In the past there has been very minor changes to the oceans that don't really effect the game. I suggest that we should update the oceans to have more purpose. I propose the deep ocean biome, oasis biome and an updated beach.
The deep ocean biome can include big fish, more fish and give a new purpose to turtle shell helmets and water breathing potions. There could also be biome specific fish and tons of new fishable items and the sort. The new beach could have palm trees, seagulls as well as crabs and some other misc things like sea shells. The oasis could have palm wood villages or just something similar to the witch hut. Some other content included in the oceans update could be pirates, after all where did the sunken ships come from?
The ocean update already added, and while that's not to say that content is off limits for changes, it's unlikely to get an entire new update focused around them unless it radically changes them. And your suggestion sounds more like supplementing them as opposed to radically transforming them. Giving it a radical overhaul again would probably be unpopular given there's a lot of other areas that do need priority.
I think water breathing potions (and respiration) straight up need their "power" shifted into the turtle helmet to begin with. Ergo, nerf the duration of water breathing potions, and nerf respiration duration, or perhaps make it exclusive to turtle helmets. Then, make turtle helmets have a longer innate water breathing duration.
This makes them useful as a conditional swap for when you want to make long treks underwater. Right now, they're not useful when your bets helmet just doubles for this purpose.
Not sure about pirates. I'd personally like to see shipwrecks be less common anyway, and the pillagers sort of already serve as the "wild, hostile" mob type.
I like beaches and palm trees and feel like the game desperately needs those. I don't think they should come with an ocean update though, but instead as their own (or bundled with a few other biome changes).
Yep, Princess Garnet is right: another full-fledged ocean update is not happening anytime soon. But a few additions to oceans could, especially now that updates are no longer themed.
To me, aside from having more variations in beaches, the game really needs deeper oceans, which could be an update to the regular Deep Oceans, or a new biome as well. I tried a datapack that makes all oceans deeper (probably overkill) and it was awesome, so atmospheric (really felt like being in an ocean) and finally challenging (can't just dive down and get up without potions and such).
I tried a datapack that makes all oceans deeper (probably overkill) and it was awesome, so atmospheric (really felt like being in an ocean) and finally challenging (can't just dive down and get up without potions and such).
Now I'm imagining a world where 1.18 made the world deeper to -128 instead of -64, and also made oceans deeper. And also the extra complaints from the increased performance demands.
I dislike the fact that 1.7 made oceans deeper (why? Less caves, and underground interconnectivity, especially with how they (used to?) just cut off when running into water, including entire parts of ravines), and even more so, 1.13's flooding of caves under oceans (may as well not even exist; by contrast, in TMCW they are nice and dry (note the ceiling); well, they do have more water lakes and springs but those are different from cave-ins, which in turn are not the same as source blocks filling the entire cave).
Also, making the ground 192 layers deep wouldn't be an issue if the game were properly optimized:
I played on this world using a computer which would be totally incapable of running newer versions (it was really from the Windows XP era, with Windows 7 installed by the time I got it secondhand), and no optimization mods other than Optifine (I only made a few changes that reduced the impact of generating a deeper underground, as opposed to the way vanilla would, given that there is no need to generate 3D noise for the additional layers); the fact that it has been a decade since I experimented with a deeper underground shows that I prefer the original ground depth, even opposing the widespread notion that a cave update had to increase it, pointing out the vastness of my modded caves (which are now even larger than when I made that post; as noted, I did lower lava level by 7 layers, giving 13% more height between lava and sea level, while mountain/plateau biomes have more caves above sea level, beyond what would normally generate. You may notice that "TripleHeightTerrain" doesn't seem that large since it had about 4 times the volume of caves per chunk, thus it is equivalent to a normal world with 4 times the area):
This was on 1.8, a very lightweight version by today's standards:
Compared to 1.6.4, in a much more demanding situation (interestingly, despite 1.8 claiming to have better occlusion culling it is hardly culling much at all; 130 sections still rendered despite being in a cave underground (which was modded but not that large) while here only 32 are rendered, with 245 culled. I even saw people claiming that even frustum culling wasn't added until 1.8, but that is exactly what "F: 1235" shows - altogether, 97.8% of non-empty ("E: 3112") chunk sections are being culled. It is quite suspicious that this information was hidden in 1.8, as if Mojang doesn't want you to know about it):
Another example of how much a deeper underground actually impacts the game; this may just look like a Superflat world reaching the height limit but aside from surface features it has all the features found in a normal world, including caves (a unique feature of my modded versions, though they do not generate higher up to match the depth) and passive mob spawning during world generation (you can't see much but there are over 300 passive mobs, most are too far away to render or be sent to the client):
A look underground with MCEdit; caves extended up to y=135 (their maximum starting altitude is 119, compared to 126 in vanilla, as everything was shifted down by 7 layers):
An analysis of the world/loaded area made with MCEdit; passive mobs are missing since MCEdit can only analyze the area from 0-255 even though entities can be outside of that range:
Strange. I've gone underground and came up in spots that had me across an ocean, so if caves are flooded under oceans now, it's certainly not all of them.
The deeper underground actually helps offset the deeper oceans a bit, too. Now if you were to implement this suggestion and make the oceans deeper yet, then yes, you'd lose a lot of that space under oceans.
Also, making the ground 192 layers deep wouldn't be an issue if the game were properly optimized
Sure, but my comment was made in reference to the game that exists now, not what someone may have done with a fork of an older version from a decade ago.
I don't think Mojang is too concerned with hardware from the Windows XP era, either. Realistically speaking, hardware moves on, and older hardware falls out of use and out of support. Windows 10 is also going to be end of life in two years and anything older than Intel's 8th generation/Ryzen 2nd generation will be cut out at that point, at least in the Windows ecosystem (there's workarounds for the TPM requirement of Windows 11 but officially, that's the stuff that won't be supported anymore). I mean, there comes a point when stuff is too old, and that's common place for games especially. This isn't just a game, but a CPU heavy one. I understand it's not optimized as well as it could be, but it goes the other way too. At some point a user should accept that if they want more performance, a decade old CPU or a low end laptop from 5 to 7 years ago might not be up to scratch for desired performance in the latest software, and if one wants more performance to keep up with evolving software, an upgrade may be in order.
That's far from a tall ask, either. I remember when hardware would come out, and three years later, games would have said hardware as the minimum requirement. Things are tame compared to the late 1990s and 2000s. We're really spoiled these days.
This was on 1.8, a very lightweight version by today's standards
Only if you don't adjust for the fact that faster hardware has come out since.
Modern versions run more comfortably for me on modern hardware, than 1.8 did at the time of its release on what was modern hardware then. And it's actually worse because the time frame 1.8 launched was a few years into the time period were CPU growth stagnated, meaning something three years old was barely behind the latest stuff. Yet, I struggled on 1.8 with a three year old, overclocked CPU. Compared to today, my four year old 3700X was running modern versions rather well until I upgraded from it. Not even a question, 1.8 was more of a slog on performance in its time than modern versions are now.
There have also been performance uplifts in modern versions, too (just in 1.20 alone, going through nether portals is now way faster, new lighting system, and the consistent stutter when crossing certain chunk boundaries only in certain directions is gone). I remember going into the nether after 1.8 and even in 1.10 and having ten solid seconds of stutter (oddly, never happened going from nether to overworld). 1.14+ (or something after 1.10 but before 1.14) cleaned this up. I don't get why you seem to paint modern versions as only getting worse, when I've firsthand seen many of the positive improvements. Is that to say it compares to whatever scenario your modded 1.6 can do? No. But new versions aren't just getting consecutively worse. Especially when you adjust for ten years of hardware changes.
I don't get why you seem to paint modern versions as only getting worse, when I've firsthand seen many of the positive improvements. Is that to say it compares to whatever scenario your modded 1.6 can do? No. But new versions aren't just getting consecutively worse. Especially when you adjust for ten years of hardware changes.
Then why do I keep getting comments like this?
I actually want to add; This performs amazingly well, even better than other versions coked up with optimization mods. What did you do!? My refresh rate is 144FPS and despite other versions often reporting that, I feel like the FPS stutters significantly at times. Not with TMCW, it's buttery smooth basically the whole time.
Amazing work falls very short, I'm completely impressed at what you accomplished with TMCW, the game runs at 180+ fps on max settings (1.18 barely hits 40 on modest settings, 1.16.5 with a lot of performance mods gets close to that but with choppier feel) with all that extra content of incredible quality.
And no, it mostly isn't "what did you do?!" (perhaps my most significant change directly impacting smoothness is basically what Optifine did, smoothen out chunk updates (in a better way, along with making chunk data access as fast as possible, OpenGL itself is the single biggest bottleneck) - which even to this day are a leading cause of stuttering; note that this comment specifically mentions code specific to 1.8+ as aggravating it). I take this as a sign that the average player doesn't have the latest hardware and for this reason I do not believe in "just upgrade your hardware if you want better performance". Then again, this is another comment I got (way back in 2014); the game has always been plagued by its wildly inconsistent performance on different systems, largely due to poor industry-wide support for OpenGL (Apple has even threatened to completely remove support for it, citing its antiquated architecture; whenever somebody reports issues and they have an integrated GPU, especially Intel, I always suggest getting a dedicated NVIDIA GPU if possible, even if just a low-end secondhand one):
best mod ever, especially the cave generation. Pitty my computer is so crappy it only gets 8fps while running it any chance you could do a simpler mod that just does the caves? and the bug fixes of course
(the only reason they might get "only 8 FPS" is because of the biomes with massive trees, which did completely kill my performance on Fancy due to lack of VRAM, or a GPU that didn't work well with Advanced OpenGL (designed to implement occlusion culling on the GPU hardware, the obvious best way to do it, but AMD and Intel decided to just do it in software), ironically, culling the caves they wanted and a possible reason why Mojang changed them in 1.7 to be much more uniformly distributed (too bad they never actually said why, they didn't even mention it in any changelogs)
Also, there is even a "law" for the phenomenon of software becoming slower and less efficient as hardware gets faster - Wirth's Law:
I'm confused. You made a comment about 1.8 being "very lightweight" compared to modern versions.
I responded that this is only true if you look at things vis-a-vis in a vacuum, and ignore hardware changes in that time. I was explaining that this isn't very practical because Minecraft is a continuously updated software (a version released in 2023 is 2023 software).
I added that I speak from experience that hardware from around the time of release 1.8 handled it more poorly than modern hardware handles modern versions. I'm sure you might recall all of my vocal comments around the time on how bad 1.8 was for me on (for the time) pretty decent hardware. Do I need to show you a video of modern Minecraft running well enough at 32 or even 48 chunks (and with shaders) on hardware of today to show how much the situation contrasts the performance of 1.8 at the time?
Your response to that is to bring in your modded version, and testimonials of it?
I'm confused. I thought the discussion was about 1.8 and modern versions? You're now shifting the discussion as it goes. How is the performance of your modded version compared to modern versions relevant? That's called "moving the goal post".
Look, you don't need to tell me your modded version runs circles around modern Minecraft. I very much know that. Come on, I've applauded the results you've gotten numerous times. You also don't need to take me for someone who thinks "modern" versions are perfect. They are far from it, and I've been vocal of it on numerous occasions. But as someone who has experience with the game in both time frames, and with hardware of their respective time frame, I disagreed with your comment. And I think there have been positive changes in the time too.
All I was saying is that modern versions aren't all bad either, especially adjusted for the time they released in, and that's the point you missed. I get it, your version is great and all that. I don't see how it contrasts anything I was saying though.
Anyway, this discussion itself isn't even too relevant to the suggestion so I think it's better not to steer it that way. I was originally simply making a remark that I was envisioning an update that made oceans deeper, and the underground deeper (and the complaints that'd come with it as a result). It was a joke. Why did it need to become another "modern Minecraft's performance is bad" post?
I'm well aware of it. There's a lot of "laws" and "rules" for almost everything. Not everything follows all of these laws and rules.
This also supports what I'm saying (whether you see it as a good thing or not). It's always been the situation that you need to upgrade eventually, because even if a given software doesn't get slower faster than hardware gets faster, the collective average that software demands does tend to trend up. Which is expected when the average level of hardware in the user market trends up. Software developers target that rising average (plus or minus, and sometimes more than people like, yes). Things are, all told, far better than they used to be regarding this.
In the past there has been very minor changes to the oceans that don't really effect the game.
Sooooooo... guardians, ocean monuments, sunken ships, dolphins and aqua-variant mobs all added nothing?
big fish, more fish and give a new purpose to turtle shell helmets and water breathing potions.
Ooookay? Can you tell us what the fish are, and what this new turtle shell purpose is? And change to water breathing potions?
The new beach could have palm trees, seagulls as well as crabs and some other misc things like sea shells.
Most of this suggestion is "more this and more that" with hardly any description. The ocean update kind of already happened. Can't say I want pirates either, it feels like more human mobs would come off as cliché.
In the past there has been very minor changes to the oceans that don't really effect the game. I suggest that we should update the oceans to have more purpose. I propose the deep ocean biome, oasis biome and an updated beach.
The deep ocean biome can include big fish, more fish and give a new purpose to turtle shell helmets and water breathing potions. There could also be biome specific fish and tons of new fishable items and the sort. The new beach could have palm trees, seagulls as well as crabs and some other misc things like sea shells. The oasis could have palm wood villages or just something similar to the witch hut. Some other content included in the oceans update could be pirates, after all where did the sunken ships come from?
The ocean update already added, and while that's not to say that content is off limits for changes, it's unlikely to get an entire new update focused around them unless it radically changes them. And your suggestion sounds more like supplementing them as opposed to radically transforming them. Giving it a radical overhaul again would probably be unpopular given there's a lot of other areas that do need priority.
I think water breathing potions (and respiration) straight up need their "power" shifted into the turtle helmet to begin with. Ergo, nerf the duration of water breathing potions, and nerf respiration duration, or perhaps make it exclusive to turtle helmets. Then, make turtle helmets have a longer innate water breathing duration.
This makes them useful as a conditional swap for when you want to make long treks underwater. Right now, they're not useful when your bets helmet just doubles for this purpose.
Not sure about pirates. I'd personally like to see shipwrecks be less common anyway, and the pillagers sort of already serve as the "wild, hostile" mob type.
I like beaches and palm trees and feel like the game desperately needs those. I don't think they should come with an ocean update though, but instead as their own (or bundled with a few other biome changes).
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumYep, Princess Garnet is right: another full-fledged ocean update is not happening anytime soon. But a few additions to oceans could, especially now that updates are no longer themed.
To me, aside from having more variations in beaches, the game really needs deeper oceans, which could be an update to the regular Deep Oceans, or a new biome as well. I tried a datapack that makes all oceans deeper (probably overkill) and it was awesome, so atmospheric (really felt like being in an ocean) and finally challenging (can't just dive down and get up without potions and such).
Now I'm imagining a world where 1.18 made the world deeper to -128 instead of -64, and also made oceans deeper. And also the extra complaints from the increased performance demands.
Also, making the ground 192 layers deep wouldn't be an issue if the game were properly optimized:
I played on this world using a computer which would be totally incapable of running newer versions (it was really from the Windows XP era, with Windows 7 installed by the time I got it secondhand), and no optimization mods other than Optifine (I only made a few changes that reduced the impact of generating a deeper underground, as opposed to the way vanilla would, given that there is no need to generate 3D noise for the additional layers); the fact that it has been a decade since I experimented with a deeper underground shows that I prefer the original ground depth, even opposing the widespread notion that a cave update had to increase it, pointing out the vastness of my modded caves (which are now even larger than when I made that post; as noted, I did lower lava level by 7 layers, giving 13% more height between lava and sea level, while mountain/plateau biomes have more caves above sea level, beyond what would normally generate. You may notice that "TripleHeightTerrain" doesn't seem that large since it had about 4 times the volume of caves per chunk, thus it is equivalent to a normal world with 4 times the area):
This was on 1.8, a very lightweight version by today's standards:
Compared to 1.6.4, in a much more demanding situation (interestingly, despite 1.8 claiming to have better occlusion culling it is hardly culling much at all; 130 sections still rendered despite being in a cave underground (which was modded but not that large) while here only 32 are rendered, with 245 culled. I even saw people claiming that even frustum culling wasn't added until 1.8, but that is exactly what "F: 1235" shows - altogether, 97.8% of non-empty ("E: 3112") chunk sections are being culled. It is quite suspicious that this information was hidden in 1.8, as if Mojang doesn't want you to know about it):
Another example of how much a deeper underground actually impacts the game; this may just look like a Superflat world reaching the height limit but aside from surface features it has all the features found in a normal world, including caves (a unique feature of my modded versions, though they do not generate higher up to match the depth) and passive mob spawning during world generation (you can't see much but there are over 300 passive mobs, most are too far away to render or be sent to the client):
A look underground with MCEdit; caves extended up to y=135 (their maximum starting altitude is 119, compared to 126 in vanilla, as everything was shifted down by 7 layers):
An analysis of the world/loaded area made with MCEdit; passive mobs are missing since MCEdit can only analyze the area from 0-255 even though entities can be outside of that range:
Volume: 528x256x528 (1089 chunks; 71368704 blocks)
(0:0),Air,2095349
(1:0),Stone,62303274
(1:1),Stone,821161
(1:3),Stone,740366
(1:5),Stone,1034823
(2:0),Grass,277363
(3:0),Dirt,2311314
(4:0),Cobblestone,4435
(4:1),Cobblestone,464
(5:0),Wood Planks,3410
(7:0),Bedrock,278784
(8:0),Water (active),57136
(10:0),Lava (active),105829
(13:0),Gravel,488912
(13:1),Gravel,357635
(14:0),Gold Ore,8637
(15:0),Iron Ore,91516
(16:0),Coal Ore,346942
(21:0),Lapis Lazuli Ore,4615
(30:0),Web,560
(39:0),Brown Mushroom,217
(39:1),Brown Mushroom,47
(39:2),Brown Mushroom,63
(39:3),Brown Mushroom,86
(39:4),Brown Mushroom,51
(48:0),Moss Stone,2036
(49:0),Obsidian,5442
(52:0),Monster Spawner,50
(54:2),Chest,16
(54:3),Chest,20
(54:4),Chest,15
(54:5),Chest,22
(56:0),Diamond Ore,2123
(66:0),Rail,399
(66:1),Rail,381
(73:0),Redstone Ore,16813
(75:1),Redstone Torch (off),18
(75:2),Redstone Torch (off),13
(75:3),Redstone Torch (off),16
(75:4),Redstone Torch (off),16
(85:0),Fence,2388
(98:0),Stone Bricks,1330
(98:1),Mossy Stone Bricks,312
(98:2),Cracked Stone Bricks,257
(98:3),Circle Stone Bricks,91
(99:1),Huge Brown Mushroom (Northwest),3
(99:2),Huge Brown Mushroom (North),2
(99:3),Huge Brown Mushroom (Northeast),3
(99:4),Huge Brown Mushroom (West),2
(99:5),Huge Brown Mushroom (Top),1
(99:6),Huge Brown Mushroom (East),2
(99:7),Huge Brown Mushroom (Southwest),3
(99:8),Huge Brown Mushroom (South),2
(99:9),Huge Brown Mushroom (Southeast),3
(99:10),Huge Brown Mushroom (Stem),4
(100:1),Huge Red Mushroom (Northwest),5
(100:2),Huge Red Mushroom (North),5
(100:3),Huge Red Mushroom (Northeast),5
(100:4),Huge Red Mushroom (West),5
(100:5),Huge Red Mushroom (Top),14
(100:6),Huge Red Mushroom (East),5
(100:7),Huge Red Mushroom (Southwest),5
(100:8),Huge Red Mushroom (South),5
(100:9),Huge Red Mushroom (Southeast),5
(100:10),Huge Red Mushroom (Stem),9
(100:11),Huge Red Mushroom,4
(162:0),Future Block!,327
(165:1),Future Block!,2
(165:2),Future Block!,2
(165:3),Future Block!,2
(165:4),Future Block!,2
(165:5),Future Block!,1
(165:6),Future Block!,2
(165:7),Future Block!,2
(165:8),Future Block!,2
(165:9),Future Block!,2
(165:10),Future Block!,4
(165:11),Future Block!,4
(185:0),Future Block!,567
(185:8),Future Block!,1393
(186:0),Future Block!,238
(186:8),Future Block!,750
(187:0),Future Block!,24
(187:8),Future Block!,104
(200:0),Future Block!,437
,,
,Entities,108
Bat,Bat,16
CaveSpider,CaveSpider,1
Creeper,Creeper,20
Enderman,Enderman,1
Endermite,Endermite,2
Item,Brown Mushroom,9
MinecartChest,MinecartChest,9
Silverfish,Silverfish,2
Skeleton,Skeleton,23
Spider,Spider,1
Squid,Squid,3
Zombie,Zombie,21
,,
,TileEntities,123
Chest,Chest,73
MobSpawner,MobSpawner,50
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?
Strange. I've gone underground and came up in spots that had me across an ocean, so if caves are flooded under oceans now, it's certainly not all of them.
The deeper underground actually helps offset the deeper oceans a bit, too. Now if you were to implement this suggestion and make the oceans deeper yet, then yes, you'd lose a lot of that space under oceans.
Sure, but my comment was made in reference to the game that exists now, not what someone may have done with a fork of an older version from a decade ago.
I don't think Mojang is too concerned with hardware from the Windows XP era, either. Realistically speaking, hardware moves on, and older hardware falls out of use and out of support. Windows 10 is also going to be end of life in two years and anything older than Intel's 8th generation/Ryzen 2nd generation will be cut out at that point, at least in the Windows ecosystem (there's workarounds for the TPM requirement of Windows 11 but officially, that's the stuff that won't be supported anymore). I mean, there comes a point when stuff is too old, and that's common place for games especially. This isn't just a game, but a CPU heavy one. I understand it's not optimized as well as it could be, but it goes the other way too. At some point a user should accept that if they want more performance, a decade old CPU or a low end laptop from 5 to 7 years ago might not be up to scratch for desired performance in the latest software, and if one wants more performance to keep up with evolving software, an upgrade may be in order.
That's far from a tall ask, either. I remember when hardware would come out, and three years later, games would have said hardware as the minimum requirement. Things are tame compared to the late 1990s and 2000s. We're really spoiled these days.
Only if you don't adjust for the fact that faster hardware has come out since.
Modern versions run more comfortably for me on modern hardware, than 1.8 did at the time of its release on what was modern hardware then. And it's actually worse because the time frame 1.8 launched was a few years into the time period were CPU growth stagnated, meaning something three years old was barely behind the latest stuff. Yet, I struggled on 1.8 with a three year old, overclocked CPU. Compared to today, my four year old 3700X was running modern versions rather well until I upgraded from it. Not even a question, 1.8 was more of a slog on performance in its time than modern versions are now.
There have also been performance uplifts in modern versions, too (just in 1.20 alone, going through nether portals is now way faster, new lighting system, and the consistent stutter when crossing certain chunk boundaries only in certain directions is gone). I remember going into the nether after 1.8 and even in 1.10 and having ten solid seconds of stutter (oddly, never happened going from nether to overworld). 1.14+ (or something after 1.10 but before 1.14) cleaned this up. I don't get why you seem to paint modern versions as only getting worse, when I've firsthand seen many of the positive improvements. Is that to say it compares to whatever scenario your modded 1.6 can do? No. But new versions aren't just getting consecutively worse. Especially when you adjust for ten years of hardware changes.
Then why do I keep getting comments like this?
And no, it mostly isn't "what did you do?!" (perhaps my most significant change directly impacting smoothness is basically what Optifine did, smoothen out chunk updates (in a better way, along with making chunk data access as fast as possible, OpenGL itself is the single biggest bottleneck) - which even to this day are a leading cause of stuttering; note that this comment specifically mentions code specific to 1.8+ as aggravating it). I take this as a sign that the average player doesn't have the latest hardware and for this reason I do not believe in "just upgrade your hardware if you want better performance". Then again, this is another comment I got (way back in 2014); the game has always been plagued by its wildly inconsistent performance on different systems, largely due to poor industry-wide support for OpenGL (Apple has even threatened to completely remove support for it, citing its antiquated architecture; whenever somebody reports issues and they have an integrated GPU, especially Intel, I always suggest getting a dedicated NVIDIA GPU if possible, even if just a low-end secondhand one):
(the only reason they might get "only 8 FPS" is because of the biomes with massive trees, which did completely kill my performance on Fancy due to lack of VRAM, or a GPU that didn't work well with Advanced OpenGL (designed to implement occlusion culling on the GPU hardware, the obvious best way to do it, but AMD and Intel decided to just do it in software), ironically, culling the caves they wanted and a possible reason why Mojang changed them in 1.7 to be much more uniformly distributed (too bad they never actually said why, they didn't even mention it in any changelogs)
Also, there is even a "law" for the phenomenon of software becoming slower and less efficient as hardware gets faster - Wirth's Law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirth's_law
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'm confused. You made a comment about 1.8 being "very lightweight" compared to modern versions.
I responded that this is only true if you look at things vis-a-vis in a vacuum, and ignore hardware changes in that time. I was explaining that this isn't very practical because Minecraft is a continuously updated software (a version released in 2023 is 2023 software).
I added that I speak from experience that hardware from around the time of release 1.8 handled it more poorly than modern hardware handles modern versions. I'm sure you might recall all of my vocal comments around the time on how bad 1.8 was for me on (for the time) pretty decent hardware. Do I need to show you a video of modern Minecraft running well enough at 32 or even 48 chunks (and with shaders) on hardware of today to show how much the situation contrasts the performance of 1.8 at the time?
Your response to that is to bring in your modded version, and testimonials of it?
I'm confused. I thought the discussion was about 1.8 and modern versions? You're now shifting the discussion as it goes. How is the performance of your modded version compared to modern versions relevant? That's called "moving the goal post".
Look, you don't need to tell me your modded version runs circles around modern Minecraft. I very much know that. Come on, I've applauded the results you've gotten numerous times. You also don't need to take me for someone who thinks "modern" versions are perfect. They are far from it, and I've been vocal of it on numerous occasions. But as someone who has experience with the game in both time frames, and with hardware of their respective time frame, I disagreed with your comment. And I think there have been positive changes in the time too.
All I was saying is that modern versions aren't all bad either, especially adjusted for the time they released in, and that's the point you missed. I get it, your version is great and all that. I don't see how it contrasts anything I was saying though.
Anyway, this discussion itself isn't even too relevant to the suggestion so I think it's better not to steer it that way. I was originally simply making a remark that I was envisioning an update that made oceans deeper, and the underground deeper (and the complaints that'd come with it as a result). It was a joke. Why did it need to become another "modern Minecraft's performance is bad" post?
I'm well aware of it. There's a lot of "laws" and "rules" for almost everything. Not everything follows all of these laws and rules.
This also supports what I'm saying (whether you see it as a good thing or not). It's always been the situation that you need to upgrade eventually, because even if a given software doesn't get slower faster than hardware gets faster, the collective average that software demands does tend to trend up. Which is expected when the average level of hardware in the user market trends up. Software developers target that rising average (plus or minus, and sometimes more than people like, yes). Things are, all told, far better than they used to be regarding this.
Sooooooo... guardians, ocean monuments, sunken ships, dolphins and aqua-variant mobs all added nothing?
Ooookay? Can you tell us what the fish are, and what this new turtle shell purpose is? And change to water breathing potions?
Most of this suggestion is "more this and more that" with hardly any description. The ocean update kind of already happened. Can't say I want pirates either, it feels like more human mobs would come off as cliché.