I was about to post the exact same thing when the post was still fresh a couple of days ago, but I cancelled making the post because to be honest, I can't see why it'd be ideal to even support a user option at all. When a BYOND world wants to redirect someone to another BYOND world, and the player doesn't allow it, a whole lot of development time -- both in BYOND and in the DM programmer's game -- has to go towards trapping the condition of not being sent.

Better for the developer to offer the option than to allow the player to force the option, I figure. Sending people to other servers using a distributed server model might be completely necessary and players who are too paranoid to allow it could upset the game's functionality quite a bit. =)

Elation wrote:

If they don't want to play your game, fine! When they login, check whether they have trustServer set to 0 and if so, tell them the game requires it and if they don't want to trust the server, they can leave.

And if a player changes the option mid-game? You have to expect that any client option can immediately change, at pretty much any time.

DarkCampainger wrote:

Then check it before you transfer them. If they changed it to zero, boot them and output an error:
"Error: failed to transfer client to new world (server must be set to trusted)"

That would be just as bad... players could do all sorts of tricks. Alathon is right.

A one-off question when you login is best, in my opinion.

I don't get why Elation thinks DarkCampaigner's idea would be bad, but Stat() certainly isn't the answer. 1 reason is that if you have an invisible browser window open in the game (such as one from Loduwijk's KeyState library), Stat() takes the focus off of the window.

If you didn't happen to see my below post, refer to [link] for a workaround.


-Doh

Hiead wrote:

Firstly, I agree with the request. As Shadowdarke and others have said, it should be the game developer's choice; this is one of those "I'm the programmer and I KNOW what I'm doing" situations. If they had malicious intent on forcing unworldly content upon their players, they could already do so through certain other trusted BYOND methods.

DarkView wrote:

However I would like the ability to ask permission at an earlier time (say when they login, give them a 'this game will transfer you between servers, are you down?) and have it carry over to any of the servers it sends you to.

Granted, this acceptance should carry over, as well. It'd be just as bad to have the confirmation come up after being reconnected as it would to have it come up before-hand.

Hiead

It would be even cooler as a pager option. The pager has a set "Will you allow games to transfer you between worlds" - Confirm, Always, Never

That way, peoeple who don't care, can be. People who don't want to can't be and people who want a confirmation box can get it. At least with this idea, it doesn't matter where the confirmation be, it can be at either the login screen or the link pressing. Personally, I don't like the idea of a box at the beginning of the login screen. Just makes things look untidy.

Jtgibson wrote:

I still think this is in the boat of "not ideal". We might as well also add options to prevent users from getting alert()s, input()s, browse()s, and even text output, since all of those could potentially be the source of something offensive to them. =)

In actuality, browse() is probably the most single potentially harmful thing in all BYOND and theres no option to turn that off (unless the link option currently doubles for browse()s aswell).

When you consider the already mentioned fact that anything they could possibly link you to could have just already been done in the game you are currently in, having any sort of verification for it is rather pointless.

FYI- I went ahead and implemented this by changing the default behavior for the "accept-links" setting (currently in the DS/Preferences/General tab). It has also moved to a different cfg file so the setting will be reinitialized to the default for all users. Links in the text-window always require confirmation, to prevent foul-play from user-edited text. Kudos to Jon88 for this suggestion.

We are currently in a "release limbo" as we transition off the 3.0 version of BYOND and attempt to push out the newer features (primarily graphical), then 4.0. Therefore can't say for sure when this feature will be released, but know that it's in there.

Tom wrote:

Links in the text-window always require confirmation, to prevent foul-play from user-edited text. Kudos to Jon88 for this suggestion.

While you're at this, could you add an additional option to this confirmation prompt? This would kill off an old request as well---you can choke two dogs with one chicken bone. What I'm thinking is that while it prompts for confirmation on relocating with the text-window link, it would have two "Accept" buttons: one to accept and relocate the current DreamSeeker window to the new world, and one to open a new DreamSeeker window to run the other world.

Hiead

Android Data wrote:

Hiead wrote:

What I'm thinking is that while it prompts for confirmation on relocating with the text-window link, it would have two "Accept" buttons: one to accept and relocate the current DreamSeeker window to the new world, and one to open a new DreamSeeker window to run the other world.

I think that the link() proc should relocate to another world in the current DreamSeeker and that text in browser windows / text windows should open a new DreamSeeker window. It'd be much handier, since I don't like the current system where I can't post a link to another world without losing people who click it.

Good suggestions, both of you. I think the most logical behavior is to have link() always stay in the current window and text links always open up new windows, preserving the existing login. So in fact there isn't a need to even query when clicking a text link-- the user can always just close the new window.