[mtndewzane]

I have recently saw the announcements post by intelli talking about things that will come of 3.0.

It was bumped by someone and I took a look at the ideas that Intelli first had.

The one that caught my attention the most was the Idea of not just realms but countries.

The ideas do not need to be re-written but i will put the link of the post that has these ideas in them.


http://minerealm.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1319

There you will find the ideas of intelli that i suggest we think about implementing them. It would change the server for the better and increase a more fun way to compete with the other realms.

- Mtndewzane

[Cogohst]

It was scrapped because people didn't want to have to fight for the land they worked to gain. That, and it favors large groups over everyone else. I would have personally loved this system, but we won't be changing until Notch adds some content that requires a map reset (1.8 update for sure).

[mtndewzane]

OK thanks for informing me cogo. I am also a supporter of this idea, and would love to see it in 1.8. I sure hope that Intelli thinks about it.

It would make a huge change to the server and would increase a more fighting styles between groups of people.

[CirJohn]

It is an interesting idea, but it is poorly executed. For instance, a war based on spending what equates to realm credits will never relate to pvp.

Possible refinements:

1. Only members of a country may destroy blocks in plots that are not on the edge of that country. This prevents destructive griefing by rivals while allowing them to assault fortifications.

2. PvP is disabled between members of the same country, but enabled for all others. This should reduce PvP griefing in spawn areas.

3. Killing players from other countries transfers some of their credits to your own country. This brings the PvP to the whole system. If you want to defeat a rival country, then killing their people is advantageous. The amount of credits stolen could be scaled according to the number of members of each country. Town walls, defensive structures, raiding parties, and all maner of warfare would be encouraged by this.

4. If members of a country get damage reduction within their spawn area, then it would greatly discourage attackers from spawn griefing. This would also make a "final assault" on a country's last plot a serious undertaking. Damage reduction could also be scaled based on distance from either the spawn of the edge of the country.

The actual conquest of a rival plot and how plot credits work seems good. there may be tweeks needed, but nothing major.

[Cogohst]

Just let the idea die please. People decided they wanted protection and a more stable environment as opposed by anything that would involve leaders shifts, land ownership changes, and if you ask me a much more interesting experience.

[CirJohn]

Cogohst, you said that you like the idea, so why not try to make it better instead of stopping it altogether? We all know that there is no chance of this idea going live before 1.8, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. This idea has a much better chance of success if we address the issues it raises.

For instance:

1. You stated that many players were concerned with security.

An easy way to address this would be to prevent members of other countries from accessing blocks. I fleshed that idea out in my previous post.

To protect you against your own countrymen, the dreaded "lockable chests" is the best solution. It does need some modification though. First, a chest is only locked when a player places it inside the borders of the country he is a member of. Second, a locked chest may only be accessed or destroyed by its owner or a leader of his country. Third, if a plot is conquered then all chests within that plot are unlocked.

This encourages joining a country to gain security. Furthermore, it makes theft in the wilderness a game-mechanic instead of an exploit.

2. You expressed that there was concern over the system favoring large groups over small. While that is a harsh reality of war, there are ways to avoid and mitigate the problem.

The original design stated that you can only attemt to conquer plots adjacent to your country. Small and new countries could avoid larger conquerers by building away from existing countries.

To further mitigate the issue, PvP rewards could be scaled based on the number of members of the involved countries. For example, lets assume the base reward for killing a player is the transfer of 100 credits from his country to yours.

The 100 credits could be scaled as such: (number of members of killed player's country) / (number of members of killing player's country) * 100. This would allow smaller countries to form effective alliances against aggressive large countries.

Making the PvP reward a transfer of credits (instead of a bonus) also prevents friendly countries from farming kills off each other.

[CirJohn]

Another thought on security and the realms system:

The term "survival" implies that you only have as much security as your own hands and a blade of good length can suplply. A "legit" survival server should include the possibility that you can lose the things you've earned.

On the other hand, the term "creative" implies the freedom to make things without the threat of loss or the impossition of another's will. A "legit" creative server should protect what has been built.

I posit that the Realms system is more suited to the needs of the creative server, and should be moved there for the 1.8 release. On the survival server it should be replaced with the Countries system.

[Cogohst]

Cogohst, you said that you like the idea, so why not try to make it better instead of stopping it altogether? We all know that there is no chance of this idea going live before 1.8, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved upon. This idea has a much better chance of success if we address the issues it raises.

The idea was completely scrapped for the current system because people didn't like any of it. You can't improve this without changing the concept entirely, otherwise people still won't accept it and it won't pass.

[CirJohn]

The idea was completely scrapped for the current system because people didn't like any of it.

Well that's just a lie. People had complaints about specific issues - most notable was new players being randomly assigned to countries. The vast majority of people had input to make improvements where they saw a need.

The approval poll speaks for itself - 72% for, 28% against. I don't know where you're from, but that approval rating could almost change the Consitution in the states.

The topic was laid aside because it needed more planning, and Intelli was switching focus to creative.