Of course it's a bug. Endermen are all sorts of screwed up since their AI change. They can't dodge melee attacks after being damaged, don't teleport out of liquids, don't make their stare sound, run very fast, run in circles after teleporting, lose track of you when you go behind a wall, and sometimes don't even aggro when you look directly at them.
They are a glitchy mess right now and did not adapt well to the AI update. I think all of their AI would need to be re-written entirely at this point to save them.
- Qwantyrioem
- Registered Member
-
Member for 11 years, 8 months, and 3 days
Last active Fri, Jul, 22 2016 09:46:08
- 0 Followers
- 147 Total Posts
- 11 Thanks
-
4
oCrapaCreeper posted a message on I cannot believe how endermen behave in the new snapshotPosted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots -
1
Divinius posted a message on Are the New Stones too Common?Put me on the list of people that feels they should be slightly more rare than they are.Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
I like that they exist, and I like that they are not super rare. But they don't need to be quite as common as they are. As they stand, there's just a bit too much of the stuff.
I would agree with Cyber1337, that it would be better if they only spawned in certain (more limited) Y-axis layers. Like, only between 32 and 64 or something. -
3
Jigglysaint posted a message on The Barrier block should have a textureWhat I would like is to have a varient of the barrier block that has different restrictions. One could restrict the player, but not mobs, and another can let the player pass but restrict mobs. It could also differentiate between passive and hostile mobs too. Codewise, it could just be different damage values of the barrier that allow or restrict the mobs. Also, an air block that can allow things like rails to be placed on it would also be cool.Posted in: Suggestions -
3
BlueCoin posted a message on The Barrier block should have a texturePosted in: SuggestionsQuote from Sceadugengan
Well, I think this is a legit request.
At least while building it should be visible.
For example it could be only visible in creative mode or you could toggle its visibility via command.
I agree, it should have a texture but it is only applied when in creative mode. In any other mode, it loses the texture and is invisible. -
4
IronMagus posted a message on Why have the graphics never changed?Posted in: DiscussionQuote from Reptilelord
EVERY person I have ever talked to about minecraft who decided they wouldn't buy it is because of the graphics, and I've met a lot of people like that.
"Those" kinds of people probably wouldn't enjoy a game like Minecraft, anyway. It's not supposed to have great graphics, because that's not what Minecraft is about.
The graphics can take away from the feel of the game
On the contrary, I think the graphics contribute a great deal to the "feel" of the game. Save your realism for the flight simulators and first-person shooters; Minecraft is supposed to be simplistic.
They made gravel look worse.
"That's just, like, your opinion, man." -
5
BC_Programming posted a message on Why have the graphics never changed?Posted in: Discussion
Looked the same as what? several items have been introduced and even had their sprites changed. The cobblestone texture has changed a few times, as has the Gravel texture.
Couldn't they do something that noticeably changes what the game looks like as a whole?
Of course. But there isn't much reason to. The standard 16x16 textures are very nearly iconic; there isn't much purpose to change them drastically, it would just be change for the sake of change.
just why can't they make everything look a little better?
'Better' is subjective.
come on, how long has it looked the same?
"It's been this way for a long time" is not an argument that it should be changed.
As for texture packs, No. Just take your hands off the keyboard or click the red x of your browser because you cant use that argument.
I'm afraid you are not in a position to set the rules by which any debate or discussion will proceed.
Texture packs are made by the community and not everyone know how to or has the patience to learn how to install these packs.
This is not really relevant; additionally, this would mean that anybody who likes the default textures would now have to use a texture pack after this proposed change- to this exact argument can be used against you.
The game still looks the way it does and you cant change that by a texture pack. No matter what you do, the game still looks the same all your doing is covering it up.
What are you even talking about?
What wrong with making a game look more attractive? If your computer cant handle a graphic update that improves how the game looks (Not like its cysis) then its time to upgrade from that 2005 computer.
I'm not even really sure what you are suggesting anymore. FWIW the typicaly minecraft scene actually has more poly's than a typical Crysis scene.
-
5
IronMagus posted a message on Why have the graphics never changed?But they have changed. Blocks and items get re-textured all the time...Posted in: Discussion -
1
IncubiLord posted a message on What Villagers really NEEDI like your solution to villager-breeding. It's simpler and therefore more effective code - and by automatically creating a partner for your villager, it negates the short breed-time issue as well as most potential pathing issues. With your consent, I'll modify the initial post to include it with my own solution in a spoiler as previous content.Posted in: Suggestions
Your thread on profession-picking has potential, but I'm afraid it's probably old enough that I'd get accused of necromancy if I commented there. The reason I made it relatively-cheap to get a new profession in my own system is because it's still random - even if you rule out the current profession, that's still a 1/10 chance of the desired profession each time you dose a villager.
If, however, they went with something where requirements determined populations of specific villagers, I'd like to see it done in a way that appeases multiple crowds. Instead of building something giving you a chance at getting a specific villager, tally things up for specific population-counts:
For every 3 doors, spawn one fletcher/shepherd/fisherman (these are the villagers whose professions take them out of town)
For every X Farmland blocks, spawn one Farmer.
For every Y LavaSource or Anvil blocks, spawn one blacksmith (armor, tool, or weapon smith)
For every Z Bookshelf blocks, spawn one Librarian
For every A chickens/pigs, spawn one Butcher (also add some chickens automatically in the butcher's-shop yard)
For every B cows, spawn one Leatherworker
For every Enchanting Table, spawn one Cleric (also change the pre-generated church to actually have such a block in it).
You could go a step further and tie Shepherds to fences and fletchers to torches, but at that point attempts to secure the village would result in a large population of shepherds and fletchers - not ideal. The concept would be that as long as you have villagers, they continue breeding until they've filled out the requirements of each given type.
Thus you'd end up with a population of roughly one appropriate villager per pre-generated structure - counting the handful of villagers who would populate the non-purposed houses and happen to have out-of-town work. If you built more farms you'd get more farmers, if farmers died you'd get more farmers, and if you built a smithy you'd get another smith regardless of how many farms you had.
Still, that seems like a ton more work to implement than allowing you to re-roll the profession on an existing villager with a simple trade-option, and we thereby move from what the villagers need to what would be really nice for them to have. -
4
Badprenup posted a message on More Realistic MinecraftI like how the first two things you mention are in no way realistic at all. In reality, lava is thicker and more dense than very thick mud, which means you wouldn't sink into it nearly as fast as you currently do unless you fell from very high up. Also, it wouldn't kill you instantly if you just touched it. In fact, even if you did a belly flop onto it you wouldn't die right away. You wouldn't sink in. You would catch on fire, roll around screaming in agony as your flesh melts, blood boils, and organs rupture, then after a minute or so you die and your corpse would slowly sink into the lava. Or rather, what ever didn't burn yet.Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
Also, if you think it would be realistic for the breathing time in Minecraft to be halved, you have some serious lung issues. Toddlers can easily hold their breath longer than you currently can in Minecraft, and you think it is realistic to cut that time in half?
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by "add vanilla tools", and I've never used the Shader mod so an image or video would help. From what I see on Youtube the blocks look like the wiggle slightly. As for that I wouldn't care, but would rather it stay a mod so it doesn't increase the minimum spec requirements.
As for the last one... "The water thing where you place a block in the water source is removed." What does that even mean? Are you talking about Water not being able to be in the same block as things like Fences or what?
As for the "don't say anything nice, don't speak" comment, I have a rebuttal. If you aren't going to properly explain what you mean when you say things, aren't going to show us examples of things when they are stated as coming directly from other sources (the leaves thing), and aren't even going to do research on what is actually realistic before posting something requesting realism, be ready for people to tear your ideas to shreds. That is the point of us reading your ideas, to give feedback and tell you what is right or wrong with your idea. If you had posted this in Suggestions like it belongs, you would have 10 times as many people "being mean", and only a few will actually tell you what is wrong with your ideas using actual reasoning. -
2
IncubiLord posted a message on What Villagers really NEEDPosted in: SuggestionsQuote from Theriasis>snip<
1) They are actually wrong. These are flaws to the performance and presentation of villagers, not personal peeves. As I said, I've been playing in the snapshots. I've gone through pimping them, and whilst that was annoying it was far from insurmountable, and I've seen how the latest self-feeding practically renders the whole 'in the mood' system moot - you just put a farm inside any villager-breeding-cell.
2) No, not feeding them. I'm experimenting with the new mechanics, and as such I will do whatever the latest love-prod is to a batch of villagers and then watch them for a while to see how it plays out. When you have several villagers who have gained the 'willing' tag by the current means, it's still far too common for villagers to enter love-mode out of sync or to even path away from each other whist multiple villagers are in love-mode.
3) Sadly, center-of-village is the only locale which is already defined in code, and hopefully the pathing would remain moderately decent in that the villagers won't suicide in their attempts to get there, but will instead move as close as they reasonably can - and since they're not all in love mode at once they shouldn't be so inclined to push each other off ledges.
The point here is that when I have villagers confined to the same room, they can path away from each other and miss the other willing villagers. Actual villages only worsen this issue as there's more distance between initial positions. Sending them to the town-center should be the shortest total amount of movement required of a random pair of villagers, and should place them close enough to find each other to mate. If they're not getting sent to the town-center, it's likely that the breeding system itself needs a serious overhaul to its detection-routine and the range at which willing partners can find each other.
4-6) Villagers as they stand in the snapshots will often produce duplicates of professions. This itself is not a major issue until you reach the larger scale, but it really detracts from the viability of the town as a trading-site. because you can plaster the area with doors and still never generate the profession you want to trade with. I've personally set up over 60 doors around a breeding-cell to generate a sufficient pool of villagers to investigate trades - only to have no weapon smith or armor smith appear in the resulting 21 villagers. I did, however, have 5 priests.
Thus, built into the game as it's being presented, you find yourself with towns that are utterly unappealing to trade with because they refuse to give you the professions that would appeal to the individual. Expecting a little urban development is not uncalled-for, but there's currently no reasonable expectation that you will ever get the villager-type you want added to the population with the next 3 doors that you place. As it stands, you need to remove villagers from the populace to spin the wheel again, and that means killing them or going to some lengths to transport them out of town against their wishes (which may well kill them...). Thus, you kinda do have to go on a blind slaughter to get the gambit of villagers available - which you rightly point out you should never have to do. This runs contrary to making the focused element of the game appeal.
As far as it being too easy to change their professions, that's why I suggested that it should be done via giving them a rarer (but still renewable) resource. If you've got a town with a lot of duplicates, you can trade with the priest to get lapis, trade it to a duplicate villager to prod him to change professions, and thereby continue a cycle of tending to your village rather than weeding that villager out. If you didn't get a priest, you have to do some mining, but you can always use the lapis you find to try to get a priest.
The alternative of not allowing duplicates before 14 was, sadly a typo which I thought I fixed. It should have been before 11 - the number of professions in the new system. The idea is very simple - a village gets one villager of each type to fill that niche before another villager takes up the same profession - and thus the player doesn't need to personally tend to making sure they have all the types of villagers.
0-Zippy: We don't need this. Villagers do. They don't breed properly, their design encourages you to kill them so that you get a decent balance of them by re-randomizing part of the population, some of them are laughable to even have, and the new professions - whilst nice - get annoying to try to tell apart in any means other than celling them up. In short, the newer villagers' design makes them pretty decent if you want to treat them as a cog in a machine and pretty flawed if you'd like to actually have a nice town that you visit and trade in. I could have joined the Warrior-Villager bandwagon and wishlisted a dozen other things, but instead I'm only pointing out flaws which prevent villagers from being a good element of a non-powergaming world.
Do you really see no flaws in the villager-breeding system or the distribution of the new professions amongst a given populace? Have you played with it enough to declare it satisfactory in a non-farm setup? It seems these are points of contention and I would like to hear your experiences which make you believe the current setup is good.
Shock3600: As I just said above, I'm focused entirely here on the flaws that are keeping villagers from being a good part of the game. Whilst I would certainly enjoy dozens of varying additions to villagers, most of them are not really needed for the villagers to remain a part of an entertainment-oriented game. This topic is focused on making villagers something that people who don't build iron-farms with trading-walls around them wouldn't dismiss as wasted processing. There's enough to the new villagers to do that, but only if they aren't quite so... mechanics-manipulation-oriented? The ideas here are meant to fix what's there, not add to it. - To post a comment, please login.
1
1
1