buzzie71

Moderators
  • Content count

    575
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

374 Excellent

1 Follower

About buzzie71

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    P

Recent Profile Visitors

608 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. A few days of a road trip and consequent packing means I'll be absent from the game. EDIT: Not anymore.
  9. 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.)
  10. 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.
  11. For custom trees in particular, part of the dilemma to me is down to the difficulty of rebuilding custom trees without a schematic of the original or a close copy on the map - it is relatively easy to infer where missing blocks go (at least aesthetically if not exactly) if only a few blocks were taken out of a tree; this gets harder the less of the original tree there is to work with (though arguably the ability to make logs with bark on all sides solves the unobtainable blocks issue). Holes and beaches are comparatively easier to restore. Otherwise I thought it straightforward that natural terrain was otherwise not eligible for protections on the grounds that nothing is built or modified there to warrant it; claiming unaltered land that wouldn't otherwise fall in a build protection to be part of a build was, to me, equivalent to claiming land with protections, which under current policy is illegal. I sympathize with the desire to prevent alteration of nearby terrain and its features (I've handled a few modreqs like that even since way back then), but I'm a bit hesitant about using protections to prevent taking down of trees and other things though, especially if the requirements for it are nebulous, partly due to the latitude of interpretation and partly due to mismatches in player and staff perception of the rule (and maybe attempts to get nearby terrain protected by minimal effort modifications of a build to make that possible...would depend on what the final policy looks like). Undoubtedly it would also require a change to the stated purpose of protections, which is currently to protect builds, not land. Certainly, at least in the vicinity, it might be feasible to protect with larger buffers on the grounds that anyone who builds in the protected area would be too close to the protected build to be legal without builder's consent. (I was going to say that it would defeat the purpose of "do not build up against another protection without consent", but on looking at the rules page, the closest I found was "do not build very close to other players without their permission." It would still be consistent with that, just that allowable proximity to other builds without permission would then be enforced by protection rather than relying on player discretion - might save on land disputes but might also feel like too much staff intervention and/or implicate staff in case the protection is perceived to be unfair?) That being said though, I am not sure if an unquestionably objective method exists to achieve the same goal.
  12. Disclaimer: I'm not an avid miner. In recent revs I've mainly gone mining to look for diamonds or dirt or gravel or whatever else I need that is down there. Iron is not usually on my need-to-mine list; I've preferred grinders partly because of the speed and partly because AFK-ing presents an opportunity to do other things in parallel to acquiring iron. To try to respond to the OP and stick to the topic of iron spawners only - what sticks out to me about the iron golem spawners is more philosophical (ie. I disagree with the game philosophy that it represents). In vanilla mechanics, given time and resources (alternatively, if resources are assumed to be abundant, patience), anyone can build an iron grinder almost anywhere (eg. not underground or underwater unless sunlight were allowed to filter in) and at any rate (subject to render distance as a practical cap on the number of pods that can be built, and thus the rate the grinder can output iron). This was approximated in the following two revs when golem production by villagers was disabled, replacing the effort in constructing pods and moving/breeding villagers to populate them with effort in amassing other resources to trade for (similar) local automatic iron production. This rev, automatic iron production only takes place in certain areas of the map at a certain fixed rate - arguably, under vanilla or previous rev mechanics, with enough time and resources it is possible to build a grinder somewhere else that is more efficient (maybe not extremely quickly, but quickly enough). To me, this represents a spirit contrary to "if you want a grinder that is closer/efficient/yours/other metric of 'better', just build it," which was the (implied?) spirit in all previous revs ever since iron grinders were possible to make - my guess is that most players who frequent grinders for one reason or another are most sensitive to this change. As someone who frequented grinders myself, this felt like a step backwards from previous spirit in a sense (I would argue even from vanilla, which in my opinion is the choice to build a grinder for iron if desired, not just to only go mining). In that sense I would prefer a return to trading effort for local auto iron generation (there's a pretty clear tech reason for not allowing vanilla iron grinders). The cost of the replacement system might be problematic (too easy?) - but this is also a server where a wide range of player skills and coordination are represented in the playerbase. I wouldn't be surprised if some found the cost to be too easy, but I don't think the cost shouldn't be too out of reach of a free agent, even if they are not capable of acquiring the same efficiency of grinder as larger groups. I disagree that this is a flawed system because it favors the towns or well-established, at least more so than usual. Towns will always have an edge over free agents when it comes to locating things in unexplored territory in the early rev, owing to the greater numbers and thus a greater area searched per unit time (assuming equally effective loadouts, which I am guessing is not too unreasonable in the first few days). Once iron golem spawners are located, though, since they have identical spawn rates, an independent maintaining/using a grinder can easily leverage it to their own benefit as well as any town with one (possibly better than, on the assumption that town demand for iron is higher than the independent's). In the sense of using the grinder, at least in this point of the rev, I think the playing field is actually pretty flat among grinder maintainers (I agree that, depending on how the output is allocated, the playing field for grinder maintainers and visitors can be skewed in favor of the former, though I have yet to see an example of this on P). Certainly it can be argued that the town advantage of numbers will be present in the server events that reward a spawner, though I would submit that the size of this advantage depends on the kind of event, who in town is interested in it, etc. Experience with Minecraft mechanics and a good resource support base I think present a greater advantage than town status. Note also that I'm mainly discussing this only in the context of automatic iron production and gameplay philosophy, and doesn't take into account the iron that can be found from mining or the practical consequences of finite spawners. From personal experience I've felt like I hit iron at a faster rate underground in the short stretch between my place and Haven (~600 blocks). If iron ore is plumped, then it might be possible to still acquire as much iron as previously, except more will need to be sourced from mining; it's simply too early to tell what (quantifiable) effect that might have on gameplay beyond the obvious additional effort required to acquire the iron and initial reactions of reduced grinding capability. Depending on the number of additional spawners distributed through events and the demand for them, there might be a point on P where everyone who wants one has one (or at the very least is located close enough to one), which would mostly lay to rest the worries of auto iron generation concentrated in the hands of a few - again, too early to tell. Sorry if some of this didn't make sense - spent a while writing this and it ended up being a brain dump more than coherent.
  13. It's been about five days and a FFS Friday since the thread opened, and I realized partway through editing my local copy of the config that I didn't have everything in the live version - so I've submitted a request to redwall for reordering the kit hotbars for Division and Artifact (changes not live yet, but will be when redwall gets around to it). At time of writing the poll and comments show somewhat divided opinion on removing the colored blocks (poll: 3-2 against) and clear support (poll: 5-0 for, plus Tharine's comment) on changing the hotbar gear ordering to the first option. To that end: 1. Hotbar order is intended to be rearranged to [sword | bow | - | B | B | - | debuff potion (Division only) | buff potion | food] (B denotes the colored blocks). 2. Colored blocks are intended to be moved from the ends of the hotbar to occupy the otherwise empty spaces near the middle. If, after the changes are live, you find other suboptimal aspects of this new kit arrangement, let me know - further adjustments may be explored then. Thanks everyone for responding - hope this makes the maps more enjoyable!
  14. After talking with some of you on Minigames about Division/Artifact, I've noticed enough requests that the sword should be moved to the leftmost slot to give hotbar rearrangement for those maps some thought. I'll be honest - I consider weapons in the middle of the hotbar to be the most optimal arrangement for my own PvP (I can't fight well with the sword on the left), which is why the player kit is arranged the way it is. However, for other maps in the rotations, the weapons are placed on the leftmost end of the hotbar, and I get the impression that most players are accustomed to that arrangement instead. So to gauge opinions informally, I've opened this poll to see what you think the hotbars on Division/Artifact should look like (as well as to ask if the colored blocks are useful). Please take a moment to weigh in - and feel free to suggest another arrangement in the comments if you don't believe the ones listed are great. I won't guarantee any sort of action based on the poll results or thread comments, but if there seems to be a clear consensus in the poll results and/or the comments I can certainly look into submitting an edited config to redwall for incorporation.
  15. I agree with Barlimore that it would work well as a monthly news digest - but I think that should maybe be done as a forum post instead (announcements subforum? with a persistent link somewhere on the subreddit), and have sticky slots on the subreddit used and cycled for individual announcements. The rapid sticky cycling would keep the front page active - a monthly post would necessarily be sitting where it is for a month, in which time news of early events announced there can become outdated for most of the time the post is up, and I think that could be put somewhere else while subreddit stickies are occupied by posts that are more relevant in real time. (Unless there is a fear that there are so many events happening in a short span of time that not all of them will be stickied long enough for visibility, in which case, something like what was done for October would also work nicely.) We also have a subreddit header that we could leverage as another de facto sticky, though one that is less flashy or visible than the two we are afforded on the subreddit. I would suggest placing a link to a recurring monthly post there as an unobtrusive persistent link - but the counter-argument that it is not as visible as a sticky on the subreddit is could be made there.