Jump to content
Mrloud15

Survival Suggestions / Feedback

Recommended Posts

How about as a compromise the areas near the roads form a special region where the old S style applies(no griefing allowed/players can break in but have to replace blocks) and players can claim land and stuff like the way it used to be. Players can still use Citadel in order to reinforce their bases to prevent people from getting in immediately. I think banning player placement of obsisian in this area would also be good, but that's up for debate I guess. The land around the roads would be relatively limited and no ores generate in that area. Then, outside the region the current rules and ore generation are in place, albeit with some tweaking to make things more fun/balanced. 

 

In this way players are forced to go outside of the center in order to get materials, but those who get a plot near the roads are afforded relative security as their builds can't be griefed. The plots would be limited meaning that once they're full players are forced to build outside of "spawn".

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you mean is "Make griefing against the rules."

 

Nope.  Tearing down someone's build would be allowed.  A mod may decide to roll back excessive griefing of the aesthetics of someone's build, but that doesn't mean that the player that griefed it broke any rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Drawing a line between revertable and non-revertable griefing will be fraught surely

 

Doesn't have to be.  The line can be arbitrarily chosen for what is or isn't revertable.  For example, you could say something like:

 

1.  Only rollbacks of surface structures.

 

2.  No rolling back chests, redstone, or pistons.

 

3.  No rollbacks unless >30 blocks were broken (or 100 or whatever).

 

If a player knew that that's all the risk they were exposed to by building something nice-looking, they'd probably be a lot more likely to build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi. Here is some feedback from things I noticed, and these are my suggestions:

 

Increasing the ability to smelt stone will make it easier for players to reinforce their homes, and reduce ability to grief.

 

Removing the bounty plugin may be a good idea - Abuse of the plugin is possible by killing a bountied friend and claiming the bounty, then giving your friend his things back. Free coal/iron/diamond, also head. Perhaps try to code it to use the pearls instead to reduce abuse? Not sure

 

Removing prison pearl might be a good idea. For a small pop server like this one, it can only cause problems when the end is so mind-numbingly boring. Consider removal or price increase. If you are determined to have it on the server, consider decreasing the price and promoting the location of the end portals. It is possible to make the end fun, it only requires players to be able to enter the end and deliver supplies.

 

Localized chat or bonuses for joining clans and using clan chat - Chat is filled with circlejerk back and forth. Consider localized chat.

 

Increase map size - Put distance between spawn and bases. It's too easy to spawn camp and keep snitches active and track new players. Turn the map into a circle will prevent abuse of the world border corners.

 

Thank you, this is just my suggestions. 

 

edit: Also consider checking Humbug's features!

Edited by Draziw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removing the bounty plugin may be a good idea - Abuse of the plugin is possible by killing a bountied friend and claiming the bounty, then giving your friend his things back. Free coal/iron/diamond, also head. Perhaps try to code it to use the pearls instead to reduce abuse? Not sure

 

I haven't messed with collecting bounties yet, but if it's possible to abuse them in the way you're describing, we could solve it by simply having a way for the person who wants to collect the bounty to get approved to do so by the one who placed the bounty before they go off to kill the victim.  This would keep bounties in place (which I REALLY like), but would also avoid the possibility of the abuse you describe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't messed with collecting bounties yet, but if it's possible to abuse them in the way you're describing, we could solve it by simply having a way for the person who wants to collect the bounty to get approved to do so by the one who placed the bounty before they go off to kill the victim.  This would keep bounties in place (which I REALLY like), but would also avoid the possibility of the abuse you describe.

Then all it would take is a 3 person team to transport items rather than a 2 person one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then all it would take is a 3 person team to transport items rather than a 2 person one.

No, what it would mean is that the person who is offering the bounty can decide if a potential collector is worthy of their trust.  If you don't know or trust a potential bounty hunter then your bounty is safe.  Nobody would lose a bounty to someone that they don't trust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what it would mean is that the person who is offering the bounty can decide if a potential collector is worthy of their trust.  If you don't know or trust a potential bounty hunter then your bounty is safe.  Nobody would lose a bounty to someone that they don't trust.

I think you're missing the point? One of the issues is people are abusing bounties to transport items across the map without having to worry about losing them. It's not an issue of trusting anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the point? One of the issues is people are abusing bounties to transport items across the map without having to worry about losing them. It's not an issue of trusting anyone.

Correct...I missed that point, and it's a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After playing for a few days, here are my suggestions. 

-I like the idea behind the bounty system, but I find it's way to easy to put a bounty on someones head. Maybe increase the price to where it takes at least 5 iron, or at least 1 diamond to place a bounty.

-I like the idea from Draziw about making smelting stone easier for citadel. Also possibly adding lapis to block defenses, where it's worth somewhere in between iron and emerald. It would give the "useless" material some kind of value and can also help reinforce builds.

-Making the map round or in a circle would be helpful as well. Large clans can easily claim a corner and set up snitches to be able to know exactly where someone is hundreds of blocks away

 

That's all right now. As much as I thought I really wasn't going to enjoy the new rev, I really do so for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Also possibly adding lapis to block defenses, where it's worth somewhere in between iron and emerald. It would give the "useless" material some kind of value and can also help reinforce builds....

 

Lapis for reinforcement is a good idea.  Villager trading has been disabled because it made emeralds (a reinforcement material) too easy to acquire.  Replacing emeralds with lapis blocks would be a nice switch that would allow us to also bring back villager trading.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel I should point out that those arguing that the revision is bringing in more players seem to be forgetting the past. Every new revision sees a huge uptick in players. I've been on Nerd since the beginning of revision 7, and every new revision since then has seen a significantly higher amount of players online at the beginning, followed by a slow reduction in that number. We're still very early in this revision, and we're already seeing a significant reduction in average players per day (by my count). Having 85 people on the first day of a revision is no indication of that revision's success. If we're still seeing 80+ people on a month from the start of the revision (or even a third of that), then we can discuss using it as a metric for success. Until then, it's indicative of nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we expecting big above-ground builds at some point? Cities? Or is that not how civcraft works?

 

I believe we will begin to see above-ground builds soon, though they will be few and far between. Because of the change in game mechanics by using individual protections for every block using significant resources to prevent griefing, it's made creative pursuits on S a significantly more challenging proposition. Not only has this significantly disincentivized building in general, but, for those of us who are stubborn SOBs (like me) who are going to build no matter what the obstacle, it means a lot of prep time before building to ensure our builds are adequately protected.

 

My farm is going to be going up before too long, on the road, but I've had to create several chests of smoothstone, several stacks of iron blocks, and about a stack of diamond in order to simply protect the ground, fences, glowstone, crafting tables, and chests. And I'm certain my crops still will be griefed constantly, and crop grief cannot be prevented, so I've had to create a huge surplus of seeds to replant and bonemeal to grow them. 

 

I'm finding it a challenge not to conclude that my style of gameplay on S, contributing via creating, is being punished out of existence this revision. I'm having to jump through hoop after hoop to accomplish what was a rewarding pursuit in previous revisions, all in the name of trying something new. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel I should point out that those arguing that the revision is bringing in more players seem to be forgetting the past. Every new revision sees a huge uptick in players. I've been on Nerd since the beginning of revision 7, and every new revision since then has seen a significantly higher amount of players online at the beginning, followed by a slow reduction in that number. We're still very early in this revision, and we're already seeing a significant reduction in average players per day (by my count). Having 85 people on the first day of a revision is no indication of that revision's success. If we're still seeing 80+ people on a month from the start of the revision (or even a third of that), then we can discuss using it as a metric for success. Until then, it's indicative of nothing. 

 

While yes this is true, of the past few revs numbers barely were over twenty players throughout even the first week. So far we've hit (when I was on) at least 30 players everyday, which is an improvement from previous revs. I also want to point out that we've had 567 players join into the server after just one week. These are my arguments as to why the numbers have improved, not the server it self

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While yes this is true, of the past few revs numbers barely were over twenty players throughout even the first week. So far we've hit (when I was on) at least 30 players everyday, which is an improvement from previous revs. I also want to point out that we've had 567 players join into the server after just one week. These are my arguments as to why the numbers have improved, not the server it self

 

The numbers tend to fluctuate from hour to hour, reaching peaks and lows. Near as I can tell, peaks in new revision weeks tend to be above 80 and lows around 15. That's been true of this revision, but it was also true of last revision by my memory. I don't have access to daily averages, as far as I know. 

 

We also have to consider that the number of new players has been 'plumped' by Civ players who are trying out our server since we changed it to be more like theirs, a change which is still in flux. Next revision may see a return to previous rules to bring back players who are skipping this revision, or may remain, keeping the Civ people but potentially permanently losing older players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats for first 5 days, compared to revs 12-25

 

* 91 peak players (historical average 105, last rev 45)

* 29 average players (historical average 39, last rev 19)

 

An improvement from where we were. Lets hope the numbers keep up and next rev maintains the recovery.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters, the nerd.nu website even says "vanilla based survival" yet, the only thing that is still vanilla are the textures. We are succeeding at being something we are not. Losing our identity if you will. It's nice that some of you hardcore S players have massive clans, but for the other 45% of the server population who don't trust others or find it fun to team up, where does that leave us? Are we shit out of luck so to speak?

The identity of S has been lost this rev by a massive margin and just because some massive clans and random civcraft players support the numbers, does not conclude it's for the better. We should be trying to make everyone happy, not half the population or less, but that also seems to be lost with our identity...

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters, the nerd.nu website even says "vanilla based survival" yet, the only thing that is still vanilla are the textures. We are succeeding at being something we are not. Losing our identity if you will. It's nice that some of you hardcore S players have massive clans, but for the other 45% of the server population who don't trust others or find it fun to team up, where does that leave us? Are we shit out of luck so to speak?

The identity of S has been lost this rev by a massive margin and just because some massive clans and random civcraft players support the numbers, does not conclude it's for the better. We should be trying to make everyone happy, not half the population or less, but that also seems to be lost with our identity...

 

Our "identity" is an old server with worn out, stale gameplay that people enjoy for a week and then do not return until the next rev. S is never going to get back to the "golden age" if we keep looking backwards. I've played so much this revision because there always seems to be something to do. Could there be improvements? Of course there could be. But that IS why this is a test rev. And coming from someone who has been raided twice AND pearled twice, all in different situations, I'm still enjoying this rev. 

 

Also including yourself into that solo player category is interesting, because according to this post http://www.reddit.com/r/mcpublic/comments/2bg2hd/head_count_for_clan/ on the subreddit, you're in quite a large clan yourself. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our "identity" is an old server with worn out, stale gameplay that people enjoy for a week and then do not return until the next rev. S is never going to get back to the "golden age" if we keep looking backwards. I've played so much this revision because there always seems to be something to do. Could there be improvements? Of course there could be. But that IS why this is a test rev. And coming from someone who has been raided twice AND pearled twice, all in different situations, I'm still enjoying this rev. 

 

Also including yourself into that solo player category is interesting, because according to this post http://www.reddit.com/r/mcpublic/comments/2bg2hd/head_count_for_clan/ on the subreddit, you're in quite a large clan yourself.

I'm part of the clan yes, but I build on my own. I know that's mind blowing but it can happen. My TL; DR was simply don't forget all the countless old players we've driven away by this civcraft change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm part of the clan yes, but I build on my own. I know that's mind blowing but it can happen. My TL; DR was simply don't forget all the countless old players we've driven away by this civcraft change.

 

Not many players have actually been driven away by it, only those not willing to give it a try. We have lost far more from the revisions being dull and poorly organised before. Whether you like it or not, there are more players there are than last revision and that is an improvement. No one said we're going to stick with how the server is now, and I hope we continue to try new and different things to find what we really want to be as a server.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More old players came back than left

Stats? Numbers? Proof it's old players returning? Last I checked you had been out of the survival community for a while. I also hope that the servers continue to change, but without altering general gameplay as much. I have been thinking and trying to come up with alternative suggestions for the survival thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stats? Numbers? Proof it's old players returning? Last I checked you had been out of the survival community for a while. I also hope that the servers continue to change, but without altering general gameplay as much. I have been thinking and trying to come up with alternative suggestions for the survival thread.

 

Where the new players are coming from doesn't matter, there are more players this rev that there were the last. Everyone agreed that survival needed to change dramatically in order to survive, I'm sorry if that's not what you wanted but you should've given a solid argument against it at the time.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...