3
🔥 PvE & PvP Players – What’s Your Take on Wars? ⚔️🔥
Hey everyone! If you were on a server, I'm just curious...
What kind of war system (if any at all) would you prefer in the game? 🤔
What kind of war system (if any at all) would you prefer in the game? 🤔
Are you all about intense PvP battles, or do you just wanna chill in PvE?
Let me know what sounds best to you!
Let me know what sounds best to you!
Drop your thoughts below! Let’s settle this debate! 🗨️👇
Poll ended 01/22/2025 1:24 am.
Create an account or sign in to comment.
11

For anyone curious i have the server posted under my profile, the discord is also here!



I prefer PVE, unless it has guns. Kinda weird but thats just my experience. When theres servers with modded guns or similar, I prefer PVP, while most of the time PVE is my go too.

Maybe hot take, like most my takes really, but I really like pvp I think it's very fun, but people are always HORRIBLE sports with it.
Like they'll win a fight and STILL be angry at me and scream their head off going "LMAO LMAO YOUR SO BAD SO BAD!!! LOSERRRRRR" like dude, chill! I'm just here to have fun... Idk, I just think people get way too into it until their blood boils right through their skin. (which leads to me not wanting to pvp often cause of all the toxicity)
I think pvp on a survival server should be opt-in ONLY, let both parties agree to pvp before the fights. Unwanted attacks while I'm moving cows into my brand new barn or whatever are NOT good vibes, and I'm ONLY here for the good vibes! :3
Like they'll win a fight and STILL be angry at me and scream their head off going "LMAO LMAO YOUR SO BAD SO BAD!!! LOSERRRRRR" like dude, chill! I'm just here to have fun... Idk, I just think people get way too into it until their blood boils right through their skin. (which leads to me not wanting to pvp often cause of all the toxicity)
I think pvp on a survival server should be opt-in ONLY, let both parties agree to pvp before the fights. Unwanted attacks while I'm moving cows into my brand new barn or whatever are NOT good vibes, and I'm ONLY here for the good vibes! :3

I like that! Actually, a lot. I’ve noticed more and more players leaning toward PvE, and I think your idea could be the perfect way to balance things out. Instead of forcing PvP on everyone, integrating it into a nation-based war system makes it feel more strategic and rewarding.
So, for example, only recognized nations would have the ability to declare war, while regular land claims remain completely safe. Nations could battle for power and territory, making PvP feel more structured instead of just random chaos. Meanwhile, solo players and smaller groups could focus on PvE, trading, or building without worrying about being raided. It would also create a more player-driven world, where diplomacy, alliances, and wars actually have meaning instead of just being mindless fights.
Would this kind of system make PvP more enjoyable for those who want it while keeping PvE players engaged? Or do you think there should be some middle ground where non-nation players still have a role in conflicts?
So, for example, only recognized nations would have the ability to declare war, while regular land claims remain completely safe. Nations could battle for power and territory, making PvP feel more structured instead of just random chaos. Meanwhile, solo players and smaller groups could focus on PvE, trading, or building without worrying about being raided. It would also create a more player-driven world, where diplomacy, alliances, and wars actually have meaning instead of just being mindless fights.
Would this kind of system make PvP more enjoyable for those who want it while keeping PvE players engaged? Or do you think there should be some middle ground where non-nation players still have a role in conflicts?

Read this after wrtitting my comments below.
From the sound of ths, declared PvE players (either formally or all who were not declared members of a combatant group) would have total immunity in both their 'persons' and and land-claimed builds.
The strategy that immediately occurs to me is for a war band/nation to enlist as allies various PvE 'neutrals' who would provide the industrial base to support the war.
I would imagine that having a reliable source of poitions/ enchanted gear/ and so forth would represent a condsiderable advantage over any combatant not similarly supported. [How far war tech evolved would effect only the degree as TNT torpedoes etc are of more strategic rather than tcatical use.]
Under such a system. I would expect the PvE groups to become the dominant political forces with, however, no way of directly confronting one another.
(Depending on the land claim mechanism, the major point of battles might well evolve into seizing and holding control of a desirable feature until one's PvE allies could claim the containg territory and so remove the enemy ability to retake it.)
From the sound of ths, declared PvE players (either formally or all who were not declared members of a combatant group) would have total immunity in both their 'persons' and and land-claimed builds.
The strategy that immediately occurs to me is for a war band/nation to enlist as allies various PvE 'neutrals' who would provide the industrial base to support the war.
I would imagine that having a reliable source of poitions/ enchanted gear/ and so forth would represent a condsiderable advantage over any combatant not similarly supported. [How far war tech evolved would effect only the degree as TNT torpedoes etc are of more strategic rather than tcatical use.]
Under such a system. I would expect the PvE groups to become the dominant political forces with, however, no way of directly confronting one another.
(Depending on the land claim mechanism, the major point of battles might well evolve into seizing and holding control of a desirable feature until one's PvE allies could claim the containg territory and so remove the enemy ability to retake it.)

Unfortunately, the idea of winninggracefully seems to have fallen out of fashion…
Very much with you on the opt-in only aspect.
Very much with you on the opt-in only aspect.

Not clear how this differs from the previous, but:
Wars should be defined in terms of both time and space and strictly opt-in.
Wars should be defined in terms of both time and space and strictly opt-in.

Love that! Ill keep that in mind I was also wondering as well whats your take on teleportation?
Do you feel like people use teleportation as like a get out of jail free card?
Do you think some survival servers should limit the amount of items a player should have before he can teleport? IE a value meter of some sort?
Do you feel like people use teleportation as like a get out of jail free card?
Do you think some survival servers should limit the amount of items a player should have before he can teleport? IE a value meter of some sort?

Much depends on how the teleport system is set up…
One important distinction is whether it is via fixed gateways/portals or via commands: the former requires more infrastructure (and tends to be 'laggier'), but is less subject to the "get-out-of-jail-free-card" [hereafter "jailcard"] abuse. Limiting the available destinations available via commands may give the best of both systems.
Allowing at least some teleports immediately on joining a server seems to be common on very large SMPs (probably simply as a way around the distances that need be traveled). [I don't spend much time in SMP, and very little in the extremely large servers where this is generally found, so much of my information is at secondhand.]
/spawn, /bed, and /shop seem to be common where a server is large enough that these may be some 10,000s of blocks apart. [My impression is the cut point seems to be around 5k blocks as sitting in a minecart or iceboat for several minutes is not something seen as contributing to 'fun'.]
I've seen at least a few implementations that prohibit teleport when there are one or more hostile mobs 'nearby' which would tend to prevent 'jailcard' usage. [Apparently this can be done using the ability to sleep hostile check, but I don't know enough about the technical side to be sure. I suspect somthing similar could be done to prevent teleport while falling or on fire which would remove two of the other more obvious cases tending to 'jailcard' abuse.]
Also fairly common on servers that allow teleport are systems where the player can build additional player defined teleport 'stops', usually at significant cost (in game resources rather than anythingthat would violate the 'EULA'). This would seem to be somewhat similar to the 'value meter' you mention.
These seem to exist in addition to the initailly granted teleport stops with the idea seemingly being that players will eventually develop multiple areas taht are widely seperated. (Probaly noy uncommon on servers where finding an unclaimed ocean monument may require going 50K from spawn.)
While I'm something of a vanilla purist, I've not played much where one needs to travel stupendous distances between one's builds. (My old 1.12 SSP world was [mostly] within a roughly 10K x 10K block area and had both overworld iceboat 'roads' and nether attic minecart lines between major areas; anything much larger and I can begin to see how skipping the travel would become attractive.)
This also raises the idea of having a set of public teleport 'booths' set perhaps 15-20K blocks apart, but otherwise requiring 'in-game' transport.
There is another way of limiting teleporting that relies on per use 'fees' [again an in-game only charge], but I've little knowledge (even second-hand) with the practicalities of such.
One important distinction is whether it is via fixed gateways/portals or via commands: the former requires more infrastructure (and tends to be 'laggier'), but is less subject to the "get-out-of-jail-free-card" [hereafter "jailcard"] abuse. Limiting the available destinations available via commands may give the best of both systems.
Allowing at least some teleports immediately on joining a server seems to be common on very large SMPs (probably simply as a way around the distances that need be traveled). [I don't spend much time in SMP, and very little in the extremely large servers where this is generally found, so much of my information is at secondhand.]
/spawn, /bed, and /shop seem to be common where a server is large enough that these may be some 10,000s of blocks apart. [My impression is the cut point seems to be around 5k blocks as sitting in a minecart or iceboat for several minutes is not something seen as contributing to 'fun'.]
I've seen at least a few implementations that prohibit teleport when there are one or more hostile mobs 'nearby' which would tend to prevent 'jailcard' usage. [Apparently this can be done using the ability to sleep hostile check, but I don't know enough about the technical side to be sure. I suspect somthing similar could be done to prevent teleport while falling or on fire which would remove two of the other more obvious cases tending to 'jailcard' abuse.]
Also fairly common on servers that allow teleport are systems where the player can build additional player defined teleport 'stops', usually at significant cost (in game resources rather than anythingthat would violate the 'EULA'). This would seem to be somewhat similar to the 'value meter' you mention.
These seem to exist in addition to the initailly granted teleport stops with the idea seemingly being that players will eventually develop multiple areas taht are widely seperated. (Probaly noy uncommon on servers where finding an unclaimed ocean monument may require going 50K from spawn.)
While I'm something of a vanilla purist, I've not played much where one needs to travel stupendous distances between one's builds. (My old 1.12 SSP world was [mostly] within a roughly 10K x 10K block area and had both overworld iceboat 'roads' and nether attic minecart lines between major areas; anything much larger and I can begin to see how skipping the travel would become attractive.)
This also raises the idea of having a set of public teleport 'booths' set perhaps 15-20K blocks apart, but otherwise requiring 'in-game' transport.
There is another way of limiting teleporting that relies on per use 'fees' [again an in-game only charge], but I've little knowledge (even second-hand) with the practicalities of such.

I really like your take on the teleportation system and the balance between convenience and preventing "jailcard" abuse. I actually have a pretty solid feature in place that combat-tags players, which not only stops instant teleporting but also prevents combat logging entirely. This keeps fights fair and removes the ability to escape PvP engagements too easily.
As for wars and PvP, I’m leaning towards keeping nation-based warfare only. That way, the PvE community can focus on their builds while still experiencing the excitement of wars happening around them, all within the same world. It adds an extra layer of immersion—PvE players get to witness large-scale battles and shifting territorial control, but without being forced into combat themselves.
I also like the idea of teleporting being somewhat restricted but still practical. Maybe nations could establish fixed teleport hubs within their land, requiring some form of infrastructure investment. That way, players still have the ability to travel efficiently, but it avoids making teleportation feel like a cheap escape mechanic.
What do you think about limiting teleportation to structured points like this? It could maintain the balance between strategy, convenience, and immersion while still making both PvP and PvE feel meaningful in the same world.
As for wars and PvP, I’m leaning towards keeping nation-based warfare only. That way, the PvE community can focus on their builds while still experiencing the excitement of wars happening around them, all within the same world. It adds an extra layer of immersion—PvE players get to witness large-scale battles and shifting territorial control, but without being forced into combat themselves.
I also like the idea of teleporting being somewhat restricted but still practical. Maybe nations could establish fixed teleport hubs within their land, requiring some form of infrastructure investment. That way, players still have the ability to travel efficiently, but it avoids making teleportation feel like a cheap escape mechanic.
What do you think about limiting teleportation to structured points like this? It could maintain the balance between strategy, convenience, and immersion while still making both PvP and PvE feel meaningful in the same world.

Fixed teleportation points essentially act as another for of gate/portal with movement between two teleporters in the overworld being equivalent to the current nether portal | nether travel | nether portal sequence without the time required or the change in dimension.
This would make such useful for very long journeys, but likely more expensive than the vanilla nether travel alternatives for short (~<1k blocks).
Based on the 'political' set-up you envision for your server, I would think an important point would be whether teleporters could be 'captured' as well as whether (and how expensive) changing the lnkage of a portal is.
I realized that I'm making an assumption there that a given teleporter has a fixed [possibly resettable] destination i.e. a given portal would link only to a single other given portal at any particular time with the ability to change the link non-trivial.
If, instead, one can move to any other portal (by entering some form of 'address' for instance) — the utility of portals shifts drastically. While much more useful in a peacful setting, having a portal through which an enemy may attack (assuming said enemy can determine the portal 'address') would make them very much a double edged sword. [For a rough real world analogy the German socialists autobahn network became a great liability once they were forced to retreat as it allowed improved troop movements for the Allies; something similar happened with the Roman roads although the extended time it took for Rome to 'fall' and teh nature of the invaders made the effect much less important.]
What you seem to be describing in reference to "nation-based warfare only" strikes me as leaving the PvE players in a position analogoud to 'civilians' / non-combatants during a period like that of the Italian city states. While the PvE players would be immune to personal attack/being killed (far more so under your set-up), they would still face siganifiacnt problems with having large/complex builds captured/destroyed by the PvP factions.
Enforcing 'neutrality' in PvE player 'owned' areas might be a partial solution, but the question would then arise as to just how 'neutral' some 'neutrals' where....
This would make such useful for very long journeys, but likely more expensive than the vanilla nether travel alternatives for short (~<1k blocks).
Based on the 'political' set-up you envision for your server, I would think an important point would be whether teleporters could be 'captured' as well as whether (and how expensive) changing the lnkage of a portal is.
I realized that I'm making an assumption there that a given teleporter has a fixed [possibly resettable] destination i.e. a given portal would link only to a single other given portal at any particular time with the ability to change the link non-trivial.
If, instead, one can move to any other portal (by entering some form of 'address' for instance) — the utility of portals shifts drastically. While much more useful in a peacful setting, having a portal through which an enemy may attack (assuming said enemy can determine the portal 'address') would make them very much a double edged sword. [For a rough real world analogy the German socialists autobahn network became a great liability once they were forced to retreat as it allowed improved troop movements for the Allies; something similar happened with the Roman roads although the extended time it took for Rome to 'fall' and teh nature of the invaders made the effect much less important.]
What you seem to be describing in reference to "nation-based warfare only" strikes me as leaving the PvE players in a position analogoud to 'civilians' / non-combatants during a period like that of the Italian city states. While the PvE players would be immune to personal attack/being killed (far more so under your set-up), they would still face siganifiacnt problems with having large/complex builds captured/destroyed by the PvP factions.
Enforcing 'neutrality' in PvE player 'owned' areas might be a partial solution, but the question would then arise as to just how 'neutral' some 'neutrals' where....