Jump to content
LetsBFehr

Creative Feedback Thread: What do you want to see in Rev 28?

Recommended Posts

Hey everyone!  The next revision of Creative is still a while away, but the Creative Admin Team has begun the planning process to get the next revision ready!  We would like to hear from all of you what you thought about this revision and what you think of Creative right now.  What did you like about this revision?  What would you liked changed for next revision?  The feedback from this thread will directly be going into our planning process of revision 28.  Please let us know everything that you think would make C a better place to play for everyone.  We very much appreciate your feedback and we are listening.

 

Thanks!

 

The Creative Admin Team

LetsBFehr, SirTacoFace, and Diamond_Lover123 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a custom map again. I thought this was done in the past, and I recall these revisions being fairly enjoyable. I'd also like to see the map much larger next time on launch. I like this current revision (most of it), but it'd be nice to have some additional building space next time so we can still do the larger land claims without having to run out of unused outskirts land (I believe this may have happened just a bit, mainly due to the efficiency of using world edit over building by hand).

 

Otherwise, I don't have any suggestions for changes which would need to be implemented in order to have revision 28 be as good as 26/27.

Edited by AvadaKedavra
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen this idea mentioned before; Having a world similar to the redstone world, which is exclusively for PvE/Survival planning/testing. This way the true creative map isn't populated by half constructed builds, and test projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely loved the world edit change, really nice.... even though I don't build ever.

Some things I'd like changed:

* /s command should work.

* Make the 'new player' welcome message a different color, please. I absolutely hate the purple and never even notice it until someone else points it out

* Some competitions would be fun, no prizes are necessary, just for the fun of competing, y'know?

 

**Ooh! Also, would /nicknames be possible? Obviously the issue of changing names a ton and confusing players or causing trouble comes up, so I think it'd be reasonable to solve that problem with some command that EVERYONE has access to (/whois or something) that simply states that player's real name, or maybe even previous nicknames...

 

this stuff isn't really C specific sorry, but only things I had on my mind.. 

 

I guess that's really all I got :P

Edited by The_King1337

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen this idea mentioned before; Having a world similar to the redstone world, which is exclusively for PvE/Survival planning/testing. This way the true creative map isn't populated by half constructed builds, and test projects.

 

Perhaps a flat map with automatic world edit or predefined plots (oh god, like a plot map) without the claims?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to set up two different worlds? A flat, build testing world, and the actual world? That way if players come to test builds, it's easy an accessible.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Magnyus, That uservoice is great and we are constantly monitoring it to see how it goes.  This thread is if people want to expand on things they need, and to have an open discussion on how we can get those ideas on C.  To give you guys an update on those, the PVE/redstone planning area will be a thing, highways will be gone in favor of either standard roads or rails, and spawn city will be very different than in previous revisions.

 

Some questions we are currently facing.

Do you think the planning area could be in the end like the current redstone playground?  Or is it better to find a large flatland on the map for them.  Thoughts on periodically wiping these plots to keep them open and fresh?

Highways are over, we would like to just have 4 cardinal roads to start.  Do you like the idea of rail lines, or keep it to just a normal 6 block wide road.

Spawn City.  Should it completely go away, or is there some value in it.  If we do go away from it, what should the policy be about builds right outside spawn that quickly get abandoned or are very derpy?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think the planning area could be in the end like the current redstone playground?  Or is it better to find a large flatland on the map for them.  Thoughts on periodically wiping these plots to keep them open and fresh?

 

I think having a flat map would be the best plan for the PvE area. Wiping plots would be good if done by last edit date on the plot, maybe 2 weeks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things I'd like to see:

 

I like the natural terrain, but not so much extremity to it - maybe make some parts flatter

Or have like, a small mountain range on one side of the map, flatter terrain in the middle, and oceans on another side

(If need be I can draw a sketch of what I mean by this so you guys have a visual of what I mean for this ^ )

A separate world for PVE planning, Redstone, and build tests 

You could have it so that the PVE plots get wiped after a month or so of non use

Finally getting rid of those highways \o/

I'd stick with the 6-wide cardinal roads unless you're going to make CTA an official thing

No "Spawn city", but maybe have it so that no builds are allowed within 100-150 blocks or so of spawn

You could have it so that speedbuild winners have their builds displayed around spawn

Fewer but bigger oceans - It's getting a bit crowded on the waters due to how small they are

A bigger initial map size during launch - With the new playerbase, you might want to do this

 

edit:

From an anonymous C player who's too much of a chicken to say it:

I want to see mods and admins that answer modreqs asap and not after 4 hours of being online doing nothing

Edited by kittypuppet
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick sketch of my idea:

zolrQI1.png

 

this way, you could have a couple rivers running inbetween biomes, as well as "overlap" biomes that fit together (snow plains, ice spike, snow forest etc etc)

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally, I was going to refrain from saying anything due to the backlash I expected to receive, but I feel like this is too important not to talk about; I've personally been affected by this on at least three different revisions, and I've had enough.
 
The CTA in its current form needs to be prohibited on C from this point forward and altered somehow, because it is little more than intrusive and obstructive lines in the sky. The CTA lines dissect the map into hindered or unusable sections of space, and either ruin projects that they run along or lower the land value by being visible in the distance.
 
Examples:
 
This forest has been divided in half, and only accommodates smaller projects now.
 
Ditto.
 
Even though the creators originally did it to themselves with the gazebo, these ships are completely landlocked.
(The CTA line in general in that part of the ocean completely killed off any illusion of a vast ocean with ships being able to sail on unobscured waters.)

http://nerd.nu/maps/creative/#/1420/64/1275/-2/0/0
This castle(?) has had its completion prevented.
 
Not everyone is aware that they have the ability to dispute the CTA's placement, and could potentially log on one day to see that their project and future plans have been stifled by a line in the sky that has appeared next to them, which they think cannot be adjusted. Nobody should ever have to work around the CTA lines or be dissuaded from building in a space near them, either.
 
The CTA lines may have been incorporated tastefully into some of the major modern areas/cities and Spleef, and have connected them together throughout the map, but I feel its limited usefulness is overshadowed by how invasive and disruptive it is to the overall server.
 
This revision was especially absurd, because someone else felt the need to make their own CTA lines, thus giving us two identical lines parallel to each other.

EDIT:
- Added clarification.
- Reworded some absolute statements.
- Added another example.
- Removed some anecdotal evidence and personal opinions that were irrelevant.
Edited by Sir_Walmsley
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'd love to see, but might ultimately be out of our control, is the servers getting updated to 1.8 next revision. There are a lot of cool features (item frame rotation, banners, etc) that i would love to include in my next puzzle challenge.

 

Also, I totally agree with Sir_Walmsley about the CTA. It's always looked nicer as a subway system, and digging underground is easier than ever. The big builds can still be accessible by rail, but there wont be thousands of blocks of empty road taking up space on the surface.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Sir_Walmsley, obviously you're against the construction of CTA being built through land players could potentially use. However, what if there were original premade CTA lines that went North, East, South, and West? And if there were to be more players expanding on CTA later, they built the rest underground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to Sir_Walmsley, obviously you're against the construction of CTA being built through land players could potentially use. However, what if there were original premade CTA lines that went North, East, South, and West? And if there were to be more players expanding on CTA later, they built the rest underground?

That is one possibility, but I can foresee some issues arising from this alternative. I don't know how the CTA lines are protected on C, but here are a few scenarios:

- If the protection extends the entirety of the Y-axis, then anyone trying to make a land claim or build above the lines is going to wonder what is preventing them from doing so. I'm assuming this option would not be chosen, considering how many issues it would cause.

- If the protection only surrounds the lines themselves, then what happens when someone makes a land claim above them and/or digs down to find them? It seems like an awful lot of hassle to continue moving the lines until they are no longer contested and/or intruding underneath the projects of other people. Like I mentioned in my previous post, some people may not even know that the placement of the line can be disputed, and could potentially leave out of frustration upon finding it. How many times would these hypothetical situations actually occur? Who knows, but it's still something to consider.

Don't get me wrong, my intention isn't to prevent people from connecting to each other; like I said in my previous post, I'm simply against the CTA's current form. I feel that the arbitrary CTA lines that were not intentionally built for the purpose of connecting people, and only appear to serve this purpose by pure luck that they hit something, need to be done away with, condensed, or hidden somehow. Basically, if it's not a rail line connecting areas after they have already been established, and that haven't also received consent from the owner, then I don't think they should be allowed; it would be ideal if some of these lines ran along, below, or above the roads already connecting the cities, like the one leading to Pinkerton. I just feel that it's unnecessary to have a line running to 8-bit, or sightseeing lines like the one skimming the border of the map, for example.

I'm sorry if I've offended the people who have worked on the CTA this revision, because I did enjoy the designs of the stations and lines, and they're a big improvement from what they use to be in past revisions. I'm just against how they've been chosen to be placed is all.

EDIT:

- Removed some redundancy and made my thoughts more cohesive.

- Removed some personal opinions that were irrelevant.

Edited by Sir_Walmsley
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't the Other CTA just completely claim a specific level underground? I'm sure it would only need at most 6 blocks in height to build all the necessary components. And since it's so easy to dig underground nowadays especially with worldedit, accommodating areas for builds that do want to head underground would be as easy as 'contracting' (I'll leave that autocorrection as is.) whoever is in charge of it. As for figuring out whoever is in charge of it is a different story because last I checked there were 3 people in charge of the CTA and none of them were working together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some questions we are currently facing.

Do you think the planning area could be in the end like the current redstone playground?  Or is it better to find a large flatland on the map for them.  Thoughts on periodically wiping these plots to keep them open and fresh?

Highways are over, we would like to just have 4 cardinal roads to start.  Do you like the idea of rail lines, or keep it to just a normal 6 block wide road.

Spawn City.  Should it completely go away, or is there some value in it.  If we do go away from it, what should the policy be about builds right outside spawn that quickly get abandoned or are very derpy?

1. I think the server would look more appealing if these test designs were hidden, since they're not meant to contribute to the server and be aesthetically pleasing; I imagine the area would end up looking like some sort speed building contest that someone forgot to erase. I agree that the plots should be wiped periodically (at least once a month or sooner, depending on how much room there is and how quickly it fills up), but people should also have the option to mod request immunity from this if they are working on something intricate, and put something around what they've built to indicate this.

3. My attitude towards Spawn City is 'go big or go home'; I don't think it looks particularly amazing unless it mimics some of the major cities that get warps. Revision 26 is a great example of Spawn City done well, but it was probably a massive undertaking, too, and I wouldn't attempt it unless people think they'll have the energy to see it through to completion. Yes, the suburbs this revision look decent now that the less than stellar houses have been removed, thus allowing the exceptional houses to shine, but it wasn't like this for quite some time, and I don't think anyone enjoys deciding which houses to remove that aren't deemed good enough.

With that said, I would still rather see what a few other people have mentioned, which is reserving space around Spawn for winning contest entries and other special projects. I feel that by doing this, it could potentially motivate people to participate in more contests and incentivize them to produce quality builds. It could also leave a greater first impression on newcomers by being able to see some of the best work that our community has to offer. I'm not sure how much space should be allocated for this, though.

In regards to abandoned projects around Spawn, I think most of us have seen 'Survival City' by now, and for such vacant lots of land, I think it should be completely rolled back if possible and the claim terminated. For projects that actually have something built on the land that they've claimed, but haven't been completed yet, I think an elegant solution would be to simply move it somewhere else on the map and leave the creator a message. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider an unfinished project abandoned after a maximum of one month of inactivity; obviously you would need to use your own discretion for what constitutes inactivity. If you catch the inactivity early enough, then maybe you could offer them a kind gesture by leaving them a message one week prior to any action being taken. I think anything that is visible by standing on the boundaries of Spawn should fall under these guidelines. If you're going to build in such a precious space with a lot of visibility, then you should be expected to take full advantage of what you have been provided with.

In regards to 'derpy' projects around Spawn, maybe you could message the creator and give them two weeks to improve upon what they've started until it's acceptable, otherwise it'll be moved somewhere else on the map. If it's beyond 'derpy' with no hopes of redeeming itself, then maybe just move it immediately and leave a message for the creator telling them where it is and why it was moved. I know that's a position that nobody wants to be put in, but those actions need to be followed through on if the server is going to be kept presentable - at least around Spawn.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not going to prohibit CTA or any other type of build because it looks bad or gets in the way of future builds. If you have issues with something that someone is building, you need to bring that up with person making it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We could also have a "warp board" at spawn that displays all the warps

 

I know doing /warp will display all of them as well, but not everyone knows this

And it gives a chance to show off the big builds to the new people 

 

Also a nether would be nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not going to prohibit CTA or any other type of build because it looks bad or gets in the way of future builds. If you have issues with something that someone is building, you need to bring that up with person making it.

Wow, dick move.

If you read Walm's post, they said "in it's current form" station their opinion that the way it's being built right now is obtrusive and ruins the terrain. And in my post, I state that the CTA ought to move out of the way of builds, unlike most builds the CTA has always been kind of a public, and malleable project. Of course there's someone in charge but because it spans the majority of the server. And as far as I know ADMINS (such as yourself) are in charge of land disputes. So it would be in your best interest to be less concrete about such topics.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not going to prohibit CTA or any other type of build because it looks bad or gets in the way of future builds. If you have issues with something that someone is building, you need to bring that up with person making it. 

 

He didn't say anything about completely abolishing the CTA, just keeping it out of people's way.

In it's current form, it's nothing but a hassle.

 

- If the protection extends the entirety of the Y-axis, then anyone trying to make a land claim or build above the lines is going to wonder what is preventing them from doing so. I'm assuming this option would not be chosen, considering how many issues it would cause.

- If the protection only surrounds the lines themselves, then what happens when someone makes a land claim above them and/or digs down to find them? Are you going to rollback the space that the line is occupying and then wrap the line around whatever this person is building? What if this person decides to continue building towards where the line was just relocated, or what if someone else finds it, instead? How far away from its original course are you going to have to move the line and add additional travel time? This seems like an awful lot of hassle to continue moving the line until it is no longer contested. Like I mentioned in my previous post, some people may not even know that the placement of the line can be disputed, and could potentially leave out of frustration upon finding it. How many times would these hypothetical situations actually occur? Who knows, but it's still something to consider.

I also feel that people would ride the lines even less than they do now if they had to endure the same repetitive wall design underground for the entire duration of the ride. If people would still use the lines regardless, then that's up to them, I guess. I personally think it's a bit silly to see them as anything more than aesthetic pieces, given how many quicker travel options are available to us, but my opinion is only one among many.

Don't get me wrong, my intention isn't to prevent people from connecting to each other; like I said in my previous post, I'm simply against the CTA's current form. I feel that the arbitrary CTA lines that were not intentionally built for the purpose of connecting people, and only appear to serve this purpose by pure luck that they hit something, need to be done away with, condensed, or hidden somehow. Basically, if it's not a rail line connecting areas after they have already been established, and that haven't also received consent from the owner, then I don't think they should be allowed; it would be ideal if some of these lines ran along, below, or above the roads already connecting the cities, like the one leading to Pinkerton. I just feel that it's unnecessary to have a line running to 8-bit, or sightseeing lines like the one skimming the border of the map, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not going to prohibit CTA or any other type of build because it looks bad or gets in the way of future builds. If you have issues with something that someone is building, you need to bring that up with person making it. 

So, there isn't a limit on what people can build? You would be perfectly fine with me building my own Walmsley rail line along the CTA that is nothing more than my mini-statues from Trauma with the rail line running along their heads? What if a third person wanted to join in, or a fourth? At what point do you say enough is enough? I agree that there should be as few limits as possible on what people are allowed to build, 'unless' it is disruptive, and I feel that the CTA in its current form is overqualified for that description.

You say to bring any disputes up with the owner, but what if they refuse to negotiate? Is the owner always going to be in the wrong and be forced to move? How do you determine what projects qualify to be treated as such? If instead of a Walmsley rail line, what if I decided to randomly populate the server with large statues of myself from Trauma everywhere and built shrines around them? (Which wouldn't be difficult at all, because I have Schematica, which I needed to use for the transfer of my pig head from single player.) I wouldn't see these shrines being much different from a CTA station. You could keep moving the shrines around, but eventually they're going to become a problem for someone else to deal with.

Just because people might not make a fuss about it, doesn't mean that they aren't gritting their teeth while tolerating it. I think it's completely ridiculous that you're basically saying people shouldn't have to be considerate of others, and should only have to cooperate when someone complains. Well, I'm complaining right now; I feel that this issue requires administrator intervention, because from what I can tell, there is no single entity in charge of the CTA, and thus there needs to be a change to the rules themselves regarding this.

The whole goal of my CTA complaint was to tidy up the lines and make them less intrusive, because I think allowing multiple people to build in unobstructed spaces is more valuable than a sightseeing tour.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each region will have their own needs of less intrusive, so we let the region owner decide. Maybe change the policy a little, so that someone can request their own region in an area that already has cta lines, with the expectation that they will reroute it how they please.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because people might not make a fuss about it, doesn't mean that they aren't gritting their teeth while tolerating it. I think it's completely ridiculous that you're basically saying people shouldn't have to be considerate of others, and should only have to cooperate when someone complains. 

 

This happened to me last rev when Martin and a few others were making roads. I specifically chose to build in the jungle because it was away from the roads and from other builds, and I leave for about a week, come back, and there's a road running under the hill my house was on. When I mentioned it in chat, everyone who was on at the time said it was allowed, and that the mods allowed it. This pissed me off so much. I tore down my house and moved to the edge of the world in a corner where my region could remain undisturbed from roads and CTA lines. 

When Dumbo came on, I talked to him about it and he confirmed that the mod shouldn't have done that, and that I should've put in a modreq for it. Nobody asked me if I was okay with the road going through there.

 

 

I think allowing multiple people to build in unobstructed spaces is more valuable than a sightseeing tour.

I agree with Sir_Walmsley on this. 

 

 

Each region will have their own needs of less intrusive, so we let the region owner decide. Maybe change the policy a little, so that someone can request their own region in an area that already has cta lines, with the expectation that they will reroute it how they please.

So long as it gets rerouted and not just cut off there.

Edited by kittypuppet
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...