-
Please note: In an effort to ensure that all of our users feel welcome on our forums, we’ve updated our forum rules. You can review the updated rules here: http://forums.wolflair.com/showthread.php?t=5528.
If a fellow Community member is not following the forum rules, please report the post by clicking the Report button (the red yield sign on the left) located on every post. This will notify the moderators directly. If you have any questions about these new rules, please contact support@wolflair.com.
- The Lone Wolf Development Team
Ability to change options...
- Thread starter Warmonger
- Start date
At 02:18 PM 6/3/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to change certain options in an
>option.
>
>Such as using a script to evaluate if a certain ruleset is chosen, and if
>it is, to say, enable the footnote choice of the option, or to change the
>show setting of the option.
You can change the visibility of the option by using option[id].visibility
= 0 or 1, but you can't change things like the footnote state. If you could
do that, what would you try and do with it?
>I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to change certain options in an
>option.
>
>Such as using a script to evaluate if a certain ruleset is chosen, and if
>it is, to say, enable the footnote choice of the option, or to change the
>show setting of the option.
You can change the visibility of the option by using option[id].visibility
= 0 or 1, but you can't change things like the footnote state. If you could
do that, what would you try and do with it?
To me this sounds like the Magic options from AB2.0 Warhammer Fantasy...Select one option and it's in the list, select another and it's a footnote? I think the concept is to not have to create a completely second set of identical information for a footnote option and a list...
What I'm confused about is why you'd want to control this behavior on a
per-option basis? I would think you'd either want to use footnotes or not,
so that's how AB was designed. Please explain the rationale of this one to
me....
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (408) 927-9880
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
per-option basis? I would think you'd either want to use footnotes or not,
so that's how AB was designed. Please explain the rationale of this one to
me....
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (408) 927-9880
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
Some users preffer to have the info directly on the list, while others feel it's only nescessary to refference it once at the end of the list...It's a personal prefference thing...
In the afformentioned WFB example, I preffer my wizzards to have the spells on list individually so that I can mark which ones I get (it's random every game) but some people don't want that much info repeated over and over when they can simply print it once at the end of the list and mark the spell numbers next to each wizard...
Some options (like spells) have a paragraph or more of info which would need to be typed for both versions otherwise...
In the afformentioned WFB example, I preffer my wizzards to have the spells on list individually so that I can mark which ones I get (it's random every game) but some people don't want that much info repeated over and over when they can simply print it once at the end of the list and mark the spell numbers next to each wizard...
Some options (like spells) have a paragraph or more of info which would need to be typed for both versions otherwise...
So for an individual user, the preference would be all or nothing, eh? That
seems to make sense. It also makes for a COMPLETELY different solution to
the problem.
The solution would be to allow users to turn on/off footnotes. When turned
off, any options that are designated as footnotes would be treated as
normal options. When turned on, the footnotes would be honored, as
specified by the data file author. So the author would decide what stuff
makes sense to treat as footnotes, and then the user can override the
behavior as he sees fit.
This is something that could be done without a great deal of complexity in
the code.
-Rob
At 09:33 PM 6/4/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>Some users preffer to have the info directly on the list, while others
>feel it's only nescessary to refference it once at the end of the
>list...It's a personal prefference thing...
>
>In the afformentioned WFB example, I preffer my wizzards to have the
>spells on list individually so that I can mark which ones I get (it's
>random every game) but some people don't want that much info repeated over
>and over when they can simply print it once at the end of the list and
>mark the spell numbers next to each wizard...
>
>Some options (like spells) have a paragraph or more of info which would
>need to be typed for both versions otherwise...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (408) 927-9880
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
seems to make sense. It also makes for a COMPLETELY different solution to
the problem.
The solution would be to allow users to turn on/off footnotes. When turned
off, any options that are designated as footnotes would be treated as
normal options. When turned on, the footnotes would be honored, as
specified by the data file author. So the author would decide what stuff
makes sense to treat as footnotes, and then the user can override the
behavior as he sees fit.
This is something that could be done without a great deal of complexity in
the code.
-Rob
At 09:33 PM 6/4/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>Some users preffer to have the info directly on the list, while others
>feel it's only nescessary to refference it once at the end of the
>list...It's a personal prefference thing...
>
>In the afformentioned WFB example, I preffer my wizzards to have the
>spells on list individually so that I can mark which ones I get (it's
>random every game) but some people don't want that much info repeated over
>and over when they can simply print it once at the end of the list and
>mark the spell numbers next to each wizard...
>
>Some options (like spells) have a paragraph or more of info which would
>need to be typed for both versions otherwise...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (408) 927-9880
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
Partly correct from what I was stating. To stick with the WFB scenario. Choices I would like to have: 1. Print the spells by the wizard. 2. Print the spells as a footnote. *3.* Print nothing at all, as I use the Spell Cards that were available on the website for download, so I want my roster to be 2 pages of units as opposed to 4 pages of spells I already have full info for!
So if this can be done..... COOL. But how? I'm missing how to do it. (Without creating two options for each spell to print or not print, and how.)
So if this can be done..... COOL. But how? I'm missing how to do it. (Without creating two options for each spell to print or not print, and how.)
At 03:03 AM 6/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>Partly correct from what I was stating. To stick with the WFB scenario.
>Choices I would like to have: 1. Print the spells by the wizard. 2. Print
>the spells as a footnote. *3.* Print nothing at all, as I use the Spell
>Cards that were available on the website for download, so I want my roster
>to be 2 pages of units as opposed to 4 pages of spells I already have full
>info for!
Sorry for the confusion. My focus was on the footnotes issue. By adding a
user option to enable/disable footnotes, the user can control between
options #1 and #2. Through selection of a user option provided by the
author, the user can control between options #1/#2 and #3 (i.e. print or not).
The issue that is important from my proposed approach is that the
enablement or not of footnotes would apply to ALL optoins - not just
spells. Other equipment options would either be put into footnotes or
detailed with each unit, according to the setting picked by the user.
Or do things have to be individually controlled for each option?
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (408) 927-9880
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
>Partly correct from what I was stating. To stick with the WFB scenario.
>Choices I would like to have: 1. Print the spells by the wizard. 2. Print
>the spells as a footnote. *3.* Print nothing at all, as I use the Spell
>Cards that were available on the website for download, so I want my roster
>to be 2 pages of units as opposed to 4 pages of spells I already have full
>info for!
Sorry for the confusion. My focus was on the footnotes issue. By adding a
user option to enable/disable footnotes, the user can control between
options #1 and #2. Through selection of a user option provided by the
author, the user can control between options #1/#2 and #3 (i.e. print or not).
The issue that is important from my proposed approach is that the
enablement or not of footnotes would apply to ALL optoins - not just
spells. Other equipment options would either be put into footnotes or
detailed with each unit, according to the setting picked by the user.
Or do things have to be individually controlled for each option?
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (408) 927-9880
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
if it could be individually controlled, i.e. user selects a ruleset which specifies use footnotes and this applies to all options, or selects another ruleset, they are then given text in the list and footnotes etc, so if the footnote switch could be controlled by script I think. Also an ability to group the footnotes by otpion type, i.e. to continue on the magic theme, fire spells, earth spells and the like, instead of everything being alphabetical
At 03:37 AM 6/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
>if it could be individually controlled, i.e. user selects a ruleset which
>specifies use footnotes and this applies to all options, or selects
>another ruleset, they are then given text in the list and footnotes etc,
>so if the footnote switch could be controlled by script I think.
OK, so it really sounds like you want fine-tuning control over footnotes,
as opposed to a blanket on/off state that would be controlled via the
Settings menu. I'll give some thought to how this could best be done.
>Also an ability to group the footnotes by otpion type, i.e. to continue on
>the magic theme, fire spells, earth spells and the like, instead of
>everything being alphabetical
What if the sort were done based on option category first and then
alphabetical within that category? This wouldn't address the grouping by
spell sub-categories, but it WOULD group all spells together, then all
weapons, etc.
There is no information available to AB to know what classifies as a fire
spell vs. an earth spell. The only information that AB has available is the
option category, which could definitely be used as the primary sort key,
but I have no idea how AB would deduce another level of sort that doesn't
exist within the data files. The only way to separate out the different
spell categories would be for them to be assigned to different option
categories.
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (408) 927-9880
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
>if it could be individually controlled, i.e. user selects a ruleset which
>specifies use footnotes and this applies to all options, or selects
>another ruleset, they are then given text in the list and footnotes etc,
>so if the footnote switch could be controlled by script I think.
OK, so it really sounds like you want fine-tuning control over footnotes,
as opposed to a blanket on/off state that would be controlled via the
Settings menu. I'll give some thought to how this could best be done.
>Also an ability to group the footnotes by otpion type, i.e. to continue on
>the magic theme, fire spells, earth spells and the like, instead of
>everything being alphabetical
What if the sort were done based on option category first and then
alphabetical within that category? This wouldn't address the grouping by
spell sub-categories, but it WOULD group all spells together, then all
weapons, etc.
There is no information available to AB to know what classifies as a fire
spell vs. an earth spell. The only information that AB has available is the
option category, which could definitely be used as the primary sort key,
but I have no idea how AB would deduce another level of sort that doesn't
exist within the data files. The only way to separate out the different
spell categories would be for them to be assigned to different option
categories.
-Rob
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowes (rob@wolflair.com) (408) 927-9880
Lone Wolf Development www.wolflair.com
In the spell example we could make sure they are items with specific tags...then they could be grouped by tag as well...Just a thought there...
Personally I like the idea of optional change to footnote, but I also want to make sure it's not an automaticly availabe feature to the user...In B5:CTA, for example, all of the weapon systems are items and pretty much unique to thier ships...trying to refference them in Footnotes would be a B!tc# as the user would need to make sure they have the right one for the right ship (Arc and AC vary for each weapon)...Could the ability to select be made by a checkbox in the Def file in the same manner as squads?
Personally I like the idea of optional change to footnote, but I also want to make sure it's not an automaticly availabe feature to the user...In B5:CTA, for example, all of the weapon systems are items and pretty much unique to thier ships...trying to refference them in Footnotes would be a B!tc# as the user would need to make sure they have the right one for the right ship (Arc and AC vary for each weapon)...Could the ability to select be made by a checkbox in the Def file in the same manner as squads?
If the overall options are controlled individually, by author coding, then it would be ideal I think. BFG like the B5:CTA Deathlynx is talking about, would be static, whereas other games can be more customized by the author. Sorting by category then alpha sounds fine to me. I hadn't realized it ignored category/priority until I was actually trying to organize stuff in a specific order for the footnotes.