Archived Removal Of Lwc Fee

[X0N3333]

Lwc is a good plugin, its got good features and nice commands but this fee that has been coded into the plugin is not.
Protecting your stuff from thievery should be free, protection plugins are there to protect all of your stuff no make you pay money to protect them.
If you must pay for every locked chest and cannot move them without paying I don't think that's a very good system.
If you were to move to another faction you will have to pay to relock those chests all over again meaning if you are going to move somewhere any time soon there's no point in locking them. e.g if you are someone who moves a lot like a hermit every few months then you will have to pay for your 20 or so chests every single time you move. Another thing about a price for lwc, it makes it immensely easy for people to go from faction to faction stealing peoples stuff from chests they cannot afford to lock, in deadbolt you were stupid not to lock them but with lwc you can't help but leave behind a few chests unlocked because of the price.
I was once stolen from by some dude who managed to open a chest in a officer room, it was silly for me to not deadbolt them so I decided to deadbolt all of them so no stealing can occur.
But if this was to happen with lwc and you cannot afford to lock them all there's nothing you can do to protect your own chests. Take a look at any popular protection plugin, it lets you lock stuff for free because its your stuff and there should be no obstacle to stop you from locking your own stuff.
It's eight days left till all deadbolts expire and still most of my stuff is deadbolted, I certainly am not the only one who doing this just to avoid having to pay.
We haven't heard much about the removal of this free so I am creating a thread so we as a community can decide whether we ditch it or keep it.

 

[MonMarty]

If you don't want these 100 people to dictate the economy of thousands of people then why do you not try in the slightest to get the opinion of these so called "Thousands"? If you complain about the minorities opinion ruling over the majority why don't you poll the majorities? If you don't even try to poll them isn't that counter productive?

Click to shrink...

If people feel a certain way, they will attempt to bring that opinion to the light. If people don't care, they won't persue any method of communication to convey their opinion. It means they simply won't care one way or another. If that is the case, then our positive reasoning weighs more than the opinions of those that actually voted, as it means a much larger group of individuals agrees with our decision, no matter what decision we make. Just because someone doesn't voice an opinion doesn't mean they become irrelevant, or that we cannot draw conclusions from their lack of voting.

Also monmarty you're statement could also be applied to what you are doing
"Why should the economy of thousands of people be dictated by a few staff?"

Click to shrink...

Because our positions and points of view are the only truly unbiased positions in this equasion. You are motivated by your own greed or unwillingness to let your wallet contribute to the collective, "Other people can do that". We reason for the good of the server. It's quite evident in the amounts of money that staff members have to fork over for their own item storages, and they don't bat an eye, because they understand, agree, and support the reasoning that the LWC fee is a good thing in the long run.

 

[X0N3333]

If people feel a certain way, they will attempt to bring that opinion to the light. If people don't care, they won't persue any method of communication to convey their opinion. It means they simply won't care one way or another. If that is the case, then our positive reasoning weighs more than the opinions of those that actually voted, as it means a much larger group of individuals agrees with our decision, no matter what decision we make. Just because someone doesn't voice an opinion doesn't mean they become irrelevant, or that we cannot draw conclusions from their lack of voting.



Because our positions and points of view are the only truly unbiased positions in this equasion. You are motivated by your own greed or unwillingness to let your wallet contribute to the collective, "Other people can do that". We reason for the good of the server. It's quite evident in the amounts of money that staff members have to fork over for their own item storages, and they don't bat an eye, because they understand, agree, and support the reasoning that the LWC fee is a good thing in the long run.

Click to shrink...

So apparently the majority want this fee kept?
The people who don't care/have no forums account don't want to participate in the forums or anything to do with them. You instantly assume they actually want this fee kept? Without them ever saying they wanted so?
I asked a lot of my faction members with no forums account about the fee and the response was all negative.
There is little to no evidence that the majority want this kept, have you seen any poll with 100+ votes saying keep the fee?

I am not motivated by greed. The only 2 things in massivecraft I care about is my possessions and the whole of my faction including its people. I do not care about the economy nor my money, all I ever want is to lock ALL of my chests with no obstacle and move them as a please. Have you ever considered that people don't want to contribute their money to the collective? Has any said in general"I want to pay for chests!". You instantly assume that the majority want to shelf out their money to the "Collective", because geuss what they don't
Many people don't share your opinion about lwc, it is very clear by the 99 votes. There is not a single post on this forum that supports keeping lwc that has more positive reception than a post that wants it gone.

 

[patrickdxs]

Many people don't share your opinion about lwc, it is very clear by the 99 votes. There is not a single post on this forum that supports keeping lwc that has more positive reception than a post that wants it gone.

Click to shrink...

lol.

 

[MonMarty]

I am not motivated by greed.

Click to shrink...

The only 2 things in massivecraft I care about is my possessions

Click to shrink...

You're contradicting yourself.

Have you ever considered that people don't want to contribute their money to the collective?

Click to shrink...

People who make use of our services without giving anything back are not entitled to an opinion on the matter at hand. Perhaps not necessarily the not contributing part, but certainly obstructing actual contribution.

The server's economy is a fragile thing that we work to maintain on a weekly basis. We cannot rely on players voluntarily laying down money to stop the increasing inflation beyond reasonable levels, because they want to hold on to their money for when the economy improves. If everyone runs in that mind set, the situation will continue to degrade until the point where the rich layers are so oversaturated with money that the economy ceases to function. At this point a complete server reset becomes a distinct possibility.

We fight to keep that server reset years, if not forever away with new implementations on a regular basis, and we are successfully doing so. The closer we can get the Economy growth trend to 0, the better we succeed at this. Since the implementation of LWC, we have experienced the first negative Economy growth days since the statistic system was implemented, meaning money was actually becoming more worth instead of losing value. The way I view it, I'd rather lose 100 players now because they feel incorrectly that we don't care about their opinion, than to lose 1500 players later because we have to reset the economy due to mismanagement, that 1500 of which will likely include many of the 100 original voters anyway. This, plus the fact that there is the chance that 50 of those 100 voters might eventually just get used to the situation and choose to live with it, or come back later. Change is naturally uncomfortable to Humans, which is why many could simply overreact in a reactionary manner when something completely different is implemented.

 

[MonMarty]

Also might I add that "these 99 votes" is a subjective observation. When I look at that number, I ask myself:

• How many individuals made new accounts, sock puppets, to vote.
• How many individuals voted simply on the basis of their opinion without correctly considering the argumentation.
• How active are the Nay voters compared to the Yay voters, and how does their relative activity relate to their opinion.
• How likely are those Nay or Yay voters to quit the server if their vote is not passed, and how many will simply say "Oh well, we tried".

Additionally, the voting procedure only counts a Yes and No option. I have to consider "How would the voting divisions have been if the following options were added:

• LWC fee should stay, but should be halved.
• LWC fee should stay, but should be quartered.
• LWC fee should stay, but the free chests should increase in quantity.
• LWC fee should stay, but the cost of chests should become exponential.
• LWC fee should stay, but cost materials instead.

You rigged the vote poll to favor your opinion and purpose when starting this thread. Perhaps you did so consciously, or sub consciously, I caught myself doing the same thing with regards to Premium drop feature which I created polls for. I first created a poll where I gave only a yes and a no feature, and everyone voted with a landslide majority for no. Only when I started fragmenting the yes and no into different perspectives, did it become clear that the majority actually voted for yes, but given the absense of the option which perfectly described their opinion, voted for no instead since that was better than yes. This invalidates the entire poll from being used in any debate.

 

[yendor46]

Same for shops it should not have to cost money to move a lock or edit your shop because of a market value shift.
That would cause you to loose allot of money to edit your shops or loose much more because people are taking advantage of your price or not buying because it is now to high.
chest locks / shops should work like land claim.

Click to shrink...

If you want to have shops with no fee for changing prices, you can rent a shop in Regalia. Choose which option is better for your style of shop.

 

[KSTRandom]

"Why should the economy of thousands of people be dictated by a few staff?"

Click to shrink...

Because, XoN, thats their job. Its what they do. ITS MOST of what the staff do. Staff work. Planning and thinking and debating and fixing and balancing. If the staff ran the server the way YOU suggest then they'd be changing things every five minutes because you may know what you want but till you get what you want how can you know what it is you want in the first place? And when you get what you want, what happens when you realize its not what you thought it was? That doesnt apply to this specific situation, but it applies to what would happen if the server was a demo-crazy ran by forum polls. Because PVP changes, RP changes, plugins and mechanics would be changing all the time due to players wanting this or that.

Regardless, any ground YOU have for an argument, especially with staff, are weak. You said, and I'm paraphrasing, "Come look at the thread and give opinions but dont disagree with me because nothing anyone can say will ever change my opinion so it'd be pointless" and judging by the way you're acting now that you've finally gained the mod attention you asked for several times, the only reason you wanted them to come was because you thought the un-astounding number of people that have jumped on the biased, narrowminded, closed off yet popular opinion you've posted here. Now that the mods are disagreeing with you because your side represents just about as much as mine does to the actual populous of the server, and the decision is better for the server to stop people from lock-griefing the world, you're getting on the mods about how the server is ran.

You've basically just screwed yourself.

 

[X0N3333]

lol.

Click to shrink...

Mind telling me what's so funny?

You're contradicting yourself.


People who make use of our services without giving anything back are not entitled to an opinion on the matter at hand. Perhaps not necessarily the not contributing part, but certainly obstructing actual contribution.

The server's economy is a fragile thing that we work to maintain on a weekly basis. We cannot rely on players voluntarily laying down money to stop the increasing inflation beyond reasonable levels, because they want to hold on to their money for when the economy improves. If everyone runs in that mind set, the situation will continue to degrade until the point where the rich layers are so oversaturated with money that the economy ceases to function. At this point a complete server reset becomes a distinct possibility.

We fight to keep that server reset years, if not forever away with new implementations on a regular basis, and we are successfully doing so. The closer we can get the Economy growth trend to 0, the better we succeed at this. Since the implementation of LWC, we have experienced the first negative Economy growth days since the statistic system was implemented, meaning money was actually becoming more worth instead of losing value. The way I view it, I'd rather lose 100 players now because they feel incorrectly that we don't care about their opinion, than to lose 1500 players later because we have to reset the economy due to mismanagement, that 1500 of which will likely include many of the 100 original voters anyway. This, plus the fact that there is the chance that 50 of those 100 voters might eventually just get used to the situation and choose to live with it, or come back later. Change is naturally uncomfortable to Humans, which is why many could simply overreact in a reactionary manner when something completely different is implemented.

Click to shrink...

I thought by greed you meant money because that's what you pay for when making a lwc lock.
Have you ever considered that instead of affecting how people spend their money that you instead affect how people ACTUALLY get said money. There are a tonne of other ways to get rid of inflation like:

• Increasing the cost to make a faction, this will stop the overall factions spamming and will get more money out of the economy at the same time
• Adding in more expensive Regelian homes so that the rich have more money to spend
• Making certain events have a minor fee to participate or watch e.g pvp tournament
• Reduce how much money you get from dark rooming
• Nerf mcmmo excavating so it's not possible to get diamonds out of thin air and sell them

These are all but a bevy of things you can do that will prevent inflation. Making people pay for a protection designed to stop thievery will not work out in stopping inflation.
Regals work differently from real life money as in you can get it from simply killing mobs not mints. I don't think that the economy will get so extreme as to force a whole server restart, I have never ever heard of this happening anywhere mainly because the economy won't get to that point. Economy growth is actually good you know, the more money people own the more they can do on the server such as buying a regelia house or creating a faction.
If 100 or so of these people leave because of lwc then the path to even getting to the thousands is slowed down since you have, less factions, less people, less people voting. If Massivecraft always had a fee for locking would it of gotten to this stage of popularity?

Also might I add that "these 99 votes" is a subjective observation. When I look at that number, I ask myself:

• How many individuals made new accounts, sock puppets, to vote.
• How many individuals voted simply on the basis of their opinion without correctly considering the argumentation.
• How active are the Nay voters compared to the Yay voters, and how does their relative activity relate to their opinion.
• How likely are those Nay or Yay voters to quit the server if their vote is not passed, and how many will simply say "Oh well, we tried".

Additionally, the voting procedure only counts a Yes and No option. I have to consider "How would the voting divisions have been if the following options were added:

• LWC fee should stay, but should be halved.
• LWC fee should stay, but should be quartered.
• LWC fee should stay, but the free chests should increase in quantity.
• LWC fee should stay, but the cost of chests should become exponential.
• LWC fee should stay, but cost materials instead.

You rigged the vote poll to favor your opinion and purpose when starting this thread. Perhaps you did so consciously, or sub consciously, I caught myself doing the same thing with regards to Premium drop feature which I created polls for. I first created a poll where I gave only a yes and a no feature, and everyone voted with a landslide majority for no. Only when I started fragmenting the yes and no into different perspectives, did it become clear that the majority actually voted for yes, but given the absense of the option which perfectly described their opinion, voted for no instead since that was better than yes. This invalidates the entire poll from being used in any debate.

Click to shrink...

If people actually DID make a sock puppet account then there would of been a lot more votes because you don't just make one sock puppet account. It is the fault of the person voting not on the opinion itself. Even if you tallied up their active time the majority will win because, guess what they're numbers are bigger. It's unlikely someone will quit because of their ditch the fee vote opinion not going through, but they may end up not playing as much because of dissatisfaction with the server in general.
All the options you have presented would of been included in the keep the fee opinion.

Calling out that the poll has been rigged is quite bold claim. First of all if anyone at all wanted to have the fee modified in any way then they would of voted keep the fee and told why, which many did. I didn't want the poll to have 5 different choices because there will only be 2 main ones. Because of this I just had only 2 options meaning that there will be a clear majority rather than a 1st 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th. With the poll the ditch the fee includes people wanting the fee gone and only that but with keep the fee it includes people who like the fee or want it to be modified. Heck if you use your logic on everything a yes or no answer could become "invalidated".
The reason I want this fee gone because it prevent lwc from doing it's duty, protecting blocks.
Factions itself can be used as a more effective protection plugin then lwc at the current time
My plan for lwc locks is to have 5 and keep it that way forever and use my friends faction where I can store my store my 20 or so chests. This will save me a TONNE of regals and will mean there will be no problem with moving chests.
If people are making entire new factions to protect their stuff then it seems that people like using factions to protect their stuff as opposed to lwc.
When it comes to locking blocks I have a very simple objective, lock all of my chests.
This fee obstructs what was a straight line when it came to locking chests. Now instead of locking chests you just grind money then lock them or spend all that money you work quite hard for on a chest that you could just place in a vault faction.
This fee renders locking objects pointless. Take for example a door, a button can save you a whole 10 regals.
When it comes to having a protection plugin the only thing I want is to protect my stuff, that is all people want in a protection plugin. I do not want to grind for locking a few chests.
What is the point of a protection plugin when you have to grind to protect?

 

[Nordhbane]

@X0N3333 @MonMarty
I agree that the poll is rigged, as stated before in the thread I feel forced to vote to get rid of it, even though I simply want it changed by previously proposed changes in this thread. That being said I think it's well worth looking into what those approx 100 votes actually feel is a correct solution to this problem, and see if any of the people voting not to get rid of it are actually people that wants it kept, but in an altered state.

So I propose that the server staff creates a poll themselves with options based on different solutions and changes to make sure they feel it's unbiased.


I would like to state that it's only natural that money loses value over time, just look at the real world and compare todays prices with the prices 30 years ago. Also MonMarty, when you say we've had a negative flow of regals, how have the amount of players changed? If the server increases 5% playerbase, money should increase equally. You also have to consider that LWC costs are high this month, because it's the first month it's been active. People with steady homes and storage units have now locked their chests, and unless they expand or move, it's basically a one time cost peak.

I agree with X0n3333 about income, it's better to reduce the amount of money coming into the system, instead of trying to force ways to take it out. With less income you also encourage a more active market place since it becomes an increasingly easier way to earn money compared to the alternatives if they get nerfed.

 

[X0N3333]

@X0N3333 @MonMarty
I agree that the poll is rigged, as stated before in the thread I feel forced to vote to get rid of it, even though I simply want it changed by previously proposed changes in this thread. That being said I think it's well worth looking into what those approx 100 votes actually feel is a correct solution to this problem, and see if any of the people voting not to get rid of it are actually people that wants it kept, but in an altered state.

So I propose that the server staff creates a poll themselves with options based on different solutions and changes to make sure they feel it's unbiased.


I would like to state that it's only natural that money loses value over time, just look at the real world and compare todays prices with the prices 30 years ago. Also MonMarty, when you say we've had a negative flow of regals, how have the amount of players changed? If the server increases 5% playerbase, money should increase equally. You also have to consider that LWC costs are high this month, because it's the first month it's been active. People with steady homes and storage units have now locked their chests, and unless they expand or move, it's basically a one time cost peak.

I agree with X0n3333 about income, it's better to reduce the amount of money coming into the system, instead of trying to force ways to take it out. With less income you also encourage a more active market place since it becomes an increasingly easier way to earn money compared to the alternatives if they get nerfed.

Click to shrink...

I had it in my plan that if the majority wanted to have it kept and altered then we can decide on what we can do to help change it. I never really forced anyone to vote saying yes, I made it a simple yes or no question that would tell us really what the community felt about it. If you wanted it altered just vote keep the fee. Adding more options really won't do much, even if there were more options the majority most likely will still vote for getting rid of it.
Also if the staff were to create another poll then it would actually take a while to get as many votes as the one in this thread.

 

[yendor46]

This isn't a simple problem. If the fee were eliminated and nothing else changed, the number of LWC protections would produce a huge amount of lag. To give an example, when LWC was first introduced, Gethelp couldn't go to his storage area, as it would drop the server TPS to below 10 when those chunks were loaded due to the number of LWC protections. We were able to make corrections to the configuration to handle the current number of protections, but if protections were free and not limited in another way, then the TPS would most likely drop to 10 or lower on worlds when people with lots of locks were online. This would be in addition to any other sources of lag. The staff decided that this would not be good for the server. There are 2 ways to limit the protections, everyone gets a set number of protections or they cost money. If a set number of protections were chosen, my current estimate is that that number would have to be less than 100. This produced an immediate strong negative reaction from most of the established players on MassiveCraft. On the other hand, charging for all permissions put new players at a huge disadvantage, and most people predicted that we would have a hard time keeping new players with that choice. The compromise is that they cost money, but some number of protections are free. The ideal would be that protections cost twice as much, but half of the money is refunded when a protection is removed. The programming challenges to implement this option were deemed to be too great, as the LWC economy plugin would have to be completely rewritten. So, the choice became how much should protections cost and how many free protections should a player get. If the cost isn't high enough, we will have too much lag, and if it's too high, huge numbers of people will rage quit. If the number of free protections is low, fewer new players will come back, but if it is too high, again, we will have lag problems.

So, the added bonuses were that this would give players something else to spend their money on, which might encourage purchase of premium, and thus support the server. It would also take money out of the world, with the highest amount of money being taken from those people with the most money already. This might help balance the huge difference between the experienced and new players. It has also been proposed that a money sink was needed to help control the economy. It is easy for the staff to put money into the server, but much more challenging to find ways to take money out. Cay had also just programmed a new money system so that we can track the money on the server, so that we can get accurate information on the economy. This is our first major test of this system, and so far, most people are pleased with the results, though it is really the next 2-3 months that will tell the full story.

In short, we have judged that the consequences of eliminating the fee for protections would be much worse than keeping them. We are also actively tracking the player counts and the economy with this new money sink, and are unlikely to make any changes until we have several months of data that lead us to a conclusion that a change is necessary.

The next major economic impact is planned to be the introduction of a quest world, which is likely to have at least some money sources, which will help new players get money.

 

[Spiderer1210]

The next major economic impact is planned to be the introduction of a quest world, which is likely to have at least some money sources, which will help new players get money.

Click to shrink...

Excuse me, can I just ask whether the quests will require that you bring equipment, or will they temporarily supply it to you?

 

[Laach]

I made it a simple yes or no question that would tell us really what the community felt about it. If you wanted it altered just vote keep the fee.

Click to shrink...

In that case, I want to change my vote.

 

[Grixer]

The fee implemented for chest protection is an awesome idea. As everyone knows, the economy of Massivecraft has had a few hiccups that threw it way off balance. First, xrayers pumped extra diamond into the economy. Massivecraft retaliated with xray protection. Secondly, god apples were heavily exploited by a certain few individuals. Massivecraft banned them and fixed the exploit and disabled god apples. Thirdly, MCMMO changed fishing in such a way that a single player could literally fabricate several stacks of diamond blocks in mere hours. Massivecraft disabled MCMMO fishing. These are just a few examples of events that have seriously impacted the economy.

The aftermath of these situations is the following. We now have no new ways to exploit mechanics, so the problem will not continue to spiral out of control. However, we have an extreme amount of extra money on Massivecraft.

In my opinion, the Massivecraft staff is doing a wonderful job. They are creating new ways to siphon money off players like, LWC fees and purchasable warzone. Without several ways to spend our money, inflation will ruin the game.

Paying a nominal fee for such awesome item protection is essentially healing a wounded economy. Though it may seem hard to deal with for some players, it is a necessary evil.

 

[Mecharic]

I'd like to change my vote to being in favor of the fee. Anyone who has enough chests to spend a lot of money on locking them probably has the money to do it anyway.

 

[X0N3333]

This isn't a simple problem. If the fee were eliminated and nothing else changed, the number of LWC protections would produce a huge amount of lag. To give an example, when LWC was first introduced, Gethelp couldn't go to his storage area, as it would drop the server TPS to below 10 when those chunks were loaded due to the number of LWC protections. We were able to make corrections to the configuration to handle the current number of protections, but if protections were free and not limited in another way, then the TPS would most likely drop to 10 or lower on worlds when people with lots of locks were online. This would be in addition to any other sources of lag. The staff decided that this would not be good for the server. There are 2 ways to limit the protections, everyone gets a set number of protections or they cost money. If a set number of protections were chosen, my current estimate is that that number would have to be less than 100. This produced an immediate strong negative reaction from most of the established players on MassiveCraft. On the other hand, charging for all permissions put new players at a huge disadvantage, and most people predicted that we would have a hard time keeping new players with that choice. The compromise is that they cost money, but some number of protections are free. The ideal would be that protections cost twice as much, but half of the money is refunded when a protection is removed. The programming challenges to implement this option were deemed to be too great, as the LWC economy plugin would have to be completely rewritten. So, the choice became how much should protections cost and how many free protections should a player get. If the cost isn't high enough, we will have too much lag, and if it's too high, huge numbers of people will rage quit. If the number of free protections is low, fewer new players will come back, but if it is too high, again, we will have lag problems.

So, the added bonuses were that this would give players something else to spend their money on, which might encourage purchase of premium, and thus support the server. It would also take money out of the world, with the highest amount of money being taken from those people with the most money already. This might help balance the huge difference between the experienced and new players. It has also been proposed that a money sink was needed to help control the economy. It is easy for the staff to put money into the server, but much more challenging to find ways to take money out. Cay had also just programmed a new money system so that we can track the money on the server, so that we can get accurate information on the economy. This is our first major test of this system, and so far, most people are pleased with the results, though it is really the next 2-3 months that will tell the full story.

In short, we have judged that the consequences of eliminating the fee for protections would be much worse than keeping them. We are also actively tracking the player counts and the economy with this new money sink, and are unlikely to make any changes until we have several months of data that lead us to a conclusion that a change is necessary.

The next major economic impact is planned to be the introduction of a quest world, which is likely to have at least some money sources, which will help new players get money.

Click to shrink...

In that case I'm somewhat less concerned about the fee. But in all honesty if these locks create so much lag is that good? I mean like my greatest concern now is the potential lag produced from my faction. I recruit a lot of members and they lock a lot of their stuff and I don't want my faction to become a lag house.
Even with the fee if you recruit a lot of people and they all create 5 or so locks then you're faction could become at an unplayable level of lag. If these locks are creating large amounts of lag then I suggest you adjust the policy of getting rid of locks since as I have observed, people don't want to undo locks.
I would like to say that I doubt people will own beyond 5 locks at the current time, since people will most likely use another faction to store their stuff.

 

[yendor46]

In that case I'm somewhat less concerned about the fee. But in all honesty if these locks create so much lag is that good? I mean like my greatest concern now is the potential lag produced from my faction. I recruit a lot of members and they lock a lot of their stuff and I don't want my faction to become a lag house.
Even with the fee if you recruit a lot of people and they all create 5 or so locks then you're faction could become at an unplayable level of lag. If these locks are creating large amounts of lag then I suggest you adjust the policy of getting rid of locks since as I have observed, people don't want to undo locks.
I would like to say that I doubt people will own beyond 5 locks at the current time, since people will most likely use another faction to store their stuff.

Click to shrink...

Gethelp had paid for thousands of locks, which created the lag. We can now handle this level of locks with no lag. Also, this wasn't client side lag like what was produced with deadbolt signs, but server side lag which effects everyone in the world. If all the almost 18,000 people who played on MassiveCraft last month had 100 free locks, though, that would be 1 million, 800 thousand locks. You won't see a difference if there are an extra thousand locks now, but we haven't tried an extra hundred thousand.

 

[Nordhbane]

@Yendor
The fact that LWC causes server drain instead of client drain, this sounds like it could cause problems in the future because of a badly written plugin. Without a refund there's no reason to remove old locks. So even without extra free locks, the amount of locks might just keep increasing until we do have a problem again. I do find it a bit interesting that the admins actually don't want us to use that many locks because of potential lag issues, and that the fee is a way to control lag.

Also, one proposed solution is to give X amount of free locks every week up to a maximum of 5 locks. It's not like everyone will have 100 free locks instantly or will in fact use them all. The other, as you touched upon, was a refund that would also severly limit the risk of future lag since people would actually have a good reason to remove their locks.

@Cayorion
Wouldn't there be a way to implement a refund without changing the plugincode for LWC? Every time you break a block, it checks with the server if some sort of protection exists for that block, right? I'm thinking something along the lines of this pseudocode:
IF blockbreak == LWC.protected
LWC.owner.money = LWC.owner.money + 10


I'm curious, do you have any statistic about how big of a percentage of the free locks that have been used up? And how many locks the median and average person have purchased on top of that?

 

[X0N3333]

Gethelp had paid for thousands of locks, which created the lag. We can now handle this level of locks with no lag. Also, this wasn't client side lag like what was produced with deadbolt signs, but server side lag which effects everyone in the world. If all the almost 18,000 people who played on MassiveCraft last month had 100 free locks, though, that would be 1 million, 800 thousand locks. You won't see a difference if there are an extra thousand locks now, but we haven't tried an extra hundred thousand.

Click to shrink...

Even with the fee I doubt that the amount of locks made will not be very high mainly because, most people are protecting their stuff with factions instead of lwc. I had once protected a chest when moving my locks somewhere else and to me, it felt like a gigantic waste of money. At the current time the fee is so high that people will own very few chests so that they have more money to buy stuff to put in those chests.
Also it's hard for a lot of people to earn money, imagine you are a noob/poor person with no dark room and only 30 regals. If you were that noob would you spend that on 3 chests or a whole diamond chestplate? Obviously you would get the chest plate because you wanted protection.
From what I have seen lwc is a thing generally avoided. If you want this protection plugin to be used instead of factions I suggest you lower the fee.
I used to own around 100 deadbolts put on chests around my faction to ensure no one could ever come in as a spy and steal them. Now I own 5 locks. 90% of my possessions are infact, unlocked. I'm most likely going to use my friends faction as a vault for all my chests because protecting chests there are free.

 

[X0N3333]

@Yendor
The fact that LWC causes server drain instead of client drain, this sounds like it could cause problems in the future because of a badly written plugin. Without a refund there's no reason to remove old locks. So even without extra free locks, the amount of locks might just keep increasing until we do have a problem again. I do find it a bit interesting that the admins actually don't want us to use that many locks because of potential lag issues, and that the fee is a way to control lag.

Also, one proposed solution is to give X amount of free locks every week up to a maximum of 5 locks. It's not like everyone will have 100 free locks instantly or will in fact use them all. The other, as you touched upon, was a refund that would also severly limit the risk of future lag since people would actually have a good reason to remove their locks.

@Cayorion
Wouldn't there be a way to implement a refund without changing the plugincode for LWC? Every time you break a block, it checks with the server if some sort of protection exists for that block, right? I'm thinking something along the lines of this pseudocode:
IF blockbreak == LWC.protected
LWC.owner.money = LWC.owner.money + 10


I'm curious, do you have any statistic about how big of a percentage of the free locks that have been used up? And how many locks the median and average person have purchased on top of that?

Click to shrink...

If people got free locks every week then the lag would get worse since each week hundreds of people are locking another chest.
I do remember it being said that they looked into a refund but they realised it would take far too much work, although I don't think it was a good idea to implement it without a refund.
If Cayorion wanted to code a plugin for a refund he would have to code another plugin to do so. Atm he has a lot of plugins to create and fix(like massivemobs) so it could take a long time. And by time it would be done there would of already been thousands of regals lost when moving chests.

 

[yendor46]

The fact that LWC causes server drain instead of client drain, this sounds like it could cause problems in the future because of a badly written plugin. Without a refund there's no reason to remove old locks. So even without extra free locks, the amount of locks might just keep increasing until we do have a problem again. I do find it a bit interesting that the admins actually don't want us to use that many locks because of potential lag issues, and that the fee is a way to control lag.

Also, one proposed solution is to give X amount of free locks every week up to a maximum of 5 locks. It's not like everyone will have 100 free locks instantly or will in fact use them all. The other, as you touched upon, was a refund that would also severly limit the risk of future lag since people would actually have a good reason to remove their locks.

Wouldn't there be a way to implement a refund without changing the plugincode for LWC? Every time you break a block, it checks with the server if some sort of protection exists for that block, right? I'm thinking something along the lines of this pseudocode:
IF blockbreak == LWC.protected
LWC.owner.money = LWC.owner.money + 10

I'm curious, do you have any statistic about how big of a percentage of the free locks that have been used up? And how many locks the median and average person have purchased on top of that?

Click to shrink...

It's a trade off. We don't want people to lock everything they could possibly lock because of the server resources it would use and because of the possibility of abuse.

I will not be coding a plugin that gives free locks out over a period of time. This doesn't, in the end, do anything different than giving a higher number of locks to begin with. Giving a full refund would not require any coding, but would effectively be removing the cost of protections, so this will not be implemented. The code for the refund is fairly complicated, as it has to deal with a number of different ways that a protection can be removed, with the different prices for protections, and protect against possible exploits for free money. I don't see coding anything like this until I have time to code factions integration into LWC, which may very well have to wait for the next version of LWC.

We do not have specific statistics on LWC usage other than the total number of protections and the money change graphs on the website.

 

[Nordhbane]

It's a trade off. We don't want people to lock everything they could possibly lock because of the server resources it would use and because of the possibility of abuse.

I will not be coding a plugin that gives free locks out over a period of time. This doesn't, in the end, do anything different than giving a higher number of locks to begin with. Giving a full refund would not require any coding, but would effectively be removing the cost of protections, so this will not be implemented. The code for the refund is fairly complicated, as it has to deal with a number of different ways that a protection can be removed, with the different prices for protections, and protect against possible exploits for free money. I don't see coding anything like this until I have time to code factions integration into LWC, which may very well have to wait for the next version of LWC.

We do not have specific statistics on LWC usage other than the total number of protections and the money change graphs on the website.

Click to shrink...

So there is already code for a full refund?

And there's a big difference between free chests and a full refund. While technically it's only a temporary drain of money from the system, it will still give an incentative for people to remove chests when leaving an area, practically making admins have to work less removing old locks in factions and such.

 

[KSTRandom]

• Reduce how much money you get from dark rooming
• Nerf mcmmo excavating so it's not possible to get diamonds out of thin air and sell them

Click to shrink...

Both things have been nerfed already by a superfluous amount. You get maybe 6 diamonds at a decent level of excavation, and not much more at a copious level; you get 1 regal from most mobs that you kill- and the rate of that is low to begin with. Nerfing it AGAIN would be even more incredulously unnecessary, as the previous systems weren't all that beneficial to being with.

Making people pay for a protection designed to stop thievery will not work out in stopping it

Click to shrink...

Actually, It will. Because if you care about your valuables and arent being an absolute hoarder and also incredibly stingy, then you're not going to have a problem.

Economy growth is actually good you know, the more money people own the more they can do on the server such as buying a regelia house or creating a faction.

Click to shrink...

Constant never stopping economic growth is bad though- And Massive has had enough of that. With all the exploits to gain the muns and all the other more constant positive economic change, there needs to be a good, sustainable negative change as well.

If Massivecraft always had a fee for locking would it of gotten to this stage of popularity?

Click to shrink...

Yes, and no one would complain. Because you know what? It would have never been another way. There would be no change to complain about. MassiveCraft is a great server. The best out there. I've tried time and time again to find one I can consider good now that I've played on Massive, but I've never been able to find another.

If people actually DID make a sock puppet account then there would of been a lot more votes because you don't just make one sock puppet account. It is the fault of the person voting not on the opinion itself. Even if you tallied up their active time the majority will win because, guess what they're numbers are bigger. It's unlikely someone will quit because of their ditch the fee vote opinion not going through, but they may end up not playing as much because of dissatisfaction with the server in general.
All the options you have presented would of been included in the keep the fee opinion.

Click to shrink...

This, and,

I didn't want the poll to have 5 different choices because there will only be 2 main ones. Because of this I just had only 2 options meaning that there will be a clear majority rather than a 1st 2nd 3rd 4th and 5th. With the poll the ditch the fee includes people wanting the fee gone and only that but with keep the fee it includes people who like the fee or want it to be modified. Heck if you use your logic on everything a yes or no answer could become "invalidated".

Click to shrink...

exemplify why the poll IS fixed. There's one for either side option. Thats the point completely. You didn't want there to be more than two choices, so people would have to chose a yes or no answer to a question that isnt even half as simple as a yes or no answer. This was so that, as you'd known, people were complaining about it already. You could round up the people who have been, and then get other people that just want it nerfed or whatever, but still vote for it to go away; this way there is a clear cut majority that you can brag about. People side with the popular opinion, make ghost accounts when they want to support something and show it has lots of support one way or the other, and not everybody who just wants it changed votes no. Lots of people vote yes, even though they want it gone. Because they aren't sure what to chose for their particular feeling.

The reason I want this fee gone because it prevent lwc from doing it's duty, protecting blocks.
Factions itself can be used as a more effective protection plugin then lwc at the current time
My plan for lwc locks is to have 5 and keep it that way forever and use my friends faction where I can store my store my 20 or so chests. This will save me a TONNE of regals and will mean there will be no problem with moving chests.
If people are making entire new factions to protect their stuff then it seems that people like using factions to protect their stuff as opposed to lwc.

Click to shrink...

Its not preventing LWC from doing its job at all. Just limiting greedy, silly, hoarding people from locking 100 chests every base they make to hoard resources and goods. If you're too opposed to LWC's fee and too damn greedy to pay the 200r fee, a small fee, to lock all 20ish of your chests, then use Factions. No one is stopping you. And who cares? People have been not using deadbolt since it was implemented too, using factions instead. Like, I've never liked using deadbolt. It was ugly and made a mess and I got so tired of cleaning that mess up. So, I just used ./f access to lock my stuff away, safe as can be. No one is stopping you from using factions built in protection to protect your chests and be a greedy little thing. By all means, go ahead. At the end of the day, does it really matter which plugin you use? no. LWC is still effective. Especially for in faction, or out of faction roaming locks to chests that you just need there.

When it comes to locking blocks I have a very simple objective, lock all of my chests.
This fee obstructs what was a straight line when it came to locking chests. Now instead of locking chests you just grind money then lock them or spend all that money you work quite hard for on a chest that you could just place in a vault faction.

Click to shrink...

And you say you arent greedy! You're simple objectives of locking all your chests and hoarding them so you dont lose any precious items, and keeping your 200r which apparently is "A TONNE of money." If you werent greedy, you wouldnt be worried about your "straight line." Because, if the chests get locked, who cares? You can trade around, its not hard to make money if you sell goods. From a small sale you could take home enough to lock all 20ish of your chests!

This fee renders locking objects pointless. Take for example a door, a button can save you a whole 10 regals.

Click to shrink...

Well, no. No it doesnt. Doors are still useful to lock. It makes it harder for people to door glitch, and generate lag with factions enough to enderpearl through the door. Locked objects are much harder to glitch through, which is why I put a protection on all my doors. As well as an autoclose, which is nice. And it doesnt require a large design change to a 2 wide hallway to incorporate a button, which barely allots you enough time to get through anyway, autoclose is so much nicer. Again, 10 regals. Not a lot of money. Even for a door. And yes, I realize the price can begin to stack a tad. I've already spent 150-200ish regals, and even then, thats still not a large amount of money.

When it comes to having a protection plugin the only thing I want is to protect my stuff, that is all people want in a protection plugin. I do not want to grind for locking a few chests.
What is the point of a protection plugin when you have to grind to protect?

Click to shrink...

This isnt a matter of the plugin not doing its job or rendering itself pointless. Its a matter of how much you care about having your objects locked and being convienently placed in your own faction. Theres also something to consider, what if your friend disbands? Then your unlocked objects are raided. Because you were greedy.
The point of the plugin is to protect. Which it does. Protection isnt free, XoN. A small amount of grinding now for protection later, that sounds pretty good.

 

[X0N3333]

It's a trade off. We don't want people to lock everything they could possibly lock because of the server resources it would use and because of the possibility of abuse.

I will not be coding a plugin that gives free locks out over a period of time. This doesn't, in the end, do anything different than giving a higher number of locks to begin with. Giving a full refund would not require any coding, but would effectively be removing the cost of protections, so this will not be implemented. The code for the refund is fairly complicated, as it has to deal with a number of different ways that a protection can be removed, with the different prices for protections, and protect against possible exploits for free money. I don't see coding anything like this until I have time to code factions integration into LWC, which may very well have to wait for the next version of LWC.

We do not have specific statistics on LWC usage other than the total number of protections and the money change graphs on the website.

Click to shrink...

If making locks creates so much server lag, is lwc a good protection plugin?
Surely there must be alternatives that makes less lag.
With the current fee people are avoiding it since everyone wants to spend their money on equipment and weapons, not on chests.

 

[yendor46]

If making locks creates so much server lag, is lwc a good protection plugin?
Surely there must be alternatives that makes less lag.
With the current fee people are avoiding it since everyone wants to spend their money on equipment and weapons, not on chests.

Click to shrink...

LWC is the best protection program currently available. There isn't a program out there that won't produce lag when the number of entries in the database exceeds the available cache space. The problem is in how you want to use LWC.

It may be that the people you know are just purchasing equipment and weapons, and not chest protections, but the money records show that a good number of people are using LWC, without a problem.

 

[Nordhbane]

LWC is the best protection program currently available. There isn't a program out there that won't produce lag when the number of entries in the database exceeds the available cache space. The problem is in how you want to use LWC.

Click to shrink...

I hate to compare it to a broken lock plugin, but you said earlier that Deadbolt didn't cause server lag, only client lag, which is much better since it only affects the individuals that are close to the locks. So what was it Deadbolts did right in terms of lagging the server compared to LWC? Did it have less database entries, and is that what made it less secure? Or is there a middle ground where you can have the best of both worlds (if you have time enough to fix it)?

 

[yendor46]

I hate to compare it to a broken lock plugin, but you said earlier that Deadbolt didn't cause server lag, only client lag, which is much better since it only affects the individuals that are close to the locks. So what was it Deadbolts did right in terms of lagging the server compared to LWC? Did it have less database entries, and is that what made it less secure? Or is there a middle ground where you can have the best of both worlds (if you have time enough to fix it)?

Click to shrink...

Deadbolt had no database entries, it stored all the data in a sign. According to my understanding, the author of Deadbolt decided that storing the info in a sign would not be feasible to maintain and is no longer updating his plugin. As to which is better, we were dealing with a fair number of problems when running Deadbolt where people would do /f home and their computers could not load the data due to the large amount of sign info and they were kicked from the server due to loss of connection. With LWC, the server has control of any possible lag, and can set appropriate limits to maintain everyone's enjoyment.