Minecraft Forums

I wouldn't mind a 20 whatever block increase to the sides of my map. It'd mean that I could finally get to the diamonds at the 'end' of my mineshaft that are 2 blocks out of reach. . . . I hate the map edges. Lol

I'm not really a math wiz or anything but I believe we are dealing with volume not just area here. X^3.

Edit to show off my weak math skillz:

If we assume an area increase of 86 blocks added onto the length and width of a map without any change made to height then its 86x86x128 = 946,688 total blocks added to the map. With the current map size at 863x863x128 that gives us 95,330,432 blocks per maps. An increase of 95,330,432 + 946,688 = 96,277,120. 9627712000 (add 00 instead of doing an extra step for decimal adjustment) / 95330432 = 100.99 or 1% increase in total blocks added to a map.

Quote from UpUp_Away95

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.

Actually 10% of 864 is 86. 42 less than 5% increase... That is what I was thinking...O_o... Width increase would be technically 86. Now if you put it into coordinates it would be 42-43 to either side and half that for all around... But that is when you look at the coordinates, roughly. would be roughly 20 or so all round...

Quote from Tamorr

Actually 10% of 864 is 86. 42 less than 5% increase... That is what I was thinking...O_o... Width increase would be technically 86. Now if you put it into coordinates it would be 42-43 to either side and half that for all around... But that is when you look at the coordinates, roughly. would be roughly 20 or so all round...

Yes, 10% of 864 linear is 86. but to increase a side by 10% results in a 20% increase in the area of the map. A 10% increase in the area of the map results in only a 5% increase in the total length of each side. When you're thinking about the number of blocks added to one edge (as in a square strip all the way around the map), you have to divide the additional 5% increase in the total width by 2. That's where I got 21 blocks added onto each of the 4 edges of the map. So, if you're standing on block X0, Z-432, you would be able to walk to block X0, Z-453. If you're standing on block X+432, Y0, you would be able to walk to block X+453, Y0. That the difference it would make on all 4 edges of the map... not much, IMO. I realize there are rounding differences and a slight different in the map size (I actually think the outermost usable block is coords 431 or maybe even at 429 in some places), but I'm doing this old school (in my head).

As long as map size is not infinite people are going to complain about it. So does 4J have any real incentive to make the map 10% or 20% or even 100% larger (if it were even possible)? I would say no they don't. I personally hope they don't bother increasing world size by some small percentage because Id rather the extra system resource go to running the game more efficiently than a few extra blocks of size.

hmm... then we were thinking on the same page just looking at it differently...O_o

oh well... no matter...lol

I think we are all on the same page. An increase of 86 blocks (for example) would increase the map area by 20% but only add 2.5% roughly to each side. Volume-wise you'd be increasing the total blocks by 1%.

Quote from Geneo

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!

There's a difference between being completely dissatisfied and wanting more. Fine line, perhaps.

But honestly, a game designer job apparently is not the awesome job we were all led to believe as young gamers. In fact apparently it can be remarkably brutal... "Team Bondi," anyone?

Quote from Cire360

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.

How do we know this? Nowhere have I seen 4J say we're getting the Anvil format.

Also, if it is coming, I want the height increase. Unless 4J could expand the map from 864x864 to 1728x1728, which is double the size it is now, I wouldn't want any size increase. It would be a waste of system resources to give it a miniscule increase.

Quote from Dragon3025

Where did you read that we're getting the anvil format? Are you just saying that because the PC equivalent would have it in the next update, because that isn't solid evidence that we'd have it. Do you have any links?

In an interview a few months ago (Aug/2012), Stuart Ross did indicate that they would be implementing a least portions of ANVIL into MCXBLA in a future update.

"Last but very much not least, Ross says Minecraft Xbox 360 will switch to the ANVIL map format in a future update."
Ref: http://www.oxm.co.uk...ail-on-the-way/

Of course, there is always the possibility that Ross was misquoted.

Last but very much not least, Ross says Minecraft Xbox 360 will switch to the ANVIL map format in a future update. The new format improves how the game handles memory and makes it easier to mod.

If this is true about Anvil, I wouldn't get my hopes up about larger map sizes. I'd concentrate more on better performance, less lag, and better multiplayer performance with the freed up memory. 512MB is still 25% of the PC requirements.

Quote from UpUp_Away95

In an interview a few months ago (Aug/2012), Stuart Ross did indicate that they would be implementing a least portions of ANVIL into MCXBLA in a future update.

"Last but very much not least, Ross says Minecraft Xbox 360 will switch to the ANVIL map format in a future update."
Ref: http://www.oxm.co.uk...ail-on-the-way/

Of course, there is always the possibility that Ross was misquoted.

They will probably only end up implementing the height change and maybe better loading of the chunks.

I extremely doubt there will be any change in world size at all other than the height.

Quote from Cire360

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?

Again this is a speculation thread about which you would like height or size, not a 'we have to choose thread'.

Quote from Cire360

Again this is a speculation thread about which you would like height or size, not a 'we have to choose thread'.

Then it would be an obvious, neither. Improved performance is more important than map size. World size means jack poop if there is gonna be no improvement to performance.

Quote from PurpleMushroomz

Then it would be an obvious, neither. Improved performance is more important than map size. World size means jack poop if there is gonna be no improvement to performance.

Hurray for the random fool who votes E on a A,B,C,D multiple choice test. You lose.

Quote from Kmack11

Hurray for the random fool who votes E on a A,B,C,D multiple choice test. You lose.

Or I could be the IT guy who prefers quality of the gameplay over the quantity of squares. What good is it to ask for more squares when all you're gonna do is cry for even more a couple of weeks after you get those?

When this game is put on a proper system that has the recommended requirements to run the game, then I'll gripe about world size.