Yeah. I've seen it mentioned before. But that's only going to contribute to the current problem we have of materials with little to no use. Soon enough we will complain Ruby has no uses, because using it to buy enchantments isn't good enough. And Mojang with be left with one more poisoned potato in their hands; yet another Block or Item ID on their list of Things To Try And Find Some More Uses For. All because at first it really sounded fine to add Ruby as an enchantment currency. I mean, look at gold already. One of the reasons I'm seeing listed in support of Jeb's possible option for gold is that gold as no uses. Gold, has no uses!? Imagine what they will say about your ruby in a few months time? Let's work with what we have. Emeralds are already pretty much associated with enchantments since they are used by some players to purchase enchanted weapons and armor from villagers (pretty much the only use we have for the crappy villager trading system, and that's saying too much). So let's use emeralds, if people really want to have this whole business of including something more than XP in their enchantment table.
You got to it before I did, was gonna say the same thing. Just getting more ores doesn't do us any justice.
They did say they were planning to add more weapons if they revamp the combat system, the trident namely. The only way they could force you to use a new ore to make that is to give it a special use, like freezing water or something random like that.
Or use nether quartz, a purely aesthetic and abundant block that also conveniently gives lots of xp. It would also give more of a reason for people to go into the Nether. That being said, I'm not really keen on adding material requirements to enchanting. Btw, nice analogy with the poisoned potato - is there anything more pointless in MC?
I feel they should make poison potato the ingredient for poison potions, and dead shrubs in the desert are more pointless, you can't eat them.
I feel they should make poison potato the ingredient for poison potions, and dead shrubs in the desert are more pointless, you can't eat them.
Lol - true, true, but at least they add to the atmosphere of the desert. I agree that an ingredient of poison potions is a prime candidate for a valid use, and I don't see why they didn't add that in already.
Personally I'd love to see a high elevation ore. Give us a reason to explore mountains.
I've been saying for quite some time that ores need to be height-specific. As it is, ALL the ores can be found at diamond level, so the first thing people do is staircase down to diamond level, and mine. Boring. Making certain ores only spawn at higher levels would mean that the player would need to mine at those levels, as well at at diamond level. For example, maybe iron can only be found between 35 and 50. Emeralds could still be found in Extreme Hills, but only on levels 70+. And so on.
While some people would complain (some people always complain) I think it would add depth (no pun intended) to the game. Make certain ores much more common (or rarer) in certain biomes, and the player is forced to explore. For example, Iron would be diamond-rare in all biomes except Extreme Hills, where it is as common as coal (but still only between 35 and 50, remember). Coal would be more common under swamps (all that carbon in those swamp trees, I guess.)
Please note, Mojang already does this with Emeralds being found only under extreme hills. This would just be an extension of that.
As for myself I wouldn't mind flooded cave sections: no hostile mobs but going in armed with water breathing and night vision potions without knowing just how much underwater exploring is ahead could be quite the trip.
That could be fun if they add more stuff to the caves but I've made no plans to hold my breath any time soon (no pun intended).
It's just that the kind of adventuring you envision there about exploring underwater cave systems and whatnot sounds really nice but with it comes the implied surroundings and elements that would create a rich situation chalk full of things they have yet to add (i.e. - additional mobs, more ores, different residual / meta additions, like modified kinds of game play that would alter the mechanics of mining, fighting; whatever), and I for one doubt they'll ever get that far. Reasons exist for my belief but mostly come down to lacking skill sets or else having dug their graves so deep with everything they currently have to a point where it would be impossible to add those things. For whatever it's worth, though, I do hope I'm wrong!
The possibility of having that kind of gaming experience with this sort of game is either with a new version of this game (like a complete rewrite, etc.) or else through a competitor's game. There still has yet to be an actual competitor to Minecraft, but rest assured, sooner or later, it will happen. There's too much money out there for it not to happen.
Personally I'd love to see a high elevation ore. Give us a reason to explore mountains.
There needs to be more reason to do everything in this game because once you've experienced what it's like to mine a cave and build a house, that really represents the entirety of the game in whole. Multiplayer is fun, I know, but it's still the same situation even in multiplayer after awhile... What they need to do is find a way to implement a natural generation of gating server worlds together to create a kind of existence where other peoples' creations can be randomly discovered during forays, etc. That would be bad-ass.
I agree. Dinnerbone saying "yes" only really means...
Gnardak, be careful about investing much time and effort in thinking that whatever he posts on the internet is real, an actuality, etc. He has the tendency of misdirecting people, taking his stupid jokes too far, etc.
I've been saying for quite some time that ores need to be height-specific. As it is, ALL the ores can be found at diamond level, so the first thing people do is staircase down to diamond level, and mine. Boring. Making certain ores only spawn at higher levels would mean that the player would need to mine at those levels, as well at at diamond level. For example, maybe iron can only be found between 35 and 50. Emeralds could still be found in Extreme Hills, but only on levels 70+. And so on.
While some people would complain (some people always complain) I think it would add depth (no pun intended) to the game. Make certain ores much more common (or rarer) in certain biomes, and the player is forced to explore. For example, Iron would be diamond-rare in all biomes except Extreme Hills, where it is as common as coal (but still only between 35 and 50, remember). Coal would be more common under swamps (all that carbon in those swamp trees, I guess.)
Please note, Mojang already does this with Emeralds being found only under extreme hills. This would just be an extension of that.
----If they add a hard rock layer near the diamond it makes you mine higher first to get iron then use iron picks to go down again. Maybe they should do something like that, and I agree with the emerald except maybe it would spawn 65-75 (the base of the mountain) so that it doesn't seem like emeralds fell out of the sky to get where they were in the formation. Although, that would make it easier to get, I don't know if that's a good idea or not.
I'd like to see multiple kinds of stone. Underground Biomes has that, and it makes an *amazing* difference in both the variety of my builds and the interest of mining. It's really nice not having chest upon chest of useless cobblestone stacks. Instead of pitching cobblestone stack into lava to get rid of them, often I end up mining just to get more of some stone I want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Climate Control- Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more! Underground Biomes Constructs - 24 different kinds of stone, with complete sets of stairs, slabs, walls, and buttons. ExplorerCraft - map utilities for tiling, carrying, and marking maps.
He just said that it will be changed, he didnt say it would be changed for 1.8. I seriously doubt 1.8 will have any terrain generation changes, considering how much was changed with 1.7
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pointy end up, flamey end down. If both ends are flamey, we call that a 'minor error'." -A very wise rocket scientist
What would ambrosium do? What rarity would it be? What levels would you find it at? Would it drop as the ore and need smelting or drop as the direct item? You need to flesh out suggestions when you make them.
Seriously? A three page topic on Dinnerbone saying nothing at all but "yes" to a question that basically only asked if they "ever plan to change anything underground."
His answer says nothing about anything happening in 1.8, and it says nothing about what they are changing. Dinnerbone did nothing other than confirm that "at some point in the future we will change something in Minecraft."
And now there's a 3 page (and counting) topic about it. You people are crazy. Loathe as I am to admit it, I really need to agree with Lefty's first reply.
What they need to do is find a way to implement a natural generation of gating server worlds together to create a kind of existence where other peoples' creations can be randomly discovered during forays, etc. That would be bad-ass.
I think we need more ores simply for more weapon and tool tiers. As it stands, there is little sense of progression. As it was before 1.7, there was no sense of progression. From 1.4 till 1.7 I didn't touch Minecraft, for three reasons:
1. It had no progression. I always felt like I'd done everything. Mainly because...
2. It got too easy. Face it, there used to be some difficulty in vanilla Minecraft. Now, everyone will get up in arms over the slightest inconvenience, and it truely has made the game grow really stale.
3. They still haven't fully implemented the darned api! Which they've been supposedly working on for nearly 2 years, and have continually made promises about releases, only to keep delaying them without explaination. It would be forgivable if they could share the technical issues, and give us a general road map... But no, they just keep making promises as hollow as a clay pot.
Anyways, enough ranting on my part...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
There's a reason he's called "The Sisko"
Star Trek DS9 and Doctor Who FTW.
I'm hoping for copper and tin, so you could make bronze for there to be a new armor tier between leather and iron before iron. What's leather? Lol.
Bronze actually makes better weapons and armor than iron does IRL. It's just that iron is a lot more common than tin (which as we know is a component of bronze) and it was generally good enough to replace bronze. If I recall correctly, iron objects are also a lot easier to repair than bronze objects, but I don't remember for sure. Take this with a grain of salt, i'm not entirely sure on my info here.
So, what you could do is this: implement copper, give it weapons/tools and armor between stone and iron as well as some other uses so that it stays interesting. Additionally, implement tin as a rare-ish ore (as rare as emerald but in every biome?), and make it used to create bronze (not sure what else it could be used for except for maybe glazing pots) in the crafting table. Four copper and one tin result in five bronze bars, which can be used for weapons/tools and armor between iron and diamond.
The main problem is that a tier between stone and iron isn't really needed, since we already progress very quickly from stone to iron. Admittedly, this is more of a problem with iron than anything else, since it's too easy to get for the power it grants. There isn't a huge need for a tier between iron and diamond, either, since iron is OP anyway. IMO the game would need to be altered a good bit regarding balance before more tiered ores should be added, but since the update insofar appears to only be introducing new stones and maybe a slight chance of a few non-tiered ores I wouldn't say we will be getting a new tiered ore in 1.8. It would hurt the game more than anything, really.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Did something happen to you in your childhood to give you this unreasonable fear of rutabaga?
They did say they were planning to add more weapons if they revamp the combat system, the trident namely. The only way they could force you to use a new ore to make that is to give it a special use, like freezing water or something random like that.
I feel they should make poison potato the ingredient for poison potions, and dead shrubs in the desert are more pointless, you can't eat them.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumLol - true, true, but at least they add to the atmosphere of the desert. I agree that an ingredient of poison potions is a prime candidate for a valid use, and I don't see why they didn't add that in already.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumHe never said this was for 1.8.
...but that's just like, my opinion, man.
I've been saying for quite some time that ores need to be height-specific. As it is, ALL the ores can be found at diamond level, so the first thing people do is staircase down to diamond level, and mine. Boring. Making certain ores only spawn at higher levels would mean that the player would need to mine at those levels, as well at at diamond level. For example, maybe iron can only be found between 35 and 50. Emeralds could still be found in Extreme Hills, but only on levels 70+. And so on.
While some people would complain (some people always complain) I think it would add depth (no pun intended) to the game. Make certain ores much more common (or rarer) in certain biomes, and the player is forced to explore. For example, Iron would be diamond-rare in all biomes except Extreme Hills, where it is as common as coal (but still only between 35 and 50, remember). Coal would be more common under swamps (all that carbon in those swamp trees, I guess.)
Please note, Mojang already does this with Emeralds being found only under extreme hills. This would just be an extension of that.
That could be fun if they add more stuff to the caves but I've made no plans to hold my breath any time soon (no pun intended).
It's just that the kind of adventuring you envision there about exploring underwater cave systems and whatnot sounds really nice but with it comes the implied surroundings and elements that would create a rich situation chalk full of things they have yet to add (i.e. - additional mobs, more ores, different residual / meta additions, like modified kinds of game play that would alter the mechanics of mining, fighting; whatever), and I for one doubt they'll ever get that far. Reasons exist for my belief but mostly come down to lacking skill sets or else having dug their graves so deep with everything they currently have to a point where it would be impossible to add those things. For whatever it's worth, though, I do hope I'm wrong!
The possibility of having that kind of gaming experience with this sort of game is either with a new version of this game (like a complete rewrite, etc.) or else through a competitor's game. There still has yet to be an actual competitor to Minecraft, but rest assured, sooner or later, it will happen. There's too much money out there for it not to happen.
There needs to be more reason to do everything in this game because once you've experienced what it's like to mine a cave and build a house, that really represents the entirety of the game in whole. Multiplayer is fun, I know, but it's still the same situation even in multiplayer after awhile... What they need to do is find a way to implement a natural generation of gating server worlds together to create a kind of existence where other peoples' creations can be randomly discovered during forays, etc. That would be bad-ass.
Gnardak, be careful about investing much time and effort in thinking that whatever he posts on the internet is real, an actuality, etc. He has the tendency of misdirecting people, taking his stupid jokes too far, etc.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumClimate Control- Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
Underground Biomes Constructs - 24 different kinds of stone, with complete sets of stairs, slabs, walls, and buttons.
ExplorerCraft - map utilities for tiling, carrying, and marking maps.
"Pointy end up, flamey end down. If both ends are flamey, we call that a 'minor error'." -A very wise rocket scientist
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse Premiumbetween leather and ironbefore iron. What's leather? Lol.Timeless Modding is kinda dead but idk what to put here now
I occasionally make textures/models for random people. Contributed to: Tinker's Construct, Growthcraft, and Animals+
PixelQuest 2, my new 1.10 RPG/rougelike-inspired modpack, is coming soon!
Seems pointless when you know you can always go to the same level every time to dig for X.
Imagine how much more time you'd need to spend digging for diamonds if they could be located at level 80 deep in a mountain versus level below you.
PROUD USER OF THE STEVE SKIN
What would ambrosium do? What rarity would it be? What levels would you find it at? Would it drop as the ore and need smelting or drop as the direct item? You need to flesh out suggestions when you make them.
-Lefty
His answer says nothing about anything happening in 1.8, and it says nothing about what they are changing. Dinnerbone did nothing other than confirm that "at some point in the future we will change something in Minecraft."
And now there's a 3 page (and counting) topic about it. You people are crazy. Loathe as I am to admit it, I really need to agree with Lefty's first reply.
R.I.P Politics, Philosophy, News, and Science section. 11/8/14
I love that idea.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0OtPNZX22RvZVeq4-dHa8GYKOc5lojKX
1. It had no progression. I always felt like I'd done everything. Mainly because...
2. It got too easy. Face it, there used to be some difficulty in vanilla Minecraft. Now, everyone will get up in arms over the slightest inconvenience, and it truely has made the game grow really stale.
3. They still haven't fully implemented the darned api! Which they've been supposedly working on for nearly 2 years, and have continually made promises about releases, only to keep delaying them without explaination. It would be forgivable if they could share the technical issues, and give us a general road map... But no, they just keep making promises as hollow as a clay pot.
Anyways, enough ranting on my part...
Star Trek DS9 and Doctor Who FTW.
Bronze actually makes better weapons and armor than iron does IRL. It's just that iron is a lot more common than tin (which as we know is a component of bronze) and it was generally good enough to replace bronze. If I recall correctly, iron objects are also a lot easier to repair than bronze objects, but I don't remember for sure. Take this with a grain of salt, i'm not entirely sure on my info here.
So, what you could do is this: implement copper, give it weapons/tools and armor between stone and iron as well as some other uses so that it stays interesting. Additionally, implement tin as a rare-ish ore (as rare as emerald but in every biome?), and make it used to create bronze (not sure what else it could be used for except for maybe glazing pots) in the crafting table. Four copper and one tin result in five bronze bars, which can be used for weapons/tools and armor between iron and diamond.
The main problem is that a tier between stone and iron isn't really needed, since we already progress very quickly from stone to iron. Admittedly, this is more of a problem with iron than anything else, since it's too easy to get for the power it grants. There isn't a huge need for a tier between iron and diamond, either, since iron is OP anyway. IMO the game would need to be altered a good bit regarding balance before more tiered ores should be added, but since the update insofar appears to only be introducing new stones and maybe a slight chance of a few non-tiered ores I wouldn't say we will be getting a new tiered ore in 1.8. It would hurt the game more than anything, really.