Now we all know the maps are small compared to the PC counterpart, and with the maps being this small it's only going to start feeling MORE cramped as the game updates bringing all the various biomes and structures. With this in mind I have an idea, I remember reading a while back that the reason 4J had to make the in-game worlds as small as they are was to keep a stable framerate with the four-player splitscreen component. Now my question is why wouldn't it be possible for 4J to incorporate a way to turn off splitscreen capability entirely in the options and that in turn makes it so your map size can, say for example, double in size as well as double the passive and aggressive mob spawn limitations?
I personally think that if this kind of option were to be implemented that if 4J had to cut the current Xbox LIVE 8-player limit, to say, 4-players to help stabilize the framerate, I'm sure a lot of us wouldn't really mind (or maybe you would?). So I figured that I would just throw this out there as another possible solution to the small world problem that a lot MCXBLA players have gripes with. Let me know what you guys think, could this potentially work better than the "portal" idea that's been tossed around on this forum? If you think it's a feasible option maybe we could bring this to 4J's attention.
Instead of cutting player count they should put together software that allows us to host the server on the PC that way you would have a dedicated server and the Xbox would no longer have to run the server software. Just the client. And before anyone says this is impossible console games already allow this. Section 9 come to mind.
Instead of cutting player count they should put together software that allows us to host the server on the PC that way you would have a dedicated server and the Xbox would no longer have to run the server software. Just the client. And before anyone says this is impossible console games already allow this. Section 9 come to mind.
I'd love to have this option one day. It's be so nice to be able to join the server whenever you want without waiting for the host to come on.
They don't need to erase it. They should simply store the mode with the world. So if anyone wants a 4 player splitscreen game he can create a world in this mode and this world would be limited size. On the other hand, if one don't want any 4 player splittscreen mode at all, he can create a world with no 4 player splittscreeen support and a unlimited world. This unlimited worlds are not playable as 4 player splitscreen, while the ones created with size limitations are.
As such, a simple option to supprt 4 player splittscreen on the creation of the world would solve this problem.
PS. As splitscreen is used only by about 5% or less of the minecraft users, this limitiations are inacceptable by 95% of the community.
... and if you think it's a feasible option maybe we could bring this to 4J's attention.
Another thread about expanding the world size, some way, any way.
It continues to amaze me that people here think they're smarter than the professional coders and game designers at 4J who do this for a living and have worked on the game ten times more than people have played it. Believe me, they've known about all the different ways to expand the world, plus a dozen others that we haven't even mentioned yet.
If they could have, they would have.
Don't worry, this, and a lot of other schemes, have been "brought to their attention".
The most concrete they said hinted at problems with RAM, however that leaves much room for speculation ... you can find lots of pages of discussion about that.
You got a lot of answers despite this has been one of the most discussed topics here, where is the problem? oO
You do realize that splitscreen requires more ram, correct? Having four players in four totally different chunks require both to be loaded into memory.
You do realize that splitscreen requires more ram, correct? Having four players in four totally different chunks require both to be loaded into memory.
My thoughts exactly!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Currently not accepting friend requests, game invites or granting permission to join my worlds.
You do realize the official post i linked?
You do realize there were player experiments which proofed that MCXBLA never unloads any chunks, so it makes no difference whether you walk alone or with 4 other players over your map (regarding RAM)?
You do realize that, if you had any idea of 3D programming, the amount of additional RAM needed is insignificant when having the whole world in RAM anyway ? Processing power becomes the bottleneck there..
We can discuss wether it woudln't be possible to have chunk unloading implemented and running in the background for bigger worlds .. and i already did that .. but again just look for the older threads about this topics, lots of opinions, wisdom and knowledge buried there.
Doh, i just realize i don't need to defend official posts :|
First off, proofed isn't a word, secondly, I just wanna say I envy your knowledge of MCXBLA soooo much.
Thanks for that hint sadly i'm no native speaker. No need for envy, just work on your ignorance!
Do me a favor and just stop posting on my thread, leave it to people who actually share interest in my post instead of trying to find ways to prove it wrong or impossible to do. I never said this option is concrete and had to be done, I simply said it was something I thought about and wanted to share with the MCXBLA community and whether they think it is a good idea. While I don't mind constructive criticism, one doesn't need to be incredibly rude posting it.
I didn't knew threads belong to anyone here, but ok, i will disappear out of """your""" thread, but lastly, you contradict yourself. You do want to know whether other people think whther it is a good idea or not, still you can't accept when someone does the research you could have done and points you to the post with the answer, that this idea just wouldn't solve anything you wanted? Ummkay.. please prefix your next posts with a disclaimer that only answers fitting into your world view are accepted.
Dude, stop being such a tool. I specifically just said that I don't mind getting told that this possible solution cannot be done or wouldn't solve anything, I just don't need people coming on here being as abrasive as you were and being know-it-alls when all they're really doing is reading from another thread trying to look intelligent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Currently not accepting friend requests, game invites or granting permission to join my worlds.
You do realize the official post i linked?
You do realize there were player experiments which proofed showed that MCXBLA never unloads any chunks, so it makes no difference whether you walk alone or with 4 other players over your map (regarding RAM)?
You do realize that, if you had any idea of 3D programming, the amount of additional RAM needed is insignificant when having the whole world in RAM anyway ? Processing power becomes the bottleneck there..
We can discuss wether it woudln't be possible to have chunk unloading implemented and running in the background for bigger worlds .. and i already did that .. but again just look for the older threads about this topic, lots of opinions, wisdom and knowledge buried there.
Doh, i just realize i don't need to defend official posts :|
I would really like to see these player experiments.
As for processing power being the bottleneck...are you implying that the 3.2ghz triple core of the 360 is unable to run Minecraft competently when a 2.1ghz dual core on a PC that also has to deal with the overhead bulk of the OS that is Windows is able to?
I think you might want to study up on my field of study before you attempt to educate me on it.
The main issue is the fact that the 360 is running the server. I can personally vouce for this as I never allow Minecraft PC over 250mb of RAM. The 360 has 512mb.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I personally think that if this kind of option were to be implemented that if 4J had to cut the current Xbox LIVE 8-player limit, to say, 4-players to help stabilize the framerate, I'm sure a lot of us wouldn't really mind (or maybe you would?). So I figured that I would just throw this out there as another possible solution to the small world problem that a lot MCXBLA players have gripes with. Let me know what you guys think, could this potentially work better than the "portal" idea that's been tossed around on this forum? If you think it's a feasible option maybe we could bring this to 4J's attention.
Yes please
As such, a simple option to supprt 4 player splittscreen on the creation of the world would solve this problem.
PS. As splitscreen is used only by about 5% or less of the minecraft users, this limitiations are inacceptable by 95% of the community.
I never play split screen
Buckethead is the best guitarist ever. \m/
Another thread about expanding the world size, some way, any way.
It continues to amaze me that people here think they're smarter than the professional coders and game designers at 4J who do this for a living and have worked on the game ten times more than people have played it. Believe me, they've known about all the different ways to expand the world, plus a dozen others that we haven't even mentioned yet.
If they could have, they would have.
Don't worry, this, and a lot of other schemes, have been "brought to their attention".
You do realize that splitscreen requires more ram, correct? Having four players in four totally different chunks require both to be loaded into memory.
I would really like to see these player experiments.
As for processing power being the bottleneck...are you implying that the 3.2ghz triple core of the 360 is unable to run Minecraft competently when a 2.1ghz dual core on a PC that also has to deal with the overhead bulk of the OS that is Windows is able to?
I think you might want to study up on my field of study before you attempt to educate me on it.
The main issue is the fact that the 360 is running the server. I can personally vouce for this as I never allow Minecraft PC over 250mb of RAM. The 360 has 512mb.