As many of you know, the mining part of Minecraft has become something that people suggest about all the time. People have asked for and suggested new ores many times, and while new ores could make things more interesting, I think the way those new ores are generated and found should be improved first.
Uneven Ore Distribution
What exactly does this mean? Well, it means that random areas would have less or more of specific ores instead of having the same chances of striking gold wherever you are in the world. The span of how rare or common an ore is would depend on how rare it is now, so that you would be able to find a good amount of coal, iron, lapis, and redstone pretty much everywhere. There would still be areas where there is less or more iron/coal/redstone, but not to the same degree as gold, emerald, and diamond, where there might be a lot more or a lot less of it. If the player found a decent amount of diamond together in a certain area, the player might start mining there more for diamond. Players might even travel long distances to get to the rare areas with a lot of a rare ore. On multiplayer server, players might build minecart railways going to an area where another player found a lot of an ore.
Each chunk would have a 1 in 32 chance of being different, and 6 to 9 chunks around it would share the stats. When a chunk is different, it has a 50% chance of it having more of an ore and a 50% chance of having less of an ore. The ore has the same chance of being coal, iron, gold, diamond, redstone, lapis, or emerald.
Less Caves
Don't freak out. I am not suggesting we make your precious caves extremely rare. What I am suggesting, however, is that we make Caves be more spread out and not quite as common as they are now. This is because they are literally everywhere right now. I have seen multiple posts where people complain about there being too many caves, and I kind of agree with them.
Edit: I no longer think caves should be less common. I think they are at a good rarity at the moment. Making them rarer would make the game less fun.
Please let me know what you think of these ideas! If there is something wrong with this suggestion, tell me how I can fix and improve it.
Don't freak out. I am not suggesting we make your precious caves extremely rare. What I am suggesting, however, is that we make Caves be more spread out and not quite as common as they are now. This is because they are literally everywhere right now. I have seen multiple posts where people complain about there being too many caves, and I kind of agree with them.
Please let me know what you think of these ideas! If there is something wrong with this suggestion, tell me how I can fix and improve it.
Absolutely NO.
1.7 already ruined the underground by making cave systems much less dense and more spread out - the spirit of Minecraft aka Cave Game was lost in that update, leading to this:
Here is an example of the difference between 1.6.4 and 1.7+:
1.6.4 - note how much cave density varies, from a couple very large cave systems near the center to a large area with very few caves in the upper-right, to more scattered caves in the lower-right:
1.7+ - not much variation at all; this is because the average size and size range of cave systems was reduced by nearly two-thirds and they were made more than twice as common, leading to far less regional-scale variation:
This more or less undoes much of what was done all the way back in InfDev to make caves more varied:
Infdev
June 16, 2010 Caves are now clustered instead of random.
June 17, 2010 Caves have 1–5 exits, enabling multiple escapes. Caves are now so clustered that a cave could be described as "Swiss cheese". More water and lava springs in caves. Tunnels have a wider variety of thickness. Gravel and dirt can now be found in caves.
1.7.2 13w36a Cave generation tweaked, making caves less dense and interconnected.
Also, caves were actually even more common back in InfDev, with a 50% higher chance of caves - so release 1.7 is actually the second time that they reduced caves (the addition of mineshafts and ravines in Beta 1.8 more than offset this though - 1.7 did not add anything at all, and also reduced the frequency of mineshafts by 60%; the images above do not show this very well since they are also rarer near the origin in either version).
These differences also show up in an analysis I made of of cave density over a 16 chunk radius - even over such a large area (a circle 33 chunks or 528 blocks in diameter cave density varies by a factor of nearly 10:1 in 1.6.4 with half the variation in 1.7+:
If anything, if they were to update the underground it should look more like this (from one of my mods):
Much of what you see above is not due to vanilla caves, as seen in this series of renderings of individual features (of a different area):
Caves; these are based on 1.6.4 cave generation:
Mineshafts; despite their frequency they are only about 60% as common as in vanilla 1.6.4, and 1.5 times more common than since 1.7. More notably, they generate spaced out so they do not overlap so much (the majority of mineshafts in 1.6.4 intersect at least one other mineshaft since they can even generate in adjacent chunks) and do not generate in regions with high cave density or the other types of caves I added:
Ravines; they have the same frequency as in vanilla but with more size variation (these are the only underground feature which were left alone in 1.7; the smaller ravines seen are the same size as vanilla):
Large caves:
Large circular rooms, larger than the largest in vanilla, which get up to 17 blocks in diameter (the Wiki says 30+ blocks but those are not actually circular rooms, which are perfectly circular with a height that is half their width):
Special cave systems; these are cave systems with different types of caves:
(why am I even posting here if I'd never play a version with this suggestion implemented? Because many others want bigger caves - there is even a very popular suggestion to make the world 2 km+ deep with far larger caves. Also, they are very easy to customize - you can completely revert the changes in 1.7 by simply changing a couple numbers in the code - if only Mojang had thought to add the ability to change them in-game...)
I would like bigger caves, but when you have a ton of caves everywhere, they become less special and somewhat annoying sometimes. What is your opinion on uneven ore distribution?
I have no problem with the cave levels right now, where my problem lies is that there doesn't seem to be any checks to stop from excessive overlap. I always seem to run into areas where 6 or 7 caves intersect in the exact same location which makes it look awful.
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!
I have no problem with the cave levels right now, where my problem lies is that there doesn't seem to be any checks to stop from excessive overlap. I always seem to run into areas where 6 or 7 caves intersect in the exact same location which makes it look awful.
I think that is the whole point - what is so interesting about some tunnels, as opposed to much more natural-looking random chambers, which are also much more interesting to explore. In fact, the very method the game uses to generate caves virtually ensures overlap - the average cave system in 1.7+ has an average of 6.7 tunnels originating within a single chunk (spread vertically, but cave density is much higher near bedrock. In 1.6.4 the average is about 9.1; this does not seem much higher but the size variation is much greater and caves are less uniformly distributed; most "single" cave systems are actually several smaller cave systems close together). In fact, the game even generates "circular rooms" which often have multiple tunnels leading from them, leading to higher density pockets of caves which are guaranteed to interconnect (otherwise, each tunnel is placed at a random location and follows a random path independent from any other tunnel; because of this the self-collision checks that structures perform would not work).
That said, mineshafts often overlap one another and in that case they could definitely be improved since it doesn't make much sense (for example); they are the only large structure which can generate in any chunk regardless of distance from other structures of the same type (different types of structures can still overlap, as with villages and desert temples, but in my experience that is pretty rare as I've never seen it in Survival; in 1.6.4 well over half of all mineshafts intersect at least one other mineshaft and the reduction in frequency in 1.7 only reduced the chance of overlap); it is also rather obnoxious when they generate on top of a large cave system (a few bridges over a ravine or a cave here and there makes sense, but this? A simple fix is to count the number of caves within, say, a 3 chunk radius and not generate a mineshaft if the number exceeds some (ideally, customizable) threshold).
Also, I prefer caves to be common and interlinked enough that you can go from one cave (or mineshaft, etc) to the next without having to mine or search around on the surface, as seen in this animation of several days worth of exploration; you can see how I went from one cave to the next (I used a mapping utility which only renders caves if they have torches in them, mineshafts were modified to not have naturally generated torches for this reason; the line going from lower-left to top-right is a railway I made to a new base; any caves that it intersected were blocked off):
Of course, having the ability to actually customize caves and other features - which is as simple as changing a couple numbers (the "size" and "chance" of a cave system) would be really nice though I wouldn't hold my breath on Mojang adding the option anytime soon (it is particularly astonishing that Superflat has more structure customization than Customized).
I have no problem with the cave levels right now, where my problem lies is that there doesn't seem to be any checks to stop from excessive overlap. I always seem to run into areas where 6 or 7 caves intersect in the exact same location which makes it look awful.
I agree. I think it would be better if caves were more spread out.
I'm kind of surprised no one has commented on the uneven ore distribution. I thought that would be the controversial thing, not the cave generation thing.
I agree. I think it would be better if caves were more spread out.
I'm kind of surprised no one has commented on the uneven ore distribution. I thought that would be the controversial thing, not the cave generation thing.
I think it needs more detail, like how much spawn rates would increase and how common these areas would be. Plus the size of the areas. Right now it is too vague to call it good or bad.
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!
I think it needs more detail, like how much spawn rates would increase and how common these areas would be. Plus the size of the areas. Right now it is too vague to call it good or bad.
Thank you for the feedback! I updated the post with some more specific information. Let me know if I need to add more.
We sort of already have a taste of the uneven ore distribution in the form of emerald ore (only found in extreme hills) and gold (basically replaces everything in mesas.)
Going by the spirit of the suggestion, though, IF we had truly uneven distribution we would need improved ways of detection and right now that's pretty much considered cheaty. You would probably have to swallow that bitter pill and just have something that leads to ores directly, or come up with a system that imparts a density level to point us in the direction to dig (which probably but not necessarily would come along with a bigger overhaul of the underground). Maybe even attempt an automining solution of some sort (umm, #SaveTheSilverfish?).
If you look at the rarity I posted, and calculate the chances of having more frequent diamond ore, it really isn't that rare. What balances it is that players aren't going to mine in every single chunk. I think it would be really interesting on multiplayer servers, where a player might discover, for example, a diamond-rich area, and they lease it to players for a price.
I think an interesting addition could be if mining a block that doesn't have a block behind it made a different sound, to indicate that there is a cave or something behind it.
As many of you know, the mining part of Minecraft has become something that people suggest about all the time. People have asked for and suggested new ores many times, and while new ores could make things more interesting, I think the way those new ores are generated and found should be improved first.
Uneven Ore Distribution
What exactly does this mean? Well, it means that random areas would have less or more of specific ores instead of having the same chances of striking gold wherever you are in the world. The span of how rare or common an ore is would depend on how rare it is now, so that you would be able to find a good amount of coal, iron, lapis, and redstone pretty much everywhere. There would still be areas where there is less or more iron/coal/redstone, but not to the same degree as gold, emerald, and diamond, where there might be a lot more or a lot less of it. If the player found a decent amount of diamond together in a certain area, the player might start mining there more for diamond. Players might even travel long distances to get to the rare areas with a lot of a rare ore. On multiplayer server, players might build minecart railways going to an area where another player found a lot of an ore.
Each chunk would have a 1 in 32 chance of being different, and 6 to 9 chunks around it would share the stats. When a chunk is different, it has a 50% chance of it having more of an ore and a 50% chance of having less of an ore. The ore has the same chance of being coal, iron, gold, diamond, redstone, lapis, or emerald.
Less CavesDon't freak out. I am not suggesting we make your precious caves extremely rare. What I am suggesting, however, is that we make Caves be more spread out and not quite as common as they are now. This is because they are literally everywhere right now. I have seen multiple posts where people complain about there being too many caves, and I kind of agree with them.Edit: I no longer think caves should be less common. I think they are at a good rarity at the moment. Making them rarer would make the game less fun.
Please let me know what you think of these ideas! If there is something wrong with this suggestion, tell me how I can fix and improve it.
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
Absolutely NO.
1.7 already ruined the underground by making cave systems much less dense and more spread out - the spirit of Minecraft aka Cave Game was lost in that update, leading to this:
I have played the same version of Minecraft for four years
Here is an example of the difference between 1.6.4 and 1.7+:
1.6.4 - note how much cave density varies, from a couple very large cave systems near the center to a large area with very few caves in the upper-right, to more scattered caves in the lower-right:
1.7+ - not much variation at all; this is because the average size and size range of cave systems was reduced by nearly two-thirds and they were made more than twice as common, leading to far less regional-scale variation:
This more or less undoes much of what was done all the way back in InfDev to make caves more varied:
Also, caves were actually even more common back in InfDev, with a 50% higher chance of caves - so release 1.7 is actually the second time that they reduced caves (the addition of mineshafts and ravines in Beta 1.8 more than offset this though - 1.7 did not add anything at all, and also reduced the frequency of mineshafts by 60%; the images above do not show this very well since they are also rarer near the origin in either version).
These differences also show up in an analysis I made of of cave density over a 16 chunk radius - even over such a large area (a circle 33 chunks or 528 blocks in diameter cave density varies by a factor of nearly 10:1 in 1.6.4 with half the variation in 1.7+:
If anything, if they were to update the underground it should look more like this (from one of my mods):
Much of what you see above is not due to vanilla caves, as seen in this series of renderings of individual features (of a different area):
Caves; these are based on 1.6.4 cave generation:
Mineshafts; despite their frequency they are only about 60% as common as in vanilla 1.6.4, and 1.5 times more common than since 1.7. More notably, they generate spaced out so they do not overlap so much (the majority of mineshafts in 1.6.4 intersect at least one other mineshaft since they can even generate in adjacent chunks) and do not generate in regions with high cave density or the other types of caves I added:
Ravines; they have the same frequency as in vanilla but with more size variation (these are the only underground feature which were left alone in 1.7; the smaller ravines seen are the same size as vanilla):
Large caves:
Large circular rooms, larger than the largest in vanilla, which get up to 17 blocks in diameter (the Wiki says 30+ blocks but those are not actually circular rooms, which are perfectly circular with a height that is half their width):
Special cave systems; these are cave systems with different types of caves:
(why am I even posting here if I'd never play a version with this suggestion implemented? Because many others want bigger caves - there is even a very popular suggestion to make the world 2 km+ deep with far larger caves. Also, they are very easy to customize - you can completely revert the changes in 1.7 by simply changing a couple numbers in the code - if only Mojang had thought to add the ability to change them in-game...)
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 would like bigger caves, but when you have a ton of caves everywhere, they become less special and somewhat annoying sometimes. What is your opinion on uneven ore distribution?
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
I have no problem with the cave levels right now, where my problem lies is that there doesn't seem to be any checks to stop from excessive overlap. I always seem to run into areas where 6 or 7 caves intersect in the exact same location which makes it look awful.
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
I think that is the whole point - what is so interesting about some tunnels, as opposed to much more natural-looking random chambers, which are also much more interesting to explore. In fact, the very method the game uses to generate caves virtually ensures overlap - the average cave system in 1.7+ has an average of 6.7 tunnels originating within a single chunk (spread vertically, but cave density is much higher near bedrock. In 1.6.4 the average is about 9.1; this does not seem much higher but the size variation is much greater and caves are less uniformly distributed; most "single" cave systems are actually several smaller cave systems close together). In fact, the game even generates "circular rooms" which often have multiple tunnels leading from them, leading to higher density pockets of caves which are guaranteed to interconnect (otherwise, each tunnel is placed at a random location and follows a random path independent from any other tunnel; because of this the self-collision checks that structures perform would not work).
That said, mineshafts often overlap one another and in that case they could definitely be improved since it doesn't make much sense (for example); they are the only large structure which can generate in any chunk regardless of distance from other structures of the same type (different types of structures can still overlap, as with villages and desert temples, but in my experience that is pretty rare as I've never seen it in Survival; in 1.6.4 well over half of all mineshafts intersect at least one other mineshaft and the reduction in frequency in 1.7 only reduced the chance of overlap); it is also rather obnoxious when they generate on top of a large cave system (a few bridges over a ravine or a cave here and there makes sense, but this? A simple fix is to count the number of caves within, say, a 3 chunk radius and not generate a mineshaft if the number exceeds some (ideally, customizable) threshold).
Also, I prefer caves to be common and interlinked enough that you can go from one cave (or mineshaft, etc) to the next without having to mine or search around on the surface, as seen in this animation of several days worth of exploration; you can see how I went from one cave to the next (I used a mapping utility which only renders caves if they have torches in them, mineshafts were modified to not have naturally generated torches for this reason; the line going from lower-left to top-right is a railway I made to a new base; any caves that it intersected were blocked off):
Of course, having the ability to actually customize caves and other features - which is as simple as changing a couple numbers (the "size" and "chance" of a cave system) would be really nice though I wouldn't hold my breath on Mojang adding the option anytime soon (it is particularly astonishing that Superflat has more structure customization than Customized).
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 agree. I think it would be better if caves were more spread out.
I'm kind of surprised no one has commented on the uneven ore distribution. I thought that would be the controversial thing, not the cave generation thing.
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
I think it needs more detail, like how much spawn rates would increase and how common these areas would be. Plus the size of the areas. Right now it is too vague to call it good or bad.
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
Thank you for the feedback! I updated the post with some more specific information. Let me know if I need to add more.
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them:
We sort of already have a taste of the uneven ore distribution in the form of emerald ore (only found in extreme hills) and gold (basically replaces everything in mesas.)
Going by the spirit of the suggestion, though, IF we had truly uneven distribution we would need improved ways of detection and right now that's pretty much considered cheaty. You would probably have to swallow that bitter pill and just have something that leads to ores directly, or come up with a system that imparts a density level to point us in the direction to dig (which probably but not necessarily would come along with a bigger overhaul of the underground). Maybe even attempt an automining solution of some sort (umm, #SaveTheSilverfish?).
If you look at the rarity I posted, and calculate the chances of having more frequent diamond ore, it really isn't that rare. What balances it is that players aren't going to mine in every single chunk. I think it would be really interesting on multiplayer servers, where a player might discover, for example, a diamond-rich area, and they lease it to players for a price.
I think an interesting addition could be if mining a block that doesn't have a block behind it made a different sound, to indicate that there is a cave or something behind it.
Check out my suggestions! Here is one of them: