Explorer's maps -- the ones used to find woodland mansions -- always have a dot, as far as I know... but ordinary maps only have the dot if you are close enough to the area. They will show the dot along an edge or in a corner if you are off the map, but still close enough. The wiki claims the map marker will simply be smaller if you are more than 320 blocks per zoom level from the center of the map, but I have made many, many maps and gotten lost when I went too far away from the map area.
I don't think I've ever seen one in straight survival play. Can't be because of an absence of lightning, because I've encountered quite a few skeleton horsemen.
I played a couple worlds using dungeon generators (MCDungeon, Tyrus Woo's Game Changer.) Those do occasionally add creeper spawners, and I've seen some charged creepers that way.
I'm pretty sure once the Better Together Update comes out shortly the "free Win10" offer will go away.
I kind of doubt that. The Better Together Update doesn't offer anything unique except for three things:
Behavior Packs
The Market Place
playing crossplatform
Behavior packs really aren't a selling point yet, except as a component of custom maps in the Market Place. And the Market Place, as endless, bitter threads have reminded us, sells things. No one is going to pay extra for the ability to spend more money.
That leaves crossplatform play, which is only a selling point when there's lots of people to play with. It's actually a selling point to make the cross-platform game available for free to those buying the more expensive Java version, because it encourages more people to get involved in cross-platform play.
What they are more likely to do is to raise the price of the Java version a little, to cover the cost of both products.
I thought it was settled that the most efficient method is 11-block spacing for the passageways and 1-block high pokeholes spaced two blocks apart along each passage?
The basic idea isn't that great, because it's already in the game. If you make a map and then make copies of that map and place the copies in item frames at various locations, they will show up as markers on the map. I used this to mark villages on a zoomed map. It does seem to have problems if you have more than three markers on the map, though.
The only part of your idea that is different is using the different shaped markers that are used in explorer maps for woodland mansions and ocean monuments. Not sure if we really need an extra block or item, just for that one feature. Might be interesting to rename an item frame so that any map placed in the frame will change its marker based on the name of the frame.
The problem with new dimensions is that there's really not a whole lot of reason to make one. You can't just add a dimension to make a new place to go find stuff, or have a fight with a new boss. You could add a new biome feature for that, the way ocean monuments and woodland mansions were added. If you wanted rubies added to the game, you could just added some new blocks and items, then add a chance for ruby ore vein pockets to spawn in certain biomes.
What makes a dimension worth adding is a radically new terrain type or new laws of physics. The End has floating islands in the void (new terrain type.) The Nether has lava everywhere, no water, and water poured from a bucket evaporates immediately (new terrain and new laws of physics.) The terrain and physics changes need to come first, then other ideas like new ores or mobs can be added to fit into the concept. That's why there won't be a sky dimension: it would just be another End, and we already have The End. It would add nothing new to the experience.
So what are you going to do differently to make your new dimension feel worth it?
I'm fine with iron nuggets because I see it more as a completionist thing. Gold nuggets exist, and 9 gold nuggets = 1 gold ingot, so why not make iron nuggets and iron ingots as a parallel structure?
Iron nugget recipes would be interesting (maybe change the tripwire hook to use iron nuggets instead of ingots?) But all I really want is for the smelting ratios to be better, for both iron and gold tools. It's probably too much effort to have a separate smelting recipe for every iron and gold tool, but if it went by durability and was slightly random, that would be reasonable. Make it so that smelting an undamaged tool or armor returns 1 gold or iron nugget + 0 to 1 nuggets per 30 durability. Yield would be:
Gold Tool: 1 to 2 nuggets
Flint and Steel: 1 to 3 nuggets, average 2
Gold Helmet: 1 to 3 nuggets, average 2
Gold Boots, Leggings, Chestplate: 1 to 4 nuggets, average 2-3
Iron Helmet: 1 to 6 nuggets, average 3-4
Iron Boots: 1 to 7 nuggets, average 4
Iron Leggings: 1 to 8 nuggets, average 4-5
Shears: 1 to 8 nuggets, average 4-5
Iron Chestplate: 1 to 9 nuggets, average 5-6
Iron Tool: 1 to 9 nuggets, average 5-6
This would make recycling of tools and armor dropped by zombies and skeletons more reasonable, although it would still be time-intensive.
What does the new version offer compared to the Java version? I'm legitimately asking that as I don't really follow it or know. I do know it offers better performance supposedly, and then there's the new cross play, but what else?
I play both (but way more Java at the moment,) so I'll give a shot at answering.
It's primarily performance at the moment... but some of the performance boost comes from the fact that Bedrock, in particular the Windows 10 edition, is designed to run on phones. A decent computer says "Oh man, this is easy to run!" But the downside is that part of that boost is achieved through lower spawn rates and entity drops.
Take my position. I'm on Windows 7 (yes, I'm outdated partly on complacency but I am not ready to move to Windows 10 and prefer 7), so I can't use it without changing my entire environment anyway, no? I also have a massive world I play that I've spent over 5 years on and am so heavily invested in, it's more that I play Minecraft almost entirely this one world. I'm guessing that can't be converted?
It can't be converted right now. For one, Bedrock does not yet have all the blocks and items that Java has. For another, the map format (file structure) is different. Bedrock does not support NBT.
The upcoming Better Together Update is adding a lot of missing items, like banners and armor stands. Not sure if it's adding every missing entity, block, and item, but subjectively, it looks like it will catch up a lot.
Mojang announced that there would be converters for previous console versions. There's been a rumor that there's going to be a Java/Bedrock world converter, based on some screenshot, but not sure if that's true or not. If so, you would still lose some features. I don't understand all the details of redstone, since I don't use it much, but I understand there are differences in the way redstone works in both versions, like (I believe) no quasi-connectivity in Bedrock. So some redstone devices are not going to work or may need to be redesigned. Mob traps are not going to work the same, if only because of the reduced spawn rates, and the drop rates are lower, too.
I'm partial to a specific texture pack too, as well as my ability to freely edit it. Can I do that, or am I limited to a curated selection? I want anti-aliasing (and I mean real, multisample/supersample antialiasing, not this silly blurry FXAA stuff) and massive render distances. Yes, call me spoiled, but I want them. I like choosing my own skin and freely at my will. I honestly don't care that largely for most mods, but I do use one (changes visuals only, not gameplay). I'd lose that too, right?
I haven't explored all the technical details on what graphics are supported, because my vision isn't so sharp, anyways. But texture packs are easy to edit in Bedrock, and might even be identical or close in format to Java texture packs. I mean, I've never edited a Java texture pack, but I've edited a Bedrock one. It doesn't seem that hard.
I think some people have already ported their texture packs to Bedrock. Certainly, there are free texture packs available. In theory, you could get them from anywhere and just double-click the .mcpack file to install it into W10e.
Maximum render distance in Bedrock is 16 chunks at the moment, unfortunately. But I'm not part of the beta, so I don't know if this is increased in the BTU.
I use the same skin on both Java and Bedrock. The difference is that, when the skin servers are down, Java reverts to the Steve/Alex skin, while Bedrock stores your skin locally.
I rarely use mods on Java and have never used them on Bedrock, so I don't know the differences or what's available. I'm pretty certain the mods are not cross-compatible... You can't just copy a Java mod over to your W10e directory and get it to work. There may be some mods that have been recreated in Bedrock. One sort-of example is that the upcoming "Super Duper Graphics Update" or whatever it's called is basically just shaders and dynamic torch lighting, plus support for high-def textures. Basically, Optifine without all the features of Optifine. And as far as I know, that costs extra.
So, I'd say it's not worth it for you to switch to the Bedrock version, but if at some point you have to switch to Windows 10 for some other reason, the switch won't be too bad. I wouldn't tell you to give up the Java version, though, even if you can create a partial Bedrock conversion of your world.
Minecraft is the phenomenon it is because of the player community - the game developed along with vast input from thousands of us who felt involved in its evolution.
Tightening it down to highly-regulated and controlled, very limiting "add-ons" and authorised servers only, run by big corporations under very strict guidelines, kills all of that.
You do know that you can connect to any (Bedrock) server you want to, as long as you have the address, right? (See screenshot.)
You can also install any add-on you want, whether it comes from the marketplace or not. Just double click on the file. Unless you are complaining about the limitations of the JSON behavior files, which seems an odd thing to complain about, seeing as we only just got that feature.
And keep in mind that Bedrock is supposed to eventually get almost all the features of Java. Java just added Advancements and Functions, and in 1.13 those will be distributable in .mcpack format. When Bedrock gets Advancements and Functions, combined with the existing loot and behavior files, there will be some pretty amazing add-on possibilities.
I think it all boils down to money. I think the minority with the "keep it like it was in 2010" mindset want all the goodies they're used to remain free. They really don't care if the java edition goes away or not, as long as resource packs, worlds, etc. of the Bedrock editions are free. The idea of paying even a few bucks (even if it's worth it) brings screams of Doom and Gloom to the "2010" crowd, but the "2017" crowd gets that and to them, it's "normal". I've seen hundreds of posts about the virtues of the java version and every one of them always play the Free Card.
Like new cars (or anything else nowadays), you want options, you have to pay for them. You have to for every other game, why do you think MC should be any different?
Cause Mojang has spoiled the 2010ers, that's why. It's all about getting free stuff.
The 2010ers have enjoyed the "old" MC and it's way of doing things for 7 years now, and still can for the foreseeable future. What's the problem? They should be rejoicing that "their" edition isn't going away and that "their" goodies will still be free. Why should they care what happens in the Bedrock editions?
Sorry guys, but it's 2017 now. (Some of) MC is changing, evolving- as it should.
So?
I don't even think complaining about the lack of free stuff is valid. Because there is no lack of free stuff. If you bought/buy Java MC, you get MC W10e (Bedrock) for free. And there are free add-ons and maps available, even in the marketplace, but you don't even have to use the marketplace. You've lost nothing.
I think a lot of the complaints are from people who like having things to complain about. That's why they complain about something that hasn't happened and hasn't even been announced as a plan for the future. That's why they complain even even when people point out things aren't as dire as they believe. That's why they complain when people like TheMasterCaver point out you will still be able to play Minecraft even if Microsoft removes all the Java versions, as long as you've archived your preferred version(s). They don't care about Minecraft. They care about complaining.
If you are on the Win10 version instead of Android/iOS, you can right-click on an .mcpack file and open it with any unzip program, for example 7Zip. However, if you don't have an unzip program installed and want to use Windows Explorer, you have to do what Dieg_oh suggests and change the extension.
We're talking about a case of a company killing X as part of a strategy to make Y bigger. Let's say they can make Y 10% more profitable by doing something that deliberately hurts X. They know that X will lose 50% profit but die-hard fans will continue to support it no matter what the company does to it. If Y = 10x, that's a loss of 0.5X and a gain of 0.1Y. It's a net gain of 0.05Y or 0.5X. And I was using a weaker example to demonstrate how even a minor success in a potent market can make completely screwing over a dry market financially worthwhile. Many times these companies have done exactly that, sometimes for not even that big of a net gain, but just because they were confident there would be any gain at all. Apparently how we the players feel about it these changes isn't very important to them--most likely because the biggest money comes from kids who don't know the history of these games, and they've already stopped paying so much by the time they realize how to tell what isn't actually a good purchase.
No, the math is not wrong. X is the dollars from people who can't or won't buy the other product. In this case, Mac and Linux customers. Killing the product will not make those customers switch products. They cannot switch. Again, they aren't going to give up selling a product to customers unless it's actually costing too much to support that product, with very little gain.
And certainly, since we know they are spending more on the Java version than ever before -- and more than they are spending on Bedrock -- the evidence says they are not killing the Java version anytime soon. They will either (a) add microtransactions to Java, or (b) port Bedrock to Mac (but maybe not to Linux.) If they are not doing either of those things, and haven't even announce plans to do that, then the evidence says they aren't doing what you say they are going to do.
You can make up all the imaginary stories about what they will do in the future, as many stories as you want. But the evidence says otherwise.
75 million is a drop in the bucket compared to the potential profits from the microtransactions of the marketplace. For the amount of resources committed, it's a trivial amount. For the amount spent on buying Mojang, more so. Furthermore, the only profit the Java edition brings in after the point of sale is from Realms.
Let's explain it another way:
A company has two products, but some of their customers can't (or won't) use both products. X dollars is the amount of money spent yearly on Product 1 by people who don't buy Product 2.
The company adds microtransactions to Product 2. Let's say the potential profits from Product 2 microtransactions (Y dollars) is huge compared to the profits from Product 1. Total profits are X dollars + Y dollars.
The company now kills Product 1, because Y > X. Total profits are now (X + Y) -X, or Y dollars.
Is X+Y greater than Y? Would a company actually say "You know what? Screw that source of income. We want less money!"
The reason people called a lot of the posts in this thread "hysteria" is because it's all imagining worst-case scenarios while somehow overlooking the fact that Microsoft like money. Microsoft is not going to kill off one source of income just because another source of income makes more money. They want it ALL. The comical and poorly-informed discussion of Windows XP ignores the fact that Microsoft killed Windows XP support because (1) it was 8 years old, (2) the replacement (Vista) had been out for two years. No one was buying XP anymore, and it was costing Microsoft money to continue supporting it. It wasn't making a profit anymore.
When the Java version of Minecraft is making less money than it costs to support it, Microsoft will probably kill it off then. Or add microtransactions to get money, since there's nothing really stopping them from doing that. It's too early to say "Minecraft Java is going to die" when we haven't seen a failed attempt to add microtransactions. And it's certainly too early to say it's going to die when they just hired more devs for the Java team. If they are spending more money on Java, that means they think they'll make money from Java, which means they aren't planning to kill it.
Years from now? Maybe. But why kill all fun enjoyment now because you're fretting over something that may or may not happen in the distant future?
2
Explorer's maps -- the ones used to find woodland mansions -- always have a dot, as far as I know... but ordinary maps only have the dot if you are close enough to the area. They will show the dot along an edge or in a corner if you are off the map, but still close enough. The wiki claims the map marker will simply be smaller if you are more than 320 blocks per zoom level from the center of the map, but I have made many, many maps and gotten lost when I went too far away from the map area.
0
I don't think I've ever seen one in straight survival play. Can't be because of an absence of lightning, because I've encountered quite a few skeleton horsemen.
I played a couple worlds using dungeon generators (MCDungeon, Tyrus Woo's Game Changer.) Those do occasionally add creeper spawners, and I've seen some charged creepers that way.
1
I kind of doubt that. The Better Together Update doesn't offer anything unique except for three things:
Behavior packs really aren't a selling point yet, except as a component of custom maps in the Market Place. And the Market Place, as endless, bitter threads have reminded us, sells things. No one is going to pay extra for the ability to spend more money.
That leaves crossplatform play, which is only a selling point when there's lots of people to play with. It's actually a selling point to make the cross-platform game available for free to those buying the more expensive Java version, because it encourages more people to get involved in cross-platform play.
What they are more likely to do is to raise the price of the Java version a little, to cover the cost of both products.
0
Yes. Just look at the page where you buy it:
https://minecraft.net/en-us/store/?ref=m
0
I thought it was settled that the most efficient method is 11-block spacing for the passageways and 1-block high pokeholes spaced two blocks apart along each passage?
0
I've had it a couple times. It's certainly rarer than just a stronghold, but I don't think it's all that rare.
Since I love exploring both mine shafts and strongholds, I think these are great.
0
The basic idea isn't that great, because it's already in the game. If you make a map and then make copies of that map and place the copies in item frames at various locations, they will show up as markers on the map. I used this to mark villages on a zoomed map. It does seem to have problems if you have more than three markers on the map, though.
The only part of your idea that is different is using the different shaped markers that are used in explorer maps for woodland mansions and ocean monuments. Not sure if we really need an extra block or item, just for that one feature. Might be interesting to rename an item frame so that any map placed in the frame will change its marker based on the name of the frame.
0
The problem with new dimensions is that there's really not a whole lot of reason to make one. You can't just add a dimension to make a new place to go find stuff, or have a fight with a new boss. You could add a new biome feature for that, the way ocean monuments and woodland mansions were added. If you wanted rubies added to the game, you could just added some new blocks and items, then add a chance for ruby ore vein pockets to spawn in certain biomes.
What makes a dimension worth adding is a radically new terrain type or new laws of physics. The End has floating islands in the void (new terrain type.) The Nether has lava everywhere, no water, and water poured from a bucket evaporates immediately (new terrain and new laws of physics.) The terrain and physics changes need to come first, then other ideas like new ores or mobs can be added to fit into the concept. That's why there won't be a sky dimension: it would just be another End, and we already have The End. It would add nothing new to the experience.
So what are you going to do differently to make your new dimension feel worth it?
0
I'm fine with iron nuggets because I see it more as a completionist thing. Gold nuggets exist, and 9 gold nuggets = 1 gold ingot, so why not make iron nuggets and iron ingots as a parallel structure?
Iron nugget recipes would be interesting (maybe change the tripwire hook to use iron nuggets instead of ingots?) But all I really want is for the smelting ratios to be better, for both iron and gold tools. It's probably too much effort to have a separate smelting recipe for every iron and gold tool, but if it went by durability and was slightly random, that would be reasonable. Make it so that smelting an undamaged tool or armor returns 1 gold or iron nugget + 0 to 1 nuggets per 30 durability. Yield would be:
This would make recycling of tools and armor dropped by zombies and skeletons more reasonable, although it would still be time-intensive.
2
I play both (but way more Java at the moment,) so I'll give a shot at answering.
It's primarily performance at the moment... but some of the performance boost comes from the fact that Bedrock, in particular the Windows 10 edition, is designed to run on phones. A decent computer says "Oh man, this is easy to run!" But the downside is that part of that boost is achieved through lower spawn rates and entity drops.
It can't be converted right now. For one, Bedrock does not yet have all the blocks and items that Java has. For another, the map format (file structure) is different. Bedrock does not support NBT.
The upcoming Better Together Update is adding a lot of missing items, like banners and armor stands. Not sure if it's adding every missing entity, block, and item, but subjectively, it looks like it will catch up a lot.
Mojang announced that there would be converters for previous console versions. There's been a rumor that there's going to be a Java/Bedrock world converter, based on some screenshot, but not sure if that's true or not. If so, you would still lose some features. I don't understand all the details of redstone, since I don't use it much, but I understand there are differences in the way redstone works in both versions, like (I believe) no quasi-connectivity in Bedrock. So some redstone devices are not going to work or may need to be redesigned. Mob traps are not going to work the same, if only because of the reduced spawn rates, and the drop rates are lower, too.
I haven't explored all the technical details on what graphics are supported, because my vision isn't so sharp, anyways. But texture packs are easy to edit in Bedrock, and might even be identical or close in format to Java texture packs. I mean, I've never edited a Java texture pack, but I've edited a Bedrock one. It doesn't seem that hard.
I think some people have already ported their texture packs to Bedrock. Certainly, there are free texture packs available. In theory, you could get them from anywhere and just double-click the .mcpack file to install it into W10e.
Maximum render distance in Bedrock is 16 chunks at the moment, unfortunately. But I'm not part of the beta, so I don't know if this is increased in the BTU.
I use the same skin on both Java and Bedrock. The difference is that, when the skin servers are down, Java reverts to the Steve/Alex skin, while Bedrock stores your skin locally.
I rarely use mods on Java and have never used them on Bedrock, so I don't know the differences or what's available. I'm pretty certain the mods are not cross-compatible... You can't just copy a Java mod over to your W10e directory and get it to work. There may be some mods that have been recreated in Bedrock. One sort-of example is that the upcoming "Super Duper Graphics Update" or whatever it's called is basically just shaders and dynamic torch lighting, plus support for high-def textures. Basically, Optifine without all the features of Optifine. And as far as I know, that costs extra.
So, I'd say it's not worth it for you to switch to the Bedrock version, but if at some point you have to switch to Windows 10 for some other reason, the switch won't be too bad. I wouldn't tell you to give up the Java version, though, even if you can create a partial Bedrock conversion of your world.
0
You do know that you can connect to any (Bedrock) server you want to, as long as you have the address, right? (See screenshot.)
You can also install any add-on you want, whether it comes from the marketplace or not. Just double click on the file. Unless you are complaining about the limitations of the JSON behavior files, which seems an odd thing to complain about, seeing as we only just got that feature.
And keep in mind that Bedrock is supposed to eventually get almost all the features of Java. Java just added Advancements and Functions, and in 1.13 those will be distributable in .mcpack format. When Bedrock gets Advancements and Functions, combined with the existing loot and behavior files, there will be some pretty amazing add-on possibilities.
1
I don't even think complaining about the lack of free stuff is valid. Because there is no lack of free stuff. If you bought/buy Java MC, you get MC W10e (Bedrock) for free. And there are free add-ons and maps available, even in the marketplace, but you don't even have to use the marketplace. You've lost nothing.
I think a lot of the complaints are from people who like having things to complain about. That's why they complain about something that hasn't happened and hasn't even been announced as a plan for the future. That's why they complain even even when people point out things aren't as dire as they believe. That's why they complain when people like TheMasterCaver point out you will still be able to play Minecraft even if Microsoft removes all the Java versions, as long as you've archived your preferred version(s). They don't care about Minecraft. They care about complaining.
0
If you are on the Win10 version instead of Android/iOS, you can right-click on an .mcpack file and open it with any unzip program, for example 7Zip. However, if you don't have an unzip program installed and want to use Windows Explorer, you have to do what Dieg_oh suggests and change the extension.
0
No, the math is not wrong. X is the dollars from people who can't or won't buy the other product. In this case, Mac and Linux customers. Killing the product will not make those customers switch products. They cannot switch. Again, they aren't going to give up selling a product to customers unless it's actually costing too much to support that product, with very little gain.
And certainly, since we know they are spending more on the Java version than ever before -- and more than they are spending on Bedrock -- the evidence says they are not killing the Java version anytime soon. They will either (a) add microtransactions to Java, or (b) port Bedrock to Mac (but maybe not to Linux.) If they are not doing either of those things, and haven't even announce plans to do that, then the evidence says they aren't doing what you say they are going to do.
You can make up all the imaginary stories about what they will do in the future, as many stories as you want. But the evidence says otherwise.
0
Let's explain it another way:
A company has two products, but some of their customers can't (or won't) use both products. X dollars is the amount of money spent yearly on Product 1 by people who don't buy Product 2.
The company adds microtransactions to Product 2. Let's say the potential profits from Product 2 microtransactions (Y dollars) is huge compared to the profits from Product 1. Total profits are X dollars + Y dollars.
The company now kills Product 1, because Y > X. Total profits are now (X + Y) -X, or Y dollars.
Is X+Y greater than Y? Would a company actually say "You know what? Screw that source of income. We want less money!"
The reason people called a lot of the posts in this thread "hysteria" is because it's all imagining worst-case scenarios while somehow overlooking the fact that Microsoft like money. Microsoft is not going to kill off one source of income just because another source of income makes more money. They want it ALL. The comical and poorly-informed discussion of Windows XP ignores the fact that Microsoft killed Windows XP support because (1) it was 8 years old, (2) the replacement (Vista) had been out for two years. No one was buying XP anymore, and it was costing Microsoft money to continue supporting it. It wasn't making a profit anymore.
When the Java version of Minecraft is making less money than it costs to support it, Microsoft will probably kill it off then. Or add microtransactions to get money, since there's nothing really stopping them from doing that. It's too early to say "Minecraft Java is going to die" when we haven't seen a failed attempt to add microtransactions. And it's certainly too early to say it's going to die when they just hired more devs for the Java team. If they are spending more money on Java, that means they think they'll make money from Java, which means they aren't planning to kill it.
Years from now? Maybe. But why kill all fun enjoyment now because you're fretting over something that may or may not happen in the distant future?