Oolite Bulletins

For me, one of the greatest attributes of Oolite is the multitude and varied nature of Expansions available in so far as we can create our very own unique game , even the so called "uber" ships can be set in a game that still provides very much in the way of challenge and difficulty when used with OXPs that purposefully make the game harder. What some might call a cheat others might see as a game balancer. Just my halfpennies worth.

Gimi wrote:

I think it would be unfair towards the authors of these OXPs to put them in a separate "cheat" category unless that is what the author wants/intends.

Myself I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of having such a category, and I didn't create it, and I wish it wouldn't have been created.

But now it exists, and I'm in the odd position that one of my OXPs (admittedly the one that was specifically created to demonstrate that there is such a thing as cheat OXPs; against the existing attitudes of if-it-can-be-done-it-can't-be-a-cheat and it's-not-a-cheat-if-it-costs-a-lot-of-money) is one of only two OXPs listed on it.

Gimi wrote:

I do think that any OXP author should consider if the OXP changes game-play and if that might unbalance the game and ruin the experience.

In principle I agree. But the problem is that some OXP authors (especially while they're new) simply don't consider any of this. Be it because they lack the necessary understanding of the game-play and balancing basics, or because they simply don't care. And nobody can force them to.

Case in point: this cheat category was created by JazHaz because I pointed out in the thread of a new OXP by a new OXPer that it contained a considerable cheat. The thought had not occurred to the OXPer by himself, which I take as an indication that considerations of unbalancing the game were not one of his main concerns when writing and releasing his OXP.

He then revised the "cheaty" part of the OXP in order to balance it better, so JazHaz removed this OXP again from his cheat category. But my main point remains: we cannot expect OXP authors to consider if their OXP changes game-play and if that might unbalance the game and ruin the experience, because they demonstrably don't.

Commander McLane wrote:

Case in point: this cheat category was created by JazHaz because I pointed out in the thread of a new OXP by a new OXPer that it contained a considerable cheat. The thought had not occurred to the OXPer by himself, which I take as an indication that considerations of unbalancing the game were not one of his main concerns when writing and releasing his OXP.

He then revised the "cheaty" part of the OXP in order to balance it better, so JazHaz removed this OXP again from his cheat category. But my main point remains: we cannot expect OXP authors to consider if their OXP changes game-play and if that might unbalance the game and ruin the experience, because they demonstrably don't.

Which is why I suggested that other players/forum members should point out potential problems to the author as they arise, and I applaud you for doing that. Spotting the potential game breakers is not easy, and in many cases it's also not easy to explain the problem without potentially offending the author. Keep up the good work. It is of course up to the author to change the OXP, and if they disagree then we may have an issue.

One problem might be the way that OXPs are promoted as being 'necessary' to enhance the game. The core game is absolutely fine as it is in terms of gameplay, and I think new players really should be actively urged to play the basic game for some time before adding OXPs. Doing this will allow them to assess and understand the basic game in enough detail so that they can then make an informed decision as to how they modify the game to suit themselves.
This will also help new OXP authors to understand the impact that changes to the game can make.
Now I said the core game is fine in terms of gameplay, which it is, but it is not fine in terms of graphics, and is also perhaps a bit limited in terms of the number and type of ships and stations. So what we need to do is encourage new players to stay 'pure' but in a way they can improve the look of the game and aid their immersion.
There are a couple of lists of 'recommended' OXPs on the wiki OXP page, but I have to say that many of the OXPs listed are not ones I'd recommend to a newbie, because they do fundamentally change the game in significant ways.
So my thought is that the wiki OXP page should start with a paragraph explaining the pros and cons of OXPs and that a strong recommendation is made to stay with the core game for a short time while the new player becomes familiar with it. It should also be pointed out that many graphical and ambience enhancements can be used at this time without impinging on the game mechanics. We (collectively as a community) should decide on a list of 'neutral' eye-candy and ambience OXPs that can be used immediately by new players to give them the look and feel that they expect from a modern game. This list could then be placed on the wiki as 'OXPs recommended for new users'. Individual recommendation lists such as those already on the OXP page could be moved to the bottom of the page under a 'My favourite OXPs' heading or similar.

Diziet Sma wrote:

Commander McLane wrote:

JazHaz wrote:

I wouldn't touch Telescope OXP with a bargepole.

Have to agree. Classic cheat OXP.

Likewise.. there's no 'discovery' involved.. it automatically "knows" about every object in the system.. I uninstalled it 10 minutes after trying it out.

Due to we get topic split I decided to answer to these (I must to take the risk to mention my OXP again because I try to say something valuable).

This OXP was born exactly to reduce the cheat level of the Long Rang Scanner (LRS) based on ideas in this topic. I made also the balancing efforts what I got in replies in the dedicated topic. So the basic equipment give extra functions (far targeting, steering, sniper ring) but absolutely not detect "about every object in the system": large player ships detected at about 4x, escorts about 2x scanner range only, exactly where you can see these with your eyes also if you stay and watch for moving dots. Cargo Spotter does the same and I think these are more like comfort functions than cheats.

There is a long range extension named Gravity Scanner which can hit the cheat level of strict players but there are players where this level is higher (and there are drawbacks which discussed in the dedicated topic) but LRS is too much so this equipment can fill the gap.

I thinked to do not necessary to put extensions into a separated OXP due to if a player like the basic scope but do not like extended ranges simply will not buy it. But after reading the previous comments I think better if separated, especially if can born a new category in the wiki for the "helpers" (somewhat balanced smaller cheats) which make the game easier but not as much as an unbalanced large cheat.

Another way is to put all helper OXP into the Mechanics category but make a new -1. level into the [wiki]OXP_Levelindicators[/wiki] for the helper OXPs, -2 for more help (like LRS), etc. I think the Cheats category is not needed at all if a scale can be made where [wiki]OoCheat_OXP[/wiki] get the smallest number (-5?).

Of course I will rate my other helper OXPs also if this scale is maded and I will be happy to do this due to I think it is not an ugly-meter but show how much help given to the player who wants some help.

The problem with the Long Range Scanner is that it was originally designed as an OXP development tool, which escaped into the wild.

Norby wrote:

Diziet Sma wrote:

Likewise.. there's no 'discovery' involved.. it automatically "knows" about every object in the system.. I uninstalled it 10 minutes after trying it out.

So the basic equipment give extra functions (far targeting, steering, sniper ring) but absolutely not detect "about every object in the system": large player ships detected at about 4x, escorts about 2x scanner range only, exactly where you can see these with your eyes also if you stay and watch for moving dots.

I stand corrected.. I guess my impression was formed as I was in a very busy system at the time, and I found the number of targets the Telescope presented to be rather overwhelming.. I kind of assumed I was seeing everything. I apologise for my misstatement.

Thanks for the clarification, Norby.

I very much like Smivs' suggestion above..

Cody wrote:

The problem with the Long Range Scanner is that it was originally designed as an OXP development tool, which escaped into the wild.

No the problem with the Long Range Scanner was its name. If it had been called Oolite Object Checker or something else boring, it wouldn't have got so many downloads.

cim wrote:

Perhaps a hints page on the Wiki which talks about how the basic game is balanced, and how OXPs might affect that balance, would be useful for OXPers.

+1

Norby wrote:

I made also the balancing efforts what I got in replies in the dedicated topic.

*grins* Successful, I'd think.

Gimi wrote:

Spotting the potential game breakers is not easy, and in many cases it's also not easy to explain the problem without potentially offending the author.

Yes, finding the right tone is often easier in pms. Or the other way round - everybody handles critics more relaxed when it's not in the public...

Smivs wrote:

So my thought is that the wiki OXP page should start with a paragraph explaining the pros and cons of OXPs and that a strong recommendation is made to stay with the core game for a short time while the new player becomes familiar with it. It should also be pointed out that many graphical and ambience enhancements can be used at this time without impinging on the game mechanics. We (collectively as a community) should decide on a list of 'neutral' eye-candy and ambience OXPs that can be used immediately by new players to give them the look and feel that they expect from a modern game.

Something along these lines, maybe?

It is suggested that players new to the game should be careful when choosing OXPs. The basic game is extremely well-balanced and has stood the test of time, but many OXPs change the balance and dynamics of the game.
To make an informed choice as to what OXPs you might want, you do need to understand the way the standard game works first, so it is recommended that new players should consider playing Oolite without game-changeing OXPs for a while.
However many OXPs will just enhance eye-candy and ambience - they make the game look better, or add features which make the Oolite experience more enjoyable without affecting the way the game plays.
The list below is of OXPs that will not affect gameplay but are worthwhile additions for the new player who wants a diverse and visually exciting Ooniverse.

Svengali wrote:

cim wrote:

Perhaps a hints page on the Wiki which talks about how the basic game is balanced, and how OXPs might affect that balance, would be useful for OXPers.

+1

Okay - here's a start on that: [wiki]OXP howto Game Balance[/wiki]. Please contribute to it.

Disembodied wrote:

It could be tricky to do consistently, of course: some OXPs might make things easier for Clean players but harder for Offenders or Fugitives, for example.

You could go with a range both positive and negative in the indicator, or for something like that (Galactic Navy would be a good example, I suppose) you could just have a different icon which meant "rewrites game balance" to make it clear that it gives the game as a whole a different feel, not just a change in difficulty.

Smivs wrote:

but it is not fine in terms of graphics, and is also perhaps a bit limited in terms of the number and type of ships and stations.

Agreed. Obviously improving the core graphics is something we want to do, but for now OXPs are necessary.

That said ... Sourceforge stats say that there have been around 11,000 downloads of some Oolite package since the release of 1.77 (well over 30,000 since 1.76), and that doesn't include installations via Linux distros (Ubuntu popularity-contest reports around 15,000 installs of the "oolite" package, for instance) and other sources. I don't know what the figures are like for the really popular OXPs, but I suspect that very few of them get that sort of use. Certainly on that scale basically no-one uses any of my OXPs. So perhaps the majority of players, for now, are playing just the core game or with a few OXPs added.

cim wrote:

Okay - here's a start on that: [wiki]OXP howto Game Balance[/wiki]. Please contribute to it.

<nods> A good start, cim... and those Sourceforge download numbers are very interesting.

Smivs wrote:

Something along these lines, maybe?

It is suggested that players new to the game should be careful when choosing OXPs. The basic game is extremely well-balanced and has stood the test of time, but many OXPs change the balance and dynamics of the game.
To make an informed choice as to what OXPs you might want, you do need to understand the way the standard game works first, so it is recommended that new players should consider playing Oolite without game-changeing OXPs for a while.
However many OXPs will just enhance eye-candy and ambience - they make the game look better, or add features which make the Oolite experience more enjoyable without affecting the way the game plays.
The list below is of OXPs that will not affect gameplay but are worthwhile additions for the new player who wants a diverse and visually exciting Ooniverse.

Needs a comma after "However"..

Very good, though.

cim wrote:

[wiki]OXP howto Game Balance[/wiki].

What a detailed description! Nice work! Targeted to OXP makers so I placed a link into [wiki]OXP_howto[/wiki].

Smivs targeted his words to the new players, I think the best place to these is the Recommended OXPs section of the wiki where there are personal suggestions already. The full list will not fit here so I suggest to create a subpage to the list.