Currently the only thing holding back the server is not being able to use worldedit. I know you’re trying to prevent griefing, and I understand that worldedit wouldn’t be for new members, but It would make building much more fun as you’re taking out the grindy boring block placing element.
Worldedit is a potentially destructive and extremely dangerous tool. There is no way for us to effectively control or log its usage. It’s very easy for somebody to, even unintentionally, destroy huge amounts of the server.
Most staff don’t even have access to worldedit and even those that do, players who have been using worldedit for several years, still make mistakes. It’s just not a good idea to give out worldedit perms widely.
To add to this, Trusted players can use world edit in BigCity to contribute towards its development.
subtext – as long as said Trusted player has shown they’re proficient with World Edit.
I would like to add PCB is one of the only creative servers that does not offer some sort of personal world edit. In that respect this server we all love still falls short of its potential. And leaves players feeling as if there is no achievement to gain when being trusted. It would be reasonable to at least consider the system in place for Big City as mentioned above; and look at the options for that to be used within the creative realm. Looking at dangers is helpful however not looking at ways to counter the dangers of this means no solution will ever surface.
If trusted members were able to show proficiency or even go through a class to show their proficiency with world edit; then it would be considerable to allow them limited world edit permissions. I have heard of ways to cap the limit of blocks able to be edited using one world edit command. I can do further digging to find helpful links to show what I’m trying to convey.
Edit: This link may provide further insight into what I’m saying https://bukkit.org/threads/how-to-assign-world-edit-max-limit-to-given-rank.173378/
I’ve done a bit of research and as far as I can tell, the only servers that offer worldedit widely are plot servers. As you can only build in your own plot, there is zero risk to giving out worldedit.
Caps sound good in theory, but if we limit the number of blocks allowed low enough to make accidental or intentional damage difficult, it would also make actual usage of worldedit difficult.
I’m not aware of the limits the team may have in mind however I did my own measurements in Single Player and recorded some data. I also do not know how much block data has to be changed in order for the server to crash but my guess is it is near 800,000 blocks total based on past knowledge of crashes.
But as in regards to the comment
This I understand to be a reference to the relative size of world edit being limited too short and making things frustrating. So I took the time to run my own experiments to show how this may not be difficult.
Image #1: The image below is a ‘project’ I previously made in Single Player. This only took a total of 10 world edits and some brushing. The point I’m trying to make here is this is a block area of about 700,000 blocks this is what I personally determine to be an Extra Large Area.
Image #2: This image shown is an already existing building in PCB (Phoenix) and has a total Chunk volume of 60 chunks total. I calculated the block total with some basic math following: (4x•3x•5x) X=16 plugin 16 to X
[(4•16)•(3•16)•(5•16)] = 245,760 Blocks
This is what I consider to be a Medium area.
My chart of block area relevancy:
Extra Large Area [500,000+] Blocks
Large Area [250,000-499,999] Blocks
Medium Area [100,000-250,000] Blocks
Small Area [0-99,999] Blocks
So what I’m trying to conclude here is a block limit of 250,000 blocks would not generally be very difficult for Trusted Members to work with. Additionally this limit is only being recommended for Trusted/Mod, not OP, SOP, Admin. They [OP+] as they are considered to be more responsible can have whatever limit the higher staff decide on if ever decide on.
And what happens when somebody uses their 250,000 block allocation to (intentionally or unintentionally) screw up someone else’s build?
We allow trusted players to have worldedit in BigCity because that’s our project, we’re willing to accept that risk in exchange for the benefits. However, we don’t want to put that risk on everyone who builds in creative. How would you feel if 250,000 blocks of your city disappeared suddenly and we had no way of fixing it or figuring out who did it?
I agree with Shrimp here, to an extent.
If Worldedit was to be given to people in creative it’d need to be given only to those who can be trusted with it. Worldedit could be used to grief, but the chances of this happened if it is well regulated is slim. Besides, if we permaban players who use worldedit to grief then the number of times this will happen would be minimal. Sure, accidents may happen but if we tested people this would happen less as well.
Additionally, 250,000 blocks would be too high as the number of people with w/e would increase and therefore the total number of people using it would also increase. I’d suggest something more like 50,000 blocks if this was implemented. It’d still be a fair amount, more than enough to allow w/e to still be useful.
Overall though, I think that Trusted’s who can be trusted with it should get limited w/e.
World Edit is now logged is it not?
I used to be staff on a free-build creative server a lot like PCB about 5 years ago, and they had world edit that scaled with rank, trust, and build aptitude. Personally, I don’t think members should have access to world edit, as they would be able to ask a trusted for simple w/e. (Added bonus, w/e for trusted means less world edit for OP and SOP to have to manage ). However, I think world edit for trusted players should be limited to about 1000 blocks, and moderators 2500 blocks. This allows for a road to be placed, or a wall filled, and not too many other crazy things. I think this is the most important part about limited w/e, it should offer convenience and nothing more. What do a majority of players ask for w/e for? Filling in areas and stacking, both of which can be done in small 1000 block chunks and still save TONS of time. Sure, that means you might have to stack a build in 5 sections, but is that really that much worse than all at once? Additionally, when a player wants a simple fill and I’m online but they need to wait for higher staff, I feel like I should be able to help them with that simple request, and that I’m not really doing a great job at staffing if all I’m doing is telling them to wait.
TL;DR: Giving trusted and mod members limited (1000-2500) block w/e will be convenient to build with and will give higher ranking staff a break from simple fills and stacks.
EDIT: This may sound like a tiny limit but 1) it’s better than nothing and 2) I got by, as a staff member on that server, with a 5K limit and only had problems when trying to move entire buildings, which is less of a convenience issue and more an issue of poor city planning
I’ll be honest I agree with the opposition to this page, members with world edit would not work out. Despite that yes, perhaps some trusteds and mods may have it, if all members were to possess it, griefing would be very easy and lots of people would get pissed off. Trusted and Mod do have worldedit in worlds such as big city, dev, maps, etc. however allowing it in a world full of cities and projects to all would be frankly chaotic. Perhaps staff can run a test for trusteds and mods who want worldedit to make sure that they do not abuse it, however it shouldn’t just be given away. Yes, we can put caps, but that will literally do nothing, people can still grief or misuse it. I suggest that if anything we give it to active staff who have been given the permission of other higher ranking staff members such as SOP and Admin. But to be frank, if we were to change this then projects wouldn’t be so detailed because people would just be stacking their buildings. But that’s just my opinion, I may be wrong but to be completely honest lots of members will misuse it. Here’s an example. People like Trumanator who decide to make a 9000 block long tunnel across and ocean will absolutely misuse it. Worldedit should be in the hands of those who staff trust.
A Cap Limit provides protection from accidents and crashing, this is not pointless. Choose your words carefully.
I agree with the comments above in regards to the cap limit being lowered to 1-50k I suggest if this were implemented the cap should be 10,000 to balance both sides. This is different from my initial suggestion to have the cap be 250k blocks.
@A_Good_Shrimp what I mean by that is yes, it will prevent crashing, but people can still use world edit poorly. I never said that it was pointless, but that it can still be misused.
It could be misused, yes. But I’m confident in trusted members ability to be sensible when it comes to using w/e.
I don’t support the use of world edit for any rank below Moderator, it isn’t necessary and it carries a very high risk. World Edit grief, or even simple mistakes can be very difficult to roll back.
Oh, I also would like to add that if this were implemented, I would like there to be a requirement to fix any mistakes you make, or face a ban for griefing the world, and that it would be used to build structures only, not flatten land or carve out chunks of the world. There would still be rules to follow, it wouldn’t just be free w/e.
Your oppositions are not backed up with well thought reason, it was explained that greif with this would be close to 0 as if a member is trusted I’d be willing to be theres a 95% chance that they wouldn’t intentionally grief. Regarding accidents and mistakes can be made however, yes but if there is a cap the mistake can be confined if it’s rather “large” and if this was a two step process so that the trusted needed to be approved through a testing period that they know how Worldedit functions so mistakes unintentionally and grief would be close to absolute 0 if put into the right trusteds.
Exactly what I was thinking.
Only giving the most trusted players access + forcing the fixing of mistake as suggested by Muffin would keep issues at a minimum. At least, no more than already come from when we (staff) make mistakes doing edits.
We are having a management discussion about this