Plains have no trees on them at all. It would be nice if there were occasional patches of trees as well as the occasional lone tree. Add patches of bare spots in forests where there aren't as many trees growing, or none at all!
I would like to see trees redistributed so you no longer see either absolutely no trees in one biome, or too many trees in another. I want it to feel like some forest biomes are actually different from other forest biomes. Plains shouldn't be so naked. Seriously, it's why I chose not to play on flatworld. -.- Have you ever spawned in the middle of plains? It's nothing but a waste of space.
I might actually have to agree with this... Also to add to this, have dark wood trees in more than snowy biomes...>< like mountains in and hilly ground would be nice. Variety is the spice of Life.:D
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.
You know you can go cut down some trees to make bare spots in the forest, and take the saplings to the plains and replant them there. Problem solved.
When playing survival, this isn't an option. It would already be too time consuming on creative mode, but can you imagine doing this on survival?
The reason I believe trees should be naturally redistributed is because I believe the worlds are way too monotonous. To suggest I fix these worlds manually, just so I can explore them more comfortably, is like suggesting I create an entire world, with cave systems, by hand in creative mode on a superflat world.
Sure, many people might not be bothered with biomes as they are now, but wouldn't it still be better if trees weren't so... uniform? Regardless if this issue can be fixed by hand or not, wouldn't it be nice if this happened naturally?
What about the people who like it the way it is? I'm not arguing with you, but if you don't like the world the way it is....the game gives you the ability to change it.
It works vice-versa.
I want my plains… plain. I don't want to have to chop a bunch of trees down before I start building something. Plus there's cases where I don't want any trees blocking my line of sight.
I think that's why they're called plains, lol, very few trees.
I'm currently playing survival with my daughter and we're doing just that, transplanting saplings on a plain near our house, it's not that hard.
Think of the early pioneers, that's how they did it.
What about the people who like it the way it is? I'm not arguing with you, but if you don't like the world the way it is....the game gives you the ability to change it.
Not exactly... There is no option in seed generation for any thing beyond having structures or not. So in that respects there isn't a way to change legally...Sure I know there is creative or doing it in survival... but that is non sense... have you ever tried to fill a swampland map with lilly pads? That is just insane and I will not do it again...><
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.
What about the people who like it the way it is? I'm not arguing with you, but if you don't like the world the way it is....the game gives you the ability to change it.
You can use this to argue anything. The game does NOT give me the abillity to change the world so it is created with trees RANDOMLY distributed here and there. If I do it, it defeats the whole purpose and I wouln't even be playing survival.
It works vice-versa.
I want my plains… plain. I don't want to have to chop a bunch of trees down before I start building something. Plus there's cases where I don't want any trees blocking my line of sight.
You had a problem with this before they updated the way biomes work? I don't mind having plains, but it's stupid when a whole biome is 100% free of trees. It makes sense with the desert, but even then I just reload a new world when I find myself stuck in one.
Think of it more like this. Instead of having forests abruptly stop, why doesn't 4J find a way to make the trees thin out the closer it gets to the plains instead?
Again, these are just ideas to improve the biomes so they aren't so bland and lifeless.
I think that's why they're called plains, lol, very few trees.
I'm currently playing survival with my daughter and we're doing just that, transplanting saplings on a plain near our house, it's not that hard.
Think of the early pioneers, that's how they did it.
;-)
You're assuming my problem is that I don't have trees in my yard, and I don't want to plant them. That's not the case at all. I want to see trees in more places so that I don't go insane with how boring and featureless the biomes are.
Again, many people like it the way it is now, but I hardly doubt anyone would disagree with the idea of adding more variety within the biomes themselves. Just because you can deal with it the way it is, doesn't mean you should be against suggesting improvements. If you honestly do like the way biomes are now, and you honestly wouldn't like to see any changes, what-so-ever, then I guess that's your opinion. But, I feel like people would rather adapt to a sub par terrain generation system than risk it being changed.
If I suggested 4J do something so snow biomes no longer connect to desert biomes, I bet people would go around saying, "just change it yourself, you have the tools." It misses the entire point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.
Hmm, I do agree a bit. I've been on plains, and I've seen trees, but that's usually by nearby forests. But still, if you did some exploring I'm sure you'd find trees.
I'm totally fine with plains having no trees, and forests having no clearings. If I really want to change that - which I sometimes do - I get some saplings and plant a few trees in the plains, and remove trees in forests (flint and steel work wonders).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Is it a chicken or is it a duck? - It's a chuck, because dicken sounds stupid.
I'm totally fine with plains having no trees, and forests having no clearings. If I really want to change that - which I sometimes do - I get some saplings and plant a few trees in the plains, and remove trees in forests (flint and steel work wonders).
You'd be even more fine with there being some trees though, no?
And honestly, I doubt you plant trees on the plains or clear sections of the forests unless they're near your home. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's not fun to explore each biome, because on the other side of that hill, it's going to look exactly the same as the rest of the biome.
I want the world to have natural variety. I can't go around and change each biome. Not only does that take forever, but it isn't the same as naturally discovering these places. Flint and steel might make bald patches in the forests, but it doesn't help scatter the trees any.
Again, look at a world you created before the last 2 updates, look at how the placement of trees are more random. Instead of a cluster f- of trees, you had a nice assortment of thick areas, thin areas, and bare areas. To top it all off, they BLENDED much better. With biomes as they are now, it looks like someone took a knife, cut out a forest biome, then placed it on the map somewhere. There's a line of thick forest, then empty plains. It doesn't get thinner and thinner the closer it gets to the plains. Before the updates, any plains sort of looked natural, not like someone plopped a section of woods right next to it.
Seriously, compare a world you made recently to one you created shortly after the game came out. You'll notice a huge difference.
I just gave my plains a sparse covering of trees in survival, not that hard to do
Good for you, grab yourself a cookie.
The point is, if you can make the world look naturally better by fixing how the world is generated, why hold back? Sure, you can fix all the problems by hand, but why not push for world generation that automatically does this?
When playing survival, this isn't an option. It would already be too time consuming on creative mode, but can you imagine doing this on survival?
Actually, I can. It would probably only take about 20 minutes. You get several saplings from most trees you cut down. You could have a nice stack of them quickly in the normal course of cutting down trees for wood, then just go around planting them in your plains.
When playing survival, this isn't an option. It would already be too time consuming on creative mode, but can you imagine doing this on survival?
The reason I believe trees should be naturally redistributed is because I believe the worlds are way too monotonous. To suggest I fix these worlds manually, just so I can explore them more comfortably, is like suggesting I create an entire world, with cave systems, by hand in creative mode on a superflat world.
Sure, many people might not be bothered with biomes as they are now, but wouldn't it still be better if trees weren't so... uniform? Regardless if this issue can be fixed by hand or not, wouldn't it be nice if this happened naturally?
but i always do that in survival i dont play creative that much unless i get bored and look for fortress and stuff.. o.o so idk how this takes so much time? you cut 1 tree down u take the sapling u cut another u go back to ur house/plains what ever then u go put em down get some bone meal ifur really that impatient. idk whats the problem .
Actually, I can. It would probably only take about 20 minutes. You get several saplings from most trees you cut down. You could have a nice stack of them quickly in the normal course of cutting down trees for wood, then just go around planting them in your plains.
I'm talking about the whole world, not just your back yard. If I have to go around and clear some spots, plant saplings in others, it ruins the whole idea of exploration in the first place. Again, why NOT have trees "blend" with each other better? Why not make the edges of biomes seamless?
Again, it's about how to improve world generation. Sometimes you have to plant trees and cut them down to get an area the way you want it, that's a given. But it would be nice if the biomes weren't so monotonous.
I repeat, why make it so you have to fix every single world? Why not scatter trees around better so it's more visually appealing from the start?
Think of it this way, if 4J studios redistributed trees and added variety, would you be disappointed or pleased with the changes? You'd more than likely be pleased! This makes the whole "do it yourself" argument a completely moot point. Why not make the world more pleasing from the start, rather than forcing players to make it better?
but i always do that in survival i dont play creative that much unless i get bored and look for fortress and stuff.. o.o so idk how this takes so much time? you cut 1 tree down u take the sapling u cut another u go back to ur house/plains what ever then u go put em down get some bone meal ifur really that impatient. idk whats the problem .
World Generation We're talking about the whole world, not just one's back yard.
I would like to see trees redistributed so you no longer see either absolutely no trees in one biome, or too many trees in another. I want it to feel like some forest biomes are actually different from other forest biomes. Plains shouldn't be so naked. Seriously, it's why I chose not to play on flatworld. -.- Have you ever spawned in the middle of plains? It's nothing but a waste of space.
When playing survival, this isn't an option. It would already be too time consuming on creative mode, but can you imagine doing this on survival?
The reason I believe trees should be naturally redistributed is because I believe the worlds are way too monotonous. To suggest I fix these worlds manually, just so I can explore them more comfortably, is like suggesting I create an entire world, with cave systems, by hand in creative mode on a superflat world.
Sure, many people might not be bothered with biomes as they are now, but wouldn't it still be better if trees weren't so... uniform? Regardless if this issue can be fixed by hand or not, wouldn't it be nice if this happened naturally?
I want my plains… plain. I don't want to have to chop a bunch of trees down before I start building something. Plus there's cases where I don't want any trees blocking my line of sight.
I'm currently playing survival with my daughter and we're doing just that, transplanting saplings on a plain near our house, it's not that hard.
Think of the early pioneers, that's how they did it.
;-)
Not exactly... There is no option in seed generation for any thing beyond having structures or not. So in that respects there isn't a way to change legally...Sure I know there is creative or doing it in survival... but that is non sense... have you ever tried to fill a swampland map with lilly pads? That is just insane and I will not do it again...><
You can use this to argue anything. The game does NOT give me the abillity to change the world so it is created with trees RANDOMLY distributed here and there. If I do it, it defeats the whole purpose and I wouln't even be playing survival.
You had a problem with this before they updated the way biomes work? I don't mind having plains, but it's stupid when a whole biome is 100% free of trees. It makes sense with the desert, but even then I just reload a new world when I find myself stuck in one.
Think of it more like this. Instead of having forests abruptly stop, why doesn't 4J find a way to make the trees thin out the closer it gets to the plains instead?
Again, these are just ideas to improve the biomes so they aren't so bland and lifeless.
You're assuming my problem is that I don't have trees in my yard, and I don't want to plant them. That's not the case at all. I want to see trees in more places so that I don't go insane with how boring and featureless the biomes are.
Again, many people like it the way it is now, but I hardly doubt anyone would disagree with the idea of adding more variety within the biomes themselves. Just because you can deal with it the way it is, doesn't mean you should be against suggesting improvements. If you honestly do like the way biomes are now, and you honestly wouldn't like to see any changes, what-so-ever, then I guess that's your opinion. But, I feel like people would rather adapt to a sub par terrain generation system than risk it being changed.
If I suggested 4J do something so snow biomes no longer connect to desert biomes, I bet people would go around saying, "just change it yourself, you have the tools." It misses the entire point.
You'd be even more fine with there being some trees though, no?
And honestly, I doubt you plant trees on the plains or clear sections of the forests unless they're near your home. I guess what I'm trying to say is, it's not fun to explore each biome, because on the other side of that hill, it's going to look exactly the same as the rest of the biome.
I want the world to have natural variety. I can't go around and change each biome. Not only does that take forever, but it isn't the same as naturally discovering these places. Flint and steel might make bald patches in the forests, but it doesn't help scatter the trees any.
Again, look at a world you created before the last 2 updates, look at how the placement of trees are more random. Instead of a cluster f- of trees, you had a nice assortment of thick areas, thin areas, and bare areas. To top it all off, they BLENDED much better. With biomes as they are now, it looks like someone took a knife, cut out a forest biome, then placed it on the map somewhere. There's a line of thick forest, then empty plains. It doesn't get thinner and thinner the closer it gets to the plains. Before the updates, any plains sort of looked natural, not like someone plopped a section of woods right next to it.
Seriously, compare a world you made recently to one you created shortly after the game came out. You'll notice a huge difference.
Good for you, grab yourself a cookie.
The point is, if you can make the world look naturally better by fixing how the world is generated, why hold back? Sure, you can fix all the problems by hand, but why not push for world generation that automatically does this?
Actually, I can. It would probably only take about 20 minutes. You get several saplings from most trees you cut down. You could have a nice stack of them quickly in the normal course of cutting down trees for wood, then just go around planting them in your plains.
but i always do that in survival i dont play creative that much unless i get bored and look for fortress and stuff.. o.o so idk how this takes so much time? you cut 1 tree down u take the sapling u cut another u go back to ur house/plains what ever then u go put em down get some bone meal ifur really that impatient. idk whats the problem .
I'm talking about the whole world, not just your back yard. If I have to go around and clear some spots, plant saplings in others, it ruins the whole idea of exploration in the first place. Again, why NOT have trees "blend" with each other better? Why not make the edges of biomes seamless?
Again, it's about how to improve world generation. Sometimes you have to plant trees and cut them down to get an area the way you want it, that's a given. But it would be nice if the biomes weren't so monotonous.
I repeat, why make it so you have to fix every single world? Why not scatter trees around better so it's more visually appealing from the start?
Think of it this way, if 4J studios redistributed trees and added variety, would you be disappointed or pleased with the changes? You'd more than likely be pleased! This makes the whole "do it yourself" argument a completely moot point. Why not make the world more pleasing from the start, rather than forcing players to make it better?
World Generation
We're talking about the whole world, not just one's back yard.