From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26420 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2004 21:12:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact xconq7-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: xconq7-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26397 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2004 21:12:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net) (81.228.10.102) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 4 Jun 2004 21:12:21 -0000 Received: by av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix, from userid 502) id 35E4B37E51; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:12:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp4-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (smtp4-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net [81.228.10.180]) by av15-1-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207A637E4E; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:12:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [212.181.162.155] (h155n1fls24o1048.bredband.comhem.se [212.181.162.155]) by smtp4-2-sn4.m-sp.skanova.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51DB237E45; Fri, 4 Jun 2004 23:12:20 +0200 (CEST) X-Sender: u22611592@m1.226.comhem.se Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <4D5CCCBE-B1B1-11D8-98DA-0003934474B0@mac.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Fri, 04 Jun 2004 21:12:00 -0000 To: Tom Schaub From: Hans Ronne Subject: Re: (Mac?) Interface q's Cc: xconq7@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2004/txt/msg00459.txt.bz2 >I am concerned that my play habits may be sufficiently unorthodox that >I may be unintentionally testing little-used portions of the Xconq code >or little-explored interaction between code segments. Similarly, I fear >that games I develop would be inadequately tested for "normal" users if >I'm using a strange set-up. So... It is only good if you test little used options, since that is where we are going to find new bugs. Your testing of the Mac survey mode was helpful in revealing several bugs. >First, how common is use of the Sequential option? I prefer this form >of play, since I am usually playing solitaire. Is the structure of the >Xconq code such that separate testing of a game module is needed to >assure proper behavior in simultaneous, multi-player mode? It used to be the case that some games were simultaneous mode only, and some sequential only. However, I enabled both modes in all games when I updated the game library earlier this year. Similarly, the world-seen and see-all options were also enabled in all games. This in order to provide more variation and player freedom. If a game module works in sequential mode, it should also work in simultaneous mode, and vice versa. So you should not have to worry about this as a game designer. If you find a feature that works in only one mode, this is a bug. >Second, what is the "standard" or most usual setup for the following >interface parameters: > >1) Move on click >2) Auto jump next >3) Auto end turn The standard (default) option is to have all three on. However, the interfaces differ in how these three settings are handled. In the tcltk interface, move on click and auto jump next are always toggled on or off together. The two modes are called "move mode" (both on) and "survey mode" (both off) and you can toggle mode either by clicking the button at the top of the control panel, by switching mode in the Side menu, or by just hitting the "z" key. The "map" help node in the tcltk interface claims that auto end trun also is toggled off in survey mode, but this is not true. In fact, you cannot at present turn auto end turn off in the tcltk interface. This is either a bug or a documentation error, depending on how you look at it. In the Mac native interface, you have more freedom. All three settings can be toggled individually from the Side menu. In addition, move on click and auto jump next can be toggled together by clicking a control panel button or hitting the "z" key, just as in the tcltk interface. I have contemplated some changes that would make the two interfaces more similar to each other. Specifically, to add the ability to turn off auto end turn in the tcltk interface, and to eliminate the possibility of toggling move on click and auto jump next independently of each other in the mac interface. The latter possibility can give rise to confusing situations, as your play testing of these little used options revelaed. >Third, is there some way to manually select the next unit to give >orders to when "move on click" is true? No. I always switch to survey mode (by hitting the "z" key) if I want to pick the next unit myself. >Fourth, is there any way to control the order in which "auto jump" >visits my units (at the player interface level, not the game design >level)? Not at present. I guess one could write new interface code that prompts the player to select the new unit, but this would not be trivial to do. Hans