Should the "FF Combo Attr. Change" combo type be removed?

There is no need for backwards compatibility contained within the betas. There's a disclaimer posted with every new one posted, and repeated warnings are given not to use the betas to work on your big project. I say drop it, there's not a whole lot of point for it now anyway.

There are two issues to keep in mind: firstly, as has been mentioned, we try very hard to avoid breaking old quests. Secondly, though I agree that the scripts are very simple and powerful and should replace some of the more cumbersome features of ZQ, not everybody shares this viewpoint, and indeed there have been several complains that scripting has introduced a barrier of entry too tall for the lay person overcome. There are several users who want nothing to do with scripting - is it fair to erode their available features, solely for the sake of elegance?

Though I voted "yes" to the poll, I will not remove this feature. You will need to convince DN; he feels more strongly than I do about the need to avoid overreliance on scripts.

I agree with the above poster but do in fact vote no, it shouldn't be removed and should be kept in. As somebody that knows nothing about scripting, i will be using FFC attribute change combos extensively as an alternate. Also, why fix what aint broke?

Well, I for one generally won't be doing much scripting, (Math in general fears me like ants seeing an anteater family.) but I do treasure the presence of the FFChange combo. It allows an easier way to change the direction of certain combos without having to script it. Without FFChange combos, I probably wouldn't be using all that many FF Combos at all. :shrug:

Yeah, this should probably stay. Not that we're going to be able to do EVERYTHING that's possible with scripting without using any scripting, but, something as simple as this shouldn't force scripting onto people.

L, your idea is a good one, but I think you're outnumbered. If this thread is any indication, even the simplest form of scripting can turn off some quest designers. Apparently it's easier to remember all kinds of arcane, time-consuming tricks and workarounds to rise above the limitations of ZC rather than mess with the huge power of pure scripting!
*grumble*. Anyway, I'd say if these features are left in, they should stay rudimentary, as that will probably be all that anyone's going to get with non-scripted FF combos.

Dart Zaidyer wrote:L, your idea is a good one, but I think you're outnumbered. If this thread is any indication, even the simplest form of scripting can turn off some quest designers. Apparently it's easier to remember all kinds of arcane, time-consuming tricks and workarounds to rise above the limitations of ZC rather than mess with the huge power of pure scripting!
*grumble*. Anyway, I'd say if these features are left in, they should stay rudimentary, as that will probably be all that anyone's going to get with non-scripted FF combos.

Oh, did I ever see this coming.
Now those of us that never had the chance to learn programming, and don't have the time right now to invest in learning it, are now second rate quest makers, and Zelda Classic should be made to just blow right past us, since after all.... WE are not worthy.

Apparently it's easier to remember all kinds of arcane, time-consuming tricks and workarounds to rise above the limitations of ZC rather than mess with the huge power of pure scripting!

It's easier and less time consuming to remember what you've already spent years learning, then it is to spend years learning something new, because a few that have already learned it want to demand it of the rest of us, in order for our quests to measure up to their standards.

Is leaving ONE stinking free form attribute combo in there that big of a deal, or would doing that bring fear upon you programming gods that someone might build a quest that gets some play time over your own, without scripting in a bunch of super god tricks?

I'm not against scripting being in there for those who want it, so why the hell do some of you want to limit what can be done without it, by removing FF attributes, do they hurt you being in there?

I've used them extensivly in Robinhood and Castle Haunt III, should I delete these quest out, since it seems you want to ruin them by removing the attributes at this stage?

L,
You showed up here about the time scripting did, now you want to change ZC as a whole, where have you been the last two years when I was beta testing my ass off trying to help get a stable release out, which never came?
Now it seems you want to make it so it will NEVER happen, or if it does, only a select few will be able to use it.

I agree, I myself have learned HTML, which in no means is a complex as
C++ or any other programming language. and I look at the script text,
and repeatedly scratch my head, seeing nothing but the equivalent of
trying to read spanish or something, without knowing any. I think things
should be made both complex and simple, for either that wish to use either
one. I think that FFC's should be made somehow easier to command (I know
in time that may be possible), but hello not everyone can take precious time
to learn coding, I have a job and a family and not much time to learn
scripting, so does that mean I should quit using ZC all together?

I WILL SAY THIS, if I had the time to learn script & code, I would design my
own games from scratch, and have no need for ZC. but there are those of us
who love it no matter how ARCHAIC it may be...
not that I am not going to try to learn the script code, but right now I just
don't have the time to do so.

I guess all of us old timers, are supposed to bow out gracefully after waiting
years for ZC to get this far right?

and what difference does it make to anyone what we use to design our quests,
.........................IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT DON'T PLAY IT..............................
that is what I say to that, and if you don't like it, and don't even try to play it then
you don't have the right to criticize anyone's work, just because you may think
you are so advanced and the rest of us are cave men. I have *grumbles* too, but I
don't put anyone down for knowing only what they may know, or be able to learn.

I may not have posted here often, but I have been a part of ZC for 2 years, and I like how far it's
come since 163.

in short.......... NO... leave it in (and perhaps add a few more no script options, albeit later would be fine)

maybe a dev could add an option or command line to zquest which hides what these scripters want removed thus preventing them from using them by mistake and allowing normal users to use them when they want?

Freedom wrote:now you want to change ZC as a whole,

Everything else, though, is a valid opinion.

I feel there is some misconception about how hard the scripting language is to learn. Granted, I'm hardly an unbiased party having extensely studied computer science, but the attitude that "scripting is BOUND to be way too hard, even though I haven't bothered to actually try and play with it" strikes me as ill-informed and knee-jerk. Yes, C is a complicated language, but you don't need to know C to write dozen-line ZScript scripts; in fact only the very basic (and very easy) C features are currently implemented. To compare ZScript to HTML or C++ is like comparing a matchbox racer to a Mercedes; ZScript is a toy language. I borrowed C syntax because I thought most people would be already familiar with it, but I could just as easily have made it look like BASIC or Robotic (and perhaps should have, had I known C would be so stigmatized.)

DarkDragon wrote:I feel there is some misconception about how hard the scripting language is to learn. Granted, I'm hardly an unbiased party having extensely studied computer science, but the attitude that "scripting is BOUND to be way too hard, even though I haven't bothered to actually try and play with it" strikes me as ill-informed and knee-jerk. Yes, C is a complicated language, but you don't need to know C to write dozen-line ZScript scripts; in fact only the very basic (and very easy) C features are currently implemented. To compare ZScript to HTML or C++ is like comparing a matchbox racer to a Mercedes; ZScript is a toy language. I borrowed C syntax because I thought most people would be already familiar with it, but I could just as easily have made it look like BASIC or Robotic (and perhaps should have, had I known C would be so stigmatized.)

Like Shadowfall above, I set down and learned html on my own a few years back, so I figured what the hell, why not learn C++.
Two different times I set down and tried learning on my own, both times that little adventure lasted about two weeks before I said to myself these people must be nuts.
Perhaps if I ever got past the point where it's still all jibberish and I began to see the means to the madness it would click and I'd get on that roll.
Doesn't matter, I don't have the time.

BUT you're missing the point I was making.

If I had known 2 years ago that this was going to happen, I would have continued to build my quests in the 192b184 and not bothered beta testing.
I'm sick of more and more, when there isn't something that is here and now.
HAD a stable release come before all this new stuff was added, one that you could actually build a decent quest in, then I doubt there would have been unhappiness anywhere with anyone.

Offering a kid that's had no dinner a candy bar is the wrong approach.
Offering someone cool new features that hasn't seen a bug free release since 190 is no different.

I understand the developers are trying to make ZC be all that it can be, but I disagree at this point just what that is, some think it's more toys, I say it's toys that work.
As for Jman's promise of a bug free stable release by December, I highly doubt it.
I know Jman means well, and he will do all he can do to deliver, but I believe it's not in his control, in order to have that release, he needs to know what's broke before he can fix it, and I don't think that information is going to be forthcoming, because the only bugs being reported are with all these new features, which means all the other bugs aren't going to be noticed until months after the "stable release" is released, just as was the case with the 2.10.

Those words I'd love to eat, but I bet I won't have to. 😉
Around April or so... God willing, I'll have some time to look at ZC again, we'll see how it looks then. 😉

All in all, over the last few years I've had a hellova good time with ZC, even though the last few weeks have been pretty frustrating, and I want to say thanks to all you for making the good times happen.

You preach to the choir. I would like nothing better than a public release, stat. I added the compiler because I did not feel it would be appropriate to release a public version of ZQ that forced quest authors to wrestle with assembly; I am now however done adding new features, so I will be spending considerable time bugfixing. I assure you that were you to report bugs in old features, I would do my best to correct them, and the same goes for the (large) queue of bugs already reported.

I know that you would, but tomorrow my life turns in another direction, I won't be able to do anything with ZC for several months, I'm getting ready to move, and it's going to be an adventure that puts anything Link has done to shame. 😉

What we need is
1. A stable release of 2.11 or higher
2. A definitive version of the scripting language, as simple as possible
3. A good tutorial with examples and all so you can learn scripting without a masters' degree in computer science
4. Complete backwards compatibility, and the possiblilty to do as much as possible without having to script (i.e. new features, where possible, should also be accessible in other
ways)

And while all developers are working hard and I'll contribute what I can to each of these points - it won't happen by tomorrow.

It's very early days yet. When 2.11 is finished old features will still be there, and many new ones (think ice combos, Cane of Byrna, new enemies ...) will be available even to those who don't want to write a line of code.

I understand the point that it's "high time a new stable version came out".
It remains though that there's things you can do with scripting that would be very hard or impossible otherwise. Think of making a custom boss with its own HP/MP, different weapons, shapeshifting and all - ok, perhaps you could do that with 100 maps and an astronomical number of warps, but one screen and one script will in future do it. (And incidentally, the old sort of custom bosses wasn't eactly trivial to make either).
I'm not trying to devalue the objections of anyone, but scripting is the path ZC has taken for now.

Freedom, I hope we'll be able to make you eat your words yet 😉 Until then, have a nice life, and may God be with you.

this is a a rather crude example of something id like to see within the gui of zquest... which im sure will make many people happy... (changes i thought of are in red... and yes the enemy names etc aren't 100% accurate to what they are in zquest... so shoot me.)

http://web.aanet.com.au/Student_WebZone/untitled.PNG

edit: updated the pic and removed all refreces to scripts... altho saving a custom enemy just makes a script and associates that script to that custom enemy.

edit 2: the right side only lets you choose custom enemies that have a script assigned to them.