[DrHetterscheidt]

This is an idea I had proposed in another thread and would like to bring to other's attentions. Feel free to add your thoughts or amendments.

...The nearest large city to your /home is instantly set as your /spawn location. This could potentially create many hotbeds of activity as well as people having to actually use legit modes of travel to reach other places. This would make the /spawn port go 1000 or 2000 blocks instead of potentially 4000 or 5000 which is, if nothing else, more legit.

I would find it incredibly interesting to see how the various spawn locations nearby prices fluctuate based on the varied homes that people have taken up. You could even see prices at the original spawn inflate dramatically as people try to cling to the fringe realms as to not teleport to another city. I believe this would eventually lead to more people spreading out more evenly across the map as prices became too high around the main spawn and other cities became more cosmopolitan and inhabited.

[Prodigy9]

The only suggestion I have to add to this is to bring back the system of applying for your city to be a spawn point. Not sure if this was being assumed, but we need some system to define what constitutes a "large city" to be used as a spawn. But other than that
yes implement this naough.

[bcbarton]

Seems like it would make more sense if the beds were how you set /home.

[The-Jack-DeCk]

No. The point of /home is to get somewhere far away from spawn. This would make it so if you wish to live in the main spawn, you really can't have a /home near the wild.

That's just my view, based on my personal /home situation. I think others might have the same view.

[DrHetterscheidt]

No. The point of /home is to get somewhere far away from spawn. This would make it so if you wish to live in the main spawn, you really can't have a /home near the wild.

That's just my view, based on my personal /home situation. I think others might have the same view.

That's the point for me. Everybody being in one area makes that the only area that gets built up. Noobs get alienated, spawn becomes too convoluted and clustered, and nobody uses legit forms of travel to get anywhere. Honestly, I think 10 or 15 spawn cities would be better. That way, no one spawn could get horribly large and the main spawn where noobs land will still probably be the biggest.

[The-Jack-DeCk]

No. The point of /home is to get somewhere far away from spawn. This would make it so if you wish to live in the main spawn, you really can't have a /home near the wild.

That's just my view, based on my personal /home situation. I think others might have the same view.

That's the point for me. Everybody being in one area makes that the only area that gets built up. Noobs get alienated, spawn becomes too convoluted and clustered, and nobody uses legit forms of travel to get anywhere. Honestly, I think 10 or 15 spawn cities would be better. That way, no one spawn could get horribly large and the main spawn where noobs land will still probably be the biggest.

I understand and respect your point of view. I just think that less spawns is better. It does keep the community a by more together.

[Prodigy9]

Honestly, I think 10 or 15 spawn cities would be better.

Though I fully support multiple spawns, I think 10 or 15 is too many (at least with a 10K by 10K map). Something like 5 or 6 spawn cities would help decentralize the server's population but would put enough people in each city that it will in fact be a city rather than a tiny outpost.

On a separate note, I would suggest the following alternative to my earlier proposal that we bring back the spawn city application process. There could be a predetermined number and location of spawn points placed by staff throughout the map (more or less evenly spaced, with some fine-tuning to, for example, prevent spawning in an ocean). A basic spawn zone containing the server rules and tutorial could be built, but then the cities would naturally spring up around the spawn point since the surrounding areas would be the most convenient locations for players who start there.

[DrHetterscheidt]

Honestly, I think 10 or 15 spawn cities would be better.

Though I fully support multiple spawns, I think 10 or 15 is too many (at least with a 10K by 10K map). Something like 5 or 6 spawn cities would help decentralize the server's population but would put enough people in each city that it will in fact be a city rather than a tiny outpost.

On a separate note, I would suggest the following alternative to my earlier proposal that we bring back the spawn city application process. There could be a predetermined number and location of spawn points placed by staff throughout the map (more or less evenly spaced, with some fine-tuning to, for example, prevent spawning in an ocean). A basic spawn zone containing the server rules and tutorial could be built, but then the cities would naturally spring up around the spawn point since the surrounding areas would be the most convenient locations for players who start there.

I agree that its too much. I would just love to see the diversity that would grow from it. 6 actually sounds really good!

[mitchie151]

This would make /spawn effectively redundant. Or /home....

[Sir_Dave88]

Some diversity in spawns would be to my liking.

I do think that it's best to have the staff place them though, or otherwise to be able to choose whether your city becomes a spawn or not. I plan to build quite a grand city in 5.0 but I would like to keep the city beautiful and the landscape as pristine as possible. all that becomes much harder when you get a constant swarm of newbies traversing your lands.

All in all, I think multiple spawns would help decentralize the server population and make far off cities like Roanoke vital again.

This would make /spawn effectively redundant. Or /home....

Not entirely. these cities would still be places where you could enter subway stations from where you could travel easily towards other spawns.