buzzie71

Moderators
  • Content count

    584
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

387 Excellent

1 Follower

About buzzie71

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    P

Recent Profile Visitors

669 profile views
  1. Most likely away August 18-22. Strange dragons with weird appetites are apparently rare and all the rage these days.
  2. There are some things that I miss about the old CTF style of fundraiser. Enemies are unpredictable, making strategizing and maneuvering important. There was a clearer quantification of victory. Tech progression was more deterministic and familiar, and smoother. Barrier to entry (of the game type) was not (conceptually) very high, though performance was dependent on opponent preparation as well as their own preparation. The zombie apocalypse gametype replaced some of these gameplay features with its own versions: instead of smart enemies, they are now significantly more numerous. Victory is a more nebulous concept. Tech progression is different. Psychologically the barrier to entry was higher, but performance was more heavily dependent on player preparation and thus almost entirely within player control. One thing I feel hasn't changed is the thrill of playing with and cooperating with others, and in that sense the new game delivers quite well. As well as the delivery of a new challenge in which to surmount. Looking at all the different base designs in the other thread, it was fun to see what other solutions players came up with when faced with the same survival threats. The challenge was mostly what kept me trying again even after stepping out for a break partway through - and in that sense I wish the event went a bit longer so I could flesh out a more effective defense. The carnival is something else - all throughout the fundraiser it felt like the life of the party. Lots happened there, with various events and minigames and things to do, and often times generated a lot of conversation in general chat. It served as a very fun respite to the city world and kept my interest in the fundraiser even when running into difficulty in the city. The world itself was very well built, and really evokes the light-heartedness and liveliness of a real carnival or theme park, (intentionally or not) in stark contrast with the bleak city world. It was a lot of fun just standing in the heart of the carnival with other players and conversation happening all around. I'd probably still prefer CTF, but overall this fundraiser was well put together and I found it to be enjoyable. There are some things about the carnival that I feel could have been better, some of which I'm listing here: Weapon balancing in general. In the early game, even a stone/iron unenchanted sword didn't feel like a great weapon to use. The offensive advantage afforded by guns (pistol/huntsman in particular, OHKO for most zombies with headshot) felt like a huge jump compared to commonly available melee weapons (which took 4-5-ish hits with a stone sword - not too bad in a 1v1, but results in always giving up ground vs. a horde) - the progression of tech didn't feel too smooth. I felt also that rifle bullets were vastly easier to find compared to shotguns and pistols - an over-reliance on guns early on meant that (at least for me) shotgun and pistol bullets were the first to be depleted, and it's hard to put out a lot of damage with a huntsman. (Maybe game progression is meant to be narrower and less like a sandbox?) One thing I do appreciate about swords is that even with guns, they weren't completely useless - I worked out that failing to kill zombies with multiple huntsman headshots meant that using a sword would more expediently dispatch them (probably because of Projectile Protection?). It's nice to have that variety in the zombies. General balancing. In particular, it felt difficult to get a start as a solo player, though this could also be because of higher mob counts and more fragile blocks at the start. (The game is always going to be easier in a team, but I don't feel it should be nearly impossible for solo play unless the goal of gameplay is to force players together.) It also felt odd to have riding on donkeys feel more advantageous compared to being on foot - not only do they eliminate loss of hunger due to movement, they also allow the player to stay mobile even when scoped in with a huntsman rifle, which is not possible on foot, and they are never attacked by zombies - in a sense, donkeys felt somewhat OP compared to being on foot. (Again, this falls more under the shaping of game progression - makes sense if it is meant to be narrowly and clearly defined; not so much for a sandbox.) Mid-game balancing. I think the changes really made the city map more easily survivable (especially the 15-minute break times which opened up more possibilities for good base design), and I think it was a good decision to make. There were a few reasons I disagreed on principle with it, one of which (as ttsci mentioned earlier) is that the game should feel more stable rather than too dynamic. As a player, I'm not too comfortable with the realization that game conditions are always changing, especially unpredictably - it becomes more difficult to establish an optimal defense or a solution to a challenge. It also adds to the claim that the game should have been better set up before the event started, though I figure there are some issues that can't really be identified until there are 60+ players on the server all trying to play the game, so I'm sure some tweaking was unavoidable. The role of the carnival in relation to the main game. In particular, the smite 5 sword afforded by ten completed mazes felt like a pretty huge leg up in terms of melee weapons, since two hits would typically be enough to kill a zombie - which, along with guns, is far easier to manage a horde with than a stone sword. But this requires solving ten mazes in the carnival for an advantageous weapon. (This could also be because I had a donkey and a passable base defense set up by the time I acquired one, and I had a Mending book stored away earlier.) Overall, the combination of the new challenges in the city world and the things to do in the carnival made this fundraiser a fun event to play through. (I would probably still take CTF any day though :P)
  3. Two to three weeks from now I will be moving - during that time I'm expecting not to be on the servers frequently if at all, though I expect to maintain a presence on, say, Discord.
  4. @Barlimore I'd be hard-pressed to find a more practical vanilla-style distribution of portals - the current system I think is fair enough. The reason I brought up the maps in mapworld spawn was that I saw iron frames and thought they were for placing maps like in previous revs - I didn't know that that had changed due to previous grief. It's not a huge issue in my mind (I kept copies of my maps elsewhere); just thought it was odd. I think the community focus in the blog posts as it has been so far is generally pretty spot-on - there's a good mixture of builds, as well as community things auxiliary to but outside the game (eg. guides). I think there could be a stronger focus on the latter category if possible, though that partly depends on if players create that content - but things like that I think help make the community feel more alive.
  5. Iron Grinders: If approximation of vanilla is a concern, I'm admittedly not hugely in favor of the direction that iron grinders are going in - after all, iron grinders don't become that much cheaper to build in vanilla as time goes on. A lot of the cost structure feels purely like an exercise in rebalancing the game and an attempt to restrict rate of game progression, instead of an approximation of vanilla, so in those terms it feels more artificial than natural. That aside, it was a neat personal challenge and it did seem to succeed in restricting iron grinder output supply early on in the rev. I gave it a try but gave up after two T1 spawners though O.o felt I was spending too much time mining and less of it building. Nether Portals: There are more Nether portals than usual around, but I think it's a good number given how big the map is, in terms of extending access to the Nether to the entire map. in my gameplay it feels like a good alternative to elytra in terms of speed of travel, though this rev I've also been based close to portals. I still wish for the day when portals are handled closer to the vanilla style (ie. everyone can request and get their own portal), but there are a lot of compelling arguments to how impractical that could be. For now, though, the current system feels fair. The Nether: One thing I am beginning to appreciate is that it is much harder to build a good zombie pigman farm platform in the vanilla Nether, even with access to the rooftop, than it was in the custom Nether. Other than constructing the platform and killing pigmen, I spent a little time collecting quartz ore - it was refreshing to negotiate across a chasm that opened to lava. Map Generation: Relative to old PvE maps, this map was gigantic. Even flights between adjacent portal towns felt like long-distance flying due to the time it took to glide from one to the other. Travel felt more expensive. Exotic terrain and strange ruins are always a welcome sight, even if the map shows imperfections in other ways. It was fun to see them on the map; they looked new and different without seeming too alien to the Minecraft landscape. Ore distributions: This rev I didn't lay rails or maintain a horse, and I switched off to leather and wood equipment from gold the previous rev, so the relative shortage of gold didn't feel that limiting for me actually (plus getting some gold from killing pigmen). The wider spread in ore distribution makes it possible to see ores in caves or abandoned mine shafts far away from 0-11, which is fun to come across too. That said, it felt annoying to search for diamond from branch mining (mainly for the iron grinder), and harder still for emerald - but given the randomness of branch mining, maybe that is the wrong attitude to approach it. MapWorld: The main feedback I'd offer for the mapworld this rev is the ability to place maps in the item frames in the scale model at spawn. Other than that, I quite liked the setup of the mapworld spawn this time around. Miscellaneous: I like the way the blog posts are structured now - the emphasis on updating the community as well as showcasing it fosters a stronger community feel and adds that additional layer of experience to playing on the server. There isn't much I'd change about them. Spawn: Main thing for spawn this rev is that it lags my client a bit when it first renders ._. but otherwise I do like it. Events: I like the Adventurer's Guild - it's good to have quests available whenever players are ready, as well as a central launch point for them. I think it's also good that those are offered along with events that happen at a predetermined time. Also, in terms of seasonal events - I don't think they necessarily need to coincide with or be themed around real world holidays, as long as they are short and announced ahead of time. Closing Thoughts: I don't have much else I want to build for the second half - when I planned for this rev I intentionally went small, thinking I wouldn't spend that much time playing on P this rev. Then I finish my tower in a month, building in my area has more or less ceased, and I find that I have a lot of time on my hands. Probably a good thing, actually. Amazing work on the map this time around; it's been a fun map to explore.
  6. The impression I got is that Watson was allowed/useful for non-staff primarily for its highlighting - in one of my old spleef videos I explicitly had the word "ready" highlighted from when I was reffing a game. I don't know if the auto-query-region-info-on-identification-with-wood-sword also worked for non-staff (it did for me when I was staff). That being said, I haven't used Watson since the days when only third party versions were available, so I'm not too sure what the state of the mod is now.
  7. Going to be out of town from the 18th to the 21st. Expecting to still be on the subreddit and forums and maybe discord, but not in-game.
  8. I would like to point out that I am neither great nor high (in any sense of the second word). But it's a fair request - I've removed mine.
  9. Just got back to handle this in more depth. Like I said, the grief in question from about 5 days ago is minor - a few bookshelves, broken glass, and a lamp. The previous warning was from about a month ago. A refresher on the rules for your daughter may be good - other than that I have unbanned the account. She is welcome to return to the server at any time. (EDIT: Account is actually unbanned now >< meant to do it sooner) More details:
  10. I have a final tomorrow morning so I'll need to get back to you in detail after that (sorry ._.) - but the ban was for some minor grief found after a previous warning for minor grief. Normally the grief involved would simply warrant a warning, but in this case a ban was issued because it was found after the last warning was made.
  11. So the wifi capabilities of my laptop I use for gaming suddenly gave out and I can't bypass the issue with wired. I can still connect to Minecraft fine on a less powerful laptop, but am not really intending to doing that frequently, especially when I'm busy IRL...which is what it looks like might happen for the next month or so. As a result I'll appear sparse in-game until the issue is fixed or a workaround is found. I'm still intending to come back and host nerd Jeopardy if and when it happens, and I'll still be monitoring Reddit and the forums and will be in contact with staff in case I need to be reached.
  12. Random thoughts from many days ago: I like the old format of a persistent (ie. no or infrequent map resets) main event spanning a few days with a lot of side events happening off-dimension (spleef, etc.) that rewarded items/gear for the participants' teams. Biggest issue with the side events was the manpower to maintain or ref the events, which, even though I think the periodic side-event start announcements might add to the liveliness of the fundraiser, it feels a bit impractical to organize - automation is great in this regard but (as a random, possibly impractical thought) it also deprives the staff an opportunity to interact with players. I'm partial to the PvP side of the fundraiser events myself, but it would be interesting to see what other kinds of (potentially non-PvP) events we could host that would be just as popular. I'm not sure what the logic was behind the CTF in previous years when the first such event was hosted, but back in those times I considered it a great way of unifying gameplay on the three servers (C/P/S); with the lack of a PvP server the case for a PvP-oriented event is a little more lacking now, in terms of uniting the community alone (whether it is popular with the players nonetheless is a question I don't know the answer to). I think it would be more fitting (if the fundraiser is meant to be unifying) for the main event to have players to stay together like in past CTFs, in the sense that the game is designed so that they will coordinate/play with their own team and eventually(?) meet many of the other players not on their team (presumably through combat), not just scattering off. (Mob defense, while not really PvP-oriented and heavily skewed towards PvE, would fit the objective of keeping players closer together - but in the interest of persistence, maybe tune the strength of the invading mobs so that it is never possible for the player side to suffer enough losses to the point that a new start is required to continue meaningful gameplay.) It's been mentioned in the last CTF's fundraiser feedback to make playing on the yellow team more meaningful and interactive in the game (ie. not just a group of players removed from the gameplay) - if balanced well it might make for a novel feature of the fundraiser.
  13. A few days of a road trip and consequent packing means I'll be absent from the game. EDIT: Not anymore.
  14. To me it's less about the value of gold in the economy or how much can be obtained from smelting equipment, and more the value(?) of the path to obtain (not-mined) gold. I don't really feel the numbers proposed are too high in a balance sense (you've proven sufficiently that the most gain goes to zombie pigmen hunters and is still rather modest, which would indeed still promote it as a method of obtaining gold). I feel that building a grinder or fighting pigmen both require more preparation, effort, and/or problem-solving to engineer a setup (or just fight well enough) that gold can be extracted from safely. Smelting equipment for the same resource is, comparatively, easier (thus why I said figuratively cheaper), but you're right that with the proposed numbers, it would be rather time-consuming and difficult to extract a good amount of gold from a grinder setup other than killing zombie pigmen. Like I said, as someone who has been grinding pigmen since near the start of the rev (even before assembling a full set of Prot armor) this was the more personal reason - my pride was probably showing here and I'll get over it. To reiterate on the second point - I agree that it would be difficult to change gameplay drastically from smelting gold equipment, but the path to iron ingots from smelting iron equipment to me feels weird when juxtaposed with the iron golem spawner distribution (I am projecting that smelting iron equipment would be lucrative enough as an alternative to mining...gold potentially, but since it is possible to feasibly obtain it by means other than mining, like killing zombie pigmen, it doesn't feel weird). The goal of the iron spawner distributions was stated publicly to be to lengthen the tech tree (presumably by restricting the supply of iron). Being able to smelt villager products into iron, assuming there is a well-established support base to mass-produce iron this way, would allow for an inflation of the iron supply and an alternative feasible method of obtaining iron, undermining that goal. I'm assuming (correctly? wrongly?) that such a setup to smelt iron equipment from villagers easily could be made possible eventually during the rev, if not now. As a player who seeks to maximize resource gain per unit time and didn't like the spawner distribution this rev, I would gladly embrace that change - but I guess I see this more as a philosophy question outside the scope of this plugin, and not really directed at it (sorry if it seemed that way) - what is the intended dynamic of iron in this rev? Is the goal to eliminate free-flowing iron (aside from mining) from the game? Delay it for towards the end of the rev? Levy an additional resource cost on iron farming on top of time? Eliminate some of the AFK component of iron farming? (I'm not intending to knock on any of those as bad answers, just seeking something that is consistent. I know this is starting to move beyond the scope of this thread and might be irrelevant in this one.)
  15. At risk of sounding like a party pooper, I am not enthusiastic about the addition. To keep my post within the bounds specified, there are two reasons: the more personal reason is that as someone who has been grinding pigmen for gold since the beginning of the rev, the ability to obtain enough gold through other means (ie. smelting equipment, not fighting pigmen or constructing a grinder or mining) feels like a devaluing of the other (especially non-mining) methods ("if I need some gold ingots, why brave the Nether or go mining if I can smelt some junk I have from the first few nights or a grinder?" - though a grinder or a platform or a lightly altered Hell biome area in the area would demonstrably be useful for more industrial applications, eg. powered rails for an intercity rail line; see the 20% additional gold from pigmen killing that totemo brought up, which I was able to match on my own testing). I don't think gold grinder designs have really been limited throughout the revs for this to be an equal offset, though it can be argued that the pervasiveness of Plains biome in the current custom nether relative to Hell is a limitation. Certainly, going off the number of swords I've tossed into lava because I was losing inventory space, the thought of being able to obtain extra gold in the same time I spend killing pigmen is always welcome - but it feels to me a bit cheap to get gold by smelting junk, both literally and figuratively, and the benefits from it are too high compared to the problem being addressed (getting rid of junk items sitting in chests - imo the existing solutions to that are enough). The second reason is an observation of mismatch between stated goals of the server and the possibilities smelting (iron) equipment will open up. I'm probably with most of the players who weighed in in the previous thread (https://nerd.nu/forums/topic/4357-i-would-highly-recommend-adding-4-golem-spawners-in-the-very-near-future/) opposing the distribution of iron spawners this rev, but having gameplay features that both makes resource acquisition harder and easier feels weird. Being able to smelt equipment opens the possibility of players with access to a solid support base of crops, fuel, and villagers (not unreasonable assumptions, either now or later in the rev) to farm iron by buying iron helmets and smelting them down into ingots, which in my opinion defeats the purpose of limiting iron spawner distribution. It's not necessarily proof of bad game balance (it could also be proof that players who engineer that setup are masters at the game), but it feels strange that iron grinding would be nerfed by spawners but made possible through equipment smelting.