Content: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Background: Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Pattern: Blank Waves Notes Sharp Wood Rockface Leather Honey Vertical Triangles
Welcome to TerraFirmaCraft Forums

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

  • Announcements

    • Dries007

      ATTENTION Forum Database Breach   03/04/2019

      There has been a breach of our database. Please make sure you change your password (use a password manager, like Lastpass).
      If you used this password anywhere else, change that too! The passwords themselves are stored hashed, but may old accounts still had old, insecure (by today's standards) hashes from back when they where created. This means they can be "cracked" more easily. Other leaked information includes: email, IP, account name.
      I'm trying my best to find out more and keep everyone up to date. Discord (http://invite.gg/TerraFirmaCraft) is the best option for up to date news and questions. I'm sorry for this, but the damage has been done. All I can do is try to make sure it doesn't happen again.
    • Claycorp

      This forum is now READ ONLY!   01/20/2020

      As of this post and forever into the future this forum has been put into READ ONLY MODE. There will be no new posts! A replacement is coming SoonTM . If you wish to stay up-to-date on whats going on or post your content. Please use the Discord or Sub-Reddit until the new forums are running.

      Any questions or comments can be directed to Claycorp on either platform.
Jed1314

[Offline] Terra - [RPPvP] [Factions] [Democratic Rules]

Server Back-story Vote   37 members have voted

  1. 1. Who's Back-story do you prefer ? (can be found here:http://terrafirmacraft.com/f/topic/1523-terra-rppvp-factions-democratic-rules-eta-2nd-sep-applications-are-open/page__view__findpost__p__19156)

    • ECC's
      19
    • Arthur's
      18

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

698 posts in this topic

Nope, I'll totally get away with it. If not then I'll just send my main man with the hat after you.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I was angling for something like a central bank in each major town/city. Maybe we could even have bank robberies :L :L

Hmm .. It would be better for that user to sell the ingots of copper to another player for gold nuggets. The problem with using more than one item for the exchange is that you then set a comparative value between those two items. If you get it wrong, it will either mean copper ingots aren't worth exchanging, or are better to exchange than gold :S .. I will ponder this as I can see where you are coming from on this.

You can try .. But the swift hand of justice and the pit of imprisonment are never far away .. Especially since you just made yourself prime suspect ;):P

I think the players would balance it out themselves, using the nuggest as a last ditch currency, relieing on trade and barter for goods, cause if you get only 27 nuggest to start with, you're gonna want to keep those till you absolutly MUST use them

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currency isn't always the best idea particularly when providing backing for it is highly dependent on the community. If things flesh out into more of a society with multiple towns and factions then would currency flourish but only then. Bartering is going to be the best for early days.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currency isn't always the best idea particularly when providing backing for it is highly dependent on the community. If things flesh out into more of a society with multiple towns and factions then would currency flourish but only then. Bartering is going to be the best for early days.

The backing is essentially to count how much currency is in game, to make sure the community grows safely without having too much or too little money. I think it's safe to say that, yes, there will be lots of trading with gold purchaces. It just seems nice to go to a mod and say "Hey, can I get my TFC gold from you? I have a vanilla bar"

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the players would balance it out themselves, using the nuggest as a last ditch currency, relieing on trade and barter for goods, cause if you get only 27 nuggest to start with, you're gonna want to keep those till you absolutly MUST use them

Currency isn't always the best idea particularly when providing backing for it is highly dependent on the community. If things flesh out into more of a society with multiple towns and factions then would currency flourish but only then. Bartering is going to be the best for early days.

I'm inclined to agree with you. Until the server grows above a level (I would say about 40 players) there is really no need for currency. The problem comes later, when trying to implement a currency on a pre-established server, but doubtless we will go through hundreds of map resets so that isn't a huge issue :P

Also, I am worried this has not gotten much of a response yet from the general community :/ We need numbers to make this server work, but the last thing I want to do is make it no whitelist :P

To clarify, I will run this server, numbers or not, so don't worry about that :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currency isn't always the best idea particularly when providing backing for it is highly dependent on the community. If things flesh out into more of a society with multiple towns and factions then would currency flourish but only then. Bartering is going to be the best for early days.

It won't be a fiat currency, where it's valuable cause I say so... Good's value will tie directly into the gold. like 1 gold nugget could get a stack of wool or something like that

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not the currency gold is common, it still hasn't value until the server's community places a value on it. While server admins and mods could essentially create a set value by listing each item's worth out and/or allowing players to purchase from OPs items with the currency, it still would not account for surpluses or rarities in items unless someone dedicated their time on the server to recognising the amount of each item between players.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the barter system to start, as like you guys mentioned, a fiat currency requires (more or less) a base structure, and actual goods first, for it to work in a server, my only question, about the currency idea you had, is that gold is not all that plentiful in my experience, so having ANY currency with it would require a stockpile of it first.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not the currency gold is common, it still hasn't value until the server's community places a value on it. While server admins and mods could essentially create a set value by listing each item's worth out and/or allowing players to purchase from OPs items with the currency, it still would not account for surpluses or rarities in items unless someone dedicated their time on the server to recognising the amount of each item between players.

You are quite right in a way. Users need to use currency for it to be valuable. Surely though, this is actually only slightly more difficult than deciding the value of a chicken compared to a sword. Prices are the result of supply and demand, as is currency value, so while the currency has no value until the users actually start trading with it, it will assign it's own value based on the supply and demand for it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the barter system to start, as like you guys mentioned, a fiat currency requires (more or less) a base structure, and actual goods first, for it to work in a server, my only question, about the currency idea you had, is that gold is not all that plentiful in my experience, so having ANY currency with it would require a stockpile of it first.

True, the real challenge if finding the right amount to inject and the right method. A great one is loans, but who would these debts be payable to ?

I have also considered another option; as this server is colonization themed, it could easily be argued that every player came with a certain amount of money.

(This could be determined by your old profession (which is simply an rp decision, not a class you need to stick to). For example, a farmer may have come with plant seeds and a hoe but little money, whereas a trader would come with a lot of money, but no tools.) <-- By the way, this is the RP system I was planning. It will only affect which goods you start with. It won't lock you into a particular play-style for the whole game :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if we do that, we should have semi-fixed professions, so we don't have someone entering as Gengas khan, with tons of money, and tools, however.... i don't know about having tools to start, especially a pick, because that eliminates a good portion of the start up, i guess if we just set a limit on how many people may start with a pick, then it would be fine. I'm toying with the idea of having a limit on each class to start, so that there can be only 3 miners, 4 farmers, 2 traders, etc.

This would stimulate the need for cities and an economy theoretically.

Edited by Scooterdanny
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currency would be best implemented after the formation of fleshed out towns.The mayorship and "aristocracy" of the towns would create the simplest form of transformation from barter to legal tender. Towns could implement property taxation, renting, and "jobs" which would create a moderation-less value for currency to compare against when purchasing goods. One would not pay the same for Cassiterite what they would pay for the cost of their home. When the server reaches that stage of social evolution the moderators could either alert players to the change so that they could start saving up the item that would be traded for currency or the change could be instead based on land ownership in comparison to the value of land.

While this would create an unbalanced hierarchy of fiscal power, it would also create an economy where players can work towards prosperity. People could work towards joining a bustling town where potential jobs are more common but housing is more expensive or they could establish their own rural lands by either purchasing it from a nearby town and trading there or by purchasing the right to found a settlement from a moderator.

If you want to go with a loan system, a single server bank could be established with the capabilities of loaning out a set amount of gold to members playing on the server for a set amount and/or limiting loan amounts to how long a member has been playing on the server. This would make it so that members can't skyrocket from the start of their joining and also would limit currency in the server. A loan system could be used to create a currency from the very beginning but would require plenty of members joining at the very beginning. In addition, for later evolution, one could allow players to create their own loan banks.

RP colonisation, however, would defeat the whole first half of TFcraft if this gives players starting supplies as it would bypass what is potentially the longest and hardest stage, the stone age.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i might have to agree with Anzoon, i would like it more if we had to develop our trades the hard way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I signed up after seeing this topic, and have yet to read all three pages, but want to add to this ideal some under the assumption that what I have to say has not been brought up.

"There will be 3 states of diplomacy, war, peace and alliance. When at war, factions may attack one another directly. Their individual members can also attack one another one sight (should they wish). If an enemy player is rendered unconscious they can be taken prisoner. (this relies on you playing along, if an enemy is kind enough not to permakill your character, you are obliged to report to their prison, although you can be broken out, unlike the bedrock prison). Factions at peace are not allowed to directly attack one another. Their players also can't attack others on sight. You are still allowed to send assassins and thieves, but this could result in war if they are caught, so be prepared for the worst. Allied factions can build in each others towns (presuming they agree to it) and can help one another in battles and sieges (explained later). They can still send criminals after one another. Additionally, you can't be allies with a faction who is allied to an enemy."

I want to point out the fact that political tension builds when allies are friends of your enemy. two options are left for the middle ground, and neither shows promise for anyone should perhaps the waring factions decide the middle man is either unneeded or a problem. Option a, is to declare a side, witch drops it into the war immediately, strengthening(or weakening as the case might be) the beneficial side. Option b, is staying white; choosing to say 'I'm both of your friends, I can't get into this.' this in particular leave factions in distrust of the middle man and can result in either or both sides choosing to sever losses and declare the alliance null, leading to a larger war. Ultimately, I want to state, that by allowing alliances of all forms, you allow greater drama to play out. In order to make things 'fair' if the white faction attempts to aid either faction, and the enemy finds out, an attack may be made. this option would allow even further drama, making it ultimately a even more rewarding experience.

"When diplomacy fails, there is always war."

I want to touch on this, as I find that not always war comes from failed diplomacy. I live a life where I must play diplomat to everyone, carefully choosing who I want as a friend, who as an enemy, and who to stay neutral(long story). Sometimes, it ends in the dissolving of an alliance, the end of a treaty, or just the typical household disagreement. But this is an argument of philosophy for a different time and topic.

"There is only one way to win a war with a faction. By permakilling all of it's active members. This can be done in a combination of battles, sieges and assassinations. If you siege a town and manage to kill or rout all of the defenders, you can do with it what you wish, e.g. either claim the town for your own, or loot it and level it to the ground."

Two. Four actually. Take prisoners. Instead of killing them all, you capture them, sentencing, etc, etc. Allows members to keep a long worked character and more. Its all about being fair. Then there is the leader. Take the leader, via capture or death, and you have effectively taken the army. not always the case in real life, but lets play chess on this for the servers sake. Finally, there is the great white flag. A good leader knows when to fight, and when to save that fight for a later day. This would be when diplomacy comes back into play and documents are 'signed'(i imagine using the new book item to make the document) detailing the cost of the loser. the enemy of this surrender can accept it or decline it. war ends or continues per what occurs.

"assassinations"

Ahh, I can't mention enough how much I enjoy such things in games. Stealth, manipulation, planning... I love it. Just one thing lacks in MC that would make this acceptable and possible... User tags show though walls. Its a shame, as how quick combat begins and ends in MC can be(though I can't exactly call it combat..) If there is a plugin that can handle this, then I suggest you take the route to remove tags from being seen at all. I also ask that you have a global chat, and a local chat, where only users within a certain number of blocks(for realities and usabilities sake, lets say 64) can hear each other in local. I ask that in some way faction chat is limited to the same distance or disabled. You want to create a way to keep people close. a way for the plots to grow. ways for the server can be fun and dramatic at once.

There is a bit more I could add, but I think my first post here is large enough. Pardon the spelling errors if I made any. I am sure there are many.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, I can't mention enough how much I enjoy such things in games. Stealth, manipulation, planning... I love it. Just one thing lacks in MC that would make this acceptable and possible... User tags show though walls. Its a shame, as how quick combat begins and ends in MC can be(though I can't exactly call it combat..) If there is a plugin that can handle this, then I suggest you take the route to remove tags from being seen at all. I also ask that you have a global chat, and a local chat, where only users within a certain number of blocks(for realities and usabilities sake, lets say 64) can hear each other in local. I ask that in some way faction chat is limited to the same distance or disabled. You want to create a way to keep people close. a way for the plots to grow. ways for the server can be fun and dramatic at once.

All of that would likely require Bukkit compatibility as I know of no other server modifications that would provide such things. As of now and likely until TFC is out of the Beta stage, there is no Bukkit compatibility.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post ECC welcome to the forums! i enjoyed it, i see an issue with permakilling all members, as when a player dies, and comes back as a new player, they could easily rejoin the faction right away, should there be a mechanic not allowing joining of a faction until a certain amount of time on the server has been spent.

Also, you could use shift to remain hidden through walls, also being behind reeds i believe makes you invisible. Those were how i used to be a thief on a factions server, i was hired out by my faction as a saboteur lol.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't reply to your individual posts to save space, but will address them all..

Scooter and Anzoon - I also agree with your concerns regarding giving the players tools to start off. It is a complicated issue (and I love the stone age so I wouldn't allow it to disappear). I think perhaps this could be resolved though ? How about this ? Players will start will stone age tools fitting to a profession. The server theme will be altered to fit perhaps "migration" rather than "colonization". As an example, you could have woodcutters (axes), hunters (javelins), farmers/gatherers (if there is stone age agriculture), sluicers (stupid name, sluice/pan) etc, ?

That would allow the users to get a small leg up when starting, but not invalidate the stone age.

Hmm .. On second thought, that might be totally pointless. If it is, tell me and we will scrap it :)

Anzoon, that strikes me as a good way of pushing currency into circulation. Unfortunately, fiscal unbalance is a real life issue, and as such, it has a place on this server. I think if we do implement currency, it will be using the method you described with the aristocracy :)

ECC - Fantastic first post ! Welcome :) Hmm ,, The concept of alliances with two enemies does sound interesting ... What does everyone else think ?

That was actually just flavour text .. I should put it in italics :L

I agree regarding the capture issue, although leader death would probably be slightly unfair (considering a leader could be a whole council in a democracy or a single king in a monarchy). I don't know why I didn't think of surrender O.O

My understanding is the same as danny's. I thought that using shift hid your tags through walls ? I would love for local chat to be a possibility, but I don't think it is going to happen because it needs extra mods :S

Danny - I also thought of this problem, but decided it would be best left to the players to decide how to fix it. I don't know how we will prevent users from simply regaining their status .. We may have to rely on asking people to do the decent thing and play as a new character :S

Anzoon and ECC - I have a question for you. Which of the two war systems did you prefer ? Free for all or managed, or can you think of an alternative ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your revision seems quite good, i like it, but i still think we should see what others say, as stone tools are quite easy to obtain honestly. if only to save the spawn rocks from being overgathered,

I like alliances with both enemies, you could be the US during some wars, we supplied both sides with weapons and reaped massive profits, also trade alliances and embargoes would be interesting mechanics to see.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Providing stone age tools would be rather pointless because the moment an individuals finds two stones they could make all of the things that you suggested as being spawned with. Agriculture does work to some degree in the stone age. A person can make a hoe and start growing wheat with fair ease. The only upper hand that could be received by giving out stone age supplies would be that in saplings, a bonus that would only save the ten minutes to a few hours it would take to find the sapling on one's own. This would also require constant moderator intervention as someone is going to have to be there when the individual joins to give them their stuff. I only see this as either being a hassle which grants stage skipping or a hassle that grants the skipping of ten minutes.

Fiscal imbalances aren't necessarily a bad thing in the game or in real life. It provides the driving force for economies and society. Everyone wants to strike it rich and become "the big man on campus." In fact, it was, for nearly the entirety of its history, the foundation of the United States of America. From the European wars over the Caribbean to Cold War, the US stood as a symbol of prosperity and free chance. The massive economy that it once had was created by this concept of prosperity. In TFC, the chance to be a mayor or just some wealthy individual would drive many in their efforts on the server. If cities form there's surely going to be competition between them in who can be the best and wealthiest, a competition which would surely be a factor in war and conquest.

As far as the war system, why pick one option when you can have them all? Wars aren't linear "I shot this guy so he'll shoot me back and we'll fight over it until we're all dead or one of us gives up due to emotional or psychological strain" they're complicated networks of ties and relationships. If a city-state wants to be neutral, let it and we'll see how long it takes or if it all that the neutral faction is drawn into warfare. If a group of towns or cities wish to unionize into the young start of a country, why not let it?

If you want to create a true political system don't bother implementing regulations on how it works and runs.

If you want things to be casual and wars to be simple battles between two groups only then should you push some limit.

Ideally, things should as moderation-less as possible.

On an unrelated note, I've been thinking of a way on how the loan system would work if you so chose to implement it for starting an early currency-driven server. As I just said, things should be as moderation-less as possible and with that said it could made that moderators are not allowed to ever enter creative mode or ever spawn in any items. This would create the base equality you first stated in your post. The bank would be set-up within spawn protection and the money to be loaned would be left in chests within this bank. OPs would be permitted to withdrawn the currency from the bank as requested by a player and would need to log this withdrawal in the bank. In this way, there is always only that set worth and OPs remain without ever being separate from normal players. Only in the case of extreme cases of griefing or rule breaking would they be able to use console commands.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Providing stone age tools would be rather pointless because the moment an individuals finds two stones they could make all of the things that you suggested as being spawned with. Agriculture does work to some degree in the stone age. A person can make a hoe and start growing wheat with fair ease. The only upper hand that could be received by giving out stone age supplies would be that in saplings, a bonus that would only save the ten minutes to a few hours it would take to find the sapling on one's own. This would also require constant moderator intervention as someone is going to have to be there when the individual joins to give them their stuff. I only see this as either being a hassle which grants stage skipping or a hassle that grants the skipping of ten minutes.

I agree, that is why I asked :P

Fiscal imbalances aren't necessarily a bad thing in the game or in real life. It provides the driving force for economies and society. Everyone wants to strike it rich and become "the big man on campus." In fact, it was, for nearly the entirety of its history, the foundation of the United States of America. From the European wars over the Caribbean to Cold War, the US stood as a symbol of prosperity and free chance. The massive economy that it once had was created by this concept of prosperity. In TFC, the chance to be a mayor or just some wealthy individual would drive many in their efforts on the server. If cities form there's surely going to be competition between them in who can be the best and wealthiest which will surely be a factor in war and conquest.

Certainly. I won't get into IRL politics as that isn't what this thread is about, but I am a proponent of capitalism.

As far as the war system, why pick one option when you can have them all? Wars aren't linear "I shot this guy so he'll shoot me back and we'll fight over it until we're all dead or one of us gives up due to emotional or psychological strain" they're complicated networks of ties and relationships. If a city-state wants to be neutral, let it and we'll see how long it takes or if it all that the neutral faction is drawn into warfare.

If you want to create a true political system don't bother implementing regulations on how it works and runs.

If you want things to be casual and wars to be simple battles between two groups only then should you push some limit.

Ideally, things should as moderation-less as possible.

Hmm .. I understand what you mean, but I still think that to prevent things like factions attacking cities when everyone is offline and to encourage larger scale battles, we need to find some way of implementing pitched battles. I can't really see them happening naturally on a server without some prompting. Perhaps there is a compromise in that there doesn't need to be an organised battle for anything other than sieges, so a war could be fought mostly with unplanned skirmishes, but for the big events, such as large sieges and multi faction battles it would be hard to have them exist as spontaneous events. I definitely agree about minimizing moderation though. I just want to provide a set of utilities that players can use to construct their own game system, as opposed to defining one for them.

On an unrelated note, I've been thinking of a way on how the loan system would work if you so chose to implement it for starting an early currency-driven server. As I just said, things should be as moderation-less as possible and with that said it could made that moderators are not allowed to ever enter creative mode or ever spawn in any items. This would create the base equality you first stated in your post. The bank would be set-up within spawn protection and the money to be loaned would be left in chests within this bank. OPs would be permitted to withdrawn the currency from the bank as requested by a player and would need to log this withdrawal in the bank. In this way, there is always only that set worth and OPs remain without ever being separate from normal players. Only in the case of extreme cases of griefing or rule breaking would they be able to use console commands.

That sounds good to me, but where would the interest from the loans go ? Perhaps into purchasing civic improvements, but then for what city ?

(I presume you would charge a fixed amount of interest, otherwise all players will borrow money for things, whereas with interest loans, that number would fall slightly)

Perhaps you could opt for a central bank model, where the bank would lend money to individual towns banks (obviously only the bigger ones), who could then lend/distribute it as they see fit. That way, not all of the loaned money is coming from one source.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"although leader death would probably be slightly unfair"

1: Cost of leadership

2: its a possibilty, not a mandatory event. Capturing a single man/woman can proove difficult in a large faction, where as killing him/her is simple and effective. Dangerus either way, but minimal losses if you kill outright. A living leader means the enemy may attempt rescue.

3: Chess. All Im saying here.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Killing the leader would not mean destroying the faction IMO another member can take up that mantle.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"although leader death would probably be slightly unfair"

1: Cost of leadership

2: its a possibilty, not a mandatory event. Capturing a single man/woman can proove difficult in a large faction, where as killing him/her is simple and effective. Dangerus either way, but minimal losses if you kill outright. A living leader means the enemy may attempt rescue.

3: Chess. All Im saying here.

I do like the chess analogy ... We will put it to the other users then to see what they think :)

Should the death of a leader or leading body lose the war for that faction ?

Would capture have the same effect or would the faction be able to attempt a rescue ?

I just saw Danny's answer there, but there are other active members, so I will still ask :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm .. I understand what you mean, but I still think that to prevent things like factions attacking cities when everyone is offline and to encourage larger scale battles, we need to find some way of implementing pitched battles. I can't really see them happening naturally on a server without some prompting. Perhaps there is a compromise in that there doesn't need to be an organised battle for anything other than sieges, so a war could be fought mostly with unplanned skirmishes, but for the big events, such as large sieges and multi faction battles it would be hard to have them exist as spontaneous events. I definitely agree about minimizing moderation though. I just want to provide a set of utilities that players can use to construct their own game system, as opposed to defining one for them.

As far as I can think at this moment, property damage should be the only factor truly limited. A system where the destruction of towns is limited to certain periods, forms, or cases would need to be implemented.

That sounds good to me, but where would the interest from the loans go ? Perhaps into purchasing civic improvements, but then for what city ?

(I presume you would charge a fixed amount of interest, otherwise all players will borrow money for things, whereas with interest loans, that number would fall slightly)

Perhaps you could opt for a central bank model, where the bank would lend money to individual towns banks (obviously only the bigger ones), who could then lend/distribute it as they see fit. That way, not all of the loaned money is coming from one source.

Town's redistributing loans given from banks would be the best way to circulate currency in most cases. Mayors, dictators, congresses, leaders, would then be able to use the currency to invest back into the town and collect resources which they could potentially sell to the server bank for new currency and to pay off the cost of loans.This would circulate said currency, create a value for it, and produce a front for economic gain. In the beginning people could just start out having to work through the stone age together or not until they're to a particular stage of development. Then groups could be established with leaders established who could then take out a loan to build their town, the creation of a town potentially being something a group must muster the cost to pay for it's creation.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the problem of death in a town or faction during war, we could require members to not be able to rejoin their faction until conflicts end, if there is a faction left to join. Property inheritance upon death is something we'll have to settle some time or another if at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.