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)

Akkadius 08-24-2016 02:31 PM

EQEmu Considering Deprecating Clients
 
Due to a variety reasons, we've been considering deprecating all game clients up to the Rain of Fear clients.

This means that the following clients would no longer be maintained in the main server code:
  • Titanium
  • SoF
  • SoD
  • UF

Maintainability being one of the biggest reasons, another large reason is because of having to hack server code heavily which introduced a large amount of complexity in trying to implement new inventory code.

This also would forces players on all servers to be on a newer version of code.

We would branch our code into a Github branch to a frozen state where all clients work, but further features and implementations would only support RoF+ clients.

I would like to extend this discussion into a thread for players and server operators to chime in on.

Again, this is nothing final, but bringing the discussion public for all to chime in on.

We've briefly discussed this in coders and would like to see others feedback.

N0ctrnl 08-24-2016 02:33 PM

I have only supported the RoF2 client for some time on Vegarlson. This would definitely allow for some good things to happen much easier.

Mortykins 08-24-2016 02:34 PM

On Raid Addicts everyone uses UF - ROF2 , none of my player base uses those old clients to my knowledge.

Morty

demonstar55 08-24-2016 02:49 PM

I don't really see dropping UF as a possibility, which means we still need to support the older inventory system, which means there is no reason to drop tit :(

SoF we might consider dropping since that client is all kinds of screwy though :P

noudess 08-24-2016 04:49 PM

My server is Titanium based. What would I be giving up moving all my clients forward?

I run old versions of many zones (nektulos, lava, tox, kerra, etc.) if that matters. I went wit Titanium because it felt more like the older game, and my server is an original only world for the most part. And, all my players use Titanium, as they came over from P1999.

DanCanDo 08-24-2016 05:36 PM

Although this wouldn't effect the server project I am working on, because the editing is
being done to support both UF and RoF clients but, like noudness, I would wonder what
kind of effect this would have on existing servers built around older clients, that are in
the habit of updating their code from gitpull all the time. Servers like P99 have nothing
to be concerned about since, (I'm guessing) they do their own code updating.
As far as using a client, as a player, my preferences will always stick with the UF client,
just because it's a "like the feeling" thing, so it would be a sad day for me, if support was
dropped for that. But I'm guessing everyone out there has a client they love more than
than the rest.

Mortow 08-24-2016 05:57 PM

I, personally prefer the RoF2 client. All the players on my server use only that client as most of them like the newer features. I would love to see things move forward, especially in the inventory department.

DanCanDo 08-24-2016 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mortow (Post 250703)
I, personally prefer the RoF2 client. All the players on my server use only that client as most of them like the newer features. I would love to see things move forward, especially in the inventory department.

Yes, the RoF2 client seems to be popular because of the features that come
with it. While some servers develop, they work to "roll back" EQ, and others like
to see it roll forward. I've read so many opinions from players ranging from the
"old school vets" who miss the original game, to the modern day players who
love things like in-bag clickies. (chuckle)

ghanja 08-24-2016 06:58 PM

Does the "frozen state" denote what it suggests, in that, no more commits what-so-ever? Sounds a little extreme, which is why I'm leaning towards believing that what is meant by it is that, any -active- development would be frozen (i.e. no concentration on the branch/fork? that supports the older clients).

I'm far from as knowledgeable of C++ let alone the EQEMU source which, I feel many would admit, it's a mess (no complaints mind you, but strictly from a technical stand point I am speaking). If being able to work around that source to offer improvements both of functionality and structure/organization of the code while doing so without the fear of "shit, adding that RoF feature now broke this with the older clients", by all means, it would seem it's a dire necessity. If for nothing else but to help keep your sanity. Maybe too, it would allow for cleaning up parts of the code, like qglobal rewrite, who (GD thats a mess), etc. because for all intents and purposes only one client would be supported.

Heck, the inquiry of the public is appreciated, but, in the end, we're at the mercy of those intimately familiar with the source (or those daring enough and with enough time in their lives to become intimate with it), so go with what ensures longevity both as a whole AND of the participating developers. However, I will say, I hope that if a developer doesn't find it to lead to getting burnt out, if a bug fix here or there on the "old master" branch (UF, SoF, etc.) could be done, that would be more ideal to most, I believe?

TL;DR = Game for whatever makes it easier on the project and the developers, albeit, I do hope that the "old master" isn't totally abandoned if a dev could toss it a bug fix or two time to time.

blackdragonsdg 08-24-2016 09:25 PM

From a coding point of view I would imagine it is a great idea to deprecate the older clients. But what about new players or even some existing players that can not acquire RoF/RoF2 because it is not readily available. A time frozen state is fine but I guess a lack of RoF/RoF2 client availability would be my biggest concern.

Maze_EQ 08-24-2016 09:44 PM

This is a godsend.

I have added so much bullshit for older clients.

Rof2 for ever.

rudeboy88 08-25-2016 11:10 PM

I wouldn't mind seeing as ghanja said an "old master" version that may get the occasional update or so. I am excited to see how the single-client or 2 client server possibility pans out as when I've ran servers I frequently have restricted things to only 1 to level the playing ground for people (ex. titanium lacking extended target).

With that said I'd understand this choice- I've used the same client to play 80% of all servers I played here for almost 10 years now, it seems like the appropriate time to look to better things.

One point I'm curious about is how this might effect other projects like the Unity client one? Haven't read up on that enough lately but seemed worth mentioning given that it's been around a while. In any case if eqemu's really moving this way I see where RoF/2 would be among the most ideal, and for consistency's sake in the future, the only client(s).

Secrets 08-25-2016 11:57 PM

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ZXsQAXx_ao0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tyen05 08-26-2016 03:22 AM

dropping all client support except for Unity & Unreal.

imo

daerath 08-26-2016 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Akkadius (Post 250694)
Due to a variety reasons, we've been considering deprecating all game clients up to the Rain of Fear clients.

This means that the following clients would no longer be maintained in the main server code:
  • Titanium
  • SoF
  • SoD
  • UF

Maintainability being one of the biggest reasons, another large reason is because of having to hack server code heavily which introduced a large amount of complexity in trying to implement new inventory code.

This also would forces players on all servers to be on a newer version of code.

We would branch our code into a Github branch to a frozen state where all clients work, but further features and implementations would only support RoF+ clients.

I would like to extend this discussion into a thread for players and server operators to chime in on.

Again, this is nothing final, but bringing the discussion public for all to chime in on.

We've briefly discussed this in coders and would like to see others feedback.

I love this idea. The sheer quantity of legacy code that could be removed in the RoF+ branch would vastly simplify things and may even speed up introduction of new features if only because the backwards compatibility issues would be reduced (or outright eliminated).

And for those people still on the older clients, it's not like they couldn't branch the source if they wanted to maintain it for their own servers.


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

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