I want to block the use of UGC accessories in my experience

[colbert2677 (ImagineerColbert)]

I’ll have to quote reply this since you’ve brought up a huge assortment of points that are starting to veer heavily off topic and out of scope for my feature request, and hyperfocusing on the wrong things.

@Andy_Wirus

Almost everyone who joins the game will likely use up to six API calls when they first join and never again.

This is wrong. If an experience is to account for any number of combinations a player may change between, then it’s not going to be up to 11 calls on entry (maximum number of accessories per player). You don’t want to architecture a system thinking of only the most minimum limits. Assuming players will never change their avatars during gameplay is a bold assumption.

@Andy_Wirus

If that sounds concerning to you then I implore you to abandon any calls to HttpService or the use of DataStores, because their rate limits are both stricter than MarketplaceService:GetProductInfo, and inherently more likely to have their limits lowered due to their abuse potential, even bearing in mind that all of those API limits are significantly more likely to increase anyway.

It is more intuitive to only flag an asset once for the experience or a set of experiences’ lifetimes and never again, so this is generally unavoidable. It is possible to save a flag only for the current session’s lifetime but that forces me to reevaluate an asset for every other session which is just straight up unnecessary. I shouldn’t need to perform this flag again if I’ve done it before.

@Andy_Wirus

The code works to scale, the API limits scale. In fact, the API limits scale upwards of 100 requests per minute per player. I performed the benchmarks and even posted the results in my last reply

I’ve already addressed this.

@Andy_Wirus

what you actually want, only requesting “better tooling”

@Andy_Wirus

It’s written like a scripting support thread by someone who doesn’t know about the XY problem.

@Andy_Wirus

First you want to simply ban UGC, then it’s about the few bad apples not spoiling the barrel, then it’s back to being about banning UGC entirely not being feasible because of API limits that are somehow too strict, or the idea that it would somehow be feasible with a VPS instead but you can’t afford one, then about removing avatar customization altogether, and finally just vaguely asking Roblox to solve the problem for you, which can’t really mean anything other than better UGC moderation.

A feature request is written to highlight a problem, not a potential solution. Please read How to post a feature request - a key point is that developers are to write requests focusing on problems and use cases, not potential solutions.

I’ve written a resource about the XY problem - yes, that’s about focusing on a proposed solution instead of the actual problem. The thread is written to avoid discussing potential solutions (they are intentionally listed in a “motivation” add-on for the feature request and not the main body). These posts here are hyperfocusing on your proposed solution and not my actual problem.

@Andy_Wirus

Speaking of detail, how is it inappropriate to criticize your thread?

Flag it or message me privately.

@Andy_Wirus

I do in fact agree that this is not a useful discussion at all, but I also won’t accept the attacks on my character calling my words “disingenuous”.

The post is disingenuous and dismissive, but I have not attacked your character at all. I would love for this discussion to remain respectful if it actually contributes to the thread, but it currently doesn’t.

---

Once again, please don’t respond to my thread if you’re going to argue for the sake of arguing or make off-topic replies. I appreciate your contribution but it doesn’t belong here, you can write a resource thread for that. I’ve talked about existing methods in the OP and how I do use them but would appreciate native support for blocking UGC accessories via website configuration.