IMHO: This project has just lost its MoO feeling

Talk about anything and everything related or unrelated to the FreeOrion project, especially Strategy Games.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
drek
Designer Emeritus
Posts: 935
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:07 am

#31 Post by drek » Fri Jul 09, 2004 1:12 pm

Still you will have experiences like: "Hey, my new world just finished the Planetary Supercomputer! Cool!" rather than "hey, the slider of the research meter of my new world just moved another .5 inches to the right...".
Moo3 did something like this, for both techs and buildings. For me, the messages just kinda became background noise....

Sliders (er, Meters, ahem) moving aren't anymore exciting. Personally I don't think they'll be any *less* exciting, esp when dealing with a dozen or more planets.

A feeling of accomplishment will hopefully come from completing the semi-wonders in the build slots. "W00T! I've got the big ol' megafarm now and the shipyard of doom!"

User avatar
Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#32 Post by Aquitaine » Fri Jul 09, 2004 2:46 pm

DeathAndPain wrote: Aquitaine knows that, or he would not execute such a professional approach with clearly predefined version steps and lots of discussion before writing the requirement specification. That is why I was so surprised he swept away all concerns so easily this time. (I know you protest, Aquitaine, but that is how it looked. Your decision was in ignorance of where the discussion had developed to.)
This is where we disagree. You think I swept away discussion?

28 pages of discussion: viewtopic.php?t=642

7 more pages: viewtopic.php?t=718

6 more pages: viewtopic.php?t=774

5 more pages: viewtopic.php?t=776

Another 5 more pages: viewtopic.php?t=716

That's fifty pages.

Exactly at what point will you concede that the FreeOrion team has entertained alternate ideas? The point of the public review is not to argue something until everyone is convinced of it or until every single criticism of an argument is addressed, which seems to be what you want. The point is to determine community consensus, which is a on-the-fly formula based on:

- Number of people supporting an idea
- Strength of the arguments of those people (for example, somebody saying 'I support option A' gets weighed less than somebody explaining their support for option A or actively promoting the argument)
- Compatibility with the FreeOrion mission and vision statement

A rough count of who supports which side:

Against Pooled Production: noelte, Xardas, Geoff the Medio (who may have since come around? uncertain), Ragnar, miu, vishnou00, DeathAndPain

For Pooled Production: Aquitaine, tzlaine, drek, emrys, Krikkitone, snakechia, Powercrazy, guiguibaah, Tyreth

Everything else aside, that's 7 against, 9 for. Even if it were 8 and 8 or 7 and 9 the other direction, the following factors played a significant role:

- I felt that the pooled production people made the best arguments in favor of their idea, whereas the localized production people (of which I was one) were primarily making arguments against pooled production rather than for local production. There were some very good arugments in favor of local production, but in my judgment, the global camp won out.

- The majority of the FreeOrion development team was on the global side (except for miu and myself, and then miu didn't take part in the discussion later).
When the project is finally done, some mods may introduce some kind of localized production (I suppose that is what you mean, drek), but then the whole project, including all subsequent design decisions, is based on the pool model. Of course you can scamp in some localized production rather quickly, but it will not fit into the way the game has been designed. Modding the finally completed FO 1.0 into localized production and still making all parts of the game interact with each other in a reasonable manner would mean revamping half of the game if done properly.
You can say this about anything you don't like. "Any time you make a decision that affects a large part of the game, the whole project is based on that decision, making your decision that much worse." This is a fallacy of circular logic. "You are wrong because you are wrong."

With regard to 'forum troll' -- there is a line between constructive criticism (what happened in the public review thread -- and yours was mostly quite good) and forum trolling. Forum trolling is when you're trying to get a reaction out of people, or when you're just venting because you're angry. It is not criticism because it has no logical goal, which this thread doesn't. I'm answering your posts to help you understand how we got here. Not because anything that is said in this thread or elsewhere is going to change what's happened.
It seems to me as though you are making a lot of assumptions
I am interpreting the information you have given away the way I have understood it. If that leaves room for lots of wrong assumptions, then you did not express yourself clearly enough.
Let me get this straight: You are saying that, if you don't understand the system, it's my fault for not pointing you to the fifty pages of discussion and explanation?

This is more circular logic. "It is bad because I may not understand it because it is bad."
Trying to interpret your words the way they appear to be meant (do not blame me if I misunderstand you this time), one point of this thread is to make up for/discuss the missing explanation of your decision which clearly was in favor of pool production although the corresponding discussion thread was way from being unanimous in that respect. I also wanted to shed a clear light upon the consequences that this decision, which I regard a major mistake, will have upon the project. On this background, I am of the opinion that the topic is appropiately placed in "General Discussion" (unless you cannot deal with criticism). It is not my fault that a few other participants became cynical in their replies (although I am all in all positively impressed by the discipline of the discussion in these forums).
Decisions do not need to be unanimous. The public review offered by the FreeOrion developers is a courtesy to the community because we recognize that we are a community-based project and without a lot of links to that community, this project would die.

It is entirely within our perrogative to simply ask Tyreth, tzlaine, miu, LithiumMongoose, and myself about any issue and then pass it based solely on our input. We have never done that and I hope we never have to. But do not mistake our willingness to embrace the community on discussions like this (and our gratitude to the community for doing so) for a democracy. That it ain't.

-Aq
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

emrys
Creative Contributor
Posts: 226
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:44 pm

#33 Post by emrys » Fri Jul 09, 2004 4:36 pm

Not that I'm really masochistic enough to want to keep this thread alive if I can avoid it, no that I don't realise that people have lives outside FO, but as one of the people who apparently voted for "Pooled production", is there any time frame available for when we will see exactly what combination of the severla possible viewpoints that phrase is being taken to mean? (i.e. how's the DD writing going Aq?)

User avatar
Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#34 Post by Aquitaine » Fri Jul 09, 2004 5:32 pm

today or tomrorow. would've been sooner but I keep letting myself get caught up in these things.
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

snakechia
Space Floater
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:55 pm

#35 Post by snakechia » Fri Jul 09, 2004 9:46 pm

AQ - I think the semi-personal attacks and attacks against project management will just get worse with time. I appreciate the way you handle the "controversey", but I think you are wasting your time defending yourself and the project repeatedly every day. If people aren't happy with the way things are handled than they need to remain civilized and not attack people or be banned....

I just don't want the dev team burning out with continually defending themselves or their decisions. Keep up the good work!

User avatar
Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#36 Post by Aquitaine » Fri Jul 09, 2004 10:35 pm

snakechia wrote:AQ - I think the semi-personal attacks and attacks against project management will just get worse with time. I appreciate the way you handle the "controversey", but I think you are wasting your time defending yourself and the project repeatedly every day. If people aren't happy with the way things are handled than they need to remain civilized and not attack people or be banned....

I just don't want the dev team burning out with continually defending themselves or their decisions. Keep up the good work!
Yeah, you have a point. I guess I just want our process to be as transparent as possible for as long as possible because it makes people feel better about participating and makes us seem less like the tyrants that we really are. :)

Anyway, usually we're not in the kind of time crunch we're in now - it's mostly due to my craziness RL. If I'd had the time I have had in the past to work on FO then I wouldn't have let things go on for so long like this. But the DD is under construction as I write this; I will be out of town from tomorrow evening until next Wednesday, but there should be a first draft up by tomorrow night.

-Aq
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

User avatar
Aquitaine
Lead Designer Emeritus
Posts: 761
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 1:54 pm
Location: Austin, TX

#37 Post by Aquitaine » Sat Jul 10, 2004 4:27 pm

Update on the v0.3 DD:

There are a couple of small issues that came up that the development team is discussing. I don't think I will be able to post a draft before I leave in a few hours, but if Drek or tzlaine wants to cut and paste from the DD draft we're working on sometime over the next few days, that's fine with me. Otherwise, I will take care of this when I get back on Wednesday.
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!

User avatar
Prokonsul Piotrus
Space Kraken
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Poland, Europe, Earth, Sol

#38 Post by Prokonsul Piotrus » Sat Jul 10, 2004 6:23 pm

Well, Death..., replying to your first post - I am all for infra with few buildings, I dont want to go into details of all skyskrapers on my myriads of planets!

I am worried about the galactic pooling of resurces, but I am sure we will have safeguards so we cant pour horders of deathstars from the new colony (we will, right? :>).

So look up! The future is bright!
Image

User avatar
DeathAndPain
Banned
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:25 am

#39 Post by DeathAndPain » Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:58 am

@vishnou00: I know how your smiley is meant, but I said it consciously this time, responding to a partly rhetorical question. My "Absolutely not!" actually meant: "Yes, what you did was correct!"

vishnou00 wrote:
I disagree. That cost (in coding time & efforts) is already paid nearly in full to be modular. The biggest turn-around time will be at the game design level (for a game design decision).
Well, the rule you are disagreeing to is lectured at every basic software engineering lesson. When you realize a mistake while you are still planning you can fairly easily correct your plans. When the coding has already been 100% done (the other extreme) and when you (or your customer) start using the product, you find out that the basic idea is wrong and you have to revamp the whole concept (followed by a completely new coding), then the costs are exorbitant (because the lion's share of the work you have invested was in vain).

vishnou00 wrote:
So, if there is a revision of a past game design decision, it will be mainly the game design people that will pay the cost to correct them.
No. Once the design people have done their work and come up with a revamped design, the programmers have to code everything again. Since the design (e.g. the concept) is totally different, they will usually not be able to re-use the old code (although they may be able to re-use the artwork). After that, you will have new alpha and beta phases to find the new bugs, since new code means new bugs, and the bug fixing of the old code is wasted work. If you change the design, you have to give up most of the subsequent work that has been done, rolling back your project to the end of the design phase (when no coding has yet been done).

In your subsequent argumentation, you are mixing this up with community relationship, but that is a different subject.

vishnou00 wrote:
I don't know for you, but it is the design process I enjoy, more than the prospect of playing "the game of my dreams".
Well, I do admit that I actually desire to play the game.:-) I agree that the design process is fun in itself, but I do not think we need occupational therapy in which we invest tons of work, only to discard it afterwards and start over. Work is only fun if you see progress, not if you do it the Sisyphus way:

Image

vishnou00 wrote:
Merriam-Webster is you friend.
Thank you for the useful link. So far, I have only used these two distionaries:

http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/
http://dict.leo.org/?searchLoc=0&relink ... ed&lang=en

vishnou00 wrote:
Moo3 did something like this, for both techs and buildings. For me, the messages just kinda became background noise....
Because MoO3 swamps you with countless technologies and reports. Patch 1.2.5 allows you to remove those messages from the sitrep, so the background noise is gone, but when you take a look at one of your planets, then you will see all the buildings and have the feeling you are looking at a certain planet, not at a standard planet that looks just like the ones in your other systems. As I mentioned before, MoO3 lacks a beautiful display of the planet surface though.

Aquitaine wrote:
This is where we disagree. You think I swept away discussion?
No (wrong assumption :) ), I did not say that. I believe you swept away the outcome of the discussion; making an uncommented decision in favor of pooled production although (as discussion and corresponding thoughts had deepened) the tide was just turning against it.

Aquitaine wrote:
The point of the public review is not to argue something until everyone is convinced of it or until every single criticism of an argument is addressed, which seems to be what you want.
Another wrong assumption. (Sorry for dwelling upon this, but you were so eager to impute me making false assumptions that I could not refrain from giving you a dose of your own medicine.) I only criticized that the decision did not seem to take into account the course the discussion had taken. As your own counting shows, opinions were split about this, and even some proposers had become... pensive. :) You reacted by just stating the decision: We will have pool production, period. In such a discordant situation, I would have expected a short explanation why you decided this way, as well as explaining how you plan on dealing with the problems that have been pointed out against pool production.

Aquitaine wrote:
You can say this about anything you don't like. "Any time you make a decision that affects a large part of the game, the whole project is based on that decision, making your decision that much worse." This is a fallacy of circular logic. "You are wrong because you are wrong."
You should have read what I answered to when I wrote the text you quoted. I was not saying that important decisions may not be made because in the end they might turn out to be wrong. I was responding to drek, who said it did not really matter which way we go, because the other way could quickly be modded in if we found that we had chosen the wrong one. (drek was apparently implying that decision was not of much importance for this reason.) So my point was that the decision was important, and should not be made lightly. (Assumption disclaimer: I am not saying you made the decision lightly. I just responded to what drek said.)

Aquitaine wrote:
Let me get this straight: You are saying that, if you don't understand the system, it's my fault for not pointing you to the fifty pages of discussion and explanation?
I was not talking about all related discussion when I said what you declared "false assumptions". I was just referring to small passages of text that you wrote and that I quoted. What you are saying is just as if I asked you how you could get to the wrong assumptions I marked above, having read all those 50 pages. But these 50 pages have nothing to do with assumptions what you (or I) mean.

Aquitaine wrote:
Decisions do not need to be unanimous. The public review offered by the FreeOrion developers is a courtesy to the community because we recognize that we are a community-based project and without a lot of links to that community, this project would die.
So when the bank robber threatens the clerk with a gun, and the threatened clerk fills the money into the bag, then the clerk is doing the robber a courtesy? This parallel is inappropiate? Only at first sight. The clerk has the options either to fill in the money, or to die. As you just stated yourself, you have the options to work with the community or have your project die. While (unlike the robber) the community is not actively threatening you, the result is the same. You rely on the community. On this background I regard it as overbearing to call your cooperation a "courtesy".

Aquitaine wrote:
But do not mistake our willingness to embrace the community on discussions like this (and our gratitude to the community for doing so) for a democracy. That it ain't.
And that it must not be. Every election shows us that people are foolish. Such a project needs hierarchical leadership with an experienced leader. I totally agree with you there. What I was criticizing was lack of transparency with your decision, and missing information how you plan on dealing with the described problems.

On the other hand, while the decision is not with the public, the community must be allowed to discuss a decision - even if it was not theirs, and even if it has already been made. Nobody forces you to participate in such a discussion, or obey any outcomes. Discussion can always lead to insight. Of course if you make a wrong design decision, then later it can become obvious that it was possible to foresee the mistake, that it was named and described in advance. I can understand that you feel uncomfortable with that prospect, so you would rather degrade this to "Rant&Rave". But that is the fate of a leader.

I mean, the General Discussion forum is not bursting with new threads. Why should it not be allowed to discuss an important decision that has been made?
give a man a fire keep him warm for a day, light a man on fire keep him warm for the rest of his life.

User avatar
Zanzibar
Psionic Snowflake
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:35 pm
Location: Earth

#40 Post by Zanzibar » Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:46 pm

give a man a fire keep him warm for a day, light a man on fire keep him warm for the rest of his life.
should be: Give a man fire, keep him warm for a day; teach a man to make fire, keep him warm for a lifetime.

or, alternatively: Give a man a fish, feed him for a day; teach a man to catch fish, feed him for a lifetime.
Image

Image

User avatar
Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#41 Post by Daveybaby » Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:32 pm

Zanzibar wrote:
give a man a fire keep him warm for a day, light a man on fire keep him warm for the rest of his life.
should be: Give a man fire, keep him warm for a day; teach a man to make fire, keep him warm for a lifetime.
I believe the technical term for that is a joke.

:roll: :wink:
The COW Project : You have a spy in your midst.

User avatar
DeathAndPain
Banned
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:25 am

#42 Post by DeathAndPain » Mon Jul 12, 2004 5:25 pm

Yes, and if you give it a second thought you will find that my version is also true. :wink:
give a man a fire keep him warm for a day, light a man on fire keep him warm for the rest of his life.

User avatar
Ellestar
Space Squid
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 7:39 am
Location: Russian Federation, Moscow

#43 Post by Ellestar » Mon Jul 12, 2004 6:46 pm

PowerCrazy wrote:Really the only similiarity with the Tech trees between FO and HOI is the X rp for Y turns thing. Everything esle is yet to be decided. We won't even have research until v.3 maybe v.4. So put your worries about removing strategy to rest, as far as tech is concerned.
Yes, that's what i'm talking about. Say, you researched 5 battleship techs in 5*Y turns. Now you think that you need carriers (corvettes, different kind of weapon, different tree of economy buildings etc.). Now you have a choice - to fight with lvl 5 carriers against enemy lvl 10 *something* or to fight with lvl 10 battleships against enemy lvl 10 *something*. In both cases you're outclassed, but you can't do anything with it.
That's how HoI tech tree works. You must decide what you want and you can't change it later no matter that - it's inefficient. It works good for a fixed scenario, but there are no scenarios in FO. I hope that idea will be tweaked a little to avoid this.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12675
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#44 Post by Geoff the Medio » Mon Jul 12, 2004 6:55 pm

Maybe you should have tried scouting to see what the enemy is building before investing so heavily in a single class of weapon.

User avatar
pd
Graphics Lead Emeritus
Posts: 1924
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 6:17 pm
Location: 52°16'N 10°31'E

#45 Post by pd » Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:07 pm

somebody should lock this thread now, please. it's in no way productive, instead it's annoying and time wasting.

Locked