It's about the feature gap that could be growing, not an instant support drop. That's obvious. C++ edition is easier to maintain, and it allows Microsoft to control which platform the game is played on, so they can keep their policy of enforcing Windows 10 as much as possible.
It make only sense for them to add more and more C++ only features (like the shader support announced at E3, which is the biggest MC improvement of these last 5 years at least). The concern is valid.
Now, the "loss" (think progressive drop) of Java impacts mods, Linux and Mac users. That's it. Because these are the sole advantages it has. If Microsoft had the courtesy of porting their product and offering a sufficient C# API then everything would be solved, but it would be against their policy so it's very unlikely.
0
They could not replace the owner, because he's the owner. Per definition and per law, Forge is his personal property. They had no better choice in my opinion.
0
I like the changes with the horse model, it felt out of place in Minecraft's world. Artistic consistency is important. They could have done it the other way (updating everything to the style used in the old horse model) but at some point you have to choose between the two styles.
Remember it's "worse" on purpose. Debating on the purpose is always smarter than debating whether the new model is "good" or "bad".
0
Why do you believe 1.7.10 is the most stable ? It is the most widely used, but not because of its stability, because a lot of modders have difficulties to update their codebase (especially those who do not program outside of the modding scene).
By the way, interesting tool. It could appeal to those who feel modding is a daunting task, and maybe spark interest in programming at the same time.
0
The engine currently does not support colored lights. They would need to rewrite it.
They should, but not for that reason (it's probably not enough). They could add many other more important features at the same time.
However they may not like the performance impact this could have.
Anyway it would be added in a really big task, unlike anything seen these last years.
EDIT : They will remake the engine for Console/PE/Windows 10 edition, just announced at E3. They won't do it for Java edition.
0
Your idea of having modpacks seen as Minecraft total conversions is not new and it's basically already in application.
Commercial games can't be created on the MC Engine because its license does not allow it, period. And anyway the engine is complete ****, so an absolute complete new game (that does not need any MC asset) should go to a better engine.
Some updates feel like mods these days because they modifiy simple things that mods can do easily, and their additions don't interact a lot with the rest of the already existing game.
They add colored blocks and some mobs, while they could edit the rendering, the tech tree, the netcode, gameplay systems like combat or hunger. Some mods can change that too, but it's less common as it requires more work.
When the changes are mainly just simple things, then the community complain it feels like a mod.
0
IMO, not really. These days all mods are like libraries with sets of functions applied on MC and their effect is undefined and depends on billions of config options as parameters. Beside the obvious overhead forced on the programmers by this, it means that those who actually define the game (and whether it will be fun or not) are people who sets those parameters. Nowadays it's mainly modpack authors.
It's a bit weird to say but I think in modern-MC-modding language, BTW is not a mod, but a modpack using only custom in-house mods. And a very well designed one. Too much configuration for the end users would both add more work programming/testing-side (which translates to less work elsewhere) and allow them to saw off the branch they are sitting on.
But I guess all of this is just always repeated over the years and the world will always be divided between those who think they know what they like and those who think some are more talented to find what is needed. It's an eternal debate.
0
You forgot the damn rabbits. If it hurts when you try to think about them, don't, you probably had a trauma when you first saw these mo'creature-ish nightmares ruining once beautiful blocky landscapes. I did.
I don't like the logic (more animals == always better) either. They don't look very aesthetic to me, and the few gameplay they bring don't seem very worthy of the huge amount of time devs spend on them.
0
Blocks/Entities have very complex and different behaviors so I'm not sure how they would pull that off. JSON is designed to store structures, not to describe logic. For the logic (and many other things) they would probably just expose an API in whatever language they want.
0
w The case of crafting stacks was valid until today (snapshot 17w14a). They added a shift click option, as expected.
I completely agree it was not working before. Nobody discovered shapes, instead people look on the Internet. But here with the recipe book I have the feeling instead of fixing the system it just bypass it completely.
Right now, and even moreso with the shift feature added in 17w14a, I'm 100% convinced shapes have become pointless.
Imagine you replace it with a list of ingredient (like 2x Stick 3x Stone for the Stone Pickaxe) and you get the exact same gameplay. The Recipe book is just so better to use.
Now whether that's good or not is up to debate.
0
Yes you do, that's what the fuss it's about. I also thought it would just remember the recipes in the book once you find/craft it . To me that would have solved the always-look-on-the-web problem in a better (though still not perfect) way. That's not what we have here.
At the moment it automatically adds them once you get the materials so you do not need to progress by finding the shapes. That's why the question whether recipe shapes are still relevant or not is actually a good one.
1
You can't use a "don't like it don't use it" argument when it comes to addition to video games (it does not take much to realize that with this logic absolutely anything could be justified). This is a well documented misconception, look it up on Google if you're interested. Always consider that people, as a whole, always use the path of least resistance and in that case it's often the new recipe book.
The risk of seeing the old crafting way not being used anymore is very real. I don't know whether that'd good or bad though.
Was the goal of the old system to discover recipes ? If that's the case most of us looked on the Internet to find them, so that was not really working anyway.
I can't check right now but can't you just maj click the item icon to produce as much as you can with the inventory ? I thought this was possible.
0
I like the idea of having to build redstone machines to create a lot of concrete, IMO vanilla lacks a bit of that aspect. Crafting recipes (and GUIs in general) feel always inferior compared to actual interactions with the world. Another example : would you like to be able to get instant infinite cobblestone stack in the crafting GUI with a bucket of water and a bucket of lava ? I don't. It would be easier, but it would not feel like good gameplay to me. That's why I like what they do with the powder. It's not perfect and could be improved, but definetely not by adding a crafting recipe.
0
They actually climb over it, and then they break it instead of the door they're looking at. Try it yourself, it does not feel like what you expect.
I agree it's not the exploit of the century, yet I still think even minor bugs deserve their report, even if they end up not worth the time they would need to be fixed. Of course reports should be sorted but even the smallest ones should still be somewhere on the list.
About people not using trap doors in front of doors, well obviously they don't, unless they would want to exploit this specifically. I don't know yet if anything harmful can be done with something so minor. As I said, in my mind the report of the thing comes first, and Flowerchild has not said anything against that in the rules on the BTW forum. If he ever does then I'll stop posting minor things like this, but that'd mean every user would be the judge of the problem's priority, and I guess he'd prefer to stay master of that.
0
I believe I found a bug. I have searched the Bug Reports section with various keywords and I could not find it : Zombies waste time breaking trapdoors in front of doors.
To reproduce it, simply place a zombie, a closed trapdoor on the ground, a door in front of it and some bait like a sheep.
Expected behavior would be the zombie to simply step over the trapdoor, break the door and eat the poor thing. Instead he will break the trapdoor first, giving you some additional time to hear something's wrong in the barn.
I guess the AI is based on vanilla BreakDoor which just try to get the door at pathpoint's position, so here the trapdoor becomes the target despite it not effectively blocking the path. If when choosing its target the case where it's a closed trapdoor at the entity's position was always ignored, I think that would solve it. I believe that's the only problematic case.
0
I can't test myself right now, does the pilot chair somehow moves the ship by itself without engines ? Or it "scans" engines on the ship ?
A balanced alternative fun and intuitive would be the chair outputting 4 (or 5-6 with bottom and down) redstone signals around the block based on keys pressed. That way players could link the chair to existing redstone ship builds, using the existing mechanics. Imagine as you press w to go forward, the redstone wire is activated and activates the engines where you want on your ships.
And I'm sure the concept of a chair that outputs redstone signals based on keys pressed could lead to other usages than ships. Like redstone games where you can actually control something else.