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.