This thread I am gonna use to bounce idea's around on how to solve the minecraft xbox editon world size limit problem. So here it goes:
First Idea: I think 4J studios can and probably will increase the size limit to 2048 x 2048. They will find a way around 512 mb of ram, with some special coding. (revaming how chunks are loaded) However there will never be a chance of getting infinite worlds, the xbox 360 is just too old.
Second Idea: To solve the infinite world problem, i think dedicated servers are needed. (like in Battlefield 3) The servers would have to paid with the microsoft points, because running servers are costly. However to balanced this out, the whole world would be infinite and the maximum player could be higher than 8. Maybe the maximum could be 100. Finally the server would run 24-7, so other player's could connect and work on the server. I am kinda thinking like the Mindcrack Server.
I didn't see the part in "constructive world-size thread" that said this was a topic for nay-sayers to deny any ideas someone proposed. Maybe my reading glasses are the wrong prescription.
I'm not a programmer and I think it will take more then fancy keystrokes and a little bit of magic to make bigger worlds, but I'd like to think it's possible to some degree.
I didn't see the part in "constructive world-size thread" that said this was a topic for nay-sayers to deny any ideas someone proposed.
True, but is it constructive to suggest things that have been suggested thousands of times? Or to suggest things that simply won't work? I wouldn't really think so.
True, but is it constructive to suggest things that have been suggested thousands of times? Or to suggest things that simply won't work? I wouldn't really think so.
That's fair, but if you don't wanna see people discussing larger worlds you could go make a topic that says "World size is fine" and discuss counter-points there. I clicked this topic hoping to see what experienced programmers thought could be done, all I saw is one person suggesting that the op was self-entitled, and shooting down ideas. The latter half is semi-constructive the other half isn't so it doesn't belong in this thread.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Without the skin... Beneath the storm... Under these tears...The walls came down
I'd be happy with 2048 by 2048 if it was possible.
I'm sure they said they would eventually increase world sizes at the games release.
And it is said that the new anvil generation system loads chunks differently.
I asked if it meant we could get bigger worlds.
He said something that said no but didn't really answer my question.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I put my shirt on one leg at a time, just like everybody else.
Well... i was reading through this thread hoping to see some new ideas on how to make Minecraft Xbox Edition better, however apperantly some people are just to passionate about this world size limit.All i was looking was a good discussion.
Well... i was reading through this thread hoping to see some new ideas on how to make Minecraft Xbox Edition better, however apperantly some people are just to passionate about this world size limit. o All i was looking was a good discussion, but instead i got trash talking and nay-sayers. If i wanted that, i would go play COD.
I'm not trying to be a naysayer. It's just that 4J has already said there are only 3 ways to increase world size.
#1 Try to optimize code further for the processors and memory
#2 Add more RAM to the Xbox 360 (which obviously isn't possible)
#3 Move the server client function off the Xbox 360 itself and onto an offsite server leaving the Xbox 360 to have fewer things to process and use RAM for.
I was just trying to get across the idea that talking about world size ideas is beating a dead horse. The forum is a place of free speech. If no one is breaking any rules, they're free to reply. You can't have a constructive conversation without two or more sides. If everyone just agrees with each other, it's not a conversation.
Meh. Im hoping when we get our next xbox we'll get an increase in world size, Instead of pushing a 7 year old console over the edge an making it explode Id rather push a brand new console to the edge and then dance a merry jig there.
Personally Id rather them push to get the code as close to the current PC then when the new xbox hits get them worlds up.
Hell, Id pay for it again if they're able to triple the world size on the new xbox.
(edit because I kept refering to the new xbox as the new 360)
I'm not trying to be a naysayer. It's just that 4J has already said there are only 3 ways to increase world size.
#1 Try to optimize code further for the processors and memory
#2 Add more RAM to the Xbox 360 (which obviously isn't possible)
#3 Move the server client function off the Xbox 360 itself and onto an offsite server leaving the Xbox 360 to have fewer things to process and use RAM for.
I was just trying to get across the idea that talking about world size ideas is beating a dead horse. The forum is a place of free speech. If no one is breaking any rules, they're free to reply. You can't have a constructive conversation without two or more sides. If everyone just agrees with each other, it's not a conversation.
With the third option we could also handle more players right?
If so 4J studios should seriously consider holding a few servers for rent that people could make public or private like the battlefield 3 servers.
With the third option we could also handle more players right?
If so 4J studios should seriously consider holding a few servers for rent that people could make public or private like the battlefield 3 servers.
Since a large portion of the client would be running off the server and not your Xbox, then I would assume it could handle more players.
I have an idea that might actually work for this since this a constructive thread about world sizes if you guys are willing to hear me out. This idea is not perfect and may ruin the immersdion for some of you but its just an idea.
At the edge of the map where nothing really sort of happens you could do something a bit like fallout. Which would be when you go to the edge of the screen it would save everything in the world including your inventory so that would be persistant and load up the next map like any other. To go back to the original map you just go in the side of the map you just came in.
There might be a few problems which I will point out now.
1: In multiplayer everyone will have to be on the same map.
2: There might be some difficulty doing builds between maps.
3: The loading thing may bother some people.
4: Being underground and going from map to map may cause problems.
I guess you could have world gates that work a bit like teleporters to the nether to solve some of these issues.
At the edge of the map where nothing really sort of happens you could do something a bit like fallout. Which would be when you go to the edge of the screen it would save everything in the world including your inventory so that would be persistant and load up the next map like any other. To go back to the original map you just go in the side of the map you just came in.
I guess you could have world gates that work a bit like teleporters to the nether to solve some of these issues.
Not saying it isn't a good idea, but this has been suggested hundreds of times on the forums. Almost every time someone makes a thread about world size, this idea gets brought up.
I'd say that any and all ideas regarding increasing the world size have been though of at one time or another here on the forum.
Not saying it isn't a good idea, but this has been suggested hundreds of times on the forums. Almost every time someone makes a thread about world size, this idea gets brought up.
I'd say that any and all ideas regarding increasing the world size have been though of at one time or another here on the forum.
I never said it was original, but this is a thread about positive ideas on how to get bigger worlds.
Myself personally I like the smaller worlds just like I have stated in another thread. I like learning about the land that I am in and what I could actually do with it. but some people just want more.
do you ever have 8 ppl in your world whilst wanting more ?? if so go and play black ops 2 or BF 3
What does wanting more people to play at one time in Minecraft have to do with Call of Duty or Battlefield?
I play on a PC server that has around 200 people on every day and it is amazing to have that many people. If the Xbox 360 could ever manage to increase the number from 8 to at least 16 or so, it'd be even more fun. More players means more possibilities.
200, how could you control what 200 ppl are doing, dont forget where talking about the 360 version wheres theres more griefers around looking to destroy all your work, could you really keep your eye on 16 players ?
You don't have to watch people you trust. If someone does something bad, they're warned. Do it again, they're IP banned. PC servers have dozens of ways to watch and track players.
As for the Xbox 360 Edition, you don't need to watch all 16 people. Only let those that you trust in your world. The anti-griefing options do the rest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
First Idea: I think 4J studios can and probably will increase the size limit to 2048 x 2048. They will find a way around 512 mb of ram, with some special coding. (revaming how chunks are loaded) However there will never be a chance of getting infinite worlds, the xbox 360 is just too old.
Second Idea: To solve the infinite world problem, i think dedicated servers are needed. (like in Battlefield 3) The servers would have to paid with the microsoft points, because running servers are costly. However to balanced this out, the whole world would be infinite and the maximum player could be higher than 8. Maybe the maximum could be 100. Finally the server would run 24-7, so other player's could connect and work on the server. I am kinda thinking like the Mindcrack Server.
So what do you think?
I didn't see the part in "constructive world-size thread" that said this was a topic for nay-sayers to deny any ideas someone proposed. Maybe my reading glasses are the wrong prescription.
I'm not a programmer and I think it will take more then fancy keystrokes and a little bit of magic to make bigger worlds, but I'd like to think it's possible to some degree.
True, but is it constructive to suggest things that have been suggested thousands of times? Or to suggest things that simply won't work? I wouldn't really think so.
That's fair, but if you don't wanna see people discussing larger worlds you could go make a topic that says "World size is fine" and discuss counter-points there. I clicked this topic hoping to see what experienced programmers thought could be done, all I saw is one person suggesting that the op was self-entitled, and shooting down ideas. The latter half is semi-constructive the other half isn't so it doesn't belong in this thread.
I'm sure they said they would eventually increase world sizes at the games release.
And it is said that the new anvil generation system loads chunks differently.
I asked if it meant we could get bigger worlds.
He said something that said no but didn't really answer my question.
#1 Try to optimize code further for the processors and memory
#2 Add more RAM to the Xbox 360 (which obviously isn't possible)
#3 Move the server client function off the Xbox 360 itself and onto an offsite server leaving the Xbox 360 to have fewer things to process and use RAM for.
I was just trying to get across the idea that talking about world size ideas is beating a dead horse. The forum is a place of free speech. If no one is breaking any rules, they're free to reply. You can't have a constructive conversation without two or more sides. If everyone just agrees with each other, it's not a conversation.
Personally Id rather them push to get the code as close to the current PC then when the new xbox hits get them worlds up.
Hell, Id pay for it again if they're able to triple the world size on the new xbox.
(edit because I kept refering to the new xbox as the new 360)
With the third option we could also handle more players right?
If so 4J studios should seriously consider holding a few servers for rent that people could make public or private like the battlefield 3 servers.
A dedicated custom server that runs 24h is going to tax the system quite a bit. I think that the most they'd ever let in would be about 24.
We don't want or need infinite worlds.
We just want bigger worlds...
And dedicated servers and more players is that too much to ask?
At the edge of the map where nothing really sort of happens you could do something a bit like fallout. Which would be when you go to the edge of the screen it would save everything in the world including your inventory so that would be persistant and load up the next map like any other. To go back to the original map you just go in the side of the map you just came in.
There might be a few problems which I will point out now.
1: In multiplayer everyone will have to be on the same map.
2: There might be some difficulty doing builds between maps.
3: The loading thing may bother some people.
4: Being underground and going from map to map may cause problems.
I guess you could have world gates that work a bit like teleporters to the nether to solve some of these issues.
Just an idea.
I'd say that any and all ideas regarding increasing the world size have been though of at one time or another here on the forum.
I never said it was original, but this is a thread about positive ideas on how to get bigger worlds.
Myself personally I like the smaller worlds just like I have stated in another thread. I like learning about the land that I am in and what I could actually do with it. but some people just want more.
I play on a PC server that has around 200 people on every day and it is amazing to have that many people. If the Xbox 360 could ever manage to increase the number from 8 to at least 16 or so, it'd be even more fun. More players means more possibilities.
As for the Xbox 360 Edition, you don't need to watch all 16 people. Only let those that you trust in your world. The anti-griefing options do the rest.