Personally, I think you should be able to light your arrow only when it's knocked in your bow. An arrow simply flies too fast when shot to be ignited from fire. If you were holding your arrow in your bow though, and you were close to a torch or open flame, it would light, and then you could shoot it. That's how I'd do it anyway, just my two cents.
This is not what real survival is going to be. I don't know where you guys get your information sometimes. There might be a gamemode in the works like this, but as far as I know, real survival isn't going to be anything like this.
I've seen some concerns on the forums about the slow but steady degradation of maps in survival mode. One way or another, resources are lost. I've been thinking about this for a while and a bit of an idea came to me.
A cache, in this context, is a small mound of dirt, 1 cube in size. Caches are used as a natural equivalent of chests. This description is misleading though, because unlike a chest, a cache cannot have anything put into it by players, only taken out, and a cache holds considerably less resources than a chest; 300 total. Finally, resource caches disappear completely when they are empty. Now let me explain how this could possibly be useful with an example.
You're a real badass and you've got you some TNT. You blow a hole the size of mars into the landscape, and countless resources are lost in the explosion while the rest of them fall to lava and burn up. But these resources aren't really lost, they're just misplaced. The game creates caches in random spots throughout the world, and fills them with combinations of the resources lost in your violent blood-orgy of a mining method. Every chunk that was lost is redistributed in random caches throughout the map, in caves, at the bottom of the ocean, on top of mountains, anywhere. This system accomplishes a couple of cool things.
1. No lost resources. Ever. Your map is never completely degraded, because the resources are still there, just in portable form and hidden.
2. This inadvertently creates a "treasure hunting" meta-game, where players will find caches with random resources. What will you find? Dirt? Stone? Gold? You never know!
Yes, it does seem like a bit of work just to keep resources from being deleted, but after some time, older games will have lost a lot of resources to deletion or lava. It may only be a problem to some people, but why not solve it and create a fun feature as well?
Sounds not fun. I'm against tentacle-ey things because
1;They'd look awkward, tentacles were not meant to be blocky.
2;They'd be terrifyingly overpowered
3;In my opinion, they wouldn't fit into Minecraft
4;I don't think Minecraft is ready for such large and advanced mobs
But if you saw one would you **** yer pants?
They could just be mutants like creepers with a methane sack on their back and long creepy arms.
And one arrow could pop the sac and they'd fall down and crawl at you! :biggrin.gif:
I propose that stone become very slightly (almost unnoticeable, impossible to tell without light) pink when it is adjacent to lava. When water comes into contact with this stone, it will turn to steam and float away instantly. This steam is HOT and, unlike the mist that may someday be produced at the base of waterfalls, will hurt players walking through it slightly. This accomplishes a few things.
1. Badass waterfalls.
2. An early warning of lava for observant miners who use torches.
3. Steam traps!
I think that standing still on this stone should slightly damage anyone who doesn't have boots/armor on their feet.
Overall, this would make armor use a little bit cooler (when it's actually usable) and add a few cool features to the game.
Now for my next suggestion, charred wood.
When wood is burning, it sometimes disappears, or the fire sometimes goes out. I propose that it will be given a chance to turn into "Charred wood", instead of burning up completely. Charred wood has a chance of collapsing whenever there is weight on it, like players, mobs, liquids, sand/gravel, etc. Also, if Notch ever gets around to adding support rules (like he's talked about), charred wood will not support anything on its own, and will collapse. This will make burned buildings look more destroyed, and add some nice "oh ****" moments when you fall through a busted roof.
That's what I got. Anybody like it? They're not the most crucial things to add, but I think they're cool to consider at least. Thanks for reading!
Let's hope it won't turn into a fagscape feature and go paid only. People would probably just use a client in the end.
What does it matter if it's a paid feature? It's just fullscreen. It makes a huge difference, but only visually. I'm sure it wouldn't be a deal-maker for those thinking of buying the game, but on top of other features, it's a nice perk.
By the way, if you're going to make fun of something, at least be clever about it, especially if you have to bold it so everyone knows. That was rather tasteless, in my opinion.
lol calling me a kid because you take internet posting seriously. here's a hint: it doesn't justify your points any more, my posts are just as composed and intelligent as yours mr. 7k (also bragging about how many posts you have on the internet just makes you look like a total fag)
honestly the fact is at the moment the game is not worth fifteen dollars at the moment and notch making a paid beta is a bit silly. sure notch updates indev a lot and I'm glad about that but indev is not the game, indev is experimental and it'll only be considered an update once he fully realizes it in the game (creative not survival, survival is boring as heck). besides, the excitement of constant updates does not make up for the loss in value from bugs and annoying "features" (ie mute)
your last point, well that's just you. most people wouldn't be very impressed with singleplayer and without even a glancing taste of multiplayer there's no incentive to pay 15 bucks.
[/fake use of bbcode for comedy effect except it's not funny nor necessary in fact it's annoying don't use this ever]
Actually, a bit of coherence can really help to get your point across, your posts aren't nearly as composed or intelligent, and as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that makes you look like a "total fag" is dressing up like a cigarette or wanting a relationship with a member of the same sex.
It is not a fact, at the moment, that the game is not worth fifteen dollars. I could argue that it's worth whatever Notch charges for it, as long as people are buying it, and trust me, they are. Without multiplayer, they'll just have more to receive for paying.
I really don't see this logic. You're saying that without a taste of MP, they won't buy the game? That's honestly ridiculous, in my opinion. You can't always try out a vacuum before you buy it, but you buy it anyway because you've seen commercials. People without multiplayer will have seen it online, they would have watched movies and they would have said "Hey, that looks like it's worth my money".
It's not like multiplayer is hugely vastly incomparably different to single player. You can figure it out in your head without ever even playing. "Hmm, I'm moving blocks around. If I pay I can do it with other people. That sounds alright."
I bought Minecraft before I even touched multiplayer. I loaded the game, saw the growing grass and running water, and had my perceptions of what could be done with Java shattered. Then I preordered.
This is not as big of a problem as everyone is making it out to be.
Wait, Legacy, is that to me or other people D: or all of us
[I remember reading somewhere Notch saying he was aiming for fantasy]
Also what do you want us to do? It's in alpha, and we're lucky it's such an open alpha or we'd all be suffering from even more speculation :biggrin.gif:
I think he's agreeing with you. You're basically telling everyone to chill, because a lot of poor excuses they've had to like or dislike an idea aren't really excuses at all, such as something being realistic or unrealistic.
So basically, they should all find a real reason that something should or should not be in the game, instead of using canned phrases like "realism != fun" (which isn't even a phrase, by the way. It's everywhere, it doesn't make anyone look smarter, and it's actually just stupid math terms replacing real language. Just say what you're going to say god damni-) Anyway, I agree with you too.
Also, crouching as in getting through 1*1 holes is stupid, needless, and completely removes the fun in obstacle courses, lava runs etc.
I think crouching is a great idea. Wriggling your way through a gap is a lot cooler than hacking the top off a cave just to get in. Crouching will not "ruin" obstacle courses, it'll just give them another way to challenge players. I feel as though you are overreacting considerably. It's only stupid in your opinion.
Quote from san_tropez »
Minecraft doesnt run the source engine.
I'm really sick of hearing this. Just because someone wants crouching does not mean they want the game to turn into a shooter, and crouching was here long before Source. It's a simple request for a reasonable amount of mobility in confined spaces so you don't have to carve out the ceiling to move if you don't want to.
0
EDIT: Whoooooops double post. Sorry guys. ;_;
0
Woo! Thanks. :biggrin.gif:
Yes, TNT needs to be used for killing PEOPLE. Not for harming our beautiful mother nature. ;_;
People are about as far as you can get from natural, so they're fine.
0
If Notch started making fixes to the frog girls, it would imply that they're staying in the game. Then I would have to punch a kitten.
0
0
A cache, in this context, is a small mound of dirt, 1 cube in size. Caches are used as a natural equivalent of chests. This description is misleading though, because unlike a chest, a cache cannot have anything put into it by players, only taken out, and a cache holds considerably less resources than a chest; 300 total. Finally, resource caches disappear completely when they are empty. Now let me explain how this could possibly be useful with an example.
You're a real badass and you've got you some TNT. You blow a hole the size of mars into the landscape, and countless resources are lost in the explosion while the rest of them fall to lava and burn up. But these resources aren't really lost, they're just misplaced. The game creates caches in random spots throughout the world, and fills them with combinations of the resources lost in your violent blood-orgy of a mining method. Every chunk that was lost is redistributed in random caches throughout the map, in caves, at the bottom of the ocean, on top of mountains, anywhere. This system accomplishes a couple of cool things.
1. No lost resources. Ever. Your map is never completely degraded, because the resources are still there, just in portable form and hidden.
2. This inadvertently creates a "treasure hunting" meta-game, where players will find caches with random resources. What will you find? Dirt? Stone? Gold? You never know!
Yes, it does seem like a bit of work just to keep resources from being deleted, but after some time, older games will have lost a lot of resources to deletion or lava. It may only be a problem to some people, but why not solve it and create a fun feature as well?
Just an idea. Thanks for reading!
0
And one arrow could pop the sac and they'd fall down and crawl at you! :biggrin.gif:
0
1. Badass waterfalls.
2. An early warning of lava for observant miners who use torches.
3. Steam traps!
I think that standing still on this stone should slightly damage anyone who doesn't have boots/armor on their feet.
Overall, this would make armor use a little bit cooler (when it's actually usable) and add a few cool features to the game.
Now for my next suggestion, charred wood.
When wood is burning, it sometimes disappears, or the fire sometimes goes out. I propose that it will be given a chance to turn into "Charred wood", instead of burning up completely. Charred wood has a chance of collapsing whenever there is weight on it, like players, mobs, liquids, sand/gravel, etc. Also, if Notch ever gets around to adding support rules (like he's talked about), charred wood will not support anything on its own, and will collapse. This will make burned buildings look more destroyed, and add some nice "oh ****" moments when you fall through a busted roof.
That's what I got. Anybody like it? They're not the most crucial things to add, but I think they're cool to consider at least. Thanks for reading!
0
That's better.
It will be a sad day on these forums when that trippy-ass frog girl is removed. I mean I'll be fine, but you guys are freaking crazy.
0
0
I don't think so, in this case.
0
What does it matter if it's a paid feature? It's just fullscreen. It makes a huge difference, but only visually. I'm sure it wouldn't be a deal-maker for those thinking of buying the game, but on top of other features, it's a nice perk.
By the way, if you're going to make fun of something, at least be clever about it, especially if you have to bold it so everyone knows. That was rather tasteless, in my opinion.
0
Actually, a bit of coherence can really help to get your point across, your posts aren't nearly as composed or intelligent, and as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that makes you look like a "total fag" is dressing up like a cigarette or wanting a relationship with a member of the same sex.
It is not a fact, at the moment, that the game is not worth fifteen dollars. I could argue that it's worth whatever Notch charges for it, as long as people are buying it, and trust me, they are. Without multiplayer, they'll just have more to receive for paying.
I really don't see this logic. You're saying that without a taste of MP, they won't buy the game? That's honestly ridiculous, in my opinion. You can't always try out a vacuum before you buy it, but you buy it anyway because you've seen commercials. People without multiplayer will have seen it online, they would have watched movies and they would have said "Hey, that looks like it's worth my money".
It's not like multiplayer is hugely vastly incomparably different to single player. You can figure it out in your head without ever even playing. "Hmm, I'm moving blocks around. If I pay I can do it with other people. That sounds alright."
I bought Minecraft before I even touched multiplayer. I loaded the game, saw the growing grass and running water, and had my perceptions of what could be done with Java shattered. Then I preordered.
This is not as big of a problem as everyone is making it out to be.
0
I think he's agreeing with you. You're basically telling everyone to chill, because a lot of poor excuses they've had to like or dislike an idea aren't really excuses at all, such as something being realistic or unrealistic.
So basically, they should all find a real reason that something should or should not be in the game, instead of using canned phrases like "realism != fun" (which isn't even a phrase, by the way. It's everywhere, it doesn't make anyone look smarter, and it's actually just stupid math terms replacing real language. Just say what you're going to say god damni-) Anyway, I agree with you too.
0
If the chance of it copying were bigger, we'd just have a slow version of infinite water.
0
I think crouching is a great idea. Wriggling your way through a gap is a lot cooler than hacking the top off a cave just to get in. Crouching will not "ruin" obstacle courses, it'll just give them another way to challenge players. I feel as though you are overreacting considerably. It's only stupid in your opinion.
I'm really sick of hearing this. Just because someone wants crouching does not mean they want the game to turn into a shooter, and crouching was here long before Source. It's a simple request for a reasonable amount of mobility in confined spaces so you don't have to carve out the ceiling to move if you don't want to.