I think that's a bad comparison, as dirt isn't something you interact with and "do."
When I'm being attacked by a Creeper, I generally have two options (besides running away); I can build a wall and keep it from getting to me, or I can kill it. There's so many different thing I can build a wall of, but only two things I can kill it with.
There are three different kinds of logs, and as far as I can tell, stone and cobblestone are interchangeable. Why, then, are we forced to use one kind of ranged weapon?
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
::Quote from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
I already answered this question earlier in the thread: Guns make a better noise and you get to yell at zombies: "Alright, you undead screwheads, listen up! This is my boomstick!"
And isn't making awesome but impractical things pretty much what Minecraft is all about?
I have to admit, I find this argument completely convincing. If we can get an actual sound-clip of that by Bruce Campbell, then I'm 100% in favor of adding guns to Minecraft. I'm not kidding, and I think he'd do it at rates Mojang can afford, too.
New options should be entirely new methods of dealing with the problem, not iteration on the same thing.
By that logic, there should also be only one melee weapon. How then do you account for the five different types of swords with different damages and durabilities?
I account for it as one of the exceptions to the "with few exceptions, everything in minecraft adds something unique" thing I said before. It's does contribute to the mineral progression, but the game really doesn't need more of this kind of thing. If we were talking about adding a new kind of sword that was the same only with tweaked stats and made of some new mineral, I'd say "No, this is a terrible idea" by the same logic.
Right, because little holes in stone walls that spit arrows are the pinnacle of creativity. I haven't been seeing those in movies and games for the past thirty years. Does your kill-zone include a small golden idol of an Aztec god?
As something placed by the hero/player? Yeah I'm betting not that much, actually. Mostly Dungeon Siege/Tower Defense style games, unless we're talking about Player vs Environment type of games like Prince of Persia where the arrow trap is trying to kill you. The fact that we have to look at movies or games in completely different genres shows why this is a more original idea than guns. How far from a game featuring combat against monsters do you have to go to find guns? None far, is how far.
On the analog scale of originality, the difference between Derp a Gun and Player-built death traps is clear. To me at least. It's just my opinion, but I'm shocked people keep thinking guns are such a great idea for a game as unique as Minecraft.
On the analog scale of originality, the difference between Derp a Gun and Player-built death traps is clear. To me at least. It's just my opinion, but I'm shocked people keep thinking guns are such a great idea for a game as unique as Minecraft.
Because my purchase of MineCraft was based entirely on how original it is.
I've never played a game where you can use a flintlock rifle, and if you have, no one has ever heard of it, so one one is going to make one and claim "Ugh, every game needs a gun from the 1600s these days!"
But that's not my point. Originality is all well and good, but a game about being a newspaper would be original, too. Original and boring. At the end of the day, fun > original. Each and every person has their own idea of what "winning" MineCraft is, and mine is sitting on my roof, eating wheat bread, and taking pot-shots at skeletons with my rifle.
I think we've already provided ample ways for it to be balanced. I refuse to accept "it doesn't fit the theme" since MineCraft's theme is walking-shrub-things-that-exist-entirely-to-make-you-cry-are-trying-to-explode-on-you, and smeg if I know where all these zombies are coming from when there's no people. I can't imagine it would be difficult to implement, and the "if you don't like it, ignore it" argument I hear used for wolves all the time applies 100 fold, since, unlike wolves, a rifle will only exist if you make it so. I'm not seeing any reason not to add rifles, only reasons people wouldn't use them if they were.
Quote from Sordid_Dreams »
Anything is instantly improved by at least 80% with the addition of a gun. Anything. That's a scientifically proven fact.
"POWERTHIRST! Now in three new flavors: Manana, FizzBitch, and GUN!"
"Shoot stuff, but at a slower rate and without having to compensate for gravity" is the same thing as we already have only simpler.
I don't think you've been paying attention. There's a lot more to it than that, I suggest you re-read the thread.
Oh yeah, maybe you have to re-craft it on the fly to reload it. Yay. What else is going on? Could summarize the many gameplay virtues of guns for me, because all I'm hearing is *yawn*.
Swords. If there's a weapon more banal, bland, and overdone than guns, the sword has got to be it.
Bows. The other half of the Standard Medieval Armory™.
Arrow-filled dispenser: Staple of adventure films and every single fantasy RPG released in the past 30 years.
Burying enemies in sand Yogscast style: Fairly original, but I wouldn't call it awesome by any stretch. Tedious would be more like it.
Pouring lava on enemies: Basically the same as the previous method, with the added benefits of being equally dangerous to yourself and destroying any drops.
Blowing enemies up with TNT: Making stuff go boom doesn't strike me as shockingly original either.
Using wolves: Nope, plenty of games have various minions that you can have fight your battles for you.
Using TNT and a wall of lava to kill enemies with a rain of flaming arrows: Original, but so shockingly impractical that I wouldn't call it a way of killing enemies at all. It's more a way of making a rain of flaming arrows, the enemy is there merely to provide a convenient excuse to press the big red button. As if one is needed.
That's all I can think of off the top of my head. Your turn.
There's also sealing enemies off and forgetting about them, and pulling them off cliffs, into lava, or simply to places they can't reach you with the fishing rod. Just off the top of my head.
Swords are admittedly quite common and banal, and that they're the only melee weapon (with multiple flavors) is an example of how simplistic the combat in Minecraft is. I accept that this is an existent part of the game, but I hardly think this is an example to be replicated! "Der, but swords are equally boring!" is hardly an excuse to add another banal thing to the game!
Everything else you mentioned is more interesting and original than guns. Even bows! And that's not saying much! It gets better from there, and killing enemies is only one aspect of Minecraft!
Like pouring lava on them. It is a benefit that lava has extreme destructive force, but also presents a danger to you, but which isn't cheap and can be reasonably mitigated. You said that sarcastically, but that's just another example of the actual game mechanics beating out the imagination of everyone who wants guns. And arrow dispensers? How often have you wanted to be the one making the deadly arrow trap when movies and games only showed the protagonist as the victim? Yeah, even if it's not completely 100% original, it has "shoot it with guns" beat by miles.
If we can get an actual sound-clip of that by Bruce Campbell, then I'm 100% in favor of adding guns to Minecraft.
Yeeeaaah, that'll happen.
Hey, anything is possible! Maybe.
Hm, so five swords with progression is okay, but two kinds of ranged weapons with progression would be too much of the same? Sorry, that just doesn't make any sense to me.
It's "okay" because it's already in the game, so tolerable. We don't need more of it. Even if you disagree, why doesn't that makes sense? "I don't think a game's most unoriginal and banal elements justify the addition of more of the same" seems like a very sensible position to me.
I don't see what difference it makes which side the arrow trap is on. It's still the same pressure plate-activated arrow trap that Indy didn't fall for even 30 years ago, and I don't see it getting any more original these days.
Really? You don't see any difference between avoiding traps and placing traps? Fighting a tank, and driving a tank? Between God of War where you fight Gods, and Populous, where you play a God? God! Ha! How unoriginal! What a cliche that game was!
Anything is instantly improved by at least 80% with the addition of a gun. Anything. That's a scientifically proven fact.
Well I can't argue with science. But my catheter didn't feel 80% better when a gun was added. :sad.gif:
Only if it were an extremely primitive (at best a flintlock type) rifle. I have played with SDK's mod enough to know that the "guns" people normally think of would be way overpowered to fit minecraft, and do they go with the theme.
No, I couldn't. I've been up all night (consider that an excuse for the mild crankiness), if you can't be bothered to at least read the thread before jumping in and telling everyone that they're wrong, then I can't be bothered to re-type what I spent the last four hours typing.
It's okay, you don't have to summarize it, I've read it, it's boring.
See, I wanted you to give me examples of the awesome ways to kill enemies that you claim exist, not try to convince me that the lame ways I've already mentioned aren't all that lame. That especially doesn't work if then at the end you admit that yeah, they are pretty unoriginal. Can you think of any other ways to kill enemies than the ones I've already mentioned, regardless of originality?
Yes, I already did, read my post.
And if you aren't interested in degrees of originality, taking into account the context, then this is just mental masturbation because nothing is completely original.
But I love that you think all those different ways of killing enemies that you yourself mentioned (and the additional ones I did) are lame, but think guns aren't and would be a great addition, loads of fun and originality. Or not? Is your argument that it's no more stupid than anything else so why not? Are you really saying that every way of killing enemies in Minecraft is stupid, but you also really care about killing enemies in Minecraft so yet another stupid way is great? WTF?
Not that that has anything to do with anything. Like I said, I don't see what difference it makes which side the arrow trap is on. It's still the same arrow trap. By your logic, a WW2 first person shooter where you can play as - le gasp! - a Wehrmacht solder would be shockingly original, since so far we've only been shown the Allied viewpoint.
In terms of gameplay, using something versus fighting against something are quite different.
If the weapons are roughly equivalent, then there isn't much difference between playing as the Allies or the Axis. Though the first game that let you play as a Wehrmacht soldier, which happened long ago, was breaking some new ground. Not so much in gameplay, though, so it's not a relevant example.
No, in terms of gameplay, it's the difference between fighting a tank, and piloting a tank. Surely you comprehend that this is different in terms of gameplay.
There's also sealing enemies off and forgetting about them, So, like, you're burying them. Maybe in sand? Yeah, that was mentioned, and almost always a terrible idea. and pulling them off cliffs, into lava, or simply to places they can't reach you with the fishing rod. That's both situational, and kind of boring, though, I will admit, hitting them with your sword off a cliff can be satisfying. Just off the top of my head.
Swords are admittedly quite common and banal, and that they're the only melee weapon (with multiple flavors) is an example of how simplistic the combat in Minecraft is. I accept that this is an existent part of the game, but I hardly think this is an example to be replicated! "Der, but swords are equally boring!" is hardly an excuse to add another banal thing to the game! No, it would be replicated if each type of sword did different damage, and had different attack speeds, and maybe ranges. If you've ever played an RPG, you would know if you're a big, heavy two-handed axe guy, a quick-and-dexterous dagger kind of man, or a good ol' fashion sword dude. If bullets arced and had low damage, I would agree with you, but what we suggest is similar to the bow only in that it's ranged. You really can't say "It's too samey!" when it is, in fact, as less samey as you can possibly get when adding a new ranged weapon.
Everything else you mentioned is more interesting and original than guns. Even bows! And that's not saying much! It gets better from there, and killing enemies is only one aspect of Minecraft! And building is the other aspect. That's two aspects. You kill monsters, and use their stuff to build. If you include mining as a stand alone aspect, it's still three. All kinds of farming, from trees to animals to crops, is four. However, I hesitate to count mining and farming as aspects at all; I hardly ever mine, and some people never farm, while building and fighting are both totally unavoidable. So, yes, it's only one aspect, but a major aspect.
Like pouring lava on them. It is a benefit that lava has extreme destructive force, but also presents a danger to you, but which isn't cheap and can be reasonably mitigated. You said that sarcastically, but that's just another example of the actual game mechanics beating out the imagination of everyone who wants guns. I honestly have no idea what you're talking about here. Pouring lava on them is better than a slow reloading gun, because it requires you to think about the situation? Isn't that exactly why we suggested having to craft each bullet? And arrow dispensers? How often have you wanted to be the one making the deadly arrow trap when movies and games only showed the protagonist as the victim? Never. I have one dispenser, which I filled with stone pick axes for when mine breaks. I never find myself in a situation where I need to set up a trap for monsters; If there's somewhere I don't want them, I use a wall and a door. If they were smart enough to open doors, then maybe I would rig a booby trap, but otherwise, no. Yeah, even if it's not completely 100% original, it has "shoot it with guns" beat by miles.It seems to me that you're not actually against the prospect of adding a new weapon to the game, but rather to adding guns specifically, to which I ask, why? Are you worried simply adding guns will turn the game into a samey FPS? If that were going to happen, it would have happened when bows were introduced, whenever that was, but guns have an even less likely chance of causing this, since they're even more difficult to make. Are you just against guns because you don't like guns? I don't like swords, but I'm not asking anyone to swap them out with clubs or battle axes or something.
I like MineCraft's combat. I like just clicking things until they die. Guns wouldn't change that formula, they would simply add a pinch of variety to it.
Mob difficulty is just about right with the level of weapons we currently have. Any more powerful weapons won't be necessary until there are deadlier mobs in the game.
Mob difficulty is just about right with the level of weapons we currently have. Any more powerful weapons won't be necessary until there are deadlier mobs in the game.
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnno.
Once you require the player to use a gun through way of difficulty, it becomes a problem. You don't have to use a sword if you like using a bow, and vice versa. MineCraft should never force the player to use any one method.
I'd like it to go on record that, in many ways, a crossbow is stronger than a gun. Most of the actual damage of the gun is caused by the bullet wedging itself into the body and tearing muscle as the person tried to move. Since a crossbow bolt is a lot bigger than a bullet, it would be a lot more powerful in this aspect.
AFAIK, guns and bullets replaced crossbows and bolts because they could pierce the armour of the day. Crossbow bolts could pierce armour but bullets did it much more consistently. It was also much easier to train the soldiers of the time to fire guns in rank formation than to train archers.
EDIT: The Europa Barbarorum mod for MII:TW has some great historical information on this.
I'm sorry, but if guns were implemented Minecraft's overzealous durability system would NOT work for them. You keep a firearm properly maintained it's going to last you thousands of rounds. Even muskets and blunderbusses would last you hundreds.
Thank you jack, I am well aware that any REAL properly maintained firearm will last (almost) forever, and for hundreds of thousands of rounds. I offered this as a suggestion due to the fact that many people think that guns are overpowered, and that it might be a way to offset that. Even a blunderbuss might be too much for minecraft, It was only a suggestion. (but thank you for making sure that I know what I was talking about)
Apologies for the delay in response.
My initial comments on durability were not directed at you in any form of personal attack. As mentioned, I sometimes feel the durability limits in Minecraft can be restrictive and indeed overzealous. I never attempted to insinuate an ignorance of general firearm knowledge on your part. The "I'm sorry" beginning to my post was probably interpreted as patronizing, but I meant it for durability as an idea.
I'm getting close to rambling, so let me reiterate that I didn't mean anything against you. As such your scathing response worried me, and I just wanted to clear the air.
I'm not really grasping the "doesn't fit Minecraft's feel" argument. Let's assume for a moment that it IS medieval (which I don't agree with). As someone else said, there were plenty of smoothbore guns during those times.
Another argument is that they're too simple because they're hitscan weapons. Why does this have to be the case? I figured if guns were implemented, they'd be projectile-based just like bows, but maybe with a flatter arc.
I think guns should be fairly inaccurate, less so than bows. This would make historical sense, as trained longbowmen could be more accurate than musketeers.
As for the timer vs. inventory reload, I favor the inventory reload. Yes it does obscure the player's view, but this adds to the balance, and it would be a lot easier to implement than a timer.
Hmmm... Though I'm against guns, if they were implemented I would like revolver type ones. Wait! Don't attak me yet!
I think that if guns were not strong, they would be nice. Think Dungeon Fighter. All the gunners' weapons are weaker than a good ol' sword.
Why don't we make guns have like one half heart of attack, make the bullets expensive, and keep the bow attack restriction( the red time that protects spamming arrows). Make the guns have a cooltime every 10 bullets or so. Make five bullets from one ingot. Make a gun consist of iron BLOCKs.
I think if this is done, the gun will become an unused underpowered relic.
I feel like minecraft could have guns, but not like AK 47s, snipers, and all that modern stuff. I think the extent for guns would be around the 1500s (or the Middle Ages) like muskets, firearms, or even (getting off track) cannons.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from Winterz »
I AM YELLING IN CAPS TO ASSERT MY DOMINANCE OVER THE INTERNET! I ONLY READ A COUPLE POSTS AND DO NOT CARE! FEAR MY DOMINANCE!
When I'm being attacked by a Creeper, I generally have two options (besides running away); I can build a wall and keep it from getting to me, or I can kill it. There's so many different thing I can build a wall of, but only two things I can kill it with.
There are three different kinds of logs, and as far as I can tell, stone and cobblestone are interchangeable. Why, then, are we forced to use one kind of ranged weapon?
https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/index.jsp
::Quote from The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
I have to admit, I find this argument completely convincing. If we can get an actual sound-clip of that by Bruce Campbell, then I'm 100% in favor of adding guns to Minecraft. I'm not kidding, and I think he'd do it at rates Mojang can afford, too.
I account for it as one of the exceptions to the "with few exceptions, everything in minecraft adds something unique" thing I said before. It's does contribute to the mineral progression, but the game really doesn't need more of this kind of thing. If we were talking about adding a new kind of sword that was the same only with tweaked stats and made of some new mineral, I'd say "No, this is a terrible idea" by the same logic.
As something placed by the hero/player? Yeah I'm betting not that much, actually. Mostly Dungeon Siege/Tower Defense style games, unless we're talking about Player vs Environment type of games like Prince of Persia where the arrow trap is trying to kill you. The fact that we have to look at movies or games in completely different genres shows why this is a more original idea than guns. How far from a game featuring combat against monsters do you have to go to find guns? None far, is how far.
On the analog scale of originality, the difference between Derp a Gun and Player-built death traps is clear. To me at least. It's just my opinion, but I'm shocked people keep thinking guns are such a great idea for a game as unique as Minecraft.
Because my purchase of MineCraft was based entirely on how original it is.
I've never played a game where you can use a flintlock rifle, and if you have, no one has ever heard of it, so one one is going to make one and claim "Ugh, every game needs a gun from the 1600s these days!"
But that's not my point. Originality is all well and good, but a game about being a newspaper would be original, too. Original and boring. At the end of the day, fun > original. Each and every person has their own idea of what "winning" MineCraft is, and mine is sitting on my roof, eating wheat bread, and taking pot-shots at skeletons with my rifle.
I think we've already provided ample ways for it to be balanced. I refuse to accept "it doesn't fit the theme" since MineCraft's theme is walking-shrub-things-that-exist-entirely-to-make-you-cry-are-trying-to-explode-on-you, and smeg if I know where all these zombies are coming from when there's no people. I can't imagine it would be difficult to implement, and the "if you don't like it, ignore it" argument I hear used for wolves all the time applies 100 fold, since, unlike wolves, a rifle will only exist if you make it so. I'm not seeing any reason not to add rifles, only reasons people wouldn't use them if they were.
"POWERTHIRST! Now in three new flavors: Manana, FizzBitch, and GUN!"
https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/index.jsp
Oh yeah, maybe you have to re-craft it on the fly to reload it. Yay. What else is going on? Could summarize the many gameplay virtues of guns for me, because all I'm hearing is *yawn*.
There's also sealing enemies off and forgetting about them, and pulling them off cliffs, into lava, or simply to places they can't reach you with the fishing rod. Just off the top of my head.
Swords are admittedly quite common and banal, and that they're the only melee weapon (with multiple flavors) is an example of how simplistic the combat in Minecraft is. I accept that this is an existent part of the game, but I hardly think this is an example to be replicated! "Der, but swords are equally boring!" is hardly an excuse to add another banal thing to the game!
Everything else you mentioned is more interesting and original than guns. Even bows! And that's not saying much! It gets better from there, and killing enemies is only one aspect of Minecraft!
Like pouring lava on them. It is a benefit that lava has extreme destructive force, but also presents a danger to you, but which isn't cheap and can be reasonably mitigated. You said that sarcastically, but that's just another example of the actual game mechanics beating out the imagination of everyone who wants guns. And arrow dispensers? How often have you wanted to be the one making the deadly arrow trap when movies and games only showed the protagonist as the victim? Yeah, even if it's not completely 100% original, it has "shoot it with guns" beat by miles.
Hey, anything is possible! Maybe.
It's "okay" because it's already in the game, so tolerable. We don't need more of it. Even if you disagree, why doesn't that makes sense? "I don't think a game's most unoriginal and banal elements justify the addition of more of the same" seems like a very sensible position to me.
Really? You don't see any difference between avoiding traps and placing traps? Fighting a tank, and driving a tank? Between God of War where you fight Gods, and Populous, where you play a God? God! Ha! How unoriginal! What a cliche that game was!
Well I can't argue with science. But my catheter didn't feel 80% better when a gun was added. :sad.gif:
I have set up a directory for all my .schematic files for the public to use. Check it out sometime!
[Diamond]
Watching too much gunporn?
I think the crossbow would be reasonable, though. They would fit in somewhat better.
It's okay, you don't have to summarize it, I've read it, it's boring.
Yes, I already did, read my post.
And if you aren't interested in degrees of originality, taking into account the context, then this is just mental masturbation because nothing is completely original.
But I love that you think all those different ways of killing enemies that you yourself mentioned (and the additional ones I did) are lame, but think guns aren't and would be a great addition, loads of fun and originality. Or not? Is your argument that it's no more stupid than anything else so why not? Are you really saying that every way of killing enemies in Minecraft is stupid, but you also really care about killing enemies in Minecraft so yet another stupid way is great? WTF?
In terms of gameplay, using something versus fighting against something are quite different.
If the weapons are roughly equivalent, then there isn't much difference between playing as the Allies or the Axis. Though the first game that let you play as a Wehrmacht soldier, which happened long ago, was breaking some new ground. Not so much in gameplay, though, so it's not a relevant example.
No, in terms of gameplay, it's the difference between fighting a tank, and piloting a tank. Surely you comprehend that this is different in terms of gameplay.
I like MineCraft's combat. I like just clicking things until they die. Guns wouldn't change that formula, they would simply add a pinch of variety to it.
https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/index.jsp
Then guns.
Mob difficulty is just about right with the level of weapons we currently have. Any more powerful weapons won't be necessary until there are deadlier mobs in the game.
Nnnnnnnnnnnnnno.
Once you require the player to use a gun through way of difficulty, it becomes a problem. You don't have to use a sword if you like using a bow, and vice versa. MineCraft should never force the player to use any one method.
https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/index.jsp
AFAIK, guns and bullets replaced crossbows and bolts because they could pierce the armour of the day. Crossbow bolts could pierce armour but bullets did it much more consistently. It was also much easier to train the soldiers of the time to fire guns in rank formation than to train archers.
EDIT: The Europa Barbarorum mod for MII:TW has some great historical information on this.
350125
Apologies for the delay in response.
My initial comments on durability were not directed at you in any form of personal attack. As mentioned, I sometimes feel the durability limits in Minecraft can be restrictive and indeed overzealous. I never attempted to insinuate an ignorance of general firearm knowledge on your part. The "I'm sorry" beginning to my post was probably interpreted as patronizing, but I meant it for durability as an idea.
I'm getting close to rambling, so let me reiterate that I didn't mean anything against you. As such your scathing response worried me, and I just wanted to clear the air.
Tired of plain old puzzle maps? Try out "The Secret of Wayhart Point"an adventure map where you are free to explore!
Another argument is that they're too simple because they're hitscan weapons. Why does this have to be the case? I figured if guns were implemented, they'd be projectile-based just like bows, but maybe with a flatter arc.
I think guns should be fairly inaccurate, less so than bows. This would make historical sense, as trained longbowmen could be more accurate than musketeers.
As for the timer vs. inventory reload, I favor the inventory reload. Yes it does obscure the player's view, but this adds to the balance, and it would be a lot easier to implement than a timer.
I think that if guns were not strong, they would be nice. Think Dungeon Fighter. All the gunners' weapons are weaker than a good ol' sword.
Why don't we make guns have like one half heart of attack, make the bullets expensive, and keep the bow attack restriction( the red time that protects spamming arrows). Make the guns have a cooltime every 10 bullets or so. Make five bullets from one ingot. Make a gun consist of iron BLOCKs.
I think if this is done, the gun will become an unused underpowered relic.
Long answer: Yes
I feel like minecraft could have guns, but not like AK 47s, snipers, and all that modern stuff. I think the extent for guns would be around the 1500s (or the Middle Ages) like muskets, firearms, or even (getting off track) cannons.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1020&t=245135