This is a very interesting idea; I'd really like to see it tested out.
Not a big fan of the models for the bees, honestly; they look a lot like humans with silly bee-print leotards on currently. That said, I imagine a flying mob would be rather difficult to make, so just regular giant bees might be out of the question. But that's what I'd suggest (and for the potential ants as well); make the queen/king partially humanoid (like the spiders), and make the rest of their minions just giant versions of otherwise normal insects.
In regards to crafting and the like, I think a similar, but unique crafting tree would be great. The key issue, I think, is what replaces wood as the tier-1 building material, since, as a spider, you won't have as easy access to it as a human player would, though I guess you could argue that humans can only go get wood during the day, while the SQ could get it during the night. But then, there are the aesthetic and slightly-useful things like sugar-cane, flowers, etc. that would be harder for a cave-dweller to farm; especially when they require grass and/or sand; neither of which are in abundant supply in the caves. If moss grew naturally on cobblestone, that could replace grass, and you could use gravel rather than sand; and then you'd just need unique recipes for the substitutions, so rather than sugar, eggs, and wheat, the SQ's version of cake uses a root-like plant instead of wheat, Mushrooms instead of sugar, etc. and humans can't craft the SQ's version of cake and visa versa.
I'm just throwing ideas out. Probably too much work for the current scope of the project, but there you go.
- Registered Member
Member for 10 years, 11 months, and 2 days
Last active Thu, Feb, 17 2011 11:31:40
- 0 Followers
- 11 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
Feb 19, 2011Doesn't take that much extra space? You literally just said to double or triple the space, cost, and time. That's a lot of extra space, and unless the tracks are the first thing you put in a new area, odds are you're not going to have an infinite amount of space to work with; not to mention adding a new destination would require either digging out a massive area to put a new station, or tearing up your current track to rework it.Posted in: Suggestions
Yeah, the current system can work; amputations can also stop infections, but I'd still rather just have antibiotics.
Feb 18, 2011Alright, here's the thing: That is a terrible reason, and completely untrue. Saying something is better because you can somehow speak for everyone, and you think it's better is a poor argument. Not to mention, given that no one has ever tried this proposal, it's impossible altogether to say which they would prefer.Posted in: Suggestions
Have you ever tried doing anything other than a simple point-to-point rail system? It's anything but intuitive, and unless you want a giant sprawling mess of tracks, it's pretty much random chance if you get it to work right, if it's even possible with the current system. For example, it is impossible for for two tracks to cross on the same plane, meaning that crossing tracks in tight spaces is literally impossible with the current system. Because redstone affects all (or most) curved track, if you have one curve you want to stay the way it is, and one you want to change next to it, it is sometimes impossible to change the right track segment.
The current system is fine if you want your track system to take up tons of wasted space, way more resources, and way more time than it should have to, but without a couple minor changes, tracks will never be as good as they could be. If you're making your tracks one destination to another, then that's fine, you rarely, if ever, need to cross tracks, and you definitely don't need to do anything complicated with the rails. As soon as you add a third destination to your system, suddenly all the stops take three to four times as much space, resources, and absurd amounts of fidgeting to get the way you want them.
As it is, laying tracks becomes a chore, because anything more complex than a two-destination system is simply a headache to build in a reasonable amount of space.
Feb 17, 2011I was going to say that 6 iron for a booster seems a bit much, until I realized that a glitch booster takes 5 for the cart, plus more than one ingot worth of tracks, at least.Posted in: Suggestions
...And then I realized that to gain the same effects as a glitch booster, you'd need 10+ booster pieces, if it's 10% per booster.
So yeah, I'm all for it being expensive, but compare maybe 10 iron for a glitch booster, compared to over 60 just to bring the cart to full speed, and that can be achieved with a minecart and maybe three pieces of track right now. The concept is good, but unless boosters are much cheaper, or much more effective, I don't see it being any sort of replacement for glitch boosters.
Feb 17, 2011The point of this is to make track-laying simple and intuitive. Make it so you don't have to spend ten times as long as you should have to, or two to three times as much space. And as an added bonus, it looks far better.Posted in: Suggestions
Yeah, you can do an over/under crossing, but it looks absolutely terrible and takes at least 5 times as much space as the proposed intersection piece. The current T tracks are jumpy, require redstone or a lever to change the direction, and must be placed according to the south west rule, resulting in tracks having to double back so as to enter the T from the right direction. And as much as you say it's intentional, it's poorly implemented, as evidenced by the twitch going from one track to another. If it were truly intentional, and well-implemented, there would be no bump going from the straight track to the curved.
By adding two items and two recipes, minecart tracks will take far less space (and as a result, less track), require much less fidgeting, and look magnitudes better. I'm honestly a little surprised that this is such an issue, when everyone seems to be in favour of replacing boosters with special tracks for the exact same reasons: to make it look better, and to make minecart tracks take less time, space, and resources to put together.
Can anyone give a decent reason not to make it simpler and less tedious, other than "I don't want to have to re-do my tracks"?
And "the way it is now is better" doesn't count unless you say why the way it is now is better.
Feb 17, 2011Posted in: SuggestionsQuote from Sting_Auer »I don't see a point. You can already do these things with the current minecart system.
The way that carts change onto other tracks isn't a glitch. It's supposed to be that way. There is no point in adding these blocks, because it can already be done without them.
The point is that it's simpler and more intuitive, and far less space-consuming. For an intersection now, you need at least a 1x5x5 space to do it without suffocating yourself; more if you want to be able to get off at the intersection. Whereas with this system, you need a minimum of a 1x1x2 space for an intersection, and it looks far better, and it's easier to do.
And the way carts change to other tracks isn't intentional; if it were, there wouldn't be a twitch when you do as the minecart instantly turns itself to realign with the curve. If it were intentional, you would just go straight through.
It also adds an element of control, as you can decide what turns where without having to mess around with redstone, and it allows for building systems in tighter spaces; I've had times where i had to make some pretty big renovations because with the current system, it was literally impossible to do in the space I had, where if the system were intuitive, as I'm suggesting, I could easily cut the space required in half or more.
Quote from VileAssassin »I want a cross section. It takes two T sections to split a minetrack in 3 directions. I don't think there's a fix though since redstone can only have 2 states.
I considered that too, but I think it would be too complex for a binary system, and like you said, the same effect can be achieved with two T sections. And realistically (even though realism doesn't apply to Minecraft much), I'm not aware of any railway section that splits from one line to three; it's always two splits of one to two.
Feb 17, 2011Yes please. A way better mount than horses. Not a huge fan of the cockatrice, but that's more because the mythology implies that their gaze turned you to stone, and I'm not a fan of either instant death, or not following mythology faithfully.Posted in: Suggestions
Otherwise, Woot for Moa(s?). Is that the plural?
Feb 17, 2011I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I've got about 10 times as much Lapis Lazuli as I do wool, or any other dye.Posted in: Suggestions
That said, I'm all for more than one way to get something.It'd be nice if there were a plant and a mineral for each of the standard dyes, so players who spend more time above ground can still get the same dyes as those who spend more time underground.
Feb 17, 2011One of the best suggestions I've seen to date. Having to rely on boosters is a real drag, considering not only how much iron is wasted, but also how much space is required (plus, creepers can get caught in booster carts, leading to a potential deathtrap, while a single cart would just kinda bowl them over).Posted in: Suggestions
Quote from bosablood »Quote from Granticus »Hi all, first time poster here. I love the idea. :biggrin.gif:
Anyways, forgive me if this has already been addressed on here but, how many pieces of booster-brake/full-stop pieces of track would you get if you crafted them? I know how track comes in sets of 16, but I kinda think that 16 pieces would be a little too much for special pieces of track. xP So perhaps 4? 6? Somewhere around there...?
I like this idea, this would be great it keeps it so you dont have so many but good amounts nice i think this should be add the 4 or 6 i am maybe thinking around 5 would be good its not to much and not to little. Nice suggestion.
I think it would be better if it were done on a track-by-track basis, so the recipe for a booster or brake track involves a completed minecart track, plus redstone.
Something like this, maybe:
( is Redstone dust, is a track segment)
  
for a booster, and
  
for a break.
Feb 17, 2011I've seen topics about replacing the glitch-based booster system (viewtopic.php?f=1&t=102192) which I support fully and suggest you at least give it a read, and I've seen topics suggesting new types of minecarts, and various other miscellanea concerning tracks, but so far, I haven't seen any dealing with the fundamentals of the minecart tracks; namely the lack of 'T' (or wye) tracks, and the lack of intersection tracks, as well as the great difficulty in getting tracks to do what you want.Posted in: Suggestions
As such, I have some proposals: two new basic track types, a modified track-termination system, and the ability to change the default states/directions of track pieces.
New Track Types:
The Wye, or "T" track:
It works as the glitched one works now, minus the bump when going from the straight track to the curved track. Essentially, it is a curved track with a straight segment leading into the back of the curve, like so:
( :Iron:, , and are the three paths that lead to the block, will be the Wye track)
  
By default, when you place the Wye, the diamond side will be facing you, and the curve will be from the bottom to the right. Thus, minecarts that approach from and will leave in the direction of , while minecarts entering the block from will turn and head for :Diamond:. After it has been placed, right clicking the wye piece will change it to an alternate wye, where the track curves from to instead of from to :GoldBar:.
Applying power by redstone, button, switch, etc. changes the wye to its non-default state, and since you can change the default state by right-clicking the piece, you don't have to make your circuit more complex if you get the opposite result from what you want; just change the default state.
( represents one track, represents another track, and will be the Intersection track)
Minecarts on the track will always travel through the block from one to the other, and minecarts on the track will always travel from one to the other. Pretty simple.
When a track ends abruptly, the cart will act as it does now, and stop once it derails.
When a track ends at a second track that does not connect to it by a Wye or Intersection, the minecart stops at the end of the track it is on, rather than jumping onto the other rail as it does now.
The following are the recipies for the standard minecart tracks ( is a track segment):
The straight segment/curve ( ) will be the default track segment; once placed, right clicking will cycle between straight and the possible curves (one side must be connected to another track piece for it to curve, and it will skip directions that would have no side attached to another rail).
  
Results in four Wye pieces; once placed, the default state can be toggled by right-clicking; read the section on the Wye for a more detailed description.
Results in two intersections; read the section on the Intersection for a more detailed description.
I tried to keep the formulas roughly equivalent to what they are now; current glitch-wyes take only one track segment, so my proposed formula gives a 1:1 conversion, while a current intersection requires two segments, so the formula gives roughly a 2:1 conversion, with an extra segment lost (but considering how much time, effort, and space you waste now, it's not a huge deal unless you're planning on having a ton of same-level crossings).
So that's my proposal for a more controllable track system, and some new basic track segments. Please feel free to point out any flaws or mistakes I may have missed, or make suggestions (but keep in mind, this is for basic tracks; no booster tracks or elevator tracks, or anything like that). If your suggestion can't be done easily with the stuff I've already suggested, I'll add it to the OP (with proper credit, of course).
- To post a comment, please login.