i'm not sure you're following; if LOCKED chests can't be destroyed, then that leads to people trolling with it by placing locked chests all over your house. if LOCKED chests can be destroyed, then they're useless.
They don't need to be destuctable. If someone is going to grief your house, they're going to grief your house. Whatever method they come up with is irrelevant. Half of what's added to the game has griefing potential, it's an unavoidable reality in games like this, which makes it a really, REALLY stupid reason to discredit an idea.
i'm not sure you're following; if LOCKED chests can't be destroyed, then that leads to people trolling with it by placing locked chests all over your house. if LOCKED chests can be destroyed, then they're useless.
Griefing potential is a really, REALLY dumb reason to discredit an idea. Most of what's added to or already in Minecraft has the potential to be abused by griefers. Developement on the game can't be halted because of something completely unavoidable like griefing. If someone is dead set on being a jerk, they're going to do it, whether they have locking chests or not.
Notch, where the hell are the volcanoes, underwater content, working NPC's, lanterns, and texture pack and mod support?
Why do people still expect lanterns? Wasn't the whole reason why we didn't get lanterns because of the uproar from the community over losing permanent torches and the resources that would be required to build lanterns? It just seems like a really stupid and petty thing to keep bringing up at this point.
With the other things, I do recall Notch saying he wanted to add things like volcanoes, underwater content, and some sort of role for the NPCs. What I don't recall hearing, however, was that any of that was planned content for the full release. And you seem a little confused when it comes to texture pack support since the game already supports texture packs.
Most of these features are necessary to become more immersed in your Minecraft world.
No, they're really not. Nice to have, sure, but in no way necessary to establish a sense of immersion.
For one, Minecraft isn't really an indie game anymore. It has its own convention event and is known world-wide.
Conventions and popularity don't determine whether a game is indie or not. What does is how the game is funded. Minecraft is self-funded, thus it is an indie game. No major publisher is funding the development of the game.
Some also believe that change will only come through paid expansion packs which they fear.
Which in and of itself, is also jumping the gun based on nothing more than some rewording on the licensing agreement. It's the same sort of unfounded paranoia that occurs every time sites like dropbox or facebook decide to cover their asses legally by rewording their licensing agreements to protect them from litigation every time an anonymous user abuses their service to do something illegal. All the change in the wording for Minecraft does is open the door for paid DLC, but so far there really hasn't been anything to suggest that any, let alone all, content updates would cost money.
In vanilla SMP the most dangerous mobs are other players because they're plentiful, smart and can possibly grief anything. The only thing u can do to be safe is to hide, outsmart them and possibly make allies/friends. That is how I intend vanilla survival multiplayer and I don't want locked chests because they'd ruin the few vanilla servers that are left.
I don't see how locked chests ruin that or why you believe thats even what multiplayer was supposed to be. Multiplayer shouldn't be about outsmarting and hiding from asshats who are going to destroy your creations or steal your stuff. Locking chests at least help with the latter.
As far as griefing goes, it hardly matters at this point. Griefers are ALWAYS going to find some way to annoy people, so you can't limit an idea based on its potential to be used inappropriately. Most elements in the game already have the potential for misuse, but we aren't going to wipe out lava, water, obsidian, bedrock, ores, redstone, etc. just because a griefer can use them to create elaborate mischief. It's a poor argument against any possible new feature.
I like. The key recipe makes two identical keys, damage values determined like maps. Craft two keys together and you get both caliibrated to the one in the center. Craft a locked chest by arranging planks around one of the keys. Keys do not get lost upon death, stey stay in you inventory.
I kind fo like the idea of building the chest by placing palnks around the key to set the lock template. That's a little better than what I suggested. Making mutiple keys would also alleviate concerns over material use. Maybe have a key template make four keys, though. I'm not sure how the keeping a key upon death thing would work, though. I don't really like the idea of an item that can't be lost out of your standard inventory. Maybe if it were a separate equipment slot.
I see a few major flaws with this idea. The first was mentioned by yoshi9048 above. Passwords are too easy to forget and can be a bit annoying. The other is kind of along the same lines as the griefer thing, but applied in a more annoying way. Couldn't someone theoretically just apply locks to other people's chests just be be jerks? It's not like the locks are easy to make and people still need to store stuff. Or griefers could just apply locks to public chests.
A better approach would be altered chest recipes that allow you to create locking chests or doors. Passwords aren't necessary, either make them require a key or be tied to a user account. User account specific chests would use magical properties to sync only with that player. The player could place them in the game world and they would appear as a ghostly semi-transparent chest. Other players would not be able to interact with them and would walk right through them, preventing their use as barriers.
Chests and doors requiring keys would be crafted as locking chests and doors. You would craft a key separately based on one of several different key recipes. Key recipes would be determined by placing, stone, iron, gold, or obsidian in the center square on the left of the crafting table and using the same material to create a unique pattern in the other two columns of the crafting table. You could easily make more keys to share with other players based on the same pattern. This would kind of combine the combination and key idea into one. Whatever key you used to open the door or chest first would be tied to that chest or door.
I'm not too concerned about people spamming locking chests to use for griefing since there are already a number of easier ways to accomplish the same thing, so you can't limit every idea based on its griefing potential.
There could be a fairly easy way of just changing the system slightly to accommodate storing points without unbalancing the way the game converts experience into skill points. Basically, get rid of the bar and just store experience. It simply has a number representing how much experience you have on you at any given time. When you take it back to the enchanting table, you'd have the option to bank your experience in the table (in SMP, this would be tied to your username). The table would then make the conversion over to skill points following the existing system. The points would remain tied to the table until you decided to use them.
Although I still think they need to rename experience to something more appropriate, since really it's not like you're really gaining levels or advancing in the game, you're just gathering another resource that makes it possible to enchant items. "Mana" or something of that nature would fit better. If they made it into an actual material instead of "experience" they could also enact some restrictions on collecting it. Like maybe a special item would be required to even gain experience and that item could have an upper limit of how much you could carry. Enchanting the item would allow for a higher capacity.
Pigmen/Zombie Pigmen - They aren't made for humor either. They're creating a continuity between what you see in the regular world and what you see in the Nether.
I beg to differ on that one. Zombie pigmen could have been anything which would tie the two worlds together. They didn't need to be pigs mutated into human form. The only reason that form was chosen, was for its humor value.
Block Sun and Moon - They weren't made this way for humor.
That one, too. They were made blocks to poke fun at the visual style of the rest of the game, so yes, the humor is intended.
I'm sorry, I bought this game. I spent the money to own it, and was given the opportunity to give feedback concerning the future of the game's design. Telling me not to play it because I'm doing what I was asked by the developers is asinine.
The developers NEVER asked for feedback on design decisions and whether you have paid for the game or not makes no difference. Mojang's not obligated to listen to you either way. These features have already been added to the game, it would be far more damaging for Notch and crew to take them out at this point just because a handful of people can't get over the look of villagers or baby animals.
Probably the biggest problem with you people is that you, 7 out of ten times, scream this like it means something. The default texture pack, the official texture pack, is the way the game is designed to be played.
People say it because it DOES mean something. The ability to change textures was added officially to the game specifically because they wanted the game to support it BY DESIGN. Not everybody is going to be thrilled with every texture or feature added to the game because you CAN'T please everybody all of the time. Don't like how something looks, GET A FREAKING TEXTURE PACK THAT WORKS FOR YOU, that's why Notch added that ability to the game.
Minecraft has never been a serious game, it's always had comedic elements to it. Stuff like wearing pumpkins on your head, zombie pigmen, one block boats, riding around in minecarts and other features don't really denote a serious tone. There is nothing wrong with a game designer poking fun at his own creation or with more light-hearted content.
- Have them look like pigmen, like they were supposed to be.
Originally, they were supposed to be goblins, but people liked the zombie pigmen. Quite frankly, pigmen were always intended as a joke, so they wouldn't be any more serious than the current villagers.
Technically, it won't be. The next release will be the full game, which will be Minecraft 1.0, but that will have all of the features they've been testing in the pre-releases.
Yeah, but if you had said you were "immersed" in your calc homework, that wouldn't strike me as wrong.
It may not be "wrong", but it certainly means something different in that context.
Minecraft is an underdeveloped Roguelike
VERY underdeveloped. So underdeveloped in fact, that it has almost nothing in common with that genre, at least as far as game mechanics are concerned. Plus, while Notch has mentioned roguelikes as one of the MANY types of games that have influenced the development of Minecraft, he has also stated that the sandbox elements would always be the main emphasis in the vanilla game.
Any Roguelike without a linear plot is "sandbox" by any definition.
A lot of roguelikes don't have any plot, yet still aren't sandbox games. Even without a story there is a set method for progression in those games and VERY clear player goals. They aren't any more sandbox games than your average free-to-play MMORPG. Both are built around the same basic premise. Minecraft is not, nor will it ever be.
I don't know, I've always seen immersion being pretty much what the word suggests through its literal meaning. It's the sense of being drawn into the game. It's the reason why we tend to project ourselves into the characters we play. You in essence become that character. Being engrossed in something just means your attention is focused on it. Immersion is a little different, since it isn't just your attention, but a shift in how you think and operate. The game interface replaces real world analogs and something as simple as pressing the "W" key becomes "walking" in your mental vocabulary. Immersion is when your mind interprets the illusion on the screen as something tangible and real. How deep the immersion goes depends on how much the person is able to lose themselves in the illusion. And everybody does to some degree or you wouldn't have movies, books, music, art, or video games.
1. Yes.
2. It's moreso Jeb's game, or Mojang's. Notch only had the idea.
You certainly wouldn't think it from the way they both talk about the game. Jeb and Notch don't agree on everything in regards to how the game is developed and while there are some rare moments of compromise, if it's something Notch is adamant about, Jeb doesn't get his way.
Technically, Carl is the CEO.
Doesn't matter, he's not the owner. In a small company like Mojang, the owner trumps the CEO. I never said Notch was the CEO, I said he was the founder and owner of the company and everybody employed by the company worked for him, that includes Carl.
Once you take money for a concept, it becomes the user's game
No, actually, it doesn't.
Plain and simple, hence why movie theaters died, Everyone started making shighty movies, and blockbuster followed, who wants to sit in a theater when you can drink a beer, have sex, smoke a cig all at home while your saying this movie sucks beaver logs.
The recent decline in ticket sales has very little to do with the quality of films and everything to do with Hollywood pushing more expensive and gimmicky formats on the consumer in an effort to set theaters apart from the home experience. This Summer in particular, studios were forcing blockbuster films to favor the 3D format, making it harder to find those films in regular theaters. You'll likely see an increase in ticket sales this Summer when the studios go back to wide releases in both formats seeing as the foreign market which hasn't been pushing 3D nearly as hard as the domestic market has been booming.
You all STILL aren't getting it are you?
I would have to argue that you are in fact the one who doesn't get it. Notch is the founder and owner of Mojang. It's not some publicly traded corporation where the stockholders or board have some say in what happens, so he gets to call all the shots. If Notch wants to make a major change to the game, he can, and none of his employees at Mojang have any right to stop him. Sure, they can offer up their opinions and advice, but if Notch tells Jens to make Minecraft into a racing game, Jens doesn't have any say in the matter, he either does it or he quits his job. Mojang isn't a partnership between Notch and the rest of the company, they all work for him.
Not really. He is using a one sentence post to generate a discussion on a good point. While we all know that Minecraft won't become a racing game, we are headed towards an RPG wasteland of noobs and snobbish older players. He is making the point that the argument that the game is Notch's is ********. I agree that the community shouldn't be in charge, but we are Beta TESTERS. We are the ones who will decide what this game will become for future players. Keep that in mind.
Actually, yes, really. Beta tester does not equal game developer or designer. We don't decide what this game will become for future players, the developer does. Notch and crew are not obligated to listen to or follow any feedback we offer. When it comes to design decisions, that is not up to us, and Mojang has made it pretty clear that's not the kind of feedback they care about. Our only role as beta testers is to point out bugs and balance issues, not direct design decisions. Keep THAT in mind.
1
They don't need to be destuctable. If someone is going to grief your house, they're going to grief your house. Whatever method they come up with is irrelevant. Half of what's added to the game has griefing potential, it's an unavoidable reality in games like this, which makes it a really, REALLY stupid reason to discredit an idea.
Griefing potential is a really, REALLY dumb reason to discredit an idea. Most of what's added to or already in Minecraft has the potential to be abused by griefers. Developement on the game can't be halted because of something completely unavoidable like griefing. If someone is dead set on being a jerk, they're going to do it, whether they have locking chests or not.
0
Why do people still expect lanterns? Wasn't the whole reason why we didn't get lanterns because of the uproar from the community over losing permanent torches and the resources that would be required to build lanterns? It just seems like a really stupid and petty thing to keep bringing up at this point.
With the other things, I do recall Notch saying he wanted to add things like volcanoes, underwater content, and some sort of role for the NPCs. What I don't recall hearing, however, was that any of that was planned content for the full release. And you seem a little confused when it comes to texture pack support since the game already supports texture packs.
No, they're really not. Nice to have, sure, but in no way necessary to establish a sense of immersion.
Conventions and popularity don't determine whether a game is indie or not. What does is how the game is funded. Minecraft is self-funded, thus it is an indie game. No major publisher is funding the development of the game.
0
Which in and of itself, is also jumping the gun based on nothing more than some rewording on the licensing agreement. It's the same sort of unfounded paranoia that occurs every time sites like dropbox or facebook decide to cover their asses legally by rewording their licensing agreements to protect them from litigation every time an anonymous user abuses their service to do something illegal. All the change in the wording for Minecraft does is open the door for paid DLC, but so far there really hasn't been anything to suggest that any, let alone all, content updates would cost money.
0
I don't see how locked chests ruin that or why you believe thats even what multiplayer was supposed to be. Multiplayer shouldn't be about outsmarting and hiding from asshats who are going to destroy your creations or steal your stuff. Locking chests at least help with the latter.
As far as griefing goes, it hardly matters at this point. Griefers are ALWAYS going to find some way to annoy people, so you can't limit an idea based on its potential to be used inappropriately. Most elements in the game already have the potential for misuse, but we aren't going to wipe out lava, water, obsidian, bedrock, ores, redstone, etc. just because a griefer can use them to create elaborate mischief. It's a poor argument against any possible new feature.
I kind fo like the idea of building the chest by placing palnks around the key to set the lock template. That's a little better than what I suggested. Making mutiple keys would also alleviate concerns over material use. Maybe have a key template make four keys, though. I'm not sure how the keeping a key upon death thing would work, though. I don't really like the idea of an item that can't be lost out of your standard inventory. Maybe if it were a separate equipment slot.
0
A better approach would be altered chest recipes that allow you to create locking chests or doors. Passwords aren't necessary, either make them require a key or be tied to a user account. User account specific chests would use magical properties to sync only with that player. The player could place them in the game world and they would appear as a ghostly semi-transparent chest. Other players would not be able to interact with them and would walk right through them, preventing their use as barriers.
Chests and doors requiring keys would be crafted as locking chests and doors. You would craft a key separately based on one of several different key recipes. Key recipes would be determined by placing, stone, iron, gold, or obsidian in the center square on the left of the crafting table and using the same material to create a unique pattern in the other two columns of the crafting table. You could easily make more keys to share with other players based on the same pattern. This would kind of combine the combination and key idea into one. Whatever key you used to open the door or chest first would be tied to that chest or door.
I'm not too concerned about people spamming locking chests to use for griefing since there are already a number of easier ways to accomplish the same thing, so you can't limit every idea based on its griefing potential.
0
Although I still think they need to rename experience to something more appropriate, since really it's not like you're really gaining levels or advancing in the game, you're just gathering another resource that makes it possible to enchant items. "Mana" or something of that nature would fit better. If they made it into an actual material instead of "experience" they could also enact some restrictions on collecting it. Like maybe a special item would be required to even gain experience and that item could have an upper limit of how much you could carry. Enchanting the item would allow for a higher capacity.
0
And which game would that be, since Minecraft's still a sandbox?
0
I beg to differ on that one. Zombie pigmen could have been anything which would tie the two worlds together. They didn't need to be pigs mutated into human form. The only reason that form was chosen, was for its humor value.
That one, too. They were made blocks to poke fun at the visual style of the rest of the game, so yes, the humor is intended.
The developers NEVER asked for feedback on design decisions and whether you have paid for the game or not makes no difference. Mojang's not obligated to listen to you either way. These features have already been added to the game, it would be far more damaging for Notch and crew to take them out at this point just because a handful of people can't get over the look of villagers or baby animals.
People say it because it DOES mean something. The ability to change textures was added officially to the game specifically because they wanted the game to support it BY DESIGN. Not everybody is going to be thrilled with every texture or feature added to the game because you CAN'T please everybody all of the time. Don't like how something looks, GET A FREAKING TEXTURE PACK THAT WORKS FOR YOU, that's why Notch added that ability to the game.
0
Originally, they were supposed to be goblins, but people liked the zombie pigmen. Quite frankly, pigmen were always intended as a joke, so they wouldn't be any more serious than the current villagers.
0
0
It may not be "wrong", but it certainly means something different in that context.
VERY underdeveloped. So underdeveloped in fact, that it has almost nothing in common with that genre, at least as far as game mechanics are concerned. Plus, while Notch has mentioned roguelikes as one of the MANY types of games that have influenced the development of Minecraft, he has also stated that the sandbox elements would always be the main emphasis in the vanilla game.
A lot of roguelikes don't have any plot, yet still aren't sandbox games. Even without a story there is a set method for progression in those games and VERY clear player goals. They aren't any more sandbox games than your average free-to-play MMORPG. Both are built around the same basic premise. Minecraft is not, nor will it ever be.
0
0
You certainly wouldn't think it from the way they both talk about the game. Jeb and Notch don't agree on everything in regards to how the game is developed and while there are some rare moments of compromise, if it's something Notch is adamant about, Jeb doesn't get his way.
Doesn't matter, he's not the owner. In a small company like Mojang, the owner trumps the CEO. I never said Notch was the CEO, I said he was the founder and owner of the company and everybody employed by the company worked for him, that includes Carl.
0
No, actually, it doesn't.
The recent decline in ticket sales has very little to do with the quality of films and everything to do with Hollywood pushing more expensive and gimmicky formats on the consumer in an effort to set theaters apart from the home experience. This Summer in particular, studios were forcing blockbuster films to favor the 3D format, making it harder to find those films in regular theaters. You'll likely see an increase in ticket sales this Summer when the studios go back to wide releases in both formats seeing as the foreign market which hasn't been pushing 3D nearly as hard as the domestic market has been booming.
I would have to argue that you are in fact the one who doesn't get it. Notch is the founder and owner of Mojang. It's not some publicly traded corporation where the stockholders or board have some say in what happens, so he gets to call all the shots. If Notch wants to make a major change to the game, he can, and none of his employees at Mojang have any right to stop him. Sure, they can offer up their opinions and advice, but if Notch tells Jens to make Minecraft into a racing game, Jens doesn't have any say in the matter, he either does it or he quits his job. Mojang isn't a partnership between Notch and the rest of the company, they all work for him.
4
Actually, yes, really. Beta tester does not equal game developer or designer. We don't decide what this game will become for future players, the developer does. Notch and crew are not obligated to listen to or follow any feedback we offer. When it comes to design decisions, that is not up to us, and Mojang has made it pretty clear that's not the kind of feedback they care about. Our only role as beta testers is to point out bugs and balance issues, not direct design decisions. Keep THAT in mind.