Locked Down Containers and "Anyone"

[RaDian FlGith]

I appreciate the notion behind allowing people to drop stuff off in houses where containers are marked "Anyone," but really, it's a bad, bad idea.

First, and foremost, speaking as someone who has a museum open to the public, sometimes for the sake of a display, I set a container to anyone and put items inside of it. With this new rule, anyone can then come in and put stuff into that container as well.

Second, while I understand that perhaps the idea is to allow us to make any container into a "mailbox" type container, truly, I'd rather you gave us 2 or 3 "mailbox" style containers that functioned exactly as the mailbox that you guys gave us awhile back. That would give us a variety of "inbox" containers that people couldn't take from without turning our "anyone" containers into griefable garbage cans.

Truly, I appreciate the initial concept, but please don't let this go live.

Thank you.

 

[hawkeye_pike]

I assume that this change was done because MANY people (including myself) complained that it is a pain to update libraries and rune libraries with the old system, where you had to unlock and reset security on ALL items in the container whenever you changed something.
I rather remove items accidentally dropped into a container every now and then instead of going through the hassle of setting security on each item. I like that change.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

Repposted from the Publish thread:

Containers Tested on TC1:
What I used:
Locked down bag, with a rune book in it.

Bag & Runebook set to ‘Anyone’:
Anyone could access the bag and the book. Anyone can also place crap into the bag.

Bag set to ‘friend,’ runebook left at ‘anyone’:
Bag could only be opened by a friend, not anyone. Runebook could not be accessed.

Bag changed to a secure, runebook left alone:
Bag could not be opened by anyone not specifically accessed to the house.

Bag changed back to a lockdown, set permissions as anyone, runebook left alone:
Bag could be opened by anyone, stuff could be dropped in. Runebook could NOT be accessed, appears to have lost its permissions.

Verdict:
These changes are completely worthless to homeowners as they do not resolve anything.

We do not want/need people to be able to drop any old item into a container set to ‘anyone.’ We have mailboxes for this.

We do not want permissions to be lost when switching between ‘locked down’ and ‘secure.’ This change is NOT what we’ve been asking for.

FIX:
Cascading permissions so we don’t have to click hundreds of times to provide a community service.

REMOVE the COMPLETELY GRIEFABLE ability for anyone to put things into locked down ‘anyone’ permission containers.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

I assume that this change was done because MANY people (including myself) complained that it is a pain to update libraries and rune libraries with the old system, where you had to unlock and reset security on ALL items in the container whenever you changed something.
I rather remove items accidentally dropped into a container every now and then instead of going through the hassle of setting security on each item. I like that change.

This doen't fix that problem, it makes it worse actually.

The only answer to this issue is cascading permissions, what we've been asking for since the 'bug fix' was implemented in the first place years ago.

 

[MalagAste]

Agreed.... As a museum owner myself I do NOT want any old idiot dropping crap into my displays!

I also have a library of sorts and agree with Martyna and Hawkeye what we DO want is cascading permissions..... when I set a bag to "anyone" I mean I want anyone to be able to 'use" the items in the bag/box/chest/etc..... I don't want people to put crap into it..... I don't want them taking crap OUT of it.... I want them to use it...

I do NOT want what I have now which is I set the container to anyone locked down and I have to set each and every item in the box to anyone so they can use it... pain in the arse...


While I realize some folk want to be able to have "donation" boxes... I would prefer a special "donation" box... that works much like the mailbox.... where if I set it to friend only friends or higher can remove stuff..... but ANYONE can put crap in it.

Could you imagine someone wanting to grief you and dropping a thousand items into your house??? Not cool.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

I do NOT want what I have now which is I set the container to anyone locked down and I have to set each and every item in the box to anyone so they can use it... pain in the arse...

The one caveat I need to suggest with cascading permissions... They would need to be in addition to, not in place of the current permissions.

So if I have a book shelf with books inside, I want to be able to tell the bookcase they it and everything inside it should be accessible to anyone. It would then go about setting permissions for ALL the items inside it. Thus anyone could come and view the contents of the case and read a book.

HOWEVER, I also want to be able to open the case (as the owner) and be able to set specific permissions on individual items as I see fit. Thus, if I put an item in with the books, it is only able to be viewed by people - not interacted with. (I put EM items in with the books for EM events, some have uses/charges or are food. I don't want some twit to be able to use/eat the items.)

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

*bump*

This needs Dev attention as the Pub 69 changes are BAD.

 

[Mapper]

So, setting a locked down container's security to Friend or higher should allow it to be opened by anyone* while requiring house friend or better status to drop items in.

If that actually worked, Would the change not be good then? That way people can have locked down containers and show off the contents but have it set to owner, so only the owner can throw crap in them.

Just unsure if your saying the change stated above is bad, Or how its currently working on TC is bad.

 

[Uriah Heep]

Didn't we use to have this problem fixed? Seems like when I would put a container down and "lock it down" and set it to friends, any friend could access it and also read the books and runebooks inside it.
But there was some problem someone figured out how to abuse the system and get free storage, so the fix for that was to completely screw up the Lockdown container.
Cascading permissions, guess that's what I want too. If I put a box down with 125 books in it, and lock it down set to anyone...then the books automatically are set to anyone as well, unless I specifically reset a few of them to another permission. The last set of books I put out, I had to set permissions on each and every individual book...and that sucked. And if you need to pull one out, you have to release the box, and then reset them all yet again. Tedious and poor implementation.
And I agree wholeheartedly, we don't need for anyone to be able to place items in our chests, etc.
We all should ahve a mailbox by now, thats what it's for. If you don't have one, get one...they're cheap
A secure container set to anyone tho, should be able to be added to or removed from by anyone, the way it used to be. Locked down, not added to or removed from, even if set to anyone, just can be used by anyone.

*shakes head*
I can't believe we spent coding time on this change, when the things people are asking for, begging for, and needing done havent been addressed...because this, as it stands, is NOT what we have been asking for.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

If that actually worked, Would the change not be good then? That way people can have locked down containers and show off the contents but have it set to owner, so only the owner can throw crap in them.

Just unsure if your saying the change stated above is bad, Or how its currently working on TC is bad.

Personally, no, I think this is an idiotic change. They need to add a new access type, or a new container type to be a drop box. NOT have 'friend' and 'anyone' work differently based on what kind of container it is (lockked down/secure). We have enough confusing, bass akwards, counter intuitive functions in UO's UI as is.

Not to mention, honestly, who wants this change in the first place? It doesn't actually solve a problem. Cascading permissions solves the problem that these changes were meant to address.

Mailboxes ARE the drop boxes that this will turn locked down containers set to anyone into. Simply make mailboxes craftable so any theoretical newbs can get one.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

*shakes head*
I can't believe we spent coding time on this change, when the things people are asking for, begging for, and needing done havent been addressed...because this, as it stands, is NOT what we have been asking for.

Completely agree!

Mythic has a focus group, you'd think they'd run this idea by them instead of wasting time designing something that doesn't even work the way Phoenix thinks it does.

This issue shows how out of touch the Dev Team is with the player base and vividly illustrates how obvious it is that none of them play the game.

 

[Halister Marner]

I'm sure my thoughts echo everyone's, but I thought I'd break down essentially what the changes are, and why I don't think they make sense.

1. Allowed locked down containers to be secured, then locked down again in order to re arrange items.

This would be a productive change, should the items retain permissions when switching between locked down and secure. As it stands on TC, they don't. If I'm wanting to re arrange a shelf of locked down items that don't need permissions set, I would just unlock it, move two or three items, then relock it down again, which would take approximately 5 seconds. It's the permissions that are the focal point in the lockdown system. I don't see how this is worthwhile to be honest.

2. Allowing items to be dropped into locked down containers set to "Anyone".

Why would anyone really want this? Mailboxes work for that reason, and even then people rarely use mailboxes enough to justify changing the entire storage system. I can't really see how this was ever brought up as something that the player base wanted. This is a very odd change to say the least.

3. Allowing locked down containers to be viewed by anyone.

Take it or leave it, it doesn't seem like it's worth the coding time when the main issue isn't being addressed. It really doesn't affect lockdowns or displays in the long run, unless the above changes are implemented, which seems like a lateral move, rather than a progressive one.

I'm sure everyone has already stated the correct course of action, but adding cascading permissions, and leaving the "not allowing anyone to drop anything" into locked down containers rule is probably the best bet. This way locking down and setting permissions is as easy as pressing a button. Scrapping the change to allow people to drop things into locked down containers all together would probably be wise as well.

 

[Uriah Heep]

Note to Vex:

You can solve this whole discussion and problem by just going back and fixing the root issue that created the original change.
You see, MOST of your PLAYERS don't mind setting up a box once, and setting all the permissions if they don't cascade. The problem is this: We lock down a box with items in it, we set all the permissions for each item. Oops, we need to pull that one, it doesn't belong there. WE HAVE TO RELEASE THE ENTIRE CONTAINER TO GET IT, thereby making us have to RESET EACH AND EVERY PERMISSION YET AGAIN!!

Fix it back the way it was intended, where "I wish to release this" and target an item in the box, would release "just" that item, and have no affect on the other items in the box.
It was that way for years, then when a problem arose, instead of fixing that problem so that the functionality remained the same, more code was thrown out to completely change the way lockdowns work...this has been the history of UO for several years now, sadly.
Fix this the way it should be, and I, for one, will gladly spend the time to set individual permissions on the items, because I will know then, I only have to do that once, since I will never have to release the whole container again to remove one item.

@Martyna:

so any theoretical newbs can get one.

I had to LOL

 

[Uriah Heep]

Yeah, I hate to say it, but after further thought, I think the lockdown changes need to be tossed in the trash bin...go back to square one and start over.

 

[Kojak]

they should have gone with the suggestion i made years ago - just make it only secure containers and add an extra option to the end of the permissions menu that says "contents viewable" and make it toggleable so it defaults to contents not viewable and then you can switch it like the auto renew item insurance menu item works

then you wouldn't have to do the whole locked down dance in the first place - it's just a secure container from start to finish and all you get to do is let other people look in it or not (but not take stuff obviously - just able to open it to peek inside) - then the whole "I wish to lock this down" problem goes away

 

[TullyMars]

I assume that this change was done because MANY people (including myself) complained that it is a pain to update libraries and rune libraries with the old system, where you had to unlock and reset security on ALL items in the container whenever you changed something.
I rather remove items accidentally dropped into a container every now and then instead of going through the hassle of setting security on each item. I like that change.

I find the current system a bit of a pain too, to reset securities on lock downs within lock downs.
I just think the fix in pub 69 is not the answer.
At one time we could unlock an item that was held within a locked down container.
Of course this was changed because people found an abuse where they could unlock items in a locked down container and not have them decay nor have them use up lock down counts nor have any danger of them being taken from another character due to the parent containers security.

So they addressed that with the current system, and now they are trying to reverse this in a manner with Publish 69.

The problem is they seem to be over complicating it.
What I believe they should do is return to the ability to the owner to unlock an item within a locked down container.
To remove the possible lock down count exploit, the devs could have two plans of action.
One, and my favorite, would be if you unlock an item within a locked down container it immediately leaves the parent container and drops into the player packs.
Two, and a much more dangerous option, would be to subject decay rate to unlocked down items within a locked down container.

 

[Jhym]

Ugh,we have enough bugs without having to revisit decay in odd locations.

I'd prefer they pop the unlocked item into the moving crate.

For permission setting, I'd like them to implement it so that the initial permission of all items in the container default to the top level container's permission setting by default, with the option to "apply to all items and containers" as a checkbox.

Even better would be to have a "permission" gem on each item when you're in "setting" mode. Then allow the user to look at everything in the container and be able to 'flip' the gem to each permission setting (say red for none, orange for anyone, yellow for friends, blue for co-owners, green for owner-only.) For color-blind issues, you can change it to symbols ((),(A),(F),(C),(O)) Then you can look at the container and each subcontainer's contents and quickly see what you set the permissions to.

If they'd just do it in a clear manner, everyone would settle down about it.

 

[Brytt]

I agree, the griefing potential on rune libraries from this going out on all shards would be unfortunate. We need updates to lockdown permissions, but this isn't it. Waiter, send this one back please.

FIX:
Cascading permissions so we don’t have to click hundreds of times to provide a community service.

This.

 

[TullyMars]

I'd prefer they pop the unlocked item into the moving crate.

OOHH, even better idea than popping it into a pack!

And though I appreciate the devs and like most of the things in the publish and usually find myself defending them, I must say this kind of came out of left field. I didn't realize they were working on this, not that I read all the notes thoroughly before they hit test but did anyone see this. Imagine if they would have thrown this out to some players who run libraries and museums first. They probably would have had less work and a better system than what they will implement. I know it is called test center but I have seen very few systems or changes scrapped before publish, especially if it is entwined in a large publish like Christmas.

 

[Heartseeker]

I appreciate the notion behind allowing people to drop stuff off in houses where containers are marked "Anyone," but really, it's a bad, bad idea.

First, and foremost, speaking as someone who has a museum open to the public, sometimes for the sake of a display, I set a container to anyone and put items inside of it. With this new rule, anyone can then come in and put stuff into that container as well.

Second, while I understand that perhaps the idea is to allow us to make any container into a "mailbox" type container, truly, I'd rather you gave us 2 or 3 "mailbox" style containers that functioned exactly as the mailbox that you guys gave us awhile back. That would give us a variety of "inbox" containers that people couldn't take from without turning our "anyone" containers into griefable garbage cans.

Truly, I appreciate the initial concept, but please don't let this go live.

Thank you.

Don't think it will go live like that.

The "anyone" will most likely be friends or co-owners only, not just random people.

We'll have to wait and see though.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

Test Center 1 Update - 12/08/10

James Nichols
8 Dec 2010 16:22:15 EST
Reintroduced the requirement that you be a friend of the house or better before you are allowed to drop items into locked down containers.

GOOD DECISION!

Now, how about talking to us about the real issue we have with lockdowns and permissions? Can we get cascading permissions? Will we be able to unlock specific items from containers again?

Please don't just yank the change and go silent on the topic.

 

[Amathist]

Test Center 1 Update - 12/08/10James Nichols8 Dec 2010 16:22:15 ESTGreetings,

The following changes will be going live to Test Center 1 shortly, thanks for your feedback!

Abandon Ship
•Harbormasters now have a context menu option that allows you to abandon your current ship.
•Abandoning your ship will cause the ship to decay within 5 minutes if there are no players on the ship.
•Once your ship has decayed you will be able to place a new one.
Bug Fixes
•Fixed issue where fishmonger reputation could go below zero
•Corrected the resource production rate on the new veteran reward to once a week
•Players can no longer use ward removal from talismans on themselves to bypass the magic reflect cooldown timer.
•Increased community collection points for crabs and lobster from 1 to 10 each
•Reintroduced the requirement that you be a friend of the house or better before you are allowed to drop items into locked down containers.

 

[Nails]

this is great because i know guys that go from house to house to find these anyone containers and loot the person dry. this will stop that

 

[hawkeye_pike]

To some of the remarks above:

The original permission system had been changed because there was an exploit that allowed you to illegaly increase your house storage by using nested containers. Unfortunately this made handling containers with locked down items (books, runebooks) much more complicated. The upcoming patch was designed to improve this.

With the latest Test Center news your concerns about container abuse may be solved. Only friends of the house could now "mess up" your locked down containers with "everyone" access. And since you probably will select your friends thoroughly, this will not happen.

I kindof ran into a problem with the United Pirates headquarters though. It has a LONG friends list, since I usually friend anyone who is/was a guild member. That's why I cleared the list now. I guess I have to spend more time cleaning up the friends list in the future.

 

[Martyna Zmuir]

Let's not buy into delusion the redacted change was a "fix" for the permissions issues introduced several years ago by the lazy exploit fix.

Allowing "anyone" to drop things into a locked down container has never been an issue, nor ever a request as far as I can remember. We have mailboxes that function just fine for this, we didn't need lockdown containers to suddenly behave the same way.

What we need now, what we've asked for nearly three years, is cascading permissions. This would allow us to move entire containers without having to spend the next 45 mins setting the permission on EACH object. Yes, Phoenix claimed the lockdown to secure process would 'fix' this issue, sadly, he was completely wrong. All permissions are lost during the conversion process.

A simple test by the QA team would have found that this didn't work as advertised. Oh, wait, the player QA team DID find it... rolleyes:

To the Dev Team: Give us cascading permissions for locked down containers. We will accept nothing less at this point.