Should we have more permissions? Poll

you dont you have the bage? explorar, adventure and so on?

1 Like

you don’t have to bind your forum account to your game if you don’t want to.

2 Likes

hehe that was along time ago for me. totaly forgot. sorry for asking @MinerDiggerMan

1 Like

Giving access to machines doesn’t need access to it’s storage because the machine see’s your inventory on hand already.

Allowing public access, but for a user fee. After all they are using valuable durability they won’t be able to repair or add coal to. So a user fee equivalent to the going rate of coal prices.

1 Like

A permission for granting other players access to refuel your beacons and/or portals, but nothing else

More generally, some sort of “lease agreement” where you can lend out a beacon to another player for some period of time. During the lease period the lender wouldn’t have access. So renters don’t have to worry about the lender stealing their shop profits or inventory.

4 Likes

you sneaky XXX and im the one getting into trouble on a forum alt??? LOL :stuck_out_tongue: (meant in good fun)

A log tab of who took, stored or crafted in these machines/storage would be useful too~ It would make reporting easier as well.

1 Like

No, I mean, I’ve been too sick to play, I’ve owned the game but it’s just sat there. :stuck_out_tongue: anyway, I got through some of it at least. Glad I can contribute more.

1 Like

glad to hear your on the up dude

1 Like

I like both of these ideas. They would greatly reduce the difficulty of managing a large city.

I thought it might be nice to have a Deposit/Withdrawal system, allowing people to place items but not retrieve them, perhaps as a form of taxation someday. Of course, such things would be for far later in development.

need there be said more? 92%

I voted no as this can already be done by plot based permissions. It is even in the journal feats for how to use beacon controls for setting by plot permissions.

Follow the steps in the journal feat to set the permissions for the plot you want access. Just don’t have your storage in the same plot as your machines. Simple as that.

2 Likes

I will agree with others. . there is already a mechanic in place to protect your storage. There are many things on the developers list that I would rather have than this. I will agree we are more likely to have a problem with more people, but players are going to have to learn how far to trust people.

1 Like

true, but its far more inconvenient to have to build around than to just have the control in the beacon add an extra button to click don’t ya think?

I mean obviously for a later idea to think about. We all ALREADy know there is no more features before 1.0. But I think it’s still a good idea to discuss after 1.0, at some point.

1 Like

that one does not work. Tested it in testing even if your machines and storage are in diffrent plots / when you allow a person to use machines they can also use the storage any where in that beacon

and yes you cannot make onter beacon place it there and turn it off they are linked :slight_smile:

I think what was meant there is that if you have 2 separate beacons (owned by the same player), you can place them next to each other and split the permissions that way.


Personally I would prefer more granular control over permissions in general - including locks, who can both deposit or withdraw items from storage etc.


Originally my idea for the colour-coded beacons was supposed to allow this sort of thing, so you could have a lone beacon, right in the middle of your build, which wouldn’t prevent you being able to plot over/under it with your other beacon colours. That way you could have a storage room in your basement that was accessible by others.

1 Like

I like this idea. like a plot permission override within your build.

1 Like

Locks don’t work right. If you click the side of a container, you can still access it. Unless they have done some changes to it, locks are only good for doors.

And it is a pain like Dulki mentioned. Why is it okay to use a machine, and at the same time pull their hammer out and start taking blocks. The descriptions are a little confusing to some (not everyone) as well, when they read the 3 permission choices.

in any debate, 1. Note a Problem, 2. general discussion of need to fix or not, 3. Discussion of possible solutions, 4. Vote on solution if one is needed.

Once a majority has spoken of a need, no reason to try to keep being the anchor that doesn’t allow for the next step. Better to add opinion of most comfortable solution.

1 Like

I would say the majority would like more permissions, and mostly agrees at the very least one of those options should be allow people to use machines, but not access storage.

I would certainly like the permission voted on in the poll implemented sooner rather than later to prevent Launch griefing, but acknowledge other permission changes would likely take a while to implement. I also admit I don’t know how difficult the one permission voted on in this poll would be to implement, so I won’t say something ignorant like, “Why haven’t they done it yet?” and such. Programming can be complicated and time consuming.

We seem to be at stage 3, and should all try to offer our best solutions. I posted a fake user interface I made in MS Paint in my OP, I’d like to see what other solutions people can come up with. To be clear, my solution would be a long-term one, not a short-term fix, I’m not advocating the Devs stop all they’re doing and focus on that solely.

2 Likes