Topic: Dear Taldren

[Cleaven]

Quote:
Corbo, silly me- Cleaven I meant. Again, just as I have stated, you're just another control freak. SFC2OP is jpractically ust fine- it is chock full of good ol' Amercian SFB SOB material... I can imagine the stars themselves weeping for your pains.... ''oh lordy, why don't I have this or that'' .... maybe to be able to boot the game you should like to have a little graphic dice rolling whether or not you made a proper saving throw vs. emotional stability. You are among the most melodramatic person I have seen here yet. Keep wailing, I bet SFC2OP gets a patch before 3 does.... I really don't see all that much difference between them actually, except less SFB in part 3...  of course SFC3 has less everything in general. It didn't ''fix all'', and no one will say that it will... it was a bigger disappointment than the others were, in perspective. Your arguments spin in circles, and you continuoulsy fall, in time, to slanderous insults instead of points of fact. I put all sorts of quotables in here, so0 I'm sure the next post will have more of the same inane little anal-retentive weak-minded little quotes and responses like you are so ood at doing.. so befitting of great intelligence. Pleae, argue more, you only serve to increase my point.
The only real thing I was trying to say before you got me all fired up was that SFC3 has seen better playability only because it had used SFB as a base to operate from- it took the most pertient rules, but changed some other for playablitly... if it had went further, not only half-heartedly, it'd have sold more, and kept your interest as well... at least a little longer. Sorry if I upset you.    

Sober up, get some fresh air and come back when you can express at least one coherent sentence. I can't even tell if I agree or disagree with you. But I do expect a wild haymaker swing any second, following which I shall have to catch you as you careen off at 90 degrees, and then prop you up in the corner while I call you a taxi.    

[Cleaven]

Quote:
toilous.. ah.. like 'to toll'?No good...I still wouldn't figure you'd drop to spelling calls Corbo.. hit harder next time my friend. Just hoping, not rambling... maybe having two differnet releases would alleviate our mutual distaste for the same entities.  

That's funny. I was betting on toilet, toiling or even toile. I didn't relate it to toll.  

[Toasty0]

Quote:
wrong again corbomite.. that is what you may wish for - but the vast majority of those playing sfc2/op are doing so because of the sfb rule set. it is that black and white. for what its worth.. if i am painting with a wide brush, you are paiting with an electric air brush (wagner power painter, baby).

infact, hardly anyone was playing OP until the patch - and most of those are sfc2 folk moving to op (belately) because of a few fixes which were needed. dont confuse the facts.

thanks.  

Nanner,

As usual you answer hyperbole with hyperbole and feel it is justified. All it does is add fuel to the fire, so to speak.

From where I sit in this vast universe of SFC I find there is much to support both your and Corb's positions...exception being your final dismissive sentence--do I detect a bit of green creeping into your attitude toward OP?

Oh, and I do not play OP over SFC3 due to any unwavering adherence to a PnP ruleset. Quite simply, the over all important reason I am more inclined to play OP over SFC3 is that I find OP to be a more polished game...even before this last patch. I guess that throws a spot-o'-grey into your otherwise B&W veiw of the subject.

Further, do I think SFC3 sucks in any way? Absolutely not. There are issues...issues that I have addressed before that you chose to ignore. Imho, it is these issues that are the major obstacles to SFC3 being not only a good game, but a game that, imho (once again), could very well have been a benchmark for other space sims/Star Trek games for some years to come.  But, alas, through a series of miscalculations and other human frailties (read: mostly hubris) SFC3 was ripped in a direction that its core gaming logic could not support.

<phew>

Well, I'm droning on and pro'ly boring all to sleep. So I'll shutup now.

Best,
Jerry    

[kiloton]

I find it incredibly funny that several people on this board hold the following opinions and see no conflict:

1) Shut up all you SFB people, there are only really a few of you and you are far and away the minority here

and

2) You SFB people have ruined SFC3 by refusing to play it since it is not based on SFB

I like SFC2 and was very excited about SFC3.  I played SFC3 for about a week before removing it and saying I would get back to it later.  Later has not come.  I am glad some people enjoy it but I did not.  No crime there for either side.

It would be nice to see SFC3 get the support ANY game deserves, which it has not gotten as of yet.  This lawsuit thing is sadly only going to make that worse.

Ken  

[ActiveX]

I am in no way defending SFC3, in my opinion that is a cluster....

Anyhow, as for SFB, it doesnt even make sense when compared to 80% of the rest of Trek...

Just because there has never been a truely great trek game is no excuse to base one off something that as far as Im concerned bastardizes trek...

But hey, Im not here to sway any of you...that would be like telling a Star Wars fan that SWG is just an alien Deer Hunter click game that you pay a subscription for...

You cant possibly see it from my view if you are hardcore SFB, because to you SFB is the best way...am I right or wrong?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Quote:
I am in no way defending SFC3, in my opinion that is a cluster....

Heh....Well...I CAN defend SFC3 on its own merits......but to do so....it must be considered a game unto itself....

Quote:
Anyhow, as for SFB, it doesnt even make sense when compared to 80% of the rest of Trek...

You miss this post?

"Define "real" trek.....

Star trek TOS?
Star trek the animated series?
Star trek novels?
Star trek comics?
Star trek motion pictures(TOS based)?
Star trek TNG?
Star trek DS9?
Star trek VOY?
Star trek ENT?
Star trek motion pictures (TNG based)?
The miriad of previous Star trek games....including SFB?

No one I have EVER posed this question to has EVER answered it......because you cant....there is no "real "trek...only your opinion of what "real" trek is.......and no matter what that opinion may be......I can find you hundreds, perhaps thousands, of trek fans that will disagree....because they all have differing opinions of what "real" trek is.....  

    Now if you want to exchange the word "real" for "consistant"...then we at least have a starting point to throw out 80% of existing trek ...and of all that trek stuff floating around out there....SFB is at the very least ..the most consistant of the bunch....and not a bad place to base a game off of.... "

Quote:
Just because there has never been a truely great trek game    is no excuse  to base one off something that as far as Im concerned bastardizes trek...

heh...a three parter

#1....I'm looking at  3 truely great, and 1 really good , star trek games in my rack.....SFC,SFC:EAW,SFC:OP,and SFC3...the only trek games I would even consider buying....(and yes...I've tried out alot of other trek games...the keyword here is  BUY )

#2....EXCUSE!?!....how does basing a successful  PC game system off another successful Pen and paper game system need to be excused?

#3....Ah..thank you.....showing your bias wasnt so hard...was it?....so as far as your concerned SFB bastardizes trek.....the "real" trek....thus....anything that contains SFB material must be substandard....

Quote:
But hey, Im not here to sway any of you...

Good...cause you wont...

Quote:
that would be like telling a Star Wars fan that SWG is just an alien Deer Hunter click game that you pay a subscription for...

Ah...but in this instance....you'd be correct

Quote:
You cant possibly see it from my view if you are hardcore SFB, because to you SFB is the best way...am I right or wrong?  

And conversely....You cant possibly see it from my point of view if you are anti SFB, because to you SFB is the WORST way....now whos your daddy

And once again (for like the 500th time)... I never played SFB...I dont own one stinkin book!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But when I read the box for SFC(1)....I knew it was at least based on SOMETHING....rather than god knows what...

And I restate the question..."if NO ONE can define what "real" trek is.....how in the freakin hell are you going to base a game system on it?"  

[**DONOTDELETE**]

And to get back to topic....

Taldren didnt make SFC (any SFC) moddable as a sales tool (meaning some modder would make it better ,thus increasing sales)....they did it AS A REQUESTED FEATURE....

They could have just as easily constructed the game so that ANY change to ANYTHING would simply cause the game to crash....

Taldren is one of the very few companies that responds to customer desires by simply asking what the customer wants....

Market forces may have dictated what SFC3 became......but Taldren constructed the game in such a way to let the customer change it as they saw fit.........

 

 

[Lepton1]

May I ask in what way SFC3 supporters feel SFC3 is not a completed game or needs patching??  I played the hell out of the TNZ mod, many 24 hour plus sessions, using the beta patch.  I saw no incidences of CTDs or other show-stopping bugs.   So what's the problem??  OP has been relatively unplayable D2 wise for years.  That finally has been fixed.  I really don't know what SFC3 players have to complain about.  Better graphics engine.  Better dynaverse. More modability.  Be happy with what you have got.  SFC3 was a far more complete game out of the box than any other SFC title in the series.  I think you guys need a bit of a reality check.   Could someone post a list of these supposed patch issues for SFC3?  By the way I am sure that SFC2 players could match that list item for item for problems.   The beta patch is the patch for SFC3.   If there are no major issues with the beta patch, then that's the one people should be using.  And from my experience the beta patch is just fine.

[ActiveX]

Somehow I knew you would tear my post up and make cute little colors and faces...

But hey, I dun have to do that to say what I mean...

Anyhow, I'd say the TOS, TNG era TV shows were the closest to 'real' Trek anything will ever get...

Don't forget, Trek isnt about a TV show, game, or movie, its a sci-fantasy...created by one man to be shared with everyone...

GG

[GE-Raven]

Quote:
I am in no way defending SFC3, in my opinion that is a cluster....

Anyhow, as for SFB, it doesnt even make sense when compared to 80% of the rest of Trek...

You mean the part where one ship does different things depending on the situation it is in?  The fact the rules only apply until a new rule is needed to get out of the situation the ship is in?  How could that be a fun game.  

Quote:

Just because there has never been a truely great trek game is no excuse to base one off something that as far as Im concerned bastardizes trek...

Yes basterdizes it into a naval combat game that is "quite balanced" for all races.  Not just "kirk's ship wins".  

Quote:

But hey, Im not here to sway any of you...that would be like telling a Star Wars fan that SWG is just an alien Deer Hunter click game that you pay a subscription for...

yep it is...

Quote:

You cant possibly see it from my view if you are hardcore SFB, because to you SFB is the best way...am I right or wrong?  

Funny I never heard of SFB until SFC1.  Since then I have taken time to look into it.  I love it!  It is so well thought out.  So much attention to detail.

Look at it this way.  In a game like Warcraft 3 (or starcraft or Command and Conquer)  You deal with balance.  If the game favors ANYONE that is all online players (who want to win) will play.  So balance is key.  There can never be an unbeatable army.  

If you base ANY game from trek, the Federation MUST be the "unbeatable army".  That would suck... hardcore.  SFB balances TONS of races.  SFC2 manages 8 quite well.  SFC1 did pretty well with 6.  This is amazingly difficult.

Many of us that loved the first two point five SFC games are very dissappointed in sfc3 because it has only 4 races.  It is still fairly balanced, but all the races have the same basic (direct fire) weapondry.  One can cloak.  One has no shields.  However you look at it it is "less" than what I was used to.  I bought sfc3.  I beat the single player.  I played about 10 matches online.  I then quit playing and eventually unloaded it.  

I still play SFC2:EAW.

It is balanced, and fun, and I love it.

GE-Raven
 

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
pimo, you do not understand the politics of sfc series.

many of the people playing sfc: 2 or op are sfb fans who do not like or refuse to play sfc3 because it does not adhear to the sfb rule set. it is that simple.

Or that SFC3 just isn't nearly as fun, deep or tactically satisfying as SFC2.  SFC3 has some cool features, but I got bored of it VERY quickly. I haven't touched it in seven months and I don't miss it at all.  Will I ever go back?  Anything is possible...heheh.

Personally, my dislike for SFC3 has little to do with its departure from the "SFB style" other than as it pertains to the depth of the dynaverse gaming experience.

Quote:
 now, i completely agree with you about the whole patch fiasco.. i can tell you that taldren did try to release at least 2 beta patches (one immediately) - but activision had taldren pull one due to certain political issues. a few weeks go by and a official patch is released. the main reason why it was not made official is because of modem issues which was found by ativi qa. (i think thats what was posted)

so, the "official" patch right now is in limbo until taldren finishes Black 9 (paying work)..

i whole heartedly agree that sfc3 has been - and is currently being  - given the shaft. i am beginning to be very, very synical and wonder if things were held off until the lawsuit was activated.

in any case, i feel like if people, truly wanted to support sfc3 - they would have actively pursued taldren to release even what they felt like was official patch stuff. they didnt and it isnt there and now an official patch is in doubt for sure. personally, there are a few issues which are under my skin right now about the whole timing issue of certain things - but there isnt one darned thing i can do about it except email folks at taldren and activision.  

The whole patch "fiasco" just makes SFC3 an ever bigger disappointment in my eyes.  


I understand that the current modded games using the beta patch are better than what was present during SFC3's infancy....but I still don't see much in the way of compelling gameplay out of that game.


I think it's great that there are those that like SFC3...and I understand why they like it.  That's fine and dandy.

I just wouldn't be so quick to pigeonhole people who don't like SFC3 as SFB purists.  That's simply not the case.


 

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
it was most certainly not a derisive comment.. you took a very, very basic statment and twisted.. reread my comment.. it is truthful and is most certainly not anti anything.. i simply pointed out a fact - most of the people playing op and sfc2 are sfb folk . that is the reality of the matter.. that is a neutral statment which attempts to answer the individuals question to why some are still playing sfc2 and op.  where did i say that they were refusing to play sfc3 and were sabatoging it? i didnt - you made that up in your mind (like many other comments i have seen attributed to my self which were blantantly false).

If one takes into account the way you throw around the word "politics," then I would say that it's almost certain you meant it derisively.  When you use the word "politics," you're certainly not saying anything nice about it.  

 

[Ifrit]

I stopped playing SFC3 when it became apparent that the D3 wasn't intended for customers without DSL or cable modems -- has that changed?  If it has, I might try SFC3 again (although in my opinion it is rather dull compared to SFC2).

I would certainly play it if it supported ANISOTROPIC MIPMA--<TWO PAGE RANT DELETED>--ould improve the appearance of the ships!  

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Quote:
Somehow I knew you would tear my post up and make cute little colors and faces...

  T   h a n   k s      

Quote:
But hey, I dun have to do that to say what I mean...

I dun either....but it's more fun

Quote:
Anyhow, I'd say the TOS, TNG era TV shows were the closest to 'real' Trek anything will ever get...

Ok..now we're getting somewhere......

IMHO....The Wrath of Khan had the most "realistic" "on screen" portrayal of "trek type" ship to ship combat....although B5 had the most 'realistic' non trek ship to ship combat....

Quote:
Don't forget, Trek isnt about a TV show, game, or movie, its a sci-fantasy...created by one man to be shared with everyone...

Ok....lets run with that.....

IMHO....gene used TOS as both a vehicle of entertainment....and a running commentary on current social events....

The message I got from TOS is....yes we need rules.....but sometimes breaking those rules is the "right" thing to do....

People often use the phrase " the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one"......this is cold logic....but it isnt the message that Gene was sending (during that time in his life)....

The real message is "the needs of the one.....often outweigh the needs of the many....or the few".....this is the message of humanity...the illogical idea that a group would risk all...for one...even if that one...was not human....

Kirk often practiced "gunboat" diplomacy...and I've not seen an accurate count of how many times Kirk violated "the prime directive".....

Twenty some odd years later....Gene had a slightly different view....his pragmatism is reflected with a more diplomatic Federation 500 years in the future.....often refusing to use force....even when sometimes neccessary.....

I mean this....who the hell journeys around in the deep of space with over 500 civilians on board?

In TOS...a starship was a war vessel.....sent on 5 year missions of exploration.....in TNG....a starship was a moblie mall with weapons...sent on a 5 year mission of boredom (just my opinon mind you).....sure we saw some borg here and there....but it wasnt untill DS9 that we saw outright war ships again(other than non fed)....and only a few at at that ....

So...in conclusion(for now  )...if I were to design a ship to ship combat game....I would use a timeline that actually had warships....I would also seek to use a game system that was allready reletively balanced and fleshed out....

In other words....I would have used the SFB ruleset and TMP timeline to convey the most "realistic" " Trek type" ship to ship combat......gee...what a coincidence

Quote:
GG  

Very GG    

[Holocat]

Quote:

Quote:
I am in no way defending SFC3, in my opinion that is a cluster....

Anyhow, as for SFB, it doesnt even make sense when compared to 80% of the rest of Trek...

You mean the part where one ship does different things depending on the situation it is in?  The fact the rules only apply until a new rule is needed to get out of the situation the ship is in?  How could that be a fun game.  

Ironically, I think you're on to something there.  Anyone remember the combat padigram to  this old and enduring game?  

Think about it;  Kirk was snippy, Picard had more wind than a tropical storm and the rest had their own tricks, like shock value hair or religious qualifications.  Making a starship naval combat simulator based on how well you insult the other captain before combat begins would be a GREAT single player idea, at least in my demented opinion.

I will admit, it'd have to be a really-difficult-to-concieve-let-alone-code dynamic system for multiplayer uses, but still, it'd get laughs.

You can go even further with trek;  Anyone familiar with the term 'technobabble'? (if you say no, on HERE of all places, you're obviously lying).  Making a little minigame where how well you BS techtalk determines how well a ship will repair itself is another intresting way of doing things, and totally accurate according to vintage trek episodes!

Most of the people that have watched TOS have probably seen the Spock-McCoy interaction, which leads to the idea of officer training!  See why the klingons always lost now?  The Enterprise officers argued amongst themselves so much that when Kang arrived, he didn't stand a chance!  

Think of it;  Full starship combat, all based on how melodramatically you can act;  nintendo like action where the number of acrobatic flips and spins you can do when your ship is hit earns you points!  You can even do that multiplayer, each crewmember trying to out 'point' the others as their ship is rocked by <insert imaginary weapon here>. "Holocat's Extreme Damage Control 2!"  

Even better, multiplayer arenas of redshirts where they try to catch an enemey loose on the ship;  The person that covers the most territory (meaning, tracks along the corridors where the person he's supposed to be chasing isn't) in the least amount of time wins!  Extra points for doing melodramatic death-scene combos!

I can see it now, "Starfleet Command 4: The Curse of the Monkey Planet" featuring "Insult phaser fighting" and Mario Party style multiplayer action.  You'd all buy this game if it came out.  You soooo KNOW that you'd all buy this game if it came out.  

Firesoul, yes.  This thread has been officially hijacked and has now been diverted to Astana,  where we will sing your lovely song.

To Nanner, yes, SFC3 would like another patch.  It told me so yesterday over tea.  It hopes to step up it's patch program and be cold turkey free by september.  Wish it luck.

To Reverend, yes, there's Hope.  Grace is cuter in my opinion, however.

To the person that started this post (damn, can't even remember his name now) yes, mods are fun.  It's always fun to put on costumes, for both games and people,  as this lumberjack obviously feels.

SFB bastardizing trek?  You don't have a clue at what's going on in this little kitten head, huh?  Well now you do.  Beware! Beware!  The golden eyes and floating hair!

Holocat.
 

[Dogmatix!]

ROFL...good stuff, as always, Holocat.



 

[Reverend]

Holocat, you have this ability to completely go off course subject-wise, but somehow its so funny that it ties itself back in! LOL...

Cleavan, your weak-minded attempts at return arguments reflect your super-inflated ego had difficulty in being forced to learn in college, and many other parts of yourt life... I do not knowwhat makes you think I would drink, nor why I would want to hit you in your face.... the points at which you emphasize, having nothing to do with the original series of statements, incriminates you. It is going to seem to people that you are an alchoholic that gets beat up quite a bit because of his mouth. I really hope that you are not this person we are beginning to see. I also do hope you know a healthy debate when you see one; it will help you in the future... no one's calling you a a-hole, or telling you you're going to hell, or saying you are a stupid person because of you likes and dislikes- I am just challenging your opinion, just as you are so want to do likewise. Try not to take things so personally, okay?

P.S SFB sucks. ha ha  

[EmeraldEdge]

Rev, perhaps you should reconsider your source of information on Trek gaming.  SFB had reverse back when I played it in the mid '80's, and I'm sure long before (if not from the beginning).  In addition I noticed in the model forum you posted the following.

Quote:
Yes, why hasn't anyone made a totally FASA mod? Oh wait- there are already three of them... SFC1..SFC2....SFC2:OP. At least SFC3 deviated a little.... it too was just a big tease- it still is like a big demo to me. Actrivision is cold, and Taldren got caught up I guess.

FASA's Trek game and SFB were competing systems, not the same game.  In fact I believe that FASA had the official stamp of opproval from Paramount making it the official Trek combat game/rpg didn't it?  You should probably be a little better informed on things before you form such a stark opinion of them and decide to trash on them stating false facts.  

[Dogmatix!]

Quote:
Holocat, you have this ability to completely go off course subject-wise, but somehow its so funny that it ties itself back in! LOL...

Cleavan, your weak-minded attempts at return arguments reflect your super-inflated ego had difficulty in being forced to learn in college, and many other parts of yourt life... I do not knowwhat makes you think I would drink, nor why I would want to hit you in your face.... the points at which you emphasize, having nothing to do with the original series of statements, incriminates you. It is going to seem to people that you are an alchoholic that gets beat up quite a bit because of his mouth. I really hope that you are not this person we are beginning to see. I also do hope you know a healthy debate when you see one; it will help you in the future... no one's calling you a a-hole, or telling you you're going to hell, or saying you are a stupid person because of you likes and dislikes- I am just challenging your opinion, just as you are so want to do likewise. Try not to take things so personally, okay?

P.S SFB sucks. ha ha    

There's your "wild haymaker swing," Cleaven!  


 

[Cleaven]

Quote:
Holocat, you have this ability to completely go off course subject-wise, but somehow its so funny that it ties itself back in! LOL...

Cleavan, your weak-minded attempts at return arguments reflect your super-inflated ego had difficulty in being forced to learn in college, and many other parts of yourt life... I do not knowwhat makes you think I would drink, nor why I would want to hit you in your face.... the points at which you emphasize, having nothing to do with the original series of statements, incriminates you. It is going to seem to people that you are an alchoholic that gets beat up quite a bit because of his mouth. I really hope that you are not this person we are beginning to see. I also do hope you know a healthy debate when you see one; it will help you in the future... no one's calling you a a-hole, or telling you you're going to hell, or saying you are a stupid person because of you likes and dislikes- I am just challenging your opinion, just as you are so want to do likewise. Try not to take things so personally, okay?

P.S SFB sucks. ha ha    

And just what opinion am I espousing in this thread? That you are typing nonsense? Yes, it's true. I admit it. That is my one and only point. I'm sorry I could not detect any other debatable points in your postings. It's entirely probable though that I agree with you entirely in whatever you are trying to say, especially in view of the trouble I had with "toilious".

So I'll take a punt and say Good Post Reverend, I agree with you about whatever it was you said (but I could be wrong).    

P.S. I called the taxi anyway.