Sorry to 'pollute' this German thread with my English reply; I hope it will not be too impolite, but with the community split between two languages, occasionally there are interesting discussions in one half which remain unknown to the other half.
Creative vs Survival:
Ist auch ein Grund warum ich zur Zeit nicht soviel RW spiele. Ich mag nicht so gerne im Creativen Modus spielen, aber für den Survival Spieler hat RW noch nicht viel zu bieten,
I think everybody (the dev team included) will agree that the survival aspects of RW are yet under-developed and so far the focus has been on creation / construction. This may change in the future, as the game still has a long way to go.
I suspect however that the two perspectives (creative and survival) are very hard (almost impossible?) to fully develop both in the same context. Not only because time and dev resources are finite. But mostly for structural reasons: they require different abstractions, different game play timing and so on; the best we can reasonably expect is either a primarily survival game with notions of constructions or a primarily construction game with notions of survival.
Then everybody is entitled to her/his preferences and free to choose one game over another.
Terrain generation:
Egal wo ichs versucht habe, es ist einfach alles hügelig. [...] Wenn ich mir verschiedene Maps ansehe, war das vor dem Wasserupdate nicht so extrem.
This is my impression too (but I am not sure it was much different before). A few sparse considerations:
- I suspect each user may have different expectations about how the terrain should look, depending on the area (s)he lives in. According to landscapes I am familiar with, the natural terrain is very rarely really flat and exceedingly rarely for more than a few square meters.
- The voxel concept upon which RW is based, for all its advantages, also has disadvantages: flat is totally flat, the minimum difference in level is one block, the only possible continuous slope is 45° and so on. Natural terrain characteristics are rather different.
- Recently I spent some time in brushing up my familiarity with procedural terrain generation concepts and algorithms and I remain convinced that the way to go is still long to achieve reasonably sounding results. RW does a wonderful job of masking the schematics of the terrain with a gorgeous imagery, but the underlying grid is a very rigid 'cage'.
Summary: I expect we will have to live with (some of?) these limitations, enjoying the other aspects of the game.
Terrain 'decoration' (for lack of a better term) and properties:
Also es gibt keine grossen freien flächen, klar kann man mit allen mögliche Seeds versuchen. Mir wäre es aber lieber, wenn man die Umgebungsvariablen näher bestimmen könnte. Also wieviele Bäume auf einer bestimmten Umkreis geben soll, wieviel Wasser die Welt enthalten soll usw.
I have to admit that, living in an area (Italy) which has been intensively anthropised since millennia, I have no idea of how a primeval terrain / forest / plain ... would / could / should look.
The current algorithm for vegetation seems to me rather casual; I would expect trees to group by species or varieties: a group (grove - wood - forest) of mainly spruces here, a group of mainly maples there and so on. What comes very near is the current pine forest biome, with a strong prevalence of one species and densely packed trees.
I also expect an 'original' (not attended to by human beings) terrain to have very little 'empty space' (except for extreme conditions like desert or ice): where trees do not grow (for whatever reason), bushes take over and only above a certain altitude, or only under specific climatic conditions, vegetation reduces to grass only.
But, of course, I may be totally wrong, I am no specialist of this kind of things.