They don't travel well through trees. Frankly I find them to be more of an annoyance than they are worth.
I have ten different seeds from prior versions of MC starting in 1.2.x up to 1.7. Over the weekend I'm going to render them all and see how the new terrain generator compares to before.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
9/16/2013
Posts:
207
Member Details
Seriously,they made cave much less dense now.Now it is pretty hard to find a deep cave...I have been spawned on my seed and found 25 caves,only 2 of it can lead to deep cave but all of the deep caves I found is very small.
the alpha terrain is very good beaches and mountains and amazing green grass
BUT alpha is not main focus because do not has biomes
i would like that someone in this topic show a photo of terrain that you guys want
Seriously,they made cave much less dense now.Now it is pretty hard to find a deep cave...I have been spawned on my seed and found 25 caves,only 2 of it can lead to deep cave but all of the deep caves I found is very small.
I made a fix for this, so you can get back the old cave generation, which generates exactly the same way with the same seed, so you can go from 1.6 to 1.7 and caves underground won't get cut up. You can even double the old cave generation if you want:
[
(if MCP were out for 1.7.2 I could make things a lot more interesting than just more caves, as I did for my game, including ravines, while also keeping the surface looking good by only having occasional small caves cut through the ground)
While the temperature system has its flaws, I honestly don't mind it much. We have horses now, might as well make good use of them. At least it encourages exploration to find a different climate.
I'm happy enough, but it definitely seems to make finding biomes a real adventure. Which is actually fine by me. I've never yet been in a world that had both warm and cold climates. (Mountains don't count for a cold climate.) Well actually they probably exist, but I haven't managed to travel far enough to find them.
Seriously,they made cave much less dense now.Now it is pretty hard to find a deep cave...I have been spawned on my seed and found 25 caves,only 2 of it can lead to deep cave but all of the deep caves I found is very small.
I have traveled enough to verify this. Before the problem was caves never ended. Now I find most caves do end after a point. But there are plenty of caves that dive straight down, and plenty that are swiss cheese, just not as bad as it used to be. It makes caving more adventurous, and it's much nicer for completionists that you actually can complete things.
It should be noted that just because there's a lot of trees, it doesn't mean it's the same biome. There's currently over 20 biome variants that are heavily tree covered. (which would be part of the problem right there)
I think people complain about endless forest because, even though they're not all the same, the experience is: being in the middle of a bunch of ordinary trees. The problem is that you basically can't see much when you're in a forest. You can walk 20 blocks from almost anything, no matter how interesting it is, and you'll never know. Are you walking past a different kind of forest, a river, a lake, a cliff, or a plains? Doesn't matter, you won't see or know about it. You just see a bunch of leaves and tree trunks.
With the long travel distances of 1.7, Mojang should have made the predominant terrains be ones that give you vistas. So rather than mostly forest with plains and extreme hills thrown in, it should be mostly plains/steppe/open woodland with forests thrown in. My first 1.7 spawn was in a largish plains area with forests scattered about and it works pretty well.
Actually, now that I think about it, it's pretty strange that they have four different basic kind of closed temperate woodland, plus many subvariants, with no form of shrubland or open woodland at all unless you count swamps.
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.
After browsing through much of the latest quotes, I conclude that anybody who uses the word 'we' is pretty much referring to just themselves, as by now there are too many voices with their own ideas to really support any one point that the OP has tried to make.
By this time it is so unrealistic to think you are going to get exactly what you want when there is so many different ideas being presented here. Mojang put in quite a bit of effort into 1.7 to try to appease certain desires towards terrain and biomes, and yet you seem to want more. It is about time you start to consider that you are not going to get everything you want, and time to consider on whether you even want to enjoy the game as it is and maybe move on to something else, or maybe actually find what you do enjoy about what is available in the game and make something out of that.
There are a lot of self-serving attitudes going on here that don't do any benefit to anyone, and can potentially damage the game to come to where none of us would want to play it.
Yes, it is good to vent concerns. But when you end up on the same track, regardless of any acknowledgement, you only put yourself into a state of mind where nothing will please you. I have my concerns, myself. Will I just sit here with my arms crossed refusing to enjoy what is available until I get what I want? No. If anything really did bug me, I would post a proper and constructive message to the team, detailing exactly my issues and how it might be improved. Considering a fair portion of the latest posts, I have to wonder if many of you are capable of that.
You are not going to get everything you want. Not from Mojang. You might be able to fill in the blanks with mods. One poster actually shared a mod to help with those who feel caves should be different. I tip my hat to them to actually showing proper initiative. You can actually make the effort to make a mod yourself to achieve some goals. Nobody is stopping you. Sitting there expecting someone else to do it for you does no good whatsoever.
It is about time we showed ourselves to be an actual mature community who enjoys Minecraft. A fair step towards that is to have much fewer to no posts that are just rants and complaints, especially ones that repeat continuously, ignoring other posts. If you can't be constructive and provide actual ideas and suggestions, then leave it be. You are only wasting your time and everyone else's. Feel free to start your own thread, but don't expect many positive responses to mindless blabber.
Minecraft is much more than it once was, and it took a direction that a few disagreed with. That happens with any game. What also happened is many more people were exposed to the early beginnings of a game that they otherwise would have never seen. There are a number of people who aren't aware that features can be incorporated into the development of a game that would later be changed drastically or dropped before the public ever sees it. OP seems to actually take this into account when they actually stated a zero desire to just return to a beta build. Pretty much because they know that would do nothing to improve the game. And yet there are those here who have just about a over-obsessive complex that such a thing should occur. This is another attitude that seriously needs to go.
Minecraft has its flaws. It also has features that not everyone likes. I dare anyone to name one game that they were 100%, and I do mean One Hundred Percent, completely satisfied with. It doesn't exist. I could name features of every one of my all-time favorite games that bugged me, going back to Wolfenstein 3D. Did I let those items ruin the game for me or cause me to obsessively rant about them? No. There was always the thought that it might get addressed in the sequel, or that it wasn't really THAT big of a deal.
If you really, honestly feel that how the terrain is generated in Minecraft is making you unhappy, then it is quite likely you just really don't like the game as it is. It might be a good idea to just move on to something else or at least take a break from Minecraft. No videogame is worth crusading so much for. It isn't going to cure cancer, stop hunger, or create a better government for all mankind. Give it a rest, already.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
In the real world, you stick your head in the dirt to hide from problems.
In Minecraft, you stick your head in the dirt to find problems.
in my opinion: ugly terrain things
the jungle is a messy with ugly bushs and ugly trees i cant move
beaches still boring
ugly mountain grass
flat biomes:forest desert tundra taiga eTC. and in amplified worsened i hate hills biomes
a bit time ago i thought that if i change the color of grasscolor.png the grass would better but i perceive that the color is useless (exept for ressource pack ) and i thought that 1.7.3 grasscolor.png is diferrent but it is wrong is the same grasscolor i and the color distribution and finally the ugly not fertile dirt in hte megataiga(ugly mega taiga)
@left if you think that the new terrain is almost perfect what you doing here?
@samsonguy you argued well
but the jeb had not the least effort
look the new gravel beaches //i.imgur.com/cU2V0Xn.jpg" width="" height="" alt="" />" width="" height="" alt="" />
too many biomes still incomplete
and you are right too many menbers treat people badly
i said that i want old terrain back and any members knock me but was not construtive criticism they spoke rude
Well I can't stand beta terrain. I didn't mind the 1.8 beta and up terrain, but I feel the terrain is good now. There COULD be better height variation now, all biomes could take advantage of the 256-block world height limit, but there's always AMPLIFIED for that.
-Lefty
May I ask why you disliked Beta terrain? Also, Amplified kills my PC, so that's not an option. Beta had more variety in nearly everything(tree density, height, beaches, etc.) except for biomes and a few other misc. things, yet not many people complained about stuff except small biomes(which I personally liked. I remember my house in the desert with a one block forest biome).
Well I can't stand beta terrain. I didn't mind the 1.8 beta and up terrain, but I feel the terrain is good now. There COULD be better height variation now, all biomes could take advantage of the 256-block world height limit, but there's always AMPLIFIED for that.
-Lefty
amplified: lag i cant move cuz of mountains mountain spam do not has flat terrain near of the mountains for build a house 1.8+ are everything bad
@videomixer left is just do it for knock down this topic he love 1.8+
@lefty sorry but you are in the wrong thread sorry ever remember ingnorance is not bliss you are create some topics for oppose i saw your profile and i saw a topic called http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/2145825-50-ways-the-terrain-has-been-improved-in-17/#entry26315844
I agree, making tree density more varied (with a few exceptions, like roofed forests and jungles) would make horses more practical. Open, vista-esque areas should be dominant over dense forests to allow horses to be useful. That isn't to say large tracts of dense forests wouldn't be useful, though.
Now that I think about it, the new biome grouping system isn't that bad, it's just that the groups don't have enough biomes in them to take away some of the repetitive factor. Honestly, the equatorial regions only have two standard biomes: deserts and savannas. Really? Adding seasonal forests (oak+acacia trees with varying tree density) and rainforests (jungle+...maybe ebony could be implemented?) wouldn't be a far stretch.
Here's what I think: biome groups should just determine the rarity of a biome in a given area. This would mean, say, that you can find a desert in your temperate zone. Completely illogical biomes in some biomes should just be outright prevented (no jungles in a polar area) but otherwise most biomes can appear in most biome groups.
The three (four if you include the second temperate zone that exists for who-knows-what-reason) different zones (polar, temperate, tropical) would be the predominant groups and would have the most variation over what could appear in them. You could probably slap oceanic in there and add a bunch of oceanic biomes and call it a day. However, other, rarer groups with a more focused climate could also appear; for an example, an area densely forested with frequent roofed forests (aka an area resembling Mirkwood) would be nice. This could allow for a better, more world-y world without mucking around too much with the generator. I'm not saying that this is the best option, but it doesn't seem terribly hard to implement into the current generator.
Also, for the people who say "you can't please everyone" (yes, i'm looking at you, Samson), there is a way to please a large amount of people. Everyone? No, but still more than Mojang is right now. It's simple: variety. A more varied terrain generator will obviously appeal to a larger number of people since it has more possibilities. Take for an example, the whole oceans issue. Prior to 1.7, roughly half the community liked large oceans and the other half disliked them and wanted them to change. Then comes 1.7, which shrinks the oceans. This means that half the community gets what they want. This also means that the original half that was content with ocean size has now just been jarate'd off. In other words, nothing happened. Roughly the same number of people are displeased with ocean size before and after 1.7. Is it not too inconceivable, then, that making ocean size vary--meaning you can have large oceans and small oceans existing in the same world--would result in more people being pleased? If both groups of people suddenly have something they like in their worlds, then they'll be happy.
THIS is why we (yes, we) are displeased with 1.7. It's partially because it doesn't contain what we want; obviously, anybody would dislike something if it doesn't contain what they want. It's because it isn't varied enough. Yes, Mojang put a lot of work into this update. It doesn't really matter, though, because the terrain generator isn't all that varied. Some people may like snowless, stoneless EH biomes like we had in 1.6. Now, though, all EHs have snow and stone in them, meaning that the people who liked old EHs no longer have their favorite biome. This is just the tip of the iceberg; people who like forested mountain ranges or desert mountain ranges haven't had them since ß1.7.3, people who like large r1.8 oceans or ß1.7.3 seas no longer have them, people who like sparse woodlands no longer have them (have they ever had them?), et cetera et cetera et cetera. But you can easily add all these things by implementing height variation (mountain ranges & oceans), tree density variation (sparse woodlands), and an alpine biome with the characteristics of r1.7.2 EH. All this and more.
Mojang attempted to address this issue, or at least acknowledged it, in 1.7. Their solution to this apparently was... biome variations. In other words, extra biomes that resemble existing biomes. One per biome. So in reality, it did virtually nothing. I could have seen ways to make this work and actually create variation, it's just that Mojang kind of took the mundane route that solves nothing like they always do.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Did something happen to you in your childhood to give you this unreasonable fear of rutabaga?
Great post, though. I only quoted the last bit just to stress it.
Altho I must say I'm not a fan of horses. They're too easy/OP IMO. We've got a bunch of abandoned railway projects now because everyone is just bombing around on horses. lol That's not really related to this thread, tho.
I'd like to see YOU create biomes for millions of players.
One problem about the current terrain generator is that when you find a savanna, it will take 12 more hours to find a ice spikes biome without crossing the ocean.
I know your post is really old, but anyway, here's my answer:
I don't know what to tell you dude. People have actually been complaining the other way around, like this: "It is way too unrealistic for a desert to spawn next to a tundra!". For that specific idea, Mojang can't please more than half of the Minecraft community. However, it can be improved. Maybe a savanna could transition into another biome that isn't freezing, but isn't one of the super dry ones. For example maybe a redwood forest (mega taiga) could spawn next to the savanna, and then an ice spikes biome could spawn next to the mega taiga. Just make sure the transitions between biomes aren't too sudden.
I'd like to see YOU create biomes for millions of players.
Simple, all you need to do is create a proper biome variations system.
Every biome has a base biome. This is just a loose definition as to what the biome is. Every forest will usually have similar characteristics to another forest (but not always) and will always look like a forest.
Each biome has a set of "characteristics" that vary between each occurrence of a biome. These characteristics are things like what is in the biome (e.g. specific trees, boulders) but also alterations to how those things generate (e.g. tree density, ratio of one tree type to another, etc). Of course some characteristics would generate more frequently than other characteristics.
To show you an example, I prepared an example of a biome and it's characteristics (rather rough but meh):
Base biome: forest
Tree type 1: 35% chance of oak, 35% chance of birch, 30% chance of dark oak
Tree type 2: 24% chance of oak, 24% chance of dark oak, 24% chance of birch, 24% chance of spruce, 2% chance of large red mushrooms, 2% chance of large brown mushrooms
Tree type 3: 96% chance of nothing, 2% chance of large red mushrooms, 2% chance of large brown mushrooms
Tree density: Ranges from five trees per chunk to 20 trees per chunk. Twelve per chunk is most common, with anything higher or lower being rarer (becoming progressively rarer the farther it is from 12).
Ratio of trees: Tree rarity of 1 ranges from 50% to 90%, with 75 being most common and the other numbers becoming progressively rarer the farther they are from 75. If only Tree 1 and 2 are present, the rarity of Tree 2 is the 100 minus the rarity of Tree 1 (so if the rarity of Tree 1 is 80%, the rarity of of Tree 2 is 20%). If Tree 3 is present, then the rarity of Tree 2 is 3/4ths it's normal amount and the rarity of Tree 3 is 1/4th of Tree 2's normal rarity (if the rarity of Tree 1 is 80%, the rarity of Tree 2 is 15% and the rarity of Tree 3 is 5%).
Tree Height: 60% chance of current tree height, 30% chance of +1 tree height, 8% chance of +2 tree height, 2% chance of +4 tree height.
Flowers: 80% chance each of poppies, mushrooms (both varieties), and dandelions occurring. 50% chance each of lilacs, rose bushes, and peonies occurring. 30% chance each of alliums, azure bluets, tulips (all colors), and oxeye daisies occurring.
Flower Density: Ranges from 1 cluster every 32 chunks to being scattered everywhere, as in flower forests. Most common is 1 cluster every 8 chunks, with any other frequency being rarer the more or less frequent the flowers are.
Debris: 70% of no debris, 13% chance of large boulders (boulders no larger than a 5x5 square partially embedded in the ground made of smooth stone, sometimes contains coal), 13% chance of small boulders (mounds of cobblestone and mossy cobblestone like in the current Mega Taigas), 6% chance of both.
Debris Density: if debris is present, an instance debris occurring will occur in a range of every 32 chunks to every 4 chunks, with every 16 chunks being the most common. Small boulders generate like flowers do, in patches.
This will make every temperate forest biome introduced in the r1.7 update possible, as well as a myriad of other forests. This can be expanded upon as well but i'm too lazy to do it. Either way, this creates a ton of new biomes with just this example alone. If expanded to all the other logical base biomes (some of which do not actually exist; I would replace wetland with swamp and make savanna broad enough to include seasonal forests) and packed in a temperature/humidity system similar to ß1.7.3 and true height variation, then you've got yourself a very interesting and varied terrain generator indeed.
For this to work best there would need to be more trees but I doubt that they would be terribly hard to add.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Did something happen to you in your childhood to give you this unreasonable fear of rutabaga?
I have ten different seeds from prior versions of MC starting in 1.2.x up to 1.7. Over the weekend I'm going to render them all and see how the new terrain generator compares to before.
Nothing to see here~
BUT alpha is not main focus because do not has biomes
i would like that someone in this topic show a photo of terrain that you guys want
a person that prefers beta versions
I made a fix for this, so you can get back the old cave generation, which generates exactly the same way with the same seed, so you can go from 1.6 to 1.7 and caves underground won't get cut up. You can even double the old cave generation if you want:
(if MCP were out for 1.7.2 I could make things a lot more interesting than just more caves, as I did for my game, including ravines, while also keeping the surface looking good by only having occasional small caves cut through the ground)
TheMasterCaver's First World - possibly the most caved-out world in Minecraft history - includes world download.
TheMasterCaver's World - my own version of Minecraft largely based on my views of how the game should have evolved since 1.6.4.
Why do I still play in 1.6.4?
I'm happy enough, but it definitely seems to make finding biomes a real adventure. Which is actually fine by me. I've never yet been in a world that had both warm and cold climates. (Mountains don't count for a cold climate.) Well actually they probably exist, but I haven't managed to travel far enough to find them.
I have traveled enough to verify this. Before the problem was caves never ended. Now I find most caves do end after a point. But there are plenty of caves that dive straight down, and plenty that are swiss cheese, just not as bad as it used to be. It makes caving more adventurous, and it's much nicer for completionists that you actually can complete things.
My thread: Life as a Nomadic Trapper: http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/1664475-my-life-as-a-nomadic-trapper
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumI think people complain about endless forest because, even though they're not all the same, the experience is: being in the middle of a bunch of ordinary trees. The problem is that you basically can't see much when you're in a forest. You can walk 20 blocks from almost anything, no matter how interesting it is, and you'll never know. Are you walking past a different kind of forest, a river, a lake, a cliff, or a plains? Doesn't matter, you won't see or know about it. You just see a bunch of leaves and tree trunks.
With the long travel distances of 1.7, Mojang should have made the predominant terrains be ones that give you vistas. So rather than mostly forest with plains and extreme hills thrown in, it should be mostly plains/steppe/open woodland with forests thrown in. My first 1.7 spawn was in a largish plains area with forests scattered about and it works pretty well.
Actually, now that I think about it, it's pretty strange that they have four different basic kind of closed temperate woodland, plus many subvariants, with no form of shrubland or open woodland at all unless you count swamps.
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.
By this time it is so unrealistic to think you are going to get exactly what you want when there is so many different ideas being presented here. Mojang put in quite a bit of effort into 1.7 to try to appease certain desires towards terrain and biomes, and yet you seem to want more. It is about time you start to consider that you are not going to get everything you want, and time to consider on whether you even want to enjoy the game as it is and maybe move on to something else, or maybe actually find what you do enjoy about what is available in the game and make something out of that.
There are a lot of self-serving attitudes going on here that don't do any benefit to anyone, and can potentially damage the game to come to where none of us would want to play it.
Yes, it is good to vent concerns. But when you end up on the same track, regardless of any acknowledgement, you only put yourself into a state of mind where nothing will please you. I have my concerns, myself. Will I just sit here with my arms crossed refusing to enjoy what is available until I get what I want? No. If anything really did bug me, I would post a proper and constructive message to the team, detailing exactly my issues and how it might be improved. Considering a fair portion of the latest posts, I have to wonder if many of you are capable of that.
You are not going to get everything you want. Not from Mojang. You might be able to fill in the blanks with mods. One poster actually shared a mod to help with those who feel caves should be different. I tip my hat to them to actually showing proper initiative. You can actually make the effort to make a mod yourself to achieve some goals. Nobody is stopping you. Sitting there expecting someone else to do it for you does no good whatsoever.
It is about time we showed ourselves to be an actual mature community who enjoys Minecraft. A fair step towards that is to have much fewer to no posts that are just rants and complaints, especially ones that repeat continuously, ignoring other posts. If you can't be constructive and provide actual ideas and suggestions, then leave it be. You are only wasting your time and everyone else's. Feel free to start your own thread, but don't expect many positive responses to mindless blabber.
Minecraft is much more than it once was, and it took a direction that a few disagreed with. That happens with any game. What also happened is many more people were exposed to the early beginnings of a game that they otherwise would have never seen. There are a number of people who aren't aware that features can be incorporated into the development of a game that would later be changed drastically or dropped before the public ever sees it. OP seems to actually take this into account when they actually stated a zero desire to just return to a beta build. Pretty much because they know that would do nothing to improve the game. And yet there are those here who have just about a over-obsessive complex that such a thing should occur. This is another attitude that seriously needs to go.
Minecraft has its flaws. It also has features that not everyone likes. I dare anyone to name one game that they were 100%, and I do mean One Hundred Percent, completely satisfied with. It doesn't exist. I could name features of every one of my all-time favorite games that bugged me, going back to Wolfenstein 3D. Did I let those items ruin the game for me or cause me to obsessively rant about them? No. There was always the thought that it might get addressed in the sequel, or that it wasn't really THAT big of a deal.
If you really, honestly feel that how the terrain is generated in Minecraft is making you unhappy, then it is quite likely you just really don't like the game as it is. It might be a good idea to just move on to something else or at least take a break from Minecraft. No videogame is worth crusading so much for. It isn't going to cure cancer, stop hunger, or create a better government for all mankind. Give it a rest, already.
In Minecraft, you stick your head in the dirt to find problems.
the jungle is a messy with ugly bushs and ugly trees i cant move
beaches still boring
ugly mountain grass
flat biomes:forest desert tundra taiga eTC. and in amplified worsened i hate hills biomes
a bit time ago i thought that if i change the color of grasscolor.png the grass would better but i perceive that the color is useless (exept for ressource pack ) and i thought that 1.7.3 grasscolor.png is diferrent but it is wrong is the same grasscolor i
and the color distribution
and finally the ugly not fertile dirt in hte megataiga(ugly mega taiga)
@left if you think that the new terrain is almost perfect what you doing here?
@samsonguy you argued well
but the jeb had not the least effort
look the new gravel beaches
too many biomes still incomplete
and you are right too many menbers treat people badly
i said that i want old terrain back and any members knock me but was not construtive criticism they spoke rude
May I ask why you disliked Beta terrain? Also, Amplified kills my PC, so that's not an option. Beta had more variety in nearly everything(tree density, height, beaches, etc.) except for biomes and a few other misc. things, yet not many people complained about stuff except small biomes(which I personally liked. I remember my house in the desert with a one block forest biome).
-Lefty
@videomixer left is just do it for knock down this topic he love 1.8+
@lefty sorry but you are in the wrong thread sorry ever remember ingnorance is not bliss you are create some topics for oppose i saw your profile and i saw a topic called http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/2145825-50-ways-the-terrain-has-been-improved-in-17/#entry26315844
If the density of the trees varied it would make the forests much better.
Now that I think about it, the new biome grouping system isn't that bad, it's just that the groups don't have enough biomes in them to take away some of the repetitive factor. Honestly, the equatorial regions only have two standard biomes: deserts and savannas. Really? Adding seasonal forests (oak+acacia trees with varying tree density) and rainforests (jungle+...maybe ebony could be implemented?) wouldn't be a far stretch.
Here's what I think: biome groups should just determine the rarity of a biome in a given area. This would mean, say, that you can find a desert in your temperate zone. Completely illogical biomes in some biomes should just be outright prevented (no jungles in a polar area) but otherwise most biomes can appear in most biome groups.
The three (four if you include the second temperate zone that exists for who-knows-what-reason) different zones (polar, temperate, tropical) would be the predominant groups and would have the most variation over what could appear in them. You could probably slap oceanic in there and add a bunch of oceanic biomes and call it a day. However, other, rarer groups with a more focused climate could also appear; for an example, an area densely forested with frequent roofed forests (aka an area resembling Mirkwood) would be nice. This could allow for a better, more world-y world without mucking around too much with the generator. I'm not saying that this is the best option, but it doesn't seem terribly hard to implement into the current generator.
Also, for the people who say "you can't please everyone" (yes, i'm looking at you, Samson), there is a way to please a large amount of people. Everyone? No, but still more than Mojang is right now. It's simple: variety. A more varied terrain generator will obviously appeal to a larger number of people since it has more possibilities. Take for an example, the whole oceans issue. Prior to 1.7, roughly half the community liked large oceans and the other half disliked them and wanted them to change. Then comes 1.7, which shrinks the oceans. This means that half the community gets what they want. This also means that the original half that was content with ocean size has now just been jarate'd off. In other words, nothing happened. Roughly the same number of people are displeased with ocean size before and after 1.7. Is it not too inconceivable, then, that making ocean size vary--meaning you can have large oceans and small oceans existing in the same world--would result in more people being pleased? If both groups of people suddenly have something they like in their worlds, then they'll be happy.
THIS is why we (yes, we) are displeased with 1.7. It's partially because it doesn't contain what we want; obviously, anybody would dislike something if it doesn't contain what they want. It's because it isn't varied enough. Yes, Mojang put a lot of work into this update. It doesn't really matter, though, because the terrain generator isn't all that varied. Some people may like snowless, stoneless EH biomes like we had in 1.6. Now, though, all EHs have snow and stone in them, meaning that the people who liked old EHs no longer have their favorite biome. This is just the tip of the iceberg; people who like forested mountain ranges or desert mountain ranges haven't had them since ß1.7.3, people who like large r1.8 oceans or ß1.7.3 seas no longer have them, people who like sparse woodlands no longer have them (have they ever had them?), et cetera et cetera et cetera. But you can easily add all these things by implementing height variation (mountain ranges & oceans), tree density variation (sparse woodlands), and an alpine biome with the characteristics of r1.7.2 EH. All this and more.
Mojang attempted to address this issue, or at least acknowledged it, in 1.7. Their solution to this apparently was... biome variations. In other words, extra biomes that resemble existing biomes. One per biome. So in reality, it did virtually nothing. I could have seen ways to make this work and actually create variation, it's just that Mojang kind of took the mundane route that solves nothing like they always do.
I'd like to see YOU create biomes for millions of players.
I know your post is really old, but anyway, here's my answer:
I don't know what to tell you dude. People have actually been complaining the other way around, like this: "It is way too unrealistic for a desert to spawn next to a tundra!". For that specific idea, Mojang can't please more than half of the Minecraft community. However, it can be improved. Maybe a savanna could transition into another biome that isn't freezing, but isn't one of the super dry ones. For example maybe a redwood forest (mega taiga) could spawn next to the savanna, and then an ice spikes biome could spawn next to the mega taiga. Just make sure the transitions between biomes aren't too sudden.
Nothing should ever spawn next to desert at the same altitude except grasslands.
Simple, all you need to do is create a proper biome variations system.
Every biome has a base biome. This is just a loose definition as to what the biome is. Every forest will usually have similar characteristics to another forest (but not always) and will always look like a forest.
Each biome has a set of "characteristics" that vary between each occurrence of a biome. These characteristics are things like what is in the biome (e.g. specific trees, boulders) but also alterations to how those things generate (e.g. tree density, ratio of one tree type to another, etc). Of course some characteristics would generate more frequently than other characteristics.
To show you an example, I prepared an example of a biome and it's characteristics (rather rough but meh):
Base biome: forest
Tree type 1: 35% chance of oak, 35% chance of birch, 30% chance of dark oak
Tree type 2: 24% chance of oak, 24% chance of dark oak, 24% chance of birch, 24% chance of spruce, 2% chance of large red mushrooms, 2% chance of large brown mushrooms
Tree type 3: 96% chance of nothing, 2% chance of large red mushrooms, 2% chance of large brown mushrooms
Tree density: Ranges from five trees per chunk to 20 trees per chunk. Twelve per chunk is most common, with anything higher or lower being rarer (becoming progressively rarer the farther it is from 12).
Ratio of trees: Tree rarity of 1 ranges from 50% to 90%, with 75 being most common and the other numbers becoming progressively rarer the farther they are from 75. If only Tree 1 and 2 are present, the rarity of Tree 2 is the 100 minus the rarity of Tree 1 (so if the rarity of Tree 1 is 80%, the rarity of of Tree 2 is 20%). If Tree 3 is present, then the rarity of Tree 2 is 3/4ths it's normal amount and the rarity of Tree 3 is 1/4th of Tree 2's normal rarity (if the rarity of Tree 1 is 80%, the rarity of Tree 2 is 15% and the rarity of Tree 3 is 5%).
Tree Height: 60% chance of current tree height, 30% chance of +1 tree height, 8% chance of +2 tree height, 2% chance of +4 tree height.
Flowers: 80% chance each of poppies, mushrooms (both varieties), and dandelions occurring. 50% chance each of lilacs, rose bushes, and peonies occurring. 30% chance each of alliums, azure bluets, tulips (all colors), and oxeye daisies occurring.
Flower Density: Ranges from 1 cluster every 32 chunks to being scattered everywhere, as in flower forests. Most common is 1 cluster every 8 chunks, with any other frequency being rarer the more or less frequent the flowers are.
Debris: 70% of no debris, 13% chance of large boulders (boulders no larger than a 5x5 square partially embedded in the ground made of smooth stone, sometimes contains coal), 13% chance of small boulders (mounds of cobblestone and mossy cobblestone like in the current Mega Taigas), 6% chance of both.
Debris Density: if debris is present, an instance debris occurring will occur in a range of every 32 chunks to every 4 chunks, with every 16 chunks being the most common. Small boulders generate like flowers do, in patches.
This will make every temperate forest biome introduced in the r1.7 update possible, as well as a myriad of other forests. This can be expanded upon as well but i'm too lazy to do it. Either way, this creates a ton of new biomes with just this example alone. If expanded to all the other logical base biomes (some of which do not actually exist; I would replace wetland with swamp and make savanna broad enough to include seasonal forests) and packed in a temperature/humidity system similar to ß1.7.3 and true height variation, then you've got yourself a very interesting and varied terrain generator indeed.
For this to work best there would need to be more trees but I doubt that they would be terribly hard to add.
I posted a similar thread here, but it mostly complains about mapping with maps. http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/2148670-my-critique-angry-rant-about-172-maps/#entry26347660