mrminer reports: suggestion: command to disalow ... #4770
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
6 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: your-land/bugtracker#4770
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?
mrminer reports a bug:
Player position:
Player look:
Player information:
Player meta:
Log identifier
Profiler save:
Status:
Teleport command:
Compass command:
area owners should get a lot more control over what can be done in sub-areas of their area, including this proposal.
even if it's a share chest, the area master can't empty or remove it, but if you give another player an area, shouldn't they be able to store stuff on it and think it's secure? I guess it highly depends on the reason for the sub area. To help build, they don't need to leave things behind but to store them during the work. But if the sub area is 'you can live here' then that's different. Tough one. Maybe a time out? Like if you say 'you can build machines here with me' but six months later you haven't seen the player maybe the sub area could be dropped/converted to master area? IDK.
daydream: they wouldn't have insecure chests. This command would make it so they can't place the chest in the first place.
Also, there are many ways this could be useful.
Here are just a few.
Public farms. (I immediately removed it after) You can place a locked chest in the haven tree farm (I tested it)
Rentals. You might want to rent out areas to let them build stuff in, but not let them place stuff that you can't remove, because they might fail to pay rent, or quit the game entirely.
Temporary builders. Maybe you want someone to help you build one thing, then remove the area. You don't want them to be able to place locked chests/doors/etc that they can't remove.
Hmm. Perhaps I really ought to change the shared locked chests so that you can dig them if they're empty and you can build there and the area is protected...
I'd really like to see a type of chest that is not protected when there is no area protection, and is protected when there is an area protection; for guild and nether use especially. There should not be any owner of such a chest, it should just respect area protections if there is an area. As a bonus, if upgraded with an item i.e. book / access card, then additional look / take / place permissions may be given and this would follow what has been discussed previously with "POSIX" style permissions type chest. Sounds more complicated to explain than it would be to use in gameplay.
this exists as "yl_tools:chest_protected" #1507
I was told this is going to be removed from Your Land and do not use it - is that not true anymore?
i'd like to see it removed, but currently, it exists.
I've tested further "yl_tools:chest_protected"; it shows "Protected Chest (owned by playername)". That's really strange if it does in fact not have any bearing which player owns the chest? Also (obviously) lacking the convenience features of chesttools i.e. DA/TA/SA/FA. "but currently, it exists" does not inspire confidence to advise the guild mates to use only this type of chest for collaboration. When placed in a protected area for a guild member and the area protection is removed from that guild member they can violate the area protection by accessing the chest. I'd say that's not what I described and also not helpful for the topic of this report.
But that doesn't stop the problem of if the player places a normal locked chest...
Or a locked door or smartshop.
That would prevent the use of many common things that are player-owned such as circular saw. I do think that the issue is not preventing players from doing dumb things, but instead players must do dumb things because we don't have anything smarter for them available. Fix the dumb things, one at a time.