All users will need to merge their Minecraft Forum account with a new or existing Twitch account starting October 23rd. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
• 0

posted a message on Bow Nerf: Better Strategy

Aye, a shield. Most large pvp minigame servers run 1.8 pvp

Posted in: Suggestions
• 0

posted a message on Bow Nerf: Better Strategy

Firstly, the upper limit for a human firing a bow with each arrow being able to deal lethal damage is about seven arrows in eight seconds. (Mind you, that was with the bow drawn back to its full limit, not halfway as the suggestion complains about)

To the first solution, it is ridiculous to have to draw the blow fully to do any damage; the arrows in Minecraft travel at about 53 meters a second when fully charged (that's 26.5 m/s halfway, as a bow does damage linearly), and an arrow weighs somewhere around a kilo. This means it exerts 1x26.52=702.25 pounds of force, easily enough to deal potentially lethal damage to a target.

To the second solution, why would putting less stress on the bow damage it more? Pulling a bow all the way back puts considerable more strain on a bow than pulling it halfway (a bowstring is a simple spring, and operates on the equation f = -kx, making it steadily do more damage based on how far it is pulled)

To the third, an arrow does damage proportional to the amount it is drawn back. I think Mojang chose correctly in having this scale linearly with damage.

In all, I do not support this suggestion because I believe that bows are already balanced as they are now. It already takes a bit of strategy to aim, and moreso to actually shoot someone who is running at you with a melee weapon whilst you are slowed by the drawback (another balance feature). It is entirely the melee weapon user's fault for attempting to charge someone using a ranged weapon.

Death of a thousand cuts again... you can see I'm a bit salty here. And it's the rapid, repeated draws that cause it damage.
Posted in: Suggestions
• 0

posted a message on Bow Nerf: Better Strategy
Quote from DrWeegee»

I kinda like solution #2, but I don't really think it's an issue that needs to be solved.

Considering bow spamming would generally deal less damage then a sword (Even after the cooldown), you're basically just doing yourself more harm.

Though to discourage use of bow spamming, I'd suggest making knockback dealt by bows dependent on how much you've charged it up. So bow spamming will deal no knockback at all while a fully charged shot will deal the amount it does normally.

Ya, but if you're in a narrow hallway or somesort they do the "death of a thousand cuts"- Just keep whittling you down until you reach 0, even in diamond armour.
Posted in: Suggestions
• 0

posted a message on Bow Nerf: Better Strategy

Bow Nerf: Better Strategy!

Introduction:

I'm sure you've all seen bow spam. It's cheaty, it's bad, and most importantly, makes no sense at all. Who here has heard of a kill from only half-drawing your bow, rapidly, and multiple times in quick succession like a gun? Therefore, I wish to suggest a "cure" to this very pointed problem.

Solution #1:

Bows, unless pulled back fully, do no damage. All arrows flying out will lose momentum once leaving the bow, drooping sadly to the ground. Solves the problem, and doesn't cause problems to non-bow spammer i.e. people who don't release arrows after fully pulling back bow.

Solution #2:

Bows take extra damage from bow-spamming. Due to the rapid half-drawn bow motions, the bow is worn down quickly and takes double durability damage for every arrow shot released without full draw. Doesn't compensate for pvp minigames without durability, however.

Solution #3:

Arrows shot before drawback lose half their damage and are affected by armour, making it improbable to deal with diamond or even iron opponents. The least effective, but certainly a compromise.

Conclusion:

So what do you think? Tell me in the comments and I look forward to your feedback. And remember to vote in the poll! Thanks!

Posted in: Suggestions
• 0

posted a message on /gamerule doAttackTiming(better name: oldCombat)

I refuse to post any further on this subject. This conversation has dragged on way too long, the points have all been refuted, and people have been reduced to saying that PvP= "Winning for fun" 'cause they have "leet skillz". This is highly pointless, and you know what, Lightning_Sh0ck, you win. In fact, I'm unsubscribing as soon as I see your reaction- that's how good your idea is. BTW, the chances of Mojang seeing this thread (the Swedish arm, at least) is so exceedingly minimal that, hey, if it makes you feel better, I've given up!

Posted in: Suggestions
• 1

posted a message on Why will there be no "Back" button for 1.9 PVP?
Quote from LightningSh0ck»

You missed a few points in your ramble.

1. Plugins do add new styles of play (have you ever been on any minigames server ever, or are you Patrick Star?). And we aren't talking about every core mechanic ever, we're talking about 1.9 combat, which plugins do[/i] solve.
So why are we legitimising this and going through the effort when servers already do this?[/b]

[b][/b]2. Then allow me to rephrase. Telling people to adjust and that adjusting is better than criticising is dumb.
No- people holding out despite objective reasoning saying no is dumb.[/b]

3. Yeah, slightly similar. List of changes needed:
• Change health and damage values for all entities that existed in 1.8 to 1.8.
• Remove sweep and crushing blow.
• Remove shields.
• Remove attack timers.
• Change tool and weapon damage to 1.8.
• Adjust health and damage of mobs in 1.9 and weapons/mobs in future updates.

That last thing is the only thing that would need to be continually. And if you think a lot of time or effort went into determining the husk's damage, for example, you're being a bit foolish. It's not that much effort to maintain. This also applies not only to mobs. Future changes to combat, for example. New features have to put into consideration that we can negate projectile damage now, which in itself is pretty big. New dimensions? Seriously? I refuse to believe that this is enough of a game changer to tick anti-1.9ers off and request a rollback, but somehow not major enough to be a consideration in future balancing.[/b]

And now onto my actual response to your points:

1. Most people complain about this aspect. And because you have a demonstration, proving one point wrong will make it fall.

[b]Tell me, Mr. Master Rationalist, since when did I have a demonstration, and why do demonstrations approve of the One-Mistake fallacy? (Gamelord?)[/b]

2. I am really getting tired of your slippery slopes.
[b]No, that wasn't a slippery slope. If I recall, you made the comparison first, leading me to tell you that in fact it didn't matter. In turn, you now accuse me of something you started.[/b]

3. If you know how to code, why do you call some lines of code just to check a gamerule Boolean value and do actions based on it hard?

[b]Because you also have to intentionally remove features such as shields, special attacks, and such forth. If you really wanted 1.8 combat, everything pertaining to 1.9 combat would have to be turned off. Can you imagine no projectile dmg + spamclicking + armour nerf? Whenever you add suff, you also have to now consider that arrows are pretty much nerfedd, amour couldn't help the player, and suchforth.[/b]

4.Speak for yourself. I can play both 1.8 and 1.9, but I don't want to get stuck to 1.9 for the rest of my life. But because you are not like me, if you can have both challenge and parkour maps, you can have both 1.8 and 1.9 as well, if you are really bad at one, play the other. [b]Then go play 1.8. You can't have both your cake and eat it.[/b]

5. Unlike you, I have also proved that it does come out of a hat(in the metaphorical sense).

[b]Now I'm really fuming. Go find a game designer. Any designer. Walk up to him, and ask "Does balance remain the same if I play differently, with different core mechanics?"[/b]

6. So if it is not a nerf, how it is a balanced and 1.8 not?

[b]You seem to fail to realise that "nerf"=/="balance" (Do you inherently think 1.8 is OP?). By moving the diamond sword to do 5 dmg instead of 7, I do not "balance it. Some things were weakened in the update, sure, but somethings were strengthened (axes). In the end, it offers more variety, more choice, more possibilities for play, than 1.8 could ever have done. Why bother with potions of harming when you could dash in a go click-click-click-click-click? Pre-1.8 combat favoured one style overall, whereas 1.9+ gave you more options and balanced things out. Think about that.[/b]

7. Gimme an example of something balanced in one, but unbalanced in the other then.

[b]Bows. They were the ultimate weapon: Long range, harmless to you, dealt consistent damage, and unless you could run or get a few blocks between you and the archer, you were pretty much dead. Now there's a shield to help you in exchange for low durability.[/b]

8. It's in fact even if I am wrong or not, there is still a solution.

[b]Yes, but not your solution since you are wrong (if you say so yourself.)[/b]

9. I asked a question there.

[b]Very well.[/b]

10. Nothing to say about nr.3?

[b]You yourself said the pts were in no.2[/b]

11. I don't change

[b]Being stubborn does not make you correct, it makes you look stupid. Go play 1.8 if it suits your fancy.[/b]

12. There is no community split, and even so, 30% is almost a third, is it that tiny?

[b]You're assuming a lot here. Who said it was 30%? THe limited responses on this thread cannot represent reality. And the reality is that even here, every post that has been raised has been shot down. You can't play both sides of the game- denying the divide exists, and then saying the divide is too big to ignore. It doesn't work like that.[/b]

13. Ok then do you see a lot of 1.8 servers? Yes? Do you see a lot of servers with hunger removed? No? Do I need to draw a conclusion(and yes, already) for you?

[b]**Blood rushes behind my ears** You yourself have outlined the solution- you change and accept 1.9, or you stay on 1.8. They seem perfectly fine with "stay on 1.8". And besides, there are so many workarounds already that it's just pointless now. We don't "need" your stupid gamerule. Mc won't end if we don't get it. There are workarounds known as plugins already.[/b]

14. . Hunger returned at least a little. 1.8, unlike hunger, is 30% of the community, so 1.8 should fully return.

[b]????? Who said it was 30%? You're basing the argument off of vague, guessed numbers here, so I suggest that the 30% can either host their own specialised 1.8 servers or get 1.9 -> 1.8 plugins since they're such a large community (if they even exist in 30%) And I'm getting the vibe that you'd rather 1.9 never appear, which is never a good thing.[/b]

15. Its much easier to CB a hunger removal contraption than an 1.8 one. do you actually know a way to remove crushing blow with cbs?

FYI, I don't, but I bet somebody else already does.

[b]Look, your arguments have been refuted. Again and again and again. You keep playing to both sides, first denying that there ever was a split (since "everybody's different already") and then going over to saying the split is too large (we can't ignore the "30%"). When you get busted on that, you start trash-talking 1.9 and glorifying 1.8. Just because "I win for fun and fast for more fun" is possible in 1.8 and not in 1.9 doesn't make 1.9 evil, nor does it make your cause correct. It's just flawed reasoning. Accept it won't change, and either play on 1.8 or get a plugin'd server. Please.[/b]

Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
• 0

posted a message on [Nether Expansion] Ashwood Forests

Not bad, will offer some criticism later, but very cool nontheless. (People should comment more on here)

Posted in: Suggestions
• 0

posted a message on /gamerule doAttackTiming(better name: oldCombat)
Quote from LightningSh0ck»

Hey, if I hate 1.9 combat, it doesn't mean I suck at 1.9, stop doing these stupid ad hominem arguments.

I personally use the term jerk for people who are trash talking(I found no better term to describe it, sorry) after they got their arguments debunked. Really? Debunked? I personally find it easier to describe your arguments as "debunked".

I find this offensive. Please speak for yourself.

I don't play games for fun. I win games for fun. And I win games fast for more fun, not slow, timing, again, a damn sword on hydraulics. You accuse us of not being able to Pvp or not even PvP, and yet you only play to win. In that case, you might as well not play at all- It isn't fun when you win every time either, you'll find.

PS: did you know that diamond is actually two times lighter than iron? What in the name of woden does that have to do with the gamerule?

That would be too complicated. The crushing blow and sweep will get included in this gamerule.
And what about every other combat related now-unbalanced change?

So if you got used to get killed, why are you bothering about this? Does this matter to you anyway...?

Look, what you're saying is "If you don't win you shouldn't care", and guess what, I bet you don't win 100% either. The value of a person isn't about how good at winning they are, it's about how they play, and if your primary reason for this is "I like to win and I can win fast with 1.8", then I'm sorry, ARGUMENT INVALID.

Posted in: Suggestions
• 0

posted a message on /gamerule doAttackTiming(better name: oldCombat)
Quote from Gamelord»

I doubt I need to explain that the answer to that question is no and you just said that for effect.

Oh, well in that case we might as well just lock this thread then. Seems the point has been proven.

Just gonna throw that one in there with no explanation as if it proves itself?

That's great. But for a start, OP probably isn't playing hard mode and I don't think he has any interest in how hard it is or how much you hate 1.8 combat. You thinking that old combat is lazy and boring isn't a good enough reason to not let it be optional.

Okay, that's just mean. Look, I get being "Critical", but being critical doesn't mean tearing apart anything that annoys you in the slightest. That's called being a jerk. And BTW, I get what a joke is, and I think we all know that as well. So you saying this not only makes this thread more drawn out than it already is, it just makes you look bad.
Posted in: Suggestions
• 0

posted a message on Why will there be no "Back" button for 1.9 PVP?
Quote from Gamelord»

Then allow me to rephrase. Telling people to adjust and that adjusting is better than criticising is dumb.

No- people holding out despite objective reasoning saying no is dumb.

Plugins do add new styles of play (have you ever been on any minigames server ever, or are you Patrick Star?). And we aren't talking about every core mechanic ever, we're talking about 1.9 combat, which plugins do solve.

So why are we legitimising this and going through the effort when servers already do this?

Because there is no solution for the core single player Minecrafter.

Exactly.

First off, please don't justify your logical fallacy by saying that other people are doing the same thing Fair point, sorry.. First off, (Again?) I've never done that, and you're arguing with me, so don't lump me in with whiny children.??? Thank you. And this isn't about me justifying a major rollback. I don't really care if we get one. I'm just calling out all of the failures in logic I can see in order to help everyone here, as so many people seem to think this thread is literally the bestest most perfect think since sliced bread. I'm not arguing for the anti-1.9 crowd, I'm arguing for the critical thinking crowd. I've never claimed to be the best, this was merely the most comprehensive thread I could make.

How can you claim to be explaining why there will be no back button to 1.9, and in the same thread claiming to be addressing a complaint other than "make combat like 1.8"? Do I need to explain that a 'back button' implies a complete reversion to how it was before? Now I'm confused.

I don't think Minecraft's genre has anything to do with why we aren't getting 1.9 combat removed/optionally removed. The types of games Minecraft and Runescape are have nothing to do with this issue, so I can absolutely compare them.

Want to me compare this to legacy WoW servers? Fine. You just brought this up to the biggest WoW nerd on the forum. The legacy WoW servers were not official nor were they even legal to run. Blizzard shut down those servers to protect their intellectual property. Later, though, they held a meeting with the Nostalrius team, who have said that Blizzard told them they actually respected what they'd done to run Vanilla WoW. And now, what was that meeting about, I wonder? They were talking about making official WoW legacy servers, that's what they were talking about. Argument invalidated. Okay. But then again, you did start this by comparing it to a game.

Yeah, slightly similar. List of changes needed:

• Change health and damage values for all entities that existed in 1.8 to 1.8.
• Remove sweep and crushing blow.
• Remove shields.
• Remove attack timers.
• Change tool and weapon damage to 1.8.
• Adjust health and damage of mobs in 1.9 and weapons/mobs in future updates.

That last thing is the only thing that would need to be continually. And if you think a lot of time or effort went into determining the husk's damage, for example, you're being a bit foolish. It's not that much effort to maintain. This also applies not only to mobs. Future changes to combat, for example. New features have to put into consideration that we can negate projectile damage now, which in itself is pretty big. New dimensions? Seriously? I refuse to believe that this is enough of a game changer to tick anti-1.9ers off and request a rollback, but somehow not major enough to be a consideration in future balancing.

The slippery slope fallacy does immediately make you wrong though, because it's one of the few fallacies which requires that the entire argument rest upon it. If you removed the slippery slope fallacy, the argument wouldn't exist anymore because the argument only works with the fallacy. The fallacy fallacy is not a be-all-and-end-all of proving people arguments wrong. Sometimes a fallacy does make an argument fail, and the slippery slope fallacy always does that. This is a point in an argument, part of a larger, more general, fallacy-free argument.

If I was screaming "AD HOMINEM", you'd have a point. Not here. Ironically, your only response to my slippery slope was "fallacy fallacy", which makes your argument a fallacy fallacy in itself. The difference is that a slippery slope completely disqualifies an argument, because a slippery slope is not something you use in the argument, it is the argument. The argument itself that you made is a logical fallacy in and of itself, which makes it wrong. Yeah, but this does set a precedent. Now the fanbase can rollback major decisions a few of them don't like now. And remember- 1.9 had one of the more agonising waiting times of all the updates, which shows that 1.9 took TIME to develop. What does this mea for the, say, anti-polar-bear guys? Or anti-Husk guys? Or heck, anti-Java guys?

I'm not arguing for the anti-1.9, I'm just trying to keep this fair, because the absolute worst thing that can happen in this ongoing debate is have all anti-1.9 players be immediately discounted because "look in this thread kid", when that thread is actually rather flawed.

You're thinking about it like I'm criticising you in the debating sense. I'm not criticising you as part of the anti-1.9 squad: telling you you're wrong and 1.9 is the worst, telling you that your favourite colour is the worst and telling you that you're just the worst in general.

No, I'm not arguing for the other side at all. Think of me more like a movie critic. I get it, don't worry

Discounting myself because that would be cheating, Broccoli, you are legit the most reasonable pro-1.9 person on this forum I know of so far.

Maybe the reason I'm going out of my way to argue with pro-1.9 people is because I'm tired of "You're bad and you should feel bad". But if anyone asks it's in the name of logic!
Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
• 0

posted a message on /gamerule doAttackTiming(better name: oldCombat)
Quote from Chameleonred5»

There's no point in making it so that Mojang has to balance things to two incompatible modes of combat. 1.9 might seem to be summed up as "attack timing," but as ChaofanJ above points out, many things were altered to make 1.9 work.

And quite frankly, there's no point in trying to balance for what may as well be a separate game. That's what you're asking for when you ask for the old combat. You're asking for an entirely different game. And that's fine, but Mojang has decided they wanted to change the game. It's no longer the old game you were playing. You're no longer an omnipotent pest-control agent who plays whack-a-mole to use poorly-designed vending machines. It's irrational to expect them to give you an option for that.

You, sir, are a genius.
Posted in: Suggestions
• 0

posted a message on /gamerule doAttackTiming(better name: oldCombat)

Noted here that shields NEGATE ARROW DMG. Completely.

Posted in: Suggestions
• 0

posted a message on Why will there be no "Back" button for 1.9 PVP?
Quote from LightningSh0ck»

Because people hardly find statements I did in my thread, I will re-post and combine them here. I disagree with this and I will explain why.

The only and the needed aspect (???) I will talk about is about the attack cooldown(and the damage values modified), but bot gapple nerf, dia armor nerf, etc. They factor in too, as well as the special atks, shields, swipes, etc. They all form a new style that you cannot ignore, which is why your argument flawed already. As others have pointed out, 1.9 wasn't the Attack Cooldown update. The new combat requires consistent overall evaluation, not cherry picked "evidence".
So we can do two things: 8er(8-er, you got it? 1.8? Nevermind...) fully revert to 1.8 combat style. However, if 70% ppl preffer 1.9, then this is not a solution.

The other thing we can do is we can have both of them with a thing like a gamerule(as I proposed in my suggestion). So we have both styles of fight, main one being 1.9 and 1.8 the secondary, being accessible with one command.
So, there we go:

1.No, It wont. If you would be right, the community would have been split already into, for example, peaceful and not-peaceful, redstoners and non-redstoners, builders and fighters, creative and survival, keepInventory or not, modded or not but no, there isn't any split, why would this split the community??? Because they all rely on the same fundamental mechanics- building, destroying, and fighting with the same mechanics and tools. Redstoners don't have a seperate inventory for cool redstone toys, and survivalists don't get extra "realistic" monsters. As I said, it's a major update.

2.If we implement it just like a gamerule as I said, modders and map-makers won't actually need to maintain two separate versions. For modders that is self-explanatory(or if its not for you, it involves coding, and if you don't have any idea know how to code, you can't argue there [???] Just saying it involves coding doesn't help a lot when you're accusing the other side of being blind to computers in general, but I will spare you this: I KNOW HOW TO CODE, DAMMIT. And, since I have the liberty of knowing coding, I can also tell you that they will have to balance differently for the mechanics stated above.), but for map-makers, well map-makers can just chose one of them, that fits more the play-style their game will involve(Even if you do 1.8, you can play sometimes in 1.9 style and vice-versa, as you can play sometimes parkour even if you like pvp more Again, you're mixing different playstyles with different mechanics.It also gets harder for 1.8 people to play 1.9 maps, and vice versa since they're used to different things., or they can even implement both of them with just a lever that flicks between both modes. LIKE I SAID, BALANCE DOESN'T COME OUT OF A HAT. Regarding balance: Most mobs got no change. Mobs are "click spamming" like in 1.8, so theoretically 1.9 is already "unbalanced". Now you're just rambling on about why 1.9 is bad. It doesn't help. In conclusion, (??? Already?) there is no "balance" needed between 1.8 or 1.9. Also 1.9 has swing attack, but 1.8 doesn't and 1.9 has strong axe, but 1.8 doesn't. So 1.9 is not really a "nerf" of 1.8, they are both nearly equal somehow (If even you don't know, how'm I supposed to?). I never said it was a nerf, and now you're just like "since it's not a nerf, THEY'RE THE SAME. They're not. And even if I am wrong(note: "e.v.e.n. if" not "I am completely" You're wrong, or you're not. This is just bad technique- "I might be wrong, but not completely because of reasons I can't describe".), then balance it for 1.9(but as i said, i won't be a need for a balance most likely)! Because 1.9 is the main one, "left"?(left, instead of "right". dual wielding reference, you got it? ha ha, nevermind... I wonder why I find it difficult to take you seriously.). Regarding youtubers: do you personally stop watching youtubers because they play 1.8?(assuming you like 1.9, vice-versa if not) So yeah, the rest here is just a slippery slope fallacy as @Gamelord said. Again, Fallacy Fallacy.

3.Read what's bold at "2." And for the scraping part, as I said, we can have both so we won't scrap anything, but anyway this reason is not linked to the conclusion, so again, a slippery slope fallacy(plz no copyright).

4.I'm not that old in Minecraft. I came since 1.2.5. But I think in that time the community was much smaller, so big changes were easy to make. No it won't be. Even at 1.2.5, the community was already very vocal, and it doesn't matter anyways. You change, or you don't. It won't be easier, and anyhow you never explain to us "Why" it's easier if you have a tiny community that fits on a mailing list. Also that new system did not give that many struggles as this. It is just a hunger bar that must be not 0 to not take damage/die, >6 to sprint and >=18 to regenerate. Micromangement. 'Nuff said.That just made you eat more food, however food got easier to craft and stackable in inventory so you could carry more. If you mind telling me, in that time, the forum was full of "RIP Minecraft" as it was recently? Yes, it was. At least, I saw quite a few vocal voices. And now not to mention that in 1.9 the bonus saturation converts into health, somewhat like beta, so in someway, this update is actually a small return to beta. And this matters to the gamerule because... You can also do a simple contraption now that can keep you hunger from going below 17(8.5 drumsticks). So you will have a simple effect just like in beta. And this matters because...Unlike for 1.8, which is much harder an impossible to get nearly as good as the version itself. ???? Now you're just talking nonsense.
Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
• 0

posted a message on Why will there be no "Back" button for 1.9 PVP?
Quote from Gamelord»

I don't think 'adjust mate' is a good enough reason on its own.

It isn't a reason, it's what you should do. Adjusting has been a vital part of our community. If this had all happened with hunger, we wouldn't be where we are now.

Because this absolutely isn't an issue already (see: plugins).

Plugins don't add new styles of play, only adjust them when needed. And the vast majority of them don't roll back changes to core gameplay mechanics. And besides, with so many solutions already available through said plugins, why should we legitimise this when there are already so many solutions? Plugins have been the traditional way to deal with unwanted features since the beginning.

Slippery slope fallacy much? You basically turn this whole thing into AND THEN THE GAME DIES!

And what you guys are saying is add this OR ELSE THE GAME DIES! If otherwise, how can you justify such a major rollback?

The consensus is that it would be identical to 1.8.

No it's not. The consensus, I'm afraid, is against you (**Ahem Ahem** 15:2 **Ahem Ahem**). Or are you pretending that no-one exists except Lightning_Sh0ck?

Happens all the time, why? Hell, ever seen Old School Runescape? It's currently more popular than the current game. And it could be argued when it was announced it would suffer from all of these problems.

Are you really comparing minecraft with RUNESCAPE? They are different games. Period. Like why you can't compare this to legacy versions of WoW, whose servers just got shut down.

Actually, the concept of old Minecraft versions being playable suffers from plenty of these, too.

Yeah, but you don't have to update said old-school versions anymore. What you're suggesting here will require side-by-side development for two combat systems, which is a totally different thing. And don't argue hat they're the same. 1.8:- Attack by clicking- No special abilities- Axe weaker than sword1.9:- Attack by clicking- Cooldown btw attacks- New shields serving bock function- No blocking for swords- Swords have swipe attack- Axes have crushing blow attack to disable shields- Offhand slot added for healing-aid items or shields or blocks.Similar much?

Slippery slope fallacy.

Even if I have a fallacy (and I don't really think so, this is pretty major), it doesn't mean I'm wrong. You've committed a fallacy too: The fallacy fallacy, where anyone who has commited a fallacy is immediately wrong/ suspicious/ damaged.

I like 1.9 combat. I'm just here to point out some silly points, that's all.

Then why are you arguing for the other side? Anyway, thanks for the critique.

Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
• 0

posted a message on Why will there be no "Back" button for 1.9 PVP?

Given all of this, I will take some time to process it duly.

Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots