More options to handle the case:

• An error message pops up saying "the previous action can't be undone because actions XYZ depend on it". This makes sense since it would never show up in single-work mode (since actions are undone list-style). A dependency tracker for actions would also allow you to undo actions out of order, similar to the way photoshop does it.
• The object is deleted, but the event remains, with a "ghost" reference in place. The project can be saved but does not compile, a warning appears in some sort of notification area, and does not go away until this is resolved.
• Users don't actually edit in real time, instead changes are "merged" on each save, with a merge wizard informing the changes and asking for how to handle them.

Also, IJCT, you might want to change the title of your post to "multideveloper" or "collaborative development", since "multiplayer development" means developing multiplayer games, which is not what you want at all

Its kind of a "Field of Dreams" kind of thing where they have to ask if it's really worth it financially. While it would probably lend itself to other types of games, for now at least it would be very niche, although I would say a very healthy portion of 2d games are platformers.

A third party editor for making maps is doable, it just doesn't lend itself to the workflow, and I don't see someone putting the time needed into one unless they went commercial. Then that person would also have to ask "If I build it will they come?". Then there would be a ton of debate on what features it should have.

Of course another option might be a community based editor where it could be forked for specialty enhancements.

Also I don't remember a 3d demo, I bet that was Yann.

Agreed with everything you said.

I know quite a bit with regards to JS and the SDK, but there are many problems.

Many plugins can't be made in a user-friendly way because the IDE isn't extensible enough, and even if the IDE could be extended, third-party addon's poor image makes me uncertain whether it would be a good idea to actually make them (would I ever see my money back?). Nowadays I'm not doing much with C2, since I've started making more money with database work than with gamedev work, so I no longer have any incentive to create addons that boost my own productivity - I was hoping the store would fix that, but now that it's not accepting plugins/behaviors I'm a bit bummed out.

Here's a list of a few plugins that would greatly enhance level design, but can't be made due to IDE restrictions:

• Path movement (displaying the path in the editor)
• Better tilemap editor (with ability to set obstacle map, animated tiles, setting properties for each tile)
• Isometric map editor
• Interface creation tools/modular components
• Boss/enemy patterns (finite state machine or similar)

None of those can be made without including external tools that, like you said, don't fit well within the workflow.

Ashley already stated he will look into updating the editor for construct 3. We'll see if that allows for better third party complements.

1 - yes

2 - no

3 - yes

Fimbul,

Reported. Your comments are unacceptable. Calling people a liar is not cool.

Now you're reporting me to moderators because you disagree? You wish to censor my comments? That's what's not cool.

Also where did I call him a liar? I said specifically that I didn't believe him. And I don't: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a sustained 122 hour workweek is an extraordinary claim that, unless backed up by evidence (and no, your anecdotal "evidences" don't count) simply cannot be lent credibility.

Let's revise the rules to see which ones I broke:

• Your fellow members should be treated with respect at all times. I wasn't disrespectful. I specifically avoided insults. I only called into question his claim. In fact, I'm being so respectful that I'm concerned for his health.
• Disagreements are common, but you should always make an effort to resolve them in a polite manner. Have I not done so? There's a difference between politeness and mindless acceptance.
• The following activities are prohibited:Flaming Not really applicable. It should be sufficiently clear that my intent isn't to derail the thread or cause drama
• Personal attacks Attacking claims isn't the same as attacking people. Argumentum ad rem is the opposite of Argumentum ad hominem.
• The General Rule: Don't be a jerk. This is subjective. I don't see how I'm being a jerk.

No. No one consistently works 122 hours a week for years.

It's not possible unless you twist your definition of "work".

If you are going to call someone a liar, best have supporting facts to back your accusation. Assumptions count for naught. Best to say nothing.

Not really, I don't.

“If you work consistently long hours, over 45 a week every week, it will damage your health, physically and psychologically. In the UK we have the second-longest working hours in the developed world, just behind the States and we now have longer hours than Japan,” Professor Cary Cooper – Lancaster University Management School.

how about some crazy people?

"Sincerity begins at a little over 100 hours a week. You can probably get to 110 hours on a sustained basis, but it's hard. You have to get down to eating once a day and showering every other day, things of that sort to really get your life organized to work 110 hours."

- Len Bosack, co-founder, Cisco Systems, and hero to the hardcore

source. Sounds reasonable?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1430346/Doctor-working-crazy-hours-killed-himself.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/doctors-death-fuels-row-on-hours-1369224.html

turns out working 100 hours a week is really bad. Who knew?

Even sweatshop workers put in less than 120 hours/week

working 80-100 hours a week is really bad

You will suffer a lot of health problems

Ever heard of the japanese word "karoshi"? It means death by overwork.

You can work 20 hours a day, but to do so consistently and without weekends is insane.

"Top execs" work a lot, sure, but they too are human and need sleep. 20hrs/day 365days/yr is unsustainable and I doubt it's even possible.

Maybe the issue is that I'm thinking "billable hours" (that is, hours you are actually working and could bill a client for them), whereas they could simply mean "hours on the job-place" (that is, hours you spend sitting in front of a computer or in an office), where you'd get something like 30~60% productivity. If you discount lunch breaks and commute time, and you work from home, the hours become intertwined with "waking hours", which are suddenly a lot more believable.

Fimbul I could care less what you believe. he asked i responded. Your welcome to ask my wife. An its right at 18 hrs a day and that include sales, marketing, developing, finances, etc.

So you work 18hrs every day, no weekends, with only 6 hours of sleep per day, not counting commute time?

Also, you stated that you spend 75 hours per week developing with construct 2, which is more work than everyone else in the thread spends with their full-time jobs. You also said you're the CEO and work with sales, marketing, developing, finances (which you presumably do in the remaining 47hrs of the week). You also have a wife (so either you spend zero time with her, you don't need to sleep, or she works with you).

If you truly do work these hours, stop. This is unhealthy. You're [literally] killing yourself.

Have a job yes: 122ish hrs wk

Occupation: CEO/Lead Developer

Average Time Spent developing in a week: approx 75hrs

You work almost 20hrs per day? I'm sorry I don't believe you.

Anyway here's my stats:

Have a day job: yes 10hrs/day

Occupation: (many)

Average time spent developing in a week: ~2

Aphrodite and newt: I don't think you guys get the issue:

He is accessing properties of an object that exists, but has no instances at the time of the referencing.

think of it like this:

• <There are zero balls>
• Make all balls be blue
• Create a ball
• Ball unexpectedly comes out white

He was writing to the phantom "default instance" and expecting newly spawned instances to be created with whatever properties he set to be the default. This behavior would make sense, think of it as changing the defaults of an object.

However, construct doesn't work that way. You cannot "write" default properties at runtime. Thus, you get a logic error that is hard to spot.

I don't consider this a "bug" per se, but Ashley might want to do something about this. Either make it so that you can write defaults, or make construct give an error if the object you're writing to has no instances (I think this last approach would be very hard to implement).

Edittime extensibility is not at all supported in C2. If we rebuilt the editor, we would make extensibility of the editor one of the focuses of the project.

I'd love for you to go into detail about the features you imagine for an eventual rebuilt editor, even if you can't promise anything.

2) Directional Light. I would like a light to mimic light from the sun, so that all shadows go in the same direction.

I'm not 100% positive that this will work, but I think that if you place the light really really (really) far away, you'll get something like a directional light.

Aphrodite, I suggested "events sheets for the objects themselves rather than the layouts" yesterday as well! the way Unity2D handles it is pretty awesome!

But I was told I could just have a separate event sheet for each sprite with its own logic. Still I think it could be cool.

The problem with attaching eventsheets to sprites is that sprites begin to perform mysterious alterations to other parts of the program, in an anti-pattern known as action at a distance. If something weird happens, you might spend hours staring at layout-attached eventsheets only to find out later that an unused/obsolete object was causing the issues.

A much better approach would be modularity, where you create self-contained widgets (including inheritance) that do what you want them to do, using construct logic. This is practically the same as making construct be object-oriented instead of procedural (the way it currently is now).