No.1524
Basically since the very first iteration we are trying to solve the issue of people losing interest in the server. 1.0 from 72/72 constantly at peak hours went to being barely alive. And while in that case it's most likely poor admin management significantly contributed to such loss of playerbase we've experienced very similiar scenario throughout all of the iterations, including the current one - X which was the best executed one of Chien's iterations. And again while I think that generally Chien's administration always lacked transparency, consistency, indendence and neutrality I think it's still not enough to explain such drop in the server's activity every single time. cheeseburgers seem to be just a half-measure - nothing more than boosting a server for week, maybe two, and this boost doesn't even come without serious drawbacks(we actually had people quitting /int/craft because of often cheeseburgers). Since Chien took over, new group of key players emerged and dominated the server, let's call them "Norse"(and I don't mean only Norse in terms of actual in game faction and only those considered Norse by Norse themselves) and they are basically the only ones playing consistently one iteration after another. Is it holding back the server? Maybe or maybe not. On X we had more than enough people for new groups to emerge(even if we include some conspiracy tier shit administration is favoring Norse, that Norse are actively restraining growth of any other potential contenders etc etc), but it didn't really happen.
I have no idea what the real problem is but I think we should talk about it before this iteration dies aswell.
For me personally the issue is the gameplay of Minecraft - I don't really enjoy long building up I'm not really a Minecraft "architect" also I don't enjoy this ridiculous grind for resources and equipment but even aside of that - after you've built and developed your own nation and city, you are left with basically the only one option if you still want to play - to go to war. Imo, poor Minecraft gameplay not offering any diverse opportunities is what is holding us back, atleast partially.
No.1537
>best executed
It was the pvp glitch that killed us tbh. We had a full serb right before grace was right about to end, then the pvp glitch stalled everything. People built their towns and eventually got bored and left. Its harder to recruit as the iteration goes on because no one wants to begin building on a serb that looks like it will cheeseburger soon. X was huge because of the new serb and that we were able to get the serb full.
No.1542
>>1537
Oh shit that's true I forgot about it(though it's not neccesarily admin's fault they tried hard to fix it) I rq /int/craft because of this aswell.
And I agree that now it's much, much more difficult to do anything regarding recruitement.
No.1544
we havent really advertised alot lately
pay attention how much we advertised from the first week of X and present day, big difference.
No.1545
>>1544
And what are we supposed to do? Constantly force "artificial" threads no one even wants to participate in? On /int/ where people are tired of our circlejerk cheeseburgercraft?
Have you seen 1.0 threads? They were something, not this forced spam.
No.1546
>>1545
>Have you seen 1.0 threads? They were something, not this forced spam.
no but im sure they were good, then lets try making such threads
No.1547
>>1546
The thing is you can't have these threads anymore. They were maintained by community. No one had to make them no one had to bump them, they were big, active and fun. Tons of memes, great OC, reactions on server happenings… you can't have this without people participating in the threads and who will participate in the thread now? Few people will bump with some worthless, forced message and that's the "threads" we have now.
God dammit. On /vg/ there is a 750 post limit and /intcraft/ general didn't fucking die…
No.1579
Too many towns with too little population.
Nations are not taken seriously.
This can be solved using the payment system from 5.0
A one time payment is required to make a town/nation.
No.1581
>>1547
>The thing is you can't have these threads anymore. They were maintained by community. No one had to make them no one had to bump them, they were big, active and fun. Tons of memes, great OC, reactions on server happenings… you can't have this without people participating in the threads and who will participate in the thread now? Few people will bump with some worthless, forced message and that's the "threads" we have now.
Honestly, that. Want to know the reason this worked so well in 1.0? There were so many bants and memes and stuff in the threads because they were the only way for players to communicate on a global basis. In other words, because there was no global chat in 1.0
People had no choice but to go to the threads if they wanted to banter. But ever since global has been an active component of intcraft, people can't be bothered anymore. Why banter in the thread when it's faster in global chat?
tl;dr: global chat is killing intcraft.
No.1584
>>1581
>because there was no global
Objectively false, where did you think the fucking GLOBAL meme came from
No.1586
>>1584
Because Global was indeed present at server restarts and such, but the modus operandi was that global chat was disabled, you mindless buffoon.
No.1587
>>1581
>>
Btw global imo should be drastically slowed down, like 1 message per person per 30 seconds or some, but it's honestly necessary for the server. We tried to have a server without global because you already went with your "board, global and skype groups are killing intcrat because no one uses threads!" and server without global simply sucks.
The thing about thread is no one is really willing to participate in them because about what they'd currently talk about? You could try to make the threads when Norse vs Bronies was happening, now it's really hard to get already small playerbase to talk in these threads.
No.1588
>>1581
You have bad memory, Arty
There WAS global. In fact, we removed global only later on, AFTER reaching our player peak, because, after that huge wave of activity came, as you can imagine, the global chat was the hugest shitfest ever and people complained about it.
You know what we didn't have? We didn't have an 8chan board, we hadn't established skype groups, and probably, except small groups like idk Cimmeria, no one was communicating outisde the server and the threads.
So there it is, there were 2 ways to communicate with the broader server public:
global, or the threads
And global was absolutely useless for it
The problem is that a solid system to communicate outside the server (8chan) is needed, as out threads get deleted. It's a vicious cycle
No.1590
>>1588
>You have bad memory, Arty
Guilty as charged. Now that you mention it, you're right. I suppose after this many iteration, I simply forgot some stuff.
Apologies to the Britbong, I was in the wrong here.
No.1591
>>1584
origin of GLOBAL meme is when server shutted down for restart back in 1.0, the factions/chat plugin was one of the first that was being disabled
and everyone was put to vanilla "global" chat for 5 or 10 seconds before shutdown
>>1581
>>1588
be aware that map was much smaller back then and it was easier to move around Europe to have a chit chat on local
>>1579
we have war fee payment system in place, i think we can easily implement it to other things
>>1587
i agree, skype is absolute cancer
No.1592
>>1588
In my opinion we need some site/8ch board anyway for announcements, threads like this, map sticky and other things - 4chan threads get pruned pretty quickly and there is no archive.moe anymore…
Anyway I don't think we can just remove it and say let's go to the threads.
But yeah I have no idea what to do if we clearly need 4chan threads but there is no way to reestablish them as the main outside server communication medium because we have a fucking board. Threads and the board will compete. That's bad and idk how to solve it.
No.1593
>>1591
>i agree, skype is absolute cancer
no idea what are you talking about
No.1594
>>1592
Maybe it's time we advertised outside of /int/.
By that I don't mean shit like FunnyJunk, Reddit or /pol/ (although some of the /pol/iticians are honestly okay), but communities interested in history and international matters, such as history forums etc.
No.1595
>>1591
>be aware that map was much smaller back then and it was easier to move around Europe to have a chit chat on local
And I've been shilling for us to use a smaller map since the end of 3.0, for this exact reason
No.1596
>>1595
NO
SMALLER
MAP
The current map is actually too small for RP purposes. Medium sized city is literally 1/3 of the real life country, chunks in some parts of Europe are almost touching each other and they would touch if they could.
No.1598
Americas map only with Greenland and Antarctica too. We've never tried this before, so why would it be a bad idea?
No.1600
>>1588
Dave is right on the money here
>>1591
Nope, GLOBAL came about a week before April 1.
>>1595
I also agree that a 1.0 scale map would be an excellent idea
>>1598
Kill you'reself
No.1601
>>1598
not much of history there it's just not really appealing
Post last edited at
No.1646
>>1596
Then we need more players
The players are too spread out on the map.
No.1647
Too many nations are made that only have 1 city or are a vast federation of cities that have nothing in common with eachother (ahem A.F).
Also Steamgroup when tbh
>>1594
Many people on history forums will be disillusioned when they see the server, I guarantee it.
But the main thing is, there's just nothing to do. This is also a Minecraft issue but coupled with the removal of mobs you get a snorefest.
No.1656
>>1646
No they aren't.
But we barely have any developed, large towns - communities on their own. I like 3.0 even though it had much larger map because we've had actually a lot of active and interesting towns which would actively engage in server politics. Teutonica, Carthage, Norse, Japan - all of these nations had atleast 20 members, all of those had had their own policies and besides these we had Rome, Greece, Celtiberia, China which would be politically active aswell.
>>1647
AF should be banned who the fuck even allowed for this bullshit…
No.1671
>>1656
Then use
>>1579
so that people group up in towns and we start to get towns of significant populations
No.1686
>>1656
Then just do this
>>1579
to force players to make towns of 20+ people
No.1688
>>1686
20 players for a town is a little exessive given our current population, but I do agree 1 or 2 man towns are unacceptable
Also americas was a mistake, and would be a mistake no matter what unless there was an 18th century onwards intcraft, which would also be a mistake ^_^
No.1691
>>1688
bullshit, americas weren't a mistake, the issue with them the server's population is too low
No.1692
heres my plan lads
>re$et
>no americas, 200 bc or medival times (Actual medieval, not 1400+ where lines get blured)
>Once we reach 50 players, shut global down encourage people to post in threads by having madmins broadcast the links
>post on /int/ and /his/. /vg/ for backup and if worse comes to worse /pol/
>let the good times roll
No.1693
No.1695
>>1691
"Americas were a mistake" Chin
Before colonisation there was nothing in murigas that had anything to do with any other part of the world. Sure you can make the mayans/aztecs, native americans or south american tribes but they wont be able to interact with anyone. In Eurasia and africa there was always conflict and relations between any and all civilisations, but due to the Atlantic ocean anybody settling in the Americas would have to be isolated from the rest of the world.
Also, many amerifats just wanted to make their hometowns, and literally nobody in america right now has RP architecture (no towns ive heard of or seen anyway) Teepees or aztec temples are the only viable structures in the current time period.
No.1696
>>1692
Reminder chien promised intcraft 10.0 would be 1066 british Isles and northern france map 1:100
Reminder this would unironically be ebin and satisfy the demand for a small amount of larger factions (brits, vikings and normans) instead of 1 man shitnations
No.1699
>>1696
not just british isles in the dark ages so we can renact brytenwalda and the winter king
reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
No.1700
>>1691
Americas would only work if you had 100 men on both hemispheres.
No.1701
Here's why this wouldn't work
People get bored too quickly
Even if you get rid of Americas, players will still spread themselves too thin because they want to live in Oxford instead of London or because they want to live in Orleans instead of Paris.
No.1702
>>1695
Americas would have be nice if we had native civilizations there clashing with Spanish and Portuguese invaders… Not pathetic Americans with their towns 200 years before they fucking existed. It'd work out if Chien had balls to enforce BASIC RP.
>>1701
We have the same certain situation everytime no matter we have Americas included or not. It's not the problem of Americas.
No.1703
Oh the good question is - why Chien made it 15th century instead of 16th century which would actually justify adding the Americas?
No.1704
>>1701
This is why you make a smaller map like we had in 1.0.
Britons had three regions, but they all fit within the claims of the one faction (four if you count Ireland for the time we annexed them)
No.1706
File: 1447866860700.jpg (485.67 KB, 1329x797, 1329:797, lincolnshire and norfolk.jpg)
>>1705
No actual photos of this when it was completed, only lasted a short period before Macedon burnt it down
No.1707
>>1706
But yeah, with factions, 10 power per player, Britons were able to claim the entirety of Great Britain, and built four regions on it, and also annexed a portion of Ireland.
No.1708
>>1705
>>1704
>>1706
>>1707
>muh nostalgy
in 2.0 we had the same fucking map and shit just didn't work at all
current map is too small for RP purposes (you can't have cities who in real would be 150 km one to each other because big city on the current map would have a radius of idk ~500 km?
also you simply can't fit big buildings in lands like Italy or Japan kek, they are like 100 blocks wide or something
No.1712
>>1708
2.0 was tainted because of redfedora ruining all the fucking threads post 1.0 plus the player base getting demoralised by the pizza and diamond changes
Also
>romeabos and weaboos suffering
Good
No.1713
Also, you can totally have large cities. Poland, Britain, Helvetia, to an extent Rome, Egypt and Cimmeria were all large cities, and fleshed out ones too - there weren't random building (in britain at least), everything was occupied or served a purpose
No.1714
>>1713
>Poland
u wot
>everything was occupied or served a purpose
I hate this trend on /int/craft of building fucking ghost cities just for them to look good. Yeah Osheim and Koenigsberg are beautiful but they are fucking empty too.
No.1715
>>1714
yeh, lets just place down a few chests and furnaces on the northern side, then bookshelves on the west, east and southern side with a enchanting table in the middle, then we put anvils and maybe a few more chests on top of the bookshelves + we can also have a automatic wheat farm as a roof.
all done, lets go memeraiding.
t. you
No.1716
testing my space internet flag
No.1717
>>1716
>america
pretty sure im not near murica smh
No.1718
>>1715
tbf that's literally what poland did but Helvetia, Britain and Egypt didn't
No.1719
>>1715
building 20 empty houses doesn't make much sense
especially if population of your town is 1 or 2 lmao
No.1720
>>1715
thanks for idea for the perfect base
No.1721
>>1719
>>1720
osheim has 20 people faget
No.1723
>>1721
it's empty anyway
also im not talking about osheim
No.1724
>>1721
I can help you understand le dirty central italians :DD
No.1726
1.0 Uyghurs, one of the only pics left tbh
No.1746
No.1853
>>1726
literally worse than poland
sapmi and yue were the best looking 1.0 facts
No.5058
The cities are too small in terms of players, the map is too large for communication, yet the scale is too small. Everyone wants its own little town and once you've built your mud huts you are out of things to do.
A compromise would be a smaller map (a crop centred on a region) at a bigger scale, and a rather high fee to start a town.
A fee to start a town/faction would be good.
No.5103
>>5058
chien will literally never go to a smaller map, no matter how obvious it is we need to return to 1.0ish scales
No.5111
>>5058
and how do you earn this fee in the first place
No.5119
>>5111
by mining unprotected or in another town, that's why you need to have a solid group in the first place.
>>5103
The 2015 theme would be so appropriate for a rescaled 1.0 map
No.5121
>>5058
>once you've built your mud huts you are out of things to do
fam…
>trade to amass your wealth
>explore undocumented regions of the world
>engage in political affairs
>write chronicles in books
>invite newfags
>go to war
>start a service ( a bank, library, hospital…)
i could go on tbh
the only thing limiting you is your imagination
>A fee to start a town/faction would be good.
that adds unnecessary complexion to the game, but yeah, it would maybe solve some 1 man town problems
No.5122
>>5121
I agree that in big cities where you have some players you have a lot of things to do, but one-man towns die fast because once your house is done, well, what can you do ?
My point is, a two-men town is better than two one-man towns. If it was me, I'd add a town starting fee AND a town upkeep.
No.5123
>>5058
>>5058
>>5111
>>5119
Mons has found the next best solution to having a starting fee.
Until you have 3 people in your town, you can't claim more than your starting chunk.
No.5124
>>5123
This is a good idea.
No.5210