Your View: Regions 2.0

[Aeus 2653]

Hiya! It's your friendly GM Manager here, coming at you with another "Your Views" thread. I know that some of you may be tired of seeing a new one pop up every 3 seconds, but we feel like it's very important to see what the players think and want before we start making changes. The current charter team has seen the qualms many players seem to have with nation status, charter, and the future of the server in 6.0 and beyond. We are here to listen and change our system (or not) depending on the response we get. Of course, this is a feedback thread and all ideas are welcome. Now enough of my little shpeal lets move onto the important bit.

 

Freebuild

Now, we have heard a lot about this in a couple of threads, one of them being from a previous admin. We have been working on freebuild for 6.0 for almost two weeks now, and we were coming up for an entire system that revolves around it but like I said a paragraph above, we want to know the ideas that the players have that we could implement in a successful freebuild system. Ideas were thrown around like freebuild near spawn so that people can easily find them unlike in Anthos, where many new players have no idea where to go for those things. We also got the opposite; make freebuilding on the outskirts of the map, and we got both of the extreme; make freebuild be the entire map, or don't implement freebuild at all. Before we start working on a project that the community will hate, it'll make it easier and faster for everyone, including you guys.

 

Fast travels

I just read through and responded to a feedback thread on fast travels that came out a couple of days ago. Through the voting, it seems like people were fine with fast travels as long as they were to places that can't be accessed through the roads such as islands off of the coast. Now, the team never really thought of fast travels for next map until this thread, but it brings up a lot of good points and we are not opposed at all to remove unimportant fast travels between settlements. The map may be small enough to go through without it being so much of a burden for players, and if the community wants to test it out, at least for the start we are down to do that too. That, of course, depends on the feedback in this thread regarding fast travels.

 

Nation

This one is pretty straight forward, and we thought we might as well bring it to the playerbase. As a regular player, do you think that obtaining nation status is too easy, too hard, or just right? The system is bound to change and we may as well get the feedback now rather than later.

 

Charters

Same as nations. Should charters be cheaper, easier to get? Should there be more size options, maybe less? What are some ideas that we can implement to the current system to make it more bearable on the players trying to start a new community or a brand new nation?

 

Activity Checks/6.0 Land

This may be a controversial one, but activity checks on nations were recently brought up in the team chat. As a team, we already do activity checks on aspiring nations to see if they have active players that could warrant us giving them full nation status. An idea of doing activity checks on every nation to weed out the inactive from the active ones came up. Should land be given to every nation, should it be given to other people as well? Or instead, should we as a team start checking the activity of nations and give land according to the numbers? This is something that I really wanted community feedback on, and I would love to see your ideas on this topic.

 

If there are any other things that were not mentioned but you feel like they need more change, feel free to post, we'll be reading over the entire thread in a meeting in the very near future

 

[Ford 1996]

When peak player base numbers are at most ~220, we should not have more than 7 nations

 

also charters need to be fixed

 

fast travel is ok but don't have too many. 13 carts at the human hub for fast travel is excessive and its odd that the human hub is a bunch of carts leading to 10+ different city-sized settlements as opposed to one city

[Danny 2232]

For those with concerns about freebuild please read below and this post here to be assured as to how an effective system could be implemented and the benefits it brings.

 

Woo, it's fun time.

 

I think my views on freebuild are fairly well known now so I'll be brief and outline why I feel that it is the only reasonable approach to 6.0 we can have.

 

Freebuild:

My firm belief in a freebuild system comes from two reasons: one, an appeal to the heart and mission of LotC - 'Minecraft Roleplay' and two, it's benefit to centralising and encouraging a thriving roleplay community. I'll quote from my thread to save repetition. Thread here.

 

Quote

This is without doubt a contentious matter but one that I feel we need to accept as a matter of reality. The fact is that repeatedly, our attempts to protect our beautiful worlds that we play on through the use of regions have failed. Whilst the intention is good, what we actually end up with is a system that is detrimental to LotC’s central ambitions and that damages the roleplay experience we offer to players.
At the end of the day the server seeks to provide ‘Minecraft-Roleplay’. It’s a type of Minecraft via which you still get to play the game, but that you play it in-character in our own world. By regioning the world, you’re failing to offer that. One of the basic functions of Minecraft is the ability, funnily enough, to build structures and create things. We need that to be a key aspect of LotC again.

Attempts to achieve this via free-build areas have failed and it’s blatantly obvious why. By enabling free-build areas all you achieve is a concentration of the playerbase into these small regions and a consequential influx of ****builds. Effective GM moderation could tackle this but in each case the GM team has failed, or has not been instructed correctly, on how to tackle these issues.

A freebuild world removes these issues. What it enables is an entire world that players can engage with: a dynamic and immersive experience where if somebody does want to build, they can; if somebody does want to cut down a tree, they can; where if somebody does want to start a settlement, they can. That’s what we want to provide. 

Two key issues with this at face-value are a) that people spread out across the map and b) that people make ****-builds and landscar. Neither of these issues exist if freebuild is introduced correctly and in cohesion with other systems.

Firstly, the dispersion of roleplay that occurs is tackled via a couple of simple systems. The further out of the centre of the map you go, the higher mob-spawning and mob difficulty is – think a levelled approach where there’s tank-ass zombies at the edge of the 6.0 island but in the centre much weaker ones. In addition to this, the lack of protection for buildings in these outer areas means that they are much more open to villainy and combined with a relaxation of villainy rules and increased loot from lockpicking, living in such areas is very risky business. We then bring in an effective antagonist (a la undead, but not undead, but just as scary and spontaneous and destructive) that randomly roams these areas causing death and destruction, and wullah, the fact of the matter is you’ll see roleplay centralised in a central sphere of the map (amusingly enough where the capital cities and CT need be placed) due to the safety, security and roleplay opportunity these areas provide. Further centralisation could be potentially aided if we introduce a system of ‘Monks’ Blessing’ where the closer to the CT you are the more buffed your health is or something, although I am somewhat sceptical of such a system.

The second issue is with those people who do dare to live in the wilderness building badly, land-scarring, griefing and/or leaving abandoned structures. This is an issue that only arises due to poor staffing. An effective staff team will have policies and procedures in place whereby they regularly travel the world identifying anything that doesn’t fit into LotC and they will rectify the issue via destroying it or working with the player. Similarly, land-scarring and griefing are issues dissuaded via strict penalties and that can quickly be repaired in a matter of minutes. Abandoned structures need not be an issue because if a structure is abandoned, GMs exist for the very purpose of turning these into ruins or taking action to remove them. The simple solution here is something we already have – it’s what the GM team exist for, we just need to make them do it. 

Therefore what we end up with is a two-pronged fix for our server’s issues. We provide that ‘Minecraft Roleplay’ experience in its entirety, without missing out the first bit, and moreover we ensure that our world is dynamic and interactive but that it is protected from damage and/or destruction.

I would go further and advocate a simple plugin being introduced that guides new players on such issues. When they place their first block in-game, a message appears in the chat window:

”Congratulations, you’ve placed your first block! Remember, anything you build must be built in-line with our server build guidelines that can be found HERE. Your buildings will only remain for as long as you are active on the server so don’t leave them for to long!”

Or when they cut their first tree:

”Congratulations, you’ve started felling your first tree! Remember, you must act as your character when doing such tasks and as such you’ll have to take the leaves down as well. Don’t leave them floating!”
Or when they mine their first stone / ore:

”Congratulations, you’ve started mining! Remember, you must ensure that your mine is believable and fits into roleplay – you can’t strip-mine! Find our guide on how to mine in-character on the forums or click HERE to see it.”

Following on from that, when a player enters each ‘level’ of wilderness, they should receive warnings to ensure they are aware of the threats in these areas, again discouraging anyone venturing too far but still enabling the freedom to do so.

What this provides is an experience whereby players can still play Minecraft, but in a way they can still roleplay and engage with our unique world. It provides exactly what LotC promises to offer in a way that does not damage our world.

 

Fast-Travels:

Removal in their entirety should be possible. They are a symptom of poor map design that fails to recognise the size of our community. Capitals must be located close enough for centralised travel and roleplay, removing need for fast travels.

 

Nation Status & Charters:

In all honesty, should be impossible to get unless you have a huge playerbase. We don't have the community to sustain many nations so make only one per race and the rest unofficial and unregioned. Too many people have their own protected areas, it's simply unworkable. People won't like it but it just needs done - only regioned or protected places should be capital cities. 

 

 

[Ducklingator 795]

7 minutes ago, Ford said:

When peak player base numbers are at most ~220, we should not have more than 7 nations

 

Agreed. I think most of them should be race-based (Elves with some subsections such as welves and helves, Humans, Dwarves, Orcs, etc) and then one or two independent nations; seemingly the case rn, just that humans have alot of different nations scattered about.

[Silverstatik 218]

We will still have soulstones, if the map has pillars similar to axios, any player that has a need for extensive travel should be able to easily get within 4-5 min fairly easily of their destination. No real need for fts aside from the aforementioned boats and other fts where mc travel is illogical or impossible.

[Danny 2232]

As an extra note, previous experiences of freebuild do not justify opposition to a functioning system. Limited freebuild is gonna be bad because you're squishing people too tightly. Separate freebuld islands are gonna fail as they disperse roleplay. A system with measures in place to discourage living in outer areas whilst still allowing freedom has not been attempted and will work - it's what the server needs and must have.

[Aeus 2653]

2 minutes ago, Danny said:

Woo, it's fun time.

 

I think my views on freebuild are fairly well known now so I'll be brief and outline why I feel that it is the only reasonable approach to 6.0 we can have.

 

Freebuild:

My firm belief in a freebuild system comes from two reasons: one, an appeal to the heart and mission of LotC - 'Minecraft Roleplay' and two, it's benefit to centralising and encouraging a thriving roleplay community.

 

Firstly, 'Minecraft Roleplay'. This suggest, and entails, that the server we provide is one that encourages both aspects of that category. People can play Minecraft, people can roleplay. They act in unison and that is what provides the unique, special and appealing service LotC claims to offer. If we do not allow players to freely build then we are not providing this and instead we are simply settling for restricted Minecraft and then roleplay. Not a good shout. It's a major turn-off for new players and current players.

 

Secondly, if freebuild is actually introduced then it must not be introduced in isolation. Through introducing it along with increased mob-spawning in outer areas, relaxed villain rules and increased antagonist activity you don't have an issue of roleplay being dispersed across the map because we find as solution to make any area outside the capital cities dangerous to either live in or to even be. We enable the freedom to roleplay but the protection against dispersion. 

 

I'll simply quote from my thread here so save rambling the rest of my argument, some repetition from above:

 

 

Fast-Travels:

Removal in their entirety should be possible. They are a symptom of poor map design that fails to recognise the size of our community. Capitals must be located close enough for centralised travel and roleplay, removing need for fast travels.

 

Nation Status:

In all honesty, should be impossible to get unless you have a huge playerbase. We don't have the community to sustain many nations so make only one per race and the rest unofficial and unregioned.

 

 

0

 

 

 

1 minute ago, SuperDuckyGamer said:

 

Agreed. I think most of them should be race-based (Elves with some subsections such as welves and helves, Humans, Dwarves, Orcs, etc) and then one or two independent nations; seemingly the case rn, just that humans have alot of different nations scattered about.

0

 

 

 

So do you think that we should make the perks that nations get (Such as green SS pillars, subforums ect.) be made more accessible to player groups rather than nations? Or should those be reserved and have us come up with a different way to get those?

[Danny 2232]

Just now, Malimom said:

 

 

So do you think that we should make the perks that nations get (Such as green SS pillars, subforums ect.) be made more accessible to player groups rather than nations? Or should those be reserved and have us come up with a different way to get those?

0

 

 

They should be exclusive to capital nations and no player-based group should have access. We need to centralise roleplay into the capital cities until we have a playerbase capable of sustaining larger groups or more nations. That grows organically and naturally but right now is too widely dispersed. Encourage new players to instantly move towards the official capitals rather than unofficial ones and then as these places grow roleplay dense then enable further dispersion when it doesn't hamper roleplay.

[Ducklingator 795]

Just now, Malimom said:

So do you think that we should make the perks that nations get (Such as green SS pillars, subforums ect.) be made more accessible to player groups rather than nations? Or should those be reserved and have us come up with a different way to get those?

 

I think the system should involve giving something around two nations per race (Elves, Humans etc.) and then distribute a few for the larger nations such as Sutica, Veris and other independent nations. It keeps a healthy amount of nations without making too many.

[Gone 869]

When it comes to nation numbers we really don't need more than 1 nation for each race (one human, one dwarven, one orc, etc) and then 1 nation of mixed races for those that didn't quite fit in elsewhere such as mixed race families. 

 

If we do continue to just let anyone make their own nation though then please for the love of all that is good and holy do activity checks somehow on every nation. If they fail perhaps do an eventline to turn the place into ruins for a time before allowing people to try and obtain the land again later if they manage to get people and supplies.

 

Highly against freebuild myself because not only does that mean we'd have to watch out for people just randomly destroying another's work without rp behind it but also allows for people to get scattered all over the place. We'll end up with the same situation we have now of people just running off to a small corner of the map and everyone wondering where the rp is since nations are empty. 

I actually liked the system from Athera where we had certain areas that people could claim.

[Lark 2227]

1 minute ago, Malimom said:

 

 

So do you think that we should make the perks that nations get (Such as green SS pillars, subforums ect.) be made more accessible to player groups rather than nations? Or should those be reserved and have us come up with a different way to get those?

0

 

 

I don't know if those sorts of things should be more accessible to player groups, as while it is convenient for those playergroups. I think it comes down to nations being more accommodating for player groups as to encourage roleplay. Like having cultists and another group that opposes them (guards, holy order, etc) being in the same nation area instead of both groups sitting out in the middle of nowhere. They don't have to be affiliated with the nation, but by having all these factions in close proximity it encourages more interaction between them. 

[Danny 2232]

Just now, Aelsioln said:

When it comes to nation numbers we really don't need more than 1 nation for each race (one human, one dwarven, one orc, etc) and then 1 nation of mixed races for those that didn't quite fit in elsewhere such as mixed race families. 

 

If we do continue to just let anyone make their own nation though then please for the love of all that is good and holy do activity checks somehow on every nation. If they fail perhaps do an eventline to turn the place into ruins for a time before allowing people to try and obtain the land again later if they manage to get people and supplies.

 

Highly against freebuild myself because not only does that mean we'd have to watch out for people just randomly destroying another's work without rp behind it but also allows for people to get scattered all over the place. We'll end up with the same situation we have now of people just running off to a small corner of the map and everyone wondering where the rp is since nations are empty. 

I actually liked the system from Athera where we had certain areas that people could claim.

0

 

 

Agree on nation numbers - multiple per nation is just ridiculous when we have the playerbase we do.

 

Freebuild wouldn't have the issues you mention if we actually did it correctly. It's not about wholly freebuild with no measures in place but rather having system that makes fringe areas of the map almost impossible to live in and provides blessings for being in central areas means that people don't end up in outer areas of the map. We enable freedom for the familiarity and Minecraft-esque experience it provides but we do it in a way that still encourages roleplay to be constantly centralised. Likewise, the issue with people randomly destroying people's work is the reason we have a whitelist in place and is protected against on the basis only players interested enough to roleplay get through, we can fully expect the majority of those players to be trustworthy and we do have staff in place if they aren't.

[Aeus 2653]

There is also something I wanted to bring up, and that's general regions. Should charters be able to go out and make a region if they have enough players (somewhat how it currently is)? And how about making regions in major cities/capitals to encourage people to live in it, without the fear of their homes being broken into as easily.

[Danny 2232]

1 minute ago, Malimom said:

There is also something I wanted to bring up, and that's general regions. Should charters be able to go out and make a region if they have enough players (somewhat how it currently is)? And how about making regions in major cities/capitals to encourage people to live in it, without the fear of their homes being broken into as easily.

0

 

 

Capital cities must be regioned, without a doubt. Also so should the main road and a radius around it, ideally 10 blocks or so. The main nations should have the option, once a short while into 6.0, to introduce regions to one or two of their other towns / settlements when the playerbase exists to sustain that, such places must be smaller than capitals and lack to appeal. Other than that, unless a player group has a very high headcount and is distinct enough to justify it, no regions should be granted to anyone else. That's the only way to secure centralised roleplay and sustain a functional approach to freebuild.

[Lark 2227]

Also, on the topic of nations. I understand there are so many different cultures and subtypes of races but wouldn't it make more sense to have them all in one national area rather than having their own individual cities? Obviously roleplay would have to precede this but getting them all at least in one area shouldn't be too hard at least have say Heartlanders and Qarasheens (however you spell that) in the same nation but in different cultural quarters.