User talk:ZeroExalted/Archive/2

FIRST POST YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!-- 03:16, June 18, 2010 (UTC)(I cut in line)

There. I archived your talk page :D Now I can actually post on your page and SEE what I posted XD SeaCrane_1 03:14, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hunter lol... and should I keep the really weird Special category or move all the pages in it to a much more explanatory NX Function Items category? I think Special really isn't a very good category name tbh... SeaCrane_1 03:36, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

I believe Sea crane archived it. And at...usually its User talk:ZeroExalted/Archive 19:44, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is where it is :D SeaCrane_1 19:50, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

Affiliates
The following is off the record; Should we start having open talks with combatarms HQ? Athough it appears they are our rivals, they dont specialize in CA information, only the community aspect. And we (mostly) specialize in info. So why dont we partner up. A big part of the deal though, would be us obtaining their dynamic signature source code.

Hey, I might not be able to make many edits over the summer. My mom is being Azn on me. She says my eyesight is too poor to be looking at a comp all day. The least I'll be allowed to do it play Combat Arms.--WingZeroKai 14:53, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Still they have a working dynamic signature code, which im trying to obtain from The CBL. If we get some sort of working dynamic source code we have a chace of having an CAWikia branded dynamic signature. 16:19, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Creation of The Board
Zero;

I formally request permission to create (and head) The Board of Projects. Basically, the board would have control over what different projects would be running around the wiki. Previously, I would just start and work on separate projects by myself. Take the Forums or the (semi-successful) Advertising Committee.

There needs to be some sort of authority over what happens on those projects to connect all of the creators and tie ideas together. The Board would not have unlimited control over the whole wiki, just the small details and templates, and would have the (second to final) say over template layouts, MediaWiki Interface, and off-site activities (take the CBL or See Next). I ask to form this Board because we currently have two abstract ideas underway; the Dynamic Signature Project (DSP) and the Offsite Template and Information Project (OTIP), and one fully developed idea that is having the technical aspects of it being pounded out; the Gun Rating Index Project (tGRIP).

There is little actually happening on the DSP, currently we are collecting and modifying Dynamic Signature Code from the CBL. I have had no luck myself with it, but a good-willed wikian has offered to help.

As with the DSP, the OTIP is an abstract idea that me and Quaranon are discussing. Basically it would draw stats from the Combat Arms website and turn that data into usable wikidata autonomously. The offsite server we would be using would be rstools.atx, which would draw data from the CA website, then use a wiki-bot (namely QBot) to write that data into templates. We could, in theory, draw player stats, gun stats, or even generate and update a list of the top players and clans with their relative exp (and lists of players in a clan).

tGRIP (pronounced “tee-grip”) takes a gun, and rates it based on damage, portability, RoF, recoil, accuracy, number of bullets, fire rate options, and other special categories. It then gives it a number based on 100 where 100 is average, <100 is below average, and >100 is above average. I can’t give away the “secret sauce” code yet, but I can give you a sample. The Damage rating for an assault rifle is

“(Damage/Average AR damage)*30”

The beauty of tGRIP is that, as more AR’s are added, Other AR’s GRI’s rating either falls or rises. So as better guns are added, other guns GRI’s fall because their worse than the newer ones. The opposite is also true. And there are different categories. A sniper rifle’s GRI depends more on Damage and Accuracy, while a SMG’s depends more on fire rate and portability; the qualities that their respected users look for in the gun they prefer. To compare say a sniper rifle with an MG (where there is normally two separate categories), there is a Universal Gun Rating Index, which sees all stats as equal and compares them number for number. Generally though, you would use specific categories to get a rating for a gun. For more information on tGRIP, see this page.

The Board of Projects would oversee these and many other projects. It would allow a person who is doing a project to get help and tie it with other projects. Imagine if all of the different things going on were tied together. Suddenly all of the different pathways become accessible from one central crossroads. It allows a forum, so to speak, for people to get help or give help with things that would improve the Wiki. Take tGrip for example; the only thing setting me back from putting it into place is that I need a master list of EVERY GUN including all stats (IE damage, total ammo count, integrated scope, etc.). That is a lot of work for one person. The Board’s page would have a list of projects that need help, and tGRIP would be at the top of that list, simply because it would make our CA site unique if we had a functional and accurate way to rate guns based on fact, and not “I like this gun more because it looks cool”.

Your “Executive” decision (shall we say) would obviously override whatever decision the Board makes. You the active, and to me and most of the active community, the only, Bureaucrat are here to help grow the community. You want what’s best for the community, and so do I, only I want to smoke out CAHQ and blow it out of the water >=). I’m more of a business person. I think, “Holy Shitake has an average of 2k views a video; we have 35k people looking at our site each month; If we pare up we get 5% more viewers and he becomes a face for the CAWiki. He gets more views and therefore more subscribers, and he becomes famous (if not more so).” We could have approached FallenHobo, who gets 10k views per vid, but he doesn’t have as much incentive to stay with us. Holy Shitake on the other hand greatly benefits from our partnership, so he WANTS to stay with us. Look at it like this; We partner up, we get quality reviews, he gets more vid views from our site, which in turn, makes his youtube search ranking go up, which means he gets more popular, and as more people watch him, they see our logo, and they go to our site.

The Board would be democratic, somewhat like a board of trustees. We would vote on which projects get precedence over others. We would make committees for different things (like the Advertising committee). We could come up with wonderful things and vote whether to implement them or not. Let’s say tGRIP has been written and the only thing that remains was cosmetics. How would we present tGrip? The Board would vote on that, though I already think tGRIP would be an adding to the standard gun description box; under a subsection that lists (for the G36E);

Assault Rifle GRI Rating: 110

Universal GRI Ration:105

The Board would act as a substitution for when you’re unavailable. Say if you’re gone and the CBL wants to cut a deal with us? We can’t put them on hold. We would leave a message on your talk page and if there was no response from you within two days the Administrators on The Board could make a decision on your behalf.

Votes would be counted in the following way;

B’crat = 2.2 counts

Head of Board = 1.1 counts

Others on Board = 1 count

Having the 2.2 and 1.1 votes prevents any ties on votes, and efficiently requires three trusted admins to make a decision for you. You could easily override any

It probably seems silly to have such a large “Committee” on a small wiki. But as the CAWiki grows, it would provide structure. Projects would have a home subpage on the Board of Projects Page. So tGRIP’s page would be

“CAWiki:Board of Projects/Project/Gun Rating Index”. Then there would be subpages arranged according to the project’s designer. It would be somewhat of a standard setup though. There would be a requirement that would be set to have an index of pages in a project’s subspace. The index would be called “Page List”. tGRIP’s page list url would be: “CAWiki:Board of Projects/Project/Gun Rating Index/Page List”. It is there to serve as a reference for all pages. Acknowledging that tGRIP alone would have at least 700 subpages (the number of guns in Combatarms multiplied by five to seven) listing separate guns and stats that could be automatically read by the MediaWiki software.

An example of a clean layout would be (for tGRIP, and with comments on whats its function):

CAWiki:Board of Projects/Project/Gun Rating Index/variables/sniperrifle/average/damage;

(lists average damage for sniper rifles; used to rate sniper’s damage rating compared to others);

CAWiki:Board of Projects/Project/Gun Rating Index/variables/machinegun/average/portability;

(lists average portability for machine guns; used to rate MG’s portability rating compared to others)

CAWiki:Board of Projects/Project/Gun Rating Index/stat/sniperrifle/l96a1blackmagnum/damage;

(lists damage of a Black Magnum)

Note the standard layout. And how after viewing a few page urls you understand where a G36E Valkyrie’s damage rating would be (CAWiki:Board of Projects/Project/Gun Rating Index/variables/stat/assaultrifle/g36evalkyrie/damage). That way you could use a template to say that “The G36E Valkyrie is one of the most used guns in Combat Arms, and has an Assault Rifle GRI of. As the GRI for the Valk changes, so would the number listed on the page.

As previously stated, I’m still working out the kinks on tGRIP, but hopefully, guns with average ratings would have their number gold (for yellow), numbers with worse GRI’s would have red, and great GRI’s would have green numbers. Also, hopefully, I could setup a system for distinguishing the best gun in CA overall (judged by the Universal GRI), best gun in class (Sniper Rifles for example), best gun in Category (Portability for example, judged by Universal GRI), and add awards (say a platinum, gold, or silver star respectively) to the Gun Box on its page.

Please either accept or reject the creation of the board. I am already starting to create the necessary pages for tGRIP. -Hunter --~

Nothing illegal, just very complicated. And then ban them?

Re: Post Note
Eh i forgot what i was going to say... 18:54, July 2, 2010 (UTC) Oh yeah! Umm we should probably change the NX war page, it might anger nexon. And we want to be in good faith with nexon. Also, Ive never heard of the NX war...

New section
It is requested that you see here.

Please weigh in on the results of the poll on the Combat Arms Wiki discussion page.

This is a mass-message sent by Hunter.

Vandalising?
ARevolvingDoor 03:35, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I just have a quick question, so here goes:

Why is it that I get a mesage welcoming me to the wiki periodically, and there's always something that says I have one more warning before I'm banned for vandalising, and it says that it was issued in March. I don't know what you're talking about. The only Wiki that I've ever vandalized was the regular Wikipedia, and every time I've ever edited on this wiki was to help contribute. Could you make light of this for me?


 * Done. you know you can do it yourself right? Its MediaWiki:Sitenotice. Just edit the place thats in between the

and the markers. Then add +1 to the count on MediaWiki:Sitenotice id -- 15:21, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) CONTENT BELOW######################
 * 1) CONTENT ABOVE######################

=(

lackey...sounds sexy. o.O

and to the permy thing, yes, you can recieve a bm for permy. Do you have one though?

Zero, go to my user page (then scroll to the bottom and clcik the centered link), then scroll to the bottom of that page and look at the picture.

Lol to smexy trickery. But yeah, you can get the BM renewed for permy. Lol i chestshotted a guy and he saw the damage i did to him and he's like "But that wasnt a headshot!".

Again, LOL to smexy trickery.

20:09, July 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * hey! you said that to me! I thought we had something special =(


 * 00:30, July 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not?
 * Its not?