Suggestions
- Thread starter SSNTails
- Start date
Superjustinbros
Member
Anyone feel like restoring the flag pedestals from 2.0's Icicle Falls to the 2.1 version, candles and bright lighting and everything?
Steelie
Haunted by a couple big mistakes
Bring admin-ban back. It really helps cleaning stuff when the host is away and there's this dumbass that just keeps and keeps rejoining that you want to get rid of really bad. I think it would also be good if you had the host able to switch it on and off for admins to be able to ban.
Edit: While I'm at it, give the host the ability (host only) to disable/enable specific weapon rings and panels rather than all of them.
Edit: While I'm at it, give the host the ability (host only) to disable/enable specific weapon rings and panels rather than all of them.
Last edited:
Burning-Fox
Does not approve of rails.
^ ALL OF THIS. PLEASE. RAILS WOULD NEVER SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN MY SERVER EVER AGAIN! *clears throat*
Ahem.
Seriously though, it's a good idea to allow the admin ban thing, as well as disabling specific weapon pannels. I mean come on, red rings on their own suck.
(Another cool idea would be 1.09.4 ring mode. *killed*)
Ahem.
Seriously though, it's a good idea to allow the admin ban thing, as well as disabling specific weapon pannels. I mean come on, red rings on their own suck.
(Another cool idea would be 1.09.4 ring mode. *killed*)
Superjustinbros
Member
So, idea.
Allow server settings to be saved upon shutdown so when I host a new server it remembers my settings from last time.
Especially if I set it so All players are required fro finish a map, but when I change the map, it goes back to one player needed.
And I also need the ability to kick players with spaces in their names.
Allow server settings to be saved upon shutdown so when I host a new server it remembers my settings from last time.
Especially if I set it so All players are required fro finish a map, but when I change the map, it goes back to one player needed.
And I also need the ability to kick players with spaces in their names.
Last edited:
gregory_house
Also known as TemporaryAl
That can be done just by typing "nodes" in the console to see the player's node number, and kicking the node number instead, as in "kick 3" for example.
Unless you already knew and you're asking for it to also work with names containing spaces, but it's really easier with nodes anyway.
Steelie
Haunted by a couple big mistakes
Which is also easy; all you have to do is to add " in front of the name. ex. kick "Random Player <reason>
Unknownlight
Member
Sort of a question, sort of a suggestion:
Why is the special stage select labelled as "NiGHTS Mode"? Wouldn't it make more sense if it was just called "Special Stages" in the menu? Not everyone knows about NiGHTS. It's an odd example of the game requiring outside knowledge for the player to understand the name.
Why is the special stage select labelled as "NiGHTS Mode"? Wouldn't it make more sense if it was just called "Special Stages" in the menu? Not everyone knows about NiGHTS. It's an odd example of the game requiring outside knowledge for the player to understand the name.
Goldenhog
Wandering Protagonist
There are a lot of problems with that specific option, one being what you just mentioned. There's also the thing about not many people wanting to do NiGHTS maps. Imagine someone trying to unlock it without knowing that, since the level pack/mod they are playing(with its own custom gamedata and everything) has no NiGHTS maps, it's actually impossible to unlock.
"I collected all the damn emblems, beat the game thrice with all the characters and with all the emeralds, beat the secret levels thrice with all the characters, broke all the records at the same time both in Record Attack and in the main campaign while in Ultimate Mode and that option is still locked!? WHY"
There should be a MAINCFG thingy to just hide that option away.
Alternatively, you can just unlock it from the start. If you never visit any NiGHTS stages in your mod, it just says there's no stages available and doesn't let you in. This is what I've been doing so far.
Rex The Kitsune
Annoying Purple Dude
Development on the game has been kinda slow I think, but the devs are working on bugfixes and the netcode still I believe.
ChaosX
Member
Tell me when the map modeling starts :P. I'm free for everything.
Rex The Kitsune
Annoying Purple Dude
Virtual, they just finished 2.1. I don't think they're going to be working on maps until a lot later. There are more important things.
TheXIIIthGuy
SHINING FINGER
This would be a good idea. But instead of making a command for letting ALL admins ban or not, I would instead add a command that allows a certain admin (specified by node or player name) to be (un)able to ban. Rather, a set of commands to specifiy what that admin can or cannot do. I know it would be tedious, and 2.1 is already out, but I'm just suggesting it, and that's the whole point of this thread... right?
Pure-Fat Inc.
Member
Sure but... an admin on your server should be someone you trust, not just some random dude you met yesterday or so. I wouldn't give admin to someone who's asking for it (obviously...). And a final note, if you don't need an admin in your server, don't give it to someone just cause you feel like you need one.
Steelie
Haunted by a couple big mistakes
Of course, but this is about the admin's abilities. Wether the host is a moron and gives the power to another moron, then it's entirely his problem and shouldn't really be discussed here.
TheXIIIthGuy
SHINING FINGER
Both of you made some good arguments there. Let me give my point of view on both of them.
You're right. When I host, I don't often need an admin, and when I do, I give it to someone I trust. However, as you may see, I am not speaking for myself. There are others who are new/ignorants and don't follow this rule, or times where common mistakes are made (like, leaving your server without any kind of supervision, or giving admin to someone who seems to be trustable, but are not). But still, the abilities of a host or his mistakes shouldn't be my concern.
That's true as well. Some admins are not fit for their role, and can make a mess of a server. However, shouldn't the host be able to see whether a person is trustable or not? And shouldn't the host himself take measures if he decides to go AFK for a while? Even if the host isn't able to do these things, it shouldn't be one of my concern, and neither yours (unless you want to help him improve, of course). But still, common mistakes are made, and it's better to be safe than sorry.
In the end, my idea about setting privileges or restrictions for admins is debatable. However, you should consider bringing admin ban back. If you trust someone, you should be able to give him FULL control of your server, right?
You're right. When I host, I don't often need an admin, and when I do, I give it to someone I trust. However, as you may see, I am not speaking for myself. There are others who are new/ignorants and don't follow this rule, or times where common mistakes are made (like, leaving your server without any kind of supervision, or giving admin to someone who seems to be trustable, but are not). But still, the abilities of a host or his mistakes shouldn't be my concern.
That's true as well. Some admins are not fit for their role, and can make a mess of a server. However, shouldn't the host be able to see whether a person is trustable or not? And shouldn't the host himself take measures if he decides to go AFK for a while? Even if the host isn't able to do these things, it shouldn't be one of my concern, and neither yours (unless you want to help him improve, of course). But still, common mistakes are made, and it's better to be safe than sorry.
In the end, my idea about setting privileges or restrictions for admins is debatable. However, you should consider bringing admin ban back. If you trust someone, you should be able to give him FULL control of your server, right?
Last edited:
