2x2 Link: too buggy to retain?

[_L_]

Sure, 2x2 Link or "Big Link" may already be implemented, but there's several non-negligible unsolved animation bugs inherent in it. The sword swing is in the wrong place, the death animation goes wrong (http://www.armageddongames.net/showthread.php?t=94932), and I really don't feel like re-jiggering my sideview code and the standard combo walkability code to prevent Big Link from smacking his head against a solid block (that's one tile above the ground) when walking left and right. (Already I have yet to deal with normal-sized Link walking sideways into a half-walkable combo in sideview...)

I don't know if any of the other developers are interested in solving these problems, but I haven't seen any immediate signs of it. So, in the interests of furthering a public ZC release, I think I'm going to disable the Big Link functionality, rendering it unavailable until, maybe, the post-2.5 betas.

[Freedom]

Dark Nation,

Are you going to get ahold of this guy before he totally ruins Zelda Classic?
I've already completely stopped using the program, are you going to wait until everyone else does too?

Progress isn't worth a damn when you totally destroy the thing you supposedly set out to improve.

[Dart Zaidyer]

Sure, 2x2 Link or "Big Link" may already be implemented, but there's several non-negligible unsolved animation bugs inherent in it. The sword swing is in the wrong place, the death animation goes wrong (http://www.armageddongames.net/showthread.php?t=94932), and I really don't feel like re-jiggering my sideview code and the standard combo walkability code to prevent Big Link from smacking his head against a solid block (that's one tile above the ground) when walking left and right. (Already I have yet to deal with normal-sized Link walking sideways into a half-walkable combo in sideview...)

I don't know if any of the other developers are interested in solving these problems, but I haven't seen any immediate signs of it. So, in the interests of furthering a public ZC release, I think I'm going to disable the Big Link functionality, rendering it unavailable until, maybe, the post-2.5 betas.

NO. BAD _L_. BAD. STOP IT.
Remember what happened when you removed FFC Change combos?

Imagine that, but a hundred times worse. Then, imagine that it will cause your death at the hands of the entire community.

[Petoe]

So, in the interests of furthering a public ZC release, I think I'm going to disable the Big Link functionality, rendering it unavailable until, maybe, the post-2.5 betas.

Oh please disable it right now, I beg you _L_ :(
If it is causing so many problems, why not try to get 2.5 out of the way and then try to make it work?

And Freedom, this time I don't quite get you... _L_ here is willing to DISABLE a feature, not add one, which is very awesome... so I don't know where that anger came from. Let's not curse _L_ to the hell just yet, let him show us that a stable 2.5 will happen, and I believe it will happen if _L- starts to think like this more often. :)

[Revfan9]

Dark Nation,

Are you going to get ahold of this guy before he totally ruins Zelda Classic?
I've already completely stopped using the program, are you going to wait until everyone else does too?

Progress isn't worth a damn when you totally destroy the thing you supposedly set out to improve.

Freedom... Weren't you the person who wanted to remove the features that were causing bugs?

At least Peteo is sticking to his story.

[Freedom]

I have big link working just fine in my quest, and it's BEEN working fine since the 2.11b10b.
The death sequence is the only problem with it, and it isn't an earth shattering problem to anyone.

Big Link worked fine until _L_ screwed it up.... JUST LIKE the ffc's worked fine until he screwed those up.

If he wants to remove something, let it be the bloat he added that doesn't work at all.

He's quick to keep his garbage and throw out Jman's, and Jman's is the stuff that works.

[Dart Zaidyer]

I have big link working just fine in my quest, and it's BEEN working fine since the 2.11b10b.
The death sequence is the only problem with it, and it isn't an earth shattering problem to anyone.

Big Link worked fine until _L_ screwed it up.... JUST LIKE the ffc's worked fine until he screwed those up.

If he wants to remove something, let it be the bloat he added that doesn't work at all.

He's quick to keep his garbage and throw out Jman's, and Jman's is the stuff that works.

I agree with and endorse this statement.

[ShadowTiger]

Hm. Personally, I would actually like to see a poll fashioned from this topic.

While I certainly understand and happily acknowledge what Dart and Freedom are saying, that's just not the only side to it.

_L_ mentioned the sword being in the wrong place. In preserving 2x2 Link, you'd also have to provide an item sprite placement editor to properly fix that, as 2x2 Link presents a lot more freedom in working with Link. At the very least, a new quest rule would have to be in place. Guess what that means? New Content. Just what _L_ has been doing all along. A lot of his stuff is pretty stable too. Same goes for all of the other Devs. Bugs are fixed eventually, which means that their new implementations are fixed and working properly eventually, all in good time. Just like every other bug. Eventually, it'll be fixed. There just aren't enough developers to fix them all as quickly as everyone wants them to be fixed.

[CastChaos]

Agreed with Freedom and Dart Zaidyer.
If something is useable, but quite buggy, then the bugs need to be fixed, but if you don't want to fix the bugs at least leave the feature in, since it's still useable. I played Freedom's quest in which Big Link was present.

(<silent>but this all are still better than adding a new size of Link</silent>)

[Freedom]

Hm. Personally, I would actually like to see a poll fashioned from this topic.

While I certainly understand and happily acknowledge what Dart and Freedom are saying, that's just not the only side to it.

_L_ mentioned the sword being in the wrong place. In preserving 2x2 Link, you'd also have to provide an item sprite placement editor to properly fix that, as 2x2 Link presents a lot more freedom in working with Link. At the very least, a new quest rule would have to be in place. Guess what that means? New Content. Just what _L_ has been doing all along. A lot of his stuff is pretty stable too. Same goes for all of the other Devs. Bugs are fixed eventually, which means that their new implementations are fixed and working properly eventually, all in good time. Just like every other bug. Eventually, it'll be fixed. There just aren't enough developers to fix them all as quickly as everyone wants them to be fixed.



I have a REAL problem understanding why it is that SO FEW don't seem to understand that it is _L_'s additions that have created all these problems.
GO to the quest release forum, download Castle Haunt III and play it, then you will see that the engine ALONG WITH big link was working very well at that point in the 2.11b10b.

All these current bugs were NOT THERE, and the program could be used, now it is to the point it is totally to the point it CAN'T be used.

_L_ created that situation, now he wants to remove what did work, because with his additions it has stopped working.

What's wrong with that picture?

[jman2050]

Heck no. I may not develop ZC anymore, but I'll be really upset if big Link is removed. Fix him, don't remove him.

[Dart Zaidyer]

Anyone who cites that the alignment of weapons in relation to Link is a problem that warrants the destruction of this advancement obviously has not bothered to consider that it can be solved by re-creating that weapon with an item script, and adjusting it as needed.

[*b*]

NO. FUCKING. WAY. Big Link is the single greatest thing to happen to ZC since layers, and layers surpass the status of sliced bread. Having bigger Links in quests nowdays is nearly a requirement. Besides that, I've put way too much work in my HF Link and another character to just revert back to 16x16 now

At the very least/minimal/minisucle/microscopic/subatomic, get rid of 2x2, but keep 1x2. But even that would be like cutting off somone's head to make them stay quiet


If he wants to remove something, let it be the bloat he added that doesn't work at all.

He's quick to keep his garbage and throw out Jman's, and Jman's is the stuff that works.
I think we finally agree on something, Freedom

[redmage777]

Do most of the problem result from the Big Link, or the Big Link's hit box? Even if have get rid of the Hit box, perhaps you can keep the 2x2 graphics so small Links can at least have some extra elbow space?

[Shoelace]

Please don't remove Big Link! I worked too hard on my game and my Link Tiles for this to just be removed. I am not using the Big Hit box, but I am using Big Link. I am just hoping you don't take this off. :(

[CJC]

Sure, 2x2 Link or "Big Link" may already be implemented, but there's several non-negligible unsolved animation bugs inherent in it.

These bugs are non-fatal and therefore ancilliary. I will go through each one now and explain why it is not a problem.




The sword swing is in the wrong place,

Move your sword sprite higher. This isn't really a problem, I've been able to make fine looking Big Link sprites with a sword that appears in the right place. If you want to make an Adventure of Link quest, then implement a bigger hitbox. He has to be able to be hit in the head anyway.



the death animation goes wrong (http://www.armageddongames.net/showthread.php?t=94932),

Add another sprite in Link's Tiles that controls death animation. That shouldn't be too hard, you've done it with other things.



and I really don't feel like re-jiggering my sideview code and the standard combo walkability code to prevent Big Link from smacking his head against a solid block (that's one tile above the ground) when walking left and right. (Already I have yet to deal with normal-sized Link walking sideways into a half-walkable combo in sideview...)

I don't quite follow what you're saying here. If there's a walkable combo (1 tile) and an unwalkable combo above it, then Link should be able to continue walking on the walkable combo even if the unwalkable combo above him is in the way. It doesn't matter if his sprite looks like he's moving through a wall, his hitbox is doing what it's supposed to.
If you want 2x2 Link to be able to hit his head on something like this, make a bigger hitbox option.




I don't know if any of the other developers are interested in solving these problems, but I haven't seen any immediate signs of it. So, in the interests of furthering a public ZC release, I think I'm going to disable the Big Link functionality, rendering it unavailable until, maybe, the post-2.5 betas.



Despite these bugs being in existance, they are easily worked around and they don't cause any crashes or the like. If you remove the 2x2 Link tiles, a lynch mob will come to kick down your door and I will lead the brigade.

Don't delete the feature. Don't even toggle it off. If people don't like Big Link's bugs, then they can choose not to use expanded tiles. It's already an option.

[The_Amaster]

Geez, people, make up your mind. First you say "Stop with all the buggy features", than you say "Oh, wait, not if it's a feature I like, only ones I don't"
2x2 Link isn't a nesecarily "buggy" feature, but to get it to work properly requires a bit of work from what L said, and so I'm going to quote most of you and say. "Enough, our focus should be on bugfixes now!"

[shadowfall1976]

buggy animation alone is not a quest killing bug, if it don't crash ZC
then who the hell cares?, if Link looks a little off so what?

what is important is what crashes ZC and what causes other things
once working not to any longer. even if Link's animation is still off a bit
in 2.5 as long as it is stable, do you really think most people would
care if a few sprite related things are off a bit?

NO on removing Big Link!!!!!!


I have just finally finished my 1x2 Link after many months figuring
out the proper way to draw him, and damn if i'll go back to a
Midget Link, after waiting this long to use him, to me his hit box
isn't a problem, since I don't use it anyway.

[Popuri]

oi... I agree with freedom... but I dn't curse, just wanna say, KEEP BIG LINK!!! I WILL BE UNHAPPY AS DoR IS GOING TO USE BIG "SERENA" TILES!!!

[DarkFlameWolf]

O.o

[Petoe]

Geez folks... you all act like Big Link is the most important feature ever. Is everyone a graphics whore these days?

Ok, I take that one back... and I guess I kind of agree with everyone here then. If the feature is not horribly buggy as it seems not to be, then there's no point taking it out unless it affects other stuff than Big Link... *shrugs* ...and of course I don't want to see Freedom's quest cancelled (though I don't get it how it wouldnt survive without Big Link) I say it's a good idea to keep it in... as long as trying to fix it doesn't cause any more major problems, sigh! :(

[Dlbrooks33]

hmmm, a little HECTIC in this thread are we?

Lets do pros and cons

PROS
A Little Less buggy
_L_'s additions work a little more stable than before
No messed up animations

CONS
JUST ABOUT everyone will stop beta-testing.
A lot of quests won't work anymore without BIG LINK
Freedom's Castle Haunt 3 will be all for nothing.
All of the new cool tilesets will get post-poned
Anyone will rarely speak of ZC cause some have a mind of "This is the best thing ev'a'"
Quests will crash upon the Link Data

[_L_]

In order to keep Big Link, we'll need the following:

* A Quest Rule: Big Link Is 2 Combos Tall (such that in sideview, he can't walk into 1x1 passages, and interacts with combos, enemies and weapons at head-height.)
* A Quest Rule: Big Link Is 2 Combos Wide (such that in sideview, he can't fall through 1x1 gaps.)

Neither of the above are particularly appetising, given that the code currently assumes that Link's sideview collision rectangle is identical to his topdown collision rectangle. It's not impossible, but I, ah, have already drawn my line in the sand (http://www.armageddongames.net/showthread.php?t=95877). (Of course, if some other perky developer feels that they have the ability to surmount such problems in a timely fashion, then I welcome their input.)

Also, we'll need:
* Bugfix for that death animation
* A way to reposition Link's weapons

This final point raises an important question: if Big Link swings his sword upward in sideview, where should it be drawn? (Should Big Link be able to swing his sword upward in sideview?) Obviously, we'll need another set of Link weapon positionings for sideview.


CONS
JUST ABOUT everyone will stop beta-testing.
A lot of quests won't work anymore without BIG LINK
Freedom's Castle Haunt 3 will be all for nothing.
All of the new cool tilesets will get post-poned
None of these points seem particularly compelling. Big Link doesn't really add anything to ZC game mechanics except a larger sprite and a modified collision system. And Big Link was added in a 2.11 beta.

Quests will crash upon the Link DataAll I will be doing is removing the Big Link checkbox from the Link sprite options. That and stopping Big Link enabled quests from using Big Link.

[redmage777]

Could there be an option for seprate sprite set and hit box in Side veiw?

<Edit> My appologies, I misread your post as if you intended to do all of that...

[Petoe]

Tons of respect for you _L_ if you have the guts to disable Big Link from 2.5.
It may anger some people, but it is the right thing to do. I mean, no matter how cool of a feature it may be, it's just a graphical gimmick really...

But if you will listen to all of these people who "can't live without" a Big Link and trying to fix the Big Link causes even more problems for ZC, then all I can say is... er, well, I can now see how tough it is to be a developer having to wonder about these things and seeing people going nuts all over you... :(

[Lotus_Eater]

Why bother removing, it, I mean hell, it doesn't work right if you use it full sized, but it works fine if you are using the few extra pixels, so why take it out?
Really there is no point and you'll just piss people off. And I think you may have enough of that already.

[shadowfall1976]

what about those of us who use a 1X2 link??

we would have to redesign yet again, to fit him in a 2x2????
if so I spent way too much time for what???

[Shazza Dani]

I agree that it would be a terrible decision to disable the feature. Even if you leave it as is and don't "fix" it any further, at least leave the partially implemented feature there in case people want to use it. Naturally, though, it'd be best if you could work out all the bugs.

[Shoelace]

The thing is are you going to get rid of the Big Link all together, or are you going to get rid of the large hitbox?

The thing is I worked so hard on my Big Link. Jman convinced me to do the Big Link too because he wanted people to bug test it. It was working great for me and Freedom's Link too. I don't use the large hitbox but I based all of my custom characters in my game on the Large Link. So I really, really, really, really hope you stick with it. :(

[C-Dawg]

Do whatever makes sense to the dev team. That said, at least toss a bone to people by making things reverse compatible somehow. Like, older quests will still be allowed to use Big Link, but new versions of ZQuest will not let players make new quests that do so. Losing backwards compatability sucks.

[Love For Fire]

Hmm... is it really that big of a deal to leave it as it is? Anyone who wants to use Big Link should just have to deal with these imperfections, and some already do. If it's not causing any harm to anything else, you should just leave it in. After all it's an option, not mandatory.

[Freedom]

So... did anyone read _L_'s post?

Big link is screwing up his desire for side scrolling quests.
so he wants to remove big link.

I say remove the side scrolling crap, it was never intended to be a Z2 clone anyway.

It was working towards Z3 from Z1, who honestly cares if it can be used to build side scrollers?

Cdawgs little demo was cool and all but not worth desroying what Zelda Classic has been for me the last 5 years, how about the rest of you?
Do you want to be able to build "the Adventures of Link" quests, or "Link to the past" style quests?

Like I said earlier, go to the quest annoucement forum and download Castle Haunt III and play it, and tell be that Big Link can't be made to work, I didn't even spend that much time tweaking him in there, he could be made to do a lot better even then that.

AND it didn't effect anyone elses quests in the least.


oh well...
Anything you come up with _L_ isn't going to be as good as the 2.11b10b was.
You're going to have it so screwed up that there will never be a stable release, so if I ever want to build another quest, which is doubtful, I'll just use the 2.11b10b, and people can play it or not.
Until then, I'm outa here, I'll stop raising hell and let you destroy it in peace.
There just doesn't seem to be any point to this, it doesn't look to me like it's going to make any differance, as far as I'm concerned ZC's best days are behind it.
Cya folks, had some good times here.

[jman2050]

Just fix the freaking thing and be done with it. None of the reasons you've given in this topic are enough justification to remove the feature, unless you suddenly don't think you can handle all the bug fixing...

Furthermore, why worry about the hitbox at all? The sprite 'not looking right' if it falls through 1x1 areas is really a nonissue, and the quest maker should take that into account when making their sprites.

As for the other bugs, they sound rather easy to fix.

[_L_]

Furthermore, why worry about the hitbox at all? The sprite 'not looking right' if it falls through 1x1 areas is really a nonissue, and the quest maker should take that into account when making their sprites.
No, you don't understand.

See figure 1, attached. What should happen when Link, in sideview, walks to the right?

What if the solid combo was a damage combo? Or a warp combo?

In my conception of what the Big Link feature is, the point of Big Link is to make him appear taller. So it seems contradictory that his added tallness isn't taken into account when in sideview.

Well, since everybody seems awfully insistent on retaining Big Link, I guess the only recourse (apart from going in and making all of the changes necessary to make a tall Link interact with combos in that way) is to greatly encourage questmakers to make two-tiles-tall Link mutually exclusive with sideview (despite the fact that it would have much of an "ignore the man behind the curtain" aspect to it).

Thanks for your input!

[*b*]

_L_, there's another problem with your reasoning, especially with that last post. Zelda, aside from Z2, has NEVER, EVER had a seperate sprite for Link in sideview areas. Zelda is a top-down game, not a sidescroller, so it's stupid to conform Link around a feature that has been in what, four games out of the series, and was never really a big part of them to begin with

I bring up a suggestion I had for the slashing problem here (http://armageddongames.net/showpost.php?p=1106113&postcount=8), and here (http://armageddongames.net/showpost.php?p=1106116&postcount=10). You seem hellbent on adding new features, so I might as well bring it up

Finally, _L_, you seem to be focusing on what YOU want in ZC, not the general public. ZC is about customization of your own quest, and if people want fat Links falling through single-combo gaps, that's they're decision, not your's. The fact that you're still even considering this against all the oposition just proves this

[_L_]

Zelda, aside from Z2,And what if someone wants to make Zelda 2? Or Metroid?

Well, for now, at least, they can't.

The fact that you're still even considering this against all the oposition just proves thisWell, I'm not still considering this. When I said that the only recourse "is to greatly encourage questmakers to make two-tiles-tall Link mutually exclusive with sideview", I meant that I'd leave Big Link and the collision system alone, and if someone wanted to make Metroid or The Guardian Legend with a two-tile-tall character, then they'd have to make it entirely topdown as well. Or just deal with the character's head ignoring combos.

[redmage777]

_L_, I see your point, but there are many solutions to this problem. Quest makers could also be wary not to allow that situation to occur in their quests, Also, an invisable block could easly plug that hole up.

The real puzzle is how drowning is going to be handled in side veiw rooms? If its (Drown -> Start of Room) then there should be no problem. But if its (Drown-> Set back were you fell in from) then there may be some problems in relation to gravity. (Link falls in, set back, Falls in, Set Back... Untill Dead if he is notvstuck in endless loop.)

[*b*]

And what if someone wants to make Zelda 2? Or Metroid?... if someone wanted to make Metroid or The Guardian Legend with a two-tile-tall character, then they'd have to make it entirely topdown as well.
Holy shit

Little reminder here. ZELDA Classic. This is for making ZELDA games, or games simmilar to Zelda, not Metroid... and anyone who has attempted those already has made them RPG-style. Zelda 2 didn't have any 1-tile passages anyway, so that's not a problem. Plus, with a Zelda 2 Link, it'd be easy to position the sword, no? Maybe add a quest rule for Z2 sword position while in sideview rooms, or maybe just in general

[blue_knight]

As one of those people who would like to make a Z2 style zelda, I'm glad you decided to leave the feature in - bugs and all. Yes the character's collision isn't really 2 tiles tall but I have my own jumping script anyway, to control jump-height, so I can solve it on my own through scripting. And any other person can do the same or use other creative solutions, such as invisible blocks/triggers.

Anyway on a positive note: the fact that you asked the question rather then just doing it, and listened to the masses (thankfully:)) means, to me atleast, that you're not just trying to sculpt ZQuest to your whims (as some have suggested) and DO care what people think. Thank you.

[_L_]

Zelda 2 didn't have any 1-tile passages anyway, so that's not a problem.Neither did Four Swords Adventures - the only Zelda game with both sideview areas and a "big" Link sprite.
But, do the questmakers know that?

[*b*]

Neither did Four Swords Adventures - the only Zelda game with both sideview areas and a "big" Link sprite.
But, do the questmakers know that?

Well, they do now. If they are any good at quest making anyway, don't you think they'd take in to account how big their sprite is in relation to the area they're making?

[Nicholas Steel]

to my understanding you could make it work fine and dandy every where but in side view area's... side view area's i thought was a feature added by _L_ and he wants to remove it cause it doesn't work with his side view crap?

why not just make it not available or not work or something to prevent the quest maker from using it in its entirety in conjunction with side view area's?

[DarkFlameWolf]

Or you could just say: 'Don't use fat link in conjunction with side-view areas in your quest. Meaning, if you plan on using side-view scrolling in your quest, just use small link. And be done with it.

[Nimono]

Okay, I wanted to stay out of this, but now I'm a bit mad.


_L_, I think you've gone a bit too far. Don't you think it's possible that maybe it's not Big Link that's bugged in sideview areas, but instead your Gravity screen flag? Think about it- Big Link won't work in sideview. Logic tells me that sideview might be bugged instead. So why not just check that before jumping to any conclusions? Seriously, everyone's going to hate you for good if you keep going on like this. Keep Big Link at all costs and try to debug him if he's bugged. That's just the way it is.

Edit: Was that too rude or anything? I can change my post if that sounded way too rude. I hate being rude. Even though I'm like that a lot.

[Love For Fire]

The problems really have a simple solution... if a questmaker wants to use big link, they would have to work around these limitations. That's all they really are if this is mostly affecting sideview areas, and like DFW said, if you want to use big link, then just don't use side-view areas.

On a side note, I've never played 4 swords, but I thought this whole side-view thing in conjunction with the Roc's Feather was supposed to emulate Link's Awakening and the Oracle games.

[Imprisoned]

If Big Link is taken out, I will... cry.
Well, I can also say it worked fine in Castle Haunt III.



No, you don't understand.

See figure 1, attached. What should happen when Link, in sideview, walks to the right?

What if the solid combo was a damage combo? Or a warp combo?

In my conception of what the Big Link feature is, the point of Big Link is to make him appear taller. So it seems contradictory that his added tallness isn't taken into account when in sideview.

Well, since everybody seems awfully insistent on retaining Big Link, I guess the only recourse (apart from going in and making all of the changes necessary to make a tall Link interact with combos in that way) is to greatly encourage questmakers to make two-tiles-tall Link mutually exclusive with sideview (despite the fact that it would have much of an "ignore the man behind the curtain" aspect to it).

Thanks for your input!
Well, there is a chance: crawling feature.
...or then, maybe not. :tongue:

By the way, who would make a 2x2 Metroid???

[Dart Zaidyer]

Frankly, removing a perfectly functional feature because it might not work well when used a certain way by certain people is no excuse. It's up to the quest designer to make that call, not the programmer.

In fact, it makes even less sense when you consider that Big Link was originally designed to operate in equal fashion to the modern Link seen in games like LttP and Four Swords/Minish Cap. Any size larger than 24x24 and matching up with sidescrolling was not even a factor, so it should not apply. Even when sidescrolling areas were used in Four Swords Adventures, they were designed to make Link's collision rectangle less obvious.

[ShadowTiger]

The problems really have a simple solution... if a questmaker wants to use big link, they would have to work around these limitations. That's all they really are if this is mostly affecting sideview areas, and like DFW said, if you want to use big link, then just don't use side-view areas.

On a side note, I've never played 4 swords, but I thought this whole side-view thing in conjunction with the Roc's Feather was supposed to emulate Link's Awakening and the Oracle games.

I suppose I'll be with LFF and DFW on this one. The Devs provide for the quest makers, and this includes all the knowledge necessary, and for this case, the quest maker needs to know that if you want to preserve both Big Link (Hitbox-wise) and Sidescrolling mode, then you can't have them interact in the way _L_ Mentioned. If you do, it's not the devs fault, because they were persuaded to leave both in.


EDIT: ... ... ....

Oh my god ... ...

Just one hundred posts left. < <, > >, .. .. .. Whoah.

[Limzo]

No.

[C-Dawg]

Anyone who finds themselves actually getting upset in this thread needs to get (1) drunk or (2) laid. I know the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS and all that, but come on now. It's a video game.

Thats said, I don't know of anyone but me that's tinkering with a fully sideview quest. And I have no problem whatsoever with the size of Link's bit box. Making him two-tiles large would only matter if you ALSO had the ability to duck, or roll, or slide, or something so that it added a gameplay dimension. That might be nice in the future, but it's hardly worth doing now, when everyone and their grandma is clamouring for a bug-free release. So... I guess I don't see why its such a big deal.

And if good features go away, people will just use older versions. No harm, no foul.

[Questions]

Why not just add a check box to activate Big Link Hitbox while in Sideview areas only?

[Shoelace]

But C-Dawg, when I made my Big Link tiles and put it in, to took me over 3 weeks to do it. Too me, this is like if they took out something like room state carryovers all of a sudden. If you were using it, you would get a little mad because it will cost you all of that time and your vision that you had in the first place. Of course you just have to change all of your rooms that had the room state carryover and that would take a while, same with this.

Plus, I don't think sideview would look that bad with Big Link because it is not like I am using all of the pixel space. I just use 3-4 extra pixels for the top of his head, which is why I don't use the big hit box. But if it doesn't work on sideview, then I rather not use the sideview then. But see that is my personal opinion. All of the objects and characters in my game are based on Link's height and it would be screwed up if I would have to switch.

[C-Dawg]

A bit off topic, but how the hell did it take you three weeks to add Big Link?

[Shoelace]

It was basically, it took forever to get the Link look right so my group members would like it. It went through 3 phases. Then I went back to 16x16 Link, then made the new Link tiles which they now like, so then, I went into the quest and changed everything to fit his height. For example, I changed all of the trees so that they would be way bigger then Link, doors to houses, etc. And now I got it to look perfect. Though, it will go through one more change as the slash tiles don't match up.

[DarkFlameWolf]

in other words, without big link, Shoelace's new quest ceases to exist. :P

[Radien ZC]

Big Link is more important than a side-scrolling novelty. I encourage you to ditch side-view gravity. It is the feature with the most bugs, and therefore it should be cut first. The Roc's Feather can still work even without side-view.

Is there any way in which this is not logical, C-Dawg? The most stable features stay, while the buggiest (and most recent) are cut?

[Shoelace]

in other words, without big link, Shoelace's new quest ceases to exist. :P

No, that is not what it means. :P It is just my opinion of why this addition should stay. Of course I can change things back, but that is going to a take a while, and it just sucks that I would have done that for nothing, especially when the Big Link is working fine. It is like I said, say someone was to take out a feature that was used in the Lost Isle. Of course, the game doesn't have to be canned because of it, and it can survive without a feature. But changing things that you had already did is going to make you a little mad.

[The_Amaster]

NO! Please, I beg of you keep sideview gravity. You all get to say your "Keep 2x2 Link, I'll use it and not sideview gravity", well, now I'm saying "Keep sideview gravity, I'll use it and not 2x2 link" I'm not saying ditch 2x2 Link, but ya know, Z2 wasn't the only game that had sideview gravity. Anyone here ever play the oracles? There were some great sideview areas there, and they still felt Zelda-ey. And to top it off, I'v NEVER played Z2, and I still want Sideview gravity.

Heres somthing I've been meaning to ask anyway. Has anyone actually MADE an actual tileset for 2x2 link. You know, 2x2 cave entrances, huge houses, giant trees and boulders. And how about enemies. If you want proper size enemies, than we need an enemy size editor.(Which I'd like to see anyway for custom bosses)
My point is, 2x2 Link isn't really BUGGY, but it requires a massive amount of work both by devs and quest makers to get to work properly.

[Shoelace]

Oh yeah, I am not saying to get rid of sideview gravity. By all means keep it. I think both should stay. I think quest makers would just have to know that if you use 2x2 Link, you won't be able to do sideview correctly. Then they can decide what they want to do. Like a lot of people said: Leave it up to the quest maker.

But I don't like the idea of automatically making the hit box big when in sideview because even though I am using a big Link, I am only using 4 pixels to make him taller, so if it was to use the big hit box, it would hit over his head and still get hit. That wouldn't look right so I would prefer my Big Link to keep the small hit box. Just throwing that out there because of that suggestion.

[beefster09]

I have an idea! Why not an editable hitbox for link. Two actually. One for top-down, one for sideview. It would work kinda like the combo editor. Now everyone's happy!!!:) :) :D :o

[The_Amaster]

Yeah, only problem with that is that at this point, we can't afford any new features that are too buggy, and that one just screams "FATAL BUG HIDDEN IN ME SOMEWHERE". Good Idea, tho.

[Radien ZC]

NO! Please, I beg of you keep sideview gravity. You all get to say your "Keep 2x2 Link, I'll use it and not sideview gravity", well, now I'm saying "Keep sideview gravity, I'll use it and not 2x2 link"
Ultimately I agree with what you're saying, because not all ZC features work well together. The Ladder and the Flippers, for instance, are really awkward when used on the same screen, no matter HOW they are programmed. As long as it doesn't crash ZC, however, the choice of how to use the two items can be left up to the questmakers.

However, the dev team in general wants us, the fan community, to be more accepting of the fact that buggy features often have to be cut and set aside for later, if we want a stable release to come. My statement/suggestion was just a demonstration that some of us can cope with that just fine! :)

When it comes to side-view vs. Big Link, however, I think the most stable feature, the one that needs to stay, is Big Link. Since the Roc's Feather can function without side-view, and side-view is still only PARTIALLY functional (and needs tons more work), cutting it from version 2.5 would be reasonable.

[CJC]

This is only a week old, so I don't believe that counts as grave-digging.
I just wanted to add one last point.



What if quest makers want a 2x2 Link to be able to walk under a combo like that?
For example, I'm making a quest that relies heavily on both sideview gravity and a 2x2 Link (In fact, those are the biggest features I've been working with). I create a walking instance like the one _L_ mocked up for us. Now normally you would think this is awkward, because you initially picture Link's head moving through a wall. But what if the 'floating' combo is the porch of a house, which can be walked past (Stepping under) or walked on (Stepping over). In this case, the walkability 'glitch' works both functionally and effectively, creating a three-dimensional effect and another venue for creativity.

So the point is, it's all up to the quest maker.



Another Note: Buggy features that were not cut while undergoing repairs:
BS Zelda Movement
Triforce Pieces (1.92 Beta 187)
The Map
and Continue locations just to name a few.




To wrap it all up, I just have to say that this isn't a bug. Oh, and:

No, you don't understand.

See figure 1, attached. What should happen when Link, in sideview, walks to the right?

What if the solid combo was a damage combo? Or a warp combo?

In my conception of what the Big Link feature is, the point of Big Link is to make him appear taller. So it seems contradictory that his added tallness isn't taken into account when in sideview.

Well, since everybody seems awfully insistent on retaining Big Link, I guess the only recourse (apart from going in and making all of the changes necessary to make a tall Link interact with combos in that way) is to greatly encourage questmakers to make two-tiles-tall Link mutually exclusive with sideview (despite the fact that it would have much of an "ignore the man behind the curtain" aspect to it).

Thanks for your input!

The feature is no longer being removed. This thread should be closed.

[Questions]

Why not just add a check box to activate Big Link Hitbox while in Sideview areas only?

It seems everyone ignored this post :glare:

[CJC]

Hmm.... but that only solves the problem for 1x1 Link.

Currently, the small hitbox is only a 8x16 pixel box at Link's feet. The large hitbox is 16x16... which would make a 1x1 Link hit his head on the ceiling instead of passing halfway into it.


...Actually, that would work! If you allow the player to select both a small and a large hitbox style, and using a quest rule (Or screen flag, but quest rule would work better) make the 'large' hitbox apply in sideview gravity, it would fix all the bizarre walkability bugs _L_ was talking about!


Potential 'Small' hit box options:

8x16 pixel hitbox (Current small hitbox)
16x16 pixel hitbox (Current large hitbox)
32x32 pixel hitbox (2 by 2 combo hitbox)

Potential 'Large' hitbox options:

16x16 pixel hitbox (Current large hitbox)
32x16 pixel hitbox (2 combo tall hitbox)
32x32 pixel hitbox (2 by 2 combo hitbox)



The large hitbox would not be used unless the 'Sideview->Large Hitbox' quest flag (or 'Large Hitbox' screenflag) is active.



So... what do you think? Could it work? I realize the options create the potential for a questmaker to make Link's hitbox smaller using the rule/flag, but that's a matter of preference and not functionality.