Topic: SFC3 Ship customization vs SFC2 mega-variants?  (Read 21731 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SL-Punisher

  • Guest
Re: SFC3 Ship customization vs SFC2 mega-variants?
« Reply #80 on: January 21, 2003, 03:50:35 am »
Eh,...

Trek, and specifically SFB, creates a universe with its own rules, limitations, and methods of play. So one could argue, that based on those rules, a given situation might or might not be "Realistic".

With all the material out there (Stories, models, hell ive seen spock underwear) there is plenty to create a viable universe, all based on human exploits in the future. This is where the "Non-realistic" arguement fails. You see we understand it isn't real, but just because its imagined dosen't mean there aren't rules that govern our little fantasy universe. Who has fun in a universe that changes constantly with no real physics? If your a fan of Allice in Wonderland perhaps. For the rest of us we enjoy this universe because, in many ways, it is plausable.

So any arguements made on the basis of realism are made based not on real life, but on our little universe we've created here.

And why not? ::pulls out phaser set to kill:: Do you have a problem with that?!?!


Mr. Hypergol

  • Guest
Re: SFC3 Ship customization vs SFC2 mega-variants?
« Reply #81 on: January 21, 2003, 03:34:53 pm »
 
Quote:

Trek, and specifically SFB, creates a universe with its own rules, limitations, and methods of play. So one could argue, that based on those rules, a given situation might or might not be "Realistic".

With all the material out there (Stories, models, hell ive seen spock underwear) there is plenty to create a viable universe, all based on human exploits in the future. This is where the "Non-realistic" arguement fails. You see we understand it isn't real, but just because its imagined dosen't mean there aren't rules that govern our little fantasy universe. Who has fun in a universe that changes constantly with no real physics? If your a fan of Allice in Wonderland perhaps. For the rest of us we enjoy this universe because, in many ways, it is plausable.

So any arguements made on the basis of realism are made based not on real life, but on our little universe we've created here.




These are great points.  Realism is still important even in a fictional setting.

Good gaming requires strict limitations.  If it's easy to win there's no challenge and winning means nothing.  Star Fleet Battles and the previous SFC's are great games because they put lots of limitations on players.  It's my opinion that full customization in SFC3 diminishes this element.  That's why I think SFC2's system of refitted varients was better.  You often had to deal with a less than perfect ship.  This was more challenging and a better simulation of what a starship captain would likely face.  

EmeraldEdge

  • Guest
Re: SFC3 Ship customization vs SFC2 mega-variants?
« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2003, 03:54:24 pm »
Yeah, I agree.  However SFC2 wasn't perfect either.  Many wanted SFC1's ability to refit your current ship without having to sell off your current ship and buy a completely new variant.  Such is life, eh?  

Argos65987

  • Guest
Re: SFC3 Ship customization vs SFC2 mega-variants?
« Reply #83 on: January 21, 2003, 05:28:46 pm »
Quote:

First of all I like SFC3, and love SFC2
(however I still hate it when the last Klingon or Lyran Planet is guarded by 9 DNs and all freighter fleets are protected by 2 BBs even though the evil empires only each control one planet and no additional space GRRR)

I do prefer the SFC3 ships varient structure BUT

I would like to see more hulls
at least 2 more races
eras (early middle late)
some real racial flavor beyond cloaks
and some REAL variety in weapons beyond plasmas

When all is said and done SFC3 COULD have more variety

BUT

SFC2 does have more for now.  




Very well said.  Except I liked the SFC2 varients over SFC3 customizing.   I really don't think that one version is better than another, it is just my opinion on the subject.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 pm by Argos65987 »

Whiplash

  • Guest
Re: SFC3 Ship customization vs SFC2 mega-variants?
« Reply #84 on: January 21, 2003, 06:07:41 pm »
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

  • Guest
Re: SFC3 Ship customization vs SFC2 mega-variants?
« Reply #85 on: January 22, 2003, 06:20:29 am »
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

  • Guest
Re: SFC3 Ship customization vs SFC2 mega-variants?
« Reply #86 on: January 22, 2003, 11:00:47 pm »
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

  • Guest
Re: SFC3 Ship customization vs SFC2 mega-variants?
« Reply #87 on: January 22, 2003, 11:12:32 pm »
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.