Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
If it can be, that is.
I have seen time and time again on this web board ideas and requests for EV: Nova plug-ins that, while good, are hopelessly impossible due to limitations of the game engine and the means by which plug-ins are created and used. There have also been ideas that do work, but are quite clumsy in their implementation and use large amounts of the engine's resources, most notably Nova bits. However, I have found a way to fix these and other problems that may otherwise hinder the development of a plug-in.
In the unlikely event that someone was granted the permission by Matt Burch to create an EV4, this is how the plug-in and data files should work.
Today's EV, like those of yesteryear, use static boxes that you fill in with numerical values with a tool like Res Edit, Mission Computer, or EVNEW. The engine reads the numbers and uses them to determine things like max accel for a ship, the damage a missile can do, what mission to offer next, exc. The problem is that there is not a lot of flexibility in working with these boxes and numbers. Sure, you could do something fancy to create a means of storing and retrieving ships for later use, but this usually uses up an exorbitantly large number of resources. The solution is to do away with the confining boxes and instead use a custom scripting language.
This idea is not new. In fact, this is exactly how the popular, free, open-source game Battle for Wesnoth works. To create a plug-in, you come up with an idea, open up the text editor of your choice, write the plug-in in the scripting language, save it as a .txt file, replace the .txt extension with a unique extension that the engine keeps an eye out for (ex: .ev4p), and your done.
For example, lets say you wanted to create a weapon that when fired would drain a ship's fuel and recharge the shields (something I understand to be impossible in EV: N).
{ upon weapfireon fuelmod: -5 shieldmod: 3 }
The possibilities are endless with such a system. Granted, the simplicity and ease of use associated with the box and number system has been thrown out the window. The benefits, however, are well worth it. You want a weapon that shoots out the side of your ship? That can be done. You want to make the AI tougher? As long as the programmer throws in that feature, you can do that too. Want another location on the planets, like a store separate from the market? That could also be done. As an added bonus, the Mac plugs would work on Windows machines, and vice versa, with no need to convert, because both machines understand and can read and write text files.
Such a system, however, would require a lot of time and energy to develop and maintain. It would take a very dedicated programmer or programmers to create not only a brand new game engine, but also a new scripting language. It could take years. Of course, this is assuming that Matt Burch allows an EV4 to be made. It does not look like that is the case. So we are left here to speculate what could be.
Great idea. It doesn't have to be EV4 though, if you're doing your own coding. All you have to do is come up with a name that doesn't have the words "escape" and "velocity" placed side-by-side.
I'd hate having to script to make plugs. I'm no programmer, I need the simplicity. As a developer, I'd rather have limitations and the system we have now rather than something very powerful and overly complicated for the casual plug-in maker.
Why not combine the two? I can see the advantages of scripting, but it also has it's downsides (like it would be parsed at runtime, making larger scripts very ineffective).
This has been suggested before, and will be suggested again. I think Lua's been the popular choice for scripting languages.
In any case, while this topic may certainly be interesting, it's also extremely speculative and unlikely.
Doesn't Aleph One for Marathon support Lua? Back on topic, you could even still have an editor like MC that edits simple things like missions, outfits, etc. but when you click a button launches a scripted version of the editor allowing complex engine enhancements.
I don't know about Aleph One, but Homeworld 2 and WoW both used Lua. It's been a scripting language in a lot of games.
@mrxak, on Aug 15 2007, 02:40 PM, said in EV4: How it should be built.:
Never played Homeworld, but I've heard it's good. I just checked, and Aleph One does use Lua, but most people (from what I've heard) prefer to use XML, which would also be great for scripting in EV.
A real-time XML parser would be quite slow, considering how many resources are included in any given frame of EV. A scripting language could be beneficial for altering various behaviors, but most actual resource data should be kept in a more efficient format.
would there be a way to code a spob that is not deadly, but simply prevents you from going through it?
the idea would be that when you land on a planet/space station, you are givin a ship that looks like a person from above thats inertialise (Spelling?) and all spobs in the sytem are space stations that look like walls, and one spob the size of the entire system that looks like the floor.( i tried it with wings 3D and it worked) to deal with the limited number of planets you can make, there would be other spobs that look like doors, and when you land on them it transports you to another sytem that is another part of the station/starport.. in one sytem there could be a spob that looks like an airlock, and when you land on it, it transports you back to regular space, and gives you your ship back. the shipyard would be just a planet with only a shipyard, and instead of a landing pict, it would be a picture of the person selling the goods. same with outfitter, trade center, mission bbs, even the bar. the whole point of this is that when you land on a planet/space station, you can get out of your ship and walk around the starport. have hallway battles, smuggle goods while crawling through ventilation ducts, do bounty hunter missions on foot, sneak into a spacestation, set bombs and fight your way out before they detonate... the possibilities are nearly endless, but it is only possible if the first question is possible. is it?
any methods you can think of are appreciated.
If I had to guess at the continued popularity of the original EV, it was the ability to "relatively" easily create plugins for the game. And a lot of big, awesome plugins (TC's I guess) were created. Which radically changed the game, and provided a new very exciting experience.
Now, my guess does not predict the relative lack of such plugins for EVO, which I originally fell in love with with ResEdit as a plugin developer.
I like Scienceguy8's idea, but not as a total replacement for those inflexible boxes. How about using that to its full potential in an AI resource, where such would be very needed, and very welcomed. I can think of a different implementation that would give you in affect, that level of expandability (most of it), through a nice UI with rigid boxes. But, for AI creation, I think you'd need what you suggest Scienceguy8.
As for the probability of EV4, unlikely, sadly. The people who run Ambrosia don't appear to be interested in it, nor Matt Burch, nor are they interested in doing what is best for the consumers and players of this product. Ambrosia is out there to make money. You can count the number of software companies interested in the consumer on one finger, Apple {Computers} Inc. Apple also just so happens to be good at making money while at it. (Smiles at the my new C2D 20" iMac...)
As for comments to create something "similar" to EV, without those words, unlikely, sadly. The people with the skill (code wise) who are also interested in it are nil to not enough. The people who can manage the project and take it into a successful unified direction is very few, even fewer who'd be interested in doing such. The support people for the project are numerous. And that is basically coming from the people from these boards. So the other two vital components are missing, and it takes ALL three for this to work.
- From the saddened yet interested, Trinix
OPen SOurce is the way to go, a new project open source based on EV ideas (a space story), that the community can get behind is dieffinately the way to go, welcome to the 21st century, if the companies demanding the money don't provide we go make it ourselves... a good example would be Earth and Beyond which is now being redeveloped by open source community www.enb-emulator.com
@trinix, on Aug 20 2007, 08:40 PM, said in EV4: How it should be built.:
As for the probability of EV4, unlikely, sadly. The people who run Ambrosia don't appear to be interested in it, nor Matt Burch, nor are they interested in doing what is best for the consumers and players of this product. Ambrosia is out there to make money.
-10 respect
@gray-shirt-ninja, on Aug 21 2007, 07:18 PM, said in EV4: How it should be built.:
You fail to quantify how much I wouldn't care, which is probable why you wasted comment space on such uselessness. But aside from that, I see no evidence to the contrary. In fact, one could possible even dispute my claim about Apple, any takers? :blink:
If your interested in people, (customers i guess you could call them), work in a school. Don't get me wrong, talented people who bring some entertainment to my life is good, but we shouldn't confuse that with their motives/objectives.
EDIT: (Also, what use would I have for your "positive" respect points anyways? That alone devalues the "negative" respect points. lol.)
This post has been edited by Trinix : 21 August 2007 - 08:14 PM
@trinix, on Aug 21 2007, 06:12 PM, said in EV4: How it should be built.:
@lord-rama, on Aug 22 2007, 01:20 AM, said in EV4: How it should be built.:
You're an idiot.
I'm not sure about saying Ambrosia doesn't care about the customer while Apple does. I'd say both are fairly equal there. They both care about their customers, and are willing to listen and even take action when they know it will help them get or keep business. Even Apple won't do something strictly because their users want it.
The company who is totally apathetic towards their customers dies in a few months, if they're lucky.
@trinix, on Aug 20 2007, 11:40 PM, said in EV4: How it should be built.:
@orcaloverbri9, on Aug 22 2007, 04:42 AM, said in EV4: How it should be built.:
They both care about their customers, and are willing to listen and even take action when they know it will help them get or keep business. Even Apple won't do something strictly because their users want it.
I've been around for a long time, I've met ASW employees, and as a moderator I've seen a lot of what they do pretty close. Saying Ambrosia doesn't care about their consumers is frankly ridiculous. As orcaloverbri9 points out, there are of course things that any company won't do just because their customers want it, no matter how much they care. There's also a few pretty big things that stop them from suddenly bringing out EV4 tomorrow.
I'm pretty sure they'd need permission from Matt Burch to use the Escape Velocity name. There may be other contractual/legal issues as well for clones.
Ambrosia doesn't just spontaneously have new games. People have to come to them with games before they can publish anything.
Of course they would make an EV4 if they could. The EV series has been hugely successful for them, even if they were interested only in money as you claim, wouldn't that just mean they would make an EV4, and as soon as possible? Before you claim that they don't care about what's best for their customers, maybe you should think about the very real barriers they have.
What Ambrosia needs to do is figure out how to take the EV concept to the next level, and then make that under a different name. Thus it wouldn't be a clone, but the "spiritual successor" aspect would give it a good sales boost.
One idea: With the exception of "stylized" TCs, every EVN ship is a rendered 3D model. So the question becomes, why not simply use 3D models in-game? That would at the very least allow drag-able perspective shifts, or perhaps even full 3D play. Obviously polycount would then become a concern, but that's the only issue I can think of.
If one were thinking of making a concept-wise successor different enough not to be quite the same, one obvious addition to gameplay would be to let the player walk around on planets and do on-world missions. I'm not necessarily thinking full-3d, here, maybe just RTS-style movement. Maybe even add some ground combat, then. As far as plugs go, this would open a whole new realm of possibilities.
This post has been edited by Lindley : 22 August 2007 - 12:33 PM
There are a lot of things that could improve the EV experiance in a hypothetical EV4. 3D models (though not necessarily 3D play), walking around on planets, more detalied NPCs, better ship AI, more branching storylines, more mission types (other than the kill this, bring this from here to here, and protect this), a better plug interface, better cross-platform compatibiity etc. etc. If there were some kind of Open Source project that had all of that, I would get 100% behind it, though I don't see much likelyhood of something like that happening on a large scale, either in this community or really any other.