0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Come on...they killed classic and are now making their first step to killing multiplayer.Anyways, what are we going to do about it? I see there are three broad/general actions:1. Remain unchanged, hopefully Mojang doesn't screw us up. Pretty likely because we aren't popular anymore.2. Loophole. If we were to do this it would have to be insanely clever with absolutely no flaws, but then again falls under the "under the radar" section since we aren't popular anymore (again).3. Remove donations entirely. This would really be a last resort to when Mojang finds out we are being super super illegal with our system.Furthermore, what is the consequence for doing such a thing?Seriously, I liked it way more when it was as simple as not distributing .jars.
http://notch.net/2014/06/literally-worse-than-ea/
How should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes... (I think?)
Quote from: Mattkkk12345 on June 16, 2014, 06:12:54 pmHow should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes... (I think?)No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.
Quote from: Chipaton on June 16, 2014, 07:01:38 pmQuote from: Mattkkk12345 on June 16, 2014, 06:12:54 pmHow should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes... (I think?)No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.Homes would count, since they give an advantage. Homes, money, tp, and xp would be affected. You could still have your two regular homes, but the rest of the homes wouldnt be allowed unless everyone was given the same amount.
Quote from: awesomealicia on June 16, 2014, 07:39:40 pmQuote from: Chipaton on June 16, 2014, 07:01:38 pmQuote from: Mattkkk12345 on June 16, 2014, 06:12:54 pmHow should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes... (I think?)No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.Homes would count, since they give an advantage. Homes, money, tp, and xp would be affected. You could still have your two regular homes, but the rest of the homes wouldnt be allowed unless everyone was given the same amount.This is kind of hard for Opticraft based on the way the multiple homes donation reward works. The overall outcome needs to be that every player has to have the same amount of homes, so that no player has the advantage. The options here are either to set everyone's back to a certain amount (I'm sure donators wouldn't like this) or, to set every players homes to that of the player with the most homes (which in Opticrafts case, could be infinite because of the way the donation works)Both of these options would seem outright unfair, and that rule added by Mojang leaves everyone in a predicament.
Quote from: xDeeKay on June 16, 2014, 07:53:04 pmQuote from: awesomealicia on June 16, 2014, 07:39:40 pmQuote from: Chipaton on June 16, 2014, 07:01:38 pmQuote from: Mattkkk12345 on June 16, 2014, 06:12:54 pmHow should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes... (I think?)No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.Homes would count, since they give an advantage. Homes, money, tp, and xp would be affected. You could still have your two regular homes, but the rest of the homes wouldnt be allowed unless everyone was given the same amount.This is kind of hard for Opticraft based on the way the multiple homes donation reward works. The overall outcome needs to be that every player has to have the same amount of homes, so that no player has the advantage. The options here are either to set everyone's back to a certain amount (I'm sure donators wouldn't like this) or, to set every players homes to that of the player with the most homes (which in Opticrafts case, could be infinite because of the way the donation works)Both of these options would seem outright unfair, and that rule added by Mojang leaves everyone in a predicament.No we would just stop selling the donation package. Everyone would keep the number of homes they currently have, as long as they cant trace it back to a donation of any kind it is fine.
Quote from: Nick3306 on June 16, 2014, 10:48:05 pmQuote from: xDeeKay on June 16, 2014, 07:53:04 pmQuote from: awesomealicia on June 16, 2014, 07:39:40 pmQuote from: Chipaton on June 16, 2014, 07:01:38 pmQuote from: Mattkkk12345 on June 16, 2014, 06:12:54 pmHow should servers deal with users who have already spent hard currency on features that affect gameplay?Users may keep the perks they’ve paid for on the condition that the same perks are available to other players on the server (directly or purchasable using soft currency). It’s up to the server host to decide how to compensate users for previous transactions.So what they're saying is if someone has donated for about 20 homes on opti... everyone is entitled to 20 homes... (I think?)No. They said you can not charge for gameplay features, not plugins. This includes in game money, though none of our other donations should be affected I'm correct. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but that is my understanding.Homes would count, since they give an advantage. Homes, money, tp, and xp would be affected. You could still have your two regular homes, but the rest of the homes wouldnt be allowed unless everyone was given the same amount.This is kind of hard for Opticraft based on the way the multiple homes donation reward works. The overall outcome needs to be that every player has to have the same amount of homes, so that no player has the advantage. The options here are either to set everyone's back to a certain amount (I'm sure donators wouldn't like this) or, to set every players homes to that of the player with the most homes (which in Opticrafts case, could be infinite because of the way the donation works)Both of these options would seem outright unfair, and that rule added by Mojang leaves everyone in a predicament.No we would just stop selling the donation package. Everyone would keep the number of homes they currently have, as long as they cant trace it back to a donation of any kind it is fine.I'm sure you're right in the sense we're a small server, and they probably won't give a crap who has more homes than others, but what if they do? They'll see Bob has 15 homes and John only has 2, and John will explain it's due to an old donation reward.
I donated about a year ago for a title. Is a title considered an advantage since technically it enhances my usernames appearance?