Bubbafett
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Downloads
Forums
Store
Support
DOWNLOADS EXTRA
Services
Everything posted by Bubbafett
-
This is no longer a problem.
-
Changed Status from Pending to Can't Reproduce
-
Interesting, I couldn't reproduce it. I did fix the docs though. Let me know if you run into any more issues.
-
@Mac just to make sure that I understand correctly, you are disabling the convars but it doesn't seem to affect actual building placement?
-
Thanks for reaching out, I'll take a look at these issues and see if there is anything I can do about them.
-
@Whispers88 1v1 me in MW2 rust- 43 comments
-
- 1
-
-
- #loading messages
- #loading
- (and 15 more)
-
10/10 Plugin Loads messages quickly and allows players who speaks different languages to get their own messages! This helps my server be more accessible!
- 43 comments
-
- 1
-
-
- #loading messages
- #loading
- (and 15 more)
-
As it stands, this plugin does not work unless you are an admin or have the developer flag enabled. https://commits.facepunch.com/440877
-
https://commits.facepunch.com/440877 Has this been tested without auth 1/2 applied? I just tried it and couldn't get it work work without an auth level. Might need to give the IsAdmin flag then remove it after the console command has been run. -
How would this work with plugins that use custom data file creation outside of the normal data/pluginname/*.json standard? For example if the plugin creates multiple files in the root data folder? -
I mean, Death is right. That review you wrote kinda sucks. It feels like you were blaming the dev for population loss because you uploaded a plugin to a live server without testing or configuring it to fit your server. As far as the "math logic issue", I can only assume that the dev is using a random number system for their chances (I didn't buy it, so I'm just guessing). So when you break a rock, the plugin would generate a random number between 1 and 100. If that number is less than your config value it will spawn a zombie. Probabilities never really work out to be a perfect 1 in 10 for a 10% chance and rely solely on your sample size. To achieve the kind of system you are looking for, you would have to increase the chance of a zombie spawning every time the user breaks a rock and reset the chance when one actually spawns. This would give a more organic 1 in 10 feel but wouldn't really be a true 10% probability. EDIT: While I completely disagree with filtering reviews, as I the buyer should be responsible for making my own educated decisions on if a review is bad or not, I would completely ignore your review if I read it somewhere.
-
I found this example on my discord of a link not displaying the picture they have uploaded to the plugin. The description is right though.
-
I have no idea if I've encountered this, and that is the point. As a customer I don't have a way to see if there is 1 or 100 private support request I can't see. I think your solution of making the request seen but not clickable is also pretty good. Possibly replace the request title string with a static "Private Support Request" in case the post something sensitive in the title. While you and other staff may know that private request are fairly rare, the customers do not.
-
Maybe put a counter on the page that shows the number of open private request? Or just have number like you do for discussions and reviews that shows the total number of open request.
-
Honestly, I think that a lot of my issues with the review system could be completely ignored if ALL support request were public. I again, have no way of knowing if there is 1 or 100 unanswered support request on a plugin that hasn't had a request in a while. Making reviews more transparent would be the way I would expect something like to be handled, however if I could see all support request that would also increase platform trust. I have spent no small amount of money on this site, and will continue to do so. I would just like to have to a better picture of what I am getting BEFORE i buy it. Some plugins can be $40 or more and this is no small amount to spend basing it off the description, potentially HUNDREDS post in the discussions tab (Many of which will just be rambling of confused users who can't edit a config), a potentially incomplete picture of a support page, and filtered reviews. I understand that no matter what it will be an educated guess on my part on if a plugin will be good or not, however making this guess easier be pretty great.
-
I really appreciate the detailed response from you on this! I also understand that it is intended to make the user experience with reviews better, however from my standpoint this can have the opposite effect. Seeing a users review, issues, suggestions and all in the review section and a response from the dev on that review increases my trust in that dev. Support request can be private, so I can use that as a true picture of user experience with the plugin either. I understand removing attacks on devs and abusive reviews as they do not provide any value at all, but I struggle to trust the review process when I have no way of knowing, as the customer, if the reviews are being cherry picked to make a product seem better than it is. This removed value from the review system as apposed to letting organic reviews and responses to those reviews happen directly between the customer and the creator. Its not my site, and I understand the goal behind it. I just don't agree with the process.
-
What kind of help are you after? Server setup?
-
As a customer, having a review censored period is crazy. If a review is blatant review bombing then sure, remove it. Customers deserve to be able to see peoples actual thoughts and experiences with plugins without those reviews being "curated". Forcing all negative reviews to go through support tickets first also violates the Consumer Review Fairness Act (2016). Under the Act the following reviews can be prevented or removed: contains confidential or private information – for example, a person’s financial, medical, or personnel file information or a company’s trade secrets; is libelous, harassing, abusive, obscene, vulgar, sexually explicit, or is inappropriate with respect to race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or other intrinsic characteristic; is unrelated to the company’s products or services; or is clearly false or misleading. https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/consumer-review-fairness-act-what-businesses-need-know https://www.dwt.com/blogs/media-law-monitor/2017/10/protecting-the-right-to-complain-the-consumer-revi#:~:text=Specifically%2C the act voids any,the content of their reviews. Curating files keep consumers safe from files that may cause problems to them or their server. Curating reviews is not the same thing, and does nothing but erodes peoples trust in the review process. This does not mean that I don't believe creators deserve their positive reviews or that they earned them.
-
Deemed relevant by who? Approving all reviews help prevent review bombs and I respect that, but the current process means that I don't trust reviews at all.
-
There shouldn't be a technical barrier to creating a plugin page.
-
Optional Markdown support for plugin descriptions. Codeblocks that have to be expanded like quotes Colored text in plugin descriptions
-
Stack Modifier works on carbon with no issues. -
Changed Status from Work in Progress to Can't Reproduce
-
.thumb.jpg.e6f37a70b0c6594fa1761ed9cc51d870.jpg)
This is a great tool for creating UI! I also profiled the partial class that is required to use this tool and it is extremely light weight! I can't wait to use this tool more. -
Changed Status from Pending to Work in Progress
