Official Everybody Edits Forums

Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?

You are not logged in.

#1 2015-03-12 23:25:21

Stubby
Member
From: Maryland, U.S.A.
Joined: 2015-02-16
Posts: 1,721
Website

Extra Gravity Blocks

Currently, the four main gravity blocks are the three arrows (left, right, and up), and the small dot. In my opinion, there's not enough generic 'themeless' gravity blocks.

For example, ladders, chains, and vines work just like dots, but they are much slower. However, they do not look good when they are used in certain ways. Why not have a generic one, perhaps a large yellow dot? Also, with the addition of invisible gravity blocks in a recent update, there needs to be invisible boosts, and also an invisible large dot, as I mentioned earlier. Would these be useful to any of you?


fgRzols.png

Offline

Wooted by: (3)

#2 2015-03-13 00:10:18

Pingohits
Banned
From: aids lizard
Joined: 2015-02-15
Posts: 7,591

Re: Extra Gravity Blocks

the large yellow dot must be a different color or people will get confused


791mAP8.png

Offline

#3 2015-03-13 01:24:52

ParadoxInTheVoid
Member
From: ̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺̺
Joined: 2015-02-18
Posts: 341

Re: Extra Gravity Blocks

I would love to have invisible boosts.
I would also love to have yellow 'down' arrow, for consistency.


signature.png

Offline

Wooted by:

#4 2015-03-13 01:28:05

gkaby
Member
From: South coast of Antarctica
Joined: 2015-02-15
Posts: 781
Website

Re: Extra Gravity Blocks

I remember when the dots became large dots.

it was very confusing


idk

Offline

#5 2015-03-13 01:55:11

Kyle97
Member
Joined: 2015-02-15
Posts: 113

Re: Extra Gravity Blocks

I agree with invisible boost 100%. Generic "large dots" may get confusing, so I think that idea needs some more work. And please no down arrows, that would look so ugly and cluttered

Offline

Kyle971426208111482000

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB

[ Started around 1732216283.2941 - Generated in 6.605 seconds, 16 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.4 MiB (Peak: 1.49 MiB) ]