Overall I think most of the issues people have been complaining can be solved by Brackeys type community members teaching people about the software and writing tools to cover more and more blind spots.

I agree with the above point - construct lacks people like brackeys and codemonkey, but I also think the few out there making tutorials dont have a large enough audience to justify making tutorials. Its a chicken egg thing. Well made videos are a TON of work and you need enough users to care... I keep thinking of giving it a go (mostly on SOLID principles and how they apply to construct), but...

Alot of what makes good coding practices good are difficult to apply to construct. Which is my biggest trouble with it for larger games and why i only really prototype concepts. I must admit, I've been using custom plugins for variables since a month after starting to use construct and globals 2.0 is great. Managing scope in c3 compared to c# is night and day though. I can write code quite easily that I never have to look at again in unity. Making abstract complex framworks is cumbersome, especially when you can't prevent their misuse in the future if you forgot what variables and functions are for what.

dop2000

Thanks for confirming. I ran a sample project testing different ways of picking sheep, just for fun.

I tried the method I mentioned in OP, using overlap, then using a for each. I also created a variant using a script.

Alternatively,

Using an array attached to each field to maintain UID of sheep in the field, looping through each field, picking the ascociated array by uid, then looping through each element in the array, picking the sheep from the array value,and addings its worth to the field.

This was the best solution and hadnles large numbers of fields and sheeps much better than the simple overlap.

It is interesting to repeat some mechanics using video as an example.

A text assignment can always be understood in different ways.

But so long as it follows the letter, its all good. Usually though, you define the inputs that need to be handled and then define acceptable solutions. So if I give you a problem with an input and define acceptable outputs, so long as the output meets the criteria, is all good.

The toolkit should be complete, what you write without using behaviors turns the challenge into a programming competition. Competitive olympiad solutions are very rarely used in practice.

I mean, challenges are about, the challenge... so yeah... I agree, some challenges should use the whole toolkit, but the challenge still needs to be quantifiable.

Of the second point, Okay, I disagree - knowing how to recreate the wheel is important and applicable... what of when the provided tools fail. Pathfinding doesn't allow you to iterate through the mesh yourself. The platformer behavior solves collisions in a very particular way that doesn't work with "soft ejection" found in most retro games. To build a clone of mario3, using the the built in platformer behavior won't help you. It solves the collisions all wrong and you won't be able to truly recreate how Mario interacts with solids. Every built in behavior will fail if you have specific needs it doesn't cover.

I read your example assignment and realized that I am not interested in this kind of work at all.

What types of challenges would you find enjoyable if you were participating?

I'll have to dig into the way you suggested doing. So far my approach looks totally different and I am interested to compare performance. I think off the top of my head, there are some issues with the strings as it can more easily lead to soft bugs.

Does creating a function with a return value not take care of this?

It does but then you have to make your own system of overriding functions. Custom actions can be overridden by family members, which is real nice and starts to tap into the sweet sweet polymorphism.

For example, in general you don't want to pollute the global space, but what advantage is it if all Construct objects were NOT in the global space?

If I was programming in monogame/c#, I would explicitly dictate what scope var, classes, structs, etc... are in. Then, I have the advantage of controlling access to only the places where those objects are needed, useful, etc... It also makes it super easier to work with collaborators, as they don't need to about the 100 private instance variables you use to make collisions work. They only care about the publicly exposed methods... such as "OnCollision".

I think the thing I like the most about using Construct (non-scripting) is the syntax check. It will prevent you on the spot from using a variable that isn't declared or missing a comma or period somewhere. It's not really even a pain point in my normal dev/day job, but its just nice that when you build your project to preview your game, you don't have everything breaking because of a typo.

This is why when I have to start scripting in construct, I usually move over to a game engine that has a better environment for it. Strict and autocomplete is a must and a lifesaver for me. But I'm biased. I started with pascal and moved to c++. Python and javascript drive me bonkers. I get the appeal where it has advantages, but honestly... I really, really like c#.

Lets say we have Field and Sheep.

Sheep have a instance variable "value", and fields have variable "value"

If I want to calculate the total value of sheep in a particular field:

1st: set Field.value = 0

2nd: Field overlaps Sheep -> Field Add sheep.value to field.value

...But the above only adds the value of the first picked sheep, not all picked sheep. Is there a way to add the value of all picked sheep?

I was trying to avoid for each loops, for academic reasons :D

Jase00

... if fields overlap but are spread across the map, then collisions get managed pretty well.

In comparison to gamemaker/unity, how hard is this example to do, like what would be the quick rundown of what you'd do in those applications?

In Unity... It would be very similar to construct at the abstract level. The difference is that functionality can be expressly written into a class while you would do it with events and picking in construct. The harder part with construct is creating a robust system that can easily allow for additions and subtractions of items at the design level. In unity You would add a collider component to the field and characters for hadling entering and exiting feilds. You would also create a class for effects, and a class for the affected. You then write a class for fields where they store a reference to an effect. Any effect would have base behaviors and derived effects would describe specific functionality. When a character enters a field (using inbuilt collision system), it would store a copy of the reference to the effect. When the effect updates, it would callback to the character to do a thing (like subtract health, etc...).

A basic system like this is pretty fast to program (you COULD even do it in javascript for c3) but Iʻm trying to do this with events.

The bigger dif is that unity uses component architecture and classes can inherit from classes to n depth... Construct only allows one level of depth to inheritance with its families. While you can add an object to as many families as you want (mimicking components) you donʻt have a good way to extend them to provide further functionality.

Iʻll have a capx to share maybe in a bit. I donʻt think the collisions are an issue at all unless you are dealing with RTS level scope and every unit attack creates a field. Even then, construct does a pretty good job with collisions. The bigger issue is that construct

igortyhon

If you are strong in programming, you can use JavaScript and all its power.

You can... but that isnʻt the point here. "without coding" is kinda both constructs claim to fame and one of its pros. The moment you have to start authoring behaviors or plugins, you may as well be in unreal/unity/monogme/gamemaker - but that is a different video :D. c3

Maybe you just don't know how to use this tool.

Lol Maybe... do you?

Typical. The one person on this thread with the fewest years experience is the only one to share this profound nugget of wisdom. Everything makes so much sense now, canʻt believe I never thought of that. Please, elaborate, so much insight.

Do you have successful games or do you just like to compare and test?

Even more irrelevant... Maybe. Do you?

Hey everyone,

I thought, it could be fun to host a type of Olympics for construct 3. Like gamejams, but focused on very specific topics. In order to score, you simply have create a solution that solves the "problem". The solutions are then graded on performance, time to complete, and other merits.

Example: (without using any behaviors) - Create an object, "A", that has the drag/drop behavior made through events. Create another object "B". Object B should accelerate towards object A on update, and then decelerate in order to arrive at A without overshooting it. Object B should use the following variables for acceleration, max speed, and deceleration - the contents of which must be loaded from a project file "ObjectBDictionary.json" (see format below)

Anyone have any interest in participating?

Simple example and implementation:

A field object.

A family of characters.

A family of functionality card.

When a character enters the field, the field stores a reference to the character and hands a function card to the character. When the character leaves the field, the field removes the function card from the character. Fields can overlap and characters can hold multiple functions. The function card dictates what happens to the holder of the card.

Simply tracking "On collision exit" becomes a bit of a pain, much less adding refferences to arrays and dictionaries that should be in a container, but can't because families. So instead is back to picking by uid and alot of for each conditions which kill performance at scale.