Latest News Article

[blaster]

KateTheAwesome, on 02 January 2013 - 02:56 PM, said:

I have only seen one server in my time of playing Minecraft that had a good economy system. Unfortunately the owner was abusive.

You had to mine for iron, gold, and diamonds. You could then go and sell them to the bank, and you could spend your money on either items from other people's chest shops or buy a protected plot at spawn.
Plots were fairly expensive, you had to pay a certain amount of money for each block. The price would depend on where your plot was located.

The fact that three different resources could be exchanged for currency is at risk of causing exchange rate fixing.

[KateTheAwesome]

blaster, on 02 January 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

The fact that three different resources could be exchanged for currency is at risk of causing exchange rate fixing.

What do you mean? I don't see how that could make a corrupt economy system or whatever you're trying to say.

I have to admit though, I don't remember what exactly you could sell.
But point is, it worked. No admin shops, no high prize for voting, nothing. Just the bank.

[Rethical]

OP:

A well constructed and thought out post, demonstrating some of the key points that cause so many minecraft servers to fail. Thank you for that.

These reasons are exactly why i have steered away from Multiplayer in Minecraft for so long.

Only recently I found a small UK based small vanilla server that does exactly what I want it to. Trustworthy players, vanilla minecraft. Too bad it took me the best part of a year to find a server like this!

[Xalusta]

I agree completely with chapters 2 and 3, but not so much chapter 1. One thing I'd like to say before I mention anything else is that I agree they're often not donations. There doesn't seem to be much room for discussion on this point. Obviously people might want to give something as a thank you to donors, but this is very different to offering something with the intention of getting people to 'donate'. Similarly, if they claim it's for running the server then this is where it should go. If people were to donate to keeping the server running then I'm not sure if it would even be legal to spend this money on anything else (I'm not saying it's illegal since I'm no expert, but it wouldn't surprise me).

However, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with charging people to play a server, to get certain items, or something similar. I don't see how it would really pay off (since, after all, there are plenty of completely free servers for everyone to play) but I also don't see what's wrong with it. We may find it pointless, but if people choose to pay for something then I don't think we can say any harm has come to them. As well as this, I don't have any problem with the server host trying to make more money than the server costs so long as they don't claim it goes towards keeping the server running (like I said before).

[Creativityy]

Xalusta, on 02 January 2013 - 03:32 PM, said:

However, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with charging people to play a server, to get certain items, or something similar. I don't see how it would really pay off (since, after all, there are plenty of completely free servers for everyone to play) but I also don't see what's wrong with it. We may find it pointless, but if people choose to pay for something then I don't think we can say any harm has come to them. As well as this, I don't have any problem with the server host trying to make more money than the server costs so long as they don't claim it goes towards keeping the server running (like I said before).

It's not that I have a problem with people donating for items in-game, it's the fact that we call it "donating". If you're going to get goods in return then it should be called purchasing items, not donating for items. That just doesn't make any sense!

[Younkling]

When I read this title I expected it to be like ZOMG JEB BROKE DA GAME like most rant threads, but it actually was thought out and I agree with your points.

[Exo000]

Well these are the top 3 things im sick of with large servers :
1.Too much mods(yes too much,in an abnormal way)
2.Admins abuse their position
3.Too many OP players(sometimes when you are a friend of an admin you can get whatever you want)

[blaster]

Exo000, on 02 January 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Well these are the top 3 things im sick of with large servers :
1.Too much mods(yes too much,in an abnormal way)
2.Admins abuse their position
3.Too many OP players(sometimes when you are a friend of an admin you can get whatever you want)

2 and 3 there sound like cases of petty feudalism within the server.

[fseftr]

Yeah, I agree. I played on this one server with an admin shop that sold wood for $5 and bought planks for $2. There were usually at least one person hanging around there selling their planks and rebuying them as logs.

[SirHiss]

@ the OP. You have definitely hit the nail on the head.

[blaster]

fseftr, on 02 January 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

Yeah, I agree. I played on this one server with an admin shop that sold wood for $5 and bought planks for $2. There were usually at least one person hanging around there selling their planks and rebuying them as logs.

That is just hilarious. That isn't just a failure of the server owners to understand economics, that is failing at basic mathematics.

[_Controlling]

I agree on some things but not on others.

Not a lot of people are going to give money to server owners unless they're going to get something for it. It just doesn't happen.

I wouldn't give a server owner money unless I was getting something for it because I don't know where it's going. It could be getting used for the server or it could be going in their pocket. To be honest, I couldn't care less, as long as I'm getting something for my money.

The only thing I don't like is when server owners over do it with the donations. What I mean by that is been given extremely OP stuff, which makes they players basically invincible. They players may have paid a lot of money to get they powers, but it just makes it extremely unfair for the other players.

[KingTrygon]

This is why I prefer small private servers over large/public ones. So many problems can be taken out of the picture if you do it right. Honestly, I'd rather have 10 active players on a server that are people that have proven they are trustworthy then 100 people that have randomly joined with no proper screening whatsoever.

[Youngy798]

The stupid thing with donations is that most donation ranks cost more than the game itself. For example someone could buy diamond armour for £20 when they could get the entire game for that price. Buying items isnt even necessary now, with all the hacks that are around you could easily xray a stack of diamonds and gather a nice amount of xp within an hour.
If a server has to have a big room explaining all there plugins.. they have definitely gone wrong. I hate when I go onto a server and it takes me 10 minutes to figure out how to leave spawn or to buy a simple starter kit. Another thing that is annoying is that anyone hacking has a huge advantage in the economy compared to another player. I dont think that many 'economy' servers actually plan the economy. Like, when you can buy 9 diamonds for £900 but a diamond block costs £1200. Plots of land are often way too small and in rubbish areas, what are the advantages of buying a protected plot if I could go into the wilderness for free, and get any greifed rolled back by plugins?.
So many servers jump on the bandwagon, 1 prison server comes out.. hundreds follow. Badly run FTB servers and all these other 'Its popular so we need to make it' server are pointless, they often close down with a month or two.

[StalePhish]

blaster, on 02 January 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

[snip] (currently, coal-powered minecarts are useless, but this is the exception) [snip]

Not useless, just underrated. How do you transport a bunch of minecart with chests up a steep hill? Powered minecart. The other way is to push them or use a TON!! of powered rails.

blaster, on 02 January 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

[snip] You do not need to stoop that low to run a server. It harms everyone playing by making an uneven playing field. If you can't keep it running otherwise, seriously reconsider if you should even be running a server in the first place.[snip]

Not all server owners do this. I've run a server for over a year and I have not once asked anyone for money, nor have I received any. I use the server for a few other things, but it was a pretty hefty $600 purchase.

blaster, on 02 January 2013 - 01:20 AM, said:

[snip] No, there is no reason for your 15 slot minecraft server that you can run for $10 a month needs a donation rank for donating $250. It should be clear to everyone that you would not use such money to run the server. [snip]

There is also no good reason why a coffee should cost multiple dollars, or why Apple computers cost hundreds of dollars more than their competitors. Most people run a business to make money, not to break even.


In my conclusion, I think it is up to the player to be more responsible about which servers they play on. Not all servers are corrupt! Never once have I been negatively affected by a decision made by a server owner or administrator.

[wacossusca34]

I still remember back when the minecraft community was puny, had only small servers, and really kind players. The feeling that you walk into an open server, without any huge amount of plugins (this was never an issue during the release of Bukkit), and be greeted by the players residing in it already just made the game for me. There were far less players trying to exploit the servers and more just trying to have fun.

I think this rant is beyond accurate. Especially the part about the server plugins. The overflow of plugins in servers, the generic, competitive PVP, McMMO, Factions, or Hunger Games setup, and the huge issue with economies just ruins multiplayer. I haven't seen one server with a 50+ player average actually turn out to be any fun.

The other thing that this ridiculous behaviour promotes is new ideas. That's what programmers in the minecraft community are just doing now. McPVP went up because of it's organized interface, it's really successful (and unique at the time) Hunger Games, and the balance of gameplays. Ghostcraft was successful because they had a completely new idea for PVP. MineZ took on the task of combining two games into one, and did it quite well. To be honest, I think these are the only thing really holding the game together. The new updates are pretty cool, but what really made this game fun before was multiplayer. The whole experience of working with other players has been near exhausted for this game.

What I really wish I could accomplish is a way to restore the communities that existed in Minecraft Alpha. Some server setup that would promote the behaviours of the players working together and just having fun - not trying to hack, not trying to exploit a stupid economy, and not trying to kill and destroy everything in their sight.

Anyways, OP, +1 for you. I hope some of these ignorant server owners come across your post.

[blaster]

StalePhish, on 02 January 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

There is also no good reason why a coffee should cost multiple dollars, or why Apple computers cost hundreds of dollars more than their competitors. Most people run a business to make money, not to break even.

If you are running a server for profit, then explain that money you take in will be partially profit. Donations are specifically for non-profit organisations.

[Youngy798]

There arent many good public survival servers. Yes, there are a few good ones but most are heavily greifed. I get put off by servers that have spawns that look like a huge maze, or are just heavily greifed. Half built houses, craters everywhere, half floating trees and work benches. Some servers are good but end up shutting down because 3/4 of the community just want to bring their Call Of Duty, kill and destroy nature into the game. I have yet to find many servers on the front page of websites that are based around playing the game and not just destorying the competition. Servers are so heavily advertised aswell! Vote to get this! vote to get that! its unfair.

[fseftr]

I had though most servers weren't for profit?

[TheOneFromBehind]

KingTrygon, on 02 January 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

This is why I prefer small private servers over large/public ones. So many problems can be taken out of the picture if you do it right. Honestly, I'd rather have 10 active players on a server that are people that have proven they are trustworthy then 100 people that have randomly joined with no proper screening whatsoever.

This is why I prefer playing by myself!