MarkyJoe1990 Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Ragefest 3 has officially been announced. Check the first post, ladies and gentlemen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I decided to enter my entry as a ragefest. I'll basically take my regular chapter, add some ragefest effects to it, then later release the ragefest version and the regular version.Am I the only person who finds it odd that ragefest isn't very popular on SF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
47948201 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Noppity nope. I'd think a forum as active as this would be much more active in this thread than its counterpart. Also YAAAAY another FEXP submission. Now I won't have to use my game to showcase all of the engine's features. Oh, and you should also use that one... Idea.... That was being discussed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 I'm adding a lot of things. A lot. xD Dokura is so adorable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
47948201 Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Are you adding... Actual mugs? Say, since I can see you took at least a tiny bit from that one game, wanna use shadingless sprites? XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Actually I'd probably use XE mugs, 'cept you don't have enough. I'll probably add them in for the official version or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That One Guy Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 Oh boy oh boy oh boy Ragefest 3. The sadist in me is excited, as well as the masochist. And after the shenanigans that Cam and Cedar pulled off with their entries...Hoo boy. Also, as a side note that I'm surprised no one mentioned due to the fact that the deadline is March 17th, it's a little less than four weeks till the hilarity begins. Can't wait too see how much Marc and Astra rage during the commentaries. Though I fear it's gonna be tough to top the ULTIMATE TROLL move pulled by the RNG in Cam's entry...Troll King indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT075 Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 (edited) I'm intending to top myself. ASM shenanigans make it much easier to rig things. >:D Edited February 23, 2012 by Camtech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowofchaos Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'm intending to top myself. ASM shenanigans make it much easier to rig things. >:D I'm just putting this here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That One Guy Posted February 23, 2012 Share Posted February 23, 2012 I'm intending to top myself. ASM shenanigans make it much easier to rig things. >:D I'm just putting this here. Oh ye gods. You two are scaring me now. Let's just hope Barbatos doesn't come out of nowhere and Hi-Ougi us for the inevitable use of items, and no I'm totally not suggesting an idea since I can't hack for crap, not at all. But I can't wait for the madness. -insert Shademan.exe laugh here- Oh wait, some might not get the reference. Mweeheeheehee!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Oh ye gods. You two are scaring me now. Let's just hope Barbatos doesn't come out of nowhere and Hi-Ougi us for the inevitable use of items, and no I'm totally not suggesting an idea since I can't hack for crap, not at all. But I can't wait for the madness. -insert Shademan.exe laugh here- Oh wait, some might not get the reference. Mweeheeheehee!!! Dat video lol. I like how it mocks the player at the end, so freaking trollish. ASM is nothing compared to fexp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowofchaos Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 ASM is nothing compared to fexp Klok. It's programming. It's the same no matter what you call it. It's just the Fexp is an interface that makes it easier for you because the tools are there to arrange it in an efficient manner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubby Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 ∴ FEXP is easier than ASM? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowofchaos Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 ∴ FEXP is easier than ASM? ASM is nothing compared to fexp It's easier... but saying "nothing compared to fexp" is saying something completely different. Fanboying over the engine is fine and all... I mean it's an amazing engine... but saying THAT shows nothing but ignorance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT075 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 wtf am i doin [spoiler=CODE DUMP] HACK_FILE: .align 2 @ Hardware offset .long 0x08000000 @ Hook BEGIN IFH_HOOK: .align 2 .set IFH_HOOK_SIZE, IFH_HOOK_END - IFH_HOOK_ST @.org 0x080292EC .set IFH_HOOK_ORG, 0x080292EC .long IFH_HOOK_ORG @ TODO - Figure out alignment .long 0x00000000 .long IFH_HOOK_SIZE .thumb IFH_HOOK_ST: @ The function ends with r4-r6 and r14 getting popped anyway, so there is @ no real need to push the lr this time. ldr r0, IFH_HOOK_LINK bx r0 IFH_HOOK_LINK: .align 2 .long IFH_HACK_ORG + 1 IFH_HOOK_END: @ Hack BEGIN .align 2 @.org 0x08D50000 IFH_HACK: .set IFH_HACK_SIZE, IFH_HACK_END - IFH_HACK_ST .set IFH_HACK_ORG, 0x08D50000 .long IFH_HACK_ORG .long 0x00000000 .long IFH_HACK_SIZE .thumb IFH_HACK_ST: .macro IFH_CALL address bl \address - (IFH_HACK_ORG + (HACK_FILE - IFH_HACK_ST)) .endm @ This is all missing. ldr r1, =0x0203A3D8 mov r2, #0x4 ldsh r0, [r1, r2] cmp r0, #0x7F ble M_CMP_DMG mov r0, #0x7F strh r0, [r1, #0x4] M_CMP_DMG: mov r2, #0x4 ldsh r0, [r1, r2] @ Again? cmp r0, #0x0 bge M_CMP_YDMG mov r0, #0x0 strh r0, [r1, #0x4] M_CMP_YDMG: ldsh r0, [r1, r2] @ Here we go again. cmp r0, #0x0 beq IFH_FUNC @ HACKY: The old function just jumped to the end. mov r1, r6 add r1, #0x7C mov r0, #0x1 @ I am going to assume that this value is a boolean that strb r0, [r1, #0x0] @ determines if it is not going to play the 'tink' noise. @ Function begin. IFH_FUNC: push {r1-r3} @ R0 is clobbered upon return anyway. push {r5, r7} push {r4} ldsh r1, [r4, #0x4] @ If damage is 0 anyway, just return. cmp r1, #0x0 ble CLEANUP ldr r0, WRITE_PTRS ldr r5, [r0, #0x0] @ r5 is the table offset. mov r7, #0x34 @ r7 is the size of one entry. ldr r3, [r0, #0x4] @ Prepare r3... ldr r3, [r3, #0x0] @ So we can set it as the table. mov r2, #0x0 @ r2 is our counting register. mov r4, r8 @ Prepare r4... ldr r1, [r4, #0x0] @ To load the enemy pointer. CHECK_LOOP: ldrb r0, [r3, r2] @ Load character from the loop. cmp r0, #0x0 @ Check for terminator. beq PASS mul r0, r0, r7 add r0, r0, r5 @ Set up r0. cmp r0, r1 beq PASS add r2, r2, #0x1 b CHECK_LOOP @ Continue loop. PASS: cmp r0, #0x0 @ If r0 is anything but 0, we found something. bne TRUE FALSE: cmp r4, r8 @ HACK - Check if we are on enemy or player. beq CLEANUP b NEGATE TRUE: cmp r4, r8 @ If only I could do this only once... bne CLEANUP CONTINUE: mov r4, r6 @ Set up r4 for the player table. ldr r1, [r4, #0x0] @ r1 = attacking character ldr r3, [r0, #0x8] @ r3 = offset of attacking characters b CHECK_LOOP @ and back into the loop we go! NEGATE: pop {r4} mov r0, #0x0 @ Set damage to zero. strh r0, [r4, #0x4] @ Store it as damage. CLEANUP: @ FIXME: Cleanup is ugly. cmp r4, r7 @ If r4 is equal to r7 or r8, then we bne RETURN @ have not popped it to store negated cmp r4, r8 @ damage to memory yet. bne RETURN pop {r4} RETURN: @ NOTE: This ugly-looking bunch of pops are to ensure that the stack @ is purged properly. And then the last two are to mimic the original. pop {r5, r7} pop {r1-r3} pop {r4-r6} pop {r0} bx r0 .align 2 WRITE_PTRS: .set END_VAL, 0x0000 @ Table value .long 0x08BDCE18 @ HACKY .set ENEMY_VAL, IFH_HACK_ORG + (ENEMY_TABLE - IFH_HACK_ST) .long ENEMY_VAL .set ALLY_VAL, IFH_HACK_ORG + (ALLY_TABLE - IFH_HACK_ST) .long ALLY_VAL ENEMY_TABLE: @ Default values .byte 0x44 .byte 0x00 .short END_VAL ALLY_TABLE: .byte 0x14 .byte 0x00 .short END_VAL IFH_HACK_END: well at least if it works then my plans will be set into motion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That One Guy Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 wtf am i doin [spoiler=CODE DUMP] HACK_FILE: .align 2 @ Hardware offset .long 0x08000000 @ Hook BEGIN IFH_HOOK: .align 2 .set IFH_HOOK_SIZE, IFH_HOOK_END - IFH_HOOK_ST @.org 0x080292EC .set IFH_HOOK_ORG, 0x080292EC .long IFH_HOOK_ORG @ TODO - Figure out alignment .long 0x00000000 .long IFH_HOOK_SIZE .thumb IFH_HOOK_ST: @ The function ends with r4-r6 and r14 getting popped anyway, so there is @ no real need to push the lr this time. ldr r0, IFH_HOOK_LINK bx r0 IFH_HOOK_LINK: .align 2 .long IFH_HACK_ORG + 1 IFH_HOOK_END: @ Hack BEGIN .align 2 @.org 0x08D50000 IFH_HACK: .set IFH_HACK_SIZE, IFH_HACK_END - IFH_HACK_ST .set IFH_HACK_ORG, 0x08D50000 .long IFH_HACK_ORG .long 0x00000000 .long IFH_HACK_SIZE .thumb IFH_HACK_ST: .macro IFH_CALL address bl \address - (IFH_HACK_ORG + (HACK_FILE - IFH_HACK_ST)) .endm @ This is all missing. ldr r1, =0x0203A3D8 mov r2, #0x4 ldsh r0, [r1, r2] cmp r0, #0x7F ble M_CMP_DMG mov r0, #0x7F strh r0, [r1, #0x4] M_CMP_DMG: mov r2, #0x4 ldsh r0, [r1, r2] @ Again? cmp r0, #0x0 bge M_CMP_YDMG mov r0, #0x0 strh r0, [r1, #0x4] M_CMP_YDMG: ldsh r0, [r1, r2] @ Here we go again. cmp r0, #0x0 beq IFH_FUNC @ HACKY: The old function just jumped to the end. mov r1, r6 add r1, #0x7C mov r0, #0x1 @ I am going to assume that this value is a boolean that strb r0, [r1, #0x0] @ determines if it is not going to play the 'tink' noise. @ Function begin. IFH_FUNC: push {r1-r3} @ R0 is clobbered upon return anyway. push {r5, r7} push {r4} ldsh r1, [r4, #0x4] @ If damage is 0 anyway, just return. cmp r1, #0x0 ble CLEANUP ldr r0, WRITE_PTRS ldr r5, [r0, #0x0] @ r5 is the table offset. mov r7, #0x34 @ r7 is the size of one entry. ldr r3, [r0, #0x4] @ Prepare r3... ldr r3, [r3, #0x0] @ So we can set it as the table. mov r2, #0x0 @ r2 is our counting register. mov r4, r8 @ Prepare r4... ldr r1, [r4, #0x0] @ To load the enemy pointer. CHECK_LOOP: ldrb r0, [r3, r2] @ Load character from the loop. cmp r0, #0x0 @ Check for terminator. beq PASS mul r0, r0, r7 add r0, r0, r5 @ Set up r0. cmp r0, r1 beq PASS add r2, r2, #0x1 b CHECK_LOOP @ Continue loop. PASS: cmp r0, #0x0 @ If r0 is anything but 0, we found something. bne TRUE FALSE: cmp r4, r8 @ HACK - Check if we are on enemy or player. beq CLEANUP b NEGATE TRUE: cmp r4, r8 @ If only I could do this only once... bne CLEANUP CONTINUE: mov r4, r6 @ Set up r4 for the player table. ldr r1, [r4, #0x0] @ r1 = attacking character ldr r3, [r0, #0x8] @ r3 = offset of attacking characters b CHECK_LOOP @ and back into the loop we go! NEGATE: pop {r4} mov r0, #0x0 @ Set damage to zero. strh r0, [r4, #0x4] @ Store it as damage. CLEANUP: @ FIXME: Cleanup is ugly. cmp r4, r7 @ If r4 is equal to r7 or r8, then we bne RETURN @ have not popped it to store negated cmp r4, r8 @ damage to memory yet. bne RETURN pop {r4} RETURN: @ NOTE: This ugly-looking bunch of pops are to ensure that the stack @ is purged properly. And then the last two are to mimic the original. pop {r5, r7} pop {r1-r3} pop {r4-r6} pop {r0} bx r0 .align 2 WRITE_PTRS: .set END_VAL, 0x0000 @ Table value .long 0x08BDCE18 @ HACKY .set ENEMY_VAL, IFH_HACK_ORG + (ENEMY_TABLE - IFH_HACK_ST) .long ENEMY_VAL .set ALLY_VAL, IFH_HACK_ORG + (ALLY_TABLE - IFH_HACK_ST) .long ALLY_VAL ENEMY_TABLE: @ Default values .byte 0x44 .byte 0x00 .short END_VAL ALLY_TABLE: .byte 0x14 .byte 0x00 .short END_VAL IFH_HACK_END: well at least if it works then my plans will be set into motion If only I could understand what this meant...Though you did say you're trying to outdo your Troll King entry this time..So the only thing I feel right now is fear. A large amount of fear at how trollish this one will be. Let's just hope the RNG isn't feeling particularly trolly. RNG: -trollface- Problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowofchaos Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Wow. I actually understood the gist of your method, Cam. I hope this goes well for ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jubby Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 If only I could understand what this meant...Though you did say you're trying to outdo your Troll King entry this time..So the only thing I feel right now is fear. A large amount of fear at how trollish this one will be. Let's just hope the RNG isn't feeling particularly trolly. RNG: -trollface- Problem? *tries to figure it out* *shakes head in confusion* *reads title* *"Invincible-!* Ahhhh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That One Guy Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 So I was watching some of Marc's other videos a few days ago, and stumbled upon his vid announcing that his computer is being a derp. I'm kinda curious what's gonna happen to this now due to that. Will the deadline be extended? Or will something else happen entirely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyJoe1990 Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 So I was watching some of Marc's other videos a few days ago, and stumbled upon his vid announcing that his computer is being a derp. I'm kinda curious what's gonna happen to this now due to that. Will the deadline be extended? Or will something else happen entirely? Well, I suppose I could extend the deadline considering the state of my computer... I can't really LP anything on this computer except through post-production, and even that goes poorly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
That One Guy Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Well, I suppose I could extend the deadline considering the state of my computer... I can't really LP anything on this computer except through post-production, and even that goes poorly. Whatever you decide, I hope your situation is fixed. I've had computer problems before, and it sucked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyJoe1990 Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 Whatever you decide, I hope your situation is fixed. I've had computer problems before, and it sucked. Yeah. I might buy myself a new laptop, since I have an adequate amount of money. Though, I could also get my old one fixed, but eh. Dunno. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I won't complain if you do, but if your new computer would be new and a lot faster, that might factor into me adding reinforcements for my submission. Like I told you, my PC runs FEXP at a great speed, but for my beta testers it lags from a little to a lot. If yours were to lag at all as of now, then adding reinforcements would only make it lag even more, so I'm kinda stuck on what to do... the good thing is that I've figured out what the top-end for max events on the map VS speed on the map is, roughly 100 events is a good limit. (And I have 140ish T__T) Soooo uhhhh not sure what to do. I may make 2 versions of the map, one with reinforcements, one without them, and if the one with reinforcements lags for you, play the one without. If the one without lags... FML. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klokinator Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) Klok. It's programming. It's the same no matter what you call it. It's just the Fexp is an interface that makes it easier for you because the tools are there to arrange it in an efficient manner. FEXP is pretty easy to program with, and if I could master the basics, most things ASM could do, FEXP could do with half or even a quarter of the hastle, possibly less. And, because I'm lazy, in my book easier = better, even if ASM might be more powerful or something xP ∴ FEXP is easier than ASM? Easier, more than likely yesh. Like Cam's code up there. I assume "Invincibility Flag" means it makes a player or unit invincible, but in FEXP something like that is pretty much just "Set actor 1 invincible = true". Redonculously easy. Edit: FFS how did I make a double post hnnnggghhh this slow net is ticking me off. Edited March 9, 2012 by Klokinator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadowofchaos Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 (edited) FEXP is pretty easy to program with, and if I could master the basics, most things ASM could do, FEXP could do with half or even a quarter of the hastle, possibly less. And, because I'm lazy, in my book easier = better, even if ASM might be more powerful or something xP Easier, more than likely yesh. Edit: I guess I'm kinda crossed the line over here... I guess I should also take into account your perspective. I'm biased, obviously, because I've had experience with ASM. And frankly, it's just like any other programming language. It has the ability to do whatever you want it to do as much as any other thing can do. It's just the question of efficiency. And I guess your words of "it has nothing on FEXP" kind of made me think you were being a little shallow. But as Trent said to me on Skype, to the average person, it DOES "have nothing over it" in terms of ease. Like Cam's code up there. I assume "Invincibility Flag" means it makes a player or unit invincible, but in FEXP something like that is pretty much just "Set actor 1 invincible = true". Redonculously easy. Like I said, because the toolkit ALREADY DID it for you. Hmm... I WONDER what you would have had to do if it wasn't already done for you? I took your comment like that saying "You all should just give up and go to FEXP" without actually realizing the work it does FOR you is the same as what Cam did. I apologize for that... but seriously, appreciate the ease FEXP gives you a bit more. The way you were posting, you were fanboying about it and made me take it as "I'm waving it in your face. The work you do is stupid and inefficient." AND like Trent also said... "Geez. Talk about taking things personally." I also apologize for that. Edited March 9, 2012 by shadowofchaos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.