Quote from draggypigeons»
Villagers use emeralds for currency, but there seems to be no source of emeralds.
Currently, the only sources of emeralds are mining, trading with villagers, and killing illagers.
You don't ever see villagers fighting or mining, so trading with players seems to be their only source of emeralds.
Yet the player can trade for emeralds even before the player has spent any emeralds. True.
Where did there emeralds come from?
To answer this, I think we should set up villager mines in Mountains and Mountains M (or whatever Extreme Hills is called.)
These villager mines would feature two kinds of villagers, miners and inactive miners. Villager mines should be located in the villages.
Inactive miners would be able to trade, but would not have any inventory, and examples of their trades would be an emerald for a diamond, a pickaxe for an emerald, and an emerald for five redstone. I support all these trades except an emerald for a diamond: way too cheap.
I understand some villagers already trade for ores, but unless they can trade, these inactive miners would just be Nitwits that turn in to Miners sometimes. Perhaps other villager trades could be edit to distinguish the villager types, but some villagers within the same proffesion but of different careers have similiar trades.
(That's not exactly true; rarely inactive miners would run to the nearest village and dump a bunch of emeralds down, which would then get picked up by the villagers; these emeralds would just disappear, not go to the villagers' inventory.)
Miners would well, mine, keeping ores and items in their 27-slot inventory, an inventory that would affect their trades when became inactive.
Also, miners would need to have free arms instead of having them up there sleeves, but inactives could keep their normal villager model. There should be no inactive miner. The inactive miner's abilities should be combined with the miner.
What do you think about this?