[Discussion] Development direction #515
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). |
|
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? |
|
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. |
|
/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. |
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. |
|
@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 , I never played MineCraft before. And if I reach the goal, I assume I have finished the game. |
|
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. |
|
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. 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:
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. |
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. |
|
Please be very careful with mobs, because currently, most mob mobs are a horrible mess:
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 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: |
|
We'll should chose (or write) one API with good design, and then all mobs mods have to use that. |
|
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?”). 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. ;-) |
|
Yes, of course, doing things carefully is very important. I guess one can chose an API that doesn't negatively influence compatibility issues. |
|
@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. |
No, we should remain at 4 nodes/s. 1 node = 1 m. |
|
@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. |
|
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. |
|
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? Why should I build an animal pen? Why should I build a city? Why should I build at all? Why should I mine? Why should I play? See, let's look at Minecraft for a minute. Why should I build a house? Why should I build an animal pen? Why should I build a city? Why should I build at all? Why should I mine? Why should I play at all? 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? |
|
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. ;) 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. |
|
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... |
|
By the way Wuzzy, about mob mods, we should make our own API from scratch. A clean, smooth start.
|
|
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?
Why is it fun to play creative with others?
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! |
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.. |
|
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. |
|
@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 Minetest is not based off of Minecraft. However, they are And as a note, there is an achievements mod which I think would be great On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 9:16 PM, C1ffisme [email protected] wrote:
|
|
Minetest.net:
Yes! An achievements mod! That would be great. (Though we still need the features to have them... :P) |
|
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. |
|
@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 |
|
Good luck.
…On Mon, Feb 5, 2018, 7:15 PM HarsulinsGhost ***@***.***> 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
<#515 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AWXKYoI7dhJOXmz_kQaCnh9heYrHrYDBks5tR5m_gaJpZM4Ear6S>
.
|
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. |
|
HarsulinsGhost,
Your reply:
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.
That's our intent too, you have the wrong impression.
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.
Not surprised, but that's down to the game (subgame) not the engine.
We don't do this either, but are more realistic about what a FOSS project can do.
We have a clear goal, to make MT a good as possible, for more detail see celeron55's roadmaps:
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. 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. |
|
TekhnaeRaav, you wrote:
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.
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. |
|
Fixer you wrote:
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.
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. |
|
Are there guidelines for what kinds of changes would make MTG unsuitable as 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. |
|
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. |
|
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 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? |
MTG already has too many ores 🤔 |
My take on this:
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. |
|
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 So if technic had no computational cost and ran for free, would it be a potential candidate for inclusion? |
|
Here is my incomplete list of obvious things MTG needs addressing (unless you disagree):
|
|
@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 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 Makes sense to me, but wouldn't it still be possible for players to install multiple technical mods? |
|
After what i wrote above i'm thinking that MTG may never be the game many are hoping for. 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. Even if MTG does develop a lot more it will be slow, new games can progress much faster unrestrained by the official dev process. However we have intentions and plans, many improvements and new features are coming, slowly. |
|
raymoo, also, a technical mod may be too specialist to include even if all other issues are solved. |
|
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 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 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. |
|
Closing due to #2710 |
and others
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:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: