@TheGreatNinjaMan
NOOOOO, the inventory is freaking huge right now! Why stack food? IT makes no sense, plus the lack of stackable food makes an awesome drawback to healing in the middle of a fight
@Sabata
Well shyucks, I don't trust you to have a balanced and fair discussion over anything to be frank and honest, you're about as bad as Sol, well at least you don't type like a sailor.
@Sabata
Well shyucks, I don't trust you to have a balanced and fair discussion over anything to be frank and honest, you're about as bad as Sol, well at least you don't type like a sailor.
That's why I didn't make the thread.
And I never said Sol wasn't invited to talk inside the threads, so no reason why I wouldn't be.
(Also, give them a look, You'll find I'm a much nicer guy when the TC isn't someone like Sol)
(Also, give them a look, You'll find I'm a much nicer guy when the TC isn't someone like Sol)
Sort of this. Everybody got off on the wrong foot in the otherthis thread, and it just turned into a flamefest all around. Hopefully thisthe other thread won't get so heated as the last one.
(Hadn't realized this was the original thread; I see someone bumped it.)
@ spartacuscat:
I would prefer it if food healed less, provided the healing over time (so you couldn't just down a half-dozen sides of pork in a heartbeat and be fully healed), and were able to be held in at least small stacks (perhaps 8 or 16, to continue with the current stack size trends).
If we can hold 64 cubic meters of material in a single inventory slot, I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to hold a couple of pieces of food in a slot as well, so long as it is done in such a way as to remove (or, at least, greatly reduce) the ability to abuse it.
The problem is Icy, if you give up on the other thread so quickly you'll get NOTHING done here.
The new people who post are either "No, don't want" or "Yes, amazing idea." and that's that.
WE (the one's who've been here long) don't really have a collective place to put everything because we don't have control over the OP (and the one who does have control, shouldn't). Your threads are much better suited to actually pounding out the ideas and refining them than this one.
I honestly think the only reason they haven't gotten recognition is because of 2 reasons (one of which I PMed you).
1) The thread titles are too similar to this one, and that could carry some one this thread's reputation on it.
2) Between the 3 similarly titled threads, THIS one has the most posts, so people will come HERE for "the amount of information" which does not exist.
The thread titled "True Survival Mode" has gotten more hits than your threads Icy, and I'm almost certain it's because if people scan threads/search, they aren't looking for "Needs" they're looking for "Survival".
We ALL can take this idea to where it can go, but we can't give up on that direction so quickly.
If we stick to this, wholly unorganized and greatly combative, thread the idea will go nowhere and those who are most passionate about it are going to be wasted.
It could work as long as it wasn't TOO terribly demanding. Given how short days and nights are in Minecraft, we don't have to have to eat some ham every few minutes just to keep going. Some people spend days tunneling for resources and need that inventory space for minerals and tools. Having to eat every two or three days wouldn't be so bad. The water flask mentioned earlier isn't a terribly bad idea either, but it's not really necessary. As long as you plan ahead, you should already have water in your home somewhere, even if it's just for watering plants. So if you only have to come back to base every few days for food and water (which you conceivably need to do anyway to drop off what you've mined) then it wouldn't put too much of a strain on anyone.
Only suggestion as far as implementing the coding would be to make sure that when your health total drops from starvation, it's the empty hearts that go first. If you're down to just a couple hearts and suddenly you're hungry, you don't want to suddenly lose those two. It's a pretty obvious idea, so this is more of a reminder. If your health total dropped, you want to go down from 2/10 to 2/8, instead of 2/10 to 0/8.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Berginator94 »
I'm almost 100% positive that this have been suggested before but i'll suggest it again anyways
Only suggestion as far as implementing the coding would be to make sure that when your health total drops from starvation, it's the empty hearts that go first. If you're down to just a couple hearts and suddenly you're hungry, you don't want to suddenly lose those two. It's a pretty obvious idea, so this is more of a reminder. If your health total dropped, you want to go down from 2/10 to 2/8, instead of 2/10 to 0/8.
I think that any type of gradual damage spanning THIS big a time can be broken into half-hearts. Why suddenly lose two hearts at all?
Only suggestion as far as implementing the coding would be to make sure that when your health total drops from starvation, it's the empty hearts that go first. If you're down to just a couple hearts and suddenly you're hungry, you don't want to suddenly lose those two. It's a pretty obvious idea, so this is more of a reminder. If your health total dropped, you want to go down from 2/10 to 2/8, instead of 2/10 to 0/8.
I think that any type of gradual damage spanning THIS big a time can be broken into half-hearts. Why suddenly lose two hearts at all?
The amount you lose wasn't really the point. I was basically just commenting on which end of the health bar should be taken away from. As for half hearts, I don't think it's really worth the time to completely rework the damage tables for everything that can possible hurt the player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Berginator94 »
I'm almost 100% positive that this have been suggested before but i'll suggest it again anyways
The problem is Icy, if you give up on the other thread so quickly you'll get NOTHING done here.
The new people who post are either "No, don't want" or "Yes, amazing idea." and that's that.
WE (the one's who've been here long) don't really have a collective place to put everything because we don't have control over the OP (and the one who does have control, shouldn't). Your threads are much better suited to actually pounding out the ideas and refining them than this one.
I honestly think the only reason they haven't gotten recognition is because of 2 reasons (one of which I PMed you).
1) The thread titles are too similar to this one, and that could carry some one this thread's reputation on it.
2) Between the 3 similarly titled threads, THIS one has the most posts, so people will come HERE for "the amount of information" which does not exist.
The thread titled "True Survival Mode" has gotten more hits than your threads Icy, and I'm almost certain it's because if people scan threads/search, they aren't looking for "Needs" they're looking for "Survival".
We ALL can take this idea to where it can go, but we can't give up on that direction so quickly.
If we stick to this, wholly unorganized and greatly combative, thread the idea will go nowhere and those who are most passionate about it are going to be wasted.
I fall into a third category, apparently; I haven't made the switch to the other thread because I already gave my reasoned arguments involving this suggestion, and really have nothing more to say since my concerns were never addressed. If I moved to the other threads, I'd just be repeating myself.
The amount you lose wasn't really the point. I was basically just commenting on which end of the health bar should be taken away from. As for half hearts, I don't think it's really worth the time to completely rework the damage tables for everything that can possible hurt the player.
Um, the game already calculates your health in half-hearts. Have you never taken a 4-meter fall or eaten a piece of raw pork, nor caught fire, nor suffocated with your head in a block? You can take half a heart of damage.
The amount you lose wasn't really the point. I was basically just commenting on which end of the health bar should be taken away from. As for half hearts, I don't think it's really worth the time to completely rework the damage tables for everything that can possible hurt the player.
Um, the game already calculates your health in half-hearts. Have you never taken a 4-meter fall or eaten a piece of raw pork, nor caught fire, nor suffocated with your head in a block? You can take half a heart of damage.
Huh. No actually, I haven't. Of course now I'm going to spend time intentionally hurting myself just to find out. >.< Strangely I've never had anything that didn't deal damage in full hearts.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Berginator94 »
I'm almost 100% positive that this have been suggested before but i'll suggest it again anyways
I fall into a third category, apparently; I haven't made the switch to the other thread because I already gave my reasoned arguments involving this suggestion, and really have nothing more to say since my concerns were never addressed. If I moved to the other threads, I'd just be repeating myself.
Well they weren't addressed in THIS thread. And we both know why.
And I'm pretty sure no one's going to care if you copy pasta yours into the new one.
The people who are the most critical of the idea are the ones who get it to the best implementation. (So long as they aren't just like "No this is ****, never implement it")
How about making it so that on peaceful you get to choose whether or not you want to have to eat and drink. I play survival peaceful a lot and one thing I want is to be able to die of something I can't control.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Why does everyone think I don't have an avatar? Is there anyone who can see the one black pixel.
Please click the dragons, they need to grow. Also, my fully grown dragons can be found in my bio.
How about making it so that on peaceful you get to choose whether or not you want to have to eat and drink. I play survival peaceful a lot and one thing I want is to be able to die of something I can't control.
Can't control? What?
Can't you kill an animal and eat it?
Why don't you just play on creative...? You don't need food there.
NOOOOO, the inventory is freaking huge right now! Why stack food? IT makes no sense, plus the lack of stackable food makes an awesome drawback to healing in the middle of a fight
@Sabata
Well shyucks, I don't trust you to have a balanced and fair discussion over anything to be frank and honest, you're about as bad as Sol, well at least you don't type like a sailor.
That's why I didn't make the thread.
And I never said Sol wasn't invited to talk inside the threads, so no reason why I wouldn't be.
(Also, give them a look, You'll find I'm a much nicer guy when the TC isn't someone like Sol)
Sort of this. Everybody got off on the wrong foot in
the otherthis thread, and it just turned into a flamefest all around. Hopefullythisthe other thread won't get so heated as the last one.(Hadn't realized this was the original thread; I see someone bumped it.)
@ spartacuscat:
I would prefer it if food healed less, provided the healing over time (so you couldn't just down a half-dozen sides of pork in a heartbeat and be fully healed), and were able to be held in at least small stacks (perhaps 8 or 16, to continue with the current stack size trends).
If we can hold 64 cubic meters of material in a single inventory slot, I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to hold a couple of pieces of food in a slot as well, so long as it is done in such a way as to remove (or, at least, greatly reduce) the ability to abuse it.
The new people who post are either "No, don't want" or "Yes, amazing idea." and that's that.
WE (the one's who've been here long) don't really have a collective place to put everything because we don't have control over the OP (and the one who does have control, shouldn't). Your threads are much better suited to actually pounding out the ideas and refining them than this one.
I honestly think the only reason they haven't gotten recognition is because of 2 reasons (one of which I PMed you).
1) The thread titles are too similar to this one, and that could carry some one this thread's reputation on it.
2) Between the 3 similarly titled threads, THIS one has the most posts, so people will come HERE for "the amount of information" which does not exist.
The thread titled "True Survival Mode" has gotten more hits than your threads Icy, and I'm almost certain it's because if people scan threads/search, they aren't looking for "Needs" they're looking for "Survival".
We ALL can take this idea to where it can go, but we can't give up on that direction so quickly.
If we stick to this, wholly unorganized and greatly combative, thread the idea will go nowhere and those who are most passionate about it are going to be wasted.
So in my opinion.....no.
I already have to stop exploring/building because I run out of materials...I don't need to die because I forgot to slaughter a load of pigs.
Only suggestion as far as implementing the coding would be to make sure that when your health total drops from starvation, it's the empty hearts that go first. If you're down to just a couple hearts and suddenly you're hungry, you don't want to suddenly lose those two. It's a pretty obvious idea, so this is more of a reminder. If your health total dropped, you want to go down from 2/10 to 2/8, instead of 2/10 to 0/8.
I think that any type of gradual damage spanning THIS big a time can be broken into half-hearts. Why suddenly lose two hearts at all?
The amount you lose wasn't really the point. I was basically just commenting on which end of the health bar should be taken away from. As for half hearts, I don't think it's really worth the time to completely rework the damage tables for everything that can possible hurt the player.
I fall into a third category, apparently; I haven't made the switch to the other thread because I already gave my reasoned arguments involving this suggestion, and really have nothing more to say since my concerns were never addressed. If I moved to the other threads, I'd just be repeating myself.
Um, the game already calculates your health in half-hearts. Have you never taken a 4-meter fall or eaten a piece of raw pork, nor caught fire, nor suffocated with your head in a block? You can take half a heart of damage.
Huh. No actually, I haven't. Of course now I'm going to spend time intentionally hurting myself just to find out. >.< Strangely I've never had anything that didn't deal damage in full hearts.
Well they weren't addressed in THIS thread. And we both know why.
And I'm pretty sure no one's going to care if you copy pasta yours into the new one.
The people who are the most critical of the idea are the ones who get it to the best implementation. (So long as they aren't just like "No this is ****, never implement it")
The new Adventure Update will add hunger.
I am now a happy man.
To all of you who so violently opposed this idea.... BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
~Sol
Any of you guys rage quit yet?
I love being right... It emasculates me.
~Sol
Why does everyone think I don't have an avatar? Is there anyone who can see the one black pixel.
Please click the dragons, they need to grow. Also, my fully grown dragons can be found in my bio.
Can't control? What?
Can't you kill an animal and eat it?
Why don't you just play on creative...? You don't need food there.
~Sol