Qualifiers in Global Events

What's with this!? It won't let me copy/paste qualifiers from my events into anything "global".

Argh! Since when is it a good idea to REDUCE FUNCTIONALITY from the last version? What the hell, seriously. Because of this, I can't finish my Final Year Project in college I was using it for. I was going to make a game for my Software Project, but since I can't use qualifiers to make some events apply to all objects of a certain type, I can't do this! I'd have to copy/paste the events of each frame, which is ridiculously inefficent and likely to cause problems.

I was hoping MMF would *solve* problems with Global qualifiers, not cause more!

Thank you, Clickteam, for replacing an unstable product with one that is useless to me.

I think it is better to have a stable product with limitations than a product that produces buggy applications..

Clickteam hasn't been able to solve the problem with qualifiers in global events, so they have disabled it until they find a solution.

No, it isn't. I was able to use the global qualifies before. The stability issues I have with 1.5 were not related to qualifiers. Because they removed it, I cannot finish the project. It is not "Better". If there's a crappy buggy feature you can just not use it if it causes that much problem for you. I'm guessing that's not "Web 2.0" enough for people nowadays.

They are obviously not even working on a solution. They've had *years* to do so, and it's a very important feature. They should have come up with a solution, or an alternative.

If you had a working project before you updated, just revert back to the previous version. Not that difficult to figure out.

No, I started it on MMF2. It's only now I've gotten to the stage of actually applying the events to other levels.

I always test critical parts of my software before I jump into it full blown. Theres no reason why you couldn't have done some quick tests with qualifiers in global events, if for no reason, but to make sure you had everything planned out correctly.. let alone seeing if they still existed.

To be honest, I can see where you're mad at Clickteam, and trust me I can understand where you're coming from, but you really can't hold them responsible for it. Be mad, but it's really not their fault.

It is their fault. Instead of fixing the feature, they removed a work around. There was no reason to test a feature that was there, as far as I knew. How was I supposed to pre-empt they'd remove such functionality? Why would I have presumed that? I was just using a new version of the software I always used.

It's very easy to say stuff like that, but the fact is that most people don't do things that way.

It's pulling the chair out from underneath someone. If I'm at a posh dinner party and get up for a second, I don't put my hands down to check if someone's taken it away.

Global events and qualifiers only exist in our dreams.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xerus

Global events and qualifiers only exist in our dreams.

---

there's always this post... though if or when it would actually happen, i don't know

while it was useful, it WAS a bug, and using bugs as workarounds generally isn't the best idea ever... if your application was corrupted or otherwise damaged because an object shortcut didn't behave as you expected, you'd probably be even more angry than you are now

still, i think that reintroducing the bug as a temporary measure (until a real method is found) wouldn't be that bad of an idea, provided sufficient warning is given through dialogs when the user attempts to create the bug

Or MMF 1.5,

Global events are useless for complex games, really, without qualifiers.

I don't suppose there's any way for MMF1.5 to open MMF2 files? Since there are barely any differences anyway...

Okay, completely ignoring anyone else's advice and now starting to lose my politeness, allow me to be blunt when I say. Read my whole post before you reply, or at least understand it before you reply, don't snap back with the same thing you've been saying, just wording it differently. I can read, you don't need to tell me something I already know. Fact of the matter is, no matter how many times I do particle effects, I always plan ahead and do the effects in a test application before I actually add them into my main game. For what reason? I'd rather make sure it works before I rely on it!

So understand that you didn't do this, and understand that because of this, it's technically your fault. Clickteam should not have removed a feature they could have fixed, I want you to know that I agree with you on that part, but that does not mean that it's there fault that you decided to rely on it, without preparing yourself.

Clickteam is trying to create a professional piece of software, and they can't do that if they leave a bunch of glitch features in it, until they discover whats actually causing the glitch. Excuse them, if your glitch isn't exactly top priority.

I had no reason to retest a feature I was sure was still there was the previous version. Your way of doing things sounds practical on paper, but it's not. Testing *every feature* of MMF all over again would have taken time I just don't have. While Global Qualifiers are a major feature, they'd also be one I'd be less likely to think would be removed.

If you're such a software expert; have you ever heard of an "unstable build"? Why don't Clickteam have one for download that allows this feature?

Quote:

---

Clickteam is trying to create a professional piece of software, and they can't do that if they leave a bunch of glitch features in it, until they discover whats actually causing the glitch. Excuse them, if your glitch isn't exactly top priority.

---

Nothing annoys me more than "anti-whiners" who make out major issues to be tiny personal problems. Without this, it's incredibly aggravating to make complex games of any kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roseweave

I had no reason to retest a feature I was sure was still there was the previous version.

---

I guess he said to test the code/feature of your application, not every feature of MMF, and this sounds very reasonable.

I'm sorry if I annoy you, but I think it's rather annoying that you're trying to put this burden on Clickteam, so I guess the play field is still even.

I never told you to test every feature of MMF2, so please don't make it sound like I did. I was simply saying that if a feature is as essential to your project as you are making it out to be, then one might assume that you would make sure that it works, especially since this wasn't removed in a simple build, it was removed in the transition from 1 large version to another large version.
You didn't check, so you can't blame Clickteam for your misfortune, I commend you for trying however. :)

PS: Excuse me if I sound rude, but I'm just feeding off of your negative additude.

PSS: What you're saying may sound good in a standard argument, but when you actually lay things down and look at it from a spectator point of view, Clickteam is not a fault here.

But I was building it up in the level editor, like I always do. I never switch to global events until later, because of the fact that it's a workaround and not a true feature.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry if I annoy you, but I think it's rather annoying that you're trying to put this burden on Clickteam, so I guess the play field is still even.

---

No it's not. Clickteam, on two occasions, have charged up to $100 for minor updates. I'm sorry I'm making their lives so horrible for them by pointing out their software lacks a major feature that makes large scale projects ridiculously inefficient.

Quote:

---

You didn't check, so you can't blame Clickteam for your misfortune,

---

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH. THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN IT OUT. I had no reason to presume it would be removed. I don't have to check each update that Windows downloads to make sure they haven't, for some reason, locked out MP3 support before I go on some trip with my laptop. I had no reason to test that feature when I was sure it would be there. I was strapped for time, and needed to start as soon as possible. You know bloody well that most people don't do what you describe.

You are using an idiotic loophole so you can smugly defend your daddy company and not give a crap about the issues it causes. You're the worst kind of person for halting progress.

ARGH. Bloody smug fanboy.

If this feature is so necessary, then why don't you just move back to Multimedia Fusion 1.5, again it's not anyones fault that you decided to pay the $100 for the "minor" updates that no one else really seems to be having a problem with.

Anyway, I don't plan to keep on feeding this argument anymore, because I for one, enjoy a somewhat decent reputation with the moderators and more specifically the community that I've been with for over 6 years now which is more then we can say for someone who just joined the site this month. Sorry your first experience wasn't that great.

Never have I seen a company so down to earth with their community base (hardware acceleration anybody?), and I don't exactly appreciate someone coming in and trying to strip that away from them. I share a sense of loyalty with this company and community, I'm sorry you can't see that. :(

PS: I hope for both your sake, and because of their functionality, that global qualifiers will eventually be added back in, but I don't expect it to be top priority.

What are the minor updates clickteam charged $100 for? As far as I know, (and I know clickteam products back to 7 or 8 years now). All the MMF 1.5 updates were FREE, and the major update recently was from 1.5 to 2.0.. even Java and HWA are being released for FREE.

I think our little buddy here is considering 1.5 to 2.0 a "small" update, because he must not be used to seeing programs getting Builds, and leaving the vX.XX for major upgrades.

Well Roseweave I won't deny the fact that sometimes features or lacking features of Clickteam's software makes me want to rip my hair out, however I remain calm and patient as I know that Clickteam continually improves their software on a regular basis and listens to the ever so faithful users of their software, which is a quality I admire a great deal in them because they constantly are bombarded with complaints and technical questions and rants such as this and not near enough praise or positive feedback as many people, unfortunately even myself, take what they have for granted which I'm sure is extremely discouraging for Clickteam on some days, yet they still try to cater to our wants and needs. I'm sure that eventually they'll implement global qualifiers but right now they probably have more urgent matters to attend to.

I've had issues like you before where I wished I could do a certain thing but couldn't at the time such as practical parallax background scrolling but to this date Clickteam has constantly met my expectations and fixed these problems so just hang in there.

So three cheers to Francois and Yves and anyone else involved who created this ever-powerful piece of software creation software.

Not sure if global qualifiers would be that powerful at all. I have about 20 frames to handle all the stuff related to the game PLUS the game core and levels. Handling every single piece of code within the Global Events List would be very scary...

Of course, it's a real problem to create a multi-level game, where changes to the game core can be applied easily. You need the limited (and somewhat slow) Global Events or a self-made level editor to save the level layout, which is then loaded into the single frame containing the game core (which is what I use, but don't like it).

So I'm wondering if this would be possible in the future:
to define a "group" of frames, sharing all objects and events.

We could create Level 1 with the game objects and the code, then clone this one to create more levels. However, these clones should not be independent frames, but share the same objects and code instead, so changes in one frame would affect all others. It's already possible partially, by using global objects, but it would be great to have shared code between specific frames.

Would be much better than having only global or local "one-frame" code, considering the limitations of each solution.

Quote:

---

So I'm wondering if this would be possible in the future:
to define a "group" of frames, sharing all objects and events.

---

Yes, this was planned for MMF 2 but we had no time to implement it. This will be in MMF 3.

I was happy for general discussion, but i think this has gone as far as it can.

As you can appreciate CT has too aims to make the product as powerful as possible while making it as stable as possible.

Roseweave To say that 1.5 to version 2 is a minor update is really just not true. The amount of features that have been added is very large, and thats before you get into the fact of Java, the quiz object and HWA.

Closing