A message (to all) when someone crashes

[murdoxix]

Since at IV:MP we have crashes so often, sometimes we are in the middle of an RP and someone disconects and you don't know if crashed, /q'ed, or what. So I think that would be cool to have a message to all when someone crashes, like:

'Sauron(1337) has crashed.' or 'Sauron(1337) has left the server (crashed)'.

/discuss y0

[Talya_taya]

Unsupported due to personal matters, I refuse to talk more about this!     

[BojanS]

I think everyone should see that, not Administration only.
/supported

[yoske]

Not sure it is your (or anyone else) concern did someone left or he crashed. If you are RPing I guess he would say that he needs to go. If you doubt he abused commands to avoid anything you may contact administrator.

[murdoxix]

Unsupported due to personal matters, I refuse to talk more about this!     

LOL! I'm not sure if you're serious or not.

I think everyone should see that, not Administration only.
/supported

Not sure it is your (or anyone else) concern did someone left or he crashed. If you are RPing I guess he would say that he needs to go. If you doubt he abused commands to avoid anything you may contact administrator.

I requested a message when someone crashes, no when someones /q'es. If you're RPing and crashes, you have no opportunity to say that you crashed :P (till you come back...)

[Talya_taya]

Im serious with a non serious behavior xd

[murdoxix]

Im serious with a non serious behavior xd

:P but try to explain why you don't support it, please!

[thejorens]

I kinda like the idea but at the same time I don't see the point.
If someone leaves an RP mid-sentence with no warning, you can kinda guess what happened, can't you?

[murdoxix]

I kinda like the idea but at the same time I don't see the point.
If someone leaves an RP mid-sentence with no warning, you can kinda guess what happened, can't you?

Hm... The thing is that maybe you're in the middle of an RP and the guy leaves without any warning, he /q'ed, but you think that he crashed because it's a common thing so you spend 10 minutes waiting him to return, when indeed he /q'ed and didn't crash.

[Talya_taya]

I rly dont get the point , if u re mid of rp, u can always ask an admin ifthe guy u rp crashed or q ed, unless its so e cop- suspect situation a person hardly /q without saying bye or sth like the reason he /q , you can always ask admins to be sure or wait till server is enterable, if one crashed, he ll try to rejoin ASAP, in this case the only thing that will slow is full server which will cause him to wait, so wait till player slots are available 2 3 times(crashes of ppl wont make u wait much) to be sure he is not in queue. Once u see 3 4 secs it is 31/32 in TAB u can be sure there is no one coming anyway.

[Batta]

This is a feature only the administration can access to, and should stay like this.

Since this function is not 100% precise, this would just bring to useless discussions and conclusions.

[Talya_taya]

This is a feature only the administration can access to, and should stay like this.

Since this function is not 100% precise, this would just bring to useless discussions and conclusions.

Knew it wasnt %100 :^3

[SugarD]

It really depends on how the system detects it, too. I know in an older version of Argo's SA:MP's scripts, they had to use a command to check the user upon return for the result. In LU's upcoming scripts, a pre-defined function+event by the server itself allows us to detect it as soon as it happens. I'm not sure how IV:MP has it coded, but the method could be why it isn't 100% accurate right now. It really just depends on what scripting functions and events are available to the server's development team.

As for the idea, I don't see why not, assuming it is made accurate. If users can't really agree on it, you could always make it a toggle-able option per user.

[murdoxix]

I rly dont get the point , if u re mid of rp, u can always ask an admin ifthe guy u rp crashed or q ed, unless its so e cop- suspect situation a person hardly /q without saying bye or sth like the reason he /q , you can always ask admins to be sure or wait till server is enterable, if one crashed, he ll try to rejoin ASAP, in this case the only thing that will slow is full server which will cause him to wait, so wait till player slots are available 2 3 times(crashes of ppl wont make u wait much) to be sure he is not in queue. Once u see 3 4 secs it is 31/32 in TAB u can be sure there is no one coming anyway.

Since crashes are a common thing on IVMP, they happen so often, so I wouldn't like to ask an admin (if there are any online) if someone crashed or not everytime that someone disconnects.

This is a feature only the administration can access to, and should stay like this.

Since this function is not 100% precise, this would just bring to useless discussions and conclusions.

I know that this feature can be only accessible by the administration at the moment, that's why I'm requesting a message to all. Why you say that should stay like this? Now we can't have changes? I think that if we, the non-admin users, receive a message when someone leaves the server due to a crash, it would be an useful feature for us and would help a lot the admins, because we'll not have to contact them to ask if someone crashed or not.

Could you explain why isn't 100% precise?

It really depends on how the system detects it, too. I know in an older version of Argo's SA:MP's scripts, they had to use a command to check the user upon return for the result. In LU's upcoming scripts, a pre-defined function+event by the server itself allows us to detect it as soon as it happens. I'm not sure how IV:MP has it coded, but the method could be why it isn't 100% accurate right now. It really just depends on what scripting functions and events are available to the server's development team.

As for the idea, I don't see why not, assuming it is made accurate. If users can't really agree on it, you could always make it a toggle-able option per user.

I like your idea ! Anyway, if we have a toggle-able option, everyone should be able to know if X player enabled or disabled it.

[Batta]

Why you say that should stay like this?

As I said, the function is not precise. I'm not sure but I'd say 60% of the times it's correct. There are also more options than /q or not-/q and this could create even more mess.

Some tools, such as this, are reserved to the administration because they would have a bad impact if available for everyone.

Furthermore this would increase dramatically the cases of "pre-decided sentences"/complaints made by players. We wouldn't be contacted anymore to know if a player used /q or not, but we'd simply get reports, which in most cases would be unfounded or based on prejudices.