I don't think so... I use pipes in my modded world and well... It really takes the vanilla feel away. It makes it too simple. I like it that in vanilla you need to use hoppers, water etc. In vanilla you can do everything, but it's not so simple, that's what I like about vanilla. Ofc with this style, performance becomes an issue with large scale builds. But i think pipes and other tech stuff is better left for the tech-mod community, who use them in massive/complex builds. It would make items sorters and basic farms way too simple for regular players. Maybe a simple straight line pipe system to reduce the performance issue of hoppers cheking for items every tick would be good, but sorting pipes, round-robin pipes etc is something I would rather not see in vanilla.
I understand your opinion, and to some extent, I agree with you. I do make Redstone filters on things as a matter-of-course, though they are bulky and not as "nice" as glass "pipes" with http://wiki.sk89q.com/wiki/CraftBook/Pipes. I'm not suggesting "pipes" be quite that technical. What I mainly hope for is that if water elevators for entities like villagers or ice-water pipes for items no longer work, I'd like for us to have some suitable replacement that still fits "Minecraft", but allows us to continue to create things like water elevators and ice-water pipes without the current problems and unintended consequences associated with those means of transport using water.
Mob farms are structures abusing the game's design flaws for free items. Why should they be possible
So YOU are telling ME what I do or do not care about? I care about underwater builds.
So... when *I* enjoy building creative means to avoid tedious but necessary activities in Minecraft, it's ok for you to tell ME what I shouldn't care about, but when someone tells YOU that you shouldn't care about things YOU enjoy, you won't allow that.
Couldn't agree less. Automatic farms is what this game is all about for me. When I play survival I start as guy with nothing and have to do a lot of manual work. I put in this work to make my future easier, automate everything, so I can focus on building instead of tedious farming. Manual item sorting is like the most tedious thing, but unavoidable for a long period when you start to play. Making an automatic item sorter is more like a goal of the game rather than a design flaw if you ask me Just like with any farm. You need to collect lots of items, understand game mechanics, do a lot of manual work to even get your farm going. And once you do you no longer have to worry about that single resource and can start on a new project. Sounds like fair game to me. Keeping your farms manual is like refusing to use a pickaxe better than wood imo.
I think item sorters and automatic farms are okay, as long as they don't abuse the game's design flaws, one of which is the bad liquid physics. An automated mob farm is okay in my opinion, but you'll have to find something more clever than floating lava above signs with hoppers, because, in my opinion, you are then exploiting the bad physics. There are loads of other options, like cacti, arrows, potions, or suffocating or drowning them, and many more.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click the dragon/egg that is on top to help me raise my dragons
Cactoni, lavato... I'm the one who gets to decide what normal, as intended working game physics suits my purpose as long as I don't violate server rules. Fortunately for me, I make the rules on my server. When my wife let's me.
If signs no longer hold up lava, I will use what works as intended game physics.
After seeing the Minecon earth livestream. Something has bothered me. The new water physics. In case you didn't know, this means that water will now run through fences and other blocks that doesn't fill the "gap". With this water physics, it will break so many mob farms and other things.
Let me know what are your thoughts
This post is redundant. Please read post #1. Thanks.
I always thought it was quite odd that water could be blocked by objects which had "holes" in them or around them, such as signs and fences. I think it makes Minecraft more believable if this is corrected. And I'm sure that innovative builders will still come up with ways to make their automated machinery work.
Couldn't agree less. Automatic farms is what this game is all about for me. When I play survival I start as guy with nothing and have to do a lot of manual work. How it was meant to be.
I put in this work to make my future easier, automate everything, so I can focus on building instead of tedious farming. If you think that farming is tedious, don't do it. Kill mobs and get food from them.
Manual item sorting is like the most tedious thing, but unavoidable for a long period when you start to play. If Games were completely void of tedious things, they would not be very much in depth at all. Once you build the farms, you won't be able to do much else. They would be like tycoon games. Once you're done, you just sit there and watch your money grow.
Making an automatic item sorter is more like a goal of the game rather than a design flaw if you ask me Item sorting should not be a goal, but they are not a design flaw either. They use hoppers, designed specifically for moving/sorting items.
Just like with any farm. That's where you're wrong. This thread alone proves farms involving water movement design flaws. Why? because they are fixing it. You don't fix something that isn't broken.
You need to collect lots of items, understand game mechanics, do a lot of manual work to even get your farm going. But you don't do anything once you are done. Farms create an end to minecraft, a game that was specifically designed not to have one.
And once you do you no longer have to worry about that single resource and can start on a new project. What if you run out of projects? You do nothing.m That's my point.
Sounds like fair game to me. It might be fair in single player, but in multiplayer it is quite unfair. The entire thing is just a race for materials. Anybodycan sabotage anybody else and essentially fling them right back to the start.; Also, many farms use glitches in the game, which adds a measure of unfairness to farming. Keeping your farms manual is like refusing to use a pickaxe better than wood imo. Does using a pickaxe better that wood completely end the game for you? NO.
Answers in red.
This reply covers one of the big reasons why I hate farms. One that hasn't been shown much before on this forum. Another reason (which has been shown on this forum) is the part about using glitches in the game that should really be patched. Another reason is the fact that it gives you essentially unlimited materials, which can be considered OP in any game.
To download the other ones you need to make a folder in the versions folder for minecraft and put the client and JSON file for the versions in there. They all need to be named the same aside from file extensions. Once you do that, you will be able to choose that version when making a new profile with the minecraft launcher.
Actually I've been wanting an underwater base for some time, I have met others who had made Underwater bases, it's not for everyone but there are people that want to build underwater. Even if you don't want to build under water even beach front features will be better when you have smaller than full blocks and don't want weird air pockets, even stuff like fountains will be better.
Yeah, the discussion wandered away from "underwater building" towards "Farm Hate." I think "Farm Hate" merits its own thread. As far as water mechanics, this is going to happen in an upcoming version. It's on the slate.
The Mojang development team also know who the major YouTube people are enough to fly many of them out to Sweden, meet with them at E3, talk with them at prior MineCons or otherwise interact with them. This would include Farm Builders such as Tango Tek and Mumbo Jumbo as well as builders such as Grian or promoters of mods and games such as LogDotZip. Your love or hate for those YouTubers who earn money from promoting Minecraft is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that Mojang is likely to give consideration as to how these people currently build and what Mojang thinks they need, as well as for the teams creating things on Marketplace. If Mojang has a "what you do if" or "what would you need for building cool stuff underwater", the company has people making money off Minecraft and promoting this game to ask under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA's). The YouTube producers are not the end-all and be-all of the Minecraft community, but I think it's a good start for getting a fresh point-of-view on what nuts and bolts need to be created to have an Underwater release work well *AND* be promoted by the people who, as I said, earn a living off of doing their thing.
"Nobody builds underwater" is flatly false. Enough people are making underwater builds and enjoying watching OTHERS create builds underwater that there is money riding on this. It's a thing. Recognize it rather than denying it exists or isn't relevant.
"There shouldn't be farms" merits its own discussion elsewhere. But I can assure you the people who build farms as part of their real-life livelihood on YouTube will voice an opinion on what they will require to keep people subscribing and keep that ad revenue coming in. You may not agree with them (they don't often agree with one another). You may not watch them or like the YouTubers. But if you are not going to recognize a done deal and seek to positively participate in how water mechanics will be realized within a year or so, you should at least learn to live with disappointment as well as learn to lower your expectations.
There is a very good point made above: that the "new water physics" is not one issue but several.
First, there is the issue of: What is included?
the OP spoiler here states "Both water and items will be able to flow through things like fences and slabs", but what is included as "things like" is unclear [ie signs].
Mojang could save a lot of greif by making clear precisely what is intended. (Possibly grouped by what is expected to be included, what is what is expected to be excluded, and what has not been thought about… )
Second, there is the issue of whether the new idea is good/cool/useful/fun (YMMV, take your pick.)
The idea of 'Water-Only-Permeable-Fences', etc. [hereafter Water-Fence, Water-Slab, etc] Strikes me as having interesting possibilities for builds, and would be a welcome addition, but NOT replacement functionality.
"Also, items will now float!" stikes me as un-needed; floating stone/armor/tools makes no more logical sense than sinking wood/plants & — since hoppers will pick up anything in the block above — whether the item is on the top or botom of the water stream ought not to have any mechanical effect.
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.
A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that assumes that if one thing happens, something else happens which leads to something else happening. Example: 'If Mojang adds colored wood, people will want colored stone and leafs too! What's next? Colored air blocks?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click the dragon/egg that is on top to help me raise my dragons
A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that assumes that if one thing happens, something else happens which leads to something else happening. Example: 'If Mojang adds colored wood, people will want colored stone and leafs too! What's next? Colored air blocks?
Something of a reductio ad absurdum, but it does point out the fallacy of using [more realistic] as an argument in a game with dragons, skeletons, magic swords, sheep that regrow wool whenever they eat, animals that breed without having sexes, and where chickens, cows, and oak trees (OH! MY!) mature at basically the same rate…
If proponents stick with [looks better], that issue goes away.
(I also agree with this point, having partial blocks that do NOT create air bubbles available would be appreciated provided I retain the option of using those which do.)
Also, arguments in the style [breaks things that should never have been allowed anyway] are not something in which I find value. (Infinite length catilevers anyone? )
The Devs decided the Ocean was too barren. I agree with that assessment. They decided to fill it with life and with things to explore. I applaud that decision. The Devs may have looked at what others have built of underwater bases, ruins, and so on. They may have attempted doing so on their own. Either way, if they decided it sucked badly, I would agree with this also. I've played and explored maps with underwater ruins, wrecked ships, and so on. It was a beauty to see stuff *there*, but what was there was pretty much an eyesore because "bubbles!"
I don't agree that we should have two sets of everything, a "bubble" and a "no bubble" fence, "bubble/ no bubble" stairs, and so on. We should have "water physics", it should be consistent and simple within its own pattern of behavior. I believe that is the path they are going to take while creating new tools to deal with the new physics such as working airlocks, perhaps different behavior with sponges, and so on. We'll find out more as they get to Snapshot time for 1.14.
I don't agree that we should have two sets of everything, a "bubble" and a "no bubble" fence, "bubble/ no bubble" stairs, and so on. We should have "water physics", it should be consistent and simple within its own pattern of behavior. I believe that is the path they are going to take while creating new tools to deal with the new physics such as working airlocks, perhaps different behavior with sponges, and so on. We'll find out more as they get to Snapshot time for 1.14.
Thank you for the reply, among other things it points out an area of unclear communication on my part…
I'm not actually advocating for "bubble fences" etc.
I just want to retain the functionality of the current fences/signs/slabs in addition to having new versions that allow water to pass through. (Although, having the ability to add "bubbles" where I want them would also be useful...)
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
"
Thus, "new tools to deal with the new physics" would work fine for me, although I see keeping the current items (possibly reskinned) as the simplest way to retain current functionality as well as to avoid "breaking" current worlds.
To your point about not wanting "two sets of everything": given that there already exist many sets with only decorative differences (stone/stonebricks/andesite/diorite/granite and the polished varieties as well as the wood types) I don't see the argument against adding a 2nd set of blocks with altered functionality. (Adding these strikes me as more akin to wooden/iron doors and trapdoors.)
Perhaps you mean you don't want them to be too visually similar? (A position I support.)
The Devs decided the Ocean was too barren. I agree with that assessment. They decided to fill it with life and with things to explore. I applaud that decision. The Devs may have looked at what others have built of underwater bases, ruins, and so on. They may have attempted doing so on their own. Either way, if they decided it sucked badly, I would agree with this also. I've played and explored maps with underwater ruins, wrecked ships, and so on. It was a beauty to see stuff *there*, but what was there was pretty much an eyesore because "bubbles!"
My reactions to current underwater builds are less strongly negative, but I otherwise largely agree with this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
The differences are in emphasis and preference. I don't think it is likely Mojang will code for two kinds of each wooden fence, two kinds of each stair, two kinds of iron bars, and so on. Even if they use reskinning to emphasize how "different" they are, I feel it would be too much coding and confusion for too little gain. Hoppers now have a hit-box matching their visual outline in Bedrock 1.2.5, and this is likely to go to Java Edition also. I suspect this means water will flow around the bottom of hoppers as well. Would Mojang need to code for two kinds of hoppers? Two kinds of chests? Two kinds of enchanting tables? An extra set of skins for all these? Two kinds of pressure plates for 6 variety of wooden, stone, iron, gold? It isn't just fence. All non-full blocks that don't pop off in water will have to deal with this. Every last one. Beds? Farmland? Grass path? Cake? So many non-full block items!
As far as the reaction to builds underwater, I'm overstating the case. It was just disappointing to see the work of people who made these underwater wrecks to explore, seaweed forests, and so on made to appear with all the "bubbles" around them, and how much better they would look without it. I'm glad this will be corrected.
This sounds as though you are not opposed (in principle) to my suggestion, but have reservations about the cost benefit ratio…
The first is good to hear and the second the sort of thing about which reasonable men working from the same data may well reach quite different conclusions.
If I may refine an argument supporting my interpretation of the implementation costs, I see matters as the current versions being a sunk cost (the work is done and already paid for) while it is the new "water flows around it" blocks that are the "extra" set.
I believe we are in agreement that the "water flow" blocks are worth the effort to code and implement. [A position that also seems to have official support .] (And if people want to be able to use any block underwater without a 'bubble', this is going to mean every last one of the blocks water doesn't pop-off will need a new "bubble free" version...)
Where we seem to differ is that I do not understand what costs you see in leaving the current blocks in the game while implementing the new functionality with new blocks.
Granted a current 'ugly' underwater build will not be 'beautified' automatically by the update, this seems a small price for not 'breaking' current builds that rely on the functioning of the current blocks.
On a slightly off topic technical side note:
Re your comment about hopper hit boxes; I don't think either the hit box or the collision mask is definitive for water flowing through a block. Currently both ladders and signs have smaller than full block hit boxes (and signs are noted to have no collision mask), yet both block water. (Ladders and snow blocks also appear to be the only things in the wikis list of non-solid blocks water does not remove).
Not really germane to our discusion, but interesting of itself…
True, this is only for Bedrock 1.2.5, but even anvils have a different hit-box. I would not be informed of the technical details, but I would hazard a guess that that "any water block encountering a non-full hit-box, leak around it according to the following rules..." I hope there will be exceptions to allow for some sort of "air lock" for entering and leaving an underwater base. But it isn't *JUST* hoppers that got a new hit-box for Bedrock 1.2.5. Anvils were also updated. It is possible the hitbox update is totally unrelated to the Aquatic Update, but having item hitboxes more closely adhere to the visual shape of a given block would make sense for a "water physics" update. Having water encounter a hopper from above, the hitbox on that face is 100%, and water will not flow down from above. But from any side, water could flow around the hit-box. A door that is closed will present a full hit-box across the face of the block if it hits from the flush side. If water comes from the back side or in the "open" position, water will flow up to the point it hits a full face. That is my guess to the approach, and I believe they will have an "exception list" for blocks such as an "airlock" which might be open to allow passage, but water is not meant to flow. Pure conjecture on my part, but it would be reasonable any "exception list" would be kept very, very small.
Sure, maybe there exist mob farm designs that will be broken. But there are a plethora of mob farm designs that don't use the so-called "broken mechanics". For example, I'm working on a mob farm where all the water flows stop right before the drop-down hole. It's not so much that the new water physics are breaking farms, its that the new water physics are breaking fast and efficient item transportation.
In fact thinking about it, very few farms I've created would be broken. Maybe my sheep and cow farms. I would send sheep through a loop to get sheared as they flow past me, then drop back in the pen, or send a portion of cows to a lava blade. But that's menial stuff. Going in and shearing the sheep myself or going in with a flame sword is easier and more effective by far, but playing around with them was more fun than anything. Kind of like "flushing" the sheep as if my sheep farm was some kind of abstract toilet.
But everything else would be fine. Hostile mob farms, crop farms, would be unaffected by these new changes. Unless water doesn't pop crops anymore, but no biggie, just slide the farmland back and forth and flood it after.
I could still build my mob farm dozens of layers tall. I could put hoppers at the bottom to collect, but sending them somewhere else is thrown a curveball.
And item transportation is hardly limited to farms, not by a longshot. Ice pipe mechanics are used in a wide range of devices including smart storage systems, games, fast item sorters, and more.
I certainly hope that some options will remain open, as this has potential to permanently ruin a large portion of worlds and contraptions. In light of this however, there are new mechanics that seem like they will open up new possibilities for a new wave of creations.
It's not so much that the new water physics are breaking farms, its that the new water physics are breaking fast and efficient item transportation.
You can actually still do the item transportation with waterstreams and ice if you use the update mechanics of water. A post of mine got merged in this thread in which I wrote a solution for this particular problem. Just scroll back in this thread a bit.
I understand your opinion, and to some extent, I agree with you. I do make Redstone filters on things as a matter-of-course, though they are bulky and not as "nice" as glass "pipes" with http://wiki.sk89q.com/wiki/CraftBook/Pipes. I'm not suggesting "pipes" be quite that technical. What I mainly hope for is that if water elevators for entities like villagers or ice-water pipes for items no longer work, I'd like for us to have some suitable replacement that still fits "Minecraft", but allows us to continue to create things like water elevators and ice-water pipes without the current problems and unintended consequences associated with those means of transport using water.
So... when *I* enjoy building creative means to avoid tedious but necessary activities in Minecraft, it's ok for you to tell ME what I shouldn't care about, but when someone tells YOU that you shouldn't care about things YOU enjoy, you won't allow that.
Ok. Got it. So long as we are on the same page.
I think item sorters and automatic farms are okay, as long as they don't abuse the game's design flaws, one of which is the bad liquid physics. An automated mob farm is okay in my opinion, but you'll have to find something more clever than floating lava above signs with hoppers, because, in my opinion, you are then exploiting the bad physics. There are loads of other options, like cacti, arrows, potions, or suffocating or drowning them, and many more.
Click the dragon/egg that is on top to help me raise my dragons
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/off-topic/forum-games/2824114-delete-the-block-above-you
Cactoni, lavato... I'm the one who gets to decide what normal, as intended working game physics suits my purpose as long as I don't violate server rules. Fortunately for me, I make the rules on my server. When my wife let's me.
If signs no longer hold up lava, I will use what works as intended game physics.
This post is redundant. Please read post #1. Thanks.
I always thought it was quite odd that water could be blocked by objects which had "holes" in them or around them, such as signs and fences. I think it makes Minecraft more believable if this is corrected. And I'm sure that innovative builders will still come up with ways to make their automated machinery work.
Answers in red.
This reply covers one of the big reasons why I hate farms. One that hasn't been shown much before on this forum. Another reason (which has been shown on this forum) is the part about using glitches in the game that should really be patched. Another reason is the fact that it gives you essentially unlimited materials, which can be considered OP in any game.
Remember those versions that minecraft pranked us with? Specifically:
Those are still downloadable! Watch this video for 2.0:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQdu9LKAdIU
To download the other ones you need to make a folder in the versions folder for minecraft and put the client and JSON file for the versions in there. They all need to be named the same aside from file extensions. Once you do that, you will be able to choose that version when making a new profile with the minecraft launcher.
15w14a is on this link:
http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/15w14a
1.RV-Pre1 is here:
http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/1.RV-Pre1
Actually I've been wanting an underwater base for some time, I have met others who had made Underwater bases, it's not for everyone but there are people that want to build underwater. Even if you don't want to build under water even beach front features will be better when you have smaller than full blocks and don't want weird air pockets, even stuff like fountains will be better.
YES!
Finally, underwater builds can look decent without hideous air bubbles.
į̢̳̩̬̗͙̥̦̅̋̈̄̅ͦ̅͜ͅn̡̪̦̖̥̞̦̆̊ͯ͑ͧ̿̍̄ͫs͈̯̳̪̯͍̥̍̾̃̋̕͢ͅo̶̥̗͇̪͕̳͇̝̚ḿ̴͍̠̬̫̥͎͈̭̉̿̿̒͋̊̇͠n̷̨̘̞̣͈̖͎̭͔ͧ̃̂̂ï̶͓̲̰̝̖ͩ͜ḁ͈̺̼̍ͥ͌̑̅͐ͧ͂͘ͅ ̛͚͖̮̃͗̂̒̊͋̆͛̚s̼̯̱̮̆̏͗̄ư̬̳ͪ̓̊̓̈́̾͐ͧ͠c̗̭̮̍̌kͦͫ́̌̒̑̇ͧ҉̤̣̣̹̼̤͇̻̀͡ͅs̷͈̹͉̥ͮͤͬͥ̐́̚̚͜
Yeah, the discussion wandered away from "underwater building" towards "Farm Hate." I think "Farm Hate" merits its own thread. As far as water mechanics, this is going to happen in an upcoming version. It's on the slate.
The Mojang development team also know who the major YouTube people are enough to fly many of them out to Sweden, meet with them at E3, talk with them at prior MineCons or otherwise interact with them. This would include Farm Builders such as Tango Tek and Mumbo Jumbo as well as builders such as Grian or promoters of mods and games such as LogDotZip. Your love or hate for those YouTubers who earn money from promoting Minecraft is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that Mojang is likely to give consideration as to how these people currently build and what Mojang thinks they need, as well as for the teams creating things on Marketplace. If Mojang has a "what you do if" or "what would you need for building cool stuff underwater", the company has people making money off Minecraft and promoting this game to ask under Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDA's). The YouTube producers are not the end-all and be-all of the Minecraft community, but I think it's a good start for getting a fresh point-of-view on what nuts and bolts need to be created to have an Underwater release work well *AND* be promoted by the people who, as I said, earn a living off of doing their thing.
"Nobody builds underwater" is flatly false. Enough people are making underwater builds and enjoying watching OTHERS create builds underwater that there is money riding on this. It's a thing. Recognize it rather than denying it exists or isn't relevant.
"There shouldn't be farms" merits its own discussion elsewhere. But I can assure you the people who build farms as part of their real-life livelihood on YouTube will voice an opinion on what they will require to keep people subscribing and keep that ad revenue coming in. You may not agree with them (they don't often agree with one another). You may not watch them or like the YouTubers. But if you are not going to recognize a done deal and seek to positively participate in how water mechanics will be realized within a year or so, you should at least learn to live with disappointment as well as learn to lower your expectations.
There is a very good point made above: that the "new water physics" is not one issue but several.
First, there is the issue of: What is included?
the OP spoiler here states "Both water and items will be able to flow through things like fences and slabs", but what is included as "things like" is unclear [ie signs].
Mojang could save a lot of greif by making clear precisely what is intended. (Possibly grouped by what is expected to be included, what is what is expected to be excluded, and what has not been thought about… )
Second, there is the issue of whether the new idea is good/cool/useful/fun (YMMV, take your pick.)
The idea of 'Water-Only-Permeable-Fences', etc. [hereafter Water-Fence, Water-Slab, etc] Strikes me as having interesting possibilities for builds, and would be a welcome addition, but NOT replacement functionality.
"Also, items will now float!" stikes me as un-needed; floating stone/armor/tools makes no more logical sense than sinking wood/plants & — since hoppers will pick up anything in the block above — whether the item is on the top or botom of the water stream ought not to have any mechanical effect.
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.
edit for typos & BBcode
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.
What's next? every blocks will have gravity in it? Iron blocks becomes rusty overtime?
Please read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that assumes that if one thing happens, something else happens which leads to something else happening. Example: 'If Mojang adds colored wood, people will want colored stone and leafs too! What's next? Colored air blocks?
Click the dragon/egg that is on top to help me raise my dragons
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/off-topic/forum-games/2824114-delete-the-block-above-you
Something of a reductio ad absurdum, but it does point out the fallacy of using [more realistic] as an argument in a game with dragons, skeletons, magic swords, sheep that regrow wool whenever they eat, animals that breed without having sexes, and where chickens, cows, and oak trees (OH! MY!) mature at basically the same rate…
If proponents stick with [looks better], that issue goes away.
(I also agree with this point, having partial blocks that do NOT create air bubbles available would be appreciated provided I retain the option of using those which do.)
Also, arguments in the style [breaks things that should never have been allowed anyway] are not something in which I find value. (Infinite length catilevers anyone? )
Edit: spelling & grammar
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.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope is also a good reference. They even sell a poster full of logical fallacies!
The Devs decided the Ocean was too barren. I agree with that assessment. They decided to fill it with life and with things to explore. I applaud that decision. The Devs may have looked at what others have built of underwater bases, ruins, and so on. They may have attempted doing so on their own. Either way, if they decided it sucked badly, I would agree with this also. I've played and explored maps with underwater ruins, wrecked ships, and so on. It was a beauty to see stuff *there*, but what was there was pretty much an eyesore because "bubbles!"
I don't agree that we should have two sets of everything, a "bubble" and a "no bubble" fence, "bubble/ no bubble" stairs, and so on. We should have "water physics", it should be consistent and simple within its own pattern of behavior. I believe that is the path they are going to take while creating new tools to deal with the new physics such as working airlocks, perhaps different behavior with sponges, and so on. We'll find out more as they get to Snapshot time for 1.14.
Thank you for the reply, among other things it points out an area of unclear communication on my part…
I'm not actually advocating for "bubble fences" etc.
I just want to retain the functionality of the current fences/signs/slabs in addition to having new versions that allow water to pass through. (Although, having the ability to add "bubbles" where I want them would also be useful...)
Quoting from my previous post here:
"
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
"
Thus, "new tools to deal with the new physics" would work fine for me, although I see keeping the current items (possibly reskinned) as the simplest way to retain current functionality as well as to avoid "breaking" current worlds.
To your point about not wanting "two sets of everything": given that there already exist many sets with only decorative differences (stone/stonebricks/andesite/diorite/granite and the polished varieties as well as the wood types) I don't see the argument against adding a 2nd set of blocks with altered functionality. (Adding these strikes me as more akin to wooden/iron doors and trapdoors.)
Perhaps you mean you don't want them to be too visually similar? (A position I support.)
My reactions to current underwater builds are less strongly negative, but I otherwise largely agree with this.
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.
The differences are in emphasis and preference. I don't think it is likely Mojang will code for two kinds of each wooden fence, two kinds of each stair, two kinds of iron bars, and so on. Even if they use reskinning to emphasize how "different" they are, I feel it would be too much coding and confusion for too little gain. Hoppers now have a hit-box matching their visual outline in Bedrock 1.2.5, and this is likely to go to Java Edition also. I suspect this means water will flow around the bottom of hoppers as well. Would Mojang need to code for two kinds of hoppers? Two kinds of chests? Two kinds of enchanting tables? An extra set of skins for all these? Two kinds of pressure plates for 6 variety of wooden, stone, iron, gold? It isn't just fence. All non-full blocks that don't pop off in water will have to deal with this. Every last one. Beds? Farmland? Grass path? Cake? So many non-full block items!
As far as the reaction to builds underwater, I'm overstating the case. It was just disappointing to see the work of people who made these underwater wrecks to explore, seaweed forests, and so on made to appear with all the "bubbles" around them, and how much better they would look without it. I'm glad this will be corrected.
This sounds as though you are not opposed (in principle) to my suggestion, but have reservations about the cost benefit ratio…
.] (And if people want to be able to use any block underwater without a 'bubble', this is going to mean every last one of the blocks water doesn't pop-off will need a new "bubble free" version...)
The first is good to hear and the second the sort of thing about which reasonable men working from the same data may well reach quite different conclusions.
If I may refine an argument supporting my interpretation of the implementation costs, I see matters as the current versions being a sunk cost (the work is done and already paid for) while it is the new "water flows around it" blocks that are the "extra" set.
I believe we are in agreement that the "water flow" blocks are worth the effort to code and implement. [A position that also seems to have official support
Where we seem to differ is that I do not understand what costs you see in leaving the current blocks in the game while implementing the new functionality with new blocks.
Granted a current 'ugly' underwater build will not be 'beautified' automatically by the update, this seems a small price for not 'breaking' current builds that rely on the functioning of the current blocks.
On a slightly off topic technical side note:
Re your comment about hopper hit boxes; I don't think either the hit box or the collision mask is definitive for water flowing through a block. Currently both ladders and signs have smaller than full block hit boxes (and signs are noted to have no collision mask), yet both block water. (Ladders and snow blocks also appear to be the only things in the wikis list of non-solid blocks water does not remove).
Not really germane to our discusion, but interesting of itself…
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.
True, this is only for Bedrock 1.2.5, but even anvils have a different hit-box. I would not be informed of the technical details, but I would hazard a guess that that "any water block encountering a non-full hit-box, leak around it according to the following rules..." I hope there will be exceptions to allow for some sort of "air lock" for entering and leaving an underwater base. But it isn't *JUST* hoppers that got a new hit-box for Bedrock 1.2.5. Anvils were also updated. It is possible the hitbox update is totally unrelated to the Aquatic Update, but having item hitboxes more closely adhere to the visual shape of a given block would make sense for a "water physics" update. Having water encounter a hopper from above, the hitbox on that face is 100%, and water will not flow down from above. But from any side, water could flow around the hit-box. A door that is closed will present a full hit-box across the face of the block if it hits from the flush side. If water comes from the back side or in the "open" position, water will flow up to the point it hits a full face. That is my guess to the approach, and I believe they will have an "exception list" for blocks such as an "airlock" which might be open to allow passage, but water is not meant to flow. Pure conjecture on my part, but it would be reasonable any "exception list" would be kept very, very small.
Regarding the mob farm discussion.
Sure, maybe there exist mob farm designs that will be broken. But there are a plethora of mob farm designs that don't use the so-called "broken mechanics". For example, I'm working on a mob farm where all the water flows stop right before the drop-down hole. It's not so much that the new water physics are breaking farms, its that the new water physics are breaking fast and efficient item transportation.
In fact thinking about it, very few farms I've created would be broken. Maybe my sheep and cow farms. I would send sheep through a loop to get sheared as they flow past me, then drop back in the pen, or send a portion of cows to a lava blade. But that's menial stuff. Going in and shearing the sheep myself or going in with a flame sword is easier and more effective by far, but playing around with them was more fun than anything. Kind of like "flushing" the sheep as if my sheep farm was some kind of abstract toilet.
But everything else would be fine. Hostile mob farms, crop farms, would be unaffected by these new changes. Unless water doesn't pop crops anymore, but no biggie, just slide the farmland back and forth and flood it after.
I could still build my mob farm dozens of layers tall. I could put hoppers at the bottom to collect, but sending them somewhere else is thrown a curveball.
And item transportation is hardly limited to farms, not by a longshot. Ice pipe mechanics are used in a wide range of devices including smart storage systems, games, fast item sorters, and more.
I certainly hope that some options will remain open, as this has potential to permanently ruin a large portion of worlds and contraptions. In light of this however, there are new mechanics that seem like they will open up new possibilities for a new wave of creations.
Speaking of fences ...
Will the water go through the doors when they opened?
My videos: https://www.youtube.com/user/robingravel
My cartoons: http://www.dailymotion.com/robin-gravel
Flash Animation (if your computer can still play flash games/movies):
http://robingravel.byethost15.com/eflash.htm
Few flash movies have easter egg/extras
You can actually still do the item transportation with waterstreams and ice if you use the update mechanics of water. A post of mine got merged in this thread in which I wrote a solution for this particular problem. Just scroll back in this thread a bit.