Suggestion for water and lava


#1

So I’ve heard about the water and lava grieving and i understand the problems it caused. So my suggestion would be to make it so that player placed water and lava sources must be in a beacon and cannot leave the plots attached to said beacon thus being unable to cross over into other beacons not owned by said player. this would eliminate the grieving factor and making it viable for players to create waterfalls or lava falls in their settlements without disturbing other players. To simplify each beacon would become a containment cell.


#2

They are implementing water and lava blocks with the farming so I imagine they have something like that for it already. Just going to have to wait and see when it hits testing. The griefing stuff is exactly why it’s taken this long to come out. They wanted to avoid those situations which means they’ve done something to prevent it.


#3

I just figured this might be a idea most players would agree with. plus i couldn’t find any thing that mentioned what they are working on.


#4

None of us know what they’re working on, but they said water and lava blocks would be involved in the upcoming and long-promised farming release.

Interestingly, in the raw data files you can find that combing water and lava produces steam. I can imagine all sorts of things I could do with steam. Steam-powered lifts, steam-powered door closers, giant steam-powered pistons driving mysterious machines in dark satanic mills…


#5

interesting especially since the combination of the two in game right now is rock.


#6

steam is just the particle effect that plays


#7

I would very much like to use lava and water outside of beacons. I am hoping there will be a discrepancy between beacon placed and unbeaconed placed water and lava.

This could still interfere with people, I know, but let’s say there’s an option in your beacon control to regen bomb everything around your plots, and lava and water cannot be placed on reserved plots. Griefing would be far more difficult under these circumstances.


#8

Why would you want to place water and lava in an area you don’t own?


#9

Obvious, to clear out lava with water placement, and to make death traps for critters.


#10

Lava could also be cleared with blocks because if the system only does the first layer like say on minecraft then even if you mine the rock that is created then you will still end up with lava underneath and you could just use a pit fall trap and route water from a lake creating a trap for creatures and you still get the resources it drops granted your death trap idea wouldn’t work on flying mobs.


#11

Already have a death trap for critters on malu. Lava is directly above my base. Critters spawn in the cave and cuttles fly into the lava and spitters walk into the lava trying to get me. Clearing out lava I do with the water that’s above it just gotta make a tunnel for it and go from there. Oh and that lava is plotted the area above it and around it are not so the critters still spawn normally.


#12

I think you’re being awfully shortsighted about this. Yes lava deathtraps can work on flying, just need to build higher so the lava drops on them. Water can work the same way, dropping in from above so every new exposed lava block gets chilled and breakable. I could save hours on my current project with a good sprinkler system :grin:


#13

If I was building a settlement with large pool, lakes or fountains. It would be nice to have the water cross beacons. A group of us had looked at created a Venice style of town which would mean under the current suggestion we would have to have all the water belong to one character (since I would assume it would not cross alts beacons) or put more water source blocks every time water crossed a lone and hope that at each boundary there was not some ugly bit of ice that would ruin the affect.


#14

Well I don’t see the issue with putting a new source block. If it acts anything like the natural source blocks you’ll have to do that anyways every so often. And if it’s a group of people building the town you guys should have it all plotted so it shouldn’t be an issue. Dunno why you think there would be ice amongst the water tho.


#15

One of the things the developers have said is that to prevent the water from going outside a beacon it would turn to ice and lava would turn to rock. That is why I would think that.

That would be pretty ugly to have all those transitions.


#16

Oh I never saw them say that. And here I thought I read every post


#17

I am pretty sure it was in a post, but to be honest they may have also said it in a conversation.

Edit: I think they are trying to decide what happens to water or lava at the edge. Since the edge needs to be inside the beacon, that is why I think you end up with transitions of water or rock between beacons.


#18

Tho if that’s the case maybe water running into water won’t have ice even if it’s in a different beacon. Guess we will see when testing is released…next week🤞


#19

Maybe, I guess they could put in logic that says if there is water on both sides then do not freeze water to ice.

I would think it would be possible, and as you have said we will find out soon :tm:


#20

Treat it like a road all on one beacon under control of a separate ‘water management’ faction?