Latest News Article

[Badprenup]

Melkior_Wiseman, on 14 November 2012 - 10:08 AM, said:

The reason I thought of crafting several ingots together is because players would know that a stack of gold made from single ingots would not have much real value compared to a chest full of stacks of gold ingots.

If each stack block was made from 4 ingots, this would give them a bit more real value.

I was under the assumption that if you right clicked with one Gold Ingot it would place one, and then each time you right clicked that block with another Gold Ingot it added one (up to 6), like so:

With that method, you could store as many ingots as you like (up to 6 per block) and a full block would actually be worth more than the 4 ingot crafting recipe when crafted.

[Stravagante]

I'm a little uncertain about this. Much of Minecraft's charm is using objects for purposes not originally intended and constructing environments with few materials. This feels very.. very specific.
What is the point of this, aside storage? And in that case, blocks are superior. Holding 9 to the proposed 6.

Item frames allow for ingots and blocks to be shown off in interesting ways, for example.
Gold blocks can be placed in vaults, used as building materials, be central items like altars or power sources to anything in between. Stacked gold ingots can only ever be stacked gold ingots.

Nothing actually wrong with this suggestion, it just feels a little pointless.

[GoldenEagle2556]

The only reason was because there is already placeable ingots technically, but after actually reading this post, I changed my mind. I think it would make good looking decorations. I support.

[Melkior_Wiseman]

Badprenup, on 14 November 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

I was under the assumption that if you right clicked with one Gold Ingot it would place one, and then each time you right clicked that block with another Gold Ingot it added one (up to 6), like so:

(Snip)

With that method, you could store as many ingots as you like (up to 6 per block) and a full block would actually be worth more than the 4 ingot crafting recipe when crafted.

The problem with that method is that it requires adding not one, two or three but six new blocks, plus a seventh and perhaps an eighth if you want to fill in gaps between stacks.

Also it sounds like you're only thinking of putting down one layer of gold, when I'm sure that most people who want this will be stacking several layers.  The 2x2 stack works better for that than the 1/2/3 stack.

I know the 1/2/3 stack looks much nicer, but I don't think it's reasonable to believe Mojang would program something so complicated just for decorative purposes.

[Novacose]

Badprenup, on 14 November 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

snipped

Thank you so much for posting that! It is exactly what I had in mind.

[Badprenup]

Melkior_Wiseman, on 14 November 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

The problem with that method is that it requires adding not one, two or three but six new blocks, plus a seventh and perhaps an eighth if you want to fill in gaps between stacks.

Also it sounds like you're only thinking of putting down one layer of gold, when I'm sure that most people who want this will be stacking several layers.  The 2x2 stack works better for that than the 1/2/3 stack.

I know the 1/2/3 stack looks much nicer, but I don't think it's reasonable to believe Mojang would program something so complicated just for decorative purposes.

Actually, they only need one Block for my method. If there are 6 bars, they can just use 1 block ID for the placed Gold Ingot, and then use the "damage" value that is used to change how Redstone, fences, doors, pistons, and beds look based on how they are placed. A single block can hold a value of 0-15, so it could hold the bars independently, all in one block, and place them going N-S or E-W and only use 12 of the values (1 value for each block in each direction).

The pyramid design could be changed I suppose though. I did not take into account people wanting to stack one thing of ingots on another, and the pyramid design would not work well for that.

[Rinnsal]

Anyone thought about other ingots too (especially with mod ingots)? Why not mixing Iron and Gold? (yes, this would take NBT data values and increase map size but still may be done with only 1 Block I think (?)).

According to the "balancing issue" with their blocks representation: This method of Stacking may hold more (?) than 9 Ingots, but you have to click a lot more often. Also, this should not be something you "carry around" (which is a GoldBlock) or Store inside a Chest.

(Also it should be 2x2. The Pyramid could not work out quite nicely on 16x16 pixel textures...)

[Lunchguy]

Seems unnecessary, if it's implemented you should be able to do it with all metal ingots(and perhaps even diamonds).

[tbh1138]

As long as it works for iron and diamonds, I support. +1

[Novacose]

Stravagante, on 14 November 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

I'm a little uncertain about this. Much of Minecraft's charm is using objects for purposes not originally intended and constructing environments with few materials. This feels very.. very specific.
What is the point of this, aside storage? And in that case, blocks are superior. Holding 9 to the proposed 6.

Item frames allow for ingots and blocks to be shown off in interesting ways, for example.
Gold blocks can be placed in vaults, used as building materials, be central items like altars or power sources to anything in between. Stacked gold ingots can only ever be stacked gold ingots.

Nothing actually wrong with this suggestion, it just feels a little pointless.

Well, what's the point of bats? Of Plant pots?
As stated in previous comments, the point of this is purely aesthetics (I guess storage too). I think that gold blocks look cool, but I believe gold would be even cooler if you could use them in my manner.

[voog2]

I support this, it would actually be really cool to use them as decoration.

[epicdude66adam]

COOL! What about piles of dimond and emrald?

[Atm12397]

Would they fall like anvils or float in the air?

[Novacose]

It makes sense for them to fall. It would be cool to just have gold ingots falling and then have the stack

[Badprenup]

Now that I think about it, Rinnsal and Melkior make a good point. If the blocks are 2x2 things of bricks, they would look nicer if you did multiple stacks. But on the contrary to that, there is no way to make an ingot take up 1/4 of a block (8 pixels high, 8 pixels wide, 16 pixels long) and have it really look like a gold bar. In fact. I've been trying to make it look good in a single block space with different numbers of bars and it just does not look good. I don't know how it could be done to make them stack nicely and look good.

[Delthyn]

Sounds like a nice idea. I would continue to use blocks though. Nothing beats seeing huge blocks of metal.

[Novacose]

Rinnsal, on 15 November 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Anyone thought about other ingots too (especially with mod ingots)? Why not mixing Iron and Gold? (yes, this would take NBT data values and increase map size but still may be done with only 1 Block I think (?)).

According to the "balancing issue" with their blocks representation: This method of Stacking may hold more (?) than 9 Ingots, but you have to click a lot more often. Also, this should not be something you "carry around" (which is a GoldBlock) or Store inside a Chest.

(Also it should be 2x2. The Pyramid could not work out quite nicely on 16x16 pixel textures...)

Yes, that is true. I guess I hadn't thought of the texture size.

Melkior_Wiseman, on 14 November 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Snipped

I suggest that this should be a new block known as a Gold Stack made from 4 gold ingots:


Visually, the block would look like 3 ingots in a pyramid stack, even though it's made with 4 ingots and returns all 4 ingots when broken.

It would be possible to make the Gold Stack visually tessellate by checking the orientation of the block and by checking what block is next to the Gold Stack block.  If a Gold Stack block is next to another Gold Stack block with the same orientation, the gap between them could be automatically filled with another gold ingot visual, the same way fences automatically change when they are next to a solid block.

So instead of two Stack blocks appearing as two separate 3-block stacks, they would appear as one long 7-block stack.

If the stacking shape wasn't too important and you could live with cube rather than pyramid stacking, an alternative crafting recipe could be used:

This has the advantage of being craftable without using the crafting table.

When placed, the block should orient depending on the direction the player is facing, like a repeater.

The same crafting recipe and stacking rules could be used for iron ingots and clay bricks.

And... here's a wrinkle nobody else has suggested... make the stacks affected by gravity.  Talk about being hit by a ton of bricks! ;-)

I agree with the stack being able to be broken by hand although I suggest it should take 5 seconds or more because ingots are heavy.

Going further along with this idea, I think that what you have suggested is probably the best way to go.

[Stravagante]

Novacose, on 15 November 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

Well, what's the point of bats? Of Plant pots?
As stated in previous comments, the point of this is purely aesthetics (I guess storage too). I think that gold blocks look cool, but I believe gold would be even cooler if you could use them in my manner.

I'm not entirely sure you got what I was trying to say, the fact that I do not support this is not based on an aesthetic block not having a function (I love lapis blocks for example) but that there are already established methods that achieve the same ends, and arguably more efficiently by means of blocks, or maybe the new itemframes. This being in a game that relys on the player willing to imagine detail where largely symbolic items exist, as opposed to detailed or realistic ones.
Bats are aesthetic, but fill a hole in the minecraft world of populating the sky and a likely inhabitant in caves that was once missing. I'll give you flowerpots though, I was happy with my trapdoors and dirt. Was unaware that was a desired or particularly amazing item.

[CatsGoBark]

A simple but aesthetically pleasing idea. Support!

[FlashRebel]

Although I am not used to supporting purely aesthetic suggestions, I really like this one. A fortified room with piles of ingots would add so much swag $_$ ! Doing it with iron ingots would be cool too, to make a stylish foundry.

nearbeer, on 13 November 2012 - 01:05 AM, said:

Would there be ways to stack multiple blocks of piles of gold? Like, one pile on top of another?

This would be nice. I think that basically, each gold ingot would have the size of 1/9 of a block, making basic pyramids with 3 ingots at the base and 3 ingots high, then two pyramids side by side would be able to become a bigger one, 6 ingots wide base and 6 ingots high, and so on. By the way, in order to make things simple about physics, I suggest that a golden pyramid pops into ingot drops if broken or if the block is put on is destroyed. A big pyramid would not be broken entirely, just lose the ingots that are not supporting it is removed. And since now fences have a more "realistic" hitbox, this means not the same as blocks as if there was an invisible block around them, I guess that ingots stacks can have their own hitbox too and be climbable like stairs. As they are not tough gold blocks, I think they would have no blast resistance at all and be breakable without any tool to get the ingots back.

kude42, on 13 November 2012 - 11:14 PM, said:

Why? I'm a big supporter of some aesthetics, but I just can't see a point in this. No support.

Aesthetic additions are not supposed to really have a point... unless you can give me the "point" of flower pots and place-able monster heads.