[Freeciv-Dev] Re: rfc on allowconnect

[Raimar Falke <rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2002 at 12:01:01PM +0200, Per I Mathisen wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Jul 2002, Raimar Falke wrote:
> > > What is the perfect setup? We rename
> > >
> > > FROM                      TO      WHY
> > > player            ->      nation  remove player/nation duality
> > > connection        ->      player  intuitive name for (authenticated) user
> >
> > I would leave the connection. It is a low level thing. But I would add
> > a "user". A user has:
> >  - exactly one connection (at runtime)
> >  - belongs to one nation (at runtime)
> >  - has some stats for ranking
> >  - has a password
> 
> So a "user" is a "player" that also has authenticated and belongs to a
> nation?

IMHO there is low level stuff like byte_swap and ponged and there is
high level stuff like observer, name, access_level and the new
password and stats. I would like to separate these two issues. So we
have a low level connection object and a high level user object.

> > Just to make sure that I understood this correctly:
> >
> > > coop control      ->      team    term used in starcraft
> >
> > A team is a nonempty set of users which control a nation.
> 
> Yes. (Or rather, set of "players", if you agree with distinction above.)
> 
> > > team              ->      clan    term used everywhere
> >
> > A clan is a nonempty set of nations which form a entity. They have
> > default diplomatic clauses of type CLAUSE_PEACE or CLAUSE_ALLIANCE.
> 
> In my present clan patch (called the "teams patch" for maximum confusion),
> clans start out with CLAUSE_ALLIANCE, shared vision and embassies to each
> other. The latter might be overkill, though.

Can the CLAUSE_ALLIANCE be broken?

> > > We need to simplify a bit to have this sum up, so I suggest we remove
> > > cmdlevel from the equation: The first player to join will get ctrl command
> > > and nobody else. If that player quits while in pregame, the server
> > > restarts (the starcraft way). Instead of requiring everyone to be ctrl, we
> > > allow everyone to set options that concern only themselves (like setting
> > > yourself to ai or not, and setting a password on your connection).
> >
> > This seems like a non-small restriction. Why do we need this?
> 
> I couldn't find a way to combine the present cmdlevel system with the
> system I described without making it incredibly complicated and open for
> lots of abuse or silly pregame infighting over how things should be setup.
> 
> It is much cleaner with one superuser. If he is an ass, players go
> elsewhere and they don't play with him again. If he is not, then any
> number of other stupid users can't screw up the game (eg by
> joining&"/start" or putting everyone but one in his own clan and "/start"
> etc). Less chance of fuckup that way.

While I like the general idea I think that this point has to be
changed.

        Raimar

-- 
 email: rf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  The Software is not designed or licensed for use in on-line control
  equipment in hazardous environments, such as operation of nuclear
  facilities, aircraft navigation or control, or direct life support
  machines. 
    -- Java Compiler Compiler Download and License Agreement