This suggestion really needs a revamp.
Sol believe it or not,the way you suggest the needs sucks.
You want the player to die because he didn't eat taking the fact that it would increase the reasons to go out in morning of the game.
Why not add a limited digging system that if you do dig 500 block you cannot dig anymore and must go out to get some fresh air in order dig more.No? Why not?
Because ITS ****ING ANNOYING.YEAH.Your system is annoying too.You WANT the player to eat and drink to live.
I suggested a system in which if you do not eat nothing will will happen to health.I suggested eating should give extra bonuses instead of this.
AND for your self post centered brain I post it again in a better format which your high level IQ can understand.
Add a fatigue function,The more you sprint the more your fatigue goes up,When it is at max you will walk slowly and heavy breath sounds will play.Now you must eat to fill that bar,It not only gives bonus at walking speed but also speed of the current work e.g. If you use the stamina function while digging,you will dig faster at the cost of fatigue.If used when swinging a sword,the sword would swing harder dealing more damage.All this would increase fatigue and when fatigue is at max the player will pass out for 3 seconds.
And minecraft is survival horror
Its got zombies,darkness and people get afraid while playing it.
Deal with it.
It works for every other game that has used it, with the exception of Lost in Blue since for some reason the developers thought it would be a great idea to make the player eat every 5 seconds or die instantly.
Go play Dead Frontier, then come tell me the idea still sucks.
Quote from sabata2 »
Sol, just go away. This idea is **** poor and you know it.
It's not about SOMEONE dislikes the idea... a MAJORITY dislike the idea.
And there WAS an option for "togglable" in the poll. "Other (See Post)"
How many people picked it? 9
How many people picked "No"? 55
Hrmm... Me thinks even if you made it togglable people wouldn't want it.
Also take note that each "Togglable" vote is very likely "I don't care how you play but don't force it upon me"
Meaning EVEN THEY DISLIKE IT.
Not every ****ing idea that people come up with can be togglable. You would end up with 32,310,912,809 options to turn on and off. Also, the previous poll had more in favour. Most of the people who voted yes have either not returned to re-cast votes, or have changed their vote (which is unlikely).
Either way, I couldn't really give a ****. All I can say is that it's a pretty ****-poor survival game if you don't have to eat the ****ing food you spend so much time collecting... food is god damn pointless it has NO use. Healing is even **** all. Let's add way more food, and have even less use for it. I never make bread you know why? It's 10x harder and takes 10x longer than finding a pig and cooking the meat, and gives less health. STUPID!
As I said, go play a game that uses the hunger system well (NOT Lost in Blue) and see if you don't finally realise that your argument "it's boring/tedious/annoying" is inaccurate.
*EDIT*
You will support something as unrealistic and un-needed as "magical chests", but refuse to think that having to EAT FOOD to LIVE is a good idea. Wow, just... wow.
I personally think hunger would be a nice addition as long as there is a simple toggle to it.
Quote from Sol »
You would end up with 32,310,912,809 options to turn on and off.
Just because something become optional doesn't mean it will happen to every other new game play mechanic per say.
Quote from Sol »
Either way, I couldn't really give a ****. All I can say is that it's a pretty ****-poor survival game if you don't have to eat the ****ing food you spend so much time collecting... food is god damn pointless it has NO use. Healing is even **** all.
I personally think hunger would be a nice addition as long as there is a simple toggle to it.
Quote from Sol »
You would end up with 32,310,912,809 options to turn on and off.
Just because something become optional doesn't mean it will happen to every other new game play mechanic per say.
Quote from Sol »
Either way, I couldn't really give a ****. All I can say is that it's a pretty ****-poor survival game if you don't have to eat the ****ing food you spend so much time collecting... food is god damn pointless it has NO use. Healing is even **** all.
~Sol
Your opinion, I respect it. Just respect mine.
I agree, Sol does seem a little over-adamant about this whole ordeal. I think it's less significant than he's making it out to be- STILL A GOOD IDEA!- don't get me wrong, but probably not as important as he's making it seem.
I personally think hunger would be a nice addition as long as there is a simple toggle to it.
Quote from Sol »
You would end up with 32,310,912,809 options to turn on and off.
Just because something become optional doesn't mean it will happen to every other new game play mechanic per say.
Quote from Sol »
Either way, I couldn't really give a ****. All I can say is that it's a pretty ****-poor survival game if you don't have to eat the ****ing food you spend so much time collecting... food is god damn pointless it has NO use. Healing is even **** all.
~Sol
Your opinion, I respect it. Just respect mine.
I agree, Sol does seem a little over-adamant about this whole ordeal. I think it's less significant than he's making it out to be- STILL A GOOD IDEA!- don't get me wrong, but probably not as important as he's making it seem.
I think it's a eally GREAT idea!
I mean its 'survival' mode. Eating and drinking is a pretty big part of surviving^^
Also, those who were saying "just more bars to watch, takes away the fun", seriously, he said MANY times that on peaceful there wouldn't be hunger/thirst bars OR you would be able to toggle them of or on. But I mean IF you only want to mine and build why are you playing on survival mode anyway? Or if you want to mine SO much why not play on peaceful?
I think it's a eally GREAT idea!
I mean its 'survival' mode. Eating and drinking is a pretty big part of surviving^^
Also, those who were saying "just more bars to watch, takes away the fun", seriously, he said MANY times that on peaceful there wouldn't be hunger/thirst bars OR you would be able to toggle them of or on. But I mean IF you only want to mine and build why are you playing on survival mode anyway? Or if you want to mine SO much why not play on peaceful?
To which I state... if you want to eat and drink to survive so much why not spend a few days away from home with no money? That'll get you the same thrill as trying to put the mechanic in Minecraft.
And again...
1) We like FIGHTING which is the main difference between difficulties. Those who only want to craft usually do go to Peaceful. But saying "Go to Peaceful if you don't want to have a hunger meter" is basically saying "Screw everyone else who doesn't want to eat"
2) A toggle is just an underhanded attempt to get a game mechanic into the engine that no one wants but a few select people.
For instance. I want it so that whenever I click or press a key the game makes a fart noise. But it's okay! Because you can TOGGLE IT!
Even the worst ideas get a defense from "just toggle it". And those ideas have no place in Minecraft.
3) See #1. We like to FIGHT in the higher difficulties, or actually like to RUN from enemies instead of standing on 2 blocks and hitting them with a third.
This is a horrible idea. Better ones have been suggested in this thread. The OP fails to even recognize them, and brands his initial idea as the Second Coming.
Giving it a Toggle Switch option only gets you votes from people who don't want it, but don't give a **** if you do. Which is painting a white rose red and saying it's been red the whole time.
To which I state... if you want to eat and drink to survive so much why not spend a few days away from home with no money? That'll get you the same thrill as trying to put the mechanic in Minecraft.
I've heard this argument MANY times with other games...
Basicly what u are saying is that if I would go somewhere on an island where no1 would find me and there I would mine materials it would be the same as playing minecraft...
Quote from sabata2 »
And again...
1) We like FIGHTING which is the main difference between difficulties. Those who only want to craft usually do go to Peaceful. But saying "Go to Peaceful if you don't want to have a hunger meter" is basically saying "Screw everyone else who doesn't want to eat"
You are right here. Guess the only option would be to have the option to toggle it on or off.
Quote from sabata2 »
2) A toggle is just an underhanded attempt to get a game mechanic into the engine that no one wants but a few select people.
For instance. I want it so that whenever I click or press a key the game makes a fart noise. But it's okay! Because you can TOGGLE IT!
Even the worst ideas get a defense from "just toggle it". And those ideas have no place in Minecraft.
There is a poll and 30% of the peple who play minecraft (or at least read this topic) liked the idea while 60% didnt like it...
Quote from sabata2 »
3) See #1. We like to FIGHT in the higher difficulties, or actually like to RUN from enemies instead of standing on 2 blocks and hitting them with a third.
Like I said toggle option...
Quote from sabata2 »
This is a horrible idea. Better ones have been suggested in this thread. The OP fails to even recognize them, and brands his initial idea as the Second Coming.
Like i said 30% liked it
Quote from sabata2 »
Giving it a Toggle Switch option only gets you votes from people who don't want it, but don't give a **** if you do. Which is painting a white rose red and saying it's been red the whole time.
I dont really think so. The poll clearly says if we NEED a hunger system! If you dont like the idea then you dont think it needs to be put into the game.
Nope, I'm saying you're asking for something Minecraft isn't. If you want it, look somewhere else.
Quote from CardOrder »
You are right here. Guess the only option would be to have the option to toggle it on or off.
And you're wrong again. You're missing the option that 60% of the people want. "Not to have it"
I do like though how you tried to imply we needed something because it has 30% support.
Because in the world where Minecraft needs a hunger bar, 30% > 60%.
Hell, even giving you the benefit of the doubt, and saying EVERY person who voted "toggle" was going to use it and wanted the toggle for people like my sake. You still have 40% against 60%.
You lose even with the odds stacked in your favor. And that's including ROUNDING in your favor!
Give it up, OP's suggestion doesn't have support, isn't well founded, and does not expand the gameplay only limits it.
I might be trying to shout into a vacuum, considering that this topic seems to have degraded into an insult match long ago, but I still need to point out a few things and try to get you guys to step back a pace and consider your own arguments.
The pro-hunger camp operates largely out of three primary arguments. The first is that, it makes the game more realistic. The second, is that it fits the "survival" theme better. The Third, is that it provides a use to otherwise useless food products in the game.
I'm not going to spent too much time addressing the first reason because, quite frankly, if you are looking for a realistic game you are in the wrong place. Minecraft's suspension of disbelief operates largely by creating its own sense of being in an alternate universe, where otherwise unrealistic events can be common place, such as carrying enough stone in your pockets to build a small castle. If Notch wants this world's alternate physics to include hunger being unnecessary, so be it. The realism argument doesn't hold water.
The second reason is quite possibly the most valid. However, it requires you to agree that Minecraft is a "Survival" game and not a building game. Quite frankly, after the first three nights when I have a solid structure, the game doesn't feel very survival-like at all and becomes almost exclusively a building game. The game, in its purest form, is not a survival game at all; it's a sandbox/adventure game. No amount of hunger is going to change this, because you can simply build a wheat farm in your house. Yes, the game mode is called "Survival," but that is little more than the name of the mode. If you are struggling just to "survive" in Minecraft, you are doing something wrong.
The third argument is decent as well. Adding a significant use to food products in the game is a good goal, to be sure. However, adding a hunger mechanic to the game would be an ineffective way of accomplishing this, due to the logistics of the game. As someone pointed out, you can have enough food to feed a single army with one wheat greenhouse. Adding hunger isn't going to change this; for me, all it would mean is that I have to gather my wheat once per Minecraft week instead of only when my storage drops below a full stack plus some extra.
Of the two main reasons that I personally am against a hunger system, ironically I include points from the third argument in favor of it. There is no way Notch can make hunger a worry in the game, without boosted to a truly game-breaking level; at no point will it ever be impossible for players to just build a bigger farm and harvest it more often, unless it is -so- extreme you have time for nothing but. We can all agree that doing so would be very detrimental to the game. For this reason, any hunger system will be more of a chore than a feature.
The second reason I am against a hunger system is because of its affect on the "artificial leveling" mechanic the game has embedded in the tech tree and terrain modification system. As your character becomes more established, the game gets easier just as though you had leveled up and become stronger like you can in other games. At the moment, this mechanic affects the game so strongly that the game is difficult on fresh saves while being incredibly easy on older ones. Adding hunger to the game would only exacerbate this further, because an unestablished character would have to constantly spend time hunting for pigs to keep himself fed, until gaining the ability to farm the food for themselves, at which point hunger becomes irrelevant.
Interestingly, this mechanic is the reason that having hunger debuff your maximum health rather than damage you directly, in the manner the original post describes, is by far the best method of implementing a "penalty" for hunger. Applying hunger in this manner would mean that food would be irrelevant unless you planned on fighting monsters or entering dangerous areas, which no poorly-established character should be doing regardless. Thus, the health debuff method effectively minimizes the artificial-leveling problem, though obviously doesn't avoid it altogether, since it means that higher-"level" characters would have more maximum health.
But it should not kill you, i mean it can be like a stamina, where if your stamina bar is empty, your health will not be affected, but there's other effect like your deff is decreased, your aim is decreased, sprint is slower, etc, it's like Metal Gear Solid 3 : Snake Eater, and you have to hunt/farm/gather some food to replenish it.
I might be trying to shout into a vacuum, considering that this topic seems to have degraded into an insult match long ago, but I still need to point out a few things and try to get you guys to step back a pace and consider your own arguments.
The pro-hunger camp operates largely out of three primary arguments. The first is that, it makes the game more realistic. The second, is that it fits the "survival" theme better. The Third, is that it provides a use to otherwise useless food products in the game.
I'm not going to spent too much time addressing the first reason because, quite frankly, if you are looking for a realistic game you are in the wrong place. Minecraft's suspension of disbelief operates largely by creating its own sense of being in an alternate universe, where otherwise unrealistic events can be common place, such as carrying enough stone in your pockets to build a small castle. If Notch wants this world's alternate physics to include hunger being unnecessary, so be it. The realism argument doesn't hold water.
The second reason is quite possibly the most valid. However, it requires you to agree that Minecraft is a "Survival" game and not a building game. Quite frankly, after the first three nights when I have a solid structure, the game doesn't feel very survival-like at all and becomes almost exclusively a building game. The game, in its purest form, is not a survival game at all; it's a sandbox/adventure game. No amount of hunger is going to change this, because you can simply build a wheat farm in your house. Yes, the game mode is called "Survival," but that is little more than the name of the mode. If you are struggling just to "survive" in Minecraft, you are doing something wrong.
The third argument is decent as well. Adding a significant use to food products in the game is a good goal, to be sure. However, adding a hunger mechanic to the game would be an ineffective way of accomplishing this, due to the logistics of the game. As someone pointed out, you can have enough food to feed a single army with one wheat greenhouse. Adding hunger isn't going to change this; for me, all it would mean is that I have to gather my wheat once per Minecraft week instead of only when my storage drops below a full stack plus some extra.
Of the two main reasons that I personally am against a hunger system, ironically I include points from the third argument in favor of it. There is no way Notch can make hunger a worry in the game, without boosted to a truly game-breaking level; at no point will it ever be impossible for players to just build a bigger farm and harvest it more often, unless it is -so- extreme you have time for nothing but. We can all agree that doing so would be very detrimental to the game. For this reason, any hunger system will be more of a chore than a feature.
The second reason I am against a hunger system is because of its affect on the "artificial leveling" mechanic the game has embedded in the tech tree and terrain modification system. As your character becomes more established, the game gets easier just as though you had leveled up and become stronger like you can in other games. At the moment, this mechanic affects the game so strongly that the game is difficult on fresh saves while being incredibly easy on older ones. Adding hunger to the game would only exacerbate this further, because an unestablished character would have to constantly spend time hunting for pigs to keep himself fed, until gaining the ability to farm the food for themselves, at which point hunger becomes irrelevant.
Interestingly, this mechanic is the reason that having hunger debuff your maximum health rather than damage you directly, in the manner the original post describes, is by far the best method of implementing a "penalty" for hunger. Applying hunger in this manner would mean that food would be irrelevant unless you planned on fighting monsters or entering dangerous areas, which no poorly-established character should be doing regardless. Thus, the health debuff method effectively minimizes the artificial-leveling problem, though obviously doesn't avoid it altogether, since it means that higher-"level" characters would have more maximum health.
Thank you... you pretty much summed it up there. This is the types of post that contribute to an idea and provide constructive criticism.
Nope, I'm saying you're asking for something Minecraft isn't. If you want it, look somewhere else.
The creator said there will be more game mods in the future and I think in the survival mode should something like hunger/thirst...
Quote from CardOrder »
You are right here. Guess the only option would be to have the option to toggle it on or off.
Quote from sabata2 »
I do like though how you tried to imply we needed something because it has 30% support.
Because in the world where Minecraft needs a hunger bar, 30% > 60%.
IMO 30% isnt that bad...
Those other 60% could turn it to off easily.
Quote from sabata2 »
Give it up, OP's suggestion doesn't have support, isn't well founded, and does not expand the gameplay only limits it.
No support.... *cough* 30%likedtheidea *cough*
--------------
If this thing would get an option it shouldnt just be on/off but maybe also like this:
off --- no need of food
easy --- eating once a day will keep your bar full
normal --- eating twice a day will keep your bar full
hard --- eating 3 times a day will keep your bar full
Because, me for example, I like the idea but for me it would take the fun away if I had to eat3 times a day - 1 time would be enough.
Also someone suggested recipes of better food which if you ate them keep your hunger bar ful for longer.that would be cool! ^^
Why don't we just make a separate game mode that has the hunger/thirst bar implemented? In fact there should be several game modes.
For example:
(1)mob assault: fend for your life against hordes of hostile mobs.[you start with armor and sword and mobs don't take damage in sunlight.]
(2)[mode relevant to the thread]Realism:monitor hunger and thirst while trying to make a living in this vast and unfamiliar world.
(3)Dungeon Raid(multiplayer only):The map is full of dungeons with multiple spawners. With help from friends get in,get your loot and try to get out alive.
There are probably several holes and/or flaws with this idea/solution. whoever bothers to read this you're welcome to point them out,just please do this thread a favor and make your criticism constructive and helpful. we are working to find a solution to the hunger and thirst idea, not start another flame war.
Um, excuse me but I do not believe I am the only one who wants to play on hard difficulty but not have food/water.
I play hard mode for a challenge, adding food does not add challenge, it adds tedium.
I do not like pointless **** in my games because of "realism" especially in games that are not realistic. Last time I checked, making an infinite water supply and slaughtering pigs were not very fun things to do.
Am I annoyed? Yes. Why? Because I don't like the fact that you can't even see why some people don't like your idea. It's a shitty mechanic, I strongly dislike it, if it could be toggled I wouldn't care. But for some reason you don't seem to like the idea of something like this being able to be toggled. Which is ridiculous as a toggle option would allow you to play how you want and would allow me to play how I want.
Edit: I truly do not mean any offense, for the concept of the idea I can't think of a much better way of implementing it. However it is most definitely not my cup of tea. While I'm playing I'm either expanding my base or out exploring and fighting mobs. I just think that a hunger/thirst system would get in the way of how I wan't to play. Therefore a toggle option would seem like an obvious inclusion to me.
Sol believe it or not,the way you suggest the needs sucks.
You want the player to die because he didn't eat taking the fact that it would increase the reasons to go out in morning of the game.
Why not add a limited digging system that if you do dig 500 block you cannot dig anymore and must go out to get some fresh air in order dig more.No? Why not?
Because ITS ****ING ANNOYING.YEAH.Your system is annoying too.You WANT the player to eat and drink to live.
I suggested a system in which if you do not eat nothing will will happen to health.I suggested eating should give extra bonuses instead of this.
AND for your self post centered brain I post it again in a better format which your high level IQ can understand.
Add a fatigue function,The more you sprint the more your fatigue goes up,When it is at max you will walk slowly and heavy breath sounds will play.Now you must eat to fill that bar,It not only gives bonus at walking speed but also speed of the current work e.g. If you use the stamina function while digging,you will dig faster at the cost of fatigue.If used when swinging a sword,the sword would swing harder dealing more damage.All this would increase fatigue and when fatigue is at max the player will pass out for 3 seconds.
And minecraft is survival horror
Its got zombies,darkness and people get afraid while playing it.
Deal with it.
Use for different variety of food
Now check out others suggestions
Climbing your @$$ off in minecraft
Go play Dead Frontier, then come tell me the idea still sucks.
Not every ****ing idea that people come up with can be togglable. You would end up with 32,310,912,809 options to turn on and off. Also, the previous poll had more in favour. Most of the people who voted yes have either not returned to re-cast votes, or have changed their vote (which is unlikely).
Either way, I couldn't really give a ****. All I can say is that it's a pretty ****-poor survival game if you don't have to eat the ****ing food you spend so much time collecting... food is god damn pointless it has NO use. Healing is even **** all. Let's add way more food, and have even less use for it. I never make bread you know why? It's 10x harder and takes 10x longer than finding a pig and cooking the meat, and gives less health. STUPID!
As I said, go play a game that uses the hunger system well (NOT Lost in Blue) and see if you don't finally realise that your argument "it's boring/tedious/annoying" is inaccurate.
~Sol
Whatever mate. You have made your opinion noted.
*EDIT*
You will support something as unrealistic and un-needed as "magical chests", but refuse to think that having to EAT FOOD to LIVE is a good idea. Wow, just... wow.
~Sol
Also, if you bought Minecraft on the ASSUMPTION it's a survival game, I suggest you try before you buy next time.
That's not what Minecraft is.
THIS is what minecraft is...
Just because something become optional doesn't mean it will happen to every other new game play mechanic per say.
Your opinion, I respect it. Just respect mine.
I agree, Sol does seem a little over-adamant about this whole ordeal. I think it's less significant than he's making it out to be- STILL A GOOD IDEA!- don't get me wrong, but probably not as important as he's making it seem.
A valid argument that I agree with.
I mean its 'survival' mode. Eating and drinking is a pretty big part of surviving^^
Also, those who were saying "just more bars to watch, takes away the fun", seriously, he said MANY times that on peaceful there wouldn't be hunger/thirst bars OR you would be able to toggle them of or on. But I mean IF you only want to mine and build why are you playing on survival mode anyway? Or if you want to mine SO much why not play on peaceful?
To which I state... if you want to eat and drink to survive so much why not spend a few days away from home with no money? That'll get you the same thrill as trying to put the mechanic in Minecraft.
And again...
1) We like FIGHTING which is the main difference between difficulties. Those who only want to craft usually do go to Peaceful. But saying "Go to Peaceful if you don't want to have a hunger meter" is basically saying "Screw everyone else who doesn't want to eat"
2) A toggle is just an underhanded attempt to get a game mechanic into the engine that no one wants but a few select people.
For instance. I want it so that whenever I click or press a key the game makes a fart noise. But it's okay! Because you can TOGGLE IT!
Even the worst ideas get a defense from "just toggle it". And those ideas have no place in Minecraft.
3) See #1. We like to FIGHT in the higher difficulties, or actually like to RUN from enemies instead of standing on 2 blocks and hitting them with a third.
This is a horrible idea. Better ones have been suggested in this thread. The OP fails to even recognize them, and brands his initial idea as the Second Coming.
Giving it a Toggle Switch option only gets you votes from people who don't want it, but don't give a **** if you do. Which is painting a white rose red and saying it's been red the whole time.
I've heard this argument MANY times with other games...
Basicly what u are saying is that if I would go somewhere on an island where no1 would find me and there I would mine materials it would be the same as playing minecraft...
You are right here. Guess the only option would be to have the option to toggle it on or off.
There is a poll and 30% of the peple who play minecraft (or at least read this topic) liked the idea while 60% didnt like it...
Like I said toggle option...
Like i said 30% liked it
I dont really think so. The poll clearly says if we NEED a hunger system! If you dont like the idea then you dont think it needs to be put into the game.
And you're wrong again. You're missing the option that 60% of the people want. "Not to have it"
I do like though how you tried to imply we needed something because it has 30% support.
Because in the world where Minecraft needs a hunger bar, 30% > 60%.
Hell, even giving you the benefit of the doubt, and saying EVERY person who voted "toggle" was going to use it and wanted the toggle for people like my sake. You still have 40% against 60%.
You lose even with the odds stacked in your favor. And that's including ROUNDING in your favor!
Give it up, OP's suggestion doesn't have support, isn't well founded, and does not expand the gameplay only limits it.
The pro-hunger camp operates largely out of three primary arguments. The first is that, it makes the game more realistic. The second, is that it fits the "survival" theme better. The Third, is that it provides a use to otherwise useless food products in the game.
I'm not going to spent too much time addressing the first reason because, quite frankly, if you are looking for a realistic game you are in the wrong place. Minecraft's suspension of disbelief operates largely by creating its own sense of being in an alternate universe, where otherwise unrealistic events can be common place, such as carrying enough stone in your pockets to build a small castle. If Notch wants this world's alternate physics to include hunger being unnecessary, so be it. The realism argument doesn't hold water.
The second reason is quite possibly the most valid. However, it requires you to agree that Minecraft is a "Survival" game and not a building game. Quite frankly, after the first three nights when I have a solid structure, the game doesn't feel very survival-like at all and becomes almost exclusively a building game. The game, in its purest form, is not a survival game at all; it's a sandbox/adventure game. No amount of hunger is going to change this, because you can simply build a wheat farm in your house. Yes, the game mode is called "Survival," but that is little more than the name of the mode. If you are struggling just to "survive" in Minecraft, you are doing something wrong.
The third argument is decent as well. Adding a significant use to food products in the game is a good goal, to be sure. However, adding a hunger mechanic to the game would be an ineffective way of accomplishing this, due to the logistics of the game. As someone pointed out, you can have enough food to feed a single army with one wheat greenhouse. Adding hunger isn't going to change this; for me, all it would mean is that I have to gather my wheat once per Minecraft week instead of only when my storage drops below a full stack plus some extra.
Of the two main reasons that I personally am against a hunger system, ironically I include points from the third argument in favor of it. There is no way Notch can make hunger a worry in the game, without boosted to a truly game-breaking level; at no point will it ever be impossible for players to just build a bigger farm and harvest it more often, unless it is -so- extreme you have time for nothing but. We can all agree that doing so would be very detrimental to the game. For this reason, any hunger system will be more of a chore than a feature.
The second reason I am against a hunger system is because of its affect on the "artificial leveling" mechanic the game has embedded in the tech tree and terrain modification system. As your character becomes more established, the game gets easier just as though you had leveled up and become stronger like you can in other games. At the moment, this mechanic affects the game so strongly that the game is difficult on fresh saves while being incredibly easy on older ones. Adding hunger to the game would only exacerbate this further, because an unestablished character would have to constantly spend time hunting for pigs to keep himself fed, until gaining the ability to farm the food for themselves, at which point hunger becomes irrelevant.
Interestingly, this mechanic is the reason that having hunger debuff your maximum health rather than damage you directly, in the manner the original post describes, is by far the best method of implementing a "penalty" for hunger. Applying hunger in this manner would mean that food would be irrelevant unless you planned on fighting monsters or entering dangerous areas, which no poorly-established character should be doing regardless. Thus, the health debuff method effectively minimizes the artificial-leveling problem, though obviously doesn't avoid it altogether, since it means that higher-"level" characters would have more maximum health.
But it should not kill you, i mean it can be like a stamina, where if your stamina bar is empty, your health will not be affected, but there's other effect like your deff is decreased, your aim is decreased, sprint is slower, etc, it's like Metal Gear Solid 3 : Snake Eater, and you have to hunt/farm/gather some food to replenish it.
and of course there's an option to turn it off.
Thank you... you pretty much summed it up there. This is the types of post that contribute to an idea and provide constructive criticism.
~Sol
The creator said there will be more game mods in the future and I think in the survival mode should something like hunger/thirst...
IMO 30% isnt that bad...
Those other 60% could turn it to off easily.
No support.... *cough* 30%likedtheidea *cough*
--------------
If this thing would get an option it shouldnt just be on/off but maybe also like this:
off --- no need of food
easy --- eating once a day will keep your bar full
normal --- eating twice a day will keep your bar full
hard --- eating 3 times a day will keep your bar full
Because, me for example, I like the idea but for me it would take the fun away if I had to eat3 times a day - 1 time would be enough.
Also someone suggested recipes of better food which if you ate them keep your hunger bar ful for longer.that would be cool! ^^
For example:
(1)mob assault: fend for your life against hordes of hostile mobs.[you start with armor and sword and mobs don't take damage in sunlight.]
(2)[mode relevant to the thread]Realism:monitor hunger and thirst while trying to make a living in this vast and unfamiliar world.
(3)Dungeon Raid(multiplayer only):The map is full of dungeons with multiple spawners. With help from friends get in,get your loot and try to get out alive.
There are probably several holes and/or flaws with this idea/solution. whoever bothers to read this you're welcome to point them out,just please do this thread a favor and make your criticism constructive and helpful. we are working to find a solution to the hunger and thirst idea, not start another flame war.
I play hard mode for a challenge, adding food does not add challenge, it adds tedium.
I do not like pointless **** in my games because of "realism" especially in games that are not realistic. Last time I checked, making an infinite water supply and slaughtering pigs were not very fun things to do.
Am I annoyed? Yes. Why? Because I don't like the fact that you can't even see why some people don't like your idea. It's a shitty mechanic, I strongly dislike it, if it could be toggled I wouldn't care. But for some reason you don't seem to like the idea of something like this being able to be toggled. Which is ridiculous as a toggle option would allow you to play how you want and would allow me to play how I want.
Edit: I truly do not mean any offense, for the concept of the idea I can't think of a much better way of implementing it. However it is most definitely not my cup of tea. While I'm playing I'm either expanding my base or out exploring and fighting mobs. I just think that a hunger/thirst system would get in the way of how I wan't to play. Therefore a toggle option would seem like an obvious inclusion to me.