Wait, what if retrieving shots would give you a musket ball, which would need to be recrafted with paper and gunpowder (or whatever you need to craft iron with to make a bullet) to to fire again
Wait, what if retrieving shots would give you a musket ball, which would need to be recrafted with paper and gunpowder (or whatever you need to craft iron with to make a bullet) to to fire again
I was thinking it should be called "Iron Pellet/bullet". Yes, that was what I had in mind, the ability to recraft iron pellets into musket ammunition. Since iron not very renewable, and gunpowder and paper is renewable.
I also have an idea for alchemy. The Bow would be primarily powered up through enchantment, but the gun would be primarily powered up through alchemy.
You combine:
64 regular iron bullets, cartridge, etc + 16 potion of poison = 64 poisoned shots.
64 regular iron bullets, cartridge, etc +16 potion of strength = 64 power shots.
64 regular iron bullets, cartridge, etc + 16 potions of slowness = 64 crippling shots (slows enemies).
And a new alchemy potion: The Flameburst Potion:
You make flame burstpotion combining potion of poison with blaze powder. Flame burst potion sets anything on fire around the area you threw the potion.
64 regular iron bullets, cartridge, etc +16 flameburst potions = 64 flameburst shots, which sets enemies on fire when you shoot them.
More alchemy ideas may be added.
I have added this to my main gun suggestion thread on the first page.
care to explain the difference between a bow and a gun?
One exchanges raw mechanical energy for kinetic energy, the other exchanges potential energy for kinetic energy? One benefits from tension while the other benefits from rifling? One can be extended for increased range and penetrating power the other cannot...
Better range with less accuracy = same effective range. Shooting someone with a gun outside of bow range would be near impossible, considering the probability that it would actually hit them.
exactly, that way one doesn't out-weigh the other, unless we want the gun to be better?
One exchanges raw mechanical energy for kinetic energy, the other exchanges potential energy for kinetic energy? One benefits from tension while the other benefits from rifling? One can be extended for increased range and penetrating power the other cannot...
Shall I go on?
you may, however as our argument remains, a primitive black-powder weapon will fit perfectly into the Minecraft world, and the gun and bow will be good friends in time, and realize that friendship is far better than being a lone wolf. (To add some comical relief)
exactly, that way one doesn't out-weigh the other, unless we want the gun to be better?
No, the problem here is that the gun will be the same thing as a bow. This would bring in the issue of balancing the weapons. This is already a problem with food, as you probably know. One of the two weapons would be completely unused except by noobs (like how nobody eats cake anymore).
One exchanges raw mechanical energy for kinetic energy, the other exchanges potential energy for kinetic energy? One benefits from tension while the other benefits from rifling? One can be extended for increased range and penetrating power the other cannot...
Shall I go on?
You're missing the point of my question. In the game, let's say the bow and the gun are the same, since they are made with the same concept of being a projectile and propeller weapon. The icons and game sprites are different. If I replaced the sprite of bow and arrows with gun and bullets, then the difference is only the looks. So basically, when he is said that minecraft is not a "gun game", he partially said minecraft is not a "bow game", but bows are in the game, therefore arises a contradiction of his platform of argument.
So the person I quoted originally didn't want guns because of its looks, which is not a convincing argument. Since he is okay with a bow, which consists of the same concept to that of a gun, but is against gun.
You're missing the point of my rhetorical question.
Oh, I got the point and I share it. I already have a keen understanding that guns won't be in MC because of their redundant and on-inception inferior role. All a player has to do is reskin a bow to a gun, arrows to bullets, and replace the bowshot sound to gunfire and the argument is moot, but it's also important to remember there ARE differences which makes the mechanics of each different in-game.
Oh, I got the point and I share it. I already have a keen understanding that guns won't be in MC because of their redundant and on-inception inferior role. All a player has to do is reskin a bow to a gun, arrows to bullets, and replace the bowshot sound to gunfire and the argument is moot, but it's also important to remember there ARE differences which makes the mechanics of each different in-game.
You're missing the point again. I am not suggesting that guns be re-skin of bow. I am purely using that as a hypothetical example to show a contradiction within the post I was quoting originally. If you read my suggestion of guns, I am advocating them as a new style of combat, away from the old boring sword and bow.
You're missing the point again. I am not suggesting that guns be re-skin of bow. I am purely using that as a hypothetical example to show a contradiction within the post I was quoting originally. If you read my suggestion of guns, I am advocating them as a new style of combat, away from the old boring sword and bow.
And in that case you lost me. Effectively, the only changes I've seen to effect guns have been lame and boring. Such things as extended cooldowns compared to bows for balance reasons (boring) to different ways of crafting (boring) to different ranges (boring).
Perhaps one of the most difficult points with advocating guns is how trite and uninspiring they can be when trying to make them unique compared to bows. Seriously, in any modern sense, guns are so overused in the video game industry that they are actually more mundane and less practical that bows with recent games.
And in that case you lost me. Effectively, the only changes I've seen to effect guns have been lame and boring. Such things as extended cooldowns compared to bows for balance reasons (boring) to different ways of crafting (boring) to different ranges (boring).
Perhaps one of the most difficult points with advocating guns is how trite and uninspiring they can be when trying to make them unique compared to bows. Seriously, in any modern sense, guns are so overused in the video game industry that they are actually more mundane and less practical that bows with recent games.
You do not take into account many of the suggestions here that would make guns different from the bow. Alchemy applied to guns, so as to give it abilities based on ammunition, give it spreadshots, melee bayonet with left click and firing with right click once musket and bayonet is equipped (if you used bow and sword, you have to use the hotkeys or open inventory to change between bow and sword). This also prevents the over-milking of bow as a ranged weapon such that it will have too much abilities.
From your post, I have deduced you want the bow to be everything, because you wouldn't want another range weapon because of the ability to attribute the qualities of the new ranged weapon to a bow, such that the you don't even need a new ranged weapon. That is your flow of logic and I find it distasteful. This is the far more uninspiring than the concept of guns in this thread.
This is how you are sounding: "Guns, ballista, sieges? Well, we can just give the abilities to the bow".
Also, can we please have some clarification on what exactly is a "gun game" here? It seems to me to be some sort of mythical genre that doesn't actually exist. Do you mean...?
A first person shooter? If so you are wrong, as Minecraft can be played from a first person perspective, and has projectile weapons. (Also there are FPS games that have no guns whatsoever.)
A third person shooter? Still wrong. Minecraft can also be played in third person perspective.
Dual stick shooter? Well, Minecraft isn't that, certainly, but it's not the only kind of game with guns.
Maybe you mean it isn't a game with a modern setting, though. Well...that's wrong too. Guns have been around since before the medieval era, so they fit fine into older settings. Besides, Minecraft doesn't have a time period...and if it did the existence of jukeboxes alone would place it after the invention of the Gatling Gun.
Or did you mean that there can't be guns because there is magic? Let me direct you then to Fable, Warcraft, Boktai, Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, Final Fantasy (esp. Tactics), and Skies of Arcadia...just to name a few.
I've been wondering this for a while too. I don't think the people who use that term even know...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
I've been wondering this for a while too. I don't think the people who use that term even know...
I am certain that they do not. However, we're getting a little off topic. The focus here should, I think, be to approach the idea of guns from a perspective that there are two very vocal groups here. One who does want guns, and one that does not. So far as I can tell, the side that wants guns has good and well supported reasons why they want them, and will not be quiet until they get their way. Meanwhile, the group that does not want them might be silenced if it is shown, through a solid implementation, that firearms can coexist with the elements already in Minecraft, and won't ruin the game like they fear.
So, most of our efforts should go into finding feasible implementations for these ideas. Or, at the least, producing a convincing set of arguments to show Jeb and his team that it's an avenue of development worth pursuing.
I am certain that they do not. However, we're getting a little off topic. The focus here should, I think, be to approach the idea of guns from a perspective that there are two very vocal groups here. One who does want guns, and one that does not. So far as I can tell, the side that wants guns has good and well supported reasons why they want them, and will not be quiet until they get their way. Meanwhile, the group that does not want them might be silenced if it is shown, through a solid implementation, that firearms can coexist with the elements already in Minecraft, and won't ruin the game like they fear.
So, most of our efforts should go into finding feasible implementations for these ideas. Or, at the least, producing a convincing set of arguments to show Jeb and his team that it's an avenue of development worth pursuing.
Very well put.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
No, there has never, ever been a sandbox game with a story or ending... except Grand Theft Auto... and Saints Row... and Red Dead Redemption... and Crack Down... and Assassins Creed...
No, the problem here is that the gun will be the same thing as a bow. This would bring in the issue of balancing the weapons. This is already a problem with food, as you probably know. One of the two weapons would be completely unused except by noobs (like how nobody eats cake anymore).
You mean like how nobody uses the wooden sword? Here you are just making up problems.
Most tools in minecraft have distinct technologically advances, after you have used the wooden pickaxe to get cobblestone you make a stone pickaxe. Once you have the stone pickaxe you never look back to wooden tools.
It would make sense to have a more advanced projectile weapon as well.
My take on this is that we might need to think outside the box. What about removing the bow from the game and replace it with gunpowder powered cannons that needs to be placed as a dispenser before they can be used? (The cannon can be aimed, but not moved while deployed).
This would give the player two choices for combat. Either you take the aggressive style where you stay mobile running around with the sword for close combat, or you play defensive setting up your cannon and wait for the enemy to come to you.
Running around with a bow is the best from both words, so I think it should be removed (or changed to some other purpose like firring flaming arrows to set fire to stuff from a distance without doing any other harm).
Running around with a bow is the best from both words, so I think it should be removed (or changed to some other purpose like firring flaming arrows to set fire to stuff from a distance without doing any other harm).
Casual approach: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Your inferred approach: If it ain't broke, remove it and replace it with something that is.
I see absolutely no reason to remove an outstanding game mechanic with a shoddy and unknown mechanic which is dubious at best.
Instead of the approach of "there's no way to co-exist with a bow so remove the bow"; the focus should be on "how can we incorporate it into the game without one side being butthurt about the process."
This is a case where someone will inevitably be butthurt due to the controversial nature of the subject, but if 90% are happy, then there should be no problems. Instead of removing mechanics from the game (never a good idea unless the old implementation is just damn screwy), we need to egg-head a means to make guns a solid improvement or alternative to bows. So far, this has yet to be seen as they both offer ranged combat in a straight line.
Also, the above is generally agreed by most players. Most people will say there needs to be an upgrade to bows as well (some think there doesn't, but this group is a small minority with a large voice (sound like current politics with controversial topics, hmm?))
Casual approach: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Your inferred approach: If it ain't broke, remove it and replace it with something that is.
I see absolutely no reason to remove an outstanding game mechanic with a shoddy and unknown mechanic which is dubious at best.
Hate to say it, but that sounds a bit like a straw man argument. You can't automatically say that having a launcher-centric system would be broken. Just as we don't know what mechanics would ultimately be applied to firearms, were they implemented, any theories on how the proposed launchers would work can only be speculation. Further, there are some who feel that the current system is broken, as bows are fundamentally easier to craft than swords, have more reach, and can potentially exceed even diamond swords in power. That said, I don't agree with the proposed approach either, but mostly because it would be cumbersome. I think that many players simply wouldn't bother with it. That is my speculation. I would like to see a cannon much like what they have proposed, but as a supplement to the current system, rather than a replacement.
Instead of the approach of "there's no way to co-exist with a bow so remove the bow"; the focus should be on "how can we incorporate it into the game without one side being butthurt about the process."
This is a case where someone will inevitably be butthurt due to the controversial nature of the subject, but if 90% are happy, then there should be no problems. Instead of removing mechanics from the game (never a good idea unless the old implementation is just damn screwy), we need to egg-head a means to make guns a solid improvement or alternative to bows. So far, this has yet to be seen as they both offer ranged combat in a straight line.
Also, the above is generally agreed by most players. Most people will say there needs to be an upgrade to bows as well (some think there doesn't, but this group is a small minority with a large voice (sound like current politics with controversial topics, hmm?))
Despite what I said about the first section, I do feel in general agreement with the rest. Finding a way to implement guns that doesn't break the game is more viable than changing the game to survive the inclusion of guns.
So far, this has yet to be seen as they both offer ranged combat in a straight line.
Arrow trajectory are curved, but musket shots are less curved.
Bow cannot melee, so you carry a sword. Musket and bayonet can both melee and range with left or right click, respectively.
Bayonets do 0.5x the damage of a sword, but has 2x the range of a sword, since muskets are generally pretty long along with a bayonet. Bayonets were also intended as pikes against charging cavalries.
Bows are powered primarily by enchantment. Muskets are powered by their ammunitions, which are powered up through alchemy.
Musket have 2x more knock back than bows.
Muskets require 4x reloading time than the full drawing of a bow, but muskets do 2.5x the damage of a bow.
Musket and bayonet offers new combat style, a new weapon, and new sounds when reloading.
These are some things taken from my suggestion.
Your definition of new mechanics seems to revolve around "if a bow can be implemented to do the same thing, then you are not adding anything new". Well then, following that logic, why not remove the pickaxe and give bows an arrow that can mine. You can see how ridiculous that logic is, which furthermore would result in the over-milking of bow as an item. Thus, the above things I mentioned along with others, should be more than enough to classify musket and bayonets as uniquely a new combat style, and not to mention that more ideas are to come.
This is a case where someone will inevitably be butthurt due to the controversial nature of the subject, but if 90% are happy, then there should be no problems.
The problem here is that the butthurt people against guns have no real reason. Their main argument is a single syllable long. Is "no", as an argument, enough to convince you that easily?
I disagree with a gun doing twice the knockback, especially if you already have a weapon that has twice range.
Which brings me into the next topic- extra reach weapons.
No. Just no. I don't care if they do half a heart each punch, they're unacceptable. Extra reach weapons either require your enemy to charge a bow (or in this case, fire a gun), or require you to carry an extra reach weapon as well.
If the only counter to a weapon is itself, or something that is hardly a counter at all(bow, because to be honest, who would use a bow in close range while they're smacking you to death?)
No one would even bother with swords except as a starter weapon anymore- it might take longer to kill, but it certainly would be a lot easier, since anyone without a bayonet/gun/bow would effectively be screwed with your god-reach.
I was thinking it should be called "Iron Pellet/bullet". Yes, that was what I had in mind, the ability to recraft iron pellets into musket ammunition. Since iron not very renewable, and gunpowder and paper is renewable.
I also have an idea for alchemy. The Bow would be primarily powered up through enchantment, but the gun would be primarily powered up through alchemy.
You combine:
64 regular iron bullets, cartridge, etc + 16 potion of poison = 64 poisoned shots.
64 regular iron bullets, cartridge, etc +16 potion of strength = 64 power shots.
64 regular iron bullets, cartridge, etc + 16 potions of slowness = 64 crippling shots (slows enemies).
And a new alchemy potion: The Flameburst Potion:
You make flame burstpotion combining potion of poison with blaze powder. Flame burst potion sets anything on fire around the area you threw the potion.
64 regular iron bullets, cartridge, etc +16 flameburst potions = 64 flameburst shots, which sets enemies on fire when you shoot them.
More alchemy ideas may be added.
I have added this to my main gun suggestion thread on the first page.
Shall I go on?
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
No, the problem here is that the gun will be the same thing as a bow. This would bring in the issue of balancing the weapons. This is already a problem with food, as you probably know. One of the two weapons would be completely unused except by noobs (like how nobody eats cake anymore).
You're missing the point of my question. In the game, let's say the bow and the gun are the same, since they are made with the same concept of being a projectile and propeller weapon. The icons and game sprites are different. If I replaced the sprite of bow and arrows with gun and bullets, then the difference is only the looks. So basically, when he is said that minecraft is not a "gun game", he partially said minecraft is not a "bow game", but bows are in the game, therefore arises a contradiction of his platform of argument.
So the person I quoted originally didn't want guns because of its looks, which is not a convincing argument. Since he is okay with a bow, which consists of the same concept to that of a gun, but is against gun.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
You're missing the point again. I am not suggesting that guns be re-skin of bow. I am purely using that as a hypothetical example to show a contradiction within the post I was quoting originally. If you read my suggestion of guns, I am advocating them as a new style of combat, away from the old boring sword and bow.
Perhaps one of the most difficult points with advocating guns is how trite and uninspiring they can be when trying to make them unique compared to bows. Seriously, in any modern sense, guns are so overused in the video game industry that they are actually more mundane and less practical that bows with recent games.
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
You do not take into account many of the suggestions here that would make guns different from the bow. Alchemy applied to guns, so as to give it abilities based on ammunition, give it spreadshots, melee bayonet with left click and firing with right click once musket and bayonet is equipped (if you used bow and sword, you have to use the hotkeys or open inventory to change between bow and sword). This also prevents the over-milking of bow as a ranged weapon such that it will have too much abilities.
From your post, I have deduced you want the bow to be everything, because you wouldn't want another range weapon because of the ability to attribute the qualities of the new ranged weapon to a bow, such that the you don't even need a new ranged weapon. That is your flow of logic and I find it distasteful. This is the far more uninspiring than the concept of guns in this thread.
This is how you are sounding: "Guns, ballista, sieges? Well, we can just give the abilities to the bow".
I've been wondering this for a while too. I don't think the people who use that term even know...
I am certain that they do not. However, we're getting a little off topic. The focus here should, I think, be to approach the idea of guns from a perspective that there are two very vocal groups here. One who does want guns, and one that does not. So far as I can tell, the side that wants guns has good and well supported reasons why they want them, and will not be quiet until they get their way. Meanwhile, the group that does not want them might be silenced if it is shown, through a solid implementation, that firearms can coexist with the elements already in Minecraft, and won't ruin the game like they fear.
So, most of our efforts should go into finding feasible implementations for these ideas. Or, at the least, producing a convincing set of arguments to show Jeb and his team that it's an avenue of development worth pursuing.
Very well put.
You mean like how nobody uses the wooden sword? Here you are just making up problems.
Most tools in minecraft have distinct technologically advances, after you have used the wooden pickaxe to get cobblestone you make a stone pickaxe. Once you have the stone pickaxe you never look back to wooden tools.
It would make sense to have a more advanced projectile weapon as well.
My take on this is that we might need to think outside the box. What about removing the bow from the game and replace it with gunpowder powered cannons that needs to be placed as a dispenser before they can be used? (The cannon can be aimed, but not moved while deployed).
This would give the player two choices for combat. Either you take the aggressive style where you stay mobile running around with the sword for close combat, or you play defensive setting up your cannon and wait for the enemy to come to you.
Running around with a bow is the best from both words, so I think it should be removed (or changed to some other purpose like firring flaming arrows to set fire to stuff from a distance without doing any other harm).
Your inferred approach: If it ain't broke, remove it and replace it with something that is.
I see absolutely no reason to remove an outstanding game mechanic with a shoddy and unknown mechanic which is dubious at best.
Instead of the approach of "there's no way to co-exist with a bow so remove the bow"; the focus should be on "how can we incorporate it into the game without one side being butthurt about the process."
This is a case where someone will inevitably be butthurt due to the controversial nature of the subject, but if 90% are happy, then there should be no problems. Instead of removing mechanics from the game (never a good idea unless the old implementation is just damn screwy), we need to egg-head a means to make guns a solid improvement or alternative to bows. So far, this has yet to be seen as they both offer ranged combat in a straight line.
Also, the above is generally agreed by most players. Most people will say there needs to be an upgrade to bows as well (some think there doesn't, but this group is a small minority with a large voice (sound like current politics with controversial topics, hmm?))
OFFICIAL POSTING/REPLYING GUIDELINES
UNOFFICIAL POSTING GUIDE (PRT)
UNOFFICIAL REPLYING GUIDE (FTC)
Hate to say it, but that sounds a bit like a straw man argument. You can't automatically say that having a launcher-centric system would be broken. Just as we don't know what mechanics would ultimately be applied to firearms, were they implemented, any theories on how the proposed launchers would work can only be speculation. Further, there are some who feel that the current system is broken, as bows are fundamentally easier to craft than swords, have more reach, and can potentially exceed even diamond swords in power. That said, I don't agree with the proposed approach either, but mostly because it would be cumbersome. I think that many players simply wouldn't bother with it. That is my speculation. I would like to see a cannon much like what they have proposed, but as a supplement to the current system, rather than a replacement.
Despite what I said about the first section, I do feel in general agreement with the rest. Finding a way to implement guns that doesn't break the game is more viable than changing the game to survive the inclusion of guns.
Arrow trajectory are curved, but musket shots are less curved.
Bow cannot melee, so you carry a sword. Musket and bayonet can both melee and range with left or right click, respectively.
Bayonets do 0.5x the damage of a sword, but has 2x the range of a sword, since muskets are generally pretty long along with a bayonet. Bayonets were also intended as pikes against charging cavalries.
Bows are powered primarily by enchantment. Muskets are powered by their ammunitions, which are powered up through alchemy.
Musket have 2x more knock back than bows.
Muskets require 4x reloading time than the full drawing of a bow, but muskets do 2.5x the damage of a bow.
Musket and bayonet offers new combat style, a new weapon, and new sounds when reloading.
These are some things taken from my suggestion.
Your definition of new mechanics seems to revolve around "if a bow can be implemented to do the same thing, then you are not adding anything new". Well then, following that logic, why not remove the pickaxe and give bows an arrow that can mine. You can see how ridiculous that logic is, which furthermore would result in the over-milking of bow as an item. Thus, the above things I mentioned along with others, should be more than enough to classify musket and bayonets as uniquely a new combat style, and not to mention that more ideas are to come.
The problem here is that the butthurt people against guns have no real reason. Their main argument is a single syllable long. Is "no", as an argument, enough to convince you that easily?
I disagree with a gun doing twice the knockback, especially if you already have a weapon that has twice range.
Which brings me into the next topic- extra reach weapons.
No. Just no. I don't care if they do half a heart each punch, they're unacceptable. Extra reach weapons either require your enemy to charge a bow (or in this case, fire a gun), or require you to carry an extra reach weapon as well.
If the only counter to a weapon is itself, or something that is hardly a counter at all(bow, because to be honest, who would use a bow in close range while they're smacking you to death?)
No one would even bother with swords except as a starter weapon anymore- it might take longer to kill, but it certainly would be a lot easier, since anyone without a bayonet/gun/bow would effectively be screwed with your god-reach.