A Question of Motivation Relating to Trade

[Jed1314 420]

I'm not going to beat about the bush here.

TerraFirmaCraft can't continue to please both SSP players and provide for SMP servers in the direction it is going.

Right now, the world generation is changing drastically. Soon there will be a very large world with a varied biome set determined by the z axis position of the regions. This is massive progress, but is it enough ?

Here is where the interests of SSP and SMP players are totally opposed. In an SMP server, in order for trade to remain sensible and to encourage users to actually spread across the z axis and not just congregate in one area there must be regional variations in vital resources. To rephrase:

There is no point in trading with your neighbour 6,000 blocks to the north for a different type of fruit. On the other hand, if you have iron and zinc but your neighbour has copper, there is a reason for you to trade. Unfortunately, this is game breaking for SSP players.

So, we are left with a conundrum. If ore generation is altered to give notable regional variations in mineral levels, then trade will be viable on SMP, leading to an interesting and diverse server where trade has actual meaning and purpose, as well as establishing regions which are valuable to own (extremely important for faction based pvp servers). Unfortunately, this impacts on other players of the game (namely SSP and servers who are more creative orientated).

The best solution I can think of is to give two generation methods: Default and Realistic. Default would give regular generation and realistic could (as mentioned above) generate ores with high concentrations in certain regions and low concentration in others.

[SionoiS 15]

+1 for different game mode. SSP player don't want to wait they want to PLAY. Default mode should affect tree, crops and animals too in a way that is appropriate for SSP.

If a SSP player spend 1 hour a day for 5 days = 15 mc days

SMP player that do the same = ~1 mc year

(server running 24/24)

[Jed1314 420]

+1 for different game mode. SSP player don't want to wait they want to PLAY. Default mode should affect tree, crops and animals too in a way that is appropriate for SSP.

If a SSP player spend 1 hour a day for 5 days = 15 mc days

SMP player that do the same = ~1 mc year

(server running 24/24)

I don't think you quite understood. I don't think they should separate the game modes, merely provide a new terrain generation option which would be more suitable for large servers looking to stimulate trade.

Why not run a server on your PC ? That would help alleviate the issue of time not passing when you aren't playing

[Treyflix 277]

Here is the difference; SMP doesn't NEED these changes to become better whereas SSP can't handle these changes without decreasing in quality. Destroying the core base of the game to improve a branch off mode is unfair and silly.

[EstebanLB 183]

Here is the difference; SMP doesn't NEED these changes to become better whereas SSP can't handle these changes without decreasing in quality. Destroying the core base of the game to improve a branch off mode is unfair and silly.

Survival Single player is a branch off mode for you?

[SionoiS 15]

I don't think you quite understood. I don't think they should separate the game modes, merely provide a new terrain generation option which would be more suitable for large servers looking to stimulate trade.

Why not run a server on your PC ? That would help alleviate the issue of time not passing when you aren't playing

Yes SSP player can set a server (i do) but i could just travel on the map to find ore if your Realistic mode would be in the mod.No need of a default mode.I don't know if you understand what i'm trying to say.Bioxx need to chose if he want to put options to please more people or none at all.

In a perfect world people would play on a big server with your Realistic ore generation and trade would be common but idk...

[Treyflix 277]

Survival Single player is a branch off mode for you?

No, survival multi player is a branch off mode. Did I not make that clear? :/. The reality of it is a server where the politics are set up enough for trade and such is a small, but vocal percentage of TFC community. I'm sure a very large percentage of people play SSP or SMP causually with a few friends. Furthermore, SSP and causual SMP is such a integral part of the game.

This whole argument is probably moot as Bioxx likely has a ore/resource distribution plan for the new world gen that will be balanced and fair.

[Jed1314 420]

Here is the difference; SMP doesn't NEED these changes to become better whereas SSP can't handle these changes without decreasing in quality. Destroying the core base of the game to improve a branch off mode is unfair and silly.

I am proposing a balance here. I appreciate that there are many ssp players (though Bioxx himself has stated this mod is intended for smp) hence why I mentioned two generation methods, one for default and one for "realistic"

[Treyflix 277]

I am proposing a balance here. I appreciate that there are many ssp players (though Bioxx himself has stated this mod is intended for smp) hence why I mentioned two generation methods, one for default and one for "realistic"

He also said that a game without single player is completely dissfunctional. However, I do appreciate your efforts to keep things balanced

[GCountach 39]

While I love the idea of the new world generation system, I do have my concerns that it won't work with SSP or SMP. I mean, think about it. When's the last time you've seen a server that had pregenerated 100k x 100k of land? That map would be huge. Could a server even handle that? What about with 5 people? 20 people? 50 people? The more people play in it, the worse it'll get, but the new system seems to demand more people to make trading even remotely possible.

[Deviator 51]

I played on a server with average 25 people at a time and it was only 10k x 10k with more land than we could possibly use. It also took up tons of resources to host the server at just that size, however it did use bukkit and a bunch of plugins but I would imagine with all the changes TFC made, it is pretty much as demanding.

[bsb23 303]

Resource spread based on the size of the server since single-player is essentially becoming a server this would mean the spread would be like 5 which would be about in SSP now and the limit of people a server sets (its capabilities) would dictate the number in SMP. I'm not saying an hundred man server would have twenty times less resources but perhaps like five times less would be reasonable.

[Jed1314 420]

It's worth noting that I amn't necessarily talking about huge distances. Maybe if we were able to find all resources in a 10k x 10k map that would be more than enough to create a trade based server

[Deviator 51]

It's worth noting that I amn't necessarily talking about huge distances. Maybe if we were able to find all resources in a 10k x 10k map that would be more than enough to create a trade based server

That is the current problem, finding enough Nickel for more than 2-3 people in a 10k x 10k is near impossible.

[Jed1314 420]

That is the current problem, finding enough Nickel for more than 2-3 people in a 10k x 10k is near impossible.

Yeah, I don't really think some minerals need changed, I am referring to the more common base minerals (e.g. Iron, Copper, Zinc, Tin)

[Ulfengaard 44]

This topic seems to be suffering from some confusion. My understanding is that the feature in question is the ore generation method. Region-specific ores enhance SMP while over-complicating SSP.

Jed's proposed solution is to institute two ore generation methods: one for SSP and one for SMP.

The SMP ore generation method would retain the 'realism' of region-specific ores while the SSP ore generation method would be more generous.

Given that I didn't miss the mark with any of the above (let me know if I did, Jed), then I fully endorse this idea. While SSP and SMP have always been somewhat different, TFC makes each one even more distinct. In SSP, operations and priorities are totally different from SMP, and vice versa.

[bsb23 303]

Another thing is that SSP pockets are far too big at this point whereas these pockets are too small for SMP. Also I urge that you read my last post as it will prevent from a five-man server from being impossible.

[Ulfengaard 44]

*drags thread kicking and screaming back on topic*

Who is in favor of the following:

Ore generation in SMP will spawn higher concentrations of some ores in one region while spawning lower concentrations of that ore in other regions.

Ore generation in SSP will spawn more evenly distributed concentrations of all ores, and will increase the number of region types a particular ore will appear in.

Vote. Discuss. Profit.

[GCountach 39]

If it were possible, I'd like for there to be an option in the world gen for either grouped or even distribution. Calling it SMP or SSP mode is kind of misleading. I'm sure there's servers that would also benefit and enjoy the even distribution method.

[Jed1314 420]

I am (obviously) for it !

[newcomer200 1]

I agree with Jed on this. Having two different ore distribution methods would dramatically change gameplay without having to actually modify the game itself. However, I agree with GCountach that the generation should be Grouped vs Distributed rather than SMP/SSP. For smaller SMP servers, there aren't enough people for distance trading to work, so they would benefit from having ores distributed.

[Jed1314 420]

Yeah, I took account of Countach's suggestion in my suggestion thread for trade

[renadi 258]

Here is the difference; SMP doesn't NEED these changes to become better whereas SSP can't handle these changes without decreasing in quality. Destroying the core base of the game to improve a branch off mode is unfair and silly.

I disagree completely, to improve smp does need these or everyone might as well play ssp.

bioxx has said that SMP will be the primary goal, it's not a branch off, ssp is a practice mode for smp.

This was always what minecraft was about and TFCraft as well, it was always intended to be a group game and playing it alone is just practice.

[Ulfengaard 44]

I disagree completely, to improve smp does need these or everyone might as well play ssp.

bioxx has said that SMP will be the primary goal, it's not a branch off, ssp is a practice mode for smp.

This was always what minecraft was about and TFCraft as well, it was always intended to be a group game and playing it alone is just practice.

Deciding that support or improvements for SSP are unnecessary because it isn't how you prefer to play is not valid reasoning. Nor should we use the developers' intentions (speculation or not) to block emergent or alternate methods of play. In fact, one could argue that it is what the developers' never expected a player to do which can end up making a game truly great. I also disagree with your assertion that 'everyone might as well play SSP' without these changes. Even without the changes being discussed, SMP is distinct right now.

All to say, SSP is not unsupported 'practice mode' in Minecraft, nor should it be in TFC (in my opinion). It is an alternate method of play which appeals to the survivalist, which is, in my experience, a substantial part of TFC's userbase. There's no reason to cut SSP loose when the method suggested by Jed in the OP can help each to co-exist.

[renadi 258]

Deciding that support or improvements for SSP are unnecessary because it isn't how you prefer to play is not valid reasoning. Nor should we use the developers' intentions (speculation or not) to block emergent or alternate methods of play. In fact, one could argue that it is what the developers' never expected a player to do which can end up making a game truly great. I also disagree with your assertion that 'everyone might as well play SSP' without these changes. Even without the changes being discussed, SMP is distinct right now.

All to say, SSP is not unsupported 'practice mode' in Minecraft, nor should it be in TFC (in my opinion). It is an alternate method of play which appeals to the survivalist, which is, in my experience, a substantial part of TFC's userbase. There's no reason to cut SSP loose when the method suggested by Jed in the OP can help each to co-exist.

I'm not suggesting we burn ssp, I'm not saying it's unneccesary, I'm really not saying anything about it, but SMP is priority according to bioxx even.

I'm not putting down ssp I'm defending not making smp worse for it's sake.