Minecraft Wiki:Issues/1.3.1pre

Issues
Full releases 1.4.7 1.4.6 1.4.5 1.4.2 1.3.2 1.3.1 1.2.5 1.2.4 1.2.3 1.2.2 1.1 1.0.0 Beta 1.8.1 Beta 1.5 Pre-releases 1.4.6pre 1.4.5pre 1.4.4pre 1.4.3pre 1.4.2pre 1.4.1pre 1.4pre 1.3.1pre 1.3pre 1.2.5pre 1.2 Preview 1.0RC2 Beta 1.9pre6 Beta 1.9pre5 Beta 1.9pre4 Beta 1.9pre3 Beta 1.9pre2 Beta 1.9pre1 Beta 1.8pre2 Beta 1.8pre1	Weekly releases 13w02b 13w01b 13w01a 12w50b 12w50a 12w49a 12w42b 12w42a 12w41b 12w41a 12w40b 12w40a 12w39b 12w39a 12w38b 12w37a 12w36a 12w34b 12w34a 12w32a 12w30e 12w30d 12w30c 12w30b 12w30a 12w27a 12w26a 12w25a 12w24a 12w23b 12w23a 12w22a 12w21b 12w21a 12w19a 12w18a 12w17a 12w16a 12w15a 12w08a 12w07b 12w07a 12w06a 12w05b 12w05a 12w04a 12w03a 12w01a 11w50a 11w49a 11w48a 11w47a

Crashing/System

Bugs

• [!] [MP] when you 'open to LAN' your game, server binds socket to localhost,(as it is first interface when you invoke 'ifconfig' ?) making it impossible for other people to connect to your server -- klulukasz at gmail.com

Gameplay

Bugs

• [X] When standing in water that flows in north/southbound direction and touching a wall at the same time, player loses health. Can potentially kill an idling player. Game says "X suffocated in a wall" when the bug kills you. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77TAaiNnfyw -- bionik at gmail.com

This glitch was already present in the preview 1.3 86.212.172.34 14:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

[!!] [Su] I was playing the version 1.3 Pre-release. After playing only a few minutes, Minecraft crashes. This happens only in survival mode, not on creative. I don't know if this happens also on your computers. This bug didn't appeared in the versions 1.2.5, but it first appeared in the version 12w27a or 12w28a. Why that happens? --94.112.75.199 16:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Annoyances

[A!] Villager trading is still very much imbalanced. Non-farmables are undervalued, e.g. 4-5 diamond must be sold for a single emerald. Meanwhile, farmable items are overvalued, e.g. 19-29 paper for an emerald. With a sufficiently large sugarcane farm, I have been able to earn around 7.44 stacks of emerald in an hour, and while this is not in and of itself bad, these emeralds can be spent of many diamond items. The net result is a far bigger earning from farming than the most efficient mining practices, even with Fortune III. In fact, just one harvesting of the farm nets a player several doublechests of diamond items, which is very overpowered. In addition, many prices are nonsensical, e.g. iron and gold are considered equal in value, and mundane items such as compasses are considered more valuable than diamond tools.

A proposed fix would be to make prices based on their cost in raw materials, and rank the materials roughly in line with their actual rarity. Farmables should have a very low value compared to non-renewable items such as mineables, because the current system leaves major exploitability from farms. Farmable offers should not be removed, of course, as it does still take time and effort to build farms, harvest them, and make the trades. One can consider comparing the amount of time it takes to farm a given amount of an item to the amount of time it takes to come across a given amount of another item when mining.

Server administrators are considering disabling trading and villagers on their servers because of the current imbalance, so this is a major annoyance. --WolfieMario 16:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Someone also made a detailed report on an older snapshot on how villager trading is not renewable too. It needs major attention. --Steve G. Wood 18:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed. Please see this forum thread: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1253062-npc-trading-brainstorm-thread-add-your-ideas/page__gopid__15823395#entry15823395

http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/15617-idea-about-traders/#entry12330837

• There are others. Basically, fixed prices that do not respond to what's happening / supply / demand will "never" be the right price. These are, as I said in a now locked thread, worthless. Remember, people have found that the best way to deal with NPC villagers right now is to kill NPC's that don't have wanted trade offers just to keep getting new ones. --Keybounce 19:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• You also cause a trading system to be stupidly broken (any trading system) by allowing the merchants infinite stock and infinite liquidity. This is (IMO) another part of the same annoyance. Fixing one aspect but not the other won't be enough to address the issue. --Simons Mith^{[82.69.54.207]} 00:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think traders need to simulate commerce that realistically at all. Minecraft's not a realistic game, after all. I'd like to think of traders' offers as equivalent to the infinite world: it should take time and effort to make a profit off them, just as mining, hunting, and adventuring are. There don't need to be finite stocks and variable prices: the stock of the Minecraft world itself is infinite, and its prices are fixed. The only issue I find with the traders is that their prices are way out of line with the rest of the world. When abandoned mineshafts were added with the possibility of diamonds contained in chests, they weren't made to contain a stack of diamonds each.

I believe a rebalancing of trading can be done with minimal effort to the Mojang team (who are obviously in a rush to release 1.3 already), if the players can provide a fair pricing for every villager offer available. I myself am going through the process of creating the required numbers, with an eight-step process to consider the many things an item's value can hinge on. I'm nearly done, and will post the resulting spreadsheet soon, for all players to give their input and hopefully convince Mojang to replace their numbers with the numbers the majority of players find fair. --WolfieMario 02:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Proposed fix intended to be easy to implement, with minimal changes to trading mechanics! See this chart. Basically, I propose that the current values for offers be replaced with the values in the "NPC Trader's Price" column of that chart. As 1.3 is close to its release, it's unlikely any Mojang staff have the time to implement something that significantly reworks trading mechanics - reworking pricing, on the other hand, is fairly simple once the numbers exist. This chart is an attempt to balance pricing, ideally without nerfing trading too badly and without leaving it overpowered. No offers have been added or removed, only pricing has been changed.

The only change to trading mechanics would be for the handling of offers which cost more than 64 or 128 emeralds: if the offer costs more than 128 emeralds, emerald blocks must be used in addition to emeralds. If the offer costs more than 64, but less than 128, then both input slots may be used for emeralds.

I will eventually make a thread on the forums for more detail, but basically, I spent a good 25 hours or so rebalancing trading based on a multi-step process. That spreadsheet is fully dynamic; a change to one cell is liable to change many others (e.g. decreasing the value of wood decreases the value of coal, and thus, all smelted items would go down slightly). I'll also upload the spreadsheet itself, for anyone to play around with.

Obviously, it's not one player's right to set the prices for all trades - I'm asking anybody to chime in here, and say whether they think these prices are fair, or whether changes are required! However, if your suggestion is a complete rework of trading mechanics, please make that a reply to the issue itself, not this post - the idea of this post is for a quick fix which can be implemented, if not before 1.3's release, at least hopefully some time shortly afterwards. --WolfieMario 18:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocks

Annoyances

[A] Mushroom blocks can't be harvested or placed properly, reverting to damage/data value 0, a block which appears to use the mushroom pore texture on all six sides. This makes it impossible to use the red, brown, and white mushroom block textures in creations without using pistons to push blocks around. It is also inconsistent with the expected behavior of silk touch: if silk touch is capable of harvesting a block, it should not transform it upon harvesting. Transforming a block upon its placement (which happens when placing mushroom blocks of any damage value, obtained through cheats available in vanilla) is also completely illogical and a roadblock to making things from the mushroom blocks. Perhaps mushroom blocks could be made properly harvestable as "Red/Brown Mushroom Top", "Red/Brown Mushroom Edge", "Red/Brown Mushroom Corner", and "Red/Brown Mushroom Stem", where the edge and corner blocks would be placed in a directional manner similar to pumpkins (upside-down mushroom blocks would not be available, as this would require splitting the current two mushroom block data values into multiple). --WolfieMario 13:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• I like fix you suggested. Totally support. 93.106.164.34 13:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• I think a better implementation would be to have the blocks respond somewhat as grass blocks, growing the appropriate skin if exposed to an air block on that side. -- Featherwinglove 12:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Good idea. --Steve G. Wood 19:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Items

Bugs

[X] Potions may last shorter than specified on the label in the inventory. Tested with 7 potion effects (as in this screenshot), the Slowness potion went off when there was 8 seconds left, happened to other potions as well. Bilde2910 14:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

World Generator

Bugs

[X] Strange transperant stripes in the water which look to act similar to the dark spot that appear randomly. [Screenshot needed]

Graphical/Lighting

Annoyances

[A] When lava and water meet, no steam particles are produced. -Debugman18

In-Game Interfaces/HUD

Bugs

[X] If a player gets applied a large amount of potion effects, the labels in the inventory will overlap as seen in this screenshot. Tested on Single Player, LAN not enabled. Bilde2910 15:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)