The size of the map on PC is just excessivley big, seems o be a waste of space and computer power, i think the map on xbox is just fine, jut bug enough without being redundent.
The size of the map on PC is just excessivley big, seems o be a waste of space and computer power, i think the map on xbox is just fine, jut bug enough without being redundent.
some of us like to build and if we could afford to, to scale, you know if you wanted to go remotely to scale doing a football pitch would take over an 8th of the legth of the map for example.
I don't think map size will be as much of an issue in the future. 4J studios are considering having world servers that will be rentable, just like battlefield 3. Of course we won't see this happen anytime soon. First we need 1.8.3(coming probably early Oct), then 1.2.3 to catch up with PC or at least where PC is now. After that (if they decide to have world servers) they would probably begun work on it. Now you ask what this had to do with world size? If we had world servers, the world would not have to be limited to what the xbox is capable of. Worlds could potentially be bigger, more people could join a world, and lag will be determined by the user connection to the server and not to one and other.
I understand that this would require more money spent and an internet connection. So this increase would not be for everyone.
Personally I only had a problem with world size once, when the map had no snow biomes. As the lumberjack of the world I was disappointed that I could not get my hands on done evergreen. Other than that one instance, the world seems plenty big to me. I could understand how it could get dull after a while tho.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If it already has been done then it can be done again" or
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
id love to see bigger worlds to be honest especially with the extra biomes, once they are added, atm if your lucky enough to get a seed with all 3 of the major biomes none of those biomes are particularly large which is a pity, also i just think minecraft losse some of its pull when you only have to walk for 10 minutes to get from side to side, its ok when your setting up a house or working on a build but when you go out on an adventure the map size shows its tinyness this will be especially so when they add structures the small world combined with small biomes are going to create alot of worlds with no structures and alot of words where the structure is easily visible, which is fine for some but part of the wonder of the structures is there rarity and the fact they are hidden, finding a temple in a large desert is a great feeing. thats said i definitely dont expect infinite worlds, the poor 7 year old xbox cant be forced into that but a doubling or quadrupling would make it large enough for even the most picky person to be happy i think.
the change to anvil is what enabled the pc version to increase the world size, eventually to infinite, so i would be hiiiighly surprised if it didnt allow the 360 version some level of size boost
I think 2000x2000 would be great map would need to be bigger with new biomes coming in.
I don't know much about how computers work but the Xbox only seems to generate a small portain so according to my logic it would only use hard drive space.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
I think the current size is OK as I've never played the PC version. If larger worlds would be implemented I would surely like that although I don't think that should be a priority over the features yet to come.
I am content with the world size for one exception, the height, which in later update will bring with anvil. Now i do agree that having room for all those new biomes would be a bonus, but only when you have jungles, as those are pretty big. I don't think the map needs to get much bigger, at least not to the extreme that quite a few have compared to another game... If i wanted near infinite maps i would play pc. If i want a decent size map to call home i have xbox. Sure i can call a home on the pc version, but due to my computer problems with that game... I think not.
I would only suggest maybe 2x - 4x the size or rather 4 map item sizes big, as that would be plenty and great for the upcoming update 1.2.5 or what ever has jungles in it. But for swamps and some minor differences in terrain, no. Although i would probably have to reload maps over and over just to get a map that is not an ocean biome as that is going to be more prevalent... I am going to miss the extreme formations of mountains though as that is what i love of 1.7.3.
Anyway i am content for the moment, no need to rush, and i agree with the prior post saying focus on the enhancement stuff not the map stuff more. Namely features to put into the game. Worry about the map size when it is truly needed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My First World, always getting back to is a pleasure I enjoy with each new update that brings in more things to add in.
They should create more options when putting in the world seed.
Like world size could be anything from 100x100 to 10,000x10,000 then hard drive would no longer be a problem for people with none and people with 240gb like me can have the huge maps we want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
When you have 6-8 players on one map and at least 80% of those players like to branch mine, you soon come to realize just how small the current map size really is. My friend's and family's mines are all running into each other now in my current world. I wouldn't have though it was possible but it's happening.
I think the map size is fine enough for a single player. There's certainly enough land to cover. But when you get a group of people together who are all "enthusiastic" about branch mining, things start to get a little cramped.
It's unfortunate that we probably won't get larger worlds but the game could certainly use it.
The size of the map on PC is just excessivley big, seems o be a waste of space and computer power, i think the map on xbox is just fine, jut bug enough without being redundent.
It shouldn't waste computing power if it's not all being rendered (which it wouldn't, even now it doesn't), it would just make a larger file.
Don't you think there's a reason why they limited the maps to that size? The 360 has very limited system resources and MS place a lot of restrictions on file sizes.
The point is, don't expect the maps to get bigger, ever. MCX360 isn't supposed to be as good as the main game; that's why it's an XBLA game and is cheaper than the pc version.
Minecraft xbox is only 5 dollars cheaper than the real game if I'm not mistaken also 4J studios tweated that they would try to make map sizes bigger
When you have 6-8 players on one map and at least 80% of those players like to branch mine, you soon come to realize just how small the current map size really is. My friend's and family's mines are all running into each other now in my current world. I wouldn't have though it was possible but it's happening.
I think the map size is fine enough for a single player. There's certainly enough land to cover. But when you get a group of people together who are all "enthusiastic" about branch mining, things start to get a little cramped.
It's unfortunate that we probably won't get larger worlds but the game could certainly use it.
I run into my own mines and the same caves. I find that often my map only contains one or two large caves that all connect in a messy jumble.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
At the moment with the current version, I think the size is fine, although you can find yourself breaking into one of your previously explored mines/caves.
With the addition of new Biomes and items in the upcoming updates, I feel that a larger map would be beneficial. As someone mentioned above, on the PC, the world does not render until you explore it, so the processor is only needed when rendering new areas. I definitely think an increase in map size would be good for the game - although I don't think it is necessary for an infinate world like the PC.
I run into my own mines and the same caves. I find that often my map only contains one or two large caves that all connect in a messy jumble.
I like running into my old mines and breaking through into caves I've already explored. It's helping me generate a whole underground "system" of moving around the entire map.
They should create more options when putting in the world seed.
Like world size could be anything from 100x100 to 10,000x10,000 then hard drive would no longer be a problem for people with none and people with 240gb like me can have the huge maps we want.
I agree with more optional requests when generating a new seed (such as including and excluding specific biomes). Superflat is coming, but I'd also like to be able to specify things like "gentle hills"; "very mountainous"; "lots of small islands"; "all snow"; etc. As more and more new terrain features come in, I would like the option to exclude some of them if I want. Eg. I'd like to be able to say "No Ravines" or "No Swamps." Being able to selectively limit the terrain would help people feel that their worlds are more usuable to them and make the world size seem larger even if it isn't increased in actual size.
As for size, the hard drive is not the issue; it appears to be the processing power of the XBox (which is 7-year-old technology). The system appears not to create chunks until the area has been explored; but it does store any explored chunks in the file. During a game session when the player(s) are making changes to those chunks, the system still has to keep track of those changes even if the player(s) don't save back to the file for several hours. Therefore, although the system may not be uploading chunks until they need to be rendered, I don't think it can currently completely unload the chunks as they derender.
People have saved many, many, many individual worlds (up to 72, as posted on another thread) and not been tagged with a message that says they can't save anymore Minecraft files on their hard drive... so it is very unlikely that MS is somehow reserving only so much space for Minecraft files on everyone's hard drive. Cloud storage is a different ballgame.
I agree with more optional requests when generating a new seed (such as including and excluding specific biomes). Superflat is coming, but I'd also like to be able to specify things like "gentle hills"; "very mountainous"; "lots of small islands"; "all snow"; etc. As more and more new terrain features come in, I would like the option to exclude some of them if I want. Eg. I'd like to be able to say "No Ravines" or "No Swamps." Being able to selectively limit the terrain would help people feel that their worlds are more usuable to them and make the world size seem larger even if it isn't increased in actual size.
As for size, the hard drive is not the issue; it appears to be the processing power of the XBox (which is 7-year-old technology). The system appears not to create chunks until the area has been explored; but it does store any explored chunks in the file. During a game session when the player(s) are making changes to those chunks, the system still has to keep track of those changes even if the player(s) don't save back to the file for several hours. Therefore, although the system may not be uploading chunks until they need to be rendered, I don't think it can currently completely unload the chunks as they derender.
People have saved many, many, many individual worlds (up to 72, as posted on another thread) and not been tagged with a message that says they can't save anymore Minecraft files on their hard drive... so it is very unlikely that MS is somehow reserving only so much space for Minecraft files on everyone's hard drive. Cloud storage is a different ballgame.
Ooh, I like that part about choosing which features your map will generate. I'd love to be able to tell the game to spawn a bunch of small islands or a great big open ocean that i cam make a giant floating city above! I actually find the guess work of the seed system a bit flustering when i''m looking for a particular type of map, especially since i tend to value terrains that most people seem to ignore, like massive frozen lake beds! It'd also be nice to be able to tell it to generate one of every biome for a complete world!
Well the 360 does only have 500MB of unified memory, that's really not a lot, and Minecraft is a notoriusly memory-hungry game. Not saying that's the reason the maps are limited in size, but it's something to consider. More likely it's because of restrictions that MS place on file sizes. Also, as I stated, this is not supposed to be the full version of Minecraft; it's an XBLA game.
I know that this is an old post, but I just had to point out that it is mainly only memory-hungry on PC because it runs using Java. The 360 doesn't use Java. I believe it uses C# or some other form of C coding (I know for sure that most, if not all, of the indie games on XBLA use C#). I think I read somewhere that Notch said that the main reason it is in Java is that it is the only programming language that he was comfortable with. I think I also saw somewhere else that it is staying in Java on PC because it is easier for people to make and maintain their mods.
Also, who ever said that an XBLA game can't be a full game?
I'd just like to point out that the map size limitation has more to do with storage space limitations than hardware power. Harddrives aren't standard on the Xbox.
They are standard on every version of the 360 S and most of the old 360s (all except the Arcade package). They range from 4GB on the basic one to 320GB on special editions, and they are more than big enough to handle any Minecraft map. Even if you don't have a hard drive, it's not like they are super expensive. You could even just buy a 16GB flash drive or two and have it only for your Minecraft saves.
People have saved many, many, many individual worlds (up to 72, as posted on another thread) and not been tagged with a message that says they can't save anymore Minecraft files on their hard drive... so it is very unlikely that MS is somehow reserving only so much space for Minecraft files on everyone's hard drive. Cloud storage is a different ballgame.
First, they can't put a limit on how many save files any one game can have. If they could, then my one friend wouldn't have been able to fill up his old 20GB hard drive with Halo: Reach maps (downloaded and self-made). This is the only thing he has on that hard drive.
Second, I think that most people would be able to easily handle maps that are even as large as 9x the size they are now (3 full maps by 3 full maps or 3072x3072 blocks)
some of us like to build and if we could afford to, to scale, you know if you wanted to go remotely to scale doing a football pitch would take over an 8th of the legth of the map for example.
"Anvil" is the name of the new file save format that allows players to build twice as high as they used to be able to.
I understand that this would require more money spent and an internet connection. So this increase would not be for everyone.
Personally I only had a problem with world size once, when the map had no snow biomes. As the lumberjack of the world I was disappointed that I could not get my hands on done evergreen. Other than that one instance, the world seems plenty big to me. I could understand how it could get dull after a while tho.
"If its a mod its possible to be a feature"
the change to anvil is what enabled the pc version to increase the world size, eventually to infinite, so i would be hiiiighly surprised if it didnt allow the 360 version some level of size boost
I don't know much about how computers work but the Xbox only seems to generate a small portain so according to my logic it would only use hard drive space.
I would only suggest maybe 2x - 4x the size or rather 4 map item sizes big, as that would be plenty and great for the upcoming update 1.2.5 or what ever has jungles in it. But for swamps and some minor differences in terrain, no. Although i would probably have to reload maps over and over just to get a map that is not an ocean biome as that is going to be more prevalent... I am going to miss the extreme formations of mountains though as that is what i love of 1.7.3.
Anyway i am content for the moment, no need to rush, and i agree with the prior post saying focus on the enhancement stuff not the map stuff more. Namely features to put into the game. Worry about the map size when it is truly needed.
Like world size could be anything from 100x100 to 10,000x10,000 then hard drive would no longer be a problem for people with none and people with 240gb like me can have the huge maps we want.
I think the map size is fine enough for a single player. There's certainly enough land to cover. But when you get a group of people together who are all "enthusiastic" about branch mining, things start to get a little cramped.
It's unfortunate that we probably won't get larger worlds but the game could certainly use it.
It shouldn't waste computing power if it's not all being rendered (which it wouldn't, even now it doesn't), it would just make a larger file.
Minecraft xbox is only 5 dollars cheaper than the real game if I'm not mistaken also 4J studios tweated that they would try to make map sizes bigger
I run into my own mines and the same caves. I find that often my map only contains one or two large caves that all connect in a messy jumble.
With the addition of new Biomes and items in the upcoming updates, I feel that a larger map would be beneficial. As someone mentioned above, on the PC, the world does not render until you explore it, so the processor is only needed when rendering new areas. I definitely think an increase in map size would be good for the game - although I don't think it is necessary for an infinate world like the PC.
I like running into my old mines and breaking through into caves I've already explored. It's helping me generate a whole underground "system" of moving around the entire map.
I agree with more optional requests when generating a new seed (such as including and excluding specific biomes). Superflat is coming, but I'd also like to be able to specify things like "gentle hills"; "very mountainous"; "lots of small islands"; "all snow"; etc. As more and more new terrain features come in, I would like the option to exclude some of them if I want. Eg. I'd like to be able to say "No Ravines" or "No Swamps." Being able to selectively limit the terrain would help people feel that their worlds are more usuable to them and make the world size seem larger even if it isn't increased in actual size.
As for size, the hard drive is not the issue; it appears to be the processing power of the XBox (which is 7-year-old technology). The system appears not to create chunks until the area has been explored; but it does store any explored chunks in the file. During a game session when the player(s) are making changes to those chunks, the system still has to keep track of those changes even if the player(s) don't save back to the file for several hours. Therefore, although the system may not be uploading chunks until they need to be rendered, I don't think it can currently completely unload the chunks as they derender.
People have saved many, many, many individual worlds (up to 72, as posted on another thread) and not been tagged with a message that says they can't save anymore Minecraft files on their hard drive... so it is very unlikely that MS is somehow reserving only so much space for Minecraft files on everyone's hard drive. Cloud storage is a different ballgame.
Ooh, I like that part about choosing which features your map will generate. I'd love to be able to tell the game to spawn a bunch of small islands or a great big open ocean that i cam make a giant floating city above! I actually find the guess work of the seed system a bit flustering when i''m looking for a particular type of map, especially since i tend to value terrains that most people seem to ignore, like massive frozen lake beds! It'd also be nice to be able to tell it to generate one of every biome for a complete world!
I know that this is an old post, but I just had to point out that it is mainly only memory-hungry on PC because it runs using Java. The 360 doesn't use Java. I believe it uses C# or some other form of C coding (I know for sure that most, if not all, of the indie games on XBLA use C#). I think I read somewhere that Notch said that the main reason it is in Java is that it is the only programming language that he was comfortable with. I think I also saw somewhere else that it is staying in Java on PC because it is easier for people to make and maintain their mods.
Also, who ever said that an XBLA game can't be a full game?
They are standard on every version of the 360 S and most of the old 360s (all except the Arcade package). They range from 4GB on the basic one to 320GB on special editions, and they are more than big enough to handle any Minecraft map. Even if you don't have a hard drive, it's not like they are super expensive. You could even just buy a 16GB flash drive or two and have it only for your Minecraft saves.
First, they can't put a limit on how many save files any one game can have. If they could, then my one friend wouldn't have been able to fill up his old 20GB hard drive with Halo: Reach maps (downloaded and self-made). This is the only thing he has on that hard drive.
Second, I think that most people would be able to easily handle maps that are even as large as 9x the size they are now (3 full maps by 3 full maps or 3072x3072 blocks)