Print Page - HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 11, 2003, 08:54:07 am

Okay then, how about multiple empires, but only so many empires as you can make different systems for them so that they are different in tactical style. Don't neuter an empire by giving it a special feature which doesn't work thereby making it a weak copy of another empire. I am a fan of the scissors-paper-rock style of game balance and not the mirror-image balance of chess (for this type of game). SFC:TNG does lend itself to the former because of the limited number of races and the options, eg shield/shieldless or cloak/cloakless, but this balancing was not completed (I think). There was still too much equivalence in weapon systems and not enough difference to force really different tactics on each empire. This is a fault of the adherance to the canon of the TNG shows and movies, with insufficient freedom being allowed to the designers to create a better game. Of course there is difference in the game as it is but I think the game would benefit from more differences.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: mbday on July 11, 2003, 11:34:15 am

As I said I realy do not like the way the wopens ion SFC-TNG are. They need to be changed. In many ways.
I would like to see a multiple empires and different systems for each. I would also like to see a game that would have all of the space as Star Trek Does. I.E. Alpha, Delta and so on. Whit wormholes and Transwarp to get around. THis just might make a campaign a little more of fun becuase you have to be abl eto find the right wormholes and or find the to make transwarp drives. You know adding a little more for a empires to work on besides just taking ground and killing each other. Just makes for more fun I think.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Mog on July 11, 2003, 11:54:16 am

When I used to play Birth of the Federation, I always felt that the tactical aspect of SFC would fit in very well, compared to that game's simplistic tactical side. Only problem being, who would control each Empire's production etc in a mass multiplayer game?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Lepton1 on July 11, 2003, 01:40:29 pm

While there has been alot posted here, I would say a physics "realistic" game is out of the question for obvious reasons. What is important is just that the game have a consistent internal game physics. If we take trek flims and tv as a model for a game, battles would be over in a couple of shots. If we define realism in this aspect, trek games would be pointless so there is no criteria one might supply to making a game more like trek or getting weapons and systems to be more trek-like as trek movie and TV based battle is silly and plot drive, not anything like a tactical reality. I don't think there is anything wrong with using probability in game physics. All events are probablistic, but hit ratios should be modified by distance and speed parameters. What I do dislike is variable damage amounts. 1 phaser shot to another should be 100% consistent at the same range.

I would vote for an alteration of SFC3 officer modifiers. Often in SFC3 if one of your officers is hit, you lose significant performace in your ship. Display of ship capabilities on the refit screnn should always be the base rate without officer effects such that you don't overload your ship with capabilities or weapons, etc that loss of officers would not support, so that in battle you are not saddled with an immobile underpowered hulk. Officers should only help, not hinder.

I would personally like to see a game based on F&E that moves over multiple eras. I can hardly imagine a better PvP combat game than SFC unless it were in 3D space, so I think the next logical step would be a pure strat game like F&E that is not Armada. Ugh, I hate RTS game probably because I suck at them.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Holocat on July 11, 2003, 01:41:49 pm

Alright, I can't help myself.

Point 1. The important word in 'science fiction' is FICTION. Star Trek is not hard science. It's not even somewhere near the left field of hard science. Somewhat hard science fiction is much harder than Star Trek. Star Trek is a very soft science fiction. Since we're all here, we all like it anyway. Please keep this in mind when we start talking realism. Technobabble is a Star Trek invented term, and it was invented because most of what Star Trek does dosen't make sense to Physically minded people, and that the writers really don't care.

Point 2. I would address the argument for Delta AV and the importance of Delta AV.

First, Cleaven is right, Delta AV is what, in the area outside this screen known as reality, makes a moving target hard to hit.

Secondly, I would put forward a reason why we will use discreet values instead, at least for the time being.

Whatever happened to the US initative FAADS (Forward Area Air Defense Systems (my apologies, if I got the acronym wrong, i'm just too lazy to check it)) and the several brain childs that came from it, such as the Sergant York?

Well, they failed. Why? The computers we're using can't target a hostile with sufficently intresting Delta AV if their life depended on it.

Calculating delta AV in a real time setting is beyond the brains of most computers, from evidence. Why on earth should we expect a overworked programming team that has to deal with graphical programming, interface design, and an endless horde of changing tools try to create a solution to a problem that the Defense Department hasen't figured out? (contrary to public opinion, I belive that the defence department would like their missles to hit just as much as anyone else)

But I suspect that what Cleaven wants is much simpler, such as a negative modifier to hit dependant on the current value of delta AV.

Even so, there is one tiny problem. This takes computing power. Not alot, but if you program, you'll probably agree that it takes a whole lot more computing than an set of discreet values (IE, a static array(and yes, dammit, ignoring swapping and thread issues, and what ever else you can come up with at a sufficently low level that muddies the waters; gimme a break already.).)

Let's take a simple combat between three ships. Each pair of ships have a different relative delta AV. 6 possible calculations. Not too bad.
A ship launches 3 groups of fighters. Each group of fighters has a different relative value of delta AV. Presuming that they're not traitors and won't attack their carrier, that's 12 more AV calculations.
Oh oh, a ship just let a scatterpack burst. Assuming that both the opposing ships can fire on each of those 6 missles, that's another 12 (assuming we don't take into account the delta AV of the target the missle is hitting when it hits, which would be another 6 calculated on impact)

Regardless whether this is accurate or i'm an idiot and this is a bit off, these calculations take time. Quite a bit of time. Time that isn't spent updating your 19" screen (that usually needs to be updated far faster than I want to think about). Time that's not spent showing you cool blasty graphics, or blaring out cool tunes.

Faking AV? Programmers can do that. Real AV? you're joking, right? RIGHT? And for any of those fans of AV, it's probably faked with a table of discreet values too; There is no change in how it's actually calculated, it's just the *look*

To conclude the delta AV point, it can also be faked with a table of discreet values. Tables are nice, friendly and fast. Calculations that potentially involve irrational numbers are as unfriendly to a base processor as you can get.

Point 3, SFB is not reality. Let's deconstruct another principle: That 1 unit on the tatical screen equals 10'000 km. Has anyone ever wondered if this was true, or took it from the mouth of Sulu that it was?
As much as I like Sulu, I did my own test. I simply timed how long it took at speed X to cover .1 of a unit, or 1 unit if I was moving fast. Then I flew over another ship, and given the time it took, calculated how large that ship should have been.

In this game, if 1 unit indeed equals 10 000 km, a D7, from stem to stern, is about 200km, making it slightly larger than the movies and published 'technical' manuals. (if you wish to take this test, drive slowly and get the other ship to sit still. I found that the distance is usually 0.02 from very rough estimates; i'm not anal enough to use a clock to demonstrate this.)

To put another nail in that coffin, I recall from SFB that a speed of 11 or so is warp 1. Let's be less generous and simply ask the question; If a value of 1 = 10 000 km, do I ever fly faster than light speed?

Light speed is about 3 million meters per second, or 300 000 km per second. this is about 30 units. Has anyone ever crossed 30 units in a second, regardless of set speed? I can't even do it at game speed 11.

Let's come about to the final and first point I made in this post, that the important word in science fiction is FICTION.

Remember, all that you see is an illusion. The shapes made in a graphical design program look good, but the construction of those images are but shortcuts of what one would actually see.

My point? Tatical simulators intrest people NOT because they're realistic; No tatical simulator can be realistic, for if there is a computational shortcut, a way to shave off five lines of code, a method where a value need not be accessed every time, programmers will take it, like it, and be very happy with it, for we will not have the computing power to simulate real life anytime soon. Fake real life? That's just around the corner. Simulate real life? that's a different beast altogether, and what a beast it is.

Tatical simulators intrest people because the rules that they do follow ARE INTERSTING, OPEN AND TASTEFUL.

By intresting I mean the rules played engage one's mind, regardless of complexity; Even checkers is an intresting tatical simulation, if you can find out what the game is truly playing at.

By open I mean that there is no set pattern to winning, no set of procedural steps that always result in what you want. Walking is not an intresting tatical simulation because of this.

Tasteful is where most of the arguments come from, for by tasteful I mean the rules and idioms placed in one's mind, by prejustice, education, or culture, that ONE EXPECTS TO SEE AND POSSIBLY EXPLOIT. To date I have never found a real time tatical wargame satisfactory because of the way infantry is treated; This is simply my opinion.
Others hate the SFC 3 cloak, as they see it as unbalancing, a superweapon if you will. There's nothing in reality that prevents someone having a superweapon (then again, a true superweapon is quite hard to make), but these people expect balance, and expect it in their favor (or at least a bit more in their favor than it is now, a chance if you will).
Some people want some sort of AV. What does this mean? They expect that manuver matters in combat resolution, that a big slow object is easier to hit than a speedy small one. A perfectly logical statement if not scrutinized too far.

Try not to make a monster out of details and cut to what they really want when they say something. Someone wants AV? They want to be able to hit a starbase more easily than a frigate, in the sense that a moving small ship is probably at most times harder to hit than a immoble, enormous starbase. How one decides to implement the change is irrelavent, so long as the effect it has is what one desires.

Should targeting be made harder according to AV or delta AV? I don't think Nanner cares, as long as the effect of a small ship being harder to hit than a big ship is maintained.

Perhaps more time should be spend desconstructing why everyone liked what they did in each game, and why they didn't. Labels are nice, but in this place where nothing exists except the weak magnetic signatures we put labels on, we can become easily confused as to what we really mean.

Remember there's life outside the corners of your screen (or perhaps ON them if you're to lazy to clean),

Holocat.

Note: Most spammy post *ever*

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Captain KoraH on July 11, 2003, 03:46:45 pm

Crimnik, you seem to have lost the point of my post by getting too caught up in the verbiage.

Quote:

Korah posted: "In this post I use the term "SFB players" to mean supporters of SFC1/2/OP and "SFC players" to mean supporters of SFC3." Wrong definition.....

Uhm... Who cares?

Quote:

Most fans of the original games...dont like SFC3.....most new fans dont like the original games....

THAT is the divide.....a third game system will never solve that....

Quote:

But its just too late...the product line has been split....as has the fan base....nothing can change that now...

Quote:

This is the only way to make both fan groups happy...

That is precisely what we are discussing here. A 3rd game system that will fix the rift between the two camps.

[evil]

I know it's wrong, but I just have to do it...

Quote:

Korah posted: "This discussion should not be about "SFB vs SFC", it should be about what the players want. "

We allready did that....Erik took a poll....SFB based SFC won hands down....

How cute! You believe that a poll taken on the Taldren forums is representative of the entire gaming public!

[/evil]

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 11, 2003, 04:23:44 pm

In reference to Holocat's analysis of SFB reality, the point is that starships engage each other at significant standoff distances...i.e. 1000's of km's. In the TV shows for example the D7 was magnified on the viewscreen ONLY. If someone had looked out the window during these battles the D7 would have looked like a point of light moving against the background of stars. Phaser and photon fire would have moved off in the direction of the (D7) point of light with an occasional flash near the point of light.

If you've ever watched NASA select TV during a shuttle / station rendezvous you'll know what I mean. The station and shuttle see each other as nothing but points of light until they are very close to each other....maybe until 5 miles apart.

The point I'm making is that angular velocity does not come much into play with slow moving starships that are 1000's of km apart from each other. Size might have an impact but not much because the effect of distance on targeting is of a much greater magnitude. For example, at a distance of 1000 km there isn't much difference between a frigate and a starbase. Don't let the illusion of the SFC game graphics mislead you.

In this kind of combat what REALLY matters is the quality of your sensors to lock on to a target and resolve it at a great distance. You are also interested in making yourself harder to see or lock-on to. In SFB ECM is a way of disrupting the other guy's sensors so he can't see you as well making you harder to resolve as a target and hit.

The effect of AV was covered by "erratic maneuvers" in SFB. But AV does not have as much effect on targeting at great distances like ECM does, that's why "erratic manuevers" is a small modifier in SFB compared to other ECM effects or special sensors on Scouts.

In SFC3, the emphasis on AV would make sense if we now say starships are highly maneuverable like fighters and fight each other in close quarters. But that is not what was being simulated in SFB and I assume SFC dispite what the board game dimensions or game graphics make it seem. In that sense SFC3 is definately NOT based on SFB and has entirely change the focus of ship to ship combat in space from what originally was described as a "naval" tactical combat simulator. Even in today's modern navy it would be hard for a DDG to "dodge" another DDG. Such is not the nature of "naval" combat. In today's modern Navy ECM is the name of the game....in tomorrow's space battles ECM will be even more of a factor....hence why the military is putting so much money into developing sensors for NMD.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 11, 2003, 04:45:25 pm

Quote:

Ren, I've been saying that for quite a while now

Cleaven is my hero.

BTW, Tracey...you bother because it's good to bother.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tus on July 11, 2003, 04:56:35 pm

here are a few ideas i was tossing around

1. Empire production rates. they could be 1 controled by a computer or 2 be controled in game. i see the 2nd for fleets and all so that they could actually have control over the game

2. more players in game

3. on dyna, the ability to jump into the middle of an engagment. would be fun being able to call back up in

4. a campaign that has multiple senarios instead of just 1 outcome. most of the time when u lose 1 battle that is important, game over. would make the campaign more interesting

5. MORE MISSIONS. on dyna you got a select few missions, I want more

. the more variety the better

6. intergrated voice chat. now that would be good

7. a biggie, works better behind networks.

8. the ability to be a frieghter commander. ya its weird, but it would be fun running around the galaxy making money, fending of pirates and the whole 9 yards

9. i think someone mentioned this earlier, but it would be nice to see your ship dock at a star base, or be in orbit around a planet or somthing

tus

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Lepton1 on July 11, 2003, 06:19:02 pm

Quote:

In reference to Holocat's analysis of SFB reality, the point is that starships engage each other at significant standoff distances...i.e. 1000's of km's. In the TV shows for example the D7 was magnified on the viewscreen ONLY. If someone had looked out the window during these battles the D7 would have looked like a point of light moving against the background of stars. Phaser and photon fire would have moved off in the direction of the (D7) point of light with an occasional flash near the point of light.

If you've ever watched NASA select TV during a shuttle / station rendezvous you'll know what I mean. The station and shuttle see each other as nothing but points of light until they are very close to each other....maybe until 5 miles apart.

The point I'm making is that angular velocity does not come much into play with slow moving starships that are 1000's of km apart from each other. Size might have an impact but not much because the effect of distance on targeting is of a much greater magnitude. For example, at a distance of 1000 km there isn't much difference between a frigate and a starbase. Don't let the illusion of the SFC game graphics mislead you.

In this kind of combat what REALLY matters is the quality of your sensors to lock on to a target and resolve it at a great distance. You are also interested in making yourself harder to see or lock-on to. In SFB ECM is a way of disrupting the other guy's sensors so he can't see you as well making you harder to resolve as a target and hit.

The effect of AV was covered by "erratic maneuvers" in SFB. But AV does not have as much effect on targeting at great distances like ECM does, that's why "erratic manuevers" is a small modifier in SFB compared to other ECM effects or special sensors on Scouts.

In SFC3, the emphasis on AV would make sense if we now say starships are highly maneuverable like fighters and fight each other in close quarters. But that is not what was being simulated in SFB and I assume SFC dispite what the board game dimensions or game graphics make it seem. In that sense SFC3 is definately NOT based on SFB and has entirely change the focus of ship to ship combat in space from what originally was described as a "naval" tactical combat simulator. Even in today's modern navy it would be hard for a DDG to "dodge" another DDG. Such is not the nature of "naval" combat. In today's modern Navy ECM is the name of the game....in tomorrow's space battles ECM will be even more of a factor....hence why the military is putting so much money into developing sensors for NMD.

I don't think I agree with this "distant ships" concept especially when we view TNG, Voyager, and DS9 battles. They are clearly within visual range. Of course you will say this is just for visual effect, but that is the standard set for us. Ships engage at close quarters. That is why the defiant was an unusual ship, fast and small. While I understand and agree with your "naval" analysis, again we are not in the real world here. Whether or not SFB/SFC are on a naval combat model, we want to see ships banging it out face to face, not taking potshots at each other from thousands of kilometers away. I don't dispute viewscreens are often at magnification, but scenes outside of the ships clearly show them in close proximity especially in Wrath of Khan, especially in the nebula for a TMP example.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Lepton1 on July 11, 2003, 06:38:23 pm

Quote:

My point? Tatical simulators intrest people NOT because they're realistic; No tatical simulator can be realistic, for if there is a computational shortcut, a way to shave off five lines of code, a method where a value need not be accessed every time, programmers will take it, like it, and be very happy with it, for we will not have the computing power to simulate real life anytime soon. Fake real life? That's just around the corner. Simulate real life? that's a different beast altogether, and what a beast it is.

Tatical simulators intrest people because the rules that they do follow ARE INTERSTING, OPEN AND TASTEFUL.

Perhaps misunderstand what you mean by a tactical simulation, but the military has based their lives on tactical simulation, be they aircraft simulators or naval simulations.

Additionally, there are a whole host of tactical simulation games that follow physical models with accuracy to a varying degree. IL2 being one of the most physically based aircraft combat games that receives high marks from people who have actually flown the aircraft in question.

But I assume you are speaking of some higher level of organization in these tactical simulations, but it is a sliding scale when you have 20 or more planes in that air and ground units, etc. Sounds pretty tactical to me. But your points are taken.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 11, 2003, 07:45:26 pm

I agree the "distant ships" concept is debatable when watching the shows. Too bad it looks like one ship is right on top of the other and the helmsman is still saying "1000 Km"......confusing isn't it.

Anyway, I guess it's again a matter of preference. If we like our SFC based on SFB then the distant ship concept applies because the SFB rulebooks clearly state the ranges are considerable. This also explains why ECM has so much emphasis in SFB and AV (erratic maneuvering) has less.

If you like the SFC3 system where a destroyer flies like a fighter.....then AV is appropriate.

Personally I own both fighter sims and naval sims but SFC3 is the first sim I own where they've combined the two.

For SFC I prefer a "naval" sim.

Quote:

especially in Wrath of Khan, especially in the nebula for a TMP example.

It's interesting that you mention ST2. That is a masterpiece. Ironically, it supports both our points. Even though the ships are in close proximity, they definately act like massive ships and not fighters. It's also important to note that Kirk made a tactical error letting the Reliant get to point blank range....I believe he said "I got caught with my britches down.....must be getting senile".

As the shows and movies have progress it seems that we see more and more of the fighter-like behaviour in starship movement. Perhaps this is done because it makes the show a bit more exciting......who knows?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 11, 2003, 07:52:21 pm

Quote:

I don't think I agree with this "distant ships" concept especially when we view TNG, Voyager, and DS9 battles. They are clearly within visual range. Of course you will say this is just for visual effect, but that is the standard set for us. Ships engage at close quarters. That is why the defiant was an unusual ship, fast and small. While I understand and agree with your "naval" analysis, again we are not in the real world here. Whether or not SFB/SFC are on a naval combat model, we want to see ships banging it out face to face, not taking potshots at each other from thousands of kilometers away. I don't dispute viewscreens are often at magnification, but scenes outside of the ships clearly show them in close proximity especially in Wrath of Khan, especially in the nebula for a TMP example.

Has anyone ever heard the theatrical expression "convention?" Yeah, when Voyager duked it out with a couple of Kaison ships, they did appeared to be fighting at distances that would make infantry feel closterphobic! The limits of my imagination imploded watching the segment, but I realised that the director made the ships appear that close for a good screenshot. He had to justify the expense of the huge, lavishly produced models.

Babylon V, in contrast, used computer generated models. The director could afford to make the station appear a hundred kilometers off as a Centari cruiser fired on it. The convention here was that B5 had to be depicted large enough for the audience to recognise it.

Back during the US civil war, hot air balloons were used to spot for artillary. Before WWII, battleships were designed with steam catapults to launch aircaft to spot for the big guns. Even then, ships were integrated for combat beyond visual range. Today, nations are equipped with non-strategic missles that have ranges in the hundreds of miles.

Please, do not insult our intellegence by telling us that in the twentieth-fifth century, we should expect faster than light spacecraft to fight at shorter ranges than we are familar with in the present.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 11, 2003, 08:58:00 pm

OK. I think the thread wants to know what we'd like to see in a game? Discussion about why it should or shouldn't be there is fine and I don't think we should discourage it. Debate away

I would like to see more SFB, big surprise, in a 3D enviroment. I know SFB is 2D, but I think it started out that way because your table top is 2D and when someone suggested to add 3D rules, sometime after the "Temporal Elevator", the response was that the rules would be too complicated. In a PC game, that shouldn't be a prob. SO, SFB3D for me.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 11, 2003, 09:00:50 pm

I first want to appologize for my recent rant against SFC3. Not that I don't mean every word that I said, but it's just not helpful.

Back years ago, I found a computer game called "Harpoon." It was a game of modern naval combat based on the only board game more complicated than SFB. It took a very different approach to computer gaming. In Harpoon, the player took the position of a theatre commander, not an individual ship commander. There were no lavish models, only a map, icons, range circles, and windows for controling the units. The game was usually played in compressed time, but could be slowed down to real time when the crunch was on.

With the exception of fixed bases, enemy units did not appear unil detected by friendly units. Having spoted a target, indivifual patrolling units with the propper load-outs would voluntier to intercept. You could either let them, redirect other units, or even lauch aircaft to do the job. It was suprizingly realistic, considdering that a modern US force commander is sitting in front of a CRT, looking at icons on a map.

I could see this as a model for a grand strategy ST game in 3d. Of course, the ruleset would be radically simplified to work, half the SFB rules would be tossed out the window, while new rules concerning sensor would have to be made up. Think of the stategic implications for a cloaking device!

Not that I'm a programmer, but it seems as if it would be easier to code, thus less expensive to produce than SFC.

Just a thought.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Holocat on July 11, 2003, 09:02:09 pm

Quote:

In reference to Holocat's analysis of SFB reality, the point is that starships engage each other at significant standoff distances...i.e. 1000's of km's. In the TV shows for example the D7 was magnified on the viewscreen ONLY. If someone had looked out the window during these battles the D7 would have looked like a point of light moving against the background of stars. Phaser and photon fire would have moved off in the direction of the (D7) point of light with an occasional flash near the point of light.

Logical, consistant, and totally irrelevant

Quote:

In SFC3, the emphasis on AV would make sense if we now say starships are highly maneuverable like fighters and fight each other in close quarters. But that is not what was being simulated in SFB and I assume SFC dispite what the board game dimensions or game graphics make it seem. In that sense SFC3 is definately NOT based on SFB and has entirely change the focus of ship to ship combat in space from what originally was described as a "naval" tactical combat simulator. Even in today's modern navy it would be hard for a DDG to "dodge" another DDG. Such is not the nature of "naval" combat. In today's modern Navy ECM is the name of the game....in tomorrow's space battles ECM will be even more of a factor....hence why the military is putting so much money into developing sensors for NMD.

We can guess until we're blue in face at what space combat will be like. Until it happens, we won't know.

Our university here has the New York Times and the London Times on microfiche since their inception. I don't know about today's navy, but in yesterday's navy, the navy of the iron cruiser (the navy I belive you wish to see simulated AND the navy which I am told SFB is based on), The London Times has many wonderful accounts of how maneauver was important in that age, from the people sailing the ships and firing the guns at the time of world war 1, where most iron cruisers saw action. (they saw action in WW2 as well, but were already more liablities than assets at this point in time)

In addition, you have a certian degree of WW2-ness/early cold war-ness when talking about fighters. In this modern age, it tends to be less the ablity of the aircraft to 'engage at close quarters' then it is to launch it's missles first; They too usually no longer see each other in combat, which is why almost all combat aircraft do not carry direct fire weapons, in favor of more missles.

This is also ALL COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT.

To reiterate the main point in my last, long, spammy, and probably skipped, post, It's FICTION. Do the ships in SFB engage at long ranges? The manuals probably have a statment saying as much, but what this really is, is an explanation for WHY THE RULES ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, NOT THE OTHER WAY 'ROUND.

If ships engaged at ranges of 1000's of km would delta AV be less of a concern? Mabey so. The statement is certainly logical.

Let's get to what's important here. Underneath all the explanation for why you consider delta AV to be moot, your real reasons for wanting things the way they are show:

Quote:

a "naval" tactical combat simulator.

Ah ha! Your reasoning for wanting AV to not be a tatical consideration is that you want this to be a naval game. In the way SFB is a naval game: Big ships, big guns and lots of ka-plowieplow. A true, blue, "Thundering Guns of the 42nd" kind of schtik. This is what you find TASTEFUL.

Let's stick completely to what we think is realistic, and for the sake of argument use the modern navy as an example. If we continue with the "what is realistic in the modern navy" padigram, we get no significant AV. Fine.

We also get no tatical combat, or at least not the tatical combat as described in SFB. You might not like that. In an age where we can hit things we can't even see, we probably won't maneauver back and fourth as we do in SFC and SFB. We'd instead build ships with wider sensors, better missles, and more efficient point defence, as most modern navies do. Guns are usless, unless bombarding shorlines or threatening merchantmen; Missles do the killing. The simplist tatical padigram would be to simply sit on the Dynaverse map and hit one of two buttons: SCAN or FIRE MISSLES. Not terribly exciting.

Of course, in real life there's support from fixed installations, indirect attacking(a VERY basic concept that is poorly implemented in the dynaverse), aircraft, submarines, etc. All this combined can make (and has made) some very intresting STRATEGIC simulators. There have been tatical simulators on modern naval missle combat, but I haven't to date seen any mentioned here.

So why is the WW1 type, "Thundering Guns of the 42nd" of 'naval' simulator more interesting, apparently? A possible and simple answer is this: Blood lust. It's perfectly plausable to make a perfect SFB game with the ranges you describe, where your enemey is a tiny, tiny blip lost in space and the only thing that tells you it's there is your sensors pointing it out to you. When it dies, you probably won't even ever be sure what it was or how it died.

I'm quite sure you won't be satisfied, probably often confused as to whats going on, and swiftly shelve the game.

The reason this game and the universe it's based on has direct fire weapons is because they're MORE PERSONAL. The reason the ships are far larger in SFC than they should be is the same reason SFC 2, OP and SFC 3 have hull damage graphics, and why the game is so much slower that what would be 'realistic,' dictated by SFB or otherwise.

Medium-close range is considered to be 4-1. Would it FEEL nearly as 'close' if one didn't see the ship, let alone see the ship get larger? I highly doubt it.

Point blank range is under 1, or 10000 km to Closer-than-you-want-to-be. Would point blank really feel like point blank if you never saw the ship until the last 0.001 of this point blank range, then have the ship suddenly appear out of nowhere, and before you can *think* has passed you, weapons fired, and is nothing but a blip again? It would be confusing, more than anything else, and not conductive of the tension of being in point blank range for a significant period of time.

SFB may portray the two ships and 1000's of km apart, but for the same reason I accept that SFB has ships 1000's of km apart, I accept that the ships in SFC are much, much closer, because I CAN SEE AND MEASURE them as being alot closer. One could argue that the ships only look larger, but in a universe where nothing is real, this has no more basis than any other argument.

Is there a point to this? Yes, yes there is. Could I have gotten to it sooner? Probably. Will I ever stop writing spammy posts? Probably not.

The points I have tried to demonstrate here are:

1. Maneauver was important in World War 1, and is still of importance (though not so much so for surface ships now, and not even for the fighters that you coin 'engag[ing] at close quarters')

2. Any game manual, monster manual, D&D manual or SFB manual can say anything they want for why something is, however, it may not be nessisarly true, for anything. Including the game it's written in.

3. SFC and SFB tatical combat takes at least a good portion of it's excitement from the direct and visible style of combat, even though this is attributed more to 'Iron Cruiser' ships of World War 1 navies than it is to modern or future combat. Our ablity to see our opponents hurt, or to be able to see our last hurrah as the enemey bears down on us has more entertainment value than simply seeing flashes of light and mostly empty space. Since we can see and hear it, we identify with it more, irrespective of whether it's realistic or not.

4. What you want, deep down, isn't nessisarly the disuse of delta AV. The core of what you want is to preserve the WW1, "Thundering Guns of the 42nd" feel to the game; The SFB feel.

5. What worked in SFB may not work in SFC. Point blank need to feel like point blank, medium range needs to feel like medium range and long range needs to feel like long range. Logically, this would dictate that the ship should look big and scary at point blank, scary but not terribly close at medium and really small at long range. SFB never had to deal with this, as it was a table top, tatical, turn based game. SFC has to deal with this, or you won't get the SFC feel. If that's not what you think the game is portraying, fine. Some of us, however, will judge what the game is portraying by simply looking at it, as opposed to what the manual says. You can tell me until i'm blue that a unit of 1 equals ten thousand kilometers and that we move at warp speed. I can tell you until i'm blue that because I believe the klingon D7 model to be less than a kilometer in length, we are moving at much less speed and fighting at far less distance. Be aware that in this video game, you're no more (or less) right than I am, and no ADB rulebook can prove otherwise.

And now to the last point. I'm not opposed to SFB. The SFB roots of this game is probably what keeps me playing, for I too find the stately and majestic navies of the galaxy an appealing thing. I enjoy the plucky frigates, the stalwart cruisers, and arrogant dreadnoughts of this imaginary age.

However, I am not opposed to delta AV either, (excepting for my previous argument, which centered around "we can fake it with tables and don't need true delta AV")

Wny? SFB is a good, old, and tested system. It's the basic system for how this game works.

But its not the only system out there. Delta AV? Nothing more than another complication in the game. Can it be a useful complication? Possibly. I'm game, at least.

I don't think that little things like delta AV alone can take away the 'majestic ships of a space navy' feel from the game. To be truthful, I don't think I, nor anyone else here, would take too much offense of departing SFB, SO LONG AS THAT IRON CRUISER NAVY FEEL REMAINS.

Let's move away from that argument now and start with my opinions, as I don't yet feel this post is spammy enough and haven't finished with annoying you all.

As demonstrated here, one of the requisites for any new game of the same caliber would be the preservation of a world war one, Iron Cruiser age feel to the game. We all want this, to a greater or lesser degree. It's Violent, Heroic, Tatical and Romatic, all rolled up into a conviently-sized-energy-weapon-of-your-choice.

As with the SFC3 crowd, I have not yet been able to distill what they want. There was talk of AV and delta AV, which brought up a nice point, but probably not the essence of what they desire.

As for me? I'll bring up one important point. Strategy. I want it.

To further explain, let's take a common 'cheat' senario, the I-Have-No-Intention-Of-Killing-You-But-Will-Not-Run-Off-Map senario.
The first point is that I should come up with a better name.
The second point is this situation is considered a 'cheat' because others can do missions while these two are playing around, AND the people involved in this mission cannot be involved in the missions others are playing in the same hex.

To remedy this, I would put forward the idea of 'reinforcements'; Instead of the game allowing people to run missions independently of one another, have a single rolling mission move in a sector. Any new entries would be reinforcements that would arrive as they enter the mission. This both eliminates the reason this is cheating, and may make it an accepted and effective tatic; If one ship distracts while reinforcements arrive to finish the mission, we get more intresting engagements. Certainly we can get such things as meeting engagements, esclating engagments, and ambuscades with no scripting nessisary.

Another point is the complex calculations done for ship assignment in D2. We have no control over them. remedying this would possibly be to allow total transparancy with the D2 engine. For instance, if we had the ablity to simply stop ALL the equasions and set up ship yards exactly to a script, OOB becomes easier. Don't like OOB? Design a script that does all the calculations as before.

The point here is that we want control, and I mean total control over what the D2 does; I want some way to insert a ship into a dock, remove it from a dock and adjust it's price all from a script, and all with perfect predictablity. Ironically, this is easier to program than the current dynaverse: Simply do away with all political, economic and defense calculations and drop them into the hands of the player. Making a system that can interpret a script and implement the economic model one describes in a script is harder, but well within reach of most programmers.

Freighters that mean something. Economy. I want to see trade routes. I want to be able to protect them, to prey on them, and to see the effects of my actions. The routes by which money travels should be as important as the sources of money themselves.

Like or dislike the points I have made here, what I want is a more sophisticated, strategically interesting Dynaverse, one where fleets really do mean fleets, and empires act and feel like empires, complete with population, trade and culture.

Reading these posts had got to be bad on the eyes,

Holocat.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Holocat on July 11, 2003, 09:18:06 pm

Mental note to self: Refrain from making posts that take hours to write and edit; By the time you're done, there will be five more posts and you will serve only to hijack the thread. Again.

Annendum to mental note to self: Refrain from writing posts when sleep deprived and in a literary mood; You ramble too much.

Reply to mental notes to self: Screw off. If I thought before I posted i'd never post

Still not thinking,

Holocat.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 11, 2003, 09:46:48 pm

And a note about 3D simulators, arcs and game balance get very tricky when something like an SFC3 Hawk just has to roll less than 180 deg in an easy turn to double it's broadside. Attacks will involve corkscrew manouvers best accomplished with a joystick.

In such an environment it would probably be necessary to use stored attack "patterns" to perform the complex manouvers required to deliver maximum firepower to a single moving target.

Of course using stored attack plans could add more depth to the 2D version too.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Holocat on July 11, 2003, 09:57:21 pm

Quote:

Quote:

My point? Tatical simulators intrest people NOT because they're realistic; No tatical simulator can be realistic, for if there is a computational shortcut, a way to shave off five lines of code, a method where a value need not be accessed every time, programmers will take it, like it, and be very happy with it, for we will not have the computing power to simulate real life anytime soon. Fake real life? That's just around the corner. Simulate real life? that's a different beast altogether, and what a beast it is.

Tatical simulators intrest people because the rules that they do follow ARE INTERSTING, OPEN AND TASTEFUL.

Perhaps misunderstand what you mean by a tactical simulation, but the military has based their lives on tactical simulation, be they aircraft simulators or naval simulations.

Additionally, there are a whole host of tactical simulation games that follow physical models with accuracy to a varying degree. IL2 being one of the most physically based aircraft combat games that receives high marks from people who have actually flown the aircraft in question.

But I assume you are speaking of some higher level of organization in these tactical simulations, but it is a sliding scale when you have 20 or more planes in that air and ground units, etc. Sounds pretty tactical to me. But your points are taken.

Alright. I didn't mean that reality dosen't make a good tatical game. It can, if that intrests you. My point with that is that reality isn't the only thing, nor is it the primary thing that makes a tatical simulation intresting.

to be flippant, it's intresting because it's intresting. Yes, the complicated and realistic simulators that modern armys posess are powerful training tools, tatical simulations, and are based on reality. But firstly, they're not 'simulating' reality; This implys that you take all the rules of reality and plug them into the computer as best you can. We don't have the computing power for this. We 'fake' reality. In programming, as long as what you see on the screen is the result you want, how you get it dosen't matter; As long as you can imagine that the polygon is a tank shell, and the tank shell does everything it's supposed to do according to the specifications of the simulation, you're done. This does not imply that the polygon will do everything the real tank shell will do if you simulated real life. As we get better and better at faking it, it becomes easier to imagine what happens is what would really happen. Don't be fooled by that. It's perfectly plausable that the people that made the game did, indeed, make it so it would reflect reality. However, even if they did, it probably won't in every situation, though programmers of this genre continue to push the boundary.

Yes, we have tatical simulations based on reality. We also have tatical simulations in the guise of chess, checkers, go and henfatafl. Why are these also tatical simulations in my book? Because they do 2 things; They're intresting and they're open. When one thinks for a moment, the only two things needed to demonstrate basic military principle is a game that is intresting and open. My first spammy post contains what I mean by intresting and open.

Anyway, I better cut back before I write for another two hours... AGAIN... for a third time...

Holocat.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 11, 2003, 10:44:09 pm

First of all, any new SFC should include all eras from Enterprise to Voyager.

I'm not happy with the approach to TNG, the whole AV thing leave me cold. The music.... I'm not going into this.

In any case, music, skins, control layout, number of races, and gameplay all need to be improved for a future SFC TNG game. Because of radical changes in technology and whims of the Studioes, it must be very different from SFB. Having said that, there needs to be a blend from TOS to TNG, but something that the basic game engine can handle smoothly.

Of course, TOS part of the game has to be something that the whole SFB community can live with. Starting with TMP, the technology and gameplay should come into line with TNG. The Klingon K'T'iniga should be a devistatingly powerful front line vessel when introduced, right at the end of the TOS timeline and a weak attrition unit at the beginng on TNG. In SFC2/OP, the ship is a mere shadow of what it should be.

TNG should have at least two eras, although ship designs and loadouts should have greater longevity that TOS. Not only because SFB did so much work with TOS, but because starship architechture has matured. A Galaxy Class Starship would no whimp at the end of the timeline.

Tholians, Andromidans, WYN, LDR, Cardassians, Breen, and the Dominion should all be included. The Cardassians and Breen should be phased in where TOS leaves off. Cardassians should be a tech level behind the rest of the Galaxy, but working overtime to make up for it. The Dominion does not arrive until the end of the timeline. Of course, certain races should degrade over timeline. The Mirak and Lyrans should destroy each other with continuous warfare. Hydrans and Tholians and Hydrans peacefully fade away. In the SFB storyline, the ISC suffered the brunt of the Andromidan invasion, and was diminished to a third rate power. Pirates should be reduced to a single race. Eight pirate cartels in OP is just too much of the same.

The Dynaverse, while much improved in SFC TNG, still needs improving. I would like to see fleets given controls on private servers. Admirals could have mail boxes for orders, perhaps choose ship types to invest in, surpreme commanders and councils could make treaties (and secretly plan to break them.) perhaps even trade technology. The Klingo-Romulan Allience turned Romulus into a power to be reckoned with. The Romulans had actually attacked the Federation with sublight vessels in Kirk's day! The Federation bought technology from the Hydrans, Mirak, and Gorn. That would be a headache to mod!

If I didn't ask for enough, it would be cool to have the server kit loaded with the game. The server should also be designed to access directly, by-passing GS.

AI intelegence should be made variable, from easy to nearly invincable.

Well, that's what I think the Doomsday Version of SFC should be.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 12, 2003, 12:48:49 am

I'd like to note something that Hyper already did: Many of the things that are listed as "improvements" in SFC3 are in SFB, and are not in SFC1 and 2 due to design decisions.

Also, there's already an excellent strategic game in the SFB universe that any future Dwhatever product could benefit from drawing on, and that's F&E (Federation and Empire).

I've had to read a lot of uninteresting junk about AV above, and this is a simple fact. People like myself hate AV for 2 basic reasons:

1. It seems ludicrous that weapons that travel at FTL speeds think about AV. You fire and they strike the target nearly instantly. C is 3x10 to the 8th power in meters per second. Do some math and figure out how fast that is. Combat ranges are basically in a area where you fire a weapon and it hits the target nearly at the same time, even with high speed involved. However, that's a pretty minor reason. It's a game. You can have anything you want, reality is a joke in game terms. Sort of like cartoon physics. It's fun to watch, but I'm not going to walk out and drive my car into a wall.

The real reason is:

2. When I play certian types of games, I want certian things. Fighter games like Falcon 4.0 or something like Freespace 2 (excellent game) I expect to manuver to where a target has low AV and hammer them. The position of getting behind them is very important. I expect that - it's what I was looking for when I bought the game. When I play a game like SFC I expect to use energy management, sensors, weapons, etc to pound ships into submission. Position is important, but only to attack vunerable spots, not to gain a shooting solution where the enemy cannot avoid my fire (don't confuse my last statement with the execution of a particularly well planned attack, something like capping the "T" of an enemy battle line in a naval gunnery simulation. I refer specifically to the concept pertaining to AV). A good example of this is Freespace again. While a fighter game, it has large warships that engage in battles against each other (where you assist in your fighter). They're spectacular to watch frequently. The captial ships move into range of each other and start hammering each other with the most weapons they can put on target. I've always thought that an interesting game would be to have a game like freespace or wing commander, but where you commanded the capital ship instead of the fighters. SFC is that kind of game experience, at least for me, and for many, many others. That's why SFC3 is so unliked by us. It's not the game we want to play. It seems to try to be both at the same time; it's feel is...wrong. The result is that fans of both styles of games are unhappy. If we wanted a AV style game, there are far better games to go and play with that in there. I recommend freespace 2 myself, it's great

. In short, a starship/navy ship game should play like one, while a fighter game should play like one. Perhaps Taldren could look into a Starfleet Fighter Command? That might be interesting, esp if tied into a version of SFC.

The planning, the management of resources, the move/countermove of sensors, the application of weapons at ranges that maximize your attack and minimize his counterattack, that's what I play for. It's true that AV type games have some of these similar elements. However, it's not the same.

The reason that this is important is that when you create a game, you should think of what kind of people that you are creating it for. In truth, SFC is a grognard's game. It's intelligence is taking the hard stuff the grognard's love and making it's execution fairly simple so it can be enjoyed by a much wider audience. What I think Taldren should do in any future products is simply acknowledge this fact, and add in everything that a grognard could love, while thinking up excellent and clever ways to make it accessible to a wider audience. That's the challenge, and the problem IMO.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 12, 2003, 06:20:15 am

Yeah, like shield strength numbers and a consistant clock that accurately indicates the current impulse and turn...

Chaos

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: SSCF-Patterson on July 12, 2003, 08:52:02 am

Now,

As I was who started this post, some of you think I started this to watch the arguments and fan the flames of SFB vs SFC 1,2,OP vs SFC 3. WRONG.

My overall goal has to been produce a post where everyone could post what they would like to see, what works what doesn't and combine everything into a nice little package that we could present to Taldren et al and say:

"We the community have discussed, debated, and concluded that we have a proposal for an improvement to the SFC series that the community feels would be the ultimate game that would be enjoyable for the community and profitable to the company."

Remember for those of us who are Babylon 5 fantics remember the cancellation of "Into the Fire" by Serria.

I am who a Star Trek fantic does not want any future games go the way of "Into the Fire"

Remember, the quote from Interplay when SFC 1 started it all:

"Starfleet Command will be both familiar and different to you as well. The design team members are long-time SFB fans and players. We have followed closely the spirit, if not the letter, of the Doomsday ruleset, but we had to make changes to have a better and workable computer game. Board games and computer games are obviously different and require a different mind-set to design and create."

I do believe that Interplay came to the realization that they couldn't transfer SFB completely and properly to the computer.

But when SFC 3 came along so did the debates. Something new was tried and some (or a lot depending on your view point) didn't like the way it done.

So in order to improve and present a idea to a company for a improved SFC game, we have to offer a suggestion for a game that could be produced for everyone to enjoy.

Am I tilting at windmills? Yes
Am I possibly fighting a losing battle? - Perhaps
Do I have the messiah complex? - No

But I do firmly believe that if we as a community get together we might come up with a game that will appeal to all.

Now, I would like to make a proposal:

This post wasn't a contest, but I wanted to see what type of responses I'd would get so as to get a good cross section of the community to sit down and help design a better game.
I will ask members to get together a help sit down and hash ideas for the production for a game which could appeal to everyone.

So please bear with me and I should have a list posted by the end of today Saturday.

Regards to all.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: mbday on July 12, 2003, 09:36:12 am

Now one thing that I think can be done to make every one happy is set the game up so that a play can play the way they would like to.
I.E. If player A wants a SFC3 look to there game then thay can have it.l If play B wants a SFC1 or SFC2 or SFCOPthen they can have it with the ECM ECCM and the like. Now the thing is every one wouldstill be useing ECM and ECCM but the ones that want a SFC3 look would see what ECM and ECCM area doing but they would not have any control over the power toeather one of them. But Play B get all of the control he or she wants. I Think this would be a good set up.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 12, 2003, 09:53:49 am

As far as doing away with the D6 to determine hit/damage probability. The formula has to be kept simple enough that the player, not just the computer, has an idea of how much damage can be expected at different ranges, etc... As an example, in SFB you can pretty well estimate the damage that you're going to get/give at a particular range. This allows you to decide at what range(s) you want the battle to take place at. Much of the tactics then revolve around maneuver to get into your desired firing position and keep your opponent out of their's.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Holocat on July 12, 2003, 10:41:41 am

Hey, it's me again,

Alright, here's what we have so far, under all the arguments about SFB, SFC 3 and reality.

The SFBers want a game that contains the essence of the majestic navy ship. Slow and stately behmoths that approach, maneauver, and crash with all the glory of the greek gods fighting, and all the fire and brimstone of hades below.

Nannerslug stated that he liked AV. He wants interesting tatical difference between a small, fast ship, and a big slow ship. I don't think this is unreasonable. Stop responding to the label and concider what has been said, gentlemen.

I would like intresting strategic level play. F&E is a good start, but I'm aware of many other padigrams out there that can fit the bill, and may be better suited to gameplay then hexmapping. I'll explore these in a later post.

What Day is insinuating in the above post is multilevel control; There's no reason we can't have BOTH sliders and numbers, and switch between them. It's been done, it's useful, and it may satisfy both the people that rather have it simplified or the grognards who want exactly X going to their engines.

Other often stated items include primarily three things:

1 Theme. We got it in SFC 1, and most of us want it back. It adds romance. Most of us want multi era theme too.

2 Grand Melee/reinforcements. Most of us want to be able to join missions in a dynamic, instead of static fashion. Certainly this will add tatical and strategic interest.

3 Tatically and strategically useful fleets. More integration between elements of a fleet, rather than the continual duels we have today.

And that's about it.

We have not heard extensively from the SFC3 community about what they want. I could probably come up with strong evidence that this is usually because they're put on defensive by unrelenting attacks from the SFB crowd. With all due respect, SHUT UP PLEASE. Before you automatically go off gunning at AV or whatever else may stroke you 'grognards' the wrong way, try thinking first.

Nanner stated he liked AV because it creates tatical difference between small fast things and slow large things.

Rod O'Neal stated that You do have small target modifiers in SFB. I believe the applies to fighters, and am unsure of ships.

I don't believe that SFB can't create tatical difference between small and large objects. I don't believe that most of this argument was nessisary, and am fairly sure it was divisive.

The SFBers here have spoken, and I have probably distilled their wishes correctly. Maintain that good old navy feel. Improve it, if you can.

The Peoples that favour SFC3 have not yet spoken. Stop choking them. I think, if we all STOP, LISTEN, and THINK ABOUT WHAT IS SAID, we can come up with something that will please both crowds.

Any SFC3ers with good ideas might want to post now,

Holocat.

Note: The reference to the 'grognards' in no way targets any one person or post here. Rather, it encompasses the entire agressive attitude across many of the posts seen. If you feel insulted, my apologies. I do feel that you're trying to suppress opinion however.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Holocat on July 12, 2003, 10:44:58 am

Quote:

As far as doing away with the D6 to determine hit/damage probability. The formula has to be kept simple enough that the player, not just the computer, has an idea of how much damage can be expected at different ranges, etc... As an example, in SFB you can pretty well estimate the damage that you're going to get/give at a particular range. This allows you to decide at what range(s) you want the battle to take place at. Much of the tactics then revolve around maneuver to get into your desired firing position and keep your opponent out of their's.

This leads to the intresting question as to whether you wish a random factor in what your hit and how hard you hit. If so, generally how do you think it should be determined? If not, why not?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 12, 2003, 12:18:39 pm

I think the reason that so many SFBer post and SFC3er don't, is because the SFBers have stopped playing and are demanding thier game back. Some, like Rod O'Neal, are working hard to insert things into SFC2/OP things that should have been there all along. Sorry for shooting SFCer down, but we think Activision is behind them 100% and doesn't give a hang about what we want.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on July 12, 2003, 12:36:08 pm

Quote:

I think the reason that so many SFBer post and SFC3er don't, is because the SFBers have stopped playing and are demanding thier game back. Some, like Rod O'Neal, are working hard to insert things into SFC2/OP things that should have been there all along. Sorry for shooting SFCer down, but we think Activision is behind them 100% and doesn't give a hang about what we want.

There are still a few hundred of us playing....and for the record....we wanted to see the game evolve....but many had assumed it to be a gradual evolution instead of the huge jump to SFC3....

I for one...think the product line should stay split....but sell both expansions in one package....

Galaxies at War(based on SFC2/OP code and ruleset) and Era's of Conflict (based on the OP/SFC3 code and ruleset)......

Everyone could be happy with one sale.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 12, 2003, 02:46:24 pm

Quote:

Nannerslug stated that he liked AV. He wants interesting tatical difference between a small, fast ship, and a big slow ship. I don't think this is unreasonable. Stop responding to the label and concider what has been said, gentlemen.

Again, SFC design decision. SFB simulates this by adding in small target modifiers and nimble ship bonuses. These in EAW and OP are either only partially implimented or not implimented at all. Why don't we try something like this first? AV represents a revolutionary change in the way combat works, and as my first post outlines, many, including myself, despise it.

Quote:

I would like intresting strategic level play. F&E is a good start, but I'm aware of many other padigrams out there that can fit the bill, and may be better suited to gameplay then hexmapping. I'll explore these in a later post.

No question. The key is the identification of what things can change for the better, because of the power of the computer, and what things can be changed for the sake of change. Do the first not the second. That's why I mentioned F&E originally. I would not propose porting it over without making some of the first kind of changes. However, what F&E DOES have, and in a lot of detail, is economic and production controls. These are the kinds of things I think everyone wants in any future expansion of this product line. Another such change would be removing the die break points that Nanner hates so much. However, I'll add this caveat to this: The reason that people like me like these is that we can easily tell at whatever range what the likely outcome of any attack will be. Any such replacement must have this as well.

Quote:

What Day is insinuating in the above post is multilevel control; There's no reason we can't have BOTH sliders and numbers, and switch between them. It's been done, it's useful, and it may satisfy both the people that rather have it simplified or the grognards who want exactly X going to their engines.

Absolutely. This again goes back to design, where I stated in my first thread that SFC is a grognard's game, but it's key to success was making it appear on the surface that it is not. To take another look at this, think of the way batteries work. Or rather, don't work. What if you could select an option from a drop down like menu (anyone that has played Neverwinter Nights or Diablo will know what I mean) to charge heavy weapons X and Y from batteries? You would then have X seconds of charge until you ran out of power. Or how about a selection to automatically reinforce shields from batteries upon taking a hit on a shield that would cause internal damage? What about a selection from a menu that would allow you to automatically match ecm from eccm? Your science officer then would attempt to carry out your orders - and how skilled he is would determine how successful he is. Would that be interesting? I think it would and I also think I'm not alone.

Quote:

Other often stated items include primarily three things:

1 Theme. We got it in SFC 1, and most of us want it back. It adds romance. Most of us want multi era theme too.

2 Grand Melee/reinforcements. Most of us want to be able to join missions in a dynamic, instead of static fashion. Certainly this will add tatical and strategic interest.

3 Tatically and strategically useful fleets. More integration between elements of a fleet, rather than the continual duels we have today.

And that's about it.

No question. And 1 other very important thing: The ability to have more than 3 humans per side in a mission. Say, 5 at least. And for god's sake, it has to be stable.

I know this is hard but wouldn't large scale battles be interesting?

Quote:

We have not heard extensively from the SFC3 community about what they want. I could probably come up with strong evidence that this is usually because they're put on defensive by unrelenting attacks from the SFB crowd. With all due respect, SHUT UP PLEASE. Before you automatically go off gunning at AV or whatever else may stroke you 'grognards' the wrong way, try thinking first.

No one is stopping them. It would be nice if someone other than Nanner would do so. Nanner has a frequently...exasperating attitude. I almost could see him as a part of the band of the Titanic as it sinks, but I think he has more sense than that

Has it occured to you that perhaps they mostly read posts in the D3 forum and not here?

Quote:

Nanner stated he liked AV because it creates tatical difference between small fast things and slow large things.

Rod O'Neal stated that You do have small target modifiers in SFB. I believe the applies to fighters, and am unsure of ships.

I don't believe that SFB can't create tatical difference between small and large objects. I don't believe that most of this argument was nessisary, and am fairly sure it was divisive.

It depends on the size of the ship. Generally, anything the size of a frigate or above is thought by the ruleset to be too large to gain such a bonus. However, it does apply to all police ships and small frigates (E3, G2) and PF's.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 12, 2003, 02:50:33 pm

Quote:

Now,

As I was who started this post, some of you think I started this to watch the arguments and fan the flames of SFB vs SFC 1,2,OP vs SFC 3. WRONG.

Very true. However, slight problem. Before you can create a new game and figure out what kind of features you want in it, you must first decide what kind of game it will be. This in essence is what the SFC2 v 3 arguments are about. The game systems appeal to different types of people IMO and are in large respect incompatible with each other.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: NannerSlug on July 12, 2003, 03:04:45 pm

i think crimmie is right to a degree.. i dont think a split product line can be supported - but it is the best way to resolve certain issues.

regarding ths:

Quote:

Again, SFC design decision. SFB simulates this by adding in small target modifiers and nimble ship bonuses. These in EAW and OP are either only partially implimented or not implimented at all. Why don't we try something like this first? AV represents a revolutionary change in the way combat works, and as my first post outlines, many, including myself, despise it.

sfb is based still on range breaks and its all pure die role.. the "modifiers" again, are based on die role - and most of the stuff is based on turn modes and what not.. which make perfect sense for a board game - but is completely different from what i am talking about - and those modifiers apply only to fighters (the +1 ecm shift). this still does not do what i am talking about/seeking..

sfb does not cover:

*mass/turn mode or speed of a ship based upon its weapon load out. if you are a fed you are with CAs being slow turning ships on their D class turn radius.. even if your ship only has phasers.. it doesnt matter if i am in a CB or CA.. also, all ships cannot go faster than speed 31.

*tactical warp. this is more of an sfc thing - which is what we are talking about - sfc1/2/op seem to be based more on impulse speed - not warp speed. i love tactical warp in sfc3.

*true power managment. this might be more of an sfc oriented situation. before, best thing i could do is slide the capacitor down and prioritize power. in sfc3 - i can actually move power around. i am a power managment nut - i wish there were more power managment tools in sfc3 - down the exact system/weapon.

*the ability to overload or underload ALL weapons.

im sure there are a few other things ive left out.. and i know there are many things/details that sfb has that sfc3 does not in terms of fighters, missiles and rules.. but that is fine.. remember, its all about preferences. there are things in my mind that sfc3 does a lot better than sfc2 - and a few things that sfc2 does better.. (most of it has to do with detail work)

if sfc3 had some more detail work did it - like mass restrictions per hard point, first year available, last year available and a few more arcs - it would be a vastly different game.

whether or not people like it, it still comes down to a matter of preference. neither side really can claim superiority simply because it really is all about preferences - but thats what make these games unique.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 12, 2003, 04:00:52 pm

Quote:

sfb does not cover:
*mass/turn mode or speed of a ship based upon its weapon load out. if you are a fed you are with CAs being slow turning ships on their D class turn radius.. even if your ship only has phasers.. it doesnt matter if i am in a CB or CA.. also, all ships cannot go faster than speed 31.

Well since customization is tightly controlled by the SFB refit rules you don't have HUGE mass changes within the same class between varients. There should not be a significant difference in a CB vs. a CA when it comes to overall maneuvering performance. They are both based on the same hull and use essentially the same warp engines. The hull and engines of a ship is most of the mass compared to the ship systems. The "delta" in mass due to a system upgrade would not change the overall mass of the ship enough to change the class's overall maneuvering performance.

If these system mass deltas were huge then you're talking about a significant overhaul. Kind of like going from an old Constitution class CA to the Enterprise class CA from TMP. You required a refit that takes months and months to complete before you would see significant mass changes. Essentially you should only see significant mass differences between classes, not within the same class.

This is why I have such a big beef with ship customization in SFC3. It seems kind of absurd to yank out a warp core and slap in a new one between missions. I can see minor refits between missions, but not overhauls.

Without customization we would not have to worry about significant turn mode differences between anything but classes.

As far as speed 31 is concerned....what's the big deal? In Star Trek you can't go faster than warp 10.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 12, 2003, 04:56:53 pm

I'll add that the example of Mechwarrior is similar to this. Mechwarrior allows you to slap whatever you want basically on your mech. In BATTETECH, however, this is impossible. A refit or rebuild of this nature would take months and a significant amount of cash. The only time that this is considered is usually in mercenary units, since they own their own rides. The other examples are Omnimechs. These are quite similar to option mounts in SFB on pirates, in that you can only put certain configuations/equipment in certian places.

Which is superior? Well, I've always liked battletech.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: SSCF-Patterson on July 12, 2003, 08:12:25 pm

Now here we go:

I said before I would read the posts and come up with a cross section of people to help with the primary aim of this thread. And that is to come up with a ideas for the next SFC game.

I feel from the posts I've read would best represent a good and fair cross section of the community:

Cpt. Chaos, Ifrit, Tulwar, Nannerslug, KoraH, Cleaven, TraceyG, Hypergol, Holocat, and SSCF-Day.

I would ask that the following consider the following proposal.

That the above meantion members of the Star Trek/SFC gaming community, get together, discuss and come up with a game proposal that will appeal to all members of the Star Trek/SFC Community.

Now some still wonder why I am tilting at windmills here. Well, some of meantioned that seperate games should be produced to satisfy the two camps that have sprung up since the inception of SFC 3. However, simple economics dictate that no company will produce a two seperate games to satisfy two smaller buyer bases. So in other words, unless a producer can turn a profit, it will not be in their best intrest to produce anything for that particular buyer base.

I am still convinced that if we present a proposal from a unified community (not to meantion buyer base for the company) then the SFC series and Star Trek games as a whole will continue to be produced.

Those distingused members that I've asked to participate could you please let me know in this thread.

Regards to all.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 12, 2003, 09:55:55 pm

Quote:

simple economics dictate that no company will produce a two seperate games to satisfy two smaller buyer bases. So in other words, unless a producer can turn a profit, it will not be in their best intrest to produce anything for that particular buyer base.

This thread got me thinking about the implications of the recent Activision dumping of their Trek liscense. I even made a separate thread to document my thoughts.

I believe there is a good chance that economics will again split the Trek liscense up and several companies will again own "parts" of the Trek universe and more than one company will be making Trek games in the future. No company will want to buy up the entire Trek liscense after what Activision found...i.e. it's too expensive to own it all for what you are going to get back from the games you make. It's better to buy just a portion of the liscense for a cheaper price because the games you make have a better chance of providing a return that exceeds what you paid for the liscensing.

For this reason I think it's almost certain that the SFC product line would have to slit if more SFC games are made.....with the SFC1,2,OP SFB based flavor going to whoever owns the TOS liscensing and the SFC3 TNG flavor going to whoever owns the TNG liscensing.

Based on the sales figures and on what remains most popular today I would venture a bet that if there is anymore SFC made it will be of the previous SFB based flavor. SFC3 just didn't do well enough for a company to continue that line of SFC.

So perhaps we should refocus this thread on what aspects of SFB, i.e. Andros and Tholians, and Federation and Empire, should be encorporated into a future SFC4 Galaxies at War. This game is more likely to be produced based on today's liscensing situation.

Yes I'm serious here. Think about it.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: SSCF-Patterson on July 12, 2003, 10:06:47 pm

Read your thread Mr Hypergol. Is it possible? Yes

But would you be intrested in participating on the proposal I've intended?

Even if the split you propose occurs, the new company may still want feedback. And if we go with a template it stands a better chance.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 12, 2003, 10:25:46 pm

Quote:

But would you be intrested in participating on the proposal I've intended?

Sure. I'll provide input as requested. I just think we need to focus our efforts on what is most likely......i.e. continuing the SFC1,2,OP line. The SFC3 line is a clear dead end with our current liscensing situation.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 12, 2003, 11:22:14 pm

Quote:

Quote:

As far as doing away with the D6 to determine hit/damage probability. The formula has to be kept simple enough that the player, not just the computer, has an idea of how much damage can be expected at different ranges, etc... As an example, in SFB you can pretty well estimate the damage that you're going to get/give at a particular range. This allows you to decide at what range(s) you want the battle to take place at. Much of the tactics then revolve around maneuver to get into your desired firing position and keep your opponent out of their's.

This leads to the intresting question as to whether you wish a random factor in what your hit and how hard you hit. If so, generally how do you think it should be determined? If not, why not?

Yes, there has to be a random factor. If not then you end up with, "Player A flying Ship B executes maneuver C against Ship D and wins EVERYTIME. No matter what the Capt. of ship D does." How do you put it in? Well you make the weapons have a chance of missing entirely, and have variable damage is how they do it in SFB. If the game isn't based on SFB then do it some other way, if you'd like.
For the record, I don't have a problem with 1000 Trek games being made that have nothing to do with SFB. I probably won't play them, but you can make, and sell as many as you want to. I just want to play SFB on my computer. Before anyone tells me to join a PBEM SFB group, that's not what I mean.
When I first played SFC2, I didn't have SFC1, I was estatic that I could actually play SFB on my computer. After a time though, I started wanting to use tactics that weren't included in the game. Only a very small portion of SFB is included in SFC. I for one would be willing to pay for expansions that added more of the rules to SFC. A couple of times a year release an expansion that adds whatever Taldren can manage to code into the game in that period of time. If they wanted to draw a from a bigger base than the fans like me who are willing to pay for incremental improvements then they'd probably have to add races etc... It would be more work and I'm not sure if they could charge enough and sell enough to make it worthwhile to do.
If what you're interested in are ideas for a completely new game, that's OK too. Just tell me/us and I will quit wasting your time. No inference or sour grapes intended.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: NannerSlug on July 12, 2003, 11:39:04 pm

its just as dead as any other option hyper.. in fact, i would say that sfc3 is a more open ended option simply because its more modable.. but hey, that is another opinion.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 12, 2003, 11:39:22 pm

The biggest problem here is a matter of who actually owns what. I can count the interests of at least five groups being involved here, when you start discussing new products based on old ones. Paramount/Viacom, ADB, Interplay, Activision and Taldren. There may be others. I would make sure everybody in this parade has a golf umbrella.

(and a good pair of wellies)

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: mbday on July 13, 2003, 03:23:21 am

I ready to do what it takes to get somehting ready to show to any company for the next SFC or Star Trek game.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 13, 2003, 05:05:38 am

Something that would please everybody?

That would be difficult. SFC3 was stripped of everything I liked about SFC, yet some people really enjoy it. My lack of understanding of the appeal of SFC3 makes it impossible for me to concieve of something that will work for that camp.

The fact that the studios did not feel any complution to maintain continuity between TOS and TNG does not help. An example would be basic starship architechture. The Klingon K'T'Inga fired photon torpedoes from the same place the D-7 had its main deflector dish,and the Reliant had no main defector while the Enterprise still devoted a huge section to this device.

The only way I could see a streamlined interface work for me is if it automated functions, rather than eliminating functions. The match speed function in SFC3 was an actual improvement. The fact that once you reinforced a specific shield, you had to reinforce a specific shield for the rest of the mission did just the opposet.

The one aspect of SFC that always bothered me was that it was too much of a first person shooter. The opperation of any single ship in close combat is far too involved for much in the way of fleet control. The only way to improve this aspect is by actively promoting fleets.

As soon as SFC came out, people started organizing fleets. The fleets started using BC or RW to communicate in game, so more complicated tactics could be employed. A Dynaverse where participating fleets could have greater control of their empires do much to these ends.

I have only seen one disparaging comment about a Harpoon-like game, but I don't know if anybody could concieve of the difficultly of juggling hundreds of starships in dozens of battle groups. I don't know if it would be possible to do that in multi-player.

An improved Dynaverse could actually do this without making a game for us hard-core war-gamers. Create rules for information sharing and detection. While between missions, individual captains could choose between active scanning, passive scanning, and using a cloak. Information could be shared between units, so a scout could stalk targets for main battle units. It would be nice to know where your starbases are, and not blunder around the map blindly. Territory could be conquered by simply setting up a listening post. The number, and typed of missions would be defined by what was actually out there to fight. One should not have to play a mission in unguarded space to take it.

The player should have the option of choosing between commander's, captain's, and admiral's rulesets, plus difficultly factor. This would allow the uninitiated to work thier way up to the "real game."

I would like to see the timeline between TOS an TNG brought togeter. I would like to see the game hinted at in SFC2, i.e. SFC GAW. If I had that game, I would be very open to a TNG game that threw the SFB rules out the window, but not one as poorly executed as SFC TNG.

I'm trying not to flame here, but what I wish to get acorss is that my most serious problem with SFC3 has nothing to do with rulesets, AV or the TNG setting. Music, skins, and stabily (especially single player stablity) are important quality issues. Also, If there is to be an "all new" game, it needs to be a new game. SFC3 looked to me as if somebody had merely slapped Activion's Starship Creator into a stripped-down version of OP, with a control lay-out that appeared to be avoiding copyright infringments more than providing playablity. I hated having to put the disk in my computer to play the game. Putting that disk in my computer made me feel dirty, like I had been used. Of course I was disappointed that it meant there would be no GAW, but I'm angry about paying $50.00 for a game that doesn't even run with my SiS AMD chipset!

The major driver, from Activision's veiwpoint is that they want to stay current with what is showing on television and in the theatres. Their timing for a TNG game was a bit late. Marketing was too far ahead of development. SFC TNG was released unfinnished without allowing Taldren to produce the game that had obviously been planned. They simply combined assets to put together a product they could sell in short order, at the end of TNG's run.

A publisher should recognise that SFC did not come into being over-night. It is based on a boardgame that has survived over a quarter of a century. ST TNG will be in syndication for decades. This means ST products will be markable for the forceable future. I think Taldren was working alone these lines, and deleberately left a number of things out of SFC2 so that they would include them in future titles. A wise buisness move for Activision would have been to continue that line, learning to blend the rulesets that they created for their own games into SFC as it matured. Hades! Even and old SFBer like me would want to drive a Galaxy-Class cruiser, eventually. The game would grow slowly as more markets opened. Of course, players would drift away, but aunts and uncles would buy the new title for nieces and nephews.

It appears that OP was meant to be SFC3 GAW, but was rushed into production while Taldren still had the rights to produce it. It appeared to the SFC community as "half a game," so few people bought it. It should spent more time in production. SFC TNG should hve spent a lot more time in production. To be fair, SFC3 is very good for the speed at which it was produced. Whatever Taldren does next, should not be rushed!

What could I say about a product that would please both camps? I only know what I want. I want a good strategic game. I want to order ships around, or just be a part of that. I want a game where I have to think about more than the target I'm aiming at. The last thing I want is a game that is more of a first person shooter. There are other titles that do that.

Did I mention that I want SFC GAW?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 13, 2003, 06:32:24 am

I'm surprised to see comments about music. First thing to do after starting any game is go to the configurations, turn down/off the music, and make sure the voice comms program works.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 13, 2003, 07:31:31 am

Hey.....if we make a "Harpoon-like" game in the Star Trek universe, can we call it...."Photon"?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 13, 2003, 11:49:44 am

How about "Federation and Empire?"

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 13, 2003, 11:52:37 am

Cleaven might not like the music, but it's a big deal for me. When I took the bridge of a Lyran ship, there was no turning back!

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: IndyShark on July 13, 2003, 12:32:25 pm

I'd like to see the bording party actions changed. Capturing enemy ships is too easy. Once they are badly damaged, you can beat on them until 2 marines are left and capture them as easy as you please.

I'd like to see each ship have built in defences such that a BC has "14" ghost marines. You can capture her, but you better send over 20 marines to do it. Ghosts don't fight (but on board defenses sometimes kill), but they make larger ships harder to capture. Having said that, PP for capturing shoudl be increased and there is always a chance the ship will blow up. It would be nice to have a sensor reading on how many crewman are left and if the ship still has any atmosphere left. If the ship loses life support and atmosphere, you can tow her home, but your marines can't capture her unless they wear spacesuits 24x7. (Not popular with the marines since you can't smoke cigars...)

Oh, and Klingon ships should be capable of mutiny like SFB. That was a cool rule and made the battle interesting until the bitter end.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Lepton1 on July 13, 2003, 02:21:05 pm

Off-topic a bit or alot. Someone mentioned Harpoon 3 on this thread I think. So I checked it out and downloaded the demo. Seems pretty complicated. Is it worth wading in deeper into the pool if I am not looking for a spot-on immersion sim like this one? Can someone recommend a PC based naval board game if there is one?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: The_Infiltrator on July 13, 2003, 03:17:19 pm

Quote:

I'd like to see the bording party actions changed. Capturing enemy ships is too easy. Once they are badly damaged, you can beat on them until 2 marines are left and capture them as easy as you please.

I'd like to see each ship have built in defences such that a BC has "14" ghost marines. You can capture her, but you better send over 20 marines to do it. Ghosts don't fight (but on board defenses sometimes kill), but they make larger ships harder to capture. Having said that, PP for capturing shoudl be increased and there is always a chance the ship will blow up. It would be nice to have a sensor reading on how many crewman are left and if the ship still has any atmosphere left. If the ship loses life support and atmosphere, you can tow her home, but your marines can't capture her unless they wear spacesuits 24x7. (Not popular with the marines since you can't smoke cigars...)

Oh, and Klingon ships should be capable of mutiny like SFB. That was a cool rule and made the battle interesting until the bitter end.

There are detailed rules for capturing in SFB. Such as guards, changing crew units to militia when boarded, where the control spaces are, what capturing these control spaces mean, etc.

Whether or not putting this into a SFC game would be worth it or not is up to debate.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 13, 2003, 06:58:21 pm

Quote:

I am still convinced that if we present a proposal from a unified community (not to meantion buyer base for the company) then the SFC series and Star Trek games as a whole will continue to be produced.

Well, let me ask you something: Produced by who?

Remember, Taldren are designers, the reason they made SFC3 at all was becuase they made the transition to Activision from Interplay when the licenses switched...

Activision has taken the position that they no longer intend to abide by the licensing deal, therefore, they will most likely not be producing or distributing any additional Trek titles.

Since this whole thing may well end up in court, we could be talking years before Paramount is free to assign the license to another producer (I am not a lawyer, never mind an expert on copyright law; take this as the uninformed guess that it is...)

As I understand it, Taldren did buy some rights to Orion Pirates? (someone with definite info on this, please jump in!)

Therefore, the only possible trek game in the forseeable future (next few years) may have to be one based on OP, assuming Taldren can, and decide to, find another producer/distributor, or decide to distribute themselves by meanse of e-commerce... I don't know the legal problems here, so they may not even be free to try something like that, perhaps until a new official Trek licensee is established.

The other possibility is that Paramount and Activision settle out of court, either with Activision no longer the licensee, In which case Taldren would have to make another jump, or, with Activsion retaining the rights, under some new financial agreement, in which case, they would have to decide that another in the SFC series, designed by Taldren, is in their financial interest, as opposed to any number of other types of Trek games, designed by who knows who...

So, just who are we supposed to be producing this design proposal for?

My own best hope is that Taldren were able to design and produce and distribute an 'upgrade' to OP, that included some of the features 'We' have been asking for.

But that's only my own pipe-dream...

Chaos

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 13, 2003, 08:14:40 pm

Quote:

Cleaven might not like the music, but it's a big deal for me. When I took the bridge of a Lyran ship, there was no turning back!

Not that the music is good or bad, it just gets in the way.

<New Guy> Can you repeat that. I couldn't hear you over the music.
<Me> Ahh yeah, You need to turn that down.
<New Guy> What was that?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Ifrit on July 13, 2003, 08:25:10 pm

I'd love to see another entry in the SFC series, but I suspect that SFC3 will be the last in the line. I'm reading these posts with an eye to a completely new game, a tactical combat simulator that would make no explicit references to SFC or SFB (but would instead use a flexible set of rules that could be modified by the players themselves). This would put an end to some of the SFB arguments, since people could play with whatever rules they wanted, but no one would ever be completely happy (since some SFB rules would be impossible to replicate). On the other hand, I don't think that SSCF-Patterson is recommending that we try to design such a game ourselves (and since this is a thread on a Taldren Forum, it might not be the best place to discuss such a project either way), but it would be interesting to hear how other people would reduce their favorite rules (either existing or hypothetical) to a general set of properties. AV is probably the only rule in SFC3 that would be hard to replicate (without coding is explicity into the game), but SFB has all sorts of exotic components, such as ESG and web -- could those be duplicate using a set of more general (and hence unlicensed) rules?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: SSCF-Patterson on July 13, 2003, 08:50:11 pm

Ifrit,

Why not?

The worst that can happen is we fail. But at least we will have made a decent attempt at trying to keep the SFC series alive.
I for one am williing to give it a shot.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 14, 2003, 12:11:59 am

Quote:

Since this whole thing may well end up in court, we could be talking years before Paramount is free to assign the license to another producer

Quote:

The other possibility is that Paramount and Activision settle out of court, either with Activision no longer the licensee, In which case Taldren would have to make another jump, or, with Activsion retaining the rights, under some new financial agreement, in which case, they would have to decide that another in the SFC series, designed by Taldren, is in their financial interest, as opposed to any number of other types of Trek games, designed by who knows who...

It won't be years because of the principle, "time is money".

It's in Paramount's interest to just drop the deal with Activision and make a new deal with someone else as soon as possible. If Paramount goes years without Trek games being made it's just money lost for everyone involved. It's also not worth the legal costs to fight Activision while Paramount is losing money because no Trek games are being made. I'm sure this is what Activision is betting on.

I think the liscense will be split up after what just happened to Activision. Activision just bit off more than they could chew. The same would be true of any other company.

I think Activision and Paramount will settle out of court very quickly. Paramount will want to distribute the liscensing to other companies as quickly as possible. Activision want's their money back so they can move on too.

I guess it is possible that after they settle Activision still gets a piece of the pie for a lower price. I can see them getting the TNG liscense again. I seriously doubt Activision would want the TOS liscense.

As far as SFC is concerned, if Activision get's the TNG liscense again you can just about bet they won't make a sequel to SFC3. The best hope for more TNG SFC is if another company gets TNG Liscense and takes a stab at SFC4. Still I think this is unlikely based on the sales performance of SFC3 and what the TNG liscense would cost.

The big question for the entire SFC line is whether the SFC product line would split with the Trek liscense. If Activision gets the TNG liscense "only" does this mean they retain the rights to all future uses of the SFC name? If they do, Activision could kill the SFC line off completely with no hope of even another TOS based game....i.e. SFC: Galaxies at War, even if some other company owned the TOS liscense. Or perhaps a simple renaming of the game would solve this technicality? Hell it might be better to dump the name "Starfleet Command" anyway, because it's kind of been tarnished by SFC3's sales performance. Forget "Star Trek SFC Galaxies at War"....just call it "Star Trek Galaxies at War".

Now what about the TOS liscense? Let's just assume that the SFC line can split with the Trek liscense. Are you guys ready for some "wild" speculation? Here goes.......If Trek is in general decline you can bet that TOS is the "most declined"....for this reason I bet it's a lot cheaper than the other parts of the Trek liscense making it in a price range that smaller publishers might be able to afford. I wonder if Taldren could afford something like that? If Black 9 is a big hit they might be able to have enough money to afford TOS liscensing. What would this mean....I wonder? Could Taldren afford to self publish another SFB based SFC using an enhanced OP engine......perhaps maybe a subscription service? Could they make an SFC that adds a strategic layer based on F&E? I wonder what it would take to create a senario like this?

For those of us who long for SFC Galaxies at War based on the original SFC games, we can only hope that whoever gets the TOS liscensing got it cheap and it's worth their while to fund the completion of the SFB based game storyline. And we have to hope that the SFC line can also be split so Activision or whoever gets the TNG liscense can't kill the line off for good.

It would be nice to know what the possibilites were, however remote.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 14, 2003, 01:01:17 am

Yes, this lawsuit puts a damper on everything. We can only hope.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 14, 2003, 01:09:05 am

If there was to be a fire sale, I'd like to see ADB get rights to electronic media for SFB.

And I want a bike, and a pony , and train set, and a ......

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 14, 2003, 07:37:53 pm

Quote:

If there was to be a fire sale, I'd like to see ADB get rights to electronic media for SFB.

And I want a bike, and a pony , and train set, and a ......
--------------------
Vaiyo A-O
A Home Va Ya Ray
Vaiyo A-Rah
Jerhume Brunnen G

The dead do not care about fire sales.

-S'Cipio

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 14, 2003, 09:19:36 pm

Quote:

Quote:

If there was to be a fire sale, I'd like to see ADB get rights to electronic media for SFB.

And I want a bike, and a pony , and train set, and a ......
--------------------
Vaiyo A-O
A Home Va Ya Ray
Vaiyo A-Rah
Jerhume Brunnen G

The dead do not care about fire sales.

-S'Cipio

.... new series of Lexx, and TOS DVD's and .... some other stuff!

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: mbday on July 15, 2003, 04:32:54 am

Ok I have thought about this for some time and I have talk to some people. It seams that SFC3 has the sme things as SFC2. WHat this means is much of what we are looking for are here. We just need to get Taldren and Act. to open these back up to us for use. I.E. The races. The ships, the Wepones, And many of the other things. If we could get some of this back it might make the game better and get us headed in the right diraction for the game that we would all like to see.
I say lets see what we can get truned back on and added back in and how long would it take.
I would like to See SFC3 with many of the SFC2 systems.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Ifrit on July 16, 2003, 10:53:00 am

If the SFC3 source code ever became available, I'm sure that a lot could be done with it (judging by everything that Khoromag has done with SFC2), but 'Continuous Space' sounds like an entirely new game. SSCF-Patterson, are you thinking of a new game, or simply changes to made to the existing SFC platform?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Ifrit on July 24, 2003, 03:28:41 pm

I killed the thread!
I didn't even mention MIPMAP FILTERS, and I still KILLED the THREAD!

But with the OP patch out, this is not surprising...

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 24, 2003, 03:40:26 pm

Aye, matey, that you did! Arrrrrrrr.....

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Ifrit on July 24, 2003, 03:53:23 pm

Perhaps I should be proud of this accomplishment -- with a single swift post I dispatched the thread, severing the sinewy veins that carried the bile of countless arguments to its belly (where the compressed anger of countless fans was converted into flame, and subsequently vented out either one end or the other of the terrible beast).

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Dogmatix! on July 24, 2003, 03:54:14 pm

A feat to make even this Klingon Warrior proud!

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Reverend on July 24, 2003, 04:06:33 pm

Quote:

If the SFC3 source code ever became available, I'm sure that a lot could be done with it (judging by everything that Khoromag has done with SFC2), but 'Continuous Space' sounds like an entirely new game. SSCF-Patterson, are you thinking of a new game, or simply changes to made to the existing SFC platform?

As much as I complain about the exact same thing, knowing fullly that such an item would sell like ice in hell, I would not let this one go without my sorry input. Surely such a mod could be tied into SFC3... why could you not just link them? Maybe it would be a new platform, but I wonder how new it'd have to be. I bet if we had something like that, all of our SFB friends would be on there with 'us', having a blast too.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Reverend on July 24, 2003, 04:14:41 pm

Like Patterson adn Hypergol and Nanner say, I do believe another installment is a worthy shot, one with Continuous Space... if we have to jerk "SFC" out of the title, then so what? I'd hate to see such a game with generic titles of this and that, but surely with some moddablility left in the new installment, you could just alter it with a naming mod or something.

Title: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: SSCF-Patterson on July 07, 2003, 02:13:57 pm

"Through the woodland, through the valley comes a horseman wild and free. Tilting at the windmills passing, who can the brave, young horseman be."

And with that, I will now attempt to hopefully bring together the various factions that have developed within the Star Trek SFC gaming community.

When SFC 1 hit the shelves there was finally a game which all (SFB'ers and non SFB'ers) could enjoy. Then SFC 2 came along with some better weapons, some more races, and most importantly Dynaverse. Then Orion Pirates storms into the fray and offers us some more things for us to play with. Then SFC 3 hits the scene and all hell breaks lose. A large rift developed between the old guard and the new guard. Both parading their points of view and thinking that one game(s) are vastly superior to the others.

Distingushed members of the Star Trek gaming community, it is time to cast aside these differences and band together and design a game which could satisfy both SFB'ers and Non-SFB'ers alike. For those wondering what camp I fall into, I belong to the community as a whole, who played SFB and who owns such games as SFA, KA, BC, SFC 1 thru 3, OP, Dominion Wars, Armada, and the list goes on.

With the advent of computers, companies were able to design Star Trek games for those of us who wanted for a few hours to escape and pretend what it would be like to destroy a Klingon D7 with a photon torpedeo, or a Federation Constitution class heavy cruiser with a full bank of disruptors, or being able to sneak up on an opponet and decloak and destroy their ship before they realize what happened.

The only concern that I have is to ensure that the dream envisioned by Gene Roddenberry (may he rest in peace) that we have embraced in our respective ways, never dies and the games that have been produced now and hopefully in the future will never fade away.

Why?

We the members of the Star Trek gaming community must unite and begin to offer suggestions to companies to have a game produced for all of us to enjoy. A unitied community will get more results then a divided community.

How?

Simple. Take a good look at the SFC series (SFC 1 thru 3 and Orion Pirates) and deciede what works, what doesn't and incorporate into a game for us to enjoy.

I have broken down the games into these four sections for discussion:

1. Interface - how the game looks and feels on your computer
2. Races - the good, the bad, and the ugly
3. Devices - Sensors, Cloaking Device, Power management, etc....
4. Weapons

INTERFACE

Here I must submit that SFC 1 leads the way with the others falling behind in some way or another. With SFC 1 you started your game and depending on the race you swore alliagence to, everything was done to give you the feeling that you belonged to that empire.

For SFC 2 and OP they continued to hold true to that formula with improvements for modding weapons for races who didn't normally have them. ie. modding a Hydran ship with missiles and they have their own control panel, instead of someone else's as was the case in SFC 1. But SFC 2 and OP did use generic interfaces for start up screens and some other stuff and it did take away some of the flavour and feeling that was established by SFC 1.

SFC 3 uses a generic display for all races. While easier, it does take away from the flavour of the game, in that the panel for your ship is the same for all races.

So if I were to design a game, I would use the formula that were used by SFC 1.

RACES

Well, its nice to have both good guys and bad guys and alliances between them all. And all games I feel offer a good selection to choose from. But I do feel SFC 3 could have gone a bit farther be including the Dominion and Cardasians into their basic game instead of have members of the community like KoraH modding them into their respective servers. BTW cudos to KoraH and the TNZ crew

However, the new game should encompass elements from all the SFC series but I do feel in my opinion that the following races should be standard for a new game:

Federation, Klingon, and Romulan - canon races established by TOS

Hydran, Lyran, and Mirak - established by SFB and offer a wide range of weapons, ships and tactics for players to enjoy

Cardasian, Borg and Dominion - established by TNG/DS9 with the Borg and the Dominion being the supreme in bad

As for other races such as the Tholians, Telerites, Andorians, ISC, and an host of others, members of the community such as Brezzgone, Knox, Makie, Chris Jones, and a host of others could continue to do the outstanding and excellent work

that they have always done for the community in the past.

DEVICES/SYSTEMS

This would incorporate the following:
Sensor (EW), Energy management, Officers, Repairs, Helm, Security, Communications,etc...

Sensors (Electronic Warfare)

Well, I feel that SFC 1, 2 and OP and SFC3 are basically tied. The reason being, is that SFC 1,2, and OP use ECM and ECCM to counter the effects of the various weapons while SFC 3 uses angular velocity. Both produce the same effect IMO. But the ECM/ECCM established in SFC 1,2, and OP is probally the best system to use.

Energy Management

No contest here. SFC 1, 2, and OP allow a starship commander to fine tune where they want their power to go and what systems have priority. This is a must have for any future SFC game. Sorry to SFC 3 but energy management is lacking I'm afraid.

Officers

Here both SFC 1 and 3 lead the pack here. The ability to further advance your officers and recruite and dismiss officers in single player and particularly SFC3 on Dynaverse is an excellent feature. So I would incorporate SFC 3's officer feature/ability into the game. Overall, SFC 3's ability for officers to play a crutial role in your starships performance is a feature that must be incorporated into any future games.

Repairs

Here, I feel SFC 3 got the right idea. They use the Engineering Officers ability to deciede how many repairs can be preformed on your ship. As your Engineer gains experience so do the number of "orders" and speed which repairs can be completed. Currently in the D2 campaigns, there have been debates on "how many spare parts should a ship carry", "how many can be used in a mission", etc... . I believe that SFC 3's formula is probally the best to be used.

Security, Communications and Science

All SFC series of games are fairly standard here so no change.

Helm

Here I would combine the elments from all SFC series games. While SFC 3 does have the ability to match your opponets speed, it does lack the types of HET's that can be performed by you helmsman from the other series.

Shields

Well, I have always felt that in SFC 1,2 and OP the 6 shield faces represented, Fore, Aft, Starboard, Port, Ventral and Dorsal shields. SFC 3 simplified things by only going with four shield facings. To be honest I would incorporate the shield system from SFC 1, 2, and OP.

Fleet Control

SFC 3 handles this through the Comms button, while the rest have a seperate control. The best fleet control is to be found in SFC 2 and OP and should be incorported into any future games.

Tactial Map

I do prefer SFC 3 way of doing the tactical map. Primarily due to the fact it shows up in a seperate area of your screen and is always visible, unlike in SFC 1,2, and OP which has to be toggled on and off as you need it. I much prefer having the big picture at your disposal at all times.

Cloaking Device

Ahh, here we go. With the advent of the OP patch this statement appeared:

Quote:

it has been implemented to the closest of SFB specs as possible without changing the inner engine involved.

to which I asked:

Quote:

I'm curious how it will behave in the game.
Will it be similar to the cloak used in SFA, KA, and SFC 3?

To which the response was:

Quote:

No.

Straightforward but I have to admit SFC 3's management of the cloaking device is very similar to the way it was used in SFA and KA. And the use of the beta patch took out the following bug so now when a ship cloaks you can't track it unless you've got a good tactical officer and a good ships computer. I have always felt, that while SFB used various modifiers, etc..., to simulate the cloak in a board game, the cloak that was utilizied by SFC 1, 2, and OP was lacking when introduced as you could maintain a lock on a cloaked ship, beam marines over to a cloaked ship, and fire upon it. So I would use SFC 3 cloaking engine for any future games.

Weapons

SFB did introduce some excellent concepts for weaponary. By far, OP has the best selection to make any ships captain drool.

. This must be incorporated and maintained in any future games.

But SFC 3 did return to the Roddenberry concept of weapons. In that weapons were energy based and each race had specific weapons, Federation Phasers, Klingon Disruptors, Romulan Disruptors, Borg Cutting Beams, etc... .

However, energy weapons do get a bit stale, and I feel that will SFB's weaponary for races should be incorporated fully.

The only change would be to the primary weapons. While I agree that Federation and Hydran races for example have phaser technology, Klingon and Romulan ships for example should carry disruptors in lieu of phasers as their primary weapons.

CONCLUSION

Believe me this post is fairly lengthy but I have only scratched the surface. There are plenty of other things to discuss but the bottom line here is:

1. Do all the games have advantages? YES

2. Do all the games have disadvantages? YES

3. Can the advantages from all games be incorporated into a game for all to enjoy? YES

4. Can we satisfy everyone? NOPE

But unless we get together as a community and drop our prejudices, games such as SFC 4 and beyond may never get developed.

Regards to all

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Ifrit on July 07, 2003, 03:32:17 pm

Does anyone from Taldren disapprove of a thread discussing this kind of project? It would be interesting to see a tactical simulator that used a very flexible ruleset, one that could be adapted into a SFB variant without being shipped as a SFB/SFC product. The user would define the number of shield arcs, for instance, and then specify the range, damage, and accuracy of all direct fire and seeking weapons. Some systems would be harder to reduce to a set of properties (WW, ESG, WEB), but so long as nothing is carried over directly, the resulting game would be neither SFC nor SFB.

The game mechanics could only be pushed so far, of course. A turn-based game would be easier to design, but it would probably attract a smaller audience. It would be interesting to set up a continuous universe in a turn-based game, since the net code would be less of a nightmare. You would probably see larger engagements as well, since lag would be less of an issue.

Would anyone play a turn-based version of continuous space? If so, I might have to go to work...

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 07, 2003, 07:28:25 pm

I wish SFC had been turn-based in the first place...

Turn-based gives you the ability to handle numerical values, instead of colored bars and sliders...

Bring back the nooks and crannies in the weapons tables... Unrealistic? yep. Add character and fun to the game? Yep.

Hex field: Unrealistic? Yep. A beneficial abstraction? You bet. The ability to anticipate and predict, a carefully developed skill that makes your ability to be in exactly the right place at the right time with the right weapons charged seem like some kind of magic... The strategy, the flavor, the brain-cramps, the fun, but without the endless arguments... That is the eternal SFB-camp dream....

Chaos

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Storvick on July 07, 2003, 07:50:29 pm

Quote:

I wish SFC had been turn-based in the first place...

Turn-based gives you the ability to handle numerical values, instead of colored bars and sliders...

Bring back the nooks and crannies in the weapons tables... Unrealistic? yep. Add character and fun to the game? Yep.

Hex field: Unrealistic? Yep. A beneficial abstraction? You bet. The ability to anticipate and predict, a carefully developed skill that makes your ability to be in exactly the right place at the right time with the right weapons charged seem like some kind of magic... The strategy, the flavor, the brain-cramps, the fun, but without the endless arguments... That is the eternal SFB-camp dream....

Chaos

if a pure SFB game for Star Trek is made you will see one person who will not buy it. I have tried and tried to get into SFB but couldn't I have bought all the SFC titles (some of them as gifts for others) We need a game that will support both SFB and SFBers togather not make a game for just one crowd and screw the other crowd.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 07, 2003, 08:30:09 pm

Oh, I understand that, the SFB market size is limited, you have to agregate a target market large enough to make a game profitable, etc. I'm just airing my ideals in the hopes of moving the average a little in my direction ;^)

Chaos

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 07, 2003, 08:46:54 pm

The other strength of computer-based SFB was going to be the ability to have ALL the numbers at your disposal on a single screen, with color and intelligence and the ability to be automatically updated (and without any damned grease pencils ;^), and I just thought of something, you know how in Diablo, they have a translucent overlay of the strat map on the tactical display?

How about a toggle to have a translucent screen full of numbers overlaid on the tactical map, ie 1) just the SSD/EA screen, 2) a translucent SSD/EA superimposed over a translucent map, 3) just the map...

If you've played Diablo, you know what I'm talking about.

And a screen full of numbers shouldn't send shudders down your back, if they are well organized and presented, that info gives you power to predict, estimate, plan, and gamble on a concious level (what SFB'rs call 'fun',) rather than "guess and wait and twitch" (no offense meant, but that's how real time seems to me, I still enjoy it, it's just not the same thing, the thing I really wanted in the first place...) It's the difference between thinking your way through a game, and feeling your way through a game.

Chaos

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: SSCF-Patterson on July 07, 2003, 10:33:13 pm

Quote:

We need a game that will support both SFB and SFBers togather not make a game for just one crowd and screw the other crowd.

Well thats what I am attempting to do.

Tilting at windmills, my speciality. Been doing it for years.

But I seriously believe that if you look at SFB which the SFC series is based on, and took all the good elements from all of the SFC series (and believe me, time or space didn't allow me to list everything), I firmly believe we can come up a game that will appeal to the masses.

I mean, for example, would you rather have a cloak that behaves as per SFB ? Or a cloak that acts the way it does in SFC 3, SFA, KA, etc...., where the cloak ship disappears completely, can't track it, follow it, without a strong computer or an experienced tactical officer. And by the time you do, its usually to late.

Now some wonder why I seem to continually mention the cloak. When I did play SFB years ago, and I was just a casual player, when a ship cloaked you bascially had to add/subtract from your die roll etc.. (bear in mind its been awhile and I don't remember everything from SFB.

) to compensate for your weapons hitting or missing the cloaked ship. In other words it was SFB's way IMHO to simulate/pretend a ship was cloaked on a board game.

Then along comes a game called Starfleet Academy. And low and behold, Romulan ships cloaked. They disappeared from your sensors and usually re-appeared (to late for you to do anything effective) and you took damage from the Disruptors and Plasma Torpedeos that were fired at you. When SFC 1 hit the shelves I thought "Cool, Romulan ships will cloak just like in SFA." But to my dismay, when the ships cloaked you could keep a lock on them and continue to fire on them. Ok, I'll live with it. Everything else is there such as Damage Control, Boarding parties etc.. to make the game entertaining was in place. Then along came SFC 2 and OP and again when a Romulan ship cloaked you could still keep a lock on them and continue to fire on them. Yes the modifiers where in place to limit the damage but I always felt that Romulans were denied the following statement:

The Romulan relies on his ability to get close to his opponent using a combination of his cloaking device and stealth, and then overwhelm him with plasmas.

Starfleet Command Volume II
Empires at War
Gameplay Manual & Reference Guide
Starfleet Cadet Academy Training
Section 201.03
Page A-20

Yes, you'll have some argue "Well if you don't like SFC 1,2 or OP, then go play something else" and so on and so forth.

But a quote

"Starfleet Command will be both familiar and different to you as well. The design team members are long-time SFB fans and players. We have followed closely the spirit, if not the letter, of the Doomsday ruleset, but we had to make changes to have a better and workable computer game. Board games and computer games are obviously different and require a different mind-set to design and create."

Star Trek Starfleet Command
Instruction Manual
Extended Foreword
Section titled "For Players of Star Fleet Battles"
Page 12

So distinguished members of the community, if Interplay and its designers realized the limitations and difficulties of converting a board game into a computer game, we can choose to accept the above statement and attempt to end this constant bickering about SFB vs SFC 1, 2, and OP vs SFC 3 and take all the good elements from these games and have a better designed game,

Or

Continue to argue that one game(s) is better then the other and have nothing.

I personnally prefer to have a better game

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 07, 2003, 11:15:50 pm

With Activision sueing Viacom, the future of SFC is very much in the air. I loved the SFC series prior to SFC TNG. I guess this makes me "closed minded."

At the very least, any new game has to be slick, well polished, and have a finished feel. I think this is the absolute bottom line. The poor music tracks in SFC TNG is appalling; no future version should overlook details like this.

Enough ragging on SFC3. This is what I want:

1.) Multi-era, from "Enterprize" to "Voyager"

2.) Seeking weapons and fighters, specialized defensive weapons

3.) Enable large, multi-player, fleet based interaction, perhaps twenty players in the same battle.... doubt that's even possible.

4.) Smarter AIs

I'm not holding my breath. Reconciliation between SFC1, 2, OP fans and SFC TNG fans? Not possible.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: nx_adam_1701 on July 08, 2003, 12:08:40 am

I agree with Tulwar on one thing and that is more players, I mean its sometimes war, or small skirmishes, but you cant wage war with 4 or 6 ships, I mean I want to be able to have a fleet consisting of about 8 to ten ships, I know we can command 40 or 30, but atleast 10 to 15 ships, I dont care if I play SFB era, or TMP, or TNG, just make it better

adam out

PS Keep the cloak from SFC3, its the best
ohh yeah make it more modable and by that I mean weapons, and keep the warp from SFC3, I think thats it for me lol lol

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 08, 2003, 03:10:10 am

Quote:

"Starfleet Command will be both familiar and different to you as well. The design team members are long-time SFB fans and players. We have followed closely the spirit, if not the letter, of the Doomsday ruleset, but we had to make changes to have a better and workable computer game. Board games and computer games are obviously different and require a different mind-set to design and create."

Star Trek Starfleet Command
Instruction Manual
Extended Foreword
Section titled "For Players of Star Fleet Battles"
Page 12

You know what? If you stop and think about all the arguments on this board over the last four years, all the requests people have made, and most of the 'bugs' in the dynaverse...

How many of them were related to the conversion to real time?

And why real time?

Somewhere, a long time back, there was the Marketing Assumption that 'turn-based games don't sell'... That 'no one' would buy a turn-based ST computer game.

Well, one thing is for sure, SFCTNG lost a lot of the core of this audience because it got too far away from it's SFB roots.

And another thing for sure, the market is flooded, to the point of exhaustion, with non-turn-based ST games... Everyone who gets ahold of the license sits around and asks themselves "What can we possibly do for this next Trek game that's different, that hasn't been done yet?"

I wonder how an SFC title would do that moved in the other direction and really embraced SFB, including turn-based play, both single-player and dynaverse...

Maybe, (just maybe), all the people who have played and liked one or more of the SFC titles would try, and like turn-based. And just THINK of all the problems, bugs, and arguments it would solve in one fell swoop... And you couldn't argue that it was "too much like the last one to bother to buy"... And when word got out that this was completely back to the original, think of all the old, unknown, stashed away SFB players that would come out of the woodwork to buy it, just like they did with SFC 1...

Now, just stop and think about this, roll it around on your pallette for a minute or two, and give the idea a chance...

How well would a true SFB for the computer sell? Would it do better than SFCTNG's numbers? I wouldn't be suprised at all...

Chaos

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tus on July 08, 2003, 08:59:00 am

Quote:

ohh yeah make it more modable and by that I mean weapons, and keep the warp from SFC3, I think thats it for me lol lol

Would have to agree. It would be cool if we had a game where u could add new weapons instead of just replacing the old ones. it would also be great if it were possible to add new races with out replacing the originals.

Me personally would love to see a game that handles more than 6 players. i would have a ball day. Just think of the new fleet wars we could have

.

I would like to see the abiltiy to change the ships to ur likeing remain. I do feel though that i needs some more limits than what we currently have, probably by taking it a step further and limiting what kind of weapons can go on certain hardpoints (ex a frigate shouldn't have quantums as its heavy weapon)

Thats about it

Tus

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: NannerSlug on July 08, 2003, 09:57:14 am

i challenge the notion that sfc3 went away from THE core audience.. THE core audience arguably are trek fans.

patterson is right on many of his points, save the sfb weapons (in my view). you can add seeking weapons to sfc3 and not be sfb weapons.. the main thing for me is that sfb weapons have 16% point breaks and do not take into consideration the target's size or speed.. (e.g. you can be a huge arse starbase and still be missed by everything)

i think the main thing missing in sfc3 that TNZ and DW start to give it is detail. this includes more detail to the systems (whether its individual hard point mass restrictions or more energy control), detail in the number of systems or weapons. if there simply could be some detail added it would help emmensley.

anywho..

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Ifrit on July 08, 2003, 10:25:23 am

A turn-based game would certainly allow for more depth, not to mention solving the problem of lag. Another way to avoid lag is to implement crew reaction time, where a player issues an order and then waits for a few seconds while the order is processed. This seems appropriate enough for a starship simulator, and it solves the problem of lag rather cleverly. The player sends a message to the peer's machine containing a command and the scheduled time of its execution; if it takes two seconds for that message to arrive, this will only be a problem if the reaction time is set below two seconds (since the other players would have received the message before it was executed, but with the timestamp required to keep everything synchronized). This would allow for larger engagements, since it effectively hides all but the most serious lag issues, but it would still limit engagements to fleets of ship (rather than allowing for a truly scalable universe in which local engagements are played out on the same map as the larger campaign).

Since people weighed on the subject of turn-based versus real-time, what about this "reaction time" model, which is something of a hybrid (although intended primarily as a networking solution). Would people play such a game? Would people enjoy it enough to continue playing?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: SSCF-Patterson on July 08, 2003, 11:19:59 pm

I am keeping a track of the posts and will attempt to take everyones suggestions and incorparate it into a template of some type.

The only thing I'm curious about, is two members of the community have raised the point of making SFC strictly turn based.

Ok, but why is it in some D2 campaigns I've played in (primarly SFC2.net from CW 6 to current), I have heard some people requesting to increase the speed of the game. ie. from 7 to 9

Capt Chaos, or Ifrit a quick quote

One of the most important of these is that the game is no longer turn based, but occurs in real time in a 3D enviroment. (Diehard SFB players can take advantage of the game speed slider to have the game run almost as slowly as a turn-based game, though!).

Starfleet Command
Volume II
Empires at War
Gameplay Manual & Reference Guide
Introduction
page 10

I am not saying that your thoughts about any future SFC game has been answered. Trust me I've played plenty of turn based games and I do understand your concerns and maybe this game has to go completely turn based.

But have either of you every played SFC online(IP or mplayer etc...) or in the Dynaverse servers where the game speed has been set to 1?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Ifrit on July 09, 2003, 12:33:48 pm

A turn-based game would be interesting, but I doubt that many people would prefer it to the real-time alternative. I'm not sure that I would prefer it either, but it's interesting to think about from a design perspective. In my opinion, the real advantage of a turn-based game would become apparent online, since it would allow for very large engagements in a continuous universe. A real-time game would probably be a lot more exciting, but the number of players (and the ability of those players to react to each others moves) would be more limited.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Captain KoraH on July 09, 2003, 01:13:03 pm

Ok, I'll throw my 2 cents into this.

In this post I use the term "SFB players" to mean supporters of SFC1/2/OP and "SFC players" to mean supporters of SFC3.

This discussion should not be about "SFB vs SFC", it should be about what the players want. Any attempt to bring the two camps together is doomed to failure if you simply pick some systems from one engine and some systems from the other. If you really want to bring the two camps together you will have to sacrifice, and that is where the key to a successful new game would lie, in what compromises were made between the two systems. It may be that no system currently exists that is an adequate compromise for both sides. Like Electronic Warfare. SFB players like it, SFC players hate it. SFC3 uses angular velocity, and SFC players like it, but SFB players may not. You might have to create a new system that uses SOME of what ECM/ECCM was about AND Angular velocity as a factor on the "to hit table". Or take the power management for instance. SFB players feel gyped if they can't micromanage where every tenth of a point is going, but SFC players don't want to have to bother with it, and would rather move a button along a slider. How can you compromise between the two systems? That is the key to being successful, not just choosing one or the other because you think it's the best system.

Anyway, in my own opinion, SFC3 is a superior game engine to SFC1/2/OP. But, please hear me out before you pass judgement on me. I feel that SFC3 has the potential to include the best of both sides, while I feel that the SFC1/2/OP engine does not have the ability to support things like reverse movement, the SFC3 way of cloaking, angular velocity, better ship models and better textures, and a few other things. I also feel that although the Dynaverse3 does have it's problems it is superior to the D2 in terms of capability. If SFC3 could be made to include things like drones, 18 different playable races with their own GUI, ECM and advanced power management, then it would be the ultimate SFC engine. It is my hope that some day Taldren can release the code to us so we can impliment these things ourselves. Until that happens, any talk of an improved game is mostly just a pipe dream.

One last point, any talk of making SFC a turn based game is absolutely ludricrous. You want to see your fan base crumble into nothing? Then make it turn based and see what happens.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 09, 2003, 05:57:30 pm

My understanding is that SFC2:OP and SFC:TNG use the same game engine, with the latter modified for four shields, less controls, and an FPS style angular velocity to-hit modifier.

And I fail to see why people can't recognise that AV itself does not make a target harder to hit by modern weapons systems. It is the change in AV which requires targetting systems to prove they work by correctly predicting the position of taget at time of arrival. I guess it's to do with people not knowing what delta AV means.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: NannerSlug on July 09, 2003, 06:45:17 pm

sorry - but the av system is more common sense to me (again, its just a matter of opinion). a small - fast target should be harder to hit and a big slow target should be obvious to hit..

here is an example: in sfc2: no matter what size the ship is or speed, it is determined by die rolls (at 16% increments).. and that is perfectly fine for a board game (and yes, its been entertaining for sfc series to a point). however - in sfc3, with the increase of size of ship and the slower you are, so are your odds of hitting it.

actually, it works the other way around - you have a base number/curve and the smaller and faster you are, the harder you are to hit.. personally, to me, that makes more sense and it reward folks for staying in light cruisers to a degree over grabbing the nearest BB..

but again, thats all personal preference.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Reverend on July 09, 2003, 06:59:56 pm

I agree with having more ships for fleet control.... and with the many other great ideas previosuly noted. SFB, however, appealed only to mathematics majors in colleges. It was and is simply too complex, too droll, and too anal-retentive with the over-abundance of rules upon rules, as well as its restrictions- it has almost nothing to do with the Star Trek series. Why can't you go to warp when needed, or have to travel through hexes? Why cant you find such-and-such on a map and then dock/communicate/engae with it? Hexes were simply for easier plotting, not something to base everything on... hexes are like the Tactical view- a tool, not the universe. TNG SFC drew more than the others because it had a little more of the ST feel to it, and less SFB. Yes, SFB was an excellent tactical pursuit, but, stop flogging a dead horse. Use some of its concepts, but do beddragle everyone with infinite rules that end up ruining a playing experience... we needed a continuous space experience, not sectionalizing everything.. its clausterphobic. Friends, I know you love your SFB, but it should have been taking several steps further.... no one bought the game(s) because it didnt have anything to do with Star Trek- they couldn't live out their favorite scenarios because they would feel cramped..."Gosh, why can't I go backwards- I can exceed the speed of light (after I leave the hex?!?), but I cant back up? Why can I see that cloaked ship? Why can I not see myself dock with Starbases? How do I know its even doing so?".
I would almost say get out of your shells, but that's rude. I mena to say, no, I do not want to see it dumbed down further, just add a universe to it- some depth. Not 3-d up and down, thats for fighter games and Star Wars- these are stately, massive, and majestic ships. They would require a lot of interface, but we needed a bigger place to play in- a consistent and continuous space to play it, with the hexes only for a tactical drop-down when your planning something or flying somewhere specific. And no. its not that hard- look at all the other games that sell ten times more than this series. SFC was sooo close! SO close! Bridge Commander was too confusing, although I beat it, too much like flying a fat old fighter... too fast- but the universe was a close shot ot what would sell.
+If they could combine the best elements from SFC TNG, plenty and plenty of races to fight and play, modability, and a continuous space with reactionary places and things, it would sell, I know it would. Thats not too much to consider, really. Science missions, rescue missions, being able to interact fully with any object, land on bases or beam things to planets, whatever. Just not that horrid, clausterphobic, undetailed hex map we suffer with.... Yes, keep the map as a easily acceable drop down over the (local) space map- I guarantee I would use it at least 4 or five times an hour. But not that as the universe itself! If something like tht could be built, form pieces of other games, or from scratch, it would sell- charge 'em whatever to use the server! I know you'll have people on there trying to buy prestige all day, and hundreds of ships sitting around in a sector asking you "whats up dawg? This is TooShortNigga", hundreds of dopey newbies, but come on- if you're knowledgeable, you can fly right over there and blast them in five minutes! It'd be easy to old-school them out all day! Long-range scan, see Smokin_Reefer_chik, who happens to be a enemy ship, warp to the next sector, and catch them with their little officers all in a shuttle on the planet mining ores for a cheap repair or something, and totally slay them! You could catch a distress signal in Sector Blah Blah and cruise right up to them, and beam over some ''magic screws'', and they'd be straight, after giving you some prestige... or you could assist someone getting attacked- if you're attacking, winning, and someone flys in to their rescue, its not against SFB Rules, thats just life! Happens in almost every other game. By using SFB rules to the letter in something like this, it alienates a lot of potential customers, who have waited forever for a ST game that is just fun, and reminds them of their favorite show. I have played many other games, and had a lot of fun.. I paid to be on their server... it was a nuisance, but it was worth it, because I actually felt like I was flying a spaceship in outer space. Too bad it had nothing to do with ST. My point being, is that there is a lot more to argue about or wish for than more stiff SFB rules. A real universe, with real things and places to interact with. Unique places to see and go and fight in. Sure, lets have plenty of fighting, thats the backbone of such, lets just not ask for it to be any more stiffer than it is already.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 09, 2003, 08:30:43 pm

Quote:

sorry - but the av system is more common sense to me (again, its just a matter of opinion). a small - fast target should be harder to hit and a big slow target should be obvious to hit..

here is an example: in sfc2: no matter what size the ship is or speed, it is determined by die rolls (at 16% increments).. and that is perfectly fine for a board game (and yes, its been entertaining for sfc series to a point). however - in sfc3, with the increase of size of ship and the slower you are, so are your odds of hitting it.

actually, it works the other way around - you have a base number/curve and the smaller and faster you are, the harder you are to hit.. personally, to me, that makes more sense and it reward folks for staying in light cruisers to a degree over grabbing the nearest BB..

but again, thats all personal preference.

The AV system would be fine if it worked on delta AV, because that is what really makes a moving target hard to hit. A target moving across your front at a constant speed is not a challenge for an integrated weapon system to hit dead centre all the time, everytime, regardless of whether it's going 100 kph or 200 kph. Where it becomes difficult for the targetting system is when the target does not have a constant speed, and is jinking, so that the crtitical factor becomes rate of AV change not the AV itself.

But this has been explained before and there is no reason why people who refused to acknowledge it then should acknowledge it now, even if it is simple mathematics. Instead it is translated into another reason to criticise SFB combat systems (as used in SFC2). Not at all surprised about this either, especially since SFB/SFC2 wasn't mentioned as a reason for using the pure AV as being the wrong targetting factor. Instead of an anti-SFB/SFC2 reason for not using delta AV, how about a mathematical reason?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 09, 2003, 08:36:57 pm

If I didn't want a SFB-like game, I would have never, ever remotely considdered buying into SFC. Any space war game should be 3d. 2d was a convention I was willing to accept because SFB, being a boardgame too complicated and time consuming to actually play, was so interesting. It was so open-ended, with limitless possiblities, not just tactical, but stategic.

Fleets are made of ships, and ships have weapons and capablities. Fleets are organized on the differences in those weapons and capablities. In SFC1, 2, and OP, you had captalships, escorts, fire support ships, ships designed to opperate independently, and ship designed to opperate against specific adversaties. This is the heart of fleet combat. This is the difference between stategy and tactics. Have a force of different ships doing very different jobs, working together for the same goal.

Think of it! In the blink of an eye, a tiny escort could hurtle straight into a swarm of missles, save the carrier, and thus snatch victory from the jaws of defeat! Picture a mauler tucked away in the back of the fleet, coming forward to smash a shield on an enemy a starbase! SFC was almost there! I could taste it!

Then I see SFC3, and read these post about the "realism" of the AV system. Give me a break.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Storvick on July 09, 2003, 08:47:10 pm

What we need is a game that supports and helps both SFBers and non SFBers. I really bought the games because it was Star Trek based and better then the others out there. If they make a SFC thats all SFB style then count me out.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: NannerSlug on July 09, 2003, 09:19:17 pm

okay cleaven, then use delta AV - it really doesnt matter to me either way - (i understand the difference between the two) it simply to me is a matter of developing a system which seems more realistic and engaging than 16% hit brackets and what not. it is again, personal preference.. the bottom line either way -> the bigger and slower it is, the easier target it is. the smaller and faster it is, the harder it is to acquire and squish.

i also agree - it is about building a good trek ship to ship combat game.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 09, 2003, 09:37:53 pm

You say you appreciate what delta AV really is, but then say it doesn't matter which you use? Regardless of which is more correct for the game system to work in a future-tech realistic way.

The point is that if you want FPS style realism reflected in the difficulty to hit calculations then you have to choose what is right, not just say "Anything but SFB is okay".

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: NannerSlug on July 09, 2003, 09:44:00 pm

cleaven - that was not a jab at sfb - it was a point blank positive opinion about what i would like. i personally feel that plain old die roll where you can miss a starbase at point blank or near point blank range is inferoir to a system which takes into consideration the speed and size of the target you are shooting at. very simple (yet realistic in my view) point.

yes, i do understand delta movment and you are probably correct that it would be the more realistic model visa via erratic manuevers or jinking - but you should also take into consideration the over all speed and size of the ship as well. no biggie for me - it is solely a personal preference.

relax, breathe, enjoy life.

peace, luv and chikin

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 09, 2003, 10:24:13 pm

That's okay then. Of course if each hull had a size class modifer it would help. If you want detail don't go any further than the ASL system. The SFB-is-too-hard whiners just don't have a clue.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 09, 2003, 11:56:17 pm

Quote from the Reverend:

Quote:

I agree with having more ships for fleet control.... and with the many other great ideas previosuly noted. SFB, however, appealed only to mathematics majors in colleges.

Heh, heh, well, I wouldn't say math majors, as the actual math wasn't all that complex, but I would agree that it is a game for smart people. Any idiot can master an FPS (no offense meant, for those who happen to be idiots.)

Quote:

It was and is simply too complex, too droll, and too anal-retentive with the over-abundance of rules upon rules, as well as its restrictions-

Oh, I agree with you, and that's the beauty part of SFC... If the game engine let's you do it, you can do it, if it doesn't, then you can't. Simple, no hours of haggling with smug, 350 lb. rules lawyers covered in Doritos crumbs and pizza grease, no 15 minute waits while someone tries to find the rule they're sure they remember having read... Of course, you can come here later and argue that the game engine is wrong, but that doesn't interupt the flow of the game. SFC can mantain nearly all the complexity of the Doomsday rules, without the Doomsday rules. That, and an intellegent AI opponent make it vastly superior to all those rule books, and having to hope that at least a few players show up at the game store on Saturday to play with you...

Quote:

it has almost nothing to do with the Star Trek series. Why can't you go to warp when needed, or have to travel through hexes? Why cant you find such-and-such on a map and then dock/communicate/engae with it? Hexes were simply for easier plotting, not something to base everything on... hexes are like the Tactical view- a tool, not the universe. TNG SFC drew more than the others because it had a little more of the ST feel to it, and less SFB. Yes, SFB was an excellent tactical pursuit, but, stop flogging a dead horse. Use some of its concepts, but do beddragle everyone with infinite rules that end up ruining a playing experience... we needed a continuous space experience, not sectionalizing everything.. its clausterphobic.

Well, let's remember that SFB was designed as a tactical ship combat system, not a complete Trek Universe to go out and explore. Let's also remember that SFB achieved a remarkable feat: It made consistant, logical sense out of a series of scripts that were written by many different people and then mashed down into a 1-hour TV show... The fact that SFB departed from ST was mainly a function of the fact that it had no choice. It had to be much more consistant than the TV show ever dreamed of being. It ended up having to invent enough stuff, in order to maintain a consistant, logical system, that in the end it wondered off into it's own little section of the Trek universe. It had to.

Quote:

Friends, I know you love your SFB, but it should have been taking several steps further.... no one bought the game(s) because it didnt have anything to do with Star Trek- they couldn't live out their favorite scenarios because they would feel cramped..."Gosh, why can't I go backwards- I can exceed the speed of light (after I leave the hex?!?), but I cant back up? Why can I see that cloaked ship? Why can I not see myself dock with Starbases? How do I know its even doing so?".
I would almost say get out of your shells, but that's rude. I mena to say, no, I do not want to see it dumbed down further, just add a universe to it- some depth. Not 3-d up and down, thats for fighter games and Star Wars- these are stately, massive, and majestic ships. They would require a lot of interface, but we needed a bigger place to play in- a consistent and continuous space to play it, with the hexes only for a tactical drop-down when your planning something or flying somewhere specific. And no. its not that hard- look at all the other games that sell ten times more than this series. SFC was sooo close! SO close! Bridge Commander was too confusing, although I beat it, too much like flying a fat old fighter... too fast- but the universe was a close shot at what would sell.

If they could combine the best elements from SFC TNG, plenty and plenty of races to fight and play, modability, and a continuous space with reactionary places and things, it would sell, I know it would. Thats not too much to consider, really. Science missions, rescue missions, being able to interact fully with any object, land on bases or beam things to planets, whatever.

At the risk of starting a real flame war, which is certainly not my intention, I will note that what you are describing sounds an awful lot like the vision of BC3000... He (the unnamed one) wants a complete, thorough universe that you can explore and conquer from one end to the other. I have not done more than read about it, so I can't really say, but maybe you should actually try it?

Remember, this game (SFC) began life with the specific intention of bringing SFB to the computer. They made it real time because they felt it would sell to a wider audience, and I guess you are part of the proof that they were right. But I submit that you are longing for a different game. One that is not based on SFB at all. One that captures your vision of the Trek Universe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that! However, it is a mistake to try to retrofit your dream onto a game designed around mere tactical ship combat scenarios... SFC is, and was meant from the start to be SFB for the computer, or at least relatively close. That is ALL.

Quote:

...By using SFB rules to the letter in something like this, it alienates a lot of potential customers, who have waited forever for a ST game that is just fun, and reminds them of their favorite show. I have played many other games, and had a lot of fun.. I paid to be on their server... it was a nuisance, but it was worth it, because I actually felt like I was flying a spaceship in outer space. Too bad it had nothing to do with ST. My point being, is that there is a lot more to argue about or wish for than more stiff SFB rules. A real universe, with real things and places to interact with. Unique places to see and go and fight in. Sure, lets have plenty of fighting, thats the backbone of such, lets just not ask for it to be any more stiffer than it is already.

Again, that sounds like a really cool game. It just has very little to do with SFC. Leave us in peace to fight our little battles, please. Your game is out there, somewhere, and if not now, then soon.

Chaos

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 10, 2003, 12:17:24 am

A couple of mistakes made about SFB. 1, You do have reverse movement in SFB. 2, You do have small target modifiers in SFB. 3, You do move at warp in SFB. 4, You do have hidden cloak in SFB. I won't bore anyone by being a rules lawyer and quoting all the rules verbatum w/all the letters and numbers and decimals

No insult intended to anyone. "Rules Lawyer" is an accepted term in the SFB universe.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: NannerSlug on July 10, 2003, 01:15:39 am

one quick correction choas about fps - not every idiot can play all fps.. i would challenge you to try rainbow6 raven shield, ghost recon, etc.. you may not know this - but there are many, many tactics involved in many fps games.. so you can stop trying to make a game "superior" because it is not an fps game - simply put, its all about individual taste in game.

rob - even if there were modifiers (which i have never heard of before - this is the first ive heard of it), it is still based on 16% range breaks - and while size modifiers would be a good step forward, it still probably does not take into consideration its movement, etc (it cant - we are talking about real time here).

anywho. like i have said many, many times before - its a matter of taste. .some of us just want the best trek ship to ship combat game we can.. others (like your self) want to reproduce sfb to the letter (save the turn base aspect). it is all a matter of taste and opinion - and is why there will always be conflicts. <shrug>

getting back to this thread -> my suggestion is simply that the targeting solution should be based on realistic factors, not range breaks and die role, that is my personal opinion - nothing more, nothing less.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 10, 2003, 01:40:18 am

It's also would be good if the SFC:TNG ranges were based on expressions representing performance curves, and not range tables even though they are smoother than SFB/SFC (with range breaks none the less). This would also add to the realism and not just change big range breaks for small range breaks.
As for the dice, I was under the impression that SFC:TNG did use a random number generator based on a D10 (10 sided or percentile dice). If it doesn't use dice for it's randomness then what does it use?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 10, 2003, 01:54:25 am

Quote:

rob - even if there were modifiers (which i have never heard of before - this is the first ive heard of it), it is still based on 16% range breaks -

There are small target modifiers in SFB. There have been ever since the early 1980's. They are used for fighters and other targets which are very small, and thus difficult for targeting sensors to keep a steady lock on.

Quote:

and while size modifiers would be a good step forward, it still probably does not take into consideration its movement, etc

Of course it does. So does SFC. It's called the erratic maneuvers modifier.

I take issue with your arguement that Battleships should be easier to hit than destroyers by any game-reflected mechanic. Space is big. Ships are small. At 20,000 km (range two) not even the BB is visible to the naked eye. What is important is how accurately you sensors can resolve the target when they pick out a point in space and hold your needle-beam phasers on it. If they can hold the target, the size of the target is irrelevant in comparison to the acrlength near the target of even a tiny wiggle in your own pointing vector.

-S'Cipio

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Scipio_66 on July 10, 2003, 02:07:12 am

Quote:

i challenge the notion that sfc3 went away from THE core audience.. THE core audience arguably are trek fans.

The core audience of SFC is by definition SFB fans.

SFC *is* SFB. Really, it is. The (minor) differences between the two (like drone speeds or double internals) are no bigger than the variances you will find in the house rules of various gaming clubs. It doesn't change the fact that a drone is still a drone, a plasma is still a plasma, the ECM rules are still the ECM rules, and your ship is still a copy of the SFB SSD.

If the gamer bought SFC and played it for a week and then tossed it out, then maybe they only played it because it was a Trek game. The core audience of SFC, however, bought a game and was still playing it over a year later. That means they liked the way the game worked. That means -- whether they knew it or not -- they liked SFB.

SFC3 (sic) wasn't Starfleet Command, and it wasn't the third installment of anything. It walked away from its core audience.

That being said, the point of this thread is to decide what is best from each title. Given that I'd admit I like the ability to form fleets and move together in SFC3 (sic). That feature should be retained.

My favorite cloak is the one from SFB. (Standard rules, with non-hidden movement.) SFC1 and 2 shortchanged the Romulans as those titles did not fully implement the damage reduction abilities of cloak in SFB. I hear the new OP patch will try to do this, and for this reason I'm actually looking forward to dusting off my copy of OP once the patch is released.

-S'Cipio

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 10, 2003, 02:49:28 am

Another two cents since I'm bored:
The TNG implimentation of the cloak is cool, like it is in the other TNG games, but it is not balanced. There is a lot of balance built into SFC2 due to it's heritage. There was also a lot of balance lost due to the almost but not quite complete translation of the game systems, and a little more was lost with the real time translation. Some rebalancing was required.

The TNG cloak was not balanced in it's initial implimetation and this was made harder by the closeness in operation of the weapons systems between the empires. Two empires got a cloak, requiring a three way balance instead of two way. Also there was no play history of the TNG systems to fall back on to have a good idea of what was a good balance and what is not. StarCraft still gets my rating for all-time game balance and it had to go through two iterations of WarCraft to get there with multiple patches to get the three way system right.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on July 10, 2003, 05:07:20 am

Angular Velocity... hmmmm...
Does this emply Newtonian Mechanics or Einsteinian Mechanics as the base mathematical formulae. And what about the relativistic time-distortion properties of a sub-space field? And what about the Picard Maneuver?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 10, 2003, 05:39:01 am

That depends. Do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on July 10, 2003, 06:02:10 am

Quote:

That depends. Do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?

Even assuming that all combat is done at sublight speeds (which it isnt), Newtonian mechanics works fine for ordinary everyday physics. However, once you reach a velocity that is even just a mere few percent of the speed of light, we begin to see errors, the theory for which was put forward by Einstein in his General Theory of Relativity, and later shown to be a better physics model by measuring the apparent position of stars that lie close to the horizon of the Sun. The stars' position were not quite where they should have been according to Newtonian mechanics, but were exactly where Einstein predicted they would be. This showed that light waves (particles??) were 'bent' through a gravity well, hence the term Einsteinian mechanics.
According to the Special Theory of Relativity, as an object increases in velocity closer to the speed of light, it's mass increases, and it's relative time slows down. At the speed of light, an object would have infinite mass, and time stops. The only known particle to move faster than the speed of light is a tachyon. Such a particle, in fact, can never move slower than the speed of light. It is theorised that such a particle must therefore have the property of negative relative time, that is, it is moving backwards in time.

In Star Trek physics, the ficticious 'warp bubble' is used to seperate the relativistic time dilation effects of faster than light space travel, so that on board time is the same as an observer remaining stationary and is not near a gravity well.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 10, 2003, 07:23:51 am

I'm glad you were able to get a copy of The Big Book of Physics (with pop-up diorama's).

Now, for your combat simulator, do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Rod O'neal on July 10, 2003, 08:04:36 am

Quote:

I'm glad you were able to get a copy of The Big Book of Physics (with pop-up diorama's).

Now, for your combat simulator, do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?

I think her point is that if you want it based on reality this is the type of considerations that you would have to make, and therefore, not practical. I might be wrong though, she's obviously a lot smarter than I am.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on July 10, 2003, 08:33:16 am

Korah posted: "In this post I use the term "SFB players" to mean supporters of SFC1/2/OP and "SFC players" to mean supporters of SFC3."

Wrong definition.....there are Many fans of the first games that never played SFB and still dont like SFC3...this isnt about SFB vs SFC...its about SFC1,2 and OP vs SFC3....3 out of 4 games use SFB as a base....the odd man out is SFC3....

Most fans of the original games...dont like SFC3.....most new fans dont like the original games....

THAT is the divide.....a third game system will never solve that....

Korah posted: "This discussion should not be about "SFB vs SFC", it should be about what the players want. "

We allready did that....Erik took a poll....SFB based SFC won hands down....Many ot the "improvements" in SFC3 were outright suggestions from the original game fan base.....the problem is that these "improvments" were placed in a game that few of the "existing" fan base wanted....

Nanner posted: ".some of us just want the best trek ship to ship combat game we can.. others (like your self) want to reproduce sfb to the letter (save the turn base aspect)."

LMAO....You know...some of us think that we allready had the "best ship to ship combat game".....

Look...you guys have every right to think that SFC3 is superior....just as people like me have every right to think that the original games are superior...there are even people who like BOTH games for their own qualities....

But its just too late...the product line has been split....as has the fan base....nothing can change that now...

People like myself....will never accept a "Galaxies at War" based on SFC3.....

SFC4 should simply continue on with the SFC3 ruleset.....while GaW should continue the sfc2/OP ruleset...

This is the only way to make both fan groups happy...

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 10, 2003, 08:40:50 am

No doubt about it, a space simulator set in a real physics paradigm will be very hard to make (playable). But SFC works in the context of a two dimensional naval simulator using futuristic starships. Define the paradigm and the context of the simulation, then we can discuss how real you can make it.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 10, 2003, 09:23:47 am

Quote:

one quick correction choas about fps - not every idiot can play all fps.. i would challenge you to try rainbow6 raven shield, ghost recon, etc.. you may not know this - but there are many, many tactics involved in many fps games.. so you can stop trying to make a game "superior" because it is not an fps game - simply put, its all about individual taste in game.

Hey, Nanner!

OK, granted. My FPS experience is limited to Doom II over an old Netware network about 9 years ago... Chaingun 360's ;^)

Chaos

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on July 10, 2003, 10:16:51 am

Quote:

No doubt about it, a space simulator set in a real physics paradigm will be very hard to make (playable). But SFC works in the context of a two dimensional naval simulator using futuristic starships. Define the paradigm and the context of the simulation, then we can discuss how real you can make it.

Are you referring to a strategic gaming paradigm, a tactical gaming paradigm, a simulation based upon real world physics, or something else entirely?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: NannerSlug on July 10, 2003, 10:33:01 am

Quote:

No doubt about it, a space simulator set in a real physics paradigm will be very hard to make (playable). But SFC works in the context of a two dimensional naval simulator using futuristic starships. Define the paradigm and the context of the simulation, then we can discuss how real you can make it.

please dont try to take a nickel answer and turn it into a 5 dollar question.

i made a simple input into this thread. it was very simplistic in it desire and nature. if its small and fast, its harder to hit. if its big and slow, its an easier target. what is so hard to grasp about this concept? tack that together with a curved to hit chart and you have what i prefere - not somthing that is solely based on 16% hit brackets (die role).. to me, one takes advantage of a computer.. just as i like the fact that sfc3 uses the mass/engine power of the ship to determine the movement - not a magical turn mode.

its all about preferences - and there is no right or wrong when it comes down to it.

personally, if they were to just add a few things into sfc3 (and a lot more ships), it would be perfect for my self.. that way i could have a game which represented trek from TOS to current.. it represents star trek.. (which IS the core audience of the game).

from my view.. the split is more over those who like the sfb rule set over those who are simply seeking a good real time tactical simulator. similar changes in game rule sets have happened with items like war craft3 and what not - and are not unusual for video games - infact it is the norm..

is sfc3 perfect? no,. if it were more like TNZ, i think it would have fit the bill closer.. i think there are some issues related to damage as well (a phaser 9 is equal to a phaser 3) - but thats another issue in and of its self.

anywho - thats how it is, i suppose.. and i think sfc3 is doing far better than some of you guys think or hope. if only activision had provided a demo or official patch.. again, if sfc2 had been given the same support that sfc3 is being given, there would be no sfc2 currently (or a very, very small number of people).

its all about preferences people.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Ifrit on July 10, 2003, 10:46:17 am

Since Taldren is unlikely to produce another game in the SFC1/2/OP series (or a sequal to SFC:TNG), I propose that we do so ourselves. A game that made no direct references to SFC or SFB (and used its own models and textures) could ship without any legal complications, and if it was sufficiently flexible, people could write and distribute SFC mods for use in tactical and strategic (i.e. continuous space) mode.

This wouldn't really be SFC4, but rather a general-use starship combat simulator. However, any SFC/SFB rules that could be reduced to a set of general properties could be carried over.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on July 10, 2003, 11:08:38 am

The to-hit brackets in SFC1/2/OP do retain the same discrete variables as were necessary on a hex map used with only a six-sided dice, this is true. The discrete nature of the numbers was a product of the nature of the game. A ship could not be 2.5 hexes away, and you can't roll 3.4 on a six-sided dice. I imagine the designers of the game would have plotted a continuous curve with range on one axis, and to-hit probability on the other, and then selected those points along the line which best fit the discrete nature of the game.
In a computer game, of course, we are not limited to discrete variables, and can make full use of the original continuous to-hit curve. I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to reverse engineer what those curves look like for each of the weapons tables used in SFB, removing the 'brackets' as Nannerslug has referred them as. At least, this is how I interpret the above comments and if so, would appear to be a good idea and create a more realistic firing solution.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: SPQR Renegade001 on July 10, 2003, 11:29:10 am

Quote:

Does this emply Newtonian Mechanics or Einsteinian Mechanics as the base mathematical formulae.

I have never seen reason to apply the practical reality of physics to a game. Newtonian mechanics is easy for the common player to grasp, because we see it every day. Where that doesn't fit the model you want, then use technology as your crutch to re-write the laws of the universe. It worked for Roddenberry. It works for Lucas. It'll for for anyone else if they can convincingly protray it.

Quote:

I'm glad you were able to get a copy of The Big Book of Physics (with pop-up diorama's).

ROTFLMAO

DonHo was so wrong. 50% of what you say is well thought and makes good sense. The rest is just flipping hillarious.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Mog on July 10, 2003, 12:58:15 pm

Ren, I've been saying that for quite a while now

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on July 10, 2003, 02:23:02 pm

Why do I even bother....<sigh>

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on July 10, 2003, 02:40:45 pm

Quote:

I'm glad you were able to get a copy of The Big Book of Physics (with pop-up diorama's).

Now, for your combat simulator, do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?

<Passes the Big Book of Physics to Cleaven>...

Here, look it up yourself...

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on July 10, 2003, 02:51:20 pm

Quote:

Quote:

I'm glad you were able to get a copy of The Big Book of Physics (with pop-up diorama's).

Now, for your combat simulator, do you have to use StarTrek physics, or can you revert to a more self consistent paradigm?

<Passes the Big Book of Physics to Cleaven>...

Here, look it up yourself...

How remiss of me, I forgot you lived in Queensland..

<passes Cleaven the young readers version instead>

Try not to colour in all the pictures all at once.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Toasty0 on July 10, 2003, 03:03:22 pm

Could someone take the cutlery away from Tracy? She's gonna hurt someone.

hehe

Best,
Jerry

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 10, 2003, 05:01:50 pm

Quote:

Quote:

No doubt about it, a space simulator set in a real physics paradigm will be very hard to make (playable). But SFC works in the context of a two dimensional naval simulator using futuristic starships. Define the paradigm and the context of the simulation, then we can discuss how real you can make it.

Are you referring to a strategic gaming paradigm, a tactical gaming paradigm, a simulation based upon real world physics, or something else entirely?

Paradigm means what sort of rules do you want to follow in your world, ie real physics or StarTrek physics (or Star Wars).

Context means what do you want the simulation to reflect in its operation. If you want a simulator with both strategic and tactical contexts it obviously adds complexity. But you must choose the context ie WW2 tank combat, naval combat, 3D space combat.

You then apply the rules of the chosen paradigm to this context. Of course this is a question to you and others, I have no preference in this development. Also if you wish I can loan you a real book, A Brief History of Time, so you can see how the story ends.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 10, 2003, 05:15:12 pm

Quote:

Quote:

No doubt about it, a space simulator set in a real physics paradigm will be very hard to make (playable). But SFC works in the context of a two dimensional naval simulator using futuristic starships. Define the paradigm and the context of the simulation, then we can discuss how real you can make it.

please dont try to take a nickel answer and turn it into a 5 dollar question.

i made a simple input into this thread. it was very simplistic in it desire and nature. if its small and fast, its harder to hit. if its big and slow, its an easier target. what is so hard to grasp about this concept? tack that together with a curved to hit chart and you have what i prefere - not somthing that is solely based on 16% hit brackets (die role).. to me, one takes advantage of a computer.. just as i like the fact that sfc3 uses the mass/engine power of the ship to determine the movement - not a magical turn mode.

its all about preferences - and there is no right or wrong when it comes down to it.

personally, if they were to just add a few things into sfc3 (and a lot more ships), it would be perfect for my self.. that way i could have a game which represented trek from TOS to current.. it represents star trek.. (which IS the core audience of the game).

from my view.. the split is more over those who like the sfb rule set over those who are simply seeking a good real time tactical simulator. similar changes in game rule sets have happened with items like war craft3 and what not - and are not unusual for video games - infact it is the norm..

is sfc3 perfect? no,. if it were more like TNZ, i think it would have fit the bill closer.. i think there are some issues related to damage as well (a phaser 9 is equal to a phaser 3) - but thats another issue in and of its self.

anywho - thats how it is, i suppose.. and i think sfc3 is doing far better than some of you guys think or hope. if only activision had provided a demo or official patch.. again, if sfc2 had been given the same support that sfc3 is being given, there would be no sfc2 currently (or a very, very small number of people).

its all about preferences people.

And I thought you would respond on how SFC:TNG doesn't use dice and range breaks. Aside from the position that SFC:TNG does not have these there is nothing wrong with what you have said above. Making a space sim more in the model of a FPS does have marketing appeal, it's just that the implimentation was a little lacking from my point of view.

PS You do know that the answer you have quoted was for a different question? I have assumed that in this instance you have just made a mistake and not just used it as an excuse to restate something you've already said about 10 times before.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Ifrit on July 10, 2003, 05:45:38 pm

The vast majority of space "sims" have been first person shooters. The excellent X-WING series, for instance, or even the more recent (and equally impressive) IW2, which merged a detailed physics model with some familiar FPS conventions (you get to strafe back and forth, but your dreadnought drifts about half a kilometer before changing vectors). What do all these games have in common? They're all coded to the first person point of view (along with KA and BC, to a lesser extent). SFC draws much of its appeal from its use of a third-person perspective. I loved X-WING and IW2, but SFC will always be my favorite, in large part due to its very intuitive choice of perspective. BC and KA just aren't as much fun, because I never know the exact orientation of my ship to its immediate surroundings (well, in BC you can always switch to external view, but then the game suffers from the addition of a third axis, which makes it tactically less interesting than a "flat" sim).

Perhaps what we need is a shooter coded to a second-person point of view (i.e. the players fire shots at themselves, in an attempt to kill themselves). What would it be called? Perhaps "CounterCounterStrike"?

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 10, 2003, 06:12:09 pm

Is SFC1,2,OP that complicated? OK, the single player campaigns in SFC1 were too difficult I hated chacing that nasty missle boat around the Orion base in the Fed campaign, just to meet my double. Out of the box, I found SFC2 campaigns were challenging, but not unbeatable. They got dumbed down with the patches. They should have been left alone. I would say the same about SFC3, but when my computer crashes every time I try to load certain missions, it just takes the fun out of it.

I wounder why people defend SFC3. I found gameplay surpizingly dull. Not that there were no missles, fighters, or seeking plasma, but that a ship raked with a successful alpha strike would just fly on and fight as if nothing happened. It's hull integrety would go down, but it wouldn't slow or lose weapons. Getting a good shot required too much concentraition with too little satisfaction. This is my definition of tedium.

The only real advantage to having small ships is the lack of expense compared to larger ships. The ability to mod a ship in game was a good notion, but the lack of a need for specialized ships make it pointless. You start with a stripped down vessel, and have to bring it up to snuff. You have to learn what works and what doesn't, but it doesn't give you any reason to have a small ship other than you can't afford a larger one. I simply found it tedious.

All the time, I listened to a really poor music track I learned to fly Lyran in SFC2, just because of TOS fight music. Running over a light cruiser with four ESGs fired up.... That's satisfaction!

When flying a capital ship in OP, you may also buy an escort to guard your behind. Set it to fire on your command. It is very difficult to get it to propperly defend you, but in that mode, it will shoot down fighters and missles. This does: however, gives small ships a reason to exist, other than virtue of low price.

Is it multi-player that make the old SFC too hard? I, personally, have never been able to kill a moderately skilled Fed BCF player with my Klingon C-7. I'm an average player. I win some; I lose some. I know a few tricks. Some players know how to fly a certain ship with certain tactics and are virtually unbeatable. Yes, they are intimidating, and unless you have a trick up your sleeve, never fight them on their own turf. Maybe the blandness of SFC3 give a more level playing field.

Is it TOS vs TNG? On that I can't comment. I flipped channels when Voyager came under fire. TNG combat is the lowpoint of an episode. Maybe SFC3 is more cannon. There is certainly less content to contest. In my humble opion, less is less.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: FPF_TraceyG on July 10, 2003, 08:51:22 pm

Quote:

Paradigm means what sort of rules do you want to follow in your world, ie real physics or StarTrek physics (or Star Wars).

I believe I addressed this issue already.

Quote:

Context means what do you want the simulation to reflect in its operation. If you want a simulator with both strategic and tactical contexts it obviously adds complexity. But you must choose the context ie WW2 tank combat, naval combat, 3D space combat.

I won't state the obvious.

Quote:

You then apply the rules of the chosen paradigm to this context. Of course this is a question to you and others, I have no preference in this development. Also if you wish I can loan you a real book, A Brief History of Time, so you can see how the story ends.

Thankyou Cleaven for the offer, I must decline as I already have two copies of Stephen Hawking's book, and several others. Paul Davies and John Gribben are two other authors on the subject you may wish to read as well.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on July 10, 2003, 09:48:54 pm

Quote:

1. Interface - how the game looks and feels on your computer

Agree completely with UI comments. The SFC1,2,OP UI's were the best.

Quote:

2. Races - the good, the bad, and the ugly

Humm....all I want for from SFB is Tholians and Andros....is that asking too much?

Honestly I would like to see a game where all the SFB and Canon Trek races are blended together and evolve with time. For example an all era's game where you select a "year of play" and this defines the map, races, weapons, systems, etc. If I select the year 2245 for example I would have TOS/SFB races and the game would be pretty much SFB based. If I select the year 2360 I should see TNG based races, systems, etc. With this type of game setup things (i.e. tech, weapons, ships etc.) would have dates first available AND dates where things get phased out. A game like this would have an extensive history briefing to explain how the races evolved over time. For example, the Lyrans joined the Klingon empire is such-in-such date or the Gorns joined the Feds in such-in-such date and the map now reflects this.

The big question unresolved in my mind about this "all-eras" type game would be whether to use a modified F&E based map or a modified canon map (for example from the recent book Star Trek Star Charts). The canon map looks pretty hard to balance for strategic gameplay given that some races have HUGE sections of space while others have smaller areas. It's interesting to note that on an F&E map the Tholians have this "tiny" holdfast but on the canon map they control a vast area.....go figure.

Quote:

3. Devices - Sensors, Cloaking Device, Power management, etc....

I hate AV. It makes no sense to use with starships that are 10's of thousands of KM apart moving at slow speeds relative to each other. This is not a fighter sim and just because the graphics make it seem like ships are close to each other, in reality they can't see each other visually. Advanced sensors are critical for space combat just to see the enemy let alone shoot him. This is why SFB used the ECM/ECCM system. The graphics in SFC are misleading but have to be done this way for practical gaming reasons. AV make no sense if you understand the true perspective that was being transferred from the SFB board game. Bring back ECM/ECCM.

Energy management should be a "game within a game". Nuff said.

SFB had an officer system...so use it. Nuff said.

I can live with SFC3's repair system.

6 shields was better because it gave you more ability to maneuver. More is better.

I can live with SFC3's tactical map. See I'm not totally closed minded.

SFB's cloaking system worked great and it had a hidden cloak option. Nothing in SFB prevents a hidden cloak. Use it. Nuff said.

As far as weapons go I would have the TOS/SFB races using phasers (1,2,3..etc.) as primary weapons in TOS era but say that the other races eventually fell behind the federation in phaser tech so they replaced phasers with disruptor tech by the TNG eras. This would all occur over time in an "all eras" format. Essentually Klingons and Romulans phased out phasers and used disruptor tech (which used to be their heavys in TOS era) for their primary weapons when they couldn't keep up with the feds over time in phaser tech. The Klingons began using Photon torps along with other new weapons as their new heavies. Romulans continued improving and using their plasma weapons as heavies and were able to increase their plasma torp speed over time.

CONCLUSION: Create an "all eras" SFC where the SFB people get GAW in TOS era but things evolve into more canon TNG as the years go by. The game's theme is more history based where what you get is based on the "year of play" selected. By being creative I believe most of what people want can be accomodated.

The big question is WILL THE NEXT PUBLISHER GET THE RIGHTS TO ALL TREK ERAS? If not, then an "all eras" game is caput and separate games (i.e. TOS based or TNG based) will HAVE to be made. Activision was in the unique position of being able to do an "all eras" game, but that is now no longer the case. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

Lastly, for those that think SFB based rules cannot be used for the TNG era, you're wrong and this guy proves it...check out this web site and what this guy has done....it's really cool and could be the basis for an "all eras" SFC:

http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/index.html

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cpt. Chaos on July 10, 2003, 09:50:15 pm

So, since we're talking about this,

Can the 'warp bubble' generated around the ship by the warp engines be considered an artificial wormhole? ...Created by the ship as it travels down it?

Chaos

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tulwar on July 10, 2003, 10:12:19 pm

Mr. Hypergol has it exactly right.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 11, 2003, 12:23:10 am

Quote:

Quote:

Paradigm means what sort of rules do you want to follow in your world, ie real physics or StarTrek physics (or Star Wars).

I believe I addressed this issue already.

Quote:

Context means what do you want the simulation to reflect in its operation. If you want a simulator with both strategic and tactical contexts it obviously adds complexity. But you must choose the context ie WW2 tank combat, naval combat, 3D space combat.

I won't state the obvious.

Quote:

You then apply the rules of the chosen paradigm to this context. Of course this is a question to you and others, I have no preference in this development. Also if you wish I can loan you a real book, A Brief History of Time, so you can see how the story ends.

Thankyou Cleaven for the offer, I must decline as I already have two copies of Stephen Hawking's book, and several others. Paul Davies and John Gribben are two other authors on the subject you may wish to read as well.

Quite correct, simply switching the terminology around as you have done does not constitute an opposing point of view, it merely clouds the issue for the onlooker.
I prefer Paul Davies, but Steven Hawkings has a better public awareness for his two popular books so you always offer him first to the unwashed masses in the hope that the name will kindle a glimmer of recognition.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: mbday on July 11, 2003, 02:40:31 am

Quote:

Wrong definition.....there are Many fans of the first games that never played SFB and still dont like SFC3...this isnt about SFB vs SFC...its about SFC1,2 and OP vs SFC3....3 out of 4 games use SFB as a base....the odd man out is SFC3....

NO THIS TREAD WAS NOT STARTED TO BE SFC vs SFB SFC1, 2, OP vs SFC3.This was about what every one would like too see in a game that could be next. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS A vs ONE GAME OR THE OTHER. IF YOU READ THE VERY FIRST POST IT WAS NOT ABOUT ONE GAME OR THE OTHER. IT WAS ABOUT WHAT CAN BE USE FROM EACH GAME TO MAKE THE GAME THAT EVERY ONE WHATS. NOT JUST THE SFB OR THE SFC OR SFC1, 2, OP OR SFC3 BUT WHAT EVERY ONE WHOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM BOTH SIDE.

Now sorry about the Yelling but is has been said once or twice already but not one of you have listened.

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Cleaven on July 11, 2003, 03:02:55 am

Quote:

Quote:

Wrong definition.....there are Many fans of the first games that never played SFB and still dont like SFC3...this isnt about SFB vs SFC...its about SFC1,2 and OP vs SFC3....3 out of 4 games use SFB as a base....the odd man out is SFC3....

NO THIS TREAD WAS NOT STARTED TO BE SFC vs SFB SFC1, 2, OP vs SFC3.This was about what every one would like too see in a game that could be next. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO MAKE THIS A vs ONE GAME OR THE OTHER. IF YOU READ THE VERY FIRST POST IT WAS NOT ABOUT ONE GAME OR THE OTHER. IT WAS ABOUT WHAT CAN BE USE FROM EACH GAME TO MAKE THE GAME THAT EVERY ONE WHATS. NOT JUST THE SFB OR THE SFC OR SFC1, 2, OP OR SFC3 BUT WHAT EVERY ONE WHOULD LIKE TO SEE FROM BOTH SIDE.

Now sorry about the Yelling but is has been said once or twice already but not one of you have listened.

And as one of the "you" how does my complaining about the difficulty of making SFC "realistic" translate to SFC Vs SFB? How is it that you have to bring it down to that? Yell all you want, throw a tantrum and stamp your feet if it makes you feel better. It doesn't change the fact that realism in space is hard to do. (And that won't make SFB go away either no matter how much you want it to.)

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: Tus on July 11, 2003, 06:00:11 am

Wow this went from a simple post to quite the arguement. Its interesting to read, but it would be nice if you all would stop the this arguement on who's idea or opinion is better and instead just post new ideas. So far its just been pounding in of 1 or 2 opinions that someone disagreed with and nothing really new.

tus

Title: Re: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP
Post by: mbday on July 11, 2003, 06:50:12 am