• 2

    posted a message on [1.8] I am disappointed.
    Quote from 10hp10»

    This is wrong. Theres mods out there with way better features than this update, made in alot shorter time period, with a very small amount of bugs.
    Bugs in mods are most frequently occured when doing something the mod wasn't coded for or meant for anyways. Oh and, damn, thats one heck of a long reply to such a simple message as mine, just to prove a point XD

    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.

    Quote from I_LordBacon_I»
    The biggest fail OF ALL is that numeric IDs are no longer supported. Numeric IDs can sometimes be really useful and they (Mojang) could have also kept the minecraft:stone for example names.

    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.

    Quote from Cheeyev»

    People just accept an easier more broken Minecraft rather than a good updated one. It's a fact, maybe.

    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.

    Quote from 10hp10»

    This. This is one of the most dissapointing thing I have ever experienced from Mojang, cause it's a big deal. Using numberic ID's when mapping with mods was awesome, you could just check the ID of the block in your inventory. (without too many items or similar mod), now, say you want to make a tinkers consturct seared brick... ummm... tinkers:searedbrick??? minecraft:tinkersbrick?? MOJANG WHY

    To me it just feels like theres no good reason to remove ids. its dissapointing. Just like the rest of this 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.

    Quote from LeslieGilliams»
    Criticism is a form of feedback.

    I'm sorry you feel such an unnatural emotional attachment to this game or company that you feel the need to come to the rescue every time someone posts something negative.

    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.

    Quote from scrubking»
    My biggest disappointment, besides the horrible performance, was the armor stand. I thought it was going to be a scarecrow to attract mobs, but it ended up being pointless decoration.

    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.

    Quote from Cheeyev»

    I'm not the butthurt one, you're all are, and me and the other hates just have a thing called 'common sense'.

    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.

    Quote from pefan»

    i support you cheeyev, these other minecraft elites fan boy take nothing you say into consideration and lack to make good valid argument

    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.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 1

    posted a message on [1.8] I am disappointed.
    Quote from LeslieGilliams»

    Isn't it great that the EULA you agreed to at time of purchase can be unilaterally changed after the fact?

    It never changed. It has been the same EULA; the only change here was enforcement, which should've happened at the start.
    Quote from pefan»

    just to say but there still is the hate group for the terrain saying that the beta terrain is better (i think the same as them) and the thread keeps coming back

    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.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 1

    posted a message on [1.8] I am disappointed.
    Quote from Cheeyev»

    No, you fail to realize that we all are entitled to our own opinions, and there's the 'ignore' button right over there if you need it. they can simply just ignore what I said about it and continue with their 'awesome' update. And besides, other people have started hate groups, and i'm more interested in 'the hate the 1.8 update' group rather than hating the entire game. Everywhere you go, there are haters and lovers.

    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.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 1

    posted a message on Mini, Armed, and Non - Plated Armor Stands in Survival.
    Quote from Ivya»
    Eh, the devs could have made all the armor stands available in vanilla, but they didn't for some reason. Usually when something this recent has been decided, it will take a little bit before they decide to change it, but after that it will probably stay.

    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.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on arrow not getting my point

    wa "shot" arro

    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]}
    Posted in: Redstone Discussion and Mechanisms
  • 1

    posted a message on SuperCharged Creepers
    This would accept the balance of mob skull drops. These items must remain rare, as that is what makes them special.

    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.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on FlintLock Pistols (With exciting photos!) (and a Poll!)
    Quote from Mrlong2

    (blah blah blah)...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...(blah blah blah)

    The gun degrades into a broken flintlock. like carrots on sticks.

    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.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 2

    posted a message on FlintLock Pistols (With exciting photos!) (and a Poll!)
    Quote from AMPPL50

    The main difference between adding Emerald gear and adding this suggestion is that it isn´t redundant, unlike emerald tools, as there wouldn´t be any other medium-ranged weapons in the game, while there are enough tool tiers (In fact, Emeralds can be already used to buy gear, which takes down most suggestions for it).

    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.

    Most suggestions aren´t crucial, not even most of the more popular ones.

    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.

    The game has no theme, so anything can fit, as long as it isn´t unnecessarily complex (Such as making an item need it´s own dimension to obtain just so it has it´s own dimension, rather than to prevent it from being obtained too quickly).

    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.

    It can improve the game by giving more varied weapons, along with other uses caused by technical properties (Such as toggling certain Redstone switches).

    Quality over quantity. Improve our current combat weapons that are in desperate need of an overhaul, and then may you present more weapons.

    It also survived 4 years without banners, and the suggestion is just for another weapon that has it´s own niche, rather than turning it into the game's focus.

    Indeed, Minecraft did not need banners; however, they presented the quality of improving the game, by integrating better visual aesthetics in the building aspect.

    It simply needs a reason to be regularly harvested, like the other mob drops (Except Rotten Flesh, and it still is useful at healing dogs without wasting better kinds of meat)

    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.

    Actually, Fire charges have exactly that limitation: Most of their damage comes from fire, which makes it useless as a weapon in the Nether or in the ocean, and it needs more uses than just some way to get out of the Nether and ammo that is mostly useful to cook meat from animals.

    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.

    As for the medium-ranged weapons, actually, there are a lot of things that could fulfill that niche. A different kind of bow, a gun, a weapon that shoots Guardian beams or even a weapon that shoots fire charges would work, as long as they have more uses (Such as a rough equivalent to Dispensers).

    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.

    Quote from Kholdstare

    I agree on all parts except for this. Minecraft's biggest focus is on building, but Minecraft is intended to be a game about everything and letting the player do what they want (as evidenced by the "It could also be about [...] if it sounds more like your cup of tea" paragraph on the main page of Minecraft.net). Building-related features appeal to the biggest focus, but the other aspects of the game are almost as important.

    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.

    There's also the problem that the aspects of the game besides building (and redstone) are of much lower quality than building for various reasons, and improving those aspects is therefore of much higher priority than improving building. Yet another set of colored blocks will only slightly improve the game; however, features that work towards improving exploration, progression, combat, etc will improve the game significantly more.

    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.

    Also, while flintlocks aren't needed in Minecraft, their implementation shouldn't be ignored completely; first of all, you can say that pretty much everything after r1.0 that isn't a major bugfix isn't needed either, because the game is working fine without it. Second of all, flintlocks can be used to somewhat improve the poor combat aspect; it isn't the only way, of course, and it won't fix it, but it will help. (Ignoring the fact that flintlocks are UP compared to bows and can't be enchanted; obviously, they would need to be rebalanced first).

    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.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 2

    posted a message on FlintLock Pistols (With exciting photos!) (and a Poll!)
    Quote from AMPPL50

    Actually, the game has to be balanced around the default worldgen settings, rather than basing the game on custom settings.

    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.

    Guns do have something to do with: Combat.

    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.
    And gunpowder, which needs more uses, as Splash potions aren´t truly viable out of healing cats,

    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.

    and Fire Charges are basically renewable Flint and Steel

    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.

    while TNT is impractical to use for mining because not all blocks destroyed by explosions drop something, which can lead to it being impractical at obtaining ores.

    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.

    There is also the fact that there aren´t any medium-ranged weapons.

    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.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Query About the Removal of Fire (Item)
    Don't forget the actual nether portal item. That item looked amazing on item frames and on mob heads. It was most likely done due to the rewrites. Well, I suppose it was the price to pay for the new mapmaking additions.
    Posted in: Future Updates
  • To post a comment, please .