Cured villagers offer too big of a trading discount

Not a bug, this is a feature

Not a bug, this is a feature

Not a bug, this is a feature

I don't think that it's a feature because villager offered everything only for 1 emeralds after only 1 curing.

I don't think that it's a feature because villager offered everything only for 1 emeralds after only 1 curing.

I don't think that it's a feature because villager offered everything only for 1 emeralds after only 1 curing.

Why do you think it's a bug?? It's not good?

Why do you think it's a bug?? It's not good?

Why do you think it's a bug?? It's not good?

I just compared Bedrock and Java mechanic

I just compared Bedrock and Java mechanic

I just compared Bedrock and Java mechanic

Even if it is a feature it's too OP, I can sell 1 Rotten Flesh for 1 Emerald....

Even if it is a feature it's too OP, I can sell 1 Rotten Flesh for 1 Emerald....

Even if it is a feature it's too OP, I can sell 1 Rotten Flesh for 1 Emerald....

Intended feature for parity with Java Ed.

Intended feature for parity with Java Ed.

Intended feature for parity with Java Ed.

No, this is not the intended behavior - this creates a knock-on bug that was addressed in the Java version already, as this creates multiple infinite emerald loops including the librarian 1 bookshelf for 1 emerald and 1 emerald for 1 book. trades The price should be reduced by a factor, not all the way down to 1 emerald / 1 item for every single trade regardless of starting price, and there should be different minimums depending on the trade to avoid the above infinite loops.

No, this is not the intended behavior - this creates a knock-on bug that was addressed in the Java version already, as this creates multiple infinite emerald loops including the librarian 1 bookshelf for 1 emerald and 1 emerald for 1 book. trades The price should be reduced by a factor, not all the way down to 1 emerald / 1 item for every single trade regardless of starting price, and there should be different minimums depending on the trade to avoid the above infinite loops.

No, this is not the intended behavior - this creates a knock-on bug that was addressed in the Java version already, as this creates multiple infinite emerald loops including the librarian 1 bookshelf for 1 emerald and 1 emerald for 1 book. trades The price should be reduced by a factor, not all the way down to 1 emerald / 1 item for every single trade regardless of starting price, and there should be different minimums depending on the trade to avoid the above infinite loops.

Whilst we are making villager trades match Java, can we make it so curing discounts are persistent like Java rather than degrade over time?

Whilst we are making villager trades match Java, can we make it so curing discounts are persistent like Java rather than degrade over time?

Whilst we are making villager trades match Java, can we make it so curing discounts are persistent like Java rather than degrade over time?

Come on why did you have to report this :/

Come on why did you have to report this :/

Come on why did you have to report this :/

If this is parity with Java, villagers should as well hold the discount forever

If this is parity with Java, villagers should as well hold the discount forever

If this is parity with Java, villagers should as well hold the discount forever

Whether it’s not supposed to work that way or not, the current version now makes it a complete waste of time to even try and get a discount. The new “discount” only takes 1 off your total. I would rather pay full price now instead of this.  Why would anyone even bother at this point to cure any villager. I’d be okay having the price cut by 25%, preferably 50%, but paying say, 49 instead of 50 is insulting. I get we’re trying to basically be like Java, but this shouldn’t have to match them...OR Java gets switched to how Bedrock was before 1.16.100.51. 

Whether it’s not supposed to work that way or not, the current version now makes it a complete waste of time to even try and get a discount. The new “discount” only takes 1 off your total. I would rather pay full price now instead of this.  Why would anyone even bother at this point to cure any villager. I’d be okay having the price cut by 25%, preferably 50%, but paying say, 49 instead of 50 is insulting. I get we’re trying to basically be like Java, but this shouldn’t have to match them...OR Java gets switched to how Bedrock was before 1.16.100.51. 

Whether it’s not supposed to work that way or not, the current version now makes it a complete waste of time to even try and get a discount. The new “discount” only takes 1 off your total. I would rather pay full price now instead of this.  Why would anyone even bother at this point to cure any villager. I’d be okay having the price cut by 25%, preferably 50%, but paying say, 49 instead of 50 is insulting. I get we’re trying to basically be like Java, but this shouldn’t have to match them...OR Java gets switched to how Bedrock was before 1.16.100.51. 

I believe that the discount was 50-80% with villager 1.0 as I was saying to Helen recently.  I think you should have some old mc versions to check on that.

I was thinking that this issue was part of a facade until hero, gossip and popularity were implemented.  So glad I saw this  since Helen isn't allowed to say anything much.

If implementing everything as I suspect in the para above, I hope that subsequent overrides do not get bugged as well, e.g., hero discount over curing discount reverts to curing once hero expires and that the remaining curing time is as if the hero never overrode it, i.e., the hero time IS deducted. 

That way you do not get infinite discounts, you do have to do something positive to reinitialise curing discount and effectively 'roll the dice' again.  I believe that this would be an engaging and well received method of doing things imho.

I believe that the discount was 50-80% with villager 1.0 as I was saying to Helen recently.  I think you should have some old mc versions to check on that.

I was thinking that this issue was part of a facade until hero, gossip and popularity were implemented.  So glad I saw this  since Helen isn't allowed to say anything much.

If implementing everything as I suspect in the para above, I hope that subsequent overrides do not get bugged as well, e.g., hero discount over curing discount reverts to curing once hero expires and that the remaining curing time is as if the hero never overrode it, i.e., the hero time IS deducted. 

That way you do not get infinite discounts, you do have to do something positive to reinitialise curing discount and effectively 'roll the dice' again.  I believe that this would be an engaging and well received method of doing things imho.

I believe that the discount was 50-80% with villager 1.0 as I was saying to Helen recently.  I think you should have some old mc versions to check on that.

I was thinking that this issue was part of a facade until hero, gossip and popularity were implemented.  So glad I saw this  since Helen isn't allowed to say anything much.

If implementing everything as I suspect in the para above, I hope that subsequent overrides do not get bugged as well, e.g., hero discount over curing discount reverts to curing once hero expires and that the remaining curing time is as if the hero never overrode it, i.e., the hero time IS deducted. 

That way you do not get infinite discounts, you do have to do something positive to reinitialise curing discount and effectively 'roll the dice' again.  I believe that this would be an engaging and well received method of doing things imho.

1.16.100 is still not Java parity: villagers lose their discounts after a certain time. 

Really dislike the changes to the cured villager discounts in latest update. While I agree that trading 1 piece of paper or rotten flesh for an emerald to a cured villager is OP, only discounting 1 emerald from the cost is too drastic of a shift in the other direction.  Really does make curing villagers pointless. Think something in the neighborhood of 50% discount would be much better.

Really dislike the changes to the cured villager discounts in latest update. While I agree that trading 1 piece of paper or rotten flesh for an emerald to a cured villager is OP, only discounting 1 emerald from the cost is too drastic of a shift in the other direction.  Really does make curing villagers pointless. Think something in the neighborhood of 50% discount would be much better.

Really dislike the changes to the cured villager discounts in latest update. While I agree that trading 1 piece of paper or rotten flesh for an emerald to a cured villager is OP, only discounting 1 emerald from the cost is too drastic of a shift in the other direction.  Really does make curing villagers pointless. Think something in the neighborhood of 50% discount would be much better.

This is a ridiculous change. I agree that the previous system was OP, but this makes curing pointless. And it's not Java parity, because according to the wiki (I haven't played Java) the discount is -5 emeralds per cure. This patch changes it to -1 for everything (item cost and emerald cost).

This is a ridiculous change. I agree that the previous system was OP, but this makes curing pointless. And it's not Java parity, because according to the wiki (I haven't played Java) the discount is -5 emeralds per cure. This patch changes it to -1 for everything (item cost and emerald cost).

This is a ridiculous change. I agree that the previous system was OP, but this makes curing pointless. And it's not Java parity, because according to the wiki (I haven't played Java) the discount is -5 emeralds per cure. This patch changes it to -1 for everything (item cost and emerald cost).

This change doesn't make sense at all. Countless hours spent to cure villagers and have a good trading hall and now it's useless. Aligned with Kevin on this one a 100%

This change doesn't make sense at all. Countless hours spent to cure villagers and have a good trading hall and now it's useless. Aligned with Kevin on this one a 100%

This change doesn't make sense at all. Countless hours spent to cure villagers and have a good trading hall and now it's useless. Aligned with Kevin on this one a 100%

L'augmentation est beaucoup trop importante ! Je suis déçu 

L'augmentation est beaucoup trop importante ! Je suis déçu 

L'augmentation est beaucoup trop importante ! Je suis déçu 

We've spent so much of our gold to make a good trade center filled with lots of villagers, all tp just got to waste, a reduction of 1 emrald isn't much. It should be half of or even 75%. Villager curing has been made useless.

We've spent so much of our gold to make a good trade center filled with lots of villagers, all tp just got to waste, a reduction of 1 emrald isn't much. It should be half of or even 75%. Villager curing has been made useless.

We've spent so much of our gold to make a good trade center filled with lots of villagers, all tp just got to waste, a reduction of 1 emrald isn't much. It should be half of or even 75%. Villager curing has been made useless.

This "fix" absolutely sucks.

This "fix" absolutely sucks.

This "fix" absolutely sucks.

There is little to no discount now from villagers, if I can recall, cured villagers on java had some pretty decent discount, so when it came to bedrock, I was thrilled. This "fix" has sucked all that excitement out of me, but I will admit some of the trades were a tiny bit op... cough–one stick for an emerald--cough

There is little to no discount now from villagers, if I can recall, cured villagers on java had some pretty decent discount, so when it came to bedrock, I was thrilled. This "fix" has sucked all that excitement out of me, but I will admit some of the trades were a tiny bit op... cough–one stick for an emerald--cough

There is little to no discount now from villagers, if I can recall, cured villagers on java had some pretty decent discount, so when it came to bedrock, I was thrilled. This "fix" has sucked all that excitement out of me, but I will admit some of the trades were a tiny bit op... cough–one stick for an emerald--cough

So my 40 cured villagers now offer books for 49 emeralds instead of 50 OH BOY!!! Hours and hundreds of resources gone to waste thanks mojang great "fix". I wasted hundreds of gold ingots and even farmed those dumb brown mushrooms just for yall to give me a 1 emerald discount what a joke even 25% wouldve been acceptable. Days of work made worthless by 1 "fix" great job guys 

So my 40 cured villagers now offer books for 49 emeralds instead of 50 OH BOY!!! Hours and hundreds of resources gone to waste thanks mojang great "fix". I wasted hundreds of gold ingots and even farmed those dumb brown mushrooms just for yall to give me a 1 emerald discount what a joke even 25% wouldve been acceptable. Days of work made worthless by 1 "fix" great job guys 

So my 40 cured villagers now offer books for 49 emeralds instead of 50 OH BOY!!! Hours and hundreds of resources gone to waste thanks mojang great "fix". I wasted hundreds of gold ingots and even farmed those dumb brown mushrooms just for yall to give me a 1 emerald discount what a joke even 25% wouldve been acceptable. Days of work made worthless by 1 "fix" great job guys 

Please support with your votes and comments the following post so this gets corrected.

MCPE-106235

Please support with your votes and comments the following post so this gets corrected.

MCPE-106235

Please support with your votes and comments the following post so this gets corrected.

MCPE-106235

THIS IS NOT A FIX THE OLD ONE WAS A LITTLE OP BUT THIS IS NOT EVEN A DISCONT THIS IS NOT FIXED BEFORE IT WAS MORE OP THAN JAVA NOW IT IS NOT EVEN A DISCOND MAKE IT MATCH JAVA

THIS IS NOT A FIX THE OLD ONE WAS A LITTLE OP BUT THIS IS NOT EVEN A DISCONT THIS IS NOT FIXED BEFORE IT WAS MORE OP THAN JAVA NOW IT IS NOT EVEN A DISCOND MAKE IT MATCH JAVA

THIS IS NOT A FIX THE OLD ONE WAS A LITTLE OP BUT THIS IS NOT EVEN A DISCONT THIS IS NOT FIXED BEFORE IT WAS MORE OP THAN JAVA NOW IT IS NOT EVEN A DISCOND MAKE IT MATCH JAVA

Those who are complaining here should understand what they meant first. In Java you can bring down the trading price via repeatedly convert & cure villagers (read this page Trading). As far as I have tested, the new trading works the same way as the video below, which is in Java.

Reference: Easy Villager Trading Hall Tutorial with Zombie Discounts (Java Edition 1.16) Starting from 14:50.

(However, I hope Mojang could spend more time fixing the missing Java features in Bedrock, for example MCPE-40651. Vote for this one!)

Those who are complaining here should understand what they meant first. In Java you can bring down the trading price via repeatedly convert & cure villagers (read this page Trading). As far as I have tested, the new trading works the same way as the video below, which is in Java.

Reference: Easy Villager Trading Hall Tutorial with Zombie Discounts (Java Edition 1.16) Starting from 14:50.

(However, I hope Mojang could spend more time fixing the missing Java features in Bedrock, for example MCPE-40651. Vote for this one!)

Those who are complaining here should understand what they meant first. In Java you can bring down the trading price via repeatedly convert & cure villagers (read this page Trading). As far as I have tested, the new trading works the same way as the video below, which is in Java.

Reference: Easy Villager Trading Hall Tutorial with Zombie Discounts (Java Edition 1.16) Starting from 14:50.

(However, I hope Mojang could spend more time fixing the missing Java features in Bedrock, for example MCPE-40651. Vote for this one!)

W10104 I think you're assuming we don't know that but not sure if you read the description of the issue. You're specific test if for a new villager but all of us have spent countless ours and resources to build trading halls which now are useless as the price is the same as if you get a villager from a breeder only -1 difference as explained.

We're not against parity change just needs to be implemented right backwards so you don't break what exists.

If you want improvements on Java features this is not the right place as it is for bedrock.

W10104 I think you're assuming we don't know that but not sure if you read the description of the issue. You're specific test if for a new villager but all of us have spent countless ours and resources to build trading halls which now are useless as the price is the same as if you get a villager from a breeder only -1 difference as explained.

We're not against parity change just needs to be implemented right backwards so you don't break what exists.

If you want improvements on Java features this is not the right place as it is for bedrock.

W10104 I think you're assuming we don't know that but not sure if you read the description of the issue. You're specific test if for a new villager but all of us have spent countless ours and resources to build trading halls which now are useless as the price is the same as if you get a villager from a breeder only -1 difference as explained.

We're not against parity change just needs to be implemented right backwards so you don't break what exists.

If you want improvements on Java features this is not the right place as it is for bedrock.

BDSAC MCPE-40651 is talking about a bedrock bug (as you can see from its name). My point is that we should keep reminding Mojang of overlooked "bad" disparities, instead of complaining when they randomly remove "good"(OP) ones.

If you read my link about trading, you can see the cure "spreading" in Java indeed only reduces the price by 1 (actually 1.25), presumably tied to the "minor_positive" gossip value. However, I agree that the game does have trouble remembering if a villager has been cured before, for which I have filed a relevant report in MCPE-106839. You need more than "asking it back" to justify a change in the game.

BDSAC MCPE-40651 is talking about a bedrock bug (as you can see from its name). My point is that we should keep reminding Mojang of overlooked "bad" disparities, instead of complaining when they randomly remove "good"(OP) ones.

If you read my link about trading, you can see the cure "spreading" in Java indeed only reduces the price by 1 (actually 1.25), presumably tied to the "minor_positive" gossip value. However, I agree that the game does have trouble remembering if a villager has been cured before, for which I have filed a relevant report in MCPE-106839. You need more than "asking it back" to justify a change in the game.

BDSAC MCPE-40651 is talking about a bedrock bug (as you can see from its name). My point is that we should keep reminding Mojang of overlooked "bad" disparities, instead of complaining when they randomly remove "good"(OP) ones.

If you read my link about trading, you can see the cure "spreading" in Java indeed only reduces the price by 1 (actually 1.25), presumably tied to the "minor_positive" gossip value. However, I agree that the game does have trouble remembering if a villager has been cured before, for which I have filed a relevant report in MCPE-106839. You need more than "asking it back" to justify a change in the game.

Is this what happened to my trading hall? I wasted about 150-200 golden apples to get all their prices down to 1 emerald and now there is a 1 emerald discount, if I knew that Mojang was going to ruin my trading hall I wouldn't of wasted 200 golden apples on it. I don't think that reducing their trades are op as I was in the late game when I reduced them so I could have just as easily spent hours mining rather than hours grinding for gold, chopping down forests for apples, finding a spider spawner, grinding for blaze rods. Basically, my point is it takes time to get the stuff to discount them, and just because they are discounted doesn't mean that I still don't have to harvest carrots. Very sad that all the time I put into Minecraft was pretty much undone by one update. My personal opinion is that when you cure a villager it should only affect that villager and reduces the quantity by 5-10.  

Is this what happened to my trading hall? I wasted about 150-200 golden apples to get all their prices down to 1 emerald and now there is a 1 emerald discount, if I knew that Mojang was going to ruin my trading hall I wouldn't of wasted 200 golden apples on it. I don't think that reducing their trades are op as I was in the late game when I reduced them so I could have just as easily spent hours mining rather than hours grinding for gold, chopping down forests for apples, finding a spider spawner, grinding for blaze rods. Basically, my point is it takes time to get the stuff to discount them, and just because they are discounted doesn't mean that I still don't have to harvest carrots. Very sad that all the time I put into Minecraft was pretty much undone by one update. My personal opinion is that when you cure a villager it should only affect that villager and reduces the quantity by 5-10.  

Is this what happened to my trading hall? I wasted about 150-200 golden apples to get all their prices down to 1 emerald and now there is a 1 emerald discount, if I knew that Mojang was going to ruin my trading hall I wouldn't of wasted 200 golden apples on it. I don't think that reducing their trades are op as I was in the late game when I reduced them so I could have just as easily spent hours mining rather than hours grinding for gold, chopping down forests for apples, finding a spider spawner, grinding for blaze rods. Basically, my point is it takes time to get the stuff to discount them, and just because they are discounted doesn't mean that I still don't have to harvest carrots. Very sad that all the time I put into Minecraft was pretty much undone by one update. My personal opinion is that when you cure a villager it should only affect that villager and reduces the quantity by 5-10.  

so do we have to cure them 4-5 times to get same discount as before?

so do we have to cure them 4-5 times to get same discount as before?

so do we have to cure them 4-5 times to get same discount as before?

some villagers need to be cured only 2 times to make everything for one emerald others needed 5 cures. It really depends on the trades prices so you need to cure a villager 5 times if his trades if his trades are so expensive. Also the villagers around the cured will only decrease the trade by 1 emerald so if you want to have good discounts cure the villagers. If you have a lot of villagers you can cure a villager more than once and the villagers around will decrease the prices more but they will not decrease after 10 cures

some villagers need to be cured only 2 times to make everything for one emerald others needed 5 cures. It really depends on the trades prices so you need to cure a villager 5 times if his trades if his trades are so expensive. Also the villagers around the cured will only decrease the trade by 1 emerald so if you want to have good discounts cure the villagers. If you have a lot of villagers you can cure a villager more than once and the villagers around will decrease the prices more but they will not decrease after 10 cures

some villagers need to be cured only 2 times to make everything for one emerald others needed 5 cures. It really depends on the trades prices so you need to cure a villager 5 times if his trades if his trades are so expensive. Also the villagers around the cured will only decrease the trade by 1 emerald so if you want to have good discounts cure the villagers. If you have a lot of villagers you can cure a villager more than once and the villagers around will decrease the prices more but they will not decrease after 10 cures

So "bug" fix = same outcome + needless extra steps that only waste our time? I bet whoever reported this one was the kid that would always remind the teacher they forgot to assign homework. 😂🤔😐

So "bug" fix = same outcome + needless extra steps that only waste our time? I bet whoever reported this one was the kid that would always remind the teacher they forgot to assign homework. 😂🤔😐

So "bug" fix = same outcome + needless extra steps that only waste our time? I bet whoever reported this one was the kid that would always remind the teacher they forgot to assign homework. 😂🤔😐