TheGurw
Well-Known Member
This. If you have an extensive or really-often-used track system that you don't mind being the only one allowed to build on it, I'll protect it.
Edit: Just ask and I'll look it over. The prettier, the better.
Team9000 Minecraft (Community Reboot)
- Thread starter TheGurw
- Start date
Edit: Just ask and I'll look it over. The prettier, the better.
Tsysin
Well-Known Member
Do not have permission
Highrise
Active Member
Please do not take anything I am about to say personally. The following is my opinion though it will be stated as fact. (e.g. "This is good." instead of "I think this is good.") I intend for this topic to be debated.
rant inbound
Let me get this straight; the Hinterlands are supposed to be dangerous. In order to create this atmosphere, the risks of PvP and grief are included among many others. In other words, the Hinterlands derive their essence partly from PvP and grief.
The problem is neither of these risks are implemented correctly. PvP is only allowed when it is consentual, and griefers are banned immediately after they are identified.
It would be naive to conclude the Hinterlands are safe from this, as the items lost from PvP and the damage done by griefers will not be restored and reverted, respectively. However, it would seem the server's policies contradict themselves. On one hand, PvP and grief are a legitimate threat, but on the other, they will be punished. At this point, I do not know what the intention of the Hinterlands is anymore. Are the Hinterlands meant to be dangerous, or are they only supposed to be inconvenienced occasionally?
It would seem the danger of the Hinterlands is derived from the administrators' inability to ban individuals immediately. This is utterly and highly illogical. A server's administrators should try to keep things in "order," whether this entails conflict between players or not. Responsibilities are endless and time is sparse, so any duties that can be eliminated should be.
So, to keep our server in "order," our administrators must allow PvP and grief just enough as to allow destruction, but then ban the said individuals? Would it not be much simpler to allow PvP and grief outright and reserve bans for individuals who cause excessive destruction and unhappiness? Faction-based servers have been doing this for years, and they work quite well. In fact, they almost manage themselves; if someone angers enough players, counter-attacks will be launched against them. Some players enjoy the constant conflict, while others wish to abstain from it. Behold! There are worlds, known as towns, safe from PvP and grief all together! Players would have a safe haven!
So, to review, I am confused as to the intended atmosphere of the Hinterlands. Are they supposed to be safe, but just inconvenienced by occasional PvP and grief, or are they supposed to be dangerous? If they are indeed supposed to be dangerous, they stray further from that environment seemingly every day . . .
Originally, the "Outlands," now named the Hinterlands, were supposed to be completely and totally lawless. Does lawless mean that a player can do something and then be banned for it, even if his actions are not reverted? Apparently so.
In fact, when a server starts to go the more PvP-heavy route, grief in its current sense becomes less of a problem. Fewer complaints of completely unjustified acts are heard; complaints of raids and destruction to defenses replace them. (e.g. "Player blew a hole in my wall and stole my stuff!" instead of "Player griefed my house admins help meeeeeeeeee")
So, shall we continue to make the supposedly "lawless" Hinterlands safer, thereby increasing the admin's already large workload, or, shall we return them to their true sense and reserve administrative intervention for exceptional circumstances?
There is one more thing to address: landmarks. Similar to how large areas of land work in towns, could a player not simply contact and administrator beforehand, request a protected area, and build? I suppose if he did not have plans, problems could arrise, but I fail to see how this is different from building something and having it recognized as a landmark if it is somehow deemed "important." Remember that grief is currently not to be reverted.
Do not get me wrong: unprovoked grief is committed by the scum of Minecraft. All I am saying is that less of that will be seen in a true PvP world. However, we currently rely on griefers to make the Hinterlands "dangerous."
So, our current setup requires administrators to ban individuals who give the Hinterlands their atmosphere, and wait for more scumbags to join to create more problems. On the other hand, we could have the Hinterlands be lawless like they were originally intended to be and see more regulated grief and less unprovoked and pointless grief. Remember, in a true PvP world, a griefer would have to put in considerable effort to get through anyone's defenses, besides the other griefers who have not put enough thought into their defenses. Such a requirement of effort is enough to deter the undesirable unprovoked grief we all hate.
Again, do not take anything I just said personally. Also, I know a great deal of you will disagree with me on these topics. I am hoping for a logical and civilized debate.
td;lr our server's policies conflict themselves and put extra work on our administrators; meanwhile, the Hinterlands are losing their danger.
rant inbound
Let me get this straight; the Hinterlands are supposed to be dangerous. In order to create this atmosphere, the risks of PvP and grief are included among many others. In other words, the Hinterlands derive their essence partly from PvP and grief.
The problem is neither of these risks are implemented correctly. PvP is only allowed when it is consentual, and griefers are banned immediately after they are identified.
It would be naive to conclude the Hinterlands are safe from this, as the items lost from PvP and the damage done by griefers will not be restored and reverted, respectively. However, it would seem the server's policies contradict themselves. On one hand, PvP and grief are a legitimate threat, but on the other, they will be punished. At this point, I do not know what the intention of the Hinterlands is anymore. Are the Hinterlands meant to be dangerous, or are they only supposed to be inconvenienced occasionally?
It would seem the danger of the Hinterlands is derived from the administrators' inability to ban individuals immediately. This is utterly and highly illogical. A server's administrators should try to keep things in "order," whether this entails conflict between players or not. Responsibilities are endless and time is sparse, so any duties that can be eliminated should be.
So, to keep our server in "order," our administrators must allow PvP and grief just enough as to allow destruction, but then ban the said individuals? Would it not be much simpler to allow PvP and grief outright and reserve bans for individuals who cause excessive destruction and unhappiness? Faction-based servers have been doing this for years, and they work quite well. In fact, they almost manage themselves; if someone angers enough players, counter-attacks will be launched against them. Some players enjoy the constant conflict, while others wish to abstain from it. Behold! There are worlds, known as towns, safe from PvP and grief all together! Players would have a safe haven!
So, to review, I am confused as to the intended atmosphere of the Hinterlands. Are they supposed to be safe, but just inconvenienced by occasional PvP and grief, or are they supposed to be dangerous? If they are indeed supposed to be dangerous, they stray further from that environment seemingly every day . . .
Originally, the "Outlands," now named the Hinterlands, were supposed to be completely and totally lawless. Does lawless mean that a player can do something and then be banned for it, even if his actions are not reverted? Apparently so.
In fact, when a server starts to go the more PvP-heavy route, grief in its current sense becomes less of a problem. Fewer complaints of completely unjustified acts are heard; complaints of raids and destruction to defenses replace them. (e.g. "Player blew a hole in my wall and stole my stuff!" instead of "Player griefed my house admins help meeeeeeeeee")
So, shall we continue to make the supposedly "lawless" Hinterlands safer, thereby increasing the admin's already large workload, or, shall we return them to their true sense and reserve administrative intervention for exceptional circumstances?
There is one more thing to address: landmarks. Similar to how large areas of land work in towns, could a player not simply contact and administrator beforehand, request a protected area, and build? I suppose if he did not have plans, problems could arrise, but I fail to see how this is different from building something and having it recognized as a landmark if it is somehow deemed "important." Remember that grief is currently not to be reverted.
Do not get me wrong: unprovoked grief is committed by the scum of Minecraft. All I am saying is that less of that will be seen in a true PvP world. However, we currently rely on griefers to make the Hinterlands "dangerous."
So, our current setup requires administrators to ban individuals who give the Hinterlands their atmosphere, and wait for more scumbags to join to create more problems. On the other hand, we could have the Hinterlands be lawless like they were originally intended to be and see more regulated grief and less unprovoked and pointless grief. Remember, in a true PvP world, a griefer would have to put in considerable effort to get through anyone's defenses, besides the other griefers who have not put enough thought into their defenses. Such a requirement of effort is enough to deter the undesirable unprovoked grief we all hate.
Again, do not take anything I just said personally. Also, I know a great deal of you will disagree with me on these topics. I am hoping for a logical and civilized debate.
td;lr our server's policies conflict themselves and put extra work on our administrators; meanwhile, the Hinterlands are losing their danger.
ChibaMasato
Well-Known Member
To explain things as I've come to understand them, 'grief' is the term we're using, because it fits best. What we mean is creeper and other explosive damage is a thing. If you aren't careful, and you blow up something that you're going to have a hell of a time replacing, that's on you. The point of the Hinterlands is to be careful, otherwise, much like normal vanilla MC, you're boned. Pvp is on, not so people can just murder everyone willy-nilly, but so there's even more reason to be careful if you're working with someone, as they could kill you by accident and vice-versa. In addition, Rule 1 of anything T9k related is "Don't be a dick." Thus, we're expecting people to not be butt-munches and wreck other peoples' shit. Yet, if it does happen, both parties are at fault: One was the dick, and the other wasn't careful enough. Hence the whole non-returning of items. The Hinterlands already has the environment of a dangerous place due to the set-up we have. We give new members the benefit of the doubt, and allow them to do as they please. Granted, if they're hacking, that's a different story, which most of the people we've banned have done so. Also, the reason why Theo is making the arena world is because of the pvp situation, I believe. It's clear that some people desire that kind of danger, so we're planning a separate world for that exact reason, as others like the dangers of the Hinterlands as is and would prefer to not be shanked in the back after fighting off a horde of hard mode zombies.
NotSoNicole
New Member
IGN: NotSoNicole
Length of time with Team9000: 1 Week
Veteran members:
ChibaMasato
Pixiel
Patchy
Length of time with Team9000: 1 Week
Veteran members:
ChibaMasato
Pixiel
Patchy
Abbyyynormal
New Member
Southbridge Application
IGN: Abbyyynormal
Length of time with Team9000: Two days.
Last official map you played on:
One veteran member (has been here longer than 1 year) to vouch for you: ChibaMasato, Pixiel
Patchy
IGN: Abbyyynormal
Length of time with Team9000: Two days.
Last official map you played on:
One veteran member (has been here longer than 1 year) to vouch for you: ChibaMasato, Pixiel
Patchy
ChibaMasato
Well-Known Member
Length of time with Team9000: 3 1/2 years
Last official map you played on: 1.3
I want to get back into Minecraft again with T9k, lemme in please.
Vouched, and added.
(Psst, Creeper... It is CreeperT9k, right?)
Io_Reign
Well-Known Member
So the danger is in the fact that stupid people die because they accidentally kill each other on accident? Separate world idea is bad, there's not a person in T9K who would willingly go fight Ustulo...
ChibaMasato
Well-Known Member
Would still scratch the certain itch people have been having for pvp. Also, I'm sure there's several people who are willing to attempt it.
Creeper
Well-Known Member
Yes.
ChibaMasato
Well-Known Member
'Kay. Just making sure.
TheGurw
Well-Known Member
I completely understand and agree with what you're saying here. Honestly, I'm all for completely opening up the Hinterlands to absolute lawlessness. I remember the Outlands and remember that it worked well because it served as a nooblet buffer in and of itself: new people would build close to spawn, thinking they'd be protected because they didn't read the rules or pay attention to the helpful veterans; the dedicated ones would quickly realize that was not the case and build farther away or move to Minetopia. The only difference is here, you can starve to death, and PvP is on, which I believe could be a major attractant to the kind of players T9k used to welcome if implemented in its original concept; the raider factions that used to take over other servers (which I was a part of, along with DutchCheese, Feone, and ThaProfessor, among many others), for example. However, this IS a community-based server; and as such, I consider my opinion to be the same value, if not less than other players; and those that communicate with me the most have forced me to consider that perhaps the Hinterlands as I envision them to not be what the community wants. The recent chest locking in the Hinterlands is a result of this; I am completely against it, but a large number of players requested it be added, and so it was. I have a theory about why we have a split like this, and part of it is the Hinterlands filling a dual-role, one of which it wasn't designed to fill. I'll get to that in a bit.Had to snip, post was over the character limit
One of the biggest things about this server that sets it apart from previous T9k Official servers is that we have four very active administrators, one of which I know personally checks the forums every half hour if he isn't online or asleep (*waves* yeah, I have no life...). This also creates a problem, though, as players communicate directly with us instead of voicing opinions on the forums so that other players can contribute to the discussion and make counter-arguments known. This is the other reason for the chest-locking issue - there was never really a discussion on it until after the change. This is something we will strive to address in the future, in fact, starting with this post.
Now, the Hinterlands, as I'm sure you're all aware, fills two roles: It's a riskier building area for players that either don't want the structure that tends to form in the Cities (a dominant faction ends up taking over road-building and moderation of other players), or just don't want to deal with others altogether. It ALSO, somewhat intentionally, has become a mob-farming and mining world. I believe that most of the complaints about chests not being protected in the Hinterlands came from City-dwellers who were forced to leave the city to go farm mobs or mine - and in my own opinion, they can deal with having to haul their shit all the way back to the city or face the potential consequences.
Obviously, for reasons previously stated, we won't be putting ores back into the Cities. We could, however, lower the difficulty and allow mobs to spawn; I don't believe this is a good idea as players would just build unsightly mob farms in the Cities.
I think the best option I can come up with is to WorldGuard a small region around the cities to both prevent PvP in the areas immediately surrounding the cities, and prevent grief and theft by non-greylisted members (for the administrators glaring at me right now, it's actually pretty easy to set up region inheritance, so you'll still only have to add people to the main city region); AND simultaneously shift our mindset to completely abandoning hope, all ye who enter the Hinterlands. We will, of course, still deal with obnoxious assholes who spawn-camp and dig pitfalls on commonly-traveled paths, etc. There is also the option of both preventing new players from PvP-ing, and preventing them from being attacked; yet another reason for people to make the trip to the Tower of Ozy if that's what they're into (no, we're not allowing some non-nooblets to PvP and others not be attacked in a land with no grief protection, that's just stupid).
As for landmarks: we already have one, JerzeyLegend's newbie shack. It's grief-protected above-ground. He built it with no intention of it being protected, but since so many new players use it to get a good start on the trip out West, I decided it is worthy of landmark status. This is one of the ways to get a build protected. The other is to build something amazing and then ask us to come protect it; if we agree that it's amazing, we will do so.
Again, I'm completely on your side in this from a personal point of view. But I'm also non-elected staff of a server that is essentially run by the community. I may be part of an appointed collective of dictators, but the current dictators believe in democratic policy, as does the majority of the community, and I'm not interested in being ousted by a coup. So, if someone wants to come up with a solution that satisfies the overwhelming majority of the community, we are willing to do everything in our power to implement it.
Io_Reign
Well-Known Member
Make a portal in each city that leads to a mining world where pvp is off and mob grinders/chests are turned on. Lower difficulty, nothing noteworthy to grief, resources too. If people want to live a nice safe life, we can easily give them what they want without having to have the world's safest vanilla minecraft server.
TheGurw
Well-Known Member
Sounds like a great idea on paper. Horrible idea in practice (see previous versions of Mining Worlds on official T9k servers). Aside from completely removing all reason for people to go into the Hinterlands, it also creates extra strain on the server, especially when compared to having a small region around the town portals where people can put their stuff at the end of a mining or mob grinding excursion. Conveniently, this area will also automagically have chest protection, so it's like a little suburb, you could say.
Io_Reign
Well-Known Member
Alternative solution: Make a large ass world guard with pvp off and chest protection on over about half the map. Make a 100 block protected strip between the pvp and non-pvp areas to keep people from abusing the border (pvp on in the gap, so people have to walk 100 blocks to find safety. People can pick a side and make trips between easily. We get the actual vanilla minecraft we were hoping for, other people get the safe area they want. Since literally no one lives in newbank, hopefully you can move the portal to accommodate.
TheGurw
Well-Known Member
This sounds like you just want the Hinterlands split into two? Kinda hard in a limitless world
TheGurw
Well-Known Member
I'd just like to mention that we CAN actually see when you're mining stuff really fast. Even if you can get around the xray-prevention, there are several other methods we use to track your mining patterns. Don't think you can get away with x-raying just because you know of ONE of our prevention methods.
EDIT: No, we will not be sharing the name of the player associated with this post. If they want to admit to it, that's up to them. Whether the mistake was deliberate or ignorant, they have been granted a carefully-considered second-chance, and we will not have them ostracized by the community over it. Keep in mind that I was banned for something very similar, and even though I've explained myself hundreds of times, people still give me the evil eye. I don't wish that on any person who honestly wants to stick around the community.
EDIT: No, we will not be sharing the name of the player associated with this post. If they want to admit to it, that's up to them. Whether the mistake was deliberate or ignorant, they have been granted a carefully-considered second-chance, and we will not have them ostracized by the community over it. Keep in mind that I was banned for something very similar, and even though I've explained myself hundreds of times, people still give me the evil eye. I don't wish that on any person who honestly wants to stick around the community.
DOS622
Well-Known Member
What about all the other unsightly buildings like my house? I'm a live and let live kind of person, I don't care what people's buildings look like too much because what can I do about it if I don't like them anyway? Also, it's not like it wouldn't be possible to somehow make a mob farm attractive.
Okay so I'm wondering, who wants to kill me? Please tell me now so I know whether or not I'll ever be able to go into the Hinterlands. Also I'll probably never talk to you again (you might think this is a blessing).
Do you have objective criteria for "amazing build"?
I asked for this before the server started, seems a lot nicer to me than forcing everyone to go through one particular area of the map to get to safety. I guess if there is some bigger no-PvP area around the portal that would help too, still not the same as a really big border though.
Nobody lives in Newbank but maybe some people live in the Hinterlands who want to be in the unsafe world but would end up on the wrong side of the new border? Seems like it's too late to do this now
This sounds like you just want the Hinterlands split into two? Kinda hard in a limitless world
Isn't the world actually limited to coordinates of +/-30,000,000 or something though? Sorry if I already asked this, but couldn't you create a WorldGuard region from X1=0,Y1=-B to X2=B,B where B is a big number (30,000,000?) to say make the eastern hemisphere "safe"? I'd be very disappointed if creating a large WorldGuard region requried all the terrain to be generated or the area of the region (rather than the number of regions) affected Worldguard's performance. I don't think it would ruin the "safety" if mob spawners still existed, I'm guessing you can't make them not generate in half the world.