Not sure if this suggestion has come up yet, but I've read a lot of topics about transfer of inventory between worlds. And the thing that I always got stuck on is, what happens, say if you go between two worlds you play in, to the inventory you had in the world you travel to?
So this is my idea. In the End parts of the PC minecraft update, there is an item called the Ender Chest. Its contents are tied to your profile, and not the chest itself, letting you place multiple chests that all share an inventory.
So what if 4J adds a similar item with its own mini save file tied to your gamertag? You can build one in one world, put things in it, and go to another world and eventually build a second one to access the items inside. This way, you could easily hop from world to world, carrying across items that you want to transfer without losing anything from the inventory you have on that world, and it should only take up as much save space as any full item chest.
Why bother? I spawn into a world, I find a tree, chop a tree, build a pick, and get to work building a shelter. By the time I get around to finding some Ender Chest, I prolly got everything I ever really need on the world anyway.
Why bother? I spawn into a world, I find a tree, chop a tree, build a pick, and get to work building a shelter. By the time I get around to finding some Ender Chest, I prolly got everything I ever really need on the world anyway.
And with creative its a moot point anyway if you dont care about leaderboards, I know. But a lot of people just want bigger maps which may not be possible and so the idea of transfering from one to another with your inventory comes up a lot and a world transfer chest would solve the problem of conflicting inventories. Thats all I was getting at.
And with creative its a moot point anyway if you dont care about leaderboards, I know. But a lot of people just want bigger maps which may not be possible and so the idea of transfering from one to another with your inventory comes up a lot and a world transfer chest would solve the problem of conflicting inventories. Thats all I was getting at.
For most of the maps, there are enough resources overall that there is absolutely no need to transfer a chest full of items over between worlds. Very few maps generated after the point in time 4J added more clay and cacti to the map are completely missing anything. For any of the renewable resources, the growth rates are high enough that it is easily possible to increase their amounts in the world day by day - even when you start out with just 1 cacti or just 1 sugarcane plant. For the ores, all that needs to be done is some serious mining. I've yet to meet anyone here who can honestly declare that they've mined every diamond in their world (there are allegedly about 16,000 of them in a 360 world).
Minecraft is a game, so let's compare it to other games. When players start to new round of monopoly, they don't carry the money and hotels they bought in a previous game over to the new one. They start over with the standard seed money and build up again from scratch. He with the all of the resources (or most of them when the players decide to end the game) is declared the winner.
I believe new worlds in Minecraft should be the same - you start with nothing each time and you go for as long as you can in that world until you consider that round of the game to be "finished." You set a basis for declaring a 'winner" or you perhaps just admire the builds... Then, when you want to play again, you start a new round by starting a new world and the cycle repeats itself. That's just the nature of playing a game, IMO.
Jeez, sorry I even mentioned it. I forgot that everyone has to play a game the same way.
Now, that is not what I was implying... and you know it. You stated it yourself, creative mode is available for those who don't want to play it as a survival game, effectively eliminating the need for any chests at all. So, in world's that are not infinite but still ample in resources for survival; why then would there be any need to transfer items between worlds since the principles of "survival" mode involve starting with nothing when starting a new world?
The only possible thing I can imagine is those who want to build puzzle maps and then still have the world's they build up qualify for leaderboards. However, they are introducing host privileges (like flying and infinite sprint) that make it easier for hosts to collect the resources and build up those maps without going into creative. I still don't really see a need to transfer items between worlds.
No they should just increase the map size or at least tell us why they can't. The method you outlined would be a good way of giving the illusion of a larger world, but it's no substitute for the real thing.
Minecraft is a game, so let's compare it to other games. When players start to new round of monopoly, they don't carry the money and hotels they bought in a previous game over to the new one. They start over with the standard seed money and build up again from scratch. He with the all of the resources (or most of them when the players decide to end the game) is declared the winner.
By that logic Mass Effect 1 and 2 are completely seperate games, but decisions, levels, and money you earned one carried over to the other. In borderlands 2 you can give one character's stuff to another through claptrap's safe spot. Lots of games with new game + let you keep levels and items. Just because mega-man starts every game with just the buster cannon is no reason why other games can't apply item-sharing between worlds or characters.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Without the skin... Beneath the storm... Under these tears...The walls came down
I believe new worlds in Minecraft should be the same - you start with nothing each time and you go for as long as you can in that world until you consider that round of the game to be "finished." You set a basis for declaring a 'winner" or you perhaps just admire the builds... Then, when you want to play again, you start a new round by starting a new world and the cycle repeats itself. That's just the nature of playing a game, IMO.
No they should just increase the map size or at least tell us why they can't. The method you outlined would be a good way of giving the illusion of a larger world, but it's no substitute for the real thing.
By that logic Mass Effect 1 and 2 are completely seperate games, but decisions, levels, and money you earned one carried over to the other. In borderlands 2 you can give one character's stuff to another through claptrap's safe spot. Lots of games with new game + let you keep levels and items. Just because mega-man starts every game with just the buster cannon is no reason why other games can't apply item-sharing between worlds or characters.
They (4J) have stated why they can't. They have said it is the RAM on the XBox. Nobody seems to want to listen to them and so people keep hammering away at the issue and adding thread after thread to the forum finding different ways to complain about world size. Another issue is that people who play Minecraft survival seem to want to "survive" without any difficulties. We currently have a thread running where the OP doesn't want to look for more coal in his map, doesn't want to cut down trees, doesn't want to cook charcoal, yet seems to want to complain about there being not enough resources on his map because his world is too small. It boggles the mind, really.
No they should just increase the map size or at least tell us why they can't.
They have, repeatedly. They said it is a hardware limitation, the original quote gets brought up every time someone makes a new post about wanting larger maps. Some people don't want to hear that, so they keep asking for a deeper explanation. Me, I don't know how to code video games, so I tend to take the word of the people who do.
So this is my idea. In the End parts of the PC minecraft update, there is an item called the Ender Chest. Its contents are tied to your profile, and not the chest itself, letting you place multiple chests that all share an inventory.
So what if 4J adds a similar item with its own mini save file tied to your gamertag? You can build one in one world, put things in it, and go to another world and eventually build a second one to access the items inside. This way, you could easily hop from world to world, carrying across items that you want to transfer without losing anything from the inventory you have on that world, and it should only take up as much save space as any full item chest.
Why bother? I spawn into a world, I find a tree, chop a tree, build a pick, and get to work building a shelter. By the time I get around to finding some Ender Chest, I prolly got everything I ever really need on the world anyway.
For most of the maps, there are enough resources overall that there is absolutely no need to transfer a chest full of items over between worlds. Very few maps generated after the point in time 4J added more clay and cacti to the map are completely missing anything. For any of the renewable resources, the growth rates are high enough that it is easily possible to increase their amounts in the world day by day - even when you start out with just 1 cacti or just 1 sugarcane plant. For the ores, all that needs to be done is some serious mining. I've yet to meet anyone here who can honestly declare that they've mined every diamond in their world (there are allegedly about 16,000 of them in a 360 world).
Minecraft is a game, so let's compare it to other games. When players start to new round of monopoly, they don't carry the money and hotels they bought in a previous game over to the new one. They start over with the standard seed money and build up again from scratch. He with the all of the resources (or most of them when the players decide to end the game) is declared the winner.
I believe new worlds in Minecraft should be the same - you start with nothing each time and you go for as long as you can in that world until you consider that round of the game to be "finished." You set a basis for declaring a 'winner" or you perhaps just admire the builds... Then, when you want to play again, you start a new round by starting a new world and the cycle repeats itself. That's just the nature of playing a game, IMO.
Now, that is not what I was implying... and you know it. You stated it yourself, creative mode is available for those who don't want to play it as a survival game, effectively eliminating the need for any chests at all. So, in world's that are not infinite but still ample in resources for survival; why then would there be any need to transfer items between worlds since the principles of "survival" mode involve starting with nothing when starting a new world?
The only possible thing I can imagine is those who want to build puzzle maps and then still have the world's they build up qualify for leaderboards. However, they are introducing host privileges (like flying and infinite sprint) that make it easier for hosts to collect the resources and build up those maps without going into creative. I still don't really see a need to transfer items between worlds.
By that logic Mass Effect 1 and 2 are completely seperate games, but decisions, levels, and money you earned one carried over to the other. In borderlands 2 you can give one character's stuff to another through claptrap's safe spot. Lots of games with new game + let you keep levels and items. Just because mega-man starts every game with just the buster cannon is no reason why other games can't apply item-sharing between worlds or characters.
+1 to that.
Kenn (ARTISTIK), Quest & Lore Writer, Renatus RPG Server
Development Team, ARK_REALMS RPG Server
They (4J) have stated why they can't. They have said it is the RAM on the XBox. Nobody seems to want to listen to them and so people keep hammering away at the issue and adding thread after thread to the forum finding different ways to complain about world size. Another issue is that people who play Minecraft survival seem to want to "survive" without any difficulties. We currently have a thread running where the OP doesn't want to look for more coal in his map, doesn't want to cut down trees, doesn't want to cook charcoal, yet seems to want to complain about there being not enough resources on his map because his world is too small. It boggles the mind, really.
They have, repeatedly. They said it is a hardware limitation, the original quote gets brought up every time someone makes a new post about wanting larger maps. Some people don't want to hear that, so they keep asking for a deeper explanation. Me, I don't know how to code video games, so I tend to take the word of the people who do.
Ninja'd. LOL
Kenn (ARTISTIK), Quest & Lore Writer, Renatus RPG Server
Development Team, ARK_REALMS RPG Server