Minecraft Forums

Yeah, I've noticed a few of those too. I guessed they were just lurkers, finding certain posters' comments interesting but not wanting to post themselves. However, since they haven't been online, that does beg the question of why.

With the lack of activity recently, my guess is there isn’t enough users to justify the cost of keeping the site up. I wouldn’t be surprised if Fandom had something to do with this too.

I know this is a joke, at least partially, but I would like bigger chests.

I imagine someone making a 500-block long chest underground with the lock on the side, and someone opening it, creating a tall spire of a lid that clips through the surface.

Anyway, um, Partial Support?

While I definitely want better world generation, I feel that Minecraft 2 would need more than that. I'm neutral towards this suggestion, because while I want Minecraft 2 to happen, I need some more details than just three vague ideas to support you.

Quote from citricsquid»

You're right that all we can say definitively is that there's nothing to announce at this time. I do not expect that this acquisition will have any consequence for Minecraft Forum users in the short term -- we're a very small part of Curse Media nowadays -- and long term there is a chance we may see an evolution of the way we do user authentication (again) but I don't think that would involve shuttering Twitch Auth, rather it would mean adding new authentication providers alongside Twitch. Curse Auth was a closed system that did not follow an open standard, whereas what you think of as Twitch Auth is actually OAuth (with Twitch as a provider) and as OAuth is an open standard (implemented by many different companies, like Facebook, Google and Twitter) we could quite easily add Google or Facebook or Twitter login, without needing to go through another complex merge process.

Minus the announcement banners people will see regarding the transition of data ownership from Amazon/Twitch to Fandom, I don't expect that anybody on this forum will see any changes in the way they use this forum as a consequence of this acquisition. This doesn't impact the forum leadership either, I'll be continuing my employment with Curse Media and my role here.

Good to know, thanks for the answer.

Quote from InfiniteCorners»

You start off by acknowledging that this suggestion can make it significantly easier to grief the End and then state you don't believe the addition will harm SMP at all which is a totally contrary statement. It is true that IF a player just so happens to find a stronghold with a mob spawner near it they can entity grief the End, it is also true that this could only possibly be done within 25k or the spawn origin at a location that can be found using eyes of ender. This current ability to dump mobs into the end is limited by the fact it relies on terrain generation putting a portal and spawner close enough to one another for the player to dump entities from the spawner into the portal. Griefing in this nature is further limited do to the relatively close positioning of strongholds to the global spawn and the fact that strongholds are magnets for players making developing one into an end-greifing construct a non-starter since it would be quickly discovered and destroyed through normal gameplay. The proposed addition would remove the 2 limiting factors from the current ability to grief the end by giving every player the ability to dump any mob into the End regardless of terrain generation, distance from the global spawn and without any default means of locating the offending portal.

Your statement about nether portals makes me believe you don't understand their behavior. I have never experienced anything but reliable and continuously repeatable portal behavior. I'm not sure why you're talking about rails since something like 70% of horses are faster than a minecart and even horses are a distant second to the speed provided by a boat sliding on ice so if you're traveling a long distance you can forget about rails. I already went over the fact that on SSP there is literally no reason you can't build your house on top of a stronghold and make your travel distance 0 since you can find every biome within the 25k range stronghold spawn in and there are 128 you can build on or near. In order for it to take you 2 minutes of nether travel on a boat with ice to reach your stronghold you would need to be approximately 30k (overworld) from the target destination so unless you decided to build your base about 55k from the global spawn there would almost certainly be a closer stronghold to you that you simply haven't bothered locating. I live about 14k from the stronghold I use which is once of the core 3 in a world and it takes less than 1 minute for me to reach my destination BUT I could easily walk out of my base and find a significantly closer portal if I had the desire to. Maybe you just decided you really wanted to build your home at absurd distance from the global spawn with no logical reason in which case I would simply say that that was your decision and you have no more right to complain about the distance it takes to travel to the end than I do for not taking the time to find a closer one.I have no clue what would make you say portal behavior is unpredictable but I will challenge you to build a portal in the overworld and another in the same relative nether coords and NOT have them link 100% of the time. It can't be done, not without a 3rd interfering portal and even then that can be easily fixed by making a new corresponding portal for the offending portal.

As it is a player in SSP has the ability negate the negative issues presented by the OP using existing game mechanics so adding a feature you admit can easily be abused in SMP while offering only a slight measure of convenience to specific SSP players who choose to play without considering game mechanics. Do don't see 'but I don't wanna' and 'that's too hard' as acceptable reasons to ignore an existing fix for a player's problems in favor of adding a magical solution that removes the work involved in surviving a survival game. Since there is no NEED for it in SSP and it can be easily abused in SMP there will be no manifestation of reality in which I support this as long as the existing mechanics of the game remain as they are. If anyone is having issues getting to the End portal safely then it's due to poor planning, laziness or the player's personal choice to live insanely far from a stronghold rather than 'it can't be done.'

I would be interested to know in what SSP scenario you would find this to be a useful addition. You spawn into a brand new world surrounded by 128 hidden stronghold located within 25k of where you spawn. Within that same 25k you will find every biome in the minecraft overworld. So what, exactly, is going on where you find yourself countless thousands of blocks from where you started and nowhere near a stronghold? So far only you and the OP seem to think this would be a welcome addition to the game and at this point I'm certain it's because neither of you use the Nether as the utility dimension it is. Regardless of the reasoning behind you wanting this in the game I do not support it and I can only rehash the same points so many times before I get sick of talking in circles. If your only reason for wanting this is because you don't feel like utilizing the nether and you're only posting here to argue that 'it wouldn't be so bad in SMP' with me rather than offering a solution to the problem then I'll just consider this topic dead and you can debate the validity of your stance with allyourbasesaregone or cannonfoddr. At this point I've said all there is to say about my stance so unless you'd like to change your suggestion to negate the issue (like ScotMiser did and I also made a suggestion for- you didn't have time for input on that I guess) then there is nothing left for us to talk about and you can rest assured that my satnce is and will remain No Support.

There's a difference between wanting convenience and being lazy. I don't want any of the challenge to be removed from getting to the End initially. However, once you've defeated the dragon, there's no reason to require extra time to get there. It's unnecessary and discourages players who don't want to build long-term transportation systems from going there.

Quote from InfiniteCorners»

I'm denying support because it's an addition designed to solve a non-issue that has the potential to be used to negatively effect other players. Every problem stated by the OP, caused by having a stronghold too far away, can already be eliminated by the player using existing in-game functionality. Since this feature would add nothing more than a decorative block that saves the player a few seconds of walking I do not see it as being a pertinent addition to the game, even at that I wouldn't care enough to deny it as merely a useless addition but the fact that it can be used by one player to effectively remove part of the game from another makes it a toxic addition. Saying "Suggestions on this forum should largely only be considered in the context of singleplayer or small multiplayer servers" is absolutely insane considering the enormous SMP player base of the game and the fact that if you are not playing multiplayer there wouldn't be any reason the OP couldn't have built his house directly over top of one of the 128 strongholds that he spawned in the center of. Even in the smallest of multiplayer settings there would be nothing preventing a player from stopping another, like their little brother, from ever using the End on their Realm just by getting there first, killing the dragon and tossing an eye of ender through the end gate. While I can understand your view that multiplayer servers aren't necessarily what each suggestion is tailored for it IS something they will become a part of and I doubt Mojang would add a feature that nominally increases convenience for singleplayer without considering how detrimental it could be when applied to their multiplayer. In general, when considering an addition, you should think beyond how you would personally use the feature and consider the full impact it would have on the game. With existing nether travel, the spawning of the player and strongholds relative to one another in a world, and the diversity of biomes within the 25k radius there is no need to add this feature to the game for singleplayer. Since this adds no real benefit to SSP I'm back to considering it in an SMP setting where it would add a measure of convenience for players far from the global spawn but also creates the ability to dump mobs and entities into the End which I still don't support.

Your main worry is that this can be used for griefing, but I don't believe that's a valid argument unless the suggestion's potential for griefing is massive. Nearly anything can be used for griefing. Take the upcoming pandas. They don't really add much to survival beyond looking cute. However, people can create panda farms and grief servers with lag. Does that mean pandas are bad? However, just because someone can use pandas to grief doesn't mean they likely will, and even if they do, the effects can be easily mitigated with in-game commands and server plugins.

People can already grief the End by pumping mobs into a portal. This suggestion doesn't enable that, it just make it easier. However, if this was truly a problem, servers can get rid of it by using repeating command blocks to teleport the problematic mobs into the void. They don't even need a plugin to stop this form of griefing. In addition, this solution will work regardless of how many portals are active. Also, if this suggestion somehow does cause problems (which I don't see being very likely), in the worst case scenario the server can stop it by using a command block to clear every player's inventory of these synthetic End portal frames. Thus, I can't see this being a problem at all in SMP.

In SSP, this can be very useful. I don't go to the End that often, so I generally don't bother with a rail system. I might use nether portals to reduce the distance I have to walk, but their unpredictable nature can reduce their usefulness. But still, assume I did use a rail combined with nether portals, and it only takes me two minutes to get to the End from my house. That's still two minutes of doing nothing, being both unproductive and bored. Cutting out unnecessary waiting time is almost always a good thing in video games. In addition, having more control over your portal's position can be good for creative purposes, encouraging people to add on an End portal room to their builds or cutting down significantly on travel time to get certain building materials.

This suggestion really doesn't harm SMP in any significant way, and while it's not immensely useful, it's convenient enough to be helpful in SSP. It's certainly not a high-priority suggestion, but I'd definitely like it if I saw this suggestion added to the game.

Quote from InfiniteCorners»

No support. I see only the potential for abuse with this. In single player it might be kind of cool to have but in SMP I've already seen private end portals used to entity-grief the End. Any mob farm directed to an end portal will essentially make the End inaccessible for normal survival players as they get swarmed with enemies immediately upon spawning into the end. With 128 strongholds generating within 25k of the spawn point if you find yourself living tens of thousands of blocks from the nearest stronghold then it's because you've chosen to live that far away from them. In the 1.13 world I'm currently playing I managed to get the adventuring time achievement traveling less than 14k (one direction) from the spawn point so I find it hard to believe you'd even NEED to go much further than that in a world to find terrain or a biome you'd like to build on. Above all I feel like you're forgetting about the Nether which could be used to resolve your issues entirely. In my world I currently live 14k from the spawn stronghold we found and have never seen any need to locate a closer once since using our hub in the nether works just fine for me. With a 2x3 tunnel at level 119, covered in packed ice and riding a boat, crossing 14k overworld blocks takes less than 1 minute in the nether with absolutely safety and the inability to get lost.

It's generally not a good idea to deny support for a suggestion based on massive server, as nearly any feature can be potentially used for griefing. It is part of the responsibility of a server to get tools to prevent griefing. Suggestions on this forum should largely only be considered in the context of singleplayer or small multiplayer servers, since it is nearly impossible to balance multiplayer on large servers. Obviously, suggestions with huge griefing potential, like "Supa TNT," should be denied, but End portal farms are not a huge griefing problem (plus such a problem can be easily avoided, even with in-game command blocks).

Anyway, onto the suggestion itself, I don't see a problem with it. Yeah, you should have to find End manually and have beaten the Ender Dragon, but after that, I see no reason to increase convenience. I Support.

So, Fandom, the company who owns all those wikia sites, apparently purchased Curse Media from Twitch (Source)

What does this mean for the future of this forum (and the wiki, as well.) Will those of us who have been here for a while have to create a third (or fourth if you're a really longtime veteran) account to continue posting here?

While I didn't mind the Twitch merge as much as others, I do kind of loathe Fandom and wikias in general and try to avoid both of them. However, I understand if the site owners didn't have much of a choice.

I also understand if the site owners can't say much beyond "We have nothing to announce at this time," but any input would be appreciated.

I think you should still have to specify the canPlaceOn tag, but be able to use the asterisk * key to specify everything:

(canPlaceOn:[*]) Can place on every block.
(canPlaceOn:[minecraft:*]) Can place on every block from base Minecraft.
(canPlaceOn:[*stone*]) Can place on every block containing stone in its id.

Anyway, I Support.

There is already a general rules tab on the top toolbar, and rules for each section can be seen at the top of the section. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for.

Also, this should have gone into forum discussion.

Why should it be a feature? What possible benefit is this for the player? It's easy to avoid, since you just have to move to cancel it out, and only serves to punish AFK players. An exposure system would have to have more complexity and provide both fair benefits and fair difficulty to be fun.

No Support.

I'll admit, I haven't played 1.13 since I haven't played Minecraft in a while. However, from what I've heard about it, the implementation of the phantom seems to have been a terrible idea. How do you even deal with it on a server? Can you even stop them from attacking you?

Anyway, onto the suggestion itself, while it sounds cool, I don't like the idea of not being able to skip nights. It's not like it still lets mobs spawn or crops grow while you're asleep, since you're in another dimension. As for the dreamworld itself, I don't want another dimension in the game without a purpose. Sure, you could test things there, but then, why not just make a creative mode world? Not to mention, allowing commands could be prone to exploits.

The reason we don't have sleeping bags is because having to set your spawnpoint (and potentially lose it if you remove the bed) is the price for skipping the night. While this suggestion technically solves this problem, I don't like the solution.

At the very least, I'd like the ability to still skip the night by activating your bed in the dreamworld, and remove the ability to use commands in it. However, I still don't see much of a reason for this suggestion overall. Minor Support.

Quote from erictom333»

No Support. This would add tremendous amounts of lag to every single sprite. Minecraft would become unplayable on all but the most powerful PCs.

Um... no. You just need the PC to download a temporary texture, which will only cause significant lag with a ridiculous amount of pixel-dyed armor on screen. Even if the PC had to render the dyed armor on every frame, lag would be minimal unless your PC is incredibly weak.

Anyways, I think the idea is cool, though I think the dying process will need to be extremely streamlined to be practical. We also have the issue of fooling players into thinking that it is better-quality armor, which is why Mojang originally added the additional details to leather armor. However, I Support regardless.

Quote from allyourbasesaregone»

I've never noticed any music start playing around enemies other than the Enderdragon's wind-chime theme.

I meant the suggestion includes dynamic music for fighting enemies. The current game doesn't, which is why I'm suggesting it.