[Freeciv-Dev] Re: hobby as process?

[Morgan Jones <morgan.jones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 18/12/2003, you wrote:

>> I feel I need to point something out here.  For Amiga users like
>> myself FreeCiv is the best we have.  And I for one am incredibly
>> grateful.  We have Civ1 too, but well, it's Civ1.
>> 
>> FreeCiv is designed as a version of Civ2 for platforms other than
>> Windows. Sure there's a Windows version, but no, it's probably not
>> as
>> good as Civ2, I've never tried it.
> 
> You could buy a PC adequate for running Civ2 for $40. Your desire to
> run it on an Amiga is fundamentally irrational. Part with the cash,
> man. I could see the point if Freeciv offered some unique value add
> as a game design or AI opponent, but it doesn't. It's an inferior
> clone of products that have long since shipped and are dead. It
> *could be* much more than this; it is rather shocking that talented
> people would do so much work to get, essentially, nowhere.

I suppose that the fact that I still use an Amiga is pretty irrational
in itself really :)

But I love the ancient old thing (mine just turned 12) and I really
don't like Windows so I just don't bother.

I have no excuse for this.  Guess I'm irrational.
 
>> I'm sure, like me, that Linux users don't want to have a seperate
>> computer or run Windows emulation (eeh) just to play our favourite
>> game when we've got an adequate version available.
> 
> Irrational. What are you trying to save, space under your desk? Why
> aren't you running Linux on your Amiga hardware anyways? I thought
> it could do that.

Not too fond of Linux either though it's a damn sight better than
Windows.  But basically I've gradually built and customized my OS over
the last decade and I don't really want to throw that all away.

The day my Amiga is unrepairable is the day I'll probably give up
computing.  It's the only computer I've ever owned.  For me the Amiga
is computing.

Anyway this is all completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. 

>> Sure it's not as
>> good in some ways, and superior in others but it's coming along.
> 
> Name *one* way it's superior.

Multiplayer.  CMA.  It works on the Amiga.  

> "The AI is superior" line is bullshit. I've played a *lot* of
> Civ-like games. Civ II, Civ III, SMAC, Call To Power II, the AI
> patched and user modded version of CTP2. The only one whose AI is
> any good is Civ III. In fact, people often say that Civ III was
> mostly about someone showing how big their AI coding penis is.
> 
> Anyways, Freeciv is no better at fighting than any of the other
> mediocre AIs. It is easily beaten. And now, with the silly "give it
> all away" diplomatic AIs, trivially so. Just make one AI ally,
> that's your research factory.
> 
>> I suspect that those of us running AmigaOS or Linux treat our
>> computers as hobbies, and Freeciv is probably an extension of this.
>> 
>> I personally don't like Windows because I can't tinker with
>> it's guts.  Same goes for Civ2.
> 
> Yes, I'm sure that if the basic drive of Freeciv developers is "to
> tinker with guts" rather than "to improve the game design and the
> AI," we will never see eye to eye. I call that pointless fiddling.
> If you change the guts, it should *do* something.

Got to get the guts working properly first before you add more organs.

>> Of course with my abyssmal knowledge of C my tinkering efforts are
>> pretty pathetic and generally explosive.  I stil can't get it to
>> compile properly.  But I'm having fun.
> 
> It's too bad you're in a state of being so easily pleased. It's also
> too bad you haven't discovered Python yet. It is a far better
> language for beginners, and far better for experts to prototype
> with. Here's an "evil" proposition for you: go look at
> www.pygame.org . See what you could do with that!

I'll have a look.  If it's available for the Amiga I'd definately be
interested.

>> > I offered you a game design idea. You declined. Not just on
>> > specific grounds, but also on general grounds that indicate
>> > you're resistant to any major change, no matter what it is. You
>> > say you don't want to be a game engine. Of what (re)use are you
>> > then?
>> 
>> I do think some of the developers had this attitude to a certain
>> degree, but most were willing to discuss the implementation with
>> you.
>> 
>> I quite like the theory of the idea but as discussion of the idea
>> goes
>> on some flaws have already become apparent.  Maybe if we continue
>> thinking about it and getting ideas from people a useful
>> implementation might eventually formulate.  And then maybe the
>> developers might be more interested.
> 
> Yes, maybe maybe maybe.  But I think they probably have already
> expressed their true sentiments towards any major change.
> 
>> It doesn't help if you start attacking them/the project like this.
> 
> Sure it does. I'm half tempted to steal all of the code and start my
> own project with more enlightened management. They need to put up or
> shut up about whether they're going to ever allow any major changes
> to the Sid Meier / Brian Reynolds universe.

> I'm having some rather strange fantasies about automatic source code
> checkin and regression testing right now. The codebase would be
> expected to be chaos / broken. People would enter Signature Strings
> for what features they actually want to enable. The idea is to
> completely get rid of the Gatekeepers who talk talk talk about
> changes, ponder, decide, and generally get in the way of people
> actually trying things out. "Authority" would be in the hands of
> whether anyone's willing to actually turn those Signature Strings
> "on" and try the game that way.
> 
> The game would be the biggest damn kitchen sink ever. A
> clearinghouse. An ever-evolving clearinghouse.

Sounds great and the best of luck to you.
 
>> But when it comes down to it I haven't got the ability to code it,
>> and you are unwilling to. We shouldn't expect the developers to go
>> for every idea we throw at them, and we can't expect them to code
>> everything for us. Especially not if they're not particularly
>> interested in the idea, for whatever reason.
> 
> I've never operated from even the slightest belief that the Freeciv
> developers would ever cooperate, move to the tune of my agenda, or
> otherwise do a damn thing for me. I've already had most of these
> battles with the Xconq guys. I've just left myself room for the
> Freeciv guys to pleasantly surprise me. So far, I am not the
> slightest bit surprised. People willing to stick with C in 2003 are
> pretty predictable.

Hey it's their (admittedly plagarized) game.  They can define the
agenda how they like.  It works for me and many other people, sorry
it's not compatible with yours. 

> One good thing about the Xconq guys though, they had actually built
> a game design engine. Problem is they didn't any good games for it,
> as far as I could tell. I kept finding myself re-downloading Freeciv
> and playing it instead of Xconq. Xconq wasn't basically any fun. The
> AI was too stupid, for one thing. Freeciv's AI is mediocre; Xconq's
> is downright stupid.
> 
> My conflict is I'm supposed to be working on my own project, Ocean
> Mars. But now I've got this Big Idea about chaotic source control.
> And, I've never actually looked at the Freeciv codebase. Like you, I
> couldn't get it to compile. I moved on to Xconq, went through a full
> evaluation of that, concluded their code sucked rocks and was a
> complete waste of time, and burned my bridges with them. The $64
> question is, is Freeciv's code any better? If it's the same kind of
> shit as Xconq, there's no way I'd touch it. Complete waste of time,
> I'd get back to Ocean Mars.
> 
>>> All it would take for you guys to Fly Higher would be an act of
>>> will. It is baffling that you don't do it. Don't you ever worry
>>> about kicking yourself later, about could-have-beens?
>> 
>> Sure Freeciv is open source but that doesn't mean it isn't
>> someone's
>> or someones' baby.  The developers have every right to decide what
>> they want for it or not as they are rightly proud of and care for
>> what
>> they're creating.
> 
> Only insofar as they manage a particular group of developers. It is
> GPL code. GPL code doesn't care what happens to it. The GPL is
> *exactly* for shoving it to the Gatekeepers. Why do you think people
> want Open Source code rather than Microsoft proprietary code? So
> that when Microsoft or whomever says "No, we're not going to let you
> do that" you can say "to hell with you then."
> 
> And, I scoff at the idea that they're "creating" by ripping off Civ
> II almost down to the last detail. They're creating technology, not
> a game. They'll be creating a game when they actually start changing
> it significantly. And it's not particularly interesting technology
> they're creating, just workadaisical stuff. Nobody at the Game
> Developer Conference is going to stand up and give them a round of
> applause.

I didn't realize any of us were doing this for recognition or
applause.

>> There's nothing stopping you or me (well actually my talentless
>> coding is stopping me but you have no excuse) taking the code and
>> making it the game we want. Or for rewriting the entire thing in
>> Python either.
> 
> The game *I* want is Ocean Mars! It's far more ambitious than any
> Freeciv-derived product will ever be. It's played on a spherical
> hexified icosahedron, and I have code for that, that I built from
> scratch. Pity I don't acutally have a game running on it yet. :-)
> One can get really bogged down on "seemingly easy" tasks like
> building proper 3D planets. A 9 month 60+ hour/week bogdown in this
> case.

> I don't need any "excuse." I'm a professinal game developer who is
> $60K+ in the hole for what he has chosen to do. And not regretting
> it. I'll never have to second-guess myself about what I
> could-have-been. Instead, I am going-to-be! The only variables for
> me are whether hijacking Freeciv is some combo of rational +
> exciting for me. I think the honeymoon is probably going to be over
> the minute I actually look at their code. But maybe I will be
> surprised.

This is obviously why there are different agendas here.  You are a
professional and the rest of us are hobbyists or something.  We might
not see the value of each others work but we should at least recognize
the different kind of enjoyment we each get throughout the process.

Actually I shouldn't speak for everyone.  But that's my thoughts
anyway.
 
> Clearly, working under the Freeciv developers' shackles isn't,
> unless they start changing their tune. Only way they'll change their
> tune is if I force the issue. I know better than to sit around
> asking politely, waiting my turn for someone else to let me do
> something. People in committee power blocs like to say "no," because
> they enjoy having things run the way they've been running them. I
> can only hope that I energize enough malcontents to cause change.
> 
>> I, for one, am very grateful for the time and effort the developers
>> have put into Freeciv, and for the amount of discussion and input
>> they allow me, a player, to have. They've even coded some of my
>> ideas.
> 
> Like what?  What did you think of that's in the game?

Just a few slight adjustments.  I'm still getting familiar with the codebase
and what I'd like to see in the game.
 
     -Morgan