Topic: Hex Editing of Starfleet executables

[Corbomite]

Well here, give it a shot and see what you think.

Set your PH3 chart to this:


Range:_ _10____20____30____40__ __50_____60

Max:__ __4_____4_____4_____3__ ___2______1

____ ____4_____4_____4_____2_____ 1______1

___ _____4_____4_____4_____1____ _1______1

___ _____4_____4_____3_____1___ __0______0

___ _____4_____3_____2_____0____ _0______0

Min:_____3_____3_____1_____0___ __0______0


Only the last two range columns and last three damage columns are modified, assuming you are starting from a stock config and not the the patch config. Then set the Phaser Max Range Tab at 59.9 for PH3.

[TarMinyatur]

Nice chart, Corbomite.

Interesting.

I like the ability to retaliate modestly with Ph3/G if you get Hit&Run...

[TarMinyatur]

Found the variables in Starfleet2CE.exe that determine the strength of shields in a Nebula. Default is 10 points for all 6 shields. I've updated the offsets.txt to allow any reasonable value to be chosen. The data is unusual because it divides the entry by 64. So 640.0f yields 10.0f. I needed to alter the .exe to point to segregated data, so this will be available for 2.680.

Found variables for the hitpoints of WW, SS, GAS, and Scatterpack shuttles. It's odd that they don't use the entry in ftrlist.txt for X-SH, but that's understandable because they are treated as seeking weapons. Still looking for the variable for the Suicide Shuttle's warhead (19h)...

Found the variables for T-bomb and NSM explosive strength. 100-point NSM's are brutal, but I haven't figured out how to restrict NSM's to old-school Rommies.   

[TarMinyatur]

...That and getting fighters to not fire their PhoF at stationary targets at over range 4 (guaranteeing an auto-miss) when set to Attack.

That sounds like a bug. Try a speed-zero fighter with PhoF and no phasers. Deploy it at range 5.5k. Does it fire at a base station when set to "attack"? Then add a Ph-3 to the fighter. Same results?

[TarMinyatur]

I can add customizable speeds for each Plasma Torpedo in CE. Maybe we can do better than SFB's high-speed plasma "sabot" thing or OP's Fast Plasma. I don't particularly like SFB's direct-fire "bolt" option, either.

Plas-R, S, F/I, D: Speed 36, as usual. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Plas-G: Speed 34 with extended range. Max damage of, let's say, 10. But it has great endurance such that a fleeing target could fire Phasers twice at it. If you want to crunch your opponent, you switch to Plas-F for the 20-point warhead. I'll do some testing to come up with some reasonable numbers.

So what's the point? Plasma is already too strong or too weak, depending on the player's experience. Tar, why are you screwing around with the venerable time-tested Plas-G? Well, it's an experiment to overcome the lack of Plasma Bolts in the game. The BPV of a Plasma Launcher includes the bolt option, which Plasma chuckers can't access. It's sort of like the proximity option for Photon Torpedoes...what would you say if that mode wasn't available?

Anyway, it'll be an opt-in feature, through the SFC_Editor.

[Corbomite]

They may not have a bolt, but they have endless pseudos as you lamented. Give and take. Seems fair now.

[TarMinyatur]

Corbomite, endless Pseudos can be addressed. I think they should recharge slowly. Maybe 15 turns instead of 8 or 9. Once found, it'll be another variable for the SFC_Editor. (I don't remember lamenting over PPTs, but I guess I did.)

I tested a Speed-34 extended-range PlaG mod  tonight. I like it. It feels like a Gorn-style weapon, although I can't yet restrict it to the flying staplers. So the Roms and Frogs get them too.

----------------Range------------------
0-33  34-48 49-57 58-60 61-63 64
 10       7        5       2        1     0  <--- regular damage on one shield
 20      15      10      5        1     0  <--- total enveloping damage (applies fully to unshielded units)
 3        2        1        1        0     0  <--- damage per shield vs ships


Insane? Maybe. But a bolted PlaG does 10 damage out to range 10, if it manages to hit at 67% accuracy. So the average damage is 7 points. In this experiment, the target can run for 1.5 turns or choose to get whacked for 10 points on a strong shield. Enveloping mode looks very impressive until you divide the damage by 6 shields. The target can fire Phasers into the PlaG at range 5-8 initially and at range 0.9 a turn later if needed.

{Note to self: I need to make sure the torpedo has 40 hitpoints vs phasers (or 10 hitpoints vs 25% efficient phasers). ---> Confirmed.}

An unintended side effect: Starbases are toast, but they were already getting crunched (10 damage) from range 18 with normal Plasma-G's, where incoming Ph-4's do 4,3,2,1,0,0 at best. But bases could be given Plas-G...

[Corbomite]

Sorry, my mistake. It was recharging HETs you were feeling gave an edge over you in your battle with Tobin.

Talk to Tobin about how I trained the FPF to hit with plasma S by using plasma G to hone tactics. Not one G hit it's mark, and this was training people who never flew plasma before and didn't really know how to avoid it either. That's how easy they are to avoid. S & R (and X) are the only real threat unless you are close and unprepared.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

I think I have mentioned the following reminder a few times over the years. The biggest killer of the player base was not being able to play dynaverse on post XP operating systems. Fixing bugs etc. is great. Changing things to suit a person or 2 while still hoping to grow back the player base is dangerous. People were generally accepting of non-sfb issues and thankful to have a closely resembling computer game. Leaving XP behind was the last nail in the coffin.

I'll now move into an area where I can get slapped more for my thoughts. I used too many HETs in a victory, so after 14 years (sfc2) we should nerf HETs? (my opponent used 3 HETs that I recall to my 12 in 2 hours and 9 minutes) In other games last week with someone else, I was told that I couldn't have won if my ship didn't have plasma D. So what now? We nerf or remove plasma D from ships? ( I let the other player set terms so c'mon ) Also told that another victory of mine was because person was tired. I didn't bother to say that I had been up 18 straight hours and was tired myself.

Let's just fix the game if it can be done to run clean on modern operating systems and not advocate changes because player A used a ship that's always been available to defeat player Bs' choice.

[d4v1ks]

War is all about who has the better weapons, tanks, airplanes or ships at a given time. Sometimes just a release of a new thing would create an advantage.
All multiplayer games have to deal with this.

If a game was only A against B, and A > B, we would just need to nerf A or buff B.
But imagine that in a 3-player game, B > C, but even so C > A, how would we fix this?
If we boost A, cause it looses to C, then B would just get destroyed when playing A, etc.
Sometimes A, B and C are just diferent, and will never get perfectly balanced.
Game balance issues are the most common theme in a multiplayer game.

Some of the funniest videos are about it... for example

world of warcraft... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRGDcwOxBzY
hearthstone... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWA71iBD0-A
league of legends... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lnowbp88lwI

So tournaments create some workarounds...
Like forcing a player to choose 3 ships, and when it wins with A, then it can only play with B or C next.
Or if a player won, then in next game he is the first player to choose a ship, so the other can counter it with a better choice.
Or like in chess, white has an advantage, so they switch sides each game.
People add clocks, restrictions, so the game can end in a draw, etc...

[Corbomite]

I think I have mentioned the following reminder a few times over the years. The biggest killer of the player base was not being able to play dynaverse on post XP operating systems. Fixing bugs etc. is great. Changing things to suit a person or 2 while still hoping to grow back the player base is dangerous. People were generally accepting of non-sfb issues and thankful to have a closely resembling computer game. Leaving XP behind was the last nail in the coffin.

I'll now move into an area where I can get slapped more for my thoughts. I used too many HETs in a victory, so after 14 years (sfc2) we should nerf HETs? (my opponent used 3 HETs that I recall to my 12 in 2 hours and 9 minutes) In other games last week with someone else, I was told that I couldn't have won if my ship didn't have plasma D. So what now? We nerf or remove plasma D from ships? ( I let the other player set terms so c'mon ) Also told that another victory of mine was because person was tired. I didn't bother to say that I had been up 18 straight hours and was tired myself.

Let's just fix the game if it can be done to run clean on modern operating systems and not advocate changes because player A used a ship that's always been available to defeat player Bs' choice.

    I couldn't have said it better.

[TarMinyatur]

I'll now move into an area where I can get slapped more for my thoughts. I used too many HETs in a victory, so after 14 years we should nerf HETs?

No, we shouldn't nerf anything, like HETs. In SFB, we would often have post-battle discussions. I suppose I sounded like I was complaining, Tobin. But it was combat analysis from a frustrated loser (me in my R-KE). HETs should be risky, in my opinion, certainly after the first one. Wouldn't that result in more interesting battles and reward a player for attaining an advantageous position? Maybe it wouldn't matter. So an HET regeneration option for the SFC_Editor is harmless for those who want to experiment.

I was told that I couldn't have won if my ship didn't have plasma D. So what now? We nerf or remove plasma D from ships? ( I let the other player set terms so c'mon ) Also told that another victory of mine was because person was tired. I didn't bother to say that I had been up 18 straight hours and was tired myself.

I know players get annoyed when they lose, myself included, and come up with excuses -- mechanical or personal -- for their defeat. We may be rusty in our sportsmanship. It will get better. "GG. Let's play again." will be the norm or we are doomed.   

Let's just fix the game if it can be done to run clean on modern operating systems and not advocate changes because player A used a ship that's always been available to defeat player Bs' choice.

Indeed. But I can't do that without (or perhaps even with) source code. In the meantime, I'll add more options for the SFC_Editor. Nobody ever has to use the thing. This Starlance cycle actually prohibits it (no hex edits).  I'm advocating a sort of Omega Sector capability for SFC.

Thanks for your input, Tobin. I value everyone's comments.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Additional thoughts on HETs. You won't usually see any body use 12 HETS in a game, because you usually won't have a 2 hour plus battle. I might have used 1 in our 100 late asteroids match which was a more normal length. Also, since not all ships can HET, I am wondering if there are other variables like how fast the recharge rate happens depending on class of ship or just ship to ship, or some other factors? Most dreds can't HET. (66% chance?) The fed CLC light cruiser can't (83% chance) I never liked the FED-CLC for PvP because of that rare lack of a HET in the light cruiser class.

[TarMinyatur]

True, TobinDax. A few non-Dreads do have a chance of failure even with the 33% bonus. All the Federation New Light Cruisers and the Battle Frigate top out at 83%. Same with the Gorn Old Light Cruisers and Old Destroyers, and, surprisingly, the Lyran Battlecruisers. This weakness gives them character. But this seems like such an exclusive club.

SFC might  be better if an HET is truly a desperation maneuver rather than an ordinary (yawn) pivot for the vast majority of non-Dreads. If a Dread or Battleship suffers a breakdown, they're almost certainly dead -- that's the way it should be for these oversized, overgunned monsters.

What regenerates in SFC? Shields (limited by labs), fighters (limited by deck crews), Pseudo Torps, Warp/Apr/Impulse, and HETs. The last three have no limits...

The rate of HET regeneration is 2.5% per turn for every ship. So the HET bonus is restored in 13.5 turns, roughly the length of an SFB tournament ship duel. Is a guaranteed HET every 7 minutes too frequent? 

[Corbomite]

You can control HET % and bonuses manually through the shiplist.


On another completely different topic:

Is it possible to hex edit a mission?

[FPF-DieHard]

Is a guaranteed HET every 7 minutes too frequent? 

In 16 years of SFC I've never seen anyone fret about HETs except for this conversation.

Fights are just longer in SFC, regenerating HETs has never been an issue because of this.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Is a guaranteed HET every 7 minutes too frequent? 

In 16 years of SFC I've never seen anyone fret about HETs except for this conversation.

Fights are just longer in SFC, regenerating HETs has never been an issue because of this.

How about we limit the number of times a Rom can cloak? Or maybe put a recharge rate on it so he can't just fire an R torp and cloak and then rinse and repeat?  Leave the game alone.

[TarMinyatur]

How about we limit the number of times a Rom can cloak? Or maybe put a recharge rate on it so he can't just fire an R torp and cloak and then rinse and repeat?  Leave the game alone.

Cloak has no SFB/SFC limit per scenario, of which we are all aware. Fighters had infinite regeneration, which we thought wasn't ideal, so that was patched by Magnum long ago, he didn't leave it alone.

The game was left alone for about 10 years. And how was SFC doing a year ago? Here we are in a thread with 20,000 views about hex editing. I think there is interest in enabling "house rules" and wild mods. If someone wants an option to limit Cloak in some way, that's great. I don't have to enable that option.

Again. Nobody is required to use the SFC_Editor, or anything that Adam, d4v1ks, TAnimaL or I have labored many, many hours upon. I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I am not imposing anything on anyone.

EAW 2.036, CE 2.670, and OP 2.552 are all available if someone thinks they are superior mothballed products.

I'll get back to work on the Sprites.q3 to enable an extra heavy weapon hardpoint on a model...

[TarMinyatur]

You can control HET % and bonuses manually through the shiplist.


On another completely different topic:

Is it possible to hex edit a mission?

The HET% is bugged when set low. It actually goes up after a ship suffers a breakdown. The HET+2 bonus always regenerates, which is precicely the feature that is being discussed. Is a one-time bonus considered too radical for this game? Anyway, I don't know the offsets that control HET behavior other than rotational velocity and movement cost, so I'll not comment further on a hypothetical issue.

EDIT: If a ship has two HET bonuses (e.g. K-F5), the first bonus does not regenerate. The second bonus does regenerate. I wonder why. Interesting.   

Missions can be hex edited. Although with the mission API and Visual Studio you can edit them properly in a higher level language. No need to hack them with a crude Hex Editor...but if you don't know C++, go for it. 

[Corbomite]

Well, all I want is to make more maps for the Ion Storm skirmish. I was always peeved that they only gave us that tiny map. Barring placing more maps, I'd like to make the one map a medium map.

If you could make an editor that can do simple stuff like change terrain and maps that would go a long way. There are a lot of missions out there that could be spruced up a bit without heavy lifting.