Page 31 of 45
Re: Multiworld
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:26 pm
by mitte90
but what stopping newbies from starting fresh and gather resources before they start fighting. it dont take that long to start fresh.
the plugin do magically multithread. trust us the server will not be affected by this at all.
we have discussed this for a long time thats why we seems "hiveminded" its only that we are all on the same page
Re: Multiworld
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:27 pm
by waronchickens97
I just told you. If players need warts they can buy them for relatively low prices. If they want dia, they can mine them.
Re: Multiworld
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:54 pm
by Xestia
Potions are a requirement to be successful, well they sure are. But does a pvp world magically remove all warts from the game? No. New players joining obviously won't be able to join pvp instantaneously, but a few hours of getting set up and they'll be ready. You seem to be arguing against pvp in general, which I honestly don't understand.
The plugin doesn't magically multithread and reduce lag. There are a lot more factors that go into it.
Ehm, if you don't understand something, using that something as an argument will only make you look weak. Surely there are more factors that affect lag, I never claimed that it would magically make lag impossible. I countered your argument that it would make it lag more, regardless of how big the decrease in lag is, there definitely won't be an increase in lag as you claimed.
This forum is a hive mind that refuses to accept that negative reprocussions will occur.
I accept that negative repercussions will occur. It is correct that this suggestion would decrease the amount of base raiding. It is correct that this suggestion would decrease the amount of walking (isn't that the point?) I don't accept any of the other supposed negative consequences, for the simple reason that nobody has been able to successfully argue them.
Why even put up a vote and topic for discussion if every forum user is already decided?
Because simply not doing a discussion at all is a no-go. You may feel powerless in being able to convince us, but that does not justify completely closing all discussions and instead just rolling the dice to decide what to do. After all, the discussion appears to have worked favorably for your side, before the discussion the votes were 11-0. Now it's 19-18.
Re: Multiworld
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:21 pm
by Gnatogryz
joseph3114 wrote:I think there has been a misunderstanding about my nether wart comment.
Potions are a requirement to be successful, which requires a lot of them.
I started from two netherwarts I found in someone's base. Two. Thanks to the magic trick called farming, I had a few stacks within two days.
I have since then lost all my warts a few times. I am stil brewing...
That does not change the fact, that nether warts have NOTHING to do with the pvp dimension.
joseph3114 wrote:There are a lot more factors that go into it.
This forum is a hive mind that refuses to accept that negative reprocussions will occur.
What factors? What negative repercussions? Can you please be more specific? Because what you're doing now is demagogy (look the word up).
Xestia wrote:After all, the discussion appears to have worked favorably for your side, before the discussion the votes were 11-0. Now it's 19-18.
It has nothing to do with discussion. It's all Youngs going around the server whispering to people convincing them to downvote.
Re: Multiworld
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:17 pm
by RevStoningpot
I see no difference between people dominating pvp world with diamond gear and potions, and the spawn campers we have now.
If the idea is that people will avoid pvp due to the opposition being too strong, then any pvp would be avoided, world or no.
However, people would be able to get a better start if the spawn campers were some where else. And with a proper chance to start off a player can quickly gear up and join the fight when ever they choose.
And thanks for explaining your nether wart idea. Though it's still invalid. Nether warts are renewable and spawn infinitly through the nether.
By the way the previous bitching about how unvanilla this is leads me to believe you guys a against the limit. So how is it you are unable to see this as an improvement? It will restore the vanilla world to it's former glory. Did you guys cast your vote to eighther drop the limit or drop it and try other things? Cuz the numbers look unchanged to me. This leads me to believe yo are just pianiseemos limit supporters and every thing you say is a lie. You don't give a damn about the server or even your own needs (since you don't even play on this server) you only want to help pianiseemo keep his prison intact.
Re: Multiworld
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:42 pm
by joseph3114
help pianiseemo keep his prison intact.
I don't know who that is.
If all of the votes are legitimate, that means that 49% of the server would not enjoy this change. The fact that you refuse to respect their votes, and accuse people of being bribed or coerced is getting old. But the fact I'm the only one on here STILL arguing against it is starting to make me wonder who the other 14 people were.
Ehm, if you don't understand something, using that something as an argument will only make you look weak.
Multiverse is the #1 cause of lag complaints. Unless this server uses Craftbukkit++, there WILL be a minimal performance impact.
...for the simple reason that nobody has been able to successfully argue them.
Refusing another point of view is hardly lack of absent argument.
Re: Multiworld
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:50 pm
by Xestia
Multiverse is the #1 cause of lag complaints. Unless this server uses Craftbukkit++, there WILL be a minimal performance impact.
Yes, and as well all know lag complaints = actual reason for lag. Regardless, I suspect the servers you're referring to are VPS. This is not, this is a (pseudo) dedicated server with 3 completely unused cores.
Refusing another point of view is hardly lack of absent argument.
Well, it's a result of it. But I suspect that's not what you meant, I suspect you meant bias toward another point of view is hardly lack of absent argument. But I refute this as well, as all the arguments I've been presented with here I've disputed.
Re: Multiworld
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:56 pm
by RevStoningpot
so you deny knowing pianiseemo i can believe that. You after all came here on the behalf of his stooge youngs. but you don't deny that every thing you say is a lie!Do you want the limit dropped or not?
Re: Multiworld
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:03 pm
by worldruler086
hoo boy, this is getting crazy. And here I was going to post that if this doesn't pass, we should try to pass stargates (player-made. I'll explain why on another thread) next. But I'll just not bother.
Re: Multiworld
Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:07 pm
by RevStoningpot
Oh and about this:
joseph3114 wrote:I was here back when we voted to wipe the map when beta 1.8 came out, BEFORE it was required to have a forum account to vote.
How did you vote
http://www.simplicitypvp.net/forum/view ... p?f=5&t=42
without a forum account?
And world, like youngs' plan doesn't work out for people that want the limit dropped, your plan does nothing for those that want to keep the limit.