Topic: Community Gap - sfc2/3 a bridge that needs to be made

[NannerSlug]

look, the only point of this thread (for me at least) was not to debate the differences of the game, but to ask what could be done to bridge the feelings between the two groups. Someone was correct in noting that sfc3 players do not call d.net home. A lot of that reason is because they do not feel welcome here.

i know d.net and the dga is working toward doing some things. at the same time, though, there needs to be a community effort to make them feel welcome.

that is all i was wanting people to think about.

people have differences in what they want to play - that is no big deal and is a reality of life. people see different things and enjoy different things.

there are also perceptions about the sfc3 community which are false (like most people who play sfc3 are teens and are dumb) which need to be dispelled. are people here willing to grow up and accept someone who has a difference of opinion.

Dogmatix has a good point in his post. so does katie (believe it or not)  - about the long term consequences.

the whole point of this thread was to try and foster somthing positive.

[likkerpig]

Nanner, I still don't see what your goal is. On the OP side of the house I haven't seen any SFC3 bashing since long before Taldren went under.
I really am missing something here, what is this community healing you are after? What is it you want the OP people to do? I don't see rampant SFC3 bashing, never even thought of it until these community posts started popping up.
Just a dazed and confused piggy....

[Corbomite]

In truth, the biggest issue with Weapons is in both SFC3 & SFC2 - and that is Accuracy at Range. Why does a Torpedo miss a stationary target because the weapon is being fired at Range 30? The computer is advanced enough to calculate the correction direction to fire the weapon, so why does it still have a chance of missing?

This is a good question and deserves much more attention than it is given.

The answer is because these are games. All games that I can think of, with the exception of Chess, each have a certain amount of luck designed into them. Its what makes them fun and its what makes them games. Some games, like the Olympics, have more skill than luck designed into them. Others, like casino style games, have more luck than skill designed into them, but superior skill or dumb luck can bring you a win in both types at times. Removing luck makes it just a mathematics problem that you can do on paper. No need to program a computer simulation to prove what you already know the outcome of. 

[Davey-E]

i never heard of SFB before i played any Trek game, My favourite (at 1st) was "Klingon Acadamy", but i soon began to realise that playing on the inside of a ship looking thru the viewscreen may be true like, but not good for overall tactical moves etc
(Its much better the SFC1/2/OP/3 way

When i 1st got into SFC2/OP it was like WOWEEEEEE, This is great i finally understand it (EW and all)
There seemed so many way to fight your enemy with so many tactics,

I waited for 3 with baited breath and bought the game _ oh Dear what a dissapointment (for me personally that is)
There were simply no perameters how to play, to me its simply point and shoot, and has lost so miuch of its richness that SFB provided SFC with

And lets face it SFC3 is not cannon either
There are so many inconsistencies in all trek space battles even using ST DS9 which has the most battles of any series,

Thats why we all like SFC/SFB so much  -  It puts the meat on the bones, if only Paramount had,nt hated SFB so much
The SFC series could of been sooooo much more fulfilled where trek space battles were concerned

I,ve tried hard to like SFC3 - played a lot of it - but it died within me everytime, and sadly its not on my HD any more (and wont be)
It could of been so much more,
I personally hope we see SFC4 sometime with all what we want, sure there are SOME things from SFC3 i like (reverse, true cloak) but thats about it

Anyway GW3 is coming soon and i hear the cry of my Kzinti Brethren -  to arms and Victory over the Hated Klingon Empire

[Age]

i never heard of SFB before i played any Trek game, My favourite (at 1st) was "Klingon Acadamy", but i soon began to realise that playing on the inside of a ship looking thru the viewscreen may be true like, but not good for overall tactical moves etc
(Its much better the SFC1/2/OP/3 way

When i 1st got into SFC2/OP it was like WOWEEEEEE, This is great i finally understand it (EW and all)
There seemed so many way to fight your enemy with so many tactics,

I waited for 3 with baited breath and bought the game _ oh Dear what a dissapointment (for me personally that is)
There were simply no perameters how to play, to me its simply point and shoot, and has lost so miuch of its richness that SFB provided SFC with

And lets face it SFC3 is not cannon either
There are so many inconsistencies in all trek space battles even using ST DS9 which has the most battles of any series,

Thats why we all like SFC/SFB so much  -  It puts the meat on the bones, if only Paramount had,nt hated SFB so much
The SFC series could of been sooooo much more fulfilled where trek space battles were concerned

I,ve tried hard to like SFC3 - played a lot of it - but it died within me everytime, and sadly its not on my HD any more (and wont be)
It could of been so much more,
I personally hope we see SFC4 sometime with all what we want, sure there are SOME things from SFC3 i like (reverse, true cloak) but thats about it

Anyway GW3 is coming soon and i hear the cry of my Kzinti Brethren -  to arms and Victory over the Hated Klingon Empire

You won't see any SFB material in it as you stated above in a SFC4 game.

[Davey-E]

You won't see any SFB material in it as you stated above in a SFC4 game.

Why is that ?
If its sales results they want - they dont want to go barking up the SFC3 tree, an SFB related game will sell much better

wanna compere SFC1/2/OP to 3 in retail sales ?

[Nicola_Venra]

The included text in this post contained nothing productive or relevant to D.Net. Insulting, flaming, or otherwise derogatory statements that are posted in a manner that attempts to convey Dynaverse.Net's attitude, approach or policy by anyone not a member of the Dynaverse.Net Admin group or the DGA Board of Directors is strictly prohibited.Only authorized members of the Dynaverse.Net staff are allowed to make such comments or posts that might be construed by the community as statements of policy or preference of Dynaverse.Net and it's representatives.

Thank you.

Warning number 1, btw.

We will not permit your attacks, your postings from other forums, whatever you think may bring strife here.  I hope you understand.

[Age]

You won't see any SFB material in it as you stated above in a SFC4 game.

Why is that ?
If its sales results they want - they dont want to go barking up the SFC3 tree, an SFB related game will sell much better

wanna compere SFC1/2/OP to 3 in retail sales ?

The reason is that Viacom/Paramount do not want anything to do with ADB.They pulled the license from them and don't want anything to do with them.You said it your self.

[Davey-E]

"The reason is that Viacom/Paramount do not want anything to do with ADB.They pulled the license from them and don't want anything to do with them.You said it your self."

Understood,   and that my friend is the biggest loss to the SFC gaming series, 
They threw away the rulebook that gave the game the greatness that SFC1/2/OP has,
SHAME ON THEM 

[CmdChucky-11th-]

The included text in this post contained nothing productive or relevant to D.Net. Insulting, flaming, or otherwise derogatory statements that are posted in a manner that attempts to convey Dynaverse.Net's attitude, approach or policy by anyone not a member of the Dynaverse.Net Admin group or the DGA Board of Directors is strictly prohibited.Only authorized members of the Dynaverse.Net staff are allowed to make such comments or posts that might be construed by the community as statements of policy or preference of Dynaverse.Net and it's representatives.

Thank you.

Warning, Chucky.  I will not make it a final one.

[Holocat]

The answer is because these are games. All games that I can think of, with the exception of Chess, each have a certain amount of luck designed into them. Its what makes them fun and its what makes them games. Some games, like the Olympics, have more skill than luck designed into them. Others, like casino style games, have more luck than skill designed into them, but superior skill or dumb luck can bring you a win in both types at times. Removing luck makes it just a mathematics problem that you can do on paper. No need to program a computer simulation to prove what you already know the outcome of. 

Once, a long time ago, a Roman was bored.  There were dead legionaries everywhere, as there always was at the time, so he stole some knucklebones while stealing a pair of boots.

He was arrested for stealing the boots, and had nothing else to do but roll the bones on the ground with his fellow prisoners, who were quite comfortable with this new passtime as it gave them something else to do other than tame the rats and lice and make them do tricks, by this time old hat.

It is a well known fact that rats liked to hoard things, and so it was that the rats had stored an immense amount of Greek silver.  When the rats gave this silver to the prisoners, the only logical course was to buy the prison they were in and open a casino.  Thus gambling was born.

Meanwhile, a Chinese noble had taken the marbles from his head.  Unlike modern practice, where they are placed in a small bag connected just below the belt, the Chinese noble decided to use them to teach his son patience, who was killing peasants to pass the time.  Thus, board games were born.

Very soon after someone suggested combining the random elements of knucklebones with a board game, adding enough mathematical record keeping to make the game as protected as alchemy and suggesting a premise of futuristic star-ship combat.  Of course, this man was quickly burned as a heretic, witch and all 'round crazy nut, but it was little known at the time that this form of game would eventually re-emerge.

[FPF-Jem]

 

Thanks for the very amusing post Holocat, it made my day. 

[Durin]

Good one Holocat

[FPF-DieHard]

Well, reading through some threads and this one it seems that the hopes of bridgeing the gap just cant happen.  The majority of the folks in here do seem to support SFC 2:OP and have little to no regard for the future of Starfleet Command 3 and when confronted with the premise that Nanner said of trying to bridge the gap they come up with ways of not doing it.

Did ANY of you actually spare the time to REALLY read what Paramount's Harry Lang was saying?

The worry of the SFC community shouldnt be what is happening in the small SFC Series community, it should be whats just round the corner regarding the future of trek gaming.  What will it look like when a new game is released and the community sites still have links going to SFC games, they come in here and see a general attitude of "go away, you do not play SFC 2:OP and you do not like SFB".  Fleets who want to partake in games dont really worry about the flames, they just flame back, part and parcel of fleet gaming, whats holding a lot of them back is what Nanner touches on to an extent.  The feeling that SFC 2 players look down there noses on SFC 3 and what the game itself stands for.

[Edited out], we don't PLAY SFC3.  That is why we do not care about it.  How fricking dense are you people?

It is that simple.  We do not look down on SFC3, we simply do not play it.  We do not care, we do not care, we do not care.

Go bother some quake players you fricking troll.

Admin edit:  Diehard, do not call people names in here! 

[FPF-DieHard]

A lot of the anger comes from the time the so-called Taldrenites who spend on fixing the darned Orion Pirates -- whose player base is suck beans compared to what is left in SFC3. Look back on old threads, the past arguments (not with me). That anger stems from the first day we bought this game and made the move.

Again, us INDIVIDUALS who work on the technical side of OP DO NOT PLAY SFC3.

WE DO NOT CARE ABOUT A GAME WE DO NOT PLAY

[kortez]

We will not be fooled by an apparent intent to say that a certain group speaks for has a special relationship or access to Mr. Lang.  Mr. Lang's words stand on their own.  He does not impress me as a fool.  Quite the contrary, in fact, as I see him as an intelligent person, someone I doubt will be taken by attempts to hurt others while they promote themselves.We do not need people to act as if they are innocent.  We don't need those same people to act as if they only care for the community.   I suspect all they do is hurt the community, not help themselves.

I would suggest some people mature.

[NannerSlug]

It is that simple.  We do not look down on SFC3, we simply do not play it.  We do not care, we do not care, we do not care.

Go bother some quake players you fricking troll.

die hard, i want you to think about this statment carefully and how it someone might take it. this is at the very heart of the matter. how would you like someone to say the same thing toward your self. imo, the statment is contradictry. if you do not look down on those who play a game (which is different), then why the back handed slap about bothering "quake" players. (some people would take that as an honor, but i know enough to understand that was a slap)

you guys need to not associate one or two people as a whole group. i think that is fair for everyone. my only purpose here was to try and bring people together. i know the dga is making strides to do this, but i was hoping that some would say - "okay, maybe we can agree to disagree about things but still be friends on the same level."

that is all i was hoping for. is it really too much?

it is okay for someone to believe that (a) game is better than another game. where i have issues - and others feel uncomfortable is when people are not grown up enough to understand that it is only a better game from their perspective.

different people, different taste - everyone needs to be respected on the same level.

*please*

[Nicola_Venra]

The included text in this post contained nothing productive or relevant to D.Net. Insulting, flaming, or otherwise derogatory statements that are posted in a manner that attempts to convey Dynaverse.Net's attitude, approach or policy by anyone not a member of the Dynaverse.Net Admin group or the DGA Board of Directors is strictly prohibated.Only authorized members of the Dynaverse.Net staff are allowed to make such comments or posts that might be construed by the community as statements of policy or preference of Dynaverse.Net and it's representatives.

Thank you.

Admin note:  You should realize, Nicola, that people don't spend 100% of their time reading the same forum.  Some of us actually lead lives.  I took care of DieHard's name calling, but you already came back with your insults and what can only be taken as a threat.  That will not be permitted.  See my PM to you.

This thread is locked.

[CmdChucky-11th-]

NOW it's edited, i tried Kortez.

[KBF-Dogmatix_XC]

Well, reading through some threads and this one it seems that the hopes of bridgeing the gap just cant happen.  The majority of the folks in here do seem to support SFC 2:OP and have little to no regard for the future of Starfleet Command 3 and when confronted with the premise that Nanner said of trying to bridge the gap they come up with ways of not doing it.

Did ANY of you actually spare the time to REALLY read what Paramount's Harry Lang was saying?

The worry of the SFC community shouldnt be what is happening in the small SFC Series community, it should be whats just round the corner regarding the future of trek gaming.  What will it look like when a new game is released and the community sites still have links going to SFC games, they come in here and see a general attitude of "go away, you do not play SFC 2:OP and you do not like SFB".  Fleets who want to partake in games dont really worry about the flames, they just flame back, part and parcel of fleet gaming, whats holding a lot of them back is what Nanner touches on to an extent.  The feeling that SFC 2 players look down there noses on SFC 3 and what the game itself stands for.

[Edited out], we don't PLAY SFC3.  That is why we do not care about it.  How fricking dense are you people?

It is that simple.  We do not look down on SFC3, we simply do not play it.  We do not care, we do not care, we do not care.

Go bother some quake players you fricking troll.

Admin edit:  Diehard, do not call people names in here! 

With regard to what Nicola Venra said in the quoted portion above...I just don't agree that SFC2 players look down their noses at SFC3 players.  The gist of Nicola's point is off-target completely.


I agree with you, DH, in that some of the SFC2 players just don't care about SFC3 and therefore pay little or no attention to it.  There's obviously nothing wrong with that.


However, this does NOT mean that the majority of SFC2 players look down on SFC3 or its player base.  It also does not mean that SFC3 players are not welcome here.  They most certainly are.  Those that wish to continue (or start, as the case may be) cross over between the two games are encouraged to do so.  SFC3 players are at least as welcome here as SFC2 players.


I am unaware of any movement afoot among players of SFC2, the admins of D.net or the members of the DGA to tell or otherwise make SFC3 players feel they are not welcome here.  They are most assuredly welcome here.  There is an SFC3 Dynaverse Experiences forum.  There is a models forum in which artists from both games (and some who actually play either) post their work..  There is an SFC3 testers forum.  There is an SFC3 D3 admins forum.  There's a section of fora for SFC3 campaigns and strategies.  The fora (homes) are here.  The support is here.  If the SFC3 playerbase chooses not to be a part of things here, then that is their prerogative.  It seems the people who play SFC3 have spent a lot of time creating factions and staking out their own bits of territory.  If there is a lack of unity in the SFC3 world, it hardly has anything to do with those NOT in the SFC3 world.


If the SFC3 playerbase has fragmented itself with a bunch of different forum communities, groups or mods, that is not the fault of SFC2 players or the people of D.net and the DGA and it does not mean that SFC is not wlecome here.  With a few exceptions, I'm sure everyone here is more than iwilling to have you here and to peacefully coexist.  Furthermore, there are even those who look forward to future cooperation and community building activities.



Geez..I've spent my entire afternoon on this topic.