LS Management

[Soukyuu]

I'm going about being unable to kick a player if they are not online AND standing right beside you. So basically if you have someone in your LS you want to kick, you have to hunt them down. Or break your LS. Same applies to inactive members.

The way i imagine the LS is implemented is a list of names, containing your rank in the LS. So why does removing a name from a list require a, let's call it "zone" check? The player is on the list, so why can't we just remove it? Not only that, they are claiming that enabling us to remove players independent of their zone status would require a major rewrite of the LS system.

(Inviting to a party works independent of players being in separate zones btw)

this was suppose to get added in 1.21(there was a post from yoshi on it)

Could you please find the link? I can't remember them planning to do anything before 2.0

[Skies]

I'm going about being unable to kick a player if they are not online AND standing right beside you. So basically if you have someone in your LS you want to kick, you have to hunt them down. Or break your LS. Same applies to inactive members.

The way i imagine the LS is implemented is a list of names, containing your rank in the LS. So why does removing a name from a list require a, let's call it "zone" check? The player is on the list, so why can't we just remove it? Not only that, they are claiming that enabling us to remove players independent of their zone status would require a major rewrite of the LS system.

(Inviting to a party works independent of players being in separate zones btw)

I think that about this time it's a "Spaghetti Code" issue as a friend of mine put it. I can't actually disagree with you that it seems like it should be simple, but it isn't for some god-forsaken reason, and my wild guess is due to the zone structure, and not a forced check. Same way that buying something straight from the market ward Search feature seems to 'rezone' you. It's less that they have a 'zone check' or 'distance check' and more like the operation is somehow impossible if the other person is on another zone/distant.

WHY is it this obnoxiously stupid? I am very sure that whoever is in charge of looking over the LS code right now is asking himself this same question.

[REDace0]

Ah! That explains why it has to reload everything. It throws you into the zone of whichever ward you're buying from temporarily without telling the client to render anything from that zone. You still have to render the characters fresh when you return though.

This is starting to make sense to me now. Apparently all, or nearly all, player data is actually carried inside the current zone. This is a very poor design choice obviously, but I think this must be the case. It explains why seemingly simple tasks take so much time. They require the creation of entirely new tables and functions to link data from multiple zones.

[syntaxlies]

I'm going about being unable to kick a player if they are not online AND standing right beside you. So basically if you have someone in your LS you want to kick, you have to hunt them down. Or break your LS. Same applies to inactive members.

The way i imagine the LS is implemented is a list of names, containing your rank in the LS. So why does removing a name from a list require a, let's call it "zone" check? The player is on the list, so why can't we just remove it? Not only that, they are claiming that enabling us to remove players independent of their zone status would require a major rewrite of the LS system.

(Inviting to a party works independent of players being in separate zones btw)
Could you please find the link? I can't remember them planning to do anything before 2.0

i looked for the quote but couldn't find it. you would have to check all the dev post. it said something along the lines of: after the item search is complete we plan to revamp LS system for 1.21, how ever this will be a difficult task.

Someone posted it it in another LS management thread back in DEC(i think dec), but i couldn't find the thread.

i had also re-posted it in another thread and posted it on my LS website but it doesn't save the shout box that far back.

I do know that it was created after the original post that said they couldn't do it because of server limitations.

[Soukyuu]

Apparently all, or nearly all, player data is actually carried inside the current zone. This is a very poor design choice obviously, but I think this must be the case. It explains why seemingly simple tasks take so much time. They require the creation of entirely new tables and functions to link data from multiple zones.

My only reaction, if this is true is:


It would also explain why they don't want to be to specific when telling us they can't do it, they are probably just too embarrassed to admit just how many design mistakes they did.

[neorei]

LSMES
LSMES
LSMES
LSMES
LSMES
LSMES
LSMES
LSMES
LSMES
LSMES
LSMES
LSMES

[Bongeh1986]

I'm with Crim on this one.

Let's be skeptical, lets presume the engine has been coded so terribly in the first place, that for instance, for player A to interact with player B they need to be in the same zoned area.

So perhaps the command might look like this presently.

PlayerA has to send this message to PlayerB
[playerB breakPearlForLinkshell:linkshellNameID];

And, if playerA doesn't have access to a pointer for playerB then it can't send that message.

However, there is no reason why commands should be sent from player to player, surely all commands are sent to the servers, and thusly the servers back down to the players.

So, in reality, it should be more something like...

[server breakPearllayerID ForLinkshell:linkshellID];

the player would then receive a message from the server

[self breakPearlForLinkshell:linkshellID];

Simples?

What if that player is logged off? :O, well, then the pearl should be set as a flag in the players userdata and then be broken when he logs in.

However. /pcmd add "player name" works across zones. You can practically invite people from anywhere.

Bad excuses for not remedying the linkshell kick/remove and atleast a MOTD litterally 8-10 months ago, are unacceptable.

[Myrhn]

i'm ok with the first 2 but the others that is just how u manage your ls don't need that in game u can do that on a web page

[syntaxlies]

i'm ok with the first 2 but the others that is just how u manage your ls don't need that in game u can do that on a web page

i see a lot of people downplay what LS management shouldbbe like. heres what the competition has,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fVuohgoHX8

[Myrhn]

i see a lot of people downplay what LS management shouldbbe like. heres what the competition has,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fVuohgoHX8

Thats very nice but it works there because they actually lvl the guild/ls, in here fo far we don't do that sort of stuf so is not really necessary and that can be leave outside