Looking at those screen shots it looks as if the normal transition between biomes did not happen for swamps, and that has to be fixed sooner or later. I wouldn't cry foul unless it is still like that for the 1.9 release though, since we are using the development version that could be simply the early implementation of the new swamps, and the rest is on the todo list. As for the texture pack stuff, well absolutely that needs to be accessible to texture pack artists, and if it is not yet, it will soon be for the same reason I already mentioned.
I wouldn't worry too much about these sorts of things yet, not until 1.9 is official.
I agree, the swamps are ugly, but that is okay if they were not just about everywhere. I have a world that is about 50% swamp. I have a few things I think should happen:
1. There should not be hills in swamps. They should be mostly flat.
2. Swamps should not be next to large bodies of water. I don't think that this happens in real life, not 100% sure though.
3. They should be surrounded by forests, not next to deserts.
4. They shouldn't be as large as they currently are and shouldn't be as frequent.
5. Ravines should not happen in swamps.
I agree with the OP as well. I really do like the colors of the swamps, but the color transition between biomes is just so very jarring... It doesn't look right at all.
The swamps need something extra; They need some sort of buffer zone between them and other biomes. Perhaps this calls for a new biome. A mixture between, for example, Oak/Birch Forest and Swamp such that the color change can be introduced more gradually.
This thread goes along with this one: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/661471-why-i-dont-like-the-terrain-generation/
In that thread, where terrain variation was being discussed, I proposed that perhaps the introduction of more large hills here and there into other biomes would help to counteract the seemingly monotony of biomes. Someone else suggested perhaps melding similar biomes together such as Oak/Birch Forest with Mountains so that mountains have actual vegetation on them. It was also suggested that the number of trees be limited by elevation in that particular instance, but the idea of melding similar biomes still holds. Perhaps that would be a solution here?
isn't every transition from biome to biome like this though?
No, not nearly. The transition between the grasses of the plains and that of a pine tree forest or a mountain biome are far more subtle and visually appealing than the transition between the swamps and anything else. You're probably thinking more along the lines of the trees. Yeah, pine tree forests will look quite different, for obvious reasons, from the oak and birch forests.
Maybe swamp trees (visually) can stay, but should be a new type of tree altogether rather than a recolored oak tree? That would probably solve the tree issues since Notch/Jeb have already proven that tree types that spawn in various biomes can be controlled. Making a whole new tree type would get around the color-trifecta trees on swamp borders.
And another vote not to hardcode the new swamp colors. When I downloaded 1.8, I fell in love with the swamps. A big part of my enjoyment of Minecraft is the exploration aspect, wandering about to see what interesting things the game has generated this time, and the new swamps were beautiful.
Actually, for me they still are. I saw pictures of the new swamp colors before I went to download 1.9, so I haven't yet. At the moment there isn't any new content to outweigh the disadvantage of my world turning ugly. I really hope it can be fixed (and by fixed I mean "made alterable by texture pack artists") before any more new content is added. (And for pete's sake, fix the darned lighting bug!)
I agree, the swamps are ugly, but that is okay if they were not just about everywhere. I have a world that is about 50% swamp. I have a few things I think should happen:
1. There should not be hills in swamps. They should be mostly flat.
Why not? A swamp is just a poorly drained region in which water collects to create a wetland. That can happen amidst hills. I'll guarantee you it does in reality. You'll probably find small streams leading into and or out of most of them, but in an area with good evaporation you'll find some endorheic lakes and swamps too.
2. Swamps should not be next to large bodies of water. I don't think that this happens in real life, not 100% sure though.
Florida Evergaldes? Practically any large river delta (Mississippi, Amazon etc.) is a swamp abbuting a sea or ocean. The ones that aren't are only that way now because humans wanted to live there, so we modified them by building a city on it.
3. They should be surrounded by forests, not next to deserts.
How about the Nile river delta, or the Tigris and Euphrates that Saddam went out of his way to drain. They're swamps / wetlands surrounded by desert. Just because there's some water pooled there, doesn't mean it fell as rain.
4. They shouldn't be as large as they currently are and shouldn't be as frequent.
Why not? They're not all enormous. In 100+ seeds I've seen small and big, wide and narrow swamps. If the one or two you saw weren't to your liking, find a different seed, or walk away from it and find another one.
5. Ravines should not happen in swamps.
From a logical point of view I'll give you this one. Swamps normally exist because they're areas of poor drainage, and a big fissure in the ground seems like a pretty good way to drain water. However, from an "this is interesting" point of view, let it happen. These ravines aren't terribly common. If you don't like the look of a swamp with one in it, then go somewhere else, I'll guarantee you that most swamps won't have one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
More Ocean Life: Kelp, Coral, Crabs and Jellyfish; Coconut Palm trees for beaches and islands. Terrain Generation Changes: Which biomes and world-building features are most in need of change?
I think a simple way to fix this would be to surround swamps with land and no non-swamp water. That way the whole area could be swampy and not mess up anywhere else.
I don't agree with #4. It isn't even beta, it's pre-beta. The kinks are going to be smoothed out.
And how are the kinks going to be ironed out if we don't point them out and say, 'Here's a kink'?
Really, I don't understand why everyone keeps bringing this up as an argument. Saying that the game has been released for feedback is not a reason to not give feedback.
Then you post it like a bug report, and post it to notch, or I don't know... maybe the thread stickied on the top of this forum dedicated to bugs?
Not like a little 10year old kid rage. Seriously, did you even read any thing of what you wrote? "are unacceptable" really? LOL.
Unrelated side note; Awesome texture pack I may try that out
This thread is hardly a "little 10 yr old kid rage." TS brings up very good points and argument, all of which are well thought-out and presented. I don't know of any 10 yr old who could present his argument like this. Did YOU even read anything the TS wrote? What's wrong with "are unacceptable?"
Instead of making a thread about it you're better off twittering or emailing Jeb about it, even though many other people probably already did that because this particular unfinished beta pre-release biome transition is pretty obvious. Jeb and Notch probably have it on the top of their 'to do before actual 1.9 release' list. Sorry if I sound a bit bold but the thread title hit me as a bit bold aswell. (caps and using the word unacceptable)
About the transition being editable; I would put it in a seperate topic for discussion, and twitter the idea to jeb. :smile.gif:
I already have. :smile.gif:
But the reason I started this thread is because it gives more people a chance to come in and say, 'yeah, I don't like this either' or 'here's what I think mojang could do to make it better.'
One person writing one tweet is not going to convince them to change anything.
I support this idea, but your use of words such as "Unacceptable" and "Must" make you sound demanding and obnoxious. I doubt Notch will listen to you if you write your posts like this.
Wow, look at all the ignorant trolls. I mean, really? Of course your points are (vaguely) valid, but they all center around one core stupidity:
The game's in Beta.
Now... this would be fine, but you're using THIS as an argument as to why Steel should stop complaining.
Lolwut?
As I (and indeed, most people) understand the term, "Beta" means a game has been released in order to get feedback about changes and bugfixes that are required. So umm, yeah... your arguments are nonsensical tantrums that obviously show you don't read the OP.
GTFO.
Also, in case you didn't pick it up, I am in full support of this.
I agree they need to be changed, but I still completely assume they will be, with or without posts like this. :smile.gif: I doubt this was planned as the 'final' swamp form! I love the colors, but of course the edges are silly. But again, I assume this is something that will be changed already :smile.gif: hopefully. The thread sounds rather demanding for something that seems like it is an obvious thing to be fixed! This post sounds as if the game had officially been released already and he still hadn't fixed it! If that were the case, then I'd be right along side you. But again, not saying it 'shouldn't' be fixed. I just think it will :smile.gif:
I support this idea, but your use of words such as "Unacceptable" and "Must" make you sound demanding and obnoxious. I doubt Notch will listen to you if you write your posts like this.
Glad to have your support. :smile.gif:
I used 'unacceptable' because it was the most polite, technical term I could think of besides 'fugly'. Also, to me (and to many others), it is 'unacceptable' because it is the opposite of acceptable-- we cannot continue to have minecraft looking this way through the next several updates (and possibly forever). Period.
That's also why I said 'must be changed' rather than 'should be changed'. For many of us, the smoother transitions and the ability to edit the colors simply has to happen.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI wouldn't worry too much about these sorts of things yet, not until 1.9 is official.
1. There should not be hills in swamps. They should be mostly flat.
2. Swamps should not be next to large bodies of water. I don't think that this happens in real life, not 100% sure though.
3. They should be surrounded by forests, not next to deserts.
4. They shouldn't be as large as they currently are and shouldn't be as frequent.
5. Ravines should not happen in swamps.
Check out my YouTube channel!!!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffOne sentence for your one word:
The purpose of having a beta/pre-release in the first place is to get feedback from the community on what needs to be improved.
The swamps need something extra; They need some sort of buffer zone between them and other biomes. Perhaps this calls for a new biome. A mixture between, for example, Oak/Birch Forest and Swamp such that the color change can be introduced more gradually.
This thread goes along with this one:
http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/661471-why-i-dont-like-the-terrain-generation/
In that thread, where terrain variation was being discussed, I proposed that perhaps the introduction of more large hills here and there into other biomes would help to counteract the seemingly monotony of biomes. Someone else suggested perhaps melding similar biomes together such as Oak/Birch Forest with Mountains so that mountains have actual vegetation on them. It was also suggested that the number of trees be limited by elevation in that particular instance, but the idea of melding similar biomes still holds. Perhaps that would be a solution here?
No, not nearly. The transition between the grasses of the plains and that of a pine tree forest or a mountain biome are far more subtle and visually appealing than the transition between the swamps and anything else. You're probably thinking more along the lines of the trees. Yeah, pine tree forests will look quite different, for obvious reasons, from the oak and birch forests.
Maybe swamp trees (visually) can stay, but should be a new type of tree altogether rather than a recolored oak tree? That would probably solve the tree issues since Notch/Jeb have already proven that tree types that spawn in various biomes can be controlled. Making a whole new tree type would get around the color-trifecta trees on swamp borders.
Actually, for me they still are. I saw pictures of the new swamp colors before I went to download 1.9, so I haven't yet. At the moment there isn't any new content to outweigh the disadvantage of my world turning ugly. I really hope it can be fixed (and by fixed I mean "made alterable by texture pack artists") before any more new content is added. (And for pete's sake, fix the darned lighting bug!)
"You have good points..."
Then looks at responses...
"I don't want to live on this planet anymore"
kiwis do not need caps punctuation or basic grammar woman
Why not? A swamp is just a poorly drained region in which water collects to create a wetland. That can happen amidst hills. I'll guarantee you it does in reality. You'll probably find small streams leading into and or out of most of them, but in an area with good evaporation you'll find some endorheic lakes and swamps too.
Florida Evergaldes? Practically any large river delta (Mississippi, Amazon etc.) is a swamp abbuting a sea or ocean. The ones that aren't are only that way now because humans wanted to live there, so we modified them by building a city on it.
How about the Nile river delta, or the Tigris and Euphrates that Saddam went out of his way to drain. They're swamps / wetlands surrounded by desert. Just because there's some water pooled there, doesn't mean it fell as rain.
Why not? They're not all enormous. In 100+ seeds I've seen small and big, wide and narrow swamps. If the one or two you saw weren't to your liking, find a different seed, or walk away from it and find another one.
From a logical point of view I'll give you this one. Swamps normally exist because they're areas of poor drainage, and a big fissure in the ground seems like a pretty good way to drain water. However, from an "this is interesting" point of view, let it happen. These ravines aren't terribly common. If you don't like the look of a swamp with one in it, then go somewhere else, I'll guarantee you that most swamps won't have one.
Terrain Generation Changes: Which biomes and world-building features are most in need of change?
waaha, who would have thought that attempting to provided the asked for feedback would result in the ignorant flaming of notch fanboys waaaah!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffAnd how are the kinks going to be ironed out if we don't point them out and say, 'Here's a kink'?
Really, I don't understand why everyone keeps bringing this up as an argument. Saying that the game has been released for feedback is not a reason to not give feedback.
This thread is hardly a "little 10 yr old kid rage." TS brings up very good points and argument, all of which are well thought-out and presented. I don't know of any 10 yr old who could present his argument like this. Did YOU even read anything the TS wrote? What's wrong with "are unacceptable?"
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffI already have. :smile.gif:
But the reason I started this thread is because it gives more people a chance to come in and say, 'yeah, I don't like this either' or 'here's what I think mojang could do to make it better.'
One person writing one tweet is not going to convince them to change anything.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired Staff*face-palm*
I wish people like you would do more reading of the comments and responses already given and less sarcastic trolling.
The game's in Beta.
Now... this would be fine, but you're using THIS as an argument as to why Steel should stop complaining.
Lolwut?
As I (and indeed, most people) understand the term, "Beta" means a game has been released in order to get feedback about changes and bugfixes that are required. So umm, yeah... your arguments are nonsensical tantrums that obviously show you don't read the OP.
GTFO.
Also, in case you didn't pick it up, I am in full support of this.
Donate to help me buy people Minecraft accounts!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffGlad to have your support. :smile.gif:
I used 'unacceptable' because it was the most polite, technical term I could think of besides 'fugly'. Also, to me (and to many others), it is 'unacceptable' because it is the opposite of acceptable-- we cannot continue to have minecraft looking this way through the next several updates (and possibly forever). Period.
That's also why I said 'must be changed' rather than 'should be changed'. For many of us, the smoother transitions and the ability to edit the colors simply has to happen.