Just a simple suggestion, when I log on to play minecraft, occasionally I may hop on and see my girlfriend playing, too. It shows multiplayer with different players on the server, but never tells the name of the land, nor the actual host of the server. In this topic, I intend to mention my reasons for bringing the subject of the matter up.
On a simple matter, it would prevent the scuffle and kerfuffle of jumping onto someone else's map just to get kicked repeatedly, because the host doesn't know you, yet he or she has friends of friends enabled. For instance, I click on a friend's name in multiplayer, and have no knowledge of who owns the map that I may be about to jump on.
Also, on another note, why not include a welcome message to the player who joins the server, such as, "Welcome X, to Y's map (Insert name of map)" instead of the plain, "X has joined" ? I know it could prevent some confusion with people. It may also help in preventing griefers who may have problems with non host players. (The actual reason why I'm typing this: a friend of my girlfriend came on, destroyed my map with lava and dynamite, stood there in front of my nieces building a minecart coaster and dumped lava on it, too. My gf caught her in the act, and she immediately chose to leave the map. Girlfriend unfriended her, telling her that the map belonged to me. That left me, my two nieces, and my Girlfriend cleaning up a mess that I didn't deserve to have done to me for the next hour. I then messaged the griefer through playstation's messaging system, and all I got was an apology: I naturally told the person, I failed to be persuaded by his or her words, because of his or her actions. I was expecting the person to come back on and help clean up, but lo and behold, they failed to clean up their "accident.")
One more reason why I suggest this, is because I dislike taking the trusted players option off. Playing with my girlfriend (her own ps3), and two nieces (local multiplayer in HD mode), that would mean that I would have to set them as trusted. I tend to give everyone a chance to build something on my maps, and that's probably where I'm wrong in making this suggestion. This was a creative map where everybody was supposed to do their own thing, and try not to make too much of a mess with other people's creations. Don't get me wrong, on many of my sculpture maps, players are required to be trusted, before anything is allowed.
Another suggestion, whereas someone would counteract with, is turning friends of friends off. That would have worked, I'm sure, and that's the route I plan on taking, from this point onwards, now that I've learned from my first mistake of allowing strangers onto my map.
I'm pretty sure there are just as many counters as to reasons why I think this could help the playstation community of minecrafters as a whole, and I really don't see this as too much of a problem, other than integrating it into the system. If it were to be placed in , it won't change any of the major gameplay aspects, it would save time in asking who runs the server, and who should be asked in order to get building privileges, and also may prevent griefers with a grudge towards your friends from making a mess of your map. If placed in at the friend select screen, showing the friends they're playing with, along with the gameplay, people like me could easily see whether my girlfriend owns the map, or whether her friends do. (I tend not to jump on someone else's map without their permission, or an invite from them)
Considering everybody's human, and we all make mistakes, I'm not stating this will completely eliminate the problem. Whoever takes the time to read this, I want to thank you for hearing me out, and I understand if this idea probably isn't worthy of being accepted.
PSN:
Junokaii (although I'd recommend not adding me because I'm on literally like... once every month or two)
Member Details
Well... I think this.. I don't think it's absolutely necessary. But I guess yeah if you see "this persons game" when really it's "that persons game" then yeah agreed.
But most of this could probably just be simplified by sending a message to that person or whoever you're trying to join for permission probably.
I mean... if only PS3 had party chat like xbox... seriously any confusion or problem could be talked out in a party in a matter of seconds but PS3's huge downfall in user friendliness and communications. PS3 seems to be a bit faster with some things but xbox I think is the better overall system.
Just because I hate to say... If PS3 was more like Xbox you probably wouldn't have so many issues like these.
I'll give you that, there is no group chat in Ps3, other than in game microphone. Still, I don't see the griefer taking the time to ask whose map it is. As for Xbox, maybe so, seems like both xb and ps3 are great consoles, and I look forward to experiencing the new ones. I did have two elites, first gen gray one and then the slim one. (Gray died from old age, slim's power supply needs replaced. My girlfriend doesn't have Xbox, though, and that's why I chose the ps3 platform. Right now, though, considering what I have are handouts, I can't complain either way. I probably would upgrade to one of the new Xbox one consoles if could get disability. (Why xbox one and not ps4: Older brother won a ps4 in taco bell's play the future sweepstakes, i gotta send it in for repairs because of blue pulse of death.) (Disability: Long story, several doctor diagnosed disorders, two years of prozac, one year of lexapro, 21 days in a psychiatric ward, unable to work in public places, especially around small children that tend to yell)
Excuse my rambling off topic that has nothing to do with my suggestion.
I'll give you that, there is no group chat in Ps3, other than in game microphone. Still, I don't see the griefer taking the time to ask whose map it is. As for Xbox, maybe so, seems like both xb and ps3 are great consoles, and I look forward to experiencing the new ones. I did have two elites, first gen gray one and then the slim one. (Gray died from old age, slim's power supply needs replaced. My girlfriend doesn't have Xbox, though, and that's why I chose the ps3 platform. Right now, though, considering what I have are handouts, I can't complain either way. I probably would upgrade to one of the new Xbox one consoles if could get disability. (Why xbox one and not ps4: Older brother won a ps4 in taco bell's play the future sweepstakes, i gotta send it in for repairs because of blue pulse of death.) (Disability: Long story, several doctor diagnosed disorders, two years of prozac, one year of lexapro, 21 days in a psychiatric ward, unable to work in public places, especially around small children that tend to yell)
Excuse my rambling off topic that has nothing to do with my suggestion.
Well I ain't here to judge about disabilities, I've been down that road before myself. Not really my business long as people have happy lives are what matters. If having a gaming console helps with that then great.
Cool your relative won the PS4 though. My friend just won an Xbox One, though he never uses it....
Some things I noticed that the PS3 does better is it does certain things a lot quicker than Xbox, and I'm not sure if it's just because mine is old, but the case is ps3 seems to be faster.
As for the suggestion. I think some of it would be nice. Especially just saying who's game it really is. Cause I think... when I have two friends online, regardless if they're in the same game or not.. there are two games available on the right to join. And I might join Friend 1's game when really it's Friend 2's game.
ps3 has a group chat but you can't use it in game. I also completely agree with the original post. I feel the same and have had similar experiences.I have had people join my girlfriend and I's world and steal, destroy and just grief. So I think there should be a ban button and a kick button serving as a warning and an ultimatum. When your banned you cannot join back without permission whereas when your kicked you can join back after (x) amount of time. I know this isn't going to stop the issue entirely but it will certainly allow a host to get a good grip on his world in terms of control. When i play i don't really feel like i have any control over my world except for kicking. Just feel like another player. Maybe in the future we will see more features and host privileges.
ps3 has a group chat but you can't use it in game. I also completely agree with the original post. I feel the same and have had similar experiences.I have had people join my girlfriend and I's world and steal, destroy and just grief. So I think there should be a ban button and a kick button serving as a warning and an ultimatum. When your banned you cannot join back without permission whereas when your kicked you can join back after (x) amount of time. I know this isn't going to stop the issue entirely but it will certainly allow a host to get a good grip on his world in terms of control. When i play i don't really feel like i have any control over my world except for kicking. Just feel like another player. Maybe in the future we will see more features and host privileges.
This. I mostly agree with it, but when it comes to banning, I'm not completely there, due to the fact that more was not said to bring detail of who all would get the ban. I would suggest that host only gets ban priv. Moderators can kick, but ultimately, host should say whether or not a person can be ban. Also more features to implement the block list into the game. Something as simple as not allowing blocked players the privileges of messing with the blocker's buildings perhaps go into better security, and program block(as in building blocks) ownership. If said player is blocked, he or she should not be able to access chests placed by the blocker, or remove blocks placed by the person who blocked them. And vice versa. (Unless one of those 2 in the blocker blockee relationship is server host) Just my two cents. (Not completely sure of my own words, in comparison to how blocked players can meet again, I'm assuming it can happen. If not, most of this paragraph has gone to waste.)
PSN:
Junokaii (although I'd recommend not adding me because I'm on literally like... once every month or two)
Member Details
You can't kick players from minecraft on the ps3? Are you joking??? My god....
Okay.. On the Xbox... here's a few simple things that it does better than ps3...
1.) you can ban players (though the downfall is you can't invite them back until you reload the world).
2.) you can mute players
3.) in the crafting table... You don't have to keep tapping the button to make things. You can just hold down A and it would make things automatically. My thumb gets really sore tapping the button over and over....
So..... I don't know why ps3 is lacking in so many ways.. I'm kind of glad I got to this side of the forums because I thought it was just the same as xbox.. But.. man was I wrong. Lol
On a simple matter, it would prevent the scuffle and kerfuffle of jumping onto someone else's map just to get kicked repeatedly, because the host doesn't know you, yet he or she has friends of friends enabled. For instance, I click on a friend's name in multiplayer, and have no knowledge of who owns the map that I may be about to jump on.
Also, on another note, why not include a welcome message to the player who joins the server, such as, "Welcome X, to Y's map (Insert name of map)" instead of the plain, "X has joined" ? I know it could prevent some confusion with people. It may also help in preventing griefers who may have problems with non host players. (The actual reason why I'm typing this: a friend of my girlfriend came on, destroyed my map with lava and dynamite, stood there in front of my nieces building a minecart coaster and dumped lava on it, too. My gf caught her in the act, and she immediately chose to leave the map. Girlfriend unfriended her, telling her that the map belonged to me. That left me, my two nieces, and my Girlfriend cleaning up a mess that I didn't deserve to have done to me for the next hour. I then messaged the griefer through playstation's messaging system, and all I got was an apology: I naturally told the person, I failed to be persuaded by his or her words, because of his or her actions. I was expecting the person to come back on and help clean up, but lo and behold, they failed to clean up their "accident.")
One more reason why I suggest this, is because I dislike taking the trusted players option off. Playing with my girlfriend (her own ps3), and two nieces (local multiplayer in HD mode), that would mean that I would have to set them as trusted. I tend to give everyone a chance to build something on my maps, and that's probably where I'm wrong in making this suggestion. This was a creative map where everybody was supposed to do their own thing, and try not to make too much of a mess with other people's creations. Don't get me wrong, on many of my sculpture maps, players are required to be trusted, before anything is allowed.
Another suggestion, whereas someone would counteract with, is turning friends of friends off. That would have worked, I'm sure, and that's the route I plan on taking, from this point onwards, now that I've learned from my first mistake of allowing strangers onto my map.
I'm pretty sure there are just as many counters as to reasons why I think this could help the playstation community of minecrafters as a whole, and I really don't see this as too much of a problem, other than integrating it into the system. If it were to be placed in , it won't change any of the major gameplay aspects, it would save time in asking who runs the server, and who should be asked in order to get building privileges, and also may prevent griefers with a grudge towards your friends from making a mess of your map. If placed in at the friend select screen, showing the friends they're playing with, along with the gameplay, people like me could easily see whether my girlfriend owns the map, or whether her friends do. (I tend not to jump on someone else's map without their permission, or an invite from them)
Considering everybody's human, and we all make mistakes, I'm not stating this will completely eliminate the problem. Whoever takes the time to read this, I want to thank you for hearing me out, and I understand if this idea probably isn't worthy of being accepted.
Anywho, have a great day.
But most of this could probably just be simplified by sending a message to that person or whoever you're trying to join for permission probably.
I mean... if only PS3 had party chat like xbox... seriously any confusion or problem could be talked out in a party in a matter of seconds but PS3's huge downfall in user friendliness and communications. PS3 seems to be a bit faster with some things but xbox I think is the better overall system.
Just because I hate to say... If PS3 was more like Xbox you probably wouldn't have so many issues like these.
Excuse my rambling off topic that has nothing to do with my suggestion.
Well I ain't here to judge about disabilities, I've been down that road before myself. Not really my business long as people have happy lives are what matters. If having a gaming console helps with that then great.
Cool your relative won the PS4 though. My friend just won an Xbox One, though he never uses it....
Some things I noticed that the PS3 does better is it does certain things a lot quicker than Xbox, and I'm not sure if it's just because mine is old, but the case is ps3 seems to be faster.
As for the suggestion. I think some of it would be nice. Especially just saying who's game it really is. Cause I think... when I have two friends online, regardless if they're in the same game or not.. there are two games available on the right to join. And I might join Friend 1's game when really it's Friend 2's game.
This. I mostly agree with it, but when it comes to banning, I'm not completely there, due to the fact that more was not said to bring detail of who all would get the ban. I would suggest that host only gets ban priv. Moderators can kick, but ultimately, host should say whether or not a person can be ban. Also more features to implement the block list into the game. Something as simple as not allowing blocked players the privileges of messing with the blocker's buildings perhaps go into better security, and program block(as in building blocks) ownership. If said player is blocked, he or she should not be able to access chests placed by the blocker, or remove blocks placed by the person who blocked them. And vice versa. (Unless one of those 2 in the blocker blockee relationship is server host) Just my two cents. (Not completely sure of my own words, in comparison to how blocked players can meet again, I'm assuming it can happen. If not, most of this paragraph has gone to waste.)
Okay.. On the Xbox... here's a few simple things that it does better than ps3...
1.) you can ban players (though the downfall is you can't invite them back until you reload the world).
2.) you can mute players
3.) in the crafting table... You don't have to keep tapping the button to make things. You can just hold down A and it would make things automatically. My thumb gets really sore tapping the button over and over....
So..... I don't know why ps3 is lacking in so many ways.. I'm kind of glad I got to this side of the forums because I thought it was just the same as xbox.. But.. man was I wrong. Lol