Count breaking railways as griefing

[ghost]

Do you hate it when people keep breaking the railways you've built for ease of transport? Well, I do! Currently, breaking railways is considered "stealing" which is allowed. However, on TerraNova, the creators want realism.

In the real world, do people break railways that the government built? Well, they could, but they would be sent to jail. They won't just say, "Oh he's just stealing our railways that we've spent tax dollars on."

Solution: Count breaking railways as griefing.

A simple solution to a simple problem.

Thank you for reading.

[TypicalFernie]

Totally agree, our rails were stolen and they told us they won't fix it because it's considered stealing. If they want to encourage transportation systems then they should consider this grief and fix it whenever it happens.

[ghost]

Due to the want for a removal of /n spawn, and no tping between towns, railways are a lot more important and I'd back a rule against stealing them.

[ghost]

@KarlOfDuty @FixTheAdmin

Please make this a thing.

[MrSnipeHard]

If one builds outside of their town’s plots, expect the possibility that someone may mess with it.

Solution: Only build within your town borders

If one wants a large rail system, they should claim that land to protect it themselves.

[SuperK90]

Claiming large rail systems is unreasonable. Fast transportation has to come at some time, and rail is where it’s at. You can’t have a town stretching a continent just to protect a railroad.

[MrSnipeHard]

Then don’t do it Solo. If you want a large rail system make it a community effort and found towns in between to fill in the gaps and have several towns working together to claim and protect your transportation systems. There’s ways to do this. Plan, think it out. And if your rail systems are too large and unreasonable, maybe you shouldn’t do it. Building in the wilderness brings inherit risks both on here and in real life with bandits in the Wild West and other nations sabotaging transportation systems. Not protecting rail systems constructed outside of owned territory through a no-grief rule is realism.

[ghost]

Then don’t do it Solo. If you want a large rail system make it a community effort and found towns in between to fill in the gaps and have several towns working together to claim and protect your transportation systems. There’s ways to do this. Plan, think it out. And if your rail systems are too large and unreasonable, maybe you shouldn’t do it. Building in the wilderness brings inherit risks both on here and in real life with bandits in the Wild West and other nations sabotaging transportation systems. Not protecting rail systems constructed outside of owned territory through a no-grief rule is realism.

With people wanting to remove /n spawn, railroads are the best option. If you're going to protect griefers for this potentially life saving method of transport. Trans-Oceanic and Trans-Continental railroads are the easiest way to get livestock from Point A --> B. The rail track shouldn't be covered under valuable items anymore as they no long cost gold and Iron is really common while Mining.

[ghost]

Then don’t do it Solo. If you want a large rail system make it a community effort and found towns in between to fill in the gaps and have several towns working together to claim and protect your transportation systems. There’s ways to do this. Plan, think it out. And if your rail systems are too large and unreasonable, maybe you shouldn’t do it. Building in the wilderness brings inherit risks both on here and in real life with bandits in the Wild West and other nations sabotaging transportation systems. Not protecting rail systems constructed outside of owned territory through a no-grief rule is realism.

Are you daft? "Only build within your town borders." Then what'd be the point of building a bloody railroad if it can't get bloody anywhere except your own bloody town? "Fund towns in between them." You know how much that'd cost? The solutions that you're giving are literally insane, my solution ; count breaking railways as griefing. Simple, players don't have to mine and fucking grind endlessly just to fund fucking towns in between railroads.

'Funding towns between them,' THAT DOESNT EVEN MAKE SENSE. Railroads are usually built to connect to towns since you can't do /t spawn to other towns. Making more towns just to connect those two towns, what the actual hell. And what if those two towns are close to eachother and a town can't be placed between them? What then, what if those railways still get griefed. As far as I know, your town claims and the other town claims can't be bloody touching. So there would still be a gap where players could break the railroads!

In addition to this, why the hell is breaking railways considered stealing? Who the hell steals railways? NO ONE. They don't steal it! One does not steal railways because they literally have to value! They can easily be feckin made. IRON is so god damn common.

And before you say, "Well if iron is so god damn common, then why don't you just repair the railways yourself." We can do that! But, what'd be the freckin point of constantly repairing railroads just to have it feckin broken again! No. We will not play these cat and mouse games with griefers. There needs to be a permanent solution to this if you so urge removing teleportation to other towns.

[Jettermann]

+1 for this idea. I think MrSnipeHard is dillusional.

[ghost]

+1 MrSnipeHard is a bit insane.

[FixTheAdmin]

Thanks for the suggestion, I will investigate the best way to go about making this possible.

[MrSnipeHard]

Figure 1: Newark and New York, proof that towns can claim alongside one another. @MSatrokrm

I simply reason that structures built in the wild, unclaimed land, should not be protected from griefing or stealing, and, for this, I am labeled “dillusional”, “stupid”, and “insane”. Okay, nice job at refuting my argument with ad hominem’s. Why don’t you all build the communities and mine for the gold to back it up before you embark on “large projects”.

[drewgifford]

Not all towns are able to claim directly next to each other, like New York and Newark

[Coffeetom]

I would recommend taking a look at Australia, Say Melbourne to CapeNaturaliste. How would we be expected to claim those 5 thousand blocks. Your plan is simply unreasonable and a complete waste of resources

[ghost]

As Coffee said, I can claim all 2000 blocks of the Madagascan railroad, let alone the 15000 block tunnel too the Phillipenes. That's over 1000 chunks needed and that is ridiculous. Over 16000g.

[ghost]

The distances between towns that are easily claimed makes the railway useless as it is most likely a short walk to begin with

[drewgifford]

The LAST thing you want to do on a map this large is to remove any incentive or protection for methods of transportation.

[ghost]

Figure 1: Newark and New York, proof that towns can claim alongside one another. @MSatrokrm

I simply reason that structures built in the wild, unclaimed land, should not be protected from griefing or stealing, and, for this, I am labeled “dillusional”, “stupid”, and “insane”. Okay, nice job at refuting my argument with ad hominem’s. Why don’t you all build the communities and mine for the gold to back it up before you embark on “large projects”.

Sure, I did call you some things but that wasn't all that I said. I stated my views, and you should be prepared to be called some negative things when arguing with Minecraft players. Don't say all that ad hominem bull crap when I've also stated my points and reasons, I did just not only call you names, I did both. Which makes your "Okay, nice job at refuting my argument with ad hominem’s." comment totally false.

As for this, "Why don’t you all build the communities and mine for the gold to back it up before you embark on “large projects”. How would players build communities if boating, running to other towns takes a couple of minutes everytime? If the railroads they build for easier transportation constantly gets broken over and over again because the creators of the server won't do such a simple thing?

You're making yourself out to be the victim here. Lets be completely honest, your solution is a bit insane. Why would players go out of there way to build more towns in between their own towns when they might have some other place they wanted to settle. And what if towns are distanced by sea? You cant make a town in the middle of the sea where there's no land, as that would break some terraforming rules.

[SoyGalletita]

I totally support this and I think it's the most necessary update for Terranova since tp is not available and distances are so big. I personally won't be building any transportation system before this gets approved because that's going to be in vain.

The example showed by MrSnipeHard is, with total respect for him, not a good one since the objective of nations is to join together towns based on real life locations. As we all know, the majority of cities in the real world aren't megalopolis such as the eastern coast of the United States, they are far and I personally wouldnt find attractive a map made out of ''linear'' claims instead of actual cities interconnected. I'd like to add the example of Buenos Aires on Classic EMC which used to have a huge ice-railway network (Guyana-Islas Malvinas) when it was active that was little times griefed. Having an easy access to packed ice is a cheap alternative to rails but since EMC Rails was added, I think this will be more useful.

The rules are simple enough to rollback and punish those who break all kind of rails and its redstone components to make it work that actually connect two existing towns. I know the staff can come up with the most reasonable solution.

We all are going to be glad, even the ones against this because it doesn't affect you in any negative way, and we can start building huge projects of rails connecting all of Terranova as it was expected. Thank you. ♥

[KarlOfDuty]

Done.