Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP (Read 33044 times)

Cpt. Chaos · « **Reply #140 on:** July 08, 2003, 03:10:10 am »

Quote:

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

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

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

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

And why real time?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chaos

NannerSlug · « **Reply #142 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 #143 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 #144 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 #145 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 #146 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 #147 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 #148 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 #149 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.

Tulwar · « **Reply #151 on:** July 09, 2003, 08:36:57 pm »

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

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

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

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

Storvick · « **Reply #152 on:** July 09, 2003, 08:47:10 pm »

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

NannerSlug · « **Reply #153 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:19:17 pm »

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

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

Cleaven · « **Reply #154 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:37:53 pm »

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

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

NannerSlug · « **Reply #155 on:** July 09, 2003, 09:44:00 pm »

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

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

relax, breathe, enjoy life.

peace, luv and chikin

Cleaven · « **Reply #156 on:** July 09, 2003, 10:24:13 pm »

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

Rod O'neal · « **Reply #158 on:** July 10, 2003, 12:17:24 am »

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

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

NannerSlug · « **Reply #159 on:** July 10, 2003, 01:15:39 am »

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

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

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

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

News:

Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP (Read 33044 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Cpt. Chaos

Tus

NannerSlug

Ifrit

SSCF-Patterson

Ifrit

Captain KoraH

Cleaven

NannerSlug

Reverend

Cleaven

Tulwar

Storvick

NannerSlug

Cleaven

NannerSlug

Cleaven

Cpt. Chaos

Rod O'neal

NannerSlug

Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP (Read 33044 times)