Jump to content





Photo

Wilds Nether & End


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 zeophlite

zeophlite
  • Pip
  • Co-Admin
  • Log

  • 123 posts

Posted 14 October 2015 - 04:24 AM

I've been thinking that a problem with having the nether and end reset monthly was that it excluded those areas from being built upon. There are some amazing build opportunities that we miss out on in the nether & end, for example.

It also means that large projects like the enderman farm needed to be rebuilt each month, and prevents farms for mobs such as ghast's, blaze's, wither's, magma's, etc, which really require a lot of time to make efficient.

I was wondering what the rest of SixtyGig-ian's thought about having a "build" end and nether, and a "wilds" end and nether?



Of course, such a change brings up a lot of further questions, such as where do we place portals, when is each world reset, the size of each world, etc. There are also technical details, such as whether more worlds cause more lag - I actually think this isn't an issue, as Multiverse allows for disabling loading a world unless a player is in it.

I can think of two configurations, A and B , for placing portals (personally, I like A better).
  • 1


#2 EZWoodworker

EZWoodworker
  • Established
  • Tree Puncher

  • 88 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA
  • Nationality:American

Posted 14 October 2015 - 05:12 AM

You actually link to the same plan for both A & B.


  • 0


#3 Likliksnek

Likliksnek
  • PipPip
  • Established
  • Plank

  • 252 posts
  • LocationHamburg, Germany
  • Nationality:German

Posted 14 October 2015 - 06:23 AM

I would actually like to build endy or nethery things :)  

But only if thats no trouble for you admins! Alternatively we could have a "community hell" somewhere, where we dig out a huge cave with a Nether like feeling and people could build their "helliday homes" ... ^^


  • 0


#4 Blue_Dragon360

Blue_Dragon360
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Seasoned
  • Stone Pickaxe

  • 1,028 posts
  • LocationValhalla
  • Nationality:American

Posted 14 October 2015 - 10:40 AM

I like that idea! I've actually preferred this option for a while, but it's never really come up for serious discussion.


  • 0
There used to be something here..


#5 zeophlite

zeophlite
  • Pip
  • Co-Admin
  • Log

  • 123 posts

Posted 14 October 2015 - 08:06 PM

Thanks EZ, fixed

I don't think it would be an issue from admin side
  • 0


#6 BobTWC

BobTWC
  • Pip
  • Inactive
  • Log

  • 149 posts
  • LocationKettering, Ohio
  • Nationality:American

Posted 17 October 2015 - 01:00 AM

10/10 would approve of this idea again!


  • 0
Tea or Coffee?

Toffee!!


#7 Sivcere

Sivcere
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Established
  • Coal

  • 668 posts
  • LocationNew Zealand
  • Nationality:Kiwi as bro

Posted 17 October 2015 - 01:56 AM

Sounds like a great fix to the issue of grinder and end resets.


  • 0
I'm a cat now, how odd.


#8 EZWoodworker

EZWoodworker
  • Established
  • Tree Puncher

  • 88 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA
  • Nationality:American

Posted 17 October 2015 - 01:52 PM

I like the idea of having a permanent wilds, rarely build in the nether.

 

It makes more sense to have all the other worlds come off the main, otherwise to go to the world that gets renewed, you have to go through the permanent world first, thus loading two rather than one additional world. 


  • 0


#9 Blue_Dragon360

Blue_Dragon360
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Seasoned
  • Stone Pickaxe

  • 1,028 posts
  • LocationValhalla
  • Nationality:American

Posted 17 October 2015 - 02:12 PM

It makes more sense to have all the other worlds come off the main, otherwise to go to the world that gets renewed, you have to go through the permanent world first, thus loading two rather than one additional world. 

Good point... Also, if you wanted to go to one of the wilds from main, you'd have to go through 2 sessions of portal lag. Option A does look like it'd be better.


  • 0
There used to be something here..


#10 LadyEh

LadyEh
  • PipPipPip
  • Veteran
  • Workwench

  • 371 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada
  • Nationality:Maple Syrup

Posted 17 October 2015 - 02:41 PM

My main concern here is we already have a lot of space to build, and not a lot of people to play.

 

Creating more worlds for people to build in just means we're going to see each other less than we already do.

 

I can understand the concerns for farms, everyone likes those, because they allow you to get things that are normally hard to get, easy.  I love the end grinder, not so much for the XP, but for the Enderpearls.  Enderpearls, huge crutch for me.

 

if it's gone, I'll adjust.  If Matt gives the Guardian Grinder an XP option, Guardians drop more XP than Endermen.

 

It's dangerous to make this game too easy.  Once you have easy access to everything it's kind of like:

 

now_what_finding_nemo.gif


  • 1
"There are few things in the world that make me angrier than poverty, the lack of basic human civil rights, and the fact that most women's clothes don't have pockets." --Jenny Lawson, Furiously Happy


#11 B01E

B01E
  • Pip
  • Established
  • Log

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

Posted 17 October 2015 - 05:22 PM

I have no desire to build in the nether or the end. But I do like the idea of an end that resets, so I can actually get to see that dragon.

 

The farms in the nether... The wither skeleton farm is the only one I use, since I can just drink a potion, and take no damage from blazes. Gold farms can be made in the topside world. And I was hunting for skeletons when it was just a castle too.

 

I agree with Megan, that it's dangerous to make this game too easy, but given enough time, it will be easy(er), even in the the current configuration. We should try not to deliberately make it easier, though.

 

I would vote for a new nether and end, but for the farms. Having to rebuild the farms (and find the fortress) makes for better gameplay imo.

 

Making a small permanent nether and a reset end could make for some interesting builds, and more people would get to try fighting the dragon.

 

The risk that gameplay will suffer makes me vote no to this, though.


  • 2

_____________________________________

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



#12 Blue_Dragon360

Blue_Dragon360
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Seasoned
  • Stone Pickaxe

  • 1,028 posts
  • LocationValhalla
  • Nationality:American

Posted 17 October 2015 - 05:42 PM

I might be in the minority here, but I haven't really found an overabundance of farms to make the game "too easy." Something like a hyper-automated wither skeleton farm would be overboard, but I kind of doubt anyone would even want to put in that much work.

 

XP tends to be my crutch. Without a farm of some sort, I become too focused on gathering XP and keeping up my constantly degrading tools: rather than doing what I enjoy most, building.

 

Personally, I'm indifferent to a non-resetting nether. However, I find the end grinder to save me a lot of time: instead of having to spend hours at a zombie spawner, or running out at night for a while, I can get mid-tier armor and get right back to building. The grinder *could* be rebuilt every month, but it seems a large price to pay for the ability to fight the dragon. This solution, at least for the end, gives a way to satisfy both needs.

 

I understand the worry that we'll be spread too thin. This happened back on SG6: the massive rail system and many wilds portals caused people to never even meet. Unlike last time, though, this deals with the distribution of resources and facilities. The point of the wilds, barring the initial exploration, is to allow people to spread themselves thin: gathering resources from far-off locations, usually without much player interaction (besides the "lived in" feel the maps get after a while, with rails and things). I would argue that having a permanent nether or end would actually have the opposite effect: bringing more traffic to those maps to see the builds and use the farms, while the normal wilds' traffic would stay the same (people still need to gather resources!)


  • 0
There used to be something here..


#13 Captain_Marko

Captain_Marko
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Seasoned
  • Stone Pickaxe

  • 1,091 posts
  • LocationUK & much further East
  • Nationality:British

Posted 18 October 2015 - 01:07 AM

I vote for a permanent End, with little time to play having a fairly easy source of XP is vital, as for the Nether - blow it up forever!


  • 0

I Never Ever Nether ™


Read the 60Gig FAQ!



#14 ananda11

ananda11
  • PipPipPip
  • Veteran
  • Workbench

  • 373 posts
  • LocationIndiana, USA
  • Nationality:Irish-German

Posted 18 October 2015 - 06:28 AM

The nether will be essential in 1.9 as potions will require blaze powder.


  • 0


#15 Rosleen

Rosleen
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran
  • Application Manager

  • 2,622 posts
  • LocationCopenhagen, Denmark
  • Nationality:Danish/Iranien

Posted 18 October 2015 - 01:50 PM

The more I play this game, the more I feel like farms make things too easy, and essentially kill the game play for me long term. I tend to avoid using the end grinder these days, because I'll end up at a point, where I might as well be playing creative. Having a permanent nether seems like a big step towards making the game easier, and in my eyes, that is very dangerous to be moving towards. SG has always been very close to vanilla when it comes to game-play, and that seems to be part of what keeps this place going, when many others slowly dies.  

 

When it comes to multiple maps to build on, I can't help but be reminded of how SG5 (?), the first version of SG with one map where everyone build on, brought us all closer together as a community. I'd be very afraid of losing that, but having too much area to spread out on. SG doesn't have the same active base of players we once did. 

 

I realize that some things are difficult to acquire, wither skulls, blaze powder, etc, but truthfully, isn't part of what makes it an achievement to get a beacon, the difficulty level required to do so? 

 

Personally I am all for an reset-able end and nether for gathering purposes, but I don't think we should have more maps to build on. 


  • 1
Fueled by Tea and Chocolate


#16 srm86

srm86
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Admin
  • SixtyGig Admin

  • 1,557 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 18 October 2015 - 06:38 PM

While I think the idea of all these different worlds is neat, the reality is we don't have the player base to necessitate that. If we had 100s of players, sure - I would think about it more. However, as it stands, I usually only see 6-10 people online at any given time and that's on a "heavy" traffic day.

 

For where we are right now, I think that the best option is to leave things as they are. :)


  • 1


#17 Schematix

Schematix
  • PipPip
  • Established
  • Plank

  • 241 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA
  • Nationality:American

Posted 18 October 2015 - 07:23 PM

The more I play this game, the more I feel like farms make things too easy, and essentially kill the game play for me long term. I tend to avoid using the end grinder these days, because I'll end up at a point, where I might as well be playing creative. Having a permanent nether seems like a big step towards making the game easier, and in my eyes, that is very dangerous to be moving towards. SG has always been very close to vanilla when it comes to game-play, and that seems to be part of what keeps this place going, when many others slowly dies.  

 

When it comes to multiple maps to build on, I can't help but be reminded of how SG5 (?), the first version of SG with one map where everyone build on, brought us all closer together as a community. I'd be very afraid of losing that, but having too much area to spread out on. SG doesn't have the same active base of players we once did. 

 

I realize that some things are difficult to acquire, wither skulls, blaze powder, etc, but truthfully, isn't part of what makes it an achievement to get a beacon, the difficulty level required to do so? 

 

Personally I am all for an reset-able end and nether for gathering purposes, but I don't think we should have more maps to build on. 

 

It is a sandbox game. You play the game as you wish. However, I'd like to say that I get a lot of enjoyment out of sandbox games by enforcing rules upon myself or roleplaying. One of the reasons you folks haven't seen me in a while is because I've been playing on an RP server for Ark: Survival Evolved. I'm currently RP'ing as someone named Saxon who's a psychomaniac that runs around killing folks. 

 

When I play on here I like to pretend I'm a tree person doing tree things. This isn't an RP server, so I don't RP specifically, but I still like to do fun stuff like imagining myself doing these things.

 

Some people like to play games certain ways. On the RP server I'm on I have a friend who's pretty bad at the game, but loves to masquerade as an inquisitor as he roams the countryside looking for individuals to interrogate. I have another friend who is very good at game, a power gamer if you will, but rarely RP's. They're polar opposites on the spectrum. This makes it difficult to cater to both, but I think we can try our best.

 

In this case I think we can take it as broadening our options. Some of us like to power game and make these ultra farms. Some of us want to build these pretty lava castles. Some of us are in between. I don't think an increased amount of building options will distance us any further. If I wanted to build in the nether, but I couldn't; I would either not play the game or simply build elsewhere. This is why I would support permanent End and Nether worlds. 

 

It is very easy to run into the 'Now what?' situation when playing sandbox games like this. I've done it multiple times over. I've just learned how to deal with it better over time.

 

Only reasons I wouldn't support it is because people trash the Nether and its really really ugly. I hate it so much when people just poop all over the Nether. 


  • 1
Smile! :)


#18 torcido

torcido
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran
  • Torch

  • 762 posts
  • LocationRaleigh, NC

Posted 18 October 2015 - 07:31 PM

I've not been playing consistently enough to want my vote to influence the tally of others who do play.  I can work with either option.


  • 0
Posted Image


#19 EZWoodworker

EZWoodworker
  • Established
  • Tree Puncher

  • 88 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA
  • Nationality:American

Posted 19 October 2015 - 06:38 AM

My 1 cent worth.  If it were not for the no resource gathering on the main map, I would just as soon not have a wilds.  Our main map is large enough and our active players so few, that I don't see why we can't at least mine there for resources.  No surface mining and no clearing of growth without replanting should be a given.  I don't make massive builds, so I don't get resources preparing for them.  I hate having to cart resources from the wilds to the main map, so I usually end up just building mostly in the wilds.


  • 1


#20 Schematix

Schematix
  • PipPip
  • Established
  • Plank

  • 241 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA
  • Nationality:American

Posted 20 October 2015 - 07:16 AM

My 1 cent worth.  If it were not for the no resource gathering on the main map, I would just as soon not have a wilds.  Our main map is large enough and our active players so few, that I don't see why we can't at least mine there for resources.  No surface mining and no clearing of growth without replanting should be a given.  I don't make massive builds, so I don't get resources preparing for them.  I hate having to cart resources from the wilds to the main map, so I usually end up just building mostly in the wilds.

 

I don't know if we could this. Have you seen how crazy it is out there in the wilds? I've gone to incredibly far distances to get away from the areas that have been caved to oblivion. AND I still find lit up caves. Its mind boggling to me. 


  • 0
Smile! :)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users