We have updated our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
  • 2

    posted a message on Education Edition is killing Minecraft

    First, why do you think modding is illegal? It's perfectly legal, at least in the way it's done on this forum.

    Second, you do realize the NPC mob is just a glorified sign, right? Everything you can do with the NPC, you can do with commands in-game.

    Thirdly, what border block? You mean the barrier?

    You're complaining over nothing. The Education edition doesn't really have any "real" exclusive features; it's just streamlined for a classroom setting. In addition, I haven't seen any loss in sales of other platforms being caused by the Education Edition.

    You're just giving a bunch of baseless thoughts. If you have any hard facts backed by actual evidence, then feel free to present them and people might give your opinion some mind.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on Is Minecraft Dying...?

    Depends on what you mean by dying. Sales-wise? The game's still growing strong with new players all the time, so I'd say no, at least not for a long time.

    Quality-wise? That's a large matter of opinion, though there is currently a big community split that can't be ignored.

    Server-wise? I'd say yeah, people seem to be less and less interested in playing on servers, and that's probably because overall server quality seems to have dropped, with good servers becoming increasingly hard to find. There's also the fact that many servers are refusing to update to 1.9+, and that, coupled with the EULA changes, are making servers increasingly less appealing.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Guidelines for the Suggestions Forum

    The biggest problem I see here is that people are just getting too focused on "personality." Yes, I get that this guide is a bit dry and uninteresting. Perhaps that should be fixed. But, regardless, it should be a low-priority issue. There's an issue here if more people are complaining about that than any other particular flaw in the guide. It's subjective what's interesting or not, and besides, you don't come here for entertainment, you come here to learn how to make a good suggestion. Of course, it's a bit lacking in that area as well, and that's what I believe people should be discussing, not complaining that a guide that takes them literally less than five minutes to read is bland. Objective facts are more important than subjectively funny jokes.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on With this new minecraft launcher, how do I change my mine craft version from 1.11.2 to 1.12?

    For one, the latest version is 1.11. Unless you happen to have access to Mojang's private servers, there's no way you're getting 1.12 yet.

    However, if you want to change the version of your profile, it's rather easy:

    1. Make sure the hamburger menu is open. Click the three lines at the top right of the launcher. If it's open, you will see four options: News, Skins, Settings, and Launch Options.
    2. Go to the Launch Options tab.
    3. The "Latest Release" and "Latest Snapshot" profiles cannot be changed, so if those are your only profiles, you're going to have to make a new one by clicking the "Add New" button at the top.
    4. Once you have a custom profile, click it in the Launch Options list. One of the options should be "Version," which you can change to whatever you want.
    Posted in: Unmodified Minecraft Client Support
  • 2

    posted a message on Let it go, it’s time to stop updating
    Quote from TheMasterCaver»

    This is not really much of an issue as long as they do not remove anything; it is even possible to write a converter for PC <-> Windows 10/PE (some people claim this is impossible because one is Java and the other is C++ but the actual data stored on disk has nothing to do with programming language); for example, in the PC version the new types of fences they added in 1.8 were each given their own block ID while in PE they are data values of the original fence block, which is the same in both versions (I have no idea why they added new blocks in the PC version; I know that from MCEdit that the game does not save any metadata for fences; it determines their visual appearance when they are rendered based on what blocks are next to them).

    In fact, 1.8 automatically converts numerical item IDs into strings when you load an older world; versions up to at least 1.6.4 had a built-in MCRegion to Anvil converter (all Anvil did was split up chunks into chunk sections and add a biome array), which also made a copy of the save files (MCRegion used .mcr and Anvil uses .mca for its region files; a backup of level.dat is saved to level.dat_mcr. The game even seems to "convert" newly created worlds in these versions since a level.dat_mcr file gets created; 1.11.2 does not create one) so you could easily revert back if there were any issues (what 1.8 does is not good practice; chunks are converted as they are loaded and saved to the same files so you must make a manual backup if you want to revert back).

    The main changes that I see in a new version (or update) are to extend the range of metadata and light levels; for example, if you want colored lighting you'd need at least 12 bits to store separate RGB values (it would probably be best to use 16 bits and ignore the uppermost 4 bits; the slight increase in memory would be offset by not having to manipulate half-bytes/nibbles, which are not a native data type in most languages. When stored on disk compression would reduce the impact further. likewise, it would be better to use a 16 bit value to store block IDs instead of clobbering together 8+4 bits, the latter of which again requires extra code to manipulate half-bytes). It would be trivial to convert older worlds in both cases; set the new RGB light value to (old + old * 16 + old * 256), which would appear as shades of white, and for block IDs combine the 8+4 bit values into one (LSB + MSB * 256, which is what the game already does whenever it needs to access a block ID from the in-memory arrays).

    Even Cubic Chunks would not necessarily cause issues; for older worlds assume that the bottom of the world is y=0 and that there is nothing below (possibly use a setting within level.dat. Or just use y=0 as the minimum y-value for any world and make the maximum value as high as desired; there is no real need for negative coordinates). Changes to terrain generation, especially deeper worlds, would be a bigger issue (for example, my double-height terrain mod vs vanilla) but that has always been an issue in some way and is why such updates are so infrequent (it is possible to make some changes, even add new biomes, without significantly disrupting existing worlds but the solutions are either hard to program or cludgy, like when I added new biomes to a world while I was playing on it by substituting biomes with new ones after they were chosen from the original biome list and even then I had to check that biomes bordering existing chunks were not replaced).

    Well, you learn something new every day. Still, that doesn't mean there won't be bugs or data corruption caused by converting.
    Quote from rabidgoodra27»

    I don't think you guys understood me

    I don't think you guys understood me. I was not thinking of MC2 as an update to MC. If they DO release a MC2, it will probably be somewhere along the lines of the current updates.

    You're still shirking away from my question: what makes MC2 so great? Why would it work so well? I'm just curious.

    Well, what I was trying to say is that just trying to make MC2 instead of just continuing on with updates is that it makes it easier on the part of both the developers and the players. However, other reasons for MC2 and why it would work so well (if it were made the way I imagine it) include:
    • It wouldn't be bound by the same restrictions as MC1
    • It would be modernized and optimized thanks to better code in a better engine
    • It would be made with modding in mind, so updates aren't constantly breaking them and threads like this wouldn't have to exist
    • It would provide a fresh take on a game that is growing increasingly stale for many, even with updates
    • It would be made with cross-platform play in mind
    • It would have more depth in all of its features, making it a bit less casual, but more fun to the target audience.

    A lot of these just wouldn't work in MC1 without breaking how the game is or rewriting it (in which case your time might be better spent just making a new game). As I perceive it, and not even going into details of specific features, this would make a more fun game, which makes it a greater game, which means it works well. Of course, this is all a matter of opinion. I like to appeal more to the "hardcore gamer" and thus what I say reflects that, which means that what I want might be a lot more fun, but to a lot less people. Still, MC2 doesn't have to cater to the same audience as MC1.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Let it go, it’s time to stop updating

    In my opinion, saying "just use older versions" is effectively just saying to ignore the problem. Imagine if Mojang one day decided to go crazy and add a bunch of stupid stuff to the game that only made it fun for a select few, and everyone else hated it. Would you be fine if Mojang's reply was just "Use one of the older versions then!"? Even though you could just play a version that was fun to you, that didn't solve any problems. You got a workaround, but the issue persisted.

    If Mojang was making the game right, there wouldn't be so many people stuck on older versions. I get that they can't please everybody, and they're going to lose people with every update. However, if updates are causing as much backlash as we are seeing, then they're clearly doing something wrong.

    However, I'd like to point out again that I doubt Minecraft's survival depends on mods, or that stopping development so mods can catch up isn't going to do anything. The reason Bethesda stopped working on Morrowind wasn't because of modders; it was because they wanted to work on something new and better. If they were stuck on making patches and add-ons for Morrowind, they never would have gotten around to making other masterpieces like Oblivion and Skyrim. If Mojang stops working on updates, it shouldn't be for modding's sake, but it should be so they can make a much better game.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Let it go, it’s time to stop updating
    Quote from Christy182»

    I guess mojang should just make one final version, make sure to remove all the other versions from play, and while they are at it, take all the mobs out and put dancing steves back in. Then they can call it quits and go onto something else. Oh, one other thing, take out the combat update and put notch apples back in. Yeah, that's a most good idea!!!!!


    I get that you think this argument is silly, but there's no point in mocking the OP without providing any actual feedback. There's some valid points being brought up here.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 8

    posted a message on Let it go, it’s time to stop updating

    This thread may be depressing, but it does bring up a valid point. Now, I doubt Minecraft's community will die because they can't mod. However, I think the game is done, as in finished. Every time they add something now, it seems like they alienate a portion of the player base. Despite people saying things like "oh, 1.9 won't split the community," it did. We're split between versions; some are playing on 1.6 because of the better caves, others on 1.7 because mods, still others on 1.8 because of 1.9's combat, and then we have 1.9+. You can say "if you don't like x feature, go back to 1.y!" However, that argument means that Mojang is failing to make good quality updates, because later updates had worse features. It also prevents the player from experiencing other features they like; not a terrible thing, but it's certainly annoying to see that one feature you've always wanted, but be kept aback because some other feature that doesn't make the game fun anymore. You can also say "Well, just mod it into your favorite version," which works, but then you have to work with mod conflicts and crashes that are unlikely to ever be fixed, and likely you won't find the feature you want. Plus, a lot of people are just opposed to modding the game.

    The game is complete. Many of the features are as fleshed out as they are going to be. In order to add new content that fits in with the game, it tends to just be the easy "mob, structure, item, decorative block" approach, simply because anything revolutionary doesn't fit in with the game or splits the community (like the 1.9 combat).

    Personally, I think the solution is to work on a Minecraft 2. That has several advantages over an update, even if it's harder to make:

    • The game desperately needs a re-write, due to sloppy code and poor optimization, and would work better as a C# title utilizing an optimized rendering engine like DirectX. However, if you're going to basically re-write the entire game, then you might as well make a new one.
    • They can increase the system requirements a bit, allowing them to make a better quality and better looking game that isn't limited by older hardware. Sure, they'd get complaints, but it's a perfectly reasonable practice in the gaming industry.
    • They wouldn't be bound by established mechanics. A new game doesn't have to follow the unbreakable rules of "no tiers stronger than diamond," "no crafting grid larger than 3x3," and so on.
    • A large feeling of newness can return to the game, as the world could look vastly different. It could also have another artistic direction, having more of a unified texture feel, but that's not a requirement.
    • The game could actually be built with modding in mind, so mods aren't broken every update because "obfuscation."
    • It provides a monetary return, as people would be expected to buy it.

    Overall, though, I don't think Minecraft is going to live and die by the modding community. They help, but it largely depends on how Mojang decides to handle the game. It's selling well, but is it continuing to improve and become a better game? Or is its quality stagnate or even getting worse? Only time will truly tell.

    Posted in: Discussion
  • 2

    posted a message on Guidelines for the Suggestions Forum

    Something else I think should be added to the criticizing section: Don't get technical unless you are a programmer. In other words, don't use excuses like "LAAAAAAAG," "too hard to code," or "they would have to rewrite the game to add this" without some supporting details to prove your statements.

    Posted in: Suggestions
  • 1

    posted a message on Paint in Minecraft

    I'm only an amateur programmer and I don't have intimate knowledge of the code, but from what I do know, it sounds like you are making a big deal out of some pretty small things.

    Quote from Ouatcheur»

    As for the paint idea itself, I like the idea of paint. However, the way to paint here, by "splashing", basically limiting the player to paint only floors not walls and ceilings, that seems very unwieldly and imprecise. I'd rather have a real paintbrush tool or something.

    I agree here, there's no point in adding more liquids for paint and making it difficult to use.

    Also, there are in-game considerations. The number of available block IDs is very limited and Mojang is near the upper limit of the base 256 block IDs available before reaching into "mod range" block IDs territory. There are only a handful of IDs left. A rehaul of the block ID system itself would be needed first. And there are currently only 4 bits for storing a block's data value. So how would you allow the 3-D world matrix to "store" the paint data on the block? Metadata can go over that 4 bits limitation, but that means using block entities instead of normal blocks. Which is hundreds (if not thousands) times slower than "plain" normal blocks, performance wise.

    The only solution I see is changing the Chunk format (breaking backwards compatibility -- ouch!) so that normal blocks get more than 4 bits of data. Even then, I'd go with only 16 colors of paint, not the full leather-dye range. That would allow the 4 bits of block data to be extended by

    needing another 4 bits only instead of a lot more bits to store a full RGB value.

    I don't see a problem with breaking backwards compatibility, as you already should never open a world in an older version from when you last played it to avoid corruption. I do agree with using indexed colors; while that is slower CPU-wise than using RGB colors, it will reduce file size greatly.

    This would still definitely reduce performance tough: the more data that has to be moved around and processed, the slower the game. That really can't be avoided. Currently the Chunk format holds 24 bits per block. It could be reasonable to extend this to 32 bits instead (aligning on 4 bytes allows to keep some level of optimization which wouldn't exist as well with 28 bits -- basic CPU stuff here even if modern processors have less trouble with that aspect than before, aligning data to power-of-two bit boundaries remains a good idea to help cache hit efficiency and stuff like that). This means that Anvil region files would become 33% bigger on your drive (which means time spent on more file access overhead), also RAM used for the game also would similarly jump by nearly 33% (since most of the RAM is used to store loaded chunks), and CPU usage would be at least jumping by that much too. Then for the textures you'd have to have either applying a local-per-block-extra-step-of-shading (sloooow) or make almost *ALL* paintable textures now exist in at least 17 different textures instead (gah take some pity on texture pack makers!). And now you'd have different wood types looking almost exactly the same because they were painted in similar colors. Lots of work to get a quite redundant result anyway.

    Larger file sizes could be a problem for some, but it's not too huge of an issue. That's more for the individual consumer to deal with than the developers (why are you playing a game if you don't have enough space on your drive to run it?). Most gamers should have enough space left over. File access speed is an issue, but I believe it's worth it. Increasing RAM isn't that big of a deal, as the game can already run on less than half a gigabyte of it, as theMasterCaver will tell you. CPU usage probably wouldn't be that big, as CPU isn't used that much for block rendering; it's used more for things like ticking and mob AI. Image tinting is also incredibly easy and is already done on hundreds of blocks at once (grass and leaves). Also, we can further optimize it by preventing the tinting code from even running if there is no paint in the chunk, thus only marginally reducing overall performance. As for whether it would be redundant; well, you can paint more than just wood.

    I have a nice PC, and I find that this game already slow enough as it is. So I'd rather have no paint at all, instead of greatly worsening the performance we have now for a single minor feature.

    A feature that would only minorly effect your performance if you didn't use it.

    And if using block entities, a single player on a server paints his house that way and suddenly it would laaaag nearly as bad as if you filled a cow farm with 500 cows. Never, EVER turn any "building block" into a block entity for that very reason. Things go into big number really fast hwne making builds. Only for simple 1-thick straight walls and floors and ceiling, a simple two stories 20x20x10 house requires nearly *2000* blocks to build! Basically, don't even thunk about using block entities here. It has to be normal blocks. And planks ALREADY use 3 of the 4 block data value bits for the 6 wood types all sharing the same block ID.

    I personally think people overestimate the performance hit that block entities produce. I once made a huge structure more than 65,000 blocks large out of furnaces and noticed a negligible fps decrease and RAM increase.

    But, yeah, let's avoid unneccessarily increasing performance hit where possible.

    So, yeah, nice idea, but, basically this: can you say laaaaaag? So, unfortunately, no support.

    IMHO paint is't really needed. Personally, I'd rather we get new types of trees added instead, a la Biomes O Plenty mod, in order to get more colors for wood. That would boost the color choices wooden builds options AND make the world itself more interesting to explore. Same for stone builds: the game can simply add new types of differently colored stones, a la Underground Biomes Constructs mod. And the remaining main building blocks (wool, clay, glass) already exist in 16 colors.

    So, you'd rather have a bunch of redundant blocks than an infinitely expandable paint system? Sure, it's easier in the short run, but in the long run, paint is the way to go.
    Posted in: Suggestions
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.