bugs", it's cheating... and it makes no difference if you're playing single-player or not, whether you're only cheating yourself or (when playing multiplayer) if someone else says it's ok.
It's up to the individual if they consider it wrong or not. If others don't play the way you want, don't play with them.
Oct 8, 2014Is he doing this in single-player or multi-player?Posted in: MCX360: Discussion
If it's in single-player mode, it's not cheating because in order for cheating to happen, you have to be breaking the rules of competition. With no competition, that can't happen. You can "cheat" at Solitaire, too, by looking at the face-down cards, or at reading a book, for that matter, by peeking at the ending, but since you're not breaking the rules of competition with another person, there's nobody who can be cheated, so no cheating.
If, on the other hand, he's doing it in multi-player games, and other players don't have the same opportunities that he has (or have agreed not to use them), then it definitely is cheating. He's using an unfair advantage in a competitive situation. No question, he's cheating.
That is also true of any violation of shared rules, even if it is something explicitly part of the game. For example, if players all agree that they will only kill naturally-spawned cows, and not breed any more, and one guy is secretly slipping some wheat to the cows so he has more to kill, he's cheating. The players have agreed on a rule -- "no breeding extra cows" -- and he's sneaking around behind everyone's backs and breaking the rule.
So if there's no competition -- basically, a single-player game -- cheating isn't in the equation, because in order for there to be cheating, there has to be someone to be cheated, and in SP, there isn't anyone. But if there is competition -- generally, a multi-player Survival game -- and one person is giving himself advantages that his competitors don't have, that is unquestionably cheating.
Oh, if there is competition based on single-player games, such as competing to see who can get the highest score in Solitaire, or leaderboard position in Minecraft, that turns it in effect into a multi-player game, and the above regarding cheating applies. If you're playing by yourself, for your own enjoyment, do whatever you like. (confession: I peek at the endings of books sometimes) But if you're playing competitively in any way, for you to be able to say "I'm better than you at X" you both need to be doing X under the exact same conditions. If someone isn't, but is pretending that he is, then he is in effect lying. See above.
- To post a comment, please login or register a new account.