Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 11:19:46 am
Quote:
At least it lets them know there is another patch coming.
Well, we've been at it for a few weeks now. DavidF has been swamped with bugfix requests and .. well.. just plain old requests... but I think all the issues have been mentioned so far. Currently we, the testers, have a debugging serverkit up which logs massive amounts of data after each mission. The goal is to collect hard valuable data about the "Neutral Coop Bug", and possibly any Pirate Map layer interaction bugs. It could be that both are related and are one and the same.
This post is in reaction to something I spotted lately in the forums:
Quote:
I have no idea what is or isn't planned in terms of future OP patches. I wouldn't hold my breath for another one, that's for sure.
You can breathe now.
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on June 07, 2003, 03:56:39 pm
Do you know if the Romulan cloak issue going to be fixed?
KF
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 04:15:01 pm
Quote:
Do you know if the Romulan cloak issue going to be fixed?
Unless something obvious pops up that'll tell Taldren patches (DavidF) exactly where the problem is? .. no.
Post by: Magnum357 on June 07, 2003, 06:30:55 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 06:33:50 pm
Post by: Cleaven on June 07, 2003, 07:31:10 pm
Quote:Quote:
Do you know if the Romulan cloak issue going to be fixed?
Unless something obvious pops up that'll tell Taldren patches (DavidF) exactly where the problem is? .. no.
It needs extra code, as opposed to being a bug.
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 08:11:25 pm
.. I know. I know. I'd like to see it in the patch too.
-- Luc
Post by: IndyShark on June 07, 2003, 09:17:27 pm
Keep up the good work my friend!
Post by: Alidar Jarok on June 07, 2003, 10:18:39 pm
Which do you think would be a better choice, OP or the original SFC?
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 10:28:13 pm
Most EAW players didn't think there was enough of a difference between EAW and OP to wararnt spending.
I picked OP. I support OP. I work a lot for OP. I did a lot of stuff for OP. I say: OP.
Post by: Cleaven on June 07, 2003, 10:46:09 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 11:02:35 pm
-- Luc
Post by: Magnum357 on June 08, 2003, 12:09:53 am
As for my Multiplayer problems, I have no clue why I can't play the game against anybody. I have tired everything I can think of and it still doesn't work. Good news is that I was able to install SFC1 Gold and have had no problems playing multiplayer games on GSA with it. At least I can play some SFB rule with some people with it, but even 4 years after it was published, SFC1 is still a fun game to play.
On a side note, I'm about 85% complete with my first ever SFC model. Its based on SFB rules and such and I'm really hoping the SFC community (especiall the SFB fans) like it. I'm still a novice with Milkshape, but I'm getting better and this model is not bad in my opinion with such a simple 3D program.
I just hope the next OP patch can solve my problems.
Post by: FireSoul on June 08, 2003, 12:11:32 am
Post by: Magnum357 on June 08, 2003, 12:35:49 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 08, 2003, 12:43:23 am
next.. uhm..
.. what's your OS? Who's your ISP? What type of connection? Which DirectX is used?
Let me explain: SFC EAW and OP were both based on DX7. To play on GSA, you need the DirectPlay TCP and UDP ports to work, as well as the GSA-related ports. Anything higher or equal to DX9 should be good.
.. now, by firewall, I mean any device or software that may filter the network traffic between you and GSA. It could be within your OS , turned on, without you knowing it. (Windows XP). It could be the device you may be using for net connectivity. (ie: linksys router).
.. and it could be at your ISP's.
If you can positively say you have all of these items covered and double-checked, then I too don't know what's wrong.
Post by: Cleaven on June 08, 2003, 02:07:10 am
Does the same thing happen if you make your own room, ready up and start the game by yourself (alone that is)?
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 08, 2003, 02:45:56 am
1. Fix the LWX arc. It annoys me.
2. Fix the stop dead in space fighter bug/defend me bug. It's repeatable, happens every time. Corbormite has all the details on this one.
3. Give the poor romulans their SFB cloak. They'd be much safer when cloaked, though when cloaking they'd be a bit more vunerable. They already don't have bolts or carriers.
Things I'd love to have them add (IE, cold day in hell):
Fighters and PF functionality for all races. You don't need to add the content, we'll do that. And it would be nice if they were to do this that they would allow fighters and PF's on the same ship at the same time.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 08, 2003, 09:07:12 am
1. Webs
2. PA Panels
3. Displacement Device
4. Stasis Field Generator
5. "Extra" race slots on the empire map for modders to add races
Or, more reasonable:
6. Abililty to turn off engine doubling for individual cartels (again for race modders)
7. Fighter loadout restrictions
8. ACTUAL combat BPVs taken into account for matching/scoring (so whatever damage and supplies/fighters/PFs a ship has at the start affect the baseline BPV)
9. Plasma-I that follow the rules
10. Offensive Plasma-D for fighters
Sure, there's a whole lot more we could ask for. At this point, anything we get is gravy. Thanks Dave, for working on another patch. Thanks testers, for helping him and suggesting fixes.
Post by: IndyShark on June 08, 2003, 12:36:31 pm
Post by: Strafer on June 08, 2003, 02:38:03 pm
You would need to be able to select the swordfish, pick it's target, and launch it. There's no interface to do that.
Creating a drone that matches speed of target and generates a constant ECM stream would be easy enough I imagine, getting it out the launch tube would be hard.
Post by: Corbomite on June 08, 2003, 03:01:47 pm
Quote:
that would be complex.
You would need to be able to select the swordfish, pick it's target, and launch it. There's no interface to do that.
Creating a drone that matches speed of target and generates a constant ECM stream would be easy enough I imagine, getting it out the launch tube would be hard.
Modify a fighter to look like a drone, set it permanently on "Defend Me" and drop it out the shuttle bay. Of course, when the drone stops dead at range 6 from your target due to the fighter stopping bug people will scream bloody murder!
Post by: IndyShark on June 08, 2003, 03:03:09 pm
I'll keep my fingers crossed!
Post by: plesbit on June 09, 2003, 03:17:59 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 03:19:52 pm
Quote:
Firesoul, is there any chance your OP+ shiplist will be official in the new patch? Besides the neutral coop DV fix, that would make the OP patch really cool.
I'll keep my fingers crossed!
I know you asked last night via D2, but I'll respond here for everyone..
.. no, it's a mod. Besides, it could contain material that Taldren hasn't signed an agreement for.
Besides, I'm not done yet. I'm waiting for some times to happen first.. then I intend to do a big release version.
-- Luc
Post by: Gamester on June 09, 2003, 04:02:14 pm
There are lots of other goodies too - we all hope that this WILL be the patch that makes OP D2 a reality, but only time will tell.
Gamester
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 04:20:12 pm
Quote:
Actually - I can tell you that the LWX arc is fixed, and some other arcs requested by Firesoul have been implemented besides (The graphics depictions of the new arcs on your ship weapons overlay will not be right, but that would require making new graphics - not gonna happen). That will allow him to do some pretty wonderful stuff to his custom shiplist.
I'm hoping that some work will be done for these arcs.. because there are very close analagous arcs that could be used for the UI... and a couple of arcs that are not in SFC actually showed up in the random'd UI for these arcs. We'll wait and see.
Edit: If the extra work would have to be at the sprites.q3 level, then.. no. We'll have incorrect UI arcs for these additional arcs.
Edit2: PS. I was hoping the news about the added arcs would have stayed.... a surprise.
Post by: Dogmatix! on June 09, 2003, 04:53:38 pm
Quote:
I asked David Ferrell if it was allright to let people know about the patching work currently in progress for SFC:OP. I just got the OK from David Ferrell:Quote:
At least it lets them know there is another patch coming.
Well, we've been at it for a few weeks now. DavidF has been swamped with bugfix requests and .. well.. just plain old requests... but I think all the issues have been mentioned so far. Currently we, the testers, have a debugging serverkit up which logs massive amounts of data after each mission. The goal is to collect hard valuable data about the "Neutral Coop Bug", and possibly any Pirate Map layer interaction bugs. It could be that both are related and are one and the same.
This post is in reaction to something I spotted lately in the forums:Quote:
I have no idea what is or isn't planned in terms of future OP patches. I wouldn't hold my breath for another one, that's for sure.
You can breathe now.
That's definitely good to hear, but I'm still thinking it won't be a good idea for one to hold his or her breath in anticipation. Even under the best of circumstances, patches for the SFC series have been mighty slow in coming. I mean, SFC3 was released about seven months ago and I think we're still waiting for the first (non-beta) patch, aren't we? OP went about a year between patches?
Again...I'm very gratified that there is some hope and that maybe the neutral co-op bug will be red-carded and a sent off. I just hope it happens in my lifetime....
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 05:06:58 pm
The big problem with that bug, and the pirate map interaction problems I might add, is the sheer lack of information.
"It sometimes occur when I do this."
"It doesn't happen all the time."
"It's only when under these circumstances.. but sometimes actually works."
etc..
So what was done is a non-fixed serverkit (for the current tester build only, sorry) which logs additional information. Testers would log into the test D2, and play a few games specifically to generate data.
ie: "10:10 pm EST. Hex: x,y. This guy drafted me. We're both klingons. Neutral coop bug occured."
The logs generated gave an idea of where to look, but the exact bug was not tracked down.
So another serverkit with even MORE log spammage was compiled and put in place. Some fixes are going to be attempted. Etc. This cycle will continue at need.
If the Neutral Coop Bug hasn't been squashed yet, it will be.
-- Luc
Post by: IndyShark on June 09, 2003, 07:48:59 pm
Unless of course you are going to fix the pirates!
Post by: Chris Jones on June 09, 2003, 09:02:57 pm
Post by: Gamester on June 09, 2003, 09:19:56 pm
Gamester
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 09:42:00 pm
.. We can just shut up here and let them all sweat it out.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 10:15:05 pm
THAT's always been DavidF's to do. Besides, the list is still growing.
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 10:25:57 pm
Post by: Strafer on June 09, 2003, 10:44:33 pm
"Don't feed the programmers."!
Post by: kosh2000 on June 09, 2003, 11:51:49 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 11:57:07 pm
I really don't know why people want to remove the cartel layer. Seriously. Just fix it.
Besides, what is "Orion Pirates" without pirates? No, it's the product that was sold and it should just be fixed.
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 12:09:33 am
If the cartel layer doesn't affect the normal layer's DV results, and vice-versa, there are no problems. The 2 maps can coexist flawlessly. Removing the layer completely would cause a lot of problems on the DB side, I would suspect.. and is a lot more trouble than just fixing the bugs.
-- Luc
Post by: Cleaven on June 10, 2003, 01:46:48 am
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 10, 2003, 03:01:33 am
Another possibility is to use the cartel layer for non-military or commercial traffic for each empire simulating some kind of economy or universe in the background (and not using up valuable slots in the shiplist with freighters without having to remove them), and so on. This would work particularly well if SQL ever works for OP.
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 03:27:57 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 03:28:43 am
Quote:
So would an empire attacking an empire hex affect a cartel hex now? And vice versa?
The idea is that they never should have affected each other's DV at all.
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 03:29:14 am
Quote:
And make the cartel DV's visible too.
That's definitely been asked.
Post by: Cleaven on June 10, 2003, 04:47:41 am
- Firstly Cartels should be enemies of their related empires eg Prime operates in Romulan space and the Romulans would be doing pretty poorly if all their space was riddled with high DV pirate space. So when Romulans want to raise DV's in empire space they should first have to neutralise the pirate DV first by taking it to zero or one (make it a variable that the admin can change). Once the pirate hex is neutral then further missions will raise the empire hex. Same goes for the cartels. They should have to reduce the empire DV before they can start putting their criminal plans into action.
- Next thing to consider is state sponsered criminal/rebel activity in enemy space. This is where cartels may be allied to empires, but is not required for DV shifts, however the presence of an allied cartel should not restrict the DV changes on the empire map. Raising empire DV's should not have any effect on allied cartel DV's, and vice versa.
- I know that the simplest thing to do would be to completely separate the two maps so that there is no interaction, but the allied/enemy cartels could add to the game if it works right. And if empires only is preferred then simply set all cartel space neutral, and nobody will know the difference.
Post by: Toasty0 on June 10, 2003, 06:15:12 am
Quote:
So would an empire attacking an empire hex affect a cartel hex now? And vice versa?
So, are you asking;
1.) Is that how it operates now?
2.)Is that how it's supposed to operate?
3.)Is that how it will operate after its patched?
And, is your question asking something firesoul already said he would not anwer? }~
My favorite fix is {EDITED FOR CONTENT}. I think you OP fans should enjoy that new feature as much as I do.
Best,
Toasty0 the meanie
Post by: jdmckinney on June 10, 2003, 07:00:50 am
Really, who is left playing the game who hasn't modded it or played someone else's mods? If a few tweaks could be made that would add flexibility for modders, wouldn't that expand the life expectancy of the game? Adding a .gf-settable option to disable engine doubling for any or all of the cartels would be such a change. A lot of people would like to have just one or a couple cartels and use the rest of the slots for mods.
A much more extreme change would be to add empty but configurable (playable) race slots or moving the pirates to the empire map. These would also have side-effects that give modders more options.
Another approach to the pirate layer would be to have pirate DVs only change if a pirate vessels is involved in a mission, but I think that would require a lot more work that's not really necessary. If we could at least get the two layers to work independently, it would be far better than anything we've been able to do with workarounds so far.
Post by: Sethan on June 10, 2003, 08:32:13 am
Quote:
A much more extreme change would be to add empty but configurable (playable) race slots or moving the pirates to the empire map. These would also have side-effects that give modders more options.
*DING*
I'd love to see this. A .gf setting that determines whether a race is on the Pirate Map or Cartel Map. The next logical step from here would be a .gf setting that allows server admins to choose what color or color pattern (from a .gif perhaps) a race uses on the map.
This would allow admins to use OP to have a server with 15 races and still have a single pirate cartel on the cartel map - if that is what they want to do.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 10, 2003, 10:20:24 pm
It would also help spice up nebula battles.
Just a thought.
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 10:57:41 pm
.. but I will definitely remember this one, and pass it along if he's receptive.
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on June 10, 2003, 11:10:30 pm
How clear are the rules regarding Shock? (it's been a LONG time) If the conditions could be clearly defined, would using the HET routine for a breakdown check and degrading the breakdown rating be a reasonable substitute?
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 11:21:54 pm
.. and it was turned down promptly. :-/
I am assuming the same would happen here.
Besides, ships have different shock ratings, and that hasn't been stored in the shiplist.
Ok.. there are simple rules for requests:
1- NO artwork.
2- it must be something simple.
-- Luc
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 11, 2003, 02:29:54 am
The other thing on my OP wishlist is a working SQL for the serverkit of course.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 11, 2003, 10:08:45 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 11:53:21 am
Quote:
My request, FireSoul, then would be can we have the accessor methods in the OP API working for all types of loadouts including shuttles, fighters, drones and PF's. By accessors, I mean the 'gets' and 'sets'.
The other thing on my OP wishlist is a working SQL for the serverkit of course.
I already asked.
.. basically mSetFighters works for both fighters and PFs, but there's no mGetFighters.
mGetDrones works well, but mSetDrones doesn't.
I think there is a mSetShuttles, but no mGetShuttles.
If all 6 of the above would work, the scripters would rock.
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 11:54:16 am
Quote:
How about making all the ship's displays universal so they can be used with any race, like the xmmer, xsmer, etc... They already work just about everywhere in the game. That way the WYN could have their pirate ships, for example, and you'd be able to see the display in the "shipyard".
That's in sprites.q3, I think. No can do.
Sorry. :-/
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 12:53:23 pm
.. David isn't taking requests. He told me that any requests people make through me should be declined.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 11, 2003, 02:15:08 pm
Quote:
Sorry guys..
.. David isn't taking requests. He told me that any requests people make through me should be declined.
Man! Don't you hate it when "adults" tell you that you're asking too many questions
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 02:25:51 pm
Me, I'm happy there *IS* another patch!
Post by: 762 on June 11, 2003, 02:54:21 pm
*runs*
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 03:02:15 pm
.. awww.. can't get to it? .. I'm sooo sorry. Really I am.
Post by: Toasty0 on June 11, 2003, 04:49:04 pm
Quote:Quote:
How about making all the ship's displays universal so they can be used with any race, like the xmmer, xsmer, etc... They already work just about everywhere in the game. That way the WYN could have their pirate ships, for example, and you'd be able to see the display in the "shipyard".
That's in sprites.q3, I think. No can do.
Sorry. :-/
OoooOOOOoooooOOOo. The most holy of holy, sprites.q3.
Only the annointed ones touch the holy grail.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Toasty0 on June 11, 2003, 04:54:52 pm
Though I can't say which, some of your "requests" are being tested. I know of one that has passed muster. Sorry to tease like this, but I don't want you to think that you're not being heard. It's just that the feature/fix plate is now full.
And I am thoroughly convinced that you will be pleasently surprised by this patch.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 11, 2003, 07:51:16 pm
Quote:Quote:
My request, FireSoul, then would be can we have the accessor methods in the OP API working for all types of loadouts including shuttles, fighters, drones and PF's. By accessors, I mean the 'gets' and 'sets'.
The other thing on my OP wishlist is a working SQL for the serverkit of course.
I already asked.
.. basically mSetFighters works for both fighters and PFs, but there's no mGetFighters.
mGetDrones works well, but mSetDrones doesn't.
I think there is a mSetShuttles, but no mGetShuttles.
If all 6 of the above would work, the scripters would rock.
Sounds good, looking forward to it. Thanks FireSoul.
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 08:57:45 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
My request, FireSoul, then would be can we have the accessor methods in the OP API working for all types of loadouts including shuttles, fighters, drones and PF's. By accessors, I mean the 'gets' and 'sets'.
The other thing on my OP wishlist is a working SQL for the serverkit of course.
I already asked.
.. basically mSetFighters works for both fighters and PFs, but there's no mGetFighters.
mGetDrones works well, but mSetDrones doesn't.
I think there is a mSetShuttles, but no mGetShuttles.
If all 6 of the above would work, the scripters would rock.
Sounds good, looking forward to it. Thanks FireSoul.
Remember, that was just a request. .. I strongly suspect it will NOT be done, but at least I asked.
-- Luc
Post by: Jwest on June 12, 2003, 05:13:54 pm
Quote:Quote:
A much more extreme change would be to add empty but configurable (playable) race slots or moving the pirates to the empire map. These would also have side-effects that give modders more options.
*DING*
I'd love to see this. A .gf setting that determines whether a race is on the Pirate Map or Cartel Map. The next logical step from here would be a .gf setting that allows server admins to choose what color or color pattern (from a .gif perhaps) a race uses on the map.
This would allow admins to use OP to have a server with 15 races and still have a single pirate cartel on the cartel map - if that is what they want to do.
This is a really great idea, if it can be incorporated. While I would like more than 1 pirate group for variety, three or four would be plenty, and the ability to add new empires on the main map more than makes up for it.
Post by: kosh2000 on June 12, 2003, 07:34:04 pm
Quote:
No. Instead the cartel layer should stay, and be fixed.
I really don't know why people want to remove the cartel layer. Seriously. Just fix it.
Besides, what is "Orion Pirates" without pirates? No, it's the product that was sold and it should just be fixed.
well i and others that have run servers on op since day one said the cartels should be on the same map as the empires there may not be room on the stock maps but you can make the maps up 135x140 16,000 hexs wich will run fine with large numbers on a server with out the data base growing big at all .
Post by: jdmckinney on June 13, 2003, 12:32:50 pm
The Klingons seem most affected by this, but they aren't the only ships that have to approximate arc and hardpoint combinations due to the limits on certain UIs.
Post by: jimmi7769 on June 13, 2003, 12:34:40 pm
Quote:
Has anyone asked Dave about adding more hardpoints to UIs, or the ability to add hardpoints to them in a mod, so a number of ships don't have to use incorrect arcs and cram multiple weapons into fewer hardpoints?
The Klingons seem most affected by this, but they aren't the only ships that have to approximate arc and hardpoint combinations due to the limits on certain UIs.
Probably in the holy sprites file.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 13, 2003, 01:19:31 pm
Here are some sample problems with ships having too few hardpoints, excerpted from a readme I keep for my shiplist work (ongoing):
* K-B10 (and variants, including B11): the SFC UI does not have enough phaser hardpoints, nor are there the appropriate arcs available even if there were sufficient hardpoints. Therefore, I have followed Taldren's example in assigning the phaser type placement and arcs. Instead of 7 Ph1s, 8 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s, the B10 has 9 Ph1s, 6 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s. I've adjusted the phaser arcs on the B11K, but they are still inaccurate due to the restrictions of hardpoints and arc availability.
* Z-BB: Because there are not enough heavy weapon hardpoints to give the ship 2 FAL and 2 FAR disruptors, I?ve increased the arc on one set of 4 disruptors from FA to FX. This provides extra overlap, but I?ve left the BPV alone since the ship loses some Ph3 and Ph1 arc coverage due to the broken LWX arc and lack of proper side and forward arc combinations. The rear Ph3s and side Ph1s are now LS/RS.
* K-FWE: It needs more phaser hardpoints (7 different arcs) than are available on the F5/destroyer UI. To get enough hardpoints, I used the D5/war cruiser UI, but retained the F5 ship model. As an alternative, the F5 UI could be used if the FHL and FHR Ph2s were combined into one hardpoint with an FX arc (not KFX), though this would give the phasers more coverage than they should have.
There are others. I just didn't take notes on all of them.
Post by: FireSoul on June 13, 2003, 01:50:28 pm
Quote:
* K-B10 (and variants, including B11): the SFC UI does not have enough phaser hardpoints, nor are there the appropriate arcs available even if there were sufficient hardpoints. Therefore, I have followed Taldren's example in assigning the phaser type placement and arcs. Instead of 7 Ph1s, 8 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s, the B10 has 9 Ph1s, 6 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s. I've adjusted the phaser arcs on the B11K, but they are still inaccurate due to the restrictions of hardpoints and arc availability.
Try using the standard KDN UI instead of the KBB. It works beautifully, and has more mountpoints.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 13, 2003, 02:01:12 pm
Still, the general problem remains on an odd ship here and there. It could even be worse after the patch than before if there are new arcs available.
Like I said, the SFC3 system shows UI edits can be done if handled right. It's too bad we don't have that level of adaptability here, or even just more hardpoints across the board just in case they are needed.
Post by: Holocat on June 13, 2003, 07:01:50 pm
I wish.
Holocat.
Post by: Cleaven on June 13, 2003, 11:16:44 pm
.... and if you listen very carefully you can hear the faint cries of a frustrated Hydran player. Sometimes they will come out into the open and you can see them trying to herd their fighters towards the enemy. And rarely, very rarely, you will see a full wing execute a perfect attack, all firing their fusions and hellbores at the target at the optimum range and returning to re-arm. Truly spectacular stuff, now over here we have a ......
Post by: jdmckinney on June 14, 2003, 01:58:08 am
Oh well.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 14, 2003, 02:57:40 am
Quote:
<To be delivered in the hushed but excited voice of David Attenborough>
.... and if you listen very carefully you can hear the faint cries of a frustrated Hydran player. Sometimes they will come out into the open and you can see them trying to herd their fighters towards the enemy. And rarely, very rarely, you will see a full wing execute a perfect attack, all firing their fusions and hellbores at the target at the optimum range and returning to re-arm. Truly spectacular stuff, now over here we have a ......
You are a sick, sick man.
A long time ago, in a SFC reality far far away, Peetie2 laid out how fighter control should be. Perhaps some day it will be that way.
Post by: IndyShark on June 15, 2003, 07:37:05 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 15, 2003, 07:52:44 pm
.. but yes, work continues. It's not stalled.
-- Luc
Post by: IndyShark on June 15, 2003, 08:00:47 pm
Oh, did I mention the Doomsday Device? Hehe!
Post by: EmeraldEdge on June 15, 2003, 10:20:43 pm
Quote:
One could say that I have to play to test, but it DOES get very boring when there are specific things to test, over and over..
Preach on Brotha'! I can't tell you how many days on end I've spent going in and out of hexes, loggin' in every possible detail every time. Aaaagh! Not fun, especially when you have nobody to share it with because you are pretty much the only one bothering to show up and test. I feel for ya.
Post by: FireSoul on June 15, 2003, 10:30:40 pm
At least the results are useful..
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on June 16, 2003, 11:48:44 am
Quote:
Oh, did I mention the Doomsday Device? Hehe!
Did I miss something? Is that going to be a fix so its harder to kill?
This new patch sounds wonderful. Thanks again to Firesoul for posting this and all the other playtesters for working so hard on this for us.
KF
Post by: Reverend on June 16, 2003, 12:56:13 pm
Post by: Reptor7 on June 24, 2003, 06:16:04 am
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on June 24, 2003, 03:36:23 pm
This should really be at the TOP of this forum.
Is it too late to sign a non-disclosure agreement and be a playtester?
Qapla!
KF
Post by: jualdeaux on June 24, 2003, 03:46:14 pm
They did just add a couple of well known people from the community though so it may be possible.
Post by: Toasty0 on June 24, 2003, 03:47:02 pm
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Strafer on June 24, 2003, 05:57:22 pm
"Wow, nothing! Now THAT is sticky!"
Post by: Dogmatix! on June 25, 2003, 01:16:35 pm
No, that is NOT a cucumber in my pocket...
Post by: FireSoul on June 25, 2003, 04:15:46 pm
Post by: Cleaven on June 25, 2003, 04:36:50 pm
Quote:
Based upon what I've heard and seen. I'm getting very excisted about the coming OP patch....
No, that is NOT a cucumber in my pocket...
well I was always very excitable
Well, he went down to dinner in his Sunday best
Excitable boy, they all said
Post by: Remiak on June 26, 2003, 11:14:00 pm
Quote:
A lot more players play EAW. OP is superior in design and has more material, weapons, etc.
Most EAW players didn't think there was enough of a difference between EAW and OP to wararnt spending.
I picked OP. I support OP. I work a lot for OP. I did a lot of stuff for OP. I say: OP.
FireSoul, thanks a lot for keeping us informed.
I think many EAW players actually have acquired OP and just did not play there as much because of the issues related with the map.
Form what we gather here, this patch may actually establish OP as the platform of choice and combine large portions of the two player list into OP.
I am looking forward to the patch.
Thanks
Post by: FireSoul on June 27, 2003, 12:43:58 am
Post by: Cleaven on June 27, 2003, 02:36:25 am
Meanwhile off in the distance you can hear the faint cry of "Toga, toga, toga".
And Dean Wormer is putting OP house on double secret probation.
Post by: Mog on June 27, 2003, 03:22:22 am
No prisoners!
Post by: Cleaven on June 27, 2003, 03:36:01 am
Post by: Dogmatix! on June 27, 2003, 11:38:24 am
Quote:Quote:
A lot more players play EAW. OP is superior in design and has more material, weapons, etc.
Most EAW players didn't think there was enough of a difference between EAW and OP to wararnt spending.
I picked OP. I support OP. I work a lot for OP. I did a lot of stuff for OP. I say: OP.
FireSoul, thanks a lot for keeping us informed.
I think many EAW players actually have acquired OP and just did not play there as much because of the issues related with the map.
Form what we gather here, this patch may actually establish OP as the platform of choice and combine large portions of the two player list into OP.
I am looking forward to the patch.
Thanks
Man, there's no "may" about it. OP is superior now. What has already clearly been fixed in the current build of the beta patch cements that beyond any stretch of the imagination.
Post by: CaptJosh on June 27, 2003, 12:54:33 pm
BUG 1: I cannot target a Mauler weapon with boarding parties. This is ridiculous as I can target any other weapon on a ship with boarders plus the transporters, tractor beams, sensors, and shuttle bays.
BUG 2: When playing as Mirak, upon getting any new ship with MIRV launchers, I must complete a mission before I can get my full missile loadout and load ammo for the MIRV launchers.
(BTW, calling them MIRV is rather a misnomer, MIRV = Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles, usually used in ICBMs. These really are just cluster missiles. Even though you can fire them at a planet, it's not their intended purpose.)
Hope that helps with developing the new patch.
CaptJosh
Post by: 3dot14 on June 27, 2003, 01:03:07 pm
The rationale you ask? A Mauler is not a system, it's the ship. The mauler generators are integrated with the ship so tightly that it cannot be distinguished from the ship's frames. The only way to destroy a mauler is to destroy the ship. (you can however, disable mauler by destroying engines. Since mauler damage is proportional to battery reserve. No engine, no battery recharge, no damage.)
2. Definitely Mirv is broken... Hopefully it'll be fixed. (and re: misnomer, you should know better than bringing modern sciences into Star Trek... :P)
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on June 27, 2003, 01:37:40 pm
Quote:
1. Not as ridiculous as you think. In SFC terminology, a mauler system is indestructable.
Nod to 3Dot.
A Mauler is not a system of a starship, but a weapons system with a starship built around it.
Post by: FireSoul on June 27, 2003, 02:57:54 pm
Quote:
(BTW, calling them MIRV is rather a misnomer, MIRV = Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles, usually used in ICBMs. These really are just cluster missiles. Even though you can fire them at a planet, it's not their intended purpose.)
Quite right. In SFB, we call them Multi-Warheads, or MWs for short.
-- Luc
Post by: Strafer on June 27, 2003, 04:56:29 pm
Quote:
Nod to 3Dot.
A Mauler is not a system of a starship, but a weapons system with a starship built around it.
Another way to look at it is that it's a big freaking hole at the bow of the ship. The only way you could board it is with a *huge* cork.
Post by: FireSoul on June 27, 2003, 05:29:49 pm
-- Luc
Post by: Toasty0 on June 27, 2003, 05:36:33 pm
Quote:A huge what?Quote:
Nod to 3Dot.
A Mauler is not a system of a starship, but a weapons system with a starship built around it.
Another way to look at it is that it's a big freaking hole at the bow of the ship. The only way you could board it is with a *huge* cork.
Post by: Strafer on June 28, 2003, 09:50:41 am
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on June 28, 2003, 02:49:35 pm
If not, EXACTLY WHOM do I request to be a tester from to help out? I'm here multiple times each day and my wife can attest to how much time I spend tweaking this game, its ships and spec files EVERY night, LOL.
Qapla!
KF
Post by: APEXNETHOR on June 29, 2003, 11:36:50 pm
Post by: TheSatyr on June 30, 2003, 12:48:42 am
Post by: CaptJosh on June 30, 2003, 12:55:32 am
CaptJosh
Post by: TheSatyr on June 30, 2003, 01:01:10 am
Taldren will also have download links for the patch in the announcement message. And those in the forums with web sites will no doubt put the patch up for downloading on their sites as well.
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 01, 2003, 03:33:52 am
I've been hanging out mostly in the Off Topic for a while now, and have missed this thread until tonight...
I bought into OP when I realized it would have everything from EAW plus more, especially the Mauler (compatible with certain Hydran 'run up and kick 'em in the nuts' tactics...). I never looked back and haven't played EAW since. And I could care less about the 'canned' missions, I just wanna conquer the damn map.
I would just like to forward my appreciation and encouragement to all those working on this! Thank you very much.
Oh, and as for that <To be delivered in the hushed but excited voice of David Attenborough> post, Cleaven, I just laughed myself silly! Thanks, man.
Chaos
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 01, 2003, 06:53:18 am
Quote:
Can somebody tell us if this patch is scheduled to be released in less than 30 days?
If not, EXACTLY WHOM do I request to be a tester from to help out? I'm here multiple times each day and my wife can attest to how much time I spend tweaking this game, its ships and spec files EVERY night, LOL.
Qapla!
KF
Come to think of it, what IS required? I have signed the NDA that was required for SFC3 to become a beta tester (I was not chosen due to a snafu with e-mail addresses), is that the main requirement?
Post by: FireSoul on July 01, 2003, 06:57:12 am
Quote:Quote:
Can somebody tell us if this patch is scheduled to be released in less than 30 days?
If not, EXACTLY WHOM do I request to be a tester from to help out? I'm here multiple times each day and my wife can attest to how much time I spend tweaking this game, its ships and spec files EVERY night, LOL.
Qapla!
KF
Come to think of it, what IS required? I have signed the NDA that was required for SFC3 to become a beta tester (I was not chosen due to a snafu with e-mail addresses), is that the main requirement?
I don't know.
Post by: jdmckinney on July 01, 2003, 08:33:41 am
The folks who are in the group now by and large know the game very well and are good at testing for specific results or situations.
I'm only posting this to give my understanding of the way it works. I'm not a current tester, and I doubt there are any official policies on the matter of who is invited to test. There are also many SFC3 testers who were never SFC2 testers, and vice versa. The application to Activision for SFC3 testing has NOTHING to do with Taldren's semi-formal tester circle.
Post by: Cleaven on July 01, 2003, 09:11:35 am
Wot a revoltin' development.
Post by: Strafer on July 02, 2003, 03:41:15 pm
Quote:
Spam testers?
Wot a revoltin' development.
Spread the news, a toast to it's success. Can anything stop it?
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on July 05, 2003, 10:39:22 am
Update please.
KF
Post by: FireSoul on July 05, 2003, 10:51:38 am
Post by: Toasty0 on July 05, 2003, 12:11:04 pm
Quote:
Any News at all?
Update please.
KF
Looks like a bug with the D2 that Firesoul and a couple other testers found has been figured out and squished.
Other than that some new features need to be tweaked and refined for game play issues...
Oh yeah, and...
HTH,
Best,
Jerry
Post by: David Ferrell on July 05, 2003, 01:03:00 pm
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: FireSoul on July 05, 2003, 01:11:39 pm
Quote:
It's really almost there, but it will be done when it's done.
I couldn't have said it better.
Post by: Qob'nuH on July 05, 2003, 02:59:41 pm
Quote:Quote:
It's really almost there, but it will be done when it's done.
I couldn't have said it better.
Well, I think it could have been said better. The work and support for this patch is very much appreciated but I find such a condescending response inappropriate. This is not 10-yr-olds asking,"are we there yet?" ,it's consumers that have chosen to purchase and support this product. I don't see anything unreasonable about inquiring about an approximate time frame in terms other than "soon" or "almost there".
I also hope that the beta-testing involves more than just those just concerned with SFB standards.In other words , let's not forget the X-ships/weapons this time around.(phaser G2!).
Post by: Toasty0 on July 05, 2003, 05:28:11 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
It's really almost there, but it will be done when it's done.
I couldn't have said it better.
Well, I think it could have been said better. The work and support for this patch is very much appreciated but I find such a condescending response inappropriate. This is not 10-yr-olds asking,"are we there yet?" ,it's consumers that have chosen to purchase and support this product. I don't see anything unreasonable about inquiring about an approximate time frame in terms other than "soon" or "almost there".
I also hope that the beta-testing involves more than just those just concerned with SFB standards.In other words , let's not forget the X-ships/weapons this time around.(phaser G2!).
OP has X-Ships and G2s? Since when and has anyone told the beta testers yet?
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on July 05, 2003, 05:51:30 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
It's really almost there, but it will be done when it's done.
I couldn't have said it better.
Well, I think it could have been said better. The work and support for this patch is very much appreciated but I find such a condescending response inappropriate. This is not 10-yr-olds asking,"are we there yet?" ,it's consumers that have chosen to purchase and support this product. I don't see anything unreasonable about inquiring about an approximate time frame in terms other than "soon" or "almost there".
I also hope that the beta-testing involves more than just those just concerned with SFB standards.In other words , let's not forget the X-ships/weapons this time around.(phaser G2!).
OP has X-Ships and G2s? Since when and has anyone told the beta testers yet?
Best,
Jerry
Falls off chair, ROTFL!
Thank you folks "in the know" for giving us one form of an update. I really do appreciate it. I will consider the patch a success if the Cloak works like it does in SFC3, anything else is extra tasty gravy to me.
Qapla!
KF
Post by: FireSoul on July 05, 2003, 06:07:07 pm
Quote:
"are we there yet?"
No.
Quote:
"are we there yet?"
No.
Quote:
"are we there yet?"
No.
Quote:
"are we there yet?"
No.
Post by: Cleaven on July 05, 2003, 06:24:36 pm
Quote:
Well, I think it could have been said better. The work and support for this patch is very much appreciated but I find such a condescending response inappropriate. This is not 10-yr-olds asking,"are we there yet?" ,it's consumers that have chosen to purchase and support this product. I don't see anything unreasonable about inquiring about an approximate time frame in terms other than "soon" or "almost there".
I suppose if people didn't act like 10 year olds when told about delays or mistakes or other unforseen circumstances. Most people don't act that way but those that do, ugh ...
Post by: David Ferrell on July 05, 2003, 06:41:59 pm
weeks, but what if it isn't?
We've smashed some very big bugs in this patch and the Dynaverse is now working
nearly flawlessly for both Empires and Cartels. However, when you make this many
changes, some items will break and you have to go back and fix them, which takes
an unknown amount of time.
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Pestalence on July 05, 2003, 07:23:31 pm
Quote:
I will consider the patch a success if the Cloak works like it does in SFC3, anything else is extra tasty gravy to me.
Qapla!
KF
sorry to burst your bubble.. Cloak is suppose to work as close to SFB standard as possible, not SFC 3 standard...
but testing goes well and we are stomping bugs...
David just got a new can of RAID just for the OP patch....
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on July 05, 2003, 07:46:45 pm
Let me rephrase my concern about the cloak; what I SHOULD HAVE CORRECTLY wrote was, as long as the cloak is no longer a death trap if you use it I'll be very happy. This is an OLD concern I know....
Second, I did say 'thank you' for the update.
A little news always goes a long way to curbing all the 'are we there yet?' questions.
Thanks again to everyone "in the know" that threw us rabid fans a scrap of information.
Qapla!
KF
Post by: 3dot14 on July 05, 2003, 08:04:33 pm
Quote:
That's the whole thing. I would like to say it will be done within the next two
weeks, but what if it isn't?
We've smashed some very big bugs in this patch and the Dynaverse is now working
nearly flawlessly for both Empires and Cartels. However, when you make this many
changes, some items will break and you have to go back and fix them, which takes
an unknown amount of time.
Thanks,
Dave
Don't forget to knock wood. You didn't expect that "big bug" either... Let's hope nothing else springs up.
and KF, if it's TNG cloak you want, probably not. That's why there is a TNG themed game... Sorry.
But I think Cloak will get some considerations to beef it up.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 06, 2003, 01:55:49 am
Post by: Toasty0 on July 06, 2003, 07:15:39 am
A true Klingon never uses a cloak...even when flying them pink-ish Rom things they call a ship.
On a serious note: I think you and many fans of the Romulan way will find the cloak "very effective" now. In some aspects, and in my humble opine, I think the implementation of the cloak now will add a dimension to combat that SFC/EAW/OP Romulan player only dreamt about in the past.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: FireSoul on July 06, 2003, 08:35:43 am
Quote:
KF,
A true Klingon never uses a cloak...even when flying them pink-ish Rom things they call a ship.
On a serious note: I think you and many fans of the Romulan way will find the cloak "very effective" now. In some aspects, and in my humble opine, I think the implementation of the cloak now will add a dimension to combat that SFC/EAW/OP Romulan player only dreamt about in the past.
Since the cat's out of the bag for cloak, I would like to say this before naysayers and doubters say anything about the cloak: it has been implemented to the closest of SFB specs as possible without changing the inner engine involved. However, it is still being tweaked due to discovered bugs.
In otherwords, the cloaking ships' BPVs will be a lot more accurate, and the cloak itself is a lot better. It's definitely not impossible to beat, but it does do its job well.
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 06, 2003, 10:07:52 am
Hope the LWX arc bug has been squashed and (dare I say to hope) correct gat arcs have then been added to hydran dreads with this bug fixed.
Post by: Toasty0 on July 06, 2003, 02:10:42 pm
Quote:Quote:
KF,
A true Klingon never uses a cloak...even when flying them pink-ish Rom things they call a ship.
On a serious note: I think you and many fans of the Romulan way will find the cloak "very effective" now. In some aspects, and in my humble opine, I think the implementation of the cloak now will add a dimension to combat that SFC/EAW/OP Romulan player only dreamt about in the past.
Since the cat's out of the bag for cloak, I would like to say this before naysayers and doubters say anything about the cloak: it has been implemented to the closest of SFB specs as possible without changing the inner engine involved. However, it is still being tweaked due to discovered bugs.
In otherwords, the cloaking ships' BPVs will be a lot more accurate, and the cloak itself is a lot better. It's definitely not impossible to beat, but it does do its job well.
-- Luc
Excuse me?
This is not something that hasn't been mentioned before, Luc. By you I might add.
So why the characterization?
I think you should keep in mind, Luc, this isn't Firesouls OP Patch.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: FireSoul on July 06, 2003, 08:03:11 pm
Post by: Cleaven on July 06, 2003, 08:20:02 pm
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 06, 2003, 09:50:29 pm
Post by: Tulwar on July 07, 2003, 12:58:35 am
Post by: FireSoul on July 07, 2003, 04:09:47 am
Quote:
Please, what ever you do, do NOT patch the rear ISC plasmas like you did in EAW. You only get one shot in the entire scenairio.
That issue was raised in 2538, and we convinced David to not do so back then. It won't happen.
Post by: jdmckinney on July 07, 2003, 10:40:13 am
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 07, 2003, 12:30:52 pm
I think this will really add a whole new facet to SFC, [re]intoducing cloak and anti-cloak tactics, as opposed to now, where it goes absolutely unused!
It would be great to play [as close as possible to] SFB standard cloak!
Thanks, Dave Ferrell! And thank you, beta testers.
In terms of when to release it, I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with the "when it's done" response. That's just about the ONLY right answer anyhow. God only knows if we'll EVER get another patch after this one, so for Pete's sake, take your time and test the living crap out of this patch before release! (but don't resent me/us too much for agonizing over the delay like kids waiting for XMas so they can open the presents...)!
Thanks, again!
Great news about the cloak, that!
-Tumulorum Fossor
Post by: Sethan on July 07, 2003, 03:07:53 pm
The more bugs they have time to squash, the better.
Post by: TheSatyr on July 07, 2003, 03:12:39 pm
Post by: 3dot14 on July 07, 2003, 04:55:27 pm
Quote:It's a pity really, the EAW version, when working correctly, is the most approperiate version of plasI.
Please, what ever you do, do NOT patch the rear ISC plasmas like you did in EAW. You only get one shot in the entire scenairio.
Post by: KHHJakle on July 07, 2003, 05:55:49 pm
Will there be any further EAW patches to incorporate some if the additions to OP, namely the work on the Rom cloak?
Thanks
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 07, 2003, 05:56:11 pm
Quote:
Looking forward to the patch - but definitely willing to wait until Taldren is ready to release it.
The more bugs they have time to squash, the better.
(Wonders if Sethan is regrowing pointy ears and dreaming about plasma bolts and plasma sabot)
Post by: Toasty0 on July 07, 2003, 06:06:16 pm
Quote:
I am an infrequent visitor to these forums, so bear with me if this is an established fact:
Will there be any further EAW patches to incorporate some if the additions to OP, namely the work on the Rom cloak?
Thanks
Interesting question.. I think (just guessing here mind you) that is something that'll have to be looked at once other work is completed.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Sethan on July 07, 2003, 06:19:15 pm
Quote:Quote:
Looking forward to the patch - but definitely willing to wait until Taldren is ready to release it.
The more bugs they have time to squash, the better.
(Wonders if Sethan is regrowing pointy ears and dreaming about plasma bolts and plasma sabot)
Never lost the pointy ears, and plasma bolts are a pipe dream
Plasma Sabot we already have after a fashion, with Plas-X.Rumors of OoB servers (and rumors here of improved cloak) are tempting me to take my old R-WE back out into space again, though.
I don't actually need to sleep, do I?
Post by: Strafer on July 07, 2003, 07:49:44 pm
Quote:
I don't actually need to sleep, do I?
Only in between reloads.
(oops, did I say that out loud?)
Post by: TheSatyr on July 07, 2003, 09:03:31 pm
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 07, 2003, 09:59:11 pm
"Please, let me sleep."
"How, how am I gonna get to sleep?"
"I know, we'll count those bars on the window..."
Chaos
Post by: TarMinyatur on July 07, 2003, 10:23:49 pm
Quote:
...the cloak has been implemented to the closest of SFB specs as possible without changing the inner engine involved. However, it is still being tweaked due to discovered bugs.
-- Luc
Hmm, doesn't sound like they used my suggested quick fix of R*2 + 6 instead of R*2 + 5.
Perhaps the combat v cloak table is now used for direct fire weapons:
1d3: Effect (if they hit)
1: Full damage (based on true range for Disr, Phot, PPD(?), Hellbore; based on effective range for Phasers and Fusion)
2: Half damage
3: Quarter damage
ESG's naturally ignore the chart entirely.
However, the cloaking ship will have to have its ECM ignored otherwise this combination is too powerful a defense. A cloaked ship is not supposed to directly benefit from a favorable ECM shift (making weapons miss). The combat v cloak chart is essentially the ECM shift.
Seeking weapons had been using a hard to decipher process for losing lock-on (disappearing drones/0 damage plasma). Data suggested that Plasma were using a chart like this upon impact:
1d3: Effect when striking a fully cloaked vessel
1: Half damage
2: Quarter damage
3: No damage
Flash-cubed ships get hammered with full damage seeking weapons.
Oh yeah, FireSoul, I wonder if you could remind the Circle people that Suicide Shuttles are incapable of losing lock-on to a cloaked ship.
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 07, 2003, 11:08:49 pm
Come sweet slumber,
Enshroud me in thy purple cloak.
...Hmm. Doesn't even rhyme.
-Tumulorum Fossor
Post by: FireSoul on July 08, 2003, 04:16:53 am
Quote:
Oh yeah, FireSoul, I wonder if you could remind the Circle people that Suicide Shuttles are incapable of losing lock-on to a cloaked ship.
I have.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 08, 2003, 07:31:47 am
Post by: Sethan on July 08, 2003, 07:47:11 am
Quote:
Hmm, doesn't sound like they used my suggested quick fix of R*2 + 6 instead of R*2 + 5.
Not to pick nits too much - but it is (R+5)*2 not R*2 + 5.
Post by: Cleaven on July 08, 2003, 07:58:34 am
Quote:Quote:
Hmm, doesn't sound like they used my suggested quick fix of R*2 + 6 instead of R*2 + 5.
Not to pick nits too much - but it is (R+5)*2 not R*2 + 5.
The range penalty modifier (G13.302) is applied after the effects of No Lock-On (G13.301), so the +5 occurs after the range doubling.
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 08, 2003, 08:57:11 am
-TF
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 08, 2003, 10:01:23 am
Quote:
The range penalty modifier (G13.302) is applied after the effects of No Lock-On (G13.301), so the +5 occurs after the range doubling.
Wait a minute!!!! That rule only applies during a leap year according to the new rule G13.301.2.
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 08, 2003, 10:56:35 am
Quote:
Quote:
The range penalty modifier (G13.302) is applied after the effects of No Lock-On (G13.301), so the +5 occurs after the range doubling.
Wait a minute!!!! That rule only applies during a leap year according to the new rule G13.301.2.
All that is something that I will not miss from SFB. SVC must be getting kickbacks from the paper industry, or have worked in military publications at one point. I can't think of any other reason for such a cumbersome rules set for a game.
Post by: Sethan on July 08, 2003, 11:41:37 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Hmm, doesn't sound like they used my suggested quick fix of R*2 + 6 instead of R*2 + 5.
Not to pick nits too much - but it is (R+5)*2 not R*2 + 5.
The range penalty modifier (G13.302) is applied after the effects of No Lock-On (G13.301), so the +5 occurs after the range doubling.
D'OH! You're right of course.
That's what I get for typing when my books are home and I'm half asleep.
I know the calculation well when I'm awake - that's how I figured that the new proxy hit percentages were death to 1st Gen Roms.
2 x 12 + 5 = 29 (66% hit chance)
So at range 12, a Fed will hit with 2-3 of 4 prox photons against a cloaked Rom - causing far more damage than the Rom can afford to put into shield reinforcement.
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 08, 2003, 05:27:55 pm
Quote:
The real shame is that the ISC rear plasma will probably never work exactly the way intended. As such, they get some bloated BPVs for a weapon that many of the captains don't even charge that often due to their power curves.
Having flown ISC rather extensively on both OP and EAW, recently, I find that the I-plasma is quite useful and not all that burdensome when used in certain ways. The worst part, obviously, is that it gets jammed up and becomes useless. After that, the fact that you have to go very slow at the start of a mission to get things charged is the next most burdensome thing. Once you have them full charged AND they don't jam up, Plasma-I is pretty darned cool, in my book.
To put it another way, when offered a plasma-D variant of the CCZ (replaces I-plas with 4xD-plas), I stick with the I-plasma armed CCZ.
Post by: FireSoul on July 08, 2003, 05:38:26 pm
Quote:
I am an infrequent visitor to these forums, so bear with me if this is an established fact:
Will there be any further EAW patches to incorporate some if the additions to OP, namely the work on the Rom cloak?
I suggest you start looking for a copy of OP. EAW has already recieved its last and final patch as 2036.
-- Luc
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 08, 2003, 07:28:42 pm
Quote:Quote:
The real shame is that the ISC rear plasma will probably never work exactly the way intended. As such, they get some bloated BPVs for a weapon that many of the captains don't even charge that often due to their power curves.
Having flown ISC rather extensively on both OP and EAW, recently, I find that the I-plasma is quite useful and not all that burdensome when used in certain ways. The worst part, obviously, is that it gets jammed up and becomes useless. After that, the fact that you have to go very slow at the start of a mission to get things charged is the next most burdensome thing. Once you have them full charged AND they don't jam up, Plasma-I is pretty darned cool, in my book.
To put it another way, when offered a plasma-D variant of the CCZ (replaces I-plas with 4xD-plas), I stick with the I-plasma armed CCZ.
It would be nice if F/I torps came into the script fully charged like they're supposed to. Who knows, maybe they will?
Post by: KHHJakle on July 08, 2003, 07:49:05 pm
Post by: jimmi7769 on July 08, 2003, 08:01:27 pm
Quote:
I've got my OP...just wanted to have that info as a stick to encourage those in my league to switch to what truly looks like the better game now
Now if we can only get the D2 servers off of EAW and onto OP.
Not even a server to mess around on right now.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 08, 2003, 09:24:13 pm
Post by: jdmckinney on July 09, 2003, 01:21:02 pm
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 11, 2003, 04:02:17 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
The real shame is that the ISC rear plasma will probably never work exactly the way intended. As such, they get some bloated BPVs for a weapon that many of the captains don't even charge that often due to their power curves.
Having flown ISC rather extensively on both OP and EAW, recently, I find that the I-plasma is quite useful and not all that burdensome when used in certain ways. The worst part, obviously, is that it gets jammed up and becomes useless. After that, the fact that you have to go very slow at the start of a mission to get things charged is the next most burdensome thing. Once you have them full charged AND they don't jam up, Plasma-I is pretty darned cool, in my book.
To put it another way, when offered a plasma-D variant of the CCZ (replaces I-plas with 4xD-plas), I stick with the I-plasma armed CCZ.
It would be nice if F/I torps came into the script fully charged like they're supposed to. Who knows, maybe they will?
That would definitely be nice...
I mean..if they hold for free...why the hell would you not be carrying loaded F and I-torps around at al ltimes (assuming you haven't just fired them)?
Post by: Strafer on July 11, 2003, 05:09:07 pm
Quote:
That would definitely be nice...
Unless you're on a receiving end of a R-SPZ mere seconds in the game.
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 11, 2003, 05:13:57 pm
Post by: jimmi7769 on July 11, 2003, 06:39:09 pm
Quote:Quote:
That would definitely be nice...
Unless you're on a receiving end of a R-SPZ mere seconds in the game.
And that is the reason for the Spaz's existence
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 11, 2003, 07:18:55 pm
Post by: Toasty0 on July 11, 2003, 07:25:03 pm
You have my permission to either DL this image or host it yourself. Or if you cannot host the image you can directly link to it by copy&pasting the following URL Code:
http://www.toasty0.com/images/OPThanks.png
Hope you enjoy.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Corbomite on July 11, 2003, 07:36:10 pm
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 11, 2003, 07:56:56 pm
Post by: Cleaven on July 11, 2003, 08:33:15 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 11, 2003, 09:06:04 pm
Quote:
I'd rather just send a cheque, with an accompanying legal document requiring the money to be spent on premium beer.
feh. I wish people would do something like that for the OP+.
Wishful thinking indeed.
Post by: Cleaven on July 11, 2003, 09:32:27 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 11, 2003, 10:33:33 pm
Quote:
Vaiyo A-O
A Home Va Ya Ray
Vaiyo A-Rah
Jerhume Brunnen G
Lexx? That's Canadian too.
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 11, 2003, 10:45:29 pm
"I know, we'll bribe 'em."
"Give 'em a jelly donut."
"Jelly donut comin'..."
Chaos
Post by: Cleaven on July 11, 2003, 11:06:00 pm
Post by: Toasty0 on July 11, 2003, 11:26:36 pm
Quote:
I'd rather just send a cheque, with an accompanying legal document requiring the money to be spent on premium beer.
Well, cool, then I guess you won't be using the graphic to say thanks.
*makes note to self not to get torqued at folks who use nice gestures as a launching pad for their pointless jokes*
**sigh**
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Cleaven on July 12, 2003, 12:16:16 am
Quote:Quote:
I'd rather just send a cheque, with an accompanying legal document requiring the money to be spent on premium beer.
Well, cool, then I guess you won't be using the graphic to say thanks.
*makes note to self not to get torqued at folks who use nice gestures as a launching pad for their pointless jokes*
**sigh**
Best,
Jerry
Be like that if you want, (I know you do), but I'm sending a cheque to
1520 Nutmeg Place
Suite #250
Costa Mesa, CA
92626-2501
marked attn David Ferrell, please spend this on premium beer for the enjoyment of those who deserve it.
So you are right, I won't be doing something less substantive, but grapically appealling to some. But I won't make fun of your "gratitude" just because I can stump up the readies.
Post by: Toasty0 on July 12, 2003, 12:24:42 am
It read like you were belittling those who would say thanks by displaying the graphic.
Mea Culpa.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Cleaven on July 12, 2003, 12:33:47 am
(I hope the address is correct)
PS it doesn't get mailed until the patch is posted.
Post by: jdmckinney on July 12, 2003, 01:11:59 pm
Post by: David Ferrell on July 12, 2003, 05:42:05 pm
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Lepton1 on July 13, 2003, 01:34:40 am
Post by: Corbomite on July 13, 2003, 10:31:17 am
Don't know if it can be fixed or not, but I thought I'd bring it up.
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 10:33:06 am
Quote:
Dave and testers, I almost forgot this one and I don't know if it's in the bug reports, but you cannot remap the Orion Engine Doubling hot key (O). It just won't accept the input. If you try you lose the hotkey entirely as it won't re-accept (O) either.
Don't know if it can be fixed or not, but I thought I'd bring it up.
Did you check the file attributes for "assets/specs/bindings.ini"?
Post by: Corbomite on July 13, 2003, 10:39:06 am
EDIT: If you try to map (\) to Transporters, it reads in the slot as a 0, but the (\) key does work for them. Other slots appear empty with that key, but they do function as mapped. Weird.
Post by: 3dot14 on July 13, 2003, 10:48:16 am
Quote:
And do what? Take it off "Read Only"? Been doing that since the game came out. That is for all the hotkeys. If it is like that they will re-map, but you will lose them when you quit the game. The (O) key is entirely different. The slot will not accept any input at all. When you try, the (O) disappears (loses it's preset) and nothing will show up in the slot and the key(s) don't activate Engine Doubling. This condition also happens with the (\) key if you try to map it to anything, but at least the key does function when remapped, the slot just looks empty.
I believe the same happens for "Deselect". [edit: and that's what Corbomite was talking about with the "\" key]
But really, it's not an earthshattering thing. Especially considering it can be manually edited in binging.ini.
If you want to remap the keys, just open binding.ini find the Engine double line. and Enter your value.
It works, I have the Doubling mapped to NUM2 (Numpad 2)right now.
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 10:49:28 am
Post by: Corbomite on July 13, 2003, 10:50:55 am
Quote:Quote:
And do what? Take it off "Read Only"? Been doing that since the game came out. That is for all the hotkeys. If it is like that they will re-map, but you will lose them when you quit the game. The (O) key is entirely different. The slot will not accept any input at all. When you try, the (O) disappears (loses it's preset) and nothing will show up in the slot and the key(s) don't activate Engine Doubling. This condition also happens with the (\) key if you try to map it to anything, but at least the key does function when remapped, the slot just looks empty.
I believe the same happens for "Deselect".
But really, it's not an earthshattering thing. Especially considering it can be manually edited in binging.ini.
If you want to remap the keys, just open binding.ini find the Engine double line. and Enter your value.
It works, I have the Doubling mapped to NUM2 (Numpad 2)right now.
I realize that 3.14, but that really isn't the point is it? Remapping should be fully functional. I'm sure most people don't know about bindings.ini.
Post by: 3dot14 on July 13, 2003, 10:58:05 am
Quote:Agreed. and that's what we are for, to provide the technical info should the need arise.
I realize that 3.14, but that really isn't the point is it? Remapping should be fully functional. I'm sure most people don't know about bindings.ini.
What I meant was when prioritizing, a bug that has an easy and accessible workaround is not as serious as one that has no workaround (i.e. Fighter stopping). Something like this might not rate important enough to hold up patch.
But Firesoul has passed the info on, let's hope David is in a good mood.
Post by: Corbomite on July 13, 2003, 11:18:41 am
Quote:Quote:Agreed. and that's what we are for, to provide the technical info should the need arise.
I realize that 3.14, but that really isn't the point is it? Remapping should be fully functional. I'm sure most people don't know about bindings.ini.
What I meant was when prioritizing, a bug that has an easy and accessible workaround is not as serious as one that has no workaround (i.e. Fighter stopping). Something like this might not rate important enough to hold up patch.
But Firesoul has passed the info on, let's hope David is in a good mood.
Hold up a patch? I was under the impression this was the last patch period. We've waited almost two years already. I would rather wait and let Dave get everything possible worked out and then he can finally put this thing to rest and get on with projects that are making Taldren money, not costing them money.
Post by: What's_in_a_name on July 13, 2003, 09:33:36 pm
Post by: 3dot14 on July 13, 2003, 10:00:51 pm
Quote:
There is a bug that has existed from the beginning of OP, I have mentioned it before every patch yet it still survives (MagnumMan even acknowledged it before one patch yet it remained unfixed). The bug is when you make a group of heavy disruptors(and only heavy disruptors) and then try to set them to any power level. The UI simply doesn't work in that situation.
It didn't survive.
Post by: What's_in_a_name on July 13, 2003, 10:18:02 pm
Quote:
It didn't survive.
I did a fresh install of OP and applied the 'SFCOP_Patch_2500-2538'. I then started a skirmish with myself playing the K-XCB against a Federation opponent. I hit 'R' to go to Red Alert. I select the two heavy disruptor hardpoints (for four dizzies) and then hit CRTL-1, making the '1' key the weapon group for the four heavy disruptors. I hit the '1' key and then try to change the status of the four heavy disruptors, first to 'Overload', then to 'Off'. After each attempt I check the lower heavy disruptor hardpoint and after both times there is no change, it remains at 'Normal'.
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 13, 2003, 11:14:39 pm
Post by: Strafer on July 13, 2003, 11:35:43 pm
Post by: Capt Jeff on July 14, 2003, 05:17:26 am
In D2, only the host of the mission can beam spare parts from AI. Ships/planets/docks etc.
The non-host cannot beam parts in or out, and cannot recieve parts from a ally. They don't even appear in the transporter panel even when the host can see them.
Kind of a bummer when you're beat up, and your buddy is fully loaded with spares, and you can't accept any to repair.
Not a killer bug, but if fixes are still being looked into, maybe this could be addressed?
Thanks
Post by: Toasty0 on July 14, 2003, 07:22:27 am
Quote:Quote:
There is a bug that has existed from the beginning of OP, I have mentioned it before every patch yet it still survives (MagnumMan even acknowledged it before one patch yet it remained unfixed). The bug is when you make a group of heavy disruptors(and only heavy disruptors) and then try to set them to any power level. The UI simply doesn't work in that situation.
It didn't survive.
Oh my god!
I hope it went painlessly.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 14, 2003, 08:23:37 pm
Quote:
I know how it works in Canada. You just put a dead mouse in a bottle of beer, and take it back and say it was in there when you bought it and they give you free beer.
I saw that movie...
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 14, 2003, 08:29:45 pm
Quote:
You can send thank you notes to me via Paypal @ davidf@taldren.com
Thanks,
Dave
Thanks for that info, Dave. I'm sure my contribution won't amount to much in the grand scheme of things, but I felt I should do something...
Edited later:
Argh..forgot about the 3-4 day lag when transferring funds into a PayPal account. Prolly won't have the dough in there until Thursday or Friday...
Post by: stormbirdd on May 14, 2004, 03:35:34 pm
Thanks.
Post by: Crimmy on May 14, 2004, 10:56:16 pm
Post by: stormbirdd on May 19, 2004, 05:50:02 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 11:19:46 am
Quote:
At least it lets them know there is another patch coming.
Well, we've been at it for a few weeks now. DavidF has been swamped with bugfix requests and .. well.. just plain old requests... but I think all the issues have been mentioned so far. Currently we, the testers, have a debugging serverkit up which logs massive amounts of data after each mission. The goal is to collect hard valuable data about the "Neutral Coop Bug", and possibly any Pirate Map layer interaction bugs. It could be that both are related and are one and the same.
This post is in reaction to something I spotted lately in the forums:
Quote:
I have no idea what is or isn't planned in terms of future OP patches. I wouldn't hold my breath for another one, that's for sure.
You can breathe now.
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on June 07, 2003, 03:56:39 pm
Do you know if the Romulan cloak issue going to be fixed?
KF
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 04:15:01 pm
Quote:
Do you know if the Romulan cloak issue going to be fixed?
Unless something obvious pops up that'll tell Taldren patches (DavidF) exactly where the problem is? .. no.
Post by: Magnum357 on June 07, 2003, 06:30:55 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 06:33:50 pm
Post by: Cleaven on June 07, 2003, 07:31:10 pm
Quote:Quote:
Do you know if the Romulan cloak issue going to be fixed?
Unless something obvious pops up that'll tell Taldren patches (DavidF) exactly where the problem is? .. no.
It needs extra code, as opposed to being a bug.
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 08:11:25 pm
.. I know. I know. I'd like to see it in the patch too.
-- Luc
Post by: IndyShark on June 07, 2003, 09:17:27 pm
Keep up the good work my friend!
Post by: Alidar Jarok on June 07, 2003, 10:18:39 pm
Which do you think would be a better choice, OP or the original SFC?
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 10:28:13 pm
Most EAW players didn't think there was enough of a difference between EAW and OP to wararnt spending.
I picked OP. I support OP. I work a lot for OP. I did a lot of stuff for OP. I say: OP.
Post by: Cleaven on June 07, 2003, 10:46:09 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 07, 2003, 11:02:35 pm
-- Luc
Post by: Magnum357 on June 08, 2003, 12:09:53 am
As for my Multiplayer problems, I have no clue why I can't play the game against anybody. I have tired everything I can think of and it still doesn't work. Good news is that I was able to install SFC1 Gold and have had no problems playing multiplayer games on GSA with it. At least I can play some SFB rule with some people with it, but even 4 years after it was published, SFC1 is still a fun game to play.
On a side note, I'm about 85% complete with my first ever SFC model. Its based on SFB rules and such and I'm really hoping the SFC community (especiall the SFB fans) like it. I'm still a novice with Milkshape, but I'm getting better and this model is not bad in my opinion with such a simple 3D program.
I just hope the next OP patch can solve my problems.
Post by: FireSoul on June 08, 2003, 12:11:32 am
Post by: Magnum357 on June 08, 2003, 12:35:49 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 08, 2003, 12:43:23 am
next.. uhm..
.. what's your OS? Who's your ISP? What type of connection? Which DirectX is used?
Let me explain: SFC EAW and OP were both based on DX7. To play on GSA, you need the DirectPlay TCP and UDP ports to work, as well as the GSA-related ports. Anything higher or equal to DX9 should be good.
.. now, by firewall, I mean any device or software that may filter the network traffic between you and GSA. It could be within your OS , turned on, without you knowing it. (Windows XP). It could be the device you may be using for net connectivity. (ie: linksys router).
.. and it could be at your ISP's.
If you can positively say you have all of these items covered and double-checked, then I too don't know what's wrong.
Post by: Cleaven on June 08, 2003, 02:07:10 am
Does the same thing happen if you make your own room, ready up and start the game by yourself (alone that is)?
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 08, 2003, 02:45:56 am
1. Fix the LWX arc. It annoys me.
2. Fix the stop dead in space fighter bug/defend me bug. It's repeatable, happens every time. Corbormite has all the details on this one.
3. Give the poor romulans their SFB cloak. They'd be much safer when cloaked, though when cloaking they'd be a bit more vunerable. They already don't have bolts or carriers.
Things I'd love to have them add (IE, cold day in hell):
Fighters and PF functionality for all races. You don't need to add the content, we'll do that. And it would be nice if they were to do this that they would allow fighters and PF's on the same ship at the same time.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 08, 2003, 09:07:12 am
1. Webs
2. PA Panels
3. Displacement Device
4. Stasis Field Generator
5. "Extra" race slots on the empire map for modders to add races
Or, more reasonable:
6. Abililty to turn off engine doubling for individual cartels (again for race modders)
7. Fighter loadout restrictions
8. ACTUAL combat BPVs taken into account for matching/scoring (so whatever damage and supplies/fighters/PFs a ship has at the start affect the baseline BPV)
9. Plasma-I that follow the rules
10. Offensive Plasma-D for fighters
Sure, there's a whole lot more we could ask for. At this point, anything we get is gravy. Thanks Dave, for working on another patch. Thanks testers, for helping him and suggesting fixes.
Post by: IndyShark on June 08, 2003, 12:36:31 pm
Post by: Strafer on June 08, 2003, 02:38:03 pm
You would need to be able to select the swordfish, pick it's target, and launch it. There's no interface to do that.
Creating a drone that matches speed of target and generates a constant ECM stream would be easy enough I imagine, getting it out the launch tube would be hard.
Post by: Corbomite on June 08, 2003, 03:01:47 pm
Quote:
that would be complex.
You would need to be able to select the swordfish, pick it's target, and launch it. There's no interface to do that.
Creating a drone that matches speed of target and generates a constant ECM stream would be easy enough I imagine, getting it out the launch tube would be hard.
Modify a fighter to look like a drone, set it permanently on "Defend Me" and drop it out the shuttle bay. Of course, when the drone stops dead at range 6 from your target due to the fighter stopping bug people will scream bloody murder!
Post by: IndyShark on June 08, 2003, 03:03:09 pm
I'll keep my fingers crossed!
Post by: plesbit on June 09, 2003, 03:17:59 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 03:19:52 pm
Quote:
Firesoul, is there any chance your OP+ shiplist will be official in the new patch? Besides the neutral coop DV fix, that would make the OP patch really cool.
I'll keep my fingers crossed!
I know you asked last night via D2, but I'll respond here for everyone..
.. no, it's a mod. Besides, it could contain material that Taldren hasn't signed an agreement for.
Besides, I'm not done yet. I'm waiting for some times to happen first.. then I intend to do a big release version.
-- Luc
Post by: Gamester on June 09, 2003, 04:02:14 pm
There are lots of other goodies too - we all hope that this WILL be the patch that makes OP D2 a reality, but only time will tell.
Gamester
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 04:20:12 pm
Quote:
Actually - I can tell you that the LWX arc is fixed, and some other arcs requested by Firesoul have been implemented besides (The graphics depictions of the new arcs on your ship weapons overlay will not be right, but that would require making new graphics - not gonna happen). That will allow him to do some pretty wonderful stuff to his custom shiplist.
I'm hoping that some work will be done for these arcs.. because there are very close analagous arcs that could be used for the UI... and a couple of arcs that are not in SFC actually showed up in the random'd UI for these arcs. We'll wait and see.
Edit: If the extra work would have to be at the sprites.q3 level, then.. no. We'll have incorrect UI arcs for these additional arcs.
Edit2: PS. I was hoping the news about the added arcs would have stayed.... a surprise.
Post by: Dogmatix! on June 09, 2003, 04:53:38 pm
Quote:
I asked David Ferrell if it was allright to let people know about the patching work currently in progress for SFC:OP. I just got the OK from David Ferrell:Quote:
At least it lets them know there is another patch coming.
Well, we've been at it for a few weeks now. DavidF has been swamped with bugfix requests and .. well.. just plain old requests... but I think all the issues have been mentioned so far. Currently we, the testers, have a debugging serverkit up which logs massive amounts of data after each mission. The goal is to collect hard valuable data about the "Neutral Coop Bug", and possibly any Pirate Map layer interaction bugs. It could be that both are related and are one and the same.
This post is in reaction to something I spotted lately in the forums:Quote:
I have no idea what is or isn't planned in terms of future OP patches. I wouldn't hold my breath for another one, that's for sure.
You can breathe now.
That's definitely good to hear, but I'm still thinking it won't be a good idea for one to hold his or her breath in anticipation. Even under the best of circumstances, patches for the SFC series have been mighty slow in coming. I mean, SFC3 was released about seven months ago and I think we're still waiting for the first (non-beta) patch, aren't we? OP went about a year between patches?
Again...I'm very gratified that there is some hope and that maybe the neutral co-op bug will be red-carded and a sent off. I just hope it happens in my lifetime....
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 05:06:58 pm
The big problem with that bug, and the pirate map interaction problems I might add, is the sheer lack of information.
"It sometimes occur when I do this."
"It doesn't happen all the time."
"It's only when under these circumstances.. but sometimes actually works."
etc..
So what was done is a non-fixed serverkit (for the current tester build only, sorry) which logs additional information. Testers would log into the test D2, and play a few games specifically to generate data.
ie: "10:10 pm EST. Hex: x,y. This guy drafted me. We're both klingons. Neutral coop bug occured."
The logs generated gave an idea of where to look, but the exact bug was not tracked down.
So another serverkit with even MORE log spammage was compiled and put in place. Some fixes are going to be attempted. Etc. This cycle will continue at need.
If the Neutral Coop Bug hasn't been squashed yet, it will be.
-- Luc
Post by: IndyShark on June 09, 2003, 07:48:59 pm
Unless of course you are going to fix the pirates!
Post by: Chris Jones on June 09, 2003, 09:02:57 pm
Post by: Gamester on June 09, 2003, 09:19:56 pm
Gamester
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 09:42:00 pm
.. We can just shut up here and let them all sweat it out.
-- Luc
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 10:15:05 pm
THAT's always been DavidF's to do. Besides, the list is still growing.
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 10:25:57 pm
Post by: Strafer on June 09, 2003, 10:44:33 pm
"Don't feed the programmers."!
Post by: kosh2000 on June 09, 2003, 11:51:49 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 09, 2003, 11:57:07 pm
I really don't know why people want to remove the cartel layer. Seriously. Just fix it.
Besides, what is "Orion Pirates" without pirates? No, it's the product that was sold and it should just be fixed.
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 12:09:33 am
If the cartel layer doesn't affect the normal layer's DV results, and vice-versa, there are no problems. The 2 maps can coexist flawlessly. Removing the layer completely would cause a lot of problems on the DB side, I would suspect.. and is a lot more trouble than just fixing the bugs.
-- Luc
Post by: Cleaven on June 10, 2003, 01:46:48 am
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 10, 2003, 03:01:33 am
Another possibility is to use the cartel layer for non-military or commercial traffic for each empire simulating some kind of economy or universe in the background (and not using up valuable slots in the shiplist with freighters without having to remove them), and so on. This would work particularly well if SQL ever works for OP.
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 03:27:57 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 03:28:43 am
Quote:
So would an empire attacking an empire hex affect a cartel hex now? And vice versa?
The idea is that they never should have affected each other's DV at all.
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 03:29:14 am
Quote:
And make the cartel DV's visible too.
That's definitely been asked.
Post by: Cleaven on June 10, 2003, 04:47:41 am
- Firstly Cartels should be enemies of their related empires eg Prime operates in Romulan space and the Romulans would be doing pretty poorly if all their space was riddled with high DV pirate space. So when Romulans want to raise DV's in empire space they should first have to neutralise the pirate DV first by taking it to zero or one (make it a variable that the admin can change). Once the pirate hex is neutral then further missions will raise the empire hex. Same goes for the cartels. They should have to reduce the empire DV before they can start putting their criminal plans into action.
- Next thing to consider is state sponsered criminal/rebel activity in enemy space. This is where cartels may be allied to empires, but is not required for DV shifts, however the presence of an allied cartel should not restrict the DV changes on the empire map. Raising empire DV's should not have any effect on allied cartel DV's, and vice versa.
- I know that the simplest thing to do would be to completely separate the two maps so that there is no interaction, but the allied/enemy cartels could add to the game if it works right. And if empires only is preferred then simply set all cartel space neutral, and nobody will know the difference.
Post by: Toasty0 on June 10, 2003, 06:15:12 am
Quote:
So would an empire attacking an empire hex affect a cartel hex now? And vice versa?
So, are you asking;
1.) Is that how it operates now?
2.)Is that how it's supposed to operate?
3.)Is that how it will operate after its patched?
And, is your question asking something firesoul already said he would not anwer? }~
My favorite fix is {EDITED FOR CONTENT}. I think you OP fans should enjoy that new feature as much as I do.
Best,
Toasty0 the meanie
Post by: jdmckinney on June 10, 2003, 07:00:50 am
Really, who is left playing the game who hasn't modded it or played someone else's mods? If a few tweaks could be made that would add flexibility for modders, wouldn't that expand the life expectancy of the game? Adding a .gf-settable option to disable engine doubling for any or all of the cartels would be such a change. A lot of people would like to have just one or a couple cartels and use the rest of the slots for mods.
A much more extreme change would be to add empty but configurable (playable) race slots or moving the pirates to the empire map. These would also have side-effects that give modders more options.
Another approach to the pirate layer would be to have pirate DVs only change if a pirate vessels is involved in a mission, but I think that would require a lot more work that's not really necessary. If we could at least get the two layers to work independently, it would be far better than anything we've been able to do with workarounds so far.
Post by: Sethan on June 10, 2003, 08:32:13 am
Quote:
A much more extreme change would be to add empty but configurable (playable) race slots or moving the pirates to the empire map. These would also have side-effects that give modders more options.
*DING*
I'd love to see this. A .gf setting that determines whether a race is on the Pirate Map or Cartel Map. The next logical step from here would be a .gf setting that allows server admins to choose what color or color pattern (from a .gif perhaps) a race uses on the map.
This would allow admins to use OP to have a server with 15 races and still have a single pirate cartel on the cartel map - if that is what they want to do.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 10, 2003, 10:20:24 pm
It would also help spice up nebula battles.
Just a thought.
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 10:57:41 pm
.. but I will definitely remember this one, and pass it along if he's receptive.
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on June 10, 2003, 11:10:30 pm
How clear are the rules regarding Shock? (it's been a LONG time) If the conditions could be clearly defined, would using the HET routine for a breakdown check and degrading the breakdown rating be a reasonable substitute?
Post by: FireSoul on June 10, 2003, 11:21:54 pm
.. and it was turned down promptly. :-/
I am assuming the same would happen here.
Besides, ships have different shock ratings, and that hasn't been stored in the shiplist.
Ok.. there are simple rules for requests:
1- NO artwork.
2- it must be something simple.
-- Luc
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 11, 2003, 02:29:54 am
The other thing on my OP wishlist is a working SQL for the serverkit of course.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 11, 2003, 10:08:45 am
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 11:53:21 am
Quote:
My request, FireSoul, then would be can we have the accessor methods in the OP API working for all types of loadouts including shuttles, fighters, drones and PF's. By accessors, I mean the 'gets' and 'sets'.
The other thing on my OP wishlist is a working SQL for the serverkit of course.
I already asked.
.. basically mSetFighters works for both fighters and PFs, but there's no mGetFighters.
mGetDrones works well, but mSetDrones doesn't.
I think there is a mSetShuttles, but no mGetShuttles.
If all 6 of the above would work, the scripters would rock.
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 11:54:16 am
Quote:
How about making all the ship's displays universal so they can be used with any race, like the xmmer, xsmer, etc... They already work just about everywhere in the game. That way the WYN could have their pirate ships, for example, and you'd be able to see the display in the "shipyard".
That's in sprites.q3, I think. No can do.
Sorry. :-/
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 12:53:23 pm
.. David isn't taking requests. He told me that any requests people make through me should be declined.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 11, 2003, 02:15:08 pm
Quote:
Sorry guys..
.. David isn't taking requests. He told me that any requests people make through me should be declined.
Man! Don't you hate it when "adults" tell you that you're asking too many questions
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 02:25:51 pm
Me, I'm happy there *IS* another patch!
Post by: 762 on June 11, 2003, 02:54:21 pm
*runs*
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 03:02:15 pm
.. awww.. can't get to it? .. I'm sooo sorry. Really I am.
Post by: Toasty0 on June 11, 2003, 04:49:04 pm
Quote:Quote:
How about making all the ship's displays universal so they can be used with any race, like the xmmer, xsmer, etc... They already work just about everywhere in the game. That way the WYN could have their pirate ships, for example, and you'd be able to see the display in the "shipyard".
That's in sprites.q3, I think. No can do.
Sorry. :-/
OoooOOOOoooooOOOo. The most holy of holy, sprites.q3.
Only the annointed ones touch the holy grail.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Toasty0 on June 11, 2003, 04:54:52 pm
Though I can't say which, some of your "requests" are being tested. I know of one that has passed muster. Sorry to tease like this, but I don't want you to think that you're not being heard. It's just that the feature/fix plate is now full.
And I am thoroughly convinced that you will be pleasently surprised by this patch.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 11, 2003, 07:51:16 pm
Quote:Quote:
My request, FireSoul, then would be can we have the accessor methods in the OP API working for all types of loadouts including shuttles, fighters, drones and PF's. By accessors, I mean the 'gets' and 'sets'.
The other thing on my OP wishlist is a working SQL for the serverkit of course.
I already asked.
.. basically mSetFighters works for both fighters and PFs, but there's no mGetFighters.
mGetDrones works well, but mSetDrones doesn't.
I think there is a mSetShuttles, but no mGetShuttles.
If all 6 of the above would work, the scripters would rock.
Sounds good, looking forward to it. Thanks FireSoul.
Post by: FireSoul on June 11, 2003, 08:57:45 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
My request, FireSoul, then would be can we have the accessor methods in the OP API working for all types of loadouts including shuttles, fighters, drones and PF's. By accessors, I mean the 'gets' and 'sets'.
The other thing on my OP wishlist is a working SQL for the serverkit of course.
I already asked.
.. basically mSetFighters works for both fighters and PFs, but there's no mGetFighters.
mGetDrones works well, but mSetDrones doesn't.
I think there is a mSetShuttles, but no mGetShuttles.
If all 6 of the above would work, the scripters would rock.
Sounds good, looking forward to it. Thanks FireSoul.
Remember, that was just a request. .. I strongly suspect it will NOT be done, but at least I asked.
-- Luc
Post by: Jwest on June 12, 2003, 05:13:54 pm
Quote:Quote:
A much more extreme change would be to add empty but configurable (playable) race slots or moving the pirates to the empire map. These would also have side-effects that give modders more options.
*DING*
I'd love to see this. A .gf setting that determines whether a race is on the Pirate Map or Cartel Map. The next logical step from here would be a .gf setting that allows server admins to choose what color or color pattern (from a .gif perhaps) a race uses on the map.
This would allow admins to use OP to have a server with 15 races and still have a single pirate cartel on the cartel map - if that is what they want to do.
This is a really great idea, if it can be incorporated. While I would like more than 1 pirate group for variety, three or four would be plenty, and the ability to add new empires on the main map more than makes up for it.
Post by: kosh2000 on June 12, 2003, 07:34:04 pm
Quote:
No. Instead the cartel layer should stay, and be fixed.
I really don't know why people want to remove the cartel layer. Seriously. Just fix it.
Besides, what is "Orion Pirates" without pirates? No, it's the product that was sold and it should just be fixed.
well i and others that have run servers on op since day one said the cartels should be on the same map as the empires there may not be room on the stock maps but you can make the maps up 135x140 16,000 hexs wich will run fine with large numbers on a server with out the data base growing big at all .
Post by: jdmckinney on June 13, 2003, 12:32:50 pm
The Klingons seem most affected by this, but they aren't the only ships that have to approximate arc and hardpoint combinations due to the limits on certain UIs.
Post by: jimmi7769 on June 13, 2003, 12:34:40 pm
Quote:
Has anyone asked Dave about adding more hardpoints to UIs, or the ability to add hardpoints to them in a mod, so a number of ships don't have to use incorrect arcs and cram multiple weapons into fewer hardpoints?
The Klingons seem most affected by this, but they aren't the only ships that have to approximate arc and hardpoint combinations due to the limits on certain UIs.
Probably in the holy sprites file.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 13, 2003, 01:19:31 pm
Here are some sample problems with ships having too few hardpoints, excerpted from a readme I keep for my shiplist work (ongoing):
* K-B10 (and variants, including B11): the SFC UI does not have enough phaser hardpoints, nor are there the appropriate arcs available even if there were sufficient hardpoints. Therefore, I have followed Taldren's example in assigning the phaser type placement and arcs. Instead of 7 Ph1s, 8 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s, the B10 has 9 Ph1s, 6 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s. I've adjusted the phaser arcs on the B11K, but they are still inaccurate due to the restrictions of hardpoints and arc availability.
* Z-BB: Because there are not enough heavy weapon hardpoints to give the ship 2 FAL and 2 FAR disruptors, I?ve increased the arc on one set of 4 disruptors from FA to FX. This provides extra overlap, but I?ve left the BPV alone since the ship loses some Ph3 and Ph1 arc coverage due to the broken LWX arc and lack of proper side and forward arc combinations. The rear Ph3s and side Ph1s are now LS/RS.
* K-FWE: It needs more phaser hardpoints (7 different arcs) than are available on the F5/destroyer UI. To get enough hardpoints, I used the D5/war cruiser UI, but retained the F5 ship model. As an alternative, the F5 UI could be used if the FHL and FHR Ph2s were combined into one hardpoint with an FX arc (not KFX), though this would give the phasers more coverage than they should have.
There are others. I just didn't take notes on all of them.
Post by: FireSoul on June 13, 2003, 01:50:28 pm
Quote:
* K-B10 (and variants, including B11): the SFC UI does not have enough phaser hardpoints, nor are there the appropriate arcs available even if there were sufficient hardpoints. Therefore, I have followed Taldren's example in assigning the phaser type placement and arcs. Instead of 7 Ph1s, 8 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s, the B10 has 9 Ph1s, 6 Ph2s, and 6 Ph3s. I've adjusted the phaser arcs on the B11K, but they are still inaccurate due to the restrictions of hardpoints and arc availability.
Try using the standard KDN UI instead of the KBB. It works beautifully, and has more mountpoints.
Post by: jdmckinney on June 13, 2003, 02:01:12 pm
Still, the general problem remains on an odd ship here and there. It could even be worse after the patch than before if there are new arcs available.
Like I said, the SFC3 system shows UI edits can be done if handled right. It's too bad we don't have that level of adaptability here, or even just more hardpoints across the board just in case they are needed.
Post by: Holocat on June 13, 2003, 07:01:50 pm
I wish.
Holocat.
Post by: Cleaven on June 13, 2003, 11:16:44 pm
.... and if you listen very carefully you can hear the faint cries of a frustrated Hydran player. Sometimes they will come out into the open and you can see them trying to herd their fighters towards the enemy. And rarely, very rarely, you will see a full wing execute a perfect attack, all firing their fusions and hellbores at the target at the optimum range and returning to re-arm. Truly spectacular stuff, now over here we have a ......
Post by: jdmckinney on June 14, 2003, 01:58:08 am
Oh well.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 14, 2003, 02:57:40 am
Quote:
<To be delivered in the hushed but excited voice of David Attenborough>
.... and if you listen very carefully you can hear the faint cries of a frustrated Hydran player. Sometimes they will come out into the open and you can see them trying to herd their fighters towards the enemy. And rarely, very rarely, you will see a full wing execute a perfect attack, all firing their fusions and hellbores at the target at the optimum range and returning to re-arm. Truly spectacular stuff, now over here we have a ......
You are a sick, sick man.
A long time ago, in a SFC reality far far away, Peetie2 laid out how fighter control should be. Perhaps some day it will be that way.
Post by: IndyShark on June 15, 2003, 07:37:05 pm
Post by: FireSoul on June 15, 2003, 07:52:44 pm
.. but yes, work continues. It's not stalled.
-- Luc
Post by: IndyShark on June 15, 2003, 08:00:47 pm
Oh, did I mention the Doomsday Device? Hehe!
Post by: EmeraldEdge on June 15, 2003, 10:20:43 pm
Quote:
One could say that I have to play to test, but it DOES get very boring when there are specific things to test, over and over..
Preach on Brotha'! I can't tell you how many days on end I've spent going in and out of hexes, loggin' in every possible detail every time. Aaaagh! Not fun, especially when you have nobody to share it with because you are pretty much the only one bothering to show up and test. I feel for ya.
Post by: FireSoul on June 15, 2003, 10:30:40 pm
At least the results are useful..
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on June 16, 2003, 11:48:44 am
Quote:
Oh, did I mention the Doomsday Device? Hehe!
Did I miss something? Is that going to be a fix so its harder to kill?
This new patch sounds wonderful. Thanks again to Firesoul for posting this and all the other playtesters for working so hard on this for us.
KF
Post by: Reverend on June 16, 2003, 12:56:13 pm
Post by: Reptor7 on June 24, 2003, 06:16:04 am
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on June 24, 2003, 03:36:23 pm
This should really be at the TOP of this forum.
Is it too late to sign a non-disclosure agreement and be a playtester?
Qapla!
KF
Post by: jualdeaux on June 24, 2003, 03:46:14 pm
They did just add a couple of well known people from the community though so it may be possible.
Post by: Toasty0 on June 24, 2003, 03:47:02 pm
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Strafer on June 24, 2003, 05:57:22 pm
"Wow, nothing! Now THAT is sticky!"
Post by: Dogmatix! on June 25, 2003, 01:16:35 pm
No, that is NOT a cucumber in my pocket...
Post by: FireSoul on June 25, 2003, 04:15:46 pm
Post by: Cleaven on June 25, 2003, 04:36:50 pm
Quote:
Based upon what I've heard and seen. I'm getting very excisted about the coming OP patch....
No, that is NOT a cucumber in my pocket...
well I was always very excitable
Well, he went down to dinner in his Sunday best
Excitable boy, they all said
Post by: Remiak on June 26, 2003, 11:14:00 pm
Quote:
A lot more players play EAW. OP is superior in design and has more material, weapons, etc.
Most EAW players didn't think there was enough of a difference between EAW and OP to wararnt spending.
I picked OP. I support OP. I work a lot for OP. I did a lot of stuff for OP. I say: OP.
FireSoul, thanks a lot for keeping us informed.
I think many EAW players actually have acquired OP and just did not play there as much because of the issues related with the map.
Form what we gather here, this patch may actually establish OP as the platform of choice and combine large portions of the two player list into OP.
I am looking forward to the patch.
Thanks
Post by: FireSoul on June 27, 2003, 12:43:58 am
Post by: Cleaven on June 27, 2003, 02:36:25 am
Meanwhile off in the distance you can hear the faint cry of "Toga, toga, toga".
And Dean Wormer is putting OP house on double secret probation.
Post by: Mog on June 27, 2003, 03:22:22 am
No prisoners!
Post by: Cleaven on June 27, 2003, 03:36:01 am
Post by: Dogmatix! on June 27, 2003, 11:38:24 am
Quote:Quote:
A lot more players play EAW. OP is superior in design and has more material, weapons, etc.
Most EAW players didn't think there was enough of a difference between EAW and OP to wararnt spending.
I picked OP. I support OP. I work a lot for OP. I did a lot of stuff for OP. I say: OP.
FireSoul, thanks a lot for keeping us informed.
I think many EAW players actually have acquired OP and just did not play there as much because of the issues related with the map.
Form what we gather here, this patch may actually establish OP as the platform of choice and combine large portions of the two player list into OP.
I am looking forward to the patch.
Thanks
Man, there's no "may" about it. OP is superior now. What has already clearly been fixed in the current build of the beta patch cements that beyond any stretch of the imagination.
Post by: CaptJosh on June 27, 2003, 12:54:33 pm
BUG 1: I cannot target a Mauler weapon with boarding parties. This is ridiculous as I can target any other weapon on a ship with boarders plus the transporters, tractor beams, sensors, and shuttle bays.
BUG 2: When playing as Mirak, upon getting any new ship with MIRV launchers, I must complete a mission before I can get my full missile loadout and load ammo for the MIRV launchers.
(BTW, calling them MIRV is rather a misnomer, MIRV = Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles, usually used in ICBMs. These really are just cluster missiles. Even though you can fire them at a planet, it's not their intended purpose.)
Hope that helps with developing the new patch.
CaptJosh
Post by: 3dot14 on June 27, 2003, 01:03:07 pm
The rationale you ask? A Mauler is not a system, it's the ship. The mauler generators are integrated with the ship so tightly that it cannot be distinguished from the ship's frames. The only way to destroy a mauler is to destroy the ship. (you can however, disable mauler by destroying engines. Since mauler damage is proportional to battery reserve. No engine, no battery recharge, no damage.)
2. Definitely Mirv is broken... Hopefully it'll be fixed. (and re: misnomer, you should know better than bringing modern sciences into Star Trek... :P)
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on June 27, 2003, 01:37:40 pm
Quote:
1. Not as ridiculous as you think. In SFC terminology, a mauler system is indestructable.
Nod to 3Dot.
A Mauler is not a system of a starship, but a weapons system with a starship built around it.
Post by: FireSoul on June 27, 2003, 02:57:54 pm
Quote:
(BTW, calling them MIRV is rather a misnomer, MIRV = Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles, usually used in ICBMs. These really are just cluster missiles. Even though you can fire them at a planet, it's not their intended purpose.)
Quite right. In SFB, we call them Multi-Warheads, or MWs for short.
-- Luc
Post by: Strafer on June 27, 2003, 04:56:29 pm
Quote:
Nod to 3Dot.
A Mauler is not a system of a starship, but a weapons system with a starship built around it.
Another way to look at it is that it's a big freaking hole at the bow of the ship. The only way you could board it is with a *huge* cork.
Post by: FireSoul on June 27, 2003, 05:29:49 pm
-- Luc
Post by: Toasty0 on June 27, 2003, 05:36:33 pm
Quote:A huge what?Quote:
Nod to 3Dot.
A Mauler is not a system of a starship, but a weapons system with a starship built around it.
Another way to look at it is that it's a big freaking hole at the bow of the ship. The only way you could board it is with a *huge* cork.
Post by: Strafer on June 28, 2003, 09:50:41 am
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on June 28, 2003, 02:49:35 pm
If not, EXACTLY WHOM do I request to be a tester from to help out? I'm here multiple times each day and my wife can attest to how much time I spend tweaking this game, its ships and spec files EVERY night, LOL.
Qapla!
KF
Post by: APEXNETHOR on June 29, 2003, 11:36:50 pm
Post by: TheSatyr on June 30, 2003, 12:48:42 am
Post by: CaptJosh on June 30, 2003, 12:55:32 am
CaptJosh
Post by: TheSatyr on June 30, 2003, 01:01:10 am
Taldren will also have download links for the patch in the announcement message. And those in the forums with web sites will no doubt put the patch up for downloading on their sites as well.
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 01, 2003, 03:33:52 am
I've been hanging out mostly in the Off Topic for a while now, and have missed this thread until tonight...
I bought into OP when I realized it would have everything from EAW plus more, especially the Mauler (compatible with certain Hydran 'run up and kick 'em in the nuts' tactics...). I never looked back and haven't played EAW since. And I could care less about the 'canned' missions, I just wanna conquer the damn map.
I would just like to forward my appreciation and encouragement to all those working on this! Thank you very much.
Oh, and as for that <To be delivered in the hushed but excited voice of David Attenborough> post, Cleaven, I just laughed myself silly! Thanks, man.
Chaos
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 01, 2003, 06:53:18 am
Quote:
Can somebody tell us if this patch is scheduled to be released in less than 30 days?
If not, EXACTLY WHOM do I request to be a tester from to help out? I'm here multiple times each day and my wife can attest to how much time I spend tweaking this game, its ships and spec files EVERY night, LOL.
Qapla!
KF
Come to think of it, what IS required? I have signed the NDA that was required for SFC3 to become a beta tester (I was not chosen due to a snafu with e-mail addresses), is that the main requirement?
Post by: FireSoul on July 01, 2003, 06:57:12 am
Quote:Quote:
Can somebody tell us if this patch is scheduled to be released in less than 30 days?
If not, EXACTLY WHOM do I request to be a tester from to help out? I'm here multiple times each day and my wife can attest to how much time I spend tweaking this game, its ships and spec files EVERY night, LOL.
Qapla!
KF
Come to think of it, what IS required? I have signed the NDA that was required for SFC3 to become a beta tester (I was not chosen due to a snafu with e-mail addresses), is that the main requirement?
I don't know.
Post by: jdmckinney on July 01, 2003, 08:33:41 am
The folks who are in the group now by and large know the game very well and are good at testing for specific results or situations.
I'm only posting this to give my understanding of the way it works. I'm not a current tester, and I doubt there are any official policies on the matter of who is invited to test. There are also many SFC3 testers who were never SFC2 testers, and vice versa. The application to Activision for SFC3 testing has NOTHING to do with Taldren's semi-formal tester circle.
Post by: Cleaven on July 01, 2003, 09:11:35 am
Wot a revoltin' development.
Post by: Strafer on July 02, 2003, 03:41:15 pm
Quote:
Spam testers?
Wot a revoltin' development.
Spread the news, a toast to it's success. Can anything stop it?
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on July 05, 2003, 10:39:22 am
Update please.
KF
Post by: FireSoul on July 05, 2003, 10:51:38 am
Post by: Toasty0 on July 05, 2003, 12:11:04 pm
Quote:
Any News at all?
Update please.
KF
Looks like a bug with the D2 that Firesoul and a couple other testers found has been figured out and squished.
Other than that some new features need to be tweaked and refined for game play issues...
Oh yeah, and...
HTH,
Best,
Jerry
Post by: David Ferrell on July 05, 2003, 01:03:00 pm
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: FireSoul on July 05, 2003, 01:11:39 pm
Quote:
It's really almost there, but it will be done when it's done.
I couldn't have said it better.
Post by: Qob'nuH on July 05, 2003, 02:59:41 pm
Quote:Quote:
It's really almost there, but it will be done when it's done.
I couldn't have said it better.
Well, I think it could have been said better. The work and support for this patch is very much appreciated but I find such a condescending response inappropriate. This is not 10-yr-olds asking,"are we there yet?" ,it's consumers that have chosen to purchase and support this product. I don't see anything unreasonable about inquiring about an approximate time frame in terms other than "soon" or "almost there".
I also hope that the beta-testing involves more than just those just concerned with SFB standards.In other words , let's not forget the X-ships/weapons this time around.(phaser G2!).
Post by: Toasty0 on July 05, 2003, 05:28:11 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
It's really almost there, but it will be done when it's done.
I couldn't have said it better.
Well, I think it could have been said better. The work and support for this patch is very much appreciated but I find such a condescending response inappropriate. This is not 10-yr-olds asking,"are we there yet?" ,it's consumers that have chosen to purchase and support this product. I don't see anything unreasonable about inquiring about an approximate time frame in terms other than "soon" or "almost there".
I also hope that the beta-testing involves more than just those just concerned with SFB standards.In other words , let's not forget the X-ships/weapons this time around.(phaser G2!).
OP has X-Ships and G2s? Since when and has anyone told the beta testers yet?
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on July 05, 2003, 05:51:30 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
It's really almost there, but it will be done when it's done.
I couldn't have said it better.
Well, I think it could have been said better. The work and support for this patch is very much appreciated but I find such a condescending response inappropriate. This is not 10-yr-olds asking,"are we there yet?" ,it's consumers that have chosen to purchase and support this product. I don't see anything unreasonable about inquiring about an approximate time frame in terms other than "soon" or "almost there".
I also hope that the beta-testing involves more than just those just concerned with SFB standards.In other words , let's not forget the X-ships/weapons this time around.(phaser G2!).
OP has X-Ships and G2s? Since when and has anyone told the beta testers yet?
Best,
Jerry
Falls off chair, ROTFL!
Thank you folks "in the know" for giving us one form of an update. I really do appreciate it. I will consider the patch a success if the Cloak works like it does in SFC3, anything else is extra tasty gravy to me.
Qapla!
KF
Post by: FireSoul on July 05, 2003, 06:07:07 pm
Quote:
"are we there yet?"
No.
Quote:
"are we there yet?"
No.
Quote:
"are we there yet?"
No.
Quote:
"are we there yet?"
No.
Post by: Cleaven on July 05, 2003, 06:24:36 pm
Quote:
Well, I think it could have been said better. The work and support for this patch is very much appreciated but I find such a condescending response inappropriate. This is not 10-yr-olds asking,"are we there yet?" ,it's consumers that have chosen to purchase and support this product. I don't see anything unreasonable about inquiring about an approximate time frame in terms other than "soon" or "almost there".
I suppose if people didn't act like 10 year olds when told about delays or mistakes or other unforseen circumstances. Most people don't act that way but those that do, ugh ...
Post by: David Ferrell on July 05, 2003, 06:41:59 pm
weeks, but what if it isn't?
We've smashed some very big bugs in this patch and the Dynaverse is now working
nearly flawlessly for both Empires and Cartels. However, when you make this many
changes, some items will break and you have to go back and fix them, which takes
an unknown amount of time.
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Pestalence on July 05, 2003, 07:23:31 pm
Quote:
I will consider the patch a success if the Cloak works like it does in SFC3, anything else is extra tasty gravy to me.
Qapla!
KF
sorry to burst your bubble.. Cloak is suppose to work as close to SFB standard as possible, not SFC 3 standard...
but testing goes well and we are stomping bugs...
David just got a new can of RAID just for the OP patch....
Post by: Klingon Fanatic on July 05, 2003, 07:46:45 pm
Let me rephrase my concern about the cloak; what I SHOULD HAVE CORRECTLY wrote was, as long as the cloak is no longer a death trap if you use it I'll be very happy. This is an OLD concern I know....
Second, I did say 'thank you' for the update.
A little news always goes a long way to curbing all the 'are we there yet?' questions.
Thanks again to everyone "in the know" that threw us rabid fans a scrap of information.
Qapla!
KF
Post by: 3dot14 on July 05, 2003, 08:04:33 pm
Quote:
That's the whole thing. I would like to say it will be done within the next two
weeks, but what if it isn't?
We've smashed some very big bugs in this patch and the Dynaverse is now working
nearly flawlessly for both Empires and Cartels. However, when you make this many
changes, some items will break and you have to go back and fix them, which takes
an unknown amount of time.
Thanks,
Dave
Don't forget to knock wood. You didn't expect that "big bug" either... Let's hope nothing else springs up.
and KF, if it's TNG cloak you want, probably not. That's why there is a TNG themed game... Sorry.
But I think Cloak will get some considerations to beef it up.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 06, 2003, 01:55:49 am
Post by: Toasty0 on July 06, 2003, 07:15:39 am
A true Klingon never uses a cloak...even when flying them pink-ish Rom things they call a ship.
On a serious note: I think you and many fans of the Romulan way will find the cloak "very effective" now. In some aspects, and in my humble opine, I think the implementation of the cloak now will add a dimension to combat that SFC/EAW/OP Romulan player only dreamt about in the past.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: FireSoul on July 06, 2003, 08:35:43 am
Quote:
KF,
A true Klingon never uses a cloak...even when flying them pink-ish Rom things they call a ship.
On a serious note: I think you and many fans of the Romulan way will find the cloak "very effective" now. In some aspects, and in my humble opine, I think the implementation of the cloak now will add a dimension to combat that SFC/EAW/OP Romulan player only dreamt about in the past.
Since the cat's out of the bag for cloak, I would like to say this before naysayers and doubters say anything about the cloak: it has been implemented to the closest of SFB specs as possible without changing the inner engine involved. However, it is still being tweaked due to discovered bugs.
In otherwords, the cloaking ships' BPVs will be a lot more accurate, and the cloak itself is a lot better. It's definitely not impossible to beat, but it does do its job well.
-- Luc
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 06, 2003, 10:07:52 am
Hope the LWX arc bug has been squashed and (dare I say to hope) correct gat arcs have then been added to hydran dreads with this bug fixed.
Post by: Toasty0 on July 06, 2003, 02:10:42 pm
Quote:Quote:
KF,
A true Klingon never uses a cloak...even when flying them pink-ish Rom things they call a ship.
On a serious note: I think you and many fans of the Romulan way will find the cloak "very effective" now. In some aspects, and in my humble opine, I think the implementation of the cloak now will add a dimension to combat that SFC/EAW/OP Romulan player only dreamt about in the past.
Since the cat's out of the bag for cloak, I would like to say this before naysayers and doubters say anything about the cloak: it has been implemented to the closest of SFB specs as possible without changing the inner engine involved. However, it is still being tweaked due to discovered bugs.
In otherwords, the cloaking ships' BPVs will be a lot more accurate, and the cloak itself is a lot better. It's definitely not impossible to beat, but it does do its job well.
-- Luc
Excuse me?
This is not something that hasn't been mentioned before, Luc. By you I might add.
So why the characterization?
I think you should keep in mind, Luc, this isn't Firesouls OP Patch.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: FireSoul on July 06, 2003, 08:03:11 pm
Post by: Cleaven on July 06, 2003, 08:20:02 pm
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 06, 2003, 09:50:29 pm
Post by: Tulwar on July 07, 2003, 12:58:35 am
Post by: FireSoul on July 07, 2003, 04:09:47 am
Quote:
Please, what ever you do, do NOT patch the rear ISC plasmas like you did in EAW. You only get one shot in the entire scenairio.
That issue was raised in 2538, and we convinced David to not do so back then. It won't happen.
Post by: jdmckinney on July 07, 2003, 10:40:13 am
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 07, 2003, 12:30:52 pm
I think this will really add a whole new facet to SFC, [re]intoducing cloak and anti-cloak tactics, as opposed to now, where it goes absolutely unused!
It would be great to play [as close as possible to] SFB standard cloak!
Thanks, Dave Ferrell! And thank you, beta testers.
In terms of when to release it, I have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER with the "when it's done" response. That's just about the ONLY right answer anyhow. God only knows if we'll EVER get another patch after this one, so for Pete's sake, take your time and test the living crap out of this patch before release! (but don't resent me/us too much for agonizing over the delay like kids waiting for XMas so they can open the presents...)!
Thanks, again!
Great news about the cloak, that!
-Tumulorum Fossor
Post by: Sethan on July 07, 2003, 03:07:53 pm
The more bugs they have time to squash, the better.
Post by: TheSatyr on July 07, 2003, 03:12:39 pm
Post by: 3dot14 on July 07, 2003, 04:55:27 pm
Quote:It's a pity really, the EAW version, when working correctly, is the most approperiate version of plasI.
Please, what ever you do, do NOT patch the rear ISC plasmas like you did in EAW. You only get one shot in the entire scenairio.
Post by: KHHJakle on July 07, 2003, 05:55:49 pm
Will there be any further EAW patches to incorporate some if the additions to OP, namely the work on the Rom cloak?
Thanks
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 07, 2003, 05:56:11 pm
Quote:
Looking forward to the patch - but definitely willing to wait until Taldren is ready to release it.
The more bugs they have time to squash, the better.
(Wonders if Sethan is regrowing pointy ears and dreaming about plasma bolts and plasma sabot)
Post by: Toasty0 on July 07, 2003, 06:06:16 pm
Quote:
I am an infrequent visitor to these forums, so bear with me if this is an established fact:
Will there be any further EAW patches to incorporate some if the additions to OP, namely the work on the Rom cloak?
Thanks
Interesting question.. I think (just guessing here mind you) that is something that'll have to be looked at once other work is completed.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Sethan on July 07, 2003, 06:19:15 pm
Quote:Quote:
Looking forward to the patch - but definitely willing to wait until Taldren is ready to release it.
The more bugs they have time to squash, the better.
(Wonders if Sethan is regrowing pointy ears and dreaming about plasma bolts and plasma sabot)
Never lost the pointy ears, and plasma bolts are a pipe dream
Plasma Sabot we already have after a fashion, with Plas-X.Rumors of OoB servers (and rumors here of improved cloak) are tempting me to take my old R-WE back out into space again, though.
I don't actually need to sleep, do I?
Post by: Strafer on July 07, 2003, 07:49:44 pm
Quote:
I don't actually need to sleep, do I?
Only in between reloads.
(oops, did I say that out loud?)
Post by: TheSatyr on July 07, 2003, 09:03:31 pm
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 07, 2003, 09:59:11 pm
"Please, let me sleep."
"How, how am I gonna get to sleep?"
"I know, we'll count those bars on the window..."
Chaos
Post by: TarMinyatur on July 07, 2003, 10:23:49 pm
Quote:
...the cloak has been implemented to the closest of SFB specs as possible without changing the inner engine involved. However, it is still being tweaked due to discovered bugs.
-- Luc
Hmm, doesn't sound like they used my suggested quick fix of R*2 + 6 instead of R*2 + 5.
Perhaps the combat v cloak table is now used for direct fire weapons:
1d3: Effect (if they hit)
1: Full damage (based on true range for Disr, Phot, PPD(?), Hellbore; based on effective range for Phasers and Fusion)
2: Half damage
3: Quarter damage
ESG's naturally ignore the chart entirely.
However, the cloaking ship will have to have its ECM ignored otherwise this combination is too powerful a defense. A cloaked ship is not supposed to directly benefit from a favorable ECM shift (making weapons miss). The combat v cloak chart is essentially the ECM shift.
Seeking weapons had been using a hard to decipher process for losing lock-on (disappearing drones/0 damage plasma). Data suggested that Plasma were using a chart like this upon impact:
1d3: Effect when striking a fully cloaked vessel
1: Half damage
2: Quarter damage
3: No damage
Flash-cubed ships get hammered with full damage seeking weapons.
Oh yeah, FireSoul, I wonder if you could remind the Circle people that Suicide Shuttles are incapable of losing lock-on to a cloaked ship.
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 07, 2003, 11:08:49 pm
Come sweet slumber,
Enshroud me in thy purple cloak.
...Hmm. Doesn't even rhyme.
-Tumulorum Fossor
Post by: FireSoul on July 08, 2003, 04:16:53 am
Quote:
Oh yeah, FireSoul, I wonder if you could remind the Circle people that Suicide Shuttles are incapable of losing lock-on to a cloaked ship.
I have.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 08, 2003, 07:31:47 am
Post by: Sethan on July 08, 2003, 07:47:11 am
Quote:
Hmm, doesn't sound like they used my suggested quick fix of R*2 + 6 instead of R*2 + 5.
Not to pick nits too much - but it is (R+5)*2 not R*2 + 5.
Post by: Cleaven on July 08, 2003, 07:58:34 am
Quote:Quote:
Hmm, doesn't sound like they used my suggested quick fix of R*2 + 6 instead of R*2 + 5.
Not to pick nits too much - but it is (R+5)*2 not R*2 + 5.
The range penalty modifier (G13.302) is applied after the effects of No Lock-On (G13.301), so the +5 occurs after the range doubling.
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 08, 2003, 08:57:11 am
-TF
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 08, 2003, 10:01:23 am
Quote:
The range penalty modifier (G13.302) is applied after the effects of No Lock-On (G13.301), so the +5 occurs after the range doubling.
Wait a minute!!!! That rule only applies during a leap year according to the new rule G13.301.2.
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 08, 2003, 10:56:35 am
Quote:
Quote:
The range penalty modifier (G13.302) is applied after the effects of No Lock-On (G13.301), so the +5 occurs after the range doubling.
Wait a minute!!!! That rule only applies during a leap year according to the new rule G13.301.2.
All that is something that I will not miss from SFB. SVC must be getting kickbacks from the paper industry, or have worked in military publications at one point. I can't think of any other reason for such a cumbersome rules set for a game.
Post by: Sethan on July 08, 2003, 11:41:37 am
Quote:Quote:Quote:
Hmm, doesn't sound like they used my suggested quick fix of R*2 + 6 instead of R*2 + 5.
Not to pick nits too much - but it is (R+5)*2 not R*2 + 5.
The range penalty modifier (G13.302) is applied after the effects of No Lock-On (G13.301), so the +5 occurs after the range doubling.
D'OH! You're right of course.
That's what I get for typing when my books are home and I'm half asleep.
I know the calculation well when I'm awake - that's how I figured that the new proxy hit percentages were death to 1st Gen Roms.
2 x 12 + 5 = 29 (66% hit chance)
So at range 12, a Fed will hit with 2-3 of 4 prox photons against a cloaked Rom - causing far more damage than the Rom can afford to put into shield reinforcement.
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 08, 2003, 05:27:55 pm
Quote:
The real shame is that the ISC rear plasma will probably never work exactly the way intended. As such, they get some bloated BPVs for a weapon that many of the captains don't even charge that often due to their power curves.
Having flown ISC rather extensively on both OP and EAW, recently, I find that the I-plasma is quite useful and not all that burdensome when used in certain ways. The worst part, obviously, is that it gets jammed up and becomes useless. After that, the fact that you have to go very slow at the start of a mission to get things charged is the next most burdensome thing. Once you have them full charged AND they don't jam up, Plasma-I is pretty darned cool, in my book.
To put it another way, when offered a plasma-D variant of the CCZ (replaces I-plas with 4xD-plas), I stick with the I-plasma armed CCZ.
Post by: FireSoul on July 08, 2003, 05:38:26 pm
Quote:
I am an infrequent visitor to these forums, so bear with me if this is an established fact:
Will there be any further EAW patches to incorporate some if the additions to OP, namely the work on the Rom cloak?
I suggest you start looking for a copy of OP. EAW has already recieved its last and final patch as 2036.
-- Luc
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 08, 2003, 07:28:42 pm
Quote:Quote:
The real shame is that the ISC rear plasma will probably never work exactly the way intended. As such, they get some bloated BPVs for a weapon that many of the captains don't even charge that often due to their power curves.
Having flown ISC rather extensively on both OP and EAW, recently, I find that the I-plasma is quite useful and not all that burdensome when used in certain ways. The worst part, obviously, is that it gets jammed up and becomes useless. After that, the fact that you have to go very slow at the start of a mission to get things charged is the next most burdensome thing. Once you have them full charged AND they don't jam up, Plasma-I is pretty darned cool, in my book.
To put it another way, when offered a plasma-D variant of the CCZ (replaces I-plas with 4xD-plas), I stick with the I-plasma armed CCZ.
It would be nice if F/I torps came into the script fully charged like they're supposed to. Who knows, maybe they will?
Post by: KHHJakle on July 08, 2003, 07:49:05 pm
Post by: jimmi7769 on July 08, 2003, 08:01:27 pm
Quote:
I've got my OP...just wanted to have that info as a stick to encourage those in my league to switch to what truly looks like the better game now
Now if we can only get the D2 servers off of EAW and onto OP.
Not even a server to mess around on right now.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 08, 2003, 09:24:13 pm
Post by: jdmckinney on July 09, 2003, 01:21:02 pm
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 11, 2003, 04:02:17 pm
Quote:Quote:Quote:
The real shame is that the ISC rear plasma will probably never work exactly the way intended. As such, they get some bloated BPVs for a weapon that many of the captains don't even charge that often due to their power curves.
Having flown ISC rather extensively on both OP and EAW, recently, I find that the I-plasma is quite useful and not all that burdensome when used in certain ways. The worst part, obviously, is that it gets jammed up and becomes useless. After that, the fact that you have to go very slow at the start of a mission to get things charged is the next most burdensome thing. Once you have them full charged AND they don't jam up, Plasma-I is pretty darned cool, in my book.
To put it another way, when offered a plasma-D variant of the CCZ (replaces I-plas with 4xD-plas), I stick with the I-plasma armed CCZ.
It would be nice if F/I torps came into the script fully charged like they're supposed to. Who knows, maybe they will?
That would definitely be nice...
I mean..if they hold for free...why the hell would you not be carrying loaded F and I-torps around at al ltimes (assuming you haven't just fired them)?
Post by: Strafer on July 11, 2003, 05:09:07 pm
Quote:
That would definitely be nice...
Unless you're on a receiving end of a R-SPZ mere seconds in the game.
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 11, 2003, 05:13:57 pm
Post by: jimmi7769 on July 11, 2003, 06:39:09 pm
Quote:Quote:
That would definitely be nice...
Unless you're on a receiving end of a R-SPZ mere seconds in the game.
And that is the reason for the Spaz's existence
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 11, 2003, 07:18:55 pm
Post by: Toasty0 on July 11, 2003, 07:25:03 pm
You have my permission to either DL this image or host it yourself. Or if you cannot host the image you can directly link to it by copy&pasting the following URL Code:
http://www.toasty0.com/images/OPThanks.png
Hope you enjoy.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Corbomite on July 11, 2003, 07:36:10 pm
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 11, 2003, 07:56:56 pm
Post by: Cleaven on July 11, 2003, 08:33:15 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 11, 2003, 09:06:04 pm
Quote:
I'd rather just send a cheque, with an accompanying legal document requiring the money to be spent on premium beer.
feh. I wish people would do something like that for the OP+.
Wishful thinking indeed.
Post by: Cleaven on July 11, 2003, 09:32:27 pm
Post by: FireSoul on July 11, 2003, 10:33:33 pm
Quote:
Vaiyo A-O
A Home Va Ya Ray
Vaiyo A-Rah
Jerhume Brunnen G
Lexx? That's Canadian too.
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 11, 2003, 10:45:29 pm
"I know, we'll bribe 'em."
"Give 'em a jelly donut."
"Jelly donut comin'..."
Chaos
Post by: Cleaven on July 11, 2003, 11:06:00 pm
Post by: Toasty0 on July 11, 2003, 11:26:36 pm
Quote:
I'd rather just send a cheque, with an accompanying legal document requiring the money to be spent on premium beer.
Well, cool, then I guess you won't be using the graphic to say thanks.
*makes note to self not to get torqued at folks who use nice gestures as a launching pad for their pointless jokes*
**sigh**
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Cleaven on July 12, 2003, 12:16:16 am
Quote:Quote:
I'd rather just send a cheque, with an accompanying legal document requiring the money to be spent on premium beer.
Well, cool, then I guess you won't be using the graphic to say thanks.
*makes note to self not to get torqued at folks who use nice gestures as a launching pad for their pointless jokes*
**sigh**
Best,
Jerry
Be like that if you want, (I know you do), but I'm sending a cheque to
1520 Nutmeg Place
Suite #250
Costa Mesa, CA
92626-2501
marked attn David Ferrell, please spend this on premium beer for the enjoyment of those who deserve it.
So you are right, I won't be doing something less substantive, but grapically appealling to some. But I won't make fun of your "gratitude" just because I can stump up the readies.
Post by: Toasty0 on July 12, 2003, 12:24:42 am
It read like you were belittling those who would say thanks by displaying the graphic.
Mea Culpa.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Cleaven on July 12, 2003, 12:33:47 am
(I hope the address is correct)
PS it doesn't get mailed until the patch is posted.
Post by: jdmckinney on July 12, 2003, 01:11:59 pm
Post by: David Ferrell on July 12, 2003, 05:42:05 pm
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Lepton1 on July 13, 2003, 01:34:40 am
Post by: Corbomite on July 13, 2003, 10:31:17 am
Don't know if it can be fixed or not, but I thought I'd bring it up.
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 10:33:06 am
Quote:
Dave and testers, I almost forgot this one and I don't know if it's in the bug reports, but you cannot remap the Orion Engine Doubling hot key (O). It just won't accept the input. If you try you lose the hotkey entirely as it won't re-accept (O) either.
Don't know if it can be fixed or not, but I thought I'd bring it up.
Did you check the file attributes for "assets/specs/bindings.ini"?
Post by: Corbomite on July 13, 2003, 10:39:06 am
EDIT: If you try to map (\) to Transporters, it reads in the slot as a 0, but the (\) key does work for them. Other slots appear empty with that key, but they do function as mapped. Weird.
Post by: 3dot14 on July 13, 2003, 10:48:16 am
Quote:
And do what? Take it off "Read Only"? Been doing that since the game came out. That is for all the hotkeys. If it is like that they will re-map, but you will lose them when you quit the game. The (O) key is entirely different. The slot will not accept any input at all. When you try, the (O) disappears (loses it's preset) and nothing will show up in the slot and the key(s) don't activate Engine Doubling. This condition also happens with the (\) key if you try to map it to anything, but at least the key does function when remapped, the slot just looks empty.
I believe the same happens for "Deselect". [edit: and that's what Corbomite was talking about with the "\" key]
But really, it's not an earthshattering thing. Especially considering it can be manually edited in binging.ini.
If you want to remap the keys, just open binding.ini find the Engine double line. and Enter your value.
It works, I have the Doubling mapped to NUM2 (Numpad 2)right now.
Post by: FireSoul on July 13, 2003, 10:49:28 am
Post by: Corbomite on July 13, 2003, 10:50:55 am
Quote:Quote:
And do what? Take it off "Read Only"? Been doing that since the game came out. That is for all the hotkeys. If it is like that they will re-map, but you will lose them when you quit the game. The (O) key is entirely different. The slot will not accept any input at all. When you try, the (O) disappears (loses it's preset) and nothing will show up in the slot and the key(s) don't activate Engine Doubling. This condition also happens with the (\) key if you try to map it to anything, but at least the key does function when remapped, the slot just looks empty.
I believe the same happens for "Deselect".
But really, it's not an earthshattering thing. Especially considering it can be manually edited in binging.ini.
If you want to remap the keys, just open binding.ini find the Engine double line. and Enter your value.
It works, I have the Doubling mapped to NUM2 (Numpad 2)right now.
I realize that 3.14, but that really isn't the point is it? Remapping should be fully functional. I'm sure most people don't know about bindings.ini.
Post by: 3dot14 on July 13, 2003, 10:58:05 am
Quote:Agreed. and that's what we are for, to provide the technical info should the need arise.
I realize that 3.14, but that really isn't the point is it? Remapping should be fully functional. I'm sure most people don't know about bindings.ini.
What I meant was when prioritizing, a bug that has an easy and accessible workaround is not as serious as one that has no workaround (i.e. Fighter stopping). Something like this might not rate important enough to hold up patch.
But Firesoul has passed the info on, let's hope David is in a good mood.
Post by: Corbomite on July 13, 2003, 11:18:41 am
Quote:Quote:Agreed. and that's what we are for, to provide the technical info should the need arise.
I realize that 3.14, but that really isn't the point is it? Remapping should be fully functional. I'm sure most people don't know about bindings.ini.
What I meant was when prioritizing, a bug that has an easy and accessible workaround is not as serious as one that has no workaround (i.e. Fighter stopping). Something like this might not rate important enough to hold up patch.
But Firesoul has passed the info on, let's hope David is in a good mood.
Hold up a patch? I was under the impression this was the last patch period. We've waited almost two years already. I would rather wait and let Dave get everything possible worked out and then he can finally put this thing to rest and get on with projects that are making Taldren money, not costing them money.
Post by: What's_in_a_name on July 13, 2003, 09:33:36 pm
Post by: 3dot14 on July 13, 2003, 10:00:51 pm
Quote:
There is a bug that has existed from the beginning of OP, I have mentioned it before every patch yet it still survives (MagnumMan even acknowledged it before one patch yet it remained unfixed). The bug is when you make a group of heavy disruptors(and only heavy disruptors) and then try to set them to any power level. The UI simply doesn't work in that situation.
It didn't survive.
Post by: What's_in_a_name on July 13, 2003, 10:18:02 pm
Quote:
It didn't survive.
I did a fresh install of OP and applied the 'SFCOP_Patch_2500-2538'. I then started a skirmish with myself playing the K-XCB against a Federation opponent. I hit 'R' to go to Red Alert. I select the two heavy disruptor hardpoints (for four dizzies) and then hit CRTL-1, making the '1' key the weapon group for the four heavy disruptors. I hit the '1' key and then try to change the status of the four heavy disruptors, first to 'Overload', then to 'Off'. After each attempt I check the lower heavy disruptor hardpoint and after both times there is no change, it remains at 'Normal'.
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 13, 2003, 11:14:39 pm
Post by: Strafer on July 13, 2003, 11:35:43 pm
Post by: Capt Jeff on July 14, 2003, 05:17:26 am
In D2, only the host of the mission can beam spare parts from AI. Ships/planets/docks etc.
The non-host cannot beam parts in or out, and cannot recieve parts from a ally. They don't even appear in the transporter panel even when the host can see them.
Kind of a bummer when you're beat up, and your buddy is fully loaded with spares, and you can't accept any to repair.
Not a killer bug, but if fixes are still being looked into, maybe this could be addressed?
Thanks
Post by: Toasty0 on July 14, 2003, 07:22:27 am
Quote:Quote:
There is a bug that has existed from the beginning of OP, I have mentioned it before every patch yet it still survives (MagnumMan even acknowledged it before one patch yet it remained unfixed). The bug is when you make a group of heavy disruptors(and only heavy disruptors) and then try to set them to any power level. The UI simply doesn't work in that situation.
It didn't survive.
Oh my god!
I hope it went painlessly.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 14, 2003, 08:23:37 pm
Quote:
I know how it works in Canada. You just put a dead mouse in a bottle of beer, and take it back and say it was in there when you bought it and they give you free beer.
I saw that movie...
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 14, 2003, 08:29:45 pm
Quote:
You can send thank you notes to me via Paypal @ davidf@taldren.com
Thanks,
Dave
Thanks for that info, Dave. I'm sure my contribution won't amount to much in the grand scheme of things, but I felt I should do something...
Edited later:
Argh..forgot about the 3-4 day lag when transferring funds into a PayPal account. Prolly won't have the dough in there until Thursday or Friday...
Post by: stormbirdd on May 14, 2004, 03:35:34 pm
Thanks.
Post by: Crimmy on May 14, 2004, 10:56:16 pm
Post by: stormbirdd on May 19, 2004, 05:50:02 pm