Talk:Adventure Update/Archive 1

Same as Upcoming Features
This page has the same content like Upcoming features. I suggest we just replace this article with a sentence which referes to the Upcoming features page. It doesn't make sence to have two lists! --Visitor 09:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Adventure (U/u)pdate?
I think the it should be titled 'Adventure Update' not 'Adventure update'.

Who knows how to rename a page? --Robodoggy 02:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

easy. --wizkida57

What will become of Minecraft?
I've been playing since 1.5, and 1.7.3 is kinda the optimal experience. I don't like the sound of 1.8. I don't want NPC villages, ok?!! Having computer controlled humans or pigmen is creepy!! I think I've been reading too much about herobrine. The permadeath sounds dumb, and hardcore is just wrong. The one redeeming factor about this update is creative mode. As long as you can have creative mode on peaceful, I'll do the update, cause building a giant zeppelin is hard when you're using invedit. fireglo450 (citation added) 04 August, 2011, 11:15.

First of all, you should post this on the forums, not here. Second of all, permadeath will be optional. Third, if you find certain mobs "creepy" just go to peaceful mode. Spark01

All of your problems with it are optional. NPC villages can be turned off. (and he said NPC's themselves wont be in till 1.9 anyways) Turn on peaceful if mobs are "Creepy". Food meter is optional. Hardcore and permadeath are two OPTIONAL things. :\ so chill teh fuck out. Geonightman 14:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Spikes, is it even confirmed?
I just clicked through the references and saw the tweet from jeb_ about spikes. http://twitter.com/#!/jeb_/status/78554788094160896 He says "You're on it!", but I wouldn't take that as a confirmation. Any other sources I have missed? KHEEJS 15:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A speculation article?
Would an article about theories and speculations about future content be out of the question? I know the rules state that speculation is not allowed, but the rule refers to pages that "could mislead players". I doubt a page about speculations would be misleading if the article is solely about speculation. I for one would love to see what possible hints other people could dig up. --NaiOni 12:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, so far Notch has released quite a lot of information, screenshots, and hard facts. I'd say we have enough pure data without speculation.  What's better is to point out any of the information that may seem anomalous and let them come up with the speculation themselves, off of the wiki.  Wikis are collections of facts and pure information, not things that are unofficial and have the possibility of being wrong.  Plus, people can be easily mislead because they assume that everything on the Wiki is absolutely official, even pages that blatantly state otherwise.  Verhalthur (talk)(contribs) 13:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the myth true; losing old worlds?
I have heard a lot of speculation and talk in videos and comments around the internet lately, and I was wondering if the myth is going to be legitimate; is Minecraft going to make you lose your worlds you had before the Adventure Update? I remember losing my old world around the Halloween Update and was irritated, but if I lose my current world from that point, and have to start over, I'm going to be thoroughly let down as to having to start all over again.

no, you will keep the old worlds, but other structures(strong holds, NPC Villages) wont spawn anywhere that you have even seen. --wizkida57 13:18 11 september 2011 (UTC)

Any conformation would be better than a guess. K12machinima
 * No, it's the same as any other update. You can use your old world but you won't get any of the new stuff in the chunks you've already generated since... well they were already generated.  There will also probably be bad chunk transitions according to Jeb (similar to after the biome update in Alpha). --Warlock 22:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh that's lovely, thank you very much. I was actually kind of worried that my house I've been updating for possible protection from Enderman and anything else that might seem to happen in the new update, and I didn't want to lose all that hard work. I remember the biome update causing weird chunk transitions too, but that's better than losing all your old stuff. K12machinima8:39, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

HEY
I'M PLAYING THE PRE-VERSION... I LOVE IT

Cool story bro. RacinFreek 03:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I love it too. I can´t believe it is only Pre-relase!

--Nik3 12:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for editing (cant find way to create new one)

I noticed in 1.8 pre release that skeletons in abadonded mines tend to fight each other (saw the duel between skeletons) + if you put torch (in creative mode )in water it can be picked up and stacked

again me.

monster spawners (probably cave spiders only) covered in web can be found in mines (covered with web)

Intallation work-around
At least for the duration that the pre-release is out, would it be pertinent to include that in some cases (including mine), opening the 1.8 .jar with WinRAR and deleting META-INF helps the game load? 67.190.27.135 19:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

TODAY IS THE DAY!
Im so amped for the release today! Gonna build me a Castle and go to war with the Enderman! HA HA!

-Think again :). I was rather, excited, as well then... there was no update. We'll see... soon, I hope. --Darkness Prevails 00:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And tomorrow... And the next day... Seems they're delaying it endlessly, but at least pre-release 2 is stable enough to play (as opposed to the first, crashing always when a furnace was used). [[Image:TK.gif]]  | TheKax |   Talk   16:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Leaked 1.8.. but how?
"On Friday 9th, September 2011, version 1.8 was found in a hidden directory on the Minecraft website by a user on 4chan's /v/. It was rapidly stolen and distributed, and spread to other social news sites like Reddit."

Do we have any confirmation that this is how it was leaked? Jeb_ seemed to insinuate that it was "leaked," as in he "leaked" it on purpose so that the more die-hard fans could get their hands on it.

If it is true, lets find something to cite about it. Cleverlynamed1 16:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it truly important on 'how' it was leaked? Just the fact that it was seems fine to me. DantonDamnark 13:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)