Topic: New cloak not working as advertised (Read 16721 times)

TarMinyatur · « **on:** July 18, 2003, 09:03:07 pm »

I have yet to observe a single Overloaded Photon do 4 points of damage. According to the published chart, 33% should do 16, 33% do 8, and 33% do 4. So far, approximately 2/3rds do 16 and 1/3 do 8 over about 100 shots.

Is the random number generator improperly set up? It may be giving a 0, 1, 2 when the intended results are 1, 2, 3, thereby shifting the cloak chart to a woeful:

IntRnd(3)
returns 0,1,2

0: Full damage (?)
1: Full damage
2: Half damage
3: Quarter damage (Can't occur)

IntRnd(3) + 1 would solve the problem if this is the case

Can anyone else confirm this?

Note that this is single-player. Are there two versions of the cloak chart? This would seem to be unlikely but it is possible. I'll get online and test multi.

I had some help from Centuri Vaughn and Sabercut on GSA. There is a bug here. Not a single OV Photon did less than 8 and a super majority of them did 16.

Tulmahk · « **Reply #1 on:** July 19, 2003, 04:35:06 am »

One of the reasons I stopped playing SFC2 (aside from time constraints) was due to the incredibly poor implementation of the cloaking device, making Romulan ships far more difficult to play.

And the SFB rules DO allow for invisible cloak. It merely requires a referee to moderate it. In the computerized version of SFB, the computer acts automatically as that referee, so there is no need whatsoever for the Shade-and-Die®. One of the worst game design decisions, ever.

Cleaven · « **Reply #2 on:** July 19, 2003, 04:53:26 am »

My guess is that it was a short-cut taken due to other pressures, as opposed to a deliberate design decision made in the initial planning. It has just taken a long time to put it right (almost).

SPQR Renegade001 · « **Reply #3 on:** July 19, 2003, 09:48:40 am »

Quote:

One of the reasons I stopped playing SFC2 (aside from time constraints) was due to the incredibly poor implementation of the cloaking device, making Romulan ships far more difficult to play.

I have yet to play the new patch vs another human, but vs the AI cloak is now a very usfull tool. Using old style cloak tactics in a WE and then in a Sph-A, I made short work of an admiral level AI F-CC+. Neither ship took internals. Later vs an F-NEC, I was happy to see that the good old "duck and clear" works just fine for ditching those pesky drones.

I don't know how hard it'll be for a human player to void cloak, but Shade-and-Die® is dead. The Romulans who've fought for so long in broken Gorn ships and learned to compete with them, will now be all the more lethal for the experience.

Let the Federation fear the sound of our silence.

*****

I was surprised to learn that of all people, TarMinyatur was not on the testing team. Wether RL constraints, judgement call, or just oversight, the meticulous manner he applies to testing would have been an asset.

NannerSlug · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2003, 11:26:14 am »

sorry renegade, i completely disagree with that statment about tar. his post only proves no good deed goes unpunished.

dave has mentioned in different threads that it is an approximatioin of the sfb rule set - not exact.

so play the game and enjoy it. dave/taldren didnt have to do anything, but they decided to. i think there would be a little bit of a thank you. - as there is from many including your self (i dont expact any from tar).

play it. enjoy it. live it.

FireSoul · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2003, 11:55:04 am »

You see..
.. David didn't enhance the cloak because he had to. He did it because we asked him if he could. Same goes for fighters being recalled by AI Carriers, AI pirates using engine doubling, and AI using ECM/ECCM. It's all been in good faith.

Tar: just play it, and use the ECM effect which isn't supposed to be there by SFB rules to compensate.

Lepton1 · « **Reply #6 on:** July 19, 2003, 12:04:40 pm »

Tar isn't complaining. He's pointing out an accident in what was clearly Dave's intention to use the cloak damage chart that is quoted in Dave's own posts. Clearly if something went wrong, we should at least be aware of it, if not ask that it be changed since this was Dave's intention in the first place.

As for the cloak only being "like-SFB", that has more to do I think if you check Dave's and other posts with the loss of lock for seeking weapons. This is SFB emulated portion. But the cloak damage chart is the cloak damage chart and I firmly believe that is what Dave and everoyne else wants.

This is from Dave's own post:

Cloak changes:
1) Decreased flash time by about 1/4.
2) Seeking weapons now are removed if firing ship looses lock.
3) Being tractored will no longer prevent cloak from being brought on-line.
4) If a ship being tractored cloaks, the ship holding the cloaker will maintain lock.
5) Weapons damage is reduced according to the following chart:
33.3% chance weapon does normal damage.
33.3% chance weapon does 1/2 damage.
33.3% chance weapon does 1/4 damage.

If it isn't doing 1/4 damage, then that's a problem.

I'd be interested to know if any weapons are suffering 1/4 damage. Perhaps there is some photon bonus that is effecting the cloak DAC.

Lepton1 · « **Reply #7 on:** July 19, 2003, 09:51:08 pm »

I am surprised there has been no official response. 100 trials says it all I think. If it doesn't work the way intended then it should be stated so or fixed.

3dot14 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 19, 2003, 09:57:07 pm »

Is this such a big deal?

Consider the cloak has gotten a few bonus from its SFB cousin, it's not surprising it loses a few. Personally, I am inclined to simply alter the readme.txt to match the current situation.

Now I know I prefer this cloak to SFC3's hidden cloak (both as seeker or hider) and this OP cloak is far from shade and die. but I am curious, Tulmahk, how Exactly does the SFB's referring system work?

Scipio_66 · « **Reply #9 on:** July 19, 2003, 10:19:52 pm »

Yeah, yeah, maybe it doesn't work exactly as Mr. Ferrel intended. But you know what? It works so much better than it used to, and so much closer to SFB standard rules than it used to, that I'm not currently inclined to gripe about it.

I'm having so much fun watching a real cloak at work that I can't be bothered. Now if Dave feels irked that it isn't quite what he intended and decides to make it match what he announced, that's all well and good. I'll be glad. But I'm not going to let this glitch annoy me right now. I'm one happy Gorn...... errr I mean Rom..... errrrr I mean player.

Now I've got to go master the art of engaging these dastardly improved Roms. (Yeah, yeah, little pointy-eared freak. Cloak and ditch my plasma. Let me get a little closer...... just a little closer....... <evil laughter> )

Thanks, Dave! Very nice work indeed.

======

3dot 14:

In SFB, there were advanced optional rules that let you use hidden cloak if you and your opponent wanted to experiment with it. It required a very honest opponent, or a moderator. As I recall (been years since I used hidden cloak):

1) The cloaked ship was removed from the board, and it's location was kept track of secretly
2) 4 times a turn the enemy could ask for range and bearing
3) The enemy could fire whenever it wanted, but damage was kept secret.
4) The cloaked ship recieved a MASSIVE boost in BPV.
5) Everybody except the Rom got very, very bored.

Yeah, I was usually the Rom. People (including me) have much more fun now that I use standard rules. That doesn't mean it wasn't fun for specific scenarios, it was, but for general use I find (IMHO) that standard rules are more fun for everyone. As with all opinions, your mileage may vary.

-S'Cipio

Lepton1 · « **Reply #10 on:** July 19, 2003, 10:32:55 pm »

No one is griping. We are merely making statement of facts and my own limited testing w/ regular photon torps seems to confirm his results. And I am just going to say it. Here goes. Prepare to flame me. Why didn't the beta testers catch this??? Seems logical to test something like this. If Tar et al. can do it in a couple of hours I assume or even a few hours, why not the beta testers?? Look I love this new patch, so don't get me wrong. I am very excited about it and it is truely fantastic that the support has continued so long for this game. Kudos and thanks to Dave and the beta testers, but this should have been easily caught either in the code during testing or in the announcement to characterize correctly how the cloak is working. That simple.

Cleaven · « **Reply #11 on:** July 19, 2003, 10:38:41 pm »

Quite right, I'm happy as it is, but I do like to know what the numbers are. If it's a mistake then that's cool (mistakes? in programming? never!) but it would be nice to know.

FireSoul · « **Reply #14 on:** July 20, 2003, 01:31:17 am »

Considering that the patch was released on Thursday, and this post was done at 7:30pm PST on a Friday night.. it's not surprising that nothing has happened yet.

I think the best thing to do is to wait for a bit through next week. If they want to fix it, they can... and it's all up to them.
-- Luc

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #15 on:** July 20, 2003, 08:33:01 am »

I'm a bit taken back by some of the negative comments directed at Tar here. All he did was find a bug and report it.

Toasty0 · « **Reply #16 on:** July 20, 2003, 08:58:37 am »

Nanner,

Always with the negative waves Moriarty! Always with the negative waves.

Woof Woof!!

Best,
Jerry

David Ferrell · « **Reply #17 on:** July 20, 2003, 11:14:31 am »

It is a little sad that this (apparently) happend, but it's not a
big deal. The cloak is still much better than before. In fact FireSoul had a
valid opinion that having this reduction along with the ECM bonus was
too much.

This (if true) was a mistake made by me. It is not the end of the world
or even the end of SFC. If someone is always a glass half-empty guy
about this, that is their problem.

Why no response till now? This was first posted Friday night, I still
haven't had a chance to check it yet and yesterday I spent a wonderful
day with my daughter at Comic Con in San Diego (thank you for asking).

Thanks,

Dave

David Ferrell · « **Reply #18 on:** July 20, 2003, 11:40:31 am »

I didn't see Jinxx. Comic Con is HUGE! Probably the biggest Con
I have ever been to (maybe World Con in the 1980's?). There were
probably tens of thousands of people there.

My daughter got pictures with Maurice LaMarche (voice of the Brain),
Rob Paulson (voice of Pinky) and John DiMaggio (voice of Bender). A
very cool day!

Thanks,

Dave

David Ferrell · « **Reply #20 on:** July 20, 2003, 12:35:58 pm »

Sh... I mean shoot. Your right of course. FireSoul had a valid opinion,
Strafer *never* has a valid opinion.

Thanks,

Dave

FireSoul · « **Reply #21 on:** July 20, 2003, 12:52:29 pm »

ROFL!

Sethan · « **Reply #22 on:** July 20, 2003, 01:27:09 pm »

- Cloak was changed - this is good, as cloak was rarely useful before.

- Change was toward SFB - this is a good start, as SFB was fairly balanced where many things are concerned.

- Change didn't go as far as intended - this may be good, as one of the cloak features of old (ECM effects) might have made cloak too powerful if the change had gone all the way (it may be too powerful even now, haven't had the chance to test it yet - all my free playing time is going to LB4).

Overall - a good thing. The bug needed to be pointed out, and it was. I look forward to trying out the new cloak.

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #23 on:** July 20, 2003, 09:57:22 pm »

Echoing Sethan. 'Bug' needed to be reported. Good thing that it is.

Does 'bug' NEED to be 'fixed'? I dunno. Good reason to expect NOT. If it's an easy fix, I'd welcome it, but current SFC cloak is SO MUCH BETTER that I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. And I'm so thrilled over the support from Dave Ferrell (whom I hope is enjoying Comic Con... How do those Kingdom Come action figures look?) and the testers for this patch in the FIRST PLACE that I tread VERY carefully in this area because I do not want us, as a community, to come off as ingrates and not appreciative of just how remarkable the latest patch is.

If this is the worst thing about this patch, consider us all lucky.

And I do agree that no one should get their head torn off for simply REPORTING the existence of the cloaking "alternative method of damage calculation" (I hesitate at this point to continue calling it a 'bug'). That's a legitimate topic and effects game tactics. Indeed, if no 'fix' arrives, I would be happy simply knowing exactly WHAT the probabilities are of damage with the cloak on, just for the sake of tactics.

I'd just urge all my fellow SFC OPer's to, when reporting bugs after this latest patch, and there will ALWAYS be more bugs, to be extremely diplomatic about it as it is remarkable that we have a game that is old, has a rabid fan base, AND devoted developers. Let's not screw up whatever amazing cosmic karmic resonance that was needed for this to occur.

Anyhow, based on TarMinyatar's evaluation, are we reasonably sure that what is happening is 67% full damage, 33% half damage?

-TF

FireSoul · « **Reply #24 on:** July 20, 2003, 10:22:10 pm »

Yes, but Tar also mentioned that the weapons are doing effective range damage, not true range damage (I didn't realize that either during testing). Also, ECM can be used at the same time as the protection (which isn't supposed to happen).

.. wow.. bugs that cancel each other out.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #25 on:** July 20, 2003, 11:01:40 pm »

This bug is a big deal if your opponent tends to have an abundance of Phaser-1's and Photons. These two weapons benefit the most from this weak cloak chart. On the other hand, Disruptors and Hellbores are already penalized for attenuated damage. Adding the documented cloak chart to them would clearly be unfair. You could do 1 point of damage with an overloaded Dizzy or 4 points with an overloaded Hellbore. That's pathetic. Cripes, you do more damage to yourself in feedback!

Speaking hypothetically here...can the true range be used to calculate the initial damage for Disruptors and Hellbores against cloaked ships (i.e. the SFB method)? It would seem to solve the double-whammy that would occur with implementing the documented cloak chart. Since feedback already works on true range in SFC, one would think the code could use true range with a IsTargetCloaked() check when calculating damage after using the effective range for determining hit%.

Anyways, the Ph-1 is what really kills cloaked ships in SFC. It is still 83% as effective as it was. This is where an R*2 + 6 tweak would come in handy.

Regardless, thanks for looking into the cloak. It will be used more often which I think everyone will agree is a good thing.

-

Edited for an inaccurate claim.

SPQR Drall · « **Reply #26 on:** July 21, 2003, 11:17:44 am »

First off,

Thanks for the effort from everyone involved. Taldren did not have to do this. Kudos!

For the bug, reporting it is ok. The bug is not the end of the world. As a Rom I'll take what I can

Now, there is one question that I've been trying to figure out since the specs of the patch came out. I never posted it not too sound ungrateful, but then again, I'd like to understand it at some point.

The decision I don't understand is to shorten the flash cube time. I have been playing Rom a long time and I am a PvP kinda guy. The reason I never use the cloak in PvP is the flash cube. Reducing the time of the flash cube doesn't help in any way since the tractor starts instantly. So, I will be able to use the cloak at a distance to shake out drones, but against players I still have the same Achiles heel. For the last 2 years I always thought, "damn, it they take away the flash cube, then I can use the cloak in PvP. I think I still can't.

Did I miss anything? Am I wrong?

I will go test this on GSA with fellow Roms, but I am pretty sure that a guy dropping speed because he engages the cloak that can still be flashcubed will not live long and prosper.

I am really curious to understand the rationale here. Do not get me wrong, I appreciate the added benefits, but I was ok against AI already but I did hurt against players. I think it will not chnage that a lot. On PvP testing, did you guys really found that the Roms relying on cloak strategies were now more dangerous?

Again, I am happy about the improvements and I am sure the X-ships will benefit a lot. I just would like to get this one.

Again, thanks for the patch!

SPQR Drall

P.S. Yes Nanner, I know...again I appreciate the patch, I am not petitioning for a change I just want to understand.
P.P.S Saved you a post

SPQR Renegade001 · « **Reply #27 on:** July 21, 2003, 11:33:21 am »

Flash & Grab will still be a problem for us, but little more so than when out from under cloak. The tractor can still be countered with repel trac or a WW, and ECM will still effect the D-fire weapons. In our favor with the new patch, is that the cloak can be fully engaged while were trying to break the tractor, and only the anchoring ship benifits from the anchor. Other ships still fail their target locks.

David Ferrell · « **Reply #28 on:** July 21, 2003, 12:18:20 pm »

Confirmed.
Actual chart:
66.7% does 100% damage.
33.3% does 50% damage.

Thanks,

Dave

Holocat · « **Reply #29 on:** July 21, 2003, 12:36:10 pm »

Is the actual chart for overloaded photons only, all photons only, all direct fire heavy weapons only, all direct fire weapons only, or all weapons, direct or non?

Curiousity only kills slow moving cats that forget to stay away from plasma,

Holocat.

David Ferrell · « **Reply #30 on:** July 21, 2003, 12:56:56 pm »

Chart is for all weapons.

Thanks,

Dave

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #34 on:** July 21, 2003, 04:46:40 pm »

"Flashing" of cloaked ships dates back to TOS: The Balance of Terror, which was the birth of the Romulans and the cloaking device. When the Enterprise fired its "proximity phasers" (really photons) and they exploded, you could see the image of the cloaked WB for an instant.

In ST3:TSfS, Kirk and Sulu could see the cloaked BoP with the naked eye on the viewscreen from the distortion it made against the starfield.

The cloak is not, nor was it ever meant to be an all-powerful, "Uber" weapon.

Thats reserved for Fed ships with 100% RE-VER-SE and magic photons.

HAND!

David Ferrell · « **Reply #37 on:** July 21, 2003, 07:43:00 pm »

Too true.

Being ramming weapons, both the ESG and ESG Lance are unaffected.

PPD should be fine.

Thanks,

Dave

David Ferrell · « **Reply #39 on:** July 21, 2003, 08:25:25 pm »

Maulers are reduced as they should be.

Thanks,

Dave

Corbomite · « **Reply #40 on:** July 21, 2003, 08:27:58 pm »

Cool. I don't suppose you could answer my Phaser B question?

http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=129449&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #41 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:07:28 am »

A mauler should require a lock on to fire. I don't have a problem with it being put in with other direct fire weapons though. I imagine if you tried to put in every little detail of every rule we'd never get a game to play. I'm enjoying the improvements a lot. Thanks again

Corbomite · « **Reply #43 on:** July 22, 2003, 11:17:10 pm »

I'll do with you Tar

Corbomite · « **Reply #44 on:** July 22, 2003, 11:51:42 pm »

Well I got it to do it in SP. I fired at range 4 when it was cloaked and the PPD connected. About 2 pulses in I CTD.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #45 on:** July 23, 2003, 12:10:40 am »

Interesting, Corbomite. I'm on GSA now.

Pestalence · « **Reply #46 on:** July 23, 2003, 12:35:25 am »

Does everyone here have to number crunch or nitpick for bugs.. reporting them is one thing and the details are nice, however, David already poisted that this patch for OP is FINAL.. in other words, there will not be any more patch support client side for Orion Pirates, so bug hunting and such is pointless, unless it is to just announce them to the community...

as David Ferrell said, go play and have fun and stop nit picking the game to death.. it takes a lot of fun out of it for many of us, especially when the Developer of the game is not supporting the game any more...

I know many want OP to be the PC version of SFB, however many systems and functions have to be approximations of the SFB rules or just changed outright for balance sake.. maybe some look like bugs.... a CTD is a bug, but the Cloak was a slight oversight and has been redifigned by Taldren...

Read the OP Cover page 1 again in the Preamble of the manual... SFC : OP is "Based" on SFB, not a direct copy of it....

just consider 1 thing before posting, This game is based on SFC and many things are approximations of the SFB rules, however, this game is Taldren's and the changes that they make is completely up to them.. if they want the Energizer Bunny drum across the screen in the middle of a battle because Taldren wants it there.. then so be it.. it is their game and their game engine and coding...

David said to get use to this patch version and play accordingly as the game is now Final version 2.5.4.10 and no future patches are coming out...

as for the damage table, it was an oversight, and David made a statement.. thus changing the way the Readme.txt reads.

just my $.02

Lepton1 · « **Reply #49 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:01:22 am »

I have a dumb question. Did this whole PPD-cloak interaction with a CTD happen before this patch? If so, why have I never heard of it and why was it not fixed? If it is just happening with this patch, why is that so?? Is it a graphic error??? It is hard to believe that maybe because somewhere in there the code to deal with possible loss of lock for the PPD being faulty would cause a CTD. It seems as if a number of CTDs have to do with graphics issues. I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on the issue.

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #50 on:** July 23, 2003, 07:51:48 am »

Wow, just tried out the Cloak/PPD thing. OUCH! That's bad, once it hit hull, hello desktop.

Mog · « **Reply #51 on:** July 23, 2003, 08:18:10 am »

Hang on a mo, shouldn't the PPD require a lock-on to be able to fire?

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #52 on:** July 23, 2003, 08:22:08 am »

It's always been able to fire at a cloaked target, as far as I remember. I seem to remember having some really one sided battles against the I-XCB, as it took it's 6 PPD and whittled away at me. Cloak didn't do much to help either. It was a long slow death, I couldn't catch up to him and no plasma would reach, so it was bye-bye Emerald.

Anyhow, this is a bad bug.

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #55 on:** July 23, 2003, 09:39:55 am »

I do seem to remember the "final" EAW patch had a few showstoppers and they did another to fix them.

Dogmatix! · « **Reply #56 on:** July 23, 2003, 11:00:13 am »

I really hope Dave decides to go ahead and at least take care of the PPD vs cloaked ship CTD issue. That's going to really be a problem in light of the fact that given the new benefits to cloaking, more people will be using it.

A lot of us have been doing a lot of work singing the praises of OP and buying community members free copies to drum up support for and interest in the game. On top of that, the many, many very nice fixes that Dave implemented would seem to be almost for naught if we have a show-stopper bug like this one to contend with.

I could probably learn to live with the PPD DAC issue, but the PPD CTD bug is gonna be tough.

Crosses fingers....

David Ferrell · « **Reply #58 on:** July 23, 2003, 11:38:43 am »

The only thing that could bring me out of retirement is a CTD, and unfortunately
you have found one.

Thanks,

Dave

Ifrit · « **Reply #66 on:** July 23, 2003, 02:30:55 pm »

Dave, any chance we could add a setting for anistropic mipmap filtering, if the patch is going to be patched? That could really improve the appearance of the lightmaps, and it probably requires only one line of code. It might even improve the appearance of, er, cloaked ships?

I had to at least try to keep this on topic... seriously, though, mipmap filtering makes a big difference when rendering light maps.

Dogmatix! · « **Reply #69 on:** July 23, 2003, 03:36:31 pm »

I agree with just about everything you say, Pestalence. I just don't agree with your chracterization of posts regarding the cloak damage table and PPD-related CTD problem. If people were doing as you say, then you would be absolutely right to call them on it. However, I guess I've just missed all these personal attacks you're talking about. Perhaps they have occured in the past, but I don't see them happening now. I believe that the majority of respondants are of Cleaven's (and my) mind...that of just figuring out the nature of the problem and, in the case of a show stopper, requesting it be fixed.

The phrase "Cloak not working as advertised" need not mean anything more than "it doesn't work the way it says it does in the readme.txt file." If you read something more into it than that, then you do so of your own volition and not necessarily in accordance with the intent of the author. Righteous indignation seems neither warranted or helpful in this case. In fact, it only serves it elicit posts of Cleaven's, your response and then this post's nature. None of which do anything to shed any further light or solve and problems at hand.

If somone wishes to refer to the augmented cloak as "the new cloak," it may be imprecise, but there's really nothing wrong with doing so since we all know what is being discussed.

I personally and monetarily thanked Dave Ferrell for this patch. I believe I thanked the testers on a couple of occasions, too. In an unofficial capacity I helped test the various patch builds as a rank-and-file player. I'm very thankful for the patch and the work done on it. If anyone had let me be a beta testor, I would have loved to have done the job, regardless of what comments by the consumers came my way.

As I said before...thanks VERY MUCH to Dave Ferrell for agreeing to work on fixing the CTD issue. That's the only thing I was looking for in this entire discussion.

FireSoul · « **Reply #70 on:** July 23, 2003, 03:38:31 pm »

Continuing the argument is pointless. You did your part, Tar. Do continue and report any problems, but ..
.. do not add fuel to the flame by adding opinion with your posts. Stuff like "why was this missed" and "I would have caught it". are NOT wanted/appreciated.

-- Luc

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #71 on:** July 23, 2003, 03:55:26 pm »

You're right, FS. I should stick to the facts. Ego battles are fruitless.

I'm off to document a Plasma/Admin CTD bug now.

FireSoul · « **Reply #72 on:** July 23, 2003, 04:06:50 pm »

Plasma/Admin CTD? If this is for real, I suggest a new thread.

Cleaven · « **Reply #75 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:03:32 pm »

Pestalence, you were telling people to suppress FACTS.

I'm not at all keen on some of the potential inuendo that goes with some of the facts but they are facts none the less. You may NOT insist that people suppress these facts. And especially when those facts are required " to get use to this patch version and play accordingly". I don't care if you want to ignore the info but I want to know as much as I can about how the game works, and I am insulted when somebody comes and says thou shalt not explore the game in one sentance, and "just enjoy the game" in the next, as if I am some mindless drone who has to be told when he is having fun and when to have some soma. You may not intend the insult but you did anyway.

And nothing you may say, insulting or otherwise abusive of facts, will make me less grateful for the game I have.

Jwest · « **Reply #76 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:07:32 pm »

Well, having played a cloaking warbird for two day now, I has definitively say that phasers, disruptors, photons, and plasma on bare hull while cloaked don't crash to desktop. I'm pretty sure they do too much damage, but I can't blame that on the program team unfortunately - <G>

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #77 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:20:30 pm »

It would appear that pointing out to Taldren that a CTD exists, even AFTER they have stated that this is the FINAL patch IS an effective and worthwhile undertaking. So suggesting that it is pointless was a rather poorly thought out statement.

Also, suggesting that someone posting about a bug so closely on the heels of the release of the patch is baffling. Would waiting longer make it more likely that Dave would want to undertake more patching of the FINAL patch?

This was the final of the SFB "BASED" titles (approx 99.99% based on SFB) and as such the cries of "SFB Purists" should have died out long ago IMHO. As this is the last attempt to actually make the game work as "Advertised" in the game manual, it would seem that those who wish for changes to be made bear the brunt of the load of requesting those changes on their own shoulders.

Certainly those who are NOT "SFB Purists" and are more Trek/TNG fans are not going to be as dedicated in their requests to Taldren to leave OP as close to both SFB and Taldrens own specifications as stated in the manual as possible.

These flame wars should be relagated to things of memory, as the SFC series is in a coma and the only thing that may keep the plug from being pulled is Activisions silly actions concering the rights to Trek and the lawsuit they have filed pertaining to those very rights.

Eric has flatly stated that if there ever is another SFC title, it will most likely be years down the road, and likely never.

Now we have a TNG version as well as an approximately 50% finished TOS/SFB version, and we as a community of gamers should realize that with no new titles coming out that our numbers are already rapidly decreasing and pointless attacks on one group or another simply work to further weaken the already waning numbers of available gamers.

Just my opinion, feel free to agree with me or flame me. I personally am viewing the Acti vs Viacom lawsuit as the only possible hope for more SFC games, either by Taldren or possibly another entity.

Perhaps with the total decline of all things Trek that has come about since TNG was most stupidly discontinued Viacom/Paramount will move Trek off the cash-cow list and greatly reduce the restrictions they place on who can do what with the intellectual properties that are Trek.

Im looking forward to seeing a game on the shelf at CompUSA that has the intials SFB and SVC right next to each other on the box, directly under a picture of the NCC 1701 Enterprise.

(Sounds good, eh Hyper?

)

HAND!

Sethan · « **Reply #79 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:22:58 pm »

One caution - not to put words in Taldren's mouth - but people shouldn't get their hopes up about any non-CTD bugs getting fixed at this point.

Identify and report them if possible, but don't be upset if non-CTD bugs remain after the next final patch.

We are already way past the point where Taldren stopped getting paid for the work they are doing on OP.

David Ferrell · « **Reply #80 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:23:03 pm »

Feel free to point out any CTDs that you find and how to reproduce them.

I have already fixed the PPD one (it has unique circumstances that made
*this* crash unique to the PPD).

Since I introduced it, I sure as heck better fix it.

Thanks,

Dave

Corbomite · « **Reply #81 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:25:18 pm »

Now that's service for you!!

Corbomite · « **Reply #83 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:39:06 pm »

Ok I just tried Fusions and Hellbores. They work fine. With what Jwest said I think that covers everything. I will try ESG and ESG lance just to be sure though.

Corbomite · « **Reply #86 on:** July 23, 2003, 06:14:02 pm »

I just tried all the DF weapons, including X weapons and the ESG. They work fine. I guess the PPD is the only culprit, thankfully.

Capt Jeff · « **Reply #90 on:** July 25, 2003, 12:31:32 pm »

This PPD problem doesn't apply just to firing on cloaked ships. Blow up any ship or even a drone with PPD and you crash.,

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #91 on:** July 18, 2003, 09:03:07 pm »

I have yet to observe a single Overloaded Photon do 4 points of damage. According to the published chart, 33% should do 16, 33% do 8, and 33% do 4. So far, approximately 2/3rds do 16 and 1/3 do 8 over about 100 shots.

Is the random number generator improperly set up? It may be giving a 0, 1, 2 when the intended results are 1, 2, 3, thereby shifting the cloak chart to a woeful:

IntRnd(3)
returns 0,1,2

0: Full damage (?)
1: Full damage
2: Half damage
3: Quarter damage (Can't occur)

IntRnd(3) + 1 would solve the problem if this is the case

Can anyone else confirm this?

Note that this is single-player. Are there two versions of the cloak chart? This would seem to be unlikely but it is possible. I'll get online and test multi.

I had some help from Centuri Vaughn and Sabercut on GSA. There is a bug here. Not a single OV Photon did less than 8 and a super majority of them did 16.

Tulmahk · « **Reply #92 on:** July 19, 2003, 04:35:06 am »

One of the reasons I stopped playing SFC2 (aside from time constraints) was due to the incredibly poor implementation of the cloaking device, making Romulan ships far more difficult to play.

And the SFB rules DO allow for invisible cloak. It merely requires a referee to moderate it. In the computerized version of SFB, the computer acts automatically as that referee, so there is no need whatsoever for the Shade-and-Die®. One of the worst game design decisions, ever.

Cleaven · « **Reply #93 on:** July 19, 2003, 04:53:26 am »

My guess is that it was a short-cut taken due to other pressures, as opposed to a deliberate design decision made in the initial planning. It has just taken a long time to put it right (almost).

NannerSlug · « **Reply #95 on:** July 19, 2003, 11:26:14 am »

sorry renegade, i completely disagree with that statment about tar. his post only proves no good deed goes unpunished.

dave has mentioned in different threads that it is an approximatioin of the sfb rule set - not exact.

so play the game and enjoy it. dave/taldren didnt have to do anything, but they decided to. i think there would be a little bit of a thank you. - as there is from many including your self (i dont expact any from tar).

play it. enjoy it. live it.

FireSoul · « **Reply #96 on:** July 19, 2003, 11:55:04 am »

You see..
.. David didn't enhance the cloak because he had to. He did it because we asked him if he could. Same goes for fighters being recalled by AI Carriers, AI pirates using engine doubling, and AI using ECM/ECCM. It's all been in good faith.

Tar: just play it, and use the ECM effect which isn't supposed to be there by SFB rules to compensate.

Lepton1 · « **Reply #97 on:** July 19, 2003, 12:04:40 pm »

Tar isn't complaining. He's pointing out an accident in what was clearly Dave's intention to use the cloak damage chart that is quoted in Dave's own posts. Clearly if something went wrong, we should at least be aware of it, if not ask that it be changed since this was Dave's intention in the first place.

As for the cloak only being "like-SFB", that has more to do I think if you check Dave's and other posts with the loss of lock for seeking weapons. This is SFB emulated portion. But the cloak damage chart is the cloak damage chart and I firmly believe that is what Dave and everoyne else wants.

This is from Dave's own post:

Cloak changes:
1) Decreased flash time by about 1/4.
2) Seeking weapons now are removed if firing ship looses lock.
3) Being tractored will no longer prevent cloak from being brought on-line.
4) If a ship being tractored cloaks, the ship holding the cloaker will maintain lock.
5) Weapons damage is reduced according to the following chart:
33.3% chance weapon does normal damage.
33.3% chance weapon does 1/2 damage.
33.3% chance weapon does 1/4 damage.

If it isn't doing 1/4 damage, then that's a problem.

I'd be interested to know if any weapons are suffering 1/4 damage. Perhaps there is some photon bonus that is effecting the cloak DAC.

Lepton1 · « **Reply #98 on:** July 19, 2003, 09:51:08 pm »

I am surprised there has been no official response. 100 trials says it all I think. If it doesn't work the way intended then it should be stated so or fixed.

3dot14 · « **Reply #99 on:** July 19, 2003, 09:57:07 pm »

Is this such a big deal?

Consider the cloak has gotten a few bonus from its SFB cousin, it's not surprising it loses a few. Personally, I am inclined to simply alter the readme.txt to match the current situation.

Now I know I prefer this cloak to SFC3's hidden cloak (both as seeker or hider) and this OP cloak is far from shade and die. but I am curious, Tulmahk, how Exactly does the SFB's referring system work?

Scipio_66 · « **Reply #100 on:** July 19, 2003, 10:19:52 pm »

Yeah, yeah, maybe it doesn't work exactly as Mr. Ferrel intended. But you know what? It works so much better than it used to, and so much closer to SFB standard rules than it used to, that I'm not currently inclined to gripe about it.

I'm having so much fun watching a real cloak at work that I can't be bothered. Now if Dave feels irked that it isn't quite what he intended and decides to make it match what he announced, that's all well and good. I'll be glad. But I'm not going to let this glitch annoy me right now. I'm one happy Gorn...... errr I mean Rom..... errrrr I mean player.

Now I've got to go master the art of engaging these dastardly improved Roms. (Yeah, yeah, little pointy-eared freak. Cloak and ditch my plasma. Let me get a little closer...... just a little closer....... <evil laughter> )

Thanks, Dave! Very nice work indeed.

======

3dot 14:

In SFB, there were advanced optional rules that let you use hidden cloak if you and your opponent wanted to experiment with it. It required a very honest opponent, or a moderator. As I recall (been years since I used hidden cloak):

1) The cloaked ship was removed from the board, and it's location was kept track of secretly
2) 4 times a turn the enemy could ask for range and bearing
3) The enemy could fire whenever it wanted, but damage was kept secret.
4) The cloaked ship recieved a MASSIVE boost in BPV.
5) Everybody except the Rom got very, very bored.

Yeah, I was usually the Rom. People (including me) have much more fun now that I use standard rules. That doesn't mean it wasn't fun for specific scenarios, it was, but for general use I find (IMHO) that standard rules are more fun for everyone. As with all opinions, your mileage may vary.

-S'Cipio

Lepton1 · « **Reply #101 on:** July 19, 2003, 10:32:55 pm »

No one is griping. We are merely making statement of facts and my own limited testing w/ regular photon torps seems to confirm his results. And I am just going to say it. Here goes. Prepare to flame me. Why didn't the beta testers catch this??? Seems logical to test something like this. If Tar et al. can do it in a couple of hours I assume or even a few hours, why not the beta testers?? Look I love this new patch, so don't get me wrong. I am very excited about it and it is truely fantastic that the support has continued so long for this game. Kudos and thanks to Dave and the beta testers, but this should have been easily caught either in the code during testing or in the announcement to characterize correctly how the cloak is working. That simple.

Cleaven · « **Reply #102 on:** July 19, 2003, 10:38:41 pm »

Quite right, I'm happy as it is, but I do like to know what the numbers are. If it's a mistake then that's cool (mistakes? in programming? never!) but it would be nice to know.

FireSoul · « **Reply #105 on:** July 20, 2003, 01:31:17 am »

Considering that the patch was released on Thursday, and this post was done at 7:30pm PST on a Friday night.. it's not surprising that nothing has happened yet.

I think the best thing to do is to wait for a bit through next week. If they want to fix it, they can... and it's all up to them.
-- Luc

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #106 on:** July 20, 2003, 08:33:01 am »

I'm a bit taken back by some of the negative comments directed at Tar here. All he did was find a bug and report it.

Toasty0 · « **Reply #107 on:** July 20, 2003, 08:58:37 am »

Nanner,

Always with the negative waves Moriarty! Always with the negative waves.

Woof Woof!!

Best,
Jerry

David Ferrell · « **Reply #108 on:** July 20, 2003, 11:14:31 am »

It is a little sad that this (apparently) happend, but it's not a
big deal. The cloak is still much better than before. In fact FireSoul had a
valid opinion that having this reduction along with the ECM bonus was
too much.

This (if true) was a mistake made by me. It is not the end of the world
or even the end of SFC. If someone is always a glass half-empty guy
about this, that is their problem.

Why no response till now? This was first posted Friday night, I still
haven't had a chance to check it yet and yesterday I spent a wonderful
day with my daughter at Comic Con in San Diego (thank you for asking).

Thanks,

Dave

David Ferrell · « **Reply #109 on:** July 20, 2003, 11:40:31 am »

I didn't see Jinxx. Comic Con is HUGE! Probably the biggest Con
I have ever been to (maybe World Con in the 1980's?). There were
probably tens of thousands of people there.

My daughter got pictures with Maurice LaMarche (voice of the Brain),
Rob Paulson (voice of Pinky) and John DiMaggio (voice of Bender). A
very cool day!

Thanks,

Dave

David Ferrell · « **Reply #111 on:** July 20, 2003, 12:35:58 pm »

Sh... I mean shoot. Your right of course. FireSoul had a valid opinion,
Strafer *never* has a valid opinion.

Thanks,

Dave

FireSoul · « **Reply #112 on:** July 20, 2003, 12:52:29 pm »

ROFL!

Sethan · « **Reply #113 on:** July 20, 2003, 01:27:09 pm »

- Cloak was changed - this is good, as cloak was rarely useful before.

- Change was toward SFB - this is a good start, as SFB was fairly balanced where many things are concerned.

- Change didn't go as far as intended - this may be good, as one of the cloak features of old (ECM effects) might have made cloak too powerful if the change had gone all the way (it may be too powerful even now, haven't had the chance to test it yet - all my free playing time is going to LB4).

Overall - a good thing. The bug needed to be pointed out, and it was. I look forward to trying out the new cloak.

Tumulorum Fossor · « **Reply #114 on:** July 20, 2003, 09:57:22 pm »

Echoing Sethan. 'Bug' needed to be reported. Good thing that it is.

Does 'bug' NEED to be 'fixed'? I dunno. Good reason to expect NOT. If it's an easy fix, I'd welcome it, but current SFC cloak is SO MUCH BETTER that I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. And I'm so thrilled over the support from Dave Ferrell (whom I hope is enjoying Comic Con... How do those Kingdom Come action figures look?) and the testers for this patch in the FIRST PLACE that I tread VERY carefully in this area because I do not want us, as a community, to come off as ingrates and not appreciative of just how remarkable the latest patch is.

If this is the worst thing about this patch, consider us all lucky.

And I do agree that no one should get their head torn off for simply REPORTING the existence of the cloaking "alternative method of damage calculation" (I hesitate at this point to continue calling it a 'bug'). That's a legitimate topic and effects game tactics. Indeed, if no 'fix' arrives, I would be happy simply knowing exactly WHAT the probabilities are of damage with the cloak on, just for the sake of tactics.

I'd just urge all my fellow SFC OPer's to, when reporting bugs after this latest patch, and there will ALWAYS be more bugs, to be extremely diplomatic about it as it is remarkable that we have a game that is old, has a rabid fan base, AND devoted developers. Let's not screw up whatever amazing cosmic karmic resonance that was needed for this to occur.

Anyhow, based on TarMinyatar's evaluation, are we reasonably sure that what is happening is 67% full damage, 33% half damage?

-TF

FireSoul · « **Reply #115 on:** July 20, 2003, 10:22:10 pm »

Yes, but Tar also mentioned that the weapons are doing effective range damage, not true range damage (I didn't realize that either during testing). Also, ECM can be used at the same time as the protection (which isn't supposed to happen).

.. wow.. bugs that cancel each other out.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #116 on:** July 20, 2003, 11:01:40 pm »

This bug is a big deal if your opponent tends to have an abundance of Phaser-1's and Photons. These two weapons benefit the most from this weak cloak chart. On the other hand, Disruptors and Hellbores are already penalized for attenuated damage. Adding the documented cloak chart to them would clearly be unfair. You could do 1 point of damage with an overloaded Dizzy or 4 points with an overloaded Hellbore. That's pathetic. Cripes, you do more damage to yourself in feedback!

Speaking hypothetically here...can the true range be used to calculate the initial damage for Disruptors and Hellbores against cloaked ships (i.e. the SFB method)? It would seem to solve the double-whammy that would occur with implementing the documented cloak chart. Since feedback already works on true range in SFC, one would think the code could use true range with a IsTargetCloaked() check when calculating damage after using the effective range for determining hit%.

Anyways, the Ph-1 is what really kills cloaked ships in SFC. It is still 83% as effective as it was. This is where an R*2 + 6 tweak would come in handy.

Regardless, thanks for looking into the cloak. It will be used more often which I think everyone will agree is a good thing.

-

Edited for an inaccurate claim.

SPQR Drall · « **Reply #117 on:** July 21, 2003, 11:17:44 am »

First off,

Thanks for the effort from everyone involved. Taldren did not have to do this. Kudos!

For the bug, reporting it is ok. The bug is not the end of the world. As a Rom I'll take what I can

Now, there is one question that I've been trying to figure out since the specs of the patch came out. I never posted it not too sound ungrateful, but then again, I'd like to understand it at some point.

The decision I don't understand is to shorten the flash cube time. I have been playing Rom a long time and I am a PvP kinda guy. The reason I never use the cloak in PvP is the flash cube. Reducing the time of the flash cube doesn't help in any way since the tractor starts instantly. So, I will be able to use the cloak at a distance to shake out drones, but against players I still have the same Achiles heel. For the last 2 years I always thought, "damn, it they take away the flash cube, then I can use the cloak in PvP. I think I still can't.

Did I miss anything? Am I wrong?

I will go test this on GSA with fellow Roms, but I am pretty sure that a guy dropping speed because he engages the cloak that can still be flashcubed will not live long and prosper.

I am really curious to understand the rationale here. Do not get me wrong, I appreciate the added benefits, but I was ok against AI already but I did hurt against players. I think it will not chnage that a lot. On PvP testing, did you guys really found that the Roms relying on cloak strategies were now more dangerous?

Again, I am happy about the improvements and I am sure the X-ships will benefit a lot. I just would like to get this one.

Again, thanks for the patch!

SPQR Drall

P.S. Yes Nanner, I know...again I appreciate the patch, I am not petitioning for a change I just want to understand.
P.P.S Saved you a post

SPQR Renegade001 · « **Reply #118 on:** July 21, 2003, 11:33:21 am »

Flash & Grab will still be a problem for us, but little more so than when out from under cloak. The tractor can still be countered with repel trac or a WW, and ECM will still effect the D-fire weapons. In our favor with the new patch, is that the cloak can be fully engaged while were trying to break the tractor, and only the anchoring ship benifits from the anchor. Other ships still fail their target locks.

David Ferrell · « **Reply #119 on:** July 21, 2003, 12:18:20 pm »

Confirmed.
Actual chart:
66.7% does 100% damage.
33.3% does 50% damage.

Thanks,

Dave

Holocat · « **Reply #120 on:** July 21, 2003, 12:36:10 pm »

Is the actual chart for overloaded photons only, all photons only, all direct fire heavy weapons only, all direct fire weapons only, or all weapons, direct or non?

Curiousity only kills slow moving cats that forget to stay away from plasma,

Holocat.

David Ferrell · « **Reply #121 on:** July 21, 2003, 12:56:56 pm »

Chart is for all weapons.

Thanks,

Dave

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #125 on:** July 21, 2003, 04:46:40 pm »

"Flashing" of cloaked ships dates back to TOS: The Balance of Terror, which was the birth of the Romulans and the cloaking device. When the Enterprise fired its "proximity phasers" (really photons) and they exploded, you could see the image of the cloaked WB for an instant.

In ST3:TSfS, Kirk and Sulu could see the cloaked BoP with the naked eye on the viewscreen from the distortion it made against the starfield.

The cloak is not, nor was it ever meant to be an all-powerful, "Uber" weapon.

Thats reserved for Fed ships with 100% RE-VER-SE and magic photons.

HAND!

David Ferrell · « **Reply #128 on:** July 21, 2003, 07:43:00 pm »

Too true.

Being ramming weapons, both the ESG and ESG Lance are unaffected.

PPD should be fine.

Thanks,

Dave

David Ferrell · « **Reply #130 on:** July 21, 2003, 08:25:25 pm »

Maulers are reduced as they should be.

Thanks,

Dave

Corbomite · « **Reply #131 on:** July 21, 2003, 08:27:58 pm »

Cool. I don't suppose you could answer my Phaser B question?

http://208.57.228.4/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=129449&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #132 on:** July 22, 2003, 12:07:28 am »

A mauler should require a lock on to fire. I don't have a problem with it being put in with other direct fire weapons though. I imagine if you tried to put in every little detail of every rule we'd never get a game to play. I'm enjoying the improvements a lot. Thanks again

Corbomite · « **Reply #134 on:** July 22, 2003, 11:17:10 pm »

I'll do with you Tar

Corbomite · « **Reply #135 on:** July 22, 2003, 11:51:42 pm »

Well I got it to do it in SP. I fired at range 4 when it was cloaked and the PPD connected. About 2 pulses in I CTD.

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #136 on:** July 23, 2003, 12:10:40 am »

Interesting, Corbomite. I'm on GSA now.

Pestalence · « **Reply #137 on:** July 23, 2003, 12:35:25 am »

Does everyone here have to number crunch or nitpick for bugs.. reporting them is one thing and the details are nice, however, David already poisted that this patch for OP is FINAL.. in other words, there will not be any more patch support client side for Orion Pirates, so bug hunting and such is pointless, unless it is to just announce them to the community...

as David Ferrell said, go play and have fun and stop nit picking the game to death.. it takes a lot of fun out of it for many of us, especially when the Developer of the game is not supporting the game any more...

I know many want OP to be the PC version of SFB, however many systems and functions have to be approximations of the SFB rules or just changed outright for balance sake.. maybe some look like bugs.... a CTD is a bug, but the Cloak was a slight oversight and has been redifigned by Taldren...

Read the OP Cover page 1 again in the Preamble of the manual... SFC : OP is "Based" on SFB, not a direct copy of it....

just consider 1 thing before posting, This game is based on SFC and many things are approximations of the SFB rules, however, this game is Taldren's and the changes that they make is completely up to them.. if they want the Energizer Bunny drum across the screen in the middle of a battle because Taldren wants it there.. then so be it.. it is their game and their game engine and coding...

David said to get use to this patch version and play accordingly as the game is now Final version 2.5.4.10 and no future patches are coming out...

as for the damage table, it was an oversight, and David made a statement.. thus changing the way the Readme.txt reads.

just my $.02

Lepton1 · « **Reply #140 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:01:22 am »

I have a dumb question. Did this whole PPD-cloak interaction with a CTD happen before this patch? If so, why have I never heard of it and why was it not fixed? If it is just happening with this patch, why is that so?? Is it a graphic error??? It is hard to believe that maybe because somewhere in there the code to deal with possible loss of lock for the PPD being faulty would cause a CTD. It seems as if a number of CTDs have to do with graphics issues. I would be interested in hearing people's thoughts on the issue.

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #141 on:** July 23, 2003, 07:51:48 am »

Wow, just tried out the Cloak/PPD thing. OUCH! That's bad, once it hit hull, hello desktop.

Mog · « **Reply #142 on:** July 23, 2003, 08:18:10 am »

Hang on a mo, shouldn't the PPD require a lock-on to be able to fire?

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #143 on:** July 23, 2003, 08:22:08 am »

It's always been able to fire at a cloaked target, as far as I remember. I seem to remember having some really one sided battles against the I-XCB, as it took it's 6 PPD and whittled away at me. Cloak didn't do much to help either. It was a long slow death, I couldn't catch up to him and no plasma would reach, so it was bye-bye Emerald.

Anyhow, this is a bad bug.

EmeraldEdge · « **Reply #146 on:** July 23, 2003, 09:39:55 am »

I do seem to remember the "final" EAW patch had a few showstoppers and they did another to fix them.

Dogmatix! · « **Reply #147 on:** July 23, 2003, 11:00:13 am »

I really hope Dave decides to go ahead and at least take care of the PPD vs cloaked ship CTD issue. That's going to really be a problem in light of the fact that given the new benefits to cloaking, more people will be using it.

A lot of us have been doing a lot of work singing the praises of OP and buying community members free copies to drum up support for and interest in the game. On top of that, the many, many very nice fixes that Dave implemented would seem to be almost for naught if we have a show-stopper bug like this one to contend with.

I could probably learn to live with the PPD DAC issue, but the PPD CTD bug is gonna be tough.

Crosses fingers....

David Ferrell · « **Reply #149 on:** July 23, 2003, 11:38:43 am »

The only thing that could bring me out of retirement is a CTD, and unfortunately
you have found one.

Thanks,

Dave

Ifrit · « **Reply #157 on:** July 23, 2003, 02:30:55 pm »

Dave, any chance we could add a setting for anistropic mipmap filtering, if the patch is going to be patched? That could really improve the appearance of the lightmaps, and it probably requires only one line of code. It might even improve the appearance of, er, cloaked ships?

I had to at least try to keep this on topic... seriously, though, mipmap filtering makes a big difference when rendering light maps.

Dogmatix! · « **Reply #160 on:** July 23, 2003, 03:36:31 pm »

I agree with just about everything you say, Pestalence. I just don't agree with your chracterization of posts regarding the cloak damage table and PPD-related CTD problem. If people were doing as you say, then you would be absolutely right to call them on it. However, I guess I've just missed all these personal attacks you're talking about. Perhaps they have occured in the past, but I don't see them happening now. I believe that the majority of respondants are of Cleaven's (and my) mind...that of just figuring out the nature of the problem and, in the case of a show stopper, requesting it be fixed.

The phrase "Cloak not working as advertised" need not mean anything more than "it doesn't work the way it says it does in the readme.txt file." If you read something more into it than that, then you do so of your own volition and not necessarily in accordance with the intent of the author. Righteous indignation seems neither warranted or helpful in this case. In fact, it only serves it elicit posts of Cleaven's, your response and then this post's nature. None of which do anything to shed any further light or solve and problems at hand.

If somone wishes to refer to the augmented cloak as "the new cloak," it may be imprecise, but there's really nothing wrong with doing so since we all know what is being discussed.

I personally and monetarily thanked Dave Ferrell for this patch. I believe I thanked the testers on a couple of occasions, too. In an unofficial capacity I helped test the various patch builds as a rank-and-file player. I'm very thankful for the patch and the work done on it. If anyone had let me be a beta testor, I would have loved to have done the job, regardless of what comments by the consumers came my way.

As I said before...thanks VERY MUCH to Dave Ferrell for agreeing to work on fixing the CTD issue. That's the only thing I was looking for in this entire discussion.

FireSoul · « **Reply #161 on:** July 23, 2003, 03:38:31 pm »

Continuing the argument is pointless. You did your part, Tar. Do continue and report any problems, but ..
.. do not add fuel to the flame by adding opinion with your posts. Stuff like "why was this missed" and "I would have caught it". are NOT wanted/appreciated.

-- Luc

TarMinyatur · « **Reply #162 on:** July 23, 2003, 03:55:26 pm »

You're right, FS. I should stick to the facts. Ego battles are fruitless.

I'm off to document a Plasma/Admin CTD bug now.

FireSoul · « **Reply #163 on:** July 23, 2003, 04:06:50 pm »

Plasma/Admin CTD? If this is for real, I suggest a new thread.

Cleaven · « **Reply #166 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:03:32 pm »

Pestalence, you were telling people to suppress FACTS.

I'm not at all keen on some of the potential inuendo that goes with some of the facts but they are facts none the less. You may NOT insist that people suppress these facts. And especially when those facts are required " to get use to this patch version and play accordingly". I don't care if you want to ignore the info but I want to know as much as I can about how the game works, and I am insulted when somebody comes and says thou shalt not explore the game in one sentance, and "just enjoy the game" in the next, as if I am some mindless drone who has to be told when he is having fun and when to have some soma. You may not intend the insult but you did anyway.

And nothing you may say, insulting or otherwise abusive of facts, will make me less grateful for the game I have.

Jwest · « **Reply #167 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:07:32 pm »

Well, having played a cloaking warbird for two day now, I has definitively say that phasers, disruptors, photons, and plasma on bare hull while cloaked don't crash to desktop. I'm pretty sure they do too much damage, but I can't blame that on the program team unfortunately - <G>

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #168 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:20:30 pm »

It would appear that pointing out to Taldren that a CTD exists, even AFTER they have stated that this is the FINAL patch IS an effective and worthwhile undertaking. So suggesting that it is pointless was a rather poorly thought out statement.

Also, suggesting that someone posting about a bug so closely on the heels of the release of the patch is baffling. Would waiting longer make it more likely that Dave would want to undertake more patching of the FINAL patch?

This was the final of the SFB "BASED" titles (approx 99.99% based on SFB) and as such the cries of "SFB Purists" should have died out long ago IMHO. As this is the last attempt to actually make the game work as "Advertised" in the game manual, it would seem that those who wish for changes to be made bear the brunt of the load of requesting those changes on their own shoulders.

Certainly those who are NOT "SFB Purists" and are more Trek/TNG fans are not going to be as dedicated in their requests to Taldren to leave OP as close to both SFB and Taldrens own specifications as stated in the manual as possible.

These flame wars should be relagated to things of memory, as the SFC series is in a coma and the only thing that may keep the plug from being pulled is Activisions silly actions concering the rights to Trek and the lawsuit they have filed pertaining to those very rights.

Eric has flatly stated that if there ever is another SFC title, it will most likely be years down the road, and likely never.

Now we have a TNG version as well as an approximately 50% finished TOS/SFB version, and we as a community of gamers should realize that with no new titles coming out that our numbers are already rapidly decreasing and pointless attacks on one group or another simply work to further weaken the already waning numbers of available gamers.

Just my opinion, feel free to agree with me or flame me. I personally am viewing the Acti vs Viacom lawsuit as the only possible hope for more SFC games, either by Taldren or possibly another entity.

Perhaps with the total decline of all things Trek that has come about since TNG was most stupidly discontinued Viacom/Paramount will move Trek off the cash-cow list and greatly reduce the restrictions they place on who can do what with the intellectual properties that are Trek.

Im looking forward to seeing a game on the shelf at CompUSA that has the intials SFB and SVC right next to each other on the box, directly under a picture of the NCC 1701 Enterprise.

(Sounds good, eh Hyper?

)

HAND!

Sethan · « **Reply #170 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:22:58 pm »

One caution - not to put words in Taldren's mouth - but people shouldn't get their hopes up about any non-CTD bugs getting fixed at this point.

Identify and report them if possible, but don't be upset if non-CTD bugs remain after the next final patch.

We are already way past the point where Taldren stopped getting paid for the work they are doing on OP.

David Ferrell · « **Reply #171 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:23:03 pm »

Feel free to point out any CTDs that you find and how to reproduce them.

I have already fixed the PPD one (it has unique circumstances that made
*this* crash unique to the PPD).

Since I introduced it, I sure as heck better fix it.

Thanks,

Dave

Corbomite · « **Reply #172 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:25:18 pm »

Now that's service for you!!

Corbomite · « **Reply #174 on:** July 23, 2003, 05:39:06 pm »

Ok I just tried Fusions and Hellbores. They work fine. With what Jwest said I think that covers everything. I will try ESG and ESG lance just to be sure though.

Corbomite · « **Reply #177 on:** July 23, 2003, 06:14:02 pm »

I just tried all the DF weapons, including X weapons and the ESG. They work fine. I guess the PPD is the only culprit, thankfully.

Capt Jeff · « **Reply #181 on:** July 25, 2003, 12:31:32 pm »

This PPD problem doesn't apply just to firing on cloaked ships. Blow up any ship or even a drone with PPD and you crash.,

News:

Topic: New cloak not working as advertised (Read 16721 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

TarMinyatur

Tulmahk

Cleaven

SPQR Renegade001

NannerSlug

FireSoul

Lepton1

Lepton1

3dot14

Scipio_66

Lepton1

Cleaven

TarMinyatur

TarMinyatur

FireSoul

Rod O'neal

Toasty0

David Ferrell

David Ferrell

Strafer

David Ferrell

FireSoul

Sethan

Tumulorum Fossor

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

SPQR Drall

SPQR Renegade001

David Ferrell

Holocat

David Ferrell

Sethan

Holocat

FireSoul

**DONOTDELETE**

TarMinyatur

TarMinyatur

David Ferrell

Corbomite

David Ferrell

Corbomite

Rod O'neal

TarMinyatur

Corbomite

Corbomite

TarMinyatur

Pestalence

Corbomite

Cleaven

Lepton1

EmeraldEdge

Mog

EmeraldEdge

TarMinyatur

Corbomite

EmeraldEdge

Dogmatix!

jimmi7769

David Ferrell

jimmi7769

EmeraldEdge

Dogmatix!

jimmi7769

SPQR Renegade001

Pestalence

Sethan

Ifrit

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

Dogmatix!

FireSoul

TarMinyatur

FireSoul

Toasty0

Topic: New cloak not working as advertised (Read 16721 times)

DONOTDELETE