Onionfighter wrote:Mqrius wrote:You can use a different client, of course, to opt out of sending map data.
If you like the idea so much, why don't you make a client so you can opt
in.
That was the idea, I was considering making a client which would upload map data automatically, so people who want to help with the world mapping effort won't have to go through the hassle of uploading manually, and we won't have to fit the parts manually, and we won't get bad quality or badly merged maps.
Onionfighter wrote:And your other arguments are also garbage.
Please get lost if you have nothing better to say than personal attacks. I'm all for discussions, but I won't do a flame war.
Gulluoglu wrote:Mqrius wrote:You can use a different client, of course, to opt out of sending map data.
No kidding, but this conversation was about playing the game with
this particular client. Is the idea of some tickbox or yes or no option that says 'send all map data you accumulate this play session to BillyBobsBigMapServer' problematic to you for those that would like to use this client but not participate in mapping?
My view of things was a seperate client (Not pacho or gilbertus) that would be aimed at mapping. I currently have both pacho and gilbertus, and use them in different circumstances. The idea of a toggle is not "problematic to me" (
), but if you were to download a client especially for mapping, with not much other functions, I don't see why you would want to turn it off. Of course, if this functionality would get included in a different client, a toggle would make sense.
Gulluoglu wrote:Mqrius wrote:The minimap update is not realtime; it takes a while for the minimap to show your new constructions ingame. Not sure how long. As long as it's not updated, the third party can't get the data either.
Yep, I'm aware the minimap is not updated realtime. You are also just as aware that it is usually updated in less than 24 hours. This lack of realtime updating does not make you safer from raiding, which was the argument being made about security. It maybe cushions you a day at most.
True. I admit that this would be a drawback. It's hard to slove though; you can't make it so it won't upload those areas that have your village, because the client doesn't know where it starts, and thus doesn't know where your village is. I'm open to ideas though, I see this more as a brainstorming discussion than as me defending some idea set in stone.
Gulluoglu wrote:Mqrius wrote:Ah, but you see, this is that segment of the playerbase enjoying making a map, combining all knowledge of the world...
No, seriously, I understand. I like exploring, I like making maps. The question to this segment of the playerbase was: What happens when the majority or entirety of the world gets automapped? Is the game now less fun? I don't know the answer to that but I suspect it would be less exciting to wander around since the sense of wonder is gone.
I don't know if the game would be less fun, but your argument seems strange; you say we should make maps and get to know our surroundings, but only up to a certain degree? I do enjoy making a large map, and so do others. There are also a lot of people who would really like having a world map, for convenience. Should we value the 'explorers' over the 'traders'? I don't know.
Gulluoglu wrote:Finally, in my opinion, people are right to be bit uneasy about the introduction of an idea that requires an altered client to send game-related information back and forth to some third party server that is not directly controlled by the HnH boys anyway.
DatOneGuy wrote:Here's the problem with the whole upload the map idea really...
If your client is uploading ANYTHING at any point to anywhere but the HnH servers, I opt out if I'm not compiling it from source, and even then I'm skeptical as all fuck.
Would it be a way to get maps faster? Yes.
Is it good security practice and will anyone with more than half a brain use it? No.
If you can have the maps compile in a way that is easy to compare them to other maps and mix maps together then it will work out fine and people can donate their maps to someone, or hell have a tool that goes along with it (another java program) that allows you to upload the maps.
As long as there is code to upload elsewhere to your 'personal site' or whatever, it's a problem. Look at how many people use Pacho's, now imagine if Pacho's had that code and one update it just tossed in the code to upload username/passwords?
I do understand the security concerns, and for that reason (and more) I would of course make it open source. I don't care for your passwords, but I understand you'd have to take my word for it. I also would like to note that for example pacho's client could have an update that uploads userdata right now, it doesn't need to have the map upload functionality.
My aim with a client like this, would be to make it easy for people to upload maps. No manual hassle involved, everything is done for you automatically. But I guess if everyone thinks that's too big of a security risk, it would not take off anyway, and I would have to look at different options, for example what you mentioned, having a tool that does everything, but that you run seperately.
by swordsmanM » Tue Sep 07, 2010 3:24 pm 
