• 0

    posted a message on Rank these Parkour jumps in order of difficulty
    Quote from Code404»

    Ladder single neo should be the easiest, 4+0.875 jump is impossible

    However, I cannot evenfinish a simple HH or simple Neo


    7 layers of snow actually only is a 0.75 jump because of how snow works.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Rank these Parkour jumps in order of difficulty

    Just wanted an expert opinion. I know all of these jumps are very difficult, but I'm not good at parkour myself so I can't really judge the difficulty of these jumps myself.


    Here are the jumps:

    - 2x1 cross neo

    - Ice triple neo

    - Ladder neo

    - Quad jump onto 7 layers of snow (almost a 4+1 jump)

    - Double cross neo

    - 4x3 jump

    - Triple neo

    - Ice HH quad neo

    - Double winged neo

    - 5 block HH 2bmm

    - Neo on walls


    If you could give your opinion on which of those jumps are easier and which are harder, that would be great :D

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Coal ore can rarely generate as diamond
    Quote from fishg»

    But why? I don't understand why this needs to be in the game. Diamonds already naturally generate, all this would do is make them more common (which would be overpowered). The only reasoning behind this is that it happens in real life.



    Quote from Xoto»

    I sympathize with you losing your thread at first, but why do we need this idea implemented? With enough effort, you'll find diamonds. So we don't need to make them easier to find.


    I think you guys are missing the point. The point is not to make diamonds more common, because if that actually was the point, the probabilities would be a lot higher. Right now, there is only about 4-8% more diamond, which is barely anything (equivalent to about 1 extra ore per 5 chunks). I don't see why you are saying this is OP.
    The main reason for this suggestion is to give a reason players to mine coal. If you see a coal vein, then you know that there could be a diamond hidden in it, so you want to mine the coal because you want to find diamond.
    And it would take the developers about 5-10 minutes to code in. Not even exaggerating with that one.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Coal ore can rarely generate as diamond
    Quote from fishg»

    Realism < Gameplay


    Just because coal can become diamonds irl doesn't mean we need to add a complicated to code (and understand) system for coal ore becoming diamond.

    You could literally code this in something like 10 lines.

    (this code would run every time a coal ore block gets generated in the world)


    if (y>16) {

    prob = 0;

    } else {

    prob = (16-y) * 0.1;

    }

    boolean diamond = (random() < prob);

    if (diamond) {

    setblock(x,y,z,diamond_ore)

    } else {

    setblock(x,y,z,coal_ore)

    }


    And I don't see how it's "hard to understand" either. Whenever a coal vein spawns deep underground, you might find a diamond ore in the middle of the coal vein. Simple.






    PS: I suggest writing suggestions on a google doc or word document so you always have it in case the website goes wonky when you're writing a thread. That way you just copy paste it in and can't lose all your work.

    Yeah, I probably should have done that. Oh well.


    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Coal ore can rarely generate as diamond
    Quote from ScotsMiser»


    it would seem that the effect you're proposing is already generated.

    This doesn't sound like much, but would represent roughly a 8% increase in diamond ore.


    WHY is that a bad thing? 8% increase is not very much at all. And you'd only find the diamonds in single ores (unless you're really lucky and 2 spawn next to each other)
    And you didn't even consider the possibility that we could just lower the probability. So we could do something like this (where we halve the probability of each layer)
    y=15: 0.1%
    y=14: 0.2%
    y=13: 0.3%
    .
    .
    y=3: 1.3%
    y=2: 1.4%
    y=1: 1.5%

    This would make the diamond spawn rate only 4% more instead of 8%. You seem to act as if more diamond is a bad thing, so how does that suggestion sound to you?

    Finally, when you said "it would seem that the effect you're proposing is already generated." NO IT'S NOT. The effect I want is for diamond ore to spawn in place of coal. That's completely different from finding a 1-block vein of diamond.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 2

    posted a message on Coal ore can rarely generate as diamond

    AAAA I'M SO MAD!! I had this thread all typed out, but when I pressed "Create Thread" it redirected to the login page. I hit login, and then my thread was completely gone. So I had to retype it all. Please fix this glitch, I really hate it.


    Anyway, let's get to my suggestion.


    Under layer 16, there is a small chance (~2%) that a block of coal ore that generates will instead generate as a diamond ore. This means that in the occasional vein of coal, there might be a diamond sticking out against the other coal ores. So if you mined 5 full veins of coal, each with 20 ores, you could expect to get only 2 diamonds (assuming all veins were under layer 16)


    IMPORTANT: It's only individual coal ore blocks that generate as diamond, NOT entire veins! That would be too OP.


    At y=15, there is a 0.2% chance for a diamond to spawn instead of coal.

    y=14 ----- 0.4%

    y=13 ----- 0.6%

    .

    .

    y=3 ----- 2.6%

    y=2 ----- 2.8%

    y=1 ----- 3.0%


    This suggestion is based on the misconception that diamonds can be created by putting coal under pressure. This is not really correct. Although they are both carbon based substances, coal has a lot of impurities, but diamond is pretty much pure carbon. Even if you did have a lump of carbon, you'd need to subject it to insane temperatures (~3000 C) and extreme pressures (~100000 atmospheres) to turn it into diamond. That's one thing Minecraft got right: diamonds only generate deep underground.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Your most favorite and least favorite biome?

    My favorite biome for building a house: Plains. It's just a nice, flat biome with a lot of easy spots to build a house. Also the view from a plains biome is usually pretty nice (with the adjacent forests and such).

    My least favorite biome for building a house: Jungle. Just too many trees. Unless it was a tree house, but even if it was a tree house, I'd prefer Mega Taiga over Jungle.


    My favorite biome for scenery: Savanna Plateau M. Must I say much more? HUGE MOUNTAINS!!!

    My least favorite biome for scenery: The Void Deep Ocean. Not much is there at all. Pretty much just water and gravel and that's it.


    My favorite biome for usefulness: Forest. Everything you need is in a forest. Lots of wood, animals, everything.

    My least favorite biome for usefulness: Mushroom Island. I mean, really? No wood at all? How is a person supposed to survive in one of these biomes? And mushrooms are kinda useless...

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 0

    posted a message on I need help detecting if a player has a crafting table in their inventory.

    First, you tag players who have a crafting table. Then remove one crafting table from their inventory with /clear and then give them a new one with /give.


    /scoreboard players tag @a[tag=craftTable] remove craftTable

    /scoreboard players tag @a add craftTable {Inventory:[{id:"minecraft:crafting_table"}]}

    /clear @a[tag=craftTable] minecraft:crafting_table 0 1

    /give @a[tag=craftTable] minecraft:crafting_table 1 0 {CanPlaceOn:["minecraft:planks"]}


    That kind of works, except that the second command will also tag people who have the NEW crafting table. So if you get a crafting table it will just constantly take it and give you a new one over and over again. How do I get it to only tag people who have the old crafting table?
    Posted in: Commands, Command Blocks and Functions
  • 0

    posted a message on I need help detecting if a player has a crafting table in their inventory.

    I am making an adventure map, and I want whenever a player gets a crafting table in their inventory, it clears that and replaces it with another crafting table that can be placed on wood planks (using the CanPlaceOn tag). And it needs to work for multiple players. I was thinking of setting up a repeat command block that clears a crafting table from the inventory of any player with a crafting table, (which I could probably do) but I don't know how to give the new crafting table only to the people who had it in their inventory in the first place. Any suggestions?

    Posted in: Commands, Command Blocks and Functions
  • 0

    posted a message on Big list of enchantments that could be added
    Quote from C1ff»

    quote didn't work, sorry


    I can't believe this turned into an argument of whether coal or iron is more important. I think the point you are trying to make is that the Crushing enchantment should not be added.
    Why does fortune work on Redstone then? Admit it, when you go mining (branch or cave), you skip over any redstone patches you see unless they are directly in your way and you have to mine them to continue in the same direction. Even by doing that you get more than enough redstone.
    I don't want to start another argument about iron vs redstone, so I'll just say what my underlying point with this is. That it is not a bad thing if you have a pickaxe with Crushing and Fortune, and use it to get extra iron and gold. Getting extra redstone with fortune is a lot less useful than getting extra iron or gold.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Big list of enchantments that could be added
    Quote from C1ff»

    Why does Fortune work on Coal? Because you need a lot more coal than you need iron or gold for smelting and torches. Building farms is difficult, but even without them, Iron and Gold are still pretty common, enough so that they don't really warrant the need for Fortune to work on them. (Unless you're trying to build something out of Iron Blocks, but I don't think Fortune will help you much there.)
    What can you use Iron for? To make tools, armor, weapons, all types of rails, shields, shears, pistons, minecarts.... and so on. What can you use coal for? Torches and Furnace fuel. Oh, and fire charges, which are all but useless, because there is flint and steel, which is made with iron instead. Also, you can use lava buckets as fuel, which is a much better source than coal. Plus it is easy to make charcoal if you are low on coal. And iron is at least twice as rare as coal. To sum up, iron is more useful than coal. Which means it deserves to have Fortune work on it more than coal does.

    According to the Minecraft Wiki, a critical hit deals 150% of a weapons damage before enchantments like Sharpness are taken into account. So a Diamond Axe deals 9 damage (4.5 hearts) without a critical hit or enchants, 14 damage (7 hearts) with a critical hit, and 17 damage (8.5 hearts) with a critical hit and Sharpness V. Adding on Critical V, we can inflict 22 damage (11 hearts) with a critical hit and Sharpness V on a Diamond Axe. Enough to insta-kill an unarmored player.

    So... You decide.I wonder what server would give their players access to a Sharpness V Critical V diamond axe for a PVP match. Against an unarmored player. Unless it's a hide and seek game or something, when an insta-kill weapon makes sense.

    People constantly try to get rid of the changes from 1.9 in suggestions through gamerules, enchantments, or just straight-out suggesting that the combat change be reverted. The answer is a consistent "no". Attack Speed was added to make combat less spam-clickey, and until someone can think of a simple, quick, yet entertaining new system for combat, it's here to stay.Yes, but a huge number of people hate the new combat mechanics. Like on Hypixel, they allow people to join with clients all the way back to 1.8. I am 99% sure that is because they don't want to have to implement the 1.9 combat mechanics on their server.

    I still don't like the idea of basically obsoleting potions. (Also, it sounds like this should be an armor enchant now.)
    Fixed. I'm not sure why I put it under the sword enchants. Brain fart I guess.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Big list of enchantments that could be added
    Quote from Cerroz»

    Recover

    Max level: 1

    Gives you regeneration when you have 2 or less hearts of health (or when your health bar starts shaking).

    Why is this on a sword?[/b]

    Oh yeah, it was supposed to be on armor. Oops...
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Big list of enchantments that could be added
    Quote from C1ff»
    div class="quote-body">

    = Mostly Good.

    ~ = Needs Improvement

    = No Support.


    Endurance: Instead of the player losing less hunger while holding it, I would suggest that the loss of hunger because of mining with that tool is nullified.

    Agreed.


    Crushing: I suppose this is a better solution to the "Fortune on Iron and Gold" problem than Autosmelt, but the name needs to be better. "Purification", maybe? (Also, iron and gold are pretty common, and both can be farmed, so I don't really see why we need to use Fortune on them.) ~

    Setting up iron or gold farms is kinda difficult in survival. You'd need a lot of resources. And couldn't you say the same thing about coal? Why does fortune work on coal when it's mostly useless?


    Experience: The name is bleh, I think it needs improvement. This one might be worth adding into the game, but I feel like it would be better if Fortune made blocks drop additional XP. ~

    Agreed on all points.

    Critical: Wait... How much does a critical hit do already? I don't think it needs to do too much more than it already does...

    What if it only did an extra 1/2 heart per level? It wouldn't be so OP that way. It would also give players more incentive to try for critical hits, which is probably a good thing.


    Stunning: Ew... No. This would get annoying fast, and the FOV changes would be nausea-inducing.

    Maybe you could code the enchantment so that it gives you slowness but without the FOV change. I agree that it is nausea-inducing.


    Recharge: Oh lookey! A way to completely nullify the combat changes in 1.9! No, no, and just to clarify, no.

    Explanation? Why is that a bad thing? I thought it was a very good idea for an enchantment.


    Recover: Not every enemy is going to be solo, this will just make the player invincible when fighting large groups of mobs. Besides the fact that it pretty much makes potions obsolete.

    Agreed. I revamped this enchantment completely. Read it again and see what you think.


    Weakening: Also annoying, makes potions redundant, this one is a no.

    Yes.


    Sneaky: This needs a better name, but somehow I think this could potentially be a good enchantment.

    Definitely needs a better name.


    Tank: This would be pretty useful when fighting ranged mobs like Skeletons. This is another one that sounds plausible.

    Probably my favorite of all these enchantment ideas.


    Escape: Do I need to say it? We don't need to make potions redundant. Besides the fact that it could become OP quickly.

    Good point.


    Healthy: Considering that Absorption and Health Boost potions don't exist yet, this won't really make anything redundant. (Enchanted Golden Apples give Absorption and Health Boost though, and those are pretty rare.) I guess I can see this one entering into the game maybe. ~

    Yes.




    Drawback: Yes, a machinegun bow wouldn't be OP at all.

    This response was probably the worst of all your responses in your post, mainly because you assumed that it would be a significant decrease per level. To get your "machinegun" bow, you'd probably need Drawback level 10 or something crazy like that. I was thinking level 1 would be a 15% decrease, level 2 a 30% decrease, and level 3 a 40% decrease.


    Range: This couldwill get annoying if you're trying to get used to the bow's specific range.

    Yes, but it wouldn't be that hard to get used to. You just aim a bit closer to the thing you are trying to hit than you would if you didn't have the enchantment. Plus, when you did get used to it, it would be a very good addition.


    Sickness: No. Nausea should never be inflicted on a player by another player.

    Why not? Better explanation please.


    Homing: What about this doesn't sound OP?

    It's not OP. With level 1, the arrow would barely curve at all (for a shot of 40 blocks distance, it might curve by 1 block). You'd still have to aim quite accurately. Not that OP. Homing 2 is a lot more OP than Homing 1 (probably curving 3 or so blocks for a 40 block shot), but it can only be applied with an anvil, which means you'd have to get 2 things with Homing 1 on them (either bows or books). Which is very difficult to do given the rarity of the enchantment.


    Overall, most of these are pretty bad. Some of these sound like they would be okay with improvements, but I don't think I would want to see most of these make it into the game.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 2

    posted a message on Big list of enchantments that could be added
    Quote from Lord_Garak»

    Your argument would be more reasonable if your response had actually explained anything. Instead, it's just you naming each enchantment and saying "this isn't op". No particular reasons why, or anything. So here's my reason: any one or two of these could single-handedly decimate a person's pvp ability in one strike. Though their current lengths are ludicrous, they could last for half a second and still be blatantly overpowered. Fire Aspect is already broken enough without manually removing the texture from your game if you're going to perform serious pvp. Imagine if one could instantly render opponents blind, unable to do damage, and nauseous. They could take on 5 people at once, no trouble.

    Good points but I think you are overly exaggerating the effects of some of the enchantments.
    Also if you don't think the Infinity enchantment is overpowered, consider the ender dragon fight. Players can easily use up 2 or 3 full stacks of arrows. To get those arrows requires a huge number of skeletons killed, or a lot of flint and feathers to craft them.

    Weakness does not cause your opponent to be "unable to do damage". It takes away 2 hearts of damage per hit, but if you have full prot diamond armor on (which is the case in a lot of PVP matches), it would reduce that down to about 0.1 or 0.2 less hearts per hit. Which doesn't make a lot of difference. And don't forget, it's not just you who has these enchantments. Other players on the server would have them too. Imagine if one player had Weakening on their sword and the other one had Stunning. If the person with Stunning realizes that they are losing because the other person has Weakening, they could just hit them and run away, and they would get a 2 second head start from the stunning. They would be reasonably well matched.

    Now about your statement that "any one or two of these could single-handedly decimate a person's pvp ability in one strike". Weakness does not do that. It would give you a significant advantage, I won't deny that, but it's not an instant win. The weakness enchantment would be equivalent to 2 or 3 levels of sharpness, it's not like whoever has the Weakening enchantment is instantly the winner of any pvp match. Stunning also does not do that, as explained below. The critical enchantment would act exactly like sharpness, but only on certain hits, so it's less OP than sharpness (which is not OP at all). The sharpness enchantment is a lot easier to get (because it's so common) and it acts on all hits, not just criticals. And about the Escape enchantment, you could just run away from any PVP engagements, but as soon as your opponent gets their hands on a bow, it's over. The speed gives you barely any extra protection from bow shots. Plus, it only lasts 5 seconds and only engages if someone melee hits you, so if someone is shooting you, you won't have the extra speed anyway.

    And about the stunning enchantment: The only real thing you could use to your advantage with the stunning is if you see someone coming for you in (let's say sky wars, for the sake of argument) but you aren't ready for a good PVP match, you could just hit them and run away. That's the main thing it is useful for. And if you actually were in a PVP engagement, then the stunning wouldn't give you too much of an advantage. It certainly would give you some advantage, but not much. The other person can still move by jumping, even with slowness (and in most PVP matches I've seen, both players are constantly jumping).

    One more thing. I just looked on Minecraft Wiki and it turns out the blindness effect also removes the ability to sprint, as well as being unable to perform critical hits. I didn't know that when I first made the list. I guess the blinding enchantment is a bit too OP.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 0

    posted a message on Big list of enchantments that could be added
    Quote from Lord_Garak»


    If you think slowness, blindness, and weakness for 2 entire seconds is "barely any time at all" then I can without a doubt say this suggestion is not remotely balanced. 0% support.


    This list makes Infinite look like a parlor trick, I can't imagine you can look at this list and think "Infinite, now THAT'S op."


    Why don't you actually say WHY "this list makes Infinite look like a parlor trick", instead of just saying that with no backup evidence. My last post explained almost all the enchantments and why they are not really OP. Now it's your turn to explain why they ARE op. Go ahead. Do it.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • To post a comment, please .