Archived Fixing Pvp By Fixing Factions

This suggestion has been archived / closed and can no longer be voted on.

Sevak

King of Deldrimor
Joined
Oct 1, 2014
Messages
538
Reaction score
1,230
Points
0
Age
25
This is a long post obviously. Some of it may seem like rambling, because some of it is. This was the best I could do at organizing my thoughts without sounding like one of those "back in my day" grandparents. I'm going to hold the first line of the most important sections. If you don't feel like reading the whole thing just read those parts. Thanks!

For as long as I've been on the server the concept of "Fixing PvP" has been on the table. It's commonly discussed among pvpers and while yes, there are issues with the game mechanics, is PvP itself really the problem? We've removed traits, removed vampirism, added kit PvP, koth, and fixed many minor issues. So why has none of this helped? Because PvP was never the actual issue. It's always been factions.

All of the changes in the past two years that have affected PvP are appealing to the normal MineCraft pvper. We've thought of adding HCF (hardcore factions, more competitive PvP system) features, and made the fighting style more vanilla in attempts to attract more PvPers to the server. In my opinion, we've been going about that the wrong way. The PvP community on massive has always been made up of mostly people who began on massive craft and learned to PvP on here. I can only think of a few specific players that actually came from outside PvP servers, that already had knowledge of pot PvP mechanics, and most of them just came because they had a friend that already played on Massive. Most of these players quit after a few tries because they didn't like the PvP system. So let's stop thinking of trying to make massive appealing to outside Pvpers because that's just not working.

Now when I say factions is the issue, I don't mean the plugin itself. I mean the treatment of the factions worlds and lack of interest most players have in it. When PvPers say they want more PvP, what we really want is more raids. There's a difference, trust me. Kit PvP, KOTH and a fight between two power factions that starts with the incredibly stupid "knock knock" or one leader messaging another "we're gonna raid now get ready" are all examples of PvP. These are events, staged PvP with no backstory, no meaning, and no reward apart from bragging rights. A raid is when one faction attacks another without any warning. The attacker kills off a noob, alerting the rest of the defending faction. The defending faction can call in their allies, and a fight breaks out. A raid isn't set up, there's no communication beforehand, it just happens because the defending faction wants to protect their land, and the raiding faction wants them to surrender. When was the last time a pvper could say that happened? I've brought up the idea of a proxy war multiple times. Two power factions lead their own sides, and all other factions that get raided are forced to align themselves with one side, in order to survive.

Why doesn't this happen anymore? Because no one cares. It's simple. Go give raiding a shot. Raid any faction you see on f list. Find their f home on the dynmap and go there. You won't find anyone, and if you do they'll tell their officers, and then just get told to stay inside. "Stay inside until the raiders get bored and leave" is the greatest system of defense. And now a days factions won't even make allies so they can get some help on defense because having allies come to your aid will just make the raiders want to keep coming back.

How has raiding sunk to this level? Because every change to factions in the past two years has allowed it to be this way. Even the ones you wouldn't even think about. The biggest one is that factions used to be a part of the lore. I was never around for this but I'm pretty sure a good amount of players stopped caring about factions completely when Regalian roleplay became a thing. It seems that there's some stuff going on to introduce survival worlds back into the lore or something with the new lore posts done by @Optimalfriskies. So that's a good start. Maybe this could rekindle some interest in the factions world for some of the old players. The next thing on my list is something I can guarantee most people would never think of as a reason there's no PvP. Why is it that you can never find a player in their cities in the factions world? Well maybe they're in regalia role playing. Or maybe.. it's because every faction owns approximately 18 cities in every world now. The system used to be that factions could only have one set of claims in each world, they had to be attached to each other. You couldn't spider claim, and you couldn't have multiple cities on opposite ends of the world. Which makes sense, because why should an empire own multiple cities if they won't even defend one? PvP factions are probably used to claiming raid portals now and some of you might be thinking, "but Sevak, how could people claim their raid portals if they're not attached to their city?" Well, that's the thing. You didn't. People actually had to hide their raid portals, in trees, underground, etc. This was actually part of the fun because defending factions would feel like they had some way of defending themselves if they could somehow find the raid portal and destroy it. Back then, there was no massive restore, so it's not like you had to remake your raid portal every month or something. If you know me, you know I absolutey hate massive restore. It's a great idea in theory. But it takes away one of my favorite parts of massive from when I was a noob, which was being able to run around, exploring the worlds and finding abandoned factions to scavenge.

The next thing is a bit of a tangent but probably the most controversial topic of the past year so I'll go over it anyways. Massive Mobs. Now if you know me, you know I absolutely hate massive mobs even more than I hate massive restore. I don't care what anyone says, @Gethelp had actually found a way to fix lag completely for about a solid week before massive mobs were added to every single world. I don't have statistics to prove it, that's true, and maybe I'm wrong, but what I don't get is why we can't even put it to a test? Remove massive mobs completely for one weekend. That's two days without massive mobs. This will be the time when the most amount of players are on. Pvpers can have some raids, and if theres still lag. We'll shut up about it finally. But if a good amount of the servers active community don't like massive mobs, isn't testing what the server is like without them something that should at least be considered? All I'm asking for is two days. Okay just had to get that out there. Back on topic now.

So what can we do to actually fix the issue of the lack of raids? Well we can't just delete regalia and force all the roleplayers back into factions, so let's start small and start moving back towards massivecraft's roots. Some ideas I've had:

- Increase massive restore to every 4 months but give players the option to create tickets and have land manually restored if they want it for building. I get that massive restore is intended to keep the worlds clean, but hyarroc won't turn in to daendroc over the course of 4 months. Maybe the chance to explore and find bases will inspire young players to stick around. For people like me, there's significance in every build someone makes. Everything repesents history and nostalgia to someone.

- This is a long shot, and wouldn't have an immediate effect. But it used to be that premium players had 20 power and non premiums had 10. Now everyone has 30. So a group of 5 people can claim a decent sized city. How does that make sense? So why not decrease each players power a bit. And to top that off, allow one claim per world, rather than as many claims as humanly possible in 3 worlds. This will force factions into more intimate situations. Not only building stronger community, but also giving each piece of land more meaning and a drive to defend it. Rather than "oh they're attacking our city in north Ithania? Everyone go chill in the one in south ithania, it'll take them 20 minutes to get down there lol." I can see the issues with this idea and wouldn't understand if it wasn't ever implemented. But it's all up for compromise.

IF YOURE GOING TO TAKE ANYTHING FROM THIS POST, LET IT BE THIS
- Now this last idea is something that I can't see why we shouldn't do. A server wide factions war. Create two sides, backing the current power factions. One side could be lead by Solarian (New Raptum) and Deldrimor. The other could be lead by the opposing Wrath and Wyvern. This could be a continuation of the current voyage threads in the server news and announcements section on the Forums. Maybe the ship that's currently sailing around could discover this huge war going on. Each side presents their case for why their side is good and a thread is made allowing factions to choose a side in this war. Like one of those old faction war threads under faction announcements! Those always looked so cool and I'm sad I missed them. From this point on all factions involved have a duty to their side to take part in some way. Each faction on both sides could be the host for some cool raids. The war could be documented by more server announcement posts, faction announcements from players, YouTube videos, etc. Also if the server wants to host some events for it, KOTHs that actually take place in the factions world (could be given lore so they're like "strategic points in the war" or something) would be so much fun. These KOTHs would actually be competitive and costly rather than just free loot for whoever is bored enough to outlast the other trolls.
 
Last edited:
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
The only structure that would be beneficial would be if there were some sort of forum thread to keep track of everything. Because what ive seen in the past with this stuff is when its left to just players in game, with no database of anything thats happened, its worthless.

"Oh put {Deldrimor Dominion} in your description" What good did that do?

Thats all the forums need to be involved and quite frankly, im sure the playerbase is capable of making this work after that
 
The only structure that would be beneficial would be if there were some sort of forum thread to keep track of everything. Because what ive seen in the past with this stuff is when its left to just players in game, with no database of anything thats happened, its worthless.

"Oh put {Deldrimor Dominion} in your description" What good did that do?

Thats all the forums need to be involved and quite frankly, im sure the playerbase is capable of making this work after that
Exactly. I don't want it to be like "5pm est for a pvp battle!" cause that'll just be the same way it is now
 
Just mis-communication then. Pretty sure both ben and myself took your previous posts to mean that you wanted pre-made fights. Broadcasted times are great.


Point was tournies are fine, just not in place of actual raids to affect lore/forums/whatever. I.e. they should be seperate events of their own disconnected from the server war being talked about here.
Yeah I don't want to drag people into an arena to fight a war for survival land. Not much interest in it. But two "lords" fighting each other to the death for claim over land sounds interesting. Trial by combat.

But yes. miscommunication. It would require a staff there to take notes and make a call on the winner. It's why I'm stressing a structure to this.
 
Something that might be interesting is if this whole empire war thing was set up like a large scale game of RISK. Like imagine a risk-style board overlayed on top of the factions world, you fight for your territories, but it doesnt directly relate to faction claims, so those who dont want to fully participate dont have to.
 
@Zacatero @jes_ @BenRekt @Sevak

Me and Sevak just had a conversation and a lot got cleared up. This is the concept of the "event".

Several factions sign up for this. There is a red side, a blue side, and neutral in the middle. Based on all the factions that sign up, a metaphorical map is created. Red and blue fight over land towards the center conquering the neutral factions along the way. They try to work their way to the enemy home which is at the farthest points of the map from each other.

Battles would be broadcasted a few days in advance at an agreed upon time. So lets say Solarian and Wrath are fighting in NorthWatch territory to fly their flag. The winning side basically owns NorthWatch on the map as their territory, fly their flag, and perhaps we can say the winning X faction found a double chest of something in the NorthWatch vault as spoils to use in their next battle.

These battles can consist of a variety of rules and would happen in the survival worlds.

  1. Elimination. Both sides have a set number of players and fight to the death. Last player standing wins it for their side.
  2. Deathmatch. A time limit is set. The side with the most kills wins the territory.
  3. Trial by Combat. One on one matches. Winner takes the territory.
  4. Gauntlet. Sides keep on fighting till the other forfeits, can no longer continue, or does not have a warrior enter the battle ground within a set time after players have died.
  5. Take the Tower. A structure is designated as captureable. If one side holds it for a set amount of time, they win.
This would allow us to create a compelling narrative to not just glorify the winners, but draw interest in participating for the chance to get your name inputted in the document. There can be other things such as a start price to participate in the event. Where the winning faction gets double their return and losing one receiving nothing.

Now that this is cleared up, opinions?
 
Bruh.


On another note. I want to say we can have a limited number of battles. Like after 30 battles, territories are calculated and the one with the most territories wins. While you can try and end it early by taking the enemy home territory.

I also like this because perhaps you can organized "underhanded" deals with neutral territories to assist you in the battle or create traps that only you know about. Create some literal diplomacy. Just an idea.
 
@Zacatero @jes_ @BenRekt @Sevak

Me and Sevak just had a conversation and a lot got cleared up. This is the concept of the "event".

Several factions sign up for this. There is a red side, a blue side, and neutral in the middle. Based on all the factions that sign up, a metaphorical map is created. Red and blue fight over land towards the center conquering the neutral factions along the way. They try to work their way to the enemy home which is at the farthest points of the map from each other.

Battles would be broadcasted a few days in advance at an agreed upon time. So lets say Solarian and Wrath are fighting in NorthWatch territory to fly their flag. The winning side basically owns NorthWatch on the map as their territory, fly their flag, and perhaps we can say the winning X faction found a double chest of something in the NorthWatch vault as spoils to use in their next battle.

These battles can consist of a variety of rules and would happen in the survival worlds.

  1. Elimination. Both sides have a set number of players and fight to the death. Last player standing wins it for their side.
  2. Deathmatch. A time limit is set. The side with the most kills wins the territory.
  3. Trial by Combat. One on one matches. Winner takes the territory.
  4. Gauntlet. Sides keep on fighting till the other forfeits, can no longer continue, or does not have a warrior enter the battle ground within a set time after players have died.
  5. Take the Tower. A structure is designated as captureable. If one side holds it for a set amount of time, they win.
This would allow us to create a compelling narrative to not just glorify the winners, but draw interest in participating for the chance to get your name inputted in the document. There can be other things such as a start price to participate in the event. Where the winning faction gets double their return and losing one receiving nothing.

Now that this is cleared up, opinions?

This sounds good as long as the locations are in the survival worlds and you don't just let people teleport into the event as we do with KOTH. Teams and factions should work together and coordinate how to get to the event, and this will also give factions near the event a strategic advantage. Not to mention it encourages interactions beyond just killing others. As others have said, an event like this needs the least amount of hand-holding possible. Little things like simply letting people warp to the event have huge effects that take a lot of potential meaningful gameplay experiences out of the equation.
 
This sounds good as long as the locations are in the survival worlds and you don't just let people teleport into the event as we do with KOTH. Teams and factions should work together and coordinate how to get to the event, and this will also give factions near the event a strategic advantage. Not to mention it encourages interactions beyond just killing others. As others have said, an event like this needs the least amount of hand-holding possible. Little things like simply letting people warp to the event have huge effects that take a lot of potential meaningful gameplay experiences out of the equation.
Only thing I had in mind was giving each side a portal to hide outside of the faction territory that can be found and broken.
 
Only thing I had in mind was giving each side a portal to hide outside of the faction territory that can be found and broken.

I don't think thats necessary, I think you'll find most factions will run over and set up bases for their teams to congregate at. It will be much better because the PLAYERS will be making them, instead of being handed it by staff. As I said, the less hand-holding, the better.
 
Also, I think the war could be really cool if every event was held on the same survival world (i.e. all war related events happen in only teled or only in Ithania). This way, we could have it so the winners "take over" that survival worlds and the winning team's banner is placed in the survival world's spawn and any other safe zones in that world.
 
I don't think thats necessary, I think you'll find most factions will run over and set up bases for their teams to congregate at. It will be much better because the PLAYERS will be making them, instead of being handed it by staff. As I said, the less hand-holding, the better.
I think that's doable as long as the bases are removed after each battle. Would be hard to pass a whole bunch of bases littering the survival world.
 
@Zacatero @jes_ @BenRekt @Sevak

Me and Sevak just had a conversation and a lot got cleared up. This is the concept of the "event".

Several factions sign up for this. There is a red side, a blue side, and neutral in the middle. Based on all the factions that sign up, a metaphorical map is created. Red and blue fight over land towards the center conquering the neutral factions along the way. They try to work their way to the enemy home which is at the farthest points of the map from each other.

Battles would be broadcasted a few days in advance at an agreed upon time. So lets say Solarian and Wrath are fighting in NorthWatch territory to fly their flag. The winning side basically owns NorthWatch on the map as their territory, fly their flag, and perhaps we can say the winning X faction found a double chest of something in the NorthWatch vault as spoils to use in their next battle.

These battles can consist of a variety of rules and would happen in the survival worlds.

  1. Elimination. Both sides have a set number of players and fight to the death. Last player standing wins it for their side.
  2. Deathmatch. A time limit is set. The side with the most kills wins the territory.
  3. Trial by Combat. One on one matches. Winner takes the territory.
  4. Gauntlet. Sides keep on fighting till the other forfeits, can no longer continue, or does not have a warrior enter the battle ground within a set time after players have died.
  5. Take the Tower. A structure is designated as captureable. If one side holds it for a set amount of time, they win.
This would allow us to create a compelling narrative to not just glorify the winners, but draw interest in participating for the chance to get your name inputted in the document. There can be other things such as a start price to participate in the event. Where the winning faction gets double their return and losing one receiving nothing.

Now that this is cleared up, opinions?
Sounds great. I do like ben's idea of having it in one world, though.

The one thing I'd suggest is not to start the event immediately, and give each type of game mode a trial run. That way everyone can 1) get a little used to it and 2) iron out any flaws with the game mode before they're used in a context that will affect the overall war.
 
Can i just ask because i know where my faction will be during this....

What would a "neutral" faction do in this case? Is a neutral faction just a faction that isnt choosing sides but can be conquered by either one?
 
I think it's loads of fun when friends go to war against each other.
Like, two allied factions just having some friendly war times.

I think the price of War Chunks should be lowered. I think it's like, what, 40k for 4 chunks?
Being able to build your own custom arenas for PVP between your faction members in a safe location shouldn't have to charge you such colossal amounts of money x_x

Though I guess that's just opinion.

And I'm not just saying that because I'm poor.
War chunks are 2.5K per chunk. 10K for 4 chunks.
 
Hey @Kaezir

I know you're passionate about helping out the PVP community. I can see that in your post. I just want to make sure you go into this with as much information and different perspectives as possible. The ideal solution here is to create something that appeals to a majority of players rather than a niche.

The PVPers I know and play with today are probably some of the most passionate people I know when it comes to working on fixing issues that plague the entire community. They'd love nothing more than to sit down with you and other staff and have a brainstorm pow-wow session.

What I propose is to sit down with PVPers at every step of the way. See what they think about it. Sit down with survivalist. Sit down with some roleplayers. If you can cater to the wishes of every group without compromising the other, I think you'll find working together we can create something pretty unique and amazing on MassiveCraft.

I voice my concern because I've seen things happen before that PVPers thought we'd like, but because of miscommunication on both sides something completely other than what we were hoping for was implemented, and it completely backfired, furthering the lack of trust that pvpers have in staff to address and come up with a solution to our problems.

I'd be more than willing to chat with you in teamspeak further on the matter, as I know many vocal PVPers in this thread would be as well. Name a date and time, and we'll do our best to make it.
 
@Zacatero @jes_ @BenRekt @Sevak

Me and Sevak just had a conversation and a lot got cleared up. This is the concept of the "event".

Several factions sign up for this. There is a red side, a blue side, and neutral in the middle. Based on all the factions that sign up, a metaphorical map is created. Red and blue fight over land towards the center conquering the neutral factions along the way. They try to work their way to the enemy home which is at the farthest points of the map from each other.

Battles would be broadcasted a few days in advance at an agreed upon time. So lets say Solarian and Wrath are fighting in NorthWatch territory to fly their flag. The winning side basically owns NorthWatch on the map as their territory, fly their flag, and perhaps we can say the winning X faction found a double chest of something in the NorthWatch vault as spoils to use in their next battle.

These battles can consist of a variety of rules and would happen in the survival worlds.

  1. Elimination. Both sides have a set number of players and fight to the death. Last player standing wins it for their side.
  2. Deathmatch. A time limit is set. The side with the most kills wins the territory.
  3. Trial by Combat. One on one matches. Winner takes the territory.
  4. Gauntlet. Sides keep on fighting till the other forfeits, can no longer continue, or does not have a warrior enter the battle ground within a set time after players have died.
  5. Take the Tower. A structure is designated as captureable. If one side holds it for a set amount of time, they win.
This would allow us to create a compelling narrative to not just glorify the winners, but draw interest in participating for the chance to get your name inputted in the document. There can be other things such as a start price to participate in the event. Where the winning faction gets double their return and losing one receiving nothing.

Now that this is cleared up, opinions?

Will we be able to spectate when we die or if we did not participate in the first place?
 
So I love all the ideas in this post I'm just a little concerned about 1 thing, how will this new "war" system deal with people being outnumbered, it's very rare on massive that numbers are even, and all the pvpers love to complain and use that they were outnumbered as an excuse for losing a fight (not calling anyone out, I do this too)
Like let's say there's a battle for some random land, but faction a only has 2 players on while faction b has like 6, obviously that's not a fair fight so like how will this be dealt with?
 
So I love all the ideas in this post I'm just a little concerned about 1 thing, how will this new "war" system deal with people being outnumbered, it's very rare on massive that numbers are even, and all the pvpers love to complain and use that they were outnumbered as an excuse for losing a fight (not calling anyone out, I do this too)
Like let's say there's a battle for some random land, but faction a only has 2 players on while faction b has like 6, obviously that's not a fair fight so like how will this be dealt with?
Skype/discord/ally chat. Train some new people to pvp; apart from that sometimes yeah that's the way it'll be. I don't think we should try and force completely fair fights.
 
I doubt I'd ever pick sides with a faction other than my own.
 
@Zacatero @jes_ @BenRekt @Sevak

Me and Sevak just had a conversation and a lot got cleared up. This is the concept of the "event".

Several factions sign up for this. There is a red side, a blue side, and neutral in the middle. Based on all the factions that sign up, a metaphorical map is created. Red and blue fight over land towards the center conquering the neutral factions along the way. They try to work their way to the enemy home which is at the farthest points of the map from each other.

Battles would be broadcasted a few days in advance at an agreed upon time. So lets say Solarian and Wrath are fighting in NorthWatch territory to fly their flag. The winning side basically owns NorthWatch on the map as their territory, fly their flag, and perhaps we can say the winning X faction found a double chest of something in the NorthWatch vault as spoils to use in their next battle.

These battles can consist of a variety of rules and would happen in the survival worlds.

  1. Elimination. Both sides have a set number of players and fight to the death. Last player standing wins it for their side.
  2. Deathmatch. A time limit is set. The side with the most kills wins the territory.
  3. Trial by Combat. One on one matches. Winner takes the territory.
  4. Gauntlet. Sides keep on fighting till the other forfeits, can no longer continue, or does not have a warrior enter the battle ground within a set time after players have died.
  5. Take the Tower. A structure is designated as captureable. If one side holds it for a set amount of time, they win.
This would allow us to create a compelling narrative to not just glorify the winners, but draw interest in participating for the chance to get your name inputted in the document. There can be other things such as a start price to participate in the event. Where the winning faction gets double their return and losing one receiving nothing.

Now that this is cleared up, opinions?
@markcraft27
 
I want a separate world, that is divided into territories, and within each territory there must be one faction claim, and the territories are captureable. I'm listening to the ideas about a server war, and if they are being fought in the factions world, we have to expect full participation of every faction, some kind of expense at loss, and some kind of reward. War is not intended to be fun. When war becomes fun, it is no longer war. War needs to have some kind of real loss. So, my proposal is that MassiveLock is disabled in the world the war is fought in, and I want two kinds of claims to solve the problem of connected claiming, a land claim and a city claim, land claim being a claim that signifies ownership of the land, divided into large territories, and city claim being a claim that signifies the ability to create structures, and no portals in the world where the two separate types of claims are. This world would also have a separate inventory, sparsely spawning ores, and no gift4alls, so that war means that huge armies must gather on horseback, combining generals, archers, and soldiers into one unit, charging over the horizon to take a territory. Each territory has a fort, which is captureable to capture the territory. The city capture is independent of the fort capture, but to enter the city, the fort must be captured. So, war has meaning.
 
I want a separate world, that is divided into territories, and within each territory there must be one faction claim, and the territories are captureable. I'm listening to the ideas about a server war, and if they are being fought in the factions world, we have to expect full participation of every faction, some kind of expense at loss, and some kind of reward. War is not intended to be fun. When war becomes fun, it is no longer war. War needs to have some kind of real loss. So, my proposal is that MassiveLock is disabled in the world the war is fought in, and I want two kinds of claims to solve the problem of connected claiming, a land claim and a city claim, land claim being a claim that signifies ownership of the land, divided into large territories, and city claim being a claim that signifies the ability to create structures, and no portals in the world where the two separate types of claims are. This world would also have a separate inventory, sparsely spawning ores, and no gift4alls, so that war means that huge armies must gather on horseback, combining generals, archers, and soldiers into one unit, charging over the horizon to take a territory. Each territory has a fort, which is captureable to capture the territory. The city capture is independent of the fort capture, but to enter the city, the fort must be captured. So, war has meaning.

Games are intended to be fun. This is a game. The idea that it shouldn't be fun "because its a war" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
 
I want a separate world, that is divided into territories, and within each territory there must be one faction claim, and the territories are captureable. I'm listening to the ideas about a server war, and if they are being fought in the factions world, we have to expect full participation of every faction, some kind of expense at loss, and some kind of reward. War is not intended to be fun. When war becomes fun, it is no longer war. War needs to have some kind of real loss. So, my proposal is that MassiveLock is disabled in the world the war is fought in, and I want two kinds of claims to solve the problem of connected claiming, a land claim and a city claim, land claim being a claim that signifies ownership of the land, divided into large territories, and city claim being a claim that signifies the ability to create structures, and no portals in the world where the two separate types of claims are. This world would also have a separate inventory, sparsely spawning ores, and no gift4alls, so that war means that huge armies must gather on horseback, combining generals, archers, and soldiers into one unit, charging over the horizon to take a territory. Each territory has a fort, which is captureable to capture the territory. The city capture is independent of the fort capture, but to enter the city, the fort must be captured. So, war has meaning.
You've never played minecraft PvP, have you? haha

That's not how war works, darling.

War in Minecraft is charging at each other and clicking at above average speeds until the other person's pots don't land because of lag and they die.


Flame ensues.

But nah for real, this idea wouldn't work, mainly because there wouldn't be enough people to order into cavalry and infantry and archery.

Hearing stories told by @Alj23, there was a time when there were like 18v18 fights, but even then that isn't enough to organise into rank and file and assign roles.

I do like the idea of forts and all that, but I don't see why war shouldn't be fun in a video game.

Trust me, if war was like real life in Minecraft, everyone would be peaceful and no one would fight. And that's the inherent problem with wars on Massivecraft. War is not fought for a genuine reason, like an invasion that threatens the life of you and those you love. It's fought because people are bored.

The REALLY "good" wars emerge when there is serious rivalry between the two sides, and then War of the Roses Sh*t kicks in.

Kinda hard to get people to hate each other though.

I do think there should be something implemented that unites people to a side across all Faction worlds, and there should be a SERIOUS push for the ENTIRE FACTIONS PLAYERBASE to get involved and join a side. 100v100 battles is something of a dream for me in terms of Minecraft PvP. I think that would be absolutely amazing.

I think if the entire factions playerbase gets together, they'll have to agree on a world to use, or a world has to be built for the duration of the war to unite everyone, as there are too few people spread across too many Factions Worlds for it to feel like a full-scale war when there may only be 30 people per world fighting.

I think they should build a relatively small map (but still large enough to be considered a world) that is used for the purpose of server wars, and sides should be allowed to build structures on this world that signifies them as fortresses. Upon completion of the war, the losing side should have their buildings griefed to where they look like a real battlefield (Holes in walls, moss, etc.) and the cycle continues for the next war.

This server war will never likely happen because there are too many kids on this server that go "but i dont wanna fight" so yeah
 
Last edited:
You've never played minecraft PvP, have you? haha

That's not how war works, darling.

War in Minecraft is charging at each other and clicking at above average speeds until the other person's pots don't land because of lag and they die.


Flame ensues.

But nah for real, this idea wouldn't work, mainly because there wouldn't be enough people to order into cavalry and infantry and archery.

Hearing stories told by @Alj23, there was a time when there were like 18v18 fights, but even then that isn't enough to organise into rank and file and assign roles.

I do like the idea of forts and all that, but I don't see why war shouldn't be fun in a video game.

Trust me, if war was like real life in Minecraft, everyone would be peaceful and no one would fight. And that's the inherent problem with wars on Massivecraft. War is not fought for a genuine reason, like an invasion that threatens the life of you and those you love. It's fought because people are bored.

The REALLY "good" wars emerge when there is serious rivalry between the two sides, and then War of the Roses Sh*t kicks in.

Kinda hard to get people to hate each other though.

I do think there should be something implemented that unites people to a side across all Faction worlds, and there should be a SERIOUS push for the ENTIRE FACTIONS PLAYERBASE to get involved and join a side. 100v100 battles is something of a dream for me in terms of Minecraft PvP. I think that would be absolutely amazing.

I think if the entire factions playerbase gets together, they'll have to agree on a world to use, or a world has to be built for the duration of the war to unite everyone, as there are too few people spread across too many Factions Worlds for it to feel like a full-scale war when there may only be 30 people per world fighting.

I think they should build a relatively small map (but still large enough to be considered a world) that is used for the purpose of server wars, and sides should be allowed to build structures on this world that signifies them as fortresses. Upon completion of the war, the losing side should have their buildings griefed to where they look like a real battlefield (Holes in walls, moss, etc.) and the cycle continues for the next war.

This server war will never likely happen because there are too many kids on this server that go "but i dont wanna fight" so yeah
Sums it up basicly
 
Upon completion of the war, the losing side should have their buildings griefed to where they look like a real battlefield (Holes in walls, moss, etc.) and the cycle continues for the next war.

How about they just loose money or something because most people dont want their bases griefed (especially if they have a large base).
 
there are too many kids on this server that go "but i dont wanna fight" so yeah

That's not a huge surprise tbh.

I love(d) PvP on Massive not because the ACT of it was fun, but because there was generally some meaning behind the choices you made. Declaring someone your enemy meant that you guys were genuine enemies - aka you didn't like them and they probably didn't like you very much either. As a result, fights, while generally pretty crap, still maintained value and that was why it was fun to PvP.

Now there is no meaning behind PvP, because due to the fact that nobody surrenders, the only way a war will ultimately end is by both sides mutually agreeing to stop - usually ending in a friendship between the two factions. Is this horrible? No of course not - I love the idea that wars can end in a non-aggressive way. That being said, war is now all but pointless, because as I said a million times, wars never have a real conclusion.

This is also one of the reasons I've been pushing for something like HCF kits to be implemented on Massive so that people who don't enjoy the lackluster Minecraft PvP can participate in other ways - such as being a bard or an archer - which play integral roles in determining the outcome of a fight. Adding meaning PvP will be a hard thing to do, especially now, but I don't think making the battles fun would be very much work, especially if PvP was more shaped towards being inclusive - that is that everyone can play a somewhat important role, and it does not require people you to click 100 times a second to be competitive.
 
That's not a huge surprise tbh.

I love(d) PvP on Massive not because the ACT of it was fun, but because there was generally some meaning behind the choices you made. Declaring someone your enemy meant that you guys were genuine enemies - aka you didn't like them and they probably didn't like you very much either. As a result, fights, while generally pretty crap, still maintained value and that was why it was fun to PvP.

Now there is no meaning behind PvP, because due to the fact that nobody surrenders, the only way a war will ultimately end is by both sides mutually agreeing to stop - usually ending in a friendship between the two factions. Is this horrible? No of course not - I love the idea that wars can end in a non-aggressive way. That being said, war is now all but pointless, because as I said a million times, wars never have a real conclusion.

This is also one of the reasons I've been pushing for something like HCF kits to be implemented on Massive so that people who don't enjoy the lackluster Minecraft PvP can participate in other ways - such as being a bard or an archer - which play integral roles in determining the outcome of a fight. Adding meaning PvP will be a hard thing to do, especially now, but I don't think making the battles fun would be very much work, especially if PvP was more shaped towards being inclusive - that is that everyone can play a somewhat important role, and it does not require people you to click 100 times a second to be competitive.
I feel like compared to other factions servers, Massivecraft has the least amount of PvP. There is something exceptionally odd with the Factions community on this server that makes them hate PvP. Not sure what it is tbh
 
I feel like compared to other factions servers, Massivecraft has the least amount of PvP. There is something exceptionally odd with the Factions community on this server that makes them hate PvP. Not sure what it is tbh

The combination of allowing people to sit inside with no consequence and the consistently buggy / laggy / glitchy PvP does not attract new PvPers, thus the PvP community does not replenish itself, it only declines.