Topic: Which SFC game is your favorite? (Read 33114 times)

FireSoul · « **Reply #80 on:** March 04, 2003, 06:51:39 am »

Quote:

Well from the SP POV answer is clear:

SFC2:EAW

Why?... Because of content... pure and simple... Number of WORKING DIFFERENT MISSIONS... You may think.. but OP has
more missions... But all the bugs just cripple it... I'm making this analysis base on ACTUAL status...not on vague
rumors of new patch or whatever.

What about my works for OP? Have you considered those?
I was once told " who do you think you are? Do you think you are the OP messiah and will fix it all single-handedly? "
.. .. well.. .. no. But I would like to think I made a big difference, and that I'm not done yet.

Quote:

From DYNA POV?... To be honest... I'm quite dissapointed with it... It just another way of online matches (with even
additional bugs...) I think that there is little difference with a GSA ladder (unless of course you like painting things
blue ).

Heh..

D2 isn't something I have played in ages. I may have to start twiddling with scripts with focus of making things better. ..
Also.. I've had *excellent* ideas as to how to make a SQL-capable D2 a lot more interesting. I will need to toy with it further and set up a "proof of concept".
..but I would like to think that my ideas could add depth to any D2 campaign, complete with background storyline, some actual news, and maybe.. just maybe.. the ability to buy refits.

.. right now I have other projects to finish, start, and finish.. .. and start and finish. 1 project left to go, 2 more slated to do. The above would be yet another one. .. I consider the OP+ shiplist project complete.. pending patch release.

Quote:

As a conclusion... SFC series with EAW dyna concept is and should be DEAD. If Taldren wants to refloat the series to
turn it again a profitable project, IMHO, they should remade Dyna to a REAL strategic battleground where ships and fleets
need to change based on the STRATEGIC GOAL they want to achieve.

..well.. Fans like me won't let it die, don't you see?

-- Luc
FireSoul

jdmckinney · « **Reply #81 on:** March 04, 2003, 07:44:42 am »

You know, I sure hope some folks at Taldren take note of this thread. There are some seriously good pros and cons coming up here that may help them in future patch or development decisions.

FireSoul, I think you and "Evil" Dave have done wonders -- more in the last 3 months than Taldren has done for OP in over a year.

I'm actually quite surprised that so many people have chosen OP as their favorite, or qualified their choice with "if OP D2 worked, then ..."

Nanner, thanks for the kudos about the hard work the OP admins have done in the past, but someone was absolutely correct in saying if our hard work could have gone into improving the campaign experience rather than trying to make it half-workable, OP D2 would have been much better. Heck, just within the SFCX group we have come up with at least 2-3 campaign ideas, "major" and otherwise, that would be really cool, only to have to put them off indefinitely because of the D2 bugs. I'm sure the other admins could say the same. We've also come up with ways to work with what we have in the cartel layer issue only to be confronted with the speed bug, inability to do neutral coop, broken missions, etc. In the end, some of us refocused our energies elsewhere, like SFC3 testing, because we couldn't make any progress with OP in its current state.

That said, if the forthcoming OP patch DOES fix the speed bug, look for an SFCX campaign shortly thereafter. We want to have a dedicated shiplist (specialized to our needs and "corrected" per SFB specs similar to FireSoul's list) and specific VCs (rather than the general each planet = X pts., each base = Y pts., etc.).

One more thing I'd like to bring attention to is SQL for OP. Unless things have changed drastically since I was last "in-the-know," OP DOES NOT HAVE SQL. Then again, EAW's SQL support, I think, is still considered in a test state. SFC3's SQL support seems to be getting there, but still unofficial. If the other two are going to have SQL support, OP should, too. Castrin has a lot of things he would like to do, but can't without SQL.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #82 on:** March 04, 2003, 07:55:02 am »

Oh, and I also agree that the D2 system is essentially obselete or behind the times, but considering it is the best tactical map game we have (better than D3 at the moment), it is at least workable when the bugs aren't ruining things.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #86 on:** March 04, 2003, 08:33:30 am »

Well, if he's "guessing" out loud, I may just have to ramp up preparations, just in case.

Mog · « **Reply #88 on:** March 04, 2003, 08:46:31 am »

Toasty, the removal of the speed change bug will mean little if the actual D2 operations don't work as they do in EAW.

We can come up with workarounds for neutral coop, but we CANNOT work around the cartel/empire interaction. For some strange unknown reason, players have to fly pirate as well as empire in OP. In order to raise DVs of a hex, that hex must be controlled by an allied cartel, BUT you cannot make all cartels allied to all empires, as you then get screwy results. So, players have to fly as pirates to run an unknown number of missions to make a hex their cartel and then they have to run even more missions as an Empire player to raise the DV.

Simply put - scrap the cartel layer. It's the main root of the trouble.

jdmckinney · « **Reply #89 on:** March 04, 2003, 09:11:23 am »

I have to agree with Moggy about scrapping the cartel layer altogether, if it can possibly be yanked out. I've tried to come up with alternatives that would allow us to keep the cartel layer, but it seems like it is much more trouble than it is worth. If, instead, we could get the pirates onto the main map, or keep them as non-territory factions essentially able to flip enemy hexes neutral but unable to capture hexes, then we could roll with the rest. The biggest problem I see there would be having no economy for the cartels, but then pirate ships should be mostly small or rare, anyway.

So, as uninformed as I am about the true inner workings of the game code and server code, I see the following necessary minimum steps to make OP D2 workable:

1. Remove the cartel layer as a required field in the map files and server DB (possibly allowing a cartel layer on/off option).

2. Allow pirates to affect empire health (hurt enemy, boost ally), but unable to take territory on the empire map themselves.

3. Fix neutral coop in all scripts and some pirate drafting problems in assault/defense scripts (Evil Dave missions?).

4. Remove Fed/pirate speed bug (done?).

On step 1, I've tried it without success, but can anyone get a map file with all CartelRegion lines removed to work on an OP server kit? If so, does it fix cartel layer issues at all, or does it just act like the map has an all-neutral cartel layer?

ragamer · « **Reply #90 on:** March 04, 2003, 09:39:05 am »

Hey Firesoul... SFC community is one of the MORE IMPORTANT reasons why we can discuss now about SFC3, that's something
that I'm not putting in doubt... Ppl like you, Nuclearwessel (;)... not weasel... I know), arcticfire and so on have
been doing a LOT of good work... But I was talking about the base product...

Being a programmer myself I know what can be done with a good SQL connection... But now that I know better the Script
API... Can you imagine the wonders that could be coded if we know the DV of the hex from inside the script?... Damn...
a single byte value... just that and you can really translate to the tactical theater the Strategic Status of each Dyna
Hex.

And this is just with the actual Server Database... Imagine a DYNA+ where economic points need to travel from one place
to another to be transformed into player resources (ships, repairs, refits)... Then a new world of intelligence, piracy,
deep raids, counterstrikes, exploration and resource management could be open to us to battle for... ah just dreaming
I suppouse.

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #91 on:** March 04, 2003, 01:46:25 pm »

ragamer: /quote "AJTK... You are my man/woman... It's good to find some1 that has some objective thinking around." /endquote

1)MAN
2)I am glad you liked my threads, thank you. You make some valid points as well.

Fire: We LOVE YOU, MAN!! Never doubt it. You and everyone else that is working/has worked/will work on EAW/OP.

As much as I wanted to, I dont abhor(sp) SFC3, even if I do think, IMO, it is largely responsible for the untimely demise of SFC. Nor do I abhor(sp) those whom dislike SFC/SFB, I simply disagree with them, and in some cases most strongly. I really do not believe I could find myself moved to actually HATE someone I have never met over something as simple as a game.

Have a nice day!

DONOTDELETE · « **Reply #93 on:** March 04, 2003, 10:16:31 pm »

Favorite SFC (Total Votes: 149)
SFC 1
10 06%

SFC2 EAW
64 42%

SFC Orion Pirates
43 28%

SFC 3
32 21%

Current totals

E_Look · « **Reply #94 on:** March 05, 2003, 12:07:32 am »

I voted for SFC1. I STILL get the biggest kick out of it and I do have OP and EAW installed alongside it. This is because I like single player skirmish/campaign modes, heavy on the skirmish. Though, if I wanted to play campaign more, OP/EAW would count more in my heart. SFC3 does not run on my system. I wish I could comment on it.

TheSatyr · « **Reply #95 on:** March 05, 2003, 02:53:13 am »

I think the (possible) demise of SFC has nothing to do with SFC3...I doubt a GAW would have sold any better.

There seems to be a lack of interest in Star Trek these days. Nemesis bombed,SFC3 hasn't done too well either,apparently. I don't know how Enterprise is doing ratings wise.

The thing is,we are the hardcore SFC/SFB/Star Trek types. We don't exactly represent the general public. We still play games that the average player put on the shelf along time ago.

I think maybe a break of a year or two for SFC might be a good idea. The market just doesn't seem to be there for it right now.

Maxillius · « **Reply #98 on:** March 05, 2003, 08:32:11 pm »

Not necessarily. How much of a stretch would it be to consider 3-d movement and weapon arcs with the SFB rules in mind? I can imagine how dumb it would be for anyone to try to attack a Fed ship from the top or bottom!

Cleaven · « **Reply #99 on:** March 05, 2003, 09:16:31 pm »

Apparently what passes for a true Star Trek game is mostly rubbish, at least from the point of view of somebody who finds Napoleonic miniatures, Panzer Blitz and SFB enjoyable. I think that Sid Meier is responsible for a lot of angst since he made Age of Rifles and let me first enjoy PC games.

Anyhow if there is nothing else to look forward to except FPS and RTS games based on how quick your reflexes are then something is going to be missing for a while. Patching OP will fill that void for a bit I suppose, but I don't see anything else on the horizon. A LAN version of OP would be useful too. Even very good looking games like ORB and Haegemonia still can't give you the same combined tactical and strategic multiplayer experience though.

Best not to think about the future in case it happens.

News:

Topic: Which SFC game is your favorite? (Read 33114 times) var addthis_config = {"data_track_clickback":true};

FireSoul

jdmckinney

jdmckinney

Toasty0

FireSoul

FireSoul

jdmckinney

Toasty0

Mog

jdmckinney

ragamer

**DONOTDELETE**

CaptStumpy

**DONOTDELETE**

E_Look

TheSatyr

Toasty0

kevlar

Maxillius

Cleaven

Topic: Which SFC game is your favorite? (Read 33114 times)

DONOTDELETE

DONOTDELETE