Fomenting Mutiny

[Legacy_Proleric]

               On a slightly different point, while the new CEP will be a centralised offering, it's often the case that relatively decentralised, author-driven projects deliver faster. Perhaps we could achieve the best of both worlds by creating public compatibility guidelines for authors, with a submission / quality control / release process at the centre.

In this connection, you might find the Dragon Age compatibility guidelines interesting (the opening tutorial section is irrelevant here). DAO doesn't have anything equivalent to haks, but we did build a lot of compatible content that way.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Proleric1, 14 janvier 2014 - 10:59 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               Good luck AD...the CEP definitely needs a shot in the arse to move it along.

Coming from the perspective of someone that has worked on large projects and currently manages one, I would recommend the following...

1. Keep the CEP 2.4 architecture in place so builders don't have to go back and completely redo things. Having to rebuild takes a live PW offline for days or weeks. Downtime means lost players and decreases the chance that any PW will warm up to a new CEP.

2. NEVER take things out that are already in. If you want to earn the wrath of a builder, that is the quickest way to do so.

3. Do not try to be monolithic or complex. I think this is ultimately one of the biggest issues with the CEP. It has a lot of non-art related content (e.g. scripts) that is considerably altered from what the authors originally released to the Vault and these alterations aren't very well documented. Furthermore, some systems they added are very complex and difficult to integrate with what you already have in place so you wind up with all this extra content you never use.

4. Make sure you can keep up with the work required to run such a project.

5. Be ready for a fight. It might not happen, BUT some members of the CEP Team vehemently defend their "ownership" of the CEP and have plainly stated they will use legal means to defend it.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Pstemarie, 14 janvier 2014 - 12:07 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_KlatchainCoffee]

               

Pstemarie wrote...


1. Keep the CEP 2.4 architecture in place so builders don't have to go back and completely redo things. Having to rebuild takes a live PW offline for days or weeks. Downtime means lost players and decreases the chance that any PW will warm up to a new CEP.

What do you mean by 'architecture' in this context? Sounds like something that would preclude the re-configuration into modular many here seem to be favouring.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MerricksDad]

               Look at all these people. You'd think with all the people able to work on the project, that maybe, just maybe, you could make two CEP update instances. One would be a new modular form, backward compatible or not, and another could be fully backward compatible following the methods that CEP already follows. I mean, why not? Start a catalog to understand fully what is in the CEP so far, what is in the Q so far, and any other noteworthy packages. Write a simple script to read and modify 2da's and tlk files simultaneously and just compile it in two forms. From a programmer's point of view, it seems just that simple.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_meaglyn]

               

Tarot Redhand wrote...
CEP 3 - A New Hope

Eveyone knows it's "CEP 4 - A New Hope"  '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Estelindis]

               

MerricksDad wrote...

it seems just that simple.

Simple to outline doesn't necessarily mean easy to do.  '>  The less work there is, the more likely it is to be completed!  But, by all means, if there are enough people willing to give their time to achieve multiple options, why not?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MerricksDad]

               One thing a new modular form would accomplish is that if the old CEP staff does come back, all you do is drop the modules that they can claim and continue on with those that they cannot. The package following original CEP architecture cannot benefit that way if a fight does start.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_meaglyn]

               

The Amethyst Dragon wrote...

I say, "Fear not!."  I would not take this on (nor instigate it) if it meant making a builder's work unusable.  I myself use CEP 2.4 heavily, and will not break backward compatibility by removing older content or moving around CEP 2da lines.

I'm pretty sure we can't make this compatible with Q unless lines are moved. We'll either have to do it in CEP or Q.

Neither of which will be popular I suspect.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_The Amethyst Dragon]

               I would not let a new (standard) CEP version break compatibility with current CEP modules/servers.  A CEP/Q merger hak would do that, but it would be completely optional and up to an individual builder to decide to do that.

I tossed up the idea of CEP/Q merger just because I know a lot of people would love to have the option.

I'm thinking two options, one where conflicts between the two means CEP stuff stays in place and Q stuff gets renumbered/renamed to work around it, and one where Q stuff stays in place and conflicting CEP stuff gets moved around.

Both would be optional, of course, since doing the first (CEP over Q) would mean modules build with Project Q and later adding the CEP would break and have to be repaired with lots of toolset work, and doing the second one (Q over CEP), modules built with CEP and later adding Project Q would have the same situation.

The only way either of those would work for a builder without adding work would be with a brand new module where nothing has been built yet.

When we get an update to CEP out there, perhaps it could be tackled by someone with some time and experience in merging haks.  I'd hold off on even starting work on this option until a newer version of CEP is released.

I can tell you right now that a lot of Q/CEP merging would involve 2da merging and body part sorting (armor/clothing/PC parts).  Right now there are several parts between the two that overlap and conflict...some are the same, others really do conflict.

Very, very tentative CEP 3 (hak) plan.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par The Amethyst Dragon, 14 janvier 2014 - 03:36 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

Estelindis wrote...

MerricksDad wrote...
it seems just that simple.

Simple to outline doesn't necessarily mean easy to do.  '>  The less work there is, the more likely it is to be completed!  But, by all means, if there are enough people willing to give their time to achieve multiple options, why not?

True.

I also think that we need to limit the number of options we are trying to achieve and focus on simple achievable goals. I propose that since that the immediate needs include improvements to CEP 2 as it currently stands, that those improvements be made.

The CEP 3 project should be structured so that it is made interoperable with other packages out of the box (including CEP 2 as much as that is possible), AND so that it is easy for the team to maintain and update the project. This will take more thought than actual work. A modular approach is a baby step towards making this happen.

Considering all the thought and planning that needs to go into CEP 3, it would be a mistake to rush into it. Much better is to improve upon CEP 2 immediately so as to start making progress and build up steam.

I have other thoughts on this on the WIKI. TAD did a great job of posting a plan there which should be discussed. But again I don't see the purpose in being bogged down by planning CEP 3 when CEP 2 needs attention NOW and any imporvements made to CEP 2 can be brought over to CEP 3. By all means we should work on a CEP 3 plan now, but what I eman to say is that we should not let it stop us from rolling up our sleeves and working.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par henesua, 14 janvier 2014 - 03:35 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MerricksDad]

               With a triple purpose library (which I already have in the works), one that works with 2DA, TLK and GFF files all at once (and could be made to edit SET), a PW owner could download a tool to update their module(s) to a new CEP/Q merge. When the toolset is open, your module is uncompiled into a subfolder and allows access to all GFF file format parts within the module, including module-specific unit and item blueprints. Pass the tool a to-do list, and either Q or CEP resrefs could be modified to line up with new TLK offsets. Tile indices could be updated. Without editing anything else in the module, do a save and close and the module is repackaged with your changed files. Reopen and you should see magic take hold. Ive done this with my tileset master program a few years ago (actually that was like 8 years now....I feel old...). Anyway, the only user input the script would need is yes/no is your PW using Q? If not, you should not be running it on your mod. If so, push all TLK refs up 8388563, and update accordingly. All else, refer to to-do list, which would modify offsets for armor, appearance types, tiles, etc. This would be a list managed by new CEP staff, and would only need to be made once and never updated, unless CEP and Q continued making separate updates (which I suspect will happen).

This is of course all hypothetical since I have not yet finished the GFF/TLK/2DA overlord, and I don't see one currently available, especially one that would take external to-do lists.

But imagine the power...
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MerricksDad]

               

But again I don't see the purpose in being bogged down by planning CEP 3 when CEP 2 needs attention NOW and any imporvements made to CEP 2 can be brought over to CEP 3. By all means we should work on a CEP 3 plan now, but what I eman to say is that we should not let it stop us from rolling up our sleeves and working.

Agreed. Get a CEP update together and use it as a test to see if this is worth the effort. See if a team can actually form, work together, and also put out.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

KlatchainCoffee wrote...

Pstemarie wrote...


1. Keep the CEP 2.4 architecture in place so builders don't have to go back and completely redo things. Having to rebuild takes a live PW offline for days or weeks. Downtime means lost players and decreases the chance that any PW will warm up to a new CEP.

What do you mean by 'architecture' in this context? Sounds like something that would preclude the re-configuration into modular many here seem to be favouring.

Basically, yeah. Just because the FEW people here favor it, doesn't mean that such a drastic change would be welcome by other builders that haven't chimed in. If you want to maximize use of CEP3 then you need to keep it backwards compatible. Unfortunately, that caveat chains you to the architecture already in place. Anything new should go in haks that sit on top of the 2.4 structure.

EDIT: I see AD already addressed this so I'm just beating a dead horse here 
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Pstemarie, 14 janvier 2014 - 04:25 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Proleric]

               Obviously, there are many complex issues here, which makes it hard to say "yes" or "no" to a schema off-the-cuff. Perhaps we should have a separate session on each proposal, with a view to drawing up a consolidated list of pros, cons and workarounds, which everyone can see, before deciding?

The devil is in the detail, so it might also help to have separate side-conversations on the most tricky topics, such as armour, phenos / animations, tilesets, licensing etc
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Proleric1, 14 janvier 2014 - 04:34 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               Disagree, Pstemarie, interoperability is the key. CEP 3 can thus be compatible with CEP 2, without requiring it to be fully backwards compatible. This means that it need not be an all or nothing approach but instead users can pick and choose what they use of it.

Each module of CEP 3 in this case would be designed to be self contained and sit on top of CEP 2.

Merick, we need to talk. I was just discussing such a translator with team members.