So we all know that the new anvil map format is coming, and once it does arrive that map data compression and format is superior. This allowed the PC version a major height increase.
Now I've heard people complaining both about the map size and height, and while i make no speculation about whether or not 4J can increase the map size either height or size;.... if it was possible for one or the other which would you chose, either height or size?
Personally i'd prefer more size, even a small 10% increase would be a huge difference.
A 10% increase amounts to adding 1 chunk (16 blocks) all the way around the map. Total increase in the overall width of the map would be a mere 32 blocks. I doubt that would feel like much of a difference at all to most people.
Furthermore, as I understand it, the ANVIL format improved compression of "empty"/air blocks This is what enabled a height increase.. since most of the blocks added to the map above the current height limit were air. I believe that any increase in the map due to the switch to ANVIL will have to occur in the direction of height; and that may not even occur.. depending on how the compression already works in C++ as compared to how it worked in Java.
In short, I don't think there is really a choice available here.
A 10% increase amounts to adding 1 chunk (16 blocks) all the way around the map. Total increase in the overall width of the map would be a mere 32 blocks. I doubt that would feel like much of a difference at all to most people.
Furthermore, as I understand it, the ANVIL format improved compression of "empty"/air blocks This is what enabled a height increase.. since most of the blocks added to the map above the current height limit were air. I believe that any increase in the map due to the switch to ANVIL will have to occur in the direction of height; and that may not even occur.. depending on how the compression already works in C++ as compared to how it worked in Java.
In short, I don't think there is really a choice available here.
how does 10% of 800 = 32?
Size increase really doesn't matter to me as the map is decent enough size. I would like it t have a height increase. I wouldn't complain if we don't get it after anvil. I accept what they put out.: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.
Size increase really doesn't matter to me as the map is decent enough size. I would like it t have a height increase. I wouldn't complain if we don't get it after anvil. I accept what they put out.
OK, I see my error. Old map size taken at 864 x 864 (useable size not including nether). Total area in blocks = 746,496. 10% of that is an additional 74,649 blocks added to the area of the map. New total blocks for area = 821,145. New map width would be 906 x 906. Total increase in width of the map would be 42 blocks. or 21 blocks all the way around. Still not really a "huge" difference in area. Plus, I'm not sure the system can deal in 1/2 chunks. So, we may still be talking about only a 1 chunk addition all the way around the map.
OK, I see my error. Old map size taken at 864 x 864 (useable size not including nether). Total area in blocks = 746,496. 10% of that is an additional 74,649 blocks. New total blocks = 821,145. New map width would be 906 x 906. Total increase in width of the map would be 42 blocks. or 21 blocks all the way around. Still not really a "huge" difference.
actually it would be 42 all around.... 84 increase.... but like you said not much of a difference... Width you have to 2x the value when subtracting the difference. That will account for that number on both sides of the map not just one side...lol
Still I think world height would be better even if it is just like 32-64 blocks more. Since that is all I would really need to make my original map more to what I had in mind...:D I just have a feeling if they can't double the height, they are just not going to do it in any amount... Which is fine....
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.
Where not arguing about the possibility of it occurring, where debating one or the other. As I said 10% increase would be pretty big, but more so i'd love to see options added allowing us to 'pick' what biomes we want in our map and a threshold of how big those biomes should occupy.
I'm not 100% what happens when anvil map format did arrive on the PC but when it did the game took a major change in server bw and lag drops, so its obviously more then just 'compressed air'. I realize we may not get it this title update but i'm so excited for this. Even if we get no changes to the size it should reduce lag considerably, anyhow getting off topic.
Personally as i said size increase would be nice, i like to have bigger biomes and not so many of them.You know i was just thinking, for xbox, maybe we don't need to have 1 or the other, instead when generating the map, ask the user which they prefer more size or height and adjust accordingly, seems to me this would be a better solution and one that fits all.
The biggest thing I would think most people would be interested in with the Anvil map generation is elimination of biome shift. That is what I am most looking forward to, even if there is no other change at all.
Here we go again with another "world size" thread. For some of you:
10% ain't squat.
20% ain't squat.
50% ain't enough.
Even "infinite" isn't enough, cause then you'd want the Nether and the End to be "infinite".
And then you'd want… and want…. and want.
MCer's will never be satisfied.
Glad I'm not a game developer. Talk about a thankless job!
7 million people, each with their own wants from the game. Granted the % that come here and post probably don't accurately reflect how most people feel about the game, we're just more vocal.
actually it would be 42 all around.... 84 increase.... but like you said not much of a difference... Width you have to 2x the value when subtracting the difference. That will account for that number on both sides of the map not just one side...lol
Still I think world height would be better even if it is just like 32-64 blocks more. Since that is all I would really need to make my original map more to what I had in mind... I just have a feeling if they can't double the height, they are just not going to do it in any amount... Which is fine....
OK, let's prove your idea of what a 10% increase is in reverse. 864 + 86 = 948 (Linear distance of a side + 10%). New map area = 948 * 948 = 898,704 blocks. Old Map Area = 746,496. Percentage Increase of area = 20%. (You shouldn't double it, you should half it).
A doubling of the map's area would bring the linear side distance to 1221 x 1221. A doubling of the map's linear sides (1728 x 1728) would represent a 400% increase in the area of the map. There is a difference in perception about the size of what is being asked... and this is the issue Paddy Burns was alluding to during the Minecon panel discussion.
7 million people, each with their own wants from the game. Granted the % that come here and post probably don't accurately reflect how most people feel about the game, we're just more vocal.
I think, out of the 7 million, most of those have no idea of "what they're missing" cause they've never played the PC version like 99% of those here have. I'd bet that most of them are perfectly happy with the game as it is, and think that they got more than their monies worth. The posters here are vocal, but I think we'd be surprised what the vast majority think about the game (and the posts here).
It's actually 20%. Your numbers are backwards. If 746,496 is 100% or the current mapsize then increasing it to 898,704 is 89870400/746496 = 120. So 20% increase.
OK, let's prove your idea of what a 10% increase is in reverse. 864 + 86 = 948 (Linear distance of a side + 10%). New map area = 948 * 948 = 898,704 blocks. Old Map Area = 746,496. Percentage Increase of area = 20%
:-) God, UpUp, it's too early in the morning for geometry (yes, 11am is too early) :-)
:-) God, UpUp, it's too early in the morning for geometry (yes, 11am is too early) :-)
Yes, and it's even earlier here. In principle, I'm confident... in practice, I'm having trouble seeing the numbers... hence all the edits. Time for a Java.
Yes, and it's even earlier here. In principle, I'm confident... in practice, I'm having trouble seeing the numbers... hence all the edits. Time for a Java.
You brought this on yourself, you know that, right :-)
In a square region, the area of the region is given as x^2 (where x is the length of any side). If you add an equal amount of distance to both the length and the width of the region, the new area is given as (x+y)*(x+y) (where x is the original length and y is the additional length). Using the distributive property, the increase in area for an addition of length y is given as 2xy+y^2
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Now I've heard people complaining both about the map size and height, and while i make no speculation about whether or not 4J can increase the map size either height or size;.... if it was possible for one or the other which would you chose, either height or size?
Personally i'd prefer more size, even a small 10% increase would be a huge difference.
Furthermore, as I understand it, the ANVIL format improved compression of "empty"/air blocks This is what enabled a height increase.. since most of the blocks added to the map above the current height limit were air. I believe that any increase in the map due to the switch to ANVIL will have to occur in the direction of height; and that may not even occur.. depending on how the compression already works in C++ as compared to how it worked in Java.
In short, I don't think there is really a choice available here.
how does 10% of 800 = 32?
Size increase really doesn't matter to me as the map is decent enough size. I would like it t have a height increase. I wouldn't complain if we don't get it after anvil. I accept what they put out.:D
OK, I see my error. Old map size taken at 864 x 864 (useable size not including nether). Total area in blocks = 746,496. 10% of that is an additional 74,649 blocks added to the area of the map. New total blocks for area = 821,145. New map width would be 906 x 906. Total increase in width of the map would be 42 blocks. or 21 blocks all the way around. Still not really a "huge" difference in area. Plus, I'm not sure the system can deal in 1/2 chunks. So, we may still be talking about only a 1 chunk addition all the way around the map.
But if I have to choose, I'd rather be tall and skinny than short and fat.
actually it would be 42 all around.... 84 increase.... but like you said not much of a difference... Width you have to 2x the value when subtracting the difference. That will account for that number on both sides of the map not just one side...lol
Still I think world height would be better even if it is just like 32-64 blocks more. Since that is all I would really need to make my original map more to what I had in mind...:D I just have a feeling if they can't double the height, they are just not going to do it in any amount... Which is fine....
I'm not 100% what happens when anvil map format did arrive on the PC but when it did the game took a major change in server bw and lag drops, so its obviously more then just 'compressed air'. I realize we may not get it this title update but i'm so excited for this. Even if we get no changes to the size it should reduce lag considerably, anyhow getting off topic.
Personally as i said size increase would be nice, i like to have bigger biomes and not so many of them.You know i was just thinking, for xbox, maybe we don't need to have 1 or the other, instead when generating the map, ask the user which they prefer more size or height and adjust accordingly, seems to me this would be a better solution and one that fits all.
10% ain't squat.
20% ain't squat.
50% ain't enough.
Even "infinite" isn't enough, cause then you'd want the Nether and the End to be "infinite".
And then you'd want… and want…. and want.
MCer's will never be satisfied.
Glad I'm not a game developer. Talk about a thankless job!
OK, let's prove your idea of what a 10% increase is in reverse. 864 + 86 = 948 (Linear distance of a side + 10%). New map area = 948 * 948 = 898,704 blocks. Old Map Area = 746,496. Percentage Increase of area = 20%. (You shouldn't double it, you should half it).
A doubling of the map's area would bring the linear side distance to 1221 x 1221. A doubling of the map's linear sides (1728 x 1728) would represent a 400% increase in the area of the map. There is a difference in perception about the size of what is being asked... and this is the issue Paddy Burns was alluding to during the Minecon panel discussion.
I think, out of the 7 million, most of those have no idea of "what they're missing" cause they've never played the PC version like 99% of those here have. I'd bet that most of them are perfectly happy with the game as it is, and think that they got more than their monies worth. The posters here are vocal, but I think we'd be surprised what the vast majority think about the game (and the posts here).
Edit: Sorry, you caught that yourself.
:-) God, UpUp, it's too early in the morning for geometry (yes, 11am is too early) :-)
Yes, and it's even earlier here. In principle, I'm confident... in practice, I'm having trouble seeing the numbers... hence all the edits. Time for a Java.
You brought this on yourself, you know that, right :-)
In a square region, the area of the region is given as x^2 (where x is the length of any side). If you add an equal amount of distance to both the length and the width of the region, the new area is given as (x+y)*(x+y) (where x is the original length and y is the additional length). Using the distributive property, the increase in area for an addition of length y is given as 2xy+y^2