Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | simonlc's commentslogin

That sounds like how certain types of combos work in games like Street Fighter.

-----


Bunny hopping was removed from competitive play with zblock, and later on made to be disabled by the server. CS has a whole other side to it where people don't even play on normal maps, and bunny hopping is part of it or the main challenge.

Continuing my point, during the development of Quake 2, bunny hopping was "fixed" but players complained, and it eventually got added back in. It remains a central part of Quake gameplay. Action Quake 2, a mod for Quake 2, had bunny hopping in it like Quake 2. The mod developers then moved on and made Counter Strike. CS featured bhoping prominently up until version 1.3.

These games have always lived and breathed bunny hopping, it has been a huge part of the game, and has influenced the creation of many games (CPMA, Warsow, DeFRaG, etc), and even started a new genre of game that requires of focuses on skilled movement.

-----


It should probably be noted that CS 1.3 was released in 2001. So CS has not featured bunny hopping for 14 of it 16 years of life.

Citation, https://joliesjunk.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/the-history-of-c...

-----


CS 1.3 had uncapped speeds, meaning you could accelerate to enormous speeds with bhopping. The speed was mostly capped in the next release, but bhopping was not eliminated, it's used to overcome surface friction, maintaining momentum. There's an entire community built around it: http://xtreme-jumps.eu/

-----


Same thing in Firefox.

-----


Same in Chrome 26 (Win7)

-----


Someone used this pattern to make a very simple 'bot' with autohotkey, it is used here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aiXCnpXBfc

That game is event based, not frame based, so it is possible to put down multiple pieces in one frame.

Here is the same bot on a frame based game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1y_m1W-go8

-----


Great book, always a good introduction to an HTML5 feature I need to use for the first time.

-----


The vertical align is off in his screenshot, but in Firefox it seems to be spot on. Also I wouldn't worry too much about the colors, that's about the easiest thing to change yourself.

-----


Nothing is stopping you from using this as a framework and adding your own styles over the 'flatness'. If anything this is a much nicer base to work off of than if you started with something that had poorly made gradients.

-----


I agree. There's absolutely no reason to have photoshop in the browser. If you want to sync your files with 'the cloud' you don't need a browser for that.

-----


well id personally love to use my desktop as i left it off with a click of a button on any pc/tablet that has a browser.

Its not a big pain but it would make my life easier!

-----


The browser is now an operating system (as Chromium proves). Photoshop is welcome to run on any operating system.

Photoshop on a Chrome Pixel, for instance, makes a lot of sense.

-----


the Pixel makes little sense to start with unless you enjoy vendor locking.

-----


I don't understand your statement at all.

The only thing I'm locked into is Chromium, and even that I can replace.

-----


The only thing happens to be every thing, and once you replace it the whole point becomes moot.

-----


So, imagine the list of operating systems that you believe it makes sense to run Photoshop on.

I'd like to add Chromium to your list.

And your answer is... that... "vendor lock-in"?

I'm sorry, but you're making zero sense.

-----


JavaScript was my first language. I learned allthe basics of programming in it. I quickly got frustrated because I still did not know how to make anything complex. I switched to python and it almost was like easymode. With python I was much more able to learn how to make things. Now I'veswitched back and I hate it. I'm continually forced to go out of my way with js to make things work properly. Thought now at least I can work on html projects that I can share, python on the other hand can't do that.

-----


So you're saying that we should either be willing to pay $5/m for an RSS reader service, or $5/m to host the service ourselves?

Someone with a lot of feeds wouldn't be able to fit all of them in the 5 MB that DOM Storage allows. I wouldn't like an offline feed since a big majority of my feeds are videos and podcasts.

As for them being able to yank away at any time, you're right, but there's going to be enough new stuff out there that it wont be a problem, this time we wont have a monopoly.

-----


> So you're saying that we should either be willing to pay $5/m for an RSS reader service, or $5/m to host the service ourselves?

Why is that so unreasonable? Though, I think it's likely that the hosted solution would be much cheaper than self-hosting, since you don't need to rent one server per user, a hosted solution could be much more efficient.

-----

More

Applications are open for YC Summer 2015

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Y Combinator | Apply | Contact

Search: