I am a die hard minecraft survivalist
I wholeheartedly believe in hard work as a positive experience.
the quest is the adventure to me, not the outcome, or the product.
while these trophies are most definitely art, I personally like to see the struggle, and the time, and the patience, reflected in that art, to me, it is the difference between mindless recreation and a monument.
All this in mind about me, a question forms
when the ability to switch to creative mode becomes available, and the option to integrate all of the otherwise unavailable new content into my existing world, would it be possible to resist?
If i am to take the opportunity to use this new mode for only a small thing here and there, will that be enough to start the ball rolling?
will that one thing here and there turn into enough to ruin the delicate balance of minecraft survival that has kept me entertained for months?
will i start to get bored?
maybe i will be able to resist the temptation to use it "just this once for some coal"
but if my leaderbords are already disabled, maybe i wont
maybe i will be able to resist the temptation to use it "just this once for some coal"
but if my leaderbords are already disabled, maybe i wont
is there a way out?
You would seriously consider going into creative mode and disqualifying your world from the leaderboards just to get some coal? You do realize it is the most commonly generated ore in the game?
You would seriously consider going into creative mode and disqualifying your world from the leaderboards just to get some coal? You do realize it is the most commonly generated ore in the game?
in the quote is even says
"if my leaderbords are already disabled"
in the quote is even says
"if my leaderbords are already disabled"
so, to answer your question, no, i would not.
I hate to be like a grammar policeman; but there is a reason I misunderstood your statement. It specifically says "but if my leaderboards were already disabled, maybe I won't" which is a little different than saying "but if my leaderboard's were NOT already disabled, I wouldn't."
I hate to be like a grammar policeman; but there is a reason I misunderstood your statement. It specifically says "but if my leaderboards were already disabled, maybe I won't" which is a little different than saying "but if my leaderboard's were NOT already disabled, I wouldn't."
I believe i said what i intended.
if they were not disabled, meaning still active, then i would be able to resist.
however, if they were already disabled from getting the otherwise unavailable content, then perhaps i wouldn't be able to resist using creative mode for other things.
I don't even care about the leader boards. =P I care about the game. I did get the achievements due to there were only 20 anyways, and since they were easy I did it, plus this is the first game out of both the PS3 and xbox that I have gotten the full set of achievements. But I just care about building and what not. I'll be mostly playing Creative mode for some worlds anyways. I'd say go for it, but not for coal. Coal is easy to get. I'd use it for something that is harder to get.
i guess i could try just to exert some self control
but there is still an issue.
what if i want to show off my projects some day?
people may not believe they are built legit if i use creative mode for even the most necessarily of things, 1 melon, 1 dark wood tree sapling (my world has none), clay.
can i even still call it legit after that?
and if i cant, then why bother to try and regulate it at all?
if they were not disabled, meaning still active, then i would be able to resist.
however, if they were already disabled from getting the otherwise unavailable content, then perhaps i wouldn't be able to resist using creative mode for other things.
does that clear things up?
Nope. I still think you said exactly opposite of what you intended. What you said implies that you might not go into creative mode for coal if your leaderboards were already disabled. What you seem to be actually intending to say is that: if your leaderboards were already disabled, you would be more tempted to go into creative mode for coal.
I don't see how preserving leaderboard status for going into creative mode would discourage you from then using it. You're asking the game to not only police how many times you go in and out of creative, but also keep track of how many blocks you gather/place when you're in there and decide whether or not they were blocks you actually needed merely to upgrade that particular world to include everything (including features that are already available; but that just didn't seem to generate in that particular seed). The system has to make a "ruling" whether or not the activity was excessive enough to warrant a disqualification of the leaderboard status of that world. So, what is excessive - 2 times? 5 times? 3 blocks? 10 blocks?
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
Must give us pause: there's the respect
That makes calamity of so long life;
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all;
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprises of great pith and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry,
And lose the name of action. - Soft you now!
The fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons
Be all my sins remember'd.
Did not read any of this except the fist sentence. Who's with me... be honest
i guess i could try just to exert some self control
but there is still an issue.
what if i want to show off my projects some day?
people may not believe they are built legit if i use creative mode for even the most necessarily of things, 1 melon, 1 dark wood tree sapling (my world has none), clay.
can i even still call it legit after that?
and if i cant, then why bother to try and regulate it at all?
To a "die hard survivalist" who cares about the leaderboards, the answer to your dilemma should be a no brainer. Do without the new stuff in that particular world and stay out of creative mode. Melons aren't essential to survival; they just curb hunger a little easier than bread. You can still survive in the game on "bread alone"; it'll just make it a little more challenging and possibly prevent you from becoming bored. As for the other stuff, you've been surviving and building your world up without dark wood and clay for some time already; so why suddenly care about it now. Then, of course, there's always the option of re-challenging yourself from the beginning and starting over with nothing in a new world.
Everything in life has a "price"; and I thnk disabling the leaderboard stats for a specific world upon entering creative mode the first time is a fair price to pay for the convenience of it. I think it has to be on the first time, too - since there is no way the game should have to police and make a judgment whether or not that first time into creative mode involved gathering 1 block of a few items or 6 hours of gathering chests full of items.
As for whether or not you can call it "legit" or not has always been (and will still be) your own judgment call. You define for yourself what "legit" entails, and every person probably defines it a little differently.
I'm not really all that impressed with leader boards to be honest. A lot of stats can easily be padded. Kills, for instance. I'm in the top 300 (and climbing) on MC360 for kills. The reason: I have two spawners and one slime farm in one world. I've gotten over 5,000 slime kills with my slime farm alone. How is that a fair gauge against someone who doesn't have spawners set up and just kills MOBs as they do every day things in MC?
Nope. I still think you said exactly opposite of what you intended. What you said implies that you might not go into creative mode for coal if your leaderboards were already disabled. What you seem to be actually intending to say is that: if your leaderboards were already disabled, you would be more tempted to go into creative mode for coal.
maybe i will be able to resist the temptation to use it "just this once for some coal"
but if my leaderbords are already disabled, maybe i wont
Nope, read it again, he said exactly what he intended.
OP: Anyway, I don't have much to contribute here, as I find the "adventure" to be a complete bore. But, how can something made in creative mode be a mindless creation? The whole point of creative is to get rid of the mindless aspect of the game. I.e. scouring caves for diamonds or holding the right trigger for hours.
Nope, read it again, he said exactly what he intended.
OP: Anyway, I don't have much to contribute here, as I find the "adventure" to be a complete bore. But, how can something made in creative mode be a mindless creation? The whole point of creative is to get rid of the mindless aspect of the game. I.e. scouring caves for diamonds or holding the right trigger for hours.
If that's the case, then he would have to have been considering going in for just a piece coal before his leaderboards got disabled. Which is the first question I asked and to which he replied to me that he would not consider it at all.
Since he's a self-professed diehard survivalist, I believe his response to me, not the statement in his first post. What he appears to be really objecting to is that the leaderboards would be disabled the first time he entered creative mode whether or not it was for a lump of coal or a melon seed. Something really that he should expect to "police" himself on, not have the game "police" everyone else on. Just because he might consider a world "legit" if a player entered creative mode for 1 melon and not legit if they do it for coal, doesn't mean that the game should be set up to make that same judgment. You and I both agree that creative worlds are legitimately creative and that mining can be really one of the more boring aspects of the game. The judgment the game is being set up to make is that everyone entering creative mode will pay a "price" - the price being that the world will no longer be eligible to add to the leaderboards. I think that price is fair.
If that's the case, then he would have to have been considering going in for just a piece coal before his leaderboards got disabled. Which is the first question I asked and to which he replied to me that he would not consider it at all.
Since he's a self-professed diehard survivalist, I believe his response to me, not the statement in his first post. What he appears to be really objecting to is that the leaderboards would be disabled the first time he entered creative mode whether or not it was for a lump of coal or a melon seed. Something really that he should expect to "police" himself on, not have the game "police" everyone else on. Just because he might consider a world "legit" if a player entered creative mode for 1 melon and not legit if they do it for coal, doesn't mean that the game should be set up to make that same judgment. You and I both agree that creative worlds are legitimately creative and that mining can be really one of the more boring aspects of the game. The judgment the game is being set up to make is that everyone entering creative mode will pay you a "price" - the price being that the world will no longer be eligible to add to the leaderboards. I think that price is fair.
"maybe i will be able to resist the temptation to use it "just this once for some coal"
but if my leaderbords are already disabled, maybe i wont"
Let me re-type this:
If my leaderboards ARE already disabled, maybe I WON'T be able to to resist the temptation to use creative for coal.
His reply to you and statement in the first post are saying the same thing. Anyway, I agree that the price is fair, but I'm not going to get into a big discussion about it. I know someone will reply to me with a pro-survivalist megapost, and I'm too sick to take part in any debates right now. I don't like this thread... I feel as if it's foreshadowing the coming of a new flame war. Instead of arguing over the duplication glitch, we're all going to be having the exact same argument over creative vs. survival.
Going to creative for anything in a survival usually makes me feel like a cheater and I soon delete the world. in MY opinion, survival and creative modes should be kept separate.
"maybe i will be able to resist the temptation to use it "just this once for some coal"
but if my leaderbords are already disabled, maybe i wont"
Let me re-type this:
If my leaderboards ARE already disabled, maybe I WON'T be able to to resist the temptation to use creative for coal.
His reply to you and statement in the first post are saying the same thing. Anyway, I agree that the price is fair, but I'm not going to get into a big discussion about it. I know someone will reply to me with a pro-survivalist megapost, and I'm too sick to take part in any debates right now. I don't like this thread... I feel as if it's foreshadowing the coming of a new flame war. Instead of arguing over the duplication glitch, we're all going to be having the exact same argument over creative vs. survival.
Not it's not - "MAYBE i will be able to resist the temptation" - That is, it's not a certainty that he would be able to resist the temptation. It's not saying that he would not be tempted to go into creative for coal, which is what he responded to me. The statement says, in effect, that he would be LESS tempted if the leaderboards were not already disabled.
ETA: What gets me about many of the "legit" or "illegit" build threads, is that while a whole lot of people complain about people who just don't mine and then put up pictures of pretty builds, there appears to be no qualms about just accepting a claim of being a "diehard survivalist" at face value (even when the "doubt" of that claim is built right into the post.) A person, it seems, can still be a "diehard survivalist" even if they want to make sure that their world has every possible block resource and are not prepared to do without anything... and can die as many times as they want and even go back to get the stuff they lost while dying... or even exit without saving to negate any possibility of losing any stuff or even do without the leaderboards. To me, this is not a legitimate "diehard survivalist" or even perhaps a plain old "survivalist." This is a person just playing the game they way they want to; but then criticizing everyone else for just doing the same thing and wanting the game to pass a harsher judgment on "them" than "themselves."
If you're such a "diehard survivalist," then entering creative to get some of the new stuff shouldn't mean anything to you. I don't know about you, but the leaderboards mean very little to me; they certainly wouldn't affect my using creative mode.
Not it's not - "MAYBE i will be able to resist the temptation" - That is, it's not a certainty that he would be able to resist the temptation. It's not saying that he would not be tempted to go into creative for coal, which is what he responded to me. The statement says, in effect, that he would be LESS tempted if the leaderboards were not already disabled.
Dude, they're right, you're wrong. Even if you were right, he already clarified several times; why continue arguing about it?
There are two kinds of "coding errors":
* One is where it benefits the user, such as the dupe glitch. Some people love that kind of error and even though the game wasn't meant to be played that way they think it's ok to take advantage of it. Those errors are called "glitches" (in a nice way).
* The second is where it doesn't benefit the user, such as the redstone error. People hate those errors and call them "bugs". They want those errors to be fixed ASAP.
* They're both errors in coding, effect gameplay as the designers intended, and will be fixed.
The second point to bring up is the "minecraft has no rules!" mentality.
Are you kidding me?
Minecraft has thousands of rules- the wiki is full of them! Wolves won't attack creepers, diamonds can only be found below a certain level, you need ____ and _____ to make _______. There are tons of gameplay rules built into the program that forces you to play the game as the game designers intended. However, no game is perfect and bug and glitches happen. They will be fixed, whether you like it or not.
With the above said, the coming update will let you switch modes basically at will. I think duping is wrong, I think being able to switch modes is wrong, BUT the designers themselves are changing how the game is, and can be, played.
If it's ok by them, who are we to say that switching (and loading up on resources) is now "wrong"???
If it's ok by them, then there's no difference between a "legit" and "non legit" world. And how would you know anyway- take "their" word for it?
If the OP wants to be a "pure survivalist", hats off to him. I'm sure he'll enjoy the challenge and personal satisfaction.
However, if he does "switch", he shouldn't feel he "cheated", because the designers took away the guilt.
I wholeheartedly believe in hard work as a positive experience.
the quest is the adventure to me, not the outcome, or the product.
while these trophies are most definitely art, I personally like to see the struggle, and the time, and the patience, reflected in that art, to me, it is the difference between mindless recreation and a monument.
All this in mind about me, a question forms
when the ability to switch to creative mode becomes available, and the option to integrate all of the otherwise unavailable new content into my existing world, would it be possible to resist?
If i am to take the opportunity to use this new mode for only a small thing here and there, will that be enough to start the ball rolling?
will that one thing here and there turn into enough to ruin the delicate balance of minecraft survival that has kept me entertained for months?
will i start to get bored?
maybe i will be able to resist the temptation to use it "just this once for some coal"
but if my leaderbords are already disabled, maybe i wont
is there a way out?
You would seriously consider going into creative mode and disqualifying your world from the leaderboards just to get some coal? You do realize it is the most commonly generated ore in the game?
in the quote is even says
"if my leaderbords are already disabled"
so, to answer your question, no, i would not.
I hate to be like a grammar policeman; but there is a reason I misunderstood your statement. It specifically says "but if my leaderboards were already disabled, maybe I won't" which is a little different than saying "but if my leaderboard's were NOT already disabled, I wouldn't."
I believe i said what i intended.
if they were not disabled, meaning still active, then i would be able to resist.
however, if they were already disabled from getting the otherwise unavailable content, then perhaps i wouldn't be able to resist using creative mode for other things.
does that clear things up?
but there is still an issue.
what if i want to show off my projects some day?
people may not believe they are built legit if i use creative mode for even the most necessarily of things, 1 melon, 1 dark wood tree sapling (my world has none), clay.
can i even still call it legit after that?
and if i cant, then why bother to try and regulate it at all?
Nope. I still think you said exactly opposite of what you intended. What you said implies that you might not go into creative mode for coal if your leaderboards were already disabled. What you seem to be actually intending to say is that: if your leaderboards were already disabled, you would be more tempted to go into creative mode for coal.
I don't see how preserving leaderboard status for going into creative mode would discourage you from then using it. You're asking the game to not only police how many times you go in and out of creative, but also keep track of how many blocks you gather/place when you're in there and decide whether or not they were blocks you actually needed merely to upgrade that particular world to include everything (including features that are already available; but that just didn't seem to generate in that particular seed). The system has to make a "ruling" whether or not the activity was excessive enough to warrant a disqualification of the leaderboard status of that world. So, what is excessive - 2 times? 5 times? 3 blocks? 10 blocks?
To a "die hard survivalist" who cares about the leaderboards, the answer to your dilemma should be a no brainer. Do without the new stuff in that particular world and stay out of creative mode. Melons aren't essential to survival; they just curb hunger a little easier than bread. You can still survive in the game on "bread alone"; it'll just make it a little more challenging and possibly prevent you from becoming bored. As for the other stuff, you've been surviving and building your world up without dark wood and clay for some time already; so why suddenly care about it now. Then, of course, there's always the option of re-challenging yourself from the beginning and starting over with nothing in a new world.
Everything in life has a "price"; and I thnk disabling the leaderboard stats for a specific world upon entering creative mode the first time is a fair price to pay for the convenience of it. I think it has to be on the first time, too - since there is no way the game should have to police and make a judgment whether or not that first time into creative mode involved gathering 1 block of a few items or 6 hours of gathering chests full of items.
As for whether or not you can call it "legit" or not has always been (and will still be) your own judgment call. You define for yourself what "legit" entails, and every person probably defines it a little differently.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffNope, read it again, he said exactly what he intended.
OP: Anyway, I don't have much to contribute here, as I find the "adventure" to be a complete bore. But, how can something made in creative mode be a mindless creation? The whole point of creative is to get rid of the mindless aspect of the game. I.e. scouring caves for diamonds or holding the right trigger for hours.
If that's the case, then he would have to have been considering going in for just a piece coal before his leaderboards got disabled. Which is the first question I asked and to which he replied to me that he would not consider it at all.
Since he's a self-professed diehard survivalist, I believe his response to me, not the statement in his first post. What he appears to be really objecting to is that the leaderboards would be disabled the first time he entered creative mode whether or not it was for a lump of coal or a melon seed. Something really that he should expect to "police" himself on, not have the game "police" everyone else on. Just because he might consider a world "legit" if a player entered creative mode for 1 melon and not legit if they do it for coal, doesn't mean that the game should be set up to make that same judgment. You and I both agree that creative worlds are legitimately creative and that mining can be really one of the more boring aspects of the game. The judgment the game is being set up to make is that everyone entering creative mode will pay a "price" - the price being that the world will no longer be eligible to add to the leaderboards. I think that price is fair.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired Staff"maybe i will be able to resist the temptation to use it "just this once for some coal"
but if my leaderbords are already disabled, maybe i wont"
Let me re-type this:
If my leaderboards ARE already disabled, maybe I WON'T be able to to resist the temptation to use creative for coal.
His reply to you and statement in the first post are saying the same thing. Anyway, I agree that the price is fair, but I'm not going to get into a big discussion about it. I know someone will reply to me with a pro-survivalist megapost, and I'm too sick to take part in any debates right now. I don't like this thread... I feel as if it's foreshadowing the coming of a new flame war. Instead of arguing over the duplication glitch, we're all going to be having the exact same argument over creative vs. survival.
In the end, you should do whatever you see fit.
Not it's not - "MAYBE i will be able to resist the temptation" - That is, it's not a certainty that he would be able to resist the temptation. It's not saying that he would not be tempted to go into creative for coal, which is what he responded to me. The statement says, in effect, that he would be LESS tempted if the leaderboards were not already disabled.
ETA: What gets me about many of the "legit" or "illegit" build threads, is that while a whole lot of people complain about people who just don't mine and then put up pictures of pretty builds, there appears to be no qualms about just accepting a claim of being a "diehard survivalist" at face value (even when the "doubt" of that claim is built right into the post.) A person, it seems, can still be a "diehard survivalist" even if they want to make sure that their world has every possible block resource and are not prepared to do without anything... and can die as many times as they want and even go back to get the stuff they lost while dying... or even exit without saving to negate any possibility of losing any stuff or even do without the leaderboards. To me, this is not a legitimate "diehard survivalist" or even perhaps a plain old "survivalist." This is a person just playing the game they way they want to; but then criticizing everyone else for just doing the same thing and wanting the game to pass a harsher judgment on "them" than "themselves."
Dude, they're right, you're wrong. Even if you were right, he already clarified several times; why continue arguing about it?
* One is where it benefits the user, such as the dupe glitch. Some people love that kind of error and even though the game wasn't meant to be played that way they think it's ok to take advantage of it. Those errors are called "glitches" (in a nice way).
* The second is where it doesn't benefit the user, such as the redstone error. People hate those errors and call them "bugs". They want those errors to be fixed ASAP.
* They're both errors in coding, effect gameplay as the designers intended, and will be fixed.
The second point to bring up is the "minecraft has no rules!" mentality.
Are you kidding me?
Minecraft has thousands of rules- the wiki is full of them! Wolves won't attack creepers, diamonds can only be found below a certain level, you need ____ and _____ to make _______. There are tons of gameplay rules built into the program that forces you to play the game as the game designers intended. However, no game is perfect and bug and glitches happen. They will be fixed, whether you like it or not.
With the above said, the coming update will let you switch modes basically at will. I think duping is wrong, I think being able to switch modes is wrong, BUT the designers themselves are changing how the game is, and can be, played.
If it's ok by them, who are we to say that switching (and loading up on resources) is now "wrong"???
If it's ok by them, then there's no difference between a "legit" and "non legit" world. And how would you know anyway- take "their" word for it?
If the OP wants to be a "pure survivalist", hats off to him. I'm sure he'll enjoy the challenge and personal satisfaction.
However, if he does "switch", he shouldn't feel he "cheated", because the designers took away the guilt.