Topic: SFC3 Ship customization vs SFC2 mega-variants?

[Whiplash]

Speaking of internal consistency, and this is way off-topic, but does anyone know anything about the current Star Trek role-playing game? Is it any good? Are its ships anything like SFC3s? Does it have good internal consistency and accuracy? It is even alive these days? I way back saw a couple of books on the shelf, and really haven't seen any others that I can recall (but I haven't paid attention, either).

W.
 

[ragamer]

Well, I see the point in this discusion but nobody had talked about this: Why adaptation to diferent roles
(either by customization or by variants) is needed?. Some ppl talked about real Navy... That's interesting,
real Navy needs to be successfull in REAL MISSIONS. I think that the real problems of BOTH SFC2 and SFC3 are
related to the victory conditions of their missions (both Dyna and Solo). I think that 'Mission Simplicity'
problem is very frustating in SFC because single mission's lack of strategic impact on Dyna. Actually, the UBER
ship concept is that ship which can ELIMINATE the oposition most efficiently, because in Dyna is the only
strategic impact that you can have... Reducing enemy Navy.
If you want a specialized Navy you need to have different strategic 'winning conditions' or tasks.
I work as a programmer and I know that actual Dyna3 is designed to be a low-load server, that's why it is so simple
to run (compared with the hardware needed to run Commercial MMOG) but I think that with a few changes the Dyna
experience could be greatly enchanced (the following ideas are based on SFC3, which Dyna implementation is much
better than Dyna2 IMHO):

- Add a component called AUTONOMY that allow a ship to reach a number of hexes FROM THE NEAREST ALLIED BASE,
(Autonomy I (1 hex) and so on. This component could be included sacrifying ANY other weight pool. So if an empire
wish to make deep raids on enemy territory It should have LONG RANGE variants/models that sacrify some features to
be able to attack far hexes. If a Ship is in a prohibited hex (due to base destruction or whatever) it could be
instantly transported back to the nearest valid hex, destroyed or more interesting, forced to move at slow speeds.
- Make REAL scan missions where a enemy Ship/Structure can only be visible in Dyna (an arbitrary amount of server's
turns) if an allied ship performs a successfull Scan Mission on it. Maybe you can have a variant on this where your
passive structures can only detect enemy contacts and to have Specific info on size/type/load you need to perform a
Scan Mission.
- I think that's an error to have diferent independent weight pools in the customization model. Component control
should be implemented by component functionality and requirements. I mean if you have an actual hull with 4 pools
of 5000 each one, I should allow a big single pool of 20000 with ALL the components substracting from it. This of
course could allow potentially EXTREME customizations but if the components have real functionality then is up to
the user to decide how he want to play. Of couse to have this, a number of extreme changes should be made:
   * Sensors Should Appear in two variants: Long range (for detecting presence of enemy), and Targeting (to
     achieve weapon's fire solutions). Long range sensors should increase the detection power as they increase
          in size and power requirements, while targeting sensors should increase aiming efficiency (and maybe
     allowing or not subsystem targeting).
   * Cloaking should be more deadly. I mean, allowing shooting while cloaked and things like that. But should be
     more energy stressing. In that way, oposing fleets should always have at least a Good Recon Ship to have a
     chance against a cloaked enemy. Cloaking systems simply decrease the detection distance as they increase in
     size and power (of course, Enemy Long range sensors should increase that distance). Of course a cloaked ship
     outside it's detection range SHOULD BE TOTALLY UNDETECTABLE but its shots NOT. Also a cloaked captain SHOULD
     know when is detected (or at least targeted with fire sensors).
   * Transporters should increase the transporting range as they increase in size and power. If you want to have
     multiple transporters, then you have to include multiple ones, period.
   * Tractor beams should increase capture range as they increase in size and power. If you want to have a
     stronger grip, then equip multiple beams and target ALL of them to the same target.
   * Warp Core should be divided in two subcomponents: Warp Engine (Increases warp speed or decreases warp
     engaging time) and Warp Reactor (increases power output).
- Heavy weapons should have a 'prefered target' design. I mean each Heavy weapon should be more efficient
based on the kind of target it is fired at. Actually Torpedoes (plasma and photon) seem to have preference for static
targets but I'm not so convinced thet they are more energy efficient than phaser/disruptors. In that way you could
have the tactic variety of SFC2 and their specialized Heavies. Examples of kind of targets could be: Static
Structures, Shielded Targets, Unshielded Targets. And they should have SPECIAL effects beyond damage (let your
imagination fly.. Its SciFi :-)).
- The borg... Though subject. I think that they should remain THE ULTIMATE ENEMY but to balance them, a single step
needs to be done... As they are a really different culture, why they gain prestige as the others. Borg captains should
gain prestige ONLY from ASSIMILATED (aka captured) ships and from successfull assimilation missions. In that way,
the same mission will be harder for a borg because he will have to achieve a mayor degree of success and take more
risks to achieve the same prestige reward. On top of that, their production scheme is invasive, so planets hold by the
borg should decrease their production over time to force the borg to conquest (see below Construction Points Flow
Model).
- Include a Construction Points Flow Model. The actual economic system is simple but limits the players' impact on it.
I think that another simple model could be better. Each planet produces a number of production points per turn also
some harvestable hexes produce them if the correct Structure is built into it. That production points are spent on
maintaining the defensive structures, repairing and refiting the navy, and building new ships and structures. But
the funny thing is that production points need to travel from one place to another in convoys. Each structure have
a number of construction points to spend (so it could be posible that a starbase could no longer repair a ship due to
lack of building points). The ideal situation could be controlling each convoy as a Dyna entity but to decrease server
load this could be modeled as transport lanes (special hex property, amount of building points transported through
this hex per turn). So if a pirate successfully raids that hex or destroys that convoy, the receiving facility will
start to loose building points. To prevent variable overflows and things like that you could include limits on the
store capacity. If a facility that requires maintenance lack the necesary points, it could appear in the missions
damaged or even disabled (the same that could happen with a player ship that is in a starbase without enough building
points to perform a full repair or modification).

Well all of this can be in short expressed as: "If you always do the same job, you always use the same tool".

As usual, excuse me for the length and for my barbaric english.  

[Whiplash]

Basically, anything they can do to add "real-life" limitations on ships, such as supply necessities, will help the game. Anything that improves the continuity and changes it from a set of loosely connected scenarios to a persistent universe will be good. Any complicating factors, such as strange space phenomena, rifts, wormholes, upstart races, space monsters, secret pirate bases, that all operate persistently, will add to mission variety, and begin to justify all the equipment starships typicaclly carry around. It will also make things feel more TNG-like.

W.
 

[Whiplash]

I just realized that I really do want two separate games.

I want complete SFB on the computer, in the form of SFC:GAW, with all the missing parts added in, and staying as reasonably true to SFB/SFC as you can. No warping around or any such nonsense. If it has a campaign mode, it should function much like F&E.

I also want a Next Generation-like persistent universe where my month online behaves somewhat like a season of TNG, and is a cross between Bridge Commander and SFC3. Heavy on the combat, with SFC-like combat, but with mystery scenarios and storylines unfolding, and real-world maintenance issues. I want to be able to warp out and explore new star systems, resupply at DS9, get my ship beat up in the Badlands while hunting Maquis raiders, and run out of my supply of photon torpedoes. I want to be told I can get a brand new state-of-the-art tractor beam that turns out to be a turkey, and be told the parts to repair my phasers up to full strength won't be available for 2 weeks. I'll have to make do with an older fire-control system until then.

Yeah, it'd be very cool.

I think I'm just daydreaming. I don't know how a universe like that could be persistent and coordinated over thousands of players playing at different times and number of hours each day, and sometimes not even logging in for a week.

W.
 

[Whiplash]

Anyone want to continue this debate in the new forum?

We were getting a lot of good opinions after the holy wars died down a bit.

Seems to be about evenly split between SFC2 and 3, seemingly along the lines of whether you prefer the game over the other one.

To me that says that customization may work no better than the many-variants approach, as implemented. At least, it doesn't seem to be a big reason to love or hate the game.

W.
   

[Hertston]

Both are perfectly valid approaches.   SFC3 gives more actual combinations, while SFC2 has a lot more variety in playing style.  

Both are also appropriate for the games themselves  The "Star Fleet" based SFC 2 needed more races , more ships, and more race-specific weapons (just a shame Taldren couldn't finish the job with GaW before being TNGed).   SFC3  is unavoidably stuck with "Star Trek", so the customisation route was possible the best one to give variety from the number of races involved.  Some would say to that, "why not include the Cardassians and Dominion for more races then ?" - the more cynical would reply "so what's left for the stand-alone (ahem) expansion then ?"

As to the "better game", SFC 2 without a doubt.  I suspect much support for SFC3 comes from those with the lower post counts (i.e who never actually played SFC 2).   That said though, having had SFC3 a short while now, I'm  glad  it's different, and not a straight TNG port of SFC2.   It's feel , skills and tactics are very different, it is nice to play in the TNG universe for a change, and this way there are two games I will be playing, not just the one.    

[ActiveX]

SFC3's vessel customization or SFC:OP's purs numbers variety:
SFC3 and its customization
SFC:OP and its pure numbers variety

 

[Aenigma]

Can't we have both? Customization of many ships
Oh, and where did the Griffin-class go? And the Steamrunner? And the Nova-class? And the Shadow-class? And so on........Iwo Jima-class anyone? They would make nice additions to the fleets.

I know, I'm probably asking too much.

Aenigma
Romulus will prevail!  

[Firestorm]

I don't think it really matters the total number of varients.

Most people will come up with one ship that best fits their playing style for a particular BPV and stick with that ship.  

The advantage with SFC3 customization would be, you can tweek a varient to exactly what you want(within the refit rules, of course).

With SFC2, you had to find a varient that best fit your styles and refine your tactics to best fit that ship.

Both are valid, just different, but total number of varients doesn't matter since most people will stick with only a couple of ships they really like.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Quote:
SFC3's vessel customization or SFC:OP's purs numbers variety

There should have been a third choice....

"SFC2: EAW and its highly dedicated player base."

And I dont mean to say that SFC3 players arent dedicated.....just that the players who still play SFC2 are the cream of the crop....and that is a major factor in the decision to continue play it.

There ARE more to these games than ships and numbers.

Let me put it this way......During Attack of the Kitties...I didnt have to wonder if my opponent would Alt-f4 out of the game if the battle turned against them...or if they would warp off the map when a shield turned red.....as a matter of fact.....almost EVERY battle was a pure fight...and usually to the death(mine;))

[FatherTed]

Quote:

Quote:
SFC3's vessel customization or SFC:OP's purs numbers variety

There should have been a third choice....

"SFC2: EAW and its highly dedicated player base."

And I dont mean to say that SFC3 players arent dedicated.....just that the players who still play SFC2 are the cream of the crop....and that is a major factor in the decision to continue play it.

There ARE more to these games than ships and numbers.

Let me put it this way......During Attack of the Kitties...I didnt have to wonder if my opponent would Alt-f4 out of the game if the battle turned against them...or if they would warp off the map when a shield turned red.....as a matter of fact.....almost EVERY battle was a pure fight...and usually to the death(mine;))  

Amen to that. IDSL was, IMHO, the ultimate campaign. When you fight for several weeks, yet the outcome isn't decided until the last few hours(I collapsed from exhaustion about 2 hours before it ended), that's serious fun. I can't wait for RDSL.    

[Tulmahk]

Quote:
  Some would say to that, "why not include the Cardassians and Dominion for more races then ?" - the more cynical would reply "so what's left for the stand-alone (ahem) expansion then ?"

As to the "better game", SFC 2 without a doubt.  I suspect much support for SFC3 comes from those with the lower post counts (i.e who never actually played SFC 2).   That said though, having had SFC3 a short while now, I'm  glad  it's different, and not a straight TNG port of SFC2.   It's feel , skills and tactics are very different, it is nice to play in the TNG universe for a change, and this way there are two games I will be playing, not just the one.    

Well, I played SFC2 from the day it came out.  And behold my post count (not that post counts mean anything at all; not that the SFB Old Guard will ever realise that).  And oh yeah, I played SFC1 from the day it came out, too.  AND I played SFB back in the '80s.

IMHO, we won't see a stand-alone 'expansion' for SFC3, due to the fact that Taldren tried that with the ill-fated Orion Pirates.  Orion Pirates, from what I've heard (I was one of the vast majority who didn't buy it), was just too similar to SFC2 for the price that was initially charged for it ($30-$50 IIRC), despite the variety of new things that were included with it.

Again IMHO, Taldren will make an expansion for SFC3 that will work with the current game.  And if they price it right, it will be in the $15-$20 range.

SFC2 had the better overall ship variety, due to the fact that they had many more ship models.  For whatever reason, the Romulans and Klingons were cheated in SFC3, each having only a fraction of the number of hulls available that the Feds have (Borg's lack of ship variety is simply a racial triat.  They just don't use that great a variety of ships).  So SFC2 wins this catagory.

However, when it comes to variants-per-race, SFC3 wins with one of its best features:  ship customisability.  The reason SFC2 failed here was due to the fact that only a handful of ships were ever used (compared to the number of variants available).  This problem was at its worst in D2 play, where you had Feds actually preferring the lowly missle over their supposed favorite the photon torpedo.  When all you see form your opponent is drone boats, what does that say about a game's alleged variety of tactics?  In the most recent months of D2, most encounters were down to using the same handful of proven tactics, as dictated by the uber-weapon of that game, the heavy fast missle.  One word:  boring.  

To sum up, I actually think it's a push.  Both games had their strong and weak points when it comes to ship variety.  

[FatherTed]

I would beg to differ with you a bit. Nearly all regular Feds dislike flying drone boats. AOTK was an exception, in that we were kind of forced into them just to keep pace with the Coalition. Given our drothers, we'd fly photon chuckers every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But I do agree that a lot of the ships in the EAW inventory collect dust.

Feds, like the rest, have a natural progression. To begin in early era, we are usually stuck in the DD, a deathtrap. As soon as possible, we trade in for either a FFG,  or if we have the prestige, a CC+. But sometimes, when the situation is really desperate, we sometimes take a long look at that CL sitting in the yard(if that's not desperate, I don't know what is ),  CA's and CC's are slightly better than the DD when it comes to fighting a live opponent. As we move into late early, early middle era(i.e. 2268), you'll begin to see a lot of Feds flying around in a light cruiser. Why? The NCL has come out. This is the best ship, next to the CC+, that we have in the inventory. Fast forward to about 2272 and the NCL+ is out. Now we're starting to have fun. Also around this time, the CVA, CVS, and DN+ come out. At this point, only RM's and a few others can afford, or are allowed, to fly the heavies, and the CVS has it's own problems(no power). Let's skip ahead to 2275-76 and then you'll begin to see the ships that most Feds will trade in for: the CB and CLC come out. A few others are released as well, but they're seldom used. Move forward another couple of years, and it's Fed heaven. The BCG and BCF are released. Most of us will finally get our hands on one of these, and we'll stay there for the rest of the campaign. Why? Because they are fun ships to fly.

There a few others that are popular with some of the regular pilots, like the GSC+, NVS, and a couple of others, but the ships I mentioned above are flown by about 90% of the Feds on a regular basis. Photons can be infuriating when they miss, but there's nothing like batting 4 for 4 with OL's.  

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
The reason SFC2 failed here was due to the fact that only a handful of ships were ever used (compared to the number of variants available). This problem was at its worst in D2 play, where you had Feds actually preferring the lowly missle over their supposed favorite the photon torpedo. When all you see form your opponent is drone boats, what does that say about a game's alleged variety of tactics? In the most recent months of D2, most encounters were down to using the same handful of proven tactics, as dictated by the uber-weapon of that game, the heavy fast missle. One word: boring.  

This was my biggest pet pieve with the previous SFC's.  In SFB, special varients like the F-CAD, R-Sph-J, or Z-DF for example were ment to be very limited in number.  SFC did not impose these limits so of course you saw a million of these in combat.  Taldren dropped the ball here in my opinion.  There should have been a way to control how many of these special varients were available to the players in each game.

I do not think that this is a reason to say SFC2 was worse than SFC3 though.  I still prefer SFC2 and I want my GAW.  

[Cleaven]

There is/was a way to control availability. It's just that the shipyard settings don't work in a reasonable way to allow you to do this. You can't escape from the concept of the D2 being a hasty add-on to the game. The variables are there, but either don't do anything that you want to happen or are too limited in function to be of reasonable use.  

[EE]

Hey Tulmahk, Nice to see another Inland Empire player.

[CptSavage]

It's activisions fault All of this is activisions fault. They came upon Taldren after purchasing all the gaming licenses and said "You are going to make this based on your previous hits and remove some features to make it more 'Action.' With that done, release it. Now we will control it, thank you and GET OUT." Thats basically my theory.  

[Hertston]

Quote:
IMHO, we won't see a stand-alone 'expansion' for SFC3, due to the fact that Taldren tried that with the ill-fated Orion Pirates.  Orion Pirates, from what I've heard (I was one of the vast majority who didn't buy it), was just too similar to SFC2 for the price that was initially charged for it ($30-$50 IIRC), despite the variety of new things that were included with it.

Again IMHO, Taldren will make an expansion for SFC3 that will work with the current game.  And if they price it right, it will be in the $15-$20 range.

Hmmm... accounting for currency translation (I'm in th UK), I've never seen any expansion for anything at that price.   I just can't see a "box" release making any profit at that price .

No offence on the "post count" thing, m8 - obviously number of posts here has no connection with experience (or time spent) in playing the games - including SFB.  That said, there are a lot of new folks here (that's a GOOD thing, BTW) who have come to the series with SFC3 , who tend to "back" the game they are playing at the expense of one they havn't - "3" must be better than "2".  Especially if you don't have "2"      Human nature.  

[Tulmahk]

Quote:
I would beg to differ with you a bit. Nearly all regular Feds dislike flying drone boats. AOTK was an exception, in that we were kind of forced into them just to keep pace with the Coalition. Given our drothers, we'd fly photon chuckers every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But I do agree that a lot of the ships in the EAW inventory collect dust...
 

FatherTed, all your points are very well taken.  It was a peculiarity of lack of ship customisation that doomed most variants to AI captains alone.  The real irony here was that many of those ships would've gotten played if only the player was allowed to customise 1 or 2 things about it (on Fed ships, warp power all the way).

Of course in SFC3, with the missle not even an option, Feds are 'forced' back into their photon/quantum boats.  And that's as it should be.  May the missle never see the light of day again!  

We stand in agreement.  

[Tulmahk]

Quote:


I do not think that this is a reason to say SFC2 was worse than SFC3 though.  I still prefer SFC2 and I want my GAW.  

You make very good points, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

My dirty little secret is that I want you to have your GaW, too.  I just don't want it coming at the expense of my purely Star Trek based SFC3.  There is room, I think, for both.  GaW can and should be its own product line.  IMHO, there isn't nearly the audience for it that purely Trek game have (how many gamers have ever heard of SFB?  Not that many compared to the number of people playing computer games).  However, that being said, it does deserve a chance.  And who knows?  It could end up being the favorite.  Anything is possible.

I say:  GaW  and  SFC