I am not claiming that, as I have clarified above. What I meant was they are effectively forcing a mechanic out of the game for "villagers must be pacifist" reasons.
By uninteresting, I mean all the villages of different cultures have the same pacifist philosophy and culture. It would be a blank canvas if we had more freedom to chose what kind of village culture the player wants, whether they are pacifist or willing to defend, and not forcing a philosophy on the player. This is a sandbox game by large, it should not be a pacifist philosophy game. If you don't want villager soldiers, just break the job block for villager soldiers. Unless, you're saying you would like to use villager soldiers if they exist. This allows more freedom than whatever you're suggesting.
You did indeed outright state Minecraft is forcing a pacifist philosophy.
Nowhere did I say to negate all balance issues, that is something that has to be implemented. "Just don't use it" is directed at people who don't want villager soldiers.
I didn't accuse you of trying to negate all balance issues. As I already stated, saying not to use it if players don't want the game to be more unbalanced does negate all of those problems. If there's no downside to a suggestion (such as making all stone blocks have a 1% chance to drop diamonds when mined), then suddenly the downside is not having it. In the same way, having villagers and iron golems defending a village would be much better than only having iron golems doing the protecting.
You could argue that players wouldn't even need that change to play the game properly (either my example stone suggestion or fighting villagers) because the game is easy enough as it is. But that's not the point I'm making.
You also chose to ignore the entire section on villager ideas Mojang doesn't want suggestions for which does include this idea.
A wooden pickaxe with infinite durability is a bad analogy. That's obviously god-mode. Having villager soldiers that can fight is not god-mode, they can still die but be replaced. You can press F3 to see coordinates, you can type /seed and check online for fortress location, who cares? It's in the game, but not everyone will use it.
That was a purposefully bad example made to prove a point. This "don't use it if you don't like it" idea pops up in dozens of suggestions. I've seen people suggest adding thirst bars with gamerule toggles. I've seen people suggest natural disasters with toggles.
You could of course argue that those are both negative suggestions and that somehow invalidates my point since they would before "difficulty sake". That isn't the case, however. I've seen at least a dozen suggestions for gamerules that remove the 1.9 attack cooldown. The attack cooldown has been proven to end before something's invincibility frames wear off, and thanks to the bug that removes durability when hitting something's invincibility frames, there's really no reason to remove it. So then why add a gamerule to toggle between two virtually identical systems? It would make people more comfortable with playing newer versions. Yet removing the cooldown goes against Mojang's vision of the game, so it won't be reviewed anymore. The same goes with villager soldiers.
Except, it would be more of a blank slate if the option was there to hire villagers to defend their own village. Right now, you can't, which is less of a blank slate.
This isn't as good of an argument as you think. Video games can't give you infinitely more or less of a blank slate since somebody needs to program everything in. Everything has its limits. If you want that extra freedom Mojang is denying you, either create or find either a JSON mod or an external mod that adds it. That's why mods exist: so players can add features that won't likely make it into official.
I'm just going to stop quoting the rest of it. Your entire argument for it is "it would give players more control over villagers," and you continually ignore that Mojang has said it won't happen, ever. They're the ones who develop the game. If you don't like their choice, you can learn to mod the game or use someone else's mod. Villagers are the player's responsibility, and as a result of caring for them, villagers allow their professions to be changed by the player and allow players to freely trade. There's no reason for a villager to suddenly decide to risk its life just because a player places a weapon rack on the ground. Wolves and golems are understandable since wolves are loyal to humans and golems are magical constructs designed to serve the villagers. But a human-like creature marching off to risk its life because the player said so? That doesn't fit with them. The villagers, as stated on the Feedback site, are "live and let live" creatures. No support.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
You did indeed outright state Minecraft is forcing a pacifist philosophy.
I didn't accuse you of trying to negate all balance issues. As I already stated, saying not to use it if players don't want the game to be more unbalanced does negate all of those problems. If there's no downside to a suggestion (such as making all stone blocks have a 1% chance to drop diamonds when mined), then suddenly the downside is not having it. In the same way, having villagers and iron golems defending a village would be much better than only having iron golems doing the protecting.
You could argue that players wouldn't even need that change to play the game properly (either my example stone suggestion or fighting villagers) because the game is easy enough as it is. But that's not the point I'm making.
You also chose to ignore the entire section on villager ideas Mojang doesn't want suggestions for which does include this idea.
That was a purposefully bad example made to prove a point. This "don't use it if you don't like it" idea pops up in dozens of suggestions. I've seen people suggest adding thirst bars with gamerule toggles. I've seen people suggest natural disasters with toggles.
You could of course argue that those are both negative suggestions and that somehow invalidates my point since they would before "difficulty sake". That isn't the case, however. I've seen at least a dozen suggestions for gamerules that remove the 1.9 attack cooldown. The attack cooldown has been proven to end before something's invincibility frames wear off, and thanks to the bug that removes durability when hitting something's invincibility frames, there's really no reason to remove it. So then why add a gamerule to toggle between two virtually identical systems? It would make people more comfortable with playing newer versions. Yet removing the cooldown goes against Mojang's vision of the game, so it won't be reviewed anymore. The same goes with villager soldiers.
This isn't as good of an argument as you think. Video games can't give you infinitely more or less of a blank slate since somebody needs to program everything in. Everything has its limits. If you want that extra freedom Mojang is denying you, either create or find either a JSON mod or an external mod that adds it. That's why mods exist: so players can add features that won't likely make it into official.
I'm just going to stop quoting the rest of it. Your entire argument for it is "it would give players more control over villagers," and you continually ignore that Mojang has said it won't happen, ever. They're the ones who develop the game. If you don't like their choice, you can learn to mod the game or use someone else's mod. Villagers are the player's responsibility, and as a result of caring for them, villagers allow their professions to be changed by the player and allow players to freely trade. There's no reason for a villager to suddenly decide to risk its life just because a player places a weapon rack on the ground. Wolves and golems are understandable since wolves are loyal to humans and golems are magical constructs designed to serve the villagers. But a human-like creature marching off to risk its life because the player said so? That doesn't fit with them. The villagers, as stated on the Feedback site, are "live and let live" creatures. No support.
That's a lot of reply, if only you read the entire thread lol. I already addressed most of those concerns. "Just make a mod for it" is not a valid argument. You can tell all suggestions to "just make a mod". We should just remove suggestions because you can always make a mod for it lol. Mods get out of date.
You are really exaggerating how big of a feature this would be. It's just weaker golems with a different skin.
Also, just because the game lacks this one minor feature, which is just a reskinned version of another, doesn't mean the game is horribly limiting, like you say. The act you wish to be done, protecting villages, is already being done, just not by who you want it to be done by.
And, did you ever think maybe Mojang doesn't want you to just be managing your own private army? Maybe instead they want you to, you know, do most of the fighting yourself.
It is not just a weaker golem with different skin, you just ignored most of my suggestions. You can already have a personal army of cats and dogs.
I still have yet to hear a coherent argument against villager soldiers. Once all aspects are argued for, it always ends with those against it residing to "well devs don't like it, so no". I already acknowledged this in the very first post. Add some non-pacifist village culture, e.g., you can make the village by curing a zombie and for the village you created this way, you can make say, 2 villager soldiers per 10 villagers, but only with cured villager zombie or something like that. This does not go against the devs wanting villagers to naturally be pacifists. Or you can cure an Illager zombie and they will fight for your village, etc. Just gotta open your mind a bit.
How is it not a reskinned and weaker golem. It has a different look to the golem, is weaker than the golem, and serves the exact same purpose as the golem.
How is it not a reskinned and weaker golem. It has a different look to the golem, is weaker than the golem, and serves the exact same purpose as the golem.
Read my original post.
That's like saying crossbows are reskinned bows or diamond armor are reskinned leather armor lol. We already discussed this specifically too.
Crossbows do have the exact same functionality as bows as they both shoot arrows and rockets, with some minor tweaks to their stats, and a different model. Crossbows are bows, but just look and act slightly different.
And diamond armor literally has the exact same appearance as leather, but in a different color, and with better stats.
Crossbows do have the exact same functionality as bows as they both shoot arrows and rockets, with some minor tweaks to their stats, and a different model. Crossbows are bows, but just look and act slightly different.
And diamond armor literally has the exact same appearance as leather, but in a different color, and with better stats.
That counterpoint was pretty awful.
Right, and you are saying the devs are okay with re-skins then? If you read my original post, it is not a reskin because you can control where villager soldiers are stationed, equip them, and have them ride horses. You can't do that with iron golems. Either way, you lose the argument here.
They implement useful changes and additions that actually contribute to the game. I don't see any way this has an advantage over golems, especially considering they are still one of the hardest hitting mobs.
This is you trying to play some civilization game in minecraft. That is not how they intend for you to play it. If that is too limiting for whatever "playstyle" you'd prefer, a different game might better fulfill your desire to just sit back and watch other's do the work that you're intended to do.
Anyways, you still have some convincing to do over at Mojang if you want your grand army raising fantasies to ever happen, so get to it.
They implement useful changes and additions that actually contribute to the game. I don't see any way this has an advantage over golems, especially considering they are still one of the hardest hitting mobs.
This is you trying to play some civilization game in minecraft. That is not how they intend for you to play it. If that is too limiting for whatever "playstyle" you'd prefer, a different game might better fulfill your desire to just sit back and watch other's do the work that you're intended to do.
Anyways, you still have some convincing to do over at Mojang if you want your grand army raising fantasies to ever happen, so get to it.
The advantage is in my original post if you read it. In a way minecraft can be a game about civilization, do you have an argument against building a civilization in Minecraft too? It's a sandbox game and has villages, and the player is trying to save the villages.
Adding the civilization challenge gives a creation/role-play end goal. Right now we only have an exploration end-goal of slaying the dragon.
Yeah, the *player* saving the villages. Not the player *sitting atop the village wall as they watch their villagers be sent out to die so the player doesn't have to take any risks.*
Yeah, the *player* saving the villages. Not the player *sitting atop the village wall as they watch their villagers be sent out to die so the player doesn't have to take any risks.*
Just like with iron golems lol? What if the player wants to sit on a tower and have villagers he recruited fight for him? Is that a wrong way to play a sandbox game lol?
There you go, you don't know what you're even arguing for because you only know how to parrot. If you mean they want pacifist villagers, my suggestion already addressed it.
Alright. The main argument against your point is that the devs have outright stated that they will never add fighting villagers. However, this reply isn't good enough for you, as seen by your response:
"As I pointed out above, villagers can still be pacifist. In that case, you can only make villager soldiers out of, say cured zombie villagers/Illagers. Or add different villager cultures where some are pacifist and others are not."
They all refuse to acknowledge that Mojang has outright stated on the Feedback site that villagers are passive. Not just in their category but by choice. Illagers are violent villagers. They are entirely different. Mojang has not stated that villagers won't naturally be violent. They have stated, and I quote,
"Villagers are pacifists. They don't want to fight. This is why golems exist. (Let's improve golems!) Villagers do not want to be guards, knights, soldiers, fighters, defenders, warriors, or protectors."
Since that idea is never going to happen, no matter how many times you make arbitrary points about "player freedom" and how mods aren't good enough, I'd recommend refocusing the post on one of the other aspects. Naturally, illagers aren't likely to take up arms in defense of villagers. And piglins will just zombify. However, piglin mercenaries could have interesting implications for Nether villages. I'd handle it some way like this:
Since players aren't likely to try making a Nether village in Nether-only survival, piglins can use Overworld materials to be tamed. I'm thinking a golden apple gives a 50-50 chance of recruiting them if you're in gold armor.
Alternatively, some new golden item could be added from Nether resources that is used to recruit them.
Piglins will attack you if you take off your gold armor still (still seeing you as an intruder as part of their personalities) but not if you give them an enchanted golden apple. Enchanted golden apples permanently recruit them due to their rarity (for the player's sake).
Recruited piglins will lose their recruited status and attack if they are attacked or see/hear you attack any non-recruited piglin. Enchanted golden apples once again circumvent this.
Piglins can be placed into golden, diamond or Netherite armor. The same goes with swords and crossbows. They will continue their classic piglin antics of tossing away everything that is not gold in exchange for a golden item of the same slot, though.
Piglins can be right-clicked to open a recruit menu after opening. There will be an open slot for an item to be placed into. If a gold ingot is placed, the "Barter" button will become clickable.
If a tool, weapon or armor piece made of gold, diamond or Netherite is placed, the "Equip" button will be clickable. Clicking that will equip the item and unequip whatever they had on. However, upon closing the menu, there will be a short delay (maybe 1.5-2 seconds?) for players to pick up any gold items so the piglins don't immediately put their old gold stuff back on.
Items can be directly unequipped from a Piglin mirror bar that looks like the ones players and horses have.
If the Piglin is given horse armor or a saddle, the "Mount" button will become available. Upon clicking the button, the piglin will pathfind to the nearest horse within its follow range. It will then equip the horse armor and mount it. If the horse has a saddle, it will ride the horse as normal. Otherwise, it will sit on the horse while the horse walks by its own free will. This also applies to them riding pigs and striders.
There will be an additional button that can be freely toggled: "Follow" -> "Guard" -> "Patrol" with a confirmation button below to accept the piglin's change.
"Follow" piglins will follow their employer.
"Guard" piglins will stand in one spot and turn hostile towards anything that would attack the player or villagers.
"Patrol" piglins would walk between two job sites. However, instead of adding a weapon rack worksite like you suggested, I'd simply make their site Anvils. Set the piglin to Patrol and click the confirmation button, then walk to any Anvil. Right-clicking the Anvil will release green Villager star/X particles and add that to the piglin's patrol. Up to four anvils can be chosen. End the chain by right-clicking on the piglin again.
With only one Anvil selected, the piglin will walk about 10 blocks away, wait a few seconds, then walk back to the Anvil before waiting for another few seconds.
With multiple Anvils selected, piglins will walk and wait in the order they were selected, always returning to the first.
Any number of piglins can be assigned to an Anvil. They aren't using it, only protecting around them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
Haha, wow. Just, wow. No, I do know what I'm arguing for, I just would have hoped that by now you'd actually know! It just amazes me. It's not like it hasn't been repeated and spoon fed to you so many times that I'm surprised you didn't choke on it!
Alright. The main argument against your point is that the devs have outright stated that they will never add fighting villagers. However, this reply isn't good enough for you, as seen by your response:
"As I pointed out above, villagers can still be pacifist. In that case, you can only make villager soldiers out of, say cured zombie villagers/Illagers. Or add different villager cultures where some are pacifist and others are not."
They all refuse to acknowledge that Mojang has outright stated on the Feedback site that villagers are passive. Not just in their category but by choice. Illagers are violent villagers. They are entirely different. Mojang has not stated that villagers won't naturally be violent. They have stated, and I quote,
"Villagers are pacifists. They don't want to fight. This is why golems exist. (Let's improve golems!) Villagers do not want to be guards, knights, soldiers, fighters, defenders, warriors, or protectors."
Since that idea is never going to happen, no matter how many times you make arbitrary points about "player freedom" and how mods aren't good enough, I'd recommend refocusing the post on one of the other aspects. Naturally, illagers aren't likely to take up arms in defense of villagers. And piglins will just zombify. However, piglin mercenaries could have interesting implications for Nether villages. I'd handle it some way like this:
Since players aren't likely to try making a Nether village in Nether-only survival, piglins can use Overworld materials to be tamed. I'm thinking a golden apple gives a 50-50 chance of recruiting them if you're in gold armor.
Alternatively, some new golden item could be added from Nether resources that is used to recruit them.
Piglins will attack you if you take off your gold armor still (still seeing you as an intruder as part of their personalities) but not if you give them an enchanted golden apple. Enchanted golden apples permanently recruit them due to their rarity (for the player's sake).
Recruited piglins will lose their recruited status and attack if they are attacked or see/hear you attack any non-recruited piglin. Enchanted golden apples once again circumvent this.
Piglins can be placed into golden, diamond or Netherite armor. The same goes with swords and crossbows. They will continue their classic piglin antics of tossing away everything that is not gold in exchange for a golden item of the same slot, though.
Piglins can be right-clicked to open a recruit menu after opening. There will be an open slot for an item to be placed into. If a gold ingot is placed, the "Barter" button will become clickable.
If a tool, weapon or armor piece made of gold, diamond or Netherite is placed, the "Equip" button will be clickable. Clicking that will equip the item and unequip whatever they had on. However, upon closing the menu, there will be a short delay (maybe 1.5-2 seconds?) for players to pick up any gold items so the piglins don't immediately put their old gold stuff back on.
Items can be directly unequipped from a Piglin mirror bar that looks like the ones players and horses have.
If the Piglin is given horse armor or a saddle, the "Mount" button will become available. Upon clicking the button, the piglin will pathfind to the nearest horse within its follow range. It will then equip the horse armor and mount it. If the horse has a saddle, it will ride the horse as normal. Otherwise, it will sit on the horse while the horse walks by its own free will. This also applies to them riding pigs and striders.
There will be an additional button that can be freely toggled: "Follow" -> "Guard" -> "Patrol" with a confirmation button below to accept the piglin's change.
"Follow" piglins will follow their employer.
"Guard" piglins will stand in one spot and turn hostile towards anything that would attack the player or villagers.
"Patrol" piglins would walk between two job sites. However, instead of adding a weapon rack worksite like you suggested, I'd simply make their site Anvils. Set the piglin to Patrol and click the confirmation button, then walk to any Anvil. Right-clicking the Anvil will release green Villager star/X particles and add that to the piglin's patrol. Up to four anvils can be chosen. End the chain by right-clicking on the piglin again.
With only one Anvil selected, the piglin will walk about 10 blocks away, wait a few seconds, then walk back to the Anvil before waiting for another few seconds.
With multiple Anvils selected, piglins will walk and wait in the order they were selected, always returning to the first.
Any number of piglins can be assigned to an Anvil. They aren't using it, only protecting around them.
I think this is a good start at least with a compromise so we can have a role-play/creation end goal for people who prefer the role-play and creative aspects of minecraft more than exploration. But I would also like an overworld village with defenders. Like I said, they can add a new villager type that are willing to defend. My argument for cured villager/Illagers willing to defend villagers is because after we cure Villager/Illager zombies, they don't remember their past since they lived as brain-dead zombies for so long. So they follow you and fight for you and your village.
You've heard that Mojang does not want to do the thing you are asking Mojang to do about 10 times now, and it clearly hasn't had much impact. By the way, the piglins are just going to turn into Zombified Piglins once they reach the overworld.
It would be too easy if villagers could defend themselves, that is your challenge and role as the player, who causes monsters to appear by loading in a village. Not to mention the Battle Royale-esque environment of soldiers fighting soldiers would take away from the game's theme and category and take away attention from other parts of Minecraft.
You already have hostile mercenaries with piglin brutes and illagers.
My argument for cured villager/Illagers willing to defend villagers is because after we cure Villager/Illager zombies, they don't remember their past since they lived as brain-dead zombies for so long. So they follow you and fight for you and your village.
I'm just going to say. I did a fair bit of librarian trade rerolling in singleplayer last week. If you trade with a villager, zombify it, then cure it, the newly-cured villager will still have the same trades and trade EXP. So I don't think that what you said here is the case.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
You did indeed outright state Minecraft is forcing a pacifist philosophy.
I didn't accuse you of trying to negate all balance issues. As I already stated, saying not to use it if players don't want the game to be more unbalanced does negate all of those problems. If there's no downside to a suggestion (such as making all stone blocks have a 1% chance to drop diamonds when mined), then suddenly the downside is not having it. In the same way, having villagers and iron golems defending a village would be much better than only having iron golems doing the protecting.
You could argue that players wouldn't even need that change to play the game properly (either my example stone suggestion or fighting villagers) because the game is easy enough as it is. But that's not the point I'm making.
You also chose to ignore the entire section on villager ideas Mojang doesn't want suggestions for which does include this idea.
That was a purposefully bad example made to prove a point. This "don't use it if you don't like it" idea pops up in dozens of suggestions. I've seen people suggest adding thirst bars with gamerule toggles. I've seen people suggest natural disasters with toggles.
You could of course argue that those are both negative suggestions and that somehow invalidates my point since they would before "difficulty sake". That isn't the case, however. I've seen at least a dozen suggestions for gamerules that remove the 1.9 attack cooldown. The attack cooldown has been proven to end before something's invincibility frames wear off, and thanks to the bug that removes durability when hitting something's invincibility frames, there's really no reason to remove it. So then why add a gamerule to toggle between two virtually identical systems? It would make people more comfortable with playing newer versions. Yet removing the cooldown goes against Mojang's vision of the game, so it won't be reviewed anymore. The same goes with villager soldiers.
This isn't as good of an argument as you think. Video games can't give you infinitely more or less of a blank slate since somebody needs to program everything in. Everything has its limits. If you want that extra freedom Mojang is denying you, either create or find either a JSON mod or an external mod that adds it. That's why mods exist: so players can add features that won't likely make it into official.
I'm just going to stop quoting the rest of it. Your entire argument for it is "it would give players more control over villagers," and you continually ignore that Mojang has said it won't happen, ever. They're the ones who develop the game. If you don't like their choice, you can learn to mod the game or use someone else's mod. Villagers are the player's responsibility, and as a result of caring for them, villagers allow their professions to be changed by the player and allow players to freely trade. There's no reason for a villager to suddenly decide to risk its life just because a player places a weapon rack on the ground. Wolves and golems are understandable since wolves are loyal to humans and golems are magical constructs designed to serve the villagers. But a human-like creature marching off to risk its life because the player said so? That doesn't fit with them. The villagers, as stated on the Feedback site, are "live and let live" creatures.
No support.
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
That's a lot of reply, if only you read the entire thread lol. I already addressed most of those concerns. "Just make a mod for it" is not a valid argument. You can tell all suggestions to "just make a mod". We should just remove suggestions because you can always make a mod for it lol. Mods get out of date.
It is not just a weaker golem with different skin, you just ignored most of my suggestions. You can already have a personal army of cats and dogs.
I still have yet to hear a coherent argument against villager soldiers. Once all aspects are argued for, it always ends with those against it residing to "well devs don't like it, so no". I already acknowledged this in the very first post. Add some non-pacifist village culture, e.g., you can make the village by curing a zombie and for the village you created this way, you can make say, 2 villager soldiers per 10 villagers, but only with cured villager zombie or something like that. This does not go against the devs wanting villagers to naturally be pacifists. Or you can cure an Illager zombie and they will fight for your village, etc. Just gotta open your mind a bit.
How is it not a reskinned and weaker golem. It has a different look to the golem, is weaker than the golem, and serves the exact same purpose as the golem.
Read my original post.
That's like saying crossbows are reskinned bows or diamond armor are reskinned leather armor lol. We already discussed this specifically too.
Well, actually, in a way, they are just reskins.
Crossbows do have the exact same functionality as bows as they both shoot arrows and rockets, with some minor tweaks to their stats, and a different model. Crossbows are bows, but just look and act slightly different.
And diamond armor literally has the exact same appearance as leather, but in a different color, and with better stats.
That counterpoint was pretty awful.
Right, and you are saying the devs are okay with re-skins then? If you read my original post, it is not a reskin because you can control where villager soldiers are stationed, equip them, and have them ride horses. You can't do that with iron golems. Either way, you lose the argument here.
They implement useful changes and additions that actually contribute to the game. I don't see any way this has an advantage over golems, especially considering they are still one of the hardest hitting mobs.
This is you trying to play some civilization game in minecraft. That is not how they intend for you to play it. If that is too limiting for whatever "playstyle" you'd prefer, a different game might better fulfill your desire to just sit back and watch other's do the work that you're intended to do.
Anyways, you still have some convincing to do over at Mojang if you want your grand army raising fantasies to ever happen, so get to it.
The advantage is in my original post if you read it. In a way minecraft can be a game about civilization, do you have an argument against building a civilization in Minecraft too? It's a sandbox game and has villages, and the player is trying to save the villages.
Adding the civilization challenge gives a creation/role-play end goal. Right now we only have an exploration end-goal of slaying the dragon.
Yeah, the *player* saving the villages. Not the player *sitting atop the village wall as they watch their villagers be sent out to die so the player doesn't have to take any risks.*
Just like with iron golems lol? What if the player wants to sit on a tower and have villagers he recruited fight for him? Is that a wrong way to play a sandbox game lol?
I mean, it appears the devs would argue there is, so...
And what is that argument?
Well, read the thread.
There you go, you don't know what you're even arguing for because you only know how to parrot. If you mean they want pacifist villagers, my suggestion already addressed it.
Alright. The main argument against your point is that the devs have outright stated that they will never add fighting villagers. However, this reply isn't good enough for you, as seen by your response:
"As I pointed out above, villagers can still be pacifist. In that case, you can only make villager soldiers out of, say cured zombie villagers/Illagers. Or add different villager cultures where some are pacifist and others are not."
They all refuse to acknowledge that Mojang has outright stated on the Feedback site that villagers are passive. Not just in their category but by choice. Illagers are violent villagers. They are entirely different. Mojang has not stated that villagers won't naturally be violent. They have stated, and I quote,
"Villagers are pacifists. They don't want to fight. This is why golems exist. (Let's improve golems!) Villagers do not want to be guards, knights, soldiers, fighters, defenders, warriors, or protectors."
Since that idea is never going to happen, no matter how many times you make arbitrary points about "player freedom" and how mods aren't good enough, I'd recommend refocusing the post on one of the other aspects. Naturally, illagers aren't likely to take up arms in defense of villagers. And piglins will just zombify. However, piglin mercenaries could have interesting implications for Nether villages. I'd handle it some way like this:
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
Haha, wow. Just, wow. No, I do know what I'm arguing for, I just would have hoped that by now you'd actually know! It just amazes me. It's not like it hasn't been repeated and spoon fed to you so many times that I'm surprised you didn't choke on it!
I think this is a good start at least with a compromise so we can have a role-play/creation end goal for people who prefer the role-play and creative aspects of minecraft more than exploration. But I would also like an overworld village with defenders. Like I said, they can add a new villager type that are willing to defend. My argument for cured villager/Illagers willing to defend villagers is because after we cure Villager/Illager zombies, they don't remember their past since they lived as brain-dead zombies for so long. So they follow you and fight for you and your village.
You've heard that Mojang does not want to do the thing you are asking Mojang to do about 10 times now, and it clearly hasn't had much impact. By the way, the piglins are just going to turn into Zombified Piglins once they reach the overworld.
It would be too easy if villagers could defend themselves, that is your challenge and role as the player, who causes monsters to appear by loading in a village. Not to mention the Battle Royale-esque environment of soldiers fighting soldiers would take away from the game's theme and category and take away attention from other parts of Minecraft.
You already have hostile mercenaries with piglin brutes and illagers.
I'm just going to say. I did a fair bit of librarian trade rerolling in singleplayer last week. If you trade with a villager, zombify it, then cure it, the newly-cured villager will still have the same trades and trade EXP. So I don't think that what you said here is the case.
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.