Allowing trusted players to start events

[Yukar9]

This has been suggested several times ingame, I've decided to start this thread to open up discussion about it,

The problem with it is that events currently require admin privilege to run, and are not fully automated. If this were to happen, somebody (not me) would have to put in the effort to make some fully automated events.

[MisterStrawman]

My take is that I don't see much of a gap between who could be trusted as admin, and who could be trusted to run events (as far as they are currently run). But hypothetically, I could make maybe 4 events that are fully automated, and the so-called event coordinator could warp to perhaps where this is, choose the event, start it, and end it. It would have to be inescapable, and any command blocks used would obviously have to be pre-set by an admin.

I know everyone loves Battle Ships, but if there were to be a position like this, complicated events like it will not be a feasible option. The events that could perhaps be fully automated would be like Quicksand, or maybe a pvp arena where the weapons and armor periodically respawn at best. If we do go in this direction, the event coordinator will not be able to run most events, and only the very simple ones will even be possible.

That being said, as much as everyone dislikes not having events all the time, three things would happen if we went this way. One, the people who can run events will quickly get tired of doing so and being constantly asked to do so, two, people will lose interest in events (at least the simple ones we're talking about) because they're overplayed and take away from the element of rarity, and three, people will still whine about not being able to play battle ships, and we'll have effectively side-stepped the solution to the lack of events problem. Usually when there are enough people to play an event, there's an admin on to run them, and the times where this is not the case seem to be infrequent enough that it's not worth doing this.

If you didn't catch all that, here's the TL;DR version:

My take is that I don't see much of a gap between who could be trusted as admin, and who could be trusted to run events (as far as they are currently run). But hypothetically, I could make maybe 4 events that are fully automated, and the so-called event coordinator could warp to perhaps where this is, choose the event, start it, and end it. It would have to be inescapable, and any command blocks used would obviously have to be pre-set by an admin.

I know everyone loves Battle Ships, but if there were to be a position like this, complicated events like it will not be a feasible option. The events that could perhaps be fully automated would be like Quicksand, or maybe a pvp arena where the weapons and armor periodically respawn at best. If we do go in this direction, the event coordinator will not be able to run most events, and only the very simple ones will even be possible.

That being said, as much as everyone dislikes not having events all the time, three things would happen if we went this way. One, the people who can run events will quickly get tired of doing so and being constantly asked to do so, two, people will lose interest in events (at least the simple ones we're talking about) because they're overplayed and take away from the element of rarity, and three, people will still whine about not being able to play battle ships, and we'll have effectively side-stepped the solution to the lack of events problem. Usually when there are enough people to play an event, there's an admin on to run them, and the times where this is not the case seem to be infrequent enough that it's not worth doing this.

[A. Pippenger]

Agree 100% with strawman, except for about battleship being the only event worth running. A lot of them are just as fun but simpler. Some of my favorites are Archery Ravine and Pixel Shootout, and it seems like it would be a lot easier to automate those.


Besides that, everything he wrote is spot on. This would be a lot of work just to run a few events that both the players and semi-ops would quickly get tired of.

[LoneSoldier55]

the majority of reason anyone plays the event is for the reward and sometimes the change of pace

if you wanted to go all the way with an "event controller" code you could simply have majority vote be used to automatically start and end events as appropriate while also allowing people to opt in for a certain amount of time before it starts, no need to delegate someone with control over it. Part of the reason events are popular is because of the change of pace, assigning someone to do them might result in someone running them so often they become stale garbage, though the same can easily be argued with voting. If you wanted you could stick restrictions on the number of times events can be submitted and run to the event coordinator per span of time to help control rampant event shitting, but as it stands now you'd be better off just letting admins handle it.

[MisterStrawman]

the majority of reason anyone plays the event is for the reward and sometimes the change of pace

if you wanted to go all the way with an "event controller" code you could simply have majority vote be used to automatically start and end events as appropriate while also allowing people to opt in for a certain amount of time before it starts, no need to delegate someone with control over it. Part of the reason events are popular is because of the change of pace, assigning someone to do them might result in someone running them so often they become stale garbage, though the same can easily be argued with voting. If you wanted you could stick restrictions on the number of times events can be submitted and run to the event coordinator per span of time to help control rampant event shitting, but as it stands now you'd be better off just letting admins handle it.

That's more or less what I was trying to say, events will no longer be fun when they're not "special" I guess. The voting thing is an interesting idea, and if we perhaps had a minimum # of people required to run the event, then it would prevent them from being run too often. The thing is, most of the people who want this idea implemented (from the server chat, that is, not this thread) want events to be running all the time, and an event coordinator would just be a means to that end.

Anyway, I think the way it is now is fine, but over the next week or two, I'm probably going to experiment with an automated event system that will automatically run a simple event every half hour or so. I'll be overseeing it to see if it's self-sustainable, and then if it's successful, we'll see where we can go from there.

[morl0ck]

assigning someone to do them might result in someone running them so often they become stale garbage

There isn't really a problem. The reason being is that if a particular event becomes stale garbage to one individual, then that person can just opt not to participate in it. Some people like more, some like less. I probably only participate in around 25-50% of events, but other players like more. I don't see the need for an arbitrary limit on events. If an event takes at least 4 people to play, then only 4 people need to vote "yes" for one to start. Why not let them play archery ravine all damn day if they want?

[A. Pippenger]

I pretty much agree with lonesoldier. Events should feel at least a little bit rare and special.


Honestly I'm opposed to all of the ideas in this thread, I think it goes against the purpose of the server. We're supposed to be oldschool vanilla with occasional events just for fun. The more automated events become, the more we turn into a subpar minigame server.

[LoneSoldier55]

assigning someone to do them might result in someone running them so often they become stale garbage

There isn't really a problem. The reason being is that if a particular event becomes stale garbage to one individual, then that person can just opt not to participate in it. Some people like more, some like less. I probably only participate in around 25-50% of events, but other players like more. I don't see the need for an arbitrary limit on events. If an event takes at least 4 people to play, then only 4 people need to vote "yes" for one to start. Why not let them play archery ravine all damn day if they want?

because then archery ravine gets stale and old and nobody wants to play it anymore because they've played it to death
it looses the novelty value of being an event and then everyone complains they want new events, and then guess what, you get stuck mapping more shit for people to burn out on

[A. Pippenger]

Because then archery ravine gets stale and old. And then, nobody wants to play it anymore because they've played it to death
and it's lost the novelty value of being an event, so everyone complains they want new events, and then guess what, you get stuck mapping more shit for people to burn out on.

^That's what I think.