• 2

    posted a message on Minecraft 2, Part 2: The Graphics

    The fact that suggestions can get large enough to require fragmentation to cover makes me want to slam my head against a wall. Especially considering that this suggestion does not actually require any part of the original suggestion to function. This suggestion would've been better served as a standalone. Its nature as a piggy back actually hurts the credibility of the suggestion in my eyes.

    With that aside, a lot of these ideas seem less like a Minecraft 2.0 and more into personal preference. Which is the point. You're not going to end up suggesting something you hate, after all... BUT... I fail to see how it would be significant enough to demand a marriage with the original concept of a separate mod-workshopped minceraft.

    Cerroz said it best,

    Quote from Cerroz»

    I don't mean to keep repeating myself here, but why not just throw some of these in the first game?

    The biggest issue here is it's too ambitious and too disjointed. I personally support colored lights! It's an enormous suggestion with an amazing amount of detail, and I'm a bit disappointed that there wasn't a link to each individual suggestion included in your blanket. But that's the thing. It's tailored to you, it's your blanket. I can never completely enjoy every square of the quilt you weave. Even if I enjoy most, there will be some I dislike. Some irrevocable coincidence where I do not like what you like and throws the suggestion into the turbulent seas. There's so much here to ask people to hop aboard on...

    There's too much to convince people to like. I like colored lights, I like connected and random textures. I do not like volumetric lag rays. I do not like the change to the lighting system in regards to difficulty. I do not like bloom or reflective surfaces. That's 2 passes out of 6 using only this limited rubric.

    This is where the suggestion hits a fatal flaw and shoves my final nail into the coffin sealing a no support. Had these myriad suggestions been able to exist outside of your hastily constructed umbrella and given individual attention; they would've gotten a lot more support from me.

    Yes, it's possible to redeem this suggestion and get me to support it. But this requires OP to root out specifically what he's after. The original post was definite in purpose; creating a new Minecraft version with mod support natively. It was ambitious but only had a single goal.

    Here? It's a shotgun blast at a board of wishful thinking. Find ONE topic that desperately needs improved, and work toward it. If the primary goal is colored lights, I'd rather just go and support the already existing thread. If the primary goal is focused toward some other untapped potential and you can put your capable hands toward that singular goal then you'll find much more purchase.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Minecraft 2, Part 1: The Game Engine

    There's a major point here. Minecraft needs a sequel. This game isn't going to continue selling forever, and the easiest way to monetize a complete rewrite is to sell it as a sequel.

    There are inherent risks in that; but not nearly as unwieldy as rewriting the game without a revenue source and focus break from the established media.

    Here's what I mean:

    Minecraft's sales are decreasing. I'm not an accountant, and even if I were, I'm not THEIR accountant. This is based on the fact that any saturated media loses popularity with time.

    Minecraft has a TON of competition within the same genre. This includes games like Rust, Roblox, Terraria, or other similar games following a survival or crafting theme. When in the face of competition, the best course of action is to innovate.

    Let's say Mojang did a major rewrite of Minecraft. Let's say it bombed, now there is a major rollback and the idea is scrapped or reinvisioned in a way that's far more palatable for the current end-users.

    A sequel does these things:

    It can reinvigorate sales (if marketed correctly and reviewed properly). This means that Mojang has more cashflow available to rewrite the engine.

    Minecraft is capable of innovating into its sequel (or offshoot Minecraft) and given enough emphasis on positive core design, can hold its own against competitors and give a compelling reason to bring people back to the franchise.

    Finally, if the sequel bombs, it won't directly hurt the original game. The sequel may end up with enough revenue to legitimize seperate teams for Minecraft and it's sequel allowing parallel support across both titles

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Guidelines for the Suggestions Forum
    Quote from MentalMouse42»

    You weren't harsh on my example. It was ad hominem. If you were harsh on my example; I wouldn't have had to tell you to sit in a corner for a few days to reflect.

    You claim this as a matter of style, but I'm saying your "style" is functionally weaker: You are not being as informative, or as persuasive, as you could be.

    We'll get back to this later.

    You talk about wanting to be concise -- but the flip side of "concise" is "terse" -- and the most concise way to say something is usually with jargon or other specialized vocabulary. But there's a series of prices there: First, the more compressed your statement is, the more it asks of the reader. And then, compression all too easily slides into coding, where you're giving a reference that you expect the reader to fill in. And that's exactly what you've got up there. "Inhibiting player agency" isn't a "because" explanation unless you already know what the point of "player agency" is and why inhibiting it is bad. "Game caused griefing" is our local jargon (code), but even there, you're not actually explaining why their idea is going to make all this trouble.

    Much of my methodology in most posts is to explain myself thoroughly. I don't include such things in what I hope to be a quick post here because I want to avoid a discussion of the example itself and hope that a simplified example will be enough to explain the point without going into the individual points one a thread dedicated to a much wider net (guidelines).

    Instead, your focus is on how my methodology is weaker because it's not passive aggressive like your stance. So, a few notes: I understand that my writing style isn't as direct as yours; but also doesn't have the biting and stinging sarcasm of "too bad about that base you spent weeks on, your neighbor got the Bomb first".

    And then there's your justification.... "Honesty" is simply a false flag here, because giving an example or a clear explanation is not less honest. The sense of "brutality" from a terse explanation like yours, comes from you expecting the reader to do the work of interpreting your statements. That's how a boss might talk to their subordinates, or a teacher to their students. Except you don't actually control your readers' paycheck or grade, so people will resent you talking as if you do.

    This is going into personal standards and principles. I'm not actually that terribly smart of a person. I consider myself reasonably average; I also consider myself reasonably patient and ... reasonable. I expect others to be on my level; to have the same level of intellect as me. Loosening my vocabulary to reach those that might not understand makes me feel like I'm not only insulting myself but them. It literally makes me feel like I have to belittle children for them to understand which is quite uncomfortable for me (it actually makes me feel like I'm being patronizing by not using my normal vocabulary). Not only that, but it goes against my nature and is very difficult for me to maintain for any period of time; extended or otherwise.

    And one bit from your last letter:

    On the contrary! Objectivity is carved out with effort, from the subjectivity of ordinary thought, and truly "objective" truths are scarce, especially in everyday experience. One truth can certainly be more or less subjective than another. In particular, any judgment of skill or expertise will have at least some subjectivity in it, even if it's also backed by standards and norms. (And nearly all our criticisms of suggestions are going to have at least some subjectivity.)

    You're going to have to give some examples on this bit; if at least to form a rebuttal against the three flavors of ice cream I provided.

    But, more to the point, one truth can also be more relevant than another, and that's part of honesty, as distinguished from "truth". When someone proposes a "nuke", I really doubt the PvP potential or Mad Mining Speed is the first thing that goes through your mind -- rather, it's the mass-destruction issue, of landscapes, resources and especially bases. So addressing that head-on is more honest than talking about game balance. No sugar-coating required!

    Relevance is in the eye of the beholder. So... you're completely correct... and horribly wrong... ALL at the same time! Yes, wholesale destruction is the first thing to go through your mind; but game balance and fun factor is first and foremost in mine. We're going at the same problem from different angles, which is... fine.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Guidelines for the Suggestions Forum
    Quote from MentalMouse42»

    Ah, so should I now declare that you're only disagreeing with me because you can't handle the "brutal truth" yourself, that you're happy to dish it out, but not to take it? Here's some truth for you: Tone, context, explanation and examples, all that mushy stuff, it matters. Indeed, social negotiation -- all that consideration of and response to emotional factors -- is far more basic to human nature than formal or abstract principles, or intellectual analysis.

    Perhaps you missed the part about "discussion" in discussion forum. Dropping down into ad hominem doesn't actually help your point of view. You disagree with me, that's fine. You took a offensive tone with me (with your previous post) without provocation from me, that's fine.

    The rest of what you say is also fine. We all must perform politics when dealing with others. THAT'S FINE.

    The point is that the seed of truth is still there; buried in the pretty bows and colorful ribbons like the gnarled point on the stem of a rose.

    Persuading, or educating, someone isn't just about Giving Them The Truth, it's about making your claims both understandable and acceptable to them. If you can't figure out how to do social negotiation at least sometimes, you're doomed to wander through life as a Misunderstood Genius, wondering why nobody appreciates your special understanding, woe is you, the only rational person in a world of fools yadda yadda. (I've been there myself, but I got better.)

    Look, I'm not even going to entertain this point. It appears to come more from triggered anger than anything anyone can defend against. Go outside, eat some pudding, drink some tea.

    The people on the forums vary widely: Yes, there are people who can't take any criticism whatsoever, and will lash out at anything short of a cheer. And on the other end, there are people who will respond to your terse dismissal by googling "player agency", and sitting down to think why their idea might lead to "game-caused griefing and frustration". But both those groups are small minorities; most people will start by considering how seriously they should take your comment in the first place, and they'll do that triage with social judgment, like they do everywhere else:

    Does this person sound like someone like you who's actually interested in your idea? Or someone who's already filed and forgotten it? Are they explaining what's wrong, or just dismissing your idea From On High (prob'ly because you didn't have enough fancy words and maybe numbers to back it up)? Your original "example response" sounds like the latter, my "responding with examples" sounds like the former.

    I've gotten that before. I don't type the way I do because I want to sound high and mighty. I type the way I do because I want to be concise. Exact words with exact meanings reduce the chance for misunderstanding.

    When someone's deciding how seriously to take your criticism, they will most certainly be looking at your tone, and at how much effort (not just technical, but social) you put into your own letter. Given a friendly response that points out issues in a way they can easily understand, many more of them will be willing to see your points. If you instead dismiss someone on "general principles", without explaining how those principles apply to the occasion, then even someone who does actually understand the principles, might well dismiss you right back with "haters gonna hate". That's not "unable to accept criticism", it's you failing at persuasion.

    "Unable to accept criticism" doesn't apply to most people on this forum I've seen. Most people are easy to work and reason with. When I talk about "unable to accept criticism", we're dealing with a small minority of people; say 5~10% of the forum. Otherwise most are enjoyable to work with.

    To address your "nuclear bomb" example, you're nattering about balance and implementation; the real issue is that it would turn the game into a demolition derby, and trash everything that most players value (bases, scenery, farms, projects, etc.). Fine for a mod or minigame, not for vanilla. And explaining it like that, along with "too bad about that base you spent weeks on, your neighbor got the Bomb first", makes the point more briefly and, yes, more honestly, than talking about balance or excessive lag.

    Except these are all points on the "truth" board. One truth cannot be more objective than another truth. It's like saying that vanilla is more of a flavor of ice cream than chocolate or strawberry. It doesn't make sense.

    It's just that you prefer your writing style over mine which is --you guessed it-- fine. There's nothing wrong with that. There's also nothing wrong with disagreement.

    Perhaps the reason I'm disagreeing with you is less because "I can't take it" and more because of differences in point of view and opinion. It basically goes to the idea of "think exactly like me or you're close-minded."

    *edit: grammar fail.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 2

    posted a message on Guidelines for the Suggestions Forum

    Add as many examples as you feel sufficient. The recipient will still feel like they're being targeted or attacked because your review isn't sunshine and rainbows and unadulterated agreement.

    There's something wrong with the suggestion; therefore there's something wrong with them. It's part of human nature.

    In the above, telling them that the suggestion would promote strip mining, etc. can be seen as bullying or picking on the person or patronizing simply because of the level of detail you're going into with your explanations. "You're spending an awful lot of time and energy correcting me; you must be trolling; etc."

    The truth hurts; but it hurts less than thinly veiled lies that eventually come back and bite the OP.

    If I were to say "nuclear bombs would not work in vanilla minecraft because the blast radius would be enough to grind whatever server you're on to a halt as it has to raytrace and damage/destroy blocks within the blast radius. It's totally overpowered because of it's ability to one-shot anyone in range of it and has a heavy and long lived poison that effects you long after you leave the affected range; it's unfeasible to build as it requires many new blocks that serve only one function (making the bomb) and would ruin the existing aesthetic of Minecraft." - That is honest, lots of examples, and cuts to the bone. There's no attempt to outright hurt the person; there's no attempt to dismiss the person or belittle them. It's just making an honest opinion off of personal justification.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Minecraft Enchantment: White Hot

    Instead of time delayed, I'd add special properties to white hot:

    1) cannot be repaired

    2) durability is:

    wood - 10

    gold - 10

    stone - 15

    iron - 25

    diamond - 100

    With the above, it'd turn white hot into an utter curse; useful only in cases where time is literally of the essence and you can't wait for the furnace. This would make the furnace a much more viable and longer-lived tool while also giving white hot some unique and niche uses.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on New world

    This is a very ambitious suggestion and I'd like to see it fleshed out more.

    Since we're dealing with something as advanced as an entire new dimension; we'll need to have a starting point to help improve your suggestion.

    Let's set sail for biome and biome diversity first; and go from there. Please edit your post as you add new information as well. It gets difficult to know a suggestion if it's split across 5+ replies.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on About crafter block

    You can literally craft 64 by dropping stacks of 64pumpkin, 64sugar, and 64egg and shift-clicking the product.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 2

    posted a message on The weapons against server dominators

    "Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery" - Charles C. Colton

    I figured I'd give him a break given I laid into him pretty hard on the last suggestion he made that I posted on.

    GHXman: You are welcome here (at least, I welcome you here); but you have got to up your game. I want to like your stuff. MAKE ME LIKE YOUR STUFF!

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on The Official Gun Thread
    Quote from AMPPL50»

    Actually, only Notch did, and he isn't part of the dev team anymore, and he said it back in InDev, which was a really early version that is practically a completely different game.

    I believe both have in a later interview. But dev team acceptance (oddly) isn't the topic of the discussion; but rather the efficacy of any fire arm should they exist.

    As I've played Minceraft, I've come to a desire to see more varied versions of attacks. We have a short-range and long-range attack with swords/axes and bows. We don't actually have anything especially useful vs small groups save splash potions/TNT.

    What if we had a weapon that was capable of medium-range spread that hit all targets for average damage. The damage is not insignificant, but fully enchanted, would still be outclassed by the sword and bow in sheer single-target power. But it would be an area damage king.

    An ancient shotgun would be a useful tool in such situations. It takes a while to reload; and while unloaded, would be as useful as a pick axe in terms of melee damage.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • To post a comment, please .