Minecraft Forums

Quote from Ptolemy2002»

Compare this to real life. You have a sword and swing, if you hit someone you deal damage. Deal enough damage, and they die. It isn't much different

You can't be serious. Real life is far more complicated! In fact everything added to 1.9 combat is related to real life combat in a way, so 1.9 combat is actually more realistic.

7. tools now take double damage when not used the correct way

That was in the game when I started playing in 1.7. I thought they finally removed that.

I can't do much about that. If you still don't see it, you just won't see it.

You gave a small list of changes, then agree that extremely simple is just fine. You try to argue that the complexity is a problem for coding, when clearly Möjang isn't bothered about adding it, and other games would also suggest the contrary--also I haven't caught any bugs yet related to the new combat system despite how notorious Möjang is for adding new bugs when they add new content.

I apologize for thinking you were a PVPer, clearly I mis-read your words above. But it changes little overall. You seem to be of the strong opinion that extremely simple is great and/or that the new system makes combat difficult or slogs it down.

1.) Being able to block with a shield DOES block more damage than the sword used to, however it does not block ALL damage and it comes with the drawback of being equipped in your other hand (if you're using a sword with it). Furthermore a player could use an axe to get past someone else with a shield. So it's adding an element of tactics: know your opponent and respond accordingly.

If you come at me, you'll notice I generally don't use a shield. You would be right to attack me with a sword. I'd probably fight back with a sword, but if you were using a shield, I'd deftly switch to my axe and start charging and jump-hitting you. You might win, but I won't hand the victory over. Tactics. It makes combat more interesting and skill-oriented. And also, you could learn a lot about my strategies just by watching me from a distance, I might not even realize you were there if you're sneaky.

2.) Attacks are slower so your raw DPS output is worse, but armor now protects less against bigger hits. Diamond axe crits against full diamond armor still do quite a bit of damage. If your opponent has a full suit of armor, you might try to get as many crits as possible against them. Those crits aren't as important against someone without armor, or with a weak suit of armor. Diamond armor adds toughness but if you crunch the numbers, you'll find it actually just makes a significant difference between iron and diamond on heavy hits--without toughness the two would be barely distinguishable on a 10+ damage hit.

Since you can crit at will now, your DPS isn't necessarily affected very strongly. Against a heavily-armored opponent, you can pretty much damage them as fast now as before. Someone said earlier that in full diamond armor and with diamond swords players basically can't kill each other anymore, but that couldn't be further from the truth, and it takes merely entering combat with a player to see that firsthand.

The damage change primarily impacts PvP by making unarmored players survive longer. You can still take them out pretty quickly with jump-hits, but as that requires more focus from you, it gives the other player more room to use their movement skill as defense. Also, since shields cost 1 iron, players who don't have enough iron to make armor can still stand a chance of defending themselves from players who have been in a game longer. A skilled player with a shield and stone tools could win a fight against someone in full diamond who only tried to run at their opponent and spam-click with their sword.

Are you trying to argue that a lower skill ceiling was better?

Quote from Mastermined»

So because you could block in the old system (which was guaranteed to get you killed because the time you spent blocking is time you couldn't attack your opponent back), and only take partial damage (which again, is still gonna get you killed), the old system was better?
Shields might need a bit of balance, but at least they're actually useful unlike sword blocking was.

I have to disagree here. Sword blocking was useful back then. In fact sometimes I still miss it, when I suddenly want to block and I don't have a shield with me. I saw a lot of players use it against ghasts, and you could also use it in a very exploit-y way to slog through fire, and it'd defend you from creepers. You could potentially knock the ghast's fireball back but blocking it was sure to work. Some people might succeed in hitting it back every time, but some players would usually fail and so choose to block instead.

I recommend just trying 1.9 and getting used to the new system. I guarantee you you will barely notice a difference once you get used to it.

Anyone who does any combat is going to notice the difference.

Quote from Ptolemy2002»

It was already PVP friendly, but with 1.9 they removed that. It was as if they were trying to remove PVP.
How do you remove a function that never truly existed? explain this to where i can agree and i'll defend you from now on

It takes MUCH LONGER to block now.
What, 0 seconds longer? It's the exact same speed, just a different way

NotJust as fast.

The old system was better because it was fast, so you couldn't just use your block all the time, and if you did use your block, it only protected partial damage, so your block is not your guaranteed way out from any fight.
ok, pvp in 1.9 is slower, but why still argue over a function that is useless in both 1.8 pvp AND 1.9 pvp? no1 blocks in 1.8, no1 blocks in 1.9

It was useful. You are just thinking about it in comparison. And shields are so much more useful, that the sword blocking is useless in ncomparison. So you are essentially being blinded of the sword block's usefullness.
You just dissed 1.8 blocking, and now you're praising it?

Which also means that you can be impervious to damage WHILE STILL DEALING IT! If that isn't overpowered, I don't know what is.
It's not overpowered because it does not exist. blocking in 1.9 does not negate all damage, other than from arrows. are you an archer? I am too and i'm not complaining

And it is still possible, and much more effective, by using the shield while hitting.
Repetition is repetition. Not necessary

And then I go back to rediscover pre-1.9, and I definaitely DO feel a difference, and the ENTIRE PROCESS restarts.
Why not go ahead and check out old_alpha rd-132211? You're on a nostalgia trip so why not?

My answers are Green.

i might hav to report a broken editor bc of the sheer number of times it did not put what i put

Quote from NEXUS_Adventure»

i might hav to report a broken editor bc of the sheer number of times it did not put what i put

It's not broken, it has been carefully developed into a WYSINWYG setup.

Quote from reaverofdarknes1»

You can't be serious. Real life is far more complicated! In fact everything added to 1.9 combat is related to real life combat in a way, so 1.9 combat is actually more realistic. There is no way I would swing a sword and just lugg it around for almost a second afterwards. I would swing it as much as I am able to.

You gave a small list of changes, then agree that extremely simple is just fine. You try to argue that the complexity is a problem for coding, when clearly Möjang isn't bothered about adding it, and other games would also suggest the contrary--also I haven't caught any bugs yet related to the new combat system despite how notorious Möjang is for adding new bugs when they add new content. The code is messy. Adding anything to the game would make the code messier to at least an extent unless you specifically made a way to implement the new feature upon creating the game. Otherwise, you have to either rewrite code or find some sort of loophole way to implement your new feature. And every time you try to go the second route, you make the code much messier than before.

I apologize for thinking you were a PVPer, clearly I mis-read your words above. But it changes little overall. You seem to be of the strong opinion that extremely simple is great and/or that the new system makes combat difficult or slogs it down.

1.) Being able to block with a shield DOES block more damage than the sword used to, however it does not block ALL damage and it comes with the drawback of being equipped in your other hand (if you're using a sword with it). Which was a specific slot that was added SEPECIFICALLY for the shield and really nothing else. Therefore, it is not a drawback, but simply another slot for your shield.

Furthermore a player could use an axe to get past someone else with a shield. So it's adding an element of tactics: know your opponent and respond accordingly. What if you've never seen your opponent? what do you do there?

If you come at me, you'll notice I generally don't use a shield. You would be right to attack me with a sword. I'd probably fight back with a sword, but if you were using a shield, I'd deftly switch to my axe and start charging and jump-hitting you. You might win, but I won't hand the victory over. Tactics. It makes combat more interesting and skill-oriented. If you didn't use a shield, I would mdefinately hit you with an axe becuase it does more damage. And if the axe can get through shields, I would use the axe all the time making the sword essentially useless.

2.) Attacks are slower so your raw DPS output is worse, but armor now protects less against bigger hits. Too bad the hits are much bigger, so you die much easier.

Diamond axe crits against full diamond armor still do quite a bit of damage. It already did a lot of damage, but now you can kill them in just a few consecutive hits.

If your opponent has a full suit of armor, you might try to get as many crits as possible against them. Those crits aren't as important against someone without armor, or with a weak suit of armor. Diamond armor adds toughness but if you crunch the numbers, you'll find it actually just makes a significant difference between iron and diamond on heavy hits--without toughness the two would be barely distinguishable on a 10+ damage hit. And that is pretty bad, becuase diamond should be a lot better because diamonds are a lot rarer.

Since you can crit at will now, your DPS isn't necessarily affected very strongly. Against a heavily-armored opponent, you can pretty much damage them as fast now as before. Someone said earlier that in full diamond armor and with diamond swords players basically can't kill each other anymore, but that couldn't be further from the truth, and it takes merely entering combat with a player to see that firsthand. they shouldn't be able to kill each other easily. It's DIAMOND ARMOR! You should get the most protection possible out of it!

The damage change primarily impacts PvP by making unarmored players survive longer. You can still take them out pretty quickly with jump-hits, but as that requires more focus from you, it gives the other player more room to use their movement skill as defense. You could kill an unarmored player in 2 hits with an iron axe.

Also, since shields cost 1 iron, players who don't have enough iron to make armor can still stand a chance of defending themselves from players who have been in a game longer. They can't offend, though, and the better guy is just going to wait until the shield either breaks, or the player gives up.

A skilled player with a shield and stone tools could win a fight against someone in full diamond who only tried to run at their opponent and spam-click with their sword. Everyone knows not to spam click anymore.

Are you trying to argue that a lower skill ceiling was better? No.

Quote from NEXUS_Adventure»

How do you remove a function that never truly existed? explain this to where i can agree and i'll defend you from now on. It DID exist because people did it. Just because a game wasn't meant to be played that way doesn't mean it isn't.What, 0 seconds longer? It's the exact same speed, just a different way The shield takes some time to get in front of your face. Just like all the attacks do.ok, pvp in 1.9 is slower, but why still argue over a function that is useless in both 1.8 pvp AND 1.9 pvp? no1 blocks in 1.8, no1 blocks in 1.9 I block, and it is a lot more overpowered than 1.8 blocking.You just dissed 1.8 blocking, and now you're praising it? I never dissed 1.8 blocking.It's not overpowered because it does not exist. blocking in 1.9 does not negate all damage, other than from arrows. It was updated in a later version to block ALL damage no matter what. If you don't believe me, try to block a melee attack in 1.11.Why not go ahead and check out old_alpha rd-132211? You're on a nostalgia trip so why not? Because that version of minecraft hasd TOO LITTLE stuff. It's all about balance.

Answers in blue this time!

The editor might be broken because it keeps formatting my quotes with no new lines and "[b]" tags. In reality, the entire thing should be bold and a new line after every reply.

I'm trying to make a post showing all of your responses condenses together but the editor won't cooperate. It's more than broken, it's only got about 40% of its bugs fixed since release, there's about another 55% to go before it even gets to a usable state.

Anyways, you're going back on your own words.

There is no way I would swing a sword and just lugg it around for almost a second afterwards. I would swing it as much as I am able to.

The delay is the time it takes to bring the sword back into a swinging position. Forgive the developers for not animating it very well. But try swinging a real sword faster than once per second and get back to me on how well that works. Or watch a Lindybeige video on swords because he explains myths like that.

Which was a specific slot that was added SEPECIFICALLY for the shield and really nothing else.

And yet people use it for ladders, torches, and many other things. But my point about it being a drawback was that you're sharing right-click with the other hand. You can put your shield in your main hand to let it block when your other hand has a right-click option, but it completely disables the right-click option in the off-hand. They probably took blocking off of swords because otherwise you wouldn't be able to block with a shield when you have a sword in the main hand.

What if you've never seen your opponent? what do you do there?

Try to see them first. Part of tactics is being the first one to see your opponent. Come on, don't make me explain everything.

If you didn't use a shield, I would mdefinately hit you with an axe becuase it does more damage. And if the axe can get through shields, I would use the axe all the time making the sword essentially useless.

Try it before you make such claims. Or just check 1.9+ PvP videos and see how often they use axes against each other. Damage isn't everything, especially against strong armor. The axe's ability to be stopped less by armor is important toward making it usable in player combat because otherwise its slow swing time would lend to you being unable to kill a player while they stand there eating food and laughing at you.

without toughness the two would be barely distinguishable on a 10+ damage hit.

And that is pretty bad, becuase diamond should be a lot better because diamonds are a lot rarer.

That's my point. Armor toughness is basically a quick-fix to make sure diamond armor is much better than iron regardless of the weapon used against it. It goes to show Möjang was thinking, because they added armor toughness before 1.9 full release.

they shouldn't be able to kill each other easily. It's DIAMOND ARMOR! You should get the most protection possible out of it!

What is your point? The facts are that in pre-1.9 PvP, a player in Diamond armor is very well defended yet can still be killed if they are being constantly attacked. In post 1.9 PvP, the same is true. That diamond armor protects you very well hasn't changed. That you can be beaten with diamond armor hasn't changed. My whole purpose for talking about this bit is to get you to stop acting like the change affected how well players can kill each other, because it hasn't changed.

You could kill an unarmored player in 2 hits with an iron axe.

So? You can kill them in a couple seconds if they stand still? I can do that with an iron sword, too! In fact the sword does more DPS than the axe. Also last I checked, most PvPers don't stand around waiting to be killed.

Also, since shields cost 1 iron, players who don't have enough iron to make armor can still stand a chance of defending themselves from players who have been in a game longer.

They can't offend, though, and the better guy is just going to wait until the shield either breaks, or the player gives up.

We just went over how well players can kill each other with iron weapons! It wasn't long ago someone made the point that a player with skill and a wooden axe can beat a skilled player with a shield and diamond armor, and IIRC you didn't object to that.

This is simple: until you actually do some PvP or otherwise test this stuff, you shouldn't be making statements about the way things are when you don't know, because people will call you out when you're wrong.

Quote from reaverofdarknes1»

The delay is the time it takes to bring the sword back into a swinging position. Forgive the developers for not animating it very well. But try swinging a real sword faster than once per second and get back to me on how well that works. I should at least be able to swing a WOODEN sword that fast!

And yet people use it for ladders, torches, and many other things. But my point about it being a drawback was that you're sharing right-click with the other hand. You can put your shield in your main hand to let it block when your other hand has a right-click option, but it completely disables the right-click option in the off-hand. They probably took blocking off of swords because otherwise you wouldn't be able to block with a shield when you have a sword in the main hand. It doesn't completely disable your right click option. You can still place blocks with anything in your offhand.

Try to see them first. Part of tactics is being the first one to see your opponent. Come on, don't make me explain everything. That's a lot of work, thus making it HARDER to combat!

Try it before you make such claims. Or just check 1.9+ PvP videos and see how often they use axes against each other. Damage isn't everything, especially against strong armor. The axe's ability to be stopped less by armor is important toward making it usable in player combat because otherwise its slow swing time would lend to you being unable to kill a player while they stand there eating food and laughing at you. And yet it still does a lot of damage, so you could get in about 7 damage without even waiting for the cooldown to fill up.

That's my point. Armor toughness is basically a quick-fix to make sure diamond armor is much better than iron regardless of the weapon used against it. It goes to show Möjang was thinking, because they added armor toughness before 1.9 full release. That is a pathetic effort to balance things considering that it was fine before 1.9.

What is your point? The facts are that in pre-1.9 PvP, a player in Diamond armor is very well defended yet can still be killed if they are being constantly attacked. In post 1.9 PvP, the same is true. Nope. They could be killed in less hits because of the extra damage added to the items. My whole purpose for talking about this bit is to get you to stop acting like the change affected how well players can kill each other, because it hasn't changed. Yes it has.

So? You can kill them in a couple seconds if they stand still? I can do that with an iron sword, too! In fact the sword does more DPS than the axe. Also last I checked, most PvPers don't stand around waiting to be killed. You could still do it while they're running if you have fast reflexes.

We just went over how well players can kill each other with iron weapons! It wasn't long ago someone made the point that a player with skill and a wooden axe can beat a skilled player with a shield and diamond armor, and IIRC you didn't object to that. What I said has nothing to do with weak players beating strong ones. Quite the opposite. The strong player can beat the weak one much better.

This is simple: until you actually do some PvP or otherwise test this stuff, you shouldn't be making statements about the way things are when you don't know, because people will call you out when you're wrong. Everything I have said was said because of experience.

Answers in orange.

I should at least be able to swing a WOODEN sword that fast!

Why?

It doesn't completely disable your right click option. You can still place blocks with anything in your offhand.

Right click can't have two functions at once. If you have a shield in one hand and blocks in the other, right either places blocks or uses the shield. The point being: one of them doesn't work while the other one does. Thus the shield is annoying to use.

That's a lot of work, thus making it HARDER to combat!

Translation: it raises the skill ceiling.

You could still do it while they're running if you have fast reflexes.

Skill ceiling.

What I said has nothing to do with weak players beating strong ones. Quite the opposite. The strong player can beat the weak one much better.

As in the skilled player can beat the unskilled player. Isn't that what we want?

The axe's ability to be stopped less by armor is important toward making it usable in player combat because otherwise its slow swing time would lend to you being unable to kill a player while they stand there eating food and laughing at you.

And yet it still does a lot of damage, so you could get in about 7 damage without even waiting for the cooldown to fill up.

Without the new system including toughness as well as larger attacks penetrating armor, a perfect 18 damage axe crit would deal only 3.6 damage to a player in full diamond armor without protection.

Everything I have said was said because of experience.

And yet our experience suggests to the contrary.

What is your point? The facts are that in pre-1.9 PvP, a player in Diamond armor is very well defended yet can still be killed if they are being constantly attacked. In post 1.9 PvP, the same is true.

Nope. They could be killed in less hits because of the extra damage added to the items.

In less hits with more time between hits = same amount of time. Actually probably slightly more time, but that's probably a good thing. PvP used to be a little fast.

My whole purpose for talking about this bit is to get you to stop acting like the change affected how well players can kill each other, because it hasn't changed.

Yes it has.

You say it yet evidence suggests to the contrary. Spamming attacks in someone's face might not break through their armor, but using some tactics will do it even if they have diamond armor and a shield, and you have wooden or stone tools.

That is a pathetic effort to balance things considering that it was fine before 1.9.

You say it but you aren't backing it up with evidence. We've told you what was wrong with combat before 1.9. Let's summarize what's been said: It was more spammy and less tactical. You seem to agree but feel that the old way was better. We argue that the old way was less skill-oriented meaning that it was the player with the best gear who generally won the fight. You seem to agree that a skill-oriented system is better, but you disagree that the new system is more skill-oriented. It has more things to consider, giving it a higher skill ceiling.

Quote from reaverofdarknes1»

Why? Because wooden swords are very light.

Right click can't have two functions at once. If you have a shield in one hand and blocks in the other, right either places blocks or uses the shield. The point being: one of them doesn't work while the other one does. Thus the shield is annoying to use. When placing a block with a shield, the block doesn't get placed unless you have a block highlighted. If you do have a block highlighted, then the shield function is disabled and the block is placed. If you don't, the block is disabled and the shield is used. That is a perfect example of the right-click having 2 uses at once.

Translation: it raises the skill ceiling. If the skill ceiling is too high, there will be specific people who skill and nobody would have any chance of beating them because it would require way too much skill.

Skill ceiling. See above.

As in the skilled player can beat the unskilled player. Isn't that what we want? Not exactly. If the skilled player can beat the unskilled player too easily, the unskilled player won't get a chance to become skilled because he'll be too busy dying. On the other hand, if the unskilled player can beat the skilled player, the skilled player might quit playing. The key is balance, and I think the old system did a better job of doing that.

Without the new system including toughness as well as larger attacks penetrating armor, a perfect 18 damage axe crit would deal only 3.6 damage to a player in full diamond armor without protection. Which means that the player with the OP weapon is not guaranteed to win, although he has an advantage.

In less hits with more time between hits = same amount of time. Actually probably slightly more time, but that's probably a good thing. PvP used to be a little fast. But they aren't constantly being attacked. The regen time gives them time to regen.

You say it yet evidence suggests to the contrary. Spamming attacks in someone's face might not break through their armor, but using some tactics will do it even if they have diamond armor and a shield, and you have wooden or stone tools. Thus being a little too OP for the unskilled player.

You say it but you aren't backing it up with evidence. My evidence has already been stated. Now I am trying to keep my evidence valid and use it against other evidence. In case you forgot what my evidence was:

1. the spoiler in this post describing how disabling using commands is very hard
2. this post explaining how easy it is to make the change
3. this post which highlights the fact that 1.9 made it messier and that most minecraft developers don't like it
4. this post highlighting why the second system was better
5. You didn't see anyone complaining to change it when the old system was still current, so that showed that it was accepted more overall. And even though more people seem to like this system better, they were probably fine with the old one.

We've told you what was wrong with combat before 1.9. Let's summarize what's been said: It was more spammy and less tactical. You seem to agree but feel that the old way was better. Because it was simpler.

We argue that the old way was less skill-oriented meaning that it was the player with the best gear who generally won the fight. You seem to agree that a skill-oriented system is better, but you disagree that the new system is more skill-oriented. The better skilled person still usually wins.

It has more things to consider, giving it a higher skill ceiling. Which also makes it MUCH HARDER!

Quote from Ptolemy2002»

My answers in black.

If the skill ceiling is too high, there will be specific people who skill and nobody would have any chance of beating them because it would require way too much skill.The whole point we're making is that the skill ceiling in the old combat was basically at ground level, meaning raising it a little is probably a decent move. And it wasn't raised much. Your thing about balance sounds like you want unskilled players to be on almost equal footing with skilled players. You're slightly correct in that rookie PvPers joining a deathmatch arena won't gain much skill from dying constantly, but there are other ways to play the game in which they will gain skill. One way is actually to PvP with other rookies, but actually pretty much anything you do in Minecraft that doesn't pit you against a skilled PvPer is a chance to gain skill. For someone who claims to not be PvP-centric, you seem to feel PvP is highly central to Minecraft.

Without the new system including toughness as well as larger attacks penetrating armor, a perfect 18 damage axe crit would deal only 3.6 damage to a player in full diamond armor without protection. Which means that the player with the OP weapon is not guaranteed to win, although he has an advantage.

In less hits with more time between hits = same amount of time. Actually probably slightly more time, but that's probably a good thing. PvP used to be a little fast. But they aren't constantly being attacked. The regen time gives them time to regen.

Can you make up your mind here? In the first of these two sentences, you're making the argument that speeding PvP up (by adding armor penetration+toughness) was a bad move because people with powerful weapons win too fast? In the next sentence you're arguing that slowing PvP down even a tiny bit would enable people to food-regen faster than they take damage?

The point being: one of them doesn't work while the other one does. Thus the shield is annoying to use. When placing a block with a shield, the block doesn't get placed unless you have a block highlighted. If you do have a block highlighted, then the shield function is disabled and the block is placed. If you don't, the block is disabled and the shield is used. That is a perfect example of the right-click having 2 uses at once.

You just said it either works for one thing or the other. Not both at the same time. That's the point I was making and that's why shields are potentially annoying. But why are we even debating whether or not shields are annoying? At this point it's not even relevant to the main topic I'm discussing with you. The reason I brought it up was to illustrate why I don't use a shield most of the time, the point of which was to demonstrate that the new combat system has important choices in it. But rather than acknowledge that I made a choice, you tried to tell me my logic was wrong.

Quote from sunperp >>

People, please use the quote system when quoting other users, or at least make sure you specify which content is your replies and who you are replying to, so that other forum users can make sense of the discussion.

We're using colors to make it clear which text is who. The text editor is so broken it's too much of a chore to use the quotes, but I've said more on this in the forum discussion forum.

You've probably noticed the very common tendency of forum commenters to use a quote box but combine their own text with the text of the person they're quoting within the same box. It's not just a little easier, trying to do it the "right" way is particularly difficult on this forum specifically.

Quote from reaverofdarknes1»

The whole point we're making is that the skill ceiling in the old combat was basically at ground level, meaning raising it a little is probably a decent move. And it wasn't raised much. Your thing about balance sounds like you want unskilled players to be on almost equal footing with skilled players. Not completely equal. Just enough so rookies can get up skill without being beat constantly.

You're slightly correct in that rookie PvPers joining a deathmatch arena won't gain much skill from dying constantly, but there are other ways to play the game in which they will gain skill. One way is actually to PvP with other rookies, but actually pretty much anything you do in Minecraft that doesn't pit you against a skilled PvPer is a chance to gain skill. Against mobs with AI that is very different to humans. But that's not all I'm talking about.

For someone who claims to not be PvP-centric, you seem to feel PvP is highly central to Minecraft. For the third time, I was refering to PVP as any entity versus any other one. In order to avoid this confusion again, I will seceed to calling it "combat"

Can you make up your mind here? In the first of these two sentences, you're making the argument that speeding PvP up (by adding armor penetration+toughness) was a bad move because people with powerful weapons win too fast? I didn't say that they won too fast. I was supporting the old system by saying that the guy with the overpowered sword was not guaranteed to win. I don't see any mention of speed there.

In the next sentence you're arguing that slowing PvP down even a tiny bit would enable people to food-regen faster than they take damage? First of all, the part about combat being fast was actually something that YOU said, and not me. Second, they slowed PVP down a lot more than you are letting on. Third, the first part was referring to old combat, and the second part was referring to new combat.

Answers in magenta.

To be honest i dont really like the 1.9 Combat update, I understand it makes it more realistic on how you have to draw your sword back but I think its way more intresting to have 1.8.9 pvp.

Quote from KoiYT»

Something to do with its weight. Thank you for understanding.[/b]

As in the skilled player can beat the unskilled player. Isn't that what we want? Yes I have already explained this.[/b]

Imo higher pace is better but the axe power was increased to combat the cooldown. If they really wanted to make the game harder, the axe would be BETTER than the sword, but it still isn't.[/b]Everyone can kill anyone. The worst PvPer in the world can kill the best PvPer in the world, no matter how small the chances of that happening are. I'm not talking about worst versus best. If you are the best PvPer, you probably have a lot of amazing gear that protects you. As long as other people can possibly get that gear, somebody can conquer you. But until then, you shouldn't get beat because it would take you a while to get back where you were. I'm talking about maybe the ones that are in the high/medium range. Those guys should be able to get beaten because they can get back to their last stand easier.[/b]Gaming is supposed to be about skill, which both 1.8 and 1.9 take very different skillsets to be good at. It's also supposed to be fun for everyone, and itisn't really fun when a ton of skilled players just own you every second of the time you are playing the game.[/b]

If their hunger is too low, they won't regenerate. They can just keep their hunger high. Also in 1.9, they made it so that when your hunger becomes full, you regen extremely fast, so you can easily gain more health.
[/b]

Harder = better Not at all. Harder and more complicated games are way less popular than simple and mildly easy games. Nobody likes not being able to beat a level until your 100th try.[/b]

Responses in bold. Just let the argument die. No.

I'm popping in again to address a couple of fallacies I've seen:

A Gamerule to disable the Cooldown/revert to 1.8 combat: The first major argument against this is that Mojang would have to test every update with the old and new combat, increasing their workload significantly. However, if that was true, Mojang would already have to test the game 11!*2 (~80 million) times just to test how the game would play with current gamerules (and that's only including binary gamerules that have an effect on survival gameplay; it'd be virtually infinite if we included every possible output to every gamerule). So, no, they do not have to test everything with both modes of combat. If you play with the cooldown off and there's a lack of balance, that's on you and it's up to you to decide whether you still want to play like that. But ultimately, that choice should be left to the player.

Another argument is that Mojang is not going to spend time to undo an entire update, but it's not like it's that hard. If we just include a gamerule to enable/disable the cooldown, then it probably would just take a couple of lines of code to reset the cooldown to 0 every tick. If you wanted more flexibility, you could make it a modifier, where 0 is disabled cooldown, 1 is the current cooldown, 0.5 is twice as fast, and 2 is twice as slow. This would take a little bit more effort but is still incredibly easy to do. A full reversion to 1.8 combat with the removal of the offhand slot and changing the damage of weapons that haven't been modified by commands is certainly harder, but not that much. (The offhand slot being no longer accessible requires a new graphic to hide the slot, and changing weapon damage requires another value to test if the weapon has been modified by commands, and if so, change the damage to appropriate values). It's about as complicated as making a command block structure to do the same thing, except it takes less space, is less laggy, and is integrated into the game. Really, the lack of a gamerule for this is just stubbornness at this point.

Harder/ Requires More Skill=Better: No, it does not. Think about something that is unnecessarily complicated, like perhaps DOS. Sure, it's harder to use and requires more computer skills to use than current operating systems, but that doesn't mean it's better. In fact, in many situations it's best to aim for what is the simpler solution. However, whether a game should be hard depends on its core audience, and for Minecraft that's largely casual players. Decisions for the game shouldn't be made for the purpose of making the game more difficult. There are plenty of other games that are meant to actually test your skills and are actually hard. Don't try to force something that the game wasn't even about into everyone else's game.

(Personally, I actually find the 1.9 combat to be easier, as the shield effectively makes me unkillable.)

Now, I do like the 1.9 combat. However, it's still not very satisfying and is still such a minor part of the game that I don't see why people should be forced to use the new combat. Let people make their own choices; don't force them to like what you like.

Quote from jdc997»

I'm popping in again to address a couple of fallacies I've seen:

A cooldown gamerule is different from other gamerules due to what group of players it targets. It would have to be balanced because unlike other gamerules who's target is to please map-makers, builders, etc. a cooldown gamerule would have to ensure it suits survival/PvP player needs, and thus needs to actually be balanced around the game, unlike other gamerules.

That's why the glaring issues of using gamerules like daylight cycle, health regen, mob loot/spawning and such wouldn't need to be patched or bugtested while the issues with only the gamerule of removing the combat mechanics would have to be extensively tested with other features.


That being said, my personal reason for being against it is because it shows Mojang is willing to back down on their changes when yelled at, and you'd end up with "Shadow the Hedgehog", where they gave him guns and stuff simply because someone thought of it at the top of their head. It shows weakness in a way.

I mean, sure you have to please the fanbase, but you can't just be adding (Or removing) everything a 9 year old says off the top of his head to a game. Most of the outrage was caused by knee-jerk reactions.

Quote from Mastermined»

This.
It might ba a slippery slope argument, but I don't care. Mojang shouldn't make updates to the game optional.

I would agree that they shouldn't make everything optional. The option to play older versions always stands. But the 1.9 new combat system should at least be partially optional, since it changes the way your skillset interacts with the game. It's frustrating to a veteran player to have to develop a new skillset when they were already good at the old system. I wouldn't make the existence of shields optional, you have the choice not to build one. If you don't want other players to build shields either, you can play multiplayer on versions before 1.9. But the attack cooldown should be optional, and it doesn't even need to revert to all of the old weapon balance from before with the different damage values and lack of toughness/armor penetration and everything else. It could be a simple toggle that switches between the current system which I believe is 100% attack damage after cooldown, 50% if you attack early, vs. something in between such as 75% damage all the time no matter how fast you hit, or whatever number they deem balanced. In that way they make one simple change that caters to the veteran skillset without maintaining an anti-progressive mindset toward game development.

Servers of course would be set one way or the other, rather than allowing players on opposite swing timer settings play together.