Like UpUp said, this has been suggested in several different forms over the past few years. The one I remember is the "Harbor/Port" : a unique block that would allow you to select from your other worlds and load it with whatever inventory you happened to have at the time. IIRC, the game would have prompted you with a message warning that any items in the target world's inventory would be irrevocably erased. It was called the Harbor because you would conceivably place it at the edge of your world and take an imaginary boat to your new world. Technically, though, the block would have worked from anywhere.
I don't remember how UpUp's "backpack" was supposed to work, but I'm guessing it would have been an item who's inventory would be saved as a seperate file and a checkbox option would appear before loading a world that would allow a one-time use of "bringing" the backpack into a world. Is that about right?
Personally, I don't think the Devs should waste their time on trying to link worlds. I'm much more in favor of having them add crafting recipes for those "rare" blocks and adding the other items, such as seeds, as villager trades.
Like UpUp said, this has been suggested in several different forms over the past few years. The one I remember is the "Harbor/Port" : a unique block that would allow you to select from your other worlds and load it with whatever inventory you happened to have at the time. IIRC, the game would have prompted you with a message warning that any items in the target world's inventory would be irrevocably erased. It was called the Harbor because you would conceivably place it at the edge of your world and take an imaginary boat to your new world. Technically, though, the block would have worked from anywhere.
I don't remember how UpUp's "backpack" was supposed to work, but I'm guessing it would have been an item who's inventory would be saved as a seperate file and a checkbox option would appear before loading a world that would allow a one-time use of "bringing" the backpack into a world. Is that about right?
Personally, I don't think the Devs should waste their time on trying to link worlds. I'm much more in favor of having them add crafting recipes for those "rare" blocks and adding the other items, such as seeds, as villager trades.
Yeah, basically the backpack idea was a way to allow the player to separate out items they wanted to transfer and ones they didn't. In Terraria, the player has no choice... they bring their last saved inventory into whatever world they load up. They can't select to bring a specific inventory from X world specifically into Y world only. I see this as being a big issue for those players who play with different groups in different worlds and want to keep those games separated. The issue gets complicated further for those player who play in differently themed survival games and also in different creative games. If the Terraria model of inventories moving between worlds is implemented, the player would still have no choice in the matter... the inventory would transfer regardless of where it came from and what it's purpose was (e.g. was it last selected just to do a specific sort of build in a creative world?).
I agree, adding recipes and trades is a simpler way to make every block accessible in every world... and probably the preferred method. However, that still poses a problem to those who'd like to limit certain blocks in certain worlds.
The backpack could also be used as a means for the host to still be able to intentionally exclude blocks from some worlds in order to allow for survival worlds/challenges themed on singular biomes. If a "backpack" idea were implemented, there could also be a world option or host option to disable the backpack entirely for that world (and that option could be implemented to not affect the survival status of the world). Combined with an ability to select biomes upon world creation, it would greatly facilitate this ability to "design" these sorts of survival challenges (like survival island, tundra survival, etc.) It would at least give a host the ability to say "no" to a joining plaoyer... "You're not bringing an inventory from somewhere else into my world."
Restricting the existence of that second "backpack" inventory to worlds loaded in survival only would also at least ensure that the materials being carried across were at least acquired by methods used in survival status worlds (e.g. the player would have to use a pickaxe to mine them). The "one-time only" feature I originally proposed, would basically just up the "cost" using the backpack, since that would mean a new backpack would have to be crafted for each transfer. It would, however, also help to prevent "accidental" unintended transfers between two different survival worlds.
The bottom line is that I don't really see a way to link different worlds that doesn't potentially create a dog's breakfast for player's dropping in and dropping out at different times and in different parts of the world(s) with different inventories from different worlds... some that the players want to carry over and some that they probably would not want to carry over. For that purpose, the "infinite" world is, I believe, the best solution... BUT, as we all know, for various reasons (not the least of which is file size), the Xbox 360 is just never likely going to see that sort of change in Minecraft.
IIRC, Terraria only transfers inventory for the "profile" in question (game profile, not Xbox gamertag). In other words, if the user selects "New Game" and creates a new profile/player character the game creates a separate inventory for that profile. The user can therefore have multiple profiles, each with their own collection of worlds.
Something similar could conceivably be done for console MC. Addressing the issue you brought up, Leaderboards and Achievements would be locked for the entire profile if just one of the worlds was switched to Creative. The other Profiles and their subsequent worlds would be unaffected. The only other issue I see there, though, would be the micro-management of your inventory; the user would need to make sure they "put away" any items they don't want to bring to a different world. Personally speaking, that inconvenience would quickly escalate to a grating hassle.
I'm just playing the Devil's advocate here since I still think any inter-world item transference is entirely unnecessary and the "long way around" to solving the real issue at hand, which is ultimately having restricted access to all available blocks/items. Case and point: I've scouted perhaps 100 worlds since TU31 and have yet to find any with an Ice Spike biome.
IIRC, Terraria only transfers inventory for the "profile" in question (game profile, not Xbox gamertag). In other words, if the user selects "New Game" and creates a new profile/player character the game creates a separate inventory for that profile. The user can therefore have multiple profiles, each with their own collection of worlds.
Something similar could conceivably be done for console MC. Addressing the issue you brought up, Leaderboards and Achievements would be locked for the entire profile if just one of the worlds was switched to Creative. The other Profiles and their subsequent worlds would be unaffected. The only other issue I see there, though, would be the micro-management of your inventory; the user would need to make sure they "put away" any items they don't want to bring to a different world. Personally speaking, that inconvenience would quickly escalate to a grating hassle.
I'm just playing the Devil's advocate here since I still think any inter-world item transference is entirely unnecessary and the "long way around" to solving the real issue at hand, which is ultimately having restricted access to all available blocks/items. Case and point: I've scouted perhaps 100 worlds since TU31 and have yet to find any with an Ice Spike biome.
The thing is that the leaderboards are currently attached to the Gamertag (Live Gold profile). Offline local profiles may accumulate them someplace in case the profile is Live enabled later, but right now they certainly don't have any access to viewing any stats, so I can't say for sure whether they are being accumulated or not. I can't say anything about how Terraria handles leaderboards... I've only played Terraria offline and only ever with one profile... multiple worlds, but only one profile. As for the micro-managing aspect, I say too that it would be a grating hassle... not only from the aspect of putting away items... but I could easily see someone wiping out a treasured diamond enchanted pickaxe obtained in survival by accidentally wiping their hotbar using X in creative... carrying the main inventory between worlds is really just a recipe for confusion and accidents, IMO.
I dislike the crafting option, as it would make it possible to craft stuff in the safety of your base without exploring the world or putting in the work of finding it. This could only work if the resources required for crafting were prohibitively expensive. Travel to other saves would be unnecessarily complex, and likely require a rewriting of a good deal of code.
An idea I like better is an alternate realm. Today we have the overworld, the nether, and the end. Reaching them requires a bit of work, surviving there takes more, and establishing safe and free travel between them takes more still. Our nether is tiny, small enough that there is a chance that our game won't include some pretty important stuff like netherwort and blaze spawners. To get around this, they've given us the ability to reset the nether, which generates a whole new (different) nether realm. What if we had something similar, but spawning a new, smaller overworld? Here's how I think this could work:
Constructing a portal requires 14 diamond blocks. It'll take you a lot longer to collect those than getting enough obsidian to reach the nether, so we're not talking about a realm you could go visit and reset countless times right at the start in order to give yourself a head start. It should be a place you visit later in the game, either because you're exhausting supplies of non-renewable resources or because you want to try to find something your world lacks. If going there is too cheap then you could pop over early on and possibly have access to materials that you should have to work to find. You don't have to cross 2000 blocks of previously explored terrain to reach new areas to explore, but do have to construct a fairly expensive portal, which seems like a reasonable trade to me.
Mobs caps would be smaller in the alternate realm, but could include anything that spawns in the normal overworld. You might be able to go find your ocelots, or maybe a few villagers if you end up on a world without them. But mobs can only move between the realms if the destination is below the appropriate cap. No getting 100s of villagers in your main world.
Once the portal is activated, the diamond blocks become portal blocks, which drop nothing when mined. The alternate realm can be reset and will generate a new random realm, but you can only have one portal to the alternate realm, and it is destroyed when the realm is reset. If resetting is cheap, then there's nothing to stop you just resetting over and over until you find exactly what you are after sitting right at the portal. There should still be work involved with exploring to find what you're after, and figuring out how to get it all back home.
This would allow you to search for biomes your world lacks, including all of the mobs and materials that occur only in those biomes, but would still involve the same level of effort (well, similar anyway) it would take to find those things on a theoretically infinite world. It would accomplish this while keeping everything within a single save, and without bloating that save with data any more than the nether does. It's a solution that seems to work well to solve the small nether problem, seems like it could work for the small overworld problem too.
I'd rather a much more fitting way of doing it: Putting all the renewable resources in the starter chest. Missing melons? Starter chest. Missing anything that can be renewed somehow? The stuffs in the chest. Start a farm for it. In my current world there are no jungles but I did get lucky with my starter chest and get four jungle saplings. Granted this doesn't solve some issues. "What if I want prismarine?" (Although I got lucky and managed to get a momument) Well I suppose guardians should spawn in large spans of water.
Granted it doesn't change the fact that there are non-renewable resource that we are limited to, such as sponges for example. And I do believe those should be tradeable.
I'm sorry, but just giving players all the renewable resources their map might be missing right at the start seems like the worst way to go about fixing the problem.
Guardians spawn only in a very specific place. It's one of the things that makes ocean monuments special. Having them spawn everywhere defeats the purpose of finding and conquering a monument. Yes, there are sponges in there, but really how often do you use sponges except when you're draining a monument?
Why implement villager trades for non renewables bit not for renewable resources? That turns it into two partial solutions rather than one complete solution. Not to mention that starting out is the most dangerous time, and when you're most likely to lose your stuff.
I like this idea, but I think this could work fine in a different way. Right now, the console is able to have 3 realms loaded at once, the overworld, the nether, and the end. Perhaps it could have more, but have the realms be a continuation of the world. when you approach the edge of the map, the wall sort-of glows, and you will be transported to the relative position by the wall in the new realm. There might need to be a limit to how many can load at once. But the highest the limit to different realms could be would be 8(8 players in different realms).
Like UpUp said, this has been suggested in several different forms over the past few years. The one I remember is the "Harbor/Port" : a unique block that would allow you to select from your other worlds and load it with whatever inventory you happened to have at the time. IIRC, the game would have prompted you with a message warning that any items in the target world's inventory would be irrevocably erased. It was called the Harbor because you would conceivably place it at the edge of your world and take an imaginary boat to your new world. Technically, though, the block would have worked from anywhere.
I don't remember how UpUp's "backpack" was supposed to work, but I'm guessing it would have been an item who's inventory would be saved as a seperate file and a checkbox option would appear before loading a world that would allow a one-time use of "bringing" the backpack into a world. Is that about right?
Personally, I don't think the Devs should waste their time on trying to link worlds. I'm much more in favor of having them add crafting recipes for those "rare" blocks and adding the other items, such as seeds, as villager trades.
Yeah, basically the backpack idea was a way to allow the player to separate out items they wanted to transfer and ones they didn't. In Terraria, the player has no choice... they bring their last saved inventory into whatever world they load up. They can't select to bring a specific inventory from X world specifically into Y world only. I see this as being a big issue for those players who play with different groups in different worlds and want to keep those games separated. The issue gets complicated further for those player who play in differently themed survival games and also in different creative games. If the Terraria model of inventories moving between worlds is implemented, the player would still have no choice in the matter... the inventory would transfer regardless of where it came from and what it's purpose was (e.g. was it last selected just to do a specific sort of build in a creative world?).
I agree, adding recipes and trades is a simpler way to make every block accessible in every world... and probably the preferred method. However, that still poses a problem to those who'd like to limit certain blocks in certain worlds.
The backpack could also be used as a means for the host to still be able to intentionally exclude blocks from some worlds in order to allow for survival worlds/challenges themed on singular biomes. If a "backpack" idea were implemented, there could also be a world option or host option to disable the backpack entirely for that world (and that option could be implemented to not affect the survival status of the world). Combined with an ability to select biomes upon world creation, it would greatly facilitate this ability to "design" these sorts of survival challenges (like survival island, tundra survival, etc.) It would at least give a host the ability to say "no" to a joining plaoyer... "You're not bringing an inventory from somewhere else into my world."
Restricting the existence of that second "backpack" inventory to worlds loaded in survival only would also at least ensure that the materials being carried across were at least acquired by methods used in survival status worlds (e.g. the player would have to use a pickaxe to mine them). The "one-time only" feature I originally proposed, would basically just up the "cost" using the backpack, since that would mean a new backpack would have to be crafted for each transfer. It would, however, also help to prevent "accidental" unintended transfers between two different survival worlds.
The bottom line is that I don't really see a way to link different worlds that doesn't potentially create a dog's breakfast for player's dropping in and dropping out at different times and in different parts of the world(s) with different inventories from different worlds... some that the players want to carry over and some that they probably would not want to carry over. For that purpose, the "infinite" world is, I believe, the best solution... BUT, as we all know, for various reasons (not the least of which is file size), the Xbox 360 is just never likely going to see that sort of change in Minecraft.
IIRC, Terraria only transfers inventory for the "profile" in question (game profile, not Xbox gamertag). In other words, if the user selects "New Game" and creates a new profile/player character the game creates a separate inventory for that profile. The user can therefore have multiple profiles, each with their own collection of worlds.
Something similar could conceivably be done for console MC. Addressing the issue you brought up, Leaderboards and Achievements would be locked for the entire profile if just one of the worlds was switched to Creative. The other Profiles and their subsequent worlds would be unaffected. The only other issue I see there, though, would be the micro-management of your inventory; the user would need to make sure they "put away" any items they don't want to bring to a different world. Personally speaking, that inconvenience would quickly escalate to a grating hassle.
I'm just playing the Devil's advocate here since I still think any inter-world item transference is entirely unnecessary and the "long way around" to solving the real issue at hand, which is ultimately having restricted access to all available blocks/items. Case and point: I've scouted perhaps 100 worlds since TU31 and have yet to find any with an Ice Spike biome.
The thing is that the leaderboards are currently attached to the Gamertag (Live Gold profile). Offline local profiles may accumulate them someplace in case the profile is Live enabled later, but right now they certainly don't have any access to viewing any stats, so I can't say for sure whether they are being accumulated or not. I can't say anything about how Terraria handles leaderboards... I've only played Terraria offline and only ever with one profile... multiple worlds, but only one profile. As for the micro-managing aspect, I say too that it would be a grating hassle... not only from the aspect of putting away items... but I could easily see someone wiping out a treasured diamond enchanted pickaxe obtained in survival by accidentally wiping their hotbar using X in creative... carrying the main inventory between worlds is really just a recipe for confusion and accidents, IMO.
I dislike the crafting option, as it would make it possible to craft stuff in the safety of your base without exploring the world or putting in the work of finding it. This could only work if the resources required for crafting were prohibitively expensive. Travel to other saves would be unnecessarily complex, and likely require a rewriting of a good deal of code.
An idea I like better is an alternate realm. Today we have the overworld, the nether, and the end. Reaching them requires a bit of work, surviving there takes more, and establishing safe and free travel between them takes more still. Our nether is tiny, small enough that there is a chance that our game won't include some pretty important stuff like netherwort and blaze spawners. To get around this, they've given us the ability to reset the nether, which generates a whole new (different) nether realm. What if we had something similar, but spawning a new, smaller overworld? Here's how I think this could work:
Constructing a portal requires 14 diamond blocks. It'll take you a lot longer to collect those than getting enough obsidian to reach the nether, so we're not talking about a realm you could go visit and reset countless times right at the start in order to give yourself a head start. It should be a place you visit later in the game, either because you're exhausting supplies of non-renewable resources or because you want to try to find something your world lacks. If going there is too cheap then you could pop over early on and possibly have access to materials that you should have to work to find. You don't have to cross 2000 blocks of previously explored terrain to reach new areas to explore, but do have to construct a fairly expensive portal, which seems like a reasonable trade to me.
Mobs caps would be smaller in the alternate realm, but could include anything that spawns in the normal overworld. You might be able to go find your ocelots, or maybe a few villagers if you end up on a world without them. But mobs can only move between the realms if the destination is below the appropriate cap. No getting 100s of villagers in your main world.
Once the portal is activated, the diamond blocks become portal blocks, which drop nothing when mined. The alternate realm can be reset and will generate a new random realm, but you can only have one portal to the alternate realm, and it is destroyed when the realm is reset. If resetting is cheap, then there's nothing to stop you just resetting over and over until you find exactly what you are after sitting right at the portal. There should still be work involved with exploring to find what you're after, and figuring out how to get it all back home.
This would allow you to search for biomes your world lacks, including all of the mobs and materials that occur only in those biomes, but would still involve the same level of effort (well, similar anyway) it would take to find those things on a theoretically infinite world. It would accomplish this while keeping everything within a single save, and without bloating that save with data any more than the nether does. It's a solution that seems to work well to solve the small nether problem, seems like it could work for the small overworld problem too.
I'm sorry, but just giving players all the renewable resources their map might be missing right at the start seems like the worst way to go about fixing the problem.
Guardians spawn only in a very specific place. It's one of the things that makes ocean monuments special. Having them spawn everywhere defeats the purpose of finding and conquering a monument. Yes, there are sponges in there, but really how often do you use sponges except when you're draining a monument?
Why implement villager trades for non renewables bit not for renewable resources? That turns it into two partial solutions rather than one complete solution. Not to mention that starting out is the most dangerous time, and when you're most likely to lose your stuff.
I like this idea, but I think this could work fine in a different way. Right now, the console is able to have 3 realms loaded at once, the overworld, the nether, and the end. Perhaps it could have more, but have the realms be a continuation of the world. when you approach the edge of the map, the wall sort-of glows, and you will be transported to the relative position by the wall in the new realm. There might need to be a limit to how many can load at once. But the highest the limit to different realms could be would be 8(8 players in different realms).
Slytherin is greener than Ravenclaw.
Good idea or make it so the biomes change every once in a while? im sure this could cause trouble (mountains randomly spawning on your house etc etc