The Battle for Wesnoth Forums

Perfect.

One thing I would like to see on an 'experimental fork' is a compression of the sourcecode... That is make the game's file as small as possible without removing features...

Zachron wrote:One thing I would like to see on an 'experimental fork' is a compression of the sourcecode... That is make the game's file as small as possible without removing features...

Didn't get that, please explain in more detail.

Simple really, one of the complaints is that the sourcecode is getting bloated and difficult to read. Even if it cannot be shrunk any, it could stand to be streamlined... Maybe they'll find some of them "missing children" while they're at it.

Zachron wrote:Simple really, one of the complaints is that the sourcecode is getting bloated and difficult to read. Even if it cannot be shrunk any, it could stand to be streamlined... Maybe they'll find some of them "missing children" while they're at it.

How would you want to reduce the code's size and complexity without basically rewriting everything from scratch? :/ The easiest way is removing features. The hardest way is spending enormous amounts of times reimplementing Wesnoth.

That means "not good".

So reorganizing the code(in an optimal manner rather) would be so monumental an undertaking that it would warrant the 2.0 stamp?

Reorganizing the code is an eternal work in progress, and doing it without much care leads to fantastic bugs that shall not be mentioned. It has happened, though.

Reorganizing the code is difficult enough in itself but of course doable.

The main problem i see is coordinating the developers to work together on it, because in my opinion it has to be a period that doesn't allow adding new code. Until now people have always found it more rewarding to work on new stuff.

Mini Bump. The subforum is here for anyone who was waiting.
Now I know it will be getting a lot of crazy ideas. It will also get a few sane ideas that just weren't liked for core Wesnoth. BUT it'd probably be nice if it also got some coders in with that mixed bag of people.

Also I'm told that you should run your ideas by the core Wesnoth team in the Ideas forum first. After it get's turned down you can fill it out the proposal for the fork, and link the threads togethor.

Gambit wrote:Mini Bump. The subforum is here for anyone who was waiting.
Now I know it will be getting a lot of crazy ideas. It will also get a few sane ideas that just weren't liked for core Wesnoth. BUT it'd probably be nice if it also got some coders in with that mixed bag of people.

Also I'm told that you should run your ideas by the core Wesnoth team in the Ideas forum first. After it get's turned down you can fill it out the proposal for the fork, and link the threads togethor.

Only if the idea is not a FPI that has been rejected already of course.

I guess the fork will get it's own FPI list eventually.
The poor ideas that make it to that point truly are unloved.

One of the most significant changes you could make, but keep in mind, this isn't something you can "just drop in", you'd need to dramatically change wesnoth's ruleset/stats/etc to make it play nice, would be:
simultaneous multiplayer.

Players plan moves - potentially including moves that could conflict, and then when everyone has ended their turn, the game resolves them. Resolving the conflicting moves would be what would require the rule changes. There are many, many ways to do this, and I can't see a silver bullet solution.

The popular game "Diplomacy" handled it by causing conflicting moves to get nullified. This wouldn't quite work in wesnoth, because with sufficient units, you could nullify an entire contested chokepoint - it would also just cause lots of ugly surprises.



The huge advantage of this is it changes multiplayer game times to being constant according to the number of players. Right now, >4 player games are rare, and not fun, because they take forever. Wesnoth would kick ass with this, because suddenly 8, even 16 player games would be feasible, so long as the server had enough people around to fill the slots.

Jetrel wrote:One of the most significant changes you could make, but keep in mind, this isn't something you can "just drop in", you'd need to dramatically change wesnoth's ruleset/stats/etc to make it play nice, would be:
simultaneous multiplayer.

Agreed. This is just the sort of experimental gameplay change that would be worth testing out in the experimental fork. Hopefully someone will flesh out the details of such a proposal in the experimental subforum.

+1

Most games I've seen with simultaneous turns either have very simple combat or have flexible stacking limits. Wesnoth has neither.