I would like vlad's idea to come into play. Does 1.6 change biomes or anything around? Will you be able to find horses? — green kitten 2013/04/26 20:13

I think that the new update would be a pretty good time for the map change. Since it wouldn't be immediate (we need a stable client which takes time) it would give people plenty of time to finish their projects. — caBastard 2013/04/26 20:29

Well, I guess 38 over 19 truly doesn't represent the community.

Yeah but how many of those are active players?

Hurr and what would be the reason why they don't play anymore ? — TheDookie 2013/04/27 12:11

to be fair, alot of them would become active if the map were to change. just pointing out the fact that, like v1ad, many others are probably just waiting for the new map to begin playing again ~Darynu

And all of them would stop playing again a few months later when the new map got just as boring to them as the current one is now. The map itself isn't the problem here. — PenOpener 2013/04/28 07:34

Maps come and go. — caBastard 2013/04/28 08:33

Right, map gets boring after few months. So who in his right mind would keep one map for so long? — Koinu 2013/04/28 10:38

“And all of them would stop playing again a few months later when the new map got just as boring to them as the current one is now. The map itself isn't the problem here.”
So instead of renewing activity for a few months, seeing the return of old and the influx of new players, and having fun, it would be better to just let the server die? You're opposing an admittedly temporary solution for none at all? — P.P.A. 2013/04/28 13:03

New maps have always contributed a lot in healing the player lack that's been happening due to bukkit taking forever to update and thus the server not updating for weeks either, making players leave massively. I'd prefer a new map either right now or with the next big upgrade. I really dont see any problem with a new map in multiverse when the old one is being kept. Anyone opposing this most likely sees that he will be left alone on the shitty old map, because most players value fun more than some virtual resources and shitty buildings. That's also pretty much the only reason to force everyone to stay on this shithole. Also I agree with PPA on the server dying if it stays this way. Fuck the few newfriends that cant read the proposal properly and keep stating that their gear would be lost when in reality the admin has some preservation fetish and wont ever remove this map. — areteee 2013/04/28 15:37

@PPA: For the few old players that would come back you will simultaneously lose quite a few current ones. Most of the people who want a new map are the politics autists and warring nations. They need a fresh start every so often. Many “builders” (obviously not including you) on the other hand want consistency. If that's not provided they'll leave for other servers. Scaring away these players would be the price for the renewed activity every few months. Worst case, the server will turn into a throw-away PVP map (I know I'm exaggerating here).
@areteee: For a quite large proportion of the player-base the “shitty buildings” are the fun-defining aspect of MC. And like the “new map movement” now cries about how awful te3 is for not complying with their demands, the builders will cry if he ever does change the map.
Regarding the number of players in general: Why should a new map attract any more new players than the current one? The (temporarily) increased activity would, yes. But not the map change. If you think the server is dying, making tons of threads on int now would help much more than this discussion. Make signs at spawn telling new players to preferably settle close-by (or near one of your nations). Hell, there's room enough on the server to start a “new map” section with artificial borders right now. All that's required is a little bit of organisation (which would be necessary on the new map, anyway). If you are prepared to leave all your creations behind for a new map you could do the same on this map. Stop all your building now, clear your inventories and (together) go to one of the large areas with un-generated chunks (and promote it to new players). te3 might even install a warp or move the spawn there.
PenOpener 2013/04/28 16:16

For the few old players that would come back you will simultaneously lose quite a few current ones. Most of the people who want a new map are the politics autists and warring nations. They need a fresh start every so often. Many “builders” (obviously not including you) on the other hand want consistency. If that's not provided they'll leave for other servers. Scaring away these players would be the price for the renewed activity every few months.

For once, besides me, Koinu, Shakomatic, Sidmarcus, Dookie, RebelBaron, greenkitten, and venomthrope are all builders—active and ambitious builders, who have built a lot on this map, and are working on new projects already.
Furthermore, this petition is for a new map in any form. Which means that the signatories would be perfectly fine letting the old map stay and just getting a new world via Multiverse, which would not scare away any players but only increase activity.
In addition, there is no reason to be dismissive of the politics autists—if you haven't noticed, those are the players who are the most loyal to the server, form the most long-lived groups, and make it interesting. — P.P.A. 2013/04/28 19:59

Anyone not realizing the possibility of having 2 maps at once should be perma banned from the wiki right now. I'm sick of this shit and people constantly ignoring this possibility even though its the most likely scenario if there is a new map. I even dare say some do it to strategically boycott this with such superficial arguments because they are butthurt, like the guys who dont want a new map because “it doesnt solve the problem” and instead prefer a dying server with no players having fun whatsoever. PenOpener why dont you reply to the first part of my post about a minority forcing the majority to play on this shithole, also fun stuff is making new buildings and gaining new resources, not jerking off to your old stuff. Problem with te3 isnt that she doesnt give new map, my problem is that she doesnt reply at all. — areteee 2013/04/29 00:57

I'd like to interject. While it is true that maps come and go (and the current one will go fishing eventually), they were achieved alongside deep changes to the game like terrain generation, biomes and all that stuff. According to Te3, that's the only condition for a new map, condition that is glaringly inexistant. Hope for 1.6 to bring changes that cannot be kept up with mere new chunks. — The Dragonbro 2013/04/29 23:15

So what exactly are you proposing PenOpener? Too keep this map forever just to please people who joined like a month ago whereas the players that had long played in this server are disregarded as trash? I've built a fucking lot in this server. Maybe not much in this current map (though I did built stuff all by my own) but I've let go two maps already in which I built a shit load of stuff I'm proud off, yet I'm not crying to bring those maps back just because I built on them. It's always good to have a fresh start every now and then. If there's a chance to keep both maps, perfect. If not I suggest we keep on going. What do we earn from keeping the same map this whole time, just so we look back at what we made to worship our penis instead of improving not just what we built but also about how the server works? And don't bring the nations argument. I don't know if you know but this is Krautchan's /int/ server and almost everyone there is a nations autist. The reason why most of the players now are not so interested about nations is because they're a bunch of (confirmed) 15 years old who come from 4chan /v/ and other full of shit boards, but when most of our community used to be /int/ it was full of nations, and it happened naturally and probably is what made the server so attractive for many. And to your idea of making lots of threads to bring people in, no. The map is getting contested of empty buildings. What the admin has been suggested is that we explore more, which only leads to the community to be more disperse and be apart of each other. There's little community environment in this server other than the underage 4channers and Poles who came here in their own groups. Other than that, the way this server used to be has changed a lot and for worse. Many of the players that built this server, built this wiki and created the community environment we had left because of this map and the admin's unwillingness to make reforms, which in his own words, he doesn't care. — caBastard 2013/04/30 01:21

I was just wanting to clarify that the reason for which i withdrew my signature was not because I wanted the map to stay the same, but rather because I feel that I am too new to have a valid opinion. I think the decision should be left to people who have sunk more time into this server. Another thing I wanted to say to you, cabst, was that, although I (and several other Condeurians) are under-age, we are interested in the nations aspect, as well as the economy, business, and other features that this server implements naturally, without over-use of mods (such as factions). This is the reason why I joined this server. If you haven't noticed, we do have a system of government, with different nobility rankings as well as provinces, cities, artifacts and insignia unique to certain nobles, and also have begun to make use of the market system. I, specifically, am quite interested in the building of nations, and have been involved in them since I joined the server. I'd like to end in the fact that I don't want any of the newer players (including myself) really considered in the decision to change the map. We haven't been here long enough to the point that we should matter. I've talked to most Condeurians about how they feel, and they seem to agree that they enjoy the feel of the server (nations, business, etc) enough that they would definately stay, even if they lost their creations. — Darynu 2013/04/30 17:00
  • talk/new_map_petition_2013.txt
  • Last modified: 2020/11/08 04:02
  • (external edit)