Topic: How to Fix OP D2: Radical Ideas Welcomed

[jdmckinney]

After a long absence from D2, I'm finally considering getting "back in the game." The problem I have is I just want more "stuff" than EAW offers. I want maulers. I want tractor-repulsor beams. I want more ships. I want reasonable versions of X-ships (using phX but not Taldren's over the top Xes or X-heavies). I want pirate shiplists, but not a pirate map. I REALLY want something EAW DOES offer that OP lacks: stable D2 play with appropriately updating hex DVs, neutral coop, and missions that work.

From all indications I've seen, there will NEVER be any substantive work done on OP D2 to fix it, at least by Taldren. It's been about a year since Taldren promised we would get OP D2 fixes. Either they can't or won't fix it, so it's time to pool the community's resources to make a go of it. Yes, I know ArticFires has been given the OP D2 code to futz with, but I don't see any movement on that front. In fact, I think everyone's been going about fixing OP D2 the wrong way -- trying to fix the badly broken OP D2 with its unique limitations is counterproductive.

I'm going to propose some ideas -- maybe some RADICAL ideas -- for ways to get OP D2 stable and reliable for serious campaign play. I invite all community members to contribute their ideas or skills for the good of all. If we succeed, we can look forward to cooperative multi-server campaigns across the EAW and OP platforms, grand campaigns on a grand scale befitting a galactic battlefield.

I challenge you all to make this a reality.

See my post below for some initial ideas.  

[jdmckinney]

IDEA ONE:

Run the OP .exe on an EAW D2 framework. I know this may be impossible, but until someone shows it can't be done, I think it's worth considering. The OP tactical engine is (or will be with a possible OP patch release rumored) very solid. The AIs are pretty good, considering they are still AIs. The systems work well. There are plenty of ships and weapons to choose from. The core of the game is pretty solid. It's the shell, the D2 environment, that is lacking.

If possible, an EAW D2 map (no cartel layer) and serverkit running either OP missions or custom missions would have the benefits of the EAW stability and working features AND the benefits of OP's tactical environment, weapons, and specs. Pirates don't need a map layer, because they can resupply or purchase ships at any base, regardless of ownership. This would make them possible non-factors on the strategic map (though maybe they could still hurt enemy empires without capturing territory), but they would be more like pirates, working in any area they want, running and using the black market, preying upon weak convoys and imperial ships, and generally causing headaches for the imperial navies which have to also deal with enemy empires. If their ship production is low, so be it -- they are pirates, after all.

Where are the problems with this model? First, the EAW D2 kits probably can't work with the OP .exe. Then again, has it been tried? Second, an EAW kit probably can't use OP missions, or at least those missions wouldn't send back the right data to update the server DB. If that's a sticking point, new missions could be created to replace them. Third, such a hybrid D2 setup may not be recognized by the server list hosts. How would anyone be able to access such a server even if it could be made to work? Fourth, the kits may not be able to handle the OP ship specs. Again, we can't be sure until the whole setup has been tinkered with and attempted.

I think the talents exhibited by the members of this community may be able to overcome these limitations. It is certainly worth a try.

------------------------------------------------------------------

IDEA TWO:

Code new OP missions that instruct the OP D2 serverkit to update the map correctly. This is definitely not a new idea, but nobody has really been able to complete this task, at least that I've seen. A number of talented mission coders have worked within the EAW API to create custom missions, but the OP API has gone largely unused. If the missions could update the OP D2 DB correctly, neutral coop should be possible, hex DV boosts and losses should occur correctly, and players should no longer draft allies as enemies in some missions.

The trouble with this approach is that we must still rely upon an OP D2 that has serious issues. Perhaps new missions would circumvent or ignore some of these problems.

------------------------------------------------------------------

It's time to weigh in with ideas, time, and skill. What do YOU have to contribute?  

[ZTempest]

I have not been very active in SFC lately for a number of personal reasons.  I have mostly been lurking, occasionally logging in and playing SFC 3, etc.

I remember all the talk about "Galaxies at War" in the general forums.  Newsflash.  I doubt this dream will ever happen.

The ONLY thing we have that comes even remotely close to GAW is Orion Pirates.  

So.  This call to the community is both appropriate, needed, and needs to be taken seriously.

I know that there are problems.  Getting the code for one thing.  Coordinating ideas, etc, is another.

Still, if we can come together to do this properly, then we can be successfull.

My own contribution/ideas -- X-Ships, Pirates, and Andromedeans.

1.  Need to be both first and second generation X-Ships.
2.  Need to be phased in over time.
3.  Need to be redesigned for balance.
4.  Need to have a standardized shiplist that everyone uses.

This can be done....but we should NOT get mired in some sort of flamefest shiplist council.  The only ships that should be changed/added are X-Ships, period.  The changes should be put forth to the entire community for review, and nothing hidden.

For Andros....

The TR beam and its variants are already in the game.  The things that are missing for the Andros are displacement devices and P/A panels in terms of systems...but we COULD create models, and design andro ships ourselves, to include the mother ships carrying those Cobras...which are essentially jumped up PFs if I am not mistaken.  Mog, from SFCX, had taken this part of OP pretty far along in the past...it might be time to pick it back up once again.  Part of the problem was finding a place on the shiplist to add them in, but with eight cartels....I am sure that we can do without one pirate "race" in order to bring in the Andros.

Lastly...the most frustrating problem with OP D2 is the whole Defense Value issue, and the cartel map that lies under the main map.  It is unnecessary, and the cartel map really does not affect play much at all.  Instead, it is an obstruction.  The answer is to have ONE map. I think that this can be done...but it requires a close look at the code.  

Lastly.

Pirates.

Pirate vessels are not "competitive".  What I would suggest is a total revamp of the pirate designs, with new models.  Here is how I think that Pirates need to be redone:

1.  ONE, possibly TWO cartels only.
2.  No pirate ship over a Heavy Cruiser...but those heavy cruisers will be able to take on and give a good fight to anything up to a light dread.
3.  ALL pirate ships have fighters -- they are the intercept vessels.
4.  Redesign hardpoints on Pirate vessels -- they tend to be light on weapons, but to balance that out, they get limited numbers of X-weapons mounts as part of their design -- even the early vessels (maybe one or two phaser X to replace the other phaser types forward, etc), and a remix of weaponry from ALL races, along with expanded variants of vessels.  Should be "doable" if you cut down the number of cartels.  Most of the cartel ships are identical in any case, in case you have not noticed. Especially pirate carriers.      

In closing...EAW is fine...but OP offers far more diversity, and has the possibility of pulling in the Andros.  There are also several more "race" slots available that can be used for future race variations that the community can come up with.

Just some thoughts.

Regards,

Tempest

   

[jdmckinney]

I don't personally think any "official" shiplist work should be done. Frankly, it's an unsolvable issue -- people will always disagree on what is and isn't a "balanced" list. Even using SFB as source material doesn't work, because people will disagree about whether SFB is a valid source or provides balance. Still, I think the main reason shiplist work should be done by independents and not put out in any official sort of patch is that it is the most easily modified aspect of the game, and most easily implemented. Each admin or player can mod to their heart's content, and if people like the shiplists being produced (FireSoul's being the latest and greatest), they can use them as they see fit.

Rather, I feel the focus on any OP improvements should be D2 and only D2 (again, other than a rumored patch already in the works). If the cartel map can be voided, missions fixed, and map updates corrected, the product should be solid enough for the community to run with their mods. The stable, working foundation of the D2 is what needs to be addressed before the game can grow.

On the subject of pirates, I used to think they needed "something more." However, I realized they really are fine the way they are, for the most part. Pirates are supposed to prey on weaker ships or run from equal or stronger ones. So, having a pirate CL that can't match up to an empire CL isn't really a problem -- they should run anyway. I do think there are too many cartels to be useful. I'd also like to see the ability to deactivate engine doubling for specific cartels so their spec space could be used for "new" races. But, like I said, this is all secondary to a working D2.

With a working D2, I think we would see a great deal of cool, creative stuff from the community for OP.

[EmeraldEdge]

I have to agree with Doug.  Shiplist stuff can be easily done by the community.  The problem is with the stuff the average user can't do on his own.  Getting coop missions in neutral hexes to work, getting any kind of reasonably correct DV response from mission results, etc.

I think it woudl be very nice if there was an option for the Pirate map, wherein you could decide if you wanted the 16 playable races on 1 map, or 8 races on each of the 2 layers.  This would allow modders to really go to town.  I think though, that the prefered option would be to just have all 16 on the same map, as the pirates never were that popular and severely underplayed.  I think having just a singular map with the ability to mod in a variety of alternate races (using the existing elements of the game) would be the quickest, easiest way to go.  

[ZTempest]

Agree.

Fix the D2, and the rest will fall into line.

You are right -- shiplists are the most modable element of the game and therefore the easiest to "fix" for each campaign.

Still...I am a "standardization" nut, and seeing zillions of shiplist variants floating around out there is like having an itch you can't scratch LOL.

But, essentially you are correct, and based on past experience, you are right in that getting agreement on a standardized shiplist is probably very unlikely.  Therefore, I retract the shiplist changes and simply put forth that modifications should be on a campaign to campaign basis.

I also agree about pirate ships...but pirates somehow need to be expanded so that they fit their role more closely.  The problem with pirates are that they were thrown into the game as a competitive element that could theoritically take on the Empire ships, which definitely should not be the case.   Pirates should be blockade runners, prey on freighter convoys, etc...unfortunately, this has no affect on gameplay.  I don't know if a change in D2 could be made to affect pirate play, but it bears thinking about, especially since hexes do generate "income" of a sort....

But that would be tinkering deeply with the code and probably is not possible in any case.  A simpler fix, as you mentioned above, would be mission-based, where Pirates get specific missions scripted specifically for them that give rewards that are more in line with pirate capabilities and roles.

I would re-design pirate x-varients though.  And I would get rid of any Pirate "dreadnought".  The Heavy carriers might be okay...but actually I would tend to think that Pirates should not have those either.  The heaviest pirate vessel should be a Battlecruiser, plain and simple.  After all...they are independent operators for the most part.

Just some additional thoughts

To sum up....primary focus on the D2, get rid of the cartel map, and reduce the number of cartels (and possibly expand the number of varients in the remaining cartels?).  

In volunteering...not sure how I can help..but I can do "simple" things.  I might take on redesigning pirates as a side project and publish some notes here...but that should not be a priority, as you pointed out.  D2 fixes should be first -- and the DV issue/cartel map is at the top of whatever sublist comes out.
 

[FatherTed]

I still hold out a glimmer of hope that GaW will happen, but I'm not holding my breath on it. I only bought OP for the D2, and have never really messed with the single player game. So fixing the problems with the D2 would be a great first step.

Once that is nailed down, bringing in the Andys would be the next step. However, unless it's a specific campaign(them vs the rest), they should be rare, and non-playable. IMO, their ships are usually too powerful to be taken on by a single ship, and the clunky fleet control doesn't help. A Dominator with a full load of Cobras would likely be almost too much for a BB, much less a single CA. Three human players running coop in those things would be impossible to beat. But that's still down the road.

But you're off to a good start.  

[jdmckinney]

So, I think it's pretty clear there are lots of ideas for ways to mod the game and make interesting campaigns, but it all gets flushed thanks to the problems with OP D2. This is where we need new ideas and fresh approaches -- and talent. Are there coders out there who think they can tackle the OP D2 code? Better yet, are there ways we can work with what we have (ala my first "idea" above) to get a working D2 without code changes, or with limited ones?

This is what I'm looking for: how can we, the community, solve the OP D2 problem? Once we've accomplished that, the possibilities are truly endless.

That said, I do think it's important to note OP does not have even rudimentary SQL support, while EAW does (if unofficial). There is yet another reason to try to find a way to use the working EAW D2 as a framework or model for an improved OP D2.

[EmeraldEdge]

I would be great if the DV issues could be solved with new mission scripts.  I do seem to remember this being discussed and moved towards at one point, but I don' t remember what ever became of it, other than the mission scripters starting to focus more on EAW.  

[FatherTed]

I seem to remember Dave taking a stab at porting some of the Evil Dave missions from EAW to OP, but I don't know what happened with that project.

JD, I'd help if I could, but to me, this is box that make pretty pictures and ships go boom.    

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Where are the problems with this model? First, the EAW D2 kits probably can't work with the OP .exe. Then again, has it been tried? Second, an EAW kit probably can't use OP missions, or at least those missions wouldn't send back the right data to update the server DB. If that's a sticking point, new missions could be created to replace them. Third, such a hybrid D2 setup may not be recognized by the server list hosts. How would anyone be able to access such a server even if it could be made to work? Fourth, the kits may not be able to handle the OP ship specs. Again, we can't be sure until the whole setup has been tinkered with and attempted.

The missions for OP arent compatible with EAW and vice-versa. That should go the same for the serverkits. See, the APIs themselves are different between the 2 games. While the sources for the missions may be identical between the 2 games, the end results aren't.

Please consider me authoritive in the matter: I've had to maintain 2 separate versions of CoopAce (one for OP, the other for EAW.) I've also spent a few CPU cycles to recompile the EAW single-player campaigns and EAW Sulu bonus missions for OP.

Quote:
Code new OP missions that instruct the OP D2 serverkit to update the map correctly. This is definitely not a new idea, but nobody has really been able to complete this task, at least that I've seen. A number of talented mission coders have worked within the EAW API to create custom missions, but the OP API has gone largely unused. If the missions could update the OP D2 DB correctly, neutral coop should be possible, hex DV boosts and losses should occur correctly, and players should no longer draft allies as enemies in some missions.

I thought that's what the SQL was going to be for. Really, the OP D2 isn't very manageable with the current DB format.
BTW, what *is* the current DB format?


-- Luc
FireSoul
   

[FireSoul]

Quote:
I seem to remember Dave taking a stab at porting some of the Evil Dave missions from EAW to OP, but I don't know what happened with that project.

If he can find his backups, I'll gladly recompile for OP.
He knows that.
-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

Assuming EAW and OP API differences are so great as to make combining the two somehow a practical impossibility, is there a way to rewrite, even simplifiy, the OP D2 code so that it is essentially EAW D2 that allows pirates but doesn't use or acknowledge the cartel layer in any way?

While I still have hopes that custom missions can fix the OP issues, that cartel layer seems to be the sticking point. Players can hurt their own hexes depending upon the ownership of the cartel layer in the same hex. Will new missions void this problem?

Again, I'd really like to hear ideas for solutions. I think all of us can come up with reasons why things don't or can't work, but there must be some ideas for how they CAN work. Anyone?

[EmeraldEdge]

I seem to recall that there was a problem with doing a direct port of the "evil dave" stuff, but I could be wrong.  Perhaps he was just trying to solve the DV problems with the missions before releasing them, I don't really remember.  

[FireSoul]

Quote:
Assuming EAW and OP API differences are so great as to make combining the two somehow a practical impossibility, is there a way to rewrite, even simplifiy, the OP D2 code so that it is essentially EAW D2 that allows pirates but doesn't use or acknowledge the cartel layer in any way?

While I still have hopes that custom missions can fix the OP issues, that cartel layer seems to be the sticking point. Players can hurt their own hexes depending upon the ownership of the cartel layer in the same hex. Will new missions void this problem?

Again, I'd really like to hear ideas for solutions. I think all of us can come up with reasons why things don't or can't work, but there must be some ideas for how they CAN work. Anyone?  

Code? No. Settings in the .GF files? Sure.

1- Someone needs to play with a OP D2 server and see if the pirates can indeed be turned off.
2- If that works, see if the pirates affecting the hexes problems are still in place.

-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

In my experience, simply creating a map with no mention of cartel ownership (no CartelRegion fields in the map data) doesn't remove the cartel layer, but only leaves the campaign with a completely neutral cartel layer.

We should try to push the OP serverkit, and see what happens, but what if the cartel layer is a central part of the code? What happens then?

[FireSoul]

ok, .. looking at a nice document to how to set-up your own campaigns/server
http://www3.telus.net/NuclearWessels/sfc/mods.html#2.2

Is this sufficient to turn off the pirate races? I know that pirate's map will still be available, but will it still be an issue?

-- Luc

[jdmckinney]

Without looking at this now (can't do anything from here), I can say what I encountered in the past when trying to find workarounds for the cartel layer problems.

1. A totally neutral cartel layer is worse than a populated one, because pilots running missions in their own hexes were hurting their DV by winning (still not sure why).

2. Blanketing the cartel layer with one cartel that is friendly to all empires caused problems when enemies fought each other. A win in the hex counted as both a win against the enemy empire and a loss for the friendly cartel, since an ally of theirs lost (the losing empire). This may not be the end-all of the issue, though. Perhaps more creative political tension settings would help.

3. Even if a campaign starts out stable by assigning an allied cartel to each empire coinciding directly with their territory, once one of those cartel hexes is flipped neutral, the home empire finds themselves hurting their own DVs again.

At this point, the next step, being the easiest, is probably to revisit mapmaking and .gf settings to get more conclusive data on the cartel layer impacts.

[SPQR Drall]

I agree that OP is a great engine and that it should be the primary platform used, if the D2 was fixed.  Now, what I am not entirerly clear is what is broken.  If you guys can provide a list, maybe a few workaroud could be found to minimize the work needed at the code level, enhancing the chances of having that done succesfully at some point.

The 2 main issues I am aware of (last campaign has benn a little while ago) are the inability to raise DV on a hex you do not own at the cartel level, and the inability to draft allies on neutral hexes.  Anything else?

For the neutral hex drafting, Remiak was proposing somewhere else to apply to OP the idea put forth by the SFC2.Net team for RDSL: combine a few races together in order to have an unplayed race that can then be used to carpet the whole map.  Would that work.
 
For the other issue, some campaigns applied Cleaven's proposal of allowing  a second allied Pirate account to flip the underlying cartel hex so you could raise the DV.  That worked, ad was actually pretty fun.



SPQR Drall

 

[Scipio_66]

Hmmmm... well, as long as we are talking radical........

Pirate DV shouldn't affect Empire DV at all.  Instead, all (or most) Pirate hexes should start with zeero
economy.  Each time a pirate runs a mission in a hex they own, their economy would go up
while the Imperial economy would go down.  Likewise, each time an Imperial player ran a mission in a
hex they own on their map, their economy would go up and the pirate's would go down.

Pirates factions would affect other pirate factions DV on the pirate map normally.


OK, I know that isn't helpful to this thread, and isn't even possible.  Still, it would have been nice.

-S'Cipio