View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | Date Submitted | Last Update | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0002200 | AI War 1 / Classic | Suggestion - Campaign Management And Setup - Map Styles And Generation | Dec 28, 2010 10:34 pm | Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | |
| Reporter | TechSY730 | Assigned To | Chris_McElligottPark | ||
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Product Version | 4.058 | ||||
| Summary | 0002200: Replace Manually Given Seed with something more flexible | ||||
| Description | Basically copied from my post at 0002194:0007176 Maybe it is time to move away from a manually specified seed map generation. Sure, it makes it harder to provide exact galaxy layouts succinctly, but instead you could export the layout to a more flexible data structure (xml, csv, or some binary format, whatever), and have the option to import that layout later. This also means you can change how maps are generated internally without having to worry about breaking how old seeds generate. It would also let fancier map generation parameters be able to be specified, like the one in report 0002194. Basically, from a software engineering perspective, letting the user choose and have an expectation of a given seed is having the user rely too much on low level information, and ties the developer too much to old algorithms. Separating the layout from how it is generated seems like a smart move. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Internal Weight | |||||
|
|
Just as a note, I do not expect this big of a change anytime soon. You would need to figure out a good format for representing generated galaxies that does not break with every time the map generation procedure changes. However, this difficulty seems to be worth the added flexibility, and once you get the format down, it will far less brittle to maintain backwards compatibility than the current seed system. |
|
|
Not really a direction I'm interested in pursuing. There are infinite things we could do with a game like this, but this seems like an immense exercise to satisfy an incredibly small minority of players. It's really not the sort of thing I'm looking to do. |
|
|
We really need another label. "Resolved" really doesn't cut it for suggestions that are more "rejected". :/ Or perhaps use "Closed" for those? I'll just make a mantis suggestion for this. See issue 0002215. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 28, 2010 10:34 pm | TechSY730 | New Issue | |
| Dec 28, 2010 10:35 pm | TechSY730 | Severity | minor => feature |
| Dec 28, 2010 10:39 pm | TechSY730 | Description Updated | |
| Dec 28, 2010 10:42 pm | TechSY730 | Note Added: 0007179 | |
| Dec 28, 2010 10:49 pm | TechSY730 | Note Edited: 0007179 | |
| Dec 28, 2010 11:20 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Note Added: 0007182 | |
| Dec 28, 2010 11:20 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | new => resolved |
| Dec 28, 2010 11:20 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Resolution | open => won't fix |
| Dec 28, 2010 11:20 pm | Chris_McElligottPark | Assigned To | => Chris_McElligottPark |
| Dec 29, 2010 2:41 pm | Moonshine Fox | Note Added: 0007213 | |
| Dec 29, 2010 2:44 pm | Moonshine Fox | Note Edited: 0007213 | |
| Dec 29, 2010 2:47 pm | Moonshine Fox | Note Edited: 0007213 | |
| Dec 29, 2010 2:47 pm | Moonshine Fox | Note Edited: 0007213 | |
| Jan 3, 2011 11:44 am | Chris_McElligottPark | Status | resolved => closed |
