[crossfire] Schmorp back on metalist

[Yann Chachkoff]

Le Friday 14 September 2007 19:27:37 Jonas Stein, vous avez écrit :
> Dear opensource community,
>
> i was very disappointed, when Schmorp disappeared from the metalist.
>
> I had no problems with any client on Schmorp in the last weeks. Although
> this is no evidence, that there are no bugs or problems.
>
> It would be the correct and fair way to include this server in the metalist
> as it would be comletly against the idea of opensource to constrain
> inventions and forks.
>
> I think it is a good solution to inform the user about what he can expect
> from the server. As long there are bugs reported someone can include a MOTD
> message wich informs the user.
>
> Indeed we all do not want to force the user to select a particular software
> or user. He should have the chance to select free between a new testing
> environment or an old stable system.
>
> It would be a shame for the nice community on schmorp, when user will no
> more login because its invisible in the list. Many people have high level
> characters there and have a lot of fun to play there in their leisure time.
> So we should not annoy them.
>
> Thanks for reading so far,

Dear user,

Just as a side note, I'm writing in my own name, and not of the whole 
project - keep that in mind when reading.

I can understand that you are disappointed. Especially after you have (I 
guess) read the latest news entry on Schmorp's Crossfire TRT website, where 
he explains that

" Both our servers have silently been removed from the Crossfire metaservers. 
While this was expected to happen at one point due to the friction between 
the projects, its unexpectedly harsh to do this without giving us any advance 
notice or explanation. But thats the ways of the Crossfire developers: if you 
can't convince with quality, try to shut them down with other means..."

Which indeed made you wonder something like "why are those Crossfire jerks 
blocking those servers ? That's mean ! Maybe they are jealous !" And if I 
were you, I'd ask myself that as well, and would probably write the same kind 
of letter as you did.

Now, given that you wrote that letter, I guess you deserve an explanation - 
from the point of view of a Crossfire (non TRT) developer.

First, let's make this clear: this is not a question of "being jealous". 
Schmorp chose to explore new ways of developing the game. This, in return, 
gave ideas for the next development path of Crossfire itself. There is 
nothing wrong about a derivative of our original code to be successful, or to 
invent new things to improve the gaming experience. I don't care who is the 
project leader - what does are things like "does this change make the game 
better ?" or "What issues players get into ? How can we solve them ?"

You are speaking about the absence of technical problems between the "stock" 
CF client and the TRT servers. I'd like to mitigate this by underlining two 
important points:

- First, the "old" network protocol commands used to transmit map data, still 
used in the 1.10 client, has been removed from the "trunk" code (that is, the 
code for the 2.x version of Crossfire). This means that, for all those people 
using the trunk code for the client, they are unable to connect to a TRT 
server. They'll wonder why, of course, since those are labeled as versions 
2.x, and may conclude that the whole game is crap. I doubt this is a goal 
either the CF team or the TRT one seeks;

- Second, there are obviously some annoying compatibility irks noted on 
Schmorp's side - else, why are they bothering to print all those 
compatibility notes in red letters when you use the gcfclient to connect ? 
Given that they themselves have to use workarounds to make both 
interoperable, this is probably not a good idea to continue that way on the 
long run, forcing them to support other clients than their own one.

Then, you are underlining the fact that it is correct and fair to include 
their server in our metaserver lists, because it is "how opensource spirit 
works". Sure - I just wonder why they forgot that spirit and forgot to 
display all the other CF servers in their own client's server list. Exchanges 
of ideas and freedom of choice can only properly work when all involved sides 
agree to "play the game".

You point out that it is good to inform the user what he can expect about a 
server. Definitely - and that's all what the metaserver2 was about: providing 
more accurate informations about what a server offers. This is why 
metaserver2 includes a field about the map set used, for example.
Now, again, this can only work if each server "follows the rules" and provide 
proper informations about its content. TRT clearly isn't using a standard 
content (this is one of its major differences with the original Crossfire), 
yet was saying otherwise to the metaserver2. Same with the version number. Or 
for the "code base" used. Or for the archetypes set.

Why didn't they "play nice" and provide accurate information is a question 
you'd want to ask them, not us. The fact is that I believe our own gamers 
have the right to get infos as accurate as possible. If a server fakes those, 
then it is better for the players themselves to remove it from the list.

Next, you underline the importance of not forcing the user to select a 
particular software. That's in perfect sync with what we believe ourselves, 
and that's why you are always free to type the address of a server that is 
not listed in the metas. That's also why there is not name appearing in red 
in the list, with a message telling you that "this may be dangerous to 
connect to this !" - because this is basically bad mouthing, providing little 
help to the player.

Just as a side note, there is nothing like selecting between "a new testing 
environment or an old stable system" here. Our new testing playground is made 
of servers running the trunk code. CF-TRT, on the other hand, is a fork of 
the original project, and cannot be compared to it in terms of "newer" 
or "older". Both are developed in parallel. That's why it was asked several 
times to the TRT team to clearly report that on the version string sent to 
the metaserver. That they chose to number their project as 2.x added much to 
confusion, because people mistook their project for an advanced version of 
the CF 1.x, while it was nothing else than a different development path.

Finally, you are saying it is a shame for the players on Schmorp. At the risk 
of sounding repetitive, I'll say again: if the TRT servers played nice and 
provided accurate, non-confusing informations, this would never have 
happened. Notice that the issue is not a new one - it has already been 
discussed in a not so distant past. I find pretty disappointing - and 
somewhat childish - that they preferred pointing fingers on their website 
than come and discuss on the issue.

Well, I think that's all. Again, note that this is only my opinion, not 
representative of the whole CF developers community (even if I tend to 
believe most of what I wrote is a shared opinion). I hope that my answer put 
a different light on your view of the events; I also hope that your call to 
respect, freedom, and fair play will be heard on both sides of what appears 
to be a thickening wall between Crossfire and TRT.

Yours,

Y.E.J Chachkoff