I thought everyone else already covered those reasons. Regardless, I will give you less flimsy criticism then. Why is zombies breaking blocks a bad idea? Because the game kinda revolves around building, and some of us could do without zombies constantly punching our houses. Why do I say that people would turn this off? To simply not have their houses being burdened by these zombies. What more reasoning do you need? Aren't Creepers enough when it comes to home destruction? Zombies can already break through doors.
Is this your way of worming out of incoming arguments? You're gonna be waiting a long time. Mods don't have the time to go through each thread and clean them out. When you make a suggestion thread, you're gonna have to learn to take some hits.
"Option", "Limited to higher difficulty", "Traps", "Defenses", "Fighting"...All perfectly valid ways to avoid your house being ruined. The first two even avoid this altogether. Honestly, have none of you read those parts of the OP? If you don't want it, avoid it. Options: They're sort of what sandboxes are all about.
And no, that's my way of saying "Some guy cluttered my thread with spam, I reported it, and now I'm going to wait until it's cleaned out before returning because I don't like meaningless clutter."
...No disrespect but can anyone here read? From the instant I typed the OP, I included the provision that it would be optional, either via being a difficulty-exclusive feature or a world-gen toggle. And yet the only thing I hear is "I don't want my house destroyed!" - Okay. Don't play with the option then. [/offline]
It is an interesting but depressing reality that most politicians are just regular people with power. And most people would be as bad as politicians if only they could get some power.
Traps... Now that's hard with the zombies new AI. I like the, being in a horde, but having the, ruining your structures at a fast rate is RIDICULOUS! Fighting..... well, when you have to face several hordes of zombies working togheter, well that's hard. Plus, you probably will face outside interference from other mobs. Option..... Now, the next you know, you call us all wimpy noobs cause we refuse to have tems of griefers on our world hacking away at our houses, and soon lots of people will be called wimpy, no..... Just no. I know we have options, but soon challenges are gonna have turn the option on, and people will call us wimpy for not letting in the hordes of griefers. So your "option" thingy will be useless in the face of insults and taunts cause we didn't let in the armies of grifters and have the creations that we spent hours wrecked. NO! Just.... Request it as a mod, end of discussion.
That isn't how public forums work. Get over yourself.
And I'd be more inclined to call you a wimp for letting the taunts of meaningless people get to you. And if you do that, it's your problem. The "option thingy" is only useless if you refuse to use it. Criticism invalidated.
Traps aren't hard. The zombie AI (which barely changes from the old AI, far as I've tested it) wouldn't make them hard. If it does, revise your traps. Planning: It's a thing.
Hordes working together or interference from other mobs would just require some strafing and dodging between murdering them, same as dealing with any multi-mob battle. And several at once wouldn't likely be a common event anyway.
It's hard? Deal with it. Lots of things are hard. It's called difficulty and games (among many other things) have it.
And as for the rest of that...If you're honestly THAT worried that you might be called wimpy, just go live in a cave right now. Seriously, that has got to be the most pathetic reasoning I've heard for anything anywhere.
Anyway, all your opinions were invalidated when you chose to stop using your brain cells earlier. Who cares what you think? I'll leave it to worthwhile people to criticize my ideas, thank you.
It is an interesting but depressing reality that most politicians are just regular people with power. And most people would be as bad as politicians if only they could get some power.
Problem: You can just build 2 or 3 blocks up from the ground (floating houses!) and be invulnerable in this situation.
Also, zombies shouldn't be able to break through stone. Wood should take a while, but stone should be impossible.
The player can punch through stone because of Gameplay And Story Segregation. Zombies being able to do it would make building impossible.
Problem or defensive measure? If people choose that method, more power to them. I have a floating house above the ocean.
Gameplay and story segregation has nothing to do with anything because Minecraft has no story. Nice TVTropes reference though. It'll ruin your life, ya know.
If the player can do it, there's no reason zombies can't. And don't use the "They're rotting" excuse because they can still do everything else fine despite that.
Building would still be possible. Buildings would simply require fortification and/or defensive measures (stronger material choices, traps, trenches, etcetera). And even that would be optional if it were limited to Hardcore or something, as would suit such a difficult element.
It is an interesting but depressing reality that most politicians are just regular people with power. And most people would be as bad as politicians if only they could get some power.
"Option", "Limited to higher difficulty", "Traps", "Defenses", "Fighting"...All perfectly valid ways to avoid your house being ruined.
You know what would be much easier? Not having zombies **** with blocks in the first place. I'm surprised you didn't just scrap that part of your idea altogether, because no one seems to like it. And no amount of rationalization can circumvent this. Hence the "people would just turn this off" comments Zippy has been saying.
Yes, it's a toggle option, but why even bother implementing it if the majority would keep it off just to have their houses left alone? Apart from the "it's an option" thing, we don't wanna keep making traps or limit ourselves to certain difficulties just because Mojang decided to make zombies **** with blocks.
Let's look at another scenario. A person can just build his house a few blocks off the ground where a zombie can't reach, making their grouping and block breaking useless. Now the player has a nice group of zombies bunched close together he can kill for easy XP, which can be done anyway, with or without your idea.
Edit: Oh wow, someone else posted the off-the-ground house part I was typing this. Oh well.
You know, I would never play with this option on, but if it would satisfy all the "hardcore survival to the max" people so they stopped complaining I'd be okay with it. However I am put off by your tone - insulting people who want to play the game differently only puts them on the defensive, thus less likely to be okay with your suggestion.
You know what would be much easier? Not having zombies **** with blocks in the first place. I'm surprised you didn't just scrap that part of your idea altogether, because no one seems to like it. And no amount of rationalization can circumvent this. Hence the "people would just turn this off" comments Zippy has been saying.
Yes, it's a toggle option, but why even bother implementing it if the majority would keep it off just to have their houses left alone? Apart from the "it's an option" thing, we don't wanna keep making traps or limit ourselves to certain difficulties just because Mojang decided to make zombies **** with blocks.
Let's look at another scenario. A person can just build his house a few blocks off the ground where a zombie can't reach, making their grouping and block breaking useless. Now the player has a nice group of zombies bunched close together he can kill for easy XP, which can be done anyway, with or without your idea.
Edit: Oh wow, someone else posted the off-the-ground house part I was typing this. Oh well.
It'd be easier to never add anything to the game at all. If your logic were followed, Minecraft wouldn't ever evolve because "it's easier not to add stuff I don't like". And that scenario is irrelevant to anything here. People can and do always find ways to exploit features for easy stuff. Why bother with it? Because people want it: You're just not one of them. Minecraft is a sandbox game and sandboxes are all about options. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. But for those who would want it, just telling them "Why bother?" is just selfish and stubborn. Minecraft. Sandbox. Options.
You know, I would never play with this option on, but if it would satisfy all the "hardcore survival to the max" people so they stopped complaining I'd be okay with it. However I am put off by your tone - insulting people who want to play the game differently only puts them on the defensive, thus less likely to be okay with your suggestion.
Who have I insulted for wanting to play differently?
It is an interesting but depressing reality that most politicians are just regular people with power. And most people would be as bad as politicians if only they could get some power.
You know, I would never play with this option on, but if it would satisfy people I'd be okay with it.
Ding, ding ding!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is an interesting but depressing reality that most politicians are just regular people with power. And most people would be as bad as politicians if only they could get some power.
It'd be easier to never add anything to the game at all. If your logic were followed, Minecraft wouldn't ever evolve because "it's easier not to add stuff I don't like".
God damn, I have never seen anyone defend a suggestion this much. No, that wasn't my "logic". You don't have to get furious and defensive over every post that doesn't favor your suggestion. You've also been taking a LOT of posts out of context. I don't blame you for defending yourself, but you did go overboard with some posts.
I wasn't saying "it's easier not to add stuff I don't like", and I'm a little sickened that you assumed that. There's a lot of things in the game I don't like, but that doesn't mean I want them removed. Just because Creepers often annoy me doesn't mean I want Mojang to scrap them or reduce their spawns. Just because Ghasts annoy me doesn't mean I want Mojang to remove their cry sounds or nerf their fireballs. Those two mobs may burden me, but I know deep down that they fit quite well in the game's long run.
I'm just saying your idea might land better without the block breaking part.
I wasn't saying "it's easier not to add stuff I don't like"
I'm just saying your idea might land better without the block breaking part.
"You know what would be much easier? Not having zombies **** with blocks in the first place." - Maybe not but it sure sounds that way on this end..
And that may be. But that would ruin the point of the suggestion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is an interesting but depressing reality that most politicians are just regular people with power. And most people would be as bad as politicians if only they could get some power.
If this is implemented, I believe that practically no-one will use it. People just want a nice wooden house sitting on a hill! Why elevate it? Why make traps? I know minecraft isn't just about building, but if other aspects of the game potentially RUIN building then it's just no. It is an option, right? But options should not be totally game changing things, like you shouldn't be able to switch from normal to hardcore mid-game. Options is for MINOR things. Big things are left for mods. What would you feel like if there was an option on the screen to let you allow creepers spawn in any light level 2x more than normal? IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I haven't even bought MineCraft, I don't have the money...
If this is implemented, I believe that practically no-one will use it. People just want a nice wooden house sitting on a hill! Why elevate it? Why make traps? I know minecraft isn't just about building, but if other aspects of the game potentially RUIN building then it's just no. It is an option, right? But options should not be totally game changing things, like you shouldn't be able to switch from normal to hardcore mid-game. Options is for MINOR things. Big things are left for mods. What would you feel like if there was an option on the screen to let you allow creepers spawn in any light level 2x more than normal? IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT!
Game-changing? It's altering how zombies spawn and giving them a new ability.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It is an interesting but depressing reality that most politicians are just regular people with power. And most people would be as bad as politicians if only they could get some power.
Game-changing? It's altering how zombies spawn and giving them a new ability.
Yeah, let's make creepers be able to track down your home and use magic powers to make it disappear. It's not game changing. It's giving them a new ability.
Maybe if it's only limited to dirt, sand and gravel, but letting zombies tear through your wooden shack is terrible.
Great idea (first post) but zombies take lots of time
to break stuff and the time depends on difficulty setting
and make lots of noose and cracks appear so that your alerted of it
Great idea (first post) but zombies take lots of time
to break stuff and the time depends on difficulty setting
and make lots of noose and cracks appear so that your alerted of it
The cracks would appear similarly to when the player breaks the block. Standard zombie noises, maybe add a clawing sound.
Yes, because mobs destroying player structures worked out so well before... (It didn't.)
I'd simply build my things two blocks above the ground and get there with a long jump from a two-block high staircase. Boom, my stuff is safe from zombies, now this feature is officially just annoying and discourages building.
>Idea encourages defensive building.
>"This feature discourages building."
Right...
And if you make your stuff safe, how exactly could this annoy? It wouldn't affect you then.
Anyway, just avoid the option if you don't want them doing this.
It is an interesting but depressing reality that most politicians are just regular people with power. And most people would be as bad as politicians if only they could get some power.
I love this. I want to be forced to rebuild my house due to a zombie raid. I honestly do, I'm not being sarcastic. I want mobs to break my windows, torch my wooden walls, mine out my stone foundation, and do their absolute best to mess up my ****. Because I like rebuilding stuff, especially, when I can learn from my past mistakes, and rebuild something better.
We need a list of building materials that progressively get better and better. Wood is pretty weak and catches fire easily, cobblestone stone is moderately strong and requires a few solid hits to shatter, smooth stone is stronger than cobble, etc.
And also, some enemies that "evolve". Like, obtaining random traits such as "fire resistance" (with accompanying visual effects) as time goes on so I as a player am forced to evolve and get better and actually ****ing progress.
Combat of course needs to be improved as you already understand and have pointed out.
People playing Minecraft solely to build should play the mode made for building i.e. creative mode. People playing Minecraft for the full experience, which includes surviving and growing as a player should play survival mode.
Difficulty should not bloat mobs health values and damage outputs, and instead should steadily increase the tactics mobs use and decrease the practically of things the higher the setting is. And hardcore should be a difficulty setting, not a world type. Hardcore should have all the mobs aggro'd and ready to ruin your day. On easy or peaceful, a majority of the mobs should only arise to be hostile when the player comes in close contact with them. (they shouldn't only retaliate when attacked because that's extremely easy)
Sorry, just rambling. Like your ideas. This wouldn't hurt one bit if added, considering it'd probably only work on a high difficulty setting, and people who wouldn't want to deal with destructive mobs could play on creative or survival with the difficulty set to peaceful, easy, or normal.
Exactly: People who want to focus on building pretty things should stick to Peaceful which was designed for that purpose. Easy to Hard mode are even there if they want a little risk added to it. That's four different difficulty settings to suit them and yet god forbid anything be added to suit the player seeking a real survival experience.
"I don't want my house broken" is not a valid criticism when it's limited to a higher difficulty specifically to assuage those complaints...Though judging from the complaints, they don't seem to want to bother accommodating anyone else so maybe I should just remove the optional provision and tell them all to go suck it. The lesson here seems to be "Nobody will compromise so don't ****ing bother trying to do so yourself".
As to your views on Hardcore mode, a thought occurs that Hardcore could alternatively be a number of optional settings to tailor the survival aspect to one's preference: Things like this suggestion, thirst, temperature, the delete-world-upon-death thing, etcetera (basically all the harder survival possibilities that wouldn't necessarily fit into or be appreciated in lower difficulties) could be toggled prior to generation of a Hardcore-level world for custom-tailored difficulty. But now I'm getting off my own topic...
It is an interesting but depressing reality that most politicians are just regular people with power. And most people would be as bad as politicians if only they could get some power.
No, when I said it discourages building, that's how I feel about it, so don't effin' "correct my opinion".
Your opinion was wrong. If it encourages defensive building then it does not "discourage building". Be more specific next time and I won't have to correct you. And while we're on the subject, just say "****ing" or else don't even bother. "Effin" doesn't make it any less profane, just a lot more ridiculous that you're trying to swear without swearing.
It does not necessarily discourage building pretty things either. You just need to put a little thought into it. Plenty of great-looking architecture in the real world is designed for defense. Layer the construction to sandwich defenses between aesthetic blocks. Place traps around your house that can protect it without the need to change your home. Adaptation.
You wouldn't HAVE to do anything. If you build a house like that, it's your choice. There are plenty of ways to protect your buildings without making them float, the most obvious being "stay off hardcore difficulty because you're clearly not after a hardcore experience".
Survival is about staying alive, not pretty design. If your focus is on building, that's why Peaceful mode exists: To focus on building. And why should Peaceful or Easy mode even exist when this can't? You "We wanna build pretty stuff and never have a major survival need!" players get accommodated and the other side doesn't?
For that matter, let's scrap Creative mode too because why the hell would people want to just have infinite resources in their inventory? Screw them, I want to work for my stuff. That's the logical end result of all this "It's bad and shouldn't be added because I wouldn't personally like it even though it's totally optional!" crap you lot are giving me.
Learn to ****ing compromise. How many of you are on hardcore difficulty anyway given the obsessive fear of losing your houses?
I find it very telling that I'm making efforts to accommodate your desired playstyle and yet all you lot are doing is wailing about mine being bad and unwanted despite being entirely optional. You people are what ruin games.
It is an interesting but depressing reality that most politicians are just regular people with power. And most people would be as bad as politicians if only they could get some power.
"Option", "Limited to higher difficulty", "Traps", "Defenses", "Fighting"...All perfectly valid ways to avoid your house being ruined. The first two even avoid this altogether. Honestly, have none of you read those parts of the OP? If you don't want it, avoid it. Options: They're sort of what sandboxes are all about.
And no, that's my way of saying "Some guy cluttered my thread with spam, I reported it, and now I'm going to wait until it's cleaned out before returning because I don't like meaningless clutter."
...No disrespect but can anyone here read? From the instant I typed the OP, I included the provision that it would be optional, either via being a difficulty-exclusive feature or a world-gen toggle. And yet the only thing I hear is "I don't want my house destroyed!" - Okay. Don't play with the option then. [/offline]
That isn't how public forums work. Get over yourself.
And I'd be more inclined to call you a wimp for letting the taunts of meaningless people get to you. And if you do that, it's your problem. The "option thingy" is only useless if you refuse to use it. Criticism invalidated.
Traps aren't hard. The zombie AI (which barely changes from the old AI, far as I've tested it) wouldn't make them hard. If it does, revise your traps. Planning: It's a thing.
Hordes working together or interference from other mobs would just require some strafing and dodging between murdering them, same as dealing with any multi-mob battle. And several at once wouldn't likely be a common event anyway.
It's hard? Deal with it. Lots of things are hard. It's called difficulty and games (among many other things) have it.
And as for the rest of that...If you're honestly THAT worried that you might be called wimpy, just go live in a cave right now. Seriously, that has got to be the most pathetic reasoning I've heard for anything anywhere.
Anyway, all your opinions were invalidated when you chose to stop using your brain cells earlier. Who cares what you think? I'll leave it to worthwhile people to criticize my ideas, thank you.
Also, zombies shouldn't be able to break through stone. Wood should take a while, but stone should be impossible.
The player can punch through stone because of Gameplay And Story Segregation. Zombies being able to do it would make building impossible.
Problem or defensive measure? If people choose that method, more power to them. I have a floating house above the ocean.
Gameplay and story segregation has nothing to do with anything because Minecraft has no story. Nice TVTropes reference though. It'll ruin your life, ya know.
If the player can do it, there's no reason zombies can't. And don't use the "They're rotting" excuse because they can still do everything else fine despite that.
Building would still be possible. Buildings would simply require fortification and/or defensive measures (stronger material choices, traps, trenches, etcetera). And even that would be optional if it were limited to Hardcore or something, as would suit such a difficult element.
You know what would be much easier? Not having zombies **** with blocks in the first place. I'm surprised you didn't just scrap that part of your idea altogether, because no one seems to like it. And no amount of rationalization can circumvent this. Hence the "people would just turn this off" comments Zippy has been saying.
Yes, it's a toggle option, but why even bother implementing it if the majority would keep it off just to have their houses left alone? Apart from the "it's an option" thing, we don't wanna keep making traps or limit ourselves to certain difficulties just because Mojang decided to make zombies **** with blocks.
Let's look at another scenario. A person can just build his house a few blocks off the ground where a zombie can't reach, making their grouping and block breaking useless. Now the player has a nice group of zombies bunched close together he can kill for easy XP, which can be done anyway, with or without your idea.
Edit: Oh wow, someone else posted the off-the-ground house part I was typing this. Oh well.
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
It'd be easier to never add anything to the game at all. If your logic were followed, Minecraft wouldn't ever evolve because "it's easier not to add stuff I don't like". And that scenario is irrelevant to anything here. People can and do always find ways to exploit features for easy stuff. Why bother with it? Because people want it: You're just not one of them. Minecraft is a sandbox game and sandboxes are all about options. If you don't like it, you don't have to use it. But for those who would want it, just telling them "Why bother?" is just selfish and stubborn. Minecraft. Sandbox. Options.
Who have I insulted for wanting to play differently?
Ding, ding ding!
God damn, I have never seen anyone defend a suggestion this much. No, that wasn't my "logic". You don't have to get furious and defensive over every post that doesn't favor your suggestion. You've also been taking a LOT of posts out of context. I don't blame you for defending yourself, but you did go overboard with some posts.
I wasn't saying "it's easier not to add stuff I don't like", and I'm a little sickened that you assumed that. There's a lot of things in the game I don't like, but that doesn't mean I want them removed. Just because Creepers often annoy me doesn't mean I want Mojang to scrap them or reduce their spawns. Just because Ghasts annoy me doesn't mean I want Mojang to remove their cry sounds or nerf their fireballs. Those two mobs may burden me, but I know deep down that they fit quite well in the game's long run.
I'm just saying your idea might land better without the block breaking part.
The Unofficial Suggestion Guide - Everything you need to know to not make goofy mistakes in a suggestion! Honestly though, you should really go there.
"You know what would be much easier? Not having zombies **** with blocks in the first place." - Maybe not but it sure sounds that way on this end..
And that may be. But that would ruin the point of the suggestion.
Game-changing? It's altering how zombies spawn and giving them a new ability.
Yeah, let's make creepers be able to track down your home and use magic powers to make it disappear. It's not game changing. It's giving them a new ability.
Maybe if it's only limited to dirt, sand and gravel, but letting zombies tear through your wooden shack is terrible.
to break stuff and the time depends on difficulty setting
and make lots of noose and cracks appear so that your alerted of it
The cracks would appear similarly to when the player breaks the block. Standard zombie noises, maybe add a clawing sound.
>Idea encourages defensive building.
>"This feature discourages building."
Right...
And if you make your stuff safe, how exactly could this annoy? It wouldn't affect you then.
Anyway, just avoid the option if you don't want them doing this.
We need a list of building materials that progressively get better and better. Wood is pretty weak and catches fire easily, cobblestone stone is moderately strong and requires a few solid hits to shatter, smooth stone is stronger than cobble, etc.
And also, some enemies that "evolve". Like, obtaining random traits such as "fire resistance" (with accompanying visual effects) as time goes on so I as a player am forced to evolve and get better and actually ****ing progress.
Combat of course needs to be improved as you already understand and have pointed out.
People playing Minecraft solely to build should play the mode made for building i.e. creative mode. People playing Minecraft for the full experience, which includes surviving and growing as a player should play survival mode.
Difficulty should not bloat mobs health values and damage outputs, and instead should steadily increase the tactics mobs use and decrease the practically of things the higher the setting is. And hardcore should be a difficulty setting, not a world type. Hardcore should have all the mobs aggro'd and ready to ruin your day. On easy or peaceful, a majority of the mobs should only arise to be hostile when the player comes in close contact with them. (they shouldn't only retaliate when attacked because that's extremely easy)
Sorry, just rambling. Like your ideas. This wouldn't hurt one bit if added, considering it'd probably only work on a high difficulty setting, and people who wouldn't want to deal with destructive mobs could play on creative or survival with the difficulty set to peaceful, easy, or normal.
Exactly: People who want to focus on building pretty things should stick to Peaceful which was designed for that purpose. Easy to Hard mode are even there if they want a little risk added to it. That's four different difficulty settings to suit them and yet god forbid anything be added to suit the player seeking a real survival experience.
"I don't want my house broken" is not a valid criticism when it's limited to a higher difficulty specifically to assuage those complaints...Though judging from the complaints, they don't seem to want to bother accommodating anyone else so maybe I should just remove the optional provision and tell them all to go suck it. The lesson here seems to be "Nobody will compromise so don't ****ing bother trying to do so yourself".
As to your views on Hardcore mode, a thought occurs that Hardcore could alternatively be a number of optional settings to tailor the survival aspect to one's preference: Things like this suggestion, thirst, temperature, the delete-world-upon-death thing, etcetera (basically all the harder survival possibilities that wouldn't necessarily fit into or be appreciated in lower difficulties) could be toggled prior to generation of a Hardcore-level world for custom-tailored difficulty. But now I'm getting off my own topic...
Your opinion was wrong. If it encourages defensive building then it does not "discourage building". Be more specific next time and I won't have to correct you. And while we're on the subject, just say "****ing" or else don't even bother. "Effin" doesn't make it any less profane, just a lot more ridiculous that you're trying to swear without swearing.
It does not necessarily discourage building pretty things either. You just need to put a little thought into it. Plenty of great-looking architecture in the real world is designed for defense. Layer the construction to sandwich defenses between aesthetic blocks. Place traps around your house that can protect it without the need to change your home. Adaptation.
You wouldn't HAVE to do anything. If you build a house like that, it's your choice. There are plenty of ways to protect your buildings without making them float, the most obvious being "stay off hardcore difficulty because you're clearly not after a hardcore experience".
Survival is about staying alive, not pretty design. If your focus is on building, that's why Peaceful mode exists: To focus on building. And why should Peaceful or Easy mode even exist when this can't? You "We wanna build pretty stuff and never have a major survival need!" players get accommodated and the other side doesn't?
For that matter, let's scrap Creative mode too because why the hell would people want to just have infinite resources in their inventory? Screw them, I want to work for my stuff. That's the logical end result of all this "It's bad and shouldn't be added because I wouldn't personally like it even though it's totally optional!" crap you lot are giving me.
Learn to ****ing compromise. How many of you are on hardcore difficulty anyway given the obsessive fear of losing your houses?
I find it very telling that I'm making efforts to accommodate your desired playstyle and yet all you lot are doing is wailing about mine being bad and unwanted despite being entirely optional. You people are what ruin games.