Dynaverse.net
Taldrenites => Starfleet Command 4 => Topic started by: [UFP]Exeter on June 25, 2014, 01:33:02 pm
-
This thread is a discussion of specifics in SFC 4. If you are not up to date please review this thread
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163393922.0.html (http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163393922.0.html)
-
SFC4, will be an extension and upgrade to SFC2
We do not have permission for the rul eset, so I will be using a modified one for Imperium.
The tactical game is for combat
The strategic will be the galaxy map, resources etc.
-
What we have so far:
1) We want some sort of semi-seamless transition from tactical to strategic levels based on range and warping off, with an alert to other units in the area that the warp is getting ready to occur.
2) No warp combat (for now, mainly because we can't really figure out how to do it).
3) We want several levels of information gathering and dispersal (approx 4, from tactical to galactic) to simulate a real galactic power doing its thing.
4) We are leaning towards a 2D+ approach unless we see some sort of real 3D that wows our pants off.
5) The way we wish to navigate from tactical displays to strategic displays is important and is under current discussion.
Did I miss anything?
-
SFC4, will be an extension and upgrade to SFC2
We do not have permission for the rul eset, so I will be using a modified one for Imperium.
The tactical game is for combat
The strategic will be the galaxy map, resources etc.
So if I am understanding this correctly, you will be using as much of SFC2 as you can while replacing the 3D engine, the SFB IP and the broken D2 junk. What about the missions and back story?
-
.
-
Will this be as open to modding as other games?
Being able to adjust weapon DPS and etc...
Adding, duplicating etc...
Yes there will be modding. exactly how is not decided.
Thrusters were implemented in STBC in the Kobayashimaru mod, quite interesting strafing left and right and up and down via number pad. Kind of cool.
I am considering thruster, withe arrow keys, Port.starboard.up.down
So if I am understanding this correctly, you will be using as much of SFC2 as you can while replacing the 3D engine, the SFB IP and the broken D2 junk. What about the missions and back story?
modtly orrect, we may have to rewrite ome of the code an an use dyna, not decided yet. Missions will have to be redone but will allow custom missions
-
.
-
.
-
Thrusters were implemented in STBC in the Kobayashimaru mod, quite interesting strafing left and right and up and down via number pad. Kind of cool.
I am considering thruster, withe arrow keys, Port.starboard.up.down
Now is as good a time as any to start drilling this into your head: Make as many tactical commands as possible map-able or re-map-able to the keyboard in addition to any mouse function you might give those commands. Strategic and bookkeeping UI's work well as mouse driven interfaces, but combat requires customization to the player's liking.
So if I am understanding this correctly, you will be using as much of SFC2 as you can while replacing the 3D engine, the SFB IP and the broken D2 junk. What about the missions and back story?
modtly orrect, we may have to rewrite ome of the code an an use dyna, not decided yet. Missions will have to be redone but will allow custom missions
Then why abandon the SFB stuff? All we need do is change some names, adjust some charts and and base dice and it's the same thing as using Imperium, but play tested 3/4 of the way.
-
.
-
Believe it or not SFB stole most of their terminolgy from the US or other militaries - ECM, ECCM, Wild Weasles, Suicide Ships, Q Ships are all 20th century warfare terms if I'm not mistaken and the Star Trek stuff we were going to use anyway. Race names and specific weapons or system names are the ones that will need attention.
-
. . . so I will be using a modified one for Imperium.
Any place we can see this rules set short of a garage sale?
-
SFB rule set cannot be cut and paste ao the same amount of work. I do not have the SFB rule set anyway. I have imperium. To get the rules we would have to fork out real money.
-
SFB rule set cannot be cut and paste ao the same amount of work. I do not have the SFB rule set anyway. I have imperium. To get the rules we would have to fork out real money.
I have the SFB rules sitting a few feet from me. So does DH. All I'm saying is that if you are leaving most of the tactical engine as is all we need to do is change the basis of the charts we have and we don't have to incorporate a new game into the exisiting one.
-
SFB is copyright, and that is for 75 years. ADB ill not even talk to us an besides 50% royalty is robbery
-
SFB rule set cannot be cut and paste ao the same amount of work. I do not have the SFB rule set anyway. I have imperium. To get the rules we would have to fork out real money.
I'm talking about the Imperium rules :)
-
ADB will not even talk to us an besides 50% royalty is robbery
Is that the figure they quoted you?
-
no reading their forums, there was another request to use the SFU ruleset an they offer to sell the game and keep half the money
-
How is multiplayer being done? Is it peer to peer like all prior SFCs or is it peer to server to peer like most modern multiplayer games? If it's Peer to Peer, what's the peer cap? 6? 12?
If its server based, are we going to have a seamless transition between strategic and tactical? or are we going to be staring at a loading screen once a mission gets accepted?
Getting this items situated will help us figure out what to do with Dyna, it may be that we're stuck with the SFC2/3 Hex grid anyways.
-
How is multiplayer being done? Is it peer to peer like all prior SFCs or is it peer to server to peer like most modern multiplayer games? If it's Peer to Peer, what's the peer cap? 6? 12?
Talking to Frey, we will be using a server, and modify Dyna code and eventually have an upgraded dyne server for fleet combat. Also a 1-1 peer to peer for quick combat skirmishes.
If its server based, are we going to have a seamless transition between strategic and tactical? or are we going to be staring at a loading screen once a mission gets accepted?
Yes, that is planned
Getting this items situated will help us figure out what to do with Dyna, it may be that we're stuck with the SFC2/3 Hex grid anyways
Not sure hat you mean
-
Getting this items situated will help us figure out what to do with Dyna, it may be that we're stuck with the SFC2/3 Hex grid anyways
Not sure hat you mean
[/quote]
If there wasn't going to be a server, the peer-to-peer transition from the main server would require even a momentary pause as the server drops the players and they join their own private network. As it's all going to be run server side, this won't be necessary, and we won't NEED the hex grid, although I'm sure that Race Commanders will want it for Strategic Planning.
-
Sensor ranges and sensor returns proposal:
Every ship has both a sensor strength and a return strength. In general a larger ship has a larger return signal. Certain actions will increase your sensor return. Things like performing a deep scan, or being at warp.
Ship's sensor range are determined by their sensor package, this would be the base range that an object can be detected. I would say the base sensor range for any starship would be 20. Adding extra sensor hits, labs, or scout packages would increase the range. To determine what range you detect someone at, you multiply the sensor strength of the ship scanning, by the ship type value.
Ship type:
Shuttlecraft 1 (detected at range 20)
Fighter 2 (detected at range 40)
Runabout 2.5 (detected at range 50)
Frigate 3 (60)
Destroyer 4 (80)
Cruiser 5 (100)
Dreadnought 6 (120)
Large freighter 6 (120)
Battleship 7 (140)
Station 15 (300)
Battlestation 20 (400)
Starbase 40 (800)
Long range sensors
Even beyond short range sensors, you can detect ships at greater range with your long range sensors. Little details are available unless you've performed a detailed scan of the ship before. You can determine that a ship is there, the size of the ship, and the race that built it. But nothing else until it enters short range sensor range. Ships have a different return signal on long range sensors. The base range is in light years but ship return values are divided by ten. So using a base sensor package of 20, a cruiser is detectable 10 light years away (5/10).
Actions a target ship is taking (affects both long and short range sensors):
Ship is cloaked: half size rating, half sensor strength
Ship is at impulse: no effect
Ship is deep scanning: +1 to size rating
Ship is at tactical Warp: double size rating
Ship is at medium warp (warp 3-5): triple size rating
Ship is at high warp (warp 5+): quadruple size rating
I tried to come up with a balance that allows cloakers the ability to move undetected but doesn't allow them to deep strike a base without some warning. I think the system above works.
Thoughts?
-
I take it the ranges are SFB hex ranges?
-
Yes. I think keeping the tactical game as close as possible to SFC 2 would allow the best transition to it. I know somethings are going to change, they have to. But keeping the sensor ranges and movement rates will make the changes in weapons specs and hit tables less drastic than a complete overhaul. It's hard to sneak up on someone, even with a cloak, because you'll appear on long range sensors well outside of weapons range. The cloak makes it easier to sneak up, but you'd need to be crawling at impulse in order to get really close. I don't know if a Romulan would want to spend five hours to cross the neutral zone to ambush a station, although if it did, a Balance of Terror scenario is certainly possible.
-
The re;ationship ratio could be kept the same. but the hex range is balanced with other factors, besides the tactical does not use hexes
-
Maybe include ships that forgo sensor range for weapons and vice versa. This would fit in with some Fed science ships that have been refit for battle. I bring this up because there might be some minor coding issues.
-
Yes. When I said 20, I was thinking like a Base Federation Cruiser. Obviously Frigates are going to have less sensor power than a Cruiser, unless they spend space that could have otherwise been used for weapons or other equipment for more sensor power. Klingons, for example, might forgo sensor power to get better targeting scanners. And obviously there isn't going to be SFB hexes, but there still is range that has to be figured.
Another thing I probably wanted to make a little more in depth is the relationship between the Cloak and the sensors. A more modern cloak would be harder to detect by a ship with older sensors, and a ship with top of the line sensors would be able to easier spot a ship with a cloak from 20 years prior.
Using the half detection size as a base. I think the formula should probably be... (second attempt... first one had an easy to achieve divide by zero error in it) IF C > 0; S+Sc/(C*2) Where S=Sensor Level, Sc=Scout (The value here should only be more than 1 if in the case of a Scout Cruiser or bigger, and then to a max of 2), C=Cloak Level. If there's no cloak, then just skip the entire line and figure detection normally. (Otherwise there's a divide by zero error too, I thought about eliminating the error, but it skews the power of the cloak too much I think) Also I need to edit the above post just a bit with regards to the cloak, the ship that is cloaked has their sensor range halved, not the ship looking for the cloaked ship.
-
seems like sensor detection needs to be factor of both sensor capability or the hip and the anti senor detection of the other. For simplicity vall it ECM
-
I'm hesitant to use ECM for that simply because ECM is throwing up a lot of electronic "chatter" to confuse sensors. That actually makes you easier to detect, not harder. All that noise is going to tell the detecting ship that something is out there. Won't know what, but you'll know something is there.
-
I like the concept, sensor detection as a function of both ships
-
First thing to consider with electronic warfare is active vs. passive sensors. Keeping your radar off makes you a lot harder to detect. Switching it on broadcasts you'r location across the galaxy. After that, we can worry about making the enemy play Space Invaders on their targeting screen.
-
Good point.s I would suggest a sensor detection function that takes multiple factors
-
Personally, if I were making a game from scratch, I'd equip different ships with different sensor suites. Scientific vessels might have excellent passive sensors, or maybe their sensors wouldn't be designed for detecting ships at warp. The big headlight on the front of the Enterprise might prove to be an excellent target acquisition sensor, while a ship like the Reliant might not have much range. A Klingon player might want to trade TMP's photon for TOS radar.
-
Ship customization is planned bu need to get basic gameplay working.
-
Ship customization is planned bu need to get basic gameplay working.
Forget I mentioned anything! Customization is something that very few captains ever get any say on. Maybe in WWII, PT boat skippers could get a selection of guns, but the commander of a real ship gets what he's given and makes it work!
The whole ship customization scheme that SFC3 borrowed from Activision's earlier titles was so unmilitary that it left me completely unable to suspend disbelief. A starship is not a personal hot rod for some captain to play with in the garage. The company car isn't making money for the boss if the driver keeps it in the shop! I know people think that the governments are just here to waste money, but bosses are bosses. Starfleet does not want to see its ships coming back to dock, just because the captain isn't happy with the torpedo launcher that came with his ship. When the boss wants you to get better equipment, he will call. Believe me, when the boss wants you to come to shop, he will call.
-
the customization is closer to upgrades
-
Meh, nothing to see here.
-
Ship customization is planned bu need to get basic gameplay working.
The ship customization in SFC3 was utterly retarded. Not saying all customization is retarded, maybe the fail of SFC3 was just that strong.
Refits work, funny how I thing the SFC1 Refit system had it best.
-
It's a lot easier to make a system for a single player vs a balanced one for thousands who all have their own ideas about what the best thing is.
-
It's a lot easier to make a system for a single player vs a balanced one for thousands who all have their own ideas about what the best thing is.
Very true, but I don't think with SFC3 anyone even tried. Any trek game where it was a good idea to REMOVE THE SHIELDS FROM YOUR SHIP is a bucket of fail.
That said since this game doesn't look like it's gonna use SFB IP who knows what'll work best.
That's the thing with customization is it opens so many cans of worms. I re-read the SFC:OP warp-missions thread from 2006 and was laughing at all the INSANE exploits we found with this. it's probably why they never were used on a server.
-
My customization is not to redesign the ship s in sfc3, that was insane. But more of refits and "upgrades" like engineers can do.
Unless your'e a pirate
-
That's pretty much what SFC1 had IIRC.
-
have not played sfc1 in ages. wonder if it will even install on win 8.1
-
Ship customization is planned bu need to get basic gameplay working.
Forget I mentioned anything! Customization is something that very few captains ever get any say on. Maybe in WWII, PT boat skippers could get a selection of guns, but the commander of a real ship gets what he's given and makes it work!
The whole ship customization scheme that SFC3 borrowed from Activision's earlier titles was so unmilitary that it left me completely unable to suspend disbelief. A starship is not a personal hot rod for some captain to play with in the garage. The company car isn't making money for the boss if the driver keeps it in the shop! I know people think that the governments are just here to waste money, but bosses are bosses. Starfleet does not want to see its ships coming back to dock, just because the captain isn't happy with the torpedo launcher that came with his ship. When the boss wants you to get better equipment, he will call. Believe me, when the boss wants you to come to shop, he will call.
Even with larger ships there can be a lot of variation in terms of things like radars and other weaponry. And since in wartime, resources are limited, it stands to reason that a successful captain may be able to cash in whatever prestige he's earned to get the equipment he feels is a priority installed onto his ship. That said, I agree that gameplay would be better served with a SFC 1 style upgrade system where a base hull can be modified to a limited number of refit and special mission packages.
-
I will have to get a copy and see how it works.
-
Ship customization is planned bu need to get basic gameplay working.
Forget I mentioned anything! Customization is something that very few captains ever get any say on. Maybe in WWII, PT boat skippers could get a selection of guns, but the commander of a real ship gets what he's given and makes it work!
The whole ship customization scheme that SFC3 borrowed from Activision's earlier titles was so unmilitary that it left me completely unable to suspend disbelief. A starship is not a personal hot rod for some captain to play with in the garage. The company car isn't making money for the boss if the driver keeps it in the shop! I know people think that the governments are just here to waste money, but bosses are bosses. Starfleet does not want to see its ships coming back to dock, just because the captain isn't happy with the torpedo launcher that came with his ship. When the boss wants you to get better equipment, he will call. Believe me, when the boss wants you to come to shop, he will call.
Even with larger ships there can be a lot of variation in terms of things like radars and other weaponry. And since in wartime, resources are limited, it stands to reason that a successful captain may be able to cash in whatever prestige he's earned to get the equipment he feels is a priority installed onto his ship. That said, I agree that gameplay would be better served with a SFC 1 style upgrade system where a base hull can be modified to a limited number of refit and special mission packages.
I'm not going to argue how much a ship captain can equip his ship. Obviously, the less disciplined the navy, the less standard the equipment. What we are talking about is a game. SFC 1, 2, & OP were steeped in the ruleset of SFB. SFB was modeled on various war games, like those produced by Avalon Hill. These games are made around the concept of the Order of Battle. This is a listing of the supreme commander's assets by type. All items of a type are assumed to be identical and interchangeable. As a veteran of the US Army, I can assure you that not all field jackets are the same, but this is the root of military organization. SFB felt like a strategic WWII simulation, but set out in space, in the far future. This is why the game appeals to me.
With the personalization of player ships, you get into a different kind of game. It's more reminiscent of a game where you level up and get new powers.
-
I'm not going to argue how much a ship captain can equip his ship. Obviously, the less disciplined the navy, the less standard the equipment.
I was describing the type of standardization in the USN and RN during WWII.
With the personalization of player ships, you get into a different kind of game. It's more reminiscent of a game where you level up and get new powers.
And like I said, we agree on that point.
-
Have you checked this out?
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163393710.0.html (http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163393710.0.html)
Something like this with and SFCish tactical combat would give me major geek-wood.
-
Regarding this above, I'm gonna have to buy this game and mess around with it and that mod. I'm wondering if we need to re-invent the wheel.
-
.
-
Yes I have played it. I bought it and agee with the comments. The game is boring
-
.
-
But anyways, back to Armada3 SOSE, I didn't like the warp feature, have you played it DieH?
No, not yet. But I'm so desperate for a "fix" I need to try something.
I spent two hours last night watching old PvP films from the General War series of servers. Single-player ain’t cutting it for me and reliving the old films is the closest we’ll get to good PvP these days.
I bought, DLd and played it. As I said in prior posts about it, the work that was put into it was beyond anything I've seen, in par with Armada 2 FleetOps, beautiful ships, total conversion, every detail was appreciated by me and I'm sure by everyone else, that being said, after 2 hours I couldn't play anymore, it lacks the SFC feel, you aren't controlling your ship in battle, it gets boring after a while. I don't know what type of crack they put into the SFC series that has us hooked but it's hard to play games that aren't SFC/SFB.
That “thing” is SFB. The tactical depth, zillion different races, different weapons systems, etc . . . that is the crack.
No, I do NOT think this could replace SFC/SFB . . . but what about as a STRATEGIC game? Kinda like an F&E.
Even like STO. I'll post a pic later of my crew(so proud of my uniforms I designed) lol
There's a lot other games did right, I love that we can make a crew, change the faces, bodies, uniforms, things like that bring out the sense of creating your own little Star Trek Realm, something so cool bc you created your crew, the uniforms, the bridge layout, but after a while once combat starts it lacks the SFC feel and even though these games attract us, we are left bored and just come right back to here wanting more.
STO gets a lot of stuff right, and it’s a beautiful game. But they get more wrong than that get right and they get it wrong enough that it makes me want to punch a baby.
-
For some reason eye candy has always taken precedent over tactical depth. Both are equally possible, that has been shown. Tactical depth, however, requires a level of skill (or the hubristic illusion of it) that requires study and practice which many people aren't willing to put in. Most games are reward driven, i.e. if you try enough times, you will get your reward. Tactical games don't work like that. Add in the inevitable hard feelings and poor sportsmanship that generally accompany a good pwning (from both the winner and the loser) and it just drives people away. They go on to games to enjoy themselves, not get pushed around by schoolroom bullies. You need a thick skin for PvP in any game.
-
For some reason eye candy has always taken precedent over tactical depth. Both are equally possible, that has been shown.
Absolutely, for it’s day SFC looked damned good. It just doesn’t hold up 14 years later, hell I looked a lot better in 2001 myself
Tactical depth, however, requires a level of skill (or the hubristic illusion of it) that requires study and practice which many people aren't willing to put in.
Most games are reward driven, i.e. if you try enough times, you will get your reward.
We had this in SFC (OP at least, can’t say regarding 3) as ultimately your skill as a player was the biggest factor in victory. We didn’t have the South Park WOW issue of “how do you kill that which has no life” as the “Dunsels” of the game would die in their capital ships more than anyone else.
OP wasn’t an MMO, MMOs fill games with insanely stupid loot/grind mechanics so “he who hath no life” can make their character/ship so powerful they can compete with low skill. A lot of people like this, I think it’s dumb in a SciFi setting.
Tactical games don't work like that. Add in the inevitable hard feelings and poor sportsmanship that generally accompany a good pwning (from both the winner and the loser) and it just drives people away. They go on to games to enjoy themselves, not get pushed around by schoolroom bullies.
I believe stuff’s actually gotten worse regarding this, or maybe I’ve just gotten old.
You need a thick skin for PvP in any game.
And you also need to have a rewarding PvE experience for this who aren’t into/good at PvP. That was one of the issues we had in D2, especially after some of us “pros” had so much experience it was very difficult to catch up.
The issue with D2 was after the initial battle-lines formed the front line was everywhere. If you wanted to do anything useful for your empire you were a target. I guess in a way is was good as it gave Dizzy people to kill and rack up PvP VCs, but I’m not sure how good of a model that is for a new game.
-
I use to PvP in STO but tired of the grind. The idea of doing a grind game sickens me, would rather have a fluid game play for missions. I agree with the rewards, but they need to be upgrades. Main gear should be tied to a ship class, and rank/experience to get that.
-
I use to PvP in STO but tired of the grind. The idea of doing a grind game sickens me, would rather have a fluid game play for missions. I agree with the rewards, but they need to be upgrades. Main gear should be tied to a ship class, and rank/experience to get that.
The above statement makes me happy :D
-
I use to PvP in STO but tired of the grind. The idea of doing a grind game sickens me, would rather have a fluid game play for missions. I agree with the rewards, but they need to be upgrades. Main gear should be tied to a ship class, and rank/experience to get that.
The above statement makes me happy :D
As it does me, but as DH pointed out, just grinding out enough XP to grant you the use of a ship doesn't actually make you quailified to command it. Now, given that this is a game we need to accept that. The trick is how to make it so that it isn't a detriment to your side and still make it fun.
-
I'm hoping that the seamless strategic layer will cut down on the "no-battle lines" problems of D2. I also think that supplies need to be implemented in some way. I'd really like to see limited Photons, I think every race needs to have an expendable heavy weapon. You'd think twice about deep striking if you'd be down to just your primary weapons after the second or third engagement. A cruiser with out heavies, should be an even match for a destroyer with heavies. Food and Fuel would be another thing that would be good to track.
-
. . . I'd really like to see limited Photons . . .
f*ck no!!!!
-
ome realism. But 5 year journey, wha 100 of them?
-
That all depends on whether you consider them physical objects. In SFB they are pure energy.
-
On a five year mission, you rarely were away from a base for all five years. You'd do a leg for a year, stop over at a base, do another leg, stop over at another base. Unless you were a deep space exploration ship, you'd be resupplying every 3-6 months. You'd be able to reload your Photons at any base, and if you weren't going near a base, you could technically pull alongside a freighter that might be near by and grab a dozen or so.
-
if they carried hem, but do not wand unlimited.
-
A photon Torp is an anti-matter bomb hurled via a rail-gun, the "war-head" was anti-matter pulled from the engines.
there is a casing, it's 'canon' Trek, but it's the kind of thing that could be fabricated between encounters. That's a way less bullsh*tty explanations than the free drone reloads.
-
OK here's one - I want Q-Ships that are powered by an actual Q. ;D :D
-
Yeah, I've never understood what was so special about the Photon Torpedoes that you couldn't fabricate a new casing. Especially when you have probes that use the exact some space frame. I kinda understand maybe in TOS/TMP where you may not have had advanced replicators and had to rely on Machine Shops. But by the 24th century you should be able to whip out a dozen Torpedo casings in a single day without too much effort.
-
Yeah, I've never understood what was so special about the Photon Torpedoes that you couldn't fabricate a new casing. Especially when you have probes that use the exact some space frame. I kinda understand maybe in TOS/TMP where you may not have had advanced replicators and had to rely on Machine Shops. But by the 24th century you should be able to whip out a dozen Torpedo casings in a single day without too much effort.
Besides . . . the Feds are the friggin good guys, when was the last time you saw a hero in an action movie stop and count his ammo?
-
en reload could be automatic but not 100 in a battle
-
en reload could be automatic but not 100 in a battle
Fine then limited disrupters. Limited plasma torps . All heavy weapons limited. Only unlimited weapon is phasers then. Do that and buh-bye to your player base. ::)
-
en reload could be automatic but not 100 in a battle
Fine then limited disrupters. Limited plasma torps . All heavy weapons limited. Only unlimited weapon is phasers then. Do that and buh-bye to your player base. ::)
What he said, this is a terrible idea that needs to be killed in the womb.
-
Actually, I can see merit to both sides. I am in the unlimited camp, however, as I want play the captain of my own ship, not the quartermaster. It does seem that a compromise might fit the bill: Make it a toggle the single player/server admin can turn off or on. Then people can play the way they like and it will lead to more diverse server experiences.
-
Canon photons are really drones. Drones in SFC are already limited. Making photons limited is really shorthand for abandoning the signature racial flavor of SFC and going for canon compliance. While I feel canon is superior for film and television, it makes for poor gameplay.
-
Canon photons are really drones.
Which canon?
Keep it simple . .. if it requires power to fire unlimited ammo.
-
Why were not torpedoes used more? There must be a reason
-
Why were not torpedoes used more? There must be a reason
They were used all the time.
-
the damage from a torpedo did more hull damage, but phasers seemed to be the weapon of choice. sounds like some unrevealed limiting factor. And the Young kirk in the movies showed torpedoes being loaded on the ship.
-
the damage from a torpedo did more hull damage, but phasers seemed to be the weapon of choice.
That is bad game design from Legacy and STO and has no basis in canon. Rip off better games for ideas :)
-
Speaking of other games . . . anyone ever play this?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2619128 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2619128)
-
I never heard of it, have you played it?
-
the damage from a torpedo did more hull damage, but phasers seemed to be the weapon of choice. sounds like some unrevealed limiting factor.
The only limiting factor was range. Sometimes they stated that it was too close to use photons.
-
I never heard of it, have you played it?
Not yet, but the YouTube video are up. It's another RTSish game, but it's got some stealable interface ideas.
-
Disruptors are NOT heavy weapons. I don't know what the idiot at ADB was smoking the night he watched Elaan of Troyus (The only TOS episode to show Klingons firing weapons until the remastereds came out) but it is very clear that they were NEVER supposed to be heavy weapons. The encounter with the Klingon Ship went a lot like the old Soviet/USA Buzz jobs that fighter pilots would do in neutral/disputed areas (typically over ocean areas not claimed by either) a pilot would buzz another pilot in an attempt to provoke an incident, the side that fired first would have to face the wrath of the United Nations... condemnation from all the non-aligned nations... etc... When the Klingon Ship buzzed the Enterprise, it was an attempt to get the Enterprise to go to Battle Stations and make a move to defend itself. Which, because of the sabotage, would have destroyed the Enterprise. The destruction of the Enterprise at that point could be laid at the feet of sloppy maintenance, under-supply, a drunk engineer, a whole slew of things, Klingon Sabotage would have been quite a ways down the list. When that failed, and it was clear that the sabotage was detected, "Captain Surrender" moved in to do some damage control, but because of the Organian Treaty couldn't outright destroy the Enterprise. The destruction of the Enterprise at that point would have been solely to blame on "Captain Surrender" and the Klingon Empire would have suffered the consequences of such action. Therefore his goal was to disable the Enterprise further, so he could board it, and dispose of the evidence of sabotage. You do not fire heavy weapons at a ship you are trying to disable, you might accidentally destroy it, especially since the sabotage was to the Enterprise's main power systems, with her weakened shields, a single heavy weapon would have probably destroyed her.
Why there needs to be limited Heavies: Supply. D2s campaigns without supply rules degenerated into checkerboard matches with people grabbing whatever hexes they needed to grab, the only use for bases was to repair at, and if you flipped a planet hex, that suddenly became an instant repair/reload source. You could make a hard code rule that a ship that is OOS would suffer some arbitrary 15-20% reduction in combat efficiency, but I don't like that because a ship just cut off from supply (or a player logging in for the evening after work finding him/her self suddenly behind lines) is suddenly much easier to kill. It also limits the ability of deepstriking, someone leaving a border base, as soon as they cross into enemy space and slip through the perimeter, they suddenly lose combat ability? Limited Heavies makes it so you can still have supply rules without inflicting arbitrary penalties for being OOS. Once you've used all your Heavies, you've reduced your own combat ability. If you're careful with your heavies, you could go on for weeks without a resupply.
Now... I answered my own question as to why you can't replicate Torpedo Casings earlier this morning. If a replicator was capable of creating a Torpedo Casing, all it takes is a warp powered ship, and every Tom, Klank, and Harry would have the ability to make as many of the 2nd (3rd once the Quantum Torpedo was invented) most power conventional weapon in the known galaxy as they had fuel for. No way would anyone want that, not even a Ferengi. So they make it out of something that can't be replicated, and you have to stop off at your local certified arms dealers to reload your Photons, a small price to pay to not have everyone running around with a thousand of them.
-
I don't know what the idiot at ADB was smoking the night he watched Elaan of Troyus (The only TOS episode to show Klingons firing weapons until the remastereds came out)
Not entirely true. They did show Klingon fire on the Enterprise in "Errand of Mercy", but they never showed the ship.They were not green blobs, they were small spheres, rather indistinct.
ADB's decision to place Disruptors as heavies had more to do with their desire to give everyone phasers as light weapons more than anything else.
-
On top of killing of your player base with limited photons or heavy weapons. You are looking at unbalancing years of work and play to try and keep things even among the races.
If disruptors are not heavy weapons, then the races that have then don't get phasers as well. You want to talk tv or canon? I never saw a Klingon ship use phasers, nor their crew use phasers as hand weapons. It always surprised me that every race had phasers in sfc/sfb.
Back to photons and game play, especially pvp. I'm playing against a Fed. I'm going to saber dance or plasma ballet outside of normal photon range and count to 100. Most players can count that high after all. Only then when I have the clear advantage will I seriously engage and then crush the helpless Smurf. Limited heavies is a killer.
I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that this is a bad idea and that if you insist on neutering the Feds/photons, you will wind up with a single player game at best. Only the unsuspecting will try this thing and multiplayer will die fast. This is a waste of time and effort.
-
I agree with Dax on that one, lets not reinvent the wheel here.
-
It always surprised me that every race had phasers in sfc/sfb.
Phasers were the great equalizer. You knew what you were getting and what you were fighting. It allowed them to create a "base" game platform that all other weapons could be compared to. I used this basis to help Captain Adam convert phasers to disruptors in his mod. Was I correct? Only game play will tell, but at least I had a solid starting point.
-
It always surprised me that every race had phasers in sfc/sfb.
Phasers were the great equalizer. You knew what you were getting and what you were fighting. It alllowed them to create a "base" game platform that all other weapons could be compared to. I used this basis to help Captain Adam convert phasers to disruptors in his mod. Was I correct? Only game play will tell, but at least I had a solid starting point.
That's nice but drifting off topic a little? We are currently talking here about Lieutenant Q and Exeter wanting to greatly unbalance the game that is the point we have been, and still are here for, by limiting initially photons and possibly all heavy weapons. If they are determined to do so, then cut us loose and good luck finding a player base beyond themselves. Most if any of the old gang won't bother.
-
It always surprised me that every race had phasers in sfc/sfb.
Phasers were the great equalizer. You knew what you were getting and what you were fighting. It alllowed them to create a "base" game platform that all other weapons could be compared to. I used this basis to help Captain Adam convert phasers to disruptors in his mod. Was I correct? Only game play will tell, but at least I had a solid starting point.
That's nice but drifting off topic a little? We are currently talking here about Lieutenant Q and Exeter wanting to greatly unbalance the game that is the point we have been, and still are here for, by limiting initially photons and possibly all heavy weapons. If they are determined to do so, then cut us loose and good luck finding a player base beyond themselves. Most if any of the old gang won't bother.
First off, you brought it up so it's fair game. Also, we are talking about balance and playability and I was describing how ADB went about that for their game which we cannot use for SFC4, but would like to emulate.
Second, I proposed a perfectly good solution to this issue.
Third, this is minutiae that could be literally changed with a keystroke. We should be worrying about getting a running game before we tank it with talk of just precisely how we are going to limit weapons fire.
-
That's nice but drifting off topic a little? We are currently talking here about Lieutenant Q and Exeter wanting to greatly unbalance the game that is the point we have been, and still are here for, by limiting initially photons and possibly all heavy weapons. If they are determined to do so, then cut us loose and good luck finding a player base beyond themselves. Most if any of the old gang won't bother.
I don't think this game can be based on SFB.
Just leave it open enough that I can mod it back to being so. ;)
SFB/SFC worked because phasers were the great equalizers.
Oh . . and in the many years of attempted SGO modding (most of the strange sh*t never even saw a test server) and we tried using Photons on many Klingon ships . . . they just don't work. It just doesn't fit their tactical doctrine, even SFC 3 had the "Klingon Photon" which was for all intents and purposes a Disrupter.
It's like how Taldren made them a Fighter Race instead of a PF one, it just didn't work.
-
ok fine.
-
ADB took the weapon systems for the K D-7 directly from the copy of the blueprints that the ST production team gave AMT to produce the Klingon Battle Cruiser model. The studio model was actually made from the wooden patterns created in the kit making process.
These blueprints designate "disruptors" on the front of each warp nacelle, and 9 circles are designated as "phasers," that perfectly match the spots ADB puts their phasers. The blueprints also show a "drone" in the hanger bay. There is text that refers to it as a multi functional device. The hole in the nose is marked as "sensor."
The original Enterprise blueprints showed only 6 phasers, 2 top left, 2 top right, and 2 bottom front. ADB got this stuff from the blueprints the creators signed off on. Well, they did just stuck phasers on the Romulan Warbird. The blueprints had it with just the giant torpedo.
As far as weapon storage goes, there is just about infinite room to work with. If you've read TOS material, the laundry didn't just wash your uniform, but reconstructed it on the molecular level. Starships carry bulk matter, ready to be transformed into whatever you need. I dare say that not just photon torpedo casings, but missiles and even shuttlecraft could be replicated in transit. That all takes energy.
A ship in a combat theater is not like a ship serving in peace. Your 5 year mission gets cut pretty short after a few engagements. Running the power plant flat out, depolarizing the shield generators, replacing phaser coils, and the like will have you running back to stardock, even if you don't have holes blasted in your ship.
-
.
-
I'll try this one more time.
ADB does not own the code or the UI's. Even if Exeter thinks that the graphics are old and need updating, their basic format can be copied over, saving design time and argument. Some things can be updated/upgraded. New 3D graphics are a given.
ADB does not have proprietary rights to many of the terms used in their game. What they do have rights to are their weapons charts and specific race/weapons names and terminology. The tactical engine can remain mostly intact, with some name and range/damage adjustments and maybe a few functional changes. What we need new things of are the strategic and fleeting aspects of the game, better comm systems and a more fluid way of addressing the transition from tactical to strategic layers.
We need to determine just how "Star Trek" this is going to get. At some point it will step on someone's toes. So, do we make up our own stuff a la SFB or do we try to sneak in as much has we can under the radar? Also, since everyone is insistant on making it into their own personal nerd Nirvana, why not just make a mod-able basic game platform instead? If we can make a bullet proof platform, it can be sold as a generic game that any space navy combat simulator can be graphed onto.
-
.
-
The SFB ruleset is not readily available in the code. For practical reason extracting code and reusing it is not really feasible.
The hard part of the graphics or models is getting them.
My original plan was generic and a mod to make it trek. Frey has an idea to get the ok for trek bases. Anything we can devise on our own or pull from trek (Not ADB) is fair game.
-
I'm not talking about reusing the code. I'm talking about reusing the format the code creates. Of course it needs to be rewritten, but your guide book is right there even if you can't read the actual code. We can help you with the specifics. I thought that's what this is all about. If you just want to do it all yourself, why are you asking for help?
-
I need and want the help, and appreciate the help. Whar is written hre will be incorporated the bet I can.
-
The hard part of the graphics or models is getting them.
Can't you start by using what we have, old and unappealing as they might be? Realistically, UI looks and graphics are they last thing that need polish and attention. We can use what we have to get the code working well because that seems to be the part no one wants to do except you. After the game is pretty well in the beta stage and we get people to try it out and they start complaining about how bad the stuff looks you will have floods of people making pretty stuff for you. It worked before.
-
Some of the technology names can be used as they are neither Trek nor SFB specific. Others can be changed to something similar but more generic (Phaser to Laser an obvious example).
There have been at least a couple of threads touching this topic.
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163389719.0/all.html (http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163389719.0/all.html)
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163383813.msg1122920697.html#msg1122920697 (http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163383813.msg1122920697.html#msg1122920697)
-
We already have names ready to go to avoid copyright issues.
Federation: The Friggin Good Guys
Klingons: The Friggin Bad Guys
Romulans: Point-Ears Bastards
Kzinti: The other white meat
Gorn: Luggage in waiting.
etc . . .
-
Well that was the 100th post, I guess it was time to jump the shark.
-
.
-
Exactly. We could call them Empire A, Empire B, etc. for the creation purposes. It's irrelevant. I know nobody here has created a game before, but we need to focus on the beginnings of the project and figure out how to do this and not on the end product just yet.
-
We already have names ready to go to avoid copyright issues.
Federation: The Friggin Good Guys
Klingons: The Friggin Bad Guys
Romulans: Point-Ears Bastards
Kzinti: The other white meat
Gorn: Luggage in waiting.
etc . . .
You reversed the first 2.
-
.
-
Well if you really want it to sell you need to turn it all high school angsty and whiny:
Feds = Jocks
Klingons = Bad Boys/Girls
Romulans = Brains
Gorn = Surfers/Stoners
Hydrans = Goth Kids
ISC = Nerds
Kzinti = The RaRa's/Student Body Types
Lyrans = The Rest of the Kids No One Notices
-
Well if you really want it to sell you need to turn it all high school angsty and whiny:
Feds = Jocks
Klingons = Bad Boys/Girls
Romulans = Brains
Gorn = Surfers/Stoners
Hydrans = Goth Kids
ISC = Nerds
Kzinti = The RaRa's/Student Body Types
Lyrans = The Rest of the Kids No One Notices
The klingons fit it more with the emo kids who cut themselves and listen to The Cure.
-
.
-
All we have to do copy the existing format, range, damage etc... And change the colors/special effects but in essence it'll be balanced. Other wise tinkering with all the weapons, limiting photons, etc will destroy this b4 it begins.
Not to mention a good portion of the fan base here will just not play.
I do not hav SFB, and have not played it in a good 30 years.
-
Do the range and damage charts in SFC belong to ADB? If not can't we use what is already coded and balanced in SFC?
-
I would imagine it is theirs.
-
All we have to do copy the existing format, range, damage etc... And change the colors/special effects but in essence it'll be balanced. Other wise tinkering with all the weapons, limiting photons, etc will destroy this b4 it begins.
Not to mention a good portion of the fan base here will just not play.
I do not hav SFB, and have not played it in a good 30 years.
Sigh. Well, it looks like I'm talking to the wall here. Good luck with this.
-
.
-
I've been working on a radically different rule set, something that ADB could not remotely lay claim to. I've drawn a SFB-style SSD's for the Fed CA, Klink BC, and Rummy WB. I was hoping to get them right before mentioning them. The Fed CA came out looking good, the Rummy WB was a piece of cake, but the Klink is a complete nightmare. I've redone it several times, and it isn't adding up. I'm not trying to make these ships equal, but with different strengths and weaknesses. I really wonder if anyone is that interested.
-
I have no issues with SFB, but I need the expertise of other as I do not have it. I am maintaining my 'dumbness' as a defense, how can I copy something I know nothing about. If you want the dme ruleset as EAW that is fine, but tell me what it is.
Sigh. Well, it looks like I'm talking to the wall here. Good luck with this.
My hesitancy is the graphics engine is implemented. It supports 13 different formats. The models in current OP are on q3 format that I need to figure out. I fully understand there is more concern about the ruleset, so I propose we create our own and if it is based upon you knowledge of SFB, so be it.
I am not a sfb geekazoid so I ask on the forums what we need.
Not trying to be mean or disrespectful but it seems any input is brushed off or ignored.
I pay attention to everything, and at some point I use all the inputs to modify the design document. My concern will be for what is already coded. if I show hesitancy it is for the work already done and to bring up other options. At this point, consider the ruleset as an open slate. The graphics I have implemented is based upon Irrlicht, it has feature I want.
The current code is highy customizable, and I intend to add lua.
For example hexes, were not part of my design, but I will figure out the math to add them.
-
I have no issues with SFB, but I need the expertise of other as I do not have it. I am maintaining my 'dumbness' as a defense, how can I copy something I know nothing about. If you want the dme ruleset as EAW that is fine, but tell me what it is.
My hesitancy is the graphics engine is implemented. It supports 13 different formats. The models in current OP are on q3 format that I need to figure out. I fully understand there is more concern about the ruleset, so I propose we create our own and if it is based upon you knowledge of SFB, so be it.
I am not a sfb geekazoid so I ask on the forums what we need.
Again, graphics are going to change no matter what. The ships can look like cardboard boxes for all I care during the Alpha stage. As far as SFB you keep wallowing. If you need the rules as a guide I can scan and send you the relevant info as a PDF as needed during development and answer any questions pertaining to them. If I can't, Die Hard or others can. You don't even need all of it because most of it wasn't incorporated into SFC anyway. If we decide to go farther that will be determined by many things. So, if you are really serious about this (because I have better things to do than chase anymore SFC shadows) then this is what we need from you:
1) A design outline with projected timeline to completion. (This will probably change, but everything needs a plan)
2) What you need to start building the game beyond pretty pictures.
3) A clear statement from Frey about WTF is and isn't allowed.
4) Some screen shots or video to give us a look into your head to see just what it is you think this should look like.
5) Some sign that you are actually commited to the project and qualified to attempt this.... please.
-
Sorry, repost.
-
I have some weapons created, am I missing anything:
photon torpedoes,
quantum torpedoes,
plasma torpedo,
phaser,
disruptor
anything else?
-
I have some weapons created, am I missing anything:
photon torpedoes,
quantum torpedoes,
plasma torpedo,
phaser,
disruptor
anything else?
That goes with what we're allowed to use and not use.
-
1) A design outline with projected timeline to completion. (This will probably change, but everything needs a plan)
2) What you need to start building the game beyond pretty pictures.
3) A clear statement from Frey about WTF is and isn't allowed.
4) Some screen shots or video to give us a look into your head to see just what it is you think this should look like.
5) Some sign that you are actually commited to the project and qualified to attempt this.... please.
Get this . . . put it on Kickstarter . . . and take my money!!! :D
-
I have some weapons created...
What does this mean? Just some graphics? Graphics with sound effects? Graphics with sound effects tied to an interface? Graphics with sound effects tied to an interface and damage allocator? See what I mean?
-
I tried to repond with screenies but dyna crahed on the post.
It means in the code.
-
1) A design outline with projected timeline to completion. (This will probably change, but everything needs a plan)
ll take time to incorporate what we talked about here into the design. But I have an old one.
2) What you need to start building the game beyond pretty pictures.
Too late already coding it now,
3) A clear statement from Frey about WTF is and isn't allowed.
Ask him.
4) Some screen shots or video to give us a look into your head to see just what it is you think this should look like.
ok
5) Some sign that you are actually commited to the project and qualified to attempt this.... please.
A mini resume, if that is not enough let me know.
I started coding in C++ in late 70's after a tour in the air force.Developed a business i program using re based AI. Company was sold so I was out of work. I then developed custom C++ code for an custom designer. THen I took a job as an IT manager,and we used Java but I did much of the work in C++. Later we went to c#. Currently I am a project manager and still do C++ on the side. I have programmed in c++ for over 20 years, java 5 and c# for3
This project was started on my own and designed not to use any trek o I have about $200 worth of models.
I hav Visual studio 13, ultimte edition, $2500
So the monetary investment should show my commitment.
-
Tried to pot screenies, dyna gives error when I do
-
How are you trying to upload it?
-
using the attachment feature
-
Is it a picture already or are you just trying to copy and paste code?
-
jpg image
-
Well I doubt that's over 6MB. You could try uploading it to Imageshack or Photobucket or another free service.
-
one screen shopt
-
So you have testing environment with a few weapons worked out? How about interfaces between the player and ship?
-
intrfaces are not completed, mostly hot keys. Mouse control not done but have working cameras. Also have a basic menu system for game setup done.
-
Ok, so the damage generator is not yet part of the picture. Good.
-
nor is the range or hit table for the weapons
-
I planned on including a few areas but not sure they are relevant.
Diplomacy
Espionage
Minor races
-
I'd like to see on the Strategic Level, Resources. It gives targets to attack and defend. If you can't beat the big blue plague straight up, start knocking out Dilithium and Duranium Mines. Focus on Anti-matter production facilities, chip them away piece by piece. Once you've got the fleet spread thin defending all the resources, strike at a shipyard.
Another thing I'd like to see is Order of Battles. Yes, I am very much someone who likes the Strategic and Logistical side of things. But I don't think its very fun with everyone flying around in Battleships. And while I don't want to see heavier ships reserved for those who spent the most time grinding, I think there needs to be a limit as to how many Battlecruisers and Battleships are flying around. An easy way to do it is to have them be built, have each side start with so many of each type of ship yard.
Light Yard: Builds Frigate and Destroyers
Medium Yard: Builds Cruisers (Light, Medium, Heavy)
Heavy Yard: Builds Dreadnoughts (Heavy Battle Cruisers)
Huge Yard: Builds Battleships
More yards can be built as the game progresses, but if a race just builds Huge Yards, with the time and resources a race spent on just one Battleship, they could have built a half dozen cruisers. One Battleship would own the sector that it's sitting in, but six cruisers could put pressure on three or more sectors. And what about that attack wing of a dozen destroyers? One of the things we're going to have is that the Battleship is not going to be the king of a battle anymore. There's no arbitrary (6) player limitation so, in theory (and this would be awesome btw), every player online could participate in the same battle at the same time. I would imagine that a Battleship would be a prime target in such a battle.
One thing that the game is probably going to need, is a solid fleet control interface. It would be hard to find someone willing to fly one destroyer in an attack wing, but with a good fleet control interface, one person could control the entire wing from one ship, making them almost as powerful as that one Battleship. Maybe more so, although I would imagine that the Battleship should be able to easily kill each individual destroyer, the question would be if it could kill or cripple them fast enough to keep itself from being overwhelmed.
-
I agree on the fleet control interface. But need some ides on the commands that van be issued.
-
There really is only one command that needs issuing and that is "Do exactly as I do" ;), but I suppose people will want to get fancy. Fleeting is really going to depend on how good your AI is.
-
There really is only one command that needs issuing and that is "Do exactly as I do" ;), but I suppose people will want to get fancy. Fleeting is really going to depend on how good your AI is.
Yes, this. Linked weapon groups, match EW, turn EXACTLY like I do . . . that's what we need.
Get this working and maybe we'll get the 10v10 fights :)
-
basically Do As Your Told.
-
basically Do As Your Told.
That option for programmable attack patters would be cool, especially with Fighters and PFs.
-
at this point . . . should we split the conversation between Tactical and Strategic in different threads?
-
Sure fancy attack patterns and the like are cool, but the problem with that is you are flying your own ship and can't pay attention to what they are doing. Unless the AI can handle itself well on its own "Do as I tell you" is the best thing there can be. There will have to be some level of autonomous behavior for the AI so you can at least send them off to their death's with some measure of confidence.
-
Sure fancy attack patterns and the like are cool, but the problem with that is you are flying your own ship and can't pay attention to what they are doing. Unless the AI can handle itself well on its own "Do as I tell you" is the best thing there can be. There will have to be some level of autonomous behavior for the AI so you can at least send them off to their death's with some measure of confidence.
Fighters and PFs would be nice. I'd like "harrass" to mean "dump drones and range 12 and fly back to the carrier."
-
Oh, sure. The fighter/PF commands in SFC worked well as tactical instructions. It was the fighter's tendency to go AWOL at the slightest provocation and you having to go fetch them instead of fighting that was the problem. The ship fleeting was another issue. It actually wasn't too bad at slow speeds. They kept up and did what you told them, but as I have pointed out before, the AI is terrible at power management, so at high speeds they would have a nervous breakdown over whether to keep up with you or charge weapons, achieving neither very well.
-
at this point . . . should we split the conversation between Tactical and Strategic in different threads?
I see no point yet as I will mainly focus on one first, probably the tactical.
Sure fancy attack patterns and the like are cool, but the problem with that is you are flying your own ship and can't pay attention to what they are doing. Unless the AI can handle itself well on its own "Do as I tell you" is the best thing there can be. There will have to be some level of autonomous behavior for the AI so you can at least send them off to their death's with some measure of confidence.
No more firing on a ship to get it to act stupid. My thought are attack patters with some specified commands.
-
As long as they execute those commands without deviation so the sole blame for a disaster can be put squarely on the shoulders of the pilot , then OK.
-
We don't need to go into AI behavior at this point. Nobody has indicated that they have the slightest clue as to how weapon tables work.
The SFB tables are hardly perfect. Disruptors and Photons actually started with the same probabilities. Storing energy over 2 turns gave the Photon an advantage, so SFB propped up the Dizzies with DERFCTS and UIM modules. To make our own tables, you simply have to determine energy input to damage ratios for given ranges, and differentiate weapons by expressing that ratio with different probability statements. In SFB, the basic equation for heavy weapons was 1 energy to 2 damage at minimum range, progressively dropping to 1 to 1 and 2 to 1 as range increased. That is, for both Disruptors and Photon Torpedoes, if you fired at medium range, you would average 1 point of damage fro every point of energy you put in the weapon. There are simply different ways to state '1' in terms of probability. The photon is easy: 1/2 x 2 = 1. The disruptor is more complicated, but when you add the 6 possibilities together and divide by 6, it comes out to '1.'
From here, you can start making more exotic probability ratios by moving the power to damage ratios inward, like the Hydran Fusion Gun, or outward, like the ISC PPD. There was a lot of cheese incorporated in the PPD, so it's not really a balanced weapon. The probabilities of that weapon and the Hydran HB were too complicated for easy math, so I lost interest in figuring them out, way back when.
Phasers all use a modified version of the same table, and since phasers are the same across all races, they make little difference. Seeking weapons are the only weapon of art in the game. I think the drone control limit actually derived from the number of phasers the Big E was equipped with. I personally think the phaser II races were given a raw deal by making them pay the same amount of energy for a weapon with 2/3s the power and a <100% chance of killing an incoming drone, but that's another story.
-
I came up with some type of damage chart tonight. Bear with me, it's 3:30 am and I just woke out of a dead sleep. Basically the whole game works on a percentage and goes something like this:
Take the largest ship in the game (actually in this case it wouldn't be a ship but a star base but anyway) take a star base, it's shield emitters would always start at 100% using the best shield emitters. Where as a FF-L would start at 35%~40% of a star base max shield strength, a BB would have a 80% max and so on. The same game mechanics can be applied to hull integrity. A star base would have 100% hull integrity whereas a missile would have 1%. Ships Captains can upgrade shield emitters on their ships that can give the ship an extra 5% depending on the grade of shield emitter. I guess you could do the same thing with hull integrity using a better plating material.
Weapon damage would also be based on percentage. A Phaser III may only do 1%~2% damage where as a Phaser would do 1%~6% (keeping in line with the board game we were going to use). Damage can be adjusted based on range of the attacking ship at the time the weapon is fired for range weapons obviously. A ship firing at point blank range would have a 100% of that 1%~6% damage whereas a ship firing at maximum range would only have a 1% of that 1%~6%. Plasma F Torps on the other hand would maybe do 10% close range. The thing is this percentage based easily scalable and we can even allow players to have a slider for damage output for Phasers. Things like ECM or ECCM can decrease or increase a ships chances by 5%~10%.
Using a game mechanics like this is easily scalable, the math isn't rocket science, and in this case it falls in line the TNG story lines where you would always hear about shield or hull integrity is down to whatever percentage. I don't know why I didn't think of this earlier. Me and a friend of mine from college came up with this after AD&D changed over to the 2nd edition rules and after a night of drinking we thought we could do a better game system while drunk. This was the result.
-
Good ideas, keep 'em coming.
Just to let everyone know, Exeter and I had an organizational meeting last night. Now that he has his test environment built, his next priority is going to be getting ship movement worked out, so we are still in the boring stages here. All combat starts with ship performance so that is what needs attention first. We'll keep people updated as new goals are reached.
-
.
-
I like what Tulwar wrote and I don't think it will be hard to include that into my "100% Game System". ;)
Holding energy into a weapon can easily add an extra percentage to the base damage percentage. Take a overloaded Photon as an example, for every point of energy held into a Photon tube can add and extra percentage to the base damage amount. Energy issues that Phaser II have can be fix with this system.
Speaking of energy, we can use the same system for energy output for each star base or ship setting the bar with a star base. Each weapon, tractor beam, transporter, ECM, etc., will cost a certain percentage amount. Smaller ships will only have 35%~40% of the total output of a full star base. This keeps restrictions realistically based on ship size. This system keeps our options open if we ever want to go down the road of total ship customization. I'm not saying we should allow ship customization but I'm saying we should keep our options open.
With ship movement I'm going to flip the script a little bit. Ships with less mass will be able to get to 100% movement faster than a larger ship. All ships should have the same max speed, that is one of the many things that SFC got right. The only thing we need to figure out -this is where I need help, is how much distance would equal 1% of speed. Although here is a thought, what if instead of actual ship speed the game ties movement to a percentage of the map. Although that might not work with fighter movement since the size of a fighter is such that it would never hit 100% movement, maybe 50%.
-
Javora,
That's exactly how I work my own shiplist, the Starbase has mostly everything that I consider 100%, as I go down from BB, to CA and etc, I use the percentage based system to calculate, it's an excellent way of balancing the game for maximum fun. Very awesome to apply this to the core of the game.
;)
Thanks Adam, just proves that great minds think alike. Back then we figured that Full Plate Mail would be 100% armor, working our way down to Leather armor would equal 35%. Damage from every weapon starting with Pole Arms to a Dart would cause a percentage of damage. Saves vs whatever and attributes were based on percentage, max Wisdom for instance was of course 100% adjusted for race (Elf, Dwarf, etc.).
One thing I was thinking last night was to change Scatter Packs shuttles. That is to give players the ability to tell the shuttle when to fire it's missiles. I'm ripping off the Delayed Blast Fireball here, but I think it would be a cool addition.
-
Sorry but I want to add one more thought.
Ship movement that I listed earlier might have issues when switching from the tactical to strategic map. We may have to develop a two tier speed system based on what map the player is using at the time. I need more time to think about this, but I wanted to get that thought out before coding began.
Edit: Thank God I have the day off, this is going to rack my brain...
-
.
-
My thoughts and please corect
W have a starbase, let say a shield is at 100% and is value is 200
A battleship would have 80% of that, maybe 160 at full strength
Through power management and shield reinforcement maybe at 105% or 168.
The limit, undecided, maybe 150%
My intent is to use a starbase as the starting point. Anyone, have the details for a starbase?
-
You're jumping ahead about seven steps. You don't even know how power curves are going to work yet.
-
No, need to create ship structures. If I create one it will be ready to derive from. Also will make the power curves follow the same ratios unless changes are made.
-
Then I suggest continuing with the ship development as we decided. Star bases sit a little outside the realm of starship fleet combat. That is not to say they are not important and relevant, but since they don't move they have a different doctrine associated with them compared to ship combat, on which SFB/SFC are based. One thing at a time. Don't let the bright shiny's distract you from getting the skeleton of the game operational. If things go as planned, players will be able to mod these things for themselves and then it won't be your problem anymore.
-
If we do use this system, is it possible to have power allocation perfected, do you remember KA. I think it would be neat if all the system had the ability to go at least 5-10% or somewhat above the 100% threshold to allow players who choose to utilize their power allocation wisely the ability to add let's say a bonus to their systems.
Like battery power in SFC?
That is what I was thinking anyway...
-
My thoughts and please corect
W have a starbase, let say a shield is at 100% and is value is 200
A battleship would have 80% of that, maybe 160 at full strength
Through power management and shield reinforcement maybe at 105% or 168.
The limit, undecided, maybe 150%
My intent is to use a starbase as the starting point. Anyone, have the details for a starbase?
That is not what I suggest. When I mean 100%, I mean 100%, not 100% of another value. Shield strength would not be able to go beyond 100%. Shields would only be able to be reinforced once the shields sustained enough damage to drop below 100%. Using a star base as a starting point was my intent as well which is why I wrote the above post the way I did. We can explain that by saying that overloading shields can cause shield failure. In the same vain, Phaser I damage can never cause 100% damage, plus shields does not have a capacitor. IMHO the most damaging weapon in the game (Plasma R for instance) wouldn't do more than 15%~20% damage. A smaller ship like an F-FL or even a BB would be able to increase shield strength since their starting max isn't at 100% in the first place. I guess the limiting factor might be power, a shield generator would never receive enough power for a F-FL to reach 100%, now a BB on the other hand might depending on power management and balancing issues.
Umm, after rereading this post it came out a little harsher than I intended, not what I wanted, just trying to get the information out there.
-
.
-
.
-
Really? You want six or more percentage numbers floating around your ship instead of shields?
-
.
-
.
-
I just want OP that works . . .
-
There is really nothing wrong with the shield color system in SFC, except that they never told us what the different colors mean besides Super Strong (White), Strong (Green), Medium (Yellow) and Weak (Red) all with faded lower halves to denote when you are closer to the next lower or higher color. You can figure it out by testing, but since each ship has different shield strengths at the start, there is no real way of knowing what is what at any given moment, only the range of strengths. Simply creating a display that shows the color code and relative strength of each shield and what that color means relative to each ship would solve the problem. Think of a thermometer type display filled with colors and numbers along the edges to tick off strength values. Simply read the color for a quick look at what is weak or strong and read the numbers for precise shield power at the moment. You would need one for each shield, but they would be thin and compact and easy to see if bunched properly. That way we could keep the on ship shield display for quick reference and have better info on hand.
I think that it is highly recommended that the basic six shield system be retained as many other combat functions are tied to it in SFC, which for the moment is our primary guide. Adding in shield facings top and bottom may be something that needs to be done if 3D combat is realized. Any other configuration besides the one bubble shield type of thing can't really work well in that environment. A one bubble shield may work, but it will take some effort to figure out how to distribute damage that way.
-
With ship movement I'm going to flip the script a little bit. Ships with less mass will be able to get to 100% movement faster than a larger ship. All ships should have the same max speed, that is one of the many things that SFC got right. The only thing we need to figure out -this is where I need help, is how much distance would equal 1% of speed. Although here is a thought, what if instead of actual ship speed the game ties movement to a percentage of the map. Although that might not work with fighter movement since the size of a fighter is such that it would never hit 100% movement, maybe 50%.
Any 'smaller is faster' rule should only apply to small craft. WWII PT boats could run circles around destroyers because they were small enough to use 'surface effects.' Small boats can go airborne, skipping across wave tops, while larger vessels would be crushed under their own weight. For the rest of the Navy, the rule is the longer the hull, the faster the boat. Now, you can weigh down a ship with weapons and armor, but remember, big old aircraft carriers are fast enough to outrun all their escorts, and even old WWII PT boats.
-
Any 'smaller is faster' rule should only apply to small craft. WWII PT boats could run circles around destroyers because they were small enough to use 'surface effects.' Small boats can go airborne, skipping across wave tops, while larger vessels would be crushed under their own weight. For the rest of the Navy, the rule is the longer the hull, the faster the boat. Now, you can weigh down a ship with weapons and armor, but remember, big old aircraft carriers are fast enough to outrun all their escorts, and even old WWII PT boats.
if this is involving Warp or Impulse engines then no as the laws of physics change.
-
Top combat speed is top combat speed. What I think you guys are describing is acceleration curve, which is already part of SFC, and will be a part of SFC4.
-
On the shield subject, you have a few things to consider.
First off, in the ST franchise, it is clear that shields degrade as they are damaged, and that you have multiple shields. Also, the point that is less clear is if a shield can function after it has been penetrated. I think I've seen both happen in the franchise, although generally once a shield is 'down' that angle is generally wide open to attack.
Another thing that is clear is that, if a shield is stronger than the attack, shields generally do not degrade. Once the attack strength begins to exceed the shield's capacity to shed damage, that's when they begin to degrade. Hence the tactic where an opponent focuses on one shield to bring it down. I'm specifically thinking of the episode Elaine of Troyius, where Sulu kept trying to protect the #4 shield, yet the Klingon, with it's superior maneuverability, stayed focused on bringing the #4 shield down.
So I've suggested this before, and indeed have tested this design in a pen an paper game that I never released (might do that at some point, but with the energy allocation conventions I had going on, I'm thinking it would be better suited to a PC game).
Essentially, you can either have an omnifield (protects from all directions), specific shields (deflects attacks from specific facings), or a blend of the two. ST Canon seems to suggest that there is an omnifield of sorts, as we've seen several instances of shields being completely down, as well as specific facings. Also, it seems to take a few seconds for shields to be raised. So I'll focus on the Omnifield aspect first.
You have a centralized field generator that is rated at "R '' power per phase/second/impulse. This power amount is added to the field strength each phase, up to the maximum strength of the field (determined by some multiplier, say 5xR. So if your R rating is 6, you add 6 points per phase to your shield strength, up to a maximum of 30 strength.
What this does is to introduce a shield generation mechanic, so say if an attack is 6, and the regen is 6, well the shield fully regenerates the next phase. If the attack is say 13, well then it'll take 2 phases to mostly regenerate the shield, and 3 phases to regenerate the 13th point.
Next comes the 'put more power into the forward shields' that we've heard so many times in episodes. How I simulated this in my design was to allow power to be directly channeled into one (or more) facing(s) of my omnifield, which would temporarily increase the strength in that facing, but would disappate/force it's way through the bubble on the next phase. I also did this with a 1 to 1 protection ratio, for simplicity. So if you had a strength 30 omnifield, with 6 points of specific reinforcement that phase, that facing could dissapate 6 damage without affecting the omnifield, with additional points scored against the omnifield.
In my design, omnifields and specific reinforcement fields were separate components. Essentially the omnifield was a central generator, with specific reinforcement arrays placed on the hull. Hence specific reinforcement generators tended to get damaged first, but not all at once (a weapon hit strikes one part of a hull, not the entire hull). So, as one side was damaged, specific reinforcement would degrade with each hit.
My rationale for specific reinforcement was you were 'pushing' a wall of energy against the shield sphere/bubble. Said wall of energy would displace the bubble arc in that location, forcing the 'unbalanced' energy outward, away from the shield bubble, and integrating itself into the bubble in the process. As the shield bubble could only maintain 'y' value due to the bubble neading to be equally balanced in order to maintain integrity, the unbalanced energy disappates into space. BUT, that disappating energy would generate additional protection as it was being disappated. Also, once a bubble hits it's maximum strength, excess energy disappates into space, as the bubble can't sustain the addditional energy.
I also had an armor system in play, somewhat similar to Renegade Legion: Interceptor, but much simplified. Essentially if a weapon hit was less than half of the armor rating, no damage. If the damage was greater than half of the armor rating, that hull section was compromised, providing less protection from the next hit. If it was penetrated, then that armor section was destroyed. Each facing had multiple armor sections. Example: A cruiser might have 6 different armor sections on each facing, so roll a d6 for each weapon hit to determine which armor section is hit by each weapon, then compare the damage against the armor rating in that section.
Anyways, back to the shield thing. If an omnifield was compromised (damage exceeded total omnifield strength), then the omnifield would suffer feedback, degrading maximum capacity by 10% or some such. Also, if the omnifield generator itself was struck, well obviously it would suffer damage/lose efficiency/perhaps be destroyed in the process if enough damage was assessed against it.
This system required a lot of bookkeeping, which is one of the reasons it didn't really catch on with my playtesters. Essentiallly each phase, you'd have to adjust your omnifield strength. Energy allocation could be changed each phase as well (we essentially have a 'real time' version in SFC), with allocation remaining the same until you changed it or your PP output decreased. HOWEVER, with a computer tracking these nuances in the background, this system becomes very workable.
Oh, in my design, if the omnifield was destroyed, well you no longer have a shield bubble, so you can't reinforce it. It didn't help that an omnifield was vulnerable from any facing, but at least it was a smaller target... As for how that would apply in a ST setting, well it all depends on how 'vulnerable' you'd like it to be.
As for my rationale for the 'surface emitters', well in this design, the goal is to keep your omnifield functioning at full efficiency (it protects the whole ship), by providing additional protection over and above the capacity of the omnifield. This also allows for differentiation in design (so you can have more emitters facing forward than aft, for example), to give players a reason to go for the 'weaker' areas. In my design, specific reinforcement emitters were generally rated at 2-3x the omnifield rating (worked out via my ship construction mechanics), so you might have an Omnifield 6, with 18 points of specific reinfocement emitters in the front, and say only 9 points in the rear. Or 12 points of emitters all around if you were of a more balanced mentality. Of course, if you have 6 field generators, this mechanic no longer applies, although it could be used as a baseline for maximum reinforcement. (Feds might allow 3xR max reinforcement strength, over the field generator value, while Klingon shields only allow for 2x strength on the aft generators). Again, this can be a place to differentiate ship/race designs.
Based on the 'later' canon (TNG is pretty clear about the 'sphere' mechanic of the shields in the FX shots), though, I do think a centralized 'baseline' generator makes a lot of sense, with additional reinforcement capability over and above the baseline shield bubble. If shields are just flat out 360 degrees though, then maneuverability plays less of a role, hence why I think there needs to be a differentiation mechanic between the facings.
To translate regen versus fire rate in a ST context, it might take 20-30 seconds (at normal game speed) to fully generate an omnifield, but phasers might recycle every 10 or so seconds... It all comes down to how you want to time your weapon cycles, then dialing in the shield regen accordingly.
As I noted, this design is problematic using pen and paper (a lot of numbers to keep track of), but when the computer is doing the accounting for you, well then it becomes very workable/viable.
So, to summarize:
Either an omnifield or 4-6 separate field generators, or a combination of both. Regenerate R points each phase/partial weapon cycle, to a maximuim amount (say Rx5, although this multiplier could vary by race/ship class/etc.).
Allow specific reinforcement as before, with damage scored against reinforcement first. Perhaps incorporate a 'max reinforcement' value, based on the number of shield emitters available to that facing, or some multiple of the field generator strength for that facing. If the hull is damaged from that facing, reduce (reinforcement) emitters strength by 1 per weapon hit or volley (with multiple weapon strikes perhaps hitting more emitters).
So, as detailed in the paragraph above, Shield Emitters degrade as the hull is damaged. Also, if damage exceeeds/downs a shield, that shield/field generator degrades in maximum strength (due to feedback damage). This could also be done if damage exceeds some threshold - say if damage exceeds 2/3's of total shield strength, then max strength reduced 10%. if penetrated, max strength reduced 20%.
One last thought. On the 'regen per phase' thing. In my design, weapons generally took 2 or more phases to recharge (lasers could fire every phase, but risked overheating). So the shield regen rate/max strength should be factored in against the recycle time of weapons. Essentially, it should take at least 2-3x as long to fully (re)generate a shield than it does to arm/fire a phaser. Otherwise you won't get the 'degrading' effect, and be able to take advantage of weakening shields (other than from feedback as detailed above).
And of course, damage control should be able to repair shields in some fashion. This is one aspect of SFB/SFC that I always liked. This allows for 'hit, run, repair, return' tactics, which makes the game a little more interesting. And also ties in to the Canon material (the Captain delaying things in some fashion while the damage control teams work feverishly to restore some capability).
This could also introduce a 'break point' in technology. I.E. earlier designs do not have/use a true 'omnifield', while later designs have an omnifield generator as well as specific field generators. Essentially one tiered defense in some designs versus two tiered defense in others.
Anyways, that's how I envisioned shields working. The SFB system is essentially powered abative armor, and while it worked, it didn't seem quite 'right' to me. Hence why I am suggesting an alternate approach (to get us a bit 'away' from the shield boxes and developing a 'new' system that isn't the 'same' as ADB's solution).
-
Hmmm
I would like more control of our power systems, yes like the battery system in SFC, although I feel it was never really on point as it should have been, but almost like STBC where I have control over where the power is sent to.
I hope I make sense Javora, a sliding system is easiest for quickness but whatever you guy decide is workable is fine by me. Also, why shouldn't you be able to allocate more power to shields to bring then to let's say, FWD SHD 125%
I don't see why we can't have all the ship controls that SFC OP had. If anything we can improve on these controls to make them more user friendly. That is the beauty of my "100% Game System" (sorry but I'm having fun with that lol), it scales easily. I'm going to expand on your last question later, but short answer is I don't think a ship should have greater shield strength than a star base. I star base IMHO should only be taken down by multiple ships.
Btw. Although I agree with most of your suggestion, the shield I do not. I do believe percentages should be implemented and a frigate should say 100% shields when they are up before battle, whether their shield is 28 SFC points or 14 whatever for us to look at we should see percentages not colors.
If they are reinforced we should see that applied to the number.
I don't think that 100% should be a certain number for the shield that applies to all ships output but rather the individual ships capacity at the moment.
Do you get me?
Yeah I think I get what you are saying. Try looking at it this way, a frigate captain would look at his shields at the start of combat and think his shields are at maximum. But compared to a star base it is only 35%~40% or roughly half the strength of a BB. With this system any ship can reinforce it's shields, the only thing that can't would be a star base and I don't want star bases to become indestructible. When you think about it, is it really any different than SFC OP ? Any ship in OP can only reinforce their shields so much.
This would be so cool if we all had a conference room to sit down in, maybe a white board, all get together of food and drink and get to planning. ;)
That would be cool to chat somehow. I think it would speed things up. But then again having it all written down makes it easier to make a list. This got me thinking though, do we really want all this information out in the open. Maybe it's time we pull a Taldren move this to a closed "Inner Circle" type forum where only people who have been here for years have access. As it stands we don't know who is watching.
-
There is really nothing wrong with the shield color system in SFC, except that they never told us what the different colors mean besides Super Strong (White), Strong (Green), Medium (Yellow) and Weak (Red) all with faded lower halves to denote when you are closer to the next lower or higher color. I think that it is highly recommended that the basic six shield system be retained as many other combat functions are tied to it in SFC, which for the moment is our primary guide. Adding in shield facings top and bottom may be something that needs to be done if 3D combat is realized. Any other configuration besides the one bubble shield type of thing can't really work well in that environment. A one bubble shield may work, but it will take some effort to figure out how to distribute damage that way.
This is what I figured we would do all along. With the six sided shields and all. We can denote each color equals 20% steps. Red equals 20%, Orange equals 40%, Yellow equals 60%, Green equals 80%, and White equals 100%. With step down/up colors as in SFC OP we can all know the shield strength just by looking at the screen.
-
That system denotes that their is only one shield at one strength level and that you are only powering it up just so much, like a light bulb only using 60w when it is rated for 100w. The color system is SFC denotes a particular strength rating. Some ships start with all red shields and that is their 100%.
-
Top combat speed is top combat speed. What I think you guys are describing is acceleration curve, which is already part of SFC, and will be a part of SFC4.
An acceleration curve is simply dependent on power to weight. All things being the same, a ship the size of dreadnought without armor, armed only with a pop gun is going to be the fastest ship in the fleet. A lot of people have this misconception that smaller ship are inherently faster.
Personally, I think the idea of speed should be built around cruisers being given the ideal power to weight ratio. This is because the mission of these ships is to 'Boldly go where no one has gone before.' This is the very reason why they are called 'cruisers.' Battleships (lets drop the SFB lingo where we can) are 'capital ships,' so you load them down with as much arms and armor as you can get away with, and still make it to the objective. Destroyers and smaller vessels have to compromise speed for durability and firepower.
if this is involving Warp or Impulse engines then no as the laws of physics change.
Mainly, I write these things to remind people that big ships tend to be faster than small ships. It's a common misconception that 'smaller is faster,' and you see people repeating it on every game board. Bigger ships have more room for bigger engines, and in space, the limits on scale are beyond our comprehension.
There are other considerations, though. Starships are designed to run for months on end, without stopping. Something like a fighter can be engineered to operate for very a limited time. When the Soviets operated Mig-15s during the Korean 'Police Action,' the ground crews swapped out the engines after every sortie, getting a fresh one out of a crate and sending the used one back to Russia to be rebuilt. Obviously, this sort of maintenance routine would be impractical for something a big and heavily armored as a destroyer escort. I don't think giving a ship that requires 8 hours maintenance for every hour of service some advantage in speed is completely off base. It's not a difference in physics, but a difference in engineering requirements.
Of course, there may be aliens whose 'fighters' make our battleships look like children's toys.
-
.
-
Ok guys here's the game plan as it stands now:
1) Exeter is going to try to match the unit movement and handling and the informational UI's of SFC as much as possible, with improvements in several areas.
2) Many aspects of the game will be manipulative fields from inside the game including: Ship design from the ground up, models of ships, planets and all other units with Hard Point UI's designable by the players, weapons To Hit and Damage charts, weapon types, most if not all of the graphics will be able to be replaced, including 2D UI skins which will be create-able by players to distribute.
3) The tactical "engine" will be based on SFB/SFC, but will be mod-able enough to make most, if not all, happy. There will be some things "set in stone", i.e. you will need to convince Exeter to change them in the code if you want them changed.
That's as much "plan" as I can give you at this time. We still need moving ships.
-
.
-
Wow, simple movement isn't that simple, when you get down to game mechanics.
While we want to build the game around startships, first and foremost, there are some things that travel faster. We need to describe those objects, so that we can derive the speed limit of the game engine.
Beam weapons should be instantaneous, as if there was some kind of quantum entanglement with the target. It's not realistic, but it's what everyone expects.
Direct fire torpedoes, like the photon should travel about 2 to 5x the max speed of a ship. This will force players to gauge the turn-rate of the target.
Seeking weapons will have to be variable, but slow enough that running away helps. The original SFB 'slow' drone seems like a utility device drafted into becoming a weapon system. You'd think they would have sped them up before putting designing ships around slinging them. SFC has 'missiles' which connontates something that goes pretty fast.
This leaves administrative shuttles, which should probably go faster than SFB allows.
Fighters never translated to SFC very well. Maybe we can experiment with giving them greater top speeds than ships can achieve. PFs work well, so I see no need to differentiate them from ships.
-
Just a couple of things. First, I was wrong about ship movement lets make the changes based on what we know and go from there. I don't want this to bog down the progress that we are making here. It's obvious I don't know a whole lot about ship movement and rocket science.
Second, I've already laid out the damage charts and adjustments for range a few posts ago. If someone wants to give me a list of all the weapons in SFC OP I can come up with a damage chart list. The good thing about this game system is the weapon damage to shield/hull strength is 1 to 1. From there it's just a matter of balance adjustment.
That system denotes that their is only one shield at one strength level and that you are only powering it up just so much, like a light bulb only using 60w when it is rated for 100w. The color system is SFC denotes a particular strength rating. Some ships start with all red shields and that is their 100%.
It doesn't have to be a one shield system. I was actually thinking about a six shield system but with shield strength uniform across all six shields. But even this can be adjusted if need be, for instance a Battleship might have 80% front shield strength but only 75% rear shield strength. The one thing I would suggest (if coding isn't an issue here) is that when one shield is hit that the adjacent shields mitigate some of the damage from an enemy weapon fire. I like to think of this as shield overlap, and it kind of fits what we see in TNG. Again it's just a suggestion, not something expected to be set in stone by any means.
Edit: For horrible spelling.
-
what if limitations are based on energy allocation. A battleship with 80% on all Shields may not be able to do much else.
-
what if limitations are based on energy allocation. A battleship with 80% on all Shields may not be able to do much else.
Already in the game. I will explain at our UI meeting.
-
what if limitations are based on energy allocation. A battleship with 80% on all Shields may not be able to do much else.
I understand there maybe balancing issues which is why I suggested what I did in my previous post. In my defense, I was trying to distance myself from SFB/SFC a little bit.
-
I am just trying to understand
-
I am just trying to understand
You will. Give us time to explain. This is massively complicated.
-
Nope, I reject that. Two drunk college kids can't come up with anything complicated. Just doesn't happen lol.
Seriously though complicated was the one thing we were trying to avoid. Sorry if that is how it ended up.
-
What you guys need to understand is that Exeter never really played EAW or OP. He came into this from SFC3 and saw the limitations it had and then got interested in the SFB type style the others represented. He doesn't know a lot of this stuff like the back of his hand like some of us and needs basic ideas and systems explained to him. This is why I keep trying to move the discussion to simpler topics until he can grasp the enormity of what he is attempting.
-
What I do know like the back of my hand is programming and physics. I own OP, EAW and enjoyed SFC3. I
-
Which is why this is worth attempting. If we can convey it properly, it is definitely code-able.
-
.
-
What you guys need to understand is that Exeter never really played EAW or OP. He came into this from SFC3 and saw the limitations it had and then got interested in the SFB type style the others represented. He doesn't know a lot of this stuff like the back of his hand like some of us and needs basic ideas and systems explained to him. This is why I keep trying to move the discussion to simpler topics until he can grasp the enormity of what he is attempting.
Ah, then he doesn't have any idea how intensely many of us loathe SFC3, and why I blow a fuse at the mere mention of 'ship customization.'
My fault, going to have to go out and get another 10 Amp....
-
Just for the record in case I haven't stated it before, I own SFC II, SFC OP (loved OP), and own SFC III. I have never played SFB in my life, never even cracked open an SFB book. I did play AD&D 1st edition extensively. In case anyone asks any legal questions I can get that part out of the way now.
-
What you guys need to understand is that Exeter never really played EAW or OP. He came into this from SFC3 and saw the limitations it had and then got interested in the SFB type style the others represented. He doesn't know a lot of this stuff like the back of his hand like some of us and needs basic ideas and systems explained to him. This is why I keep trying to move the discussion to simpler topics until he can grasp the enormity of what he is attempting.
Ah, then he doesn't have any idea how intensely many of us loathe SFC3, and why I blow a fuse at the mere mention of 'ship customization.'
There will be no personal ship customization. There will be the ability to change the shiplist just like in EAW/OP, but two people flying the same "ship" with a different weapons config? No. Drone loadouts and other supplies will still, of course, be player optionals.
We have an organizational plan now and will keep people updated on progress and the need for ideas as they arise. I can't comment on just what exactly will make it in as that depends on many things. Just remember that Exeter is one guy and has limited time and resources to work on this. So, slow and steady wins the race is our credo here. Short cuts will just kill us if they don't work out.
-
Features like Ship Customization my be in a mod set later. I personally like the idea but for the stock game no. The goal i to get the stock game working then make changes we need to. Highly customizable so some features can be added by customization.
-
Highly customizable so some features can be added by customization.
That is the part that I mentioned was "set in stone" as it were. We can realize just about anything here, but some of it will be only accessable to someone with the source code, which for the foreseeable future will be Exeter.
-
I have set a nondisclosure agreement.
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163393954.0.html (http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163393954.0.html)
-
Tried to loD nd run OP on WIN 8.1, does not let me enter CD KEY. Will try virtual box to run it
-
It doesn't accept it or you can't access the field at all?
-
cannot enter it. I cn click on the entry field but the characters are not accepted.
-
Hmm, I don't know what to about that. It seems so trivial I wonder what's going on? Well, EAW is almost exactly the same so if you can get that running it's still all good.
-
do not have cd key with me
-
Wait, you have the EAW source on your machine, but that doesn't let you run it like a regular game would?
-
still requires the cd key to run.
-
OK, so you can make EAW run, but just not ATM? This is essential to our process. If you can't see what I'm seeing when I describe it to you then I will need to take about 100 screenshots. Not my favorite idea.
-
There are alternatives. Use to run under win7 but now under 8.1 it is hosed
-
I hope so. If all you need is an EAW key, I'll give you mine. You HAVE to be able to look at the game in its running state for this to work. Otherwise you will be fixing all kinds of tiny minutae that can be avoided by you seeing with your own eyes.
-
I ill just go get the cd which has the key, and can load on other pc
-
Whew! :smackhead: You had me panties in a bunch there for a second!
-
worse case I dump 8.1 to go back to 7. Not a bad idea
-
Have CE working, has the same UI as EAW
-
Have CE working, has the same UI as EAW
Cool!
OP's and EAW's UI's are 99.9% the same. There are a few differences that can be explained easily enough.
-
We have an organizational plan now and will keep people updated on progress and the need for ideas as they arise. I can't comment on just what exactly will make it in as that depends on many things. Just remember that Exeter is one guy and has limited time and resources to work on this. So, slow and steady wins the race is our credo here. Short cuts will just kill us if they don't work out.
Sounds great Corb. When you get a chance, can we get a list of things that made it onto the list so that we have a reference point to go from? This way we are not spinning our wheels reinventing things that have already been hashed out. Good idea about put out NDA's, the timing is right. I would still recommend taking this sub-forum private, kind of like Hot and Spicy.
-
After people fill out and send in their NDA's we will have another organizational meeting with everyone (hopefully) on Team Speak. It is the only way we can talk realtime to each other, so it is highly recommended that you get the latest version (3.0.1.4 I think? someone check me). Even if you don't have a mic you can type in the chat area. This way we can (again hopefully) dole out "chores" for people to test and split into groups to tackle problems and bugs in sections. I qualify things with "hopefully" because it will all depend on how well we work together and how seriously people take the testing phases. Testing is boring work, that is if you're doing it correctly ;).
As far as the forums, the mods or admins are the only one's that can do what you are suggesting. Exeter hasn't even been shown how do use his own moderator powers in this forum yet. :huh:
-
There i an SVN but I do not have access to do anything, so will get my own.
-
I think Frey is the only one who can take this private.
-
A flash of insight - We should call this the Dunzel Engine©.
-
.
-
Captain Dunael to you
-
A flash of insight - We should call this the Dunzel Engine©.
Powered by the 100% Game System ©.
lol
:flame:
-
Designed t the Daystrom Institute
-
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself but is SFC IV the only game we are building? My point is SFC would be awesome test bed for a whole new game. Something to keep in mind.
-
Only one I am working on is SFC IV, but have another in the bck o my mind, that has a 3D space combat simulator. nd some others.
-
Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself but is SFC IV the only game we are building? My point is SFC would be awesome test bed for a whole new game. Something to keep in mind.
You're not getting ahead of yourself. If we do this right you will be able to not only graph any space navy combat simulator from ST to SGU to B5 to SW onto this with little modifcation, you will be able to create your own entire game (within the limits of Exeter's time and forebearance).
-
.
-
Now that's a beautiful thing!
Our game engine is more capable than we are using. It includes a physics engine that we do not really use.
-
.
-
Just to show everyone that we are serious and that I have personally chained Exeter to his computer, here is a picture of his keyboard:
-
.
-
Talked to Frey. All is free and clear. We can use any and all things SFC. Our plan is perfect for what we hope to accomplish.
This is a crossed fingers thing - Frey is going to try and get us access to the q3 sprites file. It could actually happen, but no promises yet.
-
We are about ready for the girt alpha test. This will be th menus. Aftre I build some of the tactical UI then we will test that. I also select and display the appropriate ships, but that is limited to 2 until I have the models.
-
I almost forgot. Either this forum or a newly created forum for us will be going private probably in few days. Frey needs time to set it up. I'll see what's possible. Details on how to join the private forum will be forth coming.
-
. . . but that is limited to 2 until I have the models.
What would be involved in converting existing OP models into the format that you need?
-
. . . but that is limited to 2 until I have the models.
What would be involved in converting existing OP models into the format that you need?
Correct, or creating new ones. I cn read a variety of formats.
3D Studio meshes (.3ds, r)
Alias Wavefront Maya (.obj, r/w)
Lightwave Objects (.lwo, r)
COLLADA 1.4 (.xml, .dae, r/w)
OGRE meshes (.mesh, r)
My3DTools 3 (.my3D, r)
Pulsar LMTools (.lmts, r)
Quake 3 levels (.bsp, r)
DeleD (.dmf, r)
FSRad oct (.oct, r)
Cartography shop 4 (.csm, r)
STL 3D files (.stl, r/w)
PLY 3D files (.ply, r/w)
B3D files (.b3d, r, skeleton)
Microsoft DirectX (.x, r) (binary & text, skeleton)
Milkshape (.ms3d, r, skeleton)
Quake 3 models (.md3, r, morph)
Quake 2 models (.md2, r, morph)
I like md3 as milkshape is low cost, or cn use blendeer which is free.
-
. . . but that is limited to 2 until I have the models.
What would be involved in converting existing OP models into the format that you need?
Correct, or creating new ones. I cn read a variety of formats.
3D Studio meshes (.3ds, r)
Alias Wavefront Maya (.obj, r/w)
Lightwave Objects (.lwo, r)
COLLADA 1.4 (.xml, .dae, r/w)
OGRE meshes (.mesh, r)
My3DTools 3 (.my3D, r)
Pulsar LMTools (.lmts, r)
Quake 3 levels (.bsp, r)
DeleD (.dmf, r)
FSRad oct (.oct, r)
Cartography shop 4 (.csm, r)
STL 3D files (.stl, r/w)
PLY 3D files (.ply, r/w)
B3D files (.b3d, r, skeleton)
Microsoft DirectX (.x, r) (binary & text, skeleton)
Milkshape (.ms3d, r, skeleton)
Quake 3 models (.md3, r, morph)
Quake 2 models (.md2, r, morph)
I like md3 as milkshape is low cost, or cn use blendeer which is free.
I don't see the point in re-inventing the wheel when a zillion awesome models have been made in the past decade and a half for EAW/OP. Of course we'd probably need permission from the people who made them so perhaps start with the Taldren stock models?
-
That's what I was hoping for. It would save much time and we are free to use all the stock stuff. Captain Adam has offered to muster up new modelers if needed, but DH is right, we have literally thousands of models to use and races that probably will neve be rendered again, like Vidians. We can get permission for most of the fan based models as long as we aren't charging for them.
-
Darkdrone was doing conversions from other games a few weeks ago. What is involved with converting formats anyway?
-
Darkdrone was doing conversions from other games a few weeks ago. What is involved with converting formats anyway?
A program that can read the existing format then convert it.
Does anyone know what format was used? I know many AAA titles used 3ds and changed the filetype or added a header.
-
I get PM's asking specific questions. Some information cannot be shared without the NDA. I will state all decisions I made have been base upon information on the net and my own testing. This involve election of the programming language, the third party libraries, modding language etc.
Once things are setup I will disclose anything to anyone with a proper NDA except the source code.
-
Yes, please wait for the general organizational meeting. Many, if not all, questions will be answered there and you will be able to ask questions in real time.
-
Darkdrone was doing conversions from other games a few weeks ago. What is involved with converting formats anyway?
A program that can read the existing format then convert it.
Does anyone know what format was used? I know many AAA titles used 3ds and changed the filetype or added a header.
There are tons of free programs that convert video and audio formats (much less aggressive formats I realize). Isn't there one that would just let you read the file type and convert it to others without having the ability to render/edit anything, but then allows you to use the program you like to manipulate it? I'd do a search for one, but I don't know what to look for.
-
I'd do a search for one, but I don't know what to look for.
Ask in the modelling forum? Those guys gotta know.
-
.
-
No we're asking what format the SFC models are in so we can convert them to a useable format for Exeter. He listed the available formats he can use.
-
I do not care what we use. A format already supported by the program will be good.
Do we know what SFC2 used and have samples?
-
I do not care what we use. A format already supported by the program will be good.
Do we know what SFC2 used and have samples?
Yeah, just look in the Assets/models directory.
-
I don't think that helps. In my models folder it shows them as MPEGs.
-
.
-
yes mod is the model format, the modelers hopefully know about it, and the bmp files for textures.
-
But the question is will that format run in your engine right now?
-
.
-
Another question - what program were the modelers using to get the final product into the .mod format?
-
there is a free utility, that reads lightwave models to put them in the mod format. And milkshape reads and writes lightwave. And I can read and write lightwave format directly.
-
.
-
Between the last two posts its seems we might have this models thing licked, at least in theory. Go with that and find out what we can do.
-
.
-
Right now just concentrate on getting ONE model converted/working and then worry about bulk conversion.
-
.
-
Ok so the only question needing a response is what format Exeter thinks is the best for the engine. Once that's answered I have to see whether it is possible to convert it and if it's possible.
As Ambassador Molari would say "I believe you have the problem surrounded." ;)
-
Ran a test, using the free extractor I extracted a model from a mod file. Used the free version of milkshape to load the wave file and save as milkshape (ms3d) file and was able to load it. This uses thing suggested on the sfc mod site
-
Ran a test, using the free extractor I extracted a model from a mod file. Used the free version of milkshape to load the wave file and save as milkshape (ms3d) file and was able to load it. This uses thing suggested on the sfc mod site
Mr Burns - Excellent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKUOB8MN4Kc#)
-
.
-
I'm hoping he means that he has an SFC model in his environment and it isn't crashing.
-
in the test yes.
I have verified we will use ms3d file format for models so can be easily modded.
-
.
-
Even so, it's a start.
Again, we still don't have a way to move these things.
-
yes, pretty much but the model I used was a stock EAW model. Also the textures can be an issue a I am set to only have 9 per model.
-
OK, we'll go over this in more detail tonight. We have a meeting in less than two hours. Once we find out just what is going on people can get their marching orders.
-
OK, we'll go over this in more detail tonight. We have a meeting in less than two hours. Once we find out just what is going on people can get their marching orders.
Did I miss something??
-
.
-
Ok, cool Adam thanks.
-
Meeting agenda tonight:
Misc business
UI transfer and replication - We are going to discuss how Exeter is going to go about translating/transposing EAW/OP UI's into our game. We cant' say the skins are going to be in there at first since we don't have access to the sprites file on that level. More on that to come. We may need artists.
We decided not to make it a big meeting since the NDA's weren't sorted yet and we made the meeting date before issuing them. Besides, it really is just boring organizational crap and there isn't much need for serious input until we have something to test on that level.
-
Adam,
What format are your models in?
We can use the mod format, same format for all sfc versions.
-
.
-
I remember the lead artist from Taldren was on this site about a year ago. Any chance of us getting a hold of him and that he still has anything we can use?
-
.
-
On the models.
We cannot read the mod file but we cn extract and convert it.
Using the Starfleet Command Model Editing Utility (SCME) (http://www.staryards.com/tools.htm (http://www.staryards.com/tools.htm))we can run it on the mod file, it creates light wave files of the mesh (.lw)
MilkShape will open the lightwave file an save the open model as the standard milkshpe (ms3d), and the program will open the mesh. This does noting with the bitmaps.We can also use a milkshape generated model.
I hope this helps clarify.
-
I need to check but I think the meshes have a 9 texture file limit, Hard coded.
-
I was wrong, the limit on bitmaps is well over 10, about 32000
-
s far s ships and races, the kzinti cannot be used, SFB named them Mirak (the only race pure SFB) so we will use shaden.
-
s far s ships and races, the kzinti cannot be used, SFB named them Mirak (the only race pure SFB) so we will use shaden.
So . . .
Feds: Feds
Klinks: klinks
Roms: Roms
Gorns: Gorns
Kzin: Shaden
Lyrans: ?
Hydrans:?
ISC:?
-
We can use Mirak if we want. That was a Taldren name to replace Kzinti because Larry Niven won't give permission to anyone. Shaden can be used for Hydran, ISC can be that one Exeter brought up last night (can't remember) And we can flip the cats on their heads and in a twist of ironic fate they are Siriuns from the Dog star. ;) Now we need names for Andros (Kelvins?). Tholians we can "borrow".
-
Wait a sec... For the "mod" we can use anything we want since that's free. We need the generic names for our simple engine.
-
Feds: Feds
Klinks: klinks
Roms: Roms
Gorns: Gorns
Kzin: Shaden
Lyrans: ?
Hydrans:?
ISC: Imperium
-
Are we intending to have a ST overlay for the generic engine?
-
I am building it st, then will strip it out, but easier to build it focused/
-
I am building it st, then will strip it out, but easier to build it focused/
Then stick with the SFC names. We are clear to use them. No need to get into generics or alternate trek stuff now.
-
Meeting results (that I'm allowed to share):
1) NDA's - Exeter confirms that he has only received three of them: mine, DH and Javora. If you emailed yours it may take some time, the NSA has to read it after all ;). Please send yours in if you would like to participate. Ammend it properly as Exeter outlined in the NDA thread (the part about adding in that this is related to SFC4). If you can't access it because you don't have a word processing program, let us know.
2) Some interesting ideas on fighters/PF's/runabouts and a new way of dealing with them. More later, it's really too involved to go into here.
3) The models issue is pretty much solved we think, but still needs some fine tuning. Nothing seems like a show stopper or anything.
4) Single player and multiplayer skirmish modes will be there as well as single and multiplayer campaign modes.
Everything from this point needs to be thought of in terms of two things: The generic engine and our SFC/SFB mod that will end up being the demo for our engine. As Exeter pointed out, it is much easier to create when you are not in a vacuum, so we will be using our ST "skin" to create the generic engine, but always with the thought of "how do we strip this back so, say, a BSG or SW fan can use it too?".
Get those NDA's in!!! :knuppel2:
-
I also wish to go ovr ship classes an abbreviations. I do not know SFB bu what I have is based upon naval designations and my dreams. Any additions changes.
F Fighter
PC Patrol Craft
FF Frigate
DE Destroyer Escort
DD Destroyer
CL Light Cruiser
CG Cruiser
CA Heavy Cruiser
BC Battle Cruiser
BB Battleship
CV Carrier
The following 2 are for the Imperium, very large in size. Needs multiplayer campaign to take down
BB Leviathon
CV Acheron
-
I also wish to go ovr ship classes an abbreviations. I do not know SFB bu what I have is based upon naval designations and my dreams. Any additions changes.
F Fighter
PC Patrol Craft
FF Frigate
DE Destroyer Escort
DD Destroyer
CL Light Cruiser
CG Cruiser
CA Heavy Cruiser
BC Battle Cruiser
BB Battleship
CV Carrier
The following 2 are for the Imperium, very large in size. Needs multiplayer campaign to take down
BB Leviathon
CV Acheron
Lose CG and DE (they're extraneous), add in War Cruiser (CW) and change BC to BCH and you pretty much have it covered. A BC is basically a war cruiser upgrade on a CA. Think of it as a wartime variant instead of its own class.
Individual upgrade designations can be handled through the shiplist. I can show you at the next meeting.
-
Cn I get all the details for a federation Cruiser and klingon battle cruiser. I can use this to help decode the ships file
-
Cn I get all the details for a federation Cruiser and klingon battle cruiser. I can use this to help decode the ships file
In one and a half hours all your dreams will come true. Don't piss off Santa! :crazy2: Seriously, this is a show me not tell me thing. Unless you want to hook up now?
-
I also wish to go ovr ship classes an abbreviations. I do not know SFB bu what I have is based upon naval designations and my dreams. Any additions changes.
F Fighter
PC Patrol Craft
FF Frigate
DE Destroyer Escort
DD Destroyer
CL Light Cruiser
CG Cruiser
CA Heavy Cruiser
BC Battle Cruiser
BB Battleship
CV Carrier
The following 2 are for the Imperium, very large in size. Needs multiplayer campaign to take down
BB Leviathon
CV Acheron
Lose CG and DE (they're extraneous), add in War Cruiser (CW) and change BC to BCH and you pretty much have it covered. A BC is basically a war cruiser upgrade on a CA. Think of it as a wartime variant instead of its own class.
Individual upgrade designations can be handled through the shiplist. I can show you at the next meeting.
Almost forgot - Add in DN = Dreadnought
So:
F Fighter
PC Patrol Craft
FF Frigate
DD Destroyer
CW War Cruiser
CL Light Cruiser
CA Heavy Cruiser
BCH Heavy Battle Cruiser
DN Drednought
BB Battleship
CV(A) Carrier
BB Leviathon
CV(A) Acheron
EDIT: I keep forgetting stuff in that darned list. Added CW.
-
ADB also created a number of weapons which will require name changes, if not functional changes. The visual effects are all SFC, and I would not like to see them go to waste.
My suggestions for new names:
Hellbore -- Nova Bomb (NB)
Fusion Gun -- Ion Cannon (IC)
Plasmatic Pulsar Device -- Anti-Proton Beam (APB)
Expanding Sphere Generator -- Tantalus Field Device (TFD)
Gatling Phasers -- Pulse Cannon (PC)
Plus, should we want to expand the function of Plasma Torpedoes, we can call the effect a 'Plasma Beam.' It would simply use the effect of the Fusion Gun, but in the color matching the size of the Plasma Torpedo.
btw, one Empire mentioned in ST TNG S03, E01 The Ensigns of Command is the Sheliak. They sound dangerous, and a good name to use. I'd also like to use the Breen and incorporate the Cardasians, but I doubt they fit the open slots.
-
.
-
Cool! We need graphics oriented people.
-
Great ideas on those name charges Tulwar. It would be great if we can get Chris back. Also it seems like I remember ship class called the Corvette class, just like the name of the car. IIRC that class of ship is used by Spain. Just throwing that out there in case we need a name for another class of ships.
-
I was thinking about what Exeter posted earlier, and I'm starting to think he was onto something when he asked if the percentages would be based off a specific value. Like 100% of 4000 for example. This would allow for easier expansion later on down the road. It would make balancing ships harder in the long run through. Bare with me on this, still working things out and have been really busy at home. When we first came up with the idea expansion really wasn't an issue because nothing was going to be better than full platemail.
Edit: Because my phone's voice to text is addicted to crack: Quickly before I go, is there anything I need to do?
-
.
-
We're using the basic shiplist format. Any metric that has a delimiter can bet set (within limits) to what ever you want.
-
Now that I have a better understanding of the shiplist system I will think more on it.
-
I see what you are saying Adam, our only concern about that was the damage by weapons were also tied to percentages. Having two max amounts for Armor and Shields might screw the game up. Otherwise the weapon damage would cause two radically different values in combat. This leads me to think of three different scenarios:
1. We have a max armor = 4000 and we have a max shields = 5000. We adjust weapon damage so that every weapon has two damage charts.
2. We have a max armor = 4000 and we have a max shields = 5000. We don't adjust weapon damage and we tell people that armor can't absorb damage from weapons the way shields can. The I think we also have to consider changing the weapon damage charts so that weapon Z can do 2x the damage against shields while weapon B can do 2x damage against armor.
3. We have one max value for all. Shields, weapons, and armor.
As you can imagine I am all for option three. I think this gives us more flexibility in a ever expandable video game. It gives us simplicity as one value rules them all, which makes coding much easier. Plus we don't have to worry about weapons that specialize in affecting armor or shields.
-
I think you guys are really over thinking this. We aren't really trying (yet) to build a balanced game. We are trying to build a game engine that takes your parameters and puts them into effect. We aren't really concerned with if any of it makes sense or is balanced or fair. We assume most people are just going to be placing preexisting game info into their charts, so the games will be balanced if the source is balanced. People who want to make up their own games are just that - on their own.
-
.
-
.
-
I think you guys are really over thinking this. We aren't really trying (yet) to build a balanced game. We are trying to build a game engine that takes your parameters and puts them into effect. We aren't really concerned with if any of it makes sense or is balanced or fair. We assume most people are just going to be placing preexisting game info into their charts, so the games will be balanced if the source is balanced. People who want to make up their own games are just that - on their own.
Ehh Nevermind. :-X
Don't lose hope. I said "yet". We have acknowledged the possibilty that we may have to create a gaming system as well. It's just that we are light years from that decision at this point.
-
To chnge th ubject, lets talk models.
We are able to utilie th OP models, we can translate the form.
For new or recreations, the preferred format is ms3d, milkshape 3D, for low cost and to allow greater poly count over the mod format. other fomats can be read, but our focus will be ms3d.
-
The overall priority of things is as follows:
1) Get the game engine running to the point that we can...
2) Begin to graph on our SFC/SFB mod as a proof of concept test bed which will...
3) Lead to a better understanding of how to make a game that hopefully will be a part of the generic engine.
That is unless we are just going to have the engine with nothing in it but blank fields at load up and the player has to set all metrics. That seems a bit cruel. Not everyone wants to mod their game to death.
-
.
-
He has the version that can do it. Maybe he could share?
-
I think I might've changed my mind. The button/readout size in1280x1024 is still good and readable and gives us pretty much double the real estate to pull out or make our own readouts.
-
if not milkshape then tell me the program. I can handle may formats. Just the conversion of existing models get to milkhape
-
The overall priority of things is as follows:
1) Get the game engine running to the point that we can...
2) Begin to graph on our SFC/SFB mod as a proof of concept test bed which will...
3) Lead to a better understanding of how to make a game that hopefully will be a part of the generic engine.
That is unless we are just going to have the engine with nothing in it but blank fields at load up and the player has to set all metrics. That seems a bit cruel. Not everyone wants to mod their game to death.
I understand where you are coming from. Having a generic engine that does not have anything to do with anyone else and that can be used by anyone should be the goal. Unfortunately I have no experience with models or graphics, so I'm not going to be any help in that area. I can help with game design and with my old computer science background I can help manage beta testing. But I'll set out while you handle the modeling issues.
-
Oh come on, with a name like Javora we were hoping that you could just hang around and serve coffee and doughnuts (or beer!). :drink:
-
Javora is the Chechnyan word for maple. Speaking of old, the hard drive just crashed on my computer. I may have a spare around here somewhere, but I'm going to be limited to my phone until I can get it fixed. I'm sure I can get this thing working in time for beta testing.
-
Well Corbomite is the Star Trek word for blowin' sh*t up! I hope we are at that point by the time you join us. :dance:
-
.
-
I will have to see if gmax or 3ds max 3/4 can export to ms3d. If not I'm sorry but I can't afford to purchase those big $$$ modelling programs. Too much.
Adam
I don't think you're understanding. We need MS to covert any models in .mod format to something we can use. Anything else that was listed as compatible can be used too. If you can convert yours using something else then use it.
-
I can read 3ds and milk shape is $35 US, forever license.
-
I hope we are at that point by the time you join us.
I'll be here, I'm not missing this. Just might be limited for a week or two.
-
I appreciate having a clear look at the abyss we are looking into. Although from a legal standpoint I'm not sure this should have been posted here. I know Exeter said specifically he didn't want to look at ADB's material so he can avoid that particular pitfall.
Personally that list didn't phase me at all. I played AD&D for decade, the PH had as much. I was interested on how they did time- 32 segments in a turn? If a turn equal to a minute then one segment equal 1.875 seconds. Where as my time clock at work, an hour is devided into tenths. Now apply that to a minute, each tenths of a minute equals six seconds. Most noncharging/repaired actions should be done in 6 seconds. We can even divide a tenth of a second in half for 3 seconds. That is the way to go, speed up the game a to IMHO.
-
I appreciate having a clear look at the abyss we are looking into. Although from a legal standpoint I'm not sure this should have been posted here. I know Exeter said specifically he didn't want to look at ADB's material so he can avoid that particular pitfall.
Personally that list didn't phase me at all. I played AD&D for decade, the PH had as much. I was interested on how they did time- 32 segments in a turn? If a turn equal to a minute then one segment equal 1.875 seconds. Where as my time clock at work, an hour is devided into tenths. Now apply that to a minute, each tenths of a minute equals six seconds. Most noncharging/repaired actions should be done in 6 seconds. We can even divide a tenth of a second in half for 3 seconds. That is the way to go, speed up the game a to IMHO.
There is no law against posting a table of contents. It's just a bunch of meaningless terms w/o context. And once again, it is to give form and function to our format, not steal IP.
Time is relative and will be based on the game slider like it is now. The difference between this and AD&D is Rule 0. Here it all matters and must be done.
-
we need to remember we are uing a computer, to simplify and to do thing for us.
-
we need to remember we are uing a computer, to simplify and to do thing for us.
Right, and SFC did a great job of that which we need to copy as much as possible while improving it as well.
-
Wow... I go away for a week and over 200 messages posted... Guess I need to catch up. A couple of things I noticed from glancing through the thread.
1. I'll get the NDA signed and sent tomorrow morning.
2. Shields. A couple of things regarding them. I think shields need to have multiple values.
a. Shield Power: The raw absorption amount. Once this value is reduced to zero, there is nothing between the hull and weapons fire.
b. Shield Max: The Maximum Amount of absorption power the particular shield can take. More power causes damage to the shield generators. (A weapon can be designed to specifically pump more power into the shield generators than the system can handle for example)
c. Shield Recharge Rate: The amount of power the shields can be recharged per time unit. This is not automatic, and requires power to be put into the mechanism.
d. Shield Threshold: The amount of damage that a weapon needs to inflict to reduce the Shield Power. If the weapon doesn't do at least this amount of damage, the shield shrugs it off.
e. Shield Leakage: This is probably the most complicated item, I don't know if it needs to be in there at all, but I'm putting it up just see what the feel is. If the shields take more than this amount of damage in a hit, (10%, 15% of current shield power for example) the weapon inflicts a random critical hit. I don't know what the critical hit table would look like, but if there's a chance for a "no-effect" result, then there's a chance that the critical hit simply inflicts hull/armor damage. The idea behind this concept is that you REALLY don't want to get hit by an R-torp, and even if you have the shields to withstand the hit, you are still going to be hurting from the impact. Stronger shields can shrug off stronger attacks, while shields that have been strained will let more damage through.
3. There's no need to re-designate any ship classes. SFB borrowed heavily from standard Naval Terms, and they cannot cry foul over that.
4. One thing I do worry about though, is that ADB decides to file suit knowing that they can't win, but hopes that legal fees will force the ending of the project. Harmony Gold did that with FASA 20 years ago, FASA had the legal right to use the material, but couldn't afford a lawyer to defend themselves from the suit.
-
1. I'll get the NDA signed and sent tomorrow morning.
Good. Looks like it's best to PM it in.Get TS up and running too.
4. One thing I do worry about though, is that ADB decides to file suit knowing that they can't win, but hopes that legal fees will force the ending of the project. Harmony Gold did that with FASA 20 years ago, FASA had the legal right to use the material, but couldn't afford a lawyer to defend themselves from the suit.
We are not using anything ADB can sue over. SFC is abandoned and free to use. Our generic engine will have nothing in it to sue over. Our SFC/SFB mod that we are going to use as a test bed and demo will be free. I see no issues. And we can counter sue for legal fees.
The rest of the stuff you posted can be used in our generic game design we will probably need for the generic engine release.
-
One thing that struck me is what a bad job SFB did with the naming conventions of phasers and plasma torpedoes. Phasers were named for the order they were made up for the game, while plasmas were named on a complete whim. I suggest that they be named for generation and power. Captain Pike may have fired 50 Tetra Joule Generation 1 phasers, while Captain Kirk took command of the Big E after they were upgraded to Gen 2 Phasers w/ %50 more power. SFC could have handled this making Pike's phasers Type II and Kirk's Type I. I'd rather call them something like Type I50 and II75. That way, Picard's phasers could be descriped as VII 5K.
Personally, I think generation could simply be an over-complication for the game. A 500 TJ phaser would be just as deadly built in Pikes time as Picard's. Some folks might just want to newer designs to be more efficient than older designs. I would simply name the weapon for the amount of power it took to charge or its damage potential. SFB phasers would change: Type I = P100, Type II = P067, Type III = P050, and Type IV = P200. Plasma Torpedoes could be named for maximum damage potential, were something like a Type R would be named "Plas 50." This would make weapons infinitely scale-able.
My daydream is the idea of a scale-able firing chart for phasers. This isn't realistic notion to try to code, just where my thinking of a truly new game goes. That is, the range of the weapon would increase with the amount of power applied. That is, at a range of 0, a 50 TJ phaser would do 1/2 the damage of a 100TJ phaser, but at any greater range do less damage. I'm sure there is a way to describe this with an equation that could be applied to whatever power level is applied to the weapon. From there, players could control the power setting of their phasers, or even create a defensive mode where a P100 could fire four times as a P025. This is too deep for our purposes.
-
One thing that struck me is what a bad job SFB did with the naming conventions of phasers and plasma torpedoes. Phasers were named for the order they were made up for the game, while plasmas were named on a complete whim. I suggest that they be named for generation and power. Captain Pike may have fired 50 Tetra Joule Generation 1 phasers, while Captain Kirk took command of the Big E after they were upgraded to Gen 2 Phasers w/ %50 more power. SFC could have handled this making Pike's phasers Type II and Kirk's Type I. I'd rather call them something like Type I50 and II75. That way, Picard's phasers could be descriped as VII 5K.
ADB had no rights to TNG at all and you have to realize that the game started in the early '70s with two ships: F-CA and K-D7. So yeah, the phasers are pretty dopey. A PH-4 should be a PH-1 and the rest go down a notch in the list. But SB's were much later so...
Plasmas actually do make sense, mostly:
R= Romulan - First appearance of any weapon of this type.
G= Gorn - Gorn version, removing the need to build a ship around it and require such a high energy cost.
S= Formerly the GII, the Gorn upgrade to the G. Changed to remove confusion.
F= Some debate on this one since there is no clear answer. It's either for "fast" because you can charge it faster in a bigger launcher, or for "Federation" since this is the torp that they got from the Gorn alliance and don't use any other type.
-
Thanks, I'll keep a copy in my glove compartment, just in case I get lost.
-
I realize it id not SFC but what about LCARS tyle fo the UI with the sme information displayed
-
All the Fed stuff in SFC is LCARS style in design, or were you talking overall design of the generic menus and interfaces?
-
everything.
-
.
-
That'd be cool. I guess we just have to decide whether we want an overall starfleet feel to the generic game.
-
I think we should go with a Star Trek feel since this is SFC but we just need to keep things as modular as possible.
-
The general interfaces in SFC are pretty neutral as it is. Why not just reuse them?
-
.
-
Ok this is the thread that should be moved to the private section.
-
If Exeter agrees I'll move it.
-
I think this can stay public.