On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 20:48:03 -0700, Mark Wedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My general thought was always that archetypes should be somewhat generic > objects - in other words, objects that map makers would likely find use for > in > all sorts of maps. > > Thus, even a highly complex object (that scored really high in the above > criteria) probably shouldn't be an archetype if there is very limited places > they would be used.
I agree. Although the idea of converting some things to archetypes sounds good, I would also like to keep archetypes as relatively generic things. If some object that is a modified version of an archetype appears in several maps, then this would be a good candidate to be put in a picker for all crossfire editors, but this does not necessarily mean that it should become a new archetype. Collecting new candidates for pickers in the map editors could be done semi-automatically. > If we do have scripts to find equivalent objects in maps, I wonder if > instead > making archetypes that could/should be put in the map directory (tools > directory > or something), and thus could be used to find such duplicates. So we don't > necessarily need them to be archetypes, we just need to be able to easily > find them. Right. I prefer to be able to identify quickly where these customized objects are used so that I can decide on a case-by-case basis which ones should be updated, instead of using an archetype that causes immediate changes to all instances when it is updated (even in places where the original version should have been kept). One more reason for me to come back to my map checking script that collects statistics about all objects. I haven't touched it since a long time... -Raphaël _______________________________________________ crossfire mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.metalforge.org/mailman/listinfo/crossfire
