Don't worry Mazer, I'm sure someone will be able to come up with it eventually
Computer Science Canada Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
| Author: | Mazer [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
CompSci.ca has recently migrated to the new V3... thing. With the change we have gained many features. But it would seem that some things have gone missing as well. This is in regards to a post from around 2003. If you have any information regarding our old friends Ryu and Strider Hiryu (who, as you should recall, owned all of your mothers), as well as brave Zatoichi, please help us to recover our past. Only then can we begin to secure our future. Thank you. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
Don't worry Mazer, I'm sure someone will be able to come up with it eventually |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Thu Jan 18, 2007 11:50 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
What the hell?.... |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 12:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
errr... I'd link to it, but it's disappeared, and therefore un-linkable. Think about it though, what has Mazer used Zatoichi in before? EDIT: Mazer, it's back! rejoice! I'll save linking to it for you Mazer  |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
http://www.compsci.ca/v3/viewtopic.php?t=1281 It was here the hole time, just hiding. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
Merci, grande pamplemousse. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
Don't give dan all the credit. I was the one who had to tell him what you were hinting at even. |
|
| Author: | apomb [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
wow, mazer ... i hope that was not the way you actually posted ... if so, you've come a long, LONG way |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
read the wiki post about it, you will find out why that is like that. oh and Mazer, I think I should get some bits for helping dan find your precious post |
|
| Author: | Amailer [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
Very interesting read on EM xD Wow, I never knew all that happened. So, should we unlock that topic and um, spam in it again? |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
sounds like a plan |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Fri Jan 19, 2007 4:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
CompWiz333, my style wasn't quite like that, but it was still very different from now. Freakman, you should get bits? You should be slapped! |
|
| Author: | rdrake [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
Freakman @ Fri Jan 19, 2007 1:17 pm wrote: Don't give dan all the credit. I was the one who had to tell him what you were hinting at even. Hm...Quote: Jan 19 01:01:05 <rdrake> http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=QVm&q=site%3Acompsci.ca+Zatoichi&btnG=Search&meta=
I'd say it was a close finish.Jan 19 01:01:09 <Freakman> http://www.compsci.ca/v3/viewtopic.php?t=1281|The Jan 19 01:01:19 <rdrake> compsci.ca/v2/viewtopic.php?t=1281 |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
log wrote: Jan 19 00:59:07 <Hacker_Dan> freakman, do you know what mazer is talking about Jan 19 00:59:11 <Hacker_Dan> in that formal request post Jan 19 00:59:14 <Freakman> yes Jan 19 00:59:15 <Hacker_Dan> becues i have no idea Jan 19 00:59:19 <Freakman> his EM post Jan 19 00:59:34 <Freakman> apparently it's missing seems pretty clear cut to me... |
|
| Author: | Robert [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
I'm actually interested in seeing this game now... |
|
| Author: | [Gandalf] [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 2:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
Geeze, fighting over who told Dan what Zatoichi referred to? Robert, you can download it from here or here. |
|
| Author: | Delos [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:44 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
I figured it out on the first read...do I get anything? |
|
| Author: | Robert [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
Not bad... I was expecting something a bit more revolutionary though with the hype shown in the posts. Extremely well polished though! |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Sat Jan 20, 2007 9:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
Delos @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:44 pm wrote: I figured it out on the first read...do I get anything?
Did you tell Dan what it was referring to? Mazer, I'm still waiting on my bits  |
|
| Author: | apomb [ Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
Robert @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:24 pm wrote: Not bad... I was expecting something a bit more revolutionary though with the hype shown in the posts.
Extremely well polished though! Have you even TRIED making a game like that in Turing? Don't judge something that harshly if you cant back up your beef. |
|
| Author: | Robert [ Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
CompWiz333 @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:26 am wrote: Robert @ Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:24 pm wrote: Not bad... I was expecting something a bit more revolutionary though with the hype shown in the posts.
Extremely well polished though! Have you even TRIED making a game like that in Turing? Don't judge something that harshly if you cant back up your beef. Oh, I'm sorry... *COUGH* http://www.compsci.ca/v3/viewtopic.php?t=14843&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 *HARDER COUGH* Edit: Besides, I wasn't judging it harshly. I actually intended to have an exclamation mark after "Not bad". Edit 2: And thanks for the bad karma. Next time don't make assumptions if you can't back up your beef. |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
1)Evasive Maneuvers is quite a bit different from your Celestial Conquest 2)You don't know for sure that apomb gave you that negative karma 3)You think you have it bad, I have -11, stop whining 4)Profit |
|
| Author: | Robert [ Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:38 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
Freakman @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:21 pm wrote: 1)Evasive Maneuvers is quite a bit different from your Celestial Conquest
2)You don't know for sure that apomb gave you that negative karma 3)You think you have it bad, I have -11, stop whining 4)Profit (1) In scale and work (which is what I thought he asked), my project matches (or even exceeds) Evasive Maneuvers. The CompWiz guy called me out on saying it wasn't as "revolutionary" as I thought it would be. Celestial Conquest has definitively proven that Turing is capable of online gaming. You can't deny the fact that becuse of it, we will be seeing many more attempts at online turing games. Sure, Evasive Maneuvers is a fun and addictive game (easily the most), but usually hype only surrounds new and unexplored areas of a programming language. I simply expected something different. (2) That's true. (3) Maybe it's for a reason? Every post I've seen from you has been non-constructive, and seems to want to create conflict. (4) What? |
|
| Author: | Clayton [ Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
let's think about this for a second here. I currently have the highest postive karma, and the lowest negative karma. I also have ~1300 posts. during my time here, I'm bound to have pissed some people off. But I've also put a lot of effort into this community as well. I've produced tutorials and given plenty of help to people. Sure, I haven't made any flashy games, or produced anything amazing. So what? Obviously people find me helpful, or I wouldn't have my +ve karma would I? I find there to be two distinct groups here on compsci: those that refuse to take critisism on their code, and those that embrace it. It would seem that you, as well as many others that come to this site, don't appreciate being told how to improve, but just want to know the answer to your question, and aren't interested in anything else. This is what I mainly do, I try to help people out, as well as point out ways to improve. If someone can't handle that, then that's their loss. Basically, if you don't like the way I post, then don't read them. I have yet to have one complaint from a senior member, mod or admin about the way I post, so I fail to see your problem with it. EDIT: Robert wrote: You shouldn't need to fork. What is anima? My posts are un-constructive? The least you could've done is explain why he didn't need to use processes. |
|
| Author: | Robert [ Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
Freakman, I'm sorry. Anyways (regarding the "Robert wrote:", I didn't even understand what he was trying to do. I needed clarification before I gave him an explanation. Also, read the rest of the discussion and you'll see he was happy with my help. Besides, where on earth did anyone give me advice on my code and I didn't appreciate? Actually, where on earth did anyone even give me advice? And where did I ask for it? Don't group me in with other people. This argument has absolutely nothing to do with me embrassing or rejecting critisism. I could use the exact same logic as you. I have +6 karma, and only -1 karma. I have been here one week and have made 30 something posts. |
|
| Author: | Mazer [ Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | RE:Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca\'s Heritage. |
How did processes come into this? Please people, it's an old crappy game. I only brought this up because every time I read my replacement of the original post it cracks me up. |
|
| Author: | apomb [ Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
Robert wrote: Edit 2: And thanks for the bad karma. Next time don't make assumptions if you can't back up your beef.
good assumption, but that wasnt me, you leet turing guru, you. Next time don't make assumptions if you can't back up your beef! |
|
| Author: | Dan [ Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Formal Request: Saving CompSci.ca's Heritage. |
This site is not about who is a better programmer or who can make a better game (well the FP contest is bit like that but no in this way). The idea is to come together and share ideas, consecpts and share our knowalge in a fun and enjoyable way. Both games are good and both expoler diffrent areas of Turing, there is no reason to rate them agisted each other. And there have been MMORPGs in turing befor and there have been games like EM before. However both are the best of there kind i have seen. EM is like this topic says part of the Heritage of this site, however that dose not mean we do not have room for new great games and new heritage to be made. We should be working together and taking ideas of the works of the past not making posts about how much better our work is then them. In the same we, we should not atack peoleop or work just for being new. I am locking this topic since, this is not what it was original about. Thank you to the posters who altered me to the error in the fourms witch has now been corected and take you to all of you who keep this site alive by making new content, ideas, and help others be it in the past or present. |
|