omg, I always suspected you to do this... destroy the whole project!
Well done >.<
German users may want to read "WZFlag? WTFlag!
clever title: though google's translation isn't great, i get the distinct feeling that you think warzone is going to go away. i don't know exactly how this merger is going to happen, and i only heard about it upon reading this thread, but it appears to me that the source code from wzflag mostly
comes from warzone, given that i saw a few references to base building, and the gfx engine is obviously from warzone. in fact, afaict (i haven't tried wzflag), the only
major differences between wz2100 and wzflag are:
- the ability to directly control vehicles (which we'd already discussed adding with very little negative feedback)
- tanks that jump
- possibly simplified gameplay on the strategy side
given that, wzflag pretty much is
wz2100 with a few extras and possibly some limits on research/structs (that's something that you can mod -- not something that you need to change the source for).
possibility #1: if this is largely the case, and the devs are nice and add server creation options to toggle off vehicle control and jumping tanks, then with those options off, wzflag would be wz2100
possibility #2: if the gameplay changes are different enough that they must be incompatible with wz2100, then if the devs are nice, they'll modularize the code tree so that you can build either wz2100 or wzflag, with any developments that aren't game-specific (like gfx or netcode improvements) will automatically apply to both.
although i was also shocked and had similar thoughts when i first read about wzflag, looking at it objectively, if either of the above possibilities are true, there's no way this merger could have a negative effect on any part of warzone as we know it. in the worst case, if they really are abandoning the wz2100 aspect, then it's gpl, and the code is still accessible to everyone, which means all they did was fork (or essentially say they quit, as opposed to doing anything actually destructive to the project). in that case, it's still beneficial to the developers because the wzflag codebase is probably just a modification of the wz2100 codebase, in which case a second set of programmers can quickly move all changes into a seperate "wzflag" branch, at which point, we move back to possibility #2. if the devs are downright mean (or lazy) and instead continue to work on a merged codebase in a way that doesn't allow you to build warzone with general code improvements from the wzflag effort, then given the obvious similarity between codebases, it'd be trivial for the people who want to see wz2100 thriving to backport any architectural improvements from wzflag into wz2100, and probably even set up a script to merge the codebases for all general svn commits (only a major code restructuring would break the automated script).
in all cases, though, i can't see any way in which improvements to wzflag aren't beneficial to wz2100, especially if the devs are interested in maintaining the ability to play wz2100 as we know it (either through config options or a seperate build). i don't know about bzflag, since i haven't played it much, but i'm sure there are many who would like to be able to play bzflag with improved graphics and varied terrain, but without the base building that's said to be in wzflag -- if wzflag has a server creation option that allows you to turn off all base building, than wzflag would pretty much be bzflag. imo, it sounds pretty easy to appease the people who want to play wz2100, the ones who want to bzflag, and the ones who like the new wzflag, all possibly done from the in-game server creation window.
just remember, there was community resistance when we found out the source was being released under the gpl... can anyone here honestly say they think the source code would've done nearly as well, or even anything at all if it were licensed under something more proprietary? one way or another, the wzflag merger will be good for wz2100 just like the gpl was.