Suggestion/Poll: Mob Griefing

[iDieForEXP]

okokokok. One. Crash is correct. Whitey is correct. How? While you can't push a button and get emeralds, you CAN push a button that harvests your extensive automatic wheat farm. 1 hour = 200 emeralds. Seems like a money machine to me. Two. Cut the flame. I'm glancing in your general vicinity giratina...

[Cell]

So, Yottabyte? Is there a fix to this? Perhaps not make items so easily gained, IE. Wheat, Coal, tradeable? Or something that allows for two villagers to be spared, so reproduction IS possible?

[NLewis]

The way i see it, is that these villagers are bringing income to a town, and therefore they should be allowed to be destroyed if a group wishes to destroy the economy in that town.

Villagers should not be protected. If you want them to be protected, use your brain, and hide them in a hidden spot, such as a underground cave...

[Crashlander04]

So, Yottabyte? Is there a fix to this? Perhaps not make items so easily gained, IE. Wheat, Coal, tradeable? Or something that allows for two villagers to be spared, so reproduction IS possible?

Hide them well, or protect them well. Simple as that. If you value something there are several plugins available in order to protect it whether it be physical, storage-based, or an entity.

[Cell]

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.

[theonedoctor]

Well what i think is that Villagers would make a great addition to the server since they would make a faster/ easier way to get started on the server for people who are new... While cats the only person who really cared for them was Eliza

[Crashlander04]

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.

[yottabyte]

I think Cell's argument is fair. If we protect villagers in all towns, the town being attacked wouldn't have an advantage since the attacking town could just as well have villagers.

Oh and the part with them inflating the economy, it's actually been nerfed quite a lot in 1.4.

And no, just because it's a PvP server doesn't mean everything should be unprotected and killed/stolen. Go to an anarchy server if that's what you're looking for.

[Crashlander04]

If we protect villagers in all towns, the town being attacked wouldn't have an advantage since the attacking town could just as well have villagers.

And no, just because it's a PvP server doesn't mean everything should be unprotected and killed/stolen. Go to an anarchy server if that's what you're looking for.

Like I said, what are chances that every town is going to have a colony of villagers hanging around? It's simply an unnecessary addition in every sense.

And I never said PvP meant anarchy - I said in the spirit of competition and challenge it doesn't make sense for everything to be protected. Nobody can ever win anything if they can't hurt their enemies - I don't mean to the point of starving, spawnkilling, and griefing entirely, (though starving them would work wonders as a military strategy) I mean that protecting luxuries beyond locks and plot protection defeats the purpose of attempting to gain anything from PvP.

Nobody surrenders [or loses] when they can simply sit back and know all of their property is fine, especially if they choose to sit around and take no part in fighting back . This is why wars never ended beyond getting people banned or making them ragequit in 2.0, or even Revamped.

If we are protecting villagers, why not protect all private mobs that contribute even less comparably to villagers?

[yottabyte]

Thing is, just stealing stacks upon stacks of stuff out of chests isn't nearly as rewarding or as fun as actually killing people and taking their gear. It makes the person raiding both bored and greedier and it makes the person getting stolen from discouraged to play.

However, if you kill people they often get the urge to fight back and start bringing out their good gear from their protected chests (what else would they have all this good gear for..) and if you're actually a skilled PvPer you might be able to kill them and acquire their stuff this way. More fun for everyone.

Nobody surrenders [or loses] when they can simply sit back and know all of their property is fine, especially if they choose to sit around and take no part in fighting back.

As we saw many times in Revamped, just sitting back and thinking your stuff is safe doesn't really work if you get killed over and over again. You'd have to start getting gear and fighting back and therefore give a reward to the raiders (this also put the raiders at some kind of risk, whereas if they just go to you're town while you're offline and steal all your stuff doesn't bring any risk at all).

If you want to get rid of all protection and starve out your enemies, you're not looking for fun at all. You just want to be a dick. And fun is better than dicks.

If we are protecting villagers, why not protect all private mobs that contribute even less comparably to villagers?

Good idea actually.