In multilplayer, however, heavy armor would be extremely useful when defending a base or needing to tank your way past enemy defenses, when light armor just will not suffice.
The problem, again, is that your window of vulnerability increases. OK, you take half damage from arrows. Cool. But you now get hit with twice as many arrows. And once you close, you can't do anything because they can run circles around you. The hilarious part is that this doesn't even change the initial problem trying to be addressed: people with full diamond on PvP servers being miles ahead of new players. They'll still have full diamond, and there's nothing you can do about it that you can't already do about it: simply outplaying a better geared person.
... How does this idea make armor useless? It doesn't make armor useless at all. It just removes "god-tier" armor from the game.
Armor above light would be useless, because you'd get hit more often. You're choosing between being hit by a monster for a small amount or just dodging the hit and taking no damage. Why would you choose to mitigate a portion of completely avoidable damage? What's better, taking half damage from creepers or having 50% more time to get out of the explosion?
Not to mention the obnoxiousness of being slowed while exploring (unless you decide to just carry two sets of armor around). A set that slows movement speed would only make sense were there specific places loaded with monsters where your only goal was combat with monsters whose attacks you can't usually avoid.
Your idea is identical to enchantments as well, just a different method to get them.
In a very vague sense, maybe. These would be independent, defensive style enchantments that decay. Enchanting armor with an effect only disappears with that armor; that's why an armor enchant that makes you immune to creeper explosions would be massively overpowered. But a non-stackable charm that takes up a gear slot that can make you immune to one blast? I know I'd carry 2-3 of those around for when I'm mining or breaking into caverns with piles of dark ledges above me. In other situations (like wandering around on the surface), such a buff is worthless and I'd trade it out. You could get charms that provide the armor boost or a speed boost, providing the same operational difference between the heavy/light armor offered by the OP while offering more options without needing to gut the entire existing tiered armor system.
This is a terrible idea. It doesn't make combat any more interesting, since armor is pretty useless. The biggest hitting things in the game ignore armor, and everything else is easily avoidable. To make combat interesting, there need to be threats other than monsters running into you or shooting simple projectiles.
Better idea for making concept, along the same lines: simply add a slot for a charm that has durability attached to it. The item is crafted by the player, and consumes durability based on the benefit provided. You could have one that adds 1 shield of armor (and degrades when you get hit), another that increases run speed (and degrades over time), another that absorbs creeper explosions (1 absorb per charm), ones that reduce fall damage (degrades when you fall), etc. This would give you a diverse breadth of different problem solving approaches without needing to make an overly complex ball and chain system to punish you for using armor that you don't need to begin with.
But I do think it's a fair criticism that this snapshot was rushed and not tested well enough.
I agree completely. Mojang should test their test pre-release before pre-releasing it for testing prior to release. It's unacceptable that a code snapshot distributed to get testing/feedback has not already been thoroughly tested.
You cannot give me any legitimate reason why the game shouldn't be deeper, there is SO much more epicness that could result from a 256 height. Taller towers, deeper mines, taller mountains, deeper oceans. A MUCH better game.
There's a legitimate reason why your solution isn't the right one. Currently, Minecraft renders chunks as vertical columns; that's why when you get a chunk error you can see an empty space all the way down to bedrock. When a chunk is loaded, it loads everything from top to bottom in one go. Simply doubling chunk size would double (at least, it'd likely be more since there would need to be extra swings of interactions and flow to deal with) the amount of processing time required to move around, resulting in a lot of problems on lower end computers.
The real solution is to change how chunks are generated/handled, likely with a cubic chunk solution. That change would be a pretty hefty change to the base code, though, since the proof-of-concept barely works and loses a huge amount of capabilities. It would be a massive change to the base code, and though Notch likes the idea, they are absolutely on a time crunch. Will we see it? Almost certainly. Just not before 1.0.
Tar refers to one of two things, pine tar or bitumen. Pine tar is produced from trees and isn't really a fuel source at all; it's mostly used for sealing traditional wooden boats, but also has uses in food and shampoos (pine tar is the tar in cigarettes). Pine tar is not naturally found, it's a byproduct of producing charcoal in a dry kiln. It certainly wouldn't be found at the bottom of holes.
The naturally occurring tar (like the la Brea Tar Pits) is not actually tar proper, but bitumen which is a kind of viscous petroleum product. Another name for bitumen is asphalt. Many roads are made out of asphalt concrete, which mixes the viscous asphalt goo with rocks and other chemicals to stiffen the liquid. The physical appearance of the two liquids lead to the term 'tar' being applied to both despite them being drastically different products.
EDIT: Another reason for them being called the same thing is that roads were originally made using tar instead of bitumen. This changed as the tar industry became less important (as synthetic materials were used more and more) and bitumen became more widely available. That's why tarmac has no tar in it.
Yet, if he says that hes working on this or that, then another 100 threads will spring up with people crying about how they think it will ruin Minecraft.
Or that whatever he's working on is worthless, and he should instead be focusing on X, where X is normally some profoundly retarded pet project.
I doubled up on fence height and gate height and my animals haven't managed to escape yet...it may be something to do with them jumping on top of each other and getting over the block and a half height.
You want realistic? Play Sims. Or better yet get off your computer. Realistic is not what Minecraft should be aiming for in the first place, and clearly it is not what they are aiming for with the additions of snowmen, mooshrooms, and potions.
4) Wait for 1.9 potions. Potions?!? Possibly the worst direction Minecraft could take. Minecraft is not Harry Potter, and no magical elements should be implemented into the vanilla version of the game.
Hey, look, another PvP whine topic that can't even manage to be internally consistent. At least this one is somewhat more cleverly disguised.
0
As much as I like Skyrim, the idea that its combat is 'complex' is a joke.
1
It wouldn't be an improvement in any way, shape, or form.
0
Since Minecraft is both a single player and a multiplayer game, any suggestions for one impact the other.
The problem, again, is that your window of vulnerability increases. OK, you take half damage from arrows. Cool. But you now get hit with twice as many arrows. And once you close, you can't do anything because they can run circles around you. The hilarious part is that this doesn't even change the initial problem trying to be addressed: people with full diamond on PvP servers being miles ahead of new players. They'll still have full diamond, and there's nothing you can do about it that you can't already do about it: simply outplaying a better geared person.
0
Armor above light would be useless, because you'd get hit more often. You're choosing between being hit by a monster for a small amount or just dodging the hit and taking no damage. Why would you choose to mitigate a portion of completely avoidable damage? What's better, taking half damage from creepers or having 50% more time to get out of the explosion?
Not to mention the obnoxiousness of being slowed while exploring (unless you decide to just carry two sets of armor around). A set that slows movement speed would only make sense were there specific places loaded with monsters where your only goal was combat with monsters whose attacks you can't usually avoid.
In a very vague sense, maybe. These would be independent, defensive style enchantments that decay. Enchanting armor with an effect only disappears with that armor; that's why an armor enchant that makes you immune to creeper explosions would be massively overpowered. But a non-stackable charm that takes up a gear slot that can make you immune to one blast? I know I'd carry 2-3 of those around for when I'm mining or breaking into caverns with piles of dark ledges above me. In other situations (like wandering around on the surface), such a buff is worthless and I'd trade it out. You could get charms that provide the armor boost or a speed boost, providing the same operational difference between the heavy/light armor offered by the OP while offering more options without needing to gut the entire existing tiered armor system.
0
Better idea for making concept, along the same lines: simply add a slot for a charm that has durability attached to it. The item is crafted by the player, and consumes durability based on the benefit provided. You could have one that adds 1 shield of armor (and degrades when you get hit), another that increases run speed (and degrades over time), another that absorbs creeper explosions (1 absorb per charm), ones that reduce fall damage (degrades when you fall), etc. This would give you a diverse breadth of different problem solving approaches without needing to make an overly complex ball and chain system to punish you for using armor that you don't need to begin with.
2
I agree completely. Mojang should test their test pre-release before pre-releasing it for testing prior to release. It's unacceptable that a code snapshot distributed to get testing/feedback has not already been thoroughly tested.
0
There's a legitimate reason why your solution isn't the right one. Currently, Minecraft renders chunks as vertical columns; that's why when you get a chunk error you can see an empty space all the way down to bedrock. When a chunk is loaded, it loads everything from top to bottom in one go. Simply doubling chunk size would double (at least, it'd likely be more since there would need to be extra swings of interactions and flow to deal with) the amount of processing time required to move around, resulting in a lot of problems on lower end computers.
The real solution is to change how chunks are generated/handled, likely with a cubic chunk solution. That change would be a pretty hefty change to the base code, though, since the proof-of-concept barely works and loses a huge amount of capabilities. It would be a massive change to the base code, and though Notch likes the idea, they are absolutely on a time crunch. Will we see it? Almost certainly. Just not before 1.0.
0
Torches going out was a terrible, terrible idea without massive gameplay changes.
2
Tar refers to one of two things, pine tar or bitumen. Pine tar is produced from trees and isn't really a fuel source at all; it's mostly used for sealing traditional wooden boats, but also has uses in food and shampoos (pine tar is the tar in cigarettes). Pine tar is not naturally found, it's a byproduct of producing charcoal in a dry kiln. It certainly wouldn't be found at the bottom of holes.
The naturally occurring tar (like the la Brea Tar Pits) is not actually tar proper, but bitumen which is a kind of viscous petroleum product. Another name for bitumen is asphalt. Many roads are made out of asphalt concrete, which mixes the viscous asphalt goo with rocks and other chemicals to stiffen the liquid. The physical appearance of the two liquids lead to the term 'tar' being applied to both despite them being drastically different products.
EDIT: Another reason for them being called the same thing is that roads were originally made using tar instead of bitumen. This changed as the tar industry became less important (as synthetic materials were used more and more) and bitumen became more widely available. That's why tarmac has no tar in it.
2
Wait, tar is an efficient fuel source? The stuff we make roads out of?
0
0
0
Or that whatever he's working on is worthless, and he should instead be focusing on X, where X is normally some profoundly retarded pet project.
0
0
Hey, look, another PvP whine topic that can't even manage to be internally consistent. At least this one is somewhat more cleverly disguised.