Magister in Chemistry boy who just likes RPG, programming and making his ideas to become real!
Three Treason Theories
3xT explores RPG theories about battles being a short recipe of puzzles, challenge and a pinch of humor.



Let's Draw a Pass-Off Comic! -Finished!-

Non, rien de rien
Non, je ne regrette rien...

I know there is some kind of logic behind this comic... there has to be, right?

A very fun thing to do and to read!

Let's Draw a Pass-Off Comic! -Finished!-

Well... It seems that I arrived a little late. But in case there is a page available I would enjoy a lot doing it!

The Screenshot Topic Returns

Hi to all!!!

I submitted a game and got rejected. The reason is that the maps look empty (?) I don't know if that is a reason (the facts say that probably yes), So I was redirected here for feedback.

I think some maps look empty because the locations are somehow big. I'll put the most "void" maps here and I would appreciate any feedback from you.

Thank you very much!

The number of skills for characters

I think 5 is a nice number. Three for main use and two for support, buffs, ailments, or other ideas. Besides specific cases, more than 5 skills and the others will fall in the forgotten land of desuse. Pokemon knows it since 1996!

I had an experience and it worthed 1exp!

Just wondering... How do you feel about EXP and the way games manage it? Go ahead and give your oppinion. Would you prefer games with no experience, with 1 level up each battle or with 5 randomic different kind of experience curves that tend towards infinite and become useless after lvl 50 like in Pokemon games?

Most RPG use experience as functions like, linear (10, 20, 30, 40... the most common one) exponential (10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 26... early growth but latter it takes aeons to level up) or capped (10, 80, 140, 190, 220... hard to evolve first, but latter gets easier).

Other games like Chrono Cross have no experience or levels but Star power ups.

What about a game where the equipments are the level ups (so probably money = exp). Or games where every battle only gives 1 exp, or every battle means a level up (so exp = number of battles)? Or what about a penalty for dying (or fainitng or whatever) that reduces the exp (or level) of the character?

I know many of you have lots of experience so, what have you found that you like or annoys you about exp?

MakerScore question about game rating

Thank you all for your answers, specially for those polite enough to answer calmly, and to Liberty for clarifying the concept of MS.

MakerScore question about game rating

I really think Liberty idea is very nice.

Not that MS matters that much. I think you guys should stop applying meaning to things and complaining that others don't agree with what you came up with. A game giving a user more MS DOES NOT mean it's a more meaningful contribution to gaming society. I think that's where you're getting hung up. It's just not true, so no matter what people say you will not change your mind.

I think that's true. Probably the question arose exactly because of that misconception. Where does Treason89 gets that strange ideas? Here:

author=Rpg Maker Nation
An explanation of what it is and how it is accumulated

Makerscore is a quantitative representation of your contributions to the site.

That means exactly what it says: less makerscore is less contribution, thus leading to the idea that an unrated game, in fact, contributes less that a really bad game. Probably the reviews should give MS only to the reviewer, or give MS to the game if it's above 2.5?

If that idea of the contribution is not the real one behind MS, then the site definition phrase could be changed somehow.

MakerScore question about game rating

Ok. I'll try to channel my question.

The issue is not about unrated games not being reviewed. I understand what Liberty says about reviewing unrated games. I also follow that way of thinkning in my own reviews.

As Kylaila said, Makerscore isn't a grail or whatever. In normal life, or even here in RMN, it may become almost irrelevant (in which case why should it exist anyway? It HAS to be important for something, right?). It's just a way to measure the contribution of a member to the community. Of course just for developing and sharing a game then there is some contribution, which traduces to MS.

The question is, and I'll just use an example and stick to the definition, why should a "Poor" (1 star rating) game should be considered as a more valuable contribution to the community than a unrated game? So the point is in this concept (which is reflected in the MS) and not in any stigma or pity for unrated games. Just for sake of clarity, I have found precious jewels in unrated games more often than in 4+ star buzzing games.

Probably you have already thought about it before and have an answer. As this is a curious fact for me, I would like to know that answer.

MakerScore question about game rating

Absolutely true Kentona, but Makerscore as it is now justifies that an unrated game is less than the equivalent of a very bad game. That doesn't makes sense either.

MakerScore question about game rating

Yeah! Here I agree with LockeZ, twice. If you really liked a game you review it, if you absolutely didn't liked it, you review it. If it is somehow average it may not be rated (being more like a 2.5)

Not to mention that some reviewers may also put their effort in specific games, in featured games, buzzing games or so, meaning that there are a lot of games that may never be rated, just because the people that review are already reviewing something else.

If the point is that:
Unrated game =/= bad game; so MS should me more like Unrated game > bad game

At least for the doubt of benefit?