Talk about absolutely anything here!
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
User avatar
By 0820497
#174099
cobaya18 wrote:But then, cob had an idea: "Why not just a second map?"
A better solution would be to make a parameter around spawn that isn't wiped, and also put a parameter around historic builds such as arcane, and then wipe the rest of the map. This would also allow people to store their items on spawn realms, even people without spawn realms could store their stuff on a friend of their spawn realm. Then again I think we should wait for the actual update to be out before discussing this too much ;)
By Eetrab
#174105
Did you see what the last map wipe did? Abyssus is still suffering from the consequences. No.
User avatar
By Meowrocket
#174138
I'm never going to give up my months of work just to get new biomes.
Frankly, I don't care that much.
We've been having fun in 1.6, why do we suddenly need the next best thing?
It's like those people who buy the best TV, but as soon as another one pops up with a couple more channels or a bigger screen they run off and buy that instead.
Why can't we just be content with what we have?
But no, we want the best and we want it now.
*stops rant and goes to play Power Rangers on my Game Gear*

-Meow
User avatar
By dlgn
#174173
TechnoProdigy wrote:I thought I'd have a go at the Amplified biomes.
Spoiler:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Hi god.
By Soul K
#174215
With all the changes coming a public map wipe is needed more then ever.

Regarding Spawn that area doesnt need to be built on land anyways since all the realms are owned and flattened out and built up on so it could be an ocean for all its worth and noone would ever know.

Amplified has some sweet mountains too. How it should be.
User avatar
By TechnoProdigy
#174216
Soul K wrote:With all the changes coming a public map wipe is needed more then ever.

Regarding Spawn that area doesnt need to be built on land anyways since all the realms are owned and flattened out and built up on so it could be an ocean for all its worth and noone would ever know.

Amplified has some sweet mountains too. How it should be.
Do you remember how terrible the realm borders looked like with the last public map wipe?
By eah
#174218
TechnoProdigy wrote:
cobaya18 wrote:But then, cob had an idea: "Why not just a second map?"
Second map would introduce more server load, aka, more lag.
How? 40 players on one map ≈ 40*169 chunks loaded. 40 players on multiple maps ≈ 40*169 chunks loaded. I don't think the current map takes up much space on disk. Maybe 4 to 16 GB?
User avatar
By TechnoProdigy
#174219
eah2119 wrote:
TechnoProdigy wrote:
cobaya18 wrote:But then, cob had an idea: "Why not just a second map?"
Second map would introduce more server load, aka, more lag.
How? 40 players on one map ≈ 40*169 chunks loaded. 40 players on multiple maps ≈ 40*169 chunks loaded. I don't think the current map takes up much space on disk. Maybe 4 to 16 GB?
....the disk space doesn't really attribute to the lag.
User avatar
By Emershaan
#174220
Everyone's going crazy to dive into this debate immediately and pick a side with some pre-defined cut-and-dried solution.

Calm the hell down and take some more time to think about the situation and consequences of all proposed solutions.

Total map wipe: New biomes+resources, but the last 2+ years of server history wiped out. (Also, to re-state for the millionth time, Intelli has clearly stated that there will never be another total map wipe. So there's that.) Also, many players choose this server for its stability and the guarantee of the safety of their builds, and will likely leave if that's jeapordized.

Public land wipe: New biomes+resources, -most- builds preserved, but builds on public realms lost, some areas of terrain further mangled, and biomes on preserved land change unpredictably (i.e., forests and grasslands may be changed to unsightly brown desert foliage tones, many areas become covered with snow while snow areas become rainy, etc.)

Wilderness-only wipe: New biomes+resources, though only in a less-accessible location, relatively small number of builds lost (which were not strongly expected to be protected anyway), rest of map preserved.

Secondary server: New biomes+resources and this server preserved, but potentially MASSIVELY expensive.

Secondary map on the same server: New biomes+resources and this map preserved, but potentially a lot of extra server load causing lag.

No change: Everything stays stable, but no new terrain/items. The server's content will gradually become more outdated with the absence of new resources.

Personally, I'm for either a wilderness-only or public land wipe. Both preserve the important parts of the current map while introducing the new content. Both, though, have upsides and downsides in relation to each other.

A wilderness wipe makes the new content difficult to access and means that new landscapes would be unable to be protected by purchasing, but also leaves the rest of the map fully intact. Furthermore, due to the limited area of the wilderness, it would probably be very difficult to find a seed from which to generate it that would include all the newer biomes within that area.

A public land wipe would, while still preserving owned builds, allow a huge area for the newer biomes to exist, make them relatively easy to access and make it possible for them to be protected by purchasing. It would also restore heavily mined-out ores and deforested areas. However, as mentioned above, the altered biome layout would have unpredictable effects in owned land, such as altered weather patterns and discolored foliage. Furthermore, this makes borders between old and new land look obviously messed up, though it should be noted that players do much worse damage to the look of the landscape all the time. A further issue may be that players (particularly large guilds) would covet and quickly purchase up new-biome areas, possibly hindering the accessibility of the land and its resources.

A secondary map on the same server may still be a viable option, pending an estimate (and possibly test) of how much load it would put on the server. If it would not cause noticeable lag, then this would be my strongly preferred option.

"Vanilla-ness" is not being taken into account here, as the majority of the server has expressed that staying extremely close to vanilla is not all that important, and the server is already (and has for most of its history been) not particularly vanilla.

As a final note, we should look further to the server's future beyond this update. Down the road there will undoubtedly be more major updates introducing additional new biomes and resources. We can't treat this as a one-time special event, we have to be aware that in time we'll be in the same situation again, and possibly again and again.

TL;DR there is no single cut-and-dried absolute best option, but the option that will be most all-around favorable can be settled on by cooling down and taking time to look at all the pros and cons. Much better to reach a solid decision later than a questionable decision now.
By eah
#174222
TechnoProdigy wrote:
eah2119 wrote:
TechnoProdigy wrote:
cobaya18 wrote:But then, cob had an idea: "Why not just a second map?"
Second map would introduce more server load, aka, more lag.
How? 40 players on one map ≈ 40*169 chunks loaded. 40 players on multiple maps ≈ 40*169 chunks loaded. I don't think the current map takes up much space on disk. Maybe 4 to 16 GB?
....the disk space doesn't really attribute to the lag.
But limited disk space is a load the server must carry.

Wiping the wilderness is the simplest and least painful option to bring in new features, but, IMO, adding a separate world is most satisfying. People want fresh land? They get it. People want new features? They get it. People want their creations to remain standing? They get it.

Though, adding a second world has the same problem as having a second server. The new world gets more attention, while the old world suffers a slow, painful death. Then there is the question of whether items should be transferable between the worlds. Should old builds have the ability of being renovated with new blocks? Would that be spawning in items? Can old players bring their vast riches into the new world or should everyone have the same fresh start?

From my perspective, a second world seems pleasant. However, Intelli often does things the traditional way. Multiple worlds isn't traditional.
long long title how many chars? lets see 123 ok more? yes 60

We have created lots of YouTube videos just so you can achieve [...]

Another post test yes yes yes or no, maybe ni? :-/

The best flat phpBB theme around. Period. Fine craftmanship and [...]

Do you need a super MOD? Well here it is. chew on this

All you need is right here. Content tag, SEO, listing, Pizza and spaghetti [...]

Lasagna on me this time ok? I got plenty of cash

this should be fantastic. but what about links,images, bbcodes etc etc? [...]