Topic: What I would like to see next for the game (Read 5782 times)

Khalee · « **on:** February 05, 2004, 06:02:03 pm »

A RTS version OF Federation and Empires and I would not think Actavision would have any control over something like that.

I love RTS games. Can never have enough of them.

And Armada and Armada 2 or Bridge Comander dont fit the bill either. And neither does the D2 or D3 no mater how much the people here have done with them and they have done some wonderfull things with what they have, they are still are a poor mans version of Federation and Empire.

Thats it thats all I want.

DH123 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 05, 2004, 06:23:53 pm »

Turn-based F&E with tactical combat resolved on GSA

I miss General War

Khalee · « **Reply #2 on:** February 05, 2004, 06:34:53 pm »

And another thing it has to be compleatly, totaly, uterly Modable no Hard codeing of anything.

kv1at3485 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 06, 2004, 12:21:32 am »

Complex economic system with supply lines, etc..

(I know, I know, I've harped on this before...

)

RazalYllib · « **Reply #4 on:** February 06, 2004, 07:33:54 am »

Turn Based F&E with battle hex resolution on a first come first serve basis within the DV, with full Command and Control using Command Ratings, Order of Battle, Reaction Movment, etc....

Cleaven · « **Reply #5 on:** February 06, 2004, 08:00:47 am »

How about a futuristic action RPG?

NannerSlug · « **Reply #6 on:** February 06, 2004, 09:29:02 am »

an emmerism trek game would pwnzer.

DH123 · « **Reply #7 on:** February 06, 2004, 10:48:56 am »

Quote:

How about a futuristic action RPG?

A computerized Gurps Prime Directive maybe?

TOCXOBearslayer · « **Reply #9 on:** February 06, 2004, 02:20:25 pm »

Davey,

The new site is looking good!!!

FFZ · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2004, 10:36:22 am »

I'd like to see Andromidans and Tholians, the forgotten races of SFB.

Raniz Murjuri · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:13:03 pm »

Ohh i found another post on it...

I'm agreeing to RPG style. full PvP version on 1 Massive Multiplayer Server.

Like defined in these posts.

HERE

and

HERE

see ya in the next disscusion about this.

Khalee · « **Reply #14 on:** February 11, 2004, 06:08:33 am »

While all these Ideas are nice I would just like to see a seperate stand alone either RTS and or Turnbased computer version of F&E. And no one really answerd the rest, would Actavisions license cover smothing like that. Myself I dont think it would. But im no leagle expert.

kv1at3485 · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2004, 10:58:37 am »

And another thing. How about a fully integrated and functional mission/campaign editor? (I'm thinking something along the lines of the editor found in FreeSpace I and II.)

It would open up single- and multi-player mission/campaign creation for a lot of people, and would add to the longevity of the game.

Khalee · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2004, 11:01:41 am »

Oh good idea A Mission editor would be definetly needed.

nx_adam_1701 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2004, 01:44:47 pm »

I know this is going to sound stupid but the hell with I need to know, what is RTS

adam out

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2004, 10:41:55 pm »

Yeeesh. RTS? Makes my skin crawl.

Since Hyper hasn't shown up yet, I'll say what we wait for is of course GAW.

Oh, nice pic DH, though the 56k crowd probabally wants to kill you. And again, we run in STOC something very like the campaign that you wish to play.

Sethan · « **Reply #22 on:** February 13, 2004, 12:40:30 pm »

Yep - one more vote for an 'all eras GaW here'.

nx_adam_1701 · « **Reply #23 on:** February 13, 2004, 01:12:41 pm »

That is a good game, with SFC graphics, I would enjoy it even more

adam out

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #25 on:** February 13, 2004, 11:25:57 pm »

I'm sure. However, I think the wrong lessons were probabally drawn from the failure of SFC III. Instead of realizing it failed because it wasn't very good, they think it failed because the public had grown tired of that kind of gaming experience.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that any next generation GAW type game would be best served as a type of game that would be very similar to the Total War series of wargames. The map has a grand strategic element with various countries and counties in it. GAW could be similar except that it would have sectors of course. You would instead of placing castles and knights build bases and ships based on your production capacity. When conflict occurs, it moves to a tactical level where the tactical engine takes over. This of course would have multiplayer capability. The way I see this working best is to continue keeping the player run server concept going. The reason is that a massively mutiplayer game would require a large amount of resources while a player run server game would not require as many. The current state of internet technologies IMO with a player based server makes a game with a large quantity of players impractical. IMO the max you'd ever get, or should get, is about 40 (proven time and time again on the D2). The best way to make this work with a low player count IMO is to set it up where with each gaming session you have one controlling player, IE the leader of the race, make the decisions on how things are bought, where moves are made, etc. IE he/she controls all elements on the strategic level. Possibly the other players could assist in some manner as directed by the leader. For instance, you could have one take over ship production, while another deals with fixed defenses, etc. When the tactical fight kicks in however, this is where the other players get into the main action. Under ideal circumstances, ALL ships will be controlled by players. This would happen in that the game would "draft" as many players as necessary to ensure that each ship is human controlled. In this manner, each battle would be a PvP fight, and not a "thrash the AI and get points to run a fake economy" like effort as it currently is. Then add full editing fuctions so that players could easily create their own campaigns and maps, edit ships as necessary, and make the player able to control everything as much as they want (IE - you tell the game that the feds can only buy ONE CAD, or have only 4 D6D's, or only produce frigates - whatever you want).

Anyway, the idea seems to me to be the easiest way to get the things into the game that people want (real strategic elements) and ensure that the tactical fights are always meaningful by also making sure that EVERY battle, as much as is possible, is a PvP fight.

But it could be that some sneaky Lyran has infiltrated my command center and has added something extra to the methane atmosphere mixture. But I don't think so.

Tulwar · « **Reply #26 on:** February 14, 2004, 11:14:58 pm »

The Infiltraitor said it. A Dyna with strategic controls, perhaps fleet mail and command options, supply lines, and means of detection. Immagine the cloaking device as a strategic weapon rather than a tactical weapon. Just immagine the possiblities new rules for sensors and communication networks, where fleets can hide in nebulas!

Cleaven · « **Reply #27 on:** February 15, 2004, 05:50:48 am »

Whatever it is, it needs to take account of the increasing uptake of broadband and the use of small home LAN's as well as the requirement for responsible internet users to have firewalls. As more serious gamers move to broadband and use routers to share that access, multiplayer games will need to allow for this in a seemless way without players having to turn off firewalls or unplug routers. (A pox on Microsoft.)

Toasty0 · « **Reply #28 on:** February 15, 2004, 09:49:04 am »

I would like about 2 million for development...

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #30 on:** February 19, 2004, 06:33:29 pm »

Then your firewall and router are junk, or you didn't know what you were doing. Likely the second. There are many people here that can help you with such problems. Did you ask for help with the matter? Cleaven's really good with that stuff.

zerosnark · « **Reply #31 on:** February 19, 2004, 08:19:36 pm »

Huh. I actually was quoting Cleaven in my original post. The reason I did was because I really agreed with his take on what is required for multiplayer SFC.

What I should have said

in my earlier post was "I tried SFC multiplayer once, and after a successfully playing a few online games I decided that having multiple ports open on my router was not wise". Plenty of other online games work fine without opening ports through a router.

SSCF_LeRoy · « **Reply #32 on:** February 19, 2004, 10:59:26 pm »

Hey, I got an idea!

Imagine being able to play several different types of SFB based Star Trek games on the same multiplayer campaign.

In such a campaign, one player can manage resources on an empire-spanning scale with an Armada like, SFB based game geared towards placing bases, fleets, and other assets; another player would participate in the campaign on a single ship/multi-vessel squadron basis with a game that would largly resemble what we are familiar with as SFC today; and another player could participate in the same campaign as a fighter pilot by playing an SFB based fighter sim (if that's possible

).

The empire builder would be able to use the starship captain/squadron commander as one of the assets that he would use on the map and the fighter pilot would have the option of serving on a carrier piloted by a human player. Shucks, throw in TOS Elite Force and a starship captain could have real human marines on his ship as well

SL-Punisher · « **Reply #34 on:** February 20, 2004, 03:35:33 am »

An option to shock the collective list of programmers whenever a software bug is found. How big of a shock depends on how big and annoying the bug is.

Umnmmm we might need to build some more generators, but a small price to pay for perfect software

TheSatyr · « **Reply #35 on:** February 23, 2004, 02:50:45 am »

In my opinon,I believe we have seen the last of the SFC games. I just can't see any publisher wanting to take another chance on a franchise that isn't exactly a big seller.

I hope I'm wrong,since I would like to see a GAW,but considering the way the game industry is geared right now,I just don't see it happening...not enough sales (profits) to justify the development costs.

I just can't see a publisher making that kind of a commitment to a game that may only sell 100,000 to 150,000 copies...if that many.

Khalee · « **Reply #36 on:** February 05, 2004, 06:02:03 pm »

A RTS version OF Federation and Empires and I would not think Actavision would have any control over something like that.

I love RTS games. Can never have enough of them.

And Armada and Armada 2 or Bridge Comander dont fit the bill either. And neither does the D2 or D3 no mater how much the people here have done with them and they have done some wonderfull things with what they have, they are still are a poor mans version of Federation and Empire.

Thats it thats all I want.

DH123 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 05, 2004, 06:23:53 pm »

Turn-based F&E with tactical combat resolved on GSA

I miss General War

Khalee · « **Reply #38 on:** February 05, 2004, 06:34:53 pm »

And another thing it has to be compleatly, totaly, uterly Modable no Hard codeing of anything.

kv1at3485 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 06, 2004, 12:21:32 am »

Complex economic system with supply lines, etc..

(I know, I know, I've harped on this before...

)

RazalYllib · « **Reply #40 on:** February 06, 2004, 07:33:54 am »

Turn Based F&E with battle hex resolution on a first come first serve basis within the DV, with full Command and Control using Command Ratings, Order of Battle, Reaction Movment, etc....

Cleaven · « **Reply #41 on:** February 06, 2004, 08:00:47 am »

How about a futuristic action RPG?

NannerSlug · « **Reply #42 on:** February 06, 2004, 09:29:02 am »

an emmerism trek game would pwnzer.

TOCXOBearslayer · « **Reply #45 on:** February 06, 2004, 02:20:25 pm »

Davey,

The new site is looking good!!!

FFZ · « **Reply #46 on:** February 07, 2004, 10:36:22 am »

I'd like to see Andromidans and Tholians, the forgotten races of SFB.

Raniz Murjuri · « **Reply #47 on:** February 07, 2004, 02:13:03 pm »

Ohh i found another post on it...

I'm agreeing to RPG style. full PvP version on 1 Massive Multiplayer Server.

Like defined in these posts.

HERE

and

HERE

see ya in the next disscusion about this.

Khalee · « **Reply #50 on:** February 11, 2004, 06:08:33 am »

While all these Ideas are nice I would just like to see a seperate stand alone either RTS and or Turnbased computer version of F&E. And no one really answerd the rest, would Actavisions license cover smothing like that. Myself I dont think it would. But im no leagle expert.

kv1at3485 · « **Reply #51 on:** February 11, 2004, 10:58:37 am »

And another thing. How about a fully integrated and functional mission/campaign editor? (I'm thinking something along the lines of the editor found in FreeSpace I and II.)

It would open up single- and multi-player mission/campaign creation for a lot of people, and would add to the longevity of the game.

Khalee · « **Reply #52 on:** February 11, 2004, 11:01:41 am »

Oh good idea A Mission editor would be definetly needed.

nx_adam_1701 · « **Reply #54 on:** February 11, 2004, 01:44:47 pm »

I know this is going to sound stupid but the hell with I need to know, what is RTS

adam out

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #56 on:** February 12, 2004, 10:41:55 pm »

Yeeesh. RTS? Makes my skin crawl.

Since Hyper hasn't shown up yet, I'll say what we wait for is of course GAW.

Oh, nice pic DH, though the 56k crowd probabally wants to kill you. And again, we run in STOC something very like the campaign that you wish to play.

Sethan · « **Reply #58 on:** February 13, 2004, 12:40:30 pm »

Yep - one more vote for an 'all eras GaW here'.

nx_adam_1701 · « **Reply #59 on:** February 13, 2004, 01:12:41 pm »

That is a good game, with SFC graphics, I would enjoy it even more

adam out

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #61 on:** February 13, 2004, 11:25:57 pm »

I'm sure. However, I think the wrong lessons were probabally drawn from the failure of SFC III. Instead of realizing it failed because it wasn't very good, they think it failed because the public had grown tired of that kind of gaming experience.

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that any next generation GAW type game would be best served as a type of game that would be very similar to the Total War series of wargames. The map has a grand strategic element with various countries and counties in it. GAW could be similar except that it would have sectors of course. You would instead of placing castles and knights build bases and ships based on your production capacity. When conflict occurs, it moves to a tactical level where the tactical engine takes over. This of course would have multiplayer capability. The way I see this working best is to continue keeping the player run server concept going. The reason is that a massively mutiplayer game would require a large amount of resources while a player run server game would not require as many. The current state of internet technologies IMO with a player based server makes a game with a large quantity of players impractical. IMO the max you'd ever get, or should get, is about 40 (proven time and time again on the D2). The best way to make this work with a low player count IMO is to set it up where with each gaming session you have one controlling player, IE the leader of the race, make the decisions on how things are bought, where moves are made, etc. IE he/she controls all elements on the strategic level. Possibly the other players could assist in some manner as directed by the leader. For instance, you could have one take over ship production, while another deals with fixed defenses, etc. When the tactical fight kicks in however, this is where the other players get into the main action. Under ideal circumstances, ALL ships will be controlled by players. This would happen in that the game would "draft" as many players as necessary to ensure that each ship is human controlled. In this manner, each battle would be a PvP fight, and not a "thrash the AI and get points to run a fake economy" like effort as it currently is. Then add full editing fuctions so that players could easily create their own campaigns and maps, edit ships as necessary, and make the player able to control everything as much as they want (IE - you tell the game that the feds can only buy ONE CAD, or have only 4 D6D's, or only produce frigates - whatever you want).

Anyway, the idea seems to me to be the easiest way to get the things into the game that people want (real strategic elements) and ensure that the tactical fights are always meaningful by also making sure that EVERY battle, as much as is possible, is a PvP fight.

But it could be that some sneaky Lyran has infiltrated my command center and has added something extra to the methane atmosphere mixture. But I don't think so.

Tulwar · « **Reply #62 on:** February 14, 2004, 11:14:58 pm »

The Infiltraitor said it. A Dyna with strategic controls, perhaps fleet mail and command options, supply lines, and means of detection. Immagine the cloaking device as a strategic weapon rather than a tactical weapon. Just immagine the possiblities new rules for sensors and communication networks, where fleets can hide in nebulas!

Cleaven · « **Reply #63 on:** February 15, 2004, 05:50:48 am »

Whatever it is, it needs to take account of the increasing uptake of broadband and the use of small home LAN's as well as the requirement for responsible internet users to have firewalls. As more serious gamers move to broadband and use routers to share that access, multiplayer games will need to allow for this in a seemless way without players having to turn off firewalls or unplug routers. (A pox on Microsoft.)

Toasty0 · « **Reply #64 on:** February 15, 2004, 09:49:04 am »

I would like about 2 million for development...

The_Infiltrator · « **Reply #66 on:** February 19, 2004, 06:33:29 pm »

Then your firewall and router are junk, or you didn't know what you were doing. Likely the second. There are many people here that can help you with such problems. Did you ask for help with the matter? Cleaven's really good with that stuff.

zerosnark · « **Reply #67 on:** February 19, 2004, 08:19:36 pm »

Huh. I actually was quoting Cleaven in my original post. The reason I did was because I really agreed with his take on what is required for multiplayer SFC.

What I should have said

in my earlier post was "I tried SFC multiplayer once, and after a successfully playing a few online games I decided that having multiple ports open on my router was not wise". Plenty of other online games work fine without opening ports through a router.

SSCF_LeRoy · « **Reply #68 on:** February 19, 2004, 10:59:26 pm »

Hey, I got an idea!

Imagine being able to play several different types of SFB based Star Trek games on the same multiplayer campaign.

In such a campaign, one player can manage resources on an empire-spanning scale with an Armada like, SFB based game geared towards placing bases, fleets, and other assets; another player would participate in the campaign on a single ship/multi-vessel squadron basis with a game that would largly resemble what we are familiar with as SFC today; and another player could participate in the same campaign as a fighter pilot by playing an SFB based fighter sim (if that's possible

).

The empire builder would be able to use the starship captain/squadron commander as one of the assets that he would use on the map and the fighter pilot would have the option of serving on a carrier piloted by a human player. Shucks, throw in TOS Elite Force and a starship captain could have real human marines on his ship as well

SL-Punisher · « **Reply #70 on:** February 20, 2004, 03:35:33 am »

An option to shock the collective list of programmers whenever a software bug is found. How big of a shock depends on how big and annoying the bug is.

Umnmmm we might need to build some more generators, but a small price to pay for perfect software

TheSatyr · « **Reply #71 on:** February 23, 2004, 02:50:45 am »

In my opinon,I believe we have seen the last of the SFC games. I just can't see any publisher wanting to take another chance on a franchise that isn't exactly a big seller.

I hope I'm wrong,since I would like to see a GAW,but considering the way the game industry is geared right now,I just don't see it happening...not enough sales (profits) to justify the development costs.

I just can't see a publisher making that kind of a commitment to a game that may only sell 100,000 to 150,000 copies...if that many.

News:

Topic: What I would like to see next for the game (Read 5782 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

Khalee

DH123

Khalee

kv1at3485

RazalYllib

Cleaven

NannerSlug

DH123

Davey E

TOCXOBearslayer

FFZ

Raniz Murjuri

Cleaven

Jaeih t`Radaik

Khalee

kv1at3485

Khalee

DH123

nx_adam_1701

DH123

The_Infiltrator

Mr. Hypergol

Sethan

nx_adam_1701

DH123

The_Infiltrator

Tulwar

Cleaven

Toasty0

zerosnark

The_Infiltrator

zerosnark

SSCF_LeRoy

Cleaven

SL-Punisher

TheSatyr

Khalee

DH123

Khalee

kv1at3485

RazalYllib

Cleaven

NannerSlug

DH123

Davey E

TOCXOBearslayer

FFZ

Raniz Murjuri

Cleaven

Jaeih t`Radaik

Khalee

kv1at3485

Khalee

DH123

nx_adam_1701

DH123

The_Infiltrator

Mr. Hypergol

Sethan

nx_adam_1701

DH123

The_Infiltrator

Tulwar

Cleaven

Toasty0

zerosnark

The_Infiltrator

zerosnark

SSCF_LeRoy

Cleaven

SL-Punisher

TheSatyr

Topic: What I would like to see next for the game (Read 5782 times)