Oh, maybe we could set up rails in the nether? We could protect them, of course.

That's what I recommended, that's what we did on the old PvE world and that worked well for speed reasons. Well, unless you are the retro server where the backups were corrupted and all portals are broken .

Yeah, it would help with speed, and I wouldn't end up having to make myself AFK for 5 minutes when riding them

EDIT: Oh, would you look at that! 600 posfs!

You'd have better luck reading the topic about the map, unless you were talking about nether travel as implied in your latest post?

Two words: ender chests

Two Words: Wrong topic.

One sentence: Please use the list on the first post to find a more appropriate topic for this, since one cannot travel by ender chests.

I do not believe that this is the wrong topic. You were talking about how if you removed teleportation people could no longer /sethome, /town spawn to deposit their loot, and teleport back. However, you could in reality still do this with ender chests by depositing your loot in one and commiting /suicide, if ender chests are indeed enabled. Or you could just keep one with you, deposit loot as you go in it, and keep moving the ender chest as you explore. Then you wouldn't lose your loot if you died, or if you were lost, you could /suicide.

Just to poke this topic again and get it rolling since it's been since the end of July.



Mmmm, state-sponsored transportation. I hope that there will be enough motivation to have the people build the rails, not the government.

The map size is currently being discussed over in the 1.9 map topic where we are talking about potentially starting out with a smaller map in the beginning (and expanding much more later on). In relevance to transportation, I think that especially if we keep the map a smaller size for a good period of time before expanding, it will keep towns closer enough that once we get some basic rail lines going or at least have the nether, it'll be harder to complain about the large distances since it'll literally take a couple minutes to get to one end of the map. With the nether, the time would be even smaller.

Again, while I favor not having teleportation to begin with, I would not mind compromising by having one form of teleportation allowed for everyone such as /tpa. I would say that if we're still split on the teleportation issue, it is possible to compromise if we consider that we pick one form of teleportation only. There currently exist 4 main teleportation commands--
[1] /spawn (returns user to the map 'spawn' area)
[2] /town spawn (returns user to their town, if Towny exists and if the user has a town)
[3] /home (returns user to the place where they used the /sethome command)
[4] /tpa [player name here] (Teleports user to requested player if agreed)

If I had to compromise, I would say that we either allow /home or /tpa. However, vanilla mechanics already allow usage of a bed to set your home, so I don't see a reason why we'd need a /home command. /tpa seems to be what most people are interested in because of the idea that you can teleport to your buddy to do something or check something out quickly. If this was the compromise, I'd be okay with it, preferably if the other 3 teleport commands were removed. Having bed mechanics restored to proper vanilla behavior would mean that technically the user should only spawn in "spawn" for the first time they enter the map, and up through before they sleep in a bed. Having the bed mechanics properly functioning also means that when you go somewhere further out on adventures, that you have the ability to respawn at the location you were at, instead of having to walk all the way back every time.

Again, my logic is if we allow /tpa, then why use the nice path you built to your friend's town, if you could just teleport to them? There is no need for paths between frequented locations if you can just teleport between them when someone is around. The only reason you'd honestly use a path, is to go to a place which doesn't have someone there you could teleport to, and I feel much of the time someone explores a place like my town, I just end up teleporting them there-- they don't ever use the rail or my bridge to come see my town. Why use the path, when you can just teleport, right? I mean, sure. I still built my bridge for aesthetical purposes, but it kind of saddens me that no one cares to use it except for when I teleport them to my town to then show off my bridge that they'll never set foot on again. That's just my side of the story (:

As I was reading this, I noted one thing that could be prevalent if we only allow /tpa. Multiple accounts. If Player G isn't online for Player K to teleport to, then Player K may enlist the help of an alt to keep at Town Spawn for /tpa. However, they'd have to likely walk back to the point in the wilderness they were exploring in.

I really like your idea of keeping the map smaller before the eventual grow out to encourage that towns be closer together. This will help keep paths between towns short, concise and, well maintained. Then, once a number of towns are established the border creep can begin.



This is one of the huge factors why I want to disable teleportation, especially player to player. We're going for a server that will pride itself on displays of hard work. If the only time users see said work, such as a bridge, is when they are explicitly shown, I believe it devalues the work the member put in.

My philosophy on this extends to who I am as a person too. If I like how something looks or, the projects that particular brand/group/individual is doing (or causes they support) I will go to their stores, buy their products and, support them however I can even if it costs me a bit more to shop there. Transposing those particular criteria to Minecraft, if I walk across a bridge that I just love and they have ambitions to tie that bridge style into their town then I'd have a desire to purchase from their shops to support their vision/project. But, that's a discussion for another topic.

If I had to compromise, I'd enable /town spawn. I just walked to some town to buy some goods. I don't really want to walk back. It's reminiscent to a few hack-n-slash games I played. A townsman sends you on a quest to a dungeon to slay a creature and report back to him with "part of creature." Once the creature was slain, there was always a portal back to the town center so you didn't have to walk/fight your way back. /town spawn could be that equivalent. Done exploring? /town spawn. Done shopping? /town spawn.

Of course, if the towns collaborate on Kerms desire to create another rail system then they could ride that back. And since it would be created by the members, the rail can go which ever way into a town. Users could incorporate the rail into their town entrance or have it stop just outside of town, etc etc. But, iirc, not everyone was fond of the rail system?

Based on the well-reasoned arguments that I've been reading from CharlesSprinkle and ComicIDIOT above, it sounds to me like having /town spawn, /spawn, and beds is the best compromise. But if people can carry around beds and use them to set homes in mines, why don't we just allow regular Essentials /home and /sethome? Thus, I amend my suggestion to allow /town spawn, /spawn, and /home slash /sethome, but no /tpa.

I still feel like /sethome is too much of a freedom. That sounds bad and I recognize that the game sends you "home" when you die. So, I'll entertain /home being an accepted command but I think homes should only be set via a bed. I think more users will see that as an incentive to "sleep" through the night and "save" their progress while exploring. I feel like /sethome would make the PvE aspect too easy, and by extension /home. Remember my whole argument was making enemies a threat, and having both /home and /town spawn is a great way to circumvent that challenge.

There's still a way around it, assuming only /town spawn is available. In cave > Want to drop loot at town > Drop everything but loot in chest > TP to town > Deposit everything > Kill self > Return to cave (/sethome'd via bed) > equip items from chest > Carry on. Ultimately, I'd want to only allow /home while disallowing everything else and only setting a home point via a bed.

So if you die with a bunch of goodies on you, that's it? Hmm. I understand both arguments on the matter. I guess I still favor having /sethome, /home, /tpa, etc. Especially when you are building a base, having people tour your home, or exploring. I think if we hope to have more people show up for 1.9, you might be losing/isolating a lot of those people if you eliminate those teleportations. However, I'm still weighing both arguments

As was mentioned in the Plugins topic, we may introduce a method of paying to keep those items with you through death, self resurrect on the spot, and more.

In a PvP world, I see teleportation as a strategy. As the players are the enemy and most will focus on raids rather than out right killing. In PvE, the wilderness is the enemy and teleportation takes out any confrontation with them. There's no risk involved if you can just teleport to base to drop off diamonds and teleport back to the middle of a cave; The risk is making it back to base with those diamonds.

To tie in the plugin thread a little bit, if we introduce a Jobs plugin then users who don't want to deal with the mobs can instead doing something different to earn currency and buy ore off those who brave the caves and mines.

It looks like some of our members are very angry about the idea of not having /home and /sethome teleportation in the 1.9 map, and I understand the sentiment. In fact, the point was made to me over text messages that our goal is to promote creating large, cool projects in survival, and gameplay mechanics that help preserve people's ability to keep building in the face of adversity (rather than mechanics that make the game more difficult) would best serve that goal. Since beds can be used with chests to get a hackish /home and /sethome mechanic anyway, I vote we throw in the towel on this argument and just keep allowing /home and /sethome (while removing /tpa in favor of use of server rails, roads, and other infrastructure, as discussed).

I'm since backing away from my comprise and going for /home and /sethome. I think it's a more appropriate teleportation command.

I'm sorry if I appeared angry, or as Kerm suggests, very angry. I'm not, I'm just tired of trying to make my case, and being told to "I'm encouraging everyone to come and voice their opinions." I've done that. I've been doing that.

I'd be okay with home and sethome. Does that mean we still get /t spawn at a cost per use?

Rails: I'd like to get away from 1.8's rail system. Nothing so far up, it's all at ground level, which would at that point give a reason for bridges to exist, not only for people to cross, but for the trains as well. I also think the players should build the rails system up. I think from spawn, it'd be nicer instead of just having it go the 4 directions, they should go out to the nearest town in that general direction. Each town would have a train station of sorts to receive and send off carts. The tracks for each one would need to be the same, but the building itself should be up to the town members.

I'll try to add more as I have the time to add, or make additional posts in reply to replies.

Frustrated? Unhappy? You certainly feel that your voice is not being heard, and I can understand that that's not a good thing to feel. If you choose to switch to BosaikCraft, that's your own prerogative, but I do hope we can find a compromise that makes you happy.

I'm advocating for /spawn, /home, and /town spawn being the three available teleports. As far as I can tell, no one feels that removing /town spawn would be a particularly great idea.

If we have a flatter map, which the 1.9 map topic shows is a popular option, then I think that certainly is a reasonable choice. Absolutely; I think that's pretty universally-agreed at this point. I just wish that diagonal rails could be less awkward, so that having meandering rails would be possible.

I think removing /town spawn is a great idea, per the whole risk vs reward thing. However, I had no idea teleports currently cost money. Perhaps that's because everyone has a gold farm on 1.8 and the cost is marginal to their denarii. Perhaps if the cost of teleporting is better, and continually, balanced with the economy under 1.9 people will still decide to walk/transit places instead of teleporting, thus still having a risk vs reward scenario.

It costs 15 denarii per transport back to town spawn. I've paid Arcadia's daily tax in one evening of caving :p I'd be okay if it were a little more, depending on how we get funds in 1.9

Don't forget to mention that the money goes to the town bank, so the town mayor can go free to townspawn because he/she has access to the town bank.