All users will need to merge their Minecraft Forum account with a new or existing Twitch account starting October 23rd. You can merge your accounts by clicking here. Have questions? Learn more here.
Dismiss
  • 1

    posted a message on Mojang is adding too much to minecraft

    You are basically forced. Considering some of the bugs in past versions that were corrected in later ones...

    And not like newer versions do not introduce new bugs? I've spent thousands of hours playing on 1.6.4 and have not encountered some pretty serious bugs which are present in newer versions, such as one that is often reported that corrupts chunks for no reason (not due to a game crash or improper shutdown):
    Chunks Swapping

    Affects Version/s:
    Minecraft 1.8.1, Minecraft 1.8.8, Minecraft 15w44b, Minecraft 1.8.9, Minecraft 15w51b, Minecraft 1.9 Pre-Release 3, Minecraft 1.9 Pre-Release 4, Minecraft 1.9, Minecraft 1.9.2, Minecraft 1.9.4, Minecraft 16w21b, Minecraft 1.10.2, Minecraft 16w40a, Minecraft 1.11, Minecraft 1.11.2, Minecraft 1.12 Pre-Release 7, Minecraft 1.12.1

    Resolution: Unresolved

    I see quite a few people posting crash reports for newer versions as well, yet I've never had any crashes that were not due to mods or doing something silly like setting off a Superflat TNT world, or possible in current versions (e.g. stack overflow error due to water/gravel in certain situations, mainly due to 32 bit Java using a smaller stack by default, fixed with a simple JVM argument to use the 64 bit stack size).

    Of course, I've fixed some bugs myself - including ones which are still not fixed as of 1.12.2; for instance, ever noticed how lighting is weird in staircases, among other areas (despite the versions listed this has been around for far longer than just 1.7.4)?
    MC-43968 Ambient occlusion bug (With partial fix)

    Affects Version/s: Minecraft 1.7.4, Minecraft 1.8.1-pre3, Minecraft 1.8.2, Minecraft 1.8.4, Minecraft 15w42a, Minecraft 1.10.2, Minecraft 16w41a, Minecraft 16w42a, Minecraft 16w43a, Minecraft 1.11, Minecraft 1.11.2, Minecraft 17w14a, Minecraft 1.12, Minecraft 1.12.1 Pre-Release 1, Minecraft 1.12.1

    Resolution: Unresolved

    Note that they actually show what needs to be done to mostly fix this bug yet Mojang just says "not important!", as they do with numerous other bugs; for example:
    MC-42053 Low mob spawn rates on low render distances
    MC-2536 View distance affects mob spawning

    Affects Version/s: Minecraft 1.4.2, Minecraft 1.4.6, Minecraft 1.5.1, Minecraft 1.5.2, Minecraft 1.6.2, Minecraft 1.6.4, Minecraft 13w38a, Minecraft 13w38b, Minecraft 13w38c, Minecraft 1.7.1, Minecraft 1.7.2, Minecraft 1.7.4, Minecraft 1.7.5, Minecraft 14w11b, Minecraft 1.7.9, Minecraft 14w33c, Minecraft 1.8, Minecraft 1.8.1-pre3, Minecraft 1.8.1-pre5, Minecraft 1.8.1, Minecraft 1.8.3, Minecraft 1.8.7, Minecraft 1.8.9, Minecraft 1.9, Minecraft 1.10.2, Minecraft 16w40a, Minecraft 17w06a, Minecraft 1.12

    Resolution: Unresolved

    (this bug only started affecting singleplayer in 1.7.4 (the first bug report) due to chunk loading being made dependent on render distance - why not do what Optifine does in 1.6.4 and limit the minimum chunk load distance to 10 but allow it to go higher as needed? Or, you know, actually fix the bug by making mob despawn distance (viewdistance - 2) * 16 blocks, with a maximum of 128 and a minimum view distance of perhaps 5 so mobs are active within a reasonable range on 2-4 chunk render distance; the current minimum used by the server is 3, which only allows entities to be ticked within a 3x3 chunk area around the chunk the player is in)

    The first issue may also have to do with the fact that the client does not wait for the internal server to shut down (a longer shutdown time due to deoptimized code could be why it is far more common since 1.8) - which has an extremely simple fix (just make the client wait for the server to fully shut down before letting you do anything else), which also fixes numerous other bugs, such as worlds not deleting properly or worlds simply disappearing from the saves menu (again, without a crash or improper shutdown; if you quit the game normally while the server is still saving it is the same as forcibly closing it).

    And, of course, the more features that are added the more bugs pop up.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 2

    posted a message on What version did you think Minecraft went wrong for you? [POL]

    I find it interesting that you omitted 1.6 from the poll; while it did not add much some people were put off by the changes it introduced, such as nerfing regeneration and health potions and making healing drain hunger, or the addition of horses.

    For me it is also 1.7 but mainly due to changes to another aspect of terrain generation; they significantly reduced underground variation by making individual cave systems 2.8 times smaller (which also means 2.8 times less size variation since the game picks a random number between 0 and the "size" to determine how many caves to generate, and even more when considering that larger cave systems (up to the maximum size still possible) became relatively much rarer, so they are less likely to merge into larger systems; the third to last spoiler in this thread compares the frequencies of cave systems of a given size with 5 or more caves becoming exponentially rarer in 1.7+), while making them more common (this also reduces variation because they are more uniformly spread out with smaller cave-free areas) and made mineshafts and dungeons more than twice as rare (dungeons were possibly inadvertent since this was mainly because they doubled the y-range they can generate over, similar to how they made ocelots 10 times less likely to spawn by forgetting to change their chance when multiplying the chance of other mobs by 10 so they could add witches with an integer spawn chance). I don't like most of the biome changes that much either but they wouldn't be a deal-breaker by themselves.

    In fact, I've still not updated past 1.6 nearly 4 years after 1.7 was released and it is likely to stay that way for the interminable future, not that I don't mind (I still play as much as I did 4 years ago), or really care about what Mojang does with the game; I've made my own mods to spice things up, including one that adds some newer features (many altered in various ways) in addition to my own, which I see as my own "version" of the game.

    See also: I have played the same version of Minecraft for four years (where many others try to convince me to play newer versions, which IMO is just as annoying as those who complain about them; this thread was not made to complain but just to explain why I still play 1.6)

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Creating a Mob With Infinite Sight

    One thing to be aware of is that (at least in vanilla) entities are only active (ticked) if at least a 5x5 chunk area is loaded around them, meaning that at least that many chunks need to be loaded around it, and their followRange should not exceed the loaded block radius (32 in this example, as measured from the center chunk, not the center of the 5x5 area) so the pathfinder has access to all blocks within its range (at least back in 1.6.4 the game will actually force chunks to load/generate if necessary, which is a major reason why the increased followRange (40-100 blocks) of zombies caused so much server lag; part of my own fix to this reduces their followRange (overridden with 16) when they are far from a player, preventing them from loading chunks outside of what the player loads while not noticeably affecting their ability to target the player from a distance (targeting other mobs may be affected because the distance is from a player, not their target, but that is usually not a concern). Note that Endermen and Ghasts also have very large target ranges (64-100 blocks) but they do not use the pathfinding AI to target the player from those distances, they just measure the distance to the player).

    Posted in: Modification Development
  • 1

    posted a message on Is there really a point to it?

    I've had some ideas that I've never bothered posting because I know that nobody at Mojang will ever see them; for example, recently I've considered a suggestion to remove the ambient lighting in the Overworld (the dim, or not so dim depending on monitor and in-game settings) light you can see in what should otherwise be total darkness, which makes sense in the Nether and End but not in the Overworld. With the right changes even editing the gamma setting to ridiculous levels will not make total darkness brighter, only light levels 1+).

    For an actual example, I posted a suggestion for customization of caves prior to the release of 1.7 (later expanded to include structures) and Mojang never implemented it even though it was one of those things that would literally take 5 minutes to add (speaking as somebody who knows what code changes are actually needed, unlike most people who make suggestions; in fact, customization of most structures is already possible in Superflat worlds, just not Customized) and have little impact on gameplay (unless you have my unique playstyle), and I've seen posts by others on Reddit to add it as well, leading me to think that they do not look at most of the suggestions even there.

    Posted in: Forum Discussion & Info
  • 1

    posted a message on What are your thoughts on Minecraft?

    To say that Minecraft is the game that I've played the most is a huge understatement - I've played it for around three to four hours per day pretty much every day for more than four and a half years with no signs of slacking off (in fact, in my last world, played earlier this year, I averaged more time per session than any other world I have stats for)... that comes up to around 5,750 hours - 240 days - of time spent playing this one game, including 121 in my first world and a combined 174 days when including several other worlds I have statistics for, plus additional worlds (on some days I spent my normal playtime working on mods but that time pretty much counts since it was spent on the game in some way). It is also pretty much the only game that I've played during that time - a remarkable testament to how addicting I find the game to be.

    As far as the evolution goes, they made a big mistake in 1.7; for some reason they significantly took away from a major part of the game and still have done nothing whatsoever to let use customize it despite it being very easy to do (there is even a world type that lets you customize things that Customized cannot - but so much for people who do not want a Superflat world). Not that it has affected me that much; I am perfectly happy with playing a 4+ year old version plus my own tweaks to improve the game experience - I think that the ability to easily downgrade and mod the game are some of the most notable features of the game (most games do not let you downgrade and any mods must be purchased as limited add-ons).

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on My thoughts on 1.13's new Default Resource Pack, and Minecraft's evolution in general.
    Quote from YMbrothers»

    Those people who hates changes (and closure of ability to hack-2-win. Haha) just like additions.

    I can't see why people are hating changes at all. (Unlike the old days...)


    Imagine if your playstyle was entirely based around exploring the underground and then Mojang comes along and removes more than half of the content.

    Yes, that actually happened in 1.7; cave systems became 2.8 times smaller (as well as 2.8 times less size variation, and more when you consider overlap between cave systems; they were made twice as common but there are less caves overall and this also reduces variation; the larger the size range is and the rarer they are the more varied they get) and mineshafts and dungeons both became 2.5 times rarer. I'm not the only one who was put off by those changes, as this remark from a PM shows:
    I did look at a few 1.7 seeds, and to me it is a joke how much smaller the caves are - what were they thinking. Without your old cave gen mod I would find it very difficult to get enjoyment out of this game in 1.8.

    And that is exactly how I feel, to the point where I have never updated past 1.6.4 and never will (not likely or may but will), plus I have more than 121 days of my life invested in a world which I do not want to be disrupted by world generation changes. Use mods to revert them? Heh, why not just use the same version instead? Mojang actually adds underground content as well as customization in 1.14 or whatever? I have already done that myself with mods, and, of course, this is only possible on the Java edition so I'll never play anything else even if I did update:
    Which of these maps show the most variation?

    1.6.4:


    1.7+


    TMCW (my own mod):


    Here is a close-up of the upper-right; the map shown above was also created after I deleted all chunks without torches to only show what I actually explored:


    Sure, it is possible to have a cave system that is large even by 1.6.4 standards generate in 1.7+ but I only found this by searching through millions of seeds with a program I wrote and it is the exception, not the rule (the only seeds that generate a world that is much different overall from any others are due to a bug and do not generate a normal-looking world), so once I finished exploring it there isn't anything else interesting to find (it would take a week at the most for me to explore even a cave system of this size; in fact, recently I did just that in my 1.6.4 world):

    This is a to scale comparison of the largest known cave system in 1.7+ (square map in lower right, which measures 1616x1616 blocks) to all of what I've explored in my first world (6400x5680 blocks; I made this map after deleting all chunks without torches in them so this only shows what I've actually explored, hence the ragged edges):


    This is an animated sequence of my progress in exploring a network of caves (near the lower-left of the map above) that is about 50% larger (in terms of the number of caves) than the largest known cave system in 1.7+ - it only took 7 play sessions to explore all of it:
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 1

    posted a message on Did the version selection option split up the community?

    As somebody who has never updated past 1.6.4 (link in signature) and has probably spent less than 3-4 hours in total on newer versions (an average play session; by "never updated" I mean normal gameplay) I don't see how this has really affected the community as much as, say, all the new Minecraft editions; for the most part 1.6.4 is the same game as 1.12.2 and the gameplay is mostly the same (if I mention some game mechanic most will know what I'm talking about; likewise, much of what I know about how something works in 1.6.4 applies to the latest version), just with some new features and some old ones removed; the differences would mainly affect multiplayer since you have to use a specific version to play on a server (which are mainly about minigames these days, which are less affected by version changes) and I've never played multiplayer, and singleplayer is more popular in general.

    Also, while I have made a mod that adds in some newer features, much of my playtime, and playstyle, has been in what is essentially vanilla 1.6.4 (a few minor mods) simply because those newer features are not "must-haves" for me (aside from Mending, and only because Mojang removed the feature where renaming an item would keep its cost from increasing, so they more or less cancel out) and I would not use them even if they were in the game by default (as it is I don't use many features present in 1.6.4, such as redstone (not counting basic railways or a button by a door), or horses; much of what I do when playing could be done in Classic, the first version to have caves, mobs, ores, tools, and Survival mode; not that that means that I'd prefer that version over the latest versions since there are other features that I would not want to give up).

    I also get a very strong impression that I am the exception, not the norm; for example, consider how unknown my namesake mod is despite having been around for over three and a half years with semi-regular updates - 7 results on Google? Even those sites that love to steal and repost mods have ignored it (it adds in some newer features and there is a semi-popular mod for 1.7.10 (20,700 results) that adds 1.8+ features to that version so this likely shows just how few still play 1.6.4; 1.7.10 is mainly still popular due to mods and even then many mods, including big ones, are being updated so its days are numbered. Yes, some people still play even older versions, like 1.2.5 for Tekkit Classic, but they are very rare.

    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 1

    posted a message on Ultimate TNT World Seed! - can your computer survive?

    The preset still works if you change the numerical block IDs to names; they removed them in 1.8 and changed the format so it starts with 3 and uses "*" instead of "x" to specify the number of layers:

    3;minecraft:bedrock,64*minecraft:tnt;1

    Also, I'd suggest using fewer layers to start with; there is no way any computer can handle 64 layers of TNT exploding infinitely (or at least within render distance; even 2 chunk render distance loads 409600 TNT blocks. Note that in the version current when this thread was started (up to 1.6.4) the internal server always used a 10 chunk view distance, or 7.2 million TNT loaded, which I doubt any computer can handle, even one layer (112896 TNT) gives me an out of memory crash, though I can allocate only 1 GB of RAM).

    Posted in: Customised Worlds
  • 1

    posted a message on Power Enchantment damage confusion

    The Wiki does not account for the fact that critical arrow damage is randomized and arrow damage also depends on the velocity, which decreases with distance (unless fired downwards); the average damage dealt by a Power V bow is less than 20 and sometimes not even enough to kill spiders (16 HP) in one shot from a medium distance (10 blocks or so), and zombie pigmen also have 2 armor points (though armor penetration does affect this so it has little effect when more than a few points of damage are dealt at once).

    In fact, a regular (unenchanted) arrow deals as little as 6 damage at full charge since the critical bonus is as little as 0 (nextInt(6 / 2 + 2) returns a number between 0 and 4):

    var20 = MathHelper.sqrt_double(this.motionX * this.motionX + this.motionY * this.motionY + this.motionZ * this.motionZ);
    int var24 = MathHelper.ceiling_double_int((double)var20 * this.damage);
    
    if (this.getIsCritical())
    {
         var24 += this.rand.nextInt(var24 / 2 + 2);
    }

    This is also nothing new; the code above came from 1.6.4 and as far as I can tell it has been unchanged for much longer (arrows used to deal different damage in very old versions). Also, I modified the code to print out the damage and got the following results for an unenchanted and a Power V bow, all critical shots from 1 block away:

    Unenchanted:

    Dealt 10 damage
    Dealt 10 damage
    Dealt 6 damage
    Dealt 9 damage
    Dealt 7 damage
    Dealt 7 damage
    Dealt 9 damage
    Dealt 8 damage
    Dealt 9 damage
    Dealt 9 damage
    Dealt 10 damage
    Dealt 10 damage
    Dealt 8 damage
    Dealt 9 damage
    Dealt 9 damage
    Dealt 6 damage


    Power V:

    Dealt 18 damage
    Dealt 17 damage
    Dealt 23 damage
    Dealt 22 damage
    Dealt 19 damage
    Dealt 23 damage
    Dealt 19 damage
    Dealt 22 damage
    Dealt 20 damage
    Dealt 18 damage
    Dealt 22 damage
    Dealt 15 damage
    Dealt 18 damage
    Dealt 17 damage
    Dealt 18 damage
    Dealt 25 damage
    Dealt 22 damage


    The average for unenchanted was 8.5 (6-10, or 8 with a uniform distribution) and Power V was 19.88 (15-25 or 20) - certainly not even close to what the WIki claims; they should say the damage ranges from 6-10 (there is a 1/5 chance of 10 damage but the same goes for 6,7,8,9):

    At full charge (1 second), the arrow travels up to 64 blocks upwards, flies with a speed of roughly 53 m/s, and consistently deals 9 damage, with a 1/5 of chance of dealing 10

    https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Bow#Weapon


    Likewise, Power V ranges from 15-25 damage, or 6-10 * (1 + 150%), while this table on the WIki suggests it is always 25 ("full charge" damage is also completely wrong - it is simply the "medium charge" damage given, not to mention there is no such thing as "medium charge" - a bow charges in 1 second or 20 ticks and the first 10 will not fire the arrow so there are 10 different charge levels, with "full charge" always being critical).

    Also, these are the results for firing a Power V bow straight down from 236 blocks in the air and straight up from the surface, allowing the arrows to fall down:

    Straight down:

    Dealt 29 damage
    Dealt 28 damage
    Dealt 27 damage
    Dealt 27 damage
    Dealt 28 damage
    Dealt 25 damage
    Dealt 30 damage
    Dealt 30 damage
    Dealt 27 damage
    Dealt 29 damage
    Dealt 25 damage
    Dealt 30 damage


    Straight up:

    Dealt 15 damage
    Dealt 12 damage
    Dealt 13 damage
    Dealt 14 damage
    Dealt 16 damage
    Dealt 15 damage
    Dealt 12 damage
    Dealt 14 damage
    Dealt 14 damage
    Dealt 12 damage


    The average for down was 27.9 (25-30) and up was 13.7 (12-16); damage in the latter case would be much less if you hit a mob just before the arrow started falling since its velocity would be near zero , and would likely be the same as when fired straight down if fired from high enough up (the terminal velocity of an arrow is 100 m/s, nearly double the initial velocity of 53, suggesting that a Power V bow can deal up to nearly 50 damage). I did not find a (noticeable) decrease in damage when fired from a distance horizontally but horizontal velocity does slowly decrease with time (the game uses doubles in the calculations but rounds the result up to a whole number for the final damage, helping to mask differences).

    Posted in: Survival Mode
  • 1

    posted a message on Largest cave system in Minecraft 1.7+

    The seed "8255665205000737968" contains a cave system that is colossal even by 1.6.4 standards - except that this is for current (1.7 and later) versions:




    Here is a zoomed-out view of a 1616x1616 block area; the cave system is centered right around the origin (0,0):




    Here are some screenshots taken from inside the cave and with Spectator mode:














    While the seed I used for this example is "8255665205000737968" many other seeds - a total of 65,536 - will also work thanks to a quirk in the code; here are AMIDST maps of 6 different seeds, including this one (the first map) - note the similarities between each seed; in particular, mineshafts are identical, including three just to the south of the cave system and even the shapes of some biomes and rivers are similar despite that part of world generation using the full 64 bit seed. The seed I used also has a taiga village around 515, -205 (not shown here):












    Of note, the seed I originally discovered this cave system in is "8253976355140474032" but I did not include it because there is an ocean around 0,0; I just added 281474976710656 (2^48) to this seed until I found suitable seeds; I used the second one to generate the world due to the absence of oceans or swamps nearby, which would overwrite parts of the cave system (this works with any seed, allowing you to manipulate biome generation to your liking after finding a seed with good caves).

    Also, I found this seed with a utility I wrote that searches through seeds for the densest concentrations of caves; this was the top result out of several million seeds searched. The cave system also has more than 300 individual caves and a volume of more than 370,000 air blocks:

    This is an analysis from a utility I wrote that counts the number of air blocks within an area and outputs a list of the densest area(s) found, in this case within a circular radius of 8 chunks (213 chunks covered):

    Seed is 8253976355140474032

    Cave size is 15 and cave chance is 7
    Ravine chance is 50 and version used is >= 1.7.2
    Center of area to search is 0, 0
    Area to search is from -64, -64 to 64, 64
    Radius to calculate air volume over is 8 chunks
    Altitude range is 11 to 62

    Generating caves (may take a while)... 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
    Calculating air volume...
    Creating list of densest regions found...
    Removing redundant entries...
    Sorting list...

    Top 1 regions found by air volume between layers 11-62:
    Air volume of 372390 (13.13%) at 24, 24




    Here is an analysis from MCEdit of a 200W x 272L x 52H rectangular area centered over the cave system (212.5 chunks between y=11 and y=62):




    Here is a list of all of the cave systems within a 17x17 chunk area centered on the cave system. Note that there are quite a few cave systems which match at oppositely-signed coordinate pairs, which is due to a bug within the code that calculates the per-chunk seed, giving the same results for those chunks; this also favors the generation of the largest cave systems right around the origin (the bug is by no means limited to the origin, it just means that a dense concentration of caves around a given coordinate may be mirrored at the oppositely-signed coordinate. Some seeds have as many as 1/3 of chunks being affected while a few appear to have none):

    Seed is 8253976355140474032
    Center is 0, 0 (chunk 0, 0)
    Radius is 8 chunks (square)
    Version used is >= 1.7.2

    Size 1 cave system at -128, -112; total number of caves: 2
    Size 3 cave system at -80, -112; total number of caves: 3
    Size 1 cave system at -48, -112; total number of caves: 1
    Size 7 cave system at 80, -112; total number of caves: 11
    Size 1 cave system at -112, -80; total number of caves: 1
    Size 4 cave system at -48, -80; total number of caves: 9
    Size 11 cave system at -16, -80; total number of caves: 13
    Size 8 cave system at 80, -80; total number of caves: 13
    Size 3 cave system at -32, -64; total number of caves: 4
    Size 7 cave system at 128, -64; total number of caves: 10
    Size 1 cave system at -128, -48; total number of caves: 1
    Size 12 cave system at -32, -48; total number of caves: 14
    Size 7 cave system at 48, -48; total number of caves: 7
    Size 6 cave system at -64, -32; total number of caves: 6
    Size 5 cave system at -48, -32; total number of caves: 12
    Size 3 cave system at -32, -32; total number of caves: 4
    Size 3 cave system at 112, -32; total number of caves: 5
    Size 1 cave system at -32, -16; total number of caves: 2
    Size 11 cave system at -16, -16; total number of caves: 19
    Size 1 cave system at -48, 0; total number of caves: 1
    Size 1 cave system at 0, 0; total number of caves: 1
    Size 6 cave system at 16, 0; total number of caves: 12
    Size 1 cave system at 64, 0; total number of caves: 1
    Size 7 cave system at 96, 0; total number of caves: 10
    Size 11 cave system at 16, 16; total number of caves: 19
    Size 4 cave system at -64, 32; total number of caves: 4
    Size 1 cave system at -48, 32; total number of caves: 1
    Size 3 cave system at 32, 32; total number of caves: 4
    Size 2 cave system at 64, 32; total number of caves: 5
    Size 1 cave system at -64, 48; total number of caves: 1
    Size 7 cave system at -48, 48; total number of caves: 7
    Size 11 cave system at 0, 64; total number of caves: 13
    Size 8 cave system at 32, 64; total number of caves: 9
    Size 8 cave system at -80, 80; total number of caves: 13
    Size 11 cave system at 16, 80; total number of caves: 13
    Size 4 cave system at 48, 80; total number of caves: 9
    Size 1 cave system at 112, 80; total number of caves: 1
    Size 2 cave system at -48, 96; total number of caves: 4
    Size 1 cave system at 16, 96; total number of caves: 1
    Size 7 cave system at -80, 112; total number of caves: 11
    Size 3 cave system at 0, 112; total number of caves: 5
    Size 1 cave system at 48, 112; total number of caves: 1
    Size 3 cave system at 80, 112; total number of caves: 3
    Size 1 cave system at -96, 128; total number of caves: 2
    Size 7 cave system at 64, 128; total number of caves: 15
    Size 2 cave system at 80, 128; total number of caves: 2

    Number of cave systems: 46
    Initial number of caves: 210
    Total number of caves: 305
    Additional circular room caves: 95
    Number of small caves: 297; average width is 5.93
    Number of large caves: 8; average width is 13.34
    Number of circular rooms: 62; average width is 11.50
    Additional caves per circular room: 1.53
    Average caves per chunk: 1.0553633 (289 chunks)

    Average altitude: 33.60
    Percentage of caves on layers 0 to 9: 16.72
    Percentage of caves on layers 10 to 19: 15.41
    Percentage of caves on layers 20 to 29: 16.07
    Percentage of caves on layers 30 to 39: 19.34
    Percentage of caves on layers 40 to 49: 11.48
    Percentage of caves on layers 50 to 59: 7.21
    Percentage of caves above layer 59: 13.77


    In addition, here is a comparison to a 1.6.4 seed; despite the larger cave systems in general there are only a couple areas across a much larger area that come close in terms of overall size:

    Posted in: Seeds
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.