Re: [warzone2100-dev] Our next release plan?
On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 8:49 PM, buginator wrote: > For our next release, I was thinking we should go with 2.4.0 if we > break savegames for the proposed AI changes. Ye gods, the last time our current release branch was branched from trunk was two years and two major versions ago. I really don't want to continue that. What we need to do is figure out what we need to do in Qt, Lua, newnet, and power queue. Perhaps most important is the power system. The other stuff we can postpone past 3.0, but we _need_ to make a decision on power system, and soon. Though I no longer believe that power flow is objectively inferior, I still contest it on the basis that it's a controversial major departure from 2.3. Everyone appears to be in agreement that the trunk power system is inferior to all others, and in lieu of a clear winner between the four proposed power systems on the forums, the 2.3 power system should win by default. I also contest it on the basis that I am nominally the lead balancer here, and power system is arguably a balance-based decision. I also would like to mention that I simply cannot enjoy playing a game in which I don't know how much power I have at any given point. I've played a few trunk games in the past, but I now play mostly 2.3 simply because it's too frustrating managing power flows. I can somewhat tolerate singleplayer skirmish games by giving myself a buffer of power, but this sort of suboptimal play is something I would hate doing in competitive multiplayer. Per, I think you mentioned enjoying writing an AI for power flow, but AIs can calculate a lot faster than humans, and AIs don't need to play as well as humans do. I do not wish to threaten leaving the team simply because I disagree with a decision, and I will try to continue contributing however this ends up, but it's a lot more difficult to balance a game I cannot enjoy playing competitively. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Our next release plan?
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Guangcong Luo wrote: > Ye gods, the last time our current release branch was branched from > trunk was two years and two major versions ago. I really don't want to > continue that. At least that branch is stable and playable, which is more than can be said for trunk. There is a lot of work ahead of us before trunk is in a release state, no matter what development branches we do or do not merge in. > Though I no longer believe that power flow is objectively inferior, I > still contest it on the basis that it's a controversial major > departure from 2.3. Everyone appears to be in agreement that the trunk > power system is inferior to all others We seem to be hearing different things from the same people. In fact, as far as I can tell, you are the only person who is making a big fuss about it. The rest of us have been playing trunk power system happily for a long while now. >, and in lieu of a clear winner > between the four proposed power systems on the forums, the 2.3 power > system should win by default. I think that is a strange cop-out, since all of your arguments against the trunk power system apply equally to the 2.3 power system. > I also contest it on the basis that I am nominally the lead balancer > here, and power system is arguably a balance-based decision. I disagree that it has anything to do with balancing. - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Our next release plan?
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Per Inge Mathisen wrote: > At least that branch is stable and playable, which is more than can be > said for trunk. There is a lot of work ahead of us before trunk is in > a release state, no matter what development branches we do or do not > merge in. Oh, yeah, I forgot about pathing. Other than that, I don't think we have any more work than when 2.3 was branched. > We seem to be hearing different things from the same people. In fact, > as far as I can tell, you are the only person who is making a big fuss > about it. The rest of us have been playing trunk power system happily > for a long while now. "The rest of us" being a fairly small number of people, including practically no one who plays multiplayer competitively. You'll notice on the forums quite a few people disagreed with the trunk power system. And plus, "as far as [you] can tell" isn't that far, considering the fairly large swaths of time in which you're not on IRC. I think that's why you only became aware of my patch after I started writing it, even though months before that, I was already answering "my power queue patch will fix that" whenever someone mentioned a flaw with the power system. As far as _I_ can tell, you are the only person who is making a big fuss about staying away from the 2.3 power system. Well, you and JDW on the forums. > I think that is a strange cop-out, since all of your arguments against > the trunk power system apply equally to the 2.3 power system. My largest objection to the trunk power system: - I never know how much power I have, or whether or not I have enough power to do something, since the rate at which it increases/decreases changes several times a minute. This is why I don't want to use it in competitive multiplayer specifically: It's much more important there to know exactly how much power I have. Direct-debit-power-queue and 2.3 are identical as long as no more than one thing is on the queue at a time. The power queue I consider an improvement over 2.3, but if you guys don't, I can live with the additional micromanagement 2.3 requires. But I cannot handle trunk's power system for the reason stated above. Most of the other problems with power flow I've been talking about the past few days are fairly minor in comparison. I could probably get used to them. But the one reason I listed above? That's not something I could get used to, since I'd never be able to do the mental calculations of, if I click on any given research/manufacture item, whether or not I'd be above zero power when it completes. > I disagree that it has anything to do with balancing. If it interferes with competitive play, balance is probably involved. Power queue or no power queue is a question of micromanagement - only indirectly related to balance, granted. Power flow or direct debit, though, that seems to me a question of balance. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Our next release plan?
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 02:37:28PM -0500, Guangcong Luo wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:13 AM, Per Inge Mathisen > wrote: > > > I disagree that it has anything to do with balancing. > > If it interferes with competitive play, balance is probably involved. This sounds as silly as citing yourself in an appeal to authority. The power system is a design issue, a game play mechanics issue and maybe even a UI issue. If it was a balance problem, we could fix it in the stat files. -- Stephen Swaney sswa...@centurytel.net ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Our next release plan?
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Stephen Swaney wrote: > This sounds as silly as citing yourself in an appeal to authority. The power > system is a design issue, a game play mechanics issue and maybe even a > UI issue. If it was a balance problem, we could fix it in the stat files. Design and gameplay mechanics underlie balance. That's like replacing Warzone with Tetris and saying the balance wasn't affected. Regardless of this nitpicking over nomenclature, changes that fundamentally change how the game should be played should require a lot more support than power flow currently has. -Zarel ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Our next release plan?
Guangcong Luo wrote: > Most of the other problems with power flow I've been talking about the > past few days are fairly minor in comparison. I could probably get > used to them. But the one reason I listed above? That's not something > I could get used to, since I'd never be able to do the mental > calculations of, if I click on any given research/manufacture item, > whether or not I'd be above zero power when it completes. You are playing online regularly and haven't yet developed a feeling for the power stuff? I've been playing only some 2.3 games and I was able to manage my energy quite well actually. But perhaps, that was not competitive enough. I don't see a need for changing the power system. Regards, - Kreuvf signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [warzone2100-dev] Our next release plan?
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:37 PM, Guangcong Luo wrote: > You'll notice on the forums quite a few people disagreed with the trunk power > system. I saw only quite a few people saw no reason to change anything, none of whom said they had actually tested trunk. That is only the to be expected level of conservatism in a game this old. > As far as _I_ can tell, you are the only person who is making a big > fuss about staying away from the 2.3 power system. Well, you and JDW > on the forums. The thing I am make a big fuss about is a large change without adequate reason and what I see as spurious arguments. Note that I was also initially sceptical of the new power flow system, but Gerard managed to convince me that it was a good idea. >> I think that is a strange cop-out, since all of your arguments against >> the trunk power system apply equally to the 2.3 power system. > > My largest objection to the trunk power system: > > - I never know how much power I have, or whether or not I have enough > power to do something, since the rate at which it increases/decreases > changes several times a minute. > > This is why I don't want to use it in competitive multiplayer > specifically: It's much more important there to know exactly how much > power I have. > > Direct-debit-power-queue and 2.3 are identical as long as no more than > one thing is on the queue at a time. See, I do not buy this argument at all. You said yourself that all power systems are essentially identical if you are only producing one thing at a time, and this is true. Hence the claim that 2.3 and direct debit is identical in this case is irrelevant. The only interesting case is the real case -- when you are producing multiple items at once. Here 2.3 and trunk are very similar, and can both be "confusing" to someone used to thinking in direct debit terms. The case where they differ the most is when multiple items are produced, and expenses are bigger than income. Here 2.3 and trunk are identical, while direct debit is very different. Most of your arguments have been about this last case. That is why now turning about and wanting a return to 2.3's power system makes no sense to me. - Per ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
