Jump to content

Rev 27 Is Coming!


Cujobear
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Hiya Nerds!!!

All good things must come to an end, and Revision 26 is no exception,

 

As you may be aware, Mojang has split the 1.17 update into 2 parts. 

This, unfortunately, threw our original plans for Revision 27 for a loop. Without the new blocks and terrain we had been expecting, we had to go back to the drawing board.

 Rather than waiting on a release date for the 1.17 update, we have decided to move forward with a new revision, but with a bit of a twist!

This revision will be a bit different than the recent revisions we have hosted on nerd.nu.

To start, we plan on Revision 27 to last 4-6 months instead of the 6-8 month revisions we have hosted in recent years. We are hoping that this will help to get back in sync with Mojang updates. 

Because we expect the revision to be shorter than usual. this will be a simplified revision.  We have opted out of an overarching revision theme, instead the spawn will be simplified and custom mobs, drops, and dragon fight will be omitted or simplified.

As part of the changes due to the shortened length, we would like to use Revision 27 as a test for implementing some changes to our usual policies. Examples of some of the changes we are looking at are personal nether portals and changes to how claims are marked. (see below for more details) However; please understand that no decisions have been made final and all final decisions will be announced in the info post that is released 24 hours before revision launch.

We have made the decision to announce the launch date a bit early with the hopes that the community can also offer suggestions and input in any changes they want to see us try. 

 

PvE Revision 27 will launch on June 25th (5 weeks from this Friday) 

 

Some of the policies we are looking at updating:

  •  Allow portal placements by any player. 
    • The connection radius of portals can be reduced and would lessen crossed wiring
  • Personal PvP toggle 
    • We are still discussing the implications of this idea
  • The Not Quite SOOO Perfect Villagers
    • Looking into changing the villager trade setting so that they are not as OP
  • Usable region flags
    • We will create a list of region flags we will allow players to request on their protected area. 
    • Current flags include vine growth deny and trap door use deny (for decorative trap doors) we hope to expand this list
  • New claims system
    • This is the biggest one. Please read the Region Changes Document for more detailed information. This was a proposal written by zburdsal.
  • Sleep vote
    • A game rule will be added to 1.17 to handle sleep voting on a server. At this time we will wait for the vanilla gamerule rather than adding a plugin.

Please feel free to offer any other suggestions or input of ideas you would like to see discussed. 

We look forward to another exciting revision!

~ the padmins

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Cujobear pinned and featured this topic
17 hours ago, Cujobear said:
Quote

We have opted out of an overarching revision theme, instead the spawn will be simplified and custom mobs, drops, and dragon fight will be omitted or simplified.

I wonder how spawn will look? Will it be mostly player built city-like with plots or more chaotic version?

Some of the policies we are looking at updating:

  • Quote

     

    •  Allow portal placements by any player. 
      • The connection radius of portals can be reduced and would lessen crossed wiring

     

    • Neutralish-Negative, maybe keep r26 portal system (if map is not bigger)
  • Quote

     

    • Personal PvP toggle 
      • We are still discussing the implications of this idea

     

    • Neutralish-Positive, mark those players with RED text or some PVP-icons in TAB, main implication is dealing with killed player drops, what to do with them? I guess winner will keep them if he wants.
  • Quote

     

    • The Not Quite SOOO Perfect Villagers
      • Looking into changing the villager trade setting so that they are not as OP

     

    • Yes. Unfortunately 🙂 Probably increase the price of goods or make some per day limit of trades.
  • Quote

     

    • Usable region flags
      • We will create a list of region flags we will allow players to request on their protected area. 
      • Current flags include vine growth deny and trap door use deny (for decorative trap doors) we hope to expand this list

     

    • Like 🙂
  • Quote

     

    • New claims system
      • This is the biggest one. Please read the Region Changes Document for more detailed information. This was a proposal written by zburdsal.

     

    • Seems fine-ish from the first look, but may not be as intuitive as it may seem tbh, it should be communicated clearly that protection does not mean outright protection from grief.
  • Quote

     

    • Sleep vote
      • A game rule will be added to 1.17 to handle sleep voting on a server. At this time we will wait for the vanilla gamerule rather than adding a plugin.

     

    • Controversial, should not be too easy nor too hard, we still need to suffer through nights from time to time, bot 'problem' needs to be taken into account, especially at mid-end rev with low player count, where there may be more bots than players preventing night skips.

 

Edited by Nasty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey what if: instead of free user creation of portals, we limited it to the literal ruined worldgen portals that exist now (note: both overworld and nether)

in theory you'd be relying on worldgen to take care of spacing and compromise between complete freedom and the former limitations, and it would encourage road building and communication -- imagine an environment where we place bounties on finding portals closer to where cities set up, or want to set up.

This rev we're in now, there happened to be a ruined portal inside a hill behind our house. I loved excavating it and sprucing it up, but would have loved even more if I could have followed that up with making it a legitimate travel hub, instead of relying on the one across the ocean.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding my suggestion to the pvp toggle idea: 

Have pvp be strictly opt-in only, similar to War Mode in World of Warcraft. Players can only enable/disable their pvp flag inside towns. As per robr's suggestion, this could work by using easysigns inside towns to toggle pvp on and off, potentially having individual towns modreq for the signs OR by using a toggle command that only works inside town regions. By using this implementation we could enable pvp outside of arenas for people who wish to partake, while also preserving the pve experience for those who don't. Additionally this has the added benefit of not only giving pvp some teeth, but also curbing combat-logging or afking to avoid combat AND incentivizing exploring other towns all at the same time. I believe this is a happy middle ground that allows players to tailor their own experiences on P without stepping on anyone's toes. 

Edited by Shnozzles
Added option to toggle inside town regions
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why there is so much opposition to the anyone-can-make-a-portal idea, given that the linking distance can be reduced. If we set the linking distance to 0, then there would be no interference between nearby portals, except in the case of overworld portals that are within 7 or 8 blocks of each other (depends how you count: one block in the nether = 8 blocks in the overworld (horizontally, that is-- vertically the ratio is 1:1 unless you are too close to, within, or above the nether roof), but some people might decide to only count the gap (7 blocks), as opposed to counting one of those portals in their measurement (8 blocks)). Any two portals which are that close to each other are most likely so close as to make the one you come out of irrelevant. To turn that "most likely" into an "always", all that needs to be done is for the owner of the requested portal(s) to have claimed at least an 8-block radius around said portals.

And speaking of claims, one rule that should (for practical purposes, its more of a "must") be implemented in order to prevent portals from griefing other builds is that the owner of the requested portals must claim the area/volume that will contain the portal(s) both in the nether and in the overworld.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2021 at 7:21 AM, Muskogee_Red said:

I would restrict the Nether Portals to players in the established main cities, that are online longer than the first two weeks of a revision.

I don't know what the point of this would be. Portals are already limited to the same people who always find the portal signs in the first day anyway; introducing player-requested portals but limiting them only to people who stick around longer would essentially make sure that nothing changes. I'm with wyguy in that I'm confused as to why there's so much opposition to this change. As long as people aren't stacking portals on top of each other and rules are set to prevent griefing, what exactly is the harm? I'm all for letting smaller builds/towns have a chance at portals too. There's really no need to guard them so jealously. 

Edit: Maybe make it so that portals have to be modreq'd inside established claims? I think that's a fair compromise that would cut down on portal spam.

Edited by Shnozzles
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shnozzles said:

As long as people aren't stacking portals on top of each other and rules are set to prevent griefing, what exactly is the harm? I'm all for letting smaller builds/towns have a chance at portals too. There's really no need to guard them so jealously. 

As long as the stacked portals are made by the same player or town, then even the stacked portal problem is a non-issue. If I remember correctly, lots of portals right next to each other is the basis for at least one, if not many, useful farms when one is playing vanilla minecraft. To ensure that these portals are, in fact, placed by the same player or town, you simply do as you said in your edit:

1 hour ago, Shnozzles said:

Edit: Maybe make it so that portals have to be modreq'd inside established claims? I think that's a fair compromise that would cut down on portal spam.

except you make sure that the claim is big enough to prevent portals from becoming too crowded. The exact distance required is partially subjective, but at a minimum should be enough blocks to allow convenient access in the nether (including by horse!), and a minimum of an 8-block radius from the portal in the overworld (plus the same convenient access as would happen in the nether, though 8 blocks might be plenty for that purpose, and if not, likely comes close, unless you add an excessive amount of decoration around the portal).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My suggestion is to generate map with that custom mapgen and then start rev when 1.17 plugins get ready, 1.17 itself releases like in 2 days...

Edited by Nasty
typo
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...