• 0

    posted a message on Guidelines for the Suggestions Forum
    Quote from Chameleonred5»

    This is true whether or not I go out of my way to try and appease feelings they may or may not have. In my case, I would actually be more irritated with your way of dancing about then if you just told me things straight. But I take responsibility for my own feelings. I prevent myself from grouching at you out of irritation. Because how I react is my own fault, not yours. So I'm not going to tell you how to talk.

    Notice that in my example, I did not "dance around the problem." I still told the person what was wrong with his suggestion and didn't make the problems seem less than they were. I just balanced it out by not going full "Your suggestion has issues, and here's what they are." Obviously, you aren't fully responsible for what a person does because of what you told them, but that does not excuse you for not trying to avoid such problems from occurring.

    So long as I don't mean to offend, then yes. If they get upset and start yelling at me, I'll let them know I meant no offense, but that's about it. Their emotions are theirs to control. I'm not going to treat them like animals that may bite me and can be coerced with treats.

    You can't treat people like they don't deserve any respect either. If you were to accidently injure someone as part of a harmless prank, just telling them it was just a prank won't somehow make it all better and absolve you from any blame.

    I generally do highlight positives and negatives. Unfortunately I come across a lot of suggestions that lack one way or another, or have very little in the way of stand-out qualities or discussion value. If there are more negatives than positives, that will stand out. If I don't think there are positives and you do, it will seem to you like I'm only telling you what's bad about it. And no matter how reasonable a person I can be, getting a low grade doesn't make anyone happy.

    It is within your rights to hold my criticism as lesser for any reason, even if they are irrational reasons.

    Bashing a suggestion I believe would be "flaming," which is against the rules. I don't need to follow a format to avoid doing it.

    To bash means to strike with a smashing or crushing blow. Regardless of whether you are flaming, focusing purely on negatives is bashing.
    Quote from yoshi9048»

    The big issue here is the assumption that direct and tactless is somehow an ineffective or non-helpful method. I get that you find a tactful approach to be more encouraged (who wouldn't); but I'd like to see some metrics or something that isn't anecdotes to convince me that there aren't other methods.

    What works for you may not work on another poster.

    Look, being direct and tactless isn't ineffective. It's just generally not the most effective way in my experience.

    Consider this scenario: two twins, Bob and Rob, are working the same position at the same job but have two different managers. They are both given the same assignment and made the same exact mistakes. Bob's manager yells at him and says that his report sucked, he produced false information, and he misspelled a couple of terms. Rob's manager sits down with him privately and tells him good job for getting it in early, but that he made a couple of misquotes and used the acronym MTD instead of YTD in several locations. He then ends by telling him that he trusts him to learn from his mistakes and do better next time. Regardless of the personality, background, and maturity of the two employees, who do you think is more likely to learn from his mistake and do better next time? Who is more likely to quit? While either of them could do either, Rob's manager would have to be considered more effective at criticism.

    Possibility? Near certainty. Critics are people, people make mistakes. If you're going to be a critic and are going to speak with any air of authority; it's on you to fact-check. If you don't do a fact check; or if you speak out both sides of your mouth; be prepared to be criticized yourself.

    A critic is meant to work with a suggester to improve the suggestion; if someone brings in misinformation; it's up to a critic to correct the assertion.

    I'm beginning to think that people are attributing a bipartisan opposition concept to suggesters and critics. Critics are not supposed to oppose suggesters; they're supposed to work with them. While people continue to insist that suggesters and critics are opponents; they will remain opponents. You're supposed to be on the same team.

    With this granted, sometimes you just don't like a suggestion. That doesn't mean you should dislike the poster; but that you wouldn't want to see the suggestion implemented in Vanilla MC. If you don't like a suggestion; sometimes you won't see anything redeeming about it. But your voice shouldn't be silenced because you can't lump some good with the bad. Listing what are problems and why is constructive criticism. OP doesn't have to like it.

    Which is why, like anything else, you practice. It may sound weird to practice optimism, but it can be acquired as a skill. You may have difficulty, or even find it impossible, to find anything good with the suggestion, but you should always at least try, and you'll get better at it.

    Which is awesome. It speaks to you and your mindset; but it doesn't speak to the community as a whole. Different strokes for different folks, yo!

    While you may value the criticism less (which is your right); it doesn't mean another suggester would hold it less valuable.

    I consider myself, and I hope many of you do too, to be a mature suggester on this forum. Most people who make suggestions on this forum are not, however, so they are even less likely to respond to criticism filled with only negative criticism. I'm sure there are a handful of people who wouldn't consider it less valuable, but it is a very small handful, and no one likes having their suggestion shot at.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Better Climbing: Could I please actually hold on to the ladder?
    Quote from Djarogames»

    The current system is good, no support


    Like I said, it's fine, but it could be better. There's no problem with trying to improve something.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 2

    posted a message on combat in 1.9 good or bad?
    Quote from Chameleonred5»

    I didn't mean all of them haven't bothered to learn. Some of them may not have after barely learning anything about it, which is why it's included. But many are simply attached to weird quirks/glitches/exploits of 1.8, like this guy...

    ...on top of spreading misinformation like "1.9 was designed to suit newbies." That's one misconception that would upset people into not playing it, because obviously if you like 1.9 combat you're a newbie. Illogical, yes, but most of this nonsense is illogical. If they could forget this junk, there'd be no issue. Now obviously the people who speak online are the most vocal ones, but I think if there were any real reason that 1.9 was bad that actually made sense, and wasn't anything like the misinformation or bizarre 1.8 attachment, it would've come up by now.

    It has come up: the community split. However, most of people's dislike for 1.9 is fine. So what if they liked 1.8 because of spam-clicking and "techniques". It's just as wrong to demand they like a feature as it is for them to complain about it.


    The absence of such things would seem to indicate that my statement is correct. The reason the majority don't like it is because of misconceptions and weird attachments to unintended mechanics.


    Just because we don't definitively know the objective value of good and bad for 1.9 does not mean there is not one, or that it's all subjective.

    There's a difference between my opinion and whether or not it's good. For example, I can like something that is bad and hate something that is good. My personal opinion makes no difference. For example, I hate 1.6. But that doesn't mean it was a bad update.

    So, how do we know whether 1.6 was good? By judging the aftermath, in which you can see that there was no problem with the game (in fact, I believe interest in the game was at its peak around that time), where the game was going, and the community's reaction to it.

    Positives? How about just an honest analysis. The combat system makes things more challenging simply by its objective nature. It makes it so that missing has consequences. It removes exploits and glitches of 1.8. Even if it does make fighting hoards a little more difficult, and overpowering players harder, it does not require an insane level of skill to learn to handle, and the ability of players to manipulate the environment can make most situations that truly are too difficult a non-issue. The saturation-rapid-healing can lead to certain specific problematic situations. However these issues are worth it simply because you can no longer be an invincible pest-control agent who uses poorly-designed vending machines by clicking on them.

    Yeah, I'd agree with you. It does require more skill, and I find it more fun. However, just making the game require more skill does not make it objectively better. And, by the way, I'm still just as much as an invincible pest-control agent as before, though I've never bothered with vending machines because farms remove fun.

    And even if you don't consider just that last bit worth it, the negatives aren't necessarily game-breakers. You can still basically play the game normally with some minor irritations. So there is no reason not to update and to also adamantly be against getting the good content, as well as bug fixes, further updates, and the ability to stay with friends on an updated server... unless you're misinformed as to what you're getting, or none of the rest of these things appeal to you. And I doubt the whole of 40% of players don't see an appeal, given that such a division has never occurred before.

    You still haven't given a good objective reason for why it's good, other than it requires more skill, to which I say, it really doesn't, it just requires a different set of skills.

    However, Minecraft Forum is not a really reliable source. Heck, many people in other forum said it was famous until 2012.You should also add a survey on other server that are still alive (Hypixel, Badlion, Calamity Network, etc).

    An those who said that the combat is more realistic. realistic combat in a virtual 16 bit sandbox game is not a good update.


    Servers for the most part don't have a large enough or varied enough sample size to be reliable sources either, which is what MCF does have. The best option would be a third party survey that got at least 1,000 votes, but I'm not sure if one exists.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 1

    posted a message on combat in 1.9 good or bad?
    Quote from Chameleonred5»

    It's ruined for them solely because they believe it's ruined, not because it's actually bad.

    If they'd put aside their misconceptions, learn to use the system, and stop bringing up the glitches and exploits of 1.8 as "good things" (they are not), a huge chunk of them would be enjoying 1.9.

    Can you give me any evidence of this, such as some poster who has actually done this and started to enjoy 1.9, than simply pointing what may or may not be true? And even then, how do you know a large chunk of these people haven't bothered to try to learn the new system? Unless you've become some mass telepath, your statement saying they would enjoy 1.9 has no real evidence and is thus invalid.

    Obviously, it's only ruined for them because they believe so. There's no real way to say whether it's objectively good or bad; it's all a matter of opinion. Most just have the opinion it's good, but have just as much evidence to prove it as the those who say it's bad. You can't say whether something's good or not based purely on a bunch of opinions. If a country made a law that immensely improved the economy and the way of life for all of its inhabitants, but most people hated it, was it a bad law? Or the inverse, a law that made stealing legal, and everyone loved it, was that a good law? People's minds are flawed, and just because the majority believes something does not make it true.

    What we can measure objectively is the aftermath. Minecraft's PC sales are still going strong (though without historical data I can't say whether or not it has improved or worsened since 1.9), but servers definitely seem to be suffering, with their general quantity decreasing and many staying pre-1.9. Many people are refusing to update past 1.9 despite the fact that the cooldown can be negated with commands and that they'd like to enjoy the more recent features. There are arguments being brought up about reverting this feature than any other feature in Minecraft's history, even hunger, if memory serves me right (granted, this forum has grown since then). What positives can you bring up, other than "it adds skill and challenge," which is pretty subjective and can't be measured objectively?
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on Guidelines for the Suggestions Forum
    Quote from Chameleonred5»

    I am not going out of my way to make someone feel good about problems, and I'm not going to soften my words. If they are going to think with their emotions instead of with their reason, that's on them, not on me. It is their responsibility to put aside any irritation or upset over my manner of speaking, and do what is in their own best interest.


    It is not my responsibility to make sure they feel good about themselves. What I can do is understand that there is a person on the other side of the screen and not intend any offense. If they self-destruct because I wasn't positive about their jet engine suggestion, that's on them.


    If you want to be effective and helpful to the suggester, sometimes one does have to set aside their pride and speak in a more tactful manner. It doesn't matter whether they speak with reason or emotion; without truly knowing the person you won't know their agenda, and there's always the possibility that the critic's reasoning is flawed. Acting like this is similar to saying "I can talk to anyone however I feel like it, and they just have to deal with it."

    Giving constructive criticism by highlighting both the positives and the negatives does not aim to make them feel good. It aims to let the suggester know what is wrong with his suggestion while minimizing the risk of reasonable offense. For example, if you were to go onto one of my suggestions and tell me everything bad about it and nothing else, I'd probably get upset. I would think that I'd be mature enough not to start flaming at you, but in my anger I would hold your criticism less valuable than someone who both pointed out what they liked and disliked and might even ignore it entirely. Obviously, you don't know what will offend anyone in particular, but there are some general things you can try to avoid, such as bashing a suggestion.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on UPDATE minecraft FiniteWater mod ( Awsome water mod)

    So, are you suggesting that this mod be implemented into vanilla Minecraft? While it looks like a cool mod, you should come up with your own suggestion instead of just saying to implement this.

    Posted in: Tutorials
  • 1

    posted a message on combat in 1.9 good or bad?
    Quote from DrWeegee»

    >snip<

    Yes, it would be a mistake to revert the combat changes now, since it's already long established and the majority do enjoy it. If it truly was a mistake, it's too late to fix, and Mojang will have to live with it. However, ruining the combat experience for nearly 40% of players does indicate that the combat update was probably not the best way to fix the mechanic.

    Yeah, people have quieted down because they've learned to deal with it, but that doesn't mean they accept it, or that the aftermath of the combat update is any better.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on Guidelines for the Suggestions Forum
    Quote from yoshi9048»

    Just as you don't want to strap a suggester down to a specific way of creating a suggestion; you don't want to strap a critic down to a specific way of providing feedback.


    Which is why I kept my format pretty minimalistic. I could go into more detail, but starting and ending on a positive note, and having the middle be more negative, helps to convince the OP.


    We're not all plucky and bubbly; and shouldn't be expected to be.



    Well, of course not. You can still be polite and respectful and not be "plucky and bubbly," as you put it.


    While I personally advocate including positives; some people are just blunt; and there is nothing wrong with that (shame on you if you think there is). It's just a personality type. I like to get to the point. One question, one answer. I've just been forced to elaborate on the point where it's become habit. Therefore, if I see a problem; I say it's a problem. I try to use tact to dull the blow, but at the end of the day, I'm not going to change who I am simply because someone is easily offended.



    You can point out positives and still be blunt. Notice that in my examples, I still pointed out the problems and didn't try to make them sound like less of a problem than they actually were. While it may not be wrong to be blunt, however, it's not always effective.


    You already have read my stance on polarizing opinions; minimal support or partial support may as well be no support for all the good it does for OP. If a suggestion is to a point where you wouldn't want it in a practical sense; then a "minimal support" is dishonest. In the above "redstone tools" case; there is no practical change the OP could do where you would go from "minimal support" to "full support" and any attempts are wasted effort. It's better to just say "no support" than to build up some false hope in OP. No offense meant.



    I see minimal or partial support as a way of saying the suggestion can still be fixed, though obviously the former is far less likely than the latter to be improved. It would be wrong to say a suggestion that originally had general partial support has never been improved to a general "full support" suggestion (this really goes back to my philosophy that all suggestions/concepts can be improved, but I'm not about to argue that point again).

    While you may not be actively trying to offend the OP, he sees it as offense, and depending on his maturity, he may or may not listen to you at that point. If you are really trying to help him improve his suggestion/suggesting skills, then trying to avoid offense helps.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on combat in 1.9 good or bad?

    Considering that this thread has been active almost nonstop, and the poll suggests that more than a third of Minecraft players dislike the 1.9 combat changes, I'd say that it's more serious a problem than pro-1.9 people say it is. Sure, they may be in the minority, but it's not some paltry 5-10% like people act like it is, and it's impossible to deny that it has had some serious effects. I've even changed my vote to "bad," not because I dislike the combat, but because of how much it's split the community.


    For me, the question isn't, "Is 1.9's combat good or bad?" but rather, "Was 1.9's combat worth it?" Was making combat a little bit more fun and challenging to some people really worth all the anger and animosity it has caused?

    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on Guidelines for the Suggestions Forum

    So, a few weeks ago someone brought up formatting for suggestions. However, I've been thinking, what about formatting for critiques?


    Like suggestions, no two critics will have the same method to give criticism, but in my experience and education, this has been the most effective at getting the suggester to think, reply, and make positive changes:


    Start with positive feedback. ("Well, redstone tools would definitely make redstone more valuable and give people who don't care about mechanisms more use for them...")

    Then, tell the user what is wrong with their suggestion. If possible, try to balance your critique by not focusing much more on the bad than the good. However, if the suggestion is really bad, this might not be possible, and you may have to go more in-depth with what is wrong. ("However, redstone is a dust, which doesn't make a lot of sense for equipment, and, like all other ores, it already has a primary use: electrical engineering. Unfortunately I'm going to have to say Minimal Support.")

    Finally, end on a positive note. ("Still, it's clear you put a lot of effort into this, and it's a relatively good idea for a first suggestion, so points for effort.")


    Also, try to stay calm and uplifting through your entire critique. Mocking the OP, being sassy, smug, or condescending, or getting angry is a sure way to get the suggester to stop taking you seriously.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Nether Strategy?

    If you're like me and would prefer to avoid using coordinates, you can reduce the likelihood of getting lost by placing a cobblestone block down every 20 blocks or so. You can follow this trail back to the portal if needed.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Place slabs sideways

    Alright. If you're going to suggest this, I assume you've figured out a plausible way to implement this? How would one do this without making slabs taking up 3x as many IDs?

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Better Climbing: Could I please actually hold on to the ladder?
    Quote from DrWeegee»

    Then you would put in some checks. Like maybe only being able to properly control yourself on a ladder once you're climbing at least one block away from the ground. Or for it to only activate once you face towards the ladder instead of simply existing near it.

    Perhaps, but this is the least complicated method from a programming standpoint and is least likely to cause problems, as far as I can tell.

    Still, I get what you're saying. My system isn't perfect, but there are always going to be pros and cons with each method.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Better Climbing: Could I please actually hold on to the ladder?
    Quote from DrWeegee»

    I rather just have one or the other, without you teleporting to ladders when clicking on them. Most preferably yours. No need to make it a whole new mode or whatever.


    The only thing is I'd hope this wouldn't feel too stiff. I'm used to the floaty-freedom you kind of get with the current ladders.


    Well, in order for this system to work well, you would have to activate this climbing somehow, and just running into a ladder block could lead to some frustration, if you are just walking by it. I figured that removing the old system would cause a lot of confusion, so it's been maintained.

    I doubt it would feel stiff if implemented correctly. It should feel just like climbing ladders in a Zelda game, except you can use items.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Nether Strategy?

    Me, personally? Usually I go in with a couple stacks of cobblestone, a cheap sword (iron or stone, depending on my progression), a cheap pickaxe, and a flint and steel. I start by surveying the portal area, and go back through the portal immediately to see if it will properly connect to the portal I originally created. If all is well in the overworld, I then create a "bomb shelter" around my portal out of cobblestone. I then return to the overworld and "prepare" by taking a bunch of food, a couple of picks and swords, a crafting table, and some wood, cobblestone, and sometimes coal. I rarely ever bring anything valuable like armor since it's too easy to die in lava, and only bother with them if I'm storming a nether fortress.


    Also, I do recommend taking a bow and arrows if you have a surplus of them. But generally, I'd just recommend avoiding Ghasts in general.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.