Right now the server sends two separate messages after each kill.
"too much loving was killed by 3v17 4v3Ng3R
too much loving dropped guided missile"
How about replacing these two lines with
"too much loving (GM) was killed by 3v17 4v3Ng3R (SW)
That would reduce the number of server messages by almost 50% and thus make it easier for players to keep track of what is going on.
kill and flagdrop in same server message
- too much loving
- Private First Class
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 7:47 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
- CannonBallGuy
- Private First Class
- Posts: 2083
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:31 am
- Contact:
What if you drop a flag without dieing...?
Merry Christmas!
"Look, if I don't buy booze for the kids, I don't get any incriminating pictures to show to their parents, my business goes down the sink, my girlfriend leaves me and the baby goes on ebay. So help me search..."
"go Play With Toys urself in a dark alley u donkey ******" - Lt-Kirby2007
- too much loving
- Private First Class
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Sun May 23, 2004 7:47 pm
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
It should be possible to code the server to discover whether or not a tank drops a flag due to dieing, So it is possible to implement my idea without changing the server message for "manually dropped flags".CannonBallGuy wrote:What if you drop a flag without dieing...?
It would also be nice to disable server messages for manually dropping flags, but I see that as a different subject.
The two events don't happen at the same time, and are handled by separate protocol messages. I don't think it would be a very good idea to complicate the network proto to fix this, either.
You can hack it into the client if you like (the client makes and phrases those messages, not the server) but it'd be a bit messy.
You can hack it into the client if you like (the client makes and phrases those messages, not the server) but it'd be a bit messy.
Optimism is just a milder alternative to denial.
- Sky King
- Private First Class
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:07 pm
- Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota, USA
I don't think anyone is suggesting hacking into the client or server;
I think it was being suggested as a potential enhancement to be incorporated into a future release of BZ.
And I agree, btw... The chat window on a busier server is simply a flood of information that often comes too fast to be useful. I am all in favor of things that slow the chat window down to a reasonable speed.
I think it was being suggested as a potential enhancement to be incorporated into a future release of BZ.
And I agree, btw... The chat window on a busier server is simply a flood of information that often comes too fast to be useful. I am all in favor of things that slow the chat window down to a reasonable speed.
Retired Army--Proud to have served
Armored Cavalry Crewman, 1981-1984 (M60A5)
Infantry Officer & Paratrooper, 1984-1986
US Army Ranger & Sniper, 1986-1989 (LRSD)
Water Cooled 8-Core Ryzen 7 2700x @ 3.7GHz | Radeon RX590 GPU | 43" 4K Monitor
Armored Cavalry Crewman, 1981-1984 (M60A5)
Infantry Officer & Paratrooper, 1984-1986
US Army Ranger & Sniper, 1986-1989 (LRSD)
Water Cooled 8-Core Ryzen 7 2700x @ 3.7GHz | Radeon RX590 GPU | 43" 4K Monitor
I said "hack it in", not "hack in". It's a modification that could be done client-side somewhat easily, just not very cleanly.Sky King wrote:I don't think anyone is suggesting hacking into the client or server;
I think it was being suggested as a potential enhancement to be incorporated into a future release of BZ.
Optimism is just a milder alternative to denial.