TOR_HEYERDAL'S PROFILE

author=LockeZ
Is the "competing" happening even when the events are stationary?

Yes, but only while the screen is panning.

author=LockeZ
Does it only happen when the events pan off-screen and then back on?

No. The events do not have to pan off-screen at all. The "competition" takes place mid-pan. After the screen stops panning, each tile that has multiple sprites on it seems to settle on a draw order for its sprites and they stop competing, but each tile where this is taking place makes its decisions completely independently from any of the other tiles, and it appears to become re-randomized every time; there appears to be no rhyme or reason to it. It's as though it just starts shuffling them when the screen starts panning, and then stops shuffling them when it stops panning, and however it lands is however it lands.

author=LockeZ
RPG Maker 2009 only changes the editor, not the game, so in theory the fact that you're using it instead of the normal editor should have no effect on this kind of thing.

Yeah, that's what I thought, but I figured I'd throw that out there, just in case. But I did think that the "1.8" part might possibly be relevant. ::shrug::

author=LockeZ
However, any patches that change how the engine draws off-screen events would absolutely affect this behavior and may make it impossible to find a workaround for.

I am running a few patches, but none of such a nature as you describe. Also, I've only started using patches recently, but I've noticed this little "phenomena" for over ten years now. It's just never actually mattered for anything I've done until now. lol. So I've never needed to fix it before. So I don't think it's the patches that are causing this.

author=FlyingJester
The functional programming fans would disagree that OOP is clearly superior :)

Shows what I know, I guess. lol.

author=FlyingJester
There is a relatively strong push away from some of the more questionable aspects of what OOP has come to be known for, and it's mostly coming from functional languages groups. As an example, functional language paradigms allow for encapsulation, but without inheritance, and interfaces totally decoupled from data types not only allowing for but enforcing complete type erasure.

Definitely out of my depth. :P

author=Craze
you are absolutely and undeniably more limited and incredibly more slow when using the eventing, though. there is a huge amount of difference even if you make the argument that it's some form of programming (an argument i don't care about).

I completely agree. And I apologize if I left anyone with the impression that I intended otherwise. It is, as you say, absolutely and undeniably more limited and incredibly more slow. But I personally don't feel that that makes it any less programming than a slow car is less of a car.

author=Craze
tor: i'm sorry you feel the need to name & justify your hobby or whatever. just enjoy what you do and don't expect people to take your eventing seriously outside of the online community, because they have no reason to

"Need" is a strong word. It would be nice, is all. I would like to be able to name it. Although I definitely don't feel the need to "justify" it on any level. In order to justify it, it first needs to be unjustified, which it's not. :P The justification for the act of programming (or eventing, or scripting, or whatever) need not go any further than "because I feel like doing this." That's all the justification that it really "needs".

author=Loxus
Just call yourself a "game designer" instead and talk about the new features you've added. Also consider learning a full language like Javascript; there are lots of free online courses/tutorials to help you learn and you'll gain skills that people will actually pay for.

But I'm not only "designing" a game, I'm making it from the ground-up, including (but not limited to) programming it. Although I don't just go around calling myself "a programmer" out of fear of people like you giving me a hard time. lol (EDIT: That was not intended as harshly as it might sound. Please don't read that in a hostile tone, as it is not intended thusly). I also would never *dream* of calling myself a "professional" programmer. That would be an outright lie. If I'm to refer to myself as anything in this regard, it's usually going to be as "something of an amateur programmer". In fact, I just avoid the topic entirely and just focus more on the fact that I'm a linguist instead. If it comes up, then it comes up. It's just unfortunate that every time it comes up, it also has to be accompanied by a history lesson.

author=FlyingJester
Object-Oriented programming is far from the definition of programming. On top of that, the form of OOP provided by Ruby, Python, C++, Java, etc. is far from the only kind of OOP, anyway.

Succinct and truthful. I would absolutely agree that OOP languages are *superior* forms of programming. It would be silly to claim otherwise. But they're definitely not all there is. It kind of reminds me of people who say that the Queen's English is the *only* English, when reality clearly demonstrates otherwise.
Also, on a less relevant note, I love your display pic. Nights was awesome and so was the Saturn. ^^

But like I said earlier, it's probably my own fault for not expecting any elitism coming into this community. lol. Which isn't to say that that elitism is entirely unjustified or anything. It takes a lot of time and effort to master any kind of programming (even if it's just 2k3 eventing), and it's understandable that one wouldn't want that achievement "sullied" by associating it with people whose accomplishments are less intensive than one's own. I don't think it's an entirely fair assessment of things in all cases (though sometimes it probably is), but I can certainly understand where that could be coming from.

author=Mirak
You're technically coding, but the emphasis is on technically, since you're mostly using a point and click interface. I mean i guess it's elitist if real programmers don't consider rpgmaker 2003 programming, but i wouldn't be able to say that that assesment is not fair.

I completely agree. I apologize if I gave the impression that I was not speaking within the context of a technicality. I agree that even for someone like myself who will call it programming, it only barely qualifies by the skin of its teeth. That's why I find it understandable that people might disagree with me on this.

author=Mirak
but it is true that using 2003 is not using xp+.

Yup. Absolutely. Not arguing that point either. :)

author=Mirak
Well going by this example, you could answer "i use rpg maker 2003, an engine that requires no programming knowledge" like any honest person would. :v

That would be the tiresome and awkward explanation that I mentioned.

author=Mirak
If you want to wear the programmer nametag then do learn a proper programming language

Okay, this feels a little elitist to me. Maybe I should've expected that coming in here, but I didn't. lol.

author=Mirak
you're not really hardcoding anything, so you don't even qualify as a programmer in that regard if all that you ever use is that version of rpgmaker.

I at least agree that I *should* learn something more "serious" (for want of a less dismissive term), but to say that the lack of having done so means that I don't even program to begin with? That's kind of harsh, in'nt it? I'm not here to compete with anyone, though. I'm just a guy who programs in 2K3. If that makes me a not-a-programmer, then okay. I don't have to wear a nametag. Though I respectfully disagree with your perspective.

I just want to be able to tell people what I do without a dozen asterisks and without giving people the mistaken impression that all I do is produce regurgitated reskins of essentially the same game, which is what people usually assume as soon as the word "RPG Maker" is mentioned (at least in my experience). If that's not possible, I can accept that. I just figured that if it were, then this would likely be the place where someone would know the information I was looking for.