Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderators: Oberlus, Oberlus

Message
Author
User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 803
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

#31 Post by The Silent One » Mon May 13, 2019 7:17 am

labgnome wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 11:09 pm
I mean I have seriously wondered if KISS (at least strictly) will survive the introduction of government and diplomacy. Those are just kind-of inherently complex. [Move away from KISS]
Sorry, but no. One of the strongest, if not the strongest, design principle of FreeOrion is KISS. Personally, I think the discussion has gone overboard recently. We should concentrate on simple, practical solutions, be it influence, diplomacy or government. IMHO, it's one thing to throw in lots and lots of nice ideas, but it is something else entirely to implement it and make it work.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

#32 Post by Ophiuchus » Mon May 13, 2019 2:35 pm

labgnome wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 11:09 pm
Vezzra wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 3:59 pm
...
Interestingly, trying to keep things KISS can be unexpectedly... complicated...??? :lol:
I mean I have seriously wondered if KISS (at least strictly) will survive the introduction of government and diplomacy. Those are just kind-of inherently complex. Especially if it's going to be more work to make it KISS than to just admit that it will be complex no matter what we do. The question is how much more work do we want to put into something just to make it "simpler" if the "complex" version is perfectly feasible. I do like KISS as a design principle, but I do wonder if we might be starting to hit something like an irreducible complexity when considering modeling these kinds of social interactions. I still think we should always strive for simplicity, or at least conciseness, but simplicity shouldn't be making things much harder for us to do.
If we had a lot of developer manpower we could go the Stellaris "agile" route.
First implement something and later on try (again and again) to make something simple and working. Actually i see them taking (some of) their decisions in the direction of freeorion (simplified, imperial stockpiles; only starlane drives;...).

As it stands i suggest that the people doing the talking come up with a KISS design first. And doing as-simple-as-possible-but-not-more-simple was never easy but usually pays off.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
labgnome
Space Dragon
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

#33 Post by labgnome » Mon May 13, 2019 5:23 pm

Ophiuchus wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 2:35 pm
As it stands i suggest that the people doing the talking come up with a KISS design first. And doing as-simple-as-possible-but-not-more-simple was never easy but usually pays off.
Believe me I've been trying to keep things KISS. However, there has been a bit of mental fatigue causing me to question it.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 780
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

#34 Post by Ophiuchus » Tue May 14, 2019 7:41 pm

labgnome wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 5:23 pm
Ophiuchus wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 2:35 pm
As it stands i suggest that the people doing the talking come up with a KISS design first. And doing as-simple-as-possible-but-not-more-simple was never easy but usually pays off.
Believe me I've been trying to keep things KISS. However, there has been a bit of mental fatigue causing me to question it.
:D probably our design process is not very KISS
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Furthermore, I propse... we should default to four combat rounds instead of three ...for the good of playerkind.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4892
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

#35 Post by Vezzra » Fri May 17, 2019 1:35 pm

labgnome wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 11:09 pm
I mean I have seriously wondered if KISS (at least strictly) will survive the introduction of government and diplomacy. Those are just kind-of inherently complex. Especially if it's going to be more work to make it KISS than to just admit that it will be complex no matter what we do. The question is how much more work do we want to put into something just to make it "simpler" if the "complex" version is perfectly feasible. I do like KISS as a design principle, but I do wonder if we might be starting to hit something like an irreducible complexity when considering modeling these kinds of social interactions. I still think we should always strive for simplicity, or at least conciseness, but simplicity shouldn't be making things much harder for us to do.
I agree that when trying to make something KISS you might hit a wall now and then and simply have to acknowledge that some things can't be sufficiently simplified to meet our requirements of "KISS".

However, giving up on KISS and just implement something that is more complex than we'd usually want it to be isn't the only option in such a scenario. If we can't come up with concepts/mechanics e.g. for government that are simple enough, then we can just not include that mechanic into FO at all. There are probably a lot of things/mechanics that would be interesting and nice to have, but we can't include them all anyway.

As TheSilentOne pointed out, KISS is one of the most fundamental, core design principles of the project, deviating from it should not be considered an option.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4892
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

#36 Post by Vezzra » Fri May 17, 2019 1:44 pm

The Silent One wrote:
Mon May 13, 2019 7:17 am
Personally, I think the discussion has gone overboard recently.
Interestingly, this always seems to happen when we get to these kind of mechanics. Apparently, modelling the relations/dynamics between populations/colonies/species/empires apparently is quite difficult without things getting very complicated very fast.

IMO the only chance to keep things KISS here is to cut corners. We have to face the fact that we can't include everything that would be nice and interesting to have.

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 803
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

#37 Post by The Silent One » Fri May 17, 2019 2:13 pm

Vezzra wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:44 pm
IMO the only chance to keep things KISS here is to cut corners.
Couldn't agree more.
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

User avatar
labgnome
Space Dragon
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 5:57 pm

Re: Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

#38 Post by labgnome » Sat May 18, 2019 8:38 pm

Vezzra wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 1:44 pm
IMO the only chance to keep things KISS here is to cut corners. We have to face the fact that we can't include everything that would be nice and interesting to have.
IMO: I think there is a difference between cutting corners and admitting we can't have everything we want. I'm certainly not in favor of abandoning simplicity, I just think it's healthy to re-evaluate these sorts of things every so-often, especially if there is a consistent reason to call in into question.
All of my contributions should be considered released under creative commons attribution share-alike license, CC-BY-SA 3.0 for use in, by and with the Free Orion project.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 4892
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Ideas for small/atomic theme categories

#39 Post by Vezzra » Sun May 19, 2019 2:26 pm

labgnome wrote:
Sat May 18, 2019 8:38 pm
I'm certainly not in favor of abandoning simplicity, I just think it's healthy to re-evaluate these sorts of things every so-often, especially if there is a consistent reason to call in into question.
I think I understand where you come from, and of course we need to be open to re-evaluating past design decisions (and actually have done that in the past!).

However, there are certain limits to what can be subjected to re-evaluation and what can't. Core design principles that define what kind of game FO is supposed to be on the most fundamental level firmly belong into the group of things not open to discussion. KISS is one of the most fundamental ones, which is why many things in FO are modeled on a very abstract level (the productive infrastructure of an entire planet represented by a few single meters, supply lines being just like that: abstract lines, not actual tiny, automated ships running back and forth between your colonies etc.).

Avoiding micromanagement is an equally fundamental, related design goal.

Giving up on those would change what kind of game FO is meant to be fundamentally, and if you start re-evaluating on that level, you'll never get things done. Simply because the people working on the project change over the years, of the original team only Geoff, TheSilentOne and Krikkitone are still active today (and I'm counting Geoff only because he joined in very early, strictly speaking even he wasn't part of the group who started it all). Different people have different ideas and preferences, and the only way to prevent the game from being redone all over every couple of years is to have an untouchable set of fundamental design goals and principles as a means to guide and keep the project on track.

I'm with the project since autumn 2011, that's almost eight years. The project started in 2003 (eight years before I joined), so I've been partaking roughly half of the entire lifetime of the project, acting in a lead capacity for a few years now. But even I would never think of starting a discussion about those fundamental design goals/principles, although I definitely would have chosen different ones had I been part of the original team and a say in defining them (not because I think they aren't good, but because my preferences are a bit different). Because I think it's important to stick with the fundamentals to ensure continuity, stability and progress.

I hope I've been able to adequately explain why I'm so adamant about this... :D

Post Reply