• 0

    posted a message on Does Minecraft need more Loot/Artifacts? (Pros/Cons & Artifact Ideas)

    I think more "treasure loot" is certainly a good idea. I think more Totems and more Treasure Enchantments are largely the way to go about it. That said, I would avoid making Totems that are just "turbo-charged" potions and instead give them unique effects


    For instance, introduce the Totem of the Infested. If held when the player drops below half health, it is consumed to spawn several friendly Silverfish that will attack the target before disappearing after a brief period. Stuff like that would be pretty interesting

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Flutterflies: An adorable ambient mob for the flower forest! (with images!)

    Read the post again. I've said that they DON'T regrow stingers, so this is a way of making bees passive.


    EDIT: The quote isn't showing up for some reason, this is directed at Puffy Pony.


    I... never claimed you did say they regrow stingers. I said in my response proposal, they have a chance to retain their stingers.


    I don't really support any measure to make bees permanently passive--even Campfires don't actually do this since the bees will become hostile again if you remove the Campfire then harvest/break the beehive.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Smelting Rotten Flesh to make Leather

    Eh. I'd rather see a different use determined for Rotten Flesh. Leather isn't really hard to obtain in mass quantities once you get some cows (or horses lol) going, and if the concern is that Leather sources are too uncommon... either make Leather Armor more valuable so that it's not a strictly "early game" set (i.e. wearing a full set grants a native Speed 1 effect), or make existing sources of Leather (cows, horses, rabbits) a little more accessible. As for Rotten Flesh, I don't think it's a completely useless item now. It's an easy way to farm Emeralds, and it's good junk food to feed your Wolves. For either case, it prevents you from needing to pull from a resource pool that you personally might actually want to utilize (i.e. Raw Beef or Porkchops for food, or whatever item to trade to Villagers)


    That said, as for additional uses... I like an idea I saw once of being able to "bait" Fishing Rods with items on your off-hand to improve your rewards for Fishing (think of it like using Spam on a hook, or chumming the water). Rotten Flesh would be pretty ideal for that, as would Tropical Fish (which are currently fairly useless, and such a functionality would help to differentiate their value from Cod and Salmon). Under this system, Rotten Flesh and Tropical Fish would grant you a small chance to apply a Looting effect to any catches you make, with Tropical Fish offering a slightly better chance than Rotten Flesh due to being a little rarer and less-easily-farmed (i.e. maybe 5% and 10%, or whatever numbers work out)

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Flutterflies: An adorable ambient mob for the flower forest! (with images!)

    I don't think this needs to be a mob. It could just be a rare form of flower that grants a 50% chance for any bee in a 12 block radius to not lose its stinger when stinging other mobs (numbers variable). Bees really aren't that strong so I don't think granting them the potential to sting you multiple times would really be unbalanced at all.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Lavalogged blocks, warped blocks as fuel and smeltable shears

    Lava wouldn't hurt for a mechanical overhaul, but even if it doesn't get it, I think Lavalogging would be okay


    That said, I don't think Nether Planks & related materials need to be flammable. They're Nether materials. It makes sense that they're resistant to heat, such that the only thing that can really "burn" them is lava (which, personally, I'd be in more favor of most or all Nether-exclusive materials having Netherite's lava resistance than for Nether Planks to burn in a furnace, but also that's kind of a unique mechanic reserved for super-end-game gear)


    Shears being smeltable into an Iron Nugget would be okay

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Make tipped arrows easier to obtain

    I don't think they're supposed to be particularly easy to obtain. I'm not against there being a different method to obtaining them, but I don't think it's supposed to be an easy process, particularly considering how some arrows (i.e. Poison, Decay, Slowness, etc) can be very powerful or griefy in PvP.


    Personally, the thing I would really like to see is Spectral Arrows come to BE. While I understand that the BE-JE split in features is intentional, it's one item that I'd prefer to be shared.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Dog breed variation

    Elaborate on this. I personally have a few questions:


    1- Are dogs a separate mob from wolves, or obtained by taming wolves? (It seems like you intend for them to be separate, but I'm not sure)

    2- How will the dog be tamed? Will wolves still be tamable?

    3- What will dogs do? What will wolves do, whether or not they can be tamed? In short, what's going to differentiate them?

    4- Where do dogs spawn? Will they spawn randomly in the world, or are they associated with certain structures as cats are?

    5- What other behaviors/features will dogs have not covered by one of the above questions?


    Think about these :) I personally would love to see a variety of dogs added, similar to cats, but I think they need to be fleshed out.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on The food consumption

    If I remember correctly, the developers did consider a thirst system at one point, but they deemed it redundant and didn't feel it really added anything that Hunger hadn't already added to the game.


    That said, I personally wouldn't mind a True Survival mode which added additional stats to manage such as Thirst, Core Temperature, etc, just for the RPG hacks among us. Granted, we do have mods that already fill that purpose, but us console plebs don't necessarily have that option :) It'd certainly help diversify food choice, too, since it would drive people to investigate things like soups more since those might be a little more optimal for managing both Hunger and Thirst than meats, bread, Golden Carrots, etc.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Rust/Aging Mechanics
    Quote from tow4rzysz»


    When dirt could overgrow, coarse dirt didn't exist. Again, it's before classic.





    Still missing the point I see... You want grass to not grow on your build? You have to put in an investment to stop the natural world progression. Investing to stop natural progression for Copper/Iron blocks is the exact same premise.

    Quote from tow4rzysz»

    Just because devs ruined something with redstone changes in the past doesn't mean it's OK to keep on doing things like that.




    Returns to my point that just because you have your build doesn't mean the devs should be beholden to it when conceiving new ideas for the game. This is my point regarding freedom within the game. Gating every mechanic behind not inconveniencing someone's pre-existing build massively restricts what can be done in the game, and it's frankly an unnecessary restriction given how often it's already been ignored and--wait for it--people weren't that worried about it. They moved on, because they recognize that their builds don't supersede the overarching direction of the game and that some changes, while annoying or inconvenient in the short run, add character, depth, and options in the long run that outweighs the benefit of stubbornly objecting to zero changes to their build now.

    Quote from tow4rzysz»

    Changing every iron block to a zinc-covered one makes the change much less destructive, although it's still going to make every new-made functional iron tool or block more expensive (includes buckets, armors and railways), as it would require additional ore for coating everything.




    Uh... what? I'm gonna guess you didn't see my first post on the thread where I stated I don't think it should apply to tools/armor, only to block sets of Iron.

    Secondly... an additional ore? You're making an awfully generous assumption about the mechanic of which we currently know nothing. We literally have no concept of what the mechanic is going to be beyond that it exists. You know that you can stop Copper from oxidizing by coating it in wax, for which we already have an analogue in the game (Honeycomb)? While not strictly accurate to the real world (not really a limiting factor in Minecraft), that same process could easily be applied to Iron, and given how easy Honeycomb is to mass-produce, I really don't think it's wildly adding to the expense of the blocks. That may be the mechanic, it may not be, but point is, you're pulling out a huge number of melodramatic assumptions about how terrible it will be when we literally have zero information on the mechanic.

    Quote from tow4rzysz»

    And about sucking it up - what if it were you that sucked up that iron could rust only after exposure to water, not me that it rusts without zinc?



    Ignoring the again-repeated assumption about requiring zinc when we have absolutely zero reason to believe that's the mechanic (particularly since Mojang made a pretty big deal about Copper being added, so a secondary ore being added and not being mentioned seems... unlikely), sure. Let's do that. Then, when it rains and the Iron rusts anyway because it was exposed to water, or when you try to make your iron build in a pond and it rusts, you can mine it all up and fix it, having created even more work for yourself.


    Oh, wait, it doesn't rust in the rain? It doesn't rust when in contact with water? Only when touching the water in a bucket, which is apparently magical and different from the water in the rain or a pond? Well holy smoking inconsistent and unintuitive gameplay, Batman. Talk about wildly contrived mechanics because you don't want to engage in a little more effort for a build. So now are we not only gating mechanics behind obstinacy over a build, we're gating it behind laziness... and in spite of your attempts to castigate me as lazy, you... do realize that any builds I make out of iron (labs, prisons, office builds, etc) would require the same effort of me, correct? Like the entire point behind my support of iron rusting, as I've said in earlier posts, is to create an engaging and dynamic world that evolves in intuitive ways, in addition to the benefits of a larger building set that allows for greater detail. For some reason, I'm getting the sense that you think I would, like, only build things out of rusted iron and am just trying to circumvent any labor in doing so (which is... a little silly even if that was my goal, since unless I'm content to just let the entire build turn brown--certainly an option for some builds--I would still need to apply whatever mechanic to stop the rusting at some point), when that's not even remotely close to the case lol. If I were lazy, I'd advocate for having to do absolutely nothing on creating an Iron Block, and then only having to use the most-minimal mechanics to change it once it's created, such as Iron tile sets remaining wholly unchanged until crafted with a Water Bucket or Cauldron.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on 1.17 New Lighting Source: Glowworm Nest
    Quote from tow4rzysz»

    Mhm. They will if they really need... I don't.


    It's... not if they really need lol. They outright said in the stream that they will be adding more. It's not, "Mojang should add more light sources," it's "Mojang is adding more light sources, so this should be one of them."

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Rust/Aging Mechanics
    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.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on 1.17 New Lighting Source: Glowworm Nest
    Quote from tow4rzysz»

    Sorry, but glow berries are enough for me.
    I don't really oppose this, I just don't see a real reason to implement this.



    The devs stated that there would be more sources of lighting (they stated glowing ores were a placeholder for new lighting sources, which ostensibly are different from glowberries since it wasn't in a Lush Cave), so it's an idea for one of those sources

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Rust/Aging Mechanics
    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.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Rust/Aging Mechanics
    Quote from TheMasterCaver»

    It should still only happen if the player wishes it to happen




    I strongly disagree on this front. I think the mindset that things should only happen if the players desires it to happen is excessively limiting and honestly doesn't have a good basis as long as the changes happening aren't destructive and can be prevented. This is akin to saying Dirt should not be overtaken by Grass/Mycelium, or that Snow shouldn't pile up unless the player allows it. Neither of these are actually problematic mechanics, because while they happen spontaneously & without player induction, they're preventable and don't annihilate your builds. Copper oxidizing, or Iron rusting as presented in this suggestion, fall in line with those mechanics.


    Besides, by your own confession, you don't even plan on playing 1.17 so it seems your opposition is pointless.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on 1.17 New Lighting Source: Glowworm Nest

    With the announcement of Caves and Cliffs, and the hint that we will be receiving new sources of lighting in the caves, I thought a neat addition would be the Glowworm Nest. For those who are unaware, Glowworms can be found in caves in many parts of the world, most famously in the Waitomo Caves of New Zealand


    Around half a block tall, the Glowworm Nest looks like a large number of tiny stalactites woven out of silk that hang from cave ceilings. Each of these silk strings gently pulsate with a light-blue luminescence near their base to produce a light level of 8. The correct tool for harvesting the Glowworm Nest is Shears, and they will drop 0-1 String if broken with any other tool. Glowworm Nests are primarily found in Dripstone Caverns and over underground lakes.


    A picture of the real world version, since I can't provide a block image since I'm not an amazing artist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arachnocampa_luminosa#/media/File:Nz_glowworm.jpeg

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.