>> I'm actually not yet fully convinced about units, because I fear that >> feature would add a significant amount of complexity, and I think this >> part should be delayed. > > I think the implementation might be delayed, but discussing whether or > not to have it in the editor not. The most important part about the > units is which part of them gets done in the editor and which part not. > There was a short discussion about it on irc yesterday: > (snip irc quote) > So the important question I have about units is; which part of them > should be done in the editor and which part shouldn't be done. So only > the minimal placement, like id, race, gender, location and viewing > direction or more?
I think that sounds very good, only offer a minimal subset of [unit] on the map level and allow setting extra stuff in the scenario file. We definitely want to keep macros away. > 9. What about location bound events; do we want them in or should the > user add an id to the location and code the event in a text editor? Events are very scenario-specific and there's not much to show other than the location, and the WML responsible, which we won't have when working on a map file (not scenario file) anyway. So I don't think anything other than named map areas should be done for events. > >> Initial village ownership could be a reasonable counterpart for >> setting the starting positions. > > True the current way on historical from the single letter map format, > but at the time I converted it to the multi letter format the wish was > there to keep it. Let me clarify that I meant that in a logical sense (village ownership and starting positions are usually related), but how it's done doesn't have to change the map_data= string format. >> The critical question for inclusion in the editor seems to be: "does >> it have anything other than a location that can be displayed in a >> helpful and meaningful way?". > > True, but I think the other important question is: "What to do with > things that are meaningful but carry a lot of state which is not > meaningful?" Include them fully or split them? This is a valid point, the default answer in my opinion should be "just use a named area", unless there is something important that can be shown. Units are a borderline case, because we could show the unit type, gender and facing and it would be meaningful visual information. Events don't really have anything of the sort -- it's just WML that can do anything -- so a "split" would be to just use named areas, and the editor doesn't have to know about events. > I agree having several tools can be bad, but having one tool which is > jack of all trades is bad too. That's why I like to discuss the what do > we want to do with a editor before determining whether it gets included > in the map editor or ends up in a scenario editor. Thing is, we don't really want a scenario editor. We want to include some extra info in the map so writing scenarios is easier, and the map should still be edited by the map editor. We can manage the complexity by making the proposed features separate tools (modes) to the editor that can,but don't have to, be used. -- Ilor _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list Wesnoth-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
