Archived Massivecraft & Some Of Its Issues

[Xersai]

PvP, Raiding And It's Issues.
I'm not complaining about this but personally I think that raiding is quite boring on Massive. You get there and kill one person, the faction is alerted, everyone just seals themselves in and taunts you from behind wooden doors and you then need to wait for someone foolish enough to come out. I think that Massive should implement something that allows raiders to BREAK DOWN WOODEN DOORS. Well, you would say, well thats kind of OVERPOWERED, but hopefully, they could implement something where if they Massivelocked the doors, it would be impossible to break them down. This will allow raiders to find raids more exciting than just waiting for half an hour to only leave with a stack of potatos and a head. On the other hand it is still easy for the defenders to defend themselves, just spend what, 6 TO 9 REGALS to lock a door.

Another issue that I have spotted (Keep in mind I am not a frequent PvPer or Raider) is that many factions either have all of its members at RP (I'm not saying RP is bad, I RP as well), have too many members online or are so poor from being raided (Due to the fact that larger factions have no choice but to raid those smaller factions) that they grant no reward. I believe that to solve this problem, since the voting rewards no longer exist, massive could implement something that would allow RARER LORE ITEMS to drop from kills, this will cause more RPers and Lore Collectors to actually spend time on Survival to grind for gear, to allow them to get these items, which then may allow the raiders to be able to raid more frequently. "But won't people who raid just sell these items?", well you see here, if they were rare, RPers would not be able to buy them, due to the fact that the money that John the Pious dispenses were lessened to 30r and that the Rarer Lore Items would be more expensive. This will allow poorer factions to enjoy their time on factions more, due to the fact that the larger factions have a larger selection of factions to choose to raid.

Another thing that I believe may be a problem on massive, are big giant (Real Factions Bases/Boxes) on massive (Walked by one owned by Raptum once). These bases are impenetrable, since TnT and Creepers are disabled on Massive. What I want to do is make these types of bases illegal, this will allow raiders more potential for loot E.T.C. These bases aren't exactly lore compliant either, as you don't see giant stone boxes in the medieval times.

You may say boosts for Factions will result in more Toxicity or "Salt" but I believe that if RPers try the factions experience and don't like it, they can go straight back to Regalia and enjoy themselves there. I believe that General Chat messaging wars (Due to a faction being raided and that faction insulting the Offensive faction) or Offensive comments aimed to hurt someone personally should result in a simple warning, leading to a short mute. If messaging wars should carry out, they should carry out in PM, so it doesn't result in a crap load of spam for other players.

Survival + RPG Interaction:
I believe that as Massive is a server centered around RP & Factions, I feel like there should be a dungeon world, where you would be able to choose between dungeons. In those dungeons you would be able to kill monsters with friends in groups (Of course no PvP), but if you go to a dungeon you'll gain less money & XP than normal DR mobs, but you'll be able to get lore items specific to those dungeons. Look at famous dungeon centred Animes (Anime not an Anime Freak) like Danmachi, SAO, Log Horizon, that type of dungeon system will allow the more RPG aspect of the server to come out. With each level/layer of the dungeons harder than the one before, maybe at the end could sit a pink mob, you never know.

Overall Issues:
But the main problem I see on Massive, is the fact that there are NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE ONLINE IN BOTH SURVIVAL AND RP. I have no solution for this though, but I think that raising awareness to both f the groups of RPers and PvPers on massive will encourage them to vote, for example "Vote, so you can have more people to raid." or "Vote, so more people can RP and enhance your own RP experience", a increase in players can result in more world changing events like The Freya Lo Arch, more player participation and more enjoyment for everyone. From what I know, voting will boost the servers ratings and put it on top of each server list, so VOTE. It's a win win for everyone.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, THESE ARE NOT ALL THE PROBLEMS THAT MAY OCCUR ON MASSIVECRAFT THIS IS PURELY MY OWN OPINION, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COMMENT DOWN BELOW!​

 

[Conflee]

Why do people keep acting like it's somehow possible to force people to do stuff over the internet? If players don't want to do something they will not do it. If you strip safety from the survival worlds you will only cause fewer & fewer people to use them until only hardcore survivalists remain. Creative World, Quest World, and Roleplay Worlds mean that players can just go to those and never use the Survival Worlds. Remove those worlds, and players can/will just leave the server for one they enjoy more. Sorry if it's inconvenient for you that you can't force people to do stuff online, but it's just the truth.

Click to shrink...

The issue is PvPers say they want PvP. If they want it, this gives it to them.

Idk Im still mulling over a lot of ideas in my head, but I feel like its getting there.

 

[Xersai]

Well to be honest what I think is that massive is just a small community, and to expand that community the server needs to meet bot the PvPers needs and the RPers needs.

 

[Mecharic]

The issue is PvPers say they want PvP. If they want it, this gives it to them.

Idk Im still mulling over a lot of ideas in my head, but I feel like its getting there.

Click to shrink...

But not really. Because people will leave survival worlds, leaving steadily fewer chances for PvP to happen. PvP happened just fine without any ways to loot enemy chests before, the issue is that nobody wants to live in survival.

 

[Conflee]

But not really. Because people will leave survival worlds, leaving steadily fewer chances for PvP to happen. PvP happened just fine without any ways to loot enemy chests before, the issue is that nobody wants to live in survival.

Click to shrink...

I dont want chest looting. That wold be too OP tbh.

My original suggestion was just a way to allow people to break into bases, solely for the purpose of PvPing. Looting corpses, sure. Armor doesnt drop anyway if I remember.

Spoiler: my original post thingy

I like most of the ideas here, one thing I want to touch on:

Instead of limiting it to breaking just unlocked wooden doors, why not a whole system to break into bases?

Example:

Players with Iron Axes are able to attempt to break down Unlocked Wooden Doors. When they break the door, the game runs an automated roll. Its a 30% chance the first time, a 60% chance the second, and a 100% chance the third.

THIS IS LIMITED: You have to be enemies with the faction to attempt to break doors.

Different doors would have different chances, IE- Locked Wooden Door has 15% 1st time, 25 % 2nd, 45% 3rd, 70% 4th, 90% 5th, and 100% 6th.

Iron Doors would require and Iron Pick Axe, with adjusted chances- 10% 1st , 20% second, etc incrementing by 10%.

When a Door Breaks, it will play a loud bang noise to alert defenders. For Wooden Doors, this would be the Door Bang sound, for Iron is could be anvil breaking sounds.


Now, the elephant in the room: Portcullises. A lot of larger bases use these to defend, what do you do to solve this? Well, make them breakable as well, via a different means. Being able to blast the gates down is the coolest and more realistic method. Enemies factions can right click TNT on iron bars and fences, creating a Primed TNT that will only damage Iron Bars and Fences. These blocks would have a durability (similar to plugins that add durability to Obsidian and Bedrock) based on material. So, Fences would take 3 blasts, while iron bars would take 8.

This would mean players cant just make 100% unraidable bases.


Another, more "For Funsies" thing would be, the ability to throw bricks through windows to break into specific houses.

Click to shrink...

 

[Mecharic]

I dont want chest looting. That wold be too OP tbh.

My original suggestion was just a way to allow people to break into bases, solely for the purpose of PvPing. Looting corpses, sure. Armor doesnt drop anyway if I remember.

Click to shrink...

Ah ok. That's more reasonable. I'm tired, probably just got a wire crossed somewhere lol

 

[falconhand]

I am all for breaking into bases, then implementing some sort of creeperheal type plugin to automatically repair the damage.

 

[TMI_Lord_Khan]

I don't know if I'm simply being unrealistic here, but I simply don't get the problem with typical factions in a separate world. Maybe some mechanics changed, like one tnt only can be fired from a dispenser in 30 seconds, each block has a certain time to break, and if I wanted to take the idea of actual war further, breakable blocks within a certain point. Another solution I am envisioning is somewhat like this, it might be somewhat hard to program:

A separate world with designated territories for cities which separate factions can claim. They can build anything on those lands, and each city designation controls a certain part of wilderness. Each city's "control" is comprised of a central pillar which any enemy of the faction controlling the city can click and it will begin a countdown to shift control. Members of both factions must be online for the "process of conquering" to commence. In that time, the attacking faction can either begin a temporary surge into the city's area, laying siege to it, or simply wait and gather materials to attack. The mechanics of attacking would be as follows: Faction A is the Attacking Faction and Faction B is the Defending Faction. Faction A walks onto the lands of Faction B. The faction will be given a message: "You have committed an act of war against Faction B. If you do not vacate their lands within 30 seconds, you will be recognized as at war with Faction A." If that faction is still on Faction B's lands, a message will be displayed to Faction A: You are now sieging the territory of ______. Once they get within a certain distance of Faction B's city, Faction B will see the message, "You are now under siege by the Faction _____." In this period, Faction A must gather sufficient materials and devices to breach the defenses of the city. If the city has a recognized, Gate, then it will be breached through the device of explosives and battering rams. If the city has a recognized, Moat, then it will be breached through the device of bridge or float. If the city has a recognized, Wall, then it will be breached through the device of magonel, catapult, trebuchet, ladder, or belfry, and so on accordingly. Faction A must fight their way through the city (possibly protected by NPC guards? And maybe hirable soldiers as well?) through to the town square or castle, where there will be the "control pillar" which Faction A can click. There, they must wait for a certain amount of time to capture the city. In that time, there must be at least one player of the Attacking Faction in the castle. The countdown and siege can both only start if there is a player in Faction B online, but will not end if they log off to prevent abuse. Another function is that Faction B can re-tp to the city for one day after its capture to re-take it, but after that period, they must undergo the same process as Faction A.

 

[Conflee]

.

Click to shrink...

The idea of a more anarchy based world is interesting. Personally, I think if this path was taken the world would need to have MassiveRestore disabled, and be much much larger, with more plentiful ores. But, I would certainly play it- as long as there were still rules about random griefing. No wanton destruction, only destruction to achieve a target- be it gaining access to loot or players.


Also, a random thought: A Factions tag to disable your claims showing up on Dynmap would be pretty handy for this.

 

[Xersai]

I don't know if I'm simply being unrealistic here, but I simply don't get the problem with typical factions in a separate world. Maybe some mechanics changed, like one tnt only can be fired from a dispenser in 30 seconds, each block has a certain time to break, and if I wanted to take the idea of actual war further, breakable blocks within a certain point. Another solution I am envisioning is somewhat like this, it might be somewhat hard to program:

A separate world with designated territories for cities which separate factions can claim. They can build anything on those lands, and each city designation controls a certain part of wilderness. Each city's "control" is comprised of a central pillar which any enemy of the faction controlling the city can click and it will begin a countdown to shift control. Members of both factions must be online for the "process of conquering" to commence. In that time, the attacking faction can either begin a temporary surge into the city's area, laying siege to it, or simply wait and gather materials to attack. The mechanics of attacking would be as follows: Faction A is the Attacking Faction and Faction B is the Defending Faction. Faction A walks onto the lands of Faction B. The faction will be given a message: "You have committed an act of war against Faction B. If you do not vacate their lands within 30 seconds, you will be recognized as at war with Faction A." If that faction is still on Faction B's lands, a message will be displayed to Faction A: You are now sieging the territory of ______. Once they get within a certain distance of Faction B's city, Faction B will see the message, "You are now under siege by the Faction _____." In this period, Faction A must gather sufficient materials and devices to breach the defenses of the city. If the city has a recognized, Gate, then it will be breached through the device of explosives and battering rams. If the city has a recognized, Moat, then it will be breached through the device of bridge or float. If the city has a recognized, Wall, then it will be breached through the device of magonel, catapult, trebuchet, ladder, or belfry, and so on accordingly. Faction A must fight their way through the city (possibly protected by NPC guards? And maybe hirable soldiers as well?) through to the town square or castle, where there will be the "control pillar" which Faction A can click. There, they must wait for a certain amount of time to capture the city. In that time, there must be at least one player of the Attacking Faction in the castle. The countdown and siege can both only start if there is a player in Faction B online, but will not end if they log off to prevent abuse. Another function is that Faction B can re-tp to the city for one day after its capture to re-take it, but after that period, they must undergo the same process as Faction A.

Click to shrink...

I actually love this idea, it reminds me of civilization and real time war servers. Problem with this is that, it allows the raiding of a city multiple times, but this can be easily countered by adding a shield or timer in which you can't be attacked. Overall I completely love this idea, the ability to take land and forcefully ally with another person, an expansion of an empire. I would say that this idea is basically a brilliant combination of RP and PvP. Although it'll be a pain to code but no pain no gain lol. Sorry staff

 

[Mecharic]

Snip

Click to shrink...

I like your idea! I probably won't spend a ton of time using it, but I do like it. So long as it doesn't affect current survival worlds, it probably wouldn't be very hard to make a map that's like Ithania (only vanilla features, but painted so it looks pretty) but much larger. It could be that giant southern continent, and be explained in Lore as a region with both native nations and colonial nations founded by Regalia, the Sultanate, and other nations.

 

[Omnomivore]

Okay so there has been a lot of back and forth on this thread, all of which I have read, and I am going to keep my responses relatively simple as a result.

I think that Massive should implement something that allows raiders to BREAK DOWN WOODEN DOORS. Well, you would say, well thats kind of OVERPOWERED, but hopefully, they could implement something where if they Massivelocked the doors, it would be impossible to break them down. This will allow raiders to find raids more exciting than just waiting for half an hour to only leave with a stack of potatos and a head. On the other hand it is still easy for the defenders to defend themselves, just spend what, 6 TO 9 REGALS to lock a door.

Click to shrink...

Ultimately this suggestion is going to be rejected. There is too high a risk of abusing this and will require too much management from game staff to re-mediate issues it causes. If there is no way for players to be safe, they will simply stop going to the survival world period. You can't force people to do what they don't like. You can encourage and guide them into finding ways to have fun in a situation, but forcing it on them will only drive them away.

I believe that to solve this problem, since the voting rewards no longer exist, massive could implement something that would allow RARER LORE ITEMS to drop from kills ​

Click to shrink...

​

This issue is essentially handled already. Voting is back distributing lore items and John the Pious is no more.

​

Another thing that I believe may be a problem on massive, are big giant (Real Factions Bases/Boxes) on massive (Walked by one owned by Raptum once). These bases are impenetrable, since TnT and Creepers are disabled on Massive. What I want to do is make these types of bases illegal, this will allow raiders more potential for loot E.T.C. These bases aren't exactly lore compliant either, as you don't see giant stone boxes in the medieval times. ​

Click to shrink...

​

Generally giant cobble boxes are against the rules to build. It isn't against the rules to have an unraidable base as long as it isn't a complete eyesore (ie flying with no support, giant dirt boxes, giant cobble boxes, glass domes/roofs/boxes, etc). Typically a "box" can simply remain because all they need to do is add a nice design to the wall and voila - less of an eyesore = OK. I am personally against making building more restricting as the main point of our rules currently stands to prevent the survival worlds from getting really ugly and unattractive.

​

You may say boosts for Factions will result in more Toxicity or "Salt" but I believe that if RPers try the factions experience and don't like it, they can go straight back to Regalia and enjoy themselves there. I believe that General Chat messaging wars (Due to a faction being raided and that faction insulting the Offensive faction) or Offensive comments aimed to hurt someone personally should result in a simple warning, leading to a short mute. If messaging wars should carry out, they should carry out in PM, so it doesn't result in a crap load of spam for other players.​

Click to shrink...

​

Flame and offensive messages are already not allowed in general chat and do result in warns and mutes depending on the severity and individual history of rulebreaks.

​

Survival + RPG Interaction:
I believe that as Massive is a server centered around RP & Factions, I feel like there should be a dungeon world, where you would be able to choose between dungeons. In those dungeons you would be able to kill monsters with friends in groups (Of course no PvP), but if you go to a dungeon you'll gain less money & XP than normal DR mobs, but you'll be able to get lore items specific to those dungeons.​

Click to shrink...

​

We have had a couple instances of "Dungeons" in the survival worlds in the past such as the Cult of the Creepers and Castle Xurgoth (I probably spelled that wrong, I don't remember the name) but they existed in outdated worlds which were removed. I have actually proposed in the past to create such a dungeon again and it is on the table to do at some point, but such a thing requires a lot of planning between multiple departments (Direction, World, Game, PR, and Quest typically) hence it may be some time before we can get around to implementing such a feature again.


Ultimately, some of these issues are rejected but many are already addressed or already being addressed/ planned for some time in the future (no eta) so I will mark this thread as "Dated".