I see this as a better way of the Imms gaining oversight in who does what illegally (turnkey excepted). It will also allow them to remind the criminal to do all the policy required things, like cnotes and permanent moods. And it keeps them from having to load keys each time a person pboards for a new one or new set.
From a code stand point, it is probably a lot more elegant and concise than rehashing vnums for new phomes or shops. Which, and I may be wrong, will free up more memory and time for them to add more things, like ranged and places.
In a way, I do find it a bit odd that some players are protesting a change that makes the lives of the staff easier, ensures that policy is followed, and gives some power to the players in some security.
Keys to the city
What if the messaging, instead of you don't have that key was that you don't have automatic verified access with that key; speak with staff to facilitate unverified access. Certainly it seems the messaging should be different than just not having the key, since it is an OOC limitation rather than the key having some IC magic to stop you from using it.
I would rather be abused by people sneaking copies of my keys than people having to use RPA, and thus being inherently dissuaded by QP costs and limited staff ability, to be able to break into places with the advantage of actually having a key already. With Temi being the only staffer who generally handles RPA and her availability being limited to late night EST and weekends, I think RPA is a genuine obstacle.
Ultimately, though, I think it bugs me because of how thoroughly OOC it feels. There's just no reason why keys shouldn't work for anyone who gets a hold of them, fair means or foul. I just can't feel like it makes sense, except for houses where servants/neighbors/etc. would question or stop unrecognized figures entering.
Re: alternative situations that feel more IC...
1) I think having keys labeled to the initial owner/able to be assigned to a new owner, perhaps even only copy-able by the one they're assigned to, but ultimately -usable- by anyone would be the best fix to allow for saved staff time/effort and IC realism.
2) If not that, perhaps some locks/keys could get a flag of 'watched' that allowed the keys to only be used by those with legitimate possession or with RPA. That is, your manor house with guards and a dozen servants, you can't just enter without RPA. Your house on a residential street of good character with a lot of neighbors, your guildhall, you can't just enter without RPA. Your Southside house, or your house in the wilderness, or etc? Nobody will stop you.
In lieu of those change, Temi's suggestion would at least help a little with the suspension of disbelief.
Ultimately, though, I think it bugs me because of how thoroughly OOC it feels. There's just no reason why keys shouldn't work for anyone who gets a hold of them, fair means or foul. I just can't feel like it makes sense, except for houses where servants/neighbors/etc. would question or stop unrecognized figures entering.
Re: alternative situations that feel more IC...
1) I think having keys labeled to the initial owner/able to be assigned to a new owner, perhaps even only copy-able by the one they're assigned to, but ultimately -usable- by anyone would be the best fix to allow for saved staff time/effort and IC realism.
2) If not that, perhaps some locks/keys could get a flag of 'watched' that allowed the keys to only be used by those with legitimate possession or with RPA. That is, your manor house with guards and a dozen servants, you can't just enter without RPA. Your house on a residential street of good character with a lot of neighbors, your guildhall, you can't just enter without RPA. Your Southside house, or your house in the wilderness, or etc? Nobody will stop you.
In lieu of those change, Temi's suggestion would at least help a little with the suspension of disbelief.
I'm not sure I understand how this solves any problems other than disallowing people to make use of stolen keys. Ahalin keys will still be given to every Knight, as far as I know, and they'll have permits to use them, even if they turn rogue/heretic. Players who get phomes will still have to worry about all the people the player previous authorized keys to. Are staff committed to ferreting out these instances?
Suspension of disbelief is allowed with things like magic, demons, etc because within the confines of the world staff and previous staff have laid out, they all make sense. There are, generally, laws that they have to follow. The reason I am against this piece of code is because it is so blatantly OOC and hampers otherwise legitimate RP (stealing people's keys to have access to their house). I'll chime in to say, also, that stealing somebody's key (a hard process with current steal code, and key paranoia) is made into something I woudn't even want to partake in by the attachment of QP. With how many people we've had argue for pro-villain-benefits, I'm surprised this hasn't received -more- dislike.
There are alternatives to prevent key abuse, some of which Dice previously listed - but the most simple of which is facilitating lock changes via an NPC or coded system. Rather than assign keys to people, allow players to assign keys to locks all on their own, and change their locks as often as resources permit. It's IC, it gives people control over their own security, and it provides an interesting question for guilds and secret book clubs: how often do we change our locks?
This, to me, seems like a very blatantly OOC band-aid for a much larger problem of phome security, and lack of cnotes.
Suspension of disbelief is allowed with things like magic, demons, etc because within the confines of the world staff and previous staff have laid out, they all make sense. There are, generally, laws that they have to follow. The reason I am against this piece of code is because it is so blatantly OOC and hampers otherwise legitimate RP (stealing people's keys to have access to their house). I'll chime in to say, also, that stealing somebody's key (a hard process with current steal code, and key paranoia) is made into something I woudn't even want to partake in by the attachment of QP. With how many people we've had argue for pro-villain-benefits, I'm surprised this hasn't received -more- dislike.
There are alternatives to prevent key abuse, some of which Dice previously listed - but the most simple of which is facilitating lock changes via an NPC or coded system. Rather than assign keys to people, allow players to assign keys to locks all on their own, and change their locks as often as resources permit. It's IC, it gives people control over their own security, and it provides an interesting question for guilds and secret book clubs: how often do we change our locks?
This, to me, seems like a very blatantly OOC band-aid for a much larger problem of phome security, and lack of cnotes.
Player of: Alexander ab Courtland
I'm happy to change messaging, not sure I understand the other suggestions, and generally agree with Beronica and Zeita. But maybe that's because they were kind enough to represent that the two or three players who are against, and with apparent vehemence, are not the entirety of the pbase.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests