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)

MarcusD 09-05-2016 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scorpious2k (Post 250912)
That was almost what I was thinking... what if we could get them to sell a version of the client for us? Maybe a page on their site we could link to. They get the money and actually benefit from our existence - albeit probably a small sum. It would give us the single client target we want and make it available to everyone.

But where would they host it? And if it doesn't work with EQlive then it would confuse people and they would have to explain the existence of the emu's and give it more press.

atrayas 09-05-2016 01:06 PM

Something along that scale would require some form of partnership between eqemu and daybreak. They can't realistically host a client that isn't compatible with there current live game on there site and they can't just put it on the eqemu site without having some form of partnership between the two.

Seems to me someone needs to approach them with a professional business plan and propose a partnership for them to increase there revenue by allowing us to continue doing what we enjoy.

demonstar55 09-05-2016 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarcusD (Post 250905)
First the 32 bit people

TIL we dropped support for 32-bit processors.

Uleat 09-05-2016 02:03 PM

TBH, we still support 32-bit servers..just not compiling for them on 32-bit Windows machines.

You can thank Microsoft for that. (You can also thank them for the next-gen Intel/AMD cpu's requiring Windows 10 to operate.)


We chose to advance the minimum requirement for Visual Studio because of advancements in the ANSI C++ standard, which Microsoft only supports in
newer versions - and those versions require newer operating systems.

In that..yes, we 'dropped' support for 32-bit processors.


I can't iterate enough that this is NOT an EverQuest Preservation project. If it were, we would probably call ourselves EQPre
instead of EQEmu.

If we had the time and resources, we probably would match live update-for-update..but, that's not the reality we live in.


Client support is not content era support. The two, to a large point of separation, can be considered detached from each other.


The point of this thread is to discuss the pro's and con's of dropping multiple client support.

demonstar55 09-05-2016 02:16 PM

2013 still runs on 32-but platforms. So does 2012 (our min req for VS)

All of these compilers still support compiling for XP as well, but the compilers themselves only support 7+

image 09-05-2016 02:18 PM

You couldn't throw enough money at them to let them give up the source. If you guys are engrossed in having your own client then either work with an existing project or make a new one. Honestly you would just be better off making a new game.

The concept of eqemu (in my opinion) was to preserve the game support outside of sony once it was dropped to the curb, it has just been lucky to survive as an MMO this long, most do not (second was having your own sandbox of course). On the other hand nostalgia isn't a bad thing I don't think .. older clients have features newer clients do not (race vision, the older music being revised, working fucking boats, enter your reason here), so I still support them since I feel that every time DX got upgraded something was being taken away/broken.

The sad thing will be is if someone wants to setup their own nostalgic experience it will be that much harder unless they are technical. They can defer to something like AxClassic, but it won't have the latest features eqemu has to offer (I would assume).

If I can say something stern, not to scorn: I would say just make a decision and go with it, don't dangle this around for long since this topic has been brought up before (which didn't result in anything, hence this).

demonstar55 09-05-2016 03:01 PM

Boats work again! I think we need to fix them for RoF2, but they should be workable on RoF2 :P

I'm also not sure if RoF2 supports it, but live did add support for old skeletons and various other models to be selectable, still need to figure out if that's in RoF2 or not :P

Proxeeus 09-05-2016 03:57 PM

Old skeletons as in the pre-Luclin ones? nice! Are "old" versions of Nektulos, Highpass Hold, Lavastorm etc, available as well?

MarcusD 09-06-2016 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uleat (Post 250921)
I can't iterate enough that this is NOT an EverQuest Preservation project

Then what exactly is it for? Almost everyone who is interested in a old MMO emulator is interested in preserving the game they love so they can continue to play it when the company shuts it down (or changes it so it looses its allure).


Quote:

Originally Posted by Uleat (Post 250921)
The point of this thread is to discuss the pro's and con's of dropping multiple client support.

If we had the time and resources, we probably would match live update-for-update..but, that's not the reality we live in.

The Pro's are you can keep people who want to play EQLive happy (why they aren't just on EQLive is anyone's guess) and the Con's are you would disappoint everyone else.

AsmoTiC 09-06-2016 08:49 AM

It's already been stated that the source in it's current form would be preserved as a branch. So Titanium, Old Inventory system, etc. would be as it is now.

So why all the grief about dropping the older clients and moving forward with RoF2?

MarcusD suggests everyone is going to be so disappointed. Why? They have Classic now and they will have a branch forever that works with Titanium through RoF2. At any point someone can pull that branch, compile it and be where we are today. What do the classic/nostalgia people want that isn't already in the code?

I could understand the resistance if support was being dropped and there wasn't a saved branch for people to go back to, but it was pretty clearly stated on post #1 that the current code was going to be preserved.

daerath 09-06-2016 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AsmoTiC (Post 250940)
It's already been stated that the source in it's current form would be preserved as a branch. So Titanium, Old Inventory system, etc. would be as it is now.

So why all the grief about dropping the older clients and moving forward with RoF2?

MarcusD suggests everyone is going to be so disappointed. Why? They have Classic now and they will have a branch forever that works with Titanium through RoF2. At any point someone can pull that branch, compile it and be where we are today. What do the classic/nostalgia people want that isn't already in the code?

I could understand the resistance if support was being dropped and there wasn't a saved branch for people to go back to, but it was pretty clearly stated on post #1 that the current code was going to be preserved.

I don't see a huge issue with branching. The "legacy" code will still exist in its own branch. The new RoF2 branch will get faster updates if only because it won't have backwards compat issues. Nobody is going to lose their player base because their players aren't using RoF2. Just don't use the RoF2 branch.

Nothing prevents branching from legacy to create bug fixes.

Quest files may be greatly less impacted by a separate RoF2 branch, so quest updates, map updates, and such may also still be compatible between branches.

As for the client, it would be nice if Daybreak would release a stable client along with a full set of opcodes, packet structures, and other relevant information, but I just don't see that happening. The only viable options there would be to create an entirely unique client which is a crazy amount of work OR to wait until Daybreak announces that EQ is going to be shut down, grab the latest client, packet capture everything, and then make that the final client version.

Uleat 09-06-2016 02:07 PM

I can see my services are no longer needed..

..guess I'll move on to more meaningful things!

N0ctrnl 09-06-2016 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Uleat (Post 250950)
I can see my services are no longer needed..

..guess I'll move on to more meaningful things!

Porn?

10char

Akkadius 09-06-2016 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daerath (Post 250948)
I don't see a huge issue with branching. The "legacy" code will still exist in its own branch. The new RoF2 branch will get faster updates if only because it won't have backwards compat issues. Nobody is going to lose their player base because their players aren't using RoF2. Just don't use the RoF2 branch.

Nothing prevents branching from legacy to create bug fixes.

Quest files may be greatly less impacted by a separate RoF2 branch, so quest updates, map updates, and such may also still be compatible between branches.

As for the client, it would be nice if Daybreak would release a stable client along with a full set of opcodes, packet structures, and other relevant information, but I just don't see that happening. The only viable options there would be to create an entirely unique client which is a crazy amount of work OR to wait until Daybreak announces that EQ is going to be shut down, grab the latest client, packet capture everything, and then make that the final client version.

This man gets it

image 09-06-2016 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akkadius (Post 250953)
This man gets it

http://i.imgur.com/9DKHZae.gif


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:47 AM.

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