standardise loot from chests based on order opened rather than specific chest
Open
diggitydingdong227 messagesstarted May 28, 2026, 3:02 PM
diggitydingdong227 messagesstarted May 28, 2026, 3:02 PMgameplay
diggitydingdongOP4 months ago(edited)sorry if this is already the case, i can't tell, but if it's not:
instead of each chest in the world returning the same loot for both players, it should be in the order that the player has opened that type of chest. i.e. the third shipwreck food chest i open should be the same as the third shipwreck food chest my opponent opened, regardless of what shipwreck that actually was. it would make things like getting a poisonous potato way less rng (becomes about finding more shipwrecks faster over the right shipwreck).
if it's already the case can we get it documented under this point in #about-draftout :
instead of each chest in the world returning the same loot for both players, it should be in the order that the player has opened that type of chest. i.e. the third shipwreck food chest i open should be the same as the third shipwreck food chest my opponent opened, regardless of what shipwreck that actually was. it would make things like getting a poisonous potato way less rng (becomes about finding more shipwrecks faster over the right shipwreck).
if it's already the case can we get it documented under this point in #about-draftout :
most RNG elements are standardized (piglin barters, villager trades, taming, mob & block drops etc.)
577
7rowl4 months ago
I really like this idea. This is already how villager trading works so it makes sense to have similar approach to chest loot
11
eepyLeaf4 months ago
fantastic idea +1
Ducky4 months ago
This should be extended to include suspicious gravel/sand drops as well
4
7rowl4 months ago
Im 99% certain that is standardized in vanilla
Tacomonster4 months ago
pretty sure its not
Tacomonster4 months ago
i tested with the same seed, the sus blocks have their loot predetermined
7rowl4 months ago
oh, i see what you mean
7rowl4 months ago
yeah, definitely should be the same principle
Ducky4 months ago
It is predetermined by block position only in vanilla
diggitydingdongOP4 months ago(edited)
thinking about it, this should probably be how bastion chests work in regular ranked as well 
not to derail
not to derail
Ducky4 months ago
i honestly assumed that was where you got the idea from
Cobbet4 months ago
No, because in ranked there is pretty much only 1 correct play and the bastion chests are all different and in the same place every time
Cobbet4 months ago
But in draftout this would be perfect
awesomeSallad4 months ago
Yeah in ranked I see valid arguments for either but here it’s literally just how it should be
diggitydingdongOP4 months ago
wdym? all the remnant chests can generate the same loot, right, I don't know why they shouldn't give the loot in the same order. i.e. it shouldnt matter what chests the iron nuggets are in for e.g., it's the same logic
maskers4 months ago
diggitydingdongOP4 months ago
cheers wasnt aware of that thread
Cobbet4 months ago
just lost the ppotato+poison goals because my ship just didnt have it so now i really want this implemented LOL
Ryan4 months ago
One problem I see is that the paper/map chest in shipwrecks gives a buried treasure map that is relatively close by and if I went the opposite direction of my opp and get the same map I’m never finding the bt
0
Nindq4 months ago
depends on how loot tables are coded, and after thinking about it might not matter
Nindq4 months ago(edited)
depends if they are just copying the player's first chest exact loot to the other player's first chest or maybe it is a loot table which could update the map position to that specific chest location
Nindq4 months ago
tbh I am not experienced in mc modding, but from game dev this is a possibility
Threadfinn4 months ago
I think it works fine because the chest loot is just a general bt map, not a specific bt map. The map itself searches for the closest bt as the chest loot is generated. I think this means it would still always lead to the closest bt even if the other loot is different.
1
Threadfinn4 months ago
But I'm not sure if making chest loot rng seed based instead of location based changes that
Ryan4 months ago
Upon further research it appears that the map generates when its first opened not when it is generated in the chest and shows the closest bt so it should be fine
1
Lightning2 months ago
ive changed my opinion on this, i think its bad for the 1v1 aspect of the game (by forcing you to loot chests you know you dont need)
for example if there is a shipwreck and a village on spawn, lets say i commit to the village, but my opponent goes to the ship which i know because they get aquire hardware, if sus stew is on the board and my opponent doesnt get it i know i dont have to check that chest, but if this is implemented i basically get punished for sending village
same goes for a close fortress where my opponent has been and didn't get horse armor goal, therefore i know i should go to another fort
and there are many more similar situations like that
i think it would be bad to basically remove the skill of predicting and going off of your opponents gameplay
for example if there is a shipwreck and a village on spawn, lets say i commit to the village, but my opponent goes to the ship which i know because they get aquire hardware, if sus stew is on the board and my opponent doesnt get it i know i dont have to check that chest, but if this is implemented i basically get punished for sending village
same goes for a close fortress where my opponent has been and didn't get horse armor goal, therefore i know i should go to another fort
and there are many more similar situations like that
i think it would be bad to basically remove the skill of predicting and going off of your opponents gameplay
1
Ramzs2 months ago
it is not that straightforward.
Ramzs2 months ago
the main argument for this change is, in a vacuum, for a specific goal, player that plays the best should be rewarded the best
Ramzs2 months ago
e.g. exploring more shipwreck, seeing more obscure shipwreck, knowing which shipwreck contains which chest
Ramzs2 months ago
this change prevents a player being punished for something inherently outside their ability
Ramzs2 months ago
example 1: if there's 2 shipwreck, and only the right one contains sus stew, player going to the left can get faster there, which is the best play, but the player going to the left, albeit slower, can get the goal, which is unfair since the first player gets no ability at all to influence the loot table
Ramzs2 months ago
example 2: there's 3 shipwreck, 2 to the left, 1 to the right. the 'correct' play is going to the left, because the expected value of a sus stew exists there is the biggest. but in the current state, the player going leftt can just get punished for 'unluckiness'
Ramzs2 months ago
.
Ramzs2 months ago
now, for your example, your play is not in a vacuum. you know there's a sus stew goal, BUT you chose to go to a village, so you commits to something else that your opponent commits to. you should accordingly gets punished for this specific sus stew goal, which your opponent also gets punished accordingly for this other unknown goal that makes you go to the village
1
Ramzs2 months ago
i do agree, though, with this part
it would be bad to basically remove the skill of predicting and going off of your opponents gameplaybut in my opinion, getting punished for something you cant influence at all (loot table) is worse than removing this specific part of gameplay
diggitydingdongOP2 months ago
In any case all these hypotheticals about how it affects gameplay are really hard to verify without it actually being implemented. So at the least it should be tried, during the beta period, so we just know if it's more preferable
I think one downside is that if this is implemented it's a Draftout-specific feature you have to kinda know about (rather than it just being plug and play vanilla)
I think one downside is that if this is implemented it's a Draftout-specific feature you have to kinda know about (rather than it just being plug and play vanilla)
2
Lightning2 months ago
i think that this isn't a problem most of the time and i feel like its bad to punish not looting chests you know you dont need
Lightning2 months ago
but whats more preferable is obviously subjective
Ramzs2 months ago
the most chest you know you dont need to loot is, at most of each type, 1. also your scenario dont even always happen
Ramzs2 months ago
for example, in your fortress scenario, you can only know if your opponent goes to a fortress, you cant possibly know if they check chest (other than Diamonds! adv, iirc). there's still a possibility they missed some, chest. and even if they didnt, they can just miss the item they need
Ramzs2 months ago
AND even if they get horse armor (lets say, diamond and iron), they can purposefully not take a gold one in case they have 7 leather, wait for you to get to a fortress, then make leather armor
Ramzs2 months ago
metagaming and prediction is not being removed at all, just adjusted so it becomes more fair
Arxyj2 months ago
i think its important to notice its doing more than just "making loot fair". It also allows you to metagame more
Lets say there is a village and ship on spawn, opposite directions. You decide to go to village. Your opponent gets iron and diamond advancements and sus stew goal for example.
In current state of the game its reasonable to assume that this given shipwreck has some iron and diamonds in it.
With this change, you can say that about ANY next shipwreck.
for example if there is music disc goal and different shipwreck closer to the village, this genuinely changes the way you are playing
Lets say there is a village and ship on spawn, opposite directions. You decide to go to village. Your opponent gets iron and diamond advancements and sus stew goal for example.
In current state of the game its reasonable to assume that this given shipwreck has some iron and diamonds in it.
With this change, you can say that about ANY next shipwreck.
for example if there is music disc goal and different shipwreck closer to the village, this genuinely changes the way you are playing
Arxyj2 months ago
that being said, i still think its a good change
Lightning2 months ago
i do feel like that is unintuitive and weird metagaming, youll basically always be behind on a goal if you try to make an informed decision
6
DriftSythe2 months ago
yea I think the way it is currently does introduce a skill in metagaming and I think it is a really cool skill but like it is kinda annoying that you can search 7 shipwrecks and not get poisonous potato when your opponent searches 1 to get it
Ramzs2 months ago
what? you will always get behind only if
1. you are behind already, and
2. you cant catch up
1. you are behind already, and
2. you cant catch up
Ramzs2 months ago
which is fair game
Ramzs2 months ago
you can always catch up, checking more chest faster than your opponent
Ramzs2 months ago
besides, like i always said, other than the first chest (which is not all chest, only on some structure), you wont ever know if youre behind or ahead
Ramzs2 months ago
which is the same as current draftout
Ramzs2 months ago
i dont understand what informed decision you'd even make in the current draftout other than the first chest
blanket addict2 months ago
I've had this suggestion in the back of my head basically ever since it was suggested and imagining it implemented has always felt weird to me for this exact reason
blanket addict2 months ago
I just don't think that this specific kind of RNG standardization mirrors natural play, structure RNG goals being buffed into linear progression goals just feels so weird to me
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
it just feels wrong that one player can have a lead on loot tables, which with the public info draftout has and the fact that specific structures exist in space, makes it something I find way weirder to treat as fungible than like villager trade RNG
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
I guess I'm kinda just using different words to restate the point lightning already made. it feels weird and I don't think I like it
Ramzs2 months ago
well true i gotta look what fungible means i gotta admit 
Ramzs2 months ago
but isnt villager trade standardization the exact same? why is it not interchangeable?
Ramzs2 months ago
villager has a certain 'loot table' of what items they trade. player can reset their trade
Ramzs2 months ago
it feels super shit to have your villager offers wheat trade for emerald in the 10th trade while your opp who tries 10s after you gets it after the 2nd
blanket addict2 months ago
every villager roll feels like identical to me, there's no bias for location or anything it's just purely "will you have to randomly do more of this identical action for no reason?"
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
but structures are physically within the world and you can deduce significant information about them from what your opponent does, so it feels weird to treat them all as identical to me
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
in some contexts they are practically identical but in others they're really not, draftout gives the player information that'd really reveal the trick of loot tables being ordered rather than location dependent, so it feels super unnatural
Ramzs2 months ago
im sorry, but mind explaining what significant information you can deduce from what your opp does, especially about structure?
blanket addict2 months ago
what goals they do and don't get, advancements
Ramzs2 months ago
there're only 3 ways you can get opp information in draftout: player dimension, advancements, and finished goal
Ramzs2 months ago
literally after the advancements, all information is lost
blanket addict2 months ago
you can usually tell when opponent is ocean based off of what goals they are and aren't doing, or if it's an early shipwreck by the iron advancement
Ramzs2 months ago
you wont know if your opp is still exploring or mining
blanket addict2 months ago
and if you know when your opponent looted a shipwreck in the early game you can make a reasonable deduction about what shipwreck it could've been based on what stuff you're seeing, and also what loot you get if you loot the shipwreck
blanket addict2 months ago
I don't really think any of this is such an important mechanic that it must be preserved, the thing I don't like is that the plethora of ways you can deduce what your opponent has done from info you have makes it obvious that loot is not structure specific, when it is structure specific in vanilla
2
blanket addict2 months ago
it feels very weird to me and I'm not convinced the benefits are worthwhile, even though there are many situations where loot tables are basically fungible and you can do a better job at a goal and still lose
Ramzs2 months ago
most loot is not structure specific, tho
Ramzs2 months ago
while i cant find an immediate example, you may assume opponent loots a certain thing, but in reality they gets it from another unrelated source
Ramzs2 months ago
my point is, past a certain point, information based on adv and dimension becomes so blurry that knowing it cant warrant enough info to deduce anything significant
Ramzs2 months ago
which is most cases for chest loot specifically
blanket addict2 months ago
I'm not arguing about this being a really important gameplay mechanic because I think it being gone would be fine balance wise, I just think it becomes very obvious that loot table functionality is fundamentally different from vanilla, and it heavily affects how certain goals play
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
this isn't really a thing for any other kind of rng standardization, like it is a little bit but it all feels normal enough to me
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
a change like this suggestion would just really force gameplay that deviates from vanilla at times
Ramzs2 months ago
ah, alright. well, lets agree to disagree then
blanket addict2 months ago
yeah my argument is purely one of taste so I don't mind if I'm in the minority and it does get added
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
I prefer more RNG on goals but plays of which structures you should loot working as they would in vanilla, to less RNG but it's often very obvious that there's a non vanilla system that forces you to loot otherwise useless structures to progress
marin2 months ago
testing this in the next update to gather feedback
marin2 months ago
2
Feinberg2 months ago
down for testing the idea but i kinda really agree with this message
Feinberg2 months ago
i think standardizing the chests does remove a lot of skill on reading your opponents world progress
8
Feinberg2 months ago
if your opponent whiffs horse armor on spawn fort then it feels bad if youre behind to be 'forced' to check that fort to get the chest counter up
Feinberg2 months ago
on the flipside it feels bad currently if you loot a fortress and whiff and then your opponent just sends a farther one and wins even tho theyre slower into the fort
Feinberg2 months ago
but i think this is a really crazy nonvanilla change that if it doesnt have crazy positive impact across the playerbase should be reverted
6
Feinberg2 months ago
idk how to phrase this better this just feels like REALLY bad to me IDKY
5772 months ago
in theory i think its a good idea to try and standardize exploration loot but i think the implementation for this case is kind of bad
5772 months ago
we're adding an entirely nonvanilla mechanic which has high impact on the game but the information you're given as a player means that you can't really understand what that impact is at all
5772 months ago
i think it could work well for structures which are less common throughout the world (e.g outposts); you usually won't be visiting multiple outposts in a single match but it standardizes any case where you and your opponent explore different directions and both end up finding one
for shipwrecks in particular you can both explore different oceans and find varying amounts of shipwrecks with different amounts of each type of chest, and in that case whoever finds the ocean with more of a given type of chest is just guaranteed to have better loot overall
for shipwrecks in particular you can both explore different oceans and find varying amounts of shipwrecks with different amounts of each type of chest, and in that case whoever finds the ocean with more of a given type of chest is just guaranteed to have better loot overall
Threadfinn2 months ago
Is it just going to be chests, or all containers? (trial chamber dispensers and mineshaft chest minecarts being the main 2 important ones I can think of)
blanket addict2 months ago
I don't think this is a change you can do in half measures because it's so non vanilla, I think it has to be all or nothing
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
even with niche structures like outposts it's still possible to end up in a scenario where you know you're behind on outpost loot tables, so that meta knowledge of what structures are and aren't affected would be extremely important
5772 months ago
i would be interested to see a single time where one player has knowledge that theyre behind on outpost loot and there are still outpost loot goals on the board
5772 months ago
im not sure this is even theoretically possible
5772 months ago
u would need a line with 3 outposts, goat horn on board, no crossbow in 1st chest, crossbow in 2nd chest and ur opp gets shoot pillager goal before u loot the 2nd one?
5772 months ago(edited)
even then i dont think this is something u would be able to play around in vanilla because your opp would just have gotten all of the chests first anyway
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
outpost seed where 1 player goes outpost the other goes to another structure, xp bottle goes unclaimed on the board
5772 months ago
well yea but then ur opp just gets multiple outpost chests and then they get the goal anyway
5772 months ago
Or they dont get the goal and its irrel
blanket addict2 months ago
if they don't get the goal it's extremely relevant
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
well not extremely
5772 months ago
i guess u technically have a point but for me the difference is that you cant just force an outpost line ur just never gonna see multiple outposts off spawn
5772 months ago
where u can just go ocean and theres shipwrecks there
blanket addict2 months ago
but if you blind from the nether after a start like that and see an outpost, you might want to loot it and then go back to spawn
5772 months ago
Like if you get lucky on the blind you would have gotten lucky in vanilla too
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
my point is just that the knowledge is telegraphed and non vanilla, so if this happens to outposts but not like let's say desert temples, it is pretty important to know which structures do and don't work like this
5772 months ago
telegraphed in what way
5772 months ago
like if you spawn on an outpost you already know theres an outpost and whether you got it, if your opp randoms into one then you dont have it anyway and youre down regardless
blanket addict2 months ago
the telegraphed thing is the next time you go to any outpost, you will not get an xp bottle
blanket addict2 months ago
and if you want an xp bottle from any outpost you see then you have to loot the first one
5772 months ago
that case is indistinguishable from a case where you both are hitting the same outpost in vanilla
5772 months ago
tho
blanket addict2 months ago
no
blanket addict2 months ago
in the vanilla case you know the outpost at spawn has no xp bottle but all other outposts are fair game
5772 months ago
if you know you both hit a random outpost you dont know whether or not that random outpost is the same one
blanket addict2 months ago
this is assuming you know with 100% certainty your opponent went to the outpost at the start of the seed when you didn't, which is usually pretty telegraphed like if they get iron
5772 months ago
i mean like youre just not going to force a new outpost atp
blanket addict2 months ago
there's scenarios you would but you're generally right you'll almost never do that, but the big difference is one structure now works in this non vanilla way and people have to know that only outposts do this
blanket addict2 months ago
it's more of a problem if you loop in any other structure tbf
blanket addict2 months ago
if it's literally only outposts it'd be less of an issue than if there's like 3 structures that do this and the rest don't
5772 months ago
hmmmm
5772 months ago
like i guess in the worst possible case (least-vanilla) you never touch the spawn outpost and then u blind onto a new one and open the chest and die to go back to spawn
5772 months ago
idk it seems sooooo niche when theres like 2 goals that ur actually rolling outpost loot table for
blanket addict2 months ago
it is niche I agree I just think it'd be bad to not have parity on how structure loot tables work
5772 months ago
or u have a very slight incentive to always force looting structures in case you might blind onto one later
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
because then you have to know exactly which structures/chest types are and aren't affected in order to make informed decisions
blanket addict2 months ago
and I think that's like worst of both worlds
5772 months ago
part of me just wants to say like if ur on that level of meta game u should just have the goal
5772 months ago
like gg
5772 months ago
i think you could basically solve this for rare structures if you count all of the loot in spawn chunks as already looted
5772 months ago
because atp you'd have to random into more than 1 of the same structure that was at spawn
5772 months ago
but like purity argument still stands i guess
OrangePixel2 months ago
That’s exactly how I felt when I first saw this suggestion. I tried to phrase a counter argument but overwhelmingly it is just a feeling that this is wrong and non vanilla lol
isawabelle2 months ago
this change at first sounded good but the more i think about it the more i dislike it
like instead of "oh they went to the close fort and didnt find horse armour im not gonna bother looking there" you now still have to go check it to get your chests looked at counter up, which just feels so unintuitive and bad
like instead of "oh they went to the close fort and didnt find horse armour im not gonna bother looking there" you now still have to go check it to get your chests looked at counter up, which just feels so unintuitive and bad
JakiNick2 months ago
how are you SURE that the opp actually did check all the chests?
JakiNick2 months ago
and like how would you know theyre even going for that goal? they could be forgetting about it and doing a different goal or just not going for it
DriftSythe2 months ago
I don't get what the point of this message is
DriftSythe2 months ago
like when you're playing the game you assume your opponent is playing the game to the best of their ability you don't assume they are forgetting about the goal or that they just happened to miss 1 random chest in the fortress that you will end up finding
DriftSythe2 months ago
if it's late game and you know someone has hit the spawn fortress and hasn't gotten the horse armour goal it objectively makes sense to go to a second fort rather than sinking time into going to a fort you already know has very low odds of having horse armour
2
Coreybirdo2 months ago
Yea I’m heavily not for this change. It completely nullifies any strategy around looting separate structures than your opponent. I understand that it’s minimizing RNG, but this isn’t ranked, you should be rewarded for going out of your way to take a chance on a farther structure. For instance, if your opponent gets war pigs before you, it’s realistically impossible to get debris faster as you can’t just B line to the opposite side of the bastion for a different chest. Likewise, if it’s an outpost seed that you never looted to get an earlier lead on a village and a second outpost comes into view, you can try for xp bottle in the other one if the first outpost never gave it to your opponent. Idk I feel like draftout has insane strategy and mind gaming potential but changes like this nullify them
12
Coreybirdo2 months ago
same thing for shipwreck iron, if the intended ship doesn’t give enough iron for your op to get a goal, you can force a farther ship first in hopes of more iron
4
7rowl2 months ago
to be clear, i (personally) am heavily leaning towards the removal of this, which is most likely going to happen with the next update. still was worth a shot to try and see what works and doesnt for draftout
11
JakiNick2 months ago
it was a question sorry 
JakiNick2 months ago
like i was genuinely asking because it did seem like im missing something
Rudy2 months ago(edited)
a note on this i want to highlight idk if its been discussed:
if the change does not get removed, this should not be applied in blackout lobbies. in a quad blackout game if it is 24/25 and the final goal is a poison potato, you want every player going to different shipwrecks to increase your odds since you're working together
it also effects lootpools in single player blackout? a little offtopic and using blackout and setting a seed with a completable ruined portal, in a single-player world the chest loot is completable with obi + fns, but in the blackout solo lobby, the ruined portal is suddenly not completable, kinda messing up the 'setting seed part in a blackout game
if the change does not get removed, this should not be applied in blackout lobbies. in a quad blackout game if it is 24/25 and the final goal is a poison potato, you want every player going to different shipwrecks to increase your odds since you're working together
it also effects lootpools in single player blackout? a little offtopic and using blackout and setting a seed with a completable ruined portal, in a single-player world the chest loot is completable with obi + fns, but in the blackout solo lobby, the ruined portal is suddenly not completable, kinda messing up the 'setting seed part in a blackout game
3
marin2 months ago
we're removing this next update, it will remain as a gamerule (default: false) in case we want to use it in the future (e.g. gamerules in lobbies)
13
marin2 months ago
the flaws everyone pointed out are correct, it also doesn't feel very vanilla
1
brazenidli2 months ago
im not sure how relevant this issue is but i think this update doesnt work for ruined portals at all either, while i havent seen this actually happen in a game yet, i think the idea of having natural/vanilla rng makes way more sense to me then an rng scenario where a set of rp loot makes one rp completable but the same loot pool doesnt help for the other rp and that just screws the balance of a game with multiple nether goals.
1
marin2 months ago
yeah makes sense
Rudy2 months ago
Appreciate it marin 
diggitydingdongOP2 months ago
oh yeah the fact that this would need to be different for blackout is really bad
diggitydingdongOP2 months ago
i agree with everything ITT, ooc did we choose to revert it because of actual bad impact in games or because of the hypotheticals? (I agree with reverting it regardless, just curious if this actually affected a game)
diggitydingdongOP2 months ago
hm it's also weird if a goal can be done by multiple types of structures, and if you know your opponent has looted one of a certain kind you can just focus on the other ones which shouldn't be how it is
DriftSythe2 months ago
I haven’t played since the update but I’ve used the information that a certain structure doesn’t have certain items like spawn ship or spawn fort/bastion multiple times before so it’s not just a hypothetical
Coreybirdo2 months ago
are these changes live in this most recent update? It doesn’t say it in the changelog so I assume not
marin2 months ago
yes ill add it to changelog in a sec
marin2 months ago
im afk
marin2 months ago
sorry
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
i feel like it was worth testing for longer than a day so people can give feedback after actually playing with it
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
but it is what it is
7rowl2 months ago
I think that was enough
7rowl2 months ago
downsides outweigh upsides by a lot
Coreybirdo2 months ago
okay thanks for the update!
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
well the upside was removing shipwreck loot/fort loot lategame gambling rng
7rowl2 months ago
i didnt say there arent upsides
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
oop yea i may have misread your message
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago(edited)
but i think there are altered variants of the feature that could be good for the game
TNT4442 months ago
Exactly this, I really dislike this change because it encourages very weird meta gaming
TNT4442 months ago
That is against vanilla seed intuition
TNT4442 months ago
Oh I see its getting removed, thatz great
![Mango [TGO]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/avatars/668139777773666434/b6dc56b431949ea5772e7702d3a32289.png?size=128)
Mango [TGO]2 months ago
Is it removed already?
Mango [TGO]2 months ago
Or is it going next update
7rowl2 months ago
we thought about using it partially for certain structure but its still such a non vanilla feature that it adds a layer of knowledge gap that is specific to the mod and not overall minecraft that we disliked it
7rowl2 months ago
its just weird to have it on for outposts and trial chambers but not for villages or shipwrecks or fortresses
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
I was thinking of like, enabling it for structures a certain distance from spawn so early game is preserved
7rowl2 months ago
that is still weird and non vanilla
Mango [TGO]2 months ago
I think it could be good for something like the abandoned camps just because finding a spyglass in one could win you the game
4
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
but yea i see the counterargument, i do like it for trial chambers though
Mango [TGO]2 months ago
But also there’s another side of the coin
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
idk what non vanilla even means
7rowl2 months ago
it would only shift one rng aspect onto another. you can still be rolled if you have less dispensers, different rooms etc.
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago(edited)
i feel like if youre 3k blocks from spawn gambling in shipwrecks for xp bottle jt could be fine (cuz ur almost never contesting the same shipwrecks anyway)
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
but its ok im not losing sleep over it
isawabelle2 months ago
I think people really clearly didn't like the idea of the change even without testing much
TNT4442 months ago
I personally prefer drafout staying as vanilla as possible even if that means rng has more impact
diggitydingdongOP2 months ago
yeah that was my initial problem but there are just so many downsides to implementing even a version of this
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
Yeah but sometimes you need to try things people dont like
diggitydingdongOP2 months ago
like you wouldn't want any amount for blackout so it's just different again on that dimension
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
Because people mostly dislike anything that changes stuff
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
Like if you tried to develop a multiplayer game while always making everyone happy youd never update it
1
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
and it’s in beta to trying stuff out is good
diggitydingdongOP2 months ago
well we tried it! and it was pretty immediately obvious it was bad, mostly because of how non vanilla it is, which will exclude it from being implemented in basically any form, so that's about all the testing you need
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
i didnt see anyone give feedback based on playing with it just based on reading it
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
its not really important but i also dont get what “non vanilla” means
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
draftout has plenty of changes from vanilla
blanket addict2 months ago(edited)
I feel like the only ones I can think of are structure filtering (which is a seed thing so basically still vanilla) and pearl rates
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
lava pool spawn rates are changed
diggitydingdongOP2 months ago
Well, I did, I saw negative examples in streams and some in the general chat of this server, shrug
blanket addict2 months ago
oh yeah I forgot that
DriftSythe2 months ago
I think it's fine like you could always choose to do something like trade for xp bottle instead of gambling with shipwrecks
DriftSythe2 months ago
yea it's always good to play around and try different things and if it doesn't work out you can always revert the change
Coreybirdo2 months ago
I played a game on the update yesterday where it was 12-11 with wax and poisonous potato on the board, and I sent poisonous potato because I knew that as long as I’ve looted more foodwrecks, I’d always be ahead in poisonous potato regardless of the direction the op went
Coreybirdo2 months ago
Which I think isn’t good
Coreybirdo2 months ago
And I won because of it ^
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
i mean that seems fair to me
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
you were ahead and looted more ships why shouldnt you win
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
but fair enough that’s a valid opinion
Coreybirdo2 months ago
not saying I shouldn’t have won, it’s more like there should be a real chance I lose because I went with the more “RNG” task rather than playing it safe and digging for trial chamber
Coreybirdo2 months ago
But with this change, my op feasibly can never win unless they obtain it with bonemeal
Nogardagem2 months ago
I'm here to share that I generally don't like this feature just because it feels like loot should be associated with a specific chest, not times opened, as chests are already constant and specific in worlds.
It feels fair to standardize villager trades to be the same since villagers aren't constant or specific; they can spawn in different places and pathfind differently and whatnot. But physical chests are reliably in the same place so there's no RNG that would be different per-player, it's your choice of structure that leads to different loot.
It feels fair to standardize villager trades to be the same since villagers aren't constant or specific; they can spawn in different places and pathfind differently and whatnot. But physical chests are reliably in the same place so there's no RNG that would be different per-player, it's your choice of structure that leads to different loot.
pinkpuff2 months ago
I have good news for you
Nogardagem2 months ago
OH lmao i saw that notif while i was typing
1
SOOT2 months ago
This might be stupid but I’m just throwing things at the wall here, what if loot chests within a certain distance of 0 0 would be pretty-determined and this change was only applied to chests outside of the distance where you wouldn’t be able to track which specific structure your opponent went to, so you could know to skip a shipwreck off spawn but if you both go to different oceans whoever loots the most ships gets what they need faster or you could know to skip the spawn fort but which 2nd fort you went to wouldn’t matter
Ik it feels rlly non vanilla but it might be the most fair option
Ik it feels rlly non vanilla but it might be the most fair option
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
i already said that
SOOT2 months ago
Oh this?
SOOT2 months ago
Sorry is misread it when I was going through the thread
Uniquepotatoes2 months ago
yea
Hex2 months ago
lowkey i do like that idea
Hex2 months ago
maybe within 400 like all the biome goals
Floppymog2 months ago
thing is luck's always gonna be a part of the game.. if you pick that desired goal you gotta understand that you and your opponent can just get unlucky or very lucky.. dont go for the goal if you don't like its luck-based nature. (Though overall id rather there be less luck based goals like pois potato and smooth basalt and more common skilled ones)