Post by: David Ferrell on July 17, 2003, 02:26:33 pm
http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16&Number=127408&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 02:27:55 pm
Post by: AdmiralFrey_XC on July 17, 2003, 02:31:12 pm
OP is back, and I'm loving it.
In recognition of this patch, XC has also reformatted all the OP mod packs, with a new installer.
You can get the Sound, texture and Ambient mod packs here:
XC Enhancements for OP
All files, including the patches, are on our high bandwidth server.
Great work, everyone, and big thanks to Dave and Taldren for making it really happen.
Regards,
Post by: Mog on July 17, 2003, 02:31:57 pm
Post by: jdmckinney on July 17, 2003, 02:32:51 pm
Nice work!
Post by: Sten on July 17, 2003, 03:23:31 pm
Sten
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 17, 2003, 04:02:20 pm
Post by: Reptor7 on July 17, 2003, 04:03:31 pm
Let loose the Dogs of War!
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 04:11:22 pm
-- Luc
Post by: Sethan on July 17, 2003, 04:59:46 pm
Thank you, gentlemen!
Post by: Corbomite on July 17, 2003, 05:36:43 pm
It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 17, 2003, 05:41:53 pm
Thanks in advance...
...and thanks for the patch, guys...it's quite cool.
Post by: Strafer on July 17, 2003, 05:42:24 pm
Post by: David Ferrell on July 17, 2003, 05:47:35 pm
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 17, 2003, 06:01:18 pm
Just sent you a quick note of thanks!
And here's another one!
Can't wait to try this out (looks like SFC3 will have to wait a tick).
-TF
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 06:01:43 pm
Quote:
Thank you very much Dave and all who helped bring this about. Now for the first question on the new cloak -
It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.
Auto-tracking does not mean auto-retain lockon..
Post by: IndyShark on July 17, 2003, 07:18:02 pm
<grin>
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 17, 2003, 07:36:55 pm
Quote:
Thank you very much Dave and all who helped bring this about. Now for the first question on the new cloak -
It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.
You are correct, Corbo, that plasma can guide itself in SFB. This does mean that a Rom ship can launch and then cloak. On the receiving end, it also means In theory that plasma has a marginally better chance to retain lock-on at cloak fade out, since it is usually closer to its target than is the ship that launched it.
In practice, however, I find it really makes no difference. The Rom really has to be doing something silly to give anything a good chance to retain lock on, and even if lock is retained a quick dump of battery power into ECM will force another check. In 23 years of playing I can't immediately remember ever getting hit by a plasma if I managed to complete my fade out before the plasma got to me. (I'm sure it happened once or twice when I was going excessively fast, but I don't remember it ever happening.)
This programming should work just fine to give an accurate representation of SFB cloak.
For what it's worth, this improvement of cloak to SFB levels is what is going to make me give OP another chance. I'm downloading the patch now. THANKS, DAVE!!! AND EVERYONE ELSE AT TALDREN OR TESTING!
Paypal, eh? Well why not. I've always been willing to pay for improvements to SFC1, SFC2....... and even OP.
-S'Cipio the happy
Post by: David Ferrell on July 17, 2003, 07:49:16 pm
patch.
I am not asking you to send any special thank yous, that is up to you ( and
might get me into more trouble than it is worth <imagines Paramount looking
for their cut> ).
I really appreciate all the cool posts I have read here today, that makes
it all worth it. SFC has been a labor of love for me and getting the game
in to a really cool state has been satisfying. Working with a commited
group of testers has been very nice and their help has been priceless.
I'll sign off now before I start sobbing like a baby.
Dave
Post by: Corbomite on July 17, 2003, 08:55:25 pm
Quote:Quote:
Thank you very much Dave and all who helped bring this about. Now for the first question on the new cloak -
It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.
Auto-tracking does not mean auto-retain lockon..
I agree. I just wanted to know how it was linked to the ship's lock on status.
Post by: Walleye on July 17, 2003, 08:58:46 pm
I don't know where we would be without you.
<><
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 17, 2003, 09:08:09 pm
I could be wrong here, but I THINK Corbo was questioning not whether a plasma torp could HIT a cloaking vessel, but whether a plasma torp FIRED by a vessel which THEN subsequently turns on its cloak would lose its tracking.
I THINK in the patch as it stands that the plasma torp LOSES tracking if the firing vessel completes its cloak fade-in before the torp connects with the targetted vessel... but I haven't tried it.
IIRC, that method would be incorrect as compared to SFB [duck for cover!]. The plasma torp has its own lock-on mechanism and does not need the firing ship to maintain lock-on (which the firing ship would LOSE once it cloaked... Can't cloak and ping targets at the same time, can we
? ), so although the plasma ship CLOAKED and lost lock-on to the targetted ship, the plasma should keep on flying towards the target. That, at least, is how I recall it.Now, lest this be misconstrued as berating of the patch...
...HECK NO!!!! I can't believe how much this patch made my day! I think this seeking weapon thing (I hesitate to even call it an 'issue') PALES in comparison to prepatch cloak. This will totally redefine how I use the cloaking device in SFC (which had been 'not at all'
)!But Scipio, your post did make me wonder: is the ECM Yo-yo actually implimented in SFC? I thought it wasn't, but I'm not sure. (NOT NITPICKING! JUST AN ACADEMIC/TACTICAL SFC QUESTION!)
Thanks, again, DF and Testers!
-TF
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 09:34:10 pm
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 17, 2003, 09:51:26 pm
Just tested it the "firing plasma when cloaked... is lock-on to the targetted ship by the launched plasma lost after fade-out of the firing ship" question.
Three words: Colon, Right Parantheses.
aka
Great job, guys! And getting greater the more I play it!
-TF
Post by: NCC2012 on July 17, 2003, 10:04:57 pm
Thank you very much for the patch!
Post by: Rhaz on July 17, 2003, 10:21:47 pm
Post by: TarMinyatur on July 18, 2003, 01:53:09 am
So a typical R0 attack now does:
OL Dizzy (83% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 6 *
33% do 3
33% do 1
OL Hellore (72% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 19*
33% do 9
33% do 4
OL Photon (50% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 16*
33% do 8
33% do 4
* pre 2.5.4.10 this is 100%
...for comparison
SFB OL Dizzy (83% accuracy w/ UIM, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 10
33% do 5
33% do 2
SFB OL Hellbore (72% accuracy, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 30
33% do 15
33% do 7
SFB OL Photon (50% accuracy, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 16
33% do 8
33% do 4
Draw any conclusions you wish from that.
Phaser-1's are apparently less devastating at R0 as they ought to be:
EDIT: The following does not appear to be true
Initial Damage; Expected Cloak chart outcomes
16%: 5; 5, 2, 1
16%: 4; 4, 2, 1
16%: 4; 4, 2, 1
16%: 3; 3, 1, 0
16%: 3; 3, 1, 0
16%: 2; 2, 1, 0
All this means is that the average damage per Ph-1 is now just 1.83 (assuming no ECM shift!)
They used to do 3.5 damage. This is a huge change. Take 8 Ph-1's on a G-BCH drilling a cloaked R-NHK on a high speed overrun for example:
Pre-patch: 8*3.5 = 28, which puts a big dent in any shield
Now: 8*1.83 = 14.6, which isn't too bad
EDIT: I'm gathering data. Something isn't right with Phasers vs cloak. The damage is too high.
The immediate disappearance of all seeking weapons targeted on a cloaked ship is really generous. I think that missiles and plasma should still have a chance to lock on (though lower than before). There is now no drama in wondering if you'll shake them off before they hit. It's count to 5 mississippi...blip...all incoming warheads gone.
The SFC cloak is reportedly defensively better than the SFB version in this final patch. If Roms could use WTACs to remain manuverable then they could save some badly needed energy instead of moving at speed 10 to keep a good turn rate while under the massive drain from the cloaking device.
The future looks bright for the Romulan Empire and the Orions. (or maybe not)
Post by: Cleaven on July 18, 2003, 02:20:51 am
Post by: The_Harv on July 18, 2003, 04:49:17 am
Post by: TarMinyatur on July 18, 2003, 07:41:54 am
True range: Effective range (R*2 + 5): Hit%
8: 21: cannot be fired
9: 23: 67%
12: 29: 67%
13: 31: 33%
23: 51: 0% (?)
55: 115: 0% (?)
If they hit, they go through the cloak chart:
33% do 4
33% do 2
33% do 1
Up to now they'd do 4 every time.
I also noticed that Erratics don't lower your HET success by 33% as they do in EAW. This isn't a big deal but it is a bug.
Post by: MagnumMan on July 18, 2003, 10:51:10 am
Post by: David Ferrell on July 18, 2003, 11:07:35 am
of the SFB rules.
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 18, 2003, 11:22:26 am
Quote:
Thanks everyone for your kind thoughts on the release of the OP
patch.
I am not asking you to send any special thank yous, that is up to you ( and
might get me into more trouble than it is worth <imagines Paramount looking
for their cut> ).
I really appreciate all the cool posts I have read here today, that makes
it all worth it. SFC has been a labor of love for me and getting the game
in to a really cool state has been satisfying. Working with a commited
group of testers has been very nice and their help has been priceless.
I'll sign off now before I start sobbing like a baby.
Dave
Heheh..."Thank You" note sent. Again...thank's for the work doen by yourself and the beta testers. I'm genuinely excited to see a chance for OP to come off life support and live a normal, productive life...heheh.
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 18, 2003, 01:46:33 pm
Quote:
There is a chance that seekers will maintain lock, using an approximation
of the SFB rules.
Thanks,
Dave
That's awesome! The more one plays, the more one has to appreciate this patch!
Orion PIrates ROCKS!
...ahem...
...uh...
...Carry on.
-TF
Post by: TarMinyatur on July 18, 2003, 06:24:25 pm
Quote:
There is a chance that seekers will maintain lock, using an approximation
of the SFB rules.
Thanks,
Dave
Well, I'll take my foot out of my mouth, now. That's fantastic.
OP Four Ten makes EAW totally obsolete. I'll have to scour the bargain bins for extra copies of OP. (They'll be free to anyone who installs the SW specs. )
=====
SFC2 Shipwrights
Post by: 3dot14 on July 18, 2003, 06:29:13 pm
Quote:
There is a chance that seekers will maintain lock, using an approximation
of the SFB rules.
Thanks,
Dave
Wowsers, even I didn't know that! (all seekers faded during my playing)
Cool
Post by: David Ferrell on July 18, 2003, 06:46:07 pm
would have to be close and the cloaker's speed high.
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Cleaven on July 18, 2003, 07:05:46 pm
Post by: MarianoDT on July 18, 2003, 08:32:08 pm
I will reinstall OP this weekend. After months of playing SFC3, it will be a mayor change.....
Mariano
To all at Taldren....Live long and Prosper.!!!
Post by: RogueJedi_XC on July 19, 2003, 08:24:16 pm
2.5.4.10 kicks ass, guys! Thanks!
Post by: FireSoul on July 20, 2003, 01:32:51 am
Post by: Max_iCOP on July 23, 2003, 09:39:59 pm
A BC or a XFF?
Great stuff. I'm so bloody delighted that your keeping up the good work.
SFC is just F'ing brilliant !!!!!
Post by: scarecrow on July 24, 2003, 12:49:50 am
...
Thanks for the great support... better than any other game out there...
scarecrow
Post by: Corbomite on July 24, 2003, 12:53:09 am
Quote:
I loaded the patch to my original CD version 2.5.0.0 and the program now bombs each time I select Single player -> campaign. Any suggestions? Or can I select old patches rather than this new one? I'm rumming Win98 on a P3-900MHz
...
Thanks for the great support... better than any other game out there...
You're not trying to run an old saved campaign are you? If so, you cannot run old campaigns under a new patch. Other than that I would try another clean install and re DL the patch, you might have gotten a corrupted DL.
Post by: Rage1 on July 24, 2003, 01:40:09 am
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 24, 2003, 09:50:23 am
Quote:Quote:
I loaded the patch to my original CD version 2.5.0.0 and the program now bombs each time I select Single player -> campaign. Any suggestions? Or can I select old patches rather than this new one? I'm rumming Win98 on a P3-900MHz
...
Thanks for the great support... better than any other game out there...
You're not trying to run an old saved campaign are you? If so, you cannot run old campaigns under a new patch. Other than that I would try another clean install and re DL the patch, you might have gotten a corrupted DL.
I'm having that same issue. Click "Single Player", NP. From the SP menu, click "Campaign," and get a free ticket to the desktop. It acts like a program termination; ie. there is no error logging message or de-bug prompt.
I do have the game modded with the latest OP+ and ED missions for online play, and SP campaigns are just a filler for me, so I didn't want to raise a stink about it unless others are having the same issue.
Post by: Ifrit on July 24, 2003, 10:58:53 am
Post by: FireSoul on July 24, 2003, 11:03:17 am
Quote:
I believe that the presence of any old SP saved campaigns in the folder will cause the CTD (regardless of whether you try to load them or start a new campaign). I had the same problem under XP until I deleted the contents of the folder.
right.
Post by: 3dot14 on July 24, 2003, 04:32:51 pm
Quote:More FAQ material...Quote:
I believe that the presence of any old SP saved campaigns in the folder will cause the CTD (regardless of whether you try to load them or start a new campaign). I had the same problem under XP until I deleted the contents of the folder.
right.
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 24, 2003, 04:42:15 pm
Quote:
I believe that the presence of any old SP saved campaigns in the folder will cause the CTD (regardless of whether you try to load them or start a new campaign). I had the same problem under XP until I deleted the contents of the folder.
That was a good fix for my issues
TY
Post by: Carrie on July 24, 2003, 07:49:41 pm
*random ponder*
But if it went up that far, shouldn't it be 2.5.5.0, to keep the last number in the 1-9 range?
*nitpicks*
Thanks for patching!
Post by: Tulwar on July 27, 2003, 10:55:37 pm
Post by: Toasty0 on July 28, 2003, 06:09:17 am
Quote:
Yay for the patch!
*random ponder*
But if it went up that far, shouldn't it be 2.5.5.0, to keep the last number in the 1-9 range?
*nitpicks*
Thanks for patching!
I believe that major and minor versions numbers must be from 0-9(inclusive), but build numbers are not limited to such a convention.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Godzookie on July 29, 2003, 01:56:56 pm
Post by: Cleaven on July 29, 2003, 04:53:50 pm
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 29, 2003, 08:29:41 pm
Post by: Toasty0 on July 29, 2003, 08:33:05 pm
Best,
Jerry
Post by: FireSoul on July 29, 2003, 10:26:35 pm
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 29, 2003, 10:48:39 pm
Any chance of that?
Post by: David Ferrell on July 17, 2003, 02:26:33 pm
http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB16&Number=127408&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 02:27:55 pm
Post by: AdmiralFrey_XC on July 17, 2003, 02:31:12 pm
OP is back, and I'm loving it.
In recognition of this patch, XC has also reformatted all the OP mod packs, with a new installer.
You can get the Sound, texture and Ambient mod packs here:
XC Enhancements for OP
All files, including the patches, are on our high bandwidth server.
Great work, everyone, and big thanks to Dave and Taldren for making it really happen.
Regards,
Post by: Mog on July 17, 2003, 02:31:57 pm
Post by: jdmckinney on July 17, 2003, 02:32:51 pm
Nice work!
Post by: Sten on July 17, 2003, 03:23:31 pm
Sten
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 17, 2003, 04:02:20 pm
Post by: Reptor7 on July 17, 2003, 04:03:31 pm
Let loose the Dogs of War!
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 04:11:22 pm
-- Luc
Post by: Sethan on July 17, 2003, 04:59:46 pm
Thank you, gentlemen!
Post by: Corbomite on July 17, 2003, 05:36:43 pm
It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 17, 2003, 05:41:53 pm
Thanks in advance...
...and thanks for the patch, guys...it's quite cool.
Post by: Strafer on July 17, 2003, 05:42:24 pm
Post by: David Ferrell on July 17, 2003, 05:47:35 pm
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 17, 2003, 06:01:18 pm
Just sent you a quick note of thanks!
And here's another one!
Can't wait to try this out (looks like SFC3 will have to wait a tick).
-TF
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 06:01:43 pm
Quote:
Thank you very much Dave and all who helped bring this about. Now for the first question on the new cloak -
It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.
Auto-tracking does not mean auto-retain lockon..
Post by: IndyShark on July 17, 2003, 07:18:02 pm
<grin>
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 17, 2003, 07:36:55 pm
Quote:
Thank you very much Dave and all who helped bring this about. Now for the first question on the new cloak -
It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.
You are correct, Corbo, that plasma can guide itself in SFB. This does mean that a Rom ship can launch and then cloak. On the receiving end, it also means In theory that plasma has a marginally better chance to retain lock-on at cloak fade out, since it is usually closer to its target than is the ship that launched it.
In practice, however, I find it really makes no difference. The Rom really has to be doing something silly to give anything a good chance to retain lock on, and even if lock is retained a quick dump of battery power into ECM will force another check. In 23 years of playing I can't immediately remember ever getting hit by a plasma if I managed to complete my fade out before the plasma got to me. (I'm sure it happened once or twice when I was going excessively fast, but I don't remember it ever happening.)
This programming should work just fine to give an accurate representation of SFB cloak.
For what it's worth, this improvement of cloak to SFB levels is what is going to make me give OP another chance. I'm downloading the patch now. THANKS, DAVE!!! AND EVERYONE ELSE AT TALDREN OR TESTING!
Paypal, eh? Well why not. I've always been willing to pay for improvements to SFC1, SFC2....... and even OP.
-S'Cipio the happy
Post by: David Ferrell on July 17, 2003, 07:49:16 pm
patch.
I am not asking you to send any special thank yous, that is up to you ( and
might get me into more trouble than it is worth <imagines Paramount looking
for their cut> ).
I really appreciate all the cool posts I have read here today, that makes
it all worth it. SFC has been a labor of love for me and getting the game
in to a really cool state has been satisfying. Working with a commited
group of testers has been very nice and their help has been priceless.
I'll sign off now before I start sobbing like a baby.
Dave
Post by: Corbomite on July 17, 2003, 08:55:25 pm
Quote:Quote:
Thank you very much Dave and all who helped bring this about. Now for the first question on the new cloak -
It said that a seeking weapon's ship loses lock on the seeking weapon would be removed. Does this count towards Plasma torps as well? I though they were self guided.
Auto-tracking does not mean auto-retain lockon..
I agree. I just wanted to know how it was linked to the ship's lock on status.
Post by: Walleye on July 17, 2003, 08:58:46 pm
I don't know where we would be without you.
<><
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 17, 2003, 09:08:09 pm
I could be wrong here, but I THINK Corbo was questioning not whether a plasma torp could HIT a cloaking vessel, but whether a plasma torp FIRED by a vessel which THEN subsequently turns on its cloak would lose its tracking.
I THINK in the patch as it stands that the plasma torp LOSES tracking if the firing vessel completes its cloak fade-in before the torp connects with the targetted vessel... but I haven't tried it.
IIRC, that method would be incorrect as compared to SFB [duck for cover!]. The plasma torp has its own lock-on mechanism and does not need the firing ship to maintain lock-on (which the firing ship would LOSE once it cloaked... Can't cloak and ping targets at the same time, can we
? ), so although the plasma ship CLOAKED and lost lock-on to the targetted ship, the plasma should keep on flying towards the target. That, at least, is how I recall it.Now, lest this be misconstrued as berating of the patch...
...HECK NO!!!! I can't believe how much this patch made my day! I think this seeking weapon thing (I hesitate to even call it an 'issue') PALES in comparison to prepatch cloak. This will totally redefine how I use the cloaking device in SFC (which had been 'not at all'
)!But Scipio, your post did make me wonder: is the ECM Yo-yo actually implimented in SFC? I thought it wasn't, but I'm not sure. (NOT NITPICKING! JUST AN ACADEMIC/TACTICAL SFC QUESTION!)
Thanks, again, DF and Testers!
-TF
Post by: FireSoul on July 17, 2003, 09:34:10 pm
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 17, 2003, 09:51:26 pm
Just tested it the "firing plasma when cloaked... is lock-on to the targetted ship by the launched plasma lost after fade-out of the firing ship" question.
Three words: Colon, Right Parantheses.
aka
Great job, guys! And getting greater the more I play it!
-TF
Post by: NCC2012 on July 17, 2003, 10:04:57 pm
Thank you very much for the patch!
Post by: Rhaz on July 17, 2003, 10:21:47 pm
Post by: TarMinyatur on July 18, 2003, 01:53:09 am
So a typical R0 attack now does:
OL Dizzy (83% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 6 *
33% do 3
33% do 1
OL Hellore (72% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 19*
33% do 9
33% do 4
OL Photon (50% accuracy vs no shift)
33% do 16*
33% do 8
33% do 4
* pre 2.5.4.10 this is 100%
...for comparison
SFB OL Dizzy (83% accuracy w/ UIM, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 10
33% do 5
33% do 2
SFB OL Hellbore (72% accuracy, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 30
33% do 15
33% do 7
SFB OL Photon (50% accuracy, ECM shift always ignored)
33% do 16
33% do 8
33% do 4
Draw any conclusions you wish from that.
Phaser-1's are apparently less devastating at R0 as they ought to be:
EDIT: The following does not appear to be true
Initial Damage; Expected Cloak chart outcomes
16%: 5; 5, 2, 1
16%: 4; 4, 2, 1
16%: 4; 4, 2, 1
16%: 3; 3, 1, 0
16%: 3; 3, 1, 0
16%: 2; 2, 1, 0
All this means is that the average damage per Ph-1 is now just 1.83 (assuming no ECM shift!)
They used to do 3.5 damage. This is a huge change. Take 8 Ph-1's on a G-BCH drilling a cloaked R-NHK on a high speed overrun for example:
Pre-patch: 8*3.5 = 28, which puts a big dent in any shield
Now: 8*1.83 = 14.6, which isn't too bad
EDIT: I'm gathering data. Something isn't right with Phasers vs cloak. The damage is too high.
The immediate disappearance of all seeking weapons targeted on a cloaked ship is really generous. I think that missiles and plasma should still have a chance to lock on (though lower than before). There is now no drama in wondering if you'll shake them off before they hit. It's count to 5 mississippi...blip...all incoming warheads gone.
The SFC cloak is reportedly defensively better than the SFB version in this final patch. If Roms could use WTACs to remain manuverable then they could save some badly needed energy instead of moving at speed 10 to keep a good turn rate while under the massive drain from the cloaking device.
The future looks bright for the Romulan Empire and the Orions. (or maybe not)
Post by: Cleaven on July 18, 2003, 02:20:51 am
Post by: The_Harv on July 18, 2003, 04:49:17 am
Post by: TarMinyatur on July 18, 2003, 07:41:54 am
True range: Effective range (R*2 + 5): Hit%
8: 21: cannot be fired
9: 23: 67%
12: 29: 67%
13: 31: 33%
23: 51: 0% (?)
55: 115: 0% (?)
If they hit, they go through the cloak chart:
33% do 4
33% do 2
33% do 1
Up to now they'd do 4 every time.
I also noticed that Erratics don't lower your HET success by 33% as they do in EAW. This isn't a big deal but it is a bug.
Post by: MagnumMan on July 18, 2003, 10:51:10 am
Post by: David Ferrell on July 18, 2003, 11:07:35 am
of the SFB rules.
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 18, 2003, 11:22:26 am
Quote:
Thanks everyone for your kind thoughts on the release of the OP
patch.
I am not asking you to send any special thank yous, that is up to you ( and
might get me into more trouble than it is worth <imagines Paramount looking
for their cut> ).
I really appreciate all the cool posts I have read here today, that makes
it all worth it. SFC has been a labor of love for me and getting the game
in to a really cool state has been satisfying. Working with a commited
group of testers has been very nice and their help has been priceless.
I'll sign off now before I start sobbing like a baby.
Dave
Heheh..."Thank You" note sent. Again...thank's for the work doen by yourself and the beta testers. I'm genuinely excited to see a chance for OP to come off life support and live a normal, productive life...heheh.
Post by: Tumulorum Fossor on July 18, 2003, 01:46:33 pm
Quote:
There is a chance that seekers will maintain lock, using an approximation
of the SFB rules.
Thanks,
Dave
That's awesome! The more one plays, the more one has to appreciate this patch!
Orion PIrates ROCKS!
...ahem...
...uh...
...Carry on.
-TF
Post by: TarMinyatur on July 18, 2003, 06:24:25 pm
Quote:
There is a chance that seekers will maintain lock, using an approximation
of the SFB rules.
Thanks,
Dave
Well, I'll take my foot out of my mouth, now. That's fantastic.
OP Four Ten makes EAW totally obsolete. I'll have to scour the bargain bins for extra copies of OP. (They'll be free to anyone who installs the SW specs. )
=====
SFC2 Shipwrights
Post by: 3dot14 on July 18, 2003, 06:29:13 pm
Quote:
There is a chance that seekers will maintain lock, using an approximation
of the SFB rules.
Thanks,
Dave
Wowsers, even I didn't know that! (all seekers faded during my playing)
Cool
Post by: David Ferrell on July 18, 2003, 06:46:07 pm
would have to be close and the cloaker's speed high.
Thanks,
Dave
Post by: Cleaven on July 18, 2003, 07:05:46 pm
Post by: MarianoDT on July 18, 2003, 08:32:08 pm
I will reinstall OP this weekend. After months of playing SFC3, it will be a mayor change.....
Mariano
To all at Taldren....Live long and Prosper.!!!
Post by: RogueJedi_XC on July 19, 2003, 08:24:16 pm
2.5.4.10 kicks ass, guys! Thanks!
Post by: FireSoul on July 20, 2003, 01:32:51 am
Post by: Max_iCOP on July 23, 2003, 09:39:59 pm
A BC or a XFF?
Great stuff. I'm so bloody delighted that your keeping up the good work.
SFC is just F'ing brilliant !!!!!
Post by: scarecrow on July 24, 2003, 12:49:50 am
...
Thanks for the great support... better than any other game out there...
scarecrow
Post by: Corbomite on July 24, 2003, 12:53:09 am
Quote:
I loaded the patch to my original CD version 2.5.0.0 and the program now bombs each time I select Single player -> campaign. Any suggestions? Or can I select old patches rather than this new one? I'm rumming Win98 on a P3-900MHz
...
Thanks for the great support... better than any other game out there...
You're not trying to run an old saved campaign are you? If so, you cannot run old campaigns under a new patch. Other than that I would try another clean install and re DL the patch, you might have gotten a corrupted DL.
Post by: Rage1 on July 24, 2003, 01:40:09 am
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 24, 2003, 09:50:23 am
Quote:Quote:
I loaded the patch to my original CD version 2.5.0.0 and the program now bombs each time I select Single player -> campaign. Any suggestions? Or can I select old patches rather than this new one? I'm rumming Win98 on a P3-900MHz
...
Thanks for the great support... better than any other game out there...
You're not trying to run an old saved campaign are you? If so, you cannot run old campaigns under a new patch. Other than that I would try another clean install and re DL the patch, you might have gotten a corrupted DL.
I'm having that same issue. Click "Single Player", NP. From the SP menu, click "Campaign," and get a free ticket to the desktop. It acts like a program termination; ie. there is no error logging message or de-bug prompt.
I do have the game modded with the latest OP+ and ED missions for online play, and SP campaigns are just a filler for me, so I didn't want to raise a stink about it unless others are having the same issue.
Post by: Ifrit on July 24, 2003, 10:58:53 am
Post by: FireSoul on July 24, 2003, 11:03:17 am
Quote:
I believe that the presence of any old SP saved campaigns in the folder will cause the CTD (regardless of whether you try to load them or start a new campaign). I had the same problem under XP until I deleted the contents of the folder.
right.
Post by: 3dot14 on July 24, 2003, 04:32:51 pm
Quote:More FAQ material...Quote:
I believe that the presence of any old SP saved campaigns in the folder will cause the CTD (regardless of whether you try to load them or start a new campaign). I had the same problem under XP until I deleted the contents of the folder.
right.
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 24, 2003, 04:42:15 pm
Quote:
I believe that the presence of any old SP saved campaigns in the folder will cause the CTD (regardless of whether you try to load them or start a new campaign). I had the same problem under XP until I deleted the contents of the folder.
That was a good fix for my issues
TY
Post by: Carrie on July 24, 2003, 07:49:41 pm
*random ponder*
But if it went up that far, shouldn't it be 2.5.5.0, to keep the last number in the 1-9 range?
*nitpicks*
Thanks for patching!
Post by: Tulwar on July 27, 2003, 10:55:37 pm
Post by: Toasty0 on July 28, 2003, 06:09:17 am
Quote:
Yay for the patch!
*random ponder*
But if it went up that far, shouldn't it be 2.5.5.0, to keep the last number in the 1-9 range?
*nitpicks*
Thanks for patching!
I believe that major and minor versions numbers must be from 0-9(inclusive), but build numbers are not limited to such a convention.
Best,
Jerry
Post by: Godzookie on July 29, 2003, 01:56:56 pm
Post by: Cleaven on July 29, 2003, 04:53:50 pm
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 29, 2003, 08:29:41 pm
Post by: Toasty0 on July 29, 2003, 08:33:05 pm
Best,
Jerry
Post by: FireSoul on July 29, 2003, 10:26:35 pm
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 29, 2003, 10:48:39 pm
Any chance of that?