Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP (Read 32274 times)

SSCF-Patterson · « **on:** July 07, 2003, 02:13:57 pm »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

How?

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

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

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

INTERFACE

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

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

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

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

RACES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEVICES/SYSTEMS

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

Sensors (Electronic Warfare)

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

Energy Management

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

Officers

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

Repairs

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

Security, Communications and Science

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

Helm

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

Shields

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

Fleet Control

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

Tactial Map

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

Cloaking Device

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

Quote:

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

to which I asked:

Quote:

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

To which the response was:

Quote:

No.

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

Weapons

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

1. Do all the games have advantages? YES

2. Do all the games have disadvantages? YES

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

4. Can we satisfy everyone? NOPE

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

Regards to all

Ifrit · « **Reply #1 on:** July 07, 2003, 03:32:17 pm »

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

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

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

Cpt. Chaos · « **Reply #2 on:** July 07, 2003, 07:28:25 pm »

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

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

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

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

Chaos

Cpt. Chaos · « **Reply #4 on:** July 07, 2003, 08:30:09 pm »

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

Chaos

Cpt. Chaos · « **Reply #5 on:** July 07, 2003, 08:46:54 pm »

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

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

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

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

Chaos

Tulwar · « **Reply #7 on:** July 07, 2003, 11:15:50 pm »

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

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

Enough ragging on SFC3. This is what I want:

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

2.) Seeking weapons and fighters, specialized defensive weapons

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

4.) Smarter AIs

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

nx_adam_1701 · « **Reply #8 on:** July 08, 2003, 12:08:40 am »

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

adam out

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

NannerSlug · « **Reply #11 on:** July 08, 2003, 09:57:14 am »

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

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

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

anywho..

Ifrit · « **Reply #12 on:** July 08, 2003, 10:25:23 am »

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

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

SSCF-Patterson · « **Reply #13 on:** July 08, 2003, 11:19:59 pm »

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

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

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

Capt Chaos, or Ifrit a quick quote

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

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

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

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

Ifrit · « **Reply #14 on:** July 09, 2003, 12:33:48 pm »

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

Captain KoraH · « **Reply #15 on:** July 09, 2003, 01:13:03 pm »

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

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

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

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

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

Cleaven · « **Reply #16 on:** July 09, 2003, 05:57:30 pm »

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

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

NannerSlug · « **Reply #17 on:** July 09, 2003, 06:45:17 pm »

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

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

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

but again, thats all personal preference.

Reverend · « **Reply #18 on:** July 09, 2003, 06:59:56 pm »

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

News:

Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP (Read 32274 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

SSCF-Patterson

Ifrit

Cpt. Chaos

Storvick

Cpt. Chaos

Cpt. Chaos

SSCF-Patterson

Tulwar

nx_adam_1701

Cpt. Chaos

Tus

NannerSlug

Ifrit

SSCF-Patterson

Ifrit

Captain KoraH

Cleaven

NannerSlug

Reverend

Cleaven

Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP (Read 32274 times)