So, I might as well just make a thread especially for the occasion, and ask what everyone's opinion is about shardstorm. What's your favorite few features/bugfixes?
Mine would probably be the Cane of Byrna implementation.
96 until build 1000.
Printable View
So, I might as well just make a thread especially for the occasion, and ask what everyone's opinion is about shardstorm. What's your favorite few features/bugfixes?
Mine would probably be the Cane of Byrna implementation.
96 until build 1000.
Mine would be ZScript, for obvious reasons. Also, high on the list would be roc's feather, all the other new items, a lot of the new rules, 8-bit colour, and a bunch of other stuff I can't think of right now.
Definitely ZScript, because it has opened up so many possibilities. I also appreciate the developers for fixing the 'Slashable combos can only be slashed once' bug, since it temporarily made my quest unbeatable. Man, ZC has changed greatly since v1.90...
The various editors are amazing. Mainly, the Enemy Editor, Item Editor, and Drop Set Editor, possibly in that order. Seriously, I am quite impressed by the number of alterations that can be done via these new tools. I am most grateful to the developers for their time and patience in implementing them.
ZScript is cool too, but not as accessible as the three previously mentioned tools. I mean I did make a script, but it's not the scripting; it's ... ... "Mathy," for lack of a better term. :blah: :laughing:
Zscript is the most useful feature by far, but I don't like it as a language. It just feels so clunky, yet stripped-down to the extreme. Whenever I want to do something, it seems to just lack every feature I'm used to with other languages.
This. Also the Subscreen Editor, which kinda goes hand-in-hand with the Item Editor.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowTiger
I'm sure scripting is great, but I don't have the time or motivation to learn it, so it's useless to me. I'd rather learn to play guitar or speak german……something more useful in life, ya know?
The caring developers who work so hard to bring it to you. :) (by the way, I started the Cane of Byrna implementation. Hehe) I actually enjoy the vast base we can run ZC on, from Windows PCs to Apple's line of Macs, to Linux (maybe even UNIX) boxes... As well as the loyal fanbase we have, who actually take the time to put up with the insanity to bring beautiful quests to us all. Build 1k here we come.
Plus, you would have to go to a scripting school to be able to use the ZC scripting system.Quote:
Originally Posted by mighty_darknut
I just can't wait to see what build 1000 would be like. It's amazing how the build numbers has soared from build 100!
Keep up the good work, DEVS!
What do you mean by going to a scripting school? It's far easier than it looks. :p
Greatest features would be Scripting, Map (maybe there was one in 2.10?), editors. 2.5 would be the ultimate version of Zelda Classic.
Keep it up Devs. :)
I'm fairly useless as a programmer, but I've made extensive use of the item, enemy and subscreen editors in Titan's Quest(yes, I'm still working on it!). The 8-bit color setting has come in handy more than a few times. :)
scripting may look easy, but it's not!
Well, I think ZScript is easy to learn. I mean, I'm 12 and I can use it effectively. I've already managed to create a npc script, sign script, bottle system, and more by myself.:)
Hmm... we getting close to a new point? It's been yearz man! haha not to start that old 'bringbackfullreleases' talk.
If only we just called each 'build' a version.
yea, we need a dynamic version numbering or something for each build so that it is easier to debug things reported by newbies... maybe have a dynamic TXT file listing the build number?
Hey now, don't forget the BeOS/Haiku port!Quote:
Originally Posted by Takuya
It's as easy as it looks. Of course, if you have no prior experience in a real language you'll have more problems, but really ZScript is just a raped version of C.Quote:
Originally Posted by cbailey78
8-bit color... I've noticed a x10 improvement in my tiles, and no more wasted colors due to having to repeat the same color across multiple c-sets... And the detail my methods have been able to achieve... If I can do it I'd love to see what some of the "Big Guys" over at pure ZC could pull off with it.
Enemy Editor, Item Editor, Sub Screen Editor, Drop-set editor... These features alone have pushed Zelda Classic into a new dimension. Now it is REALLY possible to create a quest that does not resemble Zelda 1 at all...
You get another dimension with Z-script and ZSAM... One that I have yet to use, but I will learn it one of these days...
256 bit color? Don't you mean 8-bit color? The "original" 8-bit color is a misnomer. NES used 2 bits per pixel and 52 colors to choose from for each color set (8 csets) and SMS used 4 bits per pixel and 256 colors to choose from for each of the 2 csets. Pre-2.50 color was SNES level- 4-bit, 16 csets giving a 256 color palette with 65536 colors to choose from. (actually 18-bit color choice in ZC) 8-bit color only removes the restriction of csets.
ANYWAYS...
Everything that has been added or fixed since 2.10 is my favorite feature.
The GUI improvement is a lot better. Large mode especially- I contributed a mockup of the design and the icons on the buttons at the bottom of the main panel (granted it was quite a bit different)...
now if only we could kill the "How do I load a custom quest?" question. It is nowhere near obvious. I couldn't figure it out without looking at the FAQ back when I was a n00b.
I don't think any of us ever said ZScript was complete :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Revfan9
I agree with that though, and the only counter I can make is that making the language is hard and time-consuming. One of these days though, I promise you...
I've been meaning to do something about this since forever, but never got around to it. One of these days...Quote:
Originally Posted by beefster09
"Vegeta, what does the changelog say about its build number?"
"It's over NINE HUNDREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!" *crushes the changelog in his hand*
(Would've waited with the joke until build 9000, but that'd take another umpteen years. :p)
Or just name the version after the date and time, like "ZC version 2008.12.09.13.37.42". And maybe tack an "r" onto the beginning or end of every full release. That way, there's no confusion about what the latest (un)stable release is, or what version a quest works on. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by bigjoe
I don't spend much time making sweet love to ZScript, so I can't really go into much detail of some of the more intricate problems of it justly. One thing always bothered me though.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman2050
This->X
That statement, right there. Why does the syntax need to be "->"? Why can't it simply be done with a period? Would This.X have been too difficult to implement? It has to be used so often and it's just so awkward.
EDIT: And just to get my point across, for all but the most trivial scripts, even if you did change it to a period now, it would take hours for someone to simply go through and change them all. That's how often that horrible syntax is used.
Well, because in C, the language ZScript is based off of, we do this:
With a normal struct (UDT, class, whatever), you get to use the dot operator, like in BASIC and other languages. However, when you add a pointer into the mix, then you need to tell the computer "I want to deal with the object being pointed at, not the pointer itself". So, you get to use the dereferencing operator instead.Code:mystruct foo; //doesn't really matter what this is, exactly
foo.x = 1; //set the x member of foo to 1
mystruct* fooptr = &foo; //take a pointer to foo. Remember: fooptr == foo
printf("foo.x: %d", fooptr->x); //prints "foo.x: 1"
I once thought that a period would be nicer to use, but the dereferencing operator is much less ambiguous, more accurate to the parent language, and easier on the compiler.
The only advantage to the somewhat ambiguous period is that it takes fewer keystrokes. It would make perfect sense if ZC used, say, Python for scripting.
On the other hand, I can't really site an instance when one would use the dot operator. As far as I know, ZScript doesn't have structs.
ZScript has structs? When did this happen? I've never seen pointers anywhere in any ZScript I've ever looked over either, at least not as I've grown to know them.Quote:
Originally Posted by pkmnfrk
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, as I'm no expert on C, but nothing should ever be followed off of a cliff. When mimicking C precisely becomes more important than making a usable language, you have a problem.
No, ZC doesn't have structs (although, that would be made of awesome. But, finish strings first!).
However, it does have pointers, if not the same was as in C. All those "ffc"s and "npc"s and "item"s and stuff we like throwing around are "pointers" to the underlying objects. The fact that we can reassign what a given variable points at is a clue. ("Link" and "Screen" and stuff are pointers too, but since there's only one of those, you can't reassign them.)