Well, he just upgraded the server hard ware I believe so I guess he can just expand the map.

 

Its funny how mods always diss good ideas, if you're a true player to ecc you wont quit, this is an amazing idea and considering andrew has said before he would consider resetting the map i think come 1.7 he will, i dont know why all the mods say "Andrew will never do this" when you're not andrew.

 

Andrew never ever said he'd reset the map when 1.7 comes. I'd like to see a quote from him about that. He has said many times he wouldn't reset it again.

Also, I don't understand why you dislike mods speaking for Andrew. It's like me saying "Why does shotgunboy tell me what the mods say, when he's not the mods."

 

I would like to see a new map generated personally with all the new biomes etc and have an ECC2 map, like a sister city. With this, players can move between the 2 maps (as they do now with mining/nether/aether). A few of my thoughts below.

• If the player chose to move their town to the new map, they would have to pay for the town, but less than a current town costs. It would be the players responsibility to move everything and rebuild, but after a set period (say 1 month) the original town in ECC1 has all perms removed including ownership making it available for someone else to purchase at normal town price. As your initial town reverts back to being a "wild" then anything left their is open for other users to take. Thus increasing available land (not ocean) for those players who wish to have it and also keeping the economy moving.
• Any town owned by a banned player or inactive player (in excess of 365 days) reverts back to a "wild". If the town has an active co-mayor then the player is given the town for a fee (half what a town is normally) after they apply for it. Thus allowing residents of that town to remain safe. If you have a look around, you will find there are very few towns around that have active residents with in active mayor/co-mayors. Again, this stimulates the economy and allows old neglected towns to be cleaned up.
• With the 2 maps, you would still have access to the markets and warps as you do currently with the other maps. Only difference mught be a portal set up in ECC1 to allow players at spawn to step into ECC2
• You still remain with global chat, but you can also have a channel set for both ECC1 and ECC2 maps to reduce the chat clutter. Initially the chat would be busy with players from both maps asking for stuff etc, but over time would reduce dramatically once the ECC2 map slowly fills with active members. Possibly a different color chat so the players can decipher the 2 map chats, similar to aether/nether etc now.
• Towns in ECC2 could cost more due to the new biomes, but lets face it, the majority of players flatten the town they are in anyway so it would be your choice to pay the extra for towns in the ECC2 map.

If I think of anything else I will add it :)

 

While I think new biomes and more land in the main world would be amazing, it is very improbable. As the other mods have mentioned on this thread, I highly, highly doubt that Andrew would agree to this.

I don't think that you realize how many towns there are in ECC. If we were to reset the main world, it would be a ton of work. Many players have spent hundreds of thousands of ecodollars, even millions, on building their towns, and I feel like if some people rage-quit over losing a melon sword, how many people would rage-quit if their towns were reset? Lets say that we reset the world, but only areas in the wild. That would require creating a whole new main world, then copying each town over to the new world. Assuming that each town transfer would take approximately 5 minutes, and there being over 1000 towns, that would be nearly 4 days worth of in game town transfers. If Andrew were to transfer towns for 8 hours a day (a full time job), it would take more than 10 days to transfer all the towns.

I personally think that the only way this would happen, is if someone could gather nearly unanimous consent (at least 90%, I would say) of all players who currently own a town (players active within the last 30 days, I would say), to be willing to have an empty town in the same spot their town is now, and risk their town being in a biome they don't want. Then Andrew might be able to just reset the world without messing with towns. But again, that is very, very, VERY unlikely.And even then, the server would likely be down for a long time, at least 24 hours to reset.

Also, directed at shotgun, us mods usually guess about what Andrew would say/do because we are more familiar with his decisions and the reasons behind them, as many of us have discussed these things with him. Plus, he doesn't always have time to individually reply to every single suggestion.

Again, this is just my opinion.

 

To add to what Clou44 has stated, from my understanding there are over 2,000 towns. This means about 8 days of work. To top that off, there becomes a very crucial question.

Do we have to apply to have the town transferred? Or will andrew just transfer all towns.

If we have to apply, can we only transfer our original towns? Do you know how ticked people would be losing player purchased towns. I personally would be losing 14 towns. 14 towns that I have work, effort, and so much more in. I would approve of 3 different ideas but not a whole new map.

1) Change the wild areas to remake to a new area. It could also cut down on ocean area (which we all hate)
2) Expand the map again. When I joined ECC we had a 15,000 by 15,000 map. Now its 30,000 by 30,000. Would it really be that bad to just make it a little bigger?
3) Don't do anything to the main world. There is plenty of room and if you want access to the new biomes, the mining world will surely have them.

Revanrose6

 

Can I get a link to the source for this?

 

If you're a true player to ECC, you don't suggest destroying everyone else's creations.

 

Do I want new biomes? Of course, although we can't have another wold, we just can't. If I were to have a solution it would be either to regenerate open areas in the main world or just use the mining world. One is more permanent, one is more simple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk - now Free

 

^ Like others have said, there are over 2000 towns and it's completely impractical. The last time the map was reset I want to say there were probably 500 towns, but I could be completely wrong. I'd love to see the current map expanded, but the problem with that is that you'd have to walk 31,000 blocks to even see the new terrain, if you don't have fly.

 

Shotgun, do you ever read or consider things......The mods are speaking on behalf of Andrew as Andrew is very busy and the staff team are more familiar of what Andrew would and wouldn't do. Also you says "Mods always diss good ideas"....How are they doing this, they are stating their opinions just like you have.

 

In my mind a completely new map is a last resort option. Regenerating the areas inbetween towns would be tricky. How exactly do you generator a completely new seed on top of a new one, and cut holes in it for towns?

A second map is really out of the question. Look at the sizes of all the worlds currently.
Mining world is about 4,000 x 4,000. The aether and the nether (I'm unsure entirely) can't be much bigger then the mining world. The Pvp world is very tiny.

In the meantime, the mainworld is 30,000 x 30,000. That's more then twice what all the other worlds are combined.
Generating another 30,000 x 30,000 is simply out of the question. We can't even consider it. If we could have two 30,000 x 30,000's in one sever, we could just easily expand the mainworld to 45,000x45,000.

So lets look at our options.

• New map, that's a last resort.
• Generating new map around every town, seems like the best option, all that ugly ocean in the bottom area of the mainworld will probably become land, adding tons of new land for towns. But still, we aren't sure if it possible.
• A second map, well, that's not an option, since it isn't possible.
• Or we do nothing, and simply get materials from the mining world, without ever having a town in the awesome new biomes, which people won't be happy with.

If generating terrain around the towns isn't possible, we'll either have to put up with it, or else Andrew will have a lot of unhappy campers and a lot of heavy work ahead of him...

 

Another option is expanding the map a little.

 

^this

 

True, although those areas will get filled up extremely fast, and won't really support the whole world.

Lol, sorry, but your completely thinking about this the wrong way.

If your a TRUE, TRUE player to ECC, you'll suggest what's best for the server, everyone else's creations destroyed or not.

 

Yet again I marvel at my completely ignored questions. What would this mean for players who own other players towns? Andrew may only allow original owners to copy their own towns over. For example: I'd lose the entire Normandy project.

 

Andrew has, upon multiple occasions said that map resets are not going to happen.

Im not sure if you were around with the first 3 resets, but yes, this is what happened, and you can even dig back a while, and see that some people haven't even copied their towns over.

I am strongly against us getting a reset, an extension will do all we want, new biomes, new generation, everything.

 

I have seen what happened before, but I wasn't sure what the rules were on towns that were transferred back then. Personally, I feel this would simply cause EVERYONE grief. Not just andrew, but the players as well. A lot of towns, and I mean a lot, are no longer owned by their original owners. I would much rather see the wild sections individually reset OR an option that when you build your new town you can pay X more to have your town regenerated under the new perimeters.

Revanrose6