Map Properties Maker - Is it used?
-
Gotta be pretty old. Other than running the mapmaker program I don't even remember an independent piece of software.
"A joyous heart sours with the burden of expectation"
Hepster -
@LaFayette As long as it still works fine, it is very useful to get your map up and running fairly soon, especially if making it from scratch. The addition of features may have made it more useful, as it allows to focus on the essential ones, especially the ones needed to load the map at all. If expanded, I suggest splitting it into two sections, or even two utilities, one for making the necessary stuff, and another one for making the rest.
-
@Hepps Ya it is 10? years old plus
-
Half working tools in software is worse than not at all. Every code needs to ensure that each other code continues to work and the relationship between code means adding new code or updating an existing can be an exercise in updating all other code.
For example, you add Module A. You then add Module B, but to do so you need to maintain and modify Module A. Then you add Module C, at which point you need to update B and A. TripleA is on module ZZ now adding module ZZA is just downright painful. So the bar is not "does it still work", but "does it provide unique and meaningful value".
I do think our model probably should be more for a starter map to document by example how to make a map, then the map maker tools will be for all the things you can't do just by using an example. This hopefully would help the floundering of new map makers, I think that floundering is perhaps more a documentation problem. Most maps are too complex for the map making tools to be really useful, it does not help you with the important stuff like writing delegates.
-
@LaFayette np here with removing it I just question how new apprentices will learn
Since I don't think anyone is building a new one -
@prastle Please read the "I would like to propose" part my earlier comment: https://forums.triplea-game.org/post/26964
-
@LaFayette So my preference is to still have the "map.properties" step in the map making tool but I'm ok removing the GUI part that is generating it and instead just have that step provide a hardcoded one (essentially pull in the one from POS2). That way the tool still gets the map maker to a working map but we get rid of the UI that is missing lots of things. Ideally the map making tool utilizes the POS2 repo files more.
I'm fine if we want to clone the POS2 repo to a new map tutorial repo if folks think that is beneficial. I don't think POS2 is really much of a legit map and no one plays it.
-
@redrum said in Map Properties Maker - Is it used?:
I'm fine if we want to clone the POS2 repo to a new map tutorial repo if folks think that is beneficial. I don't think POS2 is really much of a legit map and no one plays it.
Correct. Moving or renaming POS2 is pretty much useless. It may make a bit clearer that is what you need to read, but you would need to fully update all the documentation currently telling you that you have to go looking at POS2. As far as making any changes to POS2 goes, I'm sure you can feel completely free to do whatever you want with it; no one plays it and, as long as it still works, I'm sure that would be fine enough for the casual player.
-
@redrum Interesting suggestion, though it feels a bit like trying to both have and eat our cake too. Part of the problem is there have been 3 or 4 attempts to document and/or auto-generate map.properties. If the map maker pulls from PoS2, it seems like we're straddling this line of documentation and have not decided whether we want people to actually use the map maker program, or if they should copy/paste a working map.
I very well think it might be more effective to go whole hog on copying a working map and modifying it. Tools can then be in place to support the image splitting and polygon editing.
My impression is even a minimal working map is not very useful, it's still missing a lot of features most people will want. Hence the complexity/benefit of having a fully working map like PoS2 with all features documented there.
@Cernel said in Map Properties Maker - Is it used?:
but you would need to fully update all the documentation currently telling you that you have to go looking at POS2.
Currently the documentation says to look at A&A revised!! If referring to the forums, that's one reason why I've been advocating we stop using forums for documentation, it gets out of date, and should more or less be expected to do so. It was fine when it was one person producing, posting and revising the documentation. Now that the project is no longer run just by one person, it's a flawed process.
-
@LaFayette So the reason that the map.properties is included in the map maker tool is some of the properties directly relate to the graphical tools and how they function in comparison to many of the other properties files and XML which just influence how the game plays. So I think it is important to keep some form of it involved in the map maker tool. If you haven't done so, I would highly recommend walking through the map maker tool steps to create a little base map.
-
@redrum Please don't assume I haven't walked through it. If the map.properties is needed for future steps, and the configuration is inter-dependent, then how would importing a PoS2 config solve that?
-
I'd like for us to now instead focus on whether we want PoS2 to be the tutorial process, or map maker. I'll post a new forum thread dedicated to that topic. The feedback that map.properties is more easily hand-edited was the desired outcome of this thread.
-
@LaFayette I didn't say whether you did or didn't. I just said if you haven't then you should as you seem to be suggesting you don't think map.properties should be grouped together with the other graphical map making tools.
The idea would be importing the file as a starting point for users with good default values and instructing them to edit the file directly rather than use the existing UI to generate one. Honestly the map making tool should just create the base folder structure and import a default and commented version of things like map.properties. Having to write documentation to explain how to do all that is about just as much effort to having TripleA do it and would avoid lots of user error where they make a typo or a capitalization error.
POS2 should be the tutorial for everything beyond making the graphical map portion and already is.
But yes, I think we have agreement that unless we improve the existing map properties UI tool then its easier to just have users edit it directly.
-
@LaFayette I didn't say whether you did or didn't. I just said if you haven't then you should as you seem to be suggesting you don't think map.properties should be grouped together with the other graphical map making tools.
The implication seemed patronizing, I take some offense. I'm not suggesting the map.properties not be grouped together, and in fact I stated that my reservation to removing it is that map maker tools would then be missing it, which seems like a big omission.
-
@LaFayette hmm... seen a lot of negative triplea stuff from you lately. Take a break if you're not happy
-
@beelee I don't like being talked down to or patronized, I'll express that sentiment when I see it or feel it. It's indeed tiring to continually fight old, unpopular battles like 'ice-box'.
The goal is to get the community to have the same vision/direction. The map maker tools themselves is a symptom of that lack of harmony as it's one solution in of itself, pact of steel demo map is another vision of the same solution, and the documentation and forum posts are yet another.
My latest question/response on this thread was that it seemed like trying to incorporate the best of Pact of Steel into Map maker is trying to have the best of both worlds without paying down the cost of differing visions. I do find it an interesting idea nonetheless as it does unify one aspect of the map making experience.
-
@LaFayette I did read your, "I would like to propose" part my earlier comment," Which is why I upvoted it
or more specifically this part
https://forums.triplea-game.org/post/26964 -
@LaFayette sorry brother
you just seemed a little down. My comment was poorly worded. You've done a lot as i n massive stuff for triplea. Sorry for the way way it came out
-
@beelee Thanks, though you're not completely wrong, optics and motivating groups has never been a strong suite of mine.
-
Surprised @Frostion hasn't chirped in. I cannot think of anyone else who made more maps from nothing (of course, you don't use this utility if you are starting from an existent map).
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login