Discussion forum > Server News
Proposed smp changes
TheWholeLoaf:
There really hasn’t been anything said about why we want a server wipe except for the vague comments of starting over. In a multiplayer minecraft server, the idea should be that you can do whatever you want to do, but from the very start, with how things are set up, that isn’t the case. The accumulation of every players work effects new players, they can’t really go out into the wilderness without seeing someone else’s build or running into someone else pre-dug mine. This is especially the case in the old worlds where you can’t throw a stone and not hit a block that someone didn’t edit. This is mostly because of our popularity back in 2012 when we had 100+ people on at a time. Our method of adding worlds worked for a temporary solution, however, since people still had everything they had accumulated, it was that much easier to harvest everything from a new world and populate the next. I don’t see this method of adding worlds continuously going on forever, at some point, old worlds will have to go. If we add two new worlds like we usually do, a new guest and a new member, I feel it’s kind of ridiculous to have two worlds that the majority of people play on, and four worlds that a very small minority use. I’m not trying to say that the minority isn’t important, but change does happen, you can either accept it and move with it, or reject it and be left behind.
--- Quote from: Lando_V on March 22, 2016, 11:10:28 pm ---Regarding a reset. It is understandable that some people have reached their limit in Minecraft and want to start over. It is also very understandable that others can go far beyond that limit and want to keep going. I don't see why those that have reached their limit cannot start over just by themselves. Instead they want to reset the server, not only for themselves but also for those that do not need/want a reset at all.
--- End quote ---
As stated above, the population of the world prevents a true restart for a player. Even if a new world is added, they may have about a day or two to enjoy the world before people start making rediculously large mine tunnels, claiming land and gathering all the resources. Yes that is what you are supposed to do in minecraft, but as stated above, the amount of resources the average player has helps them use up the new worlds very quickly.
--- Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 01:45:16 am ---I understand that certain areas, like the old guest world, don't look terribly nice, with lots of incongruous old builds packed close together. But judging from the creative server, that's just how people like to build. Go figure. What I don't understand however is the plea from some that playing becomes boring since they have their builds around. What's stopping you from just destroying it all and giving away all your items? Or heading off to some empty spot on the map (of which there are many), erasing all your /homes, and starting over? I don't see why you'd want to forcibly erase everyone else's builds to avoid having to start over on your own. Several people over the years have given away all their money and items and started over. Why don't you?
--- End quote ---
It is incorrect to compare the building style on creative to the building style on a survival server. Sorry, but they are two very different things. Mostly, people want their own area to develop, and typically only share it with friends, if anyone. Just because the old worlds are filled with builds that are closed together does not mean that that is what players prefer. That really means that the world is far passed done with and players want new space to build. That is why it looks like such trash for the most part, players ran out of room and began clustering builds, then they would leave them and someone would come along and grief it because everything is so available due to proximity.
The main reason I am for a server wipe, as I briefly mentioned above, is to pretty much level the playing field again. Adding new worlds doesn’t work very well when old players that have vast amounts of resources such as armor, weapons, pearls for travel, and food can quickly run through the worlds, claim their lands, usually larger than they need, and quickly develop a build while newer players have to take their time to get settled in. The most recent case is the new end world. I would be willing to bet every castle was raided, claimed or deconstructed for materials within the first day or two.
This is why I believe the server should be wiped and the worlds put up for downloads. A fresh start would be a nice chance of pace. I am also willing to discuss something along the lines of players builds being moved or a handful of items being brought over, though as I stated in my previous post, this would need quite a bit of thought as to how it can be done easily and fairly.
I encourage everyone that has voted for a server wipe to go into more detail as to why they would like this.
And please, if you are against wiping the server, please stop using the argument that it is incorrect when someone says that "it's not fun anymore when you reach the end game" or "I've already done everything, so the game is now boring". It is not incorrect to say that, nor is it completely true, but the people that are saying it are saying it for themselves, not others. When you disagree with that, you are stating that it is incorrect for everyone. That is not a valid argument. Please still feel free to state why you still have fun doing what you do though, that is not what I am putting down.
OzzyKP:
Your two points are:
1. There isn't enough open land.
2. We should have a level playing field.
Your first point is simply not true. Even the cluttered and ancient old guest world there is plenty of available space. Look at the right most corner on the overviewer map. Lots of places to build. Plenty more on the other maps.
Your second point just doesn't make sense to me. Minecraft isn't a competition. If your goal is to have more chests full of more blocks than the next guy, then maybe this isn't the right game for you. How does my city, which I've worked on for over 3 years, dampen your enjoyment of the game? Or make anything you build less impressive?
Nick3306:
--- Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 02:28:57 am ---
--- Quote from: Nick3306 on March 24, 2016, 02:15:05 am ---
--- Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 02:03:16 am ---
--- Quote from: Nick3306 on March 20, 2016, 01:44:31 am ---So I want to expand on our ideas for the points system. Basically the idea is for points to be taking the place of money. Everyday activities like mining and farming and whatnot will give the user points they can spend on things like protection. Voting would be the quickest way to gain points as well as any events we may run. The market would be completely gone except for the ability to buy a few items that you simply can not get in game any other way. A player trading system or a player shop system could be implemented to help players trade more easily and safely. I feel this would not only fix the broken nature of the economy, it would also encourage voting and encourage people to play more instead of afking at farms.
--- End quote ---
The more I think about it, the more I dislike the idea of giving points for mining/farming/whatnot.
I think it encourages all sorts of weird behavior. People planting huge fields, harvesting all the crops and tossing them away because they really just want to earn points. If someone wants to earn points I'd rather they spend their time harvesting some item that other people on the server actually want than just some some inane, artificial, repetitive task to score points. The forces of supply & demand are far more effective at properly directing people's activity than a convoluted system of rewards & punishments cooked up by staff.
Option A: Points given for mining/farming/etc
Players spend their time digging giant holes for no purpose other than to get points. They end up with tons of cobble & dirt that no one wants. Those people who want harder to find items are out of luck, since no one is looking for them. The economy falls apart and players get nostalgic for the old system of a market that had everything they wanted at fixed prices.
Option B: Points can be purchased with money, economy is totally player-run
Players no longer have infinite sources of glowstone & diamonds (for example), suddenly those items are super valuable (as they should be). Players who want to score points, instead of digging big holes in the ground, will seek out all the diamonds & glowstone they can find. They sell them to other players (who pay a good price for them, because they really need them). The diamond miner is rewarded with lots of cash he can turn into points.
--- End quote ---
that's the thing, if there was a points system there would be no money. Like I explained to cora, we can control the points system to stop people from farming points. The main and best way to get points would be to vote by a long shot. The small amount of points you would get from everyday activities would just be to reward players who play often.
--- End quote ---
How will players buy & sell items with each other if there is no currency?
If you just want to rename "money" to "points" then fine, I don't care what you call it. But you need *something* besides straight barter.
You don't need to control the point system. That's the beauty of a player-run economy. I can create the most massive melon farm the server has ever seen, but if no one wants to buy my melons then it won't do me any good. The price for anything will adjust based on supply and demand. If there are lots of iron farms the price will drop. That's how it is supposed to work, we shouldn't try to restrict or control things. Just let things run their course.
If we reward people for everyday things then then the reward loses all value. Reward people for doing things that help the server (i.e. producing resources that other people want) not for killing random zombies or digging holes in the ground.
If we do that we'll have just as broken an economy as we currently do.
--- End quote ---
there is no renaming anything to anything. If we get rid of the market, all the money is going with it. The points system would just be a tiny system to help players afford protection because there's no more money.
TheWholeLoaf:
--- Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 02:49:21 am ---Your two points are:
1. There isn't enough open land.
2. We should have a level playing field.
Your first point is simply not true. Even the cluttered and ancient old guest world there is plenty of available space. Look at the right most corner on the overviewer map. Lots of places to build. Plenty more on the other maps.
Your second point just doesn't make sense to me. Minecraft isn't a competition. If your goal is to have more chests full of more blocks than the next guy, then maybe this isn't the right game for you. How does my city, which I've worked on for over 3 years, dampen your enjoyment of the game? Or make anything you build less impressive?
--- End quote ---
I suppose I didn't make my point clearly enough, but I'm unsure of how to put it any other way. You in particular don't contribute to much of the problems I've brought up in my point, your city is in it's own area and, as you said, it is really your only build. But the average player, especially when starting off, makes several small builds, perhaps relocates several times to work on new builds. Also, this function is only available to operators + but if you go into spectator mode, allowing you to phase through blocks, and travel underground, those areas are full of players mines and looted resources. So they aren't untouched just because they don't have surface builds. You are correct in stating that one of my concerns is availability of land, but that is not at all limited to surface builds.
It certainly has nothing to do with inadequacy or impressiveness of builds.
UnknownHedgehog:
Perhaps, if the idea of a server wipe isn't completely out of the question, a compromise is in order? For example, I liked the idea somebody brought up to have applications be open to have builds transferred over to the new worlds.
Also, I would like to say something about the economy topic. I don't really like the idea of there being no money at all and no market at all (I'm in favor of a change to the market to allow players to sell things). What I was thinking was there would be a user based market/economy where people exchange money for items they want that other people are selling, and players can open stands at the market to sell things as opposed to the server selling things (this of course wouldn't mean that nobody could trade items for items) I think my vision for a new economy is more in line with Ozzy's; completely user based, which allows the economy to be a free market. Like said previously by him, he could build a giant melon farm if he wanted to, but if people don't want melons then it won't benefit him much. People would gain money based on things people want rather than simply a sell sign.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version