The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Location:
Snoop Dawg'z House
Join Date:
6/20/2016
Posts:
118
Location:
Kekistan
Member Details
Acctually yes, someone proved that you acctually gain 2 sides of bark, look at the reddit if you wanna know what im talking about, in the post talking about bark blocks
Roughly 95% of Minecraft
players hate Villagers and would be very happy if they were removed. If
you are one of the 5% who actually like villagers, copy this into your
signature and hope it never happens. ~EnderDude124
The number of bark sides you gain isn't the point, the point is you can finally use bark blocks in any way you want without 2 sides having the ugly tree-ring texture. Now you can just plop the bark blocks anywhere without having to build around hiding the tree-ring.
On minecraft.net, turtles have been confirmed as an addition in the 1.14 update.
Pictures:
We already knew that the Update Aquatic (1.14) would be released in Spring of 2018, but now we know that it will likely be in early Spring. In addition to this, we now have baby turtles confirmed. See this quote from the minecraft.net article:
These fine-flippered-fellows will be paddling into Minecraft very soon. Then,
they’ll make their nests on shorelines throughout various biomes and their
young will scamper down to the water.
We also know that the texture for the turtle will likely change. See this quote:
These turtle textures will likely change before we let them loose in Minecraft in
2018, along with the rest of the Update Aquatic. Until then, enjoy this first
sneak peek, and happy holidays from everyone at Mojang!
The turtle in the picture seems to be a sea turtle, and they mentioned turtles in several different biomes, so there is a good chance we'll have more than one kind of turtle.
New Structure?
People online have pointed out that in the top right of the second turtle picture you can see some sort of underwater structure. Is this just a little underwater base one of the developers had built for testing, or is it a new structure?
Mob B
On his twitter, Jeb has posted pictures of Mob B (a name for it is still being worked out). Here is one of the pictures:
If you have any information I haven't put in the thread yet, please let me know!
Will also be interesting to see what role turtles are intended to play….
Yeah, it could play lots of different roles. I really hope it isn't just a faster boat, though, as people have suggested before. It just wouldn't feel right to me.
I'm stoked about that Trident. Can't wait to make that my weapon of choice. And the swimming animation looks great too! I hadn't known that was a part of the update... yeah the only thing I'm not really looking forward to is the new water physics. It will probably make raiding Ocean Monuments a little harder, right?
I have no idea why people are upset about the water physics. Sign elevators broken? Sure. But building underwater has always looked god-awful, and I always defended how slabs and such behave by saying that it really wasn't possible to code otherwise without completely changing how blocks work. The fact that they were able to do this amazes me. I'm guessing they changed something in their base code in 1.13 to make this possible in 1.14? The two seem like they're being developed in concert.
Also, is there a new swimming animation? I didn't see.
I have no idea why people are upset about the water physics. Sign elevators broken? Sure. But building underwater has always looked god-awful, and I always defended how slabs and such behave by saying that it really wasn't possible to code otherwise without completely changing how blocks work. The fact that they were able to do this amazes me. I'm guessing they changed something in their base code in 1.13 to make this possible in 1.14? The two seem like they're being developed in concert.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's just a matter of re-learning water physics according to the new rules, and losing my usual way of conquering Ocean Monuments by placing ladders or signs or fences or what-have-you. It's honestly not that big of a problem and I'm prepared to adapt because Minecraft is ever-changing and that's one of the cool things about it, but it's just kind of a bummer that we'll lose things like fencing water in or whatever to create unique waterways you wouldn't have otherwise in any other game. Yes it does look awful, but it was unique to Minecraft and the way some of us build.
At any rate, the new physics will still be Minecraft. I'm not that upset over it, and yeah, it totally rocks they're able to accomplish it at all, it just means I'll have to get used to a new way of working with water.
I have no idea why people are upset about the water physics. Sign elevators broken? Sure. But building underwater has always looked god-awful, and I always defended how slabs and such behave by saying that it really wasn't possible to code otherwise without completely changing how blocks work. The fact that they were able to do this amazes me. I'm guessing they changed something in their base code in 1.13 to make this possible in 1.14? The two seem like they're being developed in concert.
It is not that water physics (the interaction of water with various 'blocks') is being changed but how that occasions my ire. [As well, I think, that of many others.]
1.13 is slated to remove the limit on block IDs [q.v. https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/17w47a#Blocks_2 ].
This means that the new "bubble-free" fences, signs, etc. could have simply been ADDED.
The old style fences, signs, etc. could have been left alone.
[I suggested this as an everyone wins solution here ].
Instead, Mojang has deliberately chosen to break any build relying on the long standing functioning of many blocks.
If the block IDs are to be reworked and the command structures changed [and removing the limit on block IDs has been used as justification for both], why are we not seeing 1.14 take advantage of this new unlimited availablity to add WITHOUT removing?
In response to the [now rescinded after massive player pushback] change to sticky-piston-physics, a player under the name ilmango offers a quite reasonable analysis for why Mojang's actions lead to "… it happens nearly every update, that the technical community is outraged by changes."
[q.v. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnND6nPMnQ]
[Paraphasing to a short version: technical players greatly outnumber the developers and those players have a deeper and more all encompassing understanding of the fine points of coded behaviors.]
However, this explanation will only "hold water" if the 1.14 team is working on the assumuption that the 1.13 team will fail to remove the Block ID limit.
Since the 1.14 team must be working with the slated 1.13 block names and command structures, this seems far fetched.
[The old style blocks have already been coded, deployed, and time-tested; therefore the cost of retaining them while adding new blocks is zero to negligible.]
It remains, therefore, most likely that certain types of builds are being deliberately broken by conscious decision to devalue certain styles of play as BadWrongFun™ and to attempt to change the game rules to coerce ApprovedFunOnly™. [Early evidence also suggests the new 'Nightflyer' mob may serve this purpose as well.]
What remains is to attempt to "read the tea leaves" to discern why Mojang thinks an action guaranteed to alienate at least a fraction of a significant section of their player base will improve the bottom line. [Improved profitability is the only rational reason I am able to imagine for a corporation to alienate deliberately an important faction amongst their base. ]
EDIT: [i]Italics[/i] tags still not working
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
Here is a view under the ocean from my underwater minecart tunnel, as it has been for a long while:
(Forgot to take shaders off at the time I'm afraid)
Apart from the odd squid, so bare and desolatre. I can't wait to see the oceans full of coral and other fauna, and have turtles crawling onto the shore! It's going to make the ocean feel so much more alive. It's been long, long over due.
Like Minecraft forums or interested in my world? Try My message board, it's better moderated because I run it directly and have run Internet message boards for 21+ years! Better software and I have much more control to keep the content more up to date. Free to join, 13 years+.
1. It would make no sense to offer both an air and regular version of a block unless the air block were a technical block, which wouldn't be accessible to regular players anyway. How would you explain having both of these blocks in the world, from an in-game perspective? What practical purpose would it serve? Would there be any logical reason for it to naturally occur? The best compromise I could see would be to offer a rare block that does what fences and the like do now, and that would be so uncommon that the utility of it would be moot.
2. The way it behaved before could and should be considered a bug. The reason fences and the like had air blocks is that Mojang hadn't coded the game in such a way that half-blocks could actually be treated as half-blocks rather than full blocks with missing textures that are filled by air. I'm guessing that they went back and recoded these blocks during the 1.13 period. And it's not as if you could just keep two different versions of the same block in the game, because it isn't just a block- it's a coded behavior FOR that block. Logically, these two versions of the same block would not interact, and you wouldn't just have two blocks- you would need two versions of signs, two versions of every type of fence, two versions of doors, two versions of every type of slab - the list extends ad infinitum. Moreover, Mojang has shown, time and time again, that they favor getting rid of technical blocks, or otherwise including them in the game. It makes sense to add bark, but not so much for piston heads.
3. I want to see your point-of-view, but these people don't have to keep updating the game for you. It would actually serve to LOWER, not increase, profit to intentionally alienate players (as you suggest they want to do). I would actually argue that every action in some way alienates players. There are people who still don't think horses belong in their vanilla game, who insist that the old colors of wool were better. If Mojang bent over backwards to always please everybody, all the time, the creative menu would be four times as big, filled to the brim with blocks that made no sense in the game, but were used because of their unintentional behavior, or that were remnants of Minecraft from days of old. We would have four or five versions of lapis, each with its own texture, dirt slabs, two variations on every color of wool and carpet- I could go on and on, pulling from the days of beta forwards, but you get the idea.
4. If you see Mojang as this evil, greedy corporation whose soul has been corrupted by the Microsoft transaction three or four years ago, I'm not sure why you're still supporting it. I see MS's intervention in merchandising, in smaller add-ons for the mobile devices, in the Minecraft Marketplace, and in the rebranding of the original game into PC or Java edition, but those things don't ruin my enjoyment of the game, and at the end of the day, I still think these people add things to the game that improve it. You're free to enjoy older versions if you disagree. You might not see as many players, but plenty of people still play on down-graded versions.
[You make considerably more than four points (some more than once) but I have preserved your numbering scheme rather than returning to my own in an attempt to render this easier to follow.
For a similar reason, some of my reply duplicates itself where you ask questions/ make statements that overlap.]
Neither the old water_stop fences or the new water_pass fences are, or ever have been technical blocks, and any argument based on that fallacious assertion is spurious.
In game explanation (as requested): Steve & Alex, realizing that there are times when keeping water in place is useful, and others when allowing water to flow is useful construct two FUNCTIONALY DIFFERENT types of fence to give themselves both benefits.
"What practical purpose would it serve?": See above.
Expanding: two types of fence with different functionality is equivalent to two types of pistons (regular- and sticky-) OR two types of chests (regular and trapped) OR six types of sapling [although the differences in sapling behavior ie. " coded behavior FOR that bloc" are functionality almost entirely cosmetic].
"Would there be any logical reason for it to naturally occur?"
If "naturally occur" is taken literally, the nearest RL fence equivalents I am aware of that "naturally occur" are hedges/dense brush [which function as water_pass fences] and natural dams (such as can be created by landslides) [which function as water_stop fences].
Alternately, this is a rephrasing of the request for an in game explanation: in which case, see above; asked & answered.
If the best compromise you can think of is to maintain the pretense that something is available while rigging the availablity to make it effectively unobtainable, you either have not read or have not understood my "everyone wins" proposal…
As an alternative to the posted link the relavant portion of the initial rough idea is spoilered:
Third, there is the issue of what (if anything) will be 'broken' under the new physics.
Given that the cap on block ID numbers has been removed [cited in the discussions on the restructuring of commands],
there is now no reason other than intent to remove the current fences, slabs, signs.
IMO, the aquatic update would be better (as well as inducing less division within the minecraft community) if the new functionality were made purely as additions.
Were this tack to be taken, everyone would have the option to use either a Spuce_Fence or a Spruce_Water_Fence as appropriate to the build/purpose or their own aesthetic sensibilities.
Of course, this has the downside [really horrific, too] of requiring a bit of creativity with regards to crafting recipes (and possibly textures).
For textures (which are least likely to provoke strong divisions as they are easily changed);
perhaps the current Wood_Fence blocks could be given an appearance nearer to a board fence (instaed of the current rail design) to better reflect their water stopping function.
Similarly, the Water_Slabs might be made visually 1/3 of a block high (top or bottom) and/or have one or more channels added.
For crafting, the simplest solution I can think of is to rotate the new Water_Fence etc recipies 90°. (Doors & Trapdoors would need a different solution; assuming they are included in the "things like"… )
[A Fence, currently
Plank|Stick|Plank
Plank|Stick|Plank
would become Water_Fence
Plank|Plank
Stick|Stick
Plank|Plank
and so forth…]
This would also make the resource costs of the two sorts identical.
2) "The way it behaved before could and should be considered a bug".
It could be considered a bug… it could also be considered an homage to my Great Aunt Tilly's favorite cat and neither is material.
Whether it should be considered a bug is largely subjective; although the long standing, well documented, and frequently used nature of the condition all argue storngly that – however it came to get into the game – it is now a feature.
How the old fence behavior came to be part of the game is largely conjectural and entirely immaterial; it is and has been for quite some time a feature of the game.
Undoubtedly new behavior was coded to replace the old (rather than the less disruptive practice of adding new functionality).
That new behavior was coded may be take as an objective fact, the difficulty arises from the decision to deploy that new coding in an unnecessarily disruptive fashion.
" it's not as if you could just keep two different versions of the same block in the game, because it isn't just a block- it's a coded behavior FOR that block"
WHY NOT? see previously cited examples (ie. two types of pistons (regular- and sticky-) OR two types of chests (regular and trapped) OR six types of sapling)
"it isn't just a block- it's a coded behavior FOR that block"
see previously cited examples (ie. two types of pistons (regular- and sticky-) OR two types of chests (regular and trapped) OR six types of sapling)
"Logically, these two versions of the same block would not interact,…"
Untrue, just as two fence types in RL may interact (e.g. a picket fence in front of a house and chainlink on the other sides) there is no reason to assume a lack of ingame interaction. [Note the nether fence will already not join to any of the six wooden fences, so we already have in game precedent invalidating your logic.]
"… you wouldn't just have two blocks- you would need two versions of signs, two versions of every type of fence, two versions of doors, two versions of every type of slab…"
So what? 1.13 removes the Block ID limiit [BIL]: so, if having multiple blocks improves the game (in this case by not breaking builds and alienating players), why not take this "everyone wins approach"? Note that there are already two types of pistons (regular- and sticky-) & two types of chests (regular and trapped) & six types of sapling & five types of door, etc., etc.
"- the list extends ad infinitum." Rather hyperbolic, the total list of blocks is finite and this issue effects only a subset of those.
3)
"these people don't have to keep updating the game for you"
Possibly. Given some of the statements made shortly after the sale concerning the inclusion of provisions to ensure the continued support of Minecraft:Original Platform (sometimes called Java edition) this mayy be true, false, or subject to conditions/limitations.
What is actually the case can not be determined until/unless the sales contract becomes public. [About which I do not suggest holding one's breath.]
"It would actually serve to LOWER, not increase, profit to intentionally alienate players (as you suggest they want to do)."
Clearly you have understood only a fraction of my argument.
At first appraisal it would seem this [alienating technical players would lower profits] was true, however — if the same action that alienated technical players also caused a more than compensating increase in profit from one (or more) other types of player — the NET effect on profitability would be positive.
" I would actually argue that every action in some way alienates players…"
Technically almost certainly true, but this is not the rare person who can neither tolerate a new texture nor figure out how to change it.
This is about needlessly deliberately breaking a long standing and much used behavior instead of adding an option that allows bypassing its un-aesthetic side if the individual player so desires.
4) It would be polite not to try to put words into my mouth. My opinion(s) of Microsoft and it subdiary Mojang vis-a-vis greed & corruption are immaterial to the argument.
That "these people add things to the game that improve it" is not under discussion. What IS under discusion is that "these people" appear to be doing something(s) both unnecessary and divisive that 'dis-improves'
the game for a particular type of player.
"You're free to enjoy older versions if you disagree. You might not see as many players, but plenty of people still play on down-graded versions."
How generous of you (& Microsoft/Mojang). Yes, technical players who don't want their old worlds broken retain the option to (with extra effort) ghettoize themselves because (Microsoft/Mojang) needs to stop people having BadWrongFun™ instead of playing the ApproveFunOnly™ update.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
Seems like you need to right click a block, like a fence, with a bucket in order to "fill" the block with water, turning it into a source block. Otherwise, water will not flow through like it showed in the Update Aquatic reveal. Sounds really, really janky fix as a response to but muh farmz.
Acctually yes, someone proved that you acctually gain 2 sides of bark, look at the reddit if you wanna know what im talking about, in the post talking about bark blocks
So 4 blocks with 4 each, that is 16.
3 blocks with 6, that is 18.
4 blocks with 6 is 24.
Roughly 95% of Minecraft
players hate Villagers and would be very happy if they were removed. If
you are one of the 5% who actually like villagers, copy this into your
signature and hope it never happens. ~EnderDude124
The number of bark sides you gain isn't the point, the point is you can finally use bark blocks in any way you want without 2 sides having the ugly tree-ring texture. Now you can just plop the bark blocks anywhere without having to build around hiding the tree-ring.
There has been a new feature announced: Turtles!
On minecraft.net, turtles have been confirmed as an addition in the 1.14 update.
Pictures:
We already knew that the Update Aquatic (1.14) would be released in Spring of 2018, but now we know that it will likely be in early Spring. In addition to this, we now have baby turtles confirmed. See this quote from the minecraft.net article:
We also know that the texture for the turtle will likely change. See this quote:
The turtle in the picture seems to be a sea turtle, and they mentioned turtles in several different biomes, so there is a good chance we'll have more than one kind of turtle.
New Structure?
People online have pointed out that in the top right of the second turtle picture you can see some sort of underwater structure. Is this just a little underwater base one of the developers had built for testing, or is it a new structure?
Mob B
On his twitter, Jeb has posted pictures of Mob B (a name for it is still being worked out). Here is one of the pictures:
If you have any information I haven't put in the thread yet, please let me know!
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
The new structure might simply be one of the shipwrecks, which we already knew about. Probably the stern.
I don't think so. Look closer. It sort of looks like there is some sort of stone brick pattern.
EDIT: Here is a picture I found of the mysterious structure:
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
The structure looks quite small to me with only a single visible 1x1 opening (maybe) on the left…
Counting blocks it looks a bit smaller than an igloo and with the apparent roof structure, there doesn't seem like there could be much space inside…
Possibly a lair for a 1x1 mob (non-Monument Guardian or something new) or the protruding top of a larger structure?
Will also be interesting to see what role turtles are intended to play….
Maybe it's some sort of sunken tower, and what we are seeing is the top of it.
Yeah, it could play lots of different roles. I really hope it isn't just a faster boat, though, as people have suggested before. It just wouldn't feel right to me.
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
Just wanted to point out that the article says that we should expect seeing turtles "very soon"
In bold, so they went out of their way to point it out..
The quickest way to my heart is with a smile.
Oh, and a white-oak stake.
"These turtle textures will likely change before we let them loose in Minecraft in 2018, along with the rest of the Update Aquatic."
The turtles are going to be released with the Update Aquatic, so I think "very soon" was referring to the Update Aquatic coming out very soon.
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
I'm stoked about that Trident. Can't wait to make that my weapon of choice. And the swimming animation looks great too! I hadn't known that was a part of the update... yeah the only thing I'm not really looking forward to is the new water physics. It will probably make raiding Ocean Monuments a little harder, right?
I have no idea why people are upset about the water physics. Sign elevators broken? Sure. But building underwater has always looked god-awful, and I always defended how slabs and such behave by saying that it really wasn't possible to code otherwise without completely changing how blocks work. The fact that they were able to do this amazes me. I'm guessing they changed something in their base code in 1.13 to make this possible in 1.14? The two seem like they're being developed in concert.
Also, is there a new swimming animation? I didn't see.
That's kinda what I was hinting at. xP
The quickest way to my heart is with a smile.
Oh, and a white-oak stake.
Well I can't speak for anyone else, but for me it's just a matter of re-learning water physics according to the new rules, and losing my usual way of conquering Ocean Monuments by placing ladders or signs or fences or what-have-you. It's honestly not that big of a problem and I'm prepared to adapt because Minecraft is ever-changing and that's one of the cool things about it, but it's just kind of a bummer that we'll lose things like fencing water in or whatever to create unique waterways you wouldn't have otherwise in any other game. Yes it does look awful, but it was unique to Minecraft and the way some of us build.
At any rate, the new physics will still be Minecraft. I'm not that upset over it, and yeah, it totally rocks they're able to accomplish it at all, it just means I'll have to get used to a new way of working with water.
It is not that water physics (the interaction of water with various 'blocks') is being changed but how that occasions my ire. [As well, I think, that of many others.]
1.13 is slated to remove the limit on block IDs [q.v. https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/17w47a#Blocks_2 ].
This means that the new "bubble-free" fences, signs, etc. could have simply been ADDED.
The old style fences, signs, etc. could have been left alone.
[I suggested this as an everyone wins solution here ].
Instead, Mojang has deliberately chosen to break any build relying on the long standing functioning of many blocks.
If the block IDs are to be reworked and the command structures changed [and removing the limit on block IDs has been used as justification for both], why are we not seeing 1.14 take advantage of this new unlimited availablity to add WITHOUT removing?
In response to the [now rescinded after massive player pushback] change to sticky-piston-physics, a player under the name ilmango offers a quite reasonable analysis for why Mojang's actions lead to "… it happens nearly every update, that the technical community is outraged by changes."
[q.v. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEnND6nPMnQ]
[Paraphasing to a short version: technical players greatly outnumber the developers and those players have a deeper and more all encompassing understanding of the fine points of coded behaviors.]
However, this explanation will only "hold water" if the 1.14 team is working on the assumuption that the 1.13 team will fail to remove the Block ID limit.
Since the 1.14 team must be working with the slated 1.13 block names and command structures, this seems far fetched.
[The old style blocks have already been coded, deployed, and time-tested; therefore the cost of retaining them while adding new blocks is zero to negligible.]
It remains, therefore, most likely that certain types of builds are being deliberately broken by conscious decision to devalue certain styles of play as BadWrongFun™ and to attempt to change the game rules to coerce ApprovedFunOnly™. [Early evidence also suggests the new 'Nightflyer' mob may serve this purpose as well.]
What remains is to attempt to "read the tea leaves" to discern why Mojang thinks an action guaranteed to alienate at least a fraction of a significant section of their player base will improve the bottom line. [Improved profitability is the only rational reason I am able to imagine for a corporation to alienate deliberately an important faction amongst their base. ]
EDIT: [i]Italics[/i] tags still not working
I'm really looking forward to the aquatic update.
Here is a view under the ocean from my underwater minecart tunnel, as it has been for a long while:
(Forgot to take shaders off at the time I'm afraid)
Apart from the odd squid, so bare and desolatre. I can't wait to see the oceans full of coral and other fauna, and have turtles crawling onto the shore! It's going to make the ocean feel so much more alive. It's been long, long over due.
Closed old thread
Like Minecraft forums or interested in my world? Try My message board, it's better moderated because I run it directly and have run Internet message boards for 21+ years! Better software and I have much more control to keep the content more up to date. Free to join, 13 years+.
16yrs+ only
1. It would make no sense to offer both an air and regular version of a block unless the air block were a technical block, which wouldn't be accessible to regular players anyway. How would you explain having both of these blocks in the world, from an in-game perspective? What practical purpose would it serve? Would there be any logical reason for it to naturally occur? The best compromise I could see would be to offer a rare block that does what fences and the like do now, and that would be so uncommon that the utility of it would be moot.
2. The way it behaved before could and should be considered a bug. The reason fences and the like had air blocks is that Mojang hadn't coded the game in such a way that half-blocks could actually be treated as half-blocks rather than full blocks with missing textures that are filled by air. I'm guessing that they went back and recoded these blocks during the 1.13 period. And it's not as if you could just keep two different versions of the same block in the game, because it isn't just a block- it's a coded behavior FOR that block. Logically, these two versions of the same block would not interact, and you wouldn't just have two blocks- you would need two versions of signs, two versions of every type of fence, two versions of doors, two versions of every type of slab - the list extends ad infinitum. Moreover, Mojang has shown, time and time again, that they favor getting rid of technical blocks, or otherwise including them in the game. It makes sense to add bark, but not so much for piston heads.
3. I want to see your point-of-view, but these people don't have to keep updating the game for you. It would actually serve to LOWER, not increase, profit to intentionally alienate players (as you suggest they want to do). I would actually argue that every action in some way alienates players. There are people who still don't think horses belong in their vanilla game, who insist that the old colors of wool were better. If Mojang bent over backwards to always please everybody, all the time, the creative menu would be four times as big, filled to the brim with blocks that made no sense in the game, but were used because of their unintentional behavior, or that were remnants of Minecraft from days of old. We would have four or five versions of lapis, each with its own texture, dirt slabs, two variations on every color of wool and carpet- I could go on and on, pulling from the days of beta forwards, but you get the idea.
4. If you see Mojang as this evil, greedy corporation whose soul has been corrupted by the Microsoft transaction three or four years ago, I'm not sure why you're still supporting it. I see MS's intervention in merchandising, in smaller add-ons for the mobile devices, in the Minecraft Marketplace, and in the rebranding of the original game into PC or Java edition, but those things don't ruin my enjoyment of the game, and at the end of the day, I still think these people add things to the game that improve it. You're free to enjoy older versions if you disagree. You might not see as many players, but plenty of people still play on down-graded versions.
[You make considerably more than four points (some more than once) but I have preserved your numbering scheme rather than returning to my own in an attempt to render this easier to follow.
For a similar reason, some of my reply duplicates itself where you ask questions/ make statements that overlap.]
1 ) Technical blocks (q.v. https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Block#Technical_blocks) comprise things like water/lava, piston heads, and the growth stages of crops.
Neither the old water_stop fences or the new water_pass fences are, or ever have been technical blocks, and any argument based on that fallacious assertion is spurious.
In game explanation (as requested): Steve & Alex, realizing that there are times when keeping water in place is useful, and others when allowing water to flow is useful construct two FUNCTIONALY DIFFERENT types of fence to give themselves both benefits.
"What practical purpose would it serve?": See above.
Expanding: two types of fence with different functionality is equivalent to two types of pistons (regular- and sticky-) OR two types of chests (regular and trapped) OR six types of sapling [although the differences in sapling behavior ie. " coded behavior FOR that bloc" are functionality almost entirely cosmetic].
"Would there be any logical reason for it to naturally occur?"
If "naturally occur" is taken literally, the nearest RL fence equivalents I am aware of that "naturally occur" are hedges/dense brush [which function as water_pass fences] and natural dams (such as can be created by landslides) [which function as water_stop fences].
Alternately, this is a rephrasing of the request for an in game explanation: in which case, see above; asked & answered.
If the best compromise you can think of is to maintain the pretense that something is available while rigging the availablity to make it effectively unobtainable, you either have not read or have not understood my "everyone wins" proposal…
As an alternative to the posted link the relavant portion of the initial rough idea is spoilered:
Third, there is the issue of what (if anything) will be 'broken' under the new physics.
Given that the cap on block ID numbers has been removed [cited in the discussions on the restructuring of commands],
there is now no reason other than intent to remove the current fences, slabs, signs.
IMO, the aquatic update would be better (as well as inducing less division within the minecraft community) if the new functionality were made purely as additions.
Were this tack to be taken, everyone would have the option to use either a Spuce_Fence or a Spruce_Water_Fence as appropriate to the build/purpose or their own aesthetic sensibilities.
Of course, this has the downside [really horrific, too] of requiring a bit of creativity with regards to crafting recipes (and possibly textures).
For textures (which are least likely to provoke strong divisions as they are easily changed);
perhaps the current Wood_Fence blocks could be given an appearance nearer to a board fence (instaed of the current rail design) to better reflect their water stopping function.
Similarly, the Water_Slabs might be made visually 1/3 of a block high (top or bottom) and/or have one or more channels added.
For crafting, the simplest solution I can think of is to rotate the new Water_Fence etc recipies 90°. (Doors & Trapdoors would need a different solution; assuming they are included in the "things like"… )
[A Fence, currently
Plank|Stick|Plank
Plank|Stick|Plank
would become Water_Fence
Plank|Plank
Stick|Stick
Plank|Plank
and so forth…]
This would also make the resource costs of the two sorts identical.
2) "The way it behaved before could and should be considered a bug".
It could be considered a bug… it could also be considered an homage to my Great Aunt Tilly's favorite cat and neither is material.
Whether it should be considered a bug is largely subjective; although the long standing, well documented, and frequently used nature of the condition all argue storngly that – however it came to get into the game – it is now a feature.
How the old fence behavior came to be part of the game is largely conjectural and entirely immaterial; it is and has been for quite some time a feature of the game.
Undoubtedly new behavior was coded to replace the old (rather than the less disruptive practice of adding new functionality).
That new behavior was coded may be take as an objective fact, the difficulty arises from the decision to deploy that new coding in an unnecessarily disruptive fashion.
" it's not as if you could just keep two different versions of the same block in the game, because it isn't just a block- it's a coded behavior FOR that block"
WHY NOT? see previously cited examples (ie. two types of pistons (regular- and sticky-) OR two types of chests (regular and trapped) OR six types of sapling)
"it isn't just a block- it's a coded behavior FOR that block"
see previously cited examples (ie. two types of pistons (regular- and sticky-) OR two types of chests (regular and trapped) OR six types of sapling)
"Logically, these two versions of the same block would not interact,…"
Untrue, just as two fence types in RL may interact (e.g. a picket fence in front of a house and chainlink on the other sides) there is no reason to assume a lack of ingame interaction. [Note the nether fence will already not join to any of the six wooden fences, so we already have in game precedent invalidating your logic.]
"… you wouldn't just have two blocks- you would need two versions of signs, two versions of every type of fence, two versions of doors, two versions of every type of slab…"
So what? 1.13 removes the Block ID limiit [BIL]: so, if having multiple blocks improves the game (in this case by not breaking builds and alienating players), why not take this "everyone wins approach"? Note that there are already two types of pistons (regular- and sticky-) & two types of chests (regular and trapped) & six types of sapling & five types of door, etc., etc.
"- the list extends ad infinitum." Rather hyperbolic, the total list of blocks is finite and this issue effects only a subset of those.
3)
"these people don't have to keep updating the game for you"
Possibly. Given some of the statements made shortly after the sale concerning the inclusion of provisions to ensure the continued support of Minecraft:Original Platform (sometimes called Java edition) this mayy be true, false, or subject to conditions/limitations.
What is actually the case can not be determined until/unless the sales contract becomes public. [About which I do not suggest holding one's breath.]
"It would actually serve to LOWER, not increase, profit to intentionally alienate players (as you suggest they want to do)."
Clearly you have understood only a fraction of my argument.
At first appraisal it would seem this [alienating technical players would lower profits] was true, however — if the same action that alienated technical players also caused a more than compensating increase in profit from one (or more) other types of player — the NET effect on profitability would be positive.
" I would actually argue that every action in some way alienates players…"
Technically almost certainly true, but this is not the rare person who can neither tolerate a new texture nor figure out how to change it.
This is about needlessly deliberately breaking a long standing and much used behavior instead of adding an option that allows bypassing its un-aesthetic side if the individual player so desires.
4) It would be polite not to try to put words into my mouth. My opinion(s) of Microsoft and it subdiary Mojang vis-a-vis greed & corruption are immaterial to the argument.
That "these people add things to the game that improve it" is not under discussion. What IS under discusion is that "these people" appear to be doing something(s) both unnecessary and divisive that 'dis-improves'
the game for a particular type of player.
"You're free to enjoy older versions if you disagree. You might not see as many players, but plenty of people still play on down-graded versions."
How generous of you (& Microsoft/Mojang). Yes, technical players who don't want their old worlds broken retain the option to (with extra effort) ghettoize themselves because (Microsoft/Mojang) needs to stop people having BadWrongFun™ instead of playing the ApproveFunOnly™ update.
Amazing update, i can't wait for more update
Recent news regarding the new water physics have been revealed by Jeb, and I for one am a bit disappointed.
Seems like you need to right click a block, like a fence, with a bucket in order to "fill" the block with water, turning it into a source block. Otherwise, water will not flow through like it showed in the Update Aquatic reveal. Sounds really, really janky fix as a response to but muh farmz.
Oh well. Thoughts?
The quickest way to my heart is with a smile.
Oh, and a white-oak stake.