I_LOVE_TO_MAKE_STUFF wrote:

Marc92020 wrote:

gamesprimescratch wrote:

Support because it would look cool

please be more constructive on why you support

They don't have to. They could just write “support” and that would be good enough since there is no like/dislike system implemented into the forums. You should consider that they didn't even have to describe the reason why they support it.

really? being unconstructive is ok? so i could just go to every suggestion and say support without a reason and i would be fine? those facts that you just said are false, because it could lead to a lot of spam
but seriously though, that post didnt have a real reason why the creator supports this suggestion.

TurtleLegos wrote:

No support, you can do this with costumes.

dang i was dumb 3 months ago…
support.
i was dumb
it's very complex to do that smoothly

Marc92020 wrote:

I_LOVE_TO_MAKE_STUFF wrote:

Marc92020 wrote:

-snip-

-snip-

They don't have to. They could just write “support” and that would be good enough since there is no like/dislike system implemented into the forums. You should consider that they didn't even have to describe the reason why they support it.

really? being unconstructive is ok? so i could just go to every suggestion and say support without a reason and i would be fine? those facts that you just said are false, because it could lead to a lot of spam
but seriously though, that post didnt have a real reason why the creator supports this suggestion.

Well, what if their reason was already mentioned? I've seen a lot of replies like

somone wrote:

Support!

somone wrote:

No support.

somone wrote:

Nope.

However, I've never seen anyone tell them to be more constructive until this topic. You're right, now that I think about it. But at least they provided a reason.

support + bump

graham3078 wrote:

support + bump

Could you explain why you support?

VeryFamus wrote:

graham3078 wrote:

support + bump

Could you explain why you support?

What if the reason was already mentioned?

I_LOVE_TO_MAKE_STUFF wrote:

VeryFamus wrote:

graham3078 wrote:

support + bump

Could you explain why you support?

What if the reason was already mentioned?

Then the person can either come up with a new reason or re-state it in their post. It is required to be constructive.

i support! this would be useful for animating and it would be interesting to make a project revolved around this feature. also will be fun to mess around with

Bump

ThroughTheHourglass wrote:

http://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/65930

And that is not a duplicate. Suggesting width/height while I am suggesting an individual effects, not separate effects of the same thing. I honestly don’t believe this is a duplicate.

Ok folks, please take a step back and remember to be respectful to each other. I understand that you're passionate, but there's no reason to be rude.

VeryFamus wrote:

ThroughTheHourglass wrote:

http://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/65930

And that is not a duplicate. Suggesting width/height while I am suggesting an individual effects, not separate effects of the same thing. I honestly don’t believe this is a duplicate.

Could you explain what you mean by “separate effects of the same thing?” You're proposing, in effect, an x-stretch and y-stretch effect, right? It seems to me like that would have the same effect: stretching or squishing the sprite to have a different width/height.

I_LOVE_TO_MAKE_STUFF wrote:

Marc92020 wrote:

gamesprimescratch wrote:

Support because it would look cool

please be more constructive on why you support

They don't have to. They could just write “support” and that would be good enough since there is no like/dislike system implemented into the forums. You should consider that they didn't even have to describe the reason why they support it.

That's not correct. We don't have a voting system in the Suggestions forum because we don't think “votes” on a suggestion are relevant. This space is meant for proposing, discussing and refining ideas - it's not a referendum.

Harakou wrote:

Ok folks, please take a step back and remember to be respectful to each other. I understand that you're passionate, but there's no reason to be rude.

VeryFamus wrote:

ThroughTheHourglass wrote:

http://scratch.mit.edu/discuss/topic/65930

And that is not a duplicate. Suggesting width/height while I am suggesting an individual effects, not separate effects of the same thing. I honestly don’t believe this is a duplicate.

Could you explain what you mean by “separate effects of the same thing?” You're proposing, in effect, an x-stretch and y-stretch effect, right? It seems to me like that would have the same effect: stretching or squishing the sprite to have a different width/height.

What I meant by “Separate effects of the same thing” was that the topic being stated uses width and height, stretching in toggleable directions, meanwhile this stretches X outward and Y inward the more positive the value gets. Y=top side and bottom side, and X=left side and right side.

Also, sorry about that. Must have gotten carried away. (Probably because it was like 10:30 for me or something)

Harakou wrote:

…
Could you explain what you mean by “separate effects of the same thing?” You're proposing, in effect, an x-stretch and y-stretch effect, right? It seems to me like that would have the same effect: stretching or squishing the sprite to have a different width/height.

I think you’re asking what differentiates this proposal from all of the “stretch”, “pull”, set “width/height”, change “x-scale/y-scale”, change “right/left/top/bottom dimension”, or “mode 7” features, blocks and extensions. I feel that if all we are doing here is talking among ourselves then let’s just put everyone in one room (topic), but, if we are instead trying to make a proposal to the Scratch Team then it will help to separate these different ideas.

Paddle2see said that the Scratch Team likes proposals that are intuitive and interesting for the intended user and that don’t add blocks to the block palette. What he actually said was:

Paddle2see* wrote:

In the 1.4 version of Scratch, if you search through the source code (which is in a language called Squeek), you will find traces of an experimental “stretch” block! However, it was never in any of the officially released versions that I have used. I can only assume that it was decided that it was too confusing - or not useful enough - to earn a permanent place in the block pallet. Which is too bad as it would be very helpful for certain kinds of visual effects.

Part of what makes Scratch so easy to learn and such a great first language is it's simplicity. Every new block that is added makes it a bit more complex - so new blocks are added only after long consideration.

I’d like to see this topic stay open as the “lowest-floor” proposal that would be intuitive to an 8-year-old, that doesn’t add blocks or an extension and would be in place where they would be likely to see it and try it out. Honestly, I think that is enough to talk about to deserve being in a separate topic.

This is a place to discuss things like

Is this not giving enough credit to eight-year-old and why does it matter if adding this way would be interesting to this age group?

Would it be used by older Scratchers?

Does it make it easier to find if it is an effect?

Does it make it more likely to be something that an eight-year-old would try out if it was in the list of effects?

If it is an “stretch effect” does that make it seem less like schoolwork (“ok students, today we’re going to be learning what width and height mean”)?

And finally I channeled my inner-eight-year-old and completed the third and final part of my “Adventure with the stretch block” series as a way of demonstrating how someone might actually use a stretch block in a program.

The program will run under Scratch 3.0 but you won’t able to complete the game. You will have to download it as well as Scratch 1.4 because it uses the historical stretch block.

The program is here https://scratch.mit.edu/projects/625152649/ .

Harakou wrote:

I_LOVE_TO_MAKE_STUFF wrote:

Marc92020 wrote:

gamesprimescratch wrote:

Support because it would look cool

please be more constructive on why you support

They don't have to. They could just write “support” and that would be good enough since there is no like/dislike system implemented into the forums. You should consider that they didn't even have to describe the reason why they support it.

That's not correct. We don't have a voting system in the Suggestions forum because we don't think “votes” on a suggestion are relevant. This space is meant for proposing, discussing and refining ideas - it's not a referendum.

What if your reason was already mentioned?

I_LOVE_TO_MAKE_STUFF wrote:

Harakou wrote:

I_LOVE_TO_MAKE_STUFF wrote:

Marc92020 wrote:

-snip-

They don't have to. They could just write “support” and that would be good enough since there is no like/dislike system implemented into the forums. You should consider that they didn't even have to describe the reason why they support it.

That's not correct. We don't have a voting system in the Suggestions forum because we don't think “votes” on a suggestion are relevant. This space is meant for proposing, discussing and refining ideas - it's not a referendum.

What if your reason was already mentioned?

Then the person can either come up with a new reason or re-state it in their post. It is required to be constructive.

VeryFamus wrote:

I_LOVE_TO_MAKE_STUFF wrote:

Harakou wrote:

I_LOVE_TO_MAKE_STUFF wrote:

Marc92020 wrote:

-snip-

They don't have to. They could just write “support” and that would be good enough since there is no like/dislike system implemented into the forums. You should consider that they didn't even have to describe the reason why they support it.

That's not correct. We don't have a voting system in the Suggestions forum because we don't think “votes” on a suggestion are relevant. This space is meant for proposing, discussing and refining ideas - it's not a referendum.

What if your reason was already mentioned?

Then the person can either come up with a new reason or re-state it in their post. It is required to be constructive.

Especially on a topic where there are lots of posts like this one and practically all of them have been mentioned.

Bump

(1000 Posts. (✔::operators)(❌::variables)(❌)(❌)(❌) 5000 Posts! 

BLOCKS:

change [Strech] effect by (25)

set [Stretch] effect to (0)

The addition of these blocks would be very useful. They could be correlated with the size blocks. Perhaps rather than having stretch as a sort of effect, it could be included as a width and height variable. If this functionality were to be included, it would make many things so much easier to program. Support!