I would like a block where instead of:

change x by ()
change y by () 

there would be

 change [x v] by [10]::motion 

How would this benefit the editor? If anything, this would make it much more complicated. Also, many games use the change x and y blocks, so getting rid of them would break thousands of projects.

rayli1123 wrote:

How would this benefit the editor? If anything, this would make it much more complicated. Also, many games use the change x and y blocks, so getting rid of them would break thousands of projects.

Oh yeah! I guess that wouldn't be a good idea.

rayli1123 wrote:

Also, many games use the change x and y blocks, so getting rid of them would break thousands of projects.

Wouldn't it just switch the block from

change x/y by ()  :: motion

change [x/y v] by () :: motion

Like how the ST did it with

stop [ v]

rayli1123 wrote:

How would this benefit the editor? If anything, this would make it much more complicated. Also, many games use the change x and y blocks, so getting rid of them would break thousands of projects.

the suggestion isn't suggesting to remove it , its suggesting to change the layout (the old one would automatically be converted)

Eh, I guess it would be a good idea? But honestly the current 2 blocks work just fine.

Pixalperfect wrote:

rayli1123 wrote:

Also, many games use the change x and y blocks, so getting rid of them would break thousands of projects.

Wouldn't it just switch the block from

change x/y by ()  :: motion

change [x/y v] by () :: motion

Like how the ST did it with

stop [ v]

I was thinking that too…

Semi-support, this block is one of the most used blocks in all of the editor. It would be very hard to implement I bet!

However, the new block you proposed looks a lot cleaner.

dave-alt-4 wrote:

rayli1123 wrote:

How would this benefit the editor? If anything, this would make it much more complicated. Also, many games use the change x and y blocks, so getting rid of them would break thousands of projects.

the suggestion isn't suggesting to remove it , its suggesting to change the layout (the old one would automatically be converted)

I think they mean that changing the block would cause many projects to break as the old block would no longer exist and Scratch would either turn them into “undefined” or delete them.

No support. It isn't that hard to just do

change x by (10)
change y by (10)

And it possibly could take longer to figure out

change [x v] by (10) ::  motion
change [y v] by (10) ::  motion
change [x and y v] by (10) ::  motion

That.

coder2045 wrote:

dave-alt-4 wrote:

rayli1123 wrote:

How would this benefit the editor? If anything, this would make it much more complicated. Also, many games use the change x and y blocks, so getting rid of them would break thousands of projects.

the suggestion isn't suggesting to remove it , its suggesting to change the layout (the old one would automatically be converted)

I think they mean that changing the block would cause many projects to break as the old block would no longer exist and Scratch would either turn them into “undefined” or delete them.

The

undefined

block isn't in 3.0, and I was thinking it could replace the block, like how with

stop all::control

turned into

 stop [all v] 

Bird414 wrote:

coder2045 wrote:

dave-alt-4 wrote:

rayli1123 wrote:

How would this benefit the editor? If anything, this would make it much more complicated. Also, many games use the change x and y blocks, so getting rid of them would break thousands of projects.

the suggestion isn't suggesting to remove it , its suggesting to change the layout (the old one would automatically be converted)

I think they mean that changing the block would cause many projects to break as the old block would no longer exist and Scratch would either turn them into “undefined” or delete them.

The

undefined

block isn't in 3.0, and I was thinking it could replace the block, like how with

stop all::control

turned into

 stop [all v] 

Why does everyone copy everything I just said!?

No support, it's confusing and unneccessary

-Littlediddle- wrote:

No support, it's confusing and unneccessary

how is it confusing and unnecessary? pls elaborate

dave-alt-4 wrote:

-Littlediddle- wrote:

No support, it's confusing and unneccessary

how is it confusing and unnecessary? pls elaborate

Well, what's wrong with the current system where we have two blocks?

nothing , but whats wrong with dropdowns? like the stop and effects

dave-alt-4 wrote:

nothing , but whats wrong with dropdowns? like the stop and effects

Well, if there's no reason for something to be changed, it shouldn't be changed.

no, i do not think there should be those blocks because they already exist without dropdowns, and removing them just for a small dropdown blocks would break many many many many many projects.

I don't support this, this'll just be an unnecessary work for scratch team, if you want to change x and y at once:

go to x: ((x position) + (0)) y: ((y position) + (0))

I know people hate it when someone says “there is a workaround”, but the workaround for this one is incredibly easy

ventoaurum wrote:

I don't support this, this'll just be an unnecessary work for scratch team, if you want to change x and y at once:

go to x: ((x position) + (0)) y: ((y position) + (0))

I know people hate it when someone says “there is a workaround”, but the workaround for this one is incredibly easy

that wasn't what the OP was suggesting lol