← Back to Blog
Project Management November 4, 2025 9 min read

Requirements-Driven Development: Building EF-Map from Vision to Reality

When we started building EF-Map, we had an ambitious vision: create the ultimate interactive map tool for EVE Frontier that would exceed the capabilities of the in-game client. But vision alone isn't enough—we needed a structured roadmap to turn ambitious goals into production-ready features.

This post shares our journey from requirements gathering through systematic execution, showing how a well-documented plan enabled us to deliver every feature we set out to build while maintaining code quality, performance, and user experience.

The Power of Structured Requirements

Starting with "Why"

Before writing a single line of code, we documented the purpose of the project. Not just "build a map" but specifically:

By articulating clear problems to solve, we created a north star for every technical decision. Features weren't just "nice to have"—they solved specific player pain points.

Functional Requirements as Contracts

We broke down high-level goals into testable functional requirements. Each requirement became a contract: "The system shall do X."

Examples:

This discipline forced us to think through edge cases early:

Technology Choices: Documented Decisions

Frontend Stack Rationale

We didn't just pick React, TypeScript, and Three.js because they're popular. We documented the reasoning:

Each choice was justified by specific project needs. When facing performance challenges later, we could revisit these decisions with context intact.

The Client-First Architecture

A critical early decision: start client-side only. No backend services, no user databases, no authentication complexity. This kept initial development fast and deployment simple (static hosting on Cloudflare Pages).

But we documented future enhancements that would require backend support:

By acknowledging these limitations upfront, we avoided premature architecture while keeping the door open for future expansion.

Methodical Execution: Features as Milestones

Incremental Delivery

We didn't try to build everything at once. Instead, we prioritized features by user value and technical risk:

Phase 1: Foundation (August 2025)

Phase 2: Core Routing (September 2025)

Phase 3: Advanced Features (October-November 2025)

Each phase delivered usable value independently. Players could route simple paths in Phase 2 without waiting for advanced optimization in Phase 3.

Non-Functional Requirements: The Hidden Foundation

While functional features get headlines, non-functional requirements made the difference between a prototype and a production tool:

Performance Target: "The map visualization shall render smoothly at 60 frames per second on a typical desktop GPU."

This simple statement drove critical optimizations:

Usability/Consistency: "The user interface shall adopt themes similar to the in-game client."

This led us to implement:

Players felt immediately at home because the tool respected their existing mental models.

Data Model Decisions: Flexibility Through Planning

Static Data with Additive Layers

We designed the data architecture to be extensible by default:

This layered approach meant we could add features without breaking existing ones. Smart Gates didn't require restructuring the core map data—they simply added new edges to the routing graph.

Loading Strategy: Measure Before Optimizing

Our requirements doc explicitly noted: "The optimal strategy for loading map_data.json will be determined during implementation based on performance testing."

This deferred decision was deliberate. We didn't prematurely split data into chunks. Instead, we:

  1. Measured initial load performance (8.2 seconds)
  2. Profiled bottlenecks (JSON parsing, Three.js scene init)
  3. Applied targeted fixes (SQLite database, spatial indexing)
  4. Validated improvement (down to 800ms)

By acknowledging uncertainty upfront, we avoided wasting time on speculative optimizations.

Feature Creep Management: The "Future Enhancements" Section

Documenting Ideas Without Committing

As development progressed, players suggested dozens of features:

Instead of saying "no" or derailing current work, we captured these in the Future Enhancements section of the requirements document:

This approach kept the team aligned on delivering what we committed to while respecting community feedback.

Measuring Success: Every Requirement Delivered

The Satisfaction of Completion

As we crossed off requirements one by one, the document became a record of achievement:

Every feature in the original requirements document shipped. Zero abandoned. This wasn't luck—it was the result of realistic scoping and disciplined execution.

Performance Targets Met

Non-functional requirements also hit their marks:

Lessons for Other Projects

What Worked

1. Document the "why" before the "how"

Articulating problems being solved kept us focused when facing technical tradeoffs. We could ask: "Does this solution serve the original goal?"

2. Testable requirements eliminate ambiguity

Functional requirements written as "shall" statements became acceptance criteria. No guessing if a feature was "done."

3. Acknowledge uncertainty explicitly

Documenting deferred decisions (like data loading strategy) prevented premature optimization while signaling areas for future investigation.

4. Incremental delivery builds momentum

Delivering usable features in phases kept users engaged and provided early feedback, enabling course corrections without major rework.

5. Future enhancements capture ideas without derailing focus

A documented backlog respects community input while protecting team bandwidth for committed work.

What We'd Do Differently

Earlier performance baselines: We should have measured load times and frame rates from Day 1, not after noticing problems. Early profiling would have caught spatial indexing needs sooner.

User testing cadence: While we gathered feedback continuously, more structured usability sessions would have surfaced UX issues (like panel layout preferences) earlier.

Automated acceptance tests: Functional requirements begged for automated testing. We relied too heavily on manual QA, slowing validation cycles.

The Payoff: Sustainable Development

Requirements-driven development isn't bureaucracy—it's freedom. By investing upfront in clear documentation, we gained:

Most importantly, we finished what we started. In an industry plagued by abandoned features and broken promises, EF-Map delivered every requirement we committed to.

Conclusion: Vision + Structure = Results

Ambitious goals need structure to succeed. EF-Map's journey from "wouldn't it be cool if..." to production tool demonstrates the power of:

  1. Documenting vision (why this matters)
  2. Breaking down into testable requirements (what success looks like)
  3. Choosing technology deliberately (justified by needs)
  4. Executing incrementally (deliver value early and often)
  5. Measuring against baselines (data-driven optimization)

If you're building something ambitious, invest the time upfront. Write down what you're solving, who it's for, and how you'll know when you're done. The discipline pays dividends for months to come.

And when you look back at your requirements document with every item checked off? That's a feeling worth chasing.

Related Posts

project planning requirements engineering software architecture agile methodology incremental delivery technical documentation scope management performance requirements