XWAU Balancing - Feedback needed

In here you can discuss what is going on in the project, offer help, praise or critique!

Re: XWAU Balancing - Feedback needed

BattleDog
Rebel Alliance
Posts: 2942
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 11:01 pm

Post by BattleDog » Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:46 pm

sedenion wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:07 pm
Okay... It's enough for me, there is clearly a communication problem. Things go crazy to me, and it is accentuated by the fact english isn't my natural language. Sorry for the inconvenience.
To be honest, I don't really think there's a communication problem here. Leaving aside a few "unfortunate" choices of words you've put your ideas across very clearly. It's simply that the people here don't agree with your priorities because every change the XWAU makes affects gameplay to a certain extent. In light of that, making small adjustments to the POV isn't really significant.

There have been much bigger changes, like the upscaling of the Outrider from something equivalent to the old Hasbro toy to its proper size, and giving it turrets. I think you can probably blame me for that, because I created the first turreted version out of the original TG opt years before the XWAU version was released. Bottom line, so long as missions don't become actually "broken" we'll tend to support small changes here and there and the occasional bit one - like more than doubling the size of the SSD.
1st Lt Sigurd "BattleDog" Stormhand, Assigned Corsair Squadron, Renegade Wing, CRS Vigilant.

Corsair 8, Squadron TrO.

User avatar
sedenion
Cadet 2nd Class
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:36 am

Post by sedenion » Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:59 pm

BattleDog wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:46 pm
It's simply that the people here don't agree with your priorities because every change the XWAU makes affects gameplay to a certain extent. In light of that, making small adjustments to the POV isn't really significant.
The POV, was, an example... to me, a good example of unnecessarily exe modification that could be avoided easly, nothing more. I have no "priorities", I have some principles: patching a compiled executable is "ugly", one normally do it parcimoniously, when we don't have the choice, not for conveniancy. If this "unformal" rule appear too brutal or sever to the community, it's okay, I don't want to create a drama.
BattleDog wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:46 pm
There have been much bigger changes, like the upscaling of the Outrider from something equivalent to the old Hasbro toy to its proper size, and giving it turrets. I think you can probably blame me for that, because I created the first turreted version out of the original TG opt years before the XWAU version was released. Bottom line, so long as missions don't become actually "broken" we'll tend to support small changes here and there and the occasional bit one - like more than doubling the size of the SSD.
I blame nobody, I ma not a judging person... Everybody does mistakes, everyday... I have some experience, some knowlege, some principle, and I only point out what could or should be corrected in my point of view. I even can offer some help.

korekwerner
Cadet 1st Class
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:04 pm

Post by korekwerner » Thu Sep 24, 2020 5:11 pm

@Ace Antilles You'd be surprised how easy it is to make objects for XWA in 3DMAX (I think a blender is more difficult). In my opinion, virtually anyone can make an object and use it. Another thing is textures ... that's where experience is needed :-). I get to know OPT and 3DMAX myself only for the needs of XWA.

BattleDog
Rebel Alliance
Posts: 2942
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 11:01 pm

Post by BattleDog » Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:10 pm

sedenion wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:59 pm
BattleDog wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:46 pm
It's simply that the people here don't agree with your priorities because every change the XWAU makes affects gameplay to a certain extent. In light of that, making small adjustments to the POV isn't really significant.
The POV, was, an example... to me, a good example of unnecessarily exe modification that could be avoided easly, nothing more. I have no "priorities", I have some principles: patching a compiled executable is "ugly", one normally do it parcimoniously, when we don't have the choice, not for conveniancy. If this "unformal" rule appear too brutal or sever to the community, it's okay, I don't want to create a drama.
BattleDog wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 4:46 pm
There have been much bigger changes, like the upscaling of the Outrider from something equivalent to the old Hasbro toy to its proper size, and giving it turrets. I think you can probably blame me for that, because I created the first turreted version out of the original TG opt years before the XWAU version was released. Bottom line, so long as missions don't become actually "broken" we'll tend to support small changes here and there and the occasional bit one - like more than doubling the size of the SSD.
I blame nobody, I ma not a judging person... Everybody does mistakes, everyday... I have some experience, some knowlege, some principle, and I only point out what could or should be corrected in my point of view. I even can offer some help.
Patching the exe is how you mod the game, always has been - unless you patch the exe to read from an ini file instead (which is actually what XWAU does now). Like I said, welcome to 1999.
1st Lt Sigurd "BattleDog" Stormhand, Assigned Corsair Squadron, Renegade Wing, CRS Vigilant.

Corsair 8, Squadron TrO.

User avatar
sedenion
Cadet 2nd Class
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:36 am

Post by sedenion » Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:02 am

BattleDog wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:10 pm
Patching the exe is how you mod the game, always has been - unless you patch the exe to read from an ini file instead (which is actually what XWAU does now)
Ok, this will be my last answer about exe patching.

You right in the general case, but this is not an absolute rule. All depend what you "mod" and how you choose to "mod". For example one can replace a cockpit model OPT file without patching the POV value in the executable and still have the correct relative view within the game, without altering anything else than the cockpit mesh. This is technically possible, and perfectly valid.
BattleDog wrote:
Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:10 pm
Like I said, welcome to 1999.
Yes, the good old time. I had 20 years this year and was working as 2D/3D artist, Two years later I released two new unofficial addon aircraft for Flight Simulator 2000, one of mine was used as basis for tens of others variants until the release of FS2004.. I never played Skyrim, but I did play Allay Cat on a 8088 and I know what "autoexec.bat" and "config.sys" was used for... Can we now speak adult to adult ?

User avatar
JeremyaFr
XWAU Member
Posts: 3922
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 5:52 pm
Contact:

Post by JeremyaFr » Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:42 am

Hello,
Cockpit POV is an example.
Lets take an other example.
How about cutomize the hangars?

User avatar
sedenion
Cadet 2nd Class
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:36 am

Post by sedenion » Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:55 am

JeremyaFr wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:42 am
Cockpit POV is an example.
How about cutomize the hangars?
I don't know, I did not closely studing the hangars yet. Maybe for hangars we have no other alternative than patching the exe. I never said "stop patching the exe, or we will all die", I repeat, I only said that to me, the "informal" rule should be to avoid as most as possible to alter original values (constants) and touching the executable.

BattleDog
Rebel Alliance
Posts: 2942
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2001 11:01 pm

Post by BattleDog » Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:14 am

sedenion wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:55 am
JeremyaFr wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:42 am
Cockpit POV is an example.
How about cutomize the hangars?
I don't know, I did not closely studing the hangars yet. Maybe for hangars we have no other alternative than patching the exe. I never said "stop patching the exe, or we will all die", I repeat, I only said that to me, the "informal" rule should be to avoid as most as possible to alter original values (constants) and touching the executable.
Except that, as has been said, patching the exe is how you mod XWA - it just is. What to add a new ship? Patch the exe. What a more manoeuvrable X-wing? patch the exe.

This isn't Freespace, there's no text file containing ship data you can access - trying to institute any rule about not patching tthe exe is what we in the UK call "a losing wicket". You're not going to get very far at all. The fact is, patching the exe is so utterly trivial for this game that making the effort not to by contorting ship designs out of shape to fit arbitrary values contained in the exe is just torturing yourself and your users.

If you don't like "Welcome to 1999" try "Welcome to Lucasarts" because a lot of their games compiled game data in the executables. Irrc X-Wing is the only one that doesn't that out of the Totallly Games series - the originally DOS version, that is.
1st Lt Sigurd "BattleDog" Stormhand, Assigned Corsair Squadron, Renegade Wing, CRS Vigilant.

Corsair 8, Squadron TrO.

User avatar
sedenion
Cadet 2nd Class
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2019 10:36 am

Post by sedenion » Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:37 am

Okay... wasted for wasted, here we go.
BattleDog wrote:
Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:14 am
Except that, as has been said, patching the exe is how you mod XWA - it just is. What to add a new ship? Patch the exe. What a more manoeuvrable X-wing? patch the exe.
Adding new ship and more making the X-Wing more maneuverable is typically changing the original gameplay, doing this, you are deeply altering the game design. Figure out that original developers and designers spent hours configuring plenty of details of this kind to keep the game balanced in order to make it enjoyable to play.
BattleDog wrote:
Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:14 am
This isn't Freespace, there's no text file containing ship data you can access
I know, this is not specific to XWA or old game from 1999, this design is also usual in recent games, in order for a simple reason : prevent (as most as possible) cheating and to the user to broke everything, for example by arbitrarily changing vehicles or weapons characteristics.
BattleDog wrote:
Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:14 am
- trying to institute any rule about not patching tthe exe is what we in the UK call "a losing wicket".
I do not try to institute anything, I don't have this power. Also, you are deforming my words (at this point, I suspect you are doing so intentionally), I propose to reduce exe patching to the strict necessary to avoid altering the gameplay and to respect the original oeuvre and designers "vision", not absolutely forbid exe patching.
BattleDog wrote:
Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:14 am
You're not going to get very far at all. The fact is, patching the exe is so utterly trivial for this game that making the effort not to by contorting ship designs out of shape to fit arbitrary values contained in the exe is just torturing yourself and your users.
In contrary, this is absolutely transparent to users, and it should be. But indeed, this may require some more attention for the mod creator depending the situation. This require some respect to what existed, technically know what (and why) we do, why things were like they were (maybe there were a good reason), and not doing things only for self-contentment and the beauty of the final result. I add that values in the exe are not arbitrary, they were set for reasons and you have to understand these reasons before modifying it, otherwise you may cause undesired side effects.

I will give another example related to the cockpit. This example is not even related to executable patching, but this will (I hope) help you understand my point and how I see things (For information, to who know what happened last year with me, what I will explain here, is the exact reason I decided to redone cockpits last year, in order for my own pleasure). The original XWA X-wing's cockpit was pretty dark. One can think "ho, what a pity, this cockpit is almost not visible". But the fact is that in the original game design, while you play your are never looking at the cockpit, it is perfectly useless, its only a decorative element. The replacement cockpit by XWAU for years was way more brighter. In the artist point of view, this is better, the cockpit were now well visible, wouah, this brightness ! But as player, this very visible cockpit was in fact annoying, because we are in space, dealing with dark objects over a dark background, and what we need to see si not an useless decorative cockpit, but precisely what is beyond. In the "game design" point of view, the cockpit have to be beautiful, yes, but also discreet, subtle, not flaming in your eyes while you try to shoot a dark Tie-Fighter in the dark.

One may forgot to considere things like this, because while we work on a element (cockpit for example), you do not play the game, you are focused on what you are working on, we forgot that this a part of a whole. So we must be always careful about what we do, and why things was like they was.

Think about restoration of old painting... what would you think if restorer repaint things as they like, with bright and over saturated colors ? One will scream to sacrilege. Well, there is something similar in enhancing game like XWA.

(This said, what the team is currently doing with new cockpits is a great work (I only saw Youtube video for now), however, I would suggest later to allow user to keep the good old "Overlaying HUD" paradigm for who want to keep the original game "feeling")
BattleDog wrote:
Sat Sep 26, 2020 2:14 am
If you don't like "Welcome to 1999" try "Welcome to Lucasarts" because a lot of their games compiled game data in the executables. Irrc X-Wing is the only one that doesn't that out of the Totallly Games series - the originally DOS version, that is.
As I said before, this is not specific to 1999, LucasArts or Totally Games... And I don't know what make you believe you have something to teach me about this. Many old and recent games have varying part of data/config either in binary external file, hard-coded in the main library or executable, or as plain text file, there is no absolute rule, only developers strategies and choices.
Last edited by sedenion on Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Forceflow
Fleet Admiral (Administrator)
Posts: 7203
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 1999 11:01 pm
Contact:

Post by Forceflow » Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:39 am


This discussion has run its course and actually got quite off topic
- Forceflow
This topic is about overall balancing issues and not a discussion of how we mod the game. The posts clearly go in pointless circles at this point. It is up to each modder how he or she decides to best mod the game. So I consider this particular discussion closed. Please everyone get back to the original topic.
Murphy was an optimist! I am a pessimist!
And always remember that a smile is cheaper than a bullet! (District 9)
Webmaster of the X-Wing Alliance Upgrade Project

Post Reply