Thanks, glad you like it. I will be building a lot of houses around the stronghold. But first, my main goal is to finish the stronghold interior. Sadly, I ran out of wood and cobblestone, so back to exploring caves, lands, and etc until I get enough to build again.
Its a cool build,but why are you floating in the main picture? Was it just a fly mod to show us the village?
Like I said, no mod no nothing. The only external thing are texture packs. I pillared about 64 blocks on dirt, on top of my house, to take that picture since the fort walls are too big to screen shot on low ground. This is the true way to play the game; to build and survive, not only just to survive or just build but both.
Behind these walls lies my testificate village, and it is pretty safe... yup. If only there were mercenaries that I can hire to man these walls... I guess I can put my wolves and cats up there lol...
There should be a recipe book. Everytime you make an item, it automatically records in the recipe book. You make a recipe book by combining book, feather, and ink sac. You can refer to the recipe book everytime you need to remember how to craft something. This is especially useful in the future, when more crafting ingredients are in the game.
As for the regular book. You should be able to type in it like you do with a sign. The only difference is that there is more room and more pages. You can write stories for people visiting your server to read. This is especially for mods which are story based, so you can actually use the books as dialogues between characters, so you don't have to use modified maps!
I am building a fortress around it. Then I add houses outside the fortress just like in the medieval ages, when peasants lived outside the castles. I am also making a lot of farms outside the fortress.
Here is my work in progress. This is all done legit in survival mode, no mods.
I found another testificate village over the desert to the west. I will build a fortification different from the style here for them after I am finished building the current one.
Flintlock guns usually have a slight delay between pulling the trigger and the gun actually firing, which is the hammer falling down and the powder burning. Perhaps that could be introduced in this, which would nerf the theoretical 'Derringer Meryl' strategy somewhat
You can't spam shots from a musket, because in real life after every time you fire a musket, you have to reload. There is no delay of process for pulling arrows from a quiver or inventory for the bow, likewise for muskets, there shouldn't be a delay for the shots, only a delay for the reload. This is because reloading is significantly longer than shot delay, such that it would make more sense to have a delay for reloading rather than shot delay.
But you can potentially spam them by having multiple loaded muskets in your inventory, so adding shot delay would help in spamming different loaded muskets.
I don't like this suggestion. I agree that you should throw them away or make more chests. Lastly, I am already gathering iron, I don't need buckets with durability to make me.
Thanks, I added on more stuff. Since this is survival, I am not always building. I explore, mine, farm, eat etc at the same time I am building.
The castle looks a bit weird, that is because I am very far away.
I am also using dokucraft texture pack.
The bunch of cobblestones on the bottom right, in front of the wall, is my architecture sampling place. I build examples of facade and battlements there so I can duplicate them elsewhere. These designs I learned from Jamziboy from youtube. I never realized I can use stairs upside-down until I watched his video.
>_>... This is getting asinine. I've already explained my point of view on this. I'm not going to explain it again.
This doesn't give you license to not think. You've made points, I've made counterpoints, you've made rebuttals, I've made retorts, life goes on.
No it isn't. You can't gather proof from that, only inference. I also don't think you understand the difference between responding in length and taking things personally. Since we are on the subject though, since your responses to ME have been about MY perspective, I suppose you can say there is a bit of personal stock there because we're talking about individual points of view; you know... personal stuff?
My aren't we petulant. If I could have done so, don't you think I would've done so already? I never claimed I was perfect; I only claimed that I was trying to make your suggestion air-tight. You got an attitude over that.
I made the boat analogy where I pointed out the holes in your ship and that it wasn't sea-worthy. Your suggestion is taking on water and sinking through those same holes I pointed out. Instead you deny they're there or, even better, arrogantly blame me for putting them there. It doesn't take a degree in Quantum Physics to know a hole when you see one. When I state that something has a problem, I generally expect someone to take note and correct said problem not argue bitterly about it.
How does this prove I'm talking out my ass again? As an aside, I love bullshitting people, and I love seeing their responses. It's quite a jovial hobby, however, I must inform you that I'm not bullshitting you this time. I also hate to inform you that I'm not taking thing's too personally (as though that had any bearing on your suggestion.)
That's because you wouldn't listen when I did. Instead, I tried to break through that thick skull of yours to show that there is a possibility that your suggestion has problems. It's a damn good suggestion, but it's not perfect and I was hoping that an outside perspective would be able to open your eyes to that. It seems now that you would rather remain shut in and believe everything you do is perfect, correct me if I'm wrong.
The amount of things I come up with... BWAHAHAHA, I'm only responding to you. You're giving me the ammo, I'm only using it. What am I supposed to do, let it go to waste?! check out greyacumen and Regular Hexahedron. They have created some BRILLIANT suggestions that I wish I could even approach.
Please don't start this... OH, for the love of god, science, country, nature, Buddha, Xenu, and Allah do not start this.
Given that I never suggested realistic accuracy, such as to decrease the accuracy of the musket. I don't know where you get the 25% gun accuracy from. The bow does not have realistic accuracy, why should the gun? And given that I don't write algorithms, so what are the "holes" in the "ship" that is my suggestion? Most of your arguments have to do with algorithmics of gun.
Furthermore, people take things personally when they use name calling. Name calling attributes to more of an emotional outbreak rather than a reasonable argument. There was no need for name calling if you weren't taking things personally, unless this is how you talk every day, calling people assholes and idiots as response in a discussion.
The reason why if you can't come up with a better suggestion, then you are taking things personally, which have to do with the fact that you are arguing against me. You believe there is a better way to do things, so go ahead and write your suggestion, stop attacking mine, but you continuously to do so. Some of the attacks include name calling. If you can't come up with a better suggestion, so why are you arguing? It is not like you could do better. And not to mention some of your arguments include strawmans, which I see again from you saying that "I believe everything is perfect", which would be a reference to my suggestion, and the other strawman I pointed out about how "bows can't win against musket", which I did not mean absolutely, but relatively based on specific scenarios.
This is another long reply. I don't like to sound like I don't listen to another user, so this is quite lengthy. If you want to read it, just open the spoiler code, otherwise, I don't want to force you to read through it or scroll through it.
I could be wrong here, but being hit causes you to flinch and hop backward throwing off your aim. If the archer already has a bead on your eventual position before you even pop out of cover; then he can fire away before you even have a chance to react with your readied weapon. While you expose yourself for the shot, you have to realign your aim, risk taking the hit which also throws off your aim, and hope you hit, calculating for where the opponent is suspected of being. If your opponent changes his position for a more strategic point and you are unable to see it (since you're taking cover, you can't) then you spend even more time trying to locate his new position. While this is happening, the bow user can pepper you with arrows before you can even pick up aim properly. Assume that a player has 10 health, if a player with a bow does 2 damage, the gun would deal 4. This means that a bow user would have to deal 5 hits to a gunner's 3. However, if the bow user can adequately get off 3 shots to the gun's 1, then who do you expect would be the victor? Let's take a look at probability. Let's say that the bow has a 75% accuracy where the gun has 25% under these conditions. Given 8 shots, a bow would hit 6 times or 12 damage. Meanwhile the gun would hit 2 times or 8 damage.
This is the problem that I wanted addressed. increased damage does not compensate for the fact that it doesn't matter if you can't hit the target.
It's more likely because guns, at the point of time you're referencing, are cheap to produce and the ammunition is plentiful. However, keep in mind the Apache I mentioned earlier. They knew full well that their opponents had guns. The apache had stone axes(tomahawks) and bows with flint arrows. They WON. They actually won regardless of their opponent having guns. The point here is that victory in guerrilla warfare is independent of the weapon used. It doesn't matter what weapon you use; it's the element of surprise and experienced knowledge of your surroundings which leads to victory.Right, this is because a smaller force facing a larger force is expected to lose simply because of logistics. With a smaller force, the individual life is much more pronounced and valued, the extra manpower is vital, the easiest way to keep a man alive is through attrition and hit-and-run tactics. Again, this is a variable independant of weapons. ACTUALLY, according to history, these farmers and locals were HIGHLY valued for several reasons, they were already trained in guns (they hunted for their food, so it was a requirement), already owned a gun, and were generally poor as dirt meaning they were much easier to buy into an army, they also happen to be some of the most patriotic one could want.
Training is important, however, I don't know the figures. I don't know how long it takes to properly train someone with a gun versus a bow. You claim it takes about 2 weeks to a month to adequately train someone on a gun, how long would it take to train someone with a bow? I would gather the answer to be 2 weeks to a month as well.They fought in open fields because of the rules of engagement of the time.An bow can fire if wet, a musket cannot. A bow weighs far less than a musket, and the arrows are not subject to misfire where bullets are. Also, with arrows, do you need a gourd of gunpowder, a ramrod, bag of lead shot, etc.? I surmise the opposite is true, that bows are far less unwieldy. This is one of the only major improvements of bullets over arrows. All it takes is about 5 minutes to melt lead into a bullet mould. With arrows, it requires time to melt the arrow head, form the shaft and fletch as well. However, improperly measured shot has a chance of misfire, or worse, damage to the individual. Also keep in mind that while arrows require an experienced fletcher for greater accuracy, a gun requires an experienced rifler for the same effect.
The problems you stipulate with the bow and arrow are shared by the gun and bullets as well.
A guarantee is a point where something will happen, the "if" delineates the scenario. If A happens, B WILL happen <-- I'm sorry, but that looks like a straight-line guarantee. Read what I just wrote above. You have guaranteed that if a gunner hides and shoots ad nauseum, then he WILL win. Will is a very strong term. If I let the gunner hide and shoot, hide and shoot and I WIN, then I have just debunked your statement. This is not a WILL but a CAN. In this way, adding "WILL" makes the casual reader believe that the bow is inferior as per the guarantee. So, hate to break it to you, but you have said that bows can't win against a musket there.I tell you about it for a specific reason. A logical fallacy is a failure in logic. When you use a failure in logic to establish logic, it doesn't work.
Again with the "will" word. What happens if the musketeer is skillful and takes his terrain to his advantage over the bowman, and the musketeer LOSES, then what? What happened to the "WILL"? The very definite impossibility of any other situation occuring? Don't say something WILL happen unless there is undeniable proof that something WILL happen.
"If" scenarios are not absolutely universal. An event occurs as a result of "if" does not mean another event cannot occur if "if" did not happen. If a bowman was skilled fighting in an open field with a musketeer, then the bowman will win. If a skilled musketeer was skilled at fighting in the forest, then the musketeer will win. This is because musketeers are better suited for forest and bows are better suited for open terrain. This is a simple conceptual model, which is not to represent absolute accuracy. I can't because I did not write and do not know the mathematical algorithm of minecraft. The ratios of knockback and damage are also conceptual models, and not to be taken as the ultimate factor to be algorithmically implemented into minecraft, and this I have explained numerous times.
You are thinking too much into the matter which is not required of a forum suggestion. I don't code minecraft nor do I work for them, nor do I get paid from anyone. This is proof that you are taking things too personally rather than for what is to be expected of a suggestion on this forum. But as for you, you seem to think you know the stuff, please feel free to write up a totally balanced gun algorithm suggestion up yourself. If you can't, then this proves that you are also talking out of your ass, taking things too personally. You are not arguing against me for the suggestion but you argue against me because I am me. The amount of things you come up with are ridiculous. I have followed more than enough of what is expected to be of a suggestion. It seems hardly fair that I should be the one to write up an easily translatable algorithmic suggestion. Please go troll someone else.
Not true. The musketeer can reload from cover, and needs only the minimum time to do so. The bowman, on the other hand, is vulnerable from the moment they draw back until they release. Further, if you base it off of the strength of the hit, then a musket has a higher chance of interruption than does a bow not at full draw.
Well, I was saying if the fight was to take place in open terrain, then musketeers have almost no chance to reload. Both combat styles should have some chance to beat the other no matter the terrain, but different styles would be more suitable to different terrain. Muskets have a better advantage for the forest and caves, and bowmen for more open terrains such as deserts or plains. But now that you have added interruption based on damage, then it balances it more.
I will make a section on my suggestion to add interruption.
The below is a lengthy reply as are all of the rest of them. For reader sanity, I'll place my response to you in a spoiler code. Sorry about that. On this post, there are a few points that you have not argued toward that I want you to take a second look at.
1) No response to the example I provided regarding gun vs bow combat. Please elaborate here. I'll restate my argument for ease of reading:
2) No response to counter-argument regarding guerilla tactics.
Splitting hairs, arguments are different than discussions in several ways. Generally in arguments, either side is constrained and wants the opposing side to admit defeat. Generally in discussions, both sides work toward a compromise. One way ends with amiable solutions, the other breaks down into violence where nothing is resolved. This is why I would rather not argue this, but discuss it. I had hoped from earlier that you'd be better about this and simply discuss the matter. Since you're in it to win, and are not willing to listen to any criticism, constructive or otherwise to help your suggestion, I don't see why I should continue the attempt as it is already proving fruitless. To this end, stalemate, you're trying to win a fight I'm not participating in, and I will no longer attempt to improve your perfect suggestion.
No, I'm using the entire gaming industry as a standard, and I'm not using it as a standard for what's acceptable, but a standard for how over-used, mediocre, and listless guns are in this over-enthralled branch of digital entertainment. I am also using it as a reference on WHY guns needs to be truly awe-inspiring for it to be worth adding.Note: With swords, they each share the same general recipe, the only thing changing is the material used. Same thing with armor and tools. I'd say that if guns were to be an upgrade to bows, they should follow the same pattern, use the same ammunition, and simply deal more damage just as well the other tools. This is acceptable to me, but it creates a logical schism either way you look at it:
1) Why is this gun firing arrows?
Or, if you have it use bullets instead
2) Why can't I use my arrows that are now going to waste? This second part can get tiresome if you have a few stacks of arrows laying around that are now rendered useless unless you feel like downgrading again.
And I would entertain your arguments and USE YOUR CRITICISM TO IMPROVE MY SUGGESTION. >_>
Actually, you did in the form of the guarantee "will", you use that quite a bit when discussing your concepts...
"If you let the musket man hide and shoot, hide and shoot. You will lose."
"A bowman will just spray at you with arrows, but if you play guerrilla tactics right with musket, you will win a tactical victory."
The word "will" is a guarantee. When you say something will happen, you make a guarantee that any other outcome given the criteria has a 0% chance of occuring. This part isn't even an issue though. The issue at stake is that you should not use a logical fallacy to back up logical claims. This is self-defeating.
I am human, however I can say that the likelihood for me to strawman is low. I do not need it to win an argument. I work with the facts presented. Generally, the only time I would ever strawman is in a joking manner or to prove a point. Again, the issue with strawmanning is that it is a GLARING logical fallacy used to attempt to win a debate. I don't play these games. I will defend any position I make, and I will also **** up. I will also go down with a ship if I am found to be in error (this has happened before), I will not subscribe to the horse **** that others keep on saying I do. Again, if you insist on arguing with me, ARGUE what I have posted. Don't argue inferences.
Also, the only thing I can interpret from a strawman is that the one making a fallacy is a moron. No one can interpret anything useful out of a strawman, as it is a contrived BETA argument made by ALPHA to make side ALPHA look good. You can make anyone think anything if you're allowed to simply put words in your opponents mouth and speak for them. Again, each time you use this as an argumentative tool, you look even more like an idiot, don't do it.
No I don't. You do put a lot of effort into your suggestions. I'm not saying you don't. Again, you have missed it, do I need to make it 32pt font in red for you to notice? I SUPPORT PARTS of your suggestion. Doesn't mean I support the entire damn package. The parts I'm arguing are parts that need work.
Never underestimate melee guerilla tactics. Perhaps instead of simply trying to sword the enemy in the face with a weapon of inferior range, perhaps do a dashing attack? Gain elevation and perform an overhead swing to crit and take control of the battle? Start strafing around the target and wait for the target to lose momentum?
If the point of the newly provided weapons is to play through guerilla tactics, wouldn't it make sense for a sword user to attempt to play using the same tactic?
Not really, I'm just replying as best I can, I'm thorough, but I'm not taking it personally. I'm willing to drop this issue. It's not important. In fact, I kind of dropped the issue before it even became one.Making assumptions when all facts are not present is dangerous and circumstantial. If I see black clouds in the sky as I'm going out, I tend to assume it's going to rain and bring an umbrella. This is an educated (safe) assumption given the circumstances also present the same criteria. Regardless, as I said, I am human, and I do realize that I make hasty assumptions myself. It's a point I try to correct. Generally, if I HAVE to assume, I do so in a way that leaves the opponent some wriggle room. I don't try to be a *****. When I make an assumption, I generally say "the feeling I get", "it sounds like", etc. This is because I want to be the one that erred. It gives the precognitive notion that I may have misunderstood, this stuff happens. I'd rather misunderstand and seek correction than create an elaborate strawman.
Off-topic: not something you have said to me that I can recall, but: "What you're trying to say" as a statement pisses me off, I don't use that statement as it doesn't leave room for the opposition to correct, instead you ADMIT that you're putting words in someone's mouth when you use that phrase.
Try to understand that there are more than 3 emotions that a given person has.
Not everything is boiled down into:
happy
sad
angry
you also have frustrated, agitated, annoyed, anxious, indifferent, somber(sombre), callous, aloof, etc.
In this case I am mildly annoyed but overall complacent. This is in no way angry, furious, or raging. Also, I will take your suggestion of my name-calling into consideration... However, I can keep dead pan and call someone a moron; calling someone a name is like ascribing a title. I give it as freely as calling a duck a duck and a horse a horse and fellow drivers on the roads bat-**** crazy. If I call you an idiot, and I have, it is your job to convince me otherwise. You have only seemed to further cement my perspective.
Look toward China and Japan for that. Grenadiers were actually standard issue around the same the first guns as well. Timed devices are likewise seen, in fact, minecraft already has two timed devices. Redstone repeaters and tnt.
In terms of a bomb, grenade, etc., all it takes is a set fuse length to time the device.
I did not respond to that first argument because I have explained it already. Muskets do 2x damage of bow, so during each encounter if musketeers shot the bowman once and the bowman shot the musketeer once, the outcome is in favor of musketeer. But the bowman has a chance to compensate for the musket 2x damage by shooting the musketeer more than once during an encounter. So it ultimately depends on player skill for who wins. This is instills more requirement of skill where you have to practice your aim. Also, I never suggested realistically low accuracy for the musket, just as bows don't have realistic accuracy in the game. I did give it some mind as an option of balance if muskets came out too powerful.
Guerilla tactics would be more suitable for muskets than a bow because of the fact that it takes mastery to shoot well with a bow. This is because guerilla tactics are most useful for local militias, which is why they are used often for the outnumbered side. Any locals, farmer, bums, or hobos can be trained with musket in weeks, and ready to fight with guerilla tactics around where they live. A bow is less likely to occur realistically to be the main weapon of choice in guerilla warfare, unless you have been trained with bow for years. Arrows also required expert fletching. A hobo would pick up a musket over a bow, because it is easier to use. But you can do guerilla tactic with bow as well, because it is physically possible in minecraft. But guerilla warfare would be most effective with gun, because the time you take to retreat can be used to reload, while bows have faster rates of fire and require no hiding and thus require less a guerilla tactic. This is why bowmans usually fight in armies in open fields rather than in guerilla tactics. There, they can rain arrows upon approaching enemies. They are also more unwieldy than the musket due to requirement of limited arrows and the requirement of a quiver, and of which the arrows require an expert fletcher, or else it won't shoot as well.
"Actually, you did in the form of the guarantee "will", you use that quite a bit when discussing your concepts...
"If you let the musket man hide and shoot, hide and shoot. You will lose."
"A bowman will just spray at you with arrows, but if you play guerrilla tactics right with musket, you will win a tactical victory."
The word "will" is a guarantee. When you say something will happen, you make a guarantee that any other outcome given the criteria has a 0% chance of occuring. This part isn't even an issue though. The issue at stake is that you should not use a logical fallacy to back up logical claims. This is self-defeating."
I never said bow can't win against musket. I stand by my word. I only gave the "if" scenarios that a musketeer can win, and I could have easily given "if" scenarios that a bowman would win. Scenarios where musketeers would win only happens if you play it skillfully with the guerilla tactic, hence "hide and shoot, hide and shoot", where if you limit the encounter hits to one, then the 2x damage of musket would favor the musketeer over the bowman. You have committed a strawman here, and you know that. I never pull the "strawman"(mainly because I never gave a crap about fallacy terminology), but because you like it so much, I decided to show you it.
And yes, if the musketeer is skillful and takes his terrain to his advantage over the bowman, than the musketeer will win. If the bowman is as skillful at the bow as the musketeer is as skillful with the musket, then he or she can take off a couple of shots on the musketeer per encounter, ensuring more or same damage.
Yoshi's argument about guerilla tactics has actually made me realize something. There is an aspect in which all ranged weapons need a drawback, which they currently do not have. At present, there is little reason not to use a bow at close range, and the only thing that would keep a firearm from being overpowered for the same reason, a longer cooldown (in the form of reloading), gives the bow an overall advantage. However, both to encourage a mix of ranged and close combat, and to give the gun a distinct benefit, I think all ranged weapons should suffer from interruption.
Specifically what this means is that, when drawing back a bow or loading a firearm (or spinning a sling, or what-have-you) taking damage (or perhaps only knockback) would have at least a chance of causing you to loose the shot, representing fumbling the weapon. That would give players a reason not to rely on ranged weapons at close range, since an opponent could prevent them from attacking simply by keeping the pressure on. Where firearms would get an advantage is that they can be loaded in advance, whereas a bow has to be held. Thus the bow is susceptible to interruption at all times, while a gun can only be interrupted for a few seconds between shots. Where does this tie into guerilla warfare? A skilled musketeer could take advantage of the fact to disrupt his bow-wielding opponent before they can shoot, while they could not do the same to him. Yes, a player could learn to compensate, and to take advantage of the bow's shorter draw time, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. It simply means that the gun would not be overpowered in comparison to the bow, simply removing several drawbacks that a skilled player can also manually adjust for, but might find it more convenient not to have to.
A bowman shooting faster can disrupt musketeer from ever firing. This requires a new solution to a new balance issue. This is because, on a more open terrain, the musket shots can be continuously interrupted, ensuring that musket shots are never fired. A person skilled with a bow is thus superior to a person skilled a muskets because of interruptions. Without interruption, muskets would do 2x damage of bow and bow would hit maybe 1 to 2 shots off the musketeer. Because the bowman can draw faster than muskets reload, the interruption is less fatal for the bowman than for the musketeer.
0
Thanks, glad you like it. I will be building a lot of houses around the stronghold. But first, my main goal is to finish the stronghold interior. Sadly, I ran out of wood and cobblestone, so back to exploring caves, lands, and etc until I get enough to build again.
0
Like I said, no mod no nothing. The only external thing are texture packs. I pillared about 64 blocks on dirt, on top of my house, to take that picture since the fort walls are too big to screen shot on low ground. This is the true way to play the game; to build and survive, not only just to survive or just build but both.
0
1
This is my house:
Testificate Stronghold:
Behind these walls lies my testificate village, and it is pretty safe... yup. If only there were mercenaries that I can hire to man these walls... I guess I can put my wolves and cats up there lol...
0
There should be a recipe book. Everytime you make an item, it automatically records in the recipe book. You make a recipe book by combining book, feather, and ink sac. You can refer to the recipe book everytime you need to remember how to craft something. This is especially useful in the future, when more crafting ingredients are in the game.
As for the regular book. You should be able to type in it like you do with a sign. The only difference is that there is more room and more pages. You can write stories for people visiting your server to read. This is especially for mods which are story based, so you can actually use the books as dialogues between characters, so you don't have to use modified maps!
1
Here is my work in progress. This is all done legit in survival mode, no mods.
I found another testificate village over the desert to the west. I will build a fortification different from the style here for them after I am finished building the current one.
0
0
You can't spam shots from a musket, because in real life after every time you fire a musket, you have to reload. There is no delay of process for pulling arrows from a quiver or inventory for the bow, likewise for muskets, there shouldn't be a delay for the shots, only a delay for the reload. This is because reloading is significantly longer than shot delay, such that it would make more sense to have a delay for reloading rather than shot delay.
But you can potentially spam them by having multiple loaded muskets in your inventory, so adding shot delay would help in spamming different loaded muskets.
0
0
0
The castle looks a bit weird, that is because I am very far away.
I am also using dokucraft texture pack.
The bunch of cobblestones on the bottom right, in front of the wall, is my architecture sampling place. I build examples of facade and battlements there so I can duplicate them elsewhere. These designs I learned from Jamziboy from youtube. I never realized I can use stairs upside-down until I watched his video.
0
Given that I never suggested realistic accuracy, such as to decrease the accuracy of the musket. I don't know where you get the 25% gun accuracy from. The bow does not have realistic accuracy, why should the gun? And given that I don't write algorithms, so what are the "holes" in the "ship" that is my suggestion? Most of your arguments have to do with algorithmics of gun.
Furthermore, people take things personally when they use name calling. Name calling attributes to more of an emotional outbreak rather than a reasonable argument. There was no need for name calling if you weren't taking things personally, unless this is how you talk every day, calling people assholes and idiots as response in a discussion.
The reason why if you can't come up with a better suggestion, then you are taking things personally, which have to do with the fact that you are arguing against me. You believe there is a better way to do things, so go ahead and write your suggestion, stop attacking mine, but you continuously to do so. Some of the attacks include name calling. If you can't come up with a better suggestion, so why are you arguing? It is not like you could do better. And not to mention some of your arguments include strawmans, which I see again from you saying that "I believe everything is perfect", which would be a reference to my suggestion, and the other strawman I pointed out about how "bows can't win against musket", which I did not mean absolutely, but relatively based on specific scenarios.
0
"If" scenarios are not absolutely universal. An event occurs as a result of "if" does not mean another event cannot occur if "if" did not happen. If a bowman was skilled fighting in an open field with a musketeer, then the bowman will win. If a skilled musketeer was skilled at fighting in the forest, then the musketeer will win. This is because musketeers are better suited for forest and bows are better suited for open terrain. This is a simple conceptual model, which is not to represent absolute accuracy. I can't because I did not write and do not know the mathematical algorithm of minecraft. The ratios of knockback and damage are also conceptual models, and not to be taken as the ultimate factor to be algorithmically implemented into minecraft, and this I have explained numerous times.
You are thinking too much into the matter which is not required of a forum suggestion. I don't code minecraft nor do I work for them, nor do I get paid from anyone. This is proof that you are taking things too personally rather than for what is to be expected of a suggestion on this forum. But as for you, you seem to think you know the stuff, please feel free to write up a totally balanced gun algorithm suggestion up yourself. If you can't, then this proves that you are also talking out of your ass, taking things too personally. You are not arguing against me for the suggestion but you argue against me because I am me. The amount of things you come up with are ridiculous. I have followed more than enough of what is expected to be of a suggestion. It seems hardly fair that I should be the one to write up an easily translatable algorithmic suggestion. Please go troll someone else.
0
Well, I was saying if the fight was to take place in open terrain, then musketeers have almost no chance to reload. Both combat styles should have some chance to beat the other no matter the terrain, but different styles would be more suitable to different terrain. Muskets have a better advantage for the forest and caves, and bowmen for more open terrains such as deserts or plains. But now that you have added interruption based on damage, then it balances it more.
I will make a section on my suggestion to add interruption.
0
I did not respond to that first argument because I have explained it already. Muskets do 2x damage of bow, so during each encounter if musketeers shot the bowman once and the bowman shot the musketeer once, the outcome is in favor of musketeer. But the bowman has a chance to compensate for the musket 2x damage by shooting the musketeer more than once during an encounter. So it ultimately depends on player skill for who wins. This is instills more requirement of skill where you have to practice your aim. Also, I never suggested realistically low accuracy for the musket, just as bows don't have realistic accuracy in the game. I did give it some mind as an option of balance if muskets came out too powerful.
Guerilla tactics would be more suitable for muskets than a bow because of the fact that it takes mastery to shoot well with a bow. This is because guerilla tactics are most useful for local militias, which is why they are used often for the outnumbered side. Any locals, farmer, bums, or hobos can be trained with musket in weeks, and ready to fight with guerilla tactics around where they live. A bow is less likely to occur realistically to be the main weapon of choice in guerilla warfare, unless you have been trained with bow for years. Arrows also required expert fletching. A hobo would pick up a musket over a bow, because it is easier to use. But you can do guerilla tactic with bow as well, because it is physically possible in minecraft. But guerilla warfare would be most effective with gun, because the time you take to retreat can be used to reload, while bows have faster rates of fire and require no hiding and thus require less a guerilla tactic. This is why bowmans usually fight in armies in open fields rather than in guerilla tactics. There, they can rain arrows upon approaching enemies. They are also more unwieldy than the musket due to requirement of limited arrows and the requirement of a quiver, and of which the arrows require an expert fletcher, or else it won't shoot as well.
"Actually, you did in the form of the guarantee "will", you use that quite a bit when discussing your concepts...
"If you let the musket man hide and shoot, hide and shoot. You will lose."
"A bowman will just spray at you with arrows, but if you play guerrilla tactics right with musket, you will win a tactical victory."
The word "will" is a guarantee. When you say something will happen, you make a guarantee that any other outcome given the criteria has a 0% chance of occuring. This part isn't even an issue though. The issue at stake is that you should not use a logical fallacy to back up logical claims. This is self-defeating."
I never said bow can't win against musket. I stand by my word. I only gave the "if" scenarios that a musketeer can win, and I could have easily given "if" scenarios that a bowman would win. Scenarios where musketeers would win only happens if you play it skillfully with the guerilla tactic, hence "hide and shoot, hide and shoot", where if you limit the encounter hits to one, then the 2x damage of musket would favor the musketeer over the bowman. You have committed a strawman here, and you know that. I never pull the "strawman"(mainly because I never gave a crap about fallacy terminology), but because you like it so much, I decided to show you it.
And yes, if the musketeer is skillful and takes his terrain to his advantage over the bowman, than the musketeer will win. If the bowman is as skillful at the bow as the musketeer is as skillful with the musket, then he or she can take off a couple of shots on the musketeer per encounter, ensuring more or same damage.
A bowman shooting faster can disrupt musketeer from ever firing. This requires a new solution to a new balance issue. This is because, on a more open terrain, the musket shots can be continuously interrupted, ensuring that musket shots are never fired. A person skilled with a bow is thus superior to a person skilled a muskets because of interruptions. Without interruption, muskets would do 2x damage of bow and bow would hit maybe 1 to 2 shots off the musketeer. Because the bowman can draw faster than muskets reload, the interruption is less fatal for the bowman than for the musketeer.