Gates questions - making sure I understand the mechanics

[vatas]

You can change the lock to anything if you have the Master Key for the currently installed lock.

Owner of a personal claim and villagers of a village claim do NOT gain visitor buff when entering through visitor gate located within aforementioned claims.

Not sure about the third question but it would make sense you gain two different visitor buffs, one for pclaim and one for vclaim. Visitor Buff will persist as long as you are within the claim and will remove whenever you exit claimed area, thus it's extremely important that your claim covers everything inside your walls.

[loftar]

I understand hearthlings can't commit crimes after going through the gate until they leave the claim.

That is not entirely correct. The visitor buff prevents a hearthling from committing crimes against that claim specifically. If, for example, you get a visitor buff against a village, but not against a private claim inside that village, since private claims take precedence over village claims, you can commit crimes against that private claim. Likewise, there are some crimes that aren't committed against a claim at all but against a character (like stealing things from knocked-out or dead hearthlings), and such crimes can also be committed despite having a visitor buff.

We have considered changing the visitor mechanic to indeed work as you thought it does, that is to make hearthlings under a visitor buff entirely unable to commit any crimes at all, since that seems to be what people expect, but there have always come up one or another reason to not do that. I can't recall them right now, however.

[shubla]

. Likewise, there are some crimes that aren't committed against a claim at all but against a character (like stealing things from knocked-out or dead hearthlings), and such crimes can also be committed despite having a visitor buff.

So you can steal from a character even with visitor debuff on, but not aggro a character? What is the point behind that, both sound like crimes against a character for me.

[Phaen]

Well shoot I'm glad I made this thread then! Thanks loftar for the correction. Looks like I have some testing to do for confirmation.

I assume assault and battery are crimes against the character? Can someone tell me if they have tested out punching and/or KOing a hearthling in one of the markets?

[mvgulik]

So you can steal from a character even with visitor debuff on, but not aggro a character? What is the point behind that, both sound like crimes against a character for me.

Perhaps the fact that characters in aggro'ed/(combat) mode can't pass trough visitor gates might have something to do with that. Which seem a none issue for dead character ... as there travelling days are over.

(which would logical wise include not being able to assault or battery a character while having any visitors buff)

[shubla]

Dead and unconscious bodies should be property of the claim that they lie within, just like chests and animal carcasses.

[vatas]

Btw visitor gate not letting people, who are in combat, through indirectly fixed the borderline exploit where you get aggro'd by someone while AFKing or waiting (accidentally gained) Outlaw to tick down through an open gate and once you're aggro'd, the visitor buff won't stop you from getting beaten to death.

[Enjoyment_2]

We have considered changing the visitor mechanic to indeed work as you thought it does, that is to make hearthlings under a visitor buff entirely unable to commit any crimes at all, since that seems to be what people expect, but there have always come up one or another reason to not do that. I can't recall them right now, however.

I can help you there, those reasons were posting answers in this thread earlier. One of those, who always aware of all the hidden mechanics. Like someone with a shell...

[loftar]

So you can steal from a character even with visitor debuff on, but not aggro a character? What is the point behind that, both sound like crimes against a character for me.

Well, the specific reason for that is that it is a consequence of the "castle doctrine" implementation, where you can aggro other characters on your own claim without that being a crime.

I can help you there, those reasons were posting answers in this thread earlier. One of those, who always aware of all the hidden mechanics. Like someone with a shell...

What are you even trying to imply?

[vatas]

I can help you there, those reasons were posting answers in this thread earlier. One of those, who always aware of all the hidden mechanics. Like someone with a shell...

What are you even trying to imply?

A snail is, in loose terms, a shelled gastropod.