AliasAlreadyTaken reports: Implement area ban ALL instead ... #4578
Labels
No Label
1. kind/balancing
1. kind/breaking
1. kind/bug
1. kind/construction
1. kind/documentation
1. kind/enhancement
1. kind/griefing
1. kind/invalid
1. kind/meme
1. kind/node limit
1. kind/other
1. kind/protocol
2. prio/controversial
2. prio/critical
2. prio/elevated
2. prio/good first issue
2. prio/interesting
2. prio/low
3. source/art
3. source/client
3. source/engine
3. source/ingame
3. source/integration
3. source/lag
3. source/license
3. source/mod upstream
3. source/unknown
3. source/website
4. step/approved
4. step/at work
4. step/blocked
4. step/discussion
4. step/help wanted
4. step/needs confirmation
4. step/partially fixed
4. step/question
4. step/ready to deploy
4. step/ready to QA test
4. step/want approval
5. result/cannot reproduce
5. result/duplicate
5. result/fixed
5. result/maybe
5. result/wontfix
ugh/petz
ugh/QA main
ugh/QA NOK
ugh/QA OK
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
8 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: your-land/bugtracker#4578
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
AliasAlreadyTaken reports a bug:
Player position:
Player look:
Player information:
Player meta:
Log identifier
Profiler save:
Status:
Teleport command:
Compass command:
I think the ability to whitelist certain players who aren't allowed to build there should also be added to that, since some players may be brought in just to visit our tour the areas.
area ban is useful
area ban all is useful
area ban whitelist also useful
A permanent area ban will be very usefull too. If I don't want someone in my room, I don't want to be allowed to enter it in the first place.
I hope this will be used only by staff. Giving players ability to instantly make giant invisible walls that you will constantly bump into, sounds extremely annoying.
I didn't ask for a command:
/area ban permanently all, but once you've glitched into my plot, you don't need to knock again. So single player/area ban permanentlywould be nice.The intention is to disallow everyone except oneself into an area owned by oneself. If it is abused, we'll solve with the usual "player is not excellent" mechanic: reports. Since areas are fairly limited I doubt
You can already ban people permanently from your area:
People will need to enable "ban all" on their areas, it's disabled by default. Use case is a secret base noone is meant to enter. Areas are a limited resource, so I doubt there will be a lot of abuse. If there is, we'll have to remove the feature again.
I understand the general reason for it, but imagine this: every player who has areas around Haven decided to use this feature. Now Haven is surrounded with invisible teleport-walls, you would need to "feel" your way around them just to get out and go explore. And you can't even see where it starts or ends. Now... you somehow found a small opening and got out, exploring the forest, just heading in no specific direction. You got pretty far already... OOPS! you're back at Haven. Why? You just didn't notice the message about area being closed (or had chat disabled). Now you must start from beginning.
If there are no other limitations, then there's no reason it will not become like this in time. Which, I think, will make player experience worse overall. Just my opinion.
I think it's ok to use this for quest areas that you want closed during building or when quest is inactive.
This will likely get overused (banning whole 64x64 area in cases where only core 15x15 or similar building would deserve such protection) and possibly abused (people blocking important passages and then collecting toll for whitelisting and allowing passage). Possibly lot of annoyances when hitting invisible wall in wilderness.
Werewolf with crystal boots can jump surprisingly high. Without glitching or other dirty tricks.
I thought area ban will act as invisible wall. It does work differently?
There is also question, particularly important for underground areas:
what if you fall/dig into banned area from above? will the boundary stop the fall and kill you, or will the result be different?
What if you die above the area and your bones drop in the area you are banned from? Do you essentially lose your items forever? What if you open death portal into banned area?
At the moment the implementation of ban just gives you 10 seconds to leave it and then teleports you to /spawn.
To try demo version of it: go out of north Haven and just walk around, keeping an eye on areas list at the bottom. When you walk into one, go a couple of steps to the side and try to avoid it. Now, you may find a dead end (areas may not touch, but terrain will not allow you to move further), now you must backtrack avoiding same invisible walls. I think it's infuriating. My main problem with this: invisible walls that you must avoid.
These are actually some interesting points. So I will take my wish back. Now I wish:
/area ban 24hso staff can be active about a /report.That time-limited ban sounds like a good suggestion. Such an area ban for all can be useful if a quest area is built (though they're probably usually built on the test server anyway? And bans there would be far less problematic) or if it requires solving a quest to be allowed to enter the area. Anything else is IMHO too bad for gameplay and not really needed.
That would be extremely annoying for people that walk nearby and on the other hand would not really prevent evil people from glitching in (/sethome inside area or right next to it and after they get back to spawn, do /h and they have another 10 seconds for any glitching attempts or whatever)
When you enter such an area, you lose interact and we already have a command to disallow people from using the /sethome command in your area.
To make it less sudden we have the 10 second countdown. I do see a way to abuse that, but worst than can happen to you is be thrown back to spawn.
To "suddenly" end up in such an area and get thrown back to spawn against your wishes, you'd need to be unable to detect the area, not see the countdown or be unable to move.
A malicious player could set up the area with protect_this. This might find you suddenly enclosed in an area. Then he could use the ban all command. However, he could also already use a specific ban command to throw you back to spawn.
He could also invite you to his area, then while you're somehow in the maze of the building could start the specific or general ban and teleport you back to spawn, while you have no chance to get out of the area in time.
Both cases require actions by the area owner.
I'd rather allow people protect their area and give them control, than having them to fear burglars. Allowing people to ban others from their area and disallowing them sethome IMO is the equivalent to locking one's front door.
Currently they could already build lava traps or whatever, sometimes even a 4 block deep ditch you happen to fall in serves as an accidental trap, with you having hardly a chance of getting out or getting around.
If you are exploring few kilometers from nearest port/airport, teleporting back to spawn is quite severe punishment for tripping over someone else's lawn.
And if the boundary is inside jungle, you can get disoriented, then head "back" in bad direction and you end up back in spawn.
Malicious people can still /sethome in unprotected space right next to the area and then trespass at will.
Those are usually more or less visible. Such traps require targeted effort. "Ban all" in middle of jungle can bring pain to explorers and the area owner probably not having idea what he actually caused.
Visible. Not a problem for werewolf in crystal boots in night time :)
If you can't do anything in the area (not even with unprotected items), why forcing teleport to spawn?
Putting steel or protected door to your house is equivalent of locking door.
Banning others from area with current implementation is equivalent of putting landmines in your lawn ... and then not putting anywhere any sign of fence telling others that this is your lawn, or marking the boundary in any way. Boom.
If people are to be given this weapon, I suggest adding a requirement for such general ban that the area boundary MUST be clearly marked by at least 2 tiles high fence or some equivalent barrier.
Maybe instead of "throw back to spawn" we need to take a snapshot of position every 21 seconds and throw back to this place instead?
Wouldn't help when "falling" into the area without a chance to avoid entering though.
TO solve this, we could also make it that when people enter a banned area three times in a given time, only then they get thrown back to spawn?
Still, I feel "maliciously banning everyone" and "losing adventuring progress" will affect only a veryvery small amount of areas. As in "one per year".
Or just move to nearest free space beyond edge of the area. Or implement the ban properly so it will actually form a wall against intruders.
Not a good idea.
In worst case if you get stuck somehow, you can use /spawn or /h yourself.
Once people start enabling this en-masse ("I heard that this is god anti-theft protection"!) this can be serious annoyance without the area owners realizing what collateral damage they are causing.
This would require caching the position every step, determining whether it's a non-banned position and reset to last if current one is a banned position.
Certainly doable, but I'd rather give people a chance to see they are banned and have a chance of turning back, only when they stay despite the message they are thrown out.
Which means a "wall" like your suggested would lead to people "hovering" above an area they are banned from until they kindly do /h or /spawn.
Please produce some evidence where such a thing happened already with any of the ban mechanics on YL or any other beyond . I doubt even in a world full of malicious actors this might happen.
I tried to think of any but could not find one. we once had a city owner who would have traps everywhere. Noone wanted to come to his city anymore until he removed them all.
No. I meant that after 10 seconds they will be moved to nearest unoccupied position outside of the area (regardless of from where they arrived) and not far back on spawn.
Or they can just walk to any edge and drop down from there.
This is not banning few misbehaving individuals. This reverses the assumptions and assumes all people are thieves or evil and only those whitelisted are not and may be allowed to enter your area. A rather hostile approach ...
We have 137 clear visible border sign posts. Shortly two players ignored everything, settled in the territory with five of our watch towers around them, ignored all warning by the server and liked to destroy on of our watch towers and some landscape. So tell villagers they MUST do more to pamper such kind of players.
This would lead to them being teleported to areas they did not see before, over a cliff or anywhere unpleasant. Either "Back to where they already in all conscience and ability went themselves" (= where they arrived) or "Back to spawn"
They couldn't walk on top of such an area, it's not a magic barrier of sorts. They would always be dragged back to where they entered, due to the caching.
Locking your door and having only visitors you invite is not a hostile approach, it is what everyone in this world does or - since it is not even the default in YL - should have the chance to do. If having a say whether you want visitors or not is a "hostile" approach, then yes, this IS a hostile approach.
Right now you can build yourself a house and not protect it - nothing prevents you from doing it. Yet, most people choose to claim area as theirs and protect it. When you're going to introduce area-ban-all, idk if most, but probably significant amount of people will start using it.
When I'm playing now, I'm not even looking at chat most of the time. Even if you add sound and blinking lights, it will be just jarring to suddenly "trespass" an invisible wall.
The only way it would be bearable, is if you somehow enforce a strict rule: any ban-all area must be enclosed with clearly marked wall/fence with clear markings about type of area and preferably special type of fence. So you could see it from distance and differentiate from just simple fence that does not enclose ban-all-area. Even if you enforce this, it may not always work. Right now traps are not allowed, yet many cities contain (probably unintentional) protected "pits" that you can walk in by accident, but can't get out of without cheating (place-block-jump?).
To check how annoying invisible walls will be, I suggest just enabling "ban-all" for every area on a test server and walking around. I would quit such server pretty soon after joining and encountering this mechanic.
What this also reminds me of is playing on servers where you place "protection blocks" (don't remember what they are called), that protect like 6-10 nodes radius around them. There are no rules about placing them. Sometimes when you are trying to dig, you encounter this protection thing, and there is no indication where it starts or ends. And you must just blindly feel around by trying each block and direction to avoid it. This feels similar, but for simple walking, wich is worse.
Similar annoyance is just protecting your area and only getting a message that it intersects another area. Very hard to figure out where intersection is - it's invisible.
Giving people tools to control access to their place is OK.
Forcing people to avoid invisible walls - bad game design.
It is not decision to have/not to have visitors. It is the method how this is enforced. Locked door is "friendly" - you find locked door, fail to open it and turn around.
But this approach is similar to not wanting visitors, but leaving the door wide open. And then if somebody comes in, you grab him and violently throw him out of nearby window.
So far, only 55 of roughly 6500 areas banned one or more people.
Running into walls everywhere is no fun, but this walk sounds like a fun experiment. Let's try to walk from Aventiure to the Miocene Camp - this route leads through densely populated areas around Haven. I'll give a testaccount crystal boots and ban him from each and everyone of the ~6500 areas. If this includes city areas, I bet I'll not get too far. Plus, I'll be constantly watching the area HUD and the chat, not the surroundings. That's a bad experience.
This works on land, but not on the ocean. What happens if I ride into such an area on a boat? Will I lose interact and be unable to even get out?
I see, it's the "invisibility" that bothers you. Most areas do not have a clear fence at the border. It's not enjoyable when walking through the wilderness and rather paying attention to hostile mobs instead of area HUD and suddenly being thrown back to spawn.
Or imagine running into a banned area during a voice fight, while fleeing from a mob of mobs. Or imagine there's a untamed rainbow pony but it happens to graze on a protected area. Or imagine your pet runs off into such a protected area.
I begin to see some cases where a ban-all might be a bad idea. This applies to a ban all for 24 hours as well.
Is there a way we can allow areaowners not have visitors, but without the drawbacks?
Perhaps it could be locked to members of the staff team? Then we can control which areas can get the areaban all and if we think they will cause to many issues with other players then we simply won't apply or remove the areaban all.
Attempt1: Testaccount was banned from ALL areas. Since the objective is to reach a destination in a distance of about 7000m and I am banned everywhere, I will simply avoid everything that looks like a building. Result: I ran into a quest without realizing it, there was no building there or anything and I was taken up by jumping and avoiding obstacles. Covered distance was about 800 meters from startpoint.
Attempt2: Testaccout is banned from 1/4 of all areas. Now I'm taking chances and cross some areas that look built to. I even got to walk through Aventiure. Some plots banned me, but I was through them so quickly it didn't matter much. Result: In Aventiure North I didn't notice I got into an area I was banned from, the countdown was at 7 when I noticed, but I failed to find where the area started, even though I believed I had turned around 180. Distance covered about 700 meter, but closer to the target since I didn't have to go around Aventiure as a whole.
Attempt3: Testaccount is banned from 1/4 of all areas, but this doesn't affect factions, cities and plots. So I'll pass through cities and private areas and just hope. Result: A city area on the outskirts of Aventiure was not properly assigned the city attribute, counted as private area and I didn't notice, because I had to fight a rat. Distance covered: 11m
Attempt4: Testaccount is banned from 1/4 of all areas, but this doesn't affect factions, cities and plots. I went through cities again (somehow I missed Haven, but found Saxonia). I dashed through some 64x64 areas before the area ban hit me, but most areas I found didn't throw me out. Due to the random nature of which areas band and which don't, I found that areas with multiple owners need to be avoided, but that's specific to the testcase. Just running work. Looking at things does not. Distance covered: All of it, 7000m Was it a pleasant walk? It didn't bother me too much, most likely due to my experience with it before, but I sure wasn't up for sightseeing.
@Alias: It's not about if you can reach any specific point with so many pointless area bans. If it's a game for you, then sure, go for it on the test server - admins ought to have some fun on their own as well. It's just not an intresting concept for regular gameplay. Might still work as an event.
When a player bans all others (or even individual players for valid reason) from his area without proper warning, and other players loose time or other things due to that, then the banning player ought to be in for compensating the loss. Banning others from access is in that case akin to griefing.
In the long run it's better to have griefers beeing removed from the server. It is possible to run a server without rules for a while, not caring about griefers or misbehaving players, and the server may even prosper for a short while. There have been such servers in the past. I didn't stay on them, and neither did the griefers.
We ought to eliminate the reasons for the "need" for an all-players-area-ban. So, what can be the reasons?
Someone who really can't stand anyone else probably will feel much happier in singleplayer as that eliminates the "horror" of seeing other players at spawn.
Someone who is ok with talking to others but don't want them to ever see his/her builds can still build in singleplayer and just chat via the chat bridge.
Private places that aren't intended for others to see and that ought to be super secure can still exist. A protected area below the surface, where it doesn't disturb anyone - sure, why not. No danger of any trespassing or even seeing anything if the whole thing is covered on all sides with stone walls. So, if it's secured on all sides and below ground, no entrance (digged and covered manually by owner when needed) such an area-all-ban would be ok IMHO - and also quite pointless as the protection would already keep players from ending up in there.
I'm afraid most players would use such a ban mechanism because they don't know how to protect their property (locked chests). In some cases protection mechanisms may not exist or be insufficient (petz?). Such cases ought to be investigated and fixed. False assumptions about game mechanics (the gold ingot I dropped here some days ago is gone - surely someone has to have stolen it? Despawn? Never heard of that) may also be one of the main reasons leading to area bans.
The ban mechanism also won't help in Boots' case because the area wasn't protected. Banning could keep those players out of the main city where they can't do anything anyway due to protection - but not out of the sourroundings. So not much would have been gained.
If a problem persists with playes beeing in areas and disturbing the area owner, then I'm afraid that needs in most cases a social interaction and solution. The property of the area owner ought to be protected by technical means against unwanted modifications of course.
Quest areas might be a bit diffrent. But even with them area bans don't really work. Why ban someone from the landscape around a quest location? Makes little sense. Better check in the next quest step if that quest step can be reached logically.
The only point where such bans might make some kind of sense would be battling factions. But then that'd be only a tiny part of server life. Perhaps give such faction wars an extra layer on the server where they can take part? With us on the surface enjoying building and the occasional Voice fight? Not everyone's a fan of PvP.
"ban all" solves some (not all) uncovered edge cases related to protection at cost of doing big collateral damage.
Yes. Build a wall around the property and on all entrances put some kind of protected doors. Possible now without any server changes. If you use protector gems for petz and locked chests/switches, then even if somebody gets in, they can't do anything.
Ban probably won't help here anyway, as you can stay outside and shot spears or elec bolts on mobs inside. And if fixed, there is risk of other kinds of problem: some projectile-hurling monster wandering inside will become unkillable and will threaten people that are near the area but outside of it.
Sometime I see mimes in haven (usually near the tree plant area), so monsters wandering into protected areas do happen. Quite often in places outside haven, in my base in wilderness I often need to kill monsters that are walking on my lawn.
I think having invisible things is objectively bad game desing (the reverse is also bad: some games have floors for which devs forget to put collision boxes and you just fall through).
I have a strong opinion about this, and think that such areas should look like glowing force-fields or barriers - that's what they actually are. Will this look good? Not really.
As Soko mentioned, it's probably ok for fully enclosed areas. I don't know how to technically enforce this. Maybe staff could set it up for a player, after checking that it's properly enclosed and then protecting the outer "shell" so player won't be able to modify it later. This feels clunky.
So, walls should be walls, if you enclose the area, the border should be visible. If really needed, then as a visual force-field/energy-barrier type of thing. If you can't see it before you approach it, then it's a "trap".
Unless all the questions surrounding this feature are positively answered or new information surfaces, we'll close this and reopen, should the need arise.
I don't want to drop it entirely, since there are still requirements that demand attention, but in the presented form we can't implement my suggestion.