- Hawkamania
- Registered Member
-
Member for 13 years and 2 months
Last active Sun, Jul, 20 2014 00:01:45
- 0 Followers
- 143 Total Posts
- 6 Thanks
-
4
CougRon posted a message on why cant i get carrots or potatoes?4jsteve posted in the TU14 thread that carrots and potatoes are not dropped by zombies in this update. It wasn't clear if this is a bug or intentionalPosted in: MCX360: Discussion -
1
kelendral posted a message on TU9 Introduced a new lighting bugPosted in: Minecraft (Bedrock) SupportQuote from doogalI appreciate that bug fxing will take time but it would be incredibly frustrating for me as a developer to find that a bug of such an obvious nature wouldnt be found during play testing, it clearly is affecting a number of people and to the degree I would class as game breaking.
This one is so common the developer touching the code should have caught the issue in unit test as he was developing it. (Miss one, minor)
The QA Team should have caught it as part of the lighting tests that would have been part of any competent manager's cycles since lighting is specifically changing. (miss 2, major since bug fixing and testing was at least 12 days plus all the time prior)
The QA Team should have caught in the lighting regressions tests to make sure the parts of lighting code not touched didn't break. (miss 3, major since bug fixing and testing was at least 12 days plus all the time prior)
Finally the QA team should have caught it in the final full regression test done prior to marking things done and packaging & shipping to Microsoft for certification. (miss 4, Unacceptable that after 12 days of bug fixing this was allowed to go to Microsoft like this)
So with that said. There was a management decision to ship with this bug or one of the worst QA teams in the world.
4J really needs to do something about their QA process if it was truly missed since it shows a 100% lack of testing. If it was not missed which is VERY LIKELY, then they need to do something about managers willing to ship such visible and game breaking bad code. -
122
Insurrection posted a message on Survival can, and should be, improved (Part 2: Electric Boogaloo)EDIT: I do actually have a mod in progress. I'm primarily waiting for 1.4/the modding API, but here's a blog for future reference: http://abetterminecraft.blogspot.com/Posted in: Survival Mode
Minecraft is a game that a lot of us (obviously) appreciate very much. It's a game of nearly infinite terrain generation, nearly infinite possibilities, and nearly infinite enjoyment. It has a lot of concepts, ideas, and general gameplay to appease nearly everyone. With those aspects alone, one could say "Holy crap". One could also say "It can't possibly be a better game".
Unfortunately, that's not the truth- Minecraft can very well be a better game. Yes, it has many things to it already- but it's got so much potential, too. It has such a layout that would receive massive amounts of content very well. However, it lacks direction- the developers seem to take a few steps in one direction, and a few steps in another, without really ever committing to any one idea. While it may be "fine" (depending on your point of view), there is one indisputable fact- it can still be better. ANYTHING can always be better.
Furthermore, it's not without its flaws- yes, everything has flaws, and even Mojang is aware of a few of them. However, if these flaws are never pointed out, Mojang may very well miss out on them. Even if they're aware of every single thing pointed out in this thread, at worst it will give them a second opinion.Regardless, this thread is here to provide a (hopefully) objective analysis of the problems within the game. Not only that, I will also offer my own personal suggestions and ideas on what content could not only help remedy said problems, but also improve the overall gameplay. Obviously, my suggestions can't possibly be the best solutions, but I don't expect anyone to receive them as such. I fully endorse anyone modifying my ideas to improve them, or even suggesting better ones. This thread is meant to spark discussion, criticism, and generally help us- the playerbase- understand what is wrong with the game, and how to make it better.
Before we begin, a few side notes:---
This thread (and/or the person posting it) may seem familiar- well, you'd be right. I posted a thread similar to this, only with a much more harsh and critical tone. If you didn't read it, the thread is still here (although locked), but be warned. The following thread contains a lot of harsh criticisms- both of Mojang, and of the community. It contains a lot of language, and a generally ****-ish tone. If you're easily offended, don't bother looking at the following thread at all. It will likely offend you. Consider yourself warned:http://www.minecraft...damental-level/
Furthermore, I kindly ask that any of the things said in that thread not be brought into this thread. It's simply there to view- a sort of "uncensored" or "raw" version of this thread you're reading right now. The points are ultimately the same (although I may very well expand on them in this thread, if not add more points), but if you're going to reply to the points made in the previous thread, reply to equivalent points brought up in this thread. If I forgot to re-write a really vital part of the previous thread, please PM me. I want this to be the same thread, but better.---
I ask that the general tone of this thread remain calm, intelligent, insightful, and most of all, relevant. Please don't regurgitate arguments that have been stated multiple times throughout the thread- if you want to continue to discuss a certain point, pick it up where it was last left off. Make sure you're not repeating what's already been said by someone else in this (and especially the previous) thread.---
Please don't reply to massive posts by quoting the whole thing in its entirety. It's one thing to "dissect" a person's post by quoting specific points and replying to them as such (as I frequently do), but replying to a giant post going "i agree" while quoting it is really, really annoying. Don't do that.---
A lot of this is thread will be, yes, opinion. This doesn't mean, however, that it's all irrelevant- generally speaking, criticism can still contain opinions. And while this is technically a rant in many regards, it still has points, as well. This doesn't mean that the criticism or points brought about are also opinions- it just means they contain opinions. So don't respond to "yeah well, that's just like, your opinion, man". I'm well aware of what my "opinion" is, and I assume other people's critical posts are, too. If I flat out state something wrong, please point out where I'm wrong and why. I may be a ****, but I don't want to be ignorant.Also, just because you have an opinion doesn't inherently make you right or wrong. When it comes to two opinions clashing, that's called an argument (or a debate, depending on your point of view). In either of those, it's usually good practice to explain why your opinion should be considered over the other person's.---
Pointing out what Notch, Jeb, and/or Mojang "intended" is rather irrelevant. Even if you provide proof of where they actually said what their intentions are, this thread is a criticism of flaws. Generally speaking, no one ever intends to create flaws. That's why they're called flaws- why they're synonymous with accidents. Most of the time, flaws are unintentional. However, if it's an intentional flaw, then it needs to be changed even more.If you want to argue on whether or not something is a flaw, feel free. That's what this thread is for- to figure out what is and isn't flawed. Just be sure to be objective about it- simply because you enjoy the flaw doesn't mean it's perfectly fine. That goes against the whole idea of criticism and objective analysis.---
Understand what it means to be objective. If you're not aware/too lazy to look up the definition, it essentially means to be unbiased- to be logical, fair, and to disregard both other's and even (or rather, especially) your own subjective viewpoints, personal opinions, and so on. Just because you like/dislike something does not mean it's a valid point.---
If you choose to ignore/deliberately dismiss the previous notes, don't expect anything more than a "**** off". If you disagree with the foundation of the "guidelines" (I can't force them, so they're not "rules") I just stated (about objective criticism being required in the thread, and all that), feel free to explain why you disagree. However, I still ask that you follow those guidelines- yes, even to explain why those very guidelines are bad. You're not a "rebel" for deliberately ignoring/dismissing guidelines when pointing out why said guidelines are flawed- you're just ignorant and dismissive.---
Pretty much this entire thing is about the vanilla survival game. It is not about the lack of mods. Even if mods were mind bogglingly easy to install and create, the point of not considering mods is that this rant is directed at the vanilla survival game. If you want to make the argument of "go get mods", please don't. The same exact argument could be made if all of my suggestions were to hypothetically be added, anyway- you could get "mods" to change whatever it is that you'd dislike, too.However, my ideal situation isn't to add "what I want". It's to make the game better- which is why I highly encourage discussion and modifications of my ideas where necessary. I want to make the game better- not suit only my tastes.---
Please don't just shoot down all the things proposed in this thread, then never suggest better ideas. If you're going to defend the current vanilla survival mode, at least state how it compares to the suggestions proposed in this thread, and why they trump the proposed ideas. Simply saying "Because it already works" really isn't a good enough response- don't make me state why "It's always been this way, therefore it is fine" is a poor defense.---"Imbalance" in game design doesn't refer to someone being able to beat you in a videogame. It refers to a situation where a choice is noticably less useful than another choice. When I refer to something as "overpowered", "useless", "useful", "imbalanced", or etc, I'm referring to it in this sense- not whether or not I can beat other people with it.
---
Now then, with all of that out of the way, let's get started.
1a: The Lack of Tutorial, Introduction, or etc.
Minecraft, straight away, lacks an introductory period whatsoever. Now, this might be one of its charms- but it's still rather unprofessional. The game contains a fair amount of complex mechanics- it's not very kind to new players who are entirely unaware of how the game works. One may make the argument of "It's supposed to be like that- the game is hardcore", but honestly, why does this need to be "hardcore"? Other games might do it, sure- that doesn't mean Minecraft does, too.
I'm well aware that the wiki, youtube videos, and so on exist- however, I shouldn't have to work just to try and enjoy a game. This notion is rather... counterproductive. Even if one finds enjoyment in being thrust into a world with no idea what to do, there are much better ways to do this. The core intention of being "thrust into a world with no idea what to do" is that it sets up tension- it's sort of a "crash landing in the wilderness, have to fend for yourself" kinda thing. Yes, IRL you wouldn't have a wiki- but the thing is, it's a videogame. There are many things you know how to do in real life that don't translate into a videogame at all- especially for a really actually very simple game like Minecraft.
The basic idea of a videogame is to be entertainment. Yes, the concept of "being thrust into a world" is definitely awesome- but a distinct lack of information on how to do very simple things leads this idea astray, and actually turns it into work almost. I have to figure out very simple mechanics- not because I'm dumb, but because it's a videogame. Sure, a smart person can figure things out eventually, but why do I need to take the time to figure things out? I play videogames for entertainment. Not so I can feel like I'm working.
Again, one may find the idea of "guideless survival" to be awesome. Frankly, I do too- but when you can't figure out how to do things like crafting basic tools (something that does not translate from IRL to the game) simply because you're not told in any shape or form, the void of ingame information simply becomes annoying on some level. Maybe you went to the wiki and figured it out instantly- maybe you're smart and figured it all out on your own. Either way, you had to put in extra effort to learn very simple game mechanics. Yes, the wiki, youtube videos, and so on exist- but it's an outside source. It's essentially the same argument against using mods- why do I need extra things that aren't directly included in the game just to enjoy it?
Videogames are supposed to be a pretty sound package of entertainment- there's a reason people are getting frustrated with "DLC". Why do I need to piece together a game with different aspects of content simply to enjoy what I paid for? Even if the pieces don't require money and are instantly available all the time, the fact is that I need to do multiple things first in order to experience what I intend to experience. Which is, entertainment.
I'm not trying to say that Minecraft is somehow terrible just because it lacks a tutorial, or something. I'm saying that the lack of introduction, tutorial, or any such thing for basic game mechanics is a flaw- one of many. It's not "more" or "less" important than other flaws- it just is a flaw. And like any flaw, it should be fixed. It should have, frankly, been fixed a long time ago. Yet it hasn't- there's still no real "push" in the right direction when it comes to very basic game mechanics. Achievements exists, sure, but they don't get the job done. They don't teach you how to build a crafting table, or how to make a pickaxe, or how to make a door, or how to make a furnace, or etc. They just say "Hey, if you do make those things, we can tell you that you did them!". There are certainly much better ways to explain the fundamental basics of Minecraft.
1b: How to fix it.
A simple explanation for how the basic gameplay mechanics work would be ideal. It can be a book that straight up tells you that's accessed from the inventory screen. Or, it can be a sort of "nudge" in the right direction while still allowing the game to progress (ala Portal 2, or the like). Anything that's simple to learn, but gets the points across will do.
It shouldn't be a long winded "storybook" or some tacked on nonsense- and it definitely shouldn't explain every item, mob, and general gameplay mechanic down to the last 1's and 0's. It doesn't need to do that- it just needs to explain the very basic things to get you going- things like how to get wood (yes, yes, erections- har har), make a crafting table, how to make a pickaxe (along with implying that there are other tools), how to make a door, and maybe a few other key elements I may be forgetting. Just the really basic things.
It can also explain the general gameplay idea (whatever the idea is- this may need to change depending on how the game is shaped). It doesn't need to go into great detail here, but it's also nice to subtly told what the flow of the game is like. Again, I refer to Portal 2 (I'll likely use Portal 2 as a reference point- sorry if it's not the best one)- it sets up the idea that it's a puzzle game quite nicely. You don't do a particularly hard puzzle and don't tackle the entire game right away, but it sets up the "tone" of the game. It doesn't force you right into the middle of the game, and it doesn't inadvertantly have you consult a wiki or other outside sources to figure out what to do.
Now, I do understand that Minecraft is an open-ended sandbox game, so it's a little harder to implement things similar to Portal 2 (as Portal 2 is a linear puzzle game). But it's still very possible- you can nudge people into the right direction, and appropriately set the tone of the game without throwing the player directly into the middle of everything.
Personally, I suggest just having the "achievements" thing replaced with a similar "Do X. In order to do X, do Y". Progress from "Find wood. Hold down left click to break down trees!" to "Access the inventory. Press &--#60;bound inventory key&--#62; to open it!" to "Turn the wood into planks. Drag the wood anywhere onto the crafting grid!", and so on. Obviously, don't have it take up 50% of the screen- but it should be fairly visible, too. When necessary, just highlight certain things (IE: the 2x2 crafting grid) and have the highlights slowly flash (rapidly is annoying).
This is pretty standard, but works very well. It'd be even better if you aren't then told "Now you're ready to explore the world. Go forth, and conquer!" or whatever- if it just eventually (and slowly) took off the training wheels, and let you ease into the world, that'd be perfect. It's not too complicated to do that.Obviously, the guide/tutorial/whatever should be optional upon starting a world. You also shouldn't have to manually turn it off every time you create a new world- once you've done the guide, it should default to off (but still allow you to choose whether to have it on or not- incase you forget anything, etc). This is pretty simple to do, but important for not annoying the crap out of people who create new worlds regularly.
2a: The Difficulty.
Difficulty in Minecraft is rather... shaky. On one hand, the mobs are immensely easy to fight off- all you need to do is hit them lots of times to kill them. Sure, sometimes they hit you from a distance (Skeletons), or teleport behind you (Endermen), but ultimately, the formula remains the same- hit them until they die, and try not to be hit yourself. On the other hand, the game can instantly kill you in the most random ways- you can be walking along, and then accidentally fall into a pool of lava, die, and lose all of your stuff. Again, this might be one of Minecraft's "charms", but charms aren't enough to make a game truly good or complete from any objective standpoint.
In a way, Minecraft is very hardcore- you're thrust into the world, and you have no sense of direction or anything. Suddenly, monsters start spawning at night, and OH GOD WHY DID THAT GREEN THING EXPLODE. It's neat- but again, it's simply a charm. This certainly goes hand-and-hand with the previous bit about the lack of tutorial, but even for more experienced players, it still happens. There's no sense of difficulty scaling, and the majority of the game (not all of it) is thrown at you at once. Part of this is due to a lack of content, but another is just how it currently works. You're thrust into the overworld, and the overworld spawns everything the same regardless of how long you've been in the world.
This actually is intentional, to an extent- Notch has outright said he never wants to make the game "progressively" more difficulty through tacked on means like spawning more/harder enemies as the game progresses. And I understand his point of view, actually- it's almost facetious how it works in a lot of games. "So you're riding along AND THEN SUDDENLY THIS GIANT ALIEN APPEARS. It's always been there, and there's no reason why it couldn't be where you were, but it's here now.", However, that's not the only way to do progression- especially not for a sandbox game. It's acceptable for a linear game like Half Life (2), but not so much for an open world game such as Minecraft, as you end up going "Wait what the, why are these things here all of a sudden?". It detracts from the idea of a living world.
Still, there's other ways to add a learning curve. They're even slightly explored in the game already- the Nether offers different challenges (not necessarily more difficult ones), the End has a boss, and so on. However, like many facets of Minecraft's gameplay, they didn't take more than a few steps in this direction. They can, and honestly, should.
Now, "should" is a pretty strong word- but I'm not saying they "should" just because I want it. I'm saying they "should" because it would greatly expand and solidify the Minecraft gameplay flow. You'd no longer be thrust into the middle of the game if you don't want to. It would actually work towards the idea of "Play at your own pace"- something that is very highly valued. It also wouldn't rely on much more arbitrary mechanics like a difficulty slider or button- which currently exists in the game.
That's another thing- the difficulty button. A lot of players are actually used to (ab)using the difficulty button mid-game so they can play at the pace they want, when they want. This goes back to the argument of "Needlessly adding extra steps to do simple things" brought up in the "Lack of Tutorials" section of this post. Why do it that way when there's a quicker, more sensible method that does virtually the same thing?
Of course, the difficulty levels themselves are very artificial- with the exception of zombies breaking down doors in hard, all they do is add to the health and damage of mobs. This is a very frequent trope used in a lot of videogames (even good ones), and I don't see why Minecraft follows it. It essentially just takes what's there, and bloats it. Why do that? You can add more game mechanics, smarter AI, and maybe even more mobs per difficulty level. There are many methods to increase difficulty.
Now, some people might be unaware of what gameplay difficulty is exactly- and might even believe it's an overly abstract concept that is impossible to pin down the exact definition. While there are many definitions of difficulty, gameplay difficulty isn't all too hard to describe when you really get down to it. I'll offer my own definition of gameplay difficulty.
Gameplay difficulty contains 5 distinct elements that essentially work on a scale- all of these elements work together simultaneously. These elements are:
-The amount of times it’s acceptable to fail before you’re punished.
-The chance you can fail at a given task.
-The influence of skill on the chance to fail.
-The severity of the punishment.
-The increasing severity of punishment for failing multiple times.
Furthermore, this doesn't apply to the whole game necessarily- it can apply to individual tasks in the game, as well. For example, the task of "mining" in Minecraft is very simple and easy- but fighting a mob might be entirely different. I would say that a game's overall difficulty is determined by combining all of those factors- obviously, this means that it's actually kind of complex to determine what the whole game's difficulty is, as you need to consider every single task within the game and add up the total "score" of all of them. This is probably why the idea of "gameplay difficulty" is often seen as an abstract thing- it requires a very hefty analysis of the game to accurately determine.
That's why I say Minecraft's difficulty is "shaky"- some tasks are rather difficult (not dying when in lava), but others aren't really difficult at all (not falling in lava in the first place).There's also the fact that a lot of Minecraft's (well, survival, but by now it should be obvious I'm talking purely about survival) "difficulty" lies in sheer choice. When given the choice to do something difficult or not, that doesn't mean the game itself is difficult. It's an intentional choice to place yourself in dangerous situations in Minecraft- a large majority of the time, you're not forced in any way to encounter difficult situations. You can create an impenetrable safehouse where nothing can get in, and have a perfectly renewable supply of food.
Yes, forcing someone to do something is annoying when done wrongly, but it's also necessary to make the game progress in some way. By "force", I mean either punish or don't reward the player by avoiding the intended situations. For example, in a regular linear game (like Portal or Half Life), nothing happens. The punishments is basically boredom and that there is literally nothing to do but move forward. You're not rewarded at ALL for simply standing there doing nothing. Alternatively, you can be forced by having things generate that can punish you (harm/kill/etc) if you stand around too long. This is more frequently done in horror-style games or action games, but it's still one method.
Now, Minecraft sorta does both of those- standing around in the middle of nowhere causes mobs to attack you (well...). You'll also lose hunger, and eventually die. Or, you'll be bored to tears simply standing there doing nothing.
However, it also rewards you once you do very simple things. Once you make a shelter (incredibly easy to do), you now have the choice to encounter mobs or not. Once you get wool (also easy to do, albeit random due to sheep frequency), you can get a bed and outright avoid 90% of mobs to do things when you want. Once you find seeds (also very easy to do), you can plant wheat which grows without any interaction from you once placed. You can be rewarded for doing nothing, as wheat (food) will grow. It may be boring, but you still get rewarded. Especially when you get an infinite water source- which is also very easy to do once you have a bucket (really not hard to get, as iron is all over the place).
All of the things that can "punish" the player (Reduction of hunger, reduction of health) can be almost entirely avoided through very simple methods. If you play your cards right, you can often avoid mob interaction almost entirely- yes, they generate all over the place at night, but you can skip nighttime. Getting food is immensely easy- there's virtually no challenge or need to go out of your comfort zone very early on in the game, nor much needed to set up an environment where you can create an infinite supply of food. Lastly, you can just turn the game to peaceful. At any time.
Now, does this mean the game is objectively bad because it lacks an overall sense of difficulty? Nope! It just means it's not difficult. Difficulty has little to nothing to do with whether or not a game is good. However, the idea of survival- surviving- must rely on some form of difficulty or challenge in order to be truly enjoyable.
For an example of what I mean, have you ever watched a really cheesy horror movie where the monster/bad guy seems insanely easy to avoid? You often find yourself going "oh COME ON, all you have to do is ___!". There's no tension, just "braaarr!" "AHHHHH!". Of course, when you say this, someone will pipe up and say "It's just a horror movie, dude.". You may or may not want to punch them in the face (depending on how grumpy of a person you are), because you know it's still a bad movie from the perspective of it lacking any realistic tension at all. Still, despite this, you know they're right about something- it is just a movie. You can't control what's going on, so even if you're 100% right about how bad the movie is because of a really tacked on sense of tension, it still has tension (even if extremely faked and unbelievable).
This is what happens in Minecraft right now. It's just mobs going "braahhh" and various "threats", but there's insanely easy methods to avoid them. Unlike movies, though, you ARE in control of avoiding them. You can do all those things the really stupid people in horror movies don't do. You can straight up break the tension of the game right away. Sure, you can force yourself into tense situations, but it's still the exact same thing that happens in cheesy horror movies- all the threats presented are avoidable, you just aren't avoiding them. Maybe you enjoy this, maybe you don't- obviously, there's tons of people who enjoy cheesy horror movies. However, that still only speaks for one's opinions- it doesn't say anything for how much quality the product has.
That's the main thing about Minecraft's "difficulty". Because of everything being easily avoidable- there are almost no truly constant threats- it's not an actually difficult game. Yes, some things you choose to do may be difficult or result in difficult situations, but they're still choices. Again, this doesn't necessarily speak for how good it is, and definitely doesn't speak for how much one person may enjoy it. It just means it's not difficult.
So what's the point of all that, you say? Why spend years writing up an essay, only to essentially say "Well it doesn't really matter, tho"? Simple: I'm pointing out the flaw of no difficulty. There is no question that survival mode was intended to have some form of difficulty- virtually all of its exclusive mechanics point towards things that could be difficult. Mobs exist, not everything breaks instantly, you can die- really simple things, but things whose purpose cannot be ignored.
Therefore, we can safely say that Minecraft's survival mode was intended to be difficult, but actually has a severe flaw in it: it isn't. Thus, we can actually say it IS bad because the game is not doing something that it intended to do. Thus, it should be fixed- it SHOULD have difficulty. Now, again- it shouldn't be difficult in every single way, all the time. Difficulty still doesn't speak for much for how good a game is on its own (a game where all you do is instantly die unless you hit the right button within 0.001 seconds isn't exactly good, either). But it needs to be fixed.
2b: How to fix it.
I guarantee this will upset many people, but I'll say it anyway: What needs to be done is rework what IS intended- make it outright work on the basis of "If you want difficult things, you can choose to go to difficult areas". Yes, this means changing how the survival game works. It also means changing other things to be more streamlined. Things like:
Remove the ability to change difficulty mid-game.This is very important, as it's the ultimate "choice" giver that destroys any tension in survival mode in any given situation. Yes, you can avoid using it- but again, this turns Minecraft into the videogame equivalent of a cheesy horror movie (if you skipped the previous section, read it... stop skimming things, you lazy ****). It might be subjectively enjoyable, but it's not an objectively good gameplay mechanic. Especially since there's a much better way to do it, such as:
Allow the player to play at the pace they want to through gameplay mechanicsThis is what makes videogames... videogames. You use the game to do what you want- not outside sources, not magical buttons, not things other than the game. There's various ways to ensure this works right, but it's a principle that should be there if you want to give the player choices- use the game to do it. Not UI buttons, not modifications to the game, not this or that or whatever. Let the actual game, as it is, let you do it.
Make mobs spawn under light level 4 or so.The actual number can be adjusted if necessary (I've played around with it, and 4 works flawlessly, but still not set in stone), but yeah. This means that mobs will only spawn in caves, underneath heavy forestry, in jungles, or etc. They won't spawn everywhere during the night. I get that "nighttime=mobs!" is one of those big things in Minecraft, but it needs to go in order for difficulty to truly be a choice.Besides, it actually adds tension in of itself. Once you're in a dangerous situation- through your own choice- you won't be able to just instantly escape. SUDDENLY, it becomes REAL difficulty. This requires the addition of many other things to aid it (faster mobs, longer mob sight, etc... things I'll go into later), but it's at least equally as required as those things in order to make those choices to go into difficult situations matter.
Make difficulty modes determine how frequently you're challenged- not how "hard" the individual difficulties areThis is more of a principle than an actual "as is" idea, but yeah. This is because the difficulty mode should determine the overall difficulty (yes, individual things add to overall as well, but why not directly add to overall?), and if things are equally as easy to avoid, that doesn't actually make things harder at all. Hence...
Make difficulty modes offer the same amount of mob health and damage.It should be equal to the current "normal". At the very least, it's lazily tacked on- it usually leads to mobs being unintentionally difficult, or unintentionally easy. It doesn't make mobs harder to encounter (thus, only adds to their individual difficulty- which, they're immensely easy to avoid anyway). There's currently no real control over difficulty when you tack on such a mechanic to every mob, either- and when you're developing a game, controlling difficulty is very important. Making things "as is" leads to very clunky, chaotic (in a bad way) gameplay. By itself, this would mean the difficulty modes would be almost identical, unless you...
Use more game mechanics for additional difficultyThings like zombies breaking down doors was a definite step in the right direction- I personally disagree with them only being able to do it in hard, but regardless it's what mob difficulty should be like: game mechanics, not just "more/less health and damage". It offers the developer real control over how difficult their game is on different difficulty levels. The actual things you can do vary so much that anything I offer probably won't matter, as it's the basic idea you should be considered. But I'll throw in my suggestions anyway!
-Variable mob sight (it should be at LEAST 32-64 for easy, though- it's FAR too short in the current game). This should depend on the actual mob, though- it shouldn't be a "If easy, +0, if normal, +32" etc for all mobs. Normally, the argument of "But that's essentially the same as tacking on more/less health", and I'd agree... if mob sight didn't only add to how frequently you encounter the mobs themselves (and also how long it takes to get away from them, since if I recall mob sight decides the distance they give up chasing you)
-Variable spawn frequency. Same as mob sight, this determines how frequently you encounter mobs. It does also increase the amount of mobs spawned together (or usually would, anyway- it might not, due to how the idea of "frequency" works), but that's not a particularly game-breaking thing I don't think. Especially if it only increases the frequency slightly (so not like 10% chance on normal to 90% chance on hard).
-Make creepers able to stalk the player on hard. By "stalking" I mean that they will attempt to hide behind blocks when the player looks in their direction if they're too far away (around 8 blocks or more), until the player can't see them anymore. This only works if the creeper is aware of the player too, of course. Once they spot the player, they will keep hiding- they don't start wandering again.
-Allow mobs to see through glass on normal. Kinda silly that they don't...
-Allow skeletons to shoot through glass windows on hard.
-On hard, allow skeletons to hide behind blocks when the player looks at them (like creeper stalking), but allow them to pop out when they can shoot again. After they take their shot, they should pop back behind cover.
-On easy, make creepers generate less often (maybe half as often).
-On easy, make skeletons not capable of knocking you back.
-On hard, make wheat only have a 50% chance to drop seeds- and then, it should only drop 1 seed.
-On hard, make mobs be "attracted" towards torches (and other player-made lighting methods). They still wouldn't spawn in light, but would make them (likely) go towards the player even if they can't see the player.
Those alone would make game difficulty varied enough to warrent picking them- and hey, they'd actually be unique additions! Even if my suggestions aren't the best, surely there are plenty of other ideas that would work better, then.
Re-think how mobs functionThis is something I'll cover in detail in the next section, but in general, mobs are pretty important to difficulty. They're the things you fight in the game, so they should be properly difficult. The previous suggestions I gave almost all use mobs as a method to deliver difficulty- this isn't a coincidence. Right now, they essentially just fill a few purposes- but there's no reason why they can't serve more. They don't need to be hyper super ultra realistic with top of the line AI, but they certainly can do more.
Make mobs generate (and despawn) farther awayNot entirely sure what the actual rate should be, but the basic idea remains- they should be able to be generated farther away than they currently are. Furthermore, their despawning logic should get their chunk distance (spawning logic does this, but not despawning). This'd remove any "lag" problems people may pre-emptively complain about... Also, this bit goes with the "longer mob view distance", obviously. Otherwise, it'd be entirely pointless.On a technical note, mobs do generate rather far away- the problem is that they despawn within 128 blocks, so effectively, they only spawn within 128 blocks. This should obviously change.
Make mobs spawn more frequently when the player sits around the same areaAs it stands, mobs generate pretty much equally all across the map (assuming they meet the prerequisite to spawn)- but why? It sorta encourages the player to continually sit in one spot, since mobs will just spawn the same amount (at most...) no matter where you are. Thus, why not sit in the safest area? This would fix it pretty nicely- if the player is within X amount of chunks for longer than an ingame day, mobs should generate more frequently around the area where possible.
This should probably be progressive, as well- so on the first night they generate at 1x the rate, the second night it's 1.5x, third night etc... yes, I'm well aware that I suggested mobs only generate in rather dark areas, so this almost seems moot. But it wouldn't be- it'd mean the player REALLY needs to check their shelter (in return, it wouldn't be as difficult to do so). And not just INSIDE the shelter, but the whole area. So if you have a house near a forest, mobs would start to generate more and more in that forest and likely keep attacking you until they outright surround you.
The "cap" on the multiplier for gradual mob generation should depend on difficulty level- something like 3x for easy, 5x for normal, and 10x for hard would probably work.Those are just a handful of ideas. I'm sure there are many more- as per usual, even if they're not the most well proposed, there are definitely things that can be done to help change difficulty in this game to work more towards an intended purpose (whatever that intention is).
3a: The Mobs.
Although I extensively explained how to improve mobs in the previous section, there's still much more to cover on mobs. Mobs themselves do serve their purposes (somewhat), and are yet another little "simple charm" of Minecraft. Despite them currently being simple and few, this doesn't mean there can't be more variety in them- especially if they still follow the basic format of the other mobs (have a unique purpose, feel, and etc).
Currently, mobs sort of offer a "filler" threat- they're kinda ubiquitous (especially at night), so after you learn how to handle them, they're just sorta... there. This breaks the idea of tension, moreso than creating it (and mobs really appear to be intended to add tension, given that they only spawn in dark places).
A lot of the ideas proposed in the previous section cover mobs, so I won't re-iterate those; however, they definitely tie together. You can't overhaul mobs without also overhauling difficulty, and vice versa- they're too interwound, and the process of "unwinding" them is an overhaul in of itself. But mobs being tied to difficulty isn't a bad thing, so there's no reason to separate the two.Anyway, right now there just isn't a very large mob variety amongst the common mobs. While there is some extra variety to be found in the Nether and occasionally in other parts (Cave Spiders, Silverfish, Slimes), they're still very uncommon. So you have: Zombies, Skeletons, Spiders, Creepers, and Endermen (Spider Jockeys are just two mobs in one).
For a game like Minecraft that relies a lot on dynamic content, the "pool" of mobs is awfully shallow. If it were increased by at least 2x, it would be a much more enjoyable game, as things wouldn't be as repetative. Which is ultimately where the flaw in mobs lie- repetition. You quickly get to know everything mobs can do after a few days ingame. Their actions, their looks, their... everything. It all repeats itself eventually. Naturally, whether or not this is still "enjoyable" is subjective, but once more- we're not considering subjective opinions here.
Because of their lack of abilities, they also end up simply serving the purpose of being "fluff" for the game. You can play with them, throw 'em around, but... they're not all too interactive. After awhile, this may even annoy players- which is something you really want to avoid. It won't annoy EVERY player, but you still want to reduce annoyances in videogames as much as possible. Challenges are fine- annoyances are not.
Lastly, mobs don't quite put in enough of their potential "feel" they're intended to convey. This goes with mob abilities, but it's sort of a "big picture" thing. For example, creepers are meant to be silent stalkers that explode to do damage and scare you to death... but when you see them wandering around the countryside mindlessly, they hardly convey this. When you get down to it, a pretty large majority of the mobs are the same way- they do some of what they're intended, but also do other things that kinda go contrary to their intended purposes, too.
Mobs should- like every element in your game- add to an overall feeling that you're trying to convey. They shouldn't be peppered everywhere just because "There's lots of stuff happening!". Despite what some people believe, videogames can be art- and when you create art, you want to ensure that everything you do serves the purpose of furthering your ultimate intention. Because of this, it's very important to know what your general intention is. What your "big picture" is- your overall concept, and the feeling(s) you're trying to convey.
Knowing that videogames can indeed be art, why would you senselessly throw in elements? Would the Mona Lisa have been better had Vincent Van Gogh* added in a lot of ornate (but meaningless) symbols, insignias, and etc to the woman's outfit? Would Citizen Kane be a better movie if it had more screentime for characters that don't do anything to further the plot? Certainly not. Just the same, why throw in needless elements- such as mobs being everywhere- simply because you can? Even if it makes the game more enjoyable for some people, is it truly something worth keeping simply because of that? Especially if it stands in the way of doing things that would be enjoyable for other people.
*I'm aware that Leonardi da Vinci made this. I was curious as to how long it'd take for someone to point this out. It took 10 pages.
3b: How to fix it.
First off, the existing mobs need to be expanded greatly. They need to more properly fulfill either the initial intended purpose, or another, better intended purpose. I'll suggest how to go about this for each mob, but again- this is the part that's subjective (even if based in objective fact).
CreeperThe Creeper doesn't really do much of a job of creeping. I suggested a way to fix this (Give them a "stalking" logic), but also, make them initially only spawn underground. While they'd work a lot better aboveground just with the "stalking" logic, they still wouldn't be particularly threatening. Plus, it sorta ruins the "shock" factor of creepers once you see one just walking around in the middle of the day. Once the player has traveled under a certain point underground, they can start to spawn aboveground. However, they still should prefer dark areas, and actively avoid sunlight (not because it'd burn them, of course) when simply wandering. Once the player is spotted, then they'l not avoid the sunlight anymore (and instead go into proper creepering mode).
ZombieZombies reeeally don't feel like zombies. If you're any self respecting zombie movie fan, you'd know so, too. They should be divided into two types- infected zombies (28 Days Later style), and shambling zombies.
Infected zombies would travel as fast as the player, but otherwise be about the same as the existing zombies.
Shambling zombies would travel a little slower than the existing zombies, but have a lot more health (like 3x the amount), and be harder to knock back (more on this in a bit).
Both zombie types should have several shared aspects- for one, they should always generate in groups of at least 5 at any given time. As in, where most mobs would only have 1 of themselves spawned, there'd be 5 zombies if a zombie spawns. This means that there'd always be a mob of them. It feels weird reading "Zombie" in the singular sense, even- I can't be alone in feeling that. Both zombie types should also create another zombie any time they kill a player or a villager- this is what makes zombies zombies, man.Zombies shouldn't be able to swim, though. That's rather silly.
SkeletonSkeletons... well, skeletons aren't really an established lore thing, nor a very well-defined thing in Minecraft. Still, they can be- and they can always be smarter. First off, the suggestion about letting them shoot through windows on hard- this'd be nice for playing on hard, and give them more of an "Oh crap!" sense. That aside, they should generally try to avoid the player, too. Things like the popping out idea (suggested earlier), and walking backwards while firing at the player would add to the idea that, hey, they want to kill you and avoid being killed.
They also shouldn't be able to drown- pretty sure they don't even have lungs. They also should be able to fight currents better than other mobs- they don't exactly have much holding them back. Yes, this is one of those "realism" things, but it'd also be nice for gameplay- zombies die to water traps easily, but skeletons don't.
Lastly, as someone had suggested, Skeletons should be able to mount any nearby spiders when both are attacking the player (as in, turn into a spider jockey).
SpiderSpiders should be able to climb on cielings, and also actually shift their body appropriately when going up walls (and, well, cielings). Right now, they face head-first towards the wall, and magically float up them...
Like creepers, spiders should avoid daylight. Not because it burns them, but when wandering about, they don't seem all too threatening being about in broad daylight (especially since they, uh, aren't even agressive then). The same rule of "if they're attacking the player, they'll ignore the sunlight" applies here.
Spiders should also be an exception to the "increased mob sight" thing. Spiders actively hunting the player would be a bit much (especially since they can see through walls).
EndermanEndermen are awesome in concept, but like anything else, can be better. There's a TON I'd like done with them, but first and foremost, they really need to become tougher after you go through "The End". Once you've beaten the Enderdragon, they should become a lot more rare, and go into "Hiding" mode where they'll still spawn in the overworld, move blocks, etc- but they will actively teleport away from the player (by a random distance) once they spot the player, and even teleport away into despawning distance (they'll keep teleporting until they despawn).
If you lock eyes with them "post-end", however... they'll lay a "curse" of sorts upon you. Endermen will start actively moving almost all blocks (again) just to get to the player, but still teleport away upon being spotted. And if you lock eyes with them AGAIN, you become frozen in place. The Enderman will then slowly approach you- and upon reaching attack distance from the player, they will place obsidian blocks all around them, then teleport away again. The only way out would be to dig down, have a diamond pickaxe on you, or have a companion (player or pet) attack the Enderman. The "curse" will only end when you kill one of the Endermen.
For balance purposes, if the player is above an unbreakable block (bedrock), the Enderman will "drag" the player to be above any breakable block. If no such block can be found within a 1 block radius of the player, they'll just teleport away, and not encase you in obsidian.
That's just one idea, anyway (extra thanks to a friend for this idea). Endermen have tons of possible ideas behind 'em, and I honestly love horror, so I have a bajillion of them.
EDIT: The idea of the "Enderman" curse has been (appropriately) criticized, and I agree, it's pretty underdeveloped. The basic idea for it, though, was that they become more hostile after defeating the Enderdragon- however, they wouldn't be hostile in the usual ways. Instead, they would be more aggressive in ways that wouldn't directly harm you. This amps up the "creepy" factor.
SilverfishShould spawn outside of just strongholds- preferably, deeper in caves (about mid-point between sea level and bedrock). They should also "pop out" of their blocks (they should still spawn inside stone blocks) when the player mines ores.
SlimeShould spawn aboveground, in swamps. They're far too annoying to get right now. They also shouldn't drown, and be capable of getting out of water.
Cave SpiderLike Silverfish, need to generate in more places. Deeper in caves would be nice. They should also drop "Venom Sacs", which should be what's used for making Potion of Poison (not Eye of Spider). All the other aspects of regular Spiders remain.
Ender DragonThe Ender Dragon is... a joke. It's not difficult, it's just got a lot of health and does a lot of damage. Thus, it should have more abilities. It should be able to land on the ground after reaching the half health point. From there, it can turn 360 degreees and walk the other way and whip the player with its tail, smacking the player away. After reaching its half health point and being "grounded", it should occasionally fly upwards a bit, then do a full loop in the air, swooping through the whole ground area where it was, and land back down on the ground.
There's really tons of abilities you can give this thing- and really, the more things it can do, the better. However, all of its attacks should have cues. It shouldn't just suddenly do things- the player should be given a short warning before it does something, so they can avoid/block/etc the attack.
There should also only be 4 health regenerators- more than this ends up being far too much to handle, and just becomes tedious to destroy them while continually getting knocked about by the dragon.Lastly, give it some sounds! There's seriously no reason why it lacks sound, especially since it was given to us in the official release.
---
Really, there's just so many things you can do with mobs- those aren't the only ones that can use improvement, and my suggestions certainly aren't the peak of what you can do with them. The more things mobs can do, the better- it can only make the world feel more alive.Next, there's the matter of new mobs- honestly, this is the kind of content I can fill entire pages with (as if this thread isn't huge enough already), so I'll keep it brief:
-Ocean mobs-Biome-specific mobs (not variations of existing ones- unique, biome specific mobs)
-Melee mobs that actually fight with you (zombies are, and should be, fairly mindless)
Those types of mobs should take priority over anything else if new mobs are to be considered when added- mostly because they're all very lacking, and have such potential to be expanded upon that anything else is a waste. This includes new animals. Speaking of, we don't really need more "passive" mobs. We already have two pets, and plenty of foodsources. Please don't keep adding more.
Another point that needs to be considered is the use of new mobs- they should generally drop something that's useful. This is kind of obvious, but a fantastic "filler" option for mob loot would be items used in potion making (as in, new potions). Especially for the potions that have an effect coded already, but aren't currently in yet (Nausea, Blindness, etc). Potion making is almost made to be there for useful mob loot- make use of this.
A small point I'd like to bring up, too, is how all mobs are knocked back the same way- I'll go more into detail on it later, but knockback needs to be a variable stat. It somewhat is right now (with enchants), but you can only improve your knockback. I'd like to see mobs like zombies (as I mentioned earlier), creepers, and a few other things harder to knock back. Right now, everything is way too easy to fight off just by hitting them.
Past all of those ideas, hopefully there should be a general theme- take what's there, and expand it all to accentuate the game. They pretty much all make each mob more dangerous, unique, and actually exciting to encounter (hopefully)- which is the general idea. Other game mechanics can control the generation of mobs, but the mobs themselves also need to be more exciting. If they're not exciting, the tension that I talked about earlier ends up being disappointing (it'd be like if Alien built up to another dude in a lame rubber suit).
Thus, we get a cohesive product out of these two aspects (set up and deliverance). The game sets up the conditions to encounter mobs, and the mobs themselves deliver the actual excitement. Both aspects are equally important- if you have mobs spawning all the time, they become stale after awhile (even if they're really well made). Just the same, even if the game sets mob encounters nicely, if they fail deliver, then it becomes disappointing, and the player won't want to bother going through the set up in the first place.
Therefore, both the mobs and the methods with which they're generated need to be updated simultaneously.---Continued in next post (post was too big). - To post a comment, please login.
2
This about sums it up for me as well.
2
1
PM sent.
1
1
1
I loved that one too haha
5