Wanted: flag: dontconnectlevels

[Lance]

As described in:

http://forums.graal2001.com/forums/s...threadid=48167

Would return true if the player has "don't connect levels" enabled.

It would be good for the new engine, it could be a player. variable.

[Thallen]

Sounds like a good suggestion, but it what case could this flag be used constructively?

[Lance]

Originally posted by Thallen
Sounds like a good suggestion, but it what case could this flag be used constructively?

To fix an otherwise difficult to solve problem in trainer-user catchers.

[DustyPorViva]

Yes, like on DD, we have gralats on walls and a lot of times people say their levels aren't connect and when they change levels end up on top of it.

[Lance]

Originally posted by DustyPorViva
Yes, like on DD, we have gralats on walls and a lot of times people say their levels aren't connect and when they change levels end up on top of it.

That too.

(Though, when laying fake gralats, it is important not to put it near level boundaries, so players cannot use that as an excuse. )

[Deek2]

Is this the only reason? Because I don't think it would be needed, then. There are plenty of other ways of implementing the efficiency of this idea without having to add something to the engine. As you said, the fake gralat method works fine as long as it doesn't sit near the level boundaries.

[Lance]

Originally posted by Deek2
Is this the only reason? Because I don't think it would be needed, then. There are plenty of other ways of implementing the efficiency of this idea without having to add something to the engine. As you said, the fake gralat method works fine as long as it doesn't sit near the level boundaries.

Yeah, the fake gralat method works fine, but is inefficient. Why? Because once they know what the fake gralats are, they won't touch them any more.

[Deek2]

Originally posted by Lance


Yeah, the fake gralat method works fine, but is inefficient. Why? Because once they know what the fake gralats are, they won't touch them any more.

Well, then there are other ways to knock this out, too. Fake gralats isn't the only way. You could run a script to see if the player is on a wall or not.

[Lance]

Originally posted by Deek2

You could run a script to see if the player is on a wall or not.

Which happens to contain the tricky problem which this var would solve. -_-

[zell12]

make a script to detect if a placer is onwall for more then 3 seconds or so.

[Lance]

Originally posted by zell12
make a script to detect if a placer is onwall for more then 3 seconds or so.

It still has the same flaw, though. -_-

[Crono]

Originally posted by zell12
make a script to detect if a placer is onwall for more then 3 seconds or so.

It only takes around 1.3 seconds for someone to get the rupee off the roof and go. o_o;

[CheeToS2]

I'm not quite sure how you would want to implement dontconnectlevels into an onwall-checking script x.x.. mind explaining? It sounds like you want to make it so if don't connect levels is turned on, it would ignore that player.. but that doesn't make any sense x.x

[zell12]

Well, when someone crosses a level and don't have connect levels on, they will end op on houses or trees in the next level sometimes. Mabey thats what he means?

[DustyPorViva]

Well, lag can be an issue with wall detectors like that, and gralats(even if you put them away from boundries).

I, myself, experience a blank green level when I enter a level until it loads, and by that time I am mostly in the middle of the level, even farther.

[Deek2]

Originally posted by DustyPorViva
Well, lag can be an issue with wall detectors like that, and gralats(even if you put them away from boundries).

I, myself, experience a blank green level when I enter a level until it loads, and by that time I am mostly in the middle of the level, even farther.

Then the flag wouldn't even be efficient, because even then the script checking for the flag would need to be loaded within the level. If the level isn't even loaded yet, then the script will still be error-prone.

[Lance]

Originally posted by CheeToS2
I'm not quite sure how you would want to implement dontconnectlevels into an onwall-checking script x.x.. mind explaining? It sounds like you want to make it so if don't connect levels is turned on, it would ignore that player.. but that doesn't make any sense x.x

I don't want to post how because there is still the possibility that it could be abused, but it would make them 500% more effective :-\

Edit: Also, there could be an extra set of code for how to treat people who have dontconnectlevels on (e.g. even to the extreme of not letting them play the server until they turn it off).

[Thallen]

Originally posted by zell12
make a script to detect if a placer is onwall for more then 3 seconds or so.

I strongly doubt any manually-scripted effect will have that sort of detection, it has flaws and people could still hack, that's what GP's are for.

[SaijinGohan]

When I play on my old 222, levels take forever to load. If I know where something is, I can walk anywhere on the green screen and when it loads its right there for me to get. Then I reconnect and get the green screen again and go back where I wanted to be. Hacking? Na. dontconnectlevels wouldn't solve things for people like me. >.>

[draygin]

Doesnt using a GMAP do the same thing with out scripting? I know I've tried to not connect levels when on a gmap and it wouldnt let me. So if all you're trying to do is keep people from playing the server if the levels arnt connected or such why not just use a gmap and they levels will always be connected? Unless there is an except with gmaps I missed some where. I know you mentioned GMAPs weren't the answer to your question in the previous thread but I'm curious as to why that is?

[Tyhm]

For such things, you could just detect if all 4096 tiles in the level were the same green tile...in theory

[DustyPorViva]

How would that work if no NPCs have been enabled yet?
A WNPC?