maybe, but allowing everyone in your beacon to destroy all blocks will lead to huge problems as well when you try to maintain bigger communities.
I think yâall need to wrap your head around the fact that thatâs not what the entire âvillagerâ concept should be used for in first place. If you want to build something in that scale youâd probably want to found a guild for it anyway.
It seems like weâll 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 Iâd imagine that youâll be able to add friendship tokens to locks once they re-implement them.
As with the âGuilds and Beaconsâ discussion I think that a lot of the confusion and complaints here are issued by poor naming. Maybe changing âvillagerâ to something like âcollaboratorâ would give players a better indication of what to expect?
No. I mean have. Let me rephrase, maybe that will help. âYou should reconsider placing your machines inside a beacon which already has villagers assigned to it IF you want your machines to all be privateâ.
This is already possible. Place no locks on the machines and leave it to each individual to remember to remove their items when theyâre 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, Iâve 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 donât 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, thatâs your call.
This is a good point but it holds true for beacons as well. Youâd have to remove the player from each beacon too. I donât 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, Iâm thinking itâd be more with people you trust and not someone who is likely to leave quickly.[quote=âSaint_X, post:38, topic:5060â]
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 canât see this as a âcity-workshopâ ⌠more like a city âsteal-shopâ. How do you enforce security for your items in the machine ? As long as everybody is part of the same right-group you canât garante that noone picks your items before you are able to.
I think itâs really important in the beginning. If you canât manage rights itâs 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 âwrong wordingâ. Talking about mayors and villagers subordinats a city with âno beacon ownerâ.
This will result in a lot of âhuge workbench wallsâ (protecting the Lebbs from the Bleebs :D). No offence - just need to be said âŚ
Maybe i want to share my machines, but not my resources. E.g. if you like to give explorators the chance to ârefillâ their inventory while they are away from their own beacon.
Cons: A lot of trouble if you like to start a âcityâ. 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 âsomeâ machines but not all. All in all a lot of trouble for everything more complex than a group of âfriendsâ (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 donât trust people to not steal from each other when someone else is right there, then maybe youâre 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 wouldnât 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 âmerchantâ rank or however you set it up. If you use ranks, youâll need a different rank for each shop owner to protect their assets from other merchants.
Is this a german reference? Iâm unfamiliar with these terms. Walls of machines seem to be the most efficient use of space.
Iâm just not seeing this. Thereâs what, 5 different machines? How many different groups do you want to give permissions to to access these machines? I just canât see setting up loads of different configurations but I mean itâs 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 thatâs 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.
This is getting way over complicated for such a simple feature.
Default beacon owner state (mayor): 100% locked. Only owner has permissions inside.
Default villager permissions: same as owner in every way except
Can not modify the beacon
Can not modify locks they do not own.
All that has to change is locks and lock permissions.
Hot debated topic in just a single day around 50 posts.
I didnât 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 villagerâs 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 âinteractablesâ 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 donât 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).
donât 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?
Donât know if I understand you right here, but thatâs the current model I guess. Place a lock on a block next to whatever you want to lock. Locks donât 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 itâs more like a guild. Then iâd 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 menât that entire building gets locked with that 1 lock so villager canât destroy your building and get inside
will there be guild beacons? if so then normal beacons should be as simple as you sayâd for only the ones your trust and guild beacon for building an empire with random people with strong permissions (with something similar i suggested).
Thanks guys. Thereâs some useful feedback there.
Iâve read through it all, but I need some time to digest it. Donât expect a quick fix in this area, but we will do another pass on the beacons and locks and get to a better system.
Donât forget to take a look at the âvertical reservingâ of plots while you are at it
My Opinion.
Do you want to be able to allow people to build in your beacon without being able to interact with your plinths, storage etc?
-No, I would not want people to interact (or destroy) with my âintractablesâ, or each others, only their own.
If so, would you be happy that they could not place or break any intractable blocks / props?
-I would like them to be able to place their ownand interact with their own, and as a mayor be able to interact and destroy those âinteractablesâ.
Can you think of other things you would want to allow people to do, or prevent them from doing in your beacon?
Along these lines⌠Have the option of banning specific blocks (i.e. Lava blocks) in the plot as mayor, this will allow the mayor to have good control of their city.
Hello, did you guys made any plans for this matter yet? Or still apply suggestions?
Hello,
The current thinking is to have a single âOwnerâ of the beacon who is initially the person who placed it. The Owner can break, place and interact with anything in the beacon, as well as being able to add and remove plots and change the permissions on the beacon. There are two other roles people can be given: âBuilderâ and âWorkerâ. Someone can be one, or the other, or both of those things. Builders can place and break non-interactive blocks and props, but not interact with anything. Workers can interact with things, and place and break interactive objects, but not place or break anything else. We may decide to allow both workers and builders to interact with doors.
That should give you most of what you need, and then when Guilds come along there will be more control with that system for collaboration (for example allowing more than one person to add and remove plots).
Iâve just been reminded by another thread that I meant to post something meaningful here about a potential permissions limitation with this system. It might be worth revisiting with a view to incorporating a permission for interacting with interactive blocks, but not destroying/placing them.
Frustratingly, I think I get why the distinction has been made where it has, and itâs a pretty elegant solution. Youâre separating blocks by functionality to provide two permissions which donât overlap and can still tidily be used in conjunction. I donât know what better solution there may be, but if it isnât too complicated, sub-dividing the Worker permission into one with the ability to break/place interactive blocks, and one able only to interact with them might be enough.
Granted, there is then some unwanted overlap (A person with the ability to place & remove interactive blocks could in many cases destroy the block to access itâs contents, circumventing the companion permission), but I think the ability to allow new players access to machines without allowing them the ability to pick up and run off with them would be a positive move for the community.
If itâs awkward to do, or impractical, perhaps thereâs something that can be done with locks⌠Maybe a way to lock an interactive block (or group of them) from being removed, but leave it open to be accessed?
I agree with the potential limitations here.
From a âroleâ standpoint, it seems that builders would be limited to being handed crafted blocks personally in order to build. Without the ability to interact with machines, or storage blocks it sounds like builders may be forced to run back to their own plots to craft blocks with which to build on a shared plot. More than anything, I feel as though some level of permission should grant for interaction and not the ability to place/remove the blocks being interacted with.
suggestion: Add an option for âbuildersâ to access only the completed items from a machine, so processed blocks could be easily obtained and built with. Potentially another machine add-on like a hopper.
suggestion: Add functionality to allow mayors to subdivide permissions between different plots. e.g. machines in some plots could be interacted with while other plots may have higher permission thresholds. This could allow workers to place and use machines in plots being built upon by builders furthering the interaction between the two roles while preventing rogue workers from maybe stealing the machines in a mayorâs personal plot.
suggestion: If the goal is to add many roles, than this one certainly wouldnât fit, but combine the two roles into a form of laborer role that can access interactive objects and place non-interactive blocks, and add another tier of citizen that would act as an elder ring with the ability to place interactive blocks (potentially without the ability to access them), dole out certain permissions, etc.
I think the most elegant solution is to require a person to have both builder AND crafter permission to be able to remove an interactive object. Builders can still gain access to approved tools via low cost or free plinths (much as we do already) and crafters donât need the ability to remove interactive blocks in the first place- just work with them. You wouldnât allow a grocery store clerk to take off with the shelves- just restock them. But you would allow the manager (whom you trust far more than the clerk!) to do what ever they need to with the store- theyâve proven their reliability before you promoted them to manager, right?