More "Realistic" Suggestions.

[Zoroark173]

ahem. . . Pve = player vs enemy

Ahem... You get hit by a cactus, not exactly an "enemy". Part of the enviroment? Yes! You get attacked by a creeper, is a creeper something in your enviroment? Yes!

 

[supermuddypuddle]

Ahem... You get hit by a cactus, not exactly an "enemy". Part of the enviroment? Yes! You get attacked by a creeper, is a creeper something in your enviroment? Yes!

so its player vs environment? Creepers are still an enemy (and cacti to a lesser extent) so as i see it i must use google
google says. . . damnit i hate it when im wrong

 

[Zoroark173]

so its player vs environment? Creepers are still an enemy (and cacti to a lesser extent) so as i see it i must use google
google says. . . damnit i hate it when im wrong

Yes, because your environment are the things around you! So it could be an enemy around you, or thee pile of poisonous slime that somebody left on the floor!

PS- I'm always right

 

[JokersMaze]

I like the idea of removing tab and specifying which tribute has fallen, but I don't want mobs in the games. I believe more people will die to them than to actual tributes, which takes away from the pvp factor.

 

[Sir Royal]

I believe more people will die to them than to actual tributes, which takes away from the pvp factor.

And thats what I'm going for.

Less PVP, More Survival?

 

[eshancowee]

PvE = Player vs Environment, PvP = Player vs Player, PvPE = Player vs Player and Environment. (Basically everything)

I.e. PvE = Fighting Creepers and surviving with food and stuff.

 

[GibboAssassin]

==========================
NPC's/Mobs Again
==========================

I'm not excactly sure why hostile mobs were removed during the night. Not only did they speed up the games but made it WAY more challenging. I would actually watch and spectate the games if they brought this back. Most of the time tributes were camping somewhere, or looking for the last player. At least adjust the way it works? They would spawn in packs of 5-6 looking out for the players that are camping out the match. Sort of like mutts.

The mobs were removed when map 3 came out because the corn would be mobbed (excuse the bad pun) with hostile mobs and most people would die five seconds in. That's why they were removed.

And as for the other ideas, I can't see them sitting well with the rest of the community if we implemented them straight off without asking the community first.

 

[TheRandomMan1000]

The mobs were removed when map 3 came out because the corn would be mobbed (excuse the bad pun) with hostile mobs and most people would die five seconds in. That's why they were removed.

And as for the other ideas, I can't see them sitting well with the rest of the community if we implemented them straight off without asking the community first.

I have to disagree Gibbo. I've recently seen a (sort of sad) trend in the
updates. Something is added based on community decision, people immediately regret the choice. You open up the vote for new items in chests, suggestions are added, everyone complains. Developers need to be more selective in what is added to the plugin. While it's nice and all to give the community a say, in many cases it seems like the developers have a better gauge of what is good for the community and what is not. Ender pearls and 5 arrows per chest in the vote, at least in my opinion, would be a bad call and really should have been pulled from the vote prior to it being posted.
As for new things being added this section of the forums needs to be more steadily used. This is a nice area where rather than holding a vote, random ideas can be shared, and developers have no obligation to pick a certain thing, they can look and try what seems like a good idea.
What I learned from being here pre-SG2. For a group of diverse people to accept change it needs to be shoved down their throats. IE - Sg2, everyone hated, but it was the only playable map. They were forced to adapt to it, and when they did they enjoyed it. It seems now like MCSG has been babying the community, oh you don't like this? We better take it away before someone else leaves. For the community to flourish and for the plugin to improve we need to experiment with new ideas. We've been taking the safe route with these mundane updates, new items in chests, new chat colors, re-invented point system. If you think about it, it's been a while since in-game updates have been made. This has made the games grow bland.
I know you're short handed developer wise, but this is what the future should look like update-wise.

1. Bugs caused by MCSGv2 and 1.5 version of the plugin are dealt with prior to any updates.
2. The rest of MCSGv2 is implemented, i.e. Achievements and DM arenas.
3. Work on in-game updates based on the following -

• Non-vote, mass community consensus.
• Creative, in-game tribute affecting, additions.
• Alert the community that changes are trials and will be added based on responses after 2 weeks.
• This gives them time to warm up to the idea.
• Have them vote on the idea after the two trial weeks.
• If the mass consensus is obviously negative and the in-game affect is truly (not just people complain because things have changed slightly, negative affect is obvious.) bad, remove the trial after 1 week.

 

[GibboAssassin]

I

• Non-vote, mass community consensus.
• Creative, in-game tribute affecting, additions.
• Alert the community that changes are trials and will be added based on responses after 2 weeks.
• This gives them time to warm up to the idea.
• Have them vote on the idea after the two trial weeks.
• If the mass consensus is obviously negative and the in-game affect is truly (not just people complain because things have changed slightly, negative affect is obvious.) bad, remove the trial after 1 week.

The thing is with these (mostly number 3) you can't just force something upon people and force them to enjoy it. Anything that would change the community would be put to a vote BEFORE any changes were implemented (that's if the community wanted it). It's how its always worked and I've also been here since pre-SG2 stage so I can see a lot of the community raging if something like this with the seriousness was implemented with no sort of vote from the community beforehand. People would get annoyed and would rage on our forums, to the staff on TeamSpeak.

Not everyone is going to like the idea and you can't force something like this upon people, even if it was for a trial period. Things would be put to a vote before any changes were made and then removed or changed if no-one liked it afterwards (that is, if the changes are implemented).

 

[Mr Dice]

I want guns and explosions and hot chicks and fast cars and chase scenes and explosions and chase scenes and fight scenes and hot chicks and explosions and sword fights and fast cars and explosions and guns and hot chicks and fast cars and chase scenes and Morgan Freeman and hot chicks and fight scenes and fart jokes and explosions and pow pow pow and chase scenes and hot chicks and explosions. That would be sooooooooooo cool please add it I fanz forever

 

[ShaunDepro]

• The mobs were removed when map 3 came out because the corn would be mobbed (excuse the bad pun) with hostile mobs and most people would die five seconds in. That's why they were removed.

And as for the other ideas, I can't see them sitting well with the rest of the community if we implemented them straight off without asking the community first.

Fixes:

Spawning at Night​

• This way players have a chance to gear up through chests before running into hostile mobs.

No Corn Spawning

• So maps like SG3 won't be like you said, "Mobbed".

Think of the upsides as well as the downsides Gibbo

 

[TheRandomMan1000]

The thing is with these (mostly number 3) you can't just force something upon people and force them to enjoy it. Anything that would change the community would be put to a vote BEFORE any changes were implemented (that's if the community wanted it). It's how its always worked and I've also been here since pre-SG2 stage so I can see a lot of the community raging if something like this with the seriousness was implemented with no sort of vote from the community beforehand. People would get annoyed and would rage on our forums, to the staff on TeamSpeak.

Not everyone is going to like the idea and you can't force something like this upon people, even if it was for a trial period. Things would be put to a vote before any changes were made and then removed or changed if no-one liked it afterwards (that is, if the changes are implemented).

I do see where you're coming from, but I have to again, disagree for a few reasons, although I do admit while writing that post I had to step away several times, so I didn't get my point across well.
Things usual sound better on paper. When an idea is added on a poll ( 5 arrows in one chest as an example) people generally don't stop and give long thought to the effect in-game before checking off the button. This being said, people will be upset at how it effects the game. Those developing and setting up those polls need to be the ones to think about what's added to a poll, prior to putting it up. They should be the ones saying, "Hmmm? How will this change effect Gameplay?". Nothing against the developers of course, I agree, the community needs a say, but the extent of their say should be limited. When you give someone power, you need to know that they will use it properly, and in the case of the mass-community, they use it carelessly. Of course that is just a rant on the Chest-update-vote. Onto the idea of a vote prior to an update (in general)
Humans don't respond well to change, our species can be very closed-minded. So posting something like this wouldn't really heed much of an unpredictable outcome -
"Hey guys, subv3rsion here. We are thinking of adding [insert game-changing update here] to the servers. Do you like this, vote yes or no in the poll above."
The instinctive response would be "No, I enjoy the games how they are" Just like the chest update, they will vote without giving the in-game effect much thought, they just want to keep things the same. So trying to open a vote on something like this really won't bring MCSG into the future. You need to try something to know whether to answer yes or no. While some things are obviously bad ideas, others are not and need to at least see closed beta testing. Which brings me to my next idea....
Beta testers. No, US69 is not enough. We need un-implemented feature testing servers. Here's how I see it working -

• Beta testers need to apply, if given a spot, they are enabled to see a beta-features forum section (like the current donor section). Here beta testers can post or feature suggestions to developers.
• Developers decide upon certain things to try, 3 suggestions per three weeks sounds good. These suggestions are separately added evenly on 15 separate beta servers.
• Beta testers play on these servers for 2 - 3 weeks, at the end of which a poll is put up on the beta testing forum section at the end of this time.
• The poll includes all of the features tested, and is put to a like-dislike vote, only including the beta testers.
• Each beta tester is slated to play a set amount of time on each feature server in each period of testing.
• After voting, testers are supposed to post about their views on the features, and what can be changed for improvement.
• After a several test cycles, the features that are primarily liked are testing together in an updated version of the plugin, and are released after sufficient testing.

Obviously for this idea to come to fruition several things need to happen, the buying of beta servers, and the mass hunt for new developers. Several things need to happen.
Post something on the front page about needing new Developers, post the criteria needed and why new developers are necessary. Promote some mods to admin and senior mod to help hire new developers.
MCSG has been in a standstill for too long, we need to upsize to make progress.