Personally I will say this much, structures becoming so common in recent versions has made the game feel meaningless in between structures rather than merely empty. The game becomes a dopamine rush of 'where next structure' instead of appreciating the natural world for its beauty.
While having a lot of loot treasure is nice, I do think rarifying most generated structures and even some natural structures would do justice to making the world feel exploratory again and make the untouched spaces feel whole rather than liminal. I want to be in those spaces for themselves, not as a consequence of the structure addiction I've developed.
I sort of agree, I sort of don't. I always disliked when game communities used past precedent as an argument for the way something should stay/be. "The game started as this way, so it's bad now that it's not this same way". But regardless I do agree anyway with the opinion that structures are too common overall.
I don't think the game adding more structures over time was bad, for clarity, and I even think there could be room for more yet. I simply think the ones that are there (and some more than others) are simply too frequent.
Villages and ship wrecks in particular feel way, way too common. Maybe ocean ruins too.
Ancient cities (and probably ocean monuments) are in the strange spot of being uncommon overall due to only spawning in a very limited number of biomes, but are very common in their one biome. This effects ocean monuments more, due to being above ground (and also being so large compared to most other surface structures), but both could be a bit less common and be fine.
Ruined portals could also stand to be less common, but aren't quite as overabundant like villages and ship wrecks feel.
Pillager outposts, desert temples, jungle temples, witch huts, igloos, and desert wells are the ones that I guess seem mostly fine (the latter just seems useless though). One in particular here that I disagree with the video most on is that I like pillager outposts as a place to have illagers instead of just in woodland mansions. And I don't mind the patrols/raids either. Totems of undying being so scarce was never a good thing (then again, I would be fine if these never existed, but they do).
Woodland mansions are the lone one that could stand to be a bit (emphasis on a bit) more common if anything. But they are fine as-is, especially because pillager outposts and illager patrols/raids exist. Larger surface structures especially shouldn't be so common after all.
Underground stuff like dungeons and strongholds feel fine. I wish mineshafts were a bit more rare but I just dislike them. All three of these could stand being remade into something better or more though in my mind.
The nether feels fine though, and the end needs a nether style update (and until then, end cities feel mostly fine given they need to be a renewable enough source for elytra and they also need to be accessible enough before you get it to begin with, which could actually become a problem on servers with large numbers of players). The overworld definitely seems littered with structures though.
I've already openly stated in the "too many structures" thread that I do think there are too many structures in the game. I do agree though that it is more about frequency especially with shipwrecks, ruins, and ocean monumente - and now wqe have trail ruins because of the archeology aspect. I do believe the trail ruins are less common at least though however, to my understanding. I don't buy it being another reason to explore as there were already so much in the game to do that, it doesn't work as an excuse.
There are some that still want more mob bosses, this isn't a 2D platformeer game! If a player finds the game boring or unsatisfying then that's on them to either find a way to make it more interesting for themselves (Mods, redstone, challenges etc) not the game.Which aslo relates to structures. We get more and more astructures yet basic dungfeons still need an overhaul.
So in effect I do agree both with what the video and Princess_Garnet are saying about it being more frequency. Villages, ship wrecks ruins and ocean monuments are way, way to frequent. The more structures they add the more cluttered the world feels.
Like Minecraft forums or interested in my world? Try My message board, it's better moderated because I run it directly and have run Internet message boards for 21+ years! Better software and I have much more control to keep the content more up to date. Free to join, 13 years+.
My main world is old enough that I don't have structures at all apart from dungeons in my primary stomping grounds. As a result I have to travel to find stuff, and the further out I go, the more varied the stuff I find. First there's mineshafts and villages, then a little further out a chance of jungle and desert temples, go even further out and there's ocean monuments, further out still and the mansions, shipwrecks and pillager outposts start appearing. That's an entirely accidental result of having an old world but it also naturally rewards exploration and long term investment.
It's far too late for Mojang to change how they're doing things now but I think that would have been a fantastic way to handle structure generation - make structures very rare in the spawn region, more common the further out you go. Stops spawn being swamped with free loot, encourages exploration (which is clearly something they want players to do), makes gear, consumables and transportation methods more valuable.
I have the opposite opinion on structure frequency - for a playstyle entirely based on exploration I sure don't find them that often - the last time I found a village in my first world was in October 2021; granted I wasn't playing on the world the enure time, only about 5 months, but that's still over 500 hours of playtime without finding a single village. I did find a jungle temple and a witch hut (which are so unremarkable for me that I haven't even kept track of them; I've found a total of 15 villages, 13 jungle temples, and 6 desert temples, an average of one every 87, 100, and 217 play sessions).
Of course, the exact opposite is true for underground structures, with around 350 dungeons and 125 mineshafts found over the same 5 month period (and mineshafts are even more common in vanilla; my first world has about 20% removed from areas of high cave density. Also, I don't even see mineshafts as "structures" but a variant of cave, which are vital for the type of underground interconnectivity I rely on; if you think they are still too common in 1.18, well, they were effectively 5 times more common in 1.6.4 (2.5 times the frequency and half the volume to generate in, ChunkBase indicates that mineshaft locations (x and z) did not change in 1.18).
For another example, I found the following over 1642 hours of playtime spent caving (1744 total) in my last modded world, which makes many structures much more common (in terms of chance per area of their spawn biomes, e.g. villages are twice as likely to generate per chunk, offsetting a reduction in the area their biomes cover as many more were added; strongholds are infinite in number, one every 8192 chunks. Mineshafts are a notable exception, with a bit over half the frequency of vanilla 1.6.4 due to exclusions from both dense cave systems and larger types of caves):
855 normal dungeons (2 intersecting x3, normal+double x1)
205 mineshafts
64 double dungeons (a special type of dungeon with 2 spawners and 2-3 chests)
5 villages (1 Desert, 2 Meadow, 1 Plains, 1 Savanna)
4 desert temples
4 shipwrecks (1 large, 2 medium, 1 small)
4 strongholds (3 found by caving)
4 witch huts
2 desert wells (2 quartz)
2 mesa mineshafts
2 pumpkin houses
2 quartz desert pyramids
1 jungle temple
Notably missing are igloos, of which I found 4 in a previous world over about 2/3 the playtime (I did find one at the edge of generated chunks when looking at the world in a map viewer, as well as a couple other structures; the overall size of the world is about 50000 chunks with about 42000 directly explored).
Also, I actually did exclude strictures from within 512 blocks of the origin in an older version but removed the exclusion in part due to complaints it was too hard to find anything, this contributed in part to only having one modded world where I spawned near a village (as I also happened to in my first world), but I don't see this as a massive help to gameplay progression (mostly just not having to cure a couple zombie villagers, the free food helps but I get a potato (my main food source while caving) within the first few days anyway, and get enough steaks from cows bred for leather to last into the "end-game").
Also notable is the "valuable" loot I found:
58 amethyst horse armor (146 diamond)
16 enchanted golden apples (148 normal)
10 sponges (in shipwrecks and ocean dungeons)
24 Smelting books (most common in double dungeons)
22 Vein Miner books (most common in double dungeons)
16 Swift Sneak books (most common in mineshafts)
14 Long Fall books (most common in mineshafts)
14 Mending books
Some of these may look like a lot but remember that I spent over 1600 hours caving, a number that few players have likely reached in their entire time playing the game, much less in one world (for example, 24 Smelting books is one every 68 hours, or about 18 play sessions; Smelting and Vein Miner are both only obtainable from structure loot and are more common than other books as a result (30 times more likely than any other enchantment in the first chest placed in a double dungeon). Even the total number of golden apples (164) is still one every 10 hours.
Naturally, any of the figures given here only apply to 1.6.4 or my own modded version; however, the Wiki indicates that the "spacing" for "old" structures was never changed from the default of 32 in 1.6.4 (MapGenVillage; MapGenScatteredFeature; this means one attempt at a structure per 32x32 chunk / 512x512 block region, provided the biome at a single randomly chosen location is valid), meaning they have to be rarer overall, but due to changes to biome sizes you are more likely to find them in a given instance, even multiple times. As for newer structures, I note that shipwrecks and ocean ruins are more common, with a spacing of only 20 for ruins, making them 2.56 times more likely than villages or temples, which is probably excessive given the size of oceans (then again, I have shipwrecks generating with a spacing of only 19, but only 1/3 are "large", with a chest, giving them about the same frequency as a spacing of 32).
Isn't your playstyle more "entirely mining underground and only exploring once you've entirely exhausted all caves"? Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but that's not at all what I'd consider the playstyle of an explorer. Like it's technically exploring, I guess... but at an unfathomably slow pace and as a result of something else rather than for its own sake.
And I think you play at a lower render distances too? if so, that serves as a feedback loop of sorts (in making them seem less common). Playing at even a render distance of 16 (let alone above, or whatever Bedrock players play at) will make them seem that much more common.
Not only this but you're not playing the current game. In 1.6, no, something like villages weren't too common (maybe they were a bit too uncommon). Modern versions? So far the other way it's not funny. And that's before all the other stuff that was added. 1.6 doesn't represent structure frequency of the modern game at all.
And I think you play at a lower render distances too? if so, that serves as a feedback loop of sorts (in making them seem less common). Playing at even a render distance of 16 (let alone above, or whatever Bedrock players play at) will make them seem that much more common.
Render distance is irrelevant when you are using in-game maps to see around you, which are fixed at 128 blocks (8 chunks), and besides, can you actually even see that far (when not flying around with elytra)? Maybe in plains, but forests or mountains (if not on a peak)?
Not only this but you're not playing the current game. In 1.6, no, something like villages weren't too common (maybe they were a bit too uncommon). Modern versions? So far the other way it's not funny. And that's before all the other stuff that was added. 1.6 doesn't represent structure frequency of the modern game at all.
Except if the Wiki is right they still have the same underlying frequency as they always had; spacing = 32, separation = 8, and with so many new biomes added in 1.7 there surely ought to be less space for them to generate in, unless most of the world is the same few biomes.
Case in point; there seem to be quite a few villages on this map?
However, the area covered is 3120x1768 blocks; if the entire area was a suitable biome (as with a Superflat world) you'd expect to find an average of 21-22 villages in such an area - the fact there are so many is because so much of the areas is plains (or desert/savanna for "hot" regions). For comparison, I've calculated that the frequency of villages in 1.6.4 averages about one every 5760 chunks, excluding oceans, or about a third as many within the same area.
Interestingly, an analysis somebody made for 1.8 suggests that structures were much rarer back then, much more so than in 1.6.4, even when accounting for oceans; this was within a 16384x16384 block area:
{"biomeSize":4,...}
Chunks 1,048,523
Desert Temples (TeDP) 32 (1 per 32766 chunks)
Jungle Temples (TeJP) 18 (1 per 58251 chunks)
Swamp Huts (TeSH) 29 (1 per 36156 chunks)
Villages 94 (1 per 11155 chunks)
Likewise, when deserts can be this big(!) I'm not surprised there can be so many desert temples in them (the average-sized biome before 1.18 gave them about a 1 in 4 chance of having a structure, even this was exaggerated in 1.7 due to the clumping of the same few biome types per climate zone):
For perspective, the largest single desert (near the bottom-center) in my first world is about 1200 blocks across (this would be multiple individual biomes merged into one), still only 2/3 the width of the desert above and much smaller in overall area, and had a single village and desert temple; most of the smaller deserts have nothing; likewise, I'm not surprised that I haven't found any villages recently given that I've only found a single average sized plains biome (about half the area near the far right center is Extreme Hills, which looks the same. The jungle temple I found was near the bottom center of the map in the southeast corner, which also had another jungle temple and two villages elsewhere):
This map of my last modded world is a better fit in terms of scale as it is about the same width as the examples for 1.18; even with the reduced structure spacing I only found a single biome with more than one of the same structure and it was particularly large (a "quartz desert", to the left of center, which had two "quartz desert pyramids", which have a spacing of 14, or 5.2 times the areal frequency of a spacing of 32, prior to factoring in biome frequencies and a terrain-dependent failure rate, which gives an average of one per 42000 chunks, so even two is more than the average for the entire area I explored):
Render distance is irrelevant when you are using in-game maps to see around you, which are fixed at 128 blocks (8 chunks), and besides, can you actually even see that far (when not flying around with elytra)? Maybe in plains, but forests or mountains (if not on a peak)?
What maps are limited to seeing isn't the only criteria that matters to all players though. If your exploration is solely for charting maps, then maybe that's good enough for you. But that doesn't mean higher values bring no change in impact.
Render distance is anything but irrelevant, especially not when talking about exploration, but even when talking about just general "stationary" play and being in a given area. Being able to see farther has a major impact on the overall atmosphere and setting. To some players, like me, this greatly matters. So much so that it can start detracting from things (in my opinion) at very high values, which is why I find the benefit of Bedrock being able to play at very high render distance values more muted (not that Java couldn't use some performance improvements).
Can you see farther with a render distance higher than 8? Well do any of these look identical to you?
Near my village square, looking towards one end. With a render distance of 8, I already have fog obstructing the edge. This isn't even exploring. This is just looking a little over halfway across my rather small village.
Two more comparisons looking into my village this time (one from the spot the above is looking at).
A few comparisons looking over the landscape.
Here's a comparison a step up in terms of render distance, instead staring at 16 and then showing 24. This isn't exploring. This is standing at the edge of my village and looking beyond it.
It greatly changes the atmosphere to be able to see further, even if "all it adds" is a bit of mountain in the distance. Keep in mind this is one screenshot. The added atmosphere (and amount of difference observed) can be major when you're moving around and playing.
Here's another one, starting at 8 and then showing 16, 24, 32, and 48. At 8 you can't even see the ocean below me, despite me being in third person, despite being on a raised part of the platform, and despite looking downward a bit. That little bit of the balcony is enough to prevent being able to see the ocean.
Now yes, I'm not standing in a forest looking at trees with canopies that start one to four blocks off the ground, nor immediately up against a tall mountain, in any of these scenarios. Of course when you're view is obstructed at very close distances, being able to see further gets blocked anyway. Yes, forests are common, no, that doesn't mean render distances above 8 don't gain you anything. I dare say it almost always gains you a great deal (the forest example usually, but not even always, being an exception). I downright see a render distance 8 as detrimental and limiting for my playstyle. I wouldn't want to play lower than 12 to 16, and honestly a range of 20 to 24 would be nicer. 32 and above is generally "you don't gain much for the performance impacts" and of course on older or lower end hardware that point might even be well below that, but 8 is just... compromising for not only exploration, but just raw atmosphere.
This isn't criticizing you if you find it preferable, and I hope you know that. 8 is fine if you're fine with it. I'm just answering your question with "yes, there are things to be gained above that" and it changes not only exploration but even the atmosphere. To many of us, that can matters greatly, and it will certainly "expand your horizons", quite literally but also metaphorically, and that can change your perception of structure frequency if you're playing on a lower render distance (let alone in older versions where less structures existed, and others were less common).
And yes, elytra exists. Oceans, even at reduced size since 1.7, exist. Modern versions have mountainous landscapes with greater elevation variance on average. Being able to see further when flying, in a boat, or even just walking on ground is almost always going to be limited by a render distance of 8 (and at times, even 16).
Here's some underground ones to show that 8 isn't enough anymore even underground at times for new versions. All comparisons are back to 16 and then 8.
In this particular ancient city, even 16 isn't free of fog showing underground, but it's not that bad. In an ancient city especially, but even in just a large cave, seeing these large areas or walls of fog underground ruin the immersion and atmosphere for me.
A render distance of 20 is needed to make it mostly go away in this particular ancient city, and in one spot looking from one corner to the other, with a large cave connected to it, I think I needed 24. But 16 is "mostly enough" to hide almost all fog in most underground situations. 12 and especially 8 would show a lot though.
The modern game feels made for 12 to 16 and really 20 (or even 24) feel better (mostly for exploration or just added atmosphere) if you can manage it without major performance compromises. Below that feels compromised, and above (especially around 32+) feels "diminished returns".
I get the "I'm happy with 8" mindset. I'm not belittling that. I don't get how you could actually find above that as gaining you nothing though.
Except if the Wiki is right they still have the same underlying frequency as they always had
One variable not changing isn't enough to conclude they aren't more common.
I don't know know what the code shows. I'm not disputing what the Wiki claims.
What I'm saying is, as a player who played in old versions and new versions, is that villages seem much more common in modern versions (certainly compared to 1.6 and before) regardless of what code did or didn't change, and this is a statement many players are echoing these days, so maybe there's something to it regardless of the fact that one variable hasn't changed.
What I'm saying is, as a player who played in old versions and new versions, is that villages seem much more common in modern versions (certainly compared to 1.6 and before) regardless of what code did or didn't change, and this is a statement many players are echoing these days, so maybe there's something to it regardless of the fact that one variable hasn't changed.
Want some data?
This is purely anecdotal information from a very non-standard world but I just went poking around Ancient Days with Minutor trying to evaluate how many villages had generated in old areas compared to new ones.
Visually examining about a 1400/1000 block region each time (moved Minutor viewing window around until the displayed area was all from the same era, as far as practical)
1.7.10, 100% village compatible biomes (all savanna/desert) - 1 village
1.7.10, about 90% village compatible biomes (savanna/desert/plains + roofed forest, birch forest) - 2 villages
1.16, about 60% village compatible biomes (plains/taiga + forest, extreme hills) - 4 villages
1.16, about 50% village compatible biomes (plains/taiga + roofed forest, extreme hills, birch forest, swamp) - 3 villages
1.17, about 60% village compatible biomes (taiga/plains + extreme hills, forest, ocean) - 3 villages
I couldn't do 1.6.4 or below because I couldn't locate any singular area large enough to be all 1.6.4 by my criteria.
It's not a large enough sample size to prove anything and my data collection procedure was far from scientifically stringent but it does rather make it look as if villages, for whatever reason, were generating less often in older terrain. It's quite strange that the newer regions of my world, despite having significantly fewer village-compatible biomes, all ended up with more villages overall.
What I'm saying is, as a player who played in old versions and new versions, is that villages seem much more common in modern versions (certainly compared to 1.6 and before) regardless of what code did or didn't change, and this is a statement many players are echoing these days, so maybe there's something to it regardless of the fact that one variable hasn't changed.
Because what did change is the way biomes are distributed, leading to massive clusterings of structures, given that the size of biomes are now many times the average grid spacing, instead of a fraction of it (I even said they were around 3 times more common in the examples for 1.18 than they were in 1.6, where Plains and Desert were only around 1/6 of the total land area, hence my calculated frequency of 1024 / (approx) 1/6 = 5760 chunks per structure) - as I showed even a very large desert in 1.6 is completely dwarfed by a modern version desert (and yes, on default not Large Biomes, which is simply incomprehensibly large and all this discussion only reinforces my utter hatred for 1.7+ world generation).
Also, I showed an extensive analysis that proved that at least in 1.7-1.17, structures were quite a bit rarer than they were in 1.6, yet you say the opposite - based entirely on subjective experience - which can only again be due to the vast changes in biome distribution; I mean, look at this (from 1.7.10):
Also, somebody extensively analyzed thousands of seeds in 1.13 to determine the frequencies of different biomes, with the four biomes that villages can spawn in listed (as 1.13), which total 19.52% of the entire world (including oceans):
For comparison, this is for 1.6.4, from my own biome mapping/analysis tool, including biomes as a percentage of the world and land areas only; when considering land only plains and desert are 17.78% of the area, so yes, villages have more areas to spawn in in newer versions, especially since the percentages for 1.13 will be higher when looking at land only, which is about 75.6% of the world so the adjusted percentage is about 23.5% (this also shows how unbalanced biome generation is in 1.7+ if plains is more common than before, about 12% of land, despite so many new biomes being added):
Also, this is what it looks like for TMCW; the percentages are so low because of all the new biomes I added, with many having similar weights (partially influenced by my much less strict version of "climate zones"), totaling 15.87%, but not all biomes have the same chance of spawning villages (Desert is 3/4 and Ice Plains is 1/2, in direct part because of their relative abundances. Savanna is also more common but this includes "edge" biomes around Savanna Plateau and Savanna Mountains, which are usually too narrow to have villages, and is otherwise similar to Plains in frequency. The adjusted weights total about 12%, which when combined with a spacing of 22 chunks (2.11 times the areal frequency) results in an effective rate of 25.4%, so they should actually be more common, biome restrictions aside than even 1.13, it is hard to say exactly how common without generating large-scale worlds):
I couldn't do 1.6.4 or below because I couldn't locate any singular area large enough to be all 1.6.4 by my criteria.
I can provide data for 1.6.4 thanks to my own world, which was entirely generated in 1.5-1.6 (exactly the same world generation as far as structures/biomes go):
There are 15 villages (red outlines) within a 4600 x 3200 block area (just the part of the world encompassing the villages); one area (green outline) has 4 villages within 1400x1000 blocks (the area you looked at), which is also just about the case if you shift it south (including the two villages in the southern half and the two further south, definitely if you rotate the area 90 degrees); while there are many areas without any villages despite suitable biomes that is not surprising given the size of the average biome and the spacing between villages (a large part of the northwest is Ice Plains/Taiga, which are not valid village spawn biomes in 1.6.4, as such you can exclude these areas from exploration if you are looking for a village, increasing the percentage in "normal" biome areas); if 1.18 is placing them wherever they can then the game must in fact be making multiple attempts to place a structure within each region (in 1.6.4 the game chooses a single chunk coordinate and if it fails then that's it, no structure. Only a look at the actual code can confirm what is going on).
That said, I looked at ChunkBases' village finder, which shows the locations of villages against a grid of 32x32 chunk regions, and found many cases of two and even three villages within a single region, which should not be possible, and some appear to be too close together (the minimum separation of 8 means 8 chunks along each axis, so the village in the region to the west of the one with 3 is too close*) so it definitely seems like something changed and the Wiki failed to document it:
*The Wiki has a diagram showing where structures can spawn according to the (old?) grid system in their Nether Fortress article; for villages the green spawning areas were 24x24 chunks (from 0 to 368, plus a multiple of 512) and the red crosshatch was 8 chunks wide (from 384 to 496, plus a multiple of 512); as noted, only one structure can generate per region and you should not be seeing any villages close to the eastern and southern edges of a region, but that is exactly what is shown by ChunkBase.
I mostly agree with the Youtuber. I didn't feel land structures were too common in 1.19. I haven't played 1.20 yet so I can't say.I do agree about Ocean Monuments. As somebody who likes Ocean travel, it's just absurd to hit one every 30 seconds.
I agree, still, because I have found with mods that when structures get too common it *really* hurts the feel of the game. Minecraft normally has a "blank canvas" feel appropriate for a sandbox. Once you get to the point where you see structure after structure it feels very wrong. This is particularly true with simple structures - villages aren't quite as bad since they can be fairly different from one another.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
Because what did change is the way biomes are distributed...
I'm confused as to what your initial intent was then.
I made a statement that maybe your experience with structures might be that they aren't too common because you...
A. play in a way that you explore very slowly and mostly underground.
B. Play at a reduced render distance.
C. Play based on a much older version of the game, and structures felt far less common back then.
You responded to this with "the wiki, if it's right, says underlying frequency hasn't ever changed".
My response was to say "I can't speak for what underlying variables do or do change because I'm not in a position to speak of them, but I'm not making that claim anyway, and I'm only making the claim that in-game structure frequency seems way up regardless so your impression not matching that they are too common might precisely be because of the three things I said above".
Now you're telling me they are more common because some other variable changed to more than offset the underlying frequency not changing? So you seemingly contrasted my initial claim only to agree with it? I'm just... confused then? What was the point of contrasting my claim when I was never talking about specific variables? I was only ever talking about end results.
Also, I showed an extensive analysis that proved that at least in 1.7-1.17, structures were quite a bit rarer than they were in 1.6, yet you say the opposite - based entirely on subjective experience
My statement was meant to be limited to "structures are more common in modern versions" and that was it. You attached that other criteria, not me. I never "said the opposite" in regards to 1.7 through 1.17 being more or less or whatever relative to 1.6
I'm not sure why limiting it to 1.7 to 1.17 is relevant here. That time frame spans from approximately two to ten years ago, so that would be a strange place to stop when the subject seems to be referring to the state of the game today, no?
The games also really really need new caves variants plus nether and end new biomes, both caves and dimensions becomes dull after a while.
I like the structure of the new update being hard to find, that was exactly perfect, but I feel that other structures are way too easy to find, I whould like to see new and different interesting structures across the world but they need to feel special and rare to find.
I always felt that something like villages should be more rare but way bigger it feels like just a place to abuse where it whould be cool to have more mechanics to make villages feels more real like villages creating and repairing building and illuminating places with torches while golems attacking the player if dares to steal stuff (lot of people already believes that's the case).
Desert and jungle temples new variations whould be also cool, and sunken structures inside caves whould be amazing but with this amount of structures I whould prefer to see most structures way less often, right now it's pretty meaningless to find a village or a sunken ship, even ruined portals are easy to find.
Dungeons were way more common in 1.6 and I wish they didn't rarify them in 1.7. I would also like to see more fossils, but I do think we're drowning in underwater structures.
Fossils are apparently under swamps and deserts only? Much of my underground exploration seems to be in biomes besides those, so I've yet to personally find any.
They're super common in the nether soul sand valley though (if you just need them for the bones).
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
9/3/2023
Posts:
55
Member Details
You are very right, that minecraft used to be a place of peace, creation out of boredom and kind of like a post apocalyptic lonely place where you are the only survivor, while also completely peaceful, unharming and godly experience of doing whatever you want. Minecraft also used to always have good weather. At some point they implemented thunderstorms, rain, clouds and much more to add variety. Back in the days there weren't as many biomes - you created structures, not minecraft itself. The longer minecraft has been out there, the more they added. I personally think they added way too much. That doesn't mean everything was bad, but some things they implemented like villager trades ruined the dynamics of the game before. So they game wasn't just expanded, it has been changed as a whole.
I personally deal with it, by just ignoring some of the implementations: I walk past turtles, I don't trade much with villagers, I don't farm cherry trees, I deactivate phantoms and wardens in the settings and so on. Unfortunately I cannot choose the old PVP and PVE system which I liked much more. I build houses like I used to mostly and just try to have fun!
Yes, that's how I deal with it too. Just because something is there doesn't mean you have to use it.
Unfortunately, this only works for some things. And largely for singleplayer. In multiplayer, you might choose not to do things, but others might, and it still changes things for you in some cases.
The game really doesn't have too many things added in my opinion. It could easily stand to have much more and be fine. At the same time, more things added and a larger community playing it means a bigger chance there's something someone doesn't like, but will still be playing because they like other things. One thing I've noticed more about the modern community is it seems more vocal about things they don't like. I am not sure if it's simply because the community is larger. I'm not sure if it's because the majority is on Bedrock, where updates are forced (this wouldn't entirely explain it I think). It might not even actually be more vocal about it, and instead I'm just interpreting it that way. But it does seem that way.
Personally, I just avoid the things I don't like. Like in 1.20, the trails ruins stuff I haven't touched yet. I intend to get a sniffer eventually, but that aside, I have no real desire to go for the archeology-like stuff. And that's fine. I don't expect to like every single change to the game. For everything I don't care about, there's usually stuff I do care about. Cherry biomes and their related stuff. Bamboo wood. Hanging signs. Mud stone. Deep dark and ancient cities. Basically everything about 1.18 (including 1.17). This is all the stuff I did love about recent updates.
Personally I will say this much, structures becoming so common in recent versions has made the game feel meaningless in between structures rather than merely empty. The game becomes a dopamine rush of 'where next structure' instead of appreciating the natural world for its beauty.
While having a lot of loot treasure is nice, I do think rarifying most generated structures and even some natural structures would do justice to making the world feel exploratory again and make the untouched spaces feel whole rather than liminal. I want to be in those spaces for themselves, not as a consequence of the structure addiction I've developed.
Nah, I think it's fine.
I sort of agree, I sort of don't. I always disliked when game communities used past precedent as an argument for the way something should stay/be. "The game started as this way, so it's bad now that it's not this same way". But regardless I do agree anyway with the opinion that structures are too common overall.
I don't think the game adding more structures over time was bad, for clarity, and I even think there could be room for more yet. I simply think the ones that are there (and some more than others) are simply too frequent.
Villages and ship wrecks in particular feel way, way too common. Maybe ocean ruins too.
Ancient cities (and probably ocean monuments) are in the strange spot of being uncommon overall due to only spawning in a very limited number of biomes, but are very common in their one biome. This effects ocean monuments more, due to being above ground (and also being so large compared to most other surface structures), but both could be a bit less common and be fine.
Ruined portals could also stand to be less common, but aren't quite as overabundant like villages and ship wrecks feel.
Pillager outposts, desert temples, jungle temples, witch huts, igloos, and desert wells are the ones that I guess seem mostly fine (the latter just seems useless though). One in particular here that I disagree with the video most on is that I like pillager outposts as a place to have illagers instead of just in woodland mansions. And I don't mind the patrols/raids either. Totems of undying being so scarce was never a good thing (then again, I would be fine if these never existed, but they do).
Woodland mansions are the lone one that could stand to be a bit (emphasis on a bit) more common if anything. But they are fine as-is, especially because pillager outposts and illager patrols/raids exist. Larger surface structures especially shouldn't be so common after all.
Underground stuff like dungeons and strongholds feel fine. I wish mineshafts were a bit more rare but I just dislike them. All three of these could stand being remade into something better or more though in my mind.
The nether feels fine though, and the end needs a nether style update (and until then, end cities feel mostly fine given they need to be a renewable enough source for elytra and they also need to be accessible enough before you get it to begin with, which could actually become a problem on servers with large numbers of players). The overworld definitely seems littered with structures though.
I've already openly stated in the "too many structures" thread that I do think there are too many structures in the game. I do agree though that it is more about frequency especially with shipwrecks, ruins, and ocean monumente - and now wqe have trail ruins because of the archeology aspect. I do believe the trail ruins are less common at least though however, to my understanding. I don't buy it being another reason to explore as there were already so much in the game to do that, it doesn't work as an excuse.
There are some that still want more mob bosses, this isn't a 2D platformeer game! If a player finds the game boring or unsatisfying then that's on them to either find a way to make it more interesting for themselves (Mods, redstone, challenges etc) not the game.Which aslo relates to structures. We get more and more astructures yet basic dungfeons still need an overhaul.
So in effect I do agree both with what the video and Princess_Garnet are saying about it being more frequency. Villages, ship wrecks ruins and ocean monuments are way, way to frequent. The more structures they add the more cluttered the world feels.
Closed old thread
Like Minecraft forums or interested in my world? Try My message board, it's better moderated because I run it directly and have run Internet message boards for 21+ years! Better software and I have much more control to keep the content more up to date. Free to join, 13 years+.
16yrs+ only
My main world is old enough that I don't have structures at all apart from dungeons in my primary stomping grounds. As a result I have to travel to find stuff, and the further out I go, the more varied the stuff I find. First there's mineshafts and villages, then a little further out a chance of jungle and desert temples, go even further out and there's ocean monuments, further out still and the mansions, shipwrecks and pillager outposts start appearing. That's an entirely accidental result of having an old world but it also naturally rewards exploration and long term investment.
It's far too late for Mojang to change how they're doing things now but I think that would have been a fantastic way to handle structure generation - make structures very rare in the spawn region, more common the further out you go. Stops spawn being swamped with free loot, encourages exploration (which is clearly something they want players to do), makes gear, consumables and transportation methods more valuable.
Journals - Gregtech New Horizons | Tree Spirit Challenge [current]
Of course, the exact opposite is true for underground structures, with around 350 dungeons and 125 mineshafts found over the same 5 month period (and mineshafts are even more common in vanilla; my first world has about 20% removed from areas of high cave density. Also, I don't even see mineshafts as "structures" but a variant of cave, which are vital for the type of underground interconnectivity I rely on; if you think they are still too common in 1.18, well, they were effectively 5 times more common in 1.6.4 (2.5 times the frequency and half the volume to generate in, ChunkBase indicates that mineshaft locations (x and z) did not change in 1.18).
For another example, I found the following over 1642 hours of playtime spent caving (1744 total) in my last modded world, which makes many structures much more common (in terms of chance per area of their spawn biomes, e.g. villages are twice as likely to generate per chunk, offsetting a reduction in the area their biomes cover as many more were added; strongholds are infinite in number, one every 8192 chunks. Mineshafts are a notable exception, with a bit over half the frequency of vanilla 1.6.4 due to exclusions from both dense cave systems and larger types of caves):
Notably missing are igloos, of which I found 4 in a previous world over about 2/3 the playtime (I did find one at the edge of generated chunks when looking at the world in a map viewer, as well as a couple other structures; the overall size of the world is about 50000 chunks with about 42000 directly explored).
Also, I actually did exclude strictures from within 512 blocks of the origin in an older version but removed the exclusion in part due to complaints it was too hard to find anything, this contributed in part to only having one modded world where I spawned near a village (as I also happened to in my first world), but I don't see this as a massive help to gameplay progression (mostly just not having to cure a couple zombie villagers, the free food helps but I get a potato (my main food source while caving) within the first few days anyway, and get enough steaks from cows bred for leather to last into the "end-game").
Also notable is the "valuable" loot I found:
Some of these may look like a lot but remember that I spent over 1600 hours caving, a number that few players have likely reached in their entire time playing the game, much less in one world (for example, 24 Smelting books is one every 68 hours, or about 18 play sessions; Smelting and Vein Miner are both only obtainable from structure loot and are more common than other books as a result (30 times more likely than any other enchantment in the first chest placed in a double dungeon). Even the total number of golden apples (164) is still one every 10 hours.
Naturally, any of the figures given here only apply to 1.6.4 or my own modded version; however, the Wiki indicates that the "spacing" for "old" structures was never changed from the default of 32 in 1.6.4 (MapGenVillage; MapGenScatteredFeature; this means one attempt at a structure per 32x32 chunk / 512x512 block region, provided the biome at a single randomly chosen location is valid), meaning they have to be rarer overall, but due to changes to biome sizes you are more likely to find them in a given instance, even multiple times. As for newer structures, I note that shipwrecks and ocean ruins are more common, with a spacing of only 20 for ruins, making them 2.56 times more likely than villages or temples, which is probably excessive given the size of oceans (then again, I have shipwrecks generating with a spacing of only 19, but only 1/3 are "large", with a chest, giving them about the same frequency as a spacing of 32).
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
Isn't your playstyle more "entirely mining underground and only exploring once you've entirely exhausted all caves"? Not saying there's anything wrong with that, but that's not at all what I'd consider the playstyle of an explorer. Like it's technically exploring, I guess... but at an unfathomably slow pace and as a result of something else rather than for its own sake.
And I think you play at a lower render distances too? if so, that serves as a feedback loop of sorts (in making them seem less common). Playing at even a render distance of 16 (let alone above, or whatever Bedrock players play at) will make them seem that much more common.
Not only this but you're not playing the current game. In 1.6, no, something like villages weren't too common (maybe they were a bit too uncommon). Modern versions? So far the other way it's not funny. And that's before all the other stuff that was added. 1.6 doesn't represent structure frequency of the modern game at all.
Render distance is irrelevant when you are using in-game maps to see around you, which are fixed at 128 blocks (8 chunks), and besides, can you actually even see that far (when not flying around with elytra)? Maybe in plains, but forests or mountains (if not on a peak)?
Except if the Wiki is right they still have the same underlying frequency as they always had; spacing = 32, separation = 8, and with so many new biomes added in 1.7 there surely ought to be less space for them to generate in, unless most of the world is the same few biomes.
Case in point; there seem to be quite a few villages on this map?
However, the area covered is 3120x1768 blocks; if the entire area was a suitable biome (as with a Superflat world) you'd expect to find an average of 21-22 villages in such an area - the fact there are so many is because so much of the areas is plains (or desert/savanna for "hot" regions). For comparison, I've calculated that the frequency of villages in 1.6.4 averages about one every 5760 chunks, excluding oceans, or about a third as many within the same area.
Interestingly, an analysis somebody made for 1.8 suggests that structures were much rarer back then, much more so than in 1.6.4, even when accounting for oceans; this was within a 16384x16384 block area:
Likewise, when deserts can be this big(!) I'm not surprised there can be so many desert temples in them (the average-sized biome before 1.18 gave them about a 1 in 4 chance of having a structure, even this was exaggerated in 1.7 due to the clumping of the same few biome types per climate zone):
For perspective, the largest single desert (near the bottom-center) in my first world is about 1200 blocks across (this would be multiple individual biomes merged into one), still only 2/3 the width of the desert above and much smaller in overall area, and had a single village and desert temple; most of the smaller deserts have nothing; likewise, I'm not surprised that I haven't found any villages recently given that I've only found a single average sized plains biome (about half the area near the far right center is Extreme Hills, which looks the same. The jungle temple I found was near the bottom center of the map in the southeast corner, which also had another jungle temple and two villages elsewhere):
This map of my last modded world is a better fit in terms of scale as it is about the same width as the examples for 1.18; even with the reduced structure spacing I only found a single biome with more than one of the same structure and it was particularly large (a "quartz desert", to the left of center, which had two "quartz desert pyramids", which have a spacing of 14, or 5.2 times the areal frequency of a spacing of 32, prior to factoring in biome frequencies and a terrain-dependent failure rate, which gives an average of one per 42000 chunks, so even two is more than the average for the entire area I explored):
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
What maps are limited to seeing isn't the only criteria that matters to all players though. If your exploration is solely for charting maps, then maybe that's good enough for you. But that doesn't mean higher values bring no change in impact.
Render distance is anything but irrelevant, especially not when talking about exploration, but even when talking about just general "stationary" play and being in a given area. Being able to see farther has a major impact on the overall atmosphere and setting. To some players, like me, this greatly matters. So much so that it can start detracting from things (in my opinion) at very high values, which is why I find the benefit of Bedrock being able to play at very high render distance values more muted (not that Java couldn't use some performance improvements).
Can you see farther with a render distance higher than 8? Well do any of these look identical to you?
Two more comparisons looking into my village this time (one from the spot the above is looking at).
A few comparisons looking over the landscape.
Here's a comparison a step up in terms of render distance, instead staring at 16 and then showing 24. This isn't exploring. This is standing at the edge of my village and looking beyond it.
It greatly changes the atmosphere to be able to see further, even if "all it adds" is a bit of mountain in the distance. Keep in mind this is one screenshot. The added atmosphere (and amount of difference observed) can be major when you're moving around and playing.
Here's another one, starting at 8 and then showing 16, 24, 32, and 48. At 8 you can't even see the ocean below me, despite me being in third person, despite being on a raised part of the platform, and despite looking downward a bit. That little bit of the balcony is enough to prevent being able to see the ocean.
Now yes, I'm not standing in a forest looking at trees with canopies that start one to four blocks off the ground, nor immediately up against a tall mountain, in any of these scenarios. Of course when you're view is obstructed at very close distances, being able to see further gets blocked anyway. Yes, forests are common, no, that doesn't mean render distances above 8 don't gain you anything. I dare say it almost always gains you a great deal (the forest example usually, but not even always, being an exception). I downright see a render distance 8 as detrimental and limiting for my playstyle. I wouldn't want to play lower than 12 to 16, and honestly a range of 20 to 24 would be nicer. 32 and above is generally "you don't gain much for the performance impacts" and of course on older or lower end hardware that point might even be well below that, but 8 is just... compromising for not only exploration, but just raw atmosphere.
This isn't criticizing you if you find it preferable, and I hope you know that. 8 is fine if you're fine with it. I'm just answering your question with "yes, there are things to be gained above that" and it changes not only exploration but even the atmosphere. To many of us, that can matters greatly, and it will certainly "expand your horizons", quite literally but also metaphorically, and that can change your perception of structure frequency if you're playing on a lower render distance (let alone in older versions where less structures existed, and others were less common).
And yes, elytra exists. Oceans, even at reduced size since 1.7, exist. Modern versions have mountainous landscapes with greater elevation variance on average. Being able to see further when flying, in a boat, or even just walking on ground is almost always going to be limited by a render distance of 8 (and at times, even 16).
Here's some underground ones to show that 8 isn't enough anymore even underground at times for new versions. All comparisons are back to 16 and then 8.
In this particular ancient city, even 16 isn't free of fog showing underground, but it's not that bad. In an ancient city especially, but even in just a large cave, seeing these large areas or walls of fog underground ruin the immersion and atmosphere for me.
A render distance of 20 is needed to make it mostly go away in this particular ancient city, and in one spot looking from one corner to the other, with a large cave connected to it, I think I needed 24. But 16 is "mostly enough" to hide almost all fog in most underground situations. 12 and especially 8 would show a lot though.
The modern game feels made for 12 to 16 and really 20 (or even 24) feel better (mostly for exploration or just added atmosphere) if you can manage it without major performance compromises. Below that feels compromised, and above (especially around 32+) feels "diminished returns".
I get the "I'm happy with 8" mindset. I'm not belittling that. I don't get how you could actually find above that as gaining you nothing though.
One variable not changing isn't enough to conclude they aren't more common.
I don't know know what the code shows. I'm not disputing what the Wiki claims.
What I'm saying is, as a player who played in old versions and new versions, is that villages seem much more common in modern versions (certainly compared to 1.6 and before) regardless of what code did or didn't change, and this is a statement many players are echoing these days, so maybe there's something to it regardless of the fact that one variable hasn't changed.
Want some data?
This is purely anecdotal information from a very non-standard world but I just went poking around Ancient Days with Minutor trying to evaluate how many villages had generated in old areas compared to new ones.
Visually examining about a 1400/1000 block region each time (moved Minutor viewing window around until the displayed area was all from the same era, as far as practical)
1.7.10, 100% village compatible biomes (all savanna/desert) - 1 village
1.7.10, about 90% village compatible biomes (savanna/desert/plains + roofed forest, birch forest) - 2 villages
1.16, about 60% village compatible biomes (plains/taiga + forest, extreme hills) - 4 villages
1.16, about 50% village compatible biomes (plains/taiga + roofed forest, extreme hills, birch forest, swamp) - 3 villages
1.17, about 60% village compatible biomes (taiga/plains + extreme hills, forest, ocean) - 3 villages
I couldn't do 1.6.4 or below because I couldn't locate any singular area large enough to be all 1.6.4 by my criteria.
It's not a large enough sample size to prove anything and my data collection procedure was far from scientifically stringent but it does rather make it look as if villages, for whatever reason, were generating less often in older terrain. It's quite strange that the newer regions of my world, despite having significantly fewer village-compatible biomes, all ended up with more villages overall.
Journals - Gregtech New Horizons | Tree Spirit Challenge [current]
Because what did change is the way biomes are distributed, leading to massive clusterings of structures, given that the size of biomes are now many times the average grid spacing, instead of a fraction of it (I even said they were around 3 times more common in the examples for 1.18 than they were in 1.6, where Plains and Desert were only around 1/6 of the total land area, hence my calculated frequency of 1024 / (approx) 1/6 = 5760 chunks per structure) - as I showed even a very large desert in 1.6 is completely dwarfed by a modern version desert (and yes, on default not Large Biomes, which is simply incomprehensibly large and all this discussion only reinforces my utter hatred for 1.7+ world generation).
Also, I showed an extensive analysis that proved that at least in 1.7-1.17, structures were quite a bit rarer than they were in 1.6, yet you say the opposite - based entirely on subjective experience - which can only again be due to the vast changes in biome distribution; I mean, look at this (from 1.7.10):
Also, somebody extensively analyzed thousands of seeds in 1.13 to determine the frequencies of different biomes, with the four biomes that villages can spawn in listed (as 1.13), which total 19.52% of the entire world (including oceans):
For comparison, this is for 1.6.4, from my own biome mapping/analysis tool, including biomes as a percentage of the world and land areas only; when considering land only plains and desert are 17.78% of the area, so yes, villages have more areas to spawn in in newer versions, especially since the percentages for 1.13 will be higher when looking at land only, which is about 75.6% of the world so the adjusted percentage is about 23.5% (this also shows how unbalanced biome generation is in 1.7+ if plains is more common than before, about 12% of land, despite so many new biomes being added):
Also, this is what it looks like for TMCW; the percentages are so low because of all the new biomes I added, with many having similar weights (partially influenced by my much less strict version of "climate zones"), totaling 15.87%, but not all biomes have the same chance of spawning villages (Desert is 3/4 and Ice Plains is 1/2, in direct part because of their relative abundances. Savanna is also more common but this includes "edge" biomes around Savanna Plateau and Savanna Mountains, which are usually too narrow to have villages, and is otherwise similar to Plains in frequency. The adjusted weights total about 12%, which when combined with a spacing of 22 chunks (2.11 times the areal frequency) results in an effective rate of 25.4%, so they should actually be more common, biome restrictions aside than even 1.13, it is hard to say exactly how common without generating large-scale worlds):
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
I can provide data for 1.6.4 thanks to my own world, which was entirely generated in 1.5-1.6 (exactly the same world generation as far as structures/biomes go):
There are 15 villages (red outlines) within a 4600 x 3200 block area (just the part of the world encompassing the villages); one area (green outline) has 4 villages within 1400x1000 blocks (the area you looked at), which is also just about the case if you shift it south (including the two villages in the southern half and the two further south, definitely if you rotate the area 90 degrees); while there are many areas without any villages despite suitable biomes that is not surprising given the size of the average biome and the spacing between villages (a large part of the northwest is Ice Plains/Taiga, which are not valid village spawn biomes in 1.6.4, as such you can exclude these areas from exploration if you are looking for a village, increasing the percentage in "normal" biome areas); if 1.18 is placing them wherever they can then the game must in fact be making multiple attempts to place a structure within each region (in 1.6.4 the game chooses a single chunk coordinate and if it fails then that's it, no structure. Only a look at the actual code can confirm what is going on).
That said, I looked at ChunkBases' village finder, which shows the locations of villages against a grid of 32x32 chunk regions, and found many cases of two and even three villages within a single region, which should not be possible, and some appear to be too close together (the minimum separation of 8 means 8 chunks along each axis, so the village in the region to the west of the one with 3 is too close*) so it definitely seems like something changed and the Wiki failed to document it:
*The Wiki has a diagram showing where structures can spawn according to the (old?) grid system in their Nether Fortress article; for villages the green spawning areas were 24x24 chunks (from 0 to 368, plus a multiple of 512) and the red crosshatch was 8 chunks wide (from 384 to 496, plus a multiple of 512); as noted, only one structure can generate per region and you should not be seeing any villages close to the eastern and southern edges of a region, but that is exactly what is shown by ChunkBase.
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI mostly agree with the Youtuber. I didn't feel land structures were too common in 1.19. I haven't played 1.20 yet so I can't say.I do agree about Ocean Monuments. As somebody who likes Ocean travel, it's just absurd to hit one every 30 seconds.
I agree, still, because I have found with mods that when structures get too common it *really* hurts the feel of the game. Minecraft normally has a "blank canvas" feel appropriate for a sandbox. Once you get to the point where you see structure after structure it feels very wrong. This is particularly true with simple structures - villages aren't quite as bad since they can be fairly different from one another.
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
I'm confused as to what your initial intent was then.
I made a statement that maybe your experience with structures might be that they aren't too common because you...
A. play in a way that you explore very slowly and mostly underground.
B. Play at a reduced render distance.
C. Play based on a much older version of the game, and structures felt far less common back then.
You responded to this with "the wiki, if it's right, says underlying frequency hasn't ever changed".
My response was to say "I can't speak for what underlying variables do or do change because I'm not in a position to speak of them, but I'm not making that claim anyway, and I'm only making the claim that in-game structure frequency seems way up regardless so your impression not matching that they are too common might precisely be because of the three things I said above".
Now you're telling me they are more common because some other variable changed to more than offset the underlying frequency not changing? So you seemingly contrasted my initial claim only to agree with it? I'm just... confused then? What was the point of contrasting my claim when I was never talking about specific variables? I was only ever talking about end results.
My statement was meant to be limited to "structures are more common in modern versions" and that was it. You attached that other criteria, not me. I never "said the opposite" in regards to 1.7 through 1.17 being more or less or whatever relative to 1.6
I'm not sure why limiting it to 1.7 to 1.17 is relevant here. That time frame spans from approximately two to ten years ago, so that would be a strange place to stop when the subject seems to be referring to the state of the game today, no?
I'm all for more structures but way less often.
The games also really really need new caves variants plus nether and end new biomes, both caves and dimensions becomes dull after a while.
I like the structure of the new update being hard to find, that was exactly perfect, but I feel that other structures are way too easy to find, I whould like to see new and different interesting structures across the world but they need to feel special and rare to find.
I always felt that something like villages should be more rare but way bigger it feels like just a place to abuse where it whould be cool to have more mechanics to make villages feels more real like villages creating and repairing building and illuminating places with torches while golems attacking the player if dares to steal stuff (lot of people already believes that's the case).
Desert and jungle temples new variations whould be also cool, and sunken structures inside caves whould be amazing but with this amount of structures I whould prefer to see most structures way less often, right now it's pretty meaningless to find a village or a sunken ship, even ruined portals are easy to find.
Dungeons were way more common in 1.6 and I wish they didn't rarify them in 1.7. I would also like to see more fossils, but I do think we're drowning in underwater structures.
Fossils are apparently under swamps and deserts only? Much of my underground exploration seems to be in biomes besides those, so I've yet to personally find any.
They're super common in the nether soul sand valley though (if you just need them for the bones).
You are very right, that minecraft used to be a place of peace, creation out of boredom and kind of like a post apocalyptic lonely place where you are the only survivor, while also completely peaceful, unharming and godly experience of doing whatever you want. Minecraft also used to always have good weather. At some point they implemented thunderstorms, rain, clouds and much more to add variety. Back in the days there weren't as many biomes - you created structures, not minecraft itself. The longer minecraft has been out there, the more they added. I personally think they added way too much. That doesn't mean everything was bad, but some things they implemented like villager trades ruined the dynamics of the game before. So they game wasn't just expanded, it has been changed as a whole.
I personally deal with it, by just ignoring some of the implementations: I walk past turtles, I don't trade much with villagers, I don't farm cherry trees, I deactivate phantoms and wardens in the settings and so on. Unfortunately I cannot choose the old PVP and PVE system which I liked much more. I build houses like I used to mostly and just try to have fun!
Check out my Youtube-Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/@VanillaLongplayz
Yes, that's how I deal with it too. Just because something is there doesn't mean you have to use it.
Unfortunately, this only works for some things. And largely for singleplayer. In multiplayer, you might choose not to do things, but others might, and it still changes things for you in some cases.
The game really doesn't have too many things added in my opinion. It could easily stand to have much more and be fine. At the same time, more things added and a larger community playing it means a bigger chance there's something someone doesn't like, but will still be playing because they like other things. One thing I've noticed more about the modern community is it seems more vocal about things they don't like. I am not sure if it's simply because the community is larger. I'm not sure if it's because the majority is on Bedrock, where updates are forced (this wouldn't entirely explain it I think). It might not even actually be more vocal about it, and instead I'm just interpreting it that way. But it does seem that way.
Personally, I just avoid the things I don't like. Like in 1.20, the trails ruins stuff I haven't touched yet. I intend to get a sniffer eventually, but that aside, I have no real desire to go for the archeology-like stuff. And that's fine. I don't expect to like every single change to the game. For everything I don't care about, there's usually stuff I do care about. Cherry biomes and their related stuff. Bamboo wood. Hanging signs. Mud stone. Deep dark and ancient cities. Basically everything about 1.18 (including 1.17). This is all the stuff I did love about recent updates.