The “griefing” thread warned me that the previous reply was 200 days old so rather than necro that, I figured I would just warn the community in a new post.
World: Berlyn
Coordinates: -224, -1044
Time: the wee hours of the morning, anywhere in the 6 hours before the post was made.
Player: Socal
Literally built all the machines from the ground up and allowed this guy to use them after he made it clear he was new and not having much fun at first, and then he decided to go rogue.Took me multiple days of non-hardcore farming and thousands of coins to buy the needed ingredients for the Spark Core and the MIxer, and upon creation of the last two, Socal decided to block me on discord, unfriend me on Boundless, steal the Mixer and Spark Core, and vanish.
Just a heads up that he may do the same or similar things to you and yours. Not looking for retribution, only wish to provide a valid warning so others dont have to rebuild after letting this player have permissions in a town or otherwise.
Thank you sincerely! I fortunately had enough gold to grab 2 more components from my neighbor’s plinth, so I’ll be able to re-craft the core/mixer pretty quickly again Seriously though thank you for the offer
Future beacon permissions should help mitigate the risk involved in sharing your workshops in the future. You will be able to allow people to only interact, but not place/destroy blocks in a beacon, or in the case of builders, only place/destroy (non-interactive) blocks.
Still, the best defence is proper vetting and constant vigilance. The interconnected universe of boundless makes it much easier to follow other players reputations through their forum and discord interactions. You can bet I keep a blacklist and a whitelist of community members for when guild suport goes live.
If you need any help getting back on your feet, post here and I’ll provide whatever it is you need. I wouldn’t want a disheartening interaction like this to put you off trusting other members of the community. We’re generally a helpful and friendly bunch.
I might be far too trusting, but I generally think the best of people. That said, I usually only allow people access to huge amounts of storage if they’re active here on the forums. Reputation might mean little to someone with anonymity, but most people here value being trustworthy members of the community.
Thank you! Luckily this isn’t my first rodeo with griefers in games of a similar genre, and I’ve learned that the actions of one never represent the intentions or motivations of a community. I’m already incredibly encouraged by the responses I’ve seen on here, and I genuinely look forward to interacting with the rest of the community!
Feel free to speak up if you need anything, there’s lots of helping hands already, and it never hurts to have another one. @Arkefyre the community and resources available made me stay, learn and develop, even with the lack of tutorial and my lack of knowledge at the moment
Nah, you’re whitelisted. My blacklist only has about a few dozen members (mostly confirmed griefers that are no longer active) but I will keep that list confidential.
Maybe I should develop a player vetting service for trustworthy players when applying for guilds… sort of like a credit score, but based on player histories.
That sounds like quite a bit of work considering the amount of players we will start seeing after release. Although it would be really useful to a ton of people and I think it’s a great idea. I’d be willing to help keep it up to date for sure.
Actually, from what I read in the Beacon Permissions thread not so long ago, this isn’t the current plan.
My take from that was that you won’t be able to allow people permissions to just use interactive blocks. That permission will be intrinsically linked to the ability to break interactive blocks too. Tbh, the fact that this system doesn’t allow for the very thing you’re suggesting seemed like a notable flaw, but at the time that I thought of it I didn’t have time to make a decent post and, uh, may have forgotten until it’s brought up again now
Hmm. I see what you’re saying now. The worker permission does raise some issues. Its one thing for a worker to have access to the contents and functions of interactive blocks, but to remove the interactive block entirely seems troublesome. Why would workers be allowed to break interactive blocks at all? It seems like that sort of thing should either remain the owner’s exclusive right, or that an even higher trust level must be made above builder/worker. Perhaps make it so that breaking interactive items requires both builder AND worker permissions?
I hopped on @Marrosh’s necro of the old Beacon Permissions post with some similar ideas. Was thinking a system for assigning different levels of permissions to different plots may be useful, similar to how Trove implements zone restrictions. For example if the mayor creates four new plots and sets them at the lowest permissions, workers could place/remove/interact with interactables within those plots, and builders could place/remove non-interactable objects. Might be a bit much but would definitely increase the interaction between the different roles.
You’ve identified a weakness in our current proposal, so I think we need a third permissions type. That will mean that you can give someone one or more of the following permissions:
Builder – can place and break non-interactive blocks and props.
Worker – can interact with things.
Engineer – can place and break interactive blocks and props.
(Doors may be counted as non-interactive for the purposes of permissions).
Why not just add more modular permissions? When you add a user or group, you can adjust “place, interact, modify” for both interactive and non-interactive (e.g. via 2 rows of checkboxes). You could still have Builder/Worker, etc as presets that automark affected checkboxes.
Seriously though thank you for the offer