Grand Compromise

[Timberwolf1777]

Love it. Thats the citadel region right now but there has been some ... frustration caused by its accidentally large size (roughly 80 x 80) so I am guessing that 100x100 would be a bit of a problem. Maybe a max of 1000 square blocks units (20 by 50, 25 by 40, 31 by 32, etc) would be a solution that the mods could stomach.

[abigail Profile]

a little late, but:
i am also attached to my house and hyrule castle as well. i can see the castle on dynmap without zooming in o.o
i still have the irl copy of the plans to my dome house so i could make it again. and glass is easy-er to obtain early in surival. especially if theres a bunch of us standing around twitmart getting more resources for everyone (you start looking for diamonds, you set up a food stall, ill get coal for glass and bricks) etc at the very -very- beginning

if there is a push-it option for homes for the players moving forward i would actually be willing to use my space for hyrule castle (what portion it can cover). which i spent far-far-far much more time building the castle than the the combined inventories contained i have in all my homes plus building them (there is my w. leo house i love too, but it's small enough i could rebuild it and put on a ngtflyer designs logo/sign on the house).

anything else id rather talk about at the town hall rather than continue to ramble here. i am not against a reset but i am strongly for carrying one thing forward. my only discussion is what exactly i would be allowed to carry forward

[SWfan85 Profile]

Timber, I agree with you completely. I just used the 100x100 as a quick example. I think that "full height" regions could also go a long way to dealing with griefing by protecting builds that might stretch above or below what a current region can contain.

I also agree with Abigail. I am not completely against a reset, as long as I can get ONE build pushed over. I'm kind of attached to my compound. I will try to get back in time for the Town Hall, but I think the mods and some other players understand my position.

[abigail Profile]

i like building underwater. i would not like building castle hyrule again. thats pretty much the tl;dr for me above

[Dio Profile]

[Timberwolf1777]

No Dio,

You aren't the only one. I don't actually want a reset and would be quite happy with a map expansion in a single direction (doubling the map size) with 1.7 chunks and a second spawn town (connected to leoville via stargate). I wouldnt mind the biome wall if it could be cleaned up a bit ... maybe with a chasm separating it from the current world and have a bridge built up to it with some cool gates or something.

However, I am trying hard to embrace the idea vantes put forward because we do need some fresh blood and inspiration on our server and his idea seems like a good way to reinvigorate the community. I dont know whats best but the recent griefing has had a hard effect on us and I would love to see some of the energy that made me enjoy the twitcraft community so much in the first place, return.

That all said, the idea for world expansion on the possible new world that I had wasnt quite covered in the podcast completely. It breaks down like this:

Our map would start out small with maybe 3 cities (map size: 3000 blocks in all directions from spawn?)
During every major update (that had changes like horses and emeralds being added to the biomes) curley would expand our map by 1000 blocks in all 4 directions thereby adding the new biome features.
At the same time, a new stargate destination city would be founded near the new chunks with new spawn buildings and a new mayor. (This would allow newer players opportunities to become a mayor)

The idea behind this was to remove the feeling of stagnation that many of us feel toward twitcraft survival. With a map that grows with the server updates and our community, it would continually add to/give those feelings of "new" and "opportunity" we have desperately been looking for.

Thoughts?

[PosterAnonymous Profile]

Yeah... What he said!

:work hangovers suck:

I'll make some posts reflecting the ideas we discussed last night (yes, I remember that part of the evening) a little later today.

Right now: Shhhh... Quiet sleepy work time...

[Moonrunner007 Profile]

I am not opposed to a reset of the map if it will improve the future of the server. I know of many servers that have died because of this very thing. I know I have not been on as long as some of you and I am not attached to anything that I have built so far. I feel that that is the major part of the game itself. The ability to start over and build a new. Fixing things that you did before and building new things. Better opportunities and greater prospects.

But with all of you in mind, I think we should bring it all to a vote. Set a date to vote and go from there. Also, just a curious question, Is it not possible to create a new map with the newer updates and still hold onto this one. For example, I hope I am explaining right, as you enter the game for the first time you have two areas to go to. Creative as well as Survival. Could we not add another entrance to the new map. That way, you have the best of both worlds? Or do you have to reset everything? I guess my lack of knowledge of the whole server thing is showing here. Help me out.

[gregor1942 Profile]

what moonrunner says about map resets killing servers is a big scare for me. one example i have is about the same time twitcraft started the verge also started a server. and it was fun. then with the emerald update they went to "Vergecraft realms" and added some plugins like factions and worked on a big new map. which i didnt mind. until (and this is my fear with a pvp on world) a group of people decided to attack the faction i was in. the server had already suffered a loss after the reset and now it gets like two-nine people on at anytime.

overall i dont mind a reset (i like what vantes mentioned) but i worry about people leaving. but on the other hand i have played the latest snapshot and i am all for a new map as i love the new biomes

[Timberwolf1777]

Moonrunner007, your idea is a good one and one that we have explored. There is a general agreement that we probably shouldn't do that as our community is not large and that having two worlds (one mainly populated by some oldtimers like myself and some others) would split up the population of players even further and then the TWiTCraft experience for all of us would feel ... empty. So instead we are trying to choose a solution that would accommodate almost everyone ... a solution where everyone sacrifices some of what they actually want, but not enough to make them leave, in order to keep everyone together but also breathe some growth and energy back into our world.

[VanteS]

what moonrunner says about map resets killing servers is a big scare for me. one example i have is about the same time twitcraft started the verge also started a server. and it was fun. then with the emerald update they went to "Vergecraft realms" and added some plugins like factions and worked on a big new map.

Vergecraft went from a peaceful PVE survival based map focused on building to a whitelisted PVP based map focused on a confusing mix of building and PVP with the factions plugin. People don't play there because if they want PVP they can play hunger games, Minez, or many other game types to get there PVP fix elsewhere. Players interested in building left to play on other PVE servers where they don't have to worry about getting killed by bandits.

I'm not worried about a map reset killing TWiTCraft, this isn't a map reset, it is adding a brand new survival map generated with 1.7, the existing TWiTCraft survival map will still be available for your perusal.

Remember, this wont be the first time we'd be adding a brand new survival map, this will be the 3rd iteration of a survival map hosted by the admins of TWiTCraft. The previous being the ChatCraft/Chatvival maps.

Just thinking about the opportunity to create a new survival map with lessons learned from the existing TWiTCraft world has already reinvigorated my interest in TWiTCraft.

This has happened before and it will happen again.

[Timberwolf1777]

Sorry vantes, based on the recent reply to warriorbox's post, I am removing my support for a map reset. I don't want a reset and although I was willing to try to find a solution, the attempts to find a middle ground have obviously created bad feelings that aren't good for anyone. Maybe it should just come down to a vote.

[nfair Profile]

I'm of two minds - I really think a map reset would do twitcraft a lot of good but I also see the value in expanding the current map and dealing with the biome edge with some unique build opportunities. I think both will require some form of stargates to really allow players to spread out more on the map either way.

I do think I've become convinced though - a map reset should be just that, a full on reset. Everyone back to the same starting point, no bringing over builds or inventory or anything else.

However I'd like to put an idea forward and hear others opinions. After a time period (1-3 months perhaps) players could buy a build transfer. Earn enough money (or pass over equivalent value in blocks) and have the build you've selected from current twitcraft placed in your area in the new world. Want your home from twitcraft, earn it in the new world. Want a huge build moved? Pool your money with other players and have the Aquadome placed in the new world. It will give players a reason to work hard playing on the new world in order to earn something rather than sitting back and enjoying the past.

[nfair Profile]

BTW - One reason why I support a total reset initially but then allowing an opportunity to "buy" the transfer of builds over - A world reset will allow the players willing to put in the time to excel. I suspect many of the same players will be the ones building amazing things and dominating the in game economy but some players may become incentivized to put forth more effort because they perceive more opportunities to do so. But in order to keep twitcraft vital from now until a potential world reset you need something players will assign long term (post reset) value to. Being able to bring builds over (at a price representing at least material costs) could be the incentive to keep current players motivated if a reset is announced.

[Timberwolf1777]

It is a neat idea nfair but on a personal level, as the "materials cost" of my home (let alone build time) is valued at around 1,000,000c so that option is useless to me. On a world reset, all of my time would be either spent replicating it from scratch or clay mining myself to insanity earning the coins to buy it.

Both options are silly and frustrating. So, I still say no to any sort of world reset.

[edwin Profile]

i support timber 100%