Open GoogleCodeExporter opened 9 years ago
I have wanted to do this for a long time, but I'm not sure how to handle
multiple players with toggling yet.
Original comment by overv161@gmail.com
on 11 Jun 2010 at 2:08
This should be easy to do, i have always wanted this it is kinda anoying to do
1/0 all the time. But ti would also be cool to have both so it detects if there
is a 1 and then gives them no limits when you do "!nolimits person 1" or
detects if they have limits or not then when you do "!nolimits person" they
have nolimits because they had limits before. That would be nice and work for
all people.
Original comment by samsnatw...@gmail.com
on 14 Oct 2010 at 11:33
Ehm, I was talking about handling this situation:
ply1 has noclip enabled
ply2 has noclip enabled
ply3 doesn't have noclip enabled
ply4 doesn't have noclip enabled
!noclip ply1 ply2 ply3 ply4
Original comment by overv161@gmail.com
on 15 Oct 2010 at 5:19
For non 1:1 situations, taking the percentage of the toggle states of the
players and using the greater percentage to override the current state for all
players. e.g.
ply1 noclip enabled
ply2 noclip disabled
ply3 noclip disabled
Assume ALL are disabled.
For the 1:1 situations, I think some sort of bias would be needed, maybe one
that can be changed via chat command, and perhaps a different bias for
different states based on the nature of the command (though that might be a
little much overkill, still nice though) Here's a situation
Assign Igniting with a bias of 0 or off, as you're more likely to turn it off
than on (unless you are an evil admin.
ply1 is ignited
ply2 is ignited
ply3 is not ignited
ply4 is not ignited
In pseudo,
globalbias = 0
if percentage on == percentage off then
if globalbias == 0 then extinguish all players
else ignite all players
Not the best pseudo I know, I think it gets the point across though. What
thinks other people? Sure a few refinements to this idea are floating about :)
Side note, I guess just number comparison instead of doing percents is less
work, both for coder and interpreter . Whatever you prefer :P
Original comment by thatcute...@gmail.com
on 16 Oct 2010 at 5:21
Another side note- I think keeping the 1/0 argument as an master override would
be good too. A little direct control for the people that enjoy commandlines :P
Sorry for the Comment spam. <3
Original comment by thatcute...@gmail.com
on 16 Oct 2010 at 5:30
Perhaps it could call for a new line of commands t that needs to be issued,
eg: !blind
!unblind
However, it would only make sence for a few of the commands.
Original comment by dancedan...@deadvalley.net
on 30 Nov 2010 at 4:48
Agree with #6 (and #5 was mentioned in the first line of the bug tracker, haha,
but yeah, it'd be super handy for someone wanting to make SURE you're not on
fire anymore instead of accidentally setting you on fire again, etc).
So, I suppose the question though is... how does Evolve handle states? Does it
even *have* states? For example...
!ignite overv
BLAM! You're set on fire! YAY! Teehee... :D
But... what happens? Does the game just go "add fire to overv" and that's it?
Does it go "overv is now on fire *ticks check box*, and add fire! *adds fire*"?
How? (If it works the second way, I'm sure you can guess how to fix this, haha)
Original comment by DEMONI...@gmail.com
on 30 Nov 2010 at 6:48
I'd like to see
!gag
!ungag
!mute
!unmute
!ignite
!unignite
!noclip
!unnoclip
etc.
Original comment by jimvanko...@gmail.com
on 18 Feb 2011 at 11:29
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
DEMONI...@gmail.com
on 11 Jun 2010 at 4:24