My first reaction after hearing this was feeling very disappointed. I quickly tried to imagine the limited world in my head and felt like there was going to be no space for me and my other friends to build or explore. I had to see this in my own way of testing by simply making a creative world (not flat) and build a border of stone (1000x1) making a square on a good location on the map. Already as I start just the first line, I could feel that 1000x1000 isn't as super-small as I thought(reminder, I WAS flying lol). As I finished the first border I turned right and began the second border. Again, doing this as I saw the world passing by me made 1000x1000 seem less smaller than before. When I finished the 1000x1000 square, I flew around inside seeing the world in it. There was actually a lot of space, way more than I saw in my head. I could not believe that that was even 1000x1000. I noticed that flying speed is approximately 10 bps (Blocks Per Second lol). So to fly from one wall from another took almost or exactly 1 minute and 40 seconds to get to the other side. It might sound pretty small there but try it yourself. you will be pretty surprised how big 1000x1000 is. I then tried walking around, pretending as if I just began playing the Xbox version for the first time. It was nice, kind of forgot about the border being there for a while (remember that I wasn't walking a straight line).
So after seeing how it would feel to play at a 1000x1000 limit. I came to some pros/cons. (very simple list)
PROS:
More than enough room to build big
Good size for new players
Easy 60 FPS (even with 4-player split) (<Big Pro)
Room for all bioms
Though small, It still feels pretty big when walking around
Cons:
Exploration (Above ground) is not going to have the same feel; whatsoever (<Big Con)
You will know your world very, very well within a couple or a few days of playing
1000x1000 might seem even smaller when you have 8 players in that limited world
(Not sure if they tweaked the game on this) It would be terrible to get a huge(I mean HUGE) body of water somewhere in the world
Forced to build near the center to avoid the limited feeling. Looking for great spots not possible will be harder if you were to avoid seeing the invisible walls
To a conclusion, I think 1000x1000 is.. a descent size. Im not satisfied with the size, in my opinion. I think doubling it to 2000x2000 would make me happy (still limited but i believe 2000x2000 will give a very large sandbox feel and give more of that exploration trait back ). Over-satisfied at 4000x4000. I wouldn't even know what the word limit is at 10,000x10,000! Again, I urge you guys to make a creative, not flat, world and see how it will be at 1000x1000, its big(Use the cords by pressing F3. look at x and y cords). Comment if you think this is actually a good size or agree like me if possible they should at the very least double it. Hell, tell me what you would sacrifice via in-game mechanics for a whopping 10,000x10,000 world. Thanks for taking time for reading such a long post. Peace guys
UPDATE#1: So after playing the game for some time, I have more thoughts on this. For one, the world is fine in single player. The whole world to yourself is a very good size and framerate stays very smooth. This is not the case for multiplayer. the world still feels big but eventually you will run out of space. (we already build stuff in one entire corner of the map (1/4). There is probably about 2/4 land left from water. Also as friends spread out or sometimes even when you are together, the framerate drops dramatically, even on the host. This even happens when I play with friends in the same town! (Heres my internet stats so you can see that my connection isn't an issue: http://www.speedtest.../1946126559.png). There's even block lag when the game is not lagging. Honestly this game needs an optimization update before they increase map size or add any other features. Rendering goes bad once in a while. I think if it runs smoothly and less glitchy online, it would make people more patient and comfortable while we wait for features to roll in. If you guys are having better luck or are having it worse to where playing online isnt an option, feel free to comment on this too. My friends have told me that there are frequent disconnects as well. Man I hope they fix all these issues
well let me say u r like the 9000000th person to say stuff bout the world size although im happy to see you arnt being super bitchy about it so i praise u
I made a world, filled out the map and walked from edge to edge and was surprised how big it was. I also was feeling disappointed before but now I'm thinking the world will be plenty big, I wouldn't complain if they enlarged them in the future but if they never made them bigger I wouldn't be mad. 1000x1000 is way bigger than people think.
It is quite a relief seeing this topic and seeing others comment on it in agreement. I've been lurking all day and was beginning to worry that everyone was just instantly complaining about a 1000x1000 limit without seeing how much space that actually was.
I joined a server a few months back that featured a "Survival Box"; a 1000x1000 chunk of land walled off completely with bedrock (except for the top so we could still have sunlight). Out of the 20 people that were regulars on the server, about ten or eleven participated in the survival box, and not once did we run into space issues, even when I started working on a fairly large fortress near the center of the box.
So while I do understand some of the reasons people are apprehensive of such a limit in a game that boasted a "Infinite" map on the PC, I have seen first-hand that a limit of 1000x1000 isn't really as bad as some make it sound.
Edit: Ah, I also failed to mention that I too would have no complaint if the limit was increased, though I would rather they ensure it still runs as smooth as possible, as it will be quite the treat to play Minecraft with minimal lag after so long not being able to.
On June 29th, 2010, I purchased Minecraft. In the almost two years since, I have had countless adventures adventures, created many worlds, and have watched the game grow and change. To this day, it remains my favorite game.
I also was feeling disappointed before but now I'm thinking the world will be plenty big, I wouldn't complain if they enlarged them in the future but if they never made them bigger I wouldn't be mad. 1000x1000 is way bigger than people think.
Yeah same here. I'm ok with the 1000x1000 but I'm still hoping they find a way to increase the size without heavily damaging the frame rate or something like that. lol
I made a world, filled out the map and walked from edge to edge and was surprised how big it was. I also was feeling disappointed before but now I'm thinking the world will be plenty big, I wouldn't complain if they enlarged them in the future but if they never made them bigger I wouldn't be mad. 1000x1000 is way bigger than people think.
Can you send to me a link to a map with 1000x1000 square?(too much lazy to make 1)
I for one applaud you for taking the time out of your day, to do a little bit of research before hand. I don't think some people understand that the size of the 360 edition really is not as small as it sounds. (Like you said) When one thinks of minecraft they think massive terrain and long worlds. Instantly when you say 1000 blocks people just instantly think "Thats tiny". When i first saw the video that has been surfacing around here lately, I thought the size was fine. I cannot wait to get my hands on this game tomorrow. It's gonna be awesome.
I for one applaud you for taking the time out of your day, to do a little bit of research before hand. I don't think some people understand that the size of the 360 edition really is not as small as it sounds.
It's gonna be awesome.
Thanks, i appreciate it. And yes, It will be awesome!
If you want to do something like this without having to build a wall , start a game on survival , give yourself a map with toomanyitems or invedit. Only stay within the map and don't sprint around , you will be quite surprised how big it is , especially without sprinting. I didn't really need to leave the area after I found a nice cave to start mining out.
The size isn't horrible and I already have the game paid off in advance. Some people probably think it's fine if you're the type to not move far from the spawn. That's reasonable since it's easier to find your base and recover items upon death. There's also PLENTY of space to build whatever if you don't care so much for location.
That's one of my issues. I don't necessarily stay near the spawn. Whenever I make a new world, the first thing I do is explore until I find an interesting landmark to build upon (hanging/hollow mountain, valley, a pocket into a mountainside, etc. The map size forces me to search online for seeds in which interesting landscapes are within a short area of the spawn. There are some (like gargamel) but not a huge amount of impressive ones (also trying to impress and draw in my newbie Minecraft friends).
Limited resources are also an issue. Especially with 8 players trying to each build their own things. I think it's unreasonable to have to practically completely hollow the entire underground, just to find an ample amount of everything.
So will all worlds basically be a big continent with water on the outside? The video I saw with this depicted the edge of the map to be the ocean.
It is just a very large island. With water on all sides. It is better this way so you feel like you are on a complete area instead of a cut of piece of land. Also, it can generate in a group of small islands, large islands, big island, and all other variety so it is not always one big land mass with water on the sides.
To a conclusion, I think 1000x1000 is.. a descent size. Im not satisfied with the size, in my opinion. I think doubling it to 2000x2000 would make me happy (still limited but i believe 2000x2000 will give a very large sandbox feel and give more of that exploration trait back ).
(1,000x1,000) * 2 =/= (2,000x2,000)
A 2,000x2,000 map would have four times the surface area of 1,000x1,000 -- 4,000,000 surface squares compared to 1,000,000. With equal depth, that would make the worlds 128,000,000 cubes vs. 512,000,000 cubes. That's quite a difference on a seven-year-old console.
Doubling the size of the game would put it at about 1,400x1,400, or only a 40% increase along both sides. The difference at growing scales would seem smaller and smaller, and at some point the return on processor requirements wouldn't be worth the few extra blocks in each direction. I wonder though, if the frame rate was cut to 56fps (28 repeating instead of 30 repeating), would that be enough to run 1400x1400 cleanly?
Tens of thousands diamonds per map.... and many times that in coal and iron, I don't think anyone will be lacking for resources.
The number of actual coal, iron, diamond, etc that will be easily obtainable by exploring caves/tunnels is much smaller than that. Perhaps it will be enough anyway. Maybe not. I won't, however, strip mine the entire underground to scrape by on resources if I need them. That's silly.
A 2,000x2,000 map would have four times the surface area of 1,000x1,000 -- 4,000,000 surface squares compared to 1,000,000. With equal depth, that would make the worlds 128,000,000 cubes vs. 512,000,000 cubes. That's quite a difference on a seven-year-old console.
Doubling the size of the game would put it at about 1,400x1,400, or only a 40% increase along both sides. The difference at growing scales would seem smaller and smaller, and at some point the return on processor requirements wouldn't be worth the few extra blocks in each direction. I wonder though, if the frame rate was cut to 56fps (28 repeating instead of 30 repeating), would that be enough to run 1400x1400 cleanly?
*facepalm* of course. 2000x2000 would be 4x the size, not 2x. Even though I meant double the map size (which is 1400x1400 right?), them increasing it to 2000x2000 would be awesome. I think they could actually do it too. Maybe some changes to the code and tweaking how the rendering works sounds pretty plausible.
So after seeing how it would feel to play at a 1000x1000 limit. I came to some pros/cons. (very simple list)
PROS:
not possiblewill be harder if you were to avoid seeing the invisible wallsUPDATE#1: So after playing the game for some time, I have more thoughts on this. For one, the world is fine in single player. The whole world to yourself is a very good size and framerate stays very smooth. This is not the case for multiplayer. the world still feels big but eventually you will run out of space. (we already build stuff in one entire corner of the map (1/4). There is probably about 2/4 land left from water. Also as friends spread out or sometimes even when you are together, the framerate drops dramatically, even on the host. This even happens when I play with friends in the same town! (Heres my internet stats so you can see that my connection isn't an issue: http://www.speedtest.../1946126559.png). There's even block lag when the game is not lagging. Honestly this game needs an optimization update before they increase map size or add any other features. Rendering goes bad once in a while. I think if it runs smoothly and less glitchy online, it would make people more patient and comfortable while we wait for features to roll in. If you guys are having better luck or are having it worse to where playing online isnt an option, feel free to comment on this too. My friends have told me that there are frequent disconnects as well. Man I hope they fix all these issues
I made a world, filled out the map and walked from edge to edge and was surprised how big it was. I also was feeling disappointed before but now I'm thinking the world will be plenty big, I wouldn't complain if they enlarged them in the future but if they never made them bigger I wouldn't be mad. 1000x1000 is way bigger than people think.
So do it!
You keep cutting and pasting the same thing in every topic! Go away already!
I joined a server a few months back that featured a "Survival Box"; a 1000x1000 chunk of land walled off completely with bedrock (except for the top so we could still have sunlight). Out of the 20 people that were regulars on the server, about ten or eleven participated in the survival box, and not once did we run into space issues, even when I started working on a fairly large fortress near the center of the box.
So while I do understand some of the reasons people are apprehensive of such a limit in a game that boasted a "Infinite" map on the PC, I have seen first-hand that a limit of 1000x1000 isn't really as bad as some make it sound.
Edit: Ah, I also failed to mention that I too would have no complaint if the limit was increased, though I would rather they ensure it still runs as smooth as possible, as it will be quite the treat to play Minecraft with minimal lag after so long not being able to.
Yeah same here. I'm ok with the 1000x1000 but I'm still hoping they find a way to increase the size without heavily damaging the frame rate or something like that. lol
Can you send to me a link to a map with 1000x1000 square?(too much lazy to make 1)
Thanks, i appreciate it. And yes, It will be awesome!
Same thing with PC.
It's confirmed to be 1000x1000. Must have just read a rumor bro lol
That's one of my issues. I don't necessarily stay near the spawn. Whenever I make a new world, the first thing I do is explore until I find an interesting landmark to build upon (hanging/hollow mountain, valley, a pocket into a mountainside, etc. The map size forces me to search online for seeds in which interesting landscapes are within a short area of the spawn. There are some (like gargamel) but not a huge amount of impressive ones (also trying to impress and draw in my newbie Minecraft friends).
Limited resources are also an issue. Especially with 8 players trying to each build their own things. I think it's unreasonable to have to practically completely hollow the entire underground, just to find an ample amount of everything.
It is just a very large island. With water on all sides. It is better this way so you feel like you are on a complete area instead of a cut of piece of land. Also, it can generate in a group of small islands, large islands, big island, and all other variety so it is not always one big land mass with water on the sides.
Tens of thousands diamonds per map.... and many times that in coal and iron, I don't think anyone will be lacking for resources.
(1,000x1,000) * 2 =/= (2,000x2,000)
A 2,000x2,000 map would have four times the surface area of 1,000x1,000 -- 4,000,000 surface squares compared to 1,000,000. With equal depth, that would make the worlds 128,000,000 cubes vs. 512,000,000 cubes. That's quite a difference on a seven-year-old console.
Doubling the size of the game would put it at about 1,400x1,400, or only a 40% increase along both sides. The difference at growing scales would seem smaller and smaller, and at some point the return on processor requirements wouldn't be worth the few extra blocks in each direction. I wonder though, if the frame rate was cut to 56fps (28 repeating instead of 30 repeating), would that be enough to run 1400x1400 cleanly?
The number of actual coal, iron, diamond, etc that will be easily obtainable by exploring caves/tunnels is much smaller than that. Perhaps it will be enough anyway. Maybe not. I won't, however, strip mine the entire underground to scrape by on resources if I need them. That's silly.
*facepalm* of course. 2000x2000 would be 4x the size, not 2x. Even though I meant double the map size (which is 1400x1400 right?), them increasing it to 2000x2000 would be awesome. I think they could actually do it too. Maybe some changes to the code and tweaking how the rendering works sounds pretty plausible.