there is a fine line between stealing and giving credit to where its due.
example for stealing, armor stands were a mod back in the day and they just took it and said nothing for the mod maker
example for giving credit, horse were made by a guy named doc something (i wanna say zed or zak but am not sure) when mojang wanted to put them into the game (still not a good idea) they got that guy to help them code it in now thats giving credit where its due and even on the wiki it says it was made with help by the mo creature mod
For the third time, Armor stands are a real world item. Two people can use the same idea for something that already exists in the real world and add it to Minecraft. Mojang did not steal from Bibliocraft as Bibliocraft did not invent the armor stand. I'm really getting tired of repeating myself.
2
I don't believe these 'amazing' mods had to rewrite the entire rendering system and add multithreading. This is the reason why Mojang had been doing such, to cater to those modders in delivering content. The closer we get to the API, the better; more of these modders are able to produce more content faster and more efficiently than before. And, while a year is quite some time, no one said coding the Plugin API would be developed in a month.
Biggest fail? How is starting your browser, searching through the Minecraft ID list, and then locating the obsidian ID simpler than simply typing "obsidian"? I do not understand how your logic works.
However, the main reason as to why this change has been imposed is due to the increased development of the Plugin API. IDs are now able to be integrated by another mod without conflict with the vanilla IDs. This includes a vanilla update that adds a block with the same ID that replaces the block with the same ID. It's not simple changing the block ID of a mod-integrated block, especially when dealing with complex processes, such as crafting recipes.
Please refrain from encroaching your ignorance on everyone. Your assertion that 1.8 introduces broken features is completely subjective. Explain how rabbits are broken, explain how water monuments are possibly an unplayable feature. The lack in features does not commensurate a "broken" update.
How is a whole list of numerical IDs presenting absolutely no differentiation in name more simpler than typing "stone" or "obsidian". There's a reason why TAB exists, a few letters in and a press of tab may save you the half a second you've been complaining about. It is preposterous that I must have to check a list of IDs, memorize them, and/or hover over the item just to see how they are identified. I fail to see your logic in this.
Criticism is indeed a form of feedback; however, the community tends to fail in delivering an adequate voice that constitutes as criticism. Criticism is displayed to listen to both sides; when you only one side is presented, it is not criticism, it is a rant. Postulating the update as a whole as "useless crap" is not any more crap than the comment itself. The game will not get better from that, at all.
A pointless decoration? There are plenty of blocks in the game that pose similar characteristics, "to look pretty", yet, that's what makes the game illuminate like it does. Assuming by your logic, why add stained glass, stained hardened clay, dyed wool, fireworks, quartz, different kinds of doors, different kinds of wood, flowers, or anything decorative for that purpose.
You fail to realize the hypocrisy in that comment. Asserting that all those who appreciate the 1.8 update are encroached with ignorance and stupidity is an ignorant statement, and quite an insult.
How is it easy to take someone into consideration when they've decided to insult a great proportion of the Minecraft community? All the respect and seriousness is immediately drained, followed by the ignorance of others. The postulation that a disagreeing argument is immediately invalid and that yours is superior is a fallacy.
1
It never changed. It has been the same EULA; the only change here was enforcement, which should've happened at the start.
Every once in a while yes; however, it is usually just an individual who has never replied to that thread. The actual members of the "hate group" have moved on to bigger and better things, instead of complaining.
1
Then why treat it as it were a fact? In every one of your posts you've clearly implied that our arguments and opinions are completely irrelevant, up to the extent where you've insulted them with the lack of common sense. We have every right to share our opinions as well.
This is a discussion forum, the purpose of these comments are to discuss, not ignore.
There were so-called "hate-groups" for almost every large official update. Where have they been? The idea has completely vanquished, turned into dust. The same will happen to the "1.8 hate groups". There were plenty of "hate groups" in 1.7. Where did they go? Exactly. This hatred will eventually die down, a gradual change. If only it were sooner.
1
They all are in vanilla. The problem is getting them in survival.
This idea represents what should have been done in the first place. Indeed, this gives mapmakers a head-start but a method of obtaining them in survival will allow the survival players to catch some of the fun as well.
Support.
1
I'm not sure that phrase is valid English, but I assume you are referring to there being no motion in the arrow.
Indeed, arrows need Motion set to them, otherwise their Motion is by default 0 and will immediately fall. To do this, you'll need to manipulate the Motion tag to fit your needs. The value on the left is velocity on the X-axis, the value second to that is velocity on the Y-axis, and the last value is velocity on the Z-axis.
This is your default arrow, with no motion applied.
/summon Arrow ~ ~ ~ {Motion:[0.0,0.0,0.0]}This, however, will spawn with an upwards velocity of 1. When spawned, it will be shot upwards.
/summon Arrow ~ ~ ~ {Motion:[0.0,1.0,0.0]}1
Besides, that's not how charged creeper spawning works. They spawn from being struck by lightning, so I assume you would want to increase the lightning strike rate.
If so, why not? General increasing of lightning striking on the ground rate depending on difficulty is quite nice, this still would barely touch on the aspect of charged creeper spawning.
Support.
1
It would have been better if you'd simply quote me instead of sounding ignorant by adding 'blah' on both ends of my selected quote.
Anyway, now we're talking inconvenience. Every time we want to use the flintlock, we must repair it every time with an anvil. This would use up our XP, as the price for it would rise every time it is repaired, until it is no longer affordable to repair it again. This limits the flintlock's actual use to about 5 repairs. Not to mention that anvils do not last forever, and each repair uses it more. Anvils themselves are not cheap to make.
Either we have to carry an anvil with us all the time just to use the flintlock again (another measly 64 uses), or returning to a home with one in it. Also, you won't have the time to repair a flintlock in a PvP/PvE battle, as you will most likely die from even trying to be stationary from repairing.
2
The main point of redundancy lies upon what category this suggestion falls upon; guns. The suggestion does perform a unique idea when in comparison with other gun suggestions. However, that does not improve the quality of the suggestion itself.
Suggestions don't have to be crucial to be integrated into Minecraft. However, they need to follow the guidelines of an adequate suggestion. Improving the aspects of the game is certainly a reason for adding something. As stated before, a new color pallet of blocks isn't crucial in any way. However, it does create a better atmosphere for the building aspect of the game.
Indeed, the game may have no theme; however, the idea that anything can fit is definitely false. Unicorns do not fit in the gameplay style that Minecraft presents. Even if they're made common throughout the world, they still do not hold a place in the game that is Minecraft.
Quality over quantity. Improve our current combat weapons that are in desperate need of an overhaul, and then may you present more weapons.
Indeed, Minecraft did not need banners; however, they presented the quality of improving the game, by integrating better visual aesthetics in the building aspect.
What exactly is the reason for doing so? The bow would still be able to supersede the flintlock pistol in any possible way. The bow performs as a much more viable weapon, and its ammo is easily harvested. The flintlock pistol? It's ammo is not as easily harvested, as you'd need an iron farm, a sugarcane farm, and some form of grinding creepers. If the other route is taken, you'd still need a pigmen farm, which is a tedious process to build. All for what? Only 64 uses per gun, which is quite a small value. There'd be no need for harvesting this kind of ammo, as harvesting great loads is not necessary. It is much more convenient to just mine for the iron/gold, find some sugarcane, and kill a creeper, as the gun itself won't last long enough to cover the ammo you've obtained.
You would say the same for flint and steel, their only purpose is to create fire (except igniting creepers, but that's only really useful in creative). Fire itself is limited, so the fault does not lie on the item. Again, the item does not *need* more uses, as it already fulfils its purpose, a renewable fire source.
Just due to the fact that the combat system is lacking does not constitute the reason to introduce just any form or weapon. Those have been suggested, and have been turned down for redundancy, the lack of necessity, or the overall lack of balance within the suggestion.
Let's not be like Germany when they were desperate and openly accept any "solution" without considering what we're dealing with first.
Indeed. I had stated that I would rather accept a feature relating to building, rather than combat. That would be true depending on the feature itself, depending on what it brings in our lacking combat system. If a new pallet of colors is more satisfying than the said combat feature, there is no competition.
Of course. However, it comes down to what is being added, and how would it improve the game. The use of flintlock pistols would present yet another choice to a player, but a new pallet of blocks would present nearly infinite possibilities and uses in builds, presenting even more choice than the former.
If the new combat feature, however, does manage to greatly improve the combat system, then I'll accept the new feature with open arms.
Bugfixes are, of course, not always needed. Those that are not needed instead bring improvements in the optimization aspect, as well as bring the game closer to the what the developers intend Minecraft to be. It's just not the same case with guns. Perhaps they do somewhat aid in granting another choice, but the little improvement it brings is not worth its implementation.
2
That is correct. It's not a much more viable reason than stating that the /give command would make this overpowered as you can obtain hundreds.
You can say the same thing about pretty much anything. Copper does have something to do with Minecraft: Mining, Emerald Armor does have something to do with Minecraft: Combat, Sandwiches do have something to do with Minecraft: Food, Cars do have something to do with Minecraft: Crafting, Ender Creeper/Zombie/Skeleton/etc. does have something to do with Minecraft: Even more Combat! I'm hoping you are understanding the point I'm making, you do not base off a suggestion due to its some form of relativity to an aspect of the game. Otherwise, you'd create an invalid point.
Instead, it is crucial to to recognize as to whether or not the suggestion fits in the game, needs to be in the game, or would improve it in anyway.
I'd say guns do not fit under any of those requirements of an adequate suggestion. It indeed does not fit the game, stated so by the creator time ago. Yes, he is not the current developer, but his dreams and wishes of this game are still respected upon, therefor it is unlikely that guns would still make it in the game. If the creator says that guns do not fit, then so be it.
Does Minecraft need guns? Not at all. It's survived for four years without guns, and is still happily enjoyed by millions.
The addition of guns would not improve combat at all, or any general aspect of the game. Guns themselves are not a viable weapon against a bow, therefor by comparison, bows may render guns useless in many situations. There's also the fact that guns are more difficult to obtain, very limited in the number of uses, and the ammo itself is expensive. This creates a description over the gun, seen as an impractical weapon in the game.
Does not fit, the game is not in need of it, and it does not improve combat.
No. Gunpowder doesn't *need* more uses. Whether or not a core system of the game is useful to you or not, that is completely subjective. Either way, I'd bet on the person using potions in combat than one that is not when in a PvP battle.
Indeed. They were intended for a method of returning from the nether if the lack of flint and steel is present. They also serve as excellent projectiles, as they ignite mobs that come in contact with a dispensed fire charge.
I don't believe TNT was intended for mining anyway, although it does fit in well as it was used in mining. They create explosions, a wonderful force in the game that can be made for anything your mind can picture. Indeed, they are impractical for mining. However, that's why we have pickaxes.
That's not a reason to add guns. Many things are left better untouched. Again, Minecraft doesn't need medium-ranged weapons. We have bows and swords, which are adequate enough to fulfill the combat aspect of Minecraft.
On a final note, consider that combat is not the focus of the game. I'd rather accept a whole new pallet of colored blocks, which would improve the focus area of the game, building, rather than something regarding combat.
1