Actionrconline
 

This would be nice to have, just an edit of the actionplayeronline code.

It isn't that hard to emulate this.

Debatable. Since RCs don't trigger an actionplayeronline, you'd need to loop through all the players every x seconds. Problems:

1) Much less efficient than if an actionrconline feaure were implemented.
2) What if the person logs in and out quickly enough to avoid the loop?

You're right Kaimetsu, but I have never
had those problems.

How can they be avoided?

And what's with the line breaks?

Are you asking me how I would avoid the
problems you stated using the current
scripting technologies?


I'm using Mozilla on RedHat 9 and for
some reason it messes up when I get to
the end of the text box. So I have to hit
<enter>.

Yes.

Just one more reason that Linux is better than Windows.

Perhaps one more reason that a certain installation of a certain version of Mozilla on a certain version of Red Hat isn't better than the majority of installations of the majority of versions of Internet Explorer and Mozilla/Netscape on Windows. ;)

NPC Code:

---

if (actionplayeronline) {

  for (i=0;i!=allplayerscount;i++)

    with (players[i]) 

      if (strlen(#F)<1)

        setstring thiso.rcs,#s(thiso.rcs),#a;

}

---

I just typed that up so there may be
spelling mistakes, but other than that it
would work just fine, wouldn't it?

Sure, if RCs triggered actionplayeronline. Which they don't.

The point is that things like this don't often happen when using Windows.

Perhaps; however, they do not necessarily often happen with Linux either, when there is but one occurance of this with one type of browser on one version of Linux to base that statement upon.

You could edit to where when a RC signed
on all s/he has to do it type '/npcON' and
that would work.

But if they did not type that, then the action would not be triggered.

-What if the intended effect was something the individual RC did not want?

-What if that RC did not have NC?

Then you could make it so the RC has to
PM the NPC-Server. I don't really see why
you guys are asking me this, though.

That is still not an automatic way to do it.

I know this :) .

*shrugs*

This is why I implied plurality of reasons in my initial post. Lots of people have problems like this because of the absence of standard standards.

...?

The system is supposed to automate the process. Making people type something every time they log in is hardly a good substitute.

You could run a timeout every 5 seconds,
but that goes right back to where we
started.

I don't really know why you are asking me
to answer this anyways :\ .

Because you said that you could answer it.

They weren't, you just started and they countered everything you suggested with a reason why it wouldn't work well.

Atleast that's what I think happened, I forgot most of what I read.

Read Kai's second post in this thread.

thiso strings are only used when you are getting another NPC in a with statement, no point in using them when you get the player, since you can't save a this.string to the player serverisde, it will save to the npc

Hmm. Would using thiso break the NPC? If not, it seems like a good habit. It makes sense.

Doesn't break it, works exactly the same as just a regular this.string in the way he's using it. I believe Jagen was just saying it'd pointless to use thiso.string when a this.string works the same, and thiso.string is for when accessing another NPC with getnpc().

It may not be necessary, but it's more logical.

How is it more logical?

Because it explicitly specifies what it is doing, rather than relying on people knowing that players don't have this.strings. It's more uniform.

Actually, GrowlZ and myself have run in to an un-predictable occurance with the allplayers check of #F. Seemingly it didn't check only rcs. This was when we were resetting account with the npcs server. When an account is reset, strlen(#F)<=0 and thus the player is detected as an RC. "actionrconline" or an "actionnewrc" type of thing would be a welcomed addition.
---Kain

The way it's used it won't change anything. There is no logic behind what you're saying. Relying on people knowing that players don't have this.strings? Who are these "people" you speak of? Only people with NC would be able to see that, and they won't think of any difference between a this.string and a thiso.string.

Ugh, it's always difficult to explain the concept of standards to new programmers. Uniformity is a good thing. Using thiso to refer to your own strings - even when it is not necessary - promotes uniformity.

That was one of the more stupid remarks which I've seen of yours.

You have no clue about my past in programming and my knowlege in it. Just because you are a ***** jackass doesn't mean act like one 24/7.

I've programmed for years, so you can take that stick and shove it you know where.

And thiso.strings already have a preset use, as Jagen stated, so what you're saying is completely retarded, just like you.

Grow up, get a life, stop acting like you're better than everyone else, because you're not...you're a worthless POS with no friends. G'day sir. :D

I don't find it more logical at all, simply because of the fact that serverside, this. strings don't exist for the client, therefore using a this.string makes sense, since they only set on the active npc, and the npc that is getting the player, is the active npc

Well, okay. Either you're a new programmer or you're an old programmer who never learned anything. Better?

Indeed they do; specifying that the strings to be accessed are those of the active NPC. Just as they do in Trevor's script.

Now, would you like to continue this debate with some maturity or are you going to continue to resort to pathetic flaming?

All you're establishing is that it isn't necessary to use thiso.strings. Do you disagree with the statement that it promotes uniformity?

I don't see the point of uniformity, I tend to use thing for the purpose of what they are created for, if you set a thiso.string on an npc that isnt getting another npc, it'll convert the thiso. to this., so I find it rather pointless to set it as a thiso. string, since thiso. was created for the purpose of accessing strings on the npc the is calling the active npc

Again, how do you know ANYTHING of my history? By what we're discussing you can't even BEGIN to say I know knowing about programming.

Need I say more?


Now we both know if we go back and look at our conversations on these forums you are the one who started with the immature and pathetic flaming....so it's only immature and pathetic when I do it? Hypocryte...

One's ability can often be inferred from the statements they make. Such is the case here.

Not really...he made one nonspecific comment about your programming ability (and the lack thereof), which launched you into some immature flaming of Kaimetsu. His statement, which you appear to consider a flame, was stating a point. Your response was, as he said, immature. It had no point, other than to flame.

Go read what was said again, because you're mistaken. What was said in no way shaded any light into my programming history.


Again, go read back. He did more than make one nonspecific comment, and it wasn't just to me...

But naw, he didn't do it but once....

And read that post again, it did have more of a point than just to flame...though I admit, about 50% of it was just flaming him.

And, well Frankly, I dismiss anything you have to say for the simple fact that you're already pissed for a stupid reason. When that crap with Nem was going down you came on Delt's RC saying you were going to put a script up to prevent 'em from going on RC or some crap....and we told you you couldn't put it up, but you could pm it to Riot or myself and you refused. We asked you not to touch any NPC's on the server just as a safety precaution, and you did...so I d/ced you and you got all upset and vowed never to help Delteria again....Actually I think it's hilarious that you got so pissed over us taking safety precautions. :rolleyes:

Then you have a lot to learn.

Because he uses things for their created purpose? If that's the case, 99% of programmers have a lot to learn. :rolleyes:

Follow your own advice. Read what was said. You did not understand the benefits of uniformity.

I'm not pissed. In fact, I have found it quite humorous that you failed to comprehend such a basic principle as set IP ranges in global RCs, or that an NPC could crash an RC. In fact, if you were in such disbelief that that could occur, why would you have had such a problem with me adding it in such a time of need? That is rather self-contradictory, wouldn't you say?

Additionally, your scripting knowledge is far below par, as was illustrated once again on N-Pulse when you failed to acknowledge the insecurity of control-npc triggeractions and in fact removed about an hour or two's worth of work by removing the logging system I had created for them. It was logging such insecure triggeractions so the levels which called it could be located and remedied. [sarcasm]But no, you are the all-knowing all-wise god of scripting, and you are always right. [/sarcasm] You, sir, are as Kaimetsu said, and as you have illustrated time and time again, an idiot. Thus, when I witness you making a fool out of yourself, I will point and laugh, as it is frequently funny to watch fools putting their ignorance on parade.