Suggestions for the next RPG Maker

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

which is quite bad... because as I said, it would be troublesome if I wanted only 1 tile to have a specific battleback and would like the others to use the map battleback, which means I need to specify the battleback for all of them... which is why I suggest doing it the other way around, The tile battleback will have priority over the map battleback... because that will actually be easier for you too... So I'm into hoping that if ever they implement a per tile option, they will reverse the process...

And anyway, in any other script out there, specific settings always have priority over general settings... because what's the point of having specific settings if the general settings will override it?

as for Field A... oh yes it lacks the blank tile... though you can always just insert another tilesheet into Field A that has the transparent one... though yeah, having an eraser can be nice... and that way we won't have to put a transparent tile in our tilesheets too...

as for animated enemies, I agree with that but they should keep the option of using unanimated battlers... because it's simply harder to find animated sheets rather than unanimated ones... and they're harder to create too...

PS: use edit button, don't double post...

 

[2d_quest]

as for animated enemies, I agree with that but they should keep the option of using unanimated battlers... because it's simply harder to find animated sheets rather than unanimated ones... and they're harder to create too...

PS: use edit button, don't double post...

Sorry, I didn't mean to double post.

The reason why I wanted to be able to change on to off in trigger conditions is because I've ran into cases where I had to make 2 control switches: one when you don't fight a character, and one when you do.  If you could check if a switch was off in the trigger (simply clicking the on to make it off) you would only need one control switch. 

I agree that battle should not require animation, but it should make it very easy to put in without requiring scripts for it.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

why not just use two pages?

One page will have no conditions and will have what you wanted to do, and second page will have the switch ON as a condition and does nothing? that way, if the switch is on, your event will do nothing...

or simply put the check on the top of the event rather than as a trigger to keep it to a single page...

 

[Tuomo L]

-HD graphics

-Mac and Linux support.

-Ability to use MP4 videos instead of OGG

- Better installer and encryption protection

- Updated Ruby 

- Multiple speaker support 

- DLC and better update support. (Incorporated Updater?)

- Gamepad and rumble support with 8 axis movement.

I think that's all that's needed. 

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

I prefer my own installer or Inno set-up... wahahahaha!

update support for DLC and patches is a really nice and wanted idea...

btw, it uses OGV for vids not OGG... XD...

 

[Andar]

Some of the suggestions in the last dozen posts gave me an idea how they could be better implemented using the existing structures...

First, combine features (actor, class, weapon, ...) and effects (skills & items) to a single list of available options, and add more options to change other values like battleback or encounter rate or so to it.

Second, make that featurelist available everywhere, including tile features and map features.

As it's currently done some features won't work everywhere (like some event commands only work in troop events, but are available in all events), but it will allow for a lot more customisation and combination of features.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

maybe the next should use another scripting language that is easier to port so that the possibility of it having the capability of exporting games to other platforms like XNA (Xbox) and Android will be higher... like C# perhaps?

 

[Tsukihime]

I believe that C# is not a scripting language, however from the same question, you can see that there are indeed solutions that allow you to use C# as a scripting language. Somewhat.


It looks pretty terrible and I'm not exactly sure how flexible it is. But I haven't even tried it so who knows.

 

[Andar]

@adiktuzmiko

For scripting, you basically need a language that can be interpreted (the computer-technical variant), but C and it's variant are usually compiled, not interpreted.

Writing a C-Interpreter instead of a C-Compiler usually kicks all advantages of C and it's derivates out, because an Interpreter can never use direct hardware access (like most C-Compilers do).

So no, C# would be a bad choice for a RM in my opinion...

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Oh... I see... I just saw one that uses C# so I thought it might be good (Uses Mono I believe)... and also saw it as one possible language to write android apps in the android SDKs... XD

though yeah, I think they compile the C# codes...

 

[Tai_MT]

Rotatable Isometric view!  Then you could design environments like exist in Final Fantasy Tactics.

Well... I think that'd be cool anyway.

 

[Eschaton]

I don't think attributes should be hard-coded, anymore.  The player should be able to define any attribute he or she wants, just like a skill, element, equip, or state, and how they interact with each other.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

I don't think it counts as hardcoded if you can modify those things via the scripts...


I actually like the current system, the database provides the basic attributes and you can easily add extras via scripting...


having easier control to add new attributes (though the current method via scripts is quite really easy) is good but it shouldn't be too free (free as in you can do whatever you want), coz that will just cause more problems...


EDIT: or if what you mean is really that the player has control over it, then the more that I don't think that it's a good idea... and also, that is specific to a game and not something that all games will have...

 

[Tsukihime]

I don't think attributes should be hard-coded, anymore.  The player should be able to define any attribute he or she wants, just like a skill, element, equip, or state, and how they interact with each other.

You mean like a sandbox game where players can re-define everything and anything they want?

 

[amerk]

I wouldn't mind having multiple triggers for one event page that can cause different things.

For example, if I press action on an NPC, I talk to them. If I push up against the same NPC, I can move them out of my way (in case they're blocking me in a hallway). Or if I press action on a pillar, I can view a description, such as: "This pillar seems light. I may be able to push it." But if I push up against that same pillar, I'd be able to push it in the direction I want.

I imagine there's other uses where different key presses (triggers) would cause different responses, especially when it comes to puzzles.

 

[Tsukihime]

I wouldn't mind having multiple triggers for one event page that can cause different things.


For example, if I press action on an NPC, I talk to them. If I push up against the same NPC, I can move them out of my way (in case they're blocking me in a hallway). Or if I press action on a pillar, I can view a description, such as: "This pillar seems light. I may be able to push it." But if I push up against that same pillar, I'd be able to push it in the direction I want.


I imagine there's other uses where different key presses (triggers) would cause different responses, especially when it comes to puzzles.

In Ace, there's this script: http://forums.rpgmakerweb.com/index.php?/topic/4207-event-trigger-labels/


Which allows you to divide your event into multiple sections conditioned on button presses (Z, X, C, directions, etc), key item usage, player/event trigger, and other things.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

Having a default class for projectiles maybe and add event trigger for projectile hit... XD

 

[amerk]

I forgot about that script, Tsukihime, and it's definitely one I'll need to look into. One thing is for sure, you do very well to provide the flexibility people need with your scripts. And scripts is the one thing that I think really makes RM much more powerful than it already is. In fact, most of what's suggested here in this thread can be done with scripts already.

However, I think what the underlined message here is, regardless of what suggestions EB accepts or disregards, the one thing we're really asking for is to have something much more flexible right out of the box. We want more flexibility with the mapping design, with the event layout and commands, and with the database. Sometimes it feels that the default is so limited because they're trying too hard to cater to a user-friendly environment, and they expect advanced users (not that I'm anywhere near the stage just yet) to resort to scripts.

Being flexible doesn't mean they have to sacrifice user-friendliness. It just means it caters to both crowds (newbies and veterans alike) right from the get-go.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

most of those that I have used always make advanced users turn to scripts... because ultimately, the scripts allow you to modify almost anything about the game (with a few exceptions like the hidden classes)

 

[Tai_MT]

A lot more flexibility would be greatly appreciated in the next iteration.  The ability to add/remove Features from classes or characters, for one, with an event would be absolutely fantastic.  Even creating custom Features all your own would be nice (Like being able to set a percentage on extra gold/experience earned, or checking for characters in the party with each other which might lock/unlock certain magic, skills, or traits).

You know what else I'd like to see?

I'd like to see a customizable "Attack" feature.  I would like to specify for each class what their "Attack" animation looks like as well as how it is calculated.  For instance, I have a Mage who uses minor magic that doesn't cost MP to cast.  They'd fling a ball of energy at the target and it would be Magic - Magic Defense = Damage in terms of how it would work.  Meanwhile, the Thief would dart in and make a series of fast blows with a Dagger and it would be Speed - Luck = Damage instead.  All from hitting the top "Attack" command.  It would likewise be neat if you could do the same thing with the "Guard" ability in choosing what stat would get the buff to defense.