• 0

    posted a message on A Challenging Survival mode
    Quote from Ptolemy2002»

    Probably a formatting mistake, but it's a very bad reason to express disapproval for a suggestion, whether it was intentional or not.

    You know what? I fully agree with this.

    You took the specific suggestion of a gamemode and decided that it was the only thing you were going to discuss. Yet, as mentioned later in the thread, the OP is open to more ways of implementation, and the main idea is just "make survival mode harder". Theoretically, some of this could be implemented into a new difficulty, considering that the entire purpose of peaceful mode is the similarly formatted "make survival mode easier".

    Making a gamemode in this way is just really, really bad. The other parts of the idea I'll talk about further down this reply. There's nothing wrong with the part where he wanted harder things, but Mojang/Microsoft won't be changing the name of a gamemode that's a concrete part of the game and then slipping in this Survival Mode, Part 2 with these little tweaks with that being the new "Survival Mode". no. Yes, I know that was just one arm of the idea.

    They programmed a second difficulty for almost exactly that (edited mob spawning, looser regeneration rules, modified mob behavior, etc.), and it isn't inconceivable that the spawning of some mobs would be configurable, as we have many examples to look at that are currently in the game. I would agree that the argument you mention isn't very strong, but neither is yours. Saying "the devs won't do that" is almost weaker than saying "you don't know" because it doesn't give any type of defense or facts to support the assumption. And, as I said, they've done similar things before.

    This is not a good comparison. You're talking about something that's more of a difficulty than a purely brand new gamemode. I stand by saying "the devs won't do that" with no regret and no chance that I'll ever change that statement. You don't need to be fortune teller to know what things are ridiculous enough to not touch a game (and if some of those things were added, they'd be stupid additions). Also, you saying "because it doesn't give any type of defense or facts to support the assumption"... Uh yeah... I mean I kind of explained my points to support why "the devs won't do that"... Many times.

    You literally just said that you agreed that the overworld does not pose much danger due to the design of the daytime, and then you reject the idea of editing it because of that same design? That's just inconsistent. You can be given breathing room without being completely immune to danger, and not everything that contains a slight amount of danger is automatically considered "dangerous". The day would still be quite peaceful.

    There was actually a few more sentences that I had after the part here you quoted. This is what happens when I edit posts and the forum just doesn't save anything because it doesn't feel like it. I mentioned that I agreed with this part, and it might have worked alright in the form of a difficulty or possibly even an option (which I usually hate when ideas are shoehorned into the "it cAn bE aN oPtIoN" because that's usually a fail-crutch). Come to think of it, it might even fit in Hardcore. Just not a gamemode. And yes, again, I know the OP covered that.

    Yes, they could, and this exact sentiment was recognized later in the thread. Maybe you should make sure you understand the whole thing before making responses.

    I'll still get to this further down...

    He literally just did. Not every suggestion needs to be pin-point specific in order to be a good idea. The idea of "territorial" mobs should have merit in itself without any mention of specific implementations. It's a simple question - should these types of mobs be implemented or not? The specifics are beside the point.

    Specific or not, you should still finalize what you're talking about. When someone goes "hey you guys there should be new mobs and blocks!!!!" and doesn't describe a single solitary part of that. You did it wrong. We can't critique a part of an idea properly if something goes completely unmentioned. If you read ALL the versions of the guides, it explains this part beautifully. It doesn't matter if it's a simple question, if it's an important part of the idea, explain it.

    There's a ton of people here (mostly lazy kiddies) that go "we should have a new boss in da overworld! u agreeee???" With absolutely 0% explanation of what the boss is. No. Bzzzzzt. Wrong. That is NOT how suggestions here work. Not that I'm saying the OP did that, but I'm still making a point. You want ideas to add or refine your suggestion? That's fine. You want ideas to complete entire parts of your suggestion for you that should've filled? Nope.

    See above. Also, this reply also sounds like it was made up as you went since the thread specifically addresses some of your rebuttals, but it only happens near the end. If you had read the whole thing, you would likely rethink some of your arguments.

    It's kinda awkward that it started out as a weird overly subjective custom gamemode thing, then moved into the "we could just add them in the normal game I guess". My points on the other parts of the idea are still the same.

    Not necessary. All that is relevant is that the OP is suggesting faster mob speeds. The specifics are honestly unimportant in this case. The same type of thing with the territorial mobs.

    *headdesk* Uuuugh... Have you actually read the suggestion guides? It covers this topic and why it's important. If you want people to be more interested in what they're reading, just going "let's uhh add mobs that are faster and more aggressive" is general as all hell and not particularly very interesting.

    He discussed plenty. He just didn't get into the logistics of things because, as mentioned, he didn't want it to be so long. It's actually a very common strategy to discuss ideas in this manner for conciseness sake. And the thread later mentions how such things could be implemented in other ways than a gamemode, so you homing in on the gamemode thing is really being close-minded.

    I honed in on the gamemode idea because of how ridiculous it was. As for the other parts of the idea, I'll (again) get into that further down.

    That is literally what a problem is - something that you believe should be addressed. If only the absolutely needed things should be implemented then the game is literally finished, save a few bug fixes here and there. But they keep on adding new content, despite no absolute need being present. And this is the fourth time I'm mentioning that alternate implementation was mentioned, this time directly in the quote you responded to. Way to nitpick.

    This is another part I can fully agree with.

    This is getting old... Just read what I've already posted on this sentiment of yours.

    Yeeeeaahh, this part here is meaningless. You're defending the part where he said "Note : I Don't think any new mob or block should be exclusive to this mode, however, they can have a different behavior or functionality in the normal mode."

    lol what? This is even more vague than the mob thing. What "different behavior"? This part is so unexplained it didn't even pay to mention it at all.

    It is the original idea, you just exploited the meaning by applying rigid criteria where none really existed. The OP is open, but you're framing him like he isn't.

    My opinion is still pretty unchanged. Gamemode part aside, the other part of the idea still has a lot of holes and unexplained confusion. So if we just focus on the "adding ideas to the main game part", the flaws are still there. The mobs the block thing is still glossed over. I'm not gonna get all supportive and happy because something talked about adding "bears, wolves, tigers, you name it" - just because I enjoyed reading the names of those animals. That isn't enough. What do these mobs even do?

    "Yeah duuude he mentioned bears support support supp0rt!!!" No. Let me know if this mob is original and interesting enough to touch the game. I'm not supporting just because these things were named and not talked about anymore. If all those mobs are just territorial with nothing else going for them, it sounds like a bunch of mobs are being added with the exact same behavior and just different coats of paint.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Apple trees

    There's no apple trees because that makes getting golden apples that much easier.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 2

    posted a message on Second end/combat update

    Ohhhhhh my sweet sweet God. Please start using your enter key.

    The end feels boring to me, it's supposed to be the climax, like you've been mining and crafting on the streets, but no you're in an arena! There's a dragon, a boss fight and the stress is on. But then you realize he's weak and easy. Opinion, but I agree. The combat also feels boring, the loop of getting armor, fighting with it until it breaks and enchanting it isn't satisfying to me, so i suggest the second combat/end update. I lot of people seem to lean on this "this is getting boring" statement. As true as it is, no one seems to think out that adding more stuff will also get boring. And update that will progressively overhaul the game, or will at least be the foundation of the overhaul.

    The update will increase replayability and create new to interact with the game, environment and more. While combat isn't the main focus of Minecraft, and that's okay, there is a great PvP community within the game, and as a PvPer myself, i find the combat, boring. Not that it doesn't have it's strengths, but it's basically just click and move, there barely are different playstyles to combat in the game if any. I still agree, but adding playstyles to a game like this isn't as appealing as people keep thinking it is. It's not impossible, but this is a game that's awkward blocks and has the most lackluster combat ever, so a lot of combat suggestions wouldn't add anything in the same way as it would other games.

    So here's my idea to fix this: weapon abilities, like; armor that makes you move faster, but it doesn't give a lot of defense unlike the set that makes you move a little slower

    The faster thing just sounds like a permanent potion effect... And being slowed down would be waayyyy too annoying. I don't want to be bounced around by mobs because I couldn't move away in time.

    but gives the most defense in the game(these are just random examples, weapons will also have abilities) now this ties into the end because at first, the only way to get one of these new sets is to fight a dragon, each set supports a different playstyle and when the fight starts the game will randomly choose a dragon for you to fight, each one having it's own set for it's own playstyle, the dragon will also fight you using the playstyle it's armor and weapons support.
    The different dragon playstyle/attacks thing I could honestly be on board with. But uh... unless I read this wrong, I don't want dragons using weapons and armor.

    In the end of the fight he will either drop it's full armor set, it's weapon or both(that's just a random drop idea, open to suggestions about this) because there are different types of dragons with different rewards, thus encouraging players to replay the fight and increasing replayability.
    You should probably finish your suggestion completely before posting this. There's nothing wrong with accepting ideas for suggestions, but we still need enough to go on at the start.

    There will also be a new health bar and stamina bar (the health bar will be numbers since some armor could give you more health, hearts would still exist, but they would represent how much percent of your health is left, the armor bar, on the other hand, is gone, replaced with a defence bar, which like the new health bar will be in numbers.

    Yeah... Gonna have to give an extremely massive NOPE on this one. This is just weird. We don't need to change health and stamina for no reason. This change doesn't offer anything.

    There will also be a stamina bar, which will go down each time you use a weapon ability.) At first, these new kind of weapons will only be obtainable by dragon slaying, but if the community approves, each update will have gear like that themed after the update, like armor that gives you more health and defense underground, crafter by a new ore, for a cave update.
    Okay yeah, see... You should have probably told us all these weapon abilities before posting this. And you can't lean on the "give me suggestions" thing because I like said before, you still need to complete your own idea first.

    Also please reply with your suggestions and ideas to add on, I'll try to respond and update this depending on feedback
    If you're gonna be posting suggestions regularly here, read this. You're new here, so I deeply deeply hope you read that and not carelessly skip it, otherwise you will end up covering your future ideas in newby mistakes. It's a must read if you plan on really making big, serious suggestions.

    ...but uh yeah. Your enter key. Use it in the future. For real.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on A Challenging Survival mode

    Uhhhh, what's with the big font at the start? That's not gonna improve your suggestion or make people notice it more... No shade, but I've also read your other threads and I'm noticing some patterns. I'll elaborate on that as I go on.

    My suggestion is to add another survival mode for people who want to play a hardcore survival game.

    My idea about the name is that this mode should be called "Hardcore", and the old hardcore mode should be replaced with an option that basically locks difficult on hard and prevents re-spawning.

    Another idea is to rename the old survival mode into "Casual mode" and name the new one "Survival Mode".

    Um, no. Absolutely not to the max. This isn't the kind of idea that requires a brand new gamemode just for some survival tweaks. This is just a weird, unoriginal "Survival Mode 2". Gamemodes should encompass original things, not small specific things some players want. Otherwise we'd have a ton of more uncreative survival mode copies with extra tweaks suited for specific players just to satisfy their personal wants. Not what the game is about. =/

    This mode will retain the passive health regeneration as long as your hunger is full; however, it will be at a much slower pace. Any point of damage taken will be a penalty that you'll have to take seriously.

    Also taking any damage will pause your healing temporarily (healing from potions is unaffected).

    We're off to a weird start. I know this is just the start of the idea here, but the devs aren't gonna program a separate gamemode game just for a health regen change and a few mobs. I've also noticed you use a lot of "you're not the one making the game, so you can't make that call" statements in your older threads. With all respect, that argument won't work. Just wanted to throw that out there just in case you were gonna use that.

    The game boasts little to no danger in the overworld; as long as you can sleep the night, there's really not much of a challenge in the game other than the occasional fall you damage you receive from walking carelessly.

    I slightly agree, but this is just an opinion trying to hold up a gamemode suggestion.

    Day time should also be dangerous, of course not as much as night time, but still it shouldn't be a safe zone.

    There can be tons of different mobs that can be introduced to the overworld during daytime to make it a bit more challenging, so i won't go into detail on each mob, but i will give a general idea:

    Why should the daytime be dangerous? Again, we're using paper flimsy opinion supports. Daytime and night are designed the way they are for a reason, one giving breathing room for you to do stuff and one being dangerous where you should shelter yourself unless you want to be daring and get mob drops. Day and night are meant to be "safe and dangerous", not "dangerous and more dangerous".

    I understand you probably meant all of this just for the gamemode. But this is still very specific.

    As for the four mobs you suggested. They could all just be thrown into normal survival mode.

    Territorial mobs

    Bears, wolves, tigers, you name it, are mobs that can attack the player when they get into their territory.

    The main idea is that these mobs aren't as aggressive as hostile mobs that spawn at night, but still they can be easily provoked when trespassed.


    Could you uh... maybe explain what the mobs do? This is a brand new gamemode we're talking about. Going "here's some mobs that attack the player" and nothing more is already putting you in the negatives. If they just attack you and that's it, then congrats, we have some very very boring mobs that are farted in the game just for this one subjective gamemode.

    Occasional encounters

    perhaps something similar to hound attacks from don't starve, these mobs may spawn from time to time and impose a challenge on the player.

    Now this all looks like it was made up as you went. Anything else we should know? Damage values? Health values? Again dude, if you want us to be on your side, you're gonna have to try explaining things. -___-

    More dangerous mobs

    as long as you're much faster than mobs, no matter how many there are or how strong they are you can just always run away or run through them. I think mobs in general should have a larger aggression range, and the ability to sprint in some case. Also maybe add new types of mobs that spawn at night and are actually faster than regular mobs.



    I didn't want this suggestion to be very long, so i only discussed the main problems and general ideas of how to solve them. There are many ways to approach these issues, one way or another they need to be approached nonetheless.

    ice000breaker. No, you hardly discussed anything. You're suggesting a gamemode that seems to be specifically just for you (which I can say with confidence is not gonna be added in a game with millions of players). We're not gonna get a copypasta of Survival Mode with vague mobs and a mildly different health system. The devs aren't gonna suddenly deicde to rename an existing gamemode we all know and love years and make your vague one the new Survival Mode. no.

    You didn't list any problems. You just listed stuff you didn't like, so there's nothing that needs to be approached.

    perhaps we don't need a second mode, instead these ideas can be mildly introduced to the normal survival mode, and they can be scaled up with the difficulty option.

    Well no, we absolutely don't need a second mode. Why didn't you suggest this for the original survival mode in the first place? If people happen to like your mobs (which you didn't explain in the slightest), they don't want to swap back and forth between copypasta gamemodes.

    Note : I Don't think any new mob or block should be exclusive to this mode, however, they can have a different behavior or functionality in the normal mode.

    "There can be a new block that's function is different." [no block is explained or named whatsoever]

    For example we can still have the newly introduced deer in the normal mode, while still having cows and sheep, etc..
    It can be just another mob for the normal mode.

    Which could have just been the original idea...

    Or the new aggressive mobs added for daytime, they can be just much less aggressive or rare in the normal mode.

    It seems like you already knew a gamemode wasn't needed for these small unexplained small things.

    Absolutely no support.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Magic Combat - Why So Little?

    I don't want magic in the game, so I'm not gonna try and "fix" a theoretical system that I don't think belongs in the game at all. There's no reason for that "harsh perspective" thing. You might want to learn that negative reception doesn't always equal "harsh". I stated all my reasons, I didn't just post "everyone who agrees with this idea is dumb and idea iz bad!" without stating my case. I don't know what you thought I meant when I said "Can magic work in Minecraft? Maybe."

    Seriously, again, I highly suggest you read this guide. Take it with a grain of salt though, there's a lot of in-your-face satire in there, but it covers a plethora of common mistakes and suggestion flaws beautifully. If you plan on sticking around on this forum and making suggestions yourself, reading that is almost a necessity. The woman who wrote that guide I think is a game dev herself so she has the proper perspective and that sort of thing.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Magic Combat - Why So Little?
    Quote from headgames001»

    Thing is, if magic would be so op, then why does it work in other games without being op? Because there is a balance that is found.

    headgames, honestly man. I'm not trying to be mean in any way, but that is a super invalid argument. Okay, so if magic works just fine in a completely different game, it'll work here..? A few of the arguments you brought up were on par, but this one is the most "not working" one. Different games can lean on different mechanics better than other games. Minecraft is a very unique game, so comparing it to other games usually fails hard.

    My only reasoning for lowering the range so much for spells was so that they would be medium range dealing medium damage, compared to bows doing less damage at long range, and swords with the most damage but at close range. Thus, it would fill this middle area. Now, at 20 blocks, maybethats a bit too short, considering projectile speed and area of effect.

    Could magic work in Minecraft? Maybe, but not in this clichéd way, and not in a way that's unbalanced and just copies what the game already gives us. See, this is why I love the hunger bar, because it doesn't just add a little layer of difficulty, but it creates more ideas. It paved the way for more foods and different fun ways we can grow/create them. It adds a fresh, original experience without truly ruining things.

    Magic is just hurting things farther away with a different coat of paint. It's executed differently and would look cool sure, but it's still adding damage and potion effects to things. I believe an idea should be more original and offer just a bit more than that.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Magic Combat - Why So Little?
    Quote from headgames001»

    I already mentioned multiple times about not "shocking and blinding someone from 50 blocks away". In case you missed it, the range should be much shorter. About 20 blocks or so I think would be good. Archery would have better range by a few blocks this way.

    Duuuude, you need to take a step back and see what's going on here. Now we're just going in pointless circles. You can add as much tweaks as you want but that doesn't mean you're gonna save the core idea. Okay, so now the range is reduced to the point where archery has better range? Theeeeeeen why not just stick with an enchanted bow then? And/or splash potions (which I know has less range, but that's what makes them balanced).

    No shade, but it's starting to look like you love this idea so much, that you just want it added no matter how powerful/weak it is. In the end, you just want the ability to say "the game has magic!"

    Reasons for more magic besides the whole new variety of approaches made possible to combat (besides just spamming a sword, shooting arrows, and letting potions blow up in our pixelated faces) is the potential for the game to explore more of the fantasy themes that the game already has.

    That doesn't save this idea from being unbalanced or being filler material. Most of what you explained is pretty opinion based/subjective. The idea sounds amazing on paper, but not so much in execution.

    This would allow you to do more than what everyone else is doing, and has been doing, for over a decade: wearing the same armors, and spamming the same swords.

    Arguments like that aren't very strong for a game like this. Almost every dopey suggester that suggested crappy guns has used that argument. "I'm soo00oo tired of bows n arrows so les cure the boredom with gunsss!!!!" Greeeaatt... Not only were these guns ideas absolutely overpowered and unfitting, but what happens when the guns get boring? Do we add rocket launchers now? Just because something is new and breaks up the monotony of what's already there still doesn't make the idea good. It still has to be balanced, and it still can't be a crappy copypasta of what we already have otherwise the idea is just cheap.

    Someone might favor magic over potions because they have more range, are easier to aim, require less resources, and won't run out as long as you have xp/magic. But, that same person might want to use potions to effect multiple targets, and have a greater effect on them, but have more risk of it backfiring. An allegory could be magic being like a one-handed sword, it's quicker, less vulnerable, but does less damage, while potions are like two-handed swords, they take some more strategy, have more risk to them, but do more damage.

    This magic just sounds like another ranged attack but just more powerful. Removing much needed armor doesn't make the idea sound better, because I'm NOT gonna keep taking stuff off and on just to cast some unnecessary spells when I can arrow spam/bash a mob to death in seconds. Having to stand still doesn't change much if I can royally mess something up with one spell. And reducing the range helps, but the job of a few arrows will work just fine - with or without potions.

    A big problem with the idea of just using potions as a means to attack is how limited that is. With just nine equipped inventory slots, that's nine possible potions useable in a fight. Unless they are all the highest tier potions and you're lucky, it's not going to go well. Things only get worse if you try keeping even just one health potion equipped, and then split the other 8 slots between potions for living mobs and undead mobs.

    This is a pretty subjective argument. Potions are the way they are because... balance. It's really not complicated to kill something in this game with or without potions. Potions just give an extra edge. No, potions don't need to be the highest tier and you don't need to be lucky. You just need to know how and when to use them. If undead and living mobs are close together, then maybe don't bother with throwing potions at them. Do something else instead. I mean, this IS a game where you can easily barricade yourself with blocks at any moment. One regen potion and one strength potion and that alone turns you into a tank if you know how to play.

    And now, let's say you are lucky, and you managed to use just 4 potions in a fight. That's going to happen for every single fight that follows. You'll have to pause between every single fight just to re-equip. And hopefully you equip the right ones too. Poison against zombies? Oof, sorry, go run away and comeback. Ope, is that a spider? Those healing potions you used against the zombies aren't going help much.

    Like I said before. Change your strategy. You don't need to be throwing potions at everything. Why not just use 1-2 helpful ones on yourself? The possibilities are endless in a game like this.

    Now, inevitably, you'll eventually have to use that health potion too, and if you ever need another one, you'll have two choices. Either run away, again, and equip one, and hope something doesn't just come around the corner and kill you. Or pause while you try to scram to get another one, and, if you're as lucky as before, exit your inventory to find that you're surrounded.

    Potions or not, you should probably prepare yourself as best as you can. Even without this magic, trouble can come in any form.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Magic Combat - Why So Little?
    Quote from headgames001»

    Our subject here is combat and the potential for magic to be added. Yes, there are other enchantments. You kept dwelling on that there are "swords and enchantments and potions", but I was simply pointing out that, in terms of weapons specifically, you can't wield an enchantment without a sword. So, it's just a sword, with some better stats, and made shiny.

    That's kind of an oversimplified way of putting it, but yeah, sure.

    So, you've pointed out that having access to some potion effects as spells could, and probably would, be op.

    Actually my point was that having these overpowered spells AND the powerful stuff we have now would be too much.

    Ok, so, what if they just... weren't made into spells? Or, those spells require you to be immobilized for a short while to cast?

    It just feels like you're trying to put Scooby-Doo bandaids on an amputation. Not that I'm saying this idea is bad as an amputation, but you keep adding these little stat/balance changes when it still doesn't really save the idea. It doesn't matter, shocking and blinding someone from 50 blocks away is still unbalanced. And it's still annoying as christ in multiplayer. This is just one of those ideas that bring more trouble than they're worth. Despite the fact that the game already has ideas like that, but still, do we want more of that?

    You also still dodged my question, why is adding this magic so important aside from "variety" and "people like it"?

    In the case of Strength II that you mentioned, I'll mention once more that spells probably shouldn't have the full effect of potions. So, for a Strength I level spell, as long as the spell is being cast, the player has to stop moving for the duration of the casting, say 3 seconds. And, because of the power of such a spell, they would have a significant spell cooldown time, say 10 seconds, so that no other spells can be cast. Now, their increased damage is offset by their momentary vulnerability, their lack of armor, and their inability to cast any spells for a short while.

    If it doesn't have the full effect of potions, then... why not just stick with the potions? We're just duplicating what we have into spells and adding little tweaks to them. I'm big enough to admit that the effort you're putting in to add balance isn't exactly terrible, but like I said before, it still doesn't "save" the idea and it doesn't sound original.

    If I can slam a Strength potion, whip out my enchanted iron sword and kill a few mobs in a matter of seconds while I'm iron-armored up, I don't really need to waste time on these spells nor removing my own useful armor just to add to the spells effects. That's why I'm calling this idea "extra fluff".

    If you prefer sword over sorcery, that is your choice. Heck, I think it would be interesting if, in the case it were added, that there could be a Magic Protection enchantment. Then, you could crush all the annoying noob images you want in your bad*ss anti-mage armor.

    Again dude, it's not just about what I "prefer", but about what is even worth the effort in adding.

    You've neen using the argument that the game doesn't need combat magic, but I've pointed out all the features that this game obviously didn't need. At this point, the game doesn't actually need anything.

    That doesn't stop things being more important and useful than others. So far, this whole magic thing has been "fixed" with stat tweaks.

    But, the devs are obviously focused on providing variety to gameplay as every update brings new features. This is just one potential feature they could add.

    The amount of people on this forum that use the whole "variety" thing often use it incorrectly. Such as "variety is duh sp1ce of liiife, so let's add 30 more creepers!!" or "les add 4 more neeewwww dimensionzzz" which are just lame copy dimensions of what we have. Goes to show "more" does not automatically equal "good".

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Magic Combat - Why So Little?
    Quote from headgames001»

    Yes, enchantments can be used on things other than swords, but a shovel isn't as useful in a fight, even with Efficiency V.

    You said "Since enchantments go on swords, and can't be used unless they are on swords". You're making it sound like there's no other useful enchantment in existence except swords and Efficiency V. Again, you seem to not be getting the points I'm making.

    I'm thinking that potions should be stronger, but the player is limited in how many they can carry, and how many they can have equipped. Spells would be weaker, but the only limit would be in xp/magic. Potions could also affect multiple targets, and magic could be limited to one target, unless it is one that can't be used at range.

    Potion carrying is limited because carrying 10 Strength II potions in one slot is inarguably overpowered. Just carrying one or two and spamming critical hits with an iron sword alone while under its effects is still enough turn you into a gorilla powerhouse. Do we really need to throw awkward armor removing and magic on top of that? It's just filler material. Your idea here is still a "Less X, but more Y" setup. You also never explained why this magic needs to exist beyond "having to use swords for a long time" or "people want this".

    Any problem you have with spells, you'd have with bows and arrows, as long as the system works as I described, where there is a reasonable defined range limit, a required cooldown, (both things found in bows, the latter being draw speed) and a cost in xp/magic.

    I highly, highly, highly recommend you give this guide a read. It goes over extremely common traps that suggestions fall into. You can add as much tweaks and cooldowns as you want, but the weapons/potions/enchantments we have already cover everything we need. What new thing is magic adding? It's still just cheaply copypasting helpful things already in the game.

    It's like adding yet another cat mob that "moves 10% slower but has +10% creeper scaring range!" That's not interesting or original, it's just re-implementing Ocelots but with tiny tweaks and a mildly different coat of paint. We already have almost-copycat weapons anyway (like crossbows) so this magic is just extra redundancy.

    The armor removing thing just makes this worse. I'm not taking off my enchanted diamond armor just to get some awkwardly balanced spell to work correctly. I'm fully armored and have all the beefy weapons I need. Making this magic - again - just weird fluff material slapped in the game for the sake of being slapped in the game.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Magic Combat - Why So Little?
    Quote from headgames001»

    Since enchantments go on swords, and can't be used unless they are on swords, they don't constitute their own form of attack. It'd be difficult to use Sharpness V without a sword to put it on. As for potions, they are difficult to use without backfiring on the user, just as I said previously.

    What about armor, bows, shovels, axes and fishing rods?

    You called it "this beefy magic", probably referring to the suggestions given before. And we both agree that many are too strong. I did suggest that spells should be weaker than potions, this way there are pros and cons to each.

    Beefy refers to how overpowered these spells are. If these spells are stronger than potions, they're overpowered, but if they're weaker than potions, you might as well just stick with potions anyway. Either way, there's an issue.

    If some annoying kid from 50 blocks away casts at you, and let's say they are without armor as this discussion has mentioned, then you, presumably armed and armored, could attack them in whatever way you want, spells not required. The spells could, and probably should be just as effective as bows, with the same range, but probably less damage, considering the lack of required ammunition. If this were the case, any problem you have with a mage, you would also have with an archer.

    50 blocks is pretty far away. Armor or not, that is a VERY long range for a weapon. It's just too annoying and I can already see the hate players would spill on these forums if this kind of stuff was added. Remember how people acted when combat was changed, imagine how people will react going on a server and seeing almost unavoidable lightning bolts from like 20 players from all directions. Why in the christ would anyone want this in a Minecraft game?

    In singleplayer, killing mobs (including bosses) would be way too easy. In multiplayer, you're getting sniped by obnoxious spells. It creates more problems than anything good. Even if you wear less armor, it doesn't always perfectly balance this out. This is a game with nearly infinite possibilities, so you know how exploited this is gonna be.

    Spells that are obviously more damaging would be far more limited in range than others, and maybe backfire like potions too.

    Then these spells would just be awkward copypastas of potions.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Magic Combat - Why So Little?
    Quote from headgames001»

    So far, you've said that magic isn't needed because we have swords.

    Now I'm starting to think you're just skimming through my posts. I said magic wasn't needed because we have swords, and ranged weapons and enchantmants and potions. If enchantments and potions weren't in the game, I'd maybe be on board with this idea. The things I've listed can overpower mobs (and players) easily, so why throw this beefy magic on top of that? See the where the unbalanced part comes to play?

    Well, a lot of games offer alternatives to just using melee or ranged weapons, such as magic. The reasoning being that having few options can get boring. You might be alright with it, but that isn't reason for everyone else to be. Also, it is a choice, you could ignore it all together, as long as it doesn't interfere with non-magic combat, which it certainly shouldn't.

    You just pulled out yet another invalid argument: "if you don't like, don't use it!" Is that gonna stop some kid in multiplayer from hitting me 50 blocks away with some annoying electric spell? Nope.

    You did mention at one point that potions do similar things as the suggested spells, but they more often backfire than anything. So, if potions could be thrown farther, it could be an alternative.

    They backfire if you don't throw them carefully. That's a pretty balanced tradeoff for splash potions, considering how horrendously powerful some of them can be.

    You've said that it might upset combat balance, and I completely agree, it shouldn't ever be op. For the "less armor, faster spell regen", it's because then you would sacrifice defense for ranged magic spells, limited only by xp/magic bar. It comes with a risk to try to balance it. And yes, some of the suggestions need a lot of tweaking.

    Armor or not, being able to hit some 50 blocks away just turns the player into friggin' Zeus. These things would be unholy annoying in multiplayer.

    To keep potions still significant versus magic, magic could be less effective compared to potion effects, this way spells aren't just infinite potions with a cooldown, but be less likely to backfire than potions. This could encourage using both magic and weapons in unison.

    At this point in the suggestion, this is starting to sound like a "Less X, but more Y" suggestion. Even if the magic was more balanced out, being able to electrocute or straight blind things from distance just adds more horror to balance. In other words, it opens the door for more balance problems in the long run.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Magic Combat - Why So Little?
    Quote from headgames001»

    No one said it's hard. No one ever said this. Do not strawman.

    Uuuugh... You should probably do some research on what a strawman looks like. You completely missed the point of the think you quoted.

    And, the logic of "it just works" doesn't seem to have much backing. I assume you understand that I meant those example to be hyperbole, and that you can grasp sarcasm. At least, I really hope so.
    If you notice, there was discussion on how a magic system could be balanced, such as lower cooldown between spells while wearing less armor.

    Yeah uh sarcasm/hyperbole or not, nothing has changed. Trying to balance the magic still doesn't save the idea and I'll get into that later in the post. The only reasoning I'm seeing for this magic is "we've been using swords for so long it's time for something different" and "a lot of people like this!" These are empty calories statements by themselves. There's always "a lot of people who want this thing", but that by itself doesn't make an idea worthy of being permanently added to the game. The same thing was said about "Herobr1111n3!!!" and "we neeeeed thirsst barssssss!!!" They were popular, but they were still bad.

    Again, if "it just works" is enough for you, then they shouldn't ever add another block, since you are so absolutely content.

    Where are you getting this "it just works" thing..? Huh? These comparisons are just not working dude. Especially that goofy dirt block one.

    As for "These spells are just spells". And swords are just swords. And dirt is just dirt. Each with it's own use. You mentioned that redstone added a whole new area to the game. So can magic systems. You don't like it, that is clear. You've made your point, so you're only wasting your time arguing the same moot point.

    Wow, what were you saying earlier about strawmans? This is just goofy word-spinning and most of what you said doesn't match my points. What original thing do these spells offer? The ones in the OP are horribly unbalanced:

    Potion of Harming + Prismarine Shard -
    Redstone Dust - Dragon's Breath + Fermented Spider Eye = Astrapi left
    (attack spell, with the left signifying the F. Spider Eye's effect).
    Advanced spell. Spell casts a powerful electrical beam towards the
    target, 50 blocks range, deals 14 damage on a direct hit and 8 at an
    AOE. Costs 10 magic points. Effective against enchanted armour.

    50 blocks long electrical beam? If that's not overpowered, nothing is.

    Potion of Healing + Brown Mushroom - Red
    Mushroom - Goodberry + Rabbit's foot = Feast left (healing spell, with
    left representing the Rabbit Foot's special effect). Spell refills all
    hunger bars in the near area, and begins to heal everyone at 1hp per
    second for 10 seconds. Costs 8 magic points. left

    So this refills everyone's hunger bar and gives regeneration? Okaaaay? The "everyone's hunger bar" thing sounds like a multiplayer thing. This one's kinda weird.

    Potion of Harming + Stone Sword - Ghast Tear - Flint + Ink sac = Deathfang left (attack spell, with the
    left signifying the ink sac special effect). Beginner's spell. Summons a
    line of powerful evocation fangs to brutally crush the target, 10
    blocks range, deals 8 damage on a hit. Costs 4 magic points. Inflicts
    blindness on a hit.

    It hurts 8 damage AND causes blindness? Yeah these spells are just too beefy. And having to wear less armor for more powerful spells is just super random. Wearing armor is a very important part of defending yourself, and having to be less armored to be able to cast these overpowered spells is just all over the place. It's just something that feels vanilla Minecraft. That's extremely wonky "balance".

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Magic Combat - Why So Little?
    Quote from headgames001»

    Constructive criticism, of course, give all you can, but mocking people for their ideas? Really?

    And for your argument that the game doesn't need it, the game doesn't need anything. It's perfectly functioning, for the most part, as it is now. By that logic, they should just shut down Mojang. We also didn't need crossbows, we have bows! We don't need axes, we can just punch trees! We don't need any new blocks, we just need dirt! Because it works!

    Wow way to use awful examples. I personally never liked crossbows. Redstone adds an insane amount creativity and circuits to the game. These spells are just spells. We have axes so we don't need to keep punching trees. The line about "we just need dirt" was just 130 kinds of awful. Seriously, you need to really think out your arguments before you use them. Having different kinds of blocks to make up the beautiful world of Minecraft (which is a game about creative building) doesn't relate to throwing in some clichéd beefy magic system.

    Look at how powerful the player is. It's not hard to bash things over and over with your iron sword and shield, it's not hard to spam arrows at a mob that never detects you and it's not hard to lead mobs into traps. Now throw enchantments into that mix. Now throw potions into that mix. Pretty powerhouse-ish stuff right? Now throw these magic spells into that. What's the point? Do we need to add more overkill to overkill?

    You can't just use the classic "well then why do we need this or this or this or this then?" because you're listing things that have more reason to exist than magic (except maybe crossbows).

    See, you are right, we don't need magic. But, like the previous things mentioned that have been added, it is something that would just add to gameplay. I certainly don't want it to be a majority of the gameplay or anything, I just think it would be an interesting alternative to using the same swords we've had for over ten years now.

    Using the "let's add this because we've been using this boring thing for years" is also a wobbly argument. What if magic is added, and then that gets boring? Throwing something in to make things different sounds good on paper, but is not always good in the long run. Not if it goofs up balance.

    You are of course entitled to an opinion, but so is everyone else, and you should be more accepting of that. If you want to combat it, list some problems with implementing my idea, as opposed to baselessly shutting it down.

    There is no "baselessly shutting it down", reread my posts please. The reasons are actually there.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Magic Combat - Why So Little?
    Quote from headgames001»

    Hey, no need to snap back at me. I was just using myself as an example for something that I'm not alone in wanting. If you don't like the idea, then you've already said enough.

    Not being alone in wanting an idea doesn't mean anything if there's no good reason to back it up. Just look at Herobrine or mobs that were planned to be added to the game, then decided that they permanently wouldn't be added because they had to reason to exist.

    But, if you want to actually contribute, or actually defend why the game shouldn't have such features, instead of belittling the suggestions people have put time and effort in, then do so.

    I already went over the reasons on why spells don't need to exist. If you're gonna post suggestions, be ready to hear the negatives as well as the positives. It's also wise to search before making a thread so you don't end up posting something that was already rejected for many years.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on if dragons were added to the game, as you would like them to be.
    Quote from douglas_rafael»

    I personally would like them to be added in a dimension that expands vertically, requiring special vehicles for locomotion (dragons).

    That dimension would be a way to get to The End without facing the dragon.

    Sorry dude, but this is just a lazy, uncreative idea. There's not gonna be any more dimensions, and if there was, it won't exist just for the sole purpose of helping a player slack around facing the dragon and getting to The End easier. That's just terrible terrible game design. Not how a good idea works at all. Also, you shouldn't suggest a dimensions and more dragons without explaining either. no support at all.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.