We have ender chests, so why not Ender Hoppers? They would work similarly to Ender Chests, where the hopper connects to another hopper in the world.
So if you put a load of Cobblestone into an Ender Hopper with a chest on top, it would lead to another Ender Hopper you placed, which would then empty into a chest if anyone in the game is near by. (Or it would require the chunk an Ender Hopper is placed in to always be loaded, which would probably have technical issues on the older versions of MineCraft like in the 360/PS3 versions)
The main restriction would be that only 2 Ender Hoppers could be placed by a single person, else it would make things a little confusing to work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hoppers can pull from ender chests no? In which case putting a hopper under an ender chest effectively makes it an ender hopper.
I can see this as a «slower extention» of the Ender Chest. Wouldn't it be better if they somehow made it possible to merge two Ender Chests into one...?
And a double enderchest could potentially hold 72 stacks of items. A Ender Hopper would theoretically hold as much as you want, so long as you kept streaming hoppers after that point.
So basically it would teleport whatever entered one ender hopper to the other ender hopper? But then wouldn't the other ender hopper send that item directly back to the first ender hopper? Unless it somehow stamps every item with a tag denoting which the originating hopper was, preventing the other hopper from sending it back. But if you had more than two ender hoppers, which hopper would receive the item sent from the original? Because I honestly don't know how you're going to impose a limitation of 2 hoppers. Sure the game can recognize if two exist within loaded chunks, but you would be able to exceed that amount by unloading the chunk the hopper is in (the same way you can exceed the animal spawn limit).
Bah! How about this: Ender hoppers can send/retrieve items from an Ender Chest. That sounds far more useful. And far less convoluted.
We have ender chests, so why not Ender Hoppers? They would work similarly to Ender Chests, where the hopper connects to another hopper in the world.
So if you put a load of Cobblestone into an Ender Hopper with a chest on top, it would lead to another Ender Hopper you placed, which would then empty into a chest if anyone in the game is near by. (Or it would require the chunk an Ender Hopper is placed in to always be loaded, which would probably have technical issues on the older versions of MineCraft like in the 360/PS3 versions)
The main restriction would be that only 2 Ender Hoppers could be placed by a single person, else it would make things a little confusing to work.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but hoppers can pull from ender chests no? In which case putting a hopper under an ender chest effectively makes it an ender hopper.
Support my suggestions. Make the game better!
I can see this as a «slower extention» of the Ender Chest. Wouldn't it be better if they somehow made it possible to merge two Ender Chests into one...?
Sadly, nope Ender chests don't work with hoppers
And a double enderchest could potentially hold 72 stacks of items. A Ender Hopper would theoretically hold as much as you want, so long as you kept streaming hoppers after that point.
So basically it would teleport whatever entered one ender hopper to the other ender hopper? But then wouldn't the other ender hopper send that item directly back to the first ender hopper? Unless it somehow stamps every item with a tag denoting which the originating hopper was, preventing the other hopper from sending it back. But if you had more than two ender hoppers, which hopper would receive the item sent from the original? Because I honestly don't know how you're going to impose a limitation of 2 hoppers. Sure the game can recognize if two exist within loaded chunks, but you would be able to exceed that amount by unloading the chunk the hopper is in (the same way you can exceed the animal spawn limit).
Bah! How about this: Ender hoppers can send/retrieve items from an Ender Chest. That sounds far more useful. And far less convoluted.