Language…
20 users online: adamlucero, Ahrion, AjaTheVampire,  Alex,  AmperSam, anonimzwx, arkondx,  bebn legg, Children's Digest 1950-2009, GrenCarret, GrenudoGames, HeitorPorfirio2006, Israelcv12cv, LightAligns, MoxieCat, Mr. MS, ojum,  PermaBan, Pink Gold Peach, Samie Zuccati - Guests: 70 - Bots: 202
Users: 57,095 (2,288 active)
Latest user: BFGUI1506

Rejecting of a Block that hurt in certain frame unclear

Hello
I'm not sure if here are some missunderstandings but why is this Block ( https://www.smwcentral.net/?p=viewthread&t=103827&page=1 ) simmilar to the framal Blocks.

The first Block has spikes and should only work as a hurt block. It has a smooth animation and fits visually perfect in classic levels


The framal Block has only a block that will pop up and devisible state.
But it's also used as a wall or death block.


Sorry but if i place a small pipe and want to hurt the player, it will look a lot smoother with a spike that will come out of it, instead of a block that will rotate on it.

Sure maybe i could create an ExAnimation and overwrite the block animation, but are there really so many Lunar Magic users who can do this and also create an ExGFX with the different states?
I don't think so.
And specially for the users would it be perfekt, if they will get a new Block, where they have nothing to do, as only to implement this pack
The Framal blocks allow you to specify the amount of frames the block will use by pointing it to the ExAnimation slot and allows you to select how you interact with the block on either the last frame, the first frame or a range of frames. The graphics themselves are just ExAnimation and can be 4 frames like the provided gif or more like your gif.
I'm sure an ASM mod might have a better explanation but in the end the Framal blocks are more useful.
The block linked in the rejection log does everything your block does and is much more customizable. The fact that your submission includes spike graphics is not relevant to the rejection.

That said, I wonder if this kind of rejection on strictly technical terms hurts the usability of the ASM section. There's a non-zero chance that a new user (or a user otherwise not familiar with ASM or the sections) will look for exactly this kind of block and fail to find it because the effect they're looking for is hidden away behind "framal blocks" and not some variation of "hurt on frame" like they would expect.
I'm just echoing what Noivern and Ninja Boy said but yeah, functionally the framal blocks can do the same thing as yours, but in a more convenient way (code-wise). Looks like the screenshot confused you, it's not like the block just has the "open-close" turnblock graphics, that's just an example added by the moderator but you can use whatever animation you want. I do agree that your animation looks smooth and it could be useful for people that don't want to set it up manually, so I guess you could submit the GFX to the graphic section instead?

Originally posted by Noivern
That said, I wonder if this kind of rejection on strictly technical terms hurts the usability of the ASM section. There's a non-zero chance that a new user (or a user otherwise not familiar with ASM or the sections) will look for exactly this kind of block and fail to find it because the effect they're looking for is hidden away behind "framal blocks" and not some variation of "hurt on frame" like they would expect.

That's just a risk that's bound to happen, especially for something as general as those blocks. That said, "framal" is not really a word one would use to search for that block, so I could change it to something like "Frame-Dependent Block".
I think any number of aliases in the description would help a lot because I am not so sure that picking any sort of name that is anticipated for it would guarantee it gets found with all the possible ways to think of how people would search for it. At least, I think that's the best way to get it to pop up for those looking for it.

E.g. frame-dependent, ExAnimation-dependent or ExAnimation-triggered behavior, property or effect by appearance; I am sure there could be more sensible things to call it but it is very hard to think of a formal title that solves the obscurity alone.

Just look above you...
If it's something that can be stopped, then just try to stop it!
So if i undestand you correctly:
You want the user to do the following steps:
- I start to create a new level, lets go to SMWC an see which cool block ideas are there
- Cool, there is a framal block that the player can get hurt by in a frame range.
- hmmm but these block don't look really nice, lets see if there is an alternative animation in the graphics section
- oh yes, here is a spike animation that I could combine with the framal block.
- so, i download the framal block and the spike animation. Now i will sync both up that it will work for my setup

sounds complicated. Specially that many users don't know how ExAnimations work.
Additional from my side. The graphic section is for me the kategory where i look for FG/BG GFX. Not a section with single graphics to exchange sprite or block mechanics.

Maybe you should rethink your guidlines.
Users don't want to combine feature A + feature B to get the final stuff.
They want to see an idea, implement it and its done
Of course, there are user that would exactly do this, but thats maybe 20-30%?
Most users only known the basics of Lunar Magic and for these users would it be nice to have a lot of different ideas and mechanics combined on SMWC
Originally posted by Drakel
sounds complicated. Specially that many users don't know how ExAnimations work.

It's not that complicated honestly. Additionally you'd have to provide a sample level with the exanimation setup anyway if were to submit it to the graphics section, so the user wouldn't even have to know how to make ExAnimations.

Originally posted by Drakel
Additional from my side. The graphic section is for me the kategory where i look for FG/BG GFX. Not a section with single graphics to exchange sprite or block mechanics.

Just because you don't do it doesn't mean it's not a valid option. The graphic section is full of block/sprite specific resources (just filter with the "Miscellaneous" purpose and you'll see).

Originally posted by Drakel
Maybe you should rethink your guidlines.

The purpose of the guidelines is to avoid cluttered sections (i.e., having duplicate submissions) and making sure that resources are up to standards. What you submitted was, on the asm side, redundant and not as up to standards of what already exists. That's why I suggested you submit the GFX (+ ExAnimation) to the graphics section, since that's what your submission has that's "new" compared to the other blocks.

Originally posted by Drakel
Users don't want to combine feature A + feature B to get the final stuff.
They want to see an idea, implement it and its done

Well those users will be disappointed, since there's a lot of stuff that requires more than just "download and insert and you're done". That's why tutorials and help forums exist, so people can learn how to work with this stuff.

Originally posted by Drakel
Most users only known the basics of Lunar Magic and for these users would it be nice to have a lot of different ideas and mechanics combined on SMWC

If that were the case they'd have problems using any kind of custom resource, including yours.
Originally posted by Drakel
Words



I'm not trying to sound rude but it sounds like you're just trying to justify a reason to have your block hosted in the section, most blocks don't even come with graphics btw.

I understand wanting to see people using your resource but in this case your version is redundant and less functional. It would be nice, echoing KevinM to see your ExAnimation in the Graphics section which could easily be used with the Framal block (which honestly could use a better name).