SMAC within SMAX

[Yitzi]

So so far (in terms of what would constitute a full reversion) we have:
The tech tree and factions.  The new native life forms, and battle ogres from pods.  Plus the changed menu graphics and opening movie.  Freeing faction leaders, landmarks, cloning.

And it might make sense to have options regarding which parts of a full reversion would be included; after all, if there's going to be an alphax variable to control this, there's no reason that the ability to free faction leaders and having battle ogres from pods have to be the same value...

[diessa]

Good point, Yitzi.

To revert:

Opening video
Opening screen and menu
Technology (thus quotes and voiceovers)
Supply pod effects (cloning, Ogres)
Landmarks/map
Native lifeforms

To maintain or modify:

Faction selection (i.e., clearer selection of factions)
Freeing leaders (i.e., expanded diplomacy options)

Edit: while I like the idea of the user selecting some core things, I want a default to reflect a discussions about things that should be kept. I don't necessarily want to revert for the sake of reverting. I don't mean keeping crazy things like the Cloudbase Academy, but options that perhaps "should" have been there originally, but were only added thanks to the development time from February (release) to October (expansion release).

[Yitzi]

Good point, Yitzi.

To revert:

Opening video
Opening screen and menu
Technology (thus quotes and voiceovers)
Supply pod effects (cloning, Ogres)
Landmarks/map
Native lifeforms

To maintain or modify (i.e., keep!):

Faction selection (i.e., clearer selection of factions)
Freeing leaders (i.e., expanded diplomacy options)

I'll add cloning to the list.

[diessa]

Yitzi, could you expand on your comment about some stylistic differences with kyrub's 444 version? My guess was that he normalized faction AI, thus homegenized personality, to make the AI more competitive. I'm curious at tracing the possible fault lines between the two projects. It may be unnecessary if you're able to incorporate much of his stuff anyways.

[kyrub]

landmarks.

A lot of landmarks (all of them??) were enabled in SMAC 4.0. Manifold Nexus, I think, Borehole Cluster was a new addition as well. Don't know if some were left out. Simple comparing of alpha.txt and alphax.txt should tell it (I don't have the latter one).

And it might make sense to have options regarding which parts of a full reversion would be included

Yes. Exactly, that would be cool.

What I wish for is just that there is a simple (basic) option, to play the original SMAC (plus the configurable options).
Several big mods I know claim they allow to play the original game, but they fail to do it (Heroes WoG, Jagged Alliance 1.13) and, ultimately, they divide the playing  community. Let's avoid this.

[Buster's Uncle]

Maximum compatibility with mods, scenarios and such, of course, or what's the point?

Ninja'd:  Absolutely, k.

[diessa]

Those are good points. I agree.

As an aside, the wreckage of the Unity wasn't included in the original, yet Garland Crater is. I was wondering if the crater was the Unity (considering it wasn't slowing down at all) or it was simply named after the Captain? Is the Unity wreckage, added in later versions, a random spawn, or does it appear near the Freshwater Sea on the normal-sized map? Two or three factions usually start there, so it could be a balance issue (i.e., 'copters).

[Yitzi]

A lot of landmarks (all of them??) were enabled in SMAC 4.0. Manifold Nexus, I think, Borehole Cluster was a new addition as well. Don't know if some were left out. Simple comparing of alpha.txt and alphax.txt should tell it (I don't have the latter one).

Unity wreckage and fossil field ridge are the only actually new ones, apparently.

Yitzi, could you expand on your comment about some stylistic differences with kyrub's 444 version? My guess was that he normalized faction AI, thus homegenized personality, to make the AI more competitive. I'm curious at tracing the possible fault lines between the two projects. It may be unnecessary if you're able to incorporate much of his stuff anyways.

The normalized faction AI is part of it; also, I seem to remember a bunch of stuff that makes the AI more competitive in the unmodded game but would also make it less competitive in a modded game (e.g. teaching it to pop boom will steer it wrong if modding is used to make pop booming much harder.)

[diessa]

Perhaps we could have an "original" version and a "polished" version that would polish the original experience. The second one could contain some of the modified behaviours that allow the AI to succeed in an original environment. 

[Ford_Prefect]

I am working on a mod launcher for SMACX as we speak.

[diessa]

If a modification launcher could be combined with a version of this project, including capability to select what is reverted to SMAC, players could access a contemporary version of SMAC that includes the major AI and patch projects (which both, in turn, include the previous major projects). A player could have access to nearly everything the community has to offer within one set of packaging!

[Yitzi]

Perhaps we could have an "original" version and a "polished" version that would polish the original experience. The second one could contain some of the modified behaviours that allow the AI to succeed in an original environment.

Or even make different things available independently.

[diessa]

If it is possible to provide that degree of flexibility, that'd be great. In the end, though, suggested settings will need to be provided. "As close to the original" and "as close to the original with optimized AI" seem like two good ones for users interested in just getting into the game.

[kyrub]

I think there is nothing against creating a well-thought, community driven patch, I mean set of rules(some like them, some don't (I do)). Such patch/set of rules may be well used in MP games, for instance.

So far, the thread sounds like dreaming. Once there are actual concrete steps, I'll start doing my AI part, after I finish current WIP.

[diessa]

Edit: I'm in the process of writing a specifications document. Yitzi, it'll have a detailed list of what we discussed so far.

You're right, kyrub. This idea is moving more quickly than I anticipated, so I'm encouraged by it. I'm uninitiated and unskilled as a moder, but I can probably do the easier tasks after some reading. My sense from this thread is that there are already people who have done or are doing the things we have brought up. So, it is more about managing the information. In terms of a community collaboration, what communication and file sharing base would be good?

Perhaps we could set up a set of files on Dropbox (or a similar service). We could set up a specifications document and list of ongoing work/delegated work in a Google Doc (or similar service). That, plus forum posts and, if people want, some instant messaging services, would probably be sufficient?