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.

Silver: With all due respect, you do realize that this entire thread is about "suggestions for rule changes", right? We all know the rules. We're voicing our opinions in attempt to discuss them, productively, with you, the admins, in hope that the discussion leads to change. We use examples to benefit you and other members/players; not to continue a rant. Other players I don't even know have agreed with me in this thread. As you can see in this thread, we have yet to hear from any non-mod or non-admin, who likes the region protections as they are currently. We're trying to be part of the community by discussing the current rules and asking for changes to be made in the next revision. By reiterating the rules, it appears that you feel like all of this is pointless banter, and it sounds like an "Us vs. Them" defensive position, which is unwarranted. If you'd like to see this thread stop, all you need to say is, "We have read all the players' comments in this thread and are discussing making appropriate changes in the next rev." And, we'd be very thankful for hearing/reading it. As long as none of you say that, we, the non-admins and non-mods, will continue sharing examples and opinions, and like you just said, that's what this forum is for, right? -V

Hi rob. I was wondering if Solace ran into similar issues. That place must have been a nightmare to protect. We currently have one resident, who started building a "tree house" two months ago. He started it by placing 30-or-so dark oak logs on a large piece of unprotected land. After one month, although he was in Minecraft and Mumble often, he made no progress. So, we removed him from all protections and permissions, and I took his unfinished project down .... and he reported me for griefing ... IN MY OWN TOWN. The Padmin in charge asked that I message him and otherwise attempt to communicate with him. I did this but to no avail. Excuses, excuses, excuses ... and promises. "I'll finish in the next few days." "I'll finish it this weekend." "I can't do it now, but I will soon." The Padmin said they would try to talk to the player about his build, but we haven't been informed of the results of any conversations. Meanwhile, he continues to be in Mumble and Minecraft every day and makes no progress on his build. Several days ago, I did a modreq asking if we could finally remove the structure due to inactivity and false promises. Per the Padmin's suggestion, I asked that the modreq "be elevated" to an admin, and I've not heard anything since. His "structure" was such an eyesore for the rest of the community that we built a wall around it. In response, he posted signs on the wall, laughing at us .... IN OUR OWN TOWN. The debate about this former resident's clump of logs has gone on for two months. I don't understand how this can be seen as efficient or effective. Our point is simple: If cities had "destiny protections", as rob_r said in his post, this would never have been an issue, mods and admins wouldn't be required to spend time on it, and townspeople would be able to enjoy the game more. However, because we have no control over what is done with the land around our protected buildings, and because we can't destroy blocks that "we" didn't place, staff has to work harder .... until they choose to ignore us and the problem, which is equally frustrating. So, I have a few questions. In the future, we will be building lots of structures very quickly to avoid this issue. Under the current policy, we will need to make numerous modreqs for protections every day; to protect absolutely everything we build, including temporary structures... Will the mods and admins treat us like any other player and do the modreqs, or are we now villainized because of this thread? How long should we allow a modreq to go undone before we elevate it to an admin? How long should we allow an elevated modreq to go unattended before we contact a head admin? -V

The answer to your question is found in the same post, one paragraph up from where you started quoting. Currently, we are a community of 20 active players. In past Nerd maps, we have attracted up to 120 residents to our towns on Nerd PvE. Our typical starting area is 200x200 and easily grows to 500x500 within two months.

Hi Cyotie. I apologize for not remembering the last time we met. As you know, we've met so many over the years. If we haven't spent significant time playing together, my memory gets hazy. Please don't take that personally, because, if you didn't already know, I'm rather old when compared to many other players (LOL). First, thank you for your comprehensive response from the Head Admin community. What confuses me is the mixed opinions and policies among the staff. In your comment, you added "(and to my knowledge, this is the way it is supposed to be)". However, this is not the way it works, and your statement is in direct conflict with what is being done and said on the P server. I'm sure you can imagine everyone's confusion because of this. And, mrstone isn't an active player, according to the logs, as gsand mentioned in his reply. But, the removal of temporary and unfinished structures is secondary to the reservation or protection of undeveloped land. If you know the communities I represent, then you know the level of builds we enjoy creating ... and the number of players old and new we attract to those builds and the server. While marking a plot off with signs, as previously suggested, might deter most players from building within our desired area, no one can guarantee that it will deter all. And, once another player does build within our preferred region, under the current policy, apparently, it won't be removed, because we "didn't place the blocks". Our community (comprised of BACON, New Castle, Cobble and Bedrock residents), with such long-standing positive ties to Minecraft and Nerd shouldn't be forced to deal with these types of inconsistencies that only cause drama, and we shouldn't be required to plan our town without an explicit guarantee that our preferred region won't be infringed upon before we can develop it. Making region reservations and undeveloped land protections an option would relieve all of that stress, in admins, mods and players while decreasing drama and increasing user satisfaction. Keeping the current policies (or at least the current position on P policies) thus doesn't make sense, as doing so will only make more drama, require more modreqs, and make city builders, like us, more vigilant, which means less fun. Why don't we just go to another server? Well, as you know, we've done that, and they were good times. But, only on Nerd did our communities expand and attract new players and new residents, and that's what we like. Because we're primarily a social group, we enjoy building cities that "wow" other players and make them want to be a part of our community. Although we have been successful in that venture on other servers, they were never as fun or as smooth as Nerd. We understand this isn't a democracy. We respect the admins' power. None of this is intended as a personal attack on anyone. If we didn't like you, we wouldn't be here, and we wouldn't bother to participate in these forums. However, we are hoping that your admin team doesn't just let these issues and this post drop by the wayside. In the past, that's what would have happened; when mods and admins don't participate in discussions like these, it's an intentional act meant to make the topic "die". We're hoping more of you (mods and admins) are objective and mature enough to engage in end-result-oriented discussion on these issues so that we all can better-enjoy our Nerd experience. Posts like yours, Cyotie, give us hope. However, posts that merely recite the rules or argue with us or invalidate us makes us fear that Nerd Adminship hasn't changed. We are not arguing or attacking your team. We are requesting and suggesting a change in policy that we feel will better everyone's Nerd Minecraft experience, and those suggestions come from our experience both past and present. In my opinion, it would be foolish for admins and mods not to follow this discussion, productively participate and be open to learning from it. As always, thank you for your consideration. I look forward to continued discussion and even the possibility of amicable change. -Vyko

Thanks, Barlimore. I'd like to encourage more admin participation in this thread. Only through that participation will Nerd once again be the community for which we all hope. Clearly we have various players in agreement on my observations. Not all of us know each other or play together. Instead of admins insisting that their way is the right way, we need our admins to admit that their way might not be the best way, as indicated in this post. If you're an admin, and in IRL, you work in a customer-oriented field, think of it this way: You have a lot of unhappy customers voicing their opinions. What you do with those opinions will decide your future success and your customers' future enjoyment of your product ... and repeat business. These issues should be handled no differently.

Avada: People make mistakes. But, the fact that people make mistakes SHOULD NEVER make us feel like their entire position is wrong. Example: In spite of his indiscretions in the Oral Office, Bill Clinton has been revered as one of the greatest presidents in the history of the U.S. If you're one to allow one mistake to prevent you from taking anything anyone says seriously, you're doomed to a very lonely life. Get off your high horse and look at the meaning behind the money. Involvement is an investment, and Darth has been involved far longer than most who have participated in this post. That, alone, gives him the authority to which we all should listen.

Just a quick note to sum up. "You" say the rules are in place to protect players and reduce workload. However, part of protecting the players is to give them an enjoyable experience. Every single non-admin and non-moderator, who has commented on my original issue (not the troll banter) has spoken out in support of my original post (8 players). No non-admins or non-mods have argued against the content in my original post. If that means nothing to you, the admins, then I guess there's nothing more to discuss. I will never say "I told you so," because I already have. The fact that a max of 20 players are on P at any given time, when the pop cap is 200+ should be a strong indicator of our level of dissatisfaction. Want more players? Change. It's that simple. Thank you for your consideration. -V

Thanks for your comments jllm and kitty. Hopefully one of the admins sees why this policy is so ridiculous and in what way they're creating so much more work for themselves. If land protections were allowed: No one would ask for as many child regions. No one would need to ask for removal of abandoned buildings. No one would need to worry about griefing. No modreqs would be done to report and roll back griefing. Flowing water placement by property owners would be allowed, because flowing water cannot grief a protected property, because it cannot be placed in a protected region. Mods wouldn't need to place flowing water. Cities could govern themselves and remove structures as needed. (and more) By not allowing undeveloped land protections, you, the admins and mods, are making more work for yourselves. Why you would want that to continue makes no sense.

I have made clear, very rational arguments for my position. The Nerd admins who have responded have not responded clearly or rationally but have used what is called "circular reasoning" in support of their positions; e.g. "It's this way, because it is." There is no reasoning with someone who uses that type of flawed logic. Aside from a brief exchange with a staff member, who was apparently a troll, which, apparently, is acceptable to you, I have been respectful, polite, rational and well-detailed with good supporting examples, questions and suggestions for the future. Yet, you, the admins, continue to argue with me; just as I have also predicted in previous posts. More than anything, I feel sorry for you, because you are controlling a public multiplayer server with your egos; not with your minds. Your egos are what stands between Nerd's current state and where it wants to be. Don't worry. You're not alone. Most small business owners are guilty of exactly the same methodology. Of course, most small businesses fail, but to you, that will be beside the point, because your ego makes you believe you're doing everything right. Have fun with my modreqs, -Vyko

Sapphric, with all due respect, by posting this super long, detailed defense of Nerd policies, you have proven all my points. "You can always elevate the issue to an admin ... " Done that ... with three admins. It did no good. Listen to yourself. Essentially, you're saying, "If you want this, do a modreq. If the modreq doesn't satisfy your needs, elevate it with an admin." If Nerd was operated like it was three years ago, those steps wouldn't be required, which, literally means "You're working too hard." There was no guise. Personally, I don't care how much you guys want to work for no pay. My goal was to appeal to your presumed common sense, which should dictate "Why would I want to require all these things and enforce them without reimbursement for my troubles?" Simplify the rules, give players what they want, and you will automatically work less. Since you're not making a dime on any of this, that should be appealing to you. The fact that it does not appeal to you is completely irrational and baffling. You're actually spending time arguing about the fact that you're working for no pay, and you have no desire to reduce the amount of work you need to do for no pay. LOL. In what world does this make any sense whatsoever?