TNT Cannons and Upcoming Slime Block Planes

[Psychedelic98]

I'd be willing to bet that there would be more raiding if raiders were restricted to certain days.

 

[Zor95]

Or a ritual would develop involving the picking up and moving of all valuables into a secure obsidian vault and then logging out inside that vault until the time had passed. At least for some towns.

 

[Kobeyador]

If we accept planes/bridges/cannons back then there would have to be a rule on how many attempts on can make in a day/week to break into a town. As example.... I remember an incident where a player used a tnt cannon to try to burrow under a town for entry. No matter how you look at it if you use any of these methods more then 3 times "for entry only" then you are getting into grief territory.

 

[Lazuli73]

TNT tuesdays

I'll admit that gif made me laugh.

 

[Kobeyador]

Since everyone is talking about the topic consistently I would like to propose we prepare a list of guide lines for the use of planes/cannons/bridges if we were to accept them back into the server.This is just a Guideline on what the members think are far if these tools were allowed.
*EDIT*This is just something that we would be able submit to the admins to attempt to have a member imposed rules on this matter.IF they allow these items.

***************OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS*************

This is just what I have thrown together in a few minutes (an hour). Depending on the groups reaction I can write this in more detail and finish it. We can see if crypt and mag will hear out our proposal. Let me know if you like or dislike the general idea of bringing back tnt and other builds for raiding.
If this gets good reviews I will make a topic just for this.

Definitions: BOLD lettered words are defined in the definitions.
*Entity/Entities- blocks affected by gravity,tnt, and water/lava
*Event- the process, in which results in the movement or destruction of blocks, in a area protected by a Town by a non-member.
*Mechanism- A built structure that can be used to cause an Event
*Lifetime- The frame of time in which a Mechanism maintains the ability to control the entity/blocks used to cause an Event.
(NOTE)The Begging of a Lifetime starts at the first signs of an Event and ends when the Mechanism can no longer be used to continue moving blocks and has reached any limits set in the rules.
*Attempt- All Events caused in the Lifetime of a Mechanism

GUIDELINE FOR DESTRUCTIVE ENTRY
A. Acceptable conduct for raiding
1. Number of attempts may not exceed 3 a day on the same town.
2. Number of attempts may not exceed 6 a week on the same town.
3. Number of entities used in an attempt may not exceed 3.
4. If a Mechanism can still cause Events without using any more entities when it has reached its 3 entity limit, then its lifetime will continue until It can no longer cause events.
B.Limit blocks for large Mechanisms to easy to break blocks for faster clean up?
C.Limit Raiding Alliances, who, and how many players can attack a single town?
D.exceptions to the rules for special events/conditions/punishments/unforeseen
circumstances?
E. Taking screenshots during Attempts to protect yourself from allegations? Or maybe have a third party for a witness.


Thanks for reading. I tried to word and define it in a way to leave little to no loop holes. Lets me know if I need to reword or clarify any segments.

 

[Psychedelic98]

We don't have the admin power to be this specific on our cannon rules. Doing stuff like this makes it seem necessary to review every raid, or at the very least most of them.
The main reason people were upset with the frequency of raids before their ban was the small number of towns to be targeted. It was mentioned that once there were multiple towns that could attack each other, cannons would likely be brought back. Now, there are several attacking towns, and the vast majority of players want them back. It seems like a no-brainer.

 

[Kobeyador]

OK.... Psych....I don't mean to sound rude but... your statements are just not trustworthy to me without any actual proof. To start off.... do you really think it is a "no-brainer" to make tnt cannons and all other mechanisms legal with little to no guidelines? I honestly think that that will just cause the banishment of tnt cannons again after the first couple of raids. Also who specifically wants tnt cannons back in? Do you have a total count and a list of the names of people who wants tnt cannons unbanned? Honestly, not a very convincing argument when you are just saying "...the vast majority of players want them back."
I just reread this forum thread and I read comments from only 4 players(5 including yourself) that sounded like they wanted cannons unbanned without stating any conditions: quotes listed at bottom. Based on this discussion alone, that is NOT a "vast majority of players". The only "no-brainer" is that the admins saw that tnt cannons were a possible problem in the past, so they banned them.
Would it not be the best thing to actually gather people together and actually show that tnt cannons and mechanisms would be a plus to the servers quality and population? That we the members of the community can actually set our own rules that can create a fair environment for players, while limiting the burdens on the admins?

Anyways I posted quotes from this forum thread below in categories on who sounds in favor of what. If I missed anything... Please.... let me know.

Favors tnt return: no conditions stated (TOTAL:5)

It seems like a no-brainer.

Yo, ValenceLP spittin' mad suggestions your way. I feel that TNT cannons should be re-introduced.

Hmm.. You do make a point. Having people to get raided and to have a chance to get at the person that raided them by getting their things back from the raider. At first I didnt like the idea of this, but you have a point. I give this a Thumbs Up !

On one hand I want raiding back and on the other hand, I don't want to be raided. I do like the idea of more conflict though, so. I'm for it.

I'm with Psy on these things.

Favors tnt return:conditions stated (TOTAL:2)

I support cannons if pearls are disabled again.

(1) (IMO) TnT cannons, slime piston planes, and Piston bridges are very powerful and can definitely be used(IF used properly) to liven up pvp and tensions between towns and alliances.

Does Not Sound in favor of tnt return (TOTAL:2)

In other threads like this before, which the whole debate on whether or not to re able TNT cannons, true "raiders" said they have raid to get the riches out of vaults and into the community again. See now that statement is pure bull as once they are done raiding they hoard it in there own vault. If we were to re enable TNT cannons we would have to disable ender pearls again. Also why does everyone NEED to have conflict to play on Loka, are you all blood thirsty sadistic murderous psychopaths. Violence isn't always the answer, not all new players want to have their new towns have vultures hovering around all the time. Persistent violence to new players would only chase them away.

The thing is that not everyone has time to put up defenses against raiding. If tnt cannons were allowed the only way to counteract them is to have a huge obsidian wall, domes covered in water or having max town radius. Not everyone will want to or be able to protect themselves, and in the end will halt the server's population growth and lower it rather than increase it. This isn't a factions server, this server has experienced very low points in terms of population because no one really wants to spend time building a home only to have it tnt'd. People should be able to be safe if they put in the effort, but protecting from tnt cannons is too much for the average minecraft player.

As for saying that people who get raided will be fueled to counterattack is not necessarily true, people who get raided and have a job or school to go to as well as other things that make them busy may simply quit, as has happened.

I can modify my walls to stop TNT, the problem is that it's ugly as fuck to have water cover your view of the already slightly obstructed sky. No, not every item can be kept in an obsidian vault. If you placed any other block except for obsidian in the entrance, that can be blasted off, and no one wants to mine obsidian to get to even semi valuable items after a time. The only towns left from when TNT cannons were enabled (from what I've seen) is Dellsmite, Albion, and your town. Where did the others go, and why did they leave?


I know Loka has hit some very very low points in terms of population, when TNT was disabled the server has grown. The only people who I know have been unbanned were Andre and the Reach, both of which are not active. I'm going to predict that if cannons are re enabled, yes, there will be plenty of conflict, but the population will again go down.

 

[Psychedelic98]

Also who specifically wants tnt cannons back in? Do you have a total count and a list of the names of people who wants tnt cannons unbanned? Honestly, not a very convincing argument when you are just saying "...the vast majority of players want them back."

I don't have a list of the names of people who want cannons unbanned, but here's my source for the vast majority of players want them back.

This shows that ~46% of people want cannons back as they were, and an additional ~32% want them more restricted than they were in the past. As we can see, insiders The reason that I think cannons need a stronger push than insiders is that cannons are significantly less harmful to towns than insiders are.

 

[Kobeyador]

Yes I saw that survey. However, surveys can be misleading in my opinion. That is why I am saying we need to set up a full discussion about it. From what I read in this survey, it had a score of 0-5. 0 being against cannons and 5 being for cannons but less restricted. The total of the survey is at 2.38. Yes most of the votes were leaning mainly towards cannons being added, but 3 out of the 4 vote options(of course this seems biased)were related to adding cannons back in to our server.If the vote to add cannons in with more limitations was worded "cannons should not be added in unless they had more limitation" then your entire agreement would be invalid with ~54% being against cannons returning to how they were. However, even in the end, the number 2.38 is closer to 0(no cannons) then to 5(less limitations on cannons). I believe the survey should be disregarded as a reliable source to base a judgement on.

The reason that I think cannons need a stronger push than insiders is that cannons are significantly less harmful to towns than insiders are.

Also this statement is completely out of place. We are not even talking about insiders. What does talking about the legality of insiders have to do with the topic of having TNT cannons unbanned? Pls stay on topic. Even if you think tnt cannons are better compaired to insiders, this thread was created for the topic of tnt cannons and other mechanisms used by non town members.

Summery:
Facts:
~78% of votes were towards adding cannons back into the game, however, 3 out of the 4(75%) of votes to be chosen from are for cannons to return.

The survey appointed the score of 2.38 from all the votes that were cast. With a referance of 0 being cannons should not be allowed and 5 being cannons should be allowed with less restrictions, it still is closer to favoring no cannons then cannons with less limitations with a score of 2.38


Opinion:
The wording of the survey created a biased system for votes to be cast. 3 out 4 votes to choose from are worded for cannons to returns and only one other option against it.
FINAL THOUGHT
Due to poor wording and the fact that 75% of the votes of the survey are stated for cannons to be added, makes me believe that this survey should not be used in any way to cast a final judgement.

 

[Kobeyador]

This shows that ~46% of people want cannons back as they were, and an additional ~32% want them more restricted than they were in the past. As we can see, insiders The reason that I think cannons need a stronger push than insiders is that cannons are significantly less harmful to towns than insiders are.

Anyways, The main issue with the poll is that the additional ~32% that you are saying that they want tnt cannons back but more restricted. Does that also mean that they don't want them back if the conditions are not meet? You could word this as "they DON'T want cannons back if there were to return will the same or less restrictions as before." which would put the ~32% against the ~46%. Not with them on this topic.

 

[Cryptite]

There's another element to that survey that isn't often touched on, but that I feel is important. The reason it started in the first place is because Loka is very much in a state of "Everything is so peaceful, it's boring" right now. Whether people were for or against cannons, insider, etc, what is clear that the "vast majority" of people are in favor of conflict.

I think some people see TNT cannons being allowed again as the quickest way to turn on the conflict and bring some of that intrigue back to the server, but one thing to pay attention to is who is in favor of what and why. Many people who are staunch supporters of cannons are this way because it was, in fairness, one of the major reasons they stayed on Loka. But they are also mostly lone wolves. People seem to support cannons because it was interesting, but nobody who was raided liked it, and further, nobody who was raided ever attacked back. AFAIK there hasn't been a single (successful, let alone even attempted) retaliation from a raid on the server, and if there was, it was back in the 2nd world. Perhaps we have enough different players that raiders might attack each other (which they almost never do because they all have their stuff hidden and secured, so what would even be the point of raiding each other?), but they may also choose to go prey on the weak as they always do because it's easy, rewarding, and rarely ends in failure. Raiders wouldn't raid if their stuff was left wide open, so nobody who even could retaliate would probably succeed.

Cannons have always been very one-way and raiding almost always boil down to one of about four scenarios

Scenario A: Raider attacks weak town X. Town X usually doesn't even have members on, so they just log on to find a hole in their wall with all their stuff gone.
Scenario B: In some occasion Town X will have members on or one will log on during a raid. Even if they find the raider(s), they usually are murdered because they aren't prepared for a raid or don't have the gear to match a raider. So now they're online with a raider in their town that they cannot kill and are inevitably powerless to stop, so they watch their stuff get stolen or stay at spawn and wait for it all to blow over.
Scenario C: Maybe a Town X member will succeed in trapping a raider. Raider calls friend Y to show up and either bail him out or "strike a deal" with a Town X member to let him go for some price. Town X member agrees, lets Psy out, Psy and friend murder Town X member and carry on.
Scenario D: Maybe, just maybe, the raider actually is murdered, and this scenario occurs about 1% of the time. Now the raider knows who to watch for and either ensures that when they raid Town X the next time, they avoid that member or waits until they log off.

Is this the fun raiding everybody remembers?

People want the conflict, I understand, and many people have expressed nostalgia for the "Wars of the Old Ages". While these wars were really just slightly larger numbers raiding another town (and usually still without retaliation), the lore behind them was the more fun part. It was truly alliance vs town or vice versa. The entire reason behind Territories is give a chance for these wars to happen and for alliances to exist for a reason beyond just a verbal (and very often false or betrayed) commitment and a shared chatroom. Now you'll actually have some means by which to help your fellow towns out in an actual war scenario. Because it's also opt-in, it means (hopefully) that those who want conflict can participate, and those who don't want it, don't have to.

If you voted yes to bringing cannons back and you're not inherently a raider, does that mean your comfortable with the old days where you might log on once or twice a week to find your stuff gone, and you might not even know who did it? Are you also ready to spend the next couple of weeks making sure your walls are made of obsidian and water? If you're not, then you are hopefully okay with raiders being in and around your town for awhile, taking what you left out and following you into your vault.

 

[hyhu]

Poor zor man

 

[Psychedelic98]

Anyways, The main issue with the poll is that the additional ~32% that you are saying that they want tnt cannons back but more restricted. Does that also mean that they don't want them back if the conditions are not meet? You could word this as "they DON'T want cannons back if there were to return will the same or less restrictions as before." which would put the ~32% against the ~46%. Not with them on this topic.

Saying that you would prefer restrictions on cannons is not the same as saying you don't want cannons back if they would return the same. However, in the first post a restriction is mentioned: reverting the damage. Not only would it eliminate the grief aspect of cannons, but if the time was short enough, could make cannons much more difficult.

There's another element to that survey that isn't often touched on, but that I feel is important. The reason it started in the first place is because Loka is very much in a state of "Everything is so peaceful, it's boring" right now. Whether people were for or against cannons, insider, etc, what is clear that the "vast majority" of people are in favor of conflict.

I think some people see TNT cannons being allowed again as the quickest way to turn on the conflict and bring some of that intrigue back to the server, but one thing to pay attention to is who is in favor of what and why. Many people who are staunch supporters of cannons are this way because it was, in fairness, one of the major reasons they stayed on Loka. But they are also mostly lone wolves. People seem to support cannons because it was interesting, but nobody who was raided liked it, and further, nobody who was raided ever attacked back. AFAIK there hasn't been a single (successful, let alone even attempted) retaliation from a raid on the server, and if there was, it was back in the 2nd world. Perhaps we have enough different players that raiders might attack each other (which they almost never do because they all have their stuff hidden and secured, so what would even be the point of raiding each other?), but they may also choose to go prey on the weak as they always do because it's easy, rewarding, and rarely ends in failure. Raiders wouldn't raid if their stuff was left wide open, so nobody who even could retaliate would probably succeed.

I think that bias hasn't been considered because it could go either way. I personally think that there's more swing the other way; people intentionally voting lower on the survey to "balance" the average with where they want things because they know the majority wants raiding to be more powerful than they do. As far as retaliations, there were several on the 2nd world, 1 on the 3rd world. Retaliations with cannons were less common because at the time, not every town had players who were interested in or capable of raiding. This is no longer the case. Retaliations with insiders were much more common, as they were much easier. A recent example of this is when Ron stole from me using his sisters account. People prey on the weak because it's the only thing possible, even more so after cannons were removed. How many times has Blackwater been attacked even though they only have stone tools? Making stronger towns more suitable, or at least reasonably possible targets would be ideal, but this likely won't happen. Any suggestion on the forums that would make stronger towns more vulnerable is shot down, because the longer playing, richer, and more active players that we see on the forums are the ones that would take the hit.

Scenario D: Maybe, just maybe, the raider actually is murdered, and this scenario occurs about 1% of the time. Now the raider knows who to watch for and either ensures that when they raid Town X the next time, they avoid that member or waits until they log off.

This is the only one of your scenarios I disagree with. I died at least 10% of the time on my raids, possibly more. Maybe I die more than others, I certainly got trapped more than anyone else did, but I don't think other raiders died significantly less than I did.

People want the conflict, I understand, and many people have expressed nostalgia for the "Wars of the Old Ages". While these wars were really just slightly larger numbers raiding another town (and usually still without retaliation), the lore behind them was the more fun part. It was truly alliance vs town or vice versa. The entire reason behind Territories is give a chance for these wars to happen and for alliances to exist for a reason beyond just a verbal (and very often false or betrayed) commitment and a shared chatroom. Now you'll actually have some means by which to help your fellow towns out in an actual war scenario. Because it's also opt-in, it means (hopefully) that those who want conflict can participate, and those who don't want it, don't have to.

If you voted yes to bringing cannons back and you're not inherently a raider, does that mean your comfortable with the old days where you might log on once or twice a week to find your stuff gone, and you might not even know who did it? Are you also ready to spend the next couple of weeks making sure your walls are made of obsidian and water? If you're not, then you are hopefully okay with raiders being in and around your town for awhile, taking what you left out and following you into your vault.

War conflict is fun, but it isn't a substitute for raiding conflict. I'm sure this is part of the reason that they're remaining separate. No one is suggesting that territories not be implemented, but we are suggesting that cannons are brought back. Now that our server has many active towns, most of which are capable of retaliation, it only makes sense to bring cannons back, especially as many people said they want them.

 

[Kobeyador]

I think that bias hasn't been considered because it could go either way. I personally think that there's more swing the other way; people intentionally voting lower on the survey to "balance" the average with where they want things because they know the majority wants raiding to be more powerful than they do.

So you agree with me? That the poll does not truly represent the honest feelings of the majority? So... people may have intentionally answered wrong to change the outcome of the polls? In that case should the polls be COMPLETELY disregarded?

 

[Kobeyador]

Saying that you would prefer restrictions on cannons is not the same as saying you don't want cannons back if they would return the same. However, in the first post a restriction is mentioned: reverting the damage. Not only would it eliminate the grief aspect of cannons, but if the time was short enough, could make cannons much more difficult.

(I dont mean to sound harsh in my paragraphs but I don't feel like retyping any of it to make it sound politically correct)
And another thing... In the polls it says " Allowed but more restricted then in the past". Right there... that says that they are for cannons with the condition of more restrictions added. How do you get "I want tnt cannons added back in, but I would really really would like there to be more restrictions on them if you don't mind it terribly...but if not, that is fine...."(i know i am being dramatic here but COME ON).
You said"Saying that you would prefer restrictions on cannons is not the same as saying you don't want cannons back if they would return the same."That is exactly what they are saying with that answer that they choose in the polls.The answer to the poll is "allowed but more restricted then in the past" there is no way you can go ANY further in saying anything else, because they choose "Allowed but MORE RESTRICTED...". Secondly, If they wanted tnt cannons UNCONDITIONALLY added back, then they would have picked it.... but they CHOOSE the option that said they wanted it more RESTRICTED. That is the problem with polls they need to be black and white or not at all. you can't just apply your own interpretation on something as vague as polls and think it will be reliable. Thirdly...the you say"...in the first post a restriction is mentioned: reverting the damage.". That is not a restriction... that is a plugging/feature that would be made by the admins IF we can convince them to readd cannons.

 

[Kobeyador]

but we are suggesting that cannons are brought back...

....it only makes sense to bring cannons back, especially as many people said they want them

AGAIN... Who is this we that you are talking about? Also what are the names of these "many people" that you are saying that wants the cannons back. I have already posted how many I have counted but you just keep saying we" and a vast majority.... PLS I am begging you... use some references when you say these things or your words just fall flat. i am not trying to pick apart your statements, but it is painful for you to just throw the words "we", "many people", and "vast majority" around when all your have is a poll to go by.You don't even know the names of the players who voted or how they TRULY feel.

 

[Psychedelic98]

So you agree with me? That the poll does not truly represent the honest feelings of the majority? So... people may have intentionally answered wrong to change the outcome of the polls? In that case should the polls be COMPLETELY disregarded?

Everything will have bias, my survey is more accurate than just deciding based on who posts on this forum, guessing what players want, or disregarding what players say they want completely(all of which are being done in this thread). Even if the results are exaggerated, the directions are accurate. 78% for, 22% against, typing in caps doesn't change that.

(I dont mean to sound harsh in my paragraphs but I don't feel like retyping any of it to make it sound politically correct)
And another thing... In the polls it says " Allowed but more restricted then in the past". Right there... that says that they are for cannons with the condition of more restrictions added. How do you get "I want tnt cannons added back in, but I would really really would like there to be more restrictions on them if you don't mind it terribly...but if not, that is fine...."(i know i am being dramatic here but COME ON).
You said"Saying that you would prefer restrictions on cannons is not the same as saying you don't want cannons back if they would return the same."That is exactly what they are saying with that answer that they choose in the polls.The answer to the poll is "allowed but more restricted then in the past" there is no way you can go ANY further in saying anything else, because they choose "Allowed but MORE RESTRICTED...". Secondly, If they wanted tnt cannons UNCONDITIONALLY added back, then they would have picked it.... but they CHOOSE the option that said they wanted it more RESTRICTED. That is the problem with polls they need to be black and white or not at all. you can't just apply your own interpretation on something as vague as polls and think it will be reliable. Thirdly...the you say"...in the first post a restriction is mentioned: reverting the damage.". That is not a restriction... that is a plugging/feature that would be made by the admins IF we can convince them to readd cannons.

This paragraph is ridiculous. I addressed restrictions in my last post, unless you're just skimming and ranting at this point.

AGAIN... Who is this we that you are talking about? Also what are the names of these "many people" that you are saying that wants the cannons back. I have already posted how many I have counted but you just keep saying we" and a vast majority.... PLS I am begging you... use some references when you say these things or your words just fall flat. i am not trying to pick apart your statements, but it is painful for you to just throw the words "we", "many people", and "vast majority" around when all your have is a poll to go by.You don't even know the names of the players who voted or how they TRULY feel.

The poll reflects the opinions of everyone who I could get to share their opinion in only a minute or so. Their names are irrelevant, but could be found out if it was truly necessary. Not everyone has time to post on the forums, but you listed 5 in this thread. That's 5 for, 2 with restrictions, 2 against. The sampling is smaller so the results are less accurate, but it reflects the same trend.

 

[Kobeyador]

Psy you yourself said that"...people intentionally voting lower on the survey to "balance" the average with where they want things because they know the majority wants raiding to be more powerful than they do." how can people voting to change the average of the polls make for any accurate data?IMO it does not. You said "Even if the results are exaggerated, the directions are accurate. 78% for, 22% against,...." Exaggerated or not, it does not change the the fact that you are lumping 3 categories into one to get your 78% and completely disregarding that ~32% of people choose "allowed but more restricted in the past". If i was to vote and didn't want tnt cannons unless there was stronger restrictions where am i to vote? would you have included my vote in with your 78%? I am trying to state that the ~32% could have been in that same boat.... that they wanted cannons but not if they were to return back to the way they were. That is the problem with the polls... we can't ask them this because it was submitted anonymously. and true i posted that there was 5 for it, 2 with restrictions and 2 against. If cannons were to have no restrictions my vote goes for against. that changes the numbers right? what about master who was the other "restriction post". if his restriction suggestion is not meet would he still want cannons or would his vote go for against cannons. This would either come out to a 6-3 or a 5-4 split in the small forum sample. Does this sample still "reflect the same trend" as the polls?

This paragraph is ridiculous. I addressed restrictions in my last post, unless you're just skimming and ranting at this point.

Where did you post about restrictions? the only time you mentioned about restrictions is what i quoted you to explain to you that it is ridiculous that you are lumping the ~32% that voted for the "Allow cannons but more restricted then in the past" automatically into 2 other categories that does not even mean the same thing. You set up a poll that had 4 choises on the matter, however, 3 of those choises were for tnt cannons to return.... just worded differently. The only other vote was for no cannons. Where am i suppost to vote to say I want cannons ONLY if they are meet with more restrictions(if they are not meet with more restrictions then i don't want them).

 

[ValenceLP]

well this turned in to a huge thing.

 

[Kobeyador]

Bad wording, lumping everything together, and not using references to what you are talking about is something that annoys me XP. Saying everyone whats something without a list of names of who wants what is ridiculous to me.