I promise you that public worlds would be griefed to no end or have players be able to do next-to-nothing.
Not really.
Can't see how it'd be no different than joining any other public lobby on a game. You join, and start building with random players like you would with your friends.
Well... trust players could be turned off... I guess this is a good Idea.
In which case, the public worlds would actually be... "Hey, come in and just stand around and watch me worlds" - not much fun for the people joining them. World show-off tours are best put on YouTube, IMO.
The idea of having public room lists on the Xbox has been discussed numerous times. It's difficult to do in that the Xbox does not utilize actual servers, but rather the world is resident only on the creator's Xbox (which is completely inaccessible when it's turned off or while being used to play a different game). There is the "multiplayer" section of these forums, which players can use to locate worlds where the creator of that world is willing to add numerous strangers to their friends lists in order to give them access. Some of these people have even set up Xboxes dedicated to just their Minecraft world in order to leave it accessible to others 24/7. I think if you want something better, the best solution is to use the world-wide web and actual servers - i.e. play the game on the PC instead.
Except that you have friends in other worlds...or at least have had some minimal association with the host prior.
These would be an open invitation to wreck the world.
Good thing there's an option to kick people.
Or you could have a system like in Left 4 Dead 2.
Just push start, select a player's name, a thing comes up saying "kick player?" and you push start to say yes, and back to say no. Majority kicks them. Simple.
In which case, the public worlds would actually be... "Hey, come in and just stand around and watch me worlds" - not much fun for the people joining them. World show-off tours are best put on YouTube, IMO.
The idea of having public room lists on the Xbox has been discussed numerous times. It's difficult to do in that the Xbox does not utilize actual servers, but rather the world is resident only on the creator's Xbox (which is completely inaccessible when it's turned off or while being used to play a different game). There is the "multiplayer" section of these forums, which players can use to locate worlds where the creator of that world is willing to add numerous strangers to their friends lists in order to give them access. Some of these people have even set up Xboxes dedicated to just their Minecraft world in order to leave it accessible to others 24/7. I think if you want something better, the best solution is to use the world-wide web and actual servers - i.e. play the game on the PC instead.
I don't htink it has to be quite like that.
It could still be dedicated host, but just have whoever in the world, or region etc who wants to join have the ability to. Simple.
It could still be dedicated host, but just have whoever in the world, or region etc who wants to join have the ability to. Simple.
Why on earth would anyone want to join a world through a public random lobby? It's a concept that works for games with relatively short campaigns that are based on nothing more than battles, but not likely one where people want to develop an "association" with their builds. If the host puts trust players off and PVP off, what would these random groups of players do with each other... stand around looking at each other's skins? If a visiting player starts a build in a world and then the host wants to turn off their machine and the game is saved on that machine... without uploading it to some "server" that is at least powered on... how would the visiting player maintain access in that world in order to finish their build?
Why on earth would anyone want to join a world through a public random lobby? It's a concept that works for games with relatively short campaigns that are based on nothing more than battles, but not likely one where people want to develop an "association" with their builds. If the host puts trust players off and PVP off, what would these random groups of players do with each other... stand around looking at each other's skins? If a visiting player starts a build in a world and then the host wants to turn off their machine and the game is saved on that machine... without uploading it to some "server" that is at least powered on... how would the visiting player maintain access in that world in order to finish their build?
Why on earth no?
How many public games have you played?
It's not rocket science to just, join a random lobby and start doing something with whoever is building something. Since it's xbox, it's not hard to go "party invite", and talk to them and then you can communicate who the hell you're building with.
Great way to get new ideas, and great way to make new friends. Just those two reasons alone are good enough for me to garner enough support to enact this...
If you don't want your world getting destroyed by randoms, create a world that could have this ability, and don't really care about it. That way you don't take it too seriously.
It's not rocket science to just, join a random lobby and start doing something with whoever is building something. Since it's xbox, it's not hard to go "party invite", and talk to them and then you can communicate who the hell you're building with.
Great way to get new ideas, and great way to make new friends. Just those two reasons alone are good enough for me to garner enough support to enact this...
If you don't want your world getting destroyed by randoms, create a world that could have this ability, and don't really care about it. That way you don't take it too seriously.
True, I don't play many public lobby games, but I have played a few. They work well when the goal is to just run around and shoot things for 15 minutes or so... none of those players tend to develop as vested an interest in what gets created in the world as they tend to do in Minecraft. I suppose Minecraft can be played where the goal is just to run around and slay monsters... but I see that as something that's much more fun in those other games more naturally geared to short campaigns. I see the projects in Minecraft as being more long-term... and I prefer to do that sort of thing with friends I know I can trust.
As for creating worlds you just don't care about - it works to a point; but then, usually, the host or some regular player who has built something they happen to like winds up here on the forums complaining about being griefed. Griefers, naturally, like the added opportunities to grief and think it's all in good fun... and they tend to just ignore the pain they cause their "victims." More often than not, the "victims" are the younger kids (e.g. squeakers), who the older teens around here have frequently openly expressed the distaste for playing with them in the first play. Then, of course, there are the younger kids who perpetually grief older ones. I think public lobbies (which don't sift players into age groups) would really just escalate that problem.
True, I don't play many public lobby games, but I have played a few. They work well when the goal is to just run around and shoot things for 15 minutes or so... none of those players tend to develop as vested an interest in what gets created in the world as they tend to do in Minecraft. I suppose Minecraft can be played where the goal is just to run around and slay monsters... but I see that as something that's much more fun in those other games more naturally geared to short campaigns. I see the projects in Minecraft as being more long-term... and I prefer to do that sort of thing with friends I know I can trust.
As for creating worlds you just don't care about - it works to a point; but then, usually, the host or some regular player who has built something they happen to like winds up here on the forums complaining about being griefed. Griefers, naturally, like the added opportunities to grief and think it's all in good fun... and they tend to just ignore the pain they cause their "victims." More often than not, the "victims" are the younger kids (e.g. squeakers), who the older teens around here have frequently openly expressed the distaste for playing with them in the first play. Then, of course, there are the younger kids who perpetually grief older ones. I think public lobbies (which don't sift players into age groups) would really just escalate that problem.
You do raise a point as well.
But, I think if it's still dedicated host, I think most of those problems could be fixed.
I only see this as useful to anyone that doesn't have a friend list full of people who care to play MC and no other access to the internet to meet people in other ways.
The current system works best so far in lowering your chance of your world being invaded by jerks.
I can see a small benefit of maybe a public lobby type of room. Something small simple for strangers to meet. Not a map for building. They would have to join their own world together for that. I don't know many people that can not access at least these forums and meet people though. So it really seems petty and a waist of the creators time.
But, I think if it's still dedicated host, I think most of those problems could be fixed.
Issues can always be fixed. Whether the company thinks they worth the time, money and effort to fix is another question. The fact remains that the PC is the device that is ideally suited for larger, server based, public worlds. Because the Xbox 360 was not ideally suited for this purpose, the Xbox Edition multiplayer was designed to handle small world, intimate play among close friends, something that (at the time) the PC was not handling well (i.e. Realms did not exist).
Issues can always be fixed. Whether the company thinks they worth the time, money and effort to fix is another question. The fact remains that the PC is the device that is ideally suited for larger, server based, public worlds. Because the Xbox 360 was not ideally suited for this purpose, the Xbox Edition multiplayer was designed to handle small world, intimate play among close friends, something that (at the time) the PC was not handling well (i.e. Realms did not exist).
But the chances of someone breaking your stuff or anyone's stuff would be pretty much equal game either way though wouldn't it?
But the chances of someone breaking your stuff or anyone's stuff would be pretty much equal game either way though wouldn't it?
Only real difference is the distance apart right?
With the larger worlds, one can have more players in the world without taxing available resources. It is easier to maintain multiple backups of Minecraft worlds on the PC... which can be used to "undo" a session if the world is griefed. In order to have a world active 24/7, it is not necessary for the person to leave their own personal PC powered on 24/7, since the world is uploaded to an actual server that is designed to run 24/7.
With the larger worlds, one can have more players in the world without taxing available resources. It is easier to maintain multiple backups of Minecraft worlds on the PC... which can be used to "undo" a session if the world is griefed. In order to have a world active 24/7, it is not necessary for the person to leave their own personal PC powered on 24/7, since the world is uploaded to an actual server that is designed to run 24/7.
Hmm okay.
I don't know PC never played PC before.
Only thing I know about the PC is that it has a lot more stuff than the console, and I'm jealous of that. Lol
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hebrews 11:1
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I promise you that public worlds would be griefed to no end or have players be able to do next-to-nothing.
Stay fluffy~
Not really.
Can't see how it'd be no different than joining any other public lobby on a game. You join, and start building with random players like you would with your friends.
These would be an open invitation to wreck the world.
Stay fluffy~
I scored 100% on the Minecraft Trivia Quiz. How much do you know about Minecraft?Stay fluffy~
In which case, the public worlds would actually be... "Hey, come in and just stand around and watch me worlds" - not much fun for the people joining them. World show-off tours are best put on YouTube, IMO.
The idea of having public room lists on the Xbox has been discussed numerous times. It's difficult to do in that the Xbox does not utilize actual servers, but rather the world is resident only on the creator's Xbox (which is completely inaccessible when it's turned off or while being used to play a different game). There is the "multiplayer" section of these forums, which players can use to locate worlds where the creator of that world is willing to add numerous strangers to their friends lists in order to give them access. Some of these people have even set up Xboxes dedicated to just their Minecraft world in order to leave it accessible to others 24/7. I think if you want something better, the best solution is to use the world-wide web and actual servers - i.e. play the game on the PC instead.
Good thing there's an option to kick people.
Or you could have a system like in Left 4 Dead 2.
Just push start, select a player's name, a thing comes up saying "kick player?" and you push start to say yes, and back to say no. Majority kicks them. Simple.
I don't htink it has to be quite like that.
It could still be dedicated host, but just have whoever in the world, or region etc who wants to join have the ability to. Simple.
Why on earth would anyone want to join a world through a public random lobby? It's a concept that works for games with relatively short campaigns that are based on nothing more than battles, but not likely one where people want to develop an "association" with their builds. If the host puts trust players off and PVP off, what would these random groups of players do with each other... stand around looking at each other's skins? If a visiting player starts a build in a world and then the host wants to turn off their machine and the game is saved on that machine... without uploading it to some "server" that is at least powered on... how would the visiting player maintain access in that world in order to finish their build?
Why on earth no?
How many public games have you played?
It's not rocket science to just, join a random lobby and start doing something with whoever is building something. Since it's xbox, it's not hard to go "party invite", and talk to them and then you can communicate who the hell you're building with.
Great way to get new ideas, and great way to make new friends. Just those two reasons alone are good enough for me to garner enough support to enact this...
If you don't want your world getting destroyed by randoms, create a world that could have this ability, and don't really care about it. That way you don't take it too seriously.
True, I don't play many public lobby games, but I have played a few. They work well when the goal is to just run around and shoot things for 15 minutes or so... none of those players tend to develop as vested an interest in what gets created in the world as they tend to do in Minecraft. I suppose Minecraft can be played where the goal is just to run around and slay monsters... but I see that as something that's much more fun in those other games more naturally geared to short campaigns. I see the projects in Minecraft as being more long-term... and I prefer to do that sort of thing with friends I know I can trust.
As for creating worlds you just don't care about - it works to a point; but then, usually, the host or some regular player who has built something they happen to like winds up here on the forums complaining about being griefed. Griefers, naturally, like the added opportunities to grief and think it's all in good fun... and they tend to just ignore the pain they cause their "victims." More often than not, the "victims" are the younger kids (e.g. squeakers), who the older teens around here have frequently openly expressed the distaste for playing with them in the first play. Then, of course, there are the younger kids who perpetually grief older ones. I think public lobbies (which don't sift players into age groups) would really just escalate that problem.
You do raise a point as well.
But, I think if it's still dedicated host, I think most of those problems could be fixed.
The current system works best so far in lowering your chance of your world being invaded by jerks.
I can see a small benefit of maybe a public lobby type of room. Something small simple for strangers to meet. Not a map for building. They would have to join their own world together for that. I don't know many people that can not access at least these forums and meet people though. So it really seems petty and a waist of the creators time.
But that's just my opinion.
How many stars equals the moon?
Issues can always be fixed. Whether the company thinks they worth the time, money and effort to fix is another question. The fact remains that the PC is the device that is ideally suited for larger, server based, public worlds. Because the Xbox 360 was not ideally suited for this purpose, the Xbox Edition multiplayer was designed to handle small world, intimate play among close friends, something that (at the time) the PC was not handling well (i.e. Realms did not exist).
But the chances of someone breaking your stuff or anyone's stuff would be pretty much equal game either way though wouldn't it?
Only real difference is the distance apart right?
With the larger worlds, one can have more players in the world without taxing available resources. It is easier to maintain multiple backups of Minecraft worlds on the PC... which can be used to "undo" a session if the world is griefed. In order to have a world active 24/7, it is not necessary for the person to leave their own personal PC powered on 24/7, since the world is uploaded to an actual server that is designed to run 24/7.
Hmm okay.
I don't know PC never played PC before.
Only thing I know about the PC is that it has a lot more stuff than the console, and I'm jealous of that. Lol