If I liked listening to Metal on said headphones and enjoyed it, would that make me wrong? No, the matter is purely subjective but you cannot realize that. People have different opinions.
And if you had the better headphones available over said mono headphones, would you really still want to use the mono ones? There's no reason to if the stereo ones do the same thing and more.
Two thousand people of you, try to change the game (the landscape gen in this occasion) because you don't like it. Well, the guys that like the landscape are way more than you, do you speak on their behalf too?
Learn to statistics.
78.47% of people who voted in this thread don't like the new generator. 7,192,753 people have bought minecraft. Therefore, about 5,644,153 people wouldn't like the current generator (if they were all still playing, and within a reasonable margin of error.)
By comparison, only 1,550,758 people are fine with it the way it is, with a much smaller number of people actually preferring the new system over the old one.
For those who say "this is subjetive and you can't say anything because of that".
Is possible really. I like the new generator before I discover the old one. What that means? The old generator convinced me, now I like the old one.
I mean, there is a reason why because you like something, right? Almost all the time. And if you don't what to discuss likes, you can discuss advantages and disadvantages, is not hard, really.
I miss the more fanciful terrain. How about instead of replacing the current generator, make a seperate terrain generation algorithm (adjust an old one?) that creates the fantasy terrain for those who love it. This will leave the generator the other people like where it is. Both sides get what they want.
PS: Don't nerf ores. I like getting enough iron to do things in hours instead of days kthnkbai.
<snip for size>
Learn to statistics.
<snip for size>
What percentage of purchasers visit the forums? *your numbers shrink and change*
What number of people saw this thread? ^
What number of people thought it was worth voting on or commenting on? ^
You can not just take a number, and assume it is not an already biased segment of the population you are polling. Forums are quite often not a good representation of a community, but merely a vocal minority.
*note I am a proponent of more fanciful/old style terrain generation (but keep the ores, I like iron dagnabit!)
I miss the more fanciful terrain. How about instead of replacing the current generator, make a seperate terrain generation algorithm (adjust an old one?) that creates the fantasy terrain for those who love it. This will leave the generator the other people like where it is. Both sides get what they want.
PS: Don't nerf ores. I like getting enough iron to do things in hours instead of days kthnkbai.
What number of people visit the forums? *your numbers shrink and change*
What number of people saw this thread? ^
What number of people thought it was worth voting on or commenting on? ^
You can not just take a number, and assume it is not an already biased segment of the population you are polling.
*note I am a proponent of more fanciful/old style terrain generation (but keep the ores, I like iron dagnabit!)
What percentage of purchasers visit the forums? *your numbers shrink and change*
What number of people saw this thread? ^
What number of people thought it was worth voting on or commenting on? ^
You can not just take a number, and assume it is not an already biased segment of the population you are polling. Forums are quite often not a good representation of a community, but merely a vocal minority.
*note I am a proponent of more fanciful/old style terrain generation (but keep the ores, I like iron dagnabit!)
Ceteris Paribus - Holding all other variables constant. That means, since everyone who plays the game has an equal opportunity to have wandered upon this forum, that the test results aren't limited to only one demographic - that being those against the new generation.
There is no bar to entry, nor any factor holding people who like the new terrain from finding this thread. Any factors that are strikingly apparent are only circumstantial to the particular person.
Honestly, if the majority of people did like the new terrain better, but have little to no involvement on this forum, then chances are that they aren't informed enough about the game's developmental process to know what changed to begin with and probably wouldn't notice another change.
To discard this poll's credibility is to be in denial, and if anyone approaches that feels this poll is inaccurate and there is an untapped field of people who disagree with the majority the poll has proven, then it is their obligation to motion those who feel the same toward this poll for the sake of its authenticity. And granted both sides will be actively raising more to place their vote, the rate at which the poll grows on both sides will be consistent enough to secure this poll's integrity. If there are more people who like the new terrain, then by all means allow those informed to this thread find them and encourage them to provide evidence supporting their claim that the new terrain is not boring. But in my opinion, with 2000+ already having cast their vote, I have enough to secure my belief that there is no grand sum of people who enjoy the terrain in numbers more than those who dislike the new terrain.
Sampling is the process to take a small sample of the whole, find out its tendencies, and make an educated generalization based on the results.
20% of any large or small number is still proportional in scale to any other large or small number.
For example:
xxoooooooo
xxxxoooooooooooooooo
These two are the same percentage. No matter how many times I multiply the number of x's or o's, there will still be the same percentage of x's to o's. While sample size does increase the accuracy, a difference of 60% to occur when expanding the testing field is almost a certain impossibility, especially with a figure of 2000+.
Magnify the results all you want, 20% is still 20%.
So can we please get off the topic of statistics? Polls are in place because they work, have proven their worth, and can more accurately define the majority on a topic than a series of comments alone.
This is unacceptable. 1.3.2 seemed to have brought back some of the epicness of 1.7.3. At least I thought. Then I used NBXlite again, and... yeah right....
Jeb and Dinnerbone seem to have seen this thread (because 1.3 is getting better from 1.2 and below), but it will take a LOT of time to fix the damage Notch did at beta 1.8, because like you said, there is no point in just putting the old generator back. They need to fix this, and they are, but it appears to be very low priority right now. that is too bad. Notch created one of the greatest games ever, and yet probably broke it as well.
No. 1.3 slightly increased X-Hills height and broke old seeds. That's all.
1.3.2 has only one change: Large tree branches are now made of rotated logs. That's all too.
Placebo effect?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My UA on laptop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24 Lightning/2.9b1; I use Ubuntu 13.10 here.
And on desktop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0; Here I use openSUSE 12.2.
And vibrant grass was removed.
And what about tall grass?
Also it doesn't have biome border glitch.
Alpha 1.2.0 had it.
It's mix of generation of various versions, it should not be called old generation. It's your custom generator based on old ones.
For example, if you remove tall grass and new trees on current generator, you can't call it old one, isn't it? Same thing here.
Agree.
But while that screenshot is really good, terrain is already not varied there. Moutains are spammed together just like in EH, just covered with trees and with different colors.
Yea they are all clamped together, but the look alot better than the current extreme hills
i just really like the terrain in that area, also, the other picture of the adventure update, the one with the surface stronghold (called ruins at the time) why did they never use that? I was looking forward to exploring the kind of terrain that was shown in the first picture searching for the ruins.
however I don't believe that they will never fix the terrain, but i'm hoping they do.
Until the time they fix the terrain (if they ever do), i'm resorting to bwg3
EDIT: instead of making a double post i'll just continue, why did they change the terrain generator in the first place?
EDIT: instead of making a double post i'll just continue, why did they change the terrain generator in the first place?
It's not very clear, but the go-to reason is that Notch didn't know how to stop villages from being scattered messes that slurs over the mountains in 1.7.3 generation, so he flattened everything so villages would work.
I would have said to just add a separate biome for villages that changes type (desert, plains, forest, etc...) depending on the nearest biome to where the villages are spawned.
I would have just made it so that villages only spawn on mostly flat land. If it is slightly hilly, it'll flatten the land automatically, but if it's overlapping a sheer cliff, the village won't spawn.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Did something happen to you in your childhood to give you this unreasonable fear of rutabaga?
I support this, i miss the old generator because it was pure CHAOS.
You never knew what you could end up finfind, making exploring FUN. Now, it's really hard to find an interesting place. Pre-generated structures are cool, but repetitive. I miss the chaos.
I love biomes, i'ts an awesome idea. But the terrain itself just suck hard. Flat - bland - borring pile of blocks.
Oceans are okay, i love the idea of crossing an ocean to explore new land. Except that now, land is borring to explore.
Keep the biomes, but inject more CHAOS.
CHAOS is the key !
You say like there weere no biomes in Beta.
Or you are talking about ALpha 1.1.2_01 and earlier? They were more chaotic btw.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My UA on laptop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24 Lightning/2.9b1; I use Ubuntu 13.10 here.
And on desktop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0; Here I use openSUSE 12.2.
And if you had the better headphones available over said mono headphones, would you really still want to use the mono ones? There's no reason to if the stereo ones do the same thing and more.
Learn to statistics.
78.47% of people who voted in this thread don't like the new generator. 7,192,753 people have bought minecraft. Therefore, about 5,644,153 people wouldn't like the current generator (if they were all still playing, and within a reasonable margin of error.)
By comparison, only 1,550,758 people are fine with it the way it is, with a much smaller number of people actually preferring the new system over the old one.
So who's really the vocal minority here?
Your statistics are inaccurate. Whatever the results of the poll, it was not a random sample of the population of people who have purchased Minecraft and therefore does not represent it. The poll represents the people who answered it, who are likely to be much more active and opinionated than the average user.
Your statistics are inaccurate. Whatever the results of the poll, it was not a random sample of the population of people who have purchased Minecraft and therefore does not represent it. The poll represents the people who answered it, who are likely to be much more active and opinionated than the average user.
If they are more active, it stands to reason they have more to lose than someone who is not involved with the game. Those that "Don't care" wouldn't mind if the game changed, now would they?
Oh look, Jeb is caving in to Reddit's dumb suggestions AGAIN. Who the hell needs skull blocks? Is there even a use for that besides decoration? Goddamnit.
Oh look, Jeb is caving in to Reddit's dumb suggestions AGAIN. Who the hell needs skull blocks? Is there even a use for that besides decoration? Goddamnit.
What's next, sideways leaves? -____-
Sideways stone and dirt.
And air slabs.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My UA on laptop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux i686; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0 SeaMonkey/2.24 Lightning/2.9b1; I use Ubuntu 13.10 here.
And on desktop: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:20.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/20.0; Here I use openSUSE 12.2.
Or he'll notice this thread and attempt to fix it by introducing a new biome -- either a flat version with an X-hills add-on, or an extreme-hills variation. >_>
Learn to statistics.
78.47% of people who voted in this thread don't like the new generator. 7,192,753 people have bought minecraft. Therefore, about 5,644,153 people wouldn't like the current generator (if they were all still playing, and within a reasonable margin of error.)
By comparison, only 1,550,758 people are fine with it the way it is, with a much smaller number of people actually preferring the new system over the old one.
So who's really the vocal minority here?
Mostly moved on. May check back a few times a year.
Is possible really. I like the new generator before I discover the old one. What that means? The old generator convinced me, now I like the old one.
I mean, there is a reason why because you like something, right? Almost all the time. And if you don't what to discuss likes, you can discuss advantages and disadvantages, is not hard, really.
PS: Don't nerf ores. I like getting enough iron to do things in hours instead of days kthnkbai.
What percentage of purchasers visit the forums? *your numbers shrink and change*
What number of people saw this thread? ^
What number of people thought it was worth voting on or commenting on? ^
You can not just take a number, and assume it is not an already biased segment of the population you are polling. Forums are quite often not a good representation of a community, but merely a vocal minority.
*note I am a proponent of more fanciful/old style terrain generation (but keep the ores, I like iron dagnabit!)
That is what we are proposing, please read the OPu_u
Edit: Sorry, it wasn't on this thread, my bad.
Alternative generator is the answer!
Here I wrote sometime about it: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1381426-please-fix-the-terrain-when-did-it-become-boring/page__st__460#entry17652114
Ceteris Paribus - Holding all other variables constant. That means, since everyone who plays the game has an equal opportunity to have wandered upon this forum, that the test results aren't limited to only one demographic - that being those against the new generation.
There is no bar to entry, nor any factor holding people who like the new terrain from finding this thread. Any factors that are strikingly apparent are only circumstantial to the particular person.
Honestly, if the majority of people did like the new terrain better, but have little to no involvement on this forum, then chances are that they aren't informed enough about the game's developmental process to know what changed to begin with and probably wouldn't notice another change.
To discard this poll's credibility is to be in denial, and if anyone approaches that feels this poll is inaccurate and there is an untapped field of people who disagree with the majority the poll has proven, then it is their obligation to motion those who feel the same toward this poll for the sake of its authenticity. And granted both sides will be actively raising more to place their vote, the rate at which the poll grows on both sides will be consistent enough to secure this poll's integrity. If there are more people who like the new terrain, then by all means allow those informed to this thread find them and encourage them to provide evidence supporting their claim that the new terrain is not boring. But in my opinion, with 2000+ already having cast their vote, I have enough to secure my belief that there is no grand sum of people who enjoy the terrain in numbers more than those who dislike the new terrain.
Sampling is the process to take a small sample of the whole, find out its tendencies, and make an educated generalization based on the results.
20% of any large or small number is still proportional in scale to any other large or small number.
For example:
xxoooooooo
xxxxoooooooooooooooo
These two are the same percentage. No matter how many times I multiply the number of x's or o's, there will still be the same percentage of x's to o's. While sample size does increase the accuracy, a difference of 60% to occur when expanding the testing field is almost a certain impossibility, especially with a figure of 2000+.
Magnify the results all you want, 20% is still 20%.
So can we please get off the topic of statistics? Polls are in place because they work, have proven their worth, and can more accurately define the majority on a topic than a series of comments alone.
gargamel: http://www.gamefront.com/files/22576198/gargamel Converted.zip Glacier: PM Me
1.3.2 has only one change: Large tree branches are now made of rotated logs. That's all too.
Placebo effect?
This is how beaches should look!:
Wide and large, yes.
Anyway, I don't like the water pool on the beach :C
biomes were added in alpha 1.2.0
And what about tall grass?
Also it doesn't have biome border glitch.
It's mix of generation of various versions, it should not be called old generation. It's your custom generator based on old ones.
For example, if you remove tall grass and new trees on current generator, you can't call it old one, isn't it? Same thing here.
where did you read that?
No?
Yea they are all clamped together, but the look alot better than the current extreme hills
i just really like the terrain in that area, also, the other picture of the adventure update, the one with the surface stronghold (called ruins at the time) why did they never use that? I was looking forward to exploring the kind of terrain that was shown in the first picture searching for the ruins.
however I don't believe that they will never fix the terrain, but i'm hoping they do.
Until the time they fix the terrain (if they ever do), i'm resorting to bwg3
EDIT: instead of making a double post i'll just continue, why did they change the terrain generator in the first place?
It's not very clear, but the go-to reason is that Notch didn't know how to stop villages from being scattered messes that slurs over the mountains in 1.7.3 generation, so he flattened everything so villages would work.
I would have said to just add a separate biome for villages that changes type (desert, plains, forest, etc...) depending on the nearest biome to where the villages are spawned.
gargamel: http://www.gamefront.com/files/22576198/gargamel Converted.zip Glacier: PM Me
Or you are talking about ALpha 1.1.2_01 and earlier? They were more chaotic btw.
Your statistics are inaccurate. Whatever the results of the poll, it was not a random sample of the population of people who have purchased Minecraft and therefore does not represent it. The poll represents the people who answered it, who are likely to be much more active and opinionated than the average user.
If they are more active, it stands to reason they have more to lose than someone who is not involved with the game. Those that "Don't care" wouldn't mind if the game changed, now would they?
gargamel: http://www.gamefront.com/files/22576198/gargamel Converted.zip Glacier: PM Me
What's next, sideways leaves? -____-
And air slabs.
Or he'll notice this thread and attempt to fix it by introducing a new biome -- either a flat version with an X-hills add-on, or an extreme-hills variation. >_>