|
My last thread, which meagerly informed us about locking hats, did not flourish as well as I imagined. People gave in their supports, which I found heartwarming, but there was little evidence or reasoning executed with their comments, proposing that you don't fully understand the concept of the suggestion. This is also for the users who did not conclude their final opinion. Don't think I wanted people to not support. I just wanted to know your true response to this, because no thread can be considered perfect if no flaw is provided, in my perspective.
But nonetheless, let us get on with the subject. I would like to thank Yoshdude44 for greatly encouraging the subject, informing the audience a vast depth on the topic, including FAQ and such.
----
Users tend to be annoyed by other users: ruthless, immature, unforgiving. But along that road, I wanted to reflect on something that bothers some users frequently. Now I only say this out of opinion, but I know this has been very common over the previous years.
If you go on 'Build' or 'Studio' often, you should know the function they call 'Lock'. Right beside the 'Anchor' function, this option can avoid a certain part from being touched by the *BTools, or any other tool or object that may make it possible to move around. If you're aware of 'meshs', then you should know that every mesh starts with a 'part', but this 'part' is not usually locked upon the creation of the hat.
* Btools, short for Build Tools, are usually used in admin commands. These include the Move Tool, Copy Tool, and Delete Tool.
I shouldn't be too concerned over this, since I barely take interest in several games, but after hearing it over and over again like, "STOP COPYING MY HATS NUB!" or "Where did my hat go? ...HEY!", I instantly knew that some hats, especially the 'Hair' hats, were not correctly configured. Or, as I would like to assume, "Meant to happen".
Look at this script:
----
debounce = true
function onTouched(hit)
if (hit.Parent:findFirstChild("Humanoid") ~= nil and debounce == true) then
debounce = false
h = Instance.new("Hat")
p = Instance.new("Part")
h.Name = "Fedora"
p.Parent = h
p.Position = hit.Parent:findFirstChild("Head").Position
p.Name = "Handle"
p.formFactor = script.Parent.formFactor
p.Size = Vector3.new(1, 1, 1)
p.BottomSurface = 0
p.TopSurface = 0
p.Locked = false
script.Parent.Mesh:clone().Parent = p
h.Parent = hit.Parent
h.AttachmentForward = Vector3.new(-0, -0.0995, -0.995)
h.AttachmentPos = Vector3.new(0, -0.25, 0)
h.AttachmentRight = Vector3.new(1,0,0)
h.AttachmentUp = Vector3.new(0, 0.995, -0.0995)
wait(5)
debounce = true
end
end
script.Parent.Touched:connect(onTouched)
----
This is for the Business Fedora. Everything is correct, and it'll work fine, but the command, "p.Locked" bothers me. Since its 'false', that means the property 'Lock' is unchecked, thus meaning the function has no specific use. However, if it is 'true', it will be locked.
...This is not me, to care about a topic so many of you critics will find pointless, or lost of purpose. Though, the most interesting things start off like that, and then the results will boom like the greatest franchise. However this not about money. This is who is willing to care; no matter if you can make a script for it, or to just buy another hat. And look, i'm not expecting the Roblox Team to make this a priority to cut off whatever they're doing now, but later in the future, I would like them to take this as a reference for the group that make the hats. If the "p.Locked" command will always be false, why even include it with the script?
TL;DR - lock sum hats.
Concerns? Questions? Opinions? Bring it. I would also like to hear your reasoning as well, even if you said "Support". This is so I can note your personal comment and reflect on it later in the future.
-TheNegitivitron
|
|
|
watevs44Join Date: 2009-11-07
Post Count: 9172 |
--
"People gave in their supports, which I found heartwarming, but there was little evidence or reasoning executed with their comments, proposing that you don't fully understand the concept of the suggestion."
Because you gave all the reasoning in your thread. That's the point of the Support/No Support system.
User: Let's have cheese, [reasons, reasons]
Poster: Yeah, right on! Cheese because [reason, reasons]
People omit reasons or evidence with their Supports because YOU ALREADY STATED THEM. Unless you want everybody copy/pasting your post when they reply.
However, you find people HAVE to leave reasons with their No Support. Why is that? Because the OP hasn't stated that. The OP has given us reasons to Support. When we support, we hold and believe in those same reasons but find it fruitless to reiterate what has already been said but when one No Supports, no one has pointed out any flaws, so they MUST because they WONT be reiterating, they'll be totally new points and claims to the table.
So, when people simply say Support, it's not because they don't get it or see the need for it, it's because you've done all the talking for them :3
--
Support.
!Dream Crusher Strikes Again:3 |
|
|
@watevs44
See...that's what has been bothering me.
From my previous thread, I didn't state my reasons. This is what I posted:
"That is all"
This is what confused..many, to be honest. The first few comments were assumptions that I was a troll. This made me retaliate aggressively to those who did not understand the concept of the idea. People who understood the idea supported, but I found it difficult to see if they truly did understand what I meant.
Even so they responded with a support, I still look for their evidence why they did. If they supported for the fun of it, or if it was their only option; since they couldn't say no (which I find totally uncommon), then that ruins the purpose of reading over the thread in the first place.
Just like the questions in a test, "Explain your reasoning". So you say yes, but that does not propose that its completely flawless, and you can not examine a problem or an addition to it. We look over these things so we can make it better. Saying support or no support, the OP would gladly appreciate your comment, knowing you understand what he/she was talking about, rather then just assuming the base of the idea. |
|
Ethan043Join Date: 2011-05-01
Post Count: 5176 |
Support.
I hate when I go into public building games, and people delete my character and think it is so funny. |
|
KeyumiJoin Date: 2009-01-26
Post Count: 7413 |
Support.
This thread is a lot more easier to understand then your last, Theneg. |
|
|
|
|
frittleJoin Date: 2009-05-06
Post Count: 2781 |
wouldnt it be simpler to add a script into the game that would lock any hats at time of respawn of player? |
|
|
@frittle
"This is who is willing to care; no matter if you can make a script for it..."
If its possible, then i'll accept it entirely. If not, this idea plays at hand.
Remember, not all minds think alike. If they do however, their opinions will be altered.
Bump. |
|
|
This can be accomplished easily with scripting.
No need for roblox to change something just for your specifications when you can do it yourself |
|
watevs44Join Date: 2009-11-07
Post Count: 9172 |
TheNeg,
I'm gonna need to see your original thread to respond to the first part accurately.
--
"Just like the questions in a test, "Explain your reasoning"."
But as I said, you've already given us the reason.
It's like saying this:
User: x = 3 because [simultaneous equation]
Poster: RIGHT ON!!!
User: Explain >:U
Poster: But..but..? You did.
--
"So you say yes, but that does not propose that its completely flawless, and you can not examine a problem or an addition to it."
Oh yeah, if people like the concept but have improvements, they should say them
--
"We look over these things so we can make it better. Saying support or no support, the OP would gladly appreciate your comment, knowing you understand what he/she was talking about, rather then just assuming the base of the idea."
But that's the thing I'm not quite sure you're grasping. The simple "Support" is an indication to you that the poster agrees with you. That he is in full support and can't think of anyway to improve.
!Dream Crusher Strikes Again:3 |
|
|
Support. I hate it when I'm in a building game and I get deleted. |
|
BlazingxDJoin Date: 2011-08-29
Post Count: 28491 |
No support. It ends the trolling, and it stops the raging kids who deserve to get banned getting banned. |
|
|
papeyJoin Date: 2008-09-18
Post Count: 7424 |
Support.
inb4personwhodoesn'tunderstandwhatthisideaisabout |
|
BlazingxDJoin Date: 2011-08-29
Post Count: 28491 |
So those who don't know what something being 'locked' is, an item being locked is when you can't move it, copy it or delete it.
inb4peoplestilldon'tunderstand. |
|
BvalereXDJoin Date: 2010-08-04
Post Count: 1169 |
@nickbricknick464
Hopefully that's not your only evident reason you wouldn't support. Not everything is balanced on scripting. If it was, we would've expected it, not assume it.
@TheNegitivitron
Yes. That's true. The man I would know would never care about something so futile, yet so conventional that it still exists. I remember how arrogant some people were, removing hats off other avatars while the victims waited for their stochastic reaction. Though, avoiding the temptation of joining a game that uses BTools, this dispute sorta faded away. If it'll mean this much to you, then i'll support. Like you say, but in my context; if its still possible, why give up your chances of still trying?
@watevs44
Y'know. He isn't actually lying. There is, or even was, no specific reason within his thread. People had to decipher his message. The users who did not, accsused him as a troll or a spammer. |
|
chazrazJoin Date: 2011-05-28
Post Count: 357 |
half and half, Some Kids Deserve It. |
|
|
gigabicJoin Date: 2010-09-06
Post Count: 4344 |
Total support. I hate hat spam and player deletion in building games. |
|
|
64kingJOEJoin Date: 2016-01-16
Post Count: 7078 |
tl;dr |
|
|