So I come back here after a bit and I find this topic kinda turned into a train wreck.
And people kinda seemed to ignore the points I made in my last post.
So to reiterate the points made in my last post:
- Despite the concept of it being a "round" world, the vertical elements would remain the same. So going below bedrock still voids your attempts at reaching the core.
- Making the world wrap around as if it were toroidal? Possible with the chunk-based system Minecraft uses. If the world wraps around at X=320000, then when you approach that boundary, it'll start loading the chunks around X=-320000.
- Could work fine in singleplayer, where only the chunks around you are loaded. Could very quickly become awkward to use in multiplayer.
- The update could potentially cause issues with pre-existing worlds, depending on how the wrap-around is handled.
- Adding a wrap-around would invalidate the already-existing "world border" feature, unless it was changed to determine the wrap-around point.
- It would be hard to balance the wrap-around point such that it could be reasonably experienced by the players without reducing the size of the world by too much.
Also, as mentioned by yoshi9048, the world generation would have to go through changes to accommodate the wrap-around. And this would not be an easy thing to do.
Like I said before, this idea has way too many problems and I have to give it no support.
I kind of like the "Pac-man table" idea of the world wrapping around, but I feel that in the existing worlds it would be:
1. Irrelevant, as most people aren't going all the way to the edges all the time.
2. Potentially problematic, when trying to transform existing game world edges into the wrap-around.
That being said, I think this is actually a legitimate case for the "make it optional" argument which is often so hated on these forums. When creating a new world, one would have the option to make it "infinite" (world boundaries are generated) or "wrap-around" (no world boundaries are generated. Walking past the boundary point winds up with your coordinates jumping to the other extreme). All existing save games would be "infinite", and would not have the wrap-around feature. Wrap-around worlds could also be generated in smaller sizes, from ridiculously small (100x100 chunks?) to very large (though maybe not so large as the "infinite" worlds). If the wrap-around worlds are smaller, that also means fewer biomes, which in turn makes the border biomes less of an issue to figure out.
Personally, I'd probably stick with the traditional style, but I do think wrap-around would have some great appeal in multiplayer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most plans are critically flawed by their own logic. A failure at any step will ruin everything after it. That's just basic cause and effect. It's easy for a good plan to fall apart. Therefore, a plan that has no attachment to logic cannot be stopped. The success or failure of any given step will have no impact on the macro level."
-Red Mage, 8-Bit Theater
"90% of the Internet's statistics are made-up, and 7/8 of its quotes are misattributed."
-Abraham Lincoln, 16th US President
I agree with 64M34DD1C7, it makes perfect sense. What aren't you understanding about the idea? I mean, don't get me wrong te explanation was a bit confusing. Don't think about it like it was shown in the video, because it would be on such a large scale that the interconnecting underground wouldn't be an actual aspect. Just think if it like this: if you start walking from the center of a square to the right, once you reach the edge of the square, you pop into the left edge, and keep walking until you get to the center again. Just like how it works on Earth.
But what about the bottom? What would that be? Because that is what I really don't get. Once we have bedrock, that is the edge of the world, and it makes no sense about what the bottom side would be.