iamdarb Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) Honestly, the "entities" vs "blocks" argument sounds pretty weak. Going by your reasoning to keep it the way it is we should also be able to loot someone's garden and not replant. Food is food and as you said "S is supposed to be about fighting for what you want, not having it protected by the rules".Personally, I think you should leave 2, not because of a rule, but because you want people to accel at the game so you have more people to PVP with. Edited February 1, 2014 by iamdarb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denevien Posted February 1, 2014 Report Share Posted February 1, 2014 Honestly, the "entities" vs "blocks" argument sounds pretty weak. Going by your reasoning to keep it the way it is we should also be able to loot someone's garden and not replant. Food is food and as you said "S is supposed to be about fighting for what you want, not having it protected by the rules". Personally, I think you should leave 2, not because of a rule, but because you want people to accel at the game so you have more people to PVP with. The plants in the garden are blocks, not entities. So, by our reasoning, you should NOT be able to take it without replacing the blocks (plants). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schererererer Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Out of my element here, but it seems to me that the line of reasoning based upon the "entities vs blocks" distinction is a bit contrived. Paintings and item frames are also entities, therefore they must also be fair game for anyone to break. It would be better to look at the functions that plants and animals perform; they are both "domesticated" sources of food - simply components that are grown on farms. All the arguments against free breaking of crops apply just as well to the animal case - I'd say if you allow the eradication of an animal farm, why not the same for crops? A more rational justification for permitted eradication of animal farms is the goal of reducing the global population of mobs (and thus the corresponding lag). This has allowed S to not need any sort of mob cap. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djt832 Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 (edited) A more rational justification for permitted eradication of animal farms is the goal of reducing the global population of mobs (and thus the corresponding lag). This has allowed S to not need any sort of mob cap. This current rev, S has actually implemented a mob cap. But this is a fair point. Even with the mob cap, not everyone is keeping animals. It would be interesting to see, if there was a rule protecting animals, if lag would begin to be a major issue again. Edited February 4, 2014 by djt832 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.