Map Versioning

posted on April 30th, 2010, 2:55 am

Need a way to version maps and download appropriately.

I.e. I host using
Player 1 joins has  
Player 2 joins has


I and Player two need to download Map v.3.

posted on April 30th, 2010, 2:57 am

That sounds like a good idea but it would be hard to do if im not mistaken

posted on April 30th, 2010, 7:02 am

but for now you can just host it on this site (if download on forum is working?)

it's quick, fast, and easy

posted on April 30th, 2010, 7:03 am

another good idea, but i fear there might be some problems about implementing it. I will note it down as an idea

posted on May 1st, 2010, 10:59 am

I include versioning within the map titles of my maps, to combat this very issue. The actual file names are the same between versions so that when you dl a new version it will overwrite the old one. You can then check which version you have by loading up the game and looking in your maps list.

I think an easy workaround is to simply have a map making convention where all map makers include version numbers in their map titles.

posted on May 1st, 2010, 12:27 pm

as far as i know maps are not transferred if you already have a map with the same name, but i could be wrong. somebody could try that

posted on May 1st, 2010, 1:39 pm

as far as i know maps are not transferred if you already have a map with the same name, but i could be wrong. somebody could try that

Indeed this is correct - makes it slightly frustrating however when a host is trying to give you a redone version of an old map, and you have to delete your old map first  . Not too big of a deal, just a an annoyance.

posted on May 1st, 2010, 4:08 pm

Yeah I come across this a lot when I'm asking people to help me test the new maps.

  I'll share the map with a few people, then update it under the same name to fix pathing, placement, etc ... and there will be issues because they can't dl it until they manually delete the previous versions.


  It is a bit of a pain indeed, but I feel that as long as there are "official" releases of each map, most people end up sticking with that one.

posted on May 1st, 2010, 4:39 pm

I think if map makers follow the following general guidelines then version matching shouldn't be too much of an issue:

1. The txt, bmp and bzn files for any given map should always be constant between versions so that any new versions will simply over write it.

2. Maps themselves should have an identifying version within their release. I propose that the version number be included here, so that people can quickly see what versions they have (a bit messy but it's functional):

In this case I have Sigma Draconis 1.2 and Tau Ceti 1.0. However, the core bzn files exclude the version number to comply with the first guideline.

3. I suppose this one is optional but it really does "complete the package", I think; Make sure you keep a short, summarised log of all of the changes you've made between versions so that dl'ers can see what changes they're downloading. Then include the log either web based or in a readme.
(If a map maker includes a Readme then I think it should go into a "Readme Files" Folder inside the BZN Folder, to reduce clutter).

4. Package the files into an archive, with file paths included and instruct people to dl to their Fleet Ops Directory.

Of course, as a player, you will still need to keep abreast of any new releases but identifying versions and updating should now be a case of a quick email/IM/visittotheinternet of a single archive and extraction to the correct directory. Maybe this, or something similar, could be added to the HGtFO?

Standardisation ftw!

Any thoughts?

posted on May 1st, 2010, 4:43 pm

If someone would like to write it up exactly as they'd like to see it, I'll of course include it in the guide

posted on May 1st, 2010, 4:46 pm

Yeah but I don't like adding version numbers to my map names .  I only want to do that if it's a complete re-do of another map or a fundamental change.

posted on May 1st, 2010, 11:35 pm

wouldn't it be better to include the version number in the file name? like blastinggrounds100, blastinggrounds104 or something? that way newer maps can be distributed via normal download

posted on May 1st, 2010, 11:51 pm

Actually I've done that as well, (Final Frontier / Final Frontier II use different filenames) and I've found that frankly it makes it worse.  Because it doesn't copy over the old version, people continue to play it either by accident or on purpose.

  As a map-maker, it sucks to improve one of your maps, rename it slightly (by renaming the file), and have people continue to play the older and less balanced version.

  I have had to specifically ask people in games to not play Final Frontier I anymore and instead use FF2.  Some didn't like me requesting control over the contents of their map folder .

posted on May 2nd, 2010, 10:27 am

hm, yep, why not let people play what they want to. the map with the highest fun rating will always dominante

posted on May 2nd, 2010, 10:50 am

i agree, if you distribute a map, then people can use whatever version they want. i mean what if microsoft suddenly told you you're not allowed to use windows xp anymore and said upgrade to vista/7 (for free) or we'll brick your machine. what if you simply like xp more than vista/7? (assuming your machine is capable of running both) would you like bill gates telling you what to do? (like steve jobs does  >:( )

i know its an exaggerated example but if you put up ffI for play then people can play it when they want lol. i mean what if people just like it better than ffII or cant be bothered upgrading to II.