Well, my reason for asking is that I have built (partially ) a dungeon warren and it is crucial for me to stick to the rules if sticking to the rules is crucial IYKWIM.

I would rather not faff about more than is completely neccassary TBH in getting my maps up on the server as there is still so much to do on them, and now days I have such little time. Once they are there however I will easier be able to enlist help to get the set ready.

I understand why there would be need of such a precedent, but the only way to link to my maps would be from an external angle.

Now the main problem Im going to have with "mapb_0000 is directly underneath map_0000" is that the maps underneath the maps are not called anything even remotely similar and probably aren't going to be

The 2nd line is more imperative and appropriate for this thread.  An example from the B4 maps....we have world_xxyy on top, the first level down (could have put an a on it since it  is the upper level of the underground set) is gt_xxyy, the 2nd level down is gtb_xxyy, the bottom level is gtc_xxyy  there is another one that uses a single map to go down through first 2 levels then the 2 playable levels of it  are on c_xxyy and d_xxyy  and d level actually is under a couple of other  places that go 2 or 3 levels down as well.  If they weren't named properly there could be space conflicts between them.  We are working hard at keeping it so that maps on the same level (even if different dungeons or whatever) *could* be tiled to make a complete lower level (think of the possibilities especially with dwarves being available for whole cities underground).

Renaming/reattaching a whole set isn't really that bad (I've had to rename about 60 maps in 1 batch, 23 in another, etc).  The hardest part is remembering which map was which.  Otherwise, it's just time-consuming, but a way to handle the attaching after the rename is to go in and edit more such as adding mobs, setting mob levels/abilities, or decorations or moving walls to fit better.

Just so you know, if one dungeon is below another, but isn't named the same thing, then you don't need to add "b" to any map file names. Example:

|world_0000 |
|giants_0002|

Visualize that world_0000 is the map above giants_0002 (the visualization is at the angle that you see the world's different crust layers in a science book). giants_0002 doesn't need to be giantsb_0000. However, if giants_0002 was named world_0002, then you'd need a b there (worldb_0002).

This could change at a later date... but i don't think so.

Cheers,
Unislash

Thanks guys, I made the neccassary changes.

Well, what Uni says doesn't quite tie in with what Longir said. I think that what Longir is saying is that maps (whatever they are called) should have an 'a' on the end if they are one level below the surface, a 'b' if two levels down and so on, so that anyone looking at the map can visualise its vertical position in the world.

That way, any two map sets ending in 'b' would be on the same level and should be checked for overlap.

However, world_0000 itself ends in 'd' so this could be construed as being 4 levels down . What it needs, of course, is an underscore between the map name and the level number (up) or letter (down).

IMO, this needs to be given some more careful thought to avoid these ambiguities.

I gotta be brutally frank about this:

If you have given the RAI some serious thought and started a great big clean up project then those sorts of issues should already have been recognised and become a standard, otherwise we will be renaming/reconnecting our maps until doomsday. It seems as though no-one is sure about this issue, can we get a true standard please?

Cheers, Trepie

EDIT: I think an underscore would work in this situation and solve the problem, but can we get that in writing

|World_0000|
|antwell_b_0000|
|antwell_c_0000|

Is this what we are looking at now?

Please note Trepie, I personally don't make the rules and am not involved in the RAI project, except to make suggestions where I see flaws.

Oh my apologies Grommit me lad, I wasn't aiming anything in any particular direction. Just generally 'you' being the Developers in question. Also for those Devs I would like to say that I'm not cursing you, just asking for support on this issue... And of course wondering if there are any other instances of 'missed' standard 'to be added later;

trepie i can help you with what you need to know if you would vever get on yahoo lol
or the raiders IRC chat

*grrr's at trepie never loging on anywhere*

by what ya sed in the raiders post it would seem your haveing a bit of truble

@Planes, just got your latest commit email re races and classification. Ecample of new directory structure:

arch/mobs/life/animal/deuterostomes/chordata/mammal/quadreped/dog/dog_cute/dog.iw.113.png

Erm this is way too complex. Hardly anyone is going to know what a deuterostome or chordate is. In fact I only did after I looked them up five minutes ago.

Also, why are they pluralised?

Also quadruped is spelled thusly.

I think you're creating an unnescessarily complicated standard. Therefore no-one will stick to it, because they won't understand it/see the point. Therefore it won't improve on the current (standardless) situation.

@All, I'm going to have to start flaming RAI again soon. I think the underlying idea -- standardisation of the arches -- is good, but the implementation is misguided, directionless, unplanned, and poorly timed (I don't think it is wise to retrospectively change the arches in a way that will break maps after hundreds of maps and scripts for B4 have been made/designed referencing the current arches). The whole thing seems to be intent on making standards without following any standard itself. Why?

:lol: This really has got your feathers ruffled hasn't it?

Is this going to affect the way archs are organised in map editor?
I have to confess I had some trouble finding things at first cos they sometimes appear in strange categories, but you get used to it. It took me about 15 mins to find a curtain (door) but now i know where it is i can find it no problem.
 don't really see why this is neccessary...

We're looking at the arches/maps through the editor Theo, becuase we use the end product. Other people skip through the files looking at the names (for whatever peverse reasons they can think of) and the naming convention will mean they will know what the picture is/where the map goes just looking at the title, without opening the file.

Yes and no Talw. The dir names are only really important to the editor. And it will only use the dirs under arch/ and the subdirs under those. So the above example will go into the mobs tab and then from the dropdown menu thing you can choose 'life' which will display all (and only) life mobs (unless Gridarta is also changing to reflect whatever is happening in RAI). This is really not helpful.

The many dirs below that are pretty useless to anyone except the taxonomist. For people adding more arches they'll have to spend a half hour navigating through stacks of incomprehensibly named subdirs trying to find out where to put their  new files.

EDIT: Actually a third level is useful for organisation of the files, ie, mobs/animal/cat and mobs/animal/dog. but is not used by the editor.

Or in fact they'll give up after 5 minutes and either not bother adding new arches of just stick them in the topmost subdir that looks vaguely reasonable.

smacky: well i have to admit i did spell that wrong and that i didn't know they were pluralized (sorry there)

Secondly, i placed the classifications in that way because of the massive build-up of single directory files.

heres an example- all demi-humans were grouped together, and what happens if someone (gor forbit) makes a town of knolls, with a knoll tavernkeeper- and such- well, you now have a set of "demihumans" with 20 more arches in an already crowded folder

Now what if someone wants to increase this trouble with- tada- knomes, and yet another center of goblins, all with more mobs and acrches- well, now you have a fairly big mess.

Another issue i had when MAKING arches and mobs when i was doing so was the problem of scrolling three pages just to find a mob and it would have 20 other files (other mobs) scattered within it as well.  Its nice when windoze- arrange by such and such works, but sometimes the names are similar and windows just mixes them even worse (fish.101.png will come between fish.101.b.png and fish.101.teal.png- not a good example, i know but i've had problems like this)

and furthermore, it also makes it very difficult to find mobs/mob groups when there are soooo many of them in one folder (a 2 image and arch file mob in 80+ files can be annoying sometimes)

Now, i just talked to longir about this- as he was the one who told me to "be as specific as you want"- and i had no knowledge that the editor only works 2 levels deep.  (i have used it but its been a while)

and knowing your concerns and frustration, i will rework it, but i want yall to know i had the best of intentions, and we wouldn't have figured this out had it not happened!

so... without further ado- i will be changing it, and you can post on the reworking!

I thought the editor was being upgraded to use folders more than 2 levels deep? At least that's the impression I got from something Longir said "when Cher implements what I asked him to" or words to that effect.

Oh yes, and I agree with Smacky one can go overboard with sub-sub-sub-classification. And I don't know what a deuterostome is either, though I can guess it should mean something like "two-bowels"? Did I win a cigar?

My vote would be 3 levels deep at the most, together with support from the editor.