This sounds like a great idea but like you said, implementation/design would be pretty hard. Maybe an extension of the pre-existing LWC-plugin could be created? If not, then I would assume creating a completely new plugin might/probably clash with the ones on the server already. For example: I set up a "trade chest" and I try to lock it with LWC. Some lines of code start showing error messages --> Can't access chest/Adds to overall server lag/etc. Of course this is just hypothetical situations but I think they're definitely issues/design flaws that should be addressed prior to attempting to write new code for this suggestion. Also the issue concerning trading ECD for items is definitely not ideal. If this were to be used, I wouldn't want to have to convert my money into another item and start trading coal and such to get the smaller denominations. Perhaps instead of a trade chest, an extension of the trade signs plugin would be more ideal. Where you could trade enchanted items through the trade signs? That way it's always a safe transaction. I think if possible, if we could revamp both chest protections and trade signs then trading would become a lot safer on ECC. Great suggestion, Glooble!
This "trade chest" would not be a real chest. It would be similar to using /shop, /travel, or /eec where a "virtual" chest opens up, so I don't believe it would clash with our current protection plugins. Regarding you issue about trading ECD for items, the gold pieces in my screenshot would only be there to use as a sort of button to add ECD to a trade. No items would need to be exchanged from ECD. For example, if I wanted to add 14k to a trade, I would simply press the gold block 14 times and the money would be added. I'm also not sure about the feasibility of trading enchanted items through trade signs, but if it were possible, I think that would be a nice addition to trade signs along with this trade interface. I hope that clears up some of the questions you had about this suggestion!
Oh that sounds a lot better actually! But if it's a command, how would you trade with another person? Just type /trade [user]? It would be sort of like the /eec for enderchest. A few more questions bout the functions of the virtual trade chest: Can you trade with any player at a distance or different worlds/realms? Even with having a "gold block" standard, there's still the issue of getting to lower denominations. Typing in exact values would still be more ideal, right? Also I'm not entirely sure about the trade sign plugin or how it works exactly. There might be perfectly good reason that you can't use enchanted items through a trade sign but I haven't seen any explicit reasoning about this topic. I don't believe I know of any trade sign plugin that offers this function.
Scamming is a lose lose. It gets 1 player banned, and the other (if they are scammed bad enough) quit. I do however understood where you are coming from with the economy, but sometimes you have to way out the odds. Scamming outrages people, more work for staff. Scamming has to be tracked in logs, more work for staff. Scammers have to be dealt with on a regular basis, more work. In the case that the player appeals they just end up giving back the [Insert Scammed Item Here], in the end wasting everyones time and doing nothing for the economy. All that just to take a few [Instert Item/s Here] out of the economy, not worth it. There are however many other ways tools are taken out of the economy, such as the /ci command (I alone cleared 1.5mil), breaking tools, lava, drowning, lag deaths, suffication, and even putting in coords that tp you into the void losing an eff 7 (looks at @Core_Diver LOL). Anyhow that is my thoughts on your suggestion about the suggestion, but as for the suggestion I would absolutely love for this to go through, there would have to be lag tests and such about this but if it doesn't harm the server in any way, it will do nothing but good. +1 (@Mendiboi idk if this is what you were trying to say so I just said what was going through my mind)
-1 I may be in the minority, but I wonder on "enforcement" via complaints and the such. Will there still be a text in chat with what is traded if ECD is involved? More importantly, to me this is just complicating a matter where there is no issue. If you are using signs/chests now, you really don't need the interface. This is fixing a problem for people who aren't willing to trade safely to begin with. I understand I am in the minority, but I just wanted to throw out my thoughts.
This makes sense except for the idea that chests work. Any item you can put into a sign and trade is safe However chests trading is fundamentally flawed. You can use a chest that's locked to two players but the other person "buying" can just take it without giving money or the other user can with hold his item after being paid. You can't trade both parties agreed item(s)/money at the same time, thus a trade chest would fix this issue. There definitely are issues with the way chest-trades are done.
Yes, there would still be text stating that money has changed hands. In my original post, I have this example of what text would appear in your chat when a trade goes through: You could also easily screenshot the trade window prior to accepting the trade to have evidence of exactly what items are being traded. That would be no different than how many users trade high value items using chests. I think that @idkhowtoplay really hit on the key flaws of chest trading that I am hoping this suggestion would prevent. Also, if this were to be implemented it would be in addition to chest/sign trading, as well as just normal trading. I think that it would really encourage people to trade safely because it doesn't require placing a chest or sign which may seem like a lot of additional work if you have to go to a town that you are a part of and them set up a sign. 1. I would imagine that you could trade with users from any distance and in any of the worlds that we have. It probably wouldn't work in any sg maps or the pvp world though. 2. The gold block is the highest denomination in my example. There are also gold nuggets for $10 and gold ingots for $100. If anything under $10 needed to be traded, the /pay command could be used after the transaction is complete. I'm not entirely sure why enchanted items cannot be traded with a trade sign, but I would guess that it has something to do with there not being enough space to put exactly what enchantments are being purchased on the sign. This would mean that someone could say that it is a melon sword, but there is no way to prove it without actually purchasing the item and looking at it, which would be a huge issue.
If you could trade with any user across worlds and any distance, that would make trading much more fluid/faster. Currently you have to access a stationary chest/sign to make any "safe trades". Also thank you for answering the gold topic but if you have to use the /pay command after a transaction, wouldn't there still be an issue? (Even though a much smaller room for someone to scam another player) I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but how does the Star Shop work again? Does it say 1 dpick/etc. for 1500 nstars? If there's an issue with the names, possibly a new naming system could be implemented to classify different enchanted items. For example, unique names for every enchanted item: Star Pick, Star Rod, or maybe something more coded like dpick001, etc. It wouldn't be a very user-friendly system but it would allow safer trading.
@Glooble instead of the line being drawn horizontally, do it vertically. That way each player has a 6x4 to place items. Another thing should be added: Something to toggle on/off the trade or to accept/deny it. So if I don't agree with what the player is putting on his side I can just call it off. Or if he places what was expected than "Accept" the trade so the trade is done instantly. This is to avoid the "I passed the item, ok now you do it" and the other player doesnt. I think it'd be good to test this before being implemented (as usual) to try to find holes and to see how well evidence could be obtained. I like the idea.
