Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: August 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Watchtower v3

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Watchtower v3

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: Karl-Ingo Friese <kif@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Sebastian Bauer <sebauer@xxxxxxxxxxx>, freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [Patch] Watchtower v3
From: Jules Bean <jules@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:55:35 +0100

On Thu, Aug 30, 2001 at 03:52:03PM +0200, Karl-Ingo Friese wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Jules Bean wrote:
> > Why?  Because it's exactly the sort of thing you'd want to change in
> > custom rulesets.
> >
> > On the subject: the dichotomoy between ruleset parameters and server
> > variables is becoming harder and harder to understand. A radical
> > solution: make them *all* ruleset variables, and permit ruleset
> > variables to be altered from the server commandline. (These
> > alterations wouldn't be written out to the ruleset files, it would
> > just be a way of having custom games).
> I totaly disagree here. The opposite would be useful: make all
> rulesets server variables. Especialy on meta server games it is
> a pain that you still can not change citymindist at runtime.
> IMHO a ruleset should be nothing but a set of server variables.
> This would enhance transperancy and be much more userfriendly
> then the current situation. Just join a few games and you know
> what I mean.


How would making rulesets all be server variables be at all different
from making server variables all ruleset variables? Sounds to me like
exactly the same thing...

I don't think you totally disagree with me at all.  I think you
absolutely agree, you just walked there from the other direction.


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]