VillageCraft [1.20.4]
- Website -
- Donate to VC -
- Discord -
- Wiki -
- Live Server Status -
------- - ------- - -------
VillageCraft Minecraft Server
- VC Live Dynamic World Map -
IP: mc.villagecraft-server.com
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
LilEgg0Added
Istrana
- For the purpose of this rule, industrialized automatic farms means any farm or spawner mechanism that occupies more than 256 blocks, per player (example: this is 16 x 16 in a flat plane, please discuss if this is good, we don't want to punish little lever-operated food farms that use some redstone).
256 blocks is a little small, imo. 16x16 is a pretty large flat area, but farms are rarely, if ever, flat. The big issue here is varying types of farms create varying amounts of lag
My proposal would be the following:
Volume > 4096 (16^3) for a random-tick based farm.
Random Tick based farms include virtually any farm that involves some form of plant growing, so cacti, netherwart, pumpkins, etc.
These also include Portal-based pigman gold farms, which are EXTREMELY laggy when they get quite big, though rare. I recall a recent incident where a large one of these I owned was disabled (at my request and with assistance of staff) and the server tps immediately improved threefold. Also imo, you shouldn't be building them anyway, as for what it's worth, they're really slow for the effort you put in.
Entity Count > 256 for a spawner based farm
The lag issue with a spawner based farm is not the physical size, but the fact that if you afk one to gather some mobs for some time, large amounts of mobs can accumulate. This can cause lag if it gets fairly high. Thus a limit on how many mobs/entities you can have in the area should be imposed here. You can easily count entites nearby using the F3 menu.
Volume > 32768 (32^3) for mob spawning based farm
These farms consist of any farm of a mob that does not rely on a spawner of said mob. These too can be very lag efficient, with one exception:
Any Farm that involves sending entites (items or mobs) through nether portals(with a special clause limiting this class to only 5 people on)
Comparing farms of this caliber to more traditional farms is like comparing a server to a home PC. One is usually much more powerful than the other (though not always).
Sending mobs through nether portals is well known for being a good way to quickly allow more mobs to spawn, however it can be extremely problematic. Whenever an entity is sent through a nether portal, the game searches a 128 block radius around the destination point to find a portal to place them in. This search is Very Very Very laggy. Luckily the game caches found destinations for 15 seconds, meaning that if you have a consistent flow of mobs into the portal, The cache never expires and the lag is fairly low. The key here is the consistent flow, which is the reason I propose a clause limiting this class of farm to 5 people. If there are other people on, it can reduce spawn rates at farms of this caliber, which runs the risk of allowing the 15 second cache to expire very often, causing the laggy 128 block search to happen very often, causing extremely bad lag, hence limiting use of this class to 5 players is important. Luckily this class of farm is very rare, and the only known one I know of on server is mine.
I am open to adjusting the numbers on most of these clauses, hold for the last one regarding nether portal farms, as until the 1.16 optimizations, these are very, very, very laggy if done wrong.
Also maybe a special clause allowing staff to grant exceptions for using a given farm if its in the public interest? I know certain farms are good public tools, and are not particularly laggy at all. The first coming to mind being the public guardian xp farm I set up at /warp v-tgf I recently disabled the storage system there so any loot from the guardians goes to the player using the farm; it's a public utility instead of a way for me to make bank.
Whenever an entity is sent through a nether portal, the game searches a 128 block radius around the destination point to find a portal to place them in. This search is Very Very Very laggy.This radius is adjustable. It might be worth lowering it tbf, as it would have the added effect of being able to have portals closer together in the nether without them linking to the wrong ones (it's hard to explain what I mean by that, but if you've ever tried to link portals together near others you'll know what I mean)
Sorry, no. I don't see "break to fix" as being a proper solution, because it's not.so you can't break a single piece of redstone or block off a path to prevent it from running if 10+ people are online?I'm not "severing" my red stone, because I'm not even the one who does it. and no, guardian farms don't really have a way to disable. you can disable the collection. have fun with all the mobs and items sitting on the floor though.Does your farm have an "off" functionality built into it?if it doesn't have an off functionality just disable it by severing the red stone connection where it can be easily replaced when you wanna use it
I guess I don't have too strong of an opinion either way, I just don't want it to be interpreted as Staff having a say over the players. Your point is also valid, though I think it would be unlikely (but not impossible) for 5 or 6 MP's coming together just to troll.
1. Election Request
i. If a CM has been serving for less than 2 months, an election will be triggered when:
- 5 players who are MPs request a new election, and;
- 1 Staff member requests a new election.
ii. If a CM has been serving for 2 months or more, an election will be triggered when:
- 3 players who are MPs request a new election. This can be done anonymously (method pending).
iii. Election requests during the first 2 months of a term expire once the first 2 months of the term is reached. Each further request expires after 1 month.
Can I ask why, in the first two months, a staff request is required for a new election? The number could be upped to six if that's the issue but given that the CM works for the players as a whole I see no reason for this stipulation, unless there's a reason I'm missing
If this were implemented, a large part of my "player experience" would just be removed from VC.
I appreciate all that Luis is doing, but he even said it does have an effect, and I think that helping the already struggling server during peak times, at least as a temporary solution, is better than just waiting until you can find the true cause, because who knows how long that will be. For all we know, the main cause is probably just Mojang's shitty coding, and no matter how good Luis may be, which is very, I don't think he's willing to recode a whole game to solve the problem. I think a temporary fix to help during peak hours is better than nothing.A 4-6 TPS fluctuation, when the TPS is sitting at 20, clearly doesn't cause too noticeable of a difference in gameplay, but when TPS is sitting between 12-15, and then you add a 4-6 fluctuation on top of that, it makes the server unstable and difficult to play on.The question shouldn't be about what effect farms have on a laggy server, it should be why is the server lagging in the first place. I'm not too worried about those fluctuations, my goal here is to try and figure out why the TPS is 12-15 during peak times. If I can solve that, then it will have a knock-on benefit which will be very noticeable. If we ban farms during peak hours, the TPS will still be lower than it should, and that's the problem we should be focusing on.
For sure. But in the meantime, I don't think we should leave our players behind to suffer in peak hours due to these fluctuations. When a solution is out, I'm all for having no restrictions, but if there's no solution atm, a temporary solution suffices until something more permanent is figured out. To clarify, my perspective isn't that we just ban farms and say "Fuck it" to trying to improve the baseline situation.
Limiting farms to off-peak hours or when the player count is low enough might help alleviate TPS problems eh? Might not be the worst idea
I removed my post. I realized when I wrote it I wasn't completely true in what I said. But my main points still stand.
Thank you all for your comments.
I would like to clarify my position as it does need clarification.
I understand that there is concern over a player vote being binding for staff, and while as I re-read my post it definitely comes across like that. However, I would like to clarify that while I stand by what I have said, for example if the popularity of a staff member is very, very low something needs to be done, I am aware that sometimes staff may be leading or partaking in important projects for the server, unknown to the players. It is because of this that I would want staff to have a final say. Through a voting system staff can clearly see how the community view them (which is very important) and more importantly (through the option of a box where a player can add more detail explaining why they voted in such a way) why staff members received such results. In addition it also allows transparency, which can re-assure our community that the players voices are heard at all times. If staff were to act against the voice of the players, it would be an opportunity for the staff team to explain why, which would give more players an insight into the workings of staff, and with a response as to why staff went against the players vote, would once again showing staff are actively keeping the community in their mind during every decision.
Whether or not staff do decide that this is the way forward, regular and frequent community anonymous voting and suggestions must take place in order for staff to truly understand the wants, needs and concerns of the community (without drama being caused due to naming the author of the complaint).
While it is true that in theory any player could become staff, under the current system, this is unfortunately not true ):.In theory, it is true. Why wouldn't it be true? We've had all sorts of players join staff.
This is because, how the staff system currently works, staff alone appoint, promote, demote and dismiss staff.I mean, yes, this is exactly the reality.
Some staff members are observed as insufficient by many in the community. As it stands, the current system for staff creates a sort of 'elite' as it is staff who pick who joins them, allowing bias to take place and possible cliques to form (by staff members prioritising those they personally get along with over those who they personally dislike), rather than following the voice and opinion of the players within the community.Alright, it takes courage to say this, and I'll of course leave it up to every individual to have their own thoughts on which staff they deep sufficient or not. However, this "elite" status you speak of is bizarre to me. Listen, if a staff member is abusing their role, speak up immediately. Otherwise, please recognize that being staff is more of a responsibility than it is an elite power club. Are people being neglected somehow? You can speak up about that too.
This is why I suggest a new, more democratic system.We HAVE done staff performance surveys, and we can do more, but we should avoid players promoting or demoting staff. The surveys shouldn't have binding results. Staff promotions and demotions are largely that individual staff member choosing to take on more or less responsibility. Beyond experience and expertise, it's barely a hierarchy, we're all volunteers. Though I may have higher than average influence, I still only get 1 vote.
- Every 6 months, all staff members are subject to an anonymous vote by all VC players (staff and non-staff alike). ...
- If a staff member receives a specific percentage of negative votes ... they are either demoted or dismissed ...
- If a staff member receives a specific percentage of positive votes ... they are considered for promotion where possible ...
In the same way, when staff are looking to promote other staff, they can use the voting results to rank all staff in order of popularity and look to promote the most favoured staff members in the community. Similarly, when looking for new staff, a public vote should take place, like for CM, except staff will have the final say in all decisions, as they are as a group, more knowledgeable about the server. This means that staff do not have to pick the most popular candidates, but at least a candidate of mid to high popularity, as it is clear the community trust them with more responsibility.It's not a popularity contest. We choose staff members for different reasons. People fill different roles. With very specific exceptions, "higher up" staff do not "promote" "lower down" staff. I've already explained that it's an individual decision, and I don't think I need to explain further why it shouldn't be the public voting on it. It isn't even the staff voting on it in this case.
This transparency will allow us to hold staff accountable and keep VC a server ran by the players, while ensuring that staff who, as a collective, are most knowledgeable about the server, can make a final verdict. I know for some, they might argue this becomes a popularity contest, but when it comes to staff, candidates who are popular are the ones who do their job and are good representatives of VC and the entire VC community, so popularity is somewhat important.Hey, thanks for typing up these thoughts. It's a conversation worth having. If at any point I sounded harsh in my reply I apologize. I think it took some balls to post this, so I appreciate you doing it. If you want more transparency about how the staff operates, please ask and I will try to answer. If you and others think a staff performance survey happening again is a good idea, then I think so too and I'm down for that. It can be anonymous. It should not be binding.
Therefore, by making VC staff more accountable through half-yearly staff revue by all VC players and transparency, we can assure that VillageCraft is a server ran by the players.
If anyone has any questions or comments please go ahead, this is simply a suggestion. Warning I'm not as good at writing my explanations as I am explaining over voice chat, so again, apologies for anything that does not make sense.
I agree with the notion of have a more democratic process. This is something I been wanting for the longest time. The way we get there can be different. Octo does have a point that we don't know how the staff inner circle is run. This is exactly why we need to either make that process more transparent or replace it with something driven by the players as a whole.A week or so ago you asked me about the process by which we add new staff and I answered. Is there something else you would like to know? Feel free to ask.
Edit: And I will stay the system is broken.Which system exactly? And how is it broken?
I would say part of the problem we have had with the server- stagnation and the like- is partly due to the staff.Sure
Which is thankfully being fixed. No part from the staff only from the players pushing for reforms to be made.Are you seriously saying that the staff have had NO part in improving the server? Are you fucking kidding me, asshole? Please tell me I've misread this. This is incredibly rude, and demonstrably untrue.
And the issues of staff not knowing what to do or being just generally toxic is an issue as well since that can turn off new players as well as just bring up the unanswerable question if why they are still a staff if they can't do their job and don't play on the server anymore.What? Yes shitty staff members can turn off new players, and if a staff member is being shitty you can speak up if you feel you need to. We can and do remove staff members sometimes, you know this.
Is it just merely out of seniority? Or is it just nepotism. I don't know at this point. And I am sorry if I'm talking like this is some big rung up thing. Your guys aren't bad its such this closed staff group has become so stagnant I feel that something does need to change. Brutal thank you for being this up.
A 4-6 TPS fluctuation, when the TPS is sitting at 20, clearly doesn't cause too noticeable of a difference in gameplay, but when TPS is sitting between 12-15, and then you add a 4-6 fluctuation on top of that, it makes the server unstable and difficult to play on.The question shouldn't be about what effect farms have on a laggy server, it should be why is the server lagging in the first place. I'm not too worried about those fluctuations, my goal here is to try and figure out why the TPS is 12-15 during peak times. If I can solve that, then it will have a knock-on benefit which will be very noticeable. If we ban farms during peak hours, the TPS will still be lower than it should, and that's the problem we should be focusing on.
For sure. But in the meantime, I don't think we should leave our players behind to suffer in peak hours due to these fluctuations. When a solution is out, I'm all for having no restrictions, but if there's no solution atm, a temporary solution suffices until something more permanent is figured out. To clarify, my perspective isn't that we just ban farms and say "Fuck it" to trying to improve the baseline situation.
i think some of it is the server is having a lot more people on at a time. but also important note: If you are using a farm that is lagging the server and you don't leave when you're asked to we will kick you, and if you continue to ignore us we will be very sad so please don't afk at big lag farms if other people are trying to play the game.
Soo, given this was once Plugin info: Mob Catcher | CraftArrows | DrugMeUp I'm gonna boost the Mob Catcher discussion in Parliament.
http://www.villagecraft-server.com/forum/index.php?topic=5004.msg46584#new
However, I'm also gonna boost the new DrugMeUp - which an unnameable suggested, but it actually got a fair amount of likes, just no real discussion. I'd support bringing it back as well.
https://www.spigotmc.org/resources/simple-drugs.9684/
And also, wouldn't you believe it, CraftArrows is back as well!
https://www.spigotmc.org/resources/lorinthscraftarrows.53651/
Luis is working on an STV vote right now!
I remember hearing something from another server where they had reset all the chunks in the world that had not been loaded for more than an hour to reduce disk space. I think this, if implementable, would be a useful way to keep older, more developed areas intact while freeing up some other places near spawn without much infrastructure.. While I would have no idea how to implement it (@luisc99 might be able to help some), I would think that this could be a good way of striking a balance of sorts.
I guess I worded that quite vaguely... I meant that if those chunks had been loaded for a total of less than an hour in their existence would be reset.
dont get me wrong i love history too, id never support a reset of historically significant places - i just feel that as of rn there isnt a whole ton of history in the nether, and the amount of new history that would be made would be well worth the trade off.
If we could find a way to bring over some builds people want that would be optimal but we'll wait for Luis to weigh in on that.
VC has done a nether reset before, no? If so, I'm all for it again despite having stuff in the nether, I would just want a grace period where we have announcements on the server and people can get their items out. I think I mostly just have a few blaze farms with decent items... trying to think of any major villages in the nether we could preserve with clipboard. anyone got any examples?
I remember hearing something from another server where they had reset all the chunks in the world that had not been loaded for more than an hour to reduce disk space. I think this, if implementable, would be a useful way to keep older, more developed areas intact while freeing up some other places near spawn without much infrastructure.. While I would have no idea how to implement it (@luisc99 might be able to help some), I would think that this could be a good way of striking a balance of sorts.
As someone who maintains more than one farm in the nether, I feel that I should at least have some input here. As of right now, I have 3 things I have built that I would prefer survive a nether reset, also I have punched a rather large hole in the nether ceiling using the 1.12 dragon egg trick that I quite like and would prefer to keep, whether this means having a staffer just WE in a new hole or something can be addressed later.@luisc99 what do you think about the proposed 'compromise'? is it viable?
I am entirely open to working with staff to help ensure my constructions remain unharmed should the nether be reset. The three structures that I would much like to keep around are as follows:
1: My nether fortress farm, as well as the 128 block radius area around said farm that I mob proofed (this took weeks)
2: a small construction that fits perfectly in 1 chunk, that if deleted may result in accidentally crashing the server
3: The Eldrin Blaze farm, while not mine, I think is really nice, as such, I would much enjoy if this farm is preserved as well.
Given that the 1.16 update makes the nether a more varied place, where building an interesting village is viable, I am fully in favor of a reset, on the contingency that I can get assistance in preserving some of my (and others') hard work.
also pretty sure we can only preserve places you own should this reset, but if the owner (i think luis lel) says sure then ya, all your stuff is on the table if luis thinks we can make it work
I don't think it's fair to all the people who've built all sorts of things in the nether to have all their hard work deleted. Besides, all anyone has to do to see the new areas in the nether after the update would be to walk to a point no one's been to in the nether, and the new generation would begin. I don't think resetting the nether is necessary, or, in fact, beneficial.
I think that we should not reset the nether for all the reasons stated, but I understand the other side. So as Luis mentioned in a previous thread, we could add new warps to new regions as new updates emerge. So I propose that we keep the neither as it is, then create a new warp to the area of which will be regenerated. This way those with things built can keep them and those who want to experience the new nether can do so, its a win win for everyone as far as I'm concerned. It will also be much easier to make a new warp than trying to rebuild everything that people have done (even with staffs help, it will be easier for them and players to make a new warp than W/E and rebuilding and such - which could increase lag, of which we are all too much familiar with atm)
