How on earth would guns replace the need for ore? You still need armor. And mining gold is just as valid a method of obtaining gold nuggets as
killing Zombie pigmen. Hell, it's a MUCH SAFER alternative to boot.
Also, check back on the original post. The design for ammo has changed to iron paper and gunpowder (based on the voting it looks to stay that way). So that involves mining (or building an iron golem farm), growing/harvesting, and hunting creepers. All activities within Minecraft's core modes of gameplay.
An overpowered Gun WOULD break the game, but the gun CAN be balanced between melee swords and ranged arrows.
Minecraft would NOT become just a shooter game. I mean seriously. Is PVP combat the only way you play Minecraft? My guess here is probably not. Is it the only way everyone plays Minecraft? Obviously not.
There's still, building, mining, crafting, hunting, farming, surviving,
exploring. Some of those aspects would might change slightly with the
addition of guns, maybe. It would NOT become a first person shooter. Quit panicking.
If guns were added to Vanilla Minecraft and if somehow, against all common
sense predicting otherwise, DID become a first person shooter, I'm
pretty sure that Mojang would nerf or remove guns in a following update.
They seem like pretty smart people.
1.) There is far more to Minecraft than just combat. See above.
2.) This is precisely why guns shouldn't be a "most powerful weapon in the game" but a balanced between swords and bows. Which is precisely why I suggested there be a range limitation on pistols.
The range limitation doesn't have to be 20 precisely but it seems like a decent trade off to me personally. Mrlong2 has thankfully added in a firing delay (0.75 seconds) so that the pistols can't just be spammed forever. They are faster than bows and cause the same damage as an arrow shot from a fully drawn bowstring (takes about 1.25 seconds). Add in a range limitation to them and I think they will make combat more interesting via the addition of a midrange weapon.
Ignore redstone for the moment, consider instead the coal fueled steam powered locomotive, or trinitrotoluene (TNT). The presence of both in Minecraft would place it in the mid to late 19th century. Roughly a century after the creation of the flintlock pistol.
However Minecraft isn't really set in any Earth based time period.
This is probably the first good argument about guns not fitting in Minecraft that I've seen. Just like Minecraft doesn't include blood and gore, it makes sense to not include guns because of reference to real life violence. It is rated E10 after all. But considering this, shouldn't "gunpowder" also not be in the game? Really it should be named something else if Mojang is going down that road.
Like "blast powder", "creeper dust", "explody sand", "pile of BOOM," etc.
I'd be perfectly fine with something other than a "gun" taking place as a mid range weapon in Minecraft, say maybe a cross bow, or some kind of magic thing, or heck, even a slingshot. Naturally though, those wouldn't have anything to do with this thread.
I don't believe the actions of irresponsible parents nor paranoia of the possibility of those actions should ever prevent Minecraft from being the best game it can be, whether guns are present in the game or not.
If Mojang doesn't want to add guns, then Mojang won't add guns. In the end it's up to them anyway.
How on earth would guns replace the need for ore? You still need armor. And mining gold is just as valid a method of obtaining gold nuggets as
killing Zombie pigmen. Hell, it's a MUCH SAFER alternative to boot.
Also, check back on the original post. The design for ammo has changed to iron paper and gunpowder (based on the voting it looks to stay that way). So that involves mining (or building an iron golem farm), growing/harvesting, and hunting creepers. All activities within Minecraft's core modes of gameplay.
An overpowered Gun WOULD break the game, but the gun CAN be balanced between melee swords and ranged arrows.
Minecraft would NOT become just a shooter game. I mean seriously. Is PVP combat the only way you play Minecraft? My guess here is probably not. Is it the only way everyone plays Minecraft? Obviously not.
There's still, building, mining, crafting, hunting, farming, surviving,
exploring. Some of those aspects would might change slightly with the
addition of guns, maybe. It would NOT become a first person shooter. Quit panicking.
If guns were added to Vanilla Minecraft and if somehow, against all common
sense predicting otherwise, DID become a first person shooter, I'm
pretty sure that Mojang would nerf or remove guns in a following update.
They seem like pretty smart people.
1.) There is far more to Minecraft than just combat. See above.Let's keep it that way.
2.) This is precisely why guns shouldn't be a "most powerful weapon in the game" but a balanced between swords and bows. Which is precisely why I suggested there be a range limitation on pistols. Based on the OP's description, they would be.
The range limitation doesn't have to be 20 precisely but it seems like a decent trade off to me personally. Mrlong2 has thankfully added in a firing delay (0.75 seconds) so that the pistols can't just be spammed forever. They are faster than bows and cause the same damage as an arrow shot from a fully drawn bowstring (takes about 1.25 seconds). Add in a range limitation to them and I think they will make combat more interesting via the addition of a midrange weapon.
Ignore redstone for the moment, consider instead the coal fueled steam powered locomotive, or trinitrotoluene (TNT). The presence of both in Minecraft would place it in the mid to late 19th century. Roughly a century after the creation of the flintlock pistol.
However Minecraft isn't really set in any Earth based time period.
This is probably the first good argument about guns not fitting in Minecraft that I've seen. Just like Minecraft doesn't include blood and gore, it makes sense to not include guns because of reference to real life violence. It is rated E10 after all. But considering this, shouldn't "gunpowder" also not be in the game? Really it should be named something else if Mojang is going down that road.
Like "blast powder", "creeper dust", "explody sand", "pile of BOOM," etc.
I'd be perfectly fine with something other than a "gun" taking place as a mid range weapon in Minecraft, say maybe a cross bow, or some kind of magic thing, or heck, even a slingshot. Naturally though, those wouldn't have anything to do with this thread.
I don't believe the actions of irresponsible parents nor paranoia of the possibility of those actions should ever prevent Minecraft from being the best game it can be, whether guns are present in the game or not.
If Mojang doesn't want to add guns, then Mojang won't add guns. In the end it's up to them anyway.
1.) There is far more to Minecraft than just combat. See above.Let's keep it that way.
My entire point was that adding guns wouldn't change that. I mean the ammo recipe itself encourages gameplay outside of combat.
2.) This is precisely why guns shouldn't be a "most powerful weapon in the game" but a balanced between swords and bows. Which is precisely why I suggested there be a range limitation on pistols. Based on the OP's description, they would be.
They would be what? Balanced between swords and bows? Or having a limited range?
I saw nothing about a limited range in the OP's description. Which I believe is critical to balancing them with bows.
Balancing their cost of use is one thing... but as described in the OP guns are more or less just better bows but rarer, and with more expensive ammo. That would thus make them the "most powerful weapon in the game" and that doesn't really contribute to interesting gameplay.
I'd rather balance their effectiveness in combat against the effectiveness of the sword and bow. The main difference between sword and bow is Ranged vs melee, and limited firing rate vs click spamming. Having a gun be a slightly better bow doesn't change much about gameplay but make everyone spend the time to get guns.
Turning the gun into a weapon that acts a little differently, going for shorter range, higher rate of fire than the bow (but not as high as the sword) has the potential to be more interesting.
Well, at least I think it does, maybe in practice it won't make a difference I don't know.
My entire point was that adding guns wouldn't change that. I mean the ammo recipe itself encourages gameplay outside of combat. Farming sugar cane consumes about 0.002% of your playing time. Mining for iron almost requires fighting, as enemies tend to spawn within caves, and takes very little time. As far as obtaining the gunpowder goes, that's pure combat.
They would be what? Balanced between swords and bows? Or having a limited range? They would be the most powerful weapon in the game, dealing 14 damage, almost twice the damage a diamond sword deals.
I saw nothing about a limited range in the OP's description. Which I believe is critical to balancing them with bows. Exactly... completely OP.
Balancing their cost of use is one thing... but as described in the OP guns are more or less just better bows but rarer, and with more expensive ammo. That would thus make them the "most powerful weapon in the game" and that doesn't really contribute to interesting gameplay. Bows don't even get close
I'd rather balance their effectiveness in combat against the effectiveness of the sword and bow. The main difference between sword and bow is Ranged vs melee, and limited firing rate vs click spamming. Having a gun be a slightly better bow doesn't change much about gameplay but make everyone spend the time to get guns. Once again, the gun described by the uploader is ridiculously powerful compared to the bow. It completely changes the game because it not only destroys PVP, but adds a completely different focus to the game, getting as much ammo as possible to blow some morons to kingdom come.
Turning the gun into a weapon that acts a little differently, going for shorter range, higher rate of fire than the bow (but not as high as the sword) has the potential to be more interesting.
Well, at least I think it does, maybe in practice it won't make a difference I don't know.
Once again, the gun described by the uploader is ridiculously powerful compared to the bow. It completely changes the game because it not only destroys PVP, but adds a completely different focus to the game, getting as much ammo as possible to blow some morons to kingdom come.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant earlier. At no point have I stated that the gun described by the uploader, Mrlong2, wasn't overpowered we already agree on that.
However, "Blowing some morons to kingdom come" is still PVP. How is "getting as much ammo as possible" a "completely different focus to the game" than stockpiling arrows because you don't yet have an infinity enchantment on your bow? It's just a different kind of ammo. Doesn't change much about the game.
Consider instead how this affects collaborative play, or player vs environment, even single player mode. Does it destroy those activities as well? Does it destroy individual or collaborative building? Does it destroy resource gathering? Does it destroy exploration?
Seeing as I think those activities will be mostly untouched (perhaps made easier than they should be, but hardly ruined) I DON'T consider the suggestion of adding guns as "turning Minecraft into a shooter," I literally see it as just a more powerful bow.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant earlier. At no point have I stated that the gun described by the uploader, Mrlong2, wasn't overpowered we already agree on that.
However, "Blowing some morons to kingdom come" is still PVP. How is "getting as much ammo as possible" a "completely different focus to the game" than stockpiling arrows because you don't yet have an infinity enchantment on your bow? It's just a different kind of ammo. Doesn't change much about the game. It does change the game because the ammo the uploader described is more tedious to obtain and is much more powerful.
Consider instead how this affects collaborative play, or player vs environment, even single player mode. Does it destroy those activities as well? Does it destroy individual or collaborative building? Does it destroy resource gathering? Does it destroy exploration? It will be a lot harder to build and gather resources when you can't poke your head above ground without getting shot by some loser.
Seeing as I think those activities will be mostly untouched (perhaps made easier than they should be, but hardly ruined) I DON'T consider the suggestion of adding guns as "turning Minecraft into a shooter," I literally see it as just a more powerful bow.
It does change the game because the ammo the uploader described is more tedious to obtain and is much more powerful.
Change the game? Sure. "Completely different focus?" I think not.
It will be a lot harder to build when you can't poke your head above ground without getting shot by some loser.
It's just as possible to have that same problem now with somebody using a bow. It's an inherent risk on any server with PVP enabled.
It's really not as much of a potential catastrophe as you're making it out to be. You seem to think that guns will inherently make players naturally more violent and bloodthirsty or something.
They would be the most powerful weapon in the game, dealing 14 damage, almost twice the damage a diamond sword deals.
I didn't address this before because I didn't really want to bother, but since you seem to be thinking "Flintlock Pistol" = Sniper Rifle (aka one hit kill from really far away) in terms of lethality so...
Where did you even get this number?
Let me quote the original post (it may have been edited since you last looked at it.)
Damage of the pistol as stated on the original post:
They would fire 1 time per 0.75 of a second. and deal 5 (2.5 hearts) damage
So its base damage is slightly greater than 1/2 that of a fully drawn bow (9 damage, or 4.5 hearts). The DPS of a flintlock pistol is then 6.67.
According to Minecraft forum user DemonXeron, it takes 1.2 seconds to fully charge a bow to fire for it's maximum damage.
Taking that into account using a bow with only fully charged shots, which has the greatest range any bowshot, a player could achieve a maximum DPS of 7.5.
Interesting, now that I actually took the time to do the math it seems pistols would not be the most powerful weapon in the game. Definitely not twice the damage of a diamond sword.
Further a bow can be enchanted up to Power V increasing it's per shot damage up to a whopping 23 increasing its DPS to 19.12 if you spend enough time with an anvil and enchanting turns out a bow is superior. A bow with even a power I enchantment (14 damage, 11.67 DPS) is far superior.
(Is that where you got 14 damage from, is there mention somewhere in this thread about the pistol being as strong as a bow with the Power I enchantment? Checking back through pages and running some in text searches it doesn't seem like that number ever came up before you posted it...)
The OP never mentioned anything about guns being enchantable so I'm assuming they're not. Even if they could be enchanted with the same Power enchant, they'd still be weaker than bows for every equivalent enchanting level, in fact they'd scale linearly with bow damage always remaining just over half as strong as bows having a slightly lower max DPS than bows.
I guess then the only effective difference between a pistol (as described in the OP) and a bow is the increased rate of fire, better for mid range combat, and probably a faster projectile overall, requiring less lead time on distant targets. But this is all pure speculation, there's nothing saying this in the OP.
Feel free to correct my math if I made mistakes or otherwise correct me if I ended up with the wrong impression again.
Notch isn't the developer of minecraft anymore, and Mojang can always change their mind.
I seriously doubt Mojang would ever add guns to Minecraft. Even though Notch isn't the devoloper anymore, he's probably hired everyone who currently works on the game, and he wouldn't give his title to Jeb if he would change Minecraft like that.
Change the game? Sure. "Completely different focus?" I think not.
It's just as possible to have that same problem now with somebody using a bow. It's an inherent risk on any server with PVP enabled. Yes, but we've never had to deal with something this powerful. At least when dealing with a bow, you have to be out and unmoving for a couple seconds in order to be hit. With a flintlock pistol? Instantaneous hit.
It's really not as much of a potential catastrophe as you're making it out to be. You seem to think that guns will inherently make players naturally more violent and bloodthirsty or something.Thus the entire point of guns.
===============================================================================================================
I didn't address this before because I didn't really want to bother, but since you seem to be thinking "Flintlock Pistol" = Sniper Rifle (aka one hit kill from really far away) in terms of lethality so...
Where did you even get this number?
Let me quote the original post (it may have been edited since you last looked at it.) I apologize; I was going off of the original post.
Damage of the pistol as stated on the original post:
So its base damage is slightly greater than 1/2 that of a fully drawn bow (9 damage, or 4.5 hearts). The DPS of a flintlock pistol is then 6.67.
According to Minecraft forum user DemonXeron, it takes 1.2 seconds to fully charge a bow to fire for it's maximum damage. One of the larger problems here would be the flintlock's ability to charge after firing rather than before, creating more of a "cooldown period" if you will. Another problem this would create on multiplayer servers, Call of Duty Kiddies going around in their dumb little groups and shooting on sight. The victim would have zero time to react, and they could even maintain their weapon with the players' drops. It's just... dangerous.
Taking that into account using a bow with only fully charged shots, which has the greatest range any bowshot, a player could achieve a maximum DPS of 7.5.
Interesting, now that I actually took the time to do the math it seems pistols would not be the most powerful weapon in the game. Definitely not twice the damage of a diamond sword.
Further a bow can be enchanted up to Power V increasing it's per shot damage up to a whopping 23 increasing its DPS to 19.12 if you spend enough time with an anvil and enchanting turns out a bow is superior. A bow with even a power I enchantment (14 damage, 11.67 DPS) is far superior. True, but at least enchantments are expensive. (Is that where you got 14 damage from, is there mention somewhere in this thread about the pistol being as strong as a bow with the Power I enchantment? Checking back through pages and running some in text searches it doesn't seem like that number tever came up before you posted it...) '14' damage was the intended damage a while back, I suppose.
The OP never mentioned anything about guns being enchantable so I'm assuming they're not. Even if they could be enchanted with the same Power enchant, they'd still be weaker than bows for every equivalent enchanting level, in fact they'd scale linearly with bow damage always remaining just over half as strong as bows having a slightly lower max DPS than bows.
I guess then the only effective difference between a pistol (as described in the OP) and a bow is the increased rate of fire, better for mid range combat, and probably a faster projectile overall, requiring less lead time on distant targets. But this is all pure speculation, there's nothing saying this in the OP. And its instantaneous shooting capabilities.
Feel free to correct my math if I made mistakes or otherwise correct me if I ended up with the wrong impression again.
Change the game? Sure. "Completely different focus?" I think not.
It's just as possible to have that same problem now with somebody using a bow. It's an inherent risk on any server with PVP enabled.
It's really not as much of a potential catastrophe as you're making it out to be. You seem to think that guns will inherently make players naturally more violent and bloodthirsty or something.
Quote from Durphead»Thus the entire point of guns.
Another problem this would create on multiplayer servers, Call of Duty Kiddies going around in their dumb little groups and shooting on sight. The victim would have zero time to react, and they could even maintain their weapon with the players' drops. It's just... dangerous.
I would imagine a game with only one kind of gun and tedious collection of ammo wouldn't be satisfying to "Call of Duty Kiddies." But you seem to be biased anyways so any further discussion is pointless.
Alex, keep in mind that he DID say that four years ago. Notch made a lot of promises that didn't come true; red dragons, for an example. There's a possibility that it'll be considered acceptable now, especially since Jeb is the lead developer now rather than Notch.
I do think that Notch's refusal was a bit silly, though; the person suggested an arquebus (also primitive) and Notch basically said "No guns >:-(" without giving a valid reason. That said, the person went into virtually no detail at all with his idea, but regardless.
Anyway, regarding the balance of flintlocks; IMO, they're actually quite underpowered compared to bows. First of all, they're clearly a weapon intended for spamming; they have a high rate of fire, and deal low damage. The thing is, they have remarkably low durability; use that thing for a minute or two in battle, and it's already broken. This alone makes them quite impractical; however, they ALSO cannot be enchanted (or, at least, the OP has said nothing about their enchantability) which makes them worthless in PvP scenarios where people will be using enchanted armor that can easily tank the pitiful 5-damage shots (hell, iron armor can tank shots from skeletons on hard mode which deal similar damage) as well as enchanted bows which will deal significantly more damage than anything a plain flintlock could hope for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Did something happen to you in your childhood to give you this unreasonable fear of rutabaga?
Thank you!
No Support
Not even flintlocks?
My entire point was that adding guns wouldn't change that. I mean the ammo recipe itself encourages gameplay outside of combat.
They would be what? Balanced between swords and bows? Or having a limited range?
I saw nothing about a limited range in the OP's description. Which I believe is critical to balancing them with bows.
Balancing their cost of use is one thing... but as described in the OP guns are more or less just better bows but rarer, and with more expensive ammo. That would thus make them the "most powerful weapon in the game" and that doesn't really contribute to interesting gameplay.
I'd rather balance their effectiveness in combat against the effectiveness of the sword and bow. The main difference between sword and bow is Ranged vs melee, and limited firing rate vs click spamming. Having a gun be a slightly better bow doesn't change much about gameplay but make everyone spend the time to get guns.
Turning the gun into a weapon that acts a little differently, going for shorter range, higher rate of fire than the bow (but not as high as the sword) has the potential to be more interesting.
Well, at least I think it does, maybe in practice it won't make a difference I don't know.
Thanks for clarifying what you meant earlier. At no point have I stated that the gun described by the uploader, Mrlong2, wasn't overpowered we already agree on that.
However, "Blowing some morons to kingdom come" is still PVP. How is "getting as much ammo as possible" a "completely different focus to the game" than stockpiling arrows because you don't yet have an infinity enchantment on your bow? It's just a different kind of ammo. Doesn't change much about the game.
Consider instead how this affects collaborative play, or player vs environment, even single player mode. Does it destroy those activities as well? Does it destroy individual or collaborative building? Does it destroy resource gathering? Does it destroy exploration?
Seeing as I think those activities will be mostly untouched (perhaps made easier than they should be, but hardly ruined) I DON'T consider the suggestion of adding guns as "turning Minecraft into a shooter," I literally see it as just a more powerful bow.
Change the game? Sure. "Completely different focus?" I think not.
It's just as possible to have that same problem now with somebody using a bow. It's an inherent risk on any server with PVP enabled.
It's really not as much of a potential catastrophe as you're making it out to be. You seem to think that guns will inherently make players naturally more violent and bloodthirsty or something.
===============================================================================================================
I didn't address this before because I didn't really want to bother, but since you seem to be thinking "Flintlock Pistol" = Sniper Rifle (aka one hit kill from really far away) in terms of lethality so...
Where did you even get this number?
Let me quote the original post (it may have been edited since you last looked at it.)
Damage of the pistol as stated on the original post:
So its base damage is slightly greater than 1/2 that of a fully drawn bow (9 damage, or 4.5 hearts). The DPS of a flintlock pistol is then 6.67.
According to Minecraft forum user DemonXeron, it takes 1.2 seconds to fully charge a bow to fire for it's maximum damage.
Taking that into account using a bow with only fully charged shots, which has the greatest range any bowshot, a player could achieve a maximum DPS of 7.5.
Interesting, now that I actually took the time to do the math it seems pistols would not be the most powerful weapon in the game. Definitely not twice the damage of a diamond sword.
Further a bow can be enchanted up to Power V increasing it's per shot damage up to a whopping 23 increasing its DPS to 19.12 if you spend enough time with an anvil and enchanting turns out a bow is superior. A bow with even a power I enchantment (14 damage, 11.67 DPS) is far superior.
(Is that where you got 14 damage from, is there mention somewhere in this thread about the pistol being as strong as a bow with the Power I enchantment? Checking back through pages and running some in text searches it doesn't seem like that number ever came up before you posted it...)
The OP never mentioned anything about guns being enchantable so I'm assuming they're not. Even if they could be enchanted with the same Power enchant, they'd still be weaker than bows for every equivalent enchanting level, in fact they'd scale linearly with bow damage always remaining just over half as strong as bows having a slightly lower max DPS than bows.
I guess then the only effective difference between a pistol (as described in the OP) and a bow is the increased rate of fire, better for mid range combat, and probably a faster projectile overall, requiring less lead time on distant targets. But this is all pure speculation, there's nothing saying this in the OP.
Feel free to correct my math if I made mistakes or otherwise correct me if I ended up with the wrong impression again.
https://twitter.com/notch/status/21647856696
Notch isn't the developer of minecraft anymore, and Mojang can always change their mind.
I seriously doubt Mojang would ever add guns to Minecraft. Even though Notch isn't the devoloper anymore, he's probably hired everyone who currently works on the game, and he wouldn't give his title to Jeb if he would change Minecraft like that.
I would imagine a game with only one kind of gun and tedious collection of ammo wouldn't be satisfying to "Call of Duty Kiddies." But you seem to be biased anyways so any further discussion is pointless.
Then why don't we find out if he drops apples in real life?
This is a joke.
Notch really did say that, I showed proof right above Pigman164's post.
I do think that Notch's refusal was a bit silly, though; the person suggested an arquebus (also primitive) and Notch basically said "No guns >:-(" without giving a valid reason. That said, the person went into virtually no detail at all with his idea, but regardless.
Anyway, regarding the balance of flintlocks; IMO, they're actually quite underpowered compared to bows. First of all, they're clearly a weapon intended for spamming; they have a high rate of fire, and deal low damage. The thing is, they have remarkably low durability; use that thing for a minute or two in battle, and it's already broken. This alone makes them quite impractical; however, they ALSO cannot be enchanted (or, at least, the OP has said nothing about their enchantability) which makes them worthless in PvP scenarios where people will be using enchanted armor that can easily tank the pitiful 5-damage shots (hell, iron armor can tank shots from skeletons on hard mode which deal similar damage) as well as enchanted bows which will deal significantly more damage than anything a plain flintlock could hope for.