I heartily agree with all of this, SOMEONE POST TO NOTCH plz :smile.gif:
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Right now, there are two groups of gamers in the world: Those who haven't yet heard of Minecraft, and those who are hopelessly, helplessly addicted to it."
How about not tying it to biomes at all, BUT having more than one rock type?
Add in metamorphic versus sedimentary, etc., and have bands/regions of those underground, unrelated to surface biomes. Different strata are more likely to have certain ores.
*More realistic
*More possibilities for building aesthetics and defense, etc. with differing rock properties
*Not too hard to find the area you want to mine in, since you obviously know at any time what type of rock you are surrounded by.
*Still encourages traveling to open up new adventitious mines.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Przerwap, upon looking at some code I had just written: "...Gav... That's not how programming works."
Maybe tombs or something in a desert biome instead of dungeons
New enemy? Mummy? Yes? No?
Has lots of gold inside the tomb?
Gasp! An original idea? In Minecraft forums?!
Quote from »
Shut.
Down.
Everything.
And you know that "Brick Pyramid" in Infdev? So this is very possible if it had an established entrance and interior.
And maybe general ores; Gold is useless. Maybe mostly gold, but some diamond too.
Quote from smurfsahoy »
How about not tying it to biomes at all, BUT having more than one rock type?
Add in metamorphic versus sedimentary, etc., and have bands/regions of those underground, unrelated to surface biomes. Different strata are more likely to have certain ores.
*More realistic
*More possibilities for building aesthetics and defense, etc. with differing rock properties
*Not too hard to find the area you want to mine in, since you obviously know at any time what type of rock you are surrounded by.
*Still encourages traveling to open up new adventitious mines.
The reason why not both is because they are mutually exclusive..... You can't have mineral regions tied to biomes AND mineral regions NOT tied to biomes. What are you talking about?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Przerwap, upon looking at some code I had just written: "...Gav... That's not how programming works."
The reason why not both is because they are mutually exclusive..... You can't have mineral regions tied to biomes AND mineral regions NOT tied to biomes. What are you talking about?
The reason why not both is because they are mutually exclusive..... You can't have mineral regions tied to biomes AND mineral regions NOT tied to biomes. What are you talking about?
The question is: What are YOU talking about?
OP / Other people: "Let's have biomes correspond with mineral likelihoods! A certain region will tend to be desert AND have more diamonds"
Me: "Let's have biomes above ground, with different surface block types and plants, and then ALSO have regions of certain mineral types underground (sedimentary rock, metamorphic rock, igneous, or even more specific), and then have mineral likelihoods correspond to the regions of mineral types, not to the biomes. The placement of the biomes and mineral regions would not have anything to do with one another. A sedimentary region could overlap across the boundary of two biomes, or a desert could have a metamorphic bedrock in one place, but a sedimentary one in another place, etc.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Przerwap, upon looking at some code I had just written: "...Gav... That's not how programming works."
This is a great idea and all but the thing is in the real life world more minerals are not more common in one type of area. Sure we have lots of iron in Australia but that doesnt mean that if you go anywhere that has the same environmental type as outback Australia (hot, dry, vast and empty) that you'll find iron there too.
Also you can't have lots of diamonds one place and lots of coal another. Because a diamond is just coal that over hundreds/thousands of years has been put under HUGE pressure, or heat. (Altough i do understand how you were just using diamonds in desert/coal elsewhere as an example and not specificly doing that)
OP / Other people: "Let's have biomes correspond with mineral likelihoods! A certain region will tend to be desert AND have more diamonds"
Me: "Let's have biomes above ground, with different surface block types and plants, and then ALSO have regions of certain mineral types underground (sedimentary rock, metamorphic rock, igneous, or even more specific), and then have mineral likelihoods correspond to the regions of mineral types, not to the biomes. The placement of the biomes and mineral regions would not have anything to do with one another. A sedimentary region could overlap across the boundary of two biomes, or a desert could have a metamorphic bedrock in one place, but a sedimentary one in another place, etc.
But in real life, biomes DO correspond to mineral regions (like sedimentary rock at the bottom of oceans, if there were to be an ocean biome). The people who wanted to use MC to teach in school probably wouldn't be very happy with your suggestion. But then again, the world has so many different combinations of environmental factors that it might be more realistic to make them non-corresponding, like you suggest!
Final summation: when I'm above ground, I care about above-ground things. When I'm below ground, I care about below-ground things. I like BSO's, but I could care less about whether they correspond to rock strata.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
True. Some biomes like mountains and oceans and obviously volcanos have strata correspondences. Forests versus deserts versus jungle... mehh. Not so much.
But yeah, sure, ideally, they should overlap where they overlap in real life, and not overlap when they dont.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Przerwap, upon looking at some code I had just written: "...Gav... That's not how programming works."
OP / Other people: "Let's have biomes correspond with mineral likelihoods! A certain region will tend to be desert AND have more diamonds"
Me: "Let's have biomes above ground, with different surface block types and plants, and then ALSO have regions of certain mineral types underground (sedimentary rock, metamorphic rock, igneous, or even more specific), and then have mineral likelihoods correspond to the regions of mineral types, not to the biomes. The placement of the biomes and mineral regions would not have anything to do with one another. A sedimentary region could overlap across the boundary of two biomes, or a desert could have a metamorphic bedrock in one place, but a sedimentary one in another place, etc.
But in real life, biomes DO correspond to mineral regions (like sedimentary rock at the bottom of oceans, if there were to be an ocean biome). The people who wanted to use MC to teach in school probably wouldn't be very happy with your suggestion. But then again, the world has so many different combinations of environmental factors that it might be more realistic to make them non-corresponding, like you suggest!
Final summation: when I'm above ground, I care about above-ground things. When I'm below ground, I care about below-ground things. I like BSO's, but I could care less about whether they correspond to rock strata.
Loooooongcatpost is long.
But yes, you generally can't do mining in minecraft the same way people do mining on Earth.
Minecraft isn't earth. It's all blocky. And has magic singing cows.
But yes, you generally can't do mining in minecraft the same way people do mining on Earth.
Minecraft isn't earth. It's all blocky. And has magic singing cows.
Seriously? It does not strike you as a problem at all that geology is irrelevant, unrealistic, AND boring in a game called MINEcraft?
Turtleey is saying that minecraft is somewhat unrealistic. Which it is. Geology would definitely be cool, but I think the closest thing we'll get to environmental realism, at least in the near future, is BSO's.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 255 character limit.
New enemy? Mummy? Yes? No?
Has lots of gold inside the tomb?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GSD2Go5V9s
Add in metamorphic versus sedimentary, etc., and have bands/regions of those underground, unrelated to surface biomes. Different strata are more likely to have certain ores.
*More realistic
*More possibilities for building aesthetics and defense, etc. with differing rock properties
*Not too hard to find the area you want to mine in, since you obviously know at any time what type of rock you are surrounded by.
*Still encourages traveling to open up new adventitious mines.
Gasp! An original idea? In Minecraft forums?!
And you know that "Brick Pyramid" in Infdev? So this is very possible if it had an established entrance and interior.
And maybe general ores; Gold is useless. Maybe mostly gold, but some diamond too.
How about... both?
< My Steam Account (add me!)
< Dragon Cave! (aid)
Huh?
The reason why not both is because they are mutually exclusive..... You can't have mineral regions tied to biomes AND mineral regions NOT tied to biomes. What are you talking about?
The question is: What are YOU talking about?
< My Steam Account (add me!)
< Dragon Cave! (aid)
Then I guess computers in Minecraft run off of magic.
http://www.joystiq.com/2010/09/30/working-16-bit-computer-built-inside-minecraft/
A circuit by any other name...
For the 5th time.
That's what I said.
< My Steam Account (add me!)
< Dragon Cave! (aid)
OP / Other people: "Let's have biomes correspond with mineral likelihoods! A certain region will tend to be desert AND have more diamonds"
Me: "Let's have biomes above ground, with different surface block types and plants, and then ALSO have regions of certain mineral types underground (sedimentary rock, metamorphic rock, igneous, or even more specific), and then have mineral likelihoods correspond to the regions of mineral types, not to the biomes. The placement of the biomes and mineral regions would not have anything to do with one another. A sedimentary region could overlap across the boundary of two biomes, or a desert could have a metamorphic bedrock in one place, but a sedimentary one in another place, etc.
Also you can't have lots of diamonds one place and lots of coal another. Because a diamond is just coal that over hundreds/thousands of years has been put under HUGE pressure, or heat. (Altough i do understand how you were just using diamonds in desert/coal elsewhere as an example and not specificly doing that)
Alright, 6th time.
That's what I said.
< My Steam Account (add me!)
< Dragon Cave! (aid)
But in real life, biomes DO correspond to mineral regions (like sedimentary rock at the bottom of oceans, if there were to be an ocean biome). The people who wanted to use MC to teach in school probably wouldn't be very happy with your suggestion. But then again, the world has so many different combinations of environmental factors that it might be more realistic to make them non-corresponding, like you suggest!
Final summation: when I'm above ground, I care about above-ground things. When I'm below ground, I care about below-ground things. I like BSO's, but I could care less about whether they correspond to rock strata.
But yeah, sure, ideally, they should overlap where they overlap in real life, and not overlap when they dont.
Loooooong
catpost is long.But yes, you generally can't do mining in minecraft the same way people do mining on Earth.
Minecraft isn't earth. It's all blocky. And has magic singing cows.
< My Steam Account (add me!)
< Dragon Cave! (aid)
Seriously? It does not strike you as a problem at all that geology is irrelevant, unrealistic, AND boring in a game called MINEcraft?
Turtleey is saying that minecraft is somewhat unrealistic. Which it is. Geology would definitely be cool, but I think the closest thing we'll get to environmental realism, at least in the near future, is BSO's.
No?
< My Steam Account (add me!)
< Dragon Cave! (aid)
I saw that the other day, pretty damn cool, but, more on topic;
I'm guessing the lack of replies to my pictures means I was right?
i second this motion. :biggrin.gif: