Talk:Generated structures

From Minecraft Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Nautilus core?[edit]

In the "Buried treasure" section, it says that in Bedrock Edition they have 100% change to contain a "Nautilus Core". What are these "Nautilus Cores"? 85.76.69.136 10:43, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Huh? I don't know. That's so strange. I'm gonna have to look into it, as I've been searching all over the MCW and can't find anything about Nautilus Cores. I do not know how they got added.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12TC 13:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
It has to do with Module:LootChest - apparently nautilus core must have been added in a beta version of the Bedrock Edition or something? If this is a new item, then it should be listed on one of the Bedrock Edition version history pages, and possibly have its own page. Sealbudsman, as you were the editor who added this to the module, do you know something about this item? If so, it would be great if you could tell us what you know.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12TC 13:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
They're an item in the loot tables in bedrock edition 1.2.14, I could see it in Android and on Windows 10. Except it looks like it never generates in the chest. And you can't setblock it, and you can't give it. That's literally all I know. Would it be appropriate to remove mention of the Nautilus core from the table, until if and when such an item is actually released? I was sort of conflicted about leaving it in the table in the first place. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. To be honest, I really don't have a straight answer. If you've never seen them generate and they are not mentioned on the changelog, it may be better to just remove them and maybe re-implement them if we find out more about nautilus cores and why they don't seem like they're in the game.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12TC 14:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The nautilus core isn't in yet, that's for sure. But there are also other hints at it, like the treasure maps being called "map_nautilus" in the game resources of BE. I'm pretty sure this is the secret content of the treasure chests the Java developers were hinting at a couple of times. No idea what it is going to be for though. I think you can remove the entry for now as it doesn't have any influence on the probabilities of other contents. – Fuzs 14:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I'll remove it and then maybe we can add it back in if it actually appears in-game.--Orange Glazed Terracotta.png Madminecrafter12TC 15:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I looked into that as well a while ago too, and the web contains nothing. I totally think removing it now is a good idea. I'm gonna Google it, see what I find,let ya know what I find. It'll all be cool. Twh minecrafter (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Twh_minecrafter I found something! Look what The Front Page of the Internet has revealed! [[1]] Twh minecrafter (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)Twh_minecrafter

The Nautilus core (now called the "Heart of the Sea") has been confirmed by bedrock developers but isn't in the game yet, they haven't stated what it will do though or how you will get it, it should be coming in this weeks beta though along with the "nautilus shell". jjlr (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Here is some cropped images from the livestream showing the "Heart of the Sea" for the first time,

Bedrock heart of the sea(4-9-2018).png
Bedrock heart of the sea inventory(4-9-2018).png

jjlr (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Split incredibly large page?[edit]

This page has become incredibly large with a lot of images and videos. When diffing changes on this page, I get lag between rendering and clicking the "next diff" links. Would it be a good idea to split the page into smaller pieces? Like for instance, split it between "terrain" and "civilization" structures? Then there would be a page for the lakes, mountains, trees etc, and a separate one for desert temples, ocean monuments and woodland mansions etc, to keep these two (mostly) clearly different concepts separated. It would approximately cut this page in half. Certain things might be a bit difficult to sort however, like the obsidian pillar/platform and bedrock portal/gateways in the End. And maybe you wouldn't like the dimension-specific structures to be taken apart into separate categories, as it might not be as convenient as close together like they are now. But this is just an idea. What you guys think? – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 08:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this split is absolutely necessary. But I think it's important to make it clear what goes on what page. Therefor I'd suggest leaving everything with a structure id (Ocean monument, nether fortress, village, ...) on here and putting the rest into a new article called "Generated features" / "Generated terrain features".
It may seem odd that features like dungeons and desert wells will remain with normal terrain features, but that's simply how the game treats them. For the game there is no difference between a desert well and a tree to give an example. After all the term "structure" is defined by the game itself, it's everything that is deactivated when "Generate Structures" is set to "Off" in the world options (just ignore the description, it's false ^^).
This split would also be a great opportunity to fix a lot of stuff with the current content, a lot of terrain features are still missing and something like the end city ship isn't a separate structure. I also don't think biomes like extreme hills, hills, ocean, river and beach should be on the article, they have their own one and are therefor simply duplicates on this page. – Fuzs 08:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure which structure has an ID, but taking into account those that you mentioned, I've sorted everything into a list of what could go where. Please edit the table below with different text colours where you think it should be different. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 09:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, so I've just marked everything that doesn't belong into structures for now. Here is a list of all structures with their respective ids in case you want to check. – Fuzs 09:44, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, looks good! I wasn't able to find a list of IDs here on this wiki. Now we need more votes/arguments from others. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 10:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Definitely
 Support - Though terrain is still pretty huge, it's not nearly as bad as what there is currently. I'd propose splitting that further, into surface terrain and underground terrain, but that's probably just me (and ravine would complicate that, since it cuts into both). - Princessnightmoon (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Maybe instead, we could split the terrain page further into dimension-specific terrain. Some stuff is difficult to say whether it is above or below the surface. What about coral reefs, is on the ocean bottom considered "under" or "above" ground? But the dimension is pretty clear and exact for everything. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 10:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think underground terrain would be ideal, at least for me this means everything generated into the stone layer below the sea level, and without structures only like caves, ravines, ore and dungeons would be left.
But splitting the remaining terrain features per dimension is a good idea, although the page for the Overworld will still be pretty huge. After all there is a lot of content missing at the moment. I'm currently in the middle of compiling a list of everything considered a terrain feature in the source code. I'll post it in a second. – Fuzs 10:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Ok, here is the list of (all) terrain features found in the source code. I've simplified it a little, e. g. there is a generator for each tree type, but since we have a separate page for that it's not necessary. If something seems to be missing please tell me so I can check, I might have missed it. – Fuzs 11:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... Overworld could be split into two pretty much equal groupings by putting plants (whether including or excluding mushrooms) into their own category. Speaking of, do small mushrooms have different code in Nether vs Overworld? - Princessnightmoon (talk) 11:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
That's true, but then I wouldn't split everything by dimension. Five pages (structures, overworld general, overworld plants, nether, end) is too much I guess. And no, the code for mushrooms is the same in both dimensions. I've just separated it to better fit in the table. – Fuzs 11:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, you could include chorus in plants, then it would be like structures; applying to every dimension (chorus in the End, mushrooms in the Overworld and Nether, everything else in the Overworld only). Plus, certain plant "structures" can be generated artificially by the player in any dimension (bonemeal on a sapling in the Nether or End generates a tree "structure"), so they're not necessarily exclusive to one dimension. - Princessnightmoon (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Alright, so we dont split the plants article by dimension. I also wouldn't do it for structures, since there only is one for each dimension other than the Overworld. It's just not necessary. I'll try to conclude everything down below, I hope I've understood it all correctly. – Fuzs 12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Support. – Sealbudsman talk/contr 12:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Different approach[edit]


 Different idea here. Personally, I don't think there's any need to separate this page - I think there are 2 things that we can do (I'm thinking do both). The first is to separate more structures into their own pages. I specifically think that witch huts and ravines should have their own page (see User:Madminecrafter12/Witch hut). Furthermore, I think structures that DO have their own page should be summarized greatly. By greatly I'm talking the summary just be 1 or 2 sentences, and have at the most one row of images. I think this would help greatly. Take a look at Generated structures#Village. It consists of an 8 sentence-long paragraph and 7 images, which take up 2 large rows. I would suggest cutting the paragraph down to two sentences: "Villages are generated in desert, plains, taiga, and savanna biomes, and are a site for villagers, with whom the player can trade. They are composed of a random selection of various buildings and farms." Furthermore, I would suggest removing 4 of the images so that we can cut the gallery down to one row. I think it would be best to try these ideas before splitting up the page. Furthermore, we may should even consider removing the infoboxes, as the generated structures that do not have a separate page seem to not really need an infobox, and the ones that do, well, they have their infobox on their own page.

If I get one support, I'm going to start summarizing any structure that already has an existing page and see how that does. Also, should I move User:Madminecrafter12/Witch hut to the main namespace?-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 13:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Partial
 Support - I mean, that helps, but the page is so massive that I don't think it's enough on its own. However, it is good practice to condense information that is available elsewhere (and adding Template:Main links to those), so that's certainly something that can be done in addition to splitting up the article into more manageable chunks. - Princessnightmoon (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree the entries are sometimes quite needlessly verbose. But I don't think it will help all that much if the page isn't also split. Because even if we reduce the text, infoboxes and the galleries of all entries, we still end up with over 40 images extra than if the page was split. So I think we should indeed split and reduce info(box) where possible. I've just resorted and completed the above table with 1.13 content. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 13:22, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I also think that buried treasure structures should have their own page. I know they're small structures, but they have a lot of loot in them, and currently the loot tables are taking up a lot of the page.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 13:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 SupportFuzs 13:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
And another idea would be to remove the "consists of" for structures that have their own page, as currently this is taking up a LOT of space.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 13:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not necessary to remove it, it can be simply collapsed. The template is already doing that if there are too many entries. – Fuzs 13:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
The section is now collapsed by default as long as there are more then about two entries present. – Fuzs 14:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it's very important to split actual structures (ocean monument, etc.) from normal terrain features. This is mainly not even because the article is way too long, but more because they are very different. They generate differently, they each have an id, they can be deactivated on generating a new world and they're very different in their general appearance. And yes, the entires should be shortened to be less verbose. – Fuzs 14:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Works for me. Maybe we shouldn't even split the articles by dimensions at all. In my next edit I'm going to create a table demonstrating this.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
For the new structures article that won't be necessary, I agree. But the new terrain features article should definitely be split by dimensions, would basically be the same general structure like it is now. But let's see what your table is gonna look like. Just don't forget to include all of the currently missing terrain features mentioned in the table above. – Fuzs 14:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
With the plants and other growths taken out, the terrain actually looks pretty manageable. Of course, it still makes sense for the terrain article to have sections for each dimension, with each terrain feature being a sub-section of its parent dimension. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 14:17, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think about it, I think the table you had created looks better than this one.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Your table is missing all of the unmentioned plants in Fuzs' latest table above. But I'll incorporate your dimension sectioning in it. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 14:26, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that every single plant that generates needs to be listed. I would say just ones that consist of more than 1 block.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Just because a feature is smaller than another one doesn't mean it shouldn't be listed. After all the goal with this article is to list every terrain feature there is. If we occasionally leave some out there isn't really a need to rework it at all. – Fuzs 14:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but as I see it your table not what we are going for at all. Yes, it's splitting the article, but it doesn't address all the issues the article currently has that we've mentioned and dealt with above. That would be: biomes are still included, really a lot of terrain features are missing again (like Jack McKalling already pointed out) and the content supposed to go in "Generated structures" partially is just wrong. I've stated above what makes structures so special opposed to normal terrain features and how the game itself defines them (They generate differently, they each have an id, they can be deactivated on generating a new world and they're very different in their general appearance). None of this applies to e. g. desert wells, obsidian pillars and that's why the are no structures as per definition. – Fuzs 14:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Division[edit]

Ok, so here is the conclusion of how this split could be executed. 1.13 content is missing at the moment. – Fuzs 12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Terrain features Plants Structures

entries: 24

The Overworld
  • Block blob (missing surface ground layer in a small radius)
  • Block veins in water bodies (only sand and gravel)
  • Bonus chest
  • Cave
  • Clay
  • Desert well
  • Dungeon
  • Fossil
  • Ice path (small, completely frozen lakes made from packed ice)
  • Ice spike
  • Lake
  • Liquid source
  • Ore vein (includes dirt, gravel, diorite, andesite, granite, coal, iron, gold, redstone, diamond, lapis, emerald)
  • Ravine
The Nether
  • Cave
  • Fires
  • Glowstone
  • Lava source ("traps" and open ones)
  • Ore vein (includes quarz, magma)
The End
  • Gateway
  • Main island
  • Obsidian pillar
  • Obsidian platform
  • Well

entries: 14

Overworld
  • Big Mushroom
  • Cactus
  • Dead bush
  • Double plant (includes tall flowers as well as tall grass / fern)
  • Flower
  • Melon
  • Pumpkin
  • Small mushrooms (also in the Nether)
  • Sugarcanes
  • Tall Grass
  • Tree
  • Vines (only the single ones in caves underneath jungle biomes)
  • Waterlily
The End
  • Chorus

entries: 14

Overworld
  • Abandoned mineshaft
  • Desert temple
  • Igloo
  • Jungle temple
  • Ocean monument
  • Stronghold
  • Village
  • Witch hut
  • Woodland mansion
The Nether
  • Nether fortress
The End
  • End city
Upcoming 1.13
  • Buried treasure
  • Shipwreck
  • Underwater ruins
I fully
 Support this (though some 1.13 features are currently missing), for a couple of reasons. First of all, as Fuzs has detailed throughout the discussion, structures are generated quite differently from normal terrain, and so they should have their own page. Secondly, while plants (+ fungi, coral and sea pickles) technically generate as part of the terrain, they are (to my knowledge) generated after the actual shape of the landscape, and are essentially decorations on top of the actual terrain. Thus, they behave differently enough to be put separately from the main terrain, in my opinion.
Another reason I think plants deserve their own page is that certain plants can be artificially generated by the player (generally using bonemeal), unlike any other structure/terrain feature; you can replicate a village or a mountain by building, but a tree can be generated from a sapling. Now, a player can generate structures using structure blocks, but that is something different altogether. - Princess Nightmoon (TalkContributions) 15:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
I would support the split described in the table. However, I would replace “Generated structures” with “Buildings”, as terrain features are technically generated structures. The BlobsPaper.png 14:09, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
Am I correct to assume you're talking about Fuzs' proposal here, not the one by Madminecrafter12 further above? If so, I only partially agree with you because "Buried Treasures" and "Shipwrecks" are not really buildings but still have a structure ID. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 14:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I've moved around some of the posts of this whole conversation and arranged them into better sub-subjects. Because it was getting confusing for me to understand what everyone was talking about and this way the conversation is better split in the relevant sub-subjects. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 14:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

 Support jjlr (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Seeing you've all worked more than once on the page recently, I'd also like to ping Roshan, MinecraftPhotos4U, Nixinova and TheCreeperStrikes for your opinion on this, thanks in advance. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 20:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Is the suggestion to split out "Terrain Features" and "Plants" into separate pages, and then let this page ("Generated Structures") have stuff related to the items in the last column of the table from Fucz (12:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC))? If so, I support it, as the first two columns are mere features of the game an not generated structures to me. I also think this corresponds to the earlier arguments Fucz had related to structure id's and different treatment by the game itself. Holroy talkcontribs 21:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct, that's part of the proposal. The other parts are to split the resulting pages further into the bold headings provided by said table above, and to actually include all the mentioned items in it in their respective pages as not all of them are actually documented/present here yet. Lastly, some biomes that actually are present here, already have their own page so don't need to be included in any of the resulting pages from the split of this one. – Jack McKalling [ Talk Contrib ] 22:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed structures[edit]

Should we also create pages for removed structures such as the brick pyramid? We have a page for the nether reactor, which is another feature removed long ago, so I personally don't see any downsides with making such pages, provided they have that box thing at the top. - MinecraftPhotos4U (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and no. I think we should indeed pay attention to pages about removed structures, but I think they should not be on their own page, instead they should be moved to for instance Bedrock Edition removed features. We have that page for that purpose after all. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 15:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Create witch hut[edit]

Would there be any objections if I went ahead and moved User:Madminecrafter12/Witch hut to Witch hut?-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 13:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Please move it to "Swamp hut". The temple id "SH" as well as the new id in 1.13 "Swamp_Hut" both suggest the developers named it like that. We will know for sure when customized worlds come back for 1.13 (which they will). – Fuzs 13:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
Making this a new sub-section because the section is getting really long now. May I move User:Madminecrafter12/Witch hut to the main namespace? I've actually got a fair amount of content in there, and I could reduce the largeness of this page. Another question is, should I move it to Swamp hut or Witch hut? It seems like Witch hut is what's used all around the wiki but Fuzs believes that Swamp hut is the correct term. Thoughts?-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 13:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I think it's better to move it to witch hut because that's been the name everyone used all along. It might've been called different by the developers originally, but they often use names that in hindsight might not represent the original subject in the best way. Think about the item for clay, and then think about its block form and how confusing that's always been. We're talking about the structure that is occupied by a witch, which just happens to be in this particular biome. – Jack McKalling [ User page Talk page Contributions ] 14:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
I was leaning towards witch hut as well - I just thought I would bring this up just in case other people thought otherwise. I think I'll just go ahead and move it to at least the main namespace, and then if many people think that it really needs to be moved to swamp hut, we can do that afterwards.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Move to Witch hut.-- Madminecrafter12Orange Glazed Terracotta.pngTalk to meLight Blue Glazed Terracotta.png 14:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Promotional Content