[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#18404) Re: Project goals

["Curtis Warren" <cwarren89@xxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=18404 >

> Do you realize that I'm getting these emails from you in *my*
> inbox and not from the Freeciv-dev list?  AFAIK, *no one* else
> can see them.  Is that what you intended?
No, sorry. For some reason when I click reply in gmail it apparently
goes to you instead of bugs@freeciv like it usually  does.

> Curtis Warren writes:
> >On 7/5/06, saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx <saywhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> 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.
> >You were talking about limiting the number of cities in that
> >paragraph, not the number of players. By the way, it's already
> >possible to "limit" them by manipulating the type it takes to get the
> >republic and how long it takes cities to grow to size 3.
>
> You're right.  Per pointed that out in his reply on the list.
Yeah, just noticed that.

> When you wrote "type" in the above paragraph, did you mean
> "time"?
Yup. Didn't catch it before I sent it (why I like discussion boards
better--edit).

>    I realize that there are techniques for slowing the expansion
> (notradesize, minimum distance between cities, the "unhappiness"
> level, etc.).  Many such techniques were developed when smallpox
> was the dominant strategy.  But, IMO, such techinques only delay
> the problem; they don't solve it.
I know, none of those help anything, which is why hardly anyone uses
them. Smallpox is already solved.

> >>>    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.
> >Have you ever heard of longturn before? It's where a lot of players
> >(usually 30) play a game with 24 hour turns. They can drop by any time
> >they want within those 24 hours and make their turn and apparently it
> >turns out to be pretty fun (albeit very slow). Again, I'll have to say
> >I'm against arbitrarily limiting players; I've even seen people who
> >play single player with 30 AI for fun, and it seems like limiting it
> >to 10 would really screw a lot of people over .
>
>    Yes, I've heard of longturn.  I expect that if I eventually
> do play Freeciv online, then that's the type of game that I'd
> prefer.   I have two thoughts about what you wrote:
>
> 1) I believe you wrote in your other email to me that 30 player
>   games are like collections of smaller games (amongst the
>   players who are adjacent to you).  The victors of those "smaller
>   games" survive to battle each other.
>
>       From that description it sounds like, in 30 player games,
>   you are, in effect, playing a series of 5 player games.  I
>   have no objection to that; it might even be interesting.  But
>   ISTM that it undercuts the argument that 30 player games are
>   a vastly different gameplay experience than a series of 5
>   player games.  Am I wrong about that?
Well, one of the advantages of large games isn't that they're like a
lot of small games, but that you have more choices if you wish to
interact with other players for some strategic reason, e.g. if you're
trying to form an alliance against a player, etc.

> 2) I disagree that it is "_for no good reason_".  If, as Per
>   wrote, the development of Freeciv has to be split between
>   single player and multiplayer, one project or the other may
>   suffer.  Avoiding that *is* the reason for considering
>   alternatives (IMO).
>
>    As I've posted elsewhere (on the list), the number of cities,
> the number of players, the size of the map, etc. are *not* the
> point.  The point is making Freeciv a good game.  How do we do
> that?
Improve the default ruleset and client. Remove or update game elements
that are simply noob traps (see: Monarchy) and streamline the client
so it stays out of your way but still provides you with info.

>    IMO, if you a take a good game and triple its scale, what you
> end up with is not necessarily a good game that is 3 times
> bigger.  Changes in scale can easily upset game balance issues
> and ruin a good game.
Game balance is such a hard thing to judge when you're dealing with
interactions like that that you might as well just go by "fun," which
I don't think suffers one bit from having a lot of players.

>    Further, I'm saying that Freeciv's variable size makes almost
> everything about the game design process harder to get right.  I
> advocate picking a smaller game size as the primary design target,
> getting that right, and *then* trying to scale it up.
Ok. I'm just making sure you don't remove the ability to play against
a large number of people in the process--I doubt hardly anyone
considers 30 people when designing it, anyway, so really what you're
talking about is already being done.