Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Permissions'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Official Buildings
    • GM Hall
    • City Hall
    • Website News
    • Public Test Board
  • Back Streets
    • Town Square
    • Community Assistance
    • Village Recruitment Center
    • Suggestions & Ideas
    • The Creative Commons
    • Wood Scraps
  • Northern Freedom Isles
    • Harmony
    • Melody
    • Cadence
    • Northern Freedom Isles Market
  • Southern Freedom Isles
    • Celebration
    • Deliverance
    • Exodus
    • Independence
    • Pristine
    • Release
    • Xanadu
    • Southern Freedom Isles Market
  • Maintenance Buildings
    • Technical Issues
    • Server Bugs
    • Client Bugs
    • Model and Sound Bugs
    • Other Bugs and Issues
    • Wurmpedia / Wiki Maintenance
  • Wurm Unlimited
    • Unlimited Discussion
    • Unlimited Modding
    • Server Listings & Advertisement
    • Technical Issues

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



















Found 85 results

  1. 2 for 1 that are super similar: 1. Please add the option in permissions of a deed to allow any mine door placed like gates built to automatically be passable by certain roles. 2. Please add filtering option for passable by "Kingdom, Everyone, Alliance, and Village" Both are super useful for very large deeds where we have hundreds of mine doors floating around and it would be nice to quickly allow access. Also the filtering is super nice for the if not thousands of mine doors someone has off deed (especially on chaos), just like gates.
  2. Please make animal branding permissions outrank deed leading permissions. This has apparently been a problem for a while... Yesterday one of my citizens wanted to go to the dragon slaying, but discovered his horse was missing. He had left it in a pen attached to his house; branded, saddled, and ready to go. He tracked it down with Manage Animal, inside a locked pasture on a nearby deed. A very nice GM helped retrieve the animal this morning, but informed me that my deed settings allowed this to happen. My citizen has since put locks on his pen. I have "lead animals" permitted in order to sell animals from my merchant. This should not allow my *branded* animals to be taken by all of the Freedom Isles!
  3. We encountered this today, and it happened without any changes made to permissions. A champ wildcat on deed with no branding and no cared for, was charmed by a fo priest with full permissions on the deed. The fo is mayor of an allied deed to the deed where the cat was located. The cat was charmed successfully (priest has done this many, many times before as the priest is the char used to breed the champ animals and hellhorses). After being charmed on the deed, the cat pet was handed to another char, not allianced. The other char is the mayor of a deed not in alliance with either the fo priest's deed or the deed where the cat was located. The pet was successfully given to the other char. This char then took the cat off deed to care for it, brought it back, and untamed it. The deed's mayor then tamed the cat, branded it, and untamed it. The original fo priest then tried to charm the cat again. It was "illegal". A support ticket was lodged. Ticket #142605. GM Prawn attended and we tried different things namely Removing the fo priest's role on the deed, removing all alliance permissions on the deed, then making a role specifically for the fo priest and ticked ALL boxes, (it was still illegal for the fo to charm on deed), then allowing alliance to cast deity spells on deed (still illegal for the fo to charm on deed), then making animal specific permission allowing the fo priest all permissions for the specific cat (still illegal to charm the animal). Prawn the teleported the fo priest and the cat off deed, at which point the fo priest was able to charm the animal. Teleporting them back, it was once again illegal to charm the animal on deed, for this fo priest. While off deed, the animal was still branded for the original deed, but the priest was able to charm it, but ON deed the priest could no longer cast charm on the animal. The fo was also not able to charm any other branded animal on this deed which was branded to this specific deed, despite being able to charm all other animals on this deed which were branded to either another deed (for which the exact same permissions were granted), or not branded. It was only "illegal" to charm the animals branded to this specific deed while actually on this deed. Also, the priest can actually TAME this wildcat, just no longer charm them. GM suggested I make this forum post as neither of us knew what went wrong and had no further ideas to try resolve it. Please help resolve this before the cats die Want champ wildcat babies. Thanks
  4. So, I have currently maxed out on role slots and I will say I'm setting up my deed in a very unconventional way by providing a unique role to every member of my deed. However, the system that I want to put in place requires it to work like this. All I'm asking for is maybe an additional 55 slots to bring it up to 100 roles as it seems like the cap is currently 45. I imagine this wouldn't hurt the game in anyway and shouldn't cause any lag or the sort. I'm perfectly glad to go into detail about the system I want to put in place but it's a lot to talk about and I don't feel as though it's super necessary to discuss in order to get a change like this, but if people really want to know I can talk about it in the comment section. Image of my current roles 11-45 are currently unused but I don't consider it too farfetched to see myself hitting 45 deed members in the near future.
  5. We are unable to drink water from fountains (and probably wells too) on deeds outside our alliance, as of today's update. I went over to Port Sopor, Deliverance - a neighbour's deed not in my alliance, and tried to drink from his public fountain. The fountain contained plain water. [22:12:25] That would be very bad for your karma and is disallowed on this server.
  6. When you own a deed and someone else finishes a colossus on it, or purchase a deed with a colossus created by someone else, the mayor does not have move (push, pull, turn) rights nor do they have destroy option. Please allow these for the mayor of the deed the colossus is on, similar to guard towers. Thanks.
  7. Hi everyone, I'm a mayor of a relatively new deed on Independence... and I've got a bit of a "fool me once..." situation. What I Want: Some feedback based on in-game experiences, as well as personal play style commentary. Discussion with and between Wurm players. Honesty. What I DO NOT Need To Be Told: how permissions function, how to use permissions, technical aspects and how-to's. That I'm a stupid girl. That I'm naive. That I need to L2P. No grandstanding or hating. Some Background: I deeded a large swath of land. It's basically a rectangle longer than it is tall, that occupies most of a relatively steep hillside. The land includes a ton of trees, bushes, an entire mine, and even part of a highway. I have plans for all the space I took, and intend to work on this deed (and stick around on WO) long-term. Knowing that deeding this land will take away access to a bunch of previously free resources (wood, ore, food, mobs in the forest, etc) from the established locals... I deliberately set non-citizen permissions on deed for harvesting resources. In order to allow this level of access, it is necessary to also allow pick-up privileges. This is especially for trees and ore - resources that don't automatically go into your inventory, and require you to pick them up after gathering. I put a LOT of thought into this decision, and I knew how risky this level of permission - for basically anyone - would be. Where I'm Coming From: Despite the risk, I felt that it was (is) important to be a positive addition to my neighborhood. My deed is also very close to a newbie spawn point - so I also wanted new players venturing out for the first time to be able to use forage & botany, etc. Part of why I felt comfortable deeding so much land was that, from the very start, the build I intend to create on this land is based on a kinda idealized version of an old English estate (very idealized, lol) - where someone owns the land and is technically in charge, but the lands are accessible to the locals for farming, building their own homes as tenants, setting up a local market or town square to socialize, using the land & water resources for hunting, fishing, etc. Ultimately, I simply wanted to be neighborly, to play fairly, and to keep other's enjoyment of the game in mind. The Situation: As I have been building and gathering resources, things have been.... going missing. This is happening in areas that are noticeably "in-progress" and obviously on someone's deed. I have been building very methodically and keeping resources clustered together, to avoid the appearance of this stuff having been abandoned in the middle of nowhere. Anything that is able to be "secured" has been planted. But I'm not perfect, and some things end up simply dumped in a pile, or are otherwise loose - especially when there are times that I've needed to log off in a hurry. First it was a barrel of nails. Fairly low quality and easy to replace. Then there was a barrel of ribbons. Again, pretty low quality and I simply replaced them and the barrel. The most recent was a large barrel full of water (I haven't built a well yet). Obviously, again, not such a deal - I'll replace the large barrel and I'm not dying of thirst. Anything else that has "wandered off" has been mostly incidental, some jars of milk and cooking oil, a stack of grass or dirt or planks. Nothing really unfortunate... yet. I do have areas that are fenced in and behind locks: my horses and work animals, my food and fields, my cart of major supplies and tools. But I'm more concerned by the overall pattern being established here. Will the person(s) making visits to "borrow" from me eventually decide to bash down a fence and take my sheep? Or horses? Due to limitations beyond my control, some areas that I'm using are on perimeter instead of on deed. I would have simply deeded more, but there are reasons that this is not an option. And even if that never happens... will I always be plagued by ongoing petty theft in return for my attempts to be accessible and neighborly? The Bottom Line: I knew that something like this was a risk when I set the permissions the way that I did. Now that I have new information (in-game experience) - should I re-evaluate my earlier decision to allow general access to resources on-deed? Should I restrict non-citizen access, and come up with some other way to provide free resources and materials to my neighbors and the occasional traveler? What would that look like? How can I make that happen? Will these incidents escalate, or is this just a minor annoyance that isn't worth making any changes over? Is there a general consensus among Wurmians about resource access & etiquette? In terms of "Wurniam ethics," am I doing something abnormal, or is the "thief" the aberration? Ultimately: at what point does this cross a line and I need to tighten my permissions - if ever?
  8. Currently only a mayor of a deed can rename branded animals of the deed. As a deed with multiple citizens this poses a problem when looking after animals. A player can have all the permissions associated with caring for them, including 'blue' ones such as branding etc. However, what one cannot be given permission for is renaming. Renaming is fundamentally required to keep track of animals, especially Bison, for the purposes of preventing inbreeding. It is understandable that the Mayor of a deed has exclusive privileges for actions which are associated with their role, but renaming branded animals should not be classed amongst them. If the permission to even resize the deed, etc, which is directly related to Deed politics, can be given out then surely renaming should be too.
  9. If a building is on deed and for some reason the player who owned the building stops playing, the mayor should have the option of claiming ownership of this building. There is no reason for the mayor not to have this ability, they already have the ability to demolish the building, and or allow other village members the same option. So in essence there is no security issues with the player who was permitted to put up the building up on the deed in the first place. There are many reasons for a mayor to always try and obtain the ownership of on deed buildings, but quite often this is not done as to allow the village member of a deed some responsibility and freedom in doing there own building while living in that village. Often deeds transfer hands several times and a few buildings sit there with no active ownership. I myself in the past with friends joining wurm and playing for a short time then leaving again, along with there building writs. Asking for them to hand over the writ to there first building they put up was not something I ever thought to ask them. Recently I bought a deed and the owner did not have all the writs, I spent a lot of time with catapults and mauls tearing down buildings when I decided to resize the deed, a very time consuming task and such a waste for a nice building as well. What reason is there to force the mayor and members of a village to destroy a building simply because the owner is no longer playing. Quit often the building may be very large, or perhaps so nice you would not want to destroy it in the first place, or maybe a bridge is connected to it or just a good functional building. Unowned buildings in a village leads to huge problems if the village needs to be resized or even maintained, as the mayor will not have ownership of all the buildings. Also just think of the poor folks who for whatever reason let there deed upkeep lapse, they come back to a village they will not be able to re-deed over if there is a unowned building smack in the middle of it. I have seen this happen several times over the years, with people replanting there deed the same day or even a few days after it has disbanded. I have seen a re-deed village with the token very far off to the side of its original location due to unowned buildings on the opposite side where the buildings they wanted to keep along with the one causing the problems all taking perimeter decay. What I propose is a simple solution to this problem, allow a mayor to walk up to a building that is on there deed, right click it and transfer the building to there ownership. Once done the permissions can be set for the person who originally owned the building or the mayor could just destroy it or even assign it to a new villager or just do whatever they want with it, it is there deed after all. I hear lots of talk about making wurm more enjoyable for the playerbase, well un-owned buildings in your village is anything but enjoyable when the time comes to dealing with them.
  10. Tents, the wonderful portable respawn that any traveler adores. Great for when on unique hunts and amazing if you are a priest wandering inland on Xanadu. Trouble is they're irrepairable and un-impable. Now I can understand why they are not repairable, otherwise everyone would just keep their tent at 1 QL and be done with it. The first change I propose is that tents can be repaired using square cloth on them (rather how one must use water to repair potted plants) and can also be improved when fully repaired (cloth tailoring seems a good skill). The only reason I suggest this is my OCD attacks me every time I see "damage 5.3" next to an item in my inventory that I cannot repair! The second change is to do with tents on deeds. Again I can understand why they are not currently droppable on deeds, otherwise you could house hundreds of alts in one village, giving them the benefit of a non-decaying spawn point without the completely unfair double upkeep. So I propose something a little different, namely a new permission "drop tent" that allows usergroups to place a tent on the deed. While someone's tent is on the deed they count towards the population of that village for the purpose of upkeep (to preventing the 100 alts scenario) and giving deed owners the option of letting players camp or not. Optional Extra : Mayors can set a price for "camping" (akin to beds) so that anyone dropping a tent will be warned and, if they accept, the tent drops and the camper will be charged the fee mentioned. Lets make a bit of cash
  11. Alright, I know the creature cages just came out a day ago, and I wasn't there for testing. Because if I was, I would be asking to keep permissions of branded animals cross-server (or some kind of new craftable nametag that says "It has been branded by and belongs to the settlement of {deed name} in {server name}"). If you have branded the animal, people should be able to see this brand on other servers (instead of saying "Wogic's the reason the brand magically disappears after crossing servers"). Now I realize most people are going to be against this, saying "Wurm isn't a soloable game, you're supposed to play with friends, or own a deed on every server." Not everyone has time, or wants to make friends, or have the money to afford deeds (including the upkeep) on every server (so they can explore every server with their horse). That's why I say, a special branding or some kind of nametag (perhaps based on one's Animal Husbandry skill) could be attached to the creature cage (since you cannot attach items to the horse while its in the cage), that would transfer the permissions off-server. Of course, the item should have decay.
  12. I'm actually reporting two bugs with the creature cage (one major and one minor). Major: I put my horse in the cage, loaded it up and took it cross-server. It survived the trip. Went over to the mainland, unloaded and 'Opened' the cage. Selected the horse, and I see no 'Unload Creature' option. I tried doing this off of a deed as well, still no option. Loaded it back up and went back home (to my server). Unloaded, tried to unload the horse.. again, no option. My neighbor suggested that I should be able to unload it in a structure. Tried my house... still no option. Tried relogging, still no option. So I made a GM ticket. I cannot bash the cage (to get it to 80 damage, to free it), because it says there's a creature in the cage. Added a picture of what I see; Minor: A visual bug. The horse turns brown when in the cage (when it's actually gray).
  13. As I was trying to enchant grass for a neighbor, I had an idea for something that would be really helpful. Several times I've had the experience of trying to help someone and them having trouble trying to figure out how to give me permissions to do what they'd like me to do. So here's an idea... If someone with the ability to modify deed permissions (called the mayor henceforth) is present (within a certain number of tiles - should be fairly close to prevent annoyance) and they have allowed this permission request: Then when the visitor attempts something not allowed, the mayor will get a popup window that details the action attempted, permission required, and asks for a response permit once permit for x:xx time disallow do not pester me for this action/person again To make a change permanent, click here to open the deed permission management window This would allow newbies to get help without spending an hour figuring out how to let someone help them... probably a lot of things I haven't thought of with this... but it seems like it'd be helpful to everyone. JS
  14. I'm not sure this is or isn't intended, it feels like a side effect of permissions changes in time though. On Release, we have a deed with a cathedral building, which I personally consider one of the wonders of Wurmworld. This huge building, all in stone, with its walls and bridges and fences, has taken a lot of work, and we want for a while to remake it all in marble. Since the marble walls exist, and a cathedral must be in marble, you know. One by one, wall by wall. The mayor has already replaced many walls, and many are remaining. Please see the pics attached. My toon is a villager on this deed. It has permissions to modify the building, like our other friends part of the deed. We are trying to help with this undertaking. I made marble bricks and got hold of mortar, and went to replace several more walls. Using a large maul 85ql: [19:28:31] You start to destroy the wall. [19:29:00] You damage the wall. [19:29:03] Material plain stone [19:29:03] You see a wall. [19:29:03] QL=76.05859, dam=3.546775 This means my toon doesn't have the bashing bonus on house walls. But, it does on fences: similar ql stone fences, in the same deed, took only several hits. Tested on another deed, on Indy, to understand why this happened. As a citizen, owner of a house and with all permissions on it, you can bash its walls, but don't get the bonus: [22:27:02] You damage the wall. [22:27:05] Material sandstone [22:27:05] You see a wall. [22:27:05] QL=55.569897, dam=0.7834529 In the same time, on fences, you have the bonus: [22:33:24] QL=47.936806, dam=0.0 [22:33:41] You damage a sandstone fence. [22:33:44] You see a strong fence. [22:33:44] QL=47.936806, dam=53.08935 Once the citizen has "Destroy All Buildings" on deed permission, then it gets the bashing bonus on house walls too: [22:35:32] You damage the wall. [22:35:35] Material sandstone [22:35:35] You see a wall. [22:35:35] QL=55.559513, dam=48.546318 Please consider fixing this. The way we expected it to work is: if you're citizen and can destroy a building's walls, then you get the bashing bonus. Whether you can destroy those walls due to modify permission on house (my Release case), or due to Destroy All Buildings on deed permission (the last Indy case), shouldn't matter... It would mean a lot for our major mission on Release. Currently, the mayor isn't playing, too, so even if we wanted we can't mess around with permissions there. I'm also sure we absolutely didn't even dream that "modify building" wouldn't be ok for the task. The mayor assigned them to be used when we need, and since we are citizens, I do think there's no good reason why we wouldn't replace those walls the same way we already do fences. Please see the pics, all those stone walls scream "I don't belong here, make me shiny marble!"
  15. As I continue work with the Ultima Nostalgia project (in which the entire server is one huge deed), I'm getting more and more requests on YouTube and elsewhere from people who would like to live in their own house on the server. I suspect that a lot of these people are Ultima players who have never tried Wurm before but who would be willing to buy Wurm Unlimited to live in a place that looks like UO and is populated by other Ultima fans. Obviously, since they've never played Wurm they don't really understand how deeds work. So I've tried to explain the problems of letting them live there. This got me to thinking about permissions. We can set permissions to houses, carts, boats, fences, mounts etc. But what if we could right click and set permissions to TILES that are within one's deed? This way, deed owners could: Create various empty plots - allowing "anything goes" so players could build a house from ground up, farm etc and anything they wished - so sort of like a mini deed inside a deed. Create a public mine that allows players to mine and pick up ore, but doesn't allow them to load a forge onto a cart Create wood chopping forests, keeping the forests and trees of the rest of the deed safe. Create public farming land And I'm sure there are many uses that I'm not even realizing at this point It would be up to the deed owner to mark these areas somehow with fences or signs Right click tile... Set permissions from a popup Coordinates of tile can be seen in the title to ease remote management Tile could be named to better keep track of which set of tiles (Plot 1, Plot 2, Public forest, Public mine etc) they belong to PS: Before posting this, I checked to see if there were any other similar posts, and I'd just like to point out that Enigma_Prime is suggesting something similar. Please go and check out Enigma's post as well. I decided to make a separate thread about this since what I'm asking for is slightly different, has different mechanics etc
  16. Hello. It often happens to give permissions to other players to rack, ships, wagons, carts, bsb; permissions to be passenger, to hold and so on. It is possible to deny the permissions, but the name remains in the list anyway, so slowly the list become longer and longer. I would like to see, next to "deny permissions", the option "remove player from the list", In this way it would be easier to menage our properties.
  17. It would be nice, since the permissions still work now, if horses that were dead could still be managed until the permissions wear off. Otherwise I can't let someone else loot or pickup my own horse if I didn't plan for its death ahead of time and already give them permission... >.<
  18. Proposition We currently have a system for planting items that prevents people other than the planter from messing with the item unless the original planter has sufficiently neglected the item to the point where it's effective quality is less than 10. This helps clean up areas where deeds have disbanded without having everything go to waste. I propose that something similar be done for locked items. Feature Requirements Minimum Viable Product Any player shall have full permission on a locked item with an effective quality less than 10 that is off deed. When the effective quality of a locked item is lower than 10, when examined, the lock description shall have “ that has rusted open”, “ that is ineffectively in disrepair”, or some similar text added to denote the lock is not functioning. When the effective quality of a locked item is raised above 10, it should again be checked for permission as before dropping below an effective quality of 10. Supplemental Requirements When the effective quality of an off deed item is below 10, a player shall be presented with an option to remove the lock. Reasoning I speak mainly from my experiences with deeds that have been disbanded in excess of a year. If you want to expand a waterfront road, but someone has moored a locked boat to the shore, you boat must sit on the road until it has decayed away. A preferable solution would be that the boat could be moved and repurposed. If there is an area where several chests have fallen together beside a road where a multi story house decayed away leaving just the locked items behind, you can't do anything about the except let them decay away. A preferable solution would be to repurpose them for other uses. If there is a wagon or cart abandoned by the side of a road, or in the old parking spot, the animals hitched to the vehicle are doom to stand there for an eternity waiting for the vehicle to pop. Many will never know the freedom of running free, or at least traveling to new and exciting places, because they are trapped there by neglecting former hitchers. Since we already have made the decision that planted items should be able to be moved and reused after being neglected for a suitable amount of time, I find that it is only reasonable to extend that rational to locked items. Items that are abandoned that decay over time could be considered similar to a lost treasure in the lore of the game. For a legal standpoint, the Kingdom could consider this as being a law that any item sufficiently abandoned should be considered abandoned and the property of whoever reclaims it. An item may maintain ownership if it is checked regularly (I.e. repaired), by the owner, a confidant, or a generous stranger. After sufficient abandonment, the original owner loses the rights to the items on the grounds of abandonment and littering. (All remarks in this paragraph pertaining specifically to lore, and not to any actually coded functionality.) I don't suggest the lock automatically drop off when the effective quality drops below 10, because that saves someone who actually does reclaim the item the need to reapply the lock and redistribute copies of the key.
  19. A common issue that I've seen in the CA HELP channel that seems to cause new players issues is that they lose access when taking an unowned cart onto a deed. From what they say they are unable to move the cart afterward. There is a notification for boats and tents which covers some permissions information but it seems like the carts are left out.
  20. Currently most people play on their own deeds with all villagers being their own alts. When one alt drops and item, another can pick up just fine, if the right permissions are set. However, when renaming something, only the person that picks up and drops something can rename it. This is particularly a bummer when you have multiple alts all helping to decorate a building with containers, etc. Alt-1 drops a BSB and names it QL 1-9. Later, you decide it needs to be 1-49, because your skills are much higher. Gotta find the right alt to rename it now, or if you traded that alt away and if the BSB was planted, you now have to completely unload it, then get your deed holder alt to pick it up and replace it. If the deed holder is too weak, they can't replant it, so gotta get another alt to do that and manage the naming. This turns into a complete nightmare at times. Need a settlement deed permissions setting to allow renaming of all dropped or planted items by all citizens, or possible a check list of citizens, so you can choose all your alts, but not other villagers you invited to the deed.
  21. I feel that many people play this game for the novelty of how WURM works and the fact that you have pretty much full freedom to do what you want when you want with specific limitations. However, it has been my experience, regarding WURM, that there is an issue with player community. The players themselves do what they can to promote community and the devs have done a wonderful job improving this area yet to me it seems that it still lacks the "Let's be togetherness". I believe this idea that I have about the ability to "sell" property to players if they wish to be a citizen of a settlement can help with this shortcoming. Selling property with preset permissions that come with being an "auto citizen" lets individuals get to know others by proxy of purchased property. Essentially the community stems from being neighbors. One of the walls I have found as a deed owner is the fact that I have to "get to know" anyone and almost everyone that I add as a citizen. I would have to spend a considerable amount of time with an individual, as a deed owner or an individual that is capable of inviting strangers to a deed, in order to fully know if they are trustworthy enough to not seriously grief/damage everything on my deed before giving them the permissions that they want as part of a deed. All the while the individual wanting the benefits of my deed, and the community that comes with it, will have to wait that considerable amount of time to do pretty much anything on deed while they craft and build things off deed (wasting their time in my opinion). This may not seem like a problem with settlements that have a population less than 5 however when it gets to the point that the settlement has 10 - 20 or more then it gets annoying. As mentioned before as a settlement mayor it is hard to justify the time spent getting to know all the individuals that want to enter my deed. It is time better spent enjoying all the facets of this game that I have yet to do. This is only my opinion but the micromanagement style to deed owning is arduous. This issue is reduced a little with the ability to sell property that I allocate on my deed. As the mayor (or anyone authorized to do mayor things) I can then set certain permissions that automatically take effect as soon as they buy the property (and become a citizen of the settlement) just like it is set up now. The benefit of this situation is the individual that purchased the property can do what they wish, how they wish within the confines of the purchased property and its set permissions. The ability to sell property on a deed alleviates the issue of "trustworthiness" of the individual and enables them to gain the settlement benefits they so desire all the while putting a bit of currency in the coffers of the deed (the purchaser will still have to adhere to and be aware of any taxes that come with being a citizen). It is no secret that WURM also lacks anything that can be considered an economy. It has been mentioned by the players and the devs uniformly that the trading system between players is... clunky at best. The idea of selling property will benefit to the inevitable solution by creating a bit of "cash-flow" through the settlement. The Mayor (or authorized citizens) plant a property marker, sets the price and they are done. As soon as another player "purchases" that property marker funds are debited from the players account and the deed coffer is credited. Now this is in no way to be a huge effect on the problem but does introduce motivation to both purchase and use in-game currency. So this is all good but how would a system like this be set up? Good question and I have thought about this quite a bit: 1) Mayor (or authorized citizen) sets up permissions for a "New citizen" just like they do now. This will be what they are allowed to do anywhere on the deed (Pick-up items, not pick-up items, Lead, not lead, dig, not dig, etc.) 2) Set up a "property profile" for different types of property (what the purchaser is allowed to do within the confines of this type of property) Similar to the "New citizen" permissions however will include subjects such as maximum slope allowed or maximum building height for example. 3) Purchase a property stake from a trader (or make one. this would be entirely up to codeclub) 4) Place the property stake. Now this seems simple however I have thought about just letting the "marker" be in the center like the deed marker but considering you are dealing with a much smaller area (I'm thinking minimum 5x5 tiles with a one tile [or more] perimeter) Having a marker in the center where you cannot build anything would be annoying. So the solution would be to place the marker and have a UI that would allow a 0 to be placed in the fields asking how far north/east/west/south you would like the property to be with a minimum of two fields filled in and a mandatory perimeter (minimum one tile). 5) Apply a "property profile" to the marker and “citizen type” they would become if purchased. 6) Set Price 7) Player purchases property That's it. As soon as the purchaser buys the property they are now a citizen of the settlement (which is set with the "property profile") and can freely build within the property limits (also set in the "property profile"). From here on it is up to the new citizen to get to know others do good things for the settlement and gain more permissions or higher citizen ranking along the way. I admit there are a few more questions that need to be answered that are more difficult to deal with and ultimately, if this idea takes off, would have to be debated. However this is the gist of the subject. Some questions that I had a hard time confronting: 1) If an individual purchases property then quits playing/doesn't follow the rules/irritates the other citizens; do I as the mayor have the right to revoke their citizenship and take their property? A: If the property was rented you could as deed owner refuse to continue contract after expiration. 2) If, as a mayor, I have the right to take their property how does codeclub prevent mayors from stealing your game currency by booting the citizen out as soon as the transaction is complete? A: The mayor would be bound to a "rental contract", as it were, and be unable to cancel the contract until the agreed upon time is met. The deed owner would also be unable to disband the deed until such time that all rental contracts are expired. This would alleviate this issue. 3) Would a purchaser have the ability to purchase more property and if so how would I prevent them from “land-grabbing”? A: All properties are by contract and a default of one contract per toon. It would be between the deed owner and the renter to allow for a bigger plot. 4) Would a purchaser have the right to develop the property then sell to another? If so does the second purchaser become a citizen? and to this if so then what level of citizen? A: No, however one could allow the rental contract to expire therefore allowing another individual to rent the space. 5) Can purchasers "sub-lease"/share the property? A: No 6) After purchasing; would the purchaser be able to add others to the property and set permissions for them? A: No EDIT: It has bee pointed out by Vanyel that renting spaces would be more viable and I agree. EDIT 2: If you like this idea you may like this idea as well
  22. I've got all my gates set to alliance, and I've just had to unlock a bunch of them to let an alliance member through. I tried relogging and un-adding then re-adding alliance permission to pass the gate, but none of it worked. The same thing with leading - my alliance has permission to lead on my deed, and we had to go off deed to let the alliance person lead a horse...
  23. It sure would be sweet if we could manage permissions for other servers. I'm sitting in the middle of Xanadu and want to get some more of my alts over, but my main (on Xanadu) owns the fleet of boats on my other server. So I have a 3 hour sail back, just to cross the border and do a boat ownership transfer to one of the other alts. Maybe it needs to be this way because of Chaos? If not, can we change it to allow permissions across all servers?
  24. With an alt, I went to see if an easter egg has decayed. My main has dropped the egg, but I wasn't on that server so I sent the alt just to see. The egg was on a deed, right on the same tile with the deed token. It had decayed, and there was an opal on the pavement. [00:58:38] You get an opal. The alt is not citizen of that deed, and it has no permissions afaik. Just to be sure, I did test pickup, push, pickup planted, and it doesn't have them: [00:59:33] That would be very bad for your karma and is disallowed on this server. It's not able to pick up anything else. This alt didn't drop the egg there, it's non-prem and didn't have any egg. Is this intended or known, or it may have slipped through, for items from eggs?
  25. Lately, since rifts have begun, we've been having fun displaying rift corpses on our deed next to a large highway. Unfortunately, deed permissions don't allow blocking of the "bury" action. So invariably someone comes along and buries our corpses and we don't have a display anymore. To alleviate this problem, we had a writ with an open arched wall section where we put a corpse. Unfortunately, that corpse was butchered since writs have no way of blocking the "butcher" action. It'd be great if burying things was tied into another on-deed permission. Say butchering or digging. Similarly, I don't see why someone on a writ with no rights to enter a building or pick anything up should be able to butcher corpses there. (especially when it's also on deed). Thanks for your time,