Player Associations Archive
Thread: Locked items in PA halls
Page 1 of 1
TrevorVanth
Fri Dec 24, 2004 7:47 am
#1
An idea that's been rattling around the back of my head for a few weeks....
Waaaaay back in the days that I played UO, the ability existed in player-owned structures for the owner to "lock" items in place. That is, place (for example) a chair, and - once it's exactly where you want it - "lock" it in place so it can't be moved.
Perhaps the best way to implement this would be to add a "Super-Admin" level to PA halls. The "Super-Admin" would have all the rights the Admin level currently has - access to place, move and pick up items, access to deposit credits in maintenance, etc. - as well as the ability to "lock" items in place and "unlock" them. Additional "Super-Admins" could be added by "Super-Admins."
The Admin level would retain the rights they currently have...but would be unable to "lock" or "unlock" items. This would allow members access to containers and to deposit funds into PA hall maintenance, while still allowing the leader (or whoever was assigned to keep the hall's look in order) to prevent any of those furniture moving accidents that we've all encountered from time to time.
Hand-in-hand with this is something that may be more appropriate for artisans/architects: Also waaaay back in those UO days, containers such as chests could not only be "locked" in place, but could also actually be locked, accessible only with a corresponding key. Keys could be duplicated from the master key and distributed only to those the owner wished to have access to to the container. Our UO guild made use of this in having containers for the general membership to store items or contain items for distribution to the members, but there were also locked containers for the guild council to access. This could bea workaround for the "guild vault" idea that's been floating around, but would optimally work in conjunction with such a system. It would also be more beneficial if - as with equipped backpacks in our inventories - furniture containers with items in them counted only as one item and/or the proposed increase of PA hall storage went through.
The "lock in place" feature could be beneficial for all player structures, as well, but given the communal nature of PA halls, would be of greatest benefit to the halls.
Rothin
Fri Dec 24, 2004 9:27 am
#2
With what you're proposing, I'm not sure that we would really need the 'lock' system unless we took it a couple steps further.
If you remember back in UO, every item dropped was public and would decay when dropped unless it was 'locked' in place to remain static. The purpose of locking was to make the item private from the public so that they could see it, but just could no longer move it. In SWG, we pretty much have that system in place as is, since we can drop the furniture as Admins and only other admins can move it in the house and no one can pick it up / nor does it decay. So I wouldn't really want the lock feature to come into play. I think it would become more annoying for most than it would help really.
However, rather than the locking system, we should (And this is something I used to talk about myself) bring back the "Co-Owner" and "Friends" status to housing that UO had. In which Co-Owners had full priviledges on all items and Friends had access to certain containers when assigned. Through the radial menu you could assign packs, chests, armoirs, etc.. to be "Friends" or "Co-Owners" status. Anything dropped would default to Co-Owners status, but you could assign Friends. This way, you add a new "Friends" list to the structure control like Entry is now, and allow the ability for "Guild:ABBREV" on it and you now have your guild vault. Guild members could come and go, drop off and take items from the friends chest as needed.
Of course, the storage limit comes into play here again. Obviously, we couldn't make it just count as one item no matter what is inside, since then everyone would abuse the system for unlimited storage. I too, think that the storage limit would need to be increased before this could live up to its true potential. Either that, or it would need to be some sort of specially crafted chest that would have a set or scaling item limit on it based on the size of your guild. Not sure on that one, but I will get this in our wishlist for how the Vault could function.
TrevorVanth
Sat Dec 25, 2004 9:39 am
#3
Rothin wrote:
However, rather than the locking system, we should (And this is something I used to talk about myself) bring back the "Co-Owner" and "Friends" status to housing that UO had. In which Co-Owners had full priviledges on all items and Friends had access to certain containers when assigned. Through the radial menu you could assign packs, chests, armoirs, etc.. to be "Friends" or "Co-Owners" status. Anything dropped would default to Co-Owners status, but you could assign Friends. This way, you add a new "Friends" list to the structure control like Entry is now, and allow the ability for "Guild:ABBREV" on it and you now have your guild vault. Guild members could come and go, drop off and take items from the friends chest as needed.
Thank you. THIS is what I was thinking of. 
It's been so long since I played UO, however, that all I could remember was the "lock" system. As soon as you mentioned the "friend" status, though, it all came back to me.
It's been so long since I played UO, however, that all I could remember was the "lock" system. As soon as you mentioned the "friend" status, though, it all came back to me.Perhaps a middle ground for the storage furniture that might make it a little more attractive for the devs to at least consider considering it....since we wouldn't be talking about removing the cap of item quantity in "storage furniture" completely...if the change were to be made to make them more like equipped wearable containers (that is, the quantity stored not counting towards the limit of items in the structure), cut the item cap in half...from 50 to 25 (or even down to 20). This could at least help cut down on any potential abuse.
Or, it could just be a pipe dream. 
Rothin
Sat Dec 25, 2004 10:49 am
#4
TrevorVanth wrote:
Rothin wrote:
However, rather than the locking system, we should (And this is something I used to talk about myself) bring back the "Co-Owner" and "Friends" status to housing that UO had. In which Co-Owners had full priviledges on all items and Friends had access to certain containers when assigned. Through the radial menu you could assign packs, chests, armoirs, etc.. to be "Friends" or "Co-Owners" status. Anything dropped would default to Co-Owners status, but you could assign Friends. This way, you add a new "Friends" list to the structure control like Entry is now, and allow the ability for "Guild:ABBREV" on it and you now have your guild vault. Guild members could come and go, drop off and take items from the friends chest as needed.
Thank you. THIS is what I was thinking of.
Perhaps a middle ground for the storage furniture that might make it a little more attractive for the devs to at least consider considering it....since we wouldn't be talking about removing the cap of item quantity in "storage furniture" completely...if the change were to be made to make them more like equipped wearable containers (that is, the quantity stored not counting towards the limit of items in the structure), cut the item cap in half...from 50 to 25 (or even down to 20). This could at least help cut down on any potential abuse.
Or, it could just be a pipe dream.
Yeah after reading that I thought thats more of what you were thinking of, since the lock system really didn't effect who could take items. And yes, it's been a LONG time since I've played UO as well. lol
Page 1 of 1