search

JPII / NavalBattle

Strategic turn-based naval game.
http://jpii.github.io/NavalBattle
GNU General Public License v3.0
3 stars 3 forks source link

More natural structures in OmniMap #73

Open maximusvladimir opened 11 years ago

maximusvladimir commented 11 years ago

I would like to see:

  1. Caves.
  2. Grass.
  3. Trees.
  4. Anmals.
  5. Baby Whales (their venom is stronger than a normal whale, because it is more concentrated).
  6. Detailed ships.
  7. Villages.

(It's going to look like Minecraft with an HD texture pack by the time I am done with it).

ThomasGaubert commented 11 years ago

Minecraft with an HD I never liked MC with an HD pack ;)

Sounds fine though, but we should get a semi-working game first.

maximusvladimir commented 11 years ago

Yeah, this is just an idea, I don't plan on adding this stuff anytime soon, which is why it is bumped to Beta 0.7.

ThomasGaubert commented 11 years ago

Okay, cool.

abauer commented 11 years ago

Definitely think this needs to move to Beta 0.8, its a feature

ThomasGaubert commented 11 years ago

Moved.

maximusvladimir commented 11 years ago

:frowning:

maximusvladimir commented 11 years ago

Honestly, I am somewhat upset at the fact that many issues are being closed that have not yet been achieved, and they are in future milestones.

In my opinion, when the time comes for these issues to apply for the current milestone, we can either bump it, or come to a mutual understanding about changing/removing an issue.

abauer commented 11 years ago

agree in part about the re-evaluate during the milestone... but i think this one can stay closed... None of the above-mentioned goals provide functionality

maximusvladimir commented 11 years ago

"but i think this one can stay closed... "

Ummm well this is a feature of Pavo, and I understand that it doesn't provide functionality for the game, but when I do move Pavo out of NavaBattle, I would also like to move issues that weren't completed either.

The point I was trying to make in my previous comment, is that instead of closing issues that we no longer "want", I think we should move them to like 1.1, so if we do want to implement them later, we don't forget about them. I understand that this particular issue is not part of this case.

abauer commented 11 years ago

agree, moving them to 1.1. is a viable solution;

(just saying, this SHOULD NOT BE DONE NOW) Another solution to this would have been to split pavo into a separate repo so that these kind of issues could be placed there... (its too late now)

maximusvladimir commented 11 years ago

"(just saying, this SHOULD NOT BE DONE NOW)"

Trust me, I don't plan on it.

abauer commented 11 years ago

ok good