I'm just going to say. I did a fair bit of librarian trade rerolling in singleplayer last week. If you trade with a villager, zombify it, then cure it, the newly-cured villager will still have the same trades and trade EXP. So I don't think that what you said here is the case.
It is not the case now, but I am arguing it could be as a suggestion. What is in the game now does not have to be official if it hasn't been thought through. Also, we could make it so that only naturally spawning zombie villagers/illagers can become soldiers, whereas existing villagers with a profession who became zombie and then cured will retain its old profession.
It would be too easy if villagers could defend themselves, that is your challenge and role as the player, who causes monsters to appear by loading in a village. Not to mention the Battle Royale-esque environment of soldiers fighting soldiers would take away from the game's theme and category and take away attention from other parts of Minecraft.
You already have hostile mercenaries with piglin brutes and illagers.
It already is too easy without the villagers being able to defend themselves. Adding villager soldiers is not about making the game easier, it is about creation/roleplay end-goal. You can always nerf the iron golem spawn rate again if villager soldiers are implemented. My idea is hopefully Mojang sees the potential in crafting a civilization of diverse races from all over minecraft for the creation/role-play end-goal, with Piglins, Illagers, Villagers, or even a new villager race etc. All with their own ways of life, some willing to defend your civilization, instead of the current "all villagers are pacifist from all over minecraft indefinitely and you cannot have any villager soldiers, and it must be that way without really any good reason".
Noticing a lot of people just skip reading my suggestions and replying with the wrong assumptions of what my suggestion is all about or things that has already been addressed in my original suggestion post. Please read the original suggestion fully before replying.
If it's already "too easy without the villagers being able to defend themselves", why make it easier? Unless you also want to ramp up the dangers villagers face to compensate for being able to create your own armies.
And, I'd say they're reading it thoroughly. Just, they're not agreeing, and it's easier to dismiss arguments as, "you just don't understaaand!"
If it's already "too easy without the villagers being able to defend themselves", why make it easier? Unless you also want to ramp up the dangers villagers face to compensate for being able to create your own armies.
And, I'd say they're reading it thoroughly. Just, they're not agreeing, and it's easier to dismiss arguments as, "you just don't understaaand!"
Did I say to make it easier? You forgot to read again lol. You're mad because you keep losing arguments against me lol and now you're just making things up. Let it go lmao, it's just a minecraft suggestion. You don't like it, I get it, move on.
You didn't say to make it easier, but by making on-demand soldiers that just do the heavy lifting for you, isn't that easier than, say, doing the fighting yourself? How do you plan to compensate for this? By way of the exact method I mentioned, or what?
And no, I'm not mad, I'm rather amused, actually. Especially this fixation on wanting to "win" that you have.
You didn't say to make it easier, but by making on-demand soldiers that just do the heavy lifting for you, isn't that easier than, say, doing the fighting yourself? How do you plan to compensate for this? By way of the exact method I mentioned, or what?
And no, I'm not mad, I'm rather amused. Especially this fixation on wanting to "win" that you have.
There is no threat to villagers 99% of the time anyway. Adding one or two soldiers is not going to "make the game too easy". Villager soldiers are there mostly for creation/roleplay purposes, how many times am I repeating this. They would still get massacred during 5-level raids if you don't help them. They can still get killed if they fight too many mobs. You can nerf iron golem spawn rate if you're really that scared that villagers no longer have a threat when they already don't since they just run in-doors at night and nothing happens to them anyway.
In fact, by adding villager soldiers, as in the way I suggested (read my original post), you are making the game harder, because now there will be villager soldiers outside at night who can get killed by mobs. Although, they should be programmed to run in-doors at low HP.
And what if there's more than just "one or two"? As Jancrash pointed out, people will always exploit the easiest path, even to the point that there is nothing left for the player to do.
As I said before, there will come a point where the game is just standing atop a village wall, watching as you send droves of soldier villagers to die.
Now, this could be avoided by putting a limit on the number of soldiers possible depending on village population, but that could be abused by just making huge "villages" that are more akin to rat colonies in order to create armies proportionate to the population. (Note that, yes, golems spawn in this way, but the difference here is that villagers breed, so it would only be a matter of time before some player devices a villager breeder that churns out endless solders.)
Or, there could be a hard limit on the number of soldiers there could be in any one village. But, say you do make a large village. Then it would have a disproportionate number of soldiers relative to its population.
So you'll end up having to balance on the line between being Minecraft's Alexander the Great, or having the same problem you would if the soldiers didn't even exist, after your "one or two" soldiers die in the first wave anyways.
But in the end, no matter their number, they'll still be filling the same roll as golems, except with some extra gimmicks the player themself is already capable of. Though, that is if they are even capable of doing them at all as the current AI leaves much to be desired.
As for the soldiers actually making it harder, the risk of them dying because they wander off in the night sounds alot more annoying than challenging. I wouldn't be drawing up strategy as to where to place the soldier's guard station, I'd just be building a fence to coral them in like sheep so they don't fall into a hole or attract threats.
To bring this point back up, you never did acknowledge the dev's apparent intended gameplay design, after you simply dismissed it by claiming that I "only know how to parrot", again.
And what if there's more than just "one or two"? As Jancrash pointed out, people will always exploit the easiest path, even to the point that there is nothing left for the player to do.
As I said before, there will come a point where the game is just standing atop a village wall, watching as you send droves of soldier villagers to die.
Now, this could be avoided by putting a limit on the number of soldiers possible depending on village population, but that could be abused by just making huge "villages" that are more akin to rat colonies in order to create armies proportionate to the population. (Note that, yes, golems spawn in this way, but the difference here is that villagers breed, so it would only be a matter of time before some player devices a villager breeder that churns out endless solders.)
Or, there could be a hard limit on the number of soldiers there could be in any one village. But, say you do make a large village. Then it would have a disproportionate number of soldiers relative to its population.
So you'll end up having to balance on the line between being Minecraft's Alexander the Great, or having the same problem you would if the soldiers didn't even exist, after your "one or two" soldiers die in the first wave anyways.
But in the end, no matter their number, they'll still be filling the same roll as golems, except with some extra gimmicks the player themself is already capable of. Though, that is if they are even capable of doing them at all as the current AI leaves much to be desired.
As for the soldiers actually making it harder, the risk of them dying because they wander off in the night sounds alot more annoying than challenging. I wouldn't be drawing up strategy as to where to place the soldier's guard station, I'd just be building a fence to coral them in like sheep so they don't fall into a hole or attract threats.
To bring this point back up, you never did acknowledge the dev's apparent intended gameplay design, after you simply dismissed it by claiming that I was just parroting, again.
I literally addressed most of the stuff you just mentioned. The game already has tons of exploits, cobblestone generators, automated mob farms, automated iron golem farms, if you don't like it, don't make any of these things lol. That's how this game is played. You don't read very well do you?
And what if there's more than just "one or two"? As Jancrash pointed out, people will always exploit the easiest path, even to the point that there is nothing left for the player to do.
I'm not sure it's me that's having the the problem reading here, as I'm literally quoting my first two sentences.
"Just don't do it" is also another thing that he pointed out as a horrible argument.
I'm not sure it's me that's having the the problem reading here, as I'm literally quoting my first two sentences.
"Just don't do it" is also another thing that he pointed out as a horrible argument.
No, it's a great argument because minecraft allows you to do many things, some things certain people prefer over others, like how some people prefer creation/roleplay over exploration or like some people like creating mob farms and redstone mechanisms. If I don't want to build redstone mechanisms, I am not going to complain to devs to have them remove them from game, which is what you seem to be doing, complaining because you don't like what others like lol.
The exploit exist because of how villages are currently, not because of non-existent villager soldiers. This is why you can make iron golem farms. So your criticism does not apply. If you want, you can make a suggestion thread to fix villager exploits. This is a suggestion thread about creating villager soldiers and not about fixing exploits that already exist or a suggestion thread to fix all exploits and bugs in minecraft lmao.
Well, that's good to here, because I even found the quote that I kept try to remember! "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.” -Soren Johnson. Here is a link, if you care to see an article discussing that quote:
Well, that's good to here, because I even found the quote that I kept try to remember! "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.” -Soren Johnson. Here is a link, if you care to see an article discussing that quote:
So what if Mojang doesn't look at this site? My main goal is to spread awareness for a creation/roleplay end-goal and refine my idea and then submit it to this website: https://feedback.minecraft.net/hc/en-us
If they reject it, oh well, it is their loss. I have other games to play.
What the Soren Johnson said is not entirely true. Creators/Role-players create their own game within a game and enjoy making cool buildings, they are not speed-runners (e.g., GTA 5 multiplayer private servers is now very popular for role-playing, people there don't try to find the fastest way to make money, they do what makes sense). They are not the same type of players who enjoy optimizing fun out of games. They might even take the longer route because it makes sense, e.g. building a cool medieval building in minecraft instead of just a dirt box. So that quote is an overt generalization. This is a sandbox game not world of warcraft or tomb raider.
Besides, having diverse minecraft cultures and races other than just pacifist villagers is more fun than what we have now. By actually appealing to creation/role-play crowd, you are attracting people who don't optimize fun out of the game, instead they are players who create a new game inside a game, do you understand?
There is certainly a great many players that would avoid such exploits, but there still would be the possibility. So, if that population to soldier ratio problem were solved, it'd certainly keep things in check better.
As for the varying cultures idea, I think that is what is hinted at by the different clothes and architectural styles, but they may be leaving it more as an empty slate for players to develop themselves. I don't know many other ways villagers could reflect cultural variation in, especially considering their notable lack of verbal communication.
If differing cultures were to be done, I'd worry that it might take a bit away from the player's own world building, but would possibly be negligible. But, if done, this concept could be more viable.
You didn't say to make it easier, but by making on-demand soldiers that just do the heavy lifting for you, isn't that easier than, say, doing the fighting yourself? How do you plan to compensate for this? By way of the exact method I mentioned, or what?
And no, I'm not mad, I'm rather amused, actually. Especially this fixation on wanting to "win" that you have.
I don't think you've picked up thus far that insulting people who disagree with the idea and telling them that their logic is wrong because "you've already explained why it is" (even though your "100% foolproof arguments" make no sense either). In fact, I think I'll reply to them now:
1. "Golems exist, so no need for villager soldiers"
Well, diamond armor exist, so we should just remove all other armor, right? The existence of one thing is not a valid argument against another thing unless you can point out the fact they are too similar. And if you are capable of reading, you will see from my suggestion above that villager soldiers are not a "re-skin" of iron golems.
Diamond armor is an upgrade to iron armor. Iron armor is an upgrade to leather. Diamond armor is stronger than both of them; however, you require iron tools to craft diamond armor, and since a player would logically craft iron armor alongside its set of tools, this is a case of progression and not redundancy.
I reread your suggestion, and now they just sound like iron golems with more maintenance. They only patrol at night, sure, and only once every three days. But you mentioned that three soldiers can use each weapon rack, which is a detail I somehow missed the first time. You also mentioned they can be turned into Rangers and made to follow the player endlessly which, again, is a detail I missed (although I assumed would naturally be in place). But their same purpose is to fight the mobs that attack villagers and nothing more (aside from roleplaying, which I'd argue isn't a huge focal point of Minecraft). Nevertheless, after you equip them and give them beds to sleep in, on those three nights they don't sleep, they are essentially iron golems. You're right about them not being reskinned iron golems. However, they both fill the same initial duty of protecting villagers from what would harm them. Therefore, they fill the same niche and fit into that second sentence: "unless you can point out the fact they are too similar." And they are too similar.
2. "Devs want pacifist villagers"
As I pointed out above, villagers can still be pacifist. In that case, you can only make villager soldiers out of, say cured zombie villagers/Illagers. The idea is villager/illager zombies forgot their past after living as zombies for a long time, for the villager/illager zombies that naturally spawn. Or add different villager cultures where some are pacifist and others are not.
1. Cured villagers are still villagers. Minecraft isn't a lore-based game unless the player creates their own lore, so I disagree that your statement makes for a good argument in favor of soldier villagers. I'd definitely disagree with illagers protecting villagers since each addition of illager hates villagers, so it appears to be a pattern.
3. "Just make a mod for it"
This is not a valid argument either because it applies to all suggestions. Mods also get outdated and can no longer work. Heck, most old texture packs are outdated. It also makes sense in the context of the game to at least have a few villagers willing to fight for you or a village given the threats in the minecraft world and that weaponsmiths and fletchers exist.
It's almost like some people don't like playing with mods. It's also like mods can be updated over time to work in later versions or to add later version features to earlier versions. And finally, it's not like people can't play in older versions that have the features they want. Take a look at TheMasterCaver for instance. He still plays in the 1.6 versions since 1.7 nerfed caves and he didn't like that change. From what I can recall from reading his posts, he added rail storage blocks from 9 rails, Mending, a higher tier than diamond and 1.9's armor reduction system (but I could be wrong on that last one).
.
Plus, I already commented on a system that disproves this point. Most servers still use versions of 1.8 since quite a bit of the community despises the attack cooldown. But the attack cooldown is no different than lacking it (as I've already explained). So, by this logic, Mojang should add a gamerule to toggle it, right? But wait, it's already very easy to give yourself instant-attack weapons using commands alone. It'd also take way too much rebalancing for just a simple gamerule.
.
Saying players shouldn't have to mod in features that they want if it goes against the developers' wishes shows a gross lack of understanding and appreciation for the development cycle. There are people who have to code in all of these things and spend hours debugging and rebalancing them for us to enjoy. It's ultimately your choice to play Minecraft in the first place, let alone in the newest version. The devs were the ones who made that version, so they're the ones who control what goes into it. it's only fair since these are their jobs. If you don't like what they did with it, make your own changes! For instance, I've played Elder Scrolls for nearly a decade now. I love Morrowind and Oblivion's item durability system, but the majority hated it. So when they mainstreamed Skyrim for a wider audience and that feature didn't make the cut, I installed the Loot and Degradation mod to get the same result. At no time did I demand that Bethesda should cave in and readd it since Skyrim is ultimately theirs. I just took matters into my own hands. Oh, and in case you're wondering, I did a 20-second Google search and found a soldier villager mod for as late as 1.15.2. So it'll likely be updated soon. Please consider that before replying.
4. "Villager soldiers make the game too easy"
First of all, the game is already too easy. Villagers face no threat 99% of the time as they just run in-doors. Secondly, adding villager soldiers who patrol at night will make the game harder because now villagers can actually die.
I already typed up a very long section about difficulty (since I'm odd and go out of order in my replying) including a wolf example, so I'm just going to say: this doesn't make the game more difficult. Villagers are expendable, and unless you can magically give them trades, the soldier villager's only purpose would be running off into battle. So if it dies, that's one less villager to run off into battle, and the world turns very very very very very slightly more difficult for the player.
In fact, by adding villager soldiers, as in the way I suggested (read my original post), you are making the game harder, because now there will be villager soldiers outside at night who can get killed by mobs. Although, they should be programmed to run in-doors at low HP.
I'm not sure you understand how difficulty works. Based on the logic of this statement, it would be reasonable to say that the game would be more difficult to play if Blazes attacked each other since there would be fewer opportunities for the player to earn blaze rods. That's not what it means, however. Difficulty, in terms of Minecraft, represents how dangerous the world (more specifically, mobs) are to players. In my example, that would be even easier since there would be fewer mobs for the player to kill. (Although, it certainly would be annoying to get blaze rods, but that doesn't entirely stop the player from separating the blazes and/or killing them faster with stronger gear.) And with your example, it would be even easier since soldier villagers would attack mobs that could potentially harm the player. And villagers are easy to breed. Way too easy. They're expendable at the minimum. It wouldn't be very hard for the player to gather up five or more and just sick them on everything.
Do you need any further proof? Zombie AI (the main mob that attacks villagers) is easily exploitable. Go into Creative mode. Spawn and tame 20 wolves. Spawn 64 zombies. Switch to Survival mode. Either let yourself be hit or punch a zombie and watch the wolves go to war. I did this and watched as all the zombies locked onto me. Each time I punched a zombie, it died within seconds. The only time my wolves took damage was when I accidentally punched them. I also did no partaking in the actual fight aside from punching zombies to antagonize the wolves against them. I didn't die once on Hard mode. Zombies, according to their very programming, will lock onto a player or a villager and not let go. And consider that fighting villagers would have to do more damage and have more health/armor than wolves since they are player-made. We can already equip Diamond armor to villagers with dispensers, and they do get all the effects the enchantments provide.
Still think it'd be harder to have soldier villagers rushing into battle for you instead of doing it yourself?
No, it's a great argument because minecraft allows you to do many things, some things certain people prefer over others, like how some people prefer creation/roleplay over exploration or like some people like creating mob farms and redstone mechanisms. If I don't want to build redstone mechanisms, I am not going to complain to devs to have them remove them from game, which is what you seem to be doing, complaining because you don't like what others like lol.
So you admit that your logic is "I want this, so it should be added". Gotcha.
The exploit exists because of how villages are currently, not because of non-existent villager soldiers. This is why you can make iron golem farms. So your criticism does not apply.
Ah, so you admit that you're ignoring evidence that goes against your suggestion. Refusing to acknowledge a major flaw in your idea's design (that being players having the ability to obtain infinite villagers with virtually no work) is not "someone else's problem". Mobs that fight for the player have the potential to be abused. It's overpowered if you don't figure out some way to balance this. As headgames already suggested, there could be a hard cap for the number of soldier villagers that can leave bed at night. Or there can be a hard cap for how many soldier job sites that would even function per village. Alternatively, soldier villagers could lack any trades, therefore making it so they can't be locked into that profession forever with a single trade (like the entire premise for rolling Librarian enchantments).
If you want to have a genuine chance of swaying Mojang to change their stance on soldier villagers, then you need to start taking criticism seriously. I've given up on trying to convince you that Mojang won't sway their opinion and instead started moving towards suggesting rebalances of the new type or completely alternate mobs that could fill this role in addition to iron golems. However, seeing you laugh off criticism in every post is thinning my patience with you. So if you're going to keep ignoring genuine critiques and keep acting like "lol lmao they're salty they're losing an argument haha", then I guarantee you, a mod is going to come lock the thread for going off-topic one too many times.
End of my two-hour long post.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
I don't think you've picked up thus far that insulting people who disagree with the idea and telling them that their logic is wrong because "you've already explained why it is" (even though your "100% foolproof arguments" make no sense either). In fact, I think I'll reply to them now:
Diamond armor is an upgrade to iron armor. Iron armor is an upgrade to leather. Diamond armor is stronger than both of them; however, you require iron tools to craft diamond armor, and since a player would logically craft iron armor alongside its set of tools, this is a case of progression and not redundancy.
I reread your suggestion, and now they just sound like iron golems with more maintenance. They only patrol at night, sure, and only once every three days. But you mentioned that three soldiers can use each weapon rack, which is a detail I somehow missed the first time. You also mentioned they can be turned into Rangers and made to follow the player endlessly which, again, is a detail I missed (although I assumed would naturally be in place). But their same purpose is to fight the mobs that attack villagers and nothing more (aside from roleplaying, which I'd argue isn't a huge focal point of Minecraft). Nevertheless, after you equip them and give them beds to sleep in, on those three nights they don't sleep, they are essentially iron golems. You're right about them not being reskinned iron golems. However, they both fill the same initial duty of protecting villagers from what would harm them. Therefore, they fill the same niche and fit into that second sentence: "unless you can point out the fact they are too similar." And they are too similar.
1. Cured villagers are still villagers. Minecraft isn't a lore-based game unless the player creates their own lore, so I disagree that your statement makes for a good argument in favor of soldier villagers. I'd definitely disagree with illagers protecting villagers since each addition of illager hates villagers, so it appears to be a pattern.
It's almost like some people don't like playing with mods. It's also like mods can be updated over time to work in later versions or to add later version features to earlier versions. And finally, it's not like people can't play in older versions that have the features they want. Take a look at TheMasterCaver for instance. He still plays in the 1.6 versions since 1.7 nerfed caves and he didn't like that change. From what I can recall from reading his posts, he added rail storage blocks from 9 rails, Mending, a higher tier than diamond and 1.9's armor reduction system (but I could be wrong on that last one).
.
Plus, I already commented on a system that disproves this point. Most servers still use versions of 1.8 since quite a bit of the community despises the attack cooldown. But the attack cooldown is no different than lacking it (as I've already explained). So, by this logic, Mojang should add a gamerule to toggle it, right? But wait, it's already very easy to give yourself instant-attack weapons using commands alone. It'd also take way too much rebalancing for just a simple gamerule.
.
Saying players shouldn't have to mod in features that they want if it goes against the developers' wishes shows a gross lack of understanding and appreciation for the development cycle. There are people who have to code in all of these things and spend hours debugging and rebalancing them for us to enjoy. It's ultimately your choice to play Minecraft in the first place, let alone in the newest version. The devs were the ones who made that version, so they're the ones who control what goes into it. it's only fair since these are their jobs. If you don't like what they did with it, make your own changes! For instance, I've played Elder Scrolls for nearly a decade now. I love Morrowind and Oblivion's item durability system, but the majority hated it. So when they mainstreamed Skyrim for a wider audience and that feature didn't make the cut, I installed the Loot and Degradation mod to get the same result. At no time did I demand that Bethesda should cave in and readd it since Skyrim is ultimately theirs. I just took matters into my own hands. Oh, and in case you're wondering, I did a 20-second Google search and found a soldier villager mod for as late as 1.15.2. So it'll likely be updated soon. Please consider that before replying.
I already typed up a very long section about difficulty (since I'm odd and go out of order in my replying) including a wolf example, so I'm just going to say: this doesn't make the game more difficult. Villagers are expendable, and unless you can magically give them trades, the soldier villager's only purpose would be running off into battle. So if it dies, that's one less villager to run off into battle, and the world turns very very very very very slightly more difficult for the player.
I'm not sure you understand how difficulty works. Based on the logic of this statement, it would be reasonable to say that the game would be more difficult to play if Blazes attacked each other since there would be fewer opportunities for the player to earn blaze rods. That's not what it means, however. Difficulty, in terms of Minecraft, represents how dangerous the world (more specifically, mobs) are to players. In my example, that would be even easier since there would be fewer mobs for the player to kill. (Although, it certainly would be annoying to get blaze rods, but that doesn't entirely stop the player from separating the blazes and/or killing them faster with stronger gear.) And with your example, it would be even easier since soldier villagers would attack mobs that could potentially harm the player. And villagers are easy to breed. Way too easy. They're expendable at the minimum. It wouldn't be very hard for the player to gather up five or more and just sick them on everything.
Do you need any further proof? Zombie AI (the main mob that attacks villagers) is easily exploitable. Go into Creative mode. Spawn and tame 20 wolves. Spawn 64 zombies. Switch to Survival mode. Either let yourself be hit or punch a zombie and watch the wolves go to war. I did this and watched as all the zombies locked onto me. Each time I punched a zombie, it died within seconds. The only time my wolves took damage was when I accidentally punched them. I also did no partaking in the actual fight aside from punching zombies to antagonize the wolves against them. I didn't die once on Hard mode. Zombies, according to their very programming, will lock onto a player or a villager and not let go. And consider that fighting villagers would have to do more damage and have more health/armor than wolves since they are player-made. We can already equip Diamond armor to villagers with dispensers, and they do get all the effects the enchantments provide.
Still think it'd be harder to have soldier villagers rushing into battle for you instead of doing it yourself?
So you admit that your logic is "I want this, so it should be added". Gotcha.
Ah, so you admit that you're ignoring evidence that goes against your suggestion. Refusing to acknowledge a major flaw in your idea's design (that being players having the ability to obtain infinite villagers with virtually no work) is not "someone else's problem". Mobs that fight for the player have the potential to be abused. It's overpowered if you don't figure out some way to balance this. As headgames already suggested, there could be a hard cap for the number of soldier villagers that can leave bed at night. Or there can be a hard cap for how many soldier job sites that would even function per village. Alternatively, soldier villagers could lack any trades, therefore making it so they can't be locked into that profession forever with a single trade (like the entire premise for rolling Librarian enchantments).
If you want to have a genuine chance of swaying Mojang to change their stance on soldier villagers, then you need to start taking criticism seriously. I've given up on trying to convince you that Mojang won't sway their opinion and instead started moving towards suggesting rebalances of the new type or completely alternate mobs that could fill this role in addition to iron golems. However, seeing you laugh off criticism in every post is thinning my patience with you. So if you're going to keep ignoring genuine critiques and keep acting like "lol lmao they're salty they're losing an argument haha", then I guarantee you, a mod is going to come lock the thread for going off-topic one too many times.
End of my two-hour long post.
You're wasting your time. You disagreed initially because you claimed "devs don't want soldiers villagers" when I already addressed it in my original post, you just didn't read it. I have taken criticism seriously up to the point you are asking me to fix exploits in the game along with my suggestion and not reading my suggestions fully and making things up I clarified or never claimed. You're just looking for things that align with your viewpoint to boost your ego on a minecraft suggestion forum. I have offered reasonable counter-arguments to everything posted here.
You're asking so much of a suggestion when you can only write 1500 characters on the feedback website. Exploits exist and dev most likely already know, so no way I am not going to add all these miscellaneous mechanics that are irrelevant to the goal of my suggestion and clarify every little detail. You clearly have never used the feedback website lol. I can barely fit the stuff I already have.
You guys take this way to seriously. Find something else to do. I have actually put in more effort in revising my suggestion after arguing (e.g., acknowledging criticism) and thinking it through than most people here.
I repeat once more, my suggestion is for creation/roleplay endgoal by adding soldiers, not make the game harder or easier. I keep repeating myself and now I feel like a parrot lol. If it makes the game easier or harder was never my point, of course you ignored that. If it happens to make the game easier, so be it, it's not like it is very difficult to defend a village to begin with.
However, they both fill the same initial duty of protecting villagers from what would harm them. Therefore, they fill the same niche and fit into that second sentence: "unless you can point out the fact they are too similar." And they are too similar
Case number one for ridiculous criticism. Two things playing the same niche is not an argument for two things being too similar. You cannot interact with iron golems other than kill/heal them. What you're saying is like saying skeletons and spiders are too similar so we should remove one from the game because they play the same niche. Or diamond armor and iron armor play the same niche and iron armor should be removed from the game. What a ridiculous comment. This is why I stopped taking your criticism seriously.
Nevertheless, after you equip them and give them beds to sleep in, on those three nights they don't sleep, they are essentially iron golems.
Case number two. You ignore the fact my suggestion allows interaction with them and then claim therefore afterwards with these interactions removed, they are essentially iron golems. That is laughable. The interaction is the entire point of the suggestion. That's like saying a boat isn't really a boat, you just have to remove the boat, and therefore it is not a boat. Did you read the part where I suggested they can use arrows and bows? They can now shoot from afar. A golem does not shoot arrows last time I checked. Or did you read the part where they also can progress from leather armor > iron armor > diamond armor like the player? Did you read the part where the player can decide where they patrol? Yea, can't do that with an iron golem. Did you read the part where soldiers can ride horses? Iron golems can't. Can iron golems open doors? Nope. Do all villages have iron golems? Nope. Can you control iron golem spawn rate? Nope. Have a cookie for reading the part where the soldiers can follow you, too bad you then ignored it so that it is convenient to make your argument that the soldiers I am suggesting are therefore essentially iron golems just as you ignored everything else above lol.
I won't waste my time to point out the rest. And you wonder why I don't take your criticism seriously. I rest my case.
You said they've "obviously never used the feedback site", but they've been a member for over 6 years... they were even constructive and put in the commitment to try to adapt your suggestions into something more plausible for the current game. But, this is all futile anyways.
And, to the rest of this stupid mess, everyone is the good guy in their story. If it makes you feel better, if it really makes you feel superior by thinking you've won some pointless forum argument, if it appeases that egotistic fixation of winning by telling yourself you've "won", then go ahead, do so.
You're wasting your time. You disagreed initially because you claimed "devs don't want soldiers villagers" when I already addressed it in my original post, you just didn't read it. I have taken criticism seriously up to the point you are asking me to fix exploits in the game along with my suggestion and not reading my suggestions fully and making things up I clarified or never claimed. You're just looking for things that align with your viewpoint to boost your ego on a minecraft suggestion forum. I have offered reasonable counter-arguments to everything posted here.
You guys take this way to seriously. Find something else to do. I have actually put in more effort in revising my suggestion after arguing (e.g., acknowledging criticism) and thinking it through than most people here.
Have a cookie for reading the part where the soldiers can follow you, too bad you then ignored it so that it is convenient to make your argument that the soldiers I am suggesting are therefore essentially iron golems just as you ignored everything else above lol.
I won't waste my time to point out the rest. And you wonder why I don't take your criticism seriously. I rest my case.
It's clear that you'll never stop plainly insulting people for disagreeing, so this is my final post. I've tried to help. I spent hours and hours responding and trying to help you improve the idea to the point where Mojang might actually not immediately toss it away, but you keep going back to the same arguments. So:
1. My first post served two purposes. One, to bring to your attention that Mojang had already denied any idea about soldiers villagers. It's their game, and they don't have to include them if they don't want to. If you disagree, you have the option to become your own developer. Two, to reply to your statement that forcing villagers to be passive is pushing some peaceful ideology on people. That's not the case.
2. Minecraft is not a roleplaying game. I've spent thousands of hours in Elder Scrolls games for over a decade. I fell in love with Fallout 4 thanks to its settlement building and modded settlers so they were the way I wanted. But Minecraft wasn't built for fancy lore as you desire. The player still has options they can use on their own. I personally want to permanently lock up my villagers in my singleplayer world so they can't get into trouble and convert their village into a port. They'll have everything they need, and I can explain it due to my world having a dangerous cult of villages that I created of my own free will. I don't need soldier villagers since the Iron Golems will protect them. But villagers are ultimately pacifists. I urge you. Find a pacifist group in real life and ask if they'd be willing to toss aside their beliefs in exchange for protection. Logic dictates they'd most likely say no.
3. If you ever want suggestions to succeed, you need to stop insulting people. What specifically am I talking about? I edited everything out of the quote that didn't come across as condescending and made it seem as if you really only wanted an argument.
Jan, out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
It is not the case now, but I am arguing it could be as a suggestion. What is in the game now does not have to be official if it hasn't been thought through. Also, we could make it so that only naturally spawning zombie villagers/illagers can become soldiers, whereas existing villagers with a profession who became zombie and then cured will retain its old profession.
It already is too easy without the villagers being able to defend themselves. Adding villager soldiers is not about making the game easier, it is about creation/roleplay end-goal. You can always nerf the iron golem spawn rate again if villager soldiers are implemented. My idea is hopefully Mojang sees the potential in crafting a civilization of diverse races from all over minecraft for the creation/role-play end-goal, with Piglins, Illagers, Villagers, or even a new villager race etc. All with their own ways of life, some willing to defend your civilization, instead of the current "all villagers are pacifist from all over minecraft indefinitely and you cannot have any villager soldiers, and it must be that way without really any good reason".
Noticing a lot of people just skip reading my suggestions and replying with the wrong assumptions of what my suggestion is all about or things that has already been addressed in my original suggestion post. Please read the original suggestion fully before replying.
If it's already "too easy without the villagers being able to defend themselves", why make it easier? Unless you also want to ramp up the dangers villagers face to compensate for being able to create your own armies.
And, I'd say they're reading it thoroughly. Just, they're not agreeing, and it's easier to dismiss arguments as, "you just don't understaaand!"
Did I say to make it easier? You forgot to read again lol. You're mad because you keep losing arguments against me lol and now you're just making things up. Let it go lmao, it's just a minecraft suggestion. You don't like it, I get it, move on.
You didn't say to make it easier, but by making on-demand soldiers that just do the heavy lifting for you, isn't that easier than, say, doing the fighting yourself? How do you plan to compensate for this? By way of the exact method I mentioned, or what?
And no, I'm not mad, I'm rather amused, actually. Especially this fixation on wanting to "win" that you have.
There is no threat to villagers 99% of the time anyway. Adding one or two soldiers is not going to "make the game too easy". Villager soldiers are there mostly for creation/roleplay purposes, how many times am I repeating this. They would still get massacred during 5-level raids if you don't help them. They can still get killed if they fight too many mobs. You can nerf iron golem spawn rate if you're really that scared that villagers no longer have a threat when they already don't since they just run in-doors at night and nothing happens to them anyway.
In fact, by adding villager soldiers, as in the way I suggested (read my original post), you are making the game harder, because now there will be villager soldiers outside at night who can get killed by mobs. Although, they should be programmed to run in-doors at low HP.
And what if there's more than just "one or two"? As Jancrash pointed out, people will always exploit the easiest path, even to the point that there is nothing left for the player to do.
As I said before, there will come a point where the game is just standing atop a village wall, watching as you send droves of soldier villagers to die.
Now, this could be avoided by putting a limit on the number of soldiers possible depending on village population, but that could be abused by just making huge "villages" that are more akin to rat colonies in order to create armies proportionate to the population. (Note that, yes, golems spawn in this way, but the difference here is that villagers breed, so it would only be a matter of time before some player devices a villager breeder that churns out endless solders.)
Or, there could be a hard limit on the number of soldiers there could be in any one village. But, say you do make a large village. Then it would have a disproportionate number of soldiers relative to its population.
So you'll end up having to balance on the line between being Minecraft's Alexander the Great, or having the same problem you would if the soldiers didn't even exist, after your "one or two" soldiers die in the first wave anyways.
But in the end, no matter their number, they'll still be filling the same roll as golems, except with some extra gimmicks the player themself is already capable of. Though, that is if they are even capable of doing them at all as the current AI leaves much to be desired.
As for the soldiers actually making it harder, the risk of them dying because they wander off in the night sounds alot more annoying than challenging. I wouldn't be drawing up strategy as to where to place the soldier's guard station, I'd just be building a fence to coral them in like sheep so they don't fall into a hole or attract threats.
To bring this point back up, you never did acknowledge the dev's apparent intended gameplay design, after you simply dismissed it by claiming that I "only know how to parrot", again.
I literally addressed most of the stuff you just mentioned. The game already has tons of exploits, cobblestone generators, automated mob farms, automated iron golem farms, if you don't like it, don't make any of these things lol. That's how this game is played. You don't read very well do you?
I'm not sure it's me that's having the the problem reading here, as I'm literally quoting my first two sentences.
"Just don't do it" is also another thing that he pointed out as a horrible argument.
No, it's a great argument because minecraft allows you to do many things, some things certain people prefer over others, like how some people prefer creation/roleplay over exploration or like some people like creating mob farms and redstone mechanisms. If I don't want to build redstone mechanisms, I am not going to complain to devs to have them remove them from game, which is what you seem to be doing, complaining because you don't like what others like lol.
The exploit exist because of how villages are currently, not because of non-existent villager soldiers. This is why you can make iron golem farms. So your criticism does not apply. If you want, you can make a suggestion thread to fix villager exploits. This is a suggestion thread about creating villager soldiers and not about fixing exploits that already exist or a suggestion thread to fix all exploits and bugs in minecraft lmao.
Are you just dismissing my point that people always try to go the path of least resistance for a second time, or...?
And, how is convincing Mojang coming along?
I did not dismiss your claim that people find the easiest way to do things.
It is going better than expected because you help bump my thead lol.
Well, that's good to here, because I even found the quote that I kept try to remember! "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game.” -Soren Johnson. Here is a link, if you care to see an article discussing that quote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/henryvincent.uk/2018/09/13/optimising-the-fun-out-of-video-games/amp/
And, sadly, Mojang doesn't look at this site.
So what if Mojang doesn't look at this site? My main goal is to spread awareness for a creation/roleplay end-goal and refine my idea and then submit it to this website: https://feedback.minecraft.net/hc/en-us
If they reject it, oh well, it is their loss. I have other games to play.
What the Soren Johnson said is not entirely true. Creators/Role-players create their own game within a game and enjoy making cool buildings, they are not speed-runners (e.g., GTA 5 multiplayer private servers is now very popular for role-playing, people there don't try to find the fastest way to make money, they do what makes sense). They are not the same type of players who enjoy optimizing fun out of games. They might even take the longer route because it makes sense, e.g. building a cool medieval building in minecraft instead of just a dirt box. So that quote is an overt generalization. This is a sandbox game not world of warcraft or tomb raider.
Besides, having diverse minecraft cultures and races other than just pacifist villagers is more fun than what we have now. By actually appealing to creation/role-play crowd, you are attracting people who don't optimize fun out of the game, instead they are players who create a new game inside a game, do you understand?
There is certainly a great many players that would avoid such exploits, but there still would be the possibility. So, if that population to soldier ratio problem were solved, it'd certainly keep things in check better.
As for the varying cultures idea, I think that is what is hinted at by the different clothes and architectural styles, but they may be leaving it more as an empty slate for players to develop themselves. I don't know many other ways villagers could reflect cultural variation in, especially considering their notable lack of verbal communication.
If differing cultures were to be done, I'd worry that it might take a bit away from the player's own world building, but would possibly be negligible. But, if done, this concept could be more viable.
I don't think you've picked up thus far that insulting people who disagree with the idea and telling them that their logic is wrong because "you've already explained why it is" (even though your "100% foolproof arguments" make no sense either). In fact, I think I'll reply to them now:
Diamond armor is an upgrade to iron armor. Iron armor is an upgrade to leather. Diamond armor is stronger than both of them; however, you require iron tools to craft diamond armor, and since a player would logically craft iron armor alongside its set of tools, this is a case of progression and not redundancy.
I reread your suggestion, and now they just sound like iron golems with more maintenance. They only patrol at night, sure, and only once every three days. But you mentioned that three soldiers can use each weapon rack, which is a detail I somehow missed the first time. You also mentioned they can be turned into Rangers and made to follow the player endlessly which, again, is a detail I missed (although I assumed would naturally be in place). But their same purpose is to fight the mobs that attack villagers and nothing more (aside from roleplaying, which I'd argue isn't a huge focal point of Minecraft). Nevertheless, after you equip them and give them beds to sleep in, on those three nights they don't sleep, they are essentially iron golems.
You're right about them not being reskinned iron golems. However, they both fill the same initial duty of protecting villagers from what would harm them. Therefore, they fill the same niche and fit into that second sentence: "unless you can point out the fact they are too similar." And they are too similar.
1. Cured villagers are still villagers. Minecraft isn't a lore-based game unless the player creates their own lore, so I disagree that your statement makes for a good argument in favor of soldier villagers. I'd definitely disagree with illagers protecting villagers since each addition of illager hates villagers, so it appears to be a pattern.
It's almost like some people don't like playing with mods. It's also like mods can be updated over time to work in later versions or to add later version features to earlier versions. And finally, it's not like people can't play in older versions that have the features they want. Take a look at TheMasterCaver for instance. He still plays in the 1.6 versions since 1.7 nerfed caves and he didn't like that change. From what I can recall from reading his posts, he added rail storage blocks from 9 rails, Mending, a higher tier than diamond and 1.9's armor reduction system (but I could be wrong on that last one).
.
Plus, I already commented on a system that disproves this point. Most servers still use versions of 1.8 since quite a bit of the community despises the attack cooldown. But the attack cooldown is no different than lacking it (as I've already explained). So, by this logic, Mojang should add a gamerule to toggle it, right? But wait, it's already very easy to give yourself instant-attack weapons using commands alone. It'd also take way too much rebalancing for just a simple gamerule.
.
Saying players shouldn't have to mod in features that they want if it goes against the developers' wishes shows a gross lack of understanding and appreciation for the development cycle. There are people who have to code in all of these things and spend hours debugging and rebalancing them for us to enjoy. It's ultimately your choice to play Minecraft in the first place, let alone in the newest version. The devs were the ones who made that version, so they're the ones who control what goes into it. it's only fair since these are their jobs. If you don't like what they did with it, make your own changes! For instance, I've played Elder Scrolls for nearly a decade now. I love Morrowind and Oblivion's item durability system, but the majority hated it. So when they mainstreamed Skyrim for a wider audience and that feature didn't make the cut, I installed the Loot and Degradation mod to get the same result. At no time did I demand that Bethesda should cave in and readd it since Skyrim is ultimately theirs. I just took matters into my own hands.
Oh, and in case you're wondering, I did a 20-second Google search and found a soldier villager mod for as late as 1.15.2. So it'll likely be updated soon. Please consider that before replying.
I already typed up a very long section about difficulty (since I'm odd and go out of order in my replying) including a wolf example, so I'm just going to say: this doesn't make the game more difficult. Villagers are expendable, and unless you can magically give them trades, the soldier villager's only purpose would be running off into battle. So if it dies, that's one less villager to run off into battle, and the world turns very very very very very slightly more difficult for the player.
I'm not sure you understand how difficulty works. Based on the logic of this statement, it would be reasonable to say that the game would be more difficult to play if Blazes attacked each other since there would be fewer opportunities for the player to earn blaze rods. That's not what it means, however. Difficulty, in terms of Minecraft, represents how dangerous the world (more specifically, mobs) are to players. In my example, that would be even easier since there would be fewer mobs for the player to kill. (Although, it certainly would be annoying to get blaze rods, but that doesn't entirely stop the player from separating the blazes and/or killing them faster with stronger gear.) And with your example, it would be even easier since soldier villagers would attack mobs that could potentially harm the player. And villagers are easy to breed. Way too easy. They're expendable at the minimum. It wouldn't be very hard for the player to gather up five or more and just sick them on everything.
Do you need any further proof? Zombie AI (the main mob that attacks villagers) is easily exploitable. Go into Creative mode. Spawn and tame 20 wolves. Spawn 64 zombies. Switch to Survival mode. Either let yourself be hit or punch a zombie and watch the wolves go to war. I did this and watched as all the zombies locked onto me. Each time I punched a zombie, it died within seconds. The only time my wolves took damage was when I accidentally punched them. I also did no partaking in the actual fight aside from punching zombies to antagonize the wolves against them. I didn't die once on Hard mode. Zombies, according to their very programming, will lock onto a player or a villager and not let go. And consider that fighting villagers would have to do more damage and have more health/armor than wolves since they are player-made. We can already equip Diamond armor to villagers with dispensers, and they do get all the effects the enchantments provide.
Still think it'd be harder to have soldier villagers rushing into battle for you instead of doing it yourself?
So you admit that your logic is "I want this, so it should be added". Gotcha.
Ah, so you admit that you're ignoring evidence that goes against your suggestion. Refusing to acknowledge a major flaw in your idea's design (that being players having the ability to obtain infinite villagers with virtually no work) is not "someone else's problem". Mobs that fight for the player have the potential to be abused. It's overpowered if you don't figure out some way to balance this. As headgames already suggested, there could be a hard cap for the number of soldier villagers that can leave bed at night. Or there can be a hard cap for how many soldier job sites that would even function per village. Alternatively, soldier villagers could lack any trades, therefore making it so they can't be locked into that profession forever with a single trade (like the entire premise for rolling Librarian enchantments).
If you want to have a genuine chance of swaying Mojang to change their stance on soldier villagers, then you need to start taking criticism seriously. I've given up on trying to convince you that Mojang won't sway their opinion and instead started moving towards suggesting rebalances of the new type or completely alternate mobs that could fill this role in addition to iron golems. However, seeing you laugh off criticism in every post is thinning my patience with you. So if you're going to keep ignoring genuine critiques and keep acting like "lol lmao they're salty they're losing an argument haha", then I guarantee you, a mod is going to come lock the thread for going off-topic one too many times.
End of my two-hour long post.
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.
You're wasting your time. You disagreed initially because you claimed "devs don't want soldiers villagers" when I already addressed it in my original post, you just didn't read it. I have taken criticism seriously up to the point you are asking me to fix exploits in the game along with my suggestion and not reading my suggestions fully and making things up I clarified or never claimed. You're just looking for things that align with your viewpoint to boost your ego on a minecraft suggestion forum. I have offered reasonable counter-arguments to everything posted here.
You're asking so much of a suggestion when you can only write 1500 characters on the feedback website. Exploits exist and dev most likely already know, so no way I am not going to add all these miscellaneous mechanics that are irrelevant to the goal of my suggestion and clarify every little detail. You clearly have never used the feedback website lol. I can barely fit the stuff I already have.
You guys take this way to seriously. Find something else to do. I have actually put in more effort in revising my suggestion after arguing (e.g., acknowledging criticism) and thinking it through than most people here.
I repeat once more, my suggestion is for creation/roleplay endgoal by adding soldiers, not make the game harder or easier. I keep repeating myself and now I feel like a parrot lol. If it makes the game easier or harder was never my point, of course you ignored that. If it happens to make the game easier, so be it, it's not like it is very difficult to defend a village to begin with.
Case number one for ridiculous criticism. Two things playing the same niche is not an argument for two things being too similar. You cannot interact with iron golems other than kill/heal them. What you're saying is like saying skeletons and spiders are too similar so we should remove one from the game because they play the same niche. Or diamond armor and iron armor play the same niche and iron armor should be removed from the game. What a ridiculous comment. This is why I stopped taking your criticism seriously.
Case number two. You ignore the fact my suggestion allows interaction with them and then claim therefore afterwards with these interactions removed, they are essentially iron golems. That is laughable. The interaction is the entire point of the suggestion. That's like saying a boat isn't really a boat, you just have to remove the boat, and therefore it is not a boat. Did you read the part where I suggested they can use arrows and bows? They can now shoot from afar. A golem does not shoot arrows last time I checked. Or did you read the part where they also can progress from leather armor > iron armor > diamond armor like the player? Did you read the part where the player can decide where they patrol? Yea, can't do that with an iron golem. Did you read the part where soldiers can ride horses? Iron golems can't. Can iron golems open doors? Nope. Do all villages have iron golems? Nope. Can you control iron golem spawn rate? Nope. Have a cookie for reading the part where the soldiers can follow you, too bad you then ignored it so that it is convenient to make your argument that the soldiers I am suggesting are therefore essentially iron golems just as you ignored everything else above lol.
I won't waste my time to point out the rest. And you wonder why I don't take your criticism seriously. I rest my case.
You said they've "obviously never used the feedback site", but they've been a member for over 6 years... they were even constructive and put in the commitment to try to adapt your suggestions into something more plausible for the current game. But, this is all futile anyways.
And, to the rest of this stupid mess, everyone is the good guy in their story. If it makes you feel better, if it really makes you feel superior by thinking you've won some pointless forum argument, if it appeases that egotistic fixation of winning by telling yourself you've "won", then go ahead, do so.
It's clear that you'll never stop plainly insulting people for disagreeing, so this is my final post. I've tried to help. I spent hours and hours responding and trying to help you improve the idea to the point where Mojang might actually not immediately toss it away, but you keep going back to the same arguments. So:
1. My first post served two purposes. One, to bring to your attention that Mojang had already denied any idea about soldiers villagers. It's their game, and they don't have to include them if they don't want to. If you disagree, you have the option to become your own developer. Two, to reply to your statement that forcing villagers to be passive is pushing some peaceful ideology on people. That's not the case.
2. Minecraft is not a roleplaying game. I've spent thousands of hours in Elder Scrolls games for over a decade. I fell in love with Fallout 4 thanks to its settlement building and modded settlers so they were the way I wanted. But Minecraft wasn't built for fancy lore as you desire. The player still has options they can use on their own. I personally want to permanently lock up my villagers in my singleplayer world so they can't get into trouble and convert their village into a port. They'll have everything they need, and I can explain it due to my world having a dangerous cult of villages that I created of my own free will. I don't need soldier villagers since the Iron Golems will protect them. But villagers are ultimately pacifists. I urge you. Find a pacifist group in real life and ask if they'd be willing to toss aside their beliefs in exchange for protection. Logic dictates they'd most likely say no.
3. If you ever want suggestions to succeed, you need to stop insulting people. What specifically am I talking about? I edited everything out of the quote that didn't come across as condescending and made it seem as if you really only wanted an argument.
Jan, out.
Watch out for the crabocalypse. Some say the day will never come. But it will.
Feel free to drop by for a chat whenever.
If you'd like to talk with me about other games, here are a few I play.
Team Fortress 2
Borderlands series (Borderlands 2 is my favorite game, ever. TPS combat is a lot of fun and makes up for the lower-quality story, in my opinion)
Elder Scrolls series
Warframe (IGN is something like That_One_Flesh_Atronach)
Pokémon series (HGSS forever)
Rocket League
Fallout series
Left 4 Dead 2 (Boomer files always corrupt though)
SUPERHOT (SUPERHOT is the most innovative shooter I've played in years!)
Dead Rising series (Dead Rising 2 is one of my favorite games, and the 3rd was a lot of fun. 1st has poor survivor AI and the 4th is bad)
Just Cause series
Come to think of it, I mainly play fighting-based games.