As for the disc perimeter, well I personally don't like the idea of not being able to reach everywhere in a world.
Which is why either a boundless finite world or a disc-bound finite world are two possible option, the former being great but needing lots of recoding, the latter being easier to do and in my mind quite minecraft like if well done.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedLink RemovedLink RemovedImage RemovedLink Removed Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Im not quite sure I get this idea, is this to help people with slower computers? Or is it to make the game more "realistic" by having finite worlds? Either way im not sure I support this idea, the whole reason I love minecraft is because of its virtually infinite worlds.
this is really interesting. and here is what I have to say to it. your model, that little disc with about 3 or 4 biomes on it, I find too small. when I read the main post, I imagined something like a radius of 25000 blocks for the main disc and about 1000 - 5000 blocks for the "outer realms", or other discs, getting smaller the further you traverse into the void, eventually leaving ony blackness and eternal nothingness. the void between the discs would be filled with little asteroids with different ores in them.
then, how would the nether and the end work? would they be normal or discs too? (maybe even in the overworld, just VERY far out)
I see the nether as not changing at all and be possibly infinite. I don't see how it could work otherwise unfortunately, but it cannot be in the overworld as people use it to go bigger distance.
Look over the post again, the idea allows you to choose the size of the disc. Personally I think the concept of having a limited world would be kind of pointless if you gave it a 25000 block radius (nearly 2000 square kilometres in area) seeing as the game doesn't really encourage or reward you for travelling so far, most players wouldn't be able to tell the difference from a full size map. However perhaps you put an insane amount of time in to your worlds or are picturing the idea on a huge server, the choice for a huge disc would be there. Choice is good.
I agree with you, this is just way too big and this is why I see sizes choosable from biggest map sizes in order for servers to choose their perfect size. You seem to get the point entirely!
well, I personally do tend to get a bit out of hand with my worlds, I still haven't stopped playing my alpha 1.6 survival world
and for a server it would certainly be very cool to maybe have earch faction fighting about a place in the middle.
but now that I look at it that way, 25000 block radius seems a little out of hand. maybe 10000 diameter at max.
Well, there is no need for an upper limit. Servers can still enjoy the near infinity of worlds if they want to! But of course, having a limit makes it easy to have a completely mappable world with as you say a fighting place in the middle for example
Im not quite sure I get this idea, is this to help people with slower computers? Or is it to make the game more "realistic" by having finite worlds? Either way im not sure I support this idea, the whole reason I love minecraft is because of its virtually infinite worlds.
Neither for slower computers nor for realism per se. But just imagine how heavy it can be to have near infinite worlds for servers. As for "realism" well, I like the idea of having to be careful with resources but even with a 3-by-3 biggest map worlds, you can have enough.
And I agree, near infinite worlds have their use! I would simply like the option of smaller ones.
In any case, thank you all for you interest, whether you support or not
Neither for slower computers nor for realism per se. But just imagine how heavy it can be to have near infinite worlds for servers. As for "realism" well, I like the idea of having to be careful with resources but even with a 3-by-3 biggest map worlds, you can have enough.
And I agree, near infinite worlds have their use! I would simply like the option of smaller ones.
In any case, thank you all for you interest, whether you support or not
Ah I see, this would be an interesting option to play around with, as long as it doesnt replace the current world gen im cool with it.
Eventually the worlds the people worked on would get hollowed out and with no space aboveground, they would get bored and eventually not play. If it was an option, they would just go back to infinite worlds, and the finite worlds would get forgotten and unused, so I don't see why to add this. Also part of the reason I like Minecraft is the never-ending worlds.
No support.
Thanks for your interest!
It depends how small the worlds are. You must admit that a 3/3 big map world is still quite enormous, even on a 100 players server.
Even then, there is also the idea of a multiverse, allowing for more overworlds accessible, including possible harvest worlds getting reset over time.
As for no space being above ground, it would happen if people play for a quite long time, and even then, there is a bit of magic to have to deconstruct parts of the world.
The main thing behind this is that it is optional at world creation. So people either want it, or not.
So, what's the deal with this? Are these worlds like the field in that old Asteroids game where walking over one side makes you continue past the opposite side in the same direction?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
So I was working on this really cool resource pack a while ago, but bad progress nonwithstanding, I think I found something much better... I'm probably gonna never release another custom Minecraft map.Until we meet again...
My apologies if this has been brought up already, but I hadn't seen it mentioned while scanning through this thread...
In Minecraft 1.8 a new server.properties configuration setting called max-world-size was introduced. This seems to cover the initial post request of a finitely sized world (in a square shape), in that a player can't go beyond this boundary. Or is the original poster literally wanting the world generation to end (as in, peer over the edge of the world into the abyss)?
My apologies if this has been brought up already, but I hadn't seen it mentioned while scanning through this thread...
In Minecraft 1.8 a new server.properties configuration setting called max-world-size was introduced. This seems to cover the initial post request of a finitely sized world (in a square shape), in that a player can't go beyond this boundary. Or is the original poster literally wanting the world generation to end (as in, peer over the edge of the world into the abyss)?
You got it! World generation ends so that the world that you can explore is the world that actually is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedLink RemovedLink RemovedImage RemovedLink Removed Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Cool Idea! I support as a world type, but not for all generated Minecraft worlds.
PS, the "Islands" Should be ALOT bigger.
PSS, Could you upload that mod you were talking about in the thread? I would like to see that!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Goodbye, Minecraft forums. If any of ya'll future people persons need to contact me for whatever dumb reason, my discord is EnderDude124#8340 as of 6/8/2019. Send me a message, I like a good chat.
Cool Idea! I support as a world type, but not for all generated Minecraft worlds.
PS, the "Islands" Should be ALOT bigger.
PSS, Could you upload that mod you were talking about in the thread? I would like to see that!
Thanks! In fact, it could be done with any world type, as long as it stays optional and variable, from tiny to quite huge.
I don't have the coding anymore unfortunately, I uninstalled a while back Eclipse (program for making mods and much more) and since then cannot reinstall it. If I do end up being able, I certainly will do something
Hi there! Which part do you find too mod-like, the portal aspect or the boundary aspect?
For the portal aspect, it has been proposed in this suggestion and is in my mind worthy of vanilla.
As for the disc perimeter, well I personally don't like the idea of not being able to reach everywhere in a world.
Which is why either a boundless finite world or a disc-bound finite world are two possible option, the former being great but needing lots of recoding, the latter being easier to do and in my mind quite minecraft like if well done.
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Image Removed When you support an idea!
Minecraft only has 1 circle: your shadow.
Im not quite sure I get this idea, is this to help people with slower computers? Or is it to make the game more "realistic" by having finite worlds? Either way im not sure I support this idea, the whole reason I love minecraft is because of its virtually infinite worlds.
Smaller worlds with a limit from which you can fall, as opposed to a boundary from which you cannot walk.
I try to make my post simple but please let me know what you did not understand.
I see the nether as not changing at all and be possibly infinite. I don't see how it could work otherwise unfortunately, but it cannot be in the overworld as people use it to go bigger distance.
I agree with you, this is just way too big and this is why I see sizes choosable from biggest map sizes in order for servers to choose their perfect size. You seem to get the point entirely!
Well, there is no need for an upper limit. Servers can still enjoy the near infinity of worlds if they want to! But of course, having a limit makes it easy to have a completely mappable world with as you say a fighting place in the middle for example
Neither for slower computers nor for realism per se. But just imagine how heavy it can be to have near infinite worlds for servers. As for "realism" well, I like the idea of having to be careful with resources but even with a 3-by-3 biggest map worlds, you can have enough.
And I agree, near infinite worlds have their use! I would simply like the option of smaller ones.
In any case, thank you all for you interest, whether you support or not
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Image Removed When you support an idea!
Ah I see, this would be an interesting option to play around with, as long as it doesnt replace the current world gen im cool with it.
Of course! As stated in the OP, this is to be an option in world creation with default being "infinite".
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Image Removed When you support an idea!
I rarely do them, so please excuse my shameless up.
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Image Removed When you support an idea!
I'm going on holidays away from the computer, hope to hear from more support when I get back
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Image Removed When you support an idea!
Thanks for your interest!
It depends how small the worlds are. You must admit that a 3/3 big map world is still quite enormous, even on a 100 players server.
Even then, there is also the idea of a multiverse, allowing for more overworlds accessible, including possible harvest worlds getting reset over time.
As for no space being above ground, it would happen if people play for a quite long time, and even then, there is a bit of magic to have to deconstruct parts of the world.
The main thing behind this is that it is optional at world creation. So people either want it, or not.
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Image Removed When you support an idea!
So, what's the deal with this? Are these worlds like the field in that old Asteroids game where walking over one side makes you continue past the opposite side in the same direction?
So I was working on this really cool resource pack a while ago, but bad progress nonwithstanding, I think I found something much better... I'm probably gonna never release another custom Minecraft map. Until we meet again...
My apologies if this has been brought up already, but I hadn't seen it mentioned while scanning through this thread...
In Minecraft 1.8 a new server.properties configuration setting called max-world-size was introduced. This seems to cover the initial post request of a finitely sized world (in a square shape), in that a player can't go beyond this boundary. Or is the original poster literally wanting the world generation to end (as in, peer over the edge of the world into the abyss)?
You got it! World generation ends so that the world that you can explore is the world that actually is.
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Image Removed When you support an idea!
Cool Idea! I support as a world type, but not for all generated Minecraft worlds.
PS, the "Islands" Should be ALOT bigger.
PSS, Could you upload that mod you were talking about in the thread? I would like to see that!
Goodbye, Minecraft forums. If any of ya'll future people persons need to contact me for whatever dumb reason, my discord is EnderDude124#8340 as of 6/8/2019. Send me a message, I like a good chat.
well, i liked the idea, 200% support!
Thanks! In fact, it could be done with any world type, as long as it stays optional and variable, from tiny to quite huge.
I don't have the coding anymore unfortunately, I uninstalled a while back Eclipse (program for making mods and much more) and since then cannot reinstall it. If I do end up being able, I certainly will do something
Thanks
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Image Removed When you support an idea!