I guess I like the art style, it looks smooth and nice, transparent background..... Not 10/10 because I've never actually watched MLP but I don't think I'd like it anyway
We really don't need more food in Minecraft. Like Chameleonred5 said, they basically do the same thing and we already have a lot. Why use these when there are better foods? (Like steak and cooked pork)
The only unique thing here would be chocolate milk and the changes to milk, but I even disagree with this because it'll just add an unnecessary challenge. It won't even be a challenge, it'll just be annoying finding all the ingredients to get rid of a simple poison effect.
I don't support any of these, sorry.
The only thing I have to add is that I dislike the Floating Caves geome because floating blocks are unrealistic.
But there are already lots of unrealistic floating islands in Minecraft so it's not a huge deal.
May I ask why? I don't like it when fanboys start flamewars when people don't love Undertale, but I don't like it when fanboys start flamewars over any game.
If Undertale is someone's favourite game and they like to talk about it I think that's fine.
I personally love Undertale
My unpopular opinion: Minecraft is actually a great game. It's simple yet there are so many things you can do. It's relaxing and alleviates stress and anxiety. It's also the perfect place to meet friends. I'm pretty sure this opinion would be very popular on these forums, but outside not so much.
Most people look down on Minecraft as a game for kids and full of immature people. I'm scared that when I get older people will look down on me because I play Minecraft.
If blaze rods and lava can be used for furnace fuel why not magma? Magma is also pretty useless right now.
I think they should have a bit longer fuel time than coal but still less than lava though.
Almost full support
The nether has oceans of lava for a reason, if you wanna get across it should be a challenge.
Also, I'm no scientist but I'm pretty sure that an iron boat would heat up really quickly and you'd die immediately.
This is baffling. I am both honored to have so many people following this thread, approving of it.
I am humbled to see it still stickied for so very long This was a good run :). Thank you all for reading and entertaining this thread. I want to thank all of you for reading this thread and trying to work by it and encourage you to continue to do so. At the same time, Please remember that this is written by a human hand, and your judgment is the most important and valuable asset you have.
Please follow your own judgment as you post and deal with others, and use this as a tool instead of as a "critic's bible". If this tells you one thing and the rules tell you otherwise, the rules ALWAYS have precedent. Thank you all for your time.
Theriasis and crew have created an unbelievably well written thread on what to avoid when posting a new suggestion. This is a tool that you can find pinned at the top of this forum and includes ways to be a better suggester. However, it is my personal belief that making a good suggestion is only half the battle. This is a detailed guide on how to effectively critique a suggestion.
There are times where we all (I am far from an exception here) do not wish to take a great deal of time to critique a suggestion. We would all just like to stamp a suggestion with a "no" and be on our merry way. To this end, I'd like to express the multitude of different ways where we can improve the forum, improve suggestions, and improve our chances to not get banned all to hell by simply doing our jobs (critiquing) without changing who we are.
I do not expect anyone or everyone to follow everything here word for word. At its most primitive, this is simply a codex of applied common sense. I only ask that you try your hardest to respect your fellow members.
This is not necessary to read but it exists in case problems arise from the multitude of different cases you meet while at the forum. While it's not necessary, it certainly won't hurt. It may be necessary if you have been warned for toxic behavior. I recommend you NOT read this entire guide at once, but one section at a time if you want to read all of it. (Give your brain a chance to chill, yo!)
Below is the table of contents detailing various problems I've seen.
The points I'd like to cover are:
⦁ Who am I and who are you?!
⦁ Sounding smart
⦁ Putting it all together
⦁ Already suggested
⦁ Effective criticising
⦁ The only thing that would make this topic better is if I accidentally killed it.
* I grief with clay!
⦁ Obviously, OP needs to hear the same criticism 300 times before he has a chance to respond.
⦁ The power of Report!
⦁ The package Combo
⦁ Slipping off the level playing field.
⦁ I can't think without you!
⦁ Denial of the fittest!
⦁ ALL CAPS MEANS I'M ANGRY!
⦁ This is bad as there is a flaw
⦁ Minecraft is ______
⦁ FTC caused MC to lag!
⦁ It's only obvious!
⦁ What to do when explanations aren't important.
⦁ Necro vs Rezzing
⦁ Infdev is the best Minecraft!
⦁ This is Minecraft, not ...
⦁ Replying and Snipping
⦁ Getting to the point by completely missing it
⦁ What the Heck is "championing"?
⦁ Tools of the trade
⦁ Notch doesn't know how to code
⦁ Duties of a critic
⦁ ♪Your wasting my time!♪
⦁ This is a suggestion!
Nice Guides Finish Last
Before we begin, this guide is an attempt to show HOW you can remain yourself WHILE ALSO remaining within the forum rules. The premise is simple; you may not have to like the idea, but at least respect the poster. This is a difficult problem and one that I think we all can use help with.
This is very simple: In a given thread there are 2 people. The Original Poster is always qualified as the suggester. Anyone else who replies is a critic. I had a humorous PM conversation with a member here where he asked a few mock-up questions about the definitions so I'll get these out here so that it's easiest to answer before the questions are asked.
Q: What if the suggester posts a reply to his suggestion?
A: He's still the suggester as it's his post.
Q: What if the suggester has an alternate account?
A: He's still the suggester.
Q: What if the alt disagrees with the suggester?
A: He's still the suggester though I would recommend a shrink.
[not asked]Q: What about the site admins?
A: as OP, suggester. As replier, critic.
Critics are counterparts to the suggester. They are there to praise the good and criticize the bad elements of a suggestion. Often, the critic will offer blind praise with 1.5 million (conservative estimate) smilies. This is an acceptable if not totally obnoxious method.
I define the term critic for use in these forums as: A critic is a poster whom replies to the suggestion with feedback remaining impartial and unbiased toward the original poster and suggestion, discussing the suggestion in terms of balance, flow, implementation, quality, usefulness, conceptualization, and understandability.
I understand the above is a tall order to handle and it is not expected of a poster to cover every part of these details in his reply; however, covering these points allows the suggester some serious and helpful detail to improve his post and is valuable even if you personally agree with the suggestion (more on that below).
Supporting details are something you'll see as a recurring theme here. What are supporting details? They're what makes your criticism relevant. They're what makes your criticism valid. They're what makes your criticism worth reading and worth replying to.
If you make a criticism and you're running into a ton of hate, you probably neglected this part.
They're actually more important than the criticism itself. Seriously. Even if the actual criticism is faulty; the supporting details are what allow others to see your thought process.
If you don't have enough time to give supporting details to back up your criticism, you don't actually have the time to make the criticism.
1) the criticism/assertion – what you're criticising. It can be anything from too much lag, OP, imba, personal distaste, prevalence of related existing entities/concepts, etc.
2) the supporting details – why you're criticising? What is the thought process? This does not have to be perfect. It can be based in logic, speculation, or reasoning. However, it does have to be thoughtful. People have strong rationale and reasoning that sometimes doesn't conform to logic. Others have solid logic that frustratingly doesn't apply to behavior. Sometimes what you bring to the table is flawed. That's fine, so long as there's a root in perspective and you're okay with amending the view. The more technical or specific the criticism, the more supporting details you need to bring. i.e. If you bring a criticism of “lag city” for example: you should have a basic level of how Minecraft works and a competent ability to explain the lag or you'll meet a LOT of resistance.
This isn't going to win you any Mark Twain awards for literature, and there's a ton of other things that go into it; but so long as you have those 2 parts, you'll have the basic ingredients of a criticism.
Also, freeform quick-fire questions are also really useful here. Sometimes the best you can do to stimulate a suggestion is ask about the stats of a mob or recommend stats. This is most useful when discussing mobs, biomes, or consumables; but can be used in a lot of areas where a few questions are all that's needed to engage OP and promote discussion.
What are the chances of ANY suggestion ANYONE has come up with would be original by now? Law of averages is not on your side. "Already suggested" becomes a categoric insult at this point, and more statement of the obvious akin to typing "This is a collection of words on a bulletin board system". Thanks, Cleetus; we got that.
This thread was originally created before the rule of being able to create a new thread if a previous incarnation has been dead for one month or longer. With this said, if a suggestion _is_ redundant, don't blindly scream "already suggested", instead. Find a previous, more relevant, thread and link there. Report the thread. Do not tell the suggester he is being reported.
If you wish to be helpful before the inevitable lock, instead of telling the OP to use search; instead search for him, offer your choice thread as a link to check out; and then report the thread for lock. Again, Don't tell the OP he's being reported.
Unfortunately, "no"-- while valid (a statement of dislike, which means that the suggestion is not perfect) -- is not a very helpful criticism. Where does the poster improve his suggestion? What hallmarks does he go by?
Remember that one-word and two-word responses like "no" and "don't like" are against the rules. The reasoning is very simple; they do not help. Yes, they are your opinions and they are criticisms; but they help in the same way as the engine light coming on in a car. Yes, there is a problem... Now... Where?
To effectively criticize, it is important to have your personal views and beliefs take a back seat. Remember that this is a suggestion for inclusion into the game for ALL players. The OP may not have back-seated his bias, but a critic should. While cases of "I personally don't see myself using this." or "I do not prefer this mechanic" are definitely valid arguments, the OP CANNOT use this to strengthen his post. How can he improve it if you are fundamentally opposed to the basic premise? you can't? Exactly! Backseat your concerns.
What "actual" reasons do you have to say no? Difficulty? Mechanics? Cost? Fundamental problems?
Keep in mind that even if you say YES to a suggestion, it is desirable to post criticisms to further cement and improve the idea.
Finally, if you can't find a good thing to say about the suggestion; it takes less energy to press back and ignore it than it does to reply with "no". If you're going to be lazy, then be lazy.
TL;DR is NOT a breakdown in communication, it is a refusal to do so. TL;DR means you haven't read the suggestion, so you HONESTLY have no freaking idea what the suggestion is talking about in the first place, so you are admitting that you don't understand the concept of the thread; won't bother to understand it, and are speaking totally from the limited scope of your voided personal opinion. This is a personal pet peeve, and one that a serious critic should stamp out as quickly as possible.
Expectedly (It's almost a slippery slope except this one is a predictable and regularly arrived-at result) this is considered flaming.
Look guys, I think it's neat-o that you support the suggestion, but adding in your thoughts or feelings on why you like it, which settings you can use it in, or what would make the suggestion even better. Otherwise, keep it to yourself. No one wants to read blind or baseless praise.
Often the good intentions of the poster may end up creating a red herring that can distract the discussion. In cases of a new thread, these good intentions are not enough to spark meaningful conversation to keep the thread alive. If you like the thread, and want to promote it; then find creative ways to spark conversation to keep it thriving instead of just going with a little “support” or “parsup”.
Supporting details, even when positive!
This one is about the tried and true criticism that yoshi9048 definitely can't touch! "People could use this for griefing!"
Or... maybe, just maybe... I might have something to say about it. STOP IT! Now brah, I know what you're thinking; but hear me out! Put your ear to your monitor and hear the words on this screen! Alright, now that everyone near you thinks you're crazy; I'm going to say "stop using it". It's copy pasta. It's basically the can of soup argument all over again. You easily can apply this criticism to a can of soup and be correct!
In fact, "it can be used for griefing" is so ubiquitous that I wouldn't be surprised if it outweighed Herobrine on the suggestions forum. Why do I say that? I can think of any item or feature already in Minecraft and state with full certainty and without batting an eye; it can be used to grief. Name anything, and I can create a paranoid system where it can be abused to devastating effect by anyone with an inclination to use it in such a way.
Which is to say, the suggestion is being denied by something outside of the scope of the suggestion; the malicious intent of another individual. This is the suggestions forum, not the server-nanny forum. With that being said; if you have a solid and plausible case where the idea can be easily exploited or abused unwittingly; then feel free to post your argument; but be very careful to keep your "it can be used to grief" to cases where a lot of detrimental harm can come from a suggestion with few positive elements.
Dogpiling is bad, also don't dogpile. Make sure you don't dogpile while you're at it. If you could be so kind, don't dogpile.
So this one is an issue that arises from what I'd consider a non-issue.
The NON-ISSUE: Echoing Fury - multiple critics make the same criticism, neglectful (whether intentional or just from lack of reading a (often multiple page long) thread) of other's contributions.
The ISSUE: Group Bullying. Let me explain. As people are ridiculed for an error in judgment or logical flow, it becomes more natural to demonize the outgroup. You, as the in-group would naturally feel justified. In the right. There is obvious social pressure to continue to castigate the suggester. Repeating the same criticisms as others, becoming more empowered to dehumanize the OP. As a thread progresses, and redundant criticism piles on; so does the appearance of a relaxation toward rules and decorum. At the end, it's possible that the OP of these threads are not even seen as worthy of basic human respect anymore, which is disingenuous at best.
The non-issue is always there. Solidarity of opinion is quite important. It allows the poster to know that it's not an isolated opinion, but a genuine problem with his design. This type of feedback, especially when given by multiple sources from different regions is always a good thing.
The issue is there though. And it's magnified by OPs natural denial. Being told that an idea you commit to the aether as a representative of you; your identity, your tastes, is now considered "bad" or "flawed" is humbling. It's a hard pill to swallow, I'd expect anyone to become recalcitrant toward the criticism. But when these criticisms are aggregated by multiple posters. It's easy to feel like you're being bullied. It doesn't help when critics instinctively ARE bullying due to falsely-perceived relaxed restrictions.
The point here is what I call dogpiling. It's where one person is tackled, and increasing number of people add to the weight of the tackle. While it's a good idea to show solidarity of opinion, if a critic already handled the criticism; there's not much point in restating it. It's already there. Use your up-votes if you agree. Try to avoid turning ugly.
Remember, these suggesters help keep the community alive. Work with them, become their friend. They could one day become a great force for a forum. The last thing we need is for you to drag down the forum by forming a collective mob identity.
Well, not really. However, you will find the Report button under each person. I want to go over the basic etiquette of using it, when you should, and when you shouldn't.
The report button does not ban the poster, nor does it shoot lightning bolts. It simply brings attention to a moderator to allow them to sort out the problem. However, it is a vital tool and necessary to use on several occasions.
One thing I would like to note to everyone, not simply critics; if you are to report someone, don't be THAT guy. You know. Don't be the one that goes and tells the person that they've been reported. All that causes is petty revenge scheming and forces things downhill. You know that road to hell? You'd be walking it.
I'll list it this way. If you're going to report someone:
1) do NOT tell the person he's being reported.
2) do NOT tell the person he's being reported.
3) report him
4) do NOT tell the person he's being reported.
5) do NOT tell the person he's being reported.
6) press back and leave the thread
DO NOT TELL THE PERSON HE'S BEING REPORTED. I can't be any clearer, consider this to be your warning.
It is important to note that it is wise to use the Report button when material is questionable or worse. If you have a gut feeling that the post is against the rules, but can't put your finger on it; report with a full reason. If you're wrong, no harm no foul. If you're right, the post will be locked/deleted and the poster may/may-not receive a warning/ban or possibly a slap on the wrist in a worst case.
Here are what I view as no-harm-no-foul reports because the poster isn't harshly punished.
⦁ Wishlists - LOCKED
⦁ Posted in wrong forum - MOVED
⦁ Redundant Suggestion - LOCKED
⦁ Off topic - LOCKED
Mild to major penalties arise from flaming, trolling, disrespect to admins/fellow members, continuously locked or moved topics.
Insta-ban penalties arise from hate (religious, gender, racial prejudice), trivializing horrendous events (trivializing the holocaust for the lolz >_>), or pornography.
Remember that reporting is a right of forum members; treat it and others with respect.
These criticisms by themselves are horrible. If you want them to go from a useless waste of time to an actual criticism, you can start by validating your points with SUPPORTING DETAILS. Ahhh, it rears its ugly head again!
Let me be frank, unless you bother to add supporting details to your opinion; you DO NOT HAVE ONE.
I added "you can do this in command blocks" to this list for the very same reason. I can do EVERYTHING with command blocks, rendering practically every game mechanic obsolete. Command blocks cannot be used in many maps and are inaccessible without going OP. Because of this, this fails as a criticism.
So, what is slippery slope? It's where a suggestion has an unverifiable consequence without any link used to deny support. "We shouldn't add this new food because than everyone would want more food types. What's next, eating the bone marrow of skeletons?"
Y'know... Sometimes OP simply wants to add radish and radish related dishes to the game without the inclusion of any other vegetable or type of food. It just might be a thing... OR... Maybe if he WANTED other foods, he'd place them in another thread as it belongs with its own discussion.
Or, in a worst case scenario, the absolute worst case happens; this opens a door where the suggestions forum is flooded with dozens of related suggestions. This forum has (as of writing) 3128 pages of suggestions. Creating that 3129th page is going to create a time paradox that destroys universe within the greater multiverse, right?... No? Oh, then what's the issue?
Let's get back to why I say it's prepackaged garbage. Take any suggestion. ANY suggestion. Even golden ones like colored light, muskets, new biomes, etc. For added fun, let's use your suggestion. Just fill in the blank.
"If they added ___your_suggestion___ then people will want ___random_guff_that_I_think_up___. What next? ___outlandish_and_unrealistic_demands_that_have_nothing_to_do_with_OP___?!"
If they added _ then people will want _. What next? _?!
You see how easy that is? You can literally copy and paste that and enter in the fields. It's so easy I even did half the work for you. Or, how about you don't? I've already shown how this argument fails; just stop using it. Thanks!
Polling the audience is where you form your reason for approval or denial according to what you see as a norm.
"Not many people like wolves, so I'll say no here."
"Most people do not like this"
"This idea is unpopular"
"Wow, everyone said no to this suggestion, it must be crappy. No."
If you are going to deny something with the above or something similar, don't type anything, press back. Seriously, I don't want to read it. No one cares what you have to add to a suggestion. Why should they? What you have to say is easily swayed simply by conformity. Effectively, you don't have an opinion. Even if you did, how fickle would that opinion be? How much peer pressure would it take to change your mind? If your entire argument crutched on the amorphous blob that routinely changes standards of conformity; you become as amorphous and shambling at the group. Your opinion is not reliable as it's not influenced by points, counterpoints, or actual discussion. Your opinion is only reliant on "I hope I don't make X person or X group angry." You are invalidated.
If your post is only reflective of what you think is the majority's desire, then shut up and let the majority talk for you. You aren't representing yourself, you're representing what you THINK the majority likes. No one needs that. What do YOU think? What YOU think is important. Everyone knows what the majority thinks, all of the majorities. You don't have to parrot it back out.
Also, if you make someone angry for speaking your mind, who cares? Do you care? Why? So what if you make someone angry? They'll get over it, and hey, they may actually respect you for actually having the brass to stand on your laurels instead of sponging your opinion from someone else. Are you going to be a carpet to be walked on? Or are you going to form an opinion and speak it? There will always be people willing to be walked on; doesn't mean you have to fill that role.
Here's the quick and dirty:
1) There is no room for communication. I mean, where does the OP go? Does he agree? Disagree? Who cares? You stalled communication while adding nothing to it.
2) The path you feel prudent for Mojang to take is inconsequential. They'll go their own path, if you want Mojang to work on a mob instead of a suggestion, THEN MAKE MOB SUGGESTIONS.
3) How the nether jelly fish is the OP supposed to not only PREDICT what you're going to say, but then make a post that affirms with you?! It's egotistical and impossible. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING the OP can do to remedy the suggestion as the only solution they have is to redirect the thread to in-line with your desired goals. Again, a selfish and irrational demand.
4) You are not the gatekeeper. You don't have an actual concept of Mojang's timetable and are in no position to demand what they should or should not work on next. Until you become president of Mojang, stop pandering to this criticism.
5) It's not a criticism. It's off-topic banter that has absolutely no bearing on a discussion. It's also modular; I can literally pick up and drop this argument into anything that isn't related to the criticism.
6) It's lazy, and if you're trying to be lazy, you just failed. Press BACK, that's even lazier and you don't have to task yourself with copypasta and posting.
"THIS IS THE WORST SUGGESTION IT'LL NEVER GET ADDED AND I HOPE YOU DIE!" - First of all, turn your 10 into a 2. Second of all, statements like that will get you in jail. You're not Hulk, and gamma radiation causes cancer and death, stop 'roiding everywhere.
There is a small finite number of reasons you should ever show such bittering and all-consuming rage that it can only be expressed in torrid fits and ceaseless howls. In these occurrences, it's understandable that you SLAM ALL CAPS, KILL THE CRAP OUT OF [SHIFT]+1 (!), AND ACT LIKE YOU JUST GOT YOUR LEG CHOPPED OFF BY A RUSTY CHAINSAW!
Here's the expansive list: Revenge; Betrayal; Rape; Loss of family/friends; Excruciating Pain; prolonged starvation; violation of personal inalienable rights. Here's a highly abridged list of times you SHOULDN'T use such behavior: Someone makes a post you disagree with on the Internet.
Look, I understand that someone says something you don't like. Get over it! People say things I disagree with all the time, it's called COMMUNICATION. I use it to convey my ideas and responses, calmly to others until an agreement can be attained.
Saying "THIS IS THE WORST SUGGESTION IN THE PLANET AND WILL NEVER BE ADDED!" Only makes you look like a backwards ignorant idiot that totally refuses to communicate. This is basically the TL;DR rule all over again. If you don't plan to actually communicate, GET OFF THE FORUM. that's what the forum is there for, communicating, agreeing, disagreeing, and reaching equitable compromises.
I don't care if it's popular to hate on an idea, or if you were trying to be "cute" or "prove a point", I'm going to prove a point right now, if you type it then you look like an idiot, STFU and GTFO because I don't want to read it. It's not cute, funny, charming, or inspiring; it's only hateful and inciteful.
What can you say instead? "I disagree" - provide a reason, and go away. If you decide to go all BANE over a post and I happen to read it, I'll make a mockery out of you.
Save your melodrama for more important things than someone you'll never meet having an opinion. We have actual HUMAN EVENTS that occur that more deserve your pitiable overcompensating emotions than the first-world problem that someone feels differently over a video game.
Congratulations! You found an error in a well groomed and manicured suggestion! However, you're wrong, the suggestion is not a pile of crap and you are not a genius for pointing it out, merely a savant.
As you may have guessed, coming up with piddling trifles for denying a suggestion (untested and unverified numbers are not to your liking despite the author's repeated statements that the numbers are subject to change) (You dislike the color of the suggested mob) (the suggestion is not thematic) or other things is a cop-out.
If you can see dozens of possible applications and potential uses that you would PERSONALLY wish to obtain, why sweat the small stuff and deny the entire suggestion for one misgiving?
Though this hasn't personally hit me as annoying, I've seen fellow members grow fiercely agitated by this.
Yes, it is important to mention and note these problems as they are problems; but don't be cheap and expect perfection from very different imperfect beings. Don't deny support because something as trivial and alterable as mob color is giving you the blues.
Concepts such as "too futuristic", "overpowered", "not thematic" are not intrinsically bad reasons for denying a reason. However, if they are provided without supporting details, they become SPAM.
Ahh, “supporting details”, that phrase again.
As a critic, it is your job to detail WHY you decline the suggestion. "not thematic" is not detailing, it's giving a reason. However, unless you support your reason; it is highly circumstantial and can be argued. You're there to post a reasonable discussion as to WHY you feel it's not thematic, not lead the OP into a meaningless debate.
It's a point of order, if your criticism is one or fewer sentences, save yourself the energy and don't post. "This is too futuristic" can be argued for ANY concept from wolves to pistons to laser rifles.
*ATTACKING THE HYDRA*
The hydra is a great mythological serpent from Greek myth which grows two new heads for each that is chopped off. It is considered to be a plague, killing thousands in its wake; and was only killed when Heracles cauterized each of the heads after chopping them off.
Now that we got that bit of Greek mythology out of the way; let me tell you what OUR forum hydra is. "Minecraft is __" often the blank is medieval, steampunk, etc. In any of these cases, you're wrong.
For The Critics has one of four lessons: Commit completely or don't commit at all, use common sense, communication is important, and have supporting details. This one waxes poetic on common sense, so expect this one to be straightforward.
"Doesn't fit" works in that way. If you were EVER curious what the exact theme of Minecraft was, it doesn't have one. I use 3 measures to legitimize this statement. The MEDIAN level of technology, the most proficient technology, and the difference between these two. The median technological level of Minecraft is pre-renaissance if we were to define it using Earth as a reference. I'd say 13th~14th century Europe would be a proper equivalent. However, the most advanced technology in the game is early/mid-20th century with the use of hoppers, trapped chests, pistons, and automated systems. Here's the problem: there's a 700-year UNEXPLAINED gulf between MC's common technology and MC's high technology. This makes its actual theme impossible to state using Earth as a reference.
Because of this, stating MC as medieval or steampunk or classical or neo-industrial would be incorrect. Instead of approving or denying a suggestion based off of an assumed setting; instead deny it or approve it on the only metric that WORKS: Intermediate Technology.
Intermediate - between
Technology - utilization of science.
In this case, intermediate technology simply means "technology that must exist for other technology to make sense." As an example: sticky pistons don't make sense unless you have pistons first. Trapped Chests require chests and tripwire hook. Smelting iron requires a furnace. Etc. As you can see, the idea is to base a suggestion's "fitting" on anything that allows it to fit instead of some flawed proposed setting.
There we go, I've attacked the hydra. Let's hope it did anything.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to add this; I was hoping the community would get this. I was wondering why people were still posting this. Then I saw that it wasn't added, people didn't see it as a "rule". So now, everywhere I go, I see people screaming "LAAAAGGG" like it means something.
Unless you justify this statement, it's unjustified. Your opinion is worthless because you haven't given it any worth. All you're doing is bumping your post count. You probably didn't even READ the thread before assuming "lol, too hard, lag"; and for many of you, you'll probably take offense here (because someone caught your lazy butts red-handed). Patience and hope for humanity has it's place, the Minecraft forums are not one of them; and because of this, this section has made a home here.
What's a "lagument"? Lagument is a portmanteau (a silly French word where you cross the word and meaning of two words to form a new word with both meanings (like modem or batarang) of lag and argument; and is often used across the board by everyone that can't find a good reason to deny a suggestion.
Can't think of a good reason to deny a suggestion you don't like? Don't like the OP? Simply say "too much lag" and be on your merry way. The problem here is that you can apply "too much lag" to EVERY SUGGESTION in this game, other sand boxes, any pc game, any console game, all games period, movies, music, pictures, any interactive media whatsoever, books, and your grandma. It's NOT A CRITICISM.
Look, this argument is stupid. "It would cause a lot of lag" or "It would probably cause lag". Unless you actually place HARD NUMBERS and REASONABLE ARGUMENTS to corroborate your assertion, you likely don't know enough about WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT to tell anyone what THEY'RE talking about. People that DO know what they're talking about will know YOU DON'T KNOW what you're talking about; and they'll call you out on it; you'll salt your own turf, call the entire community "haters/trolls" and never visit the forum again.
This is a cop-out, an unreasoned, and unprepared reason to simply deny a suggestion. Use it at your own risk. Please bear in mind that this excludes well organized and fully explained reasons for "lag" denial. It's not a fine line either; you either know what you're talking about or you don't. Because of this, be prepared to DETAIL and DEFEND your lag denial with actual facts.
Properly doing so will have one of three effects:
1) The thread is completely shut down.
2) The OP will make some bogus claim of "just upgrade your computer" or try to assuage the problem by ignoring it; trivializing it; or redirecting to keep a positive spin on a topic you thoroughly destroyed.
3) The OP will ignore you or insult you and proceeds to salt his own turf.
The first thing that any critic should do is assume that everyone on the page has the relative IQ of tree sap. The second thing that any critic should do is assume that these people are unwilling to change their views unless a significant amount of evidence contradicts their personal beliefs. At which point, you'll still have die-hards holding onto their reality to the point where proof exists as a mere contrivance and is as fraudulent as the poster regardless of verifiable claims.
To this point; there is no true understanding as we all live different lives. We have all had different past experiences. Perhaps you are the victim of domestic abuse; perhaps you grew up in a broken home; perhaps your parents are victims of chemical addiction (drugs and/or alcohol).
These all are measures which define us and show us how truly different we are from one another. One person can take a simple word and define it completely different from another.
The point of all of this is: Unless you have a frame of reference, nothing is obvious, and nothing is self-evident.
Keep in mind that I mention "frame of reference" for a reason. We can all make a safe assumption that everyone on Earth has seen rain and can obviate that each droplet of precipitate is "wet" and unabridged exposure to the precipitation will get the target entity wet as well.
However, frames of reference cannot be tacked on carelessly to any situation. This is where most people (independent of their intellect/education) screw up. A physicist may be able to describe the nature of the atom; and a meth-head may be able to make meth in his "lab", but it doesn't mean that the physicist would understand how to make meth any more than the meth-head could split the atom.
I've seen too many posters hone in with "DO U HONESTLY NOT NO THAT IT WERKS LIK DIS!?" You know; they may have an IQ of 180 and NOT know that. Just because you know a useless bit of trivia doesn't mean everyone does; open your scope and learn to accept differences in others.
Until you do this; expect to get warned and banned and flamed yourself.
You really do not want to be the one to say one of these. Like the person in a horror movie who confidently states, "We're safe now.", you're setting yourself up to be proven tragically wrong. You may be feeling quite proud of yourself for delivering what you see as a final killing blow to a bad idea, but that isn't how it's going to turn out. In fact, saying that the issue is settled will almost guarantee that it continues, as people offended by your flippant tone either ignore your post outright, or continue arguing just to make you wrong.
Worse, statements such as these can weaken your position, not just for yourself, but for anyone else who agrees with you. In the first place, it gives an obvious error of judgement that others can use to call your other assessments into question. More to the point, though, these kinds of statements make you look desperate. It's basically an admission of defeat. If your arguments are sound, you don't need to tell people that they are. If you're really certain that the issue is settled, then you shouldn't need to say so. So when you do, it conveys the implication that your position is too weak to stand up to challenge from others, and you're just trying to get them to leave before they see the little man behind the curtain (as it were). Saying an idea will never be added is worse. Take a tally of how many things in the game right now were once certain to "never be added". Now, consider what making this statement means for your post... It raises the question, "Why are you even posting?" If the idea itself is so bad that it shouldn't be used, your posting is just bumping the topic, and getting it more attention. On the other hand, if the idea is really so inconsistent with the theme of Minecraft as to never be included, no matter how it's suggested/argued, posting is a waste of time. Because of this, it shouldn't come as any surprise if, when you state the absolute impossibility of an idea, no one believes you.
A personal definition for necro is a spam post like "bump" or similar "I disagree" or other non-constructive post. This is frowned upon and causes a great number of moderators to burn the zombified thread with a quick lock. The only reason you should ever post in any topic is because you have something useful to add to it. A statement of +1 or No adds nothing useful; therefore, the topic gets locked (in direct opposition to the desired effect.)
While necroing is against the rules, I personally feel that objectively reviving a thread with pertinent argument and qualifying discussion is not. Simply because a thread is as old as dirt does not mean it is dead, especially if it is better written and more pertinent than the current counterparts that exist.
It is POSSIBLE to resurrect old threads, but it must be done with care and great respect to the original poster and the thread itself.
Here's the playbook:
I have found the powerful blows of the mod-hammer have not fallen on my conscientious efforts to revive a valid and worthwhile thread despite age.
It is important to remember to use sound judgment on whether to revive a topic or not. If you cannot properly add information to a topic, then it may not be as acceptable as you may think.
If a thread was made in 1.3 and it's content is out of date, it's a bad idea to revive it.
If a thread was made with poor grammatical structure and is only a sentence, it is a bad idea to revive it.
Save your revivals only for those things truly deserving to be revived.
To carry this sentiment, you can understand why adopting this mentality as a "reason" for denial is a bit pathetic; I'd hope. If you don't like a suggestion because you play in an earlier version and don't think it'd work because of that, shut up. It won't affect you anyway. How do I know? You're playing a DIFFERENT version. It's a recursive self-answering question.
"I play 1.6.1 because I don't like baby zombies, and this suggestion would just make them more stupid!" - you invalidated yourself because you flat won't be affected. At all.
"I don't support bc then everyone else would just load a different version." First, you don't know that. Second, shut up, you don't have the knowledge or authority to speak for everyone else. Third, your statement becomes immediately invalid the second someone disagrees with you and loves the idea. Stop being bad.
Someone saying no to an idea simply because it may have something in common with another game. Given ANY idea I have ever seen and my limited grasp of games I have personally played; I can say NO to just about every idea that presents itself because I've seen it before. Seriously, no one cares if you saw the idea in another game as long as it's theme and usage conforms to Minecraft.
That is not to say that blatantly ripping off mechanics from existing games is a good thing; but when a player comes up with an idea, it should not be shut down simply because there is a tenuous generalization of an implementation in another game.
Broaden your methods of critiquing if that's the best critique you can come up with because this is lame.
If you have read everything so far; you may have picked out a common running theme. "Don't be lazy!" or more adequately, "Don't half-finish!"
One such case that isn't really well known is hastily replying; especially on these forums. When you reply to a post, you quote the entire post you are replying to (minus their quotes). This is obnoxious especially when replying to an already lengthy OP. People like reading the OP the first time, reading it again, or simply scrolling past it is obnoxious.
It's simple enough, don't be lazy, crop the post or delete the reply you are quoting unless it is relevant. You can use "*snip*" if you would like; but it is understandable and preferable that you AT LEAST cut at all. This saves other readers unnecessary stress, and allows everyone to get the full picture.
Despite the fact that the OP/other discusser has made a POST that you can QUOTE at ANY time and reread to your heart's content; posters decide to use this colloquialism. Stop! it's the internet equivalent of being dropped on your head repeatedly.
You don't need to infer what the partner of discussion said, it's WRITTEN right there. When you say something witty like "What you're trying to say is -" you are literally putting words in the other person's mouth. Don't do that. This is literally straw-manning. It's also admitting you didn't read what the other person posted but are instead reinterpreting and distorting their message; even well intentioned, it's obnoxious. This is insulting, unverifiable, and plain wrong. Don't do it.
Q: "But Yoshi? What are we supposed to say then?"
A: If it's a discussion, then don't infer anything. If something someone said doesn't make sense or needs clarification; ASK FOR CLARIFICATION instead of shoving your words in their mouth. I cannot be any more serious about this.
Becoming a champion means you fully support a topic and will defend it and the original poster. You keep the topic alive, and help the OP through the inevitable waves of argument, you essentially become a "champion" of the thread, keeping it alive. You become the thread's hero. Sound cool? See why I have difficulty coining it as anything but "championing?"
This means you do not do anything to get the thread locked (flaming, insulting, tend to do this quick, avoid that) while calmly and respectfully refuting well-intentioned and well-made arguments.
Well, buckle down and put on that cape because you got heroing to do. While a champion's goal may be the preservation of a thread, his job is also to make that thread much more powerful, prestigious, and shiny. He does this by seeking other similar threads, referring them to the championed thread, and reporting the similar thread for lock due to redundancy.
Remember, it is OK to post "already suggested" as long as you provide a link to reference. Use this to your advantage as you dismiss other threads in preference to the gem you have found.
You cannot please them all, you will find more than your fair share of bull-headed, ignorant, and downright stupid OPs which cannot accept criticism and pull the troll card far faster than they can make a legitimate string of letters. They will double and triple post their counter-arguments. Do NOT follow them down the road to Hell, though it is tempting to bat at their flailing limpid attempts. This will get you banned/warned along with them.
Occasionally, you'll have GOOD and DECENT posters which will engage in lively debate. As a critic, you should really only have 3 or so major criticisms. Any more and the suggestion is nearly irrecoverably bad without a massive overhaul. Any less, and the suggestion is not really detailed or the suggestion is well done. Keep these criticisms in mind as you reply.
If the OP has encountered your objections and successfully overcome them, offer counter-criticisms. If he overcomes them; then simply stop. If there isn't an issue, don't create one. Forcing issues creates senseless flame wars. Know when to stop, and STOP at that line. While it may seem like 3 issues isn't much; consider that there are likely several others with other issues.
Again remember to backseat your emotions and bias toward a suggestion while criticizing. It is often a good idea to keep a personal rubrick or outline so you can plot all that is wrong with the suggestion.
The goal here is to avoid flame wars by not instigating one. Limiting your criticisms is a good way of doing so.,
It's too hard to code? For you? For Notch? How do you know it's too hard to code? Do you have a master's degree in computer science? Do you create the JAVA interpreter for Oracle? Are you a professional video game designer whom can create a complete game in 1/2 a day? If you are none of the above, the complaint of "Too hard to code" is irrelevant and is seen as a really sloppy cop-out for when a good reason to decline cannot be made.
"It's Impossible to code" is even worse. This assertion states that no one, in the entire world, among modders and professional coders, could ever add the suggestion. The problem here is the principle of perfection. The moment a SINGLE PERSON codes it, the suggestion is no longer impossible. Congratulations, you just salted your own turf and made yourself look like an idiot. I mean, "too hard to code" is a sloppy and shameful cop-out, but at least there's room for subjective denial. There's no recovery here.
"Oh, that person just doesn't have a life." - Is that a counter? So... Wait... Not only were you proven wrong, but proven wrong by someone you consider "socially inferior" after they ONLY TRIED TO HELP YOU. Way to make yourself look even more like a jerk. Also, what's worse than someone with no life? Whatever it is, you just filled that position.
he made a base idear expandings our job
Have you seen anything like this? Ever felt like this? This is a common viewpoint for many posters, and I'm not sure where this came from. It certainly isn't in the rules; and it certainly hasn't passed my ears, though I'm sure that the treacherous corruptive whispers of Nidhoggr have yet to reach me.
I'd like to state first of all, NO. This is not our job. Expanding is the SUGGESTER'S job. Though we may be compelled to assist the suggester as is the right of any good Samaritan, it has probably been taken for granted and acted upon as though codified law.
It is also not our job to search and analyze every disparate post on a thread for updates to the suggestion. They should be in the suggestion body through edit. Is it nice for a critic to look for recent updates to the suggestion in later posts? Sure! That'd be awesome; but that is a preference and a whim; not a requirement. A critic shouldn't have to slog through 35+ pages of a thread to feel justified in posting. The suggestion in OP is satisfactory.
As a critic, your job is to criticize, objectively and impartially on grounds such as gameplay balance, feasibility, theme, comprehension, necessity, and usefulness. Nowhere in there does it state that you must go and be the damn suggester.
Do not let anyone tell you differently. Now, is it nice and suggested that you help? Of course, but it is not required. If you do help, you should also demand credit for the parts of the idea that were either taken or directly inspired.
A proper way to criticize and help improve a suggestion is to fire open-ended questions that you feel are missing from the suggestion. How much life does a mob have? What's the crafting recipe for this item? How long is the mob set on fire? Will this affect X mob in any way? How about Y mob? etc.
This allows the suggester full creative freedom to edit his suggestion as he sees fit without having to quote or credit you. There are, of course, a multitude of other methods to improve; but that is my preferred.
CRITIC CRITICS CRITICIZE CRITICS
Critic does not mean infallable. Sometimes you're wrong. Sometimes another critic is wrong. That's fine. That's cool. Everyone is wrong from time to time. It's inevitable for all intensive purposes. +1 if you catch that, apply +1 to nearest pedant-o-meter..
The key here is that if a critic is in the wrong; you need to remain respectful, helpful, and calm. (if you cannot remain respectful, helpful, or calm then do not engage(DNE).) inform them that they are mistaken and why (yep, supporting details, peeps).
Keep the correction on-topic. The discussion needs to remain about the suggestion and improvements/criticisms of it. Failure to do so can lead to a discussion purge (or worse) a thread lock. If the correction forces the discussion off-topic or has potential to create a red-herring; please forward the correction to private messages or DNE. If the opposing critic is violating rules, report them (DON'T TELL THEM YOU'RE REPORTING THEM!) and DNE.
Good, we got the message? Now let me explain the points.
As people have gotten acquainted with this little thread, I've seen plenty of people try to circumvent what's written here as though it's cannon (to those that follow this thread, I am deeply honored and humbled simultaneously, I thank you all for following as you have) and because of that, they will go into every unspecified reason to deny a suggestion they can. It's a quaint testament to human ingenuity and security defeating. I love it, but I digress. There are TWO times I've seen this pop up, both of which are unverifiable and likely invalid criticisms.
1) It would be a waste of time to code!
This one is a lovely little ditty that tries to comply with the IT CAN'T BE CODED parable while completely ignoring exactly WHY it's posted in the first place. The good news is you're no longer saying "it can't be coded". Which is 100% unverifiable. The bad news is you're NOW saying "it can't be coded quickly enough" or "it wouldn't be worth the time it takes to code".
Either way, C_FLAT (it's actual go-to label) already lists why it COULD be coded quickly enough or how it WOULD be worth the time to code. Here's the thing. If you do not understand programming languages/logic/structure then EVERYTHING is too hard to code, including the programming for this forum, the Windows/Linux/Mac OS you're using, and the games you enjoy playing. Why bother making pong? It can't be coded.
The problem is, there exists things known as barrier of entry. The more you do something, the easier things become. What may be impossible or taxing to you may be a simple addition to someone else. Essentially, this is a problem that shouldn't have to be addressed because it fails for the same reasons as the surrogate it replaces.
2) It would be more work than it's worth!
An appeal to efficiency, eh? Again, you'd look rather silly if it took Mojang about 15 minutes to comment in/test/comment out. You can't really say this because it is not known to you how hard the task at hand would actually be. Because of this, it's probably far easier than you give it credit for.
Unless you have credible time programming and understand how difficult a suggestion really is, stop. If you don't have programming; at least back up your criticism with facts or logical appeals or... y'know... numbers.
If you find yourself about to sprout off a golden winner like "This is a suggestion, be nice." Then I urge you to reconsider.
There's several reasons why.
Possibly most importantly is, it gets on my last nerve... Alright, so that's not actually important at all.
Here's the ACTUAL reasons why.
1) Yeah, thanks jack. I would have never realized with my methodical button-presses from Minecraft general to Minecraft suggestions that people would actually post SUGGESTIONS in the forum.
Shock and horror! Yes, this is a suggestion forum, we know that. Your uncanny ability to point out the obvious may help local law enforcement, but it does nothing here.
As a matter of fact, I personally have over 5000 posts, I know for a fact that under 100 have originated OUTSIDE of the suggestions forum. When I read this statement, it's an insult to my intelligence and an insult to others.
2) You have added absolutely NO substance to the article. Not only is what you have said redundant, but it also does NOT help the suggestion. You have actually gone as far OFF-topic as is physically possible while at the very same instant defend the article you've added nothing to.
Not only is this self-defeating, but it actually HURTS the suggestion more than it helps because you've just created a tangent to pull focus away from the topic-on-hand, and onto how much of an idiot you are. Please do NOT use this sentence.
3) The objective of the other posters is to CRITICIZE and improve the suggestion. This means that we might end up having to say something that the suggester may not like reading in the effort to improve the suggestion.
By asking people to be nice, you are KILLING the suggestion as you have removed some of the only viable feedback the suggestion would otherwise receive. If you are reading this right... Heck, if you've read this far, you know what this means.
By defending the suggestion in this way, you have just become the single-most greatest enemy to this topic.
Here's one reason you can't divide by 0.
Let a = b
a^2 = ab (multiply both sides by a)
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2 (subtract b^2 from both sides)
(a-b)(a+b)/(a-b) = b(a-b)/(a-b) (factor both sides of the equation and divide both by (a-b). Keep in mind (a-b) = 0)
b+b=b (because a=b)
Let b =1, 2=1
If you are able to divide by zero you can make 2=1.
It just causes a whole bunch of problems.
Here's a video on it too.
ok fine coming soon
So we all know about Rivers in Minecraft. They don't do a lot, they just kind of sit there to break up the scenery. But they are rarely useful and almost always ugly. How about we fix that?
They are a biome, which means that they have their own grass and leaf color, which can look ugly next to other biomes:
("Random grass and leaf color change, just because it is over water? Yuck!")
Make Rivers a Generated Structure. This way the leaves and grass won't change color, unless they actually extend far enough across a river to get into another biome. But I'll settle for making it much less common if it can't be fixed entirely. Making it a Generated Structure also allows for some other problems to be fixed, like:
Random patches where there is no water due to world generation issues
("Boy I sure am glad I built this Boat. If I didn't, then I would have nothing to break and carry every 20 blocks when trying to navigate a river!")
Again, making Rivers a generated structure (this is going to be a recurring thing, FYI). The best thing about generated structures is they have a lot more logic into how they can work than a simple biome. For example, instead of a single structure that is just "River", how about several with various properties:
Property 1 - Width
Determines how wide the River can be, measured in water blocks at surface level. Options would be Narrow (4-6 blocks wide), Normal (8-10 blocks wide), and Wide (14-16 blocks wide). Rivers would be able to transition from one "Width" level to another over a distance of about 5-15 blocks per level (so going directly from Narrow to Wide would take 10-30 blocks)
(Mockup transition from Normal (left) to Narrow (right) river widths. Keep in mind actual implementation would have more randomization in width over time)
Property 2 - Depth
Determines how deep a River can be, measured in blocks downward from surface at the middle of the river (where it would be deepest). Options are Dried Up (0 blocks deep, no water), Shallow (2-3 blocks deep), Normal (5-6 blocks deep), Deep (8-10 blocks deep). Like Width, Depth requires 5-15 blocks to change from one depth to another. Any combination of these can be done, so you can have deep, narrow rivers or wide shallow ones. Or anything in between.
(Mockup side view of a transition from Normal (left) to Deep (right), with Red indicating the first Air block above the surface, Blue Wool indicating Water, and Brown Wool indicating the bottom of the river)
Property 3 - Exposed
Determines if the River generates through a biome in a way that removes the blocks above it to sky level, for the rivers that cut through Extreme Hills like we currently have, or if they generate similar to a cave, allowing for partial or total underground rivers. Binary option either Exposed (open) or Enclosed (Closed). As with other properties, transitions from one to the other over 5-15 blocks
(Image of Exposed River in Extreme Hills Biome)
(Image of same River in same location, but now Enclosed. "But where did it go?")
("There it is!" because it is Enclosed the regular terrain generates first, and then the River generates, cutting a tunnel through the Extreme Hills. Torches are there for lighting purposes only and are not included in generation)
Blocks that don't really make a lot of sense based on the biomes they are in:
("Hello random sand in my Savannah biome.")
("And hello random Dirt, Grass, and Tree in my Desert biome")
They don't make a lot of sense, they look ugly, and they interrupt the flow of how a biome looks. How do we fix it? That is right, by making Rivers a generated structure! If we do that then we can make so the blocks used to generate are based on the biome it appears in. So biomes that are mostly Grass and Dirt (and trees) will generate rivers that have Grass and Dirt beds. Biomes with Sand will generate rivers with Sand beds. Biomes with Stone will generate Stone beds, etc. However, Clay and Gravel always have a chance of generating, except Clay will be more likely to generate with Dirt and Grass, and Gravel more likely to generate with Sand.
As with the color transitions from Problem 1, this won't solve every issue like when a river generates on a transition from one biome to another. But it still mitigates the issue by letting each side generate based on the biome it is in.
On the surface, we have a reasonable variety of terrain i.e. a good variety of Biomes. Not enough to my tastes, sure, but still a reasonable amount, and to get more I use Biomes O Plenty mod or something like that.
But underground, we have next to no variety. Basically, after mining for a while it all seems more of the same, same old same old. Sure, each cavernous tunnel network is "unique", but that is the kind of randomness that is generated the same way everywhere. If the surface was generated like that, imagine a single surface biome with all kinds of trees spread out more or less randomly but everywhere. Sure, each part would be "unique", but after a while you'd feel the "lack" of overall change. If you picked a random 1000x1000 blocks area at the surface, and you'd feel its the same kind of environment everywhere. Well, that is exactly what is happening underground right now.
Sure, we also have ravines and abandoned mineshafts and strongholds, but those structures are only a couple hundred blocks wide, and that is basically "it" for the entire variety we get. Considering the game has also a big focus on mining, I feel that we need much more.
Biome means "habitat of a community of flora and fauna", which is close enough that what is it in the game. It derives from "biology" after all, so it makes sense that it includes terrain elevation and plants and everything.
For the underground, we don't really to focus so much biology as to more about rocks and tunnels formations, which is closer to geology, so I came up with the name "Geome" instead.
A Geome would be a big X-Z area filling the entire Y underground generation, basically as big as a surface biome. But Geomes would not be "lined up" at all with the surface Biomes. A Geome would present distinctive features, making it clearly different from other underground Geomes.
This suggestion is not about adding new types of main stones that would form (replace) normal underground stone, like the UndergroundBiomes/UndergroundBiomesConstructs mod currently does. While I find that such a feature would also be desirable, as it would make detecting when you cross into a new geome very easy to see, this suggestion here is more about changing the shape of caves and tunnels generation itself.
The amount of ravines/abandoned mineshafts could either be the same in all Geomes, or could vary per Geome type, I don't care much about that.
Here are the Geomes I could quickly come up with:
- Tunnels (Common):
This is the current underground world generation. Caves and networked mazes of tunnels.
Basically, the current underground would just be ONE of the types of areas underground, no more or no less common than any other type of "common" Geome.
- Tunnels M (Uncommon)
Overall like Tunnels Geome, but more "epic" in feeling. More huge caves, wide tunnels, bigger ravines. Cave networks would be less numerous overall, but each would be bigger, occupying more area. Given the amount of extra exposed stone in this Geome, ore veins would be a bit less numerous here to compensate.
- Shield (Common):
This is like the Canadian Shield/Laurentian Plateau: massive stone-filled volume with very few caves/tunnels except around the lava layer where it opens back up to near normal. Perfect for building huge underground bases without the fear of constantly digging into a new open tunnel (that you must then close off) every few minutes. Identifying such a biome is relatively easy, as the areas of "flat exposed stone" on the surface are much more numerous (but not almost everywhere!). But they would not be bigger stone flats, in fact most of these flat exposed stony areas would be much smaller than when you find them elsewhere. This "surface indicator" is needed because a player wanting to go mining doesn't want to end up in a place without tunnels, and a player wanting to find a good spot to build an underground base "without constantly hitting tunnels" also want to know where such areas are located. Other geome types have a more reasonable amount of exposed stone and open areas, and thus do not need this special surface generation exception.
Ideally, all other "big" underground structures such as ravines and mineshafts should also be rarer, with the exception of dungeons, which could be the same amount or maybe even more numerous. Dirt/Gravel veins are also less numerous. Basically, while not a "perfect" slate of smooth stone, it would be what is closest to it without having to make a custom flat world.
Give the little exposed stone, I thought about adding more ore veins. However, this is the kind of Geome where people would just branch mine, which is already the best way to mine anyway, so I feel it best if the amount of ore veins stays the same per chunk.
- Paths (Common)
Cave networks here would be relatively sparse, but VERY spread out, and would tend to eventually turn back on themselves or connect to another such network, instead of having tons of dead-ends like in the "normal" Tunnels Geome. And while each network is relatively sparse, they would tend to overlap a lot, meaning hat basically this Geome would probably connect to the underground of all nearby adjacent Geomes (if you can figure out the maze paths). Instead of tunnels that are constantly twisting around in a relatively small area, you'd have tunnels that SLOWLY turn around or even are more or less straight, sometimes over hundreds of blocks. Caves would actually be like "grapes", as in they would be replaced by pockets of multiple caves horizontally linked directly or by very short tunnels. Basically, the tunnels here would almost feel more like natural roads that are "going somewhere", with a node of several thightly knit together caves in the center of each cave network. Paths Geome would also layout it's tunnels and caves very horizontally, in 3 successive distinct "Paths" layers between the surface and the lava layers, each only about 12 blocks thick. A few giant vertical shafts here and there would connect 2 or more rarely all 3 successive layers to each other. This Geome is the one that is closest in feeling to the normal tunnels, yet still has a quite distinctive feel. Traveling the individual tunnels is much less of a maze locally, but the maze is just bigger at a far bigger scale.
- Underrivers (Technical Geome)
At Y=36, flat rivers could generate at Geome boundaries, in large tubular tunnels. Overall these rivers would be a bit smaller and much less deep than their surface counterparts, but still allow travel by boat over long distances. Some would loop on themselves, others reach dead ends, or connect to other underrivers or watery geomes.
- Underriver M (Technical Geome):
Basically the same as an Underriver, but it's a lava river, at Y=10. Note that each network, water and lava, are generated independently from each other. However, because both follow the geome boundaries, it is possible for a lava underriver to be right under a water underriver.
- Underoceans W (Common)
Underoceans tend to be one the small-size, no bigger than a typical biome (unless several adjacent Geomes happen to each generate into an Underocean, forming a bigger one there). The water level is also at Y=36, thus allowing connecting to the underrivers.
Underocean is one huge water formation in a big cave. Compared to normal ocean, the water level is not too deep. A few very thick stone pillars here and there seem to "support" the entire cave. There are also a few small to medium "islands" in there. The ceiling is relatively low, though, about 8 blocks above the water surface.
Both above and below the ocean proper, the stone is filled with the normal amount of tunnels/ravines/mineshafts like in the Tunnels Geome.
Normal small mushrooms tend to grow along the few shores. Navigation by boat is easy as that area is relatively open and wide.
There is also another light-providing block here a bit everywhere, allowing this Geome to really give a spectacular view:
Looks like vapory yellow vines. Emits light at Light Level 5. Grows down like vines. Spawn at the ceiling and all the way down to the ground or water surface, and can grow only in interior areas: if natural skylight level 1 so much as touches Cavines, they are immediately destroyed (not even a drop). They are also extremely fragile, just passing through them destroys them. When in a boat, hitting them slows down the player but just a tiny bit. They can be harvested only with Silk Touch.
- Underoceans M (Uncommon)
Basically like Underocean, but here the underground ocean is at Y=10 and is made of lava. There are no cavines here either, but maybe a Fire Elemental mob would be something hot to meet here.
The caves above would tend to have a lot of vertical shafts and ravines. Tunnels would tend to be very sloped.
- Pillary Underlakes (Uncommon)
Also at Y=36, and a bit similar to underoceans, but here we have multiple connected caves instead of one huge pillar-supported cavern. The caves are connected by either direct contact or by short "river" tunnels.
Also, about half of the caves are much, much higher than an underocean cave, and the number of pillars here is very high. Each pillar however is kind of a thin "wall" or merged pillars, or more often only a solitary thin "pillar". Navigation these lakes is pretty difficult given that each lake probably has a score of such pillars in it, meaning you constantly need to change direction. there are no "islands", but many of the lakes have some parts of their sides with more or less flat "beaches", sometimes gravel, sometimes dirt, sometimes sand, sometimes even clay.
Under the underlakes, there are the normal tunnels. Above though, a good part of the entire area is the continuation of the lakes with the tall caverns. Here, the pillars continue going up, and they sometimes have protrusions tat connect (or disconnect) them, forming a near-maze of columns/stalagtites /stalagmites that often reaches all the way to Y=56.
Contrary to underoceans, there are no cavines here. The entire mazey area is very dark.
Spiders seem to like living here a lot, and there are many spider webs around, ready to trap unwary travelers. the pillars have many tiny protrusions, so it is not uncommon for monsters to spawn on these tiny ridges and jump down or shoot at unsuspecting players.
- Pillary Underlakes M (Rare)
Like Pillary underlakes, however here the "lakes" are of lava, at Y=10. Like in Underoceans M, the above tunnels would tend to be greatly sloped.
- Shroom Forest (Uncommon)
This entire area is a network of tightly connected caves, forming a maze of caves with next to no tunnels, but many of these caves follow each other like beads on a string, often each successive cave is a bit lower than the one before it, and there is water flowing down from each cave to the next. Or the caves are so tightly close to each other that they form bigger caves separated by thin walls or by stalagmites and/or stalagtites or thin pillars. The ceiling is usually around 12 blocks higher at the center.
The main feature is the mushrooms. Lots of them, and lots of giant mushrooms. Any given "network" of caves, is of one of three types : brown shrooms only, red shrooms only, and mixed. The ground has a lot of dirt, and many of the caves are centered around a central pond of still water.
The interconnected caves of a network of Shroom Forests Geome tend to slope down gently around a central open shaft, always clockwise, so locally traveling is more or less vertical, but with a gentle sloping, but the entire forest takes up almost all the height of the underground. It tapers out near the top and bottom, though, thus connections with the surface and the lava layers are few and far between.
- Shroom Forest M (Rare)
A much more epic version of Shroom Forest. Really big caves. 2x2 Mushrooms going over 20 blocks tall and they have vines too. The mushroom are very compact in places, making a kind of vertical maze. Vines grow down from the mushrooms and many of the caves have lava ponds in the middle of them. There is also both lots of water and lava, and thus cobblestone where they meet each other.
- Shroom Forest F (Rare)
Much lower ceilings here than in Shroom Forest, meaning almost no giant mushrooms here. You tend to have wide but very low-ceilinged caves, for an overall feeling of vertical claustrophobia. There is no slope, either. Many of the caves are like underground water ponds connected to each other, with the mushrooms only non the very thin shores on the sides.
- Crystal Caves (Rare)
These caves (and some tunnels but mostly caves) tend to line up parallel and perpendicular to each other, in an almost gridlike pattern. you tend to find 3-way and 4-way intersections extremely often. There are TONS of dead-ends, though.
A new block, Crystal, illuminates parts of the tunnels and cave, but not everywhere. It is also a dangerous block to mine. In the tunnels, it only comes in 1 block "insets" into the exposed stone (never fully inside the stone, but not jutting out of it either). In the caves, it appears as entire "vertical trees" of blocks, maybe 12 blocks total, that comes up of the ground or down from the ceiling.
A few of the caves are much bigger and contain a huge "starlike" structure of crystal in their middle, floating in the center. the structure is 5x5x5 in the middle with 14 pointy protrusions, for each side and each corner. It is said that there is often treasure in the middle of these big star-shaped crystals, in the form of 3x3 veins of gold ore.
Crystal: This is "natural crystal", not "Ender Crystal". Full block, transparent, pale white color. Light Level 6. Kind of hard block, requires iron pickaxe or better to break at full speed. Requires Silk Touch to harvest correctly, otherwise it not only breaks, but will actually make an explosion 1 tick later. The damage is not big, but enough to cause a chain reaction, exploding adjacent Crystal blocks too. This explosion has the special property of destroying any adjacent ore block.
- Porous Caves (Rare)
Tons and tons of tiny caves, going in many directions in 3D, many caves NOT directly connected to each other, but with thin walls in between them.
LOTS of gravel here, too. Lots of "floating bits of stone not connected to anything". Occasionnally, some of the caves are really huge, filled with tons of floating bits of stone and stuff, some parts even big enough to contain their own tiny caves.
There are also "thin pockets" of pure uncolored glass here, where some of the thin walls between caves would be.
The overall feeling is being in a world of bubbles, and of bubbles within bubbles.
- Termite Tunnels (Rare)
Claustrophobic players, beware the Termite tunnels. Imagine a classical tunnel network, but with thin tunnels, just big enough to pass through and often needing a bit of mining to allow passage. Similarly, actual caves have very low ceiling, often hey are only 1 high ! On top of that, Silverfish Egg blocks abound here. Apparently, the only redeeming feature is that Emerald Ore exists here, even if the surface Biome is not Extreme Hills.
- Tall Caves (Uncommon)
The tunnels and caves here tend to be on the tall side. Not super-tall, like ravines. Just about 2 to 3 times their normal height. Maybe 75% of the normal width, making passages them a bit on the thin side, but not too much. Caves also are more like elongated ovals than circles. There is a major "stretching along some direction of travel" for tunnels (basically, anything moving radially away from the center of the tunnel network), for most connections, which thus determines which side of the caves is the elongated one, to give the feeling of "thin but longer and higher" tunnels and caves along most of the paths. Occasionally there will be a giant mushroom, but this will be rare. Overall the tunnel networks are a bit more sparse, but there is an abundance of vertical shafts. Tunnel sloping tend to be accentuated too, with less distance before the next slope, and higher grade slopes.
Tall Caves Geomes also have some Cavines (described above) in them.
- Flat Caves (Uncommon)
The very opposite of Tall Caves. Slightly lower ceiling for both saves and tunnels, but much wider. Again caves shaped more like ovals than circles, but here it is "oval along the "width" of the path. Again, some preferred "direction of travel" but this time things are compressed instead of elongated in that direction,m again with most connections radially away from the center of the network, to give the impression of "lower tunnels and caves that are much wider and shorter". Tunnel sloping is much reduced too.
- Spiral Caves (Rare):
The tunnels and caves form a network of spirals around central solid vertical shafts of stone, with their center filled lava. The network of tunnels around each shaft can be clockwise or counter-clockwise, sometimes both at once. The connections and prefential direction of tunnels is definitely along those spirals. What makes the spiral caves unique that they have a lot of of veins of Lapis Lazuli all the way to relatively near the surface, and that most tunnel connections into/out of bigger cavers is through the ceiling and roof of those caverns. Very dense cave network all the way from surface to lava, but not much in terms of connections to nearby other networks. Bats seem to like it here and are much more common than normal.
- Wind Tunnels (Rare):
Tunnels here tend to be much straighter, rarely looping back on themselves, rather forking in Y side tunnels back and forth a lot. These tunnels also VERY often form "chokepoints" that are only 1x1 block openings, and tend to connect the surface, go down, then straight, then back up, back to another surface area a few hundred blocks away. From the side it form a kind of big U shape, always oriented east-west. In fact, of several U shapes, as there is also vertically several layers of such tunnels.
There is much verticality here, with some largish caves spanning scores tens of blocks, often connecting several levels together, but there is also separation in the form of tons of "thin plates" of stone ground that tend to fill these caves a lot (though not everywhere), forming a kind of "multiple floors" structure, a bit like the fins of a heat sink that was put on its side. With many small holes in it. In a few case, these "fins" are vertical, along the overal direction of the wind (east-west)
What makes the entire area unique is that when within such a tunnel complex, you always hear the wind flowing. In a few spots, the sound is become quite loud, but most places is it just a background hum.
- Floating Caves (Rare):
A gigantic cave filled with big blobs of floating stone (which are big enough to contain caves and tunnels), which tend to be more or less flat topped, and with a more or less conical underside, kind of like floating islands. Tons of archway "bridges" connecting them. The blobs of stone are numerous and big enough that in many spots you can almost touch the next floating island, yet there are still quite open areas. Nevetherless, finding a place where you could just jump down all the way to the bottom without hitting one of those floating islands first is quite rare.
Vines and Cavines growing down in tons of places, further enchancing vertical movement capability and offering the lighting necessary for such astounding views.
- Pilllared Caves (Common):
Usually with a bit bigger and wider tunnels and caves than normal Tunnels Geome, much of these would be filled with Staglamites, Stalagites, Pillars, or any combination of these. Instead of a total randomness, it would be more like each of these features appears often within some sub-area, with potential overlap. So some places you'd see nothing specific, other places only stalamites, only stalagtites, or only thin pillars, and other places some combo of two or all three. Pillared caves also tend to have a lot more water source blocks in them.
- Needle Caves (Sub-Genome) (Uncommon):
Wether in caves or tunnels, they are taller than normal and 2/3 of their height is mostly 1x1 thin pillars, sometimes the pllars are bit wider and/or longer but that is just because 2 pillars are adjacent. Top of pillars makes for is a relatively flat area. This goes down several blocks everywhere to a very uneven bottom. So basically every tunnel or cave in here is a "two-layers" thing: you can walk along the bottom, constantly having to jump up or down or even do something to cross a 2+-high blocks spot. Or you can walk along the "top" of the pillars near the ceiling, constantly needing to jump from pillar to pillar, or place slabs or something. While there is more exposed stone, there is also tons of dark corners and places for mobs to hide in too.
Very difficult and annoying to cross, Needle Caves are relatively smaller in size than nrmal Geomes because they appear only as a sub-Geome (kinda like Plains biomes often have these small forested areas near their middle ? Those are a type of sub-biome).
- Honeycomb Caves (Sub-Genome) (Uncommon):
Caves tend to be hexagonal shaped, like the hexes in hex paper. Tunnels would tend to be relatively straight with clear points where they turn about 120 degrees, kinda like the lines between the hexes on hex paper. Some of the caves are "small", with the tunnels passing between the caves, while other caves are "big", basically as if they extended straight past the width of the tunnels, right up to the next cave. The overall layout is relatively flat, but not totally flat. The bigger caves can be 2 or 3 "floors" high, with a big central hexagonal pillar with sloped cobble stairs twisting around it, with a "cobblestone bridge" linking to any exit at the upper level. Most dead-ends are the tunnels finishing in a small hexagonal cave, not just the tunnel ending in a mere dead end. Creepers abound here.
And those are just taken from the top of my head. Basically, using completely different world generation to define very different looking underground mining areas.
Currently, Clay can be smelted into a Brick (The item), which can used to craft Bricks (The block).
Since Bricks are made from clay, I figured that Bricks should share similar properties to Clay.
What property am I talking about? The property to be dyed.
How can you dye Bricks? It'd work the same way you'd be able to dye Clay Blocks, like such:
Here is a picture I've found on the internet that displays what Bricks would look like if dyed:
It turns out that there is already a Mod out there for this exact thing. Please disregard the Glass Bricks to the left in the picture.
Why would anyone want this? Purely for decoration use.
They could help determine a players team base (Red vs Blue, and so on).
It gives Clay more uses, and it simply just looks pretty, in my opinion.
I'd love to use Purple Bricks in an enchantments room or maybe I could use Blue Bricks in an underwater base.
Many of the Minecraft quizzes and such out there are trivia questions about the game's finer details as well as its history. "When was the game created?" "What biome does this block generate in?" "Which of these can you not use as fuel?" etc. This quiz, however, is a set of "puzzles" or "riddles," if you will, where you try to find out how a certain event could have possibly happened. They might be tougher than you think, so put on your thinking diamond helmet!
1. The Mystery Mob
2. Into the Void
4. Killing the invincible mob?
5. Escape, Part II
6. The Mystery Block
7. The Armor Stands
1. No two armor stands share the exact same piece of armor. No armor stand has two pieces of armor made of the same material.
2. The 5 armor stands, from left to right, are: the one that doesn't have any iron armor, the one with chain leggings, the one with a leather helmet, the one with a diamond chestplate, and the one that doesn't have any gold armor.
3. The 5 armor stands, in no particular order, are: the one directly to the left of the armor stand with diamond boots, the one with a gold helmet, the one with a leather chestplate, the one with diamond leggings, and the one with a chain chestplate.
4. The armor stand with the gold helmet is directly to the left of the one with a golden chestplate and directly to the right of the one with gold leggings.
5. The armor stand with an iron chestplate is somewhere to the left of the one with diamond leggings.
8. Escape, Part III
This was definitely the work of that stupid mod that Zach and Joe told me all about," she thought.
Inside the cube was nothing but a couple layers of dirt and grass. Tracy had brought with her 15 logs, a bucket of water, a stack of iron ingots, two stacks of redstone dust, a stack of cobblestone, 3 slime blocks, a stack of TNT, 17 torches, a diamond sword, and 23 steak. Tracy thought for a while, then suddenly she remembered something. She immediately got to work. Suicide, of course, is still not the answer, so how did she escape?
If you found an answer to any of these, put your answer in a spoiler and I'll tell you if it's correct! Extra bragging rights if you solved it without the hint.
Kunais are a new item. They are considerable weaker than most weapons, but are effective towards higher tiered players and also have an utility use.
These weapons are not crafted, but rather found in loot chests, and can very rarely be fished out. When fished, they will be a bit damaged, having some durability lost, and when found in chests, they will not be damaged at all.
Kunais have 213 durability. They can be repaired by combining two of them, or with iron ingots in an anvil. They deal 2 hearts of damage. Their cooldown lasts as long as a sword (0.6 seconds)
Kunais are unique in the fact some of their damage pierce defense. This means that despite their low damage output, they will always deal some damage. It's safe to say they will always deal at least one heart of damage, even to a player in full diamond armor. This makes up for their minimal damage.
While having piercing damage may seem too powerful, you have to consider that you still are dealing minimal damage, and your opponent more than likely is still able to deal bigger bursts of damage to you with their swords or axes. Kunais are essentially an "Underdog" weapon. It shouldn't be used all the time, but for when you're main weapons just can't get past your opponent's defense. They give players a chance to escape situations that they otherwise would be helpless in.
This doesn't mean you can just find one of these and instantly win the game and beat up everything in diamond armor. It'll still be quite difficult to do, it just now makes sure you can actually fight back instead of relying on the devil's luck.
Kunais also have a utility use. They are connected to a rope, which can be used as a sort of "Grapple". They can be thrown a short distance, about 15 blocks away and will attach to the block they hit. You can then climb on that wall, sort of like a spider. You won't be pulled towards the weapon, it's more like the safety rope when you go rock climbing. Whenever a kunai is thrown, it will take a point of damage. Thrown kunais will also deal damage if a target is hit, but it will not apply knockback nor pull them in.
The item can receive most of the enchantments a sword has, but it cannot receive Fire aspect or Knockback. Any damage added from enchantments (Sharpness, Smite, Etc.) or potions will not pierce armor.
There's not really much else to it, honestly. Basically what I am suggesting is an utility weapon that can be used as a last resort for when they're in a horrible situation. This gives you a chance to fight back opponents that otherwise would be practically invincible, making the game a bit more balanced towards both end-game players and those just starting out. It also adds a little bit more of a variety in weapon choice and aids in transportation a bit.
I believe that is it. What do you think?