Locks can provide this same function on a much more precise scale.
2 Likes
Iād prefer that beacons grant villagers access to everythingā¦
ā¦ then you should be able to nail down permissions to specific things by using locks, which would also need a permissions interface, must the same as beacons have, so you can add people to them as required.
Anything that is locked then becomes unbreakable by anyone else ā¦ only the mayor of the beacon can break them.
As standard, only the mayor should be allowed to placed locks within their own beacon as well.
A more advanced version of the above would be to allow different permissions to groups of villagers (within the lock itself) to do different things, such as add/remove from storage, open/close doors etc.
1 Like
i think this can become a mess really fast. If you have a large storage (100 containers) and you need to set permission for 12 locks (~ 100 / 9) itās easy to slip over something.
@olliepurkiss: I totally agree with the before mentioned group system for beacons (@TheBirne) . GW2 did a good job for their guilds as @Saint_X already said. The beauty is the ease of the system. Itās always understandable how rights are set and whats the position of the group within the hirarchy.
Not necessarily imoā¦ the beacons, at present, are globally whitelisted, so all villagers can do everything. Adding locks makes whatever you put them on blacklisted instead, until you add a specific villager to it.
If you overlook anything from a lock perspective and miss adding someone to the permissions, youāre not losing anything ā¦ they just wonāt be able to access that locked item until you add them. If you miss adding a lock to something, well then, Iām not one to judge 
Iām not opposed to a general beacon level system where you have simple controls to allow groups of people to do certain things, but I personally would prefer being able to add the permissions to the locks, as I wouldnāt want a group of villagers to have access to all of my containers, doors or machines (especially containers). Lock permissions allow for more granularity in what you give access to and to whom.
Locks could be āpersonalā. All people within a group can do whatever the right system allows. Everything that is ālockedā is locked to a single person (e.g. me as the store owner).
I donāt dissagree with a lock system (for locks) but i think that itās a lot of āunnecessary workā to add locks to every chest or plinth. I and @Saint_X tested the current system and even an un-locked container canāt be accessed by someone not part of the beacon. This is IMO a good start. If i now add someone to the beacon he can access everything in the right-group (e.g. all workbenches) expect that ones that are locked by me (personal). In this case there is a lock-level above all others that donāt has to be part of any group.
Is @Saint_X not able to just break the lock (or storage/plinth/machine) and gain access anyway, seeing as he is a villager and can do anything within your beacon nowā¦?
Storage is linked when placed next to each otherā¦ so lock one, and you lock them all (so it wouldnāt be one lock per storage block). Iām guessing you can lock groups of plinths in the same way (i.e. place 3 plinths alongside each other and then place a lock on the middle one), but Iāve not tried it.
He was not a villager at this time.
I see your thoughts about this. If locks are only for the owner it would not be possible for others to interact with them in any way (maybe we could have a right-group for this āremove / place locksā).
I know, but you even need to add locks to all groups (AFAIR you can only lock 3x3 storages together ?! not 100% sure about this) and all machines. Iām using 3 furnices, 5 workbenches, 4 crafting tables, 1 extractor / compactor and refinery ā¦ this would need 15 locks if i like to lock them with your system. On the other hand, if i have a right-group for accessing machines this would be one setup and all villagers within the group could use them. If i really like to have one private workbench for myself (because i use it to craft the super cool epic swort in it) i can add a lock to lock only this single tool.
1 Like
Youād be safe with storageā¦ one lock for everything as long as theyāre facing the same way and connected upā¦
I think, with the right planning and layout, I could get thisā¦
locked up with 4-5 locks
2 Likes
Now think of the poor @olliepurkiss ā¦ He came to us with three simple questions and we answer with THIS complex models and ideas. Now think of his face when he read all this multilevelpermissionstuff and realizes that we all really MUST HAVE this to be happy with the plotting ingameā¦ I mean, can you see the tears in his eyes rolling down? 
But yes guys, good stuff. Keep it coming! 
6 Likes
this system is much easier. and the base of @Heurazio and me is very small, i think later we had much more machines. should we make than for every maybe 20-30 workbench and other machines a look ? i hate it if i want play with a big group over 10-20 people and can only give him 1 single group or that i must go on every machine and add them is a bad idea if we had maybe over 50 michines i must add them to all machines ?, sry bud this is a bad idea i think
if you want make a good game you need some work ^^ If you want make the customer happy you need to do some more work sometimes
1 Like
just make a room with all storage/machines and lock the door so only 1 lock needed.
2 Likes
how big should i make this room ? i we had later over 50-100 machines, and this all without any storage ?
and why should i make only 1 room for all ? only because we had a simple permission system ?
and the door is useless, because a villiger can still break the block near the door and use the machines 
The Dev`s have ask us, now they have the answer that we need a good pĆ¼ermission system and not only a simple. if you want only a simple perminission system let the system on the standart option and if you want more use the better perminission system. thats the simple way that both sides what they want. no one must use the better perminission system but every one who want can do it.
1 Like
you make that room as big as you need it to be, lock it with 1 lock and all your 100 machines are safe and you dont have to place 100 different locks.
yes this will make the system impossible but if villagers canāt break mayors blocks as it should be then this works fine.
Maybe for guilds, but we are talking about mere āsubtenantsā of your beacon.
So while your suggestion might be a perfect fit for guilds it would be a major overkill for such a simple application (imo).
2 Likes
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 ?
Iām 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
1 Like
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, thatās fine. But Iāll do my best to come up with a simple counterexample every time because I think youāre just being silly.
2 Likes
Do you mean āhavenātā here ?
My main problem about the āsimpleā lock-permission system is the reuseability of the concept. If a āgroup of peopleā (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 āunlockedā 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 ācity-workshopā (maybe with rental fees) will save lot of space and will bring people together instead of everyone sit in his own workshop.
1 Like
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 oneā¦
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 playerā¦ 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
1 Like
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 storageās thereās 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.