Topic: Some changes  (Read 19471 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Some changes
« on: November 08, 2013, 01:37:33 pm »
I have made some changes for expedience to get the game deployed faster.

Design:  The original intent was to have a character with stats as a captain and customize the ships.  To me this lacked a real game strategy for single player and questionable multiplayer.  So the change is to have th overall strategy galactic conquest that is a cross between Birth of the Federation and Armada.  There will be control of resources to build and expand.  Also, try and build some intelligence into the AI.  Campaigns, with goals and objectives are highly customizeable.  The combat will allow simple (automated) or manual.  Manual is tactical combat controlled by the player, with full 3D player controlled combat,  Order can be given to the rest of the fleet.

Characters and customizaion will be added in later.

The strategic part of the game will be in C# as performance is not an issue.  The actual 3D (tactical) combat depends on what is adequate performance, but will be multithread/core and utilize GPU on comptible systems.. 
Customization will support LUA and C# both

And there is a skirmish mode to allow jumping to 3D combat with up to 5 ships per side.  Single player or multiplayer.

There will also be both single player and multiplayer save.  This will allows different players to savee the game and come back later.  An examole, if a game is saved with 4 players and later on 3 can make it, the AI will play the missing player and later the missing player may take over.  What will not be saved is 3D combat.  Not yet.h

Network details are still not decided.  I see 3 choices.  Use Steam.   Use Dyna, just have to create a new universe and change the code.  Third option is to do over our own universe but use dyna servers.

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some changes
« Reply #1 on: November 09, 2013, 09:20:09 pm »
You may want to consider a name change as this doesn't sound anything like SFC.  The main focus of past SFC games was piloting a ship against another ship(s) to conquest areas of the map.  The micromanaging of the ship itself was always the main focus.  What you are describing is something entirely different.
 

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2013, 11:31:46 am »
You have a point.  A reason I post my thoughts here to get feed back.

As it is just me coding I was looking for a way to accelerate deployment as I do not want this to take another year or more.

I may have no described it well enough.  The strategic would be similar to sfc2, like dyna.  But adding research etc to get better ships and technology.  This is from Birth of the Federation and Armada.  Movement closer to dyna.

Combat would be a automatic combat like Birth of the Federation or manual.  Manual would be ship to ship pilot o a ship just like in SFC2, with some changes.  For large fleets u would be commanding the flagship but the other ships would follow some preset strategies.

What is lacking is the ability to finely customize the ships and captain/character traits.  This will be added, but I would like to get the game out for it to be played and get improvement ideas.    Then the expansion if you ant to call it that.  All this together may take another 2 years, working alone.  But release 1 early next year.  And another 18 months for improvements and add the additional capability.


Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #3 on: November 10, 2013, 12:35:03 pm »
Personally I think you should scrap the whole ship customization idea (and player weapons creation if you're considering it) if you want to make it anything like SFC/SFB in flavor and feel. Your ship is not your own personal "hot rod" to soup up and you are not Han Solo who "made a few improvements" of your own. You are a part of a fleet and a military organization, the very antithesis of personal expression. The point of SFB/SFC was to shine and win with what you are given, not have the best of the best all the time. If you allow ship customization, very soon everyone will be running around in the same cookie cutter ships and it will become a big bore-fest. People min/max by nature and will always do it if you give them the opportunity. I know customization is popular, and it works well in games where it only affects the performance of your character against the AI, but against people it just forces everyone to play in the fashion of the person who figures out how to work the system and not based on personal skill or tactics.

Now, people will still gravitate towards the ships that are the best to get the performance they want and thereby everyone is running around in the same ships and the bore-fest is back. You can control this through Order of Battle, i.e. control ship production in a sane and orderly way to prevent too many of any ship being constructed and tie that into how many are still in service. Once the limit is reached, no more will be built until one or more are lost in battle. One of the main things we always had problems and debates about was the Econ vs Fighting Ability equation and we had to impose several rules to get things to work well and not have people exploit (either knowingly or otherwise) the limits of the game engine. It would be nice if the Econ and OOB were tied together better with the computer acting as a responsible govenment with a goal in mind regarding ship construction and deployment.


EDIT: I had some ideas about how to tie ship deployment into player combat record if you are interested.
« Last Edit: November 10, 2013, 01:23:07 pm by Corbomite »

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Some changes
« Reply #4 on: November 10, 2013, 02:54:13 pm »
Your ship is not your own personal "hot rod" to soup up and you are not Han Solo who "made a few improvements" of your own. You are a part of a fleet and a military organization, the very antithesis of personal expression.

The ships in a fleet are not uniform, especially during wartime when refits, and parts are in demand.  Its very feasible for a captain to pull whatever influence his reputation has earned him to get the weapons he finds most necessary installed on his ship.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #5 on: November 10, 2013, 03:20:56 pm »
Refits are one thing, completely designing your own ship is another. Besides, with a proper refit schedule the captain in question can get his improvements simply by changing to the next incarnation of his/her ship or to another design they prefer. If you offer enough variants there is no need to customize more than certain loadouts.

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #6 on: November 10, 2013, 06:56:36 pm »
Carbonite I am interested in your ideas.

I feel with a good game "development" system to cause technological breakthroughs that can improve capabilities we can get some control on the cycle of more is best. 

My idea is if we rate technology from a starting level of 1, but the game has built in up to level 10, but can handle up to 50, then we can ue customization and future version to expand.  So we do not need to rewrite the game to add capability.

I also think a real time, run based system for the strategic map.  Where you select your fleets and where to go, and the velocity.  then when all as done, the host will more all simultaneously.  And if combat cam occurs it is done.  The only issue I see is if there are multiple individuals in different fleets, two could be in combat and other have to wait.   A puzzle for real multiplayer.  My thought was to consider time for combat and time for warp and allow the other player and fleets to move.  But the exact algorithm will take some thought.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12919
Re: Some changes
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2013, 08:28:36 am »
Your ship is not your own personal "hot rod" to soup up and you are not Han Solo who "made a few improvements" of your own. You are a part of a fleet and a military organization, the very antithesis of personal expression.

The ships in a fleet are not uniform, especially during wartime when refits, and parts are in demand.  Its very feasible for a captain to pull whatever influence his reputation has earned him to get the weapons he finds most necessary installed on his ship.

TNG episode where Geordi meets the warp engine designer and she comments on his changes to the design.  In Trek there is customization.  Not too surprising I suppose when you may be away from a base for a long time and encountering alien tech and problems that may allow (or require) you to modify the ship for enhanced performance.
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2013, 10:03:07 am »
Your ship is not your own personal "hot rod" to soup up and you are not Han Solo who "made a few improvements" of your own. You are a part of a fleet and a military organization, the very antithesis of personal expression.

The ships in a fleet are not uniform, especially during wartime when refits, and parts are in demand.  Its very feasible for a captain to pull whatever influence his reputation has earned him to get the weapons he finds most necessary installed on his ship.

TNG episode where Geordi meets the warp engine designer and she comments on his changes to the design.  In Trek there is customization.  Not too surprising I suppose when you may be away from a base for a long time and encountering alien tech and problems that may allow (or require) you to modify the ship for enhanced performance.



I'm not sure I'd equate making a necessary modification to save the ship from a death trap to allowing the crew to radically alter the ship's design to fit their own personal desires. A better example would be when Captain Jellico assumed command and began reworking the shift schedules and re-routing certain systems towards defense so he could have better back-ups in a jam. Of course the Federation was not in a war time stance at that point and his modifications were deemed necessary by his judgement of the situation, which could have quickly lead to war. During the Klingon and Dominion conflicts the Defiant was modified to just get it to work right, but it would be assumed that all combat worthy ships would have received a refit to better prepare them for war. I assume that in the game a war time stance is already in place so the ships would be more combat oriented already.

I am not against letting the players cutomize their ships, just only up to a point and not in a way that will allow them an unfair advantage due to the limits of the game engine, otherwise Exeter will spend all his time listening to people complain about a certain configuration and others defend it as "good gameplay and get with the program". If you offer variations on a theme you have to make sure each variation has strengths and weaknesses and that none sound good on paper, but due to the limits of the game actually don't do much. I have seen this in other games and it always turns out the same.


Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some changes
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2013, 11:35:57 am »
Refits are one thing, completely designing your own ship is another. Besides, with a proper refit schedule the captain in question can get his improvements simply by changing to the next incarnation of his/her ship or to another design they prefer. If you offer enough variants there is no need to customize more than certain loadouts.

IMHO that is why SFC III didn't do as well.

As for movement and combat, I think Taldren used the hex map so that they didn't have to figure out all the issues that you are facing now.  The only other way I could think of doing such a multi-player match up is by using the agro bubble, where as if any two (or more) ships enters each others radius a battle mission is triggered.  This same but larger radius could be applied to planets and star bases so any attacked bases can send out it's distress signal to friendly ships to trigger a base defense mission.

This "agro bubble" that I am describing works well in Guild Wars and other multi-player games.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12919
Re: Some changes
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2013, 01:13:13 pm »
I wouldn't support the idea of radical alteration either as that would take a FRD at least.  But changes that are non structural like a D7 using Fed targeting devices to upgrade some or all of their PhII to PhI or using alien tech to upgrade the glass rear shields are more in line with what I was thinking. 
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2013, 01:38:12 pm »
I wouldn't support the idea of radical alteration either as that would take a FRD at least.  But changes that are non structural like a D7 using Fed targeting devices to upgrade some or all of their PhII to PhI or using alien tech to upgrade the glass rear shields are more in line with what I was thinking.

Yeah, that'd be great, but why would it be limited to your own ship alone? You'd share this tech with your empire to let them develop and deploy it wouldn't you?

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some changes
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2013, 01:52:26 pm »
One thing that will help considerably, is to put a Credit Cost on everything.  BPV is designed to balance ships in the skirmish arena, money balances the fleets in a campaign.  For example, its not cost effective to refit every single cruiser in the Federation Fleet to a CC.  Even if the CC is a much better ship than the CA, so Starfleet Command comes out with the CAR refit, to improve the CA without spending the money to upgrade them all to the CC.  And if the feds start losing Cruisers too quickly, they'll be forced to stop building CAs, and start building War Cruisers to fill the gap, because they can build two NCLs for the price of one CC.  Just like the Klingons decided sometime after Praxis that they could build 10 B'rels for the cost of one K't'inga.
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12919
Re: Some changes
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2013, 02:23:29 pm »
I wouldn't support the idea of radical alteration either as that would take a FRD at least.  But changes that are non structural like a D7 using Fed targeting devices to upgrade some or all of their PhII to PhI or using alien tech to upgrade the glass rear shields are more in line with what I was thinking.

Yeah, that'd be great, but why would it be limited to your own ship alone? You'd share this tech with your empire to let them develop and deploy it wouldn't you?

You might not be able to.  You might be unable to reproduce the tech (or do so at an extortionate cost).  As I recall the Klingon use of PhII instead of PhI was the result of a shortage of a critical raw material so they could make PhI but only in very low volumes, as they acquired the materials (or an affordable substitute) they put out more PhI.  Upgrading your own ship with captured components in that case might be all you could do, excess might be distributed among your own subfleet. 

The tech could just be too alien.  Hydrans might easily make some things in their environment that a Klingon could not duplicate in a cost effective manner due to the environment.  The same in reverse for the Hydrans and their neighbors.  It could even be due to a biological process not duplicated off one home world. 
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2013, 02:32:07 pm »
That's getting awfully complicated. It's just  game after all and each race/empire should start out relatively equal. The discrepancies in SFU empires was always tempered by other factors that  were never incorporated into SFC and would be a pain to replicate and balance in a video game in any case.

Offline Panzergranate

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2892
  • Gender: Male
  • Aw!! Da big nasty Klingon L7 killed da kitty kat!!
Re: Some changes
« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2013, 02:58:25 pm »
You're assuming that alien tech would be better.... it's like fitting Soviet innaccurate tank gunsights to an M-60 A2 during the Cold War because it's "Enemy (Alien) Tech".

The Klingons have many ways to fry a cat. I prefer to use an L7 Fast Battlecruiser!!

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2013, 03:13:24 pm »
You're assuming that alien tech would be better.... it's like fitting Soviet innaccurate tank gunsights to an M-60 A2 during the Cold War because it's "Enemy (Alien) Tech".


They did it to us. When I was working as an aircraft instrument tech in the '90's, just after the U.S.S.R. disintegrated and Russia began selling off old MIGs, some Russian altimeters and airspeed indicators came into our shop. We were all excited to see how the "enemy" had done things and the whole shop watched as I opened up the case of the first instrument. We were very disappointed to find that the altimeters and airspeed indicators were very much like our own. In fact, they were our own. They were the same instruments that our F-16's used.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12919
Re: Some changes
« Reply #17 on: November 11, 2013, 04:27:24 pm »
You're assuming that alien tech would be better.... it's like fitting Soviet innaccurate tank gunsights to an M-60 A2 during the Cold War because it's "Enemy (Alien) Tech".

Actually I'm not.  In some cases it will be in others it may just be superior to the piece of junk that is left of your own system after the battle.  In others it combined with yours may be superior to either (Nomad and V'ger for Trek examples).

In a series of SFB battles my friends and I once staged I captured a Gorn CA and if the series had been completed it would have been overhauled to Klingon tech for that last battle.  In that case the G-CA would have had its Pl-G replaced with disruptors (they were destroyed) and its forward four Ph-I would have become Ph-II (they too had been destroyed).  The resulting customized captured ship would have been less powerful than the original before I crippled and captured it.  (It was a lesson to my brother-in-law to use the sensors to gather information on your enemy ship :)  he didn't learn it :smackhead:)

I used the Klingons both because of my own personal afection for the TOS Klingons and because the Feds do use more advanced tech in their ships and a Klingon Captain or Engineer who captured some of that tech would naturally want to use it as they could. 
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Some changes
« Reply #18 on: November 11, 2013, 05:54:09 pm »
I wouldn't support the idea of radical alteration either as that would take a FRD at least.  But changes that are non structural like a D7 using Fed targeting devices to upgrade some or all of their PhII to PhI or using alien tech to upgrade the glass rear shields are more in line with what I was thinking.

Yeah, that'd be great, but why would it be limited to your own ship alone? You'd share this tech with your empire to let them develop and deploy it wouldn't you?

But if the empire could only acquire/produce/install a limited amount of these devices per year, not every ship would get them.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #19 on: November 11, 2013, 06:06:10 pm »
I wouldn't support the idea of radical alteration either as that would take a FRD at least.  But changes that are non structural like a D7 using Fed targeting devices to upgrade some or all of their PhII to PhI or using alien tech to upgrade the glass rear shields are more in line with what I was thinking.

Yeah, that'd be great, but why would it be limited to your own ship alone? You'd share this tech with your empire to let them develop and deploy it wouldn't you?

But if the empire could only acquire/produce/install a limited amount of these devices per year, not every ship would get them.


Hence the need for a performance based system to reward ships to the most deserving and giving the rest something to strive for.

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2013, 06:34:52 pm »
what about two fold. system  A system of research, but takes credits to build the facilities.  but the research can advance tech
takes credits to get new ships or upgrade.

The details to be worked out.

Honestly if somebody or a group want to work it out I can use it.    I have so much that other things to do, to have others work out the mechanics for me to code is easier.


Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #21 on: November 11, 2013, 06:37:59 pm »
I've been mulling it over and will post my idea for a reward based ship deployment system when I work out a few kinks.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Some changes
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2013, 05:24:04 am »
I wouldn't support the idea of radical alteration either as that would take a FRD at least.  But changes that are non structural like a D7 using Fed targeting devices to upgrade some or all of their PhII to PhI or using alien tech to upgrade the glass rear shields are more in line with what I was thinking.

Yeah, that'd be great, but why would it be limited to your own ship alone? You'd share this tech with your empire to let them develop and deploy it wouldn't you?

But if the empire could only acquire/produce/install a limited amount of these devices per year, not every ship would get them.


Hence the need for a performance based system to reward ships to the most deserving and giving the rest something to strive for.

Like prestige points? ;)

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some changes
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2013, 06:43:39 am »

Like prestige points? ;)

Well it is currently called SFC IV after all.  lol.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2013, 08:38:50 am »
Like prestige points? ;)


Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Some changes
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2013, 08:40:25 am »

Like prestige points? ;)

Well it is currently called SFC IV after all.  lol.

All I'm saying is that the SFC 3 customization system isn't as unrealistic some might claim.  In a real fleet, there can be significant variation between ships of a class.  Especially during wartime where the most advanced weapons and electronics are all in demand.  And Starfleet ships have been shown to be much more modular in canon than current naval vessels.  While I think the game might benefit from something a bit more restrictive, like the SFC 1 refit system, I don't consider SFC 3 to be "pimp my ride".

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Some changes
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2013, 08:42:53 am »
Like prestige points? ;)


Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Maybe, but if you make it too tough to earn upgrades, you'll only discourage people from playing.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #27 on: November 12, 2013, 09:13:21 am »
Like prestige points? ;)


Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Maybe, but if you make it too tough to earn upgrades, you'll only discourage people from playing.


I wasn't thinking of making it tough per se, but I was thinking of taking a page from other MMO's and offering two ways to advance. One way would be by grinding out wins against the AI for less points, but it will get you there if you work at it. The other way is by achievement against humans or some greater odds which garners more rewards. Right now I'm trying to make the system complex, but not complicated, and there are a few sticking points I'm trying to work out before I suggest it.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Some changes
« Reply #28 on: November 12, 2013, 09:34:04 am »
Like prestige points? ;)


Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Maybe, but if you make it too tough to earn upgrades, you'll only discourage people from playing.


I wasn't thinking of making it tough per se, but I was thinking of taking a page from other MMO's and offering two ways to advance. One way would be by grinding out wins against the AI for less points, but it will get you there if you work at it. The other way is by achievement against humans or some greater odds which garners more rewards. Right now I'm trying to make the system complex, but not complicated, and there are a few sticking points I'm trying to work out before I suggest it.

Isn't that how the PP system works.  If you win in PvP, you get alot more PP than against the AI.  What you really want would be to make upgrades more expensive.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #29 on: November 12, 2013, 10:19:58 am »
Like prestige points? ;)


Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Maybe, but if you make it too tough to earn upgrades, you'll only discourage people from playing.


I wasn't thinking of making it tough per se, but I was thinking of taking a page from other MMO's and offering two ways to advance. One way would be by grinding out wins against the AI for less points, but it will get you there if you work at it. The other way is by achievement against humans or some greater odds which garners more rewards. Right now I'm trying to make the system complex, but not complicated, and there are a few sticking points I'm trying to work out before I suggest it.

Isn't that how the PP system works.  If you win in PvP, you get alot more PP than against the AI.  What you really want would be to make upgrades more expensive.


No, not really. It all depends on the scripts. Besides, the way you get points is rather unimportant compared to how you can use them. That's where D2 failed badly. Shipyards like shopping malls with auctions is just stupid. Having a selection to choose from based on your merits and record and being offered to you by the computer acting as your government is more what I had in mind. Winning against humans would be worth more based on the theory that humans are better than the AI (A debatable point as I have discovered that the AI in SFC is actually very good at combat, EW and using systems effectively if given enough power to do it all. What it sucks at is power management) and would garner more fame and clout with your empire. D2 tried to do this with prestige, but with no actual tie to the eco-political engine it meant nothing.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Some changes
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2013, 10:50:23 am »
Like prestige points? ;)


Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Maybe, but if you make it too tough to earn upgrades, you'll only discourage people from playing.


I wasn't thinking of making it tough per se, but I was thinking of taking a page from other MMO's and offering two ways to advance. One way would be by grinding out wins against the AI for less points, but it will get you there if you work at it. The other way is by achievement against humans or some greater odds which garners more rewards. Right now I'm trying to make the system complex, but not complicated, and there are a few sticking points I'm trying to work out before I suggest it.

Isn't that how the PP system works.  If you win in PvP, you get alot more PP than against the AI.  What you really want would be to make upgrades more expensive.


No, not really. It all depends on the scripts. Besides, the way you get points is rather unimportant compared to how you can use them. That's where D2 failed badly. Shipyards like shopping malls with auctions is just stupid. Having a selection to choose from based on your merits and record and being offered to you by the computer acting as your government is more what I had in mind. Winning against humans would be worth more based on the theory that humans are better than the AI (A debatable point as I have discovered that the AI in SFC is actually very good at combat, EW and using systems effectively if given enough power to do it all. What it sucks at is power management) and would garner more fame and clout with your empire. D2 tried to do this with prestige, but with no actual tie to the eco-political engine it meant nothing.

And therein lies the eternal debate.  How do you make the ships and technology accessible enough to not drive off the new blood the community desperately needs, but at the same time satisfy the more hardcore players who want things to better reflect performance on the battlefield.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #31 on: November 12, 2013, 10:59:36 am »
And therein lies the eternal debate.  How do you make the ships and technology accessible enough to not drive off the new blood the community desperately needs, but at the same time satisfy the more hardcore players who want things to better reflect performance on the battlefield.

I'm working on it. Can't say that I'll succeed, but then again I have found that some will dog a system that is fair to everyone simply because it is fair to everyone.

Offline knightstorm

  • His Imperial Highness, Norton II, Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2104
Re: Some changes
« Reply #32 on: November 12, 2013, 11:25:08 am »
And therein lies the eternal debate.  How do you make the ships and technology accessible enough to not drive off the new blood the community desperately needs, but at the same time satisfy the more hardcore players who want things to better reflect performance on the battlefield.

I'm working on it. Can't say that I'll succeed, but then again I have found that some will dog a system that is fair to everyone simply because it is fair to everyone.

The problem is that fair to everyone is a relative concept.  A system that places heavy emphasis on PvP might seem very fair if you're a killing machine, but to everyone else its very unfair.  Lead tracking might seem fair to a plasma pilot, but to a fed/klink who's having enough trouble scoring enough damage to the plasma ship to make the match more than prolonging the inevitable its completely unfair.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #33 on: November 12, 2013, 11:50:53 am »
Well, that's what I'm trying to balance: How to make everyone's contributions worthwhile.

There will always be players that live on a game and believe that their "hard work and time investment" should equate to a better experience for them and they are not entirely wrong to feel that way. On the other hand, you have people that love that game just as much, but due to life, time and other demands can only log on for a little while each night or even each week. They often end up feeling marginalized and end up playing a sort of singleplayer-multiplayer game where they don't have much contact with humans at all. Some will shy away from PvP because they know they aren't up to the caliber they will be facing and don't want to be a liability. Others will think PvP is the only worthwhile pursuit and form hunting packs to go out and cause mayhem with little regard for the bigger picture.

How do you make all of these types feel that they are getting their money's worth (figuratively speaking) and still have a fair, fun system? IDK yet. It might not be possible and it might be too much of a pain to code if it is.

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #34 on: November 12, 2013, 01:57:43 pm »
Split the issues and create methods to address them all rather than one system to address everything.

1.  Build a selectable game balancing.  To allow a player with lesser gear to play with players with better gear.  Similar to what LOTRO does.  It increases damage done, and reduces tamage taken.  We can scale to the level of the other players in a team for mltiplayer.  And even PVP

2.  A game where u spend hours controlling planetary development gets old fast.  BotF and Supremacy are like this, but we use a system like Masters of Orion, where there is research and building system improvements, but much simplified.  Then this creates research and it can be applied to different areas.  This tech is what allows the player to learn technology for better ships.  And tech can be obtained thru combat (winning systems or space battles (less likely)

3.  Ships purchase and refit cost credit, and require the appropriate technology.  Again from Masters of Orion, but ships can be refit but it is not instant.  Cheaper and faster that a new ship.

For example ear;u tech level may be unable to build a battleship but make a cruiser.  But as tech advances the cruiser is out of date.  So you send it to a system that has built a shipyard to upgrade it.


Just some thoughts.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #35 on: November 12, 2013, 03:20:34 pm »
Split the issues and create methods to address them all rather than one system to address everything.

1.  Build a selectable game balancing.  To allow a player with lesser gear to play with players with better gear.  Similar to what LOTRO does.  It increases damage done, and reduces tamage taken.  We can scale to the level of the other players in a team for mltiplayer.  And even PVP


What "gear" exactly? You are all part of the same race with the same "gear" or tech. Ship size or role would be the things that differentiate players. If you scale everything to be equal all of time there is no player skill involved and it begins to sound a lot like EVE Online where you go in and press a bunch of buttons and there is no real control at all.



2.  A game where u spend hours controlling planetary development gets old fast.  BotF and Supremacy are like this, but we use a system like Masters of Orion, where there is research and building system improvements, but much simplified.  Then this creates research and it can be applied to different areas.  This tech is what allows the player to learn technology for better ships.  And tech can be obtained thru combat (winning systems or space battles (less likely)


The computer should handle all of that automatically, assuming the focus of the game is starship combat.




3.  Ships purchase and refit cost credit, and require the appropriate technology.  Again from Masters of Orion, but ships can be refit but it is not instant.  Cheaper and faster that a new ship.

For example ear;u tech level may be unable to build a battleship but make a cruiser.  But as tech advances the cruiser is out of date.  So you send it to a system that has built a shipyard to upgrade it.



Again, all of this should happen under the hood. How much nitty-gritty detail do you want the players to have to parse through?

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Some changes
« Reply #36 on: November 12, 2013, 03:35:57 pm »
You got screenshots or anything of what's in progress?
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #37 on: November 12, 2013, 05:35:08 pm »
Quote
What "gear" exactly? You are all part of the same race with the same "gear" or tech. Ship size or role would be the things that differentiate players. If you scale everything to be equal all of time there is no player skill involved and it begins to sound a lot like EVE Online where you go in and press a bunch of buttons and there is no real control at all.

Gear in a generic sense.  A cruiser would have a standard layout for example.  The idea is for a player who does not have the best ships to get involved.  This is not making a cruiser into a battlehip but make the cruiser equitable as far as tech level.  Aan option for multiplayer only.  If two friends want to play together and one has high tech and the other lower, this will bring some parity and allow them to play together.

Quote
The computer should handle all of that automatically, assuming the focus of the game is starship combat.

But player directed.   From masters of Orion, the teck research can be focused on shields first and give greater shields.  This does allow differences in player shp capability.

Quote
Again, all of this should happen under the hood. How much nitty-gritty detail do you want the players to have to parse through?

A player may not want to upgrade all ships.  And the order cruisers or battleships first?


These are just suggestions.  bu the idea is a workable solution.

Quote
assuming the focus of the game is starship combat.

More like a merger.  I find bridge commander over and over to be boring.  I like some thought and higher level strategy.  But I dislike the simplified combat.  I am thinking of higher level strategy but the combat may be resolved with player controlled starship combat.  The discussion is how to manage and allow shipd to upgrade/refit for some variation.  For now.  A future expansion will be to expand the ship upgrades, characters etc.

And further into the future a server controlled map that allows all games to integrate and control a universe.  I worked on this before but integration of existing games was not something I could do.

Again my thoughts bur I am taking the overall goal and adding to it them splitting into chewavbe pieces.


Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Some changes
« Reply #38 on: November 12, 2013, 06:14:31 pm »
Gear in a generic sense.  A cruiser would have a standard layout for example.  The idea is for a player who does not have the best ships to get involved.  This is not making a cruiser into a battlehip but make the cruiser equitable as far as tech level.  Aan option for multiplayer only.  If two friends want to play together and one has high tech and the other lower, this will bring some parity and allow them to play together.


I don't see anything stopping players from getting involved at any ship level. If I'm flying a heavy cruiser and my wing wants to fly a destroyer I don't see a problem with that. What you need is a smart drafting system that doesn't even allow huge differences in fleet combat value. That way people could make the fleet combo's they wanted and only be matched by fairly equal odds. Let's be realistic, if you were flying a frigate and were engaged by a dreadnought you'd just try and leave the area, so there would be no battle anyway. You could give a message to the drafted frigate that they were being engaged by superior forces and a choice to stay or leave. That way small ships can't hold up larger ones unless that is their intention. You might even code in a chance for an ambush.

 


But player directed.   From masters of Orion, the teck research can be focused on shields first and give greater shields.  This does allow differences in player shp capability.


But who's in charge? Who decides the direction the empire wants to go? There will be many fleets competeing within a single empire just like we had with SFC and people don't always get along or agree. Are you going to allow rogue states to form and create their own freeholds or are players confined to the empire vs empire model? Coming up with a fair way for all of the powers to be run by the computer would cut down on exploitation and other problems with allowing players to set the parameters.




A player may not want to upgrade all ships.  And the order cruisers or battleships first?


I don't see how you can have a multiplayer game with everyone running the show. Someone or something rather impartial with the needs and goals of the empire in mind has to do that.









Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Some changes
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2013, 11:31:19 am »
Build the tactical game first (modable of course, so we can make it "Space Navy Control" without getting sued) and then worry about the Strategic game.

All I can say is please for the love of all that is holy no Hexx-Flipping!   :D
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Some changes
« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2013, 12:41:58 pm »

But who's in charge? Who decides the direction the empire wants to go? There will be many fleets competeing within a single empire just like we had with SFC and people don't always get along or agree. Are you going to allow rogue states to form and create their own freeholds or are players confined to the empire vs empire model? Coming up with a fair way for all of the powers to be run by the computer would cut down on exploitation and other problems with allowing players to set the parameters.

I remember TracyG yelling at me worse than any person ever had in my entire life for getting in PvP fights when there was a official cease-fire going on.

Ah . . . the good old days.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1328
Re: Some changes
« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2013, 09:25:07 pm »
Stardock is working on GalCiv3.  As far as anything SFC related, simply working the game to a strategic level is enough.  Working to a levl where the commander in chief has to worry about developing technology is too much.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Some changes
« Reply #42 on: November 18, 2013, 01:35:19 pm »
Stardock is working on GalCiv3.  As far as anything SFC related, simply working the game to a strategic level is enough.  Working to a levl where the commander in chief has to worry about developing technology is too much.

I really wouldn't want a tech-tree in multiplayer D2 . . . the release dates of the ships was good enough.  If there was a tech tree there would be some of the cheeseist meta-gamey bullsh*t known to man in people finding ways to exploit the hell out of stuff.  The pre-set course of Starship developments that we had in OP was fine.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #43 on: November 18, 2013, 02:57:07 pm »
for a tech tree my thoughst are maybe 6 key technologies with a specified nuber of possible advances.  And to build the best ship requires max in all areas.

And have specific areas to put resources, for exampe education, construciton, agriculture etc.

The allow the empire in various stances, for exaple war time, peace etc.

wartime footing would incresase technology and ship manufacturing capabilitie, but reduce agriculture.  And population unrese will be increased. 

And as credits are gained through manufacturing and agriculture, they increase is reduced in wartime footing.  Unless taxes are raised.

Complicated but handled by the game, the plaer has 4 or 5 setting to change.

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Some changes
« Reply #44 on: November 19, 2013, 10:01:52 am »
for a tech tree my thoughst are maybe 6 key technologies with a specified nuber of possible advances.  And to build the best ship requires max in all areas.

And have specific areas to put resources, for exampe education, construciton, agriculture etc.

The allow the empire in various stances, for exaple war time, peace etc.

wartime footing would incresase technology and ship manufacturing capabilitie, but reduce agriculture.  And population unrese will be increased. 

And as credits are gained through manufacturing and agriculture, they increase is reduced in wartime footing.  Unless taxes are raised.

Complicated but handled by the game, the plaer has 4 or 5 setting to change.

So you're going more of a "Brith of the Federation" and less "Federation and Empire?"

Are you planning on this being a single-player game or like how old Dyna was with a few hundred players?
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2013, 10:41:12 am »
re my thoughts.  Have not decided.  It is closer to Borth of the Federation but I am considering single and multiplayer.

My vision is one consolidated game tat can be single or multiplayer via network.  So advances in single WILL also indicate advances in network.   So if you advance to build a CA in single you have CA in network.  And in Network you advance to upgrade to CC then you have it in single.  The idea i to let those who have time for single not to be screed in multiplayer.  more MMORPG like LOTRO or OW, where experience gained in solo quests do inpact group activity and vice versa.


Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #46 on: November 19, 2013, 10:44:37 am »
Quote
Build the tactical game first (modable of course, so we can make it "Space Navy Control" without getting sued) and then worry about the Strategic game.

All I can say is please for the love of all that is holy no Hexx-Flipping!   :D


I have a skirmish mode planned where player can skip the strategic and just get into combat.  However, until the game is 90% done I am not doing the multiplayer.  As for modding I do not know LUA so will be someone that does for me to work with.  I have no time to do that until the last thing.

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #47 on: November 19, 2013, 10:50:03 am »
I make suggstion and read all the posts to formulate a design.  If anyone comes up with a working system on anything that others agree to I am glad to use it :)  Less work for me!

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some changes
« Reply #48 on: November 20, 2013, 07:54:10 am »
My idea is to keep the basic theme of SFC OP.  But instead of having hexes over a map, I was thinking of a alpha-quadrant map with planets and maybe one starbase with an area of control (AOC) surrounding it.  Every time someone wins or loses a battle within the planet/starbase AOC then it's AOC increases of decreases depending on a win or loss.  Win enough battles, and a planet/Starbase would control an entire sector.

For one faction to control more of the map, that faction must take over planets or build a starbase.  This unlike SFC OP would force people to go after planets or spend more time and money building starbases, the more planets/starbases (AOC generators) you own the more of the map you can control.  This removes hex flipping while actually building a strategy on where, when, and how teams affect game play.  This would replace the need for tech trees, agriculture, with the need to build to conquer the map.

I would also suggest that the only factions that can upgrade hard points on a ship would be Pirate cartels on a large scale.  Empires on a small scale, F-FFL+, F-DNF+, F-DLL+ (plasma F), for example.  But I would hard balance the cartels harder to negate any cheese ships.

I would also give pirate cartels a different mission entirely.  Missions based on stealing tech from a ship, star base, or planet as well as convoy raids, running items from point to point for cash.  Rarely would a Cartel ship attack a Empire ship unless there was a tech that they wanted required for a mission.  And only the best of the best pirates would try to capture a Empire ship.

I have more ideas but my bed is calling me.  Hope this helps.

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some changes
« Reply #49 on: November 20, 2013, 09:21:48 am »
My thoughts would be to have an economy run on each side, maybe by panel or by a single person if the empire can agree on who should be dictator.  I don't mean that there's 18 Shipyards and the Empire Leader gets to decide just what is built in each one.  But more along the lines of: "We have a shortage of Cruiser Yards, lets build a new one here in sector 221."  Or, "Since we're at peace and there's no outbreak of hostilities imminent, we want to take the time to build quality ships.  Yes, our fleet will be smaller, but each ship will be able to take twice the beating those War Cruisers that Empire B is putting out."

Basically the idea is that the Empire leaders have the option of Building Shipyards, essentially giving one of the players access to a Shipyard construction kit and tell him to go sit in that sector for a couple of turns to build it. (Protect it while it's being built, if necessary, you probably wouldn't need to sit a cruiser on a under construction shipyard in the core of your empire.)  I would see those missions as good ones for Newer pilots that you want to see if you can trust them to carry out orders, low risk, and high reward.  The other option that the Empire Leaders have is when to go on a Wartime construction footing.  This kind of decision basically brings an end to the CA, D7 construction programs and begins to replace them with the NCL and the D5.  When you get to total war, then even the CC/CB, and D7L/W gets replaced by the BC* and the C7, while the NCL and the D5 get supplemented by the NCA and the D5W.

I like Javora's AoC concept a lot, flipping hexes never seemed like a good idea to begin with, but it was the way the game worked.  The real changes to economies are the destruction or capture of shipyards and planets.  The founding of new colonies, building new mines, building new shipyards.  There's a lot of "boring" missions that have a huge impact on the strategic aspect of the game.  I don't want to get into the micromanagement of the empire's economy, but there's definitely things that can be handled by the Captains, that could add a different flavor to the game.

So essentially, here's the options I would give the Race Leaders:

Building Shipyards (and what type)
Building Starbases
Exploration (mostly up to the individual captains, but this kind of mission can lead the way to a new tritanium mine that can increase the amount of ships that can be built later)
Building Mines.
Establishing Colonies.
*All of the above the Race Leader would have to get a Captain or three willing to do some of the "Boring" work for them.
Economy settings: Peacetime, War-Time, Total War.

I have to go to work, but I'll detail out what the differences in the Economy Settings that I envision when I get home.
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #50 on: November 20, 2013, 09:51:42 am »
The processing power for AOC such as suggested would be huge.   Would have to copare each ship with each AOC to see if it is in it.  and this has to be done quite often.  But a sugestion is to do the he flipping, but make the hexes smaller and many more of them.  and do not show them.  From the player perspective the game is just a map and they clock on a location.  Internally the game plots a hex.

I like the AOC idea, but to keep each move from taking too long I am afraid it will take a 10 core CPU.

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #51 on: November 20, 2013, 09:59:24 am »
My thoughts would be to have an economy run on each side, maybe by panel or by a single person if the empire can agree on who should be dictator.  I don't mean that there's 18 Shipyards and the Empire Leader gets to decide just what is built in each one.  But more along the lines of: "We have a shortage of Cruiser Yards, lets build a new one here in sector 221."  Or, "Since we're at peace and there's no outbreak of hostilities imminent, we want to take the time to build quality ships.  Yes, our fleet will be smaller, but each ship will be able to take twice the beating those War Cruisers that Empire B is putting out."

Basically the idea is that the Empire leaders have the option of Building Shipyards, essentially giving one of the players access to a Shipyard construction kit and tell him to go sit in that sector for a couple of turns to build it. (Protect it while it's being built, if necessary, you probably wouldn't need to sit a cruiser on a under construction shipyard in the core of your empire.)  I would see those missions as good ones for Newer pilots that you want to see if you can trust them to carry out orders, low risk, and high reward.  The other option that the Empire Leaders have is when to go on a Wartime construction footing.  This kind of decision basically brings an end to the CA, D7 construction programs and begins to replace them with the NCL and the D5.  When you get to total war, then even the CC/CB, and D7L/W gets replaced by the BC* and the C7, while the NCL and the D5 get supplemented by the NCA and the D5W.

I like Javora's AoC concept a lot, flipping hexes never seemed like a good idea to begin with, but it was the way the game worked.  The real changes to economies are the destruction or capture of shipyards and planets.  The founding of new colonies, building new mines, building new shipyards.  There's a lot of "boring" missions that have a huge impact on the strategic aspect of the game.  I don't want to get into the micromanagement of the empire's economy, but there's definitely things that can be handled by the Captains, that could add a different flavor to the game.

So essentially, here's the options I would give the Race Leaders:

Building Shipyards (and what type)
Building Starbases
Exploration (mostly up to the individual captains, but this kind of mission can lead the way to a new tritanium mine that can increase the amount of ships that can be built later)
Building Mines.
Establishing Colonies.
*All of the above the Race Leader would have to get a Captain or three willing to do some of the "Boring" work for them.
Economy settings: Peacetime, War-Time, Total War.

I have to go to work, but I'll detail out what the differences in the Economy Settings that I envision when I get home.

Interesting ideas.  But this sounds like a multiplayer version and to allow players to get involved freely would entail the entire game to be hosted on a server, and the game written for that.  Something for a later expansion.  But very possible.



Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some changes
« Reply #52 on: November 20, 2013, 06:49:51 pm »
The processing power for AOC such as suggested would be huge.   Would have to copare each ship with each AOC to see if it is in it.  and this has to be done quite often.  But a sugestion is to do the he flipping, but make the hexes smaller and many more of them.  and do not show them.  From the player perspective the game is just a map and they clock on a location.  Internally the game plots a hex.

I like the AOC idea, but to keep each move from taking too long I am afraid it will take a 10 core CPU.

Well that would work I guess.  If the players don't see the hexes they wouldn't see the repetitiveness.  Actually the invisible hexes and AOC could work hand and hand.  For example a Starbase is built on a hex, then the empire that builds the Starbase wins 20 battles around that Starbase.  As a result the Starbase AOC grows by a certain amount of hexes around the Starbase because of those wins.  On the other hand if the empire loses battles around the Starbase, then the Starbase would lose AOC hexes until eventually the empire loses control of the Starbase.

The same would hold true for planets, ship yards, etc.  Anytime a ship from another empire enters a Starbases AOC a mission is generated.  Just like if two ships from different empires/cartels agro each others AOC bubble, a mission is spawned.  This should reduce the CPU load but still look like a massive universe to the people playing.  One other thing I wold suggest is if two ships battle and no one hold control of the hex and there is no Starbase or planet around then the hex should remain neutral.  This way the only way a empire can control a hex is by taking over a planet or building a Starbase and increasing it's AOC.

This way, we can keep things as close to SFC OP as possible while not making the game so repetitive.   So players can focus on what's important, buying the best ship they can and blowing people up.  Taldren was right on one thing, focus on ship combat and not of empire economy was the right thing to do.  It gave SFC OP it's replay value.

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some changes
« Reply #53 on: November 20, 2013, 07:13:17 pm »
Something I forgot to talk about...

1.  Empire or cartel commanders.  While I don't think it's a good idea, would need a couple of things built in to make it work.  First the commander would need to be able to change based on who is playing at the time.  If it is fixed and the commander stops playing then that empire/cartel has no leader.  On the other hand, if the empire/cartel is run by the highest ranking player signed on, then the empire/cartel could end up being ran by some noob playing at 2 am.

2.  Planet building and destroying.  I'm taking this play from a page from the old Trade Wars game.  In that game, you could both make and blow up planets.  The planet made would be of various types and each type would have different uses.  On the other hand if you blow up a planet it would cause an asteroid field that could harm/destroy your ship if you flew through it.  While I like the idea of Terra forming, this option led to a lot of abuse in the old Trade Wars game.  So if this option makes it into SFC 4 then it needs to have a lot of controls built in.

Hope this helps.

Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some changes
« Reply #54 on: November 20, 2013, 10:31:18 pm »
In the multiplayer setting, I don't like the idea of giving the RL too much to do, I don't want to get in his/her way of actually playing the game.  General things like setting an economy, or building a base are something that they can do in five to ten minutes once a day.  I don't think the actual RL needs to be online all the time, most of the larger empires have multiple fleets that are on and can make most of the general decisions in their theatre without too many issues.

In the single player environment, it can behave the same way, although it's the player that makes all the decisions, rather than one player making decisions for the entire empire.

The Basics of the economy should be something like this:
Credits (whatever the particular empire calls is):  This is the medium currency, you use it for pretty much everything.
Tritanium: Needed for ship/base hulls (pretty much everything)
Dilithium: Needed for Warp powered ships (monitors and Starbases wouldn't require this)
Hydrogen: Needed for Sub-light propulsion (and Starbases)

We could go into a laundry list of other things, but those basic resources should be in the game.  Not to make it tedious, but to give a Strategic element to the game.  Hydrogen can be gotten pretty much anywhere there's a gas giant.  But Dilithium and Tritanium are a little harder to come by, which makes sources of these valuable to protect, and very good targets for objective raids.  (as are the freighters moving the goods from the mines to the shipyards.)

Economy settings: These are essentially three buttons that set the production status-quo for the empire.

Peace-time: (Default setting)  Ships are geared for the non-combat aspect of the game, science and exploration.  Ships are sturdier, designed to last longer, often they are undergunned, but they are usually well protected.
War-time: Ships are built with battle in mind, but are still good quality, not as sturdy as peacetime ships, nominally gunned, still well-protected, but slightly less expensive than their piece time counterparts.
Total-War:  Ships are built as cheaply and as quickly as possible.  Overgunned, fragile because of the emphasis on Quantity over Quality.  Designed to flood space with attrition units rather than quality ships.  A few solid designs are built as flagships, but the rest are essentially throwaway units.

One of the things we get to do here, is as a community, we get to design the ships.  And we can decide on a case-by-case basis just where they would fall in the production queue.  Would a D7 appear at all in the Total-War Queue? or would it be dominated by Brels?  How about the venerable Constitution?  When do they stop building that ship?

The main issue for multiplayer is that the maps are going to have to be server side, we can't do the SFC2/3 randomly generated maps in each hex, especially if there's going to be any type of tactics involved in placement of bases  and defenses.  One of the things I think would be a must, is the RL telling a Captain to build a base in sector 221, and then letting the Captain say, "Well this is the most logical approach for any ships coming from (insert hated enemy here).  So let me place the Base here, and line the approach through that Asteroid field with Phaser Turrets."  Then the RL can come by and say, "I like it, here's a bonus.  Or I don't like it, how many credits did you waste on that turret line?!"
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2986
  • Gender: Male
Re: Some changes
« Reply #55 on: November 21, 2013, 07:46:27 am »
One more quick idea before I forget on my way to dream land...

How about a PVP option?  I'm thinking Battlefield 2 except with Starfleet.  The host could select a few different maps with preset spawn points and from there people could just pound on each other.  When the so many people get killed the game resets.  The BPV could be set so that players only had a few preselected options or set a max BPV on the playing field.  By BPV on the playing field I mean that players could choose any ship as long as it didn't go over the max BPV minus the combined BPV already on the playing field.  So one minute you could be flying a BB and the next minute a POL.

What I want to see this game get away from 1v1 or 2v2 PVP from the old Mplayer days.  That for me got so repetitive so quickly.  Something I really want to avoid this time around with SFC 4.

Ok it's late, I'm going to bed...

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Some changes
« Reply #56 on: November 21, 2013, 10:48:36 am »
Exeter . . . dumb question but did you play SFC2 or OP Dynaverse?  Just want to know what is we have a common frame of reference.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Some changes
« Reply #57 on: November 21, 2013, 11:11:53 am »
very little on dynaverse.

Have played all SFC games (own them all). 

Since we do not have license for SFB or SFU then me not being familiar means I cannot copy stuff.  And that includes dynaverse.

I have tried just about every space based online game.