I presume the answer will be "whatever name you select for your Twitch account" but then I should clarify, how will my existing posts be identified in the future, after I decline to create a Twitch account and am no longer a member here?
- IronMagus
- Registered Member
-
Member for 11 years, 5 months, and 12 days
Last active Wed, Jul, 11 2018 12:16:36
- 21 Followers
- 5,879 Total Posts
- 1414 Thanks
-
Oct 12, 2017IronMagus posted a message on Merge Your Minecraft Forum Account With TwitchPosted in: News
-
Oct 12, 2017IronMagus posted a message on Merge Your Minecraft Forum Account With TwitchPosted in: News
There's already someone on Twitch named IronMagus. It isn't me. How will my posts be identified after the merge?
-
Apr 21, 2014IronMagus posted a message on Community Creations - 1 Minute Parody: Batman RisesWhat the hell is with the "fish fish, passover passover" bit?Posted in: News
-
Jun 7, 2013IronMagus posted a message on Snapshot 13w23a Ready For Testing!Posted in: NewsQuote from Bjossi
Why are some of the bugfixes worded as if they have not been applied yet? One would think using past tense was more effective.
Sometimes it's not clear whether the text is the bug, though, or the fix. Imagine you see the following items in a list of bugfixes. We don't know exactly what the bugs are, but they have been fixed. Most of the time, we can infer from context:
"Game crashes when sheep eat grass." -- that's clearly a bug, and it has been fixed.
"Sheep regrow wool when they eat grass." -- this one, on the other hand, seems to be the fix and not the bug. Apparently the bug was that before, they would not regrow the wool, and now it's been fixed, so they do.
Okay, so that's fine. We're all familiar with sheep and what they do. We know that when they eat grass, they're supposed to regrow their wool, and not supposed to crash the game. But what about when the bugfix says something like this:
"This new block you've never heard of before does this thing which you're not sure if it's supposed to do or not." -- What? Is "that thing it does" the bug that's been fixed (and now it doesn't do the thing anymore)? Or, is the bug that it was not doing it before, and doing it now is the fix? - To post a comment, please login.
0
Well, yeah, you've only got one chicken. Like HateRegistering said, they only lay eggs occasionally (although i think it's closer to 5 minutes, on average, than 7, for any one chicken.) So, the more of them you have, the more eggs they will lay in a given time frame. It's just that simple. One chicken should lay an egg about every five minutes, five chickens should lay an egg (one egg, between them) about once every minute. Sixty chickens should lay an egg about once every five seconds, and 300 chickens should lay an egg about once per second.
Also, any time you start the game, enter the dimension, or reload the chunks, they won't lay eggs for five minutes (I'm not sure if this one is random, or if it's a set time or what.) But even if you have 300 chickens crammed in a pen, any time you start the game or come back from the nether or even from a far journey in the overworld, they won't lay any eggs at all for, let's call it "a while," and then it'll go back to normal speed after that.
3
1: He said overworld.
2: They drop the same XP as any other hostile, 5 points. You're thinking of Blazes, which drop ten.
3: I don't think they really spawn any faster than hostiles on the overworld do, per se, it's just that you can build 150 blocks or so out from the End island and have zero mobs spawning anywhere but inside your trap.
OP: The key to speed in a mob farm is not so much the design of the trap itself, but what you do to the surrounding area. Mobs spawn by way of the game choosing a random block location, checking to see if it's okay to spawn a mob there, and then trying that over and over again until it actually spawns a mob. The check is performed once for every chunk within range of the player, twenty times each second. The more possible spaces there are for mobs to spawn, the more likely one of them will be chosen during each spawn cycle. After just a few seconds, the "mob cap" (I think it's 81, for hostiles?) will be reached, and no more attempts will be made, until some of the existing mobs die or despawn, which happens randomly after not less than 30 seconds.
When you have a "natural" world, full of dark caves underground, there are millions of spaces (maybe not literally, but a lot) where they can spawn. Even a gargantuan mob trap you build is going to have only a small fraction of these spaces, and so only a small fraction of the natural spawns will occur inside your trap -- most of them will occur in the caves down below, you will only get a few, and then after that none when the cap fills up and they stop spawning. To get the most out of a mob trap, you want to reduce or eliminate any other spawnable spaces within 128 blocks of where you'll be standing while you use it. Mobs farther than 128 blocks from you will despawn instantly, so you don't need to worry about "conditioning" the area any farther than that.
The "simplest" (maybe not the easiest, but perhaps the most obvious) way to increase spawns in a mob farm is just to light up all the caves underneath the area. This will prevent hostile mobs from spawning in there. You can also flood them with water or cover the ground with half-slabs or some other block that mobs can't spawn on. At night, your trap might slow down when hostile mobs spawn on the surface. You can give the surface the same treatment as you did the caves, to keep it running full speed all night.
Something else you might do is to build it in the middle of (or at least 128 blocks offshore in) an ocean biome. This way, there is no surface to speak of, and the low floor means there is less room for caves down below -- plus, you can flood them easily just by punching holes in the ceiling.
Finally, you can build it way up in the air, preferably still above an ocean, so that there are no blocks for mobs to spawn on whatsoever, except the ones in your trap. Here is a link to "The Mob Dropper," a sky trap which uses this method, and advertises 0-30 in 3 minutes:
http://www.minecraft...0-in-3-minutes/
1
0
Is that what you mean?
0
0
0
Maybe it'd be easier to sink the breeding unit down a few blocks, rather than raise up the trading stalls (and re-do those water canals? If you sink the breeding unit, you just have to make the elevator taller by making it start a few blocks deeper, but if you raise the stalls you have to raise all the waterwork, too.)
0
You need to move the trading stalls up a few blocks so that the villagers inside are standing at the same height as (or higher than) the villagers in the breeder (the ones doing the breeding, not the one down below keeping the doors "alive.")
0
You've got some villagers where they aren't supposed to be. There are 22 villagers being counted by the mod (I can see a couple of them walking around in the picture, even) when there should be only one -- the guy trapped in with the doors.
You only lose reputation if you attack them yourself. If they die by a zombie (or other "environmental damage") and you are within sixteen blocks of them when it happens, then breeding will shut down for exactly three minutes. Multiple deaths are not cumulative, the timer simply resets to three minutes, it doesn't add on to what was already left.
0
Ah. Well I don't know if it's different in multiplayer, but I can say that in my single-player world, it is a 12x12-chunk square with the spawn point roughly in the middle (found with KaboPC's Spawn Chunks mod and confirmed by the dropped-item despawn test.) I have heard that it can also be 12x13 or 13x13, depending on the world.
0
1
Well it looks like there aren't any deserts for quite a ways away from spawn, but they are there. Using AMIDST and version 13w39b (the latest supported by that program) I got this map:
That's about 7,000 blocks across, the red-peaked house near the middle is your spawn, deserts are the orange areas to the north and west of there. Nearest desert appears to be a small one around (-1000, -1250). Also there's a much larger one near (1000, -1500). Can't check in-game right now if these are accurate, but at least it gives you something to go on, I hope?
[Edit: changed "1500" to "-1500".]
0
0
Right, but that's not OP's point, either. All he really wants is level V enchantments back, without using an anvil. As you put it, there's nothing to say we couldn't have level V enchantments back without needing 50 levels to do it. But it's not going to happen, because the whole reason they were removed is because the developers wanted it that way.
1
You know what was a pain? Grinding for five times as long to get to level 50 as it currently takes to reach level 30. You know what else was a pain? Clicking the item in and out of the enchanting table for hours waiting for that "50" to pop up randomly. You know what was even worse than that? Getting so into the groove of it that you only catch the "50" when it does pop up an instant after you click it away, then having to do it all over again.
Are you saying you want those back? Five times the grinding, and random levels in the table? No, I much prefer the current system to the old one.
I feel like what you are really saying is just that you want level V enchantments back from the enchanting table. And that's not going to happen. The reason they're not available anymore is not because you "just can't get a high enough level". The level requirements could have been changed at the same time; in fact for most things they were. You can still get good enchantments at level 30, just like you used to get good ones at level 50. A level 30 enchantment now, the highest that's available, is not akin to a level 30 enchantment before. Before, level 30 would get you a mid-range enchantment, while now it gets you the best possible ones, except for level V, which was a conscious decision. It's just that the game designers decided, on purpose, not to have the level V's be available from the enchanting table anymore. You can still get them, just not like that.