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

A better way to handle Entrance Rando #40

Closed
TheT113 opened this issue Nov 14, 2019 · 2 comments
Closed

A better way to handle Entrance Rando #40

TheT113 opened this issue Nov 14, 2019 · 2 comments
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@TheT113
Copy link

TheT113 commented Nov 14, 2019

Instead of the "View Entrances" button, have each entrance (as it appears on the View Entrances list) listed under it's island, instead. If so, adding some kind of indicator to the map showing which areas have entrances to check (whether it's merely, adding a number to the number of checks on that tile, or adding a separate value).

As an additional ideal feature, I'd love to see: when you mark an entrance as belonging to a specific (non-dungeon) cave, moving that cave's checks to the new location would be an incredibly useful feature to make it less tedious. But I understand why this would be harder.

@wooferzfg wooferzfg added the enhancement New feature or request label Nov 14, 2019
@wooferzfg wooferzfg changed the title [Suggestion] A better way to handle Entrance Rando A better way to handle Entrance Rando Apr 26, 2020
@wooferzfg
Copy link
Owner

Duplicate of #27

@wooferzfg wooferzfg marked this as a duplicate of #27 Aug 8, 2020
@wooferzfg wooferzfg added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Aug 8, 2020
@wooferzfg
Copy link
Owner

Planning to implement it this way: #270 (comment)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants