+- CFEW Forums (https://forum.cfew.us)
+-- Forum: Minecraft (https://forum.cfew.us/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Suggestions & Feedback (https://forum.cfew.us/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: /region revisions (/showthread.php?tid=297)
Pages:
1
2
/region revisions - Aeonex - 04-17-2012
Greetings everyone,
This is an idea clownfish proposed, we're discussing it here for "testing" purposes. Here are the following commands that are going to be given to ALL users, not just OP's anymore:
/region info
/region addmember (zone owners for their own zone can use this command)
NOTE: /region addmember will not be allowed for people outside their owned zones.
Pros:
-Less of a hassle for OP's to constantly add members to owners with zones
-Gives regular users free access to certain region understandings. This will allow users to get more familiar with what OP's expect users to do when zones are made for them.
Cons:
-Mass griefing potential, users with malicious intent could use many accounts, own one large zone, add all their bot accounts and massively grief large areas of the server
-Limits the region g:group usages. Any user can add their friends to parent-child zones that have group access. Such as the desert world, planetoids map, etc.
-Allows users to add anyone they desire to group designated zones, even those below certain ranks. This will potentially nullify the reason for ranks, or a major one.
-Allow users to add members who don't wish to PVP, to PVP designated zones, if they are the owners.
With careful consideration, we can prevent the g:group zoning problems by making all groups in zones as members ONLY, not as owner. However, there is little to no way to prevent mass grief potential from aVo type attacks.
Did I miss anything?
-Aeonex
RE: /region revisions - 9bjames - 04-17-2012
That sounds fair enough really, although one point...
I think it'd be good for only "owners" of the zone to be able to add "members", and also, for them to be able to remove "members" as well (but not add, or remove more owners, for that an OP would still be required). Just something I wanted to mention/ suggest if it isn't already like that/ going to be like that.
RE: /region revisions - WarPlayer13 - 04-17-2012
RE: /region revisions - fireb4llz - 04-17-2012
I'm a little cautious about the idea. It does have some potential but... Idk. I just get te feeling that something will go wrong. But, I guess we could try it out. Btw, only owners should be able to do this, not members.
@warplayer you do realize if we do this, players can zone other people's work, zone possibly the whole map, remove others zones and grief them, delete other's warps... Ok I think I've siad my point.
RE: /region revisions - 9bjames - 04-17-2012
Agreed with fire on WarPlayers point.
It's one thing letting players add members to their zones, it's another thing entirely giving them access to zoning commands. It's something which can not only be abused by griefers, but also misused due to lack of experience. For example, even plenty of OPs have accidentally zoned half of the map before, when it was only intended to zone a small area... Really, there's the same problem with warps; since any 1 warp can only go to any 1 place, giving the command to make warps could end up with griefers spam making warps. As it is, it's up to OPs to decide whether to allow the warp to be set or not... since they shouldn't be placed for pointless reasons.
RE: /region revisions - WarPlayer13 - 04-17-2012
RE: /region revisions - fireb4llz - 04-17-2012
ranks havent been taken very seriously these days, i don't think its a good idea to give t6s zoning perm either.
RE: /region revisions - WarPlayer13 - 04-18-2012
Ok fire
But about the adding ppl to there zones and stuff some 9 yr old may decide to mess with the commands and do something they shouldn't
Be careful who u give the permissions to
RE: /region revisions - MetalicPenguin4 - 04-18-2012
I don't really like any of these ideas lol. Tbh, it doesn't take much time to add people to zones...and if that's something we can do to prevent griefs, I'm fine with it.
RE: /region revisions - 9bjames - 04-18-2012
True Peng, but think more from the perspective of a regular player, instead of an OP. Not all OPs are active, and the ones who are don't always tend to be helpful. There are some unnamed individuals who I've hardly seen helping any other players when needed, even when clearly addressed, and a lot of the time when I come onto the server, even though other OPs are online, I end up being overworked by player issues, and OP jobs... Which quite a lot of the time, I end up not doing, either becuase me, or that player doesn't have time.
It's something seemingly simple, yeah, but what's the harm with letting players add/ remove members from their own zones? It'd still save time and effort for OPs, and make zones more customisable for the players who own them. Problems would obviously come with it, but it couldn't hurt too much to test... I mean I'm pretty sure the main problems with that are already issues which are present in the current system.
As for WarPlayer's point about players messing around with commands they shouldn't... My guess is that players would only have the access to add, and remove players from their own zones. To explain it a bit... every zone has two sections which you can add players to: owners, and members. Really, there is little difference between owners and members in terms of building permissions within that zone, except obviously, the owners of the zone are the players who are primarily in charge of it. The permissions we would give to players, are the abilities to add/ remove "members" into the zone, but not other "owners", and as well as this, they can only do this if they are an "owner" of the particular zone. Sorry for making this so lengthy, I just wanted to address your point, while trying to make things clearer... Technically, allowing owners to add members to zones should hopefully not allow unauthorised access to players' zones. On the other hand, it could still be used for bad causes, but in those cases OPs could get involved to sort out any problems...
In the end, it depends whether players can be trusted with this type of responsibility with their zones, and other people's buildings which are inside them... and whether the problems caused by abusing that responsibility outweighs the benefits and priveledges it can provide... I personally think it'd have to be tested, before any final decisions are made. Damage can be undone afterall.