Hi matt634,
Don't be so dismissive with your *yawns*
That entirely depends on what you have to say.
Which means that if another author ever makes any change what so ever to any one of the 90 OXPs you've included, and a player downloads the new OXP, your OXP will override the changes and the player will see nothing new.
That`s true, and if someone actually reads the text about this OXP to which I have devoted a wiki-page, they will find a reminder saying:
This OXP
replaces the 85 ship oxps that were merged in and if one of those authors might choose to change them, this would not carry over into the Realistic Shipyards automatically.
You should consider that I (only) merged OXPs if they fulfilled the following conditions:
1. They contained playable ships already or (in one case) ships I considered interesting/funny enough to be made playable. I repaired/corrected mistakes/bugs I found in those OXPs and merged the result.
2. They did not contain much more than additional ships. I did by no means "merge everything in". I merged oxps which`s contents was ships 95%+.
3. The merged OXPs were as good as abandoned in nearly every case. And I say nearly only because Selezen after seeing the merger has decided to take up his Dream Team ships again. I bet that by far most of the oxps I merged just get a new lease of life by that, and will not be further developed over the course of the next years.
You have given several large ships like the leviathan and condor which are incapable of docking the shuttle role. This means that these ships will take off from the planet and try to dock with station resulting in explosively, unexpected results
Happens very rarely. I have been promised a new AI for very big ships that takes their docking problems into account more, by the way. It`s on my To-Do list for version 3.02.
You go on explaining how I have given all kinds of new ships all kinds of roles. How should this be a problem? The only one potential problem you found is if someone goes actually looking if scavenging ships
really scoop their loot. Who who just plays this game is
ever going to do that? You see diverse ships who scuttle around in the loot, if some actually scoop and others don`t - this is a
game! It just has to look like scooping, doesn`t have to be it?!
See, the "point" of Realistic Shipyards is that it basically does three things:
1. It changes the pricing and TL span with which you can buy ships.
2. It adds in actually all ship oxps that contain playable ships for convenience but five (which contain more than "just" additional ships AND some are still worked on by their authors, which is why they are not in). Result: No cluttered AddOns folder, no downloading 85 oxps. Just the one and loads of new ships to buy in one go.
3. As there are many more ships to take from, so the basic roles (trader, pirate, hunter, wingman, police, sunskimmer etc.) are distributed more broadly. So you meet, as someone formulated it, "old friends in new roles". That`s WANTED.
I assumed that Oolite`s role system basically works as intended. So, if there are now 500 different ships instead of 25 of the original ones only, it makes sense that the game now chooses from a broader spectrum of ships for the same roles. What`s so strange about that?
And, by the way, I followed the advice not to go over the top with the roles. I did not use any unique or mission-specific roles for non-unique or non-mission-specific ships. I just used the basic standard ones.
Concerning the police ships there
might (note, might, as in
could be) one or the other hiccup due to the scan_class / role of police being reworked by Ahruman as we speak. As far as I understood they meant something different before December 2007, mean something different now, might mean something different again in a year from now. So I can just wait and see how the NMSR deals with that and then, if nescessary, modify accordingly.
One last word concerning my dismissiveness. It`s very simple.
If you have some specific criticism that doesn`t just have fluffy insinuations in it but says something concrete, I will go to great length of responding to it, thinking about it, taking it aboard completely or partially if I find that criticism has merit and will change things accordingly.
If I find some fluffy fuzzy stuff thrown in front of me like a heap of garbage in the hope that some of it sticks I will just yawn and tell you to go away.
And if someone should again find the nerve to publicly insult me here on the forum, well after I was told that the moderators are too "friendly" to step in at such behaviour and hope for self-regulation in such matters, I would in the future respond accordingly and build on the hope that they will be equally friendly with me if I answer on the same level.
Matt, concerning the nature of my answers, there is a simple rule to gauge my reaction for the future: You reap what you sow.
I forget & forgive destructiveness the moment someone (anyone!) comes up with something constructive anyways, and be it to show me
concrete, factual (!) problems with something I do.
But I`m not interested in meaningless little statusgames.
L
