[CF-Devel] Iso CF start phase

[Mark Wedel]

Michael Toennies wrote:

>
     
      The editor collect 100% compatible scripts.
     
     >
     
      The bad thing is that you need to load all - well, when packed later, this
     
     >
     
      need only seconds.
     
     >
     
      The good thing is the strong control.
     
     
 That is of course one reason why all the images and archetypes get packed into
a single file - load time is much much faster.


>
     
      I don't think people will create arches like wild when the arch editor is
     
     >
     
      out (and this will
     
     >
     
      need some time, i don't have it on priority list). For this, the whole
     
     >
     
      action is to hard, setting
     
     >
     
      up all the stuff.
     
     
 This of course is hard to predict.  Even with people having to hand create
archetypes right now, there are probably quite a few that should not exist
simply because people did not realize they could just make the changes in the
maps.  If a front end tool is provided, you may get more people creating
archetypes simply because its easier.  But this isn't really a big deal - for it
to make any real difference, they would still need to get committed to CVS, and
presumably the people with CVS would have the knowledge to say whether that
should really get be a new arch or just an in map modification.

 

>
     
      Well, thats the old discussion. The maps will not be compatible - and should
     
     >
     
      not.
     
     >
     
      I mean the look of course - not the logic (mashines, quests).
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      This is a clear point i think? Why we are using iso? Because it give us
     
     >
     
      other option
     
     >
     
      for the look. So, thinking the old maps can be transformed, is childish.
     
     
 I think some of my confusion here is terminology.  I think you really want to
be saying images here, and not maps?  If maps are not compatible, that means
that game is not compatible.  I certainly understand that the images will not be
compatible.


>
     
      The bad point is, that we will split dev power.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      Btw: showing ISO maps flat is much better.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      Bad thing is , that you have to draw new or special monsters.
     
     >
     
      Iso multi monsters don't need so much place like flat ones.
     
     >
     
      Well, this only effect a few monsters, 90% will be untouched i think.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      For this, it is possible to do create new flat monsters.
     
     
 I certainly don't mind one image display mode looking nicer than the other. 
Thats pretty much expected.  I just want overhead view support to remain.

 And I won't disagree that iso generally looks nicer.  I just don't find the
gameplay as nice, and thats what I really care about for my playing.  nice
graphics will grab a player, but the look of the graphics doesn't last really
long - in the end it is gameplay which determines how good the game really is.


>
     
     
     >
     
      You haven't understand this mark.
     
     >
     
      MAP LOGIC is not touched!
     
     >
     
      And i will include a replace system .
     
     
 As said, I think it is because you were using the word 'map' too many places,
which is what created confusion.

>
     
     
     >
     
      Working over a map, changing style and look is not the big work.
     
     >
     
      Thats a "eye work" not a "brain work".
     
     >
     
      Setting up the logic, connection and game play - thats was hard in maps.
     
     
 eye work still equals time.  I know that making maps generally isn't mentally
hard, but just takes a bit of time to do right.  Unless we can get a lot of
developers to start working on maps, I just think it will take quite a while.


>
     
      Then we need 2 skins for the client.
     
     >
     
      One for iso, one for flat.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      But thats not hard.
     
     >
     
     
     >
     
      Remember that even the editor handles booth mode. And you can change at
     
     >
     
      runtime and for every part.
     
     
 Yeah, thats fine.  Being able to change it on the fly in the editor could
actually be pretty cool also (of course, there are problems with image sets and
so on that make it harder).  but even if it was seperate clients, that works for
me.