Guest
-
Posts
152 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Guest
-
-
Also, I forgot to mention my thoughts on 8:
Can we somehow make it so mobs cannot be spawned in a region that isn't owned by the person who spawns them in? Oddly enough, the people who are spawning animals everywhere tend to do it in regions other than their own, and it's kind of annoying since the animals are impossible to remove if you aren't their owner and can sometimes become an impediment to build progress.
Blocking mobs from being spawned in other people's regions would be great. I think spawners are also overkill for the server and are unnecessary.
-
1
-
-
4. Lets make more roads than cardinal roads... or lets expand individual contributor's ability to add more roads to the server by creating a unique road claiming policy. Either one works.
10. People who think C needs more events don't regularly play on C, and as someone who does regularly play on C, I absolutely think we don't need more events. Simple.
11. Absolutely not. I play on C currently because of the World Edit and the community. Without the World Edit, cities would stall like crappy prop planes and nothing would be accomplished during the first month of intense building. Without the World Edit, the server will fall into its player loss crisis far quicker and it will become necessary to reset the map more quickly -- possibly even before World Edit would be reinstated after a month. Don't kill off your main selling point when the traffic will be the greatest. Please don't do it and don't consider the idea farther than that.
12. Let's not, and here's why: these landmarks are just going to create trouble and it's not worth it. If this is implemented, let there be plenty of landmarks so people can share them, because otherwise, it's going to be a shit show.
Also, not sure where this pieces in, but I think PvE test builds should be banned from the overworld and should be confined to the test build world. It's annoying that P players build their test builds in regions that end up disrupting our world, and I'd be really interested in them using space that isn't actively being built in by C players. Thoughts from the admins would be appreciated.
-
5
-
-
can the servers stay open so those of us who don't like fundraisers can play normally?
-
I wanted to ask whether users on C could use //setbiome again. It's understandable that it was kicked from default permissions for whatever reason but I think time has proven that mods having to set biomes is kinda like asking mods to do tedious world edit for people and it's not really convenient for the mods or the users waiting on the mods.
Could we either discuss a plan to get //setbiome re-added to our permissions or maybe some alternative solution (maybe a new plugin) that could help make this issue a bit more solved? I'm looking in your direction Challenger :P
Thanks
-
Why are you doing an AMA?
Which pronoun will we use for our President after January 20th? He or She?
-
Thank you for making this post though Avada, even though bits of the thread got a little out of hand. We appreciate your productivity. We're never opposed to make changes on Creative, and will take any other input you or the rest of the community have.
I'm very glad we could work out a solution here. As per Holli's original post, I'm going to be allowed to reclaim the plots being disputed so I'll take time to look into this into further detail this weekend. As for the rest of the changes, when can we expect to see the other spawn city changes taken into effect? Thanks for keeping this final portion of the discussion focused on Holli's agreeable response -- I think it's an excellent olive branch to make sure everyone gets what they're looking for in this arrangement.
-
Allowing more than two per person:
- Those who have filled up their auto-claimed plots already. would be able to modreq for additional plots.
- Yes, moderators can list the plots owned, and teleport to said plots manually if they suspect someone has not used their current plots.
- The current limit of 2 plots per person is not enough, and i'd like to see it raised to 5 for both downtown and suburbs + allowing plots on modreq once you've reached the limit.
- It's not very difficult to add more plots, and in the case that we do run out of room -- The map is never full, and the possibility for community builds are endless. (spawn city 2?
)
Ensuring enough plots:
- If people would like, we would always be open to making spawn city larger at the revision start.
- I actually don't know the # of plots, that's a great question for Bard
- As far as i'm aware of: We have enough space to expand a bit right now, Bard is working on it, and there are still plots that need to be filled. (downtown may be getting a little bit low, but that's where expanding can come in,
Sharing spawn city plots:
- I feel that so long as a plot is being filled, and both players agree, it's perfectly fine.
- If we take the route of changing the claiming policy to allow players to claim more plots with modreqs, this will be irrelevant.
Plots that were taken away:
- I believe the best solution here would be to allow these plots to be returned/claimed freely to their owners.
? No, we talked quite a bit, we all seem to be in agreement about things. :)
Excellent! If we are all in agreement with all of what Holli said, then I think using her post as our guideline for success here would be highly viable.
-
I don't think it's necessary for all 4 of us to address all the points, it would say the same thing. Holli pretty much summarized and represented what we all were discussing together a few days ago after this post was made.
So the other cadmins in this thread were just talking about things you didn't talk about as a team?
-
I would like the downtown area to be more linear and less square. It's an fps killer to have everything in view from one point.
Not sure on this: Could we limit interior decoration in some way, say only up to y100 or only in 5 floors in total in a plot. CTC3 is something to visit, but you may need to spend lots of time standing still or change your settings.
I was considering changing this a bit (eg. maybe clearing out some floors and just lighting them up so they still look nice from the outside), but a policy is a bit excessive to be honest since I can just do it on my own time as a courtesy because I know a ton of people have trouble traveling through downtown because of the lag from all the decorations. I'll spend some time looking into how to do that this weekend so it's hopefully a bit easier to fly though.
-
Allowing more than two per person:
- Those who have filled up their auto-claimed plots already. would be able to modreq for additional plots.
- Yes, moderators can list the plots owned, and teleport to said plots manually if they suspect someone has not used their current plots.
- The current limit of 2 plots per person is not enough, and i'd like to see it raised to 5 for both downtown and suburbs + allowing plots on modreq once you've reached the limit.
- It's not very difficult to add more plots, and in the case that we do run out of room -- The map is never full, and the possibility for community builds are endless. (spawn city 2? )
Ensuring enough plots:
- If people would like, we would always be open to making spawn city larger at the revision start.
- I actually don't know the # of plots, that's a great question for Bard
- As far as i'm aware of: We have enough space to expand a bit right now, Bard is working on it, and there are still plots that need to be filled. (downtown may be getting a little bit low, but that's where expanding can come in,
Sharing spawn city plots:
- I feel that so long as a plot is being filled, and both players agree, it's perfectly fine.
- If we take the route of changing the claiming policy to allow players to claim more plots with modreqs, this will be irrelevant.
Plots that were taken away:
- I believe the best solution here would be to allow these plots to be returned/claimed freely to their owners.
Thank you for keeping on topic. I'd also like to thank Barlimore for adding these points because they are strong and reasonable. I'm going to ignore all the noise above because this post basically summarizes what actually needs to occur and it outlines it clearly in my mind.
If we can progress through the rest of this discussion with the reasonable folks in this thread continuing the discussion forward then I can see an outcome that is amenable for both sides.Multiple people seem to agree that this is something we can address and I would be more than interested in having it addressed.
-
1
-
Avada, if you would like to rewrite your post without all of the passive-aggressive jabs I would be more than happy to respond to it, because as you said "I'm confident that we can work through this issue diplomatically rather than in a passive aggressive fashion."
Inactivity for plots follows the same rules as inactivity for regions. Even if you're active on the server, if you don't build in claimed land for one month it's subject to be removed. At the time we looked at those plots, neither plot had anything built in it.
Re-write yours first and I'll re-write mine. Yours is equally passive aggressive. I just followed suit.
For the record I did read your other replies in this thread.
Nice
-
1
-
-
I'll dive right into this one -- it seems like you took a while to write this one up since it reads like it was written last night and it reads like you copied random parts from my post and adding the same lines about how I broke the rules and how I need to stop building in spawn city because it's causing our hundreds of new players distress. I'll go in order respectively:
Those plots were removed from you because, by your own admission, you have five plots that are "yours," which is three more than allowed by the rules, and three more than any other user has. They were removed from the other users for being inactive for long enough that their claim could be removed per our inactive claim policy. Those players are more than welcome to claim their plots back and build in them but they will not be given to you.
Man, this is like fighting in Congress or something... That is some of the most legalized language I've ever read on these forums, and I'm not really surprised it came from this thread to be honest. I'll hand it to you, I'm impressed by the language here. Now let's dive into it. The notion that the plot be removed due to the owner not being active at the plot is absurd and is designed to make sure I'm not able to build at spawn city. Plain and simple. It's seems sneaky and passive but it's 100% aggressive on your part and completely contradicts everything else said by every other admin in this thread. This is completely against the notion that Nerd.nu, and specifically C, is trying to be a "community". Do people who live on a neighborhood come up with weirdly worded confusing policies to run people out of the neighborhood? Not if neighbors want people to live there... If you guys want people to play here, then the weirdly worded shadow rules and shadow games need to stop. This isn't an old issue and while it took a very long hiatus, your post just brought it back from the dead. Hopefully you'll continue reading from this point but I'd understand if you started writing your comment already...
On September 19th you had a user who doesn't play on our server use an alt account to join for the first time, claim a plot for you, and then leave never to be seen again. I can provide the logs for this if requested. To me this shows that you were just trying to get around the limit however you could and is basically the definition of abuse.
I admitted that I did this to a number of admins excluding you, so your logs are just going to attest to something I already said. If it makes you feel any better, I gave this lot to Vikhedgehog so this is irrelevant of course.
I don't see how those two things are related, but regardless that isn't what we think. We're fine with raising the limit, just as far as I know no one's asked. There was one person who asked a month into the rev but we weren't ready to raise it then. If someone had asked since then we probably would have done it.
I've asked multiple times. As DrTim58 said above, the users who gave my their plots, excluding the user who never played, are all active and all give me permission to use them. Your point about my point's irrelevancy is irrelevant in itself.
Like I said earlier, the two per person rule is there for the start of the rev to give everyone who wants to the chance to build, and we're totally fine with raising it after the rev has been around for a while.
You said this but Hollifer said this before:
The idea that someone can be punished for productive behaviors does seem a bit over the edge, and maybe it is a narrow perspective from a cadmin's point of view. When nerdplot was introduced it was rushed in, and there was a lack of discussion about what terms we would agree to allow plots to be used, and sadly ended up very strict.
How come your point contradicts hers? How come you're just writing your own agenda here? The strictness of this two plots per person rule is EXACTLY the thing I'm trying to address. If you want more details on my thoughts here, I'd urge you to read my top posts.
No cadmin has more than the allowed number of plots, most of us have less. I'm not really sure why you would said something that just isn't true. I have one suburb plot, Hollifer has one downtown and one suburb, Bard has two downtown and one suburb, Toker has one suburb plot, and even if you include Challenger he has only one suburb plot.
After checking here I was wrong in this regard because it looked like Bardidley had the plot adjacent to Vikhedgehog's new plot and two plots farther down from spawn but that changed suddenly... I'm not sure what happened there or if is just me going crazy but that was characterized and wrong on my part.
For the record three cadmins were online at the time that conversation was happening and we all agreed on that. Like I said above a few times, we do want people to build in spawn, which is why we have a limit at the start of the rev to give everyone a chance to build. What you want Spawn City to be and what it is are two different things. If you want it to be a place where anyone can build as much as they want that's a conversation we can have, but that's not how it is now.
You didn't read my top comment then. Let me reiterate again: Barely anyone builds in spawn city and barely anyone plays on C anymore. Unless there's a huge list of complaints from new users looking to build there that you're not sharing with me, this just looks like an attempt to make something come true that will not come true. People aren't using spawn city. Chasing me out isn't going to change this fact. If my plots were unbuilt, it would be Tim's build, Bard's builds, a few other towers and mostly unfinished plots. I really don't understand how you'd benefit by chasing me out or by making me carve out an entire city next to spawn city. It's not like you guys would even grant me a warp for anything I build... why should I leave when there's a warp to exactly where I want it right at spawn? And don't try to say "we're not chasing you out"... Passive aggressively removing me from plots that other users gave to me is the defacto of chasing me out.
They don't count as part of your total. We gave you that land as a way to encourage you to build there instead of bypassing the plot limit, but in a place that was still "in" the Spawn City area. A lot of new users are only used to plotted servers, so having land available for them to claim might make it more likely they'll stay. If its not completely full half way through the rev its not the end of the world.
Then make more plots.... I also addressed this above if you had read but based on how many points I'm literally copying and pasting from my top post into this one, it's evident that you didn't... If you need more plots, make more plots. Use the HUGE CTA plot to make more plots... Accept my offer to move the CTC to the empty plot next to spawn and I'll give back all my plots... Ask me to develop the land that you gave to me into usable spawn city land and I'd happily let you give it out to people... Or recognize that this server isn't growing fast enough for more plots. I don't see how this even helps people stay... If people dislike your server then they're going to leave. A spawn plot isn't going to help with this one bit.
I think the rule is clear, don't claim more plots then you're allowed to. They perhaps could be more flexible, which is something we can talk about. Those two players are more then welcome to go claim their plots back if they want to build in them.
And if those two players turn around and give me full permission to build there, then I'm breaking the rule again? Half the time I'm building FOR them, not for myself! DrTim58's building has a ton of awesome offices in it for his company -- not for me... While the two plots I'm referring to were going to be an extension for my hotel, I think if users want to give their only two plots to another user that it shouldn't be something held against me or them. You're kicking the wrong dog, and that only leads to regulars becoming dissatisfied and leaving.
tl;dr If you want a rule to change then ask about it, don't break it then get upset when you get called out.
And I'm not upset, I'm working it out calmly and reasonably. Bardidley and Holli were calm and reasonable with me so that's why I'm awfully confused your post, but what the hey, I wanted a reply so I got one I guess.
-
1
-
-
This is still a possibility. After reaching a limit a moderator or admin can manually give ownership to a player of a plot. Perhaps we could just change the policy around claiming and only allow a base # of automatic claims (to avoid spam-claiming) and then after said automatic claims are filled we can open that person up to modreq'ing for another. This is similar to the old system, yet still allows for a comfortable way for new players to get started.
So would that be something that players would have interest in?
I'd be interested in having this kind of thing implemented for the future, but the major issue at hand right now is the fact the admins are removing plots that belonged to others in order to take them away from me. In addition to more flexible policy changes, can I be given these plots back?
-
1
-
-
I appreciate your dedication to the spawn city downtown. The reason we have Nerdplot is to keep track of claims and help prevent players from overtaking the city. Spawn city is not meant to be filled up by one individual but to be a collection of builds from all the players. If we are going to increase the plot limit we will increase the size of spawn city. I thought it was fair to grant you a large piece of land adjacent to spawn downtown.
I appreciate your speedy reply. I understand that you guys are preparing for a mass of players to come and build in spawn, and if this was true I wouldn't have an issue with it, but given the current nature of our player base being really really really small, I think this absolutely needs to be reconsidered. Considering the fact I had permission to build on two plots owned by two different users and that those two plots were taken from me on the basis of me "building too much" is absurd in my eyes. I respectfully disagree with this point and I hope we can come to an agreement that better suites the needs that I'm expressing here.
I believe that Spawn City is something that can be expanded and it's also something that is really conveniently set up for what I was intending to accomplish this revision -- building a large office complex in spawn city with a hotel located near by. I respect and appreciate the fact you granted me the land adjacent to spawn to use, and while I plan to use it conservatively once i get to the point of developing it, I would like much more certainty that my plots aren't going to get snatched up everything I make a modreq about them. When the two plots I was referring to above were removed, they were empty, but one had been empty for months and you had specifically given me indication that I would be allowed to keep this plot, and the other was Vikhedgehog's plot, and once I swapped plots with him I intended to build something there that would have benefitted the spawn city area.
My overarching point here is not to be a bee in your bonnet to cause an issue. My overarching point here is that regardless of the size of spawn city, that there should be considerations made for players who are using the city more than others. Unless people are contacting you on a daily basis asking why I have so many plots, I don't really see an issue to fix here...
The idea that someone can be punished for productive behaviors does seem a bit over the edge, and maybe it is a narrow perspective from a cadmin's point of view. When nerdplot was introduced it was rushed in, and there was a lack of discussion about what terms we would agree to allow plots to be used, and sadly ended up very strict.
I personally preferred the system where we modreq'd for a plot directly but that's another story... I felt it gave the mod teams better insight and also made it so policies could be better enforced. Now that NerdPlot is in place I think it's better to work with what we have, but for the record I personally thought the previous system was less messy than this automated system. Unfortunately that's just the consequence of automation though.
I appreciate that you guys are willing to discuss this civilly rather than it remain an issue that is outstanding for the rest of the revision, and I hope you'll take into account the fact of what I said where activity should determine the number of plots a user has access to -- not just a unique IP/person behind the account. Many players claimed lots at the beginning of the revision and realized they weren't going to have time to develop them so they were 100% fine to let me use them, and I was 100% fine to develop them to make them nice.
Again, I'm not looking to cause any issues here but I'd like to keep the plots I originally had given to me and I'd appreciate it if, as a result of this discussion, that those two plots are returned to me. I don't intend to expand outside my allotted area at this point but removing my plots for the sake of making room for other players (other players who aren't using Spawn City or who leave the second we say welcome to them) is kind of absurd to be honest.
-
1
-
-
I've been playing on C for a majority of Rev 31 now and I have been building extensively in spawn city. You can see the contributions I've made here. CI've used every single plot I've built in and I've furnished each building to the brim with offices, hotel rooms or filming studios. The buildings are all well received by the community and are even going to be used for some of our role playing community events that we're running amongst ourselves. While I can understand why the vast scale of the number of plots I have is unreasonable in the eyes of some, I don't feel it's warranted to remove my claim over plots I previously had based on false statistic numbers and false accusations of abuse. The plots I've been using have been plots that users have given to me as a result of their inactivity in spawn city and have given me full permission to build on their lots. Ask any one of them and they will confirm they were 100% okay with me building there. If possible, I'd like these two plots to be returned to their original owners (DrTim58 and Vikhedgehog).
Contributions like this to a city are usually not something that are discouraged and are almost always encouraged by the sitting CAdmin team. I appreciate the work the CAdmins have put into this revision, but the two plot per user rule seriously needs to be reevaluated because given the scale of my activity on C (check the user stats) and given the scale of my activity in Spawn City, I think that the additional two plots I wanted for a mall behind my hotel were 100% warranted in addition to the plots I already own. Mind you, DrTim58 built the large white tower between my two towers, which makes that building HIS creation and therefore HIS plot. Ted50 built the large staggering tower behind the CTC and Dayln58 technically owns one of the CTC main towers because he designed the original layout. It is unfair and unreasonable to claim that I own 14 plots when in reality I only own around five (my own creations alone) not counting the ones I previously owned behind the hotel. The CAdmins refuse to acknowledge that this is an issue because they believe that new players will join and build in Spawn City. This is simply not true based on the fact we currently have two people on C -- at 6 PM EST on a week day night.
I don't want to imply that these plots can't be used by other players, but my point can be wrapped up into a few brief points:
- More than two plots was something that previous CAdmins ENCOURAGED in spawn city, especially when they resulted in more contributions for the city! I had five plots during rev 27 and I built an amazing hotel complex and office complex similar to what I have now. IIRC, we had more players back then and fewer plots and they were still mostly unused and were therefore plots I could reasonably claim.
- The two plot per user rule is ridiculous and based on a false standard that C is growing in playerbase and that interest in spawn city is growing. This is false based on my experience of seeing last revision's one person per plot spawn city fall into disrepair and ruin because nobody built there.
- One of the CAdmins (whom I won't name) has THREE plots, which is distinctly over the two plot person rule. Despite the fact the CAdmins have allowed me to keep my existing claims, it is really unfair for a CAdmin to enforce this rule and then give himself three plots when refusing to give users other users more plots.
- There is a huge "events" section of spawn city that can easily be designated for more plots. If we're concerned about plots, then break open the reserved land and stop acting like there's a land issue.
- There's also a huge unused CTA/Spleef plot near my buildings that can be used for more plots if this is truly an issue.
I intend to close this post by outlining a number of key facts:
- I'm an active player who actively uses spawn city as the place I build. Prior to this weekend, I had no city and I didn't claim a ton of land.
- I shouldn't be asked by an unnamed CAdmin to "go make my own city if I want more land" because I've contributed too much to the plots I currently have. That assertion is absurd and is completely unfair. If you don't want people to build at spawn then it shouldn't be claimable land.
- The two plot per user rule needs to be much more flexible and should be adjusted based on how much time the requestee spends building at spawn. If I had no finished spawn plots I would understand you guys asking me to hold off but the fact every plot I've touched I've finished should mean that I can claim plots that are being unused by members of the community or plots that are unclaimed.
- The assertion that the plots outside of the city that I carved out of surrounding land should be considered part of my city plots is also absurd. I'm only counting plots inside the city. If any new user wanted to do what I did then they have plenty of land to do it in. This shouldn't be counted as part of my total.
I'd like to know what everyone's thoughts on this are. I'm confident that we can work through this issue diplomatically rather than in a passive aggressive fashion and I look forward to hammering out terms. The CAdmin team needs to remain forward thinking and I think this is a great place to start.
tl;dr because this is big: the rule about spawn plots needs to be more clear, needs to be more flexible, and I would like these two plots to be restored to Vikhedgehog and DrTim58 because they were illegally taken from them for no justification what-so-ever.
Thanks
-
2
-
I'll admit that I'm a bit of a culprit of this behavior (eg. claiming parcels of land to do testing builds on or failing to complete large parcels designated for cities), but this brings up a really good point: Land that isn't being developed consistently should not be protected in a way that prevents people from building anything near it. The introduction of World Edit has made it far easier to permanently claim land on the map as long as you make some substantial edits to a small portion of the parcel since you need the protection to actually use the land.
How about a hard claim and a soft claim. You start off your mega build in a 300x300 but there's a 500x500 area that is reserved for you if you make considerable use of the 300x300 within two weeks? And these aren't permitted bordering spawn.
I'm not keen on entire landmasses belonging to one person, or someone who is known to possibly fill a 500x500 using most of it untouched and only a build in the centre. I prefer to permit them, but suggest that they aren't done.
I like the proposal that tobylane has proposed above since it makes sure that land is "reserved" from being claimed or messed with, but it also makes it available for others to develop in the future so the entire parcel isn't permanently locked because they built a crappy quartz block out of World Edit and then vanished or if they are building a huge city extremely slowly but want the land to all be theirs since they like the landmasses surrounding it. I think the restrictions that toby presented are great examples of what should be used in order to prevent the unintentional misuse of the land claims that we're seeing here.
Given the small size of the community using this server, I'd think that it'd be easy enough to set up even a manual system that gives the admins (who are amazingly active, I should add) the ability to give reserved parcels away if they are not being used.
-
It doesn't sound like a terrible idea, but given the fact you're restricted to such a small number of characters in a command (and given the fact you very routinely have to expand your /modreq into more than one request), having it be an in-game command packaged together might make not make a difference in the end.
I like Barlimore's survey idea though since it'd let people who don't really like hashing ideas out on the forum still suggest them.
-
Maybe have it enabled only for a limited duration unless explicitly requested otherwise.
It'd be cool to figure out how to restrict the fire to your region (where it stops at the region border) so you wouldn't have to keep asking for a new one to be ignited. Despite the fact the server has log block, it might create more of a challenge if you are forced to either clean up the damage yourself or put together some creating planning when doing this sort of thing so you don't destroy all your buildings and whatnot.
Ninja edit: You should also probably be a region owner to do this kind of request, but I doubt it matters to a huge degree in the long term.
-
^
so lets get this straight: if the totalitarian/iron fist way of running the servers supports your beliefs you're fine with it, but if it doesn't you come onto the forums and create huge walls of text about it?
-
Well, thats kinda what people want when they are trying to trade their stuff without having to worry about the vultures constantly spawn camping.
These "vultures" are people pvping on a pvp server. Get over yourself. Get geared up and kill people who are spawn killing you or trade with people somewhere else.
-
Did anyone have a chance to record what was said during this for the people who didn't get the chance to listen to what was said?
-
1
-
-
-
-
Rule Clarification: Chat Rules Clarification
in News & Information
Posted
not sure what much of this thread means because memes aren't really my thing but does this mean literally anything goes in clanchats as long as the owner is cool with it? rule clarification on that alone would be appreciated