-
- Kyfwana
- Registered Member
-
Member for 13 years, 11 months, and 8 days
Last active Sun, Oct, 4 2015 11:37:48
- 0 Followers
- 159 Total Posts
- 21 Thanks
-
Mar 10, 2015
Kyfwana posted a message on Minecraft for the Hearing Impaired?No wonder they never get anything done. Always sidetracked with random features nobody asked for.Posted in: News -
Jul 2, 2014
Kyfwana posted a message on Snapshot 14w27a is Now Ready for Hopping!Rabbits?? Why not add something that players have been wanting for years, instead of something that makes no difference.Posted in: News
-
Jan 26, 2014
Kyfwana posted a message on Snapshot 14w04a Ready for Testing!Posted in: News
Restone devices often have to be small enough to fit between existing structures or terrain features. I think owing to the fact that they are usually an afterthought or because aesthetics take a higher priority than making room for bulky redstone devices.Quote from JuniperMelody
I'm going to attempt to explain why redstone isn't smaller than it is. Simply, because this is a block game and the original premise was that a block could be any one thing; and how two adjacent blocks interact is purely a set of hard-coded rules.
Your suggestion to player-control how adjacent blocks interact would require imbuing blocks with a host of attributes or settings to define their behavior. Now the state of the world isn't just about the blocks, it's also very much about all the settings of the block that have been set just so.
I haven't shown that your idea is impossible or even impractical. But I think your idea would require a different vision of Minecraft.
In the end, making everything in the world smaller is just like making the player bigger; and there's really no point in that.
I have a pretty good system for controlling redstone junctions. Only 3 bits are needed to define all possible junctions. Anyway, it's pretty simple. First, redstone automatically forms a junction with the previous block you placed, assuming they are right next to each other. In order to create new junctions, or destroy them, equip some kind of a wand. With the wand, left click on one block, right click on an adjacent block, and bam, you've just created/removed a junction between them. That's it., now you can have redstone wires that are directly adjacent without necessarily connecting, and can create vertical circuits as well. -
Jan 26, 2014
Kyfwana posted a message on Snapshot 14w04a Ready for Testing!So the new villager AI is nothing more than pointless wheat harvesting? Why not make them do something interesting or actually useful? They could at least defend themselves against mobs and hostile players. Why not make them recruitable? I could use some body guards and sentries, especially in multiplayer to help protect against griefers while I'm away from my base or offline. Or why not make a miner class that you can hire to work in your mine? I want to see things added to the game that actually have some kind of impact on the game. No more pointless almost totally cosmetic changes.Posted in: News
And someone please retool redstone so it is easier to work with. It could take up 1/4 the volume and be 2000x times easier to work with if you could build circuits vertically or control how junctions are formed between adjacent redstone lines. And craftbook's Integrated circuits have proven so incredibly useful for me that it boarders on insanity the idea that anyone would bother to make anything redstone related without them. What am I going to do with redstone emitting item frames? Nothing. And I can't believe they don't spend their effort addressing the more obvious problems with redstone. - To post a comment, please login.
0
0
Also, you guys should use a mapping program to show off map seeds. It would give you a better impression than eye-level screenshot.
0
0
The concentration of diamonds in my simulation is arbitrary, so the specific ratio of blocks mined to diamonds collected will not be of much interest, but if you'd like to know there were 10,000 blocks broken in each trial. There were (correction) 100 trials for each mining pattern tested.
0
I don't think this is true.... You're not taking into account the fact that when spacing branches closely to get EVERY diamond, you are missing diamonds you would have otherwise found if you had dug in another direction. I created a 2-dimensional computer simulation to test this, and if my simulation is not flawed, it agrees with my assessment.
According to the following results, there is a disadvantage to spacing branches closer than 4 blocks apart, and that all spacings greater than that are equivalent. Therefore I predict that digging in a straight line (equivalent to branch spacing with infinite spacing between branches) is as or more efficient as any branch mining method.
results....
mining pattern / average diamonds found
---------------------------------------------------
strip mining / 434.32
branch spaced 1 apart / 809.18
branch spaced 2 apart / 1123.22
branch spaced 3 apart / 1420.56
branch spaced 4 apart / 1461.82
branch spaced 5 apart / 1467.92
branch spaced 6 apart / 1478.4
branch spaced 7 apart / 1474.81
----------------------------------------------------
diamonds were randomly distributed and clustered in 2x2 groups.
each mining pattern was tested 1000 times.
the same number of blocks were broken in each trial.
I can post the code of my program if anyone wants to check it for logical errors.
SUMMARY: It doesn't matter if you miss diamonds in one area as long as you have a chance of finding them in another.
0
0
0
0
0
0
Say I fill a chest with something of moderate value, such as iron tools. I would put a restriction on this chest, which limits the number of items a player can remove from it during a single day length to 2.
As it is, any attempt at public charity is pretty swiftly abused by a minority of players.
0
0
0
Simply considering block rarity using cartography (or whatever its called) will not suffice in determining its worth. For one thing, some blocks are very rare but easy to harvest, and for another it doesn't take into account block desirability.
0