Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Bla

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »
Blacraft General / Re: World Editing
« on: 2014 07 24, 19:24:42 »
It would take a lot of time (or if it's done in bulk with the other world editing not very long), but I don't think doing it is justified in the first place.

Blacraft General / Re: Problem Solving Requests
« on: 2014 07 23, 07:49:02 »
Well...I was placing lava in a hole, I mined a block near that hole, walked into that space, lag strikes again and rbs...get glitched into hole...mind you placing the lava in a hole probably not brightest thing I've ever done.

eff 4 unbr 3 diamond pick
eff 5 unbr 3 diamond shovel
sharp 5 fire 2 loot 3 unbreak 3 diamond sword
eff 4 fortune 3 diamond axe
4 stacks sand
3 lava buckets
16 cyan dye
about half a stack sandstone
diamond armor, unenchanted
4 unbreaking III books
6 dark oak saplings
Refunded in chest at (1049 , 65 , -2228).

Blacraft General / Re: Blacraft UHC!
« on: 2014 07 21, 21:35:27 »
Server won't be moved for this potential event.

Blacraft General / Re: Problem Solving Requests
« on: 2014 07 21, 15:43:53 »
Caving...frozen cave panicking placing still dying overlooking ravine...sad day for me...also a whee bit of rage after

eff 4 unbr 3 diamond pick
eff 5 unbr 3 diamond shovel
eff 4 unbr 3 fortune 3 diamond pick
unbr 3 silk touch iron pick halfway broken...idk if that matters
sharp 5 fire 2 loot 3 unbreak 3 diamond sword
1 stack iron ore
4 diamond ore
7 blapis ore
Refunded in chest at (1049 , 65 , -2228).

Blacraft General / Re: Blacraft UHC!
« on: 2014 07 21, 15:37:55 »
Anyway that any of this I could do? To make it easier, I don't mind doing the work, but if I can't...that's ok :(
No sorry, but depending on the interest and how people propose to organize it, I may consider it. It would be helpful if people provide easy guides/resources to setting up the event though.

Blacraft General / Re: Blacraft UHC!
« on: 2014 07 17, 13:20:55 »
Not interested, would take a lot of messing with the server, worlds, download, upload, configuration and stuff, I don't like that, especially not for an event that lasts just a few hours. I'm not saying definitely no though, but I'm not interested in it.

Land Division / Re: Touhou [Voting]
« on: 2014 07 16, 13:06:23 »
I vote yes.

Land Division / Re: touhou
« on: 2014 07 15, 16:30:21 »
I assume the name will be capitalized to Touhou? :P

Blacraft General / Re: World Editing
« on: 2014 07 12, 15:01:06 »
it's been there for at least 6 months or so. i only noticed after i built the roof because i wasn't high up enough to see it. there's only a few blocks so i can just remove it manually instead of loading an earlier chunk?

Blacraft General / Re: World Editing
« on: 2014 07 11, 13:30:23 »

strange blocks found floating above desertopia/deoland border. suspected corruptness?
It looks like an error has caused some blocks to be replaced in the chunk yes, if you mark the area on a map, then I'll restore the chunk to an earlier version next time I world edit.
I suspect it's still possible to interact with the chunk though and it's not corrupted as such. But the fact that it got corrupted in the first place is a big problem. Do you know when this happened?
When this happened in early Blacraft it was after my com got a BSoD.

I don't have to restore the entire world because this happens in a few chunks. I only have to replace the chunks.
I didn't know a lot about world editing when the server was very new. All I learned was from managing the server.

Blacraft General / Re: Infrastructure Usage Treaty Proposal
« on: 2014 07 07, 11:00:54 »
BEDS?? I build my stuff with the intent that anyone who comes along may use it, whether they're in SKA or not.
What does this have to do with anything?? The treaty does not even mention SKA

Is it because you've come to complain and argue about UBSR again? Well, just because the treaty mentions something, it doesn't mean it's already banned, those were merely examples written by someone who's not in UBSR. Sleeping centers in UBSR can be used by anyone. So calm down and get off your high horse ok.

I'd like to know if people have experienced any changes in the lag? (Especially those who used to have big lag problems)
Has it become better after the upgrade? (Make sure to try comparing times with roughly equal amounts of players on)

Blacraft General / Re: Blacraft Rail
« on: 2014 07 05, 22:57:40 »
The rail law has been changed:

And construction of the line to Jorsterton is complete (see Dynmap).

Blacraft General / Re: Collective Storages
« on: 2014 07 05, 19:15:02 »
Remember to update collective storages today!

The gold has been taken from the storages blaccording to the recent poll (the collective storages document has been updated with the gold changes):

Aahrus      29
Guodesia      1
Kaeshar      15
Kaktoland      79

Land Division / Re: Timbalta [Approved]
« on: 2014 07 04, 14:17:40 »
Region approved

Land Division / Re: Moltinian Alps [Approved]
« on: 2014 07 04, 13:48:59 »
Region approved

Land Division / Re: Dimwood [Approved]
« on: 2014 07 04, 13:48:25 »
Region approved

The Battleground / Re: Battleground Log
« on: 2014 07 02, 22:00:54 »
As far as rules for defenses go, I think banning all obsidian is all you really need to do. Banning lava and water would reduce the lag, which is obviously a problem, but I'm not sure how big of a difference it would make.
Fair enough, it's worth considering, but I suggest watching some of our older BG battles for obsidian bases. Didn't they seem fair enough?
I've spent probably 1+ day gathering all the obsidian and constructing the obsidian towers, so I'm not very fond of going ahead to ban obsidian immediately, when we've also seen that battles for obsidian bases can be fair. With the new rule changes, I think we should try another game and see what happens.


Blacraft General / Re: nostalgia trip
« on: 2014 07 02, 12:59:35 »
i think i still have the pm from bla being angry at me for writing 666
I was angry because you wrote it in another person's region without permission, and did it by breaking ice in a place where it couldn't regenerate where there was no ability to legitly obtain ice back then, and the owner of the region was angry over it.
That was griefing and a not nice.

Blacraft General / Re: Infrastructure Usage Treaty Proposal
« on: 2014 07 02, 12:57:27 »
* Bla signs

Blacraft General / Re: Problem Solving Requests
« on: 2014 07 02, 02:31:54 »
This has been refunded to Swonx, plus a plain diamond pickaxe, as compensation for him dying in a glitch after logging in recently.

Blacraft General / Re: Blacraft Rail
« on: 2014 07 01, 22:41:15 »
There's a problem: At the very end of the tunnel, there's an underground wheat farm at the altitude of the rails. Idk what to do about it or what Jorster wants, but I guess we can just construct the rails to there, and then redirect them slightly or something when he comes back.

Also, would people be interested in changing the rail standards from:

- Boosters at coordinate multiples of 20, and therefore boosters the block before a turn appears to turn left, and a dilemma at the coordinates 0 and -0 (which has been solved by treating -0 as not a multiple of 20 so far)


- Boosters at coordinate multiples in the series 10, 30, 50... and -10, -30, -50...

Which would be utilized in future designs, but where the old design may continue to exist (but it would be a goal to convert the older rails to the new standards over time, this could be done maybe by giving prizes to people who help convert the old rails or something).

I like the 10, 30, 50... better because it will make the turns look symmetrical and nicer.

Blacraft General / Re: Blacraft Rail
« on: 2014 06 30, 21:07:20 »
The poll was approved with 5 voting for and 0 against, so the line will be constructed.

Visitor Center / Whitelist Requests
« on: 2014 06 30, 18:20:50 »
Hi, in this thread you can ask to be added to the whitelist on Blacraft. Remember to post your Minecraft username.

Optionally you can provide some info about yourself, if you have anything you want to share. It's always nice to know a bit about others who join the server. :)

For the server IP, see the link on the main forum page.

Server upgraded to 1.5 GB RAM and 18 slots.

Blacraft General / Re: Kaktolake Glass Maze Competition
« on: 2014 06 30, 02:11:24 »

The Battleground / Re: Battleground Information
« on: 2014 06 30, 00:50:50 »
won't they just drop a sand pillar down and call it a support? or some lava/water cobble magic.
Interesting, it might happen, although having to drop several sand pillars while building such a thing would make it take significantly more effort to build. I'm not really sure if people might still choose it over focusing on the ground level.
Do you have any other ideas for how to prevent sky pillars? To me it seems like it's pretty easy to see a sky pillar when you see it, but it's also a bit hard to define and prevent them at the same time.

I could add that only solid blocks not affected by gravity count as support. That should at least solve the problems you mentioned there.

Heh, it'd be cool if the battle ground was made of giant bridges with sand bridges. We should require bridges over 30 meters to be like 2 or 3 wide.  That would look really cool.
With sand pillars I asssume, I don't really agree. Sky bridge battles simply aren't the point of the BG. The region was chosen for its varied terrain with snow, forest, mountains, rivers and flat land, so we could have battles in many different terrain types, with strategic points to build bases, etc. It's the intention that the battles should resemble semi-realistic warfare (not with modern weapons ofc), where people use the terrain and fight at ground level, inspired by a gameplay experience that could be a bit similar to FPS games like Day of Defeat: Source. I try to define the rules so that we can keep the experience in this direction at the same time as either side doesn't get too overpowered.

Edit: The BG rules on the wiki have been updated now.
If we arrange a battle for Red Front zones, I'll downgrade the defenses so they follow the rules if they currently don't.

The Battleground / Re: Battleground Information
« on: 2014 06 29, 21:20:54 »
what's a sky bridge? does a bridge above a river of lava count? what about a bridge between two high walls? can defenders connect parts of their base with sky bridges?
Thanks for the questions. I'll suggest this more precise version of 1:

1: Skybridges that are longer than 5 meters are banned. A skybridge is a bridge constructed more than 5 meters above the ground (or liquid surface) that does not have supporting pillars reaching the ground more than every 5 meters.

So a bridge above lava does count, but if it's constructed sufficiently close to it, it is allowed. The rules apply equally to attackers and defenders, and the high walls should be covered.
Then again, you could pour water on the lava to put it out, so I suppose we wouldn't actually need to allow them for this.

The intention of the rule is mainly to avoid attackers building a bridge in the air around the flag height, such as in battle 14 (and earlier battles from e.g. before the max build height was defined where they were used to jump down upon the enemy base and again render the terrain completely irrelevant in battle), as this is overpowered and goes against the intents of having the battles going on near the surface of the zones.
Maybe 10 meters would be more suitable. Idk. The problem is basically when the battles end up on things like these:

The Battleground / Re: Battleground Information
« on: 2014 06 29, 19:56:28 »
if you take the effort to build a unassailable base then you should be allowed to. no one else seems to be doing it. battles don't seem to be much slanted towards defenders or attackers.
I agree that in our previous battles, they haven't been slanted too much in our battles for Blotz' zones and the obsidian forts I've built. We've seen many people get to the flag, burn it down, etc. But in the battle with Yqt and TMC, some improvements to the design made the base too strong in my opinion:

1) I dug out the terrain in a checkered pattern with lots of holes, which made the ground much harder to move across. This might be op and I'm open to considering banning it, although I like the idea of making the terrain hard to navigate. But if it means people would have to use skybridges to win, I'd prefer to ban this defense system.
2) The defender spawn was at the same height as the upper segments of the flag, and we had a skybridge directly to it. Additionally, our flag base had no lower segment and no ladder to the top, but had its bottom filled with lava. This meant TMC and Yqt pretty much had to use pillars to get up there (and they got shot down every time they tried), or use the ladders leading up to our spawn to get to the flag.

I think 1 would be a bit hard to make rules against. 2 on the other hand, could be solved by the rules I proposed above. Basically that would revert the fort here to one on the same level as the others we've had challenging fights for, but with the terrain obstacles still making it harder.

of course, adding more restrictions lowers entry cost, but i think there's a line to draw here. if a player can't improve their chances by spending effort on a better base, should players be restricted from honing their skills?
No, players should of course be allowed to use their skills as much as they can. Spending effort on a better base, I'm not sure - you can make a floating obsidian fortress at y = 220 with 20 layers and a flag inside, with a bed right next to the flag, and wait to see the attackers trying to get through... We really need rules to say how you can spend effort without making bases that there would be no reason to even try attacking.

moreover, restricting creative bases on the battleground narrows the field of people who are interested because of the construction aspect.
I think rule 1 and 2 takes away only a tiny portion of creative solutions for bases in the BG, so I don't think they should affect that. The older of my obsidian bases would still work, for example. Having spawn on the ground can also require new creative solutions, like how the defenders can make a base that ensures they can get to the flag easily, without letting the enemies get there too easily.

if the lava and water actually increase lag by a significant fraction, maybe something can be done. but they also allow somewhat of a "gradient" -- if you can't afford an obsidian base, a coating of lava is almost as good, and water is pretty effective too.

banning water isn't as bad -- lava doesn't flow nearly as much and is way harder to collect, so i think it is balanced.
It's not hard to gather a lot of lava due to its abundance in the nether, but I'm not sure if it's really overpowered for battles. It might be, I mean, you can also construct a cliff that makes a single source block flow down to a lot of blocks, and I don't think it'd be that hard to cover all the zone in lava, it'd probably take shorter than mining all the obsidian I've used in the bases and the ~4 hours I guess it took to construct them.
We had a pretty cool fight for one of Blotz' water bases and I actually liked moving forward and pouring lava to stop the water, and we managed to win the battle, so I suppose water isn't that op. But once you have to go up a high drop with water or lava, it starts to get hard.
I'll leave water and lava allowed for now.

if it actually turns out that after a few battles involving both fronts attacking, that obsidian bases are utterly impenetrable, maybe lift restrictions instead -- maybes team can use enchanted diamond pickaxes to mine,  or 10 enderpearls permitted per person per battle etc.
I think enderpearls is a bad idea to introduce, enchanted diamond picks sound like a better solution, and Blotz' plugin also looks like a pretty cool addition (even though it's also nice to have the flagpole made out of obsidian to ensure it stays intact). I think 1 and 2 would be a better way to roll the battle balance back to the old obsidian base designs, though.

So far, a sketch of the rule changes I'll probably make are:

1: Skybridges that are longer than 5 meters are banned.
2: Attacking and defending bases now play both roles, so either side may change the other's flag, and both sides can gain or lose their zone. Battle stops after 20 minutes, or once either side has changed the flag on the other zone. The Start zone is an exception, as it cannot be conquered.
3: The spawn of defenders must be at least 20 meters from the flagpole, and additionally, not higher than the ground level of the flagpole (bed may be placed at same height as bottom block of flagpole).
4: At least one column of blocks directly adjacent to the entire flagpole, must not contain obsidian or liquids.

The Battleground / Re: Battleground Log
« on: 2014 06 29, 19:22:51 »
I inspected the area and found that the border which Bla claimed was clearly visible is not in fact clearly visible, so I think it should be given to Fiah. Although I do like kip's idea.
In fact? How do you determine this 'fact'? 'Clearly' is a subjective word.
I think it was clearly visible because it follows the terrain, as it follows the side of a cliff.
Had this been a battle at ground level, you would know one side was another zone, and the other side was the zone.
It's not my problem if people make a sky bridge but don't check that the sky bridge is inside the zone.

However, over the past days, I've become convinced that The Battleground needs some serious rule changes, because the battles are really not meant to be fought on sky bridges, but at ground level, and the bases are not meant to be so overpowered like in the battle with TMC and Yqt, that the attackers have virtually no chance to get into it. (However, I think spending 4 hours or more on defenses, should pay off by not giving a plain 50/50% chance of losing it in just one 20 minute battle, but the attackers should still have a better chance than what Yqt and TMC had, and if the zone they attacked gets attacked, I will downgrade the base before the battle, at the very least by moving defense spawn to ground level).

Due to the fact that the zones are weirdly shaped (it'd be more fair if all zones were more smooth) I think I should get it.
The zones were originally drawn so they followed terrain features, like cliffs. Smooth borders might be easier to imagine geometrically, but be harder to recognize from terrain features. Anyway, I won't change the borders now, as too many things rely on them now, sorry.
I think you could've looked at the map before battle so you could know the shape of the zone. It was clear from your chat messages long before the battle that you weren't going to deal with the ground defenses, so I suppose you had plenty of time to check if your straight line skybridge would intersect with the other zone while planning.

I mean, it was REALLY close. And If I were to have made a bend northwards 1-2 blocks it would have had little to no effect on my victory.
Maybe. We can't know.

I've decided to revoke the victory and that Red Front will keep the zone. However, I'll let Fiah have a rematch for the zone if he desires, without Red Front improving the defenses/changing blocks there before the battle, except that the skybridge will be removed and the battle will be fought according to new rules banning skybridges. I haven't written out the new rules yet, only a rough sketch for its elements, so the defenses may be downgraded if the new rules make ristrictions on it, but they will not be improved.

The Battleground / Re: Battleground Log
« on: 2014 06 28, 22:41:23 »
Battle 14: Revolutean Front (Fiahstorm, Matty406) from Zone 0 attacked Zone 27, defended by Red Front (Blanoxium, Ventus).

They replaced the flag, but the victory is disputed. They used an obsidian skypillar just below flag height from the Start zone, but it went through Zone 32 owned by Red Front. As it is against the rules to interact with blocks in other zones and their victory relied on it, I'm considering if the victory should be revoked.
I think making exceptions is a bad idea - if you're in doubt, stay safe or check the borders on the map before the battle.
What do you people think?

Land Division / Re: Zaelyr [Voting]
« on: 2014 06 28, 18:38:27 »
Region approved.

The Battleground / Re: Battleground Information
« on: 2014 06 28, 16:39:42 »
In the battle for Zone 26 yesterday, I think the Red Front's defenses were too strong to make the battle fair. Yqt said it was mainly the obsidian. The design I had used (ignoring the new terrain obstacle design) was based on the other obsidian bases I had made, but this one, unlike the others, had no lower section near the flag with a ladder leading up to the flag. Only our spawn base had a ladder to ground level. As a result, the enemies had to go through the spawn base or had to pillar up along the sides, and that made for too strong defenses.

1) I think the problem can be solved by making the rules say that at least one of the four blocks adjacent to the flagpole (all the way up from ground to flag) may only be air or ladder. That way the base I made yesterday would resemble the other obsidian bases I had constructed that we had more fair fights for.

2) Another idea I've had is to make a rule saying that the defenders' (or both teams') spawn must be at ground level, as well as being 20m from the flagpole. That should stop skybases.

3) Additional ideas I've considered are banning water and lava before the battle, because they probably cause a lot of lag when we have so much flowing water as in The Blue Front's zones. Natural water and restoring natural rivers would be allowed, though.

What do people think?

The Battleground / Re: Battleground Log
« on: 2014 06 27, 23:32:14 »
Battle 13: The Blue Front (TheMooCows, Yqt1001) from Zone 0 attacked Zone 26, defended by Red Front (Blanoxium, Ventus). Red Front successfully defended the zone.

Blacraft General / Re: World Editing
« on: 2014 06 27, 20:20:57 »
I know there are a couple of those chunks, also one in Zuntriio, and yes, the plan is to restore them, even though I can't promise it.

Land Division / Re: Timbalta [Voting]
« on: 2014 06 27, 19:08:34 »
I'm concerned about Stevodoran feeling boxed in.
He's not very active so I think it should be ok

Blacraft General / Re: Kaktolake Glass Maze Competition
« on: 2014 06 27, 18:03:30 »
Glass made video part 1 is here

Fiah is declared the winner and has got the prize, as TMC exited the maze and climbed the ladder in the observation tower when he mined the prize.

Land Division / Re: Timbalta [Voting]
« on: 2014 06 27, 15:52:23 »
It seems reasonable, I vote yes.

Blacraft General / Re: Kaktolake Glass Maze Competition
« on: 2014 06 27, 02:14:38 »
Thanks for participating. Kol that was fun to watch. I hope it was equally fun to play. I might upload a vid tomorrow, but it got very long, so might take a while.

After 1 hour and 58 minutes Blotz also managed to complete the maze.
My record was 6 minutes 31 seconds without map (same utilities as when you people tried).

Here's a map showing the blue and purple floors (C = cyan, B = blue, P = purple):
Spoiler (hover to show)

Blacraft General / Re: Blacraft Voting Center
« on: 2014 06 26, 20:43:10 »
New poll up, closes on June 30, make sure to vote if you're in UBSR. It's about the rail line plans for Jorsterton.

Blacraft General / Re: Kaktolake Glass Maze Competition
« on: 2014 06 26, 19:26:08 »
It wouldn't make a big difference, but I think it's a bad idea to bring valuables into the maze, because you might have to suicide if you give up. Therefore I have decided people may use iron pickaxes that I'll provide.

Blacraft General / Kaktolake Glass Maze Competition
« on: 2014 06 26, 16:33:55 »
The amazing glass maze in Kaktolake has been kolpleted, so today, at 00:00 UTC, a competition will be hosted!

The glass maze has several floors, and everyone start by jumping down to the bottom floor. From there, they navigate their way up through the floors which get increasingly hard and complex, until they reach the roof. On the roof, there will be a reward to the quickest.

- Entrance to maze will be blocked until the competition starts (it's physically blocked by 4 iron blocks that people who join the competition start out by mining).
- Ender pearls are banned. People should only bring food and set spawn to a bed by the entrance.
- Of course, no breaking or placing blocks, except for the 4 iron blocks at the very start and the 4 mysterious reward blocks at the very end blocking the jump exit. These may be broken with iron pickaxes provided by Bla.

I will not participate, but I will record people and note how long it takes for people to complete it. I finished it myself in 6 minutes and 31 seconds without using my map of the top two floors.

The building is found in Kaktolake, north of Spawntown, in Kaktoland, and the closest rail station is Kaktolake Monster Factory. It is right outside Kaktolake Portal which is found at the nether horse roads.

Please post if you're participating. If there's little interest, the competition can be moved to another day.

Blacraft General / Re: portals are stupid
« on: 2014 06 26, 11:46:32 »
What do you use silk touch for?

I'd suggest either:

- Move portal 1 up to a higher altitude in the overworld, until it can connect to the horse road portal.
- Demolish your portals in SKA and start over, placing them in the order you consider them most important in.

The problem is that many of the portals in the nether are at low altitudes, that causes conflicts with portals that are high up, when they're all at low altitudes in the overworld. The portals want to connect to whichever is closest, and y coords are taken into account there.

Blacraft General / Re: Projekts
« on: 2014 06 26, 02:37:22 »
A project finished today: Horse road to Jorsterton, extended from the lands of Swamphold Swamp.

Original plan here (green):

Blacraft General / Re: Blacraft Rail
« on: 2014 06 25, 20:00:22 »
I and Jorster have discussed a rail line to Jorsterton, and he'd like a station close to (1500 , -20) where the rails run along parallel to the x axis.

Since I've also thought about extending the rails from Blue Bay to Swamphold, I'll write the current plan down here.

The length extension is 1450 meters.
It should require approximately 1248 iron, 144 gold and 144 redstone torches.

Spawntown will gladly provide the iron and redstone torches, but I'd like to start a poll for the 144 gold to be supplied by all UBSR regions. This is 6% of every member's collectively stored gold. Unless people have complaints, I will start a poll for this plan tomorrow.

The rail line: From Blue Bay it runs from (-230 , -120) west until (-880 , -120) north of Swamphold. Then it turns south to (-880 , 20), with Swamphold Station along this segment. Then it turns west until (-1440 , 20), from there north to (-1440 , -20), and then west until -1500 , -20). The route is illustrated below (coords are not exact):

Land Division / Re: Zaelyr [Voting]
« on: 2014 06 25, 00:10:09 »
For yellow withot green
But we're currently voting about the yellow including the green addition, not the only yellow area. Do you vote for, against or abstain from voting for granting him the yellow and green areas?

Land Division / Re: Akėnakii [Voting]
« on: 2014 06 24, 18:30:05 »
I assume we're voting for the full proposal.
I vote yes.

Can't vote without an image.
There's one in the first post.

Land Division / Re: Akėnakii [Voting]
« on: 2014 06 24, 17:40:18 »
Ok, I can vote yes to the full plan then.

Land Division / Re: Akėnakii [Voting]
« on: 2014 06 24, 15:39:23 »
I'd go with the orange unless you have specific plans for the mountain area.

Land Division / Re: Lumaea [Approved]
« on: 2014 06 24, 15:37:44 »
Annexation approved.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 »