[aguy130]

A wise sage came to me, and gave me this vision. He has helped me see The Light! You should all rejoice, for you now may be enlightened and shown the correct decision.

On 11/15/11, at 1:39 AM, Archduke Bulbicus wrote:
> There's no PvP.

On 11/15/11, at 1:39 AM, Archduke Bulbicus wrote:
> It's a carebear server,

On 11/15/11, at 1:39 AM, Archduke Bulbicus wrote:
> Where nobody can get robbed.

WE MUST CAST OFF OUR FLUFFY CHAINS AND EMBRACE THE TRUE PATH!

[fritterdonut]

Well, I can't say I like the idea of being able to 'outpurchase' realms from under people.

Let it be known, if it happens, that I might be spending 170,000 rc to pinch a realm out from under someone.
:lol:

[jtcanon]

I've been wanting this since it was proposed in moderator chat before 3.0. I cannot wait to see what is implemented. Ceteri will become the one true nation devoted to friendship and growth.

[Emershaan]

If countries exactly (or almost exactly) as described in the old thread are implemented, whoever's richest will instantly crush everybody else and take over everything. The server will become "Join these people or you can't do anything", basically meaning that it's a whitelist controlled completely by a random cluster of players. And on the small off-chance that that doesn't happen, and multiple countries manage to survive, it basically means that hostility and division between groups will go WAY higher than it ever was in 2.0, which you said you didn't like.

If guilds/leveling are implemented as described, it won't really improve gameplay in any discernible way. The guild/leveling system just seems to be unnecessary flashy plugins.

So basically, you're demanding we choose between the server being completely dominated by one group, or unnecessary 'features' slapped on. But if it's come to this, even though it has no chance of winning, I'd choose the extra plugins.

[CHAOSiron13]

I voted for countries because I think it would be interesting to see more teamwork beetween many realms. (Plus I want to go to war! HAHAHAH!)

[Prodigy9]

Overall I prefer the concept of countries, but I think that wars (and the associated loss of territory) should be voluntary. If there is no option to opt out of a war with territory at stake, the system would essentially legitimize a certain form of theft and griefing (since the conqueror of a territory would be free to take any items stored there, or to destroy whatever structures the previous owner had built).

It would also be nice to have wars that can happen without either party risking a realm/city/country/etc... a PvP system with stakes no higher than whatever materials someone happens to be carrying, but more organized than the current system of unofficial factions participating in PvP. Perhaps there could be an option for a single faction to declare war (at which point PvP between members of the aggressor and the target is automatically turned on, and cannot be turned off unless a peace agreement is reached), but putting territory on the line can only be done by mutual agreement (e.g. betting one of your territories against one of your opponent's). That way, there would be quite a lot of room for aggression against other players, but it would be impossible to steal their realms and their accumulated items.

[OtherKitty]

Overall I prefer the concept of countries, but I think that wars (and the associated loss of territory) should be voluntary. If there is no option to opt out of a war with territory at stake, the system would essentially legitimize a certain form of theft and griefing (since the conqueror of a territory would be free to take any items stored there, or to destroy whatever structures the previous owner had built).

It would also be nice to have wars that can happen without either party risking a realm/city/country/etc... a PvP system with stakes no higher than whatever materials someone happens to be carrying, but more organized than the current system of unofficial factions participating in PvP. Perhaps there could be an option for a single faction to declare war (at which point PvP between members of the aggressor and the target is automatically turned on, and cannot be turned off unless a peace agreement is reached), but putting territory on the line can only be done by mutual agreement (e.g. betting one of your territories against one of your opponent's). That way, there would be quite a lot of room for aggression against other players, but it would be impossible to steal their realms and their accumulated items.

i like what prodigy has to say here. i really hope there will still be a place for people like me on this server... i have no interest in pvp, and i don't like the sound of all this aggression

[cloudtheclow]

Overall I prefer the concept of countries, but I think that wars (and the associated loss of territory) should be voluntary. If there is no option to opt out of a war with territory at stake, the system would essentially legitimize a certain form of theft and griefing (since the conqueror of a territory would be free to take any items stored there, or to destroy whatever structures the previous owner had built).

It would also be nice to have wars that can happen without either party risking a realm/city/country/etc... a PvP system with stakes no higher than whatever materials someone happens to be carrying, but more organized than the current system of unofficial factions participating in PvP. Perhaps there could be an option for a single faction to declare war (at which point PvP between members of the aggressor and the target is automatically turned on, and cannot be turned off unless a peace agreement is reached), but putting territory on the line can only be done by mutual agreement (e.g. betting one of your territories against one of your opponent's). That way, there would be quite a lot of room for aggression against other players, but it would be impossible to steal their realms and their accumulated items.

i like what prodigy has to say here. i really hope there will still be a place for people like me on this server... i have no interest in pvp, and i don't like the sound of all this aggression

I 3rd this argument.

[Sir_Dave88]

I definitely support what Prodigy has to say here. These features MUST be made so that any player may decide for him/herself wether he/she turns them on or off.

If not, I fear our server will become a griefed wasteland before long, and all the hostility and rivalry that this country system brings will do little good to the community.

Thus, the point of view from someone who has no interest in pvp and likes to build awesome things without the risk of some idiots demolishing them.

[luelle]

I am missing the option "None of those". While I like the idea of new features, I would not like if the features take away my security or make it harder for newbies or makes the game less balanced.

The country system described in http://minerealm.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1319 seems to take away my security. Other people can take over my realms if they have enough money. I dont want that.

The leveling system described in http://minerealm.com/community/viewtopic.php?f=0&t=4134 prevents newbies from entering the nether and gives ownership of all the glow stone to just a few, who then control the prices. unless... I heard rumors, that the nether is going to be bigger. If that is true, please advertise that and make us undersand better.

Based on the current info I have to say, country system and leveling system are pretty bad. The current system without any of those is a lot of fun though . I would rather keep the current system over these proposals. I am open to better changes though. Thx for hearing my opinion .

I agree with this. I've been saving up my credits so I can buy fresh realms after the wipe. I would hate to have saved for nearly 3 months and then have someone overtake what I've worked towards for so long.

Just my opinion. I'm not all about the pvp and that kind of stuff. Creepers are bad enough, I don't want to worry about players attacking and looting me when all I want to do is enjoy the game.