Talk:GCA Data File
From GCAWiki
Contents |
Structure
I'm not sure how we want this structured, but I've thrown up a basic skeleton to get ball rolling. — tmedwards 18:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Looks good, maybe examples would be a good thing as well. Both as small examples within the descriptions and (also small) complete files linked. --Bjork 13:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks much for getting the ball rolling, and to you and Bjork both for starting with the content. -- Armin
Content
General
Started to add some content by simply copy-pasting it from the update page. The page will get too long with this approach but at least we begin to sort in new info so Armin doesn't have to. --Bjork 13:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not terribly worried about page length. That's what the TOC is for and, if length does become problematic down the line, we can always split the page into logical subpages then. My mantra is: populate with data first, asses need of subpages second. — tmedwards 14:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- That my mantra as well :) --Bjork 07:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please review a page before adding content to it. You're duplicating data that's already in the page. (see: LoadAfter) — tmedwards 14:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I noticed that myself. I think it was due to being a bit confused about the difference between commands, directives, and header variables. --Bjork 07:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I almost wish Armin had chosen different sigils for commands and directives instead of using hash/pound (#) for both. Oh well, c'est la vie. The short description of each is something like: commands are executed at the GDF level, at file load, while directives are executed at the character level, during addition to a character. — tmedwards 09:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I chose # for commands because it's uncommon, so I like to use it for flagging things. Later, when directives were created, I'd already used #, but couldn't think of another character that worked as well, so I reused it. If I'd created directives first, I may well have used something else for the file commands, since they also have to begin a line, making them easy to spot regardless. -- Armin 20:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- I almost wish Armin had chosen different sigils for commands and directives instead of using hash/pound (#) for both. Oh well, c'est la vie. The short description of each is something like: commands are executed at the GDF level, at file load, while directives are executed at the character level, during addition to a character. — tmedwards 09:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Careful when adding GCA Commands and/or Directives. You cannot start a line with a naked Command/Directive or the Wiki will take their hash-sigil (#) as part of a numbered list. Wrapping them in a <nowiki> or <tt> tag will fix the problem, although I'd prefer <tt> for various reasons. — tmedwards 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint and for fixing it. --Bjork 07:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. I hadn't noticed it myself until I had looked at the page several times. :) — tmedwards 08:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Tags
I just dropped in the full list of tags GCA recognizes, regardless of where (traits, modifiers, bonuses) they come from, and including some that are only recognized when reading GCA2 characters. Doing so suggests to me that I might actually prefer all the tags in one long list, without a Special section (although a recognized User/Custom section for things such as tags used by Phoenix is a good idea). I think one list would make it easier to reference, although perhaps the Special section could reference items in the main list. Anyway, I'll try to put in some explanation for some of these so you can see what I'm thinking about tags.-- Armin 20:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
- The "Special" subsection is just poorly named, apparently. My intention was to document the "Special/Known-to-GCA" tags with it. Essentially, all the tags you just entered. Perhaps something like "System" or "Recognized" would be a better name for that subsection. — tmedwards 00:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I didn't get that, sorry. System Tags works for me. -- Armin 04:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- You know, a bunch of the tags in my list really have nothing to do with GDF files, so they could be left out. However, I find it a bit annoying to look for tags in different locations, so I just lumped them all together. Perhaps some differing thoughts on that? -- Armin 04:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, after they're written up, we could always copy them all to another page, sort of a master/complete tag list page. And on the other pages, only have copies of the tags that are relevant to the page in question. — tmedwards 05:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- An alternative to one list is to use the Category functionality of the Wiki, that way the tags can be spread out over several pages and the system automatically provides the list.--Bjork 12:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, after they're written up, we could always copy them all to another page, sort of a master/complete tag list page. And on the other pages, only have copies of the tags that are relevant to the page in question. — tmedwards 05:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
[CONVERTDICE]
RE: [CONVERTDICE] - Unless I'm completely wrong shouldn't there be some text about that after a conversion rule has been applied, the system checks again for the same rule? Before checking the next rule? So, for the default case, 1d+19, first gets converted to 3d+12, then 5d+5, then 6d+1? --Bjork 10:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've always found that to be a natural assumption from the context, but you're correct, the docs should spell the usage out clearly. I've added the following bit to clarify usage: "When applied, each instruction is used, repeatedly, until its breakvalue test fails, at which point processing continues with the next instruction, if any." Seems good to everyone? — tmedwards 15:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for the updates to that section, I should have included that info. And thanks for adjusting the presentation. -- Armin 20:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
[EQUIPMENT]
RE: ammocost? Is ammocost a good name for the tag of the cost of a reload? (since HT has started to add info about this) --Bjork 16:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
- I dunno. I'm kind of ignorant of a bunch of the books right now. If ammo cost is how they refer to it in the book, and it's a data point for the weapons, then it sounds like a good tag to me. Otherwise, I'd usually leave it out and just have the ammunition with its own cost as equipment items. -- Armin 17:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking of the way they give weapons stats in High-Tech (and any other book Hans-Christian Vortisch has been involved in). Here's what is said on High-Tech page 79:
- RoF: Firearms capable of firing high-cyclic controlled bursts (p. 83) have a number sign (#) after RoF.
- Shots: Weapons that can load an additional round directly into the chamber (p. 88) have a “+1” appended to Shots.
- Bulk: Weapons with folding or retracting stocks (p. 160) have an asterisk (*) next to Bulk. With stock folded, Bulk improves a step (e.g., from -4 to -3).
- Rcl: Shotguns have two Rcl figures. Use the first when firing shot, the second when firing slugs or other single projectiles.
- Cost: Weapons with detachable magazines (or other removable feed devices) have two costs separated by a slash. The first is the price of an unloaded weapon with one empty magazine. The second is the price of a spare empty magazine.
- basically what they are doing is having special cases for nearly all stats so they can' always be assumed to be numbers. Might be better to split them up in the data files... --Bjork 18:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Ah. You may want to bring this up over on the beta list so Eric can be involved. He may actually be doing something, or have thoughts on this, that I've forgotten about. -- Armin 19:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- basically what they are doing is having special cases for nearly all stats so they can' always be assumed to be numbers. Might be better to split them up in the data files... --Bjork 18:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Conventions
RE: Conventions - Put this in as an example of how general design thoughts behind the naming of tags could be explained. Of course, the example might be wrong! (and the prefix idea doesn't seem to be used in the same way for "pre") --Bjork 10:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think "char" and "pre" are the only real tag-naming conventions at this point. "Pre" probably fails the same rules for "char" because it's not named specifically as "pre-" some other tag, but as "pre-" some calculation point, and while doing so I don't always think about the tag that may or may not exist to store the calculation point for which I'm pre-storing values. This likely makes it less useful for noting as a formal convention. -- Armin 20:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Directives
I'm not entirely happy with the kinds of formatting I can do in the wiki. Note that I say *I* can do, because it's entirely possible I just don't know the more useful stuff yet. Compare what I've done here with the #List directive, with what I just did on the Docs page <http://www.misersoft.com/gca/filespec/directives.html> for it. I'd like something more structured, I think, like what I have on the Docs page. If I can't just shift all the docs from the Docs page to here, there's not much incentive for me to contribute here instead of there, since it's not really any easier to edit the stuff for me here vs. there, and I like the structure better (right now) over there. Should I just work there, and not be concerned that people would have to look at both places? I'd prefer just to have everything in one place. A bit rambling, sorry. -- Armin 01:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I found that I can do tables, and can adjust the background for them, so I can even theoretically duplicate the format I use at the docs page. I'll consider that some. -- Armin 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The old directives docs give me the hives, but I guess that's just me. Regardless, yes, some extra structure wouldn't hurt. I switched the append(), prepend(), flags() entries in the #List directive to definition lists, rather than ordered lists. See how that grabs you. Other than that, tables might be the only way to go. The default options certainly don't allow you much markup flexibility. — tmedwards 05:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want anyone to get hives ;-) Anyway, I'm now not sure that much more control is needed, and tables probably aren't. I've updated the layout of #List again, and I like it the way it is *much* more than before. The definition lists do help. I've taken the function template out of the section title, because I think it looks messy there. Anyway, you can see what I've done. What do you think? I'm not sure the block quotes are required, but without them I think some of the readability is lost. A way to call out the Template and Available Tags sections a bit more might also work, instead. -- Armin 19:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not bad, not too bad at all. I think we have a winner. :) We can always switch from block quotes to something else later if it seems like we should, I don't mind fixing stuff like that, but using the blockquote tag right now seems like a good idea. Those sub-sections look better set off like that, makes it instantly clear what goes with what. — tmedwards 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Woo hoo! -- Armin 07:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not bad, not too bad at all. I think we have a winner. :) We can always switch from block quotes to something else later if it seems like we should, I don't mind fixing stuff like that, but using the blockquote tag right now seems like a good idea. Those sub-sections look better set off like that, makes it instantly clear what goes with what. — tmedwards 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want anyone to get hives ;-) Anyway, I'm now not sure that much more control is needed, and tables probably aren't. I've updated the layout of #List again, and I like it the way it is *much* more than before. The definition lists do help. I've taken the function template out of the section title, because I think it looks messy there. Anyway, you can see what I've done. What do you think? I'm not sure the block quotes are required, but without them I think some of the readability is lost. A way to call out the Template and Available Tags sections a bit more might also work, instead. -- Armin 19:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm. Making/nicking some templates might be a way to get more formatting control. — tmedwards 05:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- I could swear there was a config value that could be tweaked to allow more (X)HTML markup, but I can't find it now. — tmedwards 05:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- The old directives docs give me the hives, but I guess that's just me. Regardless, yes, some extra structure wouldn't hurt. I switched the append(), prepend(), flags() entries in the #List directive to definition lists, rather than ordered lists. See how that grabs you. Other than that, tables might be the only way to go. The default options certainly don't allow you much markup flexibility. — tmedwards 05:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
