PhoenixSoul

Something tells me that it is a percentage. Not sure, just a hunch. Also, Extra value is not quite like that. Extra value is more like this: (Base*LV) + (EX*LV) If it were as you said, since in RM, Extra Value can be 0, then, it would be...okay yeah it kinda is, but the values are calculated independently and then added, and then the Acceleration A/B values are factored in, with B mainly for the upper level range. That's what I understand. Personally, I prefer external EXP tables, but that's another topic for another time.

To invalidate an entire script: __END__ at the top of any script. Make sure there is nothing else on the line and that there are no leading spaces. May that be useful in some way.

Nice, very nice.

Dé rìen!

Posted in IWO Discord. This is cool, by the by.

That looks like Yanfly's Battle Engine to me.

As of posting this; @Tsukihime's RGSS3 script blog is still up, and this script is still available for grabs in text form. However, this script I'm archiving here is an updated version, which @roninator2 made additions to, for @MasterMoes. I took the liberty of cleaning it up and turning it into a proper ruby file, for archiving purposes, with proper text updating. For those that would rather copy and paste directly: Hime-Roninator-Custom Use Conditions.rb

I'm glad it worked out. I'll be cleaning up the new script and archiving it here.

I do not know if this will point you in the proper direction, but... My thoughts would be that using this rather than type: learned would do it. Try this: See if that works.

Okay, so here, I'm wanting to create a board for those of us who are experiencing script conflicts, and mayhaps someone may come along with a solution to them, or post their own conflicts. Rules: 1) NO STUPID CRAP. No flaming, trolling, etcetera. Take it to the back alley, thanks. 2) Links to scripts in question are appreciated, but of course, this is the internet and the internet has a well-known habit of deleting and yeeting itself from existence, so if the original source, is, you know, 404 ERROR NOT FOUND or likewise-similar, and there's no backup/archive, we will accept YOUR COPY, but please have one that's unmodified, kaythanks. 3) You have to be descriptive. One liners are not enough. That tells us nothing. Squat. NENHUM. Also, a single image with the default error dialog is not much better. It's slightly better, but not much. 4) This is not a hard rule, but a strong recommendation, and a bit of a nudge-plug. One of our own, dearest @Kayzee has a better error reporter for if Ruby doesn't like something. We suggest getting that and using it. They have two versions, one that replaces main and one that doesn't. Ties into Rule 3, pretty much, and will definitely help. 5) Lastly, if you are here to provide a solution, patch, or an update, then by all means, feel free. However, let those who posted their issues know about it though, kaythanks. Oh, one more thing. only one rule is an actual hard rule. Rule 1. We don't want that here. With that out of the way... I have a script conflict I don't know how to address. Conflict: SEE - Item Menu v. @Tsukihime - Instance Items Error type: Soft (no crash) Error Persistence: The Item Menu just simply does not recognize instance items and I do not know how to make it work with them. How I realized this: In the item menu, there's supposed to be four lines of text that describes the item in better detail, but it's attached to the item's ID, which per instance is different than the template ID, and the instance ID is not accounted for by the item menu script, therefore, the lines of text are blank.

Yeah, that'll do. Not that I'm sure how to make it work as I can't get the script to work because it's incompatible with Instance Items.

It is very likely that the way this was edited completely changed/overwrote the methods for drawing the text and images for the items for the script. I'm no expert, and as cool as the Etude 87 tool looks, it seems to me, that it is definitely on par with the Luna Engine as far as difficulty goes. I'm thinking that someone else who has far more expertise may have more luck, though, you'll have to provide script snippets of what was edited.