Reply to Re: Some self-indulgence
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
..Seriously?
Diablo not so much, but it's okay... If MouseDink worked equally well to Diablo, I don't think I would have much to complain.
So if I made it so when enemies got close they just stopped and wacked at Dink, and when Dink got close he also stopped and just wacked away, then suddenly that would be great gameplay relative to the crap gameplay as it is now? What?
As I see it, gameplay is of foremost concern
So I can't release a set of scripts and have to judged on that. Like if someone releases a graphics pack and it gives criticised for the 1 screen DMOD the author adds to the zip to show the animation.
I'm also not convinced it's that simple, that there aren't fundamental problems with improving many things in the gameplay.
It is that simple because so much that you see in MouseDink is controlled in DinkC, include the actions of 'Dink' entirely.
(E.g. changing it so that you could click monsters/NPCs on the head instead of the feet)
Since when is not being able to click on the head a fundamental problem? It is 1) a design choice and 2) so easy to fix as just having a sprite with a larger hitbox shadow the enemies. Two would be easy to add because enemies already have the health bar code. Or an enemy below could be checked for when the beacon is placed.
It didn't really address this.
Go read my scripts. I commented them for you.
Honesty I wasn't that annoyed by your review, even if I do admit that it was what gave me the final bit of motivation to write the above. But that you expect me to defend my set of scripts to someone who obviously doesn't particularly appreciate scripting, doesn't understand the code, doen't understand what can be changed and doesn't appreciate or apparently even recognise the number of innovations MouseDink contains and requires.. that annoys me greatly. I have no idea what motivated you to review my file in the first place as you obviously have no interest in it.
Diablo not so much, but it's okay... If MouseDink worked equally well to Diablo, I don't think I would have much to complain.
So if I made it so when enemies got close they just stopped and wacked at Dink, and when Dink got close he also stopped and just wacked away, then suddenly that would be great gameplay relative to the crap gameplay as it is now? What?
As I see it, gameplay is of foremost concern
So I can't release a set of scripts and have to judged on that. Like if someone releases a graphics pack and it gives criticised for the 1 screen DMOD the author adds to the zip to show the animation.
I'm also not convinced it's that simple, that there aren't fundamental problems with improving many things in the gameplay.
It is that simple because so much that you see in MouseDink is controlled in DinkC, include the actions of 'Dink' entirely.
(E.g. changing it so that you could click monsters/NPCs on the head instead of the feet)
Since when is not being able to click on the head a fundamental problem? It is 1) a design choice and 2) so easy to fix as just having a sprite with a larger hitbox shadow the enemies. Two would be easy to add because enemies already have the health bar code. Or an enemy below could be checked for when the beacon is placed.
It didn't really address this.
Go read my scripts. I commented them for you.
Honesty I wasn't that annoyed by your review, even if I do admit that it was what gave me the final bit of motivation to write the above. But that you expect me to defend my set of scripts to someone who obviously doesn't particularly appreciate scripting, doesn't understand the code, doen't understand what can be changed and doesn't appreciate or apparently even recognise the number of innovations MouseDink contains and requires.. that annoys me greatly. I have no idea what motivated you to review my file in the first place as you obviously have no interest in it.
