William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Jonathan Kaplan wrote:
>> ...  but what would be
>> ideal would be putting a *large* range of options
available as a 
>> user-controlled setting.  
>
> Shudder.  That's horrible.  How do you test?
>
> Remember, this has to handle civ1/2/3-like games, so
civ1 Swamp resource
> Oil has to turn into civ2 Peat, and then civ3 Oil
again, depending on the
> *same* game loading a different ruleset.  Likewise,
Tundra, Desert, etc.
> All while the terrain is
irrigated/mined/transformed.
>
> The reason that the old Freeciv behaviors were
changed it that the code
> didn't actually work well -- Fish on land, etc.
>
> There were long discussions.  The best path to
correct code was "hiding"
> the resource whenever wrong for the terrain.  It has
the added advantage
> that after cutting down trees, and building a road,
reforesting gives 
> back
> the Game....  Just like they teach in natural
resources classes!
Well, I just think that as many options as can be made
to work *fairly 
well* should be available, for people to choose as
they like! I like 
being able to make quite a bit of swamp/spices, even
if it is "unrealistic".
>
>> 1.) It rerolls whether or not there is a special
whenever the land 
>> type is changed, and the new special will always be
appropriate to 
>> the land type, even if land is changed to water or
vice versa
>
> Very like civ1.  And that was changed in commercial
civ2, because it 
> leads
> to bad game play.  People repeatedly change the
terrain until they get 
> the
> combination they like best.
>
> And when did cutting down a mountain ever give you a
wonderful forest 
> full
> of deer, anyway?  In life, it yields a thousand year
blight!
Like I said, the idea is a choice where you can choose
the type of 
gameplay you want, and the style of terraforming
utility you want in 
your game... I just think this shouldn't be a
"developer chosen only" 
thing, because many people like one of the options
that the game had 
previously.  Why would it be so hard to simply make
the options that 
have come about so far to be availalble?

>
>> 2.) The special simply stays, but land specials
always stay on land, 
>> and if it is changed to water, it goes away, and
water specials can 
>> never be on land
>
> That's what was intended in 2.0, but it never worked
well.  And again, 
> the
> players gamed the system, so you ended up with
buffalo on grassland, etc.
>
> The resources are "balanced" for each terrain. 
Allowing them on another
> terrain creates horrendous game play problems.
>
> ...
>
>> Does anyone have any thoughts about this? 
>
> Many.  But the most important thing is to get the
current code well 
> tested
> before embarking on new options....
>
> The one thing that I'd planned was new flags for
persistent/exhausted
> resources, so that Coal/Gold would stay after
transforming a hill, but be
> depleted over time.  So, "living" resources would
still disappear on
> terrain changes, but could replenish forever.
>
> Anyway, these should never be "a user-controlled
setting."  They need 
> to be
> in well-developed scenarios, where all the chosen
features can be 
> balanced.
>
Well, why can't anyone choose the settings of the
specials like they can 
for everything else? It seems to me that this game is
about giving you 
options for customization, not taking them away...


      
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

_______________________________________________
Freeciv-dev mailing list
Freeciv-dev@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev

Reply via email to