I should preface the poll. The villager cap right now stands around 50. With the upcoming update villagers will now have a new purpose in MCXB360 edition. There is a lot of buzz about the current cap and it's restrictions if in fact the cap is not changed when the update rolls out.
I am curious to see what you all think about where the villager cap should go! Feel free to take the poll or/and add your thoughts to the thread. Thanks for participating!
I think 100 would be good. I've got 2 seeds that I'd like to try once TU14 hits. Each has 5 villages, so 20 villagers apiece should get some good trades going.
I never cared for villagers.
I have a good 100+ in my Superflat village thanks to a previous bug, which is highly amusing and noisy.
Other than that, I think that it's fine where it is.
Yeah, I think I agree with Phoenix on this one. I understand the reasons for people wanting more, but I don't like things being too easy to source. For me, greater struggle equals greater rewards. When a resource is limited, it makes you think more inventively and be more efficient with what you have. I have just been playing around with iron farms and whilst I learnt a lot from it, I prefer doing things in a more conventional way. High yield, maximum efficiency contraptions are very clever but I play minecraft in the way in which I would like the real world to be, ie. back to basics. get rid of factories and mass production and everyone be self sufficient, using what you need and leaving things alone that you don't need. That's just me though. I think it would be cool if there was a mod or mode which meant that things weren't necessarily renewable. For instance, if you over-farm an area, you would need to fertilise the land again. Or something along those lines. The harder the game is, the more I enjoy it. I would make breeding animals a more difficult and slower process and make villagers more picky about the houses they live in. I don't like seeing them in slums 5x5blocks with 8 doors. I would make it maximum four per house and it must be furnished with carpet and a small garden!
Yeah man it's kinda cruel seeing the 200+ villagers crammed in a 3x2 space in my PC world!!
But I like your idea of how Minecraft should be "real world". I believe in freedom and Minecraft gives you just that. Even if we had no villager limit and those people that like to automate everything were satisfied, that wouldn't stop you from doing what you do.... playing Minecraft your way. That's what I love about this game. What ever you want to do..... you can do it!
Due to the capabilitys of the Xbox I do not think it should be raised at all. If we had infinate worlds that I hear about on the PC version then I could understand.
If villager trading is to be introduced then I would suggest increasing the limit to 100. I do not think there should be a big focus on villager trading so I think 5 villages is sufficent with 3 villagers per house.
The 360 is quite capable of handling more then 250 villagers. I know this for fact as one of my previous worlds went into an infinite breeding state and produced more then 250, with 4 players on the map it wasn't that laggy, and this does not even count for the number of iron golems that were floating around as well.
You may not care now but when we start getting hoppers and you need an anvil every time your turn around you might just wish you had a few spare villagers to setup an iron golem farm. Many will say I'll just cave for it, but iron will eventually run out, once hoppers land you will start chewing through it like there is no tomorrow.
Personally I don't like anything being capped, its not this way on the PC, in fact if your dumb enough on the PC to create an infinate breeding cell for villagers with no way to shut it down then thats just your tuff luck, your world will be screwed. Its the same way with mob systems, if you create a spawner that's not managed correctly and it gets too many mobs to lag your world then you have to switch to peaceful just to get a despawn to occur, in fact this is quite common on the PC.
However I understand the need for capping because we all play with friends that we just can't trust right? Truth is regulation in any form is bad, hell why not limit the number of repeaters and pistons after all these things cause lag right, and we shouldn't be able to have more then 10 hoppers because of lag right, and while we are at it lets limit us to 10 chests because chests cause lag right. Anyhow you get the point.
Just my two cents worth.
As for trading its a HUGE part of the game, if you don't wanna use it then don't that's your prerogative but don't belittle it because others want to enjoy it their way. I certainly won't look down on you because your not using the trade system.
The 360 is quite capable of handling more then 250 villagers....
What Cire360 said...
Anyway... I've been thinking of a way to increase MOB caps on the 360 from a programming standpoint to allow for more MOB's in the game without causing additional strain on processing resources.
I believe that as it stands right now, MOB action is updated each game tick, which is 20 ticks per second or a duration of about 1/20 of a second per game tick.
If MOBs were queued into the shortest available of 4 MOB management queues (numbered 0-3), then each tick could be similarly sequentially numbered 0-3 and only update new MOB actions for that queue designation. This would mean that MOB action only updates every 1/5 of a second instead of every 1/20 of a second, but players wouldn't notice very much difference in MOB behavior at those rates.
It would allow the game to manage many more MOB's (passive/neutral/aquatic/ambient/aggressive/villager) without adding much to lag to the game.
(Alternatively, the queues and ticks could be setup to execute for 0-7 which would update on every 2/5 of a second instead).
This memory management philosophy could extend to block updates as well and it might even help to reduce or eliminate some of the redstone glitches we are seeing on the XBox 360.
The limit has to be raised. My towns are ghost towns.
They just need to fix the issue where every villager tries to cram into the same house at night. Just say one villager per door or something like that can enter the house at night. If the house is full, it moves on to the next one.
Plus they have to fix the issues of full villages becoming ghost towns by themselves. As soon as I build anywhere near a village, in a few days there are no villagers left.
Due to the capabilitys of the Xbox I do not think it should be raised at all. If we had infinate worlds that I hear about on the PC version then I could understand.
If villager trading is to be introduced then I would suggest increasing the limit to 100. I do not think there should be a big focus on villager trading so I think 5 villages is sufficent with 3 villagers per house.
I'm not going to repeat some of the good points previous posters have raised.. Although I do think xbox can handle 200 villagers.. I have a map generated in TU12 that has a village with about 70 or so villagers. I'm pretty sure it was there was close to 100, but it seems I forgot to properly light one house and a zombie must have spawned in there. And this is not counting the villagers in my iron golem farm and the two other smaller villages.
One thing I am going to raise is that your math is a bit flawed, or at least not thought out well. Ok.. you have 3 villagers per house..(Good luck telling the villager AI this..) and five villages? With the current cap of 50, which you state should not be changed, you have 16.6 houses for these guys.. Sooo... These 5 villages have about 3.33 houses each. Not exactly a village anymore is it?
The limit has to be raised. My towns are ghost towns.
They just need to fix the issue where every villager tries to cram into the same house at night. Just say one villager per door or something like that can enter the house at night. If the house is full, it moves on to the next one.
Plus they have to fix the issues of full villages becoming ghost towns by themselves. As soon as I build anywhere near a village, in a few days there are no villagers left.
It sucks when zombies eat all the villagers in a location.
I think the problem here is the villager AI.. We are a bit far off from getting it updated if we go by PC updates. Currently they do need player intervention to survive if you play on Hard..(I mean who doesn't? Sheesh.. Minecraft is easy enough as it is. ) If I come across a village I try to 'secure' it before I move on.. Simply place one or two torches inside each house to prevent an unlucky zombie spawn, and wait until night and block all the villagers in the houses. Harsh I know.. but unless you fence off and light up the whole village they don't have much of a chance. The villager AI seems to be very simple when it concerns surviving. Go inside at night.
Assigning them to a particular house or putting a limit on how many can be in one house would lessen their chances of survival even further. If a house is full a villager moves on to another that may be just far enough way to get him killed. They also wander around a bit, so by the time night comes.. The poor villagers are in a rat race to find a free house. (Only a matter of time before they turn on each other..)
Everyone plays Minecraft differently.. It's the nature of the game. I think to accommodate most playstyles I feel it's a good idea to raise or even better, remove the cap. TU12 showed that the Xbox can handle more villagers. I also can understand that 4J wanted to limit the problems that TU12 faced with out of control breeding...BUT... Village mechanics should inherently handle this problem. You have so many doors, and you have a certain amount of potential villagers. There are other factors that do limit villager populations, zombies for one.. While a rare map may have a ton of villages, most have one or two. I never understood why people think more is better in this case. Do you really want a map dominated by two biomes?(Desert and plains.)
Lastly... I really feel that The Player, meaning you or me, needs to take some responsibility in regards to villager populations. If there are no ingame bugs, or glitches causing an explosion of villagers then it really should be up to the player to manage his or her game. You should be able to reap the benefits or consequences of large villager populations. If you have the know how to create an infinite breeding cell, you should be able make sure it doesn't get out of control. If it does... well.. You're responsible. Own it. Stop expecting 4J to manage every aspect of your game. You're playing minecraft, it's your world. Don't cry if you blow it up all on your own.
Despite what many people think, 4J is listening to the community. Personally.. I want lots of villagers and slow minecarts but that's just me.. Who makes rollercoasters 24/7 anyways? I mean.. Really.. Not anyone I know.
If I come across a village I try to 'secure' it before I move on.. Simply place one or two torches inside each house to prevent an unlucky zombie spawn, and wait until night and block all the villagers in the houses. Harsh I know.. but unless you fence off and light up the whole village they don't have much of a chance. The villager AI seems to be very simple when it concerns surviving. Go inside at night.
We do light up every village, inside and out and fence as much as possible off. But they still end up disappearing.
Assigning them to a particular house or putting a limit on how many can be in one house would lessen their chances of survival even further. If a house is full a villager moves on to another that may be just far enough way to get him killed. They also wander around a bit, so by the time night comes.. The poor villagers are in a rat race to find a free house. (Only a matter of time before they turn on each other..)
My suggestion is because the biggest complaint everyone had in TU12 was that the racket they were making was annoying because all villagers tried to cram into one or two houses and then the door kept opening and closing. So then in TU13 they added an unecessary cap. The cap just reduced the population but didn't reall address the problem. Raise the cap limit, but just change it so that only so many can go into each house. Then nobody will complain about the racket.
Everyone plays Minecraft differently.. It's the nature of the game. I think to accommodate most playstyles I feel it's a good idea to raise or even better, remove the cap. TU12 showed that the Xbox can handle more villagers. I also can understand that 4J wanted to limit the problems that TU12 faced with out of control breeding...BUT... Village mechanics should inherently handle this problem. You have so many doors, and you have a certain amount of potential villagers. There are other factors that do limit villager populations, zombies for one.. While a rare map may have a ton of villages, most have one or two. I never understood why people think more is better in this case. Do you really want a map dominated by two biomes?(Desert and plains.)
Agree. But I think the problem was that the number of doors did NOT control the population in TU12. So instead of fixing the problem by implementing the number of doors affecting villager population, they just reduced the cap instead. Fix the problem. Raise the cap back to unlimited, but it should be controled by the number of doors. People can then decide for themselves how many to add.
Lastly... I really feel that The Player, meaning you or me, needs to take some responsibility in regards to villager populations. If there are no ingame bugs, or glitches causing an explosion of villagers then it really should be up to the player to manage his or her game. You should be able to reap the benefits or consequences of large villager populations. If you have the know how to create an infinite breeding cell, you should be able make sure it doesn't get out of control. If it does... well.. You're responsible. Own it. Stop expecting 4J to manage every aspect of your game. You're playing minecraft, it's your world. Don't cry if you blow it up all on your own.
Also agree. Unfortunately they added the cap instead of fixing the issue to allow players to control the village populations.
Despite what many people think, 4J is listening to the community. Personally.. I want lots of villagers and slow minecarts but that's just me.. Who makes rollercoasters 24/7 anyways? I mean.. Really.. Not anyone I know.
Let's hope they listen. I too want more villagers.
My suggestion is because the biggest complaint everyone had in TU12 was that the racket they were making was annoying because all villagers tried to cram into one or two houses and then the door kept opening and closing. So then in TU13 they added an unecessary cap. The cap just reduced the population but didn't reall address the problem. Raise the cap limit, but just change it so that only so many can go into each house. Then nobody will complain about the racket.
nope - the reason they implemented the cap had very little to do with "the racket." If you go back and read the bug thread, numerous people reported infinite breeding cells resulting in game crashes (despite what Cire claims). They instituted a hard cap to prevent the infinite breeding problem.
The fact is that it's actually pretty easy to accidentally create an infinite breeding cell if your building villages in hilly terrain. Several of my sculpted villages have areas that would devolve into infinite breeding cells, and I know what I'm doing. Since the majority of this audience has not nor will ever consult the wiki, the majority of the audience will never have a clue regarding why infinite cells occur. 4J has to program to its common user, not forumcrafters.
Move the cap limit to 100. That should be enough to satisfy people worried about trading and still prevent game-breaking situations.
nope - the reason they implemented the cap had very little to do with "the racket." If you go back and read the bug thread, numerous people reported infinite breeding cells resulting in game crashes (despite what Cire claims). They instituted a hard cap to prevent the infinite breeding problem.
The fact is that it's actually pretty easy to accidentally create an infinite breeding cell if your building villages in hilly terrain. Several of my sculpted villages have areas that would devolve into infinite breeding cells, and I know what I'm doing. Since the majority of this audience has not nor will ever consult the wiki, the majority of the audience will never have a clue regarding why infinite cells occur. 4J has to program to its common user, not forumcrafters.
Move the cap limit to 100. That should be enough to satisfy people worried about trading and still prevent game-breaking situations.
The only thing I remember people complaining about was the racket. Not the game crashing. We had tons of villagers breeding all over the place with 4 people playing and never had any issues with lags or crashing due to it.
But you are right, I have no interest in reading about infinite breeding cells. If that happens, then it is a bug to be fixed. Villager limit should be based on the number of doors. If there is some way to trick the system into creating an infinite breeding cell, then fine, but it should be a purposeful build, not something that happens when the average person is playing. If it is that easy to accidently build one, then they need to fix that bug.
So capping the limit did NOT fix the issue. It was just a bandaid to limit the real problem. If capping the limit is the only option (which is hard to believe) then they definitely need to raise the cap.
And I do say that the number of villagers that fit into one house should be controlled. I want to see the villagers spread out through a village, not all stay grouped in one corner and then all clamouring to fit into one little house each night.
Plus they still need to fix the ghost town scenario. No way every single villager disappears in the game. Why require that the only way to save any town is to lock villagers into their homes? What is the point of that?
I never said it wouldn't crash if a certain threshold is reached, I said that my village had over 250 villagers and didn't lag or crash. I suspect that those who did have this happen had a much higher number then 250.
Furthermore village mechanics were broken, in early release because it shouldn't be creating a new village that is next to an existing village. In fact if a village is within +-32 blocks its supposed to make the existing village bigger, this is why we ended up having infinite breeding states occurring withing villages.
As was stated I believe that once the village mechanics bug is fixed that we should be allowed to have as many as we want, if we crash our world because we created too many so be it. Do you seriously want 4J to hold our hand and control every feature and set it as they see fit? They don't do this on the PC, and yes I know this isn't the PC, but its still minecraft, and before you state that its not the same minecraft, its damn freaking close. 100 is still not enough, at the very min 150, preferably 200.
Don, the issues you describe could be addressed but would require significant expansion of villager AI to accomplish. Given the degree to which that minecraft already stretches the computing capacity of the xBox's CPU and GPU, such AI would probably lead to even more lag and crashes because the resources necessary to support it would increase geometrically with each additional villager.
For example - the crowding problem. Right now, villagers AI is programmed to produce behavior that looks like the villagers are interacting. In other words, on balance, when two villagers are near each other, they stay near each other. When night falls each individual seeks the closest door. Because villager day time behavior encourages clumping, you get clumping at night. To "fix" this problem and still retain the realistic day time behavior you would need to implement a system internal to the villager AI which "checks" if a "door" is occupied and, if so, does a search routine for the next closest door. Problem is, that you have to define what "occupied" means and you have to also introduce a fail safe routine for intransitive options, otherwise villagers would get caught in endless loops trying to pick a door. (BTW - what do you think caused the famous "spinning head" glitch with the animal mobs? it was because the mob was caught in a endless loop between which direction to move). Now, imagine what it would do to your CPU if you had 200 villagers stuck in a non-resolvable decision loop.
Cire, the differences you are overlooking are pretty much what cause most of the lag and crash issues. It's not an matter on hand-holding - it's a matter of engineering to the specs of the box running the program.
Villager AI desperately needs some help. In my current seed, a village was created right on top of a shallow cave system. This resulted in no less than 3 cave openings within wandering distance of the village (one was a canyon, for Pete's sake!). So within a short amount of time every single villager had wandered down into the cave system, unable to find their way out. Instant Ghost Town. The only upside is that this seems to have also resulted in a mass extinction. Populations in my other 2 villages suddenly swelled.
Don, the issues you describe could be addressed but would require significant expansion of villager AI to accomplish. Given the degree to which that minecraft already stretches the computing capacity of the xBox's CPU and GPU, such AI would probably lead to even more lag and crashes because the resources necessary to support it would increase geometrically with each additional villager.
For example - the crowding problem. Right now, villagers AI is programmed to produce behavior that looks like the villagers are interacting. In other words, on balance, when two villagers are near each other, they stay near each other. When night falls each individual seeks the closest door. Because villager day time behavior encourages clumping, you get clumping at night. To "fix" this problem and still retain the realistic day time behavior you would need to implement a system internal to the villager AI which "checks" if a "door" is occupied and, if so, does a search routine for the next closest door. Problem is, that you have to define what "occupied" means and you have to also introduce a fail safe routine for intransitive options, otherwise villagers would get caught in endless loops trying to pick a door. (BTW - what do you think caused the famous "spinning head" glitch with the animal mobs? it was because the mob was caught in a endless loop between which direction to move). Now, imagine what it would do to your CPU if you had 200 villagers stuck in a non-resolvable decision loop.
Cire, the differences you are overlooking are pretty much what cause most of the lag and crash issues. It's not an matter on hand-holding - it's a matter of engineering to the specs of the box running the program.
Fair enough. But there has to be a workable solution.
Day time interactions are fine, but why not have them interact only if their is an available villager to interact with. If not, move on. Why do they all need to clump. Just interact with one villager. Then they move in their random direction for x amount of time before a new interaction is sought. That would keep them moving and spread out.
There must be something that works and is not memory intensive.
Villager AI desperately needs some help. In my current seed, a village was created right on top of a shallow cave system. This resulted in no less than 3 cave openings within wandering distance of the village (one was a canyon, for Pete's sake!). So within a short amount of time every single villager had wandered down into the cave system, unable to find their way out. Instant Ghost Town. The only upside is that this seems to have also resulted in a mass extinction. Populations in my other 2 villages suddenly swelled.
I always wonder if that is what is happening in our towns as well. I always expect to find some huge villager party in the bottom of a cave somewhere.
Such a pain to have to minecart in some fresh breeding stock once it becomes a ghost town. We have 6 natural villages in our world and most are ghost towns except one that we have the town completely fenced off and the other a town we don't go to.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I am curious to see what you all think about where the villager cap should go! Feel free to take the poll or/and add your thoughts to the thread. Thanks for participating!
I have a good 100+ in my Superflat village thanks to a previous bug, which is highly amusing and noisy.
Other than that, I think that it's fine where it is.
Stay fluffy~
But I like your idea of how Minecraft should be "real world". I believe in freedom and Minecraft gives you just that. Even if we had no villager limit and those people that like to automate everything were satisfied, that wouldn't stop you from doing what you do.... playing Minecraft your way. That's what I love about this game. What ever you want to do..... you can do it!
The 360 is quite capable of handling more then 250 villagers. I know this for fact as one of my previous worlds went into an infinite breeding state and produced more then 250, with 4 players on the map it wasn't that laggy, and this does not even count for the number of iron golems that were floating around as well.
You may not care now but when we start getting hoppers and you need an anvil every time your turn around you might just wish you had a few spare villagers to setup an iron golem farm. Many will say I'll just cave for it, but iron will eventually run out, once hoppers land you will start chewing through it like there is no tomorrow.
Personally I don't like anything being capped, its not this way on the PC, in fact if your dumb enough on the PC to create an infinate breeding cell for villagers with no way to shut it down then thats just your tuff luck, your world will be screwed. Its the same way with mob systems, if you create a spawner that's not managed correctly and it gets too many mobs to lag your world then you have to switch to peaceful just to get a despawn to occur, in fact this is quite common on the PC.
However I understand the need for capping because we all play with friends that we just can't trust right? Truth is regulation in any form is bad, hell why not limit the number of repeaters and pistons after all these things cause lag right, and we shouldn't be able to have more then 10 hoppers because of lag right, and while we are at it lets limit us to 10 chests because chests cause lag right. Anyhow you get the point.
Just my two cents worth.
As for trading its a HUGE part of the game, if you don't wanna use it then don't that's your prerogative but don't belittle it because others want to enjoy it their way. I certainly won't look down on you because your not using the trade system.
What Cire360 said...
Anyway... I've been thinking of a way to increase MOB caps on the 360 from a programming standpoint to allow for more MOB's in the game without causing additional strain on processing resources.
I believe that as it stands right now, MOB action is updated each game tick, which is 20 ticks per second or a duration of about 1/20 of a second per game tick.
If MOBs were queued into the shortest available of 4 MOB management queues (numbered 0-3), then each tick could be similarly sequentially numbered 0-3 and only update new MOB actions for that queue designation. This would mean that MOB action only updates every 1/5 of a second instead of every 1/20 of a second, but players wouldn't notice very much difference in MOB behavior at those rates.
It would allow the game to manage many more MOB's (passive/neutral/aquatic/ambient/aggressive/villager) without adding much to lag to the game.
(Alternatively, the queues and ticks could be setup to execute for 0-7 which would update on every 2/5 of a second instead).
This memory management philosophy could extend to block updates as well and it might even help to reduce or eliminate some of the redstone glitches we are seeing on the XBox 360.
don't click this link...
They just need to fix the issue where every villager tries to cram into the same house at night. Just say one villager per door or something like that can enter the house at night. If the house is full, it moves on to the next one.
Plus they have to fix the issues of full villages becoming ghost towns by themselves. As soon as I build anywhere near a village, in a few days there are no villagers left.
I'm not going to repeat some of the good points previous posters have raised.. Although I do think xbox can handle 200 villagers.. I have a map generated in TU12 that has a village with about 70 or so villagers. I'm pretty sure it was there was close to 100, but it seems I forgot to properly light one house and a zombie must have spawned in there. And this is not counting the villagers in my iron golem farm and the two other smaller villages.
One thing I am going to raise is that your math is a bit flawed, or at least not thought out well. Ok.. you have 3 villagers per house..(Good luck telling the villager AI this..) and five villages? With the current cap of 50, which you state should not be changed, you have 16.6 houses for these guys.. Sooo... These 5 villages have about 3.33 houses each. Not exactly a village anymore is it?
It sucks when zombies eat all the villagers in a location.
I think the problem here is the villager AI.. We are a bit far off from getting it updated if we go by PC updates. Currently they do need player intervention to survive if you play on Hard..(I mean who doesn't? Sheesh.. Minecraft is easy enough as it is.
Assigning them to a particular house or putting a limit on how many can be in one house would lessen their chances of survival even further. If a house is full a villager moves on to another that may be just far enough way to get him killed. They also wander around a bit, so by the time night comes.. The poor villagers are in a rat race to find a free house. (Only a matter of time before they turn on each other..)
Everyone plays Minecraft differently.. It's the nature of the game. I think to accommodate most playstyles I feel it's a good idea to raise or even better, remove the cap. TU12 showed that the Xbox can handle more villagers. I also can understand that 4J wanted to limit the problems that TU12 faced with out of control breeding...BUT... Village mechanics should inherently handle this problem. You have so many doors, and you have a certain amount of potential villagers. There are other factors that do limit villager populations, zombies for one.. While a rare map may have a ton of villages, most have one or two. I never understood why people think more is better in this case. Do you really want a map dominated by two biomes?(Desert and plains.)
Lastly... I really feel that The Player, meaning you or me, needs to take some responsibility in regards to villager populations. If there are no ingame bugs, or glitches causing an explosion of villagers then it really should be up to the player to manage his or her game. You should be able to reap the benefits or consequences of large villager populations. If you have the know how to create an infinite breeding cell, you should be able make sure it doesn't get out of control. If it does... well.. You're responsible. Own it. Stop expecting 4J to manage every aspect of your game. You're playing minecraft, it's your world. Don't cry if you blow it up all on your own.
Despite what many people think, 4J is listening to the community. Personally.. I want lots of villagers and slow minecarts but that's just me.. Who makes rollercoasters 24/7 anyways? I mean.. Really.. Not anyone I know.
We do light up every village, inside and out and fence as much as possible off. But they still end up disappearing.
My suggestion is because the biggest complaint everyone had in TU12 was that the racket they were making was annoying because all villagers tried to cram into one or two houses and then the door kept opening and closing. So then in TU13 they added an unecessary cap. The cap just reduced the population but didn't reall address the problem. Raise the cap limit, but just change it so that only so many can go into each house. Then nobody will complain about the racket.
Agree. But I think the problem was that the number of doors did NOT control the population in TU12. So instead of fixing the problem by implementing the number of doors affecting villager population, they just reduced the cap instead. Fix the problem. Raise the cap back to unlimited, but it should be controled by the number of doors. People can then decide for themselves how many to add.
Also agree. Unfortunately they added the cap instead of fixing the issue to allow players to control the village populations.
Let's hope they listen. I too want more villagers.
nope - the reason they implemented the cap had very little to do with "the racket." If you go back and read the bug thread, numerous people reported infinite breeding cells resulting in game crashes (despite what Cire claims). They instituted a hard cap to prevent the infinite breeding problem.
The fact is that it's actually pretty easy to accidentally create an infinite breeding cell if your building villages in hilly terrain. Several of my sculpted villages have areas that would devolve into infinite breeding cells, and I know what I'm doing. Since the majority of this audience has not nor will ever consult the wiki, the majority of the audience will never have a clue regarding why infinite cells occur. 4J has to program to its common user, not forumcrafters.
Move the cap limit to 100. That should be enough to satisfy people worried about trading and still prevent game-breaking situations.
The only thing I remember people complaining about was the racket. Not the game crashing. We had tons of villagers breeding all over the place with 4 people playing and never had any issues with lags or crashing due to it.
But you are right, I have no interest in reading about infinite breeding cells. If that happens, then it is a bug to be fixed. Villager limit should be based on the number of doors. If there is some way to trick the system into creating an infinite breeding cell, then fine, but it should be a purposeful build, not something that happens when the average person is playing. If it is that easy to accidently build one, then they need to fix that bug.
So capping the limit did NOT fix the issue. It was just a bandaid to limit the real problem. If capping the limit is the only option (which is hard to believe) then they definitely need to raise the cap.
And I do say that the number of villagers that fit into one house should be controlled. I want to see the villagers spread out through a village, not all stay grouped in one corner and then all clamouring to fit into one little house each night.
Plus they still need to fix the ghost town scenario. No way every single villager disappears in the game. Why require that the only way to save any town is to lock villagers into their homes? What is the point of that?
Furthermore village mechanics were broken, in early release because it shouldn't be creating a new village that is next to an existing village. In fact if a village is within +-32 blocks its supposed to make the existing village bigger, this is why we ended up having infinite breeding states occurring withing villages.
As was stated I believe that once the village mechanics bug is fixed that we should be allowed to have as many as we want, if we crash our world because we created too many so be it. Do you seriously want 4J to hold our hand and control every feature and set it as they see fit? They don't do this on the PC, and yes I know this isn't the PC, but its still minecraft, and before you state that its not the same minecraft, its damn freaking close. 100 is still not enough, at the very min 150, preferably 200.
For example - the crowding problem. Right now, villagers AI is programmed to produce behavior that looks like the villagers are interacting. In other words, on balance, when two villagers are near each other, they stay near each other. When night falls each individual seeks the closest door. Because villager day time behavior encourages clumping, you get clumping at night. To "fix" this problem and still retain the realistic day time behavior you would need to implement a system internal to the villager AI which "checks" if a "door" is occupied and, if so, does a search routine for the next closest door. Problem is, that you have to define what "occupied" means and you have to also introduce a fail safe routine for intransitive options, otherwise villagers would get caught in endless loops trying to pick a door. (BTW - what do you think caused the famous "spinning head" glitch with the animal mobs? it was because the mob was caught in a endless loop between which direction to move). Now, imagine what it would do to your CPU if you had 200 villagers stuck in a non-resolvable decision loop.
Cire, the differences you are overlooking are pretty much what cause most of the lag and crash issues. It's not an matter on hand-holding - it's a matter of engineering to the specs of the box running the program.
Fair enough. But there has to be a workable solution.
Day time interactions are fine, but why not have them interact only if their is an available villager to interact with. If not, move on. Why do they all need to clump. Just interact with one villager. Then they move in their random direction for x amount of time before a new interaction is sought. That would keep them moving and spread out.
There must be something that works and is not memory intensive.
"This is Sparta!"
I always wonder if that is what is happening in our towns as well. I always expect to find some huge villager party in the bottom of a cave somewhere.
Such a pain to have to minecart in some fresh breeding stock once it becomes a ghost town. We have 6 natural villages in our world and most are ghost towns except one that we have the town completely fenced off and the other a town we don't go to.