Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Blacklists

Bob
For EE 12, we're adding the ability for settlement leaders to maintain a blacklist of players (technically, characters), companies and settlements. That blacklist can then be used for setting permissions on who can or cannot use the various facilities in that settlement, which I'll describe in more detail in another thread. Here, I'll focus on the mechanics of the blacklist itself.

To check to see if you are on any blacklists, you'll use the command /BlacklistCheck. It will tell you which settlements, if any, have you on their blacklist.

To create and edit a blacklist, settlement leaders can use the interface available on the Allies sub-tab from the Alliances tab on their Company Window. Clicking Show Blacklist will bring up the player, company and settlement blacklists. Entries can be added to each list by clicking on Add, then typing in a name and selecting which list to add the entry to. Entries can be deleted by clicking on the X next to each entry.

Alternatively, blacklists can be created, edited and viewed using the following chat commands:

/BlacklistAddPlayer <character name>
/BlacklistAddCompany <company name>
/BlacklistAddSettlement <settlement name>
/BlacklistRemovePlayer <character name>
/BlacklistemoveCompany <company name>
/BlacklistemoveSettlement <settlement name>
/BlacklistView

Questions/comments/concerns?


Duffy Swiftshadow
The granularity should solve most potential problems, I like it.

Edit: Can you maybe briefly include what Blacklisting technically does? Is it just straight up no access to anything in the settlement?
plopmania
Why blacklist instead of whitelist? I feel like whitelist would scale better.
You are a Troll
Because it's much easier to know the names of the players and companies who you DO NOT want training in your settlement then it is to know the names of every single player and company that you do?
Duffy Swiftshadow
plopmania
Why blacklist instead of whitelist? I feel like whitelist would scale better.

Which one scales better really depends on what the user is doing. If you plan on locking everything down by default, whitelist is more efficient. If you plan on being open by default, blacklist is more efficient.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
It's easier also cause then you can temporarily punish That One Guy, That One Company, or That One Settlement rather than bringing entire factions into all out war. Think of it like sanctions. Gives some diplomatic pressure options if you piss enough folks off so you can't get that Max level training or use their bank to store stuff (like siege equipment). Unless of course we want every minor incident or skirmish to set off WWIII lol.

I like it.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
plopmania
You are a Troll
Because it's much easier to know the names of the players and companies who you DO NOT want training in your settlement then it is to know the names of every single player and company that you do?

It does have settlement level binding. So I would assume that every alliance would just white-list their allied settlements and be done with it. Seems easier that blacklisting everything and everyone that are not in the alliance.

But I'd imagine we'll have both further down the line, anyways.
Bob
plopmania
Why blacklist instead of whitelist? I feel like whitelist would scale better.

In part, it's because we already have some easy categories for people you like, namely alliance-mates and settlement-mates. Certainly those don't provide the granularity of being able to whitelist other entities without officially allying with them, but they do at least provide something on that side of the equation. What we were clearly missing was something on the dislike side, so we headed toward blacklists first. That said, the tech would be pretty similar for whitelists, so we can consider adding them at some point.

Also, for EE 15, we plan to add the ability to tax people who use your settlement's facilities, so we think the general tendency will be to want to let others make use of your settlement for the tax revenue. You'll just want to block the folks who are causing you lots of problems.
plopmania
^ Since I have clearly fallen out of the loop, alliance members are already "whitelisted" as is? Then I am simply being a dingus.

Edit: of course they are whitelisted, if there are no whitelist, stupid-me. Anyhow. I just saw the scheme being
- whitelisters: permission + tax settings
- others: permission + tax settings
- blacklisters: permission + tax settings.
Bob
plopmania
^ Since I have clearly fallen out of the loop, alliance members are already "whitelisted" as is? Then I am simply being a dingus.

Alliance members aren't automatically whitelisted, but they will be one of the categories you can set facility permissions for. That means you can easily give them the same permissions that you give to your own settlement members, or you can restrict those permissions a bit. When taxation comes in, that will also mean you could decide to tax alliance members the same amount as settlement members, or maybe just a little bit more.

Technically, the act of blacklisting a person doesn't do anything other than putting that person on a list. It's the combination of putting the person on the blacklist, and setting the permissions to block blacklisted players from using your facilities, that blocks them from doing things. Similarly, allying with another settlement doesn't automatically give that settlement's members access to your facilities, but allying with them and setting the permissions appropriately will do so.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post