Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series? (Read 24869 times)

Scipio_66 · « **Reply #60 on:** July 16, 2003, 07:13:08 pm »

Quote:

also, not true scippy!

Is so.

Now where does that leave us?

Quote:

there are more differences than similarities between sfc2 and sfb.

This statement is so far from true you really shouldn't have bothered taking the time to type it.

Quote:

that said, i think its fair to point out that it was not sfb that made sfc such a good game.

Of course it was! SFB is what the game *is*. You are staring at the Pacific ocean, seeing one island, and saying, "there is no water in the Pacific."

Quote:

hate to bust some egos out there - but most of us enjoy the game because its trek.

No, you enjoy it because it is *good* Trek. How many *bad* Trek games did you keep playing for a year or more?

Quote:

just as many folk who think that sfc2 isnt for them (and there are many out there - you should read some of the other trek forums.. i have read quite a few. its funny when you move beyond this forum some comments) play other games..

Well of course other forums think differently! I wouldn't expect it to be otherwise. The core audience of SFC1/2 are SFB fans, because that is what those games are. Other games are *not* SFB, and thus logically their core audience holds a different opinion about SFB. I would not expect the core audience (ie. those who continue to play the game and consider it their favorite) of Bridge Commander to think the best way to make a Star Trek combat game is to import the SFB rule set. I would expect them to think that using the BC rule set is the way to go. That's why they play the game they do. Likewise with SFC3 (sic).

-S'Cipio

olbuzzard · « **Reply #64 on:** July 16, 2003, 09:26:45 pm »

Gentlemen please answer me this... why must we be at one extreme or the other ... blast teh SFC-1 and 2 games for sfc-3 or visa versa... damn the sfc community to hell because they do not adhear to srtict SFB rules. Goodness man... if we did SFB to the rule book there would be some seroius changes in fed ships that shome of you would screem to high heaven as being unfair or out of balance... and the same would be said if for example if the rules for Klingon ships were actually installed ( the mutiny thing for beginners)

Before yu guys start flaming Olbuzzards butt ... please consider this (then you can barbeQue as you see fit) :

Why not have the best of both worlds. There are somethings about sfc-3 that are pretty cool (But truthfully I dont like quite as well as OP) Some of you have made remarks about OP that are out right slanderous attempting to intimidate others or make them feel less than "worthy" by not "measuring up to the standards of [insert your particular game you are pushing]. Frankly SFB was good in its time... but extremeists drove most of us away from tourneys etc... and the same thing is happening here all over again. There are good aspects of these games that can be done up right and make one cool game... leaving the varroius servers to set things up as needed. Imagine a game that has less buggs !! Imagine the potential of the things we have learned that will work .... try for once to lay aside such rediculous bias and foolishness and pull T O G E A T H E R !!!!!!!!

Go to either extreme ... keep blasting the paint off the walls at every thing in sight that does not reflect [insert either SFC 1,2, OP or SFC-3] ... keep it up bubba !!! No one will give a care one wheather anythig is ever developed or not !!!

Mr. Hypergol · « **Reply #65 on:** July 16, 2003, 09:49:18 pm »

olbuzzard,

I don't dislike SFC3, but my personal preference for SFC is a game closely based on SFB. If I have to choose between the 2 games I'm definately interested ONLY in the SFB based game. This comes partly from the fact that I have really enjoyed the board game since the early 80's (it's been one of my most popular hobbies) and have always desired a computer form of that game. If both games are available I'd buy both, but I don't want the SFC3 form to REPLACE the SFC2 kind. That's the source of the conflict.

I understand why SFC3 happened from a business standpoint, I just hope the source of the conflict can be fixed eventually with more games in the series.

I would like to see the original EAW storyline completed eventually, then I will be COMPLETELY satisfied.

I am really not interested in any other type of game in this genre. The SFC series is the only Trek computer games I have ever owned. None of the other Trek games seemed to be interesting enough for me to buy.

I have many games not based on SFB, I'm not interested in an SFC not based on SFB. SFB is my favorite game, has been for many years. I know what I like. That's pretty much it for me. It's really quite simple.

olbuzzard · « **Reply #66 on:** July 16, 2003, 10:39:37 pm »

Nothig wrong with preferences .... but there is more to consider than just one community or the other. There must be room for both. My suggestion is simple. Use some of the SFC/SFB stuff as a foundation to build on. It's obvious that only certain ones were use in the development of the game (SFC-1 , 2 and OP ) It is also obvious that some things went south in the beta patch of sfc-3 ... (wont go there) ... but by leaving the SFB desgin entirely I think perhaps it left out some things that made the game more interesting.

Here is an example of something that is a particular interst of mine that frankly I love... but some dont... X-class ships. Frankly the heavies .. (XCA calss ) were a bit over the top... but they could be revamped ... toned down a bit.... and still made more playable.

Something else to comsider ... how about just a little different format?? Have you ever tried Freelancer.. on line ? You can actually join a battle in progress. Very interesting !!

If we dont occasionally look out side of the box.... we will never learn something new. I'm 51 years old ... trust me .. I know what I'm talking about on this one. If the game were set up correctly .. then the individual server admins could be more flexable. If all you wanted was strict SFB ( oh by the way please include proper Fed power management and proper torp use and hit ratios as well as the Klingon mutany rules as well.... others too .. just a couple that are not in there but managed to be conviently over looked) .. then by all means set up the server accordingly. If more up-to-date stuff is desired.. then again... it's there.. But, my friend if you build a rigid structure ... that sir it its end. It should be noted that you already have SFB .. parts of it.. SFC1,2 and OP. If you simply want more of the same then all you need is a simple expansion pack, not another new game.

All 3 games do have some good points. Now lets try to get them put togeather. As well consider some fresh ideas that have worked on other games. IMHO this community has a lot of very talented people in it. There is no telling where this thing could go if we work at it.

Cpt. Chaos · « **Reply #67 on:** July 16, 2003, 11:05:45 pm »

And just to throw in a couple more cents:

For us, SFC already represents a serious compromise away from SFB: no hex map, no energy allocation form, all the little tweaks and mods that resulted from the shift to real-time, a really wierd "clock" that doesn't seem to have anything to do with impulses, a general lack of numeric readouts, especially for things like shield strength, etc., etc.

So, from our point of view, we aren't moved by calls to 'compromise' any further.

In general, if you don't like SFB, what are you doing here? This is an SFB game. If you don't like SFB, why play a game based on SFB? Go play some other Trek game, it's not like you don't have plenty to choose from... Leave us what's left of our game and quit arguing to change it into something else. You want something else, go play something else!

Sheesh!

Chaos

Tulwar · « **Reply #68 on:** July 16, 2003, 11:12:00 pm »

We all know that SFC3 is what it is simply because Activision had the money to buy the rights to ST TOS and could dictate to Tadren what type of game to produce and when to release it.

olbuzzard · « **Reply #69 on:** July 16, 2003, 11:32:49 pm »

the kind of attitude you are displaying Capt Chaos is a lot of what is killing the community. This type of response is exactly wht I'm talking about. It's not "dumbing down a game" to grow. It's not compromise to utilize other ideas that work to make a game more playable...

If took your idea of SFB only and took it to it's logical conclusion i would tell you to stick to your game board and you and you friends would be happier. ( and so would we)... or at the very least.. you have EAW ... and all the mods you scould possible want ... maybe you need an expansion pack of sorts... but you do not need to waste the resources of Taldren on another EAW or SFB only game. That would be a travisty of the worse possible kind.

But I'm not that type of person. I still think that the right answer is some where between the SFC-3 (which did away with SFB altogeather) and SFB extreamism ... which as a genreal rule will strangle what life there is left in the community to death.

Personally.. i prefer to live.

Scipio_66 · « **Reply #71 on:** July 17, 2003, 12:01:47 am »

I think the next SFB-faithful game (which I hope will happen) needs more than just a few new races and more weapons. The Dynaverse itself needs a serious update. Especially the multi-player stabiity, the ability of the admin to control the shipyards, tighter admin ability to control which missions get offered in which hexes, and the and the ability of the admin to affect on-map AI behavior. I'd love for scouts to be able to see enemy icons two hexs away. I'd love all those leftover icons to stop cluttering the map.

If you need to take something from SFC3, the ability to form a "fleet" with allied players would be nice.

And oh yes, Old Buzzard, I absolutely agree that I'd like to see you Feds get variable overloads for your photons. It really helps with their power management. Good call there. I'd like lots of other things too. I'd love to see bolted plasma torps, the full ECM game, reserve power, plasma sabot........ the list never ends. This game has so much room to grow.

-S'Cipio

Reverend · « **Reply #73 on:** July 17, 2003, 01:02:26 am »

No Scipio, I had a similar argument just an hour or so ago- I didnt say I liked it because it had SFB... I do not worship SFB as you- the ONLY reason I played it ws because it was the only decent Trek game out, where you get to fly a Star Trek spaceship around until you're blue in the face, without some pop-up from Picard telling you the Romulans are over there. Read my post, don't look for opportunities to twist words. It works on dummies, but on smart people, it makes your argumnet listless and compromisable. SFC3, SFC4, whatever, doesnt need any more SFB overpowering ruleset. Enough is enough. Take its most usable and fundamental points and drop the magical hex map. I don't drive to work through a hex map, I drive through a twon with interactive people and places all around me... my ''missions'' are already known or I find them along the way.

Reverend · « **Reply #74 on:** July 17, 2003, 01:31:08 am »

Ah, yes, I shall just give up my papacy and start worshipping SFB! Maybe, we can try to implement SFB into other games too, like pretend that the troops in Allied Assault are really ships, an give them six legs to work with; then we can make misniscule little rules to govern each and every leg; for instance, you have to roll d6 to determine whether that leg will move.. if that roll fails above 4, then the perfectly functioning leg doesn't work an its in the ruleset, don't you dare defy it! And DON'T get me started on the weapons.. that'll take exactly 4.6 hours to dictate.... making sure you are in the proper time zone (me +5 with weather d10 modifier roll). Ah- ha! Now that's control; domination, over everything! I can continue being a controi freak until my hardened you-know-what explodes! By the SFB Holy Dice, I just can't see how those short-sghted, evil, foolish, lying, brainless, no class-havin' Televison Show 'fans' make any sense to their own families! Their view is always SFB loose, unruled, unbiased, and just can't be controlled!! What wrong with SFB them? SFB will send them to Hell when they die, because after committing suicide over their meritriculously rulesetted life, they didn't roll for a modifier! Ah, heck, got them again! Lets just have a nice glass of SFB beer and laugh +6 over them! Well, nice SFB talking with you, but it is time for SFB bed! GoodSFBnight!

Lets all petition Taldren for a open-source patch for OP...a final request... that'll give the ''hardcore" SFB fans ( you know who Im talking about) the room they need to mod themselves silly, since any patch forthe ultimate SFB game won't be good enough for them anyhow. Let us petition them for such a patch- universe bigger, extra races, interactive planets (oh, wait, isn't that what I was asking for?}, and a couple of extras that will be mentioned again, then the rest of us that only tolerated this series this long was becuase it was the ONLY, yes only, 3-D Star Trek game that allowed self-direction and allowed you to drive and shoot all by your little lonesome self, can move on. Finally.

Cleaven · « **Reply #76 on:** July 17, 2003, 06:49:07 am »

There are clearly two opposing opinions. One is that SFC was an attempt to make a PC game version of a boardgame. This boardgame has had over 20 years of design and play balance built into it, with a number of expansions adding depth and breadth to the basic game. To make a PC rendition of this game straight up would be a big challenge, and some corners were cut with the rules and the components, as well as a change of game style (to realtime). With two subsequent versions, missing components were added to the system, bringing SFC closer to the original boardgame. And the closer SFC comes to the original, the more successful the exercise of making a PC version of the boardgame will be.

The other opinion seems to be that the boardgame is a flawed system that detracts from a potentially (but not actually) good PC game. Anybody who supports the implimentation of boardgame systems is therefore ruining whatever hope there is for a good game to be made out of a bad game. Efforts must be made to excise dice, hexes and turns (and the artifacts produced by them) from the game. Instead ideas from other games should be incorporated to improve SFC.

I don't see how to resolve these two opinions, because they lead in oppposite directions. One gets you a cross between Armada 3 and Bridge Commander 2 (ughh) and the other gets you SFB/F&E on the computer, with dice and hexmaps. Clearly I favour the latter, but more importantly people need to recognise that these two things cannot co-exist in the one game because they are clearly two separate games. It's hard enough to build and sell one good PC game, but to build two and put them in the same box? Surely this is madness in a commercial arena? So let the people in charge of TNG make their follow-on to all the other TNG games. And let the SFC series continue to add components and rules from the board game in an effort to come closer to the original concept.

Besides, I want my next game to be made by the people who made OP, not the people who made Armada and Bridge Commander (or the other BC <shudders>) .

Cleaven · « **Reply #78 on:** July 17, 2003, 07:26:13 am »

I don't think the difficulty is with combining two game concepts like turn based and continuous time. Strictly speaking SFC 1 and 2 already do this. What you can't combine is X-wing with Starcraft, to cite an extreme variance of game concepts, and still have a fighter sim (or RTS game, depending on your point of view).

News:

Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series? (Read 24869 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Scipio_66

EmeraldEdge

Tumulorum Fossor

Mr. Hypergol

olbuzzard

Mr. Hypergol

olbuzzard

Cpt. Chaos

Tulwar

olbuzzard

Mr. Hypergol

Scipio_66

Mr. Hypergol

Reverend

Reverend

Cpt. Chaos

Cleaven

Toasty0

Cleaven

Sethan

Topic: If Trek Liscense is Split Up Again, What Happens to SFC Series? (Read 24869 times)