Let's approach this world size problem from a different angle.
Nix, technical limitations debate. We don't have what we don't have.
What I wonder, is just what is so bloody important about having a bigger map?
The render distance in the game is limited. You can sort of see about 1/4 of the world when you look out.
So anything larger than 256 or so is probably going to be cropped out visually. Especially when you step back far enough to get a good look at it.
Structure wise, other than just building something ridiculously huge (like an 895x895 pyramid), there are few rea world structures needing that much space. A MC block is one meter.
The Internatioal Space Station is 105 meters long (built it)
The Space Shuttle is about 55 meters long (i'd have to check, I built one)
The actual USS Enterprise aircraft carrier is 342 meters,
The NCC 1701 E is is a 685 meters, definitely big, but stil fitting in the MC360 box.
Just some food for thought, and perhaps more interesting discussion about large builds.
The sight limit is actually closer to 150-160. Tested on my superflat word made a square of water 144x144 blocks big flying straight up in the centre there are 5 or so blocks past my squares boundary that get rendered no matter the height or time spent at that point.
As for the limit, I can see where if you had 8 people building mega builds in one world, you might intrude on one another, and the fact that people want to keep there world and be able to generate new chunks/features. You can argue don't explore it, but sometimes that cave goes a little longer then expected or someone new joins and immediately heads off into the unknown. I think those would be two legitimate reasons why people want more space.
It's not the available space to build. As you pointed out, there's plenty of room and it would many, many months to build over the whole thing.
As I read it, there's 2 other main reasons people want larger worlds:
1- So they won't run out of resources.
Maybe after another year and a half someone will have completely dug out their world and they can say "I've run out of resources." Till then, this is just an unjustifiable excuse. (Especially since you can pop into Creative and get more of whatever you need).
2- So they can explore.
It's important for some people to go off an one direction, keep going, and discover new stuff (read "wander around rubber-necking at the scenery"). I'm not saying that isn't fun- I've done some wandering myself. However, what I discovered was a MC world just goes from biome-to-biome and all the biomes are basically alike (you've seen one desert, you've see them all). There's not a "new" part, it's just like the last one. The ability of just starting another world(s) to explore isn't "good enough" for some reason- they demand that their worlds be either "infinite" or at least linked. (Not gonna happen, but whatever….)
I know in my "tiny" world I've found 9 caves, 4 ravines, 5 biomes, a stronghold, and a river. I've explored most the caves, but I haven't even begun digging- anywhere. This "tiny" world will keep me busy for a long time. There's no real point in me wandering around.
A bigger world would mean not having to have different worlds for different things, and instead you'd be able to make everything in one world and connect them all via kart or whatever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I need to give out more reputation. I'm not used to the system, but I see so many helpful posts. D: Sorry if I forget you!
I can understand why some larger groups of people might want more space; but if it came down to more space and less of a game overall, I wonder what choices they would actually make. If the PC game starts to exceed a person's PC, they can perhaps opt to just drop in a better graphics card or add some RAM; but XBox users can't do that. If the game ever exceeds the abilities of the console; we're all essentially hooped until the next generation console comes out. Personally, I'd rather have as many features of the game as they can squeeze into the current world size and live with starting new worlds now and then than to have to forfeit parts of the game to enable a larger world that I might never build to it's actual capacity.
Also, I spoke with a person who said he stopped playing Minecraft on PC specifically because the builds in the world he was working on with several others became so spaced apart that it seemed like a big chore just to travel from one build site to another. They essentially ceased to play as a singular group, but were instead pockets of people or even just singular players that rarely interacted with each other even though they were technically in the same world.
Okay Mustache But i also agree with you, person who started this topic, unless you have an appropriate excuse, why do you need a bigger world. People you know, especially people who wine a lot, if you want a bigger world, your going to have to endure more lag, or even crash your world due to memory. A topic has been made, that is quiet similar to this, but just talks about making the range of building upward to be equivalent to the PC version, about 235 blocks, i believe. I, myself, have a good excuse, because i am building a city, with an average of 50x50 buildings, which means that ill have to do less work, and i was hoping it would occupy me till The End comes out, which is the next update, but so far i have got at least 67 buildings done
It's not the available space to build. As you pointed out, there's plenty of room and it would many, many months to build over the whole thing.
As I read it, there's 2 other main reasons people want larger worlds:
1- So they won't run out of resources.
Maybe after another year and a half someone will have completely dug out their world and they can say "I've run out of resources." Till then, this is just an unjustifiable excuse. (Especially since you can pop into Creative and get more of whatever you need).
2- So they can explore.
It's important for some people to go off an one direction, keep going, and discover new stuff (read "wander around rubber-necking at the scenery"). I'm not saying that isn't fun- I've done some wandering myself. However, what I discovered was a MC world just goes from biome-to-biome and all the biomes are basically alike (you've seen one desert, you've see them all). There's not a "new" part, it's just like the last one. The ability of just starting another world(s) to explore isn't "good enough" for some reason- they demand that their worlds be either "infinite" or at least linked. (Not gonna happen, but whatever….)
I know in my "tiny" world I've found 9 caves, 4 ravines, 5 biomes, a stronghold, and a river. I've explored most the caves, but I haven't even begun digging- anywhere. This "tiny" world will keep me busy for a long time. There's no real point in me wandering around.
For your arguments I have two counter arguments.
1. Yes it would take a long time to dig out the world. But seriously, do you HONESTLY expect people to mine out their worlds, down to bedrock, even on creative mode that would become boring and repetitive and tiring work. I dont mind too much because I enjoy building mines and such to go with my towns that I usually build. But I will never mine out the world, it simply wont happen, in the PCs near infinite world you can just find another cave and delve until that ones empty, here you have a finite amount of caves.
2. Exploring is fun. And while yes, it all fundamentally looks the same, but its still exploring dammit. New uncharted lands, just pick a direction and walk straight that way until you find what you want. Also worlds can spawn without a certain biome, ie I have a world that has no cactus, no pine trees. Its just a giant swamp island and two dramatically smaller plain islands. Thusly the exploration can actually be a good thing. This is actually my biggest reason for wanting bigger worlds.
That being said I dont really care, I dont find too many worlds like that anymore anyway.
I think most of the people who now think that they would build things like huge multiple cities, probably won't actually get around to it IF they get want they want in the form of a larger world. People tend to argue and argue and argue for something just because they don't have it; and then once they get it, it starts to collect dust... forgotton as the person moves onto the next big argument.
1. Yes it would take a long time to dig out the world. But seriously, do you HONESTLY expect people to mine out their worlds, down to bedrock, even on creative mode that would become boring and repetitive and tiring work. I dont mind too much because I enjoy building mines and such to go with my towns that I usually build. But I will never mine out the world, it simply wont happen, in the PCs near infinite world you can just find another cave and delve until that ones empty, here you have a finite amount of caves.
IF mining out the current world is too much for them now, they aren't going to be able to build up an "infinite" one to any sort of state that would do all that extra size much justice. The bottom line here is that people are grousing about because they want it because they want it. Once they get it, most of them will become disinterested in it.
ETA: Please note "mining out" in the sense I am using it here does not mean literally mining every block; but exhausting the map of all the resources that are reasonable to obtain. When used in the mining industry, the term "mined out" implies that all the resources that could be profitably obtained from the mine have been removed and what remains is not economic (i.e. could not be obtained without incurring a significant loss on the investment). So yeah, in a survival sense, I would honestly expect people to "mine out" their worlds before just moving on to new digs.
I copied the number from one of the other why can't we have a bigger world threads. At least it was in the 800's, unlike the usualy assumption that the world is 1024x1024
864 blocks (the map of the main surface goes from -432 to +432 in each direction and is 128 layers high). Each chunk is 16 x 16 x 128. The world, therefore, is 54 x 54 chunks. The world size (i.e. total of all chunks), however, is actually bigger as it also includes space for the nether (which is also 128 layers high), so although we tend to think in terms of the nether existing below the overworld, it is not in the same set of chunks as the surface world. I believe the total world size is stated somewhere on the wiki as being something like 1024 x 1024 blocks (i.e. 64 chunks); but I'm not exactly convinced of that number. The nether is supposed to be on a 1:3 ratio as the overworld, so an area of 288 x 288 blocks for the nether would make more sense. This would make the total overall world size 72 x 72 chunks. I've never walked end to end in the nether with a nether map, so I don't know if it is actually 288 x 288 blocks.
I agree and also find this fun There's something very vain and human about finding the highest point of a mountain and building something tall and imposing on it. Kind of how I'd imagine the Eyrie in Game of Thrones (from the book, haven't seen the TV show).
I get intimate with detail sometimes, and fortresses tend to be on hills rather than mountains, for both visibility and height advantage over enemies.
What on earth could take up that much space by itself? Oh I built the Enterprise D. Its not as good as I wanted, but I am still trying to figure stuff out.
There is a possibility of Minecraft coming to the next gen consoles, which could probably run bigger worlds. So people might have to wait a year or two!
Well having a full game on Xbox live tends to fill up worlds very quickly. I have been forced to create sever additional worlds because of the limited size because of how quickly the worlds have filled up.
It fills up even quicker when you have a 24/7 server set up.
Like someone else said, I like finding resources on my own, using creative mode to cheat takes the fun out of it. If resources could regenerate after a long time then we wouldn't need bigger worlds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Nix, technical limitations debate. We don't have what we don't have.
What I wonder, is just what is so bloody important about having a bigger map?
The render distance in the game is limited. You can sort of see about 1/4 of the world when you look out.
So anything larger than 256 or so is probably going to be cropped out visually. Especially when you step back far enough to get a good look at it.
Structure wise, other than just building something ridiculously huge (like an 895x895 pyramid), there are few rea world structures needing that much space. A MC block is one meter.
The Internatioal Space Station is 105 meters long (built it)
The Space Shuttle is about 55 meters long (i'd have to check, I built one)
The actual USS Enterprise aircraft carrier is 342 meters,
The NCC 1701 E is is a 685 meters, definitely big, but stil fitting in the MC360 box.
Just some food for thought, and perhaps more interesting discussion about large builds.
As for the limit, I can see where if you had 8 people building mega builds in one world, you might intrude on one another, and the fact that people want to keep there world and be able to generate new chunks/features. You can argue don't explore it, but sometimes that cave goes a little longer then expected or someone new joins and immediately heads off into the unknown. I think those would be two legitimate reasons why people want more space.
As I read it, there's 2 other main reasons people want larger worlds:
1- So they won't run out of resources.
Maybe after another year and a half someone will have completely dug out their world and they can say "I've run out of resources." Till then, this is just an unjustifiable excuse. (Especially since you can pop into Creative and get more of whatever you need).
2- So they can explore.
It's important for some people to go off an one direction, keep going, and discover new stuff (read "wander around rubber-necking at the scenery"). I'm not saying that isn't fun- I've done some wandering myself. However, what I discovered was a MC world just goes from biome-to-biome and all the biomes are basically alike (you've seen one desert, you've see them all). There's not a "new" part, it's just like the last one. The ability of just starting another world(s) to explore isn't "good enough" for some reason- they demand that their worlds be either "infinite" or at least linked. (Not gonna happen, but whatever….)
I know in my "tiny" world I've found 9 caves, 4 ravines, 5 biomes, a stronghold, and a river. I've explored most the caves, but I haven't even begun digging- anywhere. This "tiny" world will keep me busy for a long time. There's no real point in me wandering around.
Also, I spoke with a person who said he stopped playing Minecraft on PC specifically because the builds in the world he was working on with several others became so spaced apart that it seemed like a big chore just to travel from one build site to another. They essentially ceased to play as a singular group, but were instead pockets of people or even just singular players that rarely interacted with each other even though they were technically in the same world.
I'm a stickler for the details.
For your arguments I have two counter arguments.
1. Yes it would take a long time to dig out the world. But seriously, do you HONESTLY expect people to mine out their worlds, down to bedrock, even on creative mode that would become boring and repetitive and tiring work. I dont mind too much because I enjoy building mines and such to go with my towns that I usually build. But I will never mine out the world, it simply wont happen, in the PCs near infinite world you can just find another cave and delve until that ones empty, here you have a finite amount of caves.
2. Exploring is fun. And while yes, it all fundamentally looks the same, but its still exploring dammit. New uncharted lands, just pick a direction and walk straight that way until you find what you want. Also worlds can spawn without a certain biome, ie I have a world that has no cactus, no pine trees. Its just a giant swamp island and two dramatically smaller plain islands. Thusly the exploration can actually be a good thing. This is actually my biggest reason for wanting bigger worlds.
That being said I dont really care, I dont find too many worlds like that anymore anyway.
IF mining out the current world is too much for them now, they aren't going to be able to build up an "infinite" one to any sort of state that would do all that extra size much justice. The bottom line here is that people are grousing about because they want it because they want it. Once they get it, most of them will become disinterested in it.
ETA: Please note "mining out" in the sense I am using it here does not mean literally mining every block; but exhausting the map of all the resources that are reasonable to obtain. When used in the mining industry, the term "mined out" implies that all the resources that could be profitably obtained from the mine have been removed and what remains is not economic (i.e. could not be obtained without incurring a significant loss on the investment). So yeah, in a survival sense, I would honestly expect people to "mine out" their worlds before just moving on to new digs.
mea culpa.
I copied the number from one of the other why can't we have a bigger world threads. At least it was in the 800's, unlike the usualy assumption that the world is 1024x1024
864 Chunks, or 864 blocks?
864 blocks (the map of the main surface goes from -432 to +432 in each direction and is 128 layers high). Each chunk is 16 x 16 x 128. The world, therefore, is 54 x 54 chunks. The world size (i.e. total of all chunks), however, is actually bigger as it also includes space for the nether (which is also 128 layers high), so although we tend to think in terms of the nether existing below the overworld, it is not in the same set of chunks as the surface world. I believe the total world size is stated somewhere on the wiki as being something like 1024 x 1024 blocks (i.e. 64 chunks); but I'm not exactly convinced of that number. The nether is supposed to be on a 1:3 ratio as the overworld, so an area of 288 x 288 blocks for the nether would make more sense. This would make the total overall world size 72 x 72 chunks. I've never walked end to end in the nether with a nether map, so I don't know if it is actually 288 x 288 blocks.
I get intimate with detail sometimes, and fortresses tend to be on hills rather than mountains, for both visibility and height advantage over enemies.
It fills up even quicker when you have a 24/7 server set up.