What happened to the other ocean thread? It had a cogent suggestion from caseyburke (to modify the most recent proposal with ocean channels to at least create continents) and a lot of useful discussions. The discussion got a little heated but not lockable and certainly not erase-worthy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
You people who don't support the new oceans might want to tweet jeb.
He doesn't seem to read the forums.
Just tell him you want big oceans full of content, not small, empty oceans in-between a patchy, infinite continent.
Quite frankly, I preferred the big, apparently endless oceans even in light of their emptiness. They were kind of boring to cross, sure, but I liked looking out at them and thinking of the vast distances separating me from other continents. It had a rather realistic feel to it. That being said, I think that oceans ought to become deeper when you get farther out (preferably with a drop-off point, as is the case irl), which would both make things more realistic and offer more space in which to add future content.
I don't see why people like the huge ocean, can someone explain that? It simply doesn't make any sense, as an ocean is nothing more than a huge body of water with no content or whatsoever.
Because of personal preference. Some people like the feeling of continents with the possibility of massive oceans. It may inconceivable that people would prefer those over smaller oceans to you, but to them it's simply what they like. It's kind of like preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Did something happen to you in your childhood to give you this unreasonable fear of rutabaga?
I like it honestly, the mega huge oceans were just an irritation. If they had more features like seaweed, large schools of fish, caribbean like beaches with coral around them, spire islands, then I wouldnt have minded at all. But they were left bare for a long time, and it was and is still quite obvious they have no plans to do anything with them like that, so getting rid of them in the way that they did is a better option.
I don't understand why we can't simply select world gen settings from the main menu when starting up a world (à la Civilization series). Short of modding or using worldedit, there's no easy way to manage things like ocean size. Why should everyone have to play in worlds created using exactly the same rules?
Anyways, I prefer the old system. The 1.6 map looks like an actual map, while the 1.7 map looks like Andy Warhol vomited a bag of skittles all over my monitor.
No offense or anything, Mojangsters - Minecraft is great, I'm just not a fan of this particular change.
It's kind of hard to decide, actually. I really love the new generation and I despise having to ride around in a boat for ten minutes—(okay, we get it. Water. Now can I please have some new land to explore?)—but I can also recall multiple times where I have had large buildings in the middle of the ocean. And I agree wholeheartedly with Valkorus—having the option to choose 1.6 oceans versus 1.7 oceans would be wonderful~ (get on it, Jeb!)
If they just took the continent style and shrunk the oceans, along with adding more interesting islands/ocean content it would be fine. There really wasn't any need to nerf the oceans quite so much.
I don't understand why we can't simply select world gen settings from the main menu when starting up a world (à la Civilization series). Short of modding or using worldedit, there's no easy way to manage things like ocean size. Why should everyone have to play in worlds created using exactly the same rules?
I entertained the idea once, and I wouldn't mind being able to flick through worldtypes like that (how on earth would Pangea work, no oceans except for large biome-sized lakes made up of the ocean biome?) but I don't see it as too too inconceivable to be able to get different ocean densities in different areas of a world. If Mojang implemented it that way, then it would produce a better result as there would be more of a reason to explore and hunt for seeds.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Did something happen to you in your childhood to give you this unreasonable fear of rutabaga?
I don't think they will put sliders for small things like oceans. continents only look good on huge maps.
Depending on how the mechanics world, ocean percentage might affect the internal structure of continents as well, with low ocean percentages producing larger landlocked areas without seas. I agree that you need big maps to appreciate the current continents, and on top of that the current vanilla minecraft is very unfriendly to mapping more than the 2Kx2K area of a maxed-out map. Aligning multiple large maps requires some strange and artificial maneuvers and you can't transfer information between overlapping maps. Because of this, much as I enjoy exploration, I didn't even *realize* minecraft had defined continents until I started using Amidst - I'd never gone far enough.
So I think I'm beginning to lean more towards those suggestions for smaller continents, that way they can shrink the distances between continents a bit too (smaller oceans) and you might actually have a reason to need to cross an ocean (your continent doesn't contain a certain biome). Of course, sliders can let everyone set their preferences and I would very much like to see them in the future, but I also like not knowing what my world is going to be like, so I would like more variety added too.
Yes, unless they improve large-scale mapping on vanilla minecraft continents should be shrunk so they are at least detectable on a 2Kx2K map. The current size is about 5K-10K across - it should probably be about half that. If you keep the ocean/land ratio similar you could halve the crossing distance as well.
The rare biomes are very likely to give *some* reason to cross oceans. With so many rare biomes, you'll need a very big continent to be reasonably sure you'll get *all* of them. From that point, the ideal continent size would be large enough to get horses (you should never *have* to cross an ocean for something standard that can't travel in a boat) but small enough that you'll see only some of the rare biomes.
Differentiating deep and shallow oceans has another benefit. If you look at actual maps, you basically never see the 50K crossings some people are complaining about. You *can* get a 50K+ ocean trip, but you have to sail past several continents along the way to accomplish it. Having some way to realize you're close to a continent means that kind of accident becomes much less likely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Location:
Israel
Join Date:
6/19/2013
Posts:
171
Location:
Israel
Minecraft:
HRSIDKPI
Member Details
The larger oceans or better.
I played with my friends on private server.
We had an ocean near our base, and the only sheep we found were on the other side. So we built a huge bridge between the lands.
After 2-3 days we went exploring and we saw that the two lands was the same one.
The problem with oceans was that they were too large AND had not purpose other than to be large. There was nothing there that made them worth exploring. The problem was not that continents are stupid and should be a splatter of ceaseless land. Mojang ALREADY had this type of terrain gen. Yet another example of one step forward one step back.
I did wonder if the unreasonably long transport times people were reporting were simply that they happened to set off in a direction that took them between the two nearest continents and they just didn't know that they were sailing straight past them.
I was going to suggest things like currents or changes in wind to suggest when you're close to a continent but ocean depth is a much better indicator(much easier to add anyway) assuming that it's fairly easy to tell(say by water colour) when you're moving from deep to shallow ocean.
In terms of content it'd be nice if deep and shallow ocean had different content. Sea weed etc. in shallow ocean and some valuable resources unique to deep ocean. The kraken boss is a nice idea but possibly best done in a future update.
Also I think part of the annoyance with crossing oceans is due to the fact that when you get to the other side it's pretty much the same assortment of stuff that you got where you started off. It'd be nice to see some continental differences that reward you for making such an epic journey. Though that's probably a lot more difficult and would also be best kept for a future update.
EDIT:
One further thought. While they're messing around with world generation it might be interesting to to have the nether subtly mirror the generation of the overworld so that if you come across a predominance of certain features then you can be pretty sure that building a portal will bring you out in the middle of an ocean or in a desert or in taiga or something like that.
Um, I seem to have strayed far too far in to suggestion territory without realising so I'll stop there.
The problem with oceans was that they were too large AND had not purpose other than to be large. There was nothing there that made them worth exploring. The problem was not that continents are stupid and should be a splatter of ceaseless land. Mojang ALREADY had this type of terrain gen. Yet another example of one step forward one step back.
Continental markers are great!
How about SEAGULLS.
Great points. Rather than just nerfing the size (in which it seems the slighter majority did not want) they could have actually made them worth looking at. For example add naturally-spawning sponge, coral, kelp, some generated structures, new mobs, etc. All of these are practical solutions yet we're just overlooked. The oceans wouldn't have seemed so pointlessly large with these.
BTW, I've always wanted seagulls! Have them act like bats that spawn over bodies of water (rivers, oceans, lakes, player-made structures) and they would be a great new aesthetic mob.
I like the new oceans. The old oceans got ridiculously big,a nd took way to much priority in spawning. Seriously, open up a map in AMIDST, and you will easily find an ocean over 15 000 blocks long. That is insanely big.
What would be best is have the old oceans (but smaller than the current ones, obviously) but have continents more common, as right now continents are really non existent, it's just land with big lakes, but in 1.6, you spawn on a continent, but then finding other continents is too difficult.
I think that a quite good solution can be that the big oceans are still there, but more rare. So that you in avarage have to travel a few thousands blocks to have a change to meet one. Because now they are too common in my opinion and are disturbing my hiking or horse riding. ...
This means that there still will not really be continents, or just very big one and thus not very relevant, but I have the idea that they now already do not really play a important role for many avarage players, because you can only see them from a far, far distance.
But the universal continent gets in the way of my boating! That part is basically a wash - there's no obvious reason that either your horse riding or my boating should be preferred (it is an argument against a true 50/50 world, which might well permit neither).
I think, though, that what may be bothering you is lakes and inlets rather than the true ocean, simply because you usually already *do* have to go thousands of blocks to reach a true ocean. Those can't go away, even in a universal continent, because land-locked starts in a difficult area is going to be really painful with the new clustered biomes. Regardless of the structure of the oceans, you're going to have to face a lot of water obstacles.
Even if you don't realize you're on a continent, a continent/ocean system confers differing personalities on differing areas. Areas on the edge of the continent favor ocean transport, while areas inland favor land transport, and areas inbetween are sometimes tangled. The areas I've played in have had distinctive personalities, and now I realize a big component of that has been their location on the continent they're on.
Given that we all complain that different minecraft areas are too similar, it seems a poor choice to take out one of the things that really does distinguish different areas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
You know, noone will ever be 100% satisfied with minecraft. Hell i bet even 85% is a stretch for how people are satisfied. Even if they added everything you could name in 5 minutes on a list, after a year or so youd see, do, explore, and conquer or build everything you could. Sandbox games while infinite in scope can only do so much, and satisfy so many people. Is this update a step in the right direction i think definately so, But i feel the community will never completely agree on what it should be.
The oceans are still very big and do still connect to each other, but only not thát big anymore. And the different areas will now vary more by the new biomes arrangement and the new biomes and variations. However, we need at least the first snapshot to see what is really going to happen.
The proposed oceans don't interconnect. Caseyburke's photoshop in the mysteriously disappeared other ocean thread showed what you needed to do to the 1.7 proposals for interconnected ocean - not a huge change (possibly difficult programmatically though) but you did have to cut a fair number of extra channels. They are usually large enough to permit escaping a bad start, but I suspect not often enough and if that's the release we're going to a see a lot of complaints about rough starts.
There is larger-scale variation in the 1.7 proposals, but a lot less than present. Peninsular areas (on a large scale) are pretty rare and lacy land-water mixes and archipelagos almost completely absent.
I took a picture of one of those huge oceans too, because I agree that in terms of current playability these ones are ridiculous. But I do not want rid of them, we just need more ocean content and perhaps the ability to build better boats.
This ocean is around 35000x28000, I don't think anyone enjoys the actual crossing of such oceans as they are right now. But with more content and interesting islands, spending a few hours crossing mega oceans could be quite fun. Removing them is just a lazy approach. http://gyazo.com/23d...1a9e9736eb5178b
I have to say, looking at that map, that the most problematic issue is ice plains, not ocean (this matches my experience, too). All those continents are huge - who would ever need to leave any of them? But a start on a 4K x 3K ice plains island? Owwwccch!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumGeographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
He doesn't seem to read the forums.
Just tell him you want big oceans full of content, not small, empty oceans in-between a patchy, infinite continent.
Because of personal preference. Some people like the feeling of continents with the possibility of massive oceans. It may inconceivable that people would prefer those over smaller oceans to you, but to them it's simply what they like. It's kind of like preferring chocolate ice cream over vanilla.
But less oceans, good! They where trollololoy!
Anyways, I prefer the old system. The 1.6 map looks like an actual map, while the 1.7 map looks like Andy Warhol vomited a bag of skittles all over my monitor.
No offense or anything, Mojangsters - Minecraft is great, I'm just not a fan of this particular change.
I entertained the idea once, and I wouldn't mind being able to flick through worldtypes like that (how on earth would Pangea work, no oceans except for large biome-sized lakes made up of the ocean biome?) but I don't see it as too too inconceivable to be able to get different ocean densities in different areas of a world. If Mojang implemented it that way, then it would produce a better result as there would be more of a reason to explore and hunt for seeds.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumDepending on how the mechanics world, ocean percentage might affect the internal structure of continents as well, with low ocean percentages producing larger landlocked areas without seas. I agree that you need big maps to appreciate the current continents, and on top of that the current vanilla minecraft is very unfriendly to mapping more than the 2Kx2K area of a maxed-out map. Aligning multiple large maps requires some strange and artificial maneuvers and you can't transfer information between overlapping maps. Because of this, much as I enjoy exploration, I didn't even *realize* minecraft had defined continents until I started using Amidst - I'd never gone far enough.
Yes, unless they improve large-scale mapping on vanilla minecraft continents should be shrunk so they are at least detectable on a 2Kx2K map. The current size is about 5K-10K across - it should probably be about half that. If you keep the ocean/land ratio similar you could halve the crossing distance as well.
The rare biomes are very likely to give *some* reason to cross oceans. With so many rare biomes, you'll need a very big continent to be reasonably sure you'll get *all* of them. From that point, the ideal continent size would be large enough to get horses (you should never *have* to cross an ocean for something standard that can't travel in a boat) but small enough that you'll see only some of the rare biomes.
Differentiating deep and shallow oceans has another benefit. If you look at actual maps, you basically never see the 50K crossings some people are complaining about. You *can* get a 50K+ ocean trip, but you have to sail past several continents along the way to accomplish it. Having some way to realize you're close to a continent means that kind of accident becomes much less likely.
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
I played with my friends on private server.
We had an ocean near our base, and the only sheep we found were on the other side. So we built a huge bridge between the lands.
After 2-3 days we went exploring and we saw that the two lands was the same one.
View my work- http://hrsidkpi.imgur.com/
Support-http://adf.ly/1FM3sg
Clicking this link helps me a lot and only takes 5 seconds. Very appreciated!
The problem with oceans was that they were too large AND had not purpose other than to be large. There was nothing there that made them worth exploring. The problem was not that continents are stupid and should be a splatter of ceaseless land. Mojang ALREADY had this type of terrain gen. Yet another example of one step forward one step back.
Continental markers are great!
How about SEAGULLS.
Great points. Rather than just nerfing the size (in which it seems the slighter majority did not want) they could have actually made them worth looking at. For example add naturally-spawning sponge, coral, kelp, some generated structures, new mobs, etc. All of these are practical solutions yet we're just overlooked. The oceans wouldn't have seemed so pointlessly large with these.
BTW, I've always wanted seagulls! Have them act like bats that spawn over bodies of water (rivers, oceans, lakes, player-made structures) and they would be a great new aesthetic mob.
Find a balance in between.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumBut the universal continent gets in the way of my boating! That part is basically a wash - there's no obvious reason that either your horse riding or my boating should be preferred (it is an argument against a true 50/50 world, which might well permit neither).
I think, though, that what may be bothering you is lakes and inlets rather than the true ocean, simply because you usually already *do* have to go thousands of blocks to reach a true ocean. Those can't go away, even in a universal continent, because land-locked starts in a difficult area is going to be really painful with the new clustered biomes. Regardless of the structure of the oceans, you're going to have to face a lot of water obstacles.
Even if you don't realize you're on a continent, a continent/ocean system confers differing personalities on differing areas. Areas on the edge of the continent favor ocean transport, while areas inland favor land transport, and areas inbetween are sometimes tangled. The areas I've played in have had distinctive personalities, and now I realize a big component of that has been their location on the continent they're on.
Given that we all complain that different minecraft areas are too similar, it seems a poor choice to take out one of the things that really does distinguish different areas.
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThe proposed oceans don't interconnect. Caseyburke's photoshop in the mysteriously disappeared other ocean thread showed what you needed to do to the 1.7 proposals for interconnected ocean - not a huge change (possibly difficult programmatically though) but you did have to cut a fair number of extra channels. They are usually large enough to permit escaping a bad start, but I suspect not often enough and if that's the release we're going to a see a lot of complaints about rough starts.
There is larger-scale variation in the 1.7 proposals, but a lot less than present. Peninsular areas (on a large scale) are pretty rare and lacy land-water mixes and archipelagos almost completely absent.
I have to say, looking at that map, that the most problematic issue is ice plains, not ocean (this matches my experience, too). All those continents are huge - who would ever need to leave any of them? But a start on a 4K x 3K ice plains island? Owwwccch!
Geographicraft (formerly Climate Control) - Control climate, ocean, and land sizes; stop chunk walls; put modded biomes into Default worlds, and more!
RTG plus - All the beautiful terrain of RTG, plus varied and beautiful trees and forests.