• 1

    posted a message on Potions make me want to rage quit.
    Quote from Bondo
    Besides how is it easier than the way it was before? I never used to have any issues with animal scarcity in the past. Now, if I don't create something to corral them in, plant some wheat, and herd a few animals together in order to create a sustainable supply, I quickly find that I have a serious problem with animal scarcity.


    Never mind that passive mob killing is a whole new way to grief a server.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Gentlemen, light your torches and sharpen your pitchforks, there's an RPG abrewin'...
    Quote from wintermuet

    Old timers?
    ********, noob.
    Refer to my signature.


    If that's your Holy Bible of what Minecraft is going to be...
    Where's steel?
    Where's us starting with a pickaxe and some seeds?

    And what he described fits pre-1.8 just as well as it fits 1.8+.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Cant blame notch.
    Quote from Revalationist

    He adds pistons, which you all loved and wanted, then you complain and say how they suck,
    He adds NPCs, which you wanted, complain, complain, complain.


    Then maybe he shouldn't keep crewing up implementation. :iapprove:
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Game mode
    Quote from Masher8559
    Also, adding such a huge feature and simply saying if you don't like it don't use it is pointless, because if a player has just spent hours mining for diamonds and then gets him/herself into a position where he/she is about to die then of course they are going to be encouraged to use the switch over as its right there for them to use.


    Their choice.

    Are you suggesting ALL difficulty modes be removed and everyone is forced to play on Hardcode Mode? Because any game with a difficulty setting can used by a player to get out of a scrape.

    Games have had "god" modes for years.
    Games have had difficulty level of years.

    I don't know why you think such things would break Minecraft. Especially since Minecraft has survived perfectly fine with Peaceful Mode and the like for its entire Survival existence.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Why you complainers should leave poor Notch alone.
    Quote from FireroseNekowolf

    Alright, that's it.

    You do NOT know what "freedom of speech" is. So shut it. "Freedom of speech" is the right for speech without government interference. GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE.


    "Freedom of speech" as a law is, as you describe, a measure of assurance that the government won't tell you what you can and cannot say.

    But the term "freedom of speech" applies just as validly here and in any smaller scope, where the moderators and rules of the forums are the "government".

    You're confusing "freedom of speech" with someone specifically citing the US Constitution's First Amendment.

    In other words: chill.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Why you complainers should leave poor Notch alone.
    Quote from IncredibleMeh
    He gave us all a game that was truly amazing, and yet you shun him!


    Which is exactly why many people are unhappy. He's turning a game that's won awards and sold 3.5 million copies into something else. Regardless of what that something else is, more changes will mean more discontent.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 3

    posted a message on Give me one AMAZING reason why Hunger should NOT be toggable
    Quote from wintermuet
    Has your argument truly devolved into: "They shouldn't have let me buy it"?


    I've said that multiple times in the past and elaborated on it. When you sell a game and make it available, it becomes a consumer product and there are rules and expectations that go with that. You can't develop a massively sold consumer product like this and then start changing it on everyone. Eventually enough consumers will become alienated that it risks violation of consumer protection laws; them not getting what they thought they were paying for.

    I bought the game well over a year ago. I have been impatiently waiting for notch to start to add the real survival and RPG elements he promised in early alpha, but I understood that he was working on other things and would be getting to it later, which is okay with me because I rather enjoy the constantly changing nature of the game. Now that he finally adds them, like promised to anyone who researched their product before buying it (a responsible consumer does this), you are asking him to stop what he's doing and pander to the people who chose to ignorantly avoid understanding what they were buying?


    Actually I'm just asking him to create a mode or provide options so those of us who have enjoyed the game as it was pre-1.8 mechanics-wise can continue to enjoy that. I've never once stated he can't continue to evolve the game.

    Sir, you are trapped only by your own ignorance. How dare he let you buy it early at a discount.
    For the record, you were forced to agree to this before you made the purchase:


    It's been addressed. Checking a box in purchase forms isn't the end-all-be-all legal agreement many people seem to think it is. Courts can rule based on the fact that they're commonly checked without reading and on the fact that laymen don't understand what the terms actually mean.

    It's like an English-speaker signing a form that's in Spanish. Just because they sign it doesn't mean it's 100% legally binding--the court can determine that they were mislead.

    Quote from Mystify
    And it still does. Point me at anything in that video that is incorrect. The terrain generation is different. There is no tall grass. It never demonsrates fighting mobs, it doesn't demonstrate the healing mechanics. Why? Because that is not the point of minecraft. The mining and building are, that is what they demonstrated, and that is still what you get. That video is not mis-representing anything.


    And hunger and the bow mechanics are just the beginning of Notch's changes. NPC Villages, NPCs, hunger, bow, sprinting, abandoned mines, limited fortresses, experience, etc., all point to an RPG game. Those videos show a sandbox game.

    Could you say that Final Fantasy 8 is a card game because it has a card game in it? No. It's an RPG because everything that surrounds the card game makes it an RPG. Everything around what those videos show is making Minecraft an RPG. There's also rumors of skills, levels, the ability to "win". It's becoming less and less the sandbox game portrayed in those videos.

    And if your philosphy was held as the rule for game design, games would suck. Revisions to gameplay are normal in development.


    In alpha development, yes, long before you open the game up to every single customer. Before you allow a huge modding community to be built around it.

    Removing the rapid fire bow mechanics was a much-needed change that fixed a long-standing issue. but because it is a change, we can't have that. Despite making the bow stronger, funner, and more practical, you don't want that change because it is different. They altered how the bow mechanics work because they were problematic. I don't understand the idea of preserving gameplay problems fo nostolgia.


    I enjoyed the old mechanics. Rate of fire vs. damage amount. That's a common give-and-take relationship with weapons. And I never had a problem using the bow before. I used it almost exclusively--almost never used swords. And it made skeleton spawner traps quite valuable.

    Yes, big surprise. You were using the system in exactly the way they didn't want it to work, they change it to remove that, and you want them to add it back in, depsite the fact that it was specicially removed.


    Welcome to sandbox games, where people are suppose to be able to play how they want and not have their playstyle dictated by mechanics.

    Idea: learn the new mechanics and use them. On the continuum of "this is exactly how they want you to fight" to "I have exploited every loophole in the game", you were around "I am bending the combat rules to my advantage".


    They already negated much of the rapid-fire advantage by making it so mobs can only be damaged at a limited rate. If you spammed a single target you'd waste easily half the arrows. So you have to adapt.

    That shows how much you know. Their making it a commercial, available product from its very early stages is the primary reason it is successfull. Its the primary reason it still exists. It is what has drawn a significant number of people to the game. The appeal of being able to influence the game's development with our feedback has been a strong motivating element for the community. And no, that does not mean every whim is catered to and every idea is included. It does mean that as a whole, we have a voice. We provide feedback, we find bugs. That is part of what has made the game. If find it laughable all the people who say they should not have released it in its infantile stages because that is exactly what made it successfull and made notch rich. Crticizing that decision, with the full benefits of hindsight, being able to see how well it has worked, does not say much for your judgement.


    And you can't sell a person an apple but before handing it to them change it into an orange then a pear then a tomato. I wanted an orange. I paid for an orange. Mojang is changing it into an pear. If they want to keep changing it then they need to make the game a fruit basket offering the game in each major phase.

    That's why I'm alternatively pushing for a new Adventure Mode for these new mechanics. Creative (stage 1), Survival (stage 2), Adventure (stage 3). Each less of a sandbox than the prior with an increasing focus on being an RPG.

    You say you don't care about the balance of the option. That is not a valid game design decision. If you are supporting a mechanic, it should be balanced.


    Giving players options to determine their own balance is a perfectly viable design option. Take Monopoly. It has official rules, but households often adopt their own rules, too--like getting all tax money if you land on Free Parking, or $400 if you land on GO. That changes the balance of the game substantially. But that's perfectly fine if those who play agree to it.

    I recently bought Monopoly Streets for my PS3. It's got standard game modes. You know what else it has? HOUSE RULES! It lets you adjust a lot of things.

    Can you buy your way out of jail? Yes/no.
    How much does it cost?
    How many turns do you stay in jail?
    Do you get money if you land on Free Parking?
    Do you get double money if you land on GO?
    How much is the Luxury Tax?

    These are just some of the options offered. Does that change the balance? Hell yeah. But it enables the player to play how they like.

    Are you saying that game had a bad design philosophy?

    MMO:
    You pay a fee
    You play the game for a month
    you pay another fee
    you play the game for a month
    They make a change
    you don't like it
    you stop paying a fee
    and you lose ALL access to the game, in any form

    Minecraft:
    You pay a fee
    You play for as long as you want
    they make a change
    you don't like it
    you don't update
    you continue to enjoy the game as it was before they changed it, for all eternity

    In what way is the MMO model more sensible? How does paying more and being left with less come off as more acceptable to you? Do you realize how mind-bogglingly inconsitent you are being?


    When did I ever say the MMO model was more sensible? I hate the MMO model. I played WoW for 5 years and became incredibly bitter over time because they kept changing things about the game and I had no recourse. I also got a bit tired of the carrot-on-a-stick philosophy.

    But I also know they don't have much choice. It's not viable to maintain servers for every major version of the game, let alone splitting the playerbase on that. That's the price of communal games; if all players play together then they all have to play by the same rules, which means they all have to update even if they don't like it.

    Moving to easy:
    • Means keeping all fighting
    • Means keeping monster traps
    • Means keeping the challenge
    • Means keeping mining
    • Means keeping your sense of accomplishement
    • Means keeping the same game mechanics so you can ignore hunger while continuing with everything else.
    Yet because it creates a slight difference is what falling damage is lethal, this isn't good enough for you. But a toggle that would significantly alter mechanics and disrupt game balance would be acceptable to you. Again, you are being inconsistent


    I've always said it's fine for game balance to be up to the player, or the SMP server. There's no inconsistency. Besides, doesn't Peaceful Mode kind of change game balance? Doesn't NPC villages and having free housing and food change game balance? Every option affects game balance in some way.

    Mods have a high potential to change game balance, too. Yet people seem to suggest mods as a completely viable alternative. So why is it alright for a person to change their balance with a mod, but not through an option provided by Mojang?

    Which side is being inconsistent here?

    Oh, there is most definitely loss and gain between using the old and new system. It is not a self-contained element of the game, it is a revision to the balance. Toggling hunger and going back to the old system has far more reaching impacts on your game than playing easy does. Yet easy isn't a valid option. Why not? You don't have to worry about hunger, and the disadvantages to doing so put you at the equivelent of normal mode, well within the normal balance bounds of the game.


    You can't completely ignore hunger on Easy. Your character will still deteriorate if you ignore it, making them more susceptible to death by falling, lava, or drowning. A point blank creeper explosion will kill you at half-health, too. And in the past those are the only things that ever posed a threat, anyway. Spiders, skeletons, zombies, etc., have never been threats, at least to me.

    Okay... I guess the odd spider falling on my head came close to making me **** myself...

    You say you are fine with Ntoch expanding on mechanics. Well guess what? The updating changes are expansions on what you can do in the game. He is not going to be reducing your possibilities at all. Leveling is an expansion. Quests are an expanson. osses are an expansion. All completely ignorable if you don't want it. Why should he put the optional content is a seperate mode?


    To clearly separate the focus, just like the focus of Creative and Survival are separated.

    They aren't pushing their new code at you. You have the option to no update and not receive the new content. You are rejecting playing 1.7 because you don't get the other new content and expansions, and instead have ceased playing period. That does not even make sense. "1.7 isn't good enough for me, despite having all of the old mechanics I've loved for the last 10 months, so no I won't play teh game at all".


    There are certain things that transcend modes, that are applied to all of them. Graphical changes, world generation, new blocks, etc. Just like those are applied to Creative Mode, I'd want them applied to the pre-1.8 Survival Mode and the Adventure Mode.

    Stopping at a specific version would prevent me from getting those changes, bug fixes, and the final product. Staying at 1.7 also makes multiplayer increasingly unviable, which is my preferred environment: what's the point of building if nobody can see it?

    In other words (again) I want the player mechanics of pre-1.8. That's it. Everything else I was current.

    If a significant number of people truly felt that 1.8 was ruining the game, there would be 1.7 servers still running. Either they are still there and running, so you can continue to enjoy multiplayer, or there aren't, and this isn't as bug a deal-breaker as you are making it out to be. In which case you have to deal with your own idiosynchrities, you shouldn't force them on others.


    An option/separate mode isn't forcing anything on other people.

    You do realzie that the lack of progress in that time span is probably the #1 complain about the game? There have been numberous threads ridicouling mojang for not getting stuff done and berating them for not adding a ton of stuff. And now that they are, you want an option to undo it.


    It's also the state of the game in that time period that earned Minecraft awards and 3.5 million customers. People will always complain and want more. That doesn't negate the fact that obviously a lot of people like it the way it is.

    Yes, it is their problem. If they give you the option, they are implying it will be balanced. If you want the option without the guarantee, then use a mod. That is precisecly the type of thing they are good for. But as soon as an option is in-game, it is under the same quality requirements as anything else. Balancing a game is key to the design and development.


    See my Monopoly example above. And Monopoly isn't the only game that has options like that.

    Why is this change so important that it needs to be altered and not everthing else? I have seen much, much stronger arguments for disabling creepers.


    I know. I've made some of them.

    There are much stronger aarguements on both sides for removign and boosting the endermen's block movement.



    I know. I've made some of them.

    There are stroner arguements for removign the bedrock fog,


    I already offered Tribblepoo my support in pushing for that as a graphics option.

    and for removing the water drips.


    I know. I've made some of them. Seeing so many of my structures now dripping was the straw that broke the camels back and caused me to quit playing. Even on Peaceful mode that screwed me over.

    Pretty much every single feature in the game has some group that is not happy with it. If you think your group is special, you are mistaken.


    And if you think this is the only change I'm pushing for, you're mistaken.

    Coding may not be, besides the extra effort of adding in the options. But game design is. From a design standpoint, the option is a huge, tangled mess.


    And Mojang is perfectly capable of determining what the default options are, to make the default gameplay meet their ideas of balance. That doesn't mean players can't have the ability to override it.

    It is your misconception about the nature of the game. You did not do adequate research to understand it. Nothing on the site or that has been published by mojang would lead you to beleive that the combat mechanics would never change. That is a notion you got into your head all by yourself.


    I'm suppose to prove a negative? You expect every purchaser of the game to read the entire history of Notch's Twitter feeds before buying? A person can't know what information they don't have, nor can they reasonably be expected to know every place to look for information.

    For 15 years I've bought games based on the game's website or maybe review sites like Gamespot. That's always given me enough. I've never had to watch a person's Twitter for months or years to know what I'm buying. And to expect that is simply ridiculous.

    This is the sanest thing you have said. Both have pros and cons.you prefer the old way. That does not mean the game is now unplayable and you can't enjoy it anymore. As I said in my post you didn't read, learn the new system. Master it, get past the "oh no, its different" phase, then tell me it is worth a toggle.


    You assume I'm not familiar with the system. I am. And I still prefer the old. Why is that so unfathomable?
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Give me one AMAZING reason why Hunger should NOT be toggable
    Quote from therealmikeg
    The more walls of text you post, the more I've come to accept that you're most likely a total nutjob. I will continue to monitor this thread, as I find it extremely entertaining to read the rantings of internet superheroes. Maybe one day we can all be super programming law masters that can imagine things, and have those things be the legal truth. Until then, I'll have to settle with being a mortal man.


    I'm a nutjob for liking a mechanic the way it was and wanting to retain that mechanic in how I play the game?
    How is that any different than any of you who like the new mechanic and want to continue using that in how they play?

    HAHAHAHAHAHA, you did jury duty? You ever hear of anyone remotely important doing jury duty? Jury duty is not a law degree or a license to practice law.


    I never said it was. In fact, when law first came up as a topic in this thread I explicitly said I'd rather not see the thread delve too deeply into that since nobody here is likely to be a law major. Go on. Go back and see it.

    And for what it's worth, I'm not just talking about the "jury duty" most people are accustom to. I'm talking grand jury service: twice a week for four months. I certainly won't claim to be a lawyer but that did give me some insight into legal proceedings. The entire first day (or 2?) is sitting there while someone reads you the entire law book.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Animal Breeding Pics
    I'm reserving judgment until I see the rate of breeding. If the rate of breeding is less than the old rate of spawning, I'll be displeased. He'd be replacing an old system with one that not only requires more work up front, but yields less output. Bad deal.

    Quote from awesome_cmo

    Im not sure... where are the eggs? im not saying i like eggs i actually hate the idea of them.
    And really Notch, the animals have hearts above them when in reproducing?


    Welcome to MineSimsRerria. Because Notch can't accept that the simple game he had is what sold 3.5 million copies, and now he needs to make it like everything else...
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Please, Mojang, don't hard code colors into the game!
    Quote from SuperZac


    Lovely.
    At least, in my opinion.


    I'm waiting for a piece of poop to go floating by... that looks like sewage.

    But, to the topic at hand...
    Don't confuse color with attributes. As I understand it, texture packs can most certainly change the color of these blocks, but they're rendered with hues or other attributes that change it. In theory modders would be able to change that.
    Posted in: 1.0 Update Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.