Well it's been awhile since I have been around I never built on the current server and if I remember right cyto gave me about 1million before I left but again I don't remember exactly I guess I'm fine with a reset it means for me that I can help a community grow I think my first task will be a red stone powered auto harvest super farm like I did for myself on classic although I will need to set up the old server to take notes on it

Addressing everything by numbers:

1) Let's not do this until Minetown is 105% ready to run 1.9

2) As soon as #1 is ready, then the sooner the better.

1/2: That's the general idea, we don't make a change that we're not ready for. We've been actively getting things ready for 1.9 since before it's release, and we're continuing to prepare things on a daily basis. It's a pretty large task with a community like ours!

Sounds good. If this turns out to be a go, I'd be willing to help out on the build team by the way!

---

3) No amplified please.

3: It's already been stated, but amplified won't be happening.

Good. It's fun to muck about on in single player, but not ideal for MP.

---

4) Large biomes might be cool.

5) It would be awesome if it could be made so that desert, savanna and jungle has a higher % chance to be created in the south coords & Ice and snow biomes had a higher % of appearing in the north coords

6) The giant ring of ocean going away is good, but one triple size ocean might still be cool to help define the map (and allow for more ocean temples).



4/5/6 We're not really on board with world modification. We're still in the preliminary planning phase right now and the current consensus is to make sure that isn't a giant ocean that covers 40% of the map, but other than that use vanilla worldgen.

If the diameter is going to be smaller then I guess large biomes might not be a good idea <object class="emojione" data="https://resources.enjin.com/1489581540/themes/core/images/emojione/svg/2639.svg?0" type="image/svg+xml" standby=":(">:(</object> but I don't see why not explore ideas for some other mods of world gen. If it makes a better map that is more fun to play and explore, isn't that good? We already mod the game with various plugins. I'm not suggesting any radical changes, but perhaps at least something like a mod that makes it so hot and cold biomes do not appear side by side (I know that one exists). You said the team is looking into "realistic terrain generation". What did you mean by that? I think it will make a better map. Also, I strongly feel the map would be cooler if ocean biome was less common but when it does appear it is larger (I think there is a mod that can make this possible). In the end there would be the same amount of ocean water, and we would have a couple of real oceans, not just big lakes. I personally really like to explore ocean, looking for islands and sailing coastlines and whatnot.

---

7) Is there a good way to make it so that a future world size push out will not create the jagged and ugly chunk borders that hurt the eye?

7: One thing we'll be doing with the new map, if it's decided to even start a new map, is planning everything from the start for Survival, This includes planning for future expansions to continue the map, not generate new terrains with stark borders and edges.

Nice!

---

8 ) I would prefer to see a fresh economy than a tax but if there is a tax it should be graduated into brackets and each higher bracket pays a higher tax %.

9) Please let vets bring over some of their stuff. Please don't take away my enchanted diamond pick!

8/9: The economy will be reset, and letting players bring over any items from Agharta would defeat the purpose of resetting it in the first place.

Well, there was some talk about a tax on MTC moving over because apparently that was done before. I'm fine either way on the MTC starting at 1 but how do most folks feel about that? As to the purpose of resetting, I thought the main reasons for that is to improve performance, make a world with all 1.9 lands, allow room for future world growth, and do away with the giant (mostly uninhabitable) ocean ring. I don't think the main reason should be to take away EVERY single thing your long time players have worked so hard for. Losing all the builds alone is a tough pill to swallow. Losing all items too? That seems harsh on those that have paid their dues. How do the rest of you guys feel on this?

---

10) PREVIEW PERIOD: When new map is ready, open it up for a week for people to explore.

10: If we go with the new map, that won't really be an option. Once things get setup, the staff is going to have quite a bit of time to get server builds together (small spawn, market, etc.), so there would be no option of resetting the work they would have already done. Also given that our staff members would be working on these server builds up until release day, previewing for regular members wouldn't be an option.

You didn't explain why this couldn't work. Let staff do all the builds they need to do, then save. Then open the server up for a week to explore. Then reset to that save point one week earlier. The only thing lost will be player builds during that one week. This would also be more fair so everyone has a chance to take a look around before everything is "for real" rather than just staff getting to scope out the world (and perhaps taking advantage).

---

11) RUINS OF OLD AGHARTA: It would be pretty neat a few iconic player structures from the old server were copied, modified to look ruined, and then hid them out in the new world for players to discover.

11: A few staff members have actually expressed interest in the idea you mentioned here, so it'll definitely be in discussion.

Also nice!

---

12) I'm not sure if 10,000 blocks diameter is big enough. Someone check my math but I figure this new world will have roughly only 5% of the area that Agharta currently has. That's a heck of a lot smaller! 12,000 block diameter may be a better number?



12: In total area, yes, but you've got to remember that currently, a very large portion of Agharta is uninhabitable, and much of what is isn't actually inhabited. Agharta is much larger than it should be, and we won't really have any problem with a smaller map. The good thing about starting smaller is that if we do run into space issues, we can gen out a little farther. You can make a small map larger, but not vice versa.

I'm not saying make the map 20,000 diameter, but perhaps 12k or 12.5k diameter? Yes there is a big ring of ocean but that isn't 95% of the area! 10k blocks would be only 1/20th the total size. As it is now it's easy to come across player builds frequently even in the most remote and far flung parts of the map. No, the first map of the new world should be about 1/10th the area size of Agharta. That should be right to keep guys like myself and Kaladin happy but also make the world small enough to placate those that want a closer community. Thats my feeling on the matter.

---

13) ITEM BASED ECONOMY: You can still keep MTC if you tie it to one "gold standard" item, or two at the most (diamonds for instance, or diamonds & coal), but you need to make those one or two item the ONLY way to get MTC into the world.

13: The basis for the economy is still yet to be officially decided, mainly because we don't even know for sure if we're going to move to a new world; but we're going to be doing a major overhaul on how it's regulated.

Well It seems MTC is needed for signshop to run effectively so I very much would like to see it still used. Running a shop is the main reason I play, but anything that does not hurt my ability to run a shop but makes a more realistic economy is something I'm very in support of.

Addressing the concerns you have:

A) With the map, part of making sure that everything is "future-proofed" to the best of our ability includes not altering terrain generation with a mod that might not be available in future versions of Minecraft. It's best to eliminate as many bad possibilities as we can.

B) The reason we're resetting the economy is to level the playing field for players. We will not be transferring any money, items, or blocks from Agharta, for any players or staff.

C) It would be added trouble for staff and added grief for players to not be able to start building their homes on a new map for an entire week because it would again be wiped, after already moving from an old map. Among many other reasons (both technical and not) this wouldn't be a good idea, the fact that a player may like where someone else is building their home, then be able to beat them to it after a "preview reset" is enough to not good. This suggestion definitely out of the question.

D) Again, from our calculations, a 10,000 block diameter will be more than enough, and will be expanded further if and when it's necessary.

Although we may be rejecting some ideas you have, that doesn't mean that we don't appreciate them. It's good to see yourself and other members getting involved. If you have any other suggestions, don't hesitate to leave them here.

It seems like you are rejecting ALL the ideas and concerns everyone has had.

It also seems like you've already decided everything and nothing was really open for feedback. It appears a few of my points are being shot down for weak reasons. i.e.: Don't want to use a mod that will keep ice biome away from desert because it might not be available for future expansions.... urrr, well then future expansions I guess won't be able to use it then and will have to expand regular vanilla. Your argument is like saying we shouldn't eat this delicious steak now because later the restaurant may close and we won't be able to eat it then.

The only points you seem to be willing to consider are ones folks suggest that just so happen to be things you already want to do. Was this whole thread just fishing for some measure of validation for those things?

Having a preview / beta / whatever you want to call it, period is pretty standard in the online game arena. Just saying.

If you calculations are that 95% smaller is the right size, then so be it. Sounds pretty extreme to me though. I'm sure that if after a short time it's clear the edge needs to be pushed out a little bit the staff will be more than happy to help people relocate their builds if they want.

I mean, I've stuck around Minetown because I like this server but that's mostly because so many others I checked out before I found Minetown just sucked so bad. The reason the developers have kept so many things basic in Minecraft and made it highly mod-able is exactly so people can add a little flavor. True, lots of servers (most that is) seem to have gone WAY overboard with changes, but there is a difference between adding just a small pinch of spice and dumping the entire jar in the stew.

I'm not going to address Punky's statements point by point, but let it be known that we did NOT make this thread for validation. We are genuinely looking for player's opinions, and EVERYTHING will be taken into consideration. Those ideas that are denied are not denied for bad reasons, but for most likely very technically influenced reasons that we spent hours considering.

I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. <object class="emojione" data="https://resources.enjin.com/1489581540/themes/core/images/emojione/svg/2639.svg?0" type="image/svg+xml" standby=":(">:(</object>

As Myself, and now Kosa, have said, everything is open for feedback. We may reject ideas, but that's because there are many reasons, both technical and not, that those things won't work here. We don't want to tamper with vanilla generation (Trust us, we've tried with abysmal results). On your relating the map to a steak, a map would be much better related to a house. When you're building a house, you plan for the future. Maybe you don't want a large home when you build it, but you scope things out from the beginning just in case you want to add rooms later. Maybe you'll have a few kids later, maybe just need more space to store everything that you and those who live with you accumulate over the years. Don't tamper with the standards for a few benefits that may screw you over in the future. We're not eating a steak, we're building a house. We're taking every possible situation that we can think of into consideration to make sure that this transfer is a painless as possible, while fixing issues that have existed in Minetown since Classic was called Main. Since long before you were a thought here. Most of the Admins have already been through one map transfer. We've been here before. It's from experience. As I've already stated, many times, we are still considering everything everyone puts here. Don't take that for granted. Call things how you see them, but take into consideration that as staff members, there's a lot more we have to worry about with a map transfer than appeasing you by separating ice and sand. We've given you valid reasons as to why the ideas we've rejected won't work, yet you keep trying to push them by counter arguing with us. Don't get butthurt when we don't agree with something, instead try to see things from our side. Don't squander the opportunity you have to help shape our future by throwing it back in our faces.

Once again, we will consider each and every thing you say here. We want your input, just don't get hurt if it's rejected.

Well...

As I read this thread the ONLY suggestion so far that was not immediately shot down was the resource based economy, which as it currently stands may or may not be a thing in the end, and that's only still standing because Jared admits it's what he would personally want anyhow. Of my many suggestions the only ones not shot down were ones it was admitted are/were already discussed by staff, and (as it seems) already pre-settled. So far (based on the empirical evidence as presented in this thread) if a person suggests something the staff are already inclined to do, then staff just might do that thing. That isn't really opening it up for discussion.

Granted, not many people have weighed in at all but considering how quickly and decisively the few suggestions made thus far have been dismissed (not just mine, but all suggestions) it gives the strong impression that even if a dozen members or more all called for something staff didn't want to do, it wouldn't matter.

If you want it to seem like things are really up for consideration, the reply should be more of, "we can take a look into that if enough people want it", or the like. Simply saying, nope, nope, nope out-of-hand unless the suggestion is already in the plans gives the impression staff is just seeking validation for what is going to be done regardless. And if you don't see how it gives that impression, then I'm cluing you it that it gives that impression.

I'm sure in the end things will be just fine thought, even if a little ho-hum. I can appreciate how keeping things very vanilla avoids any issues and issues are bad...aka... "things could be awesome, but awesome is too risky". Fair enough .

Anyway....

Nobody has explained what was meant by the statement, "we are looking into realistic terrain generation". I'm still curious about that. Would anyone like to expand on that?

I understand where you're coming from on the first two paragraphs, and I apologize for giving the impression that we're shooting down ideas out of the gate instead of fully discussing them. I assure you that we are discussing everything suggested here. While there may not be much interaction from other admins at the current moment (Andy is currently busy with some things irl, Pl has been out of town, and Kosa working on Dev projects) in this particular thread, I'm doing my best to represent our opinions here, as well as the general staff consensus.

Moving on: You mentioned the item based economy and the implication that it hasn't been rejected correlating with the fact that I expressed interest in it myself. Again, I see your concern there, but truth be told it's that opinion is shared between a few staff members, and mine more so reflects that than vice-versa. While we're on the subject though, an item based economy is very unlikely to happen due to the convenience of MTC with functions like signshop, as you had previously mentioned.

Another idea that you're not crediting yourself for (While maybe not as large as playing with terrain gen or a preview period) is the "Ruins of Agharta" idea. Quite a few staff members liked this idea, and there's a lot of potential for some events and quests, as well as plain old nostalgia in your idea here.

In regards to your final question, which I have failed to answer so far, Realistic Terrain Generation is a Forge Mod that we were looking into upon a helper's suggestion for a more realistic terrain generation, as the name implies. We did some testing with it and, while beautiful, the maps we generated with it had quite a few chunk errors right off the bat, amongst some other issues that wouldn't work well with Minetown's style of SMP. Again, the issue with being careful with playing with Vanilla terrain gen here was a MAJOR factor, as it would be a night and day difference should we have to expand without a functioning version of this plugin for a new version of MC.

Again, keep everything coming, as we're trying to get the feel of what everyone wants while still keeping things as clear as possible.

Alright, before heading home today, I figured I'd take some time and respond to this thread myself.

Something I want to make very clear from the beginning to anyone reading this, is that we're only opening this as an option because we believe it's what's best for the server. We are not paid for the time nor effort we put in here(which mind you, is alot), as this is a volunteer position. Any money from donations is sent directly back to the server, and we would not be here unless we wanted to be.

With that said, I ask that you all give the staff team some credit. We're a group of people that are just running a minecraft community because it's something we enjoy doing, because we want to provide the best experience possible for players. Please, as Jared has stated, try viewing things from our side as well as yours. We're not trying to be bad people here, ruining what players have worked for; we just want to give players an opportunity to expand into a larger community than there currently is.

To put some perspective on this new world, this has been under discussion since around the time that Grifff and Danny left the management team. For those that don't know, that was over a year ago. It may seem that we're knocking down ideas right as they come up, but in all honesty, a majority of these ideas have been thrown around and hashed and rehashed until we're sick of talking about them. A majority of them we haven't actually come to a definitive solution on, so please do not think this situation is something we take lightly. We came to you as our community to help us come to those solutions.

As an example, you say you want a few extra thousand in world size, and honestly I'm for that. I'd be okay going up to 14k as a max diameter, and once I get home tonight it will be discussed more between administration, along with a few other things. For other things that were denied, again, please try to understand our side as well as your own. There are many, many, many things going on behind the scenes that regular players have no idea is going on, and each and every one of those things can possibly give a technical reason as to why this or that won't work.

We either have, or will investigate and discuss any and all things asked for in this thread, but as an Administrative team, we also reserve the right to deny those as a couple of them have been. Again, I ask that you understand our side to this, that anything you see frontend as a player, usually has a bunch of technical backing, or just that it doesn't fit what we feel is best for what Minetown is, to it that gives us reasons for deciding different things. This isn't a personal vendetta or choosing what we want, each and every thing denied has a reason backing it that we're willing to explain if you would like to know.

I'll leave it there, if you have questions, want clarifications, etc, please reply below.

~Pl