• 0

    posted a message on Edgecraft
    This looks amazing and I will try it as soon as I'm able
    Posted in: Maps
  • 0

    posted a message on Bug With Command Block Radius in 14w32d
    I found a very frustrating bug with snapshot 14w32d concerning radius when using the testfor command with a command block.

    I thought I'd post about it here before trying to submit a bug report, in case it has already been noted or something like that. I did do some Google searches beforehand and couldn't find anything about this bug, which was strange.



    This is the command I used:


    (I realize the letters are unnecessary, and I don't know what it thinks is wrong with the format, it worked just fine)
    Note that the radius is set to r=1


    Here is a representation of the radius as compared to the block containing the coordinates I used in the command. The gray wool block is located at the coordinates I used, and the glass blocks mark the locations where the testfor command outputted a signal to the redstone lamp I had hooked up to the command block when I stood in them. I tested this by creating platforms in the air and standing in the locations where I later placed a glass block.


    The shape of the radius was not at all what I expected, especially since it doesn't go below the coordinates at all. I'd thought the radius was supposed to be in a sphere shape with the coordinates at the center. I went back to version 1.7.10 and used a similar command, with the same radius, and ran the same test.

    Here is the result, exactly like I expected:



    Once again, the gray wool marks the location of the coordinates, and the glass is the radius. This time the radius goes out in all directions exactly one block.

    Let me know if this is reproducible (It should be), if this has already been discovered or not, if I should go report this with Mojang's bug-tracker thing, etc. I hope this is helpful.
    Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
  • 0

    posted a message on 32x LITHOS - Default-Style, Detailed & Complete - 1.5x - 1.15x and beyond!
    This is a really good-looking pack, and the mod support is impressive.



    I especially like the idea of your stained glass in Luminous.

    Well done, and nice banner and avatar too.
    Posted in: Resource Packs
  • 0

    posted a message on What's the story of your username?
    I used to play WoW, and didn't want to make a name for one of my characters, so I used their random name generator, and it came up with "Keldt"

    I have since used either "Keldt" or "_Keldt_" as a username for almost everything because I liked the name and the character a lot.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on Eldpack Continued [1.16 WIP][16x]
    So I kind of forgot about this for a while..

    Sorry :L



    I was reminded of this project by all of the news surrounding the updates to resource pack formatting that allows for 3D models of everything..



    And now I wonder...

    Will we do these?
    Posted in: Resource Packs
  • 1

    posted a message on [TOOL] MC Model Maker - Design custom block models for minecraft 1.8+
    This looks very useful and it's great that it's free. I thought I heard about one of these (one of the first ones I think) being something you'd have to buy (and being rather expensive actually).



    I'll keep an eye on this, thanks!
    Posted in: Minecraft Tools
  • 1

    posted a message on Minecraft Sweeper. Minesweeper Craft? Sweepcraft?
    Quote from Minecrafter2902

    it is already a gamemode on shotbow


    Shotbow used plugins though, so it's cool to see this done vanilla. It's also cool to see supporters of the creator telling us where we can find and meet the creator, and also to see the creator in one of the first comments. :)

    Well done, Magib!
    Posted in: Minecraft News
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from ONECOOLDUDE

    and to add to that:
    rape is illegal and wrong?
    Do some people still do it?
    unfortuantely yes.
    with this whole debacle here, im neutral, able to see both sides, but if i had to pick one, it would be against


    Are we arguing about rape here?
    Nope.
    Not once did I say anything like "All laws are ridiculous."

    I don't know if that's how you read my comment, but that's not what I was trying to say.

    Quote from Ecu

    I'm not ignoring legalities, I'm arguing that Mojang is making the wrong move. That by actually restricting what servers can do, it will do more harm then good. You're the one blindly following Mojang just because they have a legal right. I don't disagree with that specific point. Mojang does "have the right," but it doesn't mean they are not making a mistake and if we all blindly followed what we were told to do, without questioning anything, we wouldn't be where we are today.


    The bold part is kind of what I meant by my comment. It was probably not the nicest way to attempt to say that though, so for that I apologize to anyone who cares. I don't think GoldK saw it, but I can't be sure.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from Ecu

    Honestly, GoldK, what does it matter to you? You don't want to play on a server where money can equal power, we get that. Why should noone be allowed to? If that happens to be an environment a chunk of the community prefers, who are you to say it is wrong? Them playing that way doesn't hurt you at all.


    I'd expect some sort of "Well it's illegal, therefore it is wrong" response from this.

    Prepare.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from GoldK

    That is for the playerbase to decide if a server lives or die not the server owners. Are server owners feel threatened that the power shifted to the community? Supporters of EULA accepts the fact mojang has the power over their own game and that is a fact. Anti EULA people believes that they own the game to make money out of it which is exactly what a perfect world is, leeching off other's work without restriction.

    Oh, yeah, I totally think I own Minecraft, as a multiplayer player who has never spent or received any money because of Minecraft, just to make money off of it. That's what I've been arguing for this whole time. (Read: dripping sarcasm)

    Quote from GoldK

    Think of it this way
    "This server is suppose to be pay to play but the owner is kind enough to let me play as a free player when the server is not full. If I like this server, I want to play anytime so I will pay. If this server is meh, I'll just wait for a free slots to play."
    Pay to play means you are paying for access to the server you like but you don't have elitists who feel special than others because they bought power. Basically, you will be paying because you actually like the server and not because you were offered with power.


    Once again, you're just using a different perspective than I did. We could probably go back and forth repeating our different perspectives all day, but I think I'll just leave it at "we just kind of disagree."

    Quote from GoldK

    Why would you need the items then if you wanted to donate to charity? There is literally no reason you will need items if you really want to help the charity. There are other ways to donate to charity other than minecraft if you are wondering.


    You wouldn't need the items. Hence the word "bonus." Like I said.. Perspective..

    And thanks for clearing that up, I thought this one server on Minecraft was the only form of charity that exists in the world, because I'm some idiot. I am so enlightened now.

    (More sarcasm in case you were wondering)
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from GoldK

    Definitely not. That's like saying pay to enter server is pay to win but mojang obviously do not forbid that kind of server. You get the same features everyone has in-game but paying members get to play anytime they want. Gamplay fairness and server accessibilty are two completely different things.


    Priority access-

    Non-paying member:

    "My gameplay is different because I can be kicked out of the server at any time without notice. It's not fair!"

    Paying member:

    "I have power over the newbies because I can kick people out if I need to."


    Overly dramatic? Maybe.

    But you could sell this as a kit right now if you wanted to. It's actually one of those hated "donor perks" on a lot of servers.

    Also, you're right, pay to win is not the same thing as paying to enter a server, because you can't even lose without paying with the latter.

    "Pay-to-play" > "Pay-to-win" ? Not in my opinion. Especially since quite a few of the servers people are calling "Pay-to-win" were servers where you could actually win without paying. Paying for perks or classes (often well balanced classes) isn't the same as paying for the ability to win. This is coming from someone who enjoyed playing on such servers but never sank a penny into them.


    On another note:

    Quote from GoldK

    Remove the game items for donating and it should be good. The EULA clearly states that money should not equate to exclusive items to the donors no matter what that money is for. I think it would be better for the players to pay for the actual charity instead of the items and the charity is just the bonus.


    Or maybe they were paying to support charity and the items were just a bonus?
    Perspective can change quite a bit.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from GoldK

    My point since the begining: If your patrons wants to support your server with pure donations, then good for you. If they don't want to, then you have no choice but to scale down the server or shut it down. No one is forcing you to maintain your server size with reduced income.


    And my point: It'd be really really nice (also really really different from the way most EULAs work, I know) if the big servers didn't have to scale down because Mojang suddenly decides they want to enforce their EULA now. There's a nice balance where things are with the big servers where they float on "donations" and their stores, allowing people who don't actually want to spend anything to play on the server with those who felt like paying for stuff.
    Now, do what Mojang did and forget the EULA for a while. Disregard whether this community is legal or not, and think about it. This server is acting just like a "F2P" MMO game with microtransactions. If the big server in question is a minigame server, now think about this: were it not for Mojang's disregard for their own EULA, would this kind of experience be available anywhere? Think of trying to develop, [i]and then market[/i] a F2P MMO where all the players do is play one of a few unrelated minigames with other people.

    The community, through Minecraft, created a sort of semi-game that can be played (and enjoyed, as shown by anyone like me) without paying anything, because there are players out there who did pay. Their reasons for paying are about to get trimmed down to the goodness of their hearts, and servers, as you've said, are probably going to have to scale down because of this.

    There goes the MMO aspect; there goes quite a bit of publicity, which takes away some of the new players coming in who didn't hear about the server; there goes further development, in order to keep things small, and then servers just aren't the same anymore.

    [I had a bit more here, but then accidentally hit the mouse button for going back a page and lost it. Ugh.]

    Quote from GoldK

    So what if they don't want to spend money on priority access? Keep your server small then and scale it with your income. I am starting to think there is a requirement on how big your server is. Is there a hidden prize somewhere that awards the biggest server? Tell me about it


    Yes! There is. Bigger servers usually have the funds to pay for further development. This means that bigger servers will have more minigames, or more overall general content, than smaller servers. For quite a lot of people, that makes the bigger servers more fun. Scaling down a server does not come without consequences.

    Quote from GoldK

    Children are more prone to be tempted to buy power than a simple server access. Of course they could always complain about a server ripping them off when they realized it doesn't look what they thought it would be and the server will be in deep trouble to the masses. Children won't call paying $100 for a stack of diamond a ripoff because they don't know what is the real value of diamond on legit servers. Overall, it's harder to ripoff someone with server access over power because the power satisfaction over another player is gone.


    I'd hope that older and/or smarter players could complain "to the masses" about a server charging hundreds of dollars for diamonds, putting the server in deep trouble. Likewise, I'd hope the older or smarter players would know what the real value of diamonds or other gear is on other servers.

    Whether it's ripping people off with server power, or it's ripping people off with server entry, I feel like we're dealing with extremely similar situations. Both have a high possibility of brief success, followed by utter failure as soon as the scammers get to the wrong people.

    The children that I mentioned that fall so much more easily for scams like this will, of course, not be the only people who come across the scam. Sure, the children will will be able to see through the "new" scam, but it'll probably catch enough people that Mojang will still get letters from parents wanting their money back. That's my take on things, anyway.

    I hope I'm making sense right now, I'm rather tired.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from GoldK

    I am not oblivious to that which is why I am saying minecraft will have less massive public servers and more smaller and private ones. It is still minecraft minus the business. Nothing wrong with that unless you are a server owner wanting to make money or a player spoiled by being special in the server with the perks.

    Or how about if you're someone like me? I've spent no money on the Shotbow Network, but I'm still a server regular. You seem to have this idea that these huge servers had awful free content, and were only out to rip people off. If that was the case, these servers would not get nearly as much support as they do.

    Quote from thejbanto

    Mojang claims the new EULA is intended to save us from greedy server owners charging an arm and a leg for simple gameplay features. They've said you can't charge for gameplay features like kits and in-game currency, yet they've turned around and explicitly recommended you instead charge everyone in order to access their server. They say they don't want people to end up paying for the game twice, yet they quite hypocritically recommend exactly that. Instead of getting angry emails from parents about $500 credit card charges from a server selling a diamond sword, they'll get angry emails from parents about $500 credit card charges from a server selling the ability to simply log in and be whitelisted. The only way this makes sense to me is if there is a hidden agenda - one intended to handicap Minecraft servers so Mojang can save the failing realms service. Disgusting. #LitterallyWorseThanEA #SaveMinecraft


    I agree with and have stated myself all but this part:

    Quote from thejbanto

    The only way this makes sense to me is if there is a hidden agenda - one intended to handicap Minecraft servers so Mojang can save the failing realms service. Disgusting. #LitterallyWorseThanEA #SaveMinecraft


    Quote from GoldK

    Who said you need to charge upon entry? Why not use priority access model where paying members have the ability to join full servers by filling reserved slots or kicking out a non paying member? It's hilarious how people are conspiring about Mojang being greedy when they can't see the greed of server owners luring and selling digital power to make tons of money out of a game they just bought for $27 or even for nothing if we are talking about cracked servers.


    I agree with you about the Mojang hate bit, but:

    I feel like (Note, I'm speaking while having zero experience hosting or running servers) priority access is not going to be enough of an incentive to get people to put money into a server. While it does sound nicer than a subscription fee, the number of "donors" on current servers is not all that high (Just speaking from experience playing on servers).

    EDIT: Oh, and I also don't feel like huge server developers, who spent months developing great new content, wanting to have enough money to keep running their server and developing new content are greedy

    Quote from GoldK

    It's harder to ripoff somebody when you are simply offering server access than by luring them through power. Having power means you can assert your dominance to free players while having server access don't have that kind of appeal. You have to charge fair if you want customers to actually like your server enough to pay and play.


    Most people have been talking about small children when discussing this particular topic. I could see server owners lying outright, saying their server provides several excellent experiences that it actually doesn't, claiming to have lots of players, and just generally lying about how much fun these children would have if they'd only pay some ridiculous server entry fee. We're talking about children who were gullible enough to pay hundreds of dollars for diamonds here. Even something as simple as something along the lines of

    "All/only the cool/mature/rich people play here!"

    Could persuade the same kind of small child who bought a diamond sword with their parents' money to buy entry to a server with their parents' money. Marketing is quite a versatile and effective force.

    Agree? Disagree?
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 0

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from _Hybrid

    What does it mean by "cosmetic" things?


    Things that only affect how you look. Something like a different colored name, a hat, a pet, or some other sort of vanity item like that. Nothing that affects gameplay at all though, those things can't legally be sold.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • 1

    posted a message on EULA Revisited: an Updated Q&A From Mojang
    Quote from randisking

    I love how someone makes a statement like this without actually backing it up with facts and citations. [snipped part] and it is in fact a lot less restrictive than the EULA of many major AAA games that have been published.


    I love how you just made another statement like that without actually backing it up with facts and citations. "It is in fact" doesn't really count. Am I supposed to take your word for this now?

    But yes, I do see your point there, and I wondered about that myself, in fact. Yours is indeed a much much smaller case, anyway. :P I posted that, not really in total agreement with it, but just to see what people had to say about this person's comment.
    Posted in: Discussion
  • To post a comment, please .