All trolling aside, I think it's a good idea. Some maps cause the vanilla server to clear at certain times. I think it would only work if it was unanimous. That prevents abuse, and like what was mentioned before... you can always switch servers.It should also only force a timelimit hit so that it plays the next map. Voting for a specific map is a terrible idea on FFA servers.It really has to do with the audience and number of players. Dm4 cleared out very fast today because we only had 4 players to start. I'm sure that dm4 at 10:00 tonight will be 16+ players and everyone will have a blast. Sometimes I can coax the morning crew into nades only, but there are a few maps in rotation that are not friendly to it. (lab, dm3, etc...) The ability to switch maps would help keep people engaged when they are in a certain crowd.My real question is this: Can wallfly handle this, or would it have to be a server change? I'm guessing that letting wallfly handle it is not realistic because that means maintaining a secondary list of players, real time, that has to be accurate to account for votes including contingencies like timed out clients. He may be smart enough to do this already, but if not it's a lot of work to duplicate some server side efforts.
Quote from: peewee_RotA on October 22, 2011, 09:44:00 AMAll trolling aside, I think it's a good idea. Some maps cause the vanilla server to clear at certain times. I think it would only work if it was unanimous. That prevents abuse, and like what was mentioned before... you can always switch servers.It should also only force a timelimit hit so that it plays the next map. Voting for a specific map is a terrible idea on FFA servers.Now and again I've thought of adding this functionality to the existing "nextmap" command.Currently "nextmap" displays the upcoming maps, but perhaps with an additional parameter, it might work like this:player1: nextmap now!WallFly[BZZZ]: Do others agree? Need 4 more votes to end current map......something like that.Quote from: peewee_RotA on October 22, 2011, 09:44:00 AMMy real question is this: Can wallfly handle this, or would it have to be a server change?I'd want to implement this with wallfly.Trouble is, it's difficult (but not completely impossible) for wallfly to tell who is in-game and who is spectating.My inclination would be to limit the voting to players who are currently in-game (and possibly who have at least 1 frag.)Regards,
All trolling aside, I think it's a good idea. Some maps cause the vanilla server to clear at certain times. I think it would only work if it was unanimous. That prevents abuse, and like what was mentioned before... you can always switch servers.It should also only force a timelimit hit so that it plays the next map. Voting for a specific map is a terrible idea on FFA servers.
My real question is this: Can wallfly handle this, or would it have to be a server change?
VaeVictis:i find it funny that you even consider grammar a sign of intelligence, that itself is a very uneducated claim
I guess I do see the point that only a few "select" maps get played over and over...it's less of a problem at ACMEctf though, as the players and admins are a little bit more of an intimate group...so why not do this here then?:When a map gets voted, it can't be voted back in for 10 maps!example: mapvote fury passes, map gets changed to fury, map is played, then when it is attempted to be re-voted, Wallfly bans fury from choices and displays message "This map cannot be voted for another 10 maps!"Wouldn't that solve the problem of circle-jerk map-spamming, and still fix the problem of server-clearer maps?Just a thought.