Because he has a point in that melee weapons are instantaneous, althrough the flaws created by it don't make much sense to be mentioned here, to the point that, in hindsight, I've removed that upvote (Or tried to, considering how weird the forum can get with it). Then again, that may just have been my brain going out to lunch.
What point does melee weapons doing instant damage have to do with anything? I'm not sure if the OP forgot that you have to be close to your target with a melee weapon? I'm not trying to be rude here, but the point still confuses me to death. That's kind of like going, "well my idea of insta-nukes do instant damage and melee weapons do instant damage so why is my nuke so overpowered?!?!" Because... it's... it's a nuke? I know that's an extreme example, but notice how saying that didn't save the nuke idea by even 1%.
Considering that one of your complaints is caused by the very fast projectile, it could have a tracer effect, which could reveal where you've been shot from, allowing you to do things such as building a dirt wall to protect yourself from further fire, or the exact speed could be mentioned in the OP, and compared to the crossbow and bow's arrow speeds, as "somewhat faster" is hardly the same as "effectively hitscan", but it's not explained which one of the two it is.
The tracer would only have an effect in multiplayer. Sure, mobs could be programmed to come at you from farther away, but a.) it's still a not-so-fitting gun that will still be hated by many, and b.) I'll just switch to the crossbow so I can pick off unaware mobs from afar with hardly any problems, leaving this gun still an unbalanced add. Like I said many many many many times now, if the crossbow is so quick and long-ranged, why add another ranged weapon? The OP would be better off suggesting something different.
Also, if this weapon wasn't a gun, I'd still not support because the balance/reason issues are still there.
No, but crossbows can. In fact, one of the flaws of the suggestion (And one you pointed out, and I agree with, althrough we differ in the conclusions taken from this, as you seem to consider it too powerful, while I consider it to be too weak) is that it overlaps with the crossbow too much.
It seems like every time I bring up a good point it gets lost and forgotten.
The OP compared melee weapons and ranged weapons in the most illogical way I've ever read in my life. Don't take this the wrong way AMPPL50, but you upvoted him. Why? That weird, weird comparison had absolutely nothing to do with my point. I don't think the OP even knows a single point I'm making in this thread. There's comparing apples and oranges, but that was comparing a German-Swiss cookie to an alien clown covered in sulfuric acid and whale blood.
You know what? I changed my mind. I support this idea. Guns are fun, and as long as it isn't an obviously modern or futuristic weapon I don't see a problem.
You're doing it wrong man. Modern/future gun or not, the problem still lies in the balance. Don't be so quick to just jump on the support wagon because something sounds "fun". It needs to be balanced too.
So are bows and crossbows suddenly OP if you use a resource pack to make arrows be called 'bullets'?
Oh heeeyyy I was wondering when you were gonna choose to chime in your own thread. -____-
...And sadly the point you're proving makes no sense. An arrow with a simple texture change of a bullet =/= an actual instant bullet. Hmm.
1. I'm just saying you're biased because I'm sure if it was just called something different it wouldn't feel that out of place. Stop nitpicking the smallest things.
2. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean every server will ban it.
1.) No not "stop nitpicking the smallest things". You have no idea what you're talking about. You used absolutely crappy arguments earlier that have been debunked hard since 2011. That's not """nitpicking""", that's just making a point. I don't care what other name this gun has, I'll still hate the idea all the same. Like I asked before, why do we need this gun?
2.) Congrats, I think the point I was making flew straight over your head undetected. Why did you say this? This wasn't what I was talking about in the slightest. I'm starting to think you're not understanding anything I'm presenting nor reading my posts carefully at all.
What makes you assume that a weapon that shoots fireballs is necessarily the same as a gun? Why couldn't it be like a blowgun, or a bullet-firing crossbow? After all, what would matter is that it can shoot fireballs, not that it's actually a gun.
As for wanting something like that, because it's the most obvious use of gunpowder that cannot be replicated with TNT and Redstone.
The real question is: What's with the tendency to treat gun suggestions as if they were trying to turn Minecraft into a CoD clone, as opposed to valuing the suggestion purely on it's own merits? What I see is that, when anyone puts any suggestion, they're not given constructive criticism and just told that "It doesn't fit because guns are not medieval" (Meanwhile, they were invented in the late Middle Ages, and became very popular by the end of it), or "This will turn Minecraft into CoD" (Without explaining how), or "This will make the game less family-friendly" (Again, no explanation how would adding a gun intrinsically do this), or, worst of all, "This is OP" (And reading the suggestion actually shows a crappy weapon that is too expensive for what it can do) without explanation.
It almost sounded like you had a fixation on wanting a gun simply because gunpowder had low amount of uses (which is a completely subjective view). The blowgun/fire charge thing you're presenting is WAY more plausible, though I'm sure the name would still turn some people off, it doesn't fire hitscan excruciatingly long-range bullets. I personally never said anything about CoD stuff. I'm not one of the hate-without-explanation people. I've explained my reasons.
Edit: Whether this is a gun or not. It's still an upgrade of the crossbow. Unbalanced unbalanced unbalanced. So I don't support either way. So yeah.
Fire charges have other properties apart from just setting entities on fire, such as setting blocks on fire (Which would make it a great forest-burning tool), and not being affected by gravity.
What's with this fixation on you wanting a gun or some gun-like object in the game? Why is that so important? Pretty much what Calico said. Why does "gunpowder has few uses" need to equal "there needs to be a gun to fill the void". That's like saying "I don't think paper has enough uses, so we need to have paper airplanes!! >=["
There could be more mobs that make using splash potions worthwhile (More armored mobs, more beefy mobs that can make using poison on them worthwhile, more glass cannons that are affected by Weakness, or more fast mobs that ).
Well... yeah, I guess.
Adding a handheld way of firing fire charges (Which may or may not resemble a gun, but does avoid adding a blatant one) instead of adding a new weapon that further throws the tattered remains of balance off (After all, if combat is already unbalanced, adding a completely new weapon that has to be balanced when the current ones already have enough problems AND overlaps with one of them may not be a good idea, specially when the most obvious way to do so goes against the short-mid-range, high RoF profile that's probably he only niche in the game that doesn't exist, which the fire charge launcher could at least fulfill).
Ehhhhhh... We already have enchantments for fire arrows so this new fire charge weapon feels redundant. Regardless, it's stupid easy to kill mobs from a distance with or without fire
It doesn't matter what kind of gun it is. It doesn't belong in Minecraft. Many have stated that repeatedly. I don't understand why people don't listen.
This happens for a few reasons: A.) Some people have convinced themselves they understand game design, but don't. B.) Some people think, "It's popular and a lot of people want it, so therefore it should be added! Popular = good!" C.) A lot of users here are kiddies, and get all bubbly and overexcited when something "cooool!" pops into their head, without thinking about the framework of balance. Or they think "duuuude it's just a gaaame!" which is what a lot of kids say when they want something they want in a game (rather than something they don't want.)
Because, in the end, it's an opinion, rather than a fact, and thre's also plenty of people who feel that the lack of them is weird in a game in which gunpowder not only exists, but is naturally occuring and needs more uses.
No, it doesn't "need" more uses. People want more uses. Those "plenty of people" don't seem to understand that "need" and "want" are, in fact, not the same thing. We have TNT, fireworks and splash potions and fire charges - at least two of those are things are extremely useful. If players are thinking guns are a good idea just to give gunpowder an extra use, they better make sure they don't enter game design.
As for fitting, the description implies that it's some sort of muzzle-loading gun, likely a musket or even an arquebus, and those existed in the Middle Ages, and, in fact, would actually fit more than most of what Redstone does (And, even then, one could link guns and redstone so it gets to not fit), or jukeboxes.
Something "fitting" more in a time period sense still doesn't make the idea that much better. I'd rather have a futuristic light up jukebox from the year 2050 than have guns.
Is it really an upgrade over crossbows? Read the OP. It essentially paints an awful weapon that is easily worse than the crossbow or the bow at everything but range, and the Crossbow already has a lot of range (Not to mention that it can also pierce mobs and shoot fireworks, while the bow, when enchanted with Power V becomes a murder factory that makes crafting the crossbow pointless because it's much weaker. On top of this, most mobs can't even see you beyond 16 blocks, and Ghasts see you from 100 blocks away). If anything, the gun as written in the post seems like it'd need a buff to be worth using, rather than making bows and crossbows obsolete.
If it's "worse" than the crossbow, why do we even need this? Minecraft has a really awkward, lackluster sense of combat because of how blocky and clunky the game's design is. The last thing it needs is freakin' bullets.
I also can't get over this thread's title. "New weapon idea", then suggests something that's been rightfully hated for almost a decade.
1. What does it matter what the name of the ammunition is? If they renamed it from "Bullets" to "Arrows" or "Pellets" would change your opinion on it? Probably not, it's just a word and doesn't affect the actual gameplay of the weapon in question. You also didn't specify bullets you just said "get shot in the face". Bows can shoot people? So can Crossbows.
Sooooo guns are fine because bows "shoot" things and guns "shoot" things..? Huh..?? Yes, let's add something that's a complete upgrade from bows and muck up the balance of ranged weapons by adding bullets.
2. Well, what you're saying has some holes in it (no pun). First off, in this case, not having to use it does make sense. It's a weapon, and there are plenty of others you can use that are already in the game. For example, right now, Crossbows and Bows coexist. If I don't want to use a Crossbow to go kill mobs, the game is not forcing me to. People have been going without Crossbows since Alpha (before Crossbows addition) and they still can if they choose not to use one.
This argument of "you don't have to use it" doesn't change anything. There's a thousand things in the game I don't have to use, that doesn't add weight to something in the game being good or not. If an insta-kill infinite-ammo sniper is added to the game, me not having to use it in singleplayer doesn't make the idea not a horribly stupid and overpowered add. Being bannable in servers also doesn't save the idea. The idea shouldn't touch the game to begin with. It doesn't fit (which I'll explain) and it shreds the game's balance.
Also, I didn't specify the gun was "terrible" for servers to be using. If a server chooses to ban the gun then that's their choice. I'm sure not every person who plays this game is going to be banning the Gun from their server.
As a last note, you still didn't say at all why the gun wouldn't fit into Minecraft.
You didn't have to specify the gun was terrible. Because I did. I don't know what point you're trying to prove with "server choosing to ban" stuff. Didn't have much to do with what I was talking about.
I really thought that would be obvious. Arrows take time to reach their target. Crossbows do this faster, but are balanced by having slower reloading. Then there's guns, with instant travel bullets that punches arrows right in the face and makes bows useless. Sure, guns could be tweaked to be more balanced, but why does it need to be there? Why do we need a straight upgrade from crossbows? It's too much.
Yes, I know guns existed in medieval times but that still doesn't make the idea a good add. We have swords, throwable potions, shields, arrows, flint & steel and TNT that are all well-balanced. Do we seriously need to throw bullets in this? Is it that hard to hunt down mobs from a distance.
1. Tough luck because Bows and Crossbows can already shoot people.
2. Servers can also ban guns, and you don't have to use it if you don't want to in singleplayer.
1. No not "tough luck". Do (cross)bows shoot bullets? Nooooo. You should have thought that one out.
2. *facedesk* Wow congrats, you just used one of the most hated, invalid arguments of all time. "If you don't like it don't use it!" Dude, no. If an idea is bad, it's bad. Going "you don't have to use it! =D" doesn't save the idea from being garbage. Seriously, that's an awful awful argument. Guns aren't for Minecraft and never will be, no matter how good you think you can argue it.
If servers have to ban something so terrible, then mayyyybe the idea is pretty bad to start with and shouldn't touch the game? Before you respond, please use the search function and take a good look at all the other gun threads that have been hated and locked. Maybe take some game development courses too.
sounds nice though adding Guns from Medieval ages would be cool
and speaking about that it would be awesome
if you can find it in ship wreckages, It would give players more reason to loot ship wreckages though..
(sry for bad eng.)
It would not be cool. No. I have no idea why people keep thinking guns are something that would "work". We don't need pure upgrades from what we have in the game. No one wants to join a multiplayer game and get shot in the face.
Hmmm, if you guys have ever heard of the quiverbow mod, I think some of the weapons would be pretty cool to see in the base game. Well thought out, balanced, using vanilla materials and even having some slight lore behind their construction. I think they'd be perfect.
Comparing this to the a mod is meaningless. A mod can be chosen. A vanilla addition is permanently there for everyone. I don't know what part of you is thinking that "guns would be perfect", but that part of you has a bad view on game design.
Yeah, this has probably been discussed before, I'd imagine about a thousand times or so because it sounds like such a basic idea that would actually work, but it begs the question: WHY IS THERE NO FURNITURE IN MINECRAFT?
Because the creators don't think it's important. A game about mining, building and surviving doesn't really need chandeliers and kitchen sinks. Then again, there's a lot of already-implemented aesthetic things that aren't "needed". Why is furniture this important? Why the all caps red text?
Why do I have to install a mod to put basic furniture in my house? Just add some chairs and tables so we can finally cut out the middle-man. It's like a joke that they haven't added chairs to minecraft, kind of like how they say they removed Herobrine on every update.
"Cut out the middle man"? lol what? You're trying to make this sound like not having furniture is some game-breaking mistake. Not having furniture is not some "joke". This is just you wanting it so bad that your perspective is now "not adding this thing I want is a huge mistake!" The "removed Herobrine" crap is something that should have been stopped long ago. Loooong long ago.
Designs for furniture don't have to be complicated, maybe you can add upholstery with wool or something, but it would be nice to have something to sit on while I step away from the game to go do something, or when I have visitors on multiplayer. Also, maybe adding plates to put food on?
Why is this so important? The ideas aren't bad but why the extra energy? Does this serve any further purpose than "it would be nice to have"? The only furniture I think is important is tables, because pressure plates on a stick is dumb. Maybe even some different light sources.
Someone who's been making threads since 2017 should probably know that guns are a hated idea that will never touch the game.
Edit: Why are you suggesting something that you know will never be supported? You made another thread mentioning a gun and it got rejected. Why bring it back up?
0
What point does melee weapons doing instant damage have to do with anything? I'm not sure if the OP forgot that you have to be close to your target with a melee weapon? I'm not trying to be rude here, but the point still confuses me to death. That's kind of like going, "well my idea of insta-nukes do instant damage and melee weapons do instant damage so why is my nuke so overpowered?!?!" Because... it's... it's a nuke? I know that's an extreme example, but notice how saying that didn't save the nuke idea by even 1%.
The tracer would only have an effect in multiplayer. Sure, mobs could be programmed to come at you from farther away, but a.) it's still a not-so-fitting gun that will still be hated by many, and b.) I'll just switch to the crossbow so I can pick off unaware mobs from afar with hardly any problems, leaving this gun still an unbalanced add. Like I said many many many many times now, if the crossbow is so quick and long-ranged, why add another ranged weapon? The OP would be better off suggesting something different.
Also, if this weapon wasn't a gun, I'd still not support because the balance/reason issues are still there.
0
It seems like every time I bring up a good point it gets lost and forgotten.
The OP compared melee weapons and ranged weapons in the most illogical way I've ever read in my life. Don't take this the wrong way AMPPL50, but you upvoted him. Why? That weird, weird comparison had absolutely nothing to do with my point. I don't think the OP even knows a single point I'm making in this thread. There's comparing apples and oranges, but that was comparing a German-Swiss cookie to an alien clown covered in sulfuric acid and whale blood.
You're doing it wrong man. Modern/future gun or not, the problem still lies in the balance. Don't be so quick to just jump on the support wagon because something sounds "fun". It needs to be balanced too.
0
Do diamond swords no-scope shoot people from 60 blocks away..?
1
Oh heeeyyy I was wondering when you were gonna choose to chime in your own thread. -____-
...And sadly the point you're proving makes no sense. An arrow with a simple texture change of a bullet =/= an actual instant bullet. Hmm.
1.) No not "stop nitpicking the smallest things". You have no idea what you're talking about. You used absolutely crappy arguments earlier that have been debunked hard since 2011. That's not """nitpicking""", that's just making a point. I don't care what other name this gun has, I'll still hate the idea all the same. Like I asked before, why do we need this gun?
2.) Congrats, I think the point I was making flew straight over your head undetected. Why did you say this? This wasn't what I was talking about in the slightest. I'm starting to think you're not understanding anything I'm presenting nor reading my posts carefully at all.
It almost sounded like you had a fixation on wanting a gun simply because gunpowder had low amount of uses (which is a completely subjective view). The blowgun/fire charge thing you're presenting is WAY more plausible, though I'm sure the name would still turn some people off, it doesn't fire hitscan excruciatingly long-range bullets. I personally never said anything about CoD stuff. I'm not one of the hate-without-explanation people. I've explained my reasons.
Edit: Whether this is a gun or not. It's still an upgrade of the crossbow. Unbalanced unbalanced unbalanced. So I don't support either way. So yeah.
1
What's with this fixation on you wanting a gun or some gun-like object in the game? Why is that so important? Pretty much what Calico said. Why does "gunpowder has few uses" need to equal "there needs to be a gun to fill the void". That's like saying "I don't think paper has enough uses, so we need to have paper airplanes!! >=["
0
Well... yeah, I guess.
Ehhhhhh... We already have enchantments for fire arrows so this new fire charge weapon feels redundant. Regardless, it's stupid easy to kill mobs from a distance with or without fire
2
This happens for a few reasons:
A.) Some people have convinced themselves they understand game design, but don't.
B.) Some people think, "It's popular and a lot of people want it, so therefore it should be added! Popular = good!"
C.) A lot of users here are kiddies, and get all bubbly and overexcited when something "cooool!" pops into their head, without thinking about the framework of balance. Or they think "duuuude it's just a gaaame!" which is what a lot of kids say when they want something they want in a game (rather than something they don't want.)
No, it doesn't "need" more uses. People want more uses. Those "plenty of people" don't seem to understand that "need" and "want" are, in fact, not the same thing. We have TNT, fireworks and splash potions and fire charges - at least two of those are things are extremely useful. If players are thinking guns are a good idea just to give gunpowder an extra use, they better make sure they don't enter game design.
1
Something "fitting" more in a time period sense still doesn't make the idea that much better. I'd rather have a futuristic light up jukebox from the year 2050 than have guns.
If it's "worse" than the crossbow, why do we even need this? Minecraft has a really awkward, lackluster sense of combat because of how blocky and clunky the game's design is. The last thing it needs is freakin' bullets.
I also can't get over this thread's title. "New weapon idea", then suggests something that's been rightfully hated for almost a decade.
0
Sooooo guns are fine because bows "shoot" things and guns "shoot" things..? Huh..?? Yes, let's add something that's a complete upgrade from bows and muck up the balance of ranged weapons by adding bullets.
This argument of "you don't have to use it" doesn't change anything. There's a thousand things in the game I don't have to use, that doesn't add weight to something in the game being good or not. If an insta-kill infinite-ammo sniper is added to the game, me not having to use it in singleplayer doesn't make the idea not a horribly stupid and overpowered add. Being bannable in servers also doesn't save the idea. The idea shouldn't touch the game to begin with. It doesn't fit (which I'll explain) and it shreds the game's balance.
You didn't have to specify the gun was terrible. Because I did. I don't know what point you're trying to prove with "server choosing to ban" stuff. Didn't have much to do with what I was talking about.
I really thought that would be obvious. Arrows take time to reach their target. Crossbows do this faster, but are balanced by having slower reloading. Then there's guns, with instant travel bullets that punches arrows right in the face and makes bows useless. Sure, guns could be tweaked to be more balanced, but why does it need to be there? Why do we need a straight upgrade from crossbows? It's too much.
Yes, I know guns existed in medieval times but that still doesn't make the idea a good add. We have swords, throwable potions, shields, arrows, flint & steel and TNT that are all well-balanced. Do we seriously need to throw bullets in this? Is it that hard to hunt down mobs from a distance.
0
1. No not "tough luck". Do (cross)bows shoot bullets? Nooooo. You should have thought that one out.
2. *facedesk* Wow congrats, you just used one of the most hated, invalid arguments of all time. "If you don't like it don't use it!" Dude, no. If an idea is bad, it's bad. Going "you don't have to use it! =D" doesn't save the idea from being garbage. Seriously, that's an awful awful argument. Guns aren't for Minecraft and never will be, no matter how good you think you can argue it.
If servers have to ban something so terrible, then mayyyybe the idea is pretty bad to start with and shouldn't touch the game? Before you respond, please use the search function and take a good look at all the other gun threads that have been hated and locked. Maybe take some game development courses too.
2
It would not be cool. No. I have no idea why people keep thinking guns are something that would "work". We don't need pure upgrades from what we have in the game. No one wants to join a multiplayer game and get shot in the face.
Comparing this to the a mod is meaningless. A mod can be chosen. A vanilla addition is permanently there for everyone. I don't know what part of you is thinking that "guns would be perfect", but that part of you has a bad view on game design.
0
1.) You should add all the info to your first post and not have it segmented in sequential posts.
2.) There's nothing bad about the idea, and linking minecarts is fine. But the whole steam-powered locomotive thing seems a bit much.
0
Because the creators don't think it's important. A game about mining, building and surviving doesn't really need chandeliers and kitchen sinks. Then again, there's a lot of already-implemented aesthetic things that aren't "needed". Why is furniture this important? Why the all caps red text?
"Cut out the middle man"? lol what? You're trying to make this sound like not having furniture is some game-breaking mistake. Not having furniture is not some "joke". This is just you wanting it so bad that your perspective is now "not adding this thing I want is a huge mistake!" The "removed Herobrine" crap is something that should have been stopped long ago. Loooong long ago.
Why is this so important? The ideas aren't bad but why the extra energy? Does this serve any further purpose than "it would be nice to have"? The only furniture I think is important is tables, because pressure plates on a stick is dumb. Maybe even some different light sources.
Neutral stance/about 50% support
1
Someone who's been making threads since 2017 should probably know that guns are a hated idea that will never touch the game.
Edit: Why are you suggesting something that you know will never be supported? You made another thread mentioning a gun and it got rejected. Why bring it back up?
lol it's not "strangely absent". It's rightfully absent. derp. I'd hate to see this thing in multiplayer. Guns will just never happen.
0
Wasn't it stated that there was gonna be no more dimensions?