I'm fast approaching the conclusion that the only way to create a TA or gamebook that actually works the way you want it to, is to become an expert in all programming languages and create it raw and from the boots up.

They're all either bugged to high-heaven or so complex and difficult to master that you need a lifetime to learn them. And if you find one that's neither of those, then you can bet your bottom dollar it's incredibly lacking and shallow.

there's nothing simple about 'if' logic / coding, unfortunately, which includes trying to make it be simple for people (aka, an engine/kit/"generator"/software)...

you look like you've improved a lot... don't throw in the towel now... keep at it... small successes start to add up... you get better and more knowledgeable... which, is my own story with trying to learn this stuff (4-5 years of learning/small successes, and lots of frustrating hair-pulling week-month long efforts ending in failures), hehe :D

Now, now, OurJud, you're blaming a fish for being poor at climbing trees. Not only is an idle game trickier to make than it seems (something i discovered to my dismay earlier this autumn), but you're trying to do it with authoring tools designed for a very different genre. On top of everything else, you appear to have little experience with programming. So I'll second the advice to persist. Also, be patient. And maybe try starting with more straightforward games to get some practice under your belt.

And no, there's nothing simple about chains of conditions. Simply being able to reason about what happens under which circumstances is an acquired skill. There's a reason why formal logic is a serious academic discipline.

@felixp7
There's a reason why formal logic is a serious academic discipline.

Well I wasn't aware of that, which actually makes me feel less stupid. I was seriously beginning to think it was my age or that I had some kind of 'logic blindness'.

What I mean about all IF generators sucking is that not one of them is perfect. They all have downsides, even if you're using them for their intended purpose.

For instance, considering the coding and work that must have gone into Quest, how difficult could it have been to just add an autosave function? A little tick box in the Game set-up that when you click it brings up another field where you specify the save frequency? But no, we either have to have that pig-ugly blue bar across the top of the screen with the Save button, or try and hack some make-do autosave that MIGHT work at best.

For instance, considering the coding and work that must have gone into Quest, how difficult could it have been to just add an autosave function?

Maybe trivial, maybe outright infeasible. Why not suggest it as a feature? It would be better than fighting the software, trying to turn it into something it's not. (Edit: I hadn't noticed you just did.)

Everything has downsides. If you go "perfection or bust"... it's always going to be the latter. Be flexible.

I notice there is a particular bug with the "if scripts" but it's easily fixable.

If you create an "else" in the editor, and then remove the message, sometimes it'll create compound errors. All you have to do is save though and then restart your game and it should fix the problem.

As for what you mentioned Jud, it just takes a lot of time as Felix said. Learning Logic is basically learning a completely new language and at the same time, you're trying to think exactly as a computer thinks and that also takes a lot of adjustment and concentration. You can't expect to be super great at it even after a few years.