1.0 Feature List

[ettin]

The new MANUAL.spanish translator, joseg, asked to translate more documentation (from the wiki). Unfortunately, the wiki does not support multiple languages...

However, I have had an idea for version 1.0. I would like to see a complete (and multilingual) users guide: with the current Manual, GettingStarted, AdvancedTactics, race descriptions... This guide would be available in HTML (with an index to select the language) and PDF.

Any thoughts?

[joseg]

The new MANUAL.spanish translator, joseg, asked to translate more documentation (from the wiki). Unfortunately, the wiki does not support multiple languages...

However, I have had an idea for version 1.0. I would like to see a complete (and multilingual) users guide: with the current Manual, GettingStarted, AdvancedTactics, race descriptions... This guide would be available in HTML (with an index to select the language) and PDF.

Any thoughts?

Hi all,

As said in the Spanish translation post, I would be happy to work on that and get a merged manual up and running (it is even a good excuse to learn SGML if the people are *really* keen on that ). I could take care of the translation to spanish as well.

Regards,
Jose

[Dave]

Okay let's revive this thread. We want to release version 1.0 sometime, and IMO we're at risk of entering the dreaded cycle of

add features -> create bugs -> ignore bugs, add more features -> create more bugs -> add more features -> too many bugs to effectively release.

So, what are the 'must have' features for 1.0?

We're talking features that need to be coded into the game. I know that campaigns need to be finished, translation work needs to be done, etc etc, but they're done in WML, not C++, and so they don't have nearly as much risk of adding bugs.

We don't want to hear about any and every feature that might be wanted; what are the features (if any) that are really really needed, and if they don't make it, 1.0 will not feel like a professional, quailty release?

David

[miyo]

What about lets fix current bugs before implementing any new features - I know this is not so fun... but it would improve the quality.

- Miyo

[Dave]

What about lets fix current bugs before implementing any new features - I know this is not so fun... but it would improve the quality.

Well this discussion is about what features we need for 1.0, not when they are going to be implemented :-p

But, I do agree that we need a serious focus on bugs. Although often it takes a while to fix bugs when they are not consistently reproducible on the developer's machine, since you have to look for a place in the code that might be the problem -> fix -> release -> wait for reports.

For instance, a few users have reported crashes on their machines, but there is not a single unresolved crash on my machine.

David

[ziberpunk]

I agree with miyo. Seems like a good moment for bug hunting. That's the best step through a quality release =)

[Sithrandel]

OK... for version 1.0....

1) Proper manual

2) Get a compile without warnings. I am suspicious that some of these odd platform behaviours might be warning linked

3) Get a proper ring-fenced core campaigns with user added campaigns not interferring. So if someone installs a botched campaign the don't have to redownload & install Wesnoth.

Otherwise definitely freeze the features. I think some of the more recent ones need to bed in a little Also (1) would be impossible otherwise.

[Dave]

Okay, so we are saying no more features [1] for 1.0?

Things that bother me personally:

- setting up a multiplayer game is kinda cumbersome. In particular, inability to communicate once a player has joined the game but the game has not yet started is irritating.
- an integrated help system/wesnothpedia would have been nice
- a context-sensitive help system would have been nice
- more parameters to the random map generator, such as castle size, empty castles, amount of types of terrain to put in, etc would have been nice
- further AI improvements would have been nice
- the 'map' screen which shows movement between scenarios could have some things done to it to make it nicer [2]
- further improvements to chatting such as changing the length of the chat log in-game and perhaps showing a completely chat log would have been nice
- EDIT: allowing unit graphics to span multiple hexes and to allow haloing effects would have been nice to have included.

What do people think about these items? Should any of them be considered requirements for 1.0?

Also one little loose item:

- the multiplayer setup screen displays combo boxes to allow configuration of player colors. These combo boxes don't work -- player colors are always the same. My vote is to drop these combo boxes. Any objections?

Remember that version 1.0 will be the first polished, stable version. A version we should all be happy to show 'to the world' as the fruits of our labor. It won't be the last version of Wesnoth, any or all of these features may be added after version 1.0.

Thoughts?

David

[1] A feature is an added capability that requires a change to the C++ code.
[2] Of course, it can still have a different map displayed, as this doesn't require changes to the C++ code, but some feature changes may have been nice

[Boucman]

I think that the abilities need to be WMLized to allow more liberty to scenario writers. And I think this should be done early because

1) it will probably introduce more bugs
2) it takes time to be used by scenario authors/music writers

[Dave]

I think that the abilities need to be WMLized to allow more liberty to scenario writers. And I think this should be done early because

1) it will probably introduce more bugs
2) it takes time to be used by scenario authors/music writers

I was thinking of doing this after version 1.0, if at all.

It is non-trivial to implement, and lacking it in version 1.0 isn't something that will make it look like an unprofessional release.

Anyhow, WMLizing abilities will still have fairly limited flexibility.

I'm also not sure that allowing scenario designers to do all sorts of crazy things and give one unit a 2 hp heal ability, another a 4 hp regenerate ability, etc etc is A Good Thing, especially when we're preparing for a version 1.0 release.

David

[Sithrandel]

- setting up a multiplayer game is kinda cumbersome. In particular, inability to communicate once a player has joined the game but the game has not yet started is irritating.

True. That would be a basic UI improvement

- an integrated help system/wesnothpedia would have been nice
- a context-sensitive help system would have been nice

I think both of these would be nice additions, but if you were wanting the wesnothpedia to only list units met so far (as was once suggested) it could get tricky implementing. It would help with the more polished look, but isn't really something which is actually lacking.

- more parameters to the random map generator, such as castle size, empty castles, amount of types of terrain to put in, etc would have been nice
- further AI improvements would have been nice
- the 'map' screen which shows movement between scenarios could have some things done to it to make it nicer [2]
- further improvements to chatting such as changing the length of the chat log in-game and perhaps showing a completely chat log would have been nice
- EDIT: allowing unit graphics to span multiple hexes and to allow haloing effects would have been nice to have included.

All of the above I personally see as nice additions to a >1.0 wesnoth. They aren't the kind of thing which you notice by their omission.

Who knows, if the other work goes faster than expected it might be nice to add one or two more features, but as it goes it is a lot further progressed than when the first 1.0 feature list appeared.

[Dave]

- setting up a multiplayer game is kinda cumbersome. In particular, inability to communicate once a player has joined the game but the game has not yet started is irritating.

True. That would be a basic UI improvement

This is the thing which I would most like to make it in. The thing that'd really bother me somewhat not to be there. I'll see what I can do with it.

- an integrated help system/wesnothpedia would have been nice
- a context-sensitive help system would have been nice

I think both of these would be nice additions, but if you were wanting the wesnothpedia to only list units met so far (as was once suggested) it could get tricky implementing. It would help with the more polished look, but isn't really something which is actually lacking.

Only listing units met so far in the Wesnothpedia wouldn't be very hard -- it's the main interface of the Wesnothpedia that would be. Still, as a whole it's a non-trivial feature, and probably not truly needed.

David

[enki]

I think both of these would be nice additions, but if you were wanting the wesnothpedia to only list units met so far (as was once suggested) it could get tricky implementing. It would help with the more polished look, but isn't really something which is actually lacking.

Only listing units met so far in the Wesnothpedia wouldn't be very hard -- it's the main interface of the Wesnothpedia that would be. Still, as a whole it's a non-trivial feature, and probably not truly needed.

David

I started working on a Wesnothpedia a while ago, but then I found a job and I haven't had that much time. I still hope to finish it someday, but progress is currently very slow. It shouldn't be that hard to code. The biggest problem is deciding what the UI should look like (I posted some ideas in another thread and I've done some more work based on that).

/ Mattias

[miyo]

I think Wesnothpedia can be left post 1.0.

- Miyo

[enki]

I think Wesnothpedia can be left post 1.0.

- Miyo

Sounds reasonable.