Generalization. I'm confident that the overwhelming majority of the Minecraft community would dislike the idea, so I'm able to use words reflecting that. The slight exaggeration is to make my argument stronger. Sure, you agreed with the idea,but out of the seven commenters minus OP, you're the first to agree with it.
Generalization is a fallacy. How do you know that you are slightly exaggerating? You might be significantly exaggerating. You would need to be circular in order to assume that you are correct from the get-go. The majority of posts here are perhaps negative feedback (that is not to say they are not constructive!); but appealing to these comments as support for your generalization is supporting a general proposition with anecdotal evidence, which is another fallacy. It could be that most people who read this post agree with OP but haven't spoken about it.
Even if the majority of players are generally on your side, appealing to them would be to appeal to population; another fallacy. Minecraft should not be built solely on what the population wants. The game would have no backbone. It would turn into a mess of unbalanced systems because different people want different things, and we cannot please everybody. There needs to be a single large coherent balanced vision that Minecraft develops towards.
Isn't that the point of suggesting things? To change parts of the game you don't like?
Not necessarily, but I believe my point went over your head.
And what do you mean by "objective"? Downside (in this case) is a synonym for downgrade.
Consider this: iron swords do six damage and 200-something durability. Diamond swords do seven damage and have a whopping 1561 durability. Iron swords cannot be "objectively" better. Likewise, the idea removes the easiness that comes from sticking to one type of easily-obtainable food for the sake of making the game more difficult and requiring more planning. Since the idea is changing the core mechanics of the game in an unavoidable way and only exists to punish the player with absolutely zero incentives to stick to the system aside from maintaining the old default values, it is considered a direct downgrade. Like using a butter knife to cut a steak.
"Objective", meaning: Absolute (relating to values); not relating to opinions nor feelings. "Downside", meaning: Increased difficulty; less immediate player benefit.
"Objective downside" (as it was used in this case) example:
John: "They changed the sword damage value from 6 to 5, what an objective downside!"
Dustin: "Yes, but overall, they brought balance to other weapons; now the stone sword is no longer obsolete! This is an objective upside, but in another sense. Focus on the bigger picture, John!"
So you take a complete 180 and say I can only criticize it if I support the idea?
No, I did not say this. I believe my point went over your head. I remained logically consistent and said what I said above.
I beg to differ. Minecraft has a very casual playerbase. Your average non-Wiki-hounding player wouldn't understand how this works. Furthermore, it would tank the difficulty of Minecraft in one of the worst ways possible. Not everybody has the ability to immediately farm multiple types of food.
Instead of focusing what is best for the balance of the game, you are concerned with how you think casual players are going to stumble. This is where we differ. There is a casual fanbase, and there is also a technical fanbase who wants to see this survival game thrive with a solid balanced structure. If the casual people are casual, then will they even mind this technical suggestion?
Not everybody has the ability to immediately farm multiple types of food? They can learn. If they don't learn, then they can still live on one type of food. Those who learn systems are rewarded. Case closed. That is my opinion, and I am happy that you have yours.
I've created Hardcore worlds where I build as large a farm as I can and still struggle to create bread every few days. So when that bread vanishes...
...Hopefully this system will be in place.
I've read this at least eight times now, yet I still can't process what you're saying here.
That is, I would implement a system similar to this suggested system, and then I would refine things for purposes of difficulty relative to how the game plays with the new system. I would not strive to keep the hunger system balanced with how it currently stands. In a nutshell and to run with an analogy you already used: The player has too many steak knives. We may need to take some away in order to fix balancing issues; but that is alright, because we are focusing on building a foundation with new standards.
It's nice that you find it fun, but you're not the majority of the community. Minecraft has never been about mechanics like these.
Of course it has. That is why Minecraft has a hunger system.
It's not the same type of survival game as something like ARK or Don't Starve. Minecraft is first and foremost a sandbox game.
This system would simply cripple adventuring further than 1.13 did by adding Phantom random encounters when you don't sleep. Ever since Phantoms were added, players have had to either take a bed with them and risk losing their gear and spawnpoint or simply face the wrath of multiple flying biters spawning and chomping down on them. Phantoms changed the core mechanics of the game by setting the standard for mobs spawning from triggered events. Did they make the game more enjoyable? No.
I understand your point regarding Phantoms. However, when discussing what is enjoyable, it is often beneficial to remember that "enjoyable" is subjective. Phantoms likely make the game enjoyable for many people, even if those people do not speak out.
Phantoms were voted into the game, were they not?
You admit this system adds no upsides then call it a direct upgrade?
No upsides in a sense and relative to the old system. It is a direct upgrade because it solves balancing issues and gives many obsolete items a strong purpose.
How can it perform better than the current system if there are no additional mechanics that allow it to perform in the first place?
There are additional mechanics; the fatigue mechanic.