if they cant break a block from the mayor for what you than can share the beacon ? if they should not break the block from the mayor and they cant use a maschine ^^ you see the problem of you logic ?
I’m a completely different opinion, this system is not only good for a guild, youz need not every time a guild for a project building. how often you build a project with 20 people ? in a other game i have often build project with more people. so i think this is no overkill. this game should be a multiplayer game no single or coop game
If you want to have 50-100 machines that are all private, then my thought is maybe you should reconsider placing them in the beacon you have villagers assigned to in the first place. At that point it may just be easier for you to make a new beacon control and, as @Miige suggested, just use a door with one lock.
The idea of locks controlling different permissions for accessing/using/taking only needs to be as complicated as you want to make it. If you want to make it super complicated to argue about why you want beacon-centric permission groups, that’s fine. But I’ll do my best to come up with a simple counterexample every time because I think you’re just being silly.
My main problem about the “simple” lock-permission system is the reuseability of the concept. If a “group of people” (if you like to name it guild or friends or just villagers is not important) starts to build a city and if they set up a workshop with a lot of machines it should be possible to set access and useability rights in a fine granular way. One extreme might be that everyone can do anything (nothing is locked) but an other extrem is that only one should be able to do something (personal machines).
The last extrem is most interesting for me because there might be a lot of machines that are NOT used by one person at the same time. therefore they could be “unlocked” for everyone. If someone needs the machine for crafting he can just put a lock on the machine and locks it for himself. When he has finished his work he can just remove the lock and give access back to everyone else (e.g. like car-sharing). Mayors or leaders might be able to remove locks of others to clear stuff of long inactive members.
With this it would be possible maximize the machine useage and minimize the space consumption. A “city-workshop” (maybe with rental fees) will save lot of space and will bring people together instead of everyone sit in his own workshop.
if i play with 10 people i will allow 5 people to using the machines and 5 not because the 5 people i dont know good enough that i allow them to use the machines, but with a simple perminission system i can only allow all or no one…
and if you use the better perminission system is your thing, you must not use it, you can let it be on the default setting. than the system should be the same as your simple system. but i prefere a perminission system with some more ranks, that will make all a bit easier for playing in a group and more comfortable for a mayor because he need not every time add or remove a new player from maybe over 20 locks. in this way he must only remove the rank prom the player and all is fine. in your way with x locks he must go to every lock and must delete the player… that is too much work if you need more time to delete perminisions as for play. Do you ever play a game like this is a big group ? or do you ever play in a big group any game ? it seems not so, simple is not every time the best.
could you name me what advantages a simple system has against a bit more complex system ? i dont find any
you might be right, maybe sharing the beacon is not the best way to make those big cities with bigger community. placing your own beacons next to each other is better way to maintain protection of your building(s). what comes to storage’s there’s some ways to make it work, lock next to each machine (the hard way) or system where you similarly ad players to get access to that specific machine like adding players to your beacon or ad none so its free to all.
I think y’all need to wrap your head around the fact that that’s not what the entire “villager” concept should be used for in first place. If you want to build something in that scale you’d probably want to found a guild for it anyway.
It seems like we’ll get two different, independent systems for collaborative building, which is quite convenient imo . And I think that each of these two mechanics should be suited for different applications (thus the suggestion of a simple villager concept and a more complex guild-management mechanic)
I can only guess but I’d imagine that you’ll be able to add friendship tokens to locks once they re-implement them.
As with the “Guilds and Beacons” discussion I think that a lot of the confusion and complaints here are issued by poor naming. Maybe changing ‘villager’ to something like ‘collaborator’ would give players a better indication of what to expect?
No. I mean have. Let me rephrase, maybe that will help. “You should reconsider placing your machines inside a beacon which already has villagers assigned to it IF you want your machines to all be private”.
This is already possible. Place no locks on the machines and leave it to each individual to remember to remove their items when they’re done using the machines. Ta-da, a city-workshop.
How did this go from a discussion of beacon permissions to my personal gaming preferences and play styles? For reference though, yes, I’ve owned and maintained a minecraft server in the past with hundreds of active players and I currently am an officer in a semi-hardcore raiding guild on world of warcraft. I like permissions (especially when it comes to minecraft server configs, I love how those plugins are setup!) and I like ranks. I just think that seems like something that may be too complex for this game for 1.0. By too complex I don’t mean I think the devs are incapable. I simply mean it may push back the release date.
Place your machines together. One lock. Ta-da! Same amount of effort to add someone to that lock as it is to change a rank. If you want to have all of your machines in a different room or something and use more locks, that’s your call.
This is a good point but it holds true for beacons as well. You’d have to remove the player from each beacon too. I don’t see a use-case for using multitudes of locks though. I think locks are more of a personal thing and anything not locked should be communal. If you want to share your personal resources, I’m thinking it’d be more with people you trust and not someone who is likely to leave quickly.[quote=“Saint_X, post:38, topic:5060”]
could you name me what advantages a simple system has against a bit more complex system ? i dont find any
[/quote]
Easier to develop, easier for the average player to understand, more ui friendly, less set-up time.
I can’t see this as a “city-workshop” … more like a city “steal-shop”. How do you enforce security for your items in the machine ? As long as everybody is part of the same right-group you can’t garante that noone picks your items before you are able to.
I think it’s really important in the beginning. If you can’t manage rights it’s unlikely that huge cities appear and this will push-back the success (this is highly speculative - but a solid right menagement is some huge advantage anyway) [just my opinion].
true, as @Vastar said a lot of this is based on “wrong wording”. Talking about mayors and villagers subordinats a city with “no beacon owner”.
This will result in a lot of “huge workbench walls” (protecting the Lebbs from the Bleebs :D). No offence - just need to be said …
Maybe i want to share my machines, but not my resources. E.g. if you like to give explorators the chance to “refill” their inventory while they are away from their own beacon.
Cons: A lot of trouble if you like to start a “city”. A lot of Set-Up time in different beacons (e.g. if you an i set up a beacon and give each other access to “some” machines but not all. All in all a lot of trouble for everything more complex than a group of “friends” (where trust is no problem [normally]). Push-Back the development effort to a later stage (this is neither a pro nor a con … just need to be said).
[For the moment i said anything and i think everything else is just recurrence]
If you don’t trust people to not steal from each other when someone else is right there, then maybe you’re in the wrong town or inviting in the wrong people. I think placing and deleting locks every time you want to use something is too much of a hassle.
My original proposal was for beacons to dictate building perms and locks to dictate using/interacting perms. If that were to be adopted, scale of builds wouldn’t be affected at all. Especially if you throw cheap building mats into communal storage/tool facilities. Shop-owners can use locks to protect their assets, even against others of the “merchant” rank or however you set it up. If you use ranks, you’ll need a different rank for each shop owner to protect their assets from other merchants.
Is this a german reference? I’m unfamiliar with these terms. Walls of machines seem to be the most efficient use of space.
I’m just not seeing this. There’s what, 5 different machines? How many different groups do you want to give permissions to to access these machines? I just can’t see setting up loads of different configurations but I mean it’s whatever you want to use in your builds.
The big use case for locks I see is for personal storage and locked doors and whatnot in large builds. And I think locks make the most sense for those, personally.
You went completely off-topic mate.
Again, this topic is about adding a few people to your personal beacon, anything regarding cities is completely inappropriate.
You made some good points though, just completely irrelevant to this topic. So keep them in mind and bring them up when we talk about actual guilds.
(To a certain extend this also pertains to you,@Clexarews)
But that’s exactly what this topic is about:
Adding a few people (most likely friends) to your humble beacon, nothing more. And as you wrote, for this application something simple is sufficient.
Hot debated topic in just a single day around 50 posts.
I didn’t read everything, stopped after post 24 or something.
For me a system would be sufficient that characterizes 3 groups:
Major
Villagers
non-villagers
Major can of course decide whatever he wants with his beacons / plots and everything inside.
Villagers should have access to everything in the way the major has - except to locks and locked items (and the block the lock is on). Locked plinths should work for villagers as for non-villagers.
Non-villagers can enter every free space, but just interact with plinths.
I guess that I myself would not put villagers into different groups. Either I want someone to interact with my space or not. And if I want to build together but not share my items, i put a lock. Even my dearest friends would not have access to every coin I want to earn and every high level item I achieve.
My solution for locks placed from villager’s in Majors beacon: locks of villagers do not count for Majors. Just for other villagers. If the villagers does not like the Major to mess with his stuff… well he has his own beacons. Of course this could create argues between villagers, when one starts to block “interactables” for him and the major. In this case it would be maybe wise, if just the Major can place locks in his own plots.
PS.
Locking doors absolutely makes no sense to me by the way if you don’t build a room made of diamnt walls.
If a villager wants to get in, he diggs around. Non villagers anyway have no access to closed doors right?
does this mean that villagers can still break blocks? if so, that means that you can ad only people that you truly trust so trying to make bigger community for your beacon is limited and not suitable for building huge cities (in most cases).
don’t know how smartly lock can lock placed blocks and if there is buildings/blocks that are not connected to the same block where your lock is you need to craft locks for them as well. how about give permission for villagers that they can or cannot destroy/build in that specific plot so mayor can create plots for villagers, give permission to certain person to build in that plot or ad friend(s) to your plot?
Don’t know if I understand you right here, but that’s the current model I guess. Place a lock on a block next to whatever you want to lock. Locks don’t lock the block it is placed on. But the block should not be removable from villagers, since the block is necessary for the lock.
Well as I said, my simple system is sufficient for me. If i would have villagers, no villager would have different persmission to others. There is no reason coming into my mind, which would justify different permissions. Either I want him as my villager or not.
What might be different, if we talk about dozens of people. But then it’s more like a guild. Then i’d prefer also to create different groups with give and take permissions. But till now I understood, there will be a difference. Maybe we can set still our private beacons (where my system is still sufficient for me) and - when created a guild - guild beacons. Here hierarchy can (and imo should) be very individual… There definetly is necessarity to say who is allowed to do what. Beginning from setting / deleting beacons to taking and placing items in guild storages.
sorry i tough you men’t that entire building gets locked with that 1 lock so villager can’t destroy your building and get inside
will there be guild beacons? if so then normal beacons should be as simple as you say’d for only the ones your trust and guild beacon for building an empire with random people with strong permissions (with something similar i suggested).
I’ve read through it all, but I need some time to digest it. Don’t expect a quick fix in this area, but we will do another pass on the beacons and locks and get to a better system.
(protecting the Lebbs from the Bleebs :D). No offence - just need to be said …