Why do people like Thermal Expansion so much?

[Nooska]

Mods should not have block protection any more than vanilla should. Unless it's a mod specifically for block protection, of course. Or unless you pay extra for it, like IC2's personal chest (which is the only example I know of where you pay extra for block protection).

That is your opinion (and valid for you), but is not an objective truth.

If I play on a server where others play and we have a lose set of rules (because its a small community for instance), block protection is nice to have.

If I play on a larger server with a no-griefing rule, then block protection is even better. Server rules don't give you back the time spent getting your stuff back (if stolen) or reassembling your setup (if broken/changed). And having been on the internet for as long as I have, I know that imagined anonymity plus the ability to do stuff means that there are a multitude of people out there that will do what they can to annoy others, because they find that fun. Calling back a page, our time is the only truly finite resource we have in MC.

I venture this;
Mods should all have block protection (for their own blocks), unless the mod specifically wants to be 'PVP friendly' (griefer friendly, or whatever you call it as defined by the circumstances) of course. You should never have to pay extra for it, like IC2's personal chest.

 

[snooder]

That depth of block protection would be nigh-impossible unless you had protected land-claims. It's too easy to add inventories to an existant system in such a way that you could grief.

I do, though, think that global block-level protections are a good idea, but just something as simple as global access, friends-only, or private. That would keep the worst of the abuses down. Anything more than that risks adding far more 'weight' than necessary to not even catch all the abuses. And if there is one thing I learned on a large public server, it's that griefers will find any and every way that is possible to ruin your work.

I was thinking something real simple. Just "protected" or "public". Then if you want to keep stuff protected, you only use storage and item transportation that is set to "protected", and you'll know that anything set to "public" won't be safe. And items from any mod that doesn't use that library would be known to be untrustworthy when it comes to protection. The mod can determine how it wants to handle protection on it's own, or how to set security accesses, but if you connect a "protected" inventory to a "public" block, it won't connect. While if you connect a "public" inventory, it would.

 

[SynfulChaot]

I was thinking something real simple. Just "protected" or "public". Then if you want to keep stuff protected, you only use storage and item transportation that is set to "protected", and you'll know that anything set to "public" won't be safe. And items from any mod that doesn't use that library would be known to be untrustworthy when it comes to protection. The mod can determine how it wants to handle protection on it's own, or how to set security accesses, but if you connect a "protected" inventory to a "public" block, it won't connect. While if you connect a "public" inventory, it would.

Here's the thing about 'protected' but still automatized at the block level. How do you make sure that noone can add a chest to your automation system to siphon things out? You'd need each and every block that deals with inventory, down to the pipes, to have these settings. And then how do you easily change modes. Easy enough on an odd machine here and there, but to do so for every single inventory-interacting block?

For things like that, area/region-level protections should be more than sufficient rather than block-level. Less load and easier management. Plus it prevents aesthetic griefing.

 

[Hoff]

Here's the thing about 'protected' but still automatized at the block level. How do you make sure that noone can add a chest to your automation system to siphon things out? You'd need each and every block that deals with inventory, down to the pipes, to have these settings. And then how do you easily change modes. Easy enough on an odd machine here and there, but to do so for every single inventory-interacting block?

For things like that, area/region-level protections should be more than sufficient rather than block-level. Less load and easier management. Plus it prevents aesthetic griefing.

Make it so pipes don't auto-connect to inventories not owned by the player unless wrenched.

 

[snooder]

Here's the thing about 'protected' but still automatized at the block level. How do you make sure that noone can add a chest to your automation system to siphon things out?

Part of the library would have to be some method of creating security keys that each mod can set independently that would determine whether one mod's "protected" item can connect to another mod's "protected" item.

You'd need each and every block that deals with inventory, down to the pipes, to have these settings.

Yes. That's rather the idea. To include some sort of standard way of having mod authors think about these things, and to make it more obvious which items will be safe and which would not.

And then how do you easily change modes. Easy enough on an odd machine here and there, but to do so for every single inventory-interacting block?

There would have to be some work in the library to deal with security access and how to coordinate setting various modes of access from one mod to another. I haven't really thought about it too deeply, but I imagine you could have the library define a data structure for each protected item that would identify what players have access to that item. So if it's private, then the mod author would make the data structure only hold the player who made the item, and if it's friends-only or whatever, the mod author could have it hold an arbitrary number of players. And the library could also define how to tell if a block is 'owned' by a player and has the same security as the player himself.

I do admit that it would be a lot of information to consider. Right now, server owners often have to maintain lists of items that are manually whitelisted as being block-protected. With my idea, hopefully the mod author would make that decision when creating the item. Probably not much would change and most items would just be public, but the very few that are protected would have better integration with each other.

 

[SynfulChaot]

-- snip --

And here you've noted the depth of the problem. How deep it would need to go and how much interaction. That's a lot of weight across *all* blocks and could become a pretty big weight on a server with all the extra checks that would need to go with it.

Make it so pipes don't auto-connect to inventories not owned by the player unless wrenched.

That would fix the stealing portion, but not the 'griefing just to grief' portion.

 

[Hoff]

That would fix the stealing portion, but not the 'griefing just to grief' portion.

Impossible to fix. Humans will be humans. All you can do is limit their ability to do so.

 

[SynfulChaot]

Impossible to fix. Humans will be humans. All you can do is limit their ability to do so.

The sad and unfortunate truth. T.T

Honestly I think the best and lightest-weight protections would be in the form of block level on just chests and machines as both King Lemming and SirSengir have implemented, as well as area-level for block interaction as the mod GriefPrevention uses. Chest and machines would act on a black-list by default. Area would act on a white-list by default.

 

[immibis]

That is your opinion (and valid for you), but is not an objective truth.

If I play on a server where others play and we have a lose set of rules (because its a small community for instance), block protection is nice to have.

If I play on a larger server with a no-griefing rule, then block protection is even better. Server rules don't give you back the time spent getting your stuff back (if stolen) or reassembling your setup (if broken/changed). And having been on the internet for as long as I have, I know that imagined anonymity plus the ability to do stuff means that there are a multitude of people out there that will do what they can to annoy others, because they find that fun. Calling back a page, our time is the only truly finite resource we have in MC.

I venture this;
Mods should all have block protection (for their own blocks), unless the mod specifically wants to be 'PVP friendly' (griefer friendly, or whatever you call it as defined by the circumstances) of course. You should never have to pay extra for it, like IC2's personal chest.

I venture this: If a server owner wants block protection, he or she should install a block protection mod. It should not be there by default. Mods should not be deliberately incompatible with PVP raiding.

Any mod that has storage should at least consider integrating block protection. Right now, we have to rely on server-side plugins for protection if we want it, and because block protection isn't built in, we end often having the plugins fail to work as advertised because of some unforeseen interaction with the mods. What would be really, truly awesome is if someone could standardize block security in Forge, so that we can, for example, have an IC2 personal safe respond to and output items into a TE itemduct placed by the same player, but not into a hopper that a griefer sneaks under it.

What stops the griefer spamming your base with cheap machines you can't remove? This is why people use area protection, not protection of individual blocks (which prevents stealing, but not griefing in general).

 

[Hoff]

I venture this: If a server owner wants block protection, he or she should install a block protection mod. It should not be there by default. Mods should not be deliberately incompatible with PVP raiding.

I disagree with the "by default" bit. Should be there by default but there should be a way to turn it off as well.

 

[SynfulChaot]

I venture this: If a server owner wants block protection, he or she should install a block protection mod. It should not be there by default. Mods should not be deliberately incompatible with PVP raiding.

That's why you'd need a on/off option in configs. But the reason it'd be nice to have it designed in by default, though, is that some mods items explicitly have always ignored protections. If the option to implement it was directly in Forge then that might get rid of those terribad loopholes that cause some of the most fun items to be blacklisted on nearly every non-PvP server.

What stops the griefer spamming your base with cheap machines you can't remove? This is why people use area protection, not protection of individual blocks (which prevents stealing, but not griefing in general).

Agreed. Area protection is better for this. But again, having support linked directly into Forge might lower the number of incompatible items.

 

[casilleroatr]

Is there anything stopping someone from going into another's base and dropping down a strongbox in any random and potentially annoying place and setting it to restricted mode so that the person who owns the base now has a foreign strongbox getting in the way of their stuff and they cannot move it.

Edit: beaten to it

A couple of good responses have amply answered this question. To summarize, OPs can remove offending blocks if necessary and it is easy to find out who placed what.

I have not played on a server before which is why I was curious

 

[Adonis0]

Is there anything stopping someone from going into another's base and dropping down a strongbox in any random and potentially annoying place and setting it to restricted mode so that the person who owns the base now has a foreign strongbox getting in the way of their stuff and they cannot move it.

Edit: beaten to it

Nope, but OPs have the power to destroy them if they so wish

 

[immibis]

That's why you'd need a on/off option in configs. But the reason it'd be nice to have it designed in by default, though, is that some mods items explicitly have always ignored protections. If the option to implement it was directly in Forge then that might get rid of those terribad loopholes that cause some of the most fun items to be blacklisted on nearly every non-PvP server.

Forge has block break events now. Protection mods can listen for block break events, and cancel the ones they don't like.
If a mod doesn't fire events when breaking blocks, blame that mod.

Agreed. Area protection is better for this. But again, having support linked directly into Forge might lower the number of incompatible items.

For block breaking, it is, see above.
For block placing, the protection mod would have to rely on the right click event, as there is no block place event - so it might be less reliable, but not by much. At worst you could use a deployer to place a block inside the edge of the protected area, but then the protection mod would stop you from opening the GUI of that deployer.

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Is there anything stopping someone from going into another's base and dropping down a strongbox in any random and potentially annoying place and setting it to restricted mode so that the person who owns the base now has a foreign strongbox getting in the way of their stuff and they cannot move it.

Edit: beaten to it

The fact that it will tell you who does own it, who can then be taken to task for it by the server admin. Basically, you can't not be identified as the perpetrator.

 

[SynfulChaot]

If a mod doesn't fire events when breaking blocks, blame that mod.

For block placing, the protection mod would have to rely on the right click event, as there is no block place event - so it might be less reliable, but not by much. At worst you could use a deployer to place a block inside the edge of the protected area, but then the protection mod would stop you from opening the GUI of that deployer.

Of course, but if it's expedited by Forge, then that makes it much easier. And yes, I always to tend to blame the mods if they don't handle protections well, regardless of how much I like the mod.

 

[immibis]

Of course, but if it's expedited by Forge, then that makes it much easier. And yes, I always to tend to blame the mods if they don't handle protections well, regardless of how much I like the mod.

What should Forge add? PlayerInteractEvents (which are fired for right clicks) are almost good enough for preventing block placement, except that it doesn't distinguish between placing a block and using an item. For maximum safety, the protection mod has to assume you're always placing a block, so it must block some right clicks that don't actually place blocks.

For example, say you're standing inside a protected area, looking at a block just outside the edge. If you right-click it, the protection mod can't tell whether you're doing something to that block (the one just outside) or placing a new block just inside, so it has to block it anyway. A minor hassle, as right-clicking any other side of the block would work.

 

[SynfulChaot]

What should Forge add? PlayerInteractEvents (which are fired for right clicks) are almost good enough for preventing block placement, except that it doesn't distinguish between placing a block and using an item. For maximum safety, the protection mod has to assume you're always placing a block, so it must block some right clicks that don't actually place blocks.

For example, say you're standing inside a protected area, looking at a block just outside the edge. If you right-click it, the protection mod can't tell whether you're doing something to that block (the one just outside) or placing a new block just inside, so it has to block it anyway. A minor hassle, as right-clicking any other side of the block would work.

Honestly, I'm not sure. If I thought I knew I'd probably try to work with people to make it or just make it myself. >.<

I've thought on it alot and have thought on those problems you mention. I still haven't figured out, though, how to work around the odder mechanics, such as those used by turtles, gravity guns, 'magic' mods ranged block movement, and the like.

Why is it always the edge cases that define the problem?

 

[immibis]

• Turtles can fire break and interact events with fake players, like every other mod.
• Gravity guns are trickier - picking up a block probably fires an interact event, but dropping a block probably doesn't.
• Frame-like machines, and turtles, are a problem since they don't actually break or place blocks when they move. You could build a machine that sucks items from chests, move it into someone else's base, run it, and move it back out. Not sure if Forge can help this - maybe it could have a BlockMoveEvent?

 

[SynfulChaot]

• Turtles can fire break and interact events with fake players, like every other mod.
• Gravity guns are trickier - picking up a block probably fires an interact event, but dropping a block probably doesn't.
• Frame-like machines, and turtles, are a problem since they don't actually break or place blocks when they move. You could build a machine that sucks items from chests, move it into someone else's base, run it, and move it back out. Not sure if Forge can help this - maybe it could have a BlockMoveEvent?

• The problem with turtles is how to allow only your turtles to break and interact and not those of other players. Right now, to enable turtles to work for you also invites anyone's turtles free reign. Common griefer tactic there. >.<
• Gravy guns weren't the problem. I recall it specifically being the portal gun and how it's able to pick up full chests. Not sure what it was using to do so, but it never left trace in any logs.
• No clue on frames. I've neither use them, nor do I have a clue how they function internally.