• 0

    posted a message on Making Creepers Underground-Only Mobs!
    Quote from adventururer
    Creepers are not only the flagship mob for Minecraft they are the single greatest threat to any player at any time.

    No, they are not. See: any poll about the subject.

    Yes,they are annoying,yes they are scary but that's their purpose.

    Annoyance should not be part of a game's design criteria. That's just bad design.

    The game is built around the thought of survival and creation

    Yes, creation. Hence the problem.

    and even if they were put underground some noob would cry about getting killed in a mine shaft.

    Whatever is done, someone will cry about it. This is an argument that ultimately leads to doing nothing at all, ever. Which is not an option. So it's a useless argument.

    But their purpose is to scare you,to be on your guard,to make you fear the vale of night and of the darkness which runs down the endless caverns of Minecraft.

    With the OP's suggestion, they'd continue to do all of these things.

    Spiders,skeletons,zombies...where's the fun?

    Subjective view. Not a complete list either.

    They all come at you no matter their numbers you just need to hide inside your base.

    This also applies to Creepers. Irrelevant.

    This is not a game where you mindlessly build with out a care in the world,this is a game where you mindlessly punch things and get blown up.

    Aside from being demonstrably wrong and a contradiction of an earlier statement, this is also a false dichotomy. This isn't an either/or choice between mutually exclusive extremes, despite the weak attempt to present it as such.

    Either sandbox creation is part of the design equation or it isn't.

    If it is, it would follow that an ability to reasonably pacify a given area of the environment would promote and enhance that aspect of the gameplay.

    People who continue to imply that creative sandbox gameplay and survival gameplay are somehow incompatible are not only failing to identify the primary strength of Minecraft, they're demonstrating themselves to be short-sighted nitwits.

    If you can't handle it then you should go play Roblox with all the other 8 year olds.

    Get over yourself.

    There are countless games designed around the fundamental idea of mindlessly punching/shooting/stabbing things and getting blown up. If that shallow of an experience appeals to you, maybe you should go play one "with all the other 8 year olds" that are their target audience. Minecraft is a bit more involved than that.


    The crux of the matter is that Creepers should not be negating a player's time investment. It's that simple.

    This could be addressed in any number of ways. The OP's suggestion is only one solution and not one I particularly favor. But it's a solution.

    Other possible solutions:

    - Make Creepers optional. I don't favor this either, because they provide an important dynamic in the mining experience. And, yes, they are a signature of the game.

    - Reduce a Creeper's ability to cause structural damage. I don't much like this either, because, again, we'd lose the dynamic in underground exploration.

    - Introduce an ability to reduce or nullify the structural damage a Creeper can cause. This I favor. For example, provide a method to reinforce blocks, which would, aside from removing annoyance, add to the resource gathering and crafting aspects of the game.

    At this point, though, I would take anything that countered the "griefing factor" of Creepers.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on "My Content" problems? [The Answer]
    This still isn't working?
    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 0

    posted a message on "My Content" problems? [The Answer]
    Any progress on this issue, I wonder?
    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 0

    posted a message on Bad Ideas
    Posted in: Forum Games
  • 0

    posted a message on Question / Suggestion.
    Quote from coldfire17
    I don't want to start an angry argument over this simple thing, but you need to think before you post.

    Here's a couple of tips on how to avoid 'angry arguments'.

    - Do not presume to tell people what they have and have not understood.

    - Do not make condescending, insulting declarations such as "you need to think before you post."

    I mean, really, who the hell are you?

    These are ad hominem tactics. If you don't want a contentious interchange, I'd suggest you stop goading one with such remarks.

    If there is a widely held assumption about something, then why would you go and blatantly change it?

    Why not? In any event, the point was: your design criteria was easily encapsulated into a concept without it having to be space. Don't like compromising the assumption? Okay. So you need to drill in The Nether to get there, instead of the "Overworld". Still doesn't need to be space.

    I am asking for ideas about how to work this idea in with the theme.

    To what end?

    I took the time to contribute a lengthy, thoughtful response to your initial post, citing several reasons why the fundamental idea of space is so often rejected out-of-hand and why it won't work within the context of this game. I've now been insulted twice for the effort.

    It's not my job or anyone else's to make space work for you. I think you'd get much better mileage out of identifying the fundamental elements that attract you to the concept and wrapping them into a foil that is more readily adaptable to the existing game.

    I am not asking for a large debate.

    It's a discussion forum. Such things have been known to happen.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Question / Suggestion.
    Quote from coldfire17

    I feel that having a "burrowing" zone would interfere with the common thought that the Nether is below the overworld. It also doesn't have to be in space. That's the main reason of this thread.

    I don't think that common thought has ever been validated by Notch. There's no reason the design has to conform to what is just a widely held assumption. It could simply be wrong.

    The point is: your design criteria was all easily encapsulated into a concept that didn't require it to be space.

    And for all we know, space doesn't even exist in the Minecraft setting.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Question / Suggestion.
    Quote from coldfire17
    You understood about 50% of what I was trying to get through.

    Please don't do that.

    I assure you, I understood 100% of your original post.

    Believe me, I'm in a position to know.

    I see what you mean by a "space" zone not working, but what would make it work?

    I answered that. Make it: not space.

    Basically, The simplest concepts of this suggestion are as follows:

    A new dimension that is extremely difficult to get to.

    A type of vehicle, or something other than a portal, must be crafted to get there.

    The atmosphere is poisonous, requiring a suit.

    None of this requires it to be space, with all the inherent problems and implications that come along with that.

    Given that the game is called Minecraft, I'd be more inclined to put this new location deeper into the earth.

    - It would be extremely difficult to get to.

    - You would need a burrowing vehicle to get there.

    - It would be an extremely hostile environment, requiring a suit.

    In short: space (or the moon, etc.) isn't really a viable concept, for many more reasons than just the setting's theme. It can't be made to work in any way that can't be addressed with a much simpler, more direct solution.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Question / Suggestion.
    Quote from coldfire17
    What can be changed about this idea, to make it fit Minecraft's theme?

    You have more than just a single theme to contend with.

    Firstly, there's the setting's theme. Notch has called it "pseudo-fantasy" and I find that an apt label. It's fantasy, but it's very light and casual, almost comical, in its approach and delivery.

    Then there's the gameplay's theme, the feel and presentation of its mechanics and content. While it's often not at all realistic, it does have its own internal logic that has to be kept consistent and at least vaguely coherent. There are many reasons for this.

    Related to this point are the broader implications of any addition to the game. If I can do A, why can't I do B and C? If this affects that, why doesn't it affect this other thing too? The bigger the thing is you're adding, the more numerous the consequences.

    Then you have the game's genre (and subgenre). It's an open world sandbox with survival and adventure elements. How does the suggestion further this hybridization?

    Then you have what is a complete disconnect from the existing milieu. Consequently, whatever's added is much less likely to have any applicability outside its own context, which means, from a design perspective, you're not getting a lot of bang for your programming buck (this problem is already illustrated somewhat by the Nether).

    Then there's game performance. You're talking about an area in which all the rules will be different. While, at the same time, other players will be playing by the standard rules set. That's probably going to have a real impact on processing demands.

    When considering all of the above, a "space zone" is, simply put, opening an enormous can of worms. So is a "moon realm" or anything else like that. Concepts such as this impact all of the listed considerations in an enormous way and yet, when people suggest them, they often don't even bother to address any of the resulting issues and design headaches.

    Now reflect upon the fact that most of these consequences and headaches can be easily circumvented by simply adding another dimension, like the Nether or the Sky Dimension, but you still retain most, if not all, of the inherent benefits.

    When given that choice, what do you think a designer's going to opt for?

    So, let's take a "space zone".

    - How do you get there? And why the hell do we want to go there anyway?

    - How does the method to get there impact existing mechanics and content? What are the implications? (If I can go to space, why not the moon? Why not Mars? Why not other galaxies? If I'm making a rocket ship, why can't I make a frickin' balloon?)

    - What new systems and mechanics will be required? Do they fit in with setting theme and design aesthetic? How will they impact existing content and design? (If I can survive in space, why can't I frickin' breathe underwater? How come I can go to space, but the world height is only 60 blocks from sea level? Gravity's already wonky, how would this make it wonkier?)

    - What does it bring to the sandbox gameplay? How can players create with this that can't be facilitated in a simpler, more direct way?

    - What are the implications on game performance?

    ...as a start.

    In short, I don't see anything that a space zone or moon realm delivers that can't be introduced in another, simpler way that is 1. more in keeping with existing themes and aesthetics, 2. less likely to make the game a total pig, 3. not compromising the basic game design.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Completely Awful Suggestion #2: THE MOON!
    Rave reviews for this thread!

    - That Lemon Guy

    "The brilliance of this suggestion is blinding."
    - Someone talking about a suggestion that wasn't this one

    "I consider this the definitive moon suggestion."

    - Someone who wasn't me, honest. No, really.

    "This would be... interesting to see I guess."

    - BandofBrothers
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on [LONG] The Eight Billionth Pet Suggestion
    It's the current design intent to make passive animals more persistent.

    If they are more persistent, they will not respawn anywhere near as often as they currently do.

    Thus, there will have to be a method for players to collect them and herd them around.

    This suggestion could help a great deal in devising that method.

    I'd suggest to the OP to review the suggestion and, with the above in mind, possibly revise it.

    The concept of persistent mobs that can be herded is one that modders should already be working on, given that 1. we know it's coming to the game and 2. hasn't actually been tackled by the developers yet.

    It's possible that this could become a significant community contribution.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on New mob ideas
    I'd be willing to bet we'll see flying pigs at some point.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Sandstone Variance, A MOD has been made!?!
    You can add your screenshots to the suggestion over there. I think it'd be a good idea. Might have to resize them yourself, though.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on MOON REALM
    Quote from seaLGa
    and what exactly is the theme of minecraft?

    "Pseudo-fantasy" is the setting's theme.

    the moon realm wouldnt fit in any better then the nether does so why does it matter?

    The moon, unlike the Nether, actually exists.

    This brings with it a laundry list of complications in terms of expectations and assumptions that'd be made. It's also not really associated with the fantasy vibe. That doesn't mean it couldn't be, but it'd be more difficult to convey it in that context than, say, a sky dimension.



    You'll all love it.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Sandstone Variance, A MOD has been made!?!
    Quote from Cold scope

    Great, so know I have to make a twitter account?

    No, actually.

    When/if you post it to getsatisfaction.com, edit your original post here and add a link to the submission, so those of us here who support the idea can go vote for it.

    Any one of us with Twitter accounts could then send tweets, if you'd rather avoid Twitter entirely (and I wouldn't blame you).
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Sandstone Variance, A MOD has been made!?!
    Quote from Travesty

    So what does your proposed "smooth sandstone" (or whatever you chose to call it) add aside from looks? Aesthetics are fine and dandy, but who cares about yet another block if it doesn't serve any other purpose?

    The developers care and other people who care about aesthetics care. The goal is clearly to make the Minecraft world echo the natural world in appearance. Hence biomes. Hence different tree types. Hence wild grass.

    The current sandstone texture does not follow this design. Is that a big deal? No, I don't think so. But is it aesthetically inconsistent? Absolutely. Do designers care about that sort of thing? Typically, yes.

    So far, your suggestion only offers a slightly different look (not really enough to make a difference when building a structure), and has no use outside of this.

    The textures were switched out to make a point and to placate those complaining about programming time and existing space for textures.

    The fundamental issue is: natural sandstone does not look like natural sandstone, but people like the current block as a building material.

    Using the existing underside texture for the whole block is, as far as I'm aware, really just a compromise.

    Frankly, I doubt it's one Jeb or Notch would ultimately make.

    Myself, I'd go for a striated pattern and use it as a vehicle to bring in some subtle yellow-orange tones. This would bring greater visual depth to desert environments, which are currently lacking in that regard (when compared to other biomes). Sandstone would be to deserts as smooth stone is to mountainous regions.

    But that's me.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • To post a comment, please .