Topic: How to Fix OP D2: Radical Ideas Welcomed (Read 18808 times)

jdmckinney · « **on:** January 30, 2003, 08:42:16 am »

After a long absence from D2, I'm finally considering getting "back in the game." The problem I have is I just want more "stuff" than EAW offers. I want maulers. I want tractor-repulsor beams. I want more ships. I want reasonable versions of X-ships (using phX but not Taldren's over the top Xes or X-heavies). I want pirate shiplists, but not a pirate map. I REALLY want something EAW DOES offer that OP lacks: stable D2 play with appropriately updating hex DVs, neutral coop, and missions that work.

From all indications I've seen, there will NEVER be any substantive work done on OP D2 to fix it, at least by Taldren. It's been about a year since Taldren promised we would get OP D2 fixes. Either they can't or won't fix it, so it's time to pool the community's resources to make a go of it. Yes, I know ArticFires has been given the OP D2 code to futz with, but I don't see any movement on that front. In fact, I think everyone's been going about fixing OP D2 the wrong way -- trying to fix the badly broken OP D2 with its unique limitations is counterproductive.

I'm going to propose some ideas -- maybe some RADICAL ideas -- for ways to get OP D2 stable and reliable for serious campaign play. I invite all community members to contribute their ideas or skills for the good of all. If we succeed, we can look forward to cooperative multi-server campaigns across the EAW and OP platforms, grand campaigns on a grand scale befitting a galactic battlefield.

I challenge you all to make this a reality.

See my post below for some initial ideas.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2003, 09:13:37 am »

IDEA ONE:

Run the OP .exe on an EAW D2 framework. I know this may be impossible, but until someone shows it can't be done, I think it's worth considering. The OP tactical engine is (or will be with a possible OP patch release rumored) very solid. The AIs are pretty good, considering they are still AIs. The systems work well. There are plenty of ships and weapons to choose from. The core of the game is pretty solid. It's the shell, the D2 environment, that is lacking.

If possible, an EAW D2 map (no cartel layer) and serverkit running either OP missions or custom missions would have the benefits of the EAW stability and working features AND the benefits of OP's tactical environment, weapons, and specs. Pirates don't need a map layer, because they can resupply or purchase ships at any base, regardless of ownership. This would make them possible non-factors on the strategic map (though maybe they could still hurt enemy empires without capturing territory), but they would be more like pirates, working in any area they want, running and using the black market, preying upon weak convoys and imperial ships, and generally causing headaches for the imperial navies which have to also deal with enemy empires. If their ship production is low, so be it -- they are pirates, after all.

Where are the problems with this model? First, the EAW D2 kits probably can't work with the OP .exe. Then again, has it been tried? Second, an EAW kit probably can't use OP missions, or at least those missions wouldn't send back the right data to update the server DB. If that's a sticking point, new missions could be created to replace them. Third, such a hybrid D2 setup may not be recognized by the server list hosts. How would anyone be able to access such a server even if it could be made to work? Fourth, the kits may not be able to handle the OP ship specs. Again, we can't be sure until the whole setup has been tinkered with and attempted.

I think the talents exhibited by the members of this community may be able to overcome these limitations. It is certainly worth a try.

------------------------------------------------------------------

IDEA TWO:

Code new OP missions that instruct the OP D2 serverkit to update the map correctly. This is definitely not a new idea, but nobody has really been able to complete this task, at least that I've seen. A number of talented mission coders have worked within the EAW API to create custom missions, but the OP API has gone largely unused. If the missions could update the OP D2 DB correctly, neutral coop should be possible, hex DV boosts and losses should occur correctly, and players should no longer draft allies as enemies in some missions.

The trouble with this approach is that we must still rely upon an OP D2 that has serious issues. Perhaps new missions would circumvent or ignore some of these problems.

------------------------------------------------------------------

It's time to weigh in with ideas, time, and skill. What do YOU have to contribute?

ZTempest · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2003, 10:30:46 am »

I have not been very active in SFC lately for a number of personal reasons. I have mostly been lurking, occasionally logging in and playing SFC 3, etc.

I remember all the talk about "Galaxies at War" in the general forums. Newsflash. I doubt this dream will ever happen.

The ONLY thing we have that comes even remotely close to GAW is Orion Pirates.

So. This call to the community is both appropriate, needed, and needs to be taken seriously.

I know that there are problems. Getting the code for one thing. Coordinating ideas, etc, is another.

Still, if we can come together to do this properly, then we can be successfull.

My own contribution/ideas -- X-Ships, Pirates, and Andromedeans.

1. Need to be both first and second generation X-Ships.
2. Need to be phased in over time.
3. Need to be redesigned for balance.
4. Need to have a standardized shiplist that everyone uses.

This can be done....but we should NOT get mired in some sort of flamefest shiplist council. The only ships that should be changed/added are X-Ships, period. The changes should be put forth to the entire community for review, and nothing hidden.

For Andros....

The TR beam and its variants are already in the game. The things that are missing for the Andros are displacement devices and P/A panels in terms of systems...but we COULD create models, and design andro ships ourselves, to include the mother ships carrying those Cobras...which are essentially jumped up PFs if I am not mistaken. Mog, from SFCX, had taken this part of OP pretty far along in the past...it might be time to pick it back up once again. Part of the problem was finding a place on the shiplist to add them in, but with eight cartels....I am sure that we can do without one pirate "race" in order to bring in the Andros.

Lastly...the most frustrating problem with OP D2 is the whole Defense Value issue, and the cartel map that lies under the main map. It is unnecessary, and the cartel map really does not affect play much at all. Instead, it is an obstruction. The answer is to have ONE map. I think that this can be done...but it requires a close look at the code.

Lastly.

Pirates.

Pirate vessels are not "competitive". What I would suggest is a total revamp of the pirate designs, with new models. Here is how I think that Pirates need to be redone:

1. ONE, possibly TWO cartels only.
2. No pirate ship over a Heavy Cruiser...but those heavy cruisers will be able to take on and give a good fight to anything up to a light dread.
3. ALL pirate ships have fighters -- they are the intercept vessels.
4. Redesign hardpoints on Pirate vessels -- they tend to be light on weapons, but to balance that out, they get limited numbers of X-weapons mounts as part of their design -- even the early vessels (maybe one or two phaser X to replace the other phaser types forward, etc), and a remix of weaponry from ALL races, along with expanded variants of vessels. Should be "doable" if you cut down the number of cartels. Most of the cartel ships are identical in any case, in case you have not noticed. Especially pirate carriers.

In closing...EAW is fine...but OP offers far more diversity, and has the possibility of pulling in the Andros. There are also several more "race" slots available that can be used for future race variations that the community can come up with.

Just some thoughts.

Regards,

Tempest

jdmckinney · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2003, 11:05:32 am »

I don't personally think any "official" shiplist work should be done. Frankly, it's an unsolvable issue -- people will always disagree on what is and isn't a "balanced" list. Even using SFB as source material doesn't work, because people will disagree about whether SFB is a valid source or provides balance. Still, I think the main reason shiplist work should be done by independents and not put out in any official sort of patch is that it is the most easily modified aspect of the game, and most easily implemented. Each admin or player can mod to their heart's content, and if people like the shiplists being produced (FireSoul's being the latest and greatest), they can use them as they see fit.

Rather, I feel the focus on any OP improvements should be D2 and only D2 (again, other than a rumored patch already in the works). If the cartel map can be voided, missions fixed, and map updates corrected, the product should be solid enough for the community to run with their mods. The stable, working foundation of the D2 is what needs to be addressed before the game can grow.

On the subject of pirates, I used to think they needed "something more." However, I realized they really are fine the way they are, for the most part. Pirates are supposed to prey on weaker ships or run from equal or stronger ones. So, having a pirate CL that can't match up to an empire CL isn't really a problem -- they should run anyway. I do think there are too many cartels to be useful. I'd also like to see the ability to deactivate engine doubling for specific cartels so their spec space could be used for "new" races. But, like I said, this is all secondary to a working D2.

With a working D2, I think we would see a great deal of cool, creative stuff from the community for OP.

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2003, 11:13:41 am »

I have to agree with Doug. Shiplist stuff can be easily done by the community. The problem is with the stuff the average user can't do on his own. Getting coop missions in neutral hexes to work, getting any kind of reasonably correct DV response from mission results, etc.

I think it woudl be very nice if there was an option for the Pirate map, wherein you could decide if you wanted the 16 playable races on 1 map, or 8 races on each of the 2 layers. This would allow modders to really go to town. I think though, that the prefered option would be to just have all 16 on the same map, as the pirates never were that popular and severely underplayed. I think having just a singular map with the ability to mod in a variety of alternate races (using the existing elements of the game) would be the quickest, easiest way to go.

ZTempest · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2003, 11:19:51 am »

Agree.

Fix the D2, and the rest will fall into line.

You are right -- shiplists are the most modable element of the game and therefore the easiest to "fix" for each campaign.

Still...I am a "standardization" nut, and seeing zillions of shiplist variants floating around out there is like having an itch you can't scratch LOL.

But, essentially you are correct, and based on past experience, you are right in that getting agreement on a standardized shiplist is probably very unlikely. Therefore, I retract the shiplist changes and simply put forth that modifications should be on a campaign to campaign basis.

I also agree about pirate ships...but pirates somehow need to be expanded so that they fit their role more closely. The problem with pirates are that they were thrown into the game as a competitive element that could theoritically take on the Empire ships, which definitely should not be the case. Pirates should be blockade runners, prey on freighter convoys, etc...unfortunately, this has no affect on gameplay. I don't know if a change in D2 could be made to affect pirate play, but it bears thinking about, especially since hexes do generate "income" of a sort....

But that would be tinkering deeply with the code and probably is not possible in any case. A simpler fix, as you mentioned above, would be mission-based, where Pirates get specific missions scripted specifically for them that give rewards that are more in line with pirate capabilities and roles.

I would re-design pirate x-varients though. And I would get rid of any Pirate "dreadnought". The Heavy carriers might be okay...but actually I would tend to think that Pirates should not have those either. The heaviest pirate vessel should be a Battlecruiser, plain and simple. After all...they are independent operators for the most part.

Just some additional thoughts

To sum up....primary focus on the D2, get rid of the cartel map, and reduce the number of cartels (and possibly expand the number of varients in the remaining cartels?).

In volunteering...not sure how I can help..but I can do "simple" things. I might take on redesigning pirates as a side project and publish some notes here...but that should not be a priority, as you pointed out. D2 fixes should be first -- and the DV issue/cartel map is at the top of whatever sublist comes out.

FatherTed · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2003, 11:29:28 am »

I still hold out a glimmer of hope that GaW will happen, but I'm not holding my breath on it. I only bought OP for the D2, and have never really messed with the single player game. So fixing the problems with the D2 would be a great first step.

Once that is nailed down, bringing in the Andys would be the next step. However, unless it's a specific campaign(them vs the rest), they should be rare, and non-playable. IMO, their ships are usually too powerful to be taken on by a single ship, and the clunky fleet control doesn't help. A Dominator with a full load of Cobras would likely be almost too much for a BB, much less a single CA. Three human players running coop in those things would be impossible to beat. But that's still down the road.

But you're off to a good start.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2003, 11:37:20 am »

So, I think it's pretty clear there are lots of ideas for ways to mod the game and make interesting campaigns, but it all gets flushed thanks to the problems with OP D2. This is where we need new ideas and fresh approaches -- and talent. Are there coders out there who think they can tackle the OP D2 code? Better yet, are there ways we can work with what we have (ala my first "idea" above) to get a working D2 without code changes, or with limited ones?

This is what I'm looking for: how can we, the community, solve the OP D2 problem? Once we've accomplished that, the possibilities are truly endless.

That said, I do think it's important to note OP does not have even rudimentary SQL support, while EAW does (if unofficial). There is yet another reason to try to find a way to use the working EAW D2 as a framework or model for an improved OP D2.

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2003, 11:46:35 am »

I would be great if the DV issues could be solved with new mission scripts. I do seem to remember this being discussed and moved towards at one point, but I don' t remember what ever became of it, other than the mission scripters starting to focus more on EAW.

FatherTed · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2003, 11:50:08 am »

I seem to remember Dave taking a stab at porting some of the Evil Dave missions from EAW to OP, but I don't know what happened with that project.

JD, I'd help if I could, but to me, this is box that make pretty pictures and ships go boom.

FireSoul · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2003, 11:50:41 am »

Quote:

Where are the problems with this model? First, the EAW D2 kits probably can't work with the OP .exe. Then again, has it been tried? Second, an EAW kit probably can't use OP missions, or at least those missions wouldn't send back the right data to update the server DB. If that's a sticking point, new missions could be created to replace them. Third, such a hybrid D2 setup may not be recognized by the server list hosts. How would anyone be able to access such a server even if it could be made to work? Fourth, the kits may not be able to handle the OP ship specs. Again, we can't be sure until the whole setup has been tinkered with and attempted.

The missions for OP arent compatible with EAW and vice-versa. That should go the same for the serverkits. See, the APIs themselves are different between the 2 games. While the sources for the missions may be identical between the 2 games, the end results aren't.

Please consider me authoritive in the matter: I've had to maintain 2 separate versions of CoopAce (one for OP, the other for EAW.) I've also spent a few CPU cycles to recompile the EAW single-player campaigns and EAW Sulu bonus missions for OP.

Quote:

Code new OP missions that instruct the OP D2 serverkit to update the map correctly. This is definitely not a new idea, but nobody has really been able to complete this task, at least that I've seen. A number of talented mission coders have worked within the EAW API to create custom missions, but the OP API has gone largely unused. If the missions could update the OP D2 DB correctly, neutral coop should be possible, hex DV boosts and losses should occur correctly, and players should no longer draft allies as enemies in some missions.

I thought that's what the SQL was going to be for. Really, the OP D2 isn't very manageable with the current DB format.
BTW, what *is* the current DB format?

-- Luc
FireSoul

jdmckinney · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2003, 11:59:49 am »

Assuming EAW and OP API differences are so great as to make combining the two somehow a practical impossibility, is there a way to rewrite, even simplifiy, the OP D2 code so that it is essentially EAW D2 that allows pirates but doesn't use or acknowledge the cartel layer in any way?

While I still have hopes that custom missions can fix the OP issues, that cartel layer seems to be the sticking point. Players can hurt their own hexes depending upon the ownership of the cartel layer in the same hex. Will new missions void this problem?

Again, I'd really like to hear ideas for solutions. I think all of us can come up with reasons why things don't or can't work, but there must be some ideas for how they CAN work. Anyone?

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #13 on:** January 30, 2003, 12:02:14 pm »

I seem to recall that there was a problem with doing a direct port of the "evil dave" stuff, but I could be wrong. Perhaps he was just trying to solve the DV problems with the missions before releasing them, I don't really remember.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #15 on:** January 30, 2003, 12:15:17 pm »

In my experience, simply creating a map with no mention of cartel ownership (no CartelRegion fields in the map data) doesn't remove the cartel layer, but only leaves the campaign with a completely neutral cartel layer.

We should try to push the OP serverkit, and see what happens, but what if the cartel layer is a central part of the code? What happens then?

FireSoul · « **Reply #16 on:** January 30, 2003, 12:16:21 pm »

ok, .. looking at a nice document to how to set-up your own campaigns/server
http://www3.telus.net/NuclearWessels/sfc/mods.html#2.2

Is this sufficient to turn off the pirate races? I know that pirate's map will still be available, but will it still be an issue?

-- Luc

jdmckinney · « **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2003, 12:24:23 pm »

Without looking at this now (can't do anything from here), I can say what I encountered in the past when trying to find workarounds for the cartel layer problems.

1. A totally neutral cartel layer is worse than a populated one, because pilots running missions in their own hexes were hurting their DV by winning (still not sure why).

2. Blanketing the cartel layer with one cartel that is friendly to all empires caused problems when enemies fought each other. A win in the hex counted as both a win against the enemy empire and a loss for the friendly cartel, since an ally of theirs lost (the losing empire). This may not be the end-all of the issue, though. Perhaps more creative political tension settings would help.

3. Even if a campaign starts out stable by assigning an allied cartel to each empire coinciding directly with their territory, once one of those cartel hexes is flipped neutral, the home empire finds themselves hurting their own DVs again.

At this point, the next step, being the easiest, is probably to revisit mapmaking and .gf settings to get more conclusive data on the cartel layer impacts.

SPQR Drall · « **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2003, 12:38:18 pm »

I agree that OP is a great engine and that it should be the primary platform used, if the D2 was fixed. Now, what I am not entirerly clear is what is broken. If you guys can provide a list, maybe a few workaroud could be found to minimize the work needed at the code level, enhancing the chances of having that done succesfully at some point.

The 2 main issues I am aware of (last campaign has benn a little while ago) are the inability to raise DV on a hex you do not own at the cartel level, and the inability to draft allies on neutral hexes. Anything else?

For the neutral hex drafting, Remiak was proposing somewhere else to apply to OP the idea put forth by the SFC2.Net team for RDSL: combine a few races together in order to have an unplayed race that can then be used to carpet the whole map. Would that work.

For the other issue, some campaigns applied Cleaven's proposal of allowing a second allied Pirate account to flip the underlying cartel hex so you could raise the DV. That worked, ad was actually pretty fun.

SPQR Drall

Scipio_66 · « **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2003, 12:43:49 pm »

Hmmmm... well, as long as we are talking radical........

Pirate DV shouldn't affect Empire DV at all. Instead, all (or most) Pirate hexes should start with zeero
economy. Each time a pirate runs a mission in a hex they own, their economy would go up
while the Imperial economy would go down. Likewise, each time an Imperial player ran a mission in a
hex they own on their map, their economy would go up and the pirate's would go down.

Pirates factions would affect other pirate factions DV on the pirate map normally.

OK, I know that isn't helpful to this thread, and isn't even possible. Still, it would have been nice.

-S'Cipio

Capt Jeff · « **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2003, 12:47:00 pm »

What about using EAW missions and Map in the OP server kit?

No mention of the cartel hexes in the map, and none in the scripts.....

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2003, 12:59:13 pm »

That's an interesting idea Jeff. Wonder how that would effect things.

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #24 on:** January 30, 2003, 01:27:36 pm »

Right, but as you said, the sources may be the same but they are compiled differently. What if the sources are not the same though. Do we know that they are or is there additional stuff in the OP versions that deal with reading and writing to the pirate layer (I know next to nothing about scripting, obviously). If the sources are different, then what if we used the EAW source material and compiled it for OP? It would require a download by the player, but if it even helped a little, it would be worth it.

FireSoul · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2003, 01:35:49 pm »

What's the advantage?
Besides, the sources for the OP missions are now avaialble.. why not compare?

NuclearWessels · « **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2003, 01:43:41 pm »

Now that we have the source code for the OP missions we can do a bit more digging on the topic,
so things are good in that regard.

It does seem to me that the missions still only report (in essence) success/fail/no result,
then the game engine actually decides what should happen to the DV based on who owns the hex and who reported the result.

If Tracey/Darkelf/et al can get their SQL/mission reporting ideas working,
and if those can be easily ported to OP, then that might be one solution.

In the meanwhile, here's a thought:
(1) Make all pirate cartels allies of all the empires
(2) Make all the pirate cartels enemies of one another
(3) Divide up the cartel map so that initially there are no neutral hexes
(4) Modify the mission scripts to solve some resultant drafting issues

In theory, this would have the following effects:

(1) empire players wouldn't draft pirate players as enemies,
but might sometimes draft them as allies against other enemies
(hired mercenaries for the mission?)

(2) pirate players would draft other pirates as enemies,
but wouldn't draft empire players as enemies
(again, they might sometimes be drafted as allies)

(3) empire players could raise their own hex DVs for all territory
except that which was cartel-neutral, which should be relatively rare
(just while the hex is being flipped on the cartel map)

In practice the approach above has caused some problems in drafting
(getting weird friends/allies in missions) but I *think* that is due to
mission scripting issues that we can address now that the mission source
code has been released.

Obviously it's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination,
but there are some initial thoughts,
dave

FireSoul · « **Reply #27 on:** January 30, 2003, 02:02:19 pm »

Interesting. The only problem with scripts talking directly to a MySQL server is security.
.. results would indeed be reported back properly.. however how would the D2 serverkit use this information at that point?

-- Luc

TOCXOBearslayer · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2003, 02:28:51 pm »

Also, if a way exists to eliminate the need for the D2 Directory servers, I suggest we find it. Or one day we may be forced to give up the D2.

FireSoul · « **Reply #30 on:** January 30, 2003, 02:34:19 pm »

We don't have the sources to the D2 serverkit code. Most of what you ask above can't be done with lots of reverse engineering. (and then reinventing the wheel.)

jdmckinney · « **Reply #31 on:** January 30, 2003, 02:49:19 pm »

Clarification:

You don't have to have a pirate AI or player in a mission to affect the cartel layer, or for cartel political tensions to mess up the DV results of empire vs. empire missions.

Again, these should be retested, but my experiences:

If all cartels are friendly to all empires, one of the situations I described above happens. Essentially, no matter which empire wins the battle, the serverkit gets confused about how to apply the win/loss to the DV. The possibilities are strange. There may be no DV change for the empires, or their results can hurt the cartel DV underneath. What tends to happen is either nothing changes, or the changes also hurt the health of the cartel DV. Once that cartel ownership flips to neutral, the players begin to hurt their own hex.

In RT3, we had an allied cartel grabbing hexes underneath their enemies and allies to affect the empire DVs. If they took the cartel layer of an enemy hex, or flipped a hex neutral, the home empire couldn't boost their DV, and could possibly hurt it. If they took a hex that was also owned by their allied empires, then the defense missions there WOULD raise DV. The trouble with freeflying pirates grabbing hexes is the players can't monitor cartel layer DV, and can't fight off the invading pirates. They also can't tell how their cartel players' missions are affecting things until a hex flips.

In SG(can't remember the number), players could fly both empire and allied cartel, but not only was it hard to keep track of things, but generally people didn't want to play as a cartel. Even if you can get the 2-layer assault/defense coordinated and have all players conscious of both, you still need players to put in roughly equal time as cartel pilots as they are putting in as empire pilots. Oh, and of course there are bugs even when you seem to get this all straight.

It's such a twisted mess, it's hard to get solid data on what happens when certain conditions occur. Our best bet at this point is to find a way for the servers to ignore the cartel layer when determining empire DV changes. If we could do that, we'd be a giant step ahead of where we are now.

At this point, I really don't know what else to try besides putting up variations of .gf settings ad nauseum and testing the results.

FireSoul · « **Reply #32 on:** January 30, 2003, 03:17:55 pm »

.. we have no choice BUT to test if we want to gather information.
I agree.

NuclearWessels · « **Reply #33 on:** January 30, 2003, 05:59:08 pm »

Ah, damn, sorry Nomad!

I knew you'd done a bunch of testing with the pirate alliances,
but the rusty old memory had the details wrong.

Yeah, I'm not sure what else to try then...
I'll have another hunt through the API for anything that may help,
or trigger ideas at least, but I wouldn't recommend any breath-holding.

dave

Cleaven · « **Reply #34 on:** January 30, 2003, 10:42:30 pm »

Ideal situation I think would be to have a switch for a single layer map that plays like EAW (no pirate empires or ships), or dual layer where the correct DV's are shown for the cartel hexes. In fact the correcting of the displayed cartel DV's should be something simple and if it is a client side fix then it should be in the "soon" to be released OP patch. If it's server side then it can be done with other things I suppose.

This will make the system at least playable in a fashion that is probably no worse than EAW is now.

Mission scripts then can be worked on in a manner to address patrol bug like issues. I may have this wrong but neutral co-op needs to be addressed in the server kit and how it interprets mission results (since EAW has the same problem).

SQL functionality for OP???? Is this even an option?

Fluf · « **Reply #35 on:** January 31, 2003, 02:28:47 am »

Agreed Nomad, Slave Girls 2 was probably the best implementation I have seen so far concerning the pirate cartels interaction. But as you stated, even though all the players could have two accounts, one for their race and one for their allied pirate cartels, it was very hard to fly both. Not being able to determine the pirate map DV was especially frustrating.

The other problem is the pirate ships just suck. What we would need here if the map layer interaction cant be fixed by ArticFire is to make at least 2 or 3 of the pirate cartels actually playable, thus drawing some players to those cartels. If it was a 2 sided campaign, then only use 2 of the cartels. But give them the ships so they could compete reasonably against the main races ships. There are some pirate ships that do very well and with a couple of tweaks, could be made competitive.

I still think OP is our best shot at getting the game we all want. I hope ArticFire can solve the map interaction problem. If he cant, then maybe there is some way to go back to a single layer map and still leave the pirate cartels in as separate race slots that we could use for modding! Can you say Tholians and Andro!

jdmckinney · « **Reply #36 on:** January 31, 2003, 06:43:18 am »

Here's the thing about players using 2 accounts: it obviously doesn't work well with pirates, for a variety of reasons. So, an alternative SFCX came up with once, but never pushed past the testing stage, is to give the cartel "races" access to limited (mostly "vanilla") warships from its allied empire. That can be done using a stock shiplist simply by changing the server-side list (i.e., no download required). We were thinking the cartels would then be sort of a mercenary force hired and supplied by their allied empire to help in the war. However, the problem of being unable to monitor the cartel layer DVs is still there, and people would still have to split time over 2 accounts OR have their team players balanced between cartel and empire pilots.

But, when it comes right down to it, this is all just smoke and mirrors that approximates an EAW D2. If you're not using the cartels as pirates with their own unique ships, or as modded new or additional races, it's easier to just use EAW.

So, rather than make do with these elaborate workarounds, I'd like to find a way to just get OP D2 to work right in the first place. Hopefully custom missions or creative settings can help, but I still think the problem may be too deep and requires a code change. We'll see.

Mog · « **Reply #37 on:** January 31, 2003, 07:51:08 am »

Meow to my friends in this thread first off

To Drall: what seems many moons ago now, while planning for the Tides of War grand campaign, we came up with the idea of using merged race shiplists to counter the neutral coop issue. It was also a way to allow us to bring the Andromedans in (my particular pet project at the time). Believe me, we (SFCx) have discussed these issues to death many times.

To everyone: I don't believe that custom missions alone will fix the problems mentioned in this thread. Custom missions with SQL should be able to achieve what is wanted. Then, the advances discovered recently in EAW can be applied to OP (yeah I make it sound soooo easy lol). So, the question arises again, is there a SQL server kit for OP, or have we been left short (in yet another area) by the developers?

Looking on the negative side, that if Artic fails in his mission to fix OP D2, what alternatives do we have? Do we soldier on, using multiple accounts as empire and pirates, merging races to free up a race slot for neutral space and whatever the other myriad work-arounds we came up with over the last year or so? Or do we decide that OP D2 will never be really playable as it stands and look at running OP campaigns differently?

Take Ghis' General War campaigns that he ran in SFC1 and EAW. Maybe OP would be the better engine for that type of campaign? Granted, it is not an easy type of campaign to run - much coordination between players is needed to fight the battles. But, it has all the ingredients that have been missing from D2. OOB, specified ship production, useful scouts, hell just about anything from F&E could slot right in. The main bugbear, as I said before, is coordinating the battles, which would need to be done either by direct IP or via GSA.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #38 on:** January 31, 2003, 12:50:08 pm »

Meow back at you, Moggy.

If people are serious about wanting to make a better OP D2, one thing we will need are dedicated testers who can bash the D2 map with all manner of missions and outcomes under various settings. If anyone wants to help out, give a yell, and we'll see about putting up a server for the testing.

Julin Eurthyr · « **Reply #40 on:** January 31, 2003, 10:01:57 pm »

Okay. From memory of so long ago & from single-player experience:

Since "OP" was supposed to be about the pirates, I've noticed the pirate map works perfectly, other than the fact that the Don's just don't want us to know how strong our territory is...

Now, for the empires, it's a different story...

Empire & Allied Cartel: hex strength increses on empire map
Empire on Cartel Neutral hex: Empire strength decreases
Empire on Enemy Cartel hex: Empire strength decreases

For some reason, It feels to me that somehow the empire / cartel distinction got reversed. IE, a cartel can't operate in "enemy" space. They flourish in allied space, and for some odd reason just are a mess in neutral space. Perhaps a server where someone renames everything (has the empires flying in the pirate slots and the pirates in the empire spots) could potentially fix most of the DV issues (outside of neutral space issues).

Just this time High Command doesn't want the fleet to know just how tenuous their hold on the front lines really is...

Cleaven · « **Reply #42 on:** January 31, 2003, 10:12:13 pm »

Of course the really wierd thing about OP-D2 is that each empires success is based on the assistance of the pirates working in their territory, and a reasonable assumption is that success of the (or any for that matter) underlying cartel would be bad for the empire. Ideally an empire would be aiming for their space to be cartel neutral, and an enemy empire's space to be infested with cartel influence. I also wonder about how the system should have worked when an empire hex was attacked by another empire and there was a cartel presence. Would the cartel serve as a help or hindrance to the attacker?

The way I see it the OP-D2 should be patched so that the cartel map can be set to all neutral and then the empire map will bahave as in EAW, with the exception that co-op in neutral problem should be fixed too. Also empire players attacks should act to reduce cartel DV's towards zero in addition to shifting empire DV's. And once the cartel hex is neutral further attacks from any empire will serve to raise the DV on the cartel hex making it harder for the cartel to retake it.

Cartel attacks should reduce empire DV's as well as raise their own DV. Cartel attacks should also serve to raise DV's in neutral hexes on the empire map making it harder for the empires to retake. Probably some sort of economy effect as proposed by Scipio should be in play as well. In this way cartels are enemies to all empires

This is a basic outline of how the OP-D2 should work but is complicated slightly by the presence in OP of the Wynn and LDR who really should be pirates (in my scheme of things). I think half the pirates should be deleted and the Wynn and LDR should be added.

Of course this is just my opinion on how the OP-D2 should have been. I don't know what will be possible to do with it now, but at least making it similar in operation to EAW should be possible in a patch.

Cleaven · « **Reply #44 on:** January 31, 2003, 10:36:16 pm »

Does that "job" include in some way getting a quick patch done on the OP-D2 so that we can see the Cartel map DV.

Just that one little thing would go a long, long way.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #45 on:** February 01, 2003, 10:36:40 am »

Exactly. If you can't see your DV (cartel DV), but only the empire one, it is almost impossible to determine the health of your hexes. Just ask any pirate player who ever tried to expand their territory -- you just keep attacking hexes until something flips, never knowing if your missions are working. News helps, but you still don't know what the hex's history is.

Cleaven · « **Reply #46 on:** February 02, 2003, 08:08:24 pm »

So then, who does one talk to about the little DV display job? Can it be added into the next patch or does it have to wait for the D2 patch?

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #47 on:** February 02, 2003, 08:14:34 pm »

Two guess, the first one doesn't count.

I guess we could ask though.

Cleaven · « **Reply #49 on:** February 09, 2003, 12:02:49 am »

A little piece of good news, maybe.

http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=16825&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=2&fpart=1

jdmckinney · « **Reply #50 on:** February 09, 2003, 06:26:54 am »

Pardon me if I don't hold my breath. While it's nice that OP is getting ports from EAW and some OP-only fixes the code needs, the D2 is still in limbo. Last I heard, Artic hasn't really done anything with it (if one is volunteering free time, but has none, it amounts to...). Furthermore, it's been a year since OP D2 was promised a patch. I've learned to believe it when I see it, so to speak.

That's why Dave W's script work seems more promising to me than anything Taldren or Artic might do, simply because I see real progress from "Evil" Dave.

Cleaven · « **Reply #51 on:** February 09, 2003, 07:07:13 am »

I guess I'll just have to live in hope then, but at least being able to see the Cartel DV would be a help.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #53 on:** February 09, 2003, 09:20:21 am »

Diz, thanks for your ever-so-helpful and late-in-coming wisdom.

Seriously, I don't want to do an uber-mod for EAW. I want OP D2 to work. If it can't be done by regression (making it work essentially like EAW with more races and using the OP tactical engine), then there are other avenues. Dave W's scripts might fix some of the map problems. Who knows -- maybe Artic will actually fix the whole thing.

Anyway, we have plenty of people who have given up on OP. It has always been a bastard child, made even more so by Taldren's shallow promises to fix it. I still think it can be better than EAW, giving us more options. I haven't given up yet.

As far as GSA play is concerned, I seem to remember a somewhat recent thought put forward that EAW would be the D2 game, OP the GSA game. If that's the intent from Taldren, it is pretty funny considering how few people play OP in GSA. Of course, the ever-present X-ship complaints will come out when people give their reasons for not playing OP via GSA, but we all know that people don't need to use Xes.

There will always be those who slam OP, for whatever reasons. Some are valid, some are BS. I don't ask people to play it if they don't want to, but I do think those who want to play it might be able to come up with new approaches to making it work.

Kid Carrson · « **Reply #54 on:** February 09, 2003, 09:50:09 am »

A one level SFC OP D2 map where all 16 races operate is the way to go! It would provide so many choices and options for the modding community!

Forget the current two tiered approach. Just bury it!

Great thread!

KC

Corbomite · « **Reply #56 on:** February 09, 2003, 11:05:59 am »

Dizzy why do you always have to piss in people's soup? OP is being worked on and the first of at least two patches towards that is slated to be released soon. Why go through all the trouble of reprogramming EAW into OP when OP is already done? Oh and BTW, learn how the spell "whether" will you?

IndyShark · « **Reply #57 on:** February 09, 2003, 11:23:39 am »

I believe the biggest problem with OP is D2. Since EAW D2 seems to work well, why don't we mod the ships and weapons from OP into EAW? I know several things won't make it (like the correct disruptor arcs), but it would seem to be easier to use EAW rather than OP if the OP D2 is not going to be fixed (anytime soon at least).

What do you guys think?

FireSoul · « **Reply #58 on:** February 09, 2003, 11:33:35 am »

.. I'd like to voice in.

It's too soon to declare SFC:OP dead...
.. of course, if that means that I have to __force__ people to using OP by not doing any work towards SFC:EAW, so be it.

-- Luc

jdmckinney · « **Reply #62 on:** February 09, 2003, 04:05:47 pm »

Diz, I forgot how entertaining you can be. Thanks for the chuckles, regardless of our disagreements. This place would be a lot more boring without you.

FireSoul · « **Reply #64 on:** February 09, 2003, 05:01:02 pm »

..hrm..

facts:

1- OP is better than EAW.
2- OP's D2 sucks and is broken, so EAW is better than OP for the D2.
3- I want more people to play OP, so I support ideas in this thread.
4- people like Dizzy want more people the play EAW

Dizzy, leave us to our daydreaming, if that's what you want to call it. We want SFC:OP, and we want to be positive about it.. and we have good ideas on how we're going to have it.

-- Luc
A somewhat annoyed FireSoul because someone else couldn't take 'no' for an answer.

FireSoul · « **Reply #65 on:** February 09, 2003, 05:26:34 pm »

BTW,

.. I have successfully been able to 'encourage' AI-controlled carriers to use different fighters under OP.

For those with scripting experience, there's a "mSetFighters" function which allows setting the fighters to a different type. If we're going to have scripts which will talk to a SQL server (or soemthing of the sorts), I don't see why we can't make the script do the following:

1- add columns to the AI characters tables (well, for their ships)..
2- save the information of what kind of fighters they should have in there.
3- if an AI ship encountered has fighters, have script connect to Database and load what kind of fighters should be on it.
4- use the OP-only "mSetFighters" function and set the proper number and type of fighters on ship.

If you want an example of AIs with better fighters, try out the OP version of the coopace script. (3.0.1).. nothing stops you from starting a game on your own and play against the AI. (just pump up the probability of a carrier in the customizer). The sources to the coopace have been on my site for a long time.

I've actually toyed with making a better BattleFest for OP using this, but "mSetFighters" seems to be unable to set the fighters on a human-controlled ship.

-- Luc
FireSoul

NuclearWessels · « **Reply #66 on:** February 09, 2003, 06:38:42 pm »

Well, given that there are some very talented people who like OP and are willing to invest their time and sweat to improve it, it will get improved. No one's attempts to tell those folks how they should spend their time on what someone else wants (even you Diz

) really carry much weight, so dinna worry about it.

And cool on the SetFighters Firesoul, I always meant to have a play with that but never got around to it.

dave

FireSoul · « **Reply #67 on:** February 09, 2003, 06:45:38 pm »

Oh.. you have to experience:
"12 Hornet IIIs?! AiiiiiiiiiiE!"

-- Luc

CptCastrin · « **Reply #68 on:** February 10, 2003, 03:13:21 pm »

Just a FYI guys, continued patch testing is going on for OP. I wish I could give you an ETA but Dave would kill me. The testing includes a newer server kit.

Great topic and I love the show, keep up the great work guys. We will continue to work on geting this patch out the door. (Diz, don't make that bet.

)

Sartonius · « **Reply #70 on:** February 15, 2003, 03:20:59 am »

How to fix the OP D2: A VERY radical idea. ;P

Gather thee together a great collection of programmers and fanatics that have refused to let the D2 die. With them, combine thy efforts to build thee a NEW GAME of superior design to the SFC2 series based on the lessons learn-ed by thee and thy bretheren. For thou cannot copyright a look and feel to a game, as the ever-continuing saga of the Tycoons demonstrates. Create thee a new universe similar to the SFC2 universe but with "parallelled", non-Star Trek species and empires, similar tecknologicks and magicks, and thou shalt call this new game simply "Galaxy At War." And thus, the same amount of effort that would be required to repair certain inadequacies present in the only known "standalone expansion" can be better expend'd upon a new venture certain to win thee accolades for years to come.

Or, maybe not. <g> But still, while I am not advocating piracy or intellectual property theft, (I'm only kidding) the same trouble you would go to might just as well be expended making a new game that implements a new design more to what we might wish the D2 was like. I know I'd buy it.

Cleaven · « **Reply #71 on:** February 15, 2003, 04:39:01 am »

The only trouble is that each you make a new product it will have the usual level of bugs. By moving on to a new product each time instead of finalising the existing product there is no benchmark, just a pile of potential. It really is a shame that more attention wasn't paid to the D2. I would dispair at the thought of an SFC4 where the Dynaverse still did not work any better than in EAW. And none of them without working SQL functionality.

News:

Topic: How to Fix OP D2: Radical Ideas Welcomed (Read 18808 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

jdmckinney

jdmckinney

ZTempest

jdmckinney

EmeraldEdge

ZTempest

FatherTed

jdmckinney

EmeraldEdge

FatherTed

FireSoul

FireSoul

jdmckinney

EmeraldEdge

FireSoul

jdmckinney

FireSoul

jdmckinney

SPQR Drall

Scipio_66

Capt Jeff

FireSoul

EmeraldEdge

FireSoul

EmeraldEdge

FireSoul

NuclearWessels

FireSoul

TOCXOBearslayer

TOCXOBearslayer

FireSoul

jdmckinney

FireSoul

NuclearWessels

Cleaven

Fluf

jdmckinney

Mog

jdmckinney

FatherTed

Julin Eurthyr

Scipio_66

Cleaven

NuclearWessels

Cleaven

jdmckinney

Cleaven

EmeraldEdge

Herr Burt

Cleaven

jdmckinney

Cleaven

Dizzy

jdmckinney

Kid Carrson

Dizzy

Corbomite

IndyShark

FireSoul

Dizzy

Cleaven

FireSoul

jdmckinney

Dizzy

FireSoul

FireSoul

NuclearWessels

FireSoul

CptCastrin

Dizzy

Sartonius

Cleaven

Topic: How to Fix OP D2: Radical Ideas Welcomed (Read 18808 times)