SEENA'S PROFILE

Search

RM2k3 variable referencing objects beyond the defined array size

I am planning on making a game with several custom systems (mainly a custom battle system). I have heard that it is possible using variables as pointers to reference other variables beyond the array size and that memory is allocated for those referenced variables. Is this true? If it is true, then is it also true for referencing other objects beyond the array size like characters?

RM Limit Changer

This new little utility will allow users to modify any of several limits in the RPG_RT of rm2k of rm2k3. Want to be able to have a character with 50,000 Hp? This can be done! Want the characters to never have any more than 200 for the Attack stat? This can also be done!

My first patch (RM2k3++) was a kludge and wasn't very user friendly. This new utility is much more user friendly.

Features:
Limits on Hp, Mp, Attack, Defense, Intelligence, and agility can be set
anywhere from 1 to 65,535.
Limit on Currency can be set anywhere between 1 and 2,147,483,647.
Limit on Experience Points can be set from 1 to 2,147,483,647.
Limits on Variables can be set between -2,147,483,647 and 2,147,483,647.
Limit on Item Stack Sizes can be set from 1 to 127.
Works for rm2k 1.07, rm2k 1.51 value, rm2k3 1.08, and rm2k3 1.09a.
Option to reset limits to default values.

RM Limit Changer is available here: http://sites.google.com/site/seenasrealm/rm-limit-changer

RM2k3 1.09a

Two questions:

What are the benefits of rm2k3 version 1.09a as opposed to 1.08?

Where can I get the rm2k3 version 1.09a full installation pakage?

Battle events with no conditions never execute in rm2k3

I would like to create a custom battle system on top of the built in battle system in RPG Maker 2003. The way I intend to do that is by using a battle event with no conditions that will automatically execute over and over again until all characters or monsters die. The problem is that a battle event without any conditions will never ever execute. Is this a bug in rm2k3, or was this intended by the developers?
Is there a way around this that doesn't involve creating a redundant condition?
Pages: 1