Topic: Some changes

[FPF-DieHard]

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.

[Tulwar]

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.

[FPF-DieHard]

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.

[[UFP]Exeter]

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.

[FPF-DieHard]

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?

[[UFP]Exeter]

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.

[[UFP]Exeter]

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!   

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.

[[UFP]Exeter]

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!

[Javora]

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.

[Lieutenant_Q]

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.

[[UFP]Exeter]

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.

[[UFP]Exeter]

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.

[Javora]

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.

[Javora]

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.

[Lieutenant_Q]

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?!"

[Javora]

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...

[FPF-DieHard]

Exeter . . . dumb question but did you play SFC2 or OP Dynaverse?  Just want to know what is we have a common frame of reference.

[[UFP]Exeter]

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.