I recently read a thread regarding endless worlds. I think people came to the conclusion that the xbox 360's memory couldn't handle it.
So I was thinking spherical worlds would be a good alternative because you would never run into the "end of the world" wall, and it might not be that demaning on system resources.
Thoughts?
(By spherical, I mean a globe. ...A world where if you walk far enough, you would end up back where you started.)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
I really don't see why this needs to be done.
It's not really changing anything other than making oceans harder to find and making getting from one side of the map to the other easier...maybe.
Also, this would either break every old world or make them look absolutely hideous.
The world does not have to literally be spherical for this idea to be implemented. It can remain flat, but when a world "edge" is approached, the map could begin generating terrain from the opposite side of the world in the place of the ocean and invisible wall. The number of blocks in the world would be constant but the edges of the map would "connect."
I hate invisible walls and would support this idea.
The world does not have to literally be spherical for this idea to be implemented. It can remain flat, but when a world "edge" is approached, the map could begin generating terrain from the opposite side of the world in the place of the ocean and invisible wall. The number of blocks in the world would be constant but the edges of the map would "connect."
I hate invisible walls and would support this idea.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
I think this would be okay... If the worlds were far larger than they are now.
Because... It would have to be to have enough blocks to wrap around and connect again.
and by then, everything would have a bent look and seem out of tune to what it was before.
So.. as it is now on the 360 and even the Xbox One from the sounds of it... I think I'll pass on this one.
I like the idea though.
A. there wouldn't be a 'bent' look to anything... the OP did not mean literally spherical, just conceptually spherical in that the sides of the map will connect to their opposite sides to eliminate borders.
B. larger mops are not required in the least, the system is just wrapping the north edge to the south edge, and the east edge with the west edge... in fact, this could be done with smaller maps if one was inclined to do so.
I really don't see why this needs to be done.
It's not really changing anything other than making oceans harder to find and making getting from one side of the map to the other easier...maybe.
Also, this would either break every old world or make them look absolutely hideous.
C. It doesn't have to do anything to alter or break any previous world at all if just the seems are connected... however, the edges of the map where they do connect might look a little weird on older maps due to an abrupt or distinct terrain change from one side of the map to the other.
Does it need to be done? No.
Would it make it easier to get from one side of the map to the other? Yeah, it can.
Would it help to make the world 'feel' larger by removing the boundaries? Potentially, yes.
Will it make it more difficult to expand a maps X/Z coordinates later if they choose to do so at some point? Yes.
Would the programmers have to adjust future terrain generation to try and get the edges to seem relatively seamless? Probably.
Well instead of spherical, why not make it a cube? So when you go past the end of one face of the cube world, you would end up on another face. So no invisible walls just 6 smaller squares formed into a cube for players to walk all over.
Well instead of spherical, why not make it a cube? So when you go past the end of one face of the cube world, you would end up on another face. So no invisible walls just 6 smaller squares formed into a cube for players to walk all over.
How about it?
Hmm...
Just so I understand.
Basically.... we'd walk to the edge of the world lets say....
You keep walking and you're "on the other side" that is?
Or do you like walk and the world literally flips and whatnot?
Well instead of spherical, why not make it a cube? So when you go past the end of one face of the cube world, you would end up on another face. So no invisible walls just 6 smaller squares formed into a cube for players to walk all over.
How about it?
I actually thought about that...conceptually, I thought it would be fitting to Minecraft's cube based world... I then rejected the idea as making the game much more complex (in design) than it needs to be in order to make it work right. The looping maps (top to bottom and right to left) is much easier to implement and is pretty seamless without having to do major modifications to the core code.
I actually thought about that...conceptually, I thought it would be fitting to Minecraft's cube based world... I then rejected the idea as making the game much more complex (in design) than it needs to be in order to make it work right. The looping maps (top to bottom and right to left) is much easier to implement and is pretty seamless without having to do major modifications to the core code.
That would just remind me of Mario Galaxy.
I still think if you wanted to make it spherical you'd have to make the maps longer.
Cause... If you take a piece of paper and roll it.. it in a sense becomes 'smaller', so the paper would need to be even longer to keep it the same.... no?
The world does not have to literally be spherical for this idea to be implemented. It can remain flat, but when a world "edge" is approached, the map could begin generating terrain from the opposite side of the world in the place of the ocean and invisible wall. The number of blocks in the world would be constant but the edges of the map would "connect."
I hate invisible walls and would support this idea.
I like this idea. It would make more sense to have the world spherical like this. Its easier than cubical worlds with unloading chunks.
I still think if you wanted to make it spherical you'd have to make the maps longer.
Cause... If you take a piece of paper and roll it.. it in a sense becomes 'smaller', so the paper would need to be even longer to keep it the same.... no?
No... because you aren't dealing with paper, and nothing is actually physically being 'rolled'. You can use the same space as long as you can't view the same area from both directions at the same time. since your visible range is 7 chunks in any direction, and the map size is (effectively) 64 chunks on each side, this would never be an issue, plus you would have the additional benefit of actually being able to open up that 5 chunk border around the map for additional exploration and mining if the edges were linked together. (You currently can't access it because then you would see the edge of the world too soon, which you can as it is since your visual range is 7 chunks as it is). We would (potentially) be able to maximize the current XB360 map size under this scheme.
No... because you aren't dealing with paper, and nothing is actually physically being 'rolled'. You can use the same space as long as you can't view the same area from both directions at the same time. since your visible range is 7 chunks in any direction, and the map size is (effectively) 64 chunks on each side, this would never be an issue, plus you would have the additional benefit of actually being able to open up that 5 chunk border around the map for additional exploration and mining if the edges were linked together. (You currently can't access it because then you would see the edge of the world too soon, which you can as it is since your visual range is 7 chunks as it is). We would (potentially) be able to maximize the current XB360 map size under this scheme.
But you can view the areas, maybe not right away.. But you can. Just depends if it gets loaded or not. Especially if you're flying you'd be able to see everything.. and it would have a bent look. Where it might be 'straight' for a while but fairly quickly have that sort of bent look. It'd have to be stretched quite a bit to make it work.
Seven chunks is a lot of blocks to not be seen especially if you're walking, But there'd have to be some consistency with the worlds, whether or not you can't see them. To me that doesn't make sense much.
I know we're not dealing with paper... I was just using it as an example.
I still think that the worlds would have to be fairly bigger than they are now. To me it's possible it could work on the Xbox One but not here. Even though what you say does kinda make sense
I know we're not dealing with paper... I was just using it as an example.
I still think that the worlds would have to be fairly bigger than they are now. To me it's possible it could work on the Xbox One but not here. Even though what you say does kinda make sense
Ok... since you are determined to view this as a rolled up piece of paper... fine...
Take your rolled up map and squash it on the ends so it is more like a treadmill or a conveyor belt.... the player sits and stays in the center of the map and as they move around the world, instead of the player moving, the treadmill/conveyor belt moves under them so their perception is always of a flat ground and they appear to be moving forward.
Another way to think about this is divide the map into a series of tiles... we'll call them ...ohhh I don't know... how about 'chunks', they can represent 16 blocks x 16 block on the side.
Where ever the player starts in the world, as them move into a northern new chunk, the last row or chunks to the south falls off the map and appears on the north side of the map, and similarly as they move into a southern chunk, the top map row moves to the bottom of the map and it again re-centers. Handle similarly for east and west-ward movements.
There you go... absolutely no perceptive curvature to the surface what so ever...since your visual range is the chunk you are in +/- 7 chunks, you could use this strategy with a map size as small as 15 chunks by 15 chunks without seeing the same object(s) on the horizon in front of you as you do behind you.... which is much much smaller area than the 64x64 chunk space that currently exists in the game (less the 5 chunk border around the map that you cannot enter).
A map size less than 7x7 (chunks) would mean that you would be able to see yourself off in the distance in each direction.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I was thinking spherical worlds would be a good alternative because you would never run into the "end of the world" wall, and it might not be that demaning on system resources.
Thoughts?
(By spherical, I mean a globe. ...A world where if you walk far enough, you would end up back where you started.)
Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
Just thought of it: bedrock core.
Anyway, I don't see this happening ever really. I would imagine that the entire game code would have to be rewritten.
It's not really changing anything other than making oceans harder to find and making getting from one side of the map to the other easier...maybe.
Also, this would either break every old world or make them look absolutely hideous.
Stay fluffy~
I hate invisible walls and would support this idea.
Those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.
Because... It would have to be to have enough blocks to wrap around and connect again.
and by then, everything would have a bent look and seem out of tune to what it was before.
So.. as it is now on the 360 and even the Xbox One from the sounds of it... I think I'll pass on this one.
I like the idea though.
A. there wouldn't be a 'bent' look to anything... the OP did not mean literally spherical, just conceptually spherical in that the sides of the map will connect to their opposite sides to eliminate borders.
B. larger mops are not required in the least, the system is just wrapping the north edge to the south edge, and the east edge with the west edge... in fact, this could be done with smaller maps if one was inclined to do so.
C. It doesn't have to do anything to alter or break any previous world at all if just the seems are connected... however, the edges of the map where they do connect might look a little weird on older maps due to an abrupt or distinct terrain change from one side of the map to the other.
Does it need to be done? No.
Would it make it easier to get from one side of the map to the other? Yeah, it can.
Would it help to make the world 'feel' larger by removing the boundaries? Potentially, yes.
Will it make it more difficult to expand a maps X/Z coordinates later if they choose to do so at some point? Yes.
Would the programmers have to adjust future terrain generation to try and get the edges to seem relatively seamless? Probably.
Why you end up in China of course!
How about it?
Hmm...
Just so I understand.
Basically.... we'd walk to the edge of the world lets say....
You keep walking and you're "on the other side" that is?
Or do you like walk and the world literally flips and whatnot?
I actually thought about that...conceptually, I thought it would be fitting to Minecraft's cube based world... I then rejected the idea as making the game much more complex (in design) than it needs to be in order to make it work right. The looping maps (top to bottom and right to left) is much easier to implement and is pretty seamless without having to do major modifications to the core code.
That would just remind me of Mario Galaxy.
I still think if you wanted to make it spherical you'd have to make the maps longer.
Cause... If you take a piece of paper and roll it.. it in a sense becomes 'smaller', so the paper would need to be even longer to keep it the same.... no?
I like this idea. It would make more sense to have the world spherical like this. Its easier than cubical worlds with unloading chunks.
No... because you aren't dealing with paper, and nothing is actually physically being 'rolled'. You can use the same space as long as you can't view the same area from both directions at the same time. since your visible range is 7 chunks in any direction, and the map size is (effectively) 64 chunks on each side, this would never be an issue, plus you would have the additional benefit of actually being able to open up that 5 chunk border around the map for additional exploration and mining if the edges were linked together. (You currently can't access it because then you would see the edge of the world too soon, which you can as it is since your visual range is 7 chunks as it is). We would (potentially) be able to maximize the current XB360 map size under this scheme.
But you can view the areas, maybe not right away.. But you can. Just depends if it gets loaded or not. Especially if you're flying you'd be able to see everything.. and it would have a bent look. Where it might be 'straight' for a while but fairly quickly have that sort of bent look. It'd have to be stretched quite a bit to make it work.
Seven chunks is a lot of blocks to not be seen especially if you're walking, But there'd have to be some consistency with the worlds, whether or not you can't see them. To me that doesn't make sense much.
I know we're not dealing with paper... I was just using it as an example.
I still think that the worlds would have to be fairly bigger than they are now. To me it's possible it could work on the Xbox One but not here. Even though what you say does kinda make sense
Ok... since you are determined to view this as a rolled up piece of paper... fine...
Take your rolled up map and squash it on the ends so it is more like a treadmill or a conveyor belt.... the player sits and stays in the center of the map and as they move around the world, instead of the player moving, the treadmill/conveyor belt moves under them so their perception is always of a flat ground and they appear to be moving forward.
Another way to think about this is divide the map into a series of tiles... we'll call them ...ohhh I don't know... how about 'chunks', they can represent 16 blocks x 16 block on the side.
Where ever the player starts in the world, as them move into a northern new chunk, the last row or chunks to the south falls off the map and appears on the north side of the map, and similarly as they move into a southern chunk, the top map row moves to the bottom of the map and it again re-centers. Handle similarly for east and west-ward movements.
There you go... absolutely no perceptive curvature to the surface what so ever...since your visual range is the chunk you are in +/- 7 chunks, you could use this strategy with a map size as small as 15 chunks by 15 chunks without seeing the same object(s) on the horizon in front of you as you do behind you.... which is much much smaller area than the 64x64 chunk space that currently exists in the game (less the 5 chunk border around the map that you cannot enter).
A map size less than 7x7 (chunks) would mean that you would be able to see yourself off in the distance in each direction.