smoooth wrote:...I don't believe a shot length 120 was ever intended for the game. I think, like Joevano has suggested, that config file was intended for storage only and the input is not checked for out of range values. The intent appears to be max shot length 14 but through an unchecked config file edit any value can be obtained.
This is all assumption and opinion. Its a valid opinion. There is nothing wrong with that opinion. But opinions will differ. Both views have been excessively expressed in this topic, as well as on many other occasions. The conclusion is: there is a disagreement.
So far I cannot detect from comments that your view about the config-file is favored by the majority of the league players.
But still someone like dexter is putting effort in addressing some of your points, in removing the "mystical" aspect of configs and provide an opportunity for new players to know about them. Other's like snick examine the physics implementation and exposes for anybody to read the impact of the current implementation on the physic engine. These are very
time intensive steps to address issues.
A current consensus seems to be that we try to create a client version that addresses some issues regarding the physics engine and test that version. This comes down to who ever has the time to help with it, implement it, and if the motivation is there to invest that amount of time. What happens then is still unclear and undecided. The preference expressed by JeffM is to classify it as a mod, which would be realized through a protocol break to enforce that mod for GU league playing. Maybe there are other solutions, but that would depend on how much of the behavior of the tank is changed. According to snick, there will be no behavior change, except that the physics engine will be more FPS independent.
If such a client would come with a protocol break, one could discuss changing the internal limits of configuration values. But a decision for this would not be based on preferences of a single player.
But all of this comes with a cost:
Many of the changes possible can change the very nature of the game and the league. It is a free league based on a free game based on a spirit of free will. The league and the game does not have any obligations for catering towards anybodies personal needs. What our responsibility is, is to ensure that the league remains operational. The rules for the league basically reflect what we consider to be common-sense. Sadly there seem to be some fields where the idea of common-sense diverges. We address those issues where we think it's necessary. But we don't think that special needs of individuals should be our most concern. There is not a single competitive mind-set envisioned for the game. The league should be open for people that simply want to have some fun, as well as for people that like to shine. There are different levels of skill, as well as different levels of how much one wants to invest on improving skill. Changing the game to suite a single mind-set and motivation mode is not what this league is about.
Second thing is time. Everybody in the league including admins are here to play a game. Every day spend on non-playing related issues are days taken away from a potentially fun gameing time. We are all not here to maximize your fun and react on every opinion you have. We are here for our own fun, which we get from playing the game. So every second invested in the game not related to playing is an offering of the person doing it.
Basically this means, if you want to get something done, do it and then offer it. If it is accepted, its great, if it's not accepted, then there wasn't any need for it. BZflag, the game servers, the leagues, the league site, the server trackers, this forum, all the wiki's, all our time spend.....all of this happened not because someone asked for it, but because someone did it and offered it.
The key word for a "free league based on a free game based on a spirit of free will" is do it, don't demand it
smoooth wrote:How ever I have thrown this question out for other developers or maintainers to comment on. Was this the intent? Then should this be fixed.
The developers are available on IRC. Have you talked to them there?
To some of the proposed changes, JeffM and other devs/moderators have excessively expressed their view on changing implementation in 2.0.x. When you ask questions, you have to atleast acknowledge the answers.
smoooth wrote:The problem is we get players on here who are so hooked to using these unchecked values and flaws they get defensive about fixing them.
Just because people disagree and they don't accept your personal opinion, it doesn't make them villains. They simply disagree.
smoooth wrote:Then they convince their gu admin buddies to allow things. I.e. 2.0.2 that shouldn't be allowed.
This is an assumption which is factually wrong. Nobody convinced us to allow 2.0.2. More to the truth, 2.0.2 was never disallowed, so there was no convincing necessary to allow what was already allowed.
"meet the new fo0 , same as the old f0o ... no no no .. don't get fo0'ed again ... " - The Who