So three future updates are going to update each of these three biomes? I really hope the performance gets a look because it just keeps getting worse, but you miss out on a lot not to update.
I'm surprises the Savanna biome is in that list. The Taiga and Desert biomes I understand, but the Savanna isn't that old, relatively, and already has the unique feature of a unique tree and wood type, as well as terrain (and that's not even including the Savanna M biome). I'm also not sure how I feel about termites, although the new tree is nice (doubly so if it's a new wood type, speaking as a builder).
I'm not opposed to it getting an update, mind you, but I'd have rather seen some other biome get the treatment before it. Plains, Extreme Hills, and Forest biomes are some such examples. Plains, in my opinion, need to be bigger, a bit more flat, and then have some unique things added to them. They feel more like glorified hilly meadows as it is now, that people only build in because they're the flattest and most cleared of obstacles. That's not a bad thing, but I'd like to see them be more.
Mojang has the statistics on what biomes players spend the most/least time in, so I think it's likely they chose the Desert, Savannah, and the Taiga biomes because they were the three non-subbiome biomes that were frequented/lived-in as the other ones, not based on how old the biomes are.
So three future updates are going to update each of these three biomes? I really hope the performance gets a look because it just keeps getting worse, but you miss out on a lot not to update.
Hear! Hear!
The whole biome vote thing seems more and more like a PR stunt: not only are all the biomes scheduled to be updated [ fiddled with ] and only the order subject to vote , the ~30 sec spots on each give so little information about the proposals that there is no way to evaluate the likely impacts of the changes/additions. What is left is a 'beauty contest' with whatever package getting the most "Aw, kute"s winning.
Additionally, based on what I have heard of last years vote, the response was nearly evenly divided [to which lesson MS/Mj seems to have adapted] and a tiny fraction of players [to which they have not].
It would be far better if each of the new features was showcases in a mock-up wiki page, published, and a month then allowed for discussion before a vote.
Further that vot ought be conducted over a reasonable period (24 hours minimum) and with enough options that a single feature that happened to be beloved of fans could not provide 'coattails', rather than during a short window and via social media.
To be fair, any of the proposed additions could be useful and a meaningful enhancement to the game, but there is simply insufficient information being released to tell.
At present each is simply slated for eventual inclusion (and to provide additional sources driving the Lag-engine) without anything but a name and a [possible] appearance for some of the additions.
How very helpful it would be if there was an option in the poll to pick;
D Some of this looks promising, work up & present enough detail on these that we can sort the gold from the garbage.
[One does not suggest holding one's breath]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
The whole biome vote thing seems more and more like a PR stunt: not only are all the biomes scheduled to be updated [ fiddled with ] and only the order subject to vote , the ~30 sec spots on each give so little information about the proposals that there is no way to evaluate the likely impacts of the changes/additions. What is left is a 'beauty contest' with whatever package getting the most "Aw, kute"s winning.
Additionally, based on what I have heard of last years vote, the response was nearly evenly divided [to which lesson MS/Mj seems to have adapted] and a tiny fraction of players [to which they have not].
It would be far better if each of the new features was showcases in a mock-up wiki page, published, and a month then allowed for discussion before a vote.
Further that vot ought be conducted over a reasonable period (24 hours minimum) and with enough options that a single feature that happened to be beloved of fans could not provide 'coattails', rather than during a short window and via social media.
To be fair, any of the proposed additions could be useful and a meaningful enhancement to the game, but there is simply insufficient information being released to tell.
At present each is simply slated for eventual inclusion (and to provide additional sources driving the Lag-engine) without anything but a name and a [possible] appearance for some of the additions.
How very helpful it would be if there was an option in the poll to pick;D Some of this looks promising, work up & present enough detail on these that we can sort the gold from the garbage.
Why so pessimistic and negative?
This biome vote is a harmless and fun way to address what has been a huge problem for many players in Minecraft. All of the ideas presented here have been confirmed to being added, so I don't know why you're railing the votes so hard considering.
These are side-additions and do not have to meaningfully impact the game, but simply spruce up some of the more neglected biomes. We don't need an "entire month" to discuss these and "twenty-four hours" to vote since, again, all will be added eventually. I highly doubt adding a new palm tree to the generation, or a fox, would severely effect performance as well.
So far it looks like a vote between Taiga and Savanna, which in my opinion is correct. Savanna is the most "blank slate" with the need for something to make it unique, as opposed to "desert with grass and acacia trees, no temples." Taiga has mossy boulders and wolves, more "complete" than Savanna is on a technical level. But given a choice on where to create a base among the three, Taiga. And it would be cool to make an Elven base for the next map refresh on my server.
Don't forget Mojang has *other* plans they won't reveal until tomorrow also. Suppose we knew about the Aquatic Update, would the Kraken have won out over Phantoms? I think so, had we known.
Mojang appears to be trying to have the community involved in their passion, even if it is mostly a cosmetic issue and especially as it is "order of operations" and not "GONE FOR-EVERRRRR!" I don't think having the community positively involved in the process is a bad thing, even if it is more "PR" than anything.
Mojang has the statistics on what biomes players spend the most/least time in, so I think it's likely they chose the Desert, Savannah, and the Taiga biomes because they were the three non-subbiome biomes that were frequented/lived-in as the other ones, not based on how old the biomes are.
The quickest way to my heart is with a smile.
Oh, and a white-oak stake.
Hear! Hear!
The whole biome vote thing seems more and more like a PR stunt: not only are all the biomes scheduled to be updated [
fiddled with ] and only the order subject to vote , the ~30 sec spots on each give so little information about the proposals that there is no way to evaluate the likely impacts of the changes/additions. What is left is a 'beauty contest' with whatever package getting the most "Aw, kute"s winning.
Additionally, based on what I have heard of last years vote, the response was nearly evenly divided [to which lesson MS/Mj seems to have adapted] and a tiny fraction of players [to which they have not].
It would be far better if each of the new features was showcases in a mock-up wiki page, published, and a month then allowed for discussion before a vote.
Further that vot ought be conducted over a reasonable period (24 hours minimum) and with enough options that a single feature that happened to be beloved of fans could not provide 'coattails', rather than during a short window and via social media.
To be fair, any of the proposed additions could be useful and a meaningful enhancement to the game, but there is simply insufficient information being released to tell.
At present each is simply slated for eventual inclusion (and to provide additional sources driving the Lag-engine) without anything but a name and a [possible] appearance for some of the additions.
How very helpful it would be if there was an option in the poll to pick;
Why so pessimistic and negative?
This biome vote is a harmless and fun way to address what has been a huge problem for many players in Minecraft. All of the ideas presented here have been confirmed to being added, so I don't know why you're railing the votes so hard considering.
These are side-additions and do not have to meaningfully impact the game, but simply spruce up some of the more neglected biomes. We don't need an "entire month" to discuss these and "twenty-four hours" to vote since, again, all will be added eventually. I highly doubt adding a new palm tree to the generation, or a fox, would severely effect performance as well.
The quickest way to my heart is with a smile.
Oh, and a white-oak stake.
I select the Savanna.
I like ostrichs, and in Minecraft will be cool.
But I do not know what would be best for Minecraft.
Maybe the deserts already have enough things, so the Savanna or the Taiga.
So far it looks like a vote between Taiga and Savanna, which in my opinion is correct. Savanna is the most "blank slate" with the need for something to make it unique, as opposed to "desert with grass and acacia trees, no temples." Taiga has mossy boulders and wolves, more "complete" than Savanna is on a technical level. But given a choice on where to create a base among the three, Taiga. And it would be cool to make an Elven base for the next map refresh on my server.
Don't forget Mojang has *other* plans they won't reveal until tomorrow also. Suppose we knew about the Aquatic Update, would the Kraken have won out over Phantoms? I think so, had we known.
Mojang appears to be trying to have the community involved in their passion, even if it is mostly a cosmetic issue and especially as it is "order of operations" and not "GONE FOR-EVERRRRR!" I don't think having the community positively involved in the process is a bad thing, even if it is more "PR" than anything.