As the old saying goes, "you can't please all of the people, all of the time."
For the most part, I happen to like the new terrain generation. It's stopped putting deserts right beside snow biomes, and now its a bit of an adventure to find all the biomes, and thus some of the materials you may want to use. Not need, want.
In my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with travelling several minecraft days to get a rare wood that isn't near where you've setup your home. Or spending (in-game) weeks exploring for that mesa biome and its plentiful supply of hardened clay. That is the whole point of survival minecraft: the struggle to first get the things you need, and then build the things you want.
There are only two flaws in my eyes with the new terrain generator: melons spawn in jungles, which meant that jungles now have to be rare for game balance purposes, and oceans are way too small. They're not oceans anymore, but inland seas.
@Darkfyre99: That's better than 1.6 oceans. One of my worlds with 1.6 generation insisted on having it go to the end of the map (almost 30 million blocks). With 1.7 generation, it finally ended the ocean at 10km away from the mainland. In 1.6, jungles were far too common, their wood looked ugly, and it worse to travel across than extreme hills IMO. They're not even good for jungle temples, those had maybe a 1:10 chance of spawning in any given jungle.
@OP: True, it seems most of my worlds favor plains/forests/birch forests/taigas/extreme hills with the occasional river or ocean; but I'm fine with it. Plains are great places to build, all the forests mean you don't have to worry about using up the trees within walking distance, and Extreme Hills are great lookouts. If you don't like 1.7 world generation, play on 1.6- the new launcher allows you to play on any version of Minecraft. It's that simple.
95% of teens would scream if Justin Beiber was about to jump of the top of the Empire State Building. If you are in the 5% that would grab a seat and some popcorn and yell JUMP! JUMP! JUMP! post this into your sig.
@OP: True, it seems most of my worlds favor plains/forests/birch forests/taigas/extreme hills with the occasional river or ocean; but I'm fine with it. Plains are great places to build, all the forests mean you don't have to worry about using up the trees within walking distance, and Extreme Hills are great lookouts. If you don't like 1.7 world generation, play on 1.6- the new launcher allows you to play on any version of Minecraft. It's that simple.
It's not that simple because I want to create an up-to-date server with the new features, but I can't because 1.7 generates atrocious maps.
That's not quite true. The server has to search through its chunk database to load a chunk, and the larger the database, the slower the search. Theoretically the difference shouldn't be large with actual world sizes, assuming it's well programmed - but - my impression with a single-player world is that when I get far from spawn (maybe 5000 blocks) loading does seem to slow down.
Vanilla minecraft handles the searching of region files very well. However, some plugins aren't made so efficient, thus the reason bukkit servers are generally more laggy.
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.
I'd be happy if the biomes were smaller on default and there was less of the same temperature biomes repeating themselves over and over on your map. That way when you create a map you'd be able to get to all biomes within a distance that is reasonable to travel.
Biome size really isn't a problem. Did you find biome size to be good in r1.6? Then you automatically find it to be good in r1.7, because biome sizes are identical in the two versions (though due to biome grouping you are a lot more likely to get multiple instances of the same biome occurring right next to each other giving you the illusion that biome size may have increased.
The problem is with biome grouping, since it increases the likelihood of the same biome spawning next to other instances of the same biome and, more importantly, causes the same set of temperate biomes (or polar or equatorial if you happen to be in one of those regions) to repeat over and over and over.
I can say that you are in a minority about biome size. As BC said, people complained about biome size back when they were first introduced and throughout the history of the game until ß1.8, where the biome size was increased. Ever since ß1.8 I can count the number of people who complained about biome size on one hand.
The results and in fact some of the forum posts I linked say something very different. I recall reading in my travels with the search complaints that biomes were not as individual as they should be.
This was more because taigas (and every other biome, to greater extents) had few things (e.g. mobs, flora, etc) that other biomes had. Taigas were one of the lucky ones since they were the only biome with spruces, one of two biomes that had snow, and eventually got wolves. At the time there were, like, four nearly identical flatland biomes and three nearly identical forest biomes in a generator with nine biomes.
But people just wanted the biomes to be more unique. All they needed was more unique flora (like what was added in 1.7) and more unique mobs and other things to make the biomes less samey.
And that is where your argument here falls short. People back then did not want every biome to stick out at the cost of every instance of one biome looking identical to another instance of the same biome. They just did not like all the biomes being so similar.
The biomes in ß1.7.3 (and even moreso in the Halloween Update) were collectively very similar to each other, and thus people wanted it to change because they felt same-y. Each instance of a biome in ß1.8 (and r1.7) is nearly identical to another instance of the same biome, and people wanted it to change because it felt same-y.
I don't know about you, but that essentially tells me that people think "same-y = bad thing" regardless of what update the game was in.
In fact, most of the threads you linked to and threads that I found were based on misconceptions or simply don't actually apply any more. The second thread you mentioned, for example, has a complaint about the future Halloween Update generator that doesn't actually apply much to the Halloween Update generator but does apply to the 1.8+ generators. In addition, the first thread was written during a terrain generator that was known for having crazy jagged mountains spammed everywhere.
In none of them do they actually desire a terrain generator extremely similar to 1.8+; they all want levels of variety similar to what they have, and they don't want the other bad side effects that 1.8 introduced.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Did something happen to you in your childhood to give you this unreasonable fear of rutabaga?
Most sever owners don't have the ability to allow their players to travel over 10,000 blocks in one direction to find new biomes due to the amount of lag that's caused. Even if they could, with the current generations there is no guarantee that they will even be able to find a new biome in 10,000 blocks!
If someone else's opinion bothers you then discussing recent updates on the forums probably isn't the place for you. Just saying.
Instead of telling people what is wrong with them, why not just sit down and listen to what they have to say? We're trying to help you, and you just sock us in the nose without reading our answer.
Why not just play in 1.6? There are 1.6 servers available for you to download, and you can also get mods that will fix the generation.
Biome size really isn't a problem. Did you find biome size to be good in r1.6? Then you automatically find it to be good in r1.7, because biome sizes are identical in the two versions (though due to biome grouping you are a lot more likely to get multiple instances of the same biome occurring right next to each other giving you the illusion that biome size may have increased.
The problem is with biome grouping, since it increases the likelihood of the same biome spawning next to other instances of the same biome and, more importantly, causes the same set of temperate biomes (or polar or equatorial if you happen to be in one of those regions) to repeat over and over and over.
I can say that you are in a minority about biome size. As BC said, people complained about biome size back when they were first introduced and throughout the history of the game until ß1.8, where the biome size was increased. Ever since ß1.8 I can count the number of people who complained about biome size on one hand.
I stopped playing during 1.2 - 1.3, so I never actually played 1.6. However, I do agree that grouping either is to blame, or is the main culprit of these problems.
Instead of telling people what is wrong with them, why not just sit down and listen to what they have to say? We're trying to help you, and you just sock us in the nose without reading our answer.
I have explained 100 times why this is not a proper solution. Read the thread. Also I didn't make this thread looking for help. I made it to discuss a problem that's occurring with the world generation.
As I said before you are taking it out of context. It was a hypothetical example of how lag is created.
Populi was trying to say that a server with plugins that has too much lag should revert back to vanilla because vanilla servers can handle lag better. Which isn't true because it all depends where the lag is coming from.
Your server is going to lag if you stretch it's resources too far. Period. Be that too many plugins, or cramming too many people on it. To reduce it's lag you first need to find the source.
Vanilla servers can actually handle the lag a lot better. In vanilla, all you need to do is load the chunk. But with plugins, you have a lot of extra things attached. Anti-grief plugins, orebfuscator, block permissions, etc. Plugins are also generally not as efficient as vanilla minecraft, it all just adds more time onto the chunk loading process.
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's because Mojang fixed one problem, but created another. The biome transitions are a lot better, but now the biomes are too large and you get too many similar biomes repeated over and over across your map.
Two points:
First, "too large" is a judgement, not an objective fact. I like the current distance scale. To me, it adds to variety that sometimes some things take some serious work to get. You don't *have* to have anything other than food, wood, and mined items, and any temperate zone spawn provides them all. (Exception - folks who play "no regen" have to have melons. But that's pretty specialized, and there are always jungle seeds.)
My impression, from discussions and one small poll, was that the current scale was reasonably close to the median BUT it was somewhat longer than the median and people who want really short scales were going to be really upset. You are very much on the short end. You say you want everything withing 500 blocks. Well, there are people who build *bases* almost that big and many more (like me) who have "backyards" not much smaller than that.
IMO generally people would be happier if the size of biome grouping were reduced somewhat but a patterning system were introduced so there would still be some reason to explore greater distances (to see how the world is set up). It's a real pity oceans were eliminated because they served that function admirably before. There are some other things that could serve a similar purpose (mountain ranges and the climate system) but at least those two would require a lot of extra work (longer visibility for mountain ranges and a sliding scale for the climate system.)
Second, the temperate biomes aren't really too similar. They have a lot of variability, comparable in mathematical complexity to 1.6 in general. The problem is that it's hard to see, for three reasons. One, most of it is forest and you literally can't see anything other that a few identical trees at any time. Second, you can't maintain orientation because you can't see landmarks for any distance. Third. there's no background to contrast it against.
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.
Instead of telling people what is wrong with them, why not just sit down and listen to what they have to say? We're trying to help you, and you just sock us in the nose without reading our answer.
Why not just play in 1.6? There are 1.6 servers available for you to download, and you can also get mods that will fix the generation.
The enormous problem with playing in 1.6 is, of course, 1.8 (and 1.9 and 1.10 and 1.11 and etc...). What if 1.8 has features the OP likes? Should he be forced to choose between the generator he likes or features he likes and the generator he hates? (This is part of the reason why "just downgrade" is a stupid argument for those who support a completely overhauled generator with variety greater than what ß1.7.3 offered; you have to miss out on nine updates of content, and even then it's an imperfect solution because the ß1.7.3 generator has its own problems.)
Were this a problem with one person, I'd say it's acceptable, but terrain is (still) an issue for many people.
I stopped playing during 1.2 - 1.3, so I never actually played 1.6.
The terrain generator is the same in r1.2 and r1.6 so if you found biome size good back then, then there isn't a reason to suggest decreased biome size.
(Exception - folks who play "no regen" have to have melons. But that's pretty specialized, and there are always jungle seeds.)
Villagers still sell them and you can still find the seeds in mineshafts (which admittedly is one of, if not the, most dangerous locations in the game).
The temperate biomes ARE really similar, though. Each instance of a biome is still pretty much identical to another instance of the same biome. Well, there IS limited height variation in birch and regular flower forests (and maybe the taigas too but I haven't seen it in roofed forests), but hills generated by it are virtually identical to hills generated by x-hills and are far less frequent. (they do seem a little less abrupt but not always; that's more of a good thing though).
I STILL don't see why a ß1.7.3-style temperature system can't be implemented though (excepting if it would not work well in any way, shape, or form with Anvil). It prevents illogical biome transitions AND fixes biome transitions so that they aren't abrupt without the awful side effects of biome grouping. Just make temperature and rainfall transition slower (to increase biome size) and you're golden. People keep talking about shrinking biome groups, which will fix the side effects of the system, but that doesn't mean the system fixes the problems it is supposed to.
I STILL don't see why a ß1.7.3-style temperature system can't be implemented though (excepting if it would not work well in any way, shape, or form with Anvil). It prevents illogical biome transitions AND fixes biome transitions so that they aren't abrupt without the awful side effects of biome grouping. Just make temperature and rainfall transition slower (to increase biome size) and you're golden. People keep talking about shrinking biome groups, which will fix the side effects of the system, but that doesn't mean the system fixes the problems it is supposed to.
Because it would be almost exactly the same? Biomes would still be grouped, but by temperature and rainfall instead of just temperature.
It's just that there are so many more biomes now, thus it's harder to stuff them all in a small area.
Populi was trying to say that a server with plugins that has too much lag should revert back to vanilla because vanilla servers can handle lag better. Which isn't true because it all depends where the lag is coming from.
Please do not put words in my mouth. Quote me where I explicitly say this. I said that if a server cannot have plugins and generate large amounts of chunks at the same time, it needs to upgrade its RAM or stop doing one of the above. Which is completely true, if you do not have enough RAM to perform every action you want you need more RAM or less actions, it is like telling program developers that they need to change their programs because you are trying to open 50 at a time and it is eating up your RAM. It makes no logical sense and the fact that you keep trying to push this just baffles me beyond belief. Are you even reading what you are suggesting at this point?
No, it wouldn't. It would have two things over the current biome grouping system:
-It does not create enormous swathes of the same set of biomes repeating over and over and over again.
-It would actually fix the entire problem that biome grouping was supposed to fix: the fact that biomes transition too abruptly (the grass color of one biome changes to the grass color of the next in only three blocks). Biome grouping is far from the best solution because it doesn't fix the biome transitions entirely (it just makes the most egregious ones a lot rarer) and has it's own nasty side effect. Even if you fixed the side effect, it would be an inferior solution to a proper temperature system.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Did something happen to you in your childhood to give you this unreasonable fear of rutabaga?
No, it wouldn't. It would have two things over the current biome grouping system:
-It does not create enormous swathes of the same set of biomes repeating over and over and over again.
-It would actually fix the entire problem that biome grouping was supposed to fix: the fact that biomes transition too abruptly (the grass color of one biome changes to the grass color of the next in only three blocks). Biome grouping is far from the best solution because it doesn't fix the biome transitions entirely (it just makes the most egregious ones a lot rarer) and has it's own nasty side effect. Even if you fixed the side effect, it would be an inferior solution to a proper temperature system.
I think the new system is quite a lot better than both previous ones. With this system, you can most of the time expect a reasonably large chunk of terrain looking the same, important for me when I admire the view from my towers or want to hide a tomb in a desert. That is possible now, but only if you chose large biomes before. I think all resources ought to be present within 10000 blocks of spawn, and it is regrettable that you have to use admist to ensure that. But all in all I find the current system vastly better, if still with room for improvement.
This was more because taigas (and every other biome, to greater extents) had few things (e.g. mobs, flora, etc) that other biomes had. Taigas were one of the lucky ones since they were the only biome with spruces, one of two biomes that had snow, and eventually got wolves. At the time there were, like, four nearly identical flatland biomes and three nearly identical forest biomes in a generator with nine biomes.
Well I just read some of the threads again and it seems pretty clear to me that they are referring to two areas that are the same biome being too different. That isn't to speak to the validity of what they desire, of course.
But people just wanted the biomes to be more unique.
I'm not sure this can really be stated. You cannot possibly know what people want, except based on what they said. You'll have to forgive me because I read the same posts you have presumably and I've not reached that conclusion.
All they needed was more unique flora (like what was added in 1.7) and more unique mobs and other things to make the biomes less samey.
Same story as above. Not really sure how you are able to come to this conclusion. You're certainly no more able to read the minds of people than I am, so presumably we are both basing it on their posts. Evidently we have different interpretations.
And that is where your argument here falls short. People back then did not want every biome to stick out at the cost of every instance of one biome looking identical to another instance of the same biome.
You are effectively stating what people did and did not want in a blanket form, and then trying to use that to create a appeal to popular assent. "People back then did not want X" What evidence is there that they didn't? What have you read and what mental machinations occurred such that you've come to this conclusion?
They just did not like all the biomes being so similar.
You have continued to make statements about what people want or do not want. There is a reason I Was trying to stick to what was said, rather than trying to substantiate an argument with what was thought and what they "wanted", because unless they state it fairly explicitly it's all up to interpretation of what they said.
The biomes in ß1.7.3 (and even moreso in the Halloween Update) were collectively very similar to each other, and thus people wanted it to change because they felt same-y.
And yet in contrast those with issues against 1.8 will cite 1.7.3 and earlier as an example of variants within the same biome type to use as a model.
Both views cannot be correct. So which is it?
I don't know about you, but that essentially tells me that people think "same-y = bad thing" regardless of what update the game was in.
Yes. It doesn't give me psychich powers to know what they want, though. YMMV I suppose.
In fact, most of the threads you linked to and threads that I found were based on misconceptions or simply don't actually apply any more.
Well isn't that convenient. And of course there is no way you are under any misconceptions, nor anybody else with the same complaints now. Nope, now it's totally different!
The second thread you mentioned, for example, has a complaint about the future Halloween Update generator that doesn't actually apply much to the Halloween Update generator but does apply to the 1.8+ generators.
You're going to have to be more specific. What parts of what they are saying do not apply to 1.2.5 Alpha, but do apply to more recent versions? You can't just blanket the entire thing as being incorrect without actually stating how that is the case. Any arguments about terrain gen that apply now in that post apply equally to 1.2.5 Alpha, even though it was not released until a few days after.
In addition, the first thread was written during a terrain generator that was known for having crazy jagged mountains spammed everywhere.
Infdev from April 13, 2010?
Who was it known by? In what manner is this different than the Mountains that seem to appear in a spammy fashion in Alpha and Early Beta?
In none of them do they actually desire a terrain generator extremely similar to 1.8+
Are we even reading the same posts?
and they don't want the other bad side effects that 1.8 introduced.
And there you are again, using your psychic powers to reach into the past and state what people wanted. You should only use this power for good.
No, it wouldn't. It would have two things over the current biome grouping system:
-It does not create enormous swathes of the same set of biomes repeating over and over and over again.
-It would actually fix the entire problem that biome grouping was supposed to fix: the fact that biomes transition too abruptly (the grass color of one biome changes to the grass color of the next in only three blocks). Biome grouping is far from the best solution because it doesn't fix the biome transitions entirely (it just makes the most egregious ones a lot rarer) and has it's own nasty side effect. Even if you fixed the side effect, it would be an inferior solution to a proper temperature system.
^ These are the problems with the terrain generator.
It appears that we have both misunderstood eachother then.
At this point I'm tried of talking about this. There are much more important issues than lag.
^ These are the problems with the terrain generator.
Except that one of the points brought up was that the new generation gives an actual incentive to explore and find these biomes, your only counter-argument was the lag, which I have more than proved was only due to third-party mods. So, changing the generation you suggest would take away the need to explore your world to find specific blocks you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The problem with the truth, is that it never lies.
Except that one of the points brought up was that the new generation gives an actual incentive to explore and find these biomes, your only counter-argument was the lag, which I have more than proved was only due to third-party mods. So, changing the generation you suggest would take away the need to explore your world to find specific blocks you want.
No my argument is this:
Here's the kind of crap the default world generator spits out. Endless desert.
Giant clumping biomes of the same temperature.
Forget about the lag it's really a null point for either side.
Forget about the lag it's really a null point for either side.
Ok.....so now your only argument is that you are too lazy to do a bit of exploring?
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.
Ok.....so now your only argument is that you are too lazy to do a bit of exploring?
What a childish thing to say.
How about you read the OP (there's lots of explanation and pictures there) instead of resorting to immaturity and insults. It reflects poorly on your character and suggest that you don't have a single good point to make.
@Darkfyre99: That's better than 1.6 oceans. One of my worlds with 1.6 generation insisted on having it go to the end of the map (almost 30 million blocks). With 1.7 generation, it finally ended the ocean at 10km away from the mainland. In 1.6, jungles were far too common, their wood looked ugly, and it worse to travel across than extreme hills IMO. They're not even good for jungle temples, those had maybe a 1:10 chance of spawning in any given jungle.
@OP: True, it seems most of my worlds favor plains/forests/birch forests/taigas/extreme hills with the occasional river or ocean; but I'm fine with it. Plains are great places to build, all the forests mean you don't have to worry about using up the trees within walking distance, and Extreme Hills are great lookouts. If you don't like 1.7 world generation, play on 1.6- the new launcher allows you to play on any version of Minecraft. It's that simple.
95% of teens would scream if Justin Beiber was about to jump of the top of the Empire State Building. If you are in the 5% that would grab a seat and some popcorn and yell JUMP! JUMP! JUMP! post this into your sig.
It's not that simple because I want to create an up-to-date server with the new features, but I can't because 1.7 generates atrocious maps.
Vanilla minecraft handles the searching of region files very well. However, some plugins aren't made so efficient, thus the reason bukkit servers are generally more laggy.
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.
Biome size really isn't a problem. Did you find biome size to be good in r1.6? Then you automatically find it to be good in r1.7, because biome sizes are identical in the two versions (though due to biome grouping you are a lot more likely to get multiple instances of the same biome occurring right next to each other giving you the illusion that biome size may have increased.
The problem is with biome grouping, since it increases the likelihood of the same biome spawning next to other instances of the same biome and, more importantly, causes the same set of temperate biomes (or polar or equatorial if you happen to be in one of those regions) to repeat over and over and over.
I can say that you are in a minority about biome size. As BC said, people complained about biome size back when they were first introduced and throughout the history of the game until ß1.8, where the biome size was increased. Ever since ß1.8 I can count the number of people who complained about biome size on one hand.
This was more because taigas (and every other biome, to greater extents) had few things (e.g. mobs, flora, etc) that other biomes had. Taigas were one of the lucky ones since they were the only biome with spruces, one of two biomes that had snow, and eventually got wolves. At the time there were, like, four nearly identical flatland biomes and three nearly identical forest biomes in a generator with nine biomes.
But people just wanted the biomes to be more unique. All they needed was more unique flora (like what was added in 1.7) and more unique mobs and other things to make the biomes less samey.
And that is where your argument here falls short. People back then did not want every biome to stick out at the cost of every instance of one biome looking identical to another instance of the same biome. They just did not like all the biomes being so similar.
The biomes in ß1.7.3 (and even moreso in the Halloween Update) were collectively very similar to each other, and thus people wanted it to change because they felt same-y. Each instance of a biome in ß1.8 (and r1.7) is nearly identical to another instance of the same biome, and people wanted it to change because it felt same-y.
I don't know about you, but that essentially tells me that people think "same-y = bad thing" regardless of what update the game was in.
In fact, most of the threads you linked to and threads that I found were based on misconceptions or simply don't actually apply any more. The second thread you mentioned, for example, has a complaint about the future Halloween Update generator that doesn't actually apply much to the Halloween Update generator but does apply to the 1.8+ generators. In addition, the first thread was written during a terrain generator that was known for having crazy jagged mountains spammed everywhere.
In none of them do they actually desire a terrain generator extremely similar to 1.8+; they all want levels of variety similar to what they have, and they don't want the other bad side effects that 1.8 introduced.
Instead of telling people what is wrong with them, why not just sit down and listen to what they have to say? We're trying to help you, and you just sock us in the nose without reading our answer.
Why not just play in 1.6? There are 1.6 servers available for you to download, and you can also get mods that will fix the generation.
I stopped playing during 1.2 - 1.3, so I never actually played 1.6. However, I do agree that grouping either is to blame, or is the main culprit of these problems.
I have explained 100 times why this is not a proper solution. Read the thread. Also I didn't make this thread looking for help. I made it to discuss a problem that's occurring with the world generation.
Vanilla servers can actually handle the lag a lot better. In vanilla, all you need to do is load the chunk. But with plugins, you have a lot of extra things attached. Anti-grief plugins, orebfuscator, block permissions, etc. Plugins are also generally not as efficient as vanilla minecraft, it all just adds more time onto the chunk loading process.
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.
Two points:
First, "too large" is a judgement, not an objective fact. I like the current distance scale. To me, it adds to variety that sometimes some things take some serious work to get. You don't *have* to have anything other than food, wood, and mined items, and any temperate zone spawn provides them all. (Exception - folks who play "no regen" have to have melons. But that's pretty specialized, and there are always jungle seeds.)
My impression, from discussions and one small poll, was that the current scale was reasonably close to the median BUT it was somewhat longer than the median and people who want really short scales were going to be really upset. You are very much on the short end. You say you want everything withing 500 blocks. Well, there are people who build *bases* almost that big and many more (like me) who have "backyards" not much smaller than that.
IMO generally people would be happier if the size of biome grouping were reduced somewhat but a patterning system were introduced so there would still be some reason to explore greater distances (to see how the world is set up). It's a real pity oceans were eliminated because they served that function admirably before. There are some other things that could serve a similar purpose (mountain ranges and the climate system) but at least those two would require a lot of extra work (longer visibility for mountain ranges and a sliding scale for the climate system.)
Second, the temperate biomes aren't really too similar. They have a lot of variability, comparable in mathematical complexity to 1.6 in general. The problem is that it's hard to see, for three reasons. One, most of it is forest and you literally can't see anything other that a few identical trees at any time. Second, you can't maintain orientation because you can't see landmarks for any distance. Third. there's no background to contrast it against.
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 enormous problem with playing in 1.6 is, of course, 1.8 (and 1.9 and 1.10 and 1.11 and etc...). What if 1.8 has features the OP likes? Should he be forced to choose between the generator he likes or features he likes and the generator he hates? (This is part of the reason why "just downgrade" is a stupid argument for those who support a completely overhauled generator with variety greater than what ß1.7.3 offered; you have to miss out on nine updates of content, and even then it's an imperfect solution because the ß1.7.3 generator has its own problems.)
Were this a problem with one person, I'd say it's acceptable, but terrain is (still) an issue for many people.
The terrain generator is the same in r1.2 and r1.6 so if you found biome size good back then, then there isn't a reason to suggest decreased biome size.
Villagers still sell them and you can still find the seeds in mineshafts (which admittedly is one of, if not the, most dangerous locations in the game).
The temperate biomes ARE really similar, though. Each instance of a biome is still pretty much identical to another instance of the same biome. Well, there IS limited height variation in birch and regular flower forests (and maybe the taigas too but I haven't seen it in roofed forests), but hills generated by it are virtually identical to hills generated by x-hills and are far less frequent. (they do seem a little less abrupt but not always; that's more of a good thing though).
I STILL don't see why a ß1.7.3-style temperature system can't be implemented though (excepting if it would not work well in any way, shape, or form with Anvil). It prevents illogical biome transitions AND fixes biome transitions so that they aren't abrupt without the awful side effects of biome grouping. Just make temperature and rainfall transition slower (to increase biome size) and you're golden. People keep talking about shrinking biome groups, which will fix the side effects of the system, but that doesn't mean the system fixes the problems it is supposed to.
Because it would be almost exactly the same? Biomes would still be grouped, but by temperature and rainfall instead of just temperature.
It's just that there are so many more biomes now, thus it's harder to stuff them all in a small area.
Please do not put words in my mouth. Quote me where I explicitly say this. I said that if a server cannot have plugins and generate large amounts of chunks at the same time, it needs to upgrade its RAM or stop doing one of the above. Which is completely true, if you do not have enough RAM to perform every action you want you need more RAM or less actions, it is like telling program developers that they need to change their programs because you are trying to open 50 at a time and it is eating up your RAM. It makes no logical sense and the fact that you keep trying to push this just baffles me beyond belief. Are you even reading what you are suggesting at this point?
No, it wouldn't. It would have two things over the current biome grouping system:
-It does not create enormous swathes of the same set of biomes repeating over and over and over again.
-It would actually fix the entire problem that biome grouping was supposed to fix: the fact that biomes transition too abruptly (the grass color of one biome changes to the grass color of the next in only three blocks). Biome grouping is far from the best solution because it doesn't fix the biome transitions entirely (it just makes the most egregious ones a lot rarer) and has it's own nasty side effect. Even if you fixed the side effect, it would be an inferior solution to a proper temperature system.
I edited my post to clarify, please reread.
Well I just read some of the threads again and it seems pretty clear to me that they are referring to two areas that are the same biome being too different. That isn't to speak to the validity of what they desire, of course.
I'm not sure this can really be stated. You cannot possibly know what people want, except based on what they said. You'll have to forgive me because I read the same posts you have presumably and I've not reached that conclusion.
Same story as above. Not really sure how you are able to come to this conclusion. You're certainly no more able to read the minds of people than I am, so presumably we are both basing it on their posts. Evidently we have different interpretations.
You are effectively stating what people did and did not want in a blanket form, and then trying to use that to create a appeal to popular assent. "People back then did not want X" What evidence is there that they didn't? What have you read and what mental machinations occurred such that you've come to this conclusion?
You have continued to make statements about what people want or do not want. There is a reason I Was trying to stick to what was said, rather than trying to substantiate an argument with what was thought and what they "wanted", because unless they state it fairly explicitly it's all up to interpretation of what they said.
And yet in contrast those with issues against 1.8 will cite 1.7.3 and earlier as an example of variants within the same biome type to use as a model.
Both views cannot be correct. So which is it?
Yes. It doesn't give me psychich powers to know what they want, though. YMMV I suppose.
Well isn't that convenient. And of course there is no way you are under any misconceptions, nor anybody else with the same complaints now. Nope, now it's totally different!
You're going to have to be more specific. What parts of what they are saying do not apply to 1.2.5 Alpha, but do apply to more recent versions? You can't just blanket the entire thing as being incorrect without actually stating how that is the case. Any arguments about terrain gen that apply now in that post apply equally to 1.2.5 Alpha, even though it was not released until a few days after.
Infdev from April 13, 2010?
Who was it known by? In what manner is this different than the Mountains that seem to appear in a spammy fashion in Alpha and Early Beta?
Are we even reading the same posts?
And there you are again, using your psychic powers to reach into the past and state what people wanted. You should only use this power for good.
It appears that we have both misunderstood eachother then.
At this point I'm tried of talking about this. There are much more important issues than lag.
^ These are the problems with the terrain generator.
Except that one of the points brought up was that the new generation gives an actual incentive to explore and find these biomes, your only counter-argument was the lag, which I have more than proved was only due to third-party mods. So, changing the generation you suggest would take away the need to explore your world to find specific blocks you want.
No my argument is this:
Here's the kind of crap the default world generator spits out. Endless desert.
Giant clumping biomes of the same temperature.
Forget about the lag it's really a null point for either side.
Ok.....so now your only argument is that you are too lazy to do a bit of exploring?
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.
What a childish thing to say.
How about you read the OP (there's lots of explanation and pictures there) instead of resorting to immaturity and insults. It reflects poorly on your character and suggest that you don't have a single good point to make.