The list of changes in the weekly build had me pretty excited to see it in action. And in some ways it is a step in the right direction for terrain generation. But it's got some issue.
One thing I noticed while wandering around is that there were far more rocky mounds, uncovered by any soil or sand, than I was used to seeing. I don't know if this was intentional or a consequence of the recent tinkering but it's truly fugly.
I like the apparent added shades of color between the swamp biome and surrounding terrain. The issue here is that the transition distance is the same as the old so there's this abrupt color wipe instead of a smooth transition between biomes. It's different, but I wouldn't say it's better than what was there before. Work with your biome code to surround biomes in ecotones that incorporate elements from both biomes and color fading that is smooth and has space to play out. These ecotone wrappers around the biomes should be large, all in all probably about the size of the biome itself. (This would go a long way to addressing my long standing gripe that, even now, biomes are a bit too small. I have proposed doubling their current size and ecotones would nicely work with that request without actually increasing the size of primary biomes.)
I enjoyed the newer, more dynamic terrain generation, over all, though I had some reservations with how it was implemented. First off, I didn't see much evidence that it was biome specific. The trouble with this is that grassy savannahs are supposed to be more or less flat. In several test maps I saw large rolling hills that utterly defeated the purpose of having a savannah. Deserts as well should be primarily flat, though more terrain dynamic would be acceptable there than the savannah. All in all, while the terrain is more dynamic over all, it has become a mishmash of nonstop hills that has somewhat defeated the purpose of the tweaking. For the hills to seem special, you need flatter areas to contrast with and these flatter areas should be taken in context with the mentioned biome traits.
I was very excited to see beaches were returning! Then I saw the patchy sand splattering that does not follow the coast line well at all. Again, step in the right direction but it needs some serious tinkering.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Random acts of fanboy hatred?
Noting that it is only a snapshot and not a proper update, I am happy they are actually working on implementing new terrain options, but they obviously need a bit more work before being truly added.
Nice work either way.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from NoodleUK »
Quote from Axoren »
Notch = Guy on horse
Lag = All the dead bodies and the burning village in the background
Woman = Us, the consumers
Noting that it is only a snapshot and not a proper update, I am happy they are actually working on implementing new terrain options, but they obviously need a bit more work before being truly added.
Nice work either way.
Agreed. I am very happy to see terrain generation being addressed again. Notch having proclaimed the biome code finished at the 1.0 release made me worry. Hopefully this issue will be thought through and worked out (hence the suggestion post).
It seems to me that all these changes fit the majority of the complaints I have seen on the forum, and that your complaints go against the grain of what others want. They wanted non-biome specific elevation changes (mountains in forests and deserts etc), and smaller biomes, as they feel the current ones are too large (especially oceans). You wanted elevations to be biome specific, and to have larger biomes. I don't see how they can do something without upsetting somebody at this point.
It seems to me that all these changes fit the majority of the complaints I have seen on the forum, and that your complaints go against the grain of what others want. They wanted non-biome specific elevation changes (mountains in forests and deserts etc), and smaller biomes, as they feel the current ones are too large (especially oceans). You wanted elevations to be biome specific, and to have larger biomes. I don't see how they can do something without upsetting somebody at this point.
Luckily, I don't rely on the forums for the basis of my opinions, then.
I can definitely agree ocean biomes are beyond too big. If you look at a biome map, you will find the oceans are 10 and 20x the current size of the average biome. And there's NOTHING in them at all. No reason to be a sea faring Steve.
[EDIT: And I'd really love it if there were! A water breathing potion with some mobs and blocks specific to oceans would make me very happy to take to the waves and leave the land for a period.]
It seems to me that all these changes fit the majority of the complaints I have seen on the forum, and that your complaints go against the grain of what others want. They wanted non-biome specific elevation changes (mountains in forests and deserts etc), and smaller biomes, as they feel the current ones are too large (especially oceans). You wanted elevations to be biome specific, and to have larger biomes. I don't see how they can do something without upsetting somebody at this point.
Not true. The complaints were more that every biome except mountains were basically flat, and mountains were over-the-top extreme. There was no "happy medium". The problem with the new code is that everything is now at the "happy medium" (except the still-over-the-top mountains). What people want is true variation.
Plains should be flat. Mountains should be tall, with some (but not all) at the extreme level we see currently. Deserts should have rolling dunes, other biomes should have varying features... some flat forests, others hilly, etc. Terrain height generation should not be "totally independent" of biomes any more than it should be "totally specific" to them. Some biomes should have specific height generation, others should be able to vary between large flat areas and small to large mountains.
And that's just the height stuff... I haven't even touched the beaches, tree-density, etc. issues.
All in all, I'm happy it's being looked at, and that they are trying new stuff out. But they are a long way from being able to declare victory.
Not true. The complaints were more that every biome except mountains were basically flat, and mountains were over-the-top extreme. There was no "happy medium". The problem with the new code is that everything is now at the "happy medium" (except the still-over-the-top mountains). What people want is true variation.
Plains should be flat. Mountains should be tall, with some (but not all) at the extreme level we see currently. Deserts should have rolling dunes, other biomes should have varying features... some flat forests, others hilly, etc. Terrain height generation should not be "totally independent" of biomes any more than it should be "totally specific" to them. Some biomes should have specific height generation, others should be able to vary between large flat areas and small to large mountains.
And that's just the height stuff... I haven't even touched the beaches, tree-density, etc. issues.
All in all, I'm happy it's being looked at, and that they are trying new stuff out. But they are a long way from being able to declare victory.
I agree that it is good that this is being looked at. This is a definite improvement over what 1.0.0 was.
As for the elevation of terrain, I have tried generating a few worlds and it appears you are correct in the happy medium comment for most biomes, in particular taiga and forests. The biomes are still all very similar to one another in terms of one forest to the other. Now we have more cliffs and hills so at least it is a bit more interesting.
I have also noticed the extreme hills biome has been made slightly 'less extreme' when comparing the two generators. The hills are slightly more rounded and at the biome edges some hills / cliffs that were there previously have been flattened or lowered.
All the beaches are right now is the replacing of surface dirt with sand near the edge of an ocean. This doesn't work quite as well as 1.7 because it can result in mounds of sand rather than a beach where the terrain is very hilly near the coast. It doesn't look quite natural.
The tree density was addressed in this by adding sections of forests in plain biomes and plains in forests to produce clearings and stands of trees. It looks better than before, but the tree density is still very uniform otherwise.
It is good to know that they are trying to address the core issues brought up by the fan base. Hopefully more major changes are made before an official release, however.
I would like to see a few more biomes added as well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
When no one was looking, the Endermen took forty blocks.
They took 40 blocks. That’s as many as four tens. And that’s horrible.
I'd say that its not enough yet. Mountains are still too rare outside of extreme hills. Also tree density needs further attention. But its only a snapshot, so i hope these things will be improved for the release.
I meant it did nothing but fix problems, but not all of them.
Don't all agree that this is good enough people. If Jeb gets the wrong impression that this is fixed, there wont be any incentive to improve upon it further.
Don't all agree that this is good enough people. If Jeb gets the wrong impression that this is fixed, there wont be any incentive to improve upon it further.
THISx1000000
Let's all try to get the best minecraft we can get. Let's take Jeb's employment on the development of Mnecraft as a privileged advantage.
I disagree. The swamps, which are supposed to be lowland water holes now seem to occur in rollings hills just as frequently and the transition between swamp (and most other biomes) needs to be MUCH wider than it is to give it a smooth, natural appearance.
The whole point of publicly releasing the weekly snapshots is for people to criticize and bugshoot. Goofy terrain generation could certainly be considered a bug. You wont please all of us, that's for sure, but that's no reason not to have the debate. If you don't want to debate, try a different thread.
Not aimed at anyone specifically, just a general nuisance I've encountered a lot on this site.
One thing I noticed while wandering around is that there were far more rocky mounds, uncovered by any soil or sand, than I was used to seeing. I don't know if this was intentional or a consequence of the recent tinkering but it's truly fugly.
I like the apparent added shades of color between the swamp biome and surrounding terrain. The issue here is that the transition distance is the same as the old so there's this abrupt color wipe instead of a smooth transition between biomes. It's different, but I wouldn't say it's better than what was there before. Work with your biome code to surround biomes in ecotones that incorporate elements from both biomes and color fading that is smooth and has space to play out. These ecotone wrappers around the biomes should be large, all in all probably about the size of the biome itself. (This would go a long way to addressing my long standing gripe that, even now, biomes are a bit too small. I have proposed doubling their current size and ecotones would nicely work with that request without actually increasing the size of primary biomes.)
I enjoyed the newer, more dynamic terrain generation, over all, though I had some reservations with how it was implemented. First off, I didn't see much evidence that it was biome specific. The trouble with this is that grassy savannahs are supposed to be more or less flat. In several test maps I saw large rolling hills that utterly defeated the purpose of having a savannah. Deserts as well should be primarily flat, though more terrain dynamic would be acceptable there than the savannah. All in all, while the terrain is more dynamic over all, it has become a mishmash of nonstop hills that has somewhat defeated the purpose of the tweaking. For the hills to seem special, you need flatter areas to contrast with and these flatter areas should be taken in context with the mentioned biome traits.
I was very excited to see beaches were returning! Then I saw the patchy sand splattering that does not follow the coast line well at all. Again, step in the right direction but it needs some serious tinkering.
Thoughts? Suggestions? Random acts of fanboy hatred?
Nice work either way.
Agreed. I am very happy to see terrain generation being addressed again. Notch having proclaimed the biome code finished at the 1.0 release made me worry. Hopefully this issue will be thought through and worked out (hence the suggestion post).
Luckily, I don't rely on the forums for the basis of my opinions, then.
I can definitely agree ocean biomes are beyond too big. If you look at a biome map, you will find the oceans are 10 and 20x the current size of the average biome. And there's NOTHING in them at all. No reason to be a sea faring Steve.
[EDIT: And I'd really love it if there were! A water breathing potion with some mobs and blocks specific to oceans would make me very happy to take to the waves and leave the land for a period.]
Not true. The complaints were more that every biome except mountains were basically flat, and mountains were over-the-top extreme. There was no "happy medium". The problem with the new code is that everything is now at the "happy medium" (except the still-over-the-top mountains). What people want is true variation.
Plains should be flat. Mountains should be tall, with some (but not all) at the extreme level we see currently. Deserts should have rolling dunes, other biomes should have varying features... some flat forests, others hilly, etc. Terrain height generation should not be "totally independent" of biomes any more than it should be "totally specific" to them. Some biomes should have specific height generation, others should be able to vary between large flat areas and small to large mountains.
And that's just the height stuff... I haven't even touched the beaches, tree-density, etc. issues.
All in all, I'm happy it's being looked at, and that they are trying new stuff out. But they are a long way from being able to declare victory.
I agree that it is good that this is being looked at. This is a definite improvement over what 1.0.0 was.
As for the elevation of terrain, I have tried generating a few worlds and it appears you are correct in the happy medium comment for most biomes, in particular taiga and forests. The biomes are still all very similar to one another in terms of one forest to the other. Now we have more cliffs and hills so at least it is a bit more interesting.
I have also noticed the extreme hills biome has been made slightly 'less extreme' when comparing the two generators. The hills are slightly more rounded and at the biome edges some hills / cliffs that were there previously have been flattened or lowered.
All the beaches are right now is the replacing of surface dirt with sand near the edge of an ocean. This doesn't work quite as well as 1.7 because it can result in mounds of sand rather than a beach where the terrain is very hilly near the coast. It doesn't look quite natural.
The tree density was addressed in this by adding sections of forests in plain biomes and plains in forests to produce clearings and stands of trees. It looks better than before, but the tree density is still very uniform otherwise.
It is good to know that they are trying to address the core issues brought up by the fan base. Hopefully more major changes are made before an official release, however.
I would like to see a few more biomes added as well.
They took 40 blocks. That’s as many as four tens. And that’s horrible.
I meant it did nothing but fix problems, but not all of them.
http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=155932
Crates
http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=239467
Item Scrolling
http://www.minecraftforum.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=174539
THISx1000000
Let's all try to get the best minecraft we can get. Let's take Jeb's employment on the development of Mnecraft as a privileged advantage.
I disagree. The swamps, which are supposed to be lowland water holes now seem to occur in rollings hills just as frequently and the transition between swamp (and most other biomes) needs to be MUCH wider than it is to give it a smooth, natural appearance.
Later: No, we want them smaller.
Before: We want old terrain back.
Later: No, we want the newer
Sorry, but I think Jeb should stop tampering with the terrain generation. He pleased the majority and it's really tough to make everyone happy.
PlanetSide 2 Megathread because why not?
Not aimed at anyone specifically, just a general nuisance I've encountered a lot on this site.