Rumours this past week have been flying around, one of the rumours been said is that there will be Tides in 1.8. No pictures have been shown! But the rumour still lives! Hopefully Notch will clear the air about the Tides weather or not there will be them in the next update.
Rumour, by definition of not having proof or factual backup, is therefore 100% weapons grade bullsh*t.
"I herdz a rumor we was gonna get new ore"
"Link source or GTFO"
"It's a rumour though, there is no source"
Guess what goes into the ??? spot. Hint: It involves you getting hit in the face with a marine animal, and me holding a large trout.
Rumours can have a peice of evidence as the root. If a blizzard trademarks the phrase "Canyon of unspeakable peril", it could be the basis of a rumour that WoW will have a "Canyon of unspeakable peril" area. Rumours about a certain celebrities virtue may start because a maid witnessed someone leaving their room late at night. The thread about boulders has the evidence that Notch added boulders to his ludum dare game. The silverfish.png has started rumours of silverfish as bosses. Rumours start somewhere, have some evidence, however tenuous, that they might mean something. Without such a basis, the entire discussion is pointless, and there is no reason to bring it up. If I simply said "Notch is going to add monkeys to the jungle biome", without any evidence or explanation, there would be no point in repeating it. Stating a rumour without any evidence is an idiotic activity that should be chastised. Calling it a rumour does not exempt someone from backing their assertions.
A rumour does not have proof or factual backing. Rumor (noun)- A currently circulating story or report of uncertain or doubtful truth. Uncertain or doubtful, not unfounded. There is no proof one way or the other, all evidence is circumstantial and could mean something else. But there must be a basis, some grain of truth that the rumour is based on. Otherwise it is people making things up. I can do that. I can say that lady gaga will make her next stage entrance by crashing a Ferrari through the wall. Of course, the basis of hte rumor does not have to actually have happened, someone just has to have claimed it. "Oh, I talked to notch on IRC, and he said there would be tides". This could never have happened, but still form the basis of the rumour.
Well, considering that all of those blocks in question only exist when the chunk is loaded, tides could work just fine without serious lag. It would not require the game to load anything more than what it loads right now, but it would mean that things past your render distance wouldn't move around in the tides, but simply stay in place until they rendered.
Making video games work with limited power is often about the art of illusion, so here is the question:
If implemented, would it be a huge drawback to have things only be effected by the tide within render distance (local objects). Would you even be able to notice the difference except in extreme cases or very intentional tests? (Would this have an natural feel in 99% of non-forced situations)
I think it would be a pretty straightforward system and look good, it doesn't have to be perfect to be better than placid oceans. You could even reasonably have waves by implementing a new block for ocean surface the simply has a wavelike animation and a current relative to the wave (from deep to shallow water, generally). Such blocks would only need to possibly change wave patterns if the water depth changed, and that signal could be sent out whenever a water block is replaced with a block not made of water, all the way upwards, in a vertical pattern.
i mean, I'm not saying it could all be implemented exactly, but it wouldn't be hard to make some better model tan the current one with relatively low lag.
OP posts that there are a lot of rumors going around about 1.8, and then names tides as being one of them without showing evidence that the rumor even existed. Soon after, the forum goes nuts about a rumor about a rumor that someone just pulled out of their ass.