Allow world creators of SDK3 worlds to disable stations on avatars
Mimi
Just like the stutter step nodesa a node that can be added to make stations on avatars not work. Since this isn't a default, allowing them by default would probably be the best option
Log In
Kitto Dev
Having stations forced off on avatars by default sounds like a bad idea. If this is implemented, it should be like a toggle to disable 3rd person view on the website. That way, for example, if the map is for talking and hanging out, it's fine, but for games, the creator can simply disable avatar stations. There are ways to abuse stations to basically cheat on avatars. They already implemented this for the FISH! world, they could easily add a toggle on the website with some tweaking involved.
｜KitKat｜
I think this should be implemented as a toggle on the website view of the world as this is already an admin taggable feature this would be the shortest path to implement.
WubTheCaptain
The special world tag settable by VRChat Team is
admin_disable_avatar_stations
, for reference. It's currently found in the world 'FISH ǃ ［RELEASE］' by Godfall.ahzkwid
While creating various game worlds, I have observed that some users use avatar chairs to cheat, which harms the atmosphere of the game.
Until now it was acceptable because my projects were only at a hobby level, but now I am creating worlds for sale, so restrictions are necessary.
I need this kind of control because I have to sell worlds that include this functionality.
Keako
ahzkwidit definitely exists. Just check the Fish worlds tags. Apparently there are admin commands they can add as tags to a world.
Wonder why this hasn't been mentioned? Has it been mentioned somewhere?? Who knows how long these tags have existed. First time im hearing about it anyway.
Maybe there is someone on the dev team you can contact to get these added. I doubt they want to show preferential treatment by not making it publicly available, right?
ahzkwid
Keako I’ve played this game for a long time as well, but this is the first time I’ve seen it.
And I can understand why the developers didn’t publicly mention a feature even if it existed. If they reveal such functionality, they never know what kind of problems it might cause, so it makes sense that they act conservatively.
But times have changed, and it may be time for the features to change as well. I might request this feature later too. If there is enough demand, they might update it.
Keako
ahzkwidDid some digging and apparently the world creator themselves were requesting it:
As early as yesterday.
Maybe they have something in the works soon?
ahzkwid
Keako That’s good news. Thank you for letting me know.
Mimi
now that we have a precedent for this with height scaling toggles, this should become a thing now
Chirping_Cat
Fully support this as it is a well-understood exploit against AI pathing as well as to OOB exploits. Should have been part of the original feature implementation.
KonKin
Bumping this canny, this would be incredibly useful for our game worlds to keep players from maliciously breaking AI, going through wall, hidden doors and minimizing the amount of experience they'd ruin for others.
Setting this as a checkbox for creators would be neat to have.
Peculiosa
KonKin
Hello. I'm really enjoying the world you participated as developer.
I already spent more than 500 hours there, which is more than 8 hours a day.
I saw some people use seats for cheating, but that does not ruin my experience as much as you think.
Even seat abusing can ruin other player's experience, I don't think it should be regulated by world creators.
I, only in private instances, sometimes use portal system(seats) for my friends who having too much hard time playing game , as help.
Not all players have same ability to do some stuff, for example, some only able to play on desktop with their family members in same room, which makes them totally unable to use sound as clue for avoiding oncoming danger. Without such help, they may just leave and not return.
Forcing them to play as creator's intention is not the way.
Also, poking into the area that normally hard to reach or unable to is ACTUALLY fun parts of exploring VRC worlds, it's like looking for easter eggs.
People should able to enjoy worlds as their way, even that's not what creators mean to do so. as it's free, online worlds. If a world has places where people should not be, it has to be a private world at first.
World creators should not be someone who wants to dominate even a private instances. Everyone can open new instance when some people make them unhappy. Also, there is already a thing called vote kick.
If MAJORITY think that's not what they want they will vote kick the cheater.
If they don't, then that's just the majority's way to play the game.
VRC is not North Korea that wants to rule everyone's everything.
I really hope VRC leave this as it is. also other avatar features.
Faxmashine
Some of my multiplayer game worlds have bugs related to avatar stations. Being able to disable avatar stations would be very helpful.
Blek Camellia
this is a bad idea. World creators don't need more control over the user experience than they already do. I feel like we should move a little closer to Gmod's concept. VRChat's worlds control most of the user experience in terms of what you can do. Each world has it's features, and limits certain functions/events to said worlds. Gmod however, the map is just a map. It's a place you can go to, and you decide what you want to do on that map. However some features are required to be put in the map in some cases. VRChat never really had this concept however, and we are already polar opposites. Why add an option that takes away from the user control more than we already have? This adds nothing to the experience, except a "Hey, you can't do this, this, or this because I said so." If you really need to have stations disabled on avatars, then make a request in the world itself. If the user chooses to ignore it, well it's their choice to ruin their experience. Why take an aggressive approach when it just makes more sense to take the passive one?
Blubbll
i have a feeling that this will force players to use hacked clients as this is a last resort in legit cheating
狐小百合
Blubbll: yeah but this is sort of the "this lock won't stop someone with a pair of bolt cutters, so might as well just leave your doors wide open all the time" line of thinking