Water falling upwards?? GENIUS!! You get a diamond
I suppose it would only inconvenience those who have built a ton of stuff on/near or around the edges of biomes. They'd have to say goodbye to all their stuff. No big deal. You want realism?? Go outside you mook.
No one said minecraft was realistic. You are ignorant of the fact that people can keep their stuff, but any further world generation would be different with biomes sperations. Can you explain to me why we even have biomes in the first place? There is also no need for name calling, but I guess it is expected of little kids on the internet.
What I'm trying to say is that it would make it inconvenient to navigate from one biome to another simply because no one wants them to look "ugly" next to each other. Maybe that's just the standard for "reality" in Minecraft, that it can snow directly next to a desert without having any ramifications.
The sole fact that minecraft has "biomes" is enough to push for biome separation, given that biomes are ecosystems that cannot exist without gradual transitions. Why did we add biomes in the first place? It is to replicate the real world, and so might as well make it a good one.
Furthermore, what is survival? It is something we do in the real world, so it makes sense that biomes separation should be more realistic for realistic survival. It also betters the aesthetic, which is a plus for creative mode.
However, the bowman has twice the chance to hit as the musketeer in addition to his ability to take cover. Assuming the playing field is equal and assuming they both use similar tactics; I find it difficult to imagine one being superior over the other, see expanded example below.
Unless the bowman is equally cunning at his tactics. I didn't say that either. As far as I knew, you only stipulated that it would be different without explanation or example. This wasn't sufficient for me. However, I find that a bow and arrow user is just as capable at guerilla warfare as a musketeer, just a musketeer must rely on taking cover where the arrow user has a much wider grace period.
Let's use a theoretical example. If it takes 1.5 seconds to fully charge a bow, it would take 3 seconds for a musket user. The bow user must cover after every shot, but has an extra 1.5 seconds to reposition and ready his aim on where the musketeer will be. The musketeer has no such advantage and must move from cover, take aim once again, and fire, hoping his attack doesn't miss.
What this means?
+ more damage
+ more range
- accuracy
- tactical advantage
Even if the primary goal of the gun is for tactical use, the bow is still much more forgiving. Given the above scenario, the bow user can possibly get in 2 or 3 clean shots before the musketeer can target 1 shot which throws the chips in favor of the bow user.
No, your impression does not make it a strawman, you arguing facts that I didn't place DOES make it a strawman. If I didn't say something, don't use it in an argument against my point of view.
You consistantly argued that I "never" this or "don't" that when I haven't stated as such. I can't get much simpler than this: If I didn't say it, I didn't mean it. Do not assume I did.
Yes, but in order for this suggestion to work, it has to be translatable to those who DO write the algorithms and balance the game. This means that you have to have more than a pipe dream, you actually have to have working figures with a laundry list of positives and negatives. Saying how cool an idea would be is wonderful but doesn't do you any justice unless you can fairly list all of the negatives as well. This shows that you understand the risks, downfalls, and shortcomes of the suggestion but feel that the net-gain is greater than the net-loss. I haven't seen anything besides preaching your suggestion like it's perfect with no room for improvement or any downfalls.
Even the best suggestions have cons, even objects entered into the game are controversial (wolves, the nether), my suggestions are not immune, and neither are yours.
How about just removing the minimum range of the bayonet?
What have you heard about assuming? I'm not mad, I just think you shouldn't talk out your ass. If you don't know whether something is true or not, do not assume it is. It makes you look like an idiot if you're wrong, and it makes you look like an asshole if your right. ... WHAT?! Where? YOU'RE the one who brought up COD and HALO, YOU'RE the one that made a soapbox about how you don't play those games but played CS. Don't even TRY to pin that on me. I don't even know where you BEGAN to think I tried to use other games as a standard. This is one of the worst arguments I've ever seen you use. This is why it's called strawmanning. You set up a strawman in the guise of your opponent and begin to attack the strawman as though it hurt the actual point of contact. Not only that, but you're projecting your OWN PERSONAL VIEWS onto a completely different entity.
I'm going to say this, and it's your job to prove me wrong. You're an idiot. It's not for the fact that your suggestion is bad (it's actually good, just has problems), it's for the fact that you can't adequately argue for your suggestion.
This may have evaded your cognitive grasp as you seemed to be tunnel-visioned into the "my way or the highway" option; but I actually AGREE with some parts of your suggestion. There are other parts which I feel requires some work, there are other options which I feel need major renovating, and there are others that are completely abhorrant.
I gather from our discourse, that you don't want to see "This needs to be improved" but complete solidarity with your personal opinion. I'm sorry that I can't deliver.
Strong words, especially when I outlined how you could also fail to win given the nature of the bow vs nature of the gun.
Which is why I don't argue. I discuss. These forums are all discussion forums where you try to reach a compromise. You seem to be ignoring this fact.
Bombs. timed devices with no cooldown that can be thrown the distance of a snowball or fired from a dispenser that destroy a small radius.
That is because of the nature of guerilla warfare, not the nature of the rifle. The Apache have used guerilla warfare to alarming success with STONE weaponry and bows. The success of combat was based off of geographic knowledge, differences in combat style, and the element of surprise. This is something that line infantry and cavalry have great difficulty counteracting as they have not been trained for it.
They all existed as evolutionary upgrades from the bow, though the arquebus is most directly related to the arbalest and not a bow.
A concept I would like to present is, why not simply ignore the history of our world and create another ranged weapon with radical differences compared to a bow. Perhaps a boomerang or chakram weapon which can be thrown out at a predictable arc and returns to the player.
You still can't use the weapon while thrown, but you can hit multiple targets with a single throw.
Sigh... It is still an argument. Why do you deny this is an argument? I believe arguments fall into the category of a discussion, so discussions can be in the form of arguments. You seem to think discussion cannot be arguments.
"Perhaps one of the most difficult points with advocating guns is how trite and uninspiring they can be when trying to make them unique compared to bows. Seriously, in any modern sense, guns are so overused in the video game industry that they are actually more mundane and less practical that bows with recent games."-yoshi9048
This is where you used other video games as a standard for what is subjectively acceptable in minecraft. If you read what Anonthemousse said, you will see minecraft has multitudes of duplicates of functions, but guns are not as redundant to the bow as iron pickaxe to diamond pickaxe. Your main argument dealt with how boring it is to have two objects with the same function. Well, although my suggestion of gun is ranged, it does not work the same way as bows, so the ranged part is probably comparable to the bow as having the same function, but everything else is more different, more different than wood swords to stone swords.
Ultimately, this is a thread about guns, crossbows, etc, not your "boomerang". I can easily have argued against your "boomerang" using what you have used to argue against my suggestion. But, this is not a boomerang thread.
I never said bow can't win against musket. Everyone commits strawmans, even you, but you don't see me repeatedly saying "strawman this, blah blah blah...strawman that". A person can also interpret a strawman out of an argument.
If you don't want to use the gun, then don't, no one is forcing you so use your bow even if guns are implemented. Simple as that. It is hardly fair you want me to write a suggestion that can easily be translated for the people who do the coding, do you see any other suggestions that puts as much effort as I do on average into a suggestion?
Had I removed the range requirement of bayonet to be exactly at 2x of the sword, then no sword user can ever have a chance against bayonet users. I have argued with someone about this matter. I conceded that this would be unfair to sword users, so I constraint bayonet range to be at 2x of sword. With the use of musket butting in 2x>range>0x, sword users have a chance to do 4x the damage done by musket butts during an exchange of hits at close range. If bayonets worked on 2x>range>0x, sword users cannot have a chance to out damage bayonets, because they would be constantly knocked back. But, through skillful maneuver, when the sword user was to come below 2x range of bayonet, the sword user can hit the bayonet user, dealing 2x the damage of bayonets or 4x damage of musket butt to ensure sword users a chance to out damage bayonets using skill. Then in that range, the musket butting comes in, that is if the sword user ever closed in the range on the first place to deal 2x damage of bayonet, or 4x damage of musket butting. This is also because bayonets are supposed to be doing 0.5x damage of sword, and to decrease that damage to compensate for sword users, I put musket butting as attack that does 0.25x of sword at 2x>range>0x. This also adds more features and animations to minecraft.
I am starting to think you taking this personally. I used big, bold, red letters, and you assumed I was mad. You said I was "talking out of my ass", and I assumed you are mad, but for some reason it is a biggie that I am assuming things, when you do just as much. I rarely call you out for assuming things. Plus, try using less name callings in arguments, or discussions. It doesn't make an impression of the fact you are not mad.
Lastly, I don't recall bombs and your so called "timed devices" to ever be used as main infantry weapons around the time bows were massively used.
As other people said, I think guns are unnecessary.
We have the bow, that's good enough.
Maybe when Minecraft has more features and more mobs, guns should be added.
Of course it is unnecessary, especially when you only add features to the bow and sword, and over-milking it as the only way of combat. We need new weapons to mix things up, but it doesn't have to be today. I am not predicting minecraft to have swords and bows as the only weapons until the end of time. So I am advocating guns as the possible new weapon to accommodate the sword and bow.
... First of all. I created a scenario using another material with an abundantly common usage to highlight the absurdity of your argument. I never made an analogy that they were similar. I plainly made an analogy that they were both common and both had a high number of uses which is why I used wood as the point of analogy. Hell, I could've done the same thing with coal, iron, or stone. In this point, you are so close-minded, you fail to see how someone could turn the same broken logic you use against you; instead you use powerful debating skills (strawmanning your opposition) to further cement your claim (bravo!). Because I can clearly see how you would say "you say there can't be possibly any better use for adding another ranged weapon which is where you're wrong. If I recall correctly, and... since I'm the one that wrote it yesterday I should, Notice the striking lack of the words "can't possibly", but a proactive lean on "idea needs improving". This argument is also not about a claim of guns vs bows, but of the absurdity in removing an enjoyable mechanic simply so there'd be no opposition to your proposal. The major impetus has never been on why they can't coexist, but why one needs to be greatly improved before it can coexist. I do believe that guns and bows can one day coexist, but not through the methods that you showcase.
The major question I have, and one you have not responded to yet: Why would a player want to take cover/retreat to reload when they can use a bow without those limitations? A bow can also thwack enemies at close range, not ideal, but even dashing fist attacks perform powerful knockback. So the choice is "Do high damage with a high cooldown" or do repeatable moderate damage with no cooldown.
I'll concede this point.
Wait? What? Are you daft?! Where the hell have I ever said that?! I want you to provide me proof in this thread where I have ever made that statement or direct correlation. I want to see absolute, uncircumstantial proof that I advocate someone to break the rules.
My main argument is that the mechanics that are commonly used to balance guns are ineffective, unbalanced, and uncreative. The fact that it makes guns lame, boring, and uninspiring is an offshoot of that.Sounds like someone shouldn't talk out of his ass. Also, if I was hardcore CoD and Halo, don't you think I'd be somewhat more aligned with the idea of guns as that's my preference in games? In this case: assuming makes an ass of u and me. Stick to the presented facts instead of reaching into that bag of straw for another imaginary tool to argue with. Which is important to the discussion how? Again?
I'm arguing from the standpoint that currently, player's don't need to, with your provided solution, they would practically be forced to.
No I don't.
No I don't.
No I don't.
You are correct, which is why I don't assume this ******** that you say I do. Stop strawmanning the argument, it's getting trite.
Which is important currently. Adding your proposed weapon doesn't make these mechanics any bit more desirable, just more necessary.
What's the price? Example?
From the same way you presume how it would work. We are all working from our own experience from playing the game, we can create logical hypotheses of various conditions. I am highlighting the negative aspects of YOUR suggestion. I would figure instead of strawmanning me, you would have TAKEN these negatives and used them to expand your suggestion so it would be much stronger and convincing.
Instead of even DEFENDING these points (you probably spend about 1 paragraph out of your entire reply countering the weaknesses I've seen), you instead opt to attack me in an attempt to discredit my opinion. I don't think this has ever worked against me.
And my job is to inspect the boat and ensure there's no holes before you try to have the ***** tread water. For all the world, I managed to point out several whole SECTIONS of the boat missing, large catastrophic holes found elsewhere. Instead of FIXING these problems; you have denied that these large obvious holes exist and instead demand to see credentials proving that I know a ****ing hole if I see one.
Why the minimum distance? Why can you just butt the monster with the stock of the weapon?
Alright, this part is explained...
We need examples of how it can be rewarding. Or is it just a warm fuzzy you get when using an inferior tool to beat a user with superior tools?
What's your point? If you have nothing to add, say nothing at all. Go away.
If you let the musket man hide and shoot, hide and shoot. You will lose. This is because the musket does 2x the damage of bow. So every encounter, the bow man may have shot the musket man once, but the musket man has shot the bowman 2x the damage of bow. So if musket man is hiding behind a tree to reload, the bowman is going to be forced to go to that tree to melee him close range or find an opening to shoot him with bow.
The bowman would win in a place with no obstacles, you can't run, sprint, and etc. This is how using bayonets and musket works. I want you to run and use guerrilla tactics against bowman users. Doing this will over power bowman. This is why this is a tactical style. The game forces a lot of things onto players, what makes guerilla warfare a worst scenario? Please explain.
My impression of you does not make it a strawman. You just have not presented your argument clearly for me to understand what your main argument is, which is mainly because you are arguing all over the place.
"My main argument is that the mechanics that are commonly used to balance guns are ineffective, unbalanced, and uncreative". I don't write the algorithms to the game, balancing the game is not my job. I am merely suggesting the approximate ratios between musket and bow, which I have explained to someone else who argued against me.
"why can't you hit the mob with the stock of the weapon". You can butt him with the stock of the weapon. I will add musket butting for the actions you would take when an opponent is within 2x>range>0x where x is the range of the sword. Butting with musket does less damage and uses up your musket durability as I have suggested. Butting would do 0.25x the damage of the sword, but does the 1x the knock back of the sword. If you move back and rifle butt at the same time, you would be approximately at a range far enough to damage the opponent with bayonet. Then the opponent would be forced to use a bow, so now the musket man hides to reload. This called guerrilla tactics.
"Sounds like someone shouldn't talk out of his ass." No need to get mad, I was assuming you would have played cod or halo, because you said guns were overused in gaming. Nonetheless, It seems to me that for some reason, you want to use other games as a standard for what is to be added to minecraft.
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 main point of arguments is to discredit the other side. You seem to be disturbed by this fact.
Why should gun be added instead of any other weapon? Well what other infantry weapon can you add that existed around the same time that the bow was massively used as a range weapon? Crossbow comes to mind, but that is too similar to the bow. What other candidate than the gun for a more different combat style?
Napoleon had greater firing power, greater numbers, and thus greater rates of fire. But when he tried to invade Spain, as I recall, guerilla militia of Spain, units armed with muskets or some other weaponry, inflicted heavier casualties upon Napoleon through guerilla warfare. Same thing happened in the Vietnam war, although casualties might be different. I am using history, as basis for the guerilla warfare style of musket and bayonet, which although slow, as proven in history, can still be fatal when one uses it tactically.
Throughout history, the most different ranged infantry weapon, from the bow, around the medieval era (circa 500 A.C.E to 1500 A.C.E)was the gun, which was not used widely. So it makes sense, that a different weapon style should be of the gun. No other infantry weapon existed, that was different from the bow beyond that of a crossbow (I am not saying crossbows should not be added).
I'm just saying given all of the required materials and tools, by almost any stretch of logic is it possible that someone could make something (EDIT: without having instructions on how to)? In most crafting recipes, like say the iron sword, it would be possible for someone to make with very little knowledge on how to make a sword. It would, however, require some way to melt the iron together and make the edge, but that is left out for simplicity. The diamond is more of a stretch, but, being only 1 tier of tools that would not be realistically made, with others that could, it is ok. I'm not saying "strict realism" so it is not invalid, if anything I'm saying surrealism and logic, catering more toward "what works" in a video game.
Confined in a room to make resourceful use of given materials is not surreal. Do you even know what surreal means? And what do you mean by "logic", a lot of things in minecraft are not logical within the real world. Why do guns have to be limited to real world logic then? Again, your argument is invalid, but to play along, I will tell you how I would make a projectile and propeller system based on gunpowder, A.K.A. the gun.
I would be able to make a simple gun if I was given the materials. I would have a mold for the gun barrel, make a hollow cylinder. At the end of a hollow cylinder would be a hole for lighting the gunpowder. I would make small round iron balls as well. Then I make the stock, which supports the barrel, or anything that is good for holding. Then I throw some gunpowder down the barrel, and use it to cushion the iron bullet. Light the gun powder through the hole in the back, and bam, you got a propeller and projectile system based on new chemistry from the bow. The chinese did it at around 1000 A.C.E., and I believe they called it "fire lance".
The bayonet would just be a stick protruding out of the stock, which is simple to do as well.
It is also obvious you don't know how guns work, so you say you cannot hand-make guns in a confined room, and that you believe guns to have this magical quality that separates them from things you do understand in minecraft.
FYI, if you want realism, bows require mastery, and guns don't require as much. The process of learning to use a musket and bayonet can be a few weeks, while the process of learning to master the bow can be a few years. This is why muskets and bayonets took over the battle field. Death of a bow man is the death of a guy who took very long to train, which is worst than the casualty of a musket and bayonet user.
Furthermore, the reason why guns did not take over earlier is because of their poor accuracy and range in their early models. Ammunitions were also not massively manufactured. A hundred bow man could fire several shots before a musket user could even come within range of fire.
So ask yourself, why is it so easy to shoot a bow in minecraft? If you gave a bow to a man in a confined room, how long would it take for him to master archery? A few years realistically, so why so fast in minecraft? Thus your argument is invalid both ways.
It has nothing to do with being overpowered (which it would be) hard to make, or a dumb crafting recipe (which it would be), or slightly different from the bow. Most people say (or say that people say) that it is an Anachronism. It isn't that.
How about this. You want a gun? We take you, lock you in a room, with nobody to talk to, no internet to consult. We give you a hammer, a chisel, saw, iron, flint, gunpowder, ect. and tell you to try and make a gun. If you can even make something that will fire, try getting it to not blow apart in your face. If you even could get it to no blow up in your face, it wouldn't shoot straight.
Now, the same thing, only you're given a hammer, a chisel, saw, and wood, while locked in a room, I bet you'd be able to make some kind of a door, and it would probably be OK even. People can figure out how to make many things on their own with little to no outside help, and firearms aren't one of them. Explosives are more easily made this way, as durability is not an issue, and aim/safety isn't either.
Your definition of whether something should be added, is that it should be able to be made by a single person locked in a room with given materials. I just want to say this is a failure of an argument. How did you make an iron sword? How did you make a diamond sword? How did you make a diamond armor? How did you make a minecart? How did you make booster tracks?
You are trying to impose strict realism to minecraft as a filter for suggestions, which is invalid.
Gun reload/cooldown is a horrible gimmick to distance itself from it's contemporary.
1) For the duration of the cooldown, you are basically a sitting duck. This makes them ineffective when facing a group. Bows do not have this problem and a skilled player can remove the group before it becomes problematic.
2) If you MISS, you are even worse off.
3) Generally this cooldown is to balance off a 1-hit kill scenario (you really can't balance that).
4) If you bring a second gun that would have a seperate reload time, then you still would have to have 2 guns to equal the effectiveness of a bow.
Knockback of a gun on a cooldown would likewise be pointless as any extra distance you would've gotten would be squandered waiting for the damn weapon to reload.
Adding spread would be a death sentence for a weapon with a load time, not only do you have to WAIT after your shot, but the chances of you missing the target are increased. Lord help you if your errant bullet hit an enderman aimed at that skeleton.
Bayonet sounds like an interesting idea, but I'd prefer it have the same range as a sword at the half damage, it already has a benefit of being attached to a gun making it a competent ranged and melee item, there's no reason to give it more benefit than it needs. My greatest fear is that the gun would form nothing more than a spear because the ranged aspect is abyssmal at best.
Oh, ok, jeez man, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you was the only person posting on this thread. My bad.
BadPrenup is in charge of this thread, if things are found to be repeated, have him add it to OP instead of screaming in size=7 red text.
They still fire toward a target in a straight line from A to B without deviation outside of the Y.
My response is above.
Incorrect, sir. My definion of new mechanic is "if a bow IS CURRENTLY implemented to do the same thing, then you are not adding anything new". If Bob creates a toaster and Jim, 3 years later, creates a slotted device with variable settings to brown breakfast breads, who is innovating? Bob already created the toaster, why is Jim doing the same thing? To show "me too!"? Well, that's good and all, but it doesn't change the fact that the device has already been invented to take care of that convenience. If you give the toaster a paint job, it doesn't very well change the fact that it is a toaster.
1) because that's not my logic, and 2) that defies game design principles. Yes, I do. Which is precisely why I don't use it.
As far as I was aware, the only thing I presented was that REMOVING THE BOW to facilitate a clumbsy and less effective firearm would be ridiculous, not borderline, but would be developmental suicide. You're right. Wood is totally used in everything, Mojang has totally over-milked that, let's remove wood and replace it with discarded snake-skin. Who cares that it is inferior and flimsy comparatively.
Except adding reloads would be self-defeating toward any other possible mechanic in addition to WASTING the player's time. Unfortunately, the reloading mechanic is the linchpin that holds your suggestion together, without it, you have no balancing mechanism for improved damage (which isn't new, it's that new color on the toaster I was telling you about) or improved knockback.
The bayonet idea is still solid, but it's not a means to redefine gameplay, just to supplement existing gameplay.
I'm against guns, I'm not butthurt, but I hope I've given you at least ONE good reason why the concept needs to be further improved. In fact... You know what... I've been here for nearly 2 years. After that much time, anyone would grow tired of beating the same tired drum on why guns are bad. After the 5th or 6th time explaining your position, it kind of gets old.
Please read the previous gun threads with my personal reasons why I disagree before lumping me in with everyone else with the presumption that I don't think about things. I am only saying this because despite the dozens of other posters besides myself, I pretentiously think I'm the only one here that matters.
You get the point? How that makes you look like an asshat? Don't do that. It makes you sound insipid, petulant, and myopic.I thought I wrote a 2 paragraph speil about my point of the word "no" as a criticism. It's kind of hard to find though, I think it's buried somewhere in the STICKIES. Here, lemme do an exhaustive search of the top of the forum for you, no really, I insist.
1. lolpierandom was directly attacking my suggestion, so it makes sense that he should have read my suggestion first. It was also directed to anyone thinking of arguing against something in this thread that has already been stated. Anything about guns in other threads don't matter, because this is the official gun thread. I thought this was a pretty important matter and required big, bold, red letters, which i intended it as a matter of typographic design choice, not an expression of anger.
2. Bow is not wood. My impression of your logic still holds true. The only similarity between a musket and bow is that they are ranged. Since bow is already ranged, you say there can't be possibly any better use for adding another ranged weapon, which is where you are wrong.
3. You DON'T have to be a sitting duck. There is something called taking cover and running to reload. When fighting against a melee opponent, you can use your bayonet to keep him at bay, which you need to do skillfully as I have mentioned in my suggestion. Depending on how well you use the bayonet, sword players may or may not be able to attack you. Depending on how sword players play, they may or may not beat a bayonet and musket player, e.g. sprinting can close the sword user within 1 block range such that bayonets are ineffective and does no damage.
4. I never said I was the only one posting in this thread, that is why the "suggestions" I wrote is PLURAL.
5. Exactly my point, no is not a very helpful argument, yet you are advocating the side that uses no as an argument. Your main argument is subjective, in that guns are lame, boring, overused in gaming, and uninspiring(Well, someone has been playing too much call of duty and halo). I, myself, have never played a halo or call of duty game. The only FPS I have enjoyed and played for a long time was counter strike several years ago.
You are also arguing from the standpoint that people cannot run and hide and sprint. You assume that all combat is head to head, everyone stand in place, then fight each other, which is not how it works. Given people can sprint, hide, and run, everything works out a bit better.
A mix of bow, sword, and musket and bayonet is also good, but comes at a price.
Furthermore, the musket and bayonet is not even in the game, how can you so easily presume how it works. For the suggestions, we are only suggesting how something would work. The musket is to knock back the opponent to a range where you can deal with them with your bayonet. If your opponent uses a sword and is 1 block within range of you, you can't attack him with your bayonet because he or she is too close. Then you would have to knock him or her back with your musket to a knockback of 2x of the bow, which should be more than enough range of about 2 blocks. Than you can attack him or her with your bayonet melee, and he can't touch you if he just runs at you constantly. If he runs and hides, or sprints, then he can close the gap back to 1 block, then the musket and bayonet user has to run and sprint away. This is quite balanced.
Yes, I want you to miss when using a musket and bayonet, I want you to have a long reloading time, so that it takes more skill to use it than your sword and bow. But if you know how to use a bayonet and musket with skill, it can be more tactically rewarding than the sword and bow.
Of course you would have gotten most of what I had to say here if you read carefully, what I suggested, hence I had it in big, bold, red letters.
See the thing is though sacrificing a little damage for range isn't much of a sacrifice when they're wearing enchanted iron or regular diamond. You already do so little damage, why not trade for range? That being said, it doesn't sound too hard to keep people back with one.
Read the paragraph of my post after the one you quoted.
Yes, realistic biome separation is a must. It should be a relatively fast to improvement, and why haven't I thought of suggesting this!
I got my desert next to a tundra, it completely destroys the feel and atmosphere of living in a desert. I also got a tundra next to a jungle, which makes just as less sense.
Since when you repair an item, it gives bonus 10%, does that mean I can make a stone pickaxe with infinite durability, if I just just the stone pickaxe on one block and then repair it, then use it again on one block and then repair it again? Gaining 10% bonus durability everytime?
Well if it is 10% bonus, then that is more than 100 more uses for a diamond pickaxe, which has 1024 uses I believe, when you combine two diamond pickaxe.
Is it true that repairing items in the crafting table creates an item that has more total durability than the durability of both of the items combined, which you used for the repair?
I have a new question:
Since when you repair an item, it gives bonus 10%, does that mean I can make a stone pickaxe with infinite durability, if I just just the stone pickaxe on one block and then repair it, then use it again on one block and then repair it again? Gaining 10% bonus durability everytime?
When they are standing inside an enclosed space of these new blocks.. They wouldn't be in follow mode.
Maybe edit that into your original post. Not everyone reads every reply in a thread. And I am still disagreeing, because you are making a new block type for something that has no use and is unnecessary. There are a lot more useful things to implement.
"A new fence just for having pets roam around instead of follow." <- put this in your original post.
0
No one said minecraft was realistic. You are ignorant of the fact that people can keep their stuff, but any further world generation would be different with biomes sperations. Can you explain to me why we even have biomes in the first place? There is also no need for name calling, but I guess it is expected of little kids on the internet.
0
The sole fact that minecraft has "biomes" is enough to push for biome separation, given that biomes are ecosystems that cannot exist without gradual transitions. Why did we add biomes in the first place? It is to replicate the real world, and so might as well make it a good one.
Furthermore, what is survival? It is something we do in the real world, so it makes sense that biomes separation should be more realistic for realistic survival. It also betters the aesthetic, which is a plus for creative mode.
1
Sigh... It is still an argument. Why do you deny this is an argument? I believe arguments fall into the category of a discussion, so discussions can be in the form of arguments. You seem to think discussion cannot be arguments.
"Perhaps one of the most difficult points with advocating guns is how trite and uninspiring they can be when trying to make them unique compared to bows. Seriously, in any modern sense, guns are so overused in the video game industry that they are actually more mundane and less practical that bows with recent games."-yoshi9048
This is where you used other video games as a standard for what is subjectively acceptable in minecraft. If you read what Anonthemousse said, you will see minecraft has multitudes of duplicates of functions, but guns are not as redundant to the bow as iron pickaxe to diamond pickaxe. Your main argument dealt with how boring it is to have two objects with the same function. Well, although my suggestion of gun is ranged, it does not work the same way as bows, so the ranged part is probably comparable to the bow as having the same function, but everything else is more different, more different than wood swords to stone swords.
Ultimately, this is a thread about guns, crossbows, etc, not your "boomerang". I can easily have argued against your "boomerang" using what you have used to argue against my suggestion. But, this is not a boomerang thread.
I never said bow can't win against musket. Everyone commits strawmans, even you, but you don't see me repeatedly saying "strawman this, blah blah blah...strawman that". A person can also interpret a strawman out of an argument.
If you don't want to use the gun, then don't, no one is forcing you so use your bow even if guns are implemented. Simple as that. It is hardly fair you want me to write a suggestion that can easily be translated for the people who do the coding, do you see any other suggestions that puts as much effort as I do on average into a suggestion?
Had I removed the range requirement of bayonet to be exactly at 2x of the sword, then no sword user can ever have a chance against bayonet users. I have argued with someone about this matter. I conceded that this would be unfair to sword users, so I constraint bayonet range to be at 2x of sword. With the use of musket butting in 2x>range>0x, sword users have a chance to do 4x the damage done by musket butts during an exchange of hits at close range. If bayonets worked on 2x>range>0x, sword users cannot have a chance to out damage bayonets, because they would be constantly knocked back. But, through skillful maneuver, when the sword user was to come below 2x range of bayonet, the sword user can hit the bayonet user, dealing 2x the damage of bayonets or 4x damage of musket butt to ensure sword users a chance to out damage bayonets using skill. Then in that range, the musket butting comes in, that is if the sword user ever closed in the range on the first place to deal 2x damage of bayonet, or 4x damage of musket butting. This is also because bayonets are supposed to be doing 0.5x damage of sword, and to decrease that damage to compensate for sword users, I put musket butting as attack that does 0.25x of sword at 2x>range>0x. This also adds more features and animations to minecraft.
I am starting to think you taking this personally. I used big, bold, red letters, and you assumed I was mad. You said I was "talking out of my ass", and I assumed you are mad, but for some reason it is a biggie that I am assuming things, when you do just as much. I rarely call you out for assuming things. Plus, try using less name callings in arguments, or discussions. It doesn't make an impression of the fact you are not mad.
Lastly, I don't recall bombs and your so called "timed devices" to ever be used as main infantry weapons around the time bows were massively used.
0
Of course it is unnecessary, especially when you only add features to the bow and sword, and over-milking it as the only way of combat. We need new weapons to mix things up, but it doesn't have to be today. I am not predicting minecraft to have swords and bows as the only weapons until the end of time. So I am advocating guns as the possible new weapon to accommodate the sword and bow.
0
If you let the musket man hide and shoot, hide and shoot. You will lose. This is because the musket does 2x the damage of bow. So every encounter, the bow man may have shot the musket man once, but the musket man has shot the bowman 2x the damage of bow. So if musket man is hiding behind a tree to reload, the bowman is going to be forced to go to that tree to melee him close range or find an opening to shoot him with bow.
The bowman would win in a place with no obstacles, you can't run, sprint, and etc. This is how using bayonets and musket works. I want you to run and use guerrilla tactics against bowman users. Doing this will over power bowman. This is why this is a tactical style. The game forces a lot of things onto players, what makes guerilla warfare a worst scenario? Please explain.
My impression of you does not make it a strawman. You just have not presented your argument clearly for me to understand what your main argument is, which is mainly because you are arguing all over the place.
"My main argument is that the mechanics that are commonly used to balance guns are ineffective, unbalanced, and uncreative". I don't write the algorithms to the game, balancing the game is not my job. I am merely suggesting the approximate ratios between musket and bow, which I have explained to someone else who argued against me.
"why can't you hit the mob with the stock of the weapon". You can butt him with the stock of the weapon. I will add musket butting for the actions you would take when an opponent is within 2x>range>0x where x is the range of the sword. Butting with musket does less damage and uses up your musket durability as I have suggested. Butting would do 0.25x the damage of the sword, but does the 1x the knock back of the sword. If you move back and rifle butt at the same time, you would be approximately at a range far enough to damage the opponent with bayonet. Then the opponent would be forced to use a bow, so now the musket man hides to reload. This called guerrilla tactics.
"Sounds like someone shouldn't talk out of his ass." No need to get mad, I was assuming you would have played cod or halo, because you said guns were overused in gaming. Nonetheless, It seems to me that for some reason, you want to use other games as a standard for what is to be added to minecraft.
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 main point of arguments is to discredit the other side. You seem to be disturbed by this fact.
Why should gun be added instead of any other weapon? Well what other infantry weapon can you add that existed around the same time that the bow was massively used as a range weapon? Crossbow comes to mind, but that is too similar to the bow. What other candidate than the gun for a more different combat style?
Napoleon had greater firing power, greater numbers, and thus greater rates of fire. But when he tried to invade Spain, as I recall, guerilla militia of Spain, units armed with muskets or some other weaponry, inflicted heavier casualties upon Napoleon through guerilla warfare. Same thing happened in the Vietnam war, although casualties might be different. I am using history, as basis for the guerilla warfare style of musket and bayonet, which although slow, as proven in history, can still be fatal when one uses it tactically.
Throughout history, the most different ranged infantry weapon, from the bow, around the medieval era (circa 500 A.C.E to 1500 A.C.E)was the gun, which was not used widely. So it makes sense, that a different weapon style should be of the gun. No other infantry weapon existed, that was different from the bow beyond that of a crossbow (I am not saying crossbows should not be added).
1
Confined in a room to make resourceful use of given materials is not surreal. Do you even know what surreal means? And what do you mean by "logic", a lot of things in minecraft are not logical within the real world. Why do guns have to be limited to real world logic then? Again, your argument is invalid, but to play along, I will tell you how I would make a projectile and propeller system based on gunpowder, A.K.A. the gun.
I would be able to make a simple gun if I was given the materials. I would have a mold for the gun barrel, make a hollow cylinder. At the end of a hollow cylinder would be a hole for lighting the gunpowder. I would make small round iron balls as well. Then I make the stock, which supports the barrel, or anything that is good for holding. Then I throw some gunpowder down the barrel, and use it to cushion the iron bullet. Light the gun powder through the hole in the back, and bam, you got a propeller and projectile system based on new chemistry from the bow. The chinese did it at around 1000 A.C.E., and I believe they called it "fire lance".
The bayonet would just be a stick protruding out of the stock, which is simple to do as well.
It is also obvious you don't know how guns work, so you say you cannot hand-make guns in a confined room, and that you believe guns to have this magical quality that separates them from things you do understand in minecraft.
FYI, if you want realism, bows require mastery, and guns don't require as much. The process of learning to use a musket and bayonet can be a few weeks, while the process of learning to master the bow can be a few years. This is why muskets and bayonets took over the battle field. Death of a bow man is the death of a guy who took very long to train, which is worst than the casualty of a musket and bayonet user.
Furthermore, the reason why guns did not take over earlier is because of their poor accuracy and range in their early models. Ammunitions were also not massively manufactured. A hundred bow man could fire several shots before a musket user could even come within range of fire.
So ask yourself, why is it so easy to shoot a bow in minecraft? If you gave a bow to a man in a confined room, how long would it take for him to master archery? A few years realistically, so why so fast in minecraft? Thus your argument is invalid both ways.
1
Your definition of whether something should be added, is that it should be able to be made by a single person locked in a room with given materials. I just want to say this is a failure of an argument. How did you make an iron sword? How did you make a diamond sword? How did you make a diamond armor? How did you make a minecart? How did you make booster tracks?
You are trying to impose strict realism to minecraft as a filter for suggestions, which is invalid.
1
1. lolpierandom was directly attacking my suggestion, so it makes sense that he should have read my suggestion first. It was also directed to anyone thinking of arguing against something in this thread that has already been stated. Anything about guns in other threads don't matter, because this is the official gun thread. I thought this was a pretty important matter and required big, bold, red letters, which i intended it as a matter of typographic design choice, not an expression of anger.
2. Bow is not wood. My impression of your logic still holds true. The only similarity between a musket and bow is that they are ranged. Since bow is already ranged, you say there can't be possibly any better use for adding another ranged weapon, which is where you are wrong.
3. You DON'T have to be a sitting duck. There is something called taking cover and running to reload. When fighting against a melee opponent, you can use your bayonet to keep him at bay, which you need to do skillfully as I have mentioned in my suggestion. Depending on how well you use the bayonet, sword players may or may not be able to attack you. Depending on how sword players play, they may or may not beat a bayonet and musket player, e.g. sprinting can close the sword user within 1 block range such that bayonets are ineffective and does no damage.
4. I never said I was the only one posting in this thread, that is why the "suggestions" I wrote is PLURAL.
5. Exactly my point, no is not a very helpful argument, yet you are advocating the side that uses no as an argument. Your main argument is subjective, in that guns are lame, boring, overused in gaming, and uninspiring(Well, someone has been playing too much call of duty and halo). I, myself, have never played a halo or call of duty game. The only FPS I have enjoyed and played for a long time was counter strike several years ago.
You are also arguing from the standpoint that people cannot run and hide and sprint. You assume that all combat is head to head, everyone stand in place, then fight each other, which is not how it works. Given people can sprint, hide, and run, everything works out a bit better.
A mix of bow, sword, and musket and bayonet is also good, but comes at a price.
Furthermore, the musket and bayonet is not even in the game, how can you so easily presume how it works. For the suggestions, we are only suggesting how something would work. The musket is to knock back the opponent to a range where you can deal with them with your bayonet. If your opponent uses a sword and is 1 block within range of you, you can't attack him with your bayonet because he or she is too close. Then you would have to knock him or her back with your musket to a knockback of 2x of the bow, which should be more than enough range of about 2 blocks. Than you can attack him or her with your bayonet melee, and he can't touch you if he just runs at you constantly. If he runs and hides, or sprints, then he can close the gap back to 1 block, then the musket and bayonet user has to run and sprint away. This is quite balanced.
Yes, I want you to miss when using a musket and bayonet, I want you to have a long reloading time, so that it takes more skill to use it than your sword and bow. But if you know how to use a bayonet and musket with skill, it can be more tactically rewarding than the sword and bow.
Of course you would have gotten most of what I had to say here if you read carefully, what I suggested, hence I had it in big, bold, red letters.
0
Read the paragraph of my post after the one you quoted.
0
I got my desert next to a tundra, it completely destroys the feel and atmosphere of living in a desert. I also got a tundra next to a jungle, which makes just as less sense.
0
Since when you repair an item, it gives bonus 10%, does that mean I can make a stone pickaxe with infinite durability, if I just just the stone pickaxe on one block and then repair it, then use it again on one block and then repair it again? Gaining 10% bonus durability everytime?
0
0
0
I have a new question:
Since when you repair an item, it gives bonus 10%, does that mean I can make a stone pickaxe with infinite durability, if I just just the stone pickaxe on one block and then repair it, then use it again on one block and then repair it again? Gaining 10% bonus durability everytime?
0
Maybe edit that into your original post. Not everyone reads every reply in a thread. And I am still disagreeing, because you are making a new block type for something that has no use and is unnecessary. There are a lot more useful things to implement.
"A new fence just for having pets roam around instead of follow." <- put this in your original post.