Opticraft Community

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.

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? 

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.

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? 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear with my argument;

Here are the reasons for and against the idea of wiping the server / specific worlds:

+ More space
+1.9 blocks, items and shit
+ Neater, tidier, brand new appeal
- Loss of projects
- Lack of  familiarity (And a level playing field - this could be seen as a plus, but I disagree)
- Loss of hard work and time

Change is always bad, however that's just my opinion. The above 6 reasons are pretty much what peoples' responses have boiled down to for/against the wiping of worlds, all of which are reasonable arguments.  The one I've failed to put there in the 'against' column however is the one that I believe in - it goes against what Opticraft was always meant to be like. Optical himself always believed in keeping worlds despite how dicrepit and full of shit they were. I have no specific attachment to any of the guest worlds, nor old member particularly apart from vague sentimentality. I agree, many of the guest worlds are a fucking eye sore, and I wouldn't think twice before resetting them if it were completely up to me. As a result of this, I'm sure many guests are somewhat put off by the appearance of the server; and as lowly guests they are unable to see the green over the hill that is the neat, tidy, member worlds.

However. Many people [especially older players] have got attachments or sentimental value to the guest worlds. I see nothing wrong with this - it's not my opinion, or where I stand, but fair enough. Those players are very much in the minority, and as a staff member I've always considered it a ballache when members (Who have their own worlds) decide to retreat back to guest to build - this is ridiculous, but that can be discussed at a later date when this has all blown over.

So despite my lack of attachment to the guest worlds, I still believe they should be kept. If it were up to me, this situation of people spreading out over the hundreds of worlds wouldn't have happened, but hindsight is useless. They should be kept on the principal that that's what opticraft's about.

Moving on swiftly, noone has actually suggested (or slashed and burnt) the idea of just making new worlds? I want the new 1.9 shit as much as anyone, and feel a new world would be great - I've already made my opinions clear about the whole market situation. Is there anything wrong with leaving the old worlds, and creating new ones besides principals? I ask this because I seriously don't know, it's not my field. Will the server explode? Are we limited in world numbers? If so, then perhaps we should do what we have often done where we extend 1 of the member worlds, and 1 of the guest worlds. Perhaps if this were done, we could move the guest spawn to the newly created area so as to show a slightly more 'positive' message about opticraft.

The majority of the 'filling' of the guest worlds (apart from the original guest world) occurred through members+ building there. I feel this should no longer happen, and if the guest worlds were to be resized then new rules should be produced. We have member world as a privilige, therefore it is relatively grief free, and not as busy (not these days, but still).

The entire above section may just seem like a giant moan, but there is some useful content in it. Penguin is against world wipes because it goes against the theme of opticraft, and because it seems unnecessary if we are able to make new worlds just like 'that'. As I did in my last post, I implore everyone to follow my lead and maintain a state of calm and collection in this process. Despite the fact I agree that 'world wipes' have been taken off the table, I can see why that dramatic move can upset people.

if the surver reset was to come back onto the table so to speak i would be changing my vote back to a no. i know you longtime members have built a lot here and some dont want their builds gone and a download isn't the same thing. i wouldn't want mine nor my son's home to be gone we just built it in the last month and spent hours mining, collecting resources and building the structure. my son even protected an end ship to be his little base. hes chuffed to bits. i know he can get another one but with a server reset we start from the beginning where we where over a month ago. will be like that time was a waste. if you could take a few things over from this world it would be more intensive but i would still vote no, and how much could we take? enough to get us started, enough to keep one load of armor, a double chest?
i support the ideas of going more vanilla and trading between ourselves but i have no automated farms no big hideous structures (unless you dislike my builds) so i feel i am just being penalized because you are all board of the world we have. if your that board destroy all you build and throw it all into lava and you've reset yourself.  if i had to start again im unsure if i would and i know you will loose a few people who are on regularly. a new world is fine but there must be a way to do it without deleting the old world or you wouldn't have taken it off the table in the first place.  this is just my feelings on this as a newcomer, and i know a few who feel the same. if you where to bring it back on the table there would need to be a huge intensive to keep some of your more active members who didn't leave when it got stale for others. if we are discussing solutions please bring other ideas to the table to help resolve this on what we can do. like someone said before if this is to bring in new players restarting the world will not help that is down to advertising and there are a number of ways to do that and i would be more than happy to help with that. but if its to benefit us the existing players, then how does it help us loosing all we have worked for? we can have a the other ideas i am interested in and would like to hear more about but i am strongly against a restart. people went quiet and changed their vote when you took it off the table, if you bring it back on they will not keep quiet and we will be back where we where arguing about it.

i am open to ideas on improvements ans support some changes but a wipe is too extreme measure for me to support. 

Quote from: Nick3306 on March 24, 2016, 02:55:14 AM

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If there is no currency of any kind, then how would players buy/sell items?

Quote from: 100penguin. on March 24, 2016, 08:26:30 AM
The one I've failed to put there in the 'against' column however is the one that I believe in - it goes against what Opticraft was always meant to be like.

...

They should be kept on the principal that that's what opticraft's about.

...

Penguin is against world wipes because it goes against the theme of opticraft

I'm going to have to kindly disagree with these points you make. I don't think a theme was ever established, maybe in your eyes, but not as a whole. The the only theme I can see Opticraft having adopted is being set too much in stone to have a fresh start. We've come accustomed to simply adding a new world every time things get messy, and it's become an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction that's caused more problems than it solved. Instead of 1 world lasting one year, we've added more and more worlds which meant more and more segregation of our players. This should also answer your question about adding worlds.

Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 10:51:43 AM
If there is no currency of any kind, then how would players buy/sell items?

They wouldn't, that's the point.

Some players are saying the wipe should be back on the table. I'm glad it's not.
I voted "I support some of them" as in "No Wipe but I like the other ideas." If the wipe would have been back on the table, my vote would be "No".
And I know some other people who would do the same, eg Roza would change her Yes into a No.
Don't let the result of this pol cloud your vision because the amount of No voters would be a lot bigger if the wipe was back on the table.

Some players keep mentioning a wipe because they have reached their endgame. I'd like to repeat, what's stopping you from starting over yourself? Please don't drag us all down with you by asking for a full wipe.
IF there would be a wipe and all players would be put together on a new world, how long do you think it would take before the first one is bored again? Months? Weeks? Days? Then what? A new wipe? And another? And another?
A wipe doesn't solve the fact that certain players reach their limit in MC quite fast while others can continue for many years. Some players simply lack the imagination, drive, passion, knowledge, will, (IQ?) etc. etc. to keep going.

Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 02:28:57 AM
But you need *something* besides straight barter.

Why?

Quote from: UnknownHedgehog on March 24, 2016, 05:32:40 AM
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.

My activities on the server are mostly about building farms, and far less about building houses etc.
Would staff transfer my farms to a new world? I doubt it very much. Appart from the fact that eg Guardians and Witches spawn only in certain locations, staff wouldn't be very keen about transferring big farms. So, why would they transfer any other builds? And if builds from four worlds were transferred, wouldn't the new world be full quite fast? I predict HUGE problems with this idea.

Quote from: TheWholeLoaf on March 24, 2016, 02:38:50 AM
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.

So you have a problem with the differences in wealth. Contrary to real life where wealth is obtained over the backs of others, in Minecraft everyone could be equally wealthy. All one has to do is put some effort into it.
If there would be a wipe, how long do you think it would take before there would be large differences again? I'd say just a day or two. That makes the "wipe to establish a level playing field"-argument void.
Your example of the so called End Cities is false too. The End has no border, it has an unlimited amount of End Cities. If players have raided the ones closest to the portal, you just have to travel a bit further to find untouched End Cities.

A wipe is a short term solution that would only make a small group of players "happy" for a short period of time. It would be devastating for the rest of the players and for the server as a whole.

The only reason for a wipe would be that the server cannot handle our worlds. In that case we have a much bigger problem than anyone has realised so far.

Quote from: 100penguin. on March 24, 2016, 08:26:30 AM
Is there anything wrong with leaving the old worlds, and creating new ones besides principals?

When I joined the server I only had 2 options, Guest or Member. I chose Member for a reason. I figured Member would be the place where dedicated players would be, where the bigger builds would be, where it wouldn't be a big mess, where people would stick around for a long time unlike guests. So I expected Member to be a somewhat more "permanent" world than Guest. So Member is where I built almost all my builds. Later a New Memberworld was added but since I already had built my home and farms in Member I didn't rebuild my stuff in New Member. That would have been a bit odd.

Anyway, if any worlds had to be removed I want it to be the messed up Guest worlds and not any of the Member worlds.

But I guess that some players specifically chose (no idea why) a Guest world to build in. So for the sake of those players I don't want those worlds to be removed either. Oh and the Guest worlds are our only worlds with Mushroom biomes...

Quote from: TheWholeLoaf on March 24, 2016, 02:38:50 AM
but the people that are saying it are saying it for themselves, not others

Them saying they already reached their endgame is one thing. I doubt anyone has a problem with them saying that. But asking for a wipe is something completely different.
A wipe would not only mean a wipe for themselves, but also for others.
Let them find a solution for themselves, not one that is a disaster for others.

I understand very well that some players already have reached their limit in MC, their endgame. But does that mean they should ruïn it for others by asking the server to be wiped? They can simply start over for themselves. Just toss your crap into lava.
Does the fact that others are wealthier influence players that are making a new start? It doesn't have to at all. There is plenty of unused land, there is plenty of unmined area (eg below the sea) and there are plenty of ways to get good stuff (eg the new end world). If players aren't lazy they shouldn't have any problem developing themselves!



I'm still very much in favour of adding a new 1.9 world to the existing ones.

Quote from: DeeKay on March 24, 2016, 12:37:24 PM
I'm going to have to kindly disagree with these points you make. I don't think a theme was ever established, maybe in your eyes, but not as a whole. The the only theme I can see Opticraft having adopted is being set too much in stone to have a fresh start. We've come accustomed to simply adding a new world every time things get messy, and it's become an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction that's caused more problems than it solved. Instead of 1 world lasting one year, we've added more and more worlds which meant more and more segregation of our players. This should also answer your question about adding worlds.

I don't understand everyone's repeated complaints about "segregation" of players.  With our teleporting system, I move from the new member world to the old guest world the exact same way that I move within any world.  Unless you are proposing we eliminate /homes or other teleporting, there is no real 'segregation'.  It isn't like anyone is going to walk from one end of the map to the other as a routine way of getting around. 

Quote from: DeeKay on March 24, 2016, 12:37:24 PM

Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 10:51:43 AM
If there is no currency of any kind, then how would players buy/sell items?

They wouldn't, that's the point.

The first post by Nick said a proposed change was "- Addition of a player trading system"  That is extremely difficult without some medium of exchange (i.e. money/points/seashells/something).  Forcing everyone to simply barter would be an incredibly bad idea and effectively destroy a lot of the cooperation & resource trading that exists.  Plus it misses out on great opportunities that could come from a player-run economy. 

The creation of currency is one of the most important human inventions.  There is a reason every nation on Earth uses currency instead of barter (and no it isn't because of evil bankers).  It is a fundamental part of economics.  See this basic presentation on the matter.

Basically, in a world you may envision where we've gotten rid of the server-run market and all the players just have to swap items, this is how it would work.  I have a lot of stone (from all my excavating in my city).  I'd like to trade it for diamonds, glowstone, iron, etc.  Let's say Lando has a lot of diamonds he'd like to give me, but none of his builds use stone, so he isn't interested in trading with me.  Let's say penguin wants lots of stone, but doesn't have any glowstone, so doesn't have anything I want.  Then what?  Then we don't trade and the whole system breaks down. 

If we had some kind of sign/chest shop, can you imagine how messy it would be?  Let's say, again, that I want to trade stone for different items.  Just to sell this one item I'd have to create 20 different shops/signs.  64 stone for 12 glowstone, 32 stone for 10 iron, 40 stone for 1 diamond, 5 stone for 10 sand, 10 stone for 1 porkchop, 20 stone for 30 glass, e tc.  Imagine if I wanted to sell more than just stone?  Imagine if other people wanted to sell things?  We'd have hundreds and hundreds of different combinations of various goods.  Matching them all up would be very difficult and time consuming.

Money is just a middle-man that makes everything easier.  If I wanted Lando's diamonds, I wouldn't have to trade him my stone, I could sell my stone to penguin for money, and then take that money to buy the diamonds from Lando.  Everyone wins and it is soooo much simpler and easier a transaction.  This is why money exists in both real and virtual worlds.  No MMO or other video game that has some way to exchange goods uses a barter system, because they are absolutely impractical.  No country or society uses it either. 

I know where you're coming from Ozzy and I'm not saying you're wrong at all, but you have to understand like you said the money/market system is man made, it's something that was there when the the smp server was created and it's there now, so of course you're going to be used to relying on it because it's what makes the most sense to you. I'm just saying that perhaps the removal of such a thing could bring new aspects of survival to the table and new ways to trade, or perhaps even the total reinvention of economy built up by the players themselves by being inventive. That's what kind of gameplay I like to see at least.

Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 01:44:30 PM

Quote from: DeeKay on March 24, 2016, 12:37:24 PM
I'm going to have to kindly disagree with these points you make. I don't think a theme was ever established, maybe in your eyes, but not as a whole. The the only theme I can see Opticraft having adopted is being set too much in stone to have a fresh start. We've come accustomed to simply adding a new world every time things get messy, and it's become an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction that's caused more problems than it solved. Instead of 1 world lasting one year, we've added more and more worlds which meant more and more segregation of our players. This should also answer your question about adding worlds.

I don't understand everyone's repeated complaints about "segregation" of players.  With our teleporting system, I move from the new member world to the old guest world the exact same way that I move within any world.  Unless you are proposing we eliminate /homes or other teleporting, there is no real 'segregation'.  It isn't like anyone is going to walk from one end of the map to the other as a routine way of getting around. 

Quote from: DeeKay on March 24, 2016, 12:37:24 PM

Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 10:51:43 AM
If there is no currency of any kind, then how would players buy/sell items?

They wouldn't, that's the point.

The first post by Nick said a proposed change was "- Addition of a player trading system"  That is extremely difficult without some medium of exchange (i.e. money/points/seashells/something).  Forcing everyone to simply barter would be an incredibly bad idea and effectively destroy a lot of the cooperation & resource trading that exists.  Plus it misses out on great opportunities that could come from a player-run economy. 

The creation of currency is one of the most important human inventions.  There is a reason every nation on Earth uses currency instead of barter (and no it isn't because of evil bankers).  It is a fundamental part of economics.  See this basic presentation on the matter.

Basically, in a world you may envision where we've gotten rid of the server-run market and all the players just have to swap items, this is how it would work.  I have a lot of stone (from all my excavating in my city).  I'd like to trade it for diamonds, glowstone, iron, etc.  Let's say Lando has a lot of diamonds he'd like to give me, but none of his builds use stone, so he isn't interested in trading with me.  Let's say penguin wants lots of stone, but doesn't have any glowstone, so doesn't have anything I want.  Then what?  Then we don't trade and the whole system breaks down. 

If we had some kind of sign/chest shop, can you imagine how messy it would be?  Let's say, again, that I want to trade stone for different items.  Just to sell this one item I'd have to create 20 different shops/signs.  64 stone for 12 glowstone, 32 stone for 10 iron, 40 stone for 1 diamond, 5 stone for 10 sand, 10 stone for 1 porkchop, 20 stone for 30 glass, e tc.  Imagine if I wanted to sell more than just stone?  Imagine if other people wanted to sell things?  We'd have hundreds and hundreds of different combinations of various goods.  Matching them all up would be very difficult and time consuming.

Money is just a middle-man that makes everything easier.  If I wanted Lando's diamonds, I wouldn't have to trade him my stone, I could sell my stone to penguin for money, and then take that money to buy the diamonds from Lando.  Everyone wins and it is soooo much simpler and easier a transaction.  This is why money exists in both real and virtual worlds.  No MMO or other video game that has some way to exchange goods uses a barter system, because they are absolutely impractical.  No country or society uses it either.

Your points would all be valid if this was not a survival server, which it is. The server was never supposed to run on the economy, it just turned out that way.

Quote from: Lando_V on March 24, 2016, 01:23:13 PM
Some players are saying the wipe should be back on the table. I'm glad it's not.
I voted "I support some of them" as in "No Wipe but I like the other ideas." If the wipe would have been back on the table, my vote would be "No".
And I know some other people who would do the same, eg Roza would change her Yes into a No.
Don't let the result of this pol cloud your vision because the amount of No voters would be a lot bigger if the wipe was back on the table.

Some players keep mentioning a wipe because they have reached their endgame. I'd like to repeat, what's stopping you from starting over yourself? Please don't drag us all down with you by asking for a full wipe.
IF there would be a wipe and all players would be put together on a new world, how long do you think it would take before the first one is bored again? Months? Weeks? Days? Then what? A new wipe? And another? And another?
A wipe doesn't solve the fact that certain players reach their limit in MC quite fast while others can continue for many years. Some players simply lack the imagination, drive, passion, knowledge, will, (IQ?) etc. etc. to keep going.

As far as i'm aware, you cant change your vote once you have voted, so anyone who voted no is still recorded as a no in the poll. Very few people have voted since we have took the first option off. Keep in mind that even before it was removed, yes was still winning by 4 votes.

Quote from: Nick3306 on March 24, 2016, 03:05:46 PM
As far as i'm aware, you cant change your vote once you have voted, so anyone who voted no is still recorded as a no in the poll. Very few people have voted since we have took the first option off. Keep in mind that even before it was removed, yes was still winning by 4 votes.

I'm just saying that at the time that I voted it said the wipe was off the table. If it goes back on then I should have the right to change my vote. Otherwise there's no reason to have a poll at all. Afterwards you could just change it the way you like.

Quote from: Nick3306 on March 24, 2016, 03:05:46 PM

Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 01:44:30 PM

Quote from: DeeKay on March 24, 2016, 12:37:24 PM

Quote from: OzzyKP on March 24, 2016, 10:51:43 AM
If there is no currency of any kind, then how would players buy/sell items?

They wouldn't, that's the point.

The first post by Nick said a proposed change was "- Addition of a player trading system"  That is extremely difficult without some medium of exchange (i.e. money/points/seashells/something).  Forcing everyone to simply barter would be an incredibly bad idea and effectively destroy a lot of the cooperation & resource trading that exists.  Plus it misses out on great opportunities that could come from a player-run economy. 

The creation of currency is one of the most important human inventions.  There is a reason every nation on Earth uses currency instead of barter (and no it isn't because of evil bankers).  It is a fundamental part of economics.  See this basic presentation on the matter.

Basically, in a world you may envision where we've gotten rid of the server-run market and all the players just have to swap items, this is how it would work.  I have a lot of stone (from all my excavating in my city).  I'd like to trade it for diamonds, glowstone, iron, etc.  Let's say Lando has a lot of diamonds he'd like to give me, but none of his builds use stone, so he isn't interested in trading with me.  Let's say penguin wants lots of stone, but doesn't have any glowstone, so doesn't have anything I want.  Then what?  Then we don't trade and the whole system breaks down. 

If we had some kind of sign/chest shop, can you imagine how messy it would be?  Let's say, again, that I want to trade stone for different items.  Just to sell this one item I'd have to create 20 different shops/signs.  64 stone for 12 glowstone, 32 stone for 10 iron, 40 stone for 1 diamond, 5 stone for 10 sand, 10 stone for 1 porkchop, 20 stone for 30 glass, e tc.  Imagine if I wanted to sell more than just stone?  Imagine if other people wanted to sell things?  We'd have hundreds and hundreds of different combinations of various goods.  Matching them all up would be very difficult and time consuming.

Money is just a middle-man that makes everything easier.  If I wanted Lando's diamonds, I wouldn't have to trade him my stone, I could sell my stone to penguin for money, and then take that money to buy the diamonds from Lando.  Everyone wins and it is soooo much simpler and easier a transaction.  This is why money exists in both real and virtual worlds.  No MMO or other video game that has some way to exchange goods uses a barter system, because they are absolutely impractical.  No country or society uses it either.

Your points would all be valid if this was not a survival server, which it is. The server was never supposed to run on the economy, it just turned out that way.

If your vision for a survival server is that everyone is on their own and doesn't cooperate or share resources, then yes, eliminating the economy would achieve that.  I think that is a very big change, and a bad one.  I think the ability to easily share, trade and cooperate is an important part of this server, and was certainly a perk when I first got here.  Shutting that all down by removing money would, I feel, make it harder for new members to join and stay.

But I don't understand why you listed "addition of a player trading system" as a new proposal if you intend to eliminate player trading/exchange.