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.
Fireworks are useful, but TNT is too weak to be useful by itself (Althrough it thankfully no drops all the blocks it breaks) and non-renewable. Same with splash potions, which are also very lacking in uses, as most mobs aren't designed in a way that incentivates using them (For instance, Harm would be much more attractive if armor were more common in mobs, and Poison is useful pretty much only to get Music Discs), while fire charges are just consumable Flint and Steel.
Of course, it'd be easier to simply make those uses better:
Sand could be made renewable so using TNT in large scale doesn't involve stripping beaches of sand (And TNT itself could be made cheaper. For instance, it's output could be 2 or 3 TNT blocks instead of 1).
There could be more mobs that make using splash potions worthwhile (More armored mobs, more beefy mobs that can make using poison on them worthwhile, more glass cannons that are affected by Weakness, or more fast mobs that ).
Adding a handheld way of firing fire charges (Which may or may not resemble a gun, but does avoid adding a blatant one) instead of adding a new weapon that further throws the tattered remains of balance off (After all, if combat is already unbalanced, adding a completely new weapon that has to be balanced when the current ones already have enough problems AND overlaps with one of them may not be a good idea, specially when the most obvious way to do so goes against the short-mid-range, high RoF profile that's probably he only niche in the game that doesn't exist, which the fire charge launcher could at least fulfill).
There could be more mobs that make using splash potions worthwhile (More armored mobs, more beefy mobs that can make using poison on them worthwhile, more glass cannons that are affected by Weakness, or more fast mobs that ).
Well... yeah, I guess.
Adding a handheld way of firing fire charges (Which may or may not resemble a gun, but does avoid adding a blatant one) instead of adding a new weapon that further throws the tattered remains of balance off (After all, if combat is already unbalanced, adding a completely new weapon that has to be balanced when the current ones already have enough problems AND overlaps with one of them may not be a good idea, specially when the most obvious way to do so goes against the short-mid-range, high RoF profile that's probably he only niche in the game that doesn't exist, which the fire charge launcher could at least fulfill).
Ehhhhhh... We already have enchantments for fire arrows so this new fire charge weapon feels redundant. Regardless, it's stupid easy to kill mobs from a distance with or without fire
Ehhhhhh... We already have enchantments for fire arrows so this new fire charge weapon feels redundant. Regardless, it's stupid easy to kill mobs from a distance with or without fire
Fire charges have other properties apart from just setting entities on fire, such as setting blocks on fire (Which would make it a great forest-burning tool), and not being affected by gravity.
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.
There can be many different ideas for gunpowder that doesn't involve making a gun.
Fire charges have other properties apart from just setting entities on fire, such as setting blocks on fire (Which would make it a great forest-burning tool), and not being affected by gravity.
What's with this fixation on you wanting a gun or some gun-like object in the game? Why is that so important? Pretty much what Calico said. Why does "gunpowder has few uses" need to equal "there needs to be a gun to fill the void". That's like saying "I don't think paper has enough uses, so we need to have paper airplanes!! >=["
What's with this fixation on you wanting a gun or some gun-like object in the game? Why is that so important? Pretty much what Calico said. Why does "gunpowder has few uses" need to equal "there needs to be a gun to fill the void". That's like saying "I don't think paper has enough uses, so we need to have paper airplanes!! >=["
What makes you assume that a weapon that shoots fireballs is necessarily the same as a gun? Why couldn't it be like a blowgun, or a bullet-firing crossbow? After all, what would matter is that it can shoot fireballs, not that it's actually a gun.
As for wanting something like that, because it's the most obvious use of gunpowder that cannot be replicated with TNT and Redstone.
The real question is: What's with the tendency to treat gun suggestions as if they were trying to turn Minecraft into a CoD clone, as opposed to valuing the suggestion purely on it's own merits? What I see is that, when anyone puts any suggestion, they're not given constructive criticism and just told that "It doesn't fit because guns are not medieval" (Meanwhile, they were invented in the late Middle Ages, and became very popular by the end of it), or "This will turn Minecraft into CoD" (Without explaining how), or "This will make the game less family-friendly" (Again, no explanation how would adding a gun intrinsically do this), or, worst of all, "This is OP" (And reading the suggestion actually shows a crappy weapon that is too expensive for what it can do) without explanation.
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.
1. I'm just saying you're biased because I'm sure if it was just called something different it wouldn't feel that out of place. Stop nitpicking the smallest things.
2. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean every server will ban it.
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.
So are bows and crossbows suddenly OP if you use a resource pack to make arrows be called 'bullets'?
Oh heeeyyy I was wondering when you were gonna choose to chime in your own thread. -____-
...And sadly the point you're proving makes no sense. An arrow with a simple texture change of a bullet =/= an actual instant bullet. Hmm.
1. I'm just saying you're biased because I'm sure if it was just called something different it wouldn't feel that out of place. Stop nitpicking the smallest things.
2. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean every server will ban it.
1.) No not "stop nitpicking the smallest things". You have no idea what you're talking about. You used absolutely crappy arguments earlier that have been debunked hard since 2011. That's not """nitpicking""", that's just making a point. I don't care what other name this gun has, I'll still hate the idea all the same. Like I asked before, why do we need this gun?
2.) Congrats, I think the point I was making flew straight over your head undetected. Why did you say this? This wasn't what I was talking about in the slightest. I'm starting to think you're not understanding anything I'm presenting nor reading my posts carefully at all.
What makes you assume that a weapon that shoots fireballs is necessarily the same as a gun? Why couldn't it be like a blowgun, or a bullet-firing crossbow? After all, what would matter is that it can shoot fireballs, not that it's actually a gun.
As for wanting something like that, because it's the most obvious use of gunpowder that cannot be replicated with TNT and Redstone.
The real question is: What's with the tendency to treat gun suggestions as if they were trying to turn Minecraft into a CoD clone, as opposed to valuing the suggestion purely on it's own merits? What I see is that, when anyone puts any suggestion, they're not given constructive criticism and just told that "It doesn't fit because guns are not medieval" (Meanwhile, they were invented in the late Middle Ages, and became very popular by the end of it), or "This will turn Minecraft into CoD" (Without explaining how), or "This will make the game less family-friendly" (Again, no explanation how would adding a gun intrinsically do this), or, worst of all, "This is OP" (And reading the suggestion actually shows a crappy weapon that is too expensive for what it can do) without explanation.
It almost sounded like you had a fixation on wanting a gun simply because gunpowder had low amount of uses (which is a completely subjective view). The blowgun/fire charge thing you're presenting is WAY more plausible, though I'm sure the name would still turn some people off, it doesn't fire hitscan excruciatingly long-range bullets. I personally never said anything about CoD stuff. I'm not one of the hate-without-explanation people. I've explained my reasons.
Edit: Whether this is a gun or not. It's still an upgrade of the crossbow. Unbalanced unbalanced unbalanced. So I don't support either way. So yeah.
We haven't reached this point yet, but as a preventative measure from watching things get a bit heated I just want to remind people to keep things civil when discussing suggestions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
Do diamond swords no-scope shoot people from 60 blocks away..?
No, but crossbows can. In fact, one of the flaws of the suggestion (And one you pointed out, and I agree with, althrough we differ in the conclusions taken from this, as you seem to consider it too powerful, while I consider it to be too weak) is that it overlaps with the crossbow too much.
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.
There are tons of things in Minecraft that can influence kids and are not really right, and guns seem like a kids toy compared to them (not actually serious).
Destroying terrain to build structures.
Chopping down trees to build structures.
Steak gives the most food in the game, encouraging you to kill Cows.
Automatic mob farms are a thing.
TNT and Flint and Steel (equivalent to a lighter) are in the game.
You could go on...
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.
There are tons of things in Minecraft that can influence kids and are not really right, and guns seem like a kids toy compared to them (not actually serious).
Destroying terrain to build structures.
Chopping down trees to build structures.
Steak gives the most food in the game, encouraging you to kill Cows.
Automatic mob farms are a thing.
TNT and Flint and Steel (equivalent to a lighter) are in the game.
You could go on...
Kids know better than to purposely destroy terrain and chop down trees. The only exception is if the owner of said land or trees gave permission.
Kids don't go into pastures just to murder cows. They know better, the cows can turn and attack them and/or the cow will run away. I'm pretty sure a cow is much faster than a human.
Even if you gave a kid a stick of dynamite, chances are, the kid wouldn't even know what it is or what to do with it. And/or the kid would know better than to play with or use such a dangerous item.
You know what? I changed my mind. I support this idea. Guns are fun, and as long as it isn't an obviously modern or futuristic weapon I don't see a problem.
There are tons of things in Minecraft that can influence kids and are not really right, and guns seem like a kids toy compared to them (not actually serious).
Assuming that you mean that experiences in Minecraft could lead to the information aquired being applied to a real world scenarios, here is my take on it.
Destroying terrain to build structures.Destroying terrain to build structures is an interesting point, considering it's something we do in real life regardless of if it was in Minecraft or not, people have to live somewhere. That certainly doesn't make it right, but what are we supposed to do? We make a living fixing and building homes. I personally don't see that as a bad influence.
Chopping down trees to build structures. I live in a place surrounded by logging areas and paper mills. IRL you can't just go chopping down trees anywhere, there are specific areas for that. Unless it's your own yard, and still, it's not like a child young enough to be influenced by that would have acsess to a axe,, or even be strong enough to swing it.
Steak gives the most food in the game, encouraging you to kill Cows. Gonna quote myself for this one-- "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." Also, if for some crazy reason the child just tried to hurt the cow, they'd likely get stomped. Cows can be dangerous.
Automatic mob farms are a thing. Well, i guess it depends on what kind of farm you're referring to. It could be compared to factories,
TNT and Flint and Steel (equivalent to a lighter) are in the game. They might not nesscesarily associate Flint and Steel with a lighter, but ignoring that, in the United States,(Don't know about Canada) you can't legally buy a lighter until you're 18. Also, i don't think TNT is a particularly harmful influence, seeing as it's not something you can go out and get IRL.
You could go on...
Of course, those are just my opinion, and i could be wrong. But i really hope people know the difference between real life and games enough for it to not matter. My logic is just that if it's not an easily acsessible danger, it should be fine.
No, but crossbows can. In fact, one of the flaws of the suggestion (And one you pointed out, and I agree with, althrough we differ in the conclusions taken from this, as you seem to consider it too powerful, while I consider it to be too weak) is that it overlaps with the crossbow too much.
It seems like every time I bring up a good point it gets lost and forgotten.
The OP compared melee weapons and ranged weapons in the most illogical way I've ever read in my life. Don't take this the wrong way AMPPL50, but you upvoted him. Why? That weird, weird comparison had absolutely nothing to do with my point. I don't think the OP even knows a single point I'm making in this thread. There's comparing apples and oranges, but that was comparing a German-Swiss cookie to an alien clown covered in sulfuric acid and whale blood.
You know what? I changed my mind. I support this idea. Guns are fun, and as long as it isn't an obviously modern or futuristic weapon I don't see a problem.
You're doing it wrong man. Modern/future gun or not, the problem still lies in the balance. Don't be so quick to just jump on the support wagon because something sounds "fun". It needs to be balanced too.
It seems like every time I bring up a good point it gets lost and forgotten.
The OP compared melee weapons and ranged weapons in the most illogical way I've ever read in my life. Don't take this the wrong way AMPPL50, but you upvoted him. Why? That weird, weird comparison had absolutely nothing to do with my point. I don't think the OP even knows a single point I'm making in this thread. There's comparing apples and oranges, but that was comparing a German-Swiss cookie to an alien clown covered in sulfuric acid and whale blood.
You're doing it wrong man. Modern/future gun or not, the problem still lies in the balance. Don't be so quick to just jump on the support wagon because something sounds "fun". It needs to be balanced too.
Because he has a point in that melee weapons are instantaneous, althrough the flaws created by it don't make much sense to be mentioned here, to the point that, in hindsight, I've removed that upvote (Or tried to, considering how weird the forum can get with it). Then again, that may just have been my brain going out to lunch.
Considering that one of your complaints is caused by the very fast projectile, it could have a tracer effect, which could reveal where you've been shot from, allowing you to do things such as building a dirt wall to protect yourself from further fire, or the exact speed could be mentioned in the OP, and compared to the crossbow and bow's arrow speeds, as "somewhat faster" is hardly the same as "effectively hitscan", but it's not explained which one of the two it is.
Fireworks are useful, but TNT is too weak to be useful by itself (Althrough it thankfully no drops all the blocks it breaks) and non-renewable. Same with splash potions, which are also very lacking in uses, as most mobs aren't designed in a way that incentivates using them (For instance, Harm would be much more attractive if armor were more common in mobs, and Poison is useful pretty much only to get Music Discs), while fire charges are just consumable Flint and Steel.
Of course, it'd be easier to simply make those uses better:
Sand could be made renewable so using TNT in large scale doesn't involve stripping beaches of sand (And TNT itself could be made cheaper. For instance, it's output could be 2 or 3 TNT blocks instead of 1).
There could be more mobs that make using splash potions worthwhile (More armored mobs, more beefy mobs that can make using poison on them worthwhile, more glass cannons that are affected by Weakness, or more fast mobs that ).
Adding a handheld way of firing fire charges (Which may or may not resemble a gun, but does avoid adding a blatant one) instead of adding a new weapon that further throws the tattered remains of balance off (After all, if combat is already unbalanced, adding a completely new weapon that has to be balanced when the current ones already have enough problems AND overlaps with one of them may not be a good idea, specially when the most obvious way to do so goes against the short-mid-range, high RoF profile that's probably he only niche in the game that doesn't exist, which the fire charge launcher could at least fulfill).
Suggestions:
New Death Animations. "Mr Amppl50, I don't feel so good" -fishg
Lead Ore
Wind revamp and hot air balloons.
Well... yeah, I guess.
Ehhhhhh... We already have enchantments for fire arrows so this new fire charge weapon feels redundant. Regardless, it's stupid easy to kill mobs from a distance with or without fire
Fire charges have other properties apart from just setting entities on fire, such as setting blocks on fire (Which would make it a great forest-burning tool), and not being affected by gravity.
Suggestions:
New Death Animations. "Mr Amppl50, I don't feel so good" -fishg
Lead Ore
Wind revamp and hot air balloons.
There can be many different ideas for gunpowder that doesn't involve making a gun.
What's with this fixation on you wanting a gun or some gun-like object in the game? Why is that so important? Pretty much what Calico said. Why does "gunpowder has few uses" need to equal "there needs to be a gun to fill the void". That's like saying "I don't think paper has enough uses, so we need to have paper airplanes!! >=["
What makes you assume that a weapon that shoots fireballs is necessarily the same as a gun? Why couldn't it be like a blowgun, or a bullet-firing crossbow? After all, what would matter is that it can shoot fireballs, not that it's actually a gun.
As for wanting something like that, because it's the most obvious use of gunpowder that cannot be replicated with TNT and Redstone.
The real question is: What's with the tendency to treat gun suggestions as if they were trying to turn Minecraft into a CoD clone, as opposed to valuing the suggestion purely on it's own merits? What I see is that, when anyone puts any suggestion, they're not given constructive criticism and just told that "It doesn't fit because guns are not medieval" (Meanwhile, they were invented in the late Middle Ages, and became very popular by the end of it), or "This will turn Minecraft into CoD" (Without explaining how), or "This will make the game less family-friendly" (Again, no explanation how would adding a gun intrinsically do this), or, worst of all, "This is OP" (And reading the suggestion actually shows a crappy weapon that is too expensive for what it can do) without explanation.
Suggestions:
New Death Animations. "Mr Amppl50, I don't feel so good" -fishg
Lead Ore
Wind revamp and hot air balloons.
So are bows and crossbows suddenly OP if you use a resource pack to make arrows be called 'bullets'?
Planetary travel
Chaostone
Whales and whalefalls
1. I'm just saying you're biased because I'm sure if it was just called something different it wouldn't feel that out of place. Stop nitpicking the smallest things.
2. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean every server will ban it.
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.
Oh heeeyyy I was wondering when you were gonna choose to chime in your own thread. -____-
...And sadly the point you're proving makes no sense. An arrow with a simple texture change of a bullet =/= an actual instant bullet. Hmm.
1.) No not "stop nitpicking the smallest things". You have no idea what you're talking about. You used absolutely crappy arguments earlier that have been debunked hard since 2011. That's not """nitpicking""", that's just making a point. I don't care what other name this gun has, I'll still hate the idea all the same. Like I asked before, why do we need this gun?
2.) Congrats, I think the point I was making flew straight over your head undetected. Why did you say this? This wasn't what I was talking about in the slightest. I'm starting to think you're not understanding anything I'm presenting nor reading my posts carefully at all.
It almost sounded like you had a fixation on wanting a gun simply because gunpowder had low amount of uses (which is a completely subjective view). The blowgun/fire charge thing you're presenting is WAY more plausible, though I'm sure the name would still turn some people off, it doesn't fire hitscan excruciatingly long-range bullets. I personally never said anything about CoD stuff. I'm not one of the hate-without-explanation people. I've explained my reasons.
Edit: Whether this is a gun or not. It's still an upgrade of the crossbow. Unbalanced unbalanced unbalanced. So I don't support either way. So yeah.
Melee is more instant than guns, so is that overpowered as well?
Planetary travel
Chaostone
Whales and whalefalls
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffWe haven't reached this point yet, but as a preventative measure from watching things get a bit heated I just want to remind people to keep things civil when discussing suggestions.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
Do diamond swords no-scope shoot people from 60 blocks away..?
No, but crossbows can. In fact, one of the flaws of the suggestion (And one you pointed out, and I agree with, althrough we differ in the conclusions taken from this, as you seem to consider it too powerful, while I consider it to be too weak) is that it overlaps with the crossbow too much.
Suggestions:
New Death Animations. "Mr Amppl50, I don't feel so good" -fishg
Lead Ore
Wind revamp and hot air balloons.
There are tons of things in Minecraft that can influence kids and are not really right, and guns seem like a kids toy compared to them (not actually serious).
You could go on...
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.
Kids know better than to purposely destroy terrain and chop down trees. The only exception is if the owner of said land or trees gave permission.
Kids don't go into pastures just to murder cows. They know better, the cows can turn and attack them and/or the cow will run away. I'm pretty sure a cow is much faster than a human.
Even if you gave a kid a stick of dynamite, chances are, the kid wouldn't even know what it is or what to do with it. And/or the kid would know better than to play with or use such a dangerous item.
You know what? I changed my mind. I support this idea. Guns are fun, and as long as it isn't an obviously modern or futuristic weapon I don't see a problem.
Of course, those are just my opinion, and i could be wrong. But i really hope people know the difference between real life and games enough for it to not matter. My logic is just that if it's not an easily acsessible danger, it should be fine.
Christian artist. Here is my art page.
It seems like every time I bring up a good point it gets lost and forgotten.
The OP compared melee weapons and ranged weapons in the most illogical way I've ever read in my life. Don't take this the wrong way AMPPL50, but you upvoted him. Why? That weird, weird comparison had absolutely nothing to do with my point. I don't think the OP even knows a single point I'm making in this thread. There's comparing apples and oranges, but that was comparing a German-Swiss cookie to an alien clown covered in sulfuric acid and whale blood.
You're doing it wrong man. Modern/future gun or not, the problem still lies in the balance. Don't be so quick to just jump on the support wagon because something sounds "fun". It needs to be balanced too.
Because he has a point in that melee weapons are instantaneous, althrough the flaws created by it don't make much sense to be mentioned here, to the point that, in hindsight, I've removed that upvote (Or tried to, considering how weird the forum can get with it). Then again, that may just have been my brain going out to lunch.
Considering that one of your complaints is caused by the very fast projectile, it could have a tracer effect, which could reveal where you've been shot from, allowing you to do things such as building a dirt wall to protect yourself from further fire, or the exact speed could be mentioned in the OP, and compared to the crossbow and bow's arrow speeds, as "somewhat faster" is hardly the same as "effectively hitscan", but it's not explained which one of the two it is.
Suggestions:
New Death Animations. "Mr Amppl50, I don't feel so good" -fishg
Lead Ore
Wind revamp and hot air balloons.
Sorry man no support.
It cant fit in the game.
It just doesn't feel right.
I know a whole ton of mods for guns and new weapons etc. etc.
But it doesn't fit and this suggestion is not creative