Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Deepworld is back online after a system outage. Thanks for your patience.

[Idea] /wlimit command

GilbyGilby Join the BK Discord: https://discord.gg/8H5zYUZPosts: 1,782Member, Arbiter
edited January 2016 in Feedback and Game Ideas
I thought of a possible solution to make world ownership easier. That would be the /wlimit command!

Using this command, world owners could make limits on how much of each block a player can place.

The command would work like this...

/wlimit "Item Name" (number)

(A few players suggested that item ID's could also work for this)

/wlimit (quotation)Item(quotation)number

Ex: /wlimit "Micro Protector" 5 (players can only place 5 micro protectors)
— /wlimit "Exploder" 0 (players can place absolutely no exploders)
— /wlimit "Plug" 0 (players can place absolutely no plugs)
— /wlimit "Electric Bomb" 3 (players can only place 3 electric bombs at a time. They can't place any more until the three are destroyed)


Entering 0 into the command would prevent players from placing that item at all. Of course, the world owner wouldn't be affected by these limits.

Entering "Reset" into the command would remove a limit.

This command could be used to stop lag machines (disabling exploders), stop protector spam, prevent maws from being plugged, et cetera.

These limits could be set any time, and blocks placed before limits were enforced would not be affected.




I'll give a few scenarios on how this command could be useful...

— Stopping lag machines.
Players could put a limit on or completely prevent exploders being placed.

— Building Competitions.
The world owner can let the participants only use certain blocks, and limit the amount of protectors they can place.

— Keeping the world clean.
The world owner can put limits on certain blocks like earth to minimize block spam. They could also disable self-protecting objects, such as spawners, inhibitors, and pandora boxes. The world owner could restrict/minimalize the placement of pets. Prevent other guilds from placing their obelisk in your world. Prevent/limit certain bombs. Just keeping the unwanted out of their worlds.




That's just about it.
What are your thoughts on this idea?

EDIT: Updated idea. Nothing significant.

Post edited by Gilby on
«1

Comments

  • shock_waveshock_wave R.I.P Being activePosts: 501Member
    Good idea but we need a command to re-enable the placing of the item
  • p1nkbr0p1nkbr0 Like, totally, brahPosts: 5,087Member, Arbiter

    Good idea but we need a command to re-enable the placing of the item

    Perhaps there could be a combination of a GUI, and a command line. or maybe, typing /wlimitreset would reset all values to the default.
    Similar to /winfo, there could, possibly, be a /wlimitinfo displaying specifics like blocks limited, if applicable, and other information related said machine.

    It's all a very, very complex sounding idea, to me. I do really like it, but it seems a little out-of-reach for most players. I think it would be better as a purchasable world machine instead of an all-access command. (Though the limited market appeal could be used to argue the opposite approach, as well. )
  • FreshXFreshX Taking an extended blink. Hold on for a moment. Posts: 1,379Member
    @Gilby you smart...

  • I like the idea, but are you allowed to limit yourself?
  • DianeDiane Posts: 378Member
    love it, very well thought out!
  • cheese17cheese17 Deep inside the crater of a block of swiss cheese in your refrigerator waiting to strikePosts: 172Member
    p1nkbr0 said:

    I smell another world machine.

    Please don't let it be a world machine, I can't afford that many crowns, and I could really use this command ;-;
  • LittyKittyLittyKitty =^+.+^=Posts: 1,165Member
    I don't think my appreciation for this idea can be expressed with just a like!

    This would be fantastic for world projects especially! There have been multiple cases in the past where people place disastrous items like protectors and plugs and liquid bombs that could totally throw off -- if not ruin -- the project. I would trust people with world projects so much more!

    If there could be a world machine for this, then I would hope that there could be an option to disable it for certain groups of people. Like you said above, the world owner should not be restricted. Maybe there can be an option for "No one" and an option for "No one I don't follow", since worlds are usually not built single-handedly!
  • p1nkbr0p1nkbr0 Like, totally, brahPosts: 5,087Member, Arbiter
    cheese17 said:

    p1nkbr0 said:

    I smell another world machine.

    Please don't let it be a world machine, I can't afford that many crowns, and I could really use this command ;-;
    The reason I said world machine is not because I want it to cost money, rather, the idea itself, and the work that would be put into it would be very complex like the mini game obelisk.

    Which, by the way, this would fit perfectly with the updates regarding item ID's mike has made for the mini-game obelisk. The work could be cut-down slightly with the item IDs being readily available for anybody. (which reminds me, I have to start adding information to many of the items in the codex.)
  • Wonder_melon_Wonder_melon_ DANK MAY MAYS ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤPosts: 1,361Member
    I honestly do not see a purpose in this... You either trust the person or you do not.
  • EverywhenEverywhen Join the DW discord: https://discord.gg/eBPGd3WPosts: 5,119Member, Moderator, Arbiter
    I feel that using item code rather than block name would work better?
  • SmasheroidSmasheroid Hi there! I shouldn't have any type of explosive device in my possession!Posts: 601Member
    We need this.
  • ShiroNaiShiroNai Back from the dead...maybe?Posts: 4,453Member, Arbiter

    I honestly do not see a purpose in this... You either trust the person or you do not.

    The world isn't black and white, I know a bunch of people that I talk to sometimes and they're friends with me, but that doesn't necessarily mean I trust them.
  • GilbyGilby Join the BK Discord: https://discord.gg/8H5zYUZPosts: 1,782Member, Arbiter
    Well, if a world machine was made for this, I'd totally buy it!
  • William2William2 Posts: 3,380Member, Arbiter
    I have to agree with Siren on this one. I'd have zero problem paying up for it once, but again and again and again for every single private world just seems kind of stupid.

    As for the idea, this might well be the best idea I've heard in over a year! I'd rather it be a command that world owners automatically have, or an accessory.

    This should win the Nobel Anti-Troll Prize!
  • CoolAsIceCoolAsIce Posts: 416Member
    William2 said:

    I have to agree with Siren on this one. I'd have zero problem paying up for it once, but again and again and again for every single private world just seems kind of stupid.

    As for the idea, this might well be the best idea I've heard in over a year! I'd rather it be a command that world owners automatically have, or an accessory.

    This should win the Nobel Anti-Troll Prize!

    What if it were a cheaper machine?

    EXAMPLES:
    Limitation Controller: 75 crowns. (Limits amount of items a player can place and amount of item that can exist per world.)
    Diamond Limitation Controller: 125 crowns. (Does what the previous does, plus limits item placing per range of activity and mobs, too.)
    Onyx Limitation Controller: 200 crowns. (Does the previous, but can also limit the accessories and tools that can be used in worlds, AKA full world-control)
  • shock_waveshock_wave R.I.P Being activePosts: 501Member
    But what if someone for example someone placed an item and you later on put that item to /wlimit 0. What would happen with the placed item?
  • p1nkbr0p1nkbr0 Like, totally, brahPosts: 5,087Member, Arbiter
    Sirentist said:

    CoolAsIce said:

    William2 said:

    I have to agree with Siren on this one. I'd have zero problem paying up for it once, but again and again and again for every single private world just seems kind of stupid.

    As for the idea, this might well be the best idea I've heard in over a year! I'd rather it be a command that world owners automatically have, or an accessory.

    This should win the Nobel Anti-Troll Prize!

    What if it were a cheaper machine?

    EXAMPLES:
    Limitation Controller: 75 crowns. (Limits amount of items a player can place and amount of item that can exist per world.)
    Diamond Limitation Controller: 125 crowns. (Does what the previous does, plus limits item placing per range of activity and mobs, too.)
    Onyx Limitation Controller: 200 crowns. (Does the previous, but can also limit the accessories and tools that can be used in worlds, AKA full world-control)
    I wouldn't object to them being craftable items. Same with world machines in general. But otherwise it just feels like yet another way that people who are trying to create public projects are the ones getting penalized. You shouldn't have to pay and pay to be able to successfully create in-game stuff that benefits other players (and, ultimately, Bytebin itself). Full world-control should be part of what you buy when you buy a world. I mean, if there were similar penalties on people who only like to raid or explore or mine or whatever (as opposed to the people who are essentially donating their private worlds to public projects), it might make more sense and could balance out to be kind of like a taxation system or whatever.
    I do agree, but it seems that's the route the developers have taken. :(
  • DianeDiane Posts: 378Member
    Seems people who do world projects are more willing to suffer being taxed for the priviledge of it, imagine the riots if they started deducting 1 crown for every 10 mechanical chest raided, and if you ran out of crowns, no more ability to loot chests :D
  • GilbyGilby Join the BK Discord: https://discord.gg/8H5zYUZPosts: 1,782Member, Arbiter

    But what if someone for example someone placed an item and you later on put that item to /wlimit 0. What would happen with the placed item?

    In the main post, I said that items already placed would not be affected. The items would stay as long as they're not destroyed.
  • AquaPhynnAquaPhynn Posts: 2,195Member, Arbiter
    How about limiting how many people can enter the world too?
  • ShiroNaiShiroNai Back from the dead...maybe?Posts: 4,453Member, Arbiter
    edited January 2016
    AquaPhynn said:

    How about limiting how many people can enter the world too?

    wait so if I made my world public and unprotected but at the world limit to 1 just me...?
  • p1nkbr0p1nkbr0 Like, totally, brahPosts: 5,087Member, Arbiter

    AquaPhynn said:

    How about limiting how many people can enter the world too?

    wait so if I made my world public and unprotected but at the world limit to 1 just me...?
    Hehehe! It's public, but only I can enter. ;)


    Setting world access to a similar system as protectors would be cool.
  • CoolAsIceCoolAsIce Posts: 416Member
    p1nkbr0 said:

    Sirentist said:

    CoolAsIce said:

    William2 said:

    I have to agree with Siren on this one. I'd have zero problem paying up for it once, but again and again and again for every single private world just seems kind of stupid.

    As for the idea, this might well be the best idea I've heard in over a year! I'd rather it be a command that world owners automatically have, or an accessory.

    This should win the Nobel Anti-Troll Prize!

    What if it were a cheaper machine?

    EXAMPLES:
    Limitation Controller: 75 crowns. (Limits amount of items a player can place and amount of item that can exist per world.)
    Diamond Limitation Controller: 125 crowns. (Does what the previous does, plus limits item placing per range of activity and mobs, too.)
    Onyx Limitation Controller: 200 crowns. (Does the previous, but can also limit the accessories and tools that can be used in worlds, AKA full world-control)
    I wouldn't object to them being craftable items. Same with world machines in general. But otherwise it just feels like yet another way that people who are trying to create public projects are the ones getting penalized. You shouldn't have to pay and pay to be able to successfully create in-game stuff that benefits other players (and, ultimately, Bytebin itself). Full world-control should be part of what you buy when you buy a world. I mean, if there were similar penalties on people who only like to raid or explore or mine or whatever (as opposed to the people who are essentially donating their private worlds to public projects), it might make more sense and could balance out to be kind of like a taxation system or whatever.
    I do agree, but it seems that's the route the developers have taken. :(
    At least they're tradeable.
  • CoolAsIceCoolAsIce Posts: 416Member
    p1nkbr0 said:

    AquaPhynn said:

    How about limiting how many people can enter the world too?

    wait so if I made my world public and unprotected but at the world limit to 1 just me...?
    Hehehe! It's public, but only I can enter. ;)


    Setting world access to a similar system as protectors would be cool.
    -double post-
    Only one can enter, but when you leave, one can come!
    @mikelaurence I need confirmation, but I believe Times Square has a limit?
  • GilbyGilby Join the BK Discord: https://discord.gg/8H5zYUZPosts: 1,782Member, Arbiter
    CoolAsIce said:

    p1nkbr0 said:

    AquaPhynn said:

    How about limiting how many people can enter the world too?

    wait so if I made my world public and unprotected but at the world limit to 1 just me...?
    Hehehe! It's public, but only I can enter. ;)


    Setting world access to a similar system as protectors would be cool.
    -double post-
    Only one can enter, but when you leave, one can come!
    mikelaurence I need confirmation, but I believe Times Square has a limit?
    3 micro protectors can be placed, 3 regular protectors, and 1 large protector is the protector limit in official markets, I believe. Pandora Boxes cannot be placed, and I think 30 players can enter at maximum.
  • CoolAsIceCoolAsIce Posts: 416Member
    Gilby said:

    CoolAsIce said:

    p1nkbr0 said:

    AquaPhynn said:

    How about limiting how many people can enter the world too?

    wait so if I made my world public and unprotected but at the world limit to 1 just me...?
    Hehehe! It's public, but only I can enter. ;)


    Setting world access to a similar system as protectors would be cool.
    -double post-
    Only one can enter, but when you leave, one can come!
    mikelaurence I need confirmation, but I believe Times Square has a limit?
    3 micro protectors can be placed, 3 regular protectors, and 1 large protector is the protector limit in official markets, I believe. Pandora Boxes cannot be placed, and I think 30 players can enter at maximum.
    Great, I was speaking about those player limits anyways, thank you!
Sign In or Register to comment.