Talk:Megaproject

Defining "Megaproject"

I propose a referendum on the definition of "megaproject". First suggestion: "Any single project involving the aggregate sum of blocks placed or removed exceeding 50,000."
Tophergz 22:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a toughie - no denying it. I cannot visualise what 50,000 blocks is though... Edessa 11:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

50,000 blocks is roughly equal to a 37x37x37 pit or solid cube. The number is certainly flexible but likely should remain high so it's befitting the name "megaproject". Tophergz 13:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely a megaproject doesn't simply have to be about size, but the time and effort involved in making it? For instance, rtkwe's Hilbert Curve Cube is 32 * 32 * 32, meaning it is well under 50000 blocks, though I don't think anyone would deny it was a "megaproject" Werdnaz 14:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's completely fair and I totally agree with your assessment. That being said, any ideas for a good litmus to determine megaproject status? It can be multiple criteria, depending on the type of construction maybe? How about this:

"Any single project involving the aggregate sum of blocks placed or removed exceeding 50,000 or any single project spanning more than 30 blocks in either two of the three in-game dimensions."?

Though, this would technically mean that a simple 900-block platform would constitute a "megaproject," so I'm not sure how useful that last bit would be. What do you think? Tophergz 14:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a line about uniqueness, or difficulty to create, or even the total hours spent to create the project? (Assuming the hours spent is of solid work, rather than procrastinating) Werdnaz 14:47, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a good direction. How can we quantify "uniqueness"? We ought to hesitate at using "difficulty" or "time spent" as qualifiers as they are heavily influenced by experience, donator kits (commands like /jumpto make projects many times easier) and prorastination (as you mentioned). I suppose if we're trying to put a bit of subjectivity into it, simply adding a "wow" clause to the definition should do the trick. Maybe something like this:

"In general, a "megaproject" is defined as: (1) Any single project involving the aggregate sum of blocks placed or removed exceeding 50,000 or (2) Any single project spanning more than 30 blocks in either two of the three in-game dimensions - either of which- when seen for the first time may cause a user to faint, wonder how much time was spent building it, or simply say "wow".

Tophergz 15:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if this isn't way too anal... i mean, we haven't yet faced a dispute about what is or isn't a megaproject as far as i'm aware? It's simply something that's intuitively obvious, without having to have criteria spelt out. Also, what constituted a megaproject early in the history of Freedonia is somewhat different to what constitutes one now; for instance, the floating Pyramid was a megaproject at the time - it took half a dozen players several days to complete. This was at a time when shift-crouch didn't exist, so building on elevated platforms took a lot more skill and care; falling would often result in all inventory items being lost; donor kits had not been implemented, and nobody even had diamond tools and armour. Now a project like the pyramid could be completed by a single obsidian donor in a couple of hours, tops. But that shouldn't detract from its definition as a historical megaproject. Unless... we were to categorise historical megaprojects separately, and gradually current ones would be recategorised that way? Again, such categorisation seems a bit too rigid. Riot 15:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Naturally the definition is welcome to flow and change over time, especially as game features evolve. The thing about intuitiveness is how you can liken it to common sense in that it's not very common. I've recently built a 32x32x32 box, but it's wholly unremarkable aside from it's size; even I wouldn't consider it a megaproject; anybody can dig a hole. The thing I'm getting at is one of the sentences from the article just begs definition: "What counts as a megaproject is highly subjective," I'm just trying to add a little bit of objectivity to the equation to make determining what constitutes a megaproject a little easier, not a hard and fast rule. A "Historical Megaprojects" section is certainly warranted, especially as the definition changes. Tophergz 16:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just so overly complicated: We all know a megaproject when we see one :/ Edessa 16:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)