Tue 08 Nov 2011 09:03:23 PM UTC, SVN revision 20506:
fix map definition / generation
the map is defined with several settings (mapsize, size, tilesperplayer,
xsize, ysize, topology). Now, some combinations are invalid like in this
bug
mapsize == XYSIZE && ysize % 2 != 0 && MAP_IS_ISOMETRIC
I did add the required checks but a framework to check the settings
would be helpful. Check also bug #18673 and patch #2542.
see gna bug #18875
(Browse SVN revision 20506) |
Tue 08 Nov 2011 09:02:50 PM UTC, SVN revision 20505:
fix map definition / generation
the map is defined with several settings (mapsize, size, tilesperplayer,
xsize, ysize, topology). Now, some combinations are invalid like in this
bug
mapsize == XYSIZE && ysize % 2 != 0 && MAP_IS_ISOMETRIC
I did add the required checks but a framework to check the settings
would be helpful. Check also bug #18673 and patch #2542.
see gna bug #18875
--ine, and those below, will be ignored--
M server/settings.c
(Browse SVN revision 20505) |
Tue 08 Nov 2011 08:57:08 PM UTC, SVN revision 20503:
fix map definition / generation
the map is defined with several settings (mapsize, size, tilesperplayer,
xsize, ysize, topology). Now, some combinations are invalid like in this
bug
mapsize == XYSIZE && ysize % 2 != 0 && MAP_IS_ISOMETRIC
I did add the required checks but a framework to check the settings
would be helpful. Check also bug #18673 and patch #2542.
see gna bug #18875
(Browse SVN revision 20503) |
Fri 23 Sep 2011 02:24:11 PM UTC, comment #6:
> For what it's worth, I would prefer everything (ruleset +
> options) to be in one big file in an "option = value" format.
I fully concur with that, but we shouldn't require that people hack a file 'manually'. There should still be some sort of front end who wish to stay within the Freeciv program. Hopefully we can have that AND an option file that can be hacked more or less straightforward [i.e. plain text]. Then we just have to consider the possibility [or certainty] that some users will try to edit the file while a game is in progress.
|
Thu 22 Sep 2011 08:25:47 PM UTC, comment #5:
> For what it's worth, I would prefer everything (ruleset +
> options) to be in one big file in an "option = value" format.
This is possible using the fixed settings in the ruleset file. I plan to move other ruleset option to server settings which are defined this way (and fixed). Thus, it would be possible to change them if allowed by the ruleset.
|
Thu 22 Sep 2011 07:59:49 PM UTC, comment #4:
I am against the tree view. OpenTTD uses it, and I get lost every time and end up browsing thru every option anyway. For what it's worth, I would prefer everything (ruleset + options) to be in one big file in an "option = value" format.
|
Thu 22 Sep 2011 07:54:23 PM UTC, comment #3:
> As a general, the elements that have the greatest influence on
> gameplay and strategy should be the easiest to find and change.
Therefore I want to move this options to server settings (ruleset category).
> The options menu is likely to trend toward complexity as time
> goes on, essentially becoming a 'trainer' or interactive server
> hacking platform.
One possiblitiy would be to add a flag which needs to be activated to show the more advanced options in each section.
|
Thu 22 Sep 2011 03:59:35 AM UTC, comment #2:
As a general, the elements that have the greatest influence on gameplay and strategy should be the easiest to find and change. The options menu is likely to trend toward complexity as time goes on, essentially becoming a 'trainer' or interactive server hacking platform. Perhaps a jump ahead would be to plan an actual IDE that can be launched from the lobby. Perhaps a tree view would be easier to navigate, something like XMLSpy's document editor? But if it gets so complex as to need a tree view perhaps there should also be a lightweight component with only the most popular options. Maybe a small XUL browser or the ilk.
|
Fri 18 Feb 2011 02:02:06 PM UTC, comment #1:
I added some patches which prepare for the new 'ruleset' settings level. Please add your opinions to the proposed changes ...
|
Wed 16 Feb 2011 01:34:09 PM UTC, original submission:
as discussed in the forum (http://forum.freeciv.org/viewtopic.php?p=26895) freeciv has two types of values which influence its behaviour:
[1] server settings
[2] ruleset definitions
The server settings can be devided into
[1.1] real server options (like savegame, timeout, ...)
[1.2] game settings (civilwarsize, ...)
The main difference between ruleset definitions and server options are that the server options can be changed (especially important on public server) while ruleset options require one to edit the ruleset files. This resulted in duplicated options (example: citymindist - min_dist_bw_cities). Freeciv 2.3 gives the possibility to define server settings in the ruleset. Thus, the following solution is possible:
- add a new category of server options beside rar, situational: ruleset
- move all ruleset relate options into this category
- define all these options also in the game.ruleset file (commented out if default value)
- move important ruleset definition into this new section (illness on/off, ...) so that they can be changed without the need to edit the ruleset but can still be set by the ruleset (and possible locked!)
As result we would have something like:
[A] server settings
[B] ruleset settings
[C] ruleset definitions
We need a clear definition that option/setting should be defined where? A short starting point for this:
- non game play related options (timeout) [A]
- basic game play related options (illness on/off) [B]
- game definitions which depend on effects (units,terrain) [C]
Optinions?
|