Update on Progress

[Hazard]

For that matter, you can just shove a couple of spinal guns into the center of your ship and build your keel around them. I mean, you'd do that with a single spinal gun anyway.

[Desdinova]

Yeah, the Big Gun isn't a structural member of the actual spaceframe.

[swarm_sadist]

The problem is that diplomacy bugs *could* be gamebreakers still. If there is a bug or miscalculation that causes the AI to react wildly inappropriately to a situation, like glassing all your worlds because a diplomacy ship turned on active sensors...

In keeping with the WH40K theme, the new diplomacy system is window dressing for the eventual nuclear holocaust.

[Zincat]

Spinal mounts is, in my opinion, something to be addressed after release, and it has nothing to do with the number of spinal weapons.

My problem with the current implementation is that the spinal mounts we have right now.... are just not "spinal" enough.
The increases in damage is frankly not enough. When I think of spinal mounts I think of something that is truly larger than normal weapons, not the "small" increases we have right now.

Add to that the problem that you often cannot use spinal weapons very well, because you're severely limited by the beam fire control tech. So you end up having a larger weapon.... that cannot fire over a longer range compared to a normal weapon.
In my opinion it really doesn't make much sense that spinal weapons have the same range as normal weapons, because beam fire controls always end up being the limiting factor. Where is my superweapon that can (try to) incinerate the enemies before they get into normal range?
This is really a staple of spinal weapons in sci-fi. Bigger damage AND bigger range.

I would like to hear your opinion on this Steve. Would you be contrary to address this problem in some way? Maybe being able to build "spinal" beam fire controls that can be used only for spinal weapons, in order to be able to use their effective range?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Apologies in advance for what may be a stupid question...

What is "obfuscation" in relation to finalizing the development of the initial release? 

Despite my repeated requests not to do so, there have been threats to hack the source code and create alternate versions of Aurora. These have come mainly via the Discord or private message, but also on these forums. Here is an example.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10217.0

This is impossible to prevent entirely and it is frustrating that I have to spend time on this, but I need to give myself some protection against those with less-than-honourable intentions. I've also added a FAQ post on the subject.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10606.0

[Vasious]

Spinal mounts is, in my opinion, something to be addressed after release, and it has nothing to do with the number of spinal weapons.

My problem with the current implementation is that the spinal mounts we have right now.... are just not "spinal" enough.
The increases in damage is frankly not enough. When I think of spinal mounts I think of something that is truly larger than normal weapons, not the "small" increases we have right now.

Add to that the problem that you often cannot use spinal weapons very well, because you're severely limited by the beam fire control tech. So you end up having a larger weapon.... that cannot fire over a longer range compared to a normal weapon.
In my opinion it really doesn't make much sense that spinal weapons have the same range as normal weapons, because beam fire controls always end up being the limiting factor. Where is my superweapon that can (try to) incinerate the enemies before they get into normal range?
This is really a staple of spinal weapons in sci-fi. Bigger damage AND bigger range.

I would like to hear your opinion on this Steve. Would you be contrary to address this problem in some way? Maybe being able to build "spinal" beam fire controls that can be used only for spinal weapons, in order to be able to use their effective range?

Wouldn't the over range still give a damage drop off advantage ?


I wondered if Spinal Mounts of weapons could be represented similar to the relationship between the Particle beam and the Particle Lance if the Lance became a Spinal Mount Weapon only

So one had Regular Sized versions and a different Spinal Mount only version unlocked after some of the regular versions have been developed that in addition to bigger & better has something else to make it stand out

Such as the Lances' different Damage template


Though I am not sure what a Spinal Laser or Spinal Mass Driver could have as a point of difference, but I fail on the creativity front, but image for the sake of example shield bleed through or bonus to shock damage.

[Jarhead0331]

Apologies in advance for what may be a stupid question...

What is "obfuscation" in relation to finalizing the development of the initial release? 

Despite my repeated requests not to do so, there have been threats to hack the source code and create alternate versions of Aurora. These have come mainly via the Discord or private message, but also on these forums. Here is an example.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10217.0

This is impossible to prevent entirely and it is frustrating that I have to spend time on this, but I need to give myself some protection against those with less-than-honourable intentions. I've also added a FAQ post on the subject.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10606.0

Thanks. I’m not sure what is more offensive. The simple fact that someone would want to do this, or the fact that some would be so open about their intention to do so.

[Alsadius]

Thanks. I’m not sure what is more offensive. The simple fact that someone would want to do this, or the fact that some would be so open about their intention to do so.

If Steve wasn't so massively opposed to it, I'd give it some serious thought. More as a learning exercise than anything - I'd certainly never try to fork his project - but I'm curious as to how you'd build something like this in the first place. Heck, I'm even a little bit curious about what obfuscated code looks like, though not nearly enough to justify both the effort involved in teaching myself how to reverse-engineer a code base *and* the feeling that I'm being a dick by screwing with the wishes of someone who is doing really nice things for dorky gamers like me.

Maybe I should just go find one of those old-school open source games like Wesnoth and read that source code instead.

[Tikigod]

Thanks. I’m not sure what is more offensive. The simple fact that someone would want to do this, or the fact that some would be so open about their intention to do so.

If Steve wasn't so massively opposed to it, I'd give it some serious thought. More as a learning exercise than anything - I'd certainly never try to fork his project - but I'm curious as to how you'd build something like this in the first place. Heck, I'm even a little bit curious about what obfuscated code looks like, though not nearly enough to justify both the effort involved in teaching myself how to reverse-engineer a code base *and* the feeling that I'm being a dick by screwing with the wishes of someone who is doing really nice things for dorky gamers like me.

Maybe I should just go find one of those old-school open source games like Wesnoth and read that source code instead.

Grab hold of any game made in Unity, most developers using it don't bother with Obfuscation as it's a additional headache when done in conjunction with a 3rd party pre-packaged engine you don't have source access to. Unity stores most of the core script code the developers used to program the game logic in a handful of assembly files that are easy to decompile for the purposes of just reading the contents if all you are is curious how developers might structure their game logic in more elaborate projects.


However if you have A LOT of time on your hands and want to go through something from the ground floor up to see how every facet of development is done check out this series:

Guys been running the series for 5 years now, starting from writing the core game engine to moving on to the game logic itself.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Another small step forward.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I plan to add more detail to trade post-launch. For the meantime though, shipping line vessels will be ignored for the purposes of diplomacy once a trade treaty is in force. They won't count as an intrusion into alien territory and their tonnage will be ignored for relationship penalties.

Without a trade treaty, shipping line vessels are treated as any other unarmed, commercial vessel.

[Luckymoose]

Been lurking here for a while, but wanted to chime in on the obfuscation topic.  Wouldn't it make the most sense to add some kind of license to the code that would 1.  eliminate the possibility of it being used in a commercial product by anyone other than Steve and 2.  forbid redistribution of any source code? In combination with some kind of checksum for official versions there would be no reason to ever address bugs reported in modified copies and no one would be allowed to distribute any kind of reverse engineering anyway.  It isn't like people can outright steal your code and use it in a commercial product if you have a proper license on it (even if they tried, there would be horrendous legal penalties for them).  It all seems like a ton of concern over an issue that is relatively minor and easily dissuaded.

Of course, someone will always try and even if they did they wouldn't be able to do anything with it besides potentially break their own games.  And with a checksum, you'd spot their modification anyway and thus wouldn't have to deal with it.

Just my two cents while I eagerly await release. 

[Alsadius]

Been lurking here for a while, but wanted to chime in on the obfuscation topic.  Wouldn't it make the most sense to add some kind of license to the code that would 1.  eliminate the possibility of it being used in a commercial product by anyone other than Steve and 2.  forbid redistribution of any source code? In combination with some kind of checksum for official versions there would be no reason to ever address bugs reported in modified copies and no one would be allowed to distribute any kind of reverse engineering anyway.  It isn't like people can outright steal your code and use it in a commercial product if you have a proper license on it (even if they tried, there would be horrendous legal penalties for them).  It all seems like a ton of concern over an issue that is relatively minor and easily dissuaded.

Of course, someone will always try and even if they did they wouldn't be able to do anything with it besides potentially break their own games.  And with a checksum, you'd spot their modification anyway and thus wouldn't have to deal with it.

Just my two cents while I eagerly await release.

Depends which threat he's worried about. But if this is what it takes for him to feel secure releasing it, then I'm cool with that.

[Bremen]

Been lurking here for a while, but wanted to chime in on the obfuscation topic.  Wouldn't it make the most sense to add some kind of license to the code that would 1.  eliminate the possibility of it being used in a commercial product by anyone other than Steve and 2.  forbid redistribution of any source code? In combination with some kind of checksum for official versions there would be no reason to ever address bugs reported in modified copies and no one would be allowed to distribute any kind of reverse engineering anyway.  It isn't like people can outright steal your code and use it in a commercial product if you have a proper license on it (even if they tried, there would be horrendous legal penalties for them).  It all seems like a ton of concern over an issue that is relatively minor and easily dissuaded.

Of course, someone will always try and even if they did they wouldn't be able to do anything with it besides potentially break their own games.  And with a checksum, you'd spot their modification anyway and thus wouldn't have to deal with it.

Just my two cents while I eagerly await release.

A license is just a piece of paper. Anyone that's going to try to steal it already doesn't care about what Steve says or they wouldn't be trying to steal it.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Been lurking here for a while, but wanted to chime in on the obfuscation topic.  Wouldn't it make the most sense to add some kind of license to the code that would 1.  eliminate the possibility of it being used in a commercial product by anyone other than Steve and 2.  forbid redistribution of any source code? In combination with some kind of checksum for official versions there would be no reason to ever address bugs reported in modified copies and no one would be allowed to distribute any kind of reverse engineering anyway.  It isn't like people can outright steal your code and use it in a commercial product if you have a proper license on it (even if they tried, there would be horrendous legal penalties for them).  It all seems like a ton of concern over an issue that is relatively minor and easily dissuaded.

Of course, someone will always try and even if they did they wouldn't be able to do anything with it besides potentially break their own games.  And with a checksum, you'd spot their modification anyway and thus wouldn't have to deal with it.

Just my two cents while I eagerly await release.

See my FAQ post on the subject.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=10606.0

Licencing might prevent 'commercial' theft, but that isn't really my concern. Aurora isn't ideal territory for commercial theft anyway because it is such a niche game.