[CF-Devel] Iso CF start phase

[Michael Toennies]

The change in maps can be shown in a good example:
the demon lords!
In Iso, a demon lord will be a little smaller (through the iso looking, he
will
look big too). This means, i had for iso maps to rework the maps with demon
lords
and change it to "iso demon lord".

This is the big "umpf". In the first step, flat and iso maps will be not
compatible
because booth arche sets are then different.

But i have a plan for this which should finally make it campatible again.

Because we got so many nice gfx from other artist (iso style), i had fast
included a nice
new arch set. There is no usable way to hold this compatible (in ground,
floor or wall sets).

Really not, in the old maps and the old sets are too much assembled (and
really bad looking)
artwork in.

Let do it in this way: We include the new tile (they look great) in the iso
set and rework the
maps in a more intelligent way.

Better TYPES, intelligent layers - all the stuff we want include in the
past!
Lets use the Iso set for this!
We rework it from cratch, so we can try here some out!

The flat crew then graps the tested parts and include it in the normal
arches too.
Also, they can slowly redraw or collect tile. Also, the few monster, which
had changed
in multi tile size (thats not so many!), can be changed too in usable flat
ones.

At the end, both should meet workable and both set will profite from others
(the flat more
from iso i think).

Because scripting is SO powerful you WILL change many maps.

Well, perhaps you people don't want this. I will release the iso stuff and
then we all can
look.

Other changes are topics for booth sets!

One is for example, to include 8 way direction moving. This is really not
the new part.
Look in the docs, it was a old topic in the game and even the picture logic
depend on it.
But its dropped for some reason (btw: you remember why mark? not enough
pictures or so? I always
had hate, that you can't see your sw, se,nw and ne direction on map... Don't
want remember how often
i die after crushing a spell in the false direction...).

Michael



>
     
      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.
     
     >
     
      _______________________________________________
     
     >
     
      crossfire-devel mailing list
     
     >
     
     
      crossfire-devel at lists.real-time.com
      
      
     >
     
     
      https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/crossfire-devel
      
      
     >