How do I display timestamps in my chat windows?

Discussion in 'The Veterans' Lounge' started by moogs, Feb 1, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Nudia Augur

    But aren't you so glad that it is?
    Vdidar likes this.
  2. Belexes ForumQuester

  3. ProgRambo New Member

    1. We don't avoid any hack detection at all. there is no reason for it.
    2. It IS totally "hand-written" whatever you are trying to suggest here you are wrong.
    I DID use existing APIs from many well documented public sources but so did (almost) EVERYONE else that use our method of interacting with the client. (ISB WinEQ2, EQPlaynice, magelo and eqresource collectors just to name a few but the list goes on.

    (Yes,EVEN the item collectors used that same documentation and to try to pretend or say otherwise would be disproved fairly quick by even a noob reverse engineer.)

    No reasonable coder would EVER invent a working wheel over and over, you have code snippets u either used before or copied from other coders, and when you can't find good examples using google, you write your own, having said that , THE MAJORITY of the code in eqaddons was written line by line solely by ME but OF COURSE I also used existing functions and examples of working code from others where it was working the way I wanted it to.

    You and others seem to think, ah he just went and stole someone elses work, pasted it over into his own program and whatever, well go ahead, try it, see where u end up. release your purist eqaddons urself and then come back and show us the source for it. It wont ever happen and you know it if you are being honest and not just a troll.

    There are VERY few people, that even with all the documentation available, CAN do something like this, if it was easy we would have seen tons of great addons here already, but we don't.

    Many programmers that has released addons for EQ use Microsofts detours library for example, should I not use it just because someone else used it already? Or because some hacker used it already for some malicious purpose? By that reasoning no one could ever create any software at all since most of the existing APIs and libraries has been used maliciously at some point already by someone else.

    3. We are a real company thank you very much feel free to actually look us up.
    EQ Add-Ons LLC

    Registered and based in Colorado.

    And with that, RadarX, it IS time to lock this thread, its not going anywhere, people can't understand simple logic and some just troll to keep it going back and forth over and over even though we already covered the exact same points a couple pages earlier.
    I would not take offence at all over a lock at this time.

    Best Regards
    ProgRambo Creator of EQAddons
    Nandary Griefs likes this.
  4. Nudia Augur

    I did not disagree with any of that. You and I may have differing opinions on "completely hand-written", but that's pretty irrelevant.

    I don't particularly care if you get it approved or not, I was merely offering thoughts on why there are what appear to be varying/inconsistent rulings on these, as much for anyone else's information as yours.

    My level of caring about the detours work pulled from the "other" project stops short of looking further into it myself, so I'll just take your word for it.

    Cheers and good luck, my Colorado neighbor. If you get it okayed by DBG without drastic changes, I'll even buy you a beer as a congratulations.
    Elvenphox and ProgRambo like this.
  5. Jumbur Improved Familiar

    I think all of us would LOVE a clear and well-defined white-list off addons, that we could relate to.

    However it is clear why that is not happening(no, its not because cheaters pay subscriptions or "keep the game alive" :rolleyes: ), it is because for a white-list to be possible then someone at DBG must read through the source-code of every addon everytime it is updated, and they simply don't have the resources for that.

    Another more elegant solution could be that DBG released an EQ-ADDON-SDK/limited-framework(with its own interpreted language/script, run by the EQ-client and checked by the server) and simply said "everything you can make with this SDK/framework is OK by us, and we will make sure all future versions of EQ is compatible with it if you stay within the boundaries of the SDK/framework"

    Again I doubt they have the resources for that either, they are clearly focusing on the game itself, quests, game-mechanics and such.
    With the limited resources they have, it is probably for the best...

    Although I would prefer a bit harder stance on cheating/botting...
  6. ProgRambo New Member

    That's not really how b2b deals work exactly.., having worked in the corporate environment for a fortune 500 company for years I have some insight into micromanagement, and that is something that's normally frowned upon, instead you draw up an agreement to cooperate on a specific technology in this case the Addon tech, and when the contract is in place you stick to it or you quickly lose it...

    No one at dbg has to worry or spend too much time on it as long as the agreement is honored...
    Basically we say, this is what the timestamp addon does, here is the source, we wont make any modifications to this feature, this is what it does, do we have a go or not?
    We breach that trust by releasing some weird stuff, you will find us out on in the cold quicker than a snowboarder in Colorado...

    A brief meeting over skype should be enough to get a quick decision on new addon designs with whoever is qualified to be the liason for something like this.

    Fortunately for us these are the kinds of business decisions that's made everyday by any manager or tech director for new features all the time.. is this a good feature or not? do we want it? yes or no. There is no need to overcomplicate things or setup any new processes, there are already people in place that makes these kinds of decisions everyday anyway, one more email to answer is not gonna kill them, if anything it makes their job easier cause now they can get features added without having to use up their internal dev teams time.
    Well it might very well be more elegant but unfortunately as you yourself admit, it's a pipedream.
    Besides I'm pretty sure the majority of players want them to be "focusing on the game itself, quests, game-mechanics and such." and not spend their time on timestamp addons...

    There is a perfectly good SDK already, developed by dedicated fans over 17 years, properly used why not use it?
    Compare that minimal work needed by using a subcontractor versus getting this up and running from scratch... draw up plans for the internal team to release a SDK and keep that thing updated, paid for, and supported, it's just SO much more work. time, money, if it was a quick and easy thing to run internally, we would had seen it already, after all its been 17 years and I am not gonna start pushing for a new SDK when we have one that works just fine for every single new feature anyone can come up with.

    But whatever, this is clearly not the right venue for me to discuss our plans in detail.

    All I can say for sure is, we would not have spent time and resources on this project if we didn't believe it would be a great thing for the EQ players.
    Nandary Griefs likes this.
  7. Jumbur Improved Familiar

    Tbh, Im not authorized to speak for DBG on the matter, neither do I have any information about how they work as a company or what their decisions are.
    I would however guess, that the relationship between modders/addon-developers and game developers, is different than the relationship found between professionals in the corporate environment, but I am honestly not sure(I am not a modder).

    I have this weird (rather unfair and stereotypical judgemental) view of modders, that they are basically just enthusiatic gamers, with some hobby-coding skills and not necessarily used to the corporate world. Some modders might even be kids, who might want to push the boundaries of such agreements(and make cheat programs). DBG must be prepared to handle the more immature cases and can't always trust that every modder genuinely wants to improve the gaming experience for the community as a whole.

    Some kind of "addon-protocol" would probably need to be formulated, unless it should be a requirement for all modders/addon-developers that they have an actual professional bussiness, which in turn would be unfair towards the hobby-enthusiast.

    I am not saying you can't get an official agreement with DBG, I mean, they eventually accepted project1999, But even that took quite awhile. I wish you good luck though. :)
    Nandary Griefs likes this.
  8. Jumbur Improved Familiar

    Just realized that my post above might get misunderstood:
    I am not targeting your professionalism or claiming that you are a "scriptkiddie" or something like that, I was just pointing out that generally speaking that game-developers often have young and unprofessional users among their userbase, and that their addon policy should take that into account.
    Especially since most of the addon-developers are from that userbase. Everquest is an old game and might have an older userbase than their other games, but I assume DBG would prefer similar addon-policies between all their games.
  9. PathToEternity pathtoeternity.pro


    I don't usually wander outside the TLP forum. Have not been disappointed.
  10. Sindaiann Augur

    How I feel everytime ProgRambo responds after saying he was done like 5 pages ago.

    [IMG]
    Ishtass and gotwar like this.
  11. Smokezz The Bane Crew

    I especially love how ProgRambo keeps saying he wrote it himself.
  12. GoldenFrog Augur

    In an absurd thread with so many absurd statements... this has to be the absurdest of them all.

    "Don't be distracted that he was only looking at the screen with his eyes - all that matters is who he TOLD what he saw."
    Sheex, Sindaiann and Reht like this.
  13. Vdidar Augur

    This thread is like herpes. It just keeps giving.
  14. Imak Augur

    RadarX must be on vacation, otherwise the hammer would have come down here a few pages ago.
  15. Kajira Journeyman

    I'm sold. Is it too late to get in on the IPO?
    Nandary Griefs likes this.
  16. Groove New Member

    I look forward to taking your code and converting it to something that works far far more... flexibly. I'll call it EQAddons2.
  17. Porcelain New Member

  18. Felicite Augur

    Yesterday's Test update:
    moogs likes this.
  19. GoldenFrog Augur

    This was obviously not that. Let this thread stay dead.
    Metanis likes this.
  20. DeepWrinkles New Member

    Or he just right clicked the window > hit timestamps > choose format ... bam timestamp exactly like that
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.