Jump to content

AnarchCassius

Member
  • Content Count

    71
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About AnarchCassius

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. AnarchCassius

    A Science Question

    As I understood it the common theory is that our magnetosphere, generated by the iron core spinning in the molten mantle, creates a field that protects us to a large degree from the solar wind. Mars has a cooled mantle and it's magnetosphere has decayed and this is thought to have more to do with it's current lack of atmosphere than it's actual size.
  2. AnarchCassius

    A Science Question

    They said geosyncronous but I'm pretty sure they meant tidally locked. In fact a close-in planet seems MORE likely to be tidally locked than one further out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking That said most binary star systems are in fact huge from a planet's point of view. The other side would be seeing a really bright star during the times it was visible but unlikely to compare to the primary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Triple-star_sunset.jpg If the planet were close enough to the stars that each could provide daylight it would probably be orbiting outside both of them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_binary_star_systems The secondary star could be moving at a variety of speeds, the problem is getting it close enough to provide daylight at all. Once it becomes that close planets are unlikely to exist between the two stars at all. Of course the life that grew up here has never known Earth's day. The twilight like effect of the secondary star would probably be enough fuel some life, though probably not as well as Sol does on Earth.
  3. AnarchCassius

    Fomar's ATB/Stamina Battle Turn End correction?

    Huh, good catch. I use those but hadn't tested much. I think it's an easy fix. I will post an update tomorrow. I also got a couple minor other fixes and got surprise/preemptive working properly.
  4. It is also an easy to use language that offers a lot of flexibility without the finnicky overhead of something like C++. It and Python are objectively some of the better choices for game scripting if you don't need raw speed. I mean as a progammer Ruby and Python both seem almost like "plain speech" to me, they're so easy to use it's ridiculous. Never tried Lua.
  5. Okay so this may be a little complex for you but I'll outline how this works since Ruby in RPGmaker is intended to support this in a certain way. You can "alias" parts of the script or replace them by putting code further down. So although you can rip out chunks it's actually pretty easy to just route around them entirely. They will still be there if you ever need to go back, but they won't run. This will increase the initial loading of scripts and the filesize slightly but should have no effect on overall performance compared to removing them (someone may correct me on that if I'm wrong).
  6. Well you can use this: http://www.rpgmakervxace.net/topic/29792-passability-when-using-big-character-sheets/ to get multitile characters... I have no idea how that will work with any platformer aspects though and you'd need to do some tweaks to change it dynamically.
  7. I honestly think adding new battle systems and focusing on tweaks to how out of the box features work is counter productive. We can do that now. Now I understand I'm a coder so I can make my own scripts and that may bias my view, but consider how using the RTP seems frowned upon, yet not replacing the majority of internal code is accepted practice. Frankly I think the RTP looks great and I'd rather have a large set of graphics, expanded by the community and able to represent most objects in my game, then spend a bunch of time/money creating a unique but very small pool of graphics for a game. Now I'm no hypocrite, I'm not going to say the RTP is great but you must write your own code. But asking for alternate battle systems sounds like asking for alternate sets of graphics. As in different styles, not compatible, to choose from in the RTP... that's not what the program should be about. If you don't like the default option you replace it, you don't expect the program to out of the box implement any conceivable kind of RPG. The program should be about doing the default thing, in one way, as flexibly as possible. Sure, if you hate the battle system you are out of luck, but if you hate the RTP likewise. Make the battle system more flexible, make it more easy to expand with one's own code, but new battle systems will nearly guarantee we get 3 really mediocre systems instead of one that could be a good baseline for dozens. Features of new RPGmakers should be things you just can't do in the current one. This applies to image editting to, I can use GIMP just fine, so RPGmaker doesn't need an editor. The maps on the other hand, well nothing else can edit them and there aren't a lot of good map editors in the first place, so that's good area to focus on. We can always think of a feature a given user wants but doesn't have, but if they can add it themselves it's not big deal. The default content is supposed to be a mere baseline to be drastically altered, it's not supposed to be a ready made game and if it is than a lack of flexibility is the price you pay. The more flexible a program, typically, the less is set up for you out of the box. Things I think would make a huge difference... Export to new platforms: can't do it now and if we could it would seriously boost commercial viability, people are way more likely to buy a JRPG for an Android than a PC.these days Expose all code so we can write things like multiplayer without it being a complete pain: nuff said Heck I could see including a basic networking support as a new system: nobody likes writing network code Last but not at all least.... Dynamic Database and View. Make the database viewer HTML if you have to but Ruby can totally support a dynamic database menu. If you want a new data field for enemies or actors? Just add it in the database and have the viewer show it. It may not be as pretty as currently but it's better than note tags for new kinds of data.Such a frontend would be a huge help to programmers and non-programmers alike. The only downside is that our databases will no longer necessarily be cross compatible, but with many script that is already no longer the case.
  8. AnarchCassius

    A Sign of Hiatus

    Good luck. Please focus on school and then your own game and supporting scripts. You've already contributed a wonderful collection of material that's probably going to save me alone weeks of time.
  9. AnarchCassius

    What counts as a video game?

    I actually am working on a VN with a combat engine. In the VN world we call a "game" you just flip through with no choices a kinetic novel (it's a moving comic) and no, it's not really a game. Technically Visual Novel is not great jargon since kinetic novels are visual and visual novels are kinetic, for that matter you'd think visual novel and graphic novel would be interchangable, but those are the terms.
  10. AnarchCassius

    What counts as a video game?

    Well I'm going to keep if fairly short but say that I like that. Metagame works perfectly. There isn't a game per se you can nail down but the collection of minigames and their interactions creates a definite metagame. The card pool of CCGs and the collecting and trading thereof is also commonly called a metagame so I think the term works well. Calling WoW not a game doesn't seem right, and there is a strategy that emerges. Designing a character that could play well in a dungeon or in the practically Deathmatch Battlegrounds was a thing in and of itself and while hard to score does determine strategy.
  11. AnarchCassius

    What counts as a video game?

    Time for a radically different opinion! I'm normally pretty fond of Wikipedia but I can't agree here. They're taking one definition from a paper in 2001. That's not word of god. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simulation Yet people refer to "simulated reality", now they refer to "ATM machines" too so that's not a perfect argument but neither is yours. We don't have a word for smashing a banana in someone's face; not every concept has a word in every language. The idea that a simulation has to model reality seems inherently flawed. Much scientific simulation involves working with what-ifs... if the laws of physics work like this how would a galaxy unfold. The simulation isn't trying to model reality, it's enacting a model which can then be compared to reality and in turn test the validity of the model as a model of reality. However the simulation was never attempting to model reality, only a particular theory about how it might work. In fact I'd say more often than not a simulation attempts to simulate a model that diverges from reality is some way, in order that we can contrast that change with the observed state of affairs. The best definition of simulation I can supply is an enactment of a model. All that is really required for a true simulation is an internally consistent model. Enacting that model is a simulation, the tools you used to do it are your simulator. Yes, your hand IS a simulation of a bird when you flap, if not a very good one. I would actually have to argue that all games are simulations. All true games enact a model set of rules, more often than not those rules are themselves a model of reality anyway. Chess is a simulation of war. Even a traditional card game is a simulation of an abstract mathematical system. What makes them games is that you can win them or at least score. If a given simulation is also a game then the model itself has a built-in scoring nature. Can we apply game theory to develop a strategy? I can actually far more get behind the argument that say, World of Warcraft is not truly a game, than that it is not truly a simulation. Fighting a battle in World of Warcraft is a game. Playing in the Battleground levels is a game. Attempting to clear a dungeon with a raid party is a game. These are all things you can apply a strategy to and score. But World of Warcraft in it's entirety requires a player's interpretation of it to make games, much like we can play games in our own reality but their rules are not built into our universe. (Okay so in Warcraft the Battleground ARE built-in... but they are contained within WoW, they are games within a simulation). WoW isn't a game, it's simulation software for playing games in. Call of Duty isn't technically a game, but playing a round of Deathmatch is. Does that mean simulation can be art? No. Since the simulation is the enactment of the model, then there is only room for art in the model itself, otherwise your simulator is simply broken/ineffective. Now here's a question, can Simulationism can be properly equated with Simulation or is it more diverged than that? Simulationism DOES seem about modelling reality. Not perfectly or exactly, but think about it... Tetris can rightfully be called a simulation of a 2d dimensional universe with very strange laws of gravity and particle interaction. However if we made Tetris way more complex, made it a full on open world... but kept it Tetris, I don't think it would be proper simulationism. A whole universe a blocks interacting according to their natural laws. No matter how detailed and complex that world, no matter how intricate it's not going to feel remotely like the reality we know. One the other hand very Gamist games are still simulations, Chess is hugely Gamist but it's a classic simulation example. I think the nature of the computer as simulation tool has slowly twisted our perception. We continue to call this sort of software "games" long after they began to deviate from the traditional concept of a game and because we can play games with them the difference is not widely noticed.
  12. AnarchCassius

    Would you event a scene, or use a movie?

    Look at Warcraft 3. Most of the cutscenes are "evented", and all of the ones that occur in the middle of the action or are dynamic are scripted. The movies are in a completely different style and act as major story points. If you have the resources to make videos that do things you could no do in RPGMaker events, record it. Otherwise it's not really worth the file size and loss of dynamic control I think,
  13. AnarchCassius

    "Endless" Dungeons

    Well that's enough to work but you can take it a few steps further. Making a full on rogue-like map generator in RPG Maker can be done... but probably is overkill. What I'd do is spice it up with two further variances... Take your dungeon floors and break them down to 4, 9 or 16 pieces, even squares, using regions or just plain coordinate math, Make sure the entrances and exits to each square match on every map. They can quickly dead but make them match. Basically you're creating a tiled board system like a tabletop game in the vein of Zombies or Betrayal at House on the Hill. Then use a script to randomly pull each tile from a different map. You'll have far more than 30 levels possible, they have similair layouts but vary greatly. You can also, far more simply, just randomly place the monsters and treasures each time the level loads. Region tags work (but since a tile can only have one you'll need a different solution for marking board tiles I guess), just place a few randomized events in each of several regions. These both require a lot of scripts, some splicing of them, and some new code but most of the pieces exist already.
  14. AnarchCassius

    What do you think about a full Tactical Battle RPG?

    Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics basically work like this, well once you leave the overworld travel map. Ultima 6 and 7 use this method completely. It's actually sort of the preferred system for Western RPGs of the 90s. I wish it were more popular still.
  15. I hate to say it but I find this sort of system a tease in most cases. I loved the FF Tactics games (and don't really play the others) and in FF Tactics Advance I got all excited about hunting down monster souls with my ranger only to figure out all they did was give my druid-eqsue class some not very interesting tricks. In FFTA it really just sort of winds up feeling like extra grind. You not are making a point build decision about developing your character, you just have to go through a lot of extra rigmarole to unlock one particular class' powers. In the end most of them didn't even feel that special or worth hunting down, like I could have just trained a mage to do it. Honestly I sometimes feel like JRPGs are taunting me with things that don't quite bring in allies... FF's "summons", monster souls, okay maybe it's just FF. I agree that not every game needs to be Pokemon but I feel like part 5 is real meat of your system, the crowning achievement. Disgaia is a JRPG that does something close really well (it doesn't have the FF-like build-up which I think might be less of a tease if you can actually use the monster itself at some point) where you can try to capture enemy creatures. This is sort of a major deal, requiring you to bring them back to your gate and THEN being defeated by your reserve troops. If you win the character is now a member of your permanant roster who be leveled like any other character. If you loose they break your gate and you can't replenish or retreat forces for the rest of the encounter... and your reserves are pwned anyway. If you want to not have the monsters feel like Pokemon or normal party members than maybe set it up so that they can be summoned during combat for mana/tp/whatever. Using the beasts is therefore not the same as a normal character but once brought out for a fight they act like any character, until downed or the fight ends. The summons could be a sort of option for a ranger type, he can pick one or two to be able to use at a time.
×