New Permissions (Part 1) - Gates

[Keenan 5,539]

*snip*

I didn't see Tich's reply

Edited July 30, 2015 by Keenan

[Keenan 5,539]

I'll just wait and see what's what. Just trying to be helpful, not annoying which I suppose I am being.

 

I thought padlocks, for carts and such, were going to not have keys. Padlocks (small and large) are what go onto carts. They go onto chests and such also. Gates aren't going to have keys. Mine doors and writs never did. Ships I thought were not going to have them either.

 

We could simply just have "small padlock" being for containers, with keys, and "large padlock" being for vehicles without a key. Right now they're interchangeable. 

[Audrel 2,223]

We could simply just have "small padlock" being for containers, with keys, and "large padlock" being for vehicles without a key. Right now they're interchangeable. 

Edited July 30, 2015 by Audrel

[LorraineJ 1,099]

It was a bug, the code that did the unlocking could not work where it was, but I've now changed it so the code is in correct place, and it will NOT unlock the gates. Currently it will reset the open and close times, and in new system will just reset the settlement may manage flag (and remove any citizen or ally permissions as deed no longer exist).

 

Please bear with me, my reading comprehension seems to have esaped me. So you're saying that it has been examined, and now when a deed disbands, it is possible for all the gates to stay locked, which means only the keyholders of each individual gate can cross through any particular gate? So large tracts of land may be inaccessible unless someone bashes the fences/gates? And doofuses like me can actually lock two of their alts INSIDE the deed and have to waste their teleport home to get the heck out because they have no muscles? I guess I'm trying to follow how this is helpful to the server, being nosey. It makes it harder to move around and/or re-deed that land.

[Audrel 2,223]

Please bear with me, my reading comprehension seems to have esaped me. So you're saying that it has been examined, and now when a deed disbands, it is possible for all the gates to stay locked, which means only the keyholders of each individual gate can cross through any particular gate? So large tracts of land may be inaccessible unless someone bashes the fences/gates? And doofuses like me can actually lock two of their alts INSIDE the deed and have to waste their teleport home to get the heck out because they have no muscles? I guess I'm trying to follow how this is helpful to the server, being nosey. It makes it harder to move around and/or re-deed that land.

 

If you deed a locked gate, it will be come yours. 

[LorraineJ 1,099]

If you deed a locked gate, it will be come yours. 

 

Yes, this part I follow, a mayor can switch out locks, and anyone in the deed perms can cross gates once the land is re-deeded. I guess what I'm pointing out is, if a deed is all locked up, and then un-deeds, no one can get in there if the gates remain locked. This happened on a deed I had been eyeballing. I wanted to re-deed it, but didn't feel like bashing out stone fences to get in the middle to do it. So I waited and waited (not paying) until enough holes let me get in there, so I could place the token near the middle. Seems wasteful. Then on another deed I disbanded after a griefing, I got spastic and left the alt mayor in there, as well as a Nahjo priest alt I forgot was over there, because I had to look far and wide for a spot to place an altar. So the two of them got locked in the deed when it got disbanded. Yes I know it was dopey but now that deed is all locked up, and no one can browse around and think about re-deeding it easily.

[Audrel 2,223]

I would prefer they stay locked. I have disbanded before (not since Deed It or Lose It though) and lived wild. If the gates unlocked, everything I own would grow feet and walk away. Many others may choose to disband from time to time, though it's a lot more risky now.

 

It's a 50/50 really. You can run around really quickly and lock them after you disband as well as make sure your keys aren't locked inside one when you do. Though I understand an alt locked in a fence. It happens. Building yourself into a fence with no gate happens too.

[Klaa 4,872]

I fully encourage leaving gates unlocked

[Audrel 2,223]

I fully encourage leaving gates unlocked

 

Klaa? Around you I would feel inclined to lock up my septic tank. :-P (just playing, don't kill me!)

[Klaa 4,872]

Klaa? Around you I would feel inclined to lock up my septic tank. :-P (just playing, don't kill me!)

Don't blame you... with dirt selling at a silver every 1K, Id lock up 'night soil' too if it helped boost farm output.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Klaa

[LorraineJ 1,099]

I would prefer they stay locked. I have disbanded before (not since Deed It or Lose It though) and lived wild. If the gates unlocked, everything I own would grow feet and walk away. Many others may choose to disband from time to time, though it's a lot more risky now.

 

It's a 50/50 really. You can run around really quickly and lock them after you disband as well as make sure your keys aren't locked inside one when you do. Though I understand an alt locked in a fence. It happens. Building yourself into a fence with no gate happens too.

 

Haha maybe there could be a "doofus warning" that asks "unlock gates?" when you say to undeed. If there had been one, I would have remembered to do it. I did remember on another one. One that wouldn't have locked in any alts though. 

[Arronicus 635]

I'd prefer that gates unlocked after deed disbands too - it promotes players being able to resettle the area after it is no longer used without having to go and bash or pick a ton of gates, as well as promoting salvaging. I've had a lot of fun exploring the ruins of disbanded deeds thanks to the gates unlocking, where I wouldn't have taken the time to enter otherwise, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. 

[Ayes 3,715]

I'd prefer that gates unlocked after deed disbands too - it promotes players being able to resettle the area after it is no longer used

The way I see it, this gate unlocking deal will mainly be helpful in situations where deeds auto-disband from lack of upkeep. I know that if I intentionally disband a deed and still don't want others entering that area, that I will just go and relock all the gates again. A bit of a bother but probably still outweighed by the auto-disband then unlocked gates area access.

 

=Ayes=

[JakeRivers 2,921]

For horse sales you could either create a new type of branding iron that creates a ownership paper, or was suggested use the papyrus paper to create an ownership, maybe the quality of the paper could dictate how much info from your ah goes onto the paper?

 

I didn't like the idea of locked gates unlocking on a deed disband, I love the challenge of opening up locked gates with force.

[JakeRivers 2,921]

Is it true that livestock can be killed on deed by a off deed catapult?

[Audrel 2,223]

Is it true that livestock can be killed on deed by a off deed catapult?

 

Let's not give people ideas.   

[Darkren 15]

Mayors should permanently have control over all gates on their deed. The idea of willingly and indefinitely relinquishing ownership of something on your own deed is ridiculous.

[Tich 1,389]

Mayors should permanently have control over all gates on their deed. The idea of willingly and indefinitely relinquishing ownership of something on your own deed is ridiculous.

They will always be able to pass through any gate on deed.

[Arronicus 635]

Is it true that livestock can be killed on deed by a off deed catapult?

I'd almost it's like houses, where the shot just can't hit/do any damage.

[Bachus 462]

The way I see it, this gate unlocking deal will mainly be helpful in situations where deeds auto-disband from lack of upkeep. I know that if I intentionally disband a deed and still don't want others entering that area, that I will just go and relock all the gates again. A bit of a bother but probably still outweighed by the auto-disband then unlocked gates area access.

 

=Ayes=

 

What he said: 

An error occurred

You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

[Ratheden 56]

Question With this new system, should gate locks still have keys?

 

In my opinion No.   The manage system should be able to due all that one needs, thanks to the new friends system.

[Marlon 303]

I would prefer they stay locked. I have disbanded before (not since Deed It or Lose It though) and lived wild. If the gates unlocked, everything I own would grow feet and walk away. Many others may choose to disband from time to time, though it's a lot more risky now.

 

It's a 50/50 really. You can run around really quickly and lock them after you disband as well as make sure your keys aren't locked inside one when you do. Though I understand an alt locked in a fence. It happens. Building yourself into a fence with no gate happens too.

 

Same as everything else, deed it or lose it. Locking up undeeded land, "in case" someone wants to play there, sounds dodgy. 

 

 

I fully encourage leaving gates unlocked

+1

[Audrel 2,223]

Same as everything else, deed it or lose it. Locking up undeeded land, "in case" someone wants to play there, sounds dodgy. 

 

 

+1

 

Maybe they should just require a deed to build anything then all these problems are solved.

[Anarres 246]

Question With this new system, should gate locks still have keys? if they do, could be problematic.

 

 

 

Yeah. Can't really keep keys, and all these permissions. They're two systems that duplicate functionality and sometimes even conflict with expected functionality. That's quite true already for the current situation on boats and carts, there's basically no point to keys other than (maybe) allowing one person while keeping a full friends list of people you don't want [which is solved with this system], and removing lock.

 

Against key removal, would be the question that has been pointed out, on keys-on-merchants system. It's a nice use of keys, and I can't think of a good replacement. Haven't read details about 'ownership papers' yet.

 

Other thoughts. There are many gates in the wurm world. With the current system there are some disincentives to locking gates. With key removal and automatic management of permissions, there will more incentive to just lock everything. There's also a surprise in this proposal: ownership of gates. I can call the gate I made or the gate on my deed or the gate at the place I live 'my gate' but isn't really my gate, or, at least, it's temporarily 'mine' but it will be given back to the world for reuse/removal. 'Ownership of gates' in this proposal goes much further and makes it 'real' ownership (or more profound and with consequences). That could prove a good thing or a bad thing.

 

On the other hand, you can't lock yourself out (of 'your' fenced area with an offdeed gate). One consequence is new and not-so-new players will less annoyed, another is we can't make simple mistakes or have much consequences over dying and losing keys. Benefits are clear. It's not clear to me whether benefits overweight the shift in the game direction - from making things safe yourself, to automatic safety that just happens for you via more mechanisms from outside the game world.

 

"Actually can only access the permissions screen if it has a lock. "

 

Awesome news. This is a long standing bug - yes, I consider it a bug -, that permissions screen was displayed on unlocked objects, let you change, told you 'settings updated', when in reality it didn't apply those settings.

[Anarres 246]

/ramble on

I keep thinking at this new 'ownership of gates'. It doesn't feel right to me. Imagine I made a fence for a couple of horses an year ago, at my deed somewhere in the woods. In the meantime, the deed disbanded, I took a break from the game, some of the stuff decayed, horses died. Now we have woods and a decaying gate to an empty fenced area. Today, I can go there and say 'ah the fence is still up lol'. But with this new system, I will go there and I will say 'here are my pens, with my permissions set, I still own this... gate/pens/area'. And I do, it will be true, the game will tell me I'm "owner" of the gate. It will say my name when you examine. "Don't touch MY gate!" Forever, unless I transfer ownership myself or it decays. Oh, and if you bash it, you didn't bash just an abandoned fence, you did bash, literally, my gate.

 

That sounds like a recipe for more bad feelings, and useless conflicts. It looks like an abandoned fence, it should be an abandoned fence. One I made an year ago yeah but nothing more. Tell people it's their property instead, and they will feel like anyone taking it over (reusing/destroying/rebuilding) is taking their property. The game tells them it's their property. Wait for feelings of griefing now...

 

It's not a house. It's not a deed. It's not a ship. It's just the border of a tile, a tiny border of one of million tiles. Why does that skinny border have to become property too?¹

 

Please don't say 'for permissions management'. Even if you want to add permissions from out of the game world, to a gate, the game doesn't need to tell people they're owners of every gate they ever made. At least, if you really add heavyweight to any random gate, make the user interface say maker... not 'owner'. Maybe...

 

/ramble off

 

The game doesn't have many objects who have a clear, permanent owner now: boats, large carts, magic chests, without counting deeds and houses and more esoteric stuff. No one can bash boats, large carts, on deed or off deed alike. Now this proposal is to add an owned object, which other players may bash at will (offdeed or with deed perms). That introduces an inconsistency I think², and it sounds like a lot of potential for bad feelings when someone bashes their object ('they knew it was my fence and I was online yesterday...' 'my gate near my deed'...). Well.. that potential exists today as well, but this proposal adds actual ownership - and it can be bashed on pve.

 

 

¹I haven't forgotten we have chests and other things that may be tiny, and they're sometimes sort of owned. Still, ownership is new to gates.

 

² Again, we have chests and such stuff with some sort of owner, either hidden or by planting. The inconsistency is there, but it was hidden or said in the UI 'planted by', not 'lamp owned by'.