Topic: Paramount hath spoken  (Read 66459 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #200 on: July 22, 2004, 12:50:51 am »

Curiously enough, as soon as i post something sort-of agreeing with Nanner, I loose 2 points af karma  ;D

Oh, that didn't have anything to do with Nanner.  That's just when my 12-hour clock for assigning karma rolled over, both on my real account and on my "bash Die Hard" account.

.
.
.
.

JUST KIDDING!

-S'Cipio

it has dropped YET again

I'm not doing it!  Honest! 

Here, I'll give you a positive point, just to make you feel better.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline Cleaven

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 375
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #201 on: July 22, 2004, 01:32:28 am »
yes it is that simple rondo.. especially if a "computer" was keeping track of ew.

Sure a computer can keep track of it and flash little lights up on the screen, but please explain how the computer decides where to take the power from to meet the EW setting, when to take the power, and when to relinquish it for another system. If you can describe how the "computer" deals with the EW problem, and not merely tracking it, then you may have a justification. Until you can do that your arguement is meaningless because "tracking" is meaningless in the tactical power battle. 

Not sure I can be bothered, but as you are the Doc, can you run an AI standard patrol in 2 minutes in a KRC? If so, there is no problem and I am utterly wrong. If you cannot, then the KRC is a worse ship for AI missions than ones I know can.

Offline _Rondo_GE The OutLaw

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 10018
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #202 on: July 22, 2004, 01:38:41 am »
Dear me, is this yet another SFC2 v 3 discussion? (They seem to follow Nanner around :P)

heh or perhaps he follows it around...

I'd love to get the sales figures on SFC, SFC2, SFC OP and SFC3...as an aside...

Offline Holocat

  • An even siller cat than Even SillierCats. ;3
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 216
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #203 on: July 22, 2004, 04:10:08 am »
Just to join in the fun technical flaming, did anyone hear about the critique of the patriot missile defense system?

It may be true that someone's intel can compute AV.  If we're struck with imaginary missiles, we'll be fine.  Real SCUDs in the first war, however, did not appear to be particularly bothered, as it was claimed by the report that practically all SCUDs managed to release their payloads on a target.

That a modern battle computer can compute a missile trajectory in theory is true.  However, the critique does spread some doubt on my conscience as to whether we can predict proper AV in real life.

Can we do it two hundred years from now?  Perhaps, but the technology making missiles will have also progressed two hundred years.  So far, it seems that a cobbled together ground to ground missile was able to outdo the smartest interceptor missile the US had in stock.  It's all just guessing what tomorrow will be like.

As to distance being 10'000km or m or whatever, I've already tested and proved this can't possibly be the case unless every ship is several hundred kilometers long.

As to EW being a difference in how much power is going to the computers, let me ask this;  If you could magically plug in your computer twice and give it twice as much power, do you, even in this magic double plug land, get twice as much computer power, or just a burning smell?  Let's say there are extra computers then, if you want to argue that;  When does one computer use more power than a matter-energy teleporter?  When does a computer have so much power running through it, a ship-to-ship sized phaser turret could be powered off its requirements?  However nicely this explains why consoles always explode in combat, it's not terribly realistic from what we know of as reality today.

The moral here is stop trying to make reality arguments in a game that is so detached from reality, it's... well, Star Trek.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2004, 04:22:36 am by Holocat »

Offline EmeraldEdge

  • D.Net VIP
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1161
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #204 on: July 22, 2004, 05:11:27 am »
Let's also take into account that this is Trek.  The EW cost, imo, isn't just for the power costs of computing but also for deploying the appropriate countermeasure.   In Trek, that is very often routing amounts of power through main sensor array.   We've seen in Trek that the sensor array does a whole lot of amazing things and can sap quite a bit of power through it.   That is what I personally think about when I think of Electronic Warfare in Star Trek.  I think of ensign so and so sitting at his console saying "Captain, if I can route power through x,y, and z I can cause a sensor ghost, blah, blah, blah".  There would likely be a wide array of techniques to trick the enemy computer (and since the computer is being tricked it may not know it's doing something wrong and counter) thus it would likely be a manned station for EW during combat situations, so they could evaluate what the actual outcome of weapons fire is and calculate the appropriate countermeasures (very Trek thing to do).   Once again, that is my opinion.

Offline Cleaven

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 375
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #205 on: July 22, 2004, 05:28:47 am »
As to EW being a difference in how much power is going to the computers, let me ask this;  If you could magically plug in your computer twice and give it twice as much power, do you, even in this magic double plug land, get twice as much computer power, or just a burning smell?  Let's say there are extra computers then, if you want to argue that;  When does one computer use more power than a matter-energy teleporter?  When does a computer have so much power running through it, a ship-to-ship sized phaser turret could be powered off its requirements?  However nicely this explains why consoles always explode in combat, it's not terribly realistic from what we know of as reality today.


You seriously believe that is what the power is being used for don't you? Not just a bit of sarcasm where you forgot the smiley, but genuine, down to earth, packed with nutritious goodness, serious commentary on how EW works? I can't imagine what you must think happens when you put your foot down on a car's accelerator pedal.

Not sure I can be bothered, but as you are the Doc, can you run an AI standard patrol in 2 minutes in a KRC? If so, there is no problem and I am utterly wrong. If you cannot, then the KRC is a worse ship for AI missions than ones I know can.

Offline AdmWaterTiger-11thFleet-

  • Unity Admin
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 492
  • Gender: Male
  • Veni vidi vici
    • Spartan Vanguard
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #206 on: July 22, 2004, 05:40:51 am »
Woooohhhhh. This went OTT from the posters intent (me).  ;)

Did y'all scare Harry away with techno babble?

<S>

WaterTiger
http://www.spartanvanguard.com/
http://www.stcd.sgnonline.com/users/trimodyards/



KoraH: "Remember my advice to you Wade, that you should drop SFC ...  you will find that all you have to put up with to do so is going to sour the sweetness of your hard work."

Offline Holocat

  • An even siller cat than Even SillierCats. ;3
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 216
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #207 on: July 22, 2004, 06:22:42 am »
As to EW being a difference in how much power is going to the computers, let me ask this;  If you could magically plug in your computer twice and give it twice as much power, do you, even in this magic double plug land, get twice as much computer power, or just a burning smell?  Let's say there are extra computers then, if you want to argue that;  When does one computer use more power than a matter-energy teleporter?  When does a computer have so much power running through it, a ship-to-ship sized phaser turret could be powered off its requirements?  However nicely this explains why consoles always explode in combat, it's not terribly realistic from what we know of as reality today.


You seriously believe that is what the power is being used for don't you? Not just a bit of sarcasm where you forgot the smiley, but genuine, down to earth, packed with nutritious goodness, serious commentary on how EW works? I can't imagine what you must think happens when you put your foot down on a car's accelerator pedal.

it's the push on the pedal that provides the energy to make the car go forward;  This is why if you push on the pedal repeatedly, you get a bumpier ride, because the engine has more energy from your foot than it can handle at a time.

Look, I can go on all day about why EW in Starfleet Command is not realistic, and you can go on all day telling me it is, and that i'm wrong in clever and sarcastic posts.

If you smack a pair jigsaw puzzle pieces enough with Homer Simpson's Powered Hammer, they will eventually fit together.  If you rip off the stickers on a rubex cube, you can solve that puzzle as well.  Though they now make rubex cubes with coloured plastic, but you can solve that too, with a screwdriver.

The fact is EW looks fishy because it is fishy.  Every ship magically has twelve boxes of which only six can be powered, despite there being technological gaps between the races in their sophistication.  Oh, they go to sensors (thattakeupasmuchpowerasanenergyweaponthatfiresouttotensofthousandsof'kilometers') or to other systems anyone can conviently pull out of their ass for this particular occasion.  Oh, it really is ten thousand kilometers per unit, you're just seeing a computer enhanced scaled up image.  Right.

Truth is, Nanner's right;  EW is just a little minigame that requires us to match up a series of boxes as best we can.  Nanner may even be right about AV.  I never did understand why so many people can take a game that comes from a board game that's based of some sort of sophisticated pen-and-paper battleship and then try to fob this off in some manner, as realistic.

Not that reality is any less screwed, but hey.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2004, 06:57:15 am by Holocat »

Offline Cleaven

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 375
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #208 on: July 22, 2004, 08:21:58 am »
You were talking about real EW, with your scud references. What changed your mind?

As for Nannerslug being right about AV, which right do you mean? That it is a bad idea compared to other ways of adding negative modifiers for targetting? Correct.

Does EW have to be represented by 6 boxes? Of course not, how sillly to think so in the TNG land of three sliders. It should be blindingly obvious to even the slowest out there that you should use an EW slider, with no feedback indicator to show just how much power is being put into spatial distortion fields or expanding the scanner relay field charge or whatever. It would even be possible to use the slider to undercharge the sensor array so that you could accidently target allies (oops). Or even more basic, since some like it that way, just have an EW on/off switch, just like EM.

So don't get wrapped up in those six EW units because it's a sad cop out on what could have been a lot better than Snoopy Vs The Red Baron.

Not sure I can be bothered, but as you are the Doc, can you run an AI standard patrol in 2 minutes in a KRC? If so, there is no problem and I am utterly wrong. If you cannot, then the KRC is a worse ship for AI missions than ones I know can.

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #209 on: July 22, 2004, 08:51:19 am »

As to distance being 10'000km or m or whatever, I've already tested and proved this can't possibly be the case unless every ship is several hundred kilometers long.


This is black-letter SFB, which SFC1, EAW and OP are based off of.  Range 8 is 80,000 KM, range 1 is 10,000 KM.  There is no debating this.   

Check trek cannon sources.   The range of a Photon in Kirk's time is 300,000 KM (30 in OP) and 4,000,000 KM in thre TNG era.  When you consider how fast impluse speed is, ships would never get much closer.

Range of a Transporter in cannan Trek is 40,000 KM.  How far can you lon a T-Bomb in OP?
The ships are NOT drawn to scale, can you imagine how silly the game would be if they were?
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline Crusader

  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #210 on: July 22, 2004, 09:54:13 am »

As to distance being 10'000km or m or whatever, I've already tested and proved this can't possibly be the case unless every ship is several hundred kilometers long.


This is black-letter SFB, which SFC1, EAW and OP are based off of.  Range 8 is 80,000 KM, range 1 is 10,000 KM.  There is no debating this.   

Check trek cannon sources.   The range of a Photon in Kirk's time is 300,000 KM (30 in OP) and 4,000,000 KM in thre TNG era.  When you consider how fast impluse speed is, ships would never get much closer.

Range of a Transporter in cannan Trek is 40,000 KM.  How far can you lon a T-Bomb in OP?
The ships are NOT drawn to scale, can you imagine how silly the game would be if they were?

Exactly correct.

As for the scale comment.....even the board game is way off scale.  If the game were to scale and we kept the same ship counter size.....we'd have a hex board "miles" wide. ;D

Offline Rod ONeal

  • D.Net Beta Tester
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3592
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #211 on: July 22, 2004, 10:10:40 am »
I'm still around and reading the messages.  Just been a little caught up in some things going on.... ;)
Woooohhhhh. This went OTT from the posters intent (me).  ;)

Did y'all scare Harry away with techno babble?

<S>



WaterTiger

It doesn't appear so. ::)
If Romulans aren't cowards, then why do they taste like chicken?

Offline Harry

  • Paramount Pictures
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 40
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #212 on: July 22, 2004, 01:28:04 pm »
Woooohhhhh. This went OTT from the posters intent (me).  ;)

Did y'all scare Harry away with techno babble?

<S>

WaterTiger

I've been reading this thread, and my head hurts...

Offline _Rondo_GE The OutLaw

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 10018
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #213 on: July 22, 2004, 01:29:50 pm »
Woooohhhhh. This went OTT from the posters intent (me).  ;)

Did y'all scare Harry away with techno babble?

<S>

WaterTiger

[Well Harry we seem to have simo-posted.  My suggestion is take two aspirin then skip to the last line of this response and share some thoughts on that.  I would be interested in your answer]

I think Harry might be wise to keep reading this thread along with all the other things he is about.  Of course he could always buy Erik's book and find out how to make a game. (hehe)  As a matter of fact I would do both and much more.

One of the prevailing ideas I see popping up from time to time is the idea that SFC1 was a "hit" and SFC2 sold many less copies because, as the assumption goes, SFC1 was two complex and turned off potential buyers coming back for seconds.

This subsumes of course that people that do want a rich tactical game are either a) a shrinking population and or b) a static population of gamers with potentially less buying power than the first person shooter or arcade style of gaming.  AND that such a population is not going to grow or be important enough to take into account.

I am in total assumption mode when I say that Harry must or might believe that there is a market for in depth tactical gaming if he comes to a sight like this.  And despite the occasional "nanner-diversion" to the contrary,  I believe that is what this community is about.  However Nanner and the other other SFC3 enthusiasts might actually think they are advocating in-depth tactical gaming as well, so our disagreement might be a matter of degrees, therefore putting us all in agreement but factionalized about certain things.

But the one idea I would like to see nailed down is why SFC2 didn't do as well as SFC1.  I am simply not persuaded that people did not buy SFC2 because they found SFC1 concept too complex and unplayable.  One thing that stands out in my mind is Interplay?s failure to provide a demo pre-release of the game.  They may have been other marketing errors and blunders as well.  The bugged out code and damage caused by a game that was in actuality falsely advertised (to what extent they advertised it at all considering they must have known they would be at risk) may have been big contributors.

I do not have answers only questions.  But I do think reaching conclusions on assumptions that lack empirical waypoints may simply misdirect us.  

Something possessed over 400,000 gamers to buy a game like this six years ago.    Can they be possessed to do so again?
  

Offline NannerSlug

  • Master of the "Magic Photon"
  • Lt. Junior Grade
  • *
  • Posts: 274
  • Gender: Male
    • SFC3.Net
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #214 on: July 22, 2004, 02:11:35 pm »
your right rondo, somthing did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked! bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadnt had so few ships and a few mulitplayer issues..

the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.
"A Republican thinks every day is July 4th. A Democrat thinks every day is April 15th." - Ronald Reagan

Offline KBF-Crim

  • 1st Deacon ,Church of Taldren
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12271
  • Gender: Male
  • Crim,son of Rus'l
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #215 on: July 22, 2004, 02:43:48 pm »
Hmmm Rondo...there was an SFC2 demo...here's a link to Chris jones mod's for it...

The first mod is dated oct 2000...

http://sfc.strategy-gaming.com/chrisjonesmods/sfc2mod.shtml


Offline KBF-Crim

  • 1st Deacon ,Church of Taldren
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 12271
  • Gender: Male
  • Crim,son of Rus'l
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #216 on: July 22, 2004, 03:36:02 pm »
your right rondo, somthing did. its called being a star ship combat simulator which worked!

Damn...I could have sworn SFC1 had "Based Starfleet battles" right on the front of the box...*looks*.....yep...its still there...

Quote
bridge commander would have done quite well if it hadnt had so few ships and a few mulitplayer issues..

Or the fact that game play sucked...

Quote
the interest all begins with it being a star trek game.

But...but...but...you allready said this :

Posted by nanner:
Quote
but there are a lot of us who want TREK games - not just somthing with a trek label slapped on the side of it. does it have to be perfect? nope. sfc proved that. it was close, but not trek and it worked for a good time

I'm confused....

SFC1/EAW/OP are ALL based on SFB....

but you say: SFB is NOT trek...

So if SFC1/EAW/OP are BASED on SFB...and SFB is NOT trek....then SFC1/EAW/OP are not trek either....

So how could people have bought ANY of the first 3 games because of it being Trek...which you say it's not...

 :-\

And as of late...I've seen this paraded out:

Posted by nanner:
Quote
SFC3 had too much cut out of it. whether it was a lack of arcs, t-bombs, ships or variants - it was just too cut up.

And
Quote
sfc3 has some good merrits - but too much detail was left out.

But...the ONLY thing NOT in SFC3 is the bulk of SFB content...the "detail"....

So how could it have "too much cut out"????? and yet be "superior" the SFC1,2, and OP???????

And what do you expect when you rip the soul out of a game (SFB) and replace it with....with...TREK?

 :-\

And I really LOVE this comment:

Posted by Nanner:

Quote
I do realize that in the "grander gaming experience" that sfc1/2 and op were "complex" (one of the reasons why sfc2 dropped off significantly compared to sfc1).. but it had good, lasting game play - which is why sfc sales stayed constant instead of the release then dropped off the face of the earth like Bridge commander.

*shakes head*

HUH?

We allready KNOW that the DV debacle is what scared ALOT of people away from SFC2...and that OP being a stand alone "expansion" drove even more people off of OP sales...

But you're now trying to revise reality....in claiming that "complexity" drove off buyers...and at the same time wanting MORE complexity( or content) in SFC3....

by your logic....SFC3 should have outsold ALL previous versions...IIRC...you made the claim that SFC3 would be an even BIGGER success because it would be unfettered by the outdated anchor of SFB content...it would appeal to even MORE people(trek fans).....and poopooed the rest of us who predicted SFC3 wouldnt do as well due to a lack of content...

So I ask you this simple question.....is SFC trek?...or not?

Choose wisely. :skeptic:




Offline GDA-S'Cipio

  • Brucimus Maximus
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 5749
  • Gender: Male
  • If I took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy.
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #217 on: July 22, 2004, 03:42:06 pm »
But the one idea I would like to see nailed down is why SFC2 didn't do as well as SFC1.  I am simply not persuaded that people did not buy SFC2 because they found SFC1 concept too complex and unplayable.

There is a general rule that sequels don't do as well as originals.  However, I think this is usually the fault of the sequel simply trying to be a "redo" of an idea that's already been done without adding enough to be a truly fresh product.  If you've already got the original, why do you need the copy?

SFC2 seemed prepared to break this genral rule.  The D2 was a fantastic addition and made SFC2 a fresh and distinct product from SFC1.  The problem was....... it didn't work.

I bought SFC2 before it went on the store shelves -- I actually made the stock boy go in the back and open a crate to get it for me -- without reading any reviews.  But when I found that the D2 didn't work, the box sat on my shelf and gathered dust for several months.

Without the D2, SFC2 didn't really have anythng new to add to the game.  Two new races and some nifty new sparkly lights, but that's hardly enough to make it *new*, and I already knew from SFB that the two new races weren't really ones I wanted to spend that much time playing.  I'd already *done* single player campaigns.  I'd already done mplay.  I could still do both in the old game.  I could still get online with my old SFB friends and play with SFC1.  What was in this new box to get me excited?  This made SFC2 an expansion rather than a sequel, which is fine!, but expansions never sell as well as new product.

When the D2 got sorted out I came back to SFC2 and became a fanatic until the present.  However, I imagine many others didn't buy at first because the game didn't work as advertised.  Unlike me, they didn't buy a non-working copy and leave it on the shelf until it worked.  Their "purchase moment" passed and they simply never came back.

The same thing happened with OP.  Nothing new was added to the game except a few weapons and more racial slots.  These things were greatly appreciated by me, but they don't fundamentally expand the game.  The D2 was exactly the same as the old D2, except it had even more bugs and a pirate layer that *still* doesn't really work.  (Though it is infinitely better now than it was, for which I am grateful.)  This made OP and expansion rather than a sequel, which is fine!, but expansions will never sell as many copies as new games.

I still hope for SFC4.  (You know, someday.....).  However I hope it goes much further than simply adding Andros and Tholians.  It needs to increase the ability of the admin to control production ques in his dyna, edit his database, edit his D2 mission pack, affect economy and alliances through player actions, and add new funcionality like scouts, variable overlaoads, mix and match drones, and supply raids.  

Oh, yes, and single internals.  ;)

The fact that it needs to remain faithful to SFB goes without saying!

But I'd still like to see actual figures for sales, excluding the copies of SFC1 that were given away for free with a purchase of SFC2.  Once working, SFC2 is a vastly better game than SFC1.

-S'Cipio
"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."  - James Madison (chief author of the Constitution)

-----------------------------------------
Gorn Dragon Alliance member
Gorn Dragon Templar
Coulda' used a little more cowbell
-----------------------------------------


Offline _Rondo_GE The OutLaw

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 10018
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #218 on: July 22, 2004, 04:02:31 pm »
But the one idea I would like to see nailed down is why SFC2 didn't do as well as SFC1.  I am simply not persuaded that people did not buy SFC2 because they found SFC1 concept too complex and unplayable.

There is a general rule that sequels don't do as well as originals.  However, I think this is usually the fault of the sequel simply trying to be a "redo" of an idea that's already been done without adding enough to be a truly fresh product.  If you've already got the original, why do you need the copy?

SFC2 seemed prepared to break this genral rule.  The D2 was a fantastic addition and made SFC2 a fresh and distinct product from SFC1.  The problem was....... it didn't work.

I bought SFC2 before it went on the store shelves -- I actually made the stock boy go in the back and open a crate to get it for me -- without reading any reviews.  But when I found that the D2 didn't work, the box sat on my shelf and gathered dust for several months.

Without the D2, SFC2 didn't really have anythng new to add to the game.  Two new races and some nifty new sparkly lights, but that's hardly enough to make it *new*, and I already knew from SFB that the two new races weren't really ones I wanted to spend that much time playing.  I'd already *done* single player campaigns.  I'd already done mplay.  I could still do both in the old game.  I could still get online with my old SFB friends and play with SFC1.  What was in this new box to get me excited?  This made SFC2 an expansion rather than a sequel, which is fine!, but expansions never sell as well as new product.

When the D2 got sorted out I came back to SFC2 and became a fanatic until the present.  However, I imagine many others didn't buy at first because the game didn't work as advertised.  Unlike me, they didn't buy a non-working copy and leave it on the shelf until it worked.  Their "purchase moment" passed and they simply never came back.

The same thing happened with OP.  Nothing new was added to the game except a few weapons and more racial slots.  These things were greatly appreciated by me, but they don't fundamentally expand the game.  The D2 was exactly the same as the old D2, except it had even more bugs and a pirate layer that *still* doesn't really work.  (Though it is infinitely better now than it was, for which I am grateful.)  This made OP and expansion rather than a sequel, which is fine!, but expansions will never sell as many copies as new games.

I still hope for SFC4.  (You know, someday.....).  However I hope it goes much further than simply adding Andros and Tholians.  It needs to increase the ability of the admin to control production ques in his dyna, edit his database, edit his D2 mission pack, affect economy and alliances through player actions, and add new funcionality like scouts, variable overlaoads, mix and match drones, and supply raids.  

Oh, yes, and single internals.  ;)

The fact that it needs to remain faithful to SFB goes without saying!

But I'd still like to see actual figures for sales, excluding the copies of SFC1 that were given away for free with a purchase of SFC2.  Once working, SFC2 is a vastly better game than SFC1.

-S'Cipio


"Oh, yes, and single internals." 


Darn and you were doing so well.   

(Scanning back through ancient saurian memories of forums past and realizing we risk another admonition from Watertiger (and he another -10 in karma) about staying on topic).

(taking a deep breath):  uh I think they tried single internals but the game was "too fast".  What I mean is that single internals left little room for error in a turn based game it worked but in a real time context not so...unless you played at speed 3, it didn't.  The original SFC had double shields and double intenals but they found they could make the shields normal and to specs.

(closes eyes and prays and waits for Scipio reply: "Nah, you Gorns are just inernals hogs.  SFB had it right.")

Translation for Harry:  Internals pretty much translate to how much damage a ship can take.



Offline _Rondo_GE The OutLaw

  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 10018
  • Gender: Male
Re: Paramount hath spoken
« Reply #219 on: July 22, 2004, 04:09:46 pm »
Hmmm Rondo...there was an SFC2 demo...here's a link to Chris jones mod's for it...

The first mod is dated oct 2000...

http://sfc.strategy-gaming.com/chrisjonesmods/sfc2mod.shtml




Hey Crim we both been on this gig since nearly the beginning but I don't remember the demo being out.  But I may be having a "senior" moment.