REAL ship deliveries

For collaboration on developing the mod capabilities of VS; request new features, report bugs, or suggest improvements

Moderator: Mod Contributor

Coragem
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:38 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Post by Coragem »

Well, I was thinking the other way around. If you have to empty the ship before switching, no alternative ship can hold any cargo after all, and the problem is solved.
I agree, but that also needs to have a ingame explanation like:
"Shipyard insurance policy does not cover costs for cargo lost in the shipyard hangar, so we don't accept loaded ships to stay in the depot, you most empty your hold before parking your ship"
Just an idea.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Post by Deus Siddis »

Having to pay high prices and wait for your ship to arrive from another system seems like a feature that would be too annoying to use, in practice. It would be difficult to explain to the player why he should go through the expense, time and risk to do this, rather than simply picking up the ship himself or sell the extra ship and just use one at a time.

What makes alot of sense though and adds interesting gameplay and better balance to combat, is for all the ships you own to just follow you around the same way as hired escorts do.

I mean, why does the game force you to hire some liquired up mercenaries if you have already bought enough fighter ships to conquer a small independent solar system? Why should it be impossible to have the ships you have already purchased in full, fly around with you under their own power?

Are underling pilots really that hard to come by?

And isn't AI like the main thing that humanity is really supposed to excel at in the VS universe? Where is this AI tech in the VS universe, if not used to help fly the vessels that humanity depends on? What is it good for if it's combat flight abilities are not good enough to be represented by the AI in a space simlutor from a thousand years before its time?
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Well, this is one area, of very few, where the pursuit of realism doesn't serve a game well. Sure, all future wars will be fought by AI's, not people; but what fun is that? AI's flying ships is the kind of truth we want to kick under the rug, whistle hard, and look the other way...

But I agree that "hiring" permanent pilots might be a solution for some mods. Certainly not for PU, as that would break canon with Privateer and WC in a big way. Heck, you could have characters you meat who join your quest, like in an RPG, and pilot your ships.

The question is not how to fix the immediate problems by changing the games completely, though. The question is how to fix the immediate problems with the least impact, and doing the least amount of work.
javier
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:46 am

Post by javier »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Well, this is one area, of very few, where the pursuit of realism doesn't serve a game well. Sure, all future wars will be fought by AI's, not people; but what fun is that? AI's flying ships is the kind of truth we want to kick under the rug, whistle hard, and look the other way...

But I agree that "hiring" permanent pilots might be a solution for some mods. Certainly not for PU, as that would break canon with Privateer and WC in a big way. Heck, you could have characters you meat who join your quest, like in an RPG, and pilot your ships.

The question is not how to fix the immediate problems by changing the games completely, though. The question is how to fix the immediate problems with the least impact, and doing the least amount of work.
Agree wholeheartly.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Well, this is one area, of very few, where the pursuit of realism doesn't serve a game well. Sure, all future wars will be fought by AI's, not people; but what fun is that? AI's flying ships is the kind of truth we want to kick under the rug, whistle hard, and look the other way...
Well I'm not 100% that will be the case in the future. Things don't always pan out as spectacularly as people originally imagined before they became a reality. Alot of people seem to have thought that a human-like AI was right around the corner for about half a century now, but even through the computer age with the huges leaps in ability we have seen from it, this dream (or nightmare :shock: :() never materialized.

But what I meant was an AI that flys and fights, with your ships that you are not immediately piloting, in just a competent way. It wouldn't be as good as a real-life human pilot (the player) but would fight just as well as any other AI controlled ship in VS, because it uses the same code.
But I agree that "hiring" permanent pilots might be a solution for some mods.
Natural or semi-natural pilots are fine too. There are probably plenty of penny-less forsaken who know how to fly and who would fly for some moldy bread and a pair of shoes. Or one of those 'client' species could fill the same role of peasant or serf pilot. Or 10 year tour indentured servants. There's just so many ways to explain it within the VS universe.

And you wouldn't absolutely have to explain what is flying your ships in the first place. It could be AI or an evolutionary lifeform or both, either way the gameplay is the same. Just let the manual writer(s) decide how to explain things like escort piloting and the quantum physics behind spec and jump drives, the topic probably won't come up within the game anyway, imo.
The question is not how to fix the immediate problems by changing the games completely, though. The question is how to fix the immediate problems with the least impact, and doing the least amount of work.
That's part of why I suggested this, since you already have the code for hired escorts, this really shouldn't be much extra work, beyond what is already there, I don't think.

The other part of why is this goes beyond extra ship transportation, into the realm of making VS more than a Han Simulator. You don't have to be a 'loner' space cowboy, you can build up your own fleet and (eventually) change the course of the galaxy or just take it for yourself.
Certainly not for PU, as that would break canon with Privateer and WC in a big way. Heck, you could have characters you meat who join your quest, like in an RPG, and pilot your ships.
That would be good, as long as there was an unlimited supply of them, since deaths in games like these are not usually very rare. I haven't played much in the WC universe yet (though I certainly intend to play through privateer remake and the others in the future) so I can't really guess accurately on how something like this should be handled it that universe in particular. From what I have seen though, you folks have done a beautiful job bringing it into modern times while keeping intact the very funny npc sprites and location art and music that gives the game so much character, so in case I haven't said it yet, kudos! :D
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

We're still talking at different levels. You're talking at the mod (game) level. I was suggesting an engine fix. Big difference: An engine fix has to be good for all mods the engine serves. Morover, it has to not break existing code. For a mod that is a remake of an old game, such as PR/PU, we're not at liberty to introduce AI's piloting planes, hired pilots, or RPG like characters that join your quest. There are canonical constraints we have to live with. Allowing the player to own more than one ship is already a big departure from canon, though one we've embraced, as it's a clearly beneficial one; but that's enough. What we (PU) need is a simple solution to plug exploits of this feature of being able to order one of your ships delivered anywhere instantly, and hopefully an elegant solution. But while Vegastrike or some other mod might be willing to consider game-side solutions, we (PU) most likely cannot.
So we need an engine-side solution as simple as possible; and one that hopefully is also forward-compatible with game-side solutions such as you suggest, and which other mods might care to consider.
safemode
Developer
Developer
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Post by safemode »

why can't you limit the number of ships a player can buy in those "remake" mods in python? You should be able to control what comes up in the list of things to buy, why cant you check if a player has a ship and if so, not show any ships in the selling list. Thus, the player would have to sell before buying. Thus, negating this whole thread for these "remake" mods, and you wouldn't be affected by any engine changes related to the AI pilots for hire.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Because owning more than one ship, although un-canonical, has been a hit among our users. They love it. Couldn't live without it. Some players play ship collectors; --like to have one of each type of flyable ship. ;-)

I was simply hoping to, in some simple way, make ship deliveries make more sense. Not just for PU, but for all VS mods.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Because owning more than one ship, although un-canonical, has been a hit among our users. They love it. Couldn't live without it. Some players play ship collectors; --like to have one of each type of flyable ship.
So then don't you think that being able field the squadron they have collected would also be a big hit amoung your users? I mean that seems like a fairly logical next step. And it's not a feature they'd have to use if they didn't want to.

Plus it also doesn't seem like it is really that big of a leap from the canon; you're a freelance pilot, so why not have a freelance squadron? Is it really more canonical for your fleet to have to be transported around in freighters, while you float around in the destination system hitting the time elapse key?

It is something to consider carefully at least.
I was simply hoping to, in some simple way, make ship deliveries make more sense. Not just for PU, but for all VS mods.
The current way and the AI escort idea might be the only simple, straight-forward ways (and that use existing code).
javier
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:46 am

Post by javier »

Deus Siddis wrote:So then don't you think that being able field the squadron they have collected would also be a big hit amoung your users? I mean that seems like a fairly logical next step. And it's not a feature they'd have to use if they didn't want to.

Plus it also doesn't seem like it is really that big of a leap from the canon; you're a freelance pilot, so why not have a freelance squadron? Is it really more canonical for your fleet to have to be transported around in freighters, while you float around in the destination system hitting the time elapse key?

It is something to consider carefully at least.
The problem with this is that it could be a game breaker. In privateer, you take your squadron into the Oxford and Palan missions and, all of a sudden, there is not challenge at all.
If you are going to plan missions on VS, you have to take into account this kind of possibilities. It's not worth the trouble, IMO.
As I see the issue, the goal is to close the loophole without creating new ones, so the simpler the solution, the better.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

javier wrote:As I see the issue, the goal is to close the loophole without creating new ones...
EXACTLY. And for a perfectly relevant example of the lurking dangers in having a permanent squadron is all the faction sympathy and AI problems we already suffer with wingmen. Last week, in PU, if you had more than one wingman for a mission, sometimes they'd start fighting one another. This week we got that problem plugged, but they still attack space stations, or attack the ship they are supposed to be helping you defend. And in trying to solve these problems, now we can't seem to agree what wingmen's relations to other factions should be. Should they reflect the player's own relations to all other factions?, or should it depend on the official faction of the wingmen? I was arguing for the former, since your wingmen are under contract to serve you, the player; but one argument that was put to me is that if you're friends with the militias and you have pirate wingmen, your wingmen's not attacking the militias would not imply that the militias wouldn't attack them.
Deus Siddis is assuming that we live in a perfect world and are dealing with a perfect engine; but his proposed solution is a quantum leap into the realm of complications and trouble.
And no, Deus: For Privateer, having a permanent squadron would be a gargantuan departure from the game's canon. Totally unthinkable.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote: EXACTLY. And for a perfectly relevant example of the lurking dangers in having a permanent squadron is all the faction sympathy and AI problems we already suffer with wingmen. Last week, in PU, if you had more than one wingman for a mission, sometimes they'd start fighting one another. This week we got that problem plugged, but they still attack space stations, or attack the ship they are supposed to be helping you defend. And in trying to solve these problems, now we can't seem to agree what wingmen's relations to other factions should be. Should they reflect the player's own relations to all other factions?, or should it depend on the official faction of the wingmen? I was arguing for the former, since your wingmen are under contract to serve you, the player; but one argument that was put to me is that if you're friends with the militias and you have pirate wingmen, your wingmen's not attacking the militias would not imply that the militias wouldn't attack them.
Well I'd have to strongly agree with you on this, wingmen have to be tied to the player's relations with factions, anything else is just needlessly over complicated. I really don't see why anyone would agree with the idea of escorts having their own factional status, unless they were putting an opinion of what is realistic, before gameplay and ease of implementation, which is not a good idea, imo.
Deus Siddis is assuming that we live in a perfect world and are dealing with a perfect engine; but his proposed solution is a quantum leap into the realm of complications and trouble.
No not at all, I think about this engine as a work in progress, because it is, VS is just now getting to 0.5. But wingmen are already a major feature, any bugs they have will be fixed eventually. But if a whole new low-priority, low-gameplay-impact feature is added to solve this relatively minor issue, it could take longer before it is itself bugless, vs the escort feature. That was what I was trying to say.
And no, Deus: For Privateer, having a permanent squadron would be a gargantuan departure from the game's canon. Totally unthinkable.
Well I don't see why that is, I guess I will have to make the time to play through it soon to find out.

BTW, is this the difference between the remake and gemini gold mods, one is more of a direct conversion and the other is more loose with the canon related gameplay issues?
loki1950
The Shepherd
Posts: 5841
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: Ottawa
Contact:

Post by loki1950 »

Just mentioning things non=canon on one of the GG forums and watch the flames come your way try to defend yourself and your banned it has happened to a few people on this forum( we did not ban them the GG crew did) so canon is holy word and unchangeable so yes the PU crew is more pragmatic in outlook.

Enjoy the Choice :)
my box::HP Envy i5-6400 @2Q70GHzx4 8 Gb ram/1 Tb(Win10 64)/3 Tb Mint 19.2/GTX745 4Gb acer S243HL K222HQL
Q8200/Asus P5QDLX/8 Gb ram/WD 2Tb 2-500 G HD/GF GT640 2Gb Mint 17.3 64 bit Win 10 32 bit acer and Lenovo ideapad 320-15ARB Win 10/Mint 19.2
javier
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:46 am

Post by javier »

loki1950 wrote:Just mentioning things non=canon on one of the GG forums and watch the flames come your way try to defend yourself and your banned it has happened to a few people on this forum( we did not ban them the GG crew did) so canon is holy word and unchangeable so yes the PU crew is more pragmatic in outlook.

Enjoy the Choice :)
Personally, I have no problem introducing non-canon things in PU, as far as they fits in like a part of the "expansion pack" sort of PU is in my eyes. But my understanding is that we have to be very careful to not going too far this way, changing the nature of the game. As I see this game, it is not by any means a team oriented one (For me, wingmen has never been nothing but cannon fodder, buying me time in certain missions).

Another different thing could be implementing or experimenting with more radical new ideas in VS, as it yet have no storyline you cant talk of, so we can go in any direction we thing it fits.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

@Deus:

Well I'm going to make a little detour into Philosophy, here.
Suppose I asked you what's the opposite of a heavy, hot, black sphere?
Answers could range from,
  • A light, hot, black sphere.
  • A heavy, cold, black sphere.
  • A heavy, hot, white sphere.
As long as you change one attribute to its opposite, you could think of the result as "an opposite". In other words, when we think of opposites, we think of very similar things, really, with one opposing attribute.
A light, cold and white pyramid glued into a crocodile skin shoe doesn't seem at all like "the opposite" of a heavy, hot, black sphere. It just seems totally unrelated.

Well, something similar applies to a modification of an existing complex thing, like a game. The last thing you want your remake or expansion to be said to be is "unrelated" to the original game. That would in fact the worst possible criticism that could be leveled at a remake or expansion of a classical game.

If all things are basically the same, but you have a lot of new ships, it's easy to see this as an expansion.
Or if all things are the same but you have new missions and plots, it also feels like an expansion.
Even if you have new ships AND new missions, it may still feel like an expansion, provided the new ships appear gradually and in low numbers; and provided that the new plots are kind of hidden and hard to find.

But if you have new missions on your face AND new ships galore AND you can own many ships AND the computers at the bases look different AND you see less Draymans around than in the original game AND some stations have defensive turrets AND there are turbolasers you can buy which weren't in the original game AND the retros now fly Kukhris AND militias sometimes have Paradigms AND there's a new AWACS communist faction AND the jump drive is locked up until you complete a mission AND there's autotracking for forward guns AND you can fly Ferrets AND the best ship is the Demon rather than the Centurion AND the moon around Eden is an actual moon you can land on AND ... AND ... AND ... Then finally we got hardly a resemblance to the original game; and the whole mod seems totally unrelated to the original game.

So we're actually trying to begin a backtracking process, get rid of useless and non-canonical items such as repulsor beams, get rid of the ability to suck other ships using tractor beams, get rid of the ability to free slaves, get rid of the vast proliferation of ship variants... We're trying to get back to the basics. Only leave deviations from canon that actually make the game a better game without changing the look and feel of the original too much.

There's always people that whenever an idea pops into their heads they go "wouldn't it be cool if..." and want some new weapon, new ship, new feature... and they push and push... won't stop arguing until they see their brilliant idea implemented; and all these wouldnitbecool's accumulate over time and add up to a layer of fat that's hard to get rid of. We're going for a liposuction right now, which is an expensive procedure; so your suggesting new fat is not likely to get anywhere at this time.

Indeed you should play the game; then play all the other WC games, then watch all the WCAcademy episodes, then read all 9 WC novels, and you'll get an idea of the amounts and strengths of canon we're dealing with. Heck, there's a statue of a ship in an episode of WCAcademy that people to this day argue whether it's a Hellcat V, which would imply it was produced much earlier than hinted elsewhere; or a Wildcat, which was a pre-war ship mentioned in the novel Action Stations but was never seen in any games. Personally, I think it's a Corsair, which was supposed to be the replacement to the Wildcat. But no, having a permanent squadron that follows you around could be done in a new game in the WC universe, perhaps; but it would be absurd in a Privateer expansion. Your character in Privateer, Grayson Burrows, is a loner, and an unsung hero who, in trying to make money, ends up breaking a corporate blockade, defeating a mafia, saving a scientist from forced captivity, expanding the fronteers, elliminating a drone that was destroying Confederate fleets left and right, defeating a kilrathy fleet, wiping out a corruption ring and preventing a civil war; gets a Medal of Valour from the Confederation, and then chooses to go back to being a nobody privateer. He's not the type to be leading a squadron everywhere he goes, even if the engine would support it.

All I want to know is, would it be possible to make ship deliveries be simulated by the engine?
Last edited by chuck_starchaser on Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Post by Deus Siddis »

Ah, thanks for the heads up loki, sounds like the gemini folks would eat me alive then. :shock: :)
chuck_starchaser wrote: Well, something similar applies to a modification of an existing complex thing, like a game. The last thing you want your remake or expansion to be said to be is "unrelated" to the original. If all things are basically the same, but you have a lot of new ships, it's easy to see this as an expansion.
Or if all things are the same but you have new missions and plots, it also feels like an expansion.
But I thought it was a remake? That means the missions and plot do have to stay the same or at least be in the game, while it is the gameplay features and graphics which are added on to to enhance it?

At the same time, Gemini Gold aims to be the pedigree offspring of privateer, so you need some extra (good) features for a separate project to stand out as such.
Even if you have new ships AND new missions, it feels like an expansion.
But if you have new missions AND new ships AND you can own many ships AND the computers are different AND you see less Draymans around than in the original game AND some stations have defensive turrets AND there are turbolasers there which weren't in the original AND the retros now fly Kukhris AND militias sometimes have Paradigms AND there's a new AWACS communist faction AND the jump drive is locked up until you complete a mission AND there's autotracking for forward guns AND you can fly Ferrets AND the moon around Eden is an actual moon you can land on AND ... AND ... AND ... Then finally we got hardly a resemblance to the original game; and the whole mod seems "unrelated" to the original.
Too me at least, alot of those seem like quirky, random changes that don't really expand gameplay. It is also unclear whether all of those would be as popular with the fanbase, as you've said the multiple ship thing was.
So we're actually trying to begin a backtracking process, get rid of useless and non-canonical items such as repulsor beams... Get rid of the ability to suck other ships using tractor beams... Get back to the basics. Only leave deviations from canon that actually make the game a better game without changing the look and feel of the original too much.
Sounds excellent, I hate fat in games. Which added features are weak should be obvious to the community after this much testing, so they can be cut without a big deal. Beam weapons specifically would be cool I think, but having only push/pull beams made no sense to me.
There's always people that whenever an idea pops into their heads they go "wouldn't it be cool if..." and want some new weapon, new ship, new feature... and they push and push...; and all these wouldnitbecool's accumulate over time and add up to a layer of fat that's hard to get rid of. We're going for a liposuction right now, which is an expensive procedure; so your suggesting new fat is not likely to get anywhere at this time.
This feature in particular isn't something that jumped into my head or even something that I invented. It is a fairly straightforward well tested concept that has been used in many games in the past decade or so. I have played both games that possess and lack this feature and there is definitely alot more to the ones that do more than pit you with your one sword/gun/plane/tank/mech against small armies.

But even though this seems like a must-have to me, maybe it is just me. So I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to shove this down the throat of the PR project like those people you mentioned. I was just trying to clarify why I thought it might work for this.
Indeed you should play the game; then play all the other WC games, then watch all the WCAcademy episodes, then read all 9 WC novels, and you'll get an idea of the amounts and strengths of canon we're dealing with.
Well I personally wouldn't go that far. Most of that stuff is just the money people who own the rights at the time trying to milk it for all it's worth. Novels, shows, lunchboxes, does any of it have anything to do with what the original creators imagined?. . .who cares when you're cashing in. :twisted:

So I'll play games retro or remake, but not the peripheral media.
Heck, there's a statue of a ship in an episode of WCAcademy that people to this day argue whether it's a Hellcat V, which would imply it was produced much earlier than hinted elsewhere; or a Wildcat, which was a pre-war ship mentioned in the novel Action Stations but was never seen in any games. Personally, I think it's a Corsair, which was supposed to be the replacement to the Wildcat. But no, having a permanent squadron that follows you around could be done in a new game in the WC universe, perhaps; but it would be absurd in a Privateer expansion. Your character in Privateer, Grayson Burrows, is a loner, and an unsung hero.
In WWII, it was the Hellcat that replaced the Wildcat (and for good reason too, much better plane.) The Corsair had a slightly different role (can't remember what it was right now) but was not a replacement for the Wildcat. Not sure if any of this was based on RL history though.

It is also possible that the statue was simply a nameless, history-less, random prop made by an artist who was more concerned with the aesthetics of that scene, than making sure it was compliant with all aspects of a universe that might have already had contradictions anyway.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:
chuck_starchaser wrote:Well, something similar applies to a modification of an existing complex thing, like a game. The last thing you want your remake or expansion to be said to be is "unrelated" to the original. If all things are basically the same, but you have a lot of new ships, it's easy to see this as an expansion.
Or if all things are the same but you have new missions and plots, it also feels like an expansion.
But I thought it was a remake? That means the missions and plot do have to stay the same or at least be in the game, while it is the gameplay features and graphics which are added on to to enhance it?
Nope; it's not a remake. Privateer Remake is one mod. Privateer: Parallel Universe is another; --even if originally it shipped as a patch on top of PR. Having said that, we'd like to get back to PU being a "parallel" universe, rather than an orthogonal one.
At the same time, Gemini Gold aims to be the pedigree offspring of privateer, so you need some extra (good) features for a separate project to stand out as such.
Tight adherence to canon is what Gemini Gold claims. Does it deliver? I'll leave that to the opinion of players. Besides, frankly, I don't give a damn whatever they do or don't do. I went as far as trying it out just to know what people were talking about, and that was it for me. I don't care for PU to be similar to GG. I don't care for PU being different from GG. I don't care about GG at all; --period. And I wish not to have to hear about it once a week or so.
But if you have new missions AND new ships AND you can own many ships AND the computers are different AND ... AND ... AND ... AND ... Then finally we got hardly a resemblance to the original game; and the whole mod seems "unrelated" to the original.
Too me at least, alot of those seem like quirky, random changes that don't really expand gameplay. It is also unclear whether all of those would be as popular with the fanbase, as you've said the multiple ship thing was.
Well, they are quirky, random, arbitrary, and all such things; but all these changes came about because one fan or another was pushing for them. Listen to your customers, right? Wrong; we've had enough of it.
So we're actually trying to begin a backtracking process, get rid of useless and non-canonical items such as repulsor beams... Get rid of the ability to suck other ships using tractor beams... Get back to the basics. Only leave deviations from canon that actually make the game a better game, but without changing the look and feel of the original too much.
Sounds excellent, I hate fat in games. Which added features are weak should be obvious to the community after this much testing, so they can be cut without a big deal. Beam weapons specifically would be cool I think, but having only push/pull beams made no sense to me.
R.E. Beam weapons: There are gazillions of weapons IN WC canon already. If we wanted to introduce new beams, we could at least choose from the vast assortment available from other WC games, rather than do what we did: invent new ones, like "turbo-lasers".
There's always people that whenever an idea pops into their heads they go "wouldn't it be cool if..." and want some new weapon, new ship, new feature... and they push and push...; and all these wouldnitbecool's accumulate over time and add up to a layer of fat that's hard to get rid of. We're going for a liposuction right now, which is an expensive procedure; so your suggesting new fat is not likely to get anywhere at this time.
This feature in particular isn't something that jumped into my head or even something that I invented. It is a fairly straightforward well tested concept that has been used in many games in the past decade or so. I have played both games that possess and lack this feature and there is definitely alot more to the ones that do more than pit you with your one sword/gun/plane/tank/mech against small armies.
I have to agree with you there; but as I said, this could perhaps be done in another game set in the WC universe, but NOT in Privateer. Our expansion, you understand, is NOT a sequel. It's an expansion in place, one that overlaps in time. PU begins on the same date Privateer begins, and ends when its original sequel, Righteous Fire, ends. The side-plots we've added can be played before or after or in-between the original quest and side-plots, in any order. To have Burrows acquire a squadron of pilots that follow him around would affect the main plot: Come into the Retro hidden base with an entire squadron?!!!; and would beg the question "where were these pilots in the original game?" It would CONTRADICT the original story. Got it? I hope you do, once and for all...
But even though this seems like a must-have to me, maybe it is just me. So I don't mean to sound like I'm trying to shove this down the throat of the PR project like those people you mentioned. I was just trying to clarify why I thought it might work for this.
And you made your points very clear. Now could we please, finally, get back to the original topic, about using the engine to simulate ship deliveries?
Indeed you should play the game; then play all the other WC games, then watch all the WCAcademy episodes, then read all 9 WC novels, and you'll get an idea of the amounts and strengths of canon we're dealing with.
Well I personally wouldn't go that far. Most of that stuff is just the money people who own the rights at the time trying to milk it for all it's worth. Novels, shows, lunchboxes, does any of it have anything to do with what the original creators imagined?. . .who cares when you're cashing in. :twisted:
So I'll play games retro or remake, but not the peripheral media.
Are you even aware just how strongly you are insulting Mercedes Lackey, Ellen Guon, William Keith, Andrew Keith, Ben Ohlander and William Forstchen? Why? What have they done to you? Why do you pre-judge all these WC loving writers and accuse them of being money grubbing bastards? Most of them probably hardly made a cent from their great works. I think I've just had it with you. Not only have you been a pushy pain in the ass, post after post, with your off-topic agenda; but now you gratuitously insult everything I love, and which you obviously know absolutely nothing about. I'm done talking to you. Go post in some other thread. Be gone. OUT!
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Post by Deus Siddis »

chuck_starchaser wrote:Are you even aware just how strongly you are insulting Mercedes Lackey, Ellen Guon, William Keith, Andrew Keith, Ben Ohlander and William Forstchen?
I have no idea who those people are, but I am not trying to insult them at all. What I meant was that often people who had nothing to do with the original project (like I said) gain some of the rights to the universe and exploit it for profit. It's happened to c&c, star control, lots of old games. Too often this seems to be the case with expansions into other media from where the franchise originated.
Why? What have they done to you? Why do you pre-judge all these WC loving writers and accuse them of being money grubbing bastards?
Well are you saying then that the writers for all the games wrote the novels and the tv episodes, they are all the same people? I've not seen that happen before but there is a first time for everything. If that was the case then I was absolutely wrong to say want I did.
I think I've just had it with you. Not only have you been a pushy pain in the ass, post after post, with your off-topic agenda;
That seems kind of harsh, since I was trying to wrap this up with my last post, I even said I didn't want to be a random feature pusher to your universe. I was on topic originally I thought, my logic was simply that the best way for your ships to get around while not being sheltered from dangers and unburdened by time (which you said was unbalancing) would be for them to just follow you around.
but now you gratuitously insult everything I love, and which you obviously know absolutely nothing about. I'm done talking to you. Go post in some other thread. Be gone. OUT!
Yikes. :shock:
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:That seems kind of harsh, since I was trying to wrap this up with my last post,
But if you think that wrapping up things gives you a right to insult half a dozen authors, and that you can get away with it just because they are your last acts, think again.
I even said I didn't want to be a random feature pusher to your universe.
What does it matter what you said when that's exactly what you've been from your first post?
I was on topic originally I thought, my logic was simply that the best way for your ships to get around while not being sheltered from dangers and unburdened by time (which you said was unbalancing) would be for them to just follow you around.
You were off-topic from your first post, and I explained to you why right away: We're discussing an engine feature, NOT a mod-side (data-side) or game-side topic; and you've kept pushing for changing the games instead of the engine. I'm so tired of explaining this to you, I can't even express it in words without resorting to cursing; so I'll let someone else explain it to you if you still don't understand.
chuck_starchaser wrote:Are you even aware just how strongly you are insulting Mercedes Lackey, Ellen Guon, William Keith, Andrew Keith, Ben Ohlander and William Forstchen?
I have no idea who those people are, but I am not trying to insult them at all. What I meant was that often people who had nothing to do with the original project (like I said) gain some of the rights to the universe and exploit it for profit. It's happened to c&c, star control, lots of old games. Too often this seems to be the case with expansions into other media from where the franchise originated.
And that was the case with the WC movie. And it happend again recently with WC Arena. Ironically, although the WC movie was awful, you could say that the original people were involved in it. More ironically, the writers I mentioned were not involved originally with Origin, but were a lot more respectful of the canon and careful and dedicated. So get your facts right before you judge and insult people, or make such steroetypical generalizations as "original people = good; other people = bad".
Why? What have they done to you? Why do you pre-judge all these WC loving writers and accuse them of being money grubbing bastards?
Well are you saying then that the writers for all the games wrote the novels and the tv episodes, they are all the same people?
No; I'm saying that someone so judgemental as to approve or reject authors solely on the basis of whether they were involved with the original game developers or not, without having read a single page of their works, is somoene not worth most people's time talking to.

And I just wish you would go away, but I don't have a button I can push to make you disappear; and I know you're going to keep posting to this thread; so I'm just going to have to abandon it.
javier
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:46 am

Post by javier »

Wow, what happened here? :(

Can we get this thread on track again, please. It has been a very interesting discussion of one concrete issue, at least for me, and yesterday I thought we were near an agreement and I was expecting moving into the how to do it from the what to do.

My original plan was to begin this weekend reading the code related to the buy ship dialog to look for how it could block buying another one if the active ship holds cargo. It was a long time from when I coded C++, so at the moment I'm not very confident to be able to manage it, at first, but I'll give it a try.

At this stage, I don't pretend much more than locating the places where code might be changed, ideally to call an external script in python who will manage buying preconditions. Should we find, there will be to include some VS coders, I suppose.
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Post by Deus Siddis »

I apologize for being or sounding insulting, I should have just said that I didn't have the time to watch the shows or movies or read the novels. I was blowing off steam built up over other old franchises that I admired being bought up by folks like EA games, and losing their soul. I also had no idea this was so important to you otherwise I would not have mentioned it, but I should have been more civil just the same.

I didn't understand that the engine was capable of handling what I suggested without further modification. I also thought you meant this problem had to be solved within VS too, as it has the same feature and thus the same exploits.

You don't have to leave, since you are the TC and you have made it clear that I am unwelcome, I will not post here again. Anything further you bring up I will respond to in a PM.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

Deus Siddis wrote:I apologize for being or sounding insulting, I should have just said that I didn't have the time to watch the shows or movies or read the novels. I was blowing off steam built up over other old franchises that I admired being bought up by folks like EA games, and losing their soul. I also had no idea this was so important to you otherwise I would not have mentioned it, but I should have been more civil just the same.
Sorry I got so harsh; it just seemed to me I was never going to get across any other way.
I didn't understand that the engine was capable of handling what I suggested without further modification. I also thought you meant this problem had to be solved within VS too, as it has the same feature and thus the same exploits.
I don't know. I theorize that this is engine-side but I don't know it. Could just be Python-side. It's part of what I was trying to find out.
Anything further you bring up I will respond to in a PM.
I would appreciate.
chuck_starchaser
Elite
Elite
Posts: 8014
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 4:03 am
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Post by chuck_starchaser »

javier wrote:My original plan was to begin this weekend reading the code related to the buy ship dialog to look for how it could block buying another one if the active ship holds cargo. It was a long time from when I coded C++, so at the moment I'm not very confident to be able to manage it, at first, but I'll give it a try.
That would be great. Finding where things are in code is not one of my strengths, for sure.

I got a list of functions callable from Python, got it from Ace123, if it helps.
http://wcjunction.com/phpBB2/viewtopic. ... b6f4f8efc5


EDIT:
By the way, requiring that the cargo be empty before buying a ship is a bit too steep. To give you an example from Privateer, after you meet a character named Sandoval, you always carry around a mysterious Steltek map in your cargo. Furthermore, when you work for a pirate named Tayla, she gives you a scan-proof compartment, that also becomes a permanent cargo in your ship. What would be good to do is to transfer cargo from your current ship to the one you buy. If there's not enough room for the cargo in the new ship, then the user could get a message "cargo doesn't fit", and a cancellation of the purchase.
javier
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:46 am

Post by javier »

Well, I think I got it.

The code related to ship buying seems to be in source bases/weapons_lib.py, specifically the functions CanBuyShip and BuyShip. It seems to me the only thing needed is to compare there the cargo not in the upgrades category with the cargo capacity of the target ship and reject the attempt if it doesn't fit.
Do you agree?
javier
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 137
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:46 am

Post by javier »

Only partially right, I'm afraid.

The functions mentioned only get invoked from Stan's scripts, not when accessing to the "Look At Other Ships" room. Could somebody give me a clue where the script for this room is?
Post Reply