I think it would be very beneficial to be able to ask another player for permission to place blocks under their username instead of your own, it would let people help with builds and players would not have to worry about who on their friend list has permission to break blocks if they're helping someone with a large build.
You're able to place a block using someone elses's username as the protection in a group? I didn't know that, what are the commands?
Reopened and de-archived at the request of the original poster. For clarification they are suggesting that players are able to have blocks they placed be protected as if another player placed them. A good example where this could be useful is if you commissioned a player to create a iron farm at your outpost. It would be useful if the blocks being placed where protected as yours.
This thread is doing so much damage, at least for me. Sorry for a small rant: did the OP really request for their thread to be closed and then re-opened? Or did they protest for it being closed. I dunno, can't be sure, and although I'm definitely focusing on the positive it still looks peculiar for a bystander. Also because this has actually been a thing in the past, and no one mentioned this? Oh well, maybe I'm just being too cynical (can't rule this out, I'm tired as heck). +1 BUT.... I'm somewhat convinced that this feature isn't going to be added because at some time we were actually able to do this. But that got removed. For somewhat good reasons I think because there was also a huge potential risk for abuse. Keyword here is groups. You could start a group, then enable group buildmode which would have the result that every block placed would be owned by the group leader. As long as everyone was in the group they would be able to break them, but as soon as someone got out of the group they would no longer have access to these blocks. The abuse risk should be obvious: /invite player, tell them to place a gold block, /group kick player and that block of gold is now yours. (disclaimer: this trick no longer works so I consider it no problem anymore to share). (I am somewhat surprised that no senior staffer mentioned this already). But this group approach still works, somewhat. The main difference is that instead of placing a block on behalf of one player you can now place it on behalf of the whole group. See group build mode (/gr buildmode). The problem though (it's a very difficult subject!) is that the permissions retain. You actually place blocks which are owned by all current members of the group. So the moment someone leaves the group or the group gets disbanded then... nothing. Everyone can still break everything. Which makes this feature useful for mutual group activities but horrible for building protected stuff on behalf of someone else. But as said: +1. I would definitely fully support this because I've been using the original very heavily myself. The main problem is that as much as I dislike this: there will be players who are going to try and abuse the system. And unfortunately many staffers (ok: loaded comment: I'm addressing staff in general here, this also includes law enforcement in real life)... so: many staffers prefer what I consider to be the easy way out: guilty until proven innocent. Ergo: deny something for everyone because it could be more work to punish those who abuse the feature than it would be to simply consider everyone guilty and deny the feature entirely. Very important disclaimer: I can fully understand why this got changed and I honestly support the decision, despite my snappy comments. But at the same time I also favor the original behavior, even with the added risks. Because I also think that at some point the players should stop and think about their own actions and its possible consequences. It's a very loaded topic and I think best not discussed here. All I did was share my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but if you feel the need to discuss lets do so in the controversial section instead of risking to derail this thread. Bottom line: +1 from me.
I do not know what the current setup of BUILDMODE is now but I would think a group would be hampered by players who helped build group structures with buildmode on and then left the group, the group would not be able to remove or replace these blocks. Even worse if that player quit playing EMC because I think those blocks would become unprotected. ????
It'd be more for the people who are helping build for a specific person, they'd all be able to set their block placement to be under one person's name instead of everyone in the group having permissions.
+1 If it were added, than aikar would make sure that these blocks have 2 ownerships... of the builder and the other player. Also, when a player goes derelict, the blocks are still protected. Just that, if you become more than 6 months derelict, they could be removed. This onlu happens when your prot blocks are at other player builds. If its your own build, staff wont unprotect your blocks
I like this idea, but make it 'Claim' centric, not 'Player' centric. To my point . . . To further inspire players to make claims and to build in them . . . . (At it's simplest form) Have a permissions change to make the 'Claim' the owner of the blocks. The owner of the claim inherits admin permissions of the blocks placed in that claim. (Effect can be turned on or off by the owner of the claim) . . . for those builds not within a 'Claim', well, deal. -BZ-
