Okay, so I was thinking today, why did the Scratch Team make the stage rectangle? Why can't it be square? Or triangle.

–> Suggestion 1: Screen sizes (Supporters: 3.5)

So, if I were to make a project, it would be quite cool if I could choose from a bunch of templates of common screen sizes, or be able to select a shape and enter the side lengths. So perhaps it could look like this:

Number of sides: {4} sides
Side 1 Length {300} pixels
Side 2 Length {200} pixels
Side 3 Length {300} pixels
Side 4 Length {200} pixels
(All data in {}s can be changed)

Although, since it would always be possible to enter 300, 300, 300, and 350, you would be able to edit the angles/shape sort of like how the vector tool works, except that each side would be stiff and unmoving in it's length. It could work like this:

o—————-o
| \
| \
| \
o——————–o

Each “o” is the equivalent to a node in the vector editor. If it were moved, it would pull the appropriate node next to it so that the side lengths stay the same. Of course, to prevent precision problems, it could be possible to restore default stage settings to avoid having to precariously try to restore it to the exact 480 by 360 stage if you had changed it. Or there could just be an undo button.

Anyways, moving on.

–> Sub-Suggestion 1 (Supporters: 3.5)

It would be cool if there was an option to rotate the stage or set the origin of the stage. Therefore, all sprites' X and Y positions, as well as directions, would be relative to the Stage X, Y, and Direction. The rotation of the stage (and X/Y positions) could be changed manually or through blocks. Even though it might sound complicated, it sure would make scrolling a whole lot easier.

–> Sub-Suggestion 2 (Supporters: 8)

Next to the fullscreen button, an option to go real fullscreen (or if the stage is triangle or any other shape, it would go as big as it could get with only black bordering it, like presentation mode of 1.4) that would hide the basic project player outline and only have a small button to exit.



Thanks for reading. If anybody has an idea that they want to add that I like, I'll put it under “–> Suggestion 2”.

–Superdoggy

Suggestion 1:
This is a new suggestion. I like your creativity in it, but this isn't needed. The idea would be confusing to a new scratcher, especially the trapezoidal part.

Also, couldn't you already change the screen size with a white or black sprite that's blocking part of the screen? Plus, how are you going to render the top tool bar, and how would you render the player inside of the Project Editor?

Sub-suggestion 1:
This has been suggested before, and even implemented for awhile. It was removed for unknown reasons.

Anyway, couldn't you use a sprite to replicate the scrolling background? That way you'd be able to learn about the math behind scrolling instead of taking it as assumed, and I find that more important.

Sub-suggestion 2:
This would be a nice idea because it'd both be nice for a player, and a classroom with a projector. Maybe the same thing can be done with the project editor to give game-makers a bit more room?

Overall, I don't support your first suggestion or your sub-seggestion 1, but I support sub-suggestion 2.

My thoughts,

ErnieParke

ErnieParke wrote:

Suggestion 1:
This is a new suggestion. I like your creativity in it, but this isn't needed. The idea would be confusing to a new scratcher, especially the trapezoidal part.

Also, couldn't you already change the screen size with a white or black sprite that's blocking part of the screen? Plus, how are you going to render the top tool bar, and how would you render the player inside of the Project Editor?

…

This could probably go under an “advanced tab”. Maybe, if the scratch team wanted, you would have to earn the rank of scratcher to use this, just like cloud data. That would get rid of possible problems with new scratchers abusing or misusing the feature.

Anyways, thanks for your input.

I like your two sub-suggestions, but I agree with @ErnieParke that a custom shaped background isn't needed and would be confusing for new users.

247flashgames wrote:

I like your two sub-suggestions, but I agree with @ErnieParke that a custom shaped background isn't needed and would be confusing for new users.

I can see that point that new scratchers could get confused on that, but I might also point out that a new scratcher could get confused by procedures, which often are very complicated.

Also, it may not be needed, but isn't it somewhat appealing to be able to create stage shapes in whatever form you want?

Thanks for the support on my other two ideas though! ( :

-Superdoggy

Superdoggy wrote:

247flashgames wrote:

I like your two sub-suggestions, but I agree with @ErnieParke that a custom shaped background isn't needed and would be confusing for new users.

I can see that point that new scratchers could get confused on that, but I might also point out that a new scratcher could get confused by procedures, which often are very complicated.

Also, it may not be needed, but isn't it somewhat appealing to be able to create stage shapes in whatever form you want?

Thanks for the support on my other two ideas though! ( :

-Superdoggy

It is appealing, but can't you already do that? By making a sprite overlay? Plus, it would be much more flexible because you wouldn't be restricted to a quadrilateral and straight lines. You do have a good point though.

Superdoggy wrote:

ErnieParke wrote:

Suggestion 1:
This is a new suggestion. I like your creativity in it, but this isn't needed. The idea would be confusing to a new scratcher, especially the trapezoidal part.

Also, couldn't you already change the screen size with a white or black sprite that's blocking part of the screen? Plus, how are you going to render the top tool bar, and how would you render the player inside of the Project Editor?

…

This could probably go under an “advanced tab”. Maybe, if the scratch team wanted, you would have to earn the rank of scratcher to use this, just like cloud data. That would get rid of possible problems with new scratchers abusing or misusing the feature.

Anyways, thanks for your input.

I'm not entirely sure how this would be abused, but anyway, you're welcome!

Welcome,

ErnieParke

I support!

ErnieParke wrote:

Superdoggy wrote:

247flashgames wrote:

I like your two sub-suggestions, but I agree with @ErnieParke that a custom shaped background isn't needed and would be confusing for new users.

I can see that point that new scratchers could get confused on that, but I might also point out that a new scratcher could get confused by procedures, which often are very complicated.

Also, it may not be needed, but isn't it somewhat appealing to be able to create stage shapes in whatever form you want?

Thanks for the support on my other two ideas though! ( :

-Superdoggy

It is appealing, but can't you already do that? By making a sprite overlay? Plus, it would be much more flexible because you wouldn't be restricted to a quadrilateral and straight lines. You do have a good point though.

…

Oh, the # of sides was supposed to be change-able. Then there would probably be a box with a scroll bar to display the change-able values for each side. I updated my first post to make this more clear.

Photoguy77 wrote:

I support!

Thanks for the support! ( :

Wow. THis is a crazy, but good idea.

A-no-meep wrote:

Wow. THis is a crazy, but good idea.

Thanks! Does that mean you support?

–> First post updated with # of supporters. If you reply, make sure to include which of the ideas you support. If you just say “Support”, I'll assume that means for all three ideas. ( :

Bring
Up
My
Post

(@Chainmanner suggested I don't bump things so often, so, I'll try to limit my “BUMP”s to at most one per day.)

Bump!

Bump!

Question of mine: In what situation would you ever want to change the shape of the stage? (add more sides)

I agree that it might be more useful for game designers to have the “real fullscreen,” but I don't think it is necessary. So, semi-support number 3.

AonymousGuy wrote:

Question of mine: In what situation would you ever want to change the shape of the stage? (add more sides)

I agree that it might be more useful for game designers to have the “real fullscreen,” but I don't think it is necessary. So, semi-support number 3.

If I wanted a triangle project.

Or if I wanted a project that was 750 by 600 for better resolution.

Also, it could be 700 by 700 or so if I wanted to make a Shift game. The ability to make the stage rotate (Sub-suggestion 1) would make Shift much easier to make. (Thanks to http://scratch.mit.edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/users/Scratchifier/ for this good example)

Superdoggy wrote:

AonymousGuy wrote:

Question of mine: In what situation would you ever want to change the shape of the stage? (add more sides)

I agree that it might be more useful for game designers to have the “real fullscreen,” but I don't think it is necessary. So, semi-support number 3.

If I wanted a triangle project.

Or if I wanted a project that was 750 by 600 for better resolution.

Also, it could be 700 by 700 or so if I wanted to make a Shift game. The ability to make the stage rotate (Sub-suggestion 1) would make Shift much easier to make. (Thanks to http://scratch.mit.edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/users/Scratchifier/ for this good example)

I mean why would you need a triangle project?
Also, in a triangle, how would X and Y work?

AonymousGuy wrote:

Superdoggy wrote:

AonymousGuy wrote:

Question of mine: In what situation would you ever want to change the shape of the stage? (add more sides)

I agree that it might be more useful for game designers to have the “real fullscreen,” but I don't think it is necessary. So, semi-support number 3.

If I wanted a triangle project.

Or if I wanted a project that was 750 by 600 for better resolution.

Also, it could be 700 by 700 or so if I wanted to make a Shift game. The ability to make the stage rotate (Sub-suggestion 1) would make Shift much easier to make. (Thanks to http://scratch.mit.edu.ezproxyberklee.flo.org/users/Scratchifier/ for this good example)

I mean why would you need a triangle project?
Also, in a triangle, how would X and Y work?

It would work exactly the same as a rectangle project. The only difference would be the shape. For example, on a triangle project, the coordinates 180, 200 might not exist, but that's the same as the fact that on a normal stage, the coordinates 130, 290 don't exist.

Also, for your first question: “Why not?”

Bring
Up
My
Post