Minecraft Forums

Pumpkins should grow un-carved, yes.
But to produce a carved pumpkin, I think it would be better to just place the whole pumpkin in a crafting space which would produce the carved version.

From that point onward, pumpkins would behave exactly as they do now:
placing a carved pumpkin into a crafting space yields seeds and a carved pumpkin + torch makes a lantern.

Each one of your three points are nothing more than opinions.

Neat!

Also, I noticed that it has independently textured left and right arms/legs! Something I wish would be given to player skin/armor...

Interesting!

Have you tried this during the day? Spiders have an alternate texture for their eyes at night (more glowy), perhaps that extra layer is being picked up against the lava backdrop.

Honestly, the only part I would see as being "hard" to skin would be the left leg... but even then, not really.

It's not like you would be forced to texture that part on its side from the start. Just make the texture as if it were not rotated, and then rotate the finished product into place.

pip-boy!

I wonder if he likes Fallout? :laugh.gif:

I agree, for all the effort players go to make or acquire custom skin textures for their character, it is often for naught when they don armor. I was going to make a similar suggestion, but ya beat me to it. If I may, allow me to post my own thoughts on the idea and implementation:


Ideally this would consist of three parts:

1. Minecraft.net's player profile updated to allow players to upload their custom armor files.
There are 5 different armor types, and each full set requires two images (one for the leggings and the other for everything else). I think it would be good to have a preview window that can switch to display the character's skin and all armor variations.


2. A new Client option button: "SMP ARMOR"
In following with the standard convention, the buttons act as toggles, where the text updates to show its current setting. Default would be FALSE
SMP ARMOR: TRUE - client can see others' custom armors similar to how it displays custom player skins.
SMP ARMOR: FALSE - the local texture pack on your machine is used instead (as it works today)


3. A new server.properties entry: "smp-armor"
If servers ever get the ability to use their own texture packs, this would complement that feature. In other words, this option would be independent of the settings for using a texture pack or not. Values would be:
FALSE - disable SMP armors, even if client has it enabled on their end, they won't see them on this server.
(if the server has the ability to push its own texture pack, this setting would allow the server to use the texture pack's armors instead)
TRUE - enable SMP armors. The client's own settings can still be set to not show SMP armor, in which case they would not see custom armors.
(if the server has the ability to push its own texture pack, this setting allows SMP armors to override the server's texture pack armor)

As an added bonus, this opens up new possibilities in skin creations. Because now, a skin can have parts of the armor layers be used to complement the base skin! The first example that comes to mind would be of a Samus skin (from the metroid game series). One could use a custom armor to add shoulder plates that actually extend out from the base skin.

One thing though... does anyone know how SMP skin textures are handled? Does the client always request the skins from minecraft's player database, or does the server request the skin, cache it, and then send it to the client?

Quote from gabandre

i think this idea is problematic as it doesnt leave space to mods which could use that space

Well, it certainly is wasting lots of space. But like someone mentioned before adding second layers for every other body part should be put up for a while, so i think 64x32 version in the OP is the best for the moment. Gonna advertise my suggestion for a bit, lol:

• Metadata could be used to distinguish old version from a new one. Heck, it could be even used for the future skin refactorings. No need to track your old skins and new ones.
• Skin uploader should be upgraded to check for skin version in metadata and automatically convert a skin if user tries to upload an obsolete one. If required, uploader will convert the skin for you.
• Conversion process should be run on skin database. You won't even notice that you are playing with a new version of your skin.
• Specific metadata could be used to make converter ignore skins for mods such as afformentioned More Player Models, so they would be uploaded without conversion. Mod-specific skins would need but a slight change to work. Or perhaps, it could be manually set before uploading. Well, with Mod API coming up, who knows how things will turn out.

• The only drawback metadata has is the fact that you won't be able to use conventional image editors to make skin from scratch, though you might be able to edit a template/another skin.

Please, do correct me if i'm mistaken.

Quote from FenixDowned

Stupid question, but what metadata can you embed into png files? How? That would be a fantastic way to use the same sized file

http://www.w3.org/TR/PNG/#11textinfo, section 11.3.4.2
Theoretically (if used with a converter, obviously) this will allow to convert old skins automatically, while ignoring new and already converted ones.
BTW, i think More Player Models could also use metadata, instead of rellying on control pixels. Just thinking aloud.

Quote from redstone1337

If you remember way back when 1.8 first came out, a lot of people hated endermens' ability to pick up literally any block without provocation from the player. Frequently loaded chunks were soon eaten away by endermen as they would spawn night after night and grab whatever block excited their innate kleptomania.

Players hated this because there was literally no way to prevent it no matter how good a player you were. This is an example of fake difficulty. Something is only truly difficult in a satisfying way if a player with enough skills can overcome it reliably. Creeper explosions are a good example of real difficulty. They only explode if YOU--the player--provoke them. Any excellent hunter can evade them and thus prevent the land from being pocked by creeper craters. It would be pseudo-difficult if creepers were made to just explode at random times with no warning and no provocation from the player. Sure hunting at night would be all the more difficult because of it, but it wouldn't be difficult in a way that could be overcome by player skill.

The new hard mode fire is another example of fake difficulty. Given the frequency of lava pools and the size of biomes, it's pretty much assured that your going to run into one in whatever forest, jungle, or taiga you visit, and since the chunk will be loaded long before you get to the pool--if you ever find it--half the trees will be gone before you even know what was going on.

Some will no doubt respond "But redstone1337, if you don't like hard mode fire, don't play on hard mode." To which I respond thus: I like a lot of the other unique features of hard mode. I like that you can starve to death. I like that zombies can break down doors. I like that some mobs can spawn with armor and weapons. I like that cave spiders can poison you. I like that mobs do more damage. All of these things I just listed are REALLY difficult because a skilled player can overcome them. Hard mode fire is no amount of skill can prevent.

I have a solution, however. Actually restrict infini-fire to hardCORE mode. This is how I originally assumed it would be since dinnerbone kept calling it hardCORE fire in his tweats. It fits perfectly well in hardcore because of the inherently temporary nature of hardcore worlds, and the long history of games incorporating both permadeath and fake difficulty. (i.e. every roguelike ever).

Skill? Ha. Skill has nothing to do with it. Hardcore mode, should punish the **** out of you. There isn't a thing you can do about the fire, that's true. You are POWERLESS. That is another kind of feeling in it's own. The world around you becomes less controllable. You don't need total control. This isn't easy mode dude. This is hard. It's unfair, and sucks, but.... that's why it is called hard mode.

Quote from britefire

The nerf to fire made it from something to be careful with, to "Oops, guess I'll need to replant 4 trees, oh no..." Fire should be something you need to be careful with, besides, have you tried to burn anything down? It could take more than an entire flint and steel for a single part of a forest...

I like your way of putting it. You need to be careful. Not this current "I can do whatever I wants lulz" attitude. You must learn to respect the world around you, and adapt.

Replying to some comments along the way

Quote from wolnavi

Minecraft not Mindcraft *****, please type carefully before suing Mojang.

While this is a legal technicality that if it goes to trial looking like this, it is easily considered a clerical error and is meaningless at this stage of the lawsuit. Trust me, it will be quickly corrected if these guys have educational credentials better than an elementary school diploma. I could be mistaken on that notion though.

Quote from tomhas10

So.... There sueing Mojang for storing information in an electronic device? Boy, even im not a genius in Law, and i know that what there doing violates the "data act of 1975" or something like that....

No, the actual patent is a bit more involved. If you want to read the whole patent including looking at drawings/diagrams, you can look here:

Patent 6,857,067

If you've never read an actual patent before, it can get sort of confusing. Still, what they are claiming is that they invented the idea of being able to digital license authentication for mobile devices. I'll talk more below.

Quote from Commissar_Denric

Did I just read this right?

"without the consent or authorization
of Uniloc, by or through making, using, offering for sale, selling and/or importing Android based
applications for use on cellular phones and/or tablet devices that require communication with a
server to perform a license check to prevent the unauthorized use of said application, including,
but not limited to, Mindcraft."

Is it just me or does that explanation seem like they are suing over a "Technique" rather than software, and a method used by almost every multiplayer game these days. Except the fact that its on an Andriod device, which they don't own. It's like going into a new coffee shop and getting a patent on how you drink your coffee. Then suing everyone there because they are drinking their coffee that way even though they were doing it everywhere else before AND they don't even own the coffee shop.

You pretty much nailed the idea down, including the coffee shop reference (more or less). Keep in mind this is a patent lawsuit, not a copyright lawsuit. Patents are about ideas, and they indeed could be over pretty mundane things like ways to drink coffee, or in this case about trying to authenticate that a valid license has been purchased by a customer who is using a hand-held device, which is what this patent covers.

There are several things that could be in Mojang's favor on this one though.

Quote from Size10

Notch needs a safety torch to protect himself from all the patent trolls!

He has a safety torch that is perhaps better than a cadre of lawyers. He has an army of fans including several very skilled professionals who know their **** and can fight back against this kind of crap. Frankly, I think Uniloc bit off more than they could chew by taking on Notch and Mojang. They are thinking that Mojang is a piddling little company out of Sweden that is insignificant with a bunch of pre-pubescent fans... sort of like Zynga but even smaller. They really don't have a clue what sort of tidal wave is going to hit them when all is said and done, that Notch simply has to announce he is running low on funds and a Kickstarter project to fund the lawsuit alone is going to be enough money to hire the best lawyers in America to fight this thing.

My own professional analysis is that Mojang is going to try at least to challenge the patent by attempting to invalidate the issuance of the patent. This can be most easily done in two ways:

• Obviousness - Patents can't be granted on things that are obvious to "practitioners of the art". In this case, anybody who has deep knowledge of computer science could think up this idea on the spur of the moment given the need to perform the action. If the need was there to authenticate a piece of software remotely but the way to get that accomplished wasn't obvious (simply making a request of a remote database is what is claimed as "non obvious") then they may have a legitimate claim.
• Prior Art - If this has been done at all prior to the issuance of the patent. Software patents are particularly notorious for having a serious weakness with prior art, as most things weren't even patented until the 1990's in the computer industry explicitly because the USPTO wouldn't even let them be patented. Technically it is still illegal, but the USPTO now grants the patents and courts have been letting them get away with it too.

I especially love in the patent application where they mention explicitly DVD discs as an example of the technology they are claiming to be using, but applied to mobile devices. I'm pretty sure that I saw a portable DVD device at COMDEX prior to 2001 (when the patent was issued) and there could be many other mobile devices that could be claimed as prior art.

Heck, I think you could find the authentication method being used for some of the early MUDs, and Microsoft also had an authentication system in place for their Windows CE operating system prior to 2001 (explicitly for mobile devices BTW). That is just going off of the top of my head on some things I know about. I'm sure there are also numerous other trade publications including the ACM Journal and others that could be introduced as evidence of prior art that would be scathing.

Yeah, these guys are trolls, but they are going to be buried trolls.

Notch should post their (snail mail) address, e-mail address, and phone number on the front page of Minecraft.net. It would take a DNS and spam attack to a new level and give this company a glimpse into what the fan community could do in this case.

Quote from nickryba333

People said make it realistic i mean seriously all people do is say: MAKE IT MORE REALISTIC!!!!!

I'm not attacking this post. However seeing a lot of people complain about "realism" in minecraft, this is a good opportunity, i think, to make a point.

There is a difference between making something follow sense and making something completely realistic, although there is always going to be a certain degree of cross over. I want wooden slabs to burn not because it's realistic but because it makes sense. Logs burn, wooden blocks burn, it only makes sense that wooden slabs should also burn.

Lava is a great example of something making sense, but not being completely realistic. If lava were realistic, there would be no chance of survival falling in it and the player would start taking damage just from being close to it, from a gameplay perspective that would be frustrating and make lava far too dangerous to be fun. On the other hand, if lava burned wooden blocks but couldn't hurt the player that wouldn't make any sense in survival mode, and would ruin immersion. The player would think to themselves "why doesn't the lava hurt me?" because to a certain degree elements in the game need to mimick their real life counter parts.

Potions are perhaps an even better example, it's not realistic that some magical wart found in another dimension combined with sugar should allow me to run at super fast speeds. But within the minecraft universe, it makes perfect sense, if the player is willing to accept potions and accesible alternate dimensions are part of that universe.

It's the same reason I'm happy to punch down trees but also happy an axe, opposed to say a fishing rod, helps me do it quicker.

Quote from nickryba333

Then he made it more realistic and all you people do is ***** and complain about his work, I'm really tired of seeing countless topics like This topic and these: MINECRAFT IS WORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah the complaining is annoying, I suppose I'm lucky though, it seems I'm one of the few people on the fora that's really happy with all the changes. The only thing i haven't liked so far is snow golems, but they hardly bother me. Having said that, there will always be people complaining, because people are going to have different opinions.

Just because one group of people wanted something to change, doesn't mean every one did. So when that element of the game is changed, the people who liked the way it was are going to start complaining in place of the original group. It's very obvious that we're not one homogenous group of people who all want the game to go in the same direction.

I typed this out before reading your above post.

I always say the same thing when it comes to these kinds of discussions, and it applies here yet again:

Any argument based around the idea that Minecraft is meant to be played a certain way has no logical foundation, because there are no right or wrong ways to play a sandbox game.

1) Detracts from combat: Minecraft used to have a blitzkreig attack strategy, where you battle it out with foes until you are the last one standing. Now, with hunger causing health regeneration to be slow, creates a "Hide and Seek" battle strategy, meaning you have to hide while you slowly heal up. This drastically increases the time length of a battle, to the point of utter annoyance. It also decreases the appeal for combat too, as you learn to realize it is just a loooonnnng game of hide and seek... which increases annoyance. The same thing applies to poison, though that's a different story.

No, you used to have a blitzkrieg strategy. I've always used the Hide-and-Seek strategy because I'm more of a defensive player than offensive. The appeal of combat was not decreased, only your appeal in combat.

2) Detracts from adventuring:1.8 and the remaining updates (with new features, and before the official release at MineCon) are all considered part of the "Adventure Update." The purpose, stated by Notch at Pax, was to reward exploration and combat. Combat was addressed above, but what about exploration? Sure, it is great fun, and I do it all the time, but with hunger in the mix, you can't necessarily just go off into the world without spending hours preparing for it. Or else you will die by hunger (or lose that half a heart quite quickly) almost instantly when you set off, with sprinting. And the rewards for exploring? The very thing you needed to start in the first place. It's a continuous loop: You can't adventure without food, and you can't get (the good/quick growing) food without adventuring.

Here, you're just twisting facts. Yes, the Adventure Update is meant to encourage exploration, but hunger is not the feature that was meant to do it. Strongholds, bigger and new biomes, villages, abandoned mineshafts, new mobs, those were the adventure part of the adventure update. Not the hunger. You're claiming it doesn't fulfill its duty when that was never its duty in the first place.

You also claim that it is counterproductive to adventuring. You, yourself admit that you can't get the best food without exploring to find it, and "needing food to adventure" is a moot point because you need food to do anything, and you would have been bringing food on your adventures before the update anyway in order to heal yourself. Animals are just as abundant as they ever were when exploring (since spawning new chunks spawns new animals), so the idea that you have to spend hours preparing is just silly. If you're entering a new chunk, you've got piles of potential steak right there. (Which, might I add, are a feature added solely because of the new hunger system).

3) Detracts from building (in a sandbox construction game): I love building in minecraft. My career choice is architecture, and having a game to help with my creativity is awesome. It sure beats out what I replaced it from: frontierville, social empires, etc. But with hunger, I have an additional thing to worry about when I am trying to build something, and it is honestly a huge distraction. It creates an extra thing to worry about, when there should only be one thing on your mind: build the coolest thing you can.

Lets say I just ignore your genre-label of the game and address the rest: If you're building in survival mode, you've already signed up for a building experience with obstacles. I realize that the suggestion of playing on creative isn't a constructive one since you would be forced to pass up on other features in the game, but survival mode is a part of the game that has always been expanding with more features, and hunger is just one of those features. You should be fully aware that with new updates come new challenges.

Yes, the hunger interrupts your building, but this allows the player to still have a sense of survival even when they're not faced with mobs. If anything, this extends survival mode to players who are mostly creative and less combat oriented, because now they can feel that struggle for survival even when doing non-combat activites. Hunger was meant to expand survival into more areas, and that includes the building aspects of the game. It's not the fault of the design that you don't like it.

4) It creates a half-baked RPG out of Minecraft: This deals with more so the Adventure Update(s) as a whole, but hunger unmistakably plays a large part in it. Every game has a genre it is classified in, to a certian degree, and while Minecraft has been a near pure Sandbox construction game, the new features they're adding are making it a role playing game. Having an "ending" in Minecraft will be a disappointing day indeed. (I know, my weakest argument. It's why it's the 4th one, and the first three are more than enough reasons for me anyways).

There will never be an end to Minecraft. There might be goals, but there will be no end. I want to clarify that right away.

As for the rest of your argument, it's not an argument at all. Minecraft started as a building game in order to lay the foundation for what came next. The creative aspects of the game are the skeleton of the plan that Notch had from the very beginning. I really suggest you do your research into "what the game was meant to be" before you start throwing statements like that around.

Notice that in the link I just posted, Notch had planned for the game to be of the fantasy genre, and was considering a goal before survival was even on the map. Just because you got used to the way the game is now, and others might have as well, that's no reason to demand that progress be halted.

And worst of all, your suggestion as a solution is to just remove hunger altogether. You don't like an aspect of the game, so you've decided that no one else should have the opportunity to use and enjoy it. If you don't like hunger, mod it out or wait for an upcoming update when they add the toggle. As I've said it before, just because you don't like french fries, it doesn't mean I can't have some, or that they should be taken off the menu.

In the future, the next time you're about to say something like "How it ruins Minecraft gaming experience", realize that your opinion is not fact, and stating it as fact over and over has actually made me lose a bit of respect for you.

P.S. Every argument that involves "why x should never have been added to minecraft" meets the burden of proof fallacy. You're asking for proof as to why it should have been added, when really you should be providing proof as to why it should be removed (and your opinion is not proof). The simple logic behind it is this: it's already been added, so arguing whether or not it should be added is completely moot. The argument now lies in whether it should be removed.

I don't get it, It seems like there are two opposing sides when it comes to Notch and his coding abilities. One side has a real hero-worship thing going on, and the other (and in my experience more vocal) side is constantly throwing ad hominems about his lack of Java prowess and his body mass index.

Notch seems like a nice guy from what I've heard. He wants to put minecraft out in the public domain when sales drop and he wants to move on to other things, and that's pretty cool, but that doesn't make him some video game developer version of Chuck Norris or anything. He's made mistakes. I think putting in items for which he hasn't discerned a purpose is a bad idea, but I'm not a programmer, so perhaps game development works this way.

Regarding the Notch haters, I wish people would put things in perspective. How much did you pay for this game? $20? Half that if you bought it during Alpha? (I've only been playing since mid-August, so I got it for a cool $20). This isn't a $60 game from a storied franchise, developed by legions of specialized developers and published by Sony or Nintendo. It's an indie game developed by 2 people. There are far fewer minds working on the game itself, far fewer man hours are put into it, and far less money. This means It's going to lack a lot of the cohesiveness and polish of a AAA title. That's just a fact, so expect bugs; expect some broken stuff, and expect some poor decisions. (yeah, that's right, I used a semicolon!) Having said that, Mojang has a lot more creative freedom than a developer working under one of the huge publishers. They can create a game that they want, take risks, and add crazy non sequiturs like snow golems. They don't have a marketing or finance team breathing down their necks expecting them to poop out another brown first person shooter because it's a safe investment.

I'm particularly bothered by all the weight related jabs directed at Notch. Seriously, what's up with that?


Just to make the title of this thread relevant, one of the sources Tolkien used for the concept of the One Ring was a parable of sorts from an ancient Greek philosopher (don't remember the name) There's a magic ring in a cave that can turn you invisible. Being invisible, you can do whatever you want free of consequences. You're completely anonymous. The gist is that most people who would take the ring would start doing bad things because they knew they wouldn't get in trouble. The internet is a lot like that ring. One finds oneself doing and saying things they would never do in real life because they're anonymous.

I try to curb the temptation by reminding myself that there are other human beings on the other side of that screen reading my posts, and I try to interact with them as I would in real life (well as far as I can in the medium of text). The other thing to keep in mind, less to do with this forum, but the internet is forever, and while I'm not sure, I suppose its possible to at least identify an ip address of a user if one is determined enough... but I digress.

Bottom line: keep things in perspective, stop the hero worship, and stop the hating.

My spidy sense tells me that the first comment will be, "too long, did not read."

I pity anyone who tries to give you a reason. By the tone in your post it's pretty clear that you're ready and willing to contradict any reason someone gives. That said, I'm just going to put forward my thoughts on this and every other 'this should or shouldn't be' or 'X has broken/ruined Minecraft' Thread. The constant battle over what should and shouldn't be in the game is really the result of the way in which Notch has developed his game. By releasing an unfinished product and being (at least in image) easily reached by his audience, he has brought some 14 million (by registered users) people in on the development of his game. For better or worse, this has given everyone their own perspective on how he should finish the game, and what direction it should move in. The truth of the matter is that if he had finished the game as he wanted before releasing it, the violent verbal war being waged on this forum would have an incredibly different tone. People would still have their wants and personal playing styles, but the level of outrage and entitlement wouldn't be nearly as high. No one would know a play experience outside of what Notch intended for his finished product, and it would be up to modders to change what the community wants changed rather than relying on the erroneous belief that yelling loud enough will get Mojang to change their minds.

The only reason I can give why hunger shouldn't be a toggle is that had this game been released as a final product instead of a still-in-heavy-development game, then no one would have an experience outside of what Notch intended for the game. Without the experience of playing without, it would simply be part of the gameplay and something to mod away if you didn't like it.

I'm all for you having a toggle, because it'll be one less chorus of dissatisfied users. If you can convince Notch to do so more power to you. But if you do, then the gate is open and Hunger being a toggle holds no more merit than toggling individual mobs, specific blocks, certain types of damage, biomes, and certain items. The list goes on and on (just scroll through the forums).

Everyone has their opinion on the game, and since the game is still in development (despite what people traditionally think of 'beta testing'), they feel their changes should be made. I do too, as a matter of fact. I desperately want a redstone block to make storage easier, and a coal block for the same reason. All the other ores can be compressed just fine, why not these?). But If he doesn't add it, then I'll make due. It's my own problem. Not Notch's, not the other users.

TL;DR - You can't please all of the people all of the time, and all of those people are on this forum.