[Goober5000]

So awhile ago I got tired with managing all the loose validated multiplayer missions, and I decided to VP them up.  Then I figured I'd send them to MatthewPapa so he could host them on GameWarden instead of the assorted mission packs he had now.  Then MatthewPapa suggested putting them in the mediaVPs, hence this thread.

So I propose a mv_multi VP, including all the validated missions plus the co-op missions currently in mv_core.

(Oh, and as an aside, I suggest redoing the FS2 co-op campaign so that, instead of a two-part campaign covering the entire game, you have a series of campaigns covering all the plot arcs.  This would work out to one campaign per squadron, except for the Vasudan squadron which would have two or three.)

Here's the VP I sent MatthewPapa:
http://www.hard-light.net/staff/goober5000/fso-multi-missions.zip

So DaBrain, how about it?

[Shade]

Good idea

[karajorma]

Sounds good to me.

[DaBrain]

I see no reason why this shouldn't be added to the MV_Core.

Does it really have to be another pack? I'm trying to cut off the number, to make it easier to maintain it, while it's also easier for the players to set it up.

[karajorma]

See the subtle difference is that unlike mv_core this one can (and in fact probably should) live in the main FS2 folder with the VPs.

That said it's really not worth the hassle of me having to explain that distinction to everyone so I'm gonna keep telling everyone to stick all the media VPs in mediavps.

[DaBrain]

Ok... one point for you...

But these people could just download the mission package, while the MV users get it along with the core pack.

[Taristin]

See the subtle difference is that unlike mv_core this one can (and in fact probably should) live in the main FS2 folder with the VPs.

Why's that? What if they use SCP code? Would that not cause issues with retail FS2? Or am I missing something about newer fred_open created missions?

[Goober5000]

Taristin is correct.

As for keeping them in a separate mv_multi: I'm ambivalent about that but it is easier to narrow down a bug, or manage size constraints, if the packs are separate.

[martellato]

Goober, this a great idea. 

But are you sure that you included co-op missions from mv_core that are not in GW's mission packs?  I count 73 missions in the VP that you created here.  I count 73 GW validated missions when I add mission packs 1 and 2 together.  Just wanted to check...

[Goober5000]

But are you sure that you included co-op missions from mv_core that are not in GW's mission packs?  I count 73 missions in the VP that you created here.  I count 73 GW validated missions when I add mission packs 1 and 2 together.  Just wanted to check...

That's exactly what I said.  "So I propose a mv_multi VP, including all the validated missions" -- which were in the VP I uploaded -- "plus the co-op missions currently in mv_core."

[karajorma]

Why's that? What if they use SCP code? Would that not cause issues with retail FS2? Or am I missing something about newer fred_open created missions?

None of them do use new SCP features though. All the current multiplayer missions that have been validated were made for retail.

The ability to stick the VP somewhere other than mediavps is the only reason I can think of for having a seperate media VP for the missions. The fact that it's easier to track down bugs is balanced by the fact that the more media VPs we have, the more chance there is of a newbie screwing up by not downloading one.

Personally I think sticking everything in mv_core is the best solution. Once we've got the code sorted to validate tbm's there won't be much reason not to really.