Leaderboard

I have talked a bit with a few of the more active programmers, and there are two things which are clear. First, they think Jorma is a highly talented programmer. Second, that it at least can seem as if he's a bit too prone to rewrite whole parts of the code as opposed to improve on what's already there, even if the task he set out to complete would be completed (and in less time, and easier to review) by improving the existing code. This can of course be both a good and a bad thing. The old code might be so bad that the only way forward is to rewrite/it might be less effort etc. On the other hand, rewriting code means it's a lot more code to review for other programmers, and can of course introduce new errors. It can also be hard for someone else to judge whether the rewrite is a good or a bad thing. All-in-all this doesn't mean that Jorma can't get paid/never should rewrite anything, I just think there are a few things he (and everyone else who makes any substantial changes for that matter) can do to make it easier both to review and to accept bigger changes (these are based on things the programmers mentioned, but using my words. In other words, don't blame them if something sounds weird, and don't give me credit if there's something great ): If the objective of the change is to improve performance it should be demonstrated clearly (using e.g. one of the existing profilers or an external profiling tool) comparing the results before and after the code change. If entire bigger blocks of code is rewritten it should be demonstrated clearly that the alternative of improving the existing code has been considered. I don't mean that the programmer needs to write an essay on the pros and cons of doing things one way or another, but it should be obvious that's not just done on a whim, "I can't be bothered figuring out why someone else did things that way so I'll just rewrite things the way I think is best". Exactly how it is done is less important, it can be done through forum discussions with other programmers, it can be a few lines in the Trac ticket describing the thought process (and preferably offering some kind of proof that the rewrite is necessary), etc. Just something to acknowledge that the old code has been considered and not just thrown away because it seemed easier to begin from scratch. (And of course it depends on the scale of the rewrite how much effort should be spent, rewriting a couple of hundred lines of code or something shouldn't need more than a line or two in the relevant Trac ticket while rewriting entire files/sets of files of code should preferably be discussed thoroughly beforehand.) In conclusion, I think (with the above posts and my discussion with the programmers as a base for my thoughts) that Jorma should be paid with the Pledgie money under the following conditions: 1) that he communicates to the rest of the team and the fans at least once or twice a week in a progress report, and 2) that he communicates to the other programmers why he has made the choices he has.

Fixed in r13531. Only works for player owned sheep though, as otherwise someone playing Romans could damage a corral based food economy severly.

Thanks for mentioning that last thing, I don't know enough of it to have any real input on that specifically, but it did remind me of one other thing. Note that this is mostly something we as a team need to consider and not a criticism towards Jorma or anyone holding either opinion. It has always been a goal that 0 A.D. should be possible to run on as many systems as possible (both in terms of Windows/Mac/Linux and in terms of different hardware), but when updating the code to take advantage of newer features there's always the risk of limiting the number of possible computers the game can be run on. Should we strive more for the best looking/running game possible or more for the game that the largest number of people can enjoy and play? Of course we'll have to settle for somewhere in between, we can never create the most visually advanced game, nor can we create a game that can be run on every computer (just making the game 3D has ruled that out). But I think it would be useful for the future if we would make a general decision as to what we would like to aim for.

Is Seven Kingdoms type of diplomacy too difficult? It seems like this type of diplomacy of Rome Total war is more something for a turn based part of the game. I'm talking about real time strategy diplomacy. Rome Total War could have features that fit into 0 A.D. but it is very different. I wouldn't like battles like Total War in 0 A.D. as of now; combat is simply not interesting enough. But yeah I don't know how everyone feels. Age of Empires was about building a city and stuff like that so I feel diplomacy could be expanded, improved. It isn't supposed to be only about fighting for example. I was playing Seven Kingdoms 2 and noticed some other things (I actually prefer playing this singleplayer to 0 A.D. singleplayer as of now, not to be mean). Seven Kingdoms also has surrendering to players. Since converting would be made, this could perhaps be done (not requesting it however). But maybe this is too radical? So when a player surrenders to you (not resigns!) you get acces to all his buildings and units. (I don't like the idea of converting a single building and gaining acces to the units of the faction, though I like the idea of capturing buildings) It could be helpful in multiplayer games. Your teammate needs to go, to sleep, eat whatever. And he surrenders to you. Seems better than your teammate turning into AI. You could also piss someone off by surrendering to your favorite player. (the same pop cap would still apply to you)

StarCraft is an APM and Build Order game. That is all you need to know. Brood War players refer to keeping every barracks type building 1 unit and 1 unit only all the time as macro. Its honestly ridiculous. Personally I feel that strategy games should be about intellectual capacity and not finger speed. Arcade-RTS is one of many good names for the kind of game SC is.

Thanks for reporting this, I'll look into it as soon as I can (which should be sometime next week, my orals will be over and my FM13 addiction should have lowered by then).

Yet another celtic blacksmith concept:

Thanks guys, merchant ship didn't come out quite as strong though. I put a crew on the Quinquereme too but it didn't make too much of a difference scaled down. The background issue can always be sorted out later, I like the warm gradients and blue because it doesnt seem too far fetched from actual sky colors. Once we get into greens and purples, it's going to look strange.

Thanks Zaggy, I'll tack that on my to-do list. I still need to draw the crew, but here's the Quinquereme

I've already said it internally but let me go ahead and say it publicly: as much as I feel for the around 1-3% of the people who will be left out when the switch happens, I think it is much more important to pave the way for future improvements and an overall better graphical gameplay experience. Technology advances at a fast rate and eventually everybody (of the the said 1-3%) will catch up. That is the great thing about open source and tech... they just keep getting better and better. On a side note, eager to see how far the capabilities of the engine are pushed and what the limits will be. Only time shall tell