Before I suggest specifics, here’s what this idea isn’t:
I’m not suggesting that the player be able to command golems at will—that would be way too powerful. Any system for controlling golems would have to be something you build, and something that takes some effort to set up.
It isn’t a way to control golems in general. Snow golems have a pumpkin for a head, do you really think they’d be much good at following instructions?
It’s not a suggestion to give golems elaborate AI. Rather, just let them execute some basic instructions given to them, RoboRally style (not too computationally difficult or expensive).
With that out of the way let’s talk about what I’d like to see and then possible ways of implementing it. (The two are separate: it might be a great idea even if my implementation suggestions don’t work.)
So first, what I’d like to see: you should be able to give golems instructions so that instead of just wandering around and getting in fights at random, they could walk appointed rounds, get in fights when you want them to, and possibly even do a little useful work.
Can you imagine how cool it would be to have walls patrolled by golem sentries? How about a trap that makes still golems suddenly become active and hostile when triggered? How about a system that can dispatch golems to different parts of your fortress? How about automating that system with redstone?
Ok, that sounds great, you say, but how can it be done simply and realistically? I have several implementation ideas:
Simple idea:
My core idea is that golems could be guided by special blocks inset in the floor. At the most simple, this system could consist of two special blocks: the pointer block and the circle block. (I had envisioned these as looking rather like the circle stone brick: an unassuming stone block with a pattern on the top.)
Pointer blocks would have a triangle on the top which pointed in one direction; they could be placed facing different ways, like a pumpkin. When a golem walked over one it would then turn and walk in whatever direction the triangle points in for eight blocks. If it ran into another instruction block it would follow it, if not it would return to random motion.
Circle blocks would be similar, but with a circle on top (yes, circle stone blocks could be used for that). When a golem walked over one of these it would pause for a short period of time, perhaps 20 seconds, before returning to whatever it was already doing.
crafting ideas
pointer (x3)
circle (x3)
More complex idea
The above would allow for golems to be sent specific places and to march in patterns. Via pressure plates they coud interact with some machines. But what about more complex behaviors?
One idea would be to just add more instruction blocks. Perhaps golems could have a short instruction memory; if they were walking in a direction and passed over several other (non-directional) instruction blocks they would load those instructs into memory for later execution.
This could allow for conditional behavior (if ___ then ___ instructions) and all sorts of other stuff. But it has three key drawbacks:
(1) it would add a huge number of new blocks to the game, which would be inelegant. The crafting recipes alone would be a pain to remember.
(2) It would be complex, and require some programming concepts. Some people, like me, won’t mind that, but I suspect it would be a hindrance to many.
(3) it wouldn’t allow for programs to adjust to circumstances, at least not easily. You couldn’t easily make a redstone machine to change the instructions given to golems. It could be done with pistons, but it would be byzantine.
An idea I like better is to give further instructions via sound. Specifically, while a golem is pause over a circle a nearby note block sounding would be interpreted as an instruction. Potentially, these instructions could be given in short chains.
This solves at least two of the above problems: it adds no new blocks, and it would make it easy for golem behavior to be adjusted by fairly simple redstone machines.
This would be a complex system, and I haven't worked out a detailed proposal, but here is an initial thought about what instructions there might be if anyone is interested
note-instruction F# - pause until further notice (puts golem on standby as it were) G - turn left G# - turn right A - proceed forward A# - attack animals! (ie,become briefly hostile to whatever non-hostile mobs are handy--this could lead to violence against cows, but it's a risk I'm willing to take...) B - attack players! (same as above but for player characters) C - pick up/give function (a way to use the golem's flower giving capability) C# - flip switch (golem will flip the next switch it passes) D - return to this point (mainly useful for IF statements)
D# - wander (golem goes back to wandering, but retains IF instructions) E - end instuction (golem goes back to wandering as normal) F - IF operator (followed by two more so that if some condition is met the golem then does something. My thought is that if operators would stay in memory until cleared by and end instruction. Also, for economy, the same notes would mean different things when used as conditions. Thus F-G-A# could mean if you see a cow get hostile. You could then issue an A to send your golem on his way, ready to be hostile to cows. This isn't all silly thought: you could get a golem, for instance, to stay in place and flip a switch when it sees a player.)
So, what say you? Do you like the idea of golem control? Do you like one of these methods for making it happen?
I support, though this thread is a LOT like one I made a while back. (Though it was for a stone golem type, so villagers could still have their wandering iron golem without having conflicts with golem programming stuff made by players.) All in all I think that we should have some way to control golems, to an extent. (For instance that redstone powered trap or golems patrolling one's fortress)
I support, though this thread is a LOT like one I made a while back. (Though it was for a stone golem type, so villagers could still have their wandering iron golem without having conflicts with golem programming stuff made by players.) All in all I think that we should have some way to control golems, to an extent. (For instance that redstone powered trap or golems patrolling one's fortress)
Could you post a link to your thread so I could take a look?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm supporting this cool indie comic. Take a look:
Hmm, interesting ideas. Well, our suggestions do share some things, but they certainly don't duplicate each-other. (For one thing, my idea allows for both left turns and u-turns. For another, I propose no new types of Golem, and drastically fewer new blocks.)
I like the idea of a golem with a furnace at his core (I've been reading steampunk fiction)--I was sad when I found you didn't actually mean that part.
I hate how Golems can only be spawned 1 in 7000. It makes me so angry. In all of the years I've been playing Minecraft, and ever since they added the Iron Golem, I've only spawned it once. It makes me really REALLY mad. RAGING WITH ANGER MAD.
I hate how Golems can only be spawned 1 in 7000. It makes me so angry. In all of the years I've been playing Minecraft, and ever since they added the Iron Golem, I've only spawned it once. It makes me really REALLY mad. RAGING WITH ANGER MAD.
But you do know that you can build them, right? If you make your own then you don't need to worry about them spawning.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm supporting this cool indie comic. Take a look:
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Image source: http://mu-wo.de/page/?p=673
Before I suggest specifics, here’s what this idea isn’t:
- I’m not suggesting that the player be able to command golems at will—that would be way too powerful. Any system for controlling golems would have to be something you build, and something that takes some effort to set up.
- It isn’t a way to control golems in general. Snow golems have a pumpkin for a head, do you really think they’d be much good at following instructions?
- It’s not a suggestion to give golems elaborate AI. Rather, just let them execute some basic instructions given to them, RoboRally style (not too computationally difficult or expensive).
With that out of the way let’s talk about what I’d like to see and then possible ways of implementing it. (The two are separate: it might be a great idea even if my implementation suggestions don’t work.)So first, what I’d like to see: you should be able to give golems instructions so that instead of just wandering around and getting in fights at random, they could walk appointed rounds, get in fights when you want them to, and possibly even do a little useful work.
Can you imagine how cool it would be to have walls patrolled by golem sentries? How about a trap that makes still golems suddenly become active and hostile when triggered? How about a system that can dispatch golems to different parts of your fortress? How about automating that system with redstone?
Ok, that sounds great, you say, but how can it be done simply and realistically? I have several implementation ideas:
Circle blocks would be similar, but with a circle on top (yes, circle stone blocks could be used for that). When a golem walked over one of these it would pause for a short period of time, perhaps 20 seconds, before returning to whatever it was already doing.
crafting ideas
pointer (x3)
circle (x3)
This could allow for conditional behavior (if ___ then ___ instructions) and all sorts of other stuff. But it has three key drawbacks:
This solves at least two of the above problems: it adds no new blocks, and it would make it easy for golem behavior to be adjusted by fairly simple redstone machines.
This would be a complex system, and I haven't worked out a detailed proposal, but here is an initial thought about what instructions there might be if anyone is interested
note-instruction
F# - pause until further notice (puts golem on standby as it were)
G - turn left
G# - turn right
A - proceed forward
A# - attack animals! (ie,become briefly hostile to whatever non-hostile mobs are handy--this could lead to violence against cows, but it's a risk I'm willing to take...)
B - attack players! (same as above but for player characters)
C - pick up/give function (a way to use the golem's flower giving capability)
C# - flip switch (golem will flip the next switch it passes)
D - return to this point (mainly useful for IF statements)
D# - wander (golem goes back to wandering, but retains IF instructions)
E - end instuction (golem goes back to wandering as normal)
F - IF operator (followed by two more so that if some condition is met the golem then does something. My thought is that if operators would stay in memory until cleared by and end instruction. Also, for economy, the same notes would mean different things when used as conditions. Thus F-G-A# could mean if you see a cow get hostile. You could then issue an A to send your golem on his way, ready to be hostile to cows. This isn't all silly thought: you could get a golem, for instance, to stay in place and flip a switch when it sees a player.)
So, what say you? Do you like the idea of golem control? Do you like one of these methods for making it happen?
Hmm, interesting ideas. Well, our suggestions do share some things, but they certainly don't duplicate each-other. (For one thing, my idea allows for both left turns and u-turns. For another, I propose no new types of Golem, and drastically fewer new blocks.)
I like the idea of a golem with a furnace at his core (I've been reading steampunk fiction)--I was sad when I found you didn't actually mean that part.