sbrandwoo

A crazy idea: you start with a spawn at (0, 0), with boundaries of (-2000, -2000) to (2000, 2000). After three months you move the spawn to (0, 4000), with new boundaries stretching from (-2000, -2000) to (2000, 6000). And then repeat, moving the spawn point and moving the boundaries. So every 3 months you'll get a massive chunk of new terrain, new players will spawn right in the middle of it, but the older cities and structures will always be there, sitting casually to one side, waiting to be explored.. Too crazy?

"larger than boarder" doesn't make any sense to me. Do you mean "larger than border", as in you'll generate more terrain than we can use?

Bans aside, I think P has the right amount of players. Given tick rates and chat noise, I can't imagine having any more would be a good thing at all. And people are still managing to build a lot of awesome stuff. Also to be considered is the amazingly low level of griefing on the server - I'm very happy with how the admins and mods look after the server and wouldn't want to change anything that would comprimise that.

As a side note, can you explain the state of S_W's changes in Argoth? They were gone, and then they returned.. It would be nice to know what's happening so we know what we need to rebuild. Steve

I think it makes sense that the logic of "there are less sheep, you get more wool" could be spread to "there are less endermen, you get more XP". Personally I don't like the grinding, I want to build things as a community, without the ultimate freedom of creative, so the end grinder is purely a means to an end. I don't want to be stuck in a queue because a few other individuals have 50% of spawns for themselves, nor do I want to be running between grinders to find where there are the fewest people. So I would vote for 1 end grinder, and whatever XP plumping that needs to be done to make the server fun to play. Steve