i left for almost a year at one point, just because a player is gone for a while doesnt mean they wont be back
So the issues here are: - what if the person comes back? They want their chest/stuff. - it's not your stuff, you can't have it. - The wild's a big place, leave the chest alone, find another place. - You can ask staff to remove a chest anyway. (Can you actually do that? I've not tried) I'll respond to these. If it's good enough to remove a players 60 x 60 res, even after they spend many days/weeks/years building it. There's no reason not to remove a chest in the wild either. IF the chest is in the way, which I have come across myself before. In which case, putting a 1k cost on removing the chest seems fair. 1k to make it, 1k to remove it if derelict. The wild IS a big place, but every place in the wild is not just like every other place. There is only ONE place like that place, no other place is the same. I am very particular about the place i choose to use, to build. There is a particular reason I wish to build there and no where else. And if I come across a random locked chest with no build around it, that can be annoying. I'd happily pay 1k to remove the chest. For people just wanting to open the chest and take the contents, yea, i disagree with that. It's not your stuff, regardless of how long it's been there, or whether the owner is not returning. It's still not your stuff. So having items in a chest disappear/despawn is a good idea. It means there's no 'benefit' to 'unlocking' a chest other than being able to remove the chest from the area. - /unlock - right click chest sign. - game chest if lock sign is derelict. - All items inside chest are despawned, and lock sign removed. If staff do currently remove locked chests of banned players, that's fine. Or even take requests to removed locked chests belonging to players not on for a year. Otherwise, perhaps there could be some policy whereby staff will charge a fee to removed locked chests under certain situations?
It is infinite. I don't agree with this simply because it could make a lot of people mad if say something happened and they couldn't play for a while then when they could finally get back on they see that their stuff in the wild that is supposed to be secure is all gone. You pay rupees for locked chest, a residence is free.
Being derelict in my opinion is referring to how long your residence is safe ... the way for your stuff in wilderness to be safe is by making a locked chest. It takes 30 days not playing to become derelict and have a potential ability to lose your residence. Losing your chest in the wild would be on a different scale system to me. (apart from the 30 days) Just like what Dwight mentioned about not receiving loot from inside the chests ... What is the actual purpose of needing someone's locked chest unlocked? I can really only think of three things... One, someone is searching for chests, seeing if they're derelict to find out if they are able to obtain the loot; which won't happen. Two, you are randomly building and run into a locked chest; which is understandable to be removed - if you come across it by accident, and if the person doesn't play anymore contact staff, or if they do still play contact the player or staff and tell them what happened and that you accidentally ran across it. Three, you and other people have a base together; if the other person's things are in the way of building and they stopped playing ask a staff member, if they still play ask them if they will move it, if they don't want it moved don't try to persist it... However if you are a new person at an outpost and an older member has a chest there, I wouldn't try to remove their chests as they initially built the place or helped build ... and In my opinion they'd have more of a higher say in what goes on at the base. So personally for this - I'd have put my vote as a no, as it's in a sense stealing (at least how I perceive it).
I'm sorry, but where is the logic in this? In town when a residence is foreclaimed, you don't get the items so why you should you for locked chests? To me it sounds like you would just go around the wild looking for old chests that you can have the stuff from. Yes, I agree that there could be a reason for removing the chest but there is no reason for you to have the the items, and taking them would be nothing more than theft. And we know what happens to people who steal right?
I live in Detroit and you may know we have lots of abandoned buildings...lots. It's blight to just leave them. More than getting the stuff out of them, its kinda sad to have a locked chest floating in the middle of a wrecked desert village.. it is like blight IMO
Part of the derelict policy was that your server specific data (invintory, spawn point, enderchest contents) could be deleted after 6 months absence. I count locked chest signs as being server specific data and will remove them, on request, if ALL names on it have been absent for 6 months. I will remove personalised items from the chest (heads, books, items with a player name in its title) and place in the lock sign owners vault. If you wish for a lock sign removed send a PM to myself and other senior staff stating the chests co-ords, server, names on sign, and we will get right on it.
This and another statement are possibly in direct conflict with each other... Does a request for removal of a locked chest and "6 months absence" on all named players on a locked chest count as "very special circumstances?" How is it that builds would be protected "forever," yet locked chests could be deleted upon request, within 6 months of a player being inactive? This seems backwards. If anything, the buildings themselves should be allowed to be altered, while leaving locked chests alone and somehow accessible.
Yes and no. An "Established" claim would not be subject to having a locked chest removed as a player would not be able to build there anyways. But, a random chest thats not part of an obvious build, however can be removed and we often do. Also, if another player locks a chest in your area, that also can be removed if the player cant be reached. Now, an un registered build, is subject to griefing rules. You can't go griefing the players build, so you cant build where a building already is... So, unregistered buildings are essentially protected too. This all boils down to the random chest players have placed while mining or adventuring, but not actually building.
I don't think that this should be for any inactive player's locked chest. This should only be allowed if it is on your claimed outpost and if you got permission from a senior staff member.
