Jump to content

Flying is deactivated, but some can still fly!?


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 188 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

You're not wrong (in anything that you've said), but not everyone can even get an Experience. Any random avatar could be a griefer in disguise, but an Experience is backed by a Premium user who necessary has some kind of payment info on record, and that user is responsible for everything that happens through that Experience.

These factors greatly reduce the likelihood of griefing, as ultimately there's someone with something to lose, unlike your average griefer who can just make a new account for free every time.

Now, that fact doesn't mean that your average user will understand this, nor that even veteran scripters like me can't have an irrational unease with the prompt.

I do believe that more people are more comfortable with RLV than Experiences, only because RLV is so ubiquitous after so many years (without any "scary prompts," no less) while Experiences are still a new feature.

The problem is Wulfie that what is determined to be griefing?  The person pressed accept but didn't know to what exactly.  How can LL judge that correctly?  Did they really agree what happened?  Who can really say?  The Experience owner can claim that this is all part of a valid Experience and they didn't try to do anything they didn't have permissions for (I mean how could they even?).  I haven't seen anything laid out that shows what stepping over the line is.  What is and isn't allowed?  In a game or surreal experience all bets could be off on where people feel the line is drawn.  Sure you can AR anything you don't like but that doesn't mean LL will agree with you and it is you that have had the bad experience.  Just how much does LL take what you have explained or failed to explain to visitors into account when assessing these things?  I think I might guess that pressing that accept button pretty absolves the Experience owner of pretty much anything because the permissions sought have been granted.  It still doesn't mean they visitor knew what that meant or that the Experience owner is seen as doing anything wrong.

Edited by Gabriele Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

*spreads their wings and flies despite all attempts to clip them*

It's working, still struggling a bit with banning, but warning and ejecting (pushing flying people to the edge of the sim) works and super friendly creator, and cheap!

There is a debug setting to override the No Fly.  If I set that and come in already flying, then I'll be able to continue flying.   ETA:  There are scripts that can detect if someone is flyi

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

I do believe that more people are more comfortable with RLV than Experiences, only because RLV is so ubiquitous after so many years (without any "scary prompts," no less) while Experiences are still a new feature.

I think that it is possible that the people who use RLV are more comfortable with it than Experiences.   We would have to see some numbers on what's what for the rest.  I am not comfortable with RLV, have never enabled or used it nor seen any need to do so and I would speculate there are many people like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

I am not sure that would be true in the case of a malicious animation.

Certainly the way SL handles animations poses problems across the board. The various viewer-based "stop animating me" button, if it actually worked, would be an extra button press, but in my experience it only affects the "easy" anims, so worst case there might be a teleport and relog, which would be extra effort.

But I don't think I'm really understanding how this applies specifically to Experience permissions. Experiences can trigger anims differently from non-Experience scripts, but the same annoying effects have long resulted from simply sitting on (non-Experience-scripted) furniture... so if the point is that Experiences, griefing, and landowner interior design choices can all have similar effects on visiting avatars, I wouldn't disagree, but not sure where that takes us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The problem is Wulfie that what is determined to be griefing?  The person pressed accept but didn't know to what exactly.  How can LL judge that correctly?  Did they really agree what happened?  Who can really say?  The Experience owner can claim that this is all part of a valid Experience and they didn't try to do anything they didn't have permissions for (I mean how could they even?).  I haven't seen anything laid out that shows what stepping over the line is.  What is and isn't allowed?

Welcome to the "what is a child avatar?" topic.

It's subjective, but with enough context we can draw a line. Different people will draw the line at different points, but LL's line is final.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have zero understandment for experience concerns. There is NOTHING that can be done to you and NOTHING to your avatar and it's easy to leave.
If one really confuses themselves with an avatar one shouldn't go to zombie sims anyways.
Besides of that - nobody is forced to accept. Bye bye and problem solved.

For the detector. Zombies and shooting and avatars cause lag. I could imagine it's difficult to fine tune a detector. What about jumping and jumping down?
Height check could be used, but need to consider high builds. Make snapshots of an avatar position and get average speed (distance/time) and see if it's too high.

With experiences there is no need to kick out avatars but it's possible to teleport them back to start position.
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

But I don't think I'm really understanding how this applies specifically to Experience permissions. Experiences can trigger anims differently from non-Experience scripts, but the same annoying effects have long resulted from simply sitting on (non-Experience-scripted) furniture... so if the point is that Experiences, griefing, and landowner interior design choices can all have similar effects on visiting avatars, I wouldn't disagree, but not sure where that takes us.

Simply that you might have the impression that the Experience doesn't require animation permission - maybe you think it just teleports you through portals.  Perhaps you click on something and it sits by default and then animates you.  All without further permission.  You may not have expected that, nor agreed to it from an object you didn't expect to sit on.

Or the portal animates as well instead of just teleporting you in a way you really didn't like just for kicks.  We have all seen some extreme animations doing this in the name of for fun, I am sure.

An object that suddenly requests animate permissions and shows you a request dialog because you aren't in an Experience gives you a chance to say, Heck No! to that if unexpected.

Edited by Gabriele Graves
cut some quote and added a second correction.
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Welcome to the "what is a child avatar?" topic.

It's subjective, but with enough context we can draw a line. Different people will draw the line at different points, but LL's line is final.

Exactly, so what we are saying is that all bets are off, the visitor has to decide on pretty much no information.  So that Experience key holders will be held responsible for anything seems implausible and a fallacy to me.  Hence my opening statements to the effect that this will lead to a mistrust of Experiences.

Edited by Gabriele Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

An object that suddenly requests animate permissions because you aren't in an Experience gives you a chance to say, Heck No! to that if unexpected.

Well, the Experience permissions dialog lists everything it could do, so it's not as if it would be without warning -- in contrast to a couch, which tacitly obtains most of the same permissions with no warning at all. On the other hand, that long Experience permissions list might well obscure the individual effects to which one is agreeing, sorta like the iOS EULA everybody accepts without reading, so there'd be benefit to being able to tailor that list (maybe).

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Qie Niangao said:

Well, the Experience permissions dialog lists everything it could do, so it's not as if it would be without warning -- in contrast to a couch, which tacitly obtains most of the same permissions with no warning at all. On the other hand, that long Experience permissions list might well obscure the individual effects to which one is agreeing, sorta like the iOS EULA everybody accepts without reading, so there'd be benefit to being able to tailor that list (maybe).

That's my point.  Every Experience lists the same permissions regardless of what is being used.  You are asked for consent without being informed of what to exactly - just vague possibilities that cover an ever increasing amount of control over the avatar.  That isn't consent at all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Gabriele Graves said:

That's my point.  Every Experience lists the same permissions regardless of what is being used.  You are asked for consent without being informed of what to exactly - just vague possibilities that cover an ever increasing amount of control over the avatar.  That isn't consent at all.

Yet no one cares that RLV has exponentially more control over your viewer.

Beating this drum is kinda pointless in the end. Changing the way Experience permissions are granted would be a breaking change which automatically makes the system pretty much set in stone.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Yet no one cares that RLV has exponentially more control over your viewer.

How is that even remotely true?  It isn't even turned on by default in Firestorm.  AFAIK it doesn't even exist in the LL viewer.  It certainly doesn't pop-up when you teleport places, asking that you accept before entering.  I would care if it were true.  If it doesn't exist for lots of people then it isn't taking over control of their viewer.  The same cannot be said for Experiences, there is no switch anywhere in LL's viewer or FS that gives the option to turn off Experience support, or even auto-deny the requests.  It does seem however that RLV is where Experiences should be heading in the minds of some people anyway.  Now that should concern people in my opinion.

Just now, Wulfie Reanimator said:

Beating this drum is kinda pointless in the end. Changing the way Experience permissions are granted would be a breaking change which automatically makes the system pretty much set in stone.

Having an opinion is never pointless.  Anyway, breaking changes happen all the time, never say never.  It wouldn't even have to be breaking changes in theory.  It could be Experiences v2.0 with existing support preserved for existing Experiences only.  Am I holding my breath?  No, of course not but the likelihood of it happening doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel bad for the OP who may still hope to glean useful information between our tangents to this thread. Uh... good luck with that. Really. But regardless, you have little choice but to indulge our ramblings.

Several further tangents: First, I can see both benefits and disadvantages to tailoring the list of Experience permissions to fit the actual needs of the Experience. Here I'm generalizing from mobile OS permission grants which have increased granularity in recent releases, both iOS and Android. In theory and for us tech nerds, that's all good; in practice, I doubt the vast majority of users even notice, and of those who do, I doubt the increased granularity leads to increased levels of trust. It's kinda like the paradox of choice: given these newly detailed control options, I'm now anxious that I might err in exercising that control... and for Experiences there was never risk enough to justify anxiety in the first place.

Second, any changes to the Experience system -- making the permissions tailorable and/or adding to the Experience permissions list.-- might be technically challenging. Perhaps existing permission grants remain for scripts until reset, and existing permissions processing (the existing dialog, etc) would continue until recompiled. Adding the suggested llFly() functionality would be enough to require new permissions grants -- or not, depending on the Lab I guess.

(In passing, I was interested in llFly() because I was exploring viability of a weightless spacewalk experience. Turns out this involves much more than merely attaching a buoyancy script. I eventually decided it was all just too clunky to have much appeal; llFly would have reduced some of the clunkiness.)

Anyway, Experiences are not going away. The objective at this point should be to make them better, more useful, and more broadly accepted (and acceptable). I guess that's what we're all trying to do.

Edited by Qie Niangao
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The more power over an avatar an Experience has, the less people are going to trust them unless they just use their own for themselves.  Adding new powers in the mix certainly doesn't increase my trust in those provided by others.  I predict that eventually people will start to caution others to avoid Experiences, because if you accept them, all sorts of terrible things can be done to your avatar.

Even without anything terrible ever happening to my avatar through an Experience, other than one I trust and need for a few systems, and the 3 default LL-owned ones, all random experience prompts I get at random places go on the Blocked list, simple as that. It's especially ridiculous when a place only allows you to stay on the sim if you allow their Experience to control your avatar in several ways, it is just like telling you to wear their RLV relay, and who is going to be as naive to accept a random RLV relay object and use it? Well, I guess many people, unfortunately, and that's why I also don't support anything that can control others' avatars in a broad range instead of simple permissions like only animations. Maybe I'm too safety-oriented for these things, though.

 

4 hours ago, Wulfie Reanimator said:

You're not wrong (in anything that you've said), but not everyone can even get an Experience. Any random avatar could be a griefer in disguise, but an Experience is backed by a Premium user who necessary has some kind of payment info on record, and that user is responsible for everything that happens through that Experience.

These factors greatly reduce the likelihood of griefing, as ultimately there's someone with something to lose, unlike your average griefer who can just make a new account for free every time.

Now, that fact doesn't mean that your average user will understand this, nor that even veteran scripters like me can't have an irrational unease with the prompt.

This is generally true, but there are some griefers, and a lot of people without a sense of responsibility, and/or a level of ignorance and carelessness that makes them unable to properly or responsibly use features that can be malicious. This could stand for anything, but especially when you get to control someone else's avatar in any way, unintentionally misusing a feature can be as bad as an intentional abuse. I'm not convinced that paying money is a stable source of responsibility as the user has anything to lose. Usually when money and the lack of responsibility are combined in the hand of one person, they don't care about any consequences or restrictions. Of course, only until the point where the consequences and restrictions finally reach them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Subsonic Oh said:

Just to clarify, people shouldn't fly on our sim because:

It's a zombie shooting sim. You have to fight your way through a forest. Then you reach the harder prison. There you have to find keys to open the last gate to the city. There are even alpha walls to stop people shotcutting their ways or to get a lame sniper location on roofs of buildings. Shooting zombies while flying is stupid and also cheating their XP/levels. It's just not fair to all the other players. Also, it's not immersive at all.

The previously suggested system that detects flying avatars and boots them should be good enough for this. Once you disabled flying, those who want to play fair, won't fly even by accident. Those that arrive with the fly override and flying get booted. There are also some wearables that allow avatars to fly without avatar fly mode, like jetpacks, a few wings that aren't just props, etc. I guess you won't be able to easily detect those with a device, but the place looks pretty flat. Make the invisible walls high enough that anyone trying to cheat their way by flying has to reach a certain altitude. Then set up a security system to teleport home avatars above that altitude. If you do all that, and some people still remain able to cheat their way through, you could even give them extra XP, because they'll probably work more for it than properly fighting their way through.

 

Oh, and don't underestimate the motivation of shooting zombies while flying. Shooting zombies or anything else while flying is super cool!

There are also people with avatars that are supposed to be naturally able to fly, they have wings, and super weak legs because they rather fly than doing leg days. You could consider that you're violating their right to naturally fly while shooting zombies if you do everything to prevent them from flying.

Edited by AlettaMondragon
additional important nonsense
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If people want to fly, smart money would be to monetize the experience. Make your zombies not respond to collisions from projectiles descending at too steep an angle. Then sell a special more expensive pass for a 'sky hunting' permit and roll in the mad L$s raining down like feathers!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Qie Niangao said:

I wouldn't rule out requiring an Experience on this region. It would simplify the scripting. And if the whole property is all about this zombie game, personally I'd demand that visitors accept an associated Experience. Everybody is already participating in the same immersion, so nobody has grounds to complain or refuse, so there's no reason to permit exceptions.

I'm curious, though, how one would go about reliably detecting speed/jump boosters. With tight enough tracking of avatar motion, I guess one might detect really extreme boosting, but in a crowded sim it would be impractically laggy to do it this way, so I'm not sure where I'd start with this if it were up to me.

i would also suggest the players be in a Zombie Gameplay Experience to play the game.  Is a lot simpler to script monitor/control player behaviour in an Experience. Not the least of which is being able to teleport the player to different areas of the region depending on gameplay interactions. LIke when they get killed by a zombie, or make it to/thru a gateway/portal

on the general idea of detecting gameplay cheats like flying, speed boosting, etc these are best detected from within the game HUD

when we don't do it from within the HUD then another way is to rez a sentinel for each player, the sentinel script monitoring/tracking the behaviour of its assigned player

 

edit add: of the two methods the better is doing it in the game HUD.  When in the game HUD we can also speed boost our players also if the scene demands it..

Edited by Mollymews
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Chroma Starlight said:

As an aside, I had no idea people were still developing games in SL like it was 2006. Is this just the action of a few individuals, or is there a scene/movement/etc there that might be worth knowing more about?

i think the newer generation of SL game makers have been inspired to do so from exposure to the Linden/Mole games at the Linden Portal Park 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, AlettaMondragon said:

Oh, and don't underestimate the motivation of shooting zombies while flying. Shooting zombies or anything else while flying is super cool!

There are also people with avatars that are supposed to be naturally able to fly, they have wings, and super weak legs because they rather fly than doing leg days. You could consider that you're violating their right to naturally fly while shooting zombies if you do everything to prevent them from flying.

It's incredible boring to shoot zombies while flying. No danger no thrill. *yawns*

The OP has set up a game. If you cheat by just plain cheating or by roleplaying is the same - it's just cheating. You have to fly? Bye!

Edited by Nova Convair
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nova Convair said:

It's incredible boring to shoot zombies while flying. No danger no thrill. *yawns*

The OP has set up a game. If you cheat by just plain cheating or by roleplaying is the same - it's just cheating. You have to fly? Bye!

Easy solution, get flying zombies!

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Easy solution, get flying zombies!

We indeed have flying... not zombies, but bats and mosquito-swarms :D 

Usually they've been set up to stop people feeling save on a higher spot, walking zombies and other crawling creatures can't reach ;)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 188 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...