How can we be successful/popular?

[haxxorzd00d]

Personally I think it may be worth running a poll to see whether people feel creeper damage (to the environment, not to themselves) is a) an exciting risk or b) an unpredictable and unnecessary frustration.

Of course, weighing up the pros and cons of either argument, e.g. having your property creepered by other people, lag issues causing creepers you probably could've killed or avoided to detonate, being stealth-bombed by creepers that probably shouldn't have spawned where they did - but on the other hand, the fact that removing destruction does detract from the "feel" of Minecraft a bit.

One could argue that we've coped just fine without nerfing creepers so far - but have we really? Take a look across our older landscapes and ask yourself how much of that mess was REALLY caused by griefers, and how much was the result of wandering newbies (and veterans) getting blown up.

[sgtwisky]

If only there were a way to A. have no explode zone on say roads and public buildings. and B to allow creeper damage IF they are attacking a player that is added to the cuboid they are in.

if B could be done (have no idea if its possible) it would stop creeper griefing and random holes when you come back to your plot from players wandering around. BUT would keep the excitement of creepers attacking YOU near your stuff... IF this were possible without a crazy amount of coding I would support this above all.

Just the fact that creepers can be used by people to grief your land I say we have to allow creeper protection to be on. but damage from them (which is off on cuboids when you have creeper protection) should always be on regardless of if they can blow your house up or not.

just wondering... is it possible to disable the creeper damage if the creeper is not targeting a member or owner of a cuboid? if so id say that would be the best way.

[Sti_Jo_Lew]

That'd require a custom plugin even if it IS possible. And really, it's a lot of work for something that isn't really that major.

[vallorn]

Moving a little bit away from creeper damage I'm going to throw out a VERY controversial idea.

Temporary Worlds.

What that means is that as well as whatever permanent world we end up with after a wipe we also have a world or 2 that change on a monthly basis. getting refreshed for use as mining worlds or being turned into PVP worlds for a month or maybe setting up experimental game modes like EscapeZ or mods like Tekkit.

These worlds wouldn't be permanent but for non mod or experiential game mode months they would be connected to the main world. So one month we might have a "Mining World" where permanent building is discouraged but there are no landclaims so just dig up the landscape for resources. That would keep our main worlds looking nice while preventing new players from not being able to find unclaimed rare resources to build with (Temple stones, dungeons, Etc, Etc). The PVP or more extreme PVE (turn mob spawning up to maximum by putting a layer of bedrock over the sky) would be for players who want a challenge for their items and would be completely optional (The non permanence would also prevent it turning out like the other PVP world did).

So how does this sound?

[random980]

I think that idea could work well. However i would like mention that we should only have a limited number of worlds open at one time. The more worlds we have the more the player base is spread and the more of a ghost town each world feels, fewer worlds is better community-wise in my opinion.
I'm thinking only 1 or 2 temp and/or permanent worlds at a time max. (excluding creative/enigma)

[haxxorzd00d]

Temporary Worlds

I've always loved the idea of mining worlds. +hugs to Vall!

Because at the end of the day, nothing beats that feeling of a fresh, pristine landscape ripe for plunder. What if you could have that feeling... ALL THE TIME!?

[Hytro]

An amazing idea, love it!

Every month a new world I can corrupt, bahahaha!

[SMWasder]

I think that idea could work well. However i would like mention that we should only have a limited number of worlds open at one time. The more worlds we have the more the player base is spread and the more of a ghost town each world feels, fewer worlds is better community-wise in my opinion.
I'm thinking only 1 or 2 temp and/or permanent worlds at a time max. (excluding creative/enigma)

I definitely agree with this. Playing on the temp server, having everyone withing a fairly short walk of eachother has been a much more involving experience. That said, I don't think temporary worlds would affect that too much considering people would be discouraged from actually living there so they would need to return home with their loot or whatever.

[sgtwisky]

I like the idea of a temp world for mining and such. I don't NEED to mine much but when I do unless I get lucky (like one mine ive got now) its hard to find a non claimed mining spot. partially do to people like me that will mine tunnels at dia level for hours a day when we actually needed stuff. I like to mine sometimes just because im not in the building mood too and not finding a place to do it or goodies when im down there can be a little let down.

I have also had to try and help new players find areas to mine with only small successes. I think this idea would help a lot with retaining players. after all who wants to stick around if you can actually get what you need to build?

As long as the temp world(s) are not so large that they degrade the performance of the server I don't see a down side. plus I don't have to ruin peoples view of their desert home so I can get glass.

[haxxorzd00d]

Every month a new world I can corrupt, bahahaha!

Why only every month? How about we have a single mining world that regens with a new seed every WEEK? You've seen how fast Minecraft maps can change; a month is more than enough to reduce a landscape to ruins, especially if people are treating it as no-holds-barred destruction. A new world every week on the other hand keeps it constantly fresh and exciting - plus it'd mean the world could be smaller and less of a strain on the server.

[RobipodSupreme]

Mother of Worldgen. Sounds cool.

[Tulonsae]

Just to correct what Invun said.

Currently, on our main server, if the creeper-explosion flag is turn off, then the creeper doesn't destroy blocks AND it doesn't damage players.

So the current play on the main server is not what we're proposing for the future.

I still like the Grief Prevention default. No creeper destroying of blocks on the surface, but underground yes. Creepers always give damage to players. Except at certain (limited) server areas - like spawn.

Also, the GP default is no mob's taking blocks. (Or, if it's not default, it's an easy setting.)

I could also go with the gamerule idea.

[Invunarble]

It doesn't? I could've sworn at one point or another I ran into a creeper while frolicking around the poorly lit streets of Fort Tusk, and it's detonation causing me damage... Maybe it was just an older thing to keep creeper-player damage on?

[Tulonsae]

It doesn't? I could've sworn at one point or another I ran into a creeper while frolicking around the poorly lit streets of Fort Tusk, and it's detonation causing me damage... Maybe it was just an older thing to keep creeper-player damage on?

Check the flags on the region. If creeper-explosion is false, then no damage.

[zekesonxx]

Why I stopped playing on the normal server:

1. I have everything. Literally, everything. I have doublechests of potions, I have more than enough diamonds to repair all my tools. My armour makes me essentially invincible.

2. A lot of people I don't like or come to not like got put in staff. Not naming names, but off the top of my head at least 10 people.

3. I live in a deserted city. Only one other person (Garretfire) is there, and he's barely ever. All the towns are deserted.

4. I see no-one. Everyone is 20k blocks from eachother. While the landclaim rules do have their uses, they encourage self-keeping and isolation.

[Sti_Jo_Lew]

4. I see no-one. Everyone is 20k blocks from eachother. While the landclaim rules do have their uses, they encourage self-keeping and isolation.

If we didn't have these rules.... yeah, idk if I'd even continue playing multiplayer. I'd rather NOT have a giant cobble tower shoved up against my house. Really, having to be 20 blocks away from eachother isn't a big deal.

I'm not really sure what you want here.

[Invunarble]

Sti does have a pretty valid point. On one hand, if we don't have rules that are a bit encouraging to isolate people, then there'd probably be cases where other players would just be disappointed, because of various houses popping up abnormally close to theirs and taking away personal space.

However, playing survival over and over again by yourself isn't very fun. This ends up happening when players get isolated. So that's a bit of a tough decision - which of the two options sounds better, being isolated and not near anyone or having shitty unwanted structures appearing near you?

[TyrasEngineer]

20 blocks is not far, so I don't really buy into the total isolation thing. If people are claiming huge areas of land in Tolteca, say, then that is the only reason I can see isolation being an issue, however that's more an attitude thing- if you only claim what you need, then people can join you easily.

[random980]

Most people don't like random buildings popping up near them, that's why the 20 block rule exists.
But think about it, if you and your neighbours are OK with building closely together then do it. No one is going to enforce the rule if no one is complaining...

[Sti_Jo_Lew]

Most of the times I've moved are because someone built something near me that I didn't like.

[derigin]

The 20 block rule has existed for a long time, and it seems to function well. From the sounds of it, though, most people just seem to want a single world with reasonable landclaims, so they can still interact with one another.

[motormaniac]

The 20 block rule can be broken with the claim owner's permission. If you want neighbors, gather your friends and make a town. 20 block rule is just to give people space who want it.

[sgtwisky]

um... I think Zek is saying that everyone is 20,000 blocks from each other (a bit of an exaggeration) Thus not even anyone to be seen. I don't think he is referring to the 20 block rule. Which like motor said it can be broken as long as both neighbors agree and are cool with it. I could be wrong but he did say 20k not 20.

[motormaniac]

While slightly exaggerated, he's right. Nobody lives remotely close to me either.

[TyrasEngineer]

The thing is, unless we start telling people where to live (which doesn't sound fun!), how would you suggest getting people to live near you? I think that if people want to live near other people then it should be up to the individual to let people know they want neighbours,
Oh, and we started referring to landclaim since zeke specifically mentioned landclaim rules being prohibitive for people wanting to live near each other, which I've said my piece on previously. With regard to his point on staff, if you feel that you have an issue with staff then you should not feel bad about sending a discreet PM to Wokka, a director or a staff member you do like so it can filter up to the necessary people.

[haxxorzd00d]

In a global community where everyone starts off a stranger, people won't naturally be drawn together. The only reason a tight-knit environment like the test server community has succeeded is because it's formed out of close friends and community members.

To form groups of friends from scratch is far more challenging. In the past, players banded together simply out of circumstance, but the Minecraft community has changed, and I'm sure we wouldn't exactly jump at the chance to live next to CreepaKilla98's giant cobble mob grinder and xXGr33f3r4Lyf3Xx's half-finished dirt shack.

If we want strangers to group together and form meaningful bonds, there needs to be some sort of incentive for doing so. Think of it as a big scary boss fight; it's easier to take down if you're in a party. Unfortunately though, I can't think of what that incentive could be. As it stands, we have to rely on players being sociable and civilised, two traits which are becoming increasingly scarce among the impatient, cheap-thrills community of Youtuber-sheeples. (Yes, I used the word "sheeple". Look how clever I am!)

[minnerthecat]

I suggested in another post somewhere the possibility of making the survival world harder. Hardship is what instinctively drives people to work together, I believe, and so perhaps increasing the difficulty would accomplish this?

[Zinrius]

How about we focus on updating the server first, then focus on popularity

Notch is bending us over with so many constant updates it's ridiculous. Hopefully there's a bigger gap between this and the next update so we can build back our player base.

[RobipodSupreme]

*Jeb

[MrWhales]

*Jeb

C418*