simplicitypvp.net

God dammit, you guys are horrible. Ok, all of you, I don't care what side you're on, PLEASE ACT LIKE ADULTS.

@Fo I appreciate you telling piani that I was the one who was quoted of saying "piani sounded like an utter asshole when he talked about my arguments". Now people will flock to hear my opinions. Especially piani.

@piani You'll get a rebuttal if you want one. I just want to point out that the three reasons I posted were reasons I specifically hated the limit, not why the limit was bad. The first reason was me complaining about what the limit did, and how I didn't like the effects.
The second reason (as I admitted to youngs, I posted this out of my observations, and strictly through chat and killchat. I know I shouldn't have posted something like that for an argument for. I did however post that TO MY KNOWLEDGE that what I said was true. If you feel I was wrong (which I was. I'll admit it, I was DEAD wrong) then tell me specifically how pvp has changed. And give me specifics. Not just "it has increased")
The third reason was the most personal at all, and you should have known this, as you pointed out. Once again, these were reasons why I SPECIFICALLY was against the limit, not reasons why the limit was bad.

Heh world, thanks for bringing the classic "guys calm down" to this thread. =P

Anyways, I think my arguments still stand since you've admitted you were wrong on argument #2. I'll just summarize my points until I get your real arguments against the limit.

1. The limit has increased PvP drastically.
2. Having no limit in fact "limits" the PvP players, since they can't find any fights.
3. Vanilla or non vanilla is semantics, more important is whether people are having fun (think anti-hack and events, neither is vanilla)

Those arguments were mainly in response to your post, not my entire case for the limit (which you can read in other threads).

okay so you don't think fights at spawn are legitimate pvp but the limit centers on spawn which would lead one to assume that's the most important place for pvp.

Also you need to read the deffinition of litterally and non existant. There most certainly was pvp before the limit and not only in the summer. Oh and half a year isn't a long time ago, you'll learn that when you stop using grading periods and semesters to judge the passage of time. Also don't quote yourself that's the douchiest move i've seen you pull.

pianiseemo wrote:Heh world, thanks for bringing the classic "guys calm down" to this thread. =P

Anyways, I think my arguments still stand since you've admitted you were wrong on argument #2. I'll just summarize my points until I get your real arguments against the limit.

1. The limit has increased PvP drastically.
2. Having no limit in fact "limits" the PvP players, since they can't find any fights.
3. Vanilla or non vanilla is semantics, more important is whether people are having fun (think anti-hack and events, neither is vanilla)

Those arguments were mainly in response to your post, not my entire case for the limit (which you can read in other threads).

Alright, glad we can finally (hopefully) have a discussion about this. I won't counter the first point, as it's a statement, not an argument. The others are fair game. Realize that the following is my opinion.

Counter-2. I'll admit it. You're right. But I will say this, I personally believe that my side's "limit" is a bit more powerful then your side's. Although I can't say this completely as I don't know what your side's limit is like. So let me extrapolate your position, and you can tell me if I'm correct.

First of all, your limit is an entirely different breed to the current one we have. For starters, it's more a ethereal limit then the physical one we have now. And I could argue that the limit you're speaking of is actually something very hard to remove without gutting all of the vanilla out of the server. You still need to look for people, you still need to get supplies, get a base set up to hold your loot as well as supplies that you decide to get for yourself. I think it's safe to say the "limit" is the first one. And yes, I will say that the "limit" is worse when the limit we currently have is not here. So in other words, your limit is a gradient, where it isn't "there" and "no there" as it relies on the environment as well as a multitude of variables.

The Reason why I believe the limit for me is worse is that I no longer have the option to head out further to keep away from people. This isn't me going out to build extravagant towns and other single player stuff, this is a natural response. Fight or Flight. Run or bite. You stay and meet your adversary, I head away where he doesn't bother to look. Now it's MUCH harder for me to do that. I can hide in a hole all day, sure, but I prefer to go farther out as this allows me to be more flexible in how I react to the world. See what I'm getting at? That said, I'll agree that there is indeed a limit for you as well, but it's a question of who has it worse. After all, if the variables were right, you may have an easier time getting loot if we didn't have a limit then you do at this moment. This hasn't so much increased population as it did increase density. Now, yes, I'm sure the population went up, but my point is the biggest thing was the density increase.

Counter 3. This may take awhile, as this statement covers a few things. Let me first start off by saying that I should have been more clear on what I meant by vanilla. I think that anti-hacks have nothing to do with being "vanilla" and "not-vanilla". They don't affect player's play styles unless that play style is being a hacker. And we want people to play the vanilla minecraft. So this forces us to play it as the game was intended. (perhaps force is the wrong word, but I think you'll get my point) As for Events, I don't think they're vanilla, but I do know that they're voluntary. I don't have to use them, so they don't affect my playstyle. So I just had a "live-let-live" idea toward them. I may be pro-vanilla, but I'm not a crusader. if people like it, they can have it. I'll just have no part in it myself.

Which brings me to why I think the limit is a different story. I'm forced to stay within 5k from spawn. It is NOT voluntary. I can't "live and let live" because it won't let me do as I wish. But I've said this far too much. Let me get to what you said.

Yes, it is for what people find fun, but the thing is, when you have 50+ people fooling around on servers, eventually a few will get bored. should we change it for them? what if they decide to leave? Obviously we wouldn't for a few people, unless it was something simple, like adding events or something to appease them. Ofc, this isn't the kind of thing that should be so simplified. Servers die. It's a fact of life. And if they don't die, they change. Often times in ways that make people who are nostalgic of the olden times to openly despise the said change, particularly if they were having fun and did not want the change. Do you see what I'm getting at? It only got worse when the vote was so close, with a little over half saying they wanted a change (and more then that wanted a limit. I know others felt that 5k was too intense, but they did want a limit). So, way I see it, I can't argue that you're wrong and I'm right, but I can argue that you're right in saying that. However, I need to change it, as it's a bit simplistic. Some people like the same, others like different things. It's like a genre of games, some people like them, others like certain aspects not associated with an individual genre. But eventually people will get bored (some quicker then others) and will want a change. So I guess I agree, but only if you were to make that change.

World, how can you expect to have your opinion not shared? Sorry to get off topic, but anonymous votes are a good thing and this is proof. Opinions are constantly exaggerated and shit.

FoSchnizzle wrote:World, how can you expect to have your opinion not shared? Sorry to get off topic, but anonymous votes are a good thing and this is proof. Opinions are constantly exaggerated and shit.

There's a difference between quoting me and then posting what I say. Let me clarify the two.

Quoting me isn't a bad thing (though ask me next time. I feel like you're my poster boy or something...), especially if it was the post I wanted people to see, as it was what most people against the limit thought. In terms of quoting, and realize you didn't do this, try to make sure you don't quote mine someone, making them look like they're saying something they are not saying. It's not a bad thing, and when I clarified it in ways that people who agreed with me responded with a simple "what this guy said", my opinions are (generally) what everyone who agrees with me thinks. As a result, quoting me is a way of showing those who aren't sure how our side thinks is advantageous.

As for the quoting me for saying that piani's rebuttal to my argument (which should really be labelled "thoughts on the limit"), it was more that he seemed to think I was arrogant, and I could see how he thought that. That's the thing about big posts, you post a lot, and people give you responses where they either miss, forget, or even skip entire points that you make. It gets very frustrating. The remark I made about piani "sounding like an utter asshole" was something that if pressed, I would clarify, and of course apologize to. He wasn't there, so I made the comment behind his back. That was wrong of me. But now you showed it. And now he won't listen to me as much without me sounding like I'm brown-nosing him for forgiveness.

Reading your post, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.

I like this server. To see it torn apart would be a shame. Compromise.

I like the boundary, because it forces people to interact more with each other (interaction is why I switched from single-player to multi). But then again, I agree with LoneSoldier when he says "I'll interact whenever I feel like it", as this game indeed shouldn't be limiting people's possibilities (especially on an anarchy server).

I'm thorn apart - I think the limit has to be lifted, but I fear that removing it will make too many people choose not to interact ever again.

i certainly have no intention of never interacting with others again. i want the limit down so i can interact as well as maintain my territory. if i was so compelled to just play single player then why would i be against the limit?

Gnatogryz wrote:I like the boundary, because it forces people to interact more with each other (interaction is why I switched from single-player to multi). But then again, I agree with LoneSoldier when he says "I'll interact whenever I feel like it", as this game indeed shouldn't be limiting people's possibilities (especially on an anarchy server).

I'm thorn apart - I think the limit has to be lifted, but I fear that removing it will make too many people choose not to interact ever again.

Pretty much what I think the issue is. Those outside the limit can interact, but only if exiled back into the limit, with their bases inside if they wish. The only problem is:

1. Most bases are designed along the terrain, so unless it's a house with a flat foundation, it would be difficult cloning one without the person doing some landscaping.
2. The reason people go out 10-15k is so they can have a base that, for the most part, is safe. Yes, they still have to go out a few klicks in order to find anyone, but they wouldn't be playing on multiplayer, especially an anarchy server, if they didn't want interaction. I don't get why those for the limit think we do that. We do that now, but that's because we're too stubborn to move. Why should we have to move where we are to play the game how you want us to play it? For example, Eden, the mega-city box made, was going to try to be a superpower. Now we can't do shit. And the limit actually prevents us from pvpping. Let me say that again. THE LIMIT PREVENTS US FROM DOING WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO INCREASE. Yes, we can go inside the limit, but there's no point. Eden has to be far out, otherwise it would be a hole full of holes.