search

Civcraft / JukeAlert

Do not open issues here; open them on the maintained fork @ DevotedMC
https://github.com/DevotedMC/JukeAlert
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
5 stars 15 forks source link

Move snitch updating to members #30

Closed Goldmattress closed 9 years ago

Goldmattress commented 9 years ago

Move snitch updating to members that can open chests on a citadel group.

rourke750 commented 9 years ago

@ttk2 Thoughts?

erocs commented 9 years ago

We wanted that to be a cost. May as remove that aspect of snitch maintenance if its changed to trigger on all members. (Not saying to do that. :P )

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:37 PM, rourke750 notifications@github.com wrote:

@ttk2 https://github.com/ttk2 Thoughts?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113712804.

Goldmattress commented 9 years ago

This is a balance change as is snitch protection is really weak and one of the biggest things that allow raiders to go unscathed due to a lack of evidence. On 20 Jun 2015 05:50, "erocs" notifications@github.com wrote:

We wanted that to be a cost. May as remove that aspect of snitch maintenance if its changed to trigger on all members. (Not saying to do that. :P )

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 10:37 PM, rourke750 notifications@github.com wrote:

@ttk2 https://github.com/ttk2 Thoughts?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub <https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113712804 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113713070.

ttk2 commented 9 years ago

If anyone in the group updates a snitch there is essentially no upkeep, that's going too far in the other direction IHMO, especially combined with the larger ones.

Are snitches really that week at the moment? you just cant maintain huge networks.

erocs commented 9 years ago

Re: "raiders to go unscathed" Bastions combined with snitches should be providing protection and that shouldn't necessarily be a perfect defense.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:35 PM, ttk2 notifications@github.com wrote:

If anyone in the group updates a snitch there is essentially no upkeep, that's going too far in the other direction IHMO, especially combined with the larger ones.

Are snitches really that week at the moment? you just cant maintain huge networks.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113962532.

ttk2 commented 9 years ago

I can understand a desire to mitigate the need to walk your entire snitch network, but we need a replacement for that effort.

The snitch powering factory was an interesting idea.

ghost commented 9 years ago

I like the idea of the snitch power factory if any snitch can be added to it + increased actual cost per snitch.

Of course cost balancing is always the worst....

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 7:04 PM, ttk2 notifications@github.com wrote:

I can understand a desire to mitigate the need to walk your entire snitch network, but we need a replacement for that effort.

The snitch powering factory was an interesting idea.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.[image]

Goldmattress commented 9 years ago

I ran the largest snitch network on the map with hundreds of mods and maintaining vital parts from culling was hard.

Snitches form the basis of the justice system in civcraft and need to be use able.

As it stands snitching buildings and large areas, especially large buildings is damn hard. Complete coverage, the kind you need to prove grief damage is harder still.

The way the system is atm it favours just placing thousands of dirt cheap noteblocks to track locations.

Id like that kind of coverage to be extensive and for it to make sense to refresh your snitches.

For this snitches need to be more expensive and cover large areas instead of the pin point nature of noteblocks

Im rambling ill try and write up what I'd like the snitch system to be like

Goldmattress commented 9 years ago

Bastions do not protect against block breaks On 21 Jun 2015 23:03, "erocs" notifications@github.com wrote:

Re: "raiders to go unscathed" Bastions combined with snitches should be providing protection and that shouldn't necessarily be a perfect defense.

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 2:35 PM, ttk2 notifications@github.com wrote:

If anyone in the group updates a snitch there is essentially no upkeep, that's going too far in the other direction IHMO, especially combined with the larger ones.

Are snitches really that week at the moment? you just cant maintain huge networks.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub <https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113962532 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113966630.

Goldmattress commented 9 years ago

Basicslly i think snitches ate op at tracking and shite at their real aim, logging On 21 Jun 2015 23:04, "ttk2" notifications@github.com wrote:

I can understand a desire to mitigate the need to walk your entire snitch network, but we need a replacement for that effort.

The snitch powering factory was an interesting idea.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113966792.

ttk2 commented 9 years ago

OK. I see your argument. So nerf tracking and buff logging at higher costs. Letting member refresh is a really big deal. It also kinda devalues the importance placed on moderators by the previous system. Would longer periods help?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 11:17 PM Goldmattress notifications@github.com wrote:

Basicslly i think snitches ate op at tracking and shite at their real aim, logging On 21 Jun 2015 23:04, "ttk2" notifications@github.com wrote:

I can understand a desire to mitigate the need to walk your entire snitch network, but we need a replacement for that effort.

The snitch powering factory was an interesting idea.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub <https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113966792 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113996960.

Goldmattress commented 9 years ago

The problem is that you have to expose all of your snitches to immediate tracking due to the /jalist command, anyone you give mod might as well be an admin if it's a snitch group, you've surrendered any ability to protect yourself at that point.

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:28 PM, ttk2 notifications@github.com wrote:

OK. I see your argument. So nerf tracking and buff logging at higher costs. Letting member refresh is a really big deal. It also kinda devalues the importance placed on moderators by the previous system. Would longer periods help?

On Sun, Jun 21, 2015, 11:17 PM Goldmattress notifications@github.com wrote:

Basicslly i think snitches ate op at tracking and shite at their real aim, logging On 21 Jun 2015 23:04, "ttk2" notifications@github.com wrote:

I can understand a desire to mitigate the need to walk your entire snitch network, but we need a replacement for that effort.

The snitch powering factory was an interesting idea.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub < https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113966792 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub <https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-113996960 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-114084892.

ProgrammerDan commented 9 years ago

I dunno what you had done to MN permissions, but MODS did not see snitch locations using /jalist.

ttk2 commented 9 years ago

we can change the group permissions if that's a concession you will accept.

But having to have people in a position of trust to help you out is a very good mechanic IHMO.

Goldmattress commented 9 years ago

I changed the premissions bc it eas easier than demoting hundreds of account On 22 Jun 2015 22:36, "ttk2" notifications@github.com wrote:

we can change the group permissions if that's a concession you will accept.

But having to have people in a position of trust to help you out is a very good mechanic IHMO.

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-114288611.

ttk2 commented 9 years ago

so this mostly fixes an issue where the problem is you can't mass change perms?

Goldmattress commented 9 years ago

Yeah I think tackling this form Namelayer is better

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 11:22 PM, ttk2 notifications@github.com wrote:

so this mostly fixes an issue where the problem is you can't mass change perms?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/Civcraft/JukeAlert/issues/30#issuecomment-115044012.