[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Development Strategies [Was Documentation, Usability and Development]

[Andrew Sutton <ansutton@xxxxxxx>]

On Saturday 08 December 2001 03:21 pm, Reinier Post wrote:
> > the alternative would be to develop in anticipation of the needs of
> > users/developers. anticipating eventual features would lead to a more
> > flexible framework.
>
> Definitely, but is it worth the trouble?  I've never seen more than 30
> players at once on civserver.freeciv.org and they *never* ask to play
> with an alternative ruleset.  If the existing range of options in rulesets
> isn't being used, is it worthwhile to make the game more extensible?

the point wasn't necessarily to develop mutable civ rulesets for civ games - 
although that should certainly be possible (e.g. period games: civil war, 
roman empire, etc.) - but to allow developers to customize the game 
completely, inventing new games (like SMAC or MoM).

i see in freeciv an excellent starting point for just about any civ-type game 
(cities, units, techs), and so have other people - otherwise there wouldn't 
be any spinoff projects. the general idea that's been kicked around is that a 
future version should try to accomodate the needs of spinoff projects so 
there won't BE spinoff projects. at least, thats kind of where i've seen it 
going... so, for example, freeciv AC would simply be a ruleset (albeit a 
complex ruleset) of the freeciv game - no patching required.

besides, if we could manage to eliminate the need to patch the game to build 
expansion/extension games, we'd just get that many more developers for the 
hard parts.

so, to answer your question in a roundabout way, yes. i believe that it would 
be worthwhile to make the game more extensible.

andy