Would you like this feature?


  • Total voters
    182

Prescott

argggghhh
Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2014
Messages
512
Reaction score
440
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
All you have to do is put similar maps on the same map out of reach of what the player can see. So, houses for instance aren't that big. You can put multiple in one map. If you have auto events or anything like that when going into the house, you can make them only appear in a certain region id. Voila.
The only issue I see with doing this is that if you are using the default "show map name" thing, all of your houses would need to be named the same exact thing. You couldn't do "Jimmy's House" and "Stephen's House" because they'd both be in the same map. You'd have to get a little creative with that part.
If you ever need more than 999 maps in your project though, it's probably a given that you REALLY know what you're doing and you would be fine with an alternate method of doing things than just expanding the map count, which really can have some adverse reactions.
 

Pine Towers

Knight Hospitaller
Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
467
Reaction score
227
First Language
Portuguese
Primarily Uses
RMMV
I just can't see how anyone would need more than 999 map files, each with 256x256 squares. Please don't take the "Yes, but not important" into the "Yes". The lack of importance puts said option closer to "no", since many other features are more important that the developers must choose from.

Using only one 256x256 map file for all the shops in the game allows anyone for dozens of different shops. With triggers and switches, a maker can use the shop1map the player finds at level 1 again at level 30 and he won't be able to remember after to many hours if it is the same map or just another variation.

My project is aiming at 80-120 hours
120 hours * 60 minutes/hour equals 7200 minutes of game time.
If you need only 1000 maps, this totals the game as under 7 minutes and 30 seconds per map. If the player only sees this map once in a 120 hour game, he won't remember anything in it. Also, I'm not counting battles, cutscenes, time buying/selling items.
If your game needs more maps than 1000 (only one over 999), the time-per-map decreases even further (and I even used your max total hours of 120).

Seriously?
 

Hudell

Dog Lord
Veteran
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
3,599
Reaction score
3,829
First Language
Java's Crypt
Primarily Uses
RMMZ
Anything is possible. Once I'm finished with Orange Season I want to make another game that could definitely need more than 1000 maps. Most players would never go to all of them. Some will be visited for just a few seconds, but they are needed for the game to be complete.

I would go into more details, but I don't want to reveal what my next game is, but I can say it will have over a hundred towns on it and it is inspired by a snes game that had +/- 130 towns itself (the snes game reused the interior maps for many of it's towns, so it probably didn't have 1000+ maps, but I don't want to reuse things too much).
 

Shade Aurion

Shadow Keeper
Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
60
Reaction score
25
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
I just can't see how anyone would need more than 999 map files, each with 256x256 squares. Please don't take the "Yes, but not important" into the "Yes". The lack of importance puts said option closer to "no", since many other features are more important that the developers must choose from.

Using only one 256x256 map file for all the shops in the game allows anyone for dozens of different shops. With triggers and switches, a maker can use the shop1map the player finds at level 1 again at level 30 and he won't be able to remember after to many hours if it is the same map or just another variation.


120 hours * 60 minutes/hour equals 7200 minutes of game time.
If you need only 1000 maps, this totals the game as under 7 minutes and 30 seconds per map. If the player only sees this map once in a 120 hour game, he won't remember anything in it. Also, I'm not counting battles, cutscenes, time buying/selling items.
If your game needs more maps than 1000 (only one over 999), the time-per-map decreases even further (and I even used your max total hours of 120).

Seriously?

Thats why I said "aiming"
I want 80-120 hours of content. STORY content. Thats not including buying items, grinding, side quests, post game or anything. Plus you don't know how I organize my game or anything about it. You just made rough estimates based on an average time frame. I don't want an approachable limit AT ALL because I shouldn't have to fit my game into a metaphorical box lest I come to a possible stonewall forcing me to cut planned content or reorganize, remake and retcon previous maps and content. Especially when straight up, I don't have to. Its an artificial limit ffs. It can be changed with a flick of a switch. If you're never going to approach it, cool. Good for you. Its not your concern. But to make assumptions about my project when all you have is an average time frame on story content is a bit ****ty. Its approachable to me and thus its concerning. Its a possible constraint and future issue.
 

Tai_MT

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
4,960
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
I just can't see how anyone would need more than 999 map files, each with 256x256 squares. Please don't take the "Yes, but not important" into the "Yes". The lack of importance puts said option closer to "no", since many other features are more important that the developers must choose from.

Using only one 256x256 map file for all the shops in the game allows anyone for dozens of different shops. With triggers and switches, a maker can use the shop1map the player finds at level 1 again at level 30 and he won't be able to remember after to many hours if it is the same map or just another variation.


120 hours * 60 minutes/hour equals 7200 minutes of game time.
If you need only 1000 maps, this totals the game as under 7 minutes and 30 seconds per map. If the player only sees this map once in a 120 hour game, he won't remember anything in it. Also, I'm not counting battles, cutscenes, time buying/selling items.
If your game needs more maps than 1000 (only one over 999), the time-per-map decreases even further (and I even used your max total hours of 120).

Seriously?

Been down this road with him. I suggest you read (if you have the time, he posts walls of text as long as I do) for how that conversation went. ^_^ That way, we don't clutter the thread with the same conversation again.

Anyway, I'm quoting you 'cause I'd like to chime in on something. 7 minutes and 30 seconds per map is actually pretty good. That's a decent chunk of time for a player to be able to recall, at the very least, the layout of a map, if they've been on it. I mean, you won't remember much about a map you've spent 15 seconds traversing, but a map you've had to spend 7 minutes traversing is going to be memorable in some way (though maybe not in a positive way... 7 minutes traversing every single map in the game sounds tedious to me).

Though, I think you and I both know that the 7 and a half minute "average" is just that... an average. Many maps are going to be far shorter than that 7 minutes and some are going to be far larger than that 7 minutes, at least if the 120 hour figure is to be believed. Going into an NPC house isn't going to take 7 and a half minutes. Going into a shop isn't... Viewing opening cutscenes (or even flashback cutscenes) probably isn't going to hit the 7 and a half minute mark. Most dungeon screens aren't going to hit 7 and a half minutes... Etcetera. If all of that DOES hit the average time, I think I'd be worried as a Game Dev.

@Shade Aurion

An "average time" is all we have to go off. We know some maps are going to be longer and some are going to be shorter. That's just how game design works. The only way we wouldn't make a rough estimate is if you, the game developer, provide us the EXACT TIMES A PLAYER SPENDS ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR MAPS. Since you won't, a rough estimate is what we have to go off of. In fact, an average "time spent on any given map" leads to a fairly accurate assessment of game/map design in most cases.

You need to accept that game design is a science. Whether or not a player remembers all your maps (making them necessary or unnecessary, or even useful) is something you're going to have to deal with once you release your game. If you can't handle criticism at the conceptual stage of game creation, how will you handle it once you release?

On that note, are you really planning a 120 hour game? If so, why? What is the point of a 120 hour game? I'm not sure I know anyone who designs a game (aside from silly AAA developers) around how much time a game takes to complete all the content. Such designed games usually run into a "Quantity over Quality" problem and though they might be 120 hours... Most of that 120 hours is spent doing boring crap, or being put in the same story slog that could've resolved in 30 hours of gameplay. Or, the games are loaded with boring sidequests and missions that are mostly "fetch quests" and "kill quests". I can't even imagine you've got 120 hours of content even PLANNED right now. Even if you did, once you put it into practice, you're probably going to find that not all of your content is lengthy enough to meet the time you had planned it to be.

In any case, the way you should be designing a game (because it's easier, makes the most sense, and results typically in a higher quality game) is just to tell your story in your game. Whatever that story may be. If it takes 15 hours to tell it, then so be it. If it eventually takes 120 hours to tell that story, so be it. A writer doesn't set out to create a book that's 2000 pages long. A writer sets out to tell a story. If it takes 2000 pages, so be it. If it takes 250, so be it. Game design is the same. If you can only think of content or a story that takes 30 hours, then you've got a 30 hour game. Personally, I wouldn't even worry about creating a 120 hour game unless I could ensure the same high quality across the entire game.

You've also never really answered whether or not you're using your map space efficiently.

I think an important question to ask any developer when considering raising the map limit is, "do you still need it after using every efficiency trick in the book?" If yes, then map limits should absolutely be raised. If "no", then I think we've got amateur game devs who just refuse to learn important aspects of the Engine they're using.
 

Kes

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
22,305
Reaction score
11,731
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
Guys, although this conversation is interesting in its own right, it is getting way off topic. This thread is not about game design per se, nor is it for game feedback. Although one might well want to illustrate a point with an example, we've got to the stage where we are discussing the example itself, rather than the point it is meant to be illustrating. I also think it's unlikely to reach a resolution, so we are likely to go round and round in circles.

Please stay on topic.
 

Shade Aurion

Shadow Keeper
Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
60
Reaction score
25
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
Agreed Kes. Apologies, i've been through this all already and frankly don't want to have the same argument ad infinitum
I'd already said to Tai that he can PM me a few pages back if he wants to continue this conversation but it seems he'd rather be openly condescending so at this point its really just him gas bagging.

@tai
As i've already stated, your input doesn't mean much to me since you don't have a finished project. You're talking from no higher position and just criticizing because you disagree. You have no example to back your POV thus I don't respect your input or methodology. Game design is a science yes but both you and I are in an equal position and you need to accept that my process, project and ideal is different from yours and i'm just straight up not going to agree with you. Why would I share any information about my project with you when you have no genuine interest outside of something extra to poke holes it to push your opinion on me? Why you would jump back on this after well over a month when I made it clear i'm done talking with you, only to once again pull the same conceited condescending lecture is beyond me. Just don't. We disagree you and I. Stop derailing this thread to repeatedly push the same POV i'm 100% resistant to. It's pointless. I handle critique just fine but you're not critiquing something, you're just asserting your view over mine so I simply don't respect it.

Some people want more maps. Deal with it. I and many others who voted yes (the majority in fact. 40% now) to the increase don't care about your reasons for not voting for it. Especially when you don't care about our reasons for wanting them. Its an artificial limit. It being increased would have literally no effect on you whatsoever.

Regardless, we're done here Tai. I will be ignoring you from now on as conversing with you passed this point is an exercise in futility. If you want to try not being an ass about this, PM me and don't be so overly critical with such little to go on as you simply come off self righteous. It rubs me the wrong way.
 
Last edited:

Pine Towers

Knight Hospitaller
Veteran
Joined
Nov 11, 2015
Messages
467
Reaction score
227
First Language
Portuguese
Primarily Uses
RMMV
Been down this road with him. I suggest you read (if you have the time, he posts walls of text as long as I do) for how that conversation went. ^_^ That way, we don't clutter the thread with the same conversation again.
Read that. Can't even find what/how to comment on it, so I won't.

Anyway, I'm quoting you 'cause I'd like to chime in on something. 7 minutes and 30 seconds per map is actually pretty good.
As you said later, if it is a good map.

@Kes , I kept it on topic alongside the deviation, but I understand and agreed on what you wrote. I just felt necessary to written down that since we have so many others important suggestions to work on, the option "yes, but not important" is closer to "no".

And for @Shade Aurion , my last words (in this thread) are: A big game isn't a great game. Professional teams of game developers (each with their own expertise - programmers, artists, designers...) working full time 5 days per week (even more sometimes) releases 60 hours AAA games in 3~4 years of development. I feel sorry for you for aiming so high, Icarus. I once did this, and fell. Most of those who wrote here in the thread did so because they cared to. They went that path once (or saw someone doing this) and saw the end product (better: didn't saw the end product). If we didn't cared, we would only voted our options (or even not voted at all). Anyway, good luck on your endeavour.
 

Tai_MT

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
4,960
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
@Shade Aurion

*sigh* Look, the only reason you want to take it into PM is because you're insistent on talking about your particular game and not about game development as a whole, the common practices of game design, the common sciences behind game design, and what others have done and why. You aren't even interested in talking about whether or not people need more than 999 maps. Your only point on it has been, "I want more than 999 maps, so I should get it". There are like 3 methods for breaking the map limit already in this thread, on the first few pages. If you want to break the limit, try one of those. You have no interest in a discussion of ideas. If you must know why I came back, it's because Pine Towers posted something interesting that I wanted to reply to. However, while typing my reply to him, you replied to his post (and completely missed every point he was trying to make on purpose), so I included you in the post as well, added the bit before my post, and tried to reason with you one last time.

I've refused to take it to PM because I do not care about your game and do not want to discuss it. Sorry if that offends you. Sorry if that hurts you. But, it's honestly tiring listening to the same, "You can't criticize anything because you haven't experienced it!" nonsense. It's an "Argument from Authority" and all it merely does is validate the criticism to anyone who isn't dumb enough to fall for the "Argument From Authority".

As for condescension towards you... I don't see it anywhere. I also don't see anything I've written that is conceited. If you're going to throw around ad hominems, at least quote them so I know what it is you're considering these things so that I can maybe clarify what I'm saying in order to word it better so that it's not offensive. Otherwise, we can't resolve anything.

As for sharing anything about your project... You're the one who keeps plugging your own project and not as an example, but as a reason every single argument you have is valid. I, personally, prefer to talk in the broad generalizations of "everyone who makes games" and "every game that's ever been made", because it makes more sense to do so. Please stop filtering everything through the lens of your own game, and think about things from the perspectives of every game you've ever played.

As for more maps. Yes, I know some people want more maps. I'm among them. But, do I think they're necessary? No. I do not. I prioritize other things above inconsequential stuff like, "lifting the limits". Honestly, I'd rather have a fix for "Dual Wield" over more maps. Namely, the ability to equip a shield OR two weapons, and not just "you must equip two weapons". I think one of these is far more limiting than the other. RPG Maker MV and others have a plethora of more important things to fix or add. Lots of the "Yes. But not important" votes feel the same way. They've expressed that opinion themselves in this thread.

In fact, I think the overwhelming majority of people want the map limit lifted. And, why not? Other than it maybe makes a deployed game really massive? I think I spotted maybe one or two posts in here of people who outright didn't want the map limit lifted.

I have nothing to "get over" in terms of opinions, especially since I seem to share the same opinion as the majority.

@Kes

I'm sorry if my post was far too off topic. I'm sorry if this one is as well. I promise it's my last to this particular user as it's just going to go round and round again, but I wanted to reply to the "slanderous" nature of his reply to me... and I didn't think it was really worth reporting and getting him into trouble over it. If you think this post is too far off topic as well, or completely unnecessary, I understand. Feel free to blue text me or delete it outright. My... irritation sometimes gets the better of me, and I sometimes carry things too far. So, I completely understand if I'm in the wrong here. Anyway, the real reason I was going to post in here was Pine Towers reply here, and I just happened to see that Shade had replied under him, so I'll continue on with my intended reply to him.

@Pine Towers

Nah, I don't blame you for not commenting on it or replying to it. I only pointed it out to you so you wouldn't get trapped in the same loop de loop argument I ended up in. Basically, it was something him and I already talked with at length and I just didn't want it to get discussed all over again with a new person. I don't envy having to read our massive walls of text either. You're a trooper!

Anyway, 7 minutes is pretty good time on a map... if it is a good map. I think the main problem is that if you've got 1000 maps, you're going to be seeing "diminishing returns" on map designs. You're going to run out of ideas. Even AAA developers run out of map ideas even with only 300 total of them. At some point, the creativity runs out, so games with a massive amount of maps (or the intent to create games with massive amounts of playtime like 120 hours) just means you hit the wall of "dev creativity" very quickly and the rest of the game kind of turns into a slog.

Would it be nice to increase the map limit? Yes it would. I, personally, would enjoy having maps as large as 500x500 if we could (despite the havoc that would play with lag and deploying the game). I'd also personally like to have a "no limit" on maps I'd never have to worry. But, the limit kind of reminds me of why it might be a bad idea to simply have so many maps in the first place. Can you imagine a 999 map game where every single map is the default 13x17?

Honestly, raising the limit might actually further drop the reputation of all RPG Maker games into the toilet. There's already a lot of flak against RPG Maker games because of the amount of people who do about 20 minutes of work, then create a deployable, and sell it on Steam for $1. So much flak, in fact, that it's basically turned the RTP graphics into something most users on this website want to avoid (which is a shame, since I think they actually look pretty nice, and I enjoy their style, personally). I can't imagine what would happen if you could have 6000 maps and a bunch of amateur devs looking to make a quick buck just decided to use them all to make a game that looks extensive, but really isn't.

That's pretty much my concern about increasing something for the sake of Engine Newbies. If they don't have to learn something to create a game, it's typically going to be a subpar game... which drags the RPG Maker name through the mud some more. And, really, it's enough of an uphill battle as it is.
 

Shade Aurion

Shadow Keeper
Veteran
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
60
Reaction score
25
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
@tai
No, you want to talk about game design. This is a thread about adding a feature to RPG Maker. A feature that 40% of people who voted want implemented and another 26% still want but don't find it important. The VAST majority. It is an artificial limit and while there may be unofficial ways to break that limit, thats not what this thread is about. Its about officially having the limit raised.

If someone wants to make a game with 1000+ blank maps they should be able to if they want. If you don't care about my game, why do you keep making assumptions about it? Because you are fighting a losing battle against raising an artificial limit based on some weird elitism you have despite not having a completed project of your own. I've told you to PM me if you want to talk about game design and you've again ignored me for the third time to prattle on about crap that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

If you can't see how your talking down to me like you're somehow more experienced in game design and organization despite not having a completed project of your own comes off as totally condescending especially when you've seen nothing of my project and know nothing other then an estimated game time of overall content, then there is no reasoning with you. Generalisations are extremely inaccurate. People like different things about different games for different reasons. Just give it a rest. You're in no way superior and we disagree. The end.
 

Kes

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Aug 3, 2012
Messages
22,305
Reaction score
11,731
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
[mod]Okay, any more of this argument from anyone and I will hide the posts as being off topic.[/mod] Normally a thread would be closed in these circumstances, but that would be grossly unfair on other Members who want to vote.
 

Velvela Jade

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2012
Messages
38
Reaction score
7
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
I just can't see how anyone would need more than 999 map files, each with 256x256 squares. (snip)
If you need only 1000 maps, this totals the game as under 7 minutes and 30 seconds per map. If the player only sees this map once in a 120 hour game, he won't remember anything in it. Also, I'm not counting battles, cutscenes, time buying/selling items.
If your game needs more maps than 1000 (only one over 999), the time-per-map decreases even further (and I even used your max total hours of 120).

(Note: This is all I'm going to say on this subject!)
When making a puzzler game where the object is not murder or war, you do need more maps. We do not want the player to remember the map of each puzzler map page. Also, putting multiple puzzlers on the same map does not always work, as the player will see parts of those other puzzles before you want them to. Sometimes you don't want the player to have an incling as to which version of the puzzle they got.

Some puzzle games do not need a long time per map. If I am searching in a room for tools that will do something elsewhere, I might be in that room for only a few seconds, and then move to some other map because of where the cave is in relation to the office I was just in.

I was one who needed more maps, more variables, more switches, more of everything - including more image tabs. The problem is that RPG Game Maker is ONLY about battle and kill and was not programmed to even care at all about puzzler games. I deal with this as best as I can. Its terrible and I would love to hire a programmer because I would fire RPG Game maker if I could get a programmer. That programmer would use other programming languages, that are much better suited for puzzle games. It is what it is, so I just try to live with it without complaining too much. However, just because you don't need more maps does not mean that we don't need more maps. Thanks!
 

bgillisp

Global Moderators
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
13,757
Reaction score
14,517
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
@Velvela Jade : I don't know still why you feel you need more than 999 puzzles though. I've never played a puzzle game with more than 999 stages. Actually, I've yet to play one with more than 200 stages yet. Here's some data on the classics:

Jumpman (Atari): 30 levels
Lode Runner: 150 levels (I think)
Lemmings (1 and 2): 120 levels
Lemmings 3d: 80 levels
Gobliiins: 21 levels I think? Couldn't finish it, but I think when I googled it, it was 21 levels.

Point is, no sane person makes 999 puzzles, even in the AAA industry.
 

Acetonide

Event Coordinator
Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
660
Reaction score
31
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
N/A
Although I probably won't hit the limit any time soon I just want to make a small argument for why I prefer interiors in separate maps. Black lines. For anything I put serious work into my interior maps require exploration, and I hate when the player walks to the edge to check a wall and half their screen is black. That is how I can tell when there are multiple maps in the same map file. I can do things like stopping the scrolling or use something to cover up the dark areas, but that ends up being more work on me if I take the time to do that for each room to ensure the player truly feels enclosed when they're inside.

If there's a simple fix for this though, I'd love to hear it, because it would really help me out.
 

Tai_MT

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
4,960
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
How do you know there are multiple maps on the same map just from the black lines? Many of my "interior" maps are stand-alones, but I make the maps deliberately larger so that the screen stays centered on the character. Sometimes, I use the trick of "world wrap" on that same map to give the illusion of more black space than there actually is.

I like the aesthetic it gives off, when you cannot see beyond the walls of the immediate area like that. As if all that black area WOULD be the world outside the house, tent, whatever... But, you can't see through it, so it's just black.
 

Acetonide

Event Coordinator
Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
660
Reaction score
31
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
N/A
I guess that's where we're different. I like the map to stop scrolling as you walk towards the edge so it feels like once you're inside that's all there is to that part of the world so it feels like a completely closed off space. The black lines take me out of that, even when I play other's games. Unless it is an irregularly shaped map where it can't be helped it bugs me.
 

bgillisp

Global Moderators
Global Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2014
Messages
13,757
Reaction score
14,517
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMVXA
@Acetonide : I hope you do know that the minimum map size is your resolution / your tile size, right? So if you have it set to say the default resolution you have to make your interior maps 17 x 13 at minimum, as the screen has to have *something* to display in those unused tiles.
 

Acetonide

Event Coordinator
Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2012
Messages
660
Reaction score
31
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
N/A
@bgillisp
Yes, I know. It's why with very few exceptions my minimum map size tends to be the resolution. Thank you.
I just meant in instances where you fit several maps into one map file you'll end up with black lines when you walk to the edge of the map which I dislike.
That leaves me to either set events to stop the map from scrolling certain ways when the player is too close to the edge, or adding thicker walls or something else at the edge of the map so the player can't go too far.
 

Tai_MT

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
5,528
Reaction score
4,960
First Language
English
Primarily Uses
RMMV
For me, hitting the edge of any map is "immersion breaking". I immediately go, "oh, this is the edge of where the developer wanted me to go" and start thinking all "video gamey" again.

That being said, just move all your stuff a bit away from the actual map edge. It's not a lot of tiles, provided your character remains centered. You'll never see the "black line" then. Maps can be pretty huge, so it's not too terrible of a problem if you just want to stuff a bunch of locations into a single map. Provided those locations aren't super massive or anything. I managed to fit two versions of the same dungeon on a single map at one point, while retaining the "map stays centered on the player" standard I like.

You just have to move things a little bit away from the edges. I think on mine, it was like 13 tiles from tops and bottoms and 17 from edges. Which, isn't many, all things considered. Or, just put in "map loop", and you can put them closer to the edges.
 

Alastor01

Veteran
Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
218
Reaction score
257
First Language
Russian
Primarily Uses
N/A
No, as you would remove creative limitations.
Take pixel art. There is no need to reduce the number of colours in a sprite in term of processing power anymore. But people still limit them cause it forces you to do better art.
Same with maps. AGS has room limit for example. This limit will force you to make higher quality maps and not overwhelm the player
 

Latest Threads

Latest Profile Posts

One thing those jp developer still get wrong about boob physic is that... men's muscly hard pecs can jiggle too.
Definitely glad I haven't released a few of my plugins that are technically done. As I learn more, I find ways to make my code more efficient, and in one case so far, discovered an existing function that did EXACTLY what I created my own function to do.
So I was kinda recommended a manga to learn a few drawing tips, I dunno if it will actually work, but I'm liking the story lol
M745veO.jpg
RPG Maker News #12 | Control Zooming, Customize Bush Effect, Causality & Happy Bones on Steam
Episode 16 let's go! We're making an RPG in RPG Maker MZ! This week... even more mapping, we're almost done with all the mapping for our first dungeon!

Forum statistics

Threads
110,448
Messages
1,053,400
Members
143,534
Latest member
erryopo
Top