That was a perfect assumption, they do have the bouncing ball movement. Sorry I forgot to tell that it was the bouncing ball, didn't I? Wouldn't adding 16 be like using the Reverse action? That's what I'm using now, I'll test your way too.

That was a perfect assumption, they do have the bouncing ball movement. Sorry I forgot to tell that it was the bouncing ball, didn't I? Wouldn't adding 16 be like using the Reverse action? That's what I'm using now, I'll test your way too.
I don't know if reverse works. It's been added after I decided to never use bouncing ball again![]()
You could always have an invisible circle following the enemies, and once it collides with the player, stuff happens. Using this you could also keep the enemies stationary until the player gets close, as well.
Don't do that. Please. Instead either
- use a loop and calculate the distance between enemy and player for each enemy (runs faster than a huge collision check) or
- have an invisible circle around the player that makes the enemies do something if it touches them.

Hm, I've never done anything like that Random. Based on your suggestion I think I should do something like this:
Two types of invisible circles, one for the player, others for the enemies. I'll use conditions to create invible enemy circles for the enemies.
Have the player's invisible circle collide with an enemy's invisible circle, this will check the stats of the player vs enemy. Then if the enemy itself collides with the player's circle, have the enemy run (bounce) if he is weaker or have it focus its attack (direction) on the player if the enemy is stronger.
Originally I had the computer always compare the stats of the enemies to the player. With a second circle, I can check the stats only while the enemy is close by, therefore It'll be easier to engage a fleeing or attacking enemy.
Thank you, I'll definatly remember to use invisible circles around characters.
Wait a secondI just recommended -not- to have them around the enemies. That's really wasting performance there. And it's kind of missing the point.
The idea of the circle is to check for the distance (for the people who can't get it done with a formula or who prefer MMF's way of selection). So instead of having 100s of circles for enemies (as KuroiNeko recommended) have 1 for the player and check that with the enemies. If you have multiple enemies with different ranges, have one for every range, or rescale it before checking (make sure to not do that too often per frame though).
Anyhow. Having circles for the enemies AND the player is clearly missing the point
Best is to check with a formula. It's the least expensive and you can check the hotspots against each other (it's gfx independent).

Distance Formula
Code:sqrt(((x("active1")-x("active2"))pow2)+((y("active1")-y("active2"))pow2))

I have a new question, not for my RPG or any other game I'll ever make, but is there a way to change the graph in the frame editor so that the center of the screen is set up like a normal graph? with the + shape? I have an application that negates the x and y postitions, but the object goes off screen, because the negatives are all off the screen. Is there any way that I can view where the actuall object (without centering the screen on it?

Well, since no one answered yet, I reprogrammed the game. Even though the game can't currently reproduce the proper effect based on mathematics. It still has the same basic effect.

I think you mean is it possible to set up the frame like a coordinate plane in mathemetics where quadrant I is (+,+), II is (-,+), III is (-,-) and IV is (+,-). That's not how computers look at a plane. They see it as quadrant I being in lower right, quadrant II in the lower left, III in the upper left and IV in the upper right.
There is no way to change this in MMF2 because it is just the way the computer does things. Sorry, you'll just have to learn this new coordinate system.
(sorry if I misinterpreted the question)