[Feedback] - Unable to designate room to player and allow placement in it

I made a player a guest of our inn. I have then gone to a door and gave them guest permissions to it. They however can not place a chest in this room. The only way for them to place a chest in this room is allow them tenant permissions at the front marker which allows them to place this chest anywhere in the house.

The doors need a separate tenant permission specific to this room, not from the front marker only.
OR - if they have guest permission to that room, that will give them permission to place a chest in that room.
ALSO, I think guests should only be able to place containers in the room, and a max of 2 or 3 due to the restrictions and max containers for a village lot. Otherwise, they will be placing 30-40 items of deco in each room which will exceed the house deco limit.

Lets get workin on the bug fix right away. Thanks!

 

Thank you for the feedback. The system is currently working as designed. Door Permissions and Tenancy are two different systems that can be used to support one-another. If someone is allowed to be a tenant in your home, they can place their items freely on the entire lot surface, not just designated rooms. Door Permissions were added as a way to provide a degree of privacy if you want some/any rooms to be the expected area for tenants to exist.

Deco limits for a house will need to be taken into account between the homeowner and the tenant, the same as it would have needed to be considered for anyone with normal Kindred access or higher.

 

It was actually designed like this? Like on purpose?

 

Wow. Ok rethinking what I was planning. Thanks for the explanation.
I would think that refining the tenant system will come some time down the road.
I too thought that tenants could only place in there room. Seems like more of a co-owner if they can place anywhere. I'll wait. Thanks again for the clarity

 

Guest permissions seem like they would work well for someone who is staying in a room, but not decorating it. Something like running a hotel or inn. You can help them out by placing a container and setting it to public for add and remove, so they can utilize it while they are there.

Tenant permissions is for folks who will be living there, like subletting a room in your house. They will be decorating, so you probably dont need to decorate it, and they can do it themselves. Just know that their stuff might get placed where you don't want it (bathroom, hallway, kitchen), so you may have to clean up after them occasionally (send their stuff to the bank).

 

The only things that seemed to have changed is you have a new permission level that just allows your tenant to place things that the lot owner can not take. Oh and you can lock doors...

Definitely not what many of us expected.

 

I guess its just like having a real "tenant"
They may be a good tenant, and keep their crap in their own area, but you could also come home and find out they're having a massive party in your house which you must then clean up :X

 

Simple if you have 1, but if u have a inn or a guild house set up its way more complicated.

Im thinking this could and should be better designed.

 

Oh I agree it doesn't really make sense; in experimenting with it last night to see how it all worked we found all sorts of quirks. We managed to get ourselves locked into rooms with permission changes and such. Granted, we all had a good laugh testing it out, so there was that.

It seems to me that with a 15 room inn, you'd need to have 15 people all of whom had full permission to leave their crap all over the lot and it would get confusing on what belonged to who. As innkeeper, you can evict these items to the owners bank only.

The "tenant" permission basically just seems to lock things away from the property owner. I guess we all thought how this "would" work would that tenant permission would be set on the specific door (and enclosed room) allowing free placement of items by the tenant within that space only; sadly this is not the case.

I suppose if you did have a full inn, and "locked" all the doors and only opened them up to the specific owner of that room, that would keep most peoples stuff in their own area, except for hallways and public areas where again people could clutter things up. (But again, you can clean these up.) I think the system is workable but not really optimal.

 

It seems they way you rent a room to someone is give them guest access. Lock all the doors except the main entries. Then on the individual door to their room you add them as a guest which allows them to open that door. The owner must then place containers in the room and set the container permission in such a way to allow the guest to use it. The guest can not place any items outside of the chest....? Which seems like the guest's things could still be taken by the owner ...

 

I think most of us were expecting to be able to designate a door and have it so that everything behind that door became a tenants. Effectively making it a separate house within a house that they could decorate and store items in.

I know this was why I purchased an Inn. Otherwise I could just add people as trustee and do the same thing without having to mess with the doors at all.

Disappointing really.

 

wow did you guys think this through at all? I know I won't be renting anything anytime soon.

 

I've had people as "tenants" in my house long before we had this functionality. It was pretty simple:

• Put everything in my house on co owner level
• Add them as kindred
• Put down a box that they could use with kindred level permissions but set item permission to a higher level (so they could use box, but not move it)
• Or, as kindred, they could put/move their own boxes wherever.

This way they could add/remove things as they saw fit, but couldn't touch any of "my" stuff. They also had access to list items on, but not move, my vendors.

The downsides were:
1. They had to trust that I, as house owner, was not going to steal their stuff.
2. They could theoretically leave crap laying around everywhere but politeness and a desire to not get thrown out prevented this mostly.
3. Multiple tenants could mess with each others things. You could get around this a little by having 1 at trustee level and 1 at kindred level, then only the higher one could mess with the lower one, but still.

The new tenant permissions address the problems thusy:

1. Tenant Permission now prevents building-owner walking off with peoples belongings.
This was, I think, the LEAST worrying of the issues but enabled tenancy to occur not only with "trusted friend" scenarios but now as a commercial business, ie with an inn.

2. Problem not addressed, people can still leave crap everywhere
The door permissions kind of structure this a bit, in that you can lock down rooms or designate them to other tenants so people can't enter/decorate in there but this does nothing to keep people from leaving crap in common areas.

3. Multiple tenants can't mess with each others things. The main difference with tenant permission, rather than just granting someone kindred, is that stuff they put down is theirs - not "tenant level that all tenants can take" but tied to the individual person who placed it down.


In conclusion, I think we can still make an Inn work, but we'll just need to add a caveat that crap left in public areas will be sent to your bank. And I guess our innkeeper will just have to periodically do a bit of cleaning duty if he's got unruly tenants. There doesn't really seem to be as much reason/need for the door permissions, unless you wanted to keep people completely out, because if you put your stuff in there, none of the other people could take it anyway.


I think what we all would have preferred was individual doors and the enclosed rooms that they led to being treated almost as separate lots. Though with the large variety of houses available and the different surfaces/walls/etc. within each probably made this a bit too fiddly from a technical standpoint. I think it would have been reasonable to expect this to work with purpose built inn-type buildings, though. Oh well.

 

Except that there is no inherent mapping between doors and rooms. What about rooms with two doors? Split-level 5-floor town basement has four rooms per level, one of which is only accessible through two other rooms. If you wanted to rent one room to one tenant and the other two rooms to another, what about the door in between?

Basically, a door has two sides. Even a hallway is a "room". And sometimes neither side of a door can be considered a hallway. Or you can have what appears to be a room, but with only an opening and no door.

That is why the system is the way it is right now. Deciding all the corner and edge cases (literally, even?) is what makes it so hard.

Door permissions are about access, tenant permissions are about keeping track of who owns the stuff inside.

 

I can see what your saying about all the different houses. But the new inn made for this should have been made with that all in mind. Well at least that was how I pictured it. I almost perched the inn last telethon because it went on sale. Lucky for me I didn't. I don't have interest in patrolling "public" areas. I'm not upset it's just not what I expected.

 

Wouldn't it have been much more simple if we could have added tenant permissions to the individual door. That was the entire purpose of room rental after all, to allow a person to rent a room with a door. By allowing them tenant permission to the entire lot, it gives them permission to rent my entire house and put things where they wish. That was not the intended purpose behind this, and don't pretend it was.

If I wanted people placing things in my entire house, I would just make them kindred and let them place there own box and have them make it private. Sure, I could still access the box, but if they trust me which they would, this would not be any different.
You guys spent the time implement a rental system, then it should be done right.

I'm not trying to argue with you, but if you look at it from the owner of the house point of view, we do not want our tenants freely placing things all over the house cluttering it up potentially. Not to mention it would not be that difficult to add just a tenant position to the room only...

 

And I will add this bit of ino

https://docs.google.com/document/d/...tB0LFv-fRxe_E0i7ugnzUwPCpi3vIXpOV_onwSs7r/pub - PORTALARIUM PATCH NOTES
Rent: Property Owners can now add an additional "Tenant" permission for users of their lot. This permission can be added for any permission level from Guest through Co-Owner, and allows users to securely place items on a lot without fear of losing them. Items placed as a Tenant will be owned by that Tenant and only they may pick them back up off the lot. If a Tenant loses permission for any reason, or the lot contents are sent to the bank due to a house deed change, those items will go back to the Tenant's bank. Additionally, we have added the ability for permissions to be set on individual doors so that renting can be done room per room (or the entire building).


This is directly from Ports notes. Does that at the very end say "Permissions to be set on individual DOORS, so that renting can be done room by room(OR OR OR the entire building)?? I'm reading this is how we choose for this to be done. We either allow them to be a tenant of the entire home, or just in one room.

I'm pretty sure tenant at the marker stone is the entire building and the door is FOR THAT ROOM only. Might want to look at those notes a little closer

Anyways, wanted to point this out, and no sense in arguing about it because it's not done the way it needs to be done. I'm sure most people who are going to rent out homes will agree with this statement that they want the house decorated how they want it done and do NOT want people throwing random things all over the house.

 

for rooms with two doors... try putting a wooden wall or a divider between them...

 

That's a good idea. If you place a wall that tenants can't move, that would split the shared room into two "closets". You would want it to block passage, and to block as much view as possible.

It's just that the game couldn't automatically handle rooms like that.