Jump to content
Live Updates
Dani

Looking for Real Estate? (Town Info Post)

Recommended Posts

2017-11-26_22.27.39.png?width=1276&heigh

Are you looking to buy a prime piece of property this side of the Stormwall?

Well have I got a deal for you!

Today we have a special post for you as a small update, which will hopefully provide some insight into the functioning of towns in Horizons. As you know, towns are an important aspect of the server experience. They provide us with shelter, community, and inspire us to build and immerse ourselves in the map. However, some changes are important to know for the release of Horizons.

Towns

 

- Towns will no longer be purchasable with real money: all towns will be available within the game using in-game currency.

- We will no longer be using Towny; a custom plugin is being developed for our specific needs.

- There will be a minimum player requirement to start a town. No longer will one or two person towns be allowed to set up – our preliminary go-to number has been 10 people, but this may change (however it will not change drastically, so be prepared.) Without this minimum your purchase will be rejected by your nation head.

- Each town will be required to pay a periodic upkeep through in-game currency. This will automatically be charged to your town bank; nonpayment will result in penalties up to eventual removal of your town. The upkeep will require that minimum of people to meet – extra hands will lighten the burden for you. Maintaining an active player-base will therefore be crucial to the survival of your town. We are aware that this number is high – it is meant to be. You may need to reach out to players you have not traditionally played with to meet the requirements. With this, new players will be valued as potential contributors to the towns upkeep and be welcomed everywhere.

- Towns who keep their PvP status on (more on this later*) will be granted special privilege – their upkeep rates will be lower, allowing for less work to be spent mining and trading, and more time slaying and looting. This may not seem like much of a benefit at first, but players will quickly see the value in having to pay less tax. There will be more information on this process at a later date.

- To facilitate players without a town, capitals will be livable – Considered a starter town, the nation head will be tasked with overseeing the running of their nation hub. In it you will be given opportunity for room and board in case you are unable to join a player-ran town. Your lodgings may not be as luxurious as if you were in a player ran town though.

 

More information will be released later, and all above is subject to change! This is the working explanation for the town mechanic – it may be tweaked, however the main points are relatively safe to assume as true unless stated otherwise.

 

 

Testing.jpg

(Just an example  of a title deed given by a nation Head)

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like this! In the case of cities and frontier towns run by NPCs, will those also be habitable? What are staff plans for those areas and more incentives to PvP other than open-PvP towns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will the nation capitals also be player ran (I would assume admins would run them) to still encourage commerce/trading between nations or will it be NPC driven?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if I don't want to live in the capital, but I don't have time to grind up yora to pay taxes to live in an actual town due to work/class/life etc? How prohibitive is this tax is basically what I am asking? I love A'therys and want to play to the fullest so I am a bit concerned.

Edited by Sheepy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/11/2017 at 6:09 PM, Foe said:

I really like this! In the case of cities and frontier towns run by NPCs, will those also be habitable? What are staff plans for those areas and more incentives to PvP other than open-PvP towns?

The NPC towns and frontier towns will  serve a different purpose. Its unlikely that they'll be habitable. They may be hubs for trade or questing, or other reasons. Some other PvP related stuff is planned, but more info will come later. 

 

8 hours ago, _Deano said:

Will the nation capitals also be player ran (I would assume admins would run them) to still encourage commerce/trading between nations or will it be NPC driven?

Nation capitals will be run by the nation head or a delegate and have some of the functioning of a normal town, though your lodgings may be a little shoddier. Individually you'll still be able to trade, but the capital will be more akin to a starter town than a traditional player town. 

 

3 hours ago, Sheepy said:

What if I don't want to live in the capital, but I don't have time to grind up yora to pay taxes to live in an actual town due to work/class/life etc? How prohibitive is this tax is basically what I am asking? I love A'therys and want to play to the fullest so I am a bit concerned.

That will likely be up to you and your mayor. Generally speaking, the more the merrier - the upkeep system means that players, even occasional ones will be helpful to paying off the taxes. It is unlikely a town will reject you even if you can't play 24/7, or so we hope. The tax is meant to incentivise player grouping instead of splintering into one or two people towns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear, upkeeps are charged to the Town banks, and that's where it ends. There is no system which will automatically tax player's banks. It is up to the residents of the town to figure it out for themselves how they would like to finance their town.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(this post is mostly directed @Staff)
Hey peeps!  Been a while since I last checked in. :P

 

I've been waiting for more info on this town stuff before I post some other suggestions, but this update has me a bit concerned.

First of all, what is the active player base we expect?  Because anything less than 200 means we'll average maybe 2-3 unique towns per nation, not including capitols or NPC destinations.  In my opinion this would greatly limit the amount of variety in town styles for players to choose from.

So this brings me to the next point, would the minimum merely be a necessity of populism at the start, or is this something that would be continuously enforced?  It is near impossible to maintain a consistent player base from town to town in my experience.  People get busy or bored and move on to other things.  I know because I kept town logs for Gearwork all throughout Evo, and our town population looking at 1 month vs. 3 months activity was extremely clear.  While we had nearly 40 players over winter break, our active population halved every 3 months after.  Our monthly logins never made it to double digits after the winter.  I assume that a few active players will be able to pick up the slack for upkeep costs, but will those consistent few be punished due to the inactivity of others and therefore lose their town?  Seems like a good way to burn people out...

 

I would definitely suggest keeping the upkeep balanced to where 5-7 players (3-5 very active players) would be able to keep a town running.  This would allow for closer to 5+ player run towns per nation.  I would hope at the very least that the PvP-on incentive would allow for this sort of situation.  If so, then the further ideas I have might remain viable to discuss.

 

Let me know @Staff and I hope to be able to discuss my other ideas soon! :D 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@lnShaneI share this sentiment completely. I was really apprehensive about expressing it in a post before because the replies in this thread seemed supportive of the new system and I felt like my opinion would have been invalidated into obscurity.

 

I'm going to be honest, and please know my intention is purely constructive.  When I first read this plan my immediate impression was: That on paper it looked good, but in practice It was going to be far more prohibitive than constructive.

 

I think players are going to be awfully disappointed when they realize that they can't create their own towns with their friends, and become discouraged when a former, more accessible system was now separated from them by a bunch of hoops to jump through.  I certainly was, as it became immediately clear to me that my town which had been around since early V2 would no longer be possible due to these constraints which clashed with other obligations and interests. I know there were a lot of towns with a small nucleus of dedicated, loyal players with a strong sense of town pride who would be alienated by this new system.

 

Furthermore as I was aware of it, joining with other players and creating a town was one very appealing aspect of the server, and one that lead to considerable development of flavour for each nation. Not to mention the joy with which many players expressed their group’s story and character through their towns. While these new methods would not curtail this entirely, it would put a considerable damper on an aspect of the server which lent considerable creative “flair” to the community.

 

 I think a more community-friendly alternative, which rewards town growth instead of demanding it would be more beneficial and well-received by the playerbase. A tax system should not prevent small towns from existing: they should be allowed to start small, but be incentivized to grow further given time: a system that positively encourages growth, instead of saddling financial burden. Furthermore, a more permitting type of system would not spell doom for towns with dedicated core players, who simply could not retain enough active players due to factors out of their control - such as the ebb and flow of server population. A possible approach would be something loosely based on a regressive tax incidence in which smaller towns pay a standard (but fairly surmountable) rate and large towns are rewarded with deductions proportionally based on their active size.

 

TL;DR: As of right now, It is in my view that a system like this with such hefty requirements skirts the line between incentive and constraint, falling further into the territory of the latter.

 

PS. I do like the PvP incentivization system very much!

Edited by Sheepy
  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2017 at 5:12 PM, lnShane said:

(this post is mostly directed @Staff)
Hey peeps!  Been a while since I last checked in. :P

 

I've been waiting for more info on this town stuff before I post some other suggestions, but this update has me a bit concerned.

First of all, what is the active player base we expect?  Because anything less than 200 means we'll average maybe 2-3 unique towns per nation, not including capitols or NPC destinations.  In my opinion this would greatly limit the amount of variety in town styles for players to choose from.

So this brings me to the next point, would the minimum merely be a necessity of populism at the start, or is this something that would be continuously enforced?  It is near impossible to maintain a consistent player base from town to town in my experience.  People get busy or bored and move on to other things.  I know because I kept town logs for Gearwork all throughout Evo, and our town population looking at 1 month vs. 3 months activity was extremely clear.  While we had nearly 40 players over winter break, our active population halved every 3 months after.  Our monthly logins never made it to double digits after the winter.  I assume that a few active players will be able to pick up the slack for upkeep costs, but will those consistent few be punished due to the inactivity of others and therefore lose their town?  Seems like a good way to burn people out...

 

I would definitely suggest keeping the upkeep balanced to where 5-7 players (3-5 very active players) would be able to keep a town running.  This would allow for closer to 5+ player run towns per nation.  I would hope at the very least that the PvP-on incentive would allow for this sort of situation.  If so, then the further ideas I have might remain viable to discuss.

 

Let me know @Staff and I hope to be able to discuss my other ideas soon! :D 

 

On 12/2/2017 at 12:04 AM, Sheepy said:

@lnShaneI share this sentiment completely. I was really apprehensive about expressing it in a post before because the replies in this thread seemed supportive of the new system and I felt like my opinion would have been invalidated into obscurity.

 

I'm going to be honest, and please know my intention is purely constructive.  When I first read this plan my immediate impression was: That on paper it looked good, but in practice It was going to be far more prohibitive than constructive.

 

I think players are going to be awfully disappointed when they realize that they can't create their own towns with their friends, and become discouraged when a former, more accessible system was now separated from them by a bunch of hoops to jump through.  I certainly was, as it became immediately clear to me that my town which had been around since early V2 would no longer be possible due to these constraints which clashed with other obligations and interests. I know there were a lot of towns with a small nucleus of dedicated, loyal players with a strong sense of town pride who would be alienated by this new system.

 

Furthermore as I was aware of it, joining with other players and creating a town was one very appealing aspect of the server, and one that lead to considerable development of flavour for each nation. Not to mention the joy with which many players expressed their group’s story and character through their towns. While these new methods would not curtail this entirely, it would put a considerable damper on an aspect of the server which lent considerable creative “flair” to the community.

 

 I think a more community-friendly alternative, which rewards town growth instead of demanding it would be more beneficial and well-received by the playerbase. A tax system should not prevent small towns from existing: they should be allowed to start small, but be incentivized to grow further given time: a system that positively encourages growth, instead of saddling financial burden. Furthermore, a more permitting type of system would not spell doom for towns with dedicated core players, who simply could not retain enough active players due to factors out of their control - such as the ebb and flow of server population. A possible approach would be something loosely based on a regressive tax incidence in which smaller towns pay a standard (but fairly surmountable) rate and large towns are rewarded with deductions proportionally based on their active size.

 

TL;DR: As of right now, It is in my view that a system like this with such hefty requirements skirts the line between incentive and constraint, falling further into the territory of the latter.

 

PS. I do like the PvP incentivization system very much!

 

There is a lot to answer and talk about here, so bear with me.

I and the rest of the staff fully understand the apprehension about this new system. The question of "will this be too restrictive" was the number one thing we debated on this issue. The answer we believe is no, with a number of clarifications. First off, we do want it to be somewhat restrictive. We know what this will mean for small, close-knit groups of friends - but we actively want the inevitable outcome of this. We want to force players to group together in ways they hadn't before. New players entering our old system were all-too-often met with "sorry, our town is not accepting at the moment. We have 4 players that are close friends and we aren't online so it's best you find somewhere else." Or, they may have been met with "no, you're part of x group, we don't really play with them, we're our own clique" (not in those exact words, but the sentiment was there).

This is something we wish to eliminate in Horizons entirely. The other problem with this type of town is that they end up taking space and being dead weight on a nation. How do you create a town based voting government if you don't know which towns are active or just might pop in to oppose something once a month? Abandoned or single-player towns created a bad image for new players joining, namely, "where is everyone?" With these points in mind, along with a few others, we wanted towns in Horizons to do a certain number of things. One, they had to remain active, for reasons stated above. And two, they had to provide new players with a sense of community. The same sense we had in v1 or even in v2. The kind that encourages players to go from new members to established members of the community. And to do that we had to break apart the traditional way towns were. We needed a system that promoted and incentivized towns actively seeking new members any time they logged in.

The solution to this is the tax upkeep system. This provided us with a way of making each member valuable - from a newbie to a veteran, every soul will count. Everyone's work will contribute and be necessary for the town to exist, let alone thrive. It allows us to stop players from over-expanding with 3 players, it allows us to ensure players have regular goals to work towards, and it ensures new players won't wander through empty cities calling for help before they log off forever. It also attempts to bring together groups that traditionally may not have wanted to play together. This can break up some of the existing cliques and open them to accepting new players, which is critical to having them come back.

The problem with allowing towns to start off small is that Atherys will always have a subset of players that are fine with staying small, no matter the incentive to grow. There are always players who desire complete creative control and are willing to shut out everyone else to get their perfect little home, only it's not so little when it's a sprawling empty city.

We expect a much greater increase in player population than our current one or even previous ones. We are working on advertising campaigns that should hopefully bring in an influx of players through a variety of channels. These will ramp up closer to a launch date as it is difficult to sell players in the long term on unreleased promises, without them already knowing about A'therys actually delivering in the past.
 

The exact numbers (town members, population, tax percentages, etc) will be adjusted accordingly in the first few months as the server economy and population stabilizes. This is a work in progress, and details to solve some of the issues that may come up will come later. I know this won't address all the points you have both made but hopefully it provides some insight to our thinking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Dani said:

 

 

There is a lot to answer and talk about here, so bear with me.

I and the rest of the staff fully understand the apprehension about this new system. The question of "will this be too restrictive" was the number one thing we debated on this issue. The answer we believe is no, with a number of clarifications. First off, we do want it to be somewhat restrictive. We know what this will mean for small, close-knit groups of friends - but we actively want the inevitable outcome of this. We want to force players to group together in ways they hadn't before. New players entering our old system were all-too-often met with "sorry, our town is not accepting at the moment. We have 4 players that are close friends and we aren't online so it's best you find somewhere else." Or, they may have been met with "no, you're part of x group, we don't really play with them, we're our own clique" (not in those exact words, but the sentiment was there).

This is something we wish to eliminate in Horizons entirely. The other problem with this type of town is that they end up taking space and being dead weight on a nation. How do you create a town based voting government if you don't know which towns are active or just might pop in to oppose something once a month? Abandoned or single-player towns created a bad image for new players joining, namely, "where is everyone?" With these points in mind, along with a few others, we wanted towns in Horizons to do a certain number of things. One, they had to remain active, for reasons stated above. And two, they had to provide new players with a sense of community. The same sense we had in v1 or even in v2. The kind that encourages players to go from new members to established members of the community. And to do that we had to break apart the traditional way towns were. We needed a system that promoted and incentivized towns actively seeking new members any time they logged in.

The solution to this is the tax upkeep system. This provided us with a way of making each member valuable - from a newbie to a veteran, every soul will count. Everyone's work will contribute and be necessary for the town to exist, let alone thrive. It allows us to stop players from over-expanding with 3 players, it allows us to ensure players have regular goals to work towards, and it ensures new players won't wander through empty cities calling for help before they log off forever. It also attempts to bring together groups that traditionally may not have wanted to play together. This can break up some of the existing cliques and open them to accepting new players, which is critical to having them come back.

The problem with allowing towns to start off small is that Atherys will always have a subset of players that are fine with staying small, no matter the incentive to grow. There are always players who desire complete creative control and are willing to shut out everyone else to get their perfect little home, only it's not so little when it's a sprawling empty city.

We expect a much greater increase in player population than our current one or even previous ones. We are working on advertising campaigns that should hopefully bring in an influx of players through a variety of channels. These will ramp up closer to a launch date as it is difficult to sell players in the long term on unreleased promises, without them already knowing about A'therys actually delivering in the past.
 

The exact numbers (town members, population, tax percentages, etc) will be adjusted accordingly in the first few months as the server economy and population stabilizes. This is a work in progress, and details to solve some of the issues that may come up will come later. I know this won't address all the points you have both made but hopefully it provides some insight to our thinking.

 

What about the restrictions imposed by what archetype the town(s) decide to practice? You have most (or all) of the towns having PvP on at the start, and some people might not like that - especially if there's only one town to join at the start per each nation - this turns away RPers (for some unknown reason), or, there's alternatively most (or all) of the towns in your selected nation having their PvP turned off - this turns away PvPers. What about the towns where the mayors and the leadership in the town want to restrict your building and decide that you MUST live in a pre-built house or make something absolutely glamorous enough that they give you space to build it? This imposes restrictions on builders, there were many towns like this in the past - not many with few restrictions on builders. What if the towns that are being settled are super far away from the capital? This restricts trade and merchanting.

What we had in the past was great and bad for many reasons. It was bad because we had too few people - and that caused people to not be engaged enough with their town. But, the great part of the past system was that there was a town for absolutely EVERYTHING - the archetype, government, build style, ect. you wanted to play - and if it didn't exist - well, you made it. I feel like this system might be a bit restrictive if there isn't enough variety, but it might not be - lets see.

Maybe some alternatives to this system might include having prospective mayors make applications to have their town in the server, outlining everything about their town, from what specific archetypes they'd like to play, if they want PvP on or not, what build palette/style they're looking for, their town government, ect. With maybe enough applications you might be able to create the right amount of towns with enough varying prospects for players to enjoy. This is just an example of an idea I thought of in a couple seconds, but, all-in-all, there needs to be a system that's not that restrictive and allows for player growth and happiness - if you think this current system would work for that, so be it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dani said:

 

The exact numbers (town members, population, tax percentages, etc) will be adjusted accordingly in the first few months as the server economy and population stabilizes. This is a work in progress, and details to solve some of the issues that may come up will come later. I know this won't address all the points you have both made but hopefully it provides some insight to our thinking.

 

This is basically the answer I was expecting.  More or less, the new system will be balanced according to overall population.  You should come up with a percentage rather than a number if you haven't already, that way it's easy to adjust based on fluctuations in overall population.  You may have thought of this with 10 being your prediction based on it, but just want to be sure.

 

Don't think this will rule out my idea just yet, so will go ahead and post in an appropriate thread. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/3/2017 at 4:50 PM, Destruct said:

What about the restrictions imposed by what archetype the town(s) decide to practice? You have most (or all) of the towns having PvP on at the start, and some people might not like that - especially if there's only one town to join at the start per each nation - this turns away RPers (for some unknown reason), or, there's alternatively most (or all) of the towns in your selected nation having their PvP turned off - this turns away PvPers. What about the towns where the mayors and the leadership in the town want to restrict your building and decide that you MUST live in a pre-built house or make something absolutely glamorous enough that they give you space to build it? This imposes restrictions on builders, there were many towns like this in the past - not many with few restrictions on builders. What if the towns that are being settled are super far away from the capital? This restricts trade and merchanting.

What we had in the past was great and bad for many reasons. It was bad because we had too few people - and that caused people to not be engaged enough with their town. But, the great part of the past system was that there was a town for absolutely EVERYTHING - the archetype, government, build style, ect. you wanted to play - and if it didn't exist - well, you made it. I feel like this system might be a bit restrictive if there isn't enough variety, but it might not be - lets see.

Maybe some alternatives to this system might include having prospective mayors make applications to have their town in the server, outlining everything about their town, from what specific archetypes they'd like to play, if they want PvP on or not, what build palette/style they're looking for, their town government, ect. With maybe enough applications you might be able to create the right amount of towns with enough varying prospects for players to enjoy. This is just an example of an idea I thought of in a couple seconds, but, all-in-all, there needs to be a system that's not that restrictive and allows for player growth and happiness - if you think this current system would work for that, so be it.

 

Those restrictions always existed, whether it was purposely or as a byproduct of the dwindling server population. And ultimately the choice splintered the community, furthering inactivity.

We are very much dedicated to eliminating the age old splitting of the community into two distinct and incompatible parts (PvP vs RP). We're trying new things, new ways to encourage players to have to engage in a bit of both to get the most out of the game. I tried not to use the word force, as you said there should be a choice, but we do want to make it difficult for players to shut off the other side of the coin. Some of the ways we plan to do this is through revamping PvP to make it a bit more accessible to new players and non-veteran players, or encouraging player characters through in-game achievements. The towns are the other major way to do that. Hopefully each town will have a mix of players that contribute in their own way. The RP-favouring players can engage in trade, art, building, etc, to make money that way. The PvP players will be welcome for the tax benefits and the rewards PvP will give the town.

Instead of 10 towns with two players doing one thing each, we'd like 2 towns with 10 players doing all those things. You still will have the freedom to play how you want, you'll just have to be more well-rounded in your playstyle. And it won't be 100% restrictive. If you're so vehemently against and unable to participate in one aspect of the server, it's a matter of finding players with the same mindset and making your own town. It'll then be on you to maintain it.

In terms of applications/play styles, we've discussed it and it will probably play some part: players seeking a specific game style can be pointed in the right direction by the nation head who will know what each town has claimed to be focused on. Ultimately we'll monitor the situation and make changes if needed, but a radical shift at first is better to change old mentalities if we think they're detrimental to the success of the server.

Good points though (Y)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 12/3/2017 at 3:57 PM, Dani said:

There are always players who desire complete creative control and are willing to shut out everyone else to get their perfect little home,

I think this largely stems from the fact that Minecraft is a game that is primarily about having creative control, and players creating their own space to live in. I understand that A'therys is radically different from the "conventional" Minecraft experience, but there are some core facets of the game that players will expect and that will be difficult to erase. I understand that some measure of control is needed in order for the server to turn out right, but people like to have control of some things (I.E. Their homes, who their fellow town-members are, etc.). While the old town system did have its flaws, it nonetheless allowed people to adhere to what they wanted from the game. This leads me to my next point. People will play the server as long as they are getting what they want out of it. A lot of people have played A'therys because they had a certain niche in mind for their character, or the town they were starting up, and they had fun developing it into something that could interact with the community. Removing this possibility for specialization by forcing players and towns onto "the other side of the coin" is going to draw many negative responses and, as a whole, lead to a community with less freedom to choose and a duller variety. 

I have a story that lends itself to this discussion. Back on V2, I was a member of a town that shared an island with a town consisting of two players. It was pretty small, and isolationist. However, when territorial disputes arose between my town and theirs, a conflict broke out that resulted in some intense Roleplay and PVP for all parties involved, all of which lasted for some time. The point is, even the sparsely populated, small towns you've framed as negative can, and did, play a part in the goings-on of the server when given the freedom to go their own way. 

You mentioned cliques and inclusivity in an earlier response, and such forces have indeed existed. However, when one weighs that negative against the positives of the old town system, such as the diversity it offered, the creativity it fostered, and the happiness it gave players to create their own homes, it seems justified. Instead of forcing players into molds they may not neccessarily fit, we should allow players to define their molds themselves.

4 hours ago, Dani said:

If you're so vehemently against and unable to participate in one aspect of the server, it's a matter of finding players with the same mindset and making your own town.

This seems like it would be far easier said than done. Finding ten other players with the same mindset is an arduous task even on the most populous servers, and getting them to agree to a principle for a town and producing a positive result, more arduous still. How can we be sure the player-count will be high enough to sustain such possibilities? Chances are, it will not. I'm not being pessimistic, for even if the server population is robust as the best outlooks say, a town system such as this cannot possibly accomodate the needs of a playerbase, who due to human nature, have their own ideas of what they want to do.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I look at it, this system makes it very clear what you need in order to begin a town, and after you've covered these base requirements ( the minimum player count ), it is up to you to maintain the existence of this town. That is all the system does, no more, no less.

 

Small private towns that just take up premium real estate for the benefit of a small minority have usually been frowned upon, though never directly punished ( See: Mayors who logged on every 2 weeks so they could sustain their dead towns with people in them who last logged on months ago ). If we, not just as staff but as members of the community, were given the choice between a town with 2-3 active people in it or a town with 20-30 active people in it, clearly we'd prefer the latter.

 

It all comes down to the fact that land and space is at a premium, no matter what server you're on. If we don't better control the distribution of this precious resource, then it's going to be misused and the people who could really utilize it for something good wouldn't be able to. However, we do understand that prohibitively high requirements would also be a net negative for the server and the community. That is why the exact numbers are variables that can be changed at any point.

 

On the matter of whether or not your mayor requires you to live in a pre-built house or not, whether they require you to pay rent or not, that's all down to the organization of the town. And, clearly, if the town is so disorganized that it can't even maintain itself ( pay upkeep ), then why should it continue to exist and take up land which might be better utilized by another town which is better organized?

 

As far as player archetypes are concerned, personally, I'm blind to those. I don't see players as PvPers, RPers or builders or whatever, I see them as players, people looking for an interesting and fulfilling experience. We don't balance numbers based on how many players of a certain archetype we have in our community, we balance them based on how difficult and rewarding of an experience we aim to achieve. Archetypes do not enter into it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Celeras said:

Well there goes all my enthusiasm. Tax systems are why I don't play on other 'town' servers.

Don't worry, I'm sure no one will abuse it so they don't need to set any tax-caps for the new town system.

Sets tax rate to 100%, rubs hands greedily together.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many times have we ( staff ) had to go around, deleting old and inactive towns? How many times have new mayors had to create their towns in the middle of bumfuck nowhere because the good spots were already taken? And how many of those times were the good spots taken by towns whose mayors logged on twice a month, just to make sure their town doesn't go poof? And how many times have we had complaints over too many towns having their PvP off?

 

Too many, that's the answer to all of the above. The tax system solves much of it. Is it perfect? Of course not. But will it work? Yes. At least, we believe so.

 

4 hours ago, Kurgis said:

Don't worry, I'm sure no one will abuse it so they don't need to set any tax-caps for the new town system.

Sets tax rate to 100%, rubs hands greedily together.

Let me reiterate, town mayors cannot automatically tax the residents of the town. There is no system which will pull money out of an individual resident's bank. The tax system is only on the nation level, meaning the nation head regulates taxes on town banks. At the town level, it is up to you ( the mayor, or the residents of the town ) to organize a way to pay the tax. Or not. If not, and you fail to pay your taxes, limitations will be imposed upon the town.

7 hours ago, Celeras said:

Well there goes all my enthusiasm. Tax systems are why I don't play on other 'town' servers.

This is more than just a "town" server. Always has been, always will be. For us, towns are just another mechanic we can tweak and change to fit the overall experience of the server. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just saying, after the initial release glut of players......i dont think the player-base will be able to sustain the kinds of towns the admins are looking to enforce

for the VAST majority of my atherys playtime, i played on a pretty empty server, i didnt mind that so much and im essentially a solo player almost all the time but when you have a choice of two towns because of how low the population is then thats just not going to be very fun for people looking to join towns

heres an idea, for the people who want that isolation or to play with just their 2 friends, just have a very very limited plot claim for them, they can claim a very very small plot of land for their solo or 2-3 person group

that way no massive land grabs, and you can find cool little huts in the wilderness instead of big empty towns

like have that restriction on actual big towns, but have this little option for the more close knit small groups or isolationists, plus the land restriction will be another incentive to join a bigger town so you have space to build huge stuff if thats your thing

just saying you can add options for the other types of players that still push them towards the large towns you are hoping will work (wich im pessimistically thinking WILL only have a few because of low population during the dead months)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, charlotteXcharles said:

just saying, after the initial release glut of players......i dont think the player-base will be able to sustain the kinds of towns the admins are looking to enforce

for the VAST majority of my atherys playtime, i played on a pretty empty server, i didnt mind that so much and im essentially a solo player almost all the time but when you have a choice of two towns because of how low the population is then thats just not going to be very fun for people looking to join towns

heres an idea, for the people who want that isolation or to play with just their 2 friends, just have a very very limited plot claim for them, they can claim a very very small plot of land for their solo or 2-3 person group

that way no massive land grabs, and you can find cool little huts in the wilderness instead of big empty towns

like have that restriction on actual big towns, but have this little option for the more close knit small groups or isolationists, plus the land restriction will be another incentive to join a bigger town so you have space to build huge stuff if thats your thing

just saying you can add options for the other types of players that still push them towards the large towns you are hoping will work (wich im pessimistically thinking WILL only have a few because of low population during the dead months)

Towns by default will be sustainable. Yes that means less of them, but land grabs are only one of a few problems we have with microtowns. You are an established player. You know what makes you happy and you can adapt to a number of things, low player count being one of them. But new players don't know those things. They log in and try to join a town which is closed to them, and they leave. They never came back. For the past 3 years it's been the same story - we've never had problems attracting new logins, we've had problems with retaining players beyond their first 15 minutes on the server.

We identified the types of towns that you like as a main culprit for that. "Close knit small groups" do not take in new players. They don't offer help, head to a capital to feed, educate, and include new players. They don't want to interact with that aspect of the server, which is their right. But it hurts the server. Eventually, all towns become two or three player exclusive towns, and new players have nowhere to go unless a nation head sets up a noob town, which lasts about two weeks before they can't deal with it anymore.

Instead, you're going to need to have new players to sustain yourself. You're going to have to work together to expand your friend groups. Cliques are fun but they're also harmful to anyone not part of them. We know it's a trade-off between how much independence you'll have and how much we can cater to inclusiveness - but if we allow mini-plots for small groups, EVERYONE will do that and leave nowhere to go for new recruits.

Overall, you CAN theoretically have a smaller town. You will all just have to be super dedicated to the server to keep it running. Yes that means less towns. Yes that means towns will be bigger by default. But that's one of the ways we're working on making the server sustainable in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since each town will be responsible for their own upkeep, would it be possible to add a feature that tracks how much each town member has deposited to the town bank in total and/or since the last tax collection? I figure this might be useful for every town, regardless of their method of tax collection.

It could be connected the same way achievements (the ones posted to your profile page) would work or it could be an in-game interface, either in chat or a GUI. However it would be done, it should be viewable for mayors and co-mayors.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2018 at 10:17 AM, raxiam said:

Since each town will be responsible for their own upkeep, would it be possible to add a feature that tracks how much each town member has deposited to the town bank in total and/or since the last tax collection? I figure this might be useful for every town, regardless of their method of tax collection.

It could be connected the same way achievements (the ones posted to your profile page) would work or it could be an in-game interface, either in chat or a GUI. However it would be done, it should be viewable for mayors and co-mayors.

Make all the information available on an out-of-game link so you can manage your players and finances in real time. Like EVE but with blocks and child labor.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We identified the types of towns that you like as a main culprit for that. "Close knit small groups" do not take in new players. They don't offer help, head to a capital to feed, educate, and include new players. They don't want to interact with that aspect of the server, which is their right. But it hurts the server. Eventually, all towns become two or three player exclusive towns, and new players have nowhere to go unless a nation head sets up a noob town, which lasts about two weeks before they can't deal with it anymore."

do you remember the daggerlands? we had two active newbie towns i can think of off of the top of my head, but it was almost always pretty damn empty as a nation, towns that didnt want members werent a big problem in the daggerlands we would FIGHT IN CHAT ABOUT WHO GOT THE NEWBIE, hell my town had ALWAYS been a newbie town since the launch of evo and before that in v2 i was IN a newbie town

didnt stop us being the least populated nation
there would be a few iso groups but the biggest towns (obviously) tried to recruit every person who came into gen chat not knowing what they were doing, didnt stop towns being empty from lack of players being active

even forcing people into one or two big towns wont help population when it was common that there would only be 1 or two people online in nation, including yourself

i dont think the "towns by default would be sustainable" is any real explanation when the problem is the actual lack of people on the server during certain months not being able to sustain more than a single town in the model that you are suggesting, and at that stage whats the point in having towns if everyone is in a single town or one of two towns anyway

only being able to choose between the pvp town and the builder town wont be fun, and if it gets as bad as it sometimes did in v2 and evo (and i dont see why it wouldnt, dead months be dead months) youd be stuck with just "the town" wow, great super fun

its limiting for new players to not have choice and veterans and players with different play styles that arent pvp or build based, and really whats the point?  just to have a populated town? when the reasons to HAVE towns in the first place are kinda stripped away by this anyway

the whole thing that drove me to minecraft and atherys was the freedom to do what i wanted, the sandbox of it, i could go find my niche and sit in it, and in atherys find the town that suited my niche, ive never seen a new player simply be ignored in nation in chat when looking for a town because theres a niche that needs a town of people like a big pvp town that im sure every nation had, we had 3 of them until the end days of evo

Edited by charlotteXcharles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I like the big town approach, having the nations just be a few City-States and a large wilderness. Back in V2 I stuck in with the town of Leviathan in The Daggerlands who took this approach, had about 12 active players who were on daily, and 20 others who would come on and off. We'd reach 30 players online in high-pop, but barely anyone else in the nation would be active. Later on my recruiter told me why that was. We had a rival town which they fought 24/7 over a leveling spot which was in our town border, it just be log on, fight, kill/die, re-spawn, repeat. It should be noted this town was equal size and player count activity, and the town borders were less than 150 blocks apart. You'd just run back into the fight, as if you were within the gates of Valhalla.

Most activity then died out after the neighboring rival town had a few members banned for ignoring admins to not attack our town, then they all stopped logging on. Wasn't much left to do for them but sit in their own build server, so we never saw them on. Our town started drying up after that, there'd be a couple Selukk raids, but those were too rare to keep our pop up. Eventually most of our members grew anxious to get into the next fight, so we split, and some went into a new nation with more PvP activity. This is why Kilnholdt appeals to me, it sounds like City-States duking it out against each other competitively while in the same nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, rest in peace Mr. Goodgood's Good Goods and Grub. I'd been working on a big revamp and had a hole bunch of material planned, but I really don't see how a little food shop like mine could work in a system like this.

Dang it, I was seriously excited for Atherys, now I'm just bummed out and doubting that I'll end up returning.

I hadn't realized that I (Little niche town) was the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Rynelf
      Rynelf's Dev Diary #2
      Hello again. As you probably know, since HeadHunter's departure I am the lead (and only) developer now. I am not discouraged, however. This will be a brief update on what I've been working on recently.
      I have three primary goals/plugins: Towns, Quests, and RPG (combat). These make up the pillars of gameplay and are what I'm striving to get feature complete as soon as possible. Of course, there are various other plugins that support these that need to be maintained, but these are the most complex.
      Quests
      I consider Quests nearly production ready. It just needs a few more features and polish.

      What I've implemented recently:
       Timed quests Repeatable quests Dynamically hiding dialog options A simpler but more powerful NPC system Supporting a second scripting language (Groovy) that has better stability than the previous JavaScript version What I'm planning to implement:
      Better feedback for missing requirements on dialogs & quests Template quests that players can use to give tasks to other players (See https://github.com/Atherys-Horizons/AtherysQuests/issues/45) Expanding the online quest editor (See https://docs.atherys.com/plugins/AtherysQuests/Quest-Editor.html ) A better UI for displaying quests to the player (perhaps an inventory one) Towns
      HeadHunter left a great foundation that makes it easy to add features quickly.
      What I've implemented recently:
      Most /town commands (name, invite, join, claim, info, motd, description, leave, etc) Most /nation commands (name, ally/neutral/enemy, description, capital, etc) What I'm planning to implement:
      Plot "stuff" (owners, embassies, protection, etc) Resident commands (not many of them) The tax system RPG
      Much of the functionality in RPG is already there for the most part, but the main meat is missing: skills!
      What I've implemented recently:
      The base of how the skill tree will function (picking new skill nodes) What I'm planning to implement:
      More "types" of skills (toggleable skills, primarily) The skills themselves, of course Like Quests, a better UI (for upgrading your attributes and choosing new skills) Conclusion
      Hopefully this gives you an idea of where I am with plugin development. As always, I am always on the lookout for aspiring developers. I am Rynelf#8390 on Discord.
      Finally, as poll suggests I have been toying with the idea of making the test server open to the public. I've seen many people try to connect but the server is currently whitelisted. There wouldn't be much to do except see how the current systems work, and there won't be a guarantee of saving progress as I have to clear the database regularly for testing.
      If you have any questions feel free to ask.
    • By Rhykker
      7/6/2019 Aloreh National Reforms
      The role of High Mediator will be in use, but the rank has only three main jobs; mediate domestic disputes, perform as the National Ambassador, and only has a single vote to break all deadlocks within the Orator Court. The position of Lector General is now only bestowed upon the Mayor of Methes Avonthes. Their sole job is to recruit players into Aloreh, train them in how the game works, find jobs for them to earn income, and provide appropriate housing for newcomers to the nation. The High Mediator is not King of Aloreh, the Houses have their own authority, but work with the High Mediator to protect the nation from external forces, to coordinate military operations with multiple House armies, or to prevent civil strife. The Nation will be decentralized. Instead of focusing the national control around the High Mediator, the power will instead be in the hands of individual Houses and their leadership. The cities and their leaders have always been the powerhouse of Aloreh, not who sat in the big chair. Instead of Minor and Major Noble Houses, all Houses are classified Noble House. All Houses may have a say in the Orator Court, as long as it's Orator Prince is active. There will no longer be a minimum or maximum active population requirement for Noble Houses to participate in the Orator Court. Noble Houses can band together to form a Great House. Great Houses are essentially unions of Houses, similar to a political party or faction. Any House under a Great House must always vote the same as their Great House's leader. Depending on how that is performed, a Great House could be a dictatorship to control Houses to follow your lead, or an Oligarchy of Noblemen and women who all vote with or against one another, where the majority vote wins the entire Great House vote. Every House under a Great House always has one vote, but combined with a Great House, multiple Houses all voting the same way can cause true change in the Orator Court. Great Houses are not a requirement to vote, they are simply an easier way to assure unified votes. House Leaders are not required to own a city to have a House, but must be in a city of Aloreh, even if another House owns it. Methes does count. Every Noble House may have it's own standing army, religion, events, and laws within their own property. Being in another House's city will require permission from the city leader to be permitted the same rights, otherwise, working together may be the best option, besides owning a city yourself. Aloreh is not a Democracy, so it's commoners receive no ability to vote, but a Commoner's Forum will be available in the Nation of Aloreh Club to allow the player-base of Aloreh to propose ideas, leave complaints or compliments, or to vote in Unofficial Polls who's outcomes may change Aloreh regardless. Although I do prefer following the Lore, I do not want anyone limited or discouraged from improving the nation or having their voices remain unheard.
      Orator Court Reforms: Toldei, 13th of Urth's Heart, AU 340
      Regardless of Lore requirements, all Orators and House leaders may be male or female roles. Orator Princes and Princesses, as well as Patriarchs and Matriarchs. All House leaders can participate as their House's Orator Prince. Orator Court meetings will occur once a month, during the first weekend of the month, unless a national holiday also occurs. If that is the case, it will fall on the next weekend. If an Orator misses a meeting, they may still vote in the private Orator Court Club, but they will not be given a briefing. Bullet points may be posted a few days or so after the meeting to inform the Nation, but specific details are up to the Orators to catch. Orators may choose a temporary representative to go into Orator Court meetings if they can not make it, but must inform the High Mediator to protect from false representatives. Orators that have emergency situations where they cannot attend or appoint a representative, must inform the High Mediator before the meeting starts, otherwise, you will be labeled inactive. Repetitive instances means a dismissal from the Orator Court. Before an Orator Meeting will occur, a vote will be proposed the last week of the month to decide what day and what time it should be. It will always be a weekend, Friday-Sunday. Erassios is still missing.  
      Any questions, concerns, or whatever may be on your mind, leave a message below, and I will try to get back to you when I next can. 
    • By HelloImWeird
      Greetings,
      my beautiful fellow cultists.
      In A'therys there is a plethora of unique classes, each of which has access to incredibly sexy and unique abilities.

      Being able to use said abilities on no more than chickens and mindless hostile mobs does not spark joy.

      How about we revive PvP (and thus raids)?

      Obviously not everyone likes PvP.
      I suggest we could turn on PvP in towns on one weekday (such as Wednesday) and one Saturday (God intended Sunday to be a day of rest).

      Your vote in the poll shall be anonymous.

       
      Godspeed,
      Alex - HelloImWeird - Karpie_
  • Our picks

    • A'therys Evo Returns (Plugins and Player Data Included!)
      Hello everyone, new and old! 

      As you may or may not have heard, we have brought back a functional build of A'therys Evo onto the server. We've noticed that a lot of people have been wanting a taste of the A'therys experience and having a place in-game to relive some of your favourite memories will go a long way towards achieving that. 
        • Haha
        • Like
      • 10 replies
    • December 24, 2018

      So with the website returning to it's dark theme, we've made a bunch of improvements to the lorelanding!

      Added a MAP to the lorelanding!


      This map (see below for all 5 playable nations lit up) will light up a nation when you hover over it; and allow you to click into it to go to the nation's overview page!
       



       




      Original Map Artistic Render by @cicetil


      Overlay graphics and new HoriRule [the nifty divider in the lore sections] by @Xathas


      Coding by @Rynelf (HTML, CSS, and JavaScript!)
        • Like
    • December 22, 2018

      Small Governmental Update put in today!

      Added Government of the Gennaian Isles



      Governmental Concepts originally by @Xathas



      Very long-winded Isles Chat with @Foe, @Tristan_vr, @raxiam, @Dani, and @redninja685 . Fortunately there were no casualties. 🤯



      Compiled by Xathas; Edits and Revisions by @Foe
        • Thanks
        • Like
    • Wiki Entry Wednesday - January 10, 2018
      It's that time of week again!

      Today we explore the city risen from seafoam, Glasscastle.

      Added the cty of Glasscastle to Atvoria



      Original draft by @Xathas



      Critiques and edits by @RuddyF , @Rynelf , and @Kmartinator
        • Thanks
      • 0 replies
    • Wiki Entry Wednesday: January 3, 2018
      Happy New Year, and Wiki-Entry Wednesday!

      This week marks a return to new nation info, specifically: Dalkun-Tir

      Added Technology of Dalkun-Tir to the Wiki



      Original draft by @Dani



      Second draft by @Xathas


      Critiques and edits by @Dani , @Foe , and @Kmartinator

       






      Added Marao's Fall to the Wiki


      Original draft by @Xathas


      Critiques and edits by @RuddyF , @Foe , and @Kmartinator
      • 0 replies

About Us

A’therys Horizons is an upcoming Minecraft Modded RPG Server, a world truly unique with many experiences for Roleplayers, Pvpers, Builders & Merchants alike.

Useful Links

Keep up to date!

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Guidelines and Privacy Policy