Follow-up Comment #9, patch #3186 (project wesnoth):
The place where a user clicks to initiate movement is rather arbitrary -- the
player could be moving one hex at a time, moving a few hexes at a time,
setting the unit's entire movement for the turn, or even scheduling a
multi-turn move. When writing WML, I think I would find it more useful if
$x2,$y2 was the second hex in the route, rather than the last, for a movefrom
event.
Similarly, setting $x2,$y2 to the next hex in the route during a movethrough
event would probably be more useful than other hexes. (One example that
springs to mind is implementing cliff faces, if it weren't for movethrough not
firing for occupied hexes.) If both movefrom and movethrough used the same
sort of scheme for the secondary hex (such as the secondary hex being the next
hex in the route), then you can avoid situations where a player can skip
certain results by stopping in a hex associated with a movethrough. (For
example, moving one hex at a time would not trigger any movethrough's, but
presumably a WML author would not want that to circumvent a carefully planned
event. And if that event used $x2,$y2, then a movefrom in the current
implementation would not be an adequate alternative.)
Why introduce a [stop_action] tag instead of using a scheme similar to that
used by other events (interrupt the move unless the event contains an
[allow_undo])?
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://gna.org/patch/?3186>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Gna!
http://gna.org/
_______________________________________________
Wesnoth-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-bugs
