Topic: OCI/Server Development poll!

[Bonk]

Some ideas I've been thinking about since I'll be home for the winter (got a job for the winter close to home!). 

I have some really good ideas rolling around, but too many. If I were to put a little work into a project which would be best? You have three votes so you can stuff the ballot box for your favorite options! Feel free to suggest other ideas or comments on the options for projects.

Or maybe I should just by an X-Box 360 and Halo 3? (*cough* Where's Dizzy? *cough*)

[Lieutenant_Q]

Honestly, I like OoB concepts a lot.  Automated Kill reporting sounds good, other than that...I can't think of anything else.

[Bonk]

Honestly, I like OoB concepts a lot.  Automated Kill reporting sounds good, other than that...I can't think of anything else.

Completely automated kill reporting/logging is impossible due to mission instability and server quirks. Though semi-automated is, one way would be using a combination of the existing battle log and kills pages (just setup links from the battle log to the kills page that would automatically fill in most of the data for the battle... that would probably do).

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

OoB and the OCI I think have the most potential along with the actual serverkit development. I do have some ideas on each though.. I'll need a bit to collect all my thoughts for it though and post them..

[KBF-Kurok]

Linux please ill be almost thru with windows then just have to teach the family the basics then im thru

[Lepton]

I'll just make a small case here.  PvP DV shifts are something that we have never had and would most effect gameplay.  Many of the other proposed options are implementations of things or improvements of things that have existed in other contexts.

[Dfly]

Excellent projects, all of them.

I feel the PvP shifts as very important, as well as being able to edit kills when errors are made.  A few others are quite great and also important but to me those 2 come first, even though I did vote for 3 things.

[Dizzy]

Get back to the serverkit development and finish PvP DV shifts!

You do that and we wont need a hex ban rule! I think everyone will enjoy the game more when they know they can hop right back into the hex w/o waiting an hour or going somewhere elese where the action isnt.

And Halo 3 is purty cool!

[IAF Lyrkiller]

Bonk!!! you are back. We still need to get together.

[odb]

custom shipbuilder? explaine. i think i like i like

[Bonk]

custom shipbuilder? explaine. i think i like i like

Well you see, the OCI reads ships from the shiplist and constructs them using that data. Our esteemed member Lepton pointed out elsewhere that:

Are you aware that the PHP code written for the OCI actually builds the DamageBlob and the StoresBlob by reading the shiplist file?   Amazing!  And who the heck figured out all the numbers in the DamageBlob such that this could be done?  Amazing.  Heck, at this point, you could build your own ship right in an online interface if the functionality were added.

Yes, of course I am aware, I wrote it! But it had not actually occurred to me to build ships on the fly according to user specifications. The idea would be that instead of loading files from the shiplist, why not write them out to it instead? I would use a web interface in the oci shipyards that lets you build your own ship (within limits) and write it to the game database and shiplist. Now such custom ships would not be able to be used until a scheduled server reboot (that will take some testing) and would require that all clients update (thus the other idea of an integrated OP campaign launcher/updater so that the game checks for updates before launching- been done before for eaw). So it's really two projects in one.

I think the easiest way to prototype it would be to have option mounts on some pirate ships. The benefit of this is that initial shiplists could be much smaller, reducing server load and simplifying shiplist QA testing. Caveat: the custom ships from the oci webyards would have to be perfectly bug free. I am confident in the ship building code I have and that it could be used this way effectively and creatively. Thanks Lepton!

Edit: this could make iteself into an OoB interface through the restrictions applied to custom ship builds and their time of availablility, and by recording the custom shipbuilds. They should cost lots of PP too... and be worth VC points...

[Bonk]

I'll just make a small case here.  PvP DV shifts are something that we have never had and would most effect gameplay.  Many of the other proposed options are implementations of things or improvements of things that have existed in other contexts.

I agree, however, after thinking about it, I think its better if I leave the actual server development for a bit until things settle down and we get a few of the current issues worked out, then I can jump back in on it when it would be a good time to add a new feature.

So one of the other projects would probably be better for this winter. (Though I do intend to get those PvP DV shifts in there when the opportunity presents itself).

[Lepton]

Bonk,

Is there the possibility that PvP DV shifts could be implemented within the database through a set of triggers rather than having to alter the serverkit code?  It's been awhile since I looked at this, but might it not be possible to trigger for resolution of battles between two human players on opposing sides and alter the DV values of the hex accordingly?

[odb]

yo, I got only this to say:
       If, one was to intergrate a moderated ship layout created by the individual user, Defined to his specifications, within limits to a reasonable BPV.  Build that to a undefined number of hull class's that only support certain mod's or call it a weapons platform.  Take this for example.  Any type of hull from one class whether it be big, small, not defined to ships at this point, just a engine with standard componets, basic armaments.  Say it be a size layout that is not loaded with any modifications yet. that size layout has a max an a minimum set of componets needed.
       This is just me putting thought into a perspective, a idea, something to compare this to:
              You guys just blew the door's off of sfc's next best thing. (Get it to work) Then allow it to function for sfc_op over at GamespyArcade when one is in the shipyard or spacedock. Don't bash me for saying this, but sfc3 in game playability just wasn't there. An that is just my opinion, as i do enjoy the game. Only the thing is the sfc_op In game playability, in my opinion is preferred. In order to complement your beyond awesome theory to a customizable "Shipyard/Spacedock" idea.  Clearly the idea of a customization like sfc3 ships but for a sfc_op game even in its simplest functionability would keep me around for years to come.
       Just the thought of a mass amount of players adjusting a gaming environment certainly adds a dynamic grasp of preferences the individual gamer loves, an to be able to test the results in a sfc_op server, even if not with gamespy, is truly what one so desires an strides for.  Is it not our soul one intention to take a total number of points an find what fits owns own style of combat?
       And the people that continue to provide diligently, the gaming services you so truly produce time and time aging, I have full confidence such a thought will soon be part of our hopefully neverending on line dynaverse gaming experience.

[Dizzy]

It'd be tough to agree with anyone who would attempt to argue that ship customization beyond Bonk's Orion Option mount system idea would be balanced enough to see massive competitive play online. So therefore if it's not balanced, you just won't see support from it from campaign designers.

Going beyond taking a ship's heavy weapon hardpoints and offering a limited flexibility of changing those around limited to that particular race's type weapons, wouldn't be balanced imo. No one's touched off on this... but let's take the Fed CA and turn it's 4 Photons into option mounts. What are the options? Ph1? B racks? ADD? This probably needs to be discussed... I just don't see the need to put something like this ahead of getting multiple PvP DV shifts done if there isnt consensus on an acceptable way of implementing this.

[Lear]

The ship is not fair has never been fair will never be fair. Fighters that can GUT a Ca in one
pass Droner Chucker that go speed 31 and freely drop drones at no cost in power.
Is Fair no it is Not unless you have the drones or the fighters.
Pardeck and others have left because of this it could bring back more members...

[Dizzy]

The ship is not fair has never been fair will never be fair. Fighters that can GUT a Ca in one
pass Droner Chucker that go speed 31 and freely drop drones at no cost in power.
Is Fair no it is Not unless you have the drones or the fighters.
Pardeck and others have left because of this it could bring back more members...

Your whole post is entirely confusing. Who are you responding to, what are you trying to say and please reword your last sentence as it didnt make any sense.

[odb]

just the tought of even as simple as dropin a simple hardpoint an being allowed to refit it, an the refits even if its say a 2x photon tube gotta keep refits to the current selected race, an a cap on max amount of a single wepon. if even the refit had to be of equal or lesser bpv then the origional specs. not being allowed to a total fit as in start with a blank hull would keep it simple. get a basic workin system intergrated with op with minor maybe next to no modifications alloweed if the idea is interduced to the community in a workin enviroment just to let the players get a taste. of course providing the oci an the server's hold stable.

[Dizzy]

I was thinking that the ship mod would be workable if it'd be able to take into account a preselected criteria format in which we can tag ships in the shiplist using the class and special role columns and then identify those HP's upon which depending on their race will allow you to alter their weapons. I'm sure even a timeline can be used so that certain weapons like plasma torpedoes and drone racks are available when they should be. I think it'd be pretty cool.

[FPF-DieHard]

Bonk's back from the Gulag?

[Bonk]

Bonk's back from the Gulag?

Yes, Amnesty international's Canuckistan branch petitioned the authorities for my release from unjust political exile. The authorities relented after much pressure, but with the condition that I enlist for service with the Royal Canadian Kilted Yaksmen and swear allegiance to Stephen Harper.

... but seriously, I got a job at home for the winter (thank *&%$, it's cold enough here). I might go back up next summer for the better money though.

[odb]

well sonner or probibly later we will have a decent server to bonk the b0onk around! 

[KBF MalaK]

Along with my 3 choices I'd like to see an optional manual installer of campaign files (or at least better documentation of where/what files are being installed by the automated installer). The automated installer has killed my OP install more times than I can count and I've become quite good at manually removing old campagn files and saving my install.

[Bonk]

Along with my 3 choices I'd like to see an optional manual installer of campaign files (or at least better documentation of where/what files are being installed by the automated installer). The automated installer has killed my OP install more times than I can count and I've become quite good at manually removing old campaign files and saving my install.

All my NSIS campaign installers (and Firesoul's too) have a "Show Details" button on the installer progress page, and each and every file copied/moved etc will be listed, you can copy and save this record as well. The Clickteam installers don't have this feature that I'm aware of. Batch installers are always pretty easy to figure out as you can usually figure it out by just reading the batch file. (hint - NSIS installers can be extracted manually with 7-Zip, so you can just extract them and place the files manually if desired. though any scripted actions will not be extracted - it used to decompile the script but they disabled that)

The problem with a zillion and one campaign installers floating around, no matter how user friendly, is that eventually you end up in a tangled mess of mods installed one on top of the other. Or you can keep multiple backups of your OP folder consuming disk space and time...

Thus, one of the ideas mentioned in this poll, but now after more thought I think it should be integrated into one single "package manager" for OP.

I'm thinking that approaching it from the side of the mod file structure (bottom up) is the way to go as proposed in this thread:
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163377469.0.html
It would be a bunch of work to restructure existing mods into a new standard format but once done they could be posted to several repositories listed in the default OP Package manager config. Then to run a new campaign, you can simply instruct users to select the package you have uploaded to the repositories in the package manager and launch the game (integrating mod application and game launch into the package manager, with command line use too so you can create your own custom update and launch shortcuts...)

With a standardised mod package format people can then write their own applications and scripts based on the mod package definition.

[KBF MalaK]

No worries, just trying to save some noobs the headaches I had learning how to manually un-install campaign files when the uninstaller fails to work. On the plus side- whatever installer thats been used over the last couple of years has been (for the most part) caught by Pesty's mod chooser which makes manually uninstaller much easier (for me anyway).

Don't mind me, I'm in a rotten mood today.

[Bonk]

...Pesty's mod chooser...

I'm pretty sure the mod chooser is Strat's, Pestalence just bundled it with his enhancement packages. I'm hoping that Strat will weigh in on my standardised mod package format proposal, which I believe can solve these types of issues once and for all.

EDIT: Strat and I had planned on integrating his mod chooser with sfcdirect using standard codes for traditional mods. I think that while initially a standard mod package format would be a bunch of work, but it would make everything so much easier in the long run when integrated with a package manager like Strat's. It would be soo much easier to code the mod chooser/package manager. Heck we could even move sfcdirect's game matching functionality into the package manager and repositories and dump the web interface (and gamespy)  Strat! Var r joooo? I'm baaackkk!

[Bonk]

Bonk,

Is there the possibility that PvP DV shifts could be implemented within the database through a set of triggers rather than having to alter the serverkit code?  It's been awhile since I looked at this, but might it not be possible to trigger for resolution of battles between two human players on opposing sides and alter the DV values of the hex accordingly?

As far as I see it no. For the same reasons I cannot completely automate kill reporting. (mostly mission disconnects and crashes make it impossible to tell). If I could, then yes it would not be to hard to get PvP dv shifts using kill detection code called by a trigger.

Currently, the only opportunity that I can see to reliably determine if a battle was indeed valid PvP is at the mission completion and reporting code in the serverkit.

Um wait... lemme think about this some more. The main question is how to handle crashed/split missions in PVP detection outside the kit?

[Bonk]

Poll now closed. Thanks for the votes on the poll everybody, your input is greatly appreciated.

I'm going to have to go against the majority vote for this winter's project, due to circumstances beyond my control (damn dial-up). So it will have to be something I can work on locally at home, so that will be continuing to troubleshoot and test OP under Wine on Linux.  (I will probably have a second project that I can work on at home over this winter too... Lyrkiller and I have a top secret project in the works...).