https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kjUACemQvspqjb-kD9KqyNClCtTHltqxE9Ikpt5lUYY/edit?usp=sharing
[size=xx-large]Please POLITELY discuss below. Off-topic replies will be [size=xx-large]removed.
B, C and D are acceptable for me, however PCB is a server that has always been dedicated to its community, and if forcing new people to undergo a test to see whether or not they can even bother to join here will drive away many. I think changing the guidelines needed for warps would be a good idea but barring people from building is an absolute no go.
[size=12pt]All NEW GUESTS will be able to freely explore all the maps, but will not be able to destroy or place blocks on Creative. Once registered on the site, the NEW MEMBER will be limited, on the Creative map, to a test-build area. Guides will be in charge here. Guides will, as they always have, provide instructions and help new members with their builds. Once a guide feels as though a member has the clout to build freely in Creative, they may ask staff to review a member’s build in the test-build area. Much like how warp approval is, there will be three approvals needed by staff. Once a guest’s build is approved, they will be able to build freely in Creative.
[size=16px]I really like this idea. Gives Guides a little more purpose to their limited yet very useful responsibilities to the server. Although, Guide picking will be a little bit more enforced with people who know a thing or two about build improvement and aesthetic development. I mean, any Staff could do this job too, BUT a Guide would be primarily great go-to’s for pushing this along.
I like B, as it feels that A is too hard on members, and C is hardly any different, but at the same time, D is the same.
I feel that Survival needs one hell of a revival, and with some changes on the server as a whole, that could happen. But as it stands, D, and by extension, C, are no change in my eyes. A is rather harsh, and discouraging, and more work than it needs to be. B, however, I like, as it encourages people to still do as they already do, but will help the CMP map continue to have open lands for members to utilize. And at the same time, maybe people will not feel as compelled to stick to only Creative if the rules are harder to achieve warps, et cetera. I would love to see Survival flourish once again, it was my favorite mode.
With A’s emphasis on Guide, my disagreement is that new members would be completely unable to utilize the Creative map, as they wouldn’t want to necessarily build to prove their worth most of the time, I feel.
I dont support A in any way, B is the same thing but members are able to build. We cant prevent people from doing something they want to do, haven’t we learned from PCBt that enforced builds or regulated builds take fun away from the game? I dont want to sound stubborn, but theres almost no way to convince me to support A.
Pretty annoyed this was not posted in a staff board first.
Here is why I disagree with all proposals AND have formed a new one (Option D)
[size=12pt]Why I don’t support any option you have presented:
Why I dislike all options -
– >Giving more ‘freedom’ to people with warps is picking favourites and I can only imagine the disputes down the line. It also fucks up our system regarding how land is claimed which is asinine.
–> You cannot generalise standards for a theme that can be developed in many different ways (Size, scale, time period, realistic or unrealistic).
–> Denying new players (Guest->Member) access to the map without passing a test is only going to make our new player retention WORSE than it already is and we’ve only just started to balance that. I can’t emphasise this one enough.
–> It seems pretty dumb to add middle-men to manage the test-build area (guides) when the staff quite easily can handle that themselves.
–> Allowing current members to build sub-par things and banning new ones from doing it in the same map sounds discriminatory and makes no sense to me.
–> You’re going to remove someone’s work based on a time limit only? Really? (And how will you manage inactive warp-less towns if they are unreachable by warp)
–> You’re failing to see the bigger picture where the longevity of our server is instead threatened by a lack of new players to replace ones that leave.
–> These added restrictions to warps will not encourage more nice towns, it will discourage any towns (why mentioned below).
We already have a map on this server that includes this entire model of requirements in option A, and that is BigCity. Do we really need another map enforcing the same kind of rules?
I don’t think making the warp requirements more strict is going to get us MORE results that are at the new standard, because many if not most of our players simply cannot build at the quality you probably will propose. (sorry not sorry if this somehow offends you in some way)
Creative offers no restrictions to allow people to build whatever they want without fear of build removal due to ‘quality’ issues.
Players come onto the creative map because it is FREE and unrestricted, they can build whatever they want and however they want it to be built. Adding the aforementioned restrictions will change it completely and it will die out. Our warp requirements do not need to be changed (and ill explain why).
I’m adding option D, because none of the options presented reflect what I think should be done.
[b][size=12pt]OPTION D:
–> Push for stricter warp rules approvals, and ensure staff members do not just hand out warps. Give the average player a reason to work hard to make his or her town/city eligible for a warp.
–> Staff are disciplined on being more strict regarding warp approvals
–> Failure to deny any warp/s where it is clearly unsuitable for it potentially results in loss of ability to approve warps (This is not a big issue to me if people object to it).
–> Cities with warps can expand with more freedom than those without a warp. Cities with warps cannot be moved around the map and owners of a city with a warp may, with permission and assistance of a staff member, move structures and areas without warps to make room for their city to grow.
–> All NEW GUESTS will be able to freely explore all the maps, but will not be able to destroy or place blocks on Creative before registration.
–> No restrictions on NEW MEMBERS on the Creative map.
–> Members will still be able to build freely, with PCB rules of course still in effect.
–> No quality control process for NEW MEMBERS. The quality control is in our current warp requirements.
–> All cities with or without warps can remain untouched and left without worry, unless voted otherwise but, are subject to removal due to being in the way of progress AND being inactive/poor size/etc.
The emphasis on this option is that the warp requirements do not need changing at all, rather the STAFF approving the warps need to be more strict on projects that ask for a warp.
E.g.: Two of our OPs approved a warp in creative that met absolutely none of the warp requirements (it was not a joke warp either).
Strain on the server remains the same (as if it would change with the other options in effect), the Creative map build-able area continues to decrease (as it would in any instance of land development). Longevity is limited guaranteed by the freedoms given to them on the map.[/b]
I wholeheartedly support option D, and if we do not do option D, I then choose to support Option E (No change)
Option E added.
I find all of the options good in one way and bad in another. I really like that some of the abandoned cities could potentially be removed and given way for cities that are at the moment in their expansion moments.
[quote author=PrinceMark link=topic=13347.msg134005#msg134005 date=1485910398]
[quote]
[size=12pt]All NEW GUESTS will be able to freely explore all the maps, but will not be able to destroy or place blocks on Creative. Once registered on the site, the NEW MEMBER will be limited, on the Creative map, to a test-build area. Guides will be in charge here. Guides will, as they always have, provide instructions and help new members with their builds. Once a guide feels as though a member has the clout to build freely in Creative, they may ask staff to review a member’s build in the test-build area. Much like how warp approval is, there will be three approvals needed by staff. Once a guest’s build is approved, they will be able to build freely in Creative.
As Prince pointed out, the test area is a pretty good idea although it is a bit harsh on the new members.
Think the warp approvals would need a bit more harshening too. ifyouknowwhatimean
Welp, as wai said, creative is creative, it is for everything,not just focused on structure. The name already says that “creative” is for everything, if you want strict rules, go to big city. But, however, what you want, according to what I understood, is something between big city ( that is one city with strict rules ) and creative ( complete freedom ).I’m unsure if that could be made, but I’m open for discussion/ideas.
As anyone who has spent some true time taking a look around the dynamap would agree,
there is quite alot of random tid bits and blobs of structures well… unappealing to the eye and a general annoyance to those trying to actually build structures of some aesthetic value, even still like stated various times above they can be removed, what I propose to the community is setting a grace period <I.e x Months Inactive Build and y Months Inactive Player = possible if needed removal of said Build> as it would decrease the amount of random garbage that has amounted. In my opinion, pushing for strict warp rules would only burden the players and as I do recall our warp rules became more stringent not too long ago. If this cannot be passed I support option D, as we all must still remember, we arnt a professional building server and must cut some slack to the new members out there.
Thank you for your time,
Your Local Guide, Vexnorz
Coming from servers that were all Test-to-build i do agree with some of policy A things and many of Police D plans.
Would large builds that have warps count as a city? And if a large build that’s inactive is in the way of an active city, would it be removed? (I tend to build a large home/base in the middle of nowhere and check on it every so often)
I’m really not a fan of making people take a build test. A lot of people aren’t willing to sign up to build anyway, we will lose many potential players for the sake of increased map quality. If you want to build a city then that’s fine, but many people don’t want to build cities, they want to build random stuff and be generally creative. Any restriction on what people can build on the map WILL lose us players.
I do, however, agree that warp standards need to be raised. In particular, I’d like to see more theming. I’d say that pretty much all of the best cities we’ve had on creative have had strong themes, not just Generic Modern City. Also, clarifications on the specifics are needed. At least last time I checked, not everyone knew that if you got denied, you couldn’t just ask another staff member.
I support D: Wairoa Method.
How much strain on the server would it add if we added another map? My idea is that creative mostly stays as it is: a place to build whatever and be creative. If it gets crowded, reset. However, there’s so much good shit on the creative map that will be lost in a reset. If we could open another map, then when it’s time to reset, the staff or community or trusteds votes on what should be preserved. Those builds are then copied to the other map, and hopefully integrated into the environment. Nothing of too much value is lost, and we build up a map full of great stuff like Zurich, Botanic, and Tentari. Thoughts?
I’ve always been a big fan of enforcing quality control on PCB, but to lay down heavy restrictions on someone as soon as they’ve joined the server seems cruel. Like some people have pointed out, member retention would drop like crazy.
I, too, support Wairoa’s D method. Trying to standardize every single bit of the creative map kinda goes against us saying we’re a freebuild server. If people want a warp though, which anybody can easily find and access, we want to make sure those areas are top-quality.
Lyra, you do realize that if people want to move big cities from one to another map it will just be a total mess? Just think the amount of blocks being worldedited and placed on the new map. It would just create more work. In my opinion if you really like the city, then download the map where it was in (if there was to happen a reset) and just build more.
We already have Option A - that’s BigCity. B (or possibly wairoa’s option) sounds the most reasonable.
Also, “expand with more freedom”? Can you elaborate?
I really don’t think survival is anything like creative. Just because trusted+ can fly. It’s just an added convenience that makes it easier to build and navigate the world. However “creative” like a town looks we still have to mine all of the resources to build with, and all survival elements are still present. I dont quite understand what’s to complain about with survival personally.
If you don’t want people to build random crap all over the creative map then we should just have a plot world where everyone gets their own (large) plot to build whatever they want/ express whatever creative ideas they have without taking up space for cities.
i do somewhat agree with this but the typical Plot-to-build style is too general in most creative servers
lewis summed up explained in a longer and clearer way my thoughts.
Option A goes against so so many PCB ideals, because after all we are a server dedicated to the community and we allow anybody build whatever they want without discrimination (unless its offensive, ect.).
I support the new option D written by Lewis.