[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Project goals

[saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Per Inge Mathisen <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2006, saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >  So for Freeciv, I propose limiting the default number of cities
> > that a player can create (via a settler) to a relatively small
> > number (e.g. 5)
> Arbitrarily limiting the number of cities will turn players away from the
> game in disgust.
  I disagree; but maybe I'm not understanding you.  Are you
saying that players who play Freeciv would stop playing it if the
maximum number of players was lowered to 10 (let alone 5)?  And,
to take that question to the next level, are there any players
who have said that they won't play Freeciv because it doesn't
support 500 or more players (like some MMORPGs)?  If so, then I'm
surprised by that. 

> Nothing is more annoying than in-game limitations that
> are obviously added because the game designers did not know how to handle
> more. It makes a hole in the suspension of disbelief that you could run a
> truck through.
  To quote from your first post (at least the first one that I
saw): 

<quote>
To sum up this long post, I think our unstated goals of making Freeciv fun
both for single player and multiplayer are incompatible, and that we have
to make a difficult choice which is more important. I also think we have
largely failed to make Freeciv a really fun single player game, and that
some of the moves that we (in particular me, I suspect) have done towards
this end may have negatively impacted multiplayer.
</quote> 

  Words like "incompatible", "largely failed", "negatively
impacted" suggested to me that de facto "in game limitations" are
already present.  Limitations in games exist whether the designer
*adds* them or not.  Do you know what I mean? 

  I believe that such limitations are the nature of the beast.
Further, I believe that it is the job of the game designer to
choose wisely amongst those limitations (and impose others if
necessary) so that the resulting game is still fun. 

  My basic point was that it is usually easier to solve a small
problem than a big one.  Therefore the *size* of Freeciv games is
perhaps the biggest obstacle to solving the problems that you
described in your first post. 

  Games that limit the number of players are not unprecedented.
Indeed, in my experience, games that limit the number of players
are the rule rather than the exception. 

  And there are many good games (e.g. MoO1, 1830) that limit
the number of players.  Presumably when a game's designers choose
the maximum number of players for their game, they base that
choice on what works for that game. 

  I'm saying that Freeciv's designers should make a similar
choice.  If the choice for Freeciv is *not* made in the number of
players (as I'm suggesting), then, as your post implied, it will
have to be made somewhere else. 

> > - controlled by an option, of course.
> Then it becomes irrelevant.
  I don't understand.  It seems like you are saying that
choosing the maximum number of players is irrelevant.  Or are you
saying that users won't make that choice?  If so, then why won't
they choose? 

> > 3) Alliances become essential for many players.
> In multiplayer, alliances are already overpowered.
  I don't understand.  Do you mean "overpowered" as in
"alliances are too powerful" or as in "alliances are easily
defeated"?  (I don't play online; so all that I know about online
Freeciv games is gleaned from posts on these lists.) 

> > For a long time, I've wondered if Freeciv could use techniques like 
> > those used in Dan Bunten's Global Conquest to implement all three of the 
> > above features.  (Global Conquest was a turn-based game that supported 
> > multiple human players with both simultaneous turns and simultaneous 
> > movement.)
> Care to give us a synopsis of what that game did right?
  I'll try to do that (in a separate email) within the next day
or two. 

-Eddie