Villagers use emeralds for currency, but there seems to be no source of emeralds.
Currently, the only sources of emeralds are mining, trading with villagers, and killing illagers.
You don't ever see villagers fighting or mining, so trading with players seems to be their only source of emeralds.
Yet the player can trade for emeralds even before the player has spent any emeralds.
Where did there emeralds come from?
To answer this, I think we should set up villager mines in Mountains and Mountains M (or whatever Extreme Hills is called.)
These villager mines would feature two kinds of villagers, miners and inactive miners.
Inactive miners would be able to trade, but would not have any inventory, and examples of their trades would be an emerald for a diamond, a pickaxe for an emerald, and an emerald for five redstone.
I understand some villagers already trade for ores, but unless they can trade, these inactive miners would just be Nitwits that turn in to Miners sometimes.
(That's not exactly true; rarely inactive miners would run to the nearest village and dump a bunch of emeralds down, which would then get picked up by the villagers; these emeralds would just disappear, not go to the villagers' inventory.)
Miners would well, mine, keeping ores and items in their 27-slot inventory, an inventory that would affect their trades when became inactive.
Also, miners would need to have free arms instead of having them up there sleeves, but inactives could keep their normal villager model.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
5/29/2013
Posts:
310
Member Details
Not a fan for the fact that trading ores to the player like iron, coal and diamonds would unbalance the game. While some villagers will trade minerals for emeralds or vise versa these trades are one-way. You can trade 3-4 diamonds to a villager for an emerald but no amount of emeralds can be traded for a diamond and that's exactly how they intend it. If you could buy diamonds for emeralds and emeralds for rotten flesh then why would you ever go mining? As it is villager trading is extremely overpowered if utilized properly and there are a lot of rare items you can farm out of existing trades if you use something like a gold farm to automatically produce large amounts of items that villagers will trade for emeralds. With the trading changes planned for 1.14 I'm anxious to see if they'll go after mechanics like 'mending farms' or if they'll leave them intact but I really doubt they'll expand the trade offerings much beyond maybe buying/selling different stone blocks.
As for where the emeralds came from: I always assumed they pulled them out of those abandoned mineshafts I keep coming across. I guess you could reason that the Illagers did the mining but they don't seem that industrious to me and with them being added to pillagers raids I'd say they stole those emeralds from the hard working villagers.
True, emeralds for diamonds do seem a bit overpowered now.
(We could fix that with an entire change of the villager trading system, but that's too much trouble.)
Plus, it would be hard to let the villagers go deep enough to mine diamonds without opening some caves and therefore exposing the villagers to endless waves of zombies.
We could stop the whole "villagers getting OP ores" operation by making sure they couldn't mine down and making the lowest level in the villager mines
be a place where only coal and iron spawn, or allow miners to dig down but making mines really, really rare.
(Or make villagers charge a higher price, but that would still be a bit of a cheap diamond problem.)
If we used the first plan to shut down operation Villager Ores, we could raise the ore price to, say, 6 emeralds so players don't really depend on villagers for iron and coal.
(Just realized this, but if this were added Bad Omen would have to work on mines as well as villages.)
Minimal support. Villager currency can simply be lored away as 'back from when they actually mined' or the like, and I agree that this takes away from the desire to mine, even if doing so is among the most fun things in survival.
Minimal support. Villager currency can simply be lored away as 'back from when they actually mined' or the like, and I agree that this takes away from the desire to mine, even if doing so is among the most fun things in survival.
My opinion is worth only as much or less than everyone else, you should wait a little longer and maybe other people will view your suggestion more positively. After all, many of these suggestions in this forum will never see the light of the Minecraft day anyway. When I joined this forum back in the summer, I got discouraged pretty easily too, but people's opinions can be vastly different on such an open-ended experience as Minecraft.
Villagers use emeralds for currency, but there seems to be no source of emeralds.
Currently, the only sources of emeralds are mining, trading with villagers, and killing illagers.
You don't ever see villagers fighting or mining, so trading with players seems to be their only source of emeralds.
Yet the player can trade for emeralds even before the player has spent any emeralds. True.
Where did there emeralds come from?
To answer this, I think we should set up villager mines in Mountains and Mountains M (or whatever Extreme Hills is called.)
These villager mines would feature two kinds of villagers, miners and inactive miners. Villager mines should be located in the villages.
Inactive miners would be able to trade, but would not have any inventory, and examples of their trades would be an emerald for a diamond, a pickaxe for an emerald, and an emerald for five redstone. I support all these trades except an emerald for a diamond: way too cheap.
I understand some villagers already trade for ores, but unless they can trade, these inactive miners would just be Nitwits that turn in to Miners sometimes. Perhaps other villager trades could be edit to distinguish the villager types, but some villagers within the same proffesion but of different careers have similiar trades.
(That's not exactly true; rarely inactive miners would run to the nearest village and dump a bunch of emeralds down, which would then get picked up by the villagers; these emeralds would just disappear, not go to the villagers' inventory.)
Miners would well, mine, keeping ores and items in their 27-slot inventory, an inventory that would affect their trades when became inactive.
Also, miners would need to have free arms instead of having them up there sleeves, but inactives could keep their normal villager model. There should be no inactive miner. The inactive miner's abilities should be combined with the miner.
Villagers manufacture emeralds internally in their bodies, just like the stuff they sell. Same way as cows can generate infinite milk without a hint of grass.
Villagers manufacture emeralds internally in their bodies, just like the stuff they sell. Same way as cows can generate infinite milk without a hint of grass.
Disclaimer: my post (and linking of the video) was "humor". Thought so.
However, think about it:
2 buckets of water = infinite water.
bucket of water + bucket of lava = infinite cobble. True, Minecraft's resource generation is totally messed up.
One cow = infinite milk. See my chicken argument.
One chicken = infinite eggs. Only because nothing dies of old age in Minecraft. If real chickens lived forever, they would do the same.
Dark room = infinite mobs + all they drop. This actually makes sense; so do spawners.
Many other things in MC can generate infinite resources out of nowhere. So villagers are hardly an aberration.
See, now I've explained all those examples, and so you don't have to keep throwing them at me, I'll explain some others:
One sugar cane = infinite sugar cane. If you do it right, same thing can be done in real life - assuming an infinite world and an immortal.
One wheat seeds = infinite wheat seeds. (Same with other seeds.) Sugar cane argument.
One sapling = infinite trees (sometimes not, though.) SUGAR CANE ARGUMENT!!
Two of any breedable animal + infinite breed food (can be obtained through those affected by the sugar cane argument) = infinite breedable animals + all they drop. Sugar cane argument. (Again!)
I'm sure there are others, but here comes the REAL argument:
EVEN IF OTHER THINGS IN MINECRAFT GENERATE INFINITE ITEMS WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION,
Villagers use emeralds for currency, but there seems to be no source of emeralds.
Currently, the only sources of emeralds are mining, trading with villagers, and killing illagers.
You don't ever see villagers fighting or mining, so trading with players seems to be their only source of emeralds.
Yet the player can trade for emeralds even before the player has spent any emeralds.
Where did there emeralds come from?
To answer this, I think we should set up villager mines in Mountains and Mountains M (or whatever Extreme Hills is called.)
These villager mines would feature two kinds of villagers, miners and inactive miners.
Inactive miners would be able to trade, but would not have any inventory, and examples of their trades would be an emerald for a diamond, a pickaxe for an emerald, and an emerald for five redstone.
I understand some villagers already trade for ores, but unless they can trade, these inactive miners would just be Nitwits that turn in to Miners sometimes.
(That's not exactly true; rarely inactive miners would run to the nearest village and dump a bunch of emeralds down, which would then get picked up by the villagers; these emeralds would just disappear, not go to the villagers' inventory.)
Miners would well, mine, keeping ores and items in their 27-slot inventory, an inventory that would affect their trades when became inactive.
Also, miners would need to have free arms instead of having them up there sleeves, but inactives could keep their normal villager model.
What do you think about this?
Click here for a 1 tree island survival!!!
If Fortnite disappeared, 70% of gamers would go nuts.
If you are one of the 30% who would be sitting there laughing at them, copy and paste this into your signature.
Not a fan for the fact that trading ores to the player like iron, coal and diamonds would unbalance the game. While some villagers will trade minerals for emeralds or vise versa these trades are one-way. You can trade 3-4 diamonds to a villager for an emerald but no amount of emeralds can be traded for a diamond and that's exactly how they intend it. If you could buy diamonds for emeralds and emeralds for rotten flesh then why would you ever go mining? As it is villager trading is extremely overpowered if utilized properly and there are a lot of rare items you can farm out of existing trades if you use something like a gold farm to automatically produce large amounts of items that villagers will trade for emeralds. With the trading changes planned for 1.14 I'm anxious to see if they'll go after mechanics like 'mending farms' or if they'll leave them intact but I really doubt they'll expand the trade offerings much beyond maybe buying/selling different stone blocks.
As for where the emeralds came from: I always assumed they pulled them out of those abandoned mineshafts I keep coming across. I guess you could reason that the Illagers did the mining but they don't seem that industrious to me and with them being added to pillagers raids I'd say they stole those emeralds from the hard working villagers.
True, emeralds for diamonds do seem a bit overpowered now.
(We could fix that with an entire change of the villager trading system, but that's too much trouble.)
Plus, it would be hard to let the villagers go deep enough to mine diamonds without opening some caves and therefore exposing the villagers to endless waves of zombies.
We could stop the whole "villagers getting OP ores" operation by making sure they couldn't mine down and making the lowest level in the villager mines
be a place where only coal and iron spawn, or allow miners to dig down but making mines really, really rare.
(Or make villagers charge a higher price, but that would still be a bit of a cheap diamond problem.)
If we used the first plan to shut down operation Villager Ores, we could raise the ore price to, say, 6 emeralds so players don't really depend on villagers for iron and coal.
(Just realized this, but if this were added Bad Omen would have to work on mines as well as villages.)
Click here for a 1 tree island survival!!!
If Fortnite disappeared, 70% of gamers would go nuts.
If you are one of the 30% who would be sitting there laughing at them, copy and paste this into your signature.
Minimal support. Villager currency can simply be lored away as 'back from when they actually mined' or the like, and I agree that this takes away from the desire to mine, even if doing so is among the most fun things in survival.
True, I'm closing this now.
Click here for a 1 tree island survival!!!
If Fortnite disappeared, 70% of gamers would go nuts.
If you are one of the 30% who would be sitting there laughing at them, copy and paste this into your signature.
My opinion is worth only as much or less than everyone else, you should wait a little longer and maybe other people will view your suggestion more positively. After all, many of these suggestions in this forum will never see the light of the Minecraft day anyway. When I joined this forum back in the summer, I got discouraged pretty easily too, but people's opinions can be vastly different on such an open-ended experience as Minecraft.
Yeah, probably should - I'm leaving this open.
(I do agree tho.)
Click here for a 1 tree island survival!!!
If Fortnite disappeared, 70% of gamers would go nuts.
If you are one of the 30% who would be sitting there laughing at them, copy and paste this into your signature.
Mostly Support
Just saying, I decided the "emerald for a diamond trade" was too cheap too, if it gets added it should be more like 31 emeralds.
Click here for a 1 tree island survival!!!
If Fortnite disappeared, 70% of gamers would go nuts.
If you are one of the 30% who would be sitting there laughing at them, copy and paste this into your signature.
Villagers manufacture emeralds internally in their bodies, just like the stuff they sell. Same way as cows can generate infinite milk without a hint of grass.
See the disclaimer at 0:47
Click here for a 1 tree island survival!!!
If Fortnite disappeared, 70% of gamers would go nuts.
If you are one of the 30% who would be sitting there laughing at them, copy and paste this into your signature.
Disclaimer: my post (and linking of the video) was "humor".
However, think about it:
2 buckets of water = infinite water.
bucket of water + bucket of lava = infinite cobble.
One cow = infinite milk.
One chicken = infinite eggs.
Dark room = infinite mobs + all they drop.
Many other things in MC can generate infinite resources out of nowhere. So villagers are hardly an aberration.
See, now I've explained all those examples, and so you don't have to keep throwing them at me, I'll explain some others:
One sugar cane = infinite sugar cane. If you do it right, same thing can be done in real life - assuming an infinite world and an immortal.
One wheat seeds = infinite wheat seeds. (Same with other seeds.) Sugar cane argument.
One sapling = infinite trees (sometimes not, though.) SUGAR CANE ARGUMENT!!
Two of any breedable animal + infinite breed food (can be obtained through those affected by the sugar cane argument) = infinite breedable animals + all they drop. Sugar cane argument. (Again!)
I'm sure there are others, but here comes the REAL argument:
EVEN IF OTHER THINGS IN MINECRAFT GENERATE INFINITE ITEMS WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION,
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY SHOULD.
SO VILLAGERS SHOULD STILL NOT PLAY ALONG.
Click here for a 1 tree island survival!!!
If Fortnite disappeared, 70% of gamers would go nuts.
If you are one of the 30% who would be sitting there laughing at them, copy and paste this into your signature.