As many of you know ranking up on the creative server depends on your building skills and how effectively can you use a plot. There are already some guidelines in place for ranking up (For example : Builder, one fourth of the plot, some detail.), but something that I've noticed missing are guidelines for judging plots. Of course there are the simple requirements presented at /warp ranks, but I, and other players included, have felt that this is not enough. Right now the architect formula, made by the finest of the creative server, is like this : Architect = (Cliff + Cliff)*n + (Rustic House)*x. The reason this "formula" was developed is because that is the fastest way to achieve architect (Proven by a player who did cliff stacking and rustic houses in under 48 hours and recieved architect). The main reason that cliff stacking and rustic houses are the fastest way to achieve architect is because that's what's currently in fashion. There's nothing wrong with trends but trying to come up with something creative and original, that doesn't rely on repetitive terraforming, is not currently quite as rewarding. As staff appear to fancy a certain style (which is understandable, people do have preferences) this sadly forces people to build according to the style that is currenlty most accepted for ranks. "Well staff won't really deny a plot because they don't like a certain style or because they have something against the style," I hear you say. Yes, this is true - staff most likely don't put their personal opinions first when ranking a plot but as it stands, there's really nothing to stop them from doing it. And most people are swayed by their own opinions, even if they don't realise it. (I too am less likely to find a modern styled plot worthy of a rank because modern just isn't my style, although I may not like to admit it) And as chats with staff members and other members of the community have revealed, judging or ranking a plot really does come down to what the staff member thinks of the build. Do they think builds are buildings or could they be mesmerising landscapes full of magic, or perhaps organics are cool? "So what do you propose?" Well, this is where the guidelines come in. In my opinion, builds should not be ranked based on style or height. The guidelines should include things like terraforming, the main focus, composition, proportions, amount of detail, depth, originality (although many of you will argue that originality is dead) - and then based on some factors they can determine if a plot is worthy of the next rank. 1. step - How much of the plot is covered? For builder it has to be 1/4, for designer 1/2 and so on. If obvious filler is present (for example just water or very simple unsmoothed terraforming) it does not cover the 1/4 mark. But not all builds are structures or buildings. So if the main focus is terraforming, and it isn't clear that the terraforming is simple filler (if the terraforming is well done of course), it still covers the plot. 2. step - Composition, focus, proportions, detail, depth and originality. Composition - Does everything play a role? Is something out of place? If you have a modern city can it have deers running around it? Yes it can - if the city is overgrown or the deers are in a zoo. No it can't - if the city is just a normal city. Proportions - Are the houses small enough and the trees big enough? What about the animals? Everything should be proportionate to one another. Detail - this one is self-explanatory. Depth - again... you know it. Originality - This is where the rustic houses and overused styles come in. As it stands rustic houses and cliff stacking is truly overused. Now of course, originality is hard to come by, but something that is a clear copy of something else or something that is redone so many times by so many different people it just becomes the standard it isn't original anymore. 3. step - Yes or No? Based on the plot, the staff member then decides whether to vote yes or no. Lastly, the cons and pros of guidelines: Pros : 1. This shuts down trends from popping up and disappearing, allowing/forcing people to be more creative. Especially when it comes to ranks, many people have said they only build what staff like because they just wanted to get that rank! 2. With guidelines staff are forced to look at the plot, not pop in for 20 seconds and say smooth terrain, more buildings, make it bigger and leave (yes that happens). 3. Feedback - if it were to rely on a point system and before deciding a yes or no they could write down their points on what they thought. This way builders get feedback on what to improve on. Cons : 1. Staff have to spend more time judging plots instead of perhaps monitoring chat or helping people. 2. Staff members aren't machines - they don't want to judge builds with points. 3. Actually, I haven't really heard any staff be against this soo... yeah... Too long, didn't read huh? In short, introduce guidelines with perhaps a point system relying on originality, proportions, composition, depth, detail on so on, so that certain styles wouldn't become the standard for ranking up, which in turn forces or allows players to get more creative with their plots. Of course in the end, the final say belongs to the staff, seeing that they're the ones who will end up following the guidelines. But just out of curiosity, I'd like to hear what the community thinks (*Points to poll*). And to end it, this is just an idea - anyone can suggest changes and I encourage you to do so.
Agreed. I can't believe that no one has commented yet. Erm, anyways, I have yet to see an Architect build that is Modern styled.
Personally, there is a lot of things I would change about the rank up system we're in. In my belief, if you're good enough at terrain, you should be able to rank up with it. Structures shouldn't be the base to level up. You can have a plot without houses and still look magnificent but you can't have a plot with no terrain and have it look great. From my experiment (a bet to get arch in 2 days) I spent 5 hours on it overall. I used world edit for all the terrain and stacked it with world edit. I only used 3 different trees. I only used 3 different houses. I used one big tree on the top of the stacked cliff and filled the ground with water. How did I get arch, you ask? That's because of the way I used everything. Trees were always rotated, houses were cut off and segmented so you didn't really pay attention to them. Really, I didn't even do interior. With what I'm saying, it's showed that there are formulas for ranks and that's all, as well as originality is not a part of the decision, as well as its always judged on the style, rather than anything else. Thing is, I wouldn't of got it if I didn't have any houses, and I find that kind of stupid that if you have good terrain (I reckon I didn't really have good terrain there but just for a point), you should be accepted and there should be levels of where what terrain can be accepted. For famous builders, they don't have to be good at everything. I'll talk about Aerios for a moment. He's a person from the build team goCreative. According to Necrosys(Team manager/head), his houses are horrible. For example, for any structures he did, out of 10, it was placed as a 2. Guess what? hes in one of the best build teams in the world for purely terrain... So why can't the server be more like the build team ranking and not be dependant on everything together, rather nurture that different people have different skills?
I completely agree with what you propose. I myself have a designer plot in progress, and I've done the terrain. All that's left to do is the buildings, but I've been delaying it or putting it off for ages now because I just can't make medieval or rustic buildings. I know that my best bet to get the rank is to build in the style that staff prefer but I just can't do those fancy styles, it's just not my thing. I would really like it if I could build how I want, and to be creative and use my preferred techniques, but at the moment I can't do that because staff judge the plot based on buildings with a certain style, and they don't focus as much on the terraforming and stuff. I personally find it so much easier to do terrain than to build structures, but I can't show that in my build because I'm forced to do things the way everyone else does, (cliff stacking, rustic houses, etc.) and I just can't do things that way. So yes, I completely agree that staff should follow certain guidelines when judging plots.
To be completely honest, this system https://mc-mega.com/forum/threads/poll-opinions-on-a-creative-rank-revamp.3989/ would have solved this problem completely. However everyone voted it out of existence. Basically the idea was to have lots of categories to be scored on, ranging from terrain to detail. It would have added benefit to those who build in a variety of styles. Ah, what could have been...
Most voted no because the other part of the system would have made the server very competitive, which is the bit peoples didn't want.
I am so for this! I just posted on another thread how amazing this system would be! Another pro is that judges wouldn't have to visualize what is good and what is not. They could just refer to the "Spreadsheet" for help if a build is on the edge.
Also I am sick of the medieval theme. I am currently working on an abstract quartz building that has been very time consuming. If it is rejected for (whatever rank is above builder) I will be very sad.
The idea of this is not to crush themes or styles but instead remove trends that are used for ranking up and encourage people to be more creative. Currently the standard/trend for Architect would be cliff stacking and rustic houses - guidelines would over time effectively stop trends because it would force staff to look at the actual build and rate it on what is present instead of seeing the style and accepting or denying it. Over time this would effectively make it so that plots are more creative instead of relying what the staff currently fancy (at the moment that is rustic and cliff stacking) as many players just build cliff stacking and rustic houses because it makes it easier for them to rank up. (For an example I point to 90% of designer/architect plots in the past few months)
I understand that this is to stop trends not crush ideas, but the fact that most of the architect plots are just cliff stacking just takes the point out of "CREATIVE".
Cliff stacking and rustic houses aren't the ugliest of themes, but what it is, is an overused style or trend. As I stated before this trend has popped up and become the most frequently used because it is the easiest to do and the easiest way to rank up (because staff like this - go visit RegionalsAtBest architect plot, she did that under 48hours and from what I gather she wasn't online for most of those 48. The plot itself is a poor one, but because it matches the trend it got accepted.) Over time judging guidelines would force staff to stay and look at a plot for a little longer rather and judge it based on different factors (one of which could be originality and style choice). As I have previously mentioned this would over time mean that people don't have to rely on what ever style staff like but can be creative. The only reason 'cliff stacking just takes the point out of "Creative"' is because that's what staff seem to like.
While I agree with this idea, we don't really judge it based on the style. People just like to build in this style because they see everyone else getting ranks building this way. I don't think the plots are poor really, I just think you have a slight bias against them which is understandable. When people see other people build like this, they think that its the cool thing to build.
Also, the ranks are supposed to give at least somewhat of a challenge somewhere along the line. We don't accept just terraforming alone, because that's only one aspect of building. You need to show that you have a grasp of multiple aspects. And also Artisan is judged based on multiple plots and I don't think one can get artisan if all said person's plots are in one style.
But doing just stacking of the same house all over the plot on top of some cliffs with 0 interior, which sees to be what has been approved for Architect the last couple players isn't hard work. It is laziness and downgrading to the appearance of the servers along with those of Architect rank and above who spent more the 48 hours on their architect build to copy and paste the same house over and over again with no imigination
I prefer cool ideas like the coral reef that somebody made. That was amazing. Someone needs to make a huge castle also. That would be a new thing.
Larson, there are some architects that have made amazing things. That is why so many are upset about the latest trend of bad architect builds being accepted
I realize that. I was just spouting off Ideas. I would be absolutely p***ed if someone put 8 hours into a build and I put 12 - 16 and theirs also got architect. That's why this system would be a very good thing to implement.
That's true, I can see where you're coming from, but I still feel that the ranking system should be changed in some way at least, even if it's not like this.
I would just again like to say, in response to @NoHacksJustSid, that there's no reason it should be based on multiple aspects seeing as the BEST build team on minecraft. the BEST. Only needs to be good at one aspect. ONE. Are we better than the best? We aren't.
Speak for yourself, a very small handful of builders here are as good if not better them most all of the servers builders out there. If you don't feel that is fine but don't speak for everybody on here.
