What will happen about creepers in safe zones? Will they still cause damage to the environment.
I really don't like the idea of all pvp with safe zones. How freely available will safe zones be to be placed? What is to stop people setting their home in a safe zone and when the going gets tough just warping right out of there. Kinda destroys the entire point of PVP doesn't it?
I think pvp could be an interesting thing as an arena style thing or whatnot.. I also like mobs, but it seems like it'd be too easy to kite a creeper into a town and use it to grief. Maybe mobs minus the creeper?
+1 for "One server, everywhere is PvP except in designated city "safe zones"..." I'd like mobs to spawn EVERYWHERE except "/spawn" location. If other cities or settlements want to be safe, let them build walls and defensive perimeters. Isn't that what Vanilla survival is all about? We should build our safe areas not have them handed to us. The only reason I believe "/spawn" should be protected is because of griefers and griefer mobs that like to spawn kill. The endless cycle of death if you happen to die at night is a pain. also, real world rules should be enforced, aka, no killing in cold blood. This was never acceptable in modern times, and repeatedly murdering**edit**(the same person) should be punishable, since it is not punishable in game it should be treated as griefing(as it is denying this person (one getting killed) from playing). PVP arenas, and killing of unwelcome trespassers should still be allowed, (if the area is marked with multiple signs near entry points.)
Also, two questions on the other choices...
1. With "One server, everywhere is a safe zone except in designated arena "PvP zones"" By safe zone does that mean no mob spawns in those areas also, or just PVP off in those zones? If mobs are on, I stick to what i stated in my first point, but would be more likely to change to this.
2. Also, on 2 separate servers, IF, if.. there are enough resources to run two servers without them both suffering, this would be best to make everyone happy...even though this is supposed to be vanilla survival... and then again, if this is chosen, another poll should be started to decide actual settings of the PVP server.**edit** although id rather not split up the community..
I voted PVP everywhere except safe zones. I think this is the best way about it simply for the creative side of things. falling off of buildings while trying to make towers just to splat on the ground is a huge pain. I think if you establish yourself outside of the safe zone you're taking the chance that mobs and players can come to whoop your butt.
However, one thing that is gonna be no good is the fact that players can just knock out someone's walls instead of figuring a way around their lock. Makes it impossible to truly protect yourself from a bloodthirsty player with his eyes on your chests. Iron door? redstone torch, walk in, kill and steal. y'know?
Reading these comments, it seems like there are really 2 kinds of safe zones:
1) Safety from other players.
2) Safety from mobs.
I don't mind running from zombies at night, and even creepers could be tolerable if we figure out how to keep them from spawning inside of cities. What would really suck is getting stabbed in the back by some punk with a diamond sword while you're carefully working on a redstone circuit or something. PVP can be fun in the right setting though.
Seriously... permitting global PVP is implicitly the same thing as allowing griefing. A man's body is his temple, right? So if you can gank bodies what's stopping you from ruining houses too?
i voted "One server, everywhere is a safe zone except in designated arena "PvP zones""..
considering we will have /warps and /home, makes no sense to me having full pvp or most pvp and selected protected areas.
it's actually hard to picture the ideal setting..two servers would just spend too much resources and split the community, but pvp is pretty broken to actually consider it at the moment.. "ghosts", no karma system, no option to not drop your inventory, warping while fighting, awful net-code..and much more
the idea of big protected zones for building, while the rest is free pvp, is good as well... but in my case, my current settlement is far from spawn and not in vip zone, so i would be in the non protected zone..couldn't vote that.
My personal impression of the whole PvP (Player versus Player) thing is that it is pointless. Even if the bugs were gone, it would still be this:
You invest much time in getting materials etc., you stick them together, then, in a matter of a few seconds, the fate of all your inventory is decided by whom the lag favors and who clicks faster or knows "this one certain way to jump" etc.
What I want (again, personal view):
- Explore (and get as far away from spawn as possible).
- Survive the nightly monstrosities. Have fun torturing animals to death, wondering why a burned pig doesn't drop roasted bacon.
- Mine for / plant / harvest materials.
- Build stuff.
- And that's why the Creepers must go. They don't belong in SMP. SMP is officially designed with teleportation in mind, if you think of the /spawn command. And if Notch is not completely retarded, he will at some point implement the /sethome system, because otherwise you cannot make use of the large map (which you have to make use of with many people playing), the players couldn't really interact or trade without /sethome. So, and if you teleport to a target, the waiting creepers explode you and the next building to garbage. (Yes, you could make a walled-off city and torches everywhere. That is an option. Maybe I have to wait that one out for a final opinion. But if that's really the only way to tolerate Creepers, I find that a bit too strict and work-loaded. And you will never enjoy your town at night - with zombies between the houses, playing NightOfTheLivingDead or something.) That makes sense in Single Player where you can kinda control this, but in SMP it's just garbage. I got an email from Notch yesterday regarding giving the players options. He just said: "Simpler is better." Well, he wants to keep the amount of different "games" low that switches etc. can result in. So, maybe he will not implement a no-creeper (but monsters) switch. Then someone has to make a modification to make this a reality. Just as lockable chests and "admin" levels belong in that game as a default. No creepers in SMP please. They just suck.
- Otherwise, I just want to coexist with the other players and grow something out of nothing. In the future, I'll hopefully sit in the living room of other player's houses and listen to one of the many records that will be available (see interview with C418 on 2010-10-31). And maybe other activities. Who knows? Some day, someone makes a chess room, and people meet in that house to play. Stuff like that. Second Life! Only, you know, with FUN!
The only problem i see with the leading choice of "everywhere is a safe zone," is that there will be no mobs once again... which takes away half of the game. No pvp in general areas but enabling mobs once the invisibility thing is taken care of seems like the best option to me after hearing other peoples opinions. yes creepers can be a pain, but with a little thought and proper setup they can be avoided and kept out of cities without using any mods. i will say that this would be alot easier if setting up a new city, rather than trying to modify one thats already been built.
I voted to. But i'm very confused about why people don't want creepers. Without creepers the difficulty in getting tnt will be extreme. I mean having the possibility to use tnt for pvp will be amazing. Having 2 teams with 1 castle each with tnt cannons? it will be epic and I think the opportunity to use tnt in pvp will be immense. Although if this happened, it would basically add another perk to vips. The use of tnt in epic pvp battles!
Honestly, the more I hear people complain about the creepers, the more annoyed I get. Yes, they are a pain because they damage the surrounding and not just the player who gets too close. Yes, they can sneak up on a person. But this is Survival Multi-Player. The whole idea is to build in such a way that you can survive the dangers of the world you are in. While I'm not sure about the PVP zones thing, I am sure that I don't want to play with areas where there are no monsters because of the system. If people build fortresses that mobs cannot get into or damage too severely, that's one thing, but to have the game protect you defeats the purpose of trying to survive.
Part of the enjoyment (at least for me) is the suspense that you never know what might be around the next corner. When I delve into a cave, I want to be scared of the shadows and to fight off the darkness with light. I like the idea of danger because it makes this more than just about building; you have to survive long enough to find the materials to build what you're trying to build.
People complain about losing your valuable stuff when you're running around, but they forget that in the single-player, that can happen too. While I understand that PVP adds a new level of danger that the single-player does not have, I think that if we could have the inventory saved, people would feel less of a need to complain about getting killed. Yes, you would be inconvenienced by having to run back, but that would be nothing more than a new level of danger (without the risk of losing hours of work to some idiot who decides to kill you). The only thing I worry about with having only small areas of PVP is that the PVP will feel like it is an afterthought. Honestly, I would rather have areas of safety and the rest of the world dangerous, but I would be willing to compromise and have small areas of PVP in exchange for having mobs everywhere. Without the danger of mobs, I will get bored with this far more easily and I don't want to get bored with this awesome community.
That's just my two-cents. I hope no one is offended by my statements; it's just how I feel.