Minecraft Forums

an. . . interesting idea. but i have to say to much work for not enough gameplay. let the modders figure it out.

please elaborate, does it give an error? if your having problems with this i would imagine you would have the same problems with a server built into the client.

you already can do this? i used to run my server on the same computer i ran the game on. just connect to the local loopback (127.0.0.1) and bam, your on a local server. friends come over and connect over your local lan to your local ip. or am i not really understanding what your asking?

see, the problem with "just make it an option" is that you now have two branches of the game that you have to maintain, the one using the files system for saves, and the one using the database. every time you change something in one, you have to duplicate the change in the other. maintaining to I/O streams is counterproductive.

can you provide a link to that info? i will change the OP if it can be verified.

would some of the "no" voter please respond? I would love to know why you don't think this should be changed. . .

minecraft is about three things in my opinion: survival, exploration, and building. those three core areas need to be expanded on, as the game is a little on the light side right now. there are a lot of suggestions that do seem like they would detract from those core ideas, suggestions that want to turn mincraft into a fps for example, but i think the vast majority of suggestions just want to expand on those three basic concepts.

your having other problems if you cant copy a world. and while a database system would help solve certain issues, it would create far more, such as having to install a database, and procure the rights to use it for every user. using the file system to manage files works, there is no need to upgrade to a database.

i currently have a mp world that has 30k files and is 85 megs in size, it takes about 10 min to back up, running on an old xp gaming rig.

posted many times before, please use search.

i am against this idea. here is why: On suggesting new block types.

thanks, spell checker does not check the subject line I guess -__-

I noticed a lot of people suggest random block types, sometimes just to provide atmosphere to their suggestion. I would ask people please remember that the current game engine is limited to 256 block types, so there is a limit to what can be added to the game content wise.

If your idea can be accomplished without adding a new block, or can reuse and existing block please structure your idea to do so, as this will increase the space available for other ideas to be implemented. If your idea can already be implemented in game with existing blocks, no matter how clumsily, ask yourself if it is worth it to take up a limited block slot just to make it "nicer."

In the event that your idea cannot function without a new block type try to make sure that new block is as flexible as possible, and has many opportunities to be used elsewhere, and does not simply duplicate existing game objects. keep in mind that you are using up valuable slots that might be able to go to better uses.

As far as I am aware this limit does not apply to inventory items.

a list of current block types can be found here

Edit: In response to Aumir, block types are stored as 8 bit values, hence the 256 limit. Item types seem to be stored as at least 12 bit values, possibly (probably) 16 bit. so either 4096 (12 bit) or 65536 (16 bit). Either way we are not going to hit the item limit anywhere near as fast as we will hit the block limit.

I'm going to have to be the killjoy here. the problem with this idea is that there are a limited number of block slots available (256 i think), and Notch does not want to just fill them up with anything. a fish tank can already be created by existing blocks in game, and when fish mobs are added, and there is a way to make mobs not despawn, having fish in your fish-tank will be possible. granted the smallest fish-tank now possible is 3x3x2, with one block of water in it, but id rater have that and another type of ore than a fish-tank block.

if you look here you can see that there are already 91 block types, and while a few of those are probably gong to get culled out (notch is discussing ways to make all colored cloth one block type) i think it would be a good idea to only suggest new block types if it is not possible to get the idea in-game already, even if its current in game implementation is clunky.

when making future posts about block types, please consider only suggestion block types that are as wide a use as possible, and cant already be implemented in game.

I'm all for adding more thing to the underground, but this was more like a quick fix idea to make clay more abundant. I'm not saying it cant be "all dirt is clay 10 levels under sea level" but for now i think the fastest way to solve the clay shortage is to just make all dirt veins clay. if there is a dirt vein method, or if dirt is just an argument in a generic vein method the only change to the code needed should be a simple swap of dirt to clay. I'm hoping this is literally a few minute fix max.

the next time stuff gets added to the underground or something like cave abundance gets tweaked would be a good time to actually go in and make some interesting changes to mineral abundance.

there needs to be a surrealism slider and a biome size slider for the very basic one, and perhaps an advanced mode with stuff like average temperature, average rainfall, and average roughness. that way you can bias your world towards certain biomes, but you still get a random world.

i really want a surrealism slider though, i miss ll the crazy floaty island and mountain arches and stuff. they are just way to rare now.

are there any plans to implement control over map generation in vanilla?