The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
11/12/2012
Posts:
43
Member Details
The new terrain generation does have its benefits, such as the fact that the mountains look more realistic, and oceans are smaller, allowing for easier exploration.
However, they should make the oceans slightly bigger-Not huge lakes, but rather oceans, but still make it so that it is smaller than in older versions, something like 1024 blocks or so.
The biome placement is more realistic, but they are TOO gradual. You will have to move for a huge amount of blocks in order to get from a biome to a biome that is opposite of it in terms of temperature, which hinders exploration just as much as huge oceans.
I perfer something more abrupt that still does take into consideration the temperature of the biome, so that you can see something like "Tundra, frozen taiga, extreme hills, taiga, forest, plain, desert", instead of "Tundra, frozen taiga, tundra, frozen taiga, extreme hills, taiga, tundra, frozen tundra".
As you can see, the first one does take into consideration the type of biome, but still makes the biomes varied.
Also, while the 1.6 world generation may be favoured by some, it is not wise to ask others to switch back to 1.6 if they have problems with the new generation, because they are basically not getting the benefits of easier to find hardened clay and stained glass-just so they can actually find a jungle.
I meant that biomes should be a little closer together, but not completely drastic like before. I didn't make that clear.
You said "trash the temp system", which means making it completely drastic like before.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
XP Guide Regardless of what change you do, no matter how small, someone will complain. - Jens Bergensten If you want me to see your reply, make sure to quote my post in your reply.
That is because Minecraft's community operates in a way a lot of people fail to notice. The most vocal players about features are those who dislike them. So the most vocal people about the size old oceans were those who hated the size, and those who like the size were content and therefore quiet. Now that they have changes the oceans, those who were previously complaining about ocean size are content and therefore quiet, and those who liked the size and were previously content are now complaining. It is a vicious cycle that just proves that you can't please everybody.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The problem with the truth, is that it never lies.
Many people complained about the size of oceans being to big in previous updates, so they changed it and made them significantly smaller. While I don't think the current size of oceans and other biomes is a fix, it's certainly a lot nicer than traveling 45 minutes to get to land. At some point you have to make up your mind, do you want it, or do you not.
Oh boy, not this again; every update somebody complains that the game is ruined beyond belief, well well I disagree with that, more land and more biomes means more exploring.
Has anyone seen how much it takes to get off of ONE SINGLE ISLAND?! Due to 1.7.2, there is barely ANY oceans at all! Post under me/this topic about why they should FIX THIS SURVIVAL KILL!
Well, I don't think survival mode is dying because of one change. I agree, oceans are too small but it doesn't mean survival is dead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
R.I.P Politics, Philosophy, News, and Science section. 11/8/14
"We hear you community! We will make oceans smaller so you can have fun, because we CARE!"
After 1.7.2:
"Mojang you jerks! You made the oceans smaller! Now survival is dying!"
"But... We just... You just..... Urrggghhhh!"
That's probably Mojang's response sometimes, you ask for something to change, and then complain about it being changed.
Except you're forgetting that replacing one extreme with another usually doesn't solve a problem. A lot of people think the oceans should be in between what they were and what they are currently. I fall firmly into that group, the previous oceans were too big, but now they're both too small and form as lakes rather than full oceans (meaning no more continents) and as such are still far from perfect. It doesn't ruin survival by any means, but it's still not a satisfying solution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I couldn't access my old account for some reason (23232323), this is my new one.
That and the fact that obviously the community is composed of many people. Thinking that the same people who wanted the oceans smaller are the ones that are now complaining they are small isn't particularly bright. I see this argument over and over again, this thread being no exception. And I always get amused at how da community is often thought as a single entity and not a group of disparate people. Oh well...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I was trying to think of a signature and this is what came up.
People were complain about too much water/oceans.
Mojang fixes that.
People now want more water....
Well, before there were infinite oceans. You cant live in an ocean unless you have a underwater house. Come on guys. Really?
Not there is too much land apparently. Just create a world on 1.6 if you think that 1.7 is bad. Then go to 1.7 and play the 1.6 world.
le whaaaaaaaaaaaa
survival mode is better now.
although i gotta agree there were too little oceans in 1.7, you can still use lakes for fishing and gathering sugarcaneso, no need to complain
Easy. Run. Just keep running till you are out of the tundra, then kill some sheep and make a bed and sleep there.
We are in a generation of minecraft where people don't seem to want to run thousands of blocks from their spawn point.
Tundras were large even before 1.7.2. They're meant to be large.
-Lefty
I hope you know the hunger is also nerfed ALOT so run for a minute or two and you'll find yourself hungry and most likely dead, oh and please don't tell me to go into peaceful, i like a little challenge
However, they should make the oceans slightly bigger-Not huge lakes, but rather oceans, but still make it so that it is smaller than in older versions, something like 1024 blocks or so.
The biome placement is more realistic, but they are TOO gradual. You will have to move for a huge amount of blocks in order to get from a biome to a biome that is opposite of it in terms of temperature, which hinders exploration just as much as huge oceans.
I perfer something more abrupt that still does take into consideration the temperature of the biome, so that you can see something like "Tundra, frozen taiga, extreme hills, taiga, forest, plain, desert", instead of "Tundra, frozen taiga, tundra, frozen taiga, extreme hills, taiga, tundra, frozen tundra".
As you can see, the first one does take into consideration the type of biome, but still makes the biomes varied.
Also, while the 1.6 world generation may be favoured by some, it is not wise to ask others to switch back to 1.6 if they have problems with the new generation, because they are basically not getting the benefits of easier to find hardened clay and stained glass-just so they can actually find a jungle.
You said "trash the temp system", which means making it completely drastic like before.
Regardless of what change you do, no matter how small, someone will complain. - Jens Bergensten
If you want me to see your reply, make sure to quote my post in your reply.
You are right. I totally misread your post. Don't even have a proper excuse. I slept well and don't drink.
Sorry about that.
"We hear you community! We will make oceans smaller so you can have fun, because we CARE!"
After 1.7.2:
"Mojang you jerks! You made the oceans smaller! Now survival is dying!"
"But... We just... You just..... Urrggghhhh!"
That's probably Mojang's response sometimes, you ask for something to change, and then complain about it being changed.
As I have said earlier in the thread:
Then just make them medium
Can't argue with that.
This is the correct response I had in mind! ^^
Well, I don't think survival mode is dying because of one change. I agree, oceans are too small but it doesn't mean survival is dead.
R.I.P Politics, Philosophy, News, and Science section. 11/8/14
Except you're forgetting that replacing one extreme with another usually doesn't solve a problem. A lot of people think the oceans should be in between what they were and what they are currently. I fall firmly into that group, the previous oceans were too big, but now they're both too small and form as lakes rather than full oceans (meaning no more continents) and as such are still far from perfect. It doesn't ruin survival by any means, but it's still not a satisfying solution.
Well, before there were infinite oceans. You cant live in an ocean unless you have a underwater house. Come on guys. Really?
Not there is too much land apparently. Just create a world on 1.6 if you think that 1.7 is bad. Then go to 1.7 and play the 1.6 world.
survival mode is better now.
although i gotta agree there were too little oceans in 1.7, you can still use lakes for fishing and gathering sugarcaneso, no need to complain
Anyhow, I see no problem with the new updates. They are 'mazin!
--------------
Temperatures could be slightly weighted towards one extreme or another as you travel north or south.
East/west travel would be unaffected by weighted temperature changes, and function as it does currently.
There are problems with this, of course, but it's an idea.
I hope you know the hunger is also nerfed ALOT so run for a minute or two and you'll find yourself hungry and most likely dead, oh and please don't tell me to go into peaceful, i like a little challenge