SphereServer BugTracker - SphereServer
View Issue Details
0002037SphereServernew feature requestpublic11-09-11 01:3714-12-13 19:44
babidi 
khaos 
normalminorN/A
closedfixed 
20-09-2009, 0.56b Prerelease 
 
Not Available
None
None
0002037: a server function like allclients -> allplayers
i think could be good to had the possibility to:
add serv.allplayers that works like allclients but even on people disconnected.
i know exists forplayers but is limited to be done by a character in game, and limited to only first map. so if you want allplayers, even on other maps, you have to travel map 1-5 and do a forplayers on every map, then put together the results. ofcourse if a player goes from map 0 to map 5 while you are doing the work, it will be counted 2 times...
No tags attached.
Issue History
11-09-11 01:37babidiNew Issue
14-12-13 17:42khaosNote Added: 0001817
14-12-13 17:42khaosStatusnew => closed
14-12-13 17:42khaosAssigned To => khaos
14-12-13 17:42khaosResolutionopen => no change required
14-12-13 17:44babidiNote Added: 0001818
14-12-13 17:44babidiStatusclosed => feedback
14-12-13 17:44babidiResolutionno change required => reopened
14-12-13 19:25khaosNote Added: 0001822
14-12-13 19:26khaosNote Edited: 0001822bug_revision_view_page.php?bugnote_id=0001822#r544
14-12-13 19:44khaosNote Added: 0001826
14-12-13 19:44khaosStatusfeedback => closed
14-12-13 19:44khaosResolutionreopened => fixed

Notes
(0001817)
khaos   
14-12-13 17:42   
FORPLAYERS, FORCLIENTS, and FORCHARS could be used for this.
(0001818)
babidi   
14-12-13 17:44   
not realy.
for* are useful only on the map of the player is used of.
(0001822)
khaos   
14-12-13 19:25   
(edited on: 14-12-13 19:26)
FOR can be run per map, then check for FORPLAYERS/FORCLIENTS within that FOR.

FORPLAYERS already works on disconnected and connected players. FOR can be used for MAP access.

(0001826)
khaos   
14-12-13 19:44   
Script option was given above. I don't see a reason to add more to the internal resources if this can be done via a script. Possible addition maybe, it is noted; but again... it is more than doable as it is. I don't see a reason to add it at this given time.