Client support

[Lillu]

To make things easier, development and player side too, we are planning to discontinue all client supports but Underfoot. Since we offer a client download for UF, this shouldn't be an issue player side but just for the kicks making a vote here to see what our playerbase thinks and if there would be any objection.

[Vaion]

Just adding my 2cents here.

From a development side, we can disable all other clients (similar to what we did for RoF2). While this does narrow down the availability of using other clients, it also make fixing bugs and errors A LOT easier. An example is the recent spell casting bar issue. I had to first 1) find the issue using UF (preferred client) 2) Fix the issue in UF code 3) Read through server->Client->Server data traffic to find the issues in both Titanium/SoF clients (approximately an hour worth of work each) 4) Fix the issue in Titanium/SoF code.

While limiting the clients does help me on the code support side, it also makes things better content wise. Right now I modify all custom zones, npc, items, graphics, spells, AAs, etc to be usable with Titanium client. This isn't "hard" since I have streamlined the processes, but again--it's time consuming. Having to only worry about UF client compatibility would make things a lot easier since UF comes with literally hundreds of additional zones, npcs, graphics, etc that are unused due to restrictions with Titanium.

But--I'm here for ya'll. This is my hobby as much as it is yours, so I want to make sure we have a consensus going forward on what is best for the server as a whole.

[Nilbus]

I may not play as much as I used to, but I do use the UF client and am all in favor of anything that makes it easier to develop content for THF. Plus, removing SOF/Titanium gives V one less thing to smack my hands with when I pester about ROF2 support

[mystickitty]

I may not play as much as I used to, but I do use the UF client and am all in favor of anything that makes it easier to develop content for THF. Plus, removing SOF/Titanium gives V one less thing to smack my hands with when I pester about ROF2 support

What Nilby said. Except I don't pester about ROF2 lol.

[mkarhawk]

Hello! Can someone check the links for the UF client download? They don't seem to be working properly... the last link takes me to a page with a bunch of "Everquest for bots" files, but this didn't seem right. Thanks!!

[Vaion]

Hello! Can someone check the links for the UF client download? They don't seem to be working properly... the last link takes me to a page with a bunch of "Everquest for bots" files, but this didn't seem right. Thanks!!

I'll message Lillu and have him look at them in the morning. He manages the web/server data so he will have better insight into the fix than me.

[Nizzy]

I have been using UF for as long as I can remember now, I do have one request thought. If we go with UF only can we fix the levitation issue in DSK?

[moguay]

Give up old customers would be a very good thing.
I say more, renounce UF will be even better for everyone. Sorry I drift, but not much.
It would be better for all communities, would be merge on the latest version of eqemu to re-contribute to the project and does not fall into a corner.

It should have been a line of conduct. : roll:

[Vaion]

I have been using UF for as long as I can remember now, I do have one request thought. If we go with UF only can we fix the levitation issue in DSK?

The problem with levitate in DSK is that it is hardcoded into the client/zone data. It would require us to actually patch the eqgame.exe which is tedious in iteself.

[mrhorrn]

Also voting Yes to make it easier on the Dev team too.. and also because it's a much cleaner UI and seems to offer access to more AA so everyone should use it really.

*edit*.. less time spent on fixing old UIs = more spent time on fixing new / upcoming UIs?