Your idea is not really that creative. Long smelting times? Bucket of lava. Especially since the snapshot making it so you don't use a bucket. Flammable block? Netherrack. Pixel art? Black is covered by wool and obsidian. Storage? I doubt anyone gets a bunch of coal and does nothing with it. If you have too much, use it! It's not that hard. Oversuggested and uncreative.
Uncreative? As if every suggestion under the big square sun hasn't been said. The fact that many people are suggesting it means that it is a good idea that many people would want to see.
A Lava Bucket smelts 100 objects. That's an uneven number as far as stack size goes. It's inefficient.
The flammability was meant to mean that it would burn up like wool does, not so as to be used as a fireplace. This means keep it away from fire.
Nobody said anything about pixel art.
Nobody gets too much? Oh? I have 16 Furnaces and a large chest full of coal. None of that was hacked in. I have a very efficient way of mining, so I come out of my mineshaft with 3 stacks of coal easily. I built the furnaces to hold the extra.
There are gold blocks, but those are only used for decoration. Nobody ever brags about coming out of their mine with 3 stacks of gold. The coal blocks would at least have a function other than decoration or display of wealth.
There are mineral blocks for every mineral except coal and redstone, and redstone is mentioned in Already Posted. This may never be implemented anyway because now, people have downvoted it, and it will be dragged down by everyone who wants to wee on the head of the OP just for the Nether of it.
yes but you can only fit in one stack of something for the furnace
You would have your Sapling Furnace for small smelts (1-6), You'd have your standard Coal Furnace for multi-purpose smelting, and you'd have your Coal Block Furnace for large projects. Say, making massive amounts of Cobblestone into Stone for Stone Bricks?
Sorry if this is considered a double post, but I had to explain the usefulness of this feature.
I don't really see coal blocks as a good idea, because in real life coal is black, dusty, and goes everywhere. It's seen as a sign of poor people, but, as long as we do add it, why not make it emit black particles, and cause your character skin to look covered in soot after walking over, and have it not come off until contact with water? Make baths more than just decoration.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Free + Crabs + Ability to trample/suffocate opponents in Cortex Command = Free Bombs.
Uncreative? As if every suggestion under the big square sun hasn't been said. The fact that many people are suggesting it means that it is a good idea that many people would want to see.
A Lava Bucket smelts 100 objects. That's an uneven number as far as stack size goes. It's inefficient.
The flammability was meant to mean that it would burn up like wool does, not so as to be used as a fireplace. This means keep it away from fire.
Nobody said anything about pixel art.
Nobody gets too much? Oh? I have 16 Furnaces and a large chest full of coal. None of that was hacked in. I have a very efficient way of mining, so I come out of my mineshaft with 3 stacks of coal easily. I built the furnaces to hold the extra.
There are gold blocks, but those are only used for decoration. Nobody ever brags about coming out of their mine with 3 stacks of gold. The coal blocks would at least have a function other than decoration or display of wealth.
There are mineral blocks for every mineral except coal and redstone, and redstone is mentioned in Already Posted. This may never be implemented anyway because now, people have downvoted it, and it will be dragged down by everyone who wants to wee on the head of the OP just for the Nether of it.
No, coal blocks have been suggested before. Search. And the problem that you have with lots of coal won't really be fixed. You'll get more coal and just have a lot of blocks. And you really don't need a ridiculous amount of coal like that, if you need room, just get rid of it. And who the hell care about the inefficiency? Really it's all complete nitpicking. Lava buckets are fine for the big smelting jobs.
I don't really see coal blocks as a good idea, because in real life coal is black, dusty, and goes everywhere. It's seen as a sign of poor people, but, as long as we do add it, why not make it emit black particles, and cause your character skin to look covered in soot after walking over, and have it not come off until contact with water? Make baths more than just decoration.
I never really intended for them to be used as "decoration". I am aware that coal is dusty, dirty and undesirable to touch. My purpose for the block was to have an official mineral block for coal (as most minerals have respective blocks), to compress coal for better storage, (as coal is the most common mineral in Minecraft), and to make smelting more convenient (smelting a whole stack with one block. 8 Coal in a block, each smelting 8 things.)
The texture for it would be a Lapis Lazuli Block texture, turned black. The logs already do this. The Jungle Tree log texture is the Oak Tree log texture, turned sidewise and recolored.
I don't really see coal blocks as a good idea, because in real life coal is black, dusty, and goes everywhere. It's seen as a sign of poor people, but, as long as we do add it, why not make it emit black particles, and cause your character skin to look covered in soot after walking over, and have it not come off until contact with water? Make baths more than just decoration.
Omg. Yes.
I would use it to troll my friends on my private server.
If you get dusty
I think coal should also make you dusty.
Logic;
In reality when people come up from mines, they are dirty. I mean, why not? It's just a fun little thing. It's like the explosive furnace idea.
Baths... Finally make a use for them, no longer just decoration
To be honest I just thought this was another derp post about "we need another mineral block herp derp". But This is actually a very efficient idea. It would be easier to store our stacks of coal.
The recipe of 8 actually makes a whole lot of sense, since it would smelt exactly a stack and save chest space. I love the attribute of being highly flammable. It's coal after all, a common fossil fuel. Then, you got the low blast resistance. We kind of already got the black block taken care of with obsidian, but this would be more of greyish hue, rather than purple-ish.
I still say we need a Redstone block to, especially since you often get so much of it when looking for diamond. I also still say that Redstone blocks need to act like super extenders (20-25 blocks, instead of 15) that lack the timing ability of redstone repeaters. They're also slightly brighter when activated than redstone torches.
Edit: Wouldn't redstone blocks also have a low blast resistance?
"I don't plan to add a new dimension at the moment. It's just to performance heavy on servers, and the current dimensions need more attention before we start adding new ones." < Yeah, like biomes or actual varied terrain in the nether. Nether ruins didn't do the trick at all.
The recipe of 8 actually makes a whole lot of sense, since it would smelt exactly a stack and save chest space. I love the attribute of being highly flammable. It's coal after all, a common fossil fuel. Then, you got the low blast resistance. We kind of already got the black block taken care of with obsidian, but this would be more of greyish hue, rather than purple-ish.
The 8 coal really wouldn't need to be arranged in a box shape. Just put the 8 coal anywhere. It's not like they're planning coal chestplates anytime soon.
I was thinking about having the flammability so that it catches much more easily than wool, but takes a while to burn away.
Coal is brittle and dusty. It's only natural that a block made entirely out of coal would be blown up easily.
I never intended this block to be used in pixel art.
I was also thinking maybe that a Block of Coal would have a 1/512 chance of replacing 1 coal ore in a coal vein. This would make it the only mineral block to naturally generate.
Neat little idea here. I'm all for bettering storage of what I dig up down in my mines. I'm assuming the recipe for this coal block, since we're using 8 instead of 9, would be that of a chest or furnace except obviously with coal. +1.
I have two double-chests filled with coal. It's easily one of the most space-inefficient items in the game (besides redstone). I love the logic behind 8 to a block instead of the traditional 9; it combines functionality with compactability!
I don't care if I have too much unnecessary coal; I'm not the type to work with stone bricks or to smelt a lot of stuff to begin with. But I am a hoarder, and will keep every piece of coal whether I need it or not.
I think that you should use the standard 9 piece layout to make one block and that it should be slightly more efficient than 9 coal in non block form. 96 operations for the block as opposed to 72 in non block form.
if lapis,iron,diamond and gold all can be compressed into one block, why should't coal, i mean, i on average have a entire double box half filled with coal, so why not make it compressable.
perhaps some ideas:
placing multiple coal blocks in a small room will make the room dusty (thin black particles in the air, light looses 3 blocks efficiency)
Submerging a coal block in lava for a long time has a chance to yield a diamond ore.
To make diamonds from coal, you need 3 things: Heat, pressure, and time. Submerging coal in lava does fill the need of heat. But not the pressure. Also, it would take 90-100 million years in real life for this to occur. I decided to do the math myself, and this equates to 1.25 million years if scaled to minecraft. So... no diamonds from coal.
The texture would probably be similiar to Obsidian, and be easy to mistake for it. So I'm not sure about this idea. But if the texture was not an issue, I agree.
Neat little idea here. I'm all for bettering storage of what I dig up down in my mines. I'm assuming the recipe for this coal block, since we're using 8 instead of 9, would be that of a chest or furnace except obviously with coal. +1.
It would be interchangeable. The coal could go anywhere in the crafting grid, as long as there were 8 of them. They already do this with dyes and wool.
I think that you should use the standard 9 piece layout to make one block and that it should be slightly more efficient than 9 coal in non block form. 96 operations for the block as opposed to 72 in non block form.
My intention was to have it smelt exactly 64 blocks so none is wasted.
The texture would probably be similiar to Obsidian, and be easy to mistake for it. So I'm not sure about this idea. But if the texture was not an issue, I agree.
I tested a texture where I desaturated, darkened and raised the contrast on the Lapis Block texture. It's actually pretty good looking.
A Lava Bucket smelts 100 objects. That's an uneven number as far as stack size goes. It's inefficient.
The flammability was meant to mean that it would burn up like wool does, not so as to be used as a fireplace. This means keep it away from fire.
Nobody said anything about pixel art.
Nobody gets too much? Oh? I have 16 Furnaces and a large chest full of coal. None of that was hacked in. I have a very efficient way of mining, so I come out of my mineshaft with 3 stacks of coal easily. I built the furnaces to hold the extra.
There are gold blocks, but those are only used for decoration. Nobody ever brags about coming out of their mine with 3 stacks of gold. The coal blocks would at least have a function other than decoration or display of wealth.
There are mineral blocks for every mineral except coal and redstone, and redstone is mentioned in Already Posted. This may never be implemented anyway because now, people have downvoted it, and it will be dragged down by everyone who wants to wee on the head of the OP just for the Nether of it.
"Gotta blast!" ~Spongebob Squarepants
"Use the Force, Kirk!" ~ Ka D'Argo
Sorry if this is considered a double post, but I had to explain the usefulness of this feature.
"Gotta blast!" ~Spongebob Squarepants
"Use the Force, Kirk!" ~ Ka D'Argo
Free + Crabs + Ability to trample/suffocate opponents in Cortex Command = Free Bombs.
No, coal blocks have been suggested before. Search. And the problem that you have with lots of coal won't really be fixed. You'll get more coal and just have a lot of blocks. And you really don't need a ridiculous amount of coal like that, if you need room, just get rid of it. And who the hell care about the inefficiency? Really it's all complete nitpicking. Lava buckets are fine for the big smelting jobs.
The texture for it would be a Lapis Lazuli Block texture, turned black. The logs already do this. The Jungle Tree log texture is the Oak Tree log texture, turned sidewise and recolored.
"Gotta blast!" ~Spongebob Squarepants
"Use the Force, Kirk!" ~ Ka D'Argo
Omg. Yes.
I would use it to troll my friends on my private server.
If you get dusty
I think coal should also make you dusty.
Logic;
In reality when people come up from mines, they are dirty. I mean, why not? It's just a fun little thing. It's like the explosive furnace idea.
Baths... Finally make a use for them, no longer just decoration
I fully support this.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1401777-earn-a-good-or-evil-reputation-with-the-villagers/
Click here if you support more interaction with the Villagers!
I still say we need a Redstone block to, especially since you often get so much of it when looking for diamond. I also still say that Redstone blocks need to act like super extenders (20-25 blocks, instead of 15) that lack the timing ability of redstone repeaters. They're also slightly brighter when activated than redstone torches.
Edit: Wouldn't redstone blocks also have a low blast resistance?
I was thinking about having the flammability so that it catches much more easily than wool, but takes a while to burn away.
Coal is brittle and dusty. It's only natural that a block made entirely out of coal would be blown up easily.
I never intended this block to be used in pixel art.
I was also thinking maybe that a Block of Coal would have a 1/512 chance of replacing 1 coal ore in a coal vein. This would make it the only mineral block to naturally generate.
"Gotta blast!" ~Spongebob Squarepants
"Use the Force, Kirk!" ~ Ka D'Argo
Forum lurker. (^-^)b
I have two double-chests filled with coal. It's easily one of the most space-inefficient items in the game (besides redstone). I love the logic behind 8 to a block instead of the traditional 9; it combines functionality with compactability!
I don't care if I have too much unnecessary coal; I'm not the type to work with stone bricks or to smelt a lot of stuff to begin with. But I am a hoarder, and will keep every piece of coal whether I need it or not.
This should certainly be added.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1283939-legitcraft-mod/page__pid__15683001#entry15683001
To make diamonds from coal, you need 3 things: Heat, pressure, and time. Submerging coal in lava does fill the need of heat. But not the pressure. Also, it would take 90-100 million years in real life for this to occur. I decided to do the math myself, and this equates to 1.25 million years if scaled to minecraft. So... no diamonds from coal.
The texture would probably be similiar to Obsidian, and be easy to mistake for it. So I'm not sure about this idea. But if the texture was not an issue, I agree.
My intention was to have it smelt exactly 64 blocks so none is wasted.
I don't want a mod.
I tested a texture where I desaturated, darkened and raised the contrast on the Lapis Block texture. It's actually pretty good looking.
"Gotta blast!" ~Spongebob Squarepants
"Use the Force, Kirk!" ~ Ka D'Argo
That way using a coal block in a furnace would cost you one coal in exchange for easier smelting.
Coal blocks are a great idea.best idea on this page
Note. This account is deprecated due to past bigotry in posts that cannot be deleted.