Again though, there never was any actual increase in structure frequency, other than due to changes to biome generation...
That's the distinction I'm making.
I'm not talking about any technical aspect of "structure frequency". I'm using the term to talk about the end result I am experiencing. You're looking too closely at one variable only. That variable can stay the same for all I care but they are more common despite it. I know what I'm experiencing in modern worlds versus what was common in older versions, and there is not a shred of doubt that structures (and some more than others) are far more common these days.
Your comparisons have some blind spots.
As said by the reply above, and as pointed out by myself to you before, you seem to be looking heavily at one variable, which is a given structure vis-a-vis, which ignores that there are simply more structures total in modern versions. This adds up quick.
You also admit you're using large biomes in your example (which I imagine isn't how most people play) and I think this probably exaggerates the numbers a bit (especially in the case of villages) more because as you said, even if the real change isn't structure frequency but increased valid places for the to be placed, that still makes them more common in result.
And that's the important part. The result. Not one given variable that most people aren't aware of.
Now, if only making potions wasn't made so pointless by making it harder to do than getting special gear...
Have to disagree here. Potions, and particular a few of them like fire resistance (which is actually fire immunity), night vision, and water breathing potions are incredibly broken. It's well worth the effort and not hard to do either.
I didn't pay potions as much attention before but it's interesting how my hardcore attempt this year has opened my eyes to how broken some things actually are. Potions, and some more than others, are definitely on that list.
But I do think both potions and enchants are overpowered and some power should be removed from them (and perhaps put into base gear). A good example is turtle shells. 10 seconds of underwater breathing is nothing when respiration and underwater potions exist. Maybe even make respiration exclusive to the turtle shell? The community would complain.
You also admit you're using large biomes in your example (which I imagine isn't how most people play) and I think this probably exaggerates the numbers a bit (especially in the case of villages) more because as you said, even if the real change isn't structure frequency but increased valid places for the to be placed, that still makes them more common in result.
This is because I wanted a good comparison in terms of biome sizes - it is quite clear that biomes are much larger in newer versions, so much that they seem even larger than what used to be Large Biomes, given the tendency for the same biomes to cluster together (this is even apparent when comparing vanilla 1.6 to TMCW; both have the same biome size but since TMCW has so many more biome but it is less likely that the same biome will generate next to itself). Here is a comparison between 1.20 and my first world - 1.6 biomes are just specks compared to 1.20 biomes:
In particular, there is a single desert which is about as large as an entire Ice Plains in 1.6, and is surely overflowing with villages (example of an AMIDST map of such a region), are are the various gigantic Plains up to 2,000 blocks across, while 1.6 Plains are just little specks about the size of "sub-biomes" in 1.20 (by which I mean the smaller areas surrounded by a single biome).
Here is an in-game example of how small biomes used to be in default worlds - you can see parts of 6 different biomes (the two Taigas are different biomes) at a render distance of 16 (looking down); the Plains is much larger than shown, probably 2-3 "biome units", with another village at its border with a desert to the south (off the top edge):
Things are even more ridiculous in TMCW (if you dislike tiny biomes or seeing 11 different biomes within render distance, that is; to the far right is a jungle temple):
In fact, while I probably won't use it I'm adding a "Medium Biomes" world type in the next major update, which will double the scale from Default (which may as well be renamed to "Small Biomes") and offers a good compromise over Large Biomes' 4x scaling (16 times the area per biome).
Also, this is an extreme example of "biome clustering" in 1.7 (default world type), and the sheer number of structures that can generate as a result, you can also see how small individual biomes are, best seen in the non-desert area on the right, and even then you need to look at the smaller biomes (e.g. the Mushroom Islands are single "biome units"):
Also, this map has to cover a large area by anybody's standards - it is over 14,000 blocks across and around 400,000 chunks, 3 times the area I've explored in my first world over years of daily gameplay (this again illustrates how changes to playstyles, and the need to explore large distances to find things, has biases player's experiences. Nor does this do any good in terms of all the time wasted on finding things):
To establish what I'm looking for, I have 4 main complaints with the old vanilla minecraft generation from 1.7 to 1.17:
1) Search distances are absurd. Obscenely absurd. If you are searching honestly, (no AMIDST cheats, etc.) it normally takes TENS of THOUSANDS of blocks searched to find both hot and cold terrain. Almost nobody does that much searching. Even I don't, because on pre-1.18 vanilla generation the shortage of water and flat plains makes it hard to travel long distances. For rare biomes it's even crazier; in my first 1.7 world I later ran AMIDST and found the nearest Ice Spikes was 9,000 blocks from start, which would have taken two hundred and fifty THOUSAND blocks of an efficient but honest square spiral search. Ab-surd.
(later on they claim that 1.18 "fixed" this problem but from looking around I've easily found areas with no Ice Spikes for 9,000+ blocks in 1.20, using the "highlight biome" function on ChunkBase, and otherwise they are small enough that you need to cover pretty much the whole search area)
I doubt Mojang even actually plays their own game, or uses any aids to view changes to world generation on a large scale (this led me to write my own biome and underground mapping tools, which have vastly eased the process of changing/adding to them, particularly when I don't even need to launch the game itself and get near-instant results). I still do generate plenty of actual worlds when testing; I currently have over 1 GB of worlds, dating back about a month, in my MCP saves folder (rather than delete them in-game I just manually delete them).
I always thought the jump from "regular" (256x256) biomes to "large" (1024x1024) was absurdly large - the regular biomes are too small, and large way too large; why did they skip over the obvious step in the middle?
FWIW, the current effective biome sizes (counting similar, contained, biomes as sub-biomes) are larger than the old regulars but smaller than the old large biomes (remembering biomes were most of the the time more than one single area because there weren't many biomes in any climate). It's big enough that it's not hard to find single-biome vistas, but it's not generally far to a different biome either. I still have issues with them, but the sizing is better than before.
That's me you're quoting there, and while I didn't do a statistical analysis of Ice Spikes in particular, I'll stick to my basic claims - it's a lot easier to find different climate zones now than it was, and rare biomes are easier to find too. That super-ginormous hot zone you showed is just not possible with the current system - the repeat period of the climate noises isn't big enough.
I agree in general Mojang's design choices don't seem informed by a lot of actual play. Now, they do use AMIDST; they posted an AMIDST map of the 1.7 climate system when it came out - although the map they published was very cherry-picked to hide the flaws of the 1.7 system. But you're right they seem not to have used AMIDST for 1.7 *design" because it doesn't take much looking at 1.7 era AMIDST maps to realize something is very wrong.
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!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
Better Forests Varied and beautiful trees and forests, in modern Minecraft.
This is because I wanted a good comparison in terms of biome sizes - it is quite clear that biomes are much larger in newer versions...
You're missing the point then. When people say "structures are more common", they're not talking about one specific variable. They're talking only about the actual end result itself. That should be apparent.
You're trying to equalize the things that changed which could result in more structures (this seems like indirectly acknowledging they could have become more common?) to show that a given variable didn't change. The thing is, nobody is disputing whether a single given value did or didn't change. The only thing people are referring to when they make a statement of "structures are more common" is the end result itself.
I'm going to be honest with you here. This seems like a situation where you're looking at the code or looking at maps but missing the experience of newer versions. Yet everyone, and basically everyone, who plays modern versions will tell you structures are increasingly more common.
You're also doing some things I disagree with to change the comparison.
I imagine most people didn't play with large biomes back then, so using it as representative of the average for those versions seems off to me.
I also disagree with considering all biomes of a similar type as the same biome. I said it in the other thread where this came up, but that "massive plains biome" is at least three biomes (plains, sunflower plains, and meadow), or even four if you want to try and make things "like for like" and consider there's "extreme hills-like" terrain mixed in there. What you're seeing are sub-regions more than single biomes (even if those can also be big). And yes, those make things larger than something like 1.6, with truly random biome placement and quite small biome sizes. Biomes are larger, but not that large, especially on average.
1.7 to 1.16 (1.17) is not 1.18 to present, either, but you seem to commonly consider everything post-1.6 as just all the same. Maybe that's because you prefer 1.6 and don't like anything after regardless, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean the terrain generation never changed after 1.7 launched. 1.18 might share the climate system approach but it's still well different from 1.7 in a lot of ways (and that doesn't mean it's the same thing but worse and with differently shaped biomes, either).
One of the most significant comments IMO occurs @~6m50 noting that at least some of the perceived loss of 'magic' may by due to the video poster's having 'been there; done that".
(I can remember a certain thrill at spotting my first desrt well [arguably the most useless structure in the game] vs. the more recent reaction of simply considering the well a convenient waymarker as I flew over it.)
Harking back to the days of paper & pencil gaming this issue was commonly understood to be an important factor in changing the nature of the gameplay [generally from the "down the door, kill the critters, grab the goodies" random dungeon crawl to a more nuanced involvement with the occupants of the campaign world]. I doubt most strongly that current "AI" is anywhere near providing this possibility.
This may explain the popularity of SMP as something like the 'Southern Canal project' would be incredibly boring to do in SSP [or CSP].
There does seem to be a change in the target audience. As much as it can be said to have had a target demographic, early MC seems aimed at the 15-30 gamer/computer 'nerd' whereas recent updates appear more interested in capturing the casual kids market.
[Things like freely re-dyeable blocks remove an element of planning that was often considered a critical part of the 'feel' of MC.]
The archeology additions also feel more like a mini-game frankensteined onto the base game. Something similarcan be said of the multiple cat and horse skins (although the developement resources and added lag for these seem likely to be less).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
There does seem to be a change in the target audience. As much as it can be said to have had a target demographic, early MC seems aimed at the 15-30 gamer/computer 'nerd' whereas recent updates appear more interested in capturing the casual kids market.
Not to necessarily disagree because this trend is true. The game has always tried to broaden its appeal for wider reach. That's what tends to happen. But it was also true back then.
I remember people saying things like "the game is pandering to kids" in like 2013 and 2014 too, so it's not just a modern thing. The game was already on Xbox and swarming the attention of what were then preteens back in the early 2010s. I (who was already an adult back then) can't go to older Minecraft videos and see comments about the video anymore; it's all about younger people commenting on how it was their childhood at the time. To me, I don't hold that same specialization over it because it was just a video ten years ago, and it's still the same video today. Nostalgia and childhood are a heck of a thing (and I instead had my own things that were part of mine, so I know it all too well). Anyway, that group of people definitely seems to be a "not insignificant" part of the Minecraft population, so the kids were already there way back then too.
Of course the appeal has only grown since then.
Consider that when When Notch originally started it, it was as a sole developer as a personal project. The game was only on PC too, which itself is a big difference. It was not yet on consoles, nor on mobile devices (which themselves hadn't yet become what they are today, and this itself is a big change for things in the last ten years), let alone as it is today like Bedrock is, which for all of its problems is a far cry from the state it was back in on mobile in the early 2010s.
[Things like freely re-dyeable blocks remove an element of planning that was often considered a critical part of the 'feel' of MC.]
This is one I do disagree on though. I remember trying to dye already dyed stuff in the past and being surprised I couldn't. It felt like something that maybe should have been there. This was a big quality of life change for me and I'm glad it finally happened.
"This is how things were originally" does not necessarily equal "this is how things should be".
I don't see the pronblem with kids in the game; rather the issue I have is with the pandering to the young and casual players.
AD&D was originally marketed as being for "Adults age 8 & over" or something near that, an approach I would prefer MS/Mj take…
The problem with the drive to expand the user base to kids is that it has resulted in far to much [IMO] of nerfing the challenges and limiting the content — often in quite foolish ways.
[MS/Mj has long give 'it's not safe to punch sharks' as a main reason for refusing to add them, but encourages (or requies) a great many other very dangerous behaviors…].
The problem with catering to casual players is that these all too often do not see difficulty as a challenge to be bested, but a cause for whinging.
Granted I'm [likely] older than most players, there are enough youngsters in my extended family that game mechanics that are useful for teaching the need to be careful not to bite off more than one can chew [in a very 'cheap' learning venue] was a strong selling point. Unfortunately this attitude seems to have declined
[The multi-platform thing and the resultant lack of parity across platforms is another can of worms]
RE:[Things like freely re-dyeable blocks remove an element of planning that was often considered a critical part of the 'feel' of MC.]
I should have put more emphasis on "freely"; requiring first bleaching/washing the previous color to white/clear before redyeing would have reduced the annoyance of the previous system (and added some verisilmitude) without completely removing the advantage of prior planning.
[My idea would be to craft a bleach item (that would be employed like a dye) from a cauldron, a water bucket, and seven rotten flesh. (with the cualdron and empty bucket remaining in te crafting grid – as happens with cake).
This would impose some cost without needing to store misdyed items for later use.]
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Why does everything have to be so stoopid?" Harvey Pekar (from American Splendor)
WARNING: I have an extemely "grindy" playstyle; YMMV — if this doesn't seem fun to you, mine what you can from it & bin the rest.
The subject of balance is its own separate thing, but I'm one of the odd ones who likes some of the things people are complaining about with the way the game is going by slowing down the early game and becoming more of a slow burn, while still offering ways to reduce grind later. Too many people want instant gratification from survival.
But I was mostly saying that Mojang trying to broaden their appeal, and the influx of kids, happened very early and isn't just some recent thing.
The stuff about sharks I didn't know about, but I heard fireflies weren't added for a similar reason and it made me sad.
Meanwhile, bees are added partly for awareness (I think?) and yet they just... always end up committing suicide to water I guess? Why make them die to water if the AI can't avoid it? I put all the effort into getting beehives to my village and at first they fly around, doing their job of giving ambiance... and over time, they just disappear. And then I'm sad. I like a lot of the stuff that gets added partly or largely for variety and ambiance (like llamas, parrots, bears, etc.).
Oh, and I absolutely agree with the last part. Funny thing is I was originally going to type an example of how a process being required to redye something wouldn't be too much to ask, and then you say it. But I'm also not really put off by the fact that it can be freely done. I'd rather have it there, in any capacity, than not at all.
Why make them die to water if the AI can't avoid it?
Or why can't they improve their AI so they avoid water, and other blocks that can damage them? I did this for bats, for which Mojang closed an issue about how they always fly into lava as "works as intended", and a much more recent issue covering damaging blocks in general (these were filed 7 years apart, the first one right after they were added, and old behavior, whether intended or not, may not always reflect the current):
They seem to have at least partially fixed it for bees though, but only lava is mentioned (water may not be seen as a "damaging" block since it doesn't cause damage in itself, or until the air timer is depleted):
Or why can't they improve their AI so they avoid water
Ideally, yes. But since they don't do that, I was wondering why they made it to where water damage them if they just end up naturally dying over time. If a mob is consistently failing to be self sustaining, it's flawed in my eyes.
I've seen a bat fly into lava too (I got a screenshot of this so it still happens in 1.20) but I don't think I mind that one.
The bees though... sad. And to be fair it's been 1.16 since I last could speak of this since that was the version I was on with my village in that world, and I have probably over half a dozen beehives with 2 to 3 bees to each and... there's zero bees around now. It's either the water or the campfires in the chimneys (which I put chains over to try and prevent them from going down but I'm not positive if it does).
In my 1.19/1.20 world I still see the bees... but I'm up on a plateau away from any water (besides farms). And they do still wander far enough away and then unload themselves. There should be a distance beyond any home beehive that they will prioritize less and less from going further.
Made me sad to add the ambiance by bringing them to my village and then they... poof. At least the birds sit in trees and live. Worst I've had happen with birds was funny enough what I presume was a bee pushing it off the branch and having to get it back up there, haha.
That's the distinction I'm making.
I'm not talking about any technical aspect of "structure frequency". I'm using the term to talk about the end result I am experiencing. You're looking too closely at one variable only. That variable can stay the same for all I care but they are more common despite it. I know what I'm experiencing in modern worlds versus what was common in older versions, and there is not a shred of doubt that structures (and some more than others) are far more common these days.
Your comparisons have some blind spots.
As said by the reply above, and as pointed out by myself to you before, you seem to be looking heavily at one variable, which is a given structure vis-a-vis, which ignores that there are simply more structures total in modern versions. This adds up quick.
You also admit you're using large biomes in your example (which I imagine isn't how most people play) and I think this probably exaggerates the numbers a bit (especially in the case of villages) more because as you said, even if the real change isn't structure frequency but increased valid places for the to be placed, that still makes them more common in result.
And that's the important part. The result. Not one given variable that most people aren't aware of.
Have to disagree here. Potions, and particular a few of them like fire resistance (which is actually fire immunity), night vision, and water breathing potions are incredibly broken. It's well worth the effort and not hard to do either.
I didn't pay potions as much attention before but it's interesting how my hardcore attempt this year has opened my eyes to how broken some things actually are. Potions, and some more than others, are definitely on that list.
But I do think both potions and enchants are overpowered and some power should be removed from them (and perhaps put into base gear). A good example is turtle shells. 10 seconds of underwater breathing is nothing when respiration and underwater potions exist. Maybe even make respiration exclusive to the turtle shell? The community would complain.
This is because I wanted a good comparison in terms of biome sizes - it is quite clear that biomes are much larger in newer versions, so much that they seem even larger than what used to be Large Biomes, given the tendency for the same biomes to cluster together (this is even apparent when comparing vanilla 1.6 to TMCW; both have the same biome size but since TMCW has so many more biome but it is less likely that the same biome will generate next to itself). Here is a comparison between 1.20 and my first world - 1.6 biomes are just specks compared to 1.20 biomes:
In particular, there is a single desert which is about as large as an entire Ice Plains in 1.6, and is surely overflowing with villages (example of an AMIDST map of such a region), are are the various gigantic Plains up to 2,000 blocks across, while 1.6 Plains are just little specks about the size of "sub-biomes" in 1.20 (by which I mean the smaller areas surrounded by a single biome).
Here is an in-game example of how small biomes used to be in default worlds - you can see parts of 6 different biomes (the two Taigas are different biomes) at a render distance of 16 (looking down); the Plains is much larger than shown, probably 2-3 "biome units", with another village at its border with a desert to the south (off the top edge):
Things are even more ridiculous in TMCW (if you dislike tiny biomes or seeing 11 different biomes within render distance, that is; to the far right is a jungle temple):
In fact, while I probably won't use it I'm adding a "Medium Biomes" world type in the next major update, which will double the scale from Default (which may as well be renamed to "Small Biomes") and offers a good compromise over Large Biomes' 4x scaling (16 times the area per biome).
Also, this is an extreme example of "biome clustering" in 1.7 (default world type), and the sheer number of structures that can generate as a result, you can also see how small individual biomes are, best seen in the non-desert area on the right, and even then you need to look at the smaller biomes (e.g. the Mushroom Islands are single "biome units"):
Also, this map has to cover a large area by anybody's standards - it is over 14,000 blocks across and around 400,000 chunks, 3 times the area I've explored in my first world over years of daily gameplay (this again illustrates how changes to playstyles, and the need to explore large distances to find things, has biases player's experiences. Nor does this do any good in terms of all the time wasted on finding things):
(later on they claim that 1.18 "fixed" this problem but from looking around I've easily found areas with no Ice Spikes for 9,000+ blocks in 1.20, using the "highlight biome" function on ChunkBase, and otherwise they are small enough that you need to cover pretty much the whole search area)
I doubt Mojang even actually plays their own game, or uses any aids to view changes to world generation on a large scale (this led me to write my own biome and underground mapping tools, which have vastly eased the process of changing/adding to them, particularly when I don't even need to launch the game itself and get near-instant results). I still do generate plenty of actual worlds when testing; I currently have over 1 GB of worlds, dating back about a month, in my MCP saves folder (rather than delete them in-game I just manually delete them).
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 always thought the jump from "regular" (256x256) biomes to "large" (1024x1024) was absurdly large - the regular biomes are too small, and large way too large; why did they skip over the obvious step in the middle?
FWIW, the current effective biome sizes (counting similar, contained, biomes as sub-biomes) are larger than the old regulars but smaller than the old large biomes (remembering biomes were most of the the time more than one single area because there weren't many biomes in any climate). It's big enough that it's not hard to find single-biome vistas, but it's not generally far to a different biome either. I still have issues with them, but the sizing is better than before.
That's me you're quoting there, and while I didn't do a statistical analysis of Ice Spikes in particular, I'll stick to my basic claims - it's a lot easier to find different climate zones now than it was, and rare biomes are easier to find too. That super-ginormous hot zone you showed is just not possible with the current system - the repeat period of the climate noises isn't big enough.
I agree in general Mojang's design choices don't seem informed by a lot of actual play. Now, they do use AMIDST; they posted an AMIDST map of the 1.7 climate system when it came out - although the map they published was very cherry-picked to hide the flaws of the 1.7 system. But you're right they seem not to have used AMIDST for 1.7 *design" because it doesn't take much looking at 1.7 era AMIDST maps to realize something is very wrong.
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
Better Forests Varied and beautiful trees and forests, in modern Minecraft.
You're missing the point then. When people say "structures are more common", they're not talking about one specific variable. They're talking only about the actual end result itself. That should be apparent.
You're trying to equalize the things that changed which could result in more structures (this seems like indirectly acknowledging they could have become more common?) to show that a given variable didn't change. The thing is, nobody is disputing whether a single given value did or didn't change. The only thing people are referring to when they make a statement of "structures are more common" is the end result itself.
I'm going to be honest with you here. This seems like a situation where you're looking at the code or looking at maps but missing the experience of newer versions. Yet everyone, and basically everyone, who plays modern versions will tell you structures are increasingly more common.
You're also doing some things I disagree with to change the comparison.
I imagine most people didn't play with large biomes back then, so using it as representative of the average for those versions seems off to me.
I also disagree with considering all biomes of a similar type as the same biome. I said it in the other thread where this came up, but that "massive plains biome" is at least three biomes (plains, sunflower plains, and meadow), or even four if you want to try and make things "like for like" and consider there's "extreme hills-like" terrain mixed in there. What you're seeing are sub-regions more than single biomes (even if those can also be big). And yes, those make things larger than something like 1.6, with truly random biome placement and quite small biome sizes. Biomes are larger, but not that large, especially on average.
1.7 to 1.16 (1.17) is not 1.18 to present, either, but you seem to commonly consider everything post-1.6 as just all the same. Maybe that's because you prefer 1.6 and don't like anything after regardless, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean the terrain generation never changed after 1.7 launched. 1.18 might share the climate system approach but it's still well different from 1.7 in a lot of ways (and that doesn't mean it's the same thing but worse and with differently shaped biomes, either).
The choice to make villages have less stuff is because they'd rather do that than make them rarer or common biomes rarer
If you have rare but useful villages, it's spawn seed luck. If you have many semi useless villages, it's time
One of the most significant comments IMO occurs @~6m50 noting that at least some of the perceived loss of 'magic' may by due to the video poster's having 'been there; done that".
(I can remember a certain thrill at spotting my first desrt well [arguably the most useless structure in the game] vs. the more recent reaction of simply considering the well a convenient waymarker as I flew over it.)
Harking back to the days of paper & pencil gaming this issue was commonly understood to be an important factor in changing the nature of the gameplay [generally from the "down the door, kill the critters, grab the goodies" random dungeon crawl to a more nuanced involvement with the occupants of the campaign world]. I doubt most strongly that current "AI" is anywhere near providing this possibility.
This may explain the popularity of SMP as something like the 'Southern Canal project' would be incredibly boring to do in SSP [or CSP].
There does seem to be a change in the target audience. As much as it can be said to have had a target demographic, early MC seems aimed at the 15-30 gamer/computer 'nerd' whereas recent updates appear more interested in capturing the casual kids market.
[Things like freely re-dyeable blocks remove an element of planning that was often considered a critical part of the 'feel' of MC.]
The archeology additions also feel more like a mini-game frankensteined onto the base game. Something similarcan be said of the multiple cat and horse skins (although the developement resources and added lag for these seem likely to be less).
Not to necessarily disagree because this trend is true. The game has always tried to broaden its appeal for wider reach. That's what tends to happen. But it was also true back then.
I remember people saying things like "the game is pandering to kids" in like 2013 and 2014 too, so it's not just a modern thing. The game was already on Xbox and swarming the attention of what were then preteens back in the early 2010s. I (who was already an adult back then) can't go to older Minecraft videos and see comments about the video anymore; it's all about younger people commenting on how it was their childhood at the time. To me, I don't hold that same specialization over it because it was just a video ten years ago, and it's still the same video today. Nostalgia and childhood are a heck of a thing (and I instead had my own things that were part of mine, so I know it all too well). Anyway, that group of people definitely seems to be a "not insignificant" part of the Minecraft population, so the kids were already there way back then too.
Of course the appeal has only grown since then.
Consider that when When Notch originally started it, it was as a sole developer as a personal project. The game was only on PC too, which itself is a big difference. It was not yet on consoles, nor on mobile devices (which themselves hadn't yet become what they are today, and this itself is a big change for things in the last ten years), let alone as it is today like Bedrock is, which for all of its problems is a far cry from the state it was back in on mobile in the early 2010s.
This is one I do disagree on though. I remember trying to dye already dyed stuff in the past and being surprised I couldn't. It felt like something that maybe should have been there. This was a big quality of life change for me and I'm glad it finally happened.
"This is how things were originally" does not necessarily equal "this is how things should be".
I don't see the pronblem with kids in the game; rather the issue I have is with the pandering to the young and casual players.
AD&D was originally marketed as being for "Adults age 8 & over" or something near that, an approach I would prefer MS/Mj take…
The problem with the drive to expand the user base to kids is that it has resulted in far to much [IMO] of nerfing the challenges and limiting the content — often in quite foolish ways.
[MS/Mj has long give 'it's not safe to punch sharks' as a main reason for refusing to add them, but encourages (or requies) a great many other very dangerous behaviors…].
The problem with catering to casual players is that these all too often do not see difficulty as a challenge to be bested, but a cause for whinging.
Granted I'm [likely] older than most players, there are enough youngsters in my extended family that game mechanics that are useful for teaching the need to be careful not to bite off more than one can chew [in a very 'cheap' learning venue] was a strong selling point. Unfortunately this attitude seems to have declined
[The multi-platform thing and the resultant lack of parity across platforms is another can of worms]
RE:[Things like freely re-dyeable blocks remove an element of planning that was often considered a critical part of the 'feel' of MC.]
I should have put more emphasis on "freely"; requiring first bleaching/washing the previous color to white/clear before redyeing would have reduced the annoyance of the previous system (and added some verisilmitude) without completely removing the advantage of prior planning.
[My idea would be to craft a bleach item (that would be employed like a dye) from a cauldron, a water bucket, and seven rotten flesh. (with the cualdron and empty bucket remaining in te crafting grid – as happens with cake).
This would impose some cost without needing to store misdyed items for later use.]
I can agree with some of those things.
The subject of balance is its own separate thing, but I'm one of the odd ones who likes some of the things people are complaining about with the way the game is going by slowing down the early game and becoming more of a slow burn, while still offering ways to reduce grind later. Too many people want instant gratification from survival.
But I was mostly saying that Mojang trying to broaden their appeal, and the influx of kids, happened very early and isn't just some recent thing.
The stuff about sharks I didn't know about, but I heard fireflies weren't added for a similar reason and it made me sad.
Meanwhile, bees are added partly for awareness (I think?) and yet they just... always end up committing suicide to water I guess? Why make them die to water if the AI can't avoid it? I put all the effort into getting beehives to my village and at first they fly around, doing their job of giving ambiance... and over time, they just disappear. And then I'm sad. I like a lot of the stuff that gets added partly or largely for variety and ambiance (like llamas, parrots, bears, etc.).
Oh, and I absolutely agree with the last part. Funny thing is I was originally going to type an example of how a process being required to redye something wouldn't be too much to ask, and then you say it. But I'm also not really put off by the fact that it can be freely done. I'd rather have it there, in any capacity, than not at all.
Or why can't they improve their AI so they avoid water, and other blocks that can damage them? I did this for bats, for which Mojang closed an issue about how they always fly into lava as "works as intended", and a much more recent issue covering damaging blocks in general (these were filed 7 years apart, the first one right after they were added, and old behavior, whether intended or not, may not always reflect the current):
MC-194 Bats flying over lava sometimes catch on fire
MC-161690 Bats do not avoid damage sources
They seem to have at least partially fixed it for bees though, but only lava is mentioned (water may not be seen as a "damaging" block since it doesn't cause damage in itself, or until the air timer is depleted):
MC-159987 Bees and parrots don't avoid lava
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?
Ideally, yes. But since they don't do that, I was wondering why they made it to where water damage them if they just end up naturally dying over time. If a mob is consistently failing to be self sustaining, it's flawed in my eyes.
I've seen a bat fly into lava too (I got a screenshot of this so it still happens in 1.20) but I don't think I mind that one.
The bees though... sad. And to be fair it's been 1.16 since I last could speak of this since that was the version I was on with my village in that world, and I have probably over half a dozen beehives with 2 to 3 bees to each and... there's zero bees around now. It's either the water or the campfires in the chimneys (which I put chains over to try and prevent them from going down but I'm not positive if it does).
In my 1.19/1.20 world I still see the bees... but I'm up on a plateau away from any water (besides farms). And they do still wander far enough away and then unload themselves. There should be a distance beyond any home beehive that they will prioritize less and less from going further.
Made me sad to add the ambiance by bringing them to my village and then they... poof. At least the birds sit in trees and live. Worst I've had happen with birds was funny enough what I presume was a bee pushing it off the branch and having to get it back up there, haha.