ZC [2.future] Feature Requests

[DragonDePlatino]

Under Etc->Options, a setting for more streamlined combo placement called "Advanced Combo Brush".

If you want to select a combo you have to right-click and select an option it from a drop-down menu.
If you want to draw a block of combos you have to right-click and select an option from a drop-down menu.
If you want to change the brush size you have to right-click and select an option from a drop-down menu.

Overall, it's a very tedious, clunky process. My proposed "Advanced Combo Brush" setting would be exactly like that in Tiled:

Right-click selects a combo.
Right-click dragging selects multiple combos.

If you want to go back to placing single combos, right-click a single combo. From experience, I find it to be a quick, easy system that enables you to build maps twice as quickly. It has no compatibility issues and the existing system could be kept as the default option. :)

[jimbrads]

One fairly easy request:)
A check-box in the "Tile Warp" window that would force Cave/ItemCellar warps to actually go to the map# specified by the DMap

another words: If I tell a Tile Warp on map#2 to go to a Cave/ItemCellar Dmap that is mapped to map#1 I would like it to actually go to map#1 instead of map#2. This would not change the Screen behavior, but this would make repeatable custom guys much easier. Perhaps put the checkbox next to the Combos Carry Over checkbox.

There's an example of what I am trying to do in my betaquest ZeldaRemastered. (I swear it worked before.?)

^^My first Post^^

[ZoriaRPG]

One fairly easy request:)
A check-box in the "Tile Warp" window that would force Cave/ItemCellar warps to actually go to the map# specified by the DMap

another words: If I tell a Tile Warp on map#2 to go to a Cave/ItemCellar Dmap that is mapped to map#1 I would like it to actually go to map#1 instead of map#2. This would not change the Screen behavior, but this would make repeatable custom guys much easier. Perhaps put the checkbox next to the Combos Carry Over checkbox.

There's an example of what I am trying to do in my betaquest ZeldaRemastered. (I swear it worked before.?)

^^My first Post^^

This seems like a prudent request to fill. Thank you for pointing out something we have overlooked.

[Tamamo]

@ZoriaRPG
There's a lot of old code that is commented out, unfinished, or just plain unavailable in the quest editor for various reasons.
What are your plans for resolving those issues?

[Avataro]

You probably have too much on your plates already, but it can't hurt to request something: Loop start and loop end times for enhanced music like mp3s.

[ZoriaRPG]

@ZoriaRPG
There's a lot of old code that is commented out, unfinished, or just plain unavailable in the quest editor for various reasons.
What are your plans for resolving those issues?

My plan, in general, is to retain what is useful, finish what is practical, rewrite what is beneficial, and crimp out what is extraneous.

Ideally, to clean up as much as we can. We are also working on useful commenting of the codebase, over time.

Some code that is commented out though, we may retain, if we cannot reach a decision. Some of it is there as a record for historical purposes, and I do not personally wish to obliterate it.

There is also new code that is commented out and unfinished, because one or more of us has not yet completed it. That is a new issue.

As far as practical completion and revision, the general priority list is:

Rewrite Link's Collision Box with all objects and map flags, cleanly. Remove competing functions and make one universal collision calculation.
Rewrite warping, and segregate scripted warping from ordinary warping.
Revise weapons, and npcs.
Move script-only features into a scripting class.
Simplify trigger events, and make them cleaner, and more organised.
Add a series of methods to allow contributors to more readily and easily expand the script engine.
Add and strengthen sanity checks in the ffscript code to reduce accidental user errors that can, for example, do invalid things.
Expand, clarify, and generally improve script error reporting.


The culmination of this will make it much easier to do things, such as allowing custom sized player hitboxes and sprites; adding flags (and the flag editor), create less buggy scripts, and make it far easier to work with the source code. I have already made several documents for contributors, and developers alike, that detail holw to add to, or modify ZSvript functions, and variables; and class-components (weapons, items, and link; thus far).

These are separate docs. @DarkDragon suggested inserting the docs in-line with the source, but I feel that doing this will detract from the (already poor) readability. Instead, in-line comments will suffice, and I will eventually bind all these docs and notes into a PDF, as I will do likewise for ZSvript; and if we choose to implement AS as ZScript v9000, for that as well.

[Tamamo]

you don't have a choice but to retain it in that case.

You do not want to know what would happen if you were to remove the 12 npc enemies we don't really need.
Every npc in zc would be fucked...

This is why i was so against merging 2.x and 3.0.
They we're suppose to be separate before you folks even got the source.

[ZoriaRPG]

you don't have a choice but to retain it in that case.

You do not want to know what would happen if you were to remove the 12 npc enemies we don't really need.
Every npc in zc would be fucked...

This is why i was so against merging 2.x and 3.0.
They we're suppose to be separate before you folks even got the source.

I honestly must know: Do you do a bit of drinking before you post to AGN every day?

I mentioned npcs on one line, 'Revise npcs'. What the hell are you talking about, at all?

I'm genuinely bewildered by how off-the-wall your reply reads, and I cannot place how it connects to any of this, other than you trying to be smug for whatever reason.

Who said we would ever remove npcs from the engine? The revision plans are related to how npcs work internally, both to the class, and how they can be addressed with scripts. We want to make them more flexible, add some new stuff, clean up some of the hardcoded routines, and whatnot; not rewrite them in entirety.

That act would clearly belong to 3.x.

Hell, I only responded to your earlier post because it had genuine concerns that we care about. Now we're wandering into madness. FWIW, I have a very good idea of what kind of things can occur if you obliterate something that the engine relies upon. Insert sanity check here.

[DarkDragon]

I'm not sure which conversation you're referring to, but my general opinion is that information useful to quest authors should go in external docs, and information only relevant to developers is best incorporated in the source where it's most likely to be seen and maintained.

[ZoriaRPG]

I'm not sure which conversation you're referring to, but my general opinion is that information useful to quest authors should go in external docs, and information only relevant to developers is best incorporated in the source where it's most likely to be seen and maintained.

It was in my last git push. The issue is that the details (1) are cross-subject in a manner that they cover aspects of specific engine components that are spread across multiple source files. There is no specific file in which they belong; and (2) I think it is helpful to have docs as separate .txt or .pdf files so that you can review them separately. I have no qualms about inserting it into the source as well, but I feel that a comprehensive docs set that explains how things works would be best as a manual of sorts.

If our system was cleaner, and less convoluted, perhaps it wouldn't matter as much, but I find it helpful when I have a reference to use for any given project.

I also want to improve source comments, but adding thousands of lines of explanatory docs to the source is something that people tend to frown upon in my experience. I used to do a lot of in-line docs in code, and everyone seemed to hate that.