Archived Ban High Walls

This suggestion has been archived / closed and can no longer be voted on.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hiramas

Hiramas

Master Architect of the tenebrosian Empire
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
31
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Greetings.

While i am sure that this will be met with a lot of disagree ratings, i wanted to get a sense of the opinions in the community about this.

The suggestion: Ban absurdly high walls the same as flying structures are banned. If not ban, lets make a community guideline on well build fortifications.
The reason: The high walls serve in 90% of the cases only one purpose: pearl-proofing.
not mand people do this vast amount of work because they think its epic.

In my opinion the purpose is not met because with a pearl/cannon combination you can fire yourself above a wall with ease.
On the other hand these walls are almost never done with any attempt to make them look nice. the are ugly on the dynmap as well as ingame and often destroy the landscape.
Since there are other ways of raidproofing your land and raids are part of life on massive i suggest to discuss a reasonable heigth limit for walls.
i know you cant inforce high quality building on an open server like massive and i do not want to limit peoples creativity. At the very least i call on all architects, builders and factions to be creative and invent new forms to keep your people safe. If we have a rule for this or not.

Thank you for your attention.
Lets discuss.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
Well, I joined a really nice faction, that I thought was ruined (in a Roleplay and cosmetic sense) by the fact that they had a massive cobblestone wall surrounding their town... So I agree with this.

Don't want to be Ender Pearled? Build underground... or, do something more creative than a giant eyesore wall ._.
 
I make walls of around 10-30 and mostly they look ok... Just some people can't build... live with it...
 
Honestly it's been suggested that pearls should be disabled and more realistic siege mechanics implemented, but until someone comes up with some insane suggestion that no one could refuse, walls literally server a single purpose. To block out pearls, and a high 32-50 block wall is the only way to stop them and still have an open outside city. So we have to put up with it.
 
I think what we did in Morgannwg was good, segmenting the city into several parts. It means raiders have to take several pearls at least, and then have a safe building within each of these. You have an open city with relative safety. It's all down to the planning. Giant walls just don't look nice. With careful consideration of a city, you can easily make it harder for raiders, without building huge box walls
 
At the moment I don't support this. I think the staff does a good job keeping the majority of the server from looking like old Ceardia. If they started to add onto existing building codes it would bring them far more work trying to enforce the new codes and be a turn off to many players.
 
If you want to be raid proof make a cave/underground base.
Don´t try to use such a cheap and ugly looking way of making Bases in the open less open.
You can try the tactic mentioned here:
Tokugawryuu said:
I think what we did in Morgannwg was good, segmenting the city into several parts. It means raiders have to take several pearls at least, and then have a safe building within each of these. You have an open city with relative safety. It's all down to the planning. Giant walls just don't look nice. With careful consideration of a city, you can easily make it harder for raiders, without building huge box walls
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Either way I support the ban of ugly high walls (20 blocks+) which only serve the purpose of pearl proofing.
 
nray93
Hey, I said that too :3
" Don't want to be Ender Pearled? Build underground... or, do something more creative than a giant eyesore wall ._. "
 
Well. It is ugly but necessary. I do believe some limitations need to be made such as one block wide walls with no supports that reach into the heavens above is quite ugly and honestly? A serious building and health code violation. That being said... survival worlds are survival worlds I guess.

That being said, I do actually like 'giant walls' if they are built well. Supports, depth in the wall itself, playful block usage, towers and artillery/bowmen ports. Walls that make sense. Not smooth monolithic walls of stone brick or whatever...
 
Zero_oo said:
Giant walls are not always eye sores. Don't punish the masses for the mistakes of the few.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You disagree with me quoting myself, but don't give the original, or the person I was agreeing with (nray93) any rating...
Logic, y u no work.

Also, more on topic, I said "- or do something more creative -"
So if someone makes a creative wall (Sort of like the one Xskill above me said) then it's got no problem.
 
Xskill said:
Well. It is ugly but necessary. I do believe some limitations need to be made such as one block wide walls with no supports that reach into the heavens above is quite ugly and honestly? A serious building and health code violation. That being said... survival worlds are survival worlds I guess.

That being said, I do actually like 'giant walls' if they are built well. Supports, depth in the wall itself, playful block usage, towers and artillery/bowmen ports. Walls that make sense. Not smooth monolithic walls of stone brick or whatever...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Well i have absolutely nothing agains someone recreating the gates of Mordor, "The "Wall" from Game of Thrones or whatever as long as its done good. My aim was exactly at these 1 block think walls.
Everytime i see something like this happening i try and speak to the people building the wall but usually the pearl proof argument wins.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom