Poll: Would you like this to be added into the rules?

Crashlander04 · 11-06-2012, 00:50,

(11-06-2012, 00:15)Cell Wrote: If their code didn't prevent such a thing Nick, and Crash, I would do so. Their code only allows them to recognized doors that have sunlight on, and a few blocks in front of. Therefore, they cannot reproduce underground. Seeing as the majority of the villagers in towns have been killed off, the only other way is to cure villagers, one, at, a, time.

Then bring them above ground to breed and take the risk. It is still an irresponsible argument to say that the entire economy should go to shit for the sake of a little luxury - on a SMP PvP server nonetheless. You have constantly ignored the arguments I am making, or given responses devoid of weight against the premise of undermining the foundation of a PvP server or inflating the economy.

Yotta himself already has something like 670 emeralds from villager-whoring. If we start protecting villagers for everybody the currency inflation will be worse than it has ever been on any map. This will destabilize the territory price requirements for towns, and make towns near indestructible. Of course yotta could always raise prices for world chunks accordingly, but would it not be too difficult for other players to start towns without protected money-machines?

Of course, philanthropy is always an option. One town could help those they would not feel threatened by into establishing a town and paying the requirements. But under those select conditions, is it not unfair and obscene to the system of basic effort and commitment requirements in the first place?

As so, scenario's could be imagined where one town manages to acquire protected, private, villagers and proceed to kill off all other villagers possible leaving them at a distinct advantage and near-monopoly. Truly, you can not say that they would be able to effectively acquire them from zombie-villagers, as you have already made a point of how difficult that would be. One town, or a lucky elite few, would have utter domination over the distribution of the majority of currency in the system.

I can not emphasize more that the idea of this server is survival multiplayer. The fun of survival is a challenge. Especially, with the emphasis of PvP our community desired it can not be reasonably expected that luxury should be catered to. You may consider it 'mean' or a 'dick move' to hurt other players at any level in-game, but this is the reason rules were lightened for this map. Competition, challenge, conflict.

This can go both ways for PvP or Creative [considering this server has ruled out RP] - we could either just nerf PvP entirely if it causes too much harm to one's 'player experience' and have all fighting be done in voluntary kit arenas [such as other community devoid PvP servers] or simply play on a creative server and enjoy a life rid of all strife and effort. I'm not sure whether one who is afraid of losing private villagers, the most OP and abusable mob to exist yet to date, is fit for a survival server.

Poll: Would you like this to be added into the rules? This poll is closed.
Yes, these mobs should be protected.	59.09%	13	59.09%
No, all mobs should be allowed to die.	40.91%	9	40.91%
Total		22 vote(s)	100%