• 1

    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
  • 2

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

    The Problem


    So, a couple of you may have heard of a little game called The Legend Of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. One of the major features of this game was its climbing. You could climb on nearly any surface, and the best part was, it actually worked. No, seriously, I never had a problem with the controls. Up meant go up, down meant go down, and left and right meant go in that direction relative to your character.


    Now, where I'm going with this is that Minecraft's climbing controls are, well, not as good as they could be. You push up against a surface with a ladder or a vine and you ascend. Let go of everything and you descend. Hold sneak and that stops your vertical movement. While simple, this feels a little floaty and slows down descents in small spaces, and has often led to people falling off their ladders. It works, but it could be better.


    The Solution


    So, I'm going to be suggesting a new mode of ladder climbing, but I'm not suggesting also removing the current methods of climbing to avoid mass confusion when people find that their ladders no longer work (such as when autojump was implemented and enabled by default). This will allow for better backwards compatibility.


    When you aren't already climbing, and you click on a ladder or a vine and are close enough (say, up to two blocks away), you will grab onto the ladder, putting yourself into the same space as it. You will now be in "climbing mode," which prevents you from descending automatically. To ascend the ladder, you can use the forward key (default W), and to descend, use the backwards key (default S). You can not ascend on vines without a wall behind them. If there are ladders adjacent to the one you are climbing, use the appropriate strafing key (default A or D) to move between them. To let go of the ladder, press the jump key (default spacebar). If you let go this way, ladders will not effect your rate of descent until you leave a space with a ladder/vine in it.


    If you are hit by something that would apply knockback, you will be knocked off the ladder and will not be able to engage climbing mode for 0.5 seconds.


    In the end, while Minecraft's works fine as is, there is always room for improvement, and I believe changes like this would be good quality of life improvements. It may not be a very complicated change, but not all suggestions have to be two-page reports, right?

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Why is there a 256 char limit for chat, while the amount of chars that you can put in a command block is (virtually) infinite?

    Perhaps they should add a /gamerule chatLimit? 256 would be the default, 100 the minimum, and 32K the max.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Character Traits

    First of all, traits shouldn't be given so easily. Perhaps they can be rewards for "hard" achievements/advancements.


    Secondly, you should get both a good and bad trait at the same time, due to their random nature.


    Thirdly, resetting traits should be done by an alternate method, as the dragon egg should never become a utility item.


    Now, as for the traits. I like the positive ones (though horse-whisperer should be buffed), but there needs to be more of them. However, most of the bad traits are not fun or challenging and are just annoying, especially the phobia traits. I would only support untrustworthy, annoying, gluttonous, and vegan.


    It's an interesting idea, but the specific traits need more thought put into them. Partial Support.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Dedicated Bug Report Thread for Forum?

    Sorry if one already exists, but I couldn't find it.


    I've noticed that on this forum, there are a lot of posts for minor glitches. I also have a minor glitch I'd like to report, but as it's purely visual and only happens rarely, I don't think it deserves a whole thread for its discussion. I was thinking, could we get a stickied dedicated thread for discussing minor glitches? I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way, and it might lead to more glitches being discovered and reported.

    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 1

    posted a message on BoTW Vs. Skyrim

    Having played both for 100s of hours, I am going to go with Skyrim, despite being a huge Zelda fan.


    BOTW's Hyrule is massive, but it's clear that the Zelda team has never done a game this big. There's so much empty space, and even most of the space that has content is lackluster. There are more than 100 enemy camps, but I've done less than half of them, not because there are too many of them, but because there is almost always no real reward for completing them. I'm not going to nearly kill myself and break a few weapons for five arrows or an opal. Then there's the world minibosses, which are cool and difficult at first, but eventually become a very boring chore to hunt them all down, and the worst part is that they're all the same with just varying levels of difficulty. The shrines provide a good reason to explore at first, but the lack of any in-game checklist to know which areas in which you've gotten them all or not began to make hunting them down tedious, even with the Shiekah Sensor. I also didn't like the combat shrines or the blessing shrines. The "Tests of Strength" suffered the same problems as the world minibosses: they were difficult at first, but eventually became a breeze, and they were all pretty much exactly the same. The blessing shrines were more about finding them, but I found the puzzles to be a reward in it of themselves. Don't get me started on the convoluted Korok seed system.


    In Skyrim, exploration is actually rewarding. Every bandit camp, burial cairn, and cave has the chance of having something amazing. Perhaps you'll get a new enchantment, find a cool new spell tome or skill book, discover a new side quest, learn a new Word of Power, or at the very least you'll increase your skills to get you some progress towards your next level and a cool new perk. There's a huge enemy variety (compared to BOTW), so when you fight a miniboss, it won't be as repetitive.


    Next, we have the side quests. Skyrim has too many to count, while BOTW has a mere 76, and most of them are fetch quests that would fall under Skyrim's miscellaneous category. With pieces of heart having been removed, there's not even a good reason to do them unless you really need rupees. You could argue that many of Skyrim's quests are similar, but at least most of the quests in that game are more interesting to perform and actually require work instead of tedious ingredient gathering to complete.


    Then, there's the environment. I hate that rain prevents you from doing any real exploring, and it doesn't have enough pros to balance out its cons. The temperature system is something I liked at first but have grown to loathe. Considering the huge amount of content in cold areas, I often have to switch out to my significantly weaker cold armor set to explore them (I could just use an elixir, but I didn't find cooking to be all that fun or useful later in the game. Fortunately for BOTW, Skyrim's cooking system is even more pointless). What's even worse is that every single cold area outside of the Great Plateau is level 2 cold, so methods such as wielding a fiery great sword won't help. Heat was actually kind of cool, as sometimes it was a puzzle to stay in the shade before I had heat protection. In the end, though, I preferred Skyrim's limiting open world than BOTW's completely open air world where what you could do was limited by random events and unrealistic weather.


    The only thing I would say BOTW did better than Skyrim was the main storyline, which is a shame, because it's pretty short. What you do actually has a visible impact on the world and I loved how the memories ingeniously told the story in whatever order you found them.


    Now, I do love BOTW. I believe it deserves every bit of praise it gets. However, it's clear that this is Nintendo's first attempt at making such a large, breathing world, and it feels incomplete. Hopefully the next Zelda game addresses these issues.

    Posted in: General Gaming
  • 1

    posted a message on Alpha or Beta?

    Gamma.


    I've never been one for nostalgia, and in my opinion, both Alpha and Beta were horrendously underdeveloped (to be honest, I think the current game is underdeveloped). Between the two, I'd have to say Beta, as the bland bright green that existed everywhere in Alpha hurts my eyes.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on An interesting take on the Dagger suggestion.

    Looks good. The only thing I would add is make it so that if you are hit while charging, it interrupts the charge, so you have to plan ahead. I also don't see why you need an anvil to apply poisons, but if that's the only way to balance it, so be it.


    I Support.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Easier ways to get Leather.

    The main problem I have with leather is that it seems way too difficult to get early game to get enough of it to make leather armor, and so that class of armor is largely ignored. Because of that, I agree with point #1; leather should be at the very least a guaranteed drop.


    I don't think #2 is a good idea. As saddles have no crafting recipe, it seems to be against the game mechanics to be able to disassemble it. Even if it wasn't, nine seems a bit much and it should give four.


    The moderators don't like idea farming on this forum. I'd remove point #3 if you don't want to risk this thread being locked.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 2

    posted a message on New gamerule

    I liked the combat update, but I'm seeing quite a few flawed arguments in this thread that I'd like to address.

    Quote from Badprenup»

    Why would allowing you to bypass a change that the vast majority of people have no problem with or even like make up for adding a new mob that a majority of people have no problem with or even like?

    I disagree with the idea because
    One: I like the combat much more now
    Two: It can already be done quite easily within game
    Three: This splinters any combat related addition from here on because they need to balance for both settings

    One is highly subjective, though I suppose it does support your ability to disagree.
    Two assumes that you even know how to do this. In order to do it in game, you'd have to:
    Find a command block code on a reputable site that hopefully works for your version of Minecraft.
    Find an area to put it in the world's spawn chunks (assuming you even know what those are) to put them where they aren't an eyesore or will get in the way.
    Drop an item on the ground and pick it up again for every single weapon. In addition, this will only work while the Overworld is loaded, so you can't build tools and weapons in the Nether or the End in Singleplayer.
    While this might be more tedious than difficult, you know how easy it would be to remove the cooldown via a gamerule? Basically, a single line of code that checks if the cooldown gamerule is off, and if so, sets the cooldown to zero.

    Three, I'll address in the next point.


    All of the above, not to mention how complicated (and pointless) it would be.

    (Kicks the mic even further)

    You have the attack cooldown disabled, and now DPS skyrockets. But with the new armor changes, you'd kill players that much faster. So Protection values would need to be reverted. I forgot to mention how diamond axes deal 9/10 damage, and so they would kill even faster, meaning axes would need to be nerfed back to one half heart lower than swords, and have sharpness removed. Oh yeah, Sharpness would need to be reverted too...


    It's too much work just for a pointless revertion. The attack cooldown ends shortly after the invincibility frames end, and enemies can't be hurt during invincibility frames. So spam-clicking is pointless really.



    All of that work just for something pointless and that can easily be done with commands is, well, pointless.


    When you turn on keepInventory, what changes to rebalance not losing your items? When you turn off mob spawning, what changes to let you still get to End? A gamerule only effects what you tell it to, no more. If a gamerule was made to turn off the cooldown, that's all it would do. Any changes and loss of game balance are your fault and it is not the job of the developers to rebalance it to fix it for you. However, the removal of the cooldown is all that these people want, and I doubt they would have a big issue with axes suddenly being overpowered.

    As for spam clicking being pointless because of invincibility frames, that's only true if you're only fighting one enemy and you never miss. Otherwise, you'll have difficulty learning how to deal with hordes or recovering from missteps. Some people (myself included) have no problem learning these. However, for others, this simply isn't fun for them. I see no reason why not to spend two seconds to give them what they want.

    Quote from laserguy345»

    If Mojang makes a game rule for everything a few players didn't like, there would be game rules for every thing in the game. They would get constantly badgered about other things if they did this.

    Slippery slope fallacy. One cannot assume that just because Mojang adds one gamerule, they will add a hundred more, or that people would just constantly ask for more gamerules, at least, more than they do now.

    Even if it was true, what's the real issue? Minecraft is supposed to be a game that's fun for you and is what you make of it. I see nothing wrong with getting full customization of features.
    Quote from Mastermined»

    The game would also become a nightmare to code, with every new feature not only having to be optional, but everything needing to be tested in every possible combination, to spot any potential issues and bugs. Updates would take years to come out and offer every little content because of tht amount of time it would take to implement them.


    Remember that they don't need to rebalance the game around gamerules. The only rebalancing that needs to take place is that with the default settings. Anything else that breaks the game is the fault of the player, and it is up to them to determine whether they are willing to deal with the loss of balancing in order to have the features they want.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.