VillageCraft
VillageCraft Boards => Parliament | Suggestions => Topic started by: TheLegend12369 on 16 April 2020, 03:35:46 PM
-
This motion has gained the necessary support to be brought to vote. The motion would call for the following:
1) Automatic or Industrialized Farms will no longer be allowed to be used when more than 5 people are on.
(a) Anyone who is found still afking or using one of these farms after the player limit is reached will be asked to tp away or turn off their farm.
-Failure to comply will result in the farm being disabled.
The Signatories are as follows: Protoape (chef), Naomi, Brutalfive, theodorf, and Jack_Aubry (seaborgium). The motion was approved by the CM (TheLegend12369) and the following staff: Moderator TheLegend12369 , Admin Essos (Yvette), and Moderator CyphurTheFox.
This thread is for discussing the items in motion. Please be kind to each other. Post any concerns or ideas you might have below.
-
What size would the pumpkin farm need to be to have to follow the following regulations. Also would this only be a restriction of P
pump farms, or all farms, and if not all farms could a list be provided.
-
Perhaps the repercussions should scale before outright disabling the farm. It would probably be best not to ban players that offend repeatedly, but a temporary region seizure could be in order.
Would something like this work?:
First offence - kick & warning;
Second offence - kick & warning;
Third offence - disablement;
Fourth offence - temp seizure of region.
-
Perhaps the repercussions should scale before outright disabling the farm. It would probably be best not to ban players that offend repeatedly, but a temporary region seizure could be in order.
Would something like this work?:
First offence - kick & warning;
Second offence - kick & warning;
Third offence - disablement;
Fourth offence - temp seizure of region.
It may also be prudent to include a clause where if the person was there afking before player count reached 5, then whatever action is taken isn't counted against them? As much as I like this rule, I don't want my farm seized over the fact that I was afk when 4 other people joined
-
Perhaps the repercussions should scale before outright disabling the farm. It would probably be best not to ban players that offend repeatedly, but a temporary region seizure could be in order.
Would something like this work?:
First offence - kick & warning;
Second offence - kick & warning;
Third offence - disablement;
Fourth offence - temp seizure of region.
It may also be prudent to include a clause where if the person was there afking before player count reached 5, then whatever action is taken isn't counted against them? As much as I like this rule, I don't want my farm seized over the fact that I was afk when 4 other people joined
True, just wanted some scalability to make sure that it's not too hard on people that are first offenders. I guess the 4th offence punishment is a bit harsh.
-
Perhaps the repercussions should scale before outright disabling the farm. It would probably be best not to ban players that offend repeatedly, but a temporary region seizure could be in order.
Would something like this work?:
First offence - kick & warning;
Second offence - kick & warning;
Third offence - disablement;
Fourth offence - temp seizure of region.
It may also be prudent to include a clause where if the person was there afking before player count reached 5, then whatever action is taken isn't counted against them? As much as I like this rule, I don't want my farm seized over the fact that I was afk when 4 other people joined
True, just wanted some scalability to make sure that it's not too hard on people that are first offenders. I guess the 4th offence punishment is a bit harsh.
I disagree that the 4th offence is harsh, if you get to the 4th offense you are obviously ignoring the regulation so you should be punished. Otherwise we will still see everyone using farms as usual if we give them a slap on the wrists. Seizure of the region is a perfect punishment because it doesn't limit you from still playing VillageCraft (like a ban would) and renders the farm useless.
-
Some thoughts:
What defines an industrialized size auto farm? Would a small farm be permitted? This should be defined.
In the case of someone afk at a farm, and then people join, staff can attempt to warn them, and if they don't respond, they can kick them.
I would worry less about defining the punishments (staff can determine as needed), and worry more about defining the rule to be clear and leave no room for confusion or grey areas.
-
I would say any farm that uses redstone to harvest or hoppers for transport of harvests would be considered industrialized. That would mean farms such as pumpkin farms or guardian farms.
-
I would say any farm that uses redstone to harvest or hoppers for transport of harvests would be considered industrialized. That would mean farms such as pumpkin farms or guardian farms.
Is there a size limit on this? I can think of examples where this could become silly. Eg: I have a little 16-block cocoa farm which uses Redstone to harvest. Would this be covered under the rules?
Also can we be clear that "more than 5" implies that 6 players are required for the rules to take effect?
What happens with farms which are hard to disable? I know there's some guardian farms where the collection can be disabled but the spawning itself cannot. Are people allowed to go near these areas, or is it a complete ban on being in the vicinity with >5 players online?
Are we building an exit condition into this or is it just staying forever? Should the rule be reviewed after x weeks? After an update?
-
I would be in favour of a review upon our update to 1.16
-
If this were implemented, a large part of my "player experience" would just be removed from VC.
-
Good thoughts Luis.
Agreed Yv.
If this were implemented, a large part of my "player experience" would just be removed from VC.
What if we made it more than 10 players?
Or does that destroy the purpose at that point?
-
Good thoughts Luis.
Agreed Yv.
If this were implemented, a large part of my "player experience" would just be removed from VC.
What if we made it more than 10 players?
Or does that destroy the purpose at that point?
I am on at times, at my base, with over 15 players, and there isn't tps drops below 18. I am still not convinced farms are that major of a cause, and if they are, still not convinced its mine. but yea 10 sounds better than 5 because to be honest I don't wish to play when 5 people are on and 3 are staff.
-
Yeah I know 10 were on the other day and Octo was at his farm and there was no lag, I feel like more then 10 is a good number to start at and it can be revised if needed.
-
Disagree, seems like unnecessary regulation for the sake of regulation.
-
Nobody is regulating for the sake of regulation. Respectfully, you haven't played enough to experience the nearly unplayable lag spikes during peak times lately, and the widespread frustration that led to this long, painful discussion and now to this.
Completely in favour of this rule as is written in the OP, but with the stipulation of a review upon update to 1.16
-
Nobody is regulating for the sake of regulation. Respectfully, you haven't played enough to experience the nearly unplayable lag spikes during peak times lately, and the widespread frustration that led to this long, painful discussion and now to this.
Completely in favour of this rule as is written in the OP, but with the stipulation of a review upon update to 1.16
I second this
-
Nobody is regulating for the sake of regulation. Respectfully, you haven't played enough to experience the nearly unplayable lag spikes during peak times lately, and the widespread frustration that led to this long, painful discussion and now to this.
Completely in favour of this rule as is written in the OP, but with the stipulation of a review upon update to 1.16
I second this
third this, but agree with what ako and luis are saying - we need more defined guidelines for this.
-
I propose the following features to this rule, tho I haven't written them up nicely:
- Industrialized automatic farms must be not be operating while 10 or more players are online.
- 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).
- Farms have 5 minutes to comply once 10 or more players are online. Staff may give:
Immediately: a notice to disable,
After 5 minutes: a warning and kick if AFK,
After 10 minutes: a second warning and a kick,
After 15 minutes: a final warning, a kick, and may disable the farm themselves,
After 30 minutes: proceed to regular punishments, and any other necessary intervention to stop the farm.
- For farms that are intentionally restarted, the above timer carries on where it left off (if the farm ceased at 12 minutes after 2 warnings, if restarted it continues at 12 minutes).
- For farms that are hard to stop, players must work with Staff to find a solution, and shall be given leniency on their first attempts to comply.
- This rule expires 15 days after VC updates to Minecraft 1.16.
---
Let me know what yalls think
-
I propose the following features to this rule, tho I haven't written them up nicely:
- Industrialized automatic farms must be not be operating while 10 or more players are online.
- 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).
- Farms have 5 minutes to comply once 10 or more players are online. Staff may give:
Immediately: a notice to disable,
After 5 minutes: a warning and kick if AFK,
After 10 minutes: a second warning and a kick,
After 15 minutes: a final warning, a kick, and may disable the farm themselves,
After 30 minutes: proceed to regular punishments, and any other necessary intervention to stop the farm.
- For farms that are intentionally restarted, the above timer carries on where it left off (if the farm ceased at 12 minutes after 2 warnings, if restarted it continues at 12 minutes).
- For farms that are hard to stop, players must work with Staff to find a solution, and shall be given leniency on their first attempts to comply.
- This rule expires 15 days after VC updates to Minecraft 1.16.
---
Let me know what yalls think
sounds fair to me. 10 is more reasonable than five, and the rule expiring is good too. can we describe what "industrialized" is clearer though?
(https://i.imgur.com/rZAYUr1.png)
Is this industrial? Its fully automatic. but look at the size of it.
also still wondering where I can go when farms are shut down as all my items are still gonna be located at my farm
-
- 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)
-
also still wondering where I can go when farms are shut down as all my items are still gonna be located at my farm
-
Does your farm have an "off" functionality built into it?
-
Does your farm have an "off" functionality built into it?
if it doesnt have an off functionality just disable it by severing the redstone connection where it can be easily replaced when you wanna use it
-
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'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'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.
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?
-
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'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.
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?
Sorry, no. I don't see "break to fix" as being a proper solution, because it's not.
-
- 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.
Thanks for making much more reasonable suggestions. This baseline seems better.
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)
Worth experimenting with
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'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.
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?
Sorry, no. I don't see "break to fix" as being a proper solution, because it's not.
Can't you just add a lever shutoff then?
-
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'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.
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?
Sorry, no. I don't see "break to fix" as being a proper solution, because it's not.
Can't you just add a lever shutoff then?
The issue with adding a lever shutoff is guardians don't just lever-shutoff spawning. just like you cant turn off a cactus farm, they don't stop growing. I think the solution for a mob farm would be adding the "mob-spawning:deny" flag to a rg. Basically mob prot. This does raise the issue of giving out mob prot to people who build massive farms, however 1: it would break basically any mob farm, so you probably don't want to keep it on; and 2: if you're building massive farms, you probably already have mob prot.
Specific farms also have specific methods of shutoff. In Octo's guardian farm case, the solution is to remove the water, usually with dispensers, however octo's farm doesn't have the infrastructure to do this easily so an alternative solution (like the one I just described) is necessary.
Also Side note: I just talked to Hobbes about disabling my large guardian farm, a measure which I will leave in place until 1.16. It should be off now so y'all can play villagecraft assured that I'm not going to be causing lag with that farm.(not to imply that I was trying to cause lag before with it)
-
so, I have to either run commands to disable, or do a lot more work to a farm thats been completed for years. I don't really think either of that is fair especially where I can only run commands to disable my farm because i'm staff. but I'll do what I have to.
I'd really like a solution other than modify it or run commands to disable it..
also I would like to point out, adding this rule essentially adds a "farm policing" rule to village craft,
i felt this way about the Iron Golem farm ban too, which was undone.
"We're here to help you; not to police you." is one of the signs in the spawn tunnel.
-
so, I have to either run commands to disable, or do a lot more work to a farm thats been completed for years. I don't really think either of that is fair especially where I can only run commands to disable my farm because i'm staff. but I'll do what I have to.
@Akomine As cyphurs already pointed out the specs of my farm for me and what its gonna need done to it I wont go into depth on the details of how it works. unfortunately no, I can't just add a lever to disable it,
I'd really like a solution other than modify it or run commands to disable it, as again, I don't think modifying is something people should have to do.
also one thought I've been having that I would like to point out, adding this rule essentially adds a "farm policing" rule to VillageCraft. (even if its temporary)
i felt this way about the Iron Golem farm ban too, which was undone.
"We're here to help you; not to police you." is one of the signs in the spawn tunnel.
This rule has policing written all over it in my opinion.
-
so, I have to either run commands to disable, or do a lot more work to a farm thats been completed for years. I don't really think either of that is fair especially where I can only run commands to disable my farm because i'm staff. but I'll do what I have to.
@Akomine As cyphurs already pointed out the specs of my farm for me and what its gonna need done to it I wont go into depth on the details of how it works. unfortunately no, I can't just add a lever to disable it,
I'd really like a solution other than modify it or run commands to disable it, as again, I don't think modifying is something people should have to do.
also one thought I've been having that I would like to point out, adding this rule essentially adds a "farm policing" rule to VillageCraft. (even if its temporary)
i felt this way about the Iron Golem farm ban too, which was undone.
"We're here to help you; not to police you." is one of the signs in the spawn tunnel.
This rule has policing written all over it in my opinion.
yes i agree, this all seems very complicated and intimidating to new players, I think the role of staff should remain very laissez-faire and that farms should not be regulated and players should be allowed to do as they wish to ensure as close to a vanilla+ experience as possible
-
so, I have to either run commands to disable, or do a lot more work to a farm thats been completed for years. I don't really think either of that is fair especially where I can only run commands to disable my farm because i'm staff. but I'll do what I have to.
@Akomine As cyphurs already pointed out the specs of my farm for me and what its gonna need done to it I wont go into depth on the details of how it works. unfortunately no, I can't just add a lever to disable it,
I'd really like a solution other than modify it or run commands to disable it, as again, I don't think modifying is something people should have to do.
also one thought I've been having that I would like to point out, adding this rule essentially adds a "farm policing" rule to VillageCraft. (even if its temporary)
i felt this way about the Iron Golem farm ban too, which was undone.
"We're here to help you; not to police you." is one of the signs in the spawn tunnel.
This rule has policing written all over it in my opinion.
yes i agree, this all seems very complicated and intimidating to new players, I think the role of staff should remain very laissez-faire and that farms should not be regulated and players should be allowed to do as they wish to ensure as close to a vanilla+ experience as possible
I strongly believe unplayable lag spikes are a stronger deterrent to new players, than regulations on industrial scale farms, which primarily affect long-time rich players.
-
so, I have to either run commands to disable, or do a lot more work to a farm thats been completed for years. I don't really think either of that is fair especially where I can only run commands to disable my farm because i'm staff. but I'll do what I have to.
@Akomine As cyphurs already pointed out the specs of my farm for me and what its gonna need done to it I wont go into depth on the details of how it works. unfortunately no, I can't just add a lever to disable it,
I'd really like a solution other than modify it or run commands to disable it, as again, I don't think modifying is something people should have to do.
also one thought I've been having that I would like to point out, adding this rule essentially adds a "farm policing" rule to VillageCraft. (even if its temporary)
i felt this way about the Iron Golem farm ban too, which was undone.
"We're here to help you; not to police you." is one of the signs in the spawn tunnel.
This rule has policing written all over it in my opinion.
yes i agree, this all seems very complicated and intimidating to new players, I think the role of staff should remain very laissez-faire and that farms should not be regulated and players should be allowed to do as they wish to ensure as close to a vanilla+ experience as possible
I strongly believe unplayable lag spikes are a stronger deterrent to new players, than regulations on industrial scale farms, which primarily affect long-time rich players.
I get like, maybe 1 lag spike a day.
-
so, I have to either run commands to disable, or do a lot more work to a farm thats been completed for years. I don't really think either of that is fair especially where I can only run commands to disable my farm because i'm staff. but I'll do what I have to.
@Akomine As cyphurs already pointed out the specs of my farm for me and what its gonna need done to it I wont go into depth on the details of how it works. unfortunately no, I can't just add a lever to disable it,
I'd really like a solution other than modify it or run commands to disable it, as again, I don't think modifying is something people should have to do.
also one thought I've been having that I would like to point out, adding this rule essentially adds a "farm policing" rule to VillageCraft. (even if its temporary)
i felt this way about the Iron Golem farm ban too, which was undone.
"We're here to help you; not to police you." is one of the signs in the spawn tunnel.
This rule has policing written all over it in my opinion.
yes i agree, this all seems very complicated and intimidating to new players, I think the role of staff should remain very laissez-faire and that farms should not be regulated and players should be allowed to do as they wish to ensure as close to a vanilla+ experience as possible
I strongly believe unplayable lag spikes are a stronger deterrent to new players, than regulations on industrial scale farms, which primarily affect long-time rich players.
I get like, maybe 1 lag spike a day.
The vast vast vast majority of players do not share your experience. I truly wish we did. We aren't doing this for fun.
-
so, I have to either run commands to disable, or do a lot more work to a farm thats been completed for years. I don't really think either of that is fair especially where I can only run commands to disable my farm because i'm staff. but I'll do what I have to.
@Akomine As cyphurs already pointed out the specs of my farm for me and what its gonna need done to it I wont go into depth on the details of how it works. unfortunately no, I can't just add a lever to disable it,
I'd really like a solution other than modify it or run commands to disable it, as again, I don't think modifying is something people should have to do.
also one thought I've been having that I would like to point out, adding this rule essentially adds a "farm policing" rule to VillageCraft. (even if its temporary)
i felt this way about the Iron Golem farm ban too, which was undone.
"We're here to help you; not to police you." is one of the signs in the spawn tunnel.
This rule has policing written all over it in my opinion.
yes i agree, this all seems very complicated and intimidating to new players, I think the role of staff should remain very laissez-faire and that farms should not be regulated and players should be allowed to do as they wish to ensure as close to a vanilla+ experience as possible
I strongly believe unplayable lag spikes are a stronger deterrent to new players, than regulations on industrial scale farms, which primarily affect long-time rich players.
I get like, maybe 1 lag spike a day.
The vast vast vast majority of players do not share your experience. I truly wish we did. We aren't doing this for fun.
me, and my 3 friends I play with consistently every night all play lag free, except for occasional moments (that happen when i'm not even at my farm around 1am and cause the server to crash)
-
Yes, we are there to help, not police. But if the wide majority of players vote yes on this and it goes into affect, aren't we helping them still? At this point it's mostly only staff that have huge farms anyway, and if the majority of the average players don't want them running because it's causing lag, we aren't helping them at all.
-
still waiting for proof that they cause lag because as i've stated I don't experience this lag
-
still waiting for proof that they cause lag because as i've stated I don't experience this lag
It is a possibility that the lag might not affect the specific activites you participate in. The lag where server tps drops does not manifest as a drop in frame rate, but as the slowing down of a lot of back end stuff. You'd notice it as redstone slowing down, mob spawning decreasing, and other changes involving the game mechanics that function in the lock-step tick system.
Some examples of in game activities heavily affected by a drop in tps:
Redstone (functions slower)
Mining (The drop in tps can cause a desync in block breaking, in resulting blocks previously thought to already be broken reappearing)
Exploring (the drop in tps heavily affects chunk loading/generation)
Could you please explain what you usually do on the server? It might explain why you dont experience the lag that often.
-
still waiting for proof that they cause lag because as i've stated I don't experience this lag
It is a possibility that the lag might not affect the specific activites you participate in. The lag where server tps drops does not manifest as a drop in frame rate, but as the slowing down of a lot of back end stuff. You'd notice it as redstone slowing down, mob spawning decreasing, and other changes involving the game mechanics that function in the lock-step tick system.
Some examples of in game activities heavily affected by a drop in tps:
Redstone (functions slower)
Mining (The drop in tps can cause a desync in block breaking, in resulting blocks previously thought to already be broken reappearing)
Exploring (the drop in tps heavily affects chunk loading/generation)
Could you please explain what you usually do on the server? It might explain why you dont experience the lag that often.
Then why does everyone complain about frame drops
-
still waiting for proof that they cause lag because as i've stated I don't experience this lag
It is a possibility that the lag might not affect the specific activites you participate in. The lag where server tps drops does not manifest as a drop in frame rate, but as the slowing down of a lot of back end stuff. You'd notice it as redstone slowing down, mob spawning decreasing, and other changes involving the game mechanics that function in the lock-step tick system.
Some examples of in game activities heavily affected by a drop in tps:
Redstone (functions slower)
Mining (The drop in tps can cause a desync in block breaking, in resulting blocks previously thought to already be broken reappearing)
Exploring (the drop in tps heavily affects chunk loading/generation)
Could you please explain what you usually do on the server? It might explain why you dont experience the lag that often.
Then why does everyone complain about frame drops
Dropping frames is a personal problem that can pertain to a specific PC. Better hardware means you dont drop frames.
The complaints I've seen are people complaining about having to break a block 5-6 times, which is very characteristic of a drop in tps. Other lag that I've seen people experience happens during PvE, where the low tps causes entity processing to slow down, and you can hit a mob with a knockback sword multiple times and it doesnt move.
-
Block lag has been pretty common as of late.
-
I agree with Yvette on this one. As a causal player in love with the monotony of strip mining, it is frustrating when I have to mine nonstop. I understand you all aren't lagging, but a lot of us are. This is only until 1.16 and I would love for you all to enjoy what you want to do on the server. I just want to be able to have my enjoyment of mining and building.
Thank you Cyphur for looking into everything and trying to find a good solution for everyone.
I am full in favor for the outlines above, restricting farms until 1.16
-
Before it goes to a vote I'd like @TheLegend12369 to revise based on input on this thread.
-
This is the proposed edit to the motion:
1) Automatic or Industrialized Farms will no longer be allowed to be used when 10 or more people are on.
(a) Farms have 5 minutes to comply once 10 or more players are online. Staff may give:
Immediately: a notice to disable,
- After 5 minutes: a warning and kick if AFK,
- After 10 minutes: a second warning and a kick.
- After 15 minutes: a final warning, a kick.
- After 30 minutes: proceed to regular punishments, and any other necessary intervention to stop the farm.
2) Industrial sized farms are defined as follows:
(a) Volume > 4096 (16^3) for a random-tick based farm.
(b) Entity Count > 256 for a spawner based farm
(c) Volume > 32768 (32^3) for mob spawning based farm
(d) Any Farm that involves sending entites (items or mobs) through nether portals
- This class of farm applies once more than 5 people are on.
3) This rule expires fifteen days after VillageCraft updates to 1.16
The Signatories are as follows: Protoape (chef), Naomi, Brutalfive, theodorf, and Jack_Aubry (seaborgium). The motion was approved by the CM (TheLegend12369) and the following staff: Moderator TheLegend12369 , Admin Essos (Yvette), and Moderator CyphurTheFox.
-
removed the bit about dismantling. if we kick them 3 times, they aren't listening, we can just go to punishment... dismantling is grief in my eyes.
also added a bit to clarify 10 or more means 11+ as luis had mentioned.
Also can we be clear that "more than 5" implies that 6 players are required for the rules to take effect?
also made this part clear, obviously with 10 though.
-
Octo has a good point, why dismantle a farm if someone refuses to comply 3 times? Just proceed to regular punishments like tempban for a couple hours. Staff should avoid messing with farms physically, especially ones they don't understand fully. The text should actually be clear on this
Also, I think octo misread, since "10 or more" doesn't mean 11. I think he thought it was the old wording like "more than 5" meaning 6.
-
Also, I think octo misread, since "10 or more" doesn't mean 11. I think he thought it was the old wording like "more than 5" meaning 6.
ya i did
-
I'll probably put this to a vote once the current Parliamentary vote is done.
Speaking of which, go vote on it!
-
This is the proposed edit to the motion:
1) Automatic or Industrialized Farms will no longer be allowed to be used when 10 or more people are on.
(a) Farms have 5 minutes to comply once 10 or more players are online. Staff may give:
Immediately: a notice to disable,
- After 5 minutes: a warning and kick if AFK,
- After 10 minutes: a second warning and a kick.
- After 15 minutes: a final warning, a kick.
- After 30 minutes: proceed to regular punishments, and any other necessary intervention to stop the farm.
2) Industrial sized farms are defined as follows:
(a) Volume > 4096 (16^3) for a random-tick based farm.
(b) Entity Count > 256 for a spawner based farm
(c) Volume > 32768 (32^3) for mob spawning based farm
(d) Any Farm that involves sending entites (items or mobs) through nether portals
- This class of farm applies once more than 5 people are on.
3) This rule expires fifteen days after VillageCraft updates to 1.16
The Signatories are as follows: Protoape (chef), Naomi, Brutalfive, theodorf, and Jack_Aubry (seaborgium). The motion was approved by the CM (TheLegend12369) and the following staff: Moderator TheLegend12369 , Admin Essos (Yvette), and Moderator CyphurTheFox.
May I suggest adding a fourth element permitting staff members to grant exceptions for farms provided:
a) The decision is approved by a significant quantity of staff (specific number tbd)
b) The decision is ostensibly for the public benefit.
The only reason I suggest a clause along these lines is due to the fact that there are public xp farms that cause little to no noticeable lag, but would be limited by this legislation. This clause would permit people to continue using these farms.
-
I propose this minor edit to clean things up:
1) Automatic or Industrialized Farms will no longer be allowed to be used when 10 or more people are online (6 or more for farms involving nether portals).
(a) Farms have 5 minutes to comply once 10 or more players are online.
(b) Farms that involve nether portals have 5 minutes to comply once 6 or more players are online.
(c) Staff may take the following actions:
- Immediately: a notice to disable,
- After 5 minutes: a warning and kick if AFK,
- After 10 minutes: a second warning and a kick.
- After 15 minutes: a final warning, a kick.
- After 30 minutes: proceed to regular punishments, and any other necessary intervention to stop the farm.
2) Industrial sized farms are defined as follows:
(a) Volume > 4096 (16^3) for a random-tick based farm.
(b) Entity Count > 256 for a spawner based farm.
(c) Volume > 32768 (32^3) for mob spawning based farm.
(d) Any Farm that involves sending entites (items or mobs) through nether portals.
- This class of farm must cease once 6 or more people are online.
3) This rule expires fifteen days after VillageCraft updates to 1.16
-
I propose this minor edit to clean things up:
1) Automatic or Industrialized Farms will no longer be allowed to be used when 10 or more people are online (6 or more for farms involving nether portals).
(a) Farms have 5 minutes to comply once 10 or more players are online.
(b) Farms that involve nether portals have 5 minutes to comply once 6 or more players are online.
(c) Staff may take the following actions:
- Immediately: a notice to disable,
- After 5 minutes: a warning and kick if AFK,
- After 10 minutes: a second warning and a kick.
- After 15 minutes: a final warning, a kick.
- After 30 minutes: proceed to regular punishments, and any other necessary intervention to stop the farm.
2) Industrial sized farms are defined as follows:
(a) Volume > 4096 (16^3) for a random-tick based farm.
(b) Entity Count > 256 for a spawner based farm.
(c) Volume > 32768 (32^3) for mob spawning based farm.
(d) Any Farm that involves sending entites (items or mobs) through nether portals.
- This class of farm must cease once 6 or more people are online.
3) This rule expires fifteen days after VillageCraft updates to 1.16
This is a great rewrite, I like it
-
can we get a part in the rewrite about not physically touching them? still seems pretty vauge in there.
-
can we get a part in the rewrite about not physically touching them? still seems pretty vauge in there.
I think this is important, there should be explicit rules in here preventing farms from being modified without the owner's explicit consent
-
can we get a part in the rewrite about not physically touching them? still seems pretty vauge in there.
1) Automatic or Industrialized Farms will no longer be allowed to be used when 10 or more people are online (6 or more for farms involving nether portals).
(a) Farms have 5 minutes to comply once 10 or more players are online.
(b) Farms that involve nether portals have 5 minutes to comply once 6 or more players are online.
(c) Staff may take the following actions:
- Immediately: a notice to disable,
- After 5 minutes: a warning and kick if AFK,
- After 10 minutes: a second warning and a kick.
- After 15 minutes: a final warning, a kick.
- After 30 minutes: proceed to regular punishments, and any other necessary intervention to stop the farm.
2) Industrial sized farms are defined as follows:
(a) Volume > 4096 (16^3) for a random-tick based farm.
(b) Entity Count > 256 for a spawner based farm.
(c) Volume > 32768 (32^3) for mob spawning based farm.
(d) Any Farm that involves sending entites (items or mobs) through nether portals.
- This class of farm must cease once 6 or more people are online.
3) This rule expires fifteen days after VillageCraft updates to 1.16
4) Staff are not allowed to destroy any part of a farm, regardless of amount of offences.
-
I propose one more edit to clean things up with new ideas incorporated:
1) Automatic or Industrialized Farms are not allowed to be used when 10 or more people are online (6 or more for farms involving nether portals).
(a) Farms have 5 minutes to comply once 10 or more players are online.
(b) Farms that involve nether portals have 5 minutes to comply once 6 or more players are online.
(c) Staff may take the following actions:
- Immediately: a notice to disable,
- After 5 minutes: a warning and kick if AFK,
- After 10 minutes: a second warning and a kick.
- After 15 minutes: a final warning and a kick.
- After 30 minutes: proceed to regular punishments, and stop the farm if necessary (such as toggling an on-off lever) without physical edits.
(d) Staff may not take the following action:
- Physically edit the farm without consent of the owner.
2) Automatic or Industrialized Farms are defined as follows:
(a) Volume > 4096 (16^3) for a random tick-based farm.
(b) Entity Count > 256 for a spawner-based farm.
(c) Volume > 32768 (32^3) for mob spawning-based farm.
(d) Any Farm that involves sending entities (items or mobs) through nether portals.
- This class of farm must cease once 6 or more people are online.
3) Exemptions to rules 1 and 2:
(a) Any farm may be considered exempt of these rules if:
- A Staff Vote decides unanimously in favour of exemption, or;
- A simple vote of MPs on the Parliament Board has a majority decide in favour of exemption (official Parliament vote not needed),
and;
(b) The farm is ostensibly for the public benefit and is freely available for use by the public.
4) This rule expires fifteen days after VillageCraft updates to 1.16
-
I propose one more edit to clean things up with new ideas incorporated:
1) Automatic or Industrialized Farms are not allowed to be used when 10 or more people are online (6 or more for farms involving nether portals).
(a) Farms have 5 minutes to comply once 10 or more players are online.
(b) Farms that involve nether portals have 5 minutes to comply once 6 or more players are online.
(c) Staff may take the following actions:
- Immediately: a notice to disable,
- After 5 minutes: a warning and kick if AFK,
- After 10 minutes: a second warning and a kick.
- After 15 minutes: a final warning and a kick.
- After 30 minutes: proceed to regular punishments, and stop the farm if necessary (such as toggling an on-off lever) without physical edits.
(d) Staff may not take the following action:
- Physically edit the farm without consent of the owner.
2) Automatic or Industrialized Farms are defined as follows:
(a) Volume > 4096 (16^3) for a random-tick based farm.
(b) Entity Count > 256 for a spawner based farm.
(c) Volume > 32768 (32^3) for mob spawning based farm.
(d) Any Farm that involves sending entities (items or mobs) through nether portals.
- This class of farm must cease once 6 or more people are online.
3) Exemptions to rules 1 and 2:
(a) Any farm may be considered exempt of these rules if:
- A Staff Vote decides unanimously in favour of exemption, or;
- A simple vote of MPs on the Parliament Board has a majority decide in favour of exemption (official Parliament vote not needed),
and;
(b) The farm is ostensibly for the public benefit and is freely available for use by the public.
4) This rule expires fifteen days after VillageCraft updates to 1.16
Thanks bb <3 looks great
-
question id like to post to people who are anti-farm and want a "vanilla as possible experience"
We currently regulate farms. Players are not permitted to use one account to farm and another account for regular play.
This is farm regulation that "impacts vanilla experience and could scare off new players". Are you against this?
-
question id like to post to people who are anti-farm and want a "vanilla as possible experience"
We currently regulate farms. Players are not permitted to use one account to farm and another account for regular play.
This is farm regulation that "impacts vanilla experience and could scare off new players". Are you against this?
that is a totally different type of regulation than this. as was the Iron Farm one.
-
question id like to post to people who are anti-farm and want a "vanilla as possible experience"
We currently regulate farms. Players are not permitted to use one account to farm and another account for regular play.
This is farm regulation that "impacts vanilla experience and could scare off new players". Are you against this?
That's not the same thing. People have bases around their farms, these people would have their player experience hindered at "peak" times. Having an alt at a farm whilst they're running around doing something else is different. Although, if the evidence suggests that having an alt at a farm isn't harmful either I wouldn't be against removing that regulation either.
-
question id like to post to people who are anti-farm and want a "vanilla as possible experience"
We currently regulate farms. Players are not permitted to use one account to farm and another account for regular play.
This is farm regulation that "impacts vanilla experience and could scare off new players". Are you against this?
that is a totally different type of regulation than this. as was the Iron Farm one.
of course its different, but its still a regulation and a form of "policing".
-
One part of the text has been cleaned up, which is that "this rule expires 15 days after VC updates to 1.16" has been changed to "this rule expires 15 days after VC updates to the next major Minecraft version". This change has been made because it was assumed our next major version would be 1.16, so the rule was written like that, but now it's unclear whether it will actually be 1.15 due to a delay in 1.16.
Thus, the final draft of the bill is as follows, and has gained Consent of the Staff to go to an official Parliament Vote.
1) Automatic or Industrialized Farms are not allowed to be used when 10 or more people are online (6 or more for farms involving nether portals).
(a) Farms have 5 minutes to comply once 10 or more players are online.
(b) Farms that involve nether portals have 5 minutes to comply once 6 or more players are online.
(c) Staff may take the following actions:
- Immediately: a notice to disable,
- After 5 minutes: a warning and kick if AFK,
- After 10 minutes: a second warning and a kick.
- After 15 minutes: a final warning and a kick.
- After 30 minutes: proceed to regular punishments, and stop the farm if necessary (such as toggling an on-off lever) without physical edits.
(d) Staff may not take the following action:
- Physically edit the farm without consent of the owner.
2) Automatic or Industrialized Farms are defined as follows:
(a) Volume > 4096 (16^3) for a random tick-based farm.
(b) Entity Count > 256 for a spawner-based farm.
(c) Volume > 32768 (32^3) for mob spawning-based farm.
(d) Any Farm that involves sending entities (items or mobs) through nether portals.
- This class of farm must cease once 6 or more people are online.
3) Exemptions to rules 1 and 2:
(a) Any farm may be considered exempt of these rules if:
- A Staff Vote decides unanimously in favour of exemption, or;
- A simple vote of MPs on the Parliament Board has a majority decide in favour of exemption (official Parliament vote not needed),
and;
(b) The farm is ostensibly for the public benefit and is freely available for use by the public.
4) This rule expires fifteen days after VillageCraft updates to the next major Minecraft version.
-
shall we put it to a vote then?
-
shall we put it to a vote then?
The only thing I was wondering is if we should wait for the CM election to end or not?
-
shall we put it to a vote then?
The only thing I was wondering is if we should wait for the CM election to end or not?
i personally dont think we should but idc, it just seems like a lot of delays lol
-
Fair, let's do it!
-
kinda think we should wait but at the same time. a lot of what i've said about this is ignored so i don't care. such a fucking retarded rule anyways.
-
kinda think we should wait but at the same time. a lot of what i've said about this is ignored so i don't care. such a fucking retarded rule anyways.
I'm sorry you feel ignored, when I was lagging so bad I couldn't move when this whole debate started I also felt very ignored when trying to find the issue with people. I understand you aren't feeling lag but unfortunately not all of us players have that luxury and if this "retarded rule" helps us a little bit I don't understand why we don't want to sacrifice a little to help the players overall. The rule is if 10 players get on you have to cease use of a farm, and even in our up rate these past few weeks it isn't always 10, usually 7-9 people.
Overall I think the rule is a great compromise, if we want to wait for after CM vote that is fine, but I don't see any reason we have to wait unless someone has a valid reason for waiting.
-
I feel like nobody here bothered to actually read Luis's report, or they did read it and straight up ignored it because they think that they know better. This is a stupid rule, attempts to overregulate and detracts from a minimal staff-regulation experience.
I mean, seriously, this whole proposal is damn insulting when it was found that the fluctuations do not cause any noticeable or significant lag but people decided to ignore his whole investigation. And then there's people cherrypicking what was found. What the fuck? This "bill" is a whole heap of nonsense, it won't fix anything and it seems players are just trying to scapegoat the lag on something I bet not even the proponents understand.
Let me ask you all a very, very fair question. Can any one who is actually for this analyse Luis's write-up and tell me how exactly a ban on farms would help, technically, in absolute terms? I would very much like to see it.
-
You all sound so whiny when the rest of the player base clearly experiences this lag when farms are in use. Luis' investigation shows proof that it causes much more fluctuation for 1.14 at these farms, which is what induces the rubber banding that is a majority of the community's complaints.
In my opinion, the regulations are very light as I would have liked to see the number of required players to regulate farms drop down lower to around 5. This is an extremely fair compromise and it only lasts till 1.16 AND punishment is very light on offenders. No farms are getting seized or broken the community is just asking these players using these large farms to think about them and quit being so self interested while we try to figure out ways to cut down lag for the time being.
The amount of crying or incessant whining over fucking minecraft farms couldn't be anymore pathetic. I get it, the mind blowing feeling of standing there AFK while you ruin everyone else's experience is just too good to pass up. But please, quit being so selfish and listen to other people's complaints about not being able to play. It's absurd that these AFK players, represented by mostly staff, have gone this long with clear favor while the other players have gotten screwed until someone decided to speak up.
Farms can still be used according to these regulations, it's just asking that large farm users do this at a time where it won't affect every other player. So please, stop whining about it ruining your player experience. We don't care, just as you are constantly ignoring the concerns about our experience being riddled with constant lag, we don't care how much it ruins your fun -- you have already lost that respect.
-
kinda think we should wait but at the same time. a lot of what i've said about this is ignored so i don't care. such a fucking retarded rule anyways.
Please tell me this is a joke. We have compromised and discussed every facet of this proposal with you to such a degree to try and make it fair, I really can't believe you think we're ignoring you. Perhaps we should put the original proposal with none of your input to vote, since we're just ignoring you anyway. Moving on..
I feel like nobody here bothered to actually read Luis's report, or they did read it and straight up ignored it because they think that they know better.
Multiple of us discussed and replied to Luis' report, no one ignored it or thinks they "know better", however, all player's input is equally valuable.
This is a stupid rule, attempts to overregulate and detracts from a minimal staff-regulation experience.
We already regulate farms as I said, and if players deem the effects of the regulation more valuable than "minimal staff regulation" then it's fine.
I mean, seriously, this whole proposal is damn insulting when it was found that the fluctuations do not cause any noticeable or significant lag but people decided to ignore his whole investigation.
Again, no one ignored his investigation, and there was quite a bit of discussion around them. Here, let me link a few of the posts for you, since you may have missed them.
http://www.villagecraft-server.com/forum/index.php?topic=5062.msg46694#msg46694
http://www.villagecraft-server.com/forum/index.php?topic=5062.msg46740#msg46740
http://www.villagecraft-server.com/forum/index.php?topic=5062.msg46746#msg46746
And then there's people cherrypicking what was found. What the fuck?
This is kinda confusing to me. Again, let me quote directly from Luis, whom you think is 'right'
If people look at my tests and decide to interpret them as farms causing problems, then that's perfectly fine by me. That's exactly why I did them, so people can draw conclusions based on it.
You're perfectly welcome to draw your own conclusions from the data he presented as well, but truly its more people who are against the ban who didn't address the data whatsoever.
This "bill" is a whole heap of nonsense, it won't fix anything and it seems players are just trying to scapegoat the lag on something I bet not even the proponents understand.
Mildly insulting to say we don't understand what we're proposing when we've put quite a lot of work into this bill to compromise with others, to make it clear and concise, and to make sure it's subject to democratic review as soon as it should be.
I've apologised before for making it seem like I, personally, am trying to scapegoat the lag on farms, but we've all known (or, strongly suspected) that farms were the cause of quite a lot of the lag since long before this bill came around. Players have been avoiding their farms at peak hours as a courtesy for months and months. It's only become a Parliamentary issue now because "Peak hours" are now longer and have more people, as well as some players simply want to farm during them. This isn't a new issue whatsoever, its just amplified by the recent increased activity on VC.
Let me ask you all a very, very fair question. Can any one who is actually for this analyse Luis's write-up and tell me how exactly a ban on farms would help, technically, in absolute terms? I would very much like to see it.
Certainly. Though I know it won't change anything for you, I hope some undecided spectators look at it and see what they think about it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deviations in TPS were, in the tests, between 4.29 and 6.35, in version 1.14.4, based on the two farms tested. These are pretty big fluctuations for one sole thing to be causing alongside everything else that is happening on the server at any given time, especially since it's not uncommon for two players to be farming at once on VillageCraft.
Even at the most conservative value of 4, a fluctuation of 4 TPS during peak hours which TPS commonly hovers around 12 - this is based on my personal observation from playing VC everyday since quarantine started - is a significant enough fluctuation to cause gameplay issues for many of the players. Go to the 6 value and the effects are obvious. And take into account what I mentioned, the fact that it isn't uncommon for two players to be at a farm during peak hours, and at those times, the server is, truly, nearly unplayable.
The removal of these fluctuations would certainly not solve all lag issues on VC, and I imagine for the next few weeks - should this pass - any moment of lag will be met with passive aggressive "wow im glad we banned farms" remarks, but in my perspective, the numbers show that regulating farms in this way will have a great impact on the quality of life on VC for the playerbase during peak hours.
Aside from numerical analysis, I'd like to point out there's no realistic reason for Cyphur, me, Legend, or any others to "scapegoat" farms. All three of us have HUGE money making farms. Why the hell would I purposely regulate a money making farm I use frequently if not because I truly believe it would benefit the server. Same deal with Cyphur and Legend. Furthermore, due to Luis' analysis and number crunching, we opted to increase the player limit from 5 to 10, given the lower TPS Fluctuation effect than we originally thought. Doesn't sound like "ignoring his analysis" to me.
We have had new players join, ask "is it always this laggy?" and leave within their first few minutes on the server. So your point about this rule "driving new players away" is entirely false, in my opinion. It seems to me the opponents of this regulation willfully ignore player's experience of lag on the server, to an extent where you see them laugh and mock them when they are lagging.
This should cover all of my points, and I, quite frankly, refuse to keep going in circles about this issue. If people have questions about my stance on this issue, direct them to this point, but I won't engage on this thread anymore.
-
kinda think we should wait but at the same time. a lot of what i've said about this is ignored so i don't care. such a fucking retarded rule anyways.
I can directly quote you to areas where you were not ignored. Your input changed the face of this proposal. To say otherwise is bizarre.
I feel like nobody here bothered to actually read Luis's report, or they did read it and straight up ignored it because they think that they know better. This is a stupid rule, attempts to overregulate and detracts from a minimal staff-regulation experience.
I mean, seriously, this whole proposal is damn insulting when it was found that the fluctuations do not cause any noticeable or significant lag but people decided to ignore his whole investigation. And then there's people cherrypicking what was found. What the fuck? This "bill" is a whole heap of nonsense, it won't fix anything and it seems players are just trying to scapegoat the lag on something I bet not even the proponents understand.
Let me ask you all a very, very fair question. Can any one who is actually for this analyse Luis's write-up and tell me how exactly a ban on farms would help, technically, in absolute terms? I would very much like to see it.
Luis's report is helpful, but you have to consider that:
- It is not a true test of VC under load, (only implementing this rule can do that).
- He found that farms did contribute to TPS fluctuations, though personally disagreed with a rule at the time of writing. He also posited that the TPS fluctuations are likely less than what people tend to assume.
I'm sorry you feel ignored, when I was lagging so bad I couldn't move when this whole debate started I also felt very ignored when trying to find the issue with people. I understand you aren't feeling lag but unfortunately not all of us players have that luxury and if this "retarded rule" helps us a little bit I don't understand why we don't want to sacrifice a little to help the players overall. The rule is if 10 players get on you have to cease use of a farm, and even in our up rate these past few weeks it isn't always 10, usually 7-9 people.
Overall I think the rule is a great compromise, if we want to wait for after CM vote that is fine, but I don't see any reason we have to wait unless someone has a valid reason for waiting.
This is a decent reply, nicely done. I wonder if this rule passes, if you'll notice an improvement.
You all sound so whiny when the rest of the player base clearly experiences this lag when farms are in use. Luis' investigation shows proof that it causes much more fluctuation for 1.14 at these farms, which is what induces the rubber banding that a majority of the community's complaints.
In my opinion, the regulations are very light as I would have liked to see the number of required players to regulate farms drop down lower to around 5. This is an extremely fair compromise and it only lasts till 1.16 AND punishment is very light on offenders. No farms are getting seized or broken the community is just asking these players using these large farms to think about them and quit being so self interested while we try to figure out ways to cut down lag for the time being.
The amount of crying or incessant whining over fucking minecraft farms couldn't be anymore pathetic. I get it, the mind blowing feeling of standing there AFK while you ruin everyone else's experience is just too good to pass up. But please, quit being so selfish and listen to other people's complaints about not being able to play. It's absurd that these AFK players, represented by mostly staff, have gone this long with clear favor while the other players have gotten screwed until someone decided to speak up.
Farms can still be used according to these regulations, it's just asking that large farm users do this at a time where it won't affect every other player. So please, stop whining about it ruining your player experience. We don't care, just as you are constantly ignoring the concerns about our experience being riddled with constant lag, we don't care how much it ruins your fun -- you have already lost that respect.
Not gonna lie, I had a laugh at this rant
-
While this regulation is well thought out and covers most of the issues, it is just that, a cover. It is simply a stop-gap that will mask the underlying issue without properly resolving the actual problems that are present.
I know this doesn't entirely affect me nor will it change the way I personally play, but this regulation is not only time-consuming to enforce but also piles on more that a staff member would have to do the moment they log in. If I am wrong in this regard, then please do correct me but what would your routine as staff be once this regulation is in place? If you are following it, most likely you will spend the beginning of every play session teleporting from player to player to make sure they are not using a farm. Not only this but can any player soundly estimate the size and scale of a farm without pulling out worldedit or block counting the border? I don't mean to knock anyone's abilities, those are just questions I would ask myself if I was still staff. This creates a tedious and laborious task for both players and staff, the latter who already have much to deal with outside of essentially perma-spying on random players.
Bringing back the mention of existing problems, wouldn't the previously mentioned regulation on prices have a similar effect on the use of farms?
Completely crashing the price for valuable and easily farmable items would make it worthless to create and actively farm any of these resources as they would be no better than earning pennies for the hour. And yes, that would be the pricing I would implement. Either kill the revenue of these farms to deter most of their usage or utterly flip the market and remove the ability to sell these items to the market. Both will have the same effect, I am sure. Both in regards to the immediate effect as well as the public outcry. Even so, this would either push players who farm back to actually playing the game in other ways or they will quit. It is a harsh reality and decision but something that should have been considered the moment massive scale projects were created. The player can still make money outside of creating such farms, it is simply more effort and less afk.
Of course, this is my opinion and perhaps my opinion alone but something of this magnitude is necessary to reinvigorate the worth of money on the server. There is no real economy since anything can be bought after a short moment of farming any of the publicly or privately available areas. There is no proper sense of where it should stop and it has become more about who tops the balance charts or who has the best and most efficient farms to make this money.
While this is only a single step towards a change, it doesn't have to nor should it be the only step taken to change the way things are seen, earned, and implemented.
Feel free to rip this apart,
-Random player opinion.
-
I haven't been actively participating in this thread because I thought my opinion was only mine, but I fully agree with ten here. I support the regulation because it'll appease the most people, but it's like patching a wall with paper maché. When money becomes worthless, gameplay is just too easy and monotonous. If anyone disagrees please take it to ten and not me
-
While this regulation is well thought out and covers most of the issues, it is just that, a cover. It is simply a stop-gap that will mask the underlying issue without properly resolving the actual problems that are present.
I know this doesn't entirely affect me nor will it change the way I personally play, but this regulation is not only time-consuming to enforce but also piles on more that a staff member would have to do the moment they log in. If I am wrong in this regard, then please do correct me but what would your routine as staff be once this regulation is in place? If you are following it, most likely you will spend the beginning of every play session teleporting from player to player to make sure they are not using a farm. Not only this but can any player soundly estimate the size and scale of a farm without pulling out worldedit or block counting the border? I don't mean to knock anyone's abilities, those are just questions I would ask myself if I was still staff. This creates a tedious and laborious task for both players and staff, the latter who already have much to deal with outside of essentially perma-spying on random players.
Bringing back the mention of existing problems, wouldn't the previously mentioned regulation on prices have a similar effect on the use of farms?
Completely crashing the price for valuable and easily farmable items would make it worthless to create and actively farm any of these resources as they would be no better than earning pennies for the hour. And yes, that would be the pricing I would implement. Either kill the revenue of these farms to deter most of their usage or utterly flip the market and remove the ability to sell these items to the market. Both will have the same effect, I am sure. Both in regards to the immediate effect as well as the public outcry. Even so, this would either push players who farm back to actually playing the game in other ways or they will quit. It is a harsh reality and decision but something that should have been considered the moment massive scale projects were created. The player can still make money outside of creating such farms, it is simply more effort and less afk.
Of course, this is my opinion and perhaps my opinion alone but something of this magnitude is necessary to reinvigorate the worth of money on the server. There is no real economy since anything can be bought after a short moment of farming any of the publicly or privately available areas. There is no proper sense of where it should stop and it has become more about who tops the balance charts or who has the best and most efficient farms to make this money.
While this is only a single step towards a change, it doesn't have to nor should it be the only step taken to change the way things are seen, earned, and implemented.
Feel free to rip this apart,
-Random player opinion.
I wholly agree with this. The economy has never been in a healthy state and has been in shambles the past several years since VC gained popularity. While this isn't the discussed topic at hand, the issues with the current system are egregious. Enforcing a regulation to the sale of these farmed items by making them economically nonviable is another direction to go with these farms. As it stands farms are causing more problems than just lag. This would solve the lag issue and also another major flaw in the VillageCraft economy. The current system promotes mindless farming while making these players untouchable as they can buy nearly everything from market while we punish our players that actively participate in the community with very little margins of profit that pale in comparison. We should move toward a discussion about reworking the economy in another thread but I definitely think it is another issue that needs to be visited in the upcoming weeks.
-
PleAsE TeLl Me ThIs iS a JokE.. No.. you're the joke.
-
Hasnt the idea to reduce pumpkin prices been around for a while?
-
Hasnt the idea to reduce pumpkin prices been around for a while?
Yeah some massive market revamp ideas have been around for a while.