Topic: OT .. ( kind of ...) EVE stuff and it's impact on SFC Modeling (Read 4323 times)

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #20 on:** September 12, 2004, 01:01:50 pm »

Quote from: Sandman3D on September 12, 2004, 11:36:13 am

Ahh, don't worry about that stuff...it's a new fad that developers are terying to implement in order to suck more money from us...like has been said, don't buy it and it will go away.

I believe you are partially correct here ... but I also believe that we stand by and do nothing.. this will only get worse. Some have said that the game is VERY stable and this the way gaming is meant to be.

Hmmm sounds to me like that those who feel this way can not differentiate between how soft ware is written ( and that is really a big part of what makes a game stable) ... and the style of play (meaning this new concept of pay as you go with nothing to show for your investment)

That being said, if we do start up a campaign of sorts to write to the developers it would have to be well organized, and done in such a way that it would not be offensive to those writting the new games. One thing I DO understand is proper protocol within the business community. If you write and tell them off rudely .. they will pretty much blow it off and ignore it. If you over do it and you are sucking so hard that the letter is dripping with syrup .. same results.

Perhaps if there is enough interest here we can move the thread ... or start one in a more appropriate place and organize this.

thoughs??

Core · « **Reply #21 on:** September 12, 2004, 02:23:12 pm »

first things first though we need to decide what is it that we want from the developers and the publishers as a hole or individual groups of gamers then among our selfs decide which point should be taken in to consideration

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #22 on:** September 12, 2004, 05:13:14 pm »

Quote from: Fallen_Warrior on September 12, 2004, 02:12:52 pm

only thoughts i have on this after looking into this is:
Firstly Contact other Trek Gaming Forums (even if we dont agree with them) as we can only beat this with cold hard numbers. I suggest anyone who visits other forums to spread the work of this crusade again pay as you play trek games.

Secondly a full scale flood of Snail Mail (emails can be deleted after all and records of emails can be tampered with) politly stating the Developers that the communities are not happy with the idea of this pay as you play version in the works and if released will be boycotted by all members.

Thirdly a reprsentive from each fourm who agree with us on this to get a Petition of signatures (hand writen is best) I Belive a fully acceptable and powerful Petition must have atleast 3000 signatures behind it to hold any sway with major companies to be sent to Paramount (this should be done at the same time as the snail mail to game makers) The double Punch of letters should make them take another look at what they are doing.

Forthly and lastly if the game goes though we do as we said and Boycotte it till they take it off the market.

ok .. you and Core are both right.

Next we need a place to discuss this .. some sort of nook or cranny that would be appropriate on this forum board.

The next thing would be for a handfull 3 to 5 of us at most to decide what we will aim at and what we wont. BTW... just a suggestion ... we leave certain aspects OUT !! such as how many drones or fighters to have on a ship. Do we do the SFB only format. Here's why ...

1. Those aspects of the game have already been done. Some of the controversies around them are still settled to this day. I will not personally agree to help any forum that will in the end rehash old ideas that may OR MAY NOT work. New game developers are looking for NEW games. Those topics are often very "political" in nature. We will end getting bogged down in the politics of the game instead of banning togeather and getting the job done.

2. We need to focus on aspects that would benefit ANY Trek game. Some examples are:
a.) 3-D format
b.) interchangeable weapons
c.) multiple races (more than just 2 or 3)
d.) accessable ship list editing
e.) server kit availability for greater flexability in gaming choices

At any rate if any of the forum moderators read this and wish to make suggestion as to the best way to handle this ... I am listening.

thanks again.

( hope this works )

Reverend · « **Reply #23 on:** September 13, 2004, 01:46:19 am »

I am really sorry for this sort of attitude, or sentiment. I have always tried to give as much positive input, and 0% negative input, on any and all works. Unfortunately, after posting several similar phrases and gestures, they lose thier validity, or have been scoffed at, which, can be understandable. My intention was to be a cheerleader, but, not enough here and too much there make me seem foolish. I just wish I could have had more of the impact I had envisioned. For this I am truly sorry, you guys really do make a difference in more ways than one.
For a good tie now, I had serious solid designs and approached Those That Choose for creation of 'my' 'own' kind of Star Trek tactical combat simulator, a kind of mish-mash of what seems popular, over time, but as you can see with the new forum, its a pointless venture and wsted dream, at this point. In a much lesser way, I can understand your persuasions. I just hope my feeble words can at least quell your disappointment(s)... there are those of us who are continually fascinated by others boundless creativity.

Red_Green · « **Reply #24 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:56:41 am »

Is this a safe place to gripe a bit? I kinda agree with WZ's earlier post,(2nd one from top) The request threads are often 30 hits long and the release threads are maybe 8 and then its forgotten or nitpicked to death. Now I don't want to get in hot water with you WZ and mean this just to offer a reason why people might go back to ships less accurate and even not as well done as yours. Computer overhead. I notice your style of mapping involves a dozen or more textures. I had 1 ship (The earlier Titan version done by Azel and textures by you that took 2-3 minutes to load on my system. I since upgraded my graphics card, but the average on my old card for ship loading was 30 seconds. Thats why even though you have the best Voyager out there, it doesn't show up in mods that need to run a server for the masses.

RANT-Here is my personal beef-probably said it before in a different way and I probably should just let it go and move on but............
Ever since SFC3 came out it really ruined this forum. I got tired of the game always being cut down and ended up ill advisedly flaming back at the community over it out of pent up frustration. My models here have always attracted derided comments going back to 1st ship. Though the majority here are supportive, the people that were so diruptive trolls in the past left an impression about this forum that I can not seem to shake. Recently I moved to different forums and found much less nit picking and they are geared towards the game I prefer.

RANT-Oh 1 more thorn in my side. I am sick of Feds. Again no dis respect to those that mod. But for example, I spend 6 months on a mod that features Minor SFB races and the 1st thing out of anyones mouths is the mod doesn't have enough Fed ships in it. Geez its a mod that is not designed to be mainstream and the readme says what it entails and a few d/l it and all they want to do is play FEd right away. Or I love the comments about they wish it was more like stock. Hey easy solution. Play the stock game then oh and pre-patch so it crashes a lot

END RANT

Regarding this online game format or whatever the hell its called. I don't care for it at all. I suspect I will be modding SFC3 years from now like those diehard SFBers that still play after years, It gets to be nostalgic after awhile I guess. The online roleplaying is no fun if you enjoy modding the game more than playing it. Its a cash cow with the monthly feee and all.

EDIT-hey sorry if I missed the theme of the thread but the original posts seamed to offer 2 or 3 topic areas.

wulf111 · « **Reply #25 on:** September 13, 2004, 08:02:21 am »

i have to admint upon hearing that Star Trek is moving to a P2P format is very distresing since i REFUSE!!! to pay more money for a game i have already paid almost $50 for. So if i see a tag on the box of a game that says "Internet connection required to play" i usually just throw it back on the shelf and tell myself "screw that". i did try everquest once buti thought it boring and a waste of time and money i rather spend time doing something more constructive like designing new ships for SFC. Using my imagination instead for going "pokey, pokey, sticky, sticky" to some digital monster that i doint get crap for killing. I mean whats more fun that flying a ship YOU!!! created.

Reverend · « **Reply #26 on:** September 13, 2004, 08:10:02 am »

Quote from: wulf111 on September 13, 2004, 08:02:21 am

i I mean whats more fun that flying a ship YOU!!! created.

..or one someone you know created! I got a claim to fame! Yeah!!

wulf111 · « **Reply #27 on:** September 13, 2004, 08:30:26 am »

Amen Rev

Red_Green · « **Reply #28 on:** September 13, 2004, 01:24:38 pm »

Online games won't be going away. I just read a post in another SFC game forum. It said over 50 dynaverse members are online playing EVE. They here about it via word of mouth from other Dyna players. Worse yet, Eve has over 100,000 total members. With monthly fees its like selling 100,000 copies of the game every month. This makes releasing games without monthly fees unattrative to gaming companies. Look at all the developors that keep kicking the bucket.

Core · « **Reply #29 on:** September 13, 2004, 02:40:12 pm »

i personally heard of eve even before its realise but only had the chance to try it out last month for 10 days and i can tell you that the game is very good ... although a tad lagy for my tastes but most of the elements needed to do an ST game are there though some aspects are clearly redundant like mining for instance there are some other thing that are off but hell its the first game of this developer so its very good considering

OlBuzzard · « **Reply #30 on:** September 13, 2004, 05:31:03 pm »

What all of this comes down to guys is seeing the "creative aspect" of this game .. and others to come as well (ie NWN ) will evaporate.

Each of you have expressed the desire to see it continue. ( Wheather you believe it or not) ... Even WZ and Azel who seemed to be bent on me taking something out on them (BTW.... there is no way on the face of this earth that is the case. I deeply respect their work and the means in which they choose to share it with the rest of the community. I further more think we have expressed that appreciation without any form of contradiction. They are both simply some of the best examples of talent this community has to offer.)

The dream slipping away has more to it than just 2 or 3 personal ships that I mentioned... (even if some of you are sick of Feddies ... sorry but until i get a bit more experience under my belt with some of the others I simply work on what I know best. ) It should be noted that a big part of that dream was to work on the Klingon ships ... and without going back to an old thread let's just say that Azel demonstrated his impeccable ability to draw from a very deep well of file picts with over whelming totally awesome ships that could be modeled. Yes there are others .. ( I believe that someone recently requested Mirak ships.)

My over all point is simply this ... all of this dies under the new "pay to play" format. Creativity will be pushed aside.

Granted there will be a lot of $$$ made by someone. As a purchasing director for the company I work for I can appreciate that. If, however, there is a very real living community at risk here ... should we not have a deeper appreciation for those who devote their time and efforts? Should we not at least try on their behalf to do our part to share with the future developers how much a part of this community this sort of modeling and development means to us.

That to me is the least we can do.

GotAFarmYet? · « **Reply #31 on:** September 13, 2004, 05:41:56 pm »

As I said I will not pay to play on-line. I will only buy games that have a single player option, and usually check out the on-line stuff but don't have the time to invest on that type of thing.

Reverend · « **Reply #32 on:** September 13, 2004, 11:30:09 pm »

This probrobly belongs in another forum, but I am either too proud or too ashamed to post such there.... but.. (if you guys feel it doesnt belong, say so, and Ill delete it noooo problem)....

I have already invested some money into a concept of using similar functions, feel, and playbility of SFC, but making it into a harmonious, consistent, continuous space format.. no hex map, just a drop down ''hex coordinate'' for those desiring so. You could dock with bases, planets, operate your shuttle independently, and even run a little character around here and there. Various other features I shouldn't speak of, but I promise it'd be at least entertaining. I wished to see the tactical combat simulation of SFC combined with the universe of Star Trek, minus the MMORPG group carrot-on-a-stick tactics.
I feel that one could combine a standard 'single player' game's settings with a select few of the characteristics of many online games into a harmonious, enjoyable adventure for all.

Unfortunately, someone else beat me to the punch, and is creating a game that will be Star Wars Galaxies but Star Trek stuff instead. Despite what little has been said, it says enough. That someone else also made games that had nothing to do with Trek beforehand, so that gives them the "experience" that makes them 'feasible' and 'trustworthy'. In other words, they come from established companies, companies that can make stuff that makes money. Which is cheating in my book.

The whole point of saying all this is that were I in a magical world, I would think that there could be two versions of such a thing... if the money to pay back the script writers, programmers, graphic artists, so on, that I had to charge to play, then I figure I could just do this.... the "box game" would come with said (and unsaid) items/features. IF you wanted to play with/against everyone else, then...

See, I figure the ever-popular MMORPGs are going to run out a lot of customers out of the video game market, only that you HAVE to pay to even look at it. Suppose Reverend's game sucks? Well, you bought the box, you can trade it at Game Exchange or sell it on Ebay... but at least you don't have to put your bank account at risk to just have the opportunity to see if my stuff sucks or not.
Suppose its nifty, and you want to fight them 9th Fleet wackos? Well, a nominal fee could apply... of course, then there is Bioware... they dont pay to play their games online... hmmm...

Then, there's the modability issue, which would make such a project unacceptable without its implementation.

Centurus · « **Reply #33 on:** September 13, 2004, 11:47:32 pm »

Personally, I don't care if the next game is an online only game or not. What I really don't like at all, and this is the only thing I don't like, is pay-2-play, and I believe that's what Buzz was trying to say, plain and simple. If the game is online only, well, they could kinda up the price a bit so that they get their money back, and we are left with a game that we can play as frequently as we wish without any additional charges, and if we don't like it, we can always sell it to someone else.

The main thing, I believe, here is this pay-2-play nonesense. That is what has to go, and we, as a community, as an organization in our own right, should do our best to try to convince them that pay-2-play is the wrong way to take Trek games.

The question is simple. Who else here feels this way too? I'm willing to bet my recently promotion in the 9th that this is exactly how Buzz feels, that the pay-2-play has got to go. Anyone else?

News: