Oolite Bulletins

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:13 am**

Thargoid wrote:
Why this hang-up on system names? They can be coded into mission screens so that if they are changed by an OXP then the name in the mission screen also changes.

Mission screens are not the only place where planet names are used. There is for instance the planet list on the Wiki. No amount of scripting in an OXP can change that. And it's not only the planet lists, but for instance the Missions page as well, which lists the requirements for starting a mission. It says for instance: "Begins when docked in Leesti.", and it will continue to say so even if for a certain percentage of Oolite players (not all!) an OXP will have changed the name of that system to "Wolf 356" or whatever. Or imagine the other case: as somebody who is used to using the Wiki resources I find the requirement that something is "A mission based out of the Aquarian Shipbuilding Corp. HQ in the Aqualina system.", again on the same Missions page. Thus I go to the map part of the wiki in order to find out what the shortest route from my current system to Aqualina is. I'll have tough luck, because the Wiki planet lists clearly tells me that there is no Aqualina system. I find that unnecessarily confusing.

There are also these very boards, where players continuously ask questions about something that happened (or didn't happen, or ought to have happened) in this-and-that system during a mission. Then I would have to answer them: "Sorry, you must be hallucinating. This-and-that system doesn't exist in Oolite." Again, unnecessarily confusing.

The point is that the planet names are important markers not only inside the game (which can indeed be taken care of by good and bug-free scripting), but more importantly outside the game. As human beings we prefer to refer to a thing (for instance a certain system in Oolite) by its name in our normal conversation, not by some cryptic internal identifier like a number. And by definition our conversation takes place outside the game proper, for instance on these boards, on the IRC channel, or in the Wiki, none of which can auto-change the names we're using according to the set of OXPs which each of the potential readers has installed in their game. That's why names are important.

As long as there is only one single name change (like Aqualina was/is for a long time), it may even be possible that virtually all board members have kept it in their minds. But as soon as name changes would become more frequent, this would become impossible. The Ooniverse would become fractured quite quickly, with nobody knowing anymore what everybody else would be talking about. I find that not desirable.

To sum up: I see a lot of possible complications, but no actual benefits from arbitrary name changes of systems (seriously, what can "Aqualina" do that would be categorically impossible with "Ribiara"?). At the same time I see only benefits, but no disadvantages whatsoever from sticking to the original names. That's a clear case for me: there is not one sensible reason for arbitrarily changing system names.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:14 am**

Smivs wrote:
I think you are missing the point here Thargoid.
The WIP in question (according to the 'Already Used Planets' list) is proposing to change the name (and possibly other details) of Beanxeat and Qutius with a planetinfo.plist. Both these planets play a significant part in Xeptatl's Sword, an established OXP which has been downloaded over 380 times and is not therefore easily changed. Nor should an author have to change his/her OXP for reasons like this.
If the WIP was released with the proposed planetinfo.plist changes, players with both OXPs installed and currently working through Xeptatl's Sword will not be able to find Beanxeat and Qutius, because they will have had their names changed by the other OXP. Even if they did work it out other changes (such as a change in TL) could be a problem.
Luckily (hopefully) this one has been caught in time, and fully justifies the importance and existance of this list.

Not really, that was the point I got. However I would argue that an OXP which hard-codes system names into the mission screens isn't optimally written, given that the possibility to make such changes has been in the game code for many versions now. I agree concerning tech levels and possibly planetary government, but system names are easy to deal with.

The logical extension of your argument would also disallow the Nova mission (or any similar one) as it could similarly make a key system inaccessible and break missions for those set in G4. I can accept that OXPs should play nicely with each other, but it should go both ways even for existing ones.

@McLane - I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Although I would say who would solely look in the wiki to find a system, and not look on the galactic chart in the game? And in any case you'll notice that both the OXP readme and the wiki entry state that Aqualina is the former colony world of Ribiara, so anyone who actually reads documentation will know

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:02 pm**

Thargoid wrote:
...I would argue that an OXP which hard-codes system names into the mission screens isn't optimally written...

I have to disagree with this. I think it is unreasonable to suggest that authors should jump through hoops on the off-chance that somebody else might arbitrarily rename any planet around the Eight. The duty to handle this responsibly clearly lies with the author who is altering one of the fundamental basics of the core game.

Thargoid wrote:

The logical extension of your argument would also disallow the Nova mission (or any similar one) as it could similarly make a key system inaccessible and break missions for those set in G4.

Not at all. The Nova mission is an established part of the core game and all (I hope) OXP authors are aware of it, and will work around it, as we did in Xeptatl's Sword.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:30 pm**

How is using [J%xxx] (replacing xxx with the systems unique and unchanging ID number) jumping through hoops, other than having once to look it up on the wiki or planet list? It's simple future-proofing and accounting for a functionality that is built into the core scripting and available to everyone. Thence all OXPs can share planet names nicely and no-one has to stake claims on anything name-wise.

That is after all what it's designed for

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 12:45 pm**

OK, so 'jumping through hoops' might have been a bit of an exaggeration

I do take your point and it is something I will consider for any future OXPs where this might be an issue. Having said that I seriously doubt that many OXPs have used this method, which leaves potentially thousands of downloaded OXPs out there in the wild which are 'un-optimised'. Nothing can be done about these.
So I have to repeat my point that I feel the responsibility for compatibility lies squarely with the author who is changing fundamental basics to ensure that nothing is broken in doing this.
I personally don't have an issue with authors wanting 'special' planets for their OXPs...it is an appealing idea in all sorts of ways. I just don't think 're-branding' an existing planet is the best way to achieve this. McLane (above) has eloquently spelt out the pitfalls and drawbacks.
There are several ways a completely 'new' planet can be introduced into the game. I believe Assassins Guild adds planets which are used in the OXP, and a good example of another (actually much more interesting-in-game) way is Lago in Coyote's Run.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:26 pm**

The reference as ever should be the trunk scripts and code for the missions, which are good example of using %Jxxx (the missiontext.plist version of the expansion). See the entries for both Constrictor Hunt and Thargoid Plans.

So I'm back to the point that as the capability to change system names is available to anyone who writes an OXP, it must therefore be assumed that OXPs may make use of that. And as there is this simple methodology of expansions to allow other OXPs to deal with it, any that don't are in need of a new version to fix it (rather than there being nothing that can be done about it). The number of downloads they've had is irrelevant if they aren't correct.

The author who is making changes can use their documentation to warn of the changes (like I did in Aquatics), but if published OXPs can't deal with the change gracefully then it's them who need alteration.

In real life events get rebranded all the time (by sponsorship mainly) and as I said before countries change their names sometimes. So it's a logical extension that in such an environment systems and planets may do likewise over time.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:35 pm**

I realize I'm a bit late to the party but I just see that another manually curated list is being compiled. Wouldn't it make sense to add semantic properties to the OXP pages that change system descriptions and have the list compiled from those? That would fit the "I only want to maintain one page for my OXP" goal better.

I just have to find out how to have multiple properties that belong together, like planet name, planet number, changed by planetinfo.plist, etc...

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:39 pm**

maik wrote:
I realize I'm a bit late to the party but I just see that another manually curated list is being compiled. Wouldn't it make sense to add semantic properties to the OXP pages that change system descriptions and have the list compiled from those? That would fit the "I only want to maintain one page for my OXP" goal better.

I just have to find out how to have multiple properties that belong together, like planet name, planet number, changed by planetinfo.plist, etc...

So does that mean you will need volunteers to compile another list?

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:41 pm**

Fatleaf wrote:
maik wrote:
I realize I'm a bit late to the party but I just see that another manually curated list is being compiled. Wouldn't it make sense to add semantic properties to the OXP pages that change system descriptions and have the list compiled from those? That would fit the "I only want to maintain one page for my OXP" goal better.

I just have to find out how to have multiple properties that belong together, like planet name, planet number, changed by planetinfo.plist, etc...
So does that mean you will need volunteers to compile another list?

This one seems fairly small at the moment in contrast to the ship list, so I would even do it myself. But I appreciate your volunteering spirit

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:43 pm**

OK Thargoid, I guess we'll have to agree to differ on this. It's one of those problems with two right answers, or actually wrong answers as there are plenty of potential problems either way

Such is life!

To get back on-topic, I think it's time to ask for volunteers to help get this list filling up. As I stated before I don't have the time to do much more to the list and the more complete it is the better. It has already shown and averted two potential clashes.
My thoughts now are that the big, established OXPs need to be added as soon as possible. I'm thinking of Famous Planets, Galactic Navy and Assassins Guild specifically.. Does anybody fancy having a look at these (and any others they can think of) and adding the details to the tables?

Edited to add having read the above posts:-
I compiled the table manually because that's the only way I knew how to do it

I must say I can't see how an automatically generated list could actually do what this one does, but what do I know?

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:45 pm**

Thargoid wrote:
How is using [%Jxxx] ....

That is after all what it's designed for

One other good reason of using [%Jxxx] in descriptions is that it slightly helps agains cheating by people that try to manually read the mission.plist file

And when writing an oxp you use the numbers already in your scripts, so it is even easier using the same numbers in your descriptions, instead of the names.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:33 pm**

Smivs wrote:
I must say I can't see how an automatically generated list could actually do what this one does, but what do I know?

I was thinking of having OXP authors maintain the information about planet modifications on their OXP pages like this:

Code: Select all

[[modifies planet::Lave, 0 7, plist]]
[[modifies planet::Leesi, 0 55, plist]]

This would need to be invisible markup. The "List of Planets used in OXPs" would then query all OXP pages and extract this markup where it exists to compile the list that you compiled manually. So much for the theory.

Do you think it is worth pursuing this?

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 4:46 pm**

Probably not, to be honest. Being realistic, how many authors will actually do this to their OXP pages? And it sounds far more complicated than just adding a row or two to the table.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:09 pm**

Thargoid wrote:
The reference as ever should be the trunk scripts and code for the missions, which are good example of using %Jxxx (the missiontext.plist version of the expansion). See the entries for both Constrictor Hunt and Thargoid Plans.

So I'm back to the point that as the capability to change system names is available to anyone who writes an OXP, it must therefore be assumed that OXPs may make use of that.

We have already agreed to disagree on the question of names, so no further arguing here.

However, I also think you are expecting too much of those OXP authors who don't wish to change the basic aspects of the Ooniverse. Oolite's scripting engine is so flexible now that practically everything can be changed by some OXP. Or in other words, the capability to change practically everything is available to anyone who writes an OXP. Must it therefore be assumed that OXP may make use of that? Probably. But must I in my OXPs therefore take precautions for each and every possibility of change (even the ones I wouldn't come up with, be it just for lack of imagination)? That's plainly impossible! Which means that I'm with Smivs here: the burden of making a fundamental change in such a way that the result stays compatible with existing OXP has to rest on the author of the fundamentally-changing new OXP, not on the perfect anticipation of everybody else before him. As a general principle, that's the only one that's practical.

Posted: **Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:46 pm**

Smivs wrote:
Probably not, to be honest. Being realistic, how many authors will actually do this to their OXP pages? And it sounds far more complicated than just adding a row or two to the table.

Fair enough, but who is going to maintain the table if authors already can't be bothered to have it in their OXP pages? Someone needs to download OXPs and look inside it to find this information. That's quite some effort.

Oolite Bulletins

List of Planets used in OXPs

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists

Re: List of modified planetinfo.plists