1  |   Order by index

Feb 12, 2003, 10:08pm

I would like the ability to allow some people to encroach -_- It would
be on the registry/world server level so that no-one can just use a hack or
something.

-Sk8man1

Feb 12, 2003, 10:16pm

Another one that would be nice is giving people rights to move other
people (like for pball games) without having to give them eject rights...
also somehow making it either A.) work only within a certain area of a world
or B.) Making them only able to send someone restricted distance (20m for
example)

[View Quote]

Feb 13, 2003, 2:58pm

Non-Encroachment is currently on the server anyway:

if you make the browser think you're a diff cit than you are by editing the
memory and build over that cits land, it doesn't allow u.

[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 5:27am

I havent played around with worlds recently, but last time I checked if you
didn't have an object registry then people could encroach. Of course, anyone
with build can so its not very useful...
[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 9:58am

I mean so that you can have a registry and certain people who you give
rights on the world server CAN encroach while everyone else cannot...

[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 9:59am

I meant I'm looking for a way to HAVE a registry so that OTHER people
can't encroach. Only people in a list on the world server...
[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 12:34pm

Called ED Rights

[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 3:22pm

No.

[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 4:58pm

You can't encroach with ED... do some research before you answer posts...

[View Quote] *snip*

Feb 15, 2003, 5:13pm

Well without a registry you can.

[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 5:19pm

dumbass!

[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 7:21pm

Carl:

We are talking about with registry. It would involve a new right...
designated "non-registry" areas or areas for designated people to build on
together would be good.

[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 7:21pm

Don't call me a name. I've never used registries before.

[View Quote]

Feb 15, 2003, 11:45pm

BINGO! You've just one $1 million!*




Restrictions apply see below for details:

1) If your IQ is below 20 you're already disqualified from this contest.
2) You must live in the US, UK, Germany, or Canada to win this prize.
3) If you are caught cheating AFTER the money is sent, the check will be
VOIDED and all money WILL be returned to MY bank account.
4) All money is to be considered VIRTUAL and in NO WAY are you going to win
this prize.
5) If you have read this rule the check is considered NULL and VOID because
who the hell reads rules anyway... and YOU of all people shouldn't be.
6) If you're at this number than you should already be crying because the
money will not be sent to you and you had to be nosy and read the rules.
7) Stop reading... you're just making it worse.
8) See below
9) See above
10)Obviously you're not reading directions if you're at this number.
11) This is probably getting old now so I'll stop...


[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 7:35am

and so can everyone else... without a registry. Sortof defeats the purpose. How about this thought... Since we have our contact list information stored on the universe server now, it should be possible to store customization options like allowing certain people in your contact list to encroach onto your property... and once two objects are encroaching onto each other, the area covered by both objects combined could be treated as shared property. That's just one possibility. Thought I would add it to the discussion. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 7:37am

Yay!

:)

TZ

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 8:32am

Now you're getting into areas that will get messy (just from a requirements
point of view, not even from coding and storage) as time goes on - I think
you're pushing the envelope of cost-benefit here. I would expect such a
feature to have a significant impact on the current storage and registry
aspects, as well as attempting to identify what is "shared property", when
it becomes "non-shared property", when that cell becomes "non-shared",
changes in object positioning, orientation or even shape/size, etc. I mean
would any object overlapping that cell become "shared property"? Who has the
right to delete/change "shared property"? When does someone become unable to
make property "shared" or change existing "shared property". If person A
deletes their "shared property" in a cell to replace it, does the cel become
the owner of the other participant?

Too many questions and too much effort/cost for a minor feature that only
worldowners who open their world to potentially untrustworthy builders would
make use of. Otherwise, you have privs which can be set on a temporary basis
to alow someone to overlap your work, the option of having no registry at
all plus the obvious bot functionality (Hmmm that reminds me ...).

My opinion of course, but I think its a minor issue.

Grims.


[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 8:39am

Read the name of the newsgroup. Hehe.

Couldn't resist.

Seriously though, I didn't say it was an ideal possibility. I just said it was one possibility that I thought I would add tothe discussion. Actually, I think it could be done pretty efficiently, but it would all depend on how it's coded. Anyway, it was just food for thought. Good to toss around the possibilities. Sometimes even just thinking about some totally unreasonable possibility might trigger a really good idea... just because it helps to think in otherwise unexplored directions. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 8:47am

Ummm ... I'm commenting on the feasilbility of the item ... not trying to
explain that AW doesn't support it now *boggle*. Perhaps you should work
on that resistance ;O).

Grims

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 9:06am

As I said, there is a mire of requirements nightmares before you even get to
the code. If someone can identify all the ins and out, document them, and
still believe that the item is worth the effort involved in the work they
have just done plus the identification of suitable solution options plus the
development and testing costs, then fine. I just rattled off a few
complexities off the top of my head, but you can see that the scope of such
a change would cover several core building related areas (hence higher risk
in the change) and leave questionmarks over the ownership of property in the
future (as one potential drawback).

Its all about identifying all the requirements and assessing the risk and
potential benefit of the change. If you can say 100% that you can identify
all the issues involved and still come up with prudent solution that won't
take 2 over man-weeks to implement (including your "thinking time") then I'm
happy to accept that I have an over cynical view of it. A solution with a
ball-park development estimate of anything more costly than 2 man-weeks, to
me, doesn't justify it being looked at for a fringe item. The later in the
development that the errors are found, the more expensive it becomes to fix
them - just work out how much the 3.4 Beta has costs in real terms - Ouch!!

Grims.


[View Quote] Actually, I think it could be done pretty efficiently, but it would all
depend on how it's coded.

Feb 20, 2003, 6:52pm

I knew what you were getting at... but I could also see how it could be taken more than one way, and considering I had just got done replying to a response from you that said the same thing about something that you had aparently taken the wrong way... well... gotta have a sense of humor. :)

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

Feb 20, 2003, 6:57pm

Perhaps that's why Roland decided against it (or just never got around to it). Seems to me he had mentioned that it would take about 3 weeks. It was something that at one time he had definately planned to do though, but he also wanted to completely replace the registry in the process which made it a much larger task.

TechnoZeus

[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index