At 19:36 2003-01-14 -0800, Mythran wrote: > > This will only work if the player connects through a sufficiently smart > > terminal, it will totally screw up output in plain MUD clients, won't it? > > Hence, you should add checks to the code as well as let the player set it, > > so if they change computers, it should default to the basic editor if the > > enhanced editor does not work. > > >Yes and no. yes, it may screw up plain MUD clients, no, I haven't tried it >so it may or may NOT possibly screw things up. But, there will, of course, >be a flag that the player needs to set to use it or not use it. This flag also needs to go along with a check when the editor starts. What if I at one point am at home, with my nice *nix flavor box, and then go to work, and sit in a MUD client? I shouldn't have to toggle the editor mode, the mud should detect that my terminal does not support the advanced editor and simply send me into the basic one. > > > WEDIT? - World Editor, Links all the other editors together in a main >menu > > > sorta way. > > > > I think this is a stinkingly horrible idea. Why would I want another menu > > just to select redit for instance? Ick. Then I will be stuck in another > > layer of menus when I want to exit the editors. > > >Yeah, but better chosen words may have been a little more constructive here. >stinkingly??? Ok, I will be more constructive. Image that I am moving around, writing rooms, or whatever, and I want to see the room I am in, walk around, and with this WEDIT, I will be in another layer of menus that I have to escape in order to be able to move. I think it sort of defeats the purpose, and it's a little too much of bells and whistles for my taste. It might have worked for a stand-alone application, such an app would need a menu interface to contain the other functions, but this is a MUD, run over telnet, and as such, it already has an interface which works quite good. I personally do not see the need for this menu, and I doubt that it would make builders less confused. > > I don't care about the "features" at all, they are entirely secondary. >Umm, let's see, let's take all the "features" out of Oasis....what do we >have?? Umm, nothing...no editor at all..that is all Oasis is anyways, it is >a feature.. 8-P Well, for one, we have a lot of utility functions that really has nothing to do with the visual features. These functions are of a general/generic nature, hence the name "genolc." So I still think we/you should consider a good tryout period before we add anything that severely alters the behavior of the package, like the advanced editor, which will probably need a good 2-3 months on its own to be bug-free. > > > > I care about stability. And as it stands now, I have less faith in the > > stability of Oasis than I used to, especially since you seem to spend more > > time thinking up features than you do actually fixing the bugs already > > present in the system, not to mention the bugs created by said features. > > >Well, remember I have posted that people need to send me bug reports on this >thing? So far, only 2 or 3 people have sent any bugs. So, if you could so >happily send me the bugs you know of, they WILL be taken care of prior to >this release when I get home asap. I know. I am getting to that as well. :) I have been a little busy doing other code, namely extensive enhancements to the old Assemblies code. I would like to post that to the FTP later, but first I need to clean it up and patch it against a 3.1 with vanilla Assemblies. > > Yeah, I know, I am as subtle as a super nova. Hopefully you will read > > between the lines and actually discern my concern, and my attempts at > > constructive criticism. > >Yeah, right ! Just kidding, anywho, yes, most of the above you gave me was >constructive, of course...I won't come hunt you down or anything (where ya >live again?) Anywho, no problem...just a softer tone would be nicer... Hehe! Yeah, although I had people remark that I was actually a lot softer than I usually am when flaming people. I have to write at least one flame a year, it's good for the heart. >The features that are already added (game configurator) will stay in this >release. You have the option of using it or not using it. It is up to you. >The game can still be configured using config.c. I have nothing against that. What I meant was that we/you should wait for a decent amount of time, and allow people to report bugs, and while they are reporting bugs, you can release a couple of patch releases on the 2.2 package, and when people seem satisfied with the stability, you can start gradually implementing the new features. If you were going for the advanced editor (I suppose you meant it would look like Pico, or even Jed?) you should perhaps first upgrade the package to support this new feature in the present editors, and when that has been fully integrated and proves to compile on most machines, and most (read all) bugs are squashed, you could go on with the other additions. Regards, /Torgny -- +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | FAQ: http://qsilver.queensu.ca/~fletchra/Circle/list-faq.html | | Archives: http://post.queensu.ca/listserv/wwwarch/circle.html | | Newbie List: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/circle-newbies/ | +---------------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 06/26/03 PDT