Topic: Paramount hath spoken  (Read 59664 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline NuclearWessels

  • Evil Dave
  • Serverkit Development Team
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1249
  • Scripter and general nuisance
    • NukeDocs
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #260 on: July 23, 2004, 08:34:08 am »
What cleav, rod, holo, and EE said...

THNX guys...you all saved me a lot of typing ;D

ditto - big time!  :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: all y'all ;D

dave

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #261 on: July 23, 2004, 10:27:51 am »


Question to the community:  Am I the only one who wishes to command/serve a fleet, or does everyone want to simply conquer the galaxy with starcruiser?


Yes, either give me AI wingmen that aren't totally uselss or re-write the engine so 10v10 player battles are possible.

Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #262 on: July 23, 2004, 12:44:09 pm »

Ditto! I'll do you all one better though. When I first heard of SFC all that I had was an old handmedown PC that I used to chat online with. It wasn't capable of playing SFC (or any other game AFAIK). So, I went to the store, bought a comp that was capable of running SFC, and purchased EAW and OP the same night. I essentially paid $1000.00 to play SFB on a computer.

I can identify with that.

I was a dyed in the wool Mac fan all through college, grad school, and a couple of jobs.  For at least 12 years, Mac and UNIX were all I'd touch.  I'd sworn I would never go near a Wintel machine.  I was in fact shopping for a new, more powerful Mac when a friend showed me the demo for SFC1.

Wow, did that change my computing life.  My plans to purchase a new Mac got shelved.  In the time since, I've built three new PCs, bought three new MS-OS, and spent who knows how much on new software.

All so I could play SFB on a computer.  And you know what?  I'd do it again.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline _Rondo_GE The OutLaw

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 10018
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #263 on: July 23, 2004, 01:53:44 pm »


Question to the community:  Am I the only one who wishes to command/serve a fleet, or does everyone want to simply conquer the galaxy with starcruiser?


Yes, either give me AI wingmen that aren't totally uselss or re-write the engine so 10v10 player battles are possible.



SFC1 actually had a better fleet controll system than it's follow on's.  You coudl do a lot of things with the simple commands they had.  (sigh)... 

One of the cool things I would do is put my AI ship in the lead with my human controlled ship trailing.  This forced my opponnent to fired mostly on it.  My trailing ship was on overloads and all the good stuff.  Aother time I assigned two of my ships to attack another group and then circle around  with me true lead ship.  Was really cool...

Offline airBiscuit

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #264 on: July 23, 2004, 02:03:00 pm »
A computer fleet game might have to drastically divert from the mechanics of SFB to be playable in real time, unless multiple players were to be able to link up into battle groups.  This could be a connectivity nightmare, but possibly easier for developers than creating whole new rulesets.  I have no idea of how much computer power and bandwidth massive linking would require.
I don't think this would be any more bandwidth intensive to work out since linking into battle groups can be a 'lobby' function to place yourself in a group before entering a battle already in progress.  It could be like Return to Castle Wolfenstein where players not currently in-game stage up as reinforcements, which queue into the game in progress (as a group) at regular intervals.

Quote
As far as EW vs AV goes: AV strikes me as a ridiculous concept for large ship combat, while EW seems to have been thrown into SFB as an afterthought.  In a strategic game, AV would not be considered at all, where as subtle differences in sensor suites on various ships would make significant differences.
Agreed that Angular Velocity does not make sense, but Electronic Warfare does make sense.  The reason that EW has its appeal is because it relates closely to an important aspect of modern naval combat operations.  And it's not so far fetched in Trek where the concept of 'jamming' has come up on more than one occasion, even as it wasn't treated necessarily in an EW context.

Quote
SFC, except SFC3,  has significant tactical depth, but not much of a strategic game.  There is little or no "fleet" in any of the Starfleet titles.  SFC (except SFC3) teases with fleet elements, but does not satisfy.  SFC3 doesn't even tease.  These games do not make it possible to simulate a 24tth century battle of Jutland or Midway.

Right, and the reason for this is that SFC is a real-time game, and for that, you have to consider player interfacing and control overload:  there is only so much a player can do from second to second.  You *can* give a player too much to control in a real-time game.

This may not be the answer you want, but yes I would love a fleet game, but not if it degenerated into RTS mayhem. Let me fight the SFB fleet games with ISC eschelons and carrier battle groups and I will pay three times the price of SFC:TNG. Go one step further and let me play F&E style campaigns and I will pay four times the price. This would be two separate games of course.

And see, the first thing that came to mind when it came to fleet games was *gasp* Armada 1 and 2.  Yet, those do fall into the RTS mayhem category, and while fun, focus gameplay on a completely different area than SFC.  SFC is about the ships.  It's about the systems.  It's about the crew.  It's about playing the role of captain or admiral and knowing how to use a vessel or group of vessels to great tactical effect.  Its the details of coordinating these complex instruments of space warfare that puts SFC in its special place in the hearts of Star Trek fans.

There are two ways I can see of extending SFC into fleet operations and still retain the complex, thinking-man's flavor that we have enjoyed with SFB and SFC's 1 and 2:
1.  Fleet operations is a multiplayer affair where one person controls no more than a 'wing' of three ships, yet can coordinate with up to 7 other players as a fleet.
2.  Make the gameplay be turn-based, where you can control an arbitrary number of ships and explore each of them in detail, issuing plot orders, defining targets, and letting the turn play out under AI control for 60 seconds (or something like that) at a time.  This is how Combat Mission works for WWII combat, and believe me, the gameplay is rich in depth and very compelling to watch.  This also allows Play by Email engagements for those of us who love to play, but don't have hours at a time to play major engagements.

Offline airBiscuit

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #265 on: July 23, 2004, 02:36:49 pm »
I kind of laugh (because it's better than crying) when I hear about how SFB isn't real Trek, and they didn't have weapon X in Trek because the enterprise didn't fire one, or system Y.   Yet there are countless Trek games out there that make all sorts of stuff up...

...not to mention the shows themselves.  'Real Trek' is a moving target and leaves lots of room for interpretation.  In fact, going all the way back to TOS production, it was Roddenberry's intent that for the sake of drama, they show and reveal only what they need of the Trek universe, its inhabitants, and its workings to further the story, yet leave enough to the mind's eye to fill in the rest.  I think SFB represents an excellent example of such 'outward thinking' to go from a compelling drama to a compelling strategy game.  The question is, is there room for yet-another game system to move in with its own interpretation of the Trek universe for the sake of entertainment?  What are the risks of having too many different game systems?  What are the risks of abandoning established ones?

Quote
...and have elements that just don't make much sense, at least SFB is a longstanding ruleset that has stood the test of time.  As I've often said, I'd buy a Trek game not based on SFB if it was up to par on depth and gameplay, but to me SFB is like a seal of quality that guarantees it's going to have at least a little something to offer other than an hour or two of pretty graphics and then off to the old game (drawer).

Yes, I think that the SFB label is truly a platinum trademark among Star Trek circles, and any game sporting the SFB stamp is sure to garner immediate attention and respect from fans because it has a long accepted and deeply explored history.  For many fans, that is Trek.  Why should we diverge from that?  One of the concerns that many intellectual property holders have with regards to derivative products is the threat of dilution of the property such that is loses clear definition and strays from a company's intended direction.  Yet, when well-established derivative products such as SFB are cast aside as no longer valid, such dilution inevitably occurs.  If yet another game developer comes in and portrays Star Trek tactics in a whole new way, as fans we may get conflicting messages about what starship combat in the Trek universe is all about.  I am a little uncertain about whether this 'not-invented-here' syndrome should continue with Star Trek interactive entertainment for this reason.  Star Trek has to grow and explore strange new worlds in order to thrive, but should it do so in the manner of remolding itself every so often or instead supporting already established lore?

Offline Death_Merchant

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3639
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #266 on: July 23, 2004, 03:42:06 pm »

Ditto! I'll do you all one better though. When I first heard of SFC all that I had was an old handmedown PC that I used to chat online with. It wasn't capable of playing SFC (or any other game AFAIK). So, I went to the store, bought a comp that was capable of running SFC, and purchased EAW and OP the same night. I essentially paid $1000.00 to play SFB on a computer.

I can identify with that.

I was a dyed in the wool Mac fan all through college, grad school, and a couple of jobs.  For at least 12 years, Mac and UNIX were all I'd touch.  I'd sworn I would never go near a Wintel machine.  I was in fact shopping for a new, more powerful Mac when a friend showed me the demo for SFC1.

Wow, did that change my computing life.  My plans to purchase a new Mac got shelved.  In the time since, I've built three new PCs, bought three new MS-OS, and spent who knows how much on new software.

All so I could play SFB on a computer.  And you know what?  I'd do it again.

-S'Cipio
S'Cipio! Don't go into the light! Turn away from the light! ;)

I did as you, but I didn't fall off the edge of the cliff.
One PC for SFC -> next box and all software was Mac.

Mac is unix now. It's not too late. Reclaim your soul! Run a perl script again! On a Mac! ;D

Oh, and Harry: Next Trek game cross-platform?
Pretty please with sugar?

I'd rather upgrade my Mac to play a new Trek title.
...but if I upgrade only to play the next Blizzard offering or Doom 3, so be it.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and is widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams (1952-2001)

Offline airBiscuit

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 23
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #267 on: July 23, 2004, 04:55:08 pm »
To get back on topic, I will ask a question regarding the interview with Harry:

Yes that article is old...we're at a different stage now.  All I can say is that when we finally are able to share more concrete news, you'll see that we really are taking a different approach from the way things were done in the past and it will be very focused.  Some may agree with what we do, some won't.  But I'm doing everything I can to influence changes.  Part of that is community involvement. 
Skepticism is ok.  Just keep an open mind. 

One of the key words you are using is "focussed".  There are two ways I can interpret this.  Either VCP  will put focus and attention to one product release at a time and endeavor to make it a real standout, OR VCP will endeavor to make products that each have a specific approach, that appeals to a certain type of gameplay, without trying to be too many things at once.

Would you be able to clarify on this?   Many thanks.

Offline Harry

  • Paramount Pictures
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #268 on: July 24, 2004, 11:05:16 am »
To get back on topic, I will ask a question regarding the interview with Harry:

Yes that article is old...we're at a different stage now.  All I can say is that when we finally are able to share more concrete news, you'll see that we really are taking a different approach from the way things were done in the past and it will be very focused.  Some may agree with what we do, some won't.  But I'm doing everything I can to influence changes.  Part of that is community involvement. 
Skepticism is ok.  Just keep an open mind. 

One of the key words you are using is "focussed".  There are two ways I can interpret this.  Either VCP  will put focus and attention to one product release at a time and endeavor to make it a real standout, OR VCP will endeavor to make products that each have a specific approach, that appeals to a certain type of gameplay, without trying to be too many things at once.

Would you be able to clarify on this?   Many thanks.

I would say it's a combination of both.  Like I said in the interview, you're not going to see the market flooded with Trek games like in the past.  quality not quantity.  I'm trying not to be too vague right now ;) As soon as we can make an announcement it will become clearer.

Offline _Rondo_GE The OutLaw

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 10018
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #269 on: July 24, 2004, 08:39:16 pm »
To get back on topic, I will ask a question regarding the interview with Harry:

Yes that article is old...we're at a different stage now.  All I can say is that when we finally are able to share more concrete news, you'll see that we really are taking a different approach from the way things were done in the past and it will be very focused.  Some may agree with what we do, some won't.  But I'm doing everything I can to influence changes.  Part of that is community involvement. 
Skepticism is ok.  Just keep an open mind. 

One of the key words you are using is "focussed".  There are two ways I can interpret this.  Either VCP  will put focus and attention to one product release at a time and endeavor to make it a real standout, OR VCP will endeavor to make products that each have a specific approach, that appeals to a certain type of gameplay, without trying to be too many things at once.

Would you be able to clarify on this?   Many thanks.

I would say it's a combination of both.  Like I said in the interview, you're not going to see the market flooded with Trek games like in the past.  quality not quantity.  I'm trying not to be too vague right now ;) As soon as we can make an announcement it will become clearer.

That's a thought. 

Back to fleets duking it out in space.  What was the best Fleet to Fleet Sci Fi game? 

Given:  SFC (IMHO) was the best ship to ship SCI Fi game. (with some fleet elements...(small squadron combat)

The above question not addressed to Harry.

Offline Cleaven

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 375
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #270 on: July 25, 2004, 12:46:15 am »
I don't know of any good space fleet PC games.  But then I don't like realtime style Homeworld games. I liked Harpoon though, but it was wet navy and single player only and I could slow it down to real real time, or pause to think if I wanted to. Some sort of time limits are needed for online multiplayer though or you have to go PBEM. Anyway my preference is for a thinking fleet game and not a "twitch" to see who has the fastest fingers game. If I want twitch I drag out StarCraft.




Not sure I can be bothered, but as you are the Doc, can you run an AI standard patrol in 2 minutes in a KRC? If so, there is no problem and I am utterly wrong. If you cannot, then the KRC is a worse ship for AI missions than ones I know can.

Offline _Rondo_GE The OutLaw

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 10018
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #271 on: July 25, 2004, 03:00:39 pm »
I don't know of any good space fleet PC games.  But then I don't like realtime style Homeworld games. I liked Harpoon though, but it was wet navy and single player only and I could slow it down to real real time, or pause to think if I wanted to. Some sort of time limits are needed for online multiplayer though or you have to go PBEM. Anyway my preference is for a thinking fleet game and not a "twitch" to see who has the fastest fingers game. If I want twitch I drag out StarCraft.


Come to think of it I can't remember one either.

Offline KBF-Dogmatix_XC

  • Pimpmaster General
  • XenoCorp® Member
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 401
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #272 on: July 26, 2004, 12:11:00 pm »
wow, the love in this place is unbelieveable...we can't win either way.

However, let me clarify:

-I oversee Trek gaming only...nothing to do with the shows or movies.  It's a big company.
-Concerning the all eras game, that was in response to the quesiton if we would consider one.  I said it's not out of the question.
-We haven't been saying things will get better time and time again...this isn't the same ole company line.  Actually, for the past year, we haven't really said much of anything.  But I mean what I say when I say wait a few months.  Things are changing.  Especially with regards to the community and future or else I wouldn't have agree to this interview with a fan site in the first place.  I don't know where this thing about us (gaming) being consistently vague comes from.
-I also mean what I say about recreating this illustrious franchise.  More details will be provided soon as I have said.  And I can promise you it will surprise you.

Hope this helps clarify things.

Harry


Looking forward to it, Harry.  :)


Dogmatix, XC, KBF
yo' aj, Klingon Black Fleet
Director, XenoCorp Tactics and Strategy Division
DGA Board of Directors
SFC2.Net Administrator

Offline _Rondo_GE The OutLaw

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 10018
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #273 on: July 26, 2004, 02:47:03 pm »
I don't know of any good space fleet PC games.  But then I don't like realtime style Homeworld games. I liked Harpoon though, but it was wet navy and single player only and I could slow it down to real real time, or pause to think if I wanted to. Some sort of time limits are needed for online multiplayer though or you have to go PBEM. Anyway my preference is for a thinking fleet game and not a "twitch" to see who has the fastest fingers game. If I want twitch I drag out StarCraft.



Come to think of it I can't remember one either.


Well I've waited long enough.  (now after those famous words around ten folks will pile on)

Seems to me a space game doesn't really lend itself to large scale fleet engagements in the same way that a naval simulation does.  Or at least in the PC context.  Or perhaps the potential has never been realized.

Seems to me it would be a risk unless they (Harry?s group) have some definite ideas.  I remember an episode in TNG or DS9 where whole messes of Federation starships take on a BORG cube (or cubes?).  It was a very exciting episode.  But tactically it seems like this comes down to power gaming.  Not much replay value there.

Compare that to the fun you can have in a Naval simulation.  The tactics even in open sea battles are still rich with possibilities.  I loved to play hypothetical battles involving moderately sized fleets.  One of my best games was a loss between me (US and my Japanese opponent no carriers either side). 

To make a long story short it was 3 Iowa class battleships vs the Yamamoto and 4 more older Jap battleships plus 7 US heavy battle cruisers, 12 US light cruisers and destroyers, 12 US PT boats (vs 6 Japanese heavy BC and 12 Jap light and destroyers). 

The thing I remember most about this battle was my opponents had deployed a Japanese destroyer in front of the battleships with a smokescreen until the were "set" in firing position.  I put too much stock in my tactic of deploying the PT boats into a fast line abreast strike at their heavy cruiser squadron (lost 7 PT boats).  I also lost the New Jersey and though I sunk one of the older Battleships...compliments of the Iowa...The Yamamoto was only marginally damaged and still servicable.

heh, here a cool game...

Description:
Enigma: Rising Tide
offers an alternate history where three giant factions -- the United States, Imperial Germany, and the League of Free Nations -- fought for supremacy on and under the oceans of Earth. Players take command of deck guns, launch torpedoes, and drop depth charges in furious naval combat. Submarines, destroyers, merchantmen, corvettes, and other vessels are available during the team-oriented tactical combat. Players use voice-activated commands and encrypted communiqués throughout missions assigned according to strategic concerns. Enigma's ocean physics adjust depending on the changing weather conditions. ~ Mark Hoogland, All Game Guide

http://www.chumbo.com/info.asp?s=625904408501&ptr=YPS

I might give this a go...

Offline _Rondo_GE The OutLaw

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 10018
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #274 on: July 26, 2004, 03:52:39 pm »
In space you can't smell the seawater...

darn this looks good...