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

Allows Chances Claim [Forecon] to be selected #617

Merged

Conversation

private-tristan
Copy link
Contributor

About the pull request

When #550 was merged, it didn't actually add anything other than the map file for chances claim forecon variation, meaning that the only way to select it was to override the map (very inconvenient).

Also changes a bit of text for FORECONLESS chance's so that it doesn't mention forecon, only the colony

Explain why it's good for the game

GMs should be able to pick forecon chances claim without needing to manually override the map

Testing Photographs and Procedure

image

Changelog

🆑
fix: Chances Claim [Forecon] can now be properly selected by GMs
/:cl:

@github-actions github-actions bot added the fix label Dec 20, 2024
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
{
"map_name": "LV-522 Chance's Claim Forecon",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Just leave this without the forecon as I believe it shows up as the map name in game and I think that'd be a bit awkward.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

But that would result in 2 maps named Lv-522 Chance's Claim, and afaik the map picker uses the map name, resulting in 2 names, is there any way you know to avoid this?

@AndroBetel AndroBetel merged commit 1bbd6fd into cmss13-devs:master Dec 26, 2024
37 checks passed
cm13-github added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 26, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants