Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Sorry, but the answer is a polite but firm "no". Much of what we have would require getting permission from Paramount, a slow and expensive process that usually involves paying for the privilege. While some items could be authorized by ADB (which owns everything related to SFB that Paramount doesn't) alone, doing so would simply confuse the players and detract from the official SFB web page.

Totally off topic, and should probably get my own thread.   (Maybe even on ADB's bulliten board rather than here.)

The above quote is the part of SVC's post that grabs my attention.   As everyone who's branched out into different races in SFC will tell you, SFB is a good game even if you don't play as Fed, Rom, or Klingon.

I wonder if ADB has ever thought of licensing an Omega Sector only computer game?  You'd get the excellent SFB ruleset, you'd get the years of boardgame experience, and you'd avoid bumping into any paramount property.  (I don't think any of the Omega Sector races use plasma, disruptors, or photons.  Phasers might be a problem.)

The real problem is that you'd have nothing familiar to tie it to Trek.   That's why I've never bought any of the Omega Sector modules.  But lots of successful Sci Fi computer games have no ties to Trek so there is no reason that should be a killer.

-S'Cipio

[gplana]

I think it's pretty safe to say that ADB is not interested in doing a computer game themselves; the Steves are essentially board game designers. I also think that if some company (Bethesda, Quicksilver, or whoever) approached them and asked for a license, they could probably negotiate something that would make both parties happy.

There is one important point  to understand: ADB does not have the right to grant any other company the right to publish a Star Trek game, or to use any of Paramount's intellectual property (Paramount or whoever currently holds the rights to Star Trek).  As an insider, I am very certain about this point!

All ADB can do is license someone to use the SFB ruleset as the basis for a gaming engine which would be part of a Star Trek game ala SFC-SFC2-SFCEAW-SFCOP. Any company that wanted to publish a Star Trek computer game would still have to get a separate license from Paramount.

No SIG, sorry.

[EmeraldEdge]

But they could license someone to use the SFB ruleset as the basis for a gaming engine which would not be part of a Star Trek game either, right?

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I think it's pretty safe to say that ADB is not interested in doing a computer game themselves; the Steves are essentially board game designers. I also think that if some company (Bethesda, Quicksilver, or whoever) approached them and asked for a license, they could probably negotiate something that would make both parties happy.

There is one important point  to understand: ADB does not have the right to grant any other company the right to publish a Star Trek game, or to use any of Paramount's intellectual property (Paramount or whoever currently holds the rights to Star Trek).  As an insider, I am very certain about this point!

Hiya, Mr. Insider.   Very good to see you here!

Have no fear, I think everyone knows that an SFB game would have to be licensed by ADB for someone else to build, and that any Star Trek input would have to have Paramount's OK.  I'm still shocked it happened the first tiime, and can't wait for it to happen again.

And don't worry about not having a fancy sig.  Just add a big text picture that says, "Gorn is Good" and you'll be all set.  (You don't want anyone to mistake you for one of the "lesser" races.)

-S'Cipio

[gplana]

EmeraldEdge: ADB could, theoretically. But what you're suggesting (if I'm reading you correctly) is an attempt to circumvent having to get a license from Paramount. Doing that would p*** Paramount off royally, and maybe risk losing ADB's license? That would shut them down permanantly. So, it's just not going to happen, you can't possibly offer ADB anything that would be worth the risk. Sorry if I'm being too blunt, but that's my opinion.

S'Cipio: don't worry, I agree with you. Gorn's are good, especially with that BBQ sauce that has a lot of vinegar in it

(Did I mention that I wrote the Racial Background on the Paravians?)

-- Gary

[KBF-Crim]

Thanks Gary for putting that baby to bed....

Now...since that is settled....

We need to find out who to bug at Bethesda...

[Bonk]

So paramount effectively owns the SFB ruleset... bummer.    I was pretty sure that paramount had nothing to do with the Kzinti, or Seltorians or the other non-trek SFB races, but it appears they have complete control over ADB's future, that's a real shame.

[KBF-Crim]

So paramount effectively owns the SFB ruleset... bummer.

No...just the "trek" part of it...

I was pretty sure that paramount had nothing to do with the Kzinti, or Seltorians or the other non-trek SFB races,

They Dont...and Gary said so....but ADB has made a bussiness decision to not separate their product into devisions that will confuse their customer base...or Risk pissing paramount off...(at least from what I have read)

but it appears they have complete control over ADB's future,

Not at all...only the aspects that would directly compete with other aspects of paramounts licensing...like Trek based video games...

that's a real shame.

Nah...it's just the reality of the situation...

Once that reality is understood....then a clear plan of action can be initiated based on that reality....

Clearly....SFC was licensed to Interplay by both Paramount AND ADB...and quicksilver and 14east developed it...

It happened once..it can happen again....

Paramount has licensed Bethesda ....bethesda has hired Quicksilver to do tactical assault....

The only thing lacking is for Bethesda to purchase licensing rights for SFB....

We have seven months or more to convince them why this would be a profitable idea....

All I'm asking for is 3 words and an abbreviation....

" I would buy SFC4"

 

[EmeraldEdge]

gplana, no need to worry about being blunt.  That's how I like it anyway.  Besides, what you said has been said before, I believe.   I certainly wouldn't want to tempt the fates that have been lording over SFB for a long time.  You could, however use the SFB ruleset as a guidline to create an ADB specific universe.  A rough translation of the rules could just carry over to a new porperty, right?  Then, you would be free to make a pc game of it.  Heck, for my taste, it wouldn't have to be too fixed on SFB's rules, but the fact of the matter is that it's the type of game that a lot of folks here like, I think.  Yeah, SFB (and Trek in general) is important to them, but if an alternate universe were presented that had the depth of play, I think many would follow, as long as it had the depth and balance that a well established rule set offers, which is why I never understood so many people's aversion to SFB rules being implemented in a trek game.  They have been tested for a long time, as opposed to somebody haveing to pull an entire set of rules and mechanics out of thin air and then program it in one short period of time.  When basing something on a product like SFB, a lot of the work has already been done for you, imo.  Frankly I think that anyone making a Trek game based on starship combat is crazy if they don't take a long hard look at SFB.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

(Did I mention that I wrote the Racial Background on the Paravians?)

-- Gary

I especially liked the "extinction" part at the end.  Very nice work.  I wonder who could have tempted that sunsnake into their star?  <whistles innocently>

-S'Cipio

[Bonk]

So paramount effectively owns the SFB ruleset... bummer.

No...just the "trek" part of it...

I was pretty sure that paramount had nothing to do with the Kzinti, or Seltorians or the other non-trek SFB races,

They Dont...and Gary said so....but ADB has made a bussiness decision to not separate their product into devisions that will confuse their customer base...or Risk pissing paramount off...(at least from what I have read)

but it appears they have complete control over ADB's future,

Not at all...only the aspects that would directly compete with other aspects of paramounts licensing...like Trek based video games...

Translation; Paramount effctively owns the SFB ruleset and has full control over the future of ADB gaming. If I want to be real stubborn about this I guess I could confront paramount with this, ask them if they would shut down ADB if they approved or produced non-trek games... I'm betting they wouldn't, that would be horrible business practice and really bad PR for paramount, possibly even illegal?

All I'm asking for is 3 words and an abbreviation....

" I would buy SFC4"

I would buy SFC4, if it is SFB based, for the PC and in the spirit of OP, but even closer to SFB; more ships per fleet, more players, stasis feild generators, web casters, dis devs, still including seeking weapons and fighters, fighters and PFs for all races to put an end to this shiplist donation stuff, ditch the double layer map... put the cartels on the empire map, allow for working option mounts... etc, etc...

edit: ... better fleet controls, much smarter AI, a fully documented, stable "non-black-box" SQL capable Dynaverse serverkit with economics and shipyards that make sense and can be controlled, a fully documented mission scripting API ...

edit#2: non-reliant on third party code... (no gamespy, no WON, no smartheap, no Q3 engine...), more thorough firewall detection...

edit#3: non-directx and *nix compatible would be nice too...

[Julin Eurthyr]

From what I understand:

SFB is purely ADB's property.  Nobody else owns any rights etc. (unless SVC grants it a-la SFC).
However, because SFB has a lot of Star Trek in it (Fed, Klink, Rom, Gorn, Tholian, Orions to start with), Viacom (IIRC, the true owner of the Star Trek name, which until recently was a sub-division of Paramount), has a large say in what happens to the Trek-related portions of the game.

Therefore, a "non-Trek" Alpha-quadrant game, for now, consists of:
ISC, Hydrans, Lyrans, Vudar, Paravians, Andromedans, Seltorians.  A rename handles the Pirates, Neo-Tholians, Gorn, as their fleets bear no resemblance to any shown on TV Trek "canon".

Now, I could see an Omega Quadrant game being marketed, however, the audience would be small-ish, and, knowing lawyers well, there can be no modding so that there's little to no ability to make the SFB: Omega Quadrant game into a "backdoor SFC"

[Bonk]

What you say makes perfect sense, however, Mr. Plana has indicated that this will never happen for fear of offending paramount, thus paramount indirectly has complete control over ADB and all they do. (I'm playing devil's advocate here just to explore the logic presented). Given this, I'm suprised that paramount has allowed ADB to use non-trek races at all in SFB... It just irks the heck out of me that paramount can comandeer the entire SFB ruleset. If I were a developer at ADB I'd be quite offended that paramaount can lay claim to every weapon system, probablilty, HET rules, CnC etc.. though they did not put one drop of creative effort into it themselves.

[Julin Eurthyr]

It's a very, very complicated American legal web involving SFB there Bonk...

To try to detail it in the condensed version... :roll:

In 1973, Franz Joseph was "commissioned" to build Star-Trek related technical materials (the Trek Tech Manual / Deck plans).  As Mr. Joseph copywrighted these works in his name before presenting them to Gene Roddenberry, issues resulted, whether or not Mr. Joseph planned to essentially sign all rights over to Roddenberry / Viacom (Paramount).

Hence, while the manuals etc. were printed, the Trek Powers-that-be denied anything contained therein.

SVC approached Mr. Joseph, after the Animated series was over and Trek's future was uncertain, for rights to build a game based on the materials in his books.  Mr. Joseph granted those rights.

Hence SFB was born.

When the movies were coming out and Trek was reviving, Paramount (at the time Viacom's owner) proceeded to chase down SVC because of his "unlicensed use" of Trek materials (Connie, D7, Warbird hulls, racial names, etc.).  The ruling was, since SVC had a license to use the materials from Franz Joseph, Paramount couldn't shut him down.  So, SVC and Paramount made a separate "compromize" license arraingement, which allowed SVC to legally trace his materials back to the Trek source (hence the blurb "may contain some elements from the Star Trek TV show" on his products), and sent a small royalty back to Paramount.  Paramount also "protected" their standing in this process, preventing SVC from taking anything else from Star Trek that wasn't ennumerated in the Tech manuals etc., and specifically locking down "SFB-related" computer software.

So, ADB still owns all SFB material not drawn from the Franz Joseph & Paramount licenses.  That is why both ADB and Paramount's permissions were sought (required) for SFC, all the rules (HET, 90% of the hulls, extra races, etc.) are allowed in this game by ADB's license, and the "Trek" name, the movie-era Fed/Klink/Rommie ships, etc. were granted by Paramount.

Thusly, in theory, ADB could use the SFB ruleset, and 100% ADB-created materials (such as Omega Quadrant, ISC, Hydrans, Lyrans, Neo-Tholians under a different name, Seltorians, etc.) in a non-Trek-Related / referencing computer game.  In the meantime, I'm fairly certain that the first time someome released a mod that turned this game into "SFB" as we know it, with "Trek Related" components, someone's getting sued.  As that someone "might" be SVC, as it could be cited that he "circumvented" the agreement / restrictions in making that game, we understand his reluctance to market anything tying SFB and computers together without all the appropriate agreements (a-la SFC) made.

[gplana]

A few comments on the comments ...

While the background re Franz Joseph is more or less accurate, when TFG ceased operations some years ago ADB went to Paramount and got a license direct from them. Every product since CL18 has been published by ADB, Inc. and produced under that license. This has been public info for years.

ADB itself is never going to market a computer game of any sort; that's been said by them any number of times. These guys are board gamers, not computer gamers.

IMHO, the only way we're going to see SFC4 is either (1) the source code for SFC-OP gets released into the public domain, or (2) some company gets two licenses, one from Paramount and one from ADB.

[Riskyllama]

ok. Just to throw a wrench into part of this argument, the where does SFB Online fit into all of this? It's a computer game, with SFB rules, that has both Trek and ADB stuff in it, at least as far as i can tell.

[Lepton]

ADB is more interested in selling Federation Commander than killing the golden goose.  While I am sure they would come across with the permissions if approached since of course money would be forthcoming, ADB has its own computerized service as just mentioned.  I am sure they would rather sell subscriptions to that, than give away leave for someone else to do what they cannot do for some odd reason.

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

My two cents:

I concur that the Franz Joseph thingie is how ADB has been able to publish SFB all these years.  I also remember them nixing TMP versions of their ships, mentioning Paramount saying something or other (which is why the 'Ktinga' klinks are not currently official SFB canon, even though they briefly existed in Designer's edition Expansion 1, and promptly disappeared after that).

Also, can ADB do a computer game not involving the trek-based races?  Absolutely?  Would they want to?  Probably not, as most people who got into their game recognized the D7 and Constitution class, and the original series uniform artwork, etc.  90-95% of those of us that play(ed) SFB got into it BECAUSE it was a trek sim, and incidentally got to play (arguably) the best spaceship combat boardgame sim made to date.

ADB loves trek.  We love trek.  So I'd recommend directing your efforts to convincing Paramount/CBS/Viacom/Quicksilver and whomever else that:
1) Another SFC series game based on Starfleet Battles is wanted by the community
2) That there are enough of us in the community to justify doing the product
3) Get those ideas ready for cool, rpg-ish campaigns (I miss accumulating those officers in SFC1) to make the game more interesting.  I love SFC combat, but wish the campaigns were more compelling.  Having a more compelling storyline helps games sell better, and it'd be cool if you captain was an actual game entity with issues rather than an abstraction... Heck, Kirk is a very storied character, and it'd be neat if your Captain ended up having his own storyline (outside of Dyna RPG threads that is). 

Of course, most campaigns currently end up being the same for everyone, but RPG's are good at 'you made this decision so now you can't go down that other path', and I'm sure there are ways to script such options into SFC, if the programmers put the work in to allow it...

My goal would be to make SFC 1/2/OP more compelling to the average customer.  AND I'd even suggest that a 'SFC lite' option be part of the game (minus all the confusing stuff that us veterans enjoy so much), so that newbies don't get overwhelmed.  They can always play the 'advanced' version of said game later once the 'tactical challenge' bug has bit them.

Play level: Easy (no drones, boarding parties, etc.)
Play level: Medium (introduce some of the harder stuff)
Play level: Full (all SFB-ish nuances come into play)

Paramount and Quicksilver want a product that the most people are willing to buy, so they can make the most bucks, pure and simple.  So lets make our case that people ARE willing to play an SFB based SFC (if designed properly), and that the game will be the coolest thing ever!!!

I want Tholians and Andromedans dammit!

BTW, I am still lamenting the sucky, waaay less than 56k dialup connection I'm supposed to have, that makes dyna play effectively impossible for me..., but the threads here keep me entertained in the meantime!!!

[EmeraldEdge]

You know, I was thinking about the difficulty level, and personally I think that the way Bridgecommander handled it was kind of cool.  yeah, I know.  Folks here hate BC, but here's the thing.  You could take full control of the ship, if you wanted to, micromanaging everything, or you could just give your weapons officer the orders to fire at will (or a couple other types I think) and other officers would do their jobs, and you could play at a much lighter level.  I think that would be a good way to still have all the content but alleviate some of the supposed difficulty of a game like this.

I think that asking for a dual ruleset is deadly, imo.  It's like asking a company to make two games for the price of one, essentially.  They still have to develop and test both sets, and we all know how difficult it is to test and balance even one group of rules.  I just don't see the dual thing happening, but I could see computer assisted play.  Officers that take control of systems if you allow them to (set as on by default so the folks wanting an easy game don't have to jump through hoops in order to get a fun experience, but you can change it to off all the time if you want).  Now, I know some will complain that "Hey, I can't compete against someone that controls everything and really knows the game well."  Well, that's the way the world works.  If you ever see someone that plays an FPS competitively then you know that some guy who just bounces into a game on the weekend doesn't stand a chance.  He knows his weapons and maps better than most folks.  That just the way it is.  I think the problem is that a community for a game like this is smaller than your standard largely publicized FPS and but we have more hard core players per capita than the other, so the folks in for a weekend game tend to feel a little overwhelmed if they are bothered by folks that are better at the game.  Personally I look at it as a challenge no matter what kind of game I play, but maybe that's just me.

[KBF-Crim]

So paramount effectively owns the SFB ruleset... bummer.

No...just the "trek" part of it...

I was pretty sure that paramount had nothing to do with the Kzinti, or Seltorians or the other non-trek SFB races,

They Dont...and Gary said so....but ADB has made a bussiness decision to not separate their product into devisions that will confuse their customer base...or Risk pissing paramount off...(at least from what I have read)

but it appears they have complete control over ADB's future,

Not at all...only the aspects that would directly compete with other aspects of paramounts licensing...like Trek based video games...

Translation; Paramount effctively owns the SFB ruleset and has full control over the future of ADB gaming. If I want to be real stubborn about this I guess I could confront paramount with this, ask them if they would shut down ADB if they approved or produced non-trek games... I'm betting they wouldn't, that would be horrible business practice and really bad PR for paramount, possibly even illegal?

All I'm asking for is 3 words and an abbreviation....

" I would buy SFC4"

I would buy SFC4, if it is SFB based, for the PC and in the spirit of OP, but even closer to SFB; more ships per fleet, more players, stasis feild generators, web casters, dis devs, still including seeking weapons and fighters, fighters and PFs for all races to put an end to this shiplist donation stuff, ditch the double layer map... put the cartels on the empire map, allow for working option mounts... etc, etc...

edit: ... better fleet controls, much smarter AI, a fully documented, stable "non-black-box" SQL capable Dynaverse serverkit with economics and shipyards that make sense and can be controlled, a fully documented mission scripting API ...

edit#2: non-reliant on third party code... (no gamespy, no WON, no smartheap, no Q3 engine...), more thorough firewall detection...

edit#3: non-directx and *nix compatible would be nice too...

Ok...now you're on the same page...

I'd buy that too...

[KBF-Crim]

ok. Just to throw a wrench into part of this argument, the where does SFB Online fit into all of this? It's a computer game, with SFB rules, that has both Trek and ADB stuff in it, at least as far as i can tell.

IIRC...to play SFB online you still have to purchase all the SFB materials you intend to play with...

SFB online is only a system to play against others online...not a game unto itself...

[KBF-Crim]

You know, I was thinking about the difficulty level, and personally I think that the way Bridgecommander handled it was kind of cool.  yeah, I know.  Folks here hate BC, but here's the thing.  You could take full control of the ship, if you wanted to, micromanaging everything, or you could just give your weapons officer the orders to fire at will (or a couple other types I think) and other officers would do their jobs, and you could play at a much lighter level.  I think that would be a good way to still have all the content but alleviate some of the supposed difficulty of a game like this.

I think that asking for a dual ruleset is deadly, imo.  It's like asking a company to make two games for the price of one, essentially.  They still have to develop and test both sets, and we all know how difficult it is to test and balance even one group of rules.  I just don't see the dual thing happening, but I could see computer assisted play.  Officers that take control of systems if you allow them to (set as on by default so the folks wanting an easy game don't have to jump through hoops in order to get a fun experience, but you can change it to off all the time if you want).  Now, I know some will complain that "Hey, I can't compete against someone that controls everything and really knows the game well."  Well, that's the way the world works.  If you ever see someone that plays an FPS competitively then you know that some guy who just bounces into a game on the weekend doesn't stand a chance.  He knows his weapons and maps better than most folks.  That just the way it is.  I think the problem is that a community for a game like this is smaller than your standard largely publicized FPS and but we have more hard core players per capita than the other, so the folks in for a weekend game tend to feel a little overwhelmed if they are bothered by folks that are better at the game.  Personally I look at it as a challenge no matter what kind of game I play, but maybe that's just me.

An all SFB product will probably not be considered....it's allready been done...

IMHO...asking for the duel rule set is the only way to get any SFB in it at all...

They are allready licensed to do anything Canon they wish...

Call it SFC4 : Strategic Assault...

They will allready have done Tactical assault...and have developed a ruleset for it..and will most likely being looking to port it into a PC game...

I'd like to see them add another layer of complexity...by using other tables of data from the SFB ruleset...

Is it two games in one?.....yes...it is...but that is the beauty of my proposal.....it widens the market for such a Game....

Our community wont make or break thier product....we can surely help promote it...and help increase sales...

And while it wont interest us if it has no SFB...it will most likely not interest others if it is only SFB...

[KBF-Crim]

My two cents:

I concur that the Franz Joseph thingie is how ADB has been able to publish SFB all these years.  I also remember them nixing TMP versions of their ships, mentioning Paramount saying something or other (which is why the 'Ktinga' klinks are not currently official SFB canon, even though they briefly existed in Designer's edition Expansion 1, and promptly disappeared after that).

Also, can ADB do a computer game not involving the trek-based races?  Absolutely?  Would they want to?  Probably not, as most people who got into their game recognized the D7 and Constitution class, and the original series uniform artwork, etc.  90-95% of those of us that play(ed) SFB got into it BECAUSE it was a trek sim, and incidentally got to play (arguably) the best spaceship combat boardgame sim made to date.

ADB loves trek.  We love trek.  So I'd recommend directing your efforts to convincing Paramount/CBS/Viacom/Quicksilver and whomever else that:
1) Another SFC series game based on Starfleet Battles is wanted by the community
2) That there are enough of us in the community to justify doing the product
3) Get those ideas ready for cool, rpg-ish campaigns (I miss accumulating those officers in SFC1) to make the game more interesting.  I love SFC combat, but wish the campaigns were more compelling.  Having a more compelling storyline helps games sell better, and it'd be cool if you captain was an actual game entity with issues rather than an abstraction... Heck, Kirk is a very storied character, and it'd be neat if your Captain ended up having his own storyline (outside of Dyna RPG threads that is). 

Of course, most campaigns currently end up being the same for everyone, but RPG's are good at 'you made this decision so now you can't go down that other path', and I'm sure there are ways to script such options into SFC, if the programmers put the work in to allow it...

My goal would be to make SFC 1/2/OP more compelling to the average customer.  AND I'd even suggest that a 'SFC lite' option be part of the game (minus all the confusing stuff that us veterans enjoy so much), so that newbies don't get overwhelmed.  They can always play the 'advanced' version of said game later once the 'tactical challenge' bug has bit them.

Play level: Easy (no drones, boarding parties, etc.)
Play level: Medium (introduce some of the harder stuff)
Play level: Full (all SFB-ish nuances come into play)

Paramount and Quicksilver want a product that the most people are willing to buy, so they can make the most bucks, pure and simple.  So lets make our case that people ARE willing to play an SFB based SFC (if designed properly), and that the game will be the coolest thing ever!!!

I want Tholians and Andromedans dammit!

BTW, I am still lamenting the sucky, waaay less than 56k dialup connection I'm supposed to have, that makes dyna play effectively impossible for me..., but the threads here keep me entertained in the meantime!!!

I play on dial up just fine...

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

BTW, I am still lamenting the sucky, waaay less than 56k dialup connection I'm supposed to have, that makes dyna play effectively impossible for me..., but the threads here keep me entertained in the meantime!!!

I play on dial up just fine...

What that I had YOUR dialup connection. It took about 90 seconds just to get this forum to display the posting window to reply to your quote!  My entire internet experience runs about that fast.

I used to have really fast internet at my old job, but they frowned on people playing computer games at work for some reason.

Fast internet.  It's a dream I have... In the meantime, the cable/phone companies haven't got off their asses to get it to where I live.

So, it's single player campaigns for me for the time being!  Oh, and following the Hexx/J'inn/Dizzy you bastard saga!

[Dfly]

I used to have dial-up until finally cable became available in my area.  It ran at 57.6   3 years ago so those using dial-up still, listen up.  If your speed is below the 44-48 range, or even at that range, go to the modem(internal or external, does not matter) website and download the latest drivers, then: contact your ISP and ask for the latest initialization strings.  Doing these 2 simple things should increase your speed dramatically. 
These are free. 

[EmeraldEdge]

I still think a dual ruleset is too much to ask for.  It doesn't really solve the 'too complicated' problem, unless they go out and make different ui's, etc. either, so really you're at two games there.  I am fairly sure that an all ADB product isn't going to be given the go, but SFC3 had a license from ADB didn't it?  Seems like I recall seeing that in the legal stuff somewhere.  So, if it's got even a little bit, and could be modded to be SFB complient (which the game has an SFB license so it's not like going behind ADB's back) wouldn't that be more appealing to a developer than calling for two completely different rules (and in the end, two different games)?  Plus, if the game was successful, and the complete SFB mod was had the most players, the powers that be would likely take a look at that for future products, wouldn't they?  For me personally, I'm not so married to SFB that I have to have only that.  What I do realize, though, is that SFB offers such a tried and true base, and anything else that is invented for the game (especially a whole new set of rules) wouldn't likely have a chance at offering the kind of depth.  I think asking for moddability, in the end, gives you a much better chance of getting what you want than asking for 2 games to be made.

You would need to have an in game mod chooser, of course.  The way things are handled in SFC currently is not very user friendly.  Personally I like the idea of a sliding scale for weapons degredation.  However, even if they did have such a system, and made it moddable, you could easily make it SFB compliant.  For instance, say you have a scale that degrades from A to B to C, etc.  You would mearly need to keep A and B on the same level up to a certain range, then slide the C marker directly underneath the B marker.  Sort of like working with envelopes in audio software (I'm sure someone could come up with a fan made UI for editing weapons in that regard).  Problem solved.  The best of both worlds are worked right into the system.  As long as you have enough edit points to make all the weapons, then you are golden. 

The up side is that you get a little SFB in there already, but enough of it taken out for those that are on a holy war against SFB to be moderately happy.  The rest can be modded in, and the SFB haters can mod the rest out if they really want to.  I would guess that fans of SFC would want an added level of modability to the game compared to what we currently have anyway.

[KBF-Crim]

I still think a dual ruleset is too much to ask for.

I dont.

It doesn't really solve the 'too complicated' problem, unless they go out and make different ui's, etc. either, so really you're at two games there.

Gee...two screens for each ship class in each race?....way too much work....forget it....(yes I'm being a smart ass)

Remember...part of the base Idea is to have fans do alot/ most/ or all the art and graphics...there are guys on here that could do 16 really sweet screens in one night....

I dont see multiple UI's as a problem...

I am fairly sure that an all ADB product isn't going to be given the go,

Then we agree...

but SFC3 had a license from ADB didn't it?

IIRC....ADB credit only appears in the spash screen of the Beta version not the commercial release (I'd have to boot both versions to check)

Seems like I recall seeing that in the legal stuff somewhere.

Possibly...bust most likely..because SFC3 is built on OP code....and there are leftovers still included in the game code

  So, if it's got even a little bit, and could be modded to be SFB complient (which the game has an SFB license so it's not like going behind ADB's back) wouldn't that be more appealing to a developer than calling for two completely different rules (and in the end, two different games)?

Again...IIRC...Activision never purchased any rights to SFB...nor TOS for SFC3...only rights to OP code...which contained reminents of SFB data...

I really dont know what all was stripped out of OP  and added for SFC3...

But I seriously doubt Bethesda or Quicksilver is going to call activision and ask...

The way to do this is with all new code anyways...IMHO...

Plus, if the game was successful, and the complete SFB mod was had the most players, the powers that be would likely take a look at that for future products, wouldn't they?

Chicken and egg....we allready know how successful each game in the series was....SFC1 was way more successful than SFC3 IIRC...

  For me personally, I'm not so married to SFB that I have to have only that.

That's cool.....but for many...it's a deal breaker either way....some people dont want ANY SFB content...some people want ONLY SFB content...

Why not please both crowds in one title for increased sales?

  What I do realize, though, is that SFB offers such a tried and true base, and anything else that is invented for the game (especially a whole new set of rules) wouldn't likely have a chance at offering the kind of depth.

We tried to tell activision that...they scoffed at us (some of us visioneers)

I think asking for moddability, in the end, gives you a much better chance of getting what you want than asking for 2 games to be made.

Possibly...I think asking for what we want, and showing it will be profitable, in the first place is a better proposition....

You would need to have an in game mod chooser, of course.

Wouldnt this be sorta like saying "we dont like your game and are only supporting it so we can change it"

  The way things are handled in SFC currently is not very user friendly.

Luckey for us there are some great modders.....like firesoul...

  Personally I like the idea of a sliding scale for weapons degredation.  However, even if they did have such a system, and made it moddable, you could easily make it SFB compliant.  For instance, say you have a scale that degrades from A to B to C, etc.  You would mearly need to keep A and B on the same level up to a certain range, then slide the C marker directly underneath the B marker.  Sort of like working with envelopes in audio software (I'm sure someone could come up with a fan made UI for editing weapons in that regard).

And you think a dual ruleset is too complicated?

Problem solved.  The best of both worlds are worked right into the system.  As long as you have enough edit points to make all the weapons, then you are golden.

So what happens when you want to join a server?....or host one?... 

The up side is that you get a little SFB in there already, but enough of it taken out for those that are on a holy war against SFB to be moderately happy.

I dont want a little....I want it all...

Screw the rest of those people....they can play any host of Trek games and avoid the dreaded SFB...

OR...we can share a product by having it use two tables for everything...one canon...and one SFB...

The canon setup can also disable or delet weapons types all together...

  The rest can be modded in, and the SFB haters can mod the rest out if they really want to.

Why go all half assed?....you say testing two disctinct systems would be a head ache?...what about a blended system...how the hell do you even start to decide what is balanced and what is not?

The biggest issue with balance in SFC was that SFC didnt have ALL the systems working....the more SFB compliant it became (thanks to Taldren and Khoromag) the MORE balanced it became...

  I would guess that fans of SFC would want an added level of modability to the game compared to what we currently have anyway.

Frankly...moddability is what fragmented and drove the stake in the heart of the SFC3 community...to many different set ups...some peeps like this...some like that...we dont like this...they dont like that....we flame this mod...they flame that one...

BLEH!

Poof....instant fragmentation...

What I want..is a good, solid,relatively balanced,and solidly playtested ruleset instead....

[EmeraldEdge]

EmeraldEdge

• D.Net Beta Tester
• Lt.
• 
• Offline
• Gender:
• Posts: 656
•