Vykoden

My group has played and enjoyed KoTH, but like many players, we noticed an unfair advantage. Whichever team captures the beacon first will likely win the game. To counter this, I recommend having two beacons (hills) that must be captured. This way, both teams earn points as long as they keep at least one beacon each, but the real contest will be to capture the second beacon ... to have two beacons simultaneously earning points. This will be more player-friendly, more balanced and also more challenging, which may also require more teamwork. Just a suggestion.

Tactful ... I didn't accuse anyone of anything; nor did I say anything that should have been taken as an insult. I expressed observations and posed a solution. Did I forget to say "please" ... or maybe I should have curtsied lower?

Uhhh ... I guess I didn't think of checking Reddit, since this is the "community forum". In the future, should we check here or there for news? It would be awful nice for a final ruling on that. And, yeah, numbers always drop off, but you never lose 100 players in three weeks. I might not talk for all players, but I had a talk with quite a few of them playing last night, and we're pretty much in agreement. When we're experiencing 15-20-second block lag, 10-block rubberbanding and greatly-delayed block placement time, I'd bet money that folks would much rather start over than keep going down this road. But, you're right. I'm sure I'm wrong. Who would ever want to trade a laggy, bogged-down gaming experience for one that runs smooth and worry-free? I'm so silly to have thought that. Thank you for correcting me. Bad Vyko, bad!

Within 3 weeks of the new rev, active population numbers dropped from close to 200 players to 50-60. More are leaving quickly because of the horrible lag. Before the new rev, up to 40 players could play without any lag. This indicates that something Nerd did between last rev and this rev is causing the lag. Therefore, EVERYTHING you did between this rev and last rev? Undo it all. If restarting the map is a result of undoing all the changes, you will be retaining your players. I know absolutely nothing about code. But, I know that the more bells and whistles you add to anything, the more chances you have of experiencing problems with it (why many programmers like Linux). So, strip Nerd PvE down, take away all those neat little ideas you thought were awesome and give your players what they want: A simple, functioning, 1.8 vanilla PvE Minecraft experience with no lag. Your players will love you for it. -Vykoden

Is it possible to close this discussion somehow now? I'm satisfied, and in my opinion, there doesn't need to be more discussion. I also don't want to add more work to the admins' current priority of getting a nice, fresh map up and running for all of us. We're all very excited, I'm sure. Thank you all for your insights and participation. -Vykoden

Hi Silver; same to you as I said to Sapphric. Just to hear you say you're working on it is nice and refreshing. As long as we know our concerns are being taken seriously and discussed seriously, behind this thread, it's reassuring. I don't feel a need to explain or express anything, as long as I know you and the rest of the staff are discussing it. That's the only reason these threads were started; not expecting immediate change but hoping to start discussions. Have a nice day, -Vyko

Thank you, Sapphric for your comprehensive response. I appreciated reading this: "If a player isn't active anymore, mayors can modreq the build for removal. We’re working on a formal policy on abandoned builds, and we'll have more details soon", although it may not end up exactly as I'd prefer. That's key, in my opinion; to hear you say you're "working on it". However a person looks at it, it's nice to know, and it's good customer service. Thanks again, -Vyko

I hadn't thought of this angle, Twilex. Thanks for that perspective.

Thank you, Silver, for that bit of insight. Perhaps a better solution or happy medium would be to just say every town can claim up to 200 square meters of undeveloped land, when they find where they want to build? This would sure go a long ways to adding some breathing room and would ensure an infringed upon area in which a build can start, in my opinion.

Hey C4 ... good to see you, old friend. Because of all the distractions in the other thread, I proposed that I make a new, more-focused thread, and Barlimore supported that idea. I don't expect special treatment as a "veteran nerdist". I simply felt the need to make the distinction in explaining that although we've "been around awhile," we have only played two months on this rev. I feel that if I hadn't made that distinction, we could be mistaken for a bunch of whining newbs. Because we're not newbs, we have a broader perspective, in my opinion. Yeah, that red is kinda harsh, isn't it? I'll edit it to make it blue. :) Thanks for your input, -Vyko

This post is meant strictly as an amicable means through which all players, mods and admins can openly and freely discuss the current rules regarding region protections on PvE. It is not the purpose of this post to start or continue arguments. However, personal experiences and opinions are encouraged. The current rule on region protections states: "Protections are only to prevent grief and other unauthorized edits. Protections are not used for "claiming land". Mods will only protect builds (houses, rail, farms, etc.) and clearly established large projects, such as cities. Requests to protect empty land or to protect a very large buffer around a structure will be denied. Land that has been significantly improved through road/plot making or terraforming can be protected at staff discretion." First let me ask/address some issues with how these statements are written: "grief or other unauthorized edits." Please give me an example of an "unauthorized edit", under this rule. "Mods will only protect..." "... and clearly established large projects, such as cities." How do we make our future city a "clearly established large project, such as cities"? "Land that has been significantly improved through road/plot making or terraforming can be protected at staff discretion." Why is this "at staff discretion"? Can't we just say that, if a city makes plots or does "significant ... terraforming", it can reasonably expect said terraformed land to be protected under a region? ​In my opinion, this is an example of a rule that is neither clear nor needed nor followed by mods and admins; especially for cities. It is flawed, in my opinion, primarily because of the word "discretion". Discretion means that there is no set rule and that each situation could be handled differently by different mods and admins. This type of discretionary rule, IRL, is the cause of many controversies and has been the source of many controversies in Nerd for the last four years. Discretion is defined as "... the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation." If all mods and admins are required to "use their discretion", rather than follow hard-and-fast rules or policies, then there are no solid rules or policies, which leaves a lot of room for interpretation, discrimination and unfair treatment. However, the rules clearly state that mods will protect "clearly established large projects, such as cities". By making a cobble fence, my community said, "This is where we want to build as a city." Is that not clearly established? Furthermore, in an always-evolving map with unset boundaries and limitless possibilities, it simply does not make sense, in my opinion, to attempt to restrict undeveloped land protections in any way. The map is not short on building space, like the old days. There are no borders. So, not being able to reserve and protect undeveloped land doesn't add up. In fact, as was noted by several communities in the other thread, it becomes an inconvenience for players in way too many ways, which were covered in the previous thread. ​I will assume that the members of my community are not the only Nerd PvE users who have had similar difficulties. Although we may not hear from them here, if there is one community with those complaints and concerns, logic dictates there is, at least, one other ... and more-than-likely far more than that, who share these experiences. If there is any doubt, I would recommend a new poll. The question should be phrased as: "Do you believe region protections should allow players to protect undeveloped land? (Yes or No)" An easy solution might be to base protections on number of players active in a build. For example, 50 square meters per person seems acceptable to me; in which case, if a town has 5 residents, said town could have 250 square meters of undeveloped land protected. In my opinion, there should also be a poll concerning allowing cities to govern themselves, including removing evicted players' structures, but I'm prepared to take it one step at a time. Let's work on this first. This is a forum, so let's talk about it. I look forward to any and all supportive or critical responses. Respectfully Submitted, -Vykoden

This post is meant strictly as an amicable means through which all players, mods and admins can openly and freely discuss the current rules regarding region protections on PvE. It is not the purpose of this post to start or continue arguments. However, personal experiences and opinions are encouraged. The current rule on region protections states: "Protections are only to prevent grief and other unauthorized edits. Protections are not used for "claiming land". Mods will only protect builds (houses, rail, farms, etc.) and clearly established large projects, such as cities. Requests to protect empty land or to protect a very large buffer around a structure will be denied. Land that has been significantly improved through road/plot making or terraforming can be protected at staff discretion." First let me ask/address some issues with how these statements are written: "grief or other unauthorized edits." Please give me an example of an "unauthorized edit", under this rule. "Mods will only protect..." "... and clearly established large projects, such as cities." How do we make our future city a "clearly established large project, such as cities"? "Land that has been significantly improved through road/plot making or terraforming can be protected at staff discretion." Why is this "at staff discretion"? Can't we just say that, if a city makes plots or does "significant ... terraforming", it can reasonably expect said terraformed land to be protected under a region? ​In my opinion, this is an example of a rule that is neither clear nor needed nor followed by mods and admins; especially for cities. It is flawed, in my opinion, primarily because of the word "discretion". Discretion means that there is no set rule and that each situation could be handled differently by different mods and admins. This type of discretionary rule, IRL, is the cause of many controversies and has been the source of many controversies in Nerd for the last four years. For example, "police discretion" is what caused the riots in Ferguson, MO. Discretion is also what killed Trayvon Martin. And, discretion was used by every Nazi SS soldier during WW2. These might seem extreme, but they are all only examples of discretionary rules. The rules clearly state that mods will protect "clearly established large projects, such as cities", but Placenta couldn't get its building area protected even after constructing a cobble fence around our desired building area. How much more of a "clearly established large project" could we have made it? By making the fence, we said, "This is where we want to build as a city." Is that not clearly established? Furthermore, in an always-evolving map with unset boundaries and limitless possibilities, it simply does not make sense, in my opinion, to attempt to restrict undeveloped land protections in any way. The map is not short on building space, like the old days. There are no borders. So, not being able to reserve and protect undeveloped land doesn't add up. In fact, as was noted by several communities in the other thread, it becomes an inconvenience for players in way too many ways. The players involved in Placenta, although Nerd veterans, have only been back on Nerd for the last 8 weeks. However, in that time, because of this rule, we have experienced the following: We could not protect our undeveloped but clearly-defined building area. We could not demolish an abandoned, unprotected derp shack. We could not prevent two strangers from building within our community; Nor can we remove what's left of their buildings, after they left our community. We could not effectively evict a non-contributing player; Nor could we remove their structure. ​I will assume that the members of Placenta are not the only Nerd PvE users who have had similar difficulties. Although we may not hear from them here, if there is one community with those complaints and concerns, logic dictates there is, at least, one other ... and more-than-likely far more than that, who share these experiences. If there is any doubt, I would recommend a new poll. The question should be phrased as: "Do you believe region protections should allow players to protect undeveloped land? (Yes or No)" An easy solution might be to base protections on number of players active in a build. For example, 50 square meters per person seems acceptable to me; in which case, if a town has 5 residents, said town could have 250 square meters of undeveloped land protected. In my opinion, there should also be a poll concerning allowing cities to govern themselves, including removing evicted players' structures, but I'm prepared to take it one step at a time. Let's work on this first. This is a forum, so let's talk about it. I look forward to any and all supportive or critical responses. Respectfully Submitted, -Vykoden

It feels like we should break this thread into two or three different, more-focused threads; just to remain focus on task. My goal would be able to talk about each issue, individually, in its own thread, so it's not so easy to get bogged down with personal feelings or feel overwhelmed by perceived negativity. Please note I don't feel negative toward anyone ... except that "Redwall" guy who tried to mess with me in the first 24 hours. This isn't a personal issue but a public one, and I hope it is taken only as that. The three primary issues I perceive are: Undeveloped region protections. Cities being responsible (and permitted) to remove unwanted builds within those protections. Removing abandoned builds. So, how does creating two different, more-concise threads sound? It might clear a lot of up. Thanks, -Vyko

Thanks, Kitty. So, exceptions are made? We haven't been able to convince any admins, head or P, that such builds deserve removal, and the craziest part of it is that none of them are protected. So, the owners of the builds didn't even care enough about their own properties to get them protected .... Of course, the land claim issue is something altogether different but equally important, if not moreso, and would allow all these issues to immediately drop away.

"Constant jabs"? " situations that have already been (or are currently being) resolved"? Please name one of either instance, because, clearly, there has been a misunderstanding.