Re: MAP, UNMAP and ITEM

[Kjetil Torgrim Homme <kjetilho>]

Rereading Mark's comments on my FLOOR proposal, I find that they were
negative :-(

+--- Mark Wedel:
| Floors are meant to be so you can not see anything below them.  This
| allows designers to put a button or teleporter or whatever else
| below a floor, with the player needing to figure it out.

That's a server issue - just don't send ITEM commands for those hidden
objects.

+---
| With the fact that you are only supposed to see the top floor
| object, there is no need to send more than 1 floor object for any
| space.

That's a tautology, and I don't agree with that "fact".

+---
| If you take the example of Goth's tavern on top of grass, the grass
| would be the floor, and the tavern would be a non floor object.
| [...]  With client/server, the client can display as many objects on
| one space as it is willing to.  If the client is displaying several
| objects, then the problem with an object on top of tavern with a
| grass floor is not a problem.

Let's consider a client which has upped the number of pixmaps per
square to three. The player drops a stack of objects on the entrance
to the tavern. What will the client display -- a figure standing on an
axe in a meadow, or a figure standing in front of a tavern? Both are
equally reasonable -- the client doesn't know what to do.

+---
| Also, I don't think any floor object (As done now) should have any
| type of masking, because by definition of what a floor is meant to
| do, you can't see anything below it in any case (so the masking just
| turns to white.)

That will complicate matters for little or no gain. I don't think
keeping separate name spaces for the images used in ITEM and MAP will
do any good at all. (Of course the client is free to draw the first
pixmap without masking - no one will see the difference)


Kjetil T.