I don't have much of an opinion yet until I know exactly what I will need to craft a Lateran, and how different that will be compared to torches. Glass? okay. Clay? oh god no.
Tho i dread having to replace all the torches in my underground lair and minecart tunnel.
What would make torches better is if they get slowly dimmer as they degrade! Also I am with this degradable torch thing only if lanterns don't use iron or something too valuable.
Yeah. If they take iron, there'll be yet another reason there should be more iron. As it stands, I think the game would benefit from 3-5x more iron than it currently has. The resource bottleneck should be smelting fuel, not raw supply. (for metal, at least) But that's another thread altogether.
Quote from Shackleton »
... If the punishment is the tedium and nothing changes, then this is a tedium change and nothing more. Hence the objections.
Nothing changes? There are big tweaks to monsters, and where they spawn and in how much light. Suddenly temporary torches become part of a complex system. Currently they're a boring on/off switch with no cost/reward decision. (edit: They're cheap, so you always build them and they always stop monsters. Yawn.)
I'm suprised that so many people are jumping up from their chairs when here is talk about torches, but no one talks about the new monsters that might actually be able to break blocks and stuff.
The reason being that those seem pretty obviously like they would only appear in "hard" mode or whatever. So it's easy to CHOOSE not to fight them.
Whereas there is no indication of a choice with torches. Hence it is a more annoying/coercive change.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Przerwap, upon looking at some code I had just written: "...Gav... That's not how programming works."
Whereas there is no indication of a choice with torches. Hence it is a more annoying/coercive change.
Oh no! We have to survive in survival!
But seriously: if you don't need big bad mobs, isn't creative what you should click on? Haven't I heard rumors of more/most survival blocks getting added to creative, or was that someone blowing hot air?
Whereas there is no indication of a choice with torches. Hence it is a more annoying/coercive change.
Oh no! We have to survive in survival!
But seriously: if you don't need big bad mobs, isn't creative what you should click on? Haven't I heard rumors of more/most survival blocks getting added to creative, or was that someone blowing hot air?
Notch plans to turn the current alpha client into it's own creative mode once he's ironed out most of the bugs in the survival portion of the game. Then players can select between survival (requiring crafting, fighting enemies, etc.) or playing with infinite health and blocks.
You are missing the point. When I say I want it to be an option, I am not implying that I don't want any monsters/want to only play creatively.
Where did you draw THAT conclusion from?
The reason I want it to be an option is not because I dislike monsters. It is because it is annoying and tedious, and yet at the same time, does not do anything at all to accomplish its intended game design goal. It does not make the game any harder. Running around lighting torches is not HARD, it is TEDIOUS. Or alternatively, if you go for lanterns, mining for an extra 30 minutes to get more resources for lanterns (in your completely safe, temporarily torch lit mine) is not HARD. It is TEDIOUS.
There is a really huge difference between those two things. And this change picks the wrong one, in the opinions of a ton of people. Thus making the survival game less fun. Which is why it should be optional.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Przerwap, upon looking at some code I had just written: "...Gav... That's not how programming works."
Notch already mentioned during his visit in Bellevue that the gravity idea has been scrapped, I wouldn't count on "structurally sound buildings" being a requirement any time soon.
Awww...
Well...
It's still on the public TODO list to make floating blocks fall. Or is that a lie as well?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
End ignorance, myth and misinformation.
Below is the sourced list of Notch's actual words: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=49256
You are missing the point. When I say I want it to be an option, I am not implying that I don't want any monsters/want to only play creatively.
Where did you draw THAT conclusion from?
The reason I want it to be an option is not because I dislike monsters. It is because it is annoying and tedious, and yet at the same time, does not do anything at all to accomplish its intended game design goal. It does not make the game any harder. Running around lighting torches is not HARD, it is TEDIOUS. Or alternatively, if you go for lanterns, mining for an extra 30 minutes to get more resources for lanterns (in your completely safe, temporarily torch lit mine) is not HARD. It is TEDIOUS.
There is a really huge difference between those two things. And this change picks the wrong one, in the opinions of a ton of people. Thus making the survival game less fun. Which is why it should be optional.
^^This x the final number of MC sales, whenever that comes about. :ohmy.gif:)
Running around lighting torches is not HARD, it is TEDIOUS.
Wouldn't you use more lanterns if you had that many torches to relight? Or maybe just leave some areas dark, and spend time now and then stocking up on armor and food and weapons to make it through the dark areas. (edit: versus now, where I just plant light, and can all but ignore armor/food/weapons)
So far you've sounded kind of fixated on relighting torches. They're just one aspect of a large system. (A large system which I feel is made more interesting by all the coming changes relating to lighting.)
If you're still set against them, I'm happy to simply disagree with you and leave it at that. (in fact, there's this other thread with a similar title...) I'd rather spend my time in here discussing the new and exciting changes we're going to face as the topic suggests.
Wouldn't you use more lanterns if you had that many torches to relight? Or maybe just leave some areas dark, and spend time now and then stocking up on armor and food and weapons to make it through the dark areas. (edit: versus now, where I just plant light, and can all but ignore armor/food/weapons)
Option A) Using more lanterns = a different kind of equally non-hard tedium (extra resource gathering for the sake of extra resource gathering)
Option :cool.gif: Leaving areas dark = Silly. No, I wouldn't do this, because it requires me to mine/farm resources for food and armor and arrows EVERY TIME I go through that area, versus mining resources for lanterns ONCE (while also eliminating risk). The armor choice is going to end up costing more very quickly, especially adding in items lost to deaths.
Option C) Using torches and relighting = tedium, not hard.
Neither sensical option (A and C) makes the game harder.
They both make the game more annoying.
=Fail.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Przerwap, upon looking at some code I had just written: "...Gav... That's not how programming works."
That would sure stop the complaints I guess. As I stated in another thread though... Minecraft already has a super-easy mode. It's called Creative... I mean what's next? Notch changes all dirt blocks to diamonds?
That would just be teasing. You need at least an iron pick to mine diamonds.
Option A) Using more lanterns = a different kind of equally non-hard tedium (extra resource gathering for the sake of extra resource gathering)
Option :cool.gif: Leaving areas dark = Silly. No, I wouldn't do this, because it requires me to mine/farm resources for food and armor and arrows EVERY TIME I go through that area, versus mining resources for lanterns ONCE (while also eliminating risk). The armor choice is going to end up costing more very quickly, especially adding in items lost to deaths.
Neither option makes the game harder.
Both options make the game more annoying
=Fail.
Ok. I just disagree. The same could be said for having to constantly make picks every time you want to mine. Or dig up coal or chop trees every time you want to furnace something. Everything in the game (seems to me) fits your definition of tedium. But what is already there and what is being added (seem to me to) make sense, and add up to a logical, interdependent/interesting system. Especially with the overall increase in danger and risk/reward decisions, I (personally) cannot even fathom why the changes could be construed as a downside.
As implied, I won't really be replying to any more nay-saying in this thread. I'll go check out the other thread and continue discussing it over there.
I'm agreeing with tyrony
There's several "tedious" aspects to the game that ends up being very rewarding when it's all completed. Sorting out the torch vs. lantern thing will just be another one of those.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
End ignorance, myth and misinformation.
Below is the sourced list of Notch's actual words: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=49256
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
8/23/2010
Posts:
42
Member Details
I let my ten year old nephew play on his own world (I supervise him but he does not need it), and he is freaked out when in the dark even on peaceful, how do you think he will feel when he gets lost in a big cave and all the lights turn out (and i forgot to turn it off normal).
I think it comes down to it might be more tedius but it is also more realistic and therefor makes sence. i personaly like the idea and am looking forward to the new update.
I guess Notch will know how much people care about his game.
It'll be interesting how the talks will be a month from now after the changes are implemented.
Below is the sourced list of Notch's actual words:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=49256
Tho i dread having to replace all the torches in my underground lair and minecart tunnel.
and PLEASE let lanterns be stackable.
Yeah. If they take iron, there'll be yet another reason there should be more iron. As it stands, I think the game would benefit from 3-5x more iron than it currently has. The resource bottleneck should be smelting fuel, not raw supply. (for metal, at least) But that's another thread altogether.
Nothing changes? There are big tweaks to monsters, and where they spawn and in how much light. Suddenly temporary torches become part of a complex system. Currently they're a boring on/off switch with no cost/reward decision. (edit: They're cheap, so you always build them and they always stop monsters. Yawn.)
The reason being that those seem pretty obviously like they would only appear in "hard" mode or whatever. So it's easy to CHOOSE not to fight them.
Whereas there is no indication of a choice with torches. Hence it is a more annoying/coercive change.
Oh no! We have to survive in survival!
But seriously: if you don't need big bad mobs, isn't creative what you should click on? Haven't I heard rumors of more/most survival blocks getting added to creative, or was that someone blowing hot air?
Notch plans to turn the current alpha client into it's own creative mode once he's ironed out most of the bugs in the survival portion of the game. Then players can select between survival (requiring crafting, fighting enemies, etc.) or playing with infinite health and blocks.
Why have danger in form of stupid mobs when you can have danger in form of other players?
And still, alpha without mobs isn't just about spamming blocks
-Dfml.ignorePatchDiscrepancies=true -Dfml.ignoreInvalidMinecraftCertificates=true
run any jarmods
Where did you draw THAT conclusion from?
The reason I want it to be an option is not because I dislike monsters. It is because it is annoying and tedious, and yet at the same time, does not do anything at all to accomplish its intended game design goal. It does not make the game any harder. Running around lighting torches is not HARD, it is TEDIOUS. Or alternatively, if you go for lanterns, mining for an extra 30 minutes to get more resources for lanterns (in your completely safe, temporarily torch lit mine) is not HARD. It is TEDIOUS.
There is a really huge difference between those two things. And this change picks the wrong one, in the opinions of a ton of people. Thus making the survival game less fun. Which is why it should be optional.
Awww...
Well...
It's still on the public TODO list to make floating blocks fall. Or is that a lie as well?
Below is the sourced list of Notch's actual words:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=49256
^^This x the final number of MC sales, whenever that comes about. :ohmy.gif:)
My humble LPs can be found here.
Wouldn't you use more lanterns if you had that many torches to relight? Or maybe just leave some areas dark, and spend time now and then stocking up on armor and food and weapons to make it through the dark areas. (edit: versus now, where I just plant light, and can all but ignore armor/food/weapons)
So far you've sounded kind of fixated on relighting torches. They're just one aspect of a large system. (A large system which I feel is made more interesting by all the coming changes relating to lighting.)
If you're still set against them, I'm happy to simply disagree with you and leave it at that. (in fact, there's this other thread with a similar title...) I'd rather spend my time in here discussing the new and exciting changes we're going to face as the topic suggests.
Option A) Using more lanterns = a different kind of equally non-hard tedium (extra resource gathering for the sake of extra resource gathering)
Option :cool.gif: Leaving areas dark = Silly. No, I wouldn't do this, because it requires me to mine/farm resources for food and armor and arrows EVERY TIME I go through that area, versus mining resources for lanterns ONCE (while also eliminating risk). The armor choice is going to end up costing more very quickly, especially adding in items lost to deaths.
Option C) Using torches and relighting = tedium, not hard.
Neither sensical option (A and C) makes the game harder.
They both make the game more annoying.
=Fail.
That would just be teasing. You need at least an iron pick to mine diamonds.
Ok. I just disagree. The same could be said for having to constantly make picks every time you want to mine. Or dig up coal or chop trees every time you want to furnace something. Everything in the game (seems to me) fits your definition of tedium. But what is already there and what is being added (seem to me to) make sense, and add up to a logical, interdependent/interesting system. Especially with the overall increase in danger and risk/reward decisions, I (personally) cannot even fathom why the changes could be construed as a downside.
As implied, I won't really be replying to any more nay-saying in this thread. I'll go check out the other thread and continue discussing it over there.
There's several "tedious" aspects to the game that ends up being very rewarding when it's all completed. Sorting out the torch vs. lantern thing will just be another one of those.
Below is the sourced list of Notch's actual words:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=49256