Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Analysis of stealth, steamroller, and wings flags #4

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jan 26, 2019
Merged

Analysis of stealth, steamroller, and wings flags #4

merged 2 commits into from Jan 26, 2019

Conversation

tainn
Copy link
Contributor

@tainn tainn commented Jan 6, 2019

No description provided.

Copy link
Member

@jwmelto jwmelto left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for your submission. It's really helpful to have people join the team. I haven't looked at any of the other documentation work, so if your stuff is consistent with the rest, then take my comments with a grain of salt.

_documentation/user/flags/stealth.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_documentation/user/flags/stealth.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_documentation/user/flags/steamroller.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_documentation/user/flags/steamroller.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_documentation/user/flags/steamroller.md Show resolved Hide resolved
_documentation/user/flags/steamroller.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_documentation/user/flags/wings.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_documentation/user/flags/wings.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_documentation/user/flags/wings.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
_documentation/user/flags/wings.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@tainn
Copy link
Contributor Author

tainn commented Jan 6, 2019

@jwmelto; thank you for your comment, it is appreciated. I wrote the documentation with an entirely different mindset than I now get to see is actually sought after. I'll reform the entire documentation from grounds up, focusing more on analytical examination and breakdown.

@allejo allejo mentioned this pull request Jan 6, 2019
41 tasks
@allejo
Copy link
Member

allejo commented Jan 7, 2019

Thank you so much @tainn1 for your contribution, we really appreciate it!

Overall feedback: it looks really good! I wouldn't go as far as starting over. I agree with @jwmelto's feedback on how to keep the documentation more objective so those just changes really necessary.


Something for the project to figure out is how we want to standardize documentation. What headings do we want to use across all flag docs? We currently have Tactics alone in git but I'm liking the headings used in this PR.

As for mentions of BZDB variables, we also need to decide on how much we should mention them. I'd lean towards brief summaries of them in the flag docs so server owners and map makers know which variables are tied to the flag. But actually being able to configure them, should be left to separate documentation (BZDB docs) when we eventually get to documenting that.

@allejo allejo added the in progress A PR currently waiting for more work to be done label Jan 7, 2019
@allejo allejo requested a review from blast007 January 7, 2019 02:45
@allejo allejo added this to In progress in Website Redesign via automation Jan 7, 2019
@tainn
Copy link
Contributor Author

tainn commented Jan 7, 2019

@allejo; thank you for your feedback.

I agree that having some sort of standardization would be good. That said, though, it might prove to be quite difficult to achieve it, at the very least more than initially anticipated.

To connect this with your second point that is BZDB variables, it just becomes an inconsistent mess if we truly want to analyze these flags in their full functionality. That is because BZDB variables range from one flag not even having them, all the way to the flag's actual potency being entirely in the hands of the slight changes and modifications to these variables.

As such, if we wanted to fully analyze flags, we would be required to include BZDB mentions extensively at some, less so at others, and be unable to have them in yet others (such as stealth), since those flags don't have their own variables to modify. Due to that being the case, standardization could be an issue.

One approach could be to just assume all BZDB variables are default and examine the flags from there, it shouldn't be an issue to reach some sort of a standard from there. It would also make our lives much easier, but since these variables play such a big role, we would have to mention them in some place. Perhaps externally and in a document that is specific for them, in order to keep the pages clean, but that's just one of the ideas.

Then comes another issue that is the demand to actually change the default values of the BZDB variables to balance out the potency of flags, which could make the flag documentation outdated right away if we were to do it prior to the changes of defaults, and should our documentation truly focus on defaults.

@allejo allejo requested a review from jwmelto January 25, 2019 05:40
@allejo allejo added needs review A PR is currently being reviewed or needs to be reviewed and removed in progress A PR currently waiting for more work to be done labels Jan 25, 2019
@blast007 blast007 merged commit c0b27e2 into BZFlag-Dev:redesign Jan 26, 2019
Website Redesign automation moved this from In progress to Done Jan 26, 2019
@blast007
Copy link
Member

Thanks! This has been merged.

@allejo allejo removed the needs review A PR is currently being reviewed or needs to be reviewed label Jan 26, 2019
@tainn tainn deleted the documentation/flags_tainn branch January 31, 2019 23:32
@allejo allejo added the documentation Relating to the documentation section of the site label Feb 24, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
documentation Relating to the documentation section of the site
Projects
No open projects
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants