• 0

    posted a message on Redstone block
    Quote from reuben259

    Since this requires more red stone to make, I think it should be a little more powerful than regular wire


    Seems to me the effect would be the tradeoff for the cost. But I do see your point.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Redstone block
    Quote from reuben259

    And for the range for the on- state...maybe everything within 3 blocks?

    Red stone wire is about 10 I think so maybe 20 for this?


    Twenty would work alright, or else just give it the default redstone range (15). For the on-state, no range is needed as, according to the OP, it would only power things directly touching it.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Redstone block
    Quote from reuben259

    Maybe it can carry a charge for 40 blocks?

    What I was originally going to use this for was a flying machine engine but now I'm seeing a lot more possible uses


    I'd limit it to half that. Redstone itself only carries for 15 blocks without a repeater.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Fire Spread Rate
    Quote from turek279

    So you want fire spread to be biome based? Yeah, that's a [sarcasm] perfect [/sarcasm] idea!


    Who said I want that? I sure never did. I was just pointing out a fact.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Redstone block
    A redstone block idea that isn't the usual I-didnt-use-the-search-bar storage block? Nice.

    I would definitely like a block that can carry a redstone charge. Though ideally, it wouldn't require direct contact (save for the first block) but have a set range of sorts. So you place it by, say, a row of pistons, and it can power them all within a given limit.

    Limit's a keyword. It can't go on forever. That's too much power.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Focused lighting
    Quote from Neospector

    One person from a very old thread was complaining because he tried to light a 50 block radius with a couple torches on the edges.


    People love to whine about what they could just as easily fix themselves. Sadly common in this community...

    Anyway, this sounds like it could be a pain to code. It's an interesting idea but it really isn't so hard to just add more light.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Fire Spread Rate
    Quote from shigmiya64

    Living trees and leaves are generally more resistant to burning up than wooden planks in real life because they have water in them.


    Assuming they contain much water. Dry leaves and bark, as in a desert or sun-baked plain, burn up like nothing. And quite a few biomes appear to be of a dry sort.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Fire Spread Rate
    Quote from Neospector

    No, it's nerfed to stop total destruction. Again, it's back to the griefers argument.

    This argument has come full circle. To sum everything up, I just fail to see why making materials that naturally generated (like wood and leaves) more fire resistant to prevent excessive damage while increasing the spread of fire on user-created objects (wool, wooden planks) to allow easy burning like in the OP is so bad.


    Oh, just shut up about the griefers. If you want to let game mechanics be guided by the possibility of griefers, you're just doing exactly what they want. That's a griefer's whole point, to ruin things for other people. Look, griefers can grief with ANYTHING if they want to: They can dump lava or water, should we remove them? They can remove light sources to let mobs spawn, should light sources be eliminated for enabling griefing? They can even grief with their FISTS if they take the time. In limiting a game based on "Griefers can grief with it.", you're essentially a griefer by proxy.

    It's bad because, as I said, you can't just arbitrarily decide "This material will be fire-resistant, even when it makes no logical sense at all, just because I don't want it burning too fast."

    All objects should have the same spread rate, pure and simple. Complicating it with separate rates is simply not necessary. If a fire spreads to user-made stuff, so sad, IT'S FIRE. Fire is MEANT to pose some risk. Artificial dumbing down of the risk by giving user-placed objects a special resistance is simply not good game design.


    If you're really so dead set against taking basic common sense precautions, then find a balance between the old wildfire spread rate and the current pathetic one for ALL items. At least that's a compromise that isn't just artificial pandering to the careless.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Fire Spread Rate
    Nice argument ad absurdum there. I'll be ignoring that: Taking a statement to ridiculous extremes does not disprove the statement. It only proves desperation to do so.

    "When you need to start a fire, have water ready or be careful." - Exactly my point. You can have precautionary water or you can be careful but you can't just arbitrarily decide "This material will be fire-resistant, even when it makes no logical sense at all, just because I don't want it burning too fast."

    It's not nerfed to keep everything from being destroyed. It's nerfed because the players refuse to prevent the destruction themselves, despite being entirely capable.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Fire Spread Rate
    Griefers are irrelevant. That's what server mods/admins are for.

    You don't always have water. And? When you have a need to start a fire, get some water. Just like when you have a need for obsidian, you craft a diamond pick. This is what's called gameplay.

    The cacti example is just stupid. Water wouldn't serve any advantage there. It would in case of mishaps with fire. Making certain things immune just because people don't bother to think ahead is just dumbing down the game. And that's exactly what was done with fire to begin with that made it suck.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on TNT Fuses Evolved (Not gunpowder)
    Quote from Bocaj1000

    Some people at the beggining of the game dont want to go mining deep for redstone. Also, why would you waste it for TNT when you can make an awesome contraption in your house?

    So 2/3 people agree so far?. Good enough for me.


    Some people need to learn that if they don't put in the effort to go mining, they won't get the resources mining provides. That's this AMAZING concept called "gameplay".

    And some people need to quit trying to add redundant garbage just to suit inferior players of the game. This is exactly what's ruining Minecraft: Everything is being dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.

    We have redstone. Redstone already does this. That makes this unnecessary, redundant, and therefore a lousy idea.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on New enemy Skelombie
    Awful idea. Why combine old mobs when you can actually use some brain cells and come up with a new one?
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Fire Spread Rate
    Quote from Neospector

    Easy to say, harder to do. No one, not even you, is perfect. Forest fires in the game do happen, it's not simply a matter of "don't start one" or "put it out". When I first started in beta 1.3, I accidentally lit a single leaf block on fire. That single leaf block burned down a good 30 meter radius of trees, because the fire spread faster than I could punch.


    You don't punch out a fire. When working with fire or lava, you bring water. That's called "precaution" and "thinking in advance", things that far too many players seem to know nothing about.

    And if a forest fire still happens, you suck it up and deal because it's an inherent risk of playing with fire and just how the game works.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Nether Silverfish
    Come back with something that isn't a ripoff of pre-existing mobs.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Fire Spread Rate
    Quote from Neospector

    If it should be increased in the first place, it should be increased on only certain materials, like wooden planks and wool (not leaves and wood blocks since it would cause excessive forest fires).


    Increased spread rate on wood planks but somehow wood tree trunks would be immune? That's just ridiculous. People can just as easily not start forest fires or put them out.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.