Just a thought for the sake of looking at another angle: What if locking a chest cost nothing, but the lock only lasted for a relatively short amount of time, like say 24 hours or something? ...or possibly a variable amount of time set by the player, up to something like 24 hours. This way people could log off assured that their chest(s) can't be stolen from until they come back then next day, but they would need to come back each day to renew the lock. So it would result in temporary locks that would enable players to lock chests in thier temporary bases in the Wilderness, or effectively have permanent locks IF they log on and relock them every day. This would give people time to cart thier goodies back to town at thier leisure and without fear of having thier stuff stolen while they're travelling, and keep thier chests safe as long as they log in and reset the lock every day. This temporary type of locking chest would also likely prevent most major abuses of the chest locking system as it would only result in a temporary indestructible block that would need to be reset every day. It would be a lot of work relocking a locked-chest wall every day, especially if the signs were made to simply disappear. Also, if the signs are made so they disappear when the lock expires this would be a sort of cost, albeit a minimal one. Though it might be enough to help deter mass abuse somewhat. A rupee cost could also be applied to this system as well, though it seems to me it should be minimal... perhaps 10 rupees or something... or 1 rupee per hour (up to the maximum allowed) if it's set up so the player can set a variable amount of time for the chest to be locked... so, 24 rupees for a day. I think that would be quite enough cost to further deter abuse of this system.
I really like this idea but from a programming standpoint it would be a ton more work. It would require a centralized data store of every locked chest, along with periodic checks against timers. It would also require the loading of a chunk from disk to unlock it if no one is in that area. This gets a bit more tricky by the way the system is designed, that is why crops don't grow or dropped items don't despawn if the chunk isn't loaded. I would have to think about it for a bit and see if the benefits would outweigh the work.
but a problem i see is people not affording it, so they wait, but then someone else locks their chest. i still like the idea though!
I know nothing about modding minecraft servers, but would it really matter if a chest is locked / unlocked while the chunk isn't loaded? Expired locks could be updated when the chunk is loaded, then there would be a person in the vicinity to loot / destroy / update the lock?
What if the chest gets given to you through the tutorial and you only get one or two, but you can re enchant a chest once your current one is destroyed if u lost it by accident, or mabey you have to apply for one to a mod to control the usage for them, and mods should have the ability to delete them, this could be handy in town as I found somebody you had build perms in my res just deleted my access signs on my chest and changed it to his name, if anything I think the access signs should be protected and only the res owner and the creator can delete it!
What if the chests don't get opened in two weeks it just teleports it's contents and the chest back to the players inventory and the same if the chest gets distroyed or burned in lava
Yes you could do this but that means while people are walking around you would constantly have to check every block from bedrock to the top of the sky to see if it is a locked chest and if it is expired. Or while you were walking around you would have to check the database of locked chests everytime a chunk is loaded and find every location of a chest that is in that chunk. Imagine if you had thousands of sticky notes you had to sort to find a piece of information. This would also open up bugs if the system was to become out of sync, say if the server crashes right when you place the sign, so it is protected but the database doesn't know about it. These are all possible things, but the question is does the work and server load justify the change. Checking a sign when it is placed, and checking a sign above a chest when it is opened are very low in terms of server labor, development time, and maintenance .
Ok, so what about having the timer and other chest-sign data checked only when someone tries to open the chest? Not sure how that would work programming-wise of course, but it seems a logical train of thought to pursue from here.
Yeah I really like the input everyone gives, it keeps me in check! This would be ok if we could somehow store the time/date on the sign, cause off the sign again you are talking about building some sort of database (rather than using the sign as the info storage like shops, [access], etc).
Speak for yourself. I think 1500-2000 is a very reasonable price for such a convenient function. I still prefer to just hide mine and put various... deterrents... around them, but this is a nice gesture by the faculty.
Extensive databases use up resources, amirite? So how's about you have a sign with: [playername] was here [date/time limit of lock] Something like that would work both as a visual verification for the player and you can store the date/time on the sign. So have a simple database that stores chest locales, then when a chunk is loaded, all of the locations of chests are already known to the server. Then, when the player attempts to open the chest, the system simply runs a true/false check on the player's name, based off the sign's data, determines whether the lock's expiration date has passed, and then goes from there. That way, the database is only needed for keeping track of all chest locations and the signs do all the rest. Idk if this has already been discussed, or if this is even any better than other ideas previously stated, but I really want to try and help this community in any way possible. Hopefully this semester's Java class will enable me to understand game and server programming a little better...
Yes, 2000 r. heck, make it 3000r if u want. But most of that being the deposit. after you claim ur chest, u get 1500 back. so like all good mining outpost's, once ur finish, clear ur stuff and claim ur money.
I was thinking more in combination with the method mentioned earlier, where you store the location of chests in a database when placed and do the timer check with loaded chunks, but defer processing of unloaded chunks until they're loaded. I prefer this idea anyway, just because if it means you're unable to log in on a particular day, your chest is still safe. Perhaps you could tie it in with your derelict account policy, so the servers don't accumulate locked chests from people who stop playing.
I know its probably not the place to throw this idea out but, I found a mod that could solve some of the chest in the wilderness issue. This of course would require you guys to approve of it, but I really like it on SSP. Here's the link: http://www.planetminecraft.com/mod/backpack/
It seems to me that some sort of backpack system could stand as an alternative to a chest locking system. I mean, the main issue that we want to address here is keeping our stuff safe, right? So if we can carry more stuff, and thus log out with more stuff safely in our inventory, then that would stand to at least partially address the issue. But then, we have to consider how having backpacks/extra inventory space would affect the survival experience... and how it would fit with Empire Minecraft's current philosophy of keeping Minecraft as "vanilla" as possible. Personally, I would love having extra inventory space! For me, it would considerably reduce the need/desire to have the ability to lock chests.
I suppose it depends on the situation. For that much prefer to build in the Wild, the locked chests would allow for teams to put them in locked chests and have them available for everyone. With the backpack thing, I see there's an option for a magic backpack, which saves your items if you die and keeps them for when you make your new backpack. I don't think we would want to put this in (assuming we do anything with backpacks).
That mod is awesome, but it would require everyone to install a mod on the client to connect to the server . However a backpack like the vault would be possible. But I agree with Dark_Liz I dont know how much it would hurt the experience. Perhaps if it emptied when you die it would be a better idea, otherwise people will just load up the backpack and then die to get back to Town...
I personally think it's a good idea for those who are building in town with bulk materials. I mean, who wouldn't want another row or two in inventory to cart back a few more stacks of cobble, sand, sandstone, netherbrick, etc. from a long mining trip? I know I've been inconvenienced by my inventory capacity when building my res, which is absolutely huge and almost completely made of cobble (atm, hopefully gonna upgrade to stone once most interior construction has been finished). Still, I can't help but feel that this will not solve the ultimate problem: keeping items safe in the wilderness. In the end, I'd take one or two secure double chests in the wilderness over a larger inventory any day, merely because even if I die, I know there are resources waiting for me in my chests (if I can find them ). Idk, I'm cool with whatever makes it easier on you guys, even if you drop this entire idea of chest locking completely. I'll just continue to use my patented Safety Chest system. It's guaranteed to protect up to 87.5% of all chests hidden!
Well, I've had time to consider the magic backpack portion and to be honest it does seem a bit overbalanced. I suppose there would be a way to implement one part but not the other but not sure how it would be done. As to the backpack itself, I had an idea that it could possibly be a supporter item only, similar to how the tnt is diamond only. Perhaps make this, I dunno, gold and up? As to detracting from "vanilla" minecraft, haven't we already done that with the economy system? I don't recall seeing that in the single player survival on my edition of it.
