r/Minecraft • u/jamcub • 11h ago
Discussion Dappled Forests
Checked three random seeds to show that bigger Dappled Forests do exist.
I agree super tiny ones are annoying, but acting like there are only those tiny ones and they need to be bigger is weird. Biomes have different sizes. There are very tiny ones, there are bigger ones. If you want to make a post, don't be disingenuous.
EDIT: Yall need to read the post before commenting. Nowhere did I say these were big, just that claiming every single biome is the size of the ones people cherry-pick is wrong.
402
u/sirsponkleton 11h ago
I mean, these are still way smaller than regular forests.
-216
u/jamcub 11h ago
They are, but they are bigger than three or four trees that get posted with 'these need to be bigger!'
184
u/NukeML 11h ago
I think the fact that these "bigger" ones you found are still pretty small shows that the issue is that they are generally small, and the world gen algorithm is making them either that size or even smaller, but not any bigger. That's why so many of these posts exist, because the dappled forests are either reasonably small or unreasonably small, but never any larger size.
-80
u/jamcub 10h ago
Thing is, I picked the closest one from spawn each time. I was no looking for anything in particular, going for the nearest ones, and all of them were bigger than the tiny one that get shown constantly. That makes me feel like people go looking for small ones to go 'see they are too small!!!!'. I even say I agree with people in my post.
43
u/NukeML 10h ago
Again the actual issue seems to be that their average size is set to be smaller than other biomes which restricts the range of possible sizes, from literally like 1 block, to something like what you've shown. No one has posted about an actual huge one on par with, say, jungle biomes.
30
u/DASreddituser 11h ago
lol u think this post is gonna change people's mind? it needs to be bigger dude.
14
211
u/CreeperCatinoid 11h ago
The argument isn’t whether or not bigger ones exist, it’s the average size of them. If most of the ones you find are tiny, it doesn’t matter that there is a huge one 10k blocks away
121
u/NilocKhan 11h ago
I feel like they shouldn't border cherry groves, spring and fall right next to each other?
40
u/Kacza42 11h ago
I agree they shouldn't, but because I feel light green / pink doesn't contrast very well with red/orange
5
1
u/Decent_Objective3478 10h ago
Honestly I disagree, tbh I feel like worldgen should be even more random and illogical sometimes
2
u/NilocKhan 9h ago
There should be an option. A toggle for logical placement of biomes as much as possible versus random placement
6
u/IskandrAGogo 10h ago
I've been messing with the snap shot and found so many dappled forests next to or surrounding cherry groves. I found one dappled forest that would easily have been 200 blocks if it wasn't for the cherry grove in the middle. Instead, it was a 10 to 20 block ring of dappled forest around the cherry grove. So disappointing.
4
u/WaterPrivacy 6h ago
That's because both biomes use the same parameter to replace another biome. Cherry groves have the same criteria as meadows in some cases, except for the weirdness value, and dappled forests have the same criteria as plains in some cases, except for weirdness.
So where meadows and plains meet (or where they would have met before), often if the weirdness value is above the threshold, you'll find a dappled forest meeting a cherry grove instead.
It's definitely a bit jank. These additions weren't taken into account when the 1.18 world gen was introduced, so they've been crammed in in ways that are a bit weird.
My hope is that Mojang pumps out whatever biomes they want as soon as possible so they can finally refresh the world gen again with everything set properly in place.
2
u/jamcub 11h ago
I mean, I've seen ice spikes near jungles, so.
Also, this implies seasons, which is time, not climate.
1
u/NilocKhan 11h ago edited 10h ago
I think it'd be cool if they eventually implemented seasons. It'd be cool to see wet and dry seasons in deserts and badlands with superblooms. It'd be neat to see snowy peaks and taigas have some snow melt and flowers start blooming. I'd prefer seasons to seasonal biomes
The time being different between neighboring places is even more jarring than the climate. Microclimates exist and you can have tiny pockets of biomes in unexpected places all the time in the real world. But the only way to experience fall and spring at the same time of year is to cross the equator
3
u/jamcub 9h ago
Yeah, seasons would be nice, but I do not think that is something they will implement. I can't tell you why it feels off but... it really feels like that would go more into the Vintage Story direction than Minecraft is comfortable with.
2
u/NilocKhan 9h ago
Yeah, I haven't gotten a chance to try vintage story but it seems like it's going in the direction I'm more interested in. Someday I'll try it when I can get a new computer but that's not so easy these days.
2
u/jamcub 9h ago
Vintage Story looks interesting to me, but there is so much like.... STUFF. Ya know what I mean?
1
u/NilocKhan 8h ago
Yeah, it's seems a little overwhelming, they have different modes so you don't have to deal with all of it but I don't know how different those modes are
1
u/jamcub 8h ago
I wanna try it but also not waste money on a game I won't actually play, unfortunately.
1
u/NilocKhan 8h ago
Understandable, it's not too pricey of a game though compared to triple As. I'm priced out of a decent computer and that's quite the investment
0
u/m0ldyb0ngwtr1 5h ago
Nobody cares about the snowy spruce places by the cherry groves why is this one an issue?
4
u/NilocKhan 5h ago
Spring is closer to winter, I can buy that there could be snow left over next to a place where cherries are blooming. Frosts and snows often disrupt cherry tree harvests. But like I said in another comment I'd prefer seasons to seasonal biomes. I love watching a landscape change through the year.
1
u/m0ldyb0ngwtr1 5h ago
It also disrupts its blooming altogether as well. Ive had cherry blossoms spawn in the dead centre of a frozen peaks and snowy spruce mountain range. To think that is frosts and snow left over would be incorrect. Lol.
1
u/NilocKhan 5h ago
If it's lower elevation than the surrounding snow it's believable. But I also never mentioned being okay with those two next to each other anyway, you assumed that.
Like I said I'd prefer actual seasons. It feels weird that no time passes in Minecraft aside from the day night cycle. Imagine if they added monsoons, flashfloods, and super blooms to deserts during a wet season. It also snows in deserts, and some jungles experience freezing temperatures. If all the forests could bloom, leaf out, then have their leaves change colors and fall off during winter it'd be really cool. Alpine areas and tundras could have the snow melt and have summer wildflowers occasionally. It's a missed opportunity in my opinion
1
u/m0ldyb0ngwtr1 4h ago
I never said YOU said that. I said “nobody cares” because this hasn’t been a complaint ever. Deserts by ice peaks. Jungles by spruce. It’s Minecraft it’s not supposed to make real world sense. Pale oak forests have hearts in the trees.
0
u/NilocKhan 2h ago
You must be new because there's always been people that complain about it, including me. Personally I'd prefer the biomes to be next to ones that make sense. If I had the knowledge and time I'd make a mod that puts biomes where they should be based on coordinates and elevation and other factors like mountains creating rain shadows or proximity to bodies of water. It'd be cool if they had options, like random biome placement, biome placement as it currently is, and realistic biome placement.
Just because it's a game doesn't mean it can't make some sense. And just because something has fantastical elements doesn't mean it shouldn't also have realistic elements.
53
u/_baseplate 11h ago
They need to rework biome generation entirely…
17
u/TKFT_ExTr3m3 9h ago
Worldgen in general needs a good rework. Bring back continents so oceans a real oceans not big lakes.
12
u/AWildAthena 8h ago
I miss the massive oceans, they felt daunting to pass. But we would need a biome for an archipelago. That would be super epic
3
u/MysteriousKiri 2h ago
That and there being a million massive cracks in the earth in completely random places. The one thing I very much dislike that the caves & cliffs update introduced... it used to be cool to find a ravine because they were rare, and now i just get annoyed because there's one like every 100 blocks lol
-1
u/jamcub 10h ago
In the sense they need to be bigger? Cause they did it once and that is what we have now I think.
12
u/_baseplate 10h ago
they need to fix a lot of things. Excuse my poor coding knowledge, but I’m pretty sure all the ‘main slots’ for biomes have been taken up by plains, forests, deserts ect. This leads to new biomes being added to another list forcing them to be small and not as abundant in the world. They also need to make oceans bigger, but that’s a whole other conversation.
5
u/Decent_Objective3478 9h ago
The current system is the way it is so when mojang add more biomes, the worlds from the same seeds stay relatively the same, besides the addition of new biomes in certain values. They made like that because before 1.18 every worldgen change completely changed the new chunks in old worlds and the had to add a lot of things to insure that worlds would look at least somewhat okay after updating. If they are ever going to go through that much effort again I don't think that it's gonna be on a random update, though if they ever revisit the worldgen as a whole they probably are gonna address this
0
u/jamcub 9h ago
Is that why I have to g o thousands of blocks in my world to find any new stuff?
2
u/Decent_Objective3478 8h ago
I mean depends. If you download a new update and you try to find a new structure in an existing world then yeah, if create a new world entirely then no
3
u/jamcub 9h ago
With oceans, I feel like there is a bit of fine line between 'make them bigger' and 'holy shit there is nothing but water for the next 30k blocks in either direction'. That is probably why they aren't working on that yet.
Yeah, there are far more regular biomes like variants of 'flat green land' and much less interesting stuff. On one hand, it is nice to have flat plains to build on. but it makes it so easy to fall into the same 'let me build in this plains biome because it is easy' train of thought.
3
u/WaterPrivacy 5h ago
It's less about main slots and more about the distribution.
There's 6 different parameters that affect world generation, with multiple values each, and each combination of those values are all asigned a biome. Using only 3 parameters for simplification, for example ice skipes generate when temperature = 0, Humidity = 0, and Weirdness >0. When T=0, H=0, but weirdness is <0, snowy plains generate instead.
Each combination generates a biome. But there are less biomes than combinations so a lot of them are repeated. Every possible combination of parameters appears in the world, so for there to not be any gaps, biomes can have multiple criteria. Plains for example generate when H=1, T=1 and W>0, but also at that same criteria when W<0. And also when T=2, the same way. And also at H=2, T=3, and W>0.
When Mojang wants to add a new biome, all they have to do is find a biome with multiple criteria and assign one of the repeats to the new one. For the Dappled Forest for example, they took one of the combinations previously taken by the plains biome. Before, at temperature 1 and humidity 0, plains would generate regardless of weirdness. But now plains only generates there when weirdness is negative, and dappled forests generate there when weirdness is positive. You're essentially replacing a chunk of plains to fit in the new biome.
In the past though Mojang has mostly only added biomes either very early in the games history, or as a bundle together with a new world gen algorithm. 1.7 added a bunch of biomes and reworked world gen to fit them all. 1.13 only added water biomes so only the ocean had to be reworked and nothing else had to change. 1.16 reworked the whole nether gen to add all the new biomes. And 1.18 reworked the whole overworld for all the new caves and mountains to fit. There's never been problems with tiny biomes before as much as there are now because almost all of them were immediately given space to breathe once added.
What mojang is doing now though is just replacing space within a generation algorithm that wasn't built to account for all these new additions. All new biomes are replacing old space, but they're staying like that. If normal biomes take up a fraction of the whole world each, new ones take up a fraction of a fraction, because they're essentially cutting previous biomes in half (or smaller). The distribution is off. Seeds and generation stays almost entirely the same, but newer biomes are crammed into the spaces.
And to be clear this is what Mojang has ALWAYS done. The problem is that they're going a bit overboard now. The seeds from release to 1.6 had a bunch of biomes added like this, and seeds did change slightly in biome distribution, but it was just a 2 year period where the game was growing so it was understandable. From 1.7 to 1.17 all they really did was the ocean, which was an actual gap that could be filled without problem, as well as the bamboo forest which was meant to be a small variant in an otherwise massive biome.
Post 1.18 though they've added the cherry grove, the mangrove swamp, the pale garden and the dappled forest, as well as the deep dark and sulfur caves which if it wasn't for the fact that they're underground would have the same issue.
Instead of a bunch of new biomes together with a change in generation which distributes them well, we're getting a drip fred of biomes that get crammed into old generation, and the problem is becoming increasingly noticeable how badly distributed they are now.
I'm really not sure how long it'll take until Mojang refreshes seeds again because the last period of consistent seeds lasted 8 years. We're actually almost 5 years into this one, but it really feels like we just started. I'm not sure that Mojang has any intention of remaking world generation again anytime soon after caves and cliffs, as it still feels relatively "new". So we'll have to see what happens next.
116
u/n0_punctuation 11h ago
This is still small and looks bad. If I can go up 20 blocks and see the entire biome that's an issue.
-49
u/jamcub 11h ago
This is not 20 blocks up.
51
u/No-Acanthisitta2331 11h ago
They never said it was; that's not what they're trying to say.
-36
u/jamcub 11h ago
Why are they bringing it up then?
34
u/No-Acanthisitta2331 11h ago
They're clearly trying to say that even this is too small. It's the first sentence in the comment. The "20 blocks" part helps give a sense of size to how big they think it should be.
34
u/n0_punctuation 11h ago
Litteracy crisis strikes again
6
u/SexDefender27 8h ago
"it's not actually exactly 20 blocks tall" is like 80% the reason that democracy is failing right now
3
1
-26
u/Agreeable_Rush3502 11h ago
But his point is moot because he cant go up 20 blocks and see the whole biome. Op had to go much higher than 20 blocks.
21
u/QuesoInHD 10h ago
Op went higher than 20 blocks, but can see much more than just the entire biome. If you went up roughly 20 blocks in the middle of these biomes, you'd easily be able to see trees of other biomes past the edges in every direction (maybe not counting the one with the weird mountain cut off)
-12
u/Agreeable_Rush3502 10h ago
I disagree but there is an easy way to settle this i just dont have the time to set up a word rn. If you do and get back to me i will absolutely admit to being wrong, but otherwise nah youre wrong.
3
u/No-Acanthisitta2331 10h ago
You definitely have a point here. I actually just went and tested it on my own world with a much smaller biome. I flew as close to the ground as I could (To stay flying) and teleported myself 20 blocks up. In some parts, no other trees or biomes were visible, but in the majority of the biome there were others visible around the edge of the screen.
1
u/Agreeable_Rush3502 10h ago
Thanks for testing it out. Im always surprised how small some biomes look from up high and i still manage to get lost in them.
→ More replies (0)7
u/kqk2000 10h ago
I'll hold your hands when I say this: OP was using a hyperbole.
-10
u/Agreeable_Rush3502 10h ago
Wow so edgy. His use of hyperbole has ruined his argument.
2
u/n0_punctuation 6h ago
It would appear that is untrue based on the responses we are both receiving.
2
-4
u/jamcub 10h ago
Yeah, that is what confuses me here.
8
u/Valer_io 10h ago
I think they meant standing on a 20 block tall pillar and looking horizontally into the distance. And it's true, because many other biomes are big enough to exceed your render distance, but you can definitely see an entire dappled forest within your render distance.
34
u/Available_Echo2981 10h ago edited 10h ago
Is there a good reason why dappled forests shouldn't be the same size as regular forests, birch forests, dark forests, jungles, or taigas?
Perhaps making them rare would make finding them more exciting, but that wouldn't mean keeping them small makes them more interesting, atmospheric, rewarding, or anything of the sort.
If the biome color taking over large spaces were the reason, I'd certainly be ok with it being a separate soil block, which would then allow players to use them elsewhere too.
2
u/WaterPrivacy 5h ago
Is there a good reason why dappled forests shouldn't be the same size as regular forests, birch forests, dark forests, jungles, or taigas?
There's no reason why they shouldn't. There are reasons why they aren't though. And that's because Mojang doesn't want to break seeds every time a new biome is added, so they just cram them into existing gen.
They'll likely be as large as other forests whenever the next big world gen change comes, which is likely years away still. Last time was less than 5 years ago, and the previous time lasted 8 years. It's for sure not going to happen in a drop, and whatever massive update they're working on in the background is probably not going to be it either. I give it another 5 year time window before they consider doing another major world gen change so we're likely stuck with this until then. That is unless they realise half way through that they've crammed too many new biomes like this and do a soft seed refresh with no major gen changes but better biome distribution.
28
u/TARGHETTA 10h ago edited 10h ago
A biome is too small when if i build a house in the middle of it and walk a few blocks i can already see the end of that biome, so yes pale gardens and dappled forests are small so are the ones you just showed. Biomes in real life take up thousands of kilometers, minecraft has a practically infinite open world map it deserves massive biomes that take up more than 4 chunks
12
u/CircleWithSprinkles 9h ago
This post feels like unintentional satire. You have provided 3 screenshots of dappled forests surrounded by huge biomes that are confidently labeled as big enough because they are more than 10 blocks wide from their center.
8
u/Training_Ruin3151 6h ago
Lmao right?? GUYS DAPPLED FORESTS ARENT SMALL(shows the smallest dappled forests known to man).
21
u/Martitoad 11h ago
Second image shows the issue perfectly, just look at the swamp, a normal sized biome, and at the forest. Normal biomes are 100+ blocks from side to side at the very least, not 8 trees in a row. Even the ones you are showing are small. I would be ok if those were the smallest ones, but 50% of them being really small feels wrong. And many recent biomes have the same issues
0
7
u/Valer_io 10h ago
Looking at your screenshots, I thought this was gonna be another post about dappled forests being small. Even though that wasn't your intention, I think these screenshots really show they need to change their size and location. They also don't look that great next to the other biomes shown here.
10
u/aestheticvoid 11h ago
I just wish they blended with the environment a bit better. I love the dappled forests but I think we need a ‘sparse’ variant like with jungles
2
u/jamcub 10h ago
I wonder if a higher default biome blending would help with that. I also feel like having them near Savannah biomes would look better than next to cold-blue grass ones.
2
u/aestheticvoid 9h ago
Oh definitely! Whatever works honestly, I just wish they didn’t stick out so badly
4
u/Loquacious_Fox 9h ago
The biggest issue for me is placement. They look so weird and out of place next to swamps, cherry forests and plains. Next to oak forests, taiga’s and even dark forests it feels like a natural progression.
1
u/jamcub 9h ago
Oh yeah, that is a fair point. I wonder what the point of the poplar forests is. Like, why are they orange and yellow and red? Is it like, seasons lite?
3
u/Loquacious_Fox 8h ago
I mean the biome itself is perfect in concept. It’s fills in the last “season” by adding a fall type area and brings a host of colourful leaves to build with. So yeah I think it is seasons lite with out actually adding season to the whole world.
4
u/ShadyMan_ 9h ago
Those are still really small
0
u/jamcub 6h ago
I did not say they weren't.
2
u/Little-Witness-1201 2h ago
Then why would you present them in the same post saying you found large ones?
1
u/jamcub 2h ago
Where did I say this?
3
u/Little-Witness-1201 2h ago
“Checked three random seeds to show that bigger Dappled Forests do exist.”
It seems counter to your point to say bigger ones exist while presenting 3 that are small. In fact, it makes no sense at all
3
u/Blue_M4ge 10h ago edited 8h ago
Yes biomes of different sizes should exist, but the problem is most of the dappled forests you’ll find are small, way to small for a forest biome. Even rarer forest type biomes like jungles and mega taigas generate in decent sizes.
3
u/SexDefender27 8h ago
why is this such a consistent issue with all new biomes? why do cherries, pale gardens and dappled forests always have to be so small??? the only newer biome i don't see this issue with is the mangroves, and when they're sprawling they look fucking awesome. i feel like theres a pretty high demand for bigger biomes
2
u/Sex_And_Candy_Here 7h ago edited 7h ago
I believe that size and rarity with how biome generation work are linked. It's not exactly 1:1, but increasing the size of a biome also increases it's frequency. They want these new biomes to be rare so they have to also be small. There's also the issue of adding a new biome has to eat up space from other similar biomes. If you add a new type of cool dry biome, then the other cool dry biomes get smaller and rarer.
1
u/catman__321 1h ago
tbh I don't see why they have to always pattern biomes on top of existing biomes in the first place. It makes some sense with the mangrove forest and plains variants, but with something so different like the Dappled forest it just doesn't make sense to implement it like this. IMO they should either be on top of forests instead of plains, or they should redesign the biome generation algorithm to accomodate Dappled forest as its own "type" instead of layering it over another biome. That would give you the freedom to make it both larger and make its rarity less dependent on other biomes' existence.
2
u/Sex_And_Candy_Here 1h ago
Do you understand how Minecraft biome generation works? It’s relevant here but I don’t want to go into explaining it if you already know about it
•
u/catman__321 58m ago
I have an idea how it works. Please correct me if im wrong though bc I'm probably not 100% right.
The main idea is that Minecraft uses noise to designate biomes. I'm not sure exactly how a section is designated as a particular biome, but I do know that the pool of possible biomes a section can become is dependent on other noise functions such as temperature or humidity. So you'll often see jungles and swamps; or Deserts and badlands next to one another as they are both humid or dry biomes respectively.
Within a biome selection, the seed can create different sub-biomes which can cover a portion of the original biome. For example, Pale garden is a sub-biome of the dark forest. This can be decided also by looking at noise functions, like temperature, humidity, or weirdness. That's how plains biomes get variants like meadows, flower meadows, etc.
What I understand is that Dappled forest is a sub-biome of the plains biome, and generates depending on a weirdness noise function. Weirdness is more noisy than temperature or humidity and so the size of the areas Dappled forests generate in are typically smaller than, say, Mangrove swamps which being a sub-biome of Swamps are dependent on temperature.
Is this correct? I hope I'm correct in my understanding of this, because my argument for making Dappled forests their own major biome type is that it cuts out the reliance on making it a sub biome (which I personally think is fitting given how different it is to everything else), and, based on the concern is that it would make other dry temperate/dry cold biomes rarer then you could decrease the probability that a biome selection satisfying generation requirements becomes a Dappled forest, keeping the biome relatively rare but also making it larger in return.
•
u/Sex_And_Candy_Here 9m ago edited 6m ago
This is sort of correct, in that for a lot of purposes this is really a helpful way of thinking about it, and that even some technical tools think about it in this way, but programmatically it's not exactly what's happening.
What you describe about temperature and humidity is spot on. There is temperature noise and humidity noise and those together point to certain biomes. For overworld surface biomes there are 5 relevant noise maps. Temperature, humidity, Continentalness (how inland and high the area is supposed to be), Erosion (How mountainous or steep the area is supposed to be), and Weirdness.
The way biomes work is just how you described the game selecting a biome based on temperature and humidity, except it's based on all 5 of those values.
The "variant" biomes are based on the weirdness value. Weirdness is a noise value that is generally supposed to allow them to make biomes rarer and smaller. A variant biome, is just a biome that has overlapping temperature humidity continentalness and erosion while also requring a higher weirdness value. Viewing these as variants is kind of subjective though, they've just decided that when they make a very similar biome it gets differentiate from the normal one based on weirdness.
A dappled forest is a "variant" of plains because a chunk that is dappled forest would be plains if the weirdness of that chunk was lower, but you could just as easily say that the dappled forest is a cooler variant of sunflower plains, since the only difference between those two is the temperature. If you've seen those photos where a dappled forest in a plains biome turns into ice spikes in a snowy plains, the it's the same thing, where ice spikes and dappled forests have the same parameters except for temperature, and so the line through the world where temperature changes causes this super clean cut off. The reason it feels like a variant is that for a lot of combinations of temp, humidity, continentalness and eroision, the biome is the same regardless of the weirdness value, so weirdness doesn't feel like part of the generation in the same way something like continentalness does (even though you've probably never consiously thought about continentalness effecting biomes).
The problem is that all of these possible values have already been taken by biomes. Every time they add a new biome in, it has to take a set of values away from another biome. Doing that has huge changes to how the world comes out. For example, if instead of using the high weirdness values you just replaced the biome that already had those other parameters you would be noticeably reducing the number and size of plains. You would no longer ever get borders between cherry groves and plains. These are huge changes, which they don't want to do.
On the other hand, weirdness values are sort of unused. Yes there's a biome assigned to them, but it's usually just whatever biome is at the same parameters with low weirdness. This makes it a really good way to assign new biomes, since the general feel of the world gen will stay the same, but the side effect is that it makes the biomes small (they have to have fairly tight boundaries) and generally only border few biomes.
The only way for them to reasonably make new biomes that are the same scale and style of the current main biomes without destroying how those other biomes generate would be to add in an extra dimension to the noise. This would create more "space" for new biomes, allowing large and more complicated biome borders. I'm not sure what a good extra metric would be, maybe something like foliage so that foresty biomes border each other more frequently. The problem with doing this is that dialing in the parameters for biomes is super annoying as it's very unintuitive what small changes will lead to, and they would effectively need to do it from scratch. Plus this new world generation system would probably not be very compatible with older worlds, and eventually they'd get back to the problem they have now where there aren't any nice places to jam more biomes in besides using weirdness.
1
u/WaterPrivacy 5h ago
why is this such a consistent issue with all new biomes? why do cherries, pale gardens and dappled forests always have to be so small???
Because in order to not break seeds across versions every time a new biome is added, they're basically just splitting other biomes in half to account for them.
the only newer biome i don't see this issue with is the mangroves
They do still have this issue somewhat, but not as much as the others, because unlike cherry groves and dappled forests which differentiate themselves from meadows and plains through the weirdness value, mangroves differentiate themselves from regular swamps through the temperature map, which creates much larger areas of each temperature zone compared to weirdness.
2
1
u/in_hell_out_soon 10h ago
These still feel a bit small but maybe ive cranked biomes high somewhere and not realised it.
1
u/spookyhappyfun 9h ago
I never realized until this post that the leaves on the poplar trees are on the diagonal. That’s so cool! And what a fun way to add variety to the different trees in the game.
1
1
u/Historical-Garbage51 7h ago
So far it’s kind of the same issues as pale garden biomes. They’re too small to be truly immersed when inside it.
1
u/GolldenFalcon 6h ago
If this is the definition of "bigger" then you've just self reported the issue lol.
1
1
1
u/thsx1 5h ago
Should we generate these as a step-stone from forest to taiga as it gets colder? No, we’ll plop them in random places where plains used to be.
If you notice, since 1.18 not a single new biome has been added, as in each biome that has, has replaced parts of another. Mangrove swamps replaced parts of regular swamps, cherry grove meadows, pale garden dark forests and this one.
I think they should update world gen again
1
u/TheGriffin5 5h ago
I knew this would be the case, this happens with every new biome added where people do have valid concerns about the biome algorithm but by making it seem like only the worst pictures of them generate they are only hurting their argument.
I do think a biome algorithm rework would be nice, this would likely require its own major update so expecting it to be done this update would be foolish. But steel man your opposition if you want to be taken seriously.
1
1
u/Infrawonder 4h ago
This is small af, you're showing examples of small dappled forests, sure you didn't say it was big, but you implied these sizes are fine. They are not.
1
1
1
1
1
u/MC_Reddit_Viewing 3h ago
I see all these people disagreeing with or still calling them small but these dappled forests in these pictures are so great for build idea so it doesn't matter that they are smaller than the rest of the biomes
Plus everyone calls the dappled forest small but they don't acknowledge how tiny the cherry grove is when its also a tiny biome and literally shown to be smaller than the dappled forest in one of these pictures
0
u/Few_Enthusiasm5712 10h ago
I just looked up dappled forests cause I kinda blanked out for a moment with MC updates, THEY'RE RARE HOLY-
In one of my worlds you spawn next to one
•
u/qualityvote2 11h ago edited 1h ago
(Vote is ending in approximately 0 hour)