Claim-To-Edit. A Radical New World Type
I just had to spend over 4000 Regals putting LWC onto chests in a Daendroc Castle. A castle that will go 'up in smoke' if the cancer of persistent noob 'landscaping' continues and the Daendroc map goes the way of Old Ceardia.
I really don't understand why people would click "Disagree" with this 'claim-to-build' concept when they themselves can go on living in the existing wilderness worlds and any new ones that are planned. By clicking Disagree you are effectively removing any chance for us builders to get a more 'persistent' place to build... while you still get to go on playing the way you want.
@Cayorian is trying to attract new players but what's the point if a percentage of those he has leave in disgust each time a map gets retired?
The Solution? A world where you have to faction claim an area to build in it.
OK firstly don't panic - the other 'free for all' maps with wilderness remain as they are… but… one new map is introduced where you can build / dig / edit the landscape only in areas that your faction claims - the rest is protected (until of course someone claims a bit).
You might say "No Thanks - I'm happy with it the way it is"
Great! You should vote "yes" to it then. You still get your wilderness worlds - I'm not suggesting they go anywhere… you wouldn't deny others the chance to give it a try - it won't affect you at all so that's a yes from you
"But I like to be able to dig and chop and stuff"
As I said the other 'free for all' maps with wilderness stay. Chop and dig all you like.
"My faction wouldn't have enough power to claim land to build all of the stuff I want"
This is actually a benefit. Games like Skyrim are engaging for longer because new features become available as you level up. In the same way here it gives you something to aspire to.
We've all been there:
The 'claim-to-edit' world becomes a safe haven for the bigger more mature factions who are tired of losing their builds as each map succumbs to the continual rampant erosion of small griefing and is deleted. Build build build and then you too can look down your nose at the worthless ants toiling in the squalor of the 'wilderness' worlds.
"It's extra time the Admins have to spend"
Well yes and no. They add new worlds regularly - a new map already takes a large amount of time & effort - in the scheme of things the additional permissions required for 'claim-to-edit' are not that much extra work.
Also In this new 'claim-to-edit' world there will be much less griefing - hence less they have to clean up.
And… Cay wants more players. The introduction of a 'claim-to-edit' map means a feature rich product that is more competitive with other servers. The player numbers will also be healthier due to longevity and loyalty. You can't tell me that players haven't left the server in disgust each time a world has needed to be deleted and they lost their precious base (e.g. Old Ceardia). Anyone who's been in business understands that removing a client frustration with a small change that doesn't affect the larger client base is good sense.
"How will my faction get resources in this new world if it's all locked?"
Go grab your resources from one of the remaining 'wilderness' worlds. And don't tell me it's too far. Put a bed there and /cprivate it and use /home and /f home to journey from one to the other…or… If you haven't discovered the joys of portals/gates yet that's your problem. Go read the massive website. There will always be a need for wilderness worlds for resources. I have an idea for a resetting random resources world but that's for another thread and another day.
On a side note - The suggestion of a well known and well publicised disposable random resetting world has been put forward by many (myself included) for some time now. This would relieve pressure on the existing 'wild' worlds and give those in the 'claim-to-edit' worlds somewhere to dig.
"Worlds will always be deleted eventually - it's a fact of life"
Really? How do you know until we trial a 'claim-to-edit' world? Cab't we give it a try?
"What's the benefit?"
Yes we now have worlds where Admins can 'restore' areas that are griefed. But due to limited time they're always going to restrict their efforts to large areas of griefed landscape. The little stuff is the slow rot that eventually makes a map go the way of Old Ceardia.
Every hour of every day a noob comes on for the first time and:
The big stuff gets fixed. The small stuff ignored until such a time as the small stuff has all added up, there are no trees left, the landscape looks like something out of the Lorax and eventually the admins go "gee that map is all decrepit now, what a surprise. I wonder how that happened! Time to delete it"
It is irrefutable that eventually each map in turn will go this way.
The restore system is slightly flawed - If some poor bugger has a secret underground storage room and someone griefs the surface above it - bye bye underground storage room when the admin restores the surface.
It also relies on players reporting areas that need cleanup - again the small stuff won't be reported.
"If the maps never get 'retired' there will be no server space for new worlds which utilise new blocks"
True if all of the maps were 'preserved' we'd never get to try out the new updates. That's why there will always be a need for a mix of wilderness worlds and 'claim-to-edit'. The wilderness worlds are eventually replaced with new stuff. If players are informed regularly of this they can make informed choices about their stay and either acknowledge the fleeting nature of the wilderness worlds or move to a 'claim-to-edit'.
I just had to spend over 4000 Regals putting LWC onto chests in a Daendroc Castle. A castle that will go 'up in smoke' if the cancer of persistent noob 'landscaping' continues and the Daendroc map goes the way of Old Ceardia.
I really don't understand why people would click "Disagree" with this 'claim-to-build' concept when they themselves can go on living in the existing wilderness worlds and any new ones that are planned. By clicking Disagree you are effectively removing any chance for us builders to get a more 'persistent' place to build... while you still get to go on playing the way you want.
@Cayorian is trying to attract new players but what's the point if a percentage of those he has leave in disgust each time a map gets retired?
The Solution? A world where you have to faction claim an area to build in it.
OK firstly don't panic - the other 'free for all' maps with wilderness remain as they are… but… one new map is introduced where you can build / dig / edit the landscape only in areas that your faction claims - the rest is protected (until of course someone claims a bit).
You might say "No Thanks - I'm happy with it the way it is"
Great! You should vote "yes" to it then. You still get your wilderness worlds - I'm not suggesting they go anywhere… you wouldn't deny others the chance to give it a try - it won't affect you at all so that's a yes from you
"But I like to be able to dig and chop and stuff"
As I said the other 'free for all' maps with wilderness stay. Chop and dig all you like.
"My faction wouldn't have enough power to claim land to build all of the stuff I want"
This is actually a benefit. Games like Skyrim are engaging for longer because new features become available as you level up. In the same way here it gives you something to aspire to.
We've all been there:
- discover Massive
- build a little hut somewhere
- get powned by some god armored punk
- make enough money to claim a little plot
- build your first castle/tower
- find others to join you
- make a bigger 'village'
- etc etc etc…
The 'claim-to-edit' world becomes a safe haven for the bigger more mature factions who are tired of losing their builds as each map succumbs to the continual rampant erosion of small griefing and is deleted. Build build build and then you too can look down your nose at the worthless ants toiling in the squalor of the 'wilderness' worlds.
"It's extra time the Admins have to spend"
Well yes and no. They add new worlds regularly - a new map already takes a large amount of time & effort - in the scheme of things the additional permissions required for 'claim-to-edit' are not that much extra work.
Also In this new 'claim-to-edit' world there will be much less griefing - hence less they have to clean up.
And… Cay wants more players. The introduction of a 'claim-to-edit' map means a feature rich product that is more competitive with other servers. The player numbers will also be healthier due to longevity and loyalty. You can't tell me that players haven't left the server in disgust each time a world has needed to be deleted and they lost their precious base (e.g. Old Ceardia). Anyone who's been in business understands that removing a client frustration with a small change that doesn't affect the larger client base is good sense.
"How will my faction get resources in this new world if it's all locked?"
Go grab your resources from one of the remaining 'wilderness' worlds. And don't tell me it's too far. Put a bed there and /cprivate it and use /home and /f home to journey from one to the other…or… If you haven't discovered the joys of portals/gates yet that's your problem. Go read the massive website. There will always be a need for wilderness worlds for resources. I have an idea for a resetting random resources world but that's for another thread and another day.
On a side note - The suggestion of a well known and well publicised disposable random resetting world has been put forward by many (myself included) for some time now. This would relieve pressure on the existing 'wild' worlds and give those in the 'claim-to-edit' worlds somewhere to dig.
"Worlds will always be deleted eventually - it's a fact of life"
Really? How do you know until we trial a 'claim-to-edit' world? Cab't we give it a try?
"What's the benefit?"
Yes we now have worlds where Admins can 'restore' areas that are griefed. But due to limited time they're always going to restrict their efforts to large areas of griefed landscape. The little stuff is the slow rot that eventually makes a map go the way of Old Ceardia.
Every hour of every day a noob comes on for the first time and:
- Cobble 'ladders' up a hillside
- Chops down a tree (and doesn't replace it)
- Digs up the topsoil
- Builds a quick vamp sun-hut
- Cobbles across a lake
The big stuff gets fixed. The small stuff ignored until such a time as the small stuff has all added up, there are no trees left, the landscape looks like something out of the Lorax and eventually the admins go "gee that map is all decrepit now, what a surprise. I wonder how that happened! Time to delete it"
It is irrefutable that eventually each map in turn will go this way.
The restore system is slightly flawed - If some poor bugger has a secret underground storage room and someone griefs the surface above it - bye bye underground storage room when the admin restores the surface.
It also relies on players reporting areas that need cleanup - again the small stuff won't be reported.
"If the maps never get 'retired' there will be no server space for new worlds which utilise new blocks"
True if all of the maps were 'preserved' we'd never get to try out the new updates. That's why there will always be a need for a mix of wilderness worlds and 'claim-to-edit'. The wilderness worlds are eventually replaced with new stuff. If players are informed regularly of this they can make informed choices about their stay and either acknowledge the fleeting nature of the wilderness worlds or move to a 'claim-to-edit'.
Last edited:
