Talk:Gameplay/Archive 1

Older comments
The table about the current game modes is strange. Why are singleplayer and multiplayer be considered different game modes? They are both the same (except of course, singleplayer is singleplayer and multiplayer is multiplayer). That is only confusing.--Ten Tacles 17:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a strange table. It only regurgitates the features already outlined in the respective articles for Survival, Indev, et cetera. And not very well so, at that. Multiplayer in Creative MP? Seriously? It should be removed. SteveZombie 17:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is capture the flag a feature? What does that have to do with anything? 96.245.80.116 20:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Why are multiplayer and single player in the top row with the mode names, when there is a "multiplayer" check box in the vertical row with the properties? Toadbert –Preceding undated comment was added at 03:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC). Please sign your posts with

Infdev doesn't REALLY have enviroments yet, you know. It should have ? instead of Yes. –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Mattpoppybros396 (talk • contribs) at 19:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC). Please sign your posts with

Somebody needs to redo this whole page...The only real game modes that should be on there now are Alpha and Classic. (As of 7/2/10) –Preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.190.94.47 (talk) at 15:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC). Please sign your posts with
 * I have fixed some things but Survival and InDev are still available at /survivaltest and /indev (195.128.30.34 is my ip) --EpaGamer 17:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Saving by player mean that the player can force a save? --Zaneo 17:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep –Preceding unsigned comment was added by EpaGamer (talk • contribs) at 04:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC). Please sign your posts with

You guys think we should change the table to say that premium is not actually required for Singleplayer, since after all in versions after 1.6 you can play without a premium account, but add an asterisk caption about the popup message? parameciumkid Parameciumkid 17:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Indev and Infdev still relevant?
I can't find any links to these versions on the Minecraft site, so are they still relevant? Should we be removing all (well, most) references to them on the wiki? - DannyF1966 7 Oct 2010
 * Not at all, they were a part of Minecraft and they are still a part of Minecraft even if they're gone. ConMan8 14:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How can it be a part of Minecraft if it's gone? I agree there should still be some information on the wiki about previous versions and the evolution of Minecraft, but mentioning Indev and Infdev on (for example) pages describing mobs, will be confusing for new readers. And with the explosion in popularity of minecraft, this wiki will be getting a lot of new readers. DannyF1966 7 Oct 2010


 * They're a part of minecraft's history, but information on them should be limited to history on pages, IMHO. It's relevant to say something worked like X during infdev but that best belongs in a history section. The main sections should be left to how something currently works, as that's what is most important in general. At least that's my 2c. --Lordebon 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I, too, think a History section is the best way to preserve the information. It could contain information like when the item or whatever was first implemented (which dev project or build version) and a changelog of sorts of how the item behaved in previous iterations. In fact, I think most pages on this wiki could benefit from a section like this. MrMist 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just had a thought, might be best to leave this until Beta comes out, as pretty much every page on the wiki will have to be updated to include Beta info, we can move old info into a History section at the same time. DannyF1966 10:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Split
There are two different things in this article: The release cycle and the game modes.

As of now, Classic and Creative are the same pages. I know we already have a discussion about this somewhere but I thought I'd like to bring it up again. Later in the game, if Minecraft doesn't go Beta yet, there might be a Creative Alpha and then maybe a Creative Beta. Same goes for Adventure mode, but it would be under the beta cycle.

So now, the current table is invalid. We need to split them up. This article will remain to give information about Creative, Survival and Adventure. I don't have a name for the ones we call Indev, Infdev, Alpha, etc. Is Development Cycle okay? --Scykei 21:12, 16 November 2010 (CST)

Table gone?!
Come on, that was a great table! Bring it back! Why did you delete it anyway? -F1racer101 23:22, 18 November 2010 (CST)

Yeah... Why would you delete that? >_> -- Toshu (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The table is no longer relevant to the article. If we want it back, someone will have to remake it. However, not much about Adventure is known, nor is Creative when it comes to Alpha. Maybe we can move it to Development Cycle and just take out the Adventure section. The current table cannot be used. --Scykei 05:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The table still has true, valid information. If it doesn't belong here, move it somewhere else, but don't delete it. -F1racer101 23:33, 18 November 2010 (CST)
 * the table will not move at all or be deleted. that table is useful, even now. it compares gameplay differences. frankly, the thought of it being removed is just wrong.--Kizzycocoa 09:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't a change like that be tantamount to vandalism? Anyway, wouldn't have done any harm to discuss it on here before  actually deleting it and upsetting the applecart! --DannyF1966 04:17, 19 November 2010 (CST)

Move
Can this be moved to Game Mode? It's more relevant to the article. Just a suggestion. --Scykei 04:38, 26 December 2010 (CST)

Water
The article states the map is surrounded by water from all sides. I think it's not relevant anymore since new maps can grow infinite. Although I believe it would be great if the map was generating large water pools, seas and oceans. MaxKing 20:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Table of Game Modes
I suggest change the table for this

--200.62.70.163 06:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Explain why? I don't see anything that adds to the table.--72.19.122.119 06:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree. With the horrid sidebar, the wiki has limited horizontal space, and thus the vertical table is better. – ultradude25 ( T &#124; C ) at 06:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Since there will be a demo mode for those who registered but have not bought, I think we should add a Demo column to the table. Just a Suggestion. JonL21 02:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Hardcore
This article says the hardcore is a game mode like creative or survival. However it is game mode modifier: there is hardcore survival and hardcore creative (you need to edit your save file with external editor to get it).

Proof: Level.dat. Note these 2 lines near the bottom of that page:
 * TAG_Int("GameType"): Whether in survival (0) or in creative (1) mode. Added in version Beta 1.8 pre-release 1.
 * TAG_Byte("hardcore"): Whether the map should be locked in hardcore mode. This can be set to 0 or 1 to toggle the state of a map, even after it is created. DiEvAl 19:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How to invoke?
I want to play Creative mode. There is nothing on this page that gives any information on how a person turns on that game mode! There is nothing on the individual mode pages that gives any information on how.

What do I do in release 1 to get into creative game mode? Daddii 12:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * The simplest way is to create the world in creative mode, by choosing that option (as opposed to "Survival") when you create it. If your current game has cheats enabled, you can also type "/gamemode c". --Mental Mouse 14:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Game Mode Numbers
Can somebody tell me the GameMode Numbers, e.g. gamamode 1. 18:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC) –Preceding unsigned comment was added by Htmlguy49054 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with

duplication
--10.35.244.152 11:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)--10.35.244.152 11:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)--10.35.244.152 11:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)--10.35.244.152 11:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)if you build a dispenser put something in it and destroy it it will duplicate the thing inside

Fake gamemode
I noticed that some IP user made a section about a fake gamemode called Hardcore Adventure. I tried reverting that and I wasn't allowed to undo it, so can one of the admins (or moderators) please fix this? I really don't think there is a gamemode named that. --72.68.68.219 02:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Never mind one of the admins got it (thanks Majr!) --72.68.68.219 02:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Adventure mode
I think the paragraph about adventure mode needs to be changed a little when 1.8 comes. JediTFM (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Gamemode table ref notes
Any reason why the notes are done that way? It would be slightly smaller if each note just did it's own, and the references loaded them all. --KnightMiner (talk 15:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The table's notes are notes, not references. If any references are added to the page at some point, therefore, it would be inappropriate to show the notes and references combined in a single "References" section. In addition, the notes specifically relate to the table's contents, meaning, again, if notes are in the future added elsewhere on the page, it would be inappropriate to show them all combined in a single "Notes" section. Size is hardly a concern here; even very small mobile screens should have no problem handling the notes - the table itself would be the more pressing matter. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 16:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about that, I mean how the references are limited to 'name="" group=""' and the actual information is all in the reflist. --KnightMiner (talk 20:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with formatting the notes like that; there are some good arguments for doing so (first and foremost is keeping the body of the notes all in the same spot, and thus preventing any breakage in the event a note is used more than once but the "original" note (that is, the one that contains the note's actual content) is accidentally removed, for example if content is shuffled around). It has no impact on the rendered page, and is only an implementation detail (and even there, it has no real impact on server overhead). 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 00:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The main thing is it is somewhat more code than, say, the enchantment page's notes are. And I was wondering if there would be a major downside to shrinking it to the other way. --KnightMiner (talk 01:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It would make it somewhat harder to edit the table itself, since you would have to work around the full code of each note instead of just a named ref tag. As I said before, there is no real reason to switch the style used for the note code. The current style used here being a bit longer than it might be if it was switched to another style is not a good enough reason to justify converting them. 「 ディノ 奴 千？！ 」? · ☎ Dinoguy1000 03:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)