Well, normally I put email in the email humor section, and what follows obviously isn’t email, but it was too good to pass up. This little article, although I admit, isn’t as funny as some of the others, is a good example of a type of stupid person. The egotistical-I-know-everything-and-you-don’t-know-jack-shit-even-though-I-actually-am-an-idiot-that-doesn’t-know-what-I’m-talking-about-but-likes-to-try-and-make-people-think-I-do-and-no-matter-what-will-not-admit-I’m-wrong-and-instead-will-use-week-strawman-attacks-to-make-sure-my-ego-doesn’t-pop stupid person.
One night, some players and I were play-testing the DUNE mod and this guy, who for the rest of the article will be referred to as “Wanker,” given that he is indeed a wanker, came on with the supposed intent of providing a suggestion for the mod. Basically, he claimed that he had a way to make the worms better. Any suggestion has the possibility of being a good suggestion, and on top of it, he said that he mods for the game as well, so I was interested in hearing what he had to say. Luckily for me, I had the logger going in order to try and catch bugs. Instead, it caught this conversation.
Starting out, he had gone afk for a bit, and when I asked what his suggestion was, he didn’t answer till about the section below. As stated, “WANKER” is the wanker, “ME” is me, and “PLAYER1-3” are players that were on at the time of the conversation.
WANKER: "Ok im getting back to work, come on in **PLAYER1** when u see it up some time"
PLAYER1: "k"
PLAYER2: "hey,, are you that guy?"
PLAYER1: "wait"
PLAYER1: "probobly"
PLAYER1: "jesus"
PLAYER1: "ask your question"
PLAYER1: "wellw"
PLAYER1: "anyway"
PLAYER1: "jesus wants to know HOW you would make"
WANKER: "a what?"
PLAYER3: "the wroms better"
WANKER: "make the worms better?"
WANKER: "I havent even seen the worm from the outside"
WANKER: "so im not sure how he has made them fully...or which scripts hes using"
WANKER: "would have to see the scripts ..... "
Remember he said this, kiddies. Right now, he is saying that he has something that could possibly make the worms better, but that he has to visually SEE the worm attacking in order to know for sure (or see the code). And SOMEHOW he currently has this formed idea on how to make it better, but yet… couldn’t POSSIBLY say what it is unless he saw some code, or at least sees it visually.
ME: "well,"
ME: "how would you SUGGEST another way"
WANKER: "depends if he is using a Group set also"
ME: "or rather, what is your way that you would suggest"
WANKER: "is the worm here?"
ME: "yep"
WANKER: "let me see it from the outside"
PLAYER3: "deploya thumper"
ME: "go stand out in the sand with a shield on"
ME: "it will find you"
Here he tries to make himself sound smart, by saying something that makes him look retarded, seeing as how it’s… an obvious fact if your doing a client-side modification. Additionally, it provides evidence towards the fact that he doesn’t ACTUALLY have any current, fully contemplated suggestion, on how to make it better. Otherwise, why would he even need to try and throw out a red herring?
WANKER: "with Tribes u dont have too many choices with shapes"
PLAYER2: "ok all three of us have shields on in sand, where's the worm?"
PLAYER1: "it wandered off"
PLAYER1: "it got frustrated"
PLAYER1: "I think"
WANKER: "its not here"
ME: "wait for it"
At this point, there’s about two or three of them standing outside trying to
attract the worm, which is probably many game units away from their current location, so it would take some time for it to get to them. While waiting he announces another ASTOUNDING discovery!
WANKER: "is it on a schedule"
Dear lord Wanker Holmes! You astound me with your insight!
He then for the first time notices the other players standing there.
WANKER: "hi **PLAYER2**"
WANKER: "lol"
PLAYER2: "hi"
PLAYER2: "took you a long time to notice it was me"
WANKER: "i was eating dinner"
PLAYER2: "so, what is a worm?"
Sounds like he’s getting impatient, but that’s justified seeing as how it is taking a while. I just like how he feels it is within his power and necessity to give me orders.
WANKER: "ok J get it out here"
PLAYER1: "a maker"
WANKER: "i have work to do"
Fair enough, but he hasn’t really stated which part he wants to see. I ask because if its just the attack he wants to see, I can do it quickly and easily with an admin command I left in from when I was testing them.
ME: "so.. are you looking to see the attack phase?"
ME: "or just it moving around"
WANKER: "attack"
WANKER: " i want to see it deploy"
ME: "big or small?"
ME: "the small one has a little hole in it"
WANKER: "is there 2 different deploys?"
ME: "its not a deployable.."
ME: "but there are 3 different types"
ME: "the largest of which is copmletely useless"
WANKER: "it must deploy around the object"
After the last comment of his, (him trying to make himself look smart at the cost of my apparent intelligence) “showing” him the worm was enjoyable to a degree. So I forced a worm to attack him, and kill him. Then he complains.
WANKER: "i want to see it from the outside"
ME: "never said that"
PLAYER1: "lol"
WANKER: "yes i did earlier"
It’s true. He did say it earlier.
PLAYER2: "I saw a bunch of blast walls"
ME: "hrm"
So I wormed the guy next to him.
PLAYER2: "ow"
ME: "sorry. thats the small one. has a hole in the side that i havent patched yet."
PLAYER2: "what is that?"
PLAYER2: "oh, worm"
WANKER: "what i see is a deploy around the object, then moves all deployables down"
ME: "actually it moves up, closes, and then back down."
WANKER: "are u using a simset to grab the walls?"
At this point I refer you back to what I he said earlier, about wanting to SEE the worm. Using a simset or simgroup (basically a virtual directory I would potentially store the parts of the worm inside of) would in no way be visible through demonstration.
Also at this point, it did actually take me a while to understand what exactly he was asking. When he asked if I used “a simset to grab the walls” I thought he meant to move them in some way.
ME: "i make the walls, move them, and delete them."
WANKER: "yes, i see, but are they being moved by a SimSet"
Which he helps reinforce by saying this. In case your wondering, objects CAN’T be moved by some magical property of a SimSet or SimGroup, which is in part why I was confused.
ME: "they are having their position updated about .05 seconds or s."
WANKER: "or are u just using the deployed name like %wall"
Right here, it probably should have clicked what he was saying, and I vaguely remember that it did, but I have a feeling it didn’t actually, and seeing what he said after that, just brought me back to the point I was at before.
WANKER: "yes i see that"
WANKER: "yes, i see, but are they being moved by a SimSet"
ME: "gamebase::setposition"
WANKER: "NO...."
The function call GameBase::setPosition takes an argument as a first parameter, and location as a second parameter. So if I called this on you while you were in game, it would set you to what ever position I specified. And it was in fact what I was using to move the parts of the worm. Of course, I could tell he was starting to get a little irritated, which was funny, but I still didn’t understand quite what he meant, which besides the fact that he wasn’t very clear, was mostly my fault for just not understanding.
ME: "erm yes."
WANKER: "how are u grabbing the walls spicificly"
PLAYER2: "he means how does it identify the objects"
Thank you player number two! He cleared it up nice and simply for me. So I let em know. (When I say map here, I mean it in a programming sense. A map is usually object that you place a reference to another object into along with a key, and by hashing (converting into a location inside the map) the key, places the object in that location. From what I can tell, the tribes global (accessible anywhere in the code) variables are basically just that.
ME: "i toss them into a global map,"
ME: "then reference them one by one."
PLAYER2: "are they a group, or are they identified one by one"
PLAYER2: "there"
WANKER: "so are u using a SimGroup, Simset or just their names"
Now that we finally understand each other, I’m starting to wonder why he is so interested in if I used a SimGroup or SimSet.
ME: "im using their object reference numbers"
WANKER: "so your not putting them into a simgroup"
ME: "well,"
PLAYER2: "if you only have one worm, a simgroup would be more efficient but harder to prog"
WANKER: "if u used a SimGroup, you could make multiple worms do different things, at same"
WANKER: "time"
This is about the extent of his argument. “Multiple worms do[ing] different things, at [the] same time.” Which, ONLY refers to them ATTACKING at the same time, which I’m not worried about in the least. In no situation would there be so many worms, that I would NEED them to all attack at once. PLAYER2’s comment is somewhat valid, and somewhat invalid. It wouldn’t be HARDER to program just would take an extra line or two as you throw them in there. As for being more efficient, it would only be so in that you know where they all are, and as Wanker said, you could have them attack at the same time. But it Wouldn’t be more efficient, as you would then be required to make extra calls to get each of the parts OUT of the grouping so you could use them.
ME: "i can do that now anyway"
ME: "as long as they dont attack at the same time im fine"
WANKER: "much much easier, with way less code"
This is where the problems start. See, the biggest problem is that it WOULDN’T be easier, as it would require me to not only replace the code I currently have with the new code to support this, but it would also require me to add in the extra code to access the group every time. His claim that it would be “way less code” is partially right. It COULD potentially be less code. About 1 line less code: a for-loop(a type of programming call that repeats a line, or multiple lines of code a specified number of times less). The delete command I call would still have to be there for when I delete the group instead of deleting the object. And that 1 extra line of code doesn’t include the new function I would have to call every time I wanted to use one of those parts of my worm.
ME: "erm not really."
He really doesn’t like hearing that someone thinks he is wrong as you will see shortly. I tried to let him down nicely, but he decided to be a wanker about that too. His loss.
Because of my past confusion, I decided I should make sure that I wasn’t confusing what he said again before I go on with why his way of making the worms “better” isn’t correct.
ME: "from what i THINK your saying,"
WANKER: "errmm ya"
ME: "is that you are just suggesting i put each of their components (for when they "
ME: "attack) into a mapping group, just for "Ease" of reference"
ME: "even though i have to look up the group each time"
PLAYER2: "just always have them in the group, I think"
Here I try to find out WHY he thinks it might be better, provided I was right in what I thought he was suggesting.
ME: "do you believe that it might make their attack animation smoother?"
WANKER: "Each worm should be in its own SimGroup"
ME: "each worm doesnt exist"
WANKER: "the animation can not be changed"
ME: "until i make it exist for attacking purposes.."
PLAYER2: ".5 secs right now? wouldn't go any smoother than .25"
ME: "and after it finishes attacking, it is deleted."
This is all his “better way” was boiling down to.
WANKER: "yes i know that, each time u creat them, you creat the SimGroup"
WANKER: "Yes that is very easy"
WANKER: "all u have to delete is One thing"
WANKER: "only 1 item"
ME: "but who cares?"
I wasn’t trying to be hostile. I just wanted him to see that it didn’t really do anything for the situation. Unfortunately, he’s insecure as egotistical people tend to be.
WANKER: "well its your mod...not mine....I only make the best"
“I only make the best.” Yes. I’m laughing even now. But at that point, I didn’t even see the message. I was still busy trying to explain to him that in fact his idea wasn’t as necessary as he thought.
ME: "it wouldnt make any visual or significant performance difference then the"
ME: "way its deleteing right now"
ME: "because the destructor for the simgroup would have a loop"
ME: "JUST like mine"
ME: "that would loop through and delete the components, JUST like mine"
Whenever an object in object-oriented programming languages, or those that can be used as an object-oriented language (like C++) creates an object from a class “template” of sorts, it has to call what is called a constructor “function” to set it up and make the actual object and assign the data. When you destroy one of these objects, it calls a destructor “function” to delete the memory. Thus, as I explained to someone I ASSUMED knew what he was talking about, in order to free the memory from a simgroup when the simgroup object is deleted, it would have to loop through any other objects in the object, and delete them, or call their destructors. Thus, I actually wouldn’t be saving any time, and would actually be losing a tiny amount of time.
ME: "see what im saying?"
ME: "heh"
This is where I actually looked up and saw his “I only make the best” comment.
WANKER: "lol.....nope"
Allow me to translate. Mr. Wanker, in all his wisdom, has no idea what even a destructor is. This will come up later. Upon seeing this, I thought I would take a little stab at the fact that he’s stupid, and that he actually thinks he makes “the best.”
ME: "oh right. i forgot you make the best.."
ME: ";)"
In an effort not to crush his poor ego, I tried to make it look like a joke (also incase he was joking about being “the best” which.. unfortunately he wasn’t).
ME: "anyway..."
WANKER: "yes......most people who know me know that..."
Very unfortunate indeed…
ME: "im sure.."
ME: "dont let it go to your head now"
PLAYER2: "I've never seen your mods, and you said you never put them online"
Thank you player number 2! He brings up a funny point. Apparently wanker’s AMAZING mods are too good to actually play on.
In false hopes I can talk some sense into him, I… try to explain to him what an opinion is, and how in these cases, such an opinion is not to be confused with a fact.
ME: "(btw.. ive been told my many that i make the "best mods" too)"
PLAYER2: "any reason you don't"
PLAYER1: "no offense to either of you"
ME: "(but its just an opinion... which has no factual basis"
PLAYER1: "but its like the ulitmate battle of egos"
ME: ")"
ME: "so! basically we are both the best!"
ME: "along with every other person thats ever made a mod"
ME: ":)"
PLAYER2: "BUT MY EGO IS THE BEST!!!!!"
Everyone else can see how much of a joke his ego is, (and hopefully player number 1 REALLY doesn’t think that I’m as bad as this poor fool. I think he was just trying not to piss either of us off). But why… oh why… can’t he see it himself..
WANKER: "lol...i see nothing here that is even a pich of what i creat"
Stupefied. Completely, and utterly stupefied.
PLAYER1: "hey"
ME: "well darn"
PLAYER1: "nobody every told **PLAYER2** that HE was the best"
ME: "another .,... OPINION!"
PLAYER2: "I was kidding"
WANKER: "anyways.....**PLAYER2**....u know the pass?"
Apparently wanker thought it was a good time to pick up his toys and leave before the fire he started got to hot. Well I sure wasn’t going to let that happen!
That’s it… publicly give out your server’s password…
ME: "hrm"
PLAYER1: "thats it?"
WANKER: "yup"
PLAYER2: "and what mod is this?"
ME: "**WANKER**, how well do you know C/C++?"
Remember the stuff about the destructor?
PLAYER1: "lol"
WANKER: "I know C C++, VB pascal.....I "
Basically what he meant to say was, “I’ve heard of these things called programs with weird names like C, C++, VB, and Pascel.”
ME: "but yet... you didnt know what a deconstructor was?"
WANKER: "taking advanced C++ right now"
ME: "aka destructor"
PLAYER1: "lol"
PLAYER1: "lol"
PLAYER2: "bam"
Hoping against hope, I… hoped that he saw that he’s an idiot... everyone else on the server did. Player one just laughed, player 2 verbally described the impact of someone beating wanker over the head with the fact that he’s stupid.
He was silent for quite some time, and for some reason, I figured that perhaps I was a bit harsh. After all, you do have to be careful with people like this. Once you pop their egos, there really isn’t anything else underneath.
ME: "well.. anyway"
ME: "sorry"
PLAYER1: "lol"
ME: "my point was NOT to discredit you in any way."
Lies lies and more lies!
PLAYER1: "it was quite an entertaining debate though"
ME: "my point was not to figure out who is "the best""
So much for not trying to discredit him; player two sees that :D.
PLAYER2: "you did a poor job of demonstrating that.."
ME: "which is rediculous at best."
PLAYER1: "because"
PLAYER1: "thats opinion"
Player one gets it. Why can’t wanker?
ME: "all i wanted to know"
PLAYER1: "well"
ME: "was your suggestion on how to improve my mod"
ME: "comming from someone who has worked on another mod,"
WANKER: "Im here to help, if you dont want it....that is fine...i dont care...."
You can almost see his little kiddy hands balled into little fists of fury.
And I continue to try and explain to him the situation as it stands.
ME: "it would be valuable to me"
ME: "unfortunately, in the process of trying to understand what your suggestion"
ME: "WAS"
WANKER: "I have never given any of my codes to anyone....."
If anyone, ANYONE at all, understands what the hell the point of that comment was, let me know. I mean.. it wasn’t even a good red herring!
ME: "you decided to take offense to... something"
ME: "not sure what"
ME: "but anyway, i thank you for the suggestion, although it will not be implemented"
WANKER: "you just have a bad attitude"
Hahahahahahahahahahah
ME: "as it would be more work for no results."
ME: "uhh.. hrm"
I see his message about my attitude.
Hahahahahhahahahah
PLAYER2: "well, it'll work"
Player two tries to patch things up. Valiant, but wasted.
WANKER: "have always had a bad attitude since the first time i came on here"
“Your mean! I’m going to tell my mommy! I’m going home!” *wanker picks up his toys as he huffs around*
ME: "when did i say you ever gave your work to anyone...?"
ME: "and... how exactly do i have a bad additude?"
ME: "please tell me so i can correct it."
As I drench the server with sarcasm, wanker suddenly finds himself in a corner thinking “Curses! He called my bluff, and I’m too stupid to know what to do!”
WANKER: "if you dont know how u act, then it is hopeless"
PLAYER2: "if I remember he said he keeps his mods offline so people can't copy his scripts"
Player two decides to screw the pleasantries, as I spring another trap.
ME: "so you cant provide a supporting argument for your opinon?"
ME: "i sense a pattern.."
PLAYER1: "hey"
WANKER: "no i dont give them out, I run my mods occasionaly"
You see boys and girls; the BEST code is WAY too good for anyone to see, and WAY to good to have hosted more then the occasional amount!
PLAYER1: "lets not get back to that"
Player one doesn’t like where this is going.
ME: "anyway **WANKER**.. i didnt ask you about it for an argument"
ME: "simply to find out if there was a way to better the module."
ME: "so.. you are more then free to go to whatever appointment you mentioned you had"
ME: "earlier."
I’ve had my laughs. And after all, he isn’t much of a challenge. But he doesn’t seem to take hints well.
WANKER: "there is no way of knowing without seeing yoru codes....I have no idea "
WANKER: "what you have "
ME: "i appologize for taking more time of yours then i should have."
PLEASE go!
PLAYER2: "ok, so we talked for a half hour and accomplished... nothing"
ME: "bingo **PLAYER2** ;)"
WANKER: "lol....."
“Heyuck! I’m a moron!”
PLAYER1: "it WAS entertaining"
That it was.
WANKER: "IF, you would like to see some of my work, I will crank up **WANKER'S MOD**"
WANKER: "maybe it would answer some of your ?'s"
Then again, I might not be worthy of the BEST mods. What a chance he takes on this one! But after all, he has to pull himself out of the gutter somehow. So he starts imagining that I had… questions for him somehow.
ME: "which ones?"
WANKER: "how things can be moved, how SimGroups work"
WANKER: "and why a SimGroup is the best way to do anything"
Course… he can’t even fabricate any questions without being a retard.
PLAYER1: "gha"
Player one is dreading covering the same territory AGAIN.
ME: "im afraid i wouldnt be able to tell that without seeing your code"
:)
PLAYER2: "hey, that's a cool bullet for heavymachinegun"
ME: "which you already stated you dont give out"
:P
PLAYER2: "what is that?"
WANKER: "no....that is not true...when u see you will fully understand"
Stupid people are dumb. It’s a fact of life. Some how, by visiting his mod, I can visually see something that CANNOT BE SEEN. A simgoup is a virtual box that you put stuff in, that has NO visual representation on screen. But Wanker is just a wanker that doesn’t get it.
WANKER: "besides, i have already told u how to do it"
Dear lord! Does he mean to say that he was sharing with me the “BEST” there is and I didn’t even realize it?!
PLAYER2: "hey, that's a cool bullet for heavymachinegun"
PLAYER2: "what is that?"
WANKER: "but u choose like most to do things the hard way"
I’m thinking that maybe he was thrown down the stairs when he was a baby.
ME: "here we go again.."
ME: "but you see, it ISNT the hard way."
PLAYER3: "heh"
Player three is just enjoying wanker’s stupidy.
ME: "because it is already DONE"
PLAYER1: "lol"
Player one, admits he’s having a good time, despite going in lots of annoying circles.
WANKER: "lol....Ok"
PLAYER1: "one fmore time"
ME: "the HARD way, would be to REDO it YOUR way"
WANKER: "well good luck....u obviously dont need any help"
Wanker violently attempts to cover his eyes in an effort not to see the blasphemy! “Quick!” he thinks. “Cover it up with the illusion that I’m still right!”
ME: "which wouldnt do ANYTHING for it, besides take more TIME"
WANKER: "time is not a problem"
Why sure! Time is all we have if were a little grade school wanker!
ME: "since it in no way improves O(), or visual effects."
Just for reference, O() is time complexity of a function. Usually used with searching algorithms, it basically represents the worse case scenario of how long a block of code takes to compute.
But we can fully expect that wanker is clueless on that.
ME: "heh"
ME: "times definately a problem for some of us."
WANKER: "Hmmm.....well modding isnt for everyone"
PLAYER1: "what was that?"
ME: "unless of course that was some strange stawman attack "
I decide to act aloof. It’s a pity I didn’t get to complete the conversation.
WANKER: "yes...very true"
And with that last comment by wanker, in reference to my comment about why everyone doesn’t mod, the server unfortunately got hung up. It is safe to say, Wanker did not come back after the server was restarted. Back
