Back to minecraft.net

Strictly for humanoid and humanoid type mobs feedback and suggestions. Bugs, duplicate ideas, lists of things, and support issues will be deleted.

← Villagers, NPC, Humanoids
26
Follow

Keep Villager Trade Rebalancing Optional.

Dear Mojang, Please keep the "Experimental Villager Trades" only as an optional feature. So far Minecraft has done an excellent job at turning nothing into something. This change however makes me concerned for the future of Minecraft Java.  My reasons will be stated below.

The reason is straightforward. This switch hinders both Skyblock & Superflat worlds because of the diamond requirement. Minecraft isn't about exploration or adventure. It's about the freedom of choice. I'm not asking netherite be renewable but diamond gear is mandatory for removing downtime on Skyblock and Superflat worlds as a reward for getting to that point in the game. Homebodies have their Entities and Crops. Adventurers have Structures and Geodes.

Currently i can make Sawmp clerics, Dessert Librarians, and Jungle butchers. Giving me control to what they sell in accordance to what variant they are. This is perfect for added role-play immersion. I know variant breeders aren't used often but the added control to not only what they sell but what variant they are makes the game more free.

I've already heard people complaining about the 50/50 ratio used for breeding. Mostly because of jungle and swamp villagers because they aren't getting a guaranteed biome villager (like bedrock). This is bad because it puts a damper on villager variant breeders. This is not only bad for Homebodies but it also hinders Exploration. In other words your freedom.

Vote to keep this feature option only. Have a pleasant day.

 

Avatar
Registered User shared this idea

9 Comments

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Date Votes
Sorted by oldest
  • 2
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    Look dude, I get that villager rebalancing is a nerf, but it needs to be done. Villager trading is too OP. There are always options to play in a different version without this rebalancing, but it definitely needs to be added and be the default.

  • 8
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    I think this needs to be kept as optional as well. If you like it, great, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. I don't think it should be the default. That way the people who do like it can switch it on and the ones who don't like it don't have to. Just because you think it's too overpowered doesn't mean that you need to force others who enjoy the benefits of villagers to stop enjoying them, especially considering that you can't switch versions in Bedrock.

  • 1
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    Responding to the comment above. I'm sorry to say this, but just because you don't like a change doesn't mean it shouldn't be applied universally through the game for its own health and economy. Villagers are incredibly awesome, but they are ridiculously and easily abused in the current build. If you really want OP features for the sake of OP features (despite balancing actually making games fun), then there are plenty of mods or add-ons that add OP features. This change would be healthy for vanilla Minecraft and would stop ridiculous trading halls while maintaining Villagers' usefulness.

  • 8
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    For those that disagree. I am so sick and tired of this fix break mentality that instead of charging the problem head-on we tac on more "balancing" as a bandaid fix. Example: Mending was introduce to combat anvil repair costs, Mojang added mending and now it's op all of a sudden and now we have to change it. Sometimes i think mojang and it's community's version of "game balancing" isn't really fixing the problem but also creating more. Villager farms and breeders took far more time to invest into back then and now are only this powerful due to the Village and Pillage update which is nice because it's convenient, sure. But also created more problems because of that convenience. Before you put your "game balancing" hat on and you need to ask what kind of game this is and it's history. I fail to encounter anyone that can convince me that Minecraft's objective in the long run was always to focus on game balancing. Not to mention forcing players into a play-style which should be left up to the player. If what these people want comes from truth and then they turn around and make a mob farm then you completely lost the point and the argument. I am not catering to this hypocrisy riddled opinion based on ignorance especially when talking about something important like proper game design balancing. Not just another fix break band-aid fix like everyone proposes. It's pretty sad that at this point beta minecraft remains to this day the most balanced. Stripping all the eye candy away.

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    Responding to the above post. First, unless you were also ok with the mace in its pre-balance state your argument is invalid. Second, survival Minecraft is fun because it is a challenge. It needs to be differentiated from creative, which is the true snadbox sandbox mode. Survival has progression and that progression is broken by villager trading farms.

  • 5
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    I agree make it an option not a forced change. It takes hours to make a good trading hall now. The people that want the rebalnce can use it and those that don't won't. Why punish everyone. Make it a game option.

  • 2
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    Man, if you said making the game more grindy is the answer to balance the game, you're very wrong. Imagine using RSG to start your game and swamp biome is nowhere to be found. Guess, no mending for this gameplay! The true problem itself isn't the mending enchantment, it's the durability mechanic! Just add durability mechanic toggle and we have a peace. mending is just like that toggle, it's turning off the durability mechanic making the game less grindy and you can actual play the game! Not wasting your entire gameplay to grind another material for great tool you already obtain, Or move a pair villager from 3000 blocks away. What a challengeful gameplay! You're very skilled player! you could Travel villagers from 3000+ blocks away! Are that gameplay what you enjoy? There's no skill required for durability. All you can do is have a lot of resource and time to grind or just turn it off with mending.

    Edit: if you really really really desperate player for exploring, add more value on the each biome! Give each biome exclusive useful mob or whatever useful or fun to encouñter it! Not taking other biome value and throw it to another biome. Just don't make this game too grindy, not everyone have spare time to waste...

     

     

     

  • 2
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    I’m not a skilled Minecraft player by any means, and having OP villagers makes this game playable for me. Without them, I honestly wouldn’t have the time or patience to play a good survival world, and as lame as it sounds, I think a lot of beginner and unskilled players can agree with me. Optional is best because then the more skilled players can get a challenge, while us newbies don’t have to strain ourselves too much

  • 0
    Registered User commented
    Comment actions Permalink

    My poll has been getting a lot attention lately so i will continue where I'm coming from. When talking about Village and Pillage my main concern with it was the Fletcher being able to buy sticks instead of going Farmer and having your crops take time to grow. I wouldn't be opposed to nerfing this by removing the ability to sell sticks altogether. Not to mention anvil repair costs although that's a different rabbit hole in it of itself.
    When it comes to having a challenging experience that's fine. But before 1.20.2 I'd argue that the game encourage you to accept a challenge because of how the zombie villager curing mechanics worked. You needed to be on Hard Mode otherwise your villager had a chance to die in the process and the best part was if you ever did anything cheeky like switch it to peaceful when a zombie took your gear after death, you would lose that gear the zombie picked up. These mechanics in my eyes pushed casual players into a harder experience and some players like me would opt to lock the difficulty on hard mode all the time as the downsides into complacency were too great to exploit changing the difficulty all the time. All for a few added benefits. Was it easier to gear diamond gear? Yes! But would it be the same difficulty if you had done it otherwise? That's the question I'm proposing. I love catch 22s like this in gaming because it exposes a fallacy in playing the easier difficulty and encourages critical thinking when actually playing the game.