Topic: Paramount hath spoken

[Cleaven]

you sure why harry was here tul? i wouldnt go putting words into his mouth.

and by the way, yes - there were examples of ships getting "refitted" or "thrown" into battle during just about every conflict. in ww2 just after pearl and before midway the lexington had severe battle damage from coral sea and was in dry dock. she was sent out to midway and had to make repairs during the trip.. there are other examples.. but that shouldnt be what this is about.

and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..

what is important is good game play which is based in a trek environment. at least that is what i believe.

The Lexington was not being refitted. It was having battle damage repaired. I can't think of any ships in WW2 that were sent out to sea in the middle of a refit to fight a battle.  Some were launched early, or had their design changed during construction. And refits were also often associated with role changes too.


Ooops, yes Yorktown. Stupid mistake.

[IndyShark]

Indy, I am saying if the starbase that the ship is being held in is under attack, the ship has no option but to go save the base. If he stays inside the base, and the base is destroyed, the ship is destroyed. The ship has to go out and defend the starbase, if he is in the base.

I would agree with a ship that is being repaired due to battle damage, but a refit should be done well behind the lines and the extent of the refit should determine availabilty. (New drone rack would not stop her from joining the battle, but upgrading photons to quantums would. The ship would be torn apart and in no condition to fight.)

[IndyShark]

you sure why harry was here tul? i wouldnt go putting words into his mouth.

and by the way, yes - there were examples of ships getting "refitted" or "thrown" into battle during just about every conflict. in ww2 just after pearl and before midway the lexington had severe battle damage from coral sea and was in dry dock. she was sent out to midway and had to make repairs during the trip.. there are other examples.. but that shouldnt be what this is about.

and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..


NannerSlug, the USS Lexington was sunk in the Coral Sea. You are thinking of the USS Yorktown. The Yorktown was not ungoing a refit at Pearl Harbor. She was having emergency repairs from damage suffered during the Coral Sea battle. The USS Saratoga was also sent to Midway AFTER her battle damage (a torpedo) was repaired and missed the battle.

I don't think any ships were sent into battle while they were being refitted, but some were sent into battle with damage partially repaired.

I would think ships with battle damage could be available on an emergency basis. Refits would not be.

what is important is good game play which is based in a trek environment. at least that is what i believe.

[SkyFlyer]

Have you guys noticed Harry hasnt stopped around for a while?

I wonder why.

[Cleaven]

Have you guys noticed Harry hasnt stopped around for a while?

I wonder why.

Because he said what he wanted to and got back to work (that thing that people do to earn money to pay bills)?

Also working tends to keep you from getting fired too.

[SkyFlyer]

ah... I thought that everyone annoyed him or something. Good thing that that is not the case. Thanks Cleaven

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

you sure why harry was here tul? i wouldnt go putting words into his mouth.

and by the way, yes - there were examples of ships getting "refitted" or "thrown" into battle during just about every conflict. in ww2 just after pearl and before midway the lexington had severe battle damage from coral sea and was in dry dock. she was sent out to midway and had to make repairs during the trip.. there are other examples.. but that shouldnt be what this is about.

and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..

what is important is good game play which is based in a trek environment. at least that is what i believe.

The Lexington was not being refitted. It was having battle damage repaired. I can't think of any ships in WW2 that were sent out to sea in the middle of a refit to fight a battle.  Some were launched early, or had their design changed during construction. And refits were also often associated with role changes too.


Ooops, yes Yorktown. Stupid mistake.

Interesting discussion.  I'm an ex navy logistic officer so this kind of thing gets my interest.  Just to let you know how repair/refit is currently organized in the Navy there are three basic level:

1) Operational -  Simple maintenance and repairs...
2) Intermediate -  Repair of large complex components available in BIG ship like carrier done in-house...
3) Depot -  The complete rebuilding or refit of a ship or weapon system (like an aircraft).   

I would rather think that futuristic repair, upgrade and refit would not follow the curent naval or technological paradigm.  One difference is that a shipyard in the future, based in space (the most logical place for refits), would most likely be able to be moved around.

So "location" in and of itself might not be a factor.  Two other factors would probably remain somewhat similar or perhaps even constant and that would be availability of supply and protection of the facility.  Raw materials would be no problem since there is plenty in space and in and around other celestial bodies but technological components would have to be shipped off planet or from base to base from behind the lines.  A third factor would be advancements in industrial technology, metallurgy and the like.  I could see how "transporter" technology could be converted to industrial uses.  Whole sections of a hull could be transported in place, and melecularily bonded without welding.  Weapons systems with pre specified "coordinates" could be swapped out rather quickly as part of a "kit" with little left to do but "O" level linkage, calibration and testing.

An offshoot to this might be the invention of industrial constructive transporters that would just need raw materials and  compnent data to reproduce the needed technology WITHOUT going being "on planet" or coming from a specialized facility.  This might be likely I think.  You could have a transport "hold" a component's "pattern", millions of components, in memory for future use and use whatever is needed on the other end to reconstruct the component.

But I think I'll post my ideas elsewhere for I think we are getting off topic.

Anyway about Paramount all I can say is "wait and see".  Trek games have a bad history and part of the problem is that Trek is not entirely science fiction, there is a certain amount of "canon" that goes into it.  People make Trek games for pre-established audiences that have certain "expectations".    These expectations aren't always met.

No doubt Harry's appearence is just a probe to find out what those expectations are.

Fine.  But I can tell you what they really are and they will probably not be met because SFB/SFC/andTrek are legally blocked... So any effort to create a tatical and strategic game that features starships in combat might just crumble once more into "fan mining" and expectation exploitation.  Paramount already showed us how they conceived such a game in SC3 and the reaction byu the community appears to have been ambivalent.  Part of the problem with creating games as spinoffs from popular culture is that job one to the DEVs is to satisfy those expectations.  Creativity, originality, and deapth sometimes, more often than not, take a back seat. 

Anyway the best I can offer is "wait and  see".  If Harry was entry level just seven years ago perhaps he has some ideas that might surprise us, now that he has a some grass growing under his feet.

[Katherine]

and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..

Define "a lot".  SFC 3 did poor in sales cause of the micromanagement headache that SFC 2 and SFC 2 OP had a lot of the casual gamers thought that SFC 3 was still like that.  There is a fine line between TREK games and TREK games which actully put off gamers from playing them.  As you know, Vic isnt able to answer due to being in hospital and then going on a much needed holiday.  Again, you need to step out of the world of SFC and look at the rest of trek gaming.  Just seems that no matter what Vic says people in here will just tear it down anyway.  Even while is is not able to answer.

[Age]

  I would say that he going to have to print this hole thread up to get some I deas but then agian he may go with his own and some from the community.

[NannerSlug]

not speaking for harry (like some in this thread are).. but i think too many people are making too much of it. could it be that he is just droping by as an ur-ah?

anywho. i have it on good authority that while sfc3 didnt rock the world, it did do okay (especially in light of lack of support, it was RMA'd and the law suit) and more importantly, it made a tidy profit.

'nuff said.

also.. SFC3 had too much cut out of it. whether it was a lack of arcs, t-bombs, ships or variants - it was just too cut up. It did make several good strides, though, in UI simplification (thats different than dumbing down) like the passive sensor array and the indicator if you were out of range or if the weapon was cycling (among other things). I do realize that in the "grander gaming experience" that sfc1/2 and op were "complex" (one of the reasons why sfc2 dropped off significantly compared to sfc1).. but it had good, lasting game play - which is why sfc sales stayed constant instead of the release then dropped off the face of the earth like Bridge commander.

anywho.

game play rules. i cannot wait to see what is being developed. Bridge commander was VERY close.. but there were not enough ships, the phasers were under powered and you had Bird of preys projecting the same fire power as a sovy. excellent ideas, though. hope to see more.

[Dash Jones]

and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..

Define "a lot".  SFC 3 did poor in sales cause of the micromanagement headache that SFC 2 and SFC 2 OP had a lot of the casual gamers thought that SFC 3 was still like that.  There is a fine line between TREK games and TREK games which actully put off gamers from playing them.  As you know, Vic isnt able to answer due to being in hospital and then going on a much needed holiday.  Again, you need to step out of the world of SFC and look at the rest of trek gaming.  Just seems that no matter what Vic says people in here will just tear it down anyway.  Even while is is not able to answer.

Hope Vic feels better...

On the other note...I have to disagree.  People didn't buy SFC3 because of word of mouth...SFC 3 was boring.  In OP, SFC, and SFC2, when you hit someone, you could tell a difference, or you had something else to keep your mind up.  In SFC 3 many hits seemed to do very little if anything at all...and a lot of the fun of the game...just seemed to be missing.

Don't get me wrong...I loved SFC 3 as it was the closest to Star Trek combat that one could get for TNG (yes I liked Bridge Commander, but SFC 3 as far as ship combat blew BC away IMO).  Bridge Commander was based on games like Klingon Academy, but most will agree (who played both games and actually got KA to work...which might be no small feat) that KA blew BC out of the water.  BC was too limited on the number of ships (even fewer than SFC3!), and some of the shots were to hard to pull of as the angles for shooting sometimes were just...well odd...and a whole slew of other problems unique to BC.  The big limiting factor of BC was the limited amount of ships.

A similar thing occurred with SFC 3, however, at least SFC 3 had the ability to customize your ship.

I think another thing that hurt SFC 3 was the limitation of races.  They SHOULD have included Cardassians...and even more...instead of hoping for an expansion with the Dominion, they should have just tossed the Dominion in as a playable race...

I think NOT doing that hurt sales tremendously...ESPECIALLY given the timing...just shortly after DS9 had wound down...and all.

The big reason people might not have bought SFC3 (and I'm not sure of the sales so I couldn't say whether it sold well or not) was that it just wasn't as fun as some of the other games out. 

SFC:OP was fun...SFC was fun.  When I play a game I don't care how complex or simple it is...the biggest thing I think about is the fun factor...

SFC 3 was fun for me...but not as fun as the other SFC games overall...and could have been more fun than it was.

PS:  On another note...once again...hope Vic is getting better, this time take him on that vacation, and don't let him near ANY stress (like the forums or anyplace else) until he's fully been relaxed...

[SkyFlyer]

Dash is right... SFC3 was just not as fun as its predessors... Kind of like Freelancer. It got routine... And it was way too hard to damage someone... If you got bopped with a photon in SFC2 on a downed shield, you would feel it... at the very least, if no hull damage was done, a couple systems would light up. In sfc3, if you hit 4 overloaded photons on an open hull, nothing happens.

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

and sorry victor, but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time. bridge commander could have scored better as well.. they were soo close..

Define "a lot".  SFC 3 did poor in sales cause of the micromanagement headache that SFC 2 and SFC 2 OP had a lot of the casual gamers thought that SFC 3 was still like that.  There is a fine line between TREK games and TREK games which actully put off gamers from playing them.  As you know, Vic isnt able to answer due to being in hospital and then going on a much needed holiday.  Again, you need to step out of the world of SFC and look at the rest of trek gaming.  Just seems that no matter what Vic says people in here will just tear it down anyway.  Even while is is not able to answer.

Hope Vic feels better...

On the other note...I have to disagree.  People didn't buy SFC3 because of word of mouth...SFC 3 was boring.  In OP, SFC, and SFC2, when you hit someone, you could tell a difference, or you had something else to keep your mind up.  In SFC 3 many hits seemed to do very little if anything at all...and a lot of the fun of the game...just seemed to be missing.

Don't get me wrong...I loved SFC 3 as it was the closest to Star Trek combat that one could get for TNG (yes I liked Bridge Commander, but SFC 3 as far as ship combat blew BC away IMO).  Bridge Commander was based on games like Klingon Academy, but most will agree (who played both games and actually got KA to work...which might be no small feat) that KA blew BC out of the water.  BC was too limited on the number of ships (even fewer than SFC3!), and some of the shots were to hard to pull of as the angles for shooting sometimes were just...well odd...and a whole slew of other problems unique to BC.  The big limiting factor of BC was the limited amount of ships.

A similar thing occurred with SFC 3, however, at least SFC 3 had the ability to customize your ship.

I think another thing that hurt SFC 3 was the limitation of races.  They SHOULD have included Cardassians...and even more...instead of hoping for an expansion with the Dominion, they should have just tossed the Dominion in as a playable race...

I think NOT doing that hurt sales tremendously...ESPECIALLY given the timing...just shortly after DS9 had wound down...and all.

The big reason people might not have bought SFC3 (and I'm not sure of the sales so I couldn't say whether it sold well or not) was that it just wasn't as fun as some of the other games out. 

SFC:OP was fun...SFC was fun.  When I play a game I don't care how complex or simple it is...the biggest thing I think about is the fun factor...

SFC 3 was fun for me...but not as fun as the other SFC games overall...and could have been more fun than it was.

PS:  On another note...once again...hope Vic is getting better, this time take him on that vacation, and don't let him near ANY stress (like the forums or anyplace else) until he's fully been relaxed...

Well one lesson that paramount or Viacom or whoever should learn is that there is no reason to dumb down a game if it requires you to do virtually nothing.  People should be able to choose just as easily between 6 shields as they could four when thinking about reinforcement.   Also using dumb ideas like "angular velcoity"...how seriously unlikely that THAT would put off a targeting supercomputer.

I just found it interesting that they would attempt to dumb down a game SO MUCH when their audience is by and large considered about average in most respects.  It isn't exactly the Village Idiot who is attracted to Star trek.

Perhaps if they had found out from the people who bought SFC1 WHY they didn't buy SFC2 they might have had a better idea of what to change.  But they just used a butchers knife IMHO.

[NannerSlug]

Also using dumb ideas like "angular velcoity"...

just about as "dumb" as moving 6 dots in 2 different slots to get the same effect. angular velocity has at least common sense to it that a ship moving is a harder target than one sitting still. maybe it should have been delta v instead of just angular v as it once was aruged -but in my view it was a step forward.

sfc3 has some good merrits - but too much detail was left out.

[FPF-DieHard]

Also using dumb ideas like "angular velcoity"...

just about as "dumb" as moving 6 dots in 2 different slots to get the same effect. angular velocity has at least common sense to it that a ship moving is a harder target than one sitting still. maybe it should have been delta v instead of just angular v as it once was aruged -but in my view it was a step forward.

sfc3 has some good merrits - but too much detail was left out.

No, if my Intel CPU can calculate AV, there is no way a 24th centrury targeting computer could not compensate for it.

[Cleaven]

Also using dumb ideas like "angular velcoity"...

just about as "dumb" as moving 6 dots in 2 different slots to get the same effect. angular velocity has at least common sense to it that a ship moving is a harder target than one sitting still. maybe it should have been delta v instead of just angular v as it once was aruged -but in my view it was a step forward.

sfc3 has some good merrits - but too much detail was left out.

Yes - ang vel is D-U-M-B. It is not common sense as anybody who has any practical exposure to targeting systems knows.  The single worst part of the tactical game! And even to use delta vel would be a poor second to the EW abstraction, but it would be 100 times better than ang vel.

[NannerSlug]

um, no.. matching 6 dots of "ew" is even less of a challenge for a computer than matching angular velocity. if you just went by ew - then you have a ship the size of a borg vessel (or space station) which could be missed by a photon at the range of 4 (or less in some cases).

calculating ship movment (or even changes in ship movment and size - things that sfc3 do) are improvments.

im sure you disagree. at that point, i think we just need to leave it at we agree to disagree.

[Crusader]

um, no.. matching 6 dots of "ew" is even less of a challenge for a computer than matching angular velocity. if you just went by ew - then you have a ship the size of a borg vessel (or space station) which could be missed by a photon at the range of 4 (or less in some cases).

calculating ship movment (or even changes in ship movment and size - things that sfc3 do) are improvments.

im sure you disagree. at that point, i think we just need to leave it at we agree to disagree.

A range of 4 from SFB was 40,000 KM.  It's pretty hard to see an object the size of a starship or even a space station at 40,000 KM even with sophisticated sensors.  (Ever watched a shuttle docking with the space station live on NASA TV?....the station looks like a star until it's well within a mile.)  It's even harder to get a lock on the target when those sensors are jammed.  That's what EW from SFB is simulating and that's what SFC is simulating.  It makes perfect sense.

AV has little effect on targeting accuracy with starships that are very far apart and moving slowly with respect to each other.  AV makes sense if we're simulating small fighters in a close in dogfight, but that's not what SFC is about.

SFC is about combat at extreme distances.  The model sizes and screen perspective don't really give you this long distance "feel" for practical reasons, but the SFB numbers being crunched by the computer game were designed to simulate combat over great distances.  That's why AV makes little sense.

[FPF-DieHard]

um, no.. matching 6 dots of "ew" is even less of a challenge for a computer than matching angular velocity. if you just went by ew - then you have a ship the size of a borg vessel (or space station) which could be missed by a photon at the range of 4 (or less in some cases).

calculating ship movment (or even changes in ship movment and size - things that sfc3 do) are improvments.

im sure you disagree. at that point, i think we just need to leave it at we agree to disagree.

Come on Nanner, it's not "matching the dots" it's allocating power.  jamming and counter-jamming.  The targeting computer can easily account for ECM if it has the power to do so, if not given the power it has to "guess," hence the attack shift.

Not sure if the size of a vessel would be an issue at the range in which SFC combat occurs.  Does it really make a difference if a ships is 100 meters long or 1000 meters when chucking nuclear weapons at 80,000 KM?

[_Rondo_GE The OutLaw]

um, no.. matching 6 dots of "ew" is even less of a challenge for a computer than matching angular velocity. if you just went by ew - then you have a ship the size of a borg vessel (or space station) which could be missed by a photon at the range of 4 (or less in some cases).

calculating ship movment (or even changes in ship movment and size - things that sfc3 do) are improvments.

im sure you disagree. at that point, i think we just need to leave it at we agree to disagree.

Hehe...nanner good friend.  While your point is valid as far as it goes your rhetoric is flawed.  It is usually considered a bit of a debating cheat.  The object is to shut down the debate so no else can make a better point.  Unfortunately as it occurs in most debates, one person cannot unilaterally shut down a debate simply because they perceive their opponent "disagrees".

Now to the point at hand and "as far as it goes". 

Using angular velocity as a means of avoiding damage doesn't work in a futuristic game because 20th century technology could already cope with it.  It's as if they were bringing in a concept from a WWII aviation tactics and passing it off as "Science Fiction". So how much easier should it be for a 24th or 25th century computer calculating in nano seconds against a human pilot? 

Using angular velocity as a means of avoiding damage doesn't work in a "big ship" simulation because it breaks the paradigm of mega mass ships going at it in deep space.  In SFCIII you feel less like a Captain then a Pilot of a small craft even though the ships wheel about  like they were mega mass marvels.  It is a conflicting effect.  Any Flight simulators does a much better job using angular velocity and it seems to me that SFCIII was a "torn game" that could neither satisfy either genre.  So you are right about angular velocity but about the wrong kind of game.

SFB/SFC despite it's attempt at "speculative realism" is still an abstract game.  ECM is just one representation of that abstraction that creates a rather ingenious sub game.  You should not assume that all that is "going on" is just simple math (even though that is what it is).  These supercomputers are modulating against each other at a caclulus measured in "Nanner" seconds.(hehe) 

The abstraction itself is interesting and REQUIRES attention; it is an abstraction of the kind of attention and awareness one might believe would be required of a Starship Captain attempting to defend his/her ship.   And it is consistent with the game's basic premise.  Turning a Starship Captain into a Fighter Pilot is not consistent with the games premise. 

Any way the debate goes on.  To keep it in context I think whoever controlled the creation of this effect was trying to "reach out" and attract younger and more careless audiences perhaps more likely to find a first person shooter or an arcade game engaging.

For what it is worth perhaps they can have two game settings on any future starship tactical games...am arcade setting and a tactical "advanced setting", with loads of sub games and complexity.  I think that is doable but would a company like Harry's thinkit was worth the effort?

Don't get your hopes up.  I have advised a "wait and see attitude".  I am encouraged that Harry has come in here to tell us about these new initiative but he must by now KNOW what WE want, at least generally.  Would they be willing to make such a game.

I still think our best hope for continueing our experience here is to take the OP code and revamp it.