[Roobean]

The Idea:


A Player has joined 90 Days or less ago.
That Player doesn't own any Realms but has placed and removed blocks in Public Realms.
That Player doesn't log in for 45 Days (including the 90 days).
The Public Realms in which the player placed and removed blocks get reset to its natural form but only the top 10 blocks of the realms original natural level.


Points to keep in mind;
• If a player has been on more than 90 days, including the 45 days they didn't log on, nothing gets reset. (e.g. A player join 1st August 2013 last logged in 23rd of September 2013 then doesn't log on for 45 days, nothing gets reset)
• Only the top 10 layers, of each block, of the natural original realms gets reset back; this will stop any issues over ore's being brought back and players 'grinding' with various ways and means.
• This would fix grief, random cobble placing and lack of tree's.
• Repeating again; this doesn't mean that every Pubilc Realm gets wiped. Only areas which new players which have placed or removed blocks and since not logged in for 45 days and their join date was less than 90 days ago from the end of the 45 days.

This would keep everything pretty.


Hope that all makes sense.
It's a simple plan (the coding could be a challenge?).

Opinions please!

[OrigamiElephant]

If it's possible, sure.

[BSGSamuel]

What if a new player build on an old player's structure (no block logs) and leaves, does it get reset then? How do you check that? Also, what are 'top 10 layers'?

What if an old player builds over the new player's stuff just before it gets reset? How do you check that?

Seems to complex to me.

[Roobean]

What if a new player build on an old player's structure (no block logs) and leaves, does it get reset then? How do you check that? Also, what are 'top 10 layers'?

What if an old player builds over the new player's stuff just before it gets reset? How do you check that?

Seems to complex to me.

Ah, hadn't put that into consideration enough.


What I will change is that, rather than 'realm resets'.
Roll backs.

So with the same length but rather than the public realms getting reset, it is that any block placed or removed by the player gets rolled back to how they were before.

[monkeychunks]

In 45 days tons of players will have past through that same spot and broken blocks. Even if those players reset the 45 days it will probably keep resetting and the land wont regen at all.

[Roobean]

In 45 days tons of players will have past through that same spot and broken blocks. Even if those players reset the 45 days it will probably keep resetting and the land wont regen at all.

If this is so the case, which may not be so, some block will still be rollbacked which will keep the land partially looking pretty.

[Thechicken]

REALLY

[Tyranitar140]

Only problem for me is that this seems totally un-vanilla

[Rixih]

Since you reformatted it to basically a rollback of their stuff. I think what needs to be brought up is the fact that this rule would negatively impact some players as well. Things are not black and white, there are in fact grey areas. The players who do end up coming on will have their stuff rolled back and will be upset that their work/items are gone and possibly even die in blocks that weren't there when they logged out.
In my opinion it's not necessary, any land that people intend to buy for legit reasons they can ask a staff member if it's ok to tear down/use the land.
Basically I voted no, it's unnecessary coding for something we already do. If it's something bannable we roll it back, if it's not the person intending on using the land can do the work. I believe in them.

[Roobean]

Since you reformatted it to basically a rollback of their stuff. I think what needs to be brought up is the fact that this rule would negatively impact some players as well. Things are not black and white, there are in fact grey areas. The players who do end up coming on will have their stuff rolled back and will be upset that their work/items are gone and possibly even die in blocks that weren't there when they logged out.
In my opinion it's not necessary, any land that people intend to buy for legit reasons they can ask a staff member if it's ok to tear down/use the land.
Basically I voted no, it's unnecessary coding for something we already do. If it's something bannable we roll it back, if it's not the person intending on using the land can do the work. I believe in them.

That makes sense.