I mean the problems of large worlds taking up too much RAM, because as far as what has been said in this thread, every Vanilla server posted about in this thread has had no lag issues with generating new world. Then you said this:
Plugins = Bukkit/Spigot. Bukkit/Spigot = A modded server. Therefore, the only servers talked about in this thread that have had lag issues are modded. Therefore the lag due to world expansion is an issue with the mods taking up to much RAM. Which makes that an issue with modded servers, not Vanilla ones. So Mojang does not have to change the world generator because mods take up too much RAM, that makes no sense.
You don't fully understand how a server with plugins runs, or how lag is created. Lag isn't created from a single cause. Loading and unloading chunks causes lag, generating new terrain causes lag. This happens on a Vanilla Minecraft server. Plugins can also cause lag.
I dislike it because it causes myself and many other people a lot of unnecessary problems, especially on servers and survival maps.
Since Mojang created a survival game mode and allowed players to host servers it would be wise to allow them to use these features in a way that isn't a hassle to find a playable map.
If you ask me, it seems like you had one bad 1.7 terrain experience and now you are committed to the thought that it is all bad. Two people have come and testified (maybe more?) that their 1.7 servers are not having any of the trouble that you are having, and I have already pointed out several hassle free ways around this sort of situation.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
XP Guide Regardless of what change you do, no matter how small, someone will complain. - Jens Bergensten If you want me to see your reply, make sure to quote my post in your reply.
You don't fully understand how a server with plugins runs, or how lag is created. Lag isn't created from a single cause. Loading and unloading chunks causes lag, generating new terrain causes lag. This happens on a Vanilla Minecraft server. Plugins can also cause lag.
Every server can only handle so much and if it's resources are stretched too thin you get lag. If you are going to increase the loading and unloading of chunks and the frequency of new terrain that's generated you are going to get more lag.
However, this isn't the only problem with the new terrain generations.
And as I have been saying, Vanilla servers can handle this lag, as it is the only resource intensive lag they get. The only servers that cannot handle it are servers that install mods, as those servers add another source of resource intensive lag. So again, I do not see why players adding resource intensive plugins to their server is Mojang's issue, if the Vanilla servers can run just fine then that is all they have to worry about. Not too sure which part of that is hard for you to understand. To put it simply: Vanilla can handle the world generation just fine, mods add more lag, therefore server lags. Mojang should not have to change Vanilla because people's servers cannot handle mods and generating worlds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The problem with the truth, is that it never lies.
And as I have been saying, Vanilla servers can handle this lag, as it is the only resource intensive lag they get.
This isn't true.
Pack 50 people onto a new vanilla map with 2 GB of RAM and tell them to all go explore. I'd give it 5 minutes before your server crashes. It all depends on what your server is capable of, not where the lag is coming from.
If you ask me, it seems like you had one bad 1.7 terrain experience and now you are committed to the thought that it is all bad. Two people have come and testified (maybe more?) that their 1.7 servers are not having any of the trouble that you are having, and I have already pointed out several hassle free ways around this sort of situation.
That is not true. I have literally went through over 100 maps on Amidst to see how the new terrain is generated.
There has been many people who have the same complaints as myself. You're suggestions are not hassle free either. Hassle free is creating a new map and playing.
Pack 50 people onto a new map with 2 GB of RAM and tell them to all go explore.
Anyone who tries to pack 50 people on 2 GB of RAM period deserves the lag of the world generation. Anyone who is a half-decent server owner knows you never make your slots the maximum amount of people that your RAM can run, Vanilla server or not, and if they do then their server deserves to be laggy as they are horrid owners.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The problem with the truth, is that it never lies.
Pack 50 people onto a new vanilla map with 2 GB of RAM and tell them to all go explore. I'd give it 5 minutes before your server crashes. It all depends on what your server is capable of, not where the lag is coming from.
That is not true. I have literally went through over 100 maps on Amidst to see how the new terrain is generated.
There has been many people who have the same complaints as myself.
Which is why you do not pack 50 people into a 2 gigabyte server and tell them to explore. That was an awful and unrealistic scenario that would have produced the same results in 1.6 or earlier.
As to the Amidst maps, I seriously doubt that you went through 100.
XP Guide Regardless of what change you do, no matter how small, someone will complain. - Jens Bergensten If you want me to see your reply, make sure to quote my post in your reply.
Which is why you do not pack 50 people into a 2 gigabyte server and tell them to explore. That was an awful and unrealistic scenario that would have produced the same results in 1.6 or earlier.
As to the Amidst maps, I seriously doubt that you went through 100.
It was an example to explain to her how lag is created. You're taking it out of context.
You can make assumptions all you want, but its very easy to press Ctrl + R to get a new seed. I have checked over 100 seeds for 1.7 it took me maybe an hour.
It was an example to explain to her how lag is created. You're taking it out of context.
You can make assumptions all you want, but its very easy to press Ctrl + R to get a new seed. I have checked over 100 seeds for 1.7 it took me maybe an hour.
Yes, but it was an unrealistic example, please, give a realistic example of exploration that would cause lag in a Vanilla server. If you can do so then I will admit you are right. But you can't, because under unrealistic circumstances the Vanilla server software can handle world generation just fine, it is only when resource intensive mods are added that it starts to lag. Which, again, people adding resource intensive mods is not Mojang's problem.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The problem with the truth, is that it never lies.
Yes, but it was an unrealistic example, please, give a realistic example of exploration that would cause lag in a Vanilla server. If you can do so then I will admit you are right. But you can't, because under unrealistic circumstances the Vanilla server software can handle world generation just fine, it is only when resource intensive mods are added that it starts to lag. Which, again, people adding resource intensive mods is not Mojang's problem.
So you are suggesting that people should have to resort to playing vanilla servers if they don't want lag? That's ridiculous. Most people don't play vanilla Minecraft.
Besides, that is the least of the problems that the new terrain generation creates. I am much more concerned with the gigantic biomes that go on for 10,000 blocks, or not being able to find a jungle, or a snow biome.
So you are suggesting that people should have to resort to playing vanilla servers if they don't want lag? That's ridiculous. Most people don't play vanilla Minecraft.
Besides, that is the least of the problems that the new terrain generation creates. I am much more concerned with the gigantic biomes that go on for 10,000 blocks, or not being able to find a jungle, or a snow biome.
Well, if people want to install resource intensive mods and explore their world and they do not have enough RAM to support both then they can either get more RAM or stop doing one. That is just common sense.
And as I have said, in my SP world and on my server we have had no issues with finding the biomes that we need.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The problem with the truth, is that it never lies.
If I'm correct, this was during a period in Infdev where the terrain generator consisted pretty much solely of OMGWTF mountains. What people tend to call the Alpha generator was introduced a couple months after which generally had flatter, less jagged world generation than the earlier versions did.
For one thing, the guy here seems to have a misconception with the (at the time) future biome system; at one point he mentions that "you can have a taiga biome fairly close to a hot desert biome if not right next to eachother". Ironically, this was not the case once the update rolled out, since the update contained logical biome transitions. It was, however, the case in the ß1.8-r1.6 generator (and also in the current generator but to a much lesser degree, to the point where it's no longer a bad thing), and people did complain about it there. He mentions that "the biomes look more like someone threw a bucket of "taiga" paint in the air and let the drops fall where they may". Once again, this more accurately resembles the ß1.8-r1.6 generator (and to a lesser extent r1.7) what with its more clearly defined biomes and a lack of regard for surrounding biomes.
other complaints said that the Biomes are horrible as implemented in Alpha 1.2.5. This same biome algorithm continued up to 1.7.3.
To be honest, I can't blame them too much. The biomes have very few distinguishing features from one another, something that the current generator has. Notice how people in the Halloween Update archive tend to say "biomes really need more unique things" whereas people nowadays to my knowledge tend to be more like "biomes have a decent amount of unique things but the game could be made even better if there were more".
This guy in particular is complaining about biome size. Small biome size was a common complaint about the ß1.7.3 (Halloween Update) generator and was one of the reasons that the Adventure Update warranted a generator (and while it did fix the biome size issue it was also pretty much crap).
On the search results I count nearly a pageful of threads with names like "These new Biomes are terrible" and "please fix the biomes" and "Biomes are too small" or "Desert next to Taiga WTF?" type titles.
I did my own search. Most of them were complaints about the generator that were eventually fixed, never fixed at all, or reintroduced to the generator or even worsened at some point:
-"Biomes a bit of a letdown?" Complains about biome size and polar biomes looking out of place. Admittedly, polar biomes did have mediocre transitions back in the day (after all, while grass transitions may have been smooth, grass to snow and grass to sand were instant).
-"Too tiny landmasses". A similar complaint to the whole "oceans are now to small" thing, the OP mentions the worlds being composed of either a continuous landmass punctured with small lakes (like what people are complaining about now). The main problem with ß1.8-r1.6 oceans isn't really that they're massive, it's that they're larger than continents yet have next to no content and that oceans are ALWAYS massive, without fail.
-"Good and Bad about the New Map Generator". OP complains primarily about the lack of mountains and the increased difficulty of finding coal because of them. Posters in the thread have noted that crazy mountains still exist but are rarer, though one person noted that they were more common (this was a good thing about the 1.7.3 generator). Also has a redundant complaint (increased amount caves making it annoying to counter mobs due to the new mob spawn logic; the mob spawn logic was reverted not long after the topic was posted).
-"7 Reasons why I Dislike Biomes". First and fourth were complaints about the biomes having few distinguishing characteristics, which was a valid complaint at the time. Second was a complaint about being unable to make a "microworld" due to changing grass colors, which at least in my opinion is a rather minor complaint since the changing grass colors are a good thing in their own right. Third and seventh complaints are about a lack of biomes the user wanted. The sixth is about the user finding a lack of "epic features", citing that he hasn't found an epic beach since the previous generator.
-"Why biomes are bad right now. Or not?". OP complained about a lack of crazy mountains or cave systems; long story short, he felt that all the excitement was gone. Some posters agree with the OP in that they cannot find epic things whereas others say they can. OP eventually thinks that he may just be unlucky and later generated a world with the things he seeked.
Basically, everything we currently have in the terrain generator somebody, or some subset of people who play the game effectively asked for.
Except... well, not really.
In the first link you mentioned the OP exclusively finds mountainous terrain... in a version of Minecraft's terrain generator that nearly exclusively generated jagged, mountainous terrain generation. Eventually this was fixed; some of the complaints about the Halloween Update generator mention that they cannot find mountains (indicating obviously that they find flatlands in abundance), though others mention finding crazy mountains like there were in the Alpha generator. Essentially, they're finding the varied mix that ß1.7.3 is known for, not the jagged mess that was the Infdev generator.
The second link you mentioned has the OP mentioning that he dislikes the fact that illogical biome transitions will most likely be possible. However, he is speaking before the Halloween Update generator was actually released, meaning that his complaint was pure speculation. The Halloween Update generator does not have illogical biome transitions; instead, illogical and abrupt biome transitions are featured in the 1.8 generator where they are commonly complained about.
The third link you mentioned has the OP complaining about small biome sizes; this was a common complaint about the ß1.7.3 generator and was one of the reasons that ß1.8 had a new terrain generator. Notice how people after ß1.8 don't really complain about biome sizes. Here, on this thread, the fault at hand is caused more by the biome grouping system than anything else (you may occasionally get seemingly humongous instances of a biome; this is just multiple instances of the same biome appearing right next to eachother).
Another thing worth noting: When I was digging through your links and in the Alpha archives, most people:
A) Had not explored the Halloween Update generator enough to make a valid complaint, or
B.) Generally though that the terrain generator was good, but could become great if some changes were made (heck, if ß1.8 had made those changes WITHOUT murdering variety, it would have become great generator and we wouldn't be here on this topic because the faults of 1.8 are what warranted a terrain update in the form of r1.7 which has it's OWN slew of problems).
Contrast that with people discussing the terrain generator nowadays. Rather than getting people who think the generator needs only a few changes to become great, people who once were saying that the generator was good and only needed a few improvements (not the same people of course) are saying that we need to overhaul key aspects of the terrain generator in order for it to become great and that it was currently in a bad state (of course there are also other people, like fanboys and people who think it only needs a few more changes to become great, but the group who considers the generator to be in a genuinely bad state is much, MUCH larger now; even if only because the group was very small in Alpha).
The MAIN REASON people are complaining so much nowadays (by that I mean from ß1.8 to r1.7) is because of the issues introduced in 1.8 (which still exist in 1.7 for the most part) and from the atrocious biome grouping idea. The links I've seen you provide (you've done this once or twice before) haven't wanted a generator extremely similar to the one introduced in 1.8; most still wanted a good level of variety rather than biomes forcing everything. Even in the second link you provided, the system the guy proposed still had height variation; it only had a more realistic (if somewhat predictable) method of generating biomes, and didn't have some of the nastier side effects of 1.8 aside from the lack of height variation, like mucked up beaches and 3-block biome transitions.. Even then, he wanted it because of a misconception with the Halloween Update Generator.
Hell I found people complaining when sandstone was added in 1.2 beta and how it completely destroys some metagame concept they invented!
...
And I thought the Rose War was stupid.
Also, Scum and Redstonevet: you're locked in a pretty pointless argument there. Instead of trying to murder each other, why not just discuss a compromise for the whole biome grouping system? Server lag aside, it's quite obvious that the biome grouping system has problems and is far from the best solution. For an example, it was intended to prevent bad biome transitions, one of the much complained about features of the ß1.8 generator. It came in two parts: illogical biome transitions (e.g. jungles to taigas), which was fixed, and three block biome transitions (the grass color of one biome transfers to the grass color of another biome in only three blocks). A fix that only fixes half the problem is obviously a bad fix. As for me, I see no reason as to why something similar to the temperature system used in ß1.7.3 can't be added (unless it conflicts with Anvil... which I suppose is a reason :P).
Also, Scum and Redstonevet: you're locked in a pretty pointless argument there. Instead of trying to murder each other, why not just discuss a compromise for the whole biome grouping system? Server lag aside, it's quite obvious that the biome grouping system has problems and is far from the best solution. For an example, it was intended to prevent bad biome transitions, one of the much complained about features of the ß1.8 generator. It came in two parts: illogical biome transitions (e.g. jungles to taigas), which was fixed, and three block biome transitions (the grass color of one biome transfers to the grass color of another biome in only three blocks). A fix that only fixes half the problem is obviously a bad fix. As for me, I see no reason as to why something similar to the temperature system used in ß1.7.3 can't be added (unless it conflicts with Anvil... which I suppose is a reason ).
I'd be happy if the biomes were smaller on default and there was less of the same temperature biomes repeating themselves over and over on your map. That way when you create a map you'd be able to get to all biomes within a distance that is reasonable to travel.
I have no problem with the biome transitions. IMO, Mojang fixed that problem.
That is essentially the point of my thread. If Scum is unwilling to recognize that there are problems with the 1.7 generations then we will never reach a point where we can agree.
The MAIN REASON people are complaining so much nowadays (by that I mean from ß1.8 to r1.7) is because of the issues introduced in 1.8 (which still exist in 1.7 for the most part) and from the atrocious biome grouping idea. The links I've seen you provide (you've done this once or twice before) haven't wanted a generator extremely similar to the one introduced in 1.8; most still wanted a good level of variety rather than biomes forcing everything.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
7/27/2012
Posts:
59
Location:
Mystical land of Canada
Minecraft:
Thanatar16
Member Details
Waaay too many large, long comments above for me to bother seeing where the discussion has turned...
But anyways, I've never really considered MC world generation the best for my needs, if I were to use it I'd probably make and delete several worlds before finding one I figured acceptable.
Sometimes you can even spawn in the ocean, so yeah....
And it's not just v.1.7's world generation which sucks. Vanilla world generation has always sucked.
World editing/terraforming mods and programs like MCedit, WorldEdit, VoxelSniper, and even WorldPainter do the trick for me; typically if I'm trying to make something big I might set the world generation settings to flat, or even flat with (0,0) in order to have literally no blocks whatsoever (would require WorldEdit, SPC, and TMI though)
If you like playing pure vanilla though, you're pretty much out of luck :/
If Scum is unwilling to recognize that there are problems with the 1.7 generations then we will never reach a point where we can agree.
If redstonevet is unwilling to recognize that the only problems with the 1.7 generator are based on his own opinion then we will never reach a point where we can agree.
See? Pointless.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
XP Guide Regardless of what change you do, no matter how small, someone will complain. - Jens Bergensten If you want me to see your reply, make sure to quote my post in your reply.
It was an example to explain to her how lag is created. You're taking it out of context.
It wasn't, really.
Populiministrum said this:
And as I have been saying, Vanilla servers can handle this lag, as it is the only resource intensive lag they get.
You then responded by saying this:
This isn't true. Pack 50 people onto a new vanilla map with 2 GB of RAM and tell them to all go explore. I'd give it 5 minutes before your server crashes. It all depends on what your server is capable of, not where the lag is coming from.
Populi said that servers can handle this lag. You then responded by saying that this lag comes from 50 people on a small server who are all exploring, and you were correct in saying that. But the thing is that crazy scenario never happens, and if it does the server owner is being irresponsible by letting 50 people on a server that obviously can't handle it (i.e not mojangs fault and they can't fix it). So this lag actually never happens, because the scenario that causes it never happens.
So it would make sense for us to want a more realistic scenario, otherwise all you've been saying about 1.7 making people explore and exploring causing lag is moot.
XP Guide Regardless of what change you do, no matter how small, someone will complain. - Jens Bergensten If you want me to see your reply, make sure to quote my post in your reply.
I think if Mojang aimed for some middle ground and added extra options for generating worlds it would do a lot of good.
There is no middle-ground. "compromise" is just a code word for "nobody is happy". 'Options' don't work because every single option doubles the test matrix.
For example, nobody wants every tagia biome to be the same, but no one wants it to be completely random so much that it makes no sense either. Also we don't need massive biomes on default, we have large biomes for that.
The results and in fact some of the forum posts I linked say something very different. I recall reading in my travels with the search complaints that biomes were not as individual as they should be.
People were complaining that the biomes were far too small. In fact if there is one thing almost everybody agreed on before 1.8 it was that biomes were too small.
The thing is, Mojang is not trying to please everybody.
It is entirely possible to create a map where you are missing certain biomes for tens of thousands of blocks.
Read some of the links I provided. this is quite literally what people were clamouring for.
As the old saying goes, "you can't please all of the people, all of the time."
For the most part, I happen to like the new terrain generation. It's stopped putting deserts right beside snow biomes, and now its a bit of an adventure to find all the biomes, and thus some of the materials you may want to use. Not need, want.
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with travelling several minecraft days to get a rare wood that isn't near where you've setup your home. Or spending (in-game) weeks exploring for that mesa biome and its plentiful supply of hardened clay. That is the whole point of survival minecraft: the struggle to first get the things you need, and then build the things you want.
There are only two flaws in my eyes with the new terrain generator: melons spawn in jungles, which meant that jungles now have to be rare for game balance purposes, and oceans are way too small. They're not oceans anymore, but inland seas.
Populi said that servers can handle this lag. You then responded by saying that this lag comes from 50 people on a small server who are all exploring, and you were correct in saying that. But the thing is that crazy scenario never happens, and if it does the server owner is being irresponsible by letting 50 people on a server that obviously can't handle it (i.e not mojangs fault and they can't fix it).
As I said before you are taking it out of context. It was a hypothetical example of how lag is created.
Populi was trying to say that a server with plugins that has too much lag should revert back to vanilla because vanilla servers can handle lag better. Which isn't true because it all depends where the lag is coming from.
Your server is going to lag if you stretch it's resources too far. Period. Be that too many plugins, or cramming too many people on it. To reduce it's lag you first need to find the source.
If redstonevet is unwilling to recognize that the only problems with the 1.7 generator are based on his own opinion then we will never reach a point where we can agree.
If this is how you feel I have no reason to keep discussing this with you.
There are many people that disagree with you. Read the countless threads on the forums.
You don't even need to play 1.7 if you think it has horrible generation. The new launcher allows users to pick which version they want to play, even if it's pre-alpha.
I like everything about 1.7 except the ridiculous terrain generation.
I JUST said that WORLD SIZE does NOT cause LAG. THE ONLY thing that will cause lag in this case is PLAYERS LOADING THEIR OWN SET OF CHUNKS. THAT INCLUDES PLAYERS TRAVELING 7500 BLOCKS TO FIND A JUNGLE.
That's not quite true. The server has to search through its chunk database to load a chunk, and the larger the database, the slower the search. Theoretically the difference shouldn't be large with actual world sizes, assuming it's well programmed - but - my impression with a single-player world is that when I get far from spawn (maybe 5000 blocks) loading does seem to slow down.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
You don't fully understand how a server with plugins runs, or how lag is created. Lag isn't created from a single cause. Loading and unloading chunks causes lag, generating new terrain causes lag. This happens on a Vanilla Minecraft server. Plugins can also cause lag.
If you ask me, it seems like you had one bad 1.7 terrain experience and now you are committed to the thought that it is all bad. Two people have come and testified (maybe more?) that their 1.7 servers are not having any of the trouble that you are having, and I have already pointed out several hassle free ways around this sort of situation.
Regardless of what change you do, no matter how small, someone will complain. - Jens Bergensten
If you want me to see your reply, make sure to quote my post in your reply.
And as I have been saying, Vanilla servers can handle this lag, as it is the only resource intensive lag they get. The only servers that cannot handle it are servers that install mods, as those servers add another source of resource intensive lag. So again, I do not see why players adding resource intensive plugins to their server is Mojang's issue, if the Vanilla servers can run just fine then that is all they have to worry about. Not too sure which part of that is hard for you to understand. To put it simply: Vanilla can handle the world generation just fine, mods add more lag, therefore server lags. Mojang should not have to change Vanilla because people's servers cannot handle mods and generating worlds.
This isn't true.
Pack 50 people onto a new vanilla map with 2 GB of RAM and tell them to all go explore. I'd give it 5 minutes before your server crashes. It all depends on what your server is capable of, not where the lag is coming from.
That is not true. I have literally went through over 100 maps on Amidst to see how the new terrain is generated.
There has been many people who have the same complaints as myself. You're suggestions are not hassle free either. Hassle free is creating a new map and playing.
Anyone who tries to pack 50 people on 2 GB of RAM period deserves the lag of the world generation. Anyone who is a half-decent server owner knows you never make your slots the maximum amount of people that your RAM can run, Vanilla server or not, and if they do then their server deserves to be laggy as they are horrid owners.
Which is why you do not pack 50 people into a 2 gigabyte server and tell them to explore. That was an awful and unrealistic scenario that would have produced the same results in 1.6 or earlier.
As to the Amidst maps, I seriously doubt that you went through 100.
Regardless of what change you do, no matter how small, someone will complain. - Jens Bergensten
If you want me to see your reply, make sure to quote my post in your reply.
It was an example to explain to her how lag is created. You're taking it out of context.
You can make assumptions all you want, but its very easy to press Ctrl + R to get a new seed. I have checked over 100 seeds for 1.7 it took me maybe an hour.
Yes, but it was an unrealistic example, please, give a realistic example of exploration that would cause lag in a Vanilla server. If you can do so then I will admit you are right. But you can't, because under unrealistic circumstances the Vanilla server software can handle world generation just fine, it is only when resource intensive mods are added that it starts to lag. Which, again, people adding resource intensive mods is not Mojang's problem.
So you are suggesting that people should have to resort to playing vanilla servers if they don't want lag? That's ridiculous. Most people don't play vanilla Minecraft.
Besides, that is the least of the problems that the new terrain generation creates. I am much more concerned with the gigantic biomes that go on for 10,000 blocks, or not being able to find a jungle, or a snow biome.
Well, if people want to install resource intensive mods and explore their world and they do not have enough RAM to support both then they can either get more RAM or stop doing one. That is just common sense.
And as I have said, in my SP world and on my server we have had no issues with finding the biomes that we need.
That's one server. Lots of people have problem finding snow and jungle biomes, or getting out of a forest biome.
If I'm correct, this was during a period in Infdev where the terrain generator consisted pretty much solely of OMGWTF mountains. What people tend to call the Alpha generator was introduced a couple months after which generally had flatter, less jagged world generation than the earlier versions did.
For one thing, the guy here seems to have a misconception with the (at the time) future biome system; at one point he mentions that "you can have a taiga biome fairly close to a hot desert biome if not right next to eachother". Ironically, this was not the case once the update rolled out, since the update contained logical biome transitions. It was, however, the case in the ß1.8-r1.6 generator (and also in the current generator but to a much lesser degree, to the point where it's no longer a bad thing), and people did complain about it there. He mentions that "the biomes look more like someone threw a bucket of "taiga" paint in the air and let the drops fall where they may". Once again, this more accurately resembles the ß1.8-r1.6 generator (and to a lesser extent r1.7) what with its more clearly defined biomes and a lack of regard for surrounding biomes.
To be honest, I can't blame them too much. The biomes have very few distinguishing features from one another, something that the current generator has. Notice how people in the Halloween Update archive tend to say "biomes really need more unique things" whereas people nowadays to my knowledge tend to be more like "biomes have a decent amount of unique things but the game could be made even better if there were more".
This guy in particular is complaining about biome size. Small biome size was a common complaint about the ß1.7.3 (Halloween Update) generator and was one of the reasons that the Adventure Update warranted a generator (and while it did fix the biome size issue it was also pretty much crap).
I did my own search. Most of them were complaints about the generator that were eventually fixed, never fixed at all, or reintroduced to the generator or even worsened at some point:
-"Biomes a bit of a letdown?" Complains about biome size and polar biomes looking out of place. Admittedly, polar biomes did have mediocre transitions back in the day (after all, while grass transitions may have been smooth, grass to snow and grass to sand were instant).
-"Too tiny landmasses". A similar complaint to the whole "oceans are now to small" thing, the OP mentions the worlds being composed of either a continuous landmass punctured with small lakes (like what people are complaining about now). The main problem with ß1.8-r1.6 oceans isn't really that they're massive, it's that they're larger than continents yet have next to no content and that oceans are ALWAYS massive, without fail.
-"Good and Bad about the New Map Generator". OP complains primarily about the lack of mountains and the increased difficulty of finding coal because of them. Posters in the thread have noted that crazy mountains still exist but are rarer, though one person noted that they were more common (this was a good thing about the 1.7.3 generator). Also has a redundant complaint (increased amount caves making it annoying to counter mobs due to the new mob spawn logic; the mob spawn logic was reverted not long after the topic was posted).
-"7 Reasons why I Dislike Biomes". First and fourth were complaints about the biomes having few distinguishing characteristics, which was a valid complaint at the time. Second was a complaint about being unable to make a "microworld" due to changing grass colors, which at least in my opinion is a rather minor complaint since the changing grass colors are a good thing in their own right. Third and seventh complaints are about a lack of biomes the user wanted. The sixth is about the user finding a lack of "epic features", citing that he hasn't found an epic beach since the previous generator.
-"Why biomes are bad right now. Or not?". OP complained about a lack of crazy mountains or cave systems; long story short, he felt that all the excitement was gone. Some posters agree with the OP in that they cannot find epic things whereas others say they can. OP eventually thinks that he may just be unlucky and later generated a world with the things he seeked.
Except... well, not really.
In the first link you mentioned the OP exclusively finds mountainous terrain... in a version of Minecraft's terrain generator that nearly exclusively generated jagged, mountainous terrain generation. Eventually this was fixed; some of the complaints about the Halloween Update generator mention that they cannot find mountains (indicating obviously that they find flatlands in abundance), though others mention finding crazy mountains like there were in the Alpha generator. Essentially, they're finding the varied mix that ß1.7.3 is known for, not the jagged mess that was the Infdev generator.
The second link you mentioned has the OP mentioning that he dislikes the fact that illogical biome transitions will most likely be possible. However, he is speaking before the Halloween Update generator was actually released, meaning that his complaint was pure speculation. The Halloween Update generator does not have illogical biome transitions; instead, illogical and abrupt biome transitions are featured in the 1.8 generator where they are commonly complained about.
The third link you mentioned has the OP complaining about small biome sizes; this was a common complaint about the ß1.7.3 generator and was one of the reasons that ß1.8 had a new terrain generator. Notice how people after ß1.8 don't really complain about biome sizes. Here, on this thread, the fault at hand is caused more by the biome grouping system than anything else (you may occasionally get seemingly humongous instances of a biome; this is just multiple instances of the same biome appearing right next to eachother).
Another thing worth noting: When I was digging through your links and in the Alpha archives, most people:
A) Had not explored the Halloween Update generator enough to make a valid complaint, or
B.) Generally though that the terrain generator was good, but could become great if some changes were made (heck, if ß1.8 had made those changes WITHOUT murdering variety, it would have become great generator and we wouldn't be here on this topic because the faults of 1.8 are what warranted a terrain update in the form of r1.7 which has it's OWN slew of problems).
Contrast that with people discussing the terrain generator nowadays. Rather than getting people who think the generator needs only a few changes to become great, people who once were saying that the generator was good and only needed a few improvements (not the same people of course) are saying that we need to overhaul key aspects of the terrain generator in order for it to become great and that it was currently in a bad state (of course there are also other people, like fanboys and people who think it only needs a few more changes to become great, but the group who considers the generator to be in a genuinely bad state is much, MUCH larger now; even if only because the group was very small in Alpha).
The MAIN REASON people are complaining so much nowadays (by that I mean from ß1.8 to r1.7) is because of the issues introduced in 1.8 (which still exist in 1.7 for the most part) and from the atrocious biome grouping idea. The links I've seen you provide (you've done this once or twice before) haven't wanted a generator extremely similar to the one introduced in 1.8; most still wanted a good level of variety rather than biomes forcing everything. Even in the second link you provided, the system the guy proposed still had height variation; it only had a more realistic (if somewhat predictable) method of generating biomes, and didn't have some of the nastier side effects of 1.8 aside from the lack of height variation, like mucked up beaches and 3-block biome transitions.. Even then, he wanted it because of a misconception with the Halloween Update Generator.
...
And I thought the Rose War was stupid.
Also, Scum and Redstonevet: you're locked in a pretty pointless argument there. Instead of trying to murder each other, why not just discuss a compromise for the whole biome grouping system? Server lag aside, it's quite obvious that the biome grouping system has problems and is far from the best solution. For an example, it was intended to prevent bad biome transitions, one of the much complained about features of the ß1.8 generator. It came in two parts: illogical biome transitions (e.g. jungles to taigas), which was fixed, and three block biome transitions (the grass color of one biome transfers to the grass color of another biome in only three blocks). A fix that only fixes half the problem is obviously a bad fix. As for me, I see no reason as to why something similar to the temperature system used in ß1.7.3 can't be added (unless it conflicts with Anvil... which I suppose is a reason :P).
I'd be happy if the biomes were smaller on default and there was less of the same temperature biomes repeating themselves over and over on your map. That way when you create a map you'd be able to get to all biomes within a distance that is reasonable to travel.
I have no problem with the biome transitions. IMO, Mojang fixed that problem.
That is essentially the point of my thread. If Scum is unwilling to recognize that there are problems with the 1.7 generations then we will never reach a point where we can agree.
I'd also say that this is accurate.
But anyways, I've never really considered MC world generation the best for my needs, if I were to use it I'd probably make and delete several worlds before finding one I figured acceptable.
Sometimes you can even spawn in the ocean, so yeah....
And it's not just v.1.7's world generation which sucks. Vanilla world generation has always sucked.
World editing/terraforming mods and programs like MCedit, WorldEdit, VoxelSniper, and even WorldPainter do the trick for me; typically if I'm trying to make something big I might set the world generation settings to flat, or even flat with (0,0) in order to have literally no blocks whatsoever (would require WorldEdit, SPC, and TMI though)
If you like playing pure vanilla though, you're pretty much out of luck :/
Oh we definitely are. I kinda had a feeling it would end up this way from the start.
If redstonevet is unwilling to recognize that the only problems with the 1.7 generator are based on his own opinion then we will never reach a point where we can agree.
See? Pointless.
Regardless of what change you do, no matter how small, someone will complain. - Jens Bergensten
If you want me to see your reply, make sure to quote my post in your reply.
It wasn't, really.
Populiministrum said this:
You then responded by saying this:
Populi said that servers can handle this lag. You then responded by saying that this lag comes from 50 people on a small server who are all exploring, and you were correct in saying that. But the thing is that crazy scenario never happens, and if it does the server owner is being irresponsible by letting 50 people on a server that obviously can't handle it (i.e not mojangs fault and they can't fix it). So this lag actually never happens, because the scenario that causes it never happens.
So it would make sense for us to want a more realistic scenario, otherwise all you've been saying about 1.7 making people explore and exploring causing lag is moot.
Regardless of what change you do, no matter how small, someone will complain. - Jens Bergensten
If you want me to see your reply, make sure to quote my post in your reply.
There is no middle-ground. "compromise" is just a code word for "nobody is happy". 'Options' don't work because every single option doubles the test matrix.
The results and in fact some of the forum posts I linked say something very different. I recall reading in my travels with the search complaints that biomes were not as individual as they should be.
People were complaining that the biomes were far too small. In fact if there is one thing almost everybody agreed on before 1.8 it was that biomes were too small.
The thing is, Mojang is not trying to please everybody.
Read some of the links I provided. this is quite literally what people were clamouring for.
For the most part, I happen to like the new terrain generation. It's stopped putting deserts right beside snow biomes, and now its a bit of an adventure to find all the biomes, and thus some of the materials you may want to use. Not need, want.
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with travelling several minecraft days to get a rare wood that isn't near where you've setup your home. Or spending (in-game) weeks exploring for that mesa biome and its plentiful supply of hardened clay. That is the whole point of survival minecraft: the struggle to first get the things you need, and then build the things you want.
There are only two flaws in my eyes with the new terrain generator: melons spawn in jungles, which meant that jungles now have to be rare for game balance purposes, and oceans are way too small. They're not oceans anymore, but inland seas.
As I said before you are taking it out of context. It was a hypothetical example of how lag is created.
Populi was trying to say that a server with plugins that has too much lag should revert back to vanilla because vanilla servers can handle lag better. Which isn't true because it all depends where the lag is coming from.
Your server is going to lag if you stretch it's resources too far. Period. Be that too many plugins, or cramming too many people on it. To reduce it's lag you first need to find the source.
If this is how you feel I have no reason to keep discussing this with you.
There are many people that disagree with you. Read the countless threads on the forums.
I like everything about 1.7 except the ridiculous terrain generation.
That's not quite true. The server has to search through its chunk database to load a chunk, and the larger the database, the slower the search. Theoretically the difference shouldn't be large with actual world sizes, assuming it's well programmed - but - my impression with a single-player world is that when I get far from spawn (maybe 5000 blocks) loading does seem to slow down.
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.