Well the problem is if its merged to be with the vault like we have been considering (because it is like a mini vault...), then that opens up abuse if left unrestrained in the wild. Maybe the better option is to not link EnderChests to vault, but possibly add a charge to in town usage? There should be some cost for transferring items from the wild to town using the Ender chest, anyone got any different ideas?
Maybe I misunderstand how often Enderchest Suicides are used or underestimate the amount of usage people are putting these to. If it is considered abuse, why is cross server XP treated with respect? They both circumvent the vault. XP farming easily trumps the enderchest as an easy way to move something valuable(XP) around. I can enchant or repair items, sell them, then use the Rupees to by whatever I want. Compare the two and using the enderchest this way has the drawback of it being a one way trip. Yet I constanly move XP around from server to server simply by logging in and out, for free. Without the ability to Lock an Enderchest, we're going to find ourselves mining a lot of obsidian. I often carry one in my inventory with a Silk Touch pick because of this.
So if I put things in the enderchest and I give my friends the container flag, can they now look in the enderchest and get out things? Or only if I put over the enderchest an access sign?
The enderchest, besides having a small storage space, is already restrctive enough. Not everybody has a pick with Silk Touch to easily transport it around, or access to multiple Ender Eyes so they can make stacks of Enderchests. It seems to me that using a rupee cost to restrict it even more is redundant, when it was clearly designed to be quite restrictive by itself. And, personally, I do not think there is need to alter in any way the funtionality of the Vault, because it works just fine to its purpose.
Nono, were talking about ideas to provide similiar access like that, but this is still a long ways off.. just blueprinting here. I guess that is a fair point that we didn't even consider when making EXP cross server.. (But to be fair, no-one cared for EXP as much before TEXP update haha...) CURRENT PLANS BASED ON FEEDBACK So current thoughts are we shouldn't merge EC/Vault, leave EC as its own same separate entity as same as Vanilla. However, we will eventually come up with a system to allow users shared access to their vault, which should be given only to very trusted friends the same as container permission on a residence... Additionally, new additions will be added to the Ender Chest to make it even more powerful (One of those perks being double chest instead of single chest) at the cost of rupees... but don't want to spill beans on that yet. Summary: Current EnderChest will not change. Vault will stay its own separate entity (but scheduled to get some big improvements soon) We still welcome ideas on how to improve stuff though. The Idea of merging vault and enderchest sounded good on paper but you guys have shown maybe it wasnt the best of idea . And you're right it wouldnt be too fair to attack the enderchest when there are other options for transporting valuables like EXP... so that's not something we want to "fight" on, especially as Pab mentions, its not like its a wide spread problem of abuse. We will add locking of enderchest in an update soon though.
I would've thought there were other priorities within EMC which required more attention rather than trying to make life harder for people. With promises of Dragon Tombs, Wild Portals and other good stuff, where does the idea to nerf Enderchests creep in? People are using a legitimate game mechanic. Is it an exploit? Not really. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always viewed an Enderchest as having that exact purpose - a place for you to put your stuff in that you'd collected so that if you died you could get it again from somewhere safe without having to get back to whatever deathtrap you fell into. People are simply expediting the death part of it. Ultimately, if someone dies to get back to Town and get their Enderchest, they would've achieved the exact same end result had they walked back with a full inventory. It makes no difference apart from the time required, which would be minuscule and certainly not save the economy. It's a little bit quicker, but they still have to walk all the way back to wherever the original chest was if they want to do it again, unless they stick a new chest in at a new location.
This discussion wasnt for anything soon, but players brought up suggestions relevant to it and its best to get feedback and ideas soon as possible to think on and work it into a schedule, and can shape things with the input. But those ideas are over now.
Leave enderchests untouched. They're good for cargo carrying if you're bringing goods back and forth from point A to point C. The nether being point B in which the person travels through.
I am confused .. and there are too many post to read So, What you guys are talking about isnt going to allow things from one ender chest to another ender chest on another server correct? That should neverrrr be able to happen
A short synopsis: Aikar: I'm done with the economy. I think I'll work on ruining Enderchests next. EMC: Aikar: Um, never mind. All in fun Aikar
Okey Dokey, so things are basically going to remain as they are... Also in the sharing access too vault... does that mean that we could once given access type let's say /vault aikar and then it was open Aikar's vault?
Well we want to enable sharing of some goods, and the original idea was to merge vault and enderchest... But since were not, were going to look into sharing overall, but this Enderchest stuff to come won't be for a while so hopefully we'll have ModAPI for that by then. As for Vault, that can be shared too but would require some thought into accessing it, but that will be in a farther off update too.
