Topic: HELPING TO DESIGN A BETTER MOUSE TRAP

[Cpt. Chaos]

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

Hey, Nanner!

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


Chaos

[FPF_TraceyG]

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

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

[NannerSlug]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

its all about preferences people.

[Ifrit]

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

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

[FPF_TraceyG]

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

[SPQR Renegade001]

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

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

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

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

[Mog]

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

[FPF_TraceyG]

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

[FPF_TraceyG]

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

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

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

Here, look it up yourself...

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:

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

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

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

Here, look it up yourself...  

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

<passes Cleaven the young readers version instead>

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

[Toasty0]

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


hehe  

Best,
Jerry  

[Cleaven]

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

[Cleaven]

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

its all about preferences people.  

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

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

[Ifrit]

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

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

[Tulwar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[FPF_TraceyG]

Quote:

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

I believe I addressed this issue already.

Quote:

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

I won't state the obvious.

Quote:

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

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

[Mr. Hypergol]

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

I can live with SFC3's repair system.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[Cpt. Chaos]

So, since we're talking about this,

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


Chaos

[Tulwar]

Mr. Hypergol has it exactly right.  

[Cleaven]

Quote:

Quote:

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

I believe I addressed this issue already.

Quote:

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

I won't state the obvious.

Quote:

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

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

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