PBEM skipping

[NeverMan]

I agree with Dancing Bear.

[eske]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Simul diplomacy is a can of worms and I don't think I can push it into 1.05 right now so should I withdraw skip in 1.05?

No, absolutely not !

I can walk a long way with a stone in my shoe, just as long as I know why it's there.

/eske

[DCWhitworth]

ORIGINAL: eske

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Simul diplomacy is a can of worms and I don't think I can push it into 1.05 right now so should I withdraw skip in 1.05?

No, absolutely not !

I can walk a long way with a stone in my shoe, just as long as I know why it's there.

/eske

Agreed. Put it in !

There may be issues but if you put it in them people at least have the choice to use it or not. The positive side of this feature more than outweights any issues there may be.

[MarshallEllis]

Understood!
 
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

There may be issues but if you put it in them people at least have the choice to use it or not.

This has been iterated so many times and Matrix has failed to understand this: Options are options are options... so WHY NOT put them in? I agree, put it in because it's an OPTION. It's not a FORCED thing.

[Jimmer]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

Simul diplomacy is a can of worms and I don't think I can push it into 1.05 right now so should I withdraw skip in 1.05?

Can you do skipping for just the naval phase? (Reinforcement is going to be a can of worms, too, so I won't ask about that.)

[Jimmer]

Diplo skipping (or any other skipping, for that matter) should not go in (even as an option) unless you can confirm that it does not negatively alter other factors in the game. Since we know it WILL (without simultaneous phasing for diplo), it should only go in as an option, and even then with a warning of some kind (in the readme would be good enough).

[NeverMan]

Any OPTION that Matrix wants to add should go in, period. WHY? Because it's an option and if you don't want to use it you DON'T HAVE TO!!!

I really don't understand why there should even be discussion about options. There should only be polls to see if people want it. It appears people want skipping.

[Jimmer]

Because options are not independent pieces of code. They may cause unforseen changes to the other code.
 
This particular option changes the level of security of the game, not the code strictly (as far as we know, that is). Rather than have users respond "I didn't know it would let so-and-so cheat!", a warning should be placed in the readme.
 
On a different front, it's possible that it cannot easily be implemented as an option, because of the fundamental way it changes how the game is played.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Because options are not independent pieces of code. They may cause unforseen changes to the other code.

This particular option changes the level of security of the game, not the code strictly (as far as we know, that is). Rather than have users respond "I didn't know it would let so-and-so cheat!", a warning should be placed in the readme.

On a different front, it's possible that it cannot easily be implemented as an option, because of the fundamental way it changes how the game is played.

I see someone has an understanding of how software interactions often lead to unforeseen/inintended problems. Failure to grasp this reality leads to disappointed.

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Jimmer

Because options are not independent pieces of code. They may cause unforseen changes to the other code.

This particular option changes the level of security of the game, not the code strictly (as far as we know, that is). Rather than have users respond "I didn't know it would let so-and-so cheat!", a warning should be placed in the readme.

On a different front, it's possible that it cannot easily be implemented as an option, because of the fundamental way it changes how the game is played.

"Code" is not some magical spell. It doesn't work that way, it's actually really straight forward if written correctly. It's just a set of instructions. I could understand the dependency issues if they were coding this for some parallel machine where memory coherency/consistency was important, but alas, they are not. If the code is messing something up it's because it was written that way.

[Thresh]

Code is not magical,true.

If it were, there would never have to be anything more than a 1.0 version of any computer program out there, no patches, upgrades, etc, right/

The problem arises when adding code for options causes unforseen consequences, and when talking about a project like EiANW, its harder to see those consequences. 

Theres a reason we're playtesting 1.04.07, because previous code changes have led to issues that are new, because the new code has changed things somehow.  Many of the issueson Mantis weren't present in the 1.0 releasem because new code introduced them.

So sure, on one hand saying "Add this Option because...." is a good thing.  Makes some sense of course.  Implementing it isn't as easy, its nitexactly a cut and dried process, and no matter how fast someof us want these things, they take time andtrial and error.

Why is that hard to come to grips with?

Todd

[MarshallEllis]

I think code is actually "magical"
 
The code world is a funny world. I agree that it's not magical BUT it is also not so straight forward (Even when it WAS written that way) LOL!
 
Cross dependencies and unforseen effects from changes are why we need version control in the first place. This is normal (NOTE: I didn't say I liked it) in almost ANY software project I have seen.
 
Suffice to say that I have to study alot before I can say yes we can.
 
 

[NeverMan]

ORIGINAL: Thresh

Code is not magical,true.

If it were, there would never have to be anything more than a 1.0 version of any computer program out there, no patches, upgrades, etc, right/

The problem arises when adding code for options causes unforseen consequences, and when talking about a project like EiANW, its harder to see those consequences. 

Theres a reason we're playtesting 1.04.07, because previous code changes have led to issues that are new, because the new code has changed things somehow.  Many of the issueson Mantis weren't present in the 1.0 releasem because new code introduced them.

So sure, on one hand saying "Add this Option because...." is a good thing.  Makes some sense of course.  Implementing it isn't as easy, its nitexactly a cut and dried process, and no matter how fast someof us want these things, they take time andtrial and error.

Why is that hard to come to grips with?

Todd

It's not, did someone say it was?

As many options as possible would be nice.

Marshall, the only problem with code are the humans that write it. Yes, humans make mistakes which is why we need tech support, Q&A, validation teams, unit tests, etc.

But to act like "things just happen" or "things just come up" is misleading. I'm just saying that if done right you can have as many options in the game as you want there is nothing to stop you.

[wworld7]

Phrase the reality however you like.

1) A programmer can write correct code.

2) This new correct code can run into a host of problems when interfaced with other code. This includes other correct code.

3) Every interdependency is a seperate issue and not all can be predicted in advance. Some of the more interesting problems I've seen were actullay fasinating when found. While magical may not be acurrate, VooDoo-like would be.

This does not mean people are not doing good work or are making mistakes. It is part of the programming process.

It is not misleading to accept this as fact.
--------------------------------------------------


Note: Options are great I agree. But they have a cost which there is no choice but to accept.

[MarshallEllis]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

Phrase the reality however you like.

1) A programmer can write correct code.

2) This new correct code can run into a host of problems when interfaced with other code. This includes other correct code.

3) Every interdependency is a seperate issue and not all can be predicted in advance. Some of the more interesting problems I've seen were actullay fasinating when found. While magical may not be acurrate, VooDoo-like would be.

This does not mean people are not doing good work or are making mistakes. It is part of the programming process.

It is not misleading to accept this as fact.
--------------------------------------------------


Note: Options are great I agree. But they have a cost which there is no choice but to accept.

I sense a little "code" in you, maybe???

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis


I sense a little "code" in you, maybe???

A little simple "code" back in the early 80's and 90's. Add in 10 years at a software company, with tech support, trouble-shooting and testing and then LANs and PBXs were dumped in my lap our CFO.

I've seen what I call magic (in Telecommunications its called "FM" but that is another story) and I've seen things that happen that are unexplainable. I tried fighting this reality and wasted a lot of personal time trying to find why.

Then in 1989 a very experianced engineer and me had dinner and DRINKS a few times. Somewhere in this process I finally accepted that programming is art, science and faith all mixed together.

Note: I do not mean "faith" as in religion. For me it is a better word than magic, yet VooDoo also workS [8|]


I hope your away time is enjoyable.

[MarshallEllis]

Thanks Flipper!