World Item Collecters

The title might be a little confusing. Let me just explain that this does not involve some new type of NPC or anything like that. It's just a simple fix.

Anyways, I suggest that hoppers that collect items (For example, in the Haunted Mansion, the room with the skull carpet.) have some sort of check mechanic. What I mean is they only accept certain items. (For my example, that item would be emeralds.) If you did not throw in that specific item, it would return whatever you threw in.

That way, if you accidentally dropped a valuable weapon or another item in, it wouldn't accept it. It would spit it back out. This is in no way needed, but it is a small quality of life improvement. I also suspect that it would decrease the amount of people posting threads asking if their lost item can be returned. We all know about the strict no-refunds policy, right? Less clutter on the forums is always nice.

 

For what i understood
(I'm watching TV)
there is already a suggestion, i think the most supported, that allows you to lock the items you don't want to drop.

 

just download wynn expansion and use the item locks on that so you don't accidentally throw out good items

 

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSE

 

Yeah, but I don't want to, and even if I wanted to I can't, install a mod. This would be simpler for more people. Plus, having something be vanilla is much better than having to mod it in.

 

instructions unclear got square head stuck on wtf u mean with that

 

I guess you could make it with redstone, but there are item locks as a suggestion

 

Just support item locks.

 

Making it with redstone is easy a/f.

 

Item locks would be nice, but that would be harder to implement than a simple redstone system. Also, Having to lock every good item in my hotbar might be a little annoying. Maybe a lock for the entire hotbar? That would be nice. Anyways, my point is that no one's going to have every item locked 24/7 and that would be mildly annoying when it comes to inventory management.

It's just easier to implement simple redstone systems than coding in a brand new feature. If they added item locks to vanilla Minecraft however...

 

That redstone system takes space, making it very limited. It would also only be annoying the first time when you lock everything you have, then you lock things up as you find them.

 

NiBBa.


This shit, is COMPACT.

But if you wanna have even less space.


This shit COULDN'T GET ANY MORE COMPACT.
Now I kinda fucked up the second coords, but all it is testforblocks tests if set amount of blocks is the same as the other. This includes the metadata.
So all you need is tet if the item in the hopper is the same as the one nedded to be thown in. And if it is the command will just reset the hopper.

 

Exactly. You don't even need redstone for it. I recently left my old-timer comforts and tried out the test-for command. It is great! Wireless redstone was what I used it for. Anyways, my point is that it's simple and wonderful. Can't believe I didn't learn this stuff sooner!

 

Honestly, neither of those ideas would work.

For the first one, it would require the hopper with the desired item in it to be the hopper where the player would input items, as if any other hoppers were above it they would still be able to suck in any other items the player may drop. If that hopper were infact the input one, it would also need to have the comparator and redstone at the same Y level meaning they would be exposed to a player unless the area surrounding the hopper was covered in carpet or sunk into the ground (currently, I'm pretty sure the only instance of a hopper being hidden like this is in Twain Mansion, and perhaps a few other eastereggs) and that would be bad for gameplay as we're supposed to make them obvious unless for a secret area.

The second one is also flawed. First, that would not work as both hoppers would require to have exactly the same amount of items in each slot, rotation etc. and would break if a player dropped any more than one at a time before the item was counted and removed. Also it would suffer from the same issue as the previous one as it would require either to be moved down a block or a comparator to be exposed to test for a change in signal to activate the testfor command, or a permanently running clock (which we can't do)

anyway, we don't really use a comparator to test for any more than one item to trigger something as the amounts required to change a signal strength is kinda strange. This is the system we use for counting precise amounts items in dungeons (trust me, can't really get any more compact without being unreliable):


so tbh, there isn't really any way to make a hopper lock like that

And the best solution to this is to either rebind you drop key (Z works well for me, or PgUp/Dn woul dprobs also be good) or, like previously stated, use a mod for it.

 

Last time I checked, the testfor command didn't need the command block to be on the same Y level.

Also, a permanently running clock is easy. You just take a command block, set it to repeating, and click "always on". And even if this whole idea is impossible, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to code some sort of plugin to assist in making something like this possible. I'm no expert in coding though, so I wouldn't know. Anyways, this system seems pretty easy to make. I bet I could whip up some sort of compact system to do exactly this. While an item lock (or whatever system should be used) is possible and easy to make, the return system is not as simple. Finding a place to put the dropper could be hard, and using commands probably isn't possible.

 

No, it doesn't require the CMB to be on the same Y level, it requires a comparator (which would have to be on the same level) to pull the signal out as we can't use clocks (This is due to having a command being looped can cause a lot of lag as it can be activated up to 20 times/second, also, we're in 1.8 so we have no loop/chain cmbs).

But ye, honestly anything to prevent this would be applicable to so few instances it honestly wouldn't be worth implementing for the actual hopper side of things. However, idk about item locks being implemented officially as after our code 'refactor' it could be possible. For now though, it falls down to the individual to find some kind of solution that suits themselves.

 

Plenty of fair points, and seeing that you have the CMD flag under your name, I don't think there are any holes in what you said. My only question is this: Why is it still on 1.8? There's so much that could be added and improved if the server moved to later versions. The only reason not to would be having to change the commands, which could be quite tedious. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I just answered my own question...

 

Changing commands wouldn't be so bad, I imagine we could most likely create some kind of simple script to find a replace certain parts of commands. The main reason is more due to the code side of things. Currently the code is quite a mess and the Devs are in the process of sorting it out, and until we have completed this it's not really worth attempting to upgrade. but ye, some of the stuff that could be used would be pretty cool.

 

Makes sense. Can't wait for that code to get sorted out. I imagine that the build team would like to get their hands on some of the 1.12 blocks.

 

THat ain't gonna happen for next few years.