Crossfire Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: CF: extra keybindings, vs status quo


I am unsure of the issue.  a-z, A-Z and CTL-A to CTL-Z are all
perfectly reasonably single chars.  I strongly suggest that
you allow mapping of keystrokes to commands as an user option.
I actually mapped shift and control both to missile fire since
I kept mixing them up and would sometimes run towards monsters
I had to stay away from and shoot, and sometimes stand there
shooting where I wanted to run.  I mapped running to the keys
next to the movement keys so running is a 'reached' keystroke
for me.  So I suppose the answer is "Well, I think 'someone' (me)
would appreciate it" if I were to use the java client.  And if
it is reasonable over a 28.8 connection then I would be tempted
if there was a decent server.  (I live in US West land where
ISDN is not an option (unless you want to buy a T1 to backhaul
your connection 150 miles to nearest ISDN capable switch).  There
is a rumor that one guy locally has ISDN from the local cellular
company since his work provided microwave equipment and now his
home directly connects into their net (his home is now logically
equivalent to a cellular attenna site).  We even had a meeting with
a guy from US and he described their process which is require
lots of paperwork so only 30-50 rural switches per year get upgraded
to ISDN.  Steamboats Springs has between 10,000 and 20,000 people
(depending if it is ski season) so we aren't exactly a "blink and
you miss it" rural town).

						sdw

> From: Philip Brown <philb@csua.berkeley.edu>
> Subject: CF: extra keybindings, vs status quo
> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 1997 18:01:18 -0800 (PST)
> 
> An issue of keybindings has come up, while coding the java client.
> 
> Do people want to be able to bind keys in a case-sensitive manner?
> In other words, are 30+ keys enough, or do people really want 60+ keys
> available?
> 
> The "problem" is that the current standard seems to be
> 
> control-<direction> is for running
> shift-<direction>   is for missile fire
> 
> I think the simplest way to have extra keybindings to to be for shifted
> values. 'a' vs 'shift-a'.  The problem with that, being that you'd then
> have to use alt-<direction> or meta-<direction> for missile fire
> 
> What do people thing about this?
> 
> [I'd PREFER not to make that stuff configurable. But if enough people
>   can honestly say they would personally use it, as opposed to
>   "Well, I think 'someone' would appreciate it", then I'll see what
>   can be done]
> [to unsubscribe etc., send mail to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]
[to unsubscribe etc., send mail to crossfire-request@ifi.uio.no]
Follow-Ups: