Welcome to our Forums!
Type /register while in-game to register for a forum account.
Empty Generator Deletion
- Thread starter Cryptite
- Start date
Would you be willing to delete the wedding island gen? I just want to grab the diamond block and that gen can be deleted.
Cryptite said:
Crackin' down on Generator cheaters huh Crypt?
Cryptite said:
I think it should be if the lever, chest or dia block are missing (and it was activated) it would be considered a gen cheat
Zor95 said:BOOOM?
I'd actually planned for gens to explode when they died, but honestly, 99% of the time that happens, noone will be around for that, so the blocks will probably just get turned to air instead.
EpicBacon99 said:
Gens do not function if the lever, chest, or diamond block are missing. They won't even load, so there's no way to cheat that. Cheating in our mind is having the necessary members to start a gen, but the other two members leave and then you're just able to have a personal one-man generator. This will not be the case soon, and, at least as far as I'm aware, all towns/gens will require 3 home members to run properly or face become inactive.
We agreed that players who preferred independently should not be denied generators.
First of all since they don't have /home they'd need to walk back every single time. You've said you have a plan for this, but it hasn't been implemented yet and definitely needs to be before you require 3 home members.
Secondly, these independent players would have absolutely no protection from griefing. Sure, we can always revert the damage, but it's a major inconvenience that no one else has to deal with.
As far as "cheating the system" goes... how many active generators can you name that actually do so?
First of all since they don't have /home they'd need to walk back every single time. You've said you have a plan for this, but it hasn't been implemented yet and definitely needs to be before you require 3 home members.
Secondly, these independent players would have absolutely no protection from griefing. Sure, we can always revert the damage, but it's a major inconvenience that no one else has to deal with.
As far as "cheating the system" goes... how many active generators can you name that actually do so?
Zor95 said:
I don't think it was quite like that. We agreed that any player, regardless of rank, should be able to create a town, but it was never intended that you could create a generator just for yourself. We mean for anybody to be able to create towns, but we don't want every single person to be able to create their own 300m personal generator, which is what I thought we did agree on.
The /sethome thing for Wanderers/Nomads is the first to be implemented before we move on to the gen requirements; that much is certain.
Nobody's really cheating the system, and if they are, I'm certain it's not intentional, we just don't have any of those rules implemented yet. This is more a change for the future whenever we may get an influx of new people from a heavy advertising push and we want to ensure that we don't wind up with a bunch of abandoned towns and generators if we get multiple groups of people that join, play for 2 days, start a gen, then leave. If they do leave, we want the system to be able to clean itself up and, for any remaining players, to know they must either recruit to keep their town running or join another town.
Almost all of these 'gen' changes are to ensure a self-running and cleaning system that won't require constant admin intervention. That allows us to enforce rules and fight hackers; keeping the server clean and all that silly business.
Right and that's great and all, but what about those independent players?
Also I understand how it's easier for you who no longer has to browse through a hundred generator files and delete them, but if we can't think of any case where this has been abused in the past (intentionally or not) then it likely won't be in the future and we don't really need to fix it.
Also I understand how it's easier for you who no longer has to browse through a hundred generator files and delete them, but if we can't think of any case where this has been abused in the past (intentionally or not) then it likely won't be in the future and we don't really need to fix it.
Zor95 said:
If they're choosing to be independent, then they're also choosing to live without the benefits of a town and thus the benefits of protection.
According to Mag's would-be-rules at present (which are not final and perhaps too strict), I just counted and, I won't list them, but about 14 towns would deactivate after a couple of weeks. That is to say, these towns have less than 3 home members.
Cryptite said:
But those 14 towns aren't being used how Magpie fears they will be. That is, personal vaults. That's the main reason he wants this change, but I can't think of any case where someone has made their town into a personal vault.
Towns aren't everything, they're simply one way to play the server. People like MrAlchemy prefer to live alone and build amazing structures. Do you want to take that away?
The other reason for the change is to bring people back together again. Currently everyone has their own idea for a town and wants to make one. But that simply would not work as they would have no one else to help out with it because everyone else has a town of their own.
There is nothing stopping people building on their own. We have powers of roll back now so if they do get damaged we can fix it. Also as long as they build a decent distance from spawn no new player will reach it and therefore the risk of it being griefed is very low.
There is nothing stopping people building on their own. We have powers of roll back now so if they do get damaged we can fix it. Also as long as they build a decent distance from spawn no new player will reach it and therefore the risk of it being griefed is very low.
We're not worried about personal vaults because you can (will) only own one town. I think we just want to reduce the number of towns on the server. Seems to me we want 5 good towns rather than 2 good ones and 3 defunct hermit towns.
I could be swayed either way, I suppose, but I think if you are allowed to own a gen by yourself, it should either be expensive or your range should be limited by membership. It's not fair for a person, by themselves, to be able to own a 250m protection zone, imo.
Zor95 said:
I could be swayed either way, I suppose, but I think if you are allowed to own a gen by yourself, it should either be expensive or your range should be limited by membership. It's not fair for a person, by themselves, to be able to own a 250m protection zone, imo.
I honestly think it'd be better to designate certain structures as building projects and give them WG protection. If they change their mind and want to make it into a town then WG would be removed and they'd have to set up a gen.
Satellites are just an idea atm.
Magpieman said:
Satellites are just an idea atm.
Magpieman said:
That's one of the reasons I'm so heavily against giving independent builders no protection. We all know that as soon as Lotus Blossom's generator dies the place will be ravaged. All of Alchemy's building supplies will be gone in a day or two. As a Guardian he could of course just teleport back and forth with supplies as needed, but very few have that privilege. It's not practical.