I’ve been playing around with the world regen/decay mechanic with this latest build set and I think things need to be slowed down a bit.
Over the course of about 30 hours, a wide sprawl of road, platforms, and a spiral structure spanning 30 or so vertical blocks completely disappeared. It seems too fast. I think something that large should have left a foot print and decayed into “ruins” before being completely reverted to original state. I imagine this could be done by only reverting so many blocks of a given chunk at a time.
It just feels less like a living world to have something vanish completely leaving no trace in such a short period of time.
The current times are an initial guess at what might work, they’re by no means final.
For ref, current values are:
Every second, relevant chunks have 10-500 blocks reverted up to 10% of the number that are required (so if 14000 modifications, 1400 want to be reverted, 500 actually get reverted, if 25 modifications, 2.5 want to reverted, and 10 actually get reverted). Chunks are weighted by how often they’ve been modified and visited to be more likely to be visited, with any update of the regen performing at most 1500 block deltas.
A chunk will not be regenerated at all (relevant) if modified or visited (vicinity of around 60m) within the last 12 hours.
I agree it’s too fast at the moment, since you’re once relevant a chunk will very quickly return to it’s original state unless there are literally 10’s of thousands of modifications to it (in which case it’ll take maybe 1 minute. hah. )
So if a chunk is only altered once (the builder knew exactly what they were doing), then that chunk will end up being reverted sooner than others that were fiddled with more? Does alteration get factored more or less than vistits? Or are they tallied at the same value?
Your examples seem not to describe your statement here. Or my english skills are that bad…
Should the right saying not be: 10% of all modified (unprotected?) blocks get reverted every second (minimum 10 blocks, maximum 500), if noone moves through the radius of 60 m around them within 12 hours?
But that seems to me: if I build something unprotected in a crowded city, it will probably never be regenerated because people all the time are around (I ignore the fact, that someone propably will be interested in the plot and set a beacon on it). And I could keep my unprotected build alive if I log in in a frequency of less then 12 hours next to it.
It’s not a static 10% that get reverted. I read it as a max of 500 blocks or 10% of the edited space will revert every second. Given the math it will likely cap out at 10% in most cases. So your understanding isn’t totally off.
Yes, if an area is constantly visited, it will not regenerate. Of course you don’t have any protection from looting and can’t lock anything so you’re not going to build a house that way.
Absolutely not. In this case I was more Chris about things like roads and bridges. I really like the idea of the less used ones falling apart and needing repaired. Gives the world some more life.
But that introduce griefers … whould it be possible to set such areas to a very slow regeneration? … like “if the area was checked several times without regeneration it will be forced to regenerate some steps the next time no player is in or next to the chunk”?
That would help a lot, especially in playerhubs like open cities or towns of big guilds.
This initial release and setup is a first step to find the ideal configuration for 1.0. We need to strike a balance between griefing, group play, individual play, exploration and resource gathering, and others. Sadly I think the ideal configuration for all these considerations will clash - so we’ll need to find a balance. Ideally we want a setup that feels natural and isn’t easily gamed.
I’m actually super happy with this first release, as I think it’s a genuinely interesting (obvious?) approach to keeping the worlds feeling natural for all players. It’s essential for a long running shared world - and often the first criticism Boundless gets for players who’ve played on mature (long running) Minecraft servers.
japp, but griefers will be a pain in the … you know what I mean ^^, so if you don’t have a logging method to track block posters or removers there will also be a lot of pain. For such stuff I would see some “minor beacons” that will help, but to just disable the regeneration would support griefers
Meh, griefers most often get a kick out of ruining something new maintaining something by visitting it every other day would probably not be in their style.
I would say a week or so for it to be done and maybe 3 days ± before it starts. That should make the changes slow enough to not seem too weird and should give people plenty of time to jump out and do something else before placing their beacon to protect it.
Please do remember that regen is not only about “i lost my stuff that wasnt in a beacon” but also “Regenerating Materials into the game” I fear that 3 days to start and a week to finish would be too much time for materials to regenerate which would leave empty caves and areas where nothing grows. not bad if you are one person. but if there are 10 or 20 people in the are then they could quickly destroy quite a bit of things. On the other hand having it too little also removes the impact of what you do, if things just regenerate from hour to hour it feels like you leave no impact what so ever.
So while i agree with you from an idealistic and theoretical point of view i believe it would be too long from a practical point of view.
)