I always find dungeons when I'm lost. and it makes you more familiar with your map.
I tend to not leave caves until I've fully explored. If my inventory fills up early (usually only if I find a dungeon) then I dig up and out, place a chest and a torch marker above ground, and then go back under to continue.
i created a world and after 3 hours of playing with another player he got bored and griefed my house......burned it right down......so i kicked him...went to his house to burn it down cuz i was angry and what not and his basement was full of double chests filled with obsidian and diamond blocks.......so i did what any normal pissed off guy would do.......i went and salvaged what was left of my house and moved into his.....now i have a diamond block pyramid and an obsidian wall surrounding my town......sweet.
You should've loaded it all into your inventory before quitting and never going back.
I glitch for steps because it's stupid to use six blocks for four stairs that, when broken, only give your four blocks back. So I set three blocks next to each other in my inventory to make four stairs -- exactly the conversion rate it should use.
This is exactly what I do as well. It's not a perfect system but it really helps when I get turned around. I can quickly tell if I'm going deeper or not based on torch placement.
If I come one path I'm following turns into a large branching path I will sometimes place a red torch above that tunnel so I know it's the one to take for the way out.
Hadn't even thought of the redstone torch idea. I need to start doing something like that.
I tried to make a sign for a chest that said, "Household items," but because the word "ho" is in it twice, it censored it. I ended up writing "|-|ouse|-|old items," which looks ridiculous.
Like others, peaceful for large-scale projects and easy when I need string, bone, gunpowder, etc.
As an aside, the left-stick-click for third-person view pisses me off. Often if I'm digging and I come upon a creeper in the dark my reaction is to reverse and jump, but a lot of the time I end up in third-person and run straight toward it.
Keep wishing.
There's many reasons this won't work, but for starters what if this other xbox's world you want to go to isn't turned on? And how's he suppose to go to yours if yours isn't turned on?
Save it to the XBL cloud, grant access to XBL friends.
It would take some work, but it's not impossible by any stretch.
I wish I could just build a harbor out of four boats and five pallets or something and sail to the edge of my map to get to a friend's world.
I think a gateway at the edge of a given map would be a great way to connect them and give you virtually limitless space. You'd only have to work in one 128-million-block map at a time, and since they're all water-locked, there's no edge reconciliation to bother with.
Didn't see any other posts about it. The yellow text flashing on my menu right now says, "Seecret Friday update!" Do y'all seasoned veterans have any insight on what the spelling may mean? I'm assuming that particular message isn't pointless like the rest, but maybe it is.
To a conclusion, I think 1000x1000 is.. a descent size. Im not satisfied with the size, in my opinion. I think doubling it to 2000x2000 would make me happy (still limited but i believe 2000x2000 will give a very large sandbox feel and give more of that exploration trait back ).
(1,000x1,000) * 2 =/= (2,000x2,000)
A 2,000x2,000 map would have four times the surface area of 1,000x1,000 -- 4,000,000 surface squares compared to 1,000,000. With equal depth, that would make the worlds 128,000,000 cubes vs. 512,000,000 cubes. That's quite a difference on a seven-year-old console.
Doubling the size of the game would put it at about 1,400x1,400, or only a 40% increase along both sides. The difference at growing scales would seem smaller and smaller, and at some point the return on processor requirements wouldn't be worth the few extra blocks in each direction. I wonder though, if the frame rate was cut to 56fps (28 repeating instead of 30 repeating), would that be enough to run 1400x1400 cleanly?
0
Sweet. I really don't want it autosaving since I haven't had any freezing issues.
0
0
0
I glitch for steps because it's stupid to use six blocks for four stairs that, when broken, only give your four blocks back. So I set three blocks next to each other in my inventory to make four stairs -- exactly the conversion rate it should use.
1
0
0
0
0
0
As an aside, the left-stick-click for third-person view pisses me off. Often if I'm digging and I come upon a creeper in the dark my reaction is to reverse and jump, but a lot of the time I end up in third-person and run straight toward it.
0
It would take some work, but it's not impossible by any stretch.
0
I think a gateway at the edge of a given map would be a great way to connect them and give you virtually limitless space. You'd only have to work in one 128-million-block map at a time, and since they're all water-locked, there's no edge reconciliation to bother with.
0
0
1
(1,000x1,000) * 2 =/= (2,000x2,000)
A 2,000x2,000 map would have four times the surface area of 1,000x1,000 -- 4,000,000 surface squares compared to 1,000,000. With equal depth, that would make the worlds 128,000,000 cubes vs. 512,000,000 cubes. That's quite a difference on a seven-year-old console.
Doubling the size of the game would put it at about 1,400x1,400, or only a 40% increase along both sides. The difference at growing scales would seem smaller and smaller, and at some point the return on processor requirements wouldn't be worth the few extra blocks in each direction. I wonder though, if the frame rate was cut to 56fps (28 repeating instead of 30 repeating), would that be enough to run 1400x1400 cleanly?