[engine] Please review these suggestions for renamed WML keys

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Post Reply
Posts: 217
Joined: December 17th, 2015, 10:27 pm

[engine] Please review these suggestions for renamed WML keys

Post by Can-ned_Food »

  • need_modification=
    For when assets from the respective add-ons for each of the modifications are merely required; the modifications need not be activated.
  • enforce_modification=
    The scenario needs the modifications to be activated.
  • inhibit_modification=
    The scenario cannot permit the modifications to be activated.
These work quite unlike allow_era= or disallow_era=, and so there is no need to have similar names.

I have no idea whether it would be useful enough to also add these to [scenario] or [campaign].

Also, I personally think that something like need_modification= would be better done in a way that focused on the proper resources, rather than a [modification] which uses them; but we can discuss that too.

Thanks for your opinion.
Last edited by Can-ned_Food on March 14th, 2018, 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Inactive Developer
Posts: 4453
Joined: November 26th, 2005, 7:41 am

Re: Please review these suggestions for renamed WML keys

Post by Sapient »

If you want to be consistent with EraWML, then it should be:
  • require_modification (consistent with require_era)
  • force_modification
  • disallow_modification (or its oddball cousins: allow_modification, ignore_incompatible_modification)
There should probably also be a way to specify a minimum version.
http://www.wesnoth.org/wiki/User:Sapient... "Looks like your skills saved us again. Uh, well at least, they saved Soarin's apple pie."

User avatar
Posts: 483
Joined: July 17th, 2010, 7:40 pm

Re: Please review these suggestions for renamed WML keys

Post by octalot »

If I read Can-ned_Food's description of need_modification correctly, it would take a comma-separated list of other add-ons; that's very different to require_era which takes a yes/no choice of whether all players need to download the era that's in use.

I have an example where I want to check that all players have a specific add-on inside the [multiplayer] tag, but it might be a feature that's only working by accident. The SXCollection map pack includes some maps where the AI recruits Ageless Era units, and other maps that just need the default era. However the host may select the default era for all of these maps, with the host assuming that this just limits the other player's choices to the default units; this assumption that works in 1.12.6 if and only if all players have the Ageless Era installed. I want to ensure that all players have Ageless for these maps, but having written this it seems obvious that the map should require Ageless Era, but with only a subset of the era's units selectable.

User avatar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2443
Joined: January 29th, 2012, 12:49 am
Location: Estonia

Re: Please review these suggestions for renamed WML keys

Post by Ravana »

For now you can add similar check that ageless itself has https://github.com/ProditorMagnus/Agele ... _check.cfg

That though would only catch situation where someone hosts it without knowing that it needs ageless, not for usual joiners.

Not sure if anything has access to addon versions, so checking those in general way might not be possible.

Post Reply