Minecraft Forums

So I come back here after a bit and I find this topic kinda turned into a train wreck.

And people kinda seemed to ignore the points I made in my last post.

So to reiterate the points made in my last post:

- Despite the concept of it being a "round" world, the vertical elements would remain the same. So going below bedrock still voids your attempts at reaching the core.

- Making the world wrap around as if it were toroidal? Possible with the chunk-based system Minecraft uses. If the world wraps around at X=320000, then when you approach that boundary, it'll start loading the chunks around X=-320000.

- Could work fine in singleplayer, where only the chunks around you are loaded. Could very quickly become awkward to use in multiplayer.

- The update could potentially cause issues with pre-existing worlds, depending on how the wrap-around is handled.

- Adding a wrap-around would invalidate the already-existing "world border" feature, unless it was changed to determine the wrap-around point.

- It would be hard to balance the wrap-around point such that it could be reasonably experienced by the players without reducing the size of the world by too much.

Also, as mentioned by yoshi9048, the world generation would have to go through changes to accommodate the wrap-around. And this would not be an easy thing to do.

Like I said before, this idea has way too many problems and I have to give it no support.

Quote from TacoKing3»

What happens if you reach the centre of the world? What happens to bedrock?

I think what he's trying to say is that if you go too far in one direction, it'll loop around instead of going on and on, while the vertical element remains the same as before.
To put it into a numerical example, basically like if you're at the X coordinate of, say, 500000, and then you proceed one more block in that direction, you'll wrap around to -500000. Which could theoretically work with the chunk-based system Minecraft uses, though there could still be issues, especially where multiplayer is concerned.

However, adding such a system would have to either cause problems with pre-existing worlds, or simply set the wrap-around point at the very edges of the current world limit for pre-existing worlds, which would be way too far out for anyone not using commands to reasonably experience, since the current limit of world generation is around 30 million blocks out from the center. Also, this feature would likely invalidate the currently-existing "world border" feature, unless it was changed to determine the point at which the world wraps around.

It'd be too difficult to achieve a perfect balance between "reduce the maximum world size by too much" and "make it so players could reasonably experience this wrap-around", so I'm not in support of this idea.

Quote from BalloonBoy2»

It is also more inaccurate and requires space (can't crit hit if in two-high space).

Or alternatively you could just jump and do a critical hit if you don't want to do a sweep attack.

Which also has the benefit of killing the monster faster.

We already have a way to not do a sweep: You can just do a critical hit.

The specific reason why Gold tools are so fragile in the first place is because, in real life, Gold is a rather soft metal that would make for some pretty bad tools.

Farming. In the literal sense. Good ol' agriculture.

Of course, that's a main means of getting food, an essential part of survival, so I voted "Survival".

The "decimals" are just simply to separate the numbers of revisions, with the ones further to the right being less significant updates.

I'd say that in most cases, the leftmost number usually only increments when going from a beta version to a "full release".

Basically, going from 0.whatever to 1.0.

Going from 1.whatever to 2.0 would most likely warrant a major overhaul that might as well make it an entirely different product.

That's how I view it, anyway. Based on my observations of this sort of thing.

Both of them sound excessively annoying.

And apparently neither have anything unique to drop?

So yeah, nothing good in this idea.

I think it would be better if different chests can't connect with each other.

For one, like the example above demonstrates, this would mean we could have more space-efficient storage rooms since we no longer have to place spaces between chests.

Sword for most enemies.

Bow for enemies that are far away or would be better off taken out from a distance (mostly Skeletons and Blazes).

Axes are for trees and animals.

I pretty much never use shields.

Nah, they just scream with their mouths wide open.

They prefer to beat you to death.

Why put it on Steam, when none of the other versions are on Steam?

I think it'd be good enough to just add camels and be done with it. We already have pigs, horses, donkeys, mules, boats, and minecarts for things we can ride. We don't really need to be going overboard.

As for the scorpions, I'm not in favor of it. They'd likely lack the speed of a spider, so the only thing they'd have going for them is the poison. And besides, scorpions aren't the only arachnids that live in deserts.

It would be considered "cheating" for the purposes of a "no cheating" survival world.

But otherwise, if you're doing singleplayer, go for it if you want. Nobody's judging you for it.