1. _TANSTAAFL EcoLegend
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-EcoLegend ⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ I ⭐ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,848
    Trophy Points:
    60,990
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,423
    well, someone might want to claim a town in that spot someday. We should be protecting the rising/legacy wild in particular. mining wild -- eh don't care.
     
  2. stoler202 Builder
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    36,660
    EcoDollars:
    $0
    Ratings:
    +471
    Too bad.
     
  3. _TANSTAAFL EcoLegend
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-EcoLegend ⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ I ⭐ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,848
    Trophy Points:
    60,990
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,423
    that's a horrible attitude to have about the server you play on.

    is anything wrong, stoler202? do you need to talk?
     
  4. stoler202 Builder
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,699
    Trophy Points:
    36,660
    EcoDollars:
    $0
    Ratings:
    +471
    You see, i perceive the wild as something ready to be abused. Towns are to revive nature or to destroy it completely (flatten it out) in most cases. The wild is merely a world, of no value, since its so big. A town can be made in any place just to claim the land for personal use. The wild is a wild wild place which can be simply exploited. Like mined out, excavated and chopped down (many reasons of that btw is people who dont have fly+). Soooo, if thats done just add lava to make it uglier. Damn i had a hard time flattening my town because was all digged, mined and based. But it really isnt the attitude to the server by my perception. Its more of just a thing that belongs to the server and to everyone on it that all can use in any way.
    But oh well, maybe there is something wrong, i dont know.
    And btw, save a screenie of your milestone (1.5k ratings!):
    View attachment 932
     
  5. _TANSTAAFL EcoLegend
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-EcoLegend ⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ I ⭐ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2012
    Messages:
    1,848
    Trophy Points:
    60,990
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +1,423
    okay, i'm glad you've thought it out. at least you have your reasons. and they make some sense.
     
    • Optimistic x 1
    • List
  6. Logannnnnn Alaska シ
    Builder ⛰️ Ex-Tycoon ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,101
    Trophy Points:
    45,610
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +649
    I'm on both sides here.

    +1 Because this will make new players want to leave due to death.
    I actually think that if you're caught abusing it by killing a player in a non PVP arnea, the feature should be completely removed.
    -1 What if a builder bought pyro so they could make their home have fire around it for protection.

    I understand why you want this removed, however I think the more appropriate action would be to remove the feature from the player on their first offense of killing someone.
     
  7. Nicit6 N6
    Mayor ⛰️⛰️ Ex-EcoLegend ⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ II ⭐ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2013
    Messages:
    9,816
    Trophy Points:
    106,160
    Ratings:
    +8,040
    2 points here:
    1) A builder 'protecting' their hose with pyro is honestly a very unlikely situation to begin with, and I'd daresay that it could possibly qualify as an illegal player trap. (Though, in all my time on ECC I've never seen a builder donate for pyro to protect a house in the wild)/
    2) Removing features is something for that reason is something that will only ever rarely be done. It would require the appeal to go through andrew/phys, and have them remove the feature, and then deal with any drama/possible issues removing the feature causes.
     
  8. RyanBlocks2 EcoLeader
    EcoLeader ⛰️⛰️⛰️ Ex-Tycoon ⚜️⚜️⚜️ Premium Upgrade

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2012
    Messages:
    2,773
    Trophy Points:
    61,660
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +946
    This I'm fine with, it is simpily clarifying the current rules.
    -1, this I am against 100%. A rule against placing lava on the wild surface. What? Banning lava on the surface because there "is no good reason to do this". If people want to burn things down in the wild they should be able to do so. Why would they not be able to do so to keep the wild pretty? Its the wild, it is supposed to be wild. When people join ECC you already see anger, "I can't place water, why cant I place water" (Note: not saying they should be able to place water). But what would people do if they now can't place lava on the wild surface for no reason other than not placing lava. I can see that ban appeal now. Banned For: Placing lava in the wild. It's laughable. This to me seems like a rule for the sole purpose of having more rules, it limits the open world and free building environment that is the reason many people play minecraft.
     
    #28 RyanBlocks2, May 10, 2015
    Last edited: May 10, 2015