@cernel Under my suggestions, mapmakers that prefer having a single version per each game and map, can just assure keeping the version in map.properties the same as the xml version.
Posts made by Cernel
RE: The Grand War
@elreigh The version in the XML is the 'real' map version that players would reference and such to version changes you make. The yaml version is just a way so the engine knows for players that already have the map that there is a new version that it should allow them to download.
You are the owner of the project, so you can set the definitions for it, but this definition alone is simply not possible, based on what I understand the definition of "map" is. Since a map is the entire "map" folder (so, the skin plus the games), you can have multiple games for a same map, each one with a different version, obviously. Hence, the XML/game version simply can't version the map, as being potentially not unique.
As now, there is no way to version a map, while it would be advisable there is, not only for maps offering multiple games, but also because if a mapmaker just changes something in the skin (like you change a player colour and nothing else, or just make new images for the "Carrier", or whatever), it doesn't make sense (to me) reversioning an untouched XML. I'm really not going to upgrade an xml version if the xml is the same, and I just changed something minor in the skin, and (to avoid having different maps without versioning differentiation, which I like to avoid) my "solution" currently is just holding off on any skin changes until some xml changes are made, but this is a lame solution that kind of works only for single game maps.
For example, if we just take the New World Order map and make new "Carrier" images, because somebody thinks they look too similar to the battleships, it would be bad to increase the version of the game, as that would be telling that we have made changes to New World Order, while we have not. It would be actually good leaving New World Order, as a game, having the exactly same version, and referencing somewhere else skin-only changes. Or we could also simply swap one of its mapskins to be the current original one; also this should not cause and upgrading of the game's version, in my opinion.
In absence of an actual map versioning, it is unsurprising mapmakers will think about the download version as being the map version, as that is actually the closest thing to a map versioning you currently have. Also, that is an endless source of confusion for users, because they see a version number when they download and another version number when they look at the game, and don't understand why is that (had a few cases of users asking me if they downloaded correctly).
My suggestion would be having a map version, in "map.properties", additionally to the game (or games) version (or versions) in the xml inside the "games" folder. Then (still just my suggestions), the mapmakers should be instructed to always upgrade the version in map.properties each time any changes inside the "map" folder are made (also if only the xml are), while, on the other hand, upgrade the games versions only in case of changes for the respective xml only. Then, to make all clear to the users, in the "Select a Game" windows they would be told, for each game, its version and what map that game is using and the current version of that map. Once this is done, then I would advise the download version actually equalling the map version. I believe this would cut confusion, and cover all needs. Just a suggestion, since I believe this issue has been ever present in TripleA (also in the old depot there was this dualism between download versions and games versions, and mapmakers tended to just have the download versions being the same as their games' versions, at least for single game maps, but I don't believe this was deliberate, or at least I've never seen it documented anywhere (not sure, we would need asking Veqryn)).
RE: Hide Unused Options From Default Tooltips
@general_zod Yeah. I considered this too. There are a bunch of other reasons, as well; for example, customized tooltips don't work with technology (if you have a map where a unit may get better for a tech, you can't really customize its tooltip).
RE: Fallen Empire
@redrum While @redrum is correct about the fact that the FFA gang is small and that big FFA are challenging for PBF and near impossible for live gaming, I instead suggest you to have this map as FFA only, not even making a 1v1, as TA is lacking sound FFA maps and I believe that it is better a map being FFA only or 1v1 only, as it is lame to recycle a same map for totally different stuff (the only case in which I think it is cool having multiple games per map is when each one is representing a different starting point in time, like in v3 1941 and 1942).