Easier Database Editing?

[Bloodmorphed]

I to hate this particular database. Mainly because it is extremely weird to add new stuff in the middle of a list.

Say if I have 50 weapons but I wanted to add one right in the middle. I would have to copy all the ones on the bottom then paste them one down, then add the one I want.

Thats an example, is there a way to do this easier? Because if there is I missed it lol.

 

[Zoltor]

You're overlooking something.

It would be very dumb to offset already made objects in the database, because scripts(along with a bunch of the variables in event commands) go by the number(aka ID) listed, not the name of the object. Editing a entry in the database the way you propose, would break many things in a game, forcing you to edit everything that is made to read that object's ID.

 

[Andar]

Basically, it's "plan ahead", especially if you know that you want a big game.


The multicopy command makes that copy/pasting easier, but it still has the problem that it moves the IDs and you have to change all events that used the old items with higher IDs.


But the IDs are exactly the reason why you usually don't want to add items into the middle of the lists - if you had (for example) a treasure chest giving a sword with the ID 10, and then move the sword to ID11 because you want to add a knife at ID 10, then the already existing chest will suddenly give the knife instead of the sword - because the engine always only uses the ID to determine what to use.


If you want to add something into the lists before using the database in events, then there is no problem with making space by multicopy.


If you started working on events and then want to add something into the lower IDs of the database - do that at your own risk...

 

[Bloodmorphed]

Ah, no I'm not. I had that in mind. But as I'm using no events, or scripts right now, it doesn't matter.

I like to keep my database very organized. 

I categorize by lets say Cloth, Leather, and Plate armors. Then at this point I go from weakest to strongest.

Keep in mind this is before I'm actually DOING ANYTHING with the database. I'm just populating right now. Also the game I'm working now is the engine as is with only perhaps scripts to make the menu look better and a message system, so I won't have scripts that do that in this one.

I suppose it's not too big of a hassle though, Especially all I have is the name in the database, I don't have stats or pictures or anything other then the name. Ah well.

EDIT:

Thanks Andar, kinda beat me to this lol

 

[Andar]

Judging from the time stamp, you haven't read my answer when posting above - did you see my reference to the multicopy command and know where to find it? (right-click in ID list)

 

[Bloodmorphed]

Judging from the time stamp, you haven't read my answer when posting above - did you see my reference to the multicopy command and know where to find it? (right-click in ID list)

Yup I know where it's at. I use this method, I was just wondering if I could insert one between. But alas I can't. Like I said though, it is not too huge of an issue as I'm just naming items currently and not putting in stats or anything special yet.

 

[Kes]

Having learnt the hard way, and ended up with an inventory that was a mess, when populating my database I now always leave several blank spaces below each category.  I, too, like to go from weakest to strongest, but if partway through I discover that I need to add something, at least it's in the right section, even if it's slightly out of order in terms of strength.

 

[Ultim]

@ksjp17 : That's my method,I also do categories.BUT,In my categories,it's not from the weakest to strongest or strongest to weakest etc...I categorize them by type.The Axe category,The Sword category etc...I make sure I don't miss anything(I write the database on a paper lol)So it's rare I need to add something to it.

 

[DoubleX]

Or maybe in some cases you do need or want to add something later which can't or are too hard to be foreseen by you, you may just want to group those new things as patch 1 or something like that. For example, your database list may end up like this:

Spoiler

====type 1====

item 1

item 2

item 3

...

item n

====type 2====

item 1

item 2

item 3

...

item n

====type 3====

item 1

item 2

item 3

...

item n

...

===type m====

item 1

item 2

item 3

...

item n

====patch 1====

item 1

item 2

item 3

...

item n

====patch 2====

item 1

item 2

item 3

...

item n

====patch 3====

item 1

item 2

item 3

...

item n

...

====patch m====

item 1

item 2

item 3

...

item n

Of course that doesn't mean you don't have to plan ahead, but maybe sometimes unforeseeable things just happen. This way you can easily know which items are the original ones and which ones are added later by patches.

 

[TheoAllen]

You should try this awesome script
http://www.rpgmakervxace.net/topic/24479-update-3-gambit-database-organizer-variables-self-switches

 

[Grounded]

You're overlooking something.

It would be very dumb to offset already made objects in the database, because scripts(along with a bunch of the variables in event commands) go by the number(aka ID) listed, not the name of the object. Editing a entry in the database the way you propose, would break many things in a game, forcing you to edit everything that is made to read that object's ID.

You should still be able to reorganise items while preserving the original IDs. This is a pretty standard feature of any database - as good as the software is, this is probably its weakest point.

 

[DoubleX]

You should still be able to reorganise items while preserving the original IDs. This is a pretty standard feature of any database - as good as the software is, this is probably its weakest point.

But that would mean the database allows item ids in database lists to be possibly not ascending(like from 1 to 999 in RMVXA), so some lists of some projects may end up like this:

Spoiler

001: item 1

010: item 2

008: item 3

...

009: item n

I wonder how many RMVXA users prefer this over the current database settings

Maybe RMVXA can be upgraded to let users pick their own preference, but I don't know the technical stuffs actually(at least changing preference on the fly would probably change the arrangement of many database lists and that could be a headache) so maybe that's nonsense at the end

 

[whitesphere]

I also try to leave large blank spaces in my database when I add entries, precisely to avoid what Zoltor mentioned.    And I've already found I didn't leave enough blank spaces in some cases.

I think almost all object references use the internal ID instead of a name, because names are not guaranteed to be unique.  In my current game, I have two Fire Bolt skills --- one monsters use (which bumps a "fire used" counter), and one the players use (which does not).  Both have the same name, so a "by name" lookup would never find one of them.

Lessons learned on my part --- always over-estimate the amount of blank spaces you'll need.  If I were to leave blank space for Armor types, I'd leave at least enough space for 15 items of each Armor type --- the obvious upgrades, plus perhaps permutations like "Flame Armor". 

Personally, I never move any objects around, because when I've done that, I've had strange interactions with my scripts, because the latter were running with a specific ID.  So it's not just "copy and paste" objects, which is tedious, but "hunt down ALL of the references to ANY objects I've moved."  That becomes a lot more work than "Deal with objects not being in order"

You can end up with strange bugs like the Wise Elf at the end of the game giving you the worst weapon, because the Elf gave Weapon ID 120, and you've put a joke weapon at ID 120 and moved the Ultimate Weapon to ID 130.     Or more subtle bugs where a Quest now requires an item (referenced by ID) the player couldn't have yet.

 

[Grounded]

But that would mean the database allows item ids in database lists to be possibly not ascending(like from 1 to 999 in RMVXA), so some lists of some projects may end up like this:

Spoiler

001: item 1

010: item 2

008: item 3

...

009: item n

Spoiler

I wonder how many RMVXA users prefer this over the current database settings

Maybe RMVXA can be upgraded to let users pick their own preference, but I don't know the technical stuffs actually(at least changing preference on the fly would probably change the arrangement of many database lists and that could be a headache) so maybe that's nonsense at the end

What practical difference would this make though, as long as you can still look up an item's ID? If you're the one who created the order (Swords then Axes then Spears...) then you know where to look in the list when you're selecting an item from a drop down. If you have an Order field behind the scenes that manages the sequence without affecting the IDs, then you're free to re-organise as much as you like in the UI without blowing up all your treasure chests/monster drops etc. A lot of people have suggested leaving blank spaces, which is also what I've learned to do, but then you just end up with lots of empty items that are never used, which is really just a slightly different state of untidiness!

 

[DoubleX]

What practical difference would this make though, as long as you can still look up an item's ID? If you're the one who created the order (Swords then Axes then Spears...) then you know where to look in the list when you're selecting an item from a drop down. If you have an Order field behind the scenes that manages the sequence without affecting the IDs, then you're free to re-organise as much as you like in the UI without blowing up all your treasure chests/monster drops etc. A lot of people have suggested leaving blank spaces, which is also what I've learned to do, but then you just end up with lots of empty items that are never used, which is really just a slightly different state of untidiness!

Actually I'm completely ok with non ascending IDs, I just feel that it's the preferred choice of the majority of the RMVXA users. It seems to me that back to RMXP(or even earlier versions), many users are already used to this way.

This reason alone doesn't give such setup any merit, but usually the preference of the majority is one important concern of the developers when they make the choice(I don't know if it's true here though).

If they changed the setup to your way, some of those RMVXA users may probably end up complaining; Implementing both ways to let users to choose may involve difficult technical issues although I don't know much about this.

Right now those not preferring the current RMVXA way can try what TheoAllen suggested here:

You should try this awesome script

http://www.rpgmakervxace.net/topic/24479-update-3-gambit-database-organizer-variables-self-switches

I haven't tried it myself but I think it works as I briefly looked at the scripts and saw at least 2+ proficient scripters giving really positive comments on that script.

Of course that's still not as convenient as if the default setup of the original database were your way, but maybe right now that script's the best choice for you

If that script is still not enough, you may want to talk about the suggestions in the next rpg maker thing

 

[Grounded]

Actually I'm completely ok with non ascending IDs, I just feel that it's the preferred choice of the majority of the RMVXA users. It seems to me that back to RMXP(or even earlier versions), many users are already used to this way.

This reason alone doesn't give such setup any merit, but usually the preference of the majority is one important concern of the developers when they make the choice(I don't know if it's true here though).

If they changed the setup to your way, some of those RMVXA users may probably end up complaining; Implementing both ways to let users to choose may involve difficult technical issues although I don't know much about this.

If this is how they do it in older versions, I suspect it's just a legacy issue - they do it this way because they've always done it this way. I don't know what VXAce is written in, but this kind of stuff is pretty trivial in other environments. If they did implement the ability to organise manually it shouldn't affect anyone who wants to use the old method - they just accept the order as determined by the system when items are added. Besides, if a new method is more efficient and provides more options, and is implemented in an easy to understand way, people are quick to forget their old 'preferred' method!

 

[Zoltor]

But that would mean the database allows item ids in database lists to be possibly not ascending(like from 1 to 999 in RMVXA), so some lists of some projects may end up like this:

Spoiler

001: item 1

010: item 2

008: item 3

...

009: item n

Spoiler

I wonder how many RMVXA users prefer this over the current database settings

Maybe RMVXA can be upgraded to let users pick their own preference, but I don't know the technical stuffs actually(at least changing preference on the fly would probably change the arrangement of many database lists and that could be a headache) so maybe that's nonsense at the end

Lol yea, what a mess that would be sigh.

To Grounded: If only that was the case, then we would still have complete freedom over page conditions, instead of this POS page condition setup we have now. Their decisions definitely have nothing to do with a format being used in the past.

 

[Grounded]

Lol yea, what a mess that would be sigh.

To Grounded: If only that was the case, then we would still have complete freedom over page conditions, instead of this POS page condition setup we have now. Their decisions definitely have nothing to do with a format being used in the past.

So are you saying you know for a fact it's a technical limitation? They want to put this kind of functionality in but can't?

 

[boldpaste2]

I think all the database needs is a search function and then it will make things a whole lot easier to locate.