[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#7287) Extended Topologies

["Marcelo Burda" <NOSPAM_mburda@xxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7287 >

Le mer 25/02/2004 à 16:02, rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7287 >
> 
> 
> Marcelo Burda wrote:
> 
>  > Le mar 24/02/2004 à 17:11, Ross Wetmore a écrit :
>  >
>  >> Marcelo Burda wrote:
>  >>
>  >>> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7287 >
>  >>>
>  >>> Le mar 24/02/2004 à 04:15, Jason Short a écrit :
>  >>>
>  >>>
>  >>>> <URL: http://rt.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=7287 >
> 
> [...]
> 
>  >> I think we are probably zeroing in on the real source of the problem in
>  >> all these complicated explanations of what distortions the singularities
>  >> are introducing.
> 
> [...]
> 
>  >> In game play, one doesn't expect to make a 90 or 180 degree turn while
>  >> still moving straight ahead, and neither is this builtin to the game
>  >
>  >
>  > When playing i not expect to reach a wall going to the noth. but in
>  > classic topo we reach a wall in N edge!!. this is more hard than
>  > quincuntial topology.
>  >
>  >> mechanics so that relationships between various non-sea features are
>  >> maintained.
> 
> 
> The fact that longituninal lines do not meet at a point, but are kept
> parallel in the standard projection of Earth onto a flat 2-D map has
> long been accepted and understood by just about everyone. Before you
> got into the arcane science of alternate projections I'm sure you
> never really worried about such imaginary walls either.
> 
> The distortion introduced by this standard projection does not affect
> either the game mechanics, nor people's intutive understanding that
> when one moves south in a straight line, one does not end up somewhere
> to the east or west, or even heading back in the opposite direction.
> Game mechanics do not support the latter concepts either, so this means
> that the quincunx model you are proposing does not work for Freeciv
> maps and gameplay.
> 
> 
> As I keep saying, you should spend some effort trying to come up with
> ways to resolve these oddities of the quincunx topology in the context of
> 2-D Freeciv maps, rather than arguing that Freeciv needs to chaange to
> support your rather non-intuitive tastes. Freeciv is a game, to be played
> and enjoyed by gamers. and should not be used as an experimental tool for
> building odd mathematical constructs or fostering other agendas. There
> are lots of useful neat things to enhance with Freeciv code without
> wasting time on the arcane just for arcane-ness' sake.
> 
> You can work to solve the problems, or you can try to convert this into a
> political popularity contest and ignore any concerns about destroying the
> quality and correctness of the Freeciv code to get your prototype ideas
> and code pushed into the codebase without change.

> But you aren't going to resolve problems by arguing that because one hides
> problems in obscure corners of the map, they are thus less important. And
> then moving to tiled scenarios where they are now no longer in out-of-the-way
> corners and arguing that this is now just a perception problem and everyone
> needs to learn advanced mathematics to understand the non-intuitive anomalies.
> Or one needs to forget about reality and live with the breakage in spatial
> relationships and supporting game mechanics. You need to make some adjustments
> rather than the rest of the world needing to adjust to your tastes.
> 
> Part of the rationale for the review process is to identify and correct
> such problems as are being raised before they do get into CVS code.
> Unfortunately most programmers get too emotionally attached to their
> prototype code and spend too much time at this point trying to block any
> change rather than using the opportunity to make those final improvements
> on it - at least in this respect your tastes are normal :-).
> 
> 
> I still think there are solutions to minimize or make clear non-intuitive
> problems with the quincunx topology, and classes of similar topologies.
> 
> This is still worth pursuing in my estimation. But if Marcelo is not
> interested in any more work on this, my recommendation as a reviewer is
> that this patch is probably not worth spending too much more time on. One
> should reject it on the basis of its current level of problems and move on.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> RossW
> =====
A this point i think your are make it a political question.
I introduce a lot of nice work making freecev best:
generalise mapgenerator to make poles in all topologies and best climat
generation in  hold and new topos.
extend init prosess to make it more easy. alow extention to more
simplest and complex topos as, Torus, twisted torus, "quincuntial" and
your proposal too!!!
but you choice to wast any.
Sorry i know advanced math but player not need it, i need it to make
somethin nice. Probably not nice for any body but nice for some ones.
but you choice to forbide it!

NOT INTERESTED TO MAKE MORE WORK!!!!!
I am workin in it from 6 monts. all of my free time. and you think i no
make engout work? And your best proposal is to WAST ALL.

...i go stop writin now. the next word is not to be writed....