Topic: SFC Future/GZ

[3rdRedBaronX]

I'm posting a thread I started on the SFC2 forum regarding SFC3.  I'm hoping the developers will take heart to what's written here since SFC3 died in April on the GamerZ league and barely has any following on Gamespy.  I'm hoping they can take some lessons learned and make a new and better game. SFC2 has a better following now which speaks volumes to the quality of the gameplay vs SFC3.  The ship designs that were there were great, but the diversity is lacking.  The Dominion mod by Pelican for instance has a lot of diversity though some of the models have deficiencies in their weapon hardpoints.  Real TNG ships included were Ambassador Class, Nova, Steamrunner, Miranda, Constellation, Oberth, Prometheus, New Romulan Warbird, Scimitar, Kling Models from SFC2, as well as other races.

After being in first place for the initial and only SFC3 cycle on GZ, playing the most games and trying Dyna3 and the Dominion Mod by Pelican, I can say that I'm thoroughly experienced with sfc3, and gave it a chance.  I went so far as to vehemenantly support SFC2 on the forums since I too did not want SFC3 to die out.  Problem is SFC2 is a better game and SFC3 simply has too many problems to be patched properly.  The models in the Dominion Mod and diversity there gave it some fun, but gameplay is simply too watered down.  Warping until your very last hull point is never a problem, 1 minor hit at warp can kill an officer and take you out of the game, power management isn't nearly as complex and you can't seperate a good player from a bad one, weapon diversity isn't great, race diversity sucks, ship models (not counting dom mod) are too few and don't represent TNG well, point spread is confusing and difficult to calculate (100,000 bpv anyone?), no eras.

My suggestions for making a better game in TNG era would be:

A)  Make Warp dependent on power and seperate status of warp engines with a longer buildup to go to warp as well as a cooling down period before you can go to warp again.
B) Officers should not play a part in regular MP games (dyna is a different story) and if they do play a part, it should be VERY hard to injure them.
C) More race diversity such as: Fed, Kling, Rom, Borg, Dominion, Cardassians, Ferengi, Breen
D) Special race abilities such as: Borg (Crew assimilation, Nano Virus), Fed (Deflector dish one time weapon/but disables ability to warp), Kling (Elite Commandos), Dominion (Gem Hadar fighters etc), Rom (Tal'Shiar Operatives beam over to jam radar making it harder for you to find them when they uncloak and interfere with you finding teammates at long distances...and more
E) Return the phaser capacitor
F) Return ECM/ECCM
G) Diversify weapons as seen in shows such as biological weapons that can kill or weaken crew making it more susceptible for marines to board, dampening field (temporarily incapacitates enemy crew/think of HET failure)....etc
H) Return Power Mangement to include all aspects of ship.  

[Dogmatix!]

I haven't experienced SFC3 nearly as deepy as you did, but I note that much of my initial perceptions after the first three months are borne out by your experiences over twice that time.


I think your ideas for improvement are very good and would most certainly improve SFC3 in my eyes.  I'm of the opinion that nothing more for SFC3 will be forthcoming, though.  At this point, I'm sure the actual public release of the current beta patch will be met with some raised eyebrows and gasps of, "At long last..."  


I'm definitely thankful we have a relatively healthy SFC2 community to fall back on.  While I never left it, I was glad it was still there during and after my D3 experiments...heheh.

[Mr. Hypergol]

If SFC3 had kept it's rule set closer to the Star Fleet Battles based rules that SFC2 used it would have been a much better game.  Just because we moved into the TNG era doesn't mean the rule set could not have been "derived" or "evolved" into this era adequately.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the data, weapons charts, UI, etc. should have been such that it could be logically traced back to the SFC2 system....not something totally and arbitrarily new.  For example, if a phaser 1 from SFC2 does X points of damage at a certain range, then a SFC3 phaser 10's damage should be more at that same range in a manner that makes sense with respect to the Phaser 1....as if the technology had progressed.

There's no reason that SFC3's TNG era could not still have been based on an SFB derived system.  This guy did a great job of it and is a good example of what I had in mind for SFC3 before I saw what we got:

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

http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/rules/tng05.txt  

[Cleaven]

I would hope that there is a list somewhere of things to do to make a greater version of SFC3, but I fear SFC3 was a one shot affair, at least for the moment. The improvements I would like to see are in the Dynaverse itself.
 

[NannerSlug]

i completely disagree hyper. its not about making a rule set closer to this or to that - its simply about developing a good game. not all people fall into the categories posted here. there are plenty of other games that do not use the sfb rule set that are successful.

could it have been better? sure - but i think some people are leaving out the positive things about the game.. like the fact that there are mods out there like TNZ and the dominion war ALREADY. SG3 is just now (after how many years) making a mod main stream. Christ Jones developed his mod -but i never saw any campaigns based on it or used.

coming from my perspective - i think that if you go back to the wish list which was posted here a while back sorta pokes out what people might want.. some people actually prefere 3 over 2. i personally can go either way (actually its 3 or OP)..

to me, sfc3 sorta does go skimpy the ships.. TNZ and the dominion wars fill it out nicely.. that is a huge problem that needs correcting. more ships, more variants, more models.

it also need more mp scripts for dynaverse. a huge thank you to pelican for developing scripts. like wise, a huge thank you to korah and pelican for pushing sfc3 into the direction it needed to go.

i also miss t-bombs.. where are those furry little creatures we love so much?

regarding weapons - the weapons are different and have differing flavors.. the main issue is that, well,are people taking the time to explore them and use them. some are, some are not. there are racial differences. could the racial differences be expanded on and exaggerated to become more "noticable"? you bet - but they are there.

if you do an extensive study on the differences in the style of play of the two games one of the other things you might notice is that you can repair the hull in 2, but you cannot in 3. that should be fixed. another one is that in 2 there is always some way to counter your opponents move. in sfc3 - there are a few things which you really cannot effectively counter. one is the tachyon beam (imo, that thing should be toned down or there should be some sort of counter to it) and the other is the tractor. i think that the differing degrees of tractoring ships is not a good idea.. i think that having an older style tractor beam with power is a better idea.. and that you can put how ever much energy you want to into the tractors.. (the bigger the warp core your ship has, the more power you can put into things) this leads me to energy managment.

sorry, but i love energy managment in sfc3 sooo much more.. i can fire underloads.. i can fire over loads.. i can move power from shields to weapons to movement.. and what ever i put into it, is what is in it. that said, sure - you can expand on it.. instead of having just 3 sliders.. you should be able to have more sliders to control more of your individual system power.. say like tractor beam or shields, then i can do so..

likewise, i can see a break down in weapons power.. this means i can have a slider on each individual hard point to overload or underload it.. but again, there is on ly so much power allocated to the weapon systems which you can take from. (how can you click over load on all your photons and have the power set to underload - so instead of instant overload/norm, you have a slider to determine how much power goes into said weapon system).

another item concerning weapons systems is the improvment of arcs. at first, i didnt think it was that big of deal.. but i think that the arcs need improving quite a bit.. or at least more arcs need added to the game to give modders the ability to do so or create thier own ships using different arcs.

dynaverse wise, i could see a few strategic aspects put it.. one would be the first and last year available. if this single function was given - we could have what would be my personal dream.. a TOS to TNG trek game.. you could have ships released like in sfc2 by the year instead of all at once.. another server side option would be the ability to disable the refit. by giving the server admin the ability to disable the refit option, you can then create different variants of a ship and have greater strategic control over a serious campaign.

finally, i would like to see some sort of sdk come out to where if someone wanted to make a full sfb conversion (for those who are still in eaw/op land - and that is their thing, dont get me wrong - it is solely a preferece).. this way we can all be playing a single game again as a pose to swapping back and forth.

over all, i think sfc3 is a wonderful game.. but it comes just shy of really cracking things wide open. if there had more ships and more scripts, it would be a different matter. then again, heck, if there had been a demo for the game, it would be different.. (would you buy a game without downloading the demo? i never have- i want to see it before i spend my hard earned cash on it) the same can be said about the patch situation. no matter who says what, there are many people who are waiting for that first official patch.. and its been so long that it might have really hurt things.

do i expect another sfc? probably not. at least not for a while. maybe im wrong. hope so.

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
  i completely disagree hyper.

Like a hungry bass darting out of the grass............Nanner strikes!!!!

Nanner have I told you lately how tired I am of your constant and mindless support of Star Fleet Battles........NOT!!!

At least we both want our T-bombs back.

[FireSoul]

bah.

I'll say once more: I bought SFC for the SFB content. I never bought SFC3.

-- Luc

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
bah.

I'll say once more: I bought SFC for the SFB content. I never bought SFC3.

-- Luc  

You Go boy!!!

[Mainwaring]

On an entirely flipped side of the coin, I bought SFC3 because it *wasn't* SFB. And I can think of a fair number of others who did. Of course, all I continue to play it for is TNZ, which is just a thoroughly awesome mod an community. If not for that... well. But to me, SFB has never felt like a real trek game. Things... just don't feel right. SFC3 isn't quite entirely there, either, but it's close enough to count, especially with the DW and TNZ mods to plug some gaps.

My only comment in response to your comments, Nanner, at least at the moment, is that I have some issues with power management (hotkey slider memory sets would be killer), but Let's not confuse fine detail control with quality. Can you *really* juggle that many sliders in the thick of combat? How far can you split your attention? When does micro-managing your ship take over from playing the game? the way i see it, what SFC3 has in that regard is right where it should be-- enough detail that you can juggle the power to your liking on the fly, but also little enough that you don't spend most of your time doing it, which means that gameplay doesn't bog down.

Now, if only it was just a *little* more mod-able and we could get a real patch out of it.

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
On an entirely flipped side of the coin, I bought SFC3 because it *wasn't* SFB. And I can think of a fair number of others who did. Of course, all I continue to play it for is TNZ, which is just a thoroughly awesome mod an community. If not for that... well. But to me, SFB has never felt like a real trek game. Things... just don't feel right. SFC3 isn't quite entirely there, either, but it's close enough to count, especially with the DW and TNZ mods to plug some gaps.

My only comment in response to your comments, Nanner, at least at the moment, is that I have some issues with power management (hotkey slider memory sets would be killer), but Let's not confuse fine detail control with quality. Can you *really* juggle that many sliders in the thick of combat? How far can you split your attention? When does micro-managing your ship take over from playing the game? the way i see it, what SFC3 has in that regard is right where it should be-- enough detail that you can juggle the power to your liking on the fly, but also little enough that you don't spend most of your time doing it, which means that gameplay doesn't bog down.

Now, if only it was just a *little* more mod-able and we could get a real patch out of it.  

And this attitude is entirely fine but, how many games out there don't use the SFB rules???? and how many do???  Us SFB nerds like to have something we enjoy as well.  I enjoy plenty of games without SFB rules.  Freelancer is one I play a lot, no SFB in there.  

But, for those of us that do like SFB when SFC came out touting that it was using SFB as a base we were all very excited about it.  I know it was the first game I ever pre ordered off the internet.  The next was SFC2.  I bought 3 and I did enjoy playing it and the dom wars and TNZ modsand now that SG3 is over I might play some more if I can figure out what I have to download.  

[NannerSlug]

one other thing i forgot to post would be adding in detail to the hard points.. instead of simply piling all the mass into a single generalization - each hard point would have its own mass restriction. this would really add detail to the ship  - in addition to taking care of some of the odd-ball whacked out designs.

regarding power management: i just want full control of my ship.

[Fire_Ant]

Quote:
bah.

I'll say once more: I bought SFC for the SFB content. I never bought SFC3.

-- Luc  

Same here.  I grabbed up SFC1 at the same time I was buying my system.  I loved it!  My intro to SFB was actually through FASAs Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator.  A mouthfull to be sure which I later discovered  was basically a ripoff of SFB.  So I got into SFB but never really found anyone who wanted to learn the basic rules for some reason. LOL  So playing it on the computer was a joy, but it fell so short of what SFB actually was.  When SFC2 came out I snatched it right up and was enamored by how much more of SFB was in it as well as all the improvements.  I had high hopes for SFC3.  I was looking forward to seeing the Andromidans and the Tholians as well as additional systems found in SFB.  When I heard SFC3 was TNG it was a major disappointment.  I knew the SFB world was out the window and the game would be as dissappointing to me as the TV series.  (Bring back DS9 that was real ST)  I'm waiting until I get my new system to get OP and hoping SFC4 will go back to SFB.  If they dont then I dont plan on buying any more ST games.  If you dont like SFB based ST than there are a number of ST games out to suit you.  None of which you will find on my computer.  

[rmahannah]

I also feel that SFC 3 could have been more complete right down to the ship explosion graphics and sounds.  I do like SFC 3 for some of the new features like warping and cloak scan, but I was a little let down when I played it the first time.  When it was released, I was really into SFC 2, and that was probably part of the problem.  I miss T-Bombs, and the more intricate ship management found in SFC 1 and 2.  I guess I felt more in command of the ship with more to do, after all a Starship should make you feel that you are busy when flying her!  Anyway, that's my 2 cents.  I am waiting for the "Final" patch for SFC 3 before I download those MODS everyone is talking about, but I am looking forward to it!!!    

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
I also feel that SFC 3 could have been more complete right down to the ship explosion graphics and sounds.  I do like SFC 3 for some of the new features like warping and cloak scan, but I was a little let down when I played it the first time.  When it was released, I was really into SFC 2, and that was probably part of the problem.  I miss T-Bombs, and the more intricate ship management found in SFC 1 and 2.  I guess I felt more in command of the ship with more to do, after all a Starship should make you feel that you are busy when flying her!  Anyway, that's my 2 cents.  I am waiting for the "Final" patch for SFC 3 before I download those MODS everyone is talking about, but I am looking forward to it!!!      

Don't wait, download the mods now.  They really change the game for the better

Also, you may be waiting for a loooonnnngggg time.

[Sethan]

I own SFC, SFC2, and OP.  I will buy a copy of SFC3 to support Taldren as soon as I have a regular job again, but it will never leave shrinkwrap - I simply have no interest in the game.

Like Firesoul, I bought SFC for the SFB content.

SFC3 went away from its roots, and away from what many of the SFC fans wanted.  Taldren had to make the game someone would pay them to make.  Activision wanted a simpler TNG based version of SFC, and that is what they got.

SFC2 has great staying power because it is a great game, despite the remaining bugs.  I expect it to be played long after SFC3 is forgotten.  I just wish someone would finance GaW while it is still possible to do.

[SPQR Renegade001]

Quote:
My only comment in response to your comments, Nanner, at least at the moment, is that I have some issues with power management (hotkey slider memory sets would be killer), but Let's not confuse fine detail control with quality. Can you *really* juggle that many sliders in the thick of combat? How far can you split your attention? When does micro-managing your ship take over from playing the game? the way i see it, what SFC3 has in that regard is right where it should be-- enough detail that you can juggle the power to your liking on the fly, but also little enough that you don't spend most of your time doing it, which means that gameplay doesn't bog down.

I think the level of control and effect Nanner is talking about, would give some performance advantage to a player who choose to micro-manage his ship, at the cost of a bit of tactical awareness. The player who chooses to manage his power closely, is going eek the last bit of performance out of his ship, but in doing so might not be completly aware of the battle running around him. A player who can manage his power and keep his situational awareness high is going to be truely leathal when compared to a player who lets his ship run itself or one who manages at the cost of battle.

As for bogging gameplay... Taking the time to manage power doesn't bog gameplay, the game continues wether or not you choose to pay attention to it.  

[Kieran Forester]

Nanner, in response to what you said above about Chris Jones' mods never being used in a server, I can give you a simple reason: The download is frickin' huge. Each of his major mods are over 100 MB with the first installment - and the updates he adds afterwards jack it up even more. The OP TNG mod alone, with all the updates, is over 500 MB. 56k'ers would probably spend as much time downloading the thing as they would playing on the server.

And also, what you said about D2 mod servers is not entirely true - Day of the Eagle was a mod server, and we've been having servers with modded shiplists(but no actual new models) for a long time.

[Lepton1]

I haven't read the whole thread but here are my remarks.  SFC3 is not SFC2.  Turning it into SFC2 is not the answer since that cannot be done nor is Taldren likely to put out a new SFC title.  They have pretty much stated that.

What SFC3 needs is the adoption of a standard mod to reinvigorate the players.  I would suggest the TNZ mod or some synthesis of existing mods.  The TNZ players are fanatical such that they are willing to donate money to upkeep and update their server. I don't think they are particularly fanatical people, but I do think the mod is very good.  More ships, more weapons, more races.  That's what SFC3 is missing and mods can provide that.

[grave]

this is just my thoughts on this... i feel that if any one from talgren really visited these fourms and went through the posts befor makeing the game sfc3 then they would have realised that even though we were all screaming "were is SFC3! we have been wateing forever!" that most of us would have perfered that they had taken the additional time to FINISH the game befor reliceing it. its easy to tell that the had planed on more races from the files with race names including things like species 8472 and what not. its my feeling that ther dont give a rats A@# about us the gamer. I also feel verry betrayed by them for not reliceing a stable game that they knew would not be up to par. If taldren had taken the time to finish the game prior to reliceing it with out saying to them selves "oh people wont care its not ready they will wate for a patch fr as long as it takes us to do it"and had finished the game I feel it COULD have a good game.                                                                                                                                                                                                    now that thats said. i also wanted to say that i have ALL the mods for SFC3 that i have seen come out on this fourm. i have added a few together like the TNZ mod wich i love and the MIRANDA sp? mod. like its ben posted i use dial up( ya i know it sucks but cant get dsl or brodband were im at) to download them all. and it HAS taken a verry long time to get them all. but the mods have added some flair and playability to the game that was verry lacking when it was shiped. BUt even with all of the mods ive tryed and played (and ive been playing sence SFC1 first came out) id rather play SFC1 then fight with an unfinishd porly made and non suported SFC3...
well thats my 2 cents worth thanks for listening to me ramble  

[Whiplash]

They need to make a GOOD game, and it does not HAVE TO BE SFB based. It is possible for a game to be good that is not based on SFB.

However, SFB is a proven, balanced system that had DECADES of playtesting and thought behind it. Any new game they hack together and spend less than a YEAR playtesting is just not going to stack up. SFC3 is a perfect example of that.

Games that keep you coming back have a certain DEPTH of play. That requires some complexity, and you can't playtest that quickly.

W.

[NannerSlug]

sfc3 is closer than you think. many like it. sure, there need to be some things added and changed.. but its darned close.. and there are many, many other games which did just fine in the time of development - ranging from total annihilation to rainbow 6 and battlefield 1942.

sfb did provide a compelling base for the game.. but it is not the end all to be all.

if you have tried the tnz or dw mods, i think you will find that many of the gaps have been filled.. not that its complete, because there are a number of things which could have been added to the detail column (fya, lya, restrictions on ship yard, t-bombs, different arcs, individual hard point mass restrictions, individualized power managment) which would add more to it.. but it has a lot more potential and game play then you are giving it credit for.

[FireSoul]

Although I agree that many like SFC3 and that it's a game on its own, I don't agree on the following statement:

Quote:

sfb did provide a compelling base for the game.. but it is not the end all to be all.

For me it is. It's why I bought the games in the first place. I would not have touched the titles otherwise.

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 For me it is. It's why I bought the games in the first place. I would not have touched the titles otherwise.
 

Same here. (big surprise I know....LOL)

The SFC series are the only Star Trek computer games I have ever owned (although I'm thinking about picking up the Armada and Elite Force games now).

For those who dismiss SFB please understand that I already have a shelf FULL of games "not" based on SFB.  I want  just one of these game series to be based on SFB......and stay that way.  

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
 

Quote:
 For me it is. It's why I bought the games in the first place. I would not have touched the titles otherwise.
 

Same here. (big surprise I know....LOL)

The SFC series are the only Star Trek computer games I have ever owned (although I'm thinking about picking up the Armada and Elite Force games now).

For those who dismiss SFB please understand that I already have a shelf FULL of games "not" based on SFB.  I want  just one of these game series to be based on SFB......and stay that way.  

Hyper's right, I've got loads of Video games not based on SFB, and when I was younger I played many paper and pencil games that were not SFB, but it was nice to have some games in both areas that were(are) based on my favorite game system.

Heck, I spend more time playing Freelancer right now anyway and the only things trek in there are a few models and no SFB at all.

I'd try TNZ or Dom Wars more but there was never any room on the server of TNZ and no one playing on Dom Wars so I lost interest.

[Jim]

Absolutely.  SFC is a great game because it is based on SFB.  Not Trek.  SFB could have changed all the names of the races and weapons and it would have still been the best space wargame ever made.  And ADB could have had full control over all the content.

I think that someone *should* make SFC:GAW based entirely on SFB and add all the missing stuff back in.  Change ALL the races to eliminate any mention of Trek so that you get rid of the licensing mess.  The game doesn't need Trek as a crutch to survive.

And as to good Trek games... to date there aren't any.  SFC is NOT a Trek game.  It just happened to have called the original races names from Star Trek.  I bet Steve Cole wishes he had made up his own races now.

Anyway...  here's to hoping that someday the entire SFB rulebook gets computerized into a great game.  If they make it, it will sell.

Jim  

[NannerSlug]

Quote:
 The SFC series are the only Star Trek computer games I have ever owned (although I'm thinking about picking up the Armada and Elite Force games now).

For those who dismiss SFB please understand that I already have a shelf FULL of games "not" based on SFB.  I want  just one of these game series to be based on SFB......and stay that way.  

thats great hyper.. and im not saying that in a belittling fashion (or to firesoul for that matter).. but what makes that so special beyond your personal perferences.. e.g. what is the purpose of the game.. is it to produce a good trek game which with the best possible rule set or replicate sfb as best as possible within the real time setting. therein lies the issue for my self. from my understanding and discussions with many folk - the purpose was to produce as strong a trek game as possible using the best rule set. in sfc1/2 that was sfb (even then, there are more differences with the sfb rule set than similarities - but it does use that as a basis). that said, then the game is not held to what i would refere to as the bonds of a particular rule set - but is opened up to interpretation and development.

i mean, what make's anyone's vision of a particular rule set better over someone else's. some would say performance (which i can agree with), some might say the over all experience. it simply varies and there again lies another issue to be dealt with.

for me, as someone who plays a HUGE ammount of games (probably more than i should  - and i need to spend more time with my family, really) - i see it as a simple matter of preferences in rule sets. nothing more, nothing less. it is about the performance of the game and what the individual likes. i see nothing special about the sfb rule set - only that it was a good foundation for the sfc series to start from (and it was a good start) - but that it can be improved on, modified or simply taken out in the end. after all, the foundation of the rule set is not even developed for a computer. (16% range breaks, etc) that is my opinion, though - and people on both sides of the issue should realize that.

again, it all goes back to who really are the core players of sfc and what is the goal of the game?

[FireSoul]

Quote:

again, it all goes back to who really are the core players of sfc and what is the goal of the game?

I'm a SFC player because I'm a SFB player. I don't care if I'm not part of the core players of SFC. The goal of the game is to make money.

[Scipio_66]

Quote:
what is the purpose of the game.. is it to produce a good trek game which with the best possible rule set or replicate sfb as best as possible within the real time setting.

That's the same thing!  There is no need to discuss distinctions without a difference!

Quote:
 <In SFC 1 and 2> there are more differences with the sfb rule set than similarities - but it does use that as a basis).

Rubbish!  Pure and simple rubbish!  (without meaning to be insulting).  There are a *few* departures here and there, but the game was and remains amazingly faithful.

That being said, I bought SFC 1, 2, and OP (multiple copies of each) because they were based upon SFB.  No other reason.   If they hadn't been I'd have left them sitting on the shelf right next to lots of other games and (eventually) right next to SFC3.

I didn't buy SFC3 because it:

1) Wasn't based upon SFB (I bought OP because it was, even though I wasn't jazzed about it)
2) Wasn't SFC3.  (It was TNG 1, or some such.)
3) Was boring to play.  (to me)

I did try out a friends copy.  The game felt like a demo, so I'm not sure you can say no demo was made.  

Good game or bad game, SFC3 (sic)  had a core audience it walked away from.  That's never a good thing for a sequel.

-S'Cipio

[NannerSlug]

actually scippy, there is a stark contrast between the goal of developing a good game and simply replicating the sfb rule set.. and when you compare everything that is in sfc and even basic elements of sfb - there are vast differences.. ranging from drone (missiles in sfc) and plasma speed to double internals to pfs to fighters/restrictions to the DAC and weapon effects. there are many more differences in sfc/sfb than what you might think.. but that is the truth.  that is not to say that sfc does not use the sfb rule set as a basis -because it does.. but it artistically interprets many, many things if you were to try and compare them to said rule set. why were many elements artistically interpeted? because many elements would not work properly in a real time environment.. (speed 32 plasma anyone? speed 8 drones? burnable uim?)

sfc may have walked away from part of an audience.. but without marketing numbers infront of me, i take issue with the term "core". i do not say this out of disrespect. sfc was sold as a trek game first and foremost. yes, they used the sfb "inspired" rule set in the beginning.. but why was it used? again, was the purpose of the game to simply replicate sfb - or to build a good trek game and use sfb inspired rule set to make a good trek game. there is a vast difference between the two. one strives to replicate the board game exactly.. the other seeks to develop a good game and simply uses/intprets an already written rule set to achieve their means.

one other thing - and firesoul is correct.. the ultimate goal of the game is to make cash. that said, go back to the marketing numbers to see how the "core" of the game is determined (when it gets right down to it, the core is determined by that - not by somthing either of us would like to promote).

i would really, honestly love to see those numbers - and what the numbers of sfc1/2, op and 3 are.  (and the marketing research done on each of those games)

[FireSoul]

Fact remains that SFC2, EAW or OP, has a following.. a dedicated group of players. We are these players and We have our own reasons to play SFC2.

Now, Nanners, please end the argument. We've heard it all already. Of course I would like to say the same about SFC2 players dissing SFC3.. or EAW players dissing OP players, etc! The games are different. So what. Go play what you like best and leave it at that.

Ok? Enough? End of argument? Finished.
-- Luc

[Kieran Forester]

Nanner,

Why are you pointing out the name differences between drones and missles as if it means something? They are the same thing, from game to game. A drone by any other name impacts just as hard..

Apart from what you pointed out, Nanner, I have to agree with Scippy - SFC1 through OP were as faithful to SFB as the developers could manage with the transition to real time and the limitations of the engine. Granted, there are some departures, but most of them were not because the developers didn't feel like putting them in, or didn't want to make a totally SFB-based game, but because whatever wasn't there was too difficult to code in, especially in OP when Taldren had finally squeezed in as much stuff from SFB as they could successfully code.

SFC3 did walk away from a very large part of its old audience, and it was only saved because it attracted a new group of twitch gamers that were veterans of other arcade-y TNG games(no offense intended guys). I know of few in the D2 forum who even have SFC3, and of those, fewer still who still have it installed on their machines. I can't give you exact sales numbers on SFC3, as I don't work for Taldren/Activision, but I have heard that they were quite disappointing - less than both SFC2 and OP. I'd like to see the numbers as well, myself, as this is only what I've heard from outside sources.
 

[NannerSlug]

thats my point forrester.. im challenging even that belief about who the "core" is.. i think that the "core" sfc players = sfb players is a myth.. it is true that you can be an sfb and trek fan.. but who and what is the game aimed at - sfb players or the trek population? what was the core audience which was targeted via marketing.. you could be right and the core audience was sfb folk.. but i suspect market research might prove otherwise.. but niether of us have the numbers to prove it.

seperately, you might believe that sfc is very close.. but i beg to differ - i know more about sfb than what you might think.. (yes, the name drones/missiles.. there are differences in what those are a drone is different than a missile).. when you look at the sfb rule set as a whole - sfc uses a fraction of the rules and does not even stay true to many of the basics - whether your talking about double internals, burnable uim, the speeds of drones/plasma.. plasma D.. photons.. yes even g-racks.. (narrow salvos variable overloads.. etc)  there are more differences than similarities between the two games.. thats not to demean anyone or anything - but is a statment of fact.. there had to be modifications and changes made for the game to be adapted to real time - and lord only knows why other things were not added in.. and that is not a bad thing, and yes, the result was very pleasing.

however, that does not mean that the rule set currently used is hard-core sfb.. nor does it mean that changes did not need to be made.. it just all depends on someone's personal opinion. especially when it comes to game development and the gaming industry. what some people really, truly want is not so much sfc1, 2, 3 - but a single sfc with expansion packs to it.. and thats not a bad thing either.. but you need to realize that in the gaming industry world you cant just add a couple of races and a couple of weapons and call it a new game. (and sell it to a publisher that way anyhow)

i hope some of this is making sense.

one other thing.. more people are playing sfc3 than you think. last night when i was on d3 for the tnz server i noticed there were ~ 100 folk on (this was like at 1-2 am my time) the patched servers.. (~ 35-40 on tnz - 25-30 on dom wars, and the other were scattered between another 10 or so servers) - i dont know how many are on unpatched.. like i said before.. sfc3 was not - nor has not been given a fraction of the time, support or effort by some.. had it recieved a demo and a supported patch a few months ago (like close to after release) i think you would see a much different story right now.. but even then, i am wondering what the sales numbers really are.

[NannerSlug]

Quote:
Fact remains that SFC2, EAW or OP, has a following.. a dedicated group of players. We are these players and We have our own reasons to play SFC2.

Now, Nanners, please end the argument. We've heard it all already. Of course I would like to say the same about SFC2 players dissing SFC3.. or EAW players dissing OP players, etc! The games are different. So what. Go play what you like best and leave it at that.

Ok? Enough? End of argument? Finished.
-- Luc  

thats fine firesoul.. and i think its great.. but i think the main issue here i personally would like to see put to rest are a) the personal insults ive seen laid here at people who play play or prefere sfc3 b) the assumption that sfc2 is superior or that the "core" of sfc fandom are the sfb only folk and c) sfc3 has recieved the short end of just about every stick possible.

in short.. yeah, the games are different - if you love sfc2 and op, thats great (they are not bad games - i certain enjoyed playing them or why would i be here?) and i think its wonderful some of the improvments that have been made and forth comming.. however, at the same time, would it be possible to  let people enjoy what they play and please refrain from insulting them, or the games they enjoy (i am not saying you do, but i know others have). instead, would it be possible to lift a helping finger as a pose to throwing a stone?

take it easy.
 

[FireSoul]

Quote:

however, at the same time, would it be possible to let people enjoy what they play and please refrain from insulting them, or the games they enjoy (i am not saying you do, but i know others have).

It's very hard for me to do too, just so you know. I have been very careful to not post my exactly opinion of SFC3.. and instead am trying to make it a defused situation.

[Toasty0]

Quote:

Quote:
Fact remains that SFC2, EAW or OP, has a following.. a dedicated group of players. We are these players and We have our own reasons to play SFC2.

Now, Nanners, please end the argument. We've heard it all already. Of course I would like to say the same about SFC2 players dissing SFC3.. or EAW players dissing OP players, etc! The games are different. So what. Go play what you like best and leave it at that.

Ok? Enough? End of argument? Finished.
-- Luc  

thats fine firesoul.. and i think its great.. but i think the main issue here i personally would like to see put to rest are a) the personal insults ive seen laid here at people who play play or prefere sfc3 b) the assumption that sfc2 is superior or that the "core" of sfc fandom are the sfb only folk and c) sfc3 has recieved the short end of just about every stick possible.

in short.. yeah, the games are different - if you love sfc2 and op, thats great (they are not bad games - i certain enjoyed playing them or why would i be here?) and i think its wonderful some of the improvments that have been made and forth comming.. however, at the same time, would it be possible to  let people enjoy what they play and please refrain from insulting them, or the games they enjoy (i am not saying you do, but i know others have). instead, would it be possible to lift a helping finger as a pose to throwing a stone?

take it easy.
 

Nanner, you need to check that at the door!

Luc has worked his fingers off both with new shiplists.txt(s) and also with thorough and extensives beta testing. With your usual hyperbolic arguments you imply he hasn't done anything to make this community a better gaming community.

Well, you are flat wrong. And don't use the excuse you were addressing your comments at some unseen, unknown they. Your comment are both intentionally barped and pointed at Luc and written as to mislead the reader.

Boy-oh, I hope you are willing to correct any misimpression you have given the reader of your posts about Luc.

Best,
Jerry
 

[Mog]

Talking of personal insults, I distinctly remember a set of posts in the D3 forum by Nannerslug, describing his view of D2 and its players. The aim of the game, according to him, was hex munching and avoiding pvp. I, and many other D2 players, found the latter part extremely insulting. I am no coward, in fact I've often publicised the fact that pvp is what I play for. What's even more ironic is that said fellow was avoiding pvp left , right and centre on the recent SG3 server, under his pseudonym of SalsaFlavoredDoritos.

Typical Nannerslug BS.

[FPF_TraceyG]

Rightyo, all you lot.
<gets out a very VERY big Phaser Assault Rifle from underneath the bar's counter>
<click> <----- sound of weapon being set ot disintegrate.

These sort of arguments will get people nowhere. Agree to disagree and leave it that, each to his/her own. Enough said. I can't believe this crap is being brought up again. Go out the back and the beat the living daylights out of each other if it will make you feel better, haven't we seen enough of this shcoolyard posturing already? Its a <fricken> game, treat it as such.

 

[NannerSlug]

actually mog - you leave out the previous thread(s) which were no more than insults and slams about sfc3 - the alledge post i made simply pointed out how the 2 dynas were designed - no more, no less. how you personally took it is upto you. in short, quit looking for a way to crucify me. (the d2 was designed and works best when you avoid pvp and hex munch.. dont believe me? how did we win sg3? d3 is designed for more pvp action and engaging your opponent.. those are facts and reflect nothing about the people playing the game)

yes toasty, firesoul has done quite a bit for op and what not, and my post was not made to belittle that effort at all. i think the work firesoul has put into the game is great and should be commended.

that said, though, there is a general lack of respect from some people around here for those who do play or work on enjoying sfc3. where is the respect for people like korah or pelican? why the constant insults for those who like and play sfc3?

in short - agree to disagree - but stop the stone throwing  (if you dont believe me - read that other thread arround here where some guy thought sfc3 was too hard) and start supporting each other. i know that might be hard for some people - but its doable and is what is needed.
 

[Demandred]

What a shock - yet another thread with Nanner ranting on and on about how great SFC3 is and what fools we are for not worshipping it. Nanner, you play the game you like and we will play the game we like. Frankly, I'd rather you played SFC3, your constant attempts to give the Federation any and all advantages used to sicken me.

[Chris Jones]

Quote:
Nanner, in response to what you said above about Chris Jones' mods never being used in a server, I can give you a simple reason: The download is frickin' huge. Each of his major mods are over 100 MB with the first installment - and the updates he adds afterwards jack it up even more. The OP TNG mod alone, with all the updates, is over 500 MB. 56k'ers would probably spend as much time downloading the thing as they would playing on the server.

Thanks for the support Nanner. Yes I like big mods with lotsa variety, because once I get going I want to add this and this and that, etc.. and I am aware that 56K people will not bother with huge downloads like that.  

Actually, The TNG Mod for OP was widely supported on Gamespy up until SFC3 was released.

Firesoul says to play the game you like and not dis the others, which I agree with. I dig out EAW once in a while, because I can still create missions with FMSE and play with my brother and his friends in STOC. Of EAW and OP, I'd pick OP because of the sheer variety and what will still be fixed/added via patching.  SFC3 - well - I created a big TNG Mega Mod for it that had a server for a while, but real life kinda got me away from supporting it. The Mod is still on SFC3 Files in 5 parts. Pelican and Korah each have awesome SFC3 Mods going.

These days I'm into a Multi-Era for OP, which will be a while in the making, and scripting maps/systems for Bridge Commander.

 

[Kieran Forester]

Nanner, it's been said multiple times that the G-racks could not be coded in the way they were in SFB- thus the quick and dirty fix that was in SFC2, i.e. the addition of an AMD6 and treating the G-rack as a standard A-rack. No, it's not 'hardcore' SFB, but it's a good deal closer than you may think. The game was primarily aimed at Trek fans, as I could tell from the early ads for SFC1 in magazines and such, but as it turns out, its 'core' audience ended up with a majority of SFB fans. I myself bought SFC1 because it was Trek, but I bought SFC2 and OP because it was SFB-based Trek. Heck, I enjoyed my experience of the SFB universe so much just from my experiences with SFC that I bought Federation and Empire and all its supplements. Face it, Nanner, even with your known and clearly evident pro-SFC3 bias, you have to realize that the best computer games have been SFC1 and 2 - the ones, coincedentally, the ones based on SFB. Even your beloved SFC3 keeps some of the SFB elements, watered down though they may be.

And finally, I didn't say people weren't playing SFC3, I said that its overall sales numbers weren't as good as its predecessors. There's a difference. You'd never be able to tell that maybe, say, only 5,000 copies of a game were sold if all those 5,000 played online.

[Magnum357]

Just for the record, I play SFC1, SFC OP, and SFC3 contantly.  I'm a long time SFB fan (which is part of the reason why I like making SFB ships) but I'm also a Star Trek fan.  I don't know why their is such infighting between the SFC3 crowd and the SFB/SFC crowd.  I try to consider both games rule sets as different time lines.  SFC3 is fun to play, but only online from my experience.  The Computer AI is not really complex at all and you only get a good challenge when playing others online.  SFC OP and SFC1 are great even if you just play the AI, but a killer experience if you play head to head.  Just so many tactics and strategies that require you to really know your ships and race tactics well.  

I do like SFc3 though.  The rule system in that game needs more refinement I think (need more weapon systems and more race balancing and more races in my opinioin), but I would have to say that it is by far the best Star Trek ship combat game out their.  SFB/SFC1,2,OP have this already covered with years of proven tested game experience with SFB.  

What I would like to see Taldren (or whoever do) is make both a SFB style game and a TNG type game jointly.  They already have the game engines and rule systems in place for both games, all they need to do is refine and develope the TNG game more and add more stuff from the SFB universe in the SFB style game.  You could have two games, one called SFC: Galaxies at War (based on SFB rules) and another game called SFC: The Next Generation (based on SFC3 rules only refined and developed).  

[Komodo]

Magnum- you've got it right  

I really doubt we see anything more SFC ever again though.

I played 'em all too, and enjoyed each version for their own merit. Well. I actually think I wasted $ on OP LOL. That's just me though- many had fun with it and still do. I just wish I could partake in the excellent SFC3 mods I've heard so much about! I'd really like to see what all the hubbub is about. Unfortunatley I just don't have the resources- I'm still surprised I could even run the standard game with little problem. I'm not spending another cent on this machine though! Better to save it for a new one (one can hope lol)

Mog- I'm surprised at you. Being a member of a shrinking membership, I'd expected better behaviour by now. Going incognito was a double bonus which we had some fun with. FUN Too many have too long of memories, and much too little forgiveness. I'm pretty sure of all the crap you guys heaped on Paul, did you see any coming back your way? It's one thing to offer an opinion (regardless of knowing how it will be taken), quite another to punish someone for it. Bad form.

And that's what this place is all about- offering opinions- isn't it?  

[Whiplash]

Ya know, thats true. I have Dominion Wars and Klingon Academy if I want a Star Trek game NOT based on SFB. And lots of other space games too. But the SFC series is the only games based on SFB, a game I consider to be largely superior to any other Trek combat game invented thus far. When SFC left that unique niche, it lost all the uniqueness I really cared about. And got dumbed down so bad that I have now been playing SFC2 for a longer time than I played SFC3 even if you count only the time I've played since SFC3 was released.

I think time has shown which game has had the greater popularity and staying power, a fact which I repeatedly screamed from the time the concepts were announced, and which has sadly come true. I think it comes from not understanding the game dynamics that made SFC/SFC so absorbing in the first place. Tactical variety. Slow speed means lots of power for shields and overloads, but to contend with seeking weapons, you must go fast. Those kinds of tactical pressures were mostly eliminated from SFC3 and thats why it is an inferior game. Too bad game developers don't listen to people with 15 years of experience in SFB (not only me, but plenty of others), and who have the silly notion that they can do a better game practically overnight.

W.

[Tulwar]

I see the future of SFC very clearly.  SFC TNG through fan base for this series into chaos.  I doubt that any new game in this series will be produced for a very long time.  Eventually, someone from Tadren, or ADB will pick up the game again and pony up the capital to rewrite it.  In the near future, I only see declining intrist, as Activision realizes that they can't just dump thier content into somebody else's franchise without cosequenses.  I see SFC EAW in about 10 to 20 years.  I'll pre-order it, even if I'm so old, I have to pay my grandson to man the helm!  

[Tulwar]

Whoops!  I meant to say, "I see SFC GAW" in about 10 to 20 years."  In any case, I expect it to be very well polished, in a very attractive package!  I waited 15 years for SCF1, what's another 15, now that I know it's technicly and economicly possible?  

[Davey E]

Got SFC1 , 2 , OP and 3

SFC3 is not on my hard drive anymore, as i simply find it boring and limited tactically
Not a patch on SFC2 / OP

Those simulations will be long played after SFC3 is dead

Now give us SFC GAW or else    

[VelvetAcidChrist]

well i ve to agree with baron although i only had tng mod and just plaed sfc3 hardcore for like 2 months.
i still have it installed but dont play it anymore its just out of intrest till they change some serious stuff like baron requested.
 

[Tulwar]

Reguarldless of whether or not you like SFC3, Activision's acquisition of the TOS/ TMP license killed SFC.  Without the license, an improved version of SFC2, excepting OP, became impossible.  The release of SFC3 split the existing community into two factions, SFB and anything-but-SFB.  Since SFC was concieved as SFB-on-the-computer, I have little simpathy for the latter faction.  I found Activision's heavy-handed control over development and content rather rude.

Although SFC3 attracts people that may not be interested in SFB, SFB is at the heart of the game.  Those longing for a more complete version of SFB will not buy another version of SFC until it goes back to the SFB ruleset.

I don't think that the hatemail generated by SFB enthusists harmed SFC3.  Buying out the competion and destroying their product line is an unfortunate but common buisness practice.  This is the essence of "dog eat dog."  Could Activision have believed that their content was so much superior to the origional as to win over Taldren's existing customers?  Such arrogance is not unheard of.  I doubt they lost money on this venture, but it is possible that Activision had unrealistic expectations from initial sales and connections with other products.

Activision's unusual lawsuit against Viacom and the FTC investigation of Activision reveal a company in trouble.  Only the depth of the trouble is in doubt.

The only hope for the future of SFC is that Activision is in big trouble.  I think the only reason they published SFC3 is because Taldren could deliver a higher quality product than Activision was capable of at a very modest price.  If Activision has to sell off rights and licenses and/or realise that they must develope products to meet every concievable nicht of the ST franchise, then there is hope for SFC.  If Taldren can either convince Activision to give them free reign with SFC (scoff, scoff), or Activision sells the necessary rights to a willing publisher, only then will another SFC game be created.  Life would come back to SFC.

These are some pretty big "if's," but there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel.  Freight train?    

[CptCastrin]

Quote:
 c) sfc3 has recieved the short end of just about every stick possible.

Minor point but when a new version of SFC is released while there is still no patch for SFC3 THEN you can say this with more accuracy. Those of us who love OP watched while the older game (EaW) continued to be patched AND a newer game came out! All while the game was totally broken AND people were constantly picking it apart. Now that is really the short end of the stick.

SFC3 will be fixed much sooner than SFC:OP was and that is a good thing. If you include the great mods out there for it and the vibrant community supporting it, SFC3 has it far better than OP did in the same time frame. You guys (that play SFC3) should feel lucky and not worry about anything other than when the patch will be out.

   

[Sethan]

Quote:
Nanner, it's been said multiple times that the G-racks could not be coded in the way they were in SFB- thus the quick and dirty fix that was in SFC2, i.e. the addition of an AMD6 and treating the G-rack as a standard A-rack. No, it's not 'hardcore' SFB, but it's a good deal closer than you may think.

Heh.  I came up with an idea to make the G-rack even closer to SFB.  Talked it over with Magnumman, and he agreed it was possible, easy to do, and closer to SFB.  I pitched it to the players on the Dynaverse 2 experiences board - as a possibility - to get some reaction, and got flamed into the next century by a variety of Fed players.

[TheSatyr]

Can we please give this "EAW is better then OP,SFC3 is better than whatever...this game sucks no that game sucks" dead horse a decent burial?.

It doesn't matter...each game has it's own group of followers. Fighting over it just comes accross as childish behavior...and no doubt scares some of the newbies off of the boards.

Do I have a favorite? Yeah...SFC1. Simply because that's what got the whole franchise rolling.

What would I like to see if there ever was a future SFC product? Yeah....An all eras game. That will be the only thing that will make everybody happy. As long as Andros,Tholians,Cardassians and the Dominion were all added in as well. Will it ever happen? I seriously doubt it...but then stranger things have happened.

 

[3rdRedBaronX]

I'm posting a thread I started on the SFC2 forum regarding SFC3.  I'm hoping the developers will take heart to what's written here since SFC3 died in April on the GamerZ league and barely has any following on Gamespy.  I'm hoping they can take some lessons learned and make a new and better game. SFC2 has a better following now which speaks volumes to the quality of the gameplay vs SFC3.  The ship designs that were there were great, but the diversity is lacking.  The Dominion mod by Pelican for instance has a lot of diversity though some of the models have deficiencies in their weapon hardpoints.  Real TNG ships included were Ambassador Class, Nova, Steamrunner, Miranda, Constellation, Oberth, Prometheus, New Romulan Warbird, Scimitar, Kling Models from SFC2, as well as other races.

After being in first place for the initial and only SFC3 cycle on GZ, playing the most games and trying Dyna3 and the Dominion Mod by Pelican, I can say that I'm thoroughly experienced with sfc3, and gave it a chance.  I went so far as to vehemenantly support SFC2 on the forums since I too did not want SFC3 to die out.  Problem is SFC2 is a better game and SFC3 simply has too many problems to be patched properly.  The models in the Dominion Mod and diversity there gave it some fun, but gameplay is simply too watered down.  Warping until your very last hull point is never a problem, 1 minor hit at warp can kill an officer and take you out of the game, power management isn't nearly as complex and you can't seperate a good player from a bad one, weapon diversity isn't great, race diversity sucks, ship models (not counting dom mod) are too few and don't represent TNG well, point spread is confusing and difficult to calculate (100,000 bpv anyone?), no eras.

My suggestions for making a better game in TNG era would be:

A)  Make Warp dependent on power and seperate status of warp engines with a longer buildup to go to warp as well as a cooling down period before you can go to warp again.
B) Officers should not play a part in regular MP games (dyna is a different story) and if they do play a part, it should be VERY hard to injure them.
C) More race diversity such as: Fed, Kling, Rom, Borg, Dominion, Cardassians, Ferengi, Breen
D) Special race abilities such as: Borg (Crew assimilation, Nano Virus), Fed (Deflector dish one time weapon/but disables ability to warp), Kling (Elite Commandos), Dominion (Gem Hadar fighters etc), Rom (Tal'Shiar Operatives beam over to jam radar making it harder for you to find them when they uncloak and interfere with you finding teammates at long distances...and more
E) Return the phaser capacitor
F) Return ECM/ECCM
G) Diversify weapons as seen in shows such as biological weapons that can kill or weaken crew making it more susceptible for marines to board, dampening field (temporarily incapacitates enemy crew/think of HET failure)....etc
H) Return Power Mangement to include all aspects of ship.  

[Dogmatix!]

I haven't experienced SFC3 nearly as deepy as you did, but I note that much of my initial perceptions after the first three months are borne out by your experiences over twice that time.


I think your ideas for improvement are very good and would most certainly improve SFC3 in my eyes.  I'm of the opinion that nothing more for SFC3 will be forthcoming, though.  At this point, I'm sure the actual public release of the current beta patch will be met with some raised eyebrows and gasps of, "At long last..."  


I'm definitely thankful we have a relatively healthy SFC2 community to fall back on.  While I never left it, I was glad it was still there during and after my D3 experiments...heheh.

[Mr. Hypergol]

If SFC3 had kept it's rule set closer to the Star Fleet Battles based rules that SFC2 used it would have been a much better game.  Just because we moved into the TNG era doesn't mean the rule set could not have been "derived" or "evolved" into this era adequately.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the data, weapons charts, UI, etc. should have been such that it could be logically traced back to the SFC2 system....not something totally and arbitrarily new.  For example, if a phaser 1 from SFC2 does X points of damage at a certain range, then a SFC3 phaser 10's damage should be more at that same range in a manner that makes sense with respect to the Phaser 1....as if the technology had progressed.

There's no reason that SFC3's TNG era could not still have been based on an SFB derived system.  This guy did a great job of it and is a good example of what I had in mind for SFC3 before I saw what we got:

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

http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/rules/tng05.txt  

[Cleaven]

I would hope that there is a list somewhere of things to do to make a greater version of SFC3, but I fear SFC3 was a one shot affair, at least for the moment. The improvements I would like to see are in the Dynaverse itself.
 

[NannerSlug]

i completely disagree hyper. its not about making a rule set closer to this or to that - its simply about developing a good game. not all people fall into the categories posted here. there are plenty of other games that do not use the sfb rule set that are successful.

could it have been better? sure - but i think some people are leaving out the positive things about the game.. like the fact that there are mods out there like TNZ and the dominion war ALREADY. SG3 is just now (after how many years) making a mod main stream. Christ Jones developed his mod -but i never saw any campaigns based on it or used.

coming from my perspective - i think that if you go back to the wish list which was posted here a while back sorta pokes out what people might want.. some people actually prefere 3 over 2. i personally can go either way (actually its 3 or OP)..

to me, sfc3 sorta does go skimpy the ships.. TNZ and the dominion wars fill it out nicely.. that is a huge problem that needs correcting. more ships, more variants, more models.

it also need more mp scripts for dynaverse. a huge thank you to pelican for developing scripts. like wise, a huge thank you to korah and pelican for pushing sfc3 into the direction it needed to go.

i also miss t-bombs.. where are those furry little creatures we love so much?

regarding weapons - the weapons are different and have differing flavors.. the main issue is that, well,are people taking the time to explore them and use them. some are, some are not. there are racial differences. could the racial differences be expanded on and exaggerated to become more "noticable"? you bet - but they are there.

if you do an extensive study on the differences in the style of play of the two games one of the other things you might notice is that you can repair the hull in 2, but you cannot in 3. that should be fixed. another one is that in 2 there is always some way to counter your opponents move. in sfc3 - there are a few things which you really cannot effectively counter. one is the tachyon beam (imo, that thing should be toned down or there should be some sort of counter to it) and the other is the tractor. i think that the differing degrees of tractoring ships is not a good idea.. i think that having an older style tractor beam with power is a better idea.. and that you can put how ever much energy you want to into the tractors.. (the bigger the warp core your ship has, the more power you can put into things) this leads me to energy managment.

sorry, but i love energy managment in sfc3 sooo much more.. i can fire underloads.. i can fire over loads.. i can move power from shields to weapons to movement.. and what ever i put into it, is what is in it. that said, sure - you can expand on it.. instead of having just 3 sliders.. you should be able to have more sliders to control more of your individual system power.. say like tractor beam or shields, then i can do so..

likewise, i can see a break down in weapons power.. this means i can have a slider on each individual hard point to overload or underload it.. but again, there is on ly so much power allocated to the weapon systems which you can take from. (how can you click over load on all your photons and have the power set to underload - so instead of instant overload/norm, you have a slider to determine how much power goes into said weapon system).

another item concerning weapons systems is the improvment of arcs. at first, i didnt think it was that big of deal.. but i think that the arcs need improving quite a bit.. or at least more arcs need added to the game to give modders the ability to do so or create thier own ships using different arcs.

dynaverse wise, i could see a few strategic aspects put it.. one would be the first and last year available. if this single function was given - we could have what would be my personal dream.. a TOS to TNG trek game.. you could have ships released like in sfc2 by the year instead of all at once.. another server side option would be the ability to disable the refit. by giving the server admin the ability to disable the refit option, you can then create different variants of a ship and have greater strategic control over a serious campaign.

finally, i would like to see some sort of sdk come out to where if someone wanted to make a full sfb conversion (for those who are still in eaw/op land - and that is their thing, dont get me wrong - it is solely a preferece).. this way we can all be playing a single game again as a pose to swapping back and forth.

over all, i think sfc3 is a wonderful game.. but it comes just shy of really cracking things wide open. if there had more ships and more scripts, it would be a different matter. then again, heck, if there had been a demo for the game, it would be different.. (would you buy a game without downloading the demo? i never have- i want to see it before i spend my hard earned cash on it) the same can be said about the patch situation. no matter who says what, there are many people who are waiting for that first official patch.. and its been so long that it might have really hurt things.

do i expect another sfc? probably not. at least not for a while. maybe im wrong. hope so.

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
  i completely disagree hyper.

Like a hungry bass darting out of the grass............Nanner strikes!!!!

Nanner have I told you lately how tired I am of your constant and mindless support of Star Fleet Battles........NOT!!!

At least we both want our T-bombs back.

[FireSoul]

bah.

I'll say once more: I bought SFC for the SFB content. I never bought SFC3.

-- Luc

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
bah.

I'll say once more: I bought SFC for the SFB content. I never bought SFC3.

-- Luc  

You Go boy!!!

[Mainwaring]

On an entirely flipped side of the coin, I bought SFC3 because it *wasn't* SFB. And I can think of a fair number of others who did. Of course, all I continue to play it for is TNZ, which is just a thoroughly awesome mod an community. If not for that... well. But to me, SFB has never felt like a real trek game. Things... just don't feel right. SFC3 isn't quite entirely there, either, but it's close enough to count, especially with the DW and TNZ mods to plug some gaps.

My only comment in response to your comments, Nanner, at least at the moment, is that I have some issues with power management (hotkey slider memory sets would be killer), but Let's not confuse fine detail control with quality. Can you *really* juggle that many sliders in the thick of combat? How far can you split your attention? When does micro-managing your ship take over from playing the game? the way i see it, what SFC3 has in that regard is right where it should be-- enough detail that you can juggle the power to your liking on the fly, but also little enough that you don't spend most of your time doing it, which means that gameplay doesn't bog down.

Now, if only it was just a *little* more mod-able and we could get a real patch out of it.

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
On an entirely flipped side of the coin, I bought SFC3 because it *wasn't* SFB. And I can think of a fair number of others who did. Of course, all I continue to play it for is TNZ, which is just a thoroughly awesome mod an community. If not for that... well. But to me, SFB has never felt like a real trek game. Things... just don't feel right. SFC3 isn't quite entirely there, either, but it's close enough to count, especially with the DW and TNZ mods to plug some gaps.

My only comment in response to your comments, Nanner, at least at the moment, is that I have some issues with power management (hotkey slider memory sets would be killer), but Let's not confuse fine detail control with quality. Can you *really* juggle that many sliders in the thick of combat? How far can you split your attention? When does micro-managing your ship take over from playing the game? the way i see it, what SFC3 has in that regard is right where it should be-- enough detail that you can juggle the power to your liking on the fly, but also little enough that you don't spend most of your time doing it, which means that gameplay doesn't bog down.

Now, if only it was just a *little* more mod-able and we could get a real patch out of it.  

And this attitude is entirely fine but, how many games out there don't use the SFB rules???? and how many do???  Us SFB nerds like to have something we enjoy as well.  I enjoy plenty of games without SFB rules.  Freelancer is one I play a lot, no SFB in there.  

But, for those of us that do like SFB when SFC came out touting that it was using SFB as a base we were all very excited about it.  I know it was the first game I ever pre ordered off the internet.  The next was SFC2.  I bought 3 and I did enjoy playing it and the dom wars and TNZ modsand now that SG3 is over I might play some more if I can figure out what I have to download.  

[NannerSlug]

one other thing i forgot to post would be adding in detail to the hard points.. instead of simply piling all the mass into a single generalization - each hard point would have its own mass restriction. this would really add detail to the ship  - in addition to taking care of some of the odd-ball whacked out designs.

regarding power management: i just want full control of my ship.

[Fire_Ant]

Quote:
bah.

I'll say once more: I bought SFC for the SFB content. I never bought SFC3.

-- Luc  

Same here.  I grabbed up SFC1 at the same time I was buying my system.  I loved it!  My intro to SFB was actually through FASAs Star Trek Starship Tactical Combat Simulator.  A mouthfull to be sure which I later discovered  was basically a ripoff of SFB.  So I got into SFB but never really found anyone who wanted to learn the basic rules for some reason. LOL  So playing it on the computer was a joy, but it fell so short of what SFB actually was.  When SFC2 came out I snatched it right up and was enamored by how much more of SFB was in it as well as all the improvements.  I had high hopes for SFC3.  I was looking forward to seeing the Andromidans and the Tholians as well as additional systems found in SFB.  When I heard SFC3 was TNG it was a major disappointment.  I knew the SFB world was out the window and the game would be as dissappointing to me as the TV series.  (Bring back DS9 that was real ST)  I'm waiting until I get my new system to get OP and hoping SFC4 will go back to SFB.  If they dont then I dont plan on buying any more ST games.  If you dont like SFB based ST than there are a number of ST games out to suit you.  None of which you will find on my computer.  

[rmahannah]

I also feel that SFC 3 could have been more complete right down to the ship explosion graphics and sounds.  I do like SFC 3 for some of the new features like warping and cloak scan, but I was a little let down when I played it the first time.  When it was released, I was really into SFC 2, and that was probably part of the problem.  I miss T-Bombs, and the more intricate ship management found in SFC 1 and 2.  I guess I felt more in command of the ship with more to do, after all a Starship should make you feel that you are busy when flying her!  Anyway, that's my 2 cents.  I am waiting for the "Final" patch for SFC 3 before I download those MODS everyone is talking about, but I am looking forward to it!!!    

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
I also feel that SFC 3 could have been more complete right down to the ship explosion graphics and sounds.  I do like SFC 3 for some of the new features like warping and cloak scan, but I was a little let down when I played it the first time.  When it was released, I was really into SFC 2, and that was probably part of the problem.  I miss T-Bombs, and the more intricate ship management found in SFC 1 and 2.  I guess I felt more in command of the ship with more to do, after all a Starship should make you feel that you are busy when flying her!  Anyway, that's my 2 cents.  I am waiting for the "Final" patch for SFC 3 before I download those MODS everyone is talking about, but I am looking forward to it!!!      

Don't wait, download the mods now.  They really change the game for the better

Also, you may be waiting for a loooonnnngggg time.

[Sethan]

I own SFC, SFC2, and OP.  I will buy a copy of SFC3 to support Taldren as soon as I have a regular job again, but it will never leave shrinkwrap - I simply have no interest in the game.

Like Firesoul, I bought SFC for the SFB content.

SFC3 went away from its roots, and away from what many of the SFC fans wanted.  Taldren had to make the game someone would pay them to make.  Activision wanted a simpler TNG based version of SFC, and that is what they got.

SFC2 has great staying power because it is a great game, despite the remaining bugs.  I expect it to be played long after SFC3 is forgotten.  I just wish someone would finance GaW while it is still possible to do.

[SPQR Renegade001]

Quote:
My only comment in response to your comments, Nanner, at least at the moment, is that I have some issues with power management (hotkey slider memory sets would be killer), but Let's not confuse fine detail control with quality. Can you *really* juggle that many sliders in the thick of combat? How far can you split your attention? When does micro-managing your ship take over from playing the game? the way i see it, what SFC3 has in that regard is right where it should be-- enough detail that you can juggle the power to your liking on the fly, but also little enough that you don't spend most of your time doing it, which means that gameplay doesn't bog down.

I think the level of control and effect Nanner is talking about, would give some performance advantage to a player who choose to micro-manage his ship, at the cost of a bit of tactical awareness. The player who chooses to manage his power closely, is going eek the last bit of performance out of his ship, but in doing so might not be completly aware of the battle running around him. A player who can manage his power and keep his situational awareness high is going to be truely leathal when compared to a player who lets his ship run itself or one who manages at the cost of battle.

As for bogging gameplay... Taking the time to manage power doesn't bog gameplay, the game continues wether or not you choose to pay attention to it.  

[Kieran Forester]

Nanner, in response to what you said above about Chris Jones' mods never being used in a server, I can give you a simple reason: The download is frickin' huge. Each of his major mods are over 100 MB with the first installment - and the updates he adds afterwards jack it up even more. The OP TNG mod alone, with all the updates, is over 500 MB. 56k'ers would probably spend as much time downloading the thing as they would playing on the server.

And also, what you said about D2 mod servers is not entirely true - Day of the Eagle was a mod server, and we've been having servers with modded shiplists(but no actual new models) for a long time.

[Lepton1]

I haven't read the whole thread but here are my remarks.  SFC3 is not SFC2.  Turning it into SFC2 is not the answer since that cannot be done nor is Taldren likely to put out a new SFC title.  They have pretty much stated that.

What SFC3 needs is the adoption of a standard mod to reinvigorate the players.  I would suggest the TNZ mod or some synthesis of existing mods.  The TNZ players are fanatical such that they are willing to donate money to upkeep and update their server. I don't think they are particularly fanatical people, but I do think the mod is very good.  More ships, more weapons, more races.  That's what SFC3 is missing and mods can provide that.

[grave]

this is just my thoughts on this... i feel that if any one from talgren really visited these fourms and went through the posts befor makeing the game sfc3 then they would have realised that even though we were all screaming "were is SFC3! we have been wateing forever!" that most of us would have perfered that they had taken the additional time to FINISH the game befor reliceing it. its easy to tell that the had planed on more races from the files with race names including things like species 8472 and what not. its my feeling that ther dont give a rats A@# about us the gamer. I also feel verry betrayed by them for not reliceing a stable game that they knew would not be up to par. If taldren had taken the time to finish the game prior to reliceing it with out saying to them selves "oh people wont care its not ready they will wate for a patch fr as long as it takes us to do it"and had finished the game I feel it COULD have a good game.                                                                                                                                                                                                    now that thats said. i also wanted to say that i have ALL the mods for SFC3 that i have seen come out on this fourm. i have added a few together like the TNZ mod wich i love and the MIRANDA sp? mod. like its ben posted i use dial up( ya i know it sucks but cant get dsl or brodband were im at) to download them all. and it HAS taken a verry long time to get them all. but the mods have added some flair and playability to the game that was verry lacking when it was shiped. BUt even with all of the mods ive tryed and played (and ive been playing sence SFC1 first came out) id rather play SFC1 then fight with an unfinishd porly made and non suported SFC3...
well thats my 2 cents worth thanks for listening to me ramble  

[Whiplash]

They need to make a GOOD game, and it does not HAVE TO BE SFB based. It is possible for a game to be good that is not based on SFB.

However, SFB is a proven, balanced system that had DECADES of playtesting and thought behind it. Any new game they hack together and spend less than a YEAR playtesting is just not going to stack up. SFC3 is a perfect example of that.

Games that keep you coming back have a certain DEPTH of play. That requires some complexity, and you can't playtest that quickly.

W.

[NannerSlug]

sfc3 is closer than you think. many like it. sure, there need to be some things added and changed.. but its darned close.. and there are many, many other games which did just fine in the time of development - ranging from total annihilation to rainbow 6 and battlefield 1942.

sfb did provide a compelling base for the game.. but it is not the end all to be all.

if you have tried the tnz or dw mods, i think you will find that many of the gaps have been filled.. not that its complete, because there are a number of things which could have been added to the detail column (fya, lya, restrictions on ship yard, t-bombs, different arcs, individual hard point mass restrictions, individualized power managment) which would add more to it.. but it has a lot more potential and game play then you are giving it credit for.

[FireSoul]

Although I agree that many like SFC3 and that it's a game on its own, I don't agree on the following statement:

Quote:

sfb did provide a compelling base for the game.. but it is not the end all to be all.

For me it is. It's why I bought the games in the first place. I would not have touched the titles otherwise.

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

Quote:
 For me it is. It's why I bought the games in the first place. I would not have touched the titles otherwise.
 

Same here. (big surprise I know....LOL)

The SFC series are the only Star Trek computer games I have ever owned (although I'm thinking about picking up the Armada and Elite Force games now).

For those who dismiss SFB please understand that I already have a shelf FULL of games "not" based on SFB.  I want  just one of these game series to be based on SFB......and stay that way.  

[jimmi7769]

Quote:
 

Quote:
 For me it is. It's why I bought the games in the first place. I would not have touched the titles otherwise.
 

Same here. (big surprise I know....LOL)

The SFC series are the only Star Trek computer games I have ever owned (although I'm thinking about picking up the Armada and Elite Force games now).

For those who dismiss SFB please understand that I already have a shelf FULL of games "not" based on SFB.  I want  just one of these game series to be based on SFB......and stay that way.  

Hyper's right, I've got loads of Video games not based on SFB, and when I was younger I played many paper and pencil games that were not SFB, but it was nice to have some games in both areas that were(are) based on my favorite game system.

Heck, I spend more time playing Freelancer right now anyway and the only things trek in there are a few models and no SFB at all.

I'd try TNZ or Dom Wars more but there was never any room on the server of TNZ and no one playing on Dom Wars so I lost interest.

[Jim]

Absolutely.  SFC is a great game because it is based on SFB.  Not Trek.  SFB could have changed all the names of the races and weapons and it would have still been the best space wargame ever made.  And ADB could have had full control over all the content.

I think that someone *should* make SFC:GAW based entirely on SFB and add all the missing stuff back in.  Change ALL the races to eliminate any mention of Trek so that you get rid of the licensing mess.  The game doesn't need Trek as a crutch to survive.

And as to good Trek games... to date there aren't any.  SFC is NOT a Trek game.  It just happened to have called the original races names from Star Trek.  I bet Steve Cole wishes he had made up his own races now.

Anyway...  here's to hoping that someday the entire SFB rulebook gets computerized into a great game.  If they make it, it will sell.

Jim  

[NannerSlug]

Quote:
 The SFC series are the only Star Trek computer games I have ever owned (although I'm thinking about picking up the Armada and Elite Force games now).

For those who dismiss SFB please understand that I already have a shelf FULL of games "not" based on SFB.  I want  just one of these game series to be based on SFB......and stay that way.  

thats great hyper.. and im not saying that in a belittling fashion (or to firesoul for that matter).. but what makes that so special beyond your personal perferences.. e.g. what is the purpose of the game.. is it to produce a good trek game which with the best possible rule set or replicate sfb as best as possible within the real time setting. therein lies the issue for my self. from my understanding and discussions with many folk - the purpose was to produce as strong a trek game as possible using the best rule set. in sfc1/2 that was sfb (even then, there are more differences with the sfb rule set than similarities - but it does use that as a basis). that said, then the game is not held to what i would refere to as the bonds of a particular rule set - but is opened up to interpretation and development.

i mean, what make's anyone's vision of a particular rule set better over someone else's. some would say performance (which i can agree with), some might say the over all experience. it simply varies and there again lies another issue to be dealt with.

for me, as someone who plays a HUGE ammount of games (probably more than i should  - and i need to spend more time with my family, really) - i see it as a simple matter of preferences in rule sets. nothing more, nothing less. it is about the performance of the game and what the individual likes. i see nothing special about the sfb rule set - only that it was a good foundation for the sfc series to start from (and it was a good start) - but that it can be improved on, modified or simply taken out in the end. after all, the foundation of the rule set is not even developed for a computer. (16% range breaks, etc) that is my opinion, though - and people on both sides of the issue should realize that.

again, it all goes back to who really are the core players of sfc and what is the goal of the game?

[FireSoul]

Quote:

again, it all goes back to who really are the core players of sfc and what is the goal of the game?

I'm a SFC player because I'm a SFB player. I don't care if I'm not part of the core players of SFC. The goal of the game is to make money.

[Scipio_66]

Quote:
what is the purpose of the game.. is it to produce a good trek game which with the best possible rule set or replicate sfb as best as possible within the real time setting.

That's the same thing!  There is no need to discuss distinctions without a difference!

Quote:
 <In SFC 1 and 2> there are more differences with the sfb rule set than similarities - but it does use that as a basis).

Rubbish!  Pure and simple rubbish!  (without meaning to be insulting).  There are a *few* departures here and there, but the game was and remains amazingly faithful.

That being said, I bought SFC 1, 2, and OP (multiple copies of each) because they were based upon SFB.  No other reason.   If they hadn't been I'd have left them sitting on the shelf right next to lots of other games and (eventually) right next to SFC3.

I didn't buy SFC3 because it:

1) Wasn't based upon SFB (I bought OP because it was, even though I wasn't jazzed about it)
2) Wasn't SFC3.  (It was TNG 1, or some such.)
3) Was boring to play.  (to me)

I did try out a friends copy.  The game felt like a demo, so I'm not sure you can say no demo was made.  

Good game or bad game, SFC3 (sic)  had a core audience it walked away from.  That's never a good thing for a sequel.

-S'Cipio

[NannerSlug]

actually scippy, there is a stark contrast between the goal of developing a good game and simply replicating the sfb rule set.. and when you compare everything that is in sfc and even basic elements of sfb - there are vast differences.. ranging from drone (missiles in sfc) and plasma speed to double internals to pfs to fighters/restrictions to the DAC and weapon effects. there are many more differences in sfc/sfb than what you might think.. but that is the truth.  that is not to say that sfc does not use the sfb rule set as a basis -because it does.. but it artistically interprets many, many things if you were to try and compare them to said rule set. why were many elements artistically interpeted? because many elements would not work properly in a real time environment.. (speed 32 plasma anyone? speed 8 drones? burnable uim?)

sfc may have walked away from part of an audience.. but without marketing numbers infront of me, i take issue with the term "core". i do not say this out of disrespect. sfc was sold as a trek game first and foremost. yes, they used the sfb "inspired" rule set in the beginning.. but why was it used? again, was the purpose of the game to simply replicate sfb - or to build a good trek game and use sfb inspired rule set to make a good trek game. there is a vast difference between the two. one strives to replicate the board game exactly.. the other seeks to develop a good game and simply uses/intprets an already written rule set to achieve their means.

one other thing - and firesoul is correct.. the ultimate goal of the game is to make cash. that said, go back to the marketing numbers to see how the "core" of the game is determined (when it gets right down to it, the core is determined by that - not by somthing either of us would like to promote).

i would really, honestly love to see those numbers - and what the numbers of sfc1/2, op and 3 are.  (and the marketing research done on each of those games)

[FireSoul]

Fact remains that SFC2, EAW or OP, has a following.. a dedicated group of players. We are these players and We have our own reasons to play SFC2.

Now, Nanners, please end the argument. We've heard it all already. Of course I would like to say the same about SFC2 players dissing SFC3.. or EAW players dissing OP players, etc! The games are different. So what. Go play what you like best and leave it at that.

Ok? Enough? End of argument? Finished.
-- Luc

[Kieran Forester]

Nanner,

Why are you pointing out the name differences between drones and missles as if it means something? They are the same thing, from game to game. A drone by any other name impacts just as hard..

Apart from what you pointed out, Nanner, I have to agree with Scippy - SFC1 through OP were as faithful to SFB as the developers could manage with the transition to real time and the limitations of the engine. Granted, there are some departures, but most of them were not because the developers didn't feel like putting them in, or didn't want to make a totally SFB-based game, but because whatever wasn't there was too difficult to code in, especially in OP when Taldren had finally squeezed in as much stuff from SFB as they could successfully code.

SFC3 did walk away from a very large part of its old audience, and it was only saved because it attracted a new group of twitch gamers that were veterans of other arcade-y TNG games(no offense intended guys). I know of few in the D2 forum who even have SFC3, and of those, fewer still who still have it installed on their machines. I can't give you exact sales numbers on SFC3, as I don't work for Taldren/Activision, but I have heard that they were quite disappointing - less than both SFC2 and OP. I'd like to see the numbers as well, myself, as this is only what I've heard from outside sources.
 

[NannerSlug]

thats my point forrester.. im challenging even that belief about who the "core" is.. i think that the "core" sfc players = sfb players is a myth.. it is true that you can be an sfb and trek fan.. but who and what is the game aimed at - sfb players or the trek population? what was the core audience which was targeted via marketing.. you could be right and the core audience was sfb folk.. but i suspect market research might prove otherwise.. but niether of us have the numbers to prove it.

seperately, you might believe that sfc is very close.. but i beg to differ - i know more about sfb than what you might think.. (yes, the name drones/missiles.. there are differences in what those are a drone is different than a missile).. when you look at the sfb rule set as a whole - sfc uses a fraction of the rules and does not even stay true to many of the basics - whether your talking about double internals, burnable uim, the speeds of drones/plasma.. plasma D.. photons.. yes even g-racks.. (narrow salvos variable overloads.. etc)  there are more differences than similarities between the two games.. thats not to demean anyone or anything - but is a statment of fact.. there had to be modifications and changes made for the game to be adapted to real time - and lord only knows why other things were not added in.. and that is not a bad thing, and yes, the result was very pleasing.

however, that does not mean that the rule set currently used is hard-core sfb.. nor does it mean that changes did not need to be made.. it just all depends on someone's personal opinion. especially when it comes to game development and the gaming industry. what some people really, truly want is not so much sfc1, 2, 3 - but a single sfc with expansion packs to it.. and thats not a bad thing either.. but you need to realize that in the gaming industry world you cant just add a couple of races and a couple of weapons and call it a new game. (and sell it to a publisher that way anyhow)

i hope some of this is making sense.

one other thing.. more people are playing sfc3 than you think. last night when i was on d3 for the tnz server i noticed there were ~ 100 folk on (this was like at 1-2 am my time) the patched servers.. (~ 35-40 on tnz - 25-30 on dom wars, and the other were scattered between another 10 or so servers) - i dont know how many are on unpatched.. like i said before.. sfc3 was not - nor has not been given a fraction of the time, support or effort by some.. had it recieved a demo and a supported patch a few months ago (like close to after release) i think you would see a much different story right now.. but even then, i am wondering what the sales numbers really are.

[NannerSlug]

Quote:
Fact remains that SFC2, EAW or OP, has a following.. a dedicated group of players. We are these players and We have our own reasons to play SFC2.

Now, Nanners, please end the argument. We've heard it all already. Of course I would like to say the same about SFC2 players dissing SFC3.. or EAW players dissing OP players, etc! The games are different. So what. Go play what you like best and leave it at that.

Ok? Enough? End of argument? Finished.
-- Luc  

thats fine firesoul.. and i think its great.. but i think the main issue here i personally would like to see put to rest are a) the personal insults ive seen laid here at people who play play or prefere sfc3 b) the assumption that sfc2 is superior or that the "core" of sfc fandom are the sfb only folk and c) sfc3 has recieved the short end of just about every stick possible.

in short.. yeah, the games are different - if you love sfc2 and op, thats great (they are not bad games - i certain enjoyed playing them or why would i be here?) and i think its wonderful some of the improvments that have been made and forth comming.. however, at the same time, would it be possible to  let people enjoy what they play and please refrain from insulting them, or the games they enjoy (i am not saying you do, but i know others have). instead, would it be possible to lift a helping finger as a pose to throwing a stone?

take it easy.
 

[FireSoul]

Quote:

however, at the same time, would it be possible to let people enjoy what they play and please refrain from insulting them, or the games they enjoy (i am not saying you do, but i know others have).

It's very hard for me to do too, just so you know. I have been very careful to not post my exactly opinion of SFC3.. and instead am trying to make it a defused situation.

[Toasty0]

Quote:

Quote:
Fact remains that SFC2, EAW or OP, has a following.. a dedicated group of players. We are these players and We have our own reasons to play SFC2.

Now, Nanners, please end the argument. We've heard it all already. Of course I would like to say the same about SFC2 players dissing SFC3.. or EAW players dissing OP players, etc! The games are different. So what. Go play what you like best and leave it at that.

Ok? Enough? End of argument? Finished.
-- Luc  

thats fine firesoul.. and i think its great.. but i think the main issue here i personally would like to see put to rest are a) the personal insults ive seen laid here at people who play play or prefere sfc3 b) the assumption that sfc2 is superior or that the "core" of sfc fandom are the sfb only folk and c) sfc3 has recieved the short end of just about every stick possible.

in short.. yeah, the games are different - if you love sfc2 and op, thats great (they are not bad games - i certain enjoyed playing them or why would i be here?) and i think its wonderful some of the improvments that have been made and forth comming.. however, at the same time, would it be possible to  let people enjoy what they play and please refrain from insulting them, or the games they enjoy (i am not saying you do, but i know others have). instead, would it be possible to lift a helping finger as a pose to throwing a stone?

take it easy.
 

Nanner, you need to check that at the door!

Luc has worked his fingers off both with new shiplists.txt(s) and also with thorough and extensives beta testing. With your usual hyperbolic arguments you imply he hasn't done anything to make this community a better gaming community.

Well, you are flat wrong. And don't use the excuse you were addressing your comments at some unseen, unknown they. Your comment are both intentionally barped and pointed at Luc and written as to mislead the reader.

Boy-oh, I hope you are willing to correct any misimpression you have given the reader of your posts about Luc.

Best,
Jerry
 

[Mog]

Talking of personal insults, I distinctly remember a set of posts in the D3 forum by Nannerslug, describing his view of D2 and its players. The aim of the game, according to him, was hex munching and avoiding pvp. I, and many other D2 players, found the latter part extremely insulting. I am no coward, in fact I've often publicised the fact that pvp is what I play for. What's even more ironic is that said fellow was avoiding pvp left , right and centre on the recent SG3 server, under his pseudonym of SalsaFlavoredDoritos.

Typical Nannerslug BS.

[FPF_TraceyG]

Rightyo, all you lot.
<gets out a very VERY big Phaser Assault Rifle from underneath the bar's counter>
<click> <----- sound of weapon being set ot disintegrate.

These sort of arguments will get people nowhere. Agree to disagree and leave it that, each to his/her own. Enough said. I can't believe this crap is being brought up again. Go out the back and the beat the living daylights out of each other if it will make you feel better, haven't we seen enough of this shcoolyard posturing already? Its a <fricken> game, treat it as such.

 

[NannerSlug]

actually mog - you leave out the previous thread(s) which were no more than insults and slams about sfc3 - the alledge post i made simply pointed out how the 2 dynas were designed - no more, no less. how you personally took it is upto you. in short, quit looking for a way to crucify me. (the d2 was designed and works best when you avoid pvp and hex munch.. dont believe me? how did we win sg3? d3 is designed for more pvp action and engaging your opponent.. those are facts and reflect nothing about the people playing the game)

yes toasty, firesoul has done quite a bit for op and what not, and my post was not made to belittle that effort at all. i think the work firesoul has put into the game is great and should be commended.

that said, though, there is a general lack of respect from some people around here for those who do play or work on enjoying sfc3. where is the respect for people like korah or pelican? why the constant insults for those who like and play sfc3?

in short - agree to disagree - but stop the stone throwing  (if you dont believe me - read that other thread arround here where some guy thought sfc3 was too hard) and start supporting each other. i know that might be hard for some people - but its doable and is what is needed.
 

[Demandred]

What a shock - yet another thread with Nanner ranting on and on about how great SFC3 is and what fools we are for not worshipping it. Nanner, you play the game you like and we will play the game we like. Frankly, I'd rather you played SFC3, your constant attempts to give the Federation any and all advantages used to sicken me.

[Chris Jones]

Quote:
Nanner, in response to what you said above about Chris Jones' mods never being used in a server, I can give you a simple reason: The download is frickin' huge. Each of his major mods are over 100 MB with the first installment - and the updates he adds afterwards jack it up even more. The OP TNG mod alone, with all the updates, is over 500 MB. 56k'ers would probably spend as much time downloading the thing as they would playing on the server.

Thanks for the support Nanner. Yes I like big mods with lotsa variety, because once I get going I want to add this and this and that, etc.. and I am aware that 56K people will not bother with huge downloads like that.  

Actually, The TNG Mod for OP was widely supported on Gamespy up until SFC3 was released.

Firesoul says to play the game you like and not dis the others, which I agree with. I dig out EAW once in a while, because I can still create missions with FMSE and play with my brother and his friends in STOC. Of EAW and OP, I'd pick OP because of the sheer variety and what will still be fixed/added via patching.  SFC3 - well - I created a big TNG Mega Mod for it that had a server for a while, but real life kinda got me away from supporting it. The Mod is still on SFC3 Files in 5 parts. Pelican and Korah each have awesome SFC3 Mods going.

These days I'm into a Multi-Era for OP, which will be a while in the making, and scripting maps/systems for Bridge Commander.

 

[Kieran Forester]

Nanner, it's been said multiple times that the G-racks could not be coded in the way they were in SFB- thus the quick and dirty fix that was in SFC2, i.e. the addition of an AMD6 and treating the G-rack as a standard A-rack. No, it's not 'hardcore' SFB, but it's a good deal closer than you may think. The game was primarily aimed at Trek fans, as I could tell from the early ads for SFC1 in magazines and such, but as it turns out, its 'core' audience ended up with a majority of SFB fans. I myself bought SFC1 because it was Trek, but I bought SFC2 and OP because it was SFB-based Trek. Heck, I enjoyed my experience of the SFB universe so much just from my experiences with SFC that I bought Federation and Empire and all its supplements. Face it, Nanner, even with your known and clearly evident pro-SFC3 bias, you have to realize that the best computer games have been SFC1 and 2 - the ones, coincedentally, the ones based on SFB. Even your beloved SFC3 keeps some of the SFB elements, watered down though they may be.

And finally, I didn't say people weren't playing SFC3, I said that its overall sales numbers weren't as good as its predecessors. There's a difference. You'd never be able to tell that maybe, say, only 5,000 copies of a game were sold if all those 5,000 played online.

[Magnum357]

Just for the record, I play SFC1, SFC OP, and SFC3 contantly.  I'm a long time SFB fan (which is part of the reason why I like making SFB ships) but I'm also a Star Trek fan.  I don't know why their is such infighting between the SFC3 crowd and the SFB/SFC crowd.  I try to consider both games rule sets as different time lines.  SFC3 is fun to play, but only online from my experience.  The Computer AI is not really complex at all and you only get a good challenge when playing others online.  SFC OP and SFC1 are great even if you just play the AI, but a killer experience if you play head to head.  Just so many tactics and strategies that require you to really know your ships and race tactics well.  

I do like SFc3 though.  The rule system in that game needs more refinement I think (need more weapon systems and more race balancing and more races in my opinioin), but I would have to say that it is by far the best Star Trek ship combat game out their.  SFB/SFC1,2,OP have this already covered with years of proven tested game experience with SFB.  

What I would like to see Taldren (or whoever do) is make both a SFB style game and a TNG type game jointly.  They already have the game engines and rule systems in place for both games, all they need to do is refine and develope the TNG game more and add more stuff from the SFB universe in the SFB style game.  You could have two games, one called SFC: Galaxies at War (based on SFB rules) and another game called SFC: The Next Generation (based on SFC3 rules only refined and developed).  

[Komodo]

Magnum- you've got it right  

I really doubt we see anything more SFC ever again though.

I played 'em all too, and enjoyed each version for their own merit. Well. I actually think I wasted $ on OP LOL. That's just me though- many had fun with it and still do. I just wish I could partake in the excellent SFC3 mods I've heard so much about! I'd really like to see what all the hubbub is about. Unfortunatley I just don't have the resources- I'm still surprised I could even run the standard game with little problem. I'm not spending another cent on this machine though! Better to save it for a new one (one can hope lol)

Mog- I'm surprised at you. Being a member of a shrinking membership, I'd expected better behaviour by now. Going incognito was a double bonus which we had some fun with. FUN Too many have too long of memories, and much too little forgiveness. I'm pretty sure of all the crap you guys heaped on Paul, did you see any coming back your way? It's one thing to offer an opinion (regardless of knowing how it will be taken), quite another to punish someone for it. Bad form.

And that's what this place is all about- offering opinions- isn't it?  

[Whiplash]

Ya know, thats true. I have Dominion Wars and Klingon Academy if I want a Star Trek game NOT based on SFB. And lots of other space games too. But the SFC series is the only games based on SFB, a game I consider to be largely superior to any other Trek combat game invented thus far. When SFC left that unique niche, it lost all the uniqueness I really cared about. And got dumbed down so bad that I have now been playing SFC2 for a longer time than I played SFC3 even if you count only the time I've played since SFC3 was released.

I think time has shown which game has had the greater popularity and staying power, a fact which I repeatedly screamed from the time the concepts were announced, and which has sadly come true. I think it comes from not understanding the game dynamics that made SFC/SFC so absorbing in the first place. Tactical variety. Slow speed means lots of power for shields and overloads, but to contend with seeking weapons, you must go fast. Those kinds of tactical pressures were mostly eliminated from SFC3 and thats why it is an inferior game. Too bad game developers don't listen to people with 15 years of experience in SFB (not only me, but plenty of others), and who have the silly notion that they can do a better game practically overnight.

W.

[Tulwar]

I see the future of SFC very clearly.  SFC TNG through fan base for this series into chaos.  I doubt that any new game in this series will be produced for a very long time.  Eventually, someone from Tadren, or ADB will pick up the game again and pony up the capital to rewrite it.  In the near future, I only see declining intrist, as Activision realizes that they can't just dump thier content into somebody else's franchise without cosequenses.  I see SFC EAW in about 10 to 20 years.  I'll pre-order it, even if I'm so old, I have to pay my grandson to man the helm!  

[Tulwar]

Whoops!  I meant to say, "I see SFC GAW" in about 10 to 20 years."  In any case, I expect it to be very well polished, in a very attractive package!  I waited 15 years for SCF1, what's another 15, now that I know it's technicly and economicly possible?  

[Davey E]

Got SFC1 , 2 , OP and 3

SFC3 is not on my hard drive anymore, as i simply find it boring and limited tactically
Not a patch on SFC2 / OP

Those simulations will be long played after SFC3 is dead

Now give us SFC GAW or else    

[VelvetAcidChrist]

well i ve to agree with baron although i only had tng mod and just plaed sfc3 hardcore for like 2 months.
i still have it installed but dont play it anymore its just out of intrest till they change some serious stuff like baron requested.
 

[Tulwar]

Reguarldless of whether or not you like SFC3, Activision's acquisition of the TOS/ TMP license killed SFC.  Without the license, an improved version of SFC2, excepting OP, became impossible.  The release of SFC3 split the existing community into two factions, SFB and anything-but-SFB.  Since SFC was concieved as SFB-on-the-computer, I have little simpathy for the latter faction.  I found Activision's heavy-handed control over development and content rather rude.

Although SFC3 attracts people that may not be interested in SFB, SFB is at the heart of the game.  Those longing for a more complete version of SFB will not buy another version of SFC until it goes back to the SFB ruleset.

I don't think that the hatemail generated by SFB enthusists harmed SFC3.  Buying out the competion and destroying their product line is an unfortunate but common buisness practice.  This is the essence of "dog eat dog."  Could Activision have believed that their content was so much superior to the origional as to win over Taldren's existing customers?  Such arrogance is not unheard of.  I doubt they lost money on this venture, but it is possible that Activision had unrealistic expectations from initial sales and connections with other products.

Activision's unusual lawsuit against Viacom and the FTC investigation of Activision reveal a company in trouble.  Only the depth of the trouble is in doubt.

The only hope for the future of SFC is that Activision is in big trouble.  I think the only reason they published SFC3 is because Taldren could deliver a higher quality product than Activision was capable of at a very modest price.  If Activision has to sell off rights and licenses and/or realise that they must develope products to meet every concievable nicht of the ST franchise, then there is hope for SFC.  If Taldren can either convince Activision to give them free reign with SFC (scoff, scoff), or Activision sells the necessary rights to a willing publisher, only then will another SFC game be created.  Life would come back to SFC.

These are some pretty big "if's," but there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel.  Freight train?    

[CptCastrin]

Quote:
 c) sfc3 has recieved the short end of just about every stick possible.

Minor point but when a new version of SFC is released while there is still no patch for SFC3 THEN you can say this with more accuracy. Those of us who love OP watched while the older game (EaW) continued to be patched AND a newer game came out! All while the game was totally broken AND people were constantly picking it apart. Now that is really the short end of the stick.

SFC3 will be fixed much sooner than SFC:OP was and that is a good thing. If you include the great mods out there for it and the vibrant community supporting it, SFC3 has it far better than OP did in the same time frame. You guys (that play SFC3) should feel lucky and not worry about anything other than when the patch will be out.

   

[Sethan]

Quote:
Nanner, it's been said multiple times that the G-racks could not be coded in the way they were in SFB- thus the quick and dirty fix that was in SFC2, i.e. the addition of an AMD6 and treating the G-rack as a standard A-rack. No, it's not 'hardcore' SFB, but it's a good deal closer than you may think.

Heh.  I came up with an idea to make the G-rack even closer to SFB.  Talked it over with Magnumman, and he agreed it was possible, easy to do, and closer to SFB.  I pitched it to the players on the Dynaverse 2 experiences board - as a possibility - to get some reaction, and got flamed into the next century by a variety of Fed players.

[TheSatyr]

Can we please give this "EAW is better then OP,SFC3 is better than whatever...this game sucks no that game sucks" dead horse a decent burial?.

It doesn't matter...each game has it's own group of followers. Fighting over it just comes accross as childish behavior...and no doubt scares some of the newbies off of the boards.

Do I have a favorite? Yeah...SFC1. Simply because that's what got the whole franchise rolling.

What would I like to see if there ever was a future SFC product? Yeah....An all eras game. That will be the only thing that will make everybody happy. As long as Andros,Tholians,Cardassians and the Dominion were all added in as well. Will it ever happen? I seriously doubt it...but then stranger things have happened.