I thought the underground was said to be underwhelming post-1.6.4.I personally never noticed but some people say that ever since 1.6.4 the caves were downgraded somehow.
On Bedrock Edition, caves are just as swiss cheesey as 1.5 Java. So if I want swiss cheese I play Bedrock and if I don't I play Java.
Issue is that simple and easy is not always bad, especially if you have low brightness. And when there is swiss cheese it's not that simple.
So adding more to caves may become too much for me. I also hope it's done tastefully with reasonably matching colour palettes and shapes.
Believe it or not, less than 5% of the entire codebase of TMCW involves cave generation - it changes way more than just caves; for example, it has much more varied world generation in general, none of the "travel 10000+ blocks to find some ultra-rare biome or structure" nonsense that Mojang has been pushing since 1.7, ..
I agree. Again, I rely on Bedrock for nicer aesthetics since 1.6, even though its gameplay controls are more finicky than Java's.
To download the other ones you need to make a folder in the versions folder for minecraft and put the client and JSON file for the versions in there. They all need to be named the same aside from file extensions. Once you do that, you will be able to choose that version when making a new profile with the minecraft launcher.
Hi there, ZaffreAqua. I asked you a question before.
This is what I said:
"Wait really? Glow squid was the one you voted for? I'm not complaining but I'm just curious.Why the glow squid? And why not the Iceologer?"
I didn't get around to voting due to being out of town, but glow squid has my pick for several reasons
-Moobloom would have just been another rare animal, I don't see anything for it to add outside of aesthetic. Another biome exclusive mob too. Meh.
-Iceologer, ignoring the subpar name, would have just been another biome exclusive mob. The snowy biomes already have polar bears and strays. Plus, it would just be another hostile illager mob, we have plenty of those already. Just use the illusioner. If it were something more creative like an icy arachnid creature disguising as ice or some original shtick, then I'd be more obligated to vote. Oh, and I don't have faith in it spawning much.
-The glow squid, while ironically suffers from the same problem as the Moobloom, fits with this update. You aren't going to be finding either of the above anywhere near caves or with anything to do with them. Glow squid however could spawn in underground lakes and oceans.
-It does something with the squid. Not much has been done with squid overall, having been in since early beta. Squid only got sounds 5 YEARS after they were implemented, and I think it's about time we got a variant for a mob that isn't yet another bloody humanoid! Too many of those. Blah.
-Spices up oceans ever so slightly. It's small, but between seeing normal squid, fish and dolphins, it's be nice to have another thing swimming in the depths.
-In the dark depths, a glowing mob can indicate passages and other locations which should be fairly useful.
I will say that I wish it did a wee bit more, but we'll see.
Meh.
-Iceologer, ignoring the subpar name, would have just been another biome exclusive mob. The snowy biomes already have polar bears and strays. Plus, it would just be another hostile illager mob, we have plenty of those already. Just use the illusioner. If it were something more creative like an icy arachnid creature disguising as ice or some original shtick, then I'd be more obligated to vote. Oh, and I don't have faith in it spawning much.
I must object to this part. Moobloom would have been an incredible form of flower farming and possibly bringing us a new dye. On top of that, with the interaction with bees, there could have been opportunities for things like minigames or adventure maps as well.
The iceologer actually has the most content of the three, creating interesting encounters and opening possibilities with its unique attack. While we have many hostile illagers, each of those mobs has unique attacks/behavior, and they contribute to the value of raids and the like. It's unfair to put them all in the same category because they're only similar through the lore.
The illusioner employs blindness and illusion, the evoker uses minions, vindicators attack mostly melee, vexes use speed, flight, and their small size to their advantage, the ravager uses its large size, pillagers use crossbows, witches use magic, etc. Each mob has a different attack and behavior.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember those versions that minecraft pranked us with? Specifically:
Minecraft 2.0
Minecraft 1.VR-Pre1
Snapshot 15w14a
Minecraft 3D
Those are still downloadable! Watch this video for 2.0:
To download the other ones you need to make a folder in the versions folder for minecraft and put the client and JSON file for the versions in there. They all need to be named the same aside from file extensions. Once you do that, you will be able to choose that version when making a new profile with the minecraft launcher.
Glow squid is my second pick so I'm still glad I got a mob I wanted. I hope their spawn rules allow them to spawn in the huge underground lakes. It would add more atmosphere to the caves.
I'd really like some more information about whether or not we should all just completely forget about our existing worlds due to this incoming update. Is the world generation going to change across the board by moving up to make space for the deep dark caves? Is it going to be incredibly difficult to find literally anything new unless we go to unloaded chunks? Is it even worth keeping existing worlds?
They did this crap with the nether update, where they kept us completely in the dark about whether old nethers would be able to get new stuff without having to go to new chunks, and then when the update finally rolled around, guess what, no reset button, so any world that had a host who didn't know how to manually edit/delete files was just screwed. I really don't want to see that happen again. If we're going to get almost no new content without either a ton of work or starting fresh, just tell us now please so we can stop logging in to our existing worlds and wasting our time.
I'd really like some more information about whether or not we should all just completely forget about our existing worlds due to this incoming update. Is the world generation going to change across the board by moving up to make space for the deep dark caves? Is it going to be incredibly difficult to find literally anything new unless we go to unloaded chunks? Is it even worth keeping existing worlds?
They did this crap with the nether update, where they kept us completely in the dark about whether old nethers would be able to get new stuff without having to go to new chunks, and then when the update finally rolled around, guess what, no reset button, so any world that had a host who didn't know how to manually edit/delete files was just screwed. I really don't want to see that happen again. If we're going to get almost no new content without either a ton of work or starting fresh, just tell us now please so we can stop logging in to our existing worlds and wasting our time.
It'll probably be consistent with other world generation changes. In order to get the new biomes, you'll either have to go to a new chunk or create a new world. But the new mobs will spawn in existing caves without having to load new terrain. As far as I can tell, this has always been the case whenever they added anything related to world generation, so I don't see how we're being "left in the dark"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Remember those versions that minecraft pranked us with? Specifically:
Minecraft 2.0
Minecraft 1.VR-Pre1
Snapshot 15w14a
Minecraft 3D
Those are still downloadable! Watch this video for 2.0:
To download the other ones you need to make a folder in the versions folder for minecraft and put the client and JSON file for the versions in there. They all need to be named the same aside from file extensions. Once you do that, you will be able to choose that version when making a new profile with the minecraft launcher.
I'd really like some more information about whether or not we should all just completely forget about our existing worlds due to this incoming update. Is the world generation going to change across the board by moving up to make space for the deep dark caves? Is it going to be incredibly difficult to find literally anything new unless we go to unloaded chunks? Is it even worth keeping existing worlds?
They did this crap with the nether update, where they kept us completely in the dark about whether old nethers would be able to get new stuff without having to go to new chunks, and then when the update finally rolled around, guess what, no reset button, so any world that had a host who didn't know how to manually edit/delete files was just screwed. I really don't want to see that happen again. If we're going to get almost no new content without either a ton of work or starting fresh, just tell us now please so we can stop logging in to our existing worlds and wasting our time.
They don't need to make the ground deeper - current caves are minuscule compared to the depth of ground; the largest underground features in TMCW exceed 1 million blocks in volume, compared to around 30000 for the largest ravines and 24000 for the largest single caves in vanilla; for example, this cave has a volume of 685,000 blocks, more than 20 times larger than the largest underground features in vanilla, and the only change I made to the ground depth is to lower lava level from 11 to 4 with bedrock being a single layer, increasing the space between lava level and sea level by about 13%:
For another example, these are the largest caves that I found within a 1 million chunk (16384x16384 blocks) area of the same seed in TMCW and vanilla 1.6.4; on average, the largest caves within such an area have volumes of 385,000 and 20,000 blocks respectively:
The green areas go above sea level, where the volume isn't measured; in an actual world they break the surface less often than indicated by these renderings, made with my own cave mapping utility:
Also, biomes with higher terrain, like Savanna Plateau and Mesa, can have additional caves generated near to above sea level and deeper ravines to take advantage of the deeper terrain (average height of around 90 blocks); vanilla already does this to an extent with mineshafts in mesas.
That's not to say that they can't make the ground deeper, but if they did they would almost certainly make existing worlds use the old generation since you'd get huge walls between new and old chunks, plus they would need to increase the world height if mountains are to be the same; I did increase the depth by 64 and 128 layers in my "double/triple height terrain" mods but they were based on vanilla 1.6.4, with terrain only up to 64 blocks above sea level, so it was still within the 256 block height limit:
This shows double height and normal terrain; triple height would be even more extreme:
The floating mineshaft is because I loaded the world in vanilla and it used the saved structure data to generate the part that wasn't already generated, including the altitude, even though it is way outside the normal range:
Can you go just one topic without talking about your mod? Are you even capable of talking about the game without bringing up your mods and shooting off streams of pointless numbers in said mod constantly? We get it, your life revolves around your mods, but it would surprise me if I was the only one tired of hearing about it in literally every single topic you enter.
Can you go just one topic without talking about your mod? Are you even capable of talking about the game without bringing up your mods and shooting off streams of pointless numbers in said mod constantly? We get it, your life revolves around your mods, but it would surprise me if I was the only one tired of hearing about it in literally every single topic you enter.
And how is it unrelated to the topic on hand, or your post? I gave good examples of how large caves can get without the need to make the ground deeper, which comes up in virtually every discussion of a "cave update", and why it is highly unlikely that Mojang will make it deeper - all entirely relevant to the discussion on hand - and this sort of talk makes me certain that most players will lose interest in a "cave update" within a few hours, if even that - they'll just go back to their farm-centric playstyles instead of playing the game as it was meant to be played (at the least, a "cave update" needs to kill off farms that let you farm minable resources - mining/caving would be a much bigger part of the game if you had to mine everything).
Also, this is the only thread where I've mentioned my mods in the past week, as evident if you look at my post history, where you can find entire pages of posts with no mention of mods (at least not my own, or more than just a mention of the fact that my worlds are modded, appropriately, in a thread about caves/mining); it is an extreme exaggeration to say that I "constantly" talk about it and in every single thread (well, yeah, in a thread about caves, sure).
And how is it unrelated to the topic on hand, or your post? I gave good examples of how large caves can get without the need to make the ground deeper, which comes up in virtually every discussion of a "cave update", and why it is highly unlikely that Mojang will make it deeper - all entirely relevant to the discussion on hand - and this sort of talk makes me certain that most players will lose interest in a "cave update" within a few hours, if even that - they'll just go back to their farm-centric playstyles instead of playing the game as it was meant to be played (at the least, a "cave update" needs to kill off farms that let you farm minable resources - mining/caving would be a much bigger part of the game if you had to mine everything).
Also, this is the only thread where I've mentioned my mods in the past week, as evident if you look at my post history, where you can find entire pages of posts with no mention of mods (at least not my own, or more than just a mention of the fact that my worlds are modded, appropriately, in a thread about caves/mining); it is an extreme exaggeration to say that I "constantly" talk about it and in every single thread (well, yeah, in a thread about caves, sure).
To be fair you do mention it all the time, not just in cave related threads, You just can't help yourself.
The bigger issue I have though is your making it sound like everyone should only be mining because thats's the true purpose of the game, when it's not. Thats's just your rules. Just because it's in the first half of the name doesn't mean that's the primary aim of the game, there is the rest of the name, aka the CRAFT part. It's a sandbox game, so if you just want to mine - that's fine, but don't make out ("they'll just go back to their farm-centric playstyles") that's the way everyone should be playing and not building, adventuring, redstoning and all the rest.
This thread appears to be getting a bit too far off-topic. As the top post states, please limit the discussion of this thread to actual or announced features of 1.17.
If you wish to discuss other things, please create other threads for those discussions.
Now's the part where I'm slightly less excited and more cautious/worried. The cave generation they showed it pretty cool, but I hope that it's not all vertical drops down from the surface like ravines, and I hope that the smaller, narrower caverns of old are retained. I liked exploring the labyrinthine caves of old. Judging by some of the statements, it sounds like they're being kept at least in some regard, but I'll wait and see. I hope the mountain generation gets spiced up to have some exciting features. I still miss the pre-1.7 extreme hills. As it looks right now they look a lot more like mountains, but they don't look terrible exciting to find a spot to build on. I guess I'll warm up to it. Hoping floating islands and all that crazy stuff sticks around... The large size of the caves is cool, but I find myself having reservations about it as well. I suppose scaffolds will find continued use if I can find a jungle. Building underground is both going to be much better and a serious pain in the neck, depending if you wanna hole up in a cavern wall or in a cave-free area.
Overall looks great, I just hope that my worries are relieved. A wish in me hopes that lush caves also get to also be the underground for jungles on top of being found near azalea trees.
Exactly my concerns, too...
If the new big caverns coexist alongside the old small caverns, like different underground biomes, it will be a great update... However, if the new big caverns simply replace the old ones, it will be an awful update, and people will start saying that they miss the old cave system sooner than later.
The same goes for mountains... If the new rounded mountains coexist alongside the old abrupt mountains, it will be a great update... Contrarily, if the new rounded mountains simply replace the old abrupt ones, it will be a big mistake and many people will miss the old relief.
In this second regard I'm more pessimistic... Mojang's development team has demonstrated in past updates a rather poor understanding of how terrain generation works... In the 1.7 update, they increased terrain generation above y=128, but at the cost of destroying sea-level biomes like swamplands and beaches... I hope this time they don't destroy cliffs and the occasional overhangs that give place to a lot of building ideas.
In the 1.7 update, they increased terrain generation above y=128, but at the cost of destroying sea-level biomes like swamplands and beaches... I hope this time they don't destroy cliffs and the occasional overhangs that give place to a lot of building ideas.
The only change made in 1.7 (excluding Amplified) was to allow terrain to exceed y=128 if the biome's height parameters allowed it - most biomes were unaffected, with a few special new biomes (Extreme Hills+/M, Savanna (Plateau) M) able to exceed it in default worlds; the Wiki even says that normal "Mountains" (Extreme Hills) rarely exceed y=110, the same as the old ones (I've seen them as high as y=120 in 1.6.4). I did the exact same thing myself with no chunk walls; I actually increased the height limit while playing on a world and never noticed any differences since the only thing that changed was the "compression" applied to terrain as it approached the limit (only terrain above y=100 or so was affected, leading to flattened peaks).
Consider this image of a very ugly "beach", taken from a thread complaining about the terrain - this was uploaded to Imgur on January 5, 2012, long before the release of 1.7 and I've seen many such "beaches" in my first world (vanilla 1.6.4), if usually not quite this bad:
In order to fix this the algorithm which smooths height differences between biomes needs to be adjusted to account for beaches, as I've done myself, along with rivers so they can cut though even the most extreme mountains, except where I specifically don't allow it (I've seen dry "rivers" in vanilla 1.6.4 plains, even in areas with relatively low terrain since there are two components which together make up variations in height).
Likewise, the problem with swamps, if you mean like hills rising well above water, is due to the addition of a "hills" variant, not changes to the terrain itself; otherwise, the "base depth noise" (the same thing that caused dry rivers) determines whether a given swamp/area of swamp is mostly water or land:
Also, as far as "classic" caves go, they need to be reverted to the generation prior to 1.7, making them more varied and interesting (example of a particularly dense "1.6.4-style cave system"), along with other underground structures being made more common (they may have made mineshafts rarer due to their tendency to make big overlapping messes but that can easily be fixed by spacing them apart (e.g. villages have a minimum spacing of 8 chunks but mineshafts can generate right next to other mineshafts), as well as not generating them if there are too many caves nearby. Dungeons were likely a casualty of the 1.7 height increase, which doubled their y-range from 128 to 256 despite most terrain and especially caves, which are nearly all below sea level not taking advantage of the increase, halving their density (they can extend higher than indicated by their starting altitude, up to y=235, but they are extremely rare above y=128 since caves are mostly horizontal).
Likewise, the problem with swamps, if you mean like hills rising well above water, is due to the addition of a "hills" variant, not changes to the terrain itself; otherwise, the "base depth noise" (the same thing that caused dry rivers) determines whether a given swamp/area of swamp is mostly water or land:
Nope, swamp hills are not only due to the addition of a hills variant... Hills are present in flat swamps too... The image in the article you provide is a good example:
This is a "flat swamp"... As you can see, now flat swamps can have hills up to 7 layers, maybe even 8 or 9... Prior to the 1.7 update, a swampland biome rarely exceeded 2 or 3 layers above sea level, making swamplands more like real swamplands... The same applies to beaches.
As you already know as a mod maker, prior to 1.7, a maxHeight of 0.1 and minHeight of -0.1 in a biome meant a difference of x blocks, whereas in versions 1.7 and later, this means 2x blocks.
That's the problem, that they only changed one value to increase max height generation from Y=128 to Y=256, without thinking about how to correct side effects like beaches and swamps becoming less beach-like and swamp-like.
That's why I'm really worried about what they seem to plan to do with mountains... Knowing the lazy approach they used in the 1.7 update, it's very likely that they simply modify the Fracture Vertical and Fracture Horizontal values to make more rounded and realistic mountains:
I hope they don't just reduce Fracture Vertical and Fracture Horizontal values to make boring rounded mountains like those on the upper left of the picture above.
That's the problem, that they only changed one value to increase max height generation from Y=128 to Y=256, without thinking about how to correct side effects like beaches and swamps becoming less beach-like and swamp-like.
They must have made some other change since I did the same thing in my own mod with no effects on terrain below the old height limit (within 20 blocks or so, where terrain would start to flatten out more and more as it got higher so it never actually hit the limit) and never saw any chunk borders:
These are not the best examples (different angles) but you can see that terrain is unchanged at lower elevations; the only thing I changed was this bit of code:
Vanilla 1.6.4, which sets a limit of 104, corresponding to a value being more than 13, representing intervals of 8 blocks (the noise array itself is 5x17x15 blocks):
if (var46 > par6 - 4) // par6 is set to 17 so this is equivalent to 13; var46 ranges from 0-16
{
double var40 = (double)((float)(var46 - (par6 - 4)) / 3.0F);
var30 = var30 * (1.0D - var40) + -10.0D * var40;
}
TMCWv3+ (this was added after the initial release of TMCWv3, including after I started a world, so any general changes would have been quite obvious; I only make large-scale changes that cause such disruptions in new major releases); I increased the height limit of terrain to 192 (5x25x5 noise array) with some biomes changing a "heightScale" variable to control the maximum height terrain can reach (equivalent to (heightScale + 3) * 8, so the default of 19 gives a maximum of 176):
// Controls maximum height of mountains, above which height variation is reduced.
// Vanilla default is 13, equivalent to 104 blocks with a maximum height of 16 or 128 blocks; maximum
// height was increased to 24 or 192 blocks, corresponding to a maximum heightScale of 21 or 168 blocks.
int heightScale = 19;
// Extreme Mountains biomes use a special noise generator, initialized as needed
int extremeMountains = 0;
if (var20 == BiomeGenBase.savannaMountains || var20 == BiomeGenBase.savannaMountains2)
{
extremeMountains = 1;
heightScale = 21;
}
else if (var20 == BiomeGenBase.extremeMountains || var20 == BiomeGenBase.extremeForestMountains)
{
extremeMountains = 2;
heightScale = 21;
}
else if (biomeType == BiomeGenBase.TYPE_MESA || biomeType == BiomeGenBase.TYPE_VOLCANIC)
{
// Lowers maximum height of Mesa and Volcanic Wasteland for flatter peaks (same as vanilla)
heightScale = 13;
}
if (var46 > heightScale)
{
if (var46 > heightScale + 3)
{
var30 = -1.0D;
}
else
{
double var40 = (double)(var46 - heightScale) / 3.0D;
var30 = var30 * (1.0D - var40) - 10.0D * var40;
}
}
Also, "minHeight" and "maxHeight" do not actually set the minimum and maximum altitudes of a biome; in fact, my "Rocky Mountains" biome has a minHeight of up to 4.5 and a maxHeight of 0.5 for most of the individual biomes (they generate in concentric rings of increasing height to create large-scale mountains which are relatively smooth) - these are misnamed by MCP and should actually be read as "baseHeight" and "heightVariation"; likewise I set Savanna Plateau to 1.5 and 0, giving nearly flat terrain at around y=90; the base height of Savanna Mountains was increased to prevent large areas of below sea level terrain (even then there are still small areas below sea level, and many areas lower than Savanna Plateau, which has the same "maxHeight" as the "minHeight" of Savanna Mountains):
public static final BiomeGenBase rockyMountains = (new BiomeGenRockyMountains(83, false)).setColor(6316128).setBiomeName("Rocky Mountains").setMinMaxHeight(1.2F, 0.75F).setTemperatureRainfall(0.3F, 0.7F).setBiomeType(TYPE_ROCKY).setNoAnimals();
public static final BiomeGenBase rockyMountainsEdge = (new BiomeGenRockyMountains(84, false)).setColor(6316128).setBiomeName("Rocky Mountains Edge").setMinMaxHeight(0.8F, 0.5F).setTemperatureRainfall(0.4F, 0.6F).setBiomeType(TYPE_ROCKY);
public static final BiomeGenBase rockyMountainsPeak1 = (new BiomeGenRockyMountains(85, false)).setColor(6316128).setBiomeName("Rocky Mountains Peak 1").setMinMaxHeight(2.0F, 0.5F).setTemperatureRainfall(0.25F, 0.8F).setBiomeType(TYPE_ROCKY).setNoAnimals();
public static final BiomeGenBase rockyMountainsPeak2 = (new BiomeGenRockyMountains(86, false)).setColor(6316128).setBiomeName("Rocky Mountains Peak 2").setMinMaxHeight(3.2F, 0.5F).setTemperatureRainfall(0.2F, 0.9F).setBiomeType(TYPE_ROCKY).setNoAnimals();
public static final BiomeGenBase rockyMountainsPeak3 = (new BiomeGenRockyMountains(87, true)).setColor(6316128).setBiomeName("Rocky Mountains Summit").setMinMaxHeight(4.5F, 0.5F).setTemperatureRainfall(0.0F, 0.9F).setBiomeType(TYPE_ROCKY).setNoAnimals();
public static final BiomeGenBase savanna = (new BiomeGenSavanna(62, false)).setColor(16421912).setBiomeName("Savanna").setDisableRain().setTemperatureRainfall(1.0F, 0.0F).setMinMaxHeight(0.1F, 0.2F);
public static final BiomeGenBase savannaPlateau = (new BiomeGenSavanna(63, false)).setColor(16421912).setBiomeName("Savanna Plateau").setDisableRain().setTemperatureRainfall(1.0F, 0.0F).setMinMaxHeight(1.5F, 0.0F);
public static final BiomeGenBase savannaMountains = (new BiomeGenSavanna(64, true)).setColor(16421912).setBiomeName("Savanna Mountains").setDisableRain().setTemperatureRainfall(1.0F, 0.0F).setMinMaxHeight(1.0F, 2.5F);
public static final BiomeGenBase savannaMountains2 = (new BiomeGenSavanna(65, true)).setColor(16421912).setBiomeName("Extreme Savanna Mountains").setDisableRain().setTemperatureRainfall(1.0F, 0.0F).setMinMaxHeight(1.5F, 4.0F);
I like a lot of what I saw, even if some of it is stuff I don't care for either way.
Mostly, good riddance to 1.7 era caves, hopefully.
I recently started a new world and I'm finding one thing in particular a little frustrating. My prior world was largely rooted in terrain generated prior to 1.7, so even though 1.7 is many years old now, I'm still newly taken aback by how lacking caves are since I'm still used to the 1.6.4 and earlier ones.
When I need coal, iron, or diamonds, I like to go exploring caves for it. I like to adventure and build, mostly. I feel like I'm having to spend way more time looking around for caves time and again (and traveling between my village and the various ones I find), only to come out with fewer resources for the time investment. If I want a lot of coal fast, it's sadly better to seek a mountain biome and just take it from the surfaces than it is to explore caves for it.
I like a lot of what I saw, even if some of it is stuff I don't care for either way.
Mostly, good riddance to 1.7 era caves, hopefully.
I recently started a new world and I'm finding one thing in particular a little frustrating. My prior world was largely rooted in terrain generated prior to 1.7, so even though 1.7 is many years old now, I'm still newly taken aback by how lacking caves are since I'm still used to the 1.6.4 and earlier ones.
When I need coal, iron, or diamonds, I like to go exploring caves for it. I like to adventure and build, mostly. I feel like I'm having to spend way more time looking around for caves time and again (and traveling between my village and the various ones I find), only to come out with fewer resources for the time investment. If I want a lot of coal fast, it's sadly better to seek a mountain biome and just take it from the surfaces than it is to explore caves for it.
Yeah. About that. They did state during the Minecraft Live, that the old style caves are not going anywhere. As in: they are going still be a there.
That being said. Even though I haven't really played that much Minecraft versions pre 1.8, I really can't claim, that what we have now would be any better, than pre 1.7 caves. even though the little I have tested those versions, I only got lost in those caves. Always have to dig my way out from them.
Well, I don't really have awfully strong opinions that they were ultimately better before, as I don't know the ins and outs of all the changes. I just know I'm still used to the earlier style caves, and this has been one thing I've noticed that I'm having to adjust to (and not having as much fun in doing so). Of course, I'm also used to already having so many resources in my other world, and being in a "new" world, and having nothing, that could be shifting my opinion of them too. They do seem too reduced now though. There's so many caves, some that even look and start big and wide, that just terminate before they even go anywhere. I could post some pictures of a few I found yesterday; it's disappointing how one of them which looked so big (one that would have had me happy finding in older versions) and it just ended without going anywhere.
I'm confused on how caves will stay the same with the changes that are coming for them though.
On Bedrock Edition, caves are just as swiss cheesey as 1.5 Java. So if I want swiss cheese I play Bedrock and if I don't I play Java.
Issue is that simple and easy is not always bad, especially if you have low brightness. And when there is swiss cheese it's not that simple.
So adding more to caves may become too much for me. I also hope it's done tastefully with reasonably matching colour palettes and shapes.
Iceologers just sound like illusioners met strays.
I agree. Again, I rely on Bedrock for nicer aesthetics since 1.6, even though its gameplay controls are more finicky than Java's.
What's so bad about illusioners or strays? I actually really like the illusioner concept and wish it was implemented into the actual game.
Remember those versions that minecraft pranked us with? Specifically:
Those are still downloadable! Watch this video for 2.0:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQdu9LKAdIU
To download the other ones you need to make a folder in the versions folder for minecraft and put the client and JSON file for the versions in there. They all need to be named the same aside from file extensions. Once you do that, you will be able to choose that version when making a new profile with the minecraft launcher.
15w14a is on this link:
http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/15w14a
1.RV-Pre1 is here:
http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/1.RV-Pre1
Minecraft 3D is here:
https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Java_Edition_3D_Shareware_v1.34
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI didn't get around to voting due to being out of town, but glow squid has my pick for several reasons
-Moobloom would have just been another rare animal, I don't see anything for it to add outside of aesthetic. Another biome exclusive mob too. Meh.
-Iceologer, ignoring the subpar name, would have just been another biome exclusive mob. The snowy biomes already have polar bears and strays. Plus, it would just be another hostile illager mob, we have plenty of those already. Just use the illusioner. If it were something more creative like an icy arachnid creature disguising as ice or some original shtick, then I'd be more obligated to vote. Oh, and I don't have faith in it spawning much.
-The glow squid, while ironically suffers from the same problem as the Moobloom, fits with this update. You aren't going to be finding either of the above anywhere near caves or with anything to do with them. Glow squid however could spawn in underground lakes and oceans.
-It does something with the squid. Not much has been done with squid overall, having been in since early beta. Squid only got sounds 5 YEARS after they were implemented, and I think it's about time we got a variant for a mob that isn't yet another bloody humanoid! Too many of those. Blah.
-Spices up oceans ever so slightly. It's small, but between seeing normal squid, fish and dolphins, it's be nice to have another thing swimming in the depths.
-In the dark depths, a glowing mob can indicate passages and other locations which should be fairly useful.
I will say that I wish it did a wee bit more, but we'll see.
Figured it was time for a change.
I must object to this part. Moobloom would have been an incredible form of flower farming and possibly bringing us a new dye. On top of that, with the interaction with bees, there could have been opportunities for things like minigames or adventure maps as well.
The iceologer actually has the most content of the three, creating interesting encounters and opening possibilities with its unique attack. While we have many hostile illagers, each of those mobs has unique attacks/behavior, and they contribute to the value of raids and the like. It's unfair to put them all in the same category because they're only similar through the lore.
The illusioner employs blindness and illusion, the evoker uses minions, vindicators attack mostly melee, vexes use speed, flight, and their small size to their advantage, the ravager uses its large size, pillagers use crossbows, witches use magic, etc. Each mob has a different attack and behavior.
Remember those versions that minecraft pranked us with? Specifically:
Those are still downloadable! Watch this video for 2.0:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQdu9LKAdIU
To download the other ones you need to make a folder in the versions folder for minecraft and put the client and JSON file for the versions in there. They all need to be named the same aside from file extensions. Once you do that, you will be able to choose that version when making a new profile with the minecraft launcher.
15w14a is on this link:
http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/15w14a
1.RV-Pre1 is here:
http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/1.RV-Pre1
Minecraft 3D is here:
https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Java_Edition_3D_Shareware_v1.34
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumGlow squid is my second pick so I'm still glad I got a mob I wanted. I hope their spawn rules allow them to spawn in the huge underground lakes. It would add more atmosphere to the caves.
Praise be to Spode.
I'd really like some more information about whether or not we should all just completely forget about our existing worlds due to this incoming update. Is the world generation going to change across the board by moving up to make space for the deep dark caves? Is it going to be incredibly difficult to find literally anything new unless we go to unloaded chunks? Is it even worth keeping existing worlds?
They did this crap with the nether update, where they kept us completely in the dark about whether old nethers would be able to get new stuff without having to go to new chunks, and then when the update finally rolled around, guess what, no reset button, so any world that had a host who didn't know how to manually edit/delete files was just screwed. I really don't want to see that happen again. If we're going to get almost no new content without either a ton of work or starting fresh, just tell us now please so we can stop logging in to our existing worlds and wasting our time.
It'll probably be consistent with other world generation changes. In order to get the new biomes, you'll either have to go to a new chunk or create a new world. But the new mobs will spawn in existing caves without having to load new terrain. As far as I can tell, this has always been the case whenever they added anything related to world generation, so I don't see how we're being "left in the dark"
Remember those versions that minecraft pranked us with? Specifically:
Those are still downloadable! Watch this video for 2.0:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQdu9LKAdIU
To download the other ones you need to make a folder in the versions folder for minecraft and put the client and JSON file for the versions in there. They all need to be named the same aside from file extensions. Once you do that, you will be able to choose that version when making a new profile with the minecraft launcher.
15w14a is on this link:
http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/15w14a
1.RV-Pre1 is here:
http://minecraft.gamepedia.com/1.RV-Pre1
Minecraft 3D is here:
https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Java_Edition_3D_Shareware_v1.34
They don't need to make the ground deeper - current caves are minuscule compared to the depth of ground; the largest underground features in TMCW exceed 1 million blocks in volume, compared to around 30000 for the largest ravines and 24000 for the largest single caves in vanilla; for example, this cave has a volume of 685,000 blocks, more than 20 times larger than the largest underground features in vanilla, and the only change I made to the ground depth is to lower lava level from 11 to 4 with bedrock being a single layer, increasing the space between lava level and sea level by about 13%:
For another example, these are the largest caves that I found within a 1 million chunk (16384x16384 blocks) area of the same seed in TMCW and vanilla 1.6.4; on average, the largest caves within such an area have volumes of 385,000 and 20,000 blocks respectively:
Also, biomes with higher terrain, like Savanna Plateau and Mesa, can have additional caves generated near to above sea level and deeper ravines to take advantage of the deeper terrain (average height of around 90 blocks); vanilla already does this to an extent with mineshafts in mesas.
That's not to say that they can't make the ground deeper, but if they did they would almost certainly make existing worlds use the old generation since you'd get huge walls between new and old chunks, plus they would need to increase the world height if mountains are to be the same; I did increase the depth by 64 and 128 layers in my "double/triple height terrain" mods but they were based on vanilla 1.6.4, with terrain only up to 64 blocks above sea level, so it was still within the 256 block height limit:
The floating mineshaft is because I loaded the world in vanilla and it used the saved structure data to generate the part that wasn't already generated, including the altitude, even though it is way outside the normal range:
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?
Can you go just one topic without talking about your mod? Are you even capable of talking about the game without bringing up your mods and shooting off streams of pointless numbers in said mod constantly? We get it, your life revolves around your mods, but it would surprise me if I was the only one tired of hearing about it in literally every single topic you enter.
And how is it unrelated to the topic on hand, or your post? I gave good examples of how large caves can get without the need to make the ground deeper, which comes up in virtually every discussion of a "cave update", and why it is highly unlikely that Mojang will make it deeper - all entirely relevant to the discussion on hand - and this sort of talk makes me certain that most players will lose interest in a "cave update" within a few hours, if even that - they'll just go back to their farm-centric playstyles instead of playing the game as it was meant to be played (at the least, a "cave update" needs to kill off farms that let you farm minable resources - mining/caving would be a much bigger part of the game if you had to mine everything).
Also, this is the only thread where I've mentioned my mods in the past week, as evident if you look at my post history, where you can find entire pages of posts with no mention of mods (at least not my own, or more than just a mention of the fact that my worlds are modded, appropriately, in a thread about caves/mining); it is an extreme exaggeration to say that I "constantly" talk about it and in every single thread (well, yeah, in a thread about caves, sure).
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?
in my opinion it looks like its gonna be split in 2 with one doing caves and the other doing archeology and cliffs
To be fair you do mention it all the time, not just in cave related threads, You just can't help yourself.
The bigger issue I have though is your making it sound like everyone should only be mining because thats's the true purpose of the game, when it's not. Thats's just your rules. Just because it's in the first half of the name doesn't mean that's the primary aim of the game, there is the rest of the name, aka the CRAFT part. It's a sandbox game, so if you just want to mine - that's fine, but don't make out ("they'll just go back to their farm-centric playstyles") that's the way everyone should be playing and not building, adventuring, redstoning and all the rest.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorThis thread appears to be getting a bit too far off-topic. As the top post states, please limit the discussion of this thread to actual or announced features of 1.17.
If you wish to discuss other things, please create other threads for those discussions.
- sunperp
Exactly my concerns, too...
If the new big caverns coexist alongside the old small caverns, like different underground biomes, it will be a great update... However, if the new big caverns simply replace the old ones, it will be an awful update, and people will start saying that they miss the old cave system sooner than later.
The same goes for mountains... If the new rounded mountains coexist alongside the old abrupt mountains, it will be a great update... Contrarily, if the new rounded mountains simply replace the old abrupt ones, it will be a big mistake and many people will miss the old relief.
In this second regard I'm more pessimistic... Mojang's development team has demonstrated in past updates a rather poor understanding of how terrain generation works... In the 1.7 update, they increased terrain generation above y=128, but at the cost of destroying sea-level biomes like swamplands and beaches... I hope this time they don't destroy cliffs and the occasional overhangs that give place to a lot of building ideas.
The only change made in 1.7 (excluding Amplified) was to allow terrain to exceed y=128 if the biome's height parameters allowed it - most biomes were unaffected, with a few special new biomes (Extreme Hills+/M, Savanna (Plateau) M) able to exceed it in default worlds; the Wiki even says that normal "Mountains" (Extreme Hills) rarely exceed y=110, the same as the old ones (I've seen them as high as y=120 in 1.6.4). I did the exact same thing myself with no chunk walls; I actually increased the height limit while playing on a world and never noticed any differences since the only thing that changed was the "compression" applied to terrain as it approached the limit (only terrain above y=100 or so was affected, leading to flattened peaks).
Consider this image of a very ugly "beach", taken from a thread complaining about the terrain - this was uploaded to Imgur on January 5, 2012, long before the release of 1.7 and I've seen many such "beaches" in my first world (vanilla 1.6.4), if usually not quite this bad:
In order to fix this the algorithm which smooths height differences between biomes needs to be adjusted to account for beaches, as I've done myself, along with rivers so they can cut though even the most extreme mountains, except where I specifically don't allow it (I've seen dry "rivers" in vanilla 1.6.4 plains, even in areas with relatively low terrain since there are two components which together make up variations in height).
Likewise, the problem with swamps, if you mean like hills rising well above water, is due to the addition of a "hills" variant, not changes to the terrain itself; otherwise, the "base depth noise" (the same thing that caused dry rivers) determines whether a given swamp/area of swamp is mostly water or land:
https://minecraft.gamepedia.com/Swamp#Swamp_Hills
Also, as far as "classic" caves go, they need to be reverted to the generation prior to 1.7, making them more varied and interesting (example of a particularly dense "1.6.4-style cave system"), along with other underground structures being made more common (they may have made mineshafts rarer due to their tendency to make big overlapping messes but that can easily be fixed by spacing them apart (e.g. villages have a minimum spacing of 8 chunks but mineshafts can generate right next to other mineshafts), as well as not generating them if there are too many caves nearby. Dungeons were likely a casualty of the 1.7 height increase, which doubled their y-range from 128 to 256 despite most terrain and especially caves, which are nearly all below sea level not taking advantage of the increase, halving their density (they can extend higher than indicated by their starting altitude, up to y=235, but they are extremely rare above y=128 since caves are mostly horizontal).
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?
Nope, swamp hills are not only due to the addition of a hills variant... Hills are present in flat swamps too... The image in the article you provide is a good example:
This is a "flat swamp"... As you can see, now flat swamps can have hills up to 7 layers, maybe even 8 or 9... Prior to the 1.7 update, a swampland biome rarely exceeded 2 or 3 layers above sea level, making swamplands more like real swamplands... The same applies to beaches.
As you already know as a mod maker, prior to 1.7, a maxHeight of 0.1 and minHeight of -0.1 in a biome meant a difference of x blocks, whereas in versions 1.7 and later, this means 2x blocks.
That's the problem, that they only changed one value to increase max height generation from Y=128 to Y=256, without thinking about how to correct side effects like beaches and swamps becoming less beach-like and swamp-like.
That's why I'm really worried about what they seem to plan to do with mountains... Knowing the lazy approach they used in the 1.7 update, it's very likely that they simply modify the Fracture Vertical and Fracture Horizontal values to make more rounded and realistic mountains:
I hope they don't just reduce Fracture Vertical and Fracture Horizontal values to make boring rounded mountains like those on the upper left of the picture above.
They must have made some other change since I did the same thing in my own mod with no effects on terrain below the old height limit (within 20 blocks or so, where terrain would start to flatten out more and more as it got higher so it never actually hit the limit) and never saw any chunk borders:
These are not the best examples (different angles) but you can see that terrain is unchanged at lower elevations; the only thing I changed was this bit of code:
Vanilla 1.6.4, which sets a limit of 104, corresponding to a value being more than 13, representing intervals of 8 blocks (the noise array itself is 5x17x15 blocks):
if (var46 > par6 - 4) // par6 is set to 17 so this is equivalent to 13; var46 ranges from 0-16 { double var40 = (double)((float)(var46 - (par6 - 4)) / 3.0F); var30 = var30 * (1.0D - var40) + -10.0D * var40; }TMCWv3+ (this was added after the initial release of TMCWv3, including after I started a world, so any general changes would have been quite obvious; I only make large-scale changes that cause such disruptions in new major releases); I increased the height limit of terrain to 192 (5x25x5 noise array) with some biomes changing a "heightScale" variable to control the maximum height terrain can reach (equivalent to (heightScale + 3) * 8, so the default of 19 gives a maximum of 176):
// Controls maximum height of mountains, above which height variation is reduced. // Vanilla default is 13, equivalent to 104 blocks with a maximum height of 16 or 128 blocks; maximum // height was increased to 24 or 192 blocks, corresponding to a maximum heightScale of 21 or 168 blocks. int heightScale = 19; // Extreme Mountains biomes use a special noise generator, initialized as needed int extremeMountains = 0; if (var20 == BiomeGenBase.savannaMountains || var20 == BiomeGenBase.savannaMountains2) { extremeMountains = 1; heightScale = 21; } else if (var20 == BiomeGenBase.extremeMountains || var20 == BiomeGenBase.extremeForestMountains) { extremeMountains = 2; heightScale = 21; } else if (biomeType == BiomeGenBase.TYPE_MESA || biomeType == BiomeGenBase.TYPE_VOLCANIC) { // Lowers maximum height of Mesa and Volcanic Wasteland for flatter peaks (same as vanilla) heightScale = 13; } if (var46 > heightScale) { if (var46 > heightScale + 3) { var30 = -1.0D; } else { double var40 = (double)(var46 - heightScale) / 3.0D; var30 = var30 * (1.0D - var40) - 10.0D * var40; } }Also, "minHeight" and "maxHeight" do not actually set the minimum and maximum altitudes of a biome; in fact, my "Rocky Mountains" biome has a minHeight of up to 4.5 and a maxHeight of 0.5 for most of the individual biomes (they generate in concentric rings of increasing height to create large-scale mountains which are relatively smooth) - these are misnamed by MCP and should actually be read as "baseHeight" and "heightVariation"; likewise I set Savanna Plateau to 1.5 and 0, giving nearly flat terrain at around y=90; the base height of Savanna Mountains was increased to prevent large areas of below sea level terrain (even then there are still small areas below sea level, and many areas lower than Savanna Plateau, which has the same "maxHeight" as the "minHeight" of Savanna Mountains):
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 like a lot of what I saw, even if some of it is stuff I don't care for either way.
Mostly, good riddance to 1.7 era caves, hopefully.
I recently started a new world and I'm finding one thing in particular a little frustrating. My prior world was largely rooted in terrain generated prior to 1.7, so even though 1.7 is many years old now, I'm still newly taken aback by how lacking caves are since I'm still used to the 1.6.4 and earlier ones.
When I need coal, iron, or diamonds, I like to go exploring caves for it. I like to adventure and build, mostly. I feel like I'm having to spend way more time looking around for caves time and again (and traveling between my village and the various ones I find), only to come out with fewer resources for the time investment. If I want a lot of coal fast, it's sadly better to seek a mountain biome and just take it from the surfaces than it is to explore caves for it.
Yeah. About that. They did state during the Minecraft Live, that the old style caves are not going anywhere. As in: they are going still be a there.
That being said. Even though I haven't really played that much Minecraft versions pre 1.8, I really can't claim, that what we have now would be any better, than pre 1.7 caves. even though the little I have tested those versions, I only got lost in those caves. Always have to dig my way out from them.
But that's just me.
Well, I don't really have awfully strong opinions that they were ultimately better before, as I don't know the ins and outs of all the changes. I just know I'm still used to the earlier style caves, and this has been one thing I've noticed that I'm having to adjust to (and not having as much fun in doing so). Of course, I'm also used to already having so many resources in my other world, and being in a "new" world, and having nothing, that could be shifting my opinion of them too. They do seem too reduced now though. There's so many caves, some that even look and start big and wide, that just terminate before they even go anywhere. I could post some pictures of a few I found yesterday; it's disappointing how one of them which looked so big (one that would have had me happy finding in older versions) and it just ended without going anywhere.
I'm confused on how caves will stay the same with the changes that are coming for them though.