Roadhog360

This appears to be about the spelling of "snort" instead of "snout". "sherd" vs "shard" is not mentioned, so I think this should be re-opened.

Requesting the wording of "@unknown was removed as reporter because they added an official-looking notice without consent from bug tracker staff. If they want to add anything to the bug report they can still comment and we will add it to the bug report if appropriate." in the pinned comment to be updated.

It heavily comes off that the current banner is not official, I am just now learning that there was a different banner (that was not official looking at all IMO) that was added, and then subsequently removed. The wording of this phrase makes it sound like the currently displayed notice is unofficial, when it in fact is official. I suggest this comment's wording be updated to clarify this is referring to a banner that was removed and is no longer exist, and is NOT about the current red banner that is visible on the issue.

Given the recent attempt at quietly adding a reporting system, I am starting to think Mojang is just pushing back the deadline on this simple fix to keep us quiet. Surely there's no way they'd want these ancient versions to be fixed when they want even more authentication on new versions...

While the end of summer is still a fair bit away, I'd like to quickly inquire if this is planned for later this summer, the end, or soon?

Server owners only run cracked Beta servers because they have no choice. If there was any official auth it would force their players to buy the game.

I would say it takes more effort to put up this ruse or even make these fake plans to show us than just... adding the redirect to the launcher. I'm sure even that  Mr. Unpaid Intern could do it.

And just like that, I have lost faith in Mojang's truthfulness about this. For a moment I believed it was actually going to be changed thanks to a community effort, but I believe now the deadline was just to silence the active discussion and keep old versions abandoned.

I would be more than happy to be proven wrong.

Is this still going to happen? We have reached the projected deadline. Any updates?

Oh, I didn't know that, I only knew about changelogs which mentioned if the copper was in the further stage, or lower stage affecting the rates. Can I please see where this is documented?

While there is nothing to imply this is intentional, there is nothing that implies it isn't either. This is not a lack of feature, but clearly missing functionality if you read my thorough explanation and realize this has nothing to do with exposed faces too.

Still awaiting developer confirmation, added further explanation to clarify that a missing check is probably needed.

If even. I am starting to think these previous developer comments were lies.

Very well put. This would be a mutually beneficial fix for Mojang and us.

Still awaiting developer response.

I agree. If no changes are actually planned, why do we have to be left in the dark speculating if anything is actually planned contrary to the "Work planned" comment? I mean, you can say that, but then proceeding to say literally nothing else, no updates on priority, nothing makes us think that was simply a lie.

Why should we be left guessing? Is communication not a priority especially when this could potentially bring in new customers for your brand AND satisfy some existing ones? The suggested changes are mutually benificial on both sides, so if they aren't planned why is there basically no communication?

How can we confirm every part of that equation functions as intended? Getting developer confirmation of course.

Yes, the whole area would take longer mathematically, but why should one block be affected? It's EXPONENTIALLY slower which makes no sense. Also all blocks, even in the same stage are slowed. Thus a cube takes so much longer when one block takes just under an hour usually. If the simple line of code I posted above was added it'd fix the issue entirely, as those first bits of oxidation would appear at the same speed on one block for blocks in the same stage around it, but after that the "spreading" effect would stay because copper doesn't oxidize until blocks around it are also on the same stage if there are blocks nearby which are in a newer stage.

I'm still going to believe this is a bug and share my opinions until a developer themselves confirms to me this is indeed intended.

Still no words on why this is intended? I still can't think of a single reason this makes sense at all.

They indeed are different. Ones on outposts show their banner patterns while ones dropped by captains havw it hidden.

As no answer as been given on how this bug-like behaviour is intended, I'd like to offer a solution in the case it was incorrectly marked. If the mark is still someow correct, then ignore this, I guess.

if (m == i) {
continue;
    }

Could be added below the brackets with m < i, which would keep the chance the same instead of making oxidation slower for every copper block in the same stage. Other blocks that are below or ahead would still affect the chance.

This was marked as "Works as Intended". Why is this intended? This mechanic doesn't make much sense, why should copper take longer because other is around it?

I think it should be slowed down based on the amount of exposed faces, if anything. Even if you space out all copper within the detection zone to not touch, it takes a very long time compared to a lone block even if all faces are exposed, which seems pretty silly.