Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

Post Reply
saavedra29
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 00:19
GitHub: saavedra29

Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by saavedra29 » Post

Hello. I know that diamonds are found below -128 and more commonly below -256 and that mese blocks are found below -1024. OK.
But if you go for example below -256 there is exactly the same probability to find diamonds at -300 with finding at -3000. And the same with the other ores. This makes it without reason trying to dig below -1024. Wouldn't it be better if the probabitity of finding the ores was increasing proportionally as you dig deeper? For example lineary or exponentially. Of course at the same time the deposits of ores should decrease on the upper layers than what it is now in order not to make the game very easy. Is it something that can be configured when the map is generated? Or is it something that should change in the C++ code?

User avatar
sorcerykid
Member
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 15:36
GitHub: sorcerykid
In-game: Nemo
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by sorcerykid » Post

Assuming you are in minetest_game, you need to edit default/mapgen.lua. Look for the "Register Ores" section.

The depth of each ore can be specified as range of y_min to y_max and the probability as clust_scarcity. Add multiple registrations for every ore (three to four for better results) and overlap the depths for a more realistic distribution.

saavedra29
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 00:19
GitHub: saavedra29

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by saavedra29 » Post

sorcerykid wrote:Assuming you are in minetest_game, you need to edit default/mapgen.lua. Look for the "Register Ores" section.

The depth of each ore can be specified as range of y_min to y_max and the probability as clust_scarcity. Add multiple registrations for every ore (three to four for better results) and overlap the depths for a more realistic distribution.
That's a very good explaination! I'm gonna backup the default/mapgen.lua file and experiment.
Thank you very much!

User avatar
paramat
Developer
Posts: 3699
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 00:05
GitHub: paramat
IRC: paramat
Location: UK

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by paramat » Post

Having many different ore densities would add many ore registrations, we like to keep it simple. But maybe there's an argument for one more much deeper increase to reward going deeper.

User avatar
twoelk
Member
Posts: 1411
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2013 16:19
GitHub: twoelk
IRC: twoelk
In-game: twoelk
Location: northern Germany

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by twoelk » Post

psssst
and suddenly underground biomes!

User avatar
Sergey
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 13:28
Location: Russia

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by Sergey » Post

twoelk wrote:psssst
and suddenly underground biomes!
I remember when I first time digged down and reached "emptiness", "blaсk nothing". I did not believe my eyes. I dig stone, another one, another one, then... black window to nowhere. Did I reach the edge of the world? Well, I was on ladder so I did not fell there.
It turned out, I drilled the ceiling of large underground cave with big lake under me.

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
Posts: 4128
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by Wuzzy » Post

The thing is, the underground in almost all subgames so far gets boring fast. First, >90% is the generic stone (there are no other stone types except near surface), then there are a few ores from time to time and that's basically it.
The rule is almost always “the deeper you dig, the more you find”.
That won't be a problem if there would be at least some sort of meaningful progress.
Digging for the most valuable ores is basically just a question in how much time you spend digging down. It does not really get more difficult as you progress, you just take a bit longer. The stone does not become harder and the digging does not become more difficult or dangerous. Just a question of time.
The only real danger is lava, but it's easy to avoid. Okay, since v7 another danger exists now: Huge caves: If you violate the “never dig down” rule, these caves will punish you with fall damage. Those caves can be tricky to handle. But IMO it's not enough.

Some subgames and mods added new stones but they are generated like ores, not as real sheets. BFD has 3 different stone sheets but the sheets are perfectly flat, so it's not very sophisticated either.

I'm still waiting for a mod or subgame which generates various LARGE stone (different types) formations of different 3-dimensional (!) overlapping shapes. That would be awesome and a major breakthrough.
My creations. I gladly accept bitcoins: 17fsUywHxeMHKG41UFfu34F1rAxZcrVoqH

User avatar
Sergey
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 13:28
Location: Russia

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by Sergey » Post

I agree. Underground is dark and boring.

Jordach
Member
Posts: 4527
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 17:58
GitHub: Jordach
IRC: Jordach
In-game: Jordach
Location: Blender Scene

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by Jordach » Post

Wuzzy wrote:The thing is, the underground in almost all subgames so far gets boring fast. First, >90% is the generic stone (there are no other stone types except near surface), then there are a few ores from time to time and that's basically it.
The rule is almost always “the deeper you dig, the more you find”.
That won't be a problem if there would be at least some sort of meaningful progress.
Digging for the most valuable ores is basically just a question in how much time you spend digging down. It does not really get more difficult as you progress, you just take a bit longer. The stone does not become harder and the digging does not become more difficult or dangerous. Just a question of time.
The only real danger is lava, but it's easy to avoid. Okay, since v7 another danger exists now: Huge caves: If you violate the “never dig down” rule, these caves will punish you with fall damage. Those caves can be tricky to handle. But IMO it's not enough.

Some subgames and mods added new stones but they are generated like ores, not as real sheets. BFD has 3 different stone sheets but the sheets are perfectly flat, so it's not very sophisticated either.

I'm still waiting for a mod or subgame which generates various LARGE stone (different types) formations of different 3-dimensional (!) overlapping shapes. That would be awesome and a major breakthrough.
I think I've got some spicy (and ice cold) stuff in the works for my prototype.
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=19056 Solar Plains Dev Server

User avatar
sorcerykid
Member
Posts: 1502
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 15:36
GitHub: sorcerykid
In-game: Nemo
Location: Illinois, USA

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by sorcerykid » Post

I've actually got some new ores in the works on the JT2 server, as an incentive to keep digging deeper. For example granite will generate at depths -1500 to -3000, quartz at depths of -1000-2500 and marble at depths of -2500 to -4000. I'm also adding a completely new ore, fossilized rock, below -4000m (it is essentially stone with a bones texture overlay).

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
Posts: 4128
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by Wuzzy » Post

I'm not too excited about this, to be honest, but oh well, I could still give it a shot. Maybe it turns out to be good.

To get back to the core topic here, I think what saavedra29 suggests sounds good.

Current ore generation in Minetest Game is very basic indeed. The ore probabilities jump sharply when you hit the “magic” marks such as Y=-256, Y=-64, etc. See also: http://wiki.minetest.net/Ores

The ore generation is basic because the ore API is basic, too.
The only way to get smooth transitions with the current ore API is to make a ton of registrations which is clearly a bad idea. So maybe extending the ore API instead would be the way to go.
My creations. I gladly accept bitcoins: 17fsUywHxeMHKG41UFfu34F1rAxZcrVoqH

User avatar
Sergey
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 13:28
Location: Russia

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by Sergey » Post

The deeper you go the more interesting and exciting underground world should be.
I mean:
  • more rare ores should appear
  • ores occur at higher probability
  • way down should more difficult. For example, the deeper you go the higher temperature is. So you should drink more fresh water (river (not sea) water that you have to take with you preliminarily) to cool yourself. Otherwise you gonna feel yourself worse.

User avatar
Sergey
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 13:28
Location: Russia

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by Sergey » Post

This is real miner.

Image

Not that white clean amateur looking at you when you press [F7].

saavedra29
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 00:19
GitHub: saavedra29

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by saavedra29 » Post

Just now show the new replies, i hadn't noticed the tiny "subscribe topic" at the bottom :(
I thought people would find mining and underworld generally more attractive. The first 2 weeks i played the game i was almost all the time underground digging like crazy. But afterwards when i show there was no big difference at the "income" below -1024 i go much rarer.
The ideas that Sergey said about higher temperatures and need for water seem to me nice. Somewhere i had read about a lava "core". Just now had the idea of gradually harder to dig block types going down. If you add some earthquakes and planting abilities without sunlight (i think trees do it) you can have whole cities down there.
I think there are ways to take advantage of the hugeness of the map. Also that there is a lot of players who would like to give a new "breath" to the underworld of the game.

Byakuren
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 01:59
GitHub: raymoo
IRC: Hijiri
In-game: Raymoo + Clownpiece

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by Byakuren » Post

You could grow mushrooms underground.
Every time a mod API is left undocumented, a koala dies.

User avatar
Sergey
Member
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 13:28
Location: Russia

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by Sergey » Post

I want that ore in the game!

http://imgur.com/gallery/wDlny7S

saavedra29
Member
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Mar 06, 2017 00:19
GitHub: saavedra29

Re: Shouldn't ores reserves be proporsional to the depth?

by saavedra29 » Post

I created a libreoffice calc (Excel) file for easy calculation of ores registers and for keeping the total amount of them fairly stable. The "Factor per register" is: Y_node_size(height of register) * clust_num_ores / scarcity. And the "Factor" is: Factor_per_register_1 + Factor_per_register2 .. + Factor_per_register_n.
So setting the factor according i.e. to what it is in the default minetest_game you don't create too many or too little ores.
You set the Factor and then set Clust_num_ores and scarcity for every register and check the divergence.
Here is the link:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... utput=xlsx

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests