Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: October 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [ggz-dev] Re: [ggz-cvs-list] CVS update: ggzd/ggzdmod
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [ggz-dev] Re: [ggz-cvs-list] CVS update: ggzd/ggzdmod

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev <freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [ggz-dev] Re: [ggz-cvs-list] CVS update: ggzd/ggzdmod
From: Jason Dorje Short <vze2zq63@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 12:08:40 -0400
Reply-to: jdorje@xxxxxxxxxxxx

Brent Hendricks wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 10:46:05PM -0400, Jason Dorje Short wrote:
> > > The game might be LAUNCHED but still be waiting for enough people to
> > > join to actually play.
> >
> > This is tricky under our current implementation.  Games with variable
> > players do not require that the full number of players every join.  But to
> > ggzdmod these games will always just be "LAUNCHED", never "PLAYING".
> 
> Hmm.   What game do we have like that?

None of our core games.  But several external games (xTux and FreeCiv IIRC).

> > Once we've gotten ggzdmod working, I'd like to expand it to be able to deal
> > with some of this functionality.  Namely, I'd like the game server to be
> > able to control some of the game information that is currently decided only
> > by ggzd.  Until then, I think it may be best to leave one of these two
> > (LAUNCHED/PLAYING) out.
> 
> I agree that we need to expand it a bit.  I was treating the concepts
> of "playing vs. no-playing" and "players may join vs. players may not
> join" as the same.  In reality they are related, but not identical.
> However, we can't really leave those states out right now because the
> client and server code depends on them.

OK.

jason


[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]
  • [Freeciv-Dev] Re: [ggz-dev] Re: [ggz-cvs-list] CVS update: ggzd/ggzdmod, Jason Dorje Short <=