Well if you could I would suggest to remove either gp or ess chat to see witch one does it then post back here about it.
wouldnāt sk89q be porting WE/WG over to sponge?
Yes, I believe heās stated that before somewhere. Maybe twitter if not on here somewhere.
@The_Doctors_Life
Iām not too concerned about it, although Iām fairly certain it was GP. Iāve never know Essentials chat to do that. Removing GP at this point would probably end disastrously for my server XD Even for a moment. Server host did that once upon a time thinking it was causing issues, half the houses on the server probably burnt down.
lol, Well Iāll test it when I have the chance, I am almost certain it was ess chat though.
Oh, Iām very interested in your situation here. Whatās the value you get from stacking both types of land claims on top of one another?
Iām not 100% sure about this, but it sounds to me like BC_Programming might have made some changes that I wouldnāt have (the behavior youāre describing sounds unfamiliar to me), or your problem may be due to another plugin you have installed. Since I rolled back all his changes, Iād be interested to hear what you think of the chat protection in the latest version of GP. If you do have complaints after having a look at the latest, Iāll work to address them. In the current version of GP, only ip addresses (which arenāt on the whitelist) are blocked, and the whole message is blocked. For CAPS, anyone with the spam permission (ops by default) should be able to caps. Itās definitely a problem if server owners are entirely disabling all the goodness of GPās chat protection just because they canāt caps, so let me know if thatās still a problem for you. My policy has always been to prevent grief while keeping as much of the original game functionality in place as reasonably possible.
Iād be shocked if he didnāt.
What donāt you like about them? When you disable the spam protection, do you replace it with another anti spam plugin? If so, which do you prefer? Maybe I can adjust GP to better satisfy your needsā¦ unless youāre just standing on the principle of componentization?
The latest versions are back to the shorter, single-file config format you probably remember. When I say streamlining configs, what I mean is putting the less-frequently-used bits in a separate file where they wonāt intimidate server owners who arenāt power users or control freaks. Also when I add per world configs back in, Iām going to do it the easy-to-use, entirely optional way rather than BCās āhereās a tangle of folders and files, you figure it outā strategy. I also hope to put comments in the config files to make reading the docs on the GP page a requirement for fewer server owners.
This is awesome! 
Thanks for sharing, it will definitely help me get the overlap thing done more quickly, once I start on it.
2 Likes
Iāll try it out when I get a chance. Itās nice to know itās being reverted. Might not be able to immediately, as Iāve mentioned, Iām without electricity going on 3 weeks and running on a shoddy generator, but Iām interested to try it ASAP. Thanks for picking it back up!
The GP/WG overlap: I use worldguard just to create a region around spawn that doesnāt spawn monsters to keep spawn safe for newer players, but I prefer GP for actual claims/griefprevention/etc, so I used a admin claim to claim the same area.
The chat usage: Iāve never run a server with a whitelist larger than 100 players, and never ran a server not for a specific non-minecraft-related private community, so the chat moderation becomes useless. People can swear at each other all they want, and if you donāt like it, /ignore (I think i use essentials for this not yours), people can post links all they want, we are often linking to things on the site or to minecraft-related articles or information or for pictures we take or whatnot. The capsspam, doesnāt phase me or any of my players, if you wanna capslock, capslock. Iāve never had an issue where I felt I needed to do anything in chat, other than monitoring private chat which essentials does for me with SocialSpy, and the logs do for me automatically because itās a command (/msg)
The config: I actually really prefer single-file configs. I hate wading through multiple configs or folders of configs.
On that note about /ignore, thatās another thing that became quite bothersome, which presumably has been reverted now, since most servers seemed to have Essentials, it conflicted with /ignore. So one day players all of a sudden couldnāt ignore players. So I had to go in and tell them to use /eignore in the mean time as Essentialās config to attempt to force Ess to override commands doesnāt work very well. And the message about using /ignore if anyone said ban, kick, ignore, etc was a bit annoying. It seemed like BC was setting it up with a very specific server in mind, without making those things optional.
From a server owner standpoint, the better fix for this would have been to add a line to your craftbukkit.yml to explicitly map /ignore to /eignore and break the tie.
Anyway I donāt plan to put /ignore back in - my thinking is anyone mature enough to use it could also just actually ignore the other player without a slash command. In BCās defense, I probably would have added that command myself and also similar advertisements - and then later ended up removing or redesigning it based on feedback.
The administrative /softmute is still on my todo list.
Alright, then my intent is to just make sure the owner of the new claim is also the owner of the WG claim (or has perms to build thereā¦ whatever the WG model is).
Yeah, I can see where itās less helpful when you run on a whitelisted server. The real value in the chat protection is copy/paste spam, or modded client spam (designed to overflow the chat so that nobody can effectively talk). The rest are just nice-to-haves. I guess I should add config options to disable those specific parts (ip address and chat blocking).
1 Like
Never thought of doing that O.o Wasnāt aware that would override plugin registering commands. May have to try that at some point. Could also help with one of my plugins incidentally overriding GPās /ct command XD And WorldBorderās /wb from overriding Essentialsās workbench command. All the possibilities!
By the looks, WG makes it really really simple to check, based on this page (WGās API reference and how to do permission checks on a Block or Location). Iām not really the best at making things super simple, but I suspect you may need to iterate over every block in the claim and check for region permissions, which sounds like it could be a bit slow.
Thought at first just checking corners, but thatād allow people to completely surround a claim. Then if you only check a single layer of the claim, it could reside below or above the WG region. And I donāt think WG regions have a minimum size, so wouldnāt even be able to skip multiple blocks in the iterations.
https://github.com/Nentify/Protect/blob/master/src/me/nentify/Protect/managers/ClaimManager.java#L53
This worked for me, although it may not be the best solution, Iām no master programmer. Youāll be able to do whatever you want with the applicable regions returned, such as checking for ownership or build permissions or whatever.
If youāre interested in the details of how something like this gets done efficiently, the way GP does it is by checking whether any corners are inside the other claim, and then vice-versa for the other claim. So thatās 8 āis inside?ā checks per every two claims compared. It sounds like a lot, but itās much better than width x height x depth comparisons because the cost is constant instead of linear over the size of the claim (still linear over the total claim count).
When that approach is abstracted away, you get something like Nentifyās solution - if I want to know whether a GP claim would overlap a WG claim, then I ask WG if thereās room for a WG claim where the GP claim would go. So WG does the work for me.
Hey everybody, looks like the UUID migration in GriefPrevention is shaping up. If youāre running a server on an earlier than 8.1 build of GP, itās a good time to upgrade. Since this upgrade involves a major data change (player names to UUIDās), PLEASE back up your data before booting with the latest version of GP.
Note that NOT pgrading to a UUID GriefPrevention will NOT make your server vulnerable to grief. It only means that players who change their names will lose access to their land claims until either they change their names back or they have an administrator transfer claim ownership with /transferclaim. So if you want to wait a little longer for all the migration bugs to work out, thatās probably fine.
Ah, right. I didnāt even thinking about checking corners of the other claims XD But since WG claims are 3D (and GP claims to some extent), would it be worth checking the corners including the Y coord, or would you rather only X/Z coords to prevent stacking of claims?
GP checks only x/z for comparison with other GP claims, because theyāre not allowed to stack. If I were to ask WG whether a GP claim would overlap, Iād ask WG about a new region with miny = 0 and maxy=max build height, since thatās the biggest the GP claim could eventually get.
1 Like
Fair enough. I doubt itās even remotely necessary, but how would you handle claims already inside a WG claim that they donāt have modify perms for? I donāt think itād matter until they try to resize their claim. Would they be able to resize it or would they need to abandon it and reclaim it?
Iād assume they would have to abandon it, but they wouldnāt be able to build in it anyway unless itās a public region or something.
TODO List (Please Discuss!)
This list is incomplete and not in any particular order. If youād like to see something about GP improved, please do reply to share your suggestion! 
Also if youāre unsure what any of these mean, feel free to ask for clarification.
-
Smart buildtrust requirement for interacting with a claimed block (even from far away) with a non-Vanilla item in hand - to proactively stop potential griefs introduced by mods.
-
Reduce trust level requirement for using crafting blocks that you canāt leave items in to access trust.
-
Allow players with /containertrust to collect grown food and plant new crops.
-
Limit on # of times a player gets the āyouāre building outside a land claimā message. Probably only once for each time he strays outside his land claim, and only if heās near it.
-
Timer to erase automatic visualizations (not stick or shovel).
-
Visualization appearance/update speed.
-
Eliminate visualization flicker.
-
Reinvestigate options for sand cannon grief fix.
-
Make boot time for flat file mode MUCH faster.
-
Donāt allow a player to overlap a GP claim with a WG claim unless he has permission to build in the WG claim.
-
Spam Blocker: Fix format of blocked messages for better misdirection.
-
Soft mute for admins, to convert chat trolls into quiet players.
-
Restore nature testing with new tree types and other new block types.
-
Restore nature should also replace trees in tree biomes.
Yeah like Nentify said - I doubt this will be the case anywhere because they wouldnāt be able to build in that claim even today, and conversely if the WG region owner canāt build in the claim, the claim would have been removed by now by an admin. If it canāt be resized to fix the overlap, then abandon and recreate elsewhere.
Sounds good, canāt imagine having any issues with it so far XP
Might be able to introduce a tracker that can cache blocks that are launched vs their landing location. Iām not sure if the blocks retain any unique identifiers between those states though.