This is really just a workaround until notch fixes it, which I'm sure he will :smile.gif:.
I don't really agree that there is necessarily anything to be fixed.
Enforcing a one-to-one link with portals would likely create just as many confusing complications as the current system does. If your initial portal winds up relocated from its intended position due to that area being solid rock or empty air above lava, what would happen if you breakdown the portal and then rebuild it in exactly the same spot? If you had built a portal in that spot when no portal had been there before, it would take you to one place, but since there used to be a portal there at one time, it's supposed to remember that and take you back to the linked portal that may or may not even exist anymore?
That sounds like a coding nightmare.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
This is really just a workaround until notch fixes it, which I'm sure he will :smile.gif:.
I don't really agree that there is necessarily anything to be fixed.
Enforcing a one-to-one link with portals would likely create just as many confusing complications as the current system does. If your initial portal winds up relocated from its intended position due to that area being solid rock or empty air above lava, what would happen if you breakdown the portal and then rebuild it in exactly the same spot? If you had built a portal in that spot when no portal had been there before, it would take you to one place, but since there used to be a portal there at one time, it's supposed to remember that and take you back to the linked portal that may or may not even exist anymore?
That sounds like a coding nightmare.
This IS something that needs to be fixed because players expect their underworld portal to take them back to the same portal they made in the overworld, not another one in a cavern or under the sea.
Yes exactly, If you break down the portal and build a new one it would either make a new one in the overworld, or link up to another one close by, assuming that the portal in the underworld was moved due to blockage/lava/etc.
BUT, If you make a portal in the overworld, and the underworld one is shifted for some reason, that same underworld portal should still take you to the original portal you built in the overworld.
This shouldn't take too much trouble to code, I don't see how you could even call it a 'nightmare.' The solution is simple: When you create a portal an ID of sorts is assigned to it. When you go through that portal, another portal is created in the opposite realm that is linked to the ID of the original. The only thing that should remove the ID is destroying the obsidian blocks. So the game should remember a portals ID so long as the blocks remain intact.
It's not a gargantuan task by any means.
In the case you went through a portal that had its alternate destroyed, it would first look for a corresponding portal in the other world that matched up with it's ID. If none was found, it would create a new link somewhere else, either with a completely new portal or another one close by.
In the case you went through a portal that had its alternate destroyed, it would first look for a corresponding portal in the other world that matched up with it's ID. If none was found, it would create a new link somewhere else, either with a completely new portal or another one close by.
I wouldn't even go for the "close by" part. I don't think it's really necessary as there should be no expectation that the portals' locations be at all correlated in any predictable way.
The only expectation is that if portal "A" takes you to portal "B" then portal "B" should take you to portal "A"
This IS something that needs to be fixed because players expect their underworld portal to take them back to the same portal they made in the overworld, not another one in a cavern or under the sea.
If players expect that, then they simply don't understand how the portals work. Changing the portals to conform with players' flawed understanding of them isn't necessary. Players simply need to understand how they work, and many have already figured it out.
BUT, If you make a portal in the overworld, and the underworld one is shifted for some reason, that same underworld portal should still take you to the original portal you built in the overworld.
I disagree.
This shouldn't take too much trouble to code, I don't see how you could even call it a 'nightmare.' The solution is simple: When you create a portal an ID of sorts is assigned to it. When you go through that portal, another portal is created in the opposite realm that is linked to the ID of the original. The only thing that should remove the ID is destroying the obsidian blocks. So the game should remember a portals ID so long as the blocks remain intact.
Removing one obsidian block and immediately replacing it should not change the destination of a portal. That makes no sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
If players expect that, then they simply don't understand how the portals work.
You seem to be caught in an IS-OUGHT trap. It is incorrect to assert that just because it IS this way that it OUGHT to be this way.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that when you go back the way you came you end up where you started. This is intuitive and sensible. It is understood that portals work by location, but the actual mechanics of how location in one world affects location in the other is opaque - and this is not at all a problem. It is sufficient to know that location in one world affects the location in the other without knowing the exact mechanics.
And knowing the exact mechanics does absolutely nothing to help you use portals efficiently, because all you know for certain is that when you go back into the portal you came from you could end up stranded in the middle of nowhere. And dead.
But once a link between two portals is established, there OUGHT to be an identical link in the opposite direction. It is intuitive that way. It reduces number of portals littering the landscapes. It decreases work done by the game. It leads to less confusion and frustration for the player and increases predictability and confidence. It increases utility of portals for transit since it facilitates creating planned, mappable portal networks.
Most of all, it is an incredibly simple fix for a dramatic improvement in function.
=Smidge=
About the portals, it’s possible that two portals can lead to the same portal in the Nether. This is because the space down there is compressed by a factor of 8, and I haven’t come up with a good way to fix this yet.
I might just end up doing an explicit one-to-one binding between portal pairs, but that’s nontrivial as it should survive the portal being temporarily destroyed. If you TNT a portal then rebuild it, you’d expect it to still lead to the same place, right?
Hmm.
But do go on about how simple this change is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
This IS something that needs to be fixed because players expect their underworld portal to take them back to the same portal they made in the overworld, not another one in a cavern or under the sea.
If players expect that, then they simply don't understand how the portals work. Changing the portals to conform with players' flawed understanding of them isn't necessary. Players simply need to understand how they work, and many have already figured it out.
BUT, If you make a portal in the overworld, and the underworld one is shifted for some reason, that same underworld portal should still take you to the original portal you built in the overworld.
I disagree.
This shouldn't take too much trouble to code, I don't see how you could even call it a 'nightmare.' The solution is simple: When you create a portal an ID of sorts is assigned to it. When you go through that portal, another portal is created in the opposite realm that is linked to the ID of the original. The only thing that should remove the ID is destroying the obsidian blocks. So the game should remember a portals ID so long as the blocks remain intact.
Removing one obsidian block and immediately replacing it should not change the destination of a portal. That makes no sense.
Actually it would make sense, and that's how it works now. I that destroyed portal was originally linked to another portal that had been shifted. Destroying that portal and rebuilding it then would create another portal in the other world, a portal that is either shifted again for some reason, or actually correlates correctly to the one below it.
THIS is what the system currently does, and it's a confusing, annoying, and completely inefficient in terms of building correctly working portal systems.
Just because it works this way, doesn't mean it's the best way for it to work. I guess you just like building 3-5 more portals just to get a working 2 way link.
Saying something is nontrivial doesn't mean it's not worth the effort, nor does it necessarily mean the problem is hopelessly complex. In any case, that argument that something shouldn't be done because it's 'hard' to code is never a good one when talking about game mechanics.
About the portals, it’s possible that two portals can lead to the same portal in the Nether. This is because the space down there is compressed by a factor of 8, and I haven’t come up with a good way to fix this yet.
I might just end up doing an explicit one-to-one binding between portal pairs, but that’s nontrivial as it should survive the portal being temporarily destroyed. If you TNT a portal then rebuild it, you’d expect it to still lead to the same place, right?
Hmm.
But do go on about how simple this change is.
Two things; first: "If you TNT a portal then rebuild it, you’d expect it to still lead to the same place, right?"
Not necessarily. When a portal is busted the magic is lost, and rebuilding it is the same as building an entirely new one... ie with no guarantees on where it will lead until you walk through it.
The solution, if you did want that kind of behavior, is to reference portals by their location rather than by IDs. Refer to my flow diagram for how this works:
1) Enter portal "A" at location (x1, y1, z1). Portal "A" has the destination portal's location (x2,y2,z2) associated with it, or no data at all.
2) The game checks (x2,y2,z2) - if that data exists - for an active portal. If no active portal is found, erase the data and proceed as if it was never there to begin with. If an active portal is found, skip step 3.
3) If there is no destination, create one using standard creation rules and associate the new data with both portals.
4) Teleport.
Since you are using the location of the portal as the reference, rather than a unique ID, you can destroy a portal and rebuild it with no ill effect unless you try to go from A->B after destroying B - meaning you'd have to make your way back to portal A by some other means anyway.
And all it takes to do that is to add one additional chunk of data per portal. The game has several ways of storing such data already.
Second: You have yet to make a case for why they OUGHT to remain as they are, other than quoting Notch saying it'd be "nontrivial" to make portals remain persistently linked when destroyed. It's possible he has reasons for saying that which I'm not aware, but it's also possible he just hasn't considered a solution like the one I described... since my location-based solution does not have any difficulty relinking destroyed portals unless you loop back around and try to teleport into a broken portal.
=Smidge=
Actually it would make sense, and that's how it works now. I that destroyed portal was originally linked to another portal that had been shifted. Destroying that portal and rebuilding it then would create another portal in the other world, a portal that is either shifted again for some reason, or actually correlates correctly to the one below it.
THIS is what the system currently does, and it's a confusing, annoying, and completely inefficient in terms of building correctly working portal systems.
You're wrong.
Currently a portal built in one precise location will always take you to the same destination portal, no matter how many times you destroy it and rebuild it.
The only time the destination portal will change is if you destroy the original destination portal and leave some portion of it behind or otherwise obstruct that particular 4x1x5 area with some other construction which prevents it from being rebuilt in the same location, or if you build another portal on the other side that is a closer match.
Just because it works this way, doesn't mean it's the best way for it to work. I guess you just like building 3-5 more portals just to get a working 2 way link.
And just because you don't think it's the best way for it to work doesn't mean it's not. Words like "better" and "best" are relative and completely subjective.
Saying something is nontrivial doesn't mean it's not worth the effort, nor does it necessarily mean the problem is hopelessly complex. In any case, that argument that something shouldn't be done because it's 'hard' to code is never a good one when talking about game mechanics.
Saying something is a nightmare to code doesn't mean it's not worth the effort either, nor does it mean that it is hopelessly complex. It's a matter of time invested v results.
I have no problem creating linked portals. Notch spending his time on this issue won't have any positive effect on my gameplay. If you really can't figure them out, then you'll obviously find such a use of his resources to be more beneficial to you.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Two things; first: "If you TNT a portal then rebuild it, you’d expect it to still lead to the same place, right?"
Not necessarily. When a portal is busted the magic is lost, and rebuilding it is the same as building an entirely new one... ie with no guarantees on where it will lead until you walk through it.
Sorry, but I'm gonna say the opinion of the game's creator is likely to carry a bit more weight than yours, whoever you are. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
The solution, if you did want that kind of behavior, is to reference portals by their location rather than by IDs. Refer to my flow diagram for how this works:
1) Enter portal "A" at location (x1, y1, z1). Portal "A" has the destination portal's location (x2,y2,z2) associated with it, or no data at all.
2) The game checks (x2,y2,z2) - if that data exists - for an active portal. If no active portal is found, erase the data and proceed as if it was never there to begin with. If an active portal is found, skip step 3.
3) If there is no destination, create one using standard creation rules and associate the new data with both portals.
4) Teleport.
Since you are using the location of the portal as the reference, rather than a unique ID, you can destroy a portal and rebuild it with no ill effect unless you try to go from A->B after destroying B - meaning you'd have to make your way back to portal A by some other means anyway.
And all it takes to do that is to add one additional chunk of data per portal. The game has several ways of storing such data already.
Well that sounds pretty trivial to me, and I'm sure you understand these processes better than the person who designed them. Just go ahead and tell him how it should be done.
Second: You have yet to make a case for why they OUGHT to remain as they are, other than quoting Notch saying it'd be "nontrivial" to make portals remain persistently linked when destroyed. It's possible he has reasons for saying that which I'm not aware, but it's also possible he just hasn't considered a solution like the one I described... since my location-based solution does not have any difficulty relinking destroyed portals unless you loop back around and try to teleport into a broken portal.
=Smidge=
You seem to be confused. You're the one that wants it changed, so you have to make a case for it. I don't need to make a case for anything. It wouldn't affect me one way or the other as I'm sure I can cope with either functionality.
I simply stated that the case for change made in this thread was not convincing to me, and that the benefit of fixing it does not greatly interest me as I have no problem with the current functionality.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Well that sounds pretty trivial to me, and I'm sure you understand these processes better than the person who designed them. Just go ahead and tell him how it should be done.
Notch is only human, and sometimes even an obvious solution can be missed.
Quote from MadCow21 »
You seem to be confused. You're the one that wants it changed, so you have to make a case for it.
And I did. How 'bout that... If you disagree, then either make a case of your own or just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
=Smidge=
And sometimes a working solution isn't nearly as obvious as certain less informed parties might believe.
And sometimes someone who is similarly ill-informed but also has no apparent relevant experience in game design and programming will feel their non-constructive criticism is just as valid as anyone's.
So until Notch manages to find the time to expound on why fixing portals as described is "nontrivial" it seems I'm still at least contributing something constructive to the discussion. Sorry for suggesting that the game isn't the pinnacle of design and technique - please stop being butthurt over it.
=Smidge=
And sometimes someone who is similarly ill-informed but also has no apparent relevant experience in game design and programming will feel their non-constructive criticism is just as valid as anyone's.
We're still talking about you right?
So until Notch manages to find the time to expound on why fixing portals as described is "nontrivial" it seems I'm still at least contributing something constructive to the discussion. Sorry for suggesting that the game isn't the pinnacle of design and technique - please stop being butthurt over it.
=Smidge=
I can understand how saying I'm fine with either functionality could be interpreted as being butthurt over it...by a complete moron.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Actually it would make sense, and that's how it works now. I that destroyed portal was originally linked to another portal that had been shifted. Destroying that portal and rebuilding it then would create another portal in the other world, a portal that is either shifted again for some reason, or actually correlates correctly to the one below it.
THIS is what the system currently does, and it's a confusing, annoying, and completely inefficient in terms of building correctly working portal systems.
You're wrong.
Currently a portal built in one precise location will always take you to the same destination portal, no matter how many times you destroy it and rebuild it.
The only time the destination portal will change is if you destroy the original destination portal and leave some portion of it behind or otherwise obstruct that particular 4x1x5 area with some other construction which prevents it from being rebuilt in the same location, or if you build another portal on the other side that is a closer match.
I've had one portal that lead to two different portals at once, without destroying either. The game just doesn't handle portals all that well.
Quote from MadCow21 »
Just because it works this way, doesn't mean it's the best way for it to work. I guess you just like building 3-5 more portals just to get a working 2 way link.
And just because you don't think it's the best way for it to work doesn't mean it's not. Words like "better" and "best" are relative and completely subjective.
In terms of efficiency, there's no way you can argue that having to create multiple extra portals just to create a 2 way link is in anyway better than having the 2nd portal automatically linked to it's parent portal. Yes it's possible and I'm sure you love doing it, but some of us would rather have that extra time to accomplish more interesting things than shifting obsidian blocks around.
And yes, in a debate, each side has to support his or her case, you can't just say 'nuh uh, it's good for me therefore it should be good for you.'
i must have made something around a dozen portals trying to get this to work, but with my portal being underground in the gold layer and probably a couple hundred meters away from my castle via minetrack, trying to hone in on where the main portal is and trying to get an accurate hell portal is rather difficult.
think i may need to finally install cartographer to get this right. ****.
I would feel stupid if I weren't so happy right now. Dug a hole straight out of my portal cave and marked where the hole was, saw how far off I was from the portals made above ground, went back to hell and figured out where north was from the extra portals i had down there, made a new one (floating above a lava lake currently) and got it linked up with my original portal first try.
Now to build a suitable platform and hut around it so i don't fall in lava / get obliterated by ghasts entering hell.
I dunno how Notch is going handle portal thing, but I have an idea, as far as handling broken ones goes..
Have linked portals each other. IE, if one portal breaks for whatever reason the associated portal breaks too.That way you don't have to worry about teleporting to broken portals. Same could go for the obsidian. Break one block off that destroys the portal, then the associated portal will also lose that block. That way if you repair any broken portals both of the linked portals will be working.
This is really just a workaround until notch fixes it, which I'm sure he will :smile.gif:.
I don't really agree that there is necessarily anything to be fixed.
Enforcing a one-to-one link with portals would likely create just as many confusing complications as the current system does. If your initial portal winds up relocated from its intended position due to that area being solid rock or empty air above lava, what would happen if you breakdown the portal and then rebuild it in exactly the same spot? If you had built a portal in that spot when no portal had been there before, it would take you to one place, but since there used to be a portal there at one time, it's supposed to remember that and take you back to the linked portal that may or may not even exist anymore?
That sounds like a coding nightmare.
This IS something that needs to be fixed because players expect their underworld portal to take them back to the same portal they made in the overworld, not another one in a cavern or under the sea.
Yes exactly, If you break down the portal and build a new one it would either make a new one in the overworld, or link up to another one close by, assuming that the portal in the underworld was moved due to blockage/lava/etc.
BUT, If you make a portal in the overworld, and the underworld one is shifted for some reason, that same underworld portal should still take you to the original portal you built in the overworld.
This shouldn't take too much trouble to code, I don't see how you could even call it a 'nightmare.' The solution is simple: When you create a portal an ID of sorts is assigned to it. When you go through that portal, another portal is created in the opposite realm that is linked to the ID of the original. The only thing that should remove the ID is destroying the obsidian blocks. So the game should remember a portals ID so long as the blocks remain intact.
It's not a gargantuan task by any means.
In the case you went through a portal that had its alternate destroyed, it would first look for a corresponding portal in the other world that matched up with it's ID. If none was found, it would create a new link somewhere else, either with a completely new portal or another one close by.
I wouldn't even go for the "close by" part. I don't think it's really necessary as there should be no expectation that the portals' locations be at all correlated in any predictable way.
The only expectation is that if portal "A" takes you to portal "B" then portal "B" should take you to portal "A"
And the logic to do that is pretty simple:
Book it, done.
=Smidge=
If players expect that, then they simply don't understand how the portals work. Changing the portals to conform with players' flawed understanding of them isn't necessary. Players simply need to understand how they work, and many have already figured it out.
I disagree.
Removing one obsidian block and immediately replacing it should not change the destination of a portal. That makes no sense.
You seem to be caught in an IS-OUGHT trap. It is incorrect to assert that just because it IS this way that it OUGHT to be this way.
I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that when you go back the way you came you end up where you started. This is intuitive and sensible. It is understood that portals work by location, but the actual mechanics of how location in one world affects location in the other is opaque - and this is not at all a problem. It is sufficient to know that location in one world affects the location in the other without knowing the exact mechanics.
And knowing the exact mechanics does absolutely nothing to help you use portals efficiently, because all you know for certain is that when you go back into the portal you came from you could end up stranded in the middle of nowhere. And dead.
But once a link between two portals is established, there OUGHT to be an identical link in the opposite direction. It is intuitive that way. It reduces number of portals littering the landscapes. It decreases work done by the game. It leads to less confusion and frustration for the player and increases predictability and confidence. It increases utility of portals for transit since it facilitates creating planned, mappable portal networks.
Most of all, it is an incredibly simple fix for a dramatic improvement in function.
=Smidge=
About the portals, it’s possible that two portals can lead to the same portal in the Nether. This is because the space down there is compressed by a factor of 8, and I haven’t come up with a good way to fix this yet.
I might just end up doing an explicit one-to-one binding between portal pairs, but that’s nontrivial as it should survive the portal being temporarily destroyed. If you TNT a portal then rebuild it, you’d expect it to still lead to the same place, right?
Hmm.
But do go on about how simple this change is.
Actually it would make sense, and that's how it works now. I that destroyed portal was originally linked to another portal that had been shifted. Destroying that portal and rebuilding it then would create another portal in the other world, a portal that is either shifted again for some reason, or actually correlates correctly to the one below it.
THIS is what the system currently does, and it's a confusing, annoying, and completely inefficient in terms of building correctly working portal systems.
Just because it works this way, doesn't mean it's the best way for it to work. I guess you just like building 3-5 more portals just to get a working 2 way link.
Saying something is nontrivial doesn't mean it's not worth the effort, nor does it necessarily mean the problem is hopelessly complex. In any case, that argument that something shouldn't be done because it's 'hard' to code is never a good one when talking about game mechanics.
Two things; first: "If you TNT a portal then rebuild it, you’d expect it to still lead to the same place, right?"
Not necessarily. When a portal is busted the magic is lost, and rebuilding it is the same as building an entirely new one... ie with no guarantees on where it will lead until you walk through it.
The solution, if you did want that kind of behavior, is to reference portals by their location rather than by IDs. Refer to my flow diagram for how this works:
1) Enter portal "A" at location (x1, y1, z1). Portal "A" has the destination portal's location (x2,y2,z2) associated with it, or no data at all.
2) The game checks (x2,y2,z2) - if that data exists - for an active portal. If no active portal is found, erase the data and proceed as if it was never there to begin with. If an active portal is found, skip step 3.
3) If there is no destination, create one using standard creation rules and associate the new data with both portals.
4) Teleport.
Since you are using the location of the portal as the reference, rather than a unique ID, you can destroy a portal and rebuild it with no ill effect unless you try to go from A->B after destroying B - meaning you'd have to make your way back to portal A by some other means anyway.
And all it takes to do that is to add one additional chunk of data per portal. The game has several ways of storing such data already.
Second: You have yet to make a case for why they OUGHT to remain as they are, other than quoting Notch saying it'd be "nontrivial" to make portals remain persistently linked when destroyed. It's possible he has reasons for saying that which I'm not aware, but it's also possible he just hasn't considered a solution like the one I described... since my location-based solution does not have any difficulty relinking destroyed portals unless you loop back around and try to teleport into a broken portal.
=Smidge=
You're wrong.
Currently a portal built in one precise location will always take you to the same destination portal, no matter how many times you destroy it and rebuild it.
The only time the destination portal will change is if you destroy the original destination portal and leave some portion of it behind or otherwise obstruct that particular 4x1x5 area with some other construction which prevents it from being rebuilt in the same location, or if you build another portal on the other side that is a closer match.
And just because you don't think it's the best way for it to work doesn't mean it's not. Words like "better" and "best" are relative and completely subjective.
Saying something is a nightmare to code doesn't mean it's not worth the effort either, nor does it mean that it is hopelessly complex. It's a matter of time invested v results.
I have no problem creating linked portals. Notch spending his time on this issue won't have any positive effect on my gameplay. If you really can't figure them out, then you'll obviously find such a use of his resources to be more beneficial to you.
Sorry, but I'm gonna say the opinion of the game's creator is likely to carry a bit more weight than yours, whoever you are. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Well that sounds pretty trivial to me, and I'm sure you understand these processes better than the person who designed them. Just go ahead and tell him how it should be done.
You seem to be confused. You're the one that wants it changed, so you have to make a case for it. I don't need to make a case for anything. It wouldn't affect me one way or the other as I'm sure I can cope with either functionality.
I simply stated that the case for change made in this thread was not convincing to me, and that the benefit of fixing it does not greatly interest me as I have no problem with the current functionality.
Notch is only human, and sometimes even an obvious solution can be missed.
And I did. How 'bout that... If you disagree, then either make a case of your own or just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
=Smidge=
And sometimes a working solution isn't nearly as obvious as certain less informed parties might believe.
Not sure what part of me disagreeing repeatedly throughout this thread has led you to believe that I am not agreeing to disagree.
But by all means, keep disagreeing with me until you're convinced that I've agreed to it.
And sometimes someone who is similarly ill-informed but also has no apparent relevant experience in game design and programming will feel their non-constructive criticism is just as valid as anyone's.
So until Notch manages to find the time to expound on why fixing portals as described is "nontrivial" it seems I'm still at least contributing something constructive to the discussion. Sorry for suggesting that the game isn't the pinnacle of design and technique - please stop being butthurt over it.
=Smidge=
We're still talking about you right?
I can understand how saying I'm fine with either functionality could be interpreted as being butthurt over it...by a complete moron.
I've had one portal that lead to two different portals at once, without destroying either. The game just doesn't handle portals all that well.
In terms of efficiency, there's no way you can argue that having to create multiple extra portals just to create a 2 way link is in anyway better than having the 2nd portal automatically linked to it's parent portal. Yes it's possible and I'm sure you love doing it, but some of us would rather have that extra time to accomplish more interesting things than shifting obsidian blocks around.
And yes, in a debate, each side has to support his or her case, you can't just say 'nuh uh, it's good for me therefore it should be good for you.'
think i may need to finally install cartographer to get this right. ****.
Now to build a suitable platform and hut around it so i don't fall in lava / get obliterated by ghasts entering hell.
Have linked portals each other. IE, if one portal breaks for whatever reason the associated portal breaks too.That way you don't have to worry about teleporting to broken portals. Same could go for the obsidian. Break one block off that destroys the portal, then the associated portal will also lose that block. That way if you repair any broken portals both of the linked portals will be working.