Jump to content





Photo

Keep the old map? Start fresh? Your votes matter!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
33 replies to this topic

Poll: Old map? New map? (29 member(s) have cast votes)

What would you like to do with SixtyGig's map going forward?

  1. Keep the old map! I worked hard on my build and I want to finish it! (6 votes [19.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.35%

  2. Start fresh! I want to see all the new content and the old map hinders that. (17 votes [54.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 54.84%

  3. Start fresh, but get a box of basic supplies to ease the transition. (1 votes [3.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.23%

  4. Start fresh, but let us pack up a hotel (like a few maps ago) and bring things over if we want to! (6 votes [19.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.35%

  5. Other (post thoughts below) (1 votes [3.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.23%

Vote

#1 srm86

srm86
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Admin
  • SixtyGig Admin

  • 1,557 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 15 July 2015 - 06:28 PM

Alright folks. I was just mulling over some stuff about importing the old map. I haven't actually played on the server in months, really. Since the bukkit fiasco happened. And I'm curious as to how many people actually are passionate about keeping the old map and how many would simply like to start fresh.

 

I know we have this debate every time something like this comes up, so friendly reminder: keep it civil, keep it classy. I just want to know if I should put a lot of work into getting the old map up and running or if we would all prefer to start fresh? I'm trying to put good use to the limited time I have so that we can get this community back to 100% as fast as possible.

 

Just vote and leave your thoughts below. Also, please note that the poll is multiple choice, so don't feel like you can only pick one thing!


  • 1


#2 Red_Letters

Red_Letters
  • Inactive
  • Tree Puncher

  • 76 posts

Posted 15 July 2015 - 08:18 PM

I vote start fresh because:

- I haven't played in a while

- I started a large build, life happened, and it's overwhelming to finish

- New stuff

- I like starting fresh, but usually new wilds scratches that itch.


  • 0


#3 Blue_Dragon360

Blue_Dragon360
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Seasoned
  • Stone Pickaxe

  • 1,028 posts
  • LocationValhalla
  • Nationality:American

Posted 15 July 2015 - 09:09 PM

Although starting fresh could be interesting, I'd rather keep the current map. A few reasons why:
-As always, many have worked very hard on the current map, and I'd hate to lose that
-There isn't really much of a content gap: underwater dungeons and new stone types could be populated rather easily.
-New facilities and the like might put unnecessary stress on a somewhat unstable userbase

However, I could be convinced to do a new map if:
-Enough players don't care about current projects
-It turns out to be more difficult than expected to populate new things in the old map
-The map would be smaller (very large ATM)
  • 0
There used to be something here..


#4 Schematix

Schematix
  • PipPip
  • Established
  • Plank

  • 241 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA
  • Nationality:American

Posted 15 July 2015 - 11:47 PM

Hey folks, Im on a visit to my aunt out in California and I only brought my phone with me, so excuse any typos and my brevity. To preface, I seriously doubt that I will be playing at all in the upcoming weeks and months, but I still voted for a reset. I feel that it is somewhat unfair that I could get a say even though I will likely not play, however, if we did not reset I am certain I would not come back until we did. I worked on some pretty big and impressive projects myself, you and me should know, BlueDragon, that building things that don't last isn't fun. (ahem, built enderfarm 3 or 4 times myself) But this doesn't mean I am opposed to beginning anew. Sometimes you just grow old of your projects and status. Rosleen herself kinda felt lost once she realized she was pretty much playing creative without the flying, probably why we haven't seen her in a while as well! I enjoyed what I built as I did it, now I'm done with it and I would like to start something new. In the same sense that I can play with legos for hours on end to create my personal masterpiece that I never finish, eventually I become tired of it in longing of something new, fresh, and creative. I view Minecraft, Terraria, Dont Starve, The Forest, all these sandbox games with a creative eye. I regularly start over in all of them so I can have fun building whatever I want.

Again, I don't feel like I should have a major say in the topic considering I've only been around for a year. But thats simply what I think.
  • 0
Smile! :)


#5 NJBattleAxe

NJBattleAxe
  • Inactive
  • Tree Puncher

  • 52 posts
  • LocationPoint Pleasant, NJ
  • Nationality:American

Posted 16 July 2015 - 04:40 AM

I vote for a fresh start. I do feel for those that invested so much time into the old map.
  • 0


#6 srm86

srm86
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Admin
  • SixtyGig Admin

  • 1,557 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 16 July 2015 - 06:21 AM

Although starting fresh could be interesting, I'd rather keep the current map. A few reasons why:
-As always, many have worked very hard on the current map, and I'd hate to lose that
-There isn't really much of a content gap: underwater dungeons and new stone types could be populated rather easily.
-New facilities and the like might put unnecessary stress on a somewhat unstable userbase

However, I could be convinced to do a new map if:
-Enough players don't care about current projects
-It turns out to be more difficult than expected to populate new things in the old map
-The map would be smaller (very large ATM)

To address one of your points, I am aiming for a slightly smaller map. I don't want it to be too small, as I don't want people to feel crowded. It is important to me though that we don't have a huge map though.


  • 2


#7 GarrikP

GarrikP
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran
  • Stone Pickaxe

  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationEast Texas
  • Nationality:US

Posted 16 July 2015 - 07:13 PM

I'd go either way, but leaning towards new.


  • 0

<Profound statement>



#8 Likliksnek

Likliksnek
  • PipPip
  • Established
  • Plank

  • 252 posts
  • LocationHamburg, Germany
  • Nationality:German

Posted 17 July 2015 - 12:50 AM

Selfishly voting for keeping the old. :)

Frankly I can live without the new blocks on the main map as they are kinda ugly in their "natural" state. There would still be new doors, fences etc we can make, since it would be 1.8, right? And we'd be able to get new mats from water temple and such from the wilds map.

So since I just had finished my castle and even a small Biergarten in my little cove I'd love to expand it more. ;)

 

That said I'll probably go where the majority goes - its mostly about the people anyways. ;)


  • 0


#9 Schematix

Schematix
  • PipPip
  • Established
  • Plank

  • 241 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA
  • Nationality:American

Posted 17 July 2015 - 09:59 AM

I still think it is an interesting idea to consider having two worlds. One world is for the "No resets. Ever." folk and the other world is a resource/building world that lasts a long time. I am suggesting this other world would be the Wilds repurposed into something that resets like once every 6-12 months and have slightly more strict rules. (e.g. no ravaging the landscape for easy resources) Hmm, that is a bit vague. How about its like a normal vanilla map where people are considerate, but still use it to mine for resources. Then the other world is where we have our strict beauty rules.

I've felt a disparity between playing on 60Gig and a normal world. I don't have mineshafts for harvesting, I don't have fields for crops. Everything I do in the overworld is for building aesthetic or functional projects. Nothing is ugly and it feels like an idealists creative world. The reason we have the strict beauty rules because its up to ones own opinion and discretion on how they should handle resource gathering. That's a huge chunk of survival Minecraft though. I didn't have a chance to go caving with Kaya once, and that's one of our favorite things to do. Instead we spent hours digging a big hole for an ice cave. I'm going to remove my vote. :( I don't think it is fair that I have a say. I will probably just live in the wilds regardless of whether a reset occurs. I miss playing survival too much.
  • 0
Smile! :)


#10 B01E

B01E
  • Pip
  • Established
  • Log

  • 122 posts
  • LocationBorup, Sj√¶lland, Denmark, Earth, Milkyway
  • Nationality:Danish

Posted 17 July 2015 - 12:35 PM

I vote for a fresh start. I do feel for those that invested so much time into the old map.

second that


  • 0

_____________________________________

Be who you are, and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind.



#11 torcido

torcido
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran
  • Torch

  • 762 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Posted 17 July 2015 - 01:07 PM

Personally, I've failed at getting my build out of the rack-print stage, so I'd rather erase that abomination and start over.  BUt I don't want my personal incompetence to cause anyone else to lose their builds.

 

 

I still think it is an interesting idea to consider having two worlds. One world is for the "No resets. Ever." folk and the other world is a resource/building world that lasts a long time. I am suggesting this other world would be the Wilds repurposed into something that resets like once every 6-12 months and have slightly more strict rules. (e.g. no ravaging the landscape for easy resources) ...
 

 

Schematrix's idea may be something to jump on.  Reduce the maintenance frequency to like 6 months or soemthing on the 'Wilds' map and possibly merge the Wilds and old-school Wilderness ideas (it was a thing back in the day.  If you need to ask, you shouldn't ask.)  

 

Make Wilds clearcutting/stripmining limited to +/- 500 xy (or equiv) and outside that, still allow 'claims' on areas (signage and redstone 'markers' every so often) to let fruit fly / wildcatters preserve areas they may want for their build/view if they find something purty.  

 

We had no problem with distant resource gathering on the last Wilds, at least once Ananda finally got around to building rails everywhere.  We could do the same on any other wilds maps.


  • 1
Posted Image


#12 the_assasain

the_assasain
  • Member
  • Tree Puncher

  • 21 posts
  • LocationJacksonville Texas
  • Nationality:American

Posted 17 July 2015 - 07:26 PM

While I didn't get to play on the old server, I would love to see it and get a chance to build on it (in anyway unless someone took all the spots ;) )
  • 0


#13 srm86

srm86
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Admin
  • SixtyGig Admin

  • 1,557 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 18 July 2015 - 09:57 AM

Personally, I've failed at getting my build out of the rack-print stage, so I'd rather erase that abomination and start over.  BUt I don't want my personal incompetence to cause anyone else to lose their builds.

 

 

I still think it is an interesting idea to consider having two worlds. One world is for the "No resets. Ever." folk and the other world is a resource/building world that lasts a long time. I am suggesting this other world would be the Wilds repurposed into something that resets like once every 6-12 months and have slightly more strict rules. (e.g. no ravaging the landscape for easy resources) ...
 

 

Schematrix's idea may be something to jump on.  Reduce the maintenance frequency to like 6 months or soemthing on the 'Wilds' map and possibly merge the Wilds and old-school Wilderness ideas (it was a thing back in the day.  If you need to ask, you shouldn't ask.)  

 

Make Wilds clearcutting/stripmining limited to +/- 500 xy (or equiv) and outside that, still allow 'claims' on areas (signage and redstone 'markers' every so often) to let fruit fly / wildcatters preserve areas they may want for their build/view if they find something purty.  

 

We had no problem with distant resource gathering on the last Wilds, at least once Ananda finally got around to building rails everywhere.  We could do the same on any other wilds maps.

That's certainly a thought. I'm not opposed to it.

 

So we could have two "main" maps:

 

Build Map:

No resets (unless completely unavoidable)

Great for long-term/large builds

More focused on aesthetics and "beauty builds"

No real resource gathering/cave-diving/etc

Great place to build cities/towns/etc

 

Survival Map:

Resets every 3-6 months. (Depending on how many players actually come back to actively play. If we have a larger amount, 3 months would be ideal.)

Great for those who prefer the "survival" aspect

More focused on survival/cave-diving/mining/"end-game"/etc

Plenty of resource gathering

More lax rules about aesthetics (obviously no 1x1 dirt towers, massive eyesores, etc)

Good for farms

 

We would also still have the other places, The End, The Nether (am I forgetting anything?) and those would be reset monthly still.

 

The only thing I'm unsure of is whether or not that would be a drain on our system resources, but we can definitely try it out and see what happens. I need more input/opinions on this though.


  • 1


#14 MaxxGothic

MaxxGothic
  • Established
  • Tree Puncher

  • 53 posts

Posted 18 July 2015 - 11:12 AM

I would like to suggest a wool farm with no more than four sheep per pen and keeping chicken, pig, cow and soon to be rabbit pens to a reasonable capacity, maybe 6 or 8.

 

I recall finding a wool farm on the old map and having to crawl out. There's also that notorious egg farm from several wilds ago which induced lag to anyone who strayed close enough.


  • 0


#15 Blue_Dragon360

Blue_Dragon360
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Seasoned
  • Stone Pickaxe

  • 1,028 posts
  • LocationValhalla
  • Nationality:American

Posted 18 July 2015 - 03:49 PM

I like the multiple maps idea! I'd love to be able to switch from functional survival to building survival whenever. This brings up a good point, though: would we have different inventories for the maps, or keep it the same?
  • 0
There used to be something here..


#16 srm86

srm86
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Admin
  • SixtyGig Admin

  • 1,557 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 18 July 2015 - 05:33 PM

I like the multiple maps idea! I'd love to be able to switch from functional survival to building survival whenever. This brings up a good point, though: would we have different inventories for the maps, or keep it the same?

Great question! My thought would be to keep the inventories the same. That way around reset time, we can "pack up" what we want to keep, move it to the "building survival" map or take it "home" and add it to our collection (for those who want to play on that survival map) as needed. Anything we wanted to keep permanently would remain in the "building" map, anything we didn't care for would be in the "functional" map.

 

That said, if we do that - there would not be a "Wilds" to speak of. Not in the incarnation it is now. For those who wanted to purely resource gather, they would still need to go to the "Survival Map" to resource gather.

 

Does that sound alright?


  • 0


#17 Blue_Dragon360

Blue_Dragon360
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Seasoned
  • Stone Pickaxe

  • 1,028 posts
  • LocationValhalla
  • Nationality:American

Posted 18 July 2015 - 05:53 PM

That sounds reasonable!

What would we do about things like destruction of the landscape? Would mass deforestation, for example, be OK? It's fine now in the wilds, but there would probably have to be a lot of specifics in the updated rules for this system to work.

There might also be some issues with non-renewable blocks such as mossy cobble, sponges, etc.
  • 0
There used to be something here..


#18 srm86

srm86
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Admin
  • SixtyGig Admin

  • 1,557 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 18 July 2015 - 06:05 PM

That sounds reasonable!

What would we do about things like destruction of the landscape? Would mass deforestation, for example, be OK? It's fine now in the wilds, but there would probably have to be a lot of specifics in the updated rules for this system to work.

There might also be some issues with non-renewable blocks such as mossy cobble, sponges, etc.

Hmm, good point. I'll have to think on that a bit more. :)


  • 0


#19 GarrikP

GarrikP
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran
  • Stone Pickaxe

  • 1,042 posts
  • LocationEast Texas
  • Nationality:US

Posted 18 July 2015 - 07:13 PM

I think a 4-to-6 month rotation on the "Wilds" would be fine.

That way the once a week players aren't rebuilding constantly, have time to build simple to moderate structures without overdoing the time for those that just need to strip mine and mass harvest materials


  • 0

<Profound statement>



#20 Schematix

Schematix
  • PipPip
  • Established
  • Plank

  • 241 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA
  • Nationality:American

Posted 19 July 2015 - 07:28 AM

We do have to weigh in downsides. It may split up our dwindling numbers even further. Some people still wouldn't be satisfied with this Wilds map. Some people might prefer the carefree destruction they can unleash in the Wilds. As for addressing the beauty problems I think we could rely on people's discretion more in this other map. Or simply just live with blemishes and tell people to be considerate.

Garrik, you got me thinking about frequency of Wilds resets and how it would work out if Wild resets were scheduled. One issue with scheduled resets is that people simply stop playing on a map because it will be gone in a short amount of time. In this setup if someone wants to do something they can just switch over to the main map and use the Wilds strictly for harvesting until it resets. This also gets rid of the problem with intermittent resets on the main map. No one will get the impression their build won't last since the map is permanent. (like super permanent) Two birds with one stone? 4-6 months is a long time for some of us. I pretty much did all my building in 4 months.

Also Stacy, I thought it was already agreed the End wouldn't be resetting. Or... We could build an enderfarm in a fresh end map, then save that map. Everytime someone somehow depletes the island of Endstone we revert to that saved map. This will probabpy never happen, but it would ease the qualms of people who think it might. :P
  • 0
Smile! :)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users