Question

Started by Epic4242, February 25, 2015, 10:14:25 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Epic4242

I don't know if this thread is ACTUALLY going to turn into the questions thread but I might as well try ;).

So just rematches the snake black hole video and I have a suggestion/question:
The black hole really looks like the emitters... Will that change? I kept confusing the two...
Well just saying ;D

Nico

stdout

He says in the video that the black hole is a script that turns on and off the black hole effect. It sounds like this is a form of CRPL and the red dot would be a CPRL core. I bet in the final release the map maker can make the core be whatever graphic you want, and the red dot is just used as a placeholder during testing.

Epic4242

Ya I kind of understood that too ;)(the kind of means that no, I didn't actually understand it :)) but my question was mainly if, assuming that there will be black holes in the campaign, assuming there's a campaign (lots of assumptions ;D), then the skin he currently has is a bit confusing.

Michionlion

Well, I assume that would change - I don't think he is showing us campaign maps, but rather just small test maps.  I think from what he's hinted at that we still have a few more things to be surprised by before release.
"Remember kids, the only difference between science and messing around is writing it down."
                                                                                                                         - Adam Savage

My website
My CW1, and CW2 maps!

knucracker

Yeah, that graphic is just the default place holder for a PRPL core.  You'll be able to change it and the color in the final game (as well as add other images, etc.)

And yes, the missions I show are just throw away things I've done for testing one concept or another.  I spend about 10 minutes making them, and another 5 tweaking till I can win.

Epic4242

Awesome! Thanks, but one last thing...

Is PRPL like CRPL but for this game?

Karsten75

I guess the "RPL" part would be common, but that there would be no creeper-specific language constructs - those being replaced by particle-specific constructs.

Epic4242

Quote from: Karsten75 on February 26, 2015, 10:56:39 AM
I guess the "RPL" part would be common, but that there would be no creeper-specific language constructs - those being replaced by particle-specific constructs.

Does that mean that the P I'm PRPL stands for particle?

Karsten75

Your guess would be as good as mine.

thejoe66

"Humanity is probably the only animal capable of hating itself."-The end of Evangelion

stdout

At that blog page Virgil uses the word "particle" 12 times in one comment. I'd say it's safe to assume the P in PRPL refers to particles.   :)

Karsten75

#11
Updated information from a reliable source indicates that the "P" actually is in reference to the improved speed of coding with Warp notation. My source suggested that the express coding method has given rise to a language named either after Ponies or Pandas, depending on one's perspective of  express speed.

Epic4242

Sorry but...
;D

I'm assuming this is a joke

stdout

PRPL = Panda's Reverse Pony Language. Got it!