Gift: Warpto System for Non-RCs
 

I was tired of seeing ETs, FAQs, GPs etc with RC so they can have "warpto" and such. It's not needed, and the rules actually prohibit it for dev worlds. So I spent about 20-30 minutes writing (and chatting, he he) a script to replaec this. I've added a few more features than most playerworlds that have these have. Rather than just giving them a weapon and them warping and summoning and such, it's a little bit different.
The weaponname is "-Warpto System", and unless you edit the trigger then it needs to remain that way. There are three types of warps you can: xy, xylevel, player. XY being able to do "/warpto 30 30", XYLevel being "/warpto test.nw 30 30", and Player being "/warpto Projectshifter". It is "/warpto" rather than "warpto" so it does not cause any confusion and does not overlap the existing system (mainly so you do not get the (not authorized) chat).
Also you can add rights. In the Control-NPC, if you go to 'Edit flags' then you can do:
warpto.requirerights=true/false -> which in turn means that if they are false, anyone with the system can use all the warps, but if it is set to true, then the next thing comes into player:
rights.account=xy,xylevel,player -> which translates to if I had rights.Projectshifter=player it would mean that I could ONLY warp to players. There is a few commented lines at the top of the script with some further information. I would encourage it's usage, as long as you leave the comments at the top, and it is "Globally Sanctioned" I suppose, considering I am GST and all, he he.
Just as an end note, all warps are logged into logs/warpto_system.txt, and if you are warping to a player, you can also use their nicknames. And no need to include double quotes for things such as "/warpto Projectshifter (GST)" because it contains a space. If you DO warpto a player, even if you use the nickname, it logs the account name (in the proper case-sensitivity) in the logs. Enjoy, and let me know if you like it =)
-Projectshifter

*Starts a "Slow Clap" that gets louder and faster until a huge applause breaks out*

That is without a doubt...Genius. Good job ^^ >_<

I hope a lot of dev worlds start using this system or something similar, I smell a crackdown coming.

*ominous gaze*

Clap Clap Clap. Very good :eek:

Very simple, indeed. And I don't even program. *shrug*

Eh, keen I guess? Why a FAQ would need warpto is beyond me anyways. Also, isn't it possible to just use /openrights on the account and give Warpto, but still not give out RC by not adding the user account to the serverops? Correct me if I'm mistaken.

LOL, you are mistaken. Many servers will add to staff= and then set their IP wrong, which clutters up staff= and is annoying. Plus this is logged =p

Nice man, good to see that you're working hard for the community, you're an example of good global. :)

Pretty neat script, easy to follow I have some crits but none that I can think of without opening the script again so good job! :D

There should be a new server option called 'warprights'
The people's accounts that are in it would be able to use warp rights if they're no included in the staff list.

I take it then you have never been a FAQ on a large server, getting asked multiple question at once?

http://forums.graal2001.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=53288
Copied to the Playerworld Related Information, for easy access when it gets knocked off the front page.

Why in the world would you have to warp to the person to answer a question?

A lot of FAQ teams actually go and HELP the players as well. THAT would be the purpose of them "requiring" warpto.

FAQs (which I think is a horrible name) should answer questions and that is all. There is no reason for them to warp to a player to do that. For a person to be a FAQ they should have sufficient knowledge of a server, enough so to answer questions without warping to a player.

I imagine you are relating helping to quests and the like, so I'll give my input on that.
Quests are designed to be for the players to figure out on their own, not for a FAQ to walk them through it. What is the point in the time it took to make the quest if a FAQ helps a player through it?

FAQs need warpto to warp to players for help.

And uh, warpto systems have been out FOREVER.

oh cool a warpto system

Nah, most people know I'm not a fan of what I call "non-essential staff", but I will admit that once or twice I've seen things put to use. Whether or not it is 100% needed, I will say I've seen FAQ's put to good use if they apply themselves, and warping to players sometimes does help. It's easier to "show people what to do" than tell them, and this does not always relate to quests.

That's nice and all, but you're not the one running the servers. If that's how they want their staff to do their jobs, that's up to them.

*shrug*

RC is used for communication purposes and such as well. Sure you can use PMs, but that is slow and bulky for trying to speak to multiple people. Especially with GPs, who may have to discuss bans or jails.
In my experience, it leads to a closer community among the staff. Nobody feels left out.

Theoretically, LATs don't need RC either. They can just send levels to administrators. It's really a preference issue; RC is a useful tool to keep your staff coordinating with eachother easily. More RCs can streamline your operation, provided they're legitimate staff positions and not overdone (nobody needs 10 FAQs).

Seems strange you're the only global that seems to feel this way... We've been over before how the number of RCs should be limited. With "discussing bans and stuff" there isn't much of a reason. And you CAN script /openban alternatives with comments and all. A stronger community between non-essential staff, and staff that actually work are, does what good really? Then you just have friends, one that has RC for a tool, and one that has RC to "bs" and goof around... I fail to see how that is useful. Nonetheless, you don't have to criticize everything. Sometimes you should just learn to say "thanks" or "okay" and move on. Whether or not you agree or disagree with this doesn't effect anything. Obviously some playerworlds will ignore it and continue what they're doing, and some will use it and be happy. I've already discussed with Spark about making this perhaps mandatory for non-essentials. GPs are debatable, but FAQs, and ETs don't really need them. If it comes down to mandatory use of such things (Spark and I agree on the abusiveness of /summon and how it is not really necessary), I will probably end up making an event NPC as well. Similar to GK's :tc I suppose.
-Projectshifter

Yes, but providing players, for example for FAQs with rights such as warpto and update levels makes there job a lot easy and more efficient. This thoeretically gives them the ability to log on to RC. However if a FAQ Administrator or server manger states that no FAQ may use Remote Control, lest they be fired immediately where is the problem. This system has worked on the Classic server, FAQs have the rights wich they require to do the job, but are not allowed on RC, and not once yet have I seen a FAQ go on RC. This way FAQs can have the tools required to perform their job, and the playerlist isn't cluttered up with people pointlessly idling on RC.

Theoretically? Try removing that word and the sentence is correct. ;)

...and yes, RC firing has been a good deterrent, but seems... unnecessary. I don't think it was really necessary for Stefan to make it so your IP has to match for you to be able to use the "update level" and "warpto" commands. It just caused this stupid RC problem some servers now have.

Or, perhaps people could not give others RC access unless they intend to give them RC access.

You know, either way.

Just because other people feel different doesn't mean I should change how I think.
To that which is necessary, yes. However, there is a difference between having a bare minimum and having an efficient server. I find that GPs do their jobs better with the ability to add comments (also a function of RC) as well. Sure you can add comments with a script, but how efficient is that? How are you going to keep track of people? It's much easier to be able to make comments with some sort of format.
Let's see.
There are no feelings of inferiority. I wouldn't want my staff feeling left out because of them lacking an RC.
As I said before, scripting is inefficient for comments. How are you supposed to follow the commonly used (and easily readible)
Date:
Time:
Reason:
format if your comments are in a string? It just seems to create needless work for scripters to make such a system, there are better things to do.

Those friends will just be given RCs as "LATs" or "NATs" or other such things, regardless of whether they do work or not. Friends tend to get higher positions than these anyway.
I'm a PWA. It's my duty to comment on these things. Especially if what you say in the next bit is true.
Telling the playerworlds that they have to use these NPCs isn't going to make them happy. Telling them they can't let their staff have RC is also a bad idea. I have no trouble reading the Server Options provided they list their staff in (Manager) (Co-Manager) (Admin) so the whole reading issue isn't so bad. It's not going to cut down on friend RCs either, the managers/admins who hire their friends will just make them NATs or somesuch to get around it.
The RCs you are targetting -GPs, FAQs, and ETs- are not security threats. So the security issue doesn't apply so much here. The idea of RC restrictions is to minimize the amount of damage done to a playerworld if it gets attacked, not to try and impede server managers.

Post script: As an afterthought, please do not tell playerworlds they can't have GPs/ETs/FAQs with RC. Somebody came to me and accused you of such.

...? No RC access == no "update level" or "warpto" ability without a script. So I don't know what you're talking about.

Why would ET's needs update level anyway??

My point hath been underlined. The important part hath been bolded.

For updating levels?
Sometimes events get stuck.

Convenience. Go talk to GCs on Classic, you'll soon learn the use of the command.


I assumed you didn't mean that, as that has already been made clear. However, you're forgetting that Classic doesn't HAVE an NPC Server yet, thus the problem exists there, and cannot be solved.

I thought the reasons for restricting the number of RC's were for the fopllowing reasons:

1. PW Secrity - I fail to see how update level and warpto, can be used to cause any damage on a playerworld anyhow? Sure, someone may warp around and PK people, using update level to unpause them, but there's nothing else they are going to be able to do with it anyway.

2. So the playerlist isn't cluttered with duplicates - As before, people don't have to use RC itself to use warpto and update level, thus they have no need to be on RC and shouldn't be on it, doesn't mean they shouldn't haev the warpto and update rights associated with it though.

Actually I see that keeping it via script is much easier to keep track of. Can you do /openbanlist or so and find out who's all banned and such? It wouldn't be hard to keep a list of who is all banned, you could actually make a time-released ban where you didn't have to rely on human-error to take care of releasing players. Yes, I see how this would be SO horrible :O

LOL, so you'd rather give your staff useless and pointless things to make them feel special and not "left out" because they have what they need for their jobs? Yes, I see how not giving someone an RC because it's unneeded, they can still do their job exactly as they would before with the proper NPCs, and it wouldn't effect them. When you said earlier about LATs sending in levels, a good deal of LATs directly make backups and edit levels, which is another scenario alltogether.

Heh, actually if you do it properly you CAN keep comments in a string... how do you think the forums do it? Ever hear of the HTML command <br \>? The standard is \n for a linebreak, and it is very possible to code a GUI which will display this all. Perhaps rather fill in the stuff automatically and what-not. Not very complicated, just would require a bit of work. "needless work for scripters", how can it necessarily be needless if we're looking at setting a mandate for it and this would allow it to be possible? Or at least some servers would get use out of it. I don't know about all the other coders, but to me, if it gets used in a legitamite way, no script is "needless work".

Except this will still cut down on the problem. Most FAQs/ETs/GPs etc are not necessarily friends, but they get hired honestly to my knowledge. So it might not fix 100% of the problem, but it will sure do a sufficient job.

I know you haven't realized this yet, but somehow arguing with another global over something they put time in to help the community, doesn't make you look good, nor do it do much good for the image of the global community. So yes, at times you should learn to "sit on your hands", please.

Since when has our jobs been about "pleasing the playerworlds" vs. making the game better and such? Our jobs are not to make the playerworlds happy, but if that is possible we should. The whole point is to weed out non-essential staff on RC, which is made for essential-staff. It was not really a big deal with the staff= other than it being huge when it wasn't needed x.x

Actually you'd be surprised how much warping can be abused, and if you give someone RC, most servers randomly give out unnecessary rights... which isn't very smart. I don't see it as 'impeding upon server managers' as much as realizing that the server managers are given permission, rights, and power via GraalOnline, so if GraalOnline decides to limit non-essential things, I fail to see how this is a problem? The point is, that Graal does not answer to server managers, it's the other way around. Graal decides what rules apply in general, and as certain servers with GPs/ETs/FAQs etc are felt not to be needed on RC, then the policy changes. And this isn't even the discussion. The whole point was that this is a gift. Playerworlds can choose to use it or not, stop turning everything into a personal battle and grow up please because I refuse to do this in the public eye anymore. I am not going to have the global image lowered because you can't grow up. So stop this nonesense and please, if you have a problem, say it in private to me and not make a fool of yourself and the community out in the open =/ If you dare reply with a snide or indecent comment, you have just fallen a notch in my eyes.

I really could care less what I am accused of, and if I did say something, you should take it up privately with me. Actually, they should take it up privately with me. And if you cared to investigate, I'm sure you'd fidn that this was on a development world, where, as the rules state, they are not to have non-developmental staff. kthanxbai
-Projectshifter

What if the script gets tampered with? There goes your ban list. You've got to factor in those maintaining the script.
Maybe if that feature was added in 3.0 RC, there wouldn't be a need.

I'd rather my staff be *happy*. Happy means staff are in happy moods, treat the players nice; which in turn makes the players happy, and the happy players will stay on my server.
Futhermore, it's not a question of making them feel special; it's a question of making them feel wanted.
As I said, it is a needless mandate and it is also pushy. I've not experienced any problems as a direct result of GPs, FAQs or ETs having RC. I don't know why we need this.
It won't cut the problem at all.
I know you haven't realized this yet, but maybe the players don't want someone who is not even a part of an appropriate department to unilaterally declare RCs for their staff rosters illegal. Here's a notion: forcing your ideas on people just because you have them doesn't make you right.


These people PAY Graal's expenses.
People will not PAY for playerworlds if they do not have a certain amount of freedoms to develop their server to their choosing.

Besides that, happy people make more productive workers... look into it. Some of the things the PWA has done have made managers unhappy, but these things were done so that further unhappiness would be prevented. Limiting high-power RCs probably saved alot of grief for alot of people. This, however, would do nothing of the sort. All it does is needlessly tell people what to do. There is no security benefit. There's no convenience benefit, especially if the server is against using it.


Who're you to decide what is non-essential?
I don't disagree, but I also think that adding policy which can cause major protest over something so minor as "making it easier to read" is unwise.
You just said it was in the works of becoming a mandate. And I got complaints about you telling people it was such. What do you expect me to do? Ignore my job?
This isn't a personal battle, either. It's a policy battle. You just said yourself that you effectively don't care what the managers think (or the countless GPs/ETs/FAQs you'd be discouraging). Good job on keeping your "global image" up to snuff.
You should have brought it up to us, as it is our job to deal with such issues.
As I understand it:
GST scripts.
PWA enforces playerworld rules.

This NPC is not necessary as you can simply put an ET in server options and set his rights yet set his IP Range to 0.0.0.0 to prevent access to RC.

You can do that but without the proper IP range he won't be able to use any of his rights.

Aye, so it is, I stand corrected.

I thought of that as well, but I guess the point is to clean up serveroptions.

I don't think it should be mandatory for anyone, this warpto system for "non-essentials". For me, having staff with RC allows to me take care and manage them more appropriately.

Eh, it'll work either way. It just depends on your preferences. If you want to just set warpto rights in their accounts, then that's fine. It's also fine if you just want to give them a warpto NPC. Many servers chose either one. Neither is inherently better than the other.

Ah you speak the truth, and neither should be forced upon a give playerworld. Let us choose and it should be left at that. Righto?