Minecraft Forums

Snowmen should be resistant to arrows, and heal over time.

Quote from c_hay77

If the ship sinks it would rotate to match the plane of the ocean floor and just sit there ready to be looted. The bell would be located in the captains quarters. Wrecked ships would spawn during world generation and would have loot (like villages). They would also contain bells and would have boats unobtainable in survival except by finding the bell of that ship (kind of like chain mail armor from villagers).

Yes, I suppose keeping them as non-block entities would work. But making it block-based 'fragments' of the ship using wood slabs, chests and the bell would hypothetically lessen the load on a computer.

As for looting naturally spawned shipwrecks, I don't think they should have bells. I put bells into the idea as a sort of 'savegame' for your ships. Instead, if the shipwreck is unique they should have their blueprints in one of their chests.

Quote from DiggingStraightDown

I wouldn't exactly say it's "communist"; just see how someone who spends a few days being a logger and collecting a few stacks of wood reacts if someone were to come by and "borrow" most or all of it.... and Why only "certain elements" exhibit ownership? Aside from the collaborative-effort "let's play" videos to be found on YouTube or twitch.tv, I've always had the impression it is all, or mostly, about "player buy-in", with what you can do to your world.
To be fair, I tend to the latter viewpoint, and I had assumed the vast majority does as well. At least, ownership, in the sense that if I exert effort to gather resources, and then make something from those resources, it would not be sporting of someone else to just use or consume those resources without permission from me. Then again, perhaps that's one reason I haven't joined any Minecraft servers.
Yes, I know a plugin can give some protection, but it is still optional. I was thinking of developing a 'permissions' plugin or framework of my own, customized more to the blocks, items, and tile entities relevant to a shipyard and blueprint activity.

Well, it's just that most servers I've played on seemed to have a slight 'work together' mentality, with asking to borrow wood and doing something for them in return, or being in a city where all your block production goes into the city's main building hut, where other players can take from to make their own buildings.

I suppose in Minecraft, things such as chests and horses are lacking permissions for the purpose that they are intended to be plundered or used communally, so it may be important to keep tabs on your carrack. Still, though, the thought of a giant ship that you've been working on just got taken away is rather frustrating. Surely there is some way to enable ownership while at the same time allowing it to be 'captured'.

Quote from DiggingStraightDown

Nothing wrong with the original idea, per-se; I am just hoping to expand on that original idea and make some adaptations with my suggestions and implementations. The biggest holding point, for me, was always that I needed to see that the whole of it would be self-balancing in design. If this were to be developed as a multiplayer mod, as I believe far too many people expressed their wishes for it in earlier pages, I didn't want it to inadvertently unbalance the game. I had not quite yet picked up on the idea that building a ship could, should, or would take experience points as part of the build (probably just my fault for mis-understanding your gui panel); however, with a hefty enough XP cost per ship, that seems to be do-able somewhat.

Yeah. There's enchantments that allow you to enhance your weapons, but in SMP servers where random PvP is allowed most people don't even have enchantments much less high level ones. Building a big ship would mean that you'd need to be staying alive for quite some time, at the SAME time being able to gather experience points in some way or another. So it's safe to say that the plebians won't be doing much time with ships

Quote from ForumYoshi

Minecraft is Minecraft not Pirates of the Caribbean. No support.

Minecraft is Minecraft, not Farmville. No support.

Quote from chimp_spanner

Plenty of support here - I was going to post something similar myself but I was a good boy and used search

I can't decide how would be best to design the ships though. Some kind of perspective view (like how you see your character when you enter the inventory) where you can assemble the blocks and view it from every direction would be cool. But it'd be tricky to do interiors, so building from first person might also be cool. Perhaps have a new class of block which, when you connect other blocks to it, defines the structure as a vehicle. So maybe you'd always construct the keel from this material, and then everything else would branch out from that? I dunno. Either way, I'd love to be able to build a floating home. Traverse the oceans. Maybe fight sea monsters...

Did...did you even read the idea? Or at least the ITKUFWCS?

So, I recently downloaded the Horse Update, the version of Minecraft that required a new launcher. I immediately took to the horses. It's AWESOME. The first thing I notice, though, as is the first thing everyone else notices, is that they have a crazy amount of boxes compared to most other mobs, which are minimalistic in design. No biggie, just kinda strange. There's an excessive amount of boxes for their saddles, too.

The process of breaking is also pretty cool, but I'd like to have been able to be challenged to hold my balance somehow. Breeding, though, is odd. You can speed up a horse's development by feeding them. And to breed them, you do not use a favored food of the horse...but a golden carrot. Because horses have such a low incentive to reproduce that only a metal-plated root can get them going. Not quite how most Minecraft mobs work, but hey, the status quo is not god I guess...


Do you think the current implementation of horses in Minecraft are too different from the normal mobs?

I want a pet bat.

YES, only Adventure Maps. Or towers. I really don't want them in my game of Minecraft.

I might tolerate the bats, but the witches??

Great, now Mojang's all political now.

You have Yahoo!, Jabber, etc. and while those aren't exactly the de facto IM services people use, it's still there just in case. Steam's IM system is popular too, and while Xfire doesn't seem to be used by Minecrafters often it is used practically everywhere else in the gaming world.

I think it would be nice if both got a chance to be a contact method on the User CP.

Woohoohoo. I reckon this will be very nice for threads.

Different crops should have different biome requirements, with some favoring wetter climates and others dying off in the cold.

Quote from ThesaurusRex84

Sweet! I just made this earlier:


I had an idea myself. Remember those pesky transparent colors?

Well, what if we brought them back, deliberately? So we could make 'medals' and similar items?

It would have to be brought in using a method that can't be confused with normal white. Perhaps have it sensitive to alpha channels.

Yes, I think that's a good idea. I will make some pictures with transparencies and then test loading it into MapItemEdit. Then I will also test using pictures with white them, to make sure I don't reintroduce the problem, but I think using transparency to our advantage could work out nicely

I don't see anyway this could be a good idea, a waste of time and money if you ask me.

Hi guys,

Work on the linux version of MapItemEdit is going well. It's taken a while since I had to rewrite the whole program in c++ using gtk. Because I am using c++ for the linux version, I also had to rewrite the code I was using to read minecraft data files, but I managed to finish that. Now I just need to fill out the rest of the functionality

Here is a fun idea I had. In minecraft, to put painting on the wall you have to use an item frame. But then its square, and I didn't like that since paintings are usually rectangular. So I thought, since they made the map items seamless when you put them in an item frame now, why don't I use more than one item frame. Here is the result, enjoy!

this suggestion is for vanilla servers. there should be a config file to ban any item you want from being either crafted or shown in the creative menu on your server. the main reason for this suggestion is, I have a friend that ever sense he found the invisible potion, that's all he uses around us and it's getting annoying and i'd like to be able to ban that item from the server. kind of a built in block removal like what "Not Enough Items" had with it's server side block blocking.

This is absolutely amazing, I want this in Minecraft, it gives people a bigger incentive to work together in servers.

Personally, I prefer the poppy. Also, you can change it back with a resource pack, so that makes whining about it pointless.

I think I now know without a doubt what the new "game-breaking" feature is - try making a world in the latest snapshot and then load it in 1.7.4. All of your items will disappear forever because they changed the way item IDs are stored (not just summoned, stored in the actual world save files), as some people have already found out the hard way.

For example, I gave myself a diamond sword and then used NBT Explorer to look at level.dat and the ID said "minecraft:diamond_sword" instead of the numeric ID of 276 used in previous versions, although when I analyzed the world in MCEdit the blocks still had the same numeric IDs, but that presumably will also be changed, perhaps not storing every block with a space-consuming string but with a look-up table to convert numbers to IDs (so the world will be utterly destroyed if you load it in a pre-1.8 version).

That is to say, here is what MCEdit shows for blocks and item IDs:



By "look-up table" I mean something like what Forge already does (for 1.6.2, so nothing new for Forge, plus even older versions of the game internally used names like BlockStone, just with a fixed numeric ID):



As you can see, each item/block has a numeric ID and a string that identifies where it came from, which (not in this case) can be used to translate the names into numeric IDs in the game (computers are much better at using numeric data).

That is certainly game-breaking to me - making 1.8 worlds totally incompatible with earlier versions (as opposed to just a few new blocks/items disappearing).

The utility of this feature is to enable mods to not need to use specific numeric IDs and instead be identified by the mod name and item/block name - a big step if the mod API is to ever be implemented.

Here's a crazy thought: Why put so much effort into this?

New Village Population System:
When chunks are loaded, check all doors to qualify as houses (as currently done when villagers detect doors). Build villages of viable houses as standard (ignoring the need for a villager to be present). If village-population is less than number of doors (times .35, if you really feel the need for small village populations), spawn one child villager per valid house until population meets the minimum.
When a door is placed, re-evaluate that village and spawn a baby as needed.


Clean, simple, and you don't have to do a ton of coding. Villages can get wiped out by whatever you want, and if the village remains, the child-survivors who fled the disaster will come back and repopulate. Villagers have kids off-screen when there's room for them. Village populations stay consistent unless somebody artificially adds more villagers than the calculated population - at which point those villagers dying doesn't matter to the game.

Oh, and the best part? It slightly hurts door-farming masses of villagers whilst in no way penalizing playing with actual buildings.


Honestly, I don't see why this system has seen so much over-thinking and over-complication to the point where if I wander near a village in 1.8 and don't find it, it'll be a ghost-town to be ignored when I do spot it - thus rendering the existence of villagers at all pointless.

...and once again, Jeb shows that he simply does not understand game design.

This whole thing smacks of trying to make the player play with villagers only in the very specific what that he's supposed to, in complete contrast to the sandbox nature of the game. Players should not have to use trading if all they want to do is build a village. The amount of manual upkeep makes villagers, as a thing unto themselves, even more worthless. They're still so stupid that they insist on all crowding into one house, and now I have to constantly trade with them for this privilege?

The point of trading was originally to give us a reason to bother with the idiots in the first place, remember?