Feature Request: Restrict certain gates from same-dimension only travel

[ghost]

Not sure how / if this is possible.

At present my server hosts several arenas, some of which involve gating from one area to another. One we call "GateAssault" is actually a Goauld Hatak with a gate, that dials into a build of level 26-28 of the SGC and the idea is to destroy the control room and self-destruct terminals to disable the facility. Good fun.

Greg's SGCraft has the ability to restrict travel to same-dimension-only allowing for this by not adding a Chevron upgrade.

Is there any way this functionality could be replicated of sorts as he does not support 1.7.10 yet.

I was thinking of maybe making dimension dialing cost too much energy for the gate in the arena to handle, but then again it wouldnt prevent another gate dialing into the arena once players knew the address.

<Random idea, not important, please close if you like!>

[ghost]

Actually the use case for this would be for arenas. That'd be it basically. Probably not worth the effort.

[AfterLifeLochie]

I suppose I could require the player to build the gate with only seven chevrons.

I highly doubt I will add any further role-playing features you've requested as they're too specific. We have an API for anyone to use and I'm happy to add features to the API if there are things which are needed. For example, I was asked by another developer if there was a way to fetch all current connections, which is why I'm working on adding accessors for that now.

[JohnOptegrove]

There could always be a (canonical) lockout for individual gates (preventing them from dialing other gates, or preventing dial-ins from any but a few gates), similar to that used with Atlantis and the Pegasus network.

[ghost]

@JohnOptegrove After your monumentally annoying response in the other issue I'm astounded at what a good idea this is John! Congratulations!

Being able to define a "network" of gates that can talk to eachother would be awesome. After they've been built you identify the addresses and add them to the network.

Then on top of that, you either disable gate travel outside networks or increase power costs ;-)

Solves both the "roleplay" issue and this one in one hit.

Recommend having a "default" network if this went ahead for gates to be added to to start with.

[AfterLifeLochie]

I have added your requests in commits c4f9659e0777ae55029620d1bd3da8ab8bcb1f2b and ef7c2666f9f6518cd4c3c9f335024c7fdf236576 respectively. You could have very easily implemented them as an add-on, in the form of a server-side only mod or plugin which uses our API which is built for this purpose.

In regards to your comments here and in issue #216, using lines like I work as a sysadmin for a web development shop. Keeping Developers happy, bosses happy and clients happy is my job and you should bother to read what I post before you respond. only annoys the people in charge - nor does it reflect well on yourself. I personally have worked for many years as a systems administrator and a web developer at times, so I am fully aware of the responsibilities these roles entail and the responsibilities I hold here as a volunteer. I also do take the time to read and evaluate the use-case of the feature, the demand for the feature and the effect it has on the mod as a service.

Absolutely nobody here is paid or receives a salary in order to do what they do, period. I do this entirely voluntarily, often spending many hours of unpaid time and effort into adding features and writing components of the mod for the return of making the game fun for players, and for the experience. It should be noted that @MichiyoRavencroft has to pay for the CI services, and I have to fork out for the CDN and other web services we use.

The only funds we have ever received are from people who have been gracious enough to have donated, and almost all of said funds have gone purely towards keeping our servers for the mod running. We don't have advertisements or adfly-links, and most of all, we don't permit third-parties to have them either -- we don't want our mods to come with a cost.

While it is a good principle to keep the customers happy, the 'customer is always right' mentality is fundamentally flawed - this view ignores the fact that customers can (and often will) be dishonest, often have unrealistic expectations, or try to misuse a product in ways that are not intended. You do not have the right to request nor demand we add features or get angry at us when you're using software which is developed pro-bono with no cost to you whatsoever. If we do not want to add a feature, we are entirely entitled to that decision. We are also perfectly entitled to discussing the feature request for as long as we feel is needed.

You are more than welcome to add features yourself through means of our APIs (see src/main/java/pcl/lc/api/package-info.java), which have been purpose-built to allow you to extend the mod without needing to modify our source (which is not explicitly licensed under anything open-source, in fact).

If other users want to express an opinion or feedback about your original suggestion, they are also welcome to do so. I feel it also necessary to point out that I never explicitly said no to the suggestion, nor did I close it; my email records indicate that you closed the issues yourself without reason.

These issues are a place for open, constructive discussion; I certainly won't tolerate people being blatantly aggressive at one another. In the future, please play nice; we are all volunteers here.