Campaigns and Useability
Moderator: Forum Moderators
-
Sithrandel
- Posts: 537
- Joined: September 15th, 2003, 2:54 pm
- Location: Sheffield (UK)
- Contact:
Campaigns and Useability
Ok... before I get going, please point out if this has all been discussed before and show me the way to the right thread 
I am more interested in playing than in Scenario developement so am not the most avid reader of this section 
Still, there is a general issue which has raised its head again including a light hearted disagreement between iRichard and myself. This highlighted a more general issue.
Basically... how common are we hoping that user created external campaigns are going to be and how are we planning on installing them?
When I first ported to the Mac, I asked Dave whether we expected to people to fiddle in the data folders and at that time the answer was we'd only expect people who knew what they were doing to do so. This affected the storage location for the Mac version.
My concern is that if we produce standalone scenarios / campaigns that these should be easy to install for users. What I am thinking of is allowing users to drag-and-drop campaigns onto Wesnoth, then it will automatically copy the files to the relevant places.
So... how complex do people envisage the campaign files to become (e.g. how many parts in a single campaign). Would such an install be worthwhile generally, or should I stick to the Mac only version as I like to make Mac users' lives as easy as possible?
Btw, if there is already such an install and I've just missed it I'd hate to re-invent the wheel.
I am more interested in playing than in Scenario developement so am not the most avid reader of this section Still, there is a general issue which has raised its head again including a light hearted disagreement between iRichard and myself. This highlighted a more general issue.
Basically... how common are we hoping that user created external campaigns are going to be and how are we planning on installing them?
When I first ported to the Mac, I asked Dave whether we expected to people to fiddle in the data folders and at that time the answer was we'd only expect people who knew what they were doing to do so. This affected the storage location for the Mac version.
My concern is that if we produce standalone scenarios / campaigns that these should be easy to install for users. What I am thinking of is allowing users to drag-and-drop campaigns onto Wesnoth, then it will automatically copy the files to the relevant places.
So... how complex do people envisage the campaign files to become (e.g. how many parts in a single campaign). Would such an install be worthwhile generally, or should I stick to the Mac only version as I like to make Mac users' lives as easy as possible?
Btw, if there is already such an install and I've just missed it I'd hate to re-invent the wheel.
Something that might be useful here is physicsfs (http://icculus.org/physfs/). I haven't used it myself, and I don't know how useable it is from C++, but it seems to solve this problem specifically.
I would like to note that any campaigns which we feel are of reasonable quality will probably end up finding themselves distributed with a stable version of the game.
However, it is likely some users will want to get the latest-and-greatest, so there probably will be a reasonable number of users wanting to install campaigns themselves. It would be good to make this as easy as possible...
David
However, it is likely some users will want to get the latest-and-greatest, so there probably will be a reasonable number of users wanting to install campaigns themselves. It would be good to make this as easy as possible...
David
“At Gambling, the deadly sin is to mistake bad play for bad luck.” -- Ian Fleming
-
Viliam
- Translator
- Posts: 1341
- Joined: January 30th, 2004, 11:07 am
- Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
- Contact:
campaign = folder
Put each campaign to different folder - scenarios, maps, translations (only translations of texts in the same folder).
Then there should be a folder "shared" (or, whatever name) for standard units, tutorial levels, standard mutiplayer maps, whatever.
When looking for something (e.g. unit), program should first look into current campaign folder, then shared folder (or vice versa?).
Then, installing and uninstalling campaign will be rather easy, including new units.
Then there should be a folder "shared" (or, whatever name) for standard units, tutorial levels, standard mutiplayer maps, whatever.
When looking for something (e.g. unit), program should first look into current campaign folder, then shared folder (or vice versa?).
Then, installing and uninstalling campaign will be rather easy, including new units.
-
Sithrandel
- Posts: 537
- Joined: September 15th, 2003, 2:54 pm
- Location: Sheffield (UK)
- Contact:
The issues as I see it are making it easy to add a campaign and harder to mess up the standard campaigns.
Currently the data folders change a lot from release to release and I do like the idea of not expecting a normal end user to fiddle there (though leaving the option for them to do so if they desire).
Having two folders... one for core components and the other for additional scenarios would make it easier to replace the core when there is an update without either erasing added scenarios or increaing the chance of old components remaining. My concern is the complexity that would add to the resource searches. Is that correct?
Having an install ability is straightforward and this could be used with or without a separate user campaigns folder.
Currently between file extension and first lines a good guess can be made at most content so drag-and-drop or "wesnoth install xxx" type installation should be straightforward.
Also a given structure to the layout (e.g. campaign folders) would help... especially as the number of campaigns increase and the chances of duplicate resource names increases too.
I also think a useful distinction can be drawn between adding scenarios and modding current stuff. If Wesnoth comes with a simple method for new campaigns that is what matters.
If it is as popular as some games (e.g. Myth, etc) then there might be so many campaigns that whilst the best are included, there might still be many worth playing.
BTW if we decide on an install function, I'm happy to add that
Currently the data folders change a lot from release to release and I do like the idea of not expecting a normal end user to fiddle there (though leaving the option for them to do so if they desire).
Having two folders... one for core components and the other for additional scenarios would make it easier to replace the core when there is an update without either erasing added scenarios or increaing the chance of old components remaining. My concern is the complexity that would add to the resource searches. Is that correct?
Having an install ability is straightforward and this could be used with or without a separate user campaigns folder.
Currently between file extension and first lines a good guess can be made at most content so drag-and-drop or "wesnoth install xxx" type installation should be straightforward.
Also a given structure to the layout (e.g. campaign folders) would help... especially as the number of campaigns increase and the chances of duplicate resource names increases too.
I also think a useful distinction can be drawn between adding scenarios and modding current stuff. If Wesnoth comes with a simple method for new campaigns that is what matters.
If it is as popular as some games (e.g. Myth, etc) then there might be so many campaigns that whilst the best are included, there might still be many worth playing.
BTW if we decide on an install function, I'm happy to add that
-
Guest