Pending Remove invisible walls by claims

[helix]

Howdy,

I just learned that claims can allow you to block people from your claim by creating an invisible wall around the claim by banning individuals, or everyone from your claim.

I'm struggling to see reasons for this that are not toxic, and it has the potential to screw up quite a bit around spawn, and neighboring claims, etc. I don't want to totally rehash the convo so I'm going to throw some preliminary convo that happened in the MC dev channel. LEAKS!!!!!!

Spoiler: MC DEV LEAKS!!!!!!!!!

1. helix​

   Heya. I was just learning more about the claim system and I had a quick Q
   
   
2. Is there a gameplay reason on why it is possible to block people from accessing your claim?
   
   
3. I don't mean by opening doors/etc., I mean like physically walking in to your claim by making pretty much an invisible wall
   
   
4. I was going to make a suggestion thread to change this, but realized I don't really fully understand why it's possible in the first place, so thought I'd ask ehre.
   
   

5. Fiz [SOUL],​

   Why not tbh
6. Maybe you just don’t like the person or don’t want anyone on it

7. helix​

   I’ve always seen this handled by building physical structures instead of just invisible walls tbh. I imagine someone having a lot of claim around spawn like Teto for example and how that might affect travel around the area in a pretty negative way. Also puts a pretty shitty situation where if you claim right against someone else’s claim and block them/everyone it breaks travel pretty hard

8. (;​

   Yeah, honestly

9. helix​

   Yeah, physical structure does that as well, yeah, but it seems a lot more organic and kind of more in tune with building these community like areas if it was required to be a physical structure

10. (;​

    especially if we are going to encourage wars and stuff, seems silly to use force of god from keeping people on my land
11. I'm right by spawn and that can really fuck someone's movement up

12. helix​

    Being able to do specific people leads for some pretty toxic situations to be possible as well lmao

13. (;​

    If we are going to allow that option, there should be an upkeep fee associated with it

14. helix​

    If going that route, I think it should also be all or nothing. Not specific people.

15. Mr. Mystery​

    i hate this especially the chunk at spawn
16. you cant attack people in their lands anyways right
17. the only situation i can really see it being useful is like if you have redstone editing permissions on (so people can use buttons) but you didnt want someone to get in the redstone itself and fuck with repeaters?

18. helix​

    You’d put those behind a barrier then anyway then, wouldn’t you?

19. SirLemonCakes​

    Agreed, way better RP
20. You can't get into my fortress because I built big ol'walls

21. Mr. Mystery​

    true lol

22. SirLemonCakes​

    Instead of the impassable invisible teleportation field

23. ari [.flac],​

    Forwarded
    cousinwink » not a fun feature even if i wanted you banned lol
    #│minecraft • 6:01 PM
24. think this explains the sentiment of banning people from lands pretty well

25. Mr. Mystery​

    making my land so anyone can destroy blocks but im also banning everyone

26. ari [.flac],​

    to do so for specific people, its just /lands ban, and I think there might be a lands flag to unallow everyone all at once

27. helix​

    With how claims are setup rn I just can’t think of any reason to do it that isn’t toxic and isn’t already settled with server rules

28. ari [.flac],​

    ^
29. u cant grief rn and the worse someone can do is like
30. use your mob farms
31. [.flac],
    

    helix​

    which you can protect with walls lol

32. ari [.flac],​

    id +2 a suggestion if u make one cuz i dont rlly see a reason to ban specific people
33. [.flac],
    

    SirLemonCakes​

    Doors stop that too
34. Lol
35. [.flac],
    

    Mr. Mystery​

    they might not even be able to anyways bcos entity interaction
36. [.flac],
    

    ari [.flac],​

    would bring a lottt of unecessary drama as well!!!!

37. Mr. Mystery​

    like ik you cant kill dogs in peoples land for example
38. [.flac],
    

    Chou [iiSU],​

    yay, more mc drama!!!

39. ari [.flac],​

    u can kill hostiles on public lands
40. i thinkkk

41. Mr. Mystery​

    would make sense

42. ari [.flac],​

    well ik cuz u can use mob farms on other ppls land

43. Mr. Mystery​

    otherwise death trap

44. ari [.flac],​

    unless u disable that which i dont think there is
45. [.flac],
    

    SirLemonCakes​

    Walls and a door
    
    
    
    
    

46. ari [.flac],​

    yus

47. SirLemonCakes​

    And perms

48. ari [.flac],​

    
    
    
    
    
49. so it can just be disabled

50. (;​

    imo bans should disable a player from warping to your land via the plugin, but not outright visiting. If your perms are set up right, all your shit is safe

51. ari [.flac],​

    
    
    
    

52. helix​

    @Espurr, Speaker of The Dragon what do you think? I can throw it on the forums if you want, but it does seem clear here imo
    
    

53. SirLemonCakes​

    Make the suggestion, I'll upvote it
    
    

54. helix​

    kk. I’ll just copy/paste the convo from here so it doesn’t need more repeating lol
    
    
55. I’ll do it when I get home

 

[ari]

+2

 

[SirLemoncakes]

+4

 

[Rick Sanchez]

+1, I can see why this might make sense in theory, but practical application doesnt pan out.

As we have seen, a lot of us have gathered near spawn, just having the ability to block of a chunk of the map doesnt make sense

 

[Noctorious]

If you have this disabled people can still aggro monsters, they just can't do or take damage

 

[proper]

+1 i would +2 but i don't believe in power RP

 

[Noctorious]

I use the lock out on areas that I don't want even Trusted players in and I did use it over my own land at the start when I was unsure of all of the options and interactions of the lands system and was getting set up

 

[helix]

I use the lock out on areas that I don't want even Trusted players in and I did use it over my own land at the start when I was unsure of all of the options and interactions of the lands system and was getting set up

That sounds like something a guide for the claims could solve which I understand has been in the works for awhile? This does not sound like it outweighs the cons of the feature.

 

[Noctorious]

That sounds like something a guide for the claims could solve which I understand has been in the works for awhile? This does not sound like it outweighs the cons of the feature.

Yes that's my main point is I think we should wait until a good guide for lands and getting setup gets released before we make this change (if the change is made)

 

[Frosty]

+1 If you don't want someone in your land there should be ways to block them from interacting with your land that doesn't destroy a player's ability to traverse around surrounding claims.

 

[helix]

Yes that's my main point is I think we should wait until a good guide for lands and getting setup gets released before we make this change (if the change is made)

I was wondering if you can expand on this a bit because I don't think I'm entirely seeing the point here. The reason I say that is because it sounds like the reason you felt you needed to use the blocking feature was just because you didn't understand the claim system- but it was never actually necessary in the first place. I think it'd be ideal to make changes to the claim system as their intended as soon as possible so existing builds can be built around those settings regardless of whether the guide is finished or not. If people want on your lands - let them build walls. You don't want them interacting with your mob spawners? put a door up. I could see keeping it around if the intention was to prevent someone from griefing, your land or killing you- but that is already blocked by the claim system. I think they'll figure that out quickly enough whether there is a guide or not. Maybe there is a reason you're suggesting this though that I'm just not seeing?

 

[Fiz]

-1 Sometimes people don’t want others on their lands. I can see how it can affect the spawn location but we even have /wilds and things like that.

 

[;)]

-1 Sometimes people don’t want others on their lands. I can see how it can affect the spawn location but we even have /wilds and things like that.

Can't you just build walls/other creative things to keep people off your property rather than resorting to the god barrier of /lands? It'd be a massive dick move on my part to ban @Darktooth from visiting christ since he's physically touching my land, never mind the fact I could box in a few other neighbors by banning them aswell.

 

[SirLemoncakes]

Can't you just build walls/other creative things to keep people off your property rather than resorting to the god barrier of /lands? It'd be a massive dick move on my part to ban @Darktooth from visiting christ since he's physically touching my land, never mind the fact I could box in a few other neighbors by banning them aswell.

Well, I guess the only downside would be elytra. Someone could just fly straight over your walls. Would there be a way to designate a no-fly zone?

 

[Fiz]

Can't you just build walls/other creative things to keep people off your property rather than resorting to the god barrier of /lands? It'd be a massive dick move on my part to ban @Darktooth from visiting christ since he's physically touching my land, never mind the fact I could box in a few other neighbors by banning them aswell.

It would be dickish, but I think people should have the right to keep others off their lands regardless. womp womp tbh

 

[Noctorious]

Well, I guess the only downside would be elytra. Someone could just fly straight over your walls. Would there be a way to designate a no-fly zone?

Current no-fly setting only affects taking off from inside the land but doesn't stop people from flying in from outside

Even if that wasn't so, how high would you need to make your walls to actually keep someone out? The wall either has to be very tall, or be placed far enough back from the edge of the lands that someone can't build a pillar and jump onto the wall, effectively decreasing total useful land area

 

[helix]

It would be dickish, but I think people should have the right to keep others off their lands regardless. womp womp tbh

I guess this has me confused more than anything else, but it seemed like we were trying to cut down on mechanisms that can be "dickish", but it sounds like this is reverting back to the "too bad" attitude that we had towards griefing.

Regardless, it seems like this is pretty counter-intuitive to the direction of encouraging more of a world-building aspect of the server, and it can be actively disruptive to the war aspect that is being encouraged as well since specific people can be blocked. I think if this is something y'all are really motivated in keeping it should be an all-or-nothing approach so everyone is equally affected. This also prevents the toxic moves of laying a claim right next to another claim and then blocking out specific people from being able to leave their claim.

 

[;)]

It would be dickish, but I think people should have the right to keep others off their lands regardless. womp womp tbh

Honestly, I really don't like this take. With the survey we gave out to our playerbase that indicated the playerbase liked factions, economy, wars, and building it seems silly to further restrict things that can lead to genuine friction that create mutual wars.

Recently, several advisors were asked what killed Seriouscraft. Seriouscraft was a lot more raidcentric already then what we are; any chest that wasn't locked up somehow was fair game on people's claims. Decisions were made, time after time, to cater to the PVE aspect of things which eventually ran every PVP player out of town. This slight change that would benefit a tiny amount of friction/adversary in a very controlled way (this players already can't kill, passive mobs, villagers, open shit), seems like a good way forward.