[Trivial Psychic]

Perhaps we could request that the game automatically add a #whatevertheplayershipis to the list, kinda like #command is there by default.

[Harbinger of DOOM]

How about adding a flag for weapons that lets you charge up a weapon by holding down the fire button?
Hmmm, or is that too impractical?

[Scooby_Doo]

How about adding a flag for weapons that lets you charge up a weapon by holding down the fire button?
Hmmm, or is that too impractical?

Thats my power up primaries suggestion 

There was another one I just thought of and now I can't remember it 

Edit: This wasn't it but how about shootable secondaries, not just bombs?

Edit: I rememeber now.... how about AVI or transparent video for shield hud rather than that bland greyscale?

[Harbinger of DOOM]

*thwacks self on forehead*
D'oh!

[Trivial Psychic]

Edit: I rememeber now.... how about AVI or transparent video for shield hud rather than that bland greyscale?

Taylor will introduce a jpg-based compartmental file system (similar to eff, but it actually combines all the images into a single file), which is primarily intended for things like command briefing animations, but I think he said that it would also work for HUD stuff.  I assume he'll be here to correct me soon enough.

[ARSPR]

Another suggestion:

++ Enable different turret names in Target Window ++

IIRC turret names are hardcoded and they are just: Laser Turret, Flak Turret, Beam Turret and Missile Lnchr. And moders can't change them, the game shows each one based on the loaded weapon.

It could be very useful for special MODs or quality mission design, being able to change them. As examples, You could make differences between "AAA Beams" or "Capital Beams", or you could mark **Target** in turret you have to destroy. Maybe, this could be achieved coding the next features:

1. A Change-Turret-Name SEXP. It would allow dynamic ingame name change.
2. Adding an optional '$Default Turret Name' entry in weapons.tbl, to override the hardcoded one. If you add this command to a weapon, the turrets that use it would show that name.
3. Adding (somehow) a new feature to the fs2 mission file. In this way in FRED > Ship Editor > Weapon Editor, there would be a new field for each turret, where you could put its name. It would allow overriding the harcoded or weapons.tbl one.

I've posted these additions in the desired order:
1. You get no more fixed names. But default name changes all over your ships can be a PITA.
2. You easily get default name changes.
3. An extra, not really needed. If you just need one or two changes in a ship, you could use the SEXP.

[Flipside]

I'd like to agree with the idea of pre-charging weapons that are not beams, this may only be aesthetic, bit opens the door to whole new types of weapons.

I'd also like to see mines implemented, basically something that checks for enemy IFF within a certain range and detonates if true. It doesn't have to be particuarly smart, but adds to mission flexibility and creates a new kind of craft for Modders to create, the minelayer. It's also a good way of blockading a node without wasting ships and crew. I know they can be created through Sexps or Scripting, but it'd be nice to have it as a main feature, since you could have anti-bomber mines, anti-capship mines, static mines, mobile mines, EM mines etc

[asyikarea51]

Just got this out of my head.

In every mission, #Command is never "removable", although you can shut it up. I was thinking, what if Command is actually in the mission, perhaps in an installation or a destroyer? An SEXP to change the #Command to a designated ship in the mission perhaps?

A wilder idea would be to have Command messages pop out from multiple ships in a mission, but I have no idea what purpose that will serve - probably a super-duper-special case that hardly anyone would encounter.

If this is possible already I'd like to know how. It'll come in handy should I FRED anything later on.

[Axem]

Well you'll see that feature real soon.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,44447.0.html

[karajorma]

++ Enable different turret names in Target Window ++

Already on my to-do list. Although if another coder fancies doing it I have no objection as I won't be able to get to it for at least a month and probably longer.

3. Adding (somehow) a new feature to the fs2 mission file. In this way in FRED > Ship Editor > Weapon Editor, there would be a new field for each turret, where you could put its name. It would allow overriding the harcoded or weapons.tbl one.

My plan is to have it work this way.

You can specify the turret name in weapons.tbl. You can specify a turret name in ships.tbl. You can change the name with a SEXP. You can specify a name in FRED (Haven't decided if I can be bothered with this one as it's the most work. The others appear relatively trivial in comparison).

The priority list would go SEXP > Ships.tbl > Weapons.tbl

In this way you can specify a beam to show BRed instead of Beam Cannon in the weapons table but can also edit the Ships.tbl so that any Lilith in the game automatically has Main Beam Cannon appear instead. And if you wanted you can then change in mission to Priority Target.


Bear in mind that this is on the basis of a 3 minute look at how the code works. It seems like it's easy enough to do but I've not studied in any depth how it works.

[Mobius]

In every mission, #Command is never "removable", although you can shut it up. I was thinking, what if Command is actually in the mission, perhaps in an installation or a destroyer? An SEXP to change the #Command to a designated ship in the mission perhaps?

I have just opened this page because I wanted to propose it. 

[ARSPR]

You can specify the turret name in weapons.tbl. You can specify a turret name in ships.tbl. You can change the name with a SEXP. You can specify a name in FRED (Haven't decided if I can be bothered with this one as it's the most work. The others appear relatively trivial in comparison).

The priority list would go SEXP > Ships.tbl > Weapons.tbl

Very good idea the ships.tbl one. I would forget (at least for now) about the FRED one. As you say, it is probably the hardest one to code and you would always be able to use the new-to-come SEXP in its place.

[Trivial Psychic]

For the target-priority turret thing, would it also be set up so that the turret auto-selector sets these to maximum preference?  For example, if you target a Sath, even from behind, it selects one of the forward BFReds first.  Even as you cycle through, it tends to prefer these.  Perhaps the sexp could be fitted with a 1-5 number, indicating turret priority.

Regarding mines, I proposed a minefield system in the Collaboration Forums, which would use something like the asteroid code as a basis, in that the FREDer doesn't have to place all the mines they want on the grid, taking out of the 100 ships-placed-ships-on-the-grid limit.  It would use either a new section in the asteroids table, or ships table, or perhaps an entirely new minefield table file, allowing many properties to be applied to mine types, such as yield, stealth, defenses (turrets), proximity detonations, target class preferences, swarming, etc.  The minefield mission editor would also allow the FREDer to specify the size and density of the field (just like with asteroids), as well as any drift or motion of the mines, and also arrangement.  For example, you may want an apparent randomly dispersed mine layout, or perhaps an ordered system, like grid, tetrahedral, etc.  Having the mines themselves as part of the ships table file however, would allow the mission designer to place plot-strategic mines, rather than relying on the asteroid-based code to do what he/she wants.  Thats not to say that anyone agreed to my proposal, just that I put it up... with perhaps a few more minor refinements here.

[asyikarea51]

Well you'll see that feature real soon.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,44447.0.html

So that's what that thread meant! Thanks.

@ LGM: LOL

A wilder idea would be to have Command messages pop out from multiple ships in a mission, but I have no idea what purpose that will serve - probably a super-duper-special case that hardly anyone would encounter.

And I think I figured this part out , but obviously the situation is a rare case - some sort of large-scale operation where more than one ship has authority over the mission? Or in case the first Command vessel gets fragged or jumps out, and another vessel takes over as Command (and so gives all those "Enemy wing has just arrived!!!" messages and stuff...

[Dysko]

I don't know if this is even remotely possible, but anyway...

Could be possible to make more than 1 support ship arrive via the comm menu? I know that with FRED it would be possible to make more than 1 support ship arrive from subspace, but that would be only a scripted event. It would be nice to have at least a support ship per wing, so you don't have to wait in line when during a bombing run you deplete the secondaries at the same time other wingmen do. After all, for real mission involving a lot of attack airplanes, in case of air refueling there is more than 1 tanker...

In a similar way, could be possible to make also the enemy use support ships without the use of scripted events? It would be fun to see a wing of bomber rearming instead of attacking the target with primaries...

[asyikarea51]

One more, one more! xD

For power-up primaries, while the weapon is charging, could we have the charge-up effect as seen on beam weapons? Perhaps make it a feature that can be turned on or off to suit mods. The sound playback structure can be copied off the beam weapon logic too (with the exception of the beam shot sound)...

This should also allow people making power-up primaries for capships to see them primaries charge up, BANG!!! and watch the projectile fly...

Blame the two arcade games Crisis Zone (stage 1 boss tank) and Time Crisis 4 (the anti-tank rifle dude) for this idea...

Though now I'm interested in the way these power-up primaries work - would we have some new tags like "Minimum Damage", "Maximum Damage", "Overcharge Damage" or similar? Descent Fusion Cannon logic... the longer you hold, the more damage, but too long and you injure yourself. (Another idea would be a tag that denotes the Minimum and Maximum damage values while Overcharge Damage is in effect... I tend to overcharge the Fusion way too much whenever I got pissed... ) If modders don't want some of these tags, they can either set them to zero values, or turn them on and off via a weapon flag?

EDIT: whoops. On the same topic, how would Mass and the Shudder tag behave on these weapons? More charge, more shake? Or...

@ Darth Dysko

Enemies deplete their secondaries too? I didn't notice that.

[Mobius]

I want SEXPs like "percent-ship-arrived" and "destroyed-or-disabled-delay".

Also, I noticed that FreeSpace takes note of the kills achieved by wingmen.

It could be useful. If you have characters in your campaign, you can add messages like "Hey, Alpha 1! I have just killed a bandit!". Also, this SEXP could be useful in different situations. The player is supposed to destroy an enemy warship but there's at least one allied warship engaging it. If the hostile warship is killed by the player, Command sends a message. Command will send a different message in case the warship has been killed by another allied unit.


I also want "Campaign SEXPs" valid for every mission. If I want, for example, that warships with the weapons subsystem destroyed do not fire. I have to create an event with every-time argument in every mission...

[Trivial Psychic]

Also, I noticed that FreeSpace takes note of the kills achieved by wingmen.

It could be useful. If you have characters in your campaign, you can add messages like "Hey, Alpha 1! I have just killed a bandit!". Also, this SEXP could be useful in different situations. The player is supposed to destroy an enemy warship but there's at least one allied warship engaging it. If the hostile warship is killed by the player, Command sends a message. Command will send a different message in case the warship has been killed by another allied unit.

I was thinking that something like that would be useful myself.  That said, I was also considering that it could be done through the messages.tbl system.  The problem is, I believe that we'd need a new message name type to use for it, and the message names are hard-coded from what I can gather.  Oddly enough, there's a few message names in the retail tables that I've never seen used before, but I don't play Multi so maybe that's where they're used.  Also, the Wiki has one message name that is listed as not having code support... "permission".  There's no description for what it does either.  I'm guessing that adding support for some commands would be feasible for coders, but there might be more headroom if the message function could be dictated in LUA scripting.

On the other hand, doing the same thing via SEXPs would probably look more like this:

every-time-argument
-any-of
--Enemy ship1
 |
\/
--Enemy ship9
-has-destroyed-delay
--Delta 4 ;; the ship that's doing the destroying
--<argument> ;; the ship that got destroyed
--0 ;; the delay, obviously
-send-message
--Delta 4
--I got him!
--normal

That would mean that every time Delta 4 takes out an enemy from the argument list, he sends a "I got him!" message.  A send-message-random would improve this, so more than one generic message can be sent.  This of course, leads to the suggestion of creating has-disabled-delay, has-disarmed-delay, and has-destroyed-subsystem-delay.

All this said, something that would also improve this example and many situations, would be multiple arguments per event:

every-time-argument
-any-of
>list of friendly fighters<
-any-of
>list of enemy fighters<
-has-destroyed-delay
--<argument1>
--<argument2>
--0
-send-message
--<argument1>
--I Got Him!
--normal

While I'm on the suggestion of advancing Arguments, how about "persistent" arguments.  I'm not saying that they are remembered from mission to mission, but that they can be remembered from event to event.  Perhaps the identifier for persistent arguments would be placed in the type of argument list.  "any-of" would be joined by "any-of-persist" or something like that.  That of course means that we'd need a way of naming argument sets, like we do with variables.  Or could persistent arguments be achieved by tying arguments with variables?  That's more Kara's court.

[Mobius]

Good. Except the "kara".

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Couple of more multi player suggestions:

A way to show ping in the "forming" state.  As it is now you have to exit and go back in to see it.

Host status.  Like AFK, back in 5 minutes, and my favorite getting a beer.  Something that would show when players join so they know why they don't get a quick reply when they say hi.

Some way to switch players between teams after loading game but before starting.  Right now if you have say a 4v4 and 3 players drop on the same side drop you can only balance it out by restarting the game.