Minecraft Forums

Quote from lajube

I would enjoy progressive difficulty. I suspect many players would not, unless it was very gradual and not keeping pace with equipment. They like to get deep ores and nether materials with minor difficulty. There is a reason the End only offers a trophy.

Yeah, but what's the point of a trophy if it's not only easy to get, but doesn't really do anything? Also, I would like to think that were progressive difficulty added, you could still have access to all the basics fairly easily- iron, etc. If anything, getting iron would be about the same, and the above ground portion of the game would actually be easier (if my ideas were put in). So you could still get a lot of materials pretty easy.

Quote from TonyRockWalker

You're totally missing the concept of Minecraft, adding really anything that is on this list to the actual game would effect the gameplay so much that it wouldn't feel as "Minecraft" anymore.

What is "Minecraft"? Does everyone share your sentiments? Even if they do, what does that mean? Why should it be considered over ideas that expand the content of the game?

Quote from TonyRockWalker

Plus, the way you wrote the thread, mocking on Minecraft is just ignorant.

I'm not "mocking on" Minecraft. I'm pointing out its flaws.

Quote from TonyRockWalker

You've got to understand that Minecraft isn't a roleplaying game, it's a game where you place blocks, create the coolest things and survive.
Minecraft is a very original and strange game, it's the reason I fell in love with it.

It's actually not all that original. It's just got elements from various games cobbled together (Dwarf Fortress, Infiniminer, Dungeon Keeper).

Besides, I haven't been suggesting they make it a roleplaying game. I don't know where this keeps coming from.

Quote from TonyRockWalker

Also you mocking on Mojang, saying that they don't update Minecraft enough is the thing I disagree with the most.

They both do and don't. They update too frequently (thus breaking mods constantly), but the actual content of the updates is very small. Compare it to mod teams who don't do this as their job. Mod makers push out content at an amazing rate. A professional team can't even compete with a single modding team. That's ridiculous.

Quote from Sakata32

What I was reading into your OP was that you would like to add elements similar to player leveling, as different things were achieved different things were added to make it more difficult.

Nah, I don't really like that idea. Notch said at some point that he doesn't like the idea of things magically popping up after you do X thing- and I'd have to agree with him. The Enderman idea could be considered something like that, but it would just change their behavior and spawn rate- not exactly the same as spawning a new mob. Plus, it was just a random idea- one I admittedly didn't think through very much.

Pretty much everything else works off the basis of mobs being found in different areas.

Quote from OneWolfe

I am against most of the changes listed here, in fact I would prefer if everything went back to the way it was.

Go find an old version of the game and stick to that. You're not forced to update.

Quote from OneWolfe

A game that changes all the time is just not enjoyable to me. As soon as I get the system figured out, such as the redstone system, or mob logic, they go and change it all. And that really frustrates me. I do understand that changes are to be expected during a BETA phase. But once beta is complete and the game is release stop making changes! Sure go ahead and work on version two but don't mess with version one. But then your in BETA for version two which should be a completely different game.

Basically don't mess with a good thing

Minecraft has a bunch of flaws- and to be honest, I'd prefer they fix them in large sweeping updates rather than monthly updates (where major updates are once every 4-5 months), but whatever. It's still a lot of stuff that needs to be fixed. If they kept it as it was in 1.0, it would be mind numbingly bad.

Quote from Sakata32

What is this supposed to mean? The player doesn't have the choice to develop without having to "progress" as scripted through the gameplay?? That statement confused me.

I don't know where you're getting "scripted" from.

I meant that if you wanted an easier time, you would stay above ground. If you wanted to progress into harder difficulties, you would progress downwards into the earth and into places like the nether. That is ideally how difficulty should work, and is what I discussed in the OP. Right now, difficulty is pretty much the same no matter which biome you're in (because mobs spawn the same in every place), or how far you're down. The only real difference is lava in the deeper areas. That's it.

Other than that, I didn't really suggest progression.

Also, you have yet to explain how I suggested "other linear content".

Quote from Sakata32

Granted, but I don't know if you intended this, but the I saw your entire post, you kept suggesting progression, other linear content, and combat. I thouroughly and completely agree with the addition of blocks and items. I read very little emphasis in your OP

Where did I suggest linear content? Progression should be there, but only if you want to progress. And I only meant that in the sense that it should be a way to allow for dynamic difficulty- so it's not really even "progression".

Combat should be improved regardless. Not made to be "harder" or needlessly complex (see: fighting games), but just have a bit more to it. It's painfully, painfully boring and lacking right now. Literally all you do is click and sorta aim.

Quote from TonyRockWalker

I've read some of the stuff, I disagree with you completely, these ideas are in fact terrible in my opinion.
Leave it Mojang when it comes to creating Minecraft...

How are they "terrible"?

Quote from freddakiko

I agree on the concept of more control over terrain generation, but i think it should instead come in the form of control to make things more random. Too often do you see the same things in the same biomes even though you're hundreds of chunks from where you started, we need more terrain generation that breaks the laws of the biomes, such as a plateau in the middle of a plain or an open field in the middle of a forest. I remember i once found a field in the middle of a forest with a large, monument-esque rock in the center, i haven't found anything like that in beta terrain gen, making it an interesting find, but i've also never found anything as interesting in the current terrain gen, making our worlds bland.

Yeah, I actually agree. It'd be pretty rad if biome generation code was re-worked so you could have dynamic variables on a per-instance basis (so one desert may have a lot of hills, another may have none).

Steepness could also be used this way, too.

Quote from Neospector

I don't understand. Adding a system for making biomes more predictable ("minimum and maximum world height should be consistent in their purpose.") as opposed to a current system where height is relatively unpredictable ("random ups and downs"), in order to make the game less bland and more random? ("it'd go a long way in making biomes feel a lot less "chunky" and same-y.")
This makes no sense. If you want the game more random, suggest height to be even more random. There's no logic in making generation more predictable in order to make it "less same-y".

No, no, it should still be random- it just wouldn't be random if you had height values the exact same (which, they aren't... but only if they're at 0.0min/0.0max).

If that was fixed as well, you could also have an actual mountain biome where the minimum height truly is a minimum height. So it'd start at around block 100, and go up to block 200 (...whenever they increase the height limit for generation ;_; )

Quote from Neospector

Your second idea is more valid, but still on the fritz: Extreme hills are supposed to be like that. They're basically forced beta generation condensed in a single biome (whether that's good or not is another issue entirely). Likewise plains are designed to be their way; flat with few small hills and height changes.

I know that- it's more or less a suggestion for other biomes. I simply gave examples of how it could be implemented using the current biomes. Though, plains are honestly far too hilly for my tastes. I'd rather a "rolling hills" biome- which could be done much easier with a steepness variable.

The main issue with this is the lack of necessity. There really isn't any need to have massive amounts of resources for much of anything.

That being said, there should totally be things you can pour resources into and get something out of it.

Something I've noticed about the terrain generation is that there's only really two relevant values for it- minimum height, and maximum height. Not only does this make the terrain feel much more bland due to only having random ups and downs, it's also not very consistent- if you have a biome with a world height of 1.2 minimum height and 1.2 maximum height, it'll still have hills and all that. The only time terrain is ever flat is if it's at 0.0 (sea level) or 2.0 (cloud level).

To remedy this, I suggest several changes.

1: Redefine world height
Simply put, minimum and maximum world height should be consistent in their purpose. If a biome's height is at 1.2 minimum and 1.2 maximum, it should be flat. It's pretty simple to do, but it'd go a long way in making biomes feel a lot less "chunky" and same-y.

2: Steepness
It'd be nice if different biomes had different levels at which the height differences are reached. Currently, extreme hills are extremely steep- you'll frequently have sudden cliff edges jutting out of the terrain. Conversely, with plains, hills are usually 1 block height difference from the last block. Were steepness to be added, you could have more control of this, to make many more interesting biomes (such as actual "hills" biome with nice, smoothed out hills).

For example, for plains, you could have the minimum height as 0.0 and the maximum at 0.1. Normally, this would just make pretty bumpy terrain- but with steepness, you could set the steepness fairly low, so it only reaches the maximum height at a very low rate (instead of instantly).

Conversely, you could have desert hills biomes have sharp cliff edges with a high steepness rate and a fairly large difference in minimum and maximum height.

It's not much, but it'd go a long way to making Minecraft look a lot more diverse.

Oh man, between being busy + forgetting password, I neglected to continue to reply to this- sorry about that. LET THE WALL OF TEXT COMMENCE.

Quote from lajube

Insurrection, in the OP you start by saying minecraft is a good game but there are a lot of ways things can be made better. I agree with your original statement on both points. I also agree that many of your ideas for improving the game (much of points 2-6) would be good for the game. I just think you missed the basic point of minecraft.

I more or less pointed out that it has a lot of potential, but that it never really makes use of this potential. Whether or not it's a "good" game is up for debate, but regardless, there's a lot of things it could use improving- which was the overall point of my original post.

Quote from lajube

I'm sure you are aware that LOTS of people like building and doing whatever they feel like, and enjoy having this freedom. You exaggerate grossly when you say minecraft has almost nothing of interest, simply because it doesn't have many directed challenges. This doesn't mean that adding such challenges wouldn't be good to add; I'm merely reacting to your overly strong negativity.

The thing is, Minecraft has a huge base for content- like, you could just throw in SO much content into Minecraft, and it would receive it VERY well. Blocks, mobs, biomes, items, etc- they're all things you can add more and more to, and it wouldn't detract from the game at all. As long as none of them are "forced" elements, of course (having a bajillion mobs all bombard you at once would be annoying).

Quote from lajube

By starting with an overly strong negative, you push me to react. Then you pull back, and say something much more reasonable.

Admittedly I've been rather strong in my general tone, but that's more or less a reaction to the endless heaps of praise Minecraft gets. It's alright to be positive, but Minecraft gets TOO much positive praise, and has its flaws grossly overlooked. Even by so-called "critics", who dole out 10/10's for far too many games these days.

Quote from lajube

Again, overly strong. There is water, lava, moving items, mob forces, fire, TNT, projectiles, pistons. The challenge is making interesting things out of them.

So what would be wrong with adding more stuff? Compared to even static videogames (which require a lot of though and effort into how they're implemented), you can pretty much just throw in content to Minecraft and it'll usually work pretty fine. Granted, when I say "throw in", I don't mean toss it into the code and leave it at that- but there's so many biomes, mods, blocks, and etc that could be added with virtually no effort, but they just... aren't.

Quote from lajube

I believe this is by design. Notch himself has said he's not interested in making a game as such. He wants to create the tools by which people can create their own fun. And people do, by the millions. They are aiming for breadth, and leaving it up to the community to create depth. The core game is shallow, and does what it needs to enable people to create their own thing.

With mods, sure. Also, again, saying what Notch & co "intended" isn't really relevant.

Quote from lajube

I'm not against your proposals. I'm against your saying minecraft is bad. If you don't understand what's good in minecraft already, you will simply be pushing to make it go a direction that doesn't belong to the core. I'll say it differently: Minecraft is a platform for people to create their own game. And it's good as that.

I understand pretty well what makes Minecraft "good". I also understand it has a lot- a LOT- of room for expansion. Expansion that Mojang takes literally months to add.

Quote from lajube

I'm not talking about mods. I'm talking about map making. Minecraft excels as a platform for building the games which take advantage of the features in survival mode.

I'm not arguing that survival can't be improved. I'm arguing that it doesn't need to be pushed in the direction of deep directed play. Mojang should not emphasize directional content, but continue adding open-ended content that can be used to make whatever.

I'm curious what you mean when you say "directed play". Do you mean the kind of content that is added with a specific purpose, to let the player experience it "as intended" with little to no interaction from outside sources? Because I fully advocate dynamic content that interacts with the rest of the world seamlessly. I would never want Minecraft to ever be "streamlined" or Skyrim-itized.

Quote from lajube

As for mods, there's no end to inventing new stuff, but that doesn't mean minecraft is a bad game because people create mods.

The point is that you really need mods if you want a decent amount of depth when it comes to content. That's... not really acceptable when you have a talented team at hand who could add this content (likely with more refining and cohesion).

Quote from lajube

I object to the word "lacking". It's impossible to be everything to everyone. Is there something not in survival that if added could make it better? An infinite amount of different things. Is there some basic changes that would make a big enhancement? Perhaps some of those should be done.

You can pretty much easily sum up all of Minecraft's content in one image. I don't mean a specific image, but it's not really hard to represent 90% of Minecraft's content. That's the thing that's bothersome. There just isn't much content at all.

Quote from lajube

Every game has a limited playability. Minecraft's is measured in years. But if people get tired of the same, well that's no surprise. That mods provide something different is no surprise. Mojang continues to add various things to make the game more interesting and that's exactly what they should do. And they must restrain themselves to avoid changing the balance and feel of the game from what people like to something very different. None of this means minecraft is incomplete.

They can avoid "changing the balance and feel of the game" and still add content. They can add a LOT of content.

Quote from lajube

Minecraft is a create-your-own game. It will never be a FPS. But it can be whatever else you or somebody makes of it. Do tell what gameplay can't be made or can't be done that should be.

You can't really create that many fleshed out games with Minecraft at all, though. Even with the redstone update and stuff, you can't just make Banjo Kazooie or something out of Minecraft. You can't even really make Super Mario Brothers.

It's not that great, and you really overrate how much Minecraft is for a "create-your-own-game" platform. It lacks far too many elements to make this remotely decent (namely, a proper set of creative mode tools for map makers...).

Quote from cxmaster

You want to have all these changes? Go make your own game and do all the work yourself.Have fun with all that time spent.

I intend to make an overhaul mod for Minecraft, as well as my own game, yes.

I don't see why you say "Have fun with all that time spent" as though it's supposed to mean something. I fully understand the amount of time and effort it makes to create a video game.

Quote from lajube

I think this is the right answer for OP. The changes proposed could be done via mods, but it's really turning Minecraft into something else. Which is the point of minecraft anyway to do that, but the result would be a very niche game compared to minecraft itself. But for the extent of changes suggested here, it's a lot of work any way you slice it.

It wouldn't really be a "niche" game if my intended plans were put forth. It'd just be Minecraft with more to it in every single way.

Quote from Vexxingz

I've always thought of it being more of an overhaul, and those things typically have some pretty hefty changes.
Suppose the API is needed to do anything that major without it becoming too much of a pain, though.

Yeah. I don't intend to release anything until the API is out. It's mind numbingly painful to have to re-do the code every single update.

Quote from Greduan

Personally, the changes to the skeletons, the rapid shooting and practically 100% accuracy sucks. It sure does make the game harder, no problem there. The problem is it's at a ridiculous level. Before if you were good, even without armor you could take on 2-3 skeletons with an iron/diamond sword. Now it is impossible without some kind of armor, and with enough skeletons even an enchanted diamond armor is nothing.

I think it's a step in the right direction, but they really gave the difficulty a big boost.

Again, it's hard, no problem there. But it's not the right kind of hard. If you lose really it isn't your fault for losing, except for even getting in the fight. I don't like that. The right hard is when you can do it, if you lose you feel like it's your fault, and if you win it's because you were able enough. Right now it's just impossible to get that feel I think.

I think it's a good way to push the bow though. But I don't like that either. I'm a melee user, I only use the bow in PvP, I never use it for mobs, but now I'm forced to, and I don't like that. It gives me less freedom than before.

Again, these are just my thoughts, however I think they're quite true.

I like the difficulty of skeletons themselves now. They're as difficult as they should have been, now. The issue is their frequency. I went over individual difficulty vs overall difficulty before, and I think this change actually made the game a lot harder- and not in a good way.

Remember, despite people thinking I'm advocating turning the game into some kind of Castlevania or Dark Souls-esque game in terms of difficulty, I'm not. I'd like it to remain possible to avoid most difficulty if you really don't want to get your butt kicked. Minecraft should be a peaceful game.

To remedy this, they just need to make skeletons not spawn above ground anymore. Make 'em spawn around layer 50 and below.

Quote from Sakata32

You have completely lost the entire concept of Minecraft, and I pity your closed-mindedness.

"Close-mindedness"? That's a pretty bold statement. I fully welcome other trains of thought, suggestions, and ideas. I prefer discussion. It's why I posted it in a forum in the first place, instead of a soapbox simulator like tumblr.

Quote from Sakata32

Throughout your post, your main topic was progression, challenges, advancing difficulty, developing gameplay along a timeline. I don't know if you just don't understand the game, or simply choose to ignore the inspired genius of it, but Minecraft is NOT A STORYLINE, MISSION-BASED, OR ROLE PLAYING GAME. It is a SANDBOX. If you don't understand the difference.... You shouldn't be on the forum. You should be playing the game constantly until you figure out how it works. Nuff said.

I... what? Where did I say "Minecraft should be a storyline, mission based, roleplaying game"? Where on earth are you drawing that from?

I have- from the very beginning- simply advocated (rather strongly, admittedly) that Minecraft should have a lot more content. It has a fantastic base for content creation, but not enough of it in any of its given methods.

The only thing I would say I've really advocated for changing/overhauling is the general difficulty and combat- but not to make it "harder" or the like. Just to make it more dynamic, and to be yet another element for content expansion.

Quote from Sakata32

the OP seems to feel the need to make minecraft MORE structured, with less breathing room within the "rules", which is what I feel is the opposite of the games goal.

No, I don't. I don't feel that at all. Quit strawmanning.

Quote from Sakata32

There are many more ways to improve the game without making it more confusing and restricting.

It should never be more confusing or restricting.

Quote from Sakata32

One of which, is to expand and alter the biomes! The adventure update helped, but more, and more needs to be added, the exploration aspect of minecraft, while having so much potential, tends to be strangled by the lack of things to explore!

Which I strongly advocated in one of my initial points in the original post.

Quote from PR0DIG33

i like it but i saw somewhere you were making a mod for this and was wondering if you could upload it? sounds like a great idea

Not until the API is out- even then, it'll be some time before I push out a release for it. I'm jugging a lot of different projects and have been rather busy as of late, but I do intend to make a mod for Minecraft to at least somewhat rectify a lot of my complaints.

Quote from LolumadbroXD

This thread is really old...

And? A lot of its points are still relevant. Only a few of them aren't too relevant anymore (the slime spawning, which was actually added, for example). Each major point is still very much so relevant to Minecraft today.

Quote from Sakata32

Exactly. Hence the modding, hence the mini games, hence the various adventure servers/maps(MineZ, Herobrines mansion series, Etc., etc.). Minecraft has such a potential for that area, that to alter the vanilla to be more like those would end up limiting both aspects in their excitement and creativity.

I don't think every mod should be implemented into vanilla. Only the ones that add content without inhibiting the content of other mods should be put in. It's funny you point out stuff like "MineZ", because that's the exact kind of stuff I wouldn't want in vanilla.

Quote from Sakata32

Us, there are, as you said, flaws. Terrain, movement, and visual control/lighting/clarity are my three top flaws as well. But, these are 1: not anywhere near reasons not to play the game, and 2: very fixable.

1: I never said "Nobody should play the game because these are lacking!".

2: Exactly. They could be fixed, but aren't.

Quote from Natecraft

"Better mechanics"? Thirst is a horribly tedious game mechanic that would literally not make the game harder (having even less of an impact than the food bar change) just because of the fact that water is EVERYWHERE! Literally, it is everywhere, even in the desert is everywhere.

It was an idea. One that would require expansion in other parts of the game (simply tacking on thirst would be horrible- it'd be the same as hunger). I'm not saying they need to remove armor then add thirst. It's just something that can't properly be added unless they clear up some space from the HUD.

Quote from Natecraft

Second of all, being able to see how much armor defense you have on at any given moment can be quite useful. If I see a group of skeletons and I am deciding whether to go around them or take them on, I can just look at my armor bar to help me decide. Sure, I could open my inventory and look there like you are suggesting, but it is more convenient to just look at my HUD already on my screen.

A HUD is something you have for information you need at all times. That's not something you need to know at all times. You can just hit the inventory key quickly, and it could be something that you can tell within like a split second, and then go back. That's not a huge deal at all- especially since it's not even that hard to keep track of how much armor you have in your head.

Quote from Natecraft

Now the serious third reason, just because the armor bar is on the HUD doesn't mean Mojang can't add in new game mechanics, it isn't like "Oh darn, we have this armor bar already on the HUD, I guess we can't go implement (whatever game mechanic should have an HUD bar)"

If you had a sixth bar (Health, hunger, armor, experience, and oxygen being the invisible fifth), it would become really cluttered, and start to look like an MMORPG. Minecraft's HUD is basically at its limit- adding anything more without taking anything away would really start to clutter things up.

Quote from Laughing_Man16

The armor points so a perfect purpose. Its simple and extremely obvious if you would stop pining over you quest to make every one else miserable by adding thirst.

Wait, what? I've not said they needed to add thirst (although if done well and worked with the other mechanics of the game, it'd be pretty nice and make it more survival-y...). Where do you even get that from?

Quote from Laughing_Man16

SO YOU CAN SEE HOW MUCH ARMOR YOU HAVE!

You can do exactly the same thing by tapping the inventory key for a split second. It's not needed to know how much you have at all times. Do you need to know how much oxygen you have at all times? No, because it's not always needed, either. Just because it does something doesn't mean it needs to be kept on the screen.

Quote from Laughing_Man16

If you walk out your door with a full suit of iron armor on the bar will be mostly full. I think its eight and a half armor icons and you go adventuring and suddenly notice that it is down to three armor icons well you now know that you need to look in your inventory to see what armor needs replacing. Simple as that.

Or, you hear your armor breaking (there's a pretty recognizable sound in the game for it), quickly hit your inventory key, and it ends up the same exact way.

Quote from kude42

Tell you the truth, I don't support. Without this bar, I would never know when I lost pieces of my armor.

How about that noticeable "CLINK" sound? Or how about tapping your inventory key after a long, hardened battle to see how much durability you have (something you probably should be doing anyway, and something that isn't even shown on the HUD).

Just because Mojang made it and it's there doesn't mean it needs to stay.

Quote from lajube

In my experience, debating point by point just leads to a proliferation of points. If you want to get anywhere you need to focus on one or two points and discuss until there is understanding.

If you're only discussing core points, sure- but then this might lead to one person believing they're attacking a core point, when in reality they're just scraping the surface. It might lead to a huge, expanded discussion if you do things quote-by-quote, but this isn't really a bad thing. At worst, you're grasping at straws for a number of points, but still address a core point somewhere in your post. You have all the time in the world to follow what's going on.

Quote from lajube

The point of resource gathering is to use those resources in building things.

But there isn't really anything to build. Once you have a shelter, that's really about all you need. Sure, you can build traps... but by the time you've fought off enough mobs to get the needed redstone and such, you'd likely have access to enough iron for a full set of armor (it's only 24 ingots). Anything past the basic cobblestone (or even wood) shelter is superfluous. The thing is, it doesn't have to be- there actually is so much more you can add to make building a lot more interesting and interactive. That's what I'm suggesting. That's what I've been suggesting.

Quote from lajube

Mobs exist to make the process more interesting, and critical hits also add interest. It's not the focus, but it definitely adds to the game versus not having mobs.

If it wasn't the focus, it'd be avoidable, then- but it isn't. It's virtually impossible to avoid combat in Minecraft (and literally impossible if you ever want to "complete" Minecraft...). Besides, again, even if that is the case, what would be wrong with making combat more interesting and interactive? Not D&D or Dwarf Fortress levels of complex- just a little bit more than rapidly clicking with the same animations over and over and over again.

Quote from lajube

What I care about is having to "work for my supper". Those who just like building will use creative. Those who want a whole experience of finding in order to build, and building with what's been found use survival. So don't say there's nothing to collect because that's just wrong. A lot of people like interesting structures and the challenge of acquiring resources to create them.

But again, there isn't really much to build with, or much to build other than just making cool looking things. It's all superfluous. I'm suggesting they add more to the building- more to find, more to explore, more to experience.

Also, when I say there's "nothing to collect", I don't mean it literally. Look at Terraria- it has so much more to collect and build with, and building isn't even the focus! Minecraft has the development team, the community power, and just so much more resources to work with- but it forgoes all of that. And for what? To keep it "simple"? To appease extremely easy to please people? We could have so much more- why are we letting people like that hold this game back from its true potential?

Quote from lajube

Me, I'm a little different. I like the game physics, as simple as it is, and the challenge of using those physics to make things happen. The mobs and hazards of minecraft give an interesting environment to play with that physics. For me, creative play is boring.

But there are no physics. They offer literally no physics to work with at all- it's just place and remove. Sand and gravel is the only thing remotely resembling physics. That's not a challenge- that's a complete lack of challenge.

And again, I'm suggesting they add more to make it more interesting. No, I don't mean tacking on mobs, making it needlessly harder, or etc- I don't want Mo' Creatures. But if you had read my initial post, you'd understand that.

I'm not saying Minecraft needs to completely destroy itself and then start over again. I'm saying virtually everything needs to be expanded upon- because virtually everything is extremely simple (to a fault), poorly thought out, and almost entirely lacking in cohesiveness.

Quote from lajube

I find point by point discussion in a forum leads nowhere because it's too big a topic to discuss everything at once. So I shall focus on this:

Point-by-point discussion is precisely what makes forums great for discussing things. That's why things like the multi-quote function exist. Would you prefer face-to-face discussion, where forgetfulness and who talks louder plays a bigger role?

Quote from lajube

I think you miss here. The focus of survival mode is NOT combat, but resource gathering. The idea is to make a game of getting stuff and to provide small obstacles that encourage players to get better equipment so they can be more efficient at gathering. Consider each thing you cite as combat oriented and think instead about how they make resource gathering more interesting. This is why XP is for both ores and mob killing, and why XP is used to make better tools for getting more.

There's more enchantments for weapons and armor than there are for tools. Also, what's the point of resource gathering if the entire point of those resources is to get more resources? Furthermore, why are mobs everywhere and why do things like critical hits exist if it's not combat focused?

Lastly, even if it is focused on "resource gathering", why does that mean the combat and everything else needs to be so under-developed? As Izalveri put it, just because a game is focused on something doesn't mean its other aspects need to suffer.

Besides, resource gathering itself is under-developed. You can only break blocks one at a time (even for trees!), farming is stupidly simple (place item>wait for it to grow>harvest>repeat), there's next to nothing to collect in the underground, etc. The only resources that are worth getting are the ones to help you get better equipment... which is the same crap as grinding for gear on World of Warcraft, or something. I shouldn't have to explain why this is a bad thing.

Quote from lajube

It's also why combat isn't hard. They want people to succeed in getting resources, and want them to become pros at getting more faster.

It's less about combat being "hard" or not, and more about the complete lack of depth to it. You just click. That's it. There's nothing more to it than that. You click a lot, and stuff happens. That's the same crap as "PRESS X TO WIN" seen so frequently in modern games. At its best, it's hand holding- at its worst, they seriously can't think of a better system than that, which is just shameful.

Quote from lajube

The End exists only to provide an ultimate goal for all the resource collection, to give people a drive to move forward, but not for combat.

But the whole entire section of "The End" is a fight

a fight is combat

combat is fighting

what

Quote from lajube

The whole dragon thing is stupid but they don't work on it because that isn't important to them. Providing things to collect and build with is what matters. Challenges in gathering is important. Difficulty in combat is secondary.

And yet Minecraft still has none of those. There's virtually nothing to collect, the challenge is little to none, and difficulty is still lacking.

Quote from lajube

As a collect to build game, survival minecraft has extremely lasting play value.

But again, there's nothing to collect, and building is stupidly simple. Once you have access to cobblestone, congratulations- you have the most effective building material in the entire game. So there goes the whole idea of "building" past simply making something look cool. And if that's all you care about, that's what creative is for.

mite b cool

Though as said, Minecraft doesn't support multiple hitboxes in a single entity, but... it probably should. Despite that, I'd prefer it to just slow down the target for a small period of time, anyway. Not as long as Splash Potion of Slowness, though. Just a few seconds.

Armor points being on the UI is pretty pointless. It clutters up space needlessly, and takes up room that could be taken up by better mechanics (Thirst, stamina). It should instead be moved to the inventory screen- you don't need to see how many armor points you have at all times, and if you ever need to, you can quickly hit the inventory key to see.

As a side note, HUD's should only contain information that is needed at almost all times (for any game). Things like health, hunger, what items you have in your toolbar- all good. But you pretty much never need to see your armor points.

Quote from lajube

I contend that minecraft is an actual good game

Based on what? What do you judge a game by to consider it "good"?

Quote from lajube

No seriously: It has excellent gameplay, Some aspects of the play are less excellent, such as combat, but that's not the key aspect of minecraft.

Then what makes it "excellent"? Excellent is pretty high praise for something, so I'd imagine you have a lot to back it up. Combat is almost the focus of survival mode (Mobs existing, XP, enchanting, an end-game boss fight), yet it falls incredibly short. The only things Minecraft has going for it are:

-Redstone
-Fully transformable terrain

That's about it. It's not really "building" because you don't have any physics to work with, and structures serve virtually no purpose other than to keep mobs out (you can have a long corridor full of everything you need, and it'd serve same function as a cathedral). As a 3D painting tool, it also falls flat- there's no extra functions, just place and remove 1 block at a time. Would you consider "paint" good for 2D painting if you could only place and remove 1 pixel at a time? Certainly not.

Even its positives don't really work within the game. Redstone contraptions are pretty much only useful in the game for convenience (or for making ridiculous things to show off). Traps are hardly needed, because mobs are laughably simple and lacking. Things like automated farming are nice, but again- convenience.

As for fully changeable terrain, again- there's no real physics in the game, and no real mining methods outside of removing blocks one at a time. Everything feels dull and lifeless- trees are just blocks placed in a certain formation, caves are just holes into the ground... it's all so simple and lacking in design. There could be so much more.

Quote from lajube

I understand you wish certain kinds of improvements be made like Smart Moving, but I'd be worried that goes against what most people want in this game. They like that it's not very complicated, that it's left-click to hit, right-click to use, and simple direction movement.

See: Point #7.

Quote from lajube

Clearly you want something more, but that doesn't necessarily fit the sandbox.

Why do people assume "sandbox" must mean "incredibly simple and lacking in design"? The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind is a sandbox game. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a sandbox game. Red Dead Redemption is a sandbox game. Dwarf Fortress is a sandbox game (and is honestly the definitive sandbox game). Do they lack content? Are they not sandbox games because they have actual content? Absolutely not.

Sticking to a (false) definition of sandbox is bad on principle, anyway. Even if "sandbox" meant "completely devoid of content", why is that okay? Because a lot of people like it? Once more, argumentum ad populum.

Quote from lajube

I don't know what you mean when you say Zelda is deep and minecraft is shallow.

Zelda isn't necessarily deep, but it has more to it than just "entertainment value".

Quote from lajube

Zelda is a quest-oriented game, and minecraft is a building game. You could make a Zelda world in minecraft. Obviously the combat system and the story presentation wouldn't be as good because minecraft isn't focused on that. But you couldn't do Minecraft in Zelda, could you?

What does that have to do with depth of content? What does that even mean? Yes, you can't "do Minecraft in Zelda", but you can't "do" Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare in Minecraft, either. Does that mean Minecraft has less depth than CoD4? Does that mean CoD4 is a better game? Does that mean anything at all? The answer is "no" to all.

I'd have to agree with Notch that making mobs magically get stronger over a period of time is silly.

Instead, I would prefer the difficulty scales depending on where you go- like, how deep into the world you go. I've gone over this in detail in my improvement megathread, but to summarize it:

-Make the current hostile mobs harder to spawn in lighter areas (and so they almost never appear above ground, except in fairly dark forests and etc)
-Add some more mobs to take their place above ground- ones that are more natural, and not quite as difficult to fight (also, keep spiders above ground, but still don't spawn everywhere at night)
-Add more mobs for deeper underground. As you go deeper, more and more types of mobs appear.

This would also greatly benefit if the full 256 world height was taken advantage of, and the underground went from 63 blocks to ~90 blocks. It'd also benefit from more underground content and rewards.

This would make a system where you're fine if you stay above ground, but if you wanted a challenge, you could go further underground. And you'd get ample rewards (ideally) for going further underground.