Archive through December 03, 2011
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Star Fleet Battles Online:
SFB Online Client:
Programming Priorities (Bug Fixes & Enhancements):
Archive through December 03, 2011
It just means that their shields are separate and not combined. IE., four ground bases on one grid have four different shields they have to think about, reinforcing each distinctly from any other action taken (although the power to do so is drawn from the overall pool).
The idea you have implemented sounds like it would work, but cutting down on EAFs for the ground bases would definitely be welcome. Considering the CL#44 Battlegroup article - we have 42 ground bases to deal with! On their own, that's a LOT of EAFs to fill out every turn (even if the only real decision is 'what weapons to power, what power to shields, and what EW'). Using a single 'power grid' EAF form for 4 of the bases on each hexside reduces the number of EAFs needed by 18 - definitely speeding things up.
Paul, since we have a dedicated SFBOL server, wouldn't it ideal to also host Team Speak? Or Ventrilo?
We use Team Speak in my World of Tanks clan, and I can recomend it. It is free and simple.
Might be a bandwidth issue, i.e. not sure how Paul's bandwidth is metered. Servers are cheap, bw isn't
Somewhere along the line, the log went from recording actual weapons fired to just recording the summary. I am not sure exactly when it changed as I held off updating my client as long as possible.
This is worse as now there is no (permanent) record of what weapons were fired when other than the chat. The weapon status tab records it temporarily, but only until the weapon is fired again.
Can we have it back the old way? The current way loses information.
Paul,
I wonder if Sheap's request is related to the problem I emailed you on Aug 30? Namely, my text fire not showing up in my log (but my opponents can see it). I started a game tonight just to be able to take a screenshot of it to send you. Please compare the log (showing blank) to the chat (showing the text fire). Also, y I am 100% up to date.
I'll email it to you,
thanks,
Ken
William,
Both are there. The summary is shown. And if you want to see the individual fire just select it and click on the "Details" button.
Peter/Carl,
Bandwidth is not the issue. I calculated it out and I have enough bandwidth at the moment. The issue is the following:
1) How do I integrate a "Team Speak" or Ventrilo server into my accounts and rooms? (i.e. have it so that the server is protected from just anybody using it and have it so that the rooms/conference call on the VOIP server match the SFU Online Server)
2) How do I integrate TS or Ventrilo into the client? (My assumption is that people do not want to start up two separate clients and want an integrated solution)
If you guys have ever set one up or know of somebody that has and knows how to solve at least 1) . I would be willing to add one to the server.
Ken,
It is related. I know there was a report when I originally added the Summary feature. That I broke using the text portion. But it should have been solved when you updated the client. I was looking into what version the fix was actually added. I forgot what I did to resolve the issue. I thought it was related with the isEmpty method.
I will try to duplicate the issue.
Thanks Paul. I did send you a screenshot tonight (and let me know if you need another gamefile, I can arrange for that too).
I very much doubt it could be integrated into the client. I've never heard of this being done and certainly not with Java, as they are not Java-based programs.
The voice chat programs support multiple rooms so they could be set up in something like the pattern of the bullpen, but I don't know if they could easily be integrated with the room structure.
Ventrilo is doubly annoying as you cannot just buy a copy of the server, you have to rent it from one of their providers. I don't think Team Speak has that limitation. On the other hand, the Ventrilo server that is available for download supports 8 people, which is probably enough 90% of the time.
Myself I think voice chat is a bad idea as not everyone will have it or be able to get it to work and the gain from it seems extremely small. The people who don't have it will end up excluded from any conversation that happens on it. What's more it will confuse things as the gameplay will inevitably leak into the voice chat where it will then cause confusion.
There are better uses of Paul-time IMO. Still a lot of actual SFB features to build 
William,
Thanks for the info.
Ken,
I think I understand the issue now. It has to do with using text orders and there not being a way to summarize them at the moment.
Paul, the whole reason Voice Chat Clients exist is to make it easier for players of games that do not have it integrated, and provide superior sound quality to games that do.
It is a small program, and anyone could host the server. All the users need then is a headset with microphone, and that they can buy one for as little as 10$.
It is as simple to start as SFBOL; click on the icon on your desktop, select the bookmark for your server and the join any channel u like. Or create a new one.
With all due respect to Sheap; he is dead wrong about it be of no value. Voice chat R U L E S ! ! ! Period.
Go ahead and dl Team Speak and try it out urself!
http://www.teamspeak.com/?page=teamspeak3
cheers
PS. one hidden benefit would be to make it easier introducing new players to the SFBOL client.
Voice chat rules if you want to play Counter-Strike and have no type for typing. It does not rule for SFBOL. Even in games where it is commonly used, it is a very mixed blessing. Those people that have it have better communication. Those people that do not have it end up excluded. What is also being conveniently overlooked is that voice chat programs are not easy to get working for the end user. Almost everybody who uses them has technical problems of some sort. SFBOL is not the most technologically advanced gaming community and will have more problems than the generally more tech-savvy FPS gaming crows. And obviously what the SFBOL community needs is more fragmentation and technical problems.
SFBOL is a relatively casual thing. People who are not playing can stop by and see what is going on. They can answer a rules question, or explain things to a newbie, or join a tactics discussion in the bullpen, even if they show up a few minutes late. With voice chat there is no record of anything and once something is said, it's gone. And someone stopping by casually may see the pieces move, but they won't really know what's going on.
If people use voice chat they will end up moving the game into the voice chat. It is simply instinct to do so. And it will lead to confusion and mistakes - it will make the game sloppy. Not as sloppy as F2F games, but sloppier than it is now.
Do. Not. Want.
In fairness, it might possibly be easier to teach new players the client via voice chat - ASSUMING they have the voice chat working already! If we have to teach new players how to set up voice chat too, that makes it harder, not easier. I've taught a whole lot of new players to use SFBOL, and I've never had anyone ask me if there was voice chat available. Next time I teach a newbie, I'll ask.
Realistically, players who already know how to play SFB pick up the client pretty quickly nowadays. It is only hard for the people that don't know how to use SFBOL, and don't really know how to play SFB either.
Just FYI, but TeamSpeak has an SDK for intergration with pretty much anything.
I think this is the right place....Question/Suggestion: Is there a way to add scrolling and selecting multiple units to transfer of pieces to the game?...It can be done with moving multiple units and would be handy for transfer of units as opposed to selecting each unit individually. I'm not sure what programming issues that entails and I'm not a programmer myself but I am just putting it out there. A few of us are involved in large fleet battles, involving multiple captains, and the transfer of units takes a bit of time each match. Not only can we benefit at this time but it would help future campaigns I would imagine. I was wondering if I could put this up as a nominee for an enhancement to the client. Again, I'm not a programmer so maybe it is a difficult endeavour. Thanks for hearing my suggestion.
Kirk,
I am assuming that you are referring to transfer of ownership. If that is the case, yes it is possible to do. I will look into it. I think you can do that now via the Game Control window. But I will look into doing it right from the board.
Paul,
Yes, I was referring to transfer of ownership. If it is already possible now in the client, we'll have to double-check next time we transfer units. Maybe we were missing something. Anyways, thanks for your time and looking into this. Greatly appreciated!
Paul,
An idea for a tweak to the interface:
Is it possible that when you select a plasma torpedo launcher to bolt a torpedo during direct fire that it automatically remove the loaded torpedo from the loaded torpedo/expendibles controls? If you use a torpedo for a bolt shot, and then go to the plasma launch step on a later impulse, the torpedo still looks armed, and it is easy to accidentally do things like launch torps that you bolted earlier. I mean, not a huge issue, and something you can do manually, but if it was an automatic function, that would be very convenient.
Peter,
I will look into fixing this. This is one of those things that it should do. Like what happens with ADDs when "fired".
Peter,
All done. It will be in the next release.
Awesome. Thanks!
Paul: Since we no longer have to download the library, why not just remove the entire update feature? i.e. just have the client auto-check for updates on launched in the background
Hi Paul
Got a big fish for you!
During the EaW match between GFB and I Friday night, Princeton, as spectator, discovered that, when viewing the T-bomb mine info (not "reveal info" but "view info"), it was listing whether it was a real or dummy bomb to all. Upon investigation, both GFB and I also had the information being listed as common knowledge. Please note none of these mines had been revealed ever, the fact was just appearing as common info under "view info".
Also of interest, both Princeton and I have not updated to the latest client while Josh has and yet the secret information was visible to us all...
This is a problem for T-bombs for sure and we speculated whether plasma real or fake status can be revealed just by viewing its info but since they were not in play, we can't be sure.
Either way, this would seem to be a problem. I'm sure Josh or I would have not noticed this but Frank was probably checking mine laying impulse and spotted this...
So it looks like a big one....probably change the way T-bombs are used in the game lol!
Kirk
Hey Paul, Z-B1 bombers for the Klinks aren't showing up on the list to add pieces.
Peter,
The current client does automatically update the library list every time you login. I left it in just in case somebody wants a new library item that was added while they were logged in and also give people the comfort of knowing that they can grab the most up to date list by just clicking on the "Update List" button in the Library window.
Kirk,
Thank you for reporting this. I have just fixed this and it will be in the next update to the client.
Aaron,
It looks like the I missed adding the Z-B1 bombers to the library list. (Or somehow I removed them by accident)
Paul Franz
Paul: Not sure if that's working. I logged on yesterday to see a Andro tourney game w/ a non-graphic text only SSD. When I did the manual update and restarted my client I seen the graphic.