A warning against 'The Paywall'

[RainOfPain125]

@anon67155151

Not really relevant seeing as you aren’t saying how this is possible to fix

I uhh… explained it before. If you want to talk about that in particular, you can ask for this post to be revived.

Nelson needs to add an EULA

EULA stands for End User License Agreement, just to clarify. It’s basically just a document saying “hey, you cant do this with our game” and Minecraft has one. If you’re not familiar, the EULA in Minecraft states that servers can not profit off of their own game. This protects Minecrafts own interests, as they don’t want unfair servers with pay to win (p2w for short) ranks (ie, you pay the server 40$ and get a god kit with armor and commands other people who dont pay dont have) to ruin the expe…

@anon67155151

but how exactly would this work?

@anon67155151

Do you want a team of mods that are given massive amounts of power over the entire game to just ban servers??

Link above. My general philosophy on “Official Servers” is that

@RainOfPain125

Nobody can find good servers, and Nelsons attempt at providing a fair, fun one at the expense of buying the experience is just a rigged way to avoid dealing with quality control of the server-list.

@anon67155151

If the servers are empty, zergs won’t play due to lack of competition/fun

I’ve seen Zergs play somewhat dead servers before. As-long as theres a few scant players to toy around with and exploit, theres still some fun to be had. And with all this argument about “4.0 being PvE orientated!!1!” I’m sure they’ll have some PvE challenges they can do in the mean time while they wait for a scant amount of players to come online.

Also, you’re ignoring the fact that dominating an official server is sorta like a prize or trophy one can and will parade around with. There isn’t much merit in taking over some community server nobody’s ever heard of, but completely dominating the official server?

@anon67155151

if they are full, zergs aren’t a problem

They’re still a problem, I simply said they can or could be possibly overthrown with enough cooperation and dedication amongst others. Its like a feedback loop.

Take for instance a server. Nobody likes playing an empty server. But if the server is full, others will want to play. The more players playing, the more players will want to join and get in on the action. I think the Official Servers will fail to reach a “critical point” where this feedback loop can sustain itself, at-least for a long time. If this feedback loop is not sustained, then theres not even the remote chance that there will be enough opposition and willpower to oppose these elitist groups.

EVEN if they can be rivaled, it would ultimately boil down to two big super-powers battling eachother, which is sorta the conclusion some people came to in the “Better Together” post. They said it would just become one big faction war, which is distasteful for freelancers or people that refuse to join either side.

edit: Better Together post, incase you dont get what I mean

The Better Together Update

This is like… common sense. Why hasn’t this came yet? If it’s not do-able in 3.0, then this is a 4.0 suggestion Alliances It’s as simple as groups being able to forge alliances, whereby friendly fire is disabled for allied groups. Or perhaps allies could still take friendly fire, but at a reduced damage Allied group members could have a purple colored name above their head, or whatever you want to set their color to Groups could easily ally by simply sending an in-game request. The ally st…

If you are not willing to join either group in this hypothetical scenario, you’re not going to have any fun getting blasted off the face of the server.

@anon67155151

Must be rough ngl

This is how 90% of the controversial arguments I try to do play out. I get barraged with some legitimate questions or feedback. “And if you dont reply, you’ve lost” mindset settles in for almost everybody.