So i cant make vilagers lose their jobs even though i never traded with them and i am just coming back when thats fixed so mad at the server is so laggy
Last edited by a moderator:
Vilagers a broken
- Thread starter Batata_Ninja
- Start date
the villager part is a server limit to "stabilize" the economy, sorry about the lag
Yep. The reasoning behind this is that villager cycling makes certain items that the current economy is centered around much easier to obtain. Re-enabling profession cycling isn't out of the question, so as long as we can find other items that can work as the foundation of the economy.
Also, @Batata_Ninja, you should submit a ticket here to at least clear up why you were banned and maybe appeal it since staff won't comment on it publicly.
Also, @Batata_Ninja, you should submit a ticket here to at least clear up why you were banned and maybe appeal it since staff won't comment on it publicly.
Last edited:
I tried to retrain my villager to have another job the other day without success... I guess this is why.
Is this posted somewhere visible in game? Should I have know that it's not going to work? ... so frustrating (I just gave up and went back to towny)
So instead of having a handful of villagers and cycling them, people will build huge villager breeders (and instead of cycling their jobs they will kill them and breed new ones) which will cause more server load/lag... and just make the game harder than it has to be... to "stabilize" the economy somehow?
I don't get it.
Is this posted somewhere visible in game? Should I have know that it's not going to work? ... so frustrating (I just gave up and went back to towny)
So instead of having a handful of villagers and cycling them, people will build huge villager breeders (and instead of cycling their jobs they will kill them and breed new ones) which will cause more server load/lag... and just make the game harder than it has to be... to "stabilize" the economy somehow?
I don't get it.
it isnt like this on the other servers. This is a "feature" of survival.
That’s basically how I understand it.
If I were making the decisions, I wouldn’t have done things this way. But hey, I’m probably still misunderstanding something...
I personally dont cycle professions, but I keep a villager with a profession untraded until it has a trade I want it to have (obviously I can only see the first 2 trades). Once it has a trade I want, I trade with it to lock it. This way I avoid (as best as I can) have countless villagers I dont want.
However with this locking of professions also locking trades, I now instead need to build a several storey tall tower full of villagers - many of which with bad trades. So rather than my trading hall I have built on another 1.16 server which has 40 villagers, I am already on my way to having 100+ and counting.
I have tried everything I can think of to understand this "feature" and come up with nothing. It only incentivizes larger, laggier villager farms and makes it harder for people who are solo / in small groups to catch up to the big groups that pump out a lot of villagers per hour.
Yea, I'm kind of in the same position too. I can sort of see how allowing profession cycling can make certain enchanted books a little bit easier to obtain which would lower their value in ah and other shops. But that is exactly how the economy is supposed to work, if one item becomes easier to obtain, the price goes down. I don't think we should be blocking parts of the game mode to artificially keep a commodity rarer. Just let the economy adjust to the new supply.
Yeah, I don't really understand the reason why the economy needs stabilizing or how this achieves that.
I think at best it will delay change, and more importantly make it harder for new people (and people with full time jobs) to catch up or understand these server specific "features" or at worst just make them quit out of frustration.
... well I guess I figured out how will this stabilize the economy: if no one plays on the server then the economy will be stable.
I think at best it will delay change, and more importantly make it harder for new people (and people with full time jobs) to catch up or understand these server specific "features" or at worst just make them quit out of frustration.
... well I guess I figured out how will this stabilize the economy: if no one plays on the server then the economy will be stable.
this.
Nothing positive comes out of this. There's more lag, more work involved, and more oppurtunity (spelling) for big groups to get in on the action. Unless I'm missing something, removing this would have no negative effect on the economy. I know what Jawa said about basing the economy on a certain market, but imo it's not relevant because there are so many other markets (ex guardian drops, ores, raid drops, misc mob drops, etc)
I agree. I don't understand how this will "regulate" the economy in any way, because all it does is put the few players who invest a stupid amount of time in setting up villager trades without refreshing in serious economic power, as they own a decent chunk of the market share each. Furthermore, as Szik stated, without the ability to refresh trades you end up with more villagers, causing more lag on top of the already somewhat poor server performance. There aren't really any upsides to disabling refreshing trades that I can think of, besides frustrating players and deterring newer players to get into the economic system as a seller. It becomes annoying, time consuming, and after a certain point it starts to piss you off. Plus, I havn't seen a single soul who enjoys this "feature" from looking through conversations on the LTT MC discord or here on the forum, so maybe take a hint that nobody wants this.
Exactly. I still don't understand how profession cycling ruins the current economy. However, let's say it does somehow. I would think that the in-game economy would take t a maximum of one week to adjust and restabilize as the player base would naturally adjust the pricing of items to reflect how obtainable they are.
Yuup. Haven't seen many advocations for this...
I don't hate the measure, maybe is pointless, but you can get around very easy. Just kill them amb bread news.
The chance of a villager to die when attacked by a zombie is way more challenging than this issue, harder to get around, and as far as I can see, nobody is complaining about ¿What chance they have to die? 25% or something like that I figure. Anyway it balances the game, I'm not complaining either, it makes the hard difficult level actually harder than medium.
The chance of a villager to die when attacked by a zombie is way more challenging than this issue, harder to get around, and as far as I can see, nobody is complaining about ¿What chance they have to die? 25% or something like that I figure. Anyway it balances the game, I'm not complaining either, it makes the hard difficult level actually harder than medium.