@addwarp modification

[Maki]

Always wondered why we have @addwarp but not @removewarp! Regarding this, the @addwarp command should also be modified:

@addwarp 'name'

The 'name' field allows warps to be named so they can be removed without restarting server

i.e. @addwarp 'event hidenseek 1' prontera 200 200

@removewarp 'name'

Name field again allows warp to be removed.

Refer to Brian's post for more updated information.

[Brian]

Warps added via @addwarp can be unloaded with @unloadnpc if you make note of the user-un-friendly warp name it gives you when you use @addwarp.

Or if you have the right-click GM menu, you can right-click, kill the warp.

1.

i.e. @addwarp 'event hidenseek 1' prontera 200 200

If we add a <name> option, I suggest add it at the end of the parameters and make it an optional param.

Current format (that everyone is used to) is:

Params: <map name> <x coord> <y coord>

PS: code would also have to check if unique NPC name already exists because the warp added by @addwarp is a new npc object.

2.

@removewarp 'name'

I vote no. Users who want this behavior can add the alias to trunk/conf/atcommand_athena.conf

unloadnpc: ["removewarp"]

[Ind]

Warps added via @addwarp can be unloaded with @unloadnpc if you make note of the user-un-friendly warp name it gives you when you use @addwarp.

you dont need to remember it, gms can right-click npcs to unload them -- alternatively right clicks also lists the name of any npcs you click.

[Maki]

It is much much easier to remember it; On DarkRO where we had roughly another 12~ GMs, we all would make a list of the warps we added via @warp (just so we could remember the location of the warp).

I agree with Brian's method: @addwarp <map name> <x coord> <y coord> <name>

It is MUCH easier to type in:

@unloadnpc map1

@unloadnpc map2

@unloadnpc map3

@unloadnpc map4

@unloadnpc map5

@unloadnpc map6

@unloadnpc map7

Then it is to go to all those locations just so we can right-click remove them.

---

So, an NPC created in Prontera will receive a name similar to '324132154' or something like that. Not so easy to remember (and it takes some time trying to determine exactly where the warp is and what name it was given). Additionally, it would give us the unintended ability to create random warps via NPC and be able to remove them without additional effort from within the NPC to figure out where they are.

+1.

[Euphy]

The name parameter should be optional, and if you try to create a warp with a name already in use, default to the original behavior.

[Ind]

The name parameter should be optional, and if you try to create a warp with a name already in use, default to the original behavior.

I agree it should be optional, however if the name is already in use I think the command should fail instead -- you may not want to create a warp with a random name.

[Maki]

+1, that sounds fine.

[Maki]

Renamed topic as @removewarp is no longer needed for suggestion.

[Lighta]

Agree that we may not need a new command but we may add the alias by default in the configuration (since not everyone may know they could remove it like that).

And if I resume we need to change the commande so it require a name right ?

-ok do we allow same name and hide the unique id that will give him in that case ? (like could be usefull to create like a group, @addwarp w1, @addwarp w1 => @removewarp w1 (remove both) or it's just too complicate and keep it simple ?

Also from the exemple you gave I,d prefer do @unloadnpc w1,w2,w3... (read a list instead 1 at a time)

[lekkereten]

Added on r16919

Please tell me if it is what you suggested

[Maki]

If there is already another warp with that name the generic name will be used instead.

I would rather the command fail, if possible. It seems more user friendly that way.

Yes, the command should fail instead of using a generic name.

[lekkereten]

Ok, I'll commit that.

[Brian]

do we allow same name and hide the unique id that will give him in that case ?

I vote no, because @unloadnpc requires the unique npc name.

Also, warp npcs don't have Visible or Visible#hidden names, so it's just the unique name that's important.

Added on r16919. Please tell me if it is what you suggested

Yea, what Jman and Maki suggested.