Quote:
Originally Posted by cameron0620
You need to realize that code executes in pieces. Once the voting function is complete and the next map is chosen, who voted for which map is irrelevant. To log who voted for which map and then add check cycles for whether people disconnect or not and which maps they voted for would add tons of overhead.
Not to mention that once a vote is completed many players accept the chosen map as the new map and make the choice to stay or not. Your method would mean that the next map would not actually be set until the map itself changes because as people leave the new map would change. I don't see that as fair on the people who see the results of the vote and decide to stay because that is the map they want to play.
The people that choose to leave after the vote obviously don't want to play the map that was voted for and in my opinion the fact that they leave shouldn't effect what map the players who choose to stay have to play.
The only way I see what you are asking for working is if a check was added to do a recount of the results only if someone leaves who voted for the winning map. Even that adds lots of overhead because who voted for what map would have to be saved after the voting function had completed and then rechecked when a player disconnects. On top of that, if a player disconnecting changes the results of the vote then the plugin would have to redisplay a message to remaining players explaining what happened and what the new map would be. If a second player disconnects changing the vote again, then even more messages would need to be displayed confusing players.
^^ This is all speculation on how the plugin code functions based on how I would write it without actually reading the code itself. It seems like that requested function would require a huge rewrite and more resources. I also think it would add uncertainty as to what the next map would actually be and whether or not players should stick around after a vote.
The idea has merit, but as I see it, the implementation would be more problematic than the problem it would solve.
|
Sorry for my late reply to this. I've been busy with other stuff. Anyway, you clearly didn't read the whole entire post. In the last sentence, I said
"I propose the idea to add a feature where admins can revoke a players voting rights who shits on a fair vote". You need to take the time to not lazily read, rush read, half ass read or selectively read parts of a post.
Im tired of banning people from my server who do that annoying crap(wrecking votes). An alternative is needed. Like I said, a feature to permanently deny voting for players who wreck a vote. Something like this would be a filter which would execute before the vote is even displayed, to determine who can vote and who cant.
__________________