Access Signs On The Side Of Chests

Discussion in 'Suggestion Box Archives' started by azoundria, Mar 19, 2016.


Should Access Signs Work When Placed On The Sides Of Chests?

Yes, Allow Access To Chest If Sign Is On Top Or On The Side 23 vote(s) 65.7%
Yes, Allow Access To Chest If Sign Is On The Side And Not Above Another Chest 2 vote(s) 5.7%
Yes, Allow Access To Chest If Sign Is Above And Not On The Side Of Another Chest 2 vote(s) 5.7%
No, But Add A Warning If No Chest Is Present 2 vote(s) 5.7%
No, Leave The Behaviour As Is 6 vote(s) 17.1%
  1. +1...a lot of user error from these. Scary if a player gives access to the wrong chest.

    Is this a solvable issue? Can you make access signs use the same logic as shop signs? Is it hard to code because the player is interacting with the chest versus interacting with the sign?

    How about if the sign auto-breaks if no chest is found? I think part of the confusion is that the system allows placement of a broken access sign (ex: over empty space).

    Lock and shop signs seem to deal with ambiguous placement. Maybe there are edge cases that aren't dealt with? If the issues with those have been solved then maybe access signs just need to be converted to their system.

    [edit] also, devs have power over command syntax. Could make a command like "sideaccess" if you really want to be explicit.
  2. This is an interesting idea. But we would have to drop all compatibility for the old (current) method. This idea of opening access chests by clicking on the sign instead is appealing, but any change in our current mechanics could only further confuse the current topic. Unfortunately this approach would break functionality for our access signs that work with entities (armorstands/villagers/itemframes/etc).
    Therefore, I am standing by the current mechanics as being ideal. Simply I do not see it appropriate to merge these 3 different systems we are talking about: Feature Signs, Shop Signs, and Access signs. They work differently. If that is not clear, then perhaps it needs documented differently on the wiki. Maybe we need to format access signs differently as well (not the [ ACCESS ]). Lock signs also rely on that 1 block below logic as well.

    Could provide a warning. But there are instances with access signs where the accessed container/entity is not available yet. So I would not choose to make them pop off if there is not a valid block/entity below it.

    There is no ambiguity. Sign should always be 1 block above.

    In theory 'could' create a sideaccess sign. But this does not resolve the underlying issue of the reverse lookup mentioned in the prior post. I could potentially justify implementing an access feature sign which would follow feature sign logic. (and closer to shop sign logic). But I am still not convinced currently because I really hate to make the already highly confusing EMC features even more complicated.
    TomvanWijnen likes this.
  3. Can't currently say much more than, fair enough, well said, and thanks for thinking about the idea. :) If I could, I'd like this post 5 times :p
  4. Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it.

    Also, this literally just happened again. :) It doesn't happen every day, but I though it funny since I was reading your reply while delivering on an auction.

    [edit] embedded
  5. I want to add this: it is a littke bit confusing, that it does work for shop signs, and especially that it also works for preview signs, but oh well. Maybe add a warning when placing an access sign? (with a timeout of 10 min or whatever (and an option to turn it off?))
  6. Only feasible option other than what I mentioned prior is to make it not work for shops in any direction but straight down.
    That is not a reasonable option either.

    Just trying to avoid ambiguous cases
    TomvanWijnen likes this.
  7. I like this idea! :D
  8. I have never once seen an ambiguously-placed sign. Not saying it can't ever happen, but I don't see it being a major issue. I don't see how it's more likely than someone placing the sign ambiguously right now and giving access to the wrong chest.

    As for the wiki, I don't see why someone who I expressly tell to put a sign on top of the chest when I place an order is likely to take an extra 5 minutes after placing an access chest to verify it complies with a sentence in the appropriate wiki section. There's no indication to the player that the sign is placed incorrectly.

    For the detection algorithm it seems pretty straightforward:
    1) Check above chest/block.
    2) If double chest, check above connected chest.
    3) Check facing chest/block (up to 4 places/directions). Make sure the sign is actually facing the chest/block.
    4) If double chest, check facing connected chest (up to 4 places/directions).

    If it works for other blocks (anvils, ovens, etc...) I don't think that's a bad thing. Again, I have never seen a sign placed ambiguously, and I don't think it's necessarily the wrong behaviour if it provides access to all applicable blocks, and this is clearly documented on the wiki. The results of this survey clearly indicate that the vast majority of the community favours this behaviour, and since I posted the image highlighting the exact issue there have been no additional votes for 'Leave The Behaviour As Is' (still at 6) and 10 additional votes for 'Allow Access To Chest If Sign Is On Top Or On The Side'.