[Kolgena]

Huh. I'm playing through the FS2 campaign again after some time, and I've noticed some rather curious changes after deleting Admiral Nelson's Lightspeed FS2 Mission pack. The nebulas seem to be more consistent with location, which is nice, but there's some odd changes here and there.

For example, the second mission usually starts with killing a wing of hercs. I was instead greeted by a wing of lokis. Also, the mission where you fail to catch the Iceni gives wingmen Prom R as a weapon. I'm quite positive that up to that point, your wingmen don't have enough clearance for that weapon.

So, is it a problem with my transfer? (I recently moved some stuff from my old computer to my new one), a result of removing Admiral Nelson's pack, or are these intentional changes?

[blowfish]

Hmm ... you're right about the Hercs, though I don't see the Prommy Rs on wingmen, unless that has been changed since when the 3.6.10 mediavps were released and now.  Fixed, which should come with the patch.  Let us know if you encounter anything else like this.

[Vasudan Admiral]

Yeah it looks like Cancer wing (all of 2 ships) was changed from hercs to loki's. I don't know why that might be - though it may be because all other hostile fighters in the mission are lokis. Assuming it was a FSU team member who made the switch, I'll leave it up to them, because it really makes no difference.

Edit: Or Blowfish might change it first.

For the third mission though, there's no difference at all in weaponry available or used as default on your wingmen between the FSU version and the original.

Overall yeah there are a number of small intentional changes throughout the campaign, like in into the lions den, snipes no longer announces that a sath has emerged from knossos 3 before he actually spots knossos 3. That hiccup always bugged me.

[Mobius]

No offense, but I'm not a big fan of the changes the FSU made to the main campaign. As VA said, many changes are appropriate... but I don't quite understand the point in adding ship prefixes to names, changing some ship classes and replacing some ships.

One of the changes I don't like at all is the "Sc" prefix for science cruisers. We all know it should be SC, because it stands for "science cruiser" (please note that they're two separate words.) It's not like in Cv, where there's just one word (so the v is better off decapitalized.)

Those aren't worrying issues, but people seeing those changes to the main campaign might interpret them as the will of . I've already seen people starting to use "Sc" instead of "SC".

The FSCRP team would be happy to make changes to the main campaign for the FSU. If you like the idea, let us know...

[Dilmah G]

The campaign plays fine. I have no issues, if someone wants to re-imagine the campaign, that's great

[Vasudan Admiral]

I'm all for attention to detail and doing it right etc, but arguing over any of the stuff in this thread is kinda picking the nits off the nits.

Bug hunting and valid feature/improvement suggestions are great, but the kind of nitpicking this thread is heading towards is poisonous to a team and/or a good working environment, because it only serves to create tension and frustration on one or both sides.

Sorry if this sounds like an overreaction, but I do feel strongly about this. I've been here a long time now and have seen it in happen more than once.

[Mobius]

I do appreciate your work but I don't like when people blame me for saying that NTSc is not a correct designation because the FSU added it to the main campaign (and therefore seems canon.)

[Vasudan Admiral]

Can you picture a scenario where that kind of 'mistake' being made deserves anything more than a 'meh' by both the author of the mistake and any other team member who actually spots it? That's exactly what should happen in a well functioning team.

(You know, I've been thinking about this kind of teamwork stuff a bit at uni recently in light of some absolutely superbly functioning group-work I was a part of, so I'm going to write it all down here anyway! )

This kind of issue is SO trivial that even if it is wrong, it's just not worth even just a couple of minutes it might take to argue about it. Disagreements can arise all too easily in projects over valid topics that really DO need discussion, and so it's hugely important not to fan the embers of disagreement with itty bitty stuff because you risk turning it into a full blown fight when the valid topics come along - and those fights are the team and/or project killers.

In campaign development when it comes to trivial issues that you aren't in a convenient position to fix yourself (assuming they're the kind that do need a bit of itty bitty care -> like spelling/grammar), point it out (politely!) to the person who made the mistake in the first place, but then accept what they decide to do! As long as there's a healthy working relationship there they will in all likelyhood fix it to whatever you say, but it's still their call. The more you argue, the less obliging they are likely to be next time.

As a final example of what I mean: where you say 'One of the changes I don't like at all' -> that's the kind of thing I would only say if discussing a moderate-major issue about efficiency, functionality or aesthetics. On anything less important and it would mean I'd lost perspective on the project as a whole.

[Mobius]

I'm not the first one who claims that the FSU makes changes many community members don't agree with.

Although the FSU is a superb team, there are some... drawbacks in the way it works. When freespaceking made a new Ursa map for INFA, I proposed Woomeister to share the map with the FSU team. That was a polite and correct move, inspired by my respect towards the FSU team and the result of your work. I do remember FSU team members blaming me and saying stuff like "What's the point in focusing our attention to a map that might be better than the original one?". Weirdily enough, dare I say, that map made it straight to the MVPs.

Not to mention the new starfield map. All community members trying to complain about it have been silenced. It's no secret, consequently, that I will do whatever I can to make sure that the projects I'm working on will use the old starfield map and/or a modified version other than the one released with the new MVPs.

There also are designation prefixes. Let's forget the NTSc matter for now - the mere fact of adding prefixes to ship's names is a very debatable choice. In FS2, it was very, very rare... and now I see prefixes in the names of all ships.

My message is: we appreciate and love the FSU team and its efforts, but we'd like you guys to consider different opinions and undo some of your changes should they turn out to be unappropriate. Doing so would surely be a wise move.

If you have any doubts, post a poll and see what the other community members have to say. In any case, just don't make radical changes without asking...

[blowfish]

Not to mention the new starfield map. All community members trying to complain about it have been silenced. It's no secret, consequently, that I will do whatever I can to make sure that the projects I'm working on will use the old starfield map and/or a modified version other than the one released with the new MVPs.

Wait ... remind me what you didn't like about the new starfield map?

There also are designation prefixes. Let's forget the NTSc matter for now - the mere fact of adding prefixes to ship's names is a very debatable choice. In FS2, it was very, very rare... and now I see prefixes in the names of all ships.

I ... sorta agree on this point, and you're right about the science cruiser thing, but that could just be a careless error.

[Mobius]

What I don't like about the new map? For the sake of convenience, I'd rather tell you that the only thing I like is the fact that there are stars of various colors. Other than that, meh.

[Kolgena]

Well, I'm glad that these weird things in my campaign aren't conflicting tables or something of the sort. (I made a new pilot, and the Prom Rs disappeared, so it must be because I've worked through half a dozen campaigns for my other profile).

As for prefixes, the Sc for science cruiser should be changed to SC, since sentry guns are abbreviated SG. However, I'd sooner take more HTL models and much bigger bug-fixes than something like that.

And the new starfield is okay, IMO. I mean, when I look up into the night sky, I don't really notice that stars are of different color. One thing that does bug me is that the suns in the system are always monochromatic. Blue suns make everything blue. They seem to emit a very thin band of the EM spectrum, whereas in reality, they should cover a massive range with a maximum at the main color it's supposed to be.

But yeah, this thread is badly derailed.

[Herra Tohtori]

Not to mention the new starfield map. All community members trying to complain about it have been silenced. It's no secret, consequently, that I will do whatever I can to make sure that the projects I'm working on will use the old starfield map and/or a modified version other than the one released with the new MVPs.

 

...How exactly have people been silenced? I'd like to have a few examples of that kind of activity because I absolutely wouldn't agree with that [the silencing, not the opinions]. To me it simply looks more that there are not that many people who disagree with how the starfield looks like, which would explain the lack of opposition in a much more likely manner than some kind of conspiracy theory about people with wrong opinions being silenced.

So yeah, bring up some examples of where exactly people have been silenced and how many people have actually voiced their dissatisfaction to the starfield apart from you. I have not noticed a general outcry about it, which leads me to conclude that in fact the majority of community members either likes it or is at least neutral about it compared to older versions. That means it will most likely stay where it is, at least for now.

Regarding the actual argument about what the starfield should look like, we've been through it already and can do it again. Just don't expect it to change without some pretty large amount of people asking for the old starfield back. Also I happen to be ridiculously proud about how that starfield turned out, so naturally I wouldn't want it to disappear so soon...

My message is: we appreciate and love the FSU team and its efforts, but we'd like you guys to consider different opinions and undo some of your changes should they turn out to be unappropriate. Doing so would surely be a wise move.

Who's this we you talk about? Or are you using the Pluralis Majestatis now?

Anyway, the FSUpgrade is open to feedback at least in my opinion - but that might be because I was actually in the team during the assembly and testing of the 3.6.10 mediaVP's. However, opening each and all issues that are at all controversial to the public opinion is not necessarily a good move either. Things like ship prefixes are very minor things at least to me. I don't really understand what the fuss is about them either way (I wouldn't have bothered to change them, but I'm not bothered by Zacam changing them either). The good thing about it is that they are now somewhat consistent... and I seriously doubt the majority of users ever even registered the change.

The change of Hercs to Lokis in the second mission is actually based on the in-mission dialogue, which suggests that the Hercs in the mission might have been either an error on Volition's part, or some late mission balance change after voice acting was completed. Either way, changing the Hercs to Lokis doesn't drastically alter the gameplay or mission outcome so it can be done as far as I'm concerned. It's not a hugely important thing and in my opinion it makes the mission better because now the dialogue actually matches the mission elements.

As far as the functionality of FSU team goes, I'll be first to agree that the way it worked was not optimal to say the least when I joined up last summer/fall. It all got very much better when we got an SVN up and didn't need to distribute all the changes and additions individually to each member.

If you have any doubts, post a poll and see what the other community members have to say. In any case, just don't make radical changes without asking...

Snuffleuphagus. The reason why community polls should always be regarded as suggestions at best.

Also, what constitutes as radical is very much a matter of opinion. IMHO radical changes would be, say, adjusting the campaign to use an Orion model with extra turrets... or changing the center of gravity for the Colossus, which was actually attempted at certain point but reverted as it changed some mission balance and visual effects (the break-up sequence was altered and it moved differently from the original missions). Radical change would not be changing the mission briefings/de-briefings to be internally consistent regarding the ship prefixes is not what I would call radical. Neither is replacing one wing of fighters with another fighter class (especially as the mission dialogue suggests they should be the other class instead of the original).

One thing that does bug me is that the suns in the system are always monochromatic. Blue suns make everything blue. They seem to emit a very thin band of the EM spectrum, whereas in reality, they should cover a massive range with a maximum at the main color it's supposed to be.

That's a retail FreeSpace 2 feature, there are some pretty exotic lighting environments in the campaign and changing that too much would be - albeit more realistic - a bit further from the original FreeSpace 2 feel than we're quite willing to do.

There are also no green stars in reality, but there you go...

[General Battuta]

Yeah, what's with all the plural 'we'?

[Vasudan Admiral]

Oh blah, HT got a big post in before me, and we seem to be saying much the same stuff. Oh well - not changing mine now.

What you've got here is quite simply annoying project/forum 'politics' here:

I'm not the first one who claims that the FSU makes changes many community members don't agree with.

We're not exactly going to put up a poll and have committie meetings to discuss and debate each and every 'change' we make before we make it.

We work out what we'd like to try out, how to best implement it, sometimes get some feedback, always test it, and then see if the community is happy. Usually there's no problem, but of course if something comes up that gets pretty unanimous dislike then we'll take it out through one method or another. Simple as that.

Although the FSU is a superb team, there are some... drawbacks in the way it works. When freespaceking made a new Ursa map for INFA, I proposed Woomeister to share the map with the FSU team. That was a polite and correct move, inspired by my respect towards the FSU team and the result of your work. I do remember FSU team members blaming me and saying stuff like "What's the point in focusing our attention to a map that might be better than the original one?". Weirdily enough, dare I say, that map made it straight to the MVPs.

You said 'Use this map! Your current one is disgusting '. We said 'If you want some other map that we haven't yet seen, then YOU at least find it for us to compare, and if we like it we'll put it in'. Eventually you did that, we did think it was a bit better, so we put it in. Here you seem to be puffing it up into some kind of noble quest you undertook on our behalf, but it was simply that we were too busy to run around chasing up maps because a single member said we should use them.

Not to mention the new starfield map. All community members trying to complain about it have been silenced. It's no secret, consequently, that I will do whatever I can to make sure that the projects I'm working on will use the old starfield map and/or a modified version other than the one released with the new MVPs.

So it's a conspiracy now? Come on! It's a starfield map, not proof that FSU team was involved in the JFK assassination.

If people actually dislike it then we'll change it. I for one think it looks great.

There also are designation prefixes. Let's forget the NTSc matter for now - the mere fact of adding prefixes to ship's names is a very debatable choice. In FS2, it was very, very rare... and now I see prefixes in the names of all ships.

That's mainly Zacam's department, so I'll leave it up to him to decide what to do in the patch. I've not kept up with the details there so for all I know it may have already been reverted in the patch.

My message is: we appreciate and love the FSU team and its efforts, but we'd like you guys to consider different opinions and undo some of your changes should they turn out to be unappropriate. Doing so would surely be a wise move.

If you have any doubts, post a poll and see what the other community members have to say. In any case, just don't make radical changes without asking...

While we do appreciate that we are appreciated, as a project we just don't work like a political system. We make what you describe as 'radical' changes (quite honestly I would call them trivial changes) as we see fit in line with what the FSU is doing, and see if the community likes them. If so we leave/improve them, if not we take them out or fix them till they are liked. Sometimes the person making the change will post a poll or a feedback thread, sometimes not, but that's really all there is to the process.

[IceFire]

Not to mention the new starfield map. All community members trying to complain about it have been silenced. It's no secret, consequently, that I will do whatever I can to make sure that the projects I'm working on will use the old starfield map and/or a modified version other than the one released with the new MVPs.

Mobius, this particular comment concerns me slightly.  Although HLP moderators and administrators are forced to remove posts or lock threads I can assure with some certainty that none of the people I work with here will attempt to silence someone for expressing a comment or opinion on something like an artistic matter.  Not unless that comment crosses the lines of acceptable behaviour in the usual forms (i.e. personal attacks, inflammatory comments, etc.).  Do you have any examples of people being "silenced"?

[General Battuta]

Hey Mobius. Or anybody else, for that matter. Which starfield do you prefer?

[Kolgena]

That's a retail FreeSpace 2 feature, there are some pretty exotic lighting environments in the campaign and changing that too much would be - albeit more realistic - a bit further from the original FreeSpace 2 feel than we're quite willing to do.

There are also no green stars in reality, but there you go...

Technically, Sol is green, since that's the center of its EM spectrum/highest emission wavelength.

Anyways, I never really noticed how retail suns were monochromatic, possibly because the lighting back then was so bad. Anyways, I'll make no further gripe about this, since it's pretty minor.

And Mobius, if you hate the maps so much, you could always make your own and use it yourself.

[Zacam]

For example, the second mission usually starts with killing a wing of hercs. I was instead greeted by a wing of lokis.

The command briefings AND wingman vocals all say Loki. I don't know why Hercs got put in there, I am not going to claim knowledge that I don't have, I just went with what the Briefing and Vocals stated. And the fact that all of the other enemy fighters were loki's. That consitency thing that nobody seems to have liked over well. The mission was tested, and having 2 loki fighters greeting you instead of 2 hercs did not really make all that much of a difference (unless you try cramming your gun up their nose, not recommended.)

Also, the mission where you fail to catch the Iceni gives wingmen Prom R as a weapon. I'm quite positive that up to that point, your wingmen don't have enough clearance for that weapon.

"The Romans Blunder", all ships that have a defined primary weapon are using Subach HL-7's. Unless you mean a different mission. I am only assuming "The Romans Blunder" because that follows "The Place of Chariots" mentioned above.

The campaign plays fine. I have no issues, if someone wants to re-imagine the campaign, that's great

If some one wants to re-imagine the Freespace 2 campaign, it will not be a FSU MediaVP release. The FSU will be more than happy to help make sure it can work with the MediaVP's, but it wont BE the MediaVP's that have it.

Backgrounds may change, stellar bodies changed, more High-Poly models. Potential bug's squished. Attempts at some form of consitency and polish maybe. But never a re-imagining. Though that does sound like fun.

[Dilmah G]

Yeah, I was just suggesting