SAUCE'S PROFILE

that sounds insanely tedious, but yes it might work

the previously suggested method was to check if the wrong weapon is equipped and replace it automatically - nothing to do with the battle eventing


If Hero(outfitA) has longsword(B) equipped:
Unequip Hero(outfitA) weapon
Change item: longsword (B) remove
Equip Hero(outfitA) longsword(A)

that way, there's no duplicate, and in an official release, I'd remove the (a)/(b) tags

I'm open to ideas for the off chance someone has an idea that's less tedious, or downright genius. I appreciate the help though, Large.

author=LockeZ
In the weapon properties, you can't change the normal animation based on the person using it, but you can change the pose based on the person using it. If you make a pose that includes the sword-slash animation, you can leave the actual battle animation blank.

I hope you know what I mean by "pose" because I don't have RM here at work and I can't remember how to do this crap. I know it's possible though.

The battle animation style I'm using is different from the default setup. The "battlepose" is just the character disappearing. And the attack animation that is inflicted on the enemy includes the image of the character in it.

Like so.

author=Large
If that's what you want, my suggestion would be:

- I'll assume you already have the 2 armor sets, and the 2 different attack animations.
- Copy your sword, and paste it as a new item. It is an exact clone (Name, stats, cost, etc), except for one thing: the battle animation. Link the second animation to this second sword.
- Whenever the character switches armor, make it so he/she switches sword as well...

Your analysis of my situation is absolutely correct.

However, the problem with your solution is that AFTER the character changes outfits, even if I adjust for the correct sword then, the gamer has to be allowed to enter the menu and change his weapon. At that point, you can't make sure he's wearing the weapon version with the correct animation. I want to avoid duplicates in inventory (one for each), AND I don't want the gamer to ever know there was a difference.


Thanks for responding, though guys. NewBlack told me to try a perpetual check system in common events, and I'm doing that. He said it's really tedious though, so I'm open to any other suggestions.

Hey, I'm need some help with a problem I have in rm2k3, specifically the battle animations for weapons.

I'm doing the thing where you have your battlecharaset fade out, and the weapon animation includes your character walking over to the enemy and doing the attack.

No problems there, it works just fine. One thing I noticed was that a particular weapon can only be used by one character. I couldn't figure out a way for a specific weapon to have two different attack animations for two different characters.

For the most part, this wasn't a problem either, except for one detail. I have a character who constantly changes between one outfit and another (it's a suit of armor he wears). I wanted to maintain the exact same character, all stats, equipment, etc between the two. I have a common event which transfers all his stats/equipment over.

So my problem is a sword meant for the character without armor won't have the proper attack animation for a sword meant for the same guy wearing armor.

If there's a way to have the same weapon do two different attack animations let me know, that would make everything easier.

If not - what are my options?

Not having armor and no armor versions of the same character is not an option. Any help/suggestions?

You made several excellent points here.

I will like to add that when lining up inherently 'disjointed' vignettes, you can fake coherency and flow with some techniques.

One method is cut one scene short on a fade-to-black and then 'finish' the flow of dialogue in the next, totally unrelated, scene.

For example:

"Why am I even here? This is such a waste of my..."


"Time! Alright, pencils down. Pass your exams to the front of the room."
"Aw man, I did terrible on that one."
"I know, if I fail this class, my mom's gonna..."


"Kill me, you bastard! How dare you walk away!"
"Mercy is the mark of a great man. And besides... I've proven my point."
"You're going to regret letting me live. Someday, I'll make you..."


"Pay up. 100 in cash."
"WHAT?! That's such a rip off."
"If you don't like my price, you can always..."


"Leave. Get out of my house and leave me alone."
"I'm just trying to help."
"You're not helping. You're just bothering me!"


Obviously, there's no context here, and it really is totally random. However, this can soften the irritation of confusion, while the gamer still has too little information to grasp your "big picture."



Another technique could be to have two well developed perspectives appear together. Well developed as in, you've seen them before and already know what they're supposed to be doing. Say, two parties: one group secretly starting a rebellion, the other group hunting down a famous thief. Both groups are in the SAME town.

Instead of flipping from one scene to another, you could combine the scenes in one "shot." You have the rebel group walking through town, before entering their secret hideout. Instead of cutting to inside the hideout with them, the shot remains outside, where the second party walks onto the screen. They'll comment on how that thief MUST be here in this town.

Totally unrelated parties to the gamer right now. Little do they know that the thief is one of those rebels you already know. How you transition from perspective to perspective is important.



Writing techniques can be important in keeping the audience. Say you have 10 different seemingly unrelated perspectives. Of course, they WILL become related, or are already related, but the gamer would not know that. Until more background or developments on theses different parties surface, the gamer would continue to remain in dark about the relationships.

It's not as disaster unless the gamer is confused within the scope of a single perspective. Then, there's trouble.

Quick question on that. Is there any way to 'force' the gamer into turn based on rm2k3?

I came up with a joke scenario where, in the beginning of the game, you're told to switch to wait OR ELSE!!

Then after you exit the menu, you're met with a boss fight where you have 1hp, and the boss has 1hp, and you're JUST barely faster than the boss, but if you're not in wait, there's no chance to survive.

I thought to myself, AHHAHAHAHAHAH EAT THAT!

Then I realized they can switch back anytime they want...


======================================================

On topic - the only time I felt that ATB was an advantage was playing FF10-2 where I could interrupt an enemy in the middle of its attack by 'saving' a party member's turn for the right moment.

Other than that, I can't think of any reason not to use turn based. ATB often turns into an optimizing fest where you don't think much and try to click as fast as possible.