Minecraft Forums

Honestly, I believe they should spawn just like any other mob (that is - more of them spawn when you get near a valid location). Making them spawn on structure generation makes it so that there is a limited number of piglin brutes, which means that you could simply kill them all and then go straight back to exploitive bastion looting. I thought the whole point of having the brutes was to cut down on the number of people that just walk into a bastion, place down a hopper, and enjoy tons of valuable loot at no real cost. As long as to don't anger the piglins, there is almost no challenge at all in looting a bastion (aside from the typical lava hazard and occasional magma cube fight). I like how they added a chance for a chest to spawn on gilded Blackstone, but that chance should be a guarantee, and the piglins should also be angered when you move it with a piston. Also, when you explode TNT inside a bastion, the piglins should become angry at the owner of that TNT block. That way, people will not be able to loot ANY of the chests without activating a piglin fight, and they will become adequate guardians of the bastion.

Almost none of these mobs exist in the nether, so this feature would only be effective for a few minutes after a piglin enters a portal. Then, they would become a zombified piglin and the feature would be useless.

No, they won't. Any new biomes, structures, or ores will be generated outside of explored areas. Mob spawning will change in explored chunks, though.

It's more consistent to use control to sprint. When double-tapping W you aren't always going to enable the sprinting mechanic due to how difficult it is to double-tap something correctly. It's easier just to hold down a button, or you can change it to toggle in later versions.

Quote from reaverofdarknes1»

Is this like how people resist switching to metric because "it's confusing"? The only thing confusing about it is how none of these people have PTSD from trying to wrap their head around the far MORE confusing way that it currently is. And you wonder why school is frustrating. Maybe we should stop catering to old dogs and actually just fix these things without stopping to ask if some old farts are afraid of change.

Trust me, I'm not the kind of person who would resist switching to the metric system. I am very adamant about how superior the metric system is. However, switching the terms is a different story because it affects only a very small part of our lives. Also, the OP didn't mention what it would be changed to, so the replacement could possibly be more confusing than what we currently have, such as if they changed it to say "villagerlist" and "pillagerlist". The current system is not very confusing either, as almost everyone knows what it means and it's almost universally standardized.

Quote from DapperDinosaur»

Why would you ever want to do this when you could just not use those trades?

Trading is required to gain villager XP, and if you want to advance in order to use better trades, you're going to have to use at least some of the current ones. But if you don't want to, you're out of luck.

This would be like asking to rename the crafting table to "workbench". It's almost utterly pointless in effect since none of the mechanics change. The only thing it does is mess around with the theme of the game, which is honestly not a good thing in most cases.

This would bring the progression almost to a standstill, especially for new players or worlds that generate with specific biomes. Literally all of the solutions you present or reliant either on structure spawning, a high general skill level, or random numbers (except the one about the nether), which is a horrible way to progress, especially in a game like Minecraft. It would not be "pretty easy", especially if you can't find the structures or don't know what your doing (such as in the case of new players). I know that personally I would have to think for a while before I could even figure out how to progress, and I consider myself an expert on Minecraft. The entire advancement system would need a rework as well since almost all the advancements require you to get a stone pickaxe first. Wood pickaxes already have a purpose, and it is to obtain stone at first. It isn't a very bad problem anyway since wood has countless other uses that makes it far from irrelevant. I'm not even sure if survival without wood is even possible. The game isn't designed for you to get to the nether before doing anything else, and it is incredibly hard to do so anyway. Finally, this suggestion would make it near impossible to get any armor higher than leather in the first days, which is alarming because you'll really need the protection if you're going to be fighting mobs in order to get out of wood tier.

If a player does find cobblestone, they will have no way to figure out what to do with this unless they collect it, which can only be done by mining, which likely won't be done with the pickaxe because of the general unintuitiveness of the mining system itself (as well as the lack of a decent tutorial system for this). They wouldn't even know that stone could possibly drop anything because so far they haven't experienced it.

If all new players just have to go out and fight mobs or search far and wide for specific structures, and then solve the puzzle of what to do afterward, Minecraft would appeal to almost nobody.

Without stone tools, you can't play at least 50% of the game, so you're basically just locking a giant amount of content behind a door that may be simple to open, but is also incredibly confusing and unintuitive. Since Minecraft is supposed to encourage creativity, this is not at all desirable.

Literally the only thing I like about this is that it incentivizes the actual exploration of caves instead of strip mining, which most people do. The game is about exploration, after all.

I'm in full support of almost every feature they've added in 1.16 (though I thought they could do a little more), but I have found some balance problems:

1) Even with the decreased gold loot, nether gold still appears to be far too common. One vein can give me 2 or 3 blocks of gold if I mine it all. With fortune, it's probably much worse.

2) Bastions can be looted far too easily, due to the fact that piglin hostility can be avoided using a simple hopper, and that they tend to wander around instead of staying near the chests and gold. Either update piglin hostility or majorly debuff the loot you can get from a bastion (you might also want to make gold blocks less common).

3) The bartering system gives enchanted books too much, and it seems to serve as a better method to obtain ender pearls than the endermen themselves. It's also a very viable string and leather farm. The potions should be more common.

People just seem to be obsessed with transforming Minecraft from a survival game to a tycoon game.

You should be able to smelt Rotten Flesh, it's a great way to get leather and it gives Rotten Flesh a use.

I saw this on a mod and it was awesome.

Quote from tow4rzysz»

Do you realize that even with preventive mechanic many of the builds would have to undergo demolition and recrafting with use of tin to prevent rusting? Just because you don't wanna water your iron blocks for your apocalyptic build to create new blocks I have to demolish and re-smelt what exists already?
The "limitation" was irony. For me lack of rusting is freedom of construction, not a limitation in the slightest

You... realize that's not an insurmountable problem right...? For any existing iron blocks, just add the tag that they're "Treated." I also appreciate the irony of trying to construe me of laziness or selfishness, when you yourself are wholesale objecting to an idea because it'd require you to recraft a build, maybe, depending on how preventative measures work (because we don't even know--it could be applying an item to a placed block, or crafting it with a block). Lord forbid, right? It's actually an incredulous level of opposition over non-issues which can be solved without discarding the idea.

Quote from tow4rzysz»

It would. Very significantly.

No, it wouldn't. You craft Coarse Dirt to prevent the spread of Grass. You craft whatever item to prevent the oxidization of Copper and Iron Blocks. It's the same concept.

Quote from tow4rzysz»

Everyone is used to it, no build relies on standard dirt staying not overgrown.
Coarse dirt is an addition added much afterwards.

But in case of iron blocks, it the polar opposite - many builds already implement it and rely on its texture not rusting.
New copper block has a property thanks to which it gets rusty - sure, I will remember and always consider that factor when building from it.
But old iron block that has not had that property for ages?

Dirt getting overgrown is freeing only for the grass itself, not players. I don't care at all about freedom of fictional grass. For the player, it's a freedom-restricting convenience, which allowed to combine the best of both only after adding coarse dirt.

Disregarding the aforementioned solution of just tagging any existing blocks as already treated, boo hoo. There have been innumerable changes made irrespective of the builds people have made. You maybe having to go back over your build isn't really a good justification for gating a mechanic, particularly when we are getting a very comparable mechanic in the game with a new update.

Also, it seems like you're still missing the point of "unnecessary limitations." I'm not campaigning for the freedom of a block, I'm campaigning for the freedom at the design level to implement ideas that are sensible, intuitive, and reflective of other mechanics already in the game. Adding these arbitrary, contrived, and unnecessary rules like "nothing can happen except by player agency" limits the design options of the game by needlessly gating off harmless mechanics which add character and depth to the game, for which the only semi-legitimate opposition is that some old builds might have to go back and deal with the mechanic, which itself only imposes aesthetic changes... and which can altogether be solved at the time of implementation similar to how the devs swapped certain Dirt Blocks for Coarse Dirt when it was implemented.

Quote from tow4rzysz»

If your update kicks in, I have to do six things:
1. Demolish current tower, because it's going to rust and be ugly
2. Gather tin to upgrade my iron
3. Cover iron blocks with tin
4. Reconstruct current tower from tinned iron blocks
5. Gather iron to build rusty tower
6. Construct the rusty tower from normal iron blocks and leave them to rust

This is... a little ludicrous. Why not just build the second un-rusted tower, and leave the original to rust? Seems like the problem here is an inability to problem solve Even if you're extremely insistent that the first tower be unrusted for some reason, this example seems like a pretty niche scenario, which really isn't a good argument. "I built a giant 128x128x128 iron cube two versions ago, I'd have to completely un-craft that then recraft it because I want the rusted one to be on the right." How terrible--meanwhile, people have made enormous builds or complex Redstone contraptions in the past that break because the devs implement new mechanics, blocks, textures, etc, and have either opted to 1) suck it up and fix it, 2) stay on an older version, or 3) use it as an opportunity to try something new.

Quote from tow4rzysz»

I like these "limitations".
Thanks to things like nylium not spreading to every netherrack block I can build from netherrack without worrying it would overgrow. I can have my own nether barren.
Guess what, I love the extremely "limiting" coarse dirt that refuses to be annihilated as naked dirt by "freeing" grass.
If not that stubborn, "limiting" coarse dirt, I wouldn't be able to make good-looking craters, scorches or nuclear wastelands.
If I were to pick between copper having manual rust only and between iron rusting... I pick copper having manual rust only, nobody shall ruin my clean iron beams by that filthy oxidization.

Except you realize that it's already confirmed that Copper will have mechanics to prevent it oxidizing, just like you can craft Coarse Dirt to prevent the spread of grass, and that adding a rusting mechanic to Iron would likely involve a similar mechanic. It seems like your entire objection is a complete non-issue since mechanics to prevent the rusting/oxidization are already being added. There's really no noteworthy difference there--you're taking preventative action to stop a mechanic. That's my point--these functions already exist in Minecraft, so there isn't really a strong argument against them. It's just "I don't want my builds to be ruined," which like... if you think that's the inevitable consequence of this suggestion, you've woefully misunderstood it or simply not read beyond the first few lines.

I think Iron blocks rusting over time, with an option for prevention, is completely fine. Objecting to it on the basis of "b-b-but it should only happen if the player wants it to happen" isn't a very strong argument IMO given the number of preventable actions that happen without player agency already, particularly since one of these being added would function nearly identically to the proposed idea and feeds into the perception of Minecraft as an evolving and living world.

You're framing it like preventing iron/copper blocks from rusting/oxidizing would involve something wildly different than what you do with Coarse Dirt now... but it doesn't, and frankly, in spite of your attempt at a jab, Coarse Dirt isn't "limiting" at all because it allows regular Dirt to function freely without player agency while still allowing players the option to stop that course of action. I think you misunderstood the point of "limiting" here. Limiting would be if Grass or Mycelium couldn't spread on dirt unless players directly caused it--similar to how Nylium functions, though there's the additional consideration with Nylium that its mechanic encourages players to create local farms rather than just dragging everything back to their base to mass-produce a somewhat exotic resource, which is something the developers have talked about with respect to 1.17. That's not really relevant to Grass growing, Snow falling, Copper oxidizing, or Iron rusting, though.

Quote from TheMasterCaver»

So? That doesn't mean I don't have any opinion of newer updates, as seen in my signature; TMCW contains many features based on ones in newer versions but altered to fit my views of how they should have been implemented, ranging from combat to world generation and even internal code changes.

I'm sure you have your opinion, and you're entitled to it, but by your own admission, you haven't actually played core Minecraft since 1.6.4 beyond just "checking things out." That sort of invalidates the legitimacy of your views, because it seems that irrespective of whether or not a change you dislike goes through, you're unlikely to be affected by it anyway unless you suddenly decide to start playing the latest version--not out of the realm of possibility, but also not super likely based on your own assessment of your investment in TMCW.

The comparison would be if I whined about the inclusion of the Giant in TMCW. I'm certainly entitled to my opinion, but given that I've barely played TMCW, haven't touched Version 4 at all, and have little intent on touching it because, even though I may like some of the features, I generally don't care for the mod personally, I think my opinion on it is a little irrelevant, disregarding the actual legitimacy of whatever points I may make.

I also very much agree that copper and amethyst crystals need more uses. I seem to recall from the video that it was implied there were indeed more. I certainly hope so.

Amethyst tools (probably not armor) make a good deal of sense. Geodes are rare, and presumably only grow more crystals when the chunk is loaded. So unless you move your base over to it, they're going to be a scarce resource. (How weird is it that diamonds are more common than amethysts, btw? :))

Another thought is that using amethyst in place of glass for beacons and end crystals would give you improved versions, or perhaps just more of them.

Maybe amethyst could make hardened, explosion-resistant glass? Maybe one crystal + 8 glass makes 9 hardened glass? But it seems too rare for such a use.

Why can't telescopes be made with glass? They are in real life. But if the rule is that "lenses are made out of crystal", then that gives some further ideas of what they could be used for.

As for copper, it seems logical for it to interface with redstone in some way. Maybe copper wires could act like the "bluestone" people keep asking for - it wouldn't connect with redstone.

Quote from HueyLaurn»

All popular Minecraft Youtubers that talk about the 1.17 update feels like they are doing it because of a sponsorship. It feels like a biased video about the update because of a sponsorship contract is preventing them from saying critical/negative things.

I hate the spikes, the bundles, the stupid telescope, the archaeology stuff, and new pots. They feel like things you would easily find in modded Minecraft from 1.8.

• Spikes: I would expect 3D spikes or something, but no, instead we have 2D spikes just like how plants are presented. I hate how thick they are and feel like a total eye-sore.
• Bundles: They have the exact same functionality as shulker except worse. The main problem I have with this is the UI of it, instead of seeing the exact number or what items that are inside it, you just get a blob of items and manually have to count them.
• Telescope: We never needed and we still never needed it. I feel like it is equivalent to clocks, they are worthless other than to have them on a item frame for decoration.
• Archaeology stuff: Why would we need this in a update? This is straight up feels like it is from a archaeology/Jurassic Park mod!! There is no purpose of this stupid new feature other than getting expensive items from dirt/gravel OR being able to create a pot.
• Pots: This feels like a custom block that a map developer would make for their map. It's cool I guess? But I find it still very dumb.

Also is it me or does it seem there will be a BIG performance problem?? The brushes for example, it feels like it turns dirt/gravel/etc into snow, where there are multiple layers of something. I feel like if there is too many of these different layer blocks it will have a performance problem.

"They feel like things you would easily find in modded Minecraft from 1.8." And that's bad why?

Quote from HueyLaurn»

Last time I recalled, it wasn't about a Jurassic Park mod or digging up for weird looking parts.

Last time I recalled, Jurassic Park had nothing to do with archaeology. Paleontology is something different.

Minecraft is whatever its updates have led it to be. Like I said, the Nether didn't "fit" at first into the game at all. Half the charm of the game is its quirkiness, the layers of developments that have occurred over the years.

And nobody says that you have to use the archaeology stuff if you don't want to.

I would assume so for the cave gen changes but it's hard to say until snapshots come out. As 3D biomes was a thing in 1.16 if that update did then I'd say you can likely tell if it does here as the same will be applied to 1.17. We won't know until the snapshots as I don't know if staff will reveal much until then.