R2D2

[Ephialtes]

- snipped -

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. You've shown him how to package a method which has nothing to do with player spawning (because it doesn't exist) so you're still an idiot.

[Ad Bot]

[Monty]

This thread made me Lol audibly at the incompetence of some.

[rkynick]

Another way to do it would to be to package over the specific datablock's onadd(so you don't have to do all the checking to make sure it's the right datablock).


Anyways, megascience, your issue is that you stuff some stuff together, don't test it, don't check for syntax, don't even indent correctly, and then get pissed off when Ephi comes along and posts a working code.
You shouldn't be giving help if you aren't going to take the time to make sure its relatively correct.

[Ephialtes]

Another way to do it would to be to package over the specific datablock's onadd(so you don't have to do all the checking to make sure it's the right datablock).

I actually ended up using this because onAdd isn't called for setDataBlock so your method wouldn't work for datablock changing in both events and minigames.

Code: [Select]

package R2D2Spawn
{
   function applyCharacterPrefs(%client)
   {
      if(!isObject(%client.player))
         return;

      Parent::applyCharacterPrefs(%client);

      if(%client.player.dataBlock $= "PlayerR2D2Armor")
      {
         %client.player.hideNode("ALL");
         %client.player.mountImage(R2D2Image,$BackSlot);
      }
      else
      {
         %client.player.unhideNode("headskin");
      }
   }
};
activatePackage(R2D2Spawn);

[MegaScience]

Anyways, megascience, your issue is that you stuff some stuff together, don't test it, don't check for syntax, don't even indent correctly, and then get pissed off when Ephi comes along and posts a working code.
You shouldn't be giving help if you aren't going to take the time to make sure its relatively correct.

Do I have to give him FLAWLESS code? If I don't, will I get torn apart by little imps? No. I was giving an example. I never said it was working code, it's a concept for one. He's supposed to learn how to script.

If people like you come around just giving people full code with them having no effort, they'll literally never learn. They need to put their own effort into it, do you understand that?

[Falcondude]

http://forum.blockland.us/index.php?topic=21811.0

Just figured I should post this, as it's great if you don't know how to work package/parents.

[Monty]

Do I have to give him FLAWLESS code? If I don't, will I get torn apart by little imps?

Yes, giving people with relatively sparse scripting skills non-functional code is just asking for trouble.

[Ephialtes]

Do I have to give him FLAWLESS code? If I don't, will I get torn apart by little imps? No. I was giving an example. I never said it was working code, it's a concept for one. He's supposed to learn how to script.

If people like you come around just giving people full code with them having no effort, they'll literally never learn. They need to put their own effort into it, do you understand that?

You're totally missing the point. He asked for help with packaging the on spawn method and you give him some code to package a method that doesn't exist. That's just misleading him completely because you didn't know what you were doing because you're an idiot. You could have added "i'm not sure about the onSpawn method so maybe you should check that out more" but instead you tell him to figure it out for himself. I don't think you'd know how to write crappy hacky code if someone hadn't helped you in the beginning either.

Infact you even said "fix it yourself" so you knew it was totally broken haha.

[FlyGuy45]

Mega, there is a reason I do not go on xFire anymore. Guess why.

[WRB852]

Mega, there is a reason I do not go on xFire anymore. Guess why.

I lol'd. Hard.

[MegaScience]

You're totally missing the point. He asked for help with packaging the on spawn method and you give him some code to package a method that doesn't exist. That's just misleading him completely because you didn't know what you were doing because you're an idiot. You could have added "i'm not sure about the onSpawn method so maybe you should check that out more" but instead you tell him to figure it out for himself. I don't think you'd know how to write crappy hacky code if someone hadn't helped you in the beginning either.

Infact you even said "fix it yourself" so you knew it was totally broken haha.

At first you say I was saying it in a mean way, then you say that just plain not working is bad. The way you speak there suggests you get my point (for once) but want to be right since you hate me too much to agree in any way.

I lol'd. Hard.

1: He blocked me already.
2: I use Windows Live mostly now.

All it was was the basic concept. If he can't fill in at least part of it with the correct coding, then I don't think he should be messing with it.

[Ephialtes]

All you did was show him a concept that he can find anywhere, you've just added a load of misleading stuff. The problem here is that you're delusional enough to think you can actually code competently but when you find that you can't work out an incredibly basic problem, you have to weave yourself a little cocoon of ignorance using a silky thread of lies and excuses.

Does it never worry you that everyone you add on any messenger protocol ends up permanently blocking you at some point? I think it says something about you as a person.

If he can't fill in at least part of it with the correct coding, then I don't think he should be messing with it.

If you can't even write the correct stuff, you shouldn't be messing with it let alone advising other people on how to do things. Go back to html, friend.

[MegaScience]

You can't admit that if you do all the code for them, they'll never learn it themselves and always need your help. You bring up unrelated things instead. You keep stating misleading, yet I always say how it won't work and they will have to figure it out.

It seems every time I give an example code the person is supposed to figure out the problems with and put together them self, you come out of nowhere yelling I'm handicapped for saying a code I told them to work out them self. It's never supposed to work, you come out like it's supposed to. You only do this for me, and I can't wait for the response to the italics.

[Ephialtes]

You can't admit that if you do all the code for them, they'll never learn it themselves and always need your help. You bring up unrelated things instead. You keep stating misleading, yet I always say how it won't work and they will have to figure it out.

It seems every time I give an example code the person is supposed to figure out the problems with and put together them self, you come out of nowhere yelling I'm handicapped for saying a code I told them to work out them self. It's never supposed to work, you come out like it's supposed to. You only do this for me, and I can't wait for the response to the italics.

I hate you more than most people, simple. So does everyone else by the looks of things.

You're still missing my point. It would be acceptable for you to say "ok here's how you do a package, now you figure out the name of the spawn function" but instead you lie to them and say its something else. That's pretty irresponsible in any case.

@The bold stuff:
"Quick stuff, fix it yourself." - Very helpful. I can see exactly where the problems are, thanks for being so clear.

[MegaScience]

Well, I guess I'm done here. Any response to this will be ignored.