Messages

This is a really phenominal task if you think about it. There is no one kind of "battle system". There aren't even a couple of types, and within any types you can define, there are tonnes of variables/differences/etc in the way they work. This is why Hotspot said, "Coding". The only way to do it without using a completely generic battle system is to sit down, think about how you want it to work, and then work out how to code it yourself.

The other thing you have to keep in mind is that this is an adventure game engine, and we can't expect CJ to go to such an extent for people who want to try their hand at RPGs.

If you don't mind using a generic battle system then, your only option is to wait for someone else to release a template with their own, really.

Coding a battle system is frustrating (I'm doing one myself) but it's really worth it to see it working and know it's your own. For example, I'm trying to make mine taking all the individual components of other battle systems I've come across that I liked best and putting them all together. Hopefully, it'll work out well.

yes, well. i'm not sure why, but like I said, i tried creating an invisble object in its place, moving it, and recreating the object on a different object number but it didn't work... I feel so confused...............          ...       ..............                ...........               ................. ....

If it is like my problem (and this one REALLY stumped me), have a look at the other hotspots you have in that room, and in particular, which ones are near the object that won't work. Do any of those hotspots/walk behinds etc go all the way to the edge of the room? That was what my problem was. For some reason, the engine just didn't like a hotspot being on any of the pixelks around the very edge of the room. It made everything near it act like a "walk to".

I hope that helps.

It's almost as if some of you have... no sense of humour! Was it removed surgically at some point?

I just think it's silly how serious some of this has become. I'm all for a good debate but this is a gaming forum, surely things should be a little more light hearted here. I light heartedly state that sex is great, and drugs are bad. I don't WANT to get involved in stupid statistic wars, I want to loudly proclaim my stance and then happily talk about smurfs, or lemmings, or why clouds look like kittens sometimes.

...My god! Why DO clouds look like kittens sometimes? Maybe that's where little kitten souls go after death...

Great, now you've made me sad.

EDIT: LOVE that touche picture! ^_^

*sigh* Wouldn't it be nice if we could all just be friends and make adventure games together.

I wonder how many of the thousands or millions of people in the world called Jesus make a 'second coming' joke after/during/before sex. Does anyone know the word for 'coming' or 'ejaculating' in Spanish? ^_^ I only took Spanish for a year, so I never got around to learning all those REALLY useful words...

I agree that having sex on a first date (given that a date is someone you're considering for a serious relationship) is a bad idea. I don't think it's "wrong" as such but... you know, is probably not a smart decision.

If you're after casual sex though, and the other person is after the same thing, ain't nothing wrong with that ^_^

It's true, mid-teens are sexually fucked up in the head. Heaps of girls that age do love to show others how much of a bisexual they are (they really, really, really do love to brag, or leak the info out) and of course, heaps of teen boys are still dirty. I have nieces and nephews that are closing in on those ages... it's terrifying @_@

I don't think there's anything wrong in a debating situation (which we all are right now) to tell someone that you believe their belief is wrong, or even stupid. I mean, imagine if someone believed that incest was okay, or (I always use this argument) killing babies. Would any of us stand for that? I think not. We wouldn't take, "Look guys, this is just my opinion. You don't have to agree, but let me be free to believe in it".

Jack was giving his argument as to why he believes religion is ...er... naive. He did it bluntly, yes, but in the end he was just challenging what Peter has been saying. That's a debate! That's what we're all here doing (well, that's what it's become). Peter HAS been saying what he believes are sins.

We should ALL be intelligent enough to figure out that some things he said were jokes, and some were him defending his own opinion.

Sex isn't physically different from climbing a hill or jogging? That's a pretty far-out hill! I don't want to climb that hill, frankly. It sounds scary

This argument has gone on way too long I think. Let's just all agree that sex is good and we ALL like it.

Makes total sense to me! SURPRISE!

Actually, I was having trouble with that point myself. Just let me clarify...

Are you saying that if you have sex outside of marriage, you may get addicted to it (with the implication that you'll be doing it with more than one person). If you then get married, you won't be able to handle only being able to sleep with just one person, and may commit adultery. Is that it or did I interprete wrong?

If so, I understand that you're saying the chances of you wanting to sleep with someone else once you're married are increased if you've slept with other people previously, but I have to disagree. I think it's just as likely that you may start to experience feelings of limitation if you've only slept with one person and are married (and hence in a sense, "tied") to that one person. Of course that's not necessarilly going to happen at all, but I think it's just as likely a danger as what you're saying.

It could even be argued that having sex outside of marriage with a few people could get curiosity out of your system, and when you meet the person you want to marry and fall in love, the sex with them will be 100 times better than loveless sex and you won't feel the need to look back after that.

Just saying these are possibilities though ^_^ Not concrete.

I think like any addiction you just have to have lots of other things in your life. A lot of people who get addicted or consumed by certains are doing so because there's too much room in their lives for it. There was a time when I had just moved in with my boyfriend and I got niggley over the stupidest things because I wasn't working, wasn't at uni, and I just had all day to stew over things - really ridiculous things. Now that I've experienced a lot of things and I do a lot with my life (like spending all night making adventure games! ^_-) I'm a much more personable gal.

Of course the other big thing is that young couples often think they have to have a certain kind of relationship to be normal or to prove that they do in fact, have a good relationship. Like "We only have sex once a week! What's WRONG with us?? It's not normal, we need counselling!!". People do need to realise that just living happily in your own way is what's important. Good sex is better than frequent sex - and thats only talking about sex. Couples get hang-ups about all sorts of things they think are important, like how much of an interest your partner should have in what you do, what they should or shouldn't do for Valentine's Day and things like that.

DG - Nice ^_^

You can't argue against one side of the coin by bringing up an extreme case. Most people seem to do things like that. A lot of people that don't have sex before marriage live wonderfully rich and fulfilling lives just as plenty of people who do have sex and live with their parter for a long time before sex will eventually get a divorce or lead an unhappy marriage.

However, I think the argument for sex before marriage is better given like this: If you do have sex before marriage (and that doesn't necessarilly make it rash or sleazy - relationships reach a point where it's just the right time and most well-rounded people can tell when that is), AND live with your partner for a good few years before getting married (which to me is the most important thing, you NEVER know a person without living with them for almost every single day for years. Not just one year either... you have to experience a chunk of your life with them), your chances of having chosen your life partner wisely (that line totally reminds me of the old knight in Indiana Jones: Last Crusade ^_^) and living a relatively happy, well-balanced and harmonious life are GREATLY increased.

I believe in sex before marriage - I've done it heaps! (Sorry, I couldn't resist -_- I know it's an old joke... ack.)

I honestly would never, ever in my life look hopefully upon a marriage that happens before sex or moving in together for a long time.

I think someone once said something like until you've seen your partner on the toilet, had to look after them with an awful, disgusting cold and similar things like that, you're not ready for marriage.

EDIT: Peter, could you explain to me how it's breaking a trust? I'm not trying to flame you or anything, honestly, I just want to understand. I just can't get my head around it.

I'm using the MI template. I have a cutscene that starts with an "use" action. The GUI disappears for awhile and then reappears later in the cutscene. The problem is that when the GUI is turned back on, the "use" action is still highlighted in the action bar.

Is there a way I can change the text in the action bar to the standard "walk to" before the GUI reappears? It looks very odd having it reappear so much later with the same old action still written there.

I've made so many changes lately, it's hard for me to remember exactly what fixed what, but I've essentially fixed all these problems in the last couple of days.

Proskrito - I had been reading the doc file but since I could never remember every problem addressed in it, when a new problem arose, I would often think "Hmm, didn't see that in the doc" and didn't think to check.

My walk-to points had stopped being recognised because of a REALLY simple thing: I had at some point accidentally unchecked the box regarding them in the general settings tab. Easily fixed.

As I said before, the "look at" problem was fine as soon as I got the new template (so I highly reccommend it!).

The 5 or so hotspots that weren't working REALLY baffled me. I did a few tests with moving them around and taking them off one by one and, although I don't understand WHY this was a problem, I figured out what the problem was. One of my hotspots reached all the way to the top pixel of the background. It was, for some reason, stopping not only itself from working properly, but all the hotspots directly below it. All I did was keep one pixel length line free at the top of the screen and everything works like a charm. If keeping the top line of pixels free is written in the manual somewhere, I never came across it... but it completely baffled me.

The only other fundamental problem I had was the character, after being told to look at something, moving to the object's closest point on his own, and THEN moving to the hotspot. I fixed that by changing the 1 to a 0 in the line: AlwaysGoToHotspots=0;

Easy ^_^ I hope that helps anyone who comes across similar stupid problems!

I had that exact problem with the "look at" function not working when used with the left mouse button, and working but ignoring walk-to points when used with the right mouse trigger.

As soon as I got v1.3 of the template and transferred my game over, the "look" function worked fine except for a group of about 5 hotspots in one room. I don't know if that's related and absolutely noone has been able to come up with any ideas or solutions for that problem.

Right now, for seemingly no reason at all, my walk-to points have all decided to stop working completely. I also don't know if this is related to the template or not but I thought I'd just throw it out here in case someone else comes across the problem.

It worked, thanks dude! ^_^

I'm using the MI template, but I'd like to stop characters turning to face the player character when I look at them. Is this a part of the MI template or a general AGS function? If it's the template, how do I turn it off?

Thanks

I'm afraid I tried replacing the code with what you gave me there, and it hasn't made any difference. The player character still won't do anything but walk when I use the left mouse click on the 'look' GUI and then on the object.

I think I'm having that same problem but it's with the MI2 template. I'm actually well into my game at this stage but I haven't changed anything in the global script, and have only changed individual rooms that came with the template.

Whenever I left click on "look" and then click on a hotspot/object/whatever, the character will walk over to the object/whatever, but won't display the text assigned for that hotspot. It works with no problems at all if I right click, when "look" is already highlighted for that object.

The left click has worked -occasionally- and it seems to be when I've already tried it once (or many times!) before and the character is already as close to the thing as possible, or is standing in front of it and I click on the object through the character.

EDIT: After playing with it some more, I've realised that when using the plain left mouse click (clicking on "look" and then on the object) the game will go to the walk-to point assigned to that hotspot/object, but won't display the "look" text.

If I use the right click (with "look" highlighted) it is reacting as if "walk to" was clicked. This means that most of the time, the character walks behind the object in question in response to the position on the object I clicked. It will THEN respond with the proper "look" displayed text. I have walk-to points assigned to all these objects/hotspots and yet they are being ignored.

If I use the left mouse click, I can get the game to recognise the walk to point but no text.
If I use the right mouse click, it ignores the walk-to point but will display the text.

(Sorry if this should be in the general topics)

I'm having trouble with changing the GUI buttons using the MI2 GUI template. I exported the button graphics into my graphics program and changed them, keeping them at the exact same size as the originals for convenience, then importing them (without checking the "import for 640x400 resolution" box) and that worked fine, meaning that when I viewed them in the GUI tab, they were at the right size.
However, I'm making my game in 640x400 res. so I thought I'd make more detailed buttons. I doubled the size of the button graphics, redrew them and imported them again (this time checking the box) and while the graphics are technically the right size in the GUI, the quality has dropped significantly, as if they were larger graphics at a lower magnification. Is there something I'm doing wrong, or some way past this?

Thanks.