Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

64 Good

About zifnab06

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

540 profile views
  1. Just a few thoughts. I think the policy in place (banned players caught on alts should be permabanned) should be followed, because its a policy. It should change however. Maybe something like doubling the original ban length for ban evasion? (IE: You were banned for 3 months. Its now 6)
  2. I'm honestly not sure here - when we attempted it on a different server the plan was to double (or triple, or 4x, or whatever you want) non-spawner mob spawns, add a ton of above ground ores (including diamonds), and add custom spawners only in the wilderness. You could also probably add portals in the PvP zones only if you wanted.
  3. One thing I forgot - and I'm too lazy to edit the post. There would need to be a way to distinguish players who are flagged for PvP and those who are not. Stealing an idea from the CTF maps - players would need a particle effect if they're flagged for PvP. CTF shows flag holders with fire - the same idea could be applied to players who's state is either ON or COOLDOWN.
  4. Hello, PvE has been thriving and S has been dying for as long as I can remember. With every revision, S gets closer to PvE rules. Proposal: Merge the two servers. My thoughts on how this would work is with a Runescape style "Wilderness" area with a Warcraft style PvP cooldown. A custom plugin would need to be implemented (and I realize the tech team is way too busy already - I suggest this comes from the community. I'm more than happy to help, and actually have a fair bit of this code already finished for a long dead project). I also realize Bukkit is a dead project, so it would probably be best to wait until an alternative is found. The wilderness: the outer 1000 blocks of the map would be a PvP zone. PvP is automatically enabled for every player once they enter this zone. The PvP flag is a ternary variable - it has three states. "ON", "OFF" and "COOLDOWN". Players with the flag set OFF cannot be attacked by other players. Players with the flag set ON or COOLDOWN can attack other players with the flag ON or COOLDOWN. If the flag is in COOLDOWN and a PvP action is performed, the cooldown is reset. (This would be any form of attack - either you attacking another player who is attackable, or them attacking you) Once the cooldown timer reaches 0, player goes to OFF flag state. How to change:Changed to "ON" by either entering the wilderness or typing /pvpon Changed to "COOLDOWN" by either leaving the wilderness or typing /pvpoff Changed to "OFF" once the cooldown timer expires. Cooldown timer is reset any time a PvP action is performed. I'm purposefully leaving the time out here - would be configurable for balance issues. How it functions:Players who are flagged for PvP can fight each other - anywhere. Players who are not flagged for PvP cannot PvP with other players for any reason (excluding arena zones), even if the player they are attacking is flagged for PvP. State changes:"ON" -> "COOLDOWN" (Leave the wilderness, type /pvpoff, or disconnect) "OFF" -> "ON" (Enter the wilderness or type /pvpon) "COOLDOWN" -> "OFF" (Cooldown timer expires after X minutes of no PVP actions) Thoughts? Suggestions? Thanks!
  5. I have an additional thought reguarding this that hasn't been brought up, and its been something thats always kind of scared me. I have two accounts. For a time, I'd log on both about equally (zifnab06 and therealzifnab). Lets say I was banned for something trivial, such as 'not replanting crops' (not that this has happened in the past, but its always been a complaint of mine, but thats another story). A hypothetical situation: I play on 'zifnab06' for a while. I then log in with 'therealzifnab' for a while, as that account is on the other side of the map and I want to work on somethign else. During that time 'zifnab06' is banned for something (a moderator thought I was griefing, or someone just got too ban-happy over something, which happens). I have no way of knowing, and my alt is permanantly banned because I'm evading. I think Dumbo's idea would work better here than the current ruleset, which states therealzifnab is permanantly banned for evading, even though I had no way of knowing my main account was banned during that time. Another hypothetical: A player has an alt they use to sit at a farm. Said player is then banned on their main account for something, but the alt remains logged in during the time. Does this mean that the alt is permanantly banned? These are just some edge cases that came to mind. I realize the repeated offenders (I was banned for massive griefing, then continually logged into other accounts to bypass the ban) are in another category all together. However there are some cases where its not fair to ban the alt permanantly. Another thing to mention: people change. A year ago, the heads were stating that certain people had permanant bans, and would never be welcome here again. And yet, a year later, here they are being productive members of the community. Permanant bans aren't actually permanant in a community that has been around as long as nerd - if someone was permmabanned 4 years ago, and they appealed, more than likely the admin/moderation team would realize they are more mature and have changed. Sorry for rambling, just my thoughts.
  6. I would be in favor of a moderator and player vote (two seperate threads, two seperate outcomes). If a moderator is voted 'yes' by the staff, but 'no' by the players, there might be another issue at play.
  7. I haven't been active as of late - but I was just linked this post. Thanks for all you've done, you'll be missed!
  8. For part one, it is a really quick modreq for staff to complete. However, especially on S, I know I've been stuck waiting for a few hours before to get water flowed. You are correct on part two. I've made modreqs and have been told that it can't be done in the past. (Its quite easy: get a flowing block added outside the dispenser, and the dispenser will flow from then on)
  9. This is just a thought, however: Only allow region owners to place flowing water. Require the player to be an owner on at least one of the regions they're placing water in. That way, town owners can place water, and people who have subregions within towns can place water in their subregion. (On a related note: I'm on the tech team of the server who Glacier was written for. We're more than willing to accept pullrequests and feature requests. This might even be something I'm interested in adding.)
  10. Something that might be worth looking into is a plugin such as Glacier (https://github.com/JunctionAt/Glacier). Glacier allows players to place flowing water inside of regions that they can build inside of. Water will not flow outside of the region, or flow at all in areas that aren't in a region. It also has a command to stop water from flowing entirely, so things such as mob elevators are still easily possible. Excluding that, it works just like SafeBuckets. Just a thought.
  11. As a mayor of a fairly decent sized town last rev, having the ability to see who built something would have came in incredibly useful. I probably did more modreqs to see who owned something than I did for water flow/grief/etc. For Rev12, I've already had to do two (for derp 'land claim' builds), then mailed the owners to see if we could expand over their build. In both cases, the owner of the build stated to remove it, as they had decided to build elsewhere.
  12. Just a suggestion - let each town decide on a nether rail design, like the nether roads. (Ninja'd - preferably with the town providing materials if they are hard to find items)
  13. What happened to Dr. Sign? And will he make a reappearance? ALSO WHY ARE YOU RED? WHAT WAS WRONG WITH YELLOW?
  14. And, yours successfully deals with hats. I am happy. Thanks! An ewok, you say?
  15. +1, I like the idea. Edit'd: I'd relish in the act of destroying someone's base, knowing it would roll back.
  • Create New...