Archived Claim-to-edit. A Radical New World Type!

[Eucindiel]

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:

• 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…

…but now you have something more to aspire to after that.
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

Even long standing members do stuff like this:



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'.

 

[OldManJ98]

1. These worlds would be unfriendly to new players already having issues finding wilderness, get on wrong baot, help chat spam city
2. The little destruction near spawn helps keep faction from claiming extremely close to spawn
3. If a person likes biomes across the map from each other on this map, they are limited to one choice
4. The original post is written to basically stop people from down-voting (Pardon Imgur lingo)
5.When wars are occuring, people need to quickly create portals to the enemy base, here impossible
6. Resources become scarcer in other worlds, becoming more of supply worlds
7. The tone of the whole first post is sassy and quite rude
8. Coding, have fun with this one admin (if you want it, code it yourself)
9. Im attacking village, their walls are super high, I can't break blocks to destroy leaves outside on the trees to get up
10. People would be required to join a faction to live here. I got some budies who are long time players, not in factions because they just don't like them.

I think that is enough reasons for now

 

[Eucindiel]

I think that is enough reasons for now

Click to shrink...

Thanks Benedict - valid points.

1 - My vision for these 'claim-to-edit' worlds has always been that they are an advanced feature that don't need to be discovered by noobs until they've been on the server for a while and find out about them via a broadcast or in game questing or similar. From both an RP and logistical perspective they could be "outer rim" worlds that are only reachable from a dock in the South of one of the continents. As a result noobs won't accidentally arrive there all that often although if they did (and hadn't read the signs about the nature of the world) then they really don't have the intellect requiredand should go back to painting by number books.

2 - Claiming close to spawn contravenes the 16 chunk rule, is illegal and I have had the admins close factions for that very reason - this is easy to police unlike the cancer of gradual small griefing.

3 - I'm not sure I understand what you mean... but... this sounds no better or worse than what we already have. If I like both the jungle and the Savannah in Daendroc I've got a hard road ahead because I've either got to set up two factions or recruit HEAPS of players so my fax can 'stretch' from one to the other. So the addition of a 'claim-to-edit' world doesn't add this restriction - we already had it.

4 - And rightly so. A problem with Western Civilisation today (especially the joke that is popular media) is the tendency to bad mouth something without actually doing the research to look at the pros and cons. Especially in this scenario. It's a very long post and a form of communication which relies on both the sender and the receiver having the same understanding, background etc etc. Experience tells me that young players will read the first paragraph, assume the rest then "Disagree" without giving it sufficient thought or the chance for me to explain myself better. As a result they are unfairly jeopardising the chances of this concept getting a fair hearing. In this context I will be following them up, listening to their feedback and asking them to change their vote if it was a simple misunderstanding. By clicking "Disagree" they are effectively robbing me of MY right to choose. That warrants the request for them to explain their opposition (giving me opportunity to rework the concept)... otherwise they should remove their 'hit-and-run' "Disagree".

5 - True [EDIT - SEE BELOW]

6 - There is and always has been a need for a disposable resources world. But that's a subject for another thread.
(http://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/15247/ - merge this idea with a resetting resource world and we're onto something)

7 - It is difficult to imbue vocal register into text. Read it again with a 'tongue-in-cheek' voice.

8 - Are you speaking from experience having coded similar yourself? I have no knowledge of coding so I'm interested to hear from someone who has - is this you? Is it difficult to achieve?

9 - One could argue that's no different to faction claimed land in the current set-up. Currently If I have enough 'buffer' land claimed around a 'big wall' you aint getting in. And anyways, that's sort of the point - there are those on this server who choose not to engage in warfare and the admins in the past have provided an environment where that choice is respected. If you wanted to war - stick to the 'wild' worlds... Although if it was such a major issue for people the admins could consider a scenario where 'enemying' another fax released the opposing teams land to damage (with the facility to roll back if the party being attacked we're not happy about it).

10 - Your "buddies" can continue as they like - the addition of this new world won't affect them because there should always be 'wild' worlds. I personally don't PVP... but does that mean I should campaign for the removal of the PVP worlds? No - I respect their choice and leave them to it. In a similar respect, if you "Disagreed" with my idea on the basis of this argument you'd be denying ME my right to choose.

 

[OldManJ98]

Thanks Benedict - valid points.

1 - My vision for these 'claim-to-edit' worlds has always been that they are an advanced feature that don't need to be discovered by noobs until they've been on the server for a while and find out about them via a broadcast or in game questing or similar. From both an RP and logistical perspective they could be "outer rim" worlds that are only reachable from a dock in the South of one of the continents. As a result noobs won't accidentally arrive there all that often although if they did (and hadn't read the signs about the nature of the world) then they really don't have the intellect requiredand should go back to painting by number books.

2 - Claiming close to spawn contravenes the 16 chunk rule, is illegal and I have had the admins close factions for that very reason - this is easy to police unlike the cancer of gradual small griefing.

3 - I'm not sure I understand what you mean... but... this sounds no better or worse than what we already have. If I like both the jungle and the Savannah in Daendroc I've got a hard road ahead because I've either got to set up two factions or recruit HEAPS of players so my fax can 'stretch' from one to the other. So the addition of a 'claim-to-edit' world doesn't add this restriction - we already had it.

4 - And rightly so. A problem with Western Civilisation today (especially the joke that is popular media) is the tendency to bad mouth something without actually doing the research to look at the pros and cons. Especially in this scenario. It's a very long post and a form of communication which relies on both the sender and the receiver having the same understanding, background etc etc. Experience tells me that young players will read the first paragraph, assume the rest then "Disagree" without giving it sufficient thought or the chance for me to explain myself better. As a result they are unfairly jeopardising the chances of this concept getting a fair hearing. In this context I will be following them up, listening to their feedback and asking them to change their vote if it was a simple misunderstanding.

5 - True, I'll consider this

6 - There is and always has been a need for a disposable resources world. But that's a subject for another thread.
(http://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/15247/ - merge this idea with a resetting resource world and we're onto something)

7 - It is difficult to imbue vocal register into text. Read it again with a 'tongue-in-cheek' voice.

8 - Are you speaking from experience having coded similar yourself? I have no knowledge of coding so I'm interested to hear from someone who has - is this you? Is it difficult to achieve?

9 - One could argue that's no different to faction claimed land in the current set-up. Currently If I have enough 'buffer' land claimed around a 'big wall' you aint getting in. And anyways, that's sort of the point - there are those on this server who choose not to engage in warfare and the admins in the past have provided an environment where that choice is respected. If you wanted to war - stick to the 'wild' worlds... Although if it was such a major issue for people the admins could consider a scenario where 'enemying' another fax released the opposing teams land to damage (with the facility to roll back if the party being attacked we're not happy about it).

10 - Your "buddies" can continue as they like - the addition of this new world won't affect them because there should always be 'wild' worlds. I personally don't PVP... but does that mean I should campaign for the removal of the PVP worlds? No - I respect their choice and leave them to it. In a similar respect, if you "Disagreed" with my idea on the basis of this argument you'd be denying ME my right to choose.

Click to shrink...

1. The point is, a boat would be in the harbor. A noob would wander on, and start freaking out
2. It still gets invaded near spawn, but this keeps them away (I've seen them pushed back)
3. You can set up unlclaimed colonies
4. Its set up very defensively without arguement
5. Thanks
6. You are setting up faction worlds and resource world, bad ideas
7. Its very in-your -face
8.no, my pal does. He used to own a sever, gave it up b/c coding too much work
9.I am when I am building temp raid towers
10. What world is pvp only?

 

[Eucindiel]

I think that is enough reasons for now

Click to shrink...

Point 5 - Indeed this would make the 'claim-to-edit' world a land of peaceful non-warring factions. Some people may not like that... but... you have a choice. If it's on a world you never intend to inhabit it won't change YOUR experience on Massive. I personally don't PVP but that doesn't mean I want the PVP worlds removed.

 

[Eucindiel]

1. The point is, a boat would be in the harbor. A noob would wander on, and start freaking out
2. It still gets invaded near spawn, but this keeps them away (I've seen them pushed back)
3. You can set up unlclaimed colonies
4. Its set up very defensively without arguement
5. Thanks
6. You are setting up faction worlds and resource world, bad ideas
7. Its very in-your -face
8.no, my pal does. He used to own a sever, gave it up b/c coding too much work
9.I am when I am building temp raid towers
10. What world is pvp only?

Click to shrink...

1 - It doesn't have to be on a boat - there are infinite possibilities as to how we could achieve the transition to the 'claim-to-edit' world. It could be a cave in a quest. It could be a portal in the jungle. Use your imagination. If a regular broadcast:
A - described this new world
B - was clear about it's claim-to-edit nature
C - used an RP angle to explain such...
... it would actually be adding an enjoyable new feature for some - some might not care for it - that's OK - that's their choice. They can choose NOT to hunt down the mystical portal to the other world because it aint for them.

And the signs (and/or NPC) at the spawn when they arrive can make it quite clear (in an RP style) that they might not be in the right place.

2 - Yes... but the addition of my claim-to-edit world doesn't ADD that. We already have that issue. I'm not saying my idea fixes EVERYTHING - it just gives those of us who are jack of losing our builds... a choice.

3 - You can still do this - in the remaining 'wild' worlds

4 - My apologies - I'll do better next time - lets get back to discussing the issues here.

5 - Discussed above

6 - "bad idea" please elaborate or remove.

7 - My apologies - I'll do better next time - lets get back to discussing the issues here.

8 - I agree - coding in general is laborious. The question here is, in the scheme of adding a new world which is something they intend to do anyway, how much (if any) extra work does this one idea add to the workload. If it's an extra 30 minutes in a total project that will take 3 weeks - what's the drama?

9 - Sure... but you can choose to inhabit one of the remaining many 'wild' worlds. You wouldn't deny me the choice to inhabit a claim-to-edit world just because it wasn't your preference would you?

10 - Sorry "arena" not "world". The fact is they took time to build, they take time to run. I don't use them but that's no reason for me to argue for their removal - those guys who love to PVP deserve the right to choose.

 

[Eucindiel]

Benedict has snuck away for now - anyone else?

 

[TechPac]

Personally, the concept sounds good, but I don't like the idea that I would have to claim land in order to mine out resources. Not to mention some people like to pick a spot in advance to work on a new town or castle, THEN claim it because if they move their fac to an empty lot that's really unsafe for their faction members.

 

[Grailen]

-Yawns-
Alrighty lets outline a few things but first I can tell from previous posts that you have a genuine hard on for landscape.

• If you have resources here and don't have the land that is unclaimed automatically reset any faction with spare power can come in claim a dozen or two chunks have their men (Or allies) come and tear it up for the fresh materials quickly unclaim it and move to the next spot. This being said your idea only marginally cuts down on landscape destruction as the big time players have the means to do this on a large scale.
• Next assuming it's not a pacifist world raiding would be inhibited due to inability to create portals without pilot claiming, And no way to break high walls besides pearl. (Also your theory of buffer claims is utter Bollocks for example a 4 by 4 base with a 2 chunk buffer which would do very little would require an 8 by 8 claim (Four times the land needed for the effect)
• However if you remove PVP and resources what you basically have is a quest island which are already in development where you can enjoy landscape that can't be destroyed and pretty builds to your hearts content

Now on a closing note I feel you're rather invest in an idea that few others share and the best recommendation I can give you is to go prance about in the Regalian Forrest and later on the landscapes of the quest maps.

 

[Lizmun]

I don't think this is a good idea, because, first off, having a claim to edit world will "Protect nature" as you said. Sure, but what about the other worlds? like daendroc or fendarfell? While the Claim - to - edit world will stay untouched, Greif /MAY/ rise in the others, when / if there are large amounts of claim to edit worlds. and, if I understand correctly, you desmonster have been attempting to restore daendroc for months now For which I thank you by the way And, if large amounts of claim - to - edit Worlds were released, people would end up goine to daendroc, or ellador, or fendar to get supplys leaving the once beautiful worlds, a wasteland.

 

[Eucindiel]

I don't think this is a good idea, because, first off, having a claim to edit world will "Protect nature" as you said. Sure, but what about the other worlds? like daendroc or fendarfell? While the Claim - to - edit world will stay untouched, Greif /MAY/ rise in the others, when / if there are large amounts of claim to edit worlds. and, if I understand correctly, you desmonster have been attempting to restore daendroc for months now For which I thank you by the way And, if large amounts of claim - to - edit Worlds were released, people would end up goine to daendroc, or ellador, or fendar to get supplys leaving the once beautiful worlds, a wasteland.

Click to shrink...

Indeed inhabitants of the 'claim-to-edit' worlds might often travel to 'wild' worlds to get their resources.

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.

Cool?

 

[Eucindiel]

Personally, the concept sounds good, but I don't like the idea that I would have to claim land in order to mine out resources. Not to mention some people like to pick a spot in advance to work on a new town or castle, THEN claim it because if they move their fac to an empty lot that's really unsafe for their faction members.

Click to shrink...

True - resource gathering becomes an issue - see above.

Picking a spot in advance? Yes by attrition I suspect this 'claim-to-edit' world would become a haven/destination for people who have saved enough to "claim first-build later". But that's not necessarily a bad thing. The entire 'tone' of the interactions on this world will possibly be quite different/slower/more mature because of the different class of player it attracts. Hopefully many of those who have been around long enough to have enough spare Regals to claim first would be more interested in harmonious long term faction interplay. The disability to smash up a rival faction's land may dissuade militant factions from settling here.

That's all OK though - as I've discussed you can choose not to live there. If you prefer being able to pick a spot first then go ahead and stay in a 'wild' world. No probz.

 

[Eucindiel]

• If you have resources here and don't have the land that is unclaimed automatically reset any faction with spare power can come in claim a dozen or two chunks have their men (Or allies) come and tear it up for the fresh materials quickly unclaim it and move to the next spot. This being said your idea only marginally cuts down on landscape destruction as the big time players have the means to do this on a large scale.

Click to shrink...

OK. The initial faction claim is going to cost them 2000R. And yes then they can 'orbit' claimed areas around this central claim and rip it up. It could happen - yes. But the likelihood? Why would they waste 2000R to get resources that they could just as easily get in Kelmoria or New Ceardia for absolutely no outlay?

• Next assuming it's not a pacifist world raiding would be inhibited due to inability to create portals without pilot claiming, And no way to break high walls besides pearl. (Also your theory of buffer claims is utter Bollocks for example a 4 by 4 base with a 2 chunk buffer which would do very little would require an 8 by 8 claim (Four times the land needed for the effect)

Click to shrink...

If you want to raid stay in the existing 'wild' worlds. There's nothing wrong with having a pacifist world. You may not want to live there but why limit our choices all because of your personal preferences? I personally don't PVP... but does that mean I should campaign for the removal of the PVP arenas? No - I respect their choice and leave them to it. In a similar respect, if you "Disagree" with my idea on the basis of this argument you'd be denying ME my right to choose.

• However if you remove PVP and resources what you basically have is a quest island which are already in development where you can enjoy landscape that can't be destroyed and pretty builds to your hearts content

Click to shrink...

Will the players be able to build there?

Now on a closing note I feel you're rather invest in an idea that few others share and the best recommendation I can give you is to go prance about in the Regalian Forrest and later on the landscapes of the quest maps.

Click to shrink...

Not constructive. Your assertion that "few others share" my idea. This is based on what scientifically or statistically sound evidence exactly?

 

[Grailen]

"desmonster, post: 193159, member: 303"]OK. The initial faction claim is going to cost them 2000R. And yes then they can 'orbit' claimed areas around this central claim and rip it up. It could happen - yes. But the likelihood? Why would they waste 2000R to get resources that they could just as easily get in Kelmoria or New Ceardia for absolutely no outlay?
Because people already have factions and if they already spent the money would they mine where people have mined before or go somewhere fresh? The answers fairly obvious.
If you want to raid stay in the existing 'wild' worlds. There's nothing wrong with having a pacifist world. You may not want to live there but why limit our choices all because of your personal preferences? I personally don't PVP... but does that mean I should campaign for the removal of the PVP arenas? No - I respect their choice and leave them to it. In a similar respect, if you "Disagree" with my idea on the basis of this argument you'd be denying ME my right to choose.
there are no "Flying worlds" or "teleport to other player worlds" even though people would choose to pick them. but on your point the reason and beauty in my opinion of ingratiated RP/PVP servers is the forced compromises it entails for having to rely on others to make your goals a reality.
Will the players be able to build there?
No but if you want to build in a small well maintained area buy a Regalian home and decor it, also how do you determine what is grief and what's just a build some one could easily just make cobble boxes and call it a city (The worst wilderness grief in my opinion) in order to prevent that you'd need to have constant staff management of the world to both restore grief and to deem what is "Ugly" or not.

Not constructive. Your assertion that "few others share" my idea. This is based on what scientifically or statistically sound evidence exactly?
And you have what evidence that people share your ideas beyond the incredibly small fraction of the community on the forums that agree with you?

 

[Eucindiel]

Because people already have factions and if they already spent the money would they mine where people have mined before or go somewhere fresh? The answers fairly obvious.

Click to shrink...

I'm a confused here sorry... but still - I don't see why this is an issue that would be unique to my proposed 'claim-to-edit' world - isn't this true of all the maps? So lets give it a trial run?

Will the players be able to build there?
No but if you want to build in a small well maintained area buy a Regalian home and decor it, also how do you determine what is grief and what's just a build some one could easily just make cobble boxes and call it a city (The worst wilderness grief in my opinion) in order to prevent that you'd need to have constant staff management of the world to both restore grief and to deem what is "Ugly" or not.

Click to shrink...

Again - I don't see why cobble boxes is an issue that would be unique to my proposed 'claim-to-edit' world - isn't this true of all the maps? So lets give it a trial run?

Not constructive. Your assertion that "few others share" my idea. This is based on what scientifically or statistically sound evidence exactly?
And you have what evidence that people share your ideas beyond the incredibly small fraction of the community on the forums that agree with you?

Click to shrink...

Indeed nothing on this forum is a fair referendum of a proper sample set. This thread is one way that I can research (with your help) the wider opinions on the matter. I imagine it is only a precursor to open discussions with the staff. The again, as the 'round-earth' theorists discovered in the dark ages, something doesn't necessarily have to be approved by the masses to be the right way to go. Which is why I take the "Disagree" ticks with a grain of scepticism.

But we're getting off topic here and arguing about semantics.

In conclusion, and on the whole I propose that, after discussing all of the concerns, there are no issues that can't be resolved or don't already exist on the normal worlds... so... if the staff we're prepared to create one... would you actively campaign against the establishment of a trial 'claim-to-edit' world?

 

[Eucindiel]

Ahem

:1: Staff would take time to make this just a trial, don't go spazz on me for saying this but it is true. The staff wouldn't just bring out a world out of their bloody fingertips, it takes time.. time they use more wisely as mostly all of them say.

Click to shrink...

Absolutely correct. This concept wouldn't happen tomorrow. Mostly because they'd need to release two worlds simultaneously. Why? Because the masses would erupt in an uproar: "Exciting new world BUT I can't bloody live there unless I can afford a faction claim - grumble grumble grumble". To appease those more savage among us there would have to be an equally exciting 'wild' map released at the same time. That aint gonna come easy. But... if it's a planned strategy for the future it can be achieved eventually.

:2: Really.. this world would be a free for all deathmatch with a load of complaining.. "I lost my items to a hacker!! Help me!!" -child hysterics-

Click to shrink...

Not sure what you mean... but if you mean it is not a noob friendly map - then I agree. But that is the intention. Measures should be taken to ensure that it is a map you would only go looking for once you've been around for a while. Plus it should be widely publicised that it aint a destination for the feint hearted... so the noobs don't get scared off and think "are all the worlds on this server like this?".

:3: Give more arguements over this.. Why would someone want it? Why do you want it? What would it provide that people may or may not like? -you've already done it but write more regarding it-

Click to shrink...

To minimise/reduce this:
http://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/15391/

http://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/12869/

And I have no energy left to continue this:
http://forums.massivecraft.com/threads/13436/
The griefers have won this round but with a claim-to-edit world it's less of an issue.

I've spent over a year building my castle in Daendroc. I'd like to finish it and hang around for a while.

:4: Which worlds are pvp only? There is an alliance and an enemy command for factions for a reason.. no world is full on pvp, only factions if they choose. The worlds out now are not only pvp but a building paradise for anyone to enjoy without hesitation- they build and they create whatever things they want. There is already wild worlds, they are occupied by large amounts of factions.

Click to shrink...

Sorry - I'm referring to PVP "Arenas" not "Worlds" persé. I personally don't PVP... but does that mean I should campaign for the removal of the PVP Arenas or "Disagree" with their existence? No - I respect their choice and leave them to it.

:5: I think your trying to find a full on survival server or at least changing part of this into one..

Click to shrink...

Confused what you mean here... Are you taking about a totally 'wilderness' world or a totally 'locked' world? This is neither. You claim a faction area in order to build in an area. Are there servers out there that have that already?

To you this is just blabbering on and someone of it is quite harsh.. sure.. but just read it and don't shove any infomation in my face as I -think- you are doing unto others.

"Thanks, but why did you disagree? You just rated it without an explaination so please.. get rid of your vote or else try writing an answer."

Click to shrink...

Yes my apologies for the tone of that entry on your wall - I realised and edited it on other's as soon as I realised but you got to it before I could change it. My apologies.

I realise I'm being pushy asking 'drive-by-doubters' to not "Disagree" without discussion but the danger is that the Admins might take one look at the 10 or 11 unsubstantiated red "Disagree" icons against the thread and decide that the populace in general does not support the idea... when the truth is those people that would just click disagree and run are not the sort of person who's opinion we should invest much stock in here. A "Disagree and run" is usually a knee-jerk reaction by someone who would actually "Agree" when they took the time to read the entire thread and realise the suggested world type wouldn't hurt them at all.

I am not out for a fight.

Click to shrink...

Sorry again

 

[Eucindiel]

And apologies to everyone else - I'm not normally this aggressive. Very tired - too much coffee - tired of minor griefing. Sorry everyone.

 

[RoofToilet1107]

10 - "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'.

Click to shrink...

I guess here's where I start... Oh yeah, The only world to be deleted for this concept so far that I can remember was Caerdia, and that's because it was so old it owed Nebuchadnezzar II a goddamn quarter. Most of the worlds we have NOW are completely custom made BY HAND by staff members in the "World" department, being W3 Marty, W2 Thor, W2 Yen, W3 Monk, W2 Gethelp, W2 BBB, W2 Tink, W2 Omnomivore, W2 Kik, W1 Tom, W1 Taze, W1 Wackeo, W1 Dany, W1 Kellock, and W1 Tongo.

RAN OUT OF TIME, WILL FINISH POST LATER! SORRY! RoofToilet1107

 

[Eucindiel]

(headbang)(headbang)(headbang)(headbang)

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?

Over it (smoking)

 

[Grailen]

(headbang)(headbang)(headbang)(headbang)

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?

Over it (smoking)

Click to shrink...

Alright just gonna make a small point here you're saying that we shouldn't oppose it because it won't affect us BUT. it would take considerable staff time which puts the updates that are more likely wanted by those who disagree behind your idea as a result hindering us.

 

[Eucindiel]

Alright just gonna make a small point here you're saying that we shouldn't oppose it because it won't affect us BUT. it would take considerable staff time which puts the updates that are more likely wanted by those who disagree behind your idea as a result hindering us.

Click to shrink...

Grailen - do you actively PVP in the PVP Arenas?

 

[Grailen]

Grailen - do you actively PVP in the PVP Arenas?

Click to shrink...

no but if the staff spent time crafting pvp arena's the time spent building them would take away from doing things I would prefer them to do.

 

[Grailen]

It's easy to say it has impact on me now that they've existed for a long period of time but the time spent building them was not spent on other things that could be more pertinent to your interests.

 

[Eucindiel]

It's easy to say it has impact on me now that they've existed for a long period of time but the time spent building them was not spent on other things that could be more pertinent to your interests.

Click to shrink...

Yes... but are you insisting on the PVP arenas being removed tomorrow. Are you campaigning for no future time be spent on PVP?

 

[Grailen]

Yes... but are you insisting on the PVP arenas being removed tomorrow. Are you campaigning for no future time be spent on PVP?

Click to shrink...

Not at all, however when the pvp arena's run their time and are replaced are superior fresher things (Like the old arena's have been many old ones have been removed and forgotten because they were of inferior build.) it is natural for the older ones to die just like worlds.

 

[Eucindiel]

Not at all, however when the pvp arena's run their time and are replaced are superior fresher things (Like the old arena's have been many old ones have been removed and forgotten because they were of inferior build.) it is natural for the older ones to die just like worlds.

Click to shrink...

So you are happy with the time and effort spent catering for the PVP people on the server?

 

[Grailen]

Yes, I find it to be a worthwhile endeavor that keeps a integral part of the community happy. Also my point is that your idea not only robs many people of the freshness of a cycling worlds, say for example if we kept Aloria or Binral or Ceardia for that matter , all the grief aside would we want them? For the most part no because they are outdated and of little value to modern players. In such an example a world in Deandroc is also old it has only Plains biomes in it's Jungle. The tree variety isn't 1.7, their are no Emerald , in 1.8 their won't be any of the new ores. My point being that things age and naturally must be replaced by new things. Sure you may not want to go onto the effort of change but change is part of life who knows you might like a future map more than Deandroc.

 

[Eucindiel]

Yes, I find it to be a worthwhile endeavor that keeps a integral part of the community happy. Also my point is that your idea not only robs many people of the freshness of a cycling worlds, say for example if we kept Aloria or Binral or Ceardia for that matter , all the grief aside would we want them? For the most part no because they are outdated and of little value to modern players. In such an example a world in Deandroc is also old it has only Plains biomes in it's Jungle. The tree variety isn't 1.7, their are no Emerald , in 1.8 their won't be any of the new ores. My point being that things age and naturally must be replaced by new things. Sure you may not want to go onto the effort of change but change is part of life who knows you might like a future map more than Deandroc.

Click to shrink...

Only a Sith talks in absolutes Gralian I'd only be robbing people of the freshness of cycling worlds if I was suggesting that ALL of the new worlds were 'claim-to-edit'.

I understand that Daendroc lacks many of the newer features which makes it redundant and you might be happy if it was deleted tomorrow. And I too would embrace its removal if there was a slightly less 'transient' place for me to move to. As the player count goes up the decay of the existing worlds will speed up. You and I both know that the cancer of noob 'landscaping' is constant and unavoidable in 'wilderness' worlds. I would suggest that any new map in this context will last 12 to 18 months - 2 years tops. You may feel that's long enough. I don't. I'd like the freedom to choose somewhere a little more permananent.

 

[Grailen]

Only a Sith talks in absolutes Gralian I'd only be robbing people of the freshness of cycling worlds if I was suggesting that ALL of the new worlds were 'claim-to-edit'.

I understand that Daendroc lacks many of the newer features which makes it redundant and you might be happy if it was deleted tomorrow. And I too would embrace its removal if there was a slightly less 'transient' place for me to move to. As the player count goes up the decay of the existing worlds will speed up. You and I both know that the cancer of noob 'landscaping' is constant and unavoidable in 'wilderness' worlds. I would suggest that any new map in this context will last 12 to 18 months - 2 years tops. You may feel that's long enough. I don't. I'd like the freedom to choose somewhere a little more permananent.

Click to shrink...

As much as I could agree with a final solution to the noob grief question sadly their isn't a way to solve all of it your idea would be ideal in a way but at the same time it would be somewhat useful to have a claim only world but at the same time I feel these sort of Balkanized worlds only serve to devide a community which is something I strongly oppose yada yada yada. I feel that as bad as griefing is it's just part of the cycle. I would however support a automatic plugin that restored dead land on the topside without restoring mineral value ... Perhaps that would work but their's to many scenarios of that being bad, Like chests being destroyed or cities being destroyed.

 

[Eucindiel]

As much as I could agree with a final solution to the noob grief question sadly their isn't a way to solve all of it your idea would be ideal in a way but at the same time it would be somewhat useful to have a claim only world but at the same time I feel these sort of Balkanized worlds only serve to devide a community which is something I strongly oppose yada yada yada. I feel that as bad as griefing is it's just part of the cycle. I would however support a automatic plugin that restored dead land on the topside without restoring mineral value ... Perhaps that would work but their's to many scenarios of that being bad, Like chests being destroyed or cities being destroyed.

Click to shrink...

Fair enough Gralien. Thank you for your patience and your frank and open discussion.

 

[Eucindiel]

Sigh... that's that then.

Cayorion Thortuna MonMarty Imboring56 Gethelp Emperor_max Mecharic Omnomivore and anyone else I've missed (sorry)... Thanks for a great time - you were all awesome, keep up the good work, it was fun.

Can't see Daendroc lasting too much longer and I'm not convinced that any of the newer worlds will be around long enough to sustain my builds so with a heavy heart I bid you all adieu. Time to hang up the pickaxe.

I might pop in from time to time out of morbid curiosity but I think it's time to channel my 'massive' time back into my t-shirt designs. At least the label will be happy. They don't pay half of what the designs are worth but none of the other designers the label has hanging around are much good. At least my creative outlet will have a home.

So long and thanks for all the fish :*