ADD Failstate for the Server; Players can LOSE; TENUOUS Balance; CONTROL Power Scaling;

Oof, ok... requested 'translation' from Group being placed here for anyone else who has decided to rely on me for whatever reason...

1. Wants an active enemy similar to [Thargoids/FFXI Beastmen/Strategy Game] with the purpose of triggering the human 'band together to win' reaction.
2. Desires a failpoint similar to the above, but no recovery option eventually, no havens, reason given is Testosterone(TM) and Easier Balance?
3. Desires limits on new servers in terms of Alts and max logins.
4. Wants players to indicate their playtime beforehand in order to balance server population distribution OR adapt the server to activity types.
5. Seems to be insisting strategy and manpower should have considerable priority over individuality when it comes to achieving goals.
6. Also seems to want ecological effects to provoke nigh-unkillable or unkillable threats (for my own group, think approx the dragons in Royal Road).
7. Possibly wants more friendly fire mechanics and player Niches? Unclear if it is 'can actually hurt others' or just Monster Hunter Flinch level.
8. Wants the standard 'skills and stats gain by usage' (FFXI weapon Skill Level style, for my people)
9. Suggests that those who are too peaceful or cannot play enough should stick to safe things, presumably with effects similar to Elite Dangerous' Mobius PvE group, but without the ingame enforcement.

Seeks opinions of those who have concerns with the above. Specifics of tuning are not given in the original post, but poster seeks feedback relative to it and may provide them if asked specifics related to tuning.

Parser adjustments will be made for semicolons and spread ellipses.

We have not received permission from Strevi to share the quoted post.

People choose to play on 2b2t in MineCraft, some people enjoy a specific type of challenge of it.

Based on the OP's descriptors, they seem to be the type.

The most literal "TL;DR" in my life. And that ain't a request, that's a statement.

We have not received permission from Strevi to share the quoted post.

This is literally the first thread where I completely skipped the OP and just read the comments.

We have not received permission from Sapiverenus to share the quoted post.

For my clarity then, since point 5 as I saw it was 'strategy and manpower has PRIORITY over individuality', would you say that they are even, or that individuality has the higher influence?

I'm going to assume 6 was the 'Extreme world threat', sorry that I couldn't give more context, if you haven't read Legendary Moonlight Sculptor, the reference won't make any sense, but rest assured that my group almost certainly understood what you meant. Grass Porridge!

I am unsure on what the clarification about point 9 was? I may have again made it less clear to others by using a reference. Elite Dangerous has 'private groups' that a player can log into at any time, separate from their Open World/Galaxy option, and there is a HUGE PvE only group who uses this option to avoid the PvP players. You can let me know if you would expect those types of people to behave differently in your design, or just not join the game at all because it is too hardcore for them.

Anyways with that out of the way @Sapiverenus , may I ask why you don't consider the 'Failure of a Node', particularly a well built up one, to be the same or good enough as a substitute?

Basically, why does the server itself have to fail? Shouldn't a Metropolis or even City Node falling into ruin (perhaps due to an event as you suggest) be just about the same? The player doesn't lose their personal progression, true, but depending on how the game is built, Personal Progression may not be 'as much' of a character's influence or power at all, particularly since gear also degrades.