The red thing above red wool block in the topic's image seems does NOT seem to be a red mushroom.
In fact, it looks like... a ladybug!
Sweet!
EDIT: Danggit, it's just the Grum boss mob!
- Ouatcheur
- Registered Member
-
Member for 11 years and 11 months
Last active Sat, Feb, 5 2022 19:07:22
- 52 Followers
- 3,168 Total Posts
- 734 Thanks
-
May 2, 2013Ouatcheur posted a message on Snapshot 13w18a Ready For Testing; 1.5.2 Now LivePosted in: NewsQuote from LynnNexus
Um...
There are skins for the two undead horses included in the snapshot but unused and they follow the same pattern as the released horses. It is not unreasonable to hope that not only the undead horses will be included from this information but that they may have horse related drops.
Or that since they imported a lot of the framework directly from Mo's Creatutre author, there was saome amount of coding magic cut n paste involved. Why take the time to remove an entire part with the risk of making the entire compiling of the coded module fall to it's knees, when you could just leave it like that and use a simple switch to avoid generating that part? This is just like in our real life bodies we have old genetic code in our DNA which has no usage anymore whatsoever, it's just there. *maybe* it will serve again one day. But it probably won't.
I think the undead horses "skins only" are exactly like that. They thought about adding the, chose otherwise, but did the logical thing: not waste programming time on fully removing it, after all ,who knows if it could serve one day, right? So they simply turned it off. Having worked as a coder, this is a very common coding practice. -
May 2, 2013Ouatcheur posted a message on Snapshot 13w18a Ready For Testing; 1.5.2 Now LivePosted in: NewsQuote from TNT24X
Why can’t t Horses fight mobs.
Real Horses attack and bite things they don’t like and I happen to know that mules are used as guards for livestock, sheep farms use that to stop cougars and wild dogs.
I think it was Mojang chose deliberately, not something they forgot.
Horse stuff is by definition rarer: harder to find than normal animals, and uncraftable saddle & armor.
They are designed to be mounts, not guards.
Yes in real-life mules can serve as guard animals. BUT
1) That is usually not the case of horses.
2) since when does realism dictates what goes in Minecraft? Minecraft has definitely some realism (for example, the fact that you must eat some foodstuff to take care of your hunger, not eat pink bricks or something just as weird), but it also hads lots of unique and definitely non-realistic elements: eternal torche, infinite water, solid blocks that float without any kind of support, etc.
While realism can be a source of ideas, it definitely shoud not be THE source of ideas, and it is game design that should always take priority here, NOT realism. which leads me to:
3) Horses and donkeys are already more than powerful enough as they are without ALSO providing combat bonuses.
Anyway, if they fought while you were riding them, dang, you'd lose control over the horse and couldn't manage to do your own attacks yourself? That would be pretty bad. When you are on a horse, you're the one that should do all the fighting, not the horse.
And as guard animals, wolves being smaller are way more manoeuvrable and since animals don't need to eat unless it's for breeding (once per animal) or healing, it's not a big deal. In fact, a bigger pack means the hostile mob will probably die all much faster, meaning actually LESS healing to do afterwards (for those caring about that). With sufficiently big pack, you just forget about healing and just breed some more wolves every once in a while.
"But wolves avoid creepers..."
Yeah so would the horse too, or any other friendly mob designed to fight, except if it's a golem (stupid and single purpose minded by definition, and either a bit fragile and useless on it's own like a snow golem, or with enough hit points to withstand an explosion like an iron golem).
It's not what would be "realistic" that is important, it's what would be "logical'" and what is 'important", and making horses fight definitely wouldn'r be a logical thing to implement in Minecraft, and lots more things are way more important.Quote from LynnNexus
I really hope now that the saddles and armors aren't craftable that they will be a rare drop from the undead horses.
Note:
Mo's Creatures have Undead Horses.
While the new Minecraft horses come from Mo's Creatures collaborative work, they don't include undead horses.
There was already a Lapis Lazuli block been in the game for a long time. Unless you're trying to ask something else? -
May 2, 2013Ouatcheur posted a message on Snapshot 13w18a Ready For Testing; 1.5.2 Now LivePosted in: NewsQuote from shiney_ninja
I thought 1.6 was going to be the "mob update" I've seen more blocks then mobs introduced
1.6 isn't finished yet. And yeah, if the only mob they add is horses, then their promise of "new mobs" will turn out to to be "new mob". Even of there are 10 kinds of horses, it's still only 1 type of mob. We need more variety! -
May 2, 2013Ouatcheur posted a message on Snapshot 13w18a Ready For Testing; 1.5.2 Now LivePosted in: News
I guess the slimeball serves to kind of "hold" the lead's knot.
I'm fine with that recipe. -
Mar 20, 2013Ouatcheur posted a message on Minecraft Realms: What Is It?Features that Minecraft Realms will need to become massively popular:Posted in: News
1- Capability for the host (i.e. the person paying for the service) to upload and download the world.
2- Mods support.
Without these, using WorldEdit (for example) or a mapper becomes impossible, and you're stuck with Vanilla.
3- Multiworlds support
Wether it is to connect your own worlds together, or connect your world to all others, having support for this through a standardized rules/access granting room interface would help a lot.
I'd find it crazy if for each world you pay the same. Some worlds are tiny, some huge, and having 2 connected worlds doesn't means you'll have twice as much players.
But I bet Realms will be popular even without these features. -
Jan 18, 2013Ouatcheur posted a message on 13w03a Ready for TestingPosted in: NewsQuote from toatanu
Agreed. Nobody here (I hope) has a thing against caves, but most people with some sense have problems with the infinite spaghetti cave system (note the singular form) found in all Minecraft worlds, and the frequency of gigantic systems.
Hear, hear! I agree with you 200% -
Jan 18, 2013Ouatcheur posted a message on 13w03a Ready for TestingPosted in: NewsQuote from RoboMat
"Creating a infinite water source no longer needs a block underneath, but has to have a water source block."
I personnally do not understand the actual meaning of that sentence!
Basically, in the sentence structure
"Doing A no longer needs B, but has to have C"
It should always be possible to split the sentence into 2 simpler ones.
Like in the following example:
"Bob is no longer a cop, but has children"
can be split into:
"Bob is no longer a cop"
and
"Bob has children",
which both make sense.
But when
"Creating an infinite water source no longer needs a block underneath, but has to have a water source block."
is split into
"Creating an infinite water source no longer needs a block underneath."
and
"Creating an infinite water source has to have a water source block."
The second sentence doesn't make any sense at all! It's bad syntax, plain and simple.
Just what thing exactly in the "Creating an infinite water source" thing, does the "has to have a water source block"?
Just what exactly "has to have" a water source block?
And how does it work exactly? And which water source block has to be had?
Does it mean that you have to provide a block of water source using a bucket? Or what?
Please explain a little bit better! -
Jan 11, 2013Ouatcheur posted a message on Change Your Minecraft Name? Possibly In The Future>>> "Just ban the IP"Posted in: News
>>> Griefers would just change username and grief again!
Wow, brilliant ideas! I'm sarcastic here. All those who posted such should be banned from the forums forever lol. That'd raise the average IQ in here by a coupla points I guess lol.
If they'd taken the time to actually read more than the first page of posts, or just use Google or common sense, they'd of course have seen that:
The Ban IP idea for is stupid for so many reasons: a) Griefers can just use IP spoofers; Or just cross the street from the Mcdonald to the public library or other public free wi-fi access; c) Innocent players could potentially get their account banned because of the actions of somebody else on the same LAN as them; d) Some countries use dynamic IP. Etc. In short, the idea that "1 user = 1 IP, always the same IP" is just plain stupid.
Griefers would just swap names: Gee, like somebody else said: Surely that is exactly what happens all the time in *ALL* those *_other_* games where players can change their user names! Of course not!
Thank god *most* posters provide real and valuable ideas and insights!
****** This is how I think changing the in game name could potentially be done :
Not by allowing X changes per month or interval, but by forcing a waiting period instead!
Procedure: Into his account, the player can make (or cancel) a request to change his "in game name" (ign). His profile will now show the remaining number of days before the requested new ign activates automatically (well, not while he's playing, or logged out, only at the moment that he actually logs into the game itself, AFTER the waiting period is over of course.
It doesn't have to be more complicated than that!
When the player connects to a multiplayer server, the server will get the list of names for his profile:
- unique uncheangeable account profile name identifier (always)
- current in game name (always), does not need to be unique.
- requested future name, if any
- last X recently used names, if any.
Each name in that short list has a "timestamp" for when it was used the first time.
Using that information, each server can make up its own rules as to how to let players login or not, how to ban, etc., and what kind of info is available to other players. - To post a comment, please login.
0
When I say normal, I mean normal all the way. No special skins, just regular villagers, and why would they be hostile ? That means changing what NPC villages ar all about.
I'm all for NPC villages apparing in more places. But NOT to change the very concept of NPC villages, no matter which biome it is.
That kind of stuff has no place in vanilla and is strictly for mods, like for example the Millenarie mod. NPC villagers are peaceful, end of story.
Otherwise, next thing you know then desert NPC villages' villagers will stop being peopled by our funny squidward guys and start having hostile mujahideen desert warrior assassins instead, or whatever. Hey, making them hostile is good for icy plains, so it's good elsewhere too ! Then for plains villages we'lll use some other type of bandits !
Just no. Villages are a helpeful and sociable thing, for trading, and only monsters should be enemies. Adding hostile villages would change that.
0
Nope, check post #7 - OP definitely suggested making kicks better than punches with no drawback.
0
Did you surround enchant table with bookcases?
400 XP is not that much: That's the same as being level 7 and a half. In vanilla, that's the low-level enchants range.
A "level 30" enchant would cost 4950 XP.
0
"I don't want to assume that all people have Fire Resistance."
But players just CAN'T trigger it by mistake. So they MUST know what they're in for. Apart from a few Pocket Edition nostalgic players that tend to jump to conclusions without checking any wiki first, or stupidly install a mod without even checking what it does, who would be able to guess that they have to place 4 gold blocks there to activate it, but still be an ignoramus about the results ? That would be a really freakish occurence.
Also, players are in the Nether. There is fire and lava traps almost everywehere already. Players are already expected to always carry Fire Resist potions with them anyway. Or at least, if they are new to the Nether and still haven't found a Blaze spawner, they are expected not to stupidly and deliberately do strange stuff with strange structures (otherwise they should die, lesson learned). Leave the assuming for players to not be ready for the Overworld. It's the Nether after all, it shouldn't be a walk in the park. If there is one place in Minecraft that you CAN afford to go all out without pulling any punches, it's the Nether.
You could compensate some of the loot being destroyed by the fire simply by dropping more. I'd add less fire and more small explosions of the netherrack around. Enough to break 1 block of netherrack at a time, deal tiny damage (maybe knockback too), but very low odds of destroying items (except items right on top of the explosion).
As for the Pigmen Zombie, are they neutral or hostile ? If they are hostile, this place is super deadly !
0
Personally, I'd love to have both:
The "natural" texture stone slabs, and the "polished" texture stone slabs. heck, the polished form not only in slabs but all formats (full block, double-slabs, stairs, etc.). Maybe smelting a smooth stone gives the polished form or whatever.
As for map-breaking, come on, ever heard of converting tools ? The game could very easily see the version change, and ask "Want to port the map to the new version?", then make a copy of the entire map for the new version (showing % of porting progress), switching block IDs as needed. It would be TRIVIAL (well, maybe a bit lengthy if yoy map is really huge, but still easy to code). You could then delete the old version map if you wished or keep both copies. Thinking all polished stone slabs should suddenly turn up as smooth stone slabs instead that's not a real genius way to think about this, to say the least.
0
That would be useful.
However, I think the Original Poster's way has lots of merit.
#1 - It's efficiently compact. If a mapmaker needs to trigger let's say 20 chains, it requires a SINGLE activation. Old way is 20 adding trigger signaling redstone blocks or powered NBT tags which each then have to remove their own trigger, so that's 20 removal too. N(1) is better than N(2N) ! If the triggers need to be triggers ALL AT THE SAME MOMENT, the old way require a clever space-consuming signal split so that all 20 signal-sends occur at once. With the named string signal, no need to think about that kind of stuff at all, you just send it.
#2 - It's coordinates independent. So if you go have to modify a chain and happen to move the triggered block, you don't need to go back to the activating block to readjust the coordinates again.
#3 - It's much easier to '"read" and understand what stuff signals what other stuff to do what stuff. If a command activates signal named "MakeTheRainbowBridgeAppear" then it tells the mapmaker a lot more than if it triggered instead X45 Y33 Z134. Less need to remember and jot down every tiny coordinates details ! It's faster and more intuitive to just "name" a chain according to what it does, and jotting that down (in case you forget the exact spelling), than have to type F3, jot down all 3 coordinates, and then have to remember which coordinaiutes does what anyway ! Because in all probability your "jot down" memory-sheet of important coordinates would probably need to have each of it'S XYZ coordinates get a tag name ANYWAY, otherwise your sheet would just end up being a huge list of totally meaningless coordinates ! so why not jot down only a name anyway, in that case ?
Maybe a combo approach would be best. The command could use either coords OR names. Basically I see it as just sending a pulse of redstone power there. The listener block doesn't really need to be a special new block. When using a coordinates, any powerable block would do. Or you could simply add the functionality to renamed redstone blocks. A renamed redstone block would stop acting like normal and appear with an "unpowered" redstone block texture, only listening to the signal, and momentarily lighting up to the full normal texture when it receives the signal. This would minimize the need to add new blocks.
However, there must be a simple way to type in a signal name, and output all the coordinates of all the listening blocks.
2
The only way I would support it is like this:
When you make an unarmed attack, if the enemy is lower than you, then you make a kick instead of a punch.
Purely cosmetic.
0
Sorry didn't notice the texture difference. Neon dark red seems cool. and getting 18 instead of just 4, that's much more worthwhile, me likey !
Yeah the "fear of it's too overpowered critisicism" phobia is a popular disease, I have caught it a few times too. No biggie.
Maybe the stairs could be there right off the bat. Along with other stuff. That would make for a more interesting "building" structure than just a hollow cube with only the reactor in middle !
I think lava could start flowing down in a few places from the ceiling. Basically, it could be EXPECTED that you have access to fire resist potions to manage well here.
Don't make the "reactor events'" follow something too complex either. The rest of the game just isn't like that. So cut down the list of effects to the strict minimum.
Basically, the real loot here is the glowing Obsidian, all the rest in your list is kind of "fluff" and not absolutely necessary. Instead of a multi-steps meltdown, I'd just go with "Here's the meltdown NOW and THAT dangerous stuff immediately happens!" So it is expected for player to be ready. After all, the player must trigger it himself and that caN't happen by mistake. Just have the reactor transmute + a hellstorm around it ?. No real need for more complicated multi-step stuff.
The Boneyard thing was just to show that structures can be made to look cool. I'd like your structure to look really cool, not just for it to be a hollowed out rectangular shape. Imagine what abandoned mineshafts would be if they would be only made of only 3x3 perfectly straight tunnels, without anything else like the wooden frames to make it look more interesting. Or what NPC villages would look with perfect cubes of dirt houses. Look at Jungle Temple and Desert Temple, your structure could actually be a real "building".
Good point about the Glowing obsidian being a "sturdy'" light source.
I like the basic idea, but it's current look and complexity isn't very appealing to me sorry. The walls ceiling and floor could be more about making it feel like a reactor room of some kind than just the raw netherrack. Even if you use sturdier blocks like say nether bricks that won't get destroyed much or even at all in the meltdown, the main point is that the meltdown occurs inside as a danger for the player no ?
0
Nah, just have normal NPC villages (for Icy Plains biomes, not all cold biomes) except the building use Spruce instead of Oak.
0
4% per chunk ? That's insanely high ! It means any area only 5x5 chunks big (25 chunks total) will on average have one such reactor.
5 chunks is 80 blocks. This means that any player with Far render distance will, on average, will have about a WHOPPING 28 REACTORS RUINS just within his sight radius alone (syre most will be out of sight blocked by obstacles, but they will be there !) without even having to explore. and a 11x11x22 structure will OFTEN has some bits exposed (it's not so common to find totally solid netherrack areas in the nether that are above 22 blocks thick).
Also, you just can't have a flat 4% anyway, as that contradict the next statement whuich says they tend to be underground. A flat 4% means there would be as many reactors per area wether it is an open area of a thick solid netherrack area.
So go back to the drawing board a bit heh ?
I suggest you put at least several hundred blocks in between these structures, say at same frequency as Nether Fortresses, and a much more precise condition for their spawning.
"Mining a Core with any Pickaxe is as slow as breaking Stone with your fists."
Why not just say it can't be done, because, ya know, stone CANT be mined by hand anyway ? Or list the 1st tool that does work.
Glowing Obsidian should not share the same exact texture as normal obsidian.
Let's check cost vs output:
Cost: 36 Gold Ingots
Average Output:
4 Glowing Obsidians
16.875 Iron Ingots
20.625 Nether Quartz
12.5 Nether Warts
15 Redstone Dust
4.5 Gold Ingots
1.5 Gold Swords
1.5 Diamonds
0.5 Saddle
0.25 Random Horse Armor
At least it ain't overpowered. Quite on the contrary in fact I find it underpowered. Personally, I always need more gold than all the other stuff. Iron and Redstone Dust are sufficiently abundant in the overworld. Nether Quartz is abundant in the Nether. Warts can be farmed. With Fortune III, you can actually find more diamonds than gold in the overworld. Gold swords will saddles and horse armor will just end up taking chest space after you got as few already. Even diamonds because with Fortune I get enough diamonds for my armor and tool needs, while I never have enough gold for more powered rails ! IMHO, it's a not a very good trade at all.
The meltdown thing is relatively slow (45 seconds) and players would just escape the way they came (probably using several safe shallow holes all around the room that you just need to drop into) instead of trying to run up some stairs that leave them exposed to attacks AND falling damage AND fire damage (as you migth fall on fire). So yeah those stairs ain't necessary, especially since they lead absolutely nowhere at all. And why would a self-destruct mechanism provide an exit anyway ?
As structures go, this one is pretty bland (a square room wheepee) and doesn't have much point to it anyway.
I'd rather they introduce the concept of biomes to the Nether, like the 6 Nether biomes added by the Biomes o' Plenty mod.
http://biomesoplenty.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Nether_Biomes
The Boneyard in particular has interesting structures.
Your special reactor room should be much more impressive (a real structure, with the reactor in the center, not just a simple hollowing out of a stupid cubic shape in the netherrack background) and also much more special. Your version lets the player prepare as much as he likes in advance which makes any challenge almost to easy. The loot being so tiny relative to the cost, the only thing really interesting here is the rare glowing obsidian blocks. Costly for blocks that gives only Light Level 12 and do nothing special. I'd make the Reactor rarer than Nether Fortresses (which are literally everywhere really).
Sorry but while I like the thought of giving the old reactor some new use, I don't find this suggestion here appealing in the least.
0
Is the south-east corner re-rendered immediately ?
Or is just just each of the old pixels (in left lower corner) simply gets inflated to 2x2 new pixels ?
In which case, until you actually go revisit the map area, the zoomed-in map ain't as detailed anymore.
IMHO the mapping system still sucks a bit.
First of all, the lining up should be in integral Map Sizes, not map size minus 64 (see the wiki of current version).
Or at the VERY least, map size minus 256, since this is the default zoom level now.
But I'd prefer if 1 default zoom map = *exactly* one region file's area.
Sure, making a map around spawn would probably need 4 maps but... big deal, spawn is rarely lined up with 0-0 anyway as it is very often a few hundred blocks away. On a 512x512 blocks map, a couple "hundred blocks = half the map width anyway.
Zooming in should definitely accept any one of the 4 corners.
Zooming out also should also allow choosing which corner the old data will go.
This would make sure the grid is preserved in a very simple manner at all levels.
0
Milk is only usable against negative effects as an after-the-fact item. It does not grant a protective immunity for some duration, but merely removes an already-existing effect.
Thus while it works for spider eyes poison, it isn't very useful there: you would need to gulp 1 milk for every single spider eye you eat, in order to reduce to damage taken from 2 to 1. A whole milk (1 satiation + 1 nutrition) just for +1 protein food point. Might as well craft the milk into cheese for the same +50% food value without taking damage, but in a pinch it can be useful.
But for poisonous potato it is useless as those deal only 1 damage anyway (an only 30% of the time).
My usual rotten flesh tactic :
- With D = max number of drumsticks I have now.
- At full health and with drumsticks shaking
- Wait until I am hungry enough to be able to have room for D+1 food points (for example at level 1, this is 3+1 = 4 hunger points = 2 drumsticks)
- Quickly eat D rotten flesh + 1 milk
- At worst I will take D damage, but I really fill up my Satiation
Ideally right before going to bed (thus immediately healing the damage).
0
Personally I don't recommend starting in the middle of a plains. No trees in sight = it will be hard to get some wood !
For a beginner, I recommend Plains + some other biome nearby (or even, better TWO other biomes nearby).
One of the easiest start biome is, surprinsingly, the Snowy Plains. The flatter the better. Find a shallow icy pond (ideally flat wth the ground, or at most 1 deeper), look into it to try to find if there is sand right underneath the ice and no liquid water, and dig from the side. This gives you a sturdy free roof that lets you see outside too, and it is easy to expand safely. Just don't place a torch in there ! But you'll have to move around to new shelters regularly because the main food source is only animals.
Developping good hunting skills (i.e. killing animals in a way that they can't escape) is essential to get sufficient early food quickly. Running after animals wastes tons of time and tons of energy. In plains tall grass is abundant sure, but you need to spend more than half of each day on breaking tall grass for seeds, and after a while that kind of grinding makes your brains kind of turn into rotten mulch mashed potatoes.
For blocks you can use Sand instead of Dirt, because you can dig and place 5 Sand for the time and work energy cost of 4 Dirt.
If find my best early shelter is simply a hole in the ground with a 1x2 clay roof, and several dirt piled on top of those (that way the zombies can't dig the clay directly, they need to go through the dirt 1st -- and Dirt takes longer to dig than Sand so it is a better block when used for obstacles -- heck gravel and clay are even better).
Beware that falling zombies can kick with their legs for extra reach and ALSO for extra damage, meaning a 1x1 shelter hole with a tiny window at eye level, that is sure instant death for you the very second that a zombie comes and it's legs falls into your "window". You must be able to stand away from any place a zombie leg might appear.
Being 2 blocks deeper than the zombie, though that is quite safe, and you can strike safely from below. However, until you have AMPLE food, and especially if you don't have a weapon, don't waste any energy trying to fight zombies EVEN if they can't fight back. Combat uses up tons of food energy and striking barehanded you tend to hurt your own hand (you might kill ONE maybe TWO zombie that way before being nearly dead yourself), and you don't deal any damage when you have only 1 health left.
Still using the clay with several dirt piled on top trick, progressively expand shelter to 3x2 in later days. That is room enough to place a bed. I find 8 dirt tall pillars above the clay to be quite safe, the zombies never manage to dig all of that. try to go for hardened clay (2x2 clay bricks) ASAP make slabs and use that for the roof of a new shelter.
Don't make the shelter too big. Make it as small as you can while making it safe. At this point in the game it is better to conserv energy as much as possible (avoiding running and jumping around), and simply explore around to find a good spot for the next shelter. Then bring all the materials in one shot, quicklly make the shelter, and concentrate on killing the animals in the new area before the zombies eat them. No need to go very far either: a mere 250 blocks minimum 500 blocks maximum is quite ok. 250 blocks = 1 minute of walking. Going to max sight range (256 blocks Far distance) and back is common in a day of gathering food, and that takes 2 minutes = at least 20% overhead of your short day. So yeah smaller additionnal shelters help get more food by a lot.
Making new shelters also increase odds of getting more wool from sheep = as soon as you can get a bed the better it is. Being semi-nomadic early on, making new shelters a few hundred blocks away at regular intervals, pays off immensenly in the early game. Even once you have milk bowls, keep on milking the cows then kiolling it for meat, then make a new shelter a bit further away once the area is depleted of animals. That way you will relatively quickly reach Leather armor which while scrappy armor still helps survivbility by a lot.
Use Sand pillars to mark the paths between the shelters. Establishing shelters in a kind of "big spiral" makes a bigger area into your known territory, which helps a lot finding very useful stuff (more gravel, sources of coal or ore, pumpkins, etc.) but also greatly reduces odds of getting lost (well, if you placed pillar-roads or other easy to see markers, that is). Establishing shelters into a bee-line instead is more useful to try to reach/find new biomes instead.
The toughest is definitely the first few days, when you are almost totally defenseless, have almost nothing, and zombies can dig in. Once you make that first hatchet, always make bowls, that jacks up the accessible food noticeably. Enough bowls mean all the cows you meet = +4 milk which is a boon even if not converted to mushroom soup or cheese. Milk also allows you to eat Rotten Flesh meat without taking too much damage.
0
Er ok probably. My next second most played world, on a SMP server for about 4 months I went on a kind of "get a life" Minecraft mining rampage and spent nearly 100% of my free time mining in Minecraft, mining everything connected in something around a 2000x3000 blocks area (don't remember too clearly and they did reset that map). So, 12 weeks at a minimum of 3 hours per week day + 9 hours per weekend day = that is only about 400 hours. That definitely was my most "mining intensive" life period, so yeah overall counting 4 years of Minecraft total now, I surely must have exagerated both mine and yours mining amount by some factor. Still, that remains quite a lot of mining ! It's too easy to overguesstimate such things wrong just by using memory only, without doing a bit of math too.
My longest solo played world reached around day 1200 or something, that's 400+ hours, or about 17 real-life days, but that definitely wasn't 100% spent on mining, very far from it. And I played a LOT of worlds above 100 in-game days each. I also never do the AFK overnight thing.
1 hour for a mineshaft that is super fast for me. Usually it takes me several multi-hours gaming sessions. I kind of tend to light up and clean up everything. Sometimes even after I was finished, all the tunnels rendered perfectly nice smooth stone 3x3 tunnels, not even a single dirt or gravel block showing, with slabs and stairs added for smooth walking and so on. Nowadays, though, I stopped that kind of obsessive compulsive thing.
Well, in any case, at *my* mining speed, it probably would have taken you >10000 hours to mine as much as what *you* mined lol.
If the depth had been higher I suppose I would have mined the same amount of time, but covered a much smaller total area.
0
Or just use a bed to turn Night into Day !
As for turning Day into Night... huuuuh is there anybody that really wants that ? Probably yes let's say a guy that has just finishing buffing himself like a god and now want to run all night long to hunt mobs, ehe'd want night to start "rite naow" right ?
In that case, since a bed turns night into day, then what would turn day into night ? Coffee ?