This idea would get rid of the world borders, by simply making the world be like Earth: When you get to the right edge of the world, the left edge generates, and so on, so the world loops around, so you never see a Barrier again!
I think you meant complex to do correctly and not worth implementing. Making sure every biome and part of the terrain matches is complicated and hardly anyone would ever see it, and none of them would see it legitimately.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
No, I meant trivial to implement and a nice detail. If chunk coordinates are set to wrap, edge chunks from both sides will become neighbours and generate together correctly. And this could be a setting for finite worlds without a laser wall in the way.
This would be the opposite of trivial to implement. Making every single edge/corner of the world perfectly wrap around won't be a programming walk in the park, and would be heavier on performance because chunks still need to be loaded/reloaded when you reach the looping points. Chances are, you won't reach X/Z 30,000,000 in Survival anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
Nope, it's nearly impossible that even a pro that played minecraft since 2010/2009, could reach our current border, especially someone who doesn't like building so much.
This would cause a lot of problems, there is a reason World Borders exist for that reason. Not to mention it's kinda redundant, for who would want to travel endlessly once reaching the edge of Minecraft?
This would cause a lot of problems, there is a reason World Borders exist for that reason. Not to mention it's kinda redundant, for who would want to travel endlessly once reaching the edge of Minecraft?
I think you meant complex to do correctly and not worth implementing. Making sure every biome and part of the terrain matches is complicated and hardly anyone would ever see it, and none of them would see it legitimately.
No, he said trivial and nice detail and he meant it and HE is in the right here. Because YOU know nothing about mapping flat coordinates into a radian scale (a simple math trick, really), that doesn't make making what he asked for "complicated" or even potentially "laggy".
That said, there is not much point of asking for a world you can "fully walk around of instead of meeting a wall border", when the width of the world is whopping 30 *MILLIONS* blocks. The only interest for wraparound worlds is for much smaller worlds, where players or server admins want to limit the scope of the world for some or other reason.
I fully support having the option to create have "finite wraparound" world type. As for the risk if making resources "depleted". Gee, servers commonly ALREADY have much smaller worlds anyway. Using an argument on something we already have fully, as some kind of "threat" to reduce the value of the suggestion, that is straw man logic. The point of wraparound wolrd has nothing to do with finite resource. I play on one such world with only a 5000x5000 world, with worldguard worldborders. for such worlds - and there are a lot of those servers with square worlds of that are limited to equal to or less than a 80000 blocks maximum width - it would be much better to be able to "walk around" these worlds seamlessly using radian mapping for the worldgen algo would mean no weird biome inconsistencies - at all, than to suddenly meeting an invisible wall.
No, he said trivial and nice detail and he meant it and HE is in the right here. Because YOU know nothing about mapping flat coordinates into a radian scale (a simple math trick, really), that doesn't make making what he asked for "complicated" or even potentially "laggy".
That said, there is not much point of asking for a world you can "fully walk around of instead of meeting a wall border", when the width of the world is whopping 30 *MILLIONS* blocks. The only interest for wraparound worlds is for much smaller worlds, where players or server admins want to limit the scope of the world for some or other reason.
I fully support having the option to create have "finite wraparound" world type. As for the risk if making resources "depleted". Gee, servers commonly ALREADY have much smaller worlds anyway. Using an argument on something we already have fully, as some kind of "threat" to reduce the value of the suggestion, that is straw man logic. The point of wraparound wolrd has nothing to do with finite resource. I play on one such world with only a 5000x5000 world, with worldguard worldborders. for such worlds - and there are a lot of those servers with square worlds of that are limited to equal to or less than a 80000 blocks maximum width - it would be much better to be able to "walk around" these worlds seamlessly using radian mapping for the worldgen algo would mean no weird biome inconsistencies - at all, than to suddenly meeting an invisible wall.
Yeah, nobody likes a flat world where if you walk to the edge you hit an invisible, indestructible barrier (or if no barrier is made, fall off the edge into the void. Someone could make a world the size of the earth and make it loop with this suggestion. If not for the current 30,000,000 block world size, maybe add it as part of world customization, so someone could have a smaller world that loops (for example, a 1:1 scale earth map that loops endlessly, so one could traverse the Earth in Minecraft.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just took the Minecraft Noob test! Check out what I scored. Think you can beat me?!
Yeah, nobody likes a flat world where if you walk to the edge you hit an invisible, indestructible barrier (or if no barrier is made, fall off the edge into the void. Someone could make a world the size of the earth and make it loop with this suggestion. If not for the current 30,000,000 block world size, maybe add it as part of world customization, so someone could have a smaller world that loops (for example, a 1:1 scale earth map that loops endlessly, so one could traverse the Earth in Minecraft.
A minecraft "finite size wraparound" world with a width equal to the circumference of the Earth would need to be about 40 075 000 blocks wide. However, that is valid only at the equator: the nearer you would get to the "pole", the more the Minecraft world would be bigger in circumference than the Earth because the Earth slowly goes to 0 "width" at the poles, while the MC world would stay the same 40 075 000 blocks wide.
So it is probably better to use surface area instead. Then you need need a world width (and height) of SQRT ( 510.1 million km^2 ) = a world 22.58 thousand km^2 = 22 580 000 blocks.
In other worlds, the Minecraft "default" size of 30 millions x 30 millions is already pretty much in the "general ballpark" of Earth-size, give or take a simple factor of 2.
I dare say I have never seen anybody travel that many blocks. The furthest I saew is a guy who played for YEARS trying to reach the far lands :
Over these 3 years he played about 180 hours in that world and traveled about 700 000 blocks. Thus, to make an entire "rountrip" on an Earth-size world that would be 22 580 000 blocks wide, he would need to multiply his feat by a factor of ... 32 ! 5760 hours of play. Traveling average about a bit under 3900 blocks per hour of play (this factors in everything: crossing oceans, crossing hard terrain, killing animals along the way for food, quickly making tiny shelter for the night, etc.)
And even after all that, he would have explored only a very thin east-west ribbon width of the land. Let him move only a few hundred blocks north or south, and he could do the entire trip again, seeing entirely new chunks for the first time. even after thousands of years he would not have finished. Yeah, the earth is that big.
Let me tell you that apart from the mentally insanely obsessive compulsive on drugs, nobody wants to play that. The only way a "wraparound" world makes sense is if it is "TYPICAL SERVER" size, not "earth" size.
In other words, players on the server must feel they can make a full roundtrip around the world with some effort but NOT before dying of old age in real-life first.
I'd say walking for 160000 blocks - or about 40 hours of play using Kurt's achievement as a baseline - is MORE than sufficient as a" hard" accomplishment. Anything more is just waste. Any server I've seen that has it's world map actually bigger, is ONLY because of "long exploration tendrils" not an actual square map anyway. And most exploration tendrils never go beyond 100k blocks.
Note that "reaching the end of the world / making a full roundtrip around the world" are nice catchy goals, but pale in comparison with the amount of work needed to actually map the entire world. The first scales linearly: double world size, then reaching the end doubles. the second grows exponentially: double world size, mapping it all is 4 times more work.
No real need for an Earth-Sized world, at all. Maybe for 0.001% of the layers out there, yeah, there would be a cool need to make such a world. But IMHO for 99% of players wraparound worlds and Earth-size worlds are pretty much incompatible goals, unless you have an at will teleport command or something.
Note also that LONG before reaching the Far Lands, you start to exprience special deformation and coordinates bugs in the game, from rounding errors, too. The game just isn't designed to play perfectly well past about 1 million blocks :
So, using the worst case scenario: only 6 digits = a precision of 1 million blocks.
And... any world bigger than 1 million x 1 million blocks could just NOT be fully mapped (using a software tool to pre-generate all the chunks - a classic server optimization trick to reduce lag) otherwise the total world file save would be way too big. Typical servers already have multi-GB saves and they are often only 50k x 50k in size. For a 1 million x 1 million world (fully mapped), expect multi-terabyte. And if it is NOT going to eventually end up mostly mapped anyway, then there was really not muh point in making it that huge in the first place.
Ouatcheur, you describe very well in details both technical issues and relative easiness to accomplish a wrap around world, as well as gameplay importance over unwanted forms of realism.
I would sincerely enjoy finite worlds, but I find that a flat torus (yay! doughnuts!) to need more code changes than to simply reach the world's edge, from which one could build. That is why I have been proposing a disc-world, where generation stops after a certain radius (yay! pizza!).
What could be done is to implement disc-world first for its simpler code changes, then torus-world second for its clear attrait, and having the choice of one or the other at world creation when both are available.
ERROR unknown file type
No Support.
even come close to the edge unless you use commands. Sure it would be a nice little touch but the system in place right
now is completely fine and working and if they did this they would literally have to re-create parts of the games engine.
No Support.
No support.
Cool stuffs in spoiler
I think you meant complex to do correctly and not worth implementing. Making sure every biome and part of the terrain matches is complicated and hardly anyone would ever see it, and none of them would see it legitimately.
Want some advice on how to thrive in the Suggestions section? Check this handy list of guidelines and tips for posting your ideas and responding to the ideas of others!
http://www.minecraftforum.net/forums/minecraft-discussion/suggestions/2775557-guidelines-for-the-suggestions-forum
This would be the opposite of trivial to implement. Making every single edge/corner of the world perfectly wrap around won't be a programming walk in the park, and would be heavier on performance because chunks still need to be loaded/reloaded when you reach the looping points. Chances are, you won't reach X/Z 30,000,000 in Survival anyway.
Yeah, that guy in the avatar is me. I'm *that* strange. It happens. Sometimes people act like that. Just go with it. I can offer help with suggestions even before you post them - NOT make your suggestions - but help you with them.
Unofficial Suggestions Guide (2.0) - by Theriasis
Unofficial Critics Guide - by yoshi9048
Check out Mineplex, it's a very
popularcrappy server.I'm stuck at home , yay!
Oi, do you want to change the world? Yup
Then get off your bottom and see how many things you can do to help the environment.
No Support
No support.
I agree with Endergirl00.
No, he said trivial and nice detail and he meant it and HE is in the right here. Because YOU know nothing about mapping flat coordinates into a radian scale (a simple math trick, really), that doesn't make making what he asked for "complicated" or even potentially "laggy".
That said, there is not much point of asking for a world you can "fully walk around of instead of meeting a wall border", when the width of the world is whopping 30 *MILLIONS* blocks. The only interest for wraparound worlds is for much smaller worlds, where players or server admins want to limit the scope of the world for some or other reason.
I fully support having the option to create have "finite wraparound" world type. As for the risk if making resources "depleted". Gee, servers commonly ALREADY have much smaller worlds anyway. Using an argument on something we already have fully, as some kind of "threat" to reduce the value of the suggestion, that is straw man logic. The point of wraparound wolrd has nothing to do with finite resource. I play on one such world with only a 5000x5000 world, with worldguard worldborders. for such worlds - and there are a lot of those servers with square worlds of that are limited to equal to or less than a 80000 blocks maximum width - it would be much better to be able to "walk around" these worlds seamlessly using radian mapping for the worldgen algo would mean no weird biome inconsistencies - at all, than to suddenly meeting an invisible wall.
Yeah, nobody likes a flat world where if you walk to the edge you hit an invisible, indestructible barrier (or if no barrier is made, fall off the edge into the void. Someone could make a world the size of the earth and make it loop with this suggestion. If not for the current 30,000,000 block world size, maybe add it as part of world customization, so someone could have a smaller world that loops (for example, a 1:1 scale earth map that loops endlessly, so one could traverse the Earth in Minecraft.
I just took the Minecraft Noob test! Check out what I scored. Think you can beat me?!
To take the test, check out
https://minecraftnoobtest.com/test.php
Don't click this link, HE is haunting it...
A minecraft "finite size wraparound" world with a width equal to the circumference of the Earth would need to be about 40 075 000 blocks wide. However, that is valid only at the equator: the nearer you would get to the "pole", the more the Minecraft world would be bigger in circumference than the Earth because the Earth slowly goes to 0 "width" at the poles, while the MC world would stay the same 40 075 000 blocks wide.
So it is probably better to use surface area instead. Then you need need a world width (and height) of SQRT ( 510.1 million km^2 ) = a world 22.58 thousand km^2 = 22 580 000 blocks.
In other worlds, the Minecraft "default" size of 30 millions x 30 millions is already pretty much in the "general ballpark" of Earth-size, give or take a simple factor of 2.
I dare say I have never seen anybody travel that many blocks. The furthest I saew is a guy who played for YEARS trying to reach the far lands :
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/a-journey-to-the-end-of-the-world-of-minecraft
Over these 3 years he played about 180 hours in that world and traveled about 700 000 blocks. Thus, to make an entire "rountrip" on an Earth-size world that would be 22 580 000 blocks wide, he would need to multiply his feat by a factor of ... 32 ! 5760 hours of play. Traveling average about a bit under 3900 blocks per hour of play (this factors in everything: crossing oceans, crossing hard terrain, killing animals along the way for food, quickly making tiny shelter for the night, etc.)
And even after all that, he would have explored only a very thin east-west ribbon width of the land. Let him move only a few hundred blocks north or south, and he could do the entire trip again, seeing entirely new chunks for the first time. even after thousands of years he would not have finished. Yeah, the earth is that big.
Let me tell you that apart from the mentally insanely obsessive compulsive on drugs, nobody wants to play that. The only way a "wraparound" world makes sense is if it is "TYPICAL SERVER" size, not "earth" size.
In other words, players on the server must feel they can make a full roundtrip around the world with some effort but NOT before dying of old age in real-life first.
I'd say walking for 160000 blocks - or about 40 hours of play using Kurt's achievement as a baseline - is MORE than sufficient as a" hard" accomplishment. Anything more is just waste. Any server I've seen that has it's world map actually bigger, is ONLY because of "long exploration tendrils" not an actual square map anyway. And most exploration tendrils never go beyond 100k blocks.
Note that "reaching the end of the world / making a full roundtrip around the world" are nice catchy goals, but pale in comparison with the amount of work needed to actually map the entire world. The first scales linearly: double world size, then reaching the end doubles. the second grows exponentially: double world size, mapping it all is 4 times more work.
No real need for an Earth-Sized world, at all. Maybe for 0.001% of the layers out there, yeah, there would be a cool need to make such a world. But IMHO for 99% of players wraparound worlds and Earth-size worlds are pretty much incompatible goals, unless you have an at will teleport command or something.
Note also that LONG before reaching the Far Lands, you start to exprience special deformation and coordinates bugs in the game, from rounding errors, too. The game just isn't designed to play perfectly well past about 1 million blocks :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-precision_floating-point_format
Mainly this line:
"This gives from 6 to 9 significant decimal digits precision"
So, using the worst case scenario: only 6 digits = a precision of 1 million blocks.
And... any world bigger than 1 million x 1 million blocks could just NOT be fully mapped (using a software tool to pre-generate all the chunks - a classic server optimization trick to reduce lag) otherwise the total world file save would be way too big. Typical servers already have multi-GB saves and they are often only 50k x 50k in size. For a 1 million x 1 million world (fully mapped), expect multi-terabyte. And if it is NOT going to eventually end up mostly mapped anyway, then there was really not muh point in making it that huge in the first place.
I would sincerely enjoy finite worlds, but I find that a flat torus (yay! doughnuts!) to need more code changes than to simply reach the world's edge, from which one could build. That is why I have been proposing a disc-world, where generation stops after a certain radius (yay! pizza!).
What could be done is to implement disc-world first for its simpler code changes, then torus-world second for its clear attrait, and having the choice of one or the other at world creation when both are available.
Link RemovedImage RemovedLink RemovedImage Removed
Image Removed When you support an idea!