[imahaxor]

Make villagers agro like pigmen and weild diamond swords, people would think twice about hurting one.
On a more serious note, it would be next to impossible to ban someone for killing a villager without server- side modding.

[mitchman04]

Villagers can breed. So if at least two survive the initial rush, then I'd imagine there would be plenty.

Anyhow, 5.0 is too far in the future to be planning this kind of thing for, really.

Good point that villagers can breed.

+1

[DrHetterscheidt]

Villagers can breed. So if at least two survive the initial rush, then I'd imagine there would be plenty.

Anyhow, 5.0 is too far in the future to be planning this kind of thing for, really.

Good point that villagers can breed.

+1

Do they breed on their own or is there some sort of wheat-like system?

[dlgn]

They breed on their own, but I dislike the idea of having to keep a 'reserve' of villagers, as it would give an advantage to those who had the reserve, and even if the admins did, it wouldn't be fair to those who live way far out, or just want to trade occasionally with villagers without annexing the village. In some ways, that's the biggest problem: what if people want to trade regularly without buying the realm the village is on?


How about we make it so whenever all the villagers in a village are dead, or whenever there are fewer than say, 5, villagers in a village, they respawn gradually until there are that many in the village again?

[Ryu Aurora]

If emerald ore is made to be mineable (minable?) then I don't really care what happens to the villagers.
However, them being invincible certainly would seem to solve the complaints that are present in this thread. This would, however, make the server less vanilla, which is really the reason we all like it.

Take your pick. You can have a less vanilla SMP server, or you can find a way to adapt to the situation.

[dlgn]

Bumpity? The mods need to voice the official opinion on this.

[eah]

I haz idea. Make them invincible in public realms, but still killable in private realms. Consider it another one of the many non-vanilla multiplayer necessities to resist griefing.

[nkirby3385]

OR! you just do what you have to do with any precious commodity. You keep a pair on reserve.

IF you buy a realm that has a village in it, take two of the villagers and bury them, or build a panic room or something, and you NEVER need worry about not having them. It's like how good sheep/cow/chicken farmers on 4.0 reserve a pair of each in case some of the others despawn or get killed.

[dlgn]

I haz idea. Make them invincible in public realms, but still killable in private realms. Consider it another one of the many non-vanilla multiplayer necessities to resist griefing.

I think this is a brilliant idea, as long as they would only be killable if the owner was killing them.

OR! you just do what you have to do with any precious commodity. You keep a pair on reserve.

IF you buy a realm that has a village in it, take two of the villagers and bury them, or build a panic room or something, and you NEVER need worry about not having them. It's like how good sheep/cow/chicken farmers on 4.0 reserve a pair of each in case some of the others despawn or get killed.

The problem with this is, what if you don't want to buy the realm, and just want to trade with the villagers on occasion? What if a griefer/troll finds those villagers and kills them? There are many variables here. Also, I don't think any staff have yet voiced the official opinion.

[Ryu Aurora]

OR! you just do what you have to do with any precious commodity. You keep a pair on reserve.

IF you buy a realm that has a village in it, take two of the villagers and bury them, or build a panic room or something, and you NEVER need worry about not having them. It's like how good sheep/cow/chicken farmers on 4.0 reserve a pair of each in case some of the others despawn or get killed.

My bible-referance senses are tingling...