Recent Events Discussion (RED) Thread

[Mevansuto]

I only play singleplayer, partly for the reason that nearly every server I have played on - and was not the admin of - ultimately banned me or the methods I was using (including things like redstone) for "being OP".
I have never played modded servers, and do not plan to, especially considering every server admin that sees my SSP world says "if you built that on the server, I would delete it all for being laggy".

You really need to show us some of these "OP" redstone creations.

 

[SatanicSanta]

As midi_sec said servers DO need to be able to pay for themselves and often times people don't donate unless it grants them benefits. I know I was putting off donating to Aidan c Brady until he made his Jenkins donator only.

Not really. Most servers can be paid for by 2 hours of work/month (based on general minimum wage being roughly $10/hour, varies per place).

Not always. A lot of the time, these gates are implemented midlife to a server, forcing players to either "suck it up" or abandon whatever time and work they put into a server, not to mention any friends there. Combine that with how most donation-gates are kept secret to all except those already on the server, and you have a recipe for suffering.

On time and work: Eh, I can't really say much about this because I take Minecraft very non-seriously. If I lose a world, I make a new one and start over. I don't really care too much about it.
On friends: Again, I can't really say much about this because all of the servers I play on are strictly-friends, and basically all owned/hosted/run by my friends.

Honestly, I can't really say much about this topic due to I play on servers run by my friends, and they aren't gonna ask me to help pay. Basically whenever I am helping a friend set up a server I make it very clear that I can't afford to help pay for any tiny part of the server, and they are usually cool with it.

 

[Dorque]

Not really. Most servers can be paid for by 2 hours of work/month (based on general minimum wage being roughly $10/hour, varies per place).

On time and work: Eh, I can't really say much about this because I take Minecraft very non-seriously. If I lose a world, I make a new one and start over. I don't really care too much about it.
On friends: Again, I can't really say much about this because all of the servers I play on are strictly-friends, and basically all owned/hosted/run by my friends.

Honestly, I can't really say much about this topic due to I play on servers run by my friends, and they aren't gonna ask me to help pay. Basically whenever I am helping a friend set up a server I make it very clear that I can't afford to help pay for any tiny part of the server, and they are usually cool with it.

We run our friends-only server off our home systems. Mine's right behind me at the moment.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[SatanicSanta]

We run our friends-only server off our home systems. Mine's right behind me at the moment.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

We usually do that, unless we want it to be a 24/7 server. Smaller packs for just a couple of us are close to 24/7, but not always on. Larger packs with people in different timezones and a few of us, someone will pay $20/month (whoever is most financially able to pay for it) and we'll either make a pack or decide on a pack.

 

[Reika]

You really need to show us some of these "OP" redstone creations.

Large autofarms, usually. I have singlehandledly inflated the economy of every server I played on by mass-producing mob drops, crops, pumpkins, sand, whatever you care to name. This made a lot of people very angry with me.

 

[midi_sec]

hosting 60+ people concurrently and delivering a quality play experience would take a bit more though.

 

[Dorque]

hosting 60+ people concurrently and delivering a quality play experience would take a bit more though.

You say that, but look at the server hosting packages out there. They aren't especially dear.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

[midi_sec]

You say that, but look at the server hosting packages out there. They aren't especially dear.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

exactly why a good "large" server would be running dedicated BYOS to a data center and pay big bucks for the bandwidth and uptime you need.

 

[Qazplm601]

We usually do that, unless we want it to be a 24/7 server. Smaller packs for just a couple of us are close to 24/7, but not always on. Larger packs with people in different timezones and a few of us, someone will pay $20/month (whoever is most financially able to pay for it) and we'll either make a pack or decide on a pack.

who are you talking about?

 

[SatanicSanta]

who are you talking about?

Every group of friends I play mc with

 

[YX33A]

/devilsadvocate on

I agree with your whole post, but even so, the quoted content is why I threw a like at you.
More people need to be willing to play devils advocate, and even show sympathy for the devil.(in the biblical context I mean, not while playing devils advocate, as doing that is barely different then shedding a tear for the devil)[DOUBLEPOST=1401062136][/DOUBLEPOST]

Large autofarms, usually. I have singlehandledly inflated the economy of every server I played on by mass-producing mob drops, crops, pumpkins, sand, whatever you care to name. This made a lot of people very angry with me.

Also another man after my heart!

 

[keybounce]

Not always. A lot of the time, these gates are implemented midlife to a server, forcing players to either "suck it up" or abandon whatever time and work they put into a server, not to mention any friends there. Combine that with how most donation-gates are kept secret to all except those already on the server, and you have a recipe for suffering.

Out of curiosity (and slightly off topic, sorry moderators), is this why you oppose servers making changes to mods? If a server's rules were clear from the get-go, not changed midlife nor hidden, would you still be opposed to this?

 

[YX33A]

Out of curiosity (and slightly off topic, sorry moderators), is this why you oppose servers making changes to mods? If a server's rules were clear from the get-go, not changed midlife nor hidden, would you still be opposed to this?

I'd only have an issue with this if it either removes a mod unless you pay for it.(and it isn't one that really could benefit from this, such as Mystcraft, and even then, I don't agree with paying for writing any amount of ages, just dimension "slots")

Somehow I feel that Reika may agree with this.

 

[Reika]

Out of curiosity (and slightly off topic, sorry moderators), is this why you oppose servers making changes to mods? If a server's rules were clear from the get-go, not changed midlife nor hidden, would you still be opposed to this?

It is one reason.
Another is the fact that 95% of changes are done with minimal (or no) research and end up causing large problems for stability, balance, design, or otherwise. That guy from my thread who replaced bedrock with compressed cobble in RC ("because bedrock is too easy to get") stands out as a clear example. Just think of how many server admins refuse to even touch configs - instead opting to demand direct design changes, or at least changes in the default config settings.
Another reason is it often completely overturns the design of a mod, depending on the change. I can understand the desire for small tweaks, but turning the mod upside-down or wiping out half the content? If anything, that tells the author "most of this is crap, but I have it installed for this one thing...".
Yet another reason is a lot of changes are made based on the opinion of the "server elite" - i.e. admins and donators - and often screw over the other players. "Balance" changes commonly fall in this category; if the decider finds item X overpowered, he removes it, regardless of how many people on the server feel otherwise. This is exacerbated by the fact many such admins callously reply with "my server, my rules, I don't care what you want" - which just so happens to be another thing said by that guy mentioned above - and the fact that often such "overpowered" items are completely optional to use, thus invalidating "it makes the game not fun to have X" types of arguments.

Even if you provide me examples of servers that do not suffer from any of these issues, the fact remains that they are in the severe minority. And all rules must be applied equally - not only is it impossible to evaluate a server's management's ability to make "proper" changes, but it is just asking to become the center of a massive drama war ("HE PLAYS FAVORITES!").

EDIT:
Answering the second half of that, partly. It is a portion of the special exemption I give to semi-private packs, designed to solve these issues:

Due to techtree dependency and "learning curve" concerns, RotaryCraft, ReactorCraft, and ElectriCraft must not be modified in any way, including disabling items and changing recipes.This includes the use of MineTweaker and other similar tools! In cases of instability, contact me to obtain a temporary exception.

Other mods have a bit more flexibility:

• Total feature removal must be a last resort; where possible, other solutions such as more costly recipes must be considered
• Any and all feature removals must be immediately obvious to all potential players on the server before they take steps to join
• If adding the mod to an existing server, it must be made clear before the addition of the mod which features will be modified and/or removed
• The removal of the feature must be accepted by a majority of the players on the server
• If the feature is a prerequisite or crafting ingredient of something else, some alternative way to obtain those items must be provided
• Players must not be given preferential treatment; admins or donators get no more access to banned features than ordinary players do
• If a large section of the playerbase strongly disapproves of the disabling of an item, the one(s) responsible for disabling it must make a valid justification for their reasoning to their players. If they fail to do so to their players' satisfaction, the ban must be lifted
• Modified copies of the mod are ineligible for tech support until the issue can be reproduced in an unmodified copy
• Modifications must be done by using commonly-accepted tools such as WorldGuard. Under no circumstances may you modify any mod's source code, including with ASM or bytecode edits.
• Abuse of the above powers to earn income or torment the server players will result in a total loss of modification permissions

 

[YX33A]

Yet another reason why I like rekia, but sometimes feel he may not totally have his finger on the pulse.
Namely:
Abuse of the above powers to earn income or torment the server players will result in a total loss of modification permissions

The whole thing is great, and I agree. But it's basically on the honor system. I agree fullstop. But... it is still basically on the honor system. Unless you can get it pulled from the server, it's hard to enforce. And an admin who likens himself to a god isn't likely gonna care what others think, mod devs included.

 

[Reika]

Yet another reason why I like rekia, but sometimes feel he may not totally have his finger on the pulse.
Namely:
Abuse of the above powers to earn income or torment the server players will result in a total loss of modification permissions

The whole thing is great, and I agree. But it's basically on the honor system. I agree fullstop. But... it is still basically on the honor system. Unless you can get it pulled from the server, it's hard to enforce. And an admin who likens himself to a god isn't likely gonna care what others think, mod devs included.

I agree and understand that enforcement is somewhat difficult, but it is better than nothing. Also, it is not like I am losing anything additional; they are completely capable of downloading and adding the mod completely against my ToS with no ability for me to stop them, whether I grant this liberty or not.

 

[YX33A]

I agree and understand that enforcement is somewhat difficult, but it is better than nothing.

I know, and agree. It's just that it's all but impossible to enforce without finding a way to break the whole mod when used in ways you don't approve, and by people who broke the rules. And we all know how hard it is to get away with that these days...

 

[Reika]

I know, and agree. It's just that it's all but impossible to enforce without finding a way to break the whole mod when used in ways you don't approve, and by people who broke the rules. And we all know how hard it is to get away with that these days...

There is little a mod author can get away with at all. Even things like asking permission for modpacks, copyrighting code, and closed-sourcing mods are viewed as equivalent to - and often called - DRM. The only exception is if you are a developer of the "biggest" mods, and even then it is uncertain.

 

[YX33A]

There is little a mod author can get away with at all. Even things like asking permission for modpacks, copyrighting code, and closed-sourcing mods are viewed as equivalent to - and often called - DRM. The only exception is if you are a developer of the "biggest" mods, and even then it is uncertain.

A little mod that no one has heard of and no one cares exists, yeah. Bigger then that? Can't add DRM to your mod.
That said, all of those aren't DRM, and I hate the dipshits who don't accept that. DRM is DRM. Code to break things as you see fit is a form of DRM, and you have some, and I agree with it being there!

 

[midi_sec]

There is little a mod author can get away with at all. Even things like asking permission for modpacks, copyrighting code, and closed-sourcing mods are viewed as equivalent to - and often called - DRM. The only exception is if you are a developer of the "biggest" mods, and even then it is uncertain.

I mean, I see your perspective, but i also understand why mojang would have clauses such as these in their ToS. If they didn't, people being as clever as they are would find ways to make money off of mojang's IP.

Heck, i just looked up the wording of that section of their EULA, and I'm surprised they even allow you guys get donations.

As for copyrighting code, in their eyes there is no need to because of this passage

Any content you make available on our Game must also be your creation. You must not make any content available, using the Game, that infringes the rights of anyone else.

This doesn't give you any legal recourse like a copyright would, but at least you can get offending content removed.

and to let modders copyright could cause problems with this clause

you must give us permission to use, copy, modify and adapt that content. This permission must be irrevocable, and you must also let us permit other people to use, copy, modify and adapt your content

So to me it's understandable why copyrighting, closed source and such are frowned upon by mojang. If people could do things like that, they may not be able to assimilate content that originally was a mod. Mojang would have to negotiate deals with individual modders in order to use their IP, which would be silly from a business standpoint; it is their game.

The last sentence is what I assume gives most people pause, but I don't think it should. This, combined with the above quotation basically translates to "You can copy, modify, or adapt a mod released by somebody else but may not release it"