Terraria is a great game. I play that as well, and find it entertaining.
When I want to play a hack-and-slash and item-heavy game like Terraria, I play Terraria. But when I want to play a much more relaxed (and far more creative) game like Minecraft, I want it to be Minecraft, not 3-D Terraria. They are separate games with separate play styles.
I really wish people would stop trying to convert one game into the other.
-
- eva_st_clare
- Registered Member
-
Member for 12 years, 2 months, and 22 days
Last active Tue, Nov, 25 2014 13:36:57
- 0 Followers
- 158 Total Posts
- 76 Thanks
-
Oct 28, 20131
Divinius posted a message on The Mojang Team Should Play TerrariaPosted in: Future Updates -
Oct 27, 20132
CalebFromOuterSpace posted a message on Pouring down rain on my wintery cabin in the snow! :(It was a bad move to change the Taiga to not be snowy. I think it would have been better if the previous Taiga had just been renamed to Cold Taiga and the new Taiga be the non-snowy varient. That way, people who were living in Taigas previously wouldn't receive a change in climate.Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
It's a bummer, really. -
Oct 23, 20132
HappyHitchhiker posted a message on Even after an update devoted to biomesAm I the only one who thinks that people who complain have WAY too much time on their hands. It's a game. They are under no obligation to update it, to add new features based on popular mods, no obligation to make modding easier, no obligation to make customization of visuals easier (resource packs), and under no obligation to bow to everyone's whims. The best thing about Minecraft is that you can play it to your own liking. The creators have given options to have mobs/no mobs, cheat/no cheat, and added NPC villages to have useless (most of the time) trades with. I think if I had to put up with the complaints everytime I added or fixed things in a game I would quit making the game. Too many complainers on the forum are writing "I wanted", "I expected":, "I was promised", and the answers are all the same: If you don't like the game as it is provided then either mod it yourself or STOP PLAYING. No one if forcing anyone to play a game. If the game was purchased before this update then you have already recieved what you paid for. Any updates are freebies and people should not complain. How about Minecraft go like Microsoft and charge you for the update when a new version comes out? Would people like that better? I know I wouldn't. Minecraft is a cool game and has tons of potential because they allow it to be customized. Be happy with what you have.Posted in: Discussion -
Oct 18, 201321
Laughing_Man16 posted a message on New Biomes? cool, but then again...Minecraft must be the only game in existence that has a portion of the fan base that actively complains about having more things to explore.Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots -
Oct 12, 20132
Ancient_Mariner posted a message on Thoughts on new ocean generation?Posted in: Future UpdatesQuote from PuffinPuncherthe argument is to make oceans interesting as opposed to nerfing them to a point where they may as well not exist. Forests have not had more content added to justify the feeling that they have increased in number, new biomes and variations have been added to the land overall sure, but in reality the new biomes added would have fit fine with the amount of land in 1.6 and they were not added to justify an increase in land size. Just look how many times one biome shows up in an average sized 1.6 continent, the lack of variation between two biomes of the same type made exploring a bit dull.
Do you not realize that your argument that "forests have not had more content added to justify the feeling that they have increased in number" is exactly the argument against the size of 1.6 oceans? The point isn't just that there was no content in oceans, it's that 1.6 oceans were incredibly disproportionately sized compared to everything else! Take any biome in the game - forests, plains, mega taiga, anything, and increase its size to that of the 1.6 oceans to make it three times the size of all other biomes combined - and try to justify its size increase. Then consider that forests, plains, mega taiga and everything else actually have playable content that oceans do not have. That playable content still would not justify making any one biome so predominantly common in the game.
1.6 oceans weren't just empty wastelands, they were too big by a grossly disproportionate margin. As it is, with 1.7, oceans are still the single biggest biome in the game. One can argue for a different distribution of water in the 1.7 - perhaps finding ways to make fewer, but larger oceans - but the game is now far more balanced and offers far more playable content than in 1.6.
Quote from PuffinPuncherOceans, and thus the existence of continents help you to divide the world up inside your head.
Obtuse oversimplification. While one can use oceans to divide the world in one's head, one does not require them. As I've already said, I can mentally divide my 1.7 world in my head just fine, absent the 1.6 ocean wastelands. I can do this by biome (I'm currently exploring a flower forest bordered by plains, a roofed forest and forest hills) or by biome grouping (I found a cold biome cluster I intend to settle because I enjoy the snowfall; it's bordered by extreme hills, ocean, taiga). I know where the two are in relation to each other. I have a distinct mental map of each. And no, I didn't need oceans or a 2D overview (such as Amidst) to accomplish this.
Quote from PuffinPuncherIn 1.6 you can explore a continent, in 1.7 you will have to decide on some distance at which to stop exploring. Oceans are also large and therefore useful points of reference. If for example, two players were trying to find each other on a small continent, player 1 telling p2 that he is on top of a small hill in a plains biome just next to a forest is helpful, but as far as p2 knows this plains biome could be absolutely anywhere on the continent. If p1 instead told p2 that he was on a small hill in plains about 200 blocks from the ocean, p2 suddenly has a much easier job as he only has to search the area that is 200 blocks from the edge of the continent.
Put your two players on different continents in 1.6 and they'll never be able to find each other. Oceans have no bearing on finding one another. I could say: cross the ocean; or I could say, cross the ice spikes, roofed forest and savannah. In the latter, I can identify actual landmarks, too, that an ocean cannot provide.
Quote from PuffinPuncherAnd yes, plains or savannahs the size of 1.6 oceans would be disproportionately sized.
A refreshingly sensible statement. Put simply, nothing justifies a single biome the size of 1.6 oceans.
Quote from PuffinPuncherI could also argue that whilst both plains and savannahs still have a lot of potential for new content (seriously, the savannah feels like it needs some new unique mobs), they do not have as much potential as oceans do as they are just small parts of the land group. Bear in mind that "ocean" content can additionally include content that is found on small islands as well as the islands themselves rather than just stuff on the sea floor and mobs. You may think otherwise but I see mushroom islands as ocean content, though they are very rarely connected to landmasses.
Oceans have more potential for content than any other biome because ... they have no native content. They currently have no opportunity for gameplay. I do find it noteworthy that you identify a land biome, mushroom islands, as "ocean content". And, even more importantly, as you said above regarding plains and savannahs, no amount of added content would justify having 1.6 sized oceans.
Quote from PuffinPuncherThe analogy works fine when related to Minecraft, in fact it would have worked fine if it was 1 dimensional too. The analogy is worthless because it is 2 dimensional? Well for starters the biome map is also 2 dimensional and it is biomes I was talking about. Secondly I could have made it 3d but all this would have accomplished would be 2 more sets of circles, one showing that the air is no different between biomes, the other showing that the underground is (nearly) no different between biomes. You see that this would be pointless and would be overcomplicating an otherwise simple picture?
It's worthless because your analogy makes a purely observational 2D distinction. Minecraft isn't an observational game. One must, necessarily, interact with the 3D environment. I've already said I'd rather look at a 2D 1.6 map. But I'd much rather play in a 3D 1.7 world. If you cannot perceive the distinction between 2D observation and 3D interaction, then it's no wonder you think your original analogy has any practical value.
Quote from PuffinPuncherThe content within each red dot IS different, but barely. All biomes of the same type are generated by the same rules, they don't differ much from eachother. You would not be able to tell that you had walked from forest A in to forest B if there was nothing seperating them. Besides this is a pointless argument anyway because the content within each blue dot is also different, but barely.
Wrong. The content within each blue dot, in terms of gameplay, is exactly the same. There is nothing different about any of them. Just press W and you'll cross through it. By contrast, I found a sinkhole in a birch forest - roughly 15 blocks in diameter and 30 blocks in depth (with a tree growing at the bottom, no less). It was something I had never seen before in any biome, including a birch forest. It's a truly unique structure in which I began constructing a base. I could never have found anything like it on an ocean.
Quote from PuffinPuncherHow big are these red dots? I'm going to say that they are mesa biomes generated on a 1.6 world (so that there is a good chance that there is only one per continent). So, you just exhausted AN ENTIRE mesa biome. You just spent probably several hundred hours digging up every block of clay but OH NO its going to take you A COUPLE OF HOURS to find another mesa. If you were playing on large biomes, then the travel to find another mesa becomes even more insignificant as the area of the mesa increases by a factor of 16 whereas the distance between two mesas increases only by a factor of 4.
Or, perhaps, the shape and content of one red dot is not quite appealing. Perhaps your mesa didn't contain a mesa bryce or mesa plateau. Perhaps you want to find one of those unique structures. Perhaps you'd prefer to find a mesa bordering a mega taiga. Perhaps you have finished a build in one mesa and want to find another. Either way, no single mesa is exactly the same as another. And 1.7 generation ensures that some mesas will be significantly different from the others. Either way, each mesa offers actual variation and differentiation that a flat, featureless, resource-less ocean does not provide. And in 1.7 you'd have significantly more opportunity for playable content on your quest than in 1.6.
Quote from PuffinPuncherI can assure you that people who enjoy completely harvesting a biome do not care about skipping along and picking flowers on the way to the next biome in their path of destruction.
You speak for everyone who completely harvests a biome? Kudos! (Hint: You do not speak for me.)
Quote from PuffinPuncherAnd yes, perhaps Mojang and the community have grown smarter, I might be completely insane for all I know. I might have personally made every single vote in that poll in favour of large oceans and perhaps even the ones against them, and then started an argument with myself. Doesn't mean I'm going to change my opinions and preferences just because somebody tells me that they suck, I wouldn't even care if it WAS a majority that disagreed with me, but we can't say unless at least half of the active minecraft community pops on and votes no to big oceans.
You are entitled to your opinions, of course. But, opinions differ in terms of validity - the evidence and logic they have to support them. I've yet to see any evidence or logic to support 1.6 oceans beyond: They look better as a 2D map.
Quote from PuffinPuncherAnyway, this has all looped round back to "this discussion is pointless", I must go now, there is a giraffe waiting for me at the door.
I will not return unless I catch the whiff of Jeb cooking up something tasty.
Goodbye and farewell.
Cheers! -
Oct 10, 201377
Akynth posted a message on Making Minecraft Harder...is a bad idea.Posted in: Discussion
This is something that comes up over and over again in discussion threads, suggestions, and the like. People claim that Minecraft is too easy, or that some suggested change will make it too easy, and they want it to be harder.
How hard? From what I can tell, nobody wants the game to be too hard for them to play! But they want it to be too hard for those other people ... you know, them, the ones not as "l33t" as the poster ... so that at the very least, those people will be struggling and, therefore, admiring the poster's eliteness. As an example, I've been supporting the idea of selectable world generation options for a while (as if my sig wasn't enough to make that obvious!). In a discussion of the topic, someone objected because someone else -- not them, of course, nobody they play with, nobody they even know, but someone -- could turn all the mobs off, and the game would be "too easy." In another thread there was someone bitterly bemoaning the fact that you can switch modes in game, and saying that players should be locked into a given mode when they started the game, never allowed to switch, because -- even though they, the poster, would of course never do this -- someone else might, and it would perforce be "too easy" for that person.
When this is pointed out to them -- that is, the fact that some guy in Peoria switches to Peaceful when he gets scared -- will never affect them in any way -- the usual justification is "well, the game won't sell as well if it isn't hard enough." Be that as it may (and there's plenty to argue with there) I find it interesting that their solicitude for Mojang's profits seems to both begin and end with making the game "hard enough." It's a very one-dimensional concern, that. The only thing they seem to care about is that Minecraft can't be played in any way that could be considered "too easy" (considered by them, of course).
They're wrong. Very, very, very wrong.
Going back to one of my personal stories here, I started with the XBox 360 version. After playing it for about a month, I bought the PC version. Now, there are two significant things about this: One, that the PC version is considerably harder to play than the XBox version. (for starters, there's no helpful, friendly tutorial) Two, that on any objective scale, I did much better my first MC day on the PC than I did on the XBox. Why, when the game is harder? Because I was a better player. I knew how things worked. I knew what mobs could do, how to build a good house, where I should clear trees ... all that stuff. Things we don't even think about, really, because we've been doing them so long. But because I switched between the two versions (yes, I now play both) as quickly as I did, that difference was demonstrated to me.
One of the great advantages of Minecraft is its accessibility. A newbie can sit down and start playing. You don't need to memorize a manual, and there's nothing major at stake. You can just hack at it and have fun until you figure out what you're doing (or until a creeper blows you up because one of the things you didn't do wa build a house). It's extremely accessible to the novice. And that is one of the reasons for its success. Not that it's hard , but that it's easy, at least in the initial stages. Making it too hard -- what so many people have proposed -- would remove that accessibility. It would discourage new players from joining.
Another story: there was an MMO called Shadowbane. It was a full PvP world, which sounds fun, but it was badly designed and even more badly run. (this is where I commented "their login servers seem to think they're firewalls" and their slogan of "Play to Crush" was parodied as "Pay to Crash") One of the problems the game had was that being killed cost a player experience, not to mention all their stuff, and there were only a few places where low-level players could try to level up. Those places were camped by the people who were too pathetic to fight people of their own level, and could only kill newbies. So they did: they sat there and farmed newbies, and stole their bent swords and ragged clothes and handfuls of coins, and undoubtedly felt very good about themselves. They'd made the game harder for other people to play, hooray! Except, of course, that eventually most of those other people, unable to actually play, said "the heck with this, I'm going to play something that's more fun." So they pretty much shut off the newbie hose. And of course there was a steady drain in the long-term players, as there is in any game (though in Shadowbane, technical issues like crashing servers and hideous login times, not to mention absolutely nothing to do but fight whoever wasn't in your nation, which very quickly came down to "almost nobody", made them leave faster than normal) You have many old players leaving, and few new ones coming in ... I'm sure you can see where this was going. Shadowbane imploded.
If you take away that accessibility -- if you make it harder for new players to get involved -- then Minecraft risks going down Shadowbane's road: slowly dying as old players move on and few new players replace them.
After not all that long, in Minecraft terms, I've gotten the hang of things. I look back at some of the stupid newbie stuff I did relatively recently and I cringe. But if the penalties for those stupid newbie failures had been too high -- if the game had, in effect, reached out and slapped me and said "you're stupid, go away" -- then I probably wouldn't be here today. Not a Minecraft player. Not a forum mod. Not writing this post. I'd be playing something else -- either a game that wasn't unfriendly to newbies, or a game that offered a reward that seemed worth the unfriendliness. (note: those rewards are there in Minecraft, perhaps even more than in other games, but you don't realize that until you've been at it for a while ... I think for me, it was when I built my first farm harvester)
But there's stil the matter of experienced players. For example, my first few nights (okay, more than a few), I hid from mobs; now I hunt them instead. I've learned how they work, what it takes to kill them, how to do it most effectively, etc. The basic elements of Minecraft are looking simple now. I'm currently having fun playing with redstone and automating things. Other players might be going in different directions -- PvP, perhaps, or insanely elaborate builds in Creative mode, or running their own server, or whatnot. The basic challenges of finding something to eat and not being blown up by a creeper are so long in the past, so buried under the layers of "OMG I don't want to remember ever being that new", that they may as well not exist for them. They want more challenges -- but they're forgetting that not everyone is in their league.
Minecraft is a game for everyone. Some people want to become super-elite tough guys. Some want to build giant statues of Pikachu. Some want to farm endermen. Some want to farm flowers. And one of the strengths of the game is that it allows for all of that. And some of those flower-growers may surprise you, and decide they've had it with some mob (or some player) messing up their gardens, and go on the warpath. That's another good thing about Minecraft: it allows you to move on to harder challenges when the ones you're facing start to feel too easy.
We're getting better, because we've been playing the game and learning our way around. But the newbies aren't. It's their first time, their first day. We may very well want the game harder for us (though the people who just want to plant roses may disagree) but it shouldn't be any harder for those newbies. They're always going to be just starting out, just learning their way around, just trying to understand the game, because once they do these things they won't be newbies anymore; newer newbies will replace them.
So while it would make sense to add an Extra-Hard mode, for when we we want the game to be harder for ourselves (at least for someone else; I play on Normal), we should not want to make the game harder for the people just getting started. Otherwise they won't be getting started, they'll buy some other game instead, and Minecraft will die.
And that would be a great shame. -
Oct 4, 20133
LegoShokwave123 posted a message on I had a sixth sense.Posted in: Recent Updates and SnapshotsQuote from Leftypower123
Oh wow wow wow wow wow wow WOW.
I had another sixth sense. I had one that there wasn't gonna be one today either. And guess what? The changelog is that there isn't gonna be one this week at all!
I'm getting sick of this crap.
Now I will have to wait till next THURSDAY for another changelog of no snapshot.
-Lefty
I have an extra sense too. Its called common sense, and it tells me you have an incorrect sense of entitlement. -
Oct 2, 20133
MumblesMiner posted a message on Dinnerbone Acknowledges 1.6 Zombie AIPosted in: Future Updates
The issue is you CAN'T make hunger a challenge for endgame people without starving out new players. There was issues before with nerfing bonemeal horribly, and that had enough problems.Quote from Immortal_Dreamer
I like this idea a lot. the question is how long is reasonably long to create the challenge without starving the poor players. (especially for players playing on hardcore starting on an island)
You simply can't make hunger a challenge late game and keep the rest balanced, it wont work. -
Sep 23, 20133
WilmRoget posted a message on Podzol changes to Dirt when dugPosted in: DiscussionQuote from TheLinkan
Perhaps not spreading, that would make no sense, but perhaps dirt blocks in Mega Taiga should be able to become podzol over time?
That is a great solution.
Ordinary Dirt blocks in the biome where podzol is found would become podzol over time - slower than grass of course - so if someone wanted a constant supply of podzol, they could use silk touch to gather most of what was available, replacing with dirt blocks, and then return x number of game days later to collect the newly podzol'd blocks.
If that were implemented, then podzol could be used to enhance farming - not that growing wheat and so isn't already ridiculously easy. Productivity of farmland could be manipulated - less productive in desert biomes and jungles (where soil is actually pretty nutrient poor) and but using podzol around or on farmland would increase its productivity - for awhile.
-
Sep 16, 20134
Cubia posted a message on I'm not happy that roses are gone.This topic.Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
This topic is still going. This topic about a very, very slight change to ONE entirely decorative object. It's still a flower, it's still red, it still gives the exact same item when plopped into a crafting box, and it's still able to be planted.
Yet here we go, with.... 9 pages now.... and some VERY long posts....
It.... just..... what..... because...... argh..... I'll express myself in the only truly appropriate manner for this:
- To post a comment, please login.
1
If you can't get onto a server, find out what version it's running and make a profile using that version. It's not hard, thanks to the new launcher. You can have several profiles, all using different versions for however many servers you want to play on or whatever combinations of mods you want to add. Once you figure out how to do that, it's all pretty awesome.
1
Minecraft has always had randomly generated worlds as a major feature. If you need to exactly predict what type of world you're going to end up in, then you're already kinda getting into territory where you need extra software or resources that are not available in-game, just by definition. It's always been like this. "Use Amidst/other software" or "use seeds" are the only real solutions to this.
2
Something that's also useful for the uber-nostalgic "stop updating the game" people to remember. They already got your money in Beta 1.4 or whenever, so anything they add from that point on won't get them more income from anyone BUT n00bs. And the more cool new things they add, the more people will talk about it to their friends, make new Let's Plays, et cetera. I have my doubts that a version of the game stalled at, say, 1.73 development would be still gaining this many new players, or sustaining such an active community.
6
To me, all the biomes are blocky, they have Minecraft things in them and I can do Minecraft stuff when I travel through them, so they are plenty Minecrafty. If I don't like a biome, I won't build my house there, same as always.
2
1
I wouldn't say it's whining, either. However it's a pretty vague, and extremely subjective way to describe something. If I told you "Listening to Sheryl Crow makes me feel uneasy" or "the way that cloud just passed over the sun makes me think something horrible will happen at some vague time or place" you wouldn't have any actual information on WHY I felt that way or what that feeling even implies. "I feel disoriented or alienated because stuff is different than what I've been familiar with" would at least give you a point of reference for relating to that uneasiness.
1
??? If you already have the ocean area you like, then just don't update until you have explored what you want. But even if you do update, the land you generated will not evaporate or turn into 1.7 terrain. I don't understand the problem here.
I've still encountered plenty of large oceans, it may not be exactly the same, but they're enough for me. I can understand that some people liked the continent feeling of the previous generation, but as the post above me says... who really enjoys just sitting and pressing 'w' for half an hour to get anywhere, with nothing to do or look at? And what's so upsetting about the ocean floor being gravel? Do other people spend hours on the bottom of the ocean? To what purpose? I never have seen a reason to do that unless I was making a shaft down to a cave exit or something like that necessitated it. If it's about finding clay, there's plenty of clay in rivers and lakes already.
1
Congrats on your quick find! I was so excited to find the first horses on our server, the first one I found was a good one (13 hearts, great speed and jump, and a pretty pinto gray color) and she's still special to me,
1
It's totally fine to be nostalgic, just don't expect to hold everyone else back from trying new things. I get the feeling that some people don't really want to play the actual game, Minecraft, which is a game still being developed by Mojang. They want to play their idealized version of "Minecraft" that they imagined/wished the game could be, back when they were still playing an unfinished beta version. That's okay, but everyone else imposed their own personal wishes upon the game and they are never all going to match up... these arguments that 'it's not Minecraft anymore because Notch/Jeb didn't implement that thing I wished for 3 years ago' are really pointless and tiresome. And they start up over something so simple as a tiny texture change of a flower.
1
Yeah, but at least when you mine for half an hour, you get something you can use. No one ever built a castle out of a stack of rotten flesh and a potato... :/ (At least, NOT YET! Dun dun dun... craftable zombie meat blocks, anyone?? Anyone...? Okay.