Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

LukeM · 2017-02-23 10:48:51

Gosha wrote:

Block ID is just a mess
this is how ids for decorations go {... 497, 498, 499, 1500, 1501}
backgrouns are in rage of 500 and 999
there are some holes in the ids
It would be cool block types to have it's own ids.
Like:
(0)Blocks blocks ids: {0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ..}
(1)Action blocks ids: {0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ..}
(2)Decoration blocks ids: {0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ..}
(3)Background blocks ids: {0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ..}
So when you want to send a block to the server you need
Connection.Send("b", Type, x, y, id, stuff)
instead of
Connection.Send("b", Layer, x, y, id, stuff)
so if you want to place air background block at 1x1 you need
Connection.Send("b", 3, 1, 1, 0, null)
if you want to place air foreground block at 1x1 you need
Connection.Send("b", 0, 1, 1, 0, null)
if you want to place any action block at 1x1 you need
Connection.Send("b", 1, 1, 1, id, null)

I think they should just ignore the ids altogether, and instead switch to using names instead, that way you could maybe load a bigDB or something that contains a list of all the names, and their corresponding ids (which could automatically be assigned when they create a new version)
This could also mean that they could (possibly) also store all the tags / properties / locations of graphics in the bigDB, which would mean easier updates maybe?
This would create some problems with saving worlds, but im sure it wouldnt need to much changing.

Im sure ive probably overlooked something big, but this seems like it could make it easier to manage the blocks in the game, and possibly clean up code a bit.

Just as an example, if you parsed the bigDB to a Data class, you could do something like Connection.Send("b", x, y, Data.fg.basic.gray) or something

Gosha · 2017-02-23 12:28:22

destroyer123 wrote:

Connection.Send("b", x, y, Data.fg.basic.gray)

I think it would be much harder for bot makers because what if you want to place all blocks you have?

It is easy at the correct id version: for(int id=0; id < totalblockids; id++)
but it would be pain in the **** to do it with names.

But, there are some positive things about it, i agree

like if you want to add another colour to the existing pack
In id version new id will be separated from all ids in the pack
but in names version you just need to add .newcolor

LukeM · 2017-02-23 13:28:12

Gosha wrote:

I think it would be much harder for bot makers because what if you want to place all blocks you have?
It is easy at the correct id version: for(int id=0; id < totalblockids; id++)
but it would be pain in the **** to do it with names.

I was thinking that Data.whatever could just be a temporary ID, which wouldnt necessarily stay the same between updates, to make it easy to send messages / store ids
In that case, you could always do the same as before, just the blocks might not be in the same places after an update

Aoitenshi · 2017-02-27 02:09:47

Less is more. Definitely need to streamline the features. Most of the feedback I got from Kong is how complex the game is, that drives people away.

N1KF, Onjit, Badoosh, Xfrogman43, Kentiya

Guest. · 2017-02-27 04:12:59

honestly this is partly the community's fault
remember when benjaminsen was going to make one of the biggest and most needed updates to the physics engine?
the communtiy whined and complained and so it was reverted back to the same engine we still have today (remember, this update was planned to be released around 2011)

they also constantly spewed out suggestions for useless, carbon-copy action blocks (for example: crown doors)

they even complain about broken features but never actually give input so they stay broken and then they blame it on the staff

its just a doomed decent not worth reviving at this point

dcomet · 2017-02-27 04:36:49

Ernesdo wrote:

honestly this is partly the community's fault
remember when benjaminsen was going to make one of the biggest and most needed updates to the physics engine?
the communtiy whined and complained and so it was reverted back to the same engine we still have today (remember, this update was planned to be released around 2011)
they also constantly spewed out suggestions for useless, carbon-copy action blocks (for example: crown doors)
they even complain about broken features but never actually give input so they stay broken and then they blame it on the staff
its just a doomed decent not worth reviving at this point

deep.
But we have band-aids to heal the hurt community, they have Bruce on them.

N1KF · 2017-02-27 05:15:45

DarkComet wrote:

Ernesdo wrote:
honestly this is partly the community's fault
remember when benjaminsen was going to make one of the biggest and most needed updates to the physics engine?
the communtiy whined and complained and so it was reverted back to the same engine we still have today (remember, this update was planned to be released around 2011)
they also constantly spewed out suggestions for useless, carbon-copy action blocks (for example: crown doors)
they even complain about broken features but never actually give input so they stay broken and then they blame it on the staff
its just a doomed decent not worth reviving at this point
deep.
But we have band-aids to heal the hurt community, they have Bruce on them.

It's sad to say this, but...even Bruce cannot heal the scars mankind has left on us now.

Kentiya · 2017-03-12 18:36:31

After thinking about it a bit, I'm not sure it would be good to remake the game from scratch. What would the advantages be? The only ones I can think of are that it allows physics to be changed completely, and for blocks to be removed and/or changed. As far as changing the physics, does it need to be changed? It seems to be good except for a few bugs that the fixing of shouldn't affect many levels.

LukeM, Freckleface

shadowda · 2017-03-12 22:34:51

no reboots. unless ee is completely and totally dead, which it's not.

Freckleface · 2017-03-13 01:51:52

do reboots, unless people want the same game from 2010, which they don't.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#26 2017-02-23 10:48:51

Re: Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

#27 2017-02-23 12:28:22

Re: Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

#28 2017-02-23 13:28:12

Re: Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

#29 2017-02-27 02:09:47, last edited by Aoitenshi (2017-02-27 02:10:24)

Re: Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

#30 2017-02-27 04:12:59

Re: Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

#31 2017-02-27 04:36:49, last edited by dcomet (2017-02-27 04:37:01)

Re: Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

#32 2017-02-27 05:15:45

Re: Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

#33 2017-03-12 18:36:31

Re: Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

#34 2017-03-12 22:34:51

Re: Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

#35 2017-03-13 01:51:52

Re: Is EE too complex/messy? How would you feel about a fresh reboot?

Board footer