1. Too many stacks of worthless crap that I'd rather have one stack of than many decorative versions of.
2. The method of crafting is unintuitive for both versions that you have. I'd rather have a consistent version of all those things that I know look good with certain things than try to figure out how to get it to look how I want with many kinds of wood.
Simply put, my problems boil down to too many options that I don't want or care about.
If you're scared of so much/many items, then don't make them.
If you're scared of so much/many items, then don't make them.
Ah, the great and wonderful "don't like don't use" argument, so much used and yet so dumb.
There are six kinds of wood in the game. All of them have different aesthetic uses. When you need wood, you don't go out of your way to only cut down one kind of tree, and when you make a piston, chest, jukebox, lever, etc. how concerned are you actually that these items of utility match your carpet or walls?
Now, Mojang's doors are actually pretty good (they're not just slightly different colors of the same door), so I'm actually fine with that. And fences are okay, I guess. But this suggestion also calls for so many variations of items that don't actually need them. If I need lots of chests really fast, I don't want multiple aesthetics to work with, simply because a stack of wood only makes eight chests and I always need more than that. And if I don't have the trees I need, I have to go searching a long time simply because someone on the forums thought it'd be great to mess with things I already know how to make look good. This combined with the amount of inventory taken up just by variations of items make me hope that this idea is not added any more than it already has been.
Ah, the great and wonderful "don't like don't use" argument, so much used and yet so dumb.
There are six kinds of wood in the game. All of them have different aesthetic uses. When you need wood, you don't go out of your way to only cut down one kind of tree, and when you make a piston, chest, jukebox, lever, etc. how concerned are you actually that these items of utility match your carpet or walls?
Now, Mojang's doors are actually pretty good (they're not just slightly different colors of the same door), so I'm actually fine with that. And fences are okay, I guess. But this suggestion also calls for so many variations of items that don't actually need them. If I need lots of chests really fast, I don't want multiple aesthetics to work with, simply because a stack of wood only makes eight chests and I always need more than that. And if I don't have the trees I need, I have to go searching a long time simply because someone on the forums thought it'd be great to mess with things I already know how to make look good. This combined with the amount of inventory taken up just by variations of items make me hope that this idea is not added any more than it already has been.
What? Who chops down one oak tree, than a jungle tree, than a birch, then on and on? A single oak forest gives someone a lot of oak wood. So does a birch forest, so does a taiga, so does jungle and on and on.
Your argument makes sense only when someone goes to cut down one tree, different at a time because with just 2 oak trees you get about 9 logs (or so), ending up with 32 planks (excluding crafting table) that's already kinda of a lot, now think what happens when you cut down 20. About 340 planks.
Don't call something dumb when your own argument has less logic.
What? Who chops down one oak tree, than a jungle tree, than a birch, then on and on? A single oak forest gives someone a lot of oak wood. So does a birch forest, so does a taiga, so does jungle and on and on.
Your argument makes sense only when someone goes to cut down one tree, different at a time because with just 2 oak trees you get about 9 logs (or so), ending up with 32 planks (excluding crafting table) that's already kinda of a lot, now think what happens when you cut down 20. About 340 planks.
Don't call something dumb when your own argument has less logic.
I don't like building my house in forests or next to forests. The trees get in the way and mess with my sense of aesthetics. I generally choose hills, deserts, plains, and other biomes where there are not a lot of trees. This means that when I need wood, I either need to go out of my way to get to trees or plant my own. I generally plant my own, usually from saplings I got from the first tree I chopped down. My method prevents me from having too many kinds of wood. I will not change this method because chopping down a ton of trees is boring, destroys the natural land, and takes me further from my home than I feel is worth it (compared to just planting next to my house). Wood is the most basic item and I don't think I should have to work for it to get something to look good and/or consistent.
Admittedly, that's mostly a personal problem/opinion, and I can understand if you don't understand, think I'm lazy, whatever. That's my main objection based on subjective observation, and it's fine if you're not at all convinced by it.
What's not a personal thing is the 60 new items this would bring into existence. Do we really want to clutter up inventories and the creative menu with them? I can't imagine many aesthetic situations where having a different colored ladder makes your build shine. It's essentially more for more's sake.
Finally, noting 'flaws' in my reasoning does not in any way fix your own. "Don't like don't use" is never valid. If your argument requires other people to not use/watch/read/do something to justify it, you do not have an argument. Besides that, I am to some degree forced to use it, as I do use wood items and in making them I would be required to choose between aesthetics. For example: I like Oak Doors. I don't like the Dark Oak Doors. If all I have is Dark Oak, I've got to go out looking (and as I already established, I don't like doing that). More choices is not better here.
I don't like building my house in forests or next to forests. The trees get in the way and mess with my sense of aesthetics. I generally choose hills, deserts, plains, and other biomes where there are not a lot of trees. This means that when I need wood, I either need to go out of my way to get to trees or plant my own. I generally plant my own, usually from saplings I got from the first tree I chopped down. My method prevents me from having too many kinds of wood. I will not change this method because chopping down a ton of trees is boring, destroys the natural land, and takes me further from my home than I feel is worth it (compared to just planting next to my house). Wood is the most basic item and I don't think I should have to work for it to get something to look good and/or consistent.
Admittedly, that's mostly a personal problem/opinion, and I can understand if you don't understand, think I'm lazy, whatever. That's my main objection based on subjective observation, and it's fine if you're not at all convinced by it.
What's not a personal thing is the 60 new items this would bring into existence. Do we really want to clutter up inventories and the creative menu with them? I can't imagine many aesthetic situations where having a different colored ladder makes your build shine. It's essentially more for more's sake.
Finally, noting 'flaws' in my reasoning does not in any way fix your own. "Don't like don't use" is never valid. If your argument requires other people to not use/watch/read/do something to justify it, you do not have an argument. Besides that, I am to some degree forced to use it, as I do use wood items and in making them I would be required to choose between aesthetics. For example: I like Oak Doors. I don't like the Dark Oak Doors. If all I have is Dark Oak, I've got to go out looking (and as I already established, I don't like doing that). More choices is not better here.
You don't HAVE to work to make it look good or be consistent. You aready admitted that you only farm one type of tree, and therefore only use one type of wood for almost everything, simply through the virtue of having wood. Unless you spawned in a roofed forest and don't feel like moving anywhere ever, the "I don't build in a forest" and the "I don't like certain woods" points are invalid.
I see your other points, though. More choices are worse because we don't need them. Items take up space, so we shouldn't ever have more items. I suppose you don't play Terraria because it has too many items, even though the items all look different and come in complete sets in which each piece complements each other, and if you don't want the items it's very easy to collect the items you do like?
And, despite all this, I see a new type of "clutter" being supported in your signature. And, let me guess: if I don't want to use it, I shouldn't use it? Bravo, sir. You are now part of the expert logic club. Or is it different because you have to craft it? But you just said it's never valid. You can't just make up exceptions: that's fallacious.
Also, the fallacy fallacy doesn't automatically make your claim true.
You don't HAVE to work to make it look good or be consistent. You aready admitted that you only farm one type of tree, and therefore only use one type of wood for almost everything, simply through the virtue of having wood. Unless you spawned in a roofed forest and don't feel like moving anywhere ever, the "I don't build in a forest" and the "I don't like certain woods" points are invalid.
I see your other points, though. More choices are worse because we don't need them. Items take up space, so we shouldn't ever have more items. I suppose you don't play Terraria because it has too many items, even though the items all look different and come in complete sets in which each piece complements each other, and if you don't want the items it's very easy to collect the items you do like?
And despite all this, I see a new type of "clutter" being supported in your signature. And, let me guess: if I don't want to use it, I shouldn't use it? Bravo, sir. You are now part of the expert logic club. Or is it different because you have to craft it? But you just said it's never valid. You can't just make up exceptions: that's fallacious.
Also, the fallacy fallacy doesn't automatically make your claim true.
Assuming the themes present already are continued, I have no objections with new types of wooden whatever.
Wood goes with more than just wood, you know. I would like to make it look good with other materials. Again, though, that's a personal annoyance that I blurted out in irritation and I understand if you're less than convinced.
More choices are not worse because we don't need them. More choices here in this specific suggestion are worse because they're overly and unnecessarily excessive.
It's not that it's "more items are bad" it's that "these items are excessive." It's not that "items take up space so we shouldn't have more" it's that "these items serve no purpose other than taking up space and being distracting, and that's a problem." Again, more for more's sake. More without seeming purpose, even aesthetically.
Items like fences, bookshelves, and things that actually use similar to wood textures and are used frequently to decorate are somewhat understandable, as you want to make them consistent (or be able to hide them better, as with the pressure plate). But Jukeboxes? Signs? Ladders? In what way do these need multiple versions?
In my signature is a block that serves aesthetically. It is of a similar nature to obsidian or coal blocks, but smoother and more well-defined. Because it is different in the way it is, it can be used nicely to make an area more pleasant. There are ten items out of fourteen in this suggestion that I would not say my previous sentence for. It's not an exception. It's a rule. It's a necessary rule, as otherwise Minecraft would be overrun with items that serve no purpose, even aesthetically, other than taking up space and being distracting.
Last thing: I did not use the fallacy fallacy. I did not assert that his fallacy made his entire argument wrong. I asserted that his fallacy was nonsense and told him the reasons why. It was also a shot at his last sentence, in which he attempted a silencing tactic by pointing out that I had flaws, implying that I couldn't criticize him. Here's a fallacy for you: strawmanning. Distorting my intent, rather than presenting my actual one. Assigning me a position not my own, and using it to try and attack my actual position. Fabricating a counterargument that I would never make, just so you can shoot it down. Basically your entire third paragraph.
I don't like building my house in forests or next to forests. The trees get in the way and mess with my sense of aesthetics. I generally choose hills, deserts, plains, and other biomes where there are not a lot of trees. This means that when I need wood, I either need to go out of my way to get to trees or plant my own. I generally plant my own, usually from saplings I got from the first tree I chopped down. My method prevents me from having too many kinds of wood. I will not change this method because chopping down a ton of trees is boring, destroys the natural land, and takes me further from my home than I feel is worth it (compared to just planting next to my house). Wood is the most basic item and I don't think I should have to work for it to get something to look good and/or consistent.
Admittedly, that's mostly a personal problem/opinion, and I can understand if you don't understand, think I'm lazy, whatever. That's my main objection based on subjective observation, and it's fine if you're not at all convinced by it.
What's not a personal thing is the 60 new items this would bring into existence. Do we really want to clutter up inventories and the creative menu with them? I can't imagine many aesthetic situations where having a different colored ladder makes your build shine. It's essentially more for more's sake.
Finally, noting 'flaws' in my reasoning does not in any way fix your own. "Don't like don't use" is never valid. If your argument requires other people to not use/watch/read/do something to justify it, you do not have an argument. Besides that, I am to some degree forced to use it, as I do use wood items and in making them I would be required to choose between aesthetics. For example: I like Oak Doors. I don't like the Dark Oak Doors. If all I have is Dark Oak, I've got to go out looking (and as I already established, I don't like doing that). More choices is not better here.
Wait you say you don't want to go out of your way to cut down one type of tree yet you plant saplings from the first tree you cut down? That would mean you would only have 1 type of tree. and the don't like it don't use it is true not dumb. I don't like using red stone so I don't use it. Doesent mean it shouldn't be added
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yes. cause I totally spread gold bars on my toast...
Wait you say you don't want to go out of your way to cut down one type of tree yet you plant saplings from the first tree you cut down? That would mean you would only have 1 type of tree. and the don't like it don't use it is true not dumb. I don't like using red stone so I don't use it. Doesent mean it shouldn't be added
No, I say I don't want to go out of my way to cut down more than one type of tree. Important qualifier that changes the entire meaning of the phrase.
'Don't like don't use' is dumb normally, but it's especially so in this case. I quote myself:
If your argument requires other people to not use/watch/read/do something to justify it, you do not have an argument. Besides that, I am to some degree forced to use it, as I do use wood items and in making them I would be required to choose between aesthetics. For example: I like Oak Doors. I don't like the Dark Oak Doors. If all I have is Dark Oak, I've got to go out looking (and as I already established, I don't like doing that).
You don't like redstone and don't use it, but you're not making an argument for or against it, so it doesn't matter. If you try to use 'don't like don't use' to justify something, your justification will be a failure.
I think all of this is fantastic except for the sticks, Pistons, Note blocks and jukeboxes, and maybe chests. After seeing this partially implemented in 1.8, I like the way that it looks, especially because the doors each have their endividual texture rather than just a colout change. However, the sticks, if they gave no change to the tools/other crafting recipies they are used in, serve absolutely no purpose other than totake up space and item ids. The pistons, note blocks, and jukebox all have very little wood on them, so changing those textures to accomidate new colours seems a bit pointless to me. With the three previously mentioned, as well as the chests, i also have one problem, and that is mixing wood. I know that whenever i play survival, I always wonder around for ages collecting every type of wood. I then come home with one of each sapling and spend the rest of my time on that map wishing that I had more wood, and just using whatever small supply I have until I run out of one kind (I know that's silly, but that's the way I do things). If these items, especially the chest, were made wood specific, then you would have to have eight of any one type of wood to make a chest, rather than being able to mix and natch whatever wood you have on you at the time.
So as a whole, you have my support, but there are parts that i don't agree with.
So the 1.8 wooden doors differ strongly, allowing us to design different feels in different areas. This is good.
The different colors of fences and fence gates ensures that we can differentiate areas among at least seven players or teams without resorting to weird setups.
I'm still pulling for beds that differ by the color of the blankets (with at least a small collection of distinct patterns, much like the doors, not just distinct colors), by my proposal allows for bed bases that differ as well without making everything exponentially explosive. Well, more than a little bit.
And I'd like to see a lot more items in Birch instead of Oak. But I think each item should be able to remain the same item, just with a texture that overlays part of it, potentially even pulling that texture from the texture pack itself. Though I'm really not sure how much lag that might cause.
I mean, I'm all in favor of visualvarietyin general, and moredecorative blocks (also bookcases that don't break the laws of physics, but that's neither here nor there)... but it shouldn't require a ton of new items. And items that change their textures a bit seems like a reasonable compromise, since texture packs could take care of the rest: You could conceivably make six varieties of Bookshelf (based on wood colors) where part of the texture stays the same but the differing textures make it look like different computer screens, for a SciFi pack that doesn't need to overwrite six distinct blocks, just six textures for the same single block.
If that's the way it goes, then you should be able to use a tool to change the texture, kind of like clicking a bookcase with a birch plank to change it to birch-style. Or maybe grinding elements (such as diamonds or colored clay) into paint and using them to paint blocks (colored overlay on the black-and-white portion of the texture? is that how that works?). I'd also love to see wallpaper that lets you cover just one side of a block, more easily ensuring that my room decorations don't interfere with each other (or require double-thick walls).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My YouTube channel is currently on hiatus, but I hope to get back to it at some point. Content is fairly random, but can be enjoyable, and is mostly game footage (mostly random Minecraft clips) from my nephews and me. Most popular MC vid so far is the one Vechs laughed at on Twitter!
No. No. No. It is already enough of what Mojang is doing! First coloured logs, then coloured bla bla bla... No. It will make multitfplayer so hard, especially in a wood-scarce area! Like what happens when a player only has 1 birch log and 1 oak log and wants to craft a chest or something! What happens when someone only has 4 planks, each of a different kind, to craft a crafting table? Turn back into oak table? Its ridiculous and resource wasting. It will waste one kind of wood at a time and will be tedious and time- consuming. Imagine a hunger games in which you need to make a sword. Open a chest, get 1 oak plank 1 birch plank and 1 spruce stick. No. It's stupid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Sometimes I think people pay more immediate attention to joke, troll, vague, and wrong section threads here instead of the actual proper suggestions.
OP: Multicoloured wood stuff!!!! More wood kinds! Community: Would love this! Support! Me: STOP IT. STOP NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Me: Posts*
Community: Hey look! A thread with no comments! Lets leave it empty and let it die without even giving any thoughts! 2 days later: Me: What the... where's the thread.... oh page 10
Other notes:
> If you make a banner that doesn't link back to your thread, I'll hate you a little.
> Stop suggesting: lighted torch holding, retarded bosses, new dimensions, thirst, natural disasters.
> If you don't support a gun thread because it is "OP" and "unfitting" when it clearly isn't, (eg that musket thread), I will hunt you, and I will absorb your life essence.
No. No. No. It is already enough of what Mojang is doing! First coloured logs, then coloured bla bla bla... No. It will make multitfplayer so hard, especially in a wood-scarce area! Like what happens when a player only has 1 birch log and 1 oak log and wants to craft a chest or something! What happens when someone only has 4 planks, each of a different kind, to craft a crafting table? Turn back into oak table? Its ridiculous and resource wasting. It will waste one kind of wood at a time and will be tedious and time- consuming. Imagine a hunger games in which you need to make a sword. Open a chest, get 1 oak plank 1 birch plank and 1 spruce stick. No. It's stupid.
...What? Try to speak with more proper grammar and stuff. The point you're trying to uh say is pretty hard to notice.
...What? Try to speak with more proper grammar and stuff. The point you're trying to uh say is pretty hard to notice.
It really isn't. They're suggesting a situation in which a person only has a few different-colored planks or sticks, like in Hunger Games or other limited-resource environments or simply when people run out. Then it would be tedious to try and get more.
The only reason that mojang has not put in beds with custom colors is that, if each of the separate wool colored one part of the bed, then they would need to program and individually texture 4096 different beds, which also means that beds alone would nearly quadruple the amount of data values given to blocks in the game, which would make adding new items after this very difficult, and that's not counting if they included changing the wood on the beds. If there were only the 6 wood plank options, that would increase the number of custom beds (which they need to individually program and texture) to 24, 576. And if each of the three wood, like the wool, colored different parts of the bed, that puts the number up to a ridiculous 884, 736, which is more than minecraft could ever cope with,let alone programming each of those individual data values for the beds, as well as the texturing and individual crafting recipes for them all. Also, using the different patterns you suggested on your thread puts those numbers up to 16, 384 for non changeable wood beds, 98, 304 for single wood beds, and 3, 538, 994 for beds with three different planks per bed, and adding your proposed blanket and bed frame combination would double all of those numbers yet again to 32, 768, 196, 608, and 7, 077, 988 respectively, which is just impossible.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
6/21/2014
Posts:
61
Minecraft:
ShawnShyGuy
Xbox:
Satan Shyguy
PSN:
ShawnSG_
Nintendo:
SW-7822-1411-7619
Member Details
Yes, yes, I like this.
The 1.8 update adds a lot of these, but it only made me hungry for alternative wooden items. I'm currently working on an AcaciaCraft resource pack, it's almost identical to this. I find that humorous.
This would be great, hope it becomes a legit thing.
Support!
If you're scared of so much/many items, then don't make them.
Play minecraft.
NOW
Ah, the great and wonderful "don't like don't use" argument, so much used and yet so dumb.
There are six kinds of wood in the game. All of them have different aesthetic uses. When you need wood, you don't go out of your way to only cut down one kind of tree, and when you make a piston, chest, jukebox, lever, etc. how concerned are you actually that these items of utility match your carpet or walls?
Now, Mojang's doors are actually pretty good (they're not just slightly different colors of the same door), so I'm actually fine with that. And fences are okay, I guess. But this suggestion also calls for so many variations of items that don't actually need them. If I need lots of chests really fast, I don't want multiple aesthetics to work with, simply because a stack of wood only makes eight chests and I always need more than that. And if I don't have the trees I need, I have to go searching a long time simply because someone on the forums thought it'd be great to mess with things I already know how to make look good. This combined with the amount of inventory taken up just by variations of items make me hope that this idea is not added any more than it already has been.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
What? Who chops down one oak tree, than a jungle tree, than a birch, then on and on? A single oak forest gives someone a lot of oak wood. So does a birch forest, so does a taiga, so does jungle and on and on.
Your argument makes sense only when someone goes to cut down one tree, different at a time because with just 2 oak trees you get about 9 logs (or so), ending up with 32 planks (excluding crafting table) that's already kinda of a lot, now think what happens when you cut down 20. About 340 planks.
Don't call something dumb when your own argument has less logic.
Play minecraft.
NOW
I don't like building my house in forests or next to forests. The trees get in the way and mess with my sense of aesthetics. I generally choose hills, deserts, plains, and other biomes where there are not a lot of trees. This means that when I need wood, I either need to go out of my way to get to trees or plant my own. I generally plant my own, usually from saplings I got from the first tree I chopped down. My method prevents me from having too many kinds of wood. I will not change this method because chopping down a ton of trees is boring, destroys the natural land, and takes me further from my home than I feel is worth it (compared to just planting next to my house). Wood is the most basic item and I don't think I should have to work for it to get something to look good and/or consistent.
Admittedly, that's mostly a personal problem/opinion, and I can understand if you don't understand, think I'm lazy, whatever. That's my main objection based on subjective observation, and it's fine if you're not at all convinced by it.
What's not a personal thing is the 60 new items this would bring into existence. Do we really want to clutter up inventories and the creative menu with them? I can't imagine many aesthetic situations where having a different colored ladder makes your build shine. It's essentially more for more's sake.
Finally, noting 'flaws' in my reasoning does not in any way fix your own. "Don't like don't use" is never valid. If your argument requires other people to not use/watch/read/do something to justify it, you do not have an argument. Besides that, I am to some degree forced to use it, as I do use wood items and in making them I would be required to choose between aesthetics. For example: I like Oak Doors. I don't like the Dark Oak Doors. If all I have is Dark Oak, I've got to go out looking (and as I already established, I don't like doing that). More choices is not better here.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
You don't HAVE to work to make it look good or be consistent. You aready admitted that you only farm one type of tree, and therefore only use one type of wood for almost everything, simply through the virtue of having wood. Unless you spawned in a roofed forest and don't feel like moving anywhere ever, the "I don't build in a forest" and the "I don't like certain woods" points are invalid.
I see your other points, though. More choices are worse because we don't need them. Items take up space, so we shouldn't ever have more items. I suppose you don't play Terraria because it has too many items, even though the items all look different and come in complete sets in which each piece complements each other, and if you don't want the items it's very easy to collect the items you do like?
And, despite all this, I see a new type of "clutter" being supported in your signature. And, let me guess: if I don't want to use it, I shouldn't use it? Bravo, sir. You are now part of the expert logic club. Or is it different because you have to craft it? But you just said it's never valid. You can't just make up exceptions: that's fallacious.
Also, the fallacy fallacy doesn't automatically make your claim true.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Assuming the themes present already are continued, I have no objections with new types of wooden whatever.
Wood goes with more than just wood, you know. I would like to make it look good with other materials. Again, though, that's a personal annoyance that I blurted out in irritation and I understand if you're less than convinced.
More choices are not worse because we don't need them. More choices here in this specific suggestion are worse because they're overly and unnecessarily excessive.
It's not that it's "more items are bad" it's that "these items are excessive." It's not that "items take up space so we shouldn't have more" it's that "these items serve no purpose other than taking up space and being distracting, and that's a problem." Again, more for more's sake. More without seeming purpose, even aesthetically.
Items like fences, bookshelves, and things that actually use similar to wood textures and are used frequently to decorate are somewhat understandable, as you want to make them consistent (or be able to hide them better, as with the pressure plate). But Jukeboxes? Signs? Ladders? In what way do these need multiple versions?
In my signature is a block that serves aesthetically. It is of a similar nature to obsidian or coal blocks, but smoother and more well-defined. Because it is different in the way it is, it can be used nicely to make an area more pleasant. There are ten items out of fourteen in this suggestion that I would not say my previous sentence for. It's not an exception. It's a rule. It's a necessary rule, as otherwise Minecraft would be overrun with items that serve no purpose, even aesthetically, other than taking up space and being distracting.
Last thing: I did not use the fallacy fallacy. I did not assert that his fallacy made his entire argument wrong. I asserted that his fallacy was nonsense and told him the reasons why. It was also a shot at his last sentence, in which he attempted a silencing tactic by pointing out that I had flaws, implying that I couldn't criticize him. Here's a fallacy for you: strawmanning. Distorting my intent, rather than presenting my actual one. Assigning me a position not my own, and using it to try and attack my actual position. Fabricating a counterargument that I would never make, just so you can shoot it down. Basically your entire third paragraph.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
Wait you say you don't want to go out of your way to cut down one type of tree yet you plant saplings from the first tree you cut down? That would mean you would only have 1 type of tree. and the don't like it don't use it is true not dumb. I don't like using red stone so I don't use it. Doesent mean it shouldn't be added
Yes. cause I totally spread gold bars on my toast...
No, I say I don't want to go out of my way to cut down more than one type of tree. Important qualifier that changes the entire meaning of the phrase.
'Don't like don't use' is dumb normally, but it's especially so in this case. I quote myself:
You don't like redstone and don't use it, but you're not making an argument for or against it, so it doesn't matter. If you try to use 'don't like don't use' to justify something, your justification will be a failure.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
So as a whole, you have my support, but there are parts that i don't agree with.
The different colors of fences and fence gates ensures that we can differentiate areas among at least seven players or teams without resorting to weird setups.
I'm still pulling for beds that differ by the color of the blankets (with at least a small collection of distinct patterns, much like the doors, not just distinct colors), by my proposal allows for bed bases that differ as well without making everything exponentially explosive. Well, more than a little bit.
And I'd like to see a lot more items in Birch instead of Oak. But I think each item should be able to remain the same item, just with a texture that overlays part of it, potentially even pulling that texture from the texture pack itself. Though I'm really not sure how much lag that might cause.
I mean, I'm all in favor of visual variety in general, and more decorative blocks (also bookcases that don't break the laws of physics, but that's neither here nor there)... but it shouldn't require a ton of new items. And items that change their textures a bit seems like a reasonable compromise, since texture packs could take care of the rest: You could conceivably make six varieties of Bookshelf (based on wood colors) where part of the texture stays the same but the differing textures make it look like different computer screens, for a SciFi pack that doesn't need to overwrite six distinct blocks, just six textures for the same single block.
If that's the way it goes, then you should be able to use a tool to change the texture, kind of like clicking a bookcase with a birch plank to change it to birch-style. Or maybe grinding elements (such as diamonds or colored clay) into paint and using them to paint blocks (colored overlay on the black-and-white portion of the texture? is that how that works?). I'd also love to see wallpaper that lets you cover just one side of a block, more easily ensuring that my room decorations don't interfere with each other (or require double-thick walls).
My YouTube channel is currently on hiatus, but I hope to get back to it at some point. Content is fairly random, but can be enjoyable, and is mostly game footage (mostly random Minecraft clips) from my nephews and me. Most popular MC vid so far is the one Vechs laughed at on Twitter!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumSometimes I think people pay more immediate attention to joke, troll, vague, and wrong section threads here instead of the actual proper suggestions.
Community: Would love this! Support!
Me: STOP IT. STOP NO. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Me: Posts*
Community: Hey look! A thread with no comments! Lets leave it empty and let it die without even giving any thoughts!
2 days later:
Me: What the... where's the thread.... oh page 10
Other notes:
> If you make a banner that doesn't link back to your thread, I'll hate you a little.
> Stop suggesting: lighted torch holding, retarded bosses, new dimensions, thirst, natural disasters.
> If you don't support a gun thread because it is "OP" and "unfitting" when it clearly isn't, (eg that musket thread), I will hunt you, and I will absorb your life essence.
...What? Try to speak with more proper grammar and stuff. The point you're trying to uh say is pretty hard to notice.
Play minecraft.
NOW
It really isn't. They're suggesting a situation in which a person only has a few different-colored planks or sticks, like in Hunger Games or other limited-resource environments or simply when people run out. Then it would be tedious to try and get more.
If you are planning to make a suggestion, please read this.
If you want to know more, you can read this.
For those who complain about post-Beta generation, you might want to see this.
The only reason that mojang has not put in beds with custom colors is that, if each of the separate wool colored one part of the bed, then they would need to program and individually texture 4096 different beds, which also means that beds alone would nearly quadruple the amount of data values given to blocks in the game, which would make adding new items after this very difficult, and that's not counting if they included changing the wood on the beds. If there were only the 6 wood plank options, that would increase the number of custom beds (which they need to individually program and texture) to 24, 576. And if each of the three wood, like the wool, colored different parts of the bed, that puts the number up to a ridiculous 884, 736, which is more than minecraft could ever cope with,let alone programming each of those individual data values for the beds, as well as the texturing and individual crafting recipes for them all. Also, using the different patterns you suggested on your thread puts those numbers up to 16, 384 for non changeable wood beds, 98, 304 for single wood beds, and 3, 538, 994 for beds with three different planks per bed, and adding your proposed blanket and bed frame combination would double all of those numbers yet again to 32, 768, 196, 608, and 7, 077, 988 respectively, which is just impossible.
The 1.8 update adds a lot of these, but it only made me hungry for alternative wooden items. I'm currently working on an AcaciaCraft resource pack, it's almost identical to this. I find that humorous.
This would be great, hope it becomes a legit thing.