My guess is that it's a notice that it might require more computing resources (a faster CPU namely, probably) and have lower performance on some lower end PCs.
- Princess_Garnet
- Registered Member
-
Member for 11 years, 7 months, and 24 days
Last active Thu, Mar, 28 2024 00:13:19
- 44 Followers
- 2,461 Total Posts
- 868 Thanks
-
Sep 6, 2013Princess_Garnet posted a message on 13w36a Snapshot Ready for Testing!Posted in: News
-
Sep 5, 2013Princess_Garnet posted a message on 13w36a Snapshot Ready for Testing!While I'm still early in playing around with things, I've noticed a few things in particular.Posted in: News
1. The sound options reset every time the game is closed (maybe every time the world is closed; I haven't tested that, but it's at least every time the game is restarted).
2. I seem to get annoying stuttering while near a jungle biome, and what's odd is that my frame rate will still be rather high. I've had it varying between 77 FPS and 112 FPS and feel so stuttery that I'd have thought it was dropping to 30 FPS or lower. This may be something on my end, but my PC is more than capable, and I never had the issue before. It's not just on chunk generation either (though it's more pronounced then). I could pause it and let it load all around, and then reload the world, and after letting it settle, simply looking around is hitching a bit. The frame rate is high, but there's occasional and pronounced pauses, and it almost makes jungles something I have to shy from. Anyone else have stuttering exclusive to jungles?
3. I feared this when the tidbits about the new biome placement maps were being shown, but I wanted to reserve my opinion until I could see for myself. Because of the "more realistic" nature of how biomes are arranged, you have to walk forever to see a lot of variation. I spawned in a world and have walked for thousands of blocks (about 5,000 so far), and I've mostly just seen forests (regular, birch, and taiga only) with the ocassional extreme hill and plains biome. I only recently found a swamp and a jungle or two. Yes, it's more realistic, but we already had the large biomes world option for a more larger regional feel. It's fine if deserts are kept more away from snow, but still, this could us being toned down a bit IMO. We got rid of oceans because people hated going for thousands of blocks, and then this is the same thing (oddly, I didn't mind the oceans though, though I did agree they were excessive). Otherwise, I like the new generation.
4. I don't seem to be finding larger oak trees in forests anymore. I'm guessing they have their own forest now (?) like birch trees, but I'm one of those who believe the trees are too small in Minecraft. I'm not suggesting the small trees be removed, but the large oak trees mixed in gave it the needed (IMO) variety. I could just be missing them, or they are less common in some forests?
Overall though, this seems to be a great update. - To post a comment, please login.
1
(I will reply to posts after this but I want to keep the update on it's own for clarity, and formatting reasons.)
I went to start playing and found myself in a valley. While they are pretty... why was I here? Where was I going, and in what direction am I going? I kind of ran some circles to get my bearings and then saw a familiar spot. I then remembered during my last update, when i was plotting my path on the map, I was... a but uncertain near the end. Did I actually not entirely finish getting home?
Then it hit me because I knew for a fact that I crossed a certain spot I was crossing again. The way my last play session ended was that the game crashed when I went to switch to window mode (and didn't pause to incur a save). I was seemingly back to my last autosave moment instead, some minutes prior to reaching my village.
In reality I didn't lose anything (but some time to get back), and I ended up finding a handful of iron on the way back, so it had a Silver lining and all.
I grabbed a compass I neglected from one of the cartographer buildings, mad a map, zoomed it out some, and decided to start mapping. I found a bird in a jungle near my village.
A bit later, I noticed some telltale crimson Red while mapping in a forest, and it had brought me to one of the structures I had awareness of from looking at the UnMined map the first time, a ruined portal.
I can't remember if I mentioned this earlier or not, but in case I didn't, any of the structures I saw only because of the UnMined map are ones I am ignoring until I naturally come across them. For example, I know there's another ruined portal just where I plan to settle, but I have yet to go to it because I shouldn't know it is there. So I'm pretending I don't know about them, and will simply loot them only when I come across them while mapping.
And here's what it had.
I keep mapping, getting closer to filling in the corner near spawn (which will be at the corner of four maps, but I only have the one for now).
This was a neat arch, but as it was dark, my sword was low on durability, my shield was away, and the sun was setting, I decided to go around it instead of through it. If you're wondering why the shield is away, I was earlier killing pigs and cows I came across so I had my sword out, so the map was in the offhand. I just kept it this way for the process.
I actually had a slightly audible moment of excitement when I saw these...
Not only did I not expect them, but I thought they were only found in savanna plateaus now. I thought they were removed from "mountainous" terrain (which this barely is anyway I would think). I slept here, and a skeleton wandered out after morning, took some sun damage, but went under a tree, allowing my to get the killing credit and drops. Arrows are very needed now to stock them up. They are going to be a valuable thing in this particular world.
I also don't think, despite filling out as much map area as I did in my other hardcore world, that I ever came across a single llama. I've seen trader llamas, yes, but not natural ones. I've already seen four here, and not too long into the world, and not too far from my village and planned settlement spot. Later when I get leads, I have potential llamas to get.
Well I wonder if I'm getting close to spawn yet...
I find it neat how spawn is this radical terrain but only right at spawn. It sort of serves as a landmark. Better than being some random block in a birch forest.
I just about conclude, saving the worst for last, having to skirt around their dangerous territory.
In doing so, I notice some iron facing a cliff wall and grab it. That's just a bit more, but every bit helps right now.
After concluding the mapping (that's a single map zoomed out... two or three times, I forget, done), I go to look for some more shallow caves, and fine some.
Not far inside, this little one runs at me through a one block tall dirt blocked way.
I soon start hearing more zombies and see them behind the dirt, and at the exact moment the thought crosses my mind that there might be a dungeon nearby, I see the cobblestone confirmation that, yes, there is.
I find this inside. Shame about that enchanted book, huh?
But I'm at three golden apples now.
A bit further in and I find it opens up to an overlook of a much deeper and larger (but not yet massive) cave system, but it's signaling it will likely become one. This might be good, but for later. My inventory is full now so I head back. But I can consider exploring further later as I was starting to think I might just branch mine down until I get enough diamond stuff (I'm not opposed to this, but I'd rather not do it and find it "naturally" as this feels more meaningful to me).
I decide to head back, but coming from a slightly different way I just miss it, and notice a single tree on an "island" I spotted on the shipwreck near my village was actually yet another jungle landmass.
I turn right (North) to see more, but also come across this.
I also notice that buried shipwreck I saw at the North edge of the UnMined map, and since I've naturally come across it, I allow myself to head to it to check it out.
I find a bird on the way... (this might have been the second in the area?)
Upon flying out of the way, there's another bird behind it.
I decide to try and get them, and from here, there's a video of that process as well as the rest of what I do for this update.
It's not anywhere near as long as the last one was going to be before it combusted itself and my game session.
I tame the two birds, check out the buried shipwreck (which has some good loot, including my first diamond), and do some exploration but hold myself back despite wanting to keep going, remembering I should hold off until I get maps.
I sleep to pass a thunderstorm, and then home to sort my inventory, gather the rest of some cooking food, and then stop for now. Maybe more caving next time? My first diamond piece of equipment soon to come? Time will tell.
0
It's not exactly analogous to the old extreme hills, but I don't think the old relatively rare and small raised portions in forests is a closer analogous to it either. Maybe in technicality (since it is elevation variety untied to biome?), but in practice, which I think matters far more here, those results are far closer to what the old extreme hills were.
The new "extreme hills" are instead elevation differences untied from biome rather than a formal biome itself (which just results in what seems close to what the old extreme hills were when it happens as a plains biome, and sometimes this indeed happens with forests overlaying it). They are more often plateau-like than the ones in 1.6 as well (larger flat areas on the top). When you get larger areas like this with multiple ones especially bordering small bits of plains on each side of a river, it results in these valleys which I absolutely adore.
I absolutely agree with this. It could definitely benefit from more variety, but this is bordering on the "climate system is too strict" or "there's not enough biome types for the current strictness" subjects, which is another matter (and something I agree with, by the way).
I certainly don't find it a flaw that a plains region of that size can exist though, but maybe I'm alone in that preference. Now if that was actually a large flat plains all like in 1.6, and each biome was routinely of a size like that, then sure, I'd agree with the saying that "new generation equals large biomes of the past", but we both know that's an unfair comparison of what's actually happening. Instead I'm finding that while biome size may certainly trend larger on average (they can also be much smaller), I'm also finding these are usually "greater biome regions" as opposed to one single massive biome (like in 1.6). And that's not a problem to me. As I said, the biomes sizes of 1.6 just wouldn't fly in today's game with larger render distances and especially larger terrain elevation scale since 1.18. It just wouldn't. So making 1:1 comparisons on a given technical aspect is arbitrary at best, and not very useful for what's actually happening.
Maybe it overshoots it some (it has since 1.7, and I've been on the record as saying 1.18 missed a chance to better address this). Maybe it needs more slightly different sub-biomes to add variety. Sure, I can agree with both of those. But I don't agree that making 1:1 comparisons likening them to single large biomes like those of 1.6 as proper comparison. So after actually looking at it in game, I just wanted to share my impressions and point out the distinctions I felt were valid.
Absolutely agree, but if it wasn't this, it would be something else, so we'd always be finding something that could be better. Which, isn't a bad thing. We should always be critical on what could be improved.
And I was sort of looking forward to hearing if you had any ideas on the video, since you seem to dabble is this yourself. As someone who doesn't understand most of the code or technical stuff, the best I can do is form a reaction on the observable results, and it puts me in awe at times at what the current terrain generation can do (while simultaneously identifying some of its flaws at other times).
Also, new update for the actual world soon.
0
So I made a world in 1.20 with that seed to get a look at it in game, as well as get an UnMined map for a like for like comparison.
It's a little bit as I expected. The not like for like comparison is giving a bad at a glance impression.
That "massive plains" biome? It's not as you might expect.
It's not even all plains. There's a sunflower plains and multiple meadows in there. Yes, the first is a type of plains and meadows are higher altitude "plains-like", but still. Do a bunch of different types of forests in 1.6 count as one massive forest biomes? Yes but also no. But the map being used there made it appear like it might be one big plains biomes.
There's another important distinction though. While a lot of it is still formal plains biomes, if we're comparing to 1.6 and earlier generation, there's a change in terrain generation that should to be accounted for. Altitude is no longer as strictly tied to biome. Specifically, the old "extreme hills" is gone, and a "plains" biome can generate with varying heights, which in the case of plains makes them appear as plains with a lot of "extreme hills-esque" generation. And that's what is going on with a lot of this particular area.
(I should also mention there's a lot of interesting looking terrain here in general, but I find myself saying that a lot for modern versions so maybe that's just me.)
Now is there still a big area of repetitiveness here regardless? Yeah, a bit. I definitely don't dispute that the climate feature can be aggressive and lead to that. My other hardcore world is a good example of that. But this still shows a bit what I was trying to say. It's not necessarily "all biomes in modern versions are large biomes", especially if large biomes actually are 16 times the area and not just four times (this explains why my experience with them even in 1.6 made things so repetitive). Instead, it's seems more like the same few biomes can tend to repeat, along with biomes maybe being somewhat larger (but also possibly smaller). This happens a lot with deserts and badlands (and associated sub types) too.
But it's not quite the same as one big flat 1.6 style plains like the map gives the impression of.
Here's an UnMined map of it (and the concerning eight villages).
Suddenly looks not as big and more varied than that Chunk Base one does? I think so, at least.
Here's a comparison with a spot of an older copy of my "1.6" world where there was a pretty impressively sized extreme hills (and plains) region. There's definitely more variety with some forests mixed in, but older versions could do a lot of plains and extreme hills over a large distance too (even if it was less common).
Also, I have... no idea what the "missing" terrain is from. I just copied a backup version of the world from 1.10 and it just showed up that way. The last time that world was played in 1.120 and loaded in (older versions of) UnMined, it appeared fine though. Those aren't even individual chunks missing but partial chunks missing, and I have no idea what explains such an issue, but as it's not a live world I'm intending to play and just one I copied to get that UnMined map image for, I'm not going to bother with it.
As for your question of modern terrain generation, I have no idea because I know nothing about this. I can merely observe and share my experiences, as I am here. But I wonder if this has any answers to what you're asking? I came across it a while back and while most of it goes over my head insofar as understanding it, it was interesting nonetheless.
I don't quite object to them. You're right; they're certainly pleasing in their own way.
At the same time, I don't find the smooth borders completely objectionable either.
While modern generation definitely has its "looks bad at a glance on a map" moments, I find the "jigsaw puzzle" look to be the same thing for older versions.
Of course, how maps look tends to be a rather inconsequential thing. How it looks in game is far more important, and I feel like both are good but also bad for the opposite reasons. The random biome placement of older generation (though this doesn't pertain to the fractal shape so much) looks bad at anything but lower render distances, especially when warm and cold climates border, and the elevation being more tied to biome made variety on a larger scale so awful. This was probably the number one complaint against beta 1.8 through 1.6 generation that 1.7 and prior did better; low biome variety but great variety over a larger scale because elevation wasn't tied to biome. The plus side is variety on a smaller scale is good though.
Meanwhile, the repetitiveness on a smaller scale of the newer versions needs no introduction. And some people might be torn on the smooth lines versus fractals. But otherwise, I think it does things better, namely on a larger scale, and I guess that's why I prefer it.
Over a large enough scale, of course, anything will be repetitive. That's sort of why I liked the continents with large oceans to 1.6. They were awful for travel on a shorter scale (sometimes taking days to cross), but they were great a larger scale. A scale that very few if any people probably realistically played at, though.
Yes, I automatically love it.
0
I think that's by design? It's probably not intended to be easy to amass emeralds by mining. They've been common in world generation since being introduced in 1.3. If they were common, that would allows for bypassing half of the villager trading system. It's seemingly meant that you give them items for emeralds and in turn use those emerald for other items. So if you want more emeralds, you can get them. Trade them the lesser things they want for them. It's a currency. It makes sense that it's very rare to find naturally.
0
(I was going to edit this in but then I don't know if you'd miss it.)
Oh, wait, is that your seed you used for your worlds? Honestly, that doesn't look bad to me in the 1.20 version. Within a couple/few thousand blocks, there's all three main climate zones and they're all decently sized by the looks of it. And a good number of cherry biomes (yes, that's a perk for me, haha). Kind of like the seed I'm using this world. I'd have been pretty happy if I got that one, too. I'd say that's good variety for what I would say are reasonable distances. I know they might not be reasonable for your play style but the only way you cram more variety into a smaller space is basically by doing what you did, and going with truly random placement and having smaller biomes. Considering 1.7+ can bemuuuch worse than that, that seems alright to me.
Also, I want to point out you're using different methods of showing maps. I know you're doing this simply because you don't play modern versions to have UnMined maps for them, and likewise because 1.6 generation might not work whatever you're using to show the 1.20 seeds (?), but even if it's not for any intentional reason, it changes the impression they give. Good comparisons would be to show them like for like.
In the 1.6 map for example, I'm mostly seeing desert, plains, forest, and snow areas on repeat and it looks lacking in variety and bland (I realize the map is super zoomed out and there's of course many more biomes than four, but I'm just saying how and offhand negative impression can be gleaned from anything when presented a certain way).
There's also a real lack of oceans in the map of what I presume is your mod? Did you shrink them, or is that just an example of "sample size of one doesn't speak for everything"? One thing I miss from 1.6 is the occasional massive ocean. They needed toned down, but they went the other way, and as a result I miss the "continental" feel of the world in anything since then. You really had to be a huge explorer and generate a massive world to make them feel good though. I guess for most players they just felt bad (especially since oceans themselves back then were just lacking).
0
Well this is relieving to read then, because I felt my contributions to this thread so far might have been seen as "pointless" by some because I'm covering the 'boring early days" and because my progression might seem slow.
I keep saying "I'm going out for iron" and then just explore. And I do actually look for iron, and even go in caves and get some (but mostly coal), and then explore, so I was wondering if my "oh, pretty, a nice looking landscape, let's explore" on repeat was turning anyone off, haha.
I'll have to yield to you as you definitely know more than me here, and I'm merely speaking from my own (limited) experience as well as observation. I'm also aware that when checking seeds across certain versions, they will also be observable and show the things you're saying. I do see that to an extent too.
But at the same time, in playing them and checking the maps on my particular worlds, the individual biomes don't necessarily seem much larger to me. When they do, it's usually feels like it's in edge cases, especially in climates that lack biomes (namely, cold or hot) because I observe the tendency of the same multiple biomes are on repeat. Seems is the key word. Maybe those biomes are larger actually instead, but I don't think I see massively inflated biome sizes with many other types.
Remember, back in 1.6 and before, we were also locked to render distances of 10 and lower, and I think you still prefer to play this way. These days, we can see farther, so maybe the biomes are larger but don't quite feel like it. That's sort of what I meant when I said I understand why you especially detest the post-1.7 changes. For your play style and conditions (slow exploration rate, and lower render distance), something like 1.7+ and yes maybe worse with 1.18+ must be truly horrendous for you.
As an explorer, though, and someone who spends much of her time on the surface building and exploring, the new version, while it definitely has its edge cases and I'd like to see it be less aggressive, is still preferable to the older way of truly random, jigshaw shaped biomes. And if they were smaller, that would just make it worse. I played in large biomes in older versions (can't remember if this before or after 1.7 though honestly) and I remember it feeling less far varied than I expected it to, even going in and knowing the biomes would four times the area (I think?).
The biomes might indeed be larger but I still think the repetitiveness might be more down to the climate system, because at least in a lot of cases, I'm seeing individual biomes that don't feel a whole lot bigger than they did back then (I'm aware there are also cases they are, though).
I sort of mentioned at the end of the post where I wondered if this issue might be far less of an issue if there was simply more biomes in the game. I think I read someone else (Zeno?) mention this at one point too.
And when I say I see small biomes, I don't know if I'm talking about sub biomes? Are cherry blossoms sub-biomes? Are mangrove swamps? there's tiny ones of those on the map in this world here. I also observe small "sliver" biome shapes at times (there's a forest like this on my map near spawn) so I think I've seen "normal" biomes come out that was in some cases.
I think maybe biomes are just more variable, even if they might trend towards larger on average, especially made worse by the climate system "repeating" them. So they feel much larger, but there's also edge cases the other way? I don't know but that's just the impression I have. I don't know what the coding or values actually show so again I'll yield on any definitive numbers facts, but that's what it seems to be based on what I see on maps and in game.
0
I'm... very glad nobody noticed I almost died... like it never happened, haha.
More the opposite and I feel like I'm the only one around here who likes it.
I only have two samples of experience with 1.20 so I can't say much, and one was a world started in 1.19 and updated to 1.20. Bother are my hardcore worlds.
And if you remember from the first one, I settled in a small recess atop a "mountain" (or a plateau-like area just under a peak, more formally). I think this was a mix of plains and meadow originally in 1.19, and it came with a village, but then in 1.20 the same spot was a massive cherry grove and had no village.
In other words, those cherry groves might have been valid spots for what would have been more villages if this were 1.18 or 1.19. It's ridiculous. That's the one thing I don't like about modern world generation. Seriously, villages (and even shipwrecks and ruins portals) need to be cut in half, and then cut in half again. Or in other words, somewhere between 20% to 33% as common as they are now seems like it might feel better.
Ah, so it's sort of what I thought.
I guess I'm able to adapt to things well. Like, yeah, I wouldn't mind if they were less winding and more consistent in width, but I also don't mind them as they are either. I looked on some maps of older worlds and rivers seem pretty winding there, too. Less winding maybe, but still rather winding as opposed to straight. The big change is they seem less wide and less common. I definitely prefer them being wider as opposed to the streams of 1.16 (or 1.17) and before, although maybe they could be slightly less common and be fine.
A lot of this is the kind of stuff you won't see or notice (at least as much) in-game, although maps show it. But even on maps it looks fine to me.
Do keep in mind this is a very zoomed out look, too. Zoom out maps in 1.6 or something with similar random biome placement and they quickly start looking like unpleasant jigsaw puzzles too.
That's true, but I never looked at rivers as needing to be a way of efficient transportation, and they never were in any version ever.
Maybe that also speaks to who I am as a player as to why I don't mind them. They don't need to be efficient. They need to be fun. I'd enjoy getting in a boat and just following one to see where it goes. You can't entirely do that all the time, but it's much closer than before.
Likewise, that extends to other things like caves, where I find them more fun even if people complain about then because "it doesn't give me as much ore to the minute or resource to the durability use as another version" because there's less ores or they have to pillar up for some or whatever reasons they come up with, and I'm just like... what? Maybe I never cared for that because I play at a far slower pace? And just like to do things for the experience of it and not care if it "gives me the most"? That's playing for the wrong reasons in my opinion. What do I care if it gives me less if it's already more than enough anyway? This same mentality has become so pervasive that people cry about nerfs just because it's a nerf rather than objectively looking at the state of things as a whole. Instead, they are comparing one thing in a vacuum to the same thing in another version and going "it's lower so it's worse". What a silly mentality to have. No wonder the fun is being stripped from the game for many people. What happened to just experiencing the game instead of rushing A to B to Z all the time? Well I wonder why people are bored and finding the need to restart worlds all the time...
Sorry, now I'm ranting. But I'm not playing to accumulate the most of something for it's own sake. Or to have everything that exists be some super efficient thing to justify its existence. That's all pointless to me. I'm also playing for the experience. And that's where it's far better for me than ever before, even if some things took "some steps back". The bigger picture is where it matters. Don't miss the forest for the trees.
I'm mixed on this.
While I do miss some of the old biome transition possibilities (a flat desert adjacent to an extreme hills being a classic preference of mine, though... that also relied upon the texture pack I was using and I'd find it less appealing in vanilla), I have come to like the climate system itself despite that. I prefer it to the complete randomness of before. The older way would be so much worse at render distances of today (where 16 isn't the highest anymore but more the norm for Java, and Bedrock is far above that) if there was so much variety, or such harsh type transitions, in a smaller area like in 1.6 and before. It would look awful in game.
This extends to maps too. 1.6 and older worlds look like "random jigsaw puzzles", and your maps are honestly a great example of this. They don't look pleasant to me. At the same time, how maps look isn't quite as important as how it is in-game, as I said above, but even in-game I don't find this as pleasant.
The newer approach being overly aggressive at times is a definite downfall to it, but it seems to me your much slower style of exploration, your focus on the underground, and probably lower render distance, are all reasons why you don't mind the drawbacks to the biome arrangement of 1.6 (and inversely, why you would find the newer style of 1.7 or above detrimental), but the way 1.6 does it is definitely not without its own drawbacks.
Biome size though doesn't feel much different to me? The "large biomes" is in the game separately, by the way, and this isn't it. Look at my screenshot in my first post where I'm setting the world options and the "world type" is "default". Large biomes, amplified, and single biome also exist. And if you look at the maps above, you can see many individual biomes in many cases have about the same size they might in older versions (I even find very small biomes far more often than I would back then). It seems more to me like many biomes might repeat for a while (or "the same biome be placed next to itself" for a lack of better words) due to the climate system, which is leading to more visual repetitiveness than you are used to seeing compared to the "random jigsaw puzzle placement" from 1.6. But the individual biome size in many cases seems largely the same (give or take). I mean, maybe they are different to an extent and my impression is wrong (and in that case, you need to remember this isn't 2012 anymore where a render distance of 8 is called "normal" and the game is bugged and "far" caps to 10, but instead most people are playing well above 4 to 8 now, so the tiny jigsaw biomes with harsh transitions so often wouldn't fly today), but to me the biome size itself seems fine and it's more the climate system that changed. I've played on large biomes in the past and individual biomes felt larger. This maybe feels like a situation where a limited number of biomes (two or three, or sometimes one) repeat a lot and makes individual biomes seem larger? Maybe with more biome types, the modern systems' flaws would be less of an issue? Not sure.
0
This matters greatly to me. Multiplayer games are exceptions for obvious reasons, but being unable to pause in a singleplayer game is such a serious lack of a very basic feature for a modern game. A game lacking a very basic feature makes it fundamentally flawed in a major way in my eyes. There's a lot of reasons I'd never play Bedrock, even without this being an issue, but this is a major one.
Java, to its (dis)credit, is missing its own basic thing I see as a flaw to be lacking for a (PC) game, and that is lack of native anti-aliasing support. The game looks atrocious without it, especially in older versions that also lack mip-mapping (and I say that as someone who doesn't like mip-maps because while they clear up one issue, they don't entirely solve it and introduce another, but the lack of mip-maps in older versions plus no anti-aliasing has that infamous "noisy and looks bad" look that older screenshots [at least ones lacking anti-aliasing] all have). This has also been considered a rather basic feature for a PC game to have for decades, and while this is one thing many other games also don't offer, I similar see them as flawed for it. Minecraft Java joins them.
But the former is a major functionality issue that very few games lack, and the latter is a visual one, which is still very important to me personally, but at least other ways to achieve it (such as with OptiFine or shaders). It shouldn't need those things to achieve it, no (and they both have their drawbacks), but they do at least exist. On the other hand, want to momentarily stop playing Bedrock? You need to either ensure you are safe (or spend the time and effort making a temporary safe room, which I've seen are things for Bedrock players and it shows how absurd this is), or close the world and reload it. Just because it can't pause.
0
It felt so awkward to me that gold didn't have an equivalent ore vien that I actually thought they were in the game for awhile.
I'm actually split on the addition of them, meaning I would not mind at all either way. I have no strong feeling to see them not be added, but I can easily live with them and find them to be an improvement.
A lot of Gold's value, especially later game and in a recurring fashion, is for golden carrots and golden apples. It shouldn't be so plentiful or it allows golden carrots to possibly replace needing to do anything with food farming (crops or animals), and even as someone with a villager trader that allows them to avoid those things, it's one of those benefits that shouldn't exist as it feels bad.
Villager trades are thankfully being changed so it's a step in the right direction, so maybe there's room for these. I don't think gold ore veins would push gold availability to the point it allows you to entirely avoid food farming, at least not for most players (those who do a lot of mining and little of anything else maybe being the exception) and not until really late.
Maybe only being in mesas, and still being as rare as the other ore vein types (and not more common due to only being in limited biomes) would be a good balance for them.
I say that just for gold though. I disagree there should be larger ones for any other types.
Lapis lazuli and redstone are already more abundant than necessary.
Coal is too. It's super common at higher altitudes, and charcoal exists as an alternative to it. It doesn't need massive pockets or blocks to exist.
Diamonds should remain rare, especially since they have little recurring use (and players complain now that some is being added), plus they're becoming like 76% (?) more common in 1.20.2 (I picked the wrong time to start another survival world in 1.20.1 haha).
Emerald ore is already too rare to find via its natural method for its intended purpose (villager trading) and I feel it should stay that way. It's intended to be a rare currency you opt into by trading with villagers (or at least that's my impression and opinion) and doing a variety of trades with them if you want other other things, as opposed to a "mine this thing easily and amass a lot to just get things".
In the nether side, quartz possibly feels like there's some room for some changes, but not so much it removes a reason we might want to go to the nether.
0
Yes, that's how I deal with it too. Just because something is there doesn't mean you have to use it.
Unfortunately, this only works for some things. And largely for singleplayer. In multiplayer, you might choose not to do things, but others might, and it still changes things for you in some cases.
The game really doesn't have too many things added in my opinion. It could easily stand to have much more and be fine. At the same time, more things added and a larger community playing it means a bigger chance there's something someone doesn't like, but will still be playing because they like other things. One thing I've noticed more about the modern community is it seems more vocal about things they don't like. I am not sure if it's simply because the community is larger. I'm not sure if it's because the majority is on Bedrock, where updates are forced (this wouldn't entirely explain it I think). It might not even actually be more vocal about it, and instead I'm just interpreting it that way. But it does seem that way.
Personally, I just avoid the things I don't like. Like in 1.20, the trails ruins stuff I haven't touched yet. I intend to get a sniffer eventually, but that aside, I have no real desire to go for the archeology-like stuff. And that's fine. I don't expect to like every single change to the game. For everything I don't care about, there's usually stuff I do care about. Cherry biomes and their related stuff. Bamboo wood. Hanging signs. Mud stone. Deep dark and ancient cities. Basically everything about 1.18 (including 1.17). This is all the stuff I did love about recent updates.
0
Sorry for the double post, but formatting and not wanting to break things in the prior post had me just started this after making sure the above post worked well (seems using spoiler tags in the rich editor mode causes some space issues afterwards).
I'm indifferent on this.
I found it annoying and pleasing what the shapes of biomes before could result in. But that was in-game. On maps, especially from a larger distance, they looked awful because it was random jigsaw puzzle looking, and I didn't find that pleasing, especially when the biomes had random placement and no climate ordering.
I don't mind the smooth shapes in game, although the juts sticking out at times made for some neat things. But on a map? It only looks a lot better to me.
Also I forgot to respond to this earlier, but I don't mind rivers either. Is it specifically the winding nature of them you dislike, or something else? Abundance of them?
Yeah, I'm not totally sure about village mechanics either, but I remember something like 64 (or 128) blocks being said to be a "sure safe distance", at least from what I'm recalling from some searches on things back when i started my 1.16 world and was trying to learn some of the nuances.
That's not to say things won't work and not merge or cause issues closer, but I'm definitely going to want some distance for safety. I think I'll be more than far enough though.
Yeah, I had two villages rather close in my original world from 1.2.5 to 1.6 (one was tiny though, which made it neater), and I was fine with that being possible given how villages aren't just littered everywhere.
In modern versions though, it's more the norm than the exception and they are everywhere. When every village is within sight of the last, the game loses it's "open canvas" feel bad.
1
Well, I was maybe going to make another update with a video, but I ran into technical issues and long story short, the video is a lost cause so I'll just describe it.
Everything was fine during recording. It was after stopping the recording and attempting to switch from fullscreen to window (to start encoding the video), the game crashed when pressing F11 to minimize it, and the launcher showed error code -1073740940. Given a Mojang bug report that includes that as well as when it happened for me, I'm 99% sure that was the same error code I saw when switching from full screen to window on 1.10/1.11 using shaders, which never happened on 1.16 so I figured it was an issue with the shaders/OptiFine/that version of the game (and likewise, since I updated my oldest world from 1.11 to 1.19, I stopped seeing said issue). Mojang says it drivers and not the game and I do believe it's not the game itself, but at the same time... the mentioned affected driver version is six years old and I'm certainly not using them. Either it's still an issue with nVidia's drivers or it's just randomly caused by rare edge cases. Still, it lost me my video.
The video file exists, but trying to play it in VLC results in nothing. Trying to open it in virtual dub gives a message of "invalid AVI file the main 'movi' block is missing". I could possible save this if I wanted but it's not worth the effort.
To start, I went and gathered some bamboo on that "bamboo island" shown in my last video. I filled up my inventory and forgot you needed nine, not four, to turn them into a block. I was still able get about a few stacks, but I'll certainly need more. Good thing that jungle is full of bamboo!
I returned home and decided to go on a "light caving" exploration adventure for some more iron. On the start of the next day, I saw the clouds take over the sky, and it was dark. I knew what that meant. I was in a savanna though, so there was no rain obstructing me and things were quite bright compared to rain time in other biomes, and while heading back towards the village, I saw skeletons. I thought this might be a good opportunity to get some arrows before sleeping to reset the weather.
Even in full iron armor and with a shield, two of them were decently threatening. I think I fought four total but never more than three consecutively. Just the two were bad enough. Like "my world is going to perish eventually" realization bad. It's funny that I chose to make a dedicated thread for this world and did my updates for my other hardcore world in the other thread, when it's very likely I'll loose this world sooner rather than later, and it's the other one that I feel is relatively safe. Oh well, I didn't want to make it confusing jumping between two hardcore worlds in that thread so i felt easier just putting the new one here rather than switching them.
Anyway, I went back and reset the weather and killed a nearby creeper. I also realized after doing so and getting its drop that I have next to no need for gunpowder since I can't use elytra or potions. I don't use TNT either. Guess that means I never need to worry about having to actively fight them often, which is good given the risk they pose.
Starting a little South of the pillager outpost near my temporary village, I started heading East, and saw this looking Southwest.
I peeked inside, but it was actually mostly waterlogged, though a crack "beneath" the water filled spot existed did lead to deeper caves, but I chose not to descend the flowing water. It just felt risky.
I started heading further East, but first went a bit North after sufficiently passing the pillager outpost. I found a few small caves but most surprisingly terminated early, and there was a ton of coal inside, but no iron.
From there, I climbed in elevation and then saw this.
Round two. Will it be like the last?
Sort of. It mostly looped on itself and terminated early. Maybe the key was to find someone going into the ground rather than the side, and maybe even a smaller less obvious one? Just a bit beyond that cave (upper left of it in the picture) was some smaller ones, and same deal, but I was getting a bit of coal now. Not a lot, since I'm working with no Fortune enchantment, but some stacks still.
I also found my first emerald (well, besides from loot in chests).
I continued heading east, crossed a river, and it started raining again (it was raining in the prior picture, but I had slept since then). For whatever reason, the view in the valley called to my desire to explore (is my... play style and getting side tracked awkward to anyone else?) and from here I have no further pictures, as this is where the video started. I did want to walk readers through it anyway, and I was going to edit the above map and said forget it and got the updated one (since I'm in such an exploration mood, I'm going to begin the maps soon anyway, and I'm upset at losing the video so this will be my substitute).
The spot where the line turns from lighter Purple to Darker Purple is where the video would have started, and where we're at now (prior two Yellow circles were the cave stops).
Following the valley, I found... another village. It looped around following the river, and so did I, and I crossed the river and looped around that mountain. Wandering into forests isn't... as attractive.
Ah, I really wish the video worked because it miiiight show what I saw and explain why I went the ways I did. Mostly it boils down to "this way looks pretty/attractive/is calling to me, so off I go".
After looping that mountain, I find... another village, not even two minutes after leaving the first. I gather some of the hay blocks.
There's forest to the North and East, so I head South, and find a pretty substantial cave opening (first light Blue circle area). I keep going South, and there's yet... another... village not even a minute from leaving the last one. I actually stopped walking in the video and looked down, as though I was disappointed.
I went to it, gathering the hay blocks, and then notice a pretty big opening with water spilling into it nearby. These are usually neat and good cave openings. I go to it to check it out, but I feel like I'm window shopping as I'm not prepared or ready for any serious cave adventures. I go back to the village and head South across the river, and at the next circled spot, my reaction is "pretty cherry trees!" so I head to them. I actually sleep here to pass a night and it's pretty. I'd totally build a village here if I didn't want to be too repetitive to my first world. The... spot... is... gorgeous.
Spoiler alert (meaning the map gave this this information but I didn't see it in game), had I not switched to heading South to this cherry blossom area, I would have found a forth village, making four back to back to back to back, basically seeing one when leaving the prior one. Village frequency is beyond ridiculous.
I knew I was in the general area of that "large cherry blossom area" I spotted heading east way back when, so I started heading West, expecting to eventually find that village in the cherry blossom area.
On the way, I found another massive cave opening. I got a bit close and watched a few zombies come out, taking one out myself, and getting hit by a few arrows from a skeleton. Master_Caver would have been very sad watching me walk to all these openings only to walk away. Might have been considered torture.
I head down and now take the river, actually spotting a trident drowned at some point, who is luckily too far away to come after me. Tridents won't be useful anyway without enchantments.
I do indeed find that village, and then start heading back towards my temporary village. The rest is uneventful as I'm crossing known lands, with one exception, and that's the White circle after leaving the village.
I jump at one point to get down towards the water faster... and just miss clearing land. I think I get down to two and a half hearts or so.
I am not going to last long in this world, am I?
0
This is a user to user forums. Mojang (likely) doesn't check here (often) and anything they did read was most likely just be read rather than responded to. They won't give direct e-mail responses and I'd suggest removing your e-mail for spam purposes.
A more direct way to reach Mojang would be here, although it's still largely user to user and they just watch it (but they at least do that part).
https://feedback.minecraft.net/hc/en-us
I'll still give my own feedback on your suggestions.
Shulker box inception is just infinite storage. That's not only broken, but just adds more to inventory management time.
Let's look at a scenario where you can only nest them one layer deep.
Counting only the space ender chests offer (27 spaces), that turns 729 storage spaces into 18,954 storage spaces (I subtracted the original 729 spaces as these would now be holding shulkers which are holding items).
Depending on how "light" you are with your inventory, you can more than double that since you can hold 25% (and then some due to offhand) more inventory space than ender chests can hold.
What do you need the ability to have possibly well over 40,000 "inventory" spaces for? I say inventory because a portable ender chest with shulkers effective adds to your inventory space. It's already able to be well over a thousand. And then most items stack to some degree, so this becomes a silly high number things to have immediate "inventory" access to.
Likewise, the enderchest has limited storage space to balance it. Originally, it only offered 27 spaces because shulker boxes didn't even exist. Now that they do, the ender chest is severely useful as it is.
I think bundles were iceboxed for now because Mojang didn't feel like they addressed the inventory issues well?
The big issue with the inventory, especially in modern versions due to there being many more items, is it's easy to clutter your inventory with a lot of things that are only few in count, so bundles were sort of supposed to alleviate that. I can't recall how they were going to work but to me, it sounds like an unecessary thing that doesn't serve much differently from a shulker box (I'm fairly sure they were intended to be like limited shulker boxes that you could access early game though). In my opinion, just allowing more inventory space (like another row, or if they go with columns for more hotbar space then a couple/few more of those) to make up for all the added items in the game is the way to go. It gives more inventory space early but doesn't add another thing that's just a clone of another thing.
The last two you would have to elaborate on. What are "upgrade enchantments"? They already come in different level tiers which sort of are the upgrades, and they're already borderline broken, so making them stronger means we need to make mobs stronger, which just makes you super fragile without armor or enchantments (and this is already close to this case as I'm finding out in a recent world I'm playing where I can't enchant stuff). Same for more redstone stuff, you need to give specifics to what functionality/items you're suggestion. Broad suggestions aren't much to work with.
1
So, I a bit of a different update from prior ones. Rather than an update covering a larger time span and more occurrences, this one will be smaller in actual game updates, but I'll make up for it with showing a couple other things.
I'll also be posting a video instead of picture spam (which, besides that few second disappointment of the villages above, is the first real video of this world). If you don't want to watch it or are short on time, I'll also describe it.
The first area is to give an overview of where my settlement is currently planned to be. Well, part of it. I cross the river around where the bridge may end up leading to the jungle where the other part (and likely my own "home") will be.
I've never actually gone into this jungle before, so this video is sort of as a "live update" thing where you see things I'm not yet aware of. I like to know what's around my immediate area before settling, and I never explored that direction yet, so let's do that. This is heading North, by the way.
Right as I enter, there's a jungle temple. Okay, I'll let this one pass since they're not all too common, but still... another structure.
I mostly want to see if this is a large jungle area, or a smaller one that opens into like a plains/another forest/mountain/ocean. Seems it's the former, but I don't intend to explore the whole thing right now. It also opens up into a very wide "river" and there's a ton of bamboo. Jackpot! I'll be needing much of that. I'm also pleased as I find wide rivers through jungles with a lot of terrain elevation differences visually pleasing, and there's quite a lot of that here by the looks of it.
I turn Left (now heading West) as there's a coast here if you head that way from my starting savanna position, so I want to see what happens going that way.
I eventually hear a bird, and common procedure for this is to drop everything I'm doing and find it! And I do. I don't tame it, and it's the same color as one I have now, so maybe I won't. But it's there if I decide to change my mind, and I'm sure a jungle this size will have plenty more.
I soon come back to a sparse jungle that I was aware of, and show some things you might recognize from earlier pictures (such as the ravine and a shipwreck), before heading back to my village as night is drawing close (I had a bed on me but forgot and thought I left it back at the village).
Upon seeing the river I have to cross between the jungle and sparse jungle though, it makes me realize that river does not, in fact, connect to the ocean running near the village (at least not where I thought it might, but more on this later).
Next update will be back to a usual type with pictures covering more things.
Other parts of this "update".
I don't know if there's any interest for it, but simply for disclosure and like with my prior hardcore world, I figured I'd share the seed.
6756671873941797954
I'm playing in 1.20.1 so this will largely work for anything as of 1.18 or newer (1.19 will lack cherry blossom groves and 1.18 will lack those and deep dark biomes). 1.17 and older, it may as well be a different seed and won't work for them.
And the final part of this update is actually a bending of rule three above. I'm going to post an UnMined surface map of my world this far! It's strictly breaking the rule, but I see it as bending instead of breaking it in this case because the purpose of the rule is to avoid simply gleaning information I shouldn't have, and while that might occur here (there might be stuff I generated but didn't see in game), it's going to be temporary as I plan to map this all eventually soon, so anything I'm about to see looking at the map, I'll be seeing soon anyway. I'm only observing the surface (no looking underground).
The reason I'm even posting the map then, is because I wanted to see how it looks before I formally map it in game and have it neatly squared. But mostly, I want to show how many structures there are in my measly sub-250 MB world so far. I was about to make a lazy paint drawing of it but I chose to do this instead, despite it brushing up against the rule.
If the world was more largely generated and my purpose was to scout things, I wouldn't be allowing myself to do this. But I'm going to map beyond this soon anyway, so... report me to myself for breaking the rule!
Shoutout to megasys for not only UnMined itself, but for updating it, fixing bugs over the years (I came back to these forums to report one...), and adding quality of life stuff like this. UnMined truly is great and I've used it for the majority of my Minecraft lifespan, and this was a neat quality of life thing for those looking for more "pure" survival limitations. Sadly, I'll be breaking it here temporarily.
It's pretty much what my memory thought. Here's the marked version, showing structures.
So I've already gained information to the tune of four structures. I've marked these structures with exclamation marks. Two are on the edge of the world, and while one is in the middle, it was on the edge of where I traveled "around" it. So missing those three makes sense. The forth one is literally right next to where I plan to settle. No doubt I'd have found that soon. And the others I'd fine anyway while mapping. I'll be mapping beyond this range and not looking at UnMined again so I find this fine.
Still doubting structure frequency?
Keep in mind there may be more under the ocean (shipwrecks, ocean ruins, or ocean monuments) but I have it set to hide them unless the surface shows it. This also, of course, doesn't show underground structures.
The Red X is spawn.
Red circles are ruined portals. There are four (I found two in-game, two exposed by this map).
Orange are villages. There are six.
Yellow are shipwrecks. There are five (I found four in-game, one exposed by this map).
White (not visible on the map, but I saw it in-game) is the known ocean ruin. There is one.
The Dark Blue is pillager outposts. There are two.
The light Yellow is jungle temples. There are two (I found one in-game, one exposed by this map).
So in total, we have twenty structures (sixteen that I would have been aware of), and that doesn't include other ones that may be hidden underwater (let alone underground).
We also see that I was mentally mapping this well, and my guess was correct. There is indeed a "diagonal" running Northeast/Southwest of warm climate biomes just North of span, temperate climate biomes in the middle, and cold climate biomes to the South. This particular seed has some variety near spawn.
Lastly, here's one marked with my "trails"
Generally, it goes from Red > Orange > Yellow > Yellow-Green > light Green > dark Green > light Blue > dark Purple > Magenta (the trail in the video) as for my explorations. The two nearby villages from the video in the last post are the Southern-most ones, and the Southwestern-most one is where I did some "caving" (using the term very lightly). You can see why I missed the ruined portal in the center of the map as well. I never went near it yet (and the nearest I went had terrain obstructions).
Yeah, but to be fair, this is in reference to me choosing to build something sort of near a village, so this would be a thing regardless of how common structures were. I'm fairly sure my choice location is far enough away, though.
If anything, the overly abundant structure frequency is benefiting me because I'm sort of limiting my ideal settlement choices to places around a village.
Playing hardcore has also made me yearn for something less punishing than hardcore but more punishing than non-hardcore for when i eventually go back to my two non-hardcore worlds.
Like, maybe something like losing all items (not dropping them) on death. That's sort of only a small change but it can also be a big one, especially in this era where netherite is harder to obtain and mending exists (and this will be more true post-1.20 for the former and post-1.20.2 [?] for the latter).
0
Unfortunately, the hardcore darkness isn't working, so I haven't been able to enact that one. Seems to be a conflict with OptiFine.
I doubt I'd give up sprinting, and probably not even beds. I might go partial on that second one at most (like only allowing it in a "shelter", or once I've "settled", or only one bed and then that is it, etc) but even that's a bit extreme for me.
Right now I'm worrying the added restrictions might already be too much, but I wanted to make this world different enough from my present hardcore world to justify two of them concurrently. If I do find out I took more than I can handle, I can try again and dial it back. I'd rather slightly overdo the difficulty than slightly underdo it and end up with a world that feels like it's barely justified.