I don't get the complaint against emerald ore in the first place?
Emeralds seemed to be easy to gain from trading, making stumbling into some emerald ore pure gravy, sort of a pat on the back. So who cares if its rare or that people don't know exactly where they should be looking yet.
I was sorta looking forward to making a few emerald mines. Not because its the most efficient way to gain emeralds but because they would be rewarding to find. Oh well thanks to whiners for ruining things
Thank you. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Anyway, I also forgot to mention that Emerald Ore actually gives use to a biome that I dislike with a passion. If they could add some sort of rare ore to the swamp and ocean biomes, I would be a very happy builder.
Removing a new ore because people complaining about how rare it is? If your so bent on getting emeralds go sell some of your redstone (rather common) or wheat (renewable). Besides, like Jeb said it's suppose to be a nice find, something to say "Hey, look what I found!" My thoughts could be wrong here, but it spawns 15 levels higher than diamond and goes down to 2 and the only reason diamond is more common is because it tries to spawn once every chunk as opposed to a specific biome.
Diamond, step down off the top of the list of rare ores (which is probably why others complain).
The thing is, you're not getting how currencies work. I'm all for new biome specific ores, but you can't have something be minable and the basis of a economy at the same time. To quote something I wrote on another thread that applies here:
These new gems Jeb just introduced have one main difference from all the other possible currencies: they are entirely, -or at least, mostly- available only by trading. The reason this is so important lies in the basis of money of all forms. Money is generally rather worthless by itself. Only the knowledge that anybody else will willingly trade you something of value for it gives it any worth. An economy does not work if money is sought after for solely for the purpose of having it. In other words, a currency cannot have value for the sake of the currency. It must acquire value from what you had to give away to gain it.
To put this in Minecraft terms, let's imagine that gold had been used instead of emeralds. It is a seeming good choice: it ties in with real life, it has a built in system of micro-currency, (9 gold nuggets equal 1 gold bar) and it has a high, or at least higher than some other ores' (iron) rarity. However, in practice, the method breaks down. Gold is available in large quantities to anyone who can go mining. Thus, instead of promoting trading, which keeps the market prosperous and thriving, gold encourages players to simply go off in a cave and mine, causing the market to stagnate and die. Emeralds are the first item to be close enough to only available through selling other items of value, (sure, you can find them underground, but they're rarer than diamond, and can't be tunnel-mined) so they're the first item that just might work as a currency.
They're just barely rare enough right now for them to function as a currency, but they're not valuable enough per emerald to warrant having that kind of rarity. He didn't remove it because people thought it was "too rare", he removed it because minable emeralds would have ruined the point of trading.
The thing is, you're not getting how currencies work. I'm all for new biome specific ores, but you can't have something be minable and the basis of a economy at the same time. To quote something I wrote on another thread that applies here: They're just barely rare enough right now for them to function as a currency, but they're not valuable enough per emerald to warrant having that kind of rarity. He didn't remove it because people thought it was "too rare", he removed it because minable emeralds would have ruined the point of trading.
But the thing is that Emeralds are extremely rare and exclusive to one biome. It's very hard to go mining and to come out a rich man, emerald wise. If they were as common as Diamond, then you would have a point, but they're not. They are very difficult to find. And heck, even with a Fortune III Pick, you'll still be lucky to get two Emeralds from it. And not to mention that again, leaving them exclusive to trading still makes them unobtainable in worlds generated without structures.
And Jeb made it very clear that he'll remove them because people complained they were too rare, and not understanding their main use.
Many complain that emerald ore is too rare. It's intended to be a "nice find," not the main way to gain currency. Will remove it again.
I'm sorry, but it's really annoying to get the same complaint over and over again. This way it's less confusion; emeralds are only currency
Anyway, thanks to everyone who signed! Lets keep them coming in hopes it'll change Jeb's mind!