/GIPV Message

[GenGar]

I noticed that there is a small error when a Trusted Player (level2) attempts to use the / GIPV command on level 1 or 0 players.

The error is the following:

lf you (Trusted Player) try to use the (/GIPV) command on another Trusted player that is not inside of a vehicle, the following message will appear:



The problem is that: lf you try to use the (/GIPV) command on a player of level 1 or 0 that is NOT INSIDE a vehicle the same message appears:



But if you try to use / GIPV on a player of level 1 or 0 that is INSIDE a vehicle another message will appear:



lt would not be correct to just use the same message "* Sorry, Player123 (ID: 69) is not TP so you can not get into their vehicle." For both cases?

[Churre]

Hey, I don't think that's an error, it's right If it tells you that the player is not in a vehicle, but when the player is in a vehicle is when the "player is not a tp" message should be displayed, also that message can't make confussions since we can check /tps

[Muaaz]

The problem is that: lf you try to use the (/GIPV) command on a player of level 1 or 0 that is NOT INSIDE a vehicle the same message appears:

Well, as far your suggestion is concerned. I don't think it's really important the reason is there are so much important things on which we should focus rather then these. There are some useless commands like /colors do the same thing as /colors2, /tps do the same thing as /tpslist. So i don't think it really makes a big difference now you will report these all little things? I'm typing /listtps and it's showing me total trusted players list but on the same time it's showing me on screen *Muaaz typed /tps to see the online Trusted Players, while it should show *Muaaz typed /listtps not /tps.

So according to me it's not a big thing, and about your suggestion. When a TP types /gipv on a normal player he will get a message "Player1 is not in Vehicle" while it should be "He's not a TP so you cannot get into his vehicle". Well having said that it's not a big thing there are many important things on which we should focus. But if this thing gets added i mean updated it's fine but it's not a big deal though like i mentioned.

[GenGar]

Hey, I don't think that's an error, it's right If it tells you that the player is not in a vehicle, but when the player is in a vehicle is when the "player is not a tp" message should be displayed, also that message can't make confussions since we can check /tps

It could not make any distinction if a player LV 0 or 1 is in a car or not.

The message: "Player123 is not a TP ..." could appear even if the player of level 1 or 0 is in a vehicle or not.

Well, as far your suggestion is concerned. I don't think it's really important the reason is there are so much important things on which we should focus rather then these. There are some useless commands like /colors do the same thing as /colors2, /tps do the same thing as /tpslist. So i don't think it really makes a big difference now you will report these all little things? I'm typing /listtps and it's showing me total trusted players list but on the same time it's showing me on screen *Muaaz typed /tps to see the online Trusted Players, while it should show *Muaaz typed /listtps not /tps.

So according to me it's not a big thing, and about your suggestion. When a TP types /gipv on a normal player he will get a message "Player1 is not in Vehicle" while it should be "He's not a TP so you cannot get into his vehicle". Well having said that it's not a big thing there are many important things on which we should focus. But if this thing gets added i mean updated it's fine but it's not a big deal though like i mentioned.

Even if I were not the player to report this case, another player would notice and could report

And in case of importance I think that I and everyone who has read my POST will agree with you.

It is not a revolutionary suggestion

But as you can read at the beginning of my post you will notice that I referred to the error as something small without much importance

[Muaaz]

Even if I were not the player to report this case, another player would notice and could report

It can be true but trust me fam the way you find the things by going into details. Lol that's something i mean amazing xD. You go very much deep and i like that thing it shows your interest in GamerX. The way you go in details in such little things not all go xD.

You know some people could post this in bug reports too or report any error/mistake. What you did is also fine. People could be like why we getting that when he's not even a TP why that error it can come in that buggy sense.

But again as i said it's not that much issue. Anyways about your suggestion yes it will be fine thing if this thing gets updated.

[Robo]

This command was made for admin, it makes sense that it check first if the player is in a vehicle, as the command name says "get in player vehicle". This isn't "get in trusted player vehicle". You can hope as if it check for trusted player first if the scripter copied the whole command code to a new one specialized function for trusted player.

But as most of coders will done, they will completely ignore it, as it's made simple and more efficient. From the usability side, since the user is a Trusted Player, they are expected to know already it's for teleporting to another trusted player.

Is it error still? Yes. But does that matter? Not at all.

Below is a lazy flowchart i made from my observation on how the command works:

You can see how it's redundant to check the player's level twice, but it seems to be more simple and possible thing to do. Since this command was for admin, if the player level is 3 or higher, that will be faster than those who are level 2. Probably in the last process, there might be a slight differences between admin and tp, let's say to make it sure it display message of trusted player, not admin, which is wrong if i draw the flowchart to one same process.

If you are able to arrange or make a better algorithm without copying it into a new function command, then i'll see why your suggestion is really matter.

Again, i'm just telling my opinion, not accepting/rejecting the suggestion, that's not my job. Like muaaz said, it's indeed that there are other more important things need to be evaluated than this. I mean, focused work on that.

I also see that you posted this in suggestion when you said it's error where it should be posted in bug reports. It's getting difficult to list these all in one forum. But nah it's okay, this is just a forum, not a bug track site.