People who actually play on Survival, what changes would you like to see the next revision.

[Mumberthrax]

Thank you gsand, for making this thread, and to those of you who have offered your suggestions. It has been up for about two weeks now so let me see if I can summarize the various suggestions from those who have posted.

• more challenge
• more pvp
• more hostility and anger
• pvp balanced by limiting acquisition of enchants and potions
• raiding players' containers
• limited number of protected containers
• no enderchests
• valuable loot (remove enchanting, enchanted books as loot)
• A more thorough adoption of civcraft's features
• no civcraft
• a reason to stick around after you have a farm and the dragon is dead
• more realistic leaderboards/pvp profiles
• Evil server Sundays - delete 10% of placed blocks

Did i miss any from the above (or below) comments?

Edited November 4, 2014 by Mumberthrax
evil sundays

[tobylane]

How about having an evil server on Sundays that deletes 10% of the blocks placed (by people active that week) at personal/group builds (to be defined somehow) each week? That adds challenge, hostility, damages people's hiding mechanisms and requires upkeep of everything, especially farms.

Edited November 4, 2014 by tobylane

[djt832]

Thank you gsand, for making this thread, and to those of you who have offered your suggestions. It has been up for about two weeks now so let me see if I can summarize the various suggestions from those who have posted.

• more challenge
• more pvp
• more hostility and anger
• pvp balanced by limiting acquisition of enchants and potions
• raiding players' containers
• limited number of protected containers
• no enderchests
• valuable loot (remove enchanting, enchanted books as loot)
• A more thorough adoption of civcraft's features
• no civcraft
• a reason to stick around after you have a farm and the dragon is dead
• more realistic leaderboards/pvp profiles

Did i miss any from the above comments?

I've read through this, and you seemed to have summed up the suggestions well. Nothing seems missed to me!

[totemo]

I think "A more thorough adoption of civcraft's features" is one way of realising the goal and the example I argued for, but at the same time it missed my point.

My real request is for a more engaging, intricate and balanced game. I think Civ exemplifies that, but it's not the only way. If you think you're doing it just to be a Civ clone, you've missed my point.  My point is that Civ has the features it has because they re-balance the game that Mojang has defined.  Civ questions the otherwise unquestioned fundamentals: crafting, ores, crops, XP, the hardness of blocks.  Civ provides one possible solution to how to balance these things that has been evolved and fine-tuned over time.  When you set up a game that is a blend of old S and Civ, you are changing the balance of the game and you really need to understand that.  

 

The game balance is the game.  People will always - very efficiently - work out the easiest path to victory and exploit that.  A balanced game provides no obvious easy solution; only a complex set of competing alternatives that challenge and engage players.

 

If S turned into something radically different from old S or Civ, I would not mind at all if the game was interesting to a broad range of players and had long-lasting appeal.

[CROCKODUCK]

I think "A more thorough adoption of civcraft's features" is one way of realising the goal and the example I argued for, but at the same time it missed my point.

My real request is for a more engaging, intricate and balanced game. I think Civ exemplifies that, but it's not the only way. If you think you're doing it just to be a Civ clone, you've missed my point. My point is that Civ has the features it has because they re-balance the game that Mojang has defined. Civ questions the otherwise unquestioned fundamentals: crafting, ores, crops, XP, the hardness of blocks. Civ provides one possible solution to how to balance these things that has been evolved and fine-tuned over time. When you set up a game that is a blend of old S and Civ, you are changing the balance of the game and you really need to understand that.

The game balance is the game. People will always - very efficiently - work out the easiest path to victory and exploit that. A balanced game provides no obvious easy solution; only a complex set of competing alternatives that challenge and engage players.

If S turned into something radically different from old S or Civ, I would not mind at all if the game was interesting to a broad range of players and had long-lasting appeal.

This.

Even on PvE in times such as now for Seneca, as an example, we are forced to reevaluate our current methods because we have no players. So pooling for ideas is the good and obvious first step, now where do you go from here? Do you continue with the same thing that is known to have 8 players max on after 2 weeks? Or do you do the drastic changes such as civ-craft addition? Keeping in mind there are other ways you can change it and possibly please more players such as possibly creating a PvE with a wilderness type area as suggested before.

[SpiderMan]

This.

Even on PvE in times such as now for Seneca, as an example, we are forced to reevaluate our current methods because we have no players. So pooling for ideas is the good and obvious first step, now where do you go from here? Do you continue with the same thing that is known to have 8 players max on after 2 weeks? Or do you do the drastic changes such as civ-craft addition? Keeping in mind there are other ways you can change it and possibly please more players such as possibly creating a PvE with a wilderness type area as suggested before.

 

I don't think civ was a good idea, there was nothing unique about our interpretation. The moment the guest clans from civcraft got bored, they left and the player count went with them.

 

I think totemo's last comment hit the nail on the head, btw.

 

-gsand

;D

Edited November 21, 2014 by gsand

[CROCKODUCK]

I wasn't implying civ worked, I was implying that nerd needs it's own unique "hook" or gameplay with it. Something that cannot be found elsewhere and is the kind of demanding gameplay that keeps you returning.

[Mumberthrax]

Something to keep in mind is the balance between intricate gameplay that keeps things challenging and interesting versus complicated and/or difficult with a steep learning curve.

[SpiderMan]

I wasn't implying civ worked, I was implying that nerd needs it's own unique "hook" or gameplay with it. Something that cannot be found elsewhere and is the kind of demanding gameplay that keeps you returning.

 

I guess my words were lost in translation, that's exactly what I meant.

 

-gsand

;D