1. that couldn't be further from the truth, cars don't fit in minecraft's theme and adding high tech stuff would be out of place, people don't like 1.9 because they don't want to relearn there pvp setup
2. please don't sighn your name like that, it's can be rather annoying
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Anyone know how to change my user name?
"And just when you thought you where the sexiest one here, i show up" -Fernando
I'd agree mob lag has become an issue. It was a huge problem after 1.3 when SP basically moved to server logic.
However, it's gotten noticeably better over time. A lot of the recent snapshots in the last few months focused on smoothing out mob movement, fixing lag caused by pathfinding, as well as fixing their tick rates so they remain in sync with what's going on.
The only ways I can replicate the old mob lag seen before 1.9 is by setting my render distance to something absurd the internal server can't handle. I can't speak for multiplayer though as I haven't played any servers running snapshots or the prereleases.
It is kind of curious that so many people say that 1.3 lags a lot more than older versions; in my experience it runs smoother, I even get the dreaded "lag spike of death" in Beta 1.7.3 (which returned in release 1.7+ but in a different form). It is almost as if older versions have some compatibility issue with newer hardware since my computer is below the minimum system requirements for current versions, yet above the recommended back in 1.6, and I see people say that newer versions run better for them despite this (1.6 even seems to have a compatibility issue with Java 8, including the built-in Java, which causes lag and stuttering; I disabled Java's autoupdater and use Java 7 to play).
From what I've read using a separate client and server should give better performance if you have a dual-core or better CPU; prior to then any lag in the game logic (now mostly run server-side) would also cause FPS lag and a general slowdown. Many of the issues like blocks reappearing, boat location desync (but not minecarts), etc are due to the client trying to "predict" events independently of the server, in older versions the entire game simply ran slower and you'd only notice lag if it was significant enough.
I do get lag from zombies in 1.6 if they can't reach me or a villager but I do not see unusual lag otherwise (I modded a patch from Forge into vanilla to fix the zombie lag, vanilla 1.7 doesn't lag without any such fix, at least with a reasonable number of zombies (in 1.6 even 1 zombie causes noticeable lag) even though Mojang still has the issue as "unresolved").
It is kind of curious that so many people say that 1.3 lags a lot more than older versions; in my experience it runs smoother, I even get the dreaded "lag spike of death" in Beta 1.7.3 (which returned in release 1.7+ but in a different form). It is almost as if older versions have some compatibility issue with newer hardware since my computer is below the minimum system requirements for current versions, yet above the recommended back in 1.6, and I see people say that newer versions run better for them despite this (1.6 even seems to have a compatibility issue with Java 8, including the built-in Java, which causes lag and stuttering; I disabled Java's autoupdater and use Java 7 to play).
From what I've read using a separate client and server should give better performance if you have a dual-core or better CPU; prior to then any lag in the game logic (now mostly run server-side) would also cause FPS lag and a general slowdown. Many of the issues like blocks reappearing, boat location desync (but not minecarts), etc are due to the client trying to "predict" events independently of the server, in older versions the entire game simply ran slower and you'd only notice lag if it was significant enough.
I do get lag from zombies in 1.6 if they can't reach me or a villager but I do not see unusual lag otherwise (I modded a patch from Forge into vanilla to fix the zombie lag, vanilla 1.7 doesn't lag without any such fix, at least with a reasonable number of zombies (in 1.6 even 1 zombie causes noticeable lag) even though Mojang still has the issue as "unresolved").
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Location:
Friendship, NY
Join Date:
12/26/2010
Posts:
639
Minecraft:
LunariusH
Member Details
New Ores are useful how? *laughs* How about new content in general.
I, for one, consider this update to be rich in content that makes life interesting.
Adding another tier of Ores doesn't change game-play, nor does adding new animals. You want to see real game-changing enhancements? Go talk to the Modders, that's where Minecraft's *REAL* development lay.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Compatability is King, but configuratiblity is Queen" - InfinityRaider
If you don't like 1.9, simply play 1.8 and go away.
Kind of defeats the purpose of a forum, don't you think? Because they disagree doesn't mean they should be silenced. It's a relevant topic and their opinions are just as important as anyone's as long as it's constructive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Let me know if my posts are helpful or if you like them. That's what I'm here for.
I am currently lurking more than I am posting. I haven't gone anywhere.
People, please stay on-topic. This thread is for posting positive/negative critiques specifically for Minecraft 1.9, not for posting general opinions about Minecraft or its long-term development direction.
The thing I hate about it is the wait time for the attacks. Other than that I like the update and all. There should be a gamerule for disabling the wait time for the attacks.
I'd agree mob lag has become an issue. It was a huge problem after 1.3 when SP basically moved to server logic.
However, it's gotten noticeably better over time. A lot of the recent snapshots in the last few months focused on smoothing out mob movement, fixing lag caused by pathfinding, as well as fixing their tick rates so they remain in sync with what's going on.
The only ways I can replicate the old mob lag seen before 1.9 is by setting my render distance to something absurd the internal server can't handle. I can't speak for multiplayer though as I haven't played any servers running snapshots or the prereleases.
How absurd do you set the render distance? When hunting for Nether Fortresses I've maxed out the render distance. Quite laggy overall but, oh my, can you SEE!!!!! If had a beefier graphics card I could probably do normal play that way which would be cool. I did that in a couple snapshots and may try that again in the prerelease. I did some odd artifacts in the view though.
New Ores are useful how? *laughs* How about new content in general.
I, for one, consider this update to be rich in content that makes life interesting.
Adding another tier of Ores doesn't change game-play, nor does adding new animals. You want to see real game-changing enhancements? Go talk to the Modders, that's where Minecraft's *REAL* development lay.
I wouldn't mind new ores IF they had some interesting crafting potential. One thing I would like to see at some point though is the ability to use something besides just wood for handles. I've done survival with biome size 8 a few times where I spawned in a desert and ran out of wood to make sticks for handles about the same time as I ran out of food trying to get out of the desert to someplace with trees, or mining to come across an abandoned mine shaft. Actually the latter usually pays off faster.
I agree that this update has enough new content to be worthwhile. I also think their ongoing code cleanup will smooth things out for the long haul both for performance and, ultimately, modding.
How absurd do you set the render distance? When hunting for Nether Fortresses I've maxed out the render distance. Quite laggy overall but, oh my, can you SEE!!!!! If had a beefier graphics card I could probably do normal play that way which would be cool. I did that in a couple snapshots and may try that again in the prerelease. I did some odd artifacts in the view though.
Render distances above 16 are what I call "absurd". When it's at 20 the tickrate starts to slow down, and at 32 it's typically unplayable.
The thing I hate about it is the wait time for the attacks. Other than that I like the update and all. There should be a gamerule for disabling the wait time for the attacks.
It can be changed with commands, but I've yet to find a way to make the "old-style" weapons enchantable. I'm working on it.
Render distances above 16 are what I call "absurd". When it's at 20 the tickrate starts to slow down, and at 32 it's typically unplayable.
wow.... I normally play at a render distance of 19....... Not sure why I settled on that number but that's what I've been running for quite some time. I started playing with it more during 1.8 and then during the snapshots but overall I've found 19 to be a reasonable balance on my system. BUT I'll play with that some next time I spawn in a jungle and things seem laggier than usual. I did notice more lag in some jungle settings starting in version 1.8 over prior versions and don't really recall when I started seriously tinkering with video settings. I used to run optifine but it wasn't ready for primetime when I first started playing with 1.8 and I've run without it since. So it's entirely possible that my pre-1.8 experience was due more to optifine than anything....
Currently (unless it's been changed recently) if you use a command to make, for example, an Iron Sword with the same Attack Speed as a Hoe (instant spam-click like 1.8 or lower) it no longer accepts enchants (either via a table or an anvil). I'm trying to find a way around that.
From what little testing I've done in 1.9-pre2 the weapons DO take enchants now, and work in Anvils (at least in Creative Mode)
The Diamond Sword I made even accepted Sharp V, and two-shot a Creeper like it should, with no cooldown between attacks. Further testing saw a 1.9-style Sharp V Diamond Sword take 10 spam-click hits to destroy a Creeper.
So, for now, at least, I can safely say I have defeated the combat nerf.
The command needs to make it have both the +4 attack speed AND the correct base damage for the tool. An Iron Sword with just +4 attack speed does only 1 damage.
While I haven't been paying attention to the hate, or any 1.9 discussion honestly other than reading the basic update posts,
I can assume people hate it for the same reason people hate in general.
People hate change.
Anything that changes ever in the history of anything, people hate it.
There's STILL people that hate this isn't in Beta or Alpha forever.
People hate we have more than 1 grass color.
People hate the hunger system.
People hate biomes.
People hate trees that aren't oak.
People hate new mobs.
Terrain generation.
Biome diversity.
Texture differences.
That new pixel over there that wasn't there half a version ago.
If you can change something, people will hate it.
Before 1.9's combat update, people hated the lack of combat diversity and strategy.
Now that we have it, people apparently are hating on the opposite.
People hate change.
Keep in mind that not all change is good, either.
I'm not saying 1.9 is bad at all--in fact it's my favorite update, and I've been playing since early Beta--but a handful of the things you've mentioned have legitimate criticisms. Primarily terrain generation and the lack of biome diversity, but I've seen some decent criticisms of hunger as well. (Generally speaking most people I've seen who did have decent arguments agree that whatever we had before that feature needed improvement, but that the feature itself was a step backwards.)
There is a lot of blind hate for 1.9 and I haven't seen any good arguments against its implementation, but it's unfair to lump criticism towards genuinely disliked/bad features with trivial, meaningless complaints.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Did something happen to you in your childhood to give you this unreasonable fear of rutabaga?
I see what you mean mate. I think change is the thing that gives a game much more attention. Without change all your doing is the same thing over, and over again. With the 1.9 update there will be much more to do, much more posibilites, just a great update. I really hope they add some harder mobs in the future updates, or maybe an RPG feeling feature!
Yep. Think about maps like Ragecraft. They wil be literally IMPOSSIBLE using the new combat mechanics. They are nigh-on impossible NOW, btu when you can't effectively fight more than one or two mobs? Forget it. MANY maps will simply stop working or be usable in 1.9. Just too many stupid pointless changes.
It is neither stupid nor pointless. The fact that low skilled people like you will not own or win matches, it does not make it both. Now it is not very strategic or something but at least more fun and challenging. If you don't like it go play super mario bros.
1. that couldn't be further from the truth, cars don't fit in minecraft's theme and adding high tech stuff would be out of place, people don't like 1.9 because they don't want to relearn there pvp setup
2. please don't sighn your name like that, it's can be rather annoying
Anyone know how to change my user name?
"And just when you thought you where the sexiest one here, i show up" -Fernando
check out my suggestion for Yggdrasil, the great world tree
FOR THE HOLY LOVE OF ARCEUS AND HELIX COMBINED PALADINS IS NOT AN OVERWATCH CLONE. tf2's the true king anyways
-Let's make some noise
It is kind of curious that so many people say that 1.3 lags a lot more than older versions; in my experience it runs smoother, I even get the dreaded "lag spike of death" in Beta 1.7.3 (which returned in release 1.7+ but in a different form). It is almost as if older versions have some compatibility issue with newer hardware since my computer is below the minimum system requirements for current versions, yet above the recommended back in 1.6, and I see people say that newer versions run better for them despite this (1.6 even seems to have a compatibility issue with Java 8, including the built-in Java, which causes lag and stuttering; I disabled Java's autoupdater and use Java 7 to play).
From what I've read using a separate client and server should give better performance if you have a dual-core or better CPU; prior to then any lag in the game logic (now mostly run server-side) would also cause FPS lag and a general slowdown. Many of the issues like blocks reappearing, boat location desync (but not minecarts), etc are due to the client trying to "predict" events independently of the server, in older versions the entire game simply ran slower and you'd only notice lag if it was significant enough.
I do get lag from zombies in 1.6 if they can't reach me or a villager but I do not see unusual lag otherwise (I modded a patch from Forge into vanilla to fix the zombie lag, vanilla 1.7 doesn't lag without any such fix, at least with a reasonable number of zombies (in 1.6 even 1 zombie causes noticeable lag) even though Mojang still has the issue as "unresolved").
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Why did they make lag worse?
New Ores are useful how? *laughs* How about new content in general.
I, for one, consider this update to be rich in content that makes life interesting.
Adding another tier of Ores doesn't change game-play, nor does adding new animals. You want to see real game-changing enhancements? Go talk to the Modders, that's where Minecraft's *REAL* development lay.
Kind of defeats the purpose of a forum, don't you think? Because they disagree doesn't mean they should be silenced. It's a relevant topic and their opinions are just as important as anyone's as long as it's constructive.
People, please stay on-topic. This thread is for posting positive/negative critiques specifically for Minecraft 1.9, not for posting general opinions about Minecraft or its long-term development direction.
- sunperp
- sunperp
The thing I hate about it is the wait time for the attacks. Other than that I like the update and all. There should be a gamerule for disabling the wait time for the attacks.
How absurd do you set the render distance? When hunting for Nether Fortresses I've maxed out the render distance. Quite laggy overall but, oh my, can you SEE!!!!! If had a beefier graphics card I could probably do normal play that way which would be cool. I did that in a couple snapshots and may try that again in the prerelease. I did some odd artifacts in the view though.
I wouldn't mind new ores IF they had some interesting crafting potential. One thing I would like to see at some point though is the ability to use something besides just wood for handles. I've done survival with biome size 8 a few times where I spawned in a desert and ran out of wood to make sticks for handles about the same time as I ran out of food trying to get out of the desert to someplace with trees, or mining to come across an abandoned mine shaft. Actually the latter usually pays off faster.
I agree that this update has enough new content to be worthwhile. I also think their ongoing code cleanup will smooth things out for the long haul both for performance and, ultimately, modding.
Render distances above 16 are what I call "absurd". When it's at 20 the tickrate starts to slow down, and at 32 it's typically unplayable.
It can be changed with commands, but I've yet to find a way to make the "old-style" weapons enchantable. I'm working on it.
wow.... I normally play at a render distance of 19....... Not sure why I settled on that number but that's what I've been running for quite some time. I started playing with it more during 1.8 and then during the snapshots but overall I've found 19 to be a reasonable balance on my system. BUT I'll play with that some next time I spawn in a jungle and things seem laggier than usual. I did notice more lag in some jungle settings starting in version 1.8 over prior versions and don't really recall when I started seriously tinkering with video settings. I used to run optifine but it wasn't ready for primetime when I first started playing with 1.8 and I've run without it since. So it's entirely possible that my pre-1.8 experience was due more to optifine than anything....
Currently (unless it's been changed recently) if you use a command to make, for example, an Iron Sword with the same Attack Speed as a Hoe (instant spam-click like 1.8 or lower) it no longer accepts enchants (either via a table or an anvil). I'm trying to find a way around that.
From what little testing I've done in 1.9-pre2 the weapons DO take enchants now, and work in Anvils (at least in Creative Mode)
The Diamond Sword I made even accepted Sharp V, and two-shot a Creeper like it should, with no cooldown between attacks. Further testing saw a 1.9-style Sharp V Diamond Sword take 10 spam-click hits to destroy a Creeper.
So, for now, at least, I can safely say I have defeated the combat nerf.
The command needs to make it have both the +4 attack speed AND the correct base damage for the tool. An Iron Sword with just +4 attack speed does only 1 damage.
While I haven't been paying attention to the hate, or any 1.9 discussion honestly other than reading the basic update posts,
I can assume people hate it for the same reason people hate in general.
People hate change.
Anything that changes ever in the history of anything, people hate it.
There's STILL people that hate this isn't in Beta or Alpha forever.
People hate we have more than 1 grass color.
People hate the hunger system.
People hate biomes.
People hate trees that aren't oak.
People hate new mobs.
Terrain generation.
Biome diversity.
Texture differences.
That new pixel over there that wasn't there half a version ago.
If you can change something, people will hate it.
Before 1.9's combat update, people hated the lack of combat diversity and strategy.
Now that we have it, people apparently are hating on the opposite.
People hate change.
i think the combat thing is OK. It's more realistic, and I'm all for there being less brute-force involved.
Is that a...? Aw, never mind.
Keep in mind that not all change is good, either.
I'm not saying 1.9 is bad at all--in fact it's my favorite update, and I've been playing since early Beta--but a handful of the things you've mentioned have legitimate criticisms. Primarily terrain generation and the lack of biome diversity, but I've seen some decent criticisms of hunger as well. (Generally speaking most people I've seen who did have decent arguments agree that whatever we had before that feature needed improvement, but that the feature itself was a step backwards.)
There is a lot of blind hate for 1.9 and I haven't seen any good arguments against its implementation, but it's unfair to lump criticism towards genuinely disliked/bad features with trivial, meaningless complaints.
I see what you mean mate. I think change is the thing that gives a game much more attention. Without change all your doing is the same thing over, and over again. With the 1.9 update there will be much more to do, much more posibilites, just a great update. I really hope they add some harder mobs in the future updates, or maybe an RPG feeling feature!
Looking for a great OPprison server? Join mine!
RoathPrison.beastmc.com
It is neither stupid nor pointless. The fact that low skilled people like you will not own or win matches, it does not make it both. Now it is not very strategic or something but at least more fun and challenging. If you don't like it go play super mario bros.
I'm hating 1.9 because the pre-releases broke my Dynamo contraption: http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/redstone-discussion-and/2584067-15-new-naturally-spawning-seed-specific-structures
Thanks Mojang!