Skip to content

Conversation

@stonar96
Copy link
Contributor

@stonar96 stonar96 commented Oct 8, 2022

This is a draft pr because:

  1. It currently depends on an open pr Add custom Domains for domains used through the api #1866.
  2. It shouldn't use CustomDomains. It should be done using an additional internal Domain.
  3. It's just a quick and dirty implementation (using CustomDomains) to demonstrate the idea.

However, feedback regarding the idea is welcome.

The idea:
The nonplayer-protection-domains flag currently only works bidirectional. If two regions share a domain, non-players that are members of the first region can build in the second region and vice versa. This pr generalizes the nonplayer-protection-domains flag even more and makes it much more flexible and powerful. With this pr the nonplayer-protection-domains flag does nothing by its own. It's just used to setup the domains. This pr adds the abillity to add non-players (nonplayer-protection-domains) as members or owners to regions. (On a side note: With this feature it's even safe to let players setup their non-player members by themselves, since it only affects their own regions and not vice versa as described above. Though, the feature is probably too complicated for regular players.)

I have also implemented an example usecase as demonstration for the feature. If enabled, the regions.nonplayer-border-bypass-on-claim setting automatically adds claimed regions to a non-player protection domain (player uuid) and adds the domain as owner to the claim. As a result, if a player owns two claims next to each other, there is no border for non-player associables. (Of course owners must be aware that adding further player members to a single region is dangerous, because they can modify other regions too via non-player associables.)

@stonar96 stonar96 force-pushed the feature/nonplayer-members branch from acecbb6 to 2dff680 Compare October 13, 2022 13:52
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants