Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP

[Cleaven]

It's also would be good if the SFC:TNG ranges were based on expressions representing performance curves, and not range tables even though they are smoother than SFB/SFC (with range breaks none the less). This would also add to the realism and not just change big range breaks for small range breaks.
As for the dice, I was under the impression that SFC:TNG did use a random number generator based on a D10 (10 sided or percentile dice). If it doesn't use dice for it's randomness then what does it use?  

[Scipio_66]

Quote:

rob - even if there were modifiers (which i have never heard of before - this is the first ive heard of it), it is still based on 16% range breaks -

There are small target modifiers in SFB.  There have been ever since the early 1980's.  They are used for fighters and other targets which are very small, and thus difficult for targeting sensors to keep a steady lock on.

Quote:
and while size modifiers would be a good step forward, it still probably does not take into consideration its movement, etc  

Of course it does.  So does SFC.  It's called the erratic maneuvers modifier.

I take issue with your arguement that Battleships should be easier to hit than destroyers by any game-reflected mechanic.  Space is big.  Ships are small.  At 20,000 km (range two) not even the BB is visible to the naked eye.  What is important is how accurately you sensors can resolve the target when they pick out a point in space and hold your needle-beam phasers on it.  If they can hold the target, the size of the target is irrelevant in comparison to the acrlength near the target of even a tiny wiggle in your own pointing vector.

-S'Cipio

[Scipio_66]

Quote:
i challenge the notion that sfc3 went away from THE core audience.. THE core audience arguably are trek fans.

The core audience of SFC is by definition SFB fans.

SFC *is* SFB.  Really, it is.  The (minor) differences between the two (like drone speeds or double internals) are no bigger than the variances you will find in the house rules of various gaming clubs.  It doesn't change the fact that a drone is still a drone, a plasma is still a plasma,  the ECM rules are still the ECM rules, and your ship is still a copy of the SFB SSD.

If the gamer bought SFC and played it for a week and then tossed it out, then maybe they only played it because it was a Trek game.  The core audience of SFC, however, bought a game and was still playing it over a year later.  That means they liked the way the game worked.  That means -- whether they knew it or not -- they liked SFB.

SFC3 (sic) wasn't Starfleet Command, and it wasn't the third installment of anything.  It walked away from its core audience.

That being said, the point of this thread is to decide what is best from each title.  Given that I'd admit I like the ability to form fleets and move together in SFC3 (sic).  That feature should be retained.

My favorite cloak is the one from SFB.  (Standard rules, with non-hidden movement.)  SFC1 and 2 shortchanged the Romulans as those titles did not fully implement the damage reduction abilities of cloak in SFB.  I hear the new OP patch will try to do this, and for this reason I'm actually looking forward to dusting off my copy of OP once the patch is released.

-S'Cipio

[Cleaven]

Another two cents since I'm bored:
The TNG implimentation of the cloak is cool, like it is in the other TNG games, but it is not balanced. There is a lot of balance built into SFC2 due to it's heritage. There was also a lot of balance lost due to the almost but not quite complete translation of the game systems, and a little more was lost with the real time translation. Some rebalancing was required.

The TNG cloak was not balanced in it's initial implimetation and this was made harder by the closeness in operation of the weapons systems between the empires. Two empires got a cloak, requiring a three way balance instead of two way. Also there was no play history of the TNG systems to fall back on to have a good idea of what was a good balance and what is not. StarCraft still gets my rating for all-time game balance and it had to go through two iterations of WarCraft to get there with multiple patches to get the three way system right.  

[FPF_TraceyG]

Angular Velocity... hmmmm...
Does this emply Newtonian Mechanics or Einsteinian Mechanics as the base mathematical formulae. And what about the relativistic time-distortion properties of a sub-space field? And what about the Picard Maneuver?

[Cleaven]

That depends. Do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?  

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:
That depends. Do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?    

Even assuming that all combat is done at sublight speeds (which it isnt), Newtonian mechanics works fine for ordinary everyday physics. However, once you reach a velocity that is even just a mere few percent of the speed of light, we begin to see errors, the theory for which was put forward by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity, and later shown to be a better physics model by measuring the apparent position of stars that lie close to the horizon of the Sun. The stars' position were not quite where they should have been according to Newtonian mechanics, but were exactly where Einstein predicted they would be. This showed that light waves (particles??) were 'bent' through a gravity well, hence the term Einsteinian mechanics.
According to the Special Theory of Relativity, as an object increases in velocity closer to the speed of light, it's mass increases, and it's relative time slows down. At the speed of light, an object would have infinite mass, and time stops. The only known particle to move faster than the speed of light is a tachyon. Such a particle, in fact, can never move slower than the speed of light. It is theorised that such a particle must therefore have the property of negative relative time, that is, it is moving backwards in time.

In Star Trek physics, the ficticious 'warp bubble' is used to seperate the relativistic time dilation effects of faster than light space travel, so that on board time is the same as an observer remaining stationary and is not near a gravity well.

[Cleaven]

I'm glad you were able to get a copy of The Big Book of Physics (with pop-up diorama's).

Now, for your combat simulator, do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?  

[Rod O'neal]

Quote:
I'm glad you were able to get a copy of The Big Book of Physics (with pop-up diorama's).

Now, for your combat simulator, do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?    

I  think her point is that if you want it based on reality this is the type of considerations that you would have to make, and therefore, not practical. I might be wrong though, she's obviously a lot smarter than I am.    

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Korah posted: "In this post I use the term "SFB players" to mean supporters of SFC1/2/OP and "SFC players" to mean supporters of SFC3."

Wrong definition.....there are Many fans of the first games that never played SFB and still dont like SFC3...this isnt about SFB vs SFC...its about SFC1,2 and OP vs SFC3....3 out of 4 games use SFB as a base....the odd man out is SFC3....

Most fans of the original games...dont like SFC3.....most new fans dont like the original games....

THAT is the divide.....a third game system will never solve that....

Korah posted: "This discussion should not be about "SFB vs SFC", it should be about what the players want. "

We allready did that....Erik took a poll....SFB based SFC won hands down....Many ot the "improvements" in SFC3 were outright suggestions from the original game fan base.....the problem is that these "improvments" were placed in a game that few of the "existing" fan base wanted....

Nanner posted: ".some of us just want the best trek ship to ship combat game we can.. others (like your self) want to reproduce sfb to the letter (save the turn base aspect)."

LMAO....You know...some of us think that we allready had the "best ship to ship combat game".....

Look...you guys have every right to think that SFC3 is superior....just as people like me have every right to think that the original games are superior...there are even people who like BOTH games for their own qualities....

 But its just too late...the product line has been split....as has the fan base....nothing can change that now...

People like myself....will never accept a "Galaxies at War" based on SFC3.....

SFC4 should simply continue on with the SFC3 ruleset.....while GaW should continue the sfc2/OP ruleset...

This is the only way to make both fan groups happy...









 
   

[Cleaven]

No doubt about it, a space simulator set in a real physics paradigm will be very hard to make (playable). But SFC works in the context of a two dimensional naval simulator using futuristic starships. Define the paradigm and the context of the simulation, then we can discuss how real you can make it.  

[Cpt. Chaos]

Quote:
one quick correction choas about fps - not every idiot can play all fps.. i would challenge you to try rainbow6 raven shield, ghost recon, etc.. you may not know this - but there are many, many tactics involved in many fps games.. so you can stop trying to make a game "superior" because it is not an fps game - simply put, its all about individual taste in game.

Hey, Nanner!

OK, granted.  My FPS experience is limited to Doom II over an old Netware network about 9 years ago...  Chaingun 360's ;^)


Chaos

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:
No doubt about it, a space simulator set in a real physics paradigm will be very hard to make (playable). But SFC works in the context of a two dimensional naval simulator using futuristic starships. Define the paradigm and the context of the simulation, then we can discuss how real you can make it.  

Are you referring to a strategic gaming paradigm, a tactical gaming paradigm, a simulation based upon real world physics, or something else entirely?

[NannerSlug]

Quote:
No doubt about it, a space simulator set in a real physics paradigm will be very hard to make (playable). But SFC works in the context of a two dimensional naval simulator using futuristic starships. Define the paradigm and the context of the simulation, then we can discuss how real you can make it.  

please dont try to take a nickel answer and turn it into a 5 dollar question.

i made a simple input into this thread. it was very simplistic in it desire and nature. if its small and fast, its harder to hit. if its big and slow, its an easier target. what is so hard to grasp about this concept? tack that together with a curved  to hit chart and you have what i prefere - not somthing that is solely based on 16% hit brackets (die role).. to  me, one takes advantage of a computer.. just as i like the fact that sfc3 uses the mass/engine power of the ship to determine the movement - not a magical turn mode.

its all about preferences - and there is no right or wrong when it comes down to it.

personally, if they were to just add a few things into sfc3 (and a lot more ships), it would be perfect for my self.. that way i could have a game which represented trek from TOS to current.. it represents star trek.. (which IS the core audience of the game).

from my view.. the split is more over those who like the sfb rule set over those who are simply seeking a good real time tactical simulator. similar changes in game rule sets have happened with items like war craft3 and what not - and are not unusual for video games - infact it is the norm..

is sfc3 perfect? no,. if it were more like TNZ, i think it would have fit the bill closer.. i think there are some issues related to damage as well (a phaser 9 is equal to a phaser 3) - but thats another issue in and of its self.

anywho - thats how it is, i suppose.. and i  think sfc3 is doing far better than some of you guys think or hope. if only activision had provided a demo or official patch.. again, if sfc2 had been given the same support that sfc3 is being given, there would be no sfc2 currently (or a very, very small number of people).

its all about preferences people.

[Ifrit]

Since Taldren is unlikely to produce another game in the SFC1/2/OP series (or a sequal to SFC:TNG), I propose that we do so ourselves.  A game that made no direct references to SFC or SFB (and used its own models and textures) could ship without any legal complications, and if it was sufficiently flexible, people could write and distribute SFC mods for use in tactical and strategic (i.e. continuous space) mode.

This wouldn't really be SFC4, but rather a general-use starship combat simulator.  However, any SFC/SFB rules that could be reduced to a set of general properties could be carried over.  

[FPF_TraceyG]

The to-hit brackets in SFC1/2/OP do retain the same discrete variables as were necessary on a hex map used with only a six-sided dice, this is true. The discrete nature of the numbers was a product of the nature of the game. A ship could not be 2.5 hexes away, and you can't roll 3.4 on a six-sided dice. I imagine the designers of the game would have plotted a continuous curve with range on one axis, and to-hit probability on the other, and then selected those points along the line which best fit the discrete nature of the game.
In a computer game, of course, we are not limited to discrete variables, and can make full use of the original continuous to-hit curve. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to reverse engineer what those curves look like for each of the weapons tables used in SFB, removing the 'brackets' as Nannerslug has referred them as. At least, this is how I interpret the above comments and if so, would appear to be a good idea and create a more realistic firing solution.

[SPQR Renegade001]

Quote:
Does this emply Newtonian Mechanics or Einsteinian Mechanics as the base mathematical formulae.  

I have never seen reason to apply the practical reality of physics to a game. Newtonian mechanics is easy for the common player to grasp, because we see it every day. Where that doesn't fit the model you want, then use technology as your crutch to re-write the laws of the universe. It worked for Roddenberry. It works for Lucas. It'll for for anyone else if they can convincingly protray it.

Quote:
I'm glad you were able to get a copy of The Big Book of Physics (with pop-up diorama's).

ROTFLMAO
DonHo was so wrong. 50% of what you say is well thought and makes good sense. The rest is just flipping hillarious.  

[Mog]

Ren, I've been saying that for quite a while now

[FPF_TraceyG]

Why do I even bother....<sigh>

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:
I'm glad you were able to get a copy of The Big Book of Physics (with pop-up diorama's).

Now, for your combat simulator, do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?    

<Passes the Big Book of Physics to Cleaven>...

Here, look it up yourself...