Am I on a controlled substance or is the suggestions forum just a popularity contest basically? Obviously none of these ideas will hit the game, I don't think I've seen a single update in Minecraft that was actually suggested by anyone at any point.
It's a good way of throwing out ideas and possibly getting feedback or additions that could make the suggestion better. The official reddit would be the place to go to actually suggest an idea once it's well thought out. But as far as suggestions being implemented, it's been a while but it has happened. Endermen and their eyes were a suggestion, horses were a mod, etc. Plus if you've seen all the short animations they've made to show potential new additions to biomes, such as the ostriches and termites, those were actually suggestions. I forget where, but it's an official suggestion area where you can upvote and such.
Minecraft currently has a lot of weapons, but one that is strangely absent, is the gun. Here are some ideas for the gun.
Basic Usage
The gun would be loaded with gunpowder and bullets which can be crafted from iron nuggets. Loading would take a while, and would be interrupted by being attacked and things like that. However, guns would have a longer range than either crossbows or bows. The bullets would also be faster. This would make guns better for attacking at a distance. Guns are crafted as shown in the attached image.
Enchantments
Extra Bullet: The gun can be loaded an extra time while crouching, allowing the gun to store 2 bullets at once.
Velocity: The bullet will go faster. 3 levels possible in survival.
Lucky Drift: The bullet will drift towards the nearest hostile/neutral mob. (not beyond what it would do randomly)
I support this suggestion! It's not OP, it doesn't go into a huge amount of uses, fairly simple and has similarities and differences to Bows and Crossbows. The idea you made, even though a gun, seems to fit in. The wooden handle also makes it seem more Minecraft fitting.
I've seen quite a bit of gun suggestions, but my problem with them is that they just don't really belong.
If you take a look at what Minecraft currently has, it has absolutely no sign of modern-day involvement, save for the redstone. What I'm saying is that most, if not all, blocks have a medieval theme (At least, that's what I think) to them. And guns weren't in the medieval ages (According to my knowledge).
Sorry, but this suggestion gets No Support from me.
Even though you said "save for redstone", you can't just randomly remove Redstone from your argument because it wouldn't fit the point you're trying to make. Everything Redstone has to offer is similar to modern day. Levers, Buttons, Pressure Plates, Command Blocks (similar to computers), you get the point. And even if a gun (a primitive, not modern day one may I note) doesn't fit into Minecraft, you still didn't give feedback to any of the points about it you made, and only talked about the fact that it wouldn't fit into the game.
There's plenty of ranged weapons in the game that already do a lot, and since this isn't really developed at all there's no basis for adding it.
I don't think 2 ranged bow variants and a throwable melee weapon count as "plenty". And you say it isn't really developed at all, but they already provided the guns use in the op?
Someone who's been making threads since 2017 should probably know that guns are a hated idea that will never touch the game.
Edit: Why are you suggesting something that you know will never be supported? You made another thread mentioning a gun and it got rejected. Why bring it back up?
lol it's not "strangely absent". It's rightfully absent. derp. I'd hate to see this thing in multiplayer. Guns will just never happen.
Just because people might not support his idea isn't reason for them not to post the idea. And you also gave no detail as to why you wouldn't want the gun in the game.
Am I on a controlled substance or is the suggestions forum just a popularity contest basically? Obviously none of these ideas will hit the game, I don't think I've seen a single update in Minecraft that was actually suggested by anyone at any point.
1. What does this have to do with the gun suggestion?
2. Are you new here? Everybody on here knows, even the moderators have acknowledged it, that no developers for the game come onto the Minecraft Forum. Posting here is voluntary. Also, plenty of suggestions from the r/minecraftsuggestions subreddit have made it into the game.
It would not be cool. No. I have no idea why people keep thinking guns are something that would "work". We don't need pure upgrades from what we have in the game. No one wants to join a multiplayer game and get shot in the face.
Comparing this to the a mod is meaningless. A mod can be chosen. A vanilla addition is permanently there for everyone. I don't know what part of you is thinking that "guns would be perfect", but that part of you has a bad view on game design.
1. Tough luck because Bows and Crossbows can already shoot people.
2. Servers can also ban guns, and you don't have to use it if you don't want to in singleplayer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey guys I'm James, I used to be a noob but now I'm not, I finally figured out how to use TextCraft so here's a banner for one of my suggestions.
1. Tough luck because Bows and Crossbows can already shoot people.
2. Servers can also ban guns, and you don't have to use it if you don't want to in singleplayer.
1. No not "tough luck". Do (cross)bows shoot bullets? Nooooo. You should have thought that one out.
2. *facedesk* Wow congrats, you just used one of the most hated, invalid arguments of all time. "If you don't like it don't use it!" Dude, no. If an idea is bad, it's bad. Going "you don't have to use it! =D" doesn't save the idea from being garbage. Seriously, that's an awful awful argument. Guns aren't for Minecraft and never will be, no matter how good you think you can argue it.
If servers have to ban something so terrible, then mayyyybe the idea is pretty bad to start with and shouldn't touch the game? Before you respond, please use the search function and take a good look at all the other gun threads that have been hated and locked. Maybe take some game development courses too.
1. No not "tough luck". Do (cross)bows shoot bullets? Nooooo. You should have thought that one out.
2. *facedesk* Wow congrats, you just used one of the most hated, invalid arguments of all time. "If you don't like it don't use it!" Dude, no. If an idea is bad, it's bad. Going "you don't have to use it! =D" doesn't save the idea from being garbage. Seriously, that's an awful awful argument. Guns aren't for Minecraft and never will be, no matter how good you think you can argue it.
If servers have to ban something so terrible, then mayyyybe the idea is pretty bad to start with and shouldn't touch the game? Before you respond, please use the search function and take a good look at all the other gun threads that have been hated and locked. Maybe take some game development courses too.
While you have a good point in 2, 1 comes off as nitpicking, considering that, mechanics-wise, the only difference is that one would logically stick out of your body, while you'd be unable to discern wether a player has been recently shot with a gun or not.
1. No not "tough luck". Do (cross)bows shoot bullets? Nooooo. You should have thought that one out.
2. *facedesk* Wow congrats, you just used one of the most hated, invalid arguments of all time. "If you don't like it don't use it!" Dude, no. If an idea is bad, it's bad. Going "you don't have to use it! =D" doesn't save the idea from being garbage. Seriously, that's an awful awful argument. Guns aren't for Minecraft and never will be, no matter how good you think you can argue it.
If servers have to ban something so terrible, then mayyyybe the idea is pretty bad to start with and shouldn't touch the game? Before you respond, please use the search function and take a good look at all the other gun threads that have been hated and locked. Maybe take some game development courses too.
1. What does it matter what the name of the ammunition is? If they renamed it from "Bullets" to "Arrows" or "Pellets" would change your opinion on it? Probably not, it's just a word and doesn't affect the actual gameplay of the weapon in question. You also didn't specify bullets you just said "get shot in the face". Bows can shoot people? So can Crossbows.
2. Well, what you're saying has some holes in it (no pun). First off, in this case, not having to use it does make sense. It's a weapon, and there are plenty of others you can use that are already in the game. For example, right now, Crossbows and Bows coexist. If I don't want to use a Crossbow to go kill mobs, the game is not forcing me to. People have been going without Crossbows since Alpha (before Crossbows addition) and they still can if they choose not to use one.
Also, I didn't specify the gun was "terrible" for servers to be using. If a server chooses to ban the gun then that's their choice. I'm sure not every person who plays this game is going to be banning the Gun from their server.
As a last note, you still didn't say at all why the gun wouldn't fit into Minecraft.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey guys I'm James, I used to be a noob but now I'm not, I finally figured out how to use TextCraft so here's a banner for one of my suggestions.
1. What does it matter what the name of the ammunition is? If they renamed it from "Bullets" to "Arrows" or "Pellets" would change your opinion on it? Probably not, it's just a word and doesn't affect the actual gameplay of the weapon in question. You also didn't specify bullets you just said "get shot in the face". Bows can shoot people? So can Crossbows.
Sooooo guns are fine because bows "shoot" things and guns "shoot" things..? Huh..?? Yes, let's add something that's a complete upgrade from bows and muck up the balance of ranged weapons by adding bullets.
2. Well, what you're saying has some holes in it (no pun). First off, in this case, not having to use it does make sense. It's a weapon, and there are plenty of others you can use that are already in the game. For example, right now, Crossbows and Bows coexist. If I don't want to use a Crossbow to go kill mobs, the game is not forcing me to. People have been going without Crossbows since Alpha (before Crossbows addition) and they still can if they choose not to use one.
This argument of "you don't have to use it" doesn't change anything. There's a thousand things in the game I don't have to use, that doesn't add weight to something in the game being good or not. If an insta-kill infinite-ammo sniper is added to the game, me not having to use it in singleplayer doesn't make the idea not a horribly stupid and overpowered add. Being bannable in servers also doesn't save the idea. The idea shouldn't touch the game to begin with. It doesn't fit (which I'll explain) and it shreds the game's balance.
Also, I didn't specify the gun was "terrible" for servers to be using. If a server chooses to ban the gun then that's their choice. I'm sure not every person who plays this game is going to be banning the Gun from their server.
As a last note, you still didn't say at all why the gun wouldn't fit into Minecraft.
You didn't have to specify the gun was terrible. Because I did. I don't know what point you're trying to prove with "server choosing to ban" stuff. Didn't have much to do with what I was talking about.
I really thought that would be obvious. Arrows take time to reach their target. Crossbows do this faster, but are balanced by having slower reloading. Then there's guns, with instant travel bullets that punches arrows right in the face and makes bows useless. Sure, guns could be tweaked to be more balanced, but why does it need to be there? Why do we need a straight upgrade from crossbows? It's too much.
Yes, I know guns existed in medieval times but that still doesn't make the idea a good add. We have swords, throwable potions, shields, arrows, flint & steel and TNT that are all well-balanced. Do we seriously need to throw bullets in this? Is it that hard to hunt down mobs from a distance.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
12/23/2019
Posts:
50
Location:
A land far far away
Xbox:
ARDrawsStuff
Member Details
Looking at the idea from a real world standpoint, guns would probably offend a lot of people's personal views, too.
For instance, parents who let their small children play the game. As a parent sees it, what in Minecraft could teach their child bad behavior regarding real world scenarios, or teach them things in general that differ from their views. Most harmful things in Minecraft, such as swords or bows, are entirely unrealistic and as such don't encourage the child to do anything bad, for the most part
. Guns however are a very real part of life, and could be a bad influence on behavior.
Even people who support guns don't want to encourage use of them outside of safety and responsible hunting. They are not something to be taken lightly, shooting things or people is never a joke or a game, despite ridiculous games like Call of Duty or Battlefield trying to make a joke out of war, and desensitizing people in the process. Even if some or most people are responsible in explaining that to their children, still there will be some that are not, and it could be a bad influence.
Besides, guns are a controversial topic, seeing as they've been banned in the UK and how the United States is divided on the subject, with a few people somehow thinking it'll be safer without them, despite how horribly wrong that went elsewhere. The point is, guns being added would mean Mojang, and by extension Microsoft, would be making a political statement, even if unintentional . That would undoubtedly cause them to lose some business, even if not significant.
Personally, i doubt they'd want to risk making else money, considering how they've already made bedrock into a greedy pay-to-play app with the Marketplace.
Before, mods and texturepacks were completely free, (still are, if you play Java, which i can't because my PC would crumple) but now you pay for things like a knockoff Crayfish Furniture mod with worse textures, not to mention you can only use it in one world. The system itself is broken, child accounts can't buy a texture pack and parent accounts can't share them with their children, you have to make the children adult accounts and then buy it on all accounts!
If they're so ridiculous that they have to make addons a money grab, can you imagine them doing anything to deprive themselves of even more wealth? I can't, at least..
Sooooo guns are fine because bows "shoot" things and guns "shoot" things..? Huh..?? Yes, let's add something that's a complete upgrade from bows and muck up the balance of ranged weapons by adding bullets.
This argument of "you don't have to use it" doesn't change anything. There's a thousand things in the game I don't have to use, that doesn't add weight to something in the game being good or not. If an insta-kill infinite-ammo sniper is added to the game, me not having to use it in singleplayer doesn't make the idea not a horribly stupid and overpowered add. Being bannable in servers also doesn't save the idea. The idea shouldn't touch the game to begin with. It doesn't fit (which I'll explain) and it shreds the game's balance.
You didn't have to specify the gun was terrible. Because I did. I don't know what point you're trying to prove with "server choosing to ban" stuff. Didn't have much to do with what I was talking about.
I really thought that would be obvious. Arrows take time to reach their target. Crossbows do this faster, but are balanced by having slower reloading. Then there's guns, with instant travel bullets that punches arrows right in the face and makes bows useless. Sure, guns could be tweaked to be more balanced, but why does it need to be there? Why do we need a straight upgrade from crossbows? It's too much.
Yes, I know guns existed in medieval times but that still doesn't make the idea a good add. We have swords, throwable potions, shields, arrows, flint & steel and TNT that are all well-balanced. Do we seriously need to throw bullets in this? Is it that hard to hunt down mobs from a distance.
Is it really an upgrade over crossbows? Read the OP. It essentially paints an awful weapon that is easily worse than the crossbow or the bow at everything but range, and the Crossbow already has a lot of range (Not to mention that it can also pierce mobs and shoot fireworks, while the bow, when enchanted with Power V becomes a murder factory that makes crafting the crossbow pointless because it's much weaker. On top of this, most mobs can't even see you beyond 16 blocks, and Ghasts see you from 100 blocks away). If anything, the gun as written in the post seems like it'd need a buff to be worth using, rather than making bows and crossbows obsolete.
As for combat as it is; no, it's horribly balanced. Shields are too powerful, TNT and Flint and Steel are impractical jokes (Barring PVP in faction servers, and that's only due to TNT cannons, while Fire is bad at burning things down because it got hit too hard with the nerfhammer), splash potions are very impractical to use, and bows are hideously powerful for their cost, and enchanting them simply makes them hideously powerful (For starters, it increases it's damage to 250% of it's original damage when enchanted with Power V, while the Crossbow only gets tripled damage at short range at most, or 6 times if you only use arrows and you get mobs to nicely line up for you).
1. What does this have to do with the gun suggestion?
2. Are you new here? Everybody on here knows, even the moderators have acknowledged it, that no developers for the game come onto the Minecraft Forum. Posting here is voluntary. Also, plenty of suggestions from the r/minecraftsuggestions subreddit have made it into the game.
I'm not new here, my original account was registered on October 7, 2010, my first post: in a thread about adding guns dated March 23, 2010.
This has to do with the gun suggestion because there's no point in criticizing the appropriateness of a suggestion, one might as well suggest they add fatalities or bread lines for villagers or little anime girls. Forgive me for not remembering this or else I would have realized that obviously the developers do not care what happens on the official forums (which would appear to be in some kind of undead state). Posting on Reddit? Please. Why don't we just post suggestions on r/The_Donald, r/MensRights, or r/KotakuInAction? What a hilarious PR joke for some guys trying to gain social notoriety points by throwing dollars at the beepocalypse.
I'm not new here, my original account was registered on October 7, 2010, my first post: in a thread about adding guns dated March 23, 2010.
This has to do with the gun suggestion because there's no point in criticizing the appropriateness of a suggestion, one might as well suggest they add fatalities or bread lines for villagers or little anime girls. Forgive me for not remembering this or else I would have realized that obviously the developers do not care what happens on the official forums (which would appear to be in some kind of undead state). Posting on Reddit? Please. Why don't we just post suggestions on r/The_Donald, r/MensRights, or r/KotakuInAction? What a hilarious PR joke for some guys trying to gain social notoriety points by throwing dollars at the beepocalypse.
Suggestions from Reddit have absolutely been implemented before what are you on.
1. Mojang doesn't come onto the Minecraft Forum anyways.
2. I'm sure plenty of suggestions you'd like to say in the game have already been denied by Mojang.
3. How do guns have "no place in the game"?
1. Nawwww really? I never knew.
2. No. Many of the suggestions that made it into the game are harmless. Guns are more harmful to the game than you think.
Parents allow their young children to play this game. This game is used in schools for educational purposes and many disabled people who can't use their hands/arms have devices that are used to help them play this game. Now, if they add guns, that will cause problems amongst the parents and teachers. In turn, that will cause issues with Mojang. Parents won't allow their kids to play the game, Minecraft will no longer be used in schools and disabled people will no longer get to enjoy the game. And after a while, the game's sales will start to slowly decline.
If they add guns, they might as well add scopes, bullets, bulletproof vests, swat gear, ghillie suits, and even more guns. Just turn the game into another version of Call of Duty or any other first-person shooter that currently exists.
2. No. Many of the suggestions that made it into the game are harmless. Guns are more harmful to the game than you think.
Parents allow their young children to play this game. This game is used in schools for educational purposes and many disabled people who can't use their hands/arms have devices that are used to help them play this game. Now, if they add guns, that will cause problems amongst the parents and teachers. In turn, that will cause issues with Mojang. Parents won't allow their kids to play the game, Minecraft will no longer be used in schools and disabled people will no longer get to enjoy the game. And after a while, the game's sales will start to slowly decline.
If they add guns, they might as well add scopes, bullets, bulletproof vests, swat gear, ghillie suits, and even more guns. Just turn the game into another version of Call of Duty or any other first-person shooter that currently exists.
3. ^ on top of that, will look very out of place.
You're using a bizarre slippery slope fallacy, as well as assuming that guns would seriously have any more effect than how much the game incentivates animal cruelty, not to mention that it's literally a game, and even kid-friendly games can have guns. Nobody is suggesting to do things such as incentivating the player to shoot baby villagers, add blood from gunshots, or anyhting that could be any more violent than what the game already has. In fact, one would argue that guns would be less violent than bows, as the latter keep their arrows stuck, showing injury.
Similarly, a game with guns doesn't have to become a CoD clone at all (In fact, the fact that there's plenty of non-shooter games with guns on them should be a giveaway).
As for fitting, the description implies that it's some sort of muzzle-loading gun, likely a musket or even an arquebus, and those existed in the Middle Ages, and, in fact, would actually fit more than most of what Redstone does (And, even then, one could link guns and redstone so it gets to not fit), or jukeboxes.
As for fitting, the description implies that it's some sort of muzzle-loading gun, likely a musket or even an arquebus, and those existed in the Middle Ages, and, in fact, would actually fit more than most of what Redstone does (And, even then, one could link guns and redstone so it gets to not fit), or jukeboxes.
Something "fitting" more in a time period sense still doesn't make the idea that much better. I'd rather have a futuristic light up jukebox from the year 2050 than have guns.
Is it really an upgrade over crossbows? Read the OP. It essentially paints an awful weapon that is easily worse than the crossbow or the bow at everything but range, and the Crossbow already has a lot of range (Not to mention that it can also pierce mobs and shoot fireworks, while the bow, when enchanted with Power V becomes a murder factory that makes crafting the crossbow pointless because it's much weaker. On top of this, most mobs can't even see you beyond 16 blocks, and Ghasts see you from 100 blocks away). If anything, the gun as written in the post seems like it'd need a buff to be worth using, rather than making bows and crossbows obsolete.
If it's "worse" than the crossbow, why do we even need this? Minecraft has a really awkward, lackluster sense of combat because of how blocky and clunky the game's design is. The last thing it needs is freakin' bullets.
I also can't get over this thread's title. "New weapon idea", then suggests something that's been rightfully hated for almost a decade.
You're using a bizarre slippery slope fallacy, as well as assuming that guns would seriously have any more effect than how much the game incentivates animal cruelty, not to mention that it's literally a game, and even kid-friendly games can have guns. Nobody is suggesting to do things such as incentivating the player to shoot baby villagers, add blood from gunshots, or anyhting that could be any more violent than what the game already has. In fact, one would argue that guns would be less violent than bows, as the latter keep their arrows stuck, showing injury.
Similarly, a game with guns doesn't have to become a CoD clone at all (In fact, the fact that there's plenty of non-shooter games with guns on them should be a giveaway).
As for fitting, the description implies that it's some sort of muzzle-loading gun, likely a musket or even an arquebus, and those existed in the Middle Ages, and, in fact, would actually fit more than most of what Redstone does (And, even then, one could link guns and redstone so it gets to not fit), or jukeboxes.
It doesn't really matter if you're giving incentive to do it or not, we could use that as an argument for the fact that they refuse to add things like sharks or lions. Also, how to they incentivate animal cruelty? I suppose it depends on your personal beliefs, but as long as it's being done in a humane and non wasteful way, then eating meat shouldn't be considered cruel. It is also entirely possible to do a vegetarian or vegen playthrough. Or do you perhaps mean something else? I'm genuinely curious.
As for fitting, the description implies that it's some sort of muzzle-loading gun, likely a musket or even an arquebus, and those existed in the Middle Ages, and, in fact, would actually fit more than most of what Redstone does (And, even then, one could link guns and redstone so it gets to not fit), or jukeboxes.
It doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. It doesn't belong in Minecraft. Many have stated that repeatedly. I don't understand why people don't listen.
It doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. It doesn't belong in Minecraft. Many have stated that repeatedly. I don't understand why people don't listen.
Because, in the end, it's an opinion, rather than a fact, and thre's also plenty of people who feel that the lack of them is weird in a game in which gunpowder not only exists, but is naturally occuring and needs more uses.
It doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. It doesn't belong in Minecraft. Many have stated that repeatedly. I don't understand why people don't listen.
This happens for a few reasons: A.) Some people have convinced themselves they understand game design, but don't. B.) Some people think, "It's popular and a lot of people want it, so therefore it should be added! Popular = good!" C.) A lot of users here are kiddies, and get all bubbly and overexcited when something "cooool!" pops into their head, without thinking about the framework of balance. Or they think "duuuude it's just a gaaame!" which is what a lot of kids say when they want something they want in a game (rather than something they don't want.)
Because, in the end, it's an opinion, rather than a fact, and thre's also plenty of people who feel that the lack of them is weird in a game in which gunpowder not only exists, but is naturally occuring and needs more uses.
No, it doesn't "need" more uses. People want more uses. Those "plenty of people" don't seem to understand that "need" and "want" are, in fact, not the same thing. We have TNT, fireworks and splash potions and fire charges - at least two of those are things are extremely useful. If players are thinking guns are a good idea just to give gunpowder an extra use, they better make sure they don't enter game design.
It's a good way of throwing out ideas and possibly getting feedback or additions that could make the suggestion better. The official reddit would be the place to go to actually suggest an idea once it's well thought out. But as far as suggestions being implemented, it's been a while but it has happened. Endermen and their eyes were a suggestion, horses were a mod, etc. Plus if you've seen all the short animations they've made to show potential new additions to biomes, such as the ostriches and termites, those were actually suggestions. I forget where, but it's an official suggestion area where you can upvote and such.
Christian artist. Here is my art page.
I support this suggestion! It's not OP, it doesn't go into a huge amount of uses, fairly simple and has similarities and differences to Bows and Crossbows. The idea you made, even though a gun, seems to fit in. The wooden handle also makes it seem more Minecraft fitting.
Full Support!
Even though you said "save for redstone", you can't just randomly remove Redstone from your argument because it wouldn't fit the point you're trying to make. Everything Redstone has to offer is similar to modern day. Levers, Buttons, Pressure Plates, Command Blocks (similar to computers), you get the point. And even if a gun (a primitive, not modern day one may I note) doesn't fit into Minecraft, you still didn't give feedback to any of the points about it you made, and only talked about the fact that it wouldn't fit into the game.
Hey guys I'm James, I used to be a noob but now I'm not, I finally figured out how to use TextCraft so here's a banner for one of my suggestions.
Any support for your argument or just one sentence? What about the rest of their suggestion?
I don't think 2 ranged bow variants and a throwable melee weapon count as "plenty". And you say it isn't really developed at all, but they already provided the guns use in the op?
Just because people might not support his idea isn't reason for them not to post the idea. And you also gave no detail as to why you wouldn't want the gun in the game.
Hey guys I'm James, I used to be a noob but now I'm not, I finally figured out how to use TextCraft so here's a banner for one of my suggestions.
1. What does this have to do with the gun suggestion?
2. Are you new here? Everybody on here knows, even the moderators have acknowledged it, that no developers for the game come onto the Minecraft Forum. Posting here is voluntary. Also, plenty of suggestions from the r/minecraftsuggestions subreddit have made it into the game.
Any feedback to fix that?
1. Mojang doesn't come onto the Minecraft Forum anyways.
2. I'm sure plenty of suggestions you'd like to say in the game have already been denied by Mojang.
3. How do guns have "no place in the game"?
Hey guys I'm James, I used to be a noob but now I'm not, I finally figured out how to use TextCraft so here's a banner for one of my suggestions.
1. Tough luck because Bows and Crossbows can already shoot people.
2. Servers can also ban guns, and you don't have to use it if you don't want to in singleplayer.
Hey guys I'm James, I used to be a noob but now I'm not, I finally figured out how to use TextCraft so here's a banner for one of my suggestions.
1. No not "tough luck". Do (cross)bows shoot bullets? Nooooo. You should have thought that one out.
2. *facedesk* Wow congrats, you just used one of the most hated, invalid arguments of all time. "If you don't like it don't use it!" Dude, no. If an idea is bad, it's bad. Going "you don't have to use it! =D" doesn't save the idea from being garbage. Seriously, that's an awful awful argument. Guns aren't for Minecraft and never will be, no matter how good you think you can argue it.
If servers have to ban something so terrible, then mayyyybe the idea is pretty bad to start with and shouldn't touch the game? Before you respond, please use the search function and take a good look at all the other gun threads that have been hated and locked. Maybe take some game development courses too.
While you have a good point in 2, 1 comes off as nitpicking, considering that, mechanics-wise, the only difference is that one would logically stick out of your body, while you'd be unable to discern wether a player has been recently shot with a gun or not.
Suggestions:
New Death Animations. "Mr Amppl50, I don't feel so good" -fishg
Lead Ore
Wind revamp and hot air balloons.
==
1. What does it matter what the name of the ammunition is? If they renamed it from "Bullets" to "Arrows" or "Pellets" would change your opinion on it? Probably not, it's just a word and doesn't affect the actual gameplay of the weapon in question. You also didn't specify bullets you just said "get shot in the face". Bows can shoot people? So can Crossbows.
2. Well, what you're saying has some holes in it (no pun). First off, in this case, not having to use it does make sense. It's a weapon, and there are plenty of others you can use that are already in the game. For example, right now, Crossbows and Bows coexist. If I don't want to use a Crossbow to go kill mobs, the game is not forcing me to. People have been going without Crossbows since Alpha (before Crossbows addition) and they still can if they choose not to use one.
Also, I didn't specify the gun was "terrible" for servers to be using. If a server chooses to ban the gun then that's their choice. I'm sure not every person who plays this game is going to be banning the Gun from their server.
As a last note, you still didn't say at all why the gun wouldn't fit into Minecraft.
Hey guys I'm James, I used to be a noob but now I'm not, I finally figured out how to use TextCraft so here's a banner for one of my suggestions.
Sooooo guns are fine because bows "shoot" things and guns "shoot" things..? Huh..?? Yes, let's add something that's a complete upgrade from bows and muck up the balance of ranged weapons by adding bullets.
This argument of "you don't have to use it" doesn't change anything. There's a thousand things in the game I don't have to use, that doesn't add weight to something in the game being good or not. If an insta-kill infinite-ammo sniper is added to the game, me not having to use it in singleplayer doesn't make the idea not a horribly stupid and overpowered add. Being bannable in servers also doesn't save the idea. The idea shouldn't touch the game to begin with. It doesn't fit (which I'll explain) and it shreds the game's balance.
You didn't have to specify the gun was terrible. Because I did. I don't know what point you're trying to prove with "server choosing to ban" stuff. Didn't have much to do with what I was talking about.
I really thought that would be obvious. Arrows take time to reach their target. Crossbows do this faster, but are balanced by having slower reloading. Then there's guns, with instant travel bullets that punches arrows right in the face and makes bows useless. Sure, guns could be tweaked to be more balanced, but why does it need to be there? Why do we need a straight upgrade from crossbows? It's too much.
Yes, I know guns existed in medieval times but that still doesn't make the idea a good add. We have swords, throwable potions, shields, arrows, flint & steel and TNT that are all well-balanced. Do we seriously need to throw bullets in this? Is it that hard to hunt down mobs from a distance.
Looking at the idea from a real world standpoint, guns would probably offend a lot of people's personal views, too.
For instance, parents who let their small children play the game. As a parent sees it, what in Minecraft could teach their child bad behavior regarding real world scenarios, or teach them things in general that differ from their views. Most harmful things in Minecraft, such as swords or bows, are entirely unrealistic and as such don't encourage the child to do anything bad, for the most part
. Guns however are a very real part of life, and could be a bad influence on behavior.
Even people who support guns don't want to encourage use of them outside of safety and responsible hunting. They are not something to be taken lightly, shooting things or people is never a joke or a game, despite ridiculous games like Call of Duty or Battlefield trying to make a joke out of war, and desensitizing people in the process. Even if some or most people are responsible in explaining that to their children, still there will be some that are not, and it could be a bad influence.
Besides, guns are a controversial topic, seeing as they've been banned in the UK and how the United States is divided on the subject, with a few people somehow thinking it'll be safer without them, despite how horribly wrong that went elsewhere. The point is, guns being added would mean Mojang, and by extension Microsoft, would be making a political statement, even if unintentional . That would undoubtedly cause them to lose some business, even if not significant.
Personally, i doubt they'd want to risk making else money, considering how they've already made bedrock into a greedy pay-to-play app with the Marketplace.
Before, mods and texturepacks were completely free, (still are, if you play Java, which i can't because my PC would crumple) but now you pay for things like a knockoff Crayfish Furniture mod with worse textures, not to mention you can only use it in one world. The system itself is broken, child accounts can't buy a texture pack and parent accounts can't share them with their children, you have to make the children adult accounts and then buy it on all accounts!
If they're so ridiculous that they have to make addons a money grab, can you imagine them doing anything to deprive themselves of even more wealth? I can't, at least..
Christian artist. Here is my art page.
Is it really an upgrade over crossbows? Read the OP. It essentially paints an awful weapon that is easily worse than the crossbow or the bow at everything but range, and the Crossbow already has a lot of range (Not to mention that it can also pierce mobs and shoot fireworks, while the bow, when enchanted with Power V becomes a murder factory that makes crafting the crossbow pointless because it's much weaker. On top of this, most mobs can't even see you beyond 16 blocks, and Ghasts see you from 100 blocks away). If anything, the gun as written in the post seems like it'd need a buff to be worth using, rather than making bows and crossbows obsolete.
As for combat as it is; no, it's horribly balanced. Shields are too powerful, TNT and Flint and Steel are impractical jokes (Barring PVP in faction servers, and that's only due to TNT cannons, while Fire is bad at burning things down because it got hit too hard with the nerfhammer), splash potions are very impractical to use, and bows are hideously powerful for their cost, and enchanting them simply makes them hideously powerful (For starters, it increases it's damage to 250% of it's original damage when enchanted with Power V, while the Crossbow only gets tripled damage at short range at most, or 6 times if you only use arrows and you get mobs to nicely line up for you).
Suggestions:
New Death Animations. "Mr Amppl50, I don't feel so good" -fishg
Lead Ore
Wind revamp and hot air balloons.
I'm not new here, my original account was registered on October 7, 2010, my first post: in a thread about adding guns dated March 23, 2010.
This has to do with the gun suggestion because there's no point in criticizing the appropriateness of a suggestion, one might as well suggest they add fatalities or bread lines for villagers or little anime girls. Forgive me for not remembering this or else I would have realized that obviously the developers do not care what happens on the official forums (which would appear to be in some kind of undead state). Posting on Reddit? Please. Why don't we just post suggestions on r/The_Donald, r/MensRights, or r/KotakuInAction? What a hilarious PR joke for some guys trying to gain social notoriety points by throwing dollars at the beepocalypse.
Suggestions from Reddit have absolutely been implemented before what are you on.
1. Nawwww really? I never knew.
2. No. Many of the suggestions that made it into the game are harmless. Guns are more harmful to the game than you think.
Parents allow their young children to play this game. This game is used in schools for educational purposes and many disabled people who can't use their hands/arms have devices that are used to help them play this game. Now, if they add guns, that will cause problems amongst the parents and teachers. In turn, that will cause issues with Mojang. Parents won't allow their kids to play the game, Minecraft will no longer be used in schools and disabled people will no longer get to enjoy the game. And after a while, the game's sales will start to slowly decline.
If they add guns, they might as well add scopes, bullets, bulletproof vests, swat gear, ghillie suits, and even more guns. Just turn the game into another version of Call of Duty or any other first-person shooter that currently exists.
3. ^ on top of that, will look very out of place.
You're using a bizarre slippery slope fallacy, as well as assuming that guns would seriously have any more effect than how much the game incentivates animal cruelty, not to mention that it's literally a game, and even kid-friendly games can have guns. Nobody is suggesting to do things such as incentivating the player to shoot baby villagers, add blood from gunshots, or anyhting that could be any more violent than what the game already has. In fact, one would argue that guns would be less violent than bows, as the latter keep their arrows stuck, showing injury.
Similarly, a game with guns doesn't have to become a CoD clone at all (In fact, the fact that there's plenty of non-shooter games with guns on them should be a giveaway).
As for fitting, the description implies that it's some sort of muzzle-loading gun, likely a musket or even an arquebus, and those existed in the Middle Ages, and, in fact, would actually fit more than most of what Redstone does (And, even then, one could link guns and redstone so it gets to not fit), or jukeboxes.
Suggestions:
New Death Animations. "Mr Amppl50, I don't feel so good" -fishg
Lead Ore
Wind revamp and hot air balloons.
Something "fitting" more in a time period sense still doesn't make the idea that much better. I'd rather have a futuristic light up jukebox from the year 2050 than have guns.
If it's "worse" than the crossbow, why do we even need this? Minecraft has a really awkward, lackluster sense of combat because of how blocky and clunky the game's design is. The last thing it needs is freakin' bullets.
I also can't get over this thread's title. "New weapon idea", then suggests something that's been rightfully hated for almost a decade.
It doesn't really matter if you're giving incentive to do it or not, we could use that as an argument for the fact that they refuse to add things like sharks or lions. Also, how to they incentivate animal cruelty? I suppose it depends on your personal beliefs, but as long as it's being done in a humane and non wasteful way, then eating meat shouldn't be considered cruel. It is also entirely possible to do a vegetarian or vegen playthrough. Or do you perhaps mean something else? I'm genuinely curious.
Christian artist. Here is my art page.
It doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. It doesn't belong in Minecraft. Many have stated that repeatedly. I don't understand why people don't listen.
Because, in the end, it's an opinion, rather than a fact, and thre's also plenty of people who feel that the lack of them is weird in a game in which gunpowder not only exists, but is naturally occuring and needs more uses.
Suggestions:
New Death Animations. "Mr Amppl50, I don't feel so good" -fishg
Lead Ore
Wind revamp and hot air balloons.
This happens for a few reasons:
A.) Some people have convinced themselves they understand game design, but don't.
B.) Some people think, "It's popular and a lot of people want it, so therefore it should be added! Popular = good!"
C.) A lot of users here are kiddies, and get all bubbly and overexcited when something "cooool!" pops into their head, without thinking about the framework of balance. Or they think "duuuude it's just a gaaame!" which is what a lot of kids say when they want something they want in a game (rather than something they don't want.)
No, it doesn't "need" more uses. People want more uses. Those "plenty of people" don't seem to understand that "need" and "want" are, in fact, not the same thing. We have TNT, fireworks and splash potions and fire charges - at least two of those are things are extremely useful. If players are thinking guns are a good idea just to give gunpowder an extra use, they better make sure they don't enter game design.