It should not be possible to secure an area ... #4911

New Issue

Boot · 2023-07-09T21:28:14Z

Boot commented

2023-07-09 21:28:14 +00:00

... if there is another player's chest inside before. We had the case today. Everything could be put in order immediately, but I found it amazing, because it was a blue box and this would have been taken over.

👍 1

AliasAlreadyTaken added the

1. kind/enhancement

1. kind/balancing

labels 2023-07-10 00:47:38 +00:00

DragonWrangler commented

2023-07-10 19:19:49 +00:00

Boot very good idea.

Sokomine commented

2023-07-10 20:09:31 +00:00

It's a tricky situation. I don't have an idea yet what might be a good solution. Protecting the area and taking the things without intention to give them back would be stealing. Perhaps it ought to be handled on that level.

Else it wouldn't be possible to protect areas if there's a single blue chest somewhere forgotten in them. That can't be it either...

It's a tricky situation. I don't have an idea yet what might be a good solution. Protecting the area and taking the things without intention to give them back would be stealing. Perhaps it ought to be handled on that level. Else it wouldn't be possible to protect areas if there's a single blue chest somewhere forgotten in them. That can't be it either...

👍 1

Boot commented

2023-07-10 20:15:57 +00:00

Yes, or someone is plastering the whole of YourLand with its blue chests.

Dirac commented

2023-07-12 17:04:21 +00:00

It should also be noted that this requires a search through all nodes in the area, looking for certain nodes. This is over 500k nodes to inspect server-side, in the worst case.

If we assume that a single blue chest is placed in the area, and we are using a randomized search, that means an avg of 250k operations per protect attempt.

If blue chests block protection, then a malicious player could spam /protect to keep running this search. This could DoS the server by causing a massive lag spike.

It should also be noted that this requires a search through all nodes in the area, looking for certain nodes. This is over 500k nodes to inspect server-side, in the worst case. If we assume that a single blue chest is placed in the area, and we are using a randomized search, that means an avg of 250k operations per protect attempt. If blue chests block protection, then a malicious player could spam /protect to keep running this search. This could DoS the server by causing a massive lag spike.

Dirac commented

2023-07-12 17:08:51 +00:00

Blue chests are used so much because of the extra UI elements that allow batch inventory operations.

I think the actual change that should be made - that would address this issue indirectly - is to add the batch operations UI to standard locked chests (and maybe all chests).

Blue chests are used so much because of the extra UI elements that allow batch inventory operations. I think the actual change that should be made - that would address this issue indirectly - is to add the batch operations UI to standard locked chests (and maybe all chests).

whosit commented

2023-07-12 17:43:02 +00:00

Blue chests are used so much because of the extra UI elements that allow batch inventory operations.

I think the actual change that should be made - that would address this issue indirectly - is to add the batch operations UI to standard locked chests (and maybe all chests).

The issue about buttons:

#2697

> Blue chests are used so much because of the extra UI elements that allow batch inventory operations. > > I think the actual change that should be made - that would address this issue indirectly - is to add the batch operations UI to standard locked chests (and maybe all chests). The issue about buttons: https://gitea.your-land.de/your-land/bugtracker/issues/2697

JeCel commented

2023-07-12 21:53:18 +00:00

What about making it so that shared chests can only be placed in protected areas (your own of course) instead? Though, of course, that wouldn't fix the problem of someone potentially protecting a locked chest and blocking it just because they feel like doing something bad.

Question though is if this problem is big enough to actually require a technical solution.

What about making it so that shared chests can only be placed in protected areas (your own of course) instead? Though, of course, that wouldn't fix the problem of someone potentially protecting a locked chest and blocking it just because they feel like doing something bad. Question though is if this problem is big enough to actually require a technical solution.

AliasAlreadyTaken commented

2023-07-13 00:00:10 +00:00

In extension: All named blocks (= those not removable by others) should only be placeable in own areas. Also: We need to review all those named blocks, there's no point in the circular saw being named, right?

Dirac commented

2023-07-13 07:29:01 +00:00

In extension: All named blocks (= those not removable by others) should only be placeable in own areas. Also: We need to review all those named blocks, there's no point in the circular saw being named, right?

I think if it isn't named, then anyone can withdraw blocks stored within it.

I think maybe it should be: named blocks function as if they were not named unless placed in a protected area owned by the named player.

> In extension: All named blocks (= those not removable by others) should only be placeable in own areas. Also: We need to review all those named blocks, there's no point in the circular saw being named, right? I think if it isn't named, then anyone can withdraw blocks stored within it. I think maybe it should be: named blocks function as if they were not named unless placed in a protected area owned by the named player.

sixer commented

2023-07-13 07:52:21 +00:00

In extension: All named blocks (= those not removable by others) should only be placeable in own areas. Also: We need to review all those named blocks, there's no point in the circular saw being named, right?

What about builds that are not protected? I.e. long roads/tunnels where you have no intention (or even not enough masterareas) to protect the result? Or nether builds, which are simply unprotectable?

In current situation, you can use locked chests to store temporary construction materials and nobody can steal cut blocks from "your" saw.

> In extension: All named blocks (= those not removable by others) should only be placeable in own areas. Also: We need to review all those named blocks, there's no point in the circular saw being named, right? What about builds that are not protected? I.e. long roads/tunnels where you have no intention (or even not enough masterareas) to protect the result? Or nether builds, which are simply unprotectable? In current situation, you can use locked chests to store temporary construction materials and nobody can steal cut blocks from "your" saw.

flux commented

2023-07-13 16:24:38 +00:00

i agree w/ Sokomine, i think this needs more of a social solution than a technical one. but perhaps when placing a shared chest in an unprotected area, you might get a warning that others can protect and "steal" it from you?

there's some related discussion in #2680.

i agree w/ Sokomine, i think this needs more of a social solution than a technical one. but perhaps when placing a shared chest in an unprotected area, you might get a warning that others can protect and "steal" it from you? there's some related discussion in #2680.

AliasAlreadyTaken was assigned by Boot

2024-01-15 21:22:23 +00:00

Sign in to join this conversation.