Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'permission system'.
Found 3 results
As it stands under the current system, Settlement-Manage Settings , we can mark the checkbox for deed guards to "Mark this if you want your guards to ignore aggressive creatures". This is a incomplete permission system and quite flawed. Allow me to argue. We had a funny incident in our deed this week, where about 6 eaglespirits spawned near our deed and one was a champ. You can figure out what happened afterwards just by the number. A couple of tamed horses got killed, and a villager got killed repeatedly by the champ eaglespirit. Needless to say, 5 tower guards couldn't handle the influx of spirits of this number. The annoying part was when I unchecked the box for guards to attack aggressive creatures. Lo and behold, instead of attacking the eaglespirits , our brave spirit templars aggroed on our deed Hell Horses and started slaying them in droves. This shouldn't happen on deeds. Seriously, besides a defence against raiders, what use do spirit templars have against aggressive animals if instead of killing enemy creatures, they just butcher your own hell horses? My suggestion is this. Add a new Reputation Checkbox for each aggressive animal in part. It could look like the rep box for players. For example: Set reputation for Scorpion: -100. (guards will always attack scorps) Set reputation for Hell Horse: +100 (guards will always ignore hell horses) Set reputation for Lava Spiders: -100 (guards will always attack Lava Spiders) Set reputation for Bears: +100 (guards will always ignore bears, why not? some people like bears as pets, etc.) You get the general idea from this list. This could be implemented quite elegantly in wurm and thus help deeds adequately defend against certain types of creatures while not endangering hell horses (which are often a pvp and pve asset). What do you guys think? I find that we really need this feature.
Currently when you buy furniture rare/supreme from another player and it's to heavy the only way to move it or transfer permissions is by loading. Normally when you load/unload it you are now the owner. Not with benches, and there might be other items that are like this. I recently bought a wooden bench (supreme) from another player and I was confused why I couldn't rename it or secure it as a mayor of my deed. [13:17:26] You do not have permission to secure that. (Supreme wooden bench I bought) I created one for testing purposes. As you noticed I can't rename it. Now I'm sure this is not the only item like this, here is a suggestion, if you load/unload something you should be the new owner. Currently there is no way to transfer permissions. Thanks for your time. It might be possible for theft even, check that!
The new permissions system has been absolutely AMAZING and I can't even think of how much work went into coding it :). Great job! But I have one itsy bitsy wish from how it used to work before the new permissions system was put into place: Allowing the ability to control who can and cannot "attach locks". Before we could do it, now we can't. Here is my situation. I have an extra deed where my breeder (Malena) sells horses. The deed is of course owned by one of my alts. Malena travels there once in a while to breed up new horses, check the vendor and replenish empty stalls with new horses and in the process change the locks with fresh ones. This all worked beautifully back in the day, no problemo. Then when the new permission system came in, my work became a bit more cumbersome as I would have to log my deed-owner alt on for the mere purpose of changing the locks for the gates. Highly annoying for sure, but "doable". However now I've decided to turn that "idle" alt into a real character, so I premed her up and she's training to become a priest and to speed up the process, she has traveled to far reaches of Xanadu to join a sermon group. This means that now she cannot help with restocking the horse stalls anymore since she's so far away. The reason I wanted to post this here is so that people could chip in with their own opinion on this. There must surely be a reason it was changed to be this way and I'd love to hear people's feedback on whether they love this added security or not. Or, if you're like me and have been annoyed by this change, chime in too!