Table of Contents

OP

Okay, I've been playing with some ideas to

Among those are:

I'm open for other ideas, but:

I've already moved a bit towards user moderation with the tool block and some of the work on CivCraft is inspiring, but their main player moderation tool (the Prison Pearl) is only half as useful here (pirate server) and creates nasty dynamics. Also, we don't have nearly as many players, so we'll have to keep the moderator approach. If you want to suggest plugins, do it, but I want to keep this server mostly vanilla. No asia grind MCMMO or shit. I'm open for new rules as long as you can fit them into at most three sentences. — tetete 2012/08/02 01:05

Answer in bullet points to keep the conversation threaded.

1

2

3

4

5

6

— Koentinius

7

8

Adjourned: 

00:01:15 <@te3> orz
00:02:01 <@te3> why must all permissions plugins either be a pile of crud, do nothing, do things weirdly or be "special" and "unique"
00:03:26 <@te3> I mean, bpermissions' mascot is a fucking man coming out of a banana
00:04:22 <@te3> privileges looks nice, but some stuff is expert only, "unless you're comfortable with the configuration process, as it may cause interesting errors"
00:04:39 <@te3> pex is just broken
00:04:49 <@te3> factions isn't a permissions plugin
00:05:20 <@te3> permissionsbukkit does its work, but only ops can reliably administrate it
00:05:28 <@te3> *pulls hair*

— tetete 2012/08/10 00:07

— Sikandar 2012/08/02 17:27

9

10

~I have no idea how to format things~

Okay so here's some random ideas.

Make a new map, now this would only work if multiworld every works again. Make a new map with the Huge Biomes setting for world generation, and limit the size of the map. Add borders with the plugin so say, only 20-30 biomes encompass the map. Now this would be very very good for politics because a nation could claim an entire biome, and there would be visual boundries. This would also be great because, you wouldn't have a nation that's supposed to be say snow people, who only have 200 blocks of snow, and then a desert next to them. To avoid mass butthurt, we could let all the players keep their items(i dont actually support this at all, I want a fresh start on an even personal and political playing field, but i just know people will threaten to leave) and take them to the new world and go back and forth. This however, would be damaging because i assume lots of people who have invested lots of time on the 1.1 map wouldn't want to leave their map. I just think with the whole new huge biomes thing, it would be fucking awesome. It could also stop people like us(mongols) from just going to every desert we see and setting up camp. However, I still like us being nomadic. Also this isn't to say that more than 1 nation couldn't be in a nation, that would be more interesting of course.

Change the PvP rules a lot. Keep the PvP list for people who agree to random PvP, but also change the rules. As of now, if someone of a nation who you are at war comes into your territory and attacks you, and you take their stuff. You must give it back or you can be banned(see my 1st ban in caveats), now the 'rules' say otherwise so it's more of an issue with mods taking different stances. So going on to my proposal; If you have a nation and someone else comes on your territory this should work in a more realistic manner. If someone is on your land, and you ask him to leave and he doesn't or refuses you can kill him and take his stuff. If someone from an enemy nation that you're formerally at war with comes onto your land you can kill them etc. Also you should be able to have a list somewhere that says if x persons come onto our land, they will be killed on sight. This would also go hand in hand with a new map with huge biomes. So borders were more noticable. Like, 'oh man I shouln't go in the swamp someone from swampland might kill me“.

Last idea for now is sort of dumb, but if implemented right it could be great. Add 3 types nation, a nation can choose to be when they become a nation. Civilised, Uncivilised, and Primitive. This would only have political restriction and pluses for the nations, and would obviously have no personal restrictions, or building restrictions etc. Just political. A civilised nation would have set boundries and in political interactions would have to act more 'civilised'. They would also have to be more nice on killing people, maybe having to give items back when killing people on their territory etc. They could also be required to have an actual cause for war if they decide to declare it. I don't have many ideas now but I think the premise is good. You know, civilised nations would have to act politically, and only politically like a civilised nation would. An uncivilised nation could declare war more easily for stupider reasons, could kill people if people came onto their land etc, but wouldn't have as much right to land that they claim. I think that sounds a little overpowered for the uncivilised nations. A primitive nation would be like a settlement essentially.

— cool dude 2012/08/05 02:54

11: Vlad's section pay attention nerds

12: A few thoughts on map change

I know this isn't actually the topic of this page but as more and more people here keep bringing up a map change, I’d like to add the view of someone who doesn’t participate in politics.

It is certainly understandable that PVP players would like a new map (especially with large biomes), but changing the map so frequently is a kick in the teeth for the more creative players, who invest(ed) huge amounts of time in a single (or many) big project(s).

PVP players often don’t have that much to lose in a map change. The Mongols, for example, mostly built very simple yurts that were put up in a few minutes before they moved on to another desert.

For non-PVP players on the other hand, there will be no incentive left to even start big projects. They know that they will lose it in a couple of months or not even be able to finish it. I wasn’t done with Fort Pen when the current map was put up but and I certainly am not finished with my island now.

What I really wanted to say is that the requirements for (new, or in general) maps are fundamentally different for PVP players and non-PVP players, to the point where they directly oppose each other. PVP players want a fresh start often and non-PVP players look for continuity. Multiworld might be the answer here. The huge drawback is the split of the server population, which isn’t very big to begin with at the moment.

Another thing that bothers me about frequent map changes is the “loss of history”. I like a map where you can see (and nostalgia about) past projects and/or abandoned settlements. 1.7 was awesome in that regard. I spent hours exploring the map and find other people’s homes or mines (especially the small most likely single-player ones in the middle of nowhere). 1.8 benefitted from the 1000×1000 build limit which meant most settlements were very close together, giving the map a very lived-in feeling.

I completely agree that the current map is horrible. It should have been deleted after the first week, when it became apparent that it is almost exclusively water. People hadn’t invested much time at that point. I guess as things stand currently, a new map would have more benefits than drawbacks (especially with the numerous terrain generation changes). However, if it does happen there should be some kind of indication for new players how long they can expect it to be used. Alternatively, a way to make sure it (or part of it) stays permanently should be found. The only thing I can think of would be to restrict the borders and – should the need for a fresh start arise – move the spawn past that limit. That way, people could still access their old projects without splitting the community (multiworld). The file size of the map might become a problem at some point (I don't know shit about the technical server stuff).

Also, it should be made certain beforehand that the seed of a new map doesn’t suck.

— PenOpener 2012/08/05 08:44

13: Defending libel against vlad

14

15

Settlement rules (just to make that clear):

General nation rules:

Neutral nations (we already had something similar in another proposition):

Also, there should be such an option for players to opt out of PvP individually - if they don't belong to a political nation. For the same reasons, citizens of a neutral nations shouldn't be allowed to be part of the fight club.

Taking items from public chests (seems to require some regulation, this proposition is a bit random):

Moderation: The public mod tools are fine and a public mod log is okay, too - if there is no potential for abuse.

Players should be allowed to propose moderators and to discuss these propositions - an election can go a bit too far.

By the way, I don't think that mods want to question someone else's authority by overruling decisions. This can happen accidentally if another mod didn't notice the original punishment. Anyway, this should be reduced.

Also, for me, there is no significant mod abuse. I'm still trying to limit actions other could perceive as abuse, but sometimes, they are just necessary, for example flying when repairing stuff in creative mode - if somebody even complains about that. On the contrary, nobody notices when mods work on their own projects without using mod powers (there are justified exceptions). That's how it works, so it's not that important to discuss that.

Ban appeals to a higher authority (= te3) are another problem. For some players, it seems to be the natural reaction to supposedly unfair treatment. For example, maybe I or other mods lack in authority for some of them, so I'm not sure what the reasons are and how to change that. However, I think that's just how some of the players behave.

Okay, I'm away for two weeks now, so I can't answer here. I expect a good result of the discussion because some of the posts were really worth reading. Also, I don't want to repeat some arguments others already mentioned, so I'm posting this here, trying to add other propositions.

PS: By the way, it's just too late to start a new map. We could have done that when the map was new - now, some parts of the map are quite developed and it's almost impossible to impose new limits. Changing the spawn is nice for more space and the arcology looks quite good, although larger landmasses are still rather far away from it.

— Enton 2012/08/10 06:58

— tetete 2012/08/25 00:21

I already know that bans are (usually) justified, so it's not the actual problem.

Also, the proposed nation/settlement/PvP rules (and also, rule 3 on public chests) are too complicated. I know my proposition sucks now, but maybe there is a way to improve that. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to discuss that now.

— Enton 2012/08/25 09:55

16

PVP stuff + Territories

Mod Elections

On Enton about public chests

Mod Abuse

New Map proposal

-BarabaDruze

— tetete 2012/08/25 00:27

As Grand Cartographer of this Server, just a few words

GIVE US A NEW FUCKING MAP ALREADY FOR FUCK'S SAKE
- Love Texasball