There is no papyrus in savanna biome in MTGame 5.1.0, 5.1.1

[paramat]

Sorry for this embarrassing mapgen mistake. This has just been fixed, and in 5.2.0 papyrus will be found on rainforest shores too.
No wonder some players have been complaining about not finding papyrus =)

When we started using 'dry dirt' for savanna and savanna shore, we forgot to update the 'place on' node for papyrus schematics, so they were never placed.

[yelopanda]

Hello, where else we can find it ? Me and a friend hosted a debian server with minetest-server (5.1.1 backport) and were looking for papyrus for days with no luck.

[paramat]

Ah ... to be clearer, there is no papyrus anywhere in MTGame 5.1.0 or 5.1.1, because they only appeared in savanna. Very embarassing.
Server admin will have to edit the game code to add a workaround fix which is:

In 'minetest_game/mods/default/mapgen.lua', change line 2178 to:

place_on = {"default:dry_dirt"},

MTGame 5.2.0, containing a proper fix, will be released in roughly 2 weeks.

[Wuzzy]

Lol, as if lack of papyrus is the worst problem in MTG right now. The real problem in MTG is lack of actual gameplay. :P

[TumeniNodes]

Ah ... to be clearer, there is no papyrus anywhere in MTGame 5.1.0 or 5.1.1, because they only appeared in savanna. Very embarassing.

/me is so ashamed :(

Lol, as if lack of papyrus is the worst problem in MTG right now. The real problem in MTG is lack of actual gameplay. :P

Well... we could make papyrus fight you when you step into it. X)

[paramat]

Well Wuzzy, as you already know and as i have explained many times, MTG is currently not meant to have significant gameplay, it is currently just a basic sandbox and mod base. It is expected that mods are added to create the gameplay you desire. We have never claimed it has significant gameplay.
So it is therefore not a 'problem'. You are ranting from habit again =)

[Wuzzy]

I will continue to rant about MTG lacking in gameplay as long it still has “Game” in its name (VERY misleading!) and is still shipped by default.

Do you really think it's a good idea to keep promoting something that is not even a game as the default “game”?

Long story short, MTG shouldn't be default.

[sorcerykid]

I'm with Wuzzy, I think it's finally time to rename "Minetest Game". For one it's redundant given that it resides in the games subdirectory. Naming a package by its class doesn't make sense. That would be like Capture the Flag or MineClone2 being officially named Capture the Flag Game or MineClone2 Game.

Perhaps we should hold a community contest to come up with a better name for "Minetest Game", and whomever wins will be named (no pun intended) in the credits page as a prize :)

[TumeniNodes]

I'm with Wuzzy, I think it's finally time to rename "Minetest Game". For one it's redundant given that it resides in the games subdirectory. Naming a package by its class doesn't make sense. That would be like Capture the Flag or MineClone2 being officially named Capture the Flag Game or MineClone2 Game.

Perhaps we should hold a community contest to come up with a better name for "Minetest Game", and whomever wins will be named (no pun intended) in the credits page as a prize :)

Could simply be relabeled as Game Example or Sample Game, or even Minetest Game Base
And I do not mention this here to open yet another (1 of 20) renaming threads...
It's basic function is to test out changes to the engine as well as to explore needs and/or ideas for other changes, etc..
I mean if one really thinks on it.. Minetest Game actually already says what it is... a testing and proving ground for an engine which will ever be in development.
This is why the name has always sort of made sense to me anyway.

[paramat]

Wuzzy,

'Game' in the title is mostly a technical term, it is a 'game for the MTEngine'.
For some it is a 'game' if all you want is exploration, mining, crafting, building with no monsters or danger. Different people have very differnt ideas about what a 'game' should contain, or what consituents 'gameplay'.
I consider MTGame a complete game, just not very exciting or feature-rich. I initially spent a few weeks playing unmodded MTGame, i am quite happy for a while just exploring and building.

> Do you really think it's a good idea to keep promoting something that is not even a game as the default “game”?

What a 'game' is, is very subjective, however ...

> MTG shouldn't be default.

I agree, but not yet. There are upcoming changes to mainmenu which will treat all games more equally, helped by the Content Database. It has been suggested that once that is done, the MTEngine is shipped with no games, i support this. Focus really needs to be taken away from MTGame due to the (often unreasonable) expectations that creates.

Until the menu is changed, it is not really reasonable to ship with no games, so it is good to provide at least one.
Despite its faults, MTGame is very well-maintained, very dependable, has very high quality code due to the large input from core devs and being subject to the same development standard as the Engine, and is a good gentle introduction.
So it is an obvious choice for inclusion.

I agree we should have shipped with additional games before now but it seems this will not be necessary, they can be downloaded from the Content Database.

> I will continue to rant about MTG lacking in gameplay as long it [...] is still shipped by default.

Your ranting is somewhat misdirected. You cannot rant about lack of gameplay in MTGame because it was never meant to have much gameplay, and personally i think we should not even try to add more gameplay, our time is better spent elsewhere with new games.
You can rant about shipping it as the only game.

So it is not a case of 'MTGame will always be the default game and therefore must have more gameplay added'.
It is a case of 'MTGame has little gameplay and never will so should not be the default game', and i agree.

Personally i would like to remove MTGame immediately, but the main menu perhaps does not do a good enough job of guiding a user to download a game.

[paramat]

> I think it's finally time to rename "Minetest Game"

Oh man ... we have already been through that twice over. It is excrutiating and almost impossible to choose a new name, everything seems wrong when everyone is so used to a name, however bad that name is.
I tried to make this happen recently and even i gave up, everything sounded wrong.
(My favourite is probably the anagram 'Titan Mese Gem'.)

The name is not redundant because it is was named as 'the game for the MTEngine'.
It does not matter if it is now in a 'games' directory in a content database, the name of something does not change deopending on where it is.
It is also fine to have a game name that has 'game' at the end, and many do.

Anyway, focus is hopefully moving away from it now so no point spending time on names.

[Wuzzy]

I agree, but not yet. There are upcoming changes to mainmenu which will treat all games more equally, helped by the Content Database. It has been suggested that once that is done, the MTEngine is shipped with no games, i support this. Focus really needs to be taken away from MTGame due to the (often unreasonable) expectations that creates.

Until the menu is changed, it is not really reasonable to ship with no games, so it is good to provide at least one.

Actually, I can behind this. I agree, the main menu is in a bad shape and doesn't do a good job to showcase the games.
Minetest really needs to embrace the “multiple games” approach more. Minetest Game is not Minetest, I am unhappy with its special treatment. But I'm glad that it is (slowly) being dethroned. If MTG is dethroned, I will take no issue with its design anymore (OK, except for the “default” mod, but that's a different story … XD).

But yeah, the sad truth is, if we ship with no games with the current main menu, this might be even more confusing … :-/
Main menu rework is the way to go indeed. I like rubenwardy's concepts a lot.

Despite its faults, MTGame is very well-maintained, very dependable, has very high quality code due to the large input from core devs and being subject to the same development standard as the Engine

Maintenance is easy (if not trivial) if you never have high goals to begin with. :)
Anyway, where MTG is strong is on de-facto server use, I give you that.

(…) is a good gentle introduction.

Sorry, I have to strongly disagree. That's absolutely not true because there's no crafting guide and nothing is obvious (“punching trees”) to complete newcomers. Without the wiki, you are completely lost. But I believe that doesn't matter anyway, given that gameplay was never the goal …

Anyway, focus is hopefully moving away from it now so no point spending time on names.

Right. I agree, the last thing we need is another year of fruitless discussion on renaming MTG once again, and then settling on a name that isn't much better … :D