I can't believe this. It's just exactly what I've been looking for. I mean, here's something I wrote up a while ago:
Eh, I've had this in mind for a while.
Smoke: *removed due to irreleveance, but it's too complex anyways*
Regarding lakes above water level:
A variable water height could be used in conjunction with biomes. Of course, a base land height variable (if there is not one already) would have to be established and the water level would most likely be below that. Lakes could be created at points under the water height level, and/or by calculating if lakes would include water hanging in midair (Checking for walls). After generating high lakes and caves, (hopefully, if possible) SOMEHOW there could be a method by which lakes could lead to rivers, which (See above enclosed statement) could erode at the dirt during map generation (by 2 blocks, at least, and probably deposit sediment/gravel) and be able to flow.
I'm a lover of variety and will FERVENTLY SUPPORT THIS IDEA.
A TL;DR is available at the bottom for you annoyed casual readers.
Quote from Lord Puppington »
From what I understand, grass is currently applied last when generating new terrain and is partly based on calculated exposure to light. If I'm correct, then the idea of limiting limestone distribution based on presence of grass won't work because grass will always be generated after limestone. You'll have to suggest some other means to avoid obtrusive limestone deposit, or suggest that the current code for grass be changed.
Bolded for emphasis. If this is so, then limestone's rarity can be dropped as it is now easier to find. Otherwise the priority can be swapped around, but I'm unsure of that part of the code. It is similar to clay, in that clay appears as speckles on the worlds sand, limestone may appear as speckles in the soil. Using the current height system of ore generation, you can limit limestone from appearing in layers 67 and up, which will prevent limestone on mountains.
Quote from Lord Puppington »
Feather's changes to resource generation method:
Existing metal (counting redstone as metal in this paragraph for the purpose of simplicity) resource no longer have their own blocks, but instead appear within other types of blocks.
Diamond can have it's texture changed to grabbro, and redstone to diorite. No issues there. Iron and gold do not need extra backgrounds; a basalt background is sufficient, especially so if the other intrusive rocks looked similar to the basic basalt.
Feather's net changed basic block count: 2 will be changed.
Basalt is exactly the same as it is now, not even a texture reskin. Gold and iron are not eliminated or changed, but diamond and redstone now do have new textures.
Yes, that means my idea and meta's both have the same amount of changes, but mine has one more base block. That extra block is needed to allow for redstone and diamond to be found in their own niche geology.
Quote from Lord Puppington »
Meta's changes to resource generation method:
As far as I can tell, the iron/gold/diamond/redstone will retain their existing block configuration but moved to appropriate layers/veins. So no new blocks or changed blocks as far as they're concerned.
This here is the saddest part. On the assumption that we can have a 256 high map with volcanoes and fault lines, earthquakes and granite, layered strata of limestone sandstone and shale, and all the rest: Mining will still be hell boring. Why? The iron/diamond/gold deposits generation is exactly the same as before. The only change is that the ores are now stretched out over a larger area, and the amount of them is raised to offset this. Congratulations, you are now mining through harder to destroy granite for the exact same goal: a diamond.
Using the resource generation I have suggested, you don't just have an eternal field of probability when it comes to mining. Rather than mine through solid granite to get to your diamond, you should actively search for a region that contains diamond. Meta's geology might create a pretty landscape up above, but when it comes to the grind, we have exactly the same when it comes to mining deep down.
My idea creates regional variation similar to the biomes. If you want more logs now, go find a forest. You could potentially plant more trees to satisfy your want for logs. If you want more diamonds now, go find an exposed gabbro vein. You could potentially dig and explore for a gabbro vein to satisfy your want for diamond.
Quote from Lord Puppinton »
(and I can't even find anything he says about flowing sand, is that his idea or someone else in his thread?)
Quote from Metadigital »
- Sandstone will replace sand's role entirely.
- To address this, sand will change its behavior into a liquid with slightly different properties than either water or lava. First of all, its texture will not animate. It will simply flow out from a point and sit still in a pile. Second, the player walks upon it rather than swimming in it. It will be a solid material with liquid-like properties. As such, its source can either be "mined" or captured in a bucket. Mining the sand will break it down into the same parts as sandstone that can be reworked into brick or forged into glass, but capturing it in a bucket will retain its liquid-like properties.
An interesting point here. Sandstone will replace gravel, yet sandstone will replace sand? That's just something I noticed now.
Quote from Lord Puppinton »
particularly owing to the big IFs regarding mineral generation. If may be better just to spawn existing metal and crystal blocks in the appropriate layers and veins, rather than change the way they work as blocks.
...You just proved yourself wrong. In this case, the appropriate layers are the rocks gabbro, granite and diorite. I have not changed the way any blocks work, they are all exactly the same as one another with ingame physics, with the exception of granite being slightly harder. They do not use new craft recipes, they do not gain the ability to erode, nor do they have a liquid form.
Meta's version DOES have all these changes to the ways blocks work. He wants rocks to be able to sense water, and erode if necessary, he wants sand to become another liquid object. I have made no ideas about changing the way any blocks work, thank you very much.
TLDR
Quote from Lord Puppinton »
I think Feather has potentially posed an alternative idea to that of Meta's with comparable (if not greater) level of complexity and work involved, rather than something that is overall simpler
Incorrect. This idea is barely an alternative. This idea and Meta's are not substitutes for one another. They are COMPLIMENTS that work together! We AGREE that there should be coal in the sedimentry layer, we AGREE that there should be limestone and marble. We AGREE that there should be more types of rocks underground!
Even the differences are completly non related:
He goes on about tectonics and erosion and extra ore types which makes the surface funner to explore.
I go on about a better way to generate ores using the current system to make the underground funner to mine.
These ideas fit together like a hand in a glove. The only difference is that his suggestion is only an idea, and my suggestion has a very easy way to link with the current system. No new features. (except a possible chisel and maybe letting ores generate within two stones. That can even be ignored and let iron generated before gabbro/granie/diorite and gold can generate in deposits of granite. Problem solved.)
So there you have it. Is there anything left to argue over, and completely ruin both ideas?
I'm thankful to have been some inspiration for ideas along the same lines as I've posted. Whether or not we agree on the details, I think we both come from a shared desire to make the subterranean part of Minecraft as aesthetic as its surface.
Suggestions of this nature are never as simple as they initially appear. A lot of the ideas in this thread have also passed through my mind, so let me explain some of my thoughts on them.
Coal in Dirt - I like this idea, as it rewards strip mining, but for the same reason I am wary of it. It demands strip mining. I placed coal in the sedimentary layer to allow a 32 block deep area where coal can be found, which allows other types of mining to flourish as well. I did not also place it in dirt for the reason explained below.
Minerals in Multiple Bedrocks - This is a tempting idea and the only reason I did not lean to it was because of the added demands in block types. For each additional rock that gold and iron appear in, Minecraft has to dedicate 2 additional blocks for it. 3 if you include redstone. 4 if you include diamond. I know I suggested both a granite and a basalt bedrock. That also comes with the cost of 4 more blocks for resources. Adding additional sources like Diorite or Gabbro might simply be too demanding. If they are included, they should simply be additional building materials with a different hue than the others and no chance to contain ores.
Map Generation - In essence, the new materials in this thread appear as "beds" such as gravel and dirt do now in the ground. Though this is a simplified implementation of new materials, it doesn't significantly alter the current "feel" of underground terrain in Minecraft. In short, there's already these beds. My suggestion was more complex, as it dealt with the generation of "layers", but what this does is diversify the underground areas as though they are terrains all their own. Resource "beds" won't significantly change the appearance of caves or tunnels.
A couple more things:
Quote from featherblade »
Congratulations, you are now mining through harder to destroy granite for the exact same goal: a diamond.
I never stated that granite would be harder to break than rock.
Quote from featherblade »
Meta's geology might create a pretty landscape up above, but when it comes to the grind, we have exactly the same when it comes to mining deep down.
I know my information is scattered, and when I have the time I plan to organize it better. The focus of my thread was to create natural "indicators" to give players a direction as to where to mine to obtain what they want. One such indicator was a fault line. Other ideas were more speculative, such as anticlines.
Quote from featherblade »
Sandstone will replace gravel, yet sandstone will replace sand?
The idea was to eliminate gravel with subtlety. Thanks for ratting me out!
Quote from featherblade »
Meta's version DOES have all these changes to the ways blocks work. He wants rocks to be able to sense water, and erode if necessary, he wants sand to become another liquid object. I have made no ideas about changing the way any blocks work, thank you very much.
Very speculative ideas, indeed. In my defense, the "liquid" mechanics of sand are 99% programmed already. Of course, that and water erosion are parts of my suggestion that I could easily live without or be convinced are a bad idea. I will admit that my suggestions require some major revamping of the game, but I think that such a change would be needed for the subterranean areas to come alive.
I hope my responses helped in some way. You're certainly not obligated to take them very seriously, but if nothing else, you can understand my rationality when I suggested my ideas for a Minecraftian geology.
Minerals in Multiple Bedrocks - This is a tempting idea and the only reason I did not lean to it was because of the added demands in block types.
I do not think that adding an appropriate background would be needed for all ores. A generic one, or even just the plan smooth stone would do fine. I'll test this out by repainting some more caves and see how it looks. It should not impact the player' perspective of the game in any way.
Quote from Metadigital »
In short, there's already these beds. My suggestion was more complex, as it dealt with the generation of "layers", but what this does is diversify the underground areas as though they are terrains all their own. Resource "beds" won't significantly change the appearance of caves or tunnels.
Your idea of layers will create interesting occurrences between beds. A variable layer of sedimentary rock could diagonally cut in half a cave system, leading to an interesting effect. However, beds ARE what make caves diverse, and interesting in appearance. Imagine a cave with no dirt, ores or even that hated gravel.
Now make it natural again:
Not only does the cave look natural now, but it's useful too. If the main bedrock was composed of four main parts, you will have awesome natural caves that isn't just interesting and unique to look at, but also holds a purpose.
This is why I would go with deposits that can generate anywhere, creating immense diversity rather than a linear (if variable) stone layer.
Quote from Metadigital »
I never stated that granite would be harder to break than rock.
Erm, I think I derived that from "Sedimentary rocks are more fragile than igneous ones", but I must have gotten mixed up there.
Quote from Metadigital »
The focus of my thread was to create natural "indicators" to give players a direction as to where to mine to obtain what they want.
So, you are trying to tell players to go for specific ores by using indicators? This isn't apparent at all in the thread. If a player wants diamond, their only indicator is to "dig down". The same for gold. The same iron even (just look for granite!). The only indicator a player has is to the various sedimentary layers, which are not of importance to the average player. Even then, different types of sedimentary layers all have the same probability to hold coal. A fault line or volcano will more or less indicate the player to stay away, and will simply make the region harder to mine.
This is again why I suggested intrusive deposits. If you see gabbro, you will get excited because you might get diamond. Certain regions or mines will have (more) gabbro, which will attract more people. Diorite areas aren't in demand as much, but they are great if no one else has redstone at all. These are all the indicators you need, as gabbro can exits in cliffs, which can excite knowledgeable players, while still allowing for underground deposits to be found.
Quote from Metadigital »
You can understand my rationality when I suggested my ideas for a Minecraftian geology.
Yeah, suggestions for erosion and volcanism have turned up before. People have wanted marble and limestone before as well. People have wanted coal rarity to be lowered. All I want to show is that only deposits are needed to show diversity: They are already in game, they just require restructuring. It's a simple, quick way to make advanced geology without hours of coding in for something too 'insignificant' like new cosmetic blocks, or something that probably won't be appreciated like earthquakes and fault lines.
Hopefully being doable will be a massive plus towards the suggestion going into actuality.
Aha! I have proof that dirt deposits generate after grass is calculated!
Here it is:
What we are looking at is a large stone glitch on a desert biome with dirt deposits under it. The sand prevents the grass from growing over the dirt (as it would happen in any other biome) preserving the evidence. Also, it is notable that the deposits were exposed to direct sunlight, yet still did not grow any initial grass. As such, we can say light calculations are done before dirt deposits are placed, thus if limestone deposit generation were to occur after dirt placement, ugly patches of limestone will not poke through the soil.
As an extra, an underground grass cave was found on the same map. Seen through a chunk that was slow to load, the cave had a complete layer of grass along the bottom, despite there being no entrance and zero light whatsoever. This can be put towards the fact that grass is not calculated by direct light.
Not only do you sound like my professor, but you seem like the type of guy who's dedicated alot of time to argue at the computer screen about how the geology of the game is 'wrong'...
But in all fairness, I like this idea, namely since this would force people to learn a little bit about this subject, and maybe become geologists because of it...
Geology pays pretty well in America from what I've been told, and if Minecraft could be used as a neat teaching tool because of its simplicity, then I'm all for it...
Ah, but you see, it doesn't force people to know geology!
When you first start playing the game, usually you'll spelunk for ores. It will be subtle, but over time, you'll notice certain ores appear in certain areas. As you realize this, you will incorporate it into your game-play.
People who talk over the forums however will quickly learn that these rocks are based off real life ones. Because of this, whenever people speak of the rock, they'll be using proper terms. This might lead to people searching the words over google after reading about them, in an attempt to find more about them for the game.
This creates avenues for the player to decide how much he is willing to learn. Maybe not the best morals, but we are talking about a majority of players being less than fourteen years old.
A better game for forcing geology would be dwarf fortress. I find it funny explaining to my friends that a sedimentary layer is not always flux. Then again, dwarf fortress must be the only game ever to require a manual to play.
~~
Oh, and I'll be highlighting the order deposits should spawn in soon.
Can you guess what they are?
Hint: They have something to do with sedimentary rock.
Hint: Like coal, they used to be alive.
If you said "fossils," congratulations. *hands cookie*
I'd just like to see a fossil block with a low chance of spawning within sedimentary rock. (such as limestone)
You can mine them for fragments, and form displays similar to paintings.
Not at all accurate, I know. You don't bang away at fossils with a pick in real life, but hey, what the hell.
Not at all accurate, I know. You don't bang away at fossils with a pick in real life, but hey, what the hell.
you don't mine stone with a wooden pick axe either :smile.gif:
I think this is a great idea and improvements/additions to the terrain/environment should come first before much additional content. Think about how it is currently and how much fun you can have just exploring different landscapes without any crazy sky monsters or spaceships (and any other exotic suggestions from the forum).
I'm all for some variation in rock types, as long as it doesn't get ridiculous like Dwarf Fortress.
>200+ types of rock
>Only 1 type does anything different
Encountering different layers of rock would certainly make caves more interesting too!
Nice idea and it would help to have more rock type. I would think that instead of a chisel you just use the furnace to make your different smooth type rocks.
I would like to see some more crafting recipe's like colums 3 marble blocks stacked on top of each other and statue, much like painting have 8 marble block and they make a random statue.
I still think layers are the way to go so you have to mine deep to get more ores. Perhaps the likely hood of each rare type can increase the lower you get.
Anyway its all speculation till Notch thinks its a good idea.
The "Features with the new system" section doesn't have Limestone or Marble in it.
Excellent ideas, however. I've wanted for a while for stone to be more diverse, as in Dwarf Fortress, and this is simple yet diverse enough to fit perfectly with Minecraft.
I've been lurking on this forum for a few weeks now and if I've learned anything it's that featherblade a) has a LOT of time on his hands, :cool.gif: spends most of said time thinking about Minecraft, and c) is the focking MAN. :smile.gif:
Srsly, keep fighting the good fight. (Also, this in no way endorses feather's ideas over Meta's...whose I have yet to read. I'm just amazed by the amount of motivation and dedication of the members of this community.)
Really, I don't see metadigital's idea as being too complicated for minecraft. It's more of the way it's explained in order to give a good idea of what's going on. And metadigital's thread is a lot more complete in it's geology, and I think would introduce a lot more fun stuff rather than your simplified version.
If metadigital no longer frequents the forums, I might copy over his thread to a new one, in a more cleaned up version with some more descriptions in some places and a bit more simplified format in others. I shall be posting that in the geocraft thread right now, as a matter of fact.
I love this idea! It sounds like it would take a fairly sizable overhaul of the world generating process and wouldn't work for older saves, but I think it's worth it.
As a note: Lapis Lazuli Is present within all igneous intrusive rocks. This will maintain the high spread of the ore as it currently is, and make searching for any intrusive deposit more valuable.
This adds complexity to the game without making it overly complex. This combined with a few of MetaDigital's ideas, namely liquid sand, would be a more than welcome addition to the minecraft we know and love. If sandstone got picked up by notch, so can this!
Unless... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
ssssSSS!!!
I'm a lover of variety and will FERVENTLY SUPPORT THIS IDEA.
Bolded for emphasis. If this is so, then limestone's rarity can be dropped as it is now easier to find. Otherwise the priority can be swapped around, but I'm unsure of that part of the code. It is similar to clay, in that clay appears as speckles on the worlds sand, limestone may appear as speckles in the soil. Using the current height system of ore generation, you can limit limestone from appearing in layers 67 and up, which will prevent limestone on mountains.
Diamond can have it's texture changed to grabbro, and redstone to diorite. No issues there. Iron and gold do not need extra backgrounds; a basalt background is sufficient, especially so if the other intrusive rocks looked similar to the basic basalt.
Feather's net changed basic block count:
2 will be changed.
Basalt is exactly the same as it is now, not even a texture reskin. Gold and iron are not eliminated or changed, but diamond and redstone now do have new textures.
Yes, that means my idea and meta's both have the same amount of changes, but mine has one more base block. That extra block is needed to allow for redstone and diamond to be found in their own niche geology.
This here is the saddest part. On the assumption that we can have a 256 high map with volcanoes and fault lines, earthquakes and granite, layered strata of limestone sandstone and shale, and all the rest: Mining will still be hell boring. Why? The iron/diamond/gold deposits generation is exactly the same as before. The only change is that the ores are now stretched out over a larger area, and the amount of them is raised to offset this. Congratulations, you are now mining through harder to destroy granite for the exact same goal: a diamond.
Using the resource generation I have suggested, you don't just have an eternal field of probability when it comes to mining. Rather than mine through solid granite to get to your diamond, you should actively search for a region that contains diamond. Meta's geology might create a pretty landscape up above, but when it comes to the grind, we have exactly the same when it comes to mining deep down.
My idea creates regional variation similar to the biomes. If you want more logs now, go find a forest. You could potentially plant more trees to satisfy your want for logs. If you want more diamonds now, go find an exposed gabbro vein. You could potentially dig and explore for a gabbro vein to satisfy your want for diamond.
An interesting point here. Sandstone will replace gravel, yet sandstone will replace sand? That's just something I noticed now.
...You just proved yourself wrong. In this case, the appropriate layers are the rocks gabbro, granite and diorite. I have not changed the way any blocks work, they are all exactly the same as one another with ingame physics, with the exception of granite being slightly harder. They do not use new craft recipes, they do not gain the ability to erode, nor do they have a liquid form.
Meta's version DOES have all these changes to the ways blocks work. He wants rocks to be able to sense water, and erode if necessary, he wants sand to become another liquid object. I have made no ideas about changing the way any blocks work, thank you very much.
Incorrect. This idea is barely an alternative. This idea and Meta's are not substitutes for one another. They are COMPLIMENTS that work together! We AGREE that there should be coal in the sedimentry layer, we AGREE that there should be limestone and marble. We AGREE that there should be more types of rocks underground!
Even the differences are completly non related:
He goes on about tectonics and erosion and extra ore types which makes the surface funner to explore.
I go on about a better way to generate ores using the current system to make the underground funner to mine.
These ideas fit together like a hand in a glove. The only difference is that his suggestion is only an idea, and my suggestion has a very easy way to link with the current system. No new features. (except a possible chisel and maybe letting ores generate within two stones. That can even be ignored and let iron generated before gabbro/granie/diorite and gold can generate in deposits of granite. Problem solved.)
So there you have it. Is there anything left to argue over, and completely ruin both ideas?
A simple suggestion on geology here.
~~~
Slaves of the Coal Mine
An interesting Novel to pass the time.
I'm not arguing with you, I'm providing feedback. No need to get overly defensive, as that'd ruin the thread quicker than anything else.
Suggestions of this nature are never as simple as they initially appear. A lot of the ideas in this thread have also passed through my mind, so let me explain some of my thoughts on them.
Coal in Dirt - I like this idea, as it rewards strip mining, but for the same reason I am wary of it. It demands strip mining. I placed coal in the sedimentary layer to allow a 32 block deep area where coal can be found, which allows other types of mining to flourish as well. I did not also place it in dirt for the reason explained below.
Minerals in Multiple Bedrocks - This is a tempting idea and the only reason I did not lean to it was because of the added demands in block types. For each additional rock that gold and iron appear in, Minecraft has to dedicate 2 additional blocks for it. 3 if you include redstone. 4 if you include diamond. I know I suggested both a granite and a basalt bedrock. That also comes with the cost of 4 more blocks for resources. Adding additional sources like Diorite or Gabbro might simply be too demanding. If they are included, they should simply be additional building materials with a different hue than the others and no chance to contain ores.
Map Generation - In essence, the new materials in this thread appear as "beds" such as gravel and dirt do now in the ground. Though this is a simplified implementation of new materials, it doesn't significantly alter the current "feel" of underground terrain in Minecraft. In short, there's already these beds. My suggestion was more complex, as it dealt with the generation of "layers", but what this does is diversify the underground areas as though they are terrains all their own. Resource "beds" won't significantly change the appearance of caves or tunnels.
A couple more things:
I never stated that granite would be harder to break than rock.
I know my information is scattered, and when I have the time I plan to organize it better. The focus of my thread was to create natural "indicators" to give players a direction as to where to mine to obtain what they want. One such indicator was a fault line. Other ideas were more speculative, such as anticlines.
The idea was to eliminate gravel with subtlety. Thanks for ratting me out!
Very speculative ideas, indeed. In my defense, the "liquid" mechanics of sand are 99% programmed already. Of course, that and water erosion are parts of my suggestion that I could easily live without or be convinced are a bad idea. I will admit that my suggestions require some major revamping of the game, but I think that such a change would be needed for the subterranean areas to come alive.
I hope my responses helped in some way. You're certainly not obligated to take them very seriously, but if nothing else, you can understand my rationality when I suggested my ideas for a Minecraftian geology.
I do not think that adding an appropriate background would be needed for all ores. A generic one, or even just the plan smooth stone would do fine. I'll test this out by repainting some more caves and see how it looks. It should not impact the player' perspective of the game in any way.
Your idea of layers will create interesting occurrences between beds. A variable layer of sedimentary rock could diagonally cut in half a cave system, leading to an interesting effect. However, beds ARE what make caves diverse, and interesting in appearance. Imagine a cave with no dirt, ores or even that hated gravel.
Now make it natural again:
Not only does the cave look natural now, but it's useful too. If the main bedrock was composed of four main parts, you will have awesome natural caves that isn't just interesting and unique to look at, but also holds a purpose.
This is why I would go with deposits that can generate anywhere, creating immense diversity rather than a linear (if variable) stone layer.
Erm, I think I derived that from "Sedimentary rocks are more fragile than igneous ones", but I must have gotten mixed up there.
So, you are trying to tell players to go for specific ores by using indicators? This isn't apparent at all in the thread. If a player wants diamond, their only indicator is to "dig down". The same for gold. The same iron even (just look for granite!). The only indicator a player has is to the various sedimentary layers, which are not of importance to the average player. Even then, different types of sedimentary layers all have the same probability to hold coal. A fault line or volcano will more or less indicate the player to stay away, and will simply make the region harder to mine.
This is again why I suggested intrusive deposits. If you see gabbro, you will get excited because you might get diamond. Certain regions or mines will have (more) gabbro, which will attract more people. Diorite areas aren't in demand as much, but they are great if no one else has redstone at all. These are all the indicators you need, as gabbro can exits in cliffs, which can excite knowledgeable players, while still allowing for underground deposits to be found.
Yeah, suggestions for erosion and volcanism have turned up before. People have wanted marble and limestone before as well. People have wanted coal rarity to be lowered. All I want to show is that only deposits are needed to show diversity: They are already in game, they just require restructuring. It's a simple, quick way to make advanced geology without hours of coding in for something too 'insignificant' like new cosmetic blocks, or something that probably won't be appreciated like earthquakes and fault lines.
Hopefully being doable will be a massive plus towards the suggestion going into actuality.
A simple suggestion on geology here.
~~~
Slaves of the Coal Mine
An interesting Novel to pass the time.
Here it is:
What we are looking at is a large stone glitch on a desert biome with dirt deposits under it. The sand prevents the grass from growing over the dirt (as it would happen in any other biome) preserving the evidence. Also, it is notable that the deposits were exposed to direct sunlight, yet still did not grow any initial grass. As such, we can say light calculations are done before dirt deposits are placed, thus if limestone deposit generation were to occur after dirt placement, ugly patches of limestone will not poke through the soil.
As an extra, an underground grass cave was found on the same map. Seen through a chunk that was slow to load, the cave had a complete layer of grass along the bottom, despite there being no entrance and zero light whatsoever. This can be put towards the fact that grass is not calculated by direct light.
A simple suggestion on geology here.
~~~
Slaves of the Coal Mine
An interesting Novel to pass the time.
But in all fairness, I like this idea, namely since this would force people to learn a little bit about this subject, and maybe become geologists because of it...
Geology pays pretty well in America from what I've been told, and if Minecraft could be used as a neat teaching tool because of its simplicity, then I'm all for it...
So yeah... I like this.. :biggrin.gif:
When you first start playing the game, usually you'll spelunk for ores. It will be subtle, but over time, you'll notice certain ores appear in certain areas. As you realize this, you will incorporate it into your game-play.
People who talk over the forums however will quickly learn that these rocks are based off real life ones. Because of this, whenever people speak of the rock, they'll be using proper terms. This might lead to people searching the words over google after reading about them, in an attempt to find more about them for the game.
This creates avenues for the player to decide how much he is willing to learn. Maybe not the best morals, but we are talking about a majority of players being less than fourteen years old.
A better game for forcing geology would be dwarf fortress. I find it funny explaining to my friends that a sedimentary layer is not always flux. Then again, dwarf fortress must be the only game ever to require a manual to play.
~~
Oh, and I'll be highlighting the order deposits should spawn in soon.
A simple suggestion on geology here.
~~~
Slaves of the Coal Mine
An interesting Novel to pass the time.
Can you guess what they are?
Hint: They have something to do with sedimentary rock.
Hint: Like coal, they used to be alive.
If you said "fossils," congratulations. *hands cookie*
I'd just like to see a fossil block with a low chance of spawning within sedimentary rock. (such as limestone)
You can mine them for fragments, and form displays similar to paintings.
Not at all accurate, I know. You don't bang away at fossils with a pick in real life, but hey, what the hell.
inb4 fossilized creeper
you don't mine stone with a wooden pick axe either :smile.gif:
I think this is a great idea and improvements/additions to the terrain/environment should come first before much additional content. Think about how it is currently and how much fun you can have just exploring different landscapes without any crazy sky monsters or spaceships (and any other exotic suggestions from the forum).
>200+ types of rock
>Only 1 type does anything different
Encountering different layers of rock would certainly make caves more interesting too!
I would like to see some more crafting recipe's like colums 3 marble blocks stacked on top of each other and statue, much like painting have 8 marble block and they make a random statue.
I still think layers are the way to go so you have to mine deep to get more ores. Perhaps the likely hood of each rare type can increase the lower you get.
Anyway its all speculation till Notch thinks its a good idea.
Cheers
Excellent ideas, however. I've wanted for a while for stone to be more diverse, as in Dwarf Fortress, and this is simple yet diverse enough to fit perfectly with Minecraft.
+1
Srsly, keep fighting the good fight. (Also, this in no way endorses feather's ideas over Meta's...whose I have yet to read. I'm just amazed by the amount of motivation and dedication of the members of this community.)
If metadigital no longer frequents the forums, I might copy over his thread to a new one, in a more cleaned up version with some more descriptions in some places and a bit more simplified format in others. I shall be posting that in the geocraft thread right now, as a matter of fact.
A simple suggestion on geology here.
~~~
Slaves of the Coal Mine
An interesting Novel to pass the time.
This adds complexity to the game without making it overly complex. This combined with a few of MetaDigital's ideas, namely liquid sand, would be a more than welcome addition to the minecraft we know and love. If sandstone got picked up by notch, so can this!
Unless... NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
ssssSSS!!!