Telelocator Staff not targeting other players on pve servers

[yuhi]

I read all what you've posted in none you explain why you think they are not "good" ways, you haven't given specific reasons as to why in "YOUR" opinion they are not good options or at least a base where klei can start or improve on. other than the fire thing which i still don't understand since there are not just one type of fire  protection mod out there. Also i've been in servers where people cannot start fires right next to my base but i still can experience  spontaneous fire due to summer, non klei hosted servers have the liberty to use these mods and tools to work around the problems the vanilla game has. I 'm not saying implement  it exactly the way they have but  to rather use  the knowledge they have in order to come up with the best way to deal with the prevention of griefing. How ever the topic of this thread is related somewhat to this but its mainly more about the telelocator staff to either revert the change or give something that substitute this is some way or prevents the griefing behavior that it was used to defend against.  

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

10 minutes ago, yuhi said:

I read all what you've posted in none you explain why you think they are not "good" ways, you haven't given specific reasons as to why in "YOUR" opinion they are not good options or at least a base where klei can start or improve on. other than the fire thing which i still don't understand since there are not just one type of fire  protection mod out there. Also i've been in servers where people cannot start fires right next to my base but i still can experience  spontaneous fire due to summer, non klei hosted servers have the liberty to use these mods and tools to work around the problems the vanilla game has. I 'm not saying implement  it exactly the way the have but  to rather use  the knowledge they have in order to come up with the best way to deal with the prevention of griefing. How ever the topic of this thread is related somewhat to this but its mainly more about the telelocator staff to either revert the change or give something that substitute this is some way or prevents the griefing behavior that it was used to defend against.  

1) The safe mod's problems: it requires a huge amount of gears, so if the thing gets hammered (which it will, considering that it just has 20 hammer hits and hammer has 75 durability, so, yeah), ergo when you make one you'll lose gears when it gets hammered and if it's so easy to hammer, then there is no point in crafting it in the first place; you'll just waste away gears as a result, as far as I remember (I can't find that mod anymore, strangely... typing in safe in the workshop doesn't show it on the list) 

2) Walls being indestructible if someone else crafts them, I think you know the problem already to that (griefers putting walls around portal, trapping new players away and such).

3) Making certain things (e.g. berry bushes) COMPLETELY inflammable beats the whole challenge of your base going up in smoke due to wild fires, fire hounds or lightning strikes go poof, just because of griefers. Shouldn't it be players that should be prevented from doing so and not making them completely in-flammable, getting rid of the world's challenge?

4) Making land private is isolative and not cooperative for one and for two essentially you run out of land eventually and even though more land could be programmed to be generated over time, it can in the long run cause serious lag and just like everything else, there is a storage limit for everything at the end of it all, which could cause some potential crashes/errors/bugs.

5) World clearing itself, whilst preventing lag, from happening, can clear out things you didn't intend to clear or clear something that someone temporarily dropped at the moment, which can cause some problems. And it shouldn't be the job of mods to make the current game world renew itself, but the job of the developers for a better game design. At least for the Default settings, if not for other modes, such as Lights Out, Together Plus etc.

6) Mod that prevents you from burning, opening containers not made by you and doing some other things possibly until you're at a certain day has the huge flaws of griefers simply waiting it out (and 4 days ain't that long, which is the default time) and prevents newbies from getting basic help without having things handed over to them directly instead of taking what they need themselves. This also means that more professional players would either need to baby-sit newbies until they're beyond a certain day or forget about them completely. And anyhow, it's simply annoying to wait it out simply for the sake of griefers.

Need more?

[yuhi]

1. The less lags mod can be customized by the admin to clear specific things, you can also set how often you want the cleaner to run and the max amount of these items that you want to allow uncleaned in the world.

2. About the ownership mod, i've never been in a server that has a temporary time set for it, since the admin can make it to be permanent. Also most servers with permanent ownership either  the admin makes a starter base near the spawn gate for new people whit public chest with starter items to survive the the season or the community makes the starter base  donating resources and items. Either with this mod or your lock idea the experienced players would still need to babysit.

3. The same applies to the structure fire protection, always try to play on servers that have it permanent but without the the summer effect being removed.

4. Even with walls that can be destroyed if there's no one to help the new players to get our they can still be trapped in spawn sadly so i still think they need to revert this change.

Regardless of all the "problems" you state, it is still a base to start working on for klei, they could improve on it, provide a better way to implement such tools, and in the case of  ownership they could use you lock idea as a delivery system for the same thing. Just saying if you have a community that has all ready started working on this why not use it and collaborate with each other and come up with the best  options,

 

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

4 hours ago, yuhi said:

1. The less lags mod can be customized by the admin to clear specific things, you can also set how often you want the cleaner to run and the max amount of these items that you want to allow uncleaned in the world.

2. About the ownership mod, i've never been in a server that has a temporary time set for it, since the admin can make it to be permanent. Also most servers with permanent ownership either  the admin makes a starter base near the spawn gate for new people whit public chest with starter items to survive the the season or the community makes the starter base  donating resources and items. Either with this mod or your lock idea the experienced players would still need to babysit.

3. The same applies to the structure fire protection, always try to play on servers that have it permanent but without the the summer effect being removed.

4. Even with walls that can be destroyed if there's no one to help the new players to get our they can still be trapped in spawn sadly so i still think they need to revert this change.

Regardless of all the "problems" you state, it is still a base to start working on for klei, they could improve on it, provide a better way to implement such tools, and in the case of  ownership they could use you lock idea as a delivery system for the same thing. Just saying if you have a community that has all ready started working on this why not use it and collaborate with each other and come up with the best  options,

 

1) Regardless, it's just a mod doing that and not the base game, which it really should, mainly for the lag reasons, although not in simply deleting stuff, but renewing the world with the stuff that have been dropped on the ground. Random stingers and rot in the world perhaps has no other way, but things like seeds could turn into valuable resources instead, which also would increase the rate at which the world renews itself, allowing for more players to actually survive.

2) I've been in some, although the permanent time one simply makes everybody isolative (I've not seen people cooperating much on these servers, but simply isolating themselves on their own bases) and that way the admin needs to manage and get rid of various structures that are left by other players in the world and this can potentially be griefing in and of itself; where someone builds a bunch of useless stuff (e.g. science machines, signs) to take up space, which cannot be retrieved by anyone else and so the stuff just stays there. The difference between that and my safe mod is that the safe requires a gear, which makes it rarer to craft, so if you want to store all of your stuff at least during early or mid game, you will also need just normal chests and also the most valuable stuff that can be subject to looting by griefers and newbies would be locked away, although easily openable by experienced players who play for a long time. And although there are griefers that wait out things for like half an hour or so, getting through the trouble of going to the ruins, finding an ancient altar, getting two thulecite fragments to then unlock 10 safes for a griefer would be extremely time-consuming for something like simply looting safes and then exiting. If safes did not require gears, then yes, all or nearly all chests would be private, which would suck, as shown by the ownership mod. Rare resources invested into something = it's not that common, unless you're pretty late-game. Cause remember, you also need gears for ice boxes and flingos, so.

3) I don't think that exists, mate and I doubt that it can be configurable in the way I described my suggestions... Which is why I suggested them in the first place.

4) Oh, because newbies don't know that they can attack walls via Ctrl + F or Ctrl + Left click? Well, I've thought of a solution for this as well, which I believe I've already sent information to devs about. Basically, my suggestion was that when you hover over something, you get all of the options shown as to what you can do with it, so lets say you're holding a wall item over a wall, you would get controls and options as to what you can do with them as:

(Left Mouse Click) = Examine

(Right Mouse Click) = Repair

(Left Mouse Click) + F = Attack

 

That way, newbies can learn and know the controls without being smart about it and going to check them before they play. And that's good game design.

I've tried to contact some of the people that have made these mods, although it doesn't seem like they are interested into changing their mechanics in any form from what they are and have just left them broken. I mean, for how long have these problems been known with these mods and they have not been changed/fixed?

[Muche]

@EuedeAdodooedoe, I think the difference is that most of the mods mentioned above are targeting lightly supervised server (i.e. an admin logs in once a day or so and checks if everything is good). You seem to aim to fix totally unsupervised server, thus relying on players to deal with griefers.

The challenge here is creating balanced distinguisher between experienced positive player and experienced griefer - any added game mechanics/tool could be abused (set the limit too high (high number of survived days / hard to get resources) that griefers will not likely pass, protecting experienced positive players and new positive players will not be protected; set the limit too low, protecting new positive players, and griefers will be protected as well).

1. Fire protection.
There are multiple ways to start a fire - e.g. high temperature smoldering (summer wildfire or campfire), lightning, fire hounds, haunting, torch, firedart, firestaff, gunpowder, lava pool, dragonfly, lavae, scalemail armor, fire trap. The second part of fire protection is fire propagation. Because, due to performance reasons, the game runs only near a player, it could be said that all these are technically caused by a player.
You can either make a thing inflammable (and removing the game difficulty) or make it inflammable due to a certain fire cause (thus needing to track fire causes for each fire and combine them when fires combine). This would affect performance and create nontrivial edge cases (should a berry bush catch a fire that is a combination of wildfire, firehound and campfire?)

2. Hammer protection.
You'd want to allow players to hammer down their own structures (e.g. placed in the wrong place, or base upgrades), you'd want to not allow griefers to hammer down structures belonging to other players and you'd want to allow experienced players to hammer down griefers' structures.
Assuming a griefers comes to the server, griefs and leaves, this could be solved by an add-on to ownership mod - if the player does not log in in a certain amount of time, they lose the ownership of all structures. However, this has drawbacks of setting the limit as mentioned above. Set the limit too low and returning casual players won't be protected, set it too high and you have unwanted structures.

3. Chest & icebox protection.
Another tricky area, as I mentioned in a previous post. You'd want to protect against looters and facilitate public exchange. Your lock idea protects experienced players, who can thus protect their rare items (I'd assume gems, thulecite and stuff). However, for a new player, even a stack of grass, couple of gold nuggets, silk, hound teeth, cut reeds, or any food in general could be very valuable. Were their chests be looted, they would be either set back and possibly die or beg for food/items.
Of course, this is what could happen even now. Thus the lock protects experienced people from a theft causing potential setback that they can easily survive and does not protect new players from a life-threatening theft.

4. World timeframe
The default game settings seem to be targeted at low- to medium-lasting worlds (couple of years max) played by a group of friends. The TtA seems to aim to make them last longer. You seem to target long-lasting public worlds, which have their own kinds of issues.
The junk (unwanted/unused items and structures) will accumulate on the ground, requiring cleanup (Less lags mod or similar, or players hammering them down - see point 2).
The resources will vanish - players join, take resources and leave. So you need resource regeneration - set it too low and it won't fix long-lasting public world, set it too high and it will make long-lasting private worlds too easy.

 

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

@Muche trying to reply to you, but for some reason I get an "International Server Error" when I try to :/

Edit: it seems I can't put content with formatting in strangely

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

@Muche I'm not entirely sure what your point is to me, though I replied with a theory in my mind, so, take what you will from what I've written below:

Do you know how big of a drag it is to supervise a server? I've done it plenty of times, even in public servers by cleaning up a world from skelletons and fixing up bases and whatnot. And it's irritating, but I'm doing it for the new comers. If the game clears up things and has in code that prevents various annoying chaoses from occurring, that would be a huge relief; then you can just focus on having fun with other players and surviving and not cleaning up your server/world.

That is exactly what I was trying to do and what I pointed out the protection mods currently don't do.

"1. Fire protection.
There are multiple ways to start a fire - e.g. high temperature smoldering (summer wildfire Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that? or campfire Can be fixed no problem)
, lightning Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, fire hounds Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, haunting Nope, that's removed, torch Already addressed that, firedart Already addressed that, firestaff Already addressed that, gunpowder Good point and can be fixed no problem, lava pool Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, dragonfly Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, lavae Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about tha... who would make a base in the middle of a Dragonfly's arena?, scalemail armor Good point; keep scales in safes in that case, fire trap Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?. The second part of fire protection is fire propagation. Because, due to performance reasons, the game runs only near a player, it could be said that all these are technically caused by a player There's a difference between intentional (e.g. griefing) and not intentional burning (e.g. summer burns your base down). The idea is to stop people who intend to destroy and be a total ******* to others and not what game itself does with griefing. I thought that would be obvious and I think I explained this many times.
You can either make a thing inflammable (and removing the game difficulty) or make it inflammable due to a certain fire cause Pretty sure that's false; things can be programmed, even at mod level to make certain things have conditions at which they can be lit by a player and at which they cannot be lit. (thus needing to track fire causes for each fire and combine them when fires combine I have literally no idea what this sentence says). This would affect performance and create nontrivial edge cases (should a berry bush catch a fire that is a combination of wildfire Yes, firehound Yes and campfire No?)

2. Hammer protection.
You'd want to allow players to hammer down their own structures (e.g. placed in the wrong place, or base upgrades), you'd want to not allow griefers to hammer down structures belonging to other players and you'd want to allow experienced players to hammer down griefers' structures. Supervising is a drag, so why not just implement mechanics that can better deal with hammering of things like flingos by a griefer WHEN it happens as having mechanics that prevent things from being hammered at all or by certain players based on who built them does not work in and of itself without supervising.
Assuming a griefers comes to the server, griefs and leaves, this could be solved by an add-on to ownership mod - if the player does not log in in a certain amount of time, they lose the ownership of all structures Must... Play... DST... To save... My base.... However, this has drawbacks of setting the limit as mentioned above. Set the limit too low and returning casual players won't be protected, set it too high and you have unwanted structures.

3. Chest & icebox protection.
Another tricky area, as I mentioned in a previous post. You'd want to protect against looters and facilitate public exchange No idea what you mean by "facilitate public exchange". Your lock idea protects experienced players, who can thus protect their rare items (I'd assume gems, thulecite and stuff). However, for a new player, even a stack of grass, couple of gold nuggets, silk, hound teeth Hounds teeth? Sounds like it's more important for mid-game players., cut reeds Same as for Hounds teeth., or any food in general could be very valuable. Were their chests be looted, they would be either set back and possibly die or beg for food/items. Since cooperation is of most importance, if you join in a new server, you most likely won't have any rare stuff to mess with anyway. And the common stuff doesn't really matter that much. You could simply, in the long run leave half of your common, but important items in chests where it's accessable for everybody, whilst other half of common, but necessary stuff in a safe. Looting might not be completely removed, but it's the rare items that matter much more as it's hard to get them and takes longer (e.g. 27 gears), so if someone leaves with 3 stacks of grass, twigs, logs and perhaps even flint whilst you're in a late-game world, nobody is really gonna care, would they? Rather to let the lotter get away with that than erasing some progress, if they've been holding onto those items for quite a while. If it's just 1 day or so, perhaps then you can rollback for the common stuff and it won't matter much, but other than that it isn't worth it really. And really, you should always hold onto a stack of each basic necessary item anyway, otherwise the game itself will make you suffer, be it due to other players or not.
Of course, this is what could happen even now. Thus the lock protects experienced people from a theft causing potential setback that they can easily survive and does not protect new players from a life-threatening theft. Such scenario I don't see being common for people who know what they're doing. Plus, it's just ONE gear and ONE moonrock, so so long as you do know what you're doing, I don't see any problems here; you might not set up a huge amounts of safes early-game, but really you don't need that many.

4. World timeframe
The default game settings seem to be targeted at low- to medium-lasting worlds (couple of years max) played by a group of friends. The TtA seems to aim to make them last longer. You seem to target long-lasting public worlds, which have their own kinds of issues. Which need to be dealt with! If the game as it stands isn't for worlds that can potentially go forever in a game like DST, then it is kind of a bad game design, since in single player you could go forwards endlessly no problem.
The junk (unwanted/unused items and structures) will accumulate on the ground, requiring cleanup (Less lags mod or similar, or players hammering them down - see point 2). Yeah, and I never said I want hammering structures removed because of this exact reason. In terms of items, each individual item could simply get a timer for when they disappear or turn into something else. Huge number of individual stingers, for example, lying around could just disappear, where are seeds left on the ground could turn into something useful, to make the world renew itself in a fashion that makes a tad bit more sense other than poofing out of existance. For stingers, this pretty much is a necessity, unless one fateful day Shipwrecked gets integrated into DST; then each and every stinger will become valuable and could literally save your life, because you need them to make boat repair kits.
The resources will vanish - players join, take resources and leave. So you need resource regeneration - set it too low and it won't fix long-lasting public world, set it too high and it will make long-lasting private worlds too easy. " But... it already exists, although for long-lasting servers it's pretty low by default; heck even when set to more, I'd argue, unless you're supervising. Why not simply make it so then when something gets burnt/dug up, another piece of that spawns in the world, unless there is too much of it (say, on default, there could be a maximum of X amount of saplings, so you couldn't go beyond that)?

 

[Muche]

@EuedeAdodooedoe, see my inline notes in green below.

1. Fire protection.

There are multiple ways to start a fire - e.g. high temperature smoldering (summer wildfire Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that? or campfire Can be fixed no problem), lightning Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, fire hounds Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, haunting Nope, that's removed, torch Already addressed that, firedart Already addressed that, firestaff Already addressed that, gunpowder Good point and can be fixed no problem, lava pool Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, dragonfly Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, lavae Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about tha... who would make a base in the middle of a Dragonfly's arena?, scalemail armor Good point; keep scales in safes in that case, fire trap Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?. The second part of fire protection is fire propagation. Because, due to performance reasons, the game runs only near a player, it could be said that all these are technically caused by a player There's a difference between intentional (e.g. griefing) and not intentional burning (e.g. summer burns your base down). The idea is to stop people who intend to destroy and be a total ******* to others and not what game itself does with griefing. I thought that would be obvious and I think I explained this many times.

Consider this: a griefer intentionally leads a fire hound into the middle of a base and kills it. The base is on fire. You said starting a fire this way is intentional, yet you want to protect against fire griefing.
Another example: in a summer, a griefer waits in the middle of a base for the wildfire to start in berrybush/grass/sapling patch. The fire eventually starts, nearby flingo (if there is some) start warning about the fire, but the griefer doesn't turn it on, just watches.
A griefer drops flammable items (grass/twigs/etc.) on the ground in a nice line, leading from the base to potential naturally occuring, thus intentional, source of fire (such as lava pool, dragonfly or fire trap). Then causes the fire to start. The base is on fire, again.

You can either make a thing inflammable (and removing the game difficulty) or make it inflammable due to a certain fire cause Pretty sure that's false; things can be programmed, even at mod level to make certain things have conditions at which they can be lit by a player and at which they cannot be lit. (thus needing to track fire causes for each fire and combine them when fires combine I have literally no idea what this sentence says). This would affect performance and create nontrivial edge cases (should a berry bush catch a fire that is a combination of wildfire Yes, firehound Yes and campfire No?)

A flammable item periodically checks its surroundings whether it should start burning. Is there a fire nearby? Yes, I'll start burning. Are there 3 fires nearby? Great, I'll start burning quicker. You want wildfires and hound fires to be able to burn the base down, but not campfire, so each fire has to know what caused it.
Let's have a twig on the ground. There are 3 fires nearby (lead there by a griefer by means of a line of twigs), one caused by wildfire, one by firehound and one by campfire. Should that twig start burning? A wildfire should be able to propagate, so the twig should start burning. What about campfire? Where is the limit its fire could propagate so it doesn't burn the science machine? If it's right at the campfire, you've removed a game difficulty (a full sized campfire can now be placed anywhere, lessening the importance of a firepit). If it's at the science machine, each fire needs to know what caused it. What will be the cause of fire of that twig with 3 neighboring fires (wildfire, hound fire, campfire)? If it's wildfire or hound fire, a griefer can speed up fire propagation from natural causes with their campfire. If it's campfire (thus it won't burn science machine down the line), I can protect my base from wildfire by placing campfires. If it's all of them combined, the fire will get to the science machine and a new decision will need to be made about the fate of the science machine, similarly to the previous one.

My point is, there are many possibilities in fire protection, and they multiply with each other creating a vast amount of results. You need to check all of them and determine whether they are acceptable. Your proposal removes some of them, at the price of lowered game difficulty.

2. Hammer protection.
You'd want to allow players to hammer down their own structures (e.g. placed in the wrong place, or base upgrades), you'd want to not allow griefers to hammer down structures belonging to other players and you'd want to allow experienced players to hammer down griefers' structures. Supervising is a drag, so why not just implement mechanics that can better deal with hammering of things like flingos by a griefer WHEN it happens as having mechanics that prevent things from being hammered at all or by certain players based on who built them does not work in and of itself without supervising.

Please, tell me, how do you want to distinguish between a griefer hammering down a flingo just for kicks and a player hammering down a flingo, because they are upgrading a base. You said ownership is flawed, thus all flingos are public. You want to be able to repair structure while it's being hammered. That assumes that there is someone present who doesn't want that structure to be destroyed. They also think that that structure should stay there and feel their opinion is more valuable than those hammering it. Now turn the situation around. A griefer builds a structure in some place. Other player arrives and declares that it's the wrong place and starts hammering the structure down. The griefer will be repairing the structure.
I can imagine myself being in both positions - reparing a structure and hammering the structure. How can you decide whether I am right or a griefer in both situations? You can't leave it to an admin, you want this to work on a public server. If you leave it to voting, it can be abused.
Assuming a griefers comes to the server, griefs and leaves, this could be solved by an add-on to ownership mod - if the player does not log in in a certain amount of time, they lose the ownership of all structures Must... Play... DST... To save... My base.... However, this has drawbacks of setting the limit as mentioned above. Set the limit too low and returning casual players won't be protected, set it too high and you have unwanted structures.

1) A player joins a server, builds their own sensible base, logs out. Logs in back in a week.
2) A player joins a server, builds their own non-sensible base, logs out and never comes back.
3) A player joins a server. When should they be allowed to hammer down the base 2? Immediately if they are an admin (not applicable, you want a solution for public servers). Immediately because they want to clean up unwanted structures of base 2 (you've allowed griefing of base 1). After 7 days (base 1 is protected, but you will complain you can't clean up base 2 until the 7th day). After day 3 (player 1 failed to save their base by not loggin in, but base 2 will be cleaned up).

 

3. Chest & icebox protection.
Another tricky area, as I mentioned in a previous post. You'd want to protect against looters and facilitate public exchange No idea what you mean by "facilitate public exchange".
Players store items that could be used by other players as well, i.e. cooperate.
Your lock idea protects experienced players, who can thus protect their rare items (I'd assume gems, thulecite and stuff). However, for a new player, even a stack of grass, couple of gold nuggets, silk, hound teeth Hounds teeth? Sounds like it's more important for mid-game players.
Does that mean that new players are not allowed to store them safely, just because other items are more important to them?
, cut reeds Same as for Hounds teeth., or any food in general could be very valuable. Were their chests be looted, they would be either set back and possibly die or beg for food/items. Since cooperation is of most importance, if you join in a new server, you most likely won't have any rare stuff to mess with anyway. And the common stuff doesn't really matter that much. You could simply, in the long run leave half of your common, but important items in chests where it's accessable for everybody, whilst other half of common, but necessary stuff in a safe. Looting might not be completely removed, but it's the rare items that matter much more as it's hard to get them and takes longer (e.g. 27 gears), so if someone leaves with 3 stacks of grass, twigs, logs and perhaps even flint whilst you're in a late-game world, nobody is really gonna care, would they? Rather to let the lotter get away with that than erasing some progress, if they've been holding onto those items for quite a while. If it's just 1 day or so, perhaps then you can rollback for the common stuff and it won't matter much, but other than that it isn't worth it really. And really, you should always hold onto a stack of each basic necessary item anyway, otherwise the game itself will make you suffer, be it due to other players or not.
For example, a new player joins the server. There are no other players. All chests are either locked or contain nothing (because of looters). They collect some grass and twigs, so they can trap spiders in the winter. They find a gear in tumbleweeds (because all clockwork mobs are already dead). What should they build with it? An icebox so they can store some food for winter? Or devote some time (that would be spent preparing for a winter otherwise, for example) to get a moonrock for a lock so they can store grass and twigs? Or save it for flingomatic for future summer?
You are saying that common stuff doesn't matter much. That's right. It doesn't. For experienced player. However, for a new player, it does matter. Thus again, you are protecting experienced players and leave new players unprotected.
Of course, this is what could happen even now. Thus the lock protects experienced people from a theft causing potential setback that they can easily survive and does not protect new players from a life-threatening theft. Such scenario I don't see being common for people who know what they're doing. Plus, it's just ONE gear and ONE moonrock, so so long as you do know what you're doing, I don't see any problems here; you might not set up a huge amounts of safes early-game, but really you don't need that many.
My impression was that each player is expected to have one for their rare items.

How about a combination of ideas? Ownership would be enabled by default (thus all chests/iceboxes are private). They become public after set amount of time (let's say 100 days) of player's absence. This would provide them with enough time to get resources needed for a lock, so they don't have to log in that often to keep their chest/icebox private.

 

4. World timeframe
The default game settings seem to be targeted at low- to medium-lasting worlds (couple of years max) played by a group of friends. The TtA seems to aim to make them last longer. You seem to target long-lasting public worlds, which have their own kinds of issues. Which need to be dealt with! If the game as it stands isn't for worlds that can potentially go forever in a game like DST, then it is kind of a bad game design, since in single player you could go forwards endlessly no problem.
The junk (unwanted/unused items and structures) will accumulate on the ground, requiring cleanup (Less lags mod or similar, or players hammering them down - see point 2). Yeah, and I never said I want hammering structures removed because of this exact reason. In terms of items, each individual item could simply get a timer for when they disappear or turn into something else. Huge number of individual stingers, for example, lying around could just disappear, where are seeds left on the ground could turn into something useful, to make the world renew itself in a fashion that makes a tad bit more sense other than poofing out of existance. For stingers, this pretty much is a necessity, unless one fateful day Shipwrecked gets integrated into DST; then each and every stinger will become valuable and could literally save your life, because you need them to make boat repair kits.
Personally, stingers laying on the ground don't bother me. Anyways, why are they there? Because people don't need them. Thus solution could be add new useful recipe that uses them. People will pick them up. Problem solved.
The resources will vanish - players join, take resources and leave. So you need resource regeneration - set it too low and it won't fix long-lasting public world, set it too high and it will make long-lasting private worlds too easy. " But... it already exists, although for long-lasting servers it's pretty low by default; heck even when set to more, I'd argue, unless you're supervising. Why not simply make it so then when something gets burnt/dug up, another piece of that spawns in the world, unless there is too much of it (say, on default, there could be a maximum of X amount of saplings, so you couldn't go beyond that)?
This is basically what World resource regeneration mod does. However, it doesn't play nice with resource variants. In other words, resource variants are a step in this direction.

 

 

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

1 hour ago, Muche said:

Mine is red now

1. Fire protection.

There are multiple ways to start a fire - e.g. high temperature smoldering (summer wildfire Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that? or campfire Can be fixed no problem), lightning Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, fire hounds Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, haunting Nope, that's removed, torch Already addressed that, firedart Already addressed that, firestaff Already addressed that, gunpowder Good point and can be fixed no problem, lava pool Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, dragonfly Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?, lavae Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about tha... who would make a base in the middle of a Dragonfly's arena?, scalemail armor Good point; keep scales in safes in that case, fire trap Intentional, so why would I or anyone care about that?. The second part of fire protection is fire propagation. Because, due to performance reasons, the game runs only near a player, it could be said that all these are technically caused by a player There's a difference between intentional (e.g. griefing) and not intentional burning (e.g. summer burns your base down). The idea is to stop people who intend to destroy and be a total ******* to others and not what game itself does with griefing. I thought that would be obvious and I think I explained this many times.

Consider this: a griefer intentionally leads a fire hound into the middle of a base and kills it. The base is on fire. You said starting a fire this way is intentional, yet you want to protect against fire griefing. Someone intentionally killing a fire hound inside a decent base, not protected by at least 1 flingo I don't see happening often. Early game you don't even get any fire hounds. And noob/player in a critical situation doing this is basically same as what the griefer is doing, with the outcome being the same; burnt down base. My aim has been to eliminate methods of player directly or "semi-directly" burning down something for the sake of getting in other players' way. Fire hounds are intended to be like this regardless, so I wouldn't mind a griefer doing this; we either learn a lesson that we can next time prepare for or if we do have a flingo, we turn it on so that stuff doesn't burn down. A griefer could turn off the flingo before it could fling snowballs when someone else has already turned it on however, so a solution for this could be that you cannot turn off flingos so long as something is burning/smoldering within the flingo's flinging range. Yes, griefers could in certain scenarios take the advantage of naturally-occurring fire/smoldering, however these things are intentional and that's why we have flingos. A griefer could start turning off flingos, but unless nobody is at the base during that time, they could not simply get away with it.
Another example: in a summer, a griefer waits in the middle of a base for the wildfire to start in berrybush/grass/sapling patch. The fire eventually starts, nearby flingo (if there is some) start warning about the fire, but the griefer doesn't turn it on, just watches. Again; rare. Those who don't have flingos ready by Summer or have joined during summer and somehow managed to build a base for themselves, should expect these sorts of things.
A griefer drops flammable items (grass/twigs/etc.) on the ground in a nice line, leading from the base to potential naturally occuring, thus intentional, source of fire (such as lava pool, dragonfly or fire trap). Then causes the fire to start. The base is on fire, again. A player simply could NOT place down any items/structures or anything that's flammable next to something that is already burning/smouldering. In terms of Dragonfly, Lava pools and Lavae... They're sort of like Fire hounds, Lightning and Summer smoldering. And this could only happen if your big base is very close to Dragonfly's arena, which it shouldn't even be. But up to you, if you wanna risk it. And yet again, for a huge base you should have at least one flingo.

You can either make a thing inflammable (and removing the game difficulty) or make it inflammable due to a certain fire cause Pretty sure that's false; things can be programmed, even at mod level to make certain things have conditions at which they can be lit by a player and at which they cannot be lit. (thus needing to track fire causes for each fire and combine them when fires combine I have literally no idea what this sentence says). This would affect performance and create nontrivial edge cases (should a berry bush catch a fire that is a combination of wildfire Yes, firehound Yes and campfire No?)

A flammable item periodically checks its surroundings whether it should start burning. Is there a fire nearby? Yes, I'll start burning. Are there 3 fires nearby? Great, I'll start burning quicker. You want wildfires and hound fires to be able to burn the base down, but not campfire, so each fire has to know what caused it. Yes. But the only way something could start burning in the first place is either if someone burns something that isn't a structure, that isn't next to some other flammable thing/ isn't in a too large of a cluster of flammable things (e.g. 2 trees next to each other, 3 trees next to each other or whatever amount set) or due to weather of fire-related mobs. And since you cannot place down flammable items/objects/plants etc. next to something that is already burning/smoldering, well, there is no error.
Let's have a twig on the ground. Not possible, unless due to natural causes. There are 3 fires nearby (lead there by a griefer by means of a line of twigs), one caused by wildfire K, one by firehound K and one by campfire Could not be placed within a range that it makes things smoulder; so it's either the twigs are there or the campfire is there; cannot be both, unless the griefer died next to the campfire and flammable objects looted from him/her in the direction of the twigs placed down a bit farther... In which case, yes, things would start to smolder. In which case just increasing the range of which being able to place something flammable on the ground next to something that is already burning/smoldering would be the solutions. Because of this, I'd suggest 4 turf range/radius. Perhaps 5, not entirely sure.. Should that twig start burning? Yes. A wildfire should be able to propagate, so the twig should start burning. Yes What about campfire? Non-existant or won't reach twigs. Where is the limit its fire could propagate so it doesn't burn the science machine? If it's right at the campfire, you've removed a game difficulty (a full sized campfire can now be placed anywhere, lessening the importance of a firepit). If it's at the science machine, each fire needs to know what caused it. Nope What will be the cause of fire of that twig with 3 neighboring fires (wildfire, hound fire, campfire)? If it's wildfire or hound fire, a griefer can speed up fire propagation from natural causes with their campfire Nope, not with the campfire. If it's campfire (thus it won't burn science machine down the line), I can protect my base from wildfire by placing campfires. If it's all of them combined, the fire will get to the science machine and a new decision will need to be made about the fate of the science machine, similarly to the previous one.

My point is, there are many possibilities in fire protection, and they multiply with each other creating a vast amount of results. You need to check all of them and determine whether they are acceptable. Your proposal removes some of them, at the price of lowered game difficulty. Not with what I've explained to you above.

2. Hammer protection.
You'd want to allow players to hammer down their own structures (e.g. placed in the wrong place, or base upgrades), you'd want to not allow griefers to hammer down structures belonging to other players and you'd want to allow experienced players to hammer down griefers' structures. Supervising is a drag, so why not just implement mechanics that can better deal with hammering of things like flingos by a griefer WHEN it happens as having mechanics that prevent things from being hammered at all or by certain players based on who built them does not work in and of itself without supervising.

Please, tell me, how do you want to distinguish between a griefer hammering down a flingo just for kicks and a player hammering down a flingo, because they are upgrading a base. You said ownership is flawed, thus all flingos are public. You want to be able to repair structure while it's being hammered. That assumes that there is someone present who doesn't want that structure to be destroyed. They also think that that structure should stay there and feel their opinion is more valuable than those hammering it. Now turn the situation around. A griefer builds a structure in some place. Other player arrives and declares that it's the wrong place and starts hammering the structure down. The griefer will be repairing the structure.
I can imagine myself being in both positions - reparing a structure and hammering the structure. How can you decide whether I am right or a griefer in both situations? You can't leave it to an admin, you want this to work on a public server. If you leave it to voting, it can be abused. That's a good point. Although, with my mechanics in, the hammer would have a total of 750 uses and I'm pretty sure a griefer won't have that much cutstone to outlast that. And even if they had, a smart late-game player would simply wait till they go after getting food/other supplies and then destroy the thing during that time and have even some time left picking up the stuff left over from the hammered thing (since you cannot pick up anything for a few seconds, like 10 or 20 when you hammer any structure except a sign/directional sign). where as if it was the other way round, the player could save the flingo via cutstone to buy time whilst the griefer is getting kicked out for a time period (giving time for others to collect more custone from either meteor ares, Dragonfly lavae via flingo or ice staves or earthquake rocks in caves) or getting banned for a long period of time or completely, solving the problem pretty much. And in any case, unless you've dun goofed or are not a pro in late game, you could keep Weather Pains away away from newbies (storing away resources to make weather pains, such as Volt Goat horns, Down Feathers or even Gears), whilst utilising them yourself for destroying unneeded structures.
Assuming a griefers comes to the server, griefs and leaves, this could be solved by an add-on to ownership mod - if the player does not log in in a certain amount of time, they lose the ownership of all structures Must... Play... DST... To save... My base.... However, this has drawbacks of setting the limit as mentioned above. Set the limit too low and returning casual players won't be protected, set it too high and you have unwanted structures.

1) A player joins a server, builds their own sensible base, logs out. Logs in back in a week.
2) A player joins a server, builds their own non-sensible base, logs out and never comes back.
3) A player joins a server. When should they be allowed to hammer down the base 2? Immediately if they are an admin (not applicable, you want a solution for public servers). Immediately because they want to clean up unwanted structures of base 2 (you've allowed griefing of base 1). After 7 days (base 1 is protected, but you will complain you can't clean up base 2 until the 7th day). After day 3 (player 1 failed to save their base by not loggin in, but base 2 will be cleaned up). Yeah, emm... this is exactly the kind of thing why I don't really like the mod that does that so much. I'm not sure how these are points against what I've... Ooooh, because I said "Must... Play... DST... To save... My base". The thing is, someone who regularly comes, then doesn't for a long time, but then comes back would get screwed over in a sense, possibly. I think I kind of shot myself in the foot here though, so never mind. I think I'd need to think a little more about this though...

 

3. Chest & icebox protection.
Another tricky area, as I mentioned in a previous post. You'd want to protect against looters and facilitate public exchange No idea what you mean by "facilitate public exchange".
Players store items that could be used by other players as well, i.e. cooperate.
Your lock idea protects experienced players, who can thus protect their rare items (I'd assume gems, thulecite and stuff). However, for a new player, even a stack of grass, couple of gold nuggets, silk, hound teeth Hounds teeth? Sounds like it's more important for mid-game players.
Does that mean that new players are not allowed to store them safely, just because other items are more important to them? No... it all depends on how much storage space you have for your safes. The thing is that having things private/secured by default on a basic level (normal chests) could mean that newbies might not know how to control the feature/know that the feature exists. Where as with a safe, if it's like right underneath the Chest with an explanatory description in the crafting menu (e.g. "Keeps items secure from strangers. Just needs a lock!"), then it would be much easier and much better manageable by both experienced players and newbies and ESPECIALLY newbies.
, cut reeds Same as for Hounds teeth., or any food in general could be very valuable. Were their chests be looted, they would be either set back and possibly die or beg for food/items. Since cooperation is of most importance, if you join in a new server, you most likely won't have any rare stuff to mess with anyway. And the common stuff doesn't really matter that much. You could simply, in the long run leave half of your common, but important items in chests where it's accessable for everybody, whilst other half of common, but necessary stuff in a safe. Looting might not be completely removed, but it's the rare items that matter much more as it's hard to get them and takes longer (e.g. 27 gears), so if someone leaves with 3 stacks of grass, twigs, logs and perhaps even flint whilst you're in a late-game world, nobody is really gonna care, would they? Rather to let the lotter get away with that than erasing some progress, if they've been holding onto those items for quite a while. If it's just 1 day or so, perhaps then you can rollback for the common stuff and it won't matter much, but other than that it isn't worth it really. And really, you should always hold onto a stack of each basic necessary item anyway, otherwise the game itself will make you suffer, be it due to other players or not.
For example, a new player joins the server. There are no other players. All chests are either locked or contain nothing (because of looters). They collect some grass and twigs, so they can trap spiders in the winter. They find a gear in tumbleweeds (because all clockwork mobs are already dead). What should they build with it? An icebox so they can store some food for winter? Or devote some time (that would be spent preparing for a winter otherwise, for example) to get a moonrock for a lock so they can store grass and twigs? Or save it for flingomatic for future summer? This is one reason why I think flingomatics should require one gear to craft as well. With that in mind, getting gears from tumbleweeds isn't too rare. Although they have 1% chance, I typically get 1 per 10 tumbleweeds I pick up. So, getting 3 gears would be optimal; one for a flingo, one for an ice box and one for a safe.
You are saying that common stuff doesn't matter much. That's right. It doesn't. For experienced player. However, for a new player, it does matter. Thus again, you are protecting experienced players and leave new players unprotected. Nope.
Of course, this is what could happen even now. Thus the lock protects experienced people from a theft causing potential setback that they can easily survive and does not protect new players from a life-threatening theft. Such scenario I don't see being common for people who know what they're doing. Plus, it's just ONE gear and ONE moonrock, so so long as you do know what you're doing, I don't see any problems here; you might not set up a huge amounts of safes early-game, but really you don't need that many.
My impression was that each player is expected to have one for their rare items. Well, if that's your impression then sure, although my point with safes was that safes would be mainly for rare items/half of common items for new players that have something they don't want others to get their hands on or for mid or late-game players that have quite a bit of that stuff and they only want to share it with their friends and people they trust.

How about a combination of ideas? Ownership would be enabled by default (thus all chests/iceboxes are private). They become public after set amount of time (let's say 100 days) of player's absence. This would provide them with enough time to get resources needed for a lock, so they don't have to log in that often to keep their chest/icebox private. Already addressed that/

 

4. World timeframe
The default game settings seem to be targeted at low- to medium-lasting worlds (couple of years max) played by a group of friends. The TtA seems to aim to make them last longer. You seem to target long-lasting public worlds, which have their own kinds of issues. Which need to be dealt with! If the game as it stands isn't for worlds that can potentially go forever in a game like DST, then it is kind of a bad game design, since in single player you could go forwards endlessly no problem.
The junk (unwanted/unused items and structures) will accumulate on the ground, requiring cleanup (Less lags mod or similar, or players hammering them down - see point 2). Yeah, and I never said I want hammering structures removed because of this exact reason. In terms of items, each individual item could simply get a timer for when they disappear or turn into something else. Huge number of individual stingers, for example, lying around could just disappear, where are seeds left on the ground could turn into something useful, to make the world renew itself in a fashion that makes a tad bit more sense other than poofing out of existance. For stingers, this pretty much is a necessity, unless one fateful day Shipwrecked gets integrated into DST; then each and every stinger will become valuable and could literally save your life, because you need them to make boat repair kits.
Personally, stingers laying on the ground don't bother me. Anyways, why are they there? Because people don't need them. Thus solution could be add new useful recipe that uses them. People will pick them up. Problem solved. Shiprekt. But for now, them just poofing out is better. It's annoying seeing them lying around; even more so than rot, because they're practically nearly useless.
The resources will vanish - players join, take resources and leave. So you need resource regeneration - set it too low and it won't fix long-lasting public world, set it too high and it will make long-lasting private worlds too easy. " But... it already exists, although for long-lasting servers it's pretty low by default; heck even when set to more, I'd argue, unless you're supervising. Why not simply make it so then when something gets burnt/dug up, another piece of that spawns in the world, unless there is too much of it (say, on default, there could be a maximum of X amount of saplings, so you couldn't go beyond that)?
This is basically what World resource regeneration mod does. However, it doesn't play nice with resource variants. In other words, resource variants are a step in this direction. Having things like seeds turn into valuable resources or poofing out of existance if necessary (too many of each of the type of plant/thing of the biome the seed in in in the world. So, would poof out of existance if the seed lands on a grassy biome and there's already enough of trees, berry bushes, grass, saplings, carrots, red mushrooms, blue mushrooms, flint and probably some other stuff that's commonly found in grassy biomes that I can't recall right now). Also, if the world gets wiped from stuff left on the ground every 500 days, the rot left over from seeds will stay there for like 490 of that time, or however long it takes for seeds to rot, still allowing for rot being there and allowing for players utilise it, making it sort of an exploit as rot is a good fuel, fertiliser and booster shot resource.

[Wexton]

It seems like i came late to this topic but while reading it i got kinda pissed with the fact that there was people against some of the ideas about bringing back the mecanic of using the telelocator or the tornados because "That would be griefing" Griefers dont deserve any respect,i still can't understand why the only tools we had to fight this problem are gone,the idea about making other players able to pvp the griefers sounds really good to me.All the ideas that people has posted are really good,specially the pvp one but there is one that may sound really simple but.. hosting/joining a server with mods antigriefers,its not as easy as it looks if you live on a zone where almost anybody play the game.The griefing problem as never been a problem to me because for me dst its not a multiplayer,its a improved singlerplayer because i always end playing alone or with 1 or 2 friends and one gets tired of that so the only servers one can play with lots people are dedicated ones,wich are usually vanilla,so mods doent works that well for fixing this problem

 

And yeah,i know how evil i sounded about the pvp idea but it would make people think twice before griefing.

[EuedeAdodooedoe]

7 hours ago, Wexton said:

It seems like i came late to this topic but while reading it i got kinda pissed with the fact that there was people against some of the ideas about bringing back the mecanic of using the telelocator or the tornados because "That would be griefing" Griefers dont deserve any respect,i still can't understand why the only tools we had to fight this problem are gone,the idea about making other players able to pvp the griefers sounds really good to me.All the ideas that people has posted are really good,specially the pvp one but there is one that may sound really simple but.. hosting/joining a server with mods antigriefers,its not as easy as it looks if you live on a zone where almost anybody play the game.The griefing problem as never been a problem to me because for me dst its not a multiplayer,its a improved singlerplayer because i always end playing alone or with 1 or 2 friends and one gets tired of that so the only servers one can play with lots people are dedicated ones,wich are usually vanilla,so mods doent works that well for fixing this problem

 

And yeah,i know how evil i sounded about the pvp idea but it would make people think twice before griefing.

Forever alone :'( sorry, I felt like that had to be there.

I previously liked the idea of pvping griefers. Although, just like most repercussions, they deal with griefers AFTER they have already griefed. And honestly, griefers would not care about getting killed; their aim is not to survive but to disrupt others' gameplay. So, because of this, I've talked some bit about preventative mechanics that could be set in place to prevent griefing from occurring in the first place or at least to a large extent.

[ADinosaur]

Apparently this became a Christmas tree of colorful words.

[hyiltiz]

On 7/14/2016 at 11:16 AM, EuedeAdodooedoe said:

In the wiki it says it's 

AllPlayers[number].components.inventory:DropEverything()

Although when I tried that it didn't work. The wiki lies >:(

Have to admit I wrote that into Wiki. But, to make it work, you have to be admin in that server, AND get into the REMOTE mode.