EQEmulator Forums

EQEmulator Forums (http://www.eqemulator.org/forums/index.php)
-   General::News (http://www.eqemulator.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=594)
-   -   EQEmu Considering Deprecating Clients (http://www.eqemulator.org/forums/showthread.php?t=40853)

bakajikara 08-27-2016 02:04 PM

I am all for this it time move forward not stay in past go for it.

RinoaV 08-27-2016 03:17 PM

I could be wrong here, but as far as I know the steam client has been upgraded and the new version no-longer works, if that is in fact the case where will my players(most of which use Titanium) get the Rof client? (Amazon and Ebgames/Gamestop don't carry it), I mean If there is no legal way to obtain the Rof client then we will be stuck like we were when the 6.2 client was the only working client and impossible for new players to get, unless of course your planning to chase the steam/live client opcodes each time they are changed like was done in the past?

If there is no way for my players to obtain the Rof client then I will be forced to use the frozen code, those of us that have no C/C++ knowledge will be *bleep* out of luck because there will be no way to fix any bugs we run across.

In my opinion *take it for what you feel it's worth*, removing viable clients and freezing development on all non Rof server code to add an inventory upgrade for a single client that may no longer be available is not a good solution, there has to be some kind of alternative method which won't alienate players and servers.

-Rin

Kingly_Krab 08-27-2016 06:17 PM

I believe that deprecating old clients is a good idea. Think about it this way, we have to port every single bit of functionality backwards, map opcodes from older clients when we find them in the new client and hope they maintain the same information and size. Honestly there is nothing but good in doing away with the older clients. It would cut development time down a lot since we wouldn't have to worry about, "Will this break Titanium?" Yes, freezing development on older clients may come as a detriment to some, but with the majority of our servers being on the new source code and having the ability to utilize newer clients, there's no need to use something with 1/10 of the functionality. ROF2 has direct augmentation, 10 inventory slots, massive bag-sizes, more spell slots, more spell book slots, more everything. If we were to continue development on ROF2 singularly, the benefits would far outweigh any shortcomings.

TL;DR: I support the deprecation of older clients, as I believe it would allow for better future development of systems we simply cannot have due to backwards-compatibility constraints.

Addendum: If you want to see how bad we try to support older clients, take a look at common/patches/Titanium.cpp or any of the other clients. We have several thousand lines of translation code. Unifying into one client we could remove a lot of legacy code and standardize everything.

Uleat 08-27-2016 06:34 PM

I honestly think if we're going to go the singular client route, then now is the time to develop our own client.


We can't focus on one client and hope to add a new one when it comes out.

There are already changes in the available steam client that are as drastic as the UF to HoT inventory models..and I hear live spells are completely incompatible now.

EQEMU2010 08-27-2016 06:35 PM

Myself and tons of others use UF that I know of I would like for it to be supported still if thats possible but thats up to the admins who run this project.

I have the free steam version of ROF2 but dont use it on most servers.Unless they are really basic ones.

Uleat 08-27-2016 06:41 PM

Strictly using the inventory model as a standard for client focusing..

..the UF client would not be supported since it uses the old 'mapped range' design, where RoF+ uses a pseudo-4D matrix one.

N0ctrnl 08-27-2016 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RinoaV (Post 250745)
In my opinion *take it for what you feel it's worth*, removing viable clients and freezing development on all non Rof server code to add an inventory upgrade for a single client that may no longer be available is not a good solution, there has to be some kind of alternative method which won't alienate players and servers.

To be fair, that's quite an oversimplification. "Viable" is a relative term. When you're talking in development time and effort, it's really not. That's why this conversation is taking place :)

Proxeeus 08-28-2016 11:00 AM

Probably a stupid question but anyway:

What would deprecating older clients mean regarding the use of old/classic models, like the old skeletons (white & brown flavors), some qeynos citizens NPCs, and classic spell effects? Would that force me to use newer models & effects? Or could I keep this level of customization?

demonstar55 08-28-2016 11:04 AM

Love actually supports those now. I'm unsure if rof2 does, something I've been meaning to find out.

Maze_EQ 08-28-2016 01:19 PM

People are only mad about RoF2 because they are still using the free UF active hack compile.

demonstar55 08-28-2016 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maze_EQ (Post 250780)
People are only mad about RoF2 because they are still using the free UF active hack compile.

So you're saying I should make use of all the cheat detection packets the client sends to us?

daerath 08-28-2016 02:54 PM

Any idea as to the approximate reduction in size of the Emu source if all of the non-RoF2 code was removed?

Uleat 08-28-2016 04:07 PM

Well, if you cut out EQEmu::legacy, you'll probably shrink it to half its current size :D


EDIT:

That's not exactly easy to estimate..I wouldn't expect huge reductions though (probably less than 5% of its current size)

DanCanDo 08-28-2016 05:23 PM

I personally would love to see one client compatible with all emu servers, no matter what
client it is. Yes, the various customization prompt us to download files for the individual
server, but it would still make things easier in the long run.
But as far as the "features" introduced with modern clients, the servers that do the "era
rewind", may have a desire to disable client features (like the in-game maps on P99) or
some of the features that come with RoF2.

RinoaV 08-28-2016 05:23 PM

Would it be possible to get the new free-to-play client from steam looked into?

I know it's asking a lot but my thinking here is both sides would be appeased, we could move forward even further than expected, the old clients could be removed and we could give fair warning to all our players to "Download now or lose out!". The downside to this is of course more work for the devs, but I think if they are willing this may just be a solution?

-Rin


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.