I came across an idea by dra6o0n in another thread that I thought would be worth expanding on.
Quote from dra6o0n »
Why not make chests act like switches, setting off redstone torches when it's being used, and turning off when it isn't.
People can combine this to make chest traps, that can be activated and deactivated at remote switches.
The traps activate, filling the room with water, and the victim can't break the blocks because the walls are made out of bricks or something very very tough.
This idea is very straightforward, yet has so much potential. Notch said he wanted more things to interact with redstone, and chests seem like a perfect addition for this. For one, chests already exist, so we don't need an additional block. For another, it allows for setting up traps on a chest. For multiplayer, this can be used to add a means of defense to traps without resorting to problematic locks. A trapped chest is classic, and has a lot of potential. It would also be useful for adventure mode; decoy chests, puzzles that need solved before you can access the chest, activating the puzzle when the chest is opened, etc.
Notch took a vote a while back about adding in levels, and the responses were against it. Your advantage over other people comes from your resources, and more importantly, how you are using them. While a mod adding it might be of interest to some, the game would not benefit from experience.
You do realise that when minecraft is finished it will go open-source, right?
Really? Then why charge for it?
I'm pretty sure you would need to buy it to get the open source.
Yes, open source =/= free. In any case, he expects to be working on it for the next few years. He says there is a lot he wants to do with it still, and he will keep working on it as long as it is selling. As it is, minecraft is his income.
Notch has already stated that he is going to change minecraft so you are always running a server and client(partially because it would run better on multiple cores), and consequently will make single and multiplayer maps not only interchangeable, but identical. You will be able to invite your friends into your single player game. You will (probably) be able to download the map you were playing on multiplayer and play it on single-player. In other words, Notch has already confirmed this.
I think having the moon change phases sounds great aesthetically, but I don't agree with the idea of having the nights change darkness. I think they are dark enough, and it would be annoying.
+1/2
The earlier nights would be brighter. By the time they are darker than normal you should have enough built up to compensate.
Quote from dra6o0n »
Easier if the "next moon type" is determined when the day begins.
So instead of gradual spawns, it's all determined by random what kind of night it will be on each day.
1 Night you could have NO mobs at all, and the next, a TON of em.
How is that easier? It just makes it unpredictable. You don't know when you need to prepare, there is no progression to it, its just random.
Ugh, Minecraft isn't modern based. An oven uses oil/electricity, there is no electricity or oil in the game yet. Also the use of the tools is pointless. Unless there's 3 slots one for the tool one for the type(gained once you make the object) and one for the item the point of tools is pointless. Also this is a survival game not a cooking throw-down, Don't mix early modern times with modern times.
Early stoves used wood. It amounts to a hunk of iron that you burn wood inside so it gets hot.
An option to universally reskin armour and items(and the map, while you are at it) on a server could be interesting, and avoids most of the problems with personalized re-skinning. (of course, the server could use a bad image set, but then you simply don't play on that server)
1. I did read the second part. I don't think showing health is a good idea; otherwise walking around with less than full health is like wearing a big "KILL ME" sign. Showing their armour level might be ok, but I prefer not to have random stats popping up all over, and if we don't have customizable armour, you don't need to.
2.If its optional, then it becomes idiotic to use in most situations, because it puts you at a disadvantage. Hence, you are putting in a lot of work for an option that people shouldn't be using most of the time.
I find this idea to have no gameplay benefit, and would force a lot of odd finagling and bending over backwards to prevent it from harming gameplay, most likely cluttering up the interface unnecessarily in the process.
I mean it as in:
The default armor is a sheet that fades over the player's armor.
So you can only see the alternate skins in peripheral, which means they are mostly pointless.
Quote from ConflagratedCanine »
Read the second part of my post. The toggle is just a preference option.
Then it does nothing for identifying what their armour is, which is the biggest problem.
Quote from ConflagratedCanine »
How would they know you toggled the option?
They don't even need to know. They are likely trying to attack you anyways. They just need to do the stick-sword swap, and if you are not looking at their actual tool, you will be surprised and they get the edge in combat, and if not, then they are operating normally with a quick draw-and-attack strategy.
Quote from Chadsweb »
Mystify I get where you're coming from and what you mean and everything but I don't think that a huge amount of people are gonna go and do that enough to make this feature not worth the little bit of atmosphere it adds (in a way, at least)
Even without people intentionally abusing it, it will obscure what equipment people are using. This alone makes it a bad idea.
And people will abuse it. It would take next to no effort to set up, little to no effort to maintain, and has no drawback if it fails.
As for atmosphere, it is more likely to destroy atmosphere. Sure, some people will have good skins and armour, but for the most part, you will be replacing armored people that fit the supposed theme of minecraft with random things like cyborg armour, cacti on heads, and fish as swords. In fact, it would be stupid not to change your sprites if there is not a good way to identify what items really are, since it will give you some measure of an advantage over people who choose to view custom skins.
Why not let the clients decide if they see custom player armors or not?
Maybe even bind it to a key, so if some guy runs around sporting full **** Drab, you can just hit L and Minecraft will display the regular cloth armor. (Or whatever armor it was he reskinned)
The main problem with that is it doesn't help you figure out what they are wearing, unless you toggle it on and off everytime you see somebody, which would quickly get annoying. Its also still somewhat susceptible to exploitation, since they could make their diamond sword look like a stick, then approach your with a real stick. You check, and see its a stick, so you switch the skins back on. They then switch to their diamond sword, which looks the same as before, so you don't realize they switched. They can then attack you with surprise using a diamond sword, which will likely equate to victory. There are, of course, other ways to exploit a toggle-able system like that.
Quote from KaiemahiVector »
How about this simple compromise:
**** the L key.
If the player is on your screen, depending on how close to the crosshair he is, the armor will fade in...
If the player is on the edge of your screen, it's invisible. If he's half way in between your crosshair and the side of your screen, it's 50% transparent. If he's on your crosshair, it's opaque.
How does that help anything? It would be much better to leave the default skins on with that method.
0
0
Randomly burried undergroud: buried treasure
Randomly found underwater: sunken treasure
In Dungeons: Loot
In trees: ???
1
This idea is very straightforward, yet has so much potential. Notch said he wanted more things to interact with redstone, and chests seem like a perfect addition for this. For one, chests already exist, so we don't need an additional block. For another, it allows for setting up traps on a chest. For multiplayer, this can be used to add a means of defense to traps without resorting to problematic locks. A trapped chest is classic, and has a lot of potential. It would also be useful for adventure mode; decoy chests, puzzles that need solved before you can access the chest, activating the puzzle when the chest is opened, etc.
0
0
0
Yes, open source =/= free. In any case, he expects to be working on it for the next few years. He says there is a lot he wants to do with it still, and he will keep working on it as long as it is selling. As it is, minecraft is his income.
0
0
0
If that is the case, then why do so many people want them?
0
The earlier nights would be brighter. By the time they are darker than normal you should have enough built up to compensate.
How is that easier? It just makes it unpredictable. You don't know when you need to prepare, there is no progression to it, its just random.
0
Early stoves used wood. It amounts to a hunk of iron that you burn wood inside so it gets hot.
0
0
2.If its optional, then it becomes idiotic to use in most situations, because it puts you at a disadvantage. Hence, you are putting in a lot of work for an option that people shouldn't be using most of the time.
I find this idea to have no gameplay benefit, and would force a lot of odd finagling and bending over backwards to prevent it from harming gameplay, most likely cluttering up the interface unnecessarily in the process.
0
So you can only see the alternate skins in peripheral, which means they are mostly pointless.
Then it does nothing for identifying what their armour is, which is the biggest problem.
They don't even need to know. They are likely trying to attack you anyways. They just need to do the stick-sword swap, and if you are not looking at their actual tool, you will be surprised and they get the edge in combat, and if not, then they are operating normally with a quick draw-and-attack strategy.
Even without people intentionally abusing it, it will obscure what equipment people are using. This alone makes it a bad idea.
And people will abuse it. It would take next to no effort to set up, little to no effort to maintain, and has no drawback if it fails.
As for atmosphere, it is more likely to destroy atmosphere. Sure, some people will have good skins and armour, but for the most part, you will be replacing armored people that fit the supposed theme of minecraft with random things like cyborg armour, cacti on heads, and fish as swords. In fact, it would be stupid not to change your sprites if there is not a good way to identify what items really are, since it will give you some measure of an advantage over people who choose to view custom skins.
0
The main problem with that is it doesn't help you figure out what they are wearing, unless you toggle it on and off everytime you see somebody, which would quickly get annoying. Its also still somewhat susceptible to exploitation, since they could make their diamond sword look like a stick, then approach your with a real stick. You check, and see its a stick, so you switch the skins back on. They then switch to their diamond sword, which looks the same as before, so you don't realize they switched. They can then attack you with surprise using a diamond sword, which will likely equate to victory. There are, of course, other ways to exploit a toggle-able system like that.
How does that help anything? It would be much better to leave the default skins on with that method.