Post by: red_green on June 13, 2004, 09:46:05 pm
See in chess you never change an rules ever. SFBers are set in there ways from playing the game the same way for 30 years that any slight deviation is percieved by them to be blasphomy.
What I find even more annoying about SFB players is the clicks they have. They d/l ships people make , d/l missions people write. d/l mods people put together and then they won't allow you into there navy or use there logo or whatever.
Isn't this great for promoting there precious game?
Plus they would rather fly a ship designed 30 years ago that looks like a box and is made of cardboard. This last behavior reminds me of a line from Bob Dylan which I disremember atm.
All this flys in the face of a more typical Sci-Fi fan who is flexible with adapting new hypothetical Sci-fi techno babble and see races and ships keep evolving. SFBers are too small in numbers to support an SFC4 game alone. 6000-10000 copies sold would'nt be enough to make the game. So it would have to draw on another type of audiance as well.
So SFBers get over it. I like SFC3 a lot, so bugger off with your whining about it and just break out your 30 year old board game.
Post by: FireSoul on June 13, 2004, 10:14:19 pm
Post by: Pestalence on June 13, 2004, 10:21:43 pm
Notice SFC II EAW has just as many in Gamespy Arcade playing as SFC 3 does.
notice, Orion pirates has server campaigns that last anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months, where at most a SFC 3 server is only hosted on a serious campaign for 2 weeks.
notice that SFC 3 only has 4 playable races where Orion Pirates has 16 playable races.
Need the comparrison go on.. SFC II : Orion Pirates is hands down the better of the 2 games.. the only thing SFC III has to it's advantage is reversable ships, personalized loadouts of ship systems, and tactical warp... and maybe full disappearing cloak..
but Orion Pirates cloak is much better, even though you can see the enemy ship.. try getting a good shot that will actually do damage...
also notice that SFB Has been around for over 30 years and it is still going strong.. check the SFB web site.. new modules come out every moth...
Man you picked the wrong forum to start this post in.. this is best on a different board..
As for SFC 4, Taldren has already stated that there are no current plans or any plans for the near distant future for another SFC title.. and even if there was a plan, after all the hassle over SFC 3, they may not ever go back to any Trek based game.
yep, I think SFC 3 put a hurting Taldren's intrest on another SFC title after all the hassle over the last year...
I like all SFC games.. but of the 4 titles on the market.. i like orion Pirates for the game play, SFC Original for the storyline and mission scripts, SFC 3 for the selection of ship components. EAW was the game, but everything in EAW is in OP now.
as for ships, maybe you should take the time and load up the OP Enhancement Package into Orion Pirates.. the models are more movie accurate than SFC 3 and they don't look like cartoons as they do in SFC 3..
If i want a point and shoot match without much strategy or thinking, then I load up SFC 3 since it plays like an arcade game.. If I want to be challenged in a match and have to actually use strategy while playing, I load up Orion Pirates.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 13, 2004, 10:26:47 pm
BTW, my SFB game, while started almost 30yrs ago has many components that are newer than SFC3. go to the ADB product development forum. There's 30+ new products that are planned for release. That's why it's been around as long as it has. It never gets old.
Post by: IKV Nemesis D7L on June 13, 2004, 10:29:37 pm
Quote:
SFBers are set in there ways from playing the game the same way for 30 years that any slight deviation is percieved by them to be blasphomy.
To be blunt you are wrong.
SFB became what it is by a very long drawn out process of evolution. The original game was a "pamphlet" and some counters in a ziplock bag. Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Kzinti, Gorn amd Orion. Only a handful of ships. Later came more ziplock expansions adding the Hydran and Lyran, each with a small selection of ships.
Then the boxed edition with the rules more integrated and more ships. More expansions.
The Captains edition. More expansions.
The Doomsday edition. More expansions.
The X-Ships were brought out then substanially revised because they did not work within the system and needed to be modified to balance them and make them fit. P/Fs, fighters, carriers, tenders, bombardment vessels, maulers, cloaked decoys and many other things have been created and added to SFB. SFB has changed and continues to change.
Repeatedly ships were released that were "conjectural", due to popular demand some of those ships became "canon". Weapons and systems were added to fill roles that were found for them. Races were designed and added (Stellar Shadows was created to hold races that don't fit in the Star Trek Universe).
The original version could be put in a jacket pocket. Later editions filled shelves. However those early ships could be used with later editions because continuity was continued. SFC3 drops the continuity.
So why do SFB'ers want SFC to be based on SFB? Simple actually. SFB is a highly evolved, sophisticated system. SFB players are not the type to want "arcade" style "shoot'em ups". We like the complexity and flexibility. No insult to any other game developer, but how could they possibly create a game to equal the richness of the nearly 30 years of SFB evolution in 1 or 2 years?
Star Fleet Battles is STILL evolving, STILL growing in richness, diversity and depth. Where will SFC3 be in 5 years let alone 30? SFB will still be here in 5 years and may still be going strong in 30. New expansions are still arriving.
Paramount could do far worse than base a future Trek series on SFB. Some would say that they have.
Post by: mc_cloud on June 13, 2004, 10:30:44 pm
wtf is that about.......
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 13, 2004, 10:36:32 pm
Actually the most annoying thing about the OP series is that so much stuff was left out - including some of the things that the nannerites complain about most.
Hmm...real post or troll...not sure..
Post by: Khalee on June 13, 2004, 10:39:53 pm
The X-Ships were brought out then substanially revised because they did not work within the system and needed to be modified to balance them and make them fit. P/Fs, fighters, carriers, tenders, bombardment vessels, maulers, cloaked decoys and many other things have been created and added to SFB. SFB has changed and continues to change.
X ship were brought out because players were wanting the ships they saw from the first Star trek movie. But Because ADB could not do the Movie ships, (That right went to FASA) Calling them Xships was a way around it. But yes it was A rushed product. And now you are makeing me wanting to go back thru my stuff and find my copy of the X Ship ruels and SSD and look at them all again. which I have not done in years
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 13, 2004, 10:47:24 pm
Quote:
X ship were brought out because players were wanting the ships they saw from the first Star trek movie. But Because ADB could not do the Movie ships, (That right went to FASA) Calling them Xships was a way around it. But yes it was A rushed product. And now you are makeing me wanting to go back thru my stuff and find my copy of the X Ship ruels and SSD and look at them all again. which I have not done in years
I remember that. We all were upset with Paramount being anal and not allowing SFB to continue on with canon Trek. With the way that Trek has gone though they probably did us all a favor. Could you imagine trying to continue to follow canon in a workable balanced gaming system?
Post by: Crimmy on June 13, 2004, 11:36:51 pm
I'm not about to disparage one Taldren product in order to support another again....
Been there...done that...felt like an @ss afterword...
You're chess anolgy is the correct one.....except you miss the point that even you blatenly made...
The rules of chess dont change.....correct
Why?...there is no need to change them....the game has enough mathmatical variations to produce numerous outcomes when coupled with the human decision making process....
You can study the Tactics in Chess for decades...and never fully master the game.....there is ALLWAYS room to improve your game...and expand the number of moves you can forecast....
Even though there is ONE game for BOTH white AND black that wins EVERY TIME...trying to Play that perfect game is elusive...even for a master like Kasparov....much less an expert like me....
You may notice that MANY variations of chess exist....but yet NONE of these variations are as popular as Chess itself...
Checkers for example DOES have some strategy involved...but NOTHING even close to the variations in Chess...
Lets just say I prefer the intellect required to play chess....And I play chess VERY well thank you.
And if you cant play chess......you play checkers.....and [bleep] about how "superior" chess players think they are....
Kings pawn to Kings pawn four
Your move.
Post by: NannerSlug on June 14, 2004, 02:04:04 am
my personal opinion is that many of the rabid sfb fans are exactly that. they have that right to be if they like that style of game. there is nothing wrong about liking a game a particular way.
what is wrong is when they - or anyone - speaks from a position that their way is the best way. Funny someone should bring up boring. In my experience (and i am not alone), sfb can get boring or manotonus.. any game can get that way.
What is important - and what any game should be judged on is: a) does it reach its target audience. b) does that audience like the game. c) what is its life span in relation to the fan. (does the fan recommend it to his pals and the community grows)
that all said, those before sfc2 and sfc3 after are two completely different targeted audiences because business drives it that way. From my understanding, all the sfc series games made money.
< MY opinion - NOT TALDREN's>
as far as my personal opinion. SFC3 had a lot of potential - however due to business decisions, it became more than just the red headed step child. I will leave it at that. A lot was done with the 531 build. Yes, I believe that somthing close to my Generations at War mod could have been developed and it would have squelshed a lot of criticism.
Currently, out of the box and just patched (no mods) - the game suffers from a lack of detail. In short, too much was taken out of the game, or at least not put back in. There are many NON sfb examples of good games with a high level of polish which was allowed.. Medal of Honor, HALO, even Wolfenstien: Enemy territory. The one thing which SFC3 has over ANY of the sfc games is the single player game. It suprasses any of the single player games of the past. period.
Game play wise, though, in retrospect, I just think too much was cut out. The good news is, though, Taldren allowed enough stuff IN to where we can mod the game. There are at least 5-7 mods out there for SFC3 which are all downloaded significantly. At least 4 of them have over 1,000 downloads. 3 of them have well over 6,000 downloads. These mods, I believe, show what could have been.
The last thing about sfc3 is this: it provides the tools necessary to make a cannon sfc game. No other sfc game allows those of us who are trek fans the ability to have truly different racial primaries and to a degree heavy weapons - which are based on the television shows and movie productions. I am one of those who say good riddence to missiles and plasma as it was in sfc1&2. it created too many balance problems one way or the other. (that does not mean it is wrong, just means that is my opinion). SFC3 provides klingon, romulan disruptors (which are different and have racial flavoring.).. not just varying degrees of phaser 1s, 2s and 3s. So for those of us who are trek fans, SFC3 is more of a God-send than some will ever know. It just simply had too much detail removed from it.
The last thing which has really killed sfc3 was any sort of patch getting caught up in legal issues when paramount and activision decided they couldnt get along and did a law-suit thing. this killed it. period. you cannot even find it in stores any more. they actually RMA'd the game instead of letting the copies out there get sold.
</end sfc3 opinion>
now.. about sfc1&2. truthfully, i am bored out of my mind a lot of times when it comes to that game. for me, at least, it becomes the same thing over and over again.. and in most cases it is who has the biggest carrier or most missiles. My most fun time really came in sfc1 SL matches and with SFC2 general war where a lot of those things simply were weeded out. that does not make any of those games lesser. it simply means i like other types of games.
here is the breaking point where some people just will never get it.
just because you like the game a certain way does not mean everyone else does. Nor does it make your way superior. There are people who are still playing Quake of all things and will probably for years to come because it is what they like. (I my self have found a version of marathon which i like to whip out a time or two.)
I think a lot of my objectivity on somthings - just to do the opposite of what some of the SFB fanatics wanted to do. why? because their arrogance drove me away. whether or not some of the sfb fanatics like it or not, your arrogance has done this community harm over and over again. driving away the average gamer (i know, they are probably just dumb people to you).
Before some of you guys point fingers at this person - I would take a long look at your self. Games are places for people to spend their off time. not to be redicculed because "they dont understand" or because "they like fps games." By the way, some of the most strategic games I have played (and i have played a LOT of games) are fps games. Try playing the Rainbow 6 series.. or splinter cell. and i havent even talked about RTT games.
So dont burn the guy at the stake. Try instead offering some sympathy. might get you a little further than you think. The world does not begin and end with SFB. (well, not for most of us.
)Post by: Bonk on June 14, 2004, 03:30:13 am
Myself, I do not like Bridge Commander or Armada because they are dumbed down games... SFC3 is better because it is based on SFB!!!
EAW and OP are even better still, as no third party had full control of the design (not mentioning any names...
).If there is ever going to be an SFC4, SFB is the only reason. SFB was the only reason there was any SFC for that matter.
Ever hear of Federation and Empire?
I had many objections to the design of SFC3 long BEFORE it was released, but I bought it anyway to support Taldren (then gave it away.)
You have to understand that almost everyone who bought SFC1 was an SFBer, that was the reason we bought it.
What if you bought a 2004 Corvette and it turned out to be front wheel drive - would you want to keep it?
Show some respect for the origins of the game, and more respect in general and perhaps you will find fleets more welcoming. Personally I'm done with fleets - too restricitive...
And most importantly, lighten up man! Just go play the game you like and try and be positive about it!
Post by: Cleaven on June 14, 2004, 04:26:42 am
The lack of an SFC4 has more to do with foolish people who think they know how the system works, but don't really, as opposed to the people who got the whole thing started and still have their own game growing and expanding.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 14, 2004, 04:43:22 am
Those games I remember with fond memories, along with teenage memories.
And now here we are twenty years later and my favourite games (including D&D) are being made available on computer.
My point of view is a simply one really, I like just about all Trek games, but its always been a desire to have SFB on the computer. I even tried to write my own SFB game on a computer back in the 90s on an old Commodore Amiga using C.
I want to see my favourite board Trek game on the computer, and so I was very happy to see SFC1 released and then later SFC2 and SFC2:OP. I have also played just about every Trek game that has ever been released. Regardless of whether the SFC series was based on SFB, I still would have liked it. SFC3 is not on SFB, of course, and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem, however, is the expectation that SFC3 would continue on from SFC2 expanding on its original SFB roots, and consequently because the that didnt happen, what will happen to our favourite computer rendition of our favourite board game.
Most arguments over SFC2 vs SFC3 hold as a premise it is either one or the other. In my opinion, I think SFC3 would have done much better simply if it had not been called SFC3. SFC3 should have and was going to be a continued expansion of the SFB ruleset. Call to Power 2, Civilisation III, and other similar games did not do as well as their predecessors for exactly the same reason, the game was changed and fans of the original held the expectations of seeing their game revamped. Technically, SFC v3 should have been a successor to SFC v2.
Having said that, SFC3 is still a good game and much better than most other Trek games that have been released. The Mods available and the recent patch have certainly improved it as well, and its sad that politics have ruined its development.
I still want to see my favourite board game, SFB, continue its development on the computer as well. I do not see SFC2 vs SFC3 as a trade off one against the other, and both rulesets can quite happily co-exist. The misconception this is not the case is purely from the game names themselves, which ruleset would possibly then be used for a conjectural SFC4. Even calling SFC3, SFC:TNG would have helped alleviate this problem by dropping the numbers. The SFC3 ruleset is not a replacement for SFC2, it is just different, thats all. An alternative much in the same vein that the FASA game was to SFB. There was no problem between those two games, of course, because they didnt carry the same name, nor were they developed by the same company. They were, in fact, co-developed. This is where SFC2 and SFC3 should have gone.
One day, there will be another SFC series. It may not be done by Taldren. It may not be for awhile either because of legalities. But this game will remain in the hearts and minds of fans now and years to come, as SFB has for the last 30 years and will continue to do so.
Post by: DonKarnage on June 14, 2004, 07:19:06 am
all game have a down point but just exploit the good point of the game and enjoy it, no game are perfect sure taldren could ask the user the modler everyone in the forum if the want to do a sfc4 or do an extended version of sfc3 or give us permission or source code to enance the game to make it bether, but now there new mod to add in the game and you can do more with it, for me sfc3 could use a remake but its what i think and i will not post a message that says that sfc3 suck and the must do a sfc4, sure a new sfc game would be cool but the old one are still good and there alway place for making the game bether by adding more ship more mission, so if one day taldren want to do a sfc4 the should ask the user's of the game what the should do to make the game a success like for sfc/op, so if you don't like sfb or sfc's then don't play them and don't post message that you don't like what taldren as do or will not do.
Post by: DH123 on June 14, 2004, 08:06:43 am
Post by: David Ferrell on June 14, 2004, 09:17:23 am
A: Activision.
All the games in the series made a profit for the publisher of each
respective game, based upon that alone a follow-up would be
a natural. Activision's big heap-o-buyer's regret, put all Trek games
on hold.
OP == the pinnacle of SFC.
Someone mentioned OP left out too much stuff, I can't imagine what
the heck more you could have wanted (besides Andro's and Tholians!).
Thanks,
Dave
(Edit to fix spelling of 'pinnacle')
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 14, 2004, 09:50:08 am
You start off your post by telling everyone to leave it alone. Then you proceed with 15 or so paragraphs of your opinion on the subject. Why are we not allowed our say? Are only moderators allowed to express their opinions. I don't think that anyone gave the poster anything that he didn't ask for (Sorry Red Green, but like I said earlier, I don't know what it was that even made you make your original post.). He started it, and then your post supports him. This just doesn't make sense to me.
Your position on sfc2 vs. sfc3 is well known. Thus the reference to "Nannerites" (Which, BTW, I do consider the reference to you in the post unnecessary, but as a Moderator I think that you need to be a little thicker skinned for your own sake.).
You proceed on with many points on why you think sfc3 is better. Which in itself is OK. Except for the fact that you told the rest of us to drop it.
Then you give your negative view on sfc2 and sfb. I think that it is very unprofessional for someone who represents Taldren to not only run down a previous Taldren product, but to then run down another companies product, ADB.
Then you digress even further by attacking a rather large segment of the forum community, the SFBers. You call us arrogant and rabid. You put words in our mouths by saying that we think that non-sfbers are dumb. It's not unusual for someone to think that someone who disagrees with them is wrong or just doesn't get it. It's not an sfb phenomenon or invention. You evidently feel the same in the opposite direction of us.
As far as sfb being boring goes, (Just to defend the defenseless a bit. Since ADB has no voice here and your outwardly negative comments on their product could drive away potential SFB players.) How can it be boring to have over 100 possible tactical decisions to make each impulse? For those who don't know, there are 32 impulses to a game turn (The time that it takes for phasers to arm in SFC2). That's over 3000 possible moves to be considered per turn. That's complicated and involving, not boring.
I don't usually outwardly disagree with moderators here. You position can be a difficult one and it's not always going to be a popular one. I understand this, but you aren't making it any easier on yourself or other moderators with your negative stance on SFC2 and SFB.
...and Dave, Did you loose that list that I sent you on all the stuff you guys left out?
Post by: Reverend on June 14, 2004, 11:38:58 am
I did enjoy SFC2OP, and SFC1, but I seemed to enjoy SFC3 more, mainly due to engine changes, impulse control, the ability to go reverse, and tactical warp... these items made the game seem more feasible. Unfortunately, a lot of things were left out due to Actvision. All are great games, but a lot of people it seems who enjoy SFC3 do it for the same reason I do, as stated before. Maybe if someone could build a 'SFC4', it could bridge the gape between OP and 3, and then take a ginat leap beyond all in one, like having a fully interfaceable universe, dockable bases, planets... maybe a wierdo analomy thrown in here and there. Heck, I'd say a MMORPG would be good, but that would ruin it probrobly, as most of those games are just a carrot-on-a-stick kind of thing. Still, that does seem fun to think of.... so what does anyone else think of that, SFC4 being a bridge-gap and a MMORPG? Could it be fun, or just a failure-in-the-making? EIther way, a new Dynaverse with a static continuous space universe (with a little drop down hex map for good measure) seems to me like a fun idea...
Post by: Sirgod on June 14, 2004, 12:24:58 pm
Quote:
Well, I played SFC1 over at a buddy's house, then bought OP because there were no Star Trek tactical combat simulators around (Brdige Commander and Armada seemed fine, but the gracefulness was left out of both).... I have tried SFB, several times, but it got to be really drawn out, so much so that when playing the game with 'old pros', it would take over two hours for a small battle (that could have just been the scenario).
I did enjoy SFC2OP, and SFC1, but I seemed to enjoy SFC3 more, mainly due to engine changes, impulse control, the ability to go reverse, and tactical warp... these items made the game seem more feasible. Unfortunately, a lot of things were left out due to Actvision. All are great games, but a lot of people it seems who enjoy SFC3 do it for the same reason I do, as stated before. Maybe if someone could build a 'SFC4', it could bridge the gape between OP and 3, and then take a ginat leap beyond all in one, like having a fully interfaceable universe, dockable bases, planets... maybe a wierdo analomy thrown in here and there. Heck, I'd say a MMORPG would be good, but that would ruin it probrobly, as most of those games are just a carrot-on-a-stick kind of thing. Still, that does seem fun to think of.... so what does anyone else think of that, SFC4 being a bridge-gap and a MMORPG? Could it be fun, or just a failure-in-the-making? EIther way, a new Dynaverse with a static continuous space universe (with a little drop down hex map for good measure) seems to me like a fun idea...
A fine example of a positive post/ Idea.
stephen
Post by: DH123 on June 14, 2004, 12:30:30 pm
Sounds like a win-win situation to me
An MMORPG based on GURPS: Prime Directive would be kinda cool.
Post by: Remby on June 14, 2004, 01:02:34 pm
First --- I love the SFC series -- and uhhm I have probably been playing SFB longer than most everyone on this board seeing as I was one of the early game playtesters. (PT group 222-A).
I especially enjoyed playing the Orion Pirates edition and seeing the ship our group created for the board game become a wonderfully well used ship in the computer game. John Ramer of our group created the Orion Double Raider long long ago. His initial design was a bit overpowered in the engine area, but with some tweaking (and discussion) by the rest of the group and the ADB --- a new ship was born.
Ok so the computer game is not like the board game ---- what did you expect?
Ok so things are not exactly as you pictured they should be in the computer version.
Folks --- these games were designed for one purpose and one purpose alone (outside of making money for the people that worked hard on them and must earn a living) - and that is to have fun.
Yes the computer game is based on the board game, but it is real time and you cannot apply turn based tactics in real time speed. Is it any less of a product? No! This game takes the "Chess-Like" Board-Game we all grew up with and loved and made it a real-speed highly visual combat simulator that almost every old StarFleet Battles player always dreamed of having one day. To say us old SFB players despise SFC is categorically wrong.
And as far as SFB'ers not wanting any change in rules (as in chess) --- sorry -- I sifted through errata after errata. (chuckles)
Ok yes there will always be gripes because it's different. and people will take issues with problems both in SFC and SFB. There will always be rules lawyers. There will always be cliquish groups. There will always be favoritism and sides. At the same time -- (thank goodness) -- there will always be players who enjoy both of the products produced.
Will there be an SFC-4 -- well that depends on if the people creating the game can justify the cost of producing it versus what they can make as a return from their audience.
Hopefully my statements will help reduce the partisanship between the two types of games players.
Now I have no more time for this foolishness -- time to get back to my game... I have Klingons to kill....!~
Thomas Green
(Remby)
Post by: Stingray2000 on June 14, 2004, 01:14:13 pm
Having said this, it seems that the comments here fall into those made by one of the two groups of people I have broadly described ? each with his/her approach to describing what are, essentially, irreconcilable differences as they represent two diametrically opposed approaches to simulation gaming. But the comments from ALL sides seem to miss one basic failure of all of these games when it comes to ship-to-ship tactical combat (skirmish) ? despite enormously variegated and realistic 3dimensional backgrounds, the combat is 2 dimensional! I don?t care what version of SFC you play, the ship-to-ship combat aspect of the games is inherently flawed by the failure to include the third dimension.
I had a small hand in shaping the ST gaming community during its infancy. The first truly widely played ST game was Starfleet Academy. While the ship-to-ship combat aspect of that game lacked the realistic and superior graphics of either SFC OP or SFC III and while it also lacked the variety of different shipping available to each race, that old Interplay title had one facet that is sorely lacking in any of the SFC titles ? 3 dimensional combat. I don?t care which of the SFC camps you hail from (love SFB/SFC OP, not love SFB & prefer SFCIII), an honest critique of either game would conclude that BOTH lack an honest attempt to simulate battles in space as both lack the necessity to:
A) make and execute your strategic and tactical plans; or
B) tactically plan, point and shoot
In 3 dimensions ? you can only move right/left/?forward?/?backward?.
Aside from the fancy ST universe graphics, pictures and the like, you might as well be playing a surface naval warfare exercise (no, it is not even like a helicopter dogfight, they move in 3 dimensions) with high tech weapons, energy shielding, and invisibility. You might as well think of yourself as being ?on? the ocean as you are not ?in? anything as the (admittedly relativistic) concepts of up/down do not exist. And even in 2 dimensions, the game engine removes what has been a crucial part of naval warfare for centuries ? go ahead, try to do what Capt. Picard did to the Scimitar in Nemesis ? the game engine will not permit two vessels to collide with one another. Even in two dimensions, the game departs from reality by allowing two objects to occupy the same space at the same time (and to drop a mine while doing so).
Please don?t take this the wrong way: this is not intended as a criticism of any of the SFC games, or any other games for that matter. It is certainly not a criticism of the opinions or people advancing any of those opinions described above. I am writing to point out what I believe many of you have missed. These are games ? they are meant to be played for enjoyment. If the conditions of the game make it so you do not enjoy playing it, then do not play. Do not attempt to demean or diminish another because he/she does not share your enthusiasm for one game or disdain for another ? they are not more/less intelligent & thoughtful than you, they are simply different from you. And do not attempt to mask your personal criticism of the tastes of another by cloaking it in terms of the ?complexity? of the game. It seems to me that, in the SFC series, Taldren has produced different games, all based (to differing degrees) on SFB principles and set in the ST universe. Each game appeals to different interests and, in so doing, also operates to enhance the diversity of the gaming community by attracting the people who possess those interests. Obviously, I would like to see 3 dimensional combat, but you do not see me writing a critique of the previous SFC game titles (although I am sure that the more narrow minded reading this may very well seize on that portion of this post and ?run? with it ? sigh) listing all of ways where they are deficient (in my mind!). The value/worth/beauty of any given game is, to coin a phrase, in the eye of the beholder.
Post by: NannerSlug on June 14, 2004, 02:24:34 pm
Post by: nx_adam_1701 on June 14, 2004, 04:15:45 pm
now... when the holodeck comes out, let me know
then i'll be really happy, but i agree with most, SFC2OP is good for SFB fans
and SFC3, satisfies the TNG fans, my fav is OP, as yah already noe,. I asks tons of questions about sfc2 op, i havent even used sfc3, so i cant jugde it, but anything is better than nothing
adam out
Post by: Dash Jones on June 14, 2004, 05:49:46 pm
Quote:
SFC1, and SFB-based game, sold 400,000 copies. Need I say anything more?
Could have sworn it was at least 600,000 to a million...
I like all the SFC games...
I would like an SFC which included all the elements of SFC2 and SFC 3 BUT also with the simplicity of the galaxy such as SFC1 as well as missions like SFC 1...
OR, if they desired to include a hex system for MP like SFC2, and SFC3, if they would include a single player element where once you got enough prestige/rank, if you so desired, you could run a Federation and Empire like campaign...yourself running the race which you had chosen at the start...
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 14, 2004, 06:42:22 pm
I am not a SFB veteran. I have the rules, and I've been drooling over them for quite some time, but I am in a serious shortage of viable players(last local I introduced rammed into a planet), but I am very active in the online SFB arena.
I also have not played SFC3(damn thing wouldn't run) but from what I have heard I'm not missimg much. My aim has always been to bring SFC closer to SFB. I even made a post regarding that in the Scripting forum, although it seems to have been ignored(nobody even told me it was a bad idea, don't know why).
I do believe that there will be an SFC4. Activision is a publisher that markets to a different audiance than SFC, that being FPS's(they publish Wolfenstein, Quake, Doom, etc. and I don't have to tell you how THOSE sell...) so it's almost a given that when a FPS-publisher comes within 10 feet of SFC it won't last the night.
I think that if a new publisher aquires the rights or Activision gets some new leadership things would look better...especially if they can re-negotiate with Parimount to let SFC have the liscence to both SFC and TNG/Voyager.
Anyhow, maybe the reason SFB players are so sure they are doing it right is because they have been working on this way for 30+ years...they are sure of themselves, and IMHO, for a reason.
Not to mention the fact that the first three games sold like hotcakes and were based on SFB, then SFC3 rolls out and drops like a stone.
Difference?
SFC3 wasn't based on SFB. So maybe they have the right to be a little angry
Now me?
I like complex games. I like simple ones. I can appreciate both Chess, Hexagonal Chess, Starfleet Command, Star Fleet Battles, and Quake. They both have features and drawbacks. I just don't think you should base Chess on Quake or vice versa without good cause.
Also, in many people's eyes, SFC4 is already out--SFBOL. Star Fleet Battles Online. Check it out, you might like it.
Merlin
Post by: Dash Jones on June 14, 2004, 07:03:36 pm
Quote:
Also, in many people's eyes, SFC4 is already out--SFBOL. Star Fleet Battles Online. Check it out, you might like it.
Okay, I like SFB as well as the next guy...but as far as computers go...after seeing this link (actually I've seen it before) it reminded me of why I am a MUCH bigger SFC fan as for games which are SFB related on computer, than SFB online...
Might as well play it in person...at least it's much more personable and you can argue with the person across the table about their move and perhaps get away with something totally stupid yourself!
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 14, 2004, 07:29:22 pm
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 14, 2004, 08:02:58 pm
Quote:
OP == the pinnacle of SFC.
Someone mentioned OP left out too much stuff, I can't imagine what
the heck more you could have wanted (besides Andro's and Tholians!).
I didn't say it left out too much stuff - I said the nannerite crowd frequently complains about things that are in SFB but were omitted from the game. This is why people like myself and Hyper really want to see a SFC4. In truth, if I had to say what was a bad decision to be left out, I'd really only go with 3 things:
1. Working reserve power. Many of the races have different hold costs and other adjustments to them simply because this doesn't work. Oh, it works the way you programmed it - it just bears no resemblence to SFB, because it's effectively useless in OP/EAW. This lack of functionality greatly changes the game and not really for the better in my or many other people's opinions.
2. Plasma Bolts. SFC uses while not quite floating maps, maps that are large in comparison to ones in SFB. This makes outrunning plasma much easier because you have a lot more room to work with. In SFB you at least have the option of nailing that phaserboater with a bolted plasma instead of launching when it will likely do no damage. Even then plasma isn't really balanced on floating maps (see plasma sabot).
3. Fighters and PF's for all races that had them, and heavy fighter functionality. Ask the PF races how they feel about CVA's when they have no equivalent, or fighter races about PF tenders when they have no equivalent. It's not an apples to apples comparison when you talk about fighters to PF's - the PF's are generally tougher. It's especially noticable since on the D2 it creates a lot of imbalance issues depending on when a campaign is started. Out of all the three this decision is also the most mystifying. The code for it exists, but an artificial "wall" is in the game that makes getting around it extremely difficult. As for BCS and SCS type ships, those are just flat out impossible, since again for no reason I can think of you can't put fighters and PF's on the same ship. If it's not too much trouble, would it be possible to ask why exactly the decision to go this route was done? I've never understood the reason for it, or the logic that must have led to it. Maybe there was a good reason but I just literally can't see one. It would be nice to know (there must have been a reason?). As for heavy fighter functionality, this means ensuring that if you put heavy fighters on a ship you can't load up with a full load of 16 of them (important to any fed SCS).
After those, off the top of my head, I can think of a lot of interesting things for SFC4:
All missing weapons modes for weapons in the game
specialty drones/drone construction
ECM drones/Plasma
WORKING SCOUTS <-----The lack of these really changes the game by removing options
Predictible fighter AI
Ship AI that isn't hopeless against seeking weapons
Ship AI that understands the concept of "effective range". Every time I see a R22 fusion AI shot I start to get annoyed
Dogfighting fighters
G racks that aren't OTT (IE, they work as SFB has playtested them, therefore no BPV increase for ships that have them is needed)
Dual purpose Plasma D
Ability to tell what fighters are which when they are in the bay easily
Ability to mount pods on fighters
EW fighters
Ability to loan ECM/ECCM to fighters from the carrier
Missing drone types, esp the Type-VI fighter weapon (plasma K is similar)
Ability to mod the game much easier - if I want to put 2 type I drones on a fighter I should be able to
Much improved Dwhatever system that greatly minimizes the amount of fighting done against AI and pushes PvP
Ability to fire a phaser 2 or 1 as a phaser 3 for PD purposes
Fighters that dogfight (IE, fighter on fighter combat that takes into account the fighter's capabilities)
Officers
Ability to upgrade a ship a la SFC 1 (another decision that no one seems to understand)
Tutorials for all the races
Modular ship capability - Orions should be able to use their option mounts, Romulans should be able to change variants like their shirt
Stasis Field Generators
The requisite Tholian and Andromedan races
Missing Drone racks - Type H for instance
AMD-30
Oh, and a lot more players in a battle - say 8 - 12 minimum - would make a huge advancement for the game. Anyway, that's all I can think of off the top of my head. I could probabally come up with more
Post by: Bonk on June 14, 2004, 08:06:22 pm
Specialty drones and plasma bolts ring true to me.
Don't forget the positron flywheel and awacs shuttles to give the Feds their special magic...
(...not that we don't sincerely appreciate all you have done David...)
Post by: Age on June 14, 2004, 09:05:24 pm
I think there needs to be room for compromise in both styles of the two types of games.
I would really like a more canonized game set in the 23Century with some elements of SFC2 in it.I know I said this in few post already.
I am not debating this as I already have one going in the hot topics forum. I would like to say I enjoy them both.
I am picking up on something here but I will save that for later.
I believe there will be SFC.4 made right here by these talented people at this company.
Post by: nx_adam_1701 on June 14, 2004, 09:23:34 pm
thx
adam out
Post by: nx_adam_1701 on June 14, 2004, 09:27:27 pm
adam out
Post by: red_green on June 14, 2004, 10:06:12 pm
Quote:
I gotta agree witcha Age, i believe in time there will be a SFC4, after they finish their petty disputes, in time, and theres one thing I know for sure, SFC, or Star Trek fans, whatever you wanna call us, we [bleep] about everything and everyone who makes the game and etc..., but when it comes down to it, we're the first ones on line, waiting to buy and play the game, then after a couple of skirmish, back to the forums to complain about it some more lol
adam out
good point. I know I had my hissy fits when SFC3 came out. Gotta say though that its better then I first thought. So I am a bit of a hycocrite I guess. Maybe I was comparing SFC3 out of the box to OP patched and modded with 128 ships in each slot, with modded missions and ships etc. Its more fare to compare OP out of box to SFC3 out of box or each game modded. There are getting to be a number of good SFC3 mods with more on the way. So there still is interest in the game, despite all the politics gone haywire.
Lots of interesting comments in this thread.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 14, 2004, 10:19:19 pm
Quote:
whoa, whoa whoa, explain these things to me, Im not a SFB fan, but Im very interested in knowing about, I love to hear about these things, whats the awacs, and the flywheel thingy, please
thx
adam out
Those 2 things or the things I've listed? For just those things, there's no awacs but there is a federation SWAC shuttle. This shuttle adds 2 ecm and eccm to the carrier as long as it is within 10 hexes of it, and has another 2 points that it can allocate to either as desired. It also functions as a partially capable scout, with the ability to perform scout functions breaking lock ons, controlling seeking weapons, identifying seeking weapons and shuttles, detecting mines (most mines in SFB can't be seen without a minesweeper), gathering intelligence, and tac intel.
It's most powerful function is probabally the ability to "go wild". When this happens, ALL seeking weapons within 15 hexes of the SWAC instantly target the SWAC and attack it instead. This means all missles, all plasma torpedoes, etc - regardless if they are enemy or friendly. It is irrelevant also if the drone in question has ATG or some other kind of guidance. Careful use of this function can save the carrier from being destroyed by an overwhelming drone or plasma attack. The only exception to this is the type-VI dogfight drone, which is unaffected (but since it's nearly usless against ships, no one cares).
The positron flyweel is a federation toy that allows the shipto accelerate at a much higher rate than normal. It's also not a standard rule, and not even considered an optional one because it gives feddies a huge advantage. Something like the SPZ in SFC, but a lot more unbalancing. No one cares about 6 plasma F's, but a CB is a different matter. It can only be used if everyone agrees - which never happens, unless you just want to futz around with it to see what it's like.
Basically a "cheese rule" for federation whiners.
Post by: Age on June 14, 2004, 10:45:42 pm
Post by: Bonk on June 14, 2004, 10:49:23 pm
(or was that legal?)Odd, I thought the flywheel was a standard rule - I found its use limited by lack of power anyway - I guess the more experienced crew I was playing with were giving me a break as a Fed starting out... though I didn't get any breaks once I mastered the Kzin and Thols...
The crew I played against was so good at the plasma game I had to resort to the Thols, always with interesting results... Edit: eventually they banned me from playing Thol... hehe
Post by: Bonk on June 14, 2004, 10:54:25 pm
Quote:
The swac and the flywheel especially that would of been great in the PC game.I guess it is not in there is it.I assume you are talking about the board when it comes to these things?
Yes, we're discussing features of SFB that we liked and miss in SFC.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 14, 2004, 11:25:10 pm
Real engine doubling. ie, being able to double one engine at a time.
Variable OLs on photons.
Accurate X-1 weapons. Fast loads and pulse phasers. Fully capable X-plasma, etc... and X-batteries to go along with fixed reserve power usage instead of giving them so much permanent power with extra APRs.
Seperate the volleys for different weapons types for better Mizia effect. It's not just the PPD that should benefit from this.
Add the missing lab capabilities to go along with all those drone types.
I have a couple of "how come" questions.
Why were drone speeds changed, increased? A lot of people say that they are cheesy as they are. Wouldn't the original speeds be better balanced?
Double internals? Were the games just too fast before or was it to give a "Mulligan" of sorts so one bad tactical decision doesn't kill you?
Why so many spare parts?
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 15, 2004, 01:54:05 am
Quote:
Why were drone speeds changed, increased? A lot of people say that they are cheesy as they are. Wouldn't the original speeds be better balanced?
Double internals? Were the games just too fast before or was it to give a "Mulligan" of sorts so one bad tactical decision doesn't kill you?
Why so many spare parts?
Drone speeds I think is because SFC doesn't have lead tracking. In my experience, the speeds as they are now aren't really a problem.
As for internals, probabally; which brings up another thing for GAW, which would be an option to have a single internal game.
I'm not too fond of the magic screws myself.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 15, 2004, 02:15:06 am
Double internals were added to the game simply to make it last longer. Imagine if your ship, in SFC, could only withstand half the damage it does now, most battles would be over very quickly.
The spare parts are an extrapolation of Emergency Damage Repair in SFB, which was a number equivalent to the Damage Control rating of a ship. Typically it would be 4 for a Heavy Cruiser, and this was the number of systems a ship could repair in battle. Allocating one point of power to a 'repair' system would also make repairs but these were unlimited. Repair systems are usually only found on Fleet Repair Docks and some PF Tenders, although did appear rarely elsewhere as well.
I would imagine the number of spares was increased again to the give the game longevity in combat. Unlike EDR however, spares can only be used on systems you can click on. EDR could be used on anything eg. Hull, Labs etc. The Damage Control rating of a ship also determined how fast shields would repair, not Labs as it is in SFC.
Post by: nx_adam_1701 on June 15, 2004, 02:53:55 am
adam out
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 15, 2004, 03:44:41 am
Tracy, What you say sounds correct for SFC. The SFB part doesn't quite translate though in my experience. There's no way that you'd repair as many systems on a ship in SFB as you can in SFC. Maybe an unrefitted Fed with really lucky die rolls, but I doubt it.
I'm sure that you're correct for the translation to SFC from SFB by Taldren though.As far as most battles being over quickly without double internals goes, I really think that the DAC is different. It seems that it's easier to get to the end of the excess damage track in SFC than SFB (If you take the double internals into account.). Certainly, it doesn't take twice as much damage to blow up a ship. The frustrating part is scoring a huge volley of internals and having none, or virtually none, of the weapons go away. On many occasions I've scored 90, or so, internals on a D7 without it losing a single drone or torp. Your description of a recent battle on GW2 where you scored big up close with a Hydran against a Lyran without it losing any weapons comes to mind. That's really the only part of the double internals that bugs me. I'll bet that the DAC isn't exactly right. Maybe it uses percentiges instead of exact D12 rolls to determine system hits? I've seen people try to use percentile dice in SFB and it screws things up pretty bad. Maybe trying to set the DAC to use the same hits as D12 dice is problematic. You're a programmer. So, you'd probably know better than I would if this is the case.
Anyway, thanks again. I know that it was really old questions that I asked. I hadn't ever seen an explanation for it before though.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 15, 2004, 03:50:37 am
I'm not exactly sure if SFC uses that same DAC that SFB does, although the mizia concept is just as applicable in both.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 15, 2004, 04:51:05 am
I hope that you 're writing all of this down Dave.
Post by: DH123 on June 15, 2004, 08:15:22 am
Quote:
I have a couple of "how come" questions.
Why were drone speeds changed, increased? A lot of people say that they are cheesy as they are. Wouldn't the original speeds be better balanced?
Lack of lead-tracking.
Post by: DH123 on June 15, 2004, 08:19:42 am
With D2 loadouts, it take 200-250 internals to nail a cruiser over a prolonged battle. That is the equivelant of 50 nuclear missles.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 15, 2004, 09:23:31 am
Quote:
SFBOL is SFB played over the web. It has no automatic functions to speak of. It's only true purpose is to make it easier to play people, as you don't have to be physically present. It might also be noted that the players who play there are frequently the best in the SFB universe and any new player that starts there can expect to be awesomely humiliated on a routine basis for quite a while due to the difference in skill level (though not due to attitudes or player related problems). That's why they don't recommend you start there; it's like trying to jump straight from high school to the majors.
Uh...
I won my first battle on SFBOL. And I ain't that good.(I'm in the middle of a SFC losing streak)
So yes, I've seen Ken Burnside there. I've also seen new players as well.
And there is a chat interface, so you can still lob off some nasty taunts. I know I got in a couple zingers
.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 15, 2004, 09:26:15 am
Quote:
90 internals? Than ain't nothing. Flying Hydran on GW2 right now, getting 130 internal volley on CAs and they don't go pop!.
With D2 loadouts, it take 200-250 internals to nail a cruiser over a prolonged battle. That is the equivelant of 50 nuclear missles.
Didn't FireSoul take care of this in his mod?
Post by: NannerSlug on June 15, 2004, 09:35:38 am
if i were you guys, i would lobby starfleet games to advance that product. i think you have a much better chance. that is not meant disrespectfully, but out of fact.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 15, 2004, 09:40:17 am
But SFC could be so much more with effort...I don't like the idea of giving that up. Maybe I'm nuts.
Of course, that won't stop me from buying a subscrption
.Merlin
Post by: FFZ on June 15, 2004, 11:00:13 am
I used to love SFB, but these days, I wouldn't have the patence to fill out Energy allocation forms each turn, or roll tons of dice, that is for a younger version of myself.
Post by: Bonk on June 15, 2004, 11:11:28 am
Quote:
Drone speeds I think is because SFC doesn't have lead tracking. In my experience, the speeds as they are now aren't really a problem.
There was no real "lead-tracking" in SFB either - the drones always had to close range with each movement if possible which left very little, if any leeway for lead tracking.
Post by: Age on June 15, 2004, 11:51:01 am
We all know how 2 year olds can be and think if one were to get into this board game and take something an lose it.The Scrabble game we have had in my family its on it last legs and we had to make up card board cut outs to replace some of the missing letters.This what happens to board game over time and then there is the generation gap who won't get into board games like this.It would seem to me the most popular PC games are simulator and first shooter types every time I am in a computer gaming store that is what they say.The way to open up this PC game I not to sure so that it will sell more copies.This what the market needs to look at how to get the younger generation into SFC do they want it more like SFC3 or SFC2.I am guessing that would possibly like it more like SFC3.I am however optimistic that there will be SFC4 and more to come.This would be a Glorious day as the Klingons say more blood whine to all lol.
Post by: J. Carney on June 15, 2004, 12:13:29 pm
DAC= Damage Allocaton Chart- the peice of paper that showed you which systems were hitafter internals were scored. You rolled 2D6 ans found the result on the DAC. There was a progression of ship systems beside each number to hsow what oyu had just knocked out. When all the systems of that type were destroyed, you moved to the next listed system.
Look here, it's posted on the SFB webite http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/DAC.pdf
Labs= Labs- places in the ship where research was done to discover things... lkike whether that shutle heading towards you at speed 6 was going to fire a phaser-3 at you and run, blossom into a scatterpack or hit you and blow up for mucho damage.
SFB don't wear out all that easy- the guy I play aganst has counters and rulebooks that are almost 10 years old now. They are still good (with a couple of pages of Errata included)- though they could be discribed as 'well-loved.' As long as you don't loose counters, you could play one set for decades.
Age, SFC3 did not do as well as the older SFB-based games. It did worse because the SFB'ers were the ones that were buying and when the game stopped being based heavily on SFB, they stopped buying it. You market to that people who buy- and that is SFB players in the case of this paritcular game.
Post by: 2_X_S on June 15, 2004, 12:28:31 pm
Quote:Quote:
I have a couple of "how come" questions.
Why were drone speeds changed, increased? A lot of people say that they are cheesy as they are. Wouldn't the original speeds be better balanced?
Lack of lead-tracking.
Theres just one flaw in that argument, if your ship was flying straight away from Plasma/Fast Drone you could never been touched.
Post by: Age on June 15, 2004, 12:32:27 pm
Post by: J. Carney on June 15, 2004, 01:27:02 pm
Elite Force is just one of a myriad of so-so FPS games out there- it is a copy of a copy of a copy of all the other FPS games out there and is only popular because it is familiar and requires only the intelegence necessary to 'point and click' to play. SFC is totally different- it is supposed to be complicated, afte rall you are running an entire starship.
Don't get me wrong... I've been playing Activision games since Pitfall came out for the Atari 2600. By and large they make good product. I just don't like the way that they 'dumbed-down' SFC to make SFC3 easier to play and I do not like the way that they turned it into a 'movie game' for Nemisis instead ofkeeping it like SFB and putting the Ferengi, Cardassians and Dominion in it. Then you could have had all the weapons that the Cardies and Dominion had in Dominion Wars and fighters and some greater weapons diversity to boot.
Imagine how good a game it would have been if they had included all these things.
Post by: DH123 on June 15, 2004, 01:31:16 pm
Quote:
for those who are hard -core sfbers, sfb on line is your dream.
if i were you guys, i would lobby starfleet games to advance that product. i think you have a much better chance. that is not meant disrespectfully, but out of fact.
I like real-time, i honestly don't think I could play this turn-based anymore. Haven't actually played SFB in 9 years though the books make great reading and the SSD are cool Trek porn.
But Nanner is right. With all the legal BS going on with the Trek franchise, we are more likely to see a "real-time" SFB PC game than an SFC4.
The best hope for SFB gamers is that the Trek franchise becomes so devalued by B&B's bungling that Paramount gives up resisting ADB and let's them expand into host-based computer products.
Post by: IKV Nemesis D7L on June 15, 2004, 01:51:04 pm
Change all the terminology away from Trek. Phasers become lasers, Disruptors can be particle cannons. Missiles can stay missiles as the term is generic. Warp engines becomes the fusion or antimatter engines. Impulse drive (not engines) becomes gravity drive. To make it more interresting you should not have to maintain your motion just pay energy costs to change it. Warp drive becomes hyper drive and is used to jump from system to system. All battles are at sublight speeds.
It would still be based on SFB but also be a unique product all its own.
Depending on the web of contracts ADB may not be able to license the rules for a non-Trek game without Paramounts permission, but I can dream.
Post by: EmeraldEdge on June 15, 2004, 03:01:19 pm
Quote:
The best hope for SFB gamers is that the Trek franchise becomes so devalued by B&B's bungling that Paramount gives up resisting ADB and let's them expand into host-based computer products.
See, there is a sunny side to Paramount's insane insistance on keeping B&B around and in charge!
Post by: Karnak on June 15, 2004, 03:08:03 pm
Quote:
UPN renewed Star Trek: Enterprise because Paramount TV substantially dropped the price per episode, a new report has claimed.
Next week's TV Guide, dated June 20th - 26th, has printed that according to sources, the real reason UPN renewed Enterprise was that Paramount offered to drop the price of each episode of the series from $1.7 million to $800,000. Reporter Stephen Battaglio called it "an offer [UPN] couldn?t refuse."
With UPN aiming for a female demographic, putting America's Top Model on Wednesday night along with new drama Kevin Hill, there was no room for Enterprise in its former time slot, which put it in competition with the more successful genre series Smallville on the WB as well as with ratings powerhouse American Idol. Paramount argued that UPN could afford to air a reduced-price Enterprise on Friday nights, when the network's ratings have been dismal.
It has long been known that Paramount strongly desired a fourth season for syndication rights, which become far more lucrative for a series that has produced nearly 100 episodes. Paramount will make up some of its lost revenue on a syndication deal, and more on merchandise sold to Star Trek fans.
"While only Trekkers would care if the show was canceled, Paramount knows it pays to keep them happy because Trekkers buy a lot of merchandise," wrote Battaglio. "Star Trek video games, books, dolls and other collectibles ring up about $200 million a year in retail sales, bringing in royalties of $20 million to Paramount."
"It?s important to have fresh Trek product lines," Marty Brochstein of The Licensing Letter told TV Guide. "There are still a lot of die hard fans. And they want more."
TV Guide has not yet posted this article on its web site but it may be available on newsstands. Many thanks to Craig Morris for transcribing it.
source: http://www.trektoday.com/news/140604_04.shtml
So, maybe Enterprise won't last past Season 4. Then maybe ADB can grab some licence cheap out of Paramount.
Post by: Age on June 15, 2004, 04:39:57 pm
Post by: AngryAndroid on June 15, 2004, 04:51:03 pm
I read a few interesting things though, at the start, someone said how great chess was because of how mathematicaly it allowed you to basicaly derive so many variations. I instantly thought of SFC3 then, simply because of how customizable it was and what the modders have run with. Each ship can be tuned and tweaked, flown vastly differently. The variety of battles I've had with SFC3 and the varying tactics used has been great. For the better players, they too have a huge amount of variety, somewhat like the chess analogy.
I've never played SFC2, but did 1 and 3. So honestly, I can't run it down one way or another (not that I'd like to). But SFC3 did keep me comming back for a long time, and I'm as much a fan of games like MOO as I am of UT. So eh, I find criticsm of SFC3 to be just in only a few cases, but sometimes people just seem to run it down because its not SFB.
I reckon there are enough tallented folk in the SFB community and ST community, to develop a PC game of SFB. It'd be great to see that side of the player base go and make what they really want, rather than wait around forever for a developer to never quite make it. Then maybe they could stop hating SFC3 for not being their perfect game, when really, its simply not as bad as they sometimes make out.
SFC4 would be great, but a huge rethink on past mistakes would be needed. But with a dwindeling ST fan base, what publisher is going to take that risk and looking at these forums, what developer would either?
Post by: J. Carney on June 15, 2004, 05:01:56 pm
People who like TOS still watch it; people who like TNG still watch it; people whoo like DS9 or Voyager still watch those.
Even the people who think (through the evil influence of Satan himself) the Enterpries is still good are still watching it.
People are not falling away from Star Trek, just the people that are writing it right now.
Post by: 3dot14 on June 15, 2004, 09:06:44 pm
For me, OP with:
*Electronic warfare/Scout functions (I don't even want the SWAC, ECM drone etc., just make Scouts work.)
*Plasma Bolt
*More detailed Fleet Control. (the SFC2 interface is good, but missing some of the orders that are possible in SFC1 and 3)
*(and Andro + Tholians of course)
is enough.
I haven't played online for a long time. (Time constraints + firewall), but OP against Computer is still fun.
As Nanner said, 2 and 3 are different, each have the ups and downs.
But, they should not have been lumped together as sequels. That is my one primary gripe. I would've cheered on SFC3 as a spin off of the series.
(The failures of such mid-series conversions are much more numerous than successes. In fact only success I can think of is Warcraft3. But that is Blizzard, an extraordinary case...)
I personally prefer SFC2OP/SFB because of 1.) the wonderful backstory. Trek TNG (based on TV and movie) are simply to wishy-washy to make a solid background out of. 2.) SFB is done in a "impartial" way. Each race is given about the same amount of chance to win. (No preferential treatment for anyone because they are "the good guys". For the Most part.) So I would rather see SFB made as a computer game than I do TNG.
This is interesting, there hasn't been an outburst like this since... well the last outburst about SFC3.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 15, 2004, 10:19:07 pm
Taldren can't seem to find a decent publisher since Interplay. They either want to dumb it down or change it somehow or other. I think it would be better if they opened up the weapons/systems to modders, so we could PUT IN scout channels, PA panels, Webs, Plasma Bolts, etc.Ii think Modder's could do a better job simply because they don't have to fight the publisher's who are screaming TOO MUCH EFFORT IT WON'T SELL yada yada yada.
And if your worried about Modder's making cheese ships... Just take a look at FireSoul's wonderful work. Talk about sticking to the core...BRAVO FIRESOUL!!!
Now if Taldren finds the ideal publisher, I'd be thrilled to pieces, which raises the question of how I'd play it...
ANYHOW, that's my pipe dream.
And I'll take every one off of that list your running, thank you. Aren't I modest?
Post by: Age on June 15, 2004, 10:56:29 pm
Post by: Crimmy on June 16, 2004, 12:06:23 am
question is....would the lower production costs offset the lower potential revenues?
Dunno....but if you figure ALOT of modern gamers are also net-o-philes...getting word out about a new game might not be so hard...
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 16, 2004, 12:24:41 am
No, that would be VERY cool.
Merlin
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 16, 2004, 02:26:03 am
Quote:
Actually...one of Erik's pet Ideas is to sell a game via Download....it would slash production costs, but it also means no game on a shelf at your local store for gift or impulse buys.....
Not a big problem. Something simple as an e-card that you sent to a friend telling them that you have bought the game for him/her should probably take care of that.
Quote:
question is....would the lower production costs offset the lower potential revenues?
I wouldn't assume that the revenues would be lower. An actual marketing study would need to be done.
Quote:
Dunno....but if you figure ALOT of modern gamers are also net-o-philes...getting word out about a new game might not be so hard...
Agreed
Post by: Bonk on June 16, 2004, 05:52:38 am
Post by: E_Look on June 16, 2004, 11:16:05 am
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 16, 2004, 02:33:54 pm
The game is excellent and AFAIK it sold rather well.
So there IS prescenence for this type of game selling. After all, SFBOL is an online-only product. It is not sold in stores.
Take care, and get coding!
Merlin
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 16, 2004, 06:23:31 pm
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 16, 2004, 10:15:36 pm
Merlin
Post by: Bonk on June 17, 2004, 12:36:31 am
Quote:
What is Cdilla, Bonk?
Cdilla is a licensing system that "phones home" too much for my taste.
Some consider it Spyware, some don't.
Apps that use Cdilla or its descendents that I know of:
Turbotax
3DSmax4
3DSmax5
3DSmax6
http://www.auditmypc.com/freescan/readingroom/cdilla.asp
http://www.computing.net/security/wwwboard/forum/10352.html
I consider its behaviour unacceptable and I will not use products that are controlled by it.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 17, 2004, 09:05:42 am
Quote:
Keep those links coming, that site looks rather good...
Merlin
It's a bit more than that, since the first game of the series was CGW's wargame of the year in either 2000 or 2001. Like SFC the basic game engine is now slightly dated, but the results are still quite excellent.
Post by: FireSoul on June 17, 2004, 10:20:58 am
Quote:
*Electronic warfare/Scout functions (I don't even want the SWAC, ECM drone etc., just make Scouts work.)
*Plasma Bolt
*More detailed Fleet Control. (the SFC2 interface is good, but missing some of the orders that are possible in SFC1 and 3)
*(and Andro + Tholians of course)
is enough.
I'd like to add a few things.. Must Haves in my opinion since the Kzinti/Mirak are really not up to their full potential without this.. I did put some thought into this, and here's how I would do it..
* Drone Construction, special drones
- I'm sure the spacedock could have a section dedicated on building drones and stashing them in the droneracks in a specific way. This would require an enhancement to the way the game talks to the DB since special drones need to be stashed in either cargo boxes on the ship, or within the normal racks.
- I know that there's still room for one more tab icon in the weapons panel that could be used for selecting which drones to fire next from the droneracks on the ship.
- Of course, coding the special drones would be in order... such as the ECM drones, and the (teehee) phaser drones..
* Fix some of the API..
The API has a few key broken this.
1- we can't get the year of the scenario. This sucks since the year could be used to double-check ships to have in-mission. Would also be nice to find hex location, name of players, etc.
2- we need a working mSetDrones
3- we need a better mSetFighters. Right now, it sets all bays all fighters to a single type
4- We need a mGetShuttles, mSetShuttles and mGetFighters
5- etc?
Post by: RazalYllib on June 17, 2004, 12:21:27 pm
With the new tech that has been introduced post op, it would be far more practical to start from scratch. It would still look and feel and play the same, but the code would be new to reflect the overall increase in programming technology since the original code was written. I am sure things could be done better. Perhaps even well enough to break the 6 player limit in multiplayer. I predict SFC is not by any means extinct, it just going to take time, decade + or more. All good things in all good time.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 17, 2004, 01:22:28 pm
I'm probably missing something, but this doesn't feel right. If there is new technology, why can't we take advantage of it now, while at the same time providing a way for older computers to play the same title? Or would that be like making two games at once?
Merlin
Post by: Age on June 17, 2004, 01:35:02 pm
Sig is by Pestalence
Post by: J. Carney on June 17, 2004, 02:37:22 pm
Radion 9600 Pro
1 GB Ram
80GB 10,000 RPM HD
DVD/CDR Burnner
5.1 Surround Sound
$1400.00 including shipping.
You just gotta build it oyurself... it's not that hard to do.
Post by: Crimmy on June 17, 2004, 03:08:21 pm
Quote:
Athalon 64 3200+
Radion 9600 Pro
1 GB Ram
80GB 10,000 RPM HD
DVD/CDR Burnner
5.1 Surround Sound
$1400.00 including shipping.
You just gotta build it oyurself... it's not that hard to do.
It IS when you have a roof to keep over your head....and old lady to keep off your back...and three kids to feed...etc etc...
Not everyone has $1400 to throw into a glorified nintendo.....most of us have to make do with older stuff and tweak it to keep it working.
Post by: TOCXOBearslayer on June 17, 2004, 04:44:30 pm
Quote:
Athalon 64 3200+
Radion 9600 Pro
1 GB Ram
80GB 10,000 RPM HD
DVD/CDR Burnner
5.1 Surround Sound
$1400.00 including shipping.
You just gotta build it oyurself... it's not that hard to do.
Man, you got ripped off...
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz
1GB ram
Combined 240 GB (1 80 & 1 160) 7500 HDs
DVD Burner (kept DVD-Rom from older computer)
SB Audigy 2ZS
Radeon 9600 XT with 256MB RAM
Of course, I took about 6 months to collect all the parts when they were on sale. But I built it for a tad under $800 spending $50-150 a pop...
Post by: J. Carney on June 17, 2004, 05:27:10 pm
PS- do't remember now cause I threa away the box, but my 9600 has the 256MB of ram and the TV tuner (didn't need but got anyway). I might have quoted a lower price piece.
Post by: AJTK on June 17, 2004, 06:18:03 pm
And then proceed to expand upon the prior post, all the while admonishing any SFB'ers who might respond to the post that attacked US in the first place.
One good thing about SFC3, and 762 KNOWS whats comin...
RE-VER-SE!!!
HAND! (of Bethke)
Post by: red_green on June 17, 2004, 11:10:06 pm
Post by: Crimmy on June 18, 2004, 12:06:30 am
Post by: AJTK on June 18, 2004, 04:29:22 am
Quote:
I have come to realize that many SFBers think SFC3 sucks. Thats jolly but I got sick of reading it. Then I started to wonder why they feel that way. Well it seems to me that the best analogy I could come up with. is comparing SFB to chess.
See in chess you never change an rules ever. SFBers are set in there ways from playing the game the same way for 30 years that any slight deviation is percieved by them to be blasphomy.
What I find even more annoying about SFB players is the clicks they have. They d/l ships people make , d/l missions people write. d/l mods people put together and then they won't allow you into there navy or use there logo or whatever.
Isn't this great for promoting there precious game?
This last behavior reminds me of a line from Bob Dylan which I disremember atm.
All this flys in the face of a more typical Sci-Fi fan who is flexible with adapting new hypothetical Sci-fi techno babble and see races and ships keep evolving. SFBers are too small in numbers to support an SFC4 game alone. 6000-10000 copies sold would'nt be enough to make the game. So it would have to draw on another type of audiance as well.
So SFBers get over it. I like SFC3 a lot, so bugger off with your whining about it and just break out your 30 year old board game.
"There are trolls in this forum? Thanks for the heads up."
LOOK! Theres one NOW!
HAND!
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 18, 2004, 03:01:37 pm
Granted, I'm on 700 Mhz, so I can't preach much.
I have seen parts for very cheap, but other things demand the money, like food and rent. I probably could build it(I've fixed many parts on the comp I have right now...modems...hard drives...etc.).
Trust me, I'd love to have your comp. I just can't afford it.
Merlin
Post by: J. Carney on June 18, 2004, 04:00:46 pm
THe only reason I had the dough is that Uncle Sammy wouldn't let me go anywhere to spend it for a year.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 18, 2004, 05:12:16 pm
Quote:
LOL... yeah, I know about money being a pro.
THe only reason I had the dough is that Uncle Sammy wouldn't let me go anywhere to spend it for a year.
God - I hated that....
"*#$@!! when are we finallly going to pull into port?"
"Why do you care? Think about all the money you're saving!"
This is the point where I resort to physical violence against the person who said that.
Post by: J. Carney on June 18, 2004, 06:09:04 pm
You make the call!
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 18, 2004, 06:55:08 pm
Quote:
Yeah... sure I got a new truck and a kick-@$$ box out of the deal, but was that really wortha year of not being able to go out and find some impresionable young freshman and take her home for a night's worth of good old fashioned corupting? Edit: though I am now getting old enough I have to chase post-grads.
You make the call!
There's a side of the military that they don't tell the recruiters about...
Post by: Tulwar on June 18, 2004, 07:41:47 pm
Please, don't confuse my feeling toward SFC IV as merely being that it isn't a continuation along the lines of the earlier products. I feel it was so poorly executed that it should not have been released. Yes, I have gone on rants about the SFC IV, but not because it isn't SFB.
There will be an SFC GAW, I just don't know if it will be in my lifetime.
Post by: J. Carney on June 18, 2004, 08:41:00 pm
Quote:
Cannon (can'nun) n. An instrument used to rectify national boarders. Ambros Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
That's gotta be the best sig I've seen in a while Tulwar
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 19, 2004, 01:40:17 am
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 19, 2004, 01:42:40 am
Quote:
Merlin you and I registered around the same time.I wasn't aware of this were you and about a week a part from each other.I never realized that before untill I looked at your reg. date.
Sig is by Pestalence
*looks at date*
*looks at post count*
How?? How do you get 900 and I get 126?
Post by: Age on June 19, 2004, 02:50:46 am
Quote:I had a great debate going on three weeks after I first reg.It was something and helping a few people out.That is one way of getting your post count up start a debate.Then aplogize later to all community members as they are fine people in this forum.Quote:
Merlin you and I registered around the same time.I wasn't aware of this were you and about a week a part from each other.I never realized that before untill I looked at your reg. date.
Sig is by Pestalence
*looks at date*
*looks at post count*
How?? How do you get 900 and I get 126?
It is passed 900 now.I am fond of my sig. as well.Sig is by Pestalence
Post by: Strat on June 19, 2004, 02:32:14 pm
Quote:
It IS when you have a roof to keep over your head....and old lady to keep off your back...and three kids to feed...etc etc...
Not everyone has $1400 to throw into a glorified nintendo.....most of us have to make do with older stuff and tweak it to keep it working.
Glorified Nintendo!
That sounds about right to me!
Post by: J. Carney on June 19, 2004, 03:38:38 pm
Post by: red_green on June 13, 2004, 09:46:05 pm
See in chess you never change an rules ever. SFBers are set in there ways from playing the game the same way for 30 years that any slight deviation is percieved by them to be blasphomy.
What I find even more annoying about SFB players is the clicks they have. They d/l ships people make , d/l missions people write. d/l mods people put together and then they won't allow you into there navy or use there logo or whatever.
Isn't this great for promoting there precious game?
Plus they would rather fly a ship designed 30 years ago that looks like a box and is made of cardboard. This last behavior reminds me of a line from Bob Dylan which I disremember atm.
All this flys in the face of a more typical Sci-Fi fan who is flexible with adapting new hypothetical Sci-fi techno babble and see races and ships keep evolving. SFBers are too small in numbers to support an SFC4 game alone. 6000-10000 copies sold would'nt be enough to make the game. So it would have to draw on another type of audiance as well.
So SFBers get over it. I like SFC3 a lot, so bugger off with your whining about it and just break out your 30 year old board game.
Post by: FireSoul on June 13, 2004, 10:14:19 pm
Post by: Pestalence on June 13, 2004, 10:21:43 pm
Notice SFC II EAW has just as many in Gamespy Arcade playing as SFC 3 does.
notice, Orion pirates has server campaigns that last anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months, where at most a SFC 3 server is only hosted on a serious campaign for 2 weeks.
notice that SFC 3 only has 4 playable races where Orion Pirates has 16 playable races.
Need the comparrison go on.. SFC II : Orion Pirates is hands down the better of the 2 games.. the only thing SFC III has to it's advantage is reversable ships, personalized loadouts of ship systems, and tactical warp... and maybe full disappearing cloak..
but Orion Pirates cloak is much better, even though you can see the enemy ship.. try getting a good shot that will actually do damage...
also notice that SFB Has been around for over 30 years and it is still going strong.. check the SFB web site.. new modules come out every moth...
Man you picked the wrong forum to start this post in.. this is best on a different board..
As for SFC 4, Taldren has already stated that there are no current plans or any plans for the near distant future for another SFC title.. and even if there was a plan, after all the hassle over SFC 3, they may not ever go back to any Trek based game.
yep, I think SFC 3 put a hurting Taldren's intrest on another SFC title after all the hassle over the last year...
I like all SFC games.. but of the 4 titles on the market.. i like orion Pirates for the game play, SFC Original for the storyline and mission scripts, SFC 3 for the selection of ship components. EAW was the game, but everything in EAW is in OP now.
as for ships, maybe you should take the time and load up the OP Enhancement Package into Orion Pirates.. the models are more movie accurate than SFC 3 and they don't look like cartoons as they do in SFC 3..
If i want a point and shoot match without much strategy or thinking, then I load up SFC 3 since it plays like an arcade game.. If I want to be challenged in a match and have to actually use strategy while playing, I load up Orion Pirates.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 13, 2004, 10:26:47 pm
BTW, my SFB game, while started almost 30yrs ago has many components that are newer than SFC3. go to the ADB product development forum. There's 30+ new products that are planned for release. That's why it's been around as long as it has. It never gets old.
Post by: IKV Nemesis D7L on June 13, 2004, 10:29:37 pm
Quote:
SFBers are set in there ways from playing the game the same way for 30 years that any slight deviation is percieved by them to be blasphomy.
To be blunt you are wrong.
SFB became what it is by a very long drawn out process of evolution. The original game was a "pamphlet" and some counters in a ziplock bag. Federation, Klingon, Romulan, Kzinti, Gorn amd Orion. Only a handful of ships. Later came more ziplock expansions adding the Hydran and Lyran, each with a small selection of ships.
Then the boxed edition with the rules more integrated and more ships. More expansions.
The Captains edition. More expansions.
The Doomsday edition. More expansions.
The X-Ships were brought out then substanially revised because they did not work within the system and needed to be modified to balance them and make them fit. P/Fs, fighters, carriers, tenders, bombardment vessels, maulers, cloaked decoys and many other things have been created and added to SFB. SFB has changed and continues to change.
Repeatedly ships were released that were "conjectural", due to popular demand some of those ships became "canon". Weapons and systems were added to fill roles that were found for them. Races were designed and added (Stellar Shadows was created to hold races that don't fit in the Star Trek Universe).
The original version could be put in a jacket pocket. Later editions filled shelves. However those early ships could be used with later editions because continuity was continued. SFC3 drops the continuity.
So why do SFB'ers want SFC to be based on SFB? Simple actually. SFB is a highly evolved, sophisticated system. SFB players are not the type to want "arcade" style "shoot'em ups". We like the complexity and flexibility. No insult to any other game developer, but how could they possibly create a game to equal the richness of the nearly 30 years of SFB evolution in 1 or 2 years?
Star Fleet Battles is STILL evolving, STILL growing in richness, diversity and depth. Where will SFC3 be in 5 years let alone 30? SFB will still be here in 5 years and may still be going strong in 30. New expansions are still arriving.
Paramount could do far worse than base a future Trek series on SFB. Some would say that they have.
Post by: mc_cloud on June 13, 2004, 10:30:44 pm
wtf is that about.......
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 13, 2004, 10:36:32 pm
Actually the most annoying thing about the OP series is that so much stuff was left out - including some of the things that the nannerites complain about most.
Hmm...real post or troll...not sure..
Post by: Khalee on June 13, 2004, 10:39:53 pm
The X-Ships were brought out then substanially revised because they did not work within the system and needed to be modified to balance them and make them fit. P/Fs, fighters, carriers, tenders, bombardment vessels, maulers, cloaked decoys and many other things have been created and added to SFB. SFB has changed and continues to change.
X ship were brought out because players were wanting the ships they saw from the first Star trek movie. But Because ADB could not do the Movie ships, (That right went to FASA) Calling them Xships was a way around it. But yes it was A rushed product. And now you are makeing me wanting to go back thru my stuff and find my copy of the X Ship ruels and SSD and look at them all again. which I have not done in years
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 13, 2004, 10:47:24 pm
Quote:
X ship were brought out because players were wanting the ships they saw from the first Star trek movie. But Because ADB could not do the Movie ships, (That right went to FASA) Calling them Xships was a way around it. But yes it was A rushed product. And now you are makeing me wanting to go back thru my stuff and find my copy of the X Ship ruels and SSD and look at them all again. which I have not done in years
I remember that. We all were upset with Paramount being anal and not allowing SFB to continue on with canon Trek. With the way that Trek has gone though they probably did us all a favor. Could you imagine trying to continue to follow canon in a workable balanced gaming system?
Post by: Crimmy on June 13, 2004, 11:36:51 pm
I'm not about to disparage one Taldren product in order to support another again....
Been there...done that...felt like an @ss afterword...
You're chess anolgy is the correct one.....except you miss the point that even you blatenly made...
The rules of chess dont change.....correct
Why?...there is no need to change them....the game has enough mathmatical variations to produce numerous outcomes when coupled with the human decision making process....
You can study the Tactics in Chess for decades...and never fully master the game.....there is ALLWAYS room to improve your game...and expand the number of moves you can forecast....
Even though there is ONE game for BOTH white AND black that wins EVERY TIME...trying to Play that perfect game is elusive...even for a master like Kasparov....much less an expert like me....
You may notice that MANY variations of chess exist....but yet NONE of these variations are as popular as Chess itself...
Checkers for example DOES have some strategy involved...but NOTHING even close to the variations in Chess...
Lets just say I prefer the intellect required to play chess....And I play chess VERY well thank you.
And if you cant play chess......you play checkers.....and [bleep] about how "superior" chess players think they are....
Kings pawn to Kings pawn four
Your move.
Post by: NannerSlug on June 14, 2004, 02:04:04 am
my personal opinion is that many of the rabid sfb fans are exactly that. they have that right to be if they like that style of game. there is nothing wrong about liking a game a particular way.
what is wrong is when they - or anyone - speaks from a position that their way is the best way. Funny someone should bring up boring. In my experience (and i am not alone), sfb can get boring or manotonus.. any game can get that way.
What is important - and what any game should be judged on is: a) does it reach its target audience. b) does that audience like the game. c) what is its life span in relation to the fan. (does the fan recommend it to his pals and the community grows)
that all said, those before sfc2 and sfc3 after are two completely different targeted audiences because business drives it that way. From my understanding, all the sfc series games made money.
< MY opinion - NOT TALDREN's>
as far as my personal opinion. SFC3 had a lot of potential - however due to business decisions, it became more than just the red headed step child. I will leave it at that. A lot was done with the 531 build. Yes, I believe that somthing close to my Generations at War mod could have been developed and it would have squelshed a lot of criticism.
Currently, out of the box and just patched (no mods) - the game suffers from a lack of detail. In short, too much was taken out of the game, or at least not put back in. There are many NON sfb examples of good games with a high level of polish which was allowed.. Medal of Honor, HALO, even Wolfenstien: Enemy territory. The one thing which SFC3 has over ANY of the sfc games is the single player game. It suprasses any of the single player games of the past. period.
Game play wise, though, in retrospect, I just think too much was cut out. The good news is, though, Taldren allowed enough stuff IN to where we can mod the game. There are at least 5-7 mods out there for SFC3 which are all downloaded significantly. At least 4 of them have over 1,000 downloads. 3 of them have well over 6,000 downloads. These mods, I believe, show what could have been.
The last thing about sfc3 is this: it provides the tools necessary to make a cannon sfc game. No other sfc game allows those of us who are trek fans the ability to have truly different racial primaries and to a degree heavy weapons - which are based on the television shows and movie productions. I am one of those who say good riddence to missiles and plasma as it was in sfc1&2. it created too many balance problems one way or the other. (that does not mean it is wrong, just means that is my opinion). SFC3 provides klingon, romulan disruptors (which are different and have racial flavoring.).. not just varying degrees of phaser 1s, 2s and 3s. So for those of us who are trek fans, SFC3 is more of a God-send than some will ever know. It just simply had too much detail removed from it.
The last thing which has really killed sfc3 was any sort of patch getting caught up in legal issues when paramount and activision decided they couldnt get along and did a law-suit thing. this killed it. period. you cannot even find it in stores any more. they actually RMA'd the game instead of letting the copies out there get sold.
</end sfc3 opinion>
now.. about sfc1&2. truthfully, i am bored out of my mind a lot of times when it comes to that game. for me, at least, it becomes the same thing over and over again.. and in most cases it is who has the biggest carrier or most missiles. My most fun time really came in sfc1 SL matches and with SFC2 general war where a lot of those things simply were weeded out. that does not make any of those games lesser. it simply means i like other types of games.
here is the breaking point where some people just will never get it.
just because you like the game a certain way does not mean everyone else does. Nor does it make your way superior. There are people who are still playing Quake of all things and will probably for years to come because it is what they like. (I my self have found a version of marathon which i like to whip out a time or two.)
I think a lot of my objectivity on somthings - just to do the opposite of what some of the SFB fanatics wanted to do. why? because their arrogance drove me away. whether or not some of the sfb fanatics like it or not, your arrogance has done this community harm over and over again. driving away the average gamer (i know, they are probably just dumb people to you).
Before some of you guys point fingers at this person - I would take a long look at your self. Games are places for people to spend their off time. not to be redicculed because "they dont understand" or because "they like fps games." By the way, some of the most strategic games I have played (and i have played a LOT of games) are fps games. Try playing the Rainbow 6 series.. or splinter cell. and i havent even talked about RTT games.
So dont burn the guy at the stake. Try instead offering some sympathy. might get you a little further than you think. The world does not begin and end with SFB. (well, not for most of us.
)Post by: Bonk on June 14, 2004, 03:30:13 am
Myself, I do not like Bridge Commander or Armada because they are dumbed down games... SFC3 is better because it is based on SFB!!!
EAW and OP are even better still, as no third party had full control of the design (not mentioning any names...
).If there is ever going to be an SFC4, SFB is the only reason. SFB was the only reason there was any SFC for that matter.
Ever hear of Federation and Empire?
I had many objections to the design of SFC3 long BEFORE it was released, but I bought it anyway to support Taldren (then gave it away.)
You have to understand that almost everyone who bought SFC1 was an SFBer, that was the reason we bought it.
What if you bought a 2004 Corvette and it turned out to be front wheel drive - would you want to keep it?
Show some respect for the origins of the game, and more respect in general and perhaps you will find fleets more welcoming. Personally I'm done with fleets - too restricitive...
And most importantly, lighten up man! Just go play the game you like and try and be positive about it!
Post by: Cleaven on June 14, 2004, 04:26:42 am
The lack of an SFC4 has more to do with foolish people who think they know how the system works, but don't really, as opposed to the people who got the whole thing started and still have their own game growing and expanding.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 14, 2004, 04:43:22 am
Those games I remember with fond memories, along with teenage memories.
And now here we are twenty years later and my favourite games (including D&D) are being made available on computer.
My point of view is a simply one really, I like just about all Trek games, but its always been a desire to have SFB on the computer. I even tried to write my own SFB game on a computer back in the 90s on an old Commodore Amiga using C.
I want to see my favourite board Trek game on the computer, and so I was very happy to see SFC1 released and then later SFC2 and SFC2:OP. I have also played just about every Trek game that has ever been released. Regardless of whether the SFC series was based on SFB, I still would have liked it. SFC3 is not on SFB, of course, and there is nothing wrong with that. The problem, however, is the expectation that SFC3 would continue on from SFC2 expanding on its original SFB roots, and consequently because the that didnt happen, what will happen to our favourite computer rendition of our favourite board game.
Most arguments over SFC2 vs SFC3 hold as a premise it is either one or the other. In my opinion, I think SFC3 would have done much better simply if it had not been called SFC3. SFC3 should have and was going to be a continued expansion of the SFB ruleset. Call to Power 2, Civilisation III, and other similar games did not do as well as their predecessors for exactly the same reason, the game was changed and fans of the original held the expectations of seeing their game revamped. Technically, SFC v3 should have been a successor to SFC v2.
Having said that, SFC3 is still a good game and much better than most other Trek games that have been released. The Mods available and the recent patch have certainly improved it as well, and its sad that politics have ruined its development.
I still want to see my favourite board game, SFB, continue its development on the computer as well. I do not see SFC2 vs SFC3 as a trade off one against the other, and both rulesets can quite happily co-exist. The misconception this is not the case is purely from the game names themselves, which ruleset would possibly then be used for a conjectural SFC4. Even calling SFC3, SFC:TNG would have helped alleviate this problem by dropping the numbers. The SFC3 ruleset is not a replacement for SFC2, it is just different, thats all. An alternative much in the same vein that the FASA game was to SFB. There was no problem between those two games, of course, because they didnt carry the same name, nor were they developed by the same company. They were, in fact, co-developed. This is where SFC2 and SFC3 should have gone.
One day, there will be another SFC series. It may not be done by Taldren. It may not be for awhile either because of legalities. But this game will remain in the hearts and minds of fans now and years to come, as SFB has for the last 30 years and will continue to do so.
Post by: DonKarnage on June 14, 2004, 07:19:06 am
all game have a down point but just exploit the good point of the game and enjoy it, no game are perfect sure taldren could ask the user the modler everyone in the forum if the want to do a sfc4 or do an extended version of sfc3 or give us permission or source code to enance the game to make it bether, but now there new mod to add in the game and you can do more with it, for me sfc3 could use a remake but its what i think and i will not post a message that says that sfc3 suck and the must do a sfc4, sure a new sfc game would be cool but the old one are still good and there alway place for making the game bether by adding more ship more mission, so if one day taldren want to do a sfc4 the should ask the user's of the game what the should do to make the game a success like for sfc/op, so if you don't like sfb or sfc's then don't play them and don't post message that you don't like what taldren as do or will not do.
Post by: DH123 on June 14, 2004, 08:06:43 am
Post by: David Ferrell on June 14, 2004, 09:17:23 am
A: Activision.
All the games in the series made a profit for the publisher of each
respective game, based upon that alone a follow-up would be
a natural. Activision's big heap-o-buyer's regret, put all Trek games
on hold.
OP == the pinnacle of SFC.
Someone mentioned OP left out too much stuff, I can't imagine what
the heck more you could have wanted (besides Andro's and Tholians!).
Thanks,
Dave
(Edit to fix spelling of 'pinnacle')
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 14, 2004, 09:50:08 am
You start off your post by telling everyone to leave it alone. Then you proceed with 15 or so paragraphs of your opinion on the subject. Why are we not allowed our say? Are only moderators allowed to express their opinions. I don't think that anyone gave the poster anything that he didn't ask for (Sorry Red Green, but like I said earlier, I don't know what it was that even made you make your original post.). He started it, and then your post supports him. This just doesn't make sense to me.
Your position on sfc2 vs. sfc3 is well known. Thus the reference to "Nannerites" (Which, BTW, I do consider the reference to you in the post unnecessary, but as a Moderator I think that you need to be a little thicker skinned for your own sake.).
You proceed on with many points on why you think sfc3 is better. Which in itself is OK. Except for the fact that you told the rest of us to drop it.
Then you give your negative view on sfc2 and sfb. I think that it is very unprofessional for someone who represents Taldren to not only run down a previous Taldren product, but to then run down another companies product, ADB.
Then you digress even further by attacking a rather large segment of the forum community, the SFBers. You call us arrogant and rabid. You put words in our mouths by saying that we think that non-sfbers are dumb. It's not unusual for someone to think that someone who disagrees with them is wrong or just doesn't get it. It's not an sfb phenomenon or invention. You evidently feel the same in the opposite direction of us.
As far as sfb being boring goes, (Just to defend the defenseless a bit. Since ADB has no voice here and your outwardly negative comments on their product could drive away potential SFB players.) How can it be boring to have over 100 possible tactical decisions to make each impulse? For those who don't know, there are 32 impulses to a game turn (The time that it takes for phasers to arm in SFC2). That's over 3000 possible moves to be considered per turn. That's complicated and involving, not boring.
I don't usually outwardly disagree with moderators here. You position can be a difficult one and it's not always going to be a popular one. I understand this, but you aren't making it any easier on yourself or other moderators with your negative stance on SFC2 and SFB.
...and Dave, Did you loose that list that I sent you on all the stuff you guys left out?
Post by: Reverend on June 14, 2004, 11:38:58 am
I did enjoy SFC2OP, and SFC1, but I seemed to enjoy SFC3 more, mainly due to engine changes, impulse control, the ability to go reverse, and tactical warp... these items made the game seem more feasible. Unfortunately, a lot of things were left out due to Actvision. All are great games, but a lot of people it seems who enjoy SFC3 do it for the same reason I do, as stated before. Maybe if someone could build a 'SFC4', it could bridge the gape between OP and 3, and then take a ginat leap beyond all in one, like having a fully interfaceable universe, dockable bases, planets... maybe a wierdo analomy thrown in here and there. Heck, I'd say a MMORPG would be good, but that would ruin it probrobly, as most of those games are just a carrot-on-a-stick kind of thing. Still, that does seem fun to think of.... so what does anyone else think of that, SFC4 being a bridge-gap and a MMORPG? Could it be fun, or just a failure-in-the-making? EIther way, a new Dynaverse with a static continuous space universe (with a little drop down hex map for good measure) seems to me like a fun idea...
Post by: Sirgod on June 14, 2004, 12:24:58 pm
Quote:
Well, I played SFC1 over at a buddy's house, then bought OP because there were no Star Trek tactical combat simulators around (Brdige Commander and Armada seemed fine, but the gracefulness was left out of both).... I have tried SFB, several times, but it got to be really drawn out, so much so that when playing the game with 'old pros', it would take over two hours for a small battle (that could have just been the scenario).
I did enjoy SFC2OP, and SFC1, but I seemed to enjoy SFC3 more, mainly due to engine changes, impulse control, the ability to go reverse, and tactical warp... these items made the game seem more feasible. Unfortunately, a lot of things were left out due to Actvision. All are great games, but a lot of people it seems who enjoy SFC3 do it for the same reason I do, as stated before. Maybe if someone could build a 'SFC4', it could bridge the gape between OP and 3, and then take a ginat leap beyond all in one, like having a fully interfaceable universe, dockable bases, planets... maybe a wierdo analomy thrown in here and there. Heck, I'd say a MMORPG would be good, but that would ruin it probrobly, as most of those games are just a carrot-on-a-stick kind of thing. Still, that does seem fun to think of.... so what does anyone else think of that, SFC4 being a bridge-gap and a MMORPG? Could it be fun, or just a failure-in-the-making? EIther way, a new Dynaverse with a static continuous space universe (with a little drop down hex map for good measure) seems to me like a fun idea...
A fine example of a positive post/ Idea.
stephen
Post by: DH123 on June 14, 2004, 12:30:30 pm
Sounds like a win-win situation to me
An MMORPG based on GURPS: Prime Directive would be kinda cool.
Post by: Remby on June 14, 2004, 01:02:34 pm
First --- I love the SFC series -- and uhhm I have probably been playing SFB longer than most everyone on this board seeing as I was one of the early game playtesters. (PT group 222-A).
I especially enjoyed playing the Orion Pirates edition and seeing the ship our group created for the board game become a wonderfully well used ship in the computer game. John Ramer of our group created the Orion Double Raider long long ago. His initial design was a bit overpowered in the engine area, but with some tweaking (and discussion) by the rest of the group and the ADB --- a new ship was born.
Ok so the computer game is not like the board game ---- what did you expect?
Ok so things are not exactly as you pictured they should be in the computer version.
Folks --- these games were designed for one purpose and one purpose alone (outside of making money for the people that worked hard on them and must earn a living) - and that is to have fun.
Yes the computer game is based on the board game, but it is real time and you cannot apply turn based tactics in real time speed. Is it any less of a product? No! This game takes the "Chess-Like" Board-Game we all grew up with and loved and made it a real-speed highly visual combat simulator that almost every old StarFleet Battles player always dreamed of having one day. To say us old SFB players despise SFC is categorically wrong.
And as far as SFB'ers not wanting any change in rules (as in chess) --- sorry -- I sifted through errata after errata. (chuckles)
Ok yes there will always be gripes because it's different. and people will take issues with problems both in SFC and SFB. There will always be rules lawyers. There will always be cliquish groups. There will always be favoritism and sides. At the same time -- (thank goodness) -- there will always be players who enjoy both of the products produced.
Will there be an SFC-4 -- well that depends on if the people creating the game can justify the cost of producing it versus what they can make as a return from their audience.
Hopefully my statements will help reduce the partisanship between the two types of games players.
Now I have no more time for this foolishness -- time to get back to my game... I have Klingons to kill....!~
Thomas Green
(Remby)
Post by: Stingray2000 on June 14, 2004, 01:14:13 pm
Having said this, it seems that the comments here fall into those made by one of the two groups of people I have broadly described ? each with his/her approach to describing what are, essentially, irreconcilable differences as they represent two diametrically opposed approaches to simulation gaming. But the comments from ALL sides seem to miss one basic failure of all of these games when it comes to ship-to-ship tactical combat (skirmish) ? despite enormously variegated and realistic 3dimensional backgrounds, the combat is 2 dimensional! I don?t care what version of SFC you play, the ship-to-ship combat aspect of the games is inherently flawed by the failure to include the third dimension.
I had a small hand in shaping the ST gaming community during its infancy. The first truly widely played ST game was Starfleet Academy. While the ship-to-ship combat aspect of that game lacked the realistic and superior graphics of either SFC OP or SFC III and while it also lacked the variety of different shipping available to each race, that old Interplay title had one facet that is sorely lacking in any of the SFC titles ? 3 dimensional combat. I don?t care which of the SFC camps you hail from (love SFB/SFC OP, not love SFB & prefer SFCIII), an honest critique of either game would conclude that BOTH lack an honest attempt to simulate battles in space as both lack the necessity to:
A) make and execute your strategic and tactical plans; or
B) tactically plan, point and shoot
In 3 dimensions ? you can only move right/left/?forward?/?backward?.
Aside from the fancy ST universe graphics, pictures and the like, you might as well be playing a surface naval warfare exercise (no, it is not even like a helicopter dogfight, they move in 3 dimensions) with high tech weapons, energy shielding, and invisibility. You might as well think of yourself as being ?on? the ocean as you are not ?in? anything as the (admittedly relativistic) concepts of up/down do not exist. And even in 2 dimensions, the game engine removes what has been a crucial part of naval warfare for centuries ? go ahead, try to do what Capt. Picard did to the Scimitar in Nemesis ? the game engine will not permit two vessels to collide with one another. Even in two dimensions, the game departs from reality by allowing two objects to occupy the same space at the same time (and to drop a mine while doing so).
Please don?t take this the wrong way: this is not intended as a criticism of any of the SFC games, or any other games for that matter. It is certainly not a criticism of the opinions or people advancing any of those opinions described above. I am writing to point out what I believe many of you have missed. These are games ? they are meant to be played for enjoyment. If the conditions of the game make it so you do not enjoy playing it, then do not play. Do not attempt to demean or diminish another because he/she does not share your enthusiasm for one game or disdain for another ? they are not more/less intelligent & thoughtful than you, they are simply different from you. And do not attempt to mask your personal criticism of the tastes of another by cloaking it in terms of the ?complexity? of the game. It seems to me that, in the SFC series, Taldren has produced different games, all based (to differing degrees) on SFB principles and set in the ST universe. Each game appeals to different interests and, in so doing, also operates to enhance the diversity of the gaming community by attracting the people who possess those interests. Obviously, I would like to see 3 dimensional combat, but you do not see me writing a critique of the previous SFC game titles (although I am sure that the more narrow minded reading this may very well seize on that portion of this post and ?run? with it ? sigh) listing all of ways where they are deficient (in my mind!). The value/worth/beauty of any given game is, to coin a phrase, in the eye of the beholder.
Post by: NannerSlug on June 14, 2004, 02:24:34 pm
Post by: nx_adam_1701 on June 14, 2004, 04:15:45 pm
now... when the holodeck comes out, let me know
then i'll be really happy, but i agree with most, SFC2OP is good for SFB fans
and SFC3, satisfies the TNG fans, my fav is OP, as yah already noe,. I asks tons of questions about sfc2 op, i havent even used sfc3, so i cant jugde it, but anything is better than nothing
adam out
Post by: Dash Jones on June 14, 2004, 05:49:46 pm
Quote:
SFC1, and SFB-based game, sold 400,000 copies. Need I say anything more?
Could have sworn it was at least 600,000 to a million...
I like all the SFC games...
I would like an SFC which included all the elements of SFC2 and SFC 3 BUT also with the simplicity of the galaxy such as SFC1 as well as missions like SFC 1...
OR, if they desired to include a hex system for MP like SFC2, and SFC3, if they would include a single player element where once you got enough prestige/rank, if you so desired, you could run a Federation and Empire like campaign...yourself running the race which you had chosen at the start...
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 14, 2004, 06:42:22 pm
I am not a SFB veteran. I have the rules, and I've been drooling over them for quite some time, but I am in a serious shortage of viable players(last local I introduced rammed into a planet), but I am very active in the online SFB arena.
I also have not played SFC3(damn thing wouldn't run) but from what I have heard I'm not missimg much. My aim has always been to bring SFC closer to SFB. I even made a post regarding that in the Scripting forum, although it seems to have been ignored(nobody even told me it was a bad idea, don't know why).
I do believe that there will be an SFC4. Activision is a publisher that markets to a different audiance than SFC, that being FPS's(they publish Wolfenstein, Quake, Doom, etc. and I don't have to tell you how THOSE sell...) so it's almost a given that when a FPS-publisher comes within 10 feet of SFC it won't last the night.
I think that if a new publisher aquires the rights or Activision gets some new leadership things would look better...especially if they can re-negotiate with Parimount to let SFC have the liscence to both SFC and TNG/Voyager.
Anyhow, maybe the reason SFB players are so sure they are doing it right is because they have been working on this way for 30+ years...they are sure of themselves, and IMHO, for a reason.
Not to mention the fact that the first three games sold like hotcakes and were based on SFB, then SFC3 rolls out and drops like a stone.
Difference?
SFC3 wasn't based on SFB. So maybe they have the right to be a little angry
Now me?
I like complex games. I like simple ones. I can appreciate both Chess, Hexagonal Chess, Starfleet Command, Star Fleet Battles, and Quake. They both have features and drawbacks. I just don't think you should base Chess on Quake or vice versa without good cause.
Also, in many people's eyes, SFC4 is already out--SFBOL. Star Fleet Battles Online. Check it out, you might like it.
Merlin
Post by: Dash Jones on June 14, 2004, 07:03:36 pm
Quote:
Also, in many people's eyes, SFC4 is already out--SFBOL. Star Fleet Battles Online. Check it out, you might like it.
Okay, I like SFB as well as the next guy...but as far as computers go...after seeing this link (actually I've seen it before) it reminded me of why I am a MUCH bigger SFC fan as for games which are SFB related on computer, than SFB online...
Might as well play it in person...at least it's much more personable and you can argue with the person across the table about their move and perhaps get away with something totally stupid yourself!
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 14, 2004, 07:29:22 pm
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 14, 2004, 08:02:58 pm
Quote:
OP == the pinnacle of SFC.
Someone mentioned OP left out too much stuff, I can't imagine what
the heck more you could have wanted (besides Andro's and Tholians!).
I didn't say it left out too much stuff - I said the nannerite crowd frequently complains about things that are in SFB but were omitted from the game. This is why people like myself and Hyper really want to see a SFC4. In truth, if I had to say what was a bad decision to be left out, I'd really only go with 3 things:
1. Working reserve power. Many of the races have different hold costs and other adjustments to them simply because this doesn't work. Oh, it works the way you programmed it - it just bears no resemblence to SFB, because it's effectively useless in OP/EAW. This lack of functionality greatly changes the game and not really for the better in my or many other people's opinions.
2. Plasma Bolts. SFC uses while not quite floating maps, maps that are large in comparison to ones in SFB. This makes outrunning plasma much easier because you have a lot more room to work with. In SFB you at least have the option of nailing that phaserboater with a bolted plasma instead of launching when it will likely do no damage. Even then plasma isn't really balanced on floating maps (see plasma sabot).
3. Fighters and PF's for all races that had them, and heavy fighter functionality. Ask the PF races how they feel about CVA's when they have no equivalent, or fighter races about PF tenders when they have no equivalent. It's not an apples to apples comparison when you talk about fighters to PF's - the PF's are generally tougher. It's especially noticable since on the D2 it creates a lot of imbalance issues depending on when a campaign is started. Out of all the three this decision is also the most mystifying. The code for it exists, but an artificial "wall" is in the game that makes getting around it extremely difficult. As for BCS and SCS type ships, those are just flat out impossible, since again for no reason I can think of you can't put fighters and PF's on the same ship. If it's not too much trouble, would it be possible to ask why exactly the decision to go this route was done? I've never understood the reason for it, or the logic that must have led to it. Maybe there was a good reason but I just literally can't see one. It would be nice to know (there must have been a reason?). As for heavy fighter functionality, this means ensuring that if you put heavy fighters on a ship you can't load up with a full load of 16 of them (important to any fed SCS).
After those, off the top of my head, I can think of a lot of interesting things for SFC4:
All missing weapons modes for weapons in the game
specialty drones/drone construction
ECM drones/Plasma
WORKING SCOUTS <-----The lack of these really changes the game by removing options
Predictible fighter AI
Ship AI that isn't hopeless against seeking weapons
Ship AI that understands the concept of "effective range". Every time I see a R22 fusion AI shot I start to get annoyed
Dogfighting fighters
G racks that aren't OTT (IE, they work as SFB has playtested them, therefore no BPV increase for ships that have them is needed)
Dual purpose Plasma D
Ability to tell what fighters are which when they are in the bay easily
Ability to mount pods on fighters
EW fighters
Ability to loan ECM/ECCM to fighters from the carrier
Missing drone types, esp the Type-VI fighter weapon (plasma K is similar)
Ability to mod the game much easier - if I want to put 2 type I drones on a fighter I should be able to
Much improved Dwhatever system that greatly minimizes the amount of fighting done against AI and pushes PvP
Ability to fire a phaser 2 or 1 as a phaser 3 for PD purposes
Fighters that dogfight (IE, fighter on fighter combat that takes into account the fighter's capabilities)
Officers
Ability to upgrade a ship a la SFC 1 (another decision that no one seems to understand)
Tutorials for all the races
Modular ship capability - Orions should be able to use their option mounts, Romulans should be able to change variants like their shirt
Stasis Field Generators
The requisite Tholian and Andromedan races
Missing Drone racks - Type H for instance
AMD-30
Oh, and a lot more players in a battle - say 8 - 12 minimum - would make a huge advancement for the game. Anyway, that's all I can think of off the top of my head. I could probabally come up with more
Post by: Bonk on June 14, 2004, 08:06:22 pm
Specialty drones and plasma bolts ring true to me.
Don't forget the positron flywheel and awacs shuttles to give the Feds their special magic...
(...not that we don't sincerely appreciate all you have done David...)
Post by: Age on June 14, 2004, 09:05:24 pm
I think there needs to be room for compromise in both styles of the two types of games.
I would really like a more canonized game set in the 23Century with some elements of SFC2 in it.I know I said this in few post already.
I am not debating this as I already have one going in the hot topics forum. I would like to say I enjoy them both.
I am picking up on something here but I will save that for later.
I believe there will be SFC.4 made right here by these talented people at this company.
Post by: nx_adam_1701 on June 14, 2004, 09:23:34 pm
thx
adam out
Post by: nx_adam_1701 on June 14, 2004, 09:27:27 pm
adam out
Post by: red_green on June 14, 2004, 10:06:12 pm
Quote:
I gotta agree witcha Age, i believe in time there will be a SFC4, after they finish their petty disputes, in time, and theres one thing I know for sure, SFC, or Star Trek fans, whatever you wanna call us, we [bleep] about everything and everyone who makes the game and etc..., but when it comes down to it, we're the first ones on line, waiting to buy and play the game, then after a couple of skirmish, back to the forums to complain about it some more lol
adam out
good point. I know I had my hissy fits when SFC3 came out. Gotta say though that its better then I first thought. So I am a bit of a hycocrite I guess. Maybe I was comparing SFC3 out of the box to OP patched and modded with 128 ships in each slot, with modded missions and ships etc. Its more fare to compare OP out of box to SFC3 out of box or each game modded. There are getting to be a number of good SFC3 mods with more on the way. So there still is interest in the game, despite all the politics gone haywire.
Lots of interesting comments in this thread.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 14, 2004, 10:19:19 pm
Quote:
whoa, whoa whoa, explain these things to me, Im not a SFB fan, but Im very interested in knowing about, I love to hear about these things, whats the awacs, and the flywheel thingy, please
thx
adam out
Those 2 things or the things I've listed? For just those things, there's no awacs but there is a federation SWAC shuttle. This shuttle adds 2 ecm and eccm to the carrier as long as it is within 10 hexes of it, and has another 2 points that it can allocate to either as desired. It also functions as a partially capable scout, with the ability to perform scout functions breaking lock ons, controlling seeking weapons, identifying seeking weapons and shuttles, detecting mines (most mines in SFB can't be seen without a minesweeper), gathering intelligence, and tac intel.
It's most powerful function is probabally the ability to "go wild". When this happens, ALL seeking weapons within 15 hexes of the SWAC instantly target the SWAC and attack it instead. This means all missles, all plasma torpedoes, etc - regardless if they are enemy or friendly. It is irrelevant also if the drone in question has ATG or some other kind of guidance. Careful use of this function can save the carrier from being destroyed by an overwhelming drone or plasma attack. The only exception to this is the type-VI dogfight drone, which is unaffected (but since it's nearly usless against ships, no one cares).
The positron flyweel is a federation toy that allows the shipto accelerate at a much higher rate than normal. It's also not a standard rule, and not even considered an optional one because it gives feddies a huge advantage. Something like the SPZ in SFC, but a lot more unbalancing. No one cares about 6 plasma F's, but a CB is a different matter. It can only be used if everyone agrees - which never happens, unless you just want to futz around with it to see what it's like.
Basically a "cheese rule" for federation whiners.
Post by: Age on June 14, 2004, 10:45:42 pm
Post by: Bonk on June 14, 2004, 10:49:23 pm
(or was that legal?)Odd, I thought the flywheel was a standard rule - I found its use limited by lack of power anyway - I guess the more experienced crew I was playing with were giving me a break as a Fed starting out... though I didn't get any breaks once I mastered the Kzin and Thols...
The crew I played against was so good at the plasma game I had to resort to the Thols, always with interesting results... Edit: eventually they banned me from playing Thol... hehe
Post by: Bonk on June 14, 2004, 10:54:25 pm
Quote:
The swac and the flywheel especially that would of been great in the PC game.I guess it is not in there is it.I assume you are talking about the board when it comes to these things?
Yes, we're discussing features of SFB that we liked and miss in SFC.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 14, 2004, 11:25:10 pm
Real engine doubling. ie, being able to double one engine at a time.
Variable OLs on photons.
Accurate X-1 weapons. Fast loads and pulse phasers. Fully capable X-plasma, etc... and X-batteries to go along with fixed reserve power usage instead of giving them so much permanent power with extra APRs.
Seperate the volleys for different weapons types for better Mizia effect. It's not just the PPD that should benefit from this.
Add the missing lab capabilities to go along with all those drone types.
I have a couple of "how come" questions.
Why were drone speeds changed, increased? A lot of people say that they are cheesy as they are. Wouldn't the original speeds be better balanced?
Double internals? Were the games just too fast before or was it to give a "Mulligan" of sorts so one bad tactical decision doesn't kill you?
Why so many spare parts?
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 15, 2004, 01:54:05 am
Quote:
Why were drone speeds changed, increased? A lot of people say that they are cheesy as they are. Wouldn't the original speeds be better balanced?
Double internals? Were the games just too fast before or was it to give a "Mulligan" of sorts so one bad tactical decision doesn't kill you?
Why so many spare parts?
Drone speeds I think is because SFC doesn't have lead tracking. In my experience, the speeds as they are now aren't really a problem.
As for internals, probabally; which brings up another thing for GAW, which would be an option to have a single internal game.
I'm not too fond of the magic screws myself.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 15, 2004, 02:15:06 am
Double internals were added to the game simply to make it last longer. Imagine if your ship, in SFC, could only withstand half the damage it does now, most battles would be over very quickly.
The spare parts are an extrapolation of Emergency Damage Repair in SFB, which was a number equivalent to the Damage Control rating of a ship. Typically it would be 4 for a Heavy Cruiser, and this was the number of systems a ship could repair in battle. Allocating one point of power to a 'repair' system would also make repairs but these were unlimited. Repair systems are usually only found on Fleet Repair Docks and some PF Tenders, although did appear rarely elsewhere as well.
I would imagine the number of spares was increased again to the give the game longevity in combat. Unlike EDR however, spares can only be used on systems you can click on. EDR could be used on anything eg. Hull, Labs etc. The Damage Control rating of a ship also determined how fast shields would repair, not Labs as it is in SFC.
Post by: nx_adam_1701 on June 15, 2004, 02:53:55 am
adam out
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 15, 2004, 03:44:41 am
Tracy, What you say sounds correct for SFC. The SFB part doesn't quite translate though in my experience. There's no way that you'd repair as many systems on a ship in SFB as you can in SFC. Maybe an unrefitted Fed with really lucky die rolls, but I doubt it.
I'm sure that you're correct for the translation to SFC from SFB by Taldren though.As far as most battles being over quickly without double internals goes, I really think that the DAC is different. It seems that it's easier to get to the end of the excess damage track in SFC than SFB (If you take the double internals into account.). Certainly, it doesn't take twice as much damage to blow up a ship. The frustrating part is scoring a huge volley of internals and having none, or virtually none, of the weapons go away. On many occasions I've scored 90, or so, internals on a D7 without it losing a single drone or torp. Your description of a recent battle on GW2 where you scored big up close with a Hydran against a Lyran without it losing any weapons comes to mind. That's really the only part of the double internals that bugs me. I'll bet that the DAC isn't exactly right. Maybe it uses percentiges instead of exact D12 rolls to determine system hits? I've seen people try to use percentile dice in SFB and it screws things up pretty bad. Maybe trying to set the DAC to use the same hits as D12 dice is problematic. You're a programmer. So, you'd probably know better than I would if this is the case.
Anyway, thanks again. I know that it was really old questions that I asked. I hadn't ever seen an explanation for it before though.
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on June 15, 2004, 03:50:37 am
I'm not exactly sure if SFC uses that same DAC that SFB does, although the mizia concept is just as applicable in both.
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 15, 2004, 04:51:05 am
I hope that you 're writing all of this down Dave.
Post by: DH123 on June 15, 2004, 08:15:22 am
Quote:
I have a couple of "how come" questions.
Why were drone speeds changed, increased? A lot of people say that they are cheesy as they are. Wouldn't the original speeds be better balanced?
Lack of lead-tracking.
Post by: DH123 on June 15, 2004, 08:19:42 am
With D2 loadouts, it take 200-250 internals to nail a cruiser over a prolonged battle. That is the equivelant of 50 nuclear missles.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 15, 2004, 09:23:31 am
Quote:
SFBOL is SFB played over the web. It has no automatic functions to speak of. It's only true purpose is to make it easier to play people, as you don't have to be physically present. It might also be noted that the players who play there are frequently the best in the SFB universe and any new player that starts there can expect to be awesomely humiliated on a routine basis for quite a while due to the difference in skill level (though not due to attitudes or player related problems). That's why they don't recommend you start there; it's like trying to jump straight from high school to the majors.
Uh...
I won my first battle on SFBOL. And I ain't that good.(I'm in the middle of a SFC losing streak)
So yes, I've seen Ken Burnside there. I've also seen new players as well.
And there is a chat interface, so you can still lob off some nasty taunts. I know I got in a couple zingers
.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 15, 2004, 09:26:15 am
Quote:
90 internals? Than ain't nothing. Flying Hydran on GW2 right now, getting 130 internal volley on CAs and they don't go pop!.
With D2 loadouts, it take 200-250 internals to nail a cruiser over a prolonged battle. That is the equivelant of 50 nuclear missles.
Didn't FireSoul take care of this in his mod?
Post by: NannerSlug on June 15, 2004, 09:35:38 am
if i were you guys, i would lobby starfleet games to advance that product. i think you have a much better chance. that is not meant disrespectfully, but out of fact.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 15, 2004, 09:40:17 am
But SFC could be so much more with effort...I don't like the idea of giving that up. Maybe I'm nuts.
Of course, that won't stop me from buying a subscrption
.Merlin
Post by: FFZ on June 15, 2004, 11:00:13 am
I used to love SFB, but these days, I wouldn't have the patence to fill out Energy allocation forms each turn, or roll tons of dice, that is for a younger version of myself.
Post by: Bonk on June 15, 2004, 11:11:28 am
Quote:
Drone speeds I think is because SFC doesn't have lead tracking. In my experience, the speeds as they are now aren't really a problem.
There was no real "lead-tracking" in SFB either - the drones always had to close range with each movement if possible which left very little, if any leeway for lead tracking.
Post by: Age on June 15, 2004, 11:51:01 am
We all know how 2 year olds can be and think if one were to get into this board game and take something an lose it.The Scrabble game we have had in my family its on it last legs and we had to make up card board cut outs to replace some of the missing letters.This what happens to board game over time and then there is the generation gap who won't get into board games like this.It would seem to me the most popular PC games are simulator and first shooter types every time I am in a computer gaming store that is what they say.The way to open up this PC game I not to sure so that it will sell more copies.This what the market needs to look at how to get the younger generation into SFC do they want it more like SFC3 or SFC2.I am guessing that would possibly like it more like SFC3.I am however optimistic that there will be SFC4 and more to come.This would be a Glorious day as the Klingons say more blood whine to all lol.
Post by: J. Carney on June 15, 2004, 12:13:29 pm
DAC= Damage Allocaton Chart- the peice of paper that showed you which systems were hitafter internals were scored. You rolled 2D6 ans found the result on the DAC. There was a progression of ship systems beside each number to hsow what oyu had just knocked out. When all the systems of that type were destroyed, you moved to the next listed system.
Look here, it's posted on the SFB webite http://www.starfleetgames.com/sfb/sfin/DAC.pdf
Labs= Labs- places in the ship where research was done to discover things... lkike whether that shutle heading towards you at speed 6 was going to fire a phaser-3 at you and run, blossom into a scatterpack or hit you and blow up for mucho damage.
SFB don't wear out all that easy- the guy I play aganst has counters and rulebooks that are almost 10 years old now. They are still good (with a couple of pages of Errata included)- though they could be discribed as 'well-loved.' As long as you don't loose counters, you could play one set for decades.
Age, SFC3 did not do as well as the older SFB-based games. It did worse because the SFB'ers were the ones that were buying and when the game stopped being based heavily on SFB, they stopped buying it. You market to that people who buy- and that is SFB players in the case of this paritcular game.
Post by: 2_X_S on June 15, 2004, 12:28:31 pm
Quote:Quote:
I have a couple of "how come" questions.
Why were drone speeds changed, increased? A lot of people say that they are cheesy as they are. Wouldn't the original speeds be better balanced?
Lack of lead-tracking.
Theres just one flaw in that argument, if your ship was flying straight away from Plasma/Fast Drone you could never been touched.
Post by: Age on June 15, 2004, 12:32:27 pm
Post by: J. Carney on June 15, 2004, 01:27:02 pm
Elite Force is just one of a myriad of so-so FPS games out there- it is a copy of a copy of a copy of all the other FPS games out there and is only popular because it is familiar and requires only the intelegence necessary to 'point and click' to play. SFC is totally different- it is supposed to be complicated, afte rall you are running an entire starship.
Don't get me wrong... I've been playing Activision games since Pitfall came out for the Atari 2600. By and large they make good product. I just don't like the way that they 'dumbed-down' SFC to make SFC3 easier to play and I do not like the way that they turned it into a 'movie game' for Nemisis instead ofkeeping it like SFB and putting the Ferengi, Cardassians and Dominion in it. Then you could have had all the weapons that the Cardies and Dominion had in Dominion Wars and fighters and some greater weapons diversity to boot.
Imagine how good a game it would have been if they had included all these things.
Post by: DH123 on June 15, 2004, 01:31:16 pm
Quote:
for those who are hard -core sfbers, sfb on line is your dream.
if i were you guys, i would lobby starfleet games to advance that product. i think you have a much better chance. that is not meant disrespectfully, but out of fact.
I like real-time, i honestly don't think I could play this turn-based anymore. Haven't actually played SFB in 9 years though the books make great reading and the SSD are cool Trek porn.
But Nanner is right. With all the legal BS going on with the Trek franchise, we are more likely to see a "real-time" SFB PC game than an SFC4.
The best hope for SFB gamers is that the Trek franchise becomes so devalued by B&B's bungling that Paramount gives up resisting ADB and let's them expand into host-based computer products.
Post by: IKV Nemesis D7L on June 15, 2004, 01:51:04 pm
Change all the terminology away from Trek. Phasers become lasers, Disruptors can be particle cannons. Missiles can stay missiles as the term is generic. Warp engines becomes the fusion or antimatter engines. Impulse drive (not engines) becomes gravity drive. To make it more interresting you should not have to maintain your motion just pay energy costs to change it. Warp drive becomes hyper drive and is used to jump from system to system. All battles are at sublight speeds.
It would still be based on SFB but also be a unique product all its own.
Depending on the web of contracts ADB may not be able to license the rules for a non-Trek game without Paramounts permission, but I can dream.
Post by: EmeraldEdge on June 15, 2004, 03:01:19 pm
Quote:
The best hope for SFB gamers is that the Trek franchise becomes so devalued by B&B's bungling that Paramount gives up resisting ADB and let's them expand into host-based computer products.
See, there is a sunny side to Paramount's insane insistance on keeping B&B around and in charge!
Post by: Karnak on June 15, 2004, 03:08:03 pm
Quote:
UPN renewed Star Trek: Enterprise because Paramount TV substantially dropped the price per episode, a new report has claimed.
Next week's TV Guide, dated June 20th - 26th, has printed that according to sources, the real reason UPN renewed Enterprise was that Paramount offered to drop the price of each episode of the series from $1.7 million to $800,000. Reporter Stephen Battaglio called it "an offer [UPN] couldn?t refuse."
With UPN aiming for a female demographic, putting America's Top Model on Wednesday night along with new drama Kevin Hill, there was no room for Enterprise in its former time slot, which put it in competition with the more successful genre series Smallville on the WB as well as with ratings powerhouse American Idol. Paramount argued that UPN could afford to air a reduced-price Enterprise on Friday nights, when the network's ratings have been dismal.
It has long been known that Paramount strongly desired a fourth season for syndication rights, which become far more lucrative for a series that has produced nearly 100 episodes. Paramount will make up some of its lost revenue on a syndication deal, and more on merchandise sold to Star Trek fans.
"While only Trekkers would care if the show was canceled, Paramount knows it pays to keep them happy because Trekkers buy a lot of merchandise," wrote Battaglio. "Star Trek video games, books, dolls and other collectibles ring up about $200 million a year in retail sales, bringing in royalties of $20 million to Paramount."
"It?s important to have fresh Trek product lines," Marty Brochstein of The Licensing Letter told TV Guide. "There are still a lot of die hard fans. And they want more."
TV Guide has not yet posted this article on its web site but it may be available on newsstands. Many thanks to Craig Morris for transcribing it.
source: http://www.trektoday.com/news/140604_04.shtml
So, maybe Enterprise won't last past Season 4. Then maybe ADB can grab some licence cheap out of Paramount.
Post by: Age on June 15, 2004, 04:39:57 pm
Post by: AngryAndroid on June 15, 2004, 04:51:03 pm
I read a few interesting things though, at the start, someone said how great chess was because of how mathematicaly it allowed you to basicaly derive so many variations. I instantly thought of SFC3 then, simply because of how customizable it was and what the modders have run with. Each ship can be tuned and tweaked, flown vastly differently. The variety of battles I've had with SFC3 and the varying tactics used has been great. For the better players, they too have a huge amount of variety, somewhat like the chess analogy.
I've never played SFC2, but did 1 and 3. So honestly, I can't run it down one way or another (not that I'd like to). But SFC3 did keep me comming back for a long time, and I'm as much a fan of games like MOO as I am of UT. So eh, I find criticsm of SFC3 to be just in only a few cases, but sometimes people just seem to run it down because its not SFB.
I reckon there are enough tallented folk in the SFB community and ST community, to develop a PC game of SFB. It'd be great to see that side of the player base go and make what they really want, rather than wait around forever for a developer to never quite make it. Then maybe they could stop hating SFC3 for not being their perfect game, when really, its simply not as bad as they sometimes make out.
SFC4 would be great, but a huge rethink on past mistakes would be needed. But with a dwindeling ST fan base, what publisher is going to take that risk and looking at these forums, what developer would either?
Post by: J. Carney on June 15, 2004, 05:01:56 pm
People who like TOS still watch it; people who like TNG still watch it; people whoo like DS9 or Voyager still watch those.
Even the people who think (through the evil influence of Satan himself) the Enterpries is still good are still watching it.
People are not falling away from Star Trek, just the people that are writing it right now.
Post by: 3dot14 on June 15, 2004, 09:06:44 pm
For me, OP with:
*Electronic warfare/Scout functions (I don't even want the SWAC, ECM drone etc., just make Scouts work.)
*Plasma Bolt
*More detailed Fleet Control. (the SFC2 interface is good, but missing some of the orders that are possible in SFC1 and 3)
*(and Andro + Tholians of course)
is enough.
I haven't played online for a long time. (Time constraints + firewall), but OP against Computer is still fun.
As Nanner said, 2 and 3 are different, each have the ups and downs.
But, they should not have been lumped together as sequels. That is my one primary gripe. I would've cheered on SFC3 as a spin off of the series.
(The failures of such mid-series conversions are much more numerous than successes. In fact only success I can think of is Warcraft3. But that is Blizzard, an extraordinary case...)
I personally prefer SFC2OP/SFB because of 1.) the wonderful backstory. Trek TNG (based on TV and movie) are simply to wishy-washy to make a solid background out of. 2.) SFB is done in a "impartial" way. Each race is given about the same amount of chance to win. (No preferential treatment for anyone because they are "the good guys". For the Most part.) So I would rather see SFB made as a computer game than I do TNG.
This is interesting, there hasn't been an outburst like this since... well the last outburst about SFC3.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 15, 2004, 10:19:07 pm
Taldren can't seem to find a decent publisher since Interplay. They either want to dumb it down or change it somehow or other. I think it would be better if they opened up the weapons/systems to modders, so we could PUT IN scout channels, PA panels, Webs, Plasma Bolts, etc.Ii think Modder's could do a better job simply because they don't have to fight the publisher's who are screaming TOO MUCH EFFORT IT WON'T SELL yada yada yada.
And if your worried about Modder's making cheese ships... Just take a look at FireSoul's wonderful work. Talk about sticking to the core...BRAVO FIRESOUL!!!
Now if Taldren finds the ideal publisher, I'd be thrilled to pieces, which raises the question of how I'd play it...
ANYHOW, that's my pipe dream.
And I'll take every one off of that list your running, thank you. Aren't I modest?
Post by: Age on June 15, 2004, 10:56:29 pm
Post by: Crimmy on June 16, 2004, 12:06:23 am
question is....would the lower production costs offset the lower potential revenues?
Dunno....but if you figure ALOT of modern gamers are also net-o-philes...getting word out about a new game might not be so hard...
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 16, 2004, 12:24:41 am
No, that would be VERY cool.
Merlin
Post by: Rod O'neal on June 16, 2004, 02:26:03 am
Quote:
Actually...one of Erik's pet Ideas is to sell a game via Download....it would slash production costs, but it also means no game on a shelf at your local store for gift or impulse buys.....
Not a big problem. Something simple as an e-card that you sent to a friend telling them that you have bought the game for him/her should probably take care of that.
Quote:
question is....would the lower production costs offset the lower potential revenues?
I wouldn't assume that the revenues would be lower. An actual marketing study would need to be done.
Quote:
Dunno....but if you figure ALOT of modern gamers are also net-o-philes...getting word out about a new game might not be so hard...
Agreed
Post by: Bonk on June 16, 2004, 05:52:38 am
Post by: E_Look on June 16, 2004, 11:16:05 am
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 16, 2004, 02:33:54 pm
The game is excellent and AFAIK it sold rather well.
So there IS prescenence for this type of game selling. After all, SFBOL is an online-only product. It is not sold in stores.
Take care, and get coding!
Merlin
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 16, 2004, 06:23:31 pm
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 16, 2004, 10:15:36 pm
Merlin
Post by: Bonk on June 17, 2004, 12:36:31 am
Quote:
What is Cdilla, Bonk?
Cdilla is a licensing system that "phones home" too much for my taste.
Some consider it Spyware, some don't.
Apps that use Cdilla or its descendents that I know of:
Turbotax
3DSmax4
3DSmax5
3DSmax6
http://www.auditmypc.com/freescan/readingroom/cdilla.asp
http://www.computing.net/security/wwwboard/forum/10352.html
I consider its behaviour unacceptable and I will not use products that are controlled by it.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 17, 2004, 09:05:42 am
Quote:
Keep those links coming, that site looks rather good...
Merlin
It's a bit more than that, since the first game of the series was CGW's wargame of the year in either 2000 or 2001. Like SFC the basic game engine is now slightly dated, but the results are still quite excellent.
Post by: FireSoul on June 17, 2004, 10:20:58 am
Quote:
*Electronic warfare/Scout functions (I don't even want the SWAC, ECM drone etc., just make Scouts work.)
*Plasma Bolt
*More detailed Fleet Control. (the SFC2 interface is good, but missing some of the orders that are possible in SFC1 and 3)
*(and Andro + Tholians of course)
is enough.
I'd like to add a few things.. Must Haves in my opinion since the Kzinti/Mirak are really not up to their full potential without this.. I did put some thought into this, and here's how I would do it..
* Drone Construction, special drones
- I'm sure the spacedock could have a section dedicated on building drones and stashing them in the droneracks in a specific way. This would require an enhancement to the way the game talks to the DB since special drones need to be stashed in either cargo boxes on the ship, or within the normal racks.
- I know that there's still room for one more tab icon in the weapons panel that could be used for selecting which drones to fire next from the droneracks on the ship.
- Of course, coding the special drones would be in order... such as the ECM drones, and the (teehee) phaser drones..
* Fix some of the API..
The API has a few key broken this.
1- we can't get the year of the scenario. This sucks since the year could be used to double-check ships to have in-mission. Would also be nice to find hex location, name of players, etc.
2- we need a working mSetDrones
3- we need a better mSetFighters. Right now, it sets all bays all fighters to a single type
4- We need a mGetShuttles, mSetShuttles and mGetFighters
5- etc?
Post by: RazalYllib on June 17, 2004, 12:21:27 pm
With the new tech that has been introduced post op, it would be far more practical to start from scratch. It would still look and feel and play the same, but the code would be new to reflect the overall increase in programming technology since the original code was written. I am sure things could be done better. Perhaps even well enough to break the 6 player limit in multiplayer. I predict SFC is not by any means extinct, it just going to take time, decade + or more. All good things in all good time.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 17, 2004, 01:22:28 pm
I'm probably missing something, but this doesn't feel right. If there is new technology, why can't we take advantage of it now, while at the same time providing a way for older computers to play the same title? Or would that be like making two games at once?
Merlin
Post by: Age on June 17, 2004, 01:35:02 pm
Sig is by Pestalence
Post by: J. Carney on June 17, 2004, 02:37:22 pm
Radion 9600 Pro
1 GB Ram
80GB 10,000 RPM HD
DVD/CDR Burnner
5.1 Surround Sound
$1400.00 including shipping.
You just gotta build it oyurself... it's not that hard to do.
Post by: Crimmy on June 17, 2004, 03:08:21 pm
Quote:
Athalon 64 3200+
Radion 9600 Pro
1 GB Ram
80GB 10,000 RPM HD
DVD/CDR Burnner
5.1 Surround Sound
$1400.00 including shipping.
You just gotta build it oyurself... it's not that hard to do.
It IS when you have a roof to keep over your head....and old lady to keep off your back...and three kids to feed...etc etc...
Not everyone has $1400 to throw into a glorified nintendo.....most of us have to make do with older stuff and tweak it to keep it working.
Post by: TOCXOBearslayer on June 17, 2004, 04:44:30 pm
Quote:
Athalon 64 3200+
Radion 9600 Pro
1 GB Ram
80GB 10,000 RPM HD
DVD/CDR Burnner
5.1 Surround Sound
$1400.00 including shipping.
You just gotta build it oyurself... it's not that hard to do.
Man, you got ripped off...
Intel P4 3.06 Ghz
1GB ram
Combined 240 GB (1 80 & 1 160) 7500 HDs
DVD Burner (kept DVD-Rom from older computer)
SB Audigy 2ZS
Radeon 9600 XT with 256MB RAM
Of course, I took about 6 months to collect all the parts when they were on sale. But I built it for a tad under $800 spending $50-150 a pop...
Post by: J. Carney on June 17, 2004, 05:27:10 pm
PS- do't remember now cause I threa away the box, but my 9600 has the 256MB of ram and the TV tuner (didn't need but got anyway). I might have quoted a lower price piece.
Post by: AJTK on June 17, 2004, 06:18:03 pm
And then proceed to expand upon the prior post, all the while admonishing any SFB'ers who might respond to the post that attacked US in the first place.
One good thing about SFC3, and 762 KNOWS whats comin...
RE-VER-SE!!!
HAND! (of Bethke)
Post by: red_green on June 17, 2004, 11:10:06 pm
Post by: Crimmy on June 18, 2004, 12:06:30 am
Post by: AJTK on June 18, 2004, 04:29:22 am
Quote:
I have come to realize that many SFBers think SFC3 sucks. Thats jolly but I got sick of reading it. Then I started to wonder why they feel that way. Well it seems to me that the best analogy I could come up with. is comparing SFB to chess.
See in chess you never change an rules ever. SFBers are set in there ways from playing the game the same way for 30 years that any slight deviation is percieved by them to be blasphomy.
What I find even more annoying about SFB players is the clicks they have. They d/l ships people make , d/l missions people write. d/l mods people put together and then they won't allow you into there navy or use there logo or whatever.
Isn't this great for promoting there precious game?
This last behavior reminds me of a line from Bob Dylan which I disremember atm.
All this flys in the face of a more typical Sci-Fi fan who is flexible with adapting new hypothetical Sci-fi techno babble and see races and ships keep evolving. SFBers are too small in numbers to support an SFC4 game alone. 6000-10000 copies sold would'nt be enough to make the game. So it would have to draw on another type of audiance as well.
So SFBers get over it. I like SFC3 a lot, so bugger off with your whining about it and just break out your 30 year old board game.
"There are trolls in this forum? Thanks for the heads up."
LOOK! Theres one NOW!
HAND!
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 18, 2004, 03:01:37 pm
Granted, I'm on 700 Mhz, so I can't preach much.
I have seen parts for very cheap, but other things demand the money, like food and rent. I probably could build it(I've fixed many parts on the comp I have right now...modems...hard drives...etc.).
Trust me, I'd love to have your comp. I just can't afford it.
Merlin
Post by: J. Carney on June 18, 2004, 04:00:46 pm
THe only reason I had the dough is that Uncle Sammy wouldn't let me go anywhere to spend it for a year.
Post by: The_Infiltrator on June 18, 2004, 05:12:16 pm
Quote:
LOL... yeah, I know about money being a pro.
THe only reason I had the dough is that Uncle Sammy wouldn't let me go anywhere to spend it for a year.
God - I hated that....
"*#$@!! when are we finallly going to pull into port?"
"Why do you care? Think about all the money you're saving!"
This is the point where I resort to physical violence against the person who said that.
Post by: J. Carney on June 18, 2004, 06:09:04 pm
You make the call!
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 18, 2004, 06:55:08 pm
Quote:
Yeah... sure I got a new truck and a kick-@$$ box out of the deal, but was that really wortha year of not being able to go out and find some impresionable young freshman and take her home for a night's worth of good old fashioned corupting? Edit: though I am now getting old enough I have to chase post-grads.
You make the call!
There's a side of the military that they don't tell the recruiters about...
Post by: Tulwar on June 18, 2004, 07:41:47 pm
Please, don't confuse my feeling toward SFC IV as merely being that it isn't a continuation along the lines of the earlier products. I feel it was so poorly executed that it should not have been released. Yes, I have gone on rants about the SFC IV, but not because it isn't SFB.
There will be an SFC GAW, I just don't know if it will be in my lifetime.
Post by: J. Carney on June 18, 2004, 08:41:00 pm
Quote:
Cannon (can'nun) n. An instrument used to rectify national boarders. Ambros Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary
That's gotta be the best sig I've seen in a while Tulwar
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 19, 2004, 01:40:17 am
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 19, 2004, 01:42:40 am
Quote:
Merlin you and I registered around the same time.I wasn't aware of this were you and about a week a part from each other.I never realized that before untill I looked at your reg. date.
Sig is by Pestalence
*looks at date*
*looks at post count*
How?? How do you get 900 and I get 126?
Post by: Age on June 19, 2004, 02:50:46 am
Quote:I had a great debate going on three weeks after I first reg.It was something and helping a few people out.That is one way of getting your post count up start a debate.Then aplogize later to all community members as they are fine people in this forum.Quote:
Merlin you and I registered around the same time.I wasn't aware of this were you and about a week a part from each other.I never realized that before untill I looked at your reg. date.
Sig is by Pestalence
*looks at date*
*looks at post count*
How?? How do you get 900 and I get 126?
It is passed 900 now.I am fond of my sig. as well.Sig is by Pestalence
Post by: Strat on June 19, 2004, 02:32:14 pm
Quote:
It IS when you have a roof to keep over your head....and old lady to keep off your back...and three kids to feed...etc etc...
Not everyone has $1400 to throw into a glorified nintendo.....most of us have to make do with older stuff and tweak it to keep it working.
Glorified Nintendo!
That sounds about right to me!
Post by: J. Carney on June 19, 2004, 03:38:38 pm
Post by: _Rondo_GE The OutLaw on June 27, 2004, 03:30:44 pm
Did all of this thread come over from Taldren?
There appea to be some replies missing.
Post by: Bonk on June 27, 2004, 08:26:36 pm
(I've noticed the same on a few other threads... its not that big a deal though, I'm quite happy that all the old threads have been imported)
Post by: Chris Jones on June 28, 2004, 12:14:45 pm
There will always be a gap of sorts between the SFB people and the TNG people. With regards to the SFC series, there are basically two kinds of gamers.
1. The SFB board game players
2. Star Trek people who had never heard of SFB until they bought an SFC game.
I am #2.
but.. I repsect the heritage and tradition of SFB, even though I know almost nothing of it.
I am attempting to bridge the gap. If you look at the Gamespy rooms of late there are a great many people playing a TNG Mod for OP, and it looks like many of them are coming over from EAW. The Mod is mine, TNG evolving into Multi-Era. The mod puts it all together, SFB, TOS, TMP, and TNG all in 1 place. The people playing this mod are from many different fleets, and like the fact that I offer 2552, 3.3, and TNG in the same OP install.
The interesting thing about it is this:
The people helping me are amazing. They are mostly SFB purists, using modules to spec the Early era. For mid era I am using a lot of Firesoul's 3.3 shiplist, with some TMP sprinkled in. Some of my assistants are indeed TNG fans, but SFC3 did not hit them right. They like the micro-management that OP offers, and feel that SFC3 is too simplified.
Here's my personal take on SFC3..
I have done a big Mega Mod for it, and recently updated it to the 531 patch, currently in the top 10 downloads on SFC3 Files. I enjoyed the challenge of learning the specifics of SFC3 modding. This may or may not be a surprise to some, but I play OP a lot more than SFC3. I think that's because the feel of OP is more pleasurable than the feel of SFC3. Another reason for me, I think, is because not long after SFC3 was released, I became burned out on SFC and switched to Bridge Commander for my TNG fix - with its bright shiny graphics, etc.. during my BC run I did no SFC at all, until I got wind that a group of gamers had revived my TNG Mod for OP. I'm still doing BC, and am part of the BC2 project. I never got back into SFC3, although I support all the mods for it, as I do support the entire series. Pelican, Nannerslug, and the Unity Team have done amazing things with SFC3. I, however, have no plans to take my MegaMod any further - even though I get lots of e-mail about it still.
In summary, there will always be differences of opinion regarding different versions of SFC, but we are essentialy all one community, and that's what I'm promoting. :)
Post by: _Rondo_GE The OutLaw on June 29, 2004, 03:16:14 pm
To go back to the original post..
There will always be a gap of sorts between the SFB people and the TNG people. With regards to the SFC series, there are basically two kinds of gamers.
1. The SFB board game players
2. Star Trek people who had never heard of SFB until they bought an SFC game.
I am #2.
but.. I repsect the heritage and tradition of SFB, even though I know almost nothing of it.
I am attempting to bridge the gap. If you look at the Gamespy rooms of late there are a great many people playing a TNG Mod for OP, and it looks like many of them are coming over from EAW. The Mod is mine, TNG evolving into Multi-Era. The mod puts it all together, SFB, TOS, TMP, and TNG all in 1 place. The people playing this mod are from many different fleets, and like the fact that I offer 2552, 3.3, and TNG in the same OP install.
The interesting thing about it is this:
The people helping me are amazing. They are mostly SFB purists, using modules to spec the Early era. For mid era I am using a lot of Firesoul's 3.3 shiplist, with some TMP sprinkled in. Some of my assistants are indeed TNG fans, but SFC3 did not hit them right. They like the micro-management that OP offers, and feel that SFC3 is too simplified.
Here's my personal take on SFC3..
I have done a big Mega Mod for it, and recently updated it to the 531 patch, currently in the top 10 downloads on SFC3 Files. I enjoyed the challenge of learning the specifics of SFC3 modding. This may or may not be a surprise to some, but I play OP a lot more than SFC3. I think that's because the feel of OP is more pleasurable than the feel of SFC3. Another reason for me, I think, is because not long after SFC3 was released, I became burned out on SFC and switched to Bridge Commander for my TNG fix - with its bright shiny graphics, etc.. during my BC run I did no SFC at all, until I got wind that a group of gamers had revived my TNG Mod for OP. I'm still doing BC, and am part of the BC2 project. I never got back into SFC3, although I support all the mods for it, as I do support the entire series. Pelican, Nannerslug, and the Unity Team have done amazing things with SFC3. I, however, have no plans to take my MegaMod any further - even though I get lots of e-mail about it still.
In summary, there will always be differences of opinion regarding different versions of SFC, but we are essentialy all one community, and that's what I'm promoting. :)
I am also a #2?sorta. I did play SFB twice many years back when I was in the navy. I got tired of the accounting though and moved on rather quickly to D&D. I do maintain respect for the balance in SFB although based on many posts I have read over 6 years there were also balance problems in SFB for a time as well.
As for SFC3 ? well ? I initially advocated it. I played it for about two months. Did real well?a lot better than I was doing when I first started playing SFC1. But when the second wave/generation of tactics came out I got terribly discouraged and bored?as opposed to being discouraged and fascinated (with SFC1). I remember two losses I had that really changed my mind?one came when I was when this dude warped in and started ?warbeling? around like some mad cockroach in a most unstarship like manner and another one where this dude surrounded me with mines and I realized I had no way to clear them except by running into them.
For my money they simply didn?t include enough subgames to grab me any further than my initial flirtation with the game. Two things I really liked about it was the ability to break the ?speed 31? barrier and the warping, which I thought was rather well done. The big mistake I saw in the game, besides the elimination of T-bombs and other subgames, was the idea that ?shift? would be based angular velocity rather than a product of electronics.
Anyway this is not to DIS SFC3; I am sure I would have stuck around longer had I found a set of tactics or a race that allowed me to play a strong game without all that angular velocity but there was SFC OP with literally hundreds of ships yet unexplored so why bother? And that was BEFORE Firesoul?s mods.
Well if they ever decide to combine the SFC3/TNG SFC/SFB concept I would say KEEP the warp, keep the cloak, and kill the speed 31 barrier and bring in the bolt. Blah blah blah?
I sure wish I could find my original post ?.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 30, 2004, 01:20:59 am
To go back to the original post..
There will always be a gap of sorts between the SFB people and the TNG people. With regards to the SFC series, there are basically two kinds of gamers.
1. The SFB board game players
2. Star Trek people who had never heard of SFB until they bought an SFC game.
I am #2.
but.. I repsect the heritage and tradition of SFB, even though I know almost nothing of it.
I am attempting to bridge the gap. If you look at the Gamespy rooms of late there are a great many people playing a TNG Mod for OP, and it looks like many of them are coming over from EAW. The Mod is mine, TNG evolving into Multi-Era. The mod puts it all together, SFB, TOS, TMP, and TNG all in 1 place. The people playing this mod are from many different fleets, and like the fact that I offer 2552, 3.3, and TNG in the same OP install.
The interesting thing about it is this:
The people helping me are amazing. They are mostly SFB purists, using modules to spec the Early era. For mid era I am using a lot of Firesoul's 3.3 shiplist, with some TMP sprinkled in. Some of my assistants are indeed TNG fans, but SFC3 did not hit them right. They like the micro-management that OP offers, and feel that SFC3 is too simplified.
Here's my personal take on SFC3..
I have done a big Mega Mod for it, and recently updated it to the 531 patch, currently in the top 10 downloads on SFC3 Files. I enjoyed the challenge of learning the specifics of SFC3 modding. This may or may not be a surprise to some, but I play OP a lot more than SFC3. I think that's because the feel of OP is more pleasurable than the feel of SFC3. Another reason for me, I think, is because not long after SFC3 was released, I became burned out on SFC and switched to Bridge Commander for my TNG fix - with its bright shiny graphics, etc.. during my BC run I did no SFC at all, until I got wind that a group of gamers had revived my TNG Mod for OP. I'm still doing BC, and am part of the BC2 project. I never got back into SFC3, although I support all the mods for it, as I do support the entire series. Pelican, Nannerslug, and the Unity Team have done amazing things with SFC3. I, however, have no plans to take my MegaMod any further - even though I get lots of e-mail about it still.
In summary, there will always be differences of opinion regarding different versions of SFC, but we are essentialy all one community, and that's what I'm promoting. :)
I am also a #2?sorta. I did play SFB twice many years back when I was in the navy. I got tired of the accounting though and moved on rather quickly to D&D. I do maintain respect for the balance in SFB although based on many posts I have read over 6 years there were also balance problems in SFB for a time as well.
As for SFC3 ? well ? I initially advocated it. I played it for about two months. Did real well?a lot better than I was doing when I first started playing SFC1. But when the second wave/generation of tactics came out I got terribly discouraged and bored?as opposed to being discouraged and fascinated (with SFC1). I remember two losses I had that really changed my mind?one came when I was when this dude warped in and started ?warbeling? around like some mad cockroach in a most unstarship like manner and another one where this dude surrounded me with mines and I realized I had no way to clear them except by running into them.
For my money they simply didn?t include enough subgames to grab me any further than my initial flirtation with the game. Two things I really liked about it was the ability to break the ?speed 31? barrier and the warping, which I thought was rather well done. The big mistake I saw in the game, besides the elimination of T-bombs and other subgames, was the idea that ?shift? would be based angular velocity rather than a product of electronics.
Anyway this is not to DIS SFC3; I am sure I would have stuck around longer had I found a set of tactics or a race that allowed me to play a strong game without all that angular velocity but there was SFC OP with literally hundreds of ships yet unexplored so why bother? And that was BEFORE Firesoul?s mods.
Well if they ever decide to combine the SFC3/TNG SFC/SFB concept I would say KEEP the warp, keep the cloak, and kill the speed 31 barrier and bring in the bolt. Blah blah blah?
I sure wish I could find my original post ?.
In reply to Chris's post...yes you know next to nil about SFB, but you ask me many questions about it, and the mod is better because of it.
So yes, you are uneducated in SFB. That hasn't stopped SFB from being a marked infuence in the mod, as you said in your own post. I also agree wholeheartedly that oversimplification helps noone, least of which is the dedicated and loyal fanbase that follows the game.
But the blame for that lies at Activision's feet, and the debate belongs in another thread.
As for Rondo_GE's post, I don't find it suprising that SFB was overwhelming to you.
Yes, there's a lot of accounting. Yes, there's a lot of work to put into it. Yes, there's a lot of ways to bite the plasma.
That's half the fun!
Also, you get used to the accounting. I've seen games on SFBOL play out faster than SFC because the player's already knew the math and where they wanted to end up.
And the reason you abandoned SFC3 is the same reason you advocated it--it was simplified. Idiot's could now find some lame way to win in 3 minutes that never would have lasted 2 impulses in SFB/SFC OP.
And it's true that we are all one community--we had one central gathering place, when that went down, we found another one and made it ours. The sense of unity and community is palatable here.
But that does not mean that there cannot be fundamental differences between the forum members, what games they play, and what they look for in those games.
And I agree with you about keeping the Warp, cloak and the like. The Cloak is actually a lot closer to SFB--what with the Hidden Movement option.
In summary I don't think we sholuld make things simpler just because it's simple. I think that a challange makes for a better game, and you also come out better because of it.
Flexing the noggin is not a bad thing after all.
I don't think we should use SFC3 for a basis--there's arleady a great SFB/TNG conversion on the books that I have plastered all over this board already--that also is the product of at least 4 years of work and is more well thought out.
Post by: GFL Offkey on June 30, 2004, 01:41:28 am
The Gfl Galactic Foriegn Legion has thier own private Mod. As for SFC3 being point and shoot? Well weve modified the game to where you better have tactics and especially fleet tactics or youre toast.
The unity group knows what our baseline mod was but we are entering version 2.0. You can ask any GFL Member that SFC3 is just as tactical as previous versions and we also run on sql without issues.
the only thing the game needed was fixes for connection between players.
There will be an SFC 4 Legions at war. Where? Wtih the GFL and thats what keeps our group interested. We have scripters, modelers, editers ect. we have actually changed the mechanics of the ai and how they react. Lets see you survive a Ai that actually warps on you tractors you and kills you in 3 volleys and at the same time multitargeting your fellow partners Knowing what to do next. Its very wicked game when modded correctly.
SFB is a respectable game but I would rather see my target. previous versions of sfc had poor graphics in my book the only thing they lacked in sfc3 was more races to fit the new era. Also it is not true 3-D.
Homeworld is true 3-D. that is where most go wrong movement should be any direction in a sphere of space and not simulated 3-D movement.
I have almost every trek game made and play sfc3 the most.
each person has thier opinion and thats good but all opinions should be respectful and clean I see many who are hotheads and have no reason to be. We are all gamers we justlike different preferences.
Lets all show respect for each other and respect for taldren as they did what they could. I say though Sue the pants of Activision for its lousy support for the gaming community, False advertisement and the worst customer support in the nation. If they would continually support thier games they would be played longer but thats another story.
<S> To all the gamers as we are the reason we are all here today.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 30, 2004, 12:23:48 pm
<S> To all the gamers as we are the reason we are all here today.
<S> right back at you. Thank you very much.
Merlin
Post by: Red_Green on June 30, 2004, 12:38:36 pm
Post by: _Rondo_GE The OutLaw on June 30, 2004, 01:56:33 pm
Perhaps in a different environment things would have turned out differently. But that's the past.
As I recall I came out for SFC3 before i actually played the game. I you might imagine there was mucho discussion about the game before it's release and HOT debate throughout the community. Taldren was being very coy (perhaps not the right eord) about getting out details and did not release a demo (THAT should have told me something). So my decision to advocate the game was more philisophical than anything else...why DIS a game nobody had actually played?
When the game came out most of us spent a whole mess of time just trying to "build" our ships and experiment with combinations (weapons, shields, etc.) that worked best. Matches were more "SFC2ish" at first, with ships flying around subwarp and little use of angular velocity or mines. Slow speeds attacks and even a kind of "starcastling" was popular as I recall. Then after a few months the newer tactics started to emerge and when I saw them I realized that it just wasn't my cup of tea. Another thing that hurt was, at least when I played it, a lack of game films so you could learn by your mistakes and also watch how other players maneuvered and played. They may have fixed that by now.
Anyway I still have SFC3 and will probably give it another go. The problem here is that you really have to spend time building your ships to even have half decent chance of playing well. If you use the generic ones they give you you are dead...dead on arrival.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 30, 2004, 04:28:10 pm
I wouldn't say for me that it was overwhelming. I started gaming with chess and Naval simulations and was attracted to SFB because on the surface it looked a lot like those two games. In the navy we had a small group of "gamers" that was primarily interested in the depth of tactics and strategy these games had to offer. SFB could match the level of tactics and strategy but few of us had the time to beat the learning curve neccessary to get these ships to behave in the way we wanted to so we could engage our real interest in playing the game at it's tactical level. Also in the beginning there were too many accounting errors that lead to serious and unfriendly "squabbles" between players...and even accusations of cheating. That was an experience unknown to our little group until we tried our hand at SFB.
Perhaps in a different environment things would have turned out differently. But that's the past.
As I recall I came out for SFC3 before i actually played the game. I you might imagine there was mucho discussion about the game before it's release and HOT debate throughout the community. Taldren was being very coy (perhaps not the right eord) about getting out details and did not release a demo (THAT should have told me something). So my decision to advocate the game was more philisophical than anything else...why DIS a game nobody had actually played?
When the game came out most of us spent a whole mess of time just trying to "build" our ships and experiment with combinations (weapons, shields, etc.) that worked best. Matches were more "SFC2ish" at first, with ships flying around subwarp and little use of angular velocity or mines. Slow speeds attacks and even a kind of "starcastling" was popular as I recall. Then after a few months the newer tactics started to emerge and when I saw them I realized that it just wasn't my cup of tea. Another thing that hurt was, at least when I played it, a lack of game films so you could learn by your mistakes and also watch how other players maneuvered and played. They may have fixed that by now.
Anyway I still have SFC3 and will probably give it another go. The problem here is that you really have to spend time building your ships to even have half decent chance of playing well. If you use the generic ones they give you you are dead...dead on arrival.
If you were around people who lept at the mere scent of cheating, you're around the wrong people. I've been spending time on SFBOL, where sanctioned Tournaments are commonplace, and the users have been holding my hand while I make blunder after blunder, repeadedly accidently breaking the rules.
They have been the most patient and helpful community I have had the pleasure to be in.
As for why dis a game that nobody has played...
1) No drones
2) No Gorn, No Andro's, No Tholians.
3) No More SFB
So there was plenty wrong and objectable with SFC3 from the get-go.
Post by: GFL Offkey on June 30, 2004, 08:51:46 pm
the gorn werent a very apparent race. as matter of fact they were almost obliterated if not for kirk
I say if the game was based on the series then only 4 of the races would be in any game
fed kliink rom vulcan
later eras
fed klink rom vulcan dominion cardassian ferengi borg
thats not to many
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on June 30, 2004, 08:58:37 pm
Anyhow, why condemn SFB for improving on trek?
Merlin
Post by: Desty Nova on July 01, 2004, 03:12:22 pm
Show me any startrek film or series where klingons had drones.
the gorn werent a very apparent race. as matter of fact they were almost obliterated if not for kirk
I say if the game was based on the series then only 4 of the races would be in any game
fed kliink rom vulcan
later eras
fed klink rom vulcan dominion cardassian ferengi borg
thats not to many
Well considering SFB was made in 1975, there weren't a whole lot of official sources to base the game on. TOS, TAS, Franz Joseph's Technical Manual, and the D7 and War Eagle blueprints were pretty much it. Most everything in the game was derived from those, long before TNG.
It's comforting to know that no matter how much Voyager, Enterprise, or any of the new Treks suck, I will always have SFB, untouchable by Paramount...
Post by: FPF-DieHard on July 01, 2004, 03:17:54 pm
Anyhow, why condemn SFB for improving on trek?
Oh My, that is a quote to remember!!!!
Post by: EmeraldEdge on July 02, 2004, 04:12:06 pm
Post by: B_Phelps on July 02, 2004, 04:28:58 pm
Post by: Dash Jones on July 02, 2004, 05:18:55 pm
Show me any startrek film or series where klingons had drones.
the gorn werent a very apparent race. as matter of fact they were almost obliterated if not for kirk
I say if the game was based on the series then only 4 of the races would be in any game
fed kliink rom vulcan
later eras
fed klink rom vulcan dominion cardassian ferengi borg
thats not to many
Actually, despite how much people like the Borg, they really shouldn't be a playable race...as they were far enough away, that the most they could ever muster to send against ANYONE else was a single cube...
If you include the Borg you might as well include the Hirogen, and a whole slew of others...
Post by: Age on July 02, 2004, 05:53:38 pm
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on July 02, 2004, 06:31:16 pm
Anyhow, why condemn SFB for improving on trek?
Oh My, that is a quote to remember!!!!
Thanks much!
Merlin
Post by: FPF-Jem on July 02, 2004, 08:41:02 pm
I do not own any SFB materials (other than the Cadet version or whatever it's called that came with SFC), have never even looked at them in fact. I'm not overly into Tabletop Wargaming either, I'm simply an average gamer (well... not quite perhaps, I prefer RTS's over FPS, only own a single FPS which isn't quite average of your typical gamer nowadays).
I do have all of the SFC titles (including SFC1 Gold) and of them, I must say I vastly prefer 1, 2, and OP to 3.
There's just so much more to do, more races, more weapons, more systems, more singleplayer campaigns (very important to me as I don't really play on-line very much), more ships, just more.
3 just didn't have as much to do. While you could argue that 3 has more ships because of the ability to refit your current ship to something else, it just didn't seem the same, I can change my phaser types all day long and the ship just doesn't seem any different, and I really miss my T-bombs.
AV could have been handled better in my opinion, or perhaps cut out all together. Combat also was disappointing, the fact that if your ship gets caught by a ship with more room for a larger tractor there's didly all you can do to get out is annoying.
As far as the campaign went, it was not bad but too short and too rushed. I really disliked getting moved around the map with no time in-between. The campaigns from the older games were just as interesting and lasted longer as well.
There are certainly things I like about 3, they've mostly been mentioned already by others, the things like bringing the Officers back from SFC1, some of the D3 features, reverse is handy, not sure about warp can't decide if it's benefits outweigh its disadvantages, hidden cloak.
So to sum up, I've never played SFB, am not in the least interested in ever playing SFB, and wish SFC3 was based off SFB rather than what it is just from playing the previous games that were based on SFB.
Of course this is all my humble opinion and I'm sure others will disagree, I can understand, and to be honest, being able to play the previous titles is good enough for me, I have what I want (well... as close to what I'm ever going to get most likely at least) so I won't begrudge those who got what they wanted in SFC3.
Post by: Merlinfmct87 on July 03, 2004, 04:01:04 am
I'm bored, so I might as well chime in my opinion on this dead horse.
I do not own any SFB materials (other than the Cadet version or whatever it's called that came with SFC), have never even looked at them in fact. I'm not overly into Tabletop Wargaming either, I'm simply an average gamer (well... not quite perhaps, I prefer RTS's over FPS, only own a single FPS which isn't quite average of your typical gamer nowadays).
I do have all of the SFC titles (including SFC1 Gold) and of them, I must say I vastly prefer 1, 2, and OP to 3.
There's just so much more to do, more races, more weapons, more systems, more singleplayer campaigns (very important to me as I don't really play on-line very much), more ships, just more.
3 just didn't have as much to do. While you could argue that 3 has more ships because of the ability to refit your current ship to something else, it just didn't seem the same, I can change my phaser types all day long and the ship just doesn't seem any different, and I really miss my T-bombs.
AV could have been handled better in my opinion, or perhaps cut out all together. Combat also was disappointing, the fact that if your ship gets caught by a ship with more room for a larger tractor there's didly all you can do to get out is annoying.
As far as the campaign went, it was not bad but too short and too rushed. I really disliked getting moved around the map with no time in-between. The campaigns from the older games were just as interesting and lasted longer as well.
There are certainly things I like about 3, they've mostly been mentioned already by others, the things like bringing the Officers back from SFC1, some of the D3 features, reverse is handy, not sure about warp can't decide if it's benefits outweigh its disadvantages, hidden cloak.
So to sum up, I've never played SFB, am not in the least interested in ever playing SFB, and wish SFC3 was based off SFB rather than what it is just from playing the previous games that were based on SFB.
Of course this is all my humble opinion and I'm sure others will disagree, I can understand, and to be honest, being able to play the previous titles is good enough for me, I have what I want (well... as close to what I'm ever going to get most likely at least) so I won't begrudge those who got what they wanted in SFC3.
;D