Minetest_game: [Discussion] Development direction
Minetest Game is as of now the only game that is bundled with Minetest. Thus, it should be made attractive to newcomers (actually, I would say that Minetest Game needs to be developped more, and that making a basic game is for minimal). Now, looking at what most newcomers want:
- [ ] Mobs. This is the highest one on the list, but also the most problematic one. So we should decide what we want to add - but it should be lightweight (so no abm over air or things like that); while for them to be fun enough, there should be some variety (maybe at least 2 peaceful mobs and 2 hostile @ones).
- [ ] Mapgen
- [ ] More underground variety - #1944
- [x] More biomes - Right now, mapgen, is a bit boring (only 4 biomes...), so more biomes and biome-specific resources would make the game more interesting; it would also make the player travel a bit more.
- [x] Ambient/environmental sounds - to make the world seem more alive. Needs engine improvements.
- [x] Weather - Needs engine improvements
- [ ] Craft guide - #1435
- [x] Faster way to travel - Well, if the player has to travel, some way that is quick would be really useful - either teleportation devices or mods such as carts (I prefer the latter because it requires some infrastructure, and because the longer the distance, the more expensive it is).
- [ ] Objectives - Right now, Minetest Game has no objectives - even surviving is easy since there is almost nothing that can kill you (just lava and falls). Objectives would be a key point to make gameplay more interesting.
- [ ] Automation / Circuits - I'm _not_ saying we should include mesecons or pipeworks - but perhaps some parts of at least mesecons (just the basic things - the pressure plate + door combination is used by many players)
Ekdohibs
All 190 comments
Mgv5/v7 will soon have 8 biomes including a sandstone biome and dunes where sand and grasses overlap. I could happily add more biomes but these require many new nodes and i encounter resistence from the MTGame team to any new nodes (for example see the freshwater/riverwater discussion).
We could add savanna with Acacia trees and the red wood items (see watershed/paragenv7/riverdev) I was actually trying to keep the new biome system fairly simple and 'Minetest classic' as i got the impression that is what is wanted (i was wrong).
paramat
on 14 May 2015
About mobs: Yes, please, they have to be of higher quality though than current mobs. What I've seen with current mobs is that we need better way to highlight them (the current frames look bad, mobs are no blocks), they need better models (they look ugly), and better behaviour. Some are engine issues, some can be done by the game.
About quick travel: I'd like to have carts too, because teleporters can affect gameplay too much, but currently they are subject to lag, which makes all current carts horrible. Carts would therefore either require client side scripting or native support by clients. I also don't like with carts that there is no way to accelerate/decelerate them once you're in them. It would be cool to have a break and some manual acceleration mechanism. Also it would be great to be abled to decide which way you want to pass a switch from inside the cart (I know this doesn't match reality, but it would give at least some control over carts).
About goals: goals aren't what minetest is about, are they?
est31
on 15 May 2015
Minimal game is too minimal for a basic game, so MTGame is the basic game, it is is developed too far we would just need to create a new basic game to take it's place. Some more development of MTGame is good but we really need a variety of subgames.
C++ mob infrastructure may be needed to reduce their load and lagginess on lua. Mobs should be optional (but perhaps on by default) as many don't want combat.
I feel Minetest Game should not have a goal, that can be left to more specialised subgames. It's more about open-ended exploration and building, and if mobs are present, survival. The 'End' of MC was a mistake that seems out of place and seems a decision made under the mainstream pressure and assumption that a goal is needed.
paramat
on 15 May 2015
/me applauds.
About number 4, I agree that carts are a good option. One of the things about minecraft is, you don't have to build everything in one building. You can, but it's fun to build lots of things like a brewing station and enchanting table/library, In minetest the only method of crafting is the furnace. Even with a crafting table, you can still build special places to contain them in minecraft. In minetest you really don't have any reason to build. So by adding minecarts, you can build a whole new line of buildings, train stations, train manufacturing stations, T-junctions, etc.
About mobs, we just need a C++ API!!!! Everything would go about 20 times faster.
Minetest should have a Goal, that way there is a REASON to build buildings and kill mobs. Without the thought of having bragging rights for having killing the over-powered ender dragon. Otherwise, people just parkour around and such. You know that server feeling you get when you feel like you have nothing to do? You just parkour around spawn? Yeah, that happens without goals.
C1ffisme
on 15 May 2015
Minetest should have a Goal, that way there is a REASON to build buildings and kill mobs.
I don't think Minetest Game should be a game with a goal. Not only people would stop playing when they reach it, but Minetest Game should be a game designed to make players discover the nodes, the biomes, and the environment of the world. If you want a specific goal, then I think it must be included in a second subgame. However, if you talk about some specific goals, they might be included with some specific settings and modifications in the actual subgame : enabling damages could trigger a timer and a list about players that have stood alive the longest, creative would enable some building achivements, an so on.
Lymkwi
on 16 May 2015
@LeMagnesium Haven't you ever played Minecraft before? I defeated the ender dragon and I still play it. I built a security room for my dragon egg.
Maybe we could add goals.
C1ffisme
on 16 May 2015
@C1ffisme , I never played MineCraft before. And if I reach the goal, I assume I have finished the game.
Lymkwi
on 16 May 2015
Concerning mgv6 biomes, there are now 5 with snowbiomes enabled: tundra, taiga, normal, desert and jungle. The original addition of hot biomes split into hot dry and hot wet is now mirrored by the addition of cold biomes split into cold dry and cold wet. The system is nicely balanced and complete and i feel should not be expnded due to the simple classic character of mgv6. Because mgv6 is complex and hardcoded adding more biomes is complex work.
The biome API of mgv5/v7/v8/fractal is however ideal for adding more biomes. I will soon be making biomes larger by increasing the noise 'spreads' of heat and humidity noises, the noise 'spreads' of the flora are also twice as big as in mgv6, both these will encourage more travelling.
I support adding carts as default, perhaps after some further optimisation work.
paramat
on 18 May 2015
After having played with Minetest for some two years now I am convinced that the default game of Minetest should indeed not be based on reaching a big hardcoded goal.
Rather it should be made easy for a subgame to define such a goal. A model use case might be the idea of providing Minetest as a tool for education. As such it should be made easy for a teacher to quickly define a mission for the class and as any good tool, with little effort, adjusted to an unlimited number of new goals. I guess basic for this would be some easily configured achievement system. Indeed many things useful for teachers could be of benefit for other server admins and game designers.
What the default game could or maybe even should provide for a singleplayer is some sort of crafting guide and achievement tree that leads the player through all aspects of the game. This could include producing materials that include several levels of crafting, coaxing the player to search and visit every kind of biome and introducing the player to farming. So maybe the default game could act as an extension of the tutorial focused more on the gameplay once the player knows how to jump and punch. Of course if the player just wishes to "live" in his world and do whatever pleases him he should not be molested by some forced gameplay focused on achieving certain goals. I played mc quite intensive for over a year before switching to mt and I pretty soon turned of the hostile mobs and never searched for any dragons on pillars and guess what, I still very much enjoyed playing the game my way - just exploring, farming and above all building. There are many ways to enjoy a game.
What I once said as ironic almost sarcastic comment doesn't appear to me as such an unrealistic goal anymore:
IRC-2013-07-03
"so you want some random gameplay gain by generating a random map with a random danger to suit every random player to get some random game depth? ... we need some random genius then."
Minetest boasts to be just an engine that anybody can easily use to build whatever game suits him. If this is indeed the major goal then work should be put into making this easier and games that show good ideas should be featured more prominently.
twoelk
on 19 May 2015
Some way to travel quickly.
Just increase movement speed. We can set it to 4.5 (and 1.5 when sneaking) just fine.
I, however, definitely agree that we need _lightweight_ mobs. Simple Mobs is quite suited to this, it might even be added as-is with some fixes.
Calinou
on 19 May 2015
Please be very careful with mobs, because currently, most mob mobs are a horrible mess:
- Duplicated APIs
- Duplicated Mobs
- Inconsistent and thus incompatible APIs
- Almost everyone thinks he/she must now fork the entire mob mod, including API and mobs
- There are almost no “pure” APIs, that is, APIs which concentrate on being APIs and are not cluttered by pre-installed mobs. The only “pure” API I know is Mob API [mobapi] by Casimir.
- You can not combine almost any of the mob mods
This mess is mostly to be explained by total clumsiness and total disregard for compability from mob mod makers. I can't think of another explanation.
So, if you include any mob mod, you need to be aware that the subgame is now de-facto barred from being combined by the player with another mob mod from the community. A player can not simply load another mob mod, because most mob mobs are incompatible. Unless the modding community somehow decides to clean up this mess.
But you could also decide to make Minetest Game a “complete” game but then drop the goal of extensibility then, so you accept the incompability with other mob mods.
But another problem would be server operators. I bet they would instantly hate if such a change is done, because such a change would almost certainly break current heavily modded Minetest Game servers.
To the “goal” thing I want to add: What I would like to see are more hazards to the game, not neccessarily mobs. Something like traps or whatever. But hazards would not be enough. Survival is also way too easy. You can easily keep your health high by just stockpiling 100s of apples and breads. This is possible because they instantly and directly heal you and those items are also relatively cheap.
So at the end of the day, the main question boils down to:
Do you want to throw away compability and stability in favor of gameplay, or do you want to be more “conservative”?
Wuzzy2
on 20 May 2015
We'll should chose (or write) one API with good design, and then all mobs mods have to use that.
And forking is bad behaviour, yes.
I think this isn't a signal to stop and let things solve themselves, if they ever will, but to start making a solution. If there is a good mob api, perhaps mobs mods will use that.
You see a catastrophy where none is. Heavily modded servers usually have very skilled modders, who will know how to adapt their infrastructure to the new API.
est31
on 20 May 2015
Est31, you obviously have never attempted to create a subgame with multiple mob mobs. You will quickly run into many problems, some obvious, a few of them subtle (of the sort “why the hell does mob XYZ disappear when I include mod A?”).
Anyways, finding a API with good design sounds challenging. I have already mentioned Casimir's Mob API. It's nice and simple, but clearly not the most feature-rich API out there. Other APIs are much more powerful, but sadly also much more cluttered with mobs, so it should be decided which mobs to keep and which to throw away. Seperating mobs from the API should also be considered, if this is needed.
To be clear: I am not against mobs in Minetest Game, I am actually in favor of them. I just said such a step should be done with care. Unless you want to screw (backwards) compability, in which case (almost) everything is allowed. ;-)
Wuzzy2
on 20 May 2015
Yes, of course, doing things carefully is very important. I guess one can chose an API that doesn't negatively influence compatibility issues.
est31
on 20 May 2015
@Wuzzy2 About mobs, most are created by one person, and get forked and model creativity gets mixed. However, if one or two people did the modeling, some did the coding and others did the artwork, than we might have better mobs. And we should have rules, like no using polygons, just cubes.
C1ffisme
on 22 May 2015
Just increase movement speed. We can set it to 4.5 (and 1.5 when sneaking) just fine.
No, we should remain at 4 nodes/s.
1 node = 1 m.
4 nodes/s corresponds to 14.4 km/h.
4.5 nodes/s corresponds to 16.2 km/h (!).
The human walking speed is averagely at 4-5 km/h.
kilbith
on 23 May 2015
@kilbith: Minetest Game does _not_ have one goal for sure, and that is realism. Therefore, your argument is invalid. You should more argue from a gameplay perspective. Also, the “1 node = 1 m” rule seems to be pretty nonsense and arbitrary anyways, Minetest Game apple trees are only 4 or 5 m high, leaves start a 2 m above the ground, Sam is 2 m high, etc., etc., etc. But as I said, realism is not a goal.
Wuzzy2
on 23 May 2015
Sam is 1m75 (average human male height) compared next to 2 nodes stacked (considering 1 node = 1m). Apple's trees are culminating at 6-7 m, so yeah it's realistic and not arbitrary.
As for a pure gameplay standpoint (although realism has a role in there), better keep 4 nodes/s for walking and grant "fast" priv by default (with a reduced speed) and the addition of a stroke movement like in MC. 4.5 nodes/s with the current "fast" is just unplayable.
kilbith
on 23 May 2015
One of the main things about a game is that it has a puzzle, hidden by a metaphor or story. Every game is just a puzzle that you need to solve. Think of a strategy game. It's basically just a puzzle you have to solve, but covered up by the story of nations battling for control. And usually, but not always, the puzzle is what makes the game fun.
In Minetest, there isn't a puzzle. There isn't anything to solve.
Let's ask some "Why?"s.
Why should I build a house?
There aren't any mobs!
Why should I build an animal pen?
There isn't any animals.
Why should I build a city?
There are no NPCs.
Why should I build at all?
There aren't any goals to achieve or uses for my buildings.
Why should I mine?
There isn't any constructions for my materials to build.
Why should I play?
There isn't anything to do.
See, let's look at Minecraft for a minute.
Why should I build a house?
Because it's getting closer and closer to night and you need protective shelter.
Why should I build an animal pen?
Because it turns out that you need to eat. Animals are one of the few ways to get a hot meal on the table, plus you could use a bonus leather or wool to make books and beds.
Why should I build a city?
Because NPC's can inhabit it, and you can fill the city up with brewing bars, washers (cauldrons), farms, etc.
Why should I build at all?
There are plenty of reasons to build. Including using each building to get to a goal like defeating the ender dragon or a wither. I find it fun to build places specifically for just one kind of crafting, like making bricks, even though the basic needs (a furnace) are found in almost every other building.
Why should I mine?
Because you can't just pull these resources out of nowhere! You need to put some effort into getting them!
Why should I play at all?
Because there is so much to do! Want to mine in an underground and challenge yourself to how much cobble you can get? Go ahead! Want to fight a LOT of mobs? Take a sword and some armor and have fun!
Okay let's look more closely at the reasons. The first three obviously require mobs. Since in most games, you aren't alone. It's fun to capture and breed mobs, it's almost like a mini-game where you take care of a pet. And no mater what your life is like, everyone likes to fight things. It's human nature. If it wasn't, shooter games wouldn't be a thing. So fighting zombies and skeletons provides the fun thing people naturally like. And NPCs? Some people like to talk or help other people. It's fun for them to build new things for NPCs like houses and trade with them.
But now, let's look at the fourth one. The fourth reason for Minecraft says that there are many options for building. See, you can build big buildings just for brewing. Imagine a potion factory with a hundred brewing stations going on at the same time! In Minetest, though, there is only one kind of non-player crafting. The furnace. See, even in Minecraft you could build a stair crafting station, because of the crafting table. But not in Minetest. In Minetest, you can craft basically EVERYTHING from your inventory. And because of that, you only need to craft one furnace because you don't need to make space for other things like cauldrons and enchanting tables. Here's an idea: In Minetest, we should add some new methods of crafting or upgrading. For example: Tinkering Tables (Like enchanting tables, but you can add new technologies), Grills or another method of cooking (Make tastier and more hunger satisfying food), Mill Grinders (Grind wheat to make flour), Alloy furnaces (Pretty obvious, right?), etc. That way you can build Research labs, Kitchens, Mills, and Factories. Plenty of things to make right? And by adding things like weather or mobs or airplanes, you can build Traps and Weather Radars and even Airports!
See, about the fifth reason, one of the things about mining currently is that there isn't a lot to mine. See, if people are looking for diamond, they get bored really fast. What I suggest is that we add a whole new line of ores. People love to discover new things. They like to read the news and magazines. We can keep people interested if they keep discovering new ores. People could explore the land more if we added trees or generated cities!
The last reason is pretty obvious. We should play if we can do all those things. However, another thing to note is that even with all these things to do, people may still prefer Minecraft. We've already seen this, since even with technic on servers, most people don't do a lot there isn't much to do. So, one of the things about Minecraft is that it has a goal. You kill mobs and breed animals to work towards your goal. Maybe it isn't always fighting the ender dragon. Maybe you are on a server and you want to become one of the most popular, powerful players on the server. Maybe you are in singleplayer and you want to build a giant metropolis in survival mode. I think if we can achieve some of the reasons I mentioned, Minetest will become more challenging and more fun. Because if we go back to puzzles and metaphors, the thing is that a more challenging puzzle will be more fun to do. Adding new rules to the puzzle like mobs to fight and hunger will make the puzzle harder to solve, which makes it fun.
So, this is a really long post, isn't it?
C1ffisme
on 28 May 2015
I agree a lot with your 5th point. Not only isn't there a lot to mine in Minetest Game, but the entire ground is pretty monotonous. Almost everything is stone with rare exceptions being desert stone (only at surface level), cobblestone and mossy cobblestone (only in dungeons). Minetest Game does not play around with different and harder stones. It basically all boils just down how long you take until you hit diamond. This is not really difficult, it just takes some time, the only danger is lava which can only happen to you if you are very careless at mining. ;)
Also, the mining levels are pretty unbalanced. IIRC you only need a steel pickaxe and you are already able to dig anything except cloud (which can't be dug anyways). Even the diamond block is broken by a steel pickaxe. The better tools just do it faster.
So the digging thing has no real sense of progression either.
But this is a general problem with Minetest Game. What you are talking here about is “depth” (game development term). Minetest Game has a low depth because there is simply not that much to explore and discover. Eventually, you will have discovered everything which can be discovered (all blocks and crafts), from which point the game will repeat. The fact that the map is automatically generated is great, but Minetest's Game generated maps still feel way too repetitive after a while; while nothing is actually the same, everything looks the same, especially when you have seen the 10000th desert, the 500000 jungle tree etc.
But the real question is whether it is actually desired by the developers to turn Minetest Game into a game or leave it as a sandbox as it is now. As a sandbox, Minetest Game does kinda okay, but there's always room for more stuff.
Oh, and please stop refering to games as “puzzles”. While this is not false, since all games are also puzzles (because they have a goal), this does the games unjustice. There are 2 fundamental differences between games and puzzles, and that is a) games have non-trivial challenges and b) games have meaningful decisions.
Wuzzy2
on 29 May 2015
Puzzle is more of just a word. You could think of other ways to describe it. Problem, situation, challenge, etc.
I see the difference. Because a puzzle like sudoku has one solution, a game has several methods of winning. For example, you could win a strategy game with a huge force, or make a small strike force disctract the army and take over the city / capture the flag / whatever.
Also, does minetest have any meaningful decisions?
About repetitivity, I agree. Maybe minetest should randomly generate new kinds of biomes, with a mix of generate-able blocks (different types of dirt and sand, stone, many plants and vegetables, etc.)
See, one of the things about Minecraft and Terraria is their high depth. There are so many things to do with your life in those games...
C1ffisme
on 29 May 2015
By the way Wuzzy, about mob mods, we should make our own API from scratch. A clean, smooth start.
minetest.register_mob(name,def)
minetest.register_aem(def) (Might help for growing mobs into other mobs or on-chance entity events.)
C1ffisme
on 29 May 2015
Just a thought to ponder, when I play minecraft, I tend to find it fun to play in survival when I'm alone. But when I start an LAN server, I find it fun to play with friends. Why?
Why is it fun to play survival alone?
- Griefers. That's a no-brainer.
- It's hard.
- When you work on hard, thought-out projects like building giant houses, you usually want them safe and sound on your own private worlds.
Why is it fun to play creative with others?
- I think that generally people want to show off their creativity in multiplayer. They can show off how good they are at building stuff.
- There isn't too much effort in building in creative mode. It's real easy, and unless greifers have TNT, you're pretty safe.
- In singleplayer, creative feels boring and empty. You feel like nothing's happening.
Also, I play minecraft a lot, but sometimes I feel like playing a strategy game like Age of Empires. So I play that and then after only a couple days I want to go back to Minecraft. Why? Age of Empires has strategy and such, but Minecraft has creativity. So one possible development direction is to make this a voxel strategy game! You could lead armies, build cool buildings, and all that!
C1ffisme
on 5 Jun 2015
Just a thought to ponder, when I play minecraft,
It seems to me like all your arguments are based on your minecraft experience... So, just remember that Minetest != MineCraft. Even the community and the players are different..
Lymkwi
on 5 Jun 2015
@paramat
We could add savanna with Acacia trees and the red wood items (see watershed/paragenv7/riverdev)
Seeing this video, I'm all for this biome in MTG.
kilbith
on 7 Jun 2015
MTG team let me know about savanna, now is the time to add it while i'm still working on the biome system. I'm going to sink some rainforest into water to create occasional swamps too.
paramat
on 7 Jun 2015
@LeMagnesium Minetest != Minecraft, but we unfortunately are ~= (partially equal) to Minecraft. We are based off of it. We are a clone of it.
Just not pulling features from minecraft is trying to cheaply deny the fact that we are a clone. We have just about the same basic type of game. So why don't we at least try to copy it without directly copying it. We don't have to make ender dragons and redstone, but if there is one thing we need to copy from minecraft, it's fun.
Because the truth is, I haven't played minetest for a while. It's hard to get into a world without quitting. It's just not fun. If we don't know how to make a fun game without any copying, then copy.
Also, we technically aren't copying minecraft by adding a goal. We are making the game into an actual, well, game.
And minecraft has been most of my life for the past few months, so I don't really have anything else to compare against. If I had been playing Call of Duty for the past few months, my suggestions would include guns and violence.
C1ffisme
on 8 Jun 2015
@C1ffisme Minetest is not based off of Minecraft. However, they are
relatively similar. The question is whether the dev team want to make
Minetest more for the mass market of kids (who usually can't pay for
Minecraft) or as a fun game that the developers of the Minetest community
like to play and code :P
And as a note, there is an achievements mod which I think would be great
for a goal added in Minetest.
On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:16 PM, C1ffisme [email protected] wrote:
@LeMagnesium https://github.com/LeMagnesium Minetest != Minecraft, but
we unfortunately are ~= (partially equal) to Minecraft. We are based off of
it. We are a clone of it.Just not pulling features from minecraft is trying to cheaply deny the
fact that we are a clone. We have just about the same basic level of game.
So why don't we at least try to copy it without directly copying it. We
don't have to make ender dragons and redstone, but if there is one thing we
need to copy from minecraft, it's _fun_.Because the truth is, I haven't played minetest for a while. It's hard to
get into a world without quitting. It's just not _fun_. If we don't know
how to make a fun game without any copying, then copy.Also, we technically aren't copying minecraft by adding a goal. We are
making the game into an actual, well, game.And minecraft has been most of my life for the past few months, so I don't
really have anything else to compare against. If I had been playing Call of
Duty for the past few months, my suggestions would include guns and
violence.—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/515#issuecomment-109820200
.
nanepiwo
on 8 Jun 2015
@nanepiwo :
Minetest.net:
Minetest is an infinite-world block sandbox game and a game engine, inspired by InfiniMiner, Minecraft and the like.
Yes! An achievements mod! That would be great. (Though we still need the features to have them... :P)
C1ffisme
on 8 Jun 2015
I'm adding savanna to the biome system, thanks for the encouragement, with more research on biomes i discovered it is essential for the biome system and cannot be left out. It is also beautiful and the alternative surface node adds refreshing variety.
The only terrestrial biome missing now is chaparral, but that is a minor desert-edge biome that could be created with existing nodes.
paramat
on 8 Jun 2015
Personally, I love acacia, and new trees are always better. Adding pine trees and snow biomes was a very good idea, so I don't see why a savanna would be a problem.
@C1ffisme https://github.com/rubenwardy/awards
nanepiwo
on 9 Jun 2015
BTW we have currently 3 types of wood which are very light - a darker one would be usefull too.
RHRhino
on 9 Jun 2015
@nanepiwo that awards mod is limited to giving item iirc
it doesn't have an api which let us define a callback to run when someone achieve a goal.
we couldn't do something fancy like using spawn_falling_node to make node like steelblock, copperblock, goldblock, mese, diamondblock fall from the sky one after another making a fancy pillar for the player to dig up
or award people with currency from a mod like money2
(ps: i got that fancy pillar idea from lucky blocks if you know what i mean)
asl97
on 10 Jun 2015
@paramat I hope they get added!
@asl97 Yeah, but code can always be edited.
C1ffisme
on 10 Jun 2015
@nanepiwo that awards mod is limited to giving item iirc
it doesn't have an api which let us define a callback to run when someone achieve a goal.
Do you mean something like awards.register_on_unlock() and on_unlock() in the def table?
That would be easy to add. The awards mod is now LGPL 2.1 and CC-BY-SA,
so could be included if people wanted it.
(I created the awards mod)
rubenwardy
on 10 Jun 2015
@paramat
Hope this helps for the Acacia textures...
Raw file :
kilbith
on 11 Jun 2015
@nanepiwo: I've added register_on_unlock and on_unlock to awards, 0.6 should be released in about a week maybe. (It's exam period so I'm slower than usual)
However, I don't think awards would fit Minetest Game, as it it a base for modding rather than a game as such.
rubenwardy
on 11 Jun 2015
@est31
We'll should chose (or write) one API with good design, and then all mobs mods have to use that.
rubenwardy
on 11 Jun 2015
@rubenwardy LOL.
C1ffisme
on 12 Jun 2015
@kilbith I personally like the acacia tree textures in more trees and paragenv7, as I like having a red wood to build with.
nanepiwo
on 13 Jun 2015
Thanks kilbith but i will be using the moretrees textures and am working on the other textures needed.
paramat
on 13 Jun 2015
Maybe it's not quite the same subject, but what are we planning to do for 0.4.13? I suppose our development direction includes the next version.
Should we add new blocks? A new crop? A new biome (savanna)?
I think that it would be nice if we could have something cool to use in 0.4.13. After all, we haven't done a new version for at least 3 months.
C1ffisme
on 16 Jun 2015
@C1ffisme could you open an extra issue for that?
est31
on 16 Jun 2015
Sure... Eventually. I'm learning HTML right now.
C1ffisme
on 16 Jun 2015
Versions don't matter. We shouldn't be driven to add new blocks / content every release - it's silly and ends up with a bloated and bad game.
rubenwardy
on 16 Jun 2015
@paramat I don't like this ground (too clear). I prefer that for the savanna :
kilbith
on 20 Jun 2015
'Too clear' as in not enough long grasses? or the ground texture is lacking contrast? I agree more long grasses are needed. I might also make the colour of long grasses closer to that of ground.
paramat
on 21 Jun 2015
I was more reffering to the ground grass, the tall grass looks good. But the ground may not be faithful enough and not "wild" feeling.
kilbith
on 21 Jun 2015
I agree, i have increased the contrast and made it a little darker.
paramat
on 22 Jun 2015
Savanna and rainforest swamp are added to biomesdev. I will now be adding another biome similar to the Antartic, thick icesheet/glacier on stone under a dust of snowblocks, with thick iceshelf on the ocean. Tundra will therefore lose its ocean iceshelf. We will soon be up to 10 biomes.
paramat
on 29 Jun 2015
If you add such high variety of biomes, be sure that they're large enough so that the world is not too "mosaic" in biomes.
kilbith
on 29 Jun 2015
@Novatux i agree with all of your points.
nerzhul
on 29 Jun 2015
You know, I was playing minetest earlier, and I've noticed that one of the first things I do is go right down and start mining. I can get iron fast if I find some near the surface. But underground is rather boring. All the caves just look the same. Covered in the same ores, same stone, same stuff.
I thought of an idea, what if mining had a sense of exploration? We could add dungeons with chests and mobs, ravines as a change from circular caverns, and even underground fortresses, with ancient technology that you can not only re-use, but copy and re-construct! Imagine searching for a stronghold underground, getting ready to find a powerful weapon to complete your house's defense system.
Also, we could make underground biomes like Terraria! Forget just seing stone, and stone, and more stone, we could add a nether biome, a jungle biome, and all different kinds of stony biomes! You could have forests surviving off of lava light, a nether with pools of lava, granite caves with pools of mercury or some chemical or even molten steel! Just imagine taking the interesting mapgen above into the resourceful world below! Remember, we don't have to copy reality!
And what about a fight? Or maybe even underground battles? You could build metal robots with the defense systems you find underground, and attack zombies or other strange lifeforms found under the earth. You could fight aliens that dug into the earth to steal your minerals, kill protective guards that won't share their mese, and burn down anyone who decides that you don't deserve their materials!
Those are just some ideas. But lets get back to the point. Underground is boring. We are called Minetest, are we not? So, let's make mining in Minetest be a little less about seeing who can gather the most mese, and more about who can steal the golden laser turret from the dungeon without getting killed by the stone-bots/zombies/whatever crazy mob you can think of!
C1ffisme
on 29 Jun 2015
If you add such high variety of biomes, be sure that they're large enough so that the world is not too "mosaic" in biomes.
Yes because of the higher number of biomes i increased heat and humidity spreads to 1000 nodes.
paramat
on 1 Jul 2015
@C1ffisme: the answer, as always, is that all that stuff can be done in mods. minetest_game is staying relatively simple, I would've thought that much was clear by now.
thatgraemeguy
on 1 Jul 2015
@thatgraemeguy Alright then. Let's just stop adding features right now. We'll let every feature be taken care of by mods.
1 year later...
Minetest is completely forgotten. Everybody didn't bother with it because nothing official came out, you just modded it.
If we just leave things to mods, then nobody likes minetest_game. If not changing minetest game, at least we should make a new one so minetest dosen't become boring. Everyone loves news, and I think it would be nice if every so often we heard of updates and new blocks, etc.
C1ffisme
on 1 Jul 2015
We don't operate like that. If we added new blocks every release, the game
would become incredibly bloated, and you can't take back items after you
add them. Minetest is meant to be modded, so the current philosophy is to
make the default only a foundation in order to encourage this.
This sort of conversation is much better off on the forums.
rubenwardy
on 1 Jul 2015
:+1:
thatgraemeguy
on 1 Jul 2015
i like @C1ffisme idea but minetest_game is suppose to just be the base.
there should be an official (bloated) playing game and this should be the official modding base.
@C1ffisme if you create such a game, i would try it and i am sure there would be plenty of people who would want it too.
asl97
on 2 Jul 2015
I might have something soon, I'm working on a game slightly different to most voxel games, though I might need help with graphics.
C1ffisme
on 2 Jul 2015
If this is the direction minetest_game is going, then we need another game quick. Right now it looks like minetest_game is on a failure mission for people who aren't programmers, don't mind the bad gameplay balance of mods, or can somehow survive without goals.
How many of you people actually play real games designed for fun?
C1ffisme
on 26 Oct 2015
^ That's unhelpful.
Ticked the mapgen box.
paramat
on 28 Oct 2015
@paramat
Ticked the mapgen box.
You have indeed. Thank you. I'm particularly enjoying the biome boundaries.
0-afflatus
on 28 Oct 2015
Yes, my regards as well, mapgen v7 is pretty nice.
About the other checkboxes.. I don't think there needs to be a gameplay goal if the (unclear) project goal is to be a sandbox. Games/mods could add more interesting different gameplay goals.
The main problem with the other 3 points (mobs, railcarts and pressure-plates) is the increased load for the server and the fact that latency plays a big role in these features so they are bound to be laggy. A client-side API might help... not sure if there's much activity going on in that direction.
Ferk
on 28 Oct 2015
Sorry, I was just... aggravated. I'm tired of seeing minetest not having anything to do or see. The blocks are almost all the same as minecraft. Grass, stone, dirt, there isn't anything new or better than minecraft except mese and nyan cats. I want to see minetest become an actual fun game to play, not just a tool for creative art or PVP. The vanilla game just isn't... fun... enough. With my new laptop, I'm making a new minetest_fun game with cool power tools and my own mobs and bow/arrow mods.
Why is it we just won't add things? I see tons of pull requests, but almost all are bugfixes or minor changes. And anything new isn't a new metal or tool, it's a biome. I see no reason why we can't implement things such as Titanium or Power drills? I would even welcome just a few more crops.
What I think would make survival feel more fun is if we added hunger. It would mean at least one reason to do something in the game. Then at least people are required to build farms and storehouses. Add cool machines to refine food, and people will build cool factories.
C1ffisme
on 28 Oct 2015
Hunger (and/or aggressive mobs) would kind of add sort of a goal: to survive
Specially if the rate satiation decreases is customizable.. you could either make a very extreme survival requiring food constantly or opt-out of the mechanic by making you always full at all times.
Though.. opting out this way would also make you permanently gain a regeneration boost, unless either we figured out a different way to gain health or made a fallback to the current behavior of food healing directly. But then... why would you add a lot of optional behavior instead of just cleanly using a separate mod? ..you can toggle mods easily if they are not included in minetest_game, but getting rid of a mod that is included is not as simple.
I assume this is the reason it wasn't added.
Personally, I would have just added hunger anyway (I find this way more important than other optional features like TNT, which I would have personally not included) along with a setting for the rate the satiation decreases and just have different items for healing than food (maybe have regeneration but at a much slower rate).
Ferk
on 28 Oct 2015
I think I said this some years ago, but what if we bring the 2d mobs back? Those were really fun for me at least, and we already have all of them (2 hostile, dungeon master and oerkki, and 2 friendly, firefly and rat). What was the problem with them and why did that got removed, could you tell me (again) please?
Dragonop
on 20 Jan 2016
@Dragonop I think the problem with bringing the 2D mobs back is that they would still have to be written in lua, since hardcoding them into the engine isn't exactly a good idea. (I myself am making a 'realistic' minetest subgame, and oerkkis and dungeon masters aren't very realistic.)
A mob API, with built-in Artificial Intelligences, commands, etc. is the way to go. Current mob mods will have hacky implementations inside of their AIs, causing the server to lag as node scans or large calculations multiply with every mob. However, if the calculations/scans were added into the C++ code, making it much faster, we could have a chance at mobs in Minetest Game.
C1ffisme
on 21 Jan 2016
Disclaimer: this is not a rant, only perspective from guy who recenlty joined minetest community.
For now lack of biome is least problem. Unclear minetest focus - thats a critical problem.
Default mod is already bloated 6 - same type tools, 6 - same type swords 0 - armor. Why swords even included when there no enemies (pvp-only eddition)?. Tons of blocks which differs only color. Some WTF list: nyan cats, obsidium glass, locked/unlocked chests (why two same objects). Item rails defined in 'default' but to actualy use rails, carts mod needs to be installed.
From my point of view minetest target audience is two groups:
- people who wants download and play
- people who set-up server and heavily tweaks it by mods
Judging from minetest game content it unclear focus. Some items make sense for server (pvp? swords, locked chests, bones) and some items which does not (water/lava bucket). Frustration comes even in creativity game when playing as singleplayer still need grant yourself flying privileges. When trying build something its pain to search items. Some items even not visible in dark inventory slot backgroun (poor UX design), item order is unclear, hard to find items.
If most popular minetest subgame can't implement things rightly, how you expect solo developers make better subgame by themselfs? They will burn-out and will leave what they started (already lots of half baked mods).
Userbase will not grow with 'minetest game' and with poor userbase it will be lack of mod creators. It obious how it will end up.
If minetest devs believe focus only on api model is right way then probably after almost year there should be plenty subgames ready to include into 'new world' game selection list for Minetest newcomers.
rautars
on 11 Feb 2016
Is it ok to make a separate issue for features discussed in this issue?
raymoo
on 15 Feb 2016
@raymoo yes, this issue is a mess and nobody reads it anyway.
PilzAdam
on 15 Feb 2016
@xeranas I think you will understand some of this better when you have played the game a bit more. There are 89 sub-games at last count and almost too many willing mod creators. We could probably do with more online players than anything else. Part of the beauty of this game is its open-endedness and I think it is appropriately reflected in the development. In my experience the best games are those that have simple rules with many possible outcomes.
0-afflatus
on 16 Feb 2016
I think you will understand some of this better when you have played the game a bit more
Thats not how games should work. First game impression is very important and if game does not hook up you then its high change you won't play it anymore.
@0-afflatus walking around with MT fanboy glasses does not helps project in any way. Issues needs to be addressed and fixed.
rautars
on 16 Feb 2016
@xeranas You are right and wrong:
Yes the first impression of a game is important and if people don't like the game they won't play it, but also keep in mind that minetest is a open source game engine in development with a playable (also in development) game and not a finished product like a polished triple-A video game.
RHRhino
on 16 Feb 2016
minetest is a open source game engine in development with a playable (also in development) game and not a finished product like a polished triple-A video game.
@RHRhino But if you're not heading towards that AAA-like feeling, or any fluidity in UX whatsoever, then you're going nowhere.
I could rant for literal hours about what's wrong with MT, and this very lack of any ambition is what I'd reproach all devs of.
ElementW
on 16 Feb 2016
@xeranas all games have a learning curve. You appear to have made quite a lot of assumptions based on ignorance and a rather fixed attitude about how games should be. I am aware of MT_game's failings, that's why I'm building a sub-game (which contradicts one of your arguments). Some of what you say is useful, I just think you need to familiarise yourself with the territory. Then you will understand why there are two chests, one locked, one unlocked and then perhaps you will be able to submit a workable suggestion of how to change that.
This conversation has been running for some time on various different threads and many of the issues are being addressed, hence we now have an excellent biome system.
My answers to other points of the OP
Mobs: mobs_redo without all the add-ons. I actually don't see the problem with this, but I do understand it is not to everyone's taste.
Automation: I would like to see and when I get time develop a simple machines mod, based on Archimedean principles ... and something like a pressure plate.
Travel: horses and carts, yes. I also use /tpr in my game, because it works.
The only thing I haven't got an answer for at all is goals. I enjoy the open-endedness and I wouldn't want to go down the path that MC took. I understand that this is important for many players, so I am working on a quest system.
Talking about ambition is a bit meaningless to me. I think your complaint @ElementW is that they don't share your ambition. We all want to make the game as good as it can be, but that takes time and patience. Sniping on the sidelines is easy.
0-afflatus
on 17 Feb 2016
We're planning to add a version of smalljoker's 'boost carts' mod, see #1311
paramat
on 15 Aug 2016
Thanks to sofar i have now ticked a second box: 'Some way to travel quickly'.
paramat
on 21 Nov 2016
@paramat I won't say that one method of transport will solve all player's needs, but it works for now.
I feel as if when I play Minetest, I feel as if little things are bugging me, such as the lack of ambience, or just the fact that some textures are too smooth. Many Minecraft textures are much more contrasted, and have a bit of a retro feel to them. This might have also been what kept me entertained so much with Minetest back in 2012.
A screenshot of 2012 Minetest: (Sure, those textures may look ugly to some, but they still looked like what they represent as blocks, and I think they did their job well.)
A screenshot of 2016 Minetest: (These textures lack the same contrast, and almost feel 'dustier' in a way.)
I think a combination of both retro, cute graphics combined with some smoother, more modern graphics would be more appealing. Perhaps some of the newer textures could have some brighter colours?
C1ffisme
on 22 Nov 2016
@C1ffisme
Minetest and Minecraft have two different styles of pixel art. Minetest is aiming a smooth natural looking style, while Minecraft aims retro looking pixel art.
I think a combination of both retro, cute graphics combined with some smoother, more modern graphics would be more appealing.
There's a rule in art, that you should stick to one style instead of mixing different styles, because most people sense it more harmonic if you stick to one style. That applies to the art style (smooth natural, retro, minimal) as well as color and texture size - they all should stay consistent. Unfortunately Minetest already has some small inconsistence, because the textures were changed a lot.
In general I wonder why so many people complain about textures, because they are probably the easiest thing to mod for yourself if you don't like them. It should be obvious that minetest_game can't provide textures that everybody loves - some people will always prefer other textures, although I agree some texures could do with some further improvements.
RHRhino
on 22 Nov 2016
@RHRhino Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. I dunno. It's hard for me to accurately pinpoint what I find wrong with Minetest's default textures. But maybe certain graphical effects would help as well, since even Minetest textures in Minecraft look okay:
This one is going to be a bit less pleasant, because of the Andesite and Granite that contrast with Minetest stone more than Minecraft stone, but it still looks fairly good:
C1ffisme
on 24 Nov 2016
The default textures are just the default, they change very slowly one by one and with many different authors, and will continue to, so some lack of consistency is inevitable. Considering this they are surprisingly reasonable.
It's inevitable and expected that most players will not like them and will prefer to use texture packs instead.
paramat
on 24 Nov 2016
As another comparison, I decided to recreate a Minecraft screenshot in Minetest. It's not exactly the same, if you look through the window, but here you go:
Minecraft:
Minetest:
Two things pop out at me the most: (Ignoring the other HUD elements for XP, hunger and health, and the background seen through the window.)
- The lighting
- There is a bit of stretching at the sides of the Minetest Screenshot.
C1ffisme
on 7 Dec 2016
stretching
seems both FOV and aspect ratio are different, so the screenshots are not comparable in that sense.
sofar
on 7 Dec 2016
C1ffisme these are non-issues, the games look different obviously, and just use a texture pack you like.
paramat
on 7 Dec 2016
@paramat I want to find what makes these games' atmospheres so different. No matter what texture pack or font I use, the game still looks too much like a graphical test. :cry:
C1ffisme
on 7 Dec 2016
@HybridDog That happens in Minecraft too.
raymoo
on 7 Dec 2016
MC will inevitably seem more polished, due to their human resources.
paramat
on 9 Dec 2016
updated OP
rubenwardy
on 3 Jan 2017
I strongly disagree with these statements:
Right now, Minetest Game isn't a real game because you lack goals [...]
So a goal - there are plenty of possibilities, but we have to chose one
Thinking a game needs a goal is mainstream conditioning. I followed the development of MC from beta days, it was a wonderful game being open-world and open-ended, but then they felt forced to add 'the end' which is out of character with the rest of it.
Anything that makes a player feel like they have 'finished' is a bad thing in MT.
We can have objectives but there doesn't have to be just one.
Concerning mapgen stuff, the tickboxes would be better as:
- Add underground decorations: plants, crystals.
- Underground biomes to vary those decorations.
Please can underground rivers be removed? These are only possible through engine mapgen code and cannot be created by a subgame. We already have water caves, where these intersect a tunnel water will flow down the tunnel.
paramat
on 14 Jan 2017
Edited first post.
paramat
on 14 Jan 2017
@ElementW I'd be interested in seeing a gist with a rant in it, if only for the motivational value.
@paramat
Please can underground rivers be removed? These are only possible through engine mapgen code and cannot be created by a subgame.
Unless I'm dead wrong, can't you do any form of map generation using minetest.register_on_generated()?
C1ffisme
on 14 Jan 2017
I will provoke everybody:
Minetest Ultimate Goal = Minecraft minus Enchanting/Potions/Elytra/... minus Realms (End, Nether, etc) plus Our Own Stuff (tm)
Fixer-007
on 14 Jan 2017
This post is about the direction of the game play, and so it's okay imo to have engine issues here / needs engine change
rubenwardy
on 14 Jan 2017
@Fixer-007
Minetest Ultimate Goal = Minecraft minus Enchanting/Potions/Elytra/... minus Realms (End, Nether, etc).
But with the mod API able to add these features if wanted. (Although, if we added the ability to make realms, we might as well create one for MTG anyway, either as an example or to enhance gameplay.)
C1ffisme
on 14 Jan 2017
and so it's okay imo to have engine issues here
Yes it is, sorry, i removed underground rivers more because it was a random idea and we should focus on a smaller number of widely agreed intentions.
Unless I'm dead wrong, can't you do any form of map generation using minetest.register_on_generated()?
Yes but such Lua mapgen is too slow to be used for default MT mapgen, much better to code it in C++.
paramat
on 14 Jan 2017
Yes but such Lua mapgen is too slow to be used for default MT mapgen, much better to code it in C++.
Well, of course it would be too slow for default. I was just pointing out that they weren't _impossible_ to do.
C1ffisme
on 15 Jan 2017
Minetest is a nice engine, but minetest_game is not a game, it’s a modding framework. It should be kept as such for experienced players.
But it’s probably a good idea to just bundle a set of mods with Minetest. These should not be considered an integral part of the game, but should be immediately available (and probably enabled by default) for newcomers. I would include some mobs (don’t know any mod good enough actually), mapgen enhancement (like ethereal or even mg) to make it look better, technical stuff like moreblocks, probably moreores and moretrees and, surely, something like MinetestAmbience, if there would be a not-so-laggy version. Sounds are really important for a game.
We actually have almost all we need in mods, just visit some good server like Survival in Ethereal to see it, it looks very nice. But such nice look should be available in freshly downloaded game.
the game still looks too much like a graphical test.
Agree partially. But some subtle things, like tone mapping, make it look A LOT better.
numberZero
on 15 Jan 2017
I thought I'd throw this out there, and see what everybody else thinks.
Currently, the game's progression is... incredibly bland, not to mention very linear. The most exciting thing about the progression is that you can get a bronze pick rather than a steel one:
Minecraft's progression is longer, sure, but it's more than just length that keeps it interesting. You can skip getting a diamond pickaxe to get to the nether by using two buckets to "mold" a portal. Then after that, it's not just about getting a new tier of pickaxe. You explore the nether to find a nether fortress, which you then fight blazes to get blaze powder, which allows you to get to the end. From the end you can fight the ender dragon, allowing you to get to the end islands where the elytra, which is the most endgame item I can think of, can be found.
And this is only including the main progression line. There are all kinds of other things you can do. Once you have an iron pick, you can mine and use redstone, if you find a nether fortress, you can brew potions, or fight the wither so you can make a beacon. You can also skip lots of early-game progression using villager trading, which is it's own aspect of the game.
My point? Progression is more than just the next tier of tool material, it should also fork off into things you can do with those materials (Other than just for decorative purposes.) and should be more creative than just "Find something underground that you can make a tool out of", including surface exploration and even requiring creative problem solving (Something that MC's main progression lacks, but does help with say, automation).
EDIT: Hee hee, I forgot an arrow between the diamond pickaxe and nether portal. Oh well.
C1ffisme
on 21 Feb 2017
@tobyplowy Completely agreed.
Iniquitatis
on 22 Feb 2017
I didn't read the whole thread, but @C1ffisme made some good points and I have some suggestions. In an older post he mentioned that it is useless to build houses because there are no mobs. That is true. It is also useless to build a farm because the only existing foods are apples, mushrooms and wheat and without hunger you don't even need them if you are careful.
So, for a lot of player is building a house just fun. They don't need mobs. And it could be more fun to build that house if it is more difficult.
The first thing I would add to MTG is hunger. Without hunger food makes no sense. Then I would add more crops and fruits to make a farm. And I would add more food recipes. The process shouldn't be to easy. Crops shouldn't grow everywhere. A simple way to get animal food without mobs is a fishing rod
To make building more interesting I would add more blocks, but it should be difficult to get them. Some stones for example should be rare and you have to dig to get them.
The moreblocks mod has a lot of nice blocks, but you need a circular saw to build them. But it is easy to get a circular saw. How about to add a blueprint to the recipe and you can find this blueprint only in loot chests? Same could be done for other items like a chisel to make more building blocks.
I think, this could be done relatively easy. But now comes the difficult part. Walking around just to find some chests is boring without more interesting biomes, animals and hostile mobs
Vanilla Minetest has 5 trees, vanilla Minecraft has, as far as I know, 20. Minetest has 12 biomes, but 3 of them are deserts, two of them are grassland, one with snow and so on. I miss some real rivers and swamps.
Next step should be to add more plants, trees and biomes
And a thought to the end: you can play in creative mode just to build something. You can play in survival to make building more difficult or you can play as an explorer without huge buildings in mind. But to play explorer there has to be something to explore
MarkuBu
on 1 Mar 2017
Maybe some more suggestions: health should not regenerate automatically or only very slow and if fully saturated.
And add more possibilities to get damage like poison plants and traps. To heal damage you need a potion or a plant
I think it is possible to make MTG more fun even without mobs
MarkuBu
on 1 Mar 2017
I agree with @MarkuBu to some extent. Hunger is very important, as it gives a use for food. Poison and stuff like that would be cool, but _please_ don't use potions; magic is WAY too overused and creepy if you think about it. Use some natural thing that would fight against the poison (e.g. charcoal).
When it comes to mobs, yes, we really need them. However, I would like to say _please_ don't add unrealistic monsters. If you do even a tiny bit of research, you can find lots of dangerous (and even scary) creatures that are real, not some crazy thing like a zombie. I mean really, for me anyway, when games have added those types of creatures, the game has been wrecked.
MT does need more variety and challenge when it comes to blocks and items as well. That's why I'm trying to introduce a workbench in #1592, to make things a bit more interesting. However, the developers seem to not like it ATM as it does one specific thing. That, though, is something I think MT needs more of. Plus, once it's added it'd be easy to expand to have something like tool repair.
octacian
on 1 Mar 2017
Potion ~= Magic.
You can brew potions from plants without hocus pocus
MarkuBu
on 1 Mar 2017
Vanilla Minetest has 5 trees, vanilla Minecraft has, as far as I know, 20. Minetest has 12 biomes, but 3 of them are deserts, two of them are grassland, one with snow and so on. I miss some real rivers and swamps.
Nope, just 6, but it uses them very well.
I agree with @MarkuBu to some extent. Hunger is very important, as it gives a use for food. Poison and stuff like that would be cool, but please don't use potions; magic is WAY too overused and creepy if you think about it. Use some natural thing that would fight against the poison (e.g. charcoal).
Magic in Minecraft isn't treated this way, although I suppose you could if you built a room for brewing like that. The potion effects don't do anything more than show swirly particles and make you invisible, or heal you, or whatever. Going down a realistic route with potion brewing would be incredibly complicated (This drug heals you in this condition, but hurts you in these conditions.), make certain things impossible (you can say goodbye to invisibility) and would probably give off an even worse message.
Also, there isn't even that much magic in Minecraft. Besides bright, colorful potions that look a lot more like chemical bottles than thick, soupy potions and portals that take you to the, actually rather boring, Nether and End, as well as maybe Golems which look like every other cute, blocky animal in the game, there isn't a lot of magic.
I don't really get this complaint about magic being a bad thing. Yes, it's something the player wouldn't understand. If it was realistic technology, it would be less original. (And wouldn't quite fit the theme. Can you imagine building a drug factory or a light refraction research laboratory in _Vanilla_ Minecraft?)
When it comes to mobs, yes, we really need them. However, I would like to say please don't add unrealistic monsters. If you do even a tiny bit of research, you can find lots of dangerous (and even scary) creatures that are real, not some crazy thing like a zombie. I mean really, for me anyway, when games have added those types of creatures, the game has been wrecked.
Unrealistic monsters were invented (long before video games) because we wanted something to be an enemy that nobody would care about. Sure, Minecraft could have used bandits instead of zombies, but that would just feel worse than killing off something that already died. And of course, most invented enemies usually end up getting un-demonized when someone doesn't get why it was invented. (Just look what happened to aliens. Now, you'd probably complain in a movie that 'They always make the aliens try to invade Earth! Every single movie!')
Besides, as mentioned before, just using realism for every situation does make the game boring and predictable. And as much as I love realism (Not even sarcastic. I cry over Minetest's incredi-bland geology), using a creature that doesn't really exist means that the player is suddenly facing something he doesn't know anything about. Sure, I know what a pig is, or what a dog is, but some giant six legged creature outside my door is going to either encourage me to defend myself or try to capture it for closer examination.
C1ffisme
on 1 Mar 2017
You can satisfy people who don't like magic by calling it "fantasy technology" instead of magic.
raymoo
on 1 Mar 2017
Nope, just 6, but it uses them very well.
Of course, 6 different types, but in different variations. Two birch trees, 5 or more spruce trees, two jungle trees, small and large oak trees and a version for swamps. And the foliage color changes depending on humidity. With all the variation in shape and color Minecraft has even more than 20 trees.
Minetest has still 5, just varying in height and the number of leaf nodes
Unrealistic monsters were invented (long before video games) because we wanted something to be an enemy that nobody would care about.
With humans instead of zombies Minecraft would be called a killer game. It is a fantasy game. To talk about realism in a game where the player can carry thousands of tons, chop a tree with his bare hands or islands float in the air is ridiculous
MarkuBu
on 1 Mar 2017
I don't really get this complaint about magic being a bad thing.
It's mostly religious prejudice.
It all depends how you wish to justify unrealistic aspects of game play. This requires knowing your genres - "fantasy" uses 'magic', "sci-fi" uses fictitious technology. Insert Arthur C Clarke quote here ...
MTG needs to be a complete game, albeit fairly minimalistic, not just a modding framework. It probably has to be a rather prosaic committee-designed thing in order to avoid upsetting the fundies.
More advocaat?
0-afflatus
on 2 Mar 2017
Heh, for what it's worth, I'm Christian and I don't mind magic or monsters in my game. :P
C1ffisme
on 2 Mar 2017
We should add magic content that is based on contracting with false gods, which is a case that wouldn't fit into "fantasy technology"
raymoo
on 2 Mar 2017
I think that the DM and Oerriki should be added as monsters, but I don't want to see Zombies (as they're incredibly unoriginal)
rubenwardy
on 2 Mar 2017
We should add magic content that is based on contracting with false gods
Erm, this might be exactly what were trying to protest against.
I'd rather magic be a little bit silly and stereotyped. Think Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.
I think that the DM and Oerriki should be added as monsters, but I don't want to see Zombies (as they're incredibly unoriginal)
Going by Minetest Canon, both of them are supposed to be rarely seen enemies. What would you suggest for a "first enemy in the game that becomes incredibly easy to fight when you get to late game"?
C1ffisme
on 3 Mar 2017
^ Obvious.
paramat
on 26 Mar 2017
Because we still not have a good mob system.
MarkuBu
on 26 Mar 2017
About Automation / Circuits: I suggest to add hoppers
And I suggest to add some building structures like mines, temples and such things where you can find chests
MarkuBu
on 26 Mar 2017
Can I Ask When will There Be One?
If someone writes a good mod and I assume that some engine changes need to be done first
MarkuBu
on 26 Mar 2017
Mobs will be done when someone does them.
tobyplowy please stop the silly childish comments.
paramat
on 26 Mar 2017
So, is MTG a game, or a game base, a modding base makes no sense, mods _modify_ a game, I'd be happy to try to look at adding some stuff to MTG, if we could have a general idea on what the core devs want MTG to be. :)
MisterXtreme
on 29 Mar 2017
As for me, MTG should be a game, and it should contain a good, reusable base.
numberZero
on 1 Apr 2017
I'm gonna give a non-game example of why having a modding base and game does not make sense:
When you make a regular sandwhich, it could be like this:
Bread, mayo lettuce, cheese, mayo, bread
The regular sandwhich is a regular game
Now, to make a reguar sanwhich, you do bread, mayo, mayo, bread
That is Minetest minimal
Then you have the "modded" sandwhich: bread, mayo, lettuce, cheese, burger, mustard, etc.
You can't have the "modded" sandwhich, without a good "base" sandwich (which has good enough toppings to be enjoyed without being modded), so why do we need a modding base, without a game to mod?
You talk about developer strain being limiting, OK, I understand, we all have real life lives (I think? :3), but if say worked on a feature that would help further Minetest_game as a game, would it be rejected due to making Minetest_game being too much like a game?
Real question, as I'm afraid that even if I work on helping further MTG, that it might be rejected.
MisterXtreme
on 2 Apr 2017
@XtremeHacker Actually, it's even worse.
A normal, full game is like a regular cheeseburger:
Bun
Cheese
Burger
Bun
Mods are like condiments: ketchup, mustard, mayo, etc.
But a modding base only provides the buns.
So essentially, people using the modding base are left with the basics of a game, and mods provide expansion content, but there is no basic game. Most mods will gladly give you content that only fits in a heavily modded game or content that is meant to be end-game, but without a basic game, it feels like nothing fits the game, since it counts on progression that doesn't exist.
C1ffisme
on 2 Apr 2017
@C1ffisme Another good [read better then mine :P) example, we have no content to mod off of, and it seems the reason's are a weird vicous circle that has bitten It's tail.
MisterXtreme
on 2 Apr 2017
As for me, MTG should be a game, and it should contain a good, reusable base.
@numberZero the problem is that those things are directly in conflict. Not necessarily in technical details, because anything can be made to work, but in priorities.
I've advocated before to remove the modding base and make minetest_game a playable singleplayer (or, local lan-only) focussed game, and not a modding base. We can work on a replacement out-of-tree modding base together, either under minetest or even minetest-mods.
The rub is that right now minetest_game can't make many changes, since both old minetest_game worlds need to be supported, but also heavily modded subgames that rely on obscure bugs and artifacts.
I'd like to see minetest_game move faster, but this can't be done if multiplayer servers rely on it, it would be unfair to them. But, as a consequence, minetest_game moves at a snails' pace and will likely never have features that users are begging for (for singleplayer).
and, I've said it before, multiplayer server admins aren't stupid, and can run their own servers and choose and configure mods.
But 99% of android users play our singleplayer minetest_game once and give up, because it's so bad.
Prove me wrong with data.
sofar
on 4 Apr 2017
I'd also like minetest_game to move faster, even if that means an less-stable modding API. I prefer to keep it easily moddable (so, don't remove the API that exist), but I think we shouldn't be afraid to make breaking changes to them if there is no easy way to prevent that -- people will just need to update their mods, in that case (and anyway, see how many mods depend on engine features not yet in a stable version!). However, as for the easy moddability, I think we should merge pull requests that add extra API, but as I said, even those shoudn't be expected to be completely stable; making _game an actual game seems a more important goal, at least for now, than making it a modding base.
Ekdohibs
on 4 Apr 2017
Maybe we should start a "new" MTG, with MTG's code, and build off it, and let the "original" MT game stay, and die off as the "new" MTG gets adapted by server owners and modders alike, an problems?
MisterXtreme
on 4 Apr 2017
Okay, let’s state what we can want:
- A full-featured, self-contained game, with many nodes, items, mobs, etc., but little modding support.
- A game base, i.e. a set of libraries with good APIs, using which it should be reasonably easy to create a game compatible with existing mods, but with little to no content.
- A moddable game: something playable by itself but having good APIs to support mods. It doesn’t need to expose an API for each and every feature, though, so such game may have as much features as (1).
- A test suite, i.e. a game using each and every core feature, but not necessarily playable (as a game) at all. This is what
minimalseems to be intended for.
As I stated before, (3) is what I consider suitable for MTG.
@sofar Your points are mostly orthogonal to what I state. What you say sounds like MTG accidentally reached stable state. Well, let it be so. But we shouldn’t doom MTG to eternal backwards compatibility. Instead, we should maintain several versions, and backport non-breaking changes. In other words, I suggest to develop the game in dev, and add features to game only when they are robust enough to not break anything. Or even export as stand-alone mods (currently that’s problematic as the dependency system can’t work as it should). Or backport libraries and export content mods.
You may say that would need more time. Well, it won’t. It won’t because reviewing is way simpler when you don’t fear that much, and developing goes way faster when more people test your code.
So... your turn ;)
numberZero
on 7 Apr 2017
Which features in MTG are moving at a snails pace because of multiplayer?
You mean mobs? they are used in a lot of servers despite the lag.
Node aliases? you wont avoid that going singleplayer, unless you dont want to care for old worlds.. but then why did you care for multiplayer old worlds? The same can be said.
My impression is that most of the significant compatibility-breaking changes exclusively affecting multiplayer would involve the engine, and not so much the game. And since the engine does indeed need to be able to support multiplayer, I'm not sure if changing the focus of MTG would really affect the speed of the engine developments.
Ferk
on 7 Apr 2017
I intend to work on underground decorations soon, placeable on ceilings and floors.
paramat
on 16 Jul 2017
I just thought I'd do a bit of research. Obviously the results of this poll shouldn't affect the actual development of the game, nor should it be taken as legitimate proof of a majority vote, seeing as Github represents only the game developers of Minetest, not the youtubers, kids or server owners.
C1ffisme
on 5 Aug 2017
@tobyplowy Mostly I'm interested in the opinions of the people here, but I suppose I could post this on the forum at some point.
C1ffisme
on 5 Aug 2017
@tobyplowy, you dropped these: , .
rubenwardy
on 6 Aug 2017
It's been a little over 2 years since the OP was made...
I am going to take a couple days, and write out a "MTG Manifesto" (insert laughing emoji here)
I joined the MTG community only a short time ago but, have an addiction to watching, and studying things... whether it be people, projects, etc., and noticing patterns, weaknesses, strong points, and so on.
It is my nature.
Since joining, and looking back through old discussions on the forums, and irc, and here..., mobs has been a long time thorn in the side.
And there are a number of individual, forked, split, etc., "mobs mods", and I can't help but keep thinking, why won't this handful of people give it a shot at working as a team, on one single, official mobs API and mod?
Just a very basic, workable mod which could be used directly with MTG? Or at least an "official" mobs, mod which is recommended by the core and MTG devs.
One or two friendly "villager" type mobs, a few basic animals, as well as maybe 3 types of aggressive mobs which need to be dealt with but are easily handled (or depending upon 2 or 3 choices of levels of difficulty)
Achievements = a big deal to the biggest target, end user group... being "kids". They love it, it makes them feel good when they earn an achievement, no matter how lame. (well, too an extent)
And a points system associated with achievements. But those "points" or (MT Points) have to be useful for something, like maybe to buy upgrades to tools and/or armor, health points, etc..?
These seem to be two areas that could really use some focusing on. These make MTG more exciting, and enjoyable to play..., and are at the very least, a good start. And makes for a fairly decent sample game (which can be added to over time)
0.5.0 would benefit from being the beginning of seeing these areas getting some attention. Jumping to an entire series number up, should be justified by significant additional features. Otherwise 0.5.0 series will simply be, in truth, 0.4.0 series continued with a higher number, and still stuck in the same rutt.
This is why I truly hope that no release date is even suggested in whispers for 0.5.0, because it should be released... "when it's ready", and has something truly substantial to justify it.
And as far as backward compatibility / breakage concerns? In order to move forward..., things have to break, it's part of the reality.
From that point on, is where subgames take over, and add to the joy of "gaming". This is where the task falls upon game makers and modders.
This is just my .03 cents worth (inflation).., for what ever it's worth.
I work (very slowly) on a "subgame", which is not even truly a "game" because it will focus on MTG's strongest point (currently)..., which is building. "Games", need more content than that.
(proof reading to hopefully not sound like too much of an idiot, then goin to bed, ha)
TumeniNodes
on 15 Aug 2017
It seems like most of the results are currently leaning toward "Modding Base and Playable Game". It's funny actually, because that is, to an extent, what Minetest Game is already trying to be!
@tobyplowy It's not that I don't want to know the opinion of the community, I just want to know what the people on Github think in order to know how to talk to them. (And once the community gets the poll, how the two opinions contrast.)
C1ffisme
on 15 Aug 2017
I wish there was more gameplay.
raymoo
on 15 Aug 2017
So make a sub-game, if it's so easy! : )
ghost
on 16 Aug 2017
I don't mean to be rude, but what does your comment contribute to the current discussion?
MisterXtreme
on 16 Aug 2017
Allow me to elaborate... I enjoy Minetest, and think the default stock minetest_game subgame is fun by itself, AND I think it makes for an excellent base for modders AND sub-game developers. So, I take issue with "It would make everyone happy if you did" comment, because I believe the core team has enough on their plate, and asking for a AAA Minetest subgame provided stock is outside the scope of even this issue.
ghost
on 16 Aug 2017
The limited options make it hard to make what you want, and not everything can be fixed with workarounds and even workarounds are limited?
Phew! Maybe you're right, let's just call the whole thing off. ; )
(Please excuse my gentle prodding.)
ghost
on 16 Aug 2017
OK, the thing is, at the moment, MTG is in a hard place due to old backwards compatibility stuff, and isn't really a good game IMHO, but the problem with different subgames is that MTG gets a lot of attention just because it is packed by default, if/when we get a subgame/mod store, I think we should just have all subgames on their, MTG should not be packaged, and we can have some sort of popular area, to find the better subgames.
I understand that the core dev team has a lot of work to do on the engine, which is _why_ MTG should die, they can't give it the attention it deserves, and no-one can change it either, the discussions over simple things to get added can (and have) go/gone on for _months_, which is why we need a way to give _all_ subgames an easy place to be downloaded from, so that Minetest can be a game engine, as that is what it is best at.
MisterXtreme
on 16 Aug 2017
MTG is in a hard place due to old backwards compatibility stuff
Why is there even bothering over backward compatibility when the Minetest engine itself can't be considered "stable", let alone "beta" quality software ? MTG devs spend too long making it "still work" instead of making it just work properly.
they can't give it the attention it deserves [...] things to get added can (and have) go/gone on for months
This. You know things are wrong when it takes several months to change a(n objectively ugly) texture.
ElementW
on 16 Aug 2017
I agree to stay on-topic: Mobs, Mapgen (More underground variety, ~More biomes~), Ambient/environmental sounds, Weather, Craft guide, ~Faster way to travel~, Objectives, Automation / Circuits...
e: Just going through all the *.ogg files and leveling out the volumes (gain, normalize, etc) would make a huge difference to the ambiance -- which includes water, lava, fire...
e2: I would say a series of pre-written books as a manual to the game in addition to a craft guide.
ghost
on 16 Aug 2017
@jastevenson303 Maybe it's just me, but I think the topic has always been more about Minetest Game's direction as a game, and less about these specific requests. (Or at least, from the way the title has always been.)
Literally every developer has at least a slightly different idea of what MTG should turn into, whether it be:
- the end project goal (Modable Base, Playable Game, or both)
- the theme/setting (Direct Copy of Minecraft, Steampunk, Medieval)
- the audience (all ages, specifically kids, specifically adults and teens)
- the audience's computers (older computers, modern work computers, modern gaming computers)
- the graphical style (simplistic, realistic, retro, Minecrafty)
- the progression (grindy and predictable, story-based)
- or just smaller things, such as individual textures or features.
And this unclear direction between developers can easily slow down development time. @paramat often mentions that our small team of developers slows things down, but I think the bigger problem here is that the small team doesn't have a single vision for the game, let alone any leadership within the group enforce it.
(Yes, there is some in the way of code development, but what about a story writer, or a graphical designer? The same person in leadership over code may not have the same skills required to judge textures, and vice versa.)
C1ffisme
on 16 Aug 2017
The devs have much work.
There is also the fact that while MTG could use a few more basic features or aspects (and I do mean, very basic),toward gameplay, there needs to be caution not to turn it into bloatware, which becomes overly difficult to maintain.
There are some in the community who think almost every mod which comes across should be added to MTG, and if this were the case..., MTG would be an unmanageable monster by now.
As is currently, the only aspects missing from MTG itself are, goals/achievements, a couple of things which need to be dealt with to reach those goals (basic mobs), and possibly 2 or 3 levels of difficulty which is basically variable settings for the mobs)
And it seems quite a bit of dev's time is regularly needing to go through PR's (I don't think some realize the levels of involvement with that) not to mention it probably gets pretty monotonous.
And the other drag is old PR's or issues which get bogged down with opinions/discussions and tend to just get locked up/stalemated, and add up after a while.
Dev time is limited, old issues and stale PR's seem a good place for people with various levels of skill, from the community, can offer to help, could probably use a few more individuals like Fixer too.
I'm usually happy when I see devs who are picky and selective..., it means they care about the project.
Try to keep in mind as well, Minetest/MTG has a two-level end-user base... server owners, and players. It's not easy to keep both happy at the same time.
TumeniNodes
on 16 Aug 2017
Few more points to think:
- Current 'crafting grid' as permanent storage mechanic (aka minecraft alpha, if it is not ok - rises question of crafting in general, what it is? does it needs that workbench octacian is doing anyway?)
- Drop / auto pick up mechanic (mining moves stuff directly into storage, but leaf decay and explosions present tons of drops, theoretic autofarming by pickup is impossible without hopper concept)
- Item/entity move by liquids (more ways to interact with nature, possible farming, item transport, etc).
Fixer-007
on 9 Dec 2017
:+1: for item/entity move by liquids, it's a nice feature which makes the world feel more real, and is useful
other two are meh. I don't like the arbitrary limitation of the craft grid. If I were to make a subgame, I'd not have craft grid crafting but recipe crafting more akin to Terraria
rubenwardy
on 9 Dec 2017
Always the same. Some people want a feature, one or two don't want it, so it won't happen.
I also want item drop/pickup. To be honest I want to be able to disable item pickup by point and click.
With single item pickup this would be horror
MarkuBu
on 9 Dec 2017
People who don't want the features may not use them anyway or go to the woods.
Fixer-007
on 9 Dec 2017
These functions should be added and made optional by mods. Everybody should be able to play how he wants to play
MarkuBu
on 10 Dec 2017
Always the same. Some people want a feature, one or two don't want it, so it won't happen.
That's dramatic, negative and incorrect.
Once a feature is coded, it needs 2 core dev approvals to be added. The only way to stop it, roughly, is 2 or 3 core dev disapprovals. 1 core dev disapproval can't stop something. If it has enough core dev disapproval then it rightly won't happen, nothing wrong with that. How much non-core-dev support it has is not directly relevant, however, core devs take the popularity into account and that affects their decision, sometimes you will see a core dev writing "but it has lots of player support so +1", even if they don't write this all core devs take feature popularity into account for their decision.
These functions should be added and made optional by mods. Everybody should be able to play how he wants to play
Impossible, we can't add every feature that any person wants, it would be impossible to code everything, even if it was the game would become unmaintainably big. This is the naive "it's an engine so should do everything" argument. Celeron55's roadmaps for MT stress simplicity.
FOSS inherently has a very high amount of requests, because everyone had a say, and inherently has a lack of core dev time, because it's unpaid, so there is inevitably a lot of saying 'no' to suggestions, which then is used against devs by those who don't understand the situation.
MT core devs are, generally, very reasonable, very generous and very responsive to what players want.
paramat
on 10 Dec 2017
Well, it often happens that a suggestion will be closed, even if it is simple to implement and without any discussion.
Functions like item pickup have been requested many times before, but it never happened because it already exists as mod. But this mod needs a lot of CPU time. Where is the problem to implement item drop and item pickup in C++ and make it optional in minetest.conf?
I know that the core devs have limited time. That's not my point. I only sometimes get the impression that many things are rejected because single core devs don't want to have a function for personal reasons, e. g. because their own PC is too slow or because a function doesn't suit their own preferences or because it is like in Minecraft. You sometimes get the impression that the wishes of the players or mod devs are ignored even if it makes sense and is not difficult to implement.
And I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one with this impression
MarkuBu
on 10 Dec 2017
Well, it often happens that a suggestion will be closed, even if it is simple to implement and without any discussion.
I always give a reason, i hope that all core devs will give a reason when closing.
Functions like item pickup have been requested many times before, but it never happened because it already exists as mod.
I doubt that is the only reason it hasn't happened by now, it may be partly due to no-one coding it.
Where is the problem to implement item drop and item pickup in C++ and make it optional in minetest.conf?
No idea, it has been discussed a lot, see the related issues and PRs for the issues and reasons, our previous core dev hmmmm was planning to add auto pickup at one point.
sometimes get the impression that many things are rejected because single core devs don't want to have a function
See my previous comment, i have just explained, as i unfortunately often have to, that a single core dev cannot do anything alone, cannot merge something and cannot stop something. If you get that impression that's your own miunderstanding.
sometimes get the impression that the wishes of the players or mod devs are ignored even if it makes sense and is not difficult to implement.
These wishes are never ignored, core devs read all the discussions and take player / modder wishes into account. But this is not a democracy, core devs take the final decisions and are under no obligation to do anything however much player / modder support there is. However, core devs do take support into account and do let that affect their decisions, more than you think.
even if it makes sense and is not difficult to implement.
That's only the point of view of the requester, the core devs have reasons why it doesn't make sense, which is why it is rejected.
I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one with this impression
There are some others unfortunately, doesn't make it true.
paramat
on 2 Jan 2018
Since MTG is a sandbox game, players primarily come up with their own goals rather than the game dictating the goals. Maybe a good way to direct development would be to identify some categories of player goals to support? Then proposals for new features could be evaluated according to how well it aligns to supporting these categories. I think this would be especially useful for judging gameplay systems that are not an incremental improvement.
Possible categories?:
- Architecture (Creative building, functional building, city planning, etc.)
- Combat (PvE, PvP, equipment, etc.)
- Engineering (Automation, farming, power generation / transmission / use, breeding, transportation, weapons engineering, etc.)
- Exploration (Natural landscape, ruins / other points of interest, transportation again, etc.)
- Survival (Body health, "the elements", acquiring food and water, shelter, PvE again, etc.)
- Social (Factions, cities, war, economy, cooperation on other kinds of goals, etc.)
Personally I would like to see some sort of engineering element in MTG. It could be themed as low-tech and mundane to match the rest of MTG, but I don't really have a preference as long as it is coherent. For example, mechanical power could be used instead of electricity. Medieval mines often used a power transmission system based on swinging rods. Magic potions could instead be herbally-based. Etc.
Having "mundane" technologies like these could give third-party mods that want to add extraordinary sorts of technology a base to build off of. A magic mod might introduce more fantastical herbs for the medicine system, or require the use of herbal mixes in magical rituals. A science mod could allow the analysis of herbs and the refinement or synthesis of the pharmaceutical chemicals that give the herbs their potency.
raymoo
on 3 Jan 2018
Maybe a good way to direct development would be to identify some categories of player goals to support? Then proposals for new features could be evaluated according to how well it aligns to supporting these categories.
This is too much like 'big planning' again, see my response here https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/2000#issuecomment-354815614
Development is directed issue by issue. Contributons are evaluated issue by issue. All that needs to be done is to have an idea and discuss it and submit it, and we do this already.
I don't understand this obsession people have with 'big plans' that have to be decided at time A and then rigidly adhered to, it's unnecessary, impractical and generates lots of useless bikeshedding. Just relax and focus on the present.
So instead of that, just come up with an idea for a feature and discuss it and submit it, and repeat.
If contributors are looking for guidance on 'what is likely to be accepted into MTG', just open an issue to suggest and discuss a single specific feature. A 'big plan' is too vague to know whether the specific feature will be accepted, the suggested feature will be judged on the details.
paramat
on 4 Jan 2018
Ok, I guess I can just suggest features.
I wouldn't characterize what I was talking about as a plan, though, since it wouldn't lay out any details of specific features. My interest in such focus groups is so that if I write / suggest X feature, I can support its inclusion by saying that feature X would align with group Y that has some focus.
raymoo
on 4 Jan 2018
Paramat, I would like to argue that that is a big problem with Minetest, not much pre-planning, so no-one know's what really to be working on, or what will be worked on, other then saying "VAEs".
It just isn't efficient, and makes a bigger mess in the long term, than planning things out _might_ do in the sort term, and there is nothing it could negatively affect in the long term.
MisterXtreme
on 4 Jan 2018
Surely having a development direction is required, unless there's no goal to be achieved by development.
What is the goal of developing MTG?
hkzorman
on 4 Jan 2018
Edited:
I understand now. @Minetest is not what I thought it was when I saw it.
@MisterXtreme, I strongly agree with you. This technique does not make minetest much of a game, and I can't say that the game is any fun right now.
In fact I can't say it's a game, to be real minetest is not a game, it is a very nice 3D art tool of picture and architecture.
Minetest has great potential, but minetest is simple, not much to it. So I sought to improve it; but then I found this was not to be done. Many things I believed to be needed were rejected or are near closing.
@hkzorman, Minetest's goal is a base platform, there ideology does not give them a further plan of goal.
After some searching and realization I finally figured out @Minetest's goal. These comments should help you some it all up if anyone is confused.
Development is directed issue by issue. Contributons are evaluated issue by issue. All that needs to be done is to have an idea and discuss it and submit it, and we do this already.
A 'big plan' is too vague to know whether the specific feature will be accepted
Have you noticed how the core devs are the most relaxed and laid back about 'plans', and just do what seems what is best in the moment? It's a more artistic, and the best, approach.
Currently my best assessment of the other dev's opinions is that we are happy to develop MTG to make it a little more of a 'game', but it will likely remain fairly simple
--Paramat
So there you have it, minetest isn't a game, it is a base meant to be simple. If what you want is a videogame, I seek to do this here (Minecore) to make a minetest game.
TekhnaeRaav
on 1 Feb 2018
I understand now. @minetest is not what I thought it was when I saw it.
@MisterXtreme, I strongly agree with you. This technique does not make minetest much of a game, and I can't say that the game is any fun right now.
That is why we probably need to rename Minetest Game to Minetest Game Classic (~and leave it to paramat~), and start a new Minetest Game (based or not on classic), with active open development (modders, please!), with inclusion/development of all good stuff that makes it a complete survival game, not only sandbox one, but actually survival, with tools rendered, ambience, armor, mobs, farming, automation, alchemy?, unique elements? game that is fun to play without installing tons of mods and works out of the box.
And along the way you can of course include completely different subgames into the distribution.
Fixer-007
on 1 Feb 2018
Minetest Game is both a game - of which I have played many hours - and a
base for expansion. It is left basic for your benefit.
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018, 7:14 AM Fixer notifications@github.com wrote:
I understand now. @minetest https://github.com/minetest is not what I
thought it was when I saw it.
@MisterXtreme https://github.com/misterxtreme, I strongly agree with
you. This technique does not make minetest much of a game, and I can't say
that the game is any fun right now.That is why we probably need to rename Minetest Game to Minetest Game
Classic (and leave it to paramat), and start a new Minetest Game (based or
not on classic), with active open development, with inclusion/development
of all good stuff that makes it a complete survival game, not only sandbox
one, but actually survival, with tools rendered, ambience, mobs, farming,
automation, game that is fun to play without installing tons of mods and
works out of the box, it is simple.And along the way you can of course include complete different subgames
into the distribution.—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/515#issuecomment-362248274,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWXKYs90aK18JsuegqORvmLDzsx6Pw1yks5tQaqegaJpZM4Ear6S
.
ghost
on 1 Feb 2018
not much pre-planning, so no-one know's what really to be working on,
As i explained, the current direction can be known by following the threads. Apart from that, just open an issue to suggest and discuss something.
Surely having a development direction is required
There is a simple one: Keep MTG fairly universal, basic and lightweight (to run on all devices), respect the fact it is a base for many mods and much relies on it, improve and develop it to be a little more of a game, with options (simple mobs etc.). Due to the limitations it will inevitably not be as free as other games, so other games are probably needed to be the impressive, complete and exciting games.
This direction is known if you follow development and threads closely enough. There have also been many discussions about the direction of MTG that make our current direction knowable.
It has a strong direction and intention, but direction and intention exists in the present, no goal other than 'to make it s good as possible' is needed.
So I sought to improve it; but then I found this was not to be done. Many things I believed to be needed were rejected or are near closing.
That's ridiculous, we are always working insanely hard to improve it. If we disapprove of an idea or PR of yours it is for good reason.
We certainly need new subgames and will bundle the good and original ones.
Much of what i am writing above is expaining an artistic approach, often the best art has no goal or plan and is created intuitively and organically in the moment. Some misunderstand what i have written.
All of this is just my opinion, alone i cannot determine how MTG develops, it's a group effort, i just have more time to write comments.
paramat
on 1 Feb 2018
That's ridiculous, we are always working insanely hard to improve it. If we disapprove of an idea or PR of yours it is for good reason.
Sorry paramat edited a bit.
I don't seek criticize minetest, I just found my realization of what minetest is supposed to be, and now I want to make the game that everyone has been wanting.
TekhnaeRaav
on 1 Feb 2018
Hello everyone. I am an associate to TekhnaeRaav.
Minetest Game is both a game - of which I have played many hours - and a base for expansion. It is left basic for your benefit.
You can call Minetest a game yes, we don't need to get into a taxonomical debate. The point however is this, Minetest is not the game we, or many other users were looking for. It may be left basic for a reason, but it is not to our benefit, that is the people who want to make a game inspired by fun focused features. It may be assumed that by making the game moddable it allows such users to add these features, but the limitations of modds are plainly present and the unification of modds is too difficult without focus on the features that modds implement. I won't argue the direction of Minetest, as that is not my decision to make, but Minetest is not the project we wanted it to be. That is why we are looking to join together a community with a different purpose in mind on a fork of this project.
Along with a different goal, we are also looking to develop with different methods as well. We want a more community driven project that is fueled by a common unified objective. We want to be motivated as a group that seeks to improve a project that we all agree is great and can become greater. I know that there is often limited time on everyone's hands but I don't want this to ever be a deterrent for us. My justification for this foolhardy method is this, keeping in mind our goal to make the game as fun as possible, if the game isn't fun, why make it? We didn't see Minetest as something fun enough to play when we have Minecraft. You could say that an open source game like Minetest can't be compared to Minecraft, but that is _our_ comparison that we have to deal with when producing a game with the intention of being fun, to make it funner than Minecraft. Again, maybe foolhardy to believe we can beat Minecraft, but we'd rather go down swinging than spend hours of time making something that is not what we really want. Also, we believe in not putting a boundary on what we think we are capable of. If we never try to beat Minecraft, we'll never know if we can, but I am confident in the power of the community.
Finally we wish to implement better organization. I have never seen anybody develop a project without a clear goal in mind. Without one, the community is divided and confused; this method goes against all logic ever applied to the situation. The current work flow is like asking the community to shoot a million holes in an unmarked target until they hit an invisible bullseye.
The already-existing roadmaps describe the philosophy of Minetest well, and the current direction and mission can be known by following dev discussion, PRs and issues. It's not surprising that devs do not feel like writng regular essays on the current direction and mission, to do so would be difficult, time consuming and the result would be out of date within weeks.--Paramat
I will state simply that I don't agree that, _"The already-existing roadmaps describe the philosophy of Minetest well,"_ and that, _"the current direction and mission can be known by following dev discussion, PRs and issues,"_ is a inefficient method for users to track issues. _"It's not surprising that devs do not feel like writng regular essays on the current direction and mission, to do so would be difficult, time consuming and the result would be out of date within weeks."_ Documentation has never been a dev's favorite job. I would know, I have two friends who are computer devs (one of which is a proffessional), but they always understand the trade off, and that it is worth the time of documenting to increase awareness and long term efficiency. This is also where people of my talent come in, my specialty is documentation, as you might have guessed from my long comment. I will be helping handle the organization and fabrication of necessary documents to give the devs time that can be better spent on other things.
I want it to be made clear that I am not here to criticize Minetest, or any of it's developers or members. I wanted to post this here for the benefit of those who are like minded to our philosophy, who are currently looking for something other than Minetest. Our aim is to create a game, with the belief that a game should be fun, to create a strong, unified community that has there goals set and established but never constrained. If you want to join such a project, check out Minecore, being announced today! We are in need of any and all contributors who are willing to join, especially programers with experience in C++.
HarsulinsGhost
on 5 Feb 2018
@HarsulinsGhost What kind of direction is planned for Minecore?
raymoo
on 5 Feb 2018
I suggest talking about minecore in the minecore topic rather than spamming our issue trackers. Unless what you have to say is actually applicable to Minetest game
rubenwardy
on 6 Feb 2018
@raymoo Hopefully the Minecore website will be up tomorrow, but till it is, here's a link for more info, https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19597
HarsulinsGhost
on 6 Feb 2018
Good luck.
On Mon, Feb 5, 2018, 7:15 PM HarsulinsGhost notifications@github.com
wrote:
Hopefully the Minecore website will be up tomorrow, but till it is, here's
a link for more info,
https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19597—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/515#issuecomment-363265790,
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWXKYoI7dhJOXmz_kQaCnh9heYrHrYDBks5tR5m_gaJpZM4Ear6S
.
ghost
on 6 Feb 2018
Minetest's goal is a base platform, there ideology does not give them a further plan of goal.
And here is sad fact why it is all BS: MINETEST GAME AND MINECRAFT ARE BOTH MOD BASES, stop pretending it is not, it is just MTG ~sucks~ is largely unfinished and incomplete game. You can still make MTG great game, with _modular_ design (aka mod by mod) as great and fun as Minecraft, it will still be moddable base, but much nicer and juicer, you can also turn off/replace parts you don't need, but devs don't want that for some reason, hiding "behind minetest is a base" excuse.
Now look how it ended, with disinterest in game, that is on life support from paramat pretty much, instead of rotting - look in the first post, there are clear objectives, it should be a TODO for MTG as of now, start expanding it, detailing steps, what to add, accept more members to increase development pace etc.
Fixer-007
on 13 Feb 2018
HarsulinsGhost,
Minetest Game is both a game - of which I have played many hours - and a base for expansion. It is left basic for your benefit.
Your reply:
You can call Minetest a game yes, we don't need to get into a taxonomical debate. The point however is this, Minetest is not the game we, or many other users were looking for. It may be left basic for a reason, but it is not to our benefit, that is the people who want to make a game inspired by fun focused features
This seems to be confusing the engine with MTGame, it seems you may be disappointed in the MTEngine mostly because of MTGame and poorly written mods. The MTEngine is not a game.
The MTEngine is not basic, MTGame is though. You can probably do what you want by writing a new game (subgame) for the MTEngine, this is something we desperately need and have been asking for for years, it will be bundled with MTGame. It will also be a much smaller and easier project than creating a new engine, and something that benefits MT players also.
There are a lot of features in the MTEngine that are not used in MTGame and barely used in any mods. Fun mostly comes from gameplay, game content and usage of features, not sheer amount of features or fancy shaders.
is not to our benefit, that is the people who want to make a game inspired by fun focused features
That's our intent too, you have the wrong impression.
We want a more community driven project
Easy to be idealistic about democracy, but practically you will end up with a few talented coders who inevitably have to make the final decisions, some decisions will be unpopular with many users, sometimes unpopular with the majority of users, then you will essentially be in the same state as MT. Development by democracy does not work and will result in lower quality.
We didn't see Minetest as something fun enough to play when we have Minecraft.
Not surprised, but that's down to the game (subgame) not the engine.
Also, we believe in not putting a boundary on what we think we are capable of.
We don't do this either, but are more realistic about what a FOSS project can do.
Finally we wish to implement better organization. I have never seen anybody develop a project without a clear goal in mind. Without one, the community is divided and confused
We have a clear goal, to make MT a good as possible, for more detail see celeron55's roadmaps:
http://c55.me/blog/?p=1491
https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9177
https://github.com/minetest/minetest/issues/3476#issuecomment-167399287 onwards.
to create a strong, unified community that has there goals set and established but never constrained
This is unrealistic, a community can never be unified, people will disagree just as much as they do in MT, a core team will have to make decisions and many users will be dissatisfied.
As a community the MT community is actually a good one and far more pleasant then the MC one.
You will be constrained by dev time and by practicalities. As a FOSS project with extremely limited human resources you will never be able to reach the level of attention and refinement of MC and you will progress much slower. Inevitably you will be forced to keep your project simpler and say no to less important features, which is exactly what MT does.
You will find it is easy to find supporters who are fed up with MT for irrational reasons, i talk to them a lot on Github and see some of them involved with your project. So you will have a lot of strong support, but some of that will be unrealistic support, just something to keep in mind when judging the support you seem to have.
paramat
on 13 Feb 2018
TekhnaeRaav, you wrote:
This technique does not make minetest much of a game, and I can't say that the game is any fun right now.
In fact I can't say it's a game, to be real minetest is not a game, it is a very nice 3D art tool of picture and architecture.
Minetest's goal is a base platform, there ideology does not give them a further plan of goal.
Are you referring to MTEngine or MTGame? If MTEngine then obviously it is not a game, games run on it. If you are referring to MTGame then you can probably create a new game for MTEngine that does what you want.
So there you have it, minetest isn't a game, it is a base meant to be simple. If what you want is a videogame, I seek to do this here (Minecore) to make a minetest game.
You quoted me referring to MTGame, so i assume you are referring to MTGame here, and yes it is a simple mod base. But then as a solution you refer to Minecore which is an engine project. The solution is probably a new game for the MTEngine.
paramat
on 13 Feb 2018
Fixer you wrote:
You can still make MTG great game, with modular design (aka mod by mod) as great and fun as Minecraft, it will still be moddable base, but much nicer and juicer, you can also turn off/replace parts you don't need, but devs don't want that for some reason, hiding "behind minetest is a base" excuse.
MTG may not be the right place to create a complete and exciting game, because it is inevitably restrained by how much depends on it and how it is primarily a mod base, we are asking for new games to do that. However despite this we are continuing to improve MTG and add optional features.
Please don't suggest that devs don't want to improve things, that's ridiculous negativity.
look in the first post, there are clear objectives, it should be a TODO for MTG as of now, start expanding it, detailing steps, what to add, accept more members to increase development pace etc.
It's not as simple as that. The first post is a TODO. Steps can't be detailed before they are worked on. We add new MTG devs when suitable ones exist and no sooner.
paramat
on 13 Feb 2018
Are there guidelines for what kinds of changes would make MTG unsuitable as a mod base?
raymoo
on 13 Feb 2018
MTG may not be the right place to create a complete and exciting game, because it is inevitably restrained by how much depends on it and how it is primarily a mod base
And how adding more stuff breaks dependencies (old stuff)? It depends on old rotten stuff anyway, it will still be mod base, but more complete, since you add new pieces as new mods to it pretty much and new modders can utilise those builtin mods or not.
Fixer-007
on 13 Feb 2018
No, that's difficult to do because each issue needs to be assessed independently, any document would be too vague to be of any use so is a waste of time writing. This also applies to any document trying to describe what is suitable for MTG, people ask for that without realising it is impractical to do so, which is what i've been trying to explain.
Whether a feature is, or is not, suitable for MTG can only be discussed specifically issue by issue. I suggest opening an issue to discuss something if you want to know if it is, or is not, suitable.
paramat
on 13 Feb 2018
Fixer, it may indeed be possible, which is why i wrote 'may not be'. The good news is that despite these issues we are moving forwards with MTG anyway and adding optional features, to make it a little more game-like. However yes in some ways it is limited by it's history, it's structure, it's universality and how things depend on it.
paramat
on 13 Feb 2018
@paramat This time I asked for what kinds of things would make a mod unsuitable, rather than suitable. That means it isn't necessary to enumerate a list of things that would allow a feature to be included. I'm just looking for examples of criteria that are likely to make a mod not be included. For example, I would guess an industry mod along the lines of technic would not be included (correct me if I am wrong). Is this because of technical reasons (too computationally expensive, too many new ores, etc.) or is there a reason that the gameplay itself would not fit in Minetest?
EDIT: The too many ores might also be a gameplay reason, I just couldn't think of another technical reason. Maybe the use of fake players for some actions?
raymoo
on 13 Feb 2018
too many new ores
MTG already has too many ores 🤔
Fixer-007
on 14 Feb 2018
@raymoo
I'm just looking for examples of criteria that are likely to make a mod not be included.
My take on this:
- Too intensive: full on mesecons/technic would come under this, but so would anything that has high potential for reducing peoples' ability to play.
- Anything that will interfere with existing worlds/mods/servers: A commitment not to break existing worlds is expected from those running them, though they should of course be open to a certain level of adaptation as time goes on.
- Wrong theme: for example, something with a very different art style, or that is clearly targeting a very specific, instead of more general, audience.
- Big features that cannot be easily disabled/customised: keys is a good example of people getting angry over this type of change.
- Overly difficult to maintain: note, this could be a consideration either in terms of the devs maintaining it, or those running a world needing to do a lot of extra maintenance due to it.
- Big changes for very little gain: extreme example, but no one wants to add a new mod with thousands of lines of code so a player can type a command that makes them automatically walk in circles.
Some of these are a bit difficult to pin down neatly, and I ask you to keep in mind that these are just my own quick ideas: some of the devs may not agree with me or may have other things to add. In general I really would encourage those with ideas to open issues with the aim of getting a concept approval, and to spend time on freenode in the Minetest channels talking to the team to get a feel for what might be possible. So much really comes down to communication.
I can relate with what many people feel about MTG because I've been extremely frustrated with its development in the past myself, to the extent of starting up my own game project on the side. Oddly it was that which got me more involved with MTG, and some of what I worked on for my own game is now in MTG as a result. I didn't expect this to happen, but I suspect sometimes those who are most dissatisfied with how things are can be in the best position to start fixing them. I'd personally love to see more people getting involved and more content being added, but we do need to make sure it's done in the right way.
Ezhh
on 14 Feb 2018
Generally any feature in MTG needs to be fairly simple, basic, fundamental and lightweight, partly due to the maintenance required and lack of dev time, but also so that MTG with it's options enabled can run on most devices. So technic would certainly be too overweight and intensive, same for mesecons, homedecor, moretrees etc. More specialist features should remain separate mods.
paramat
on 14 Feb 2018
@paramat So if technic had no computational cost and ran for free, would it be a potential candidate for inclusion?
raymoo
on 14 Feb 2018
@raymoo as @Ezhh pointed out, there are more requirements for adding new features/mods than just "computational costs" and running magically "for free" ;)
JurajVajda
on 14 Feb 2018
Here is my incomplete list of obvious things MTG needs addressing (unless you disagree):
- More tree schematics per each tree (as part of general biome fancying that occurs rtn)
- Visible 3D tools in hands (aka wieldview or wield3d with 180deg rotation bug fixed)
- Text on signs (aka signs_lib but simple and not entity based text)
- Throwing API (snow first)
- Rebalance bronze tools
Fixer-007
on 14 Feb 2018
@paramat I neglected the part of your comment mentioning maintenance cost in my previous comment. I guess I would change my comment to include the assumption that the version of technic included would be very well-organized and easy to read / maintain.
raymoo
on 14 Feb 2018
raymoo there's also the issue of how specialist a feature is. Players will likely prefer a certain choice of a technical mod, so maybe best a separate mod?
paramat
on 14 Feb 2018
@paramat Makes sense to me, but wouldn't it still be possible for players to install multiple technical mods?
raymoo
on 14 Feb 2018
After what i wrote above i'm thinking that MTG may never be the game many are hoping for.
We will always need a simple game for low-power devices (that is, a fairly complete game with a reasonable amount of features but each feature done simply), if MTG became complex and intensive then we would have to start a new game to be the basic game.
Seeing as MTG is already simple, is a mod-base (which suggests simplicity), the devs having limited time and preferring simplicity, MTG might as well remain that simple game.
I suggest that complete, exciting, impressive, feature-rich games for MT will have to be new games possibly made by non-core-devs. These games will also be freer as they are not limited by being a mod base and inhereting a structure that is difficult to change.
Even if MTG does develop a lot more it will be slow, new games can progress much faster unrestrained by the official dev process.
MT core devs have very limted time and are simultaneously trying to maintain the engine, MTG will always be priority for our attention as so much depends on it. So i ask that people don't expect the amazing game they want from us, it's down to you to create the new games MT needs.
However we have intentions and plans, many improvements and new features are coming, slowly.
paramat
on 14 Feb 2018
raymoo, also, a technical mod may be too specialist to include even if all other issues are solved.
This is the only part of the first post i am not sure of.
paramat
on 15 Feb 2018
Thank you, I think I have a better idea now of what kinds of mods might not belong in MTG.
I do have a subgame idea but I don't know how much time I will have available / be willing to commit to it.
raymoo
on 15 Feb 2018
@raymoo Maybe considering offering your assistance to an existing subgame. A solid alternative game would need a team, not just one person, because no matter how capable that one person is, if they disappear then there's a risk no one carries on.
I'll also add that I don't think MTG needs to remain boring to still be a good base. It does need to have limits and be more strict than non-official games / games that don't have this requirement, but that isn't an excuse for it not being a game that can be enjoyed, even if a relatively simple one. This does take time though, and I'd love to see more people helping.
Ezhh
on 15 Feb 2018
@Ezhh As for as I can tell, no existing game is really what I am looking for (a survival-centric game along the lines of TerraFirmaCraft). Ultimately, I want to work on something that I'm interested in playing myself, and I don't find the gameplay of any of the existing (unmodded) games that compelling.
EDIT: But admittedly I haven't looked that deeply into non-MTG games, so there may be something that I have missed.
raymoo
on 15 Feb 2018
Closing due to #2710
paramat
on 27 Jul 2020
Related issues
paramat
·
3Comments
benrob0329
·
4Comments
HybridDog
·
4Comments
Desour
·
6Comments
PilzAdam
·
4Comments
Most helpful comment
@LeMagnesium Haven't you ever played Minecraft before? I defeated the ender dragon and I still play it. I built a security room for my dragon egg.
Maybe we could add goals.