Topic: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot...

[KBF-Crim]

Ok boys and girls.....here's your chance(maybe the last) to make your voices heard on the subject.....

The Quicksilver devs are posting at STGU...they have hinted at a future PC game...

Here is steves word on the subject from his forums...

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, January 30, 2006 - 04:46 pm: Edit

It's not for us to contact them. They can contact us if they want. Unless Paramount told them it was ok to talk to us, no point in us talking to them.

Here is the thread:

http://startrekforum.stgu.com/showthread.php?t=8243

I have proposed a duel ruleset product...one ruleset for the trekkies...one for us(SFB)...

Now is the time....there is the place...

Take a moment and share your views on the subject....

I'm going to start working on Harry Lang next....

WE CAN GET THIS DONE IF WE ALL PUSH HARD ENOUGH AND SHOW THEM THERE IS STILL REVENUE TO BE GENERATED BY AN SFB BASED PRODUCT.

GET OFF YER DUFF AND SHOW THEM THE MONEY!

The future is STILL bright....

[KBF-Crim]

Well...just talked to Harry....he has a new job....he is no longer in charge of Trek gaming....

http://startrekforum.stgu.com/showthread.php?t=8043

I'm sorry I missed this with working so much...I would have let you all know soon enough to post a goodbye...

Bummer...

[Bonk]

Let me stew on how to lobby Mr. Fisher, I must figure out how to contain my disappointment in their efforts to make an SFC game for the gameboy style platform, ignoring the obviously superior PC platform and adult audience.

The problem is that SFB/SFC is really for old farts like us, but all the money is in the teen and pre-teen markets.

[Lepton]

Well, I had typed up an encouraging response over there but lost it all when I tried to post it.  I'll try again later.  Basically, I think we can argue that they should merely consider scaling up the current title for the PC.  That will get the ball rolling.  If they are willing to go that far, we can perhaps influence what the game contains.  I'm not hopeful that we can get everything we want, but at least getting them to consider such a thing is a first step.

[Lepton]

Also, to be frank, I think that Trek MMORPG is going to fall flat on its face.  The most popular ones I can think of are all individual combat based, Warcraft, LOTR, Everquest.  They are action-based, whereas Star Wars Galaxies which while it has a good deal of action, the whole professions element I think was a big flop.  This is why that game has undergone so many revisions to become more combat oriented.  People might think it will be cool to be an engineering officer, but I don't think they are going to want to stare at an LCARS display for hours.  Too much like work.  If there is anything we know, it is that people like to blow stuff up.  Don't give them enough of that and they head to the door.

[Bonk]

... but I don't think they are going to want to stare at an LCARS display for hours.  Too much like work.  ...

I'm not so sure, have you seen Eve? More "paperwork" than Fed&Emp and wildly popular...

[FPF-DieHard]

The level of complexity can be pretty high as long as it is automated.

[Age]

  Harry Said the same thing over at STGamers he is now left for good.I don't that you will get this as it isn't in the Hand of Paramount but CBS.That is right CBS owns the right to Star Trek not Paramount.The split within the Viacom network happened when Mr Redstone retired.Vic knew this last June but kept it to himself.The new Lagacy coming out similiar to SFC2 can unify the D2 and D3 communties but the games will look more like SFC3 no drones or scatterpacks.G at W weren't be very marketable to all the ppl who play Star Trek gaming.The ppl now in charege of Star Trek are CBS and we don't know who that person is I do think it is some woman and gave hint of letting Star Trek rest for 10 years on the screen that .

Here is what Harry had to say on Star Trek Gamers

http://www.startrek-gamers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=855&highlight=

 If Lagacy and TA sell well there maybe a Lagacy 2 and TA 2 who knows but not in the SFB version.I believe of you want the type of game best ot contact Interplay but Lagacy has to do with Maddock.I never told anyone on board about Harry leaving except Frey as I sent him a PM on it he wanted it kept quiet.

[FPF-DieHard]

Make it Trek but make it moddable enough that it can be SFB.   Best of both Worlds 

[Lepton]

Isn't Legacy an RTS type game?

[KBF MalaK]

When are they gonna make me a 'simulator' like Klingon Academy, that you can mod, and freely roam a online universe like Dynaverse ?

[KBF-Crim]

Age....forgive me....but shut up...

Your responce means you either didnt read what I posted....or You frankly dont have a clue what I'm talking about...

Edit:

On hindsight...that is rather harsh...

Let me take you by the hand and illustrate why you missed what I said....

I have proposed a DUEL ruleset title....

The company doing tactical assault is QUICKSILVER...

QUICKSILVER was involved in SFC1...the first SFB based SFC game...

Interplay doesnt have the rights to do ANY startrek games...PERIOD...

Steve Cole is willing to talk about another licensing deal....

The fact that Paramount is no longer in charge can be a GOOD THING for this proposal....

Now get on board...or get thrown overboard...

And the rest of you shmoes...get over there and post before Quicksilver does....

Show them there is interest!

Or I swear to Khaless...I will crash these forums!

 

[KBF-Crim]

First reply from quicksilver...

Rantz
ST:Tactical Assault
Creative Director
Quicksilver Software
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 16
   
As Cory noted in another discussion, a sequel to SFC is in Bethesda's hands, and (I would suspect) is largely dependent on the performance of how ST:L and ST:TA (*neither* of which are STB, for obvious reasons) do in the market.

You guys want SFC:4, it's pretty much in the fan's hands. Buy lots of copies of the games when they comes out, write letters to Bethesda, and let them know that you would buy oodles of copies of of SFC:4. Prove to them the numbers warrant it. Because if SFC: 4 is what you want, that is what it takes.

The games that are in dev now are locked as far as design goes, so what they are is what they are. Nothing design-wise is changing at this stage with a release date of September bearing down on us (which for console replication means the game really has to be done in June.)

I can tell you (being that there are a lot of orginal SFC team members at QS) that there is a lot of love for the first SFC game here at QS.

I dont care about the hand held that much...although I may buy a copy as a gift for a family member who has one.....I do care that he didnt shoot me down out of hand...

And basiclly told us what I allready knew...

You want an SFC4.....get off your duff and show them the money!

It is at least now on his mind...and he will talk to others at the office...

Now we need to work on Bethesda....we have roughly 7 months to make our case...

We need to show them why another deal with Steve is a good idea...

If they build it.....we will come...

[EmeraldEdge]

I imagine some folks around here may feel a little burned after the last "Hey, go out and buy as much as you can so you can maybe get the game you actually want at some point down the road" campaign.  I know a lot of the folks I know were.  It didnt' turn out, either.  That said, I think a strong letter campaign and anything else we can muster together would definitely benefit the cause.  We should come up with some general points that folks should include in their letters (not a form, but a guidline of what to include and how, maybe?) and of course contact info for anyone and everyone who might have something to do with the decision making process.   Maybe we could hold a rally outside their offices.  Everyone can show up with signs that say "GIVE US SFC or GIVE US DEATH!".

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I imagine some folks around here may feel a little burned after the last "Hey, go out and buy as much as you can so you can maybe get the game you actually want at some point down the road" campaign.  I know a lot of the folks I know were.  It didnt' turn out, either. 

I know exactly what you mean.  I never bought into that line last time.  This time, however, I'm willing to be a little more hopeful.

Last time, we were dealing with a company that HAD what we wanted, and made a conscious decision to make an SFC game that was a move away from from what we wanted.  Then Eric suggested (in good faith I'm sure) that if we wanted a move back to the the game we used to have, then the best way to show that to Activision was to buy a lot of the game that was a move away.  That never made sense to me.  Since SFC3 wasn't a game that interested me on its own merits I thus gave it a pass.

This strikes me as different.  This is a game NOT called sfc, that a different company associated with sfc1 is making as a new product.  This time perhaps we can show them that there is a market for this sort of thing without shooting ourselves in the foot vis a vis what we want at the same time.

Maybe I'm whistling in the dark, but I'm willing to feel hopeful it can be done.

-S'Cipio

[Dizzy]

WTF r u all talking about? OP still doesnt work right and now you are thinking that if you write a few letters it will make it all work? I think I missed your platform here. What's it called, glass?

[FPF-DieHard]

Hell, I bought 2 copies of SFC3 just to keep this alive.  What's another game?  It might even be fun   

[Lepton]

I don't have alot of money to toss around so I doubt I will buy Legacy and I don't know a hand-held so TA is out as well.  Not to be a party pooper, but why would I buy a game I don't want to make someone make a game I do want?  Perhaps it would have been slightly brighter if someone had asked the Trek community what kind of games they want.  I am not sure that the answer they would have received would correspond to Legacy or TA for that matter.  Star Trek Online?  That one is pretty obvious yes for the Trek fans, but Perpetual is coming a little late to the party on this one if you ask me.

I know QS is in the business of making money.  All companies are, but the call to buy beaucoup Bestheda titles seems a tad disingenuous.  I can see the logic in it.  Don't get me wrong there, but if I bought Legacy, wouldn't that lead the company to believe I would prefer a Trek RTS when I don't?  Presumably someone has studied this market, but whatever conclusions Besthesda or anyone else may have come to, those conclusion don't seem to apply to me as a consumer, nor I suspect to many of us here.

[Julin Eurthyr]

On this whole "buy Trek and SFC 4 will come", consider this:

SFC 1 came out when slapping "Star Trek" on a game box was an "ironclad guarantee" that a game would sell close to 500,000 copies.  See the Klingon language disk and Borg "games" for proof of that.  We just got lucky that a dev-house thought that making a SFB-based game would hopefully translate into a blockbuster.

And I 've been thinking of something else.  Perhaps the biggest thing holding back SFC 4 is, well, us.  Consider:

At "our" behest, 14 deg. East and Taldren both broke from their respective publishers in the release of patches, see SFC 1.03, every EAW patch between 2.0.7-ish to 2.49.99999999, and what happened with SFC III.  (Interplay knew Taldren's patching-wishes for OP, and said "okay, patch OP in your own way, we'll save the QA dollars"...)

We've essentially "voted" for what we "demand".  Every forum from I-play through Taldren to here seems to insist that the SFC crowd will not be happy unless a game is released that is a 100% faithful translation of every SFB-edition from plastic-baggy to Captain's, with over 100 switches to turn on-off all the optional rules from every ruleset...  Being that every successive edition of SFC has sold worse than the earlier one (after we flame it for not being SFB-accurate), well, think like a suit for a minute at what kind of game will sell to us...
Back that sales number up with the flamewars that are probably sitting in some internet-archive somewhere and...

And top that off with issues of complexity.  Reviewers complain that SFC is too complex for even the RTS crowd, managing power while maneuvering for range and arc while considering what position you need to be in to maximize damage from your guns and minimize damage received from a subset of 20-odd different weapon charts overwhelmes even the most stat-minded "I know every number on my RTS outfit's forces..." player.  And the code seems to be as complex as a Microsoft production, being that there are still bugs in this game after 20+ different builds.


To me, there's only one way we can dream of SFC 4 coming out.  Let them start with Tac-ops, and hope that it's not too complex for the twitchy DS players out there.  Once we hook a new generation (of about 500,000 PC and handheld owning houses) on the basics of SFC-operations, make a sequel or 2 where various SFB-ish things are added in slowly, so that in a year or 2, when the 4th Tac-op derived game is released, it's our wish, ie, SFC 4...

[Bonk]

What EmeraldEdge, GDA-S'Cipio, Lepton and Julin Eurthyr said.

I'm pretty sure that the only hope for the product we want is a not-for-profit, ADB approved, non-trek game that we develop ourselves.

I agree that the logic of buy a product you do not want to get a product you do want makes no sense at all, it would just encourage them to make more products we don't want.

Crim, ever the optimist (God Bless im), feels that at least we have them thinking about it. Perhaps he is right, persistance might pay off, but I move that we do not purchase products we do not want, I'm of the opinion that will say more. Besides what percentage of us own a DS or even want one?

EDIT: I may even go post this vew on these threads under discussion, and in any letters I write to Quicksilver. Perhaps concealing my disappointment in them is exactly the wrong thing to do. They have totally missed the mark with this one, as I've said elsewhere, I'm pretty sure this is doomed to fail. Todays kids and teens are more interested in rapper street gang fighting games and the like, not SFB type tactical/strategy games for the nostalgic dice hounds of old.

As for the subject, I say it is crap, and I'm off the pot... flussshhh!

[Riskyllama]

Todays kids and teens are more interested in rapper street gang fighting games and the like, not SFB type tactical/strategy games for the nostalgic dice hounds of old.

um, hi?

[762_XC]

Whatever, just make sure it has Tholians, so Mavy buys a copy.

[Lepton]

Julin,

I think way you are saying is a bit hyperbolic.  If I am understanding you correctly, you are faulting us.  Here is what I have to say to that.

1.  Trek is a dying or decrepit franchise.  When SFC was released, TNG has been on for 10 years or more ready, and there were I think two other Trek series on television, etc, etc.  It is no fault of gamers that Trek has taken a down-turn. No fault of the Trek gamer that Trek games don't sell like hotcakes.

2.  Sequels almost always sell less than their predecessor except of course for the first sequel which often sells more, which was certainly the case with SFC and I am sure Halo, etc, etc.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the attitude of gamers except that they get bored. 

3.  If OP had not been merely juice up EAW with a non-working dynaverse as I remember and if SFC3 had not been a snoring bore, "let's recycle content" fiasco, there might have been some gaming enthusiasm.  OP was a good game for maybe 2000, but SFC3, which I think was released in 2002, was competing the Xbox and Halo, and its other release titles.  Do you really think that SFC3 is as good as Halo or Project Gotham Racing?  And I am not even mentioning the PS or GameCube.  This series of games has always been mediocre.  What can be expected from a small software company?  Not much unless you are Peter Molyneux.  I am not saying Taldren didn't do the best they could and work their butts off to keep us happy and provide great support.  They were great in that regard, but really the game quality just is not there, and that has nothing to do with the gamers.

4.  I have never heard anyone ask for a full translation of SFB to SFC here or anywhere else, and as we all know the real time nature of SFC makes it far different than SFB.  People have requested basically three things that I can think of:  SFB rules implemented in the game engine (No biggy), races that Taldren hinted at including in a sequel or could have included had they had the time, Andros and Thols, and some working SQL support which should have been there in the first instance.  That's it.  I have never heard anyone ask for Omega Sector race, Y module stuff, etc, etc, etc.  The "promised" and "obtainable" have been what we have wanted, not the moon and stars.  Oh and perhaps an actual use for scout ships.  Again, I don't find these to be unreasonable requests and if any of our requests strained Taldren's relationship with their publishers that has more to say about the publisher than anything else.  You wanna see some whining and bitching.  Check out the Pacific Fighters forums.  Every patch, it's "This plane is porked!!!", "Luftwhiners win again", yada, yada, yada. Check out the Star Wars Galaxies forums after every attempt they have made to "fix" the game.  I am sure there have been some good kick-ups around hold costs, etc, etc in SFC's history but I hardly think any of those issues were show-stoppers.

5.  SFC is hard??  Hard??  You must be joking.  Energy allocation is hard??  Lol, SFB is hard.  SFC is a breeze in comparison and I'd take SFC any day in difficulty to the other games I have played.  Steepish learning curve, perhaps, but hard, no.  And who in the hell is calculating anything when they play this game especially vs the AI??  You just get in range and shoot.  No biggy.  Reviewers will can anything that they don't pick up immediately on or don't understand immediately.  They are nearly worthless for reporting on any games that I might like to play.


6.  Your argument is the same one that ADB and/or SFB fanatics are trying to use regarding Federation Commander (SFB-lite).  I don't think it holds up.  Give people something simpler and easier to play and they will do so for awhile happily, then when they get bored they'll move on to the next thing.  Federation Commander is not going to save SFB by bringing new blood in, nor will Tactical Assault make anyone clamor for SFC4.  That's like saying eating a hogie will make you hungry for Beef Wellington.  It don't work that way. You like hogies, you eat hogies.  If Ubisoft can put out a sub simulator SHIII that has complexity ranging from point and shoot to plotting your own damn course and firing solutions and managing the duty roster of your crew OR a flight sim that has switchs for everything from complex engine management and torque effects to simple unlimited ammo and invulnerability, you bet your sweet butt someone can do up a game with SFB style that has as much complexity level as one desires.  It's merely a question of who has the will and the market to sell it to.

[Chris Jones]

Got to agree with Bonk on this subject. My teenagers like rapper fight games (well 1does). The other likes the Tekken series. Anyway, the real simple bottom line is money. What will make money. A good Star Trek title will make money, if done and promoted correctly, and not rushed to make a deadline. It may depend on the state of the Trek franchise when the game is released.

 The gist of the original post was to promote an SFB based SFC4, but it drifted into a discussion of the feasability of such a game, as I knew it would. I actually would support an SFC4, just so I could mod it, lol. In all seriousness, we have to see what Legacy actually offers us, and react accordingly. I believe that any Trek game from now on will be based on Star Trek canon, which only makes sense from the profit standpoint. Even though I am a TNG guy at heart, if I was able, I'd finance SFC4 and let you guys make it. It would then have a TNG expansion, optional. I'm almost 47, and certain TOS episodes bring back fond memories of the 70s re-run days. 'Corbomite Maneuver', 'Errand of Mercy, 'Doomsday Machine'. You'd think I would like SFB and the idea of it, but I actually had never heard of it until SFC in 1999. I actually did not embrace TNG until it's 3rd season, when I saw 'Yesterday's Enterprise'. After that, it was, Kirk who? J/k. TNG was finding itself for a bit competing with the movies at the time. I felt it was time to fondly recall the old but embrace the new (TNG).

For the record - the main reason I didn't run with SFC3 is that it was 'dumbed down' for the masses, and it only had 4 races, the ones almost anyone would know from TNG - hard to get excited about only 4 races after having 16 in OP. OP is more fun to mod and make into TNG - alas I am digressing. Also Bridge Commander was out, and it blew SFC3 away for TNG 'out of the box' anyway.

In summary, Trek gaming is not dead if we keep it alive by voicing our opinions and playing the games. I will help in your efforts to see SFC4, despite what I just wrote.

 - Chris

[Riskyllama]

1. How I see this is that: Every time another game comes out, SFC or not,, it becomes direct competition to the OP playerbase.
Examples: Eve, Battlefield 2, SW:galaxies, WoW, Guild Wars, the list goes on forever.

How many people did we loose when SFC3 came out? How many when Armada came out? Elite Force?
Every Star Trek game that comes out pulls people away from OP in much the same way. We need a working OP or we need a SFC4 that is exactly everything we want. There can be little hope in "buy this to get that".

[KBF-Crim]

Ok..we've gone WAY off target here...

This isnt a buy this and get that proposal...

This is a SHOW THEM WE WILL BUY THAT and GET THAT proposal...

Will a pure SFB based SFC sell as well?

Nope...I have no delusions of such...

Will a DUEL ruleset product sell better than OP or SFC3?

You bet your ass it will...

What time frame are we talking?

Years....two at least...maybe one if we are luckey....

Some of you are not seeing the IMPORTANT words that rantz said...and only seeing what any game dev would say..."buy our games"...

Well duh....ofcourse he wants us all to buy the game...

Let me separate the IMPORTANT and relevent words that Rantz said to US..the SFC fans...


As Cory noted in another discussion, a sequel to SFC is in Bethesda's hands,

Get it?

He is pointing us in the direction of whom we should be bugging...


and (I would suspect) is largely dependent on the performance of how ST:L and ST:TA (*neither* of which are STB, for obvious reasons) do in the market.

Like DUH....if these two games are flops....nothing we may say to Bethesda will influence another title

You guys want SFC:4, it's pretty much in the fan's hands.

Get it?

It's up to us to illustrate that we WANT SFC4....and that it WILL generate some decent income...

Buy lots of copies of the games when they comes out,

Again...duh...what Dev would tell you NOT to buy their current product...the more important information follows...

write letters to Bethesda, and let them know that you would buy oodles of copies of of SFC:4. Prove to them the numbers warrant it. Because if SFC: 4 is what you want, that is what it takes.

How much more simple can he put it...we wont get SFC4 buy sitting here and talking about past sales numbers or cry baby flamage of the past...we will get it by getting off our asses and getting busy for the next 7 months...

The games that are in dev now are locked as far as design goes, so what they are is what they are. Nothing design-wise is changing at this stage with a release date of September bearing down on us (which for console replication means the game really has to be done in June.)

This is code for  "please dont bug the crap out of us..we're busy and cant do anything you want right now....call again after June...

NOW...probably the MOST important piece of information that he gave us....

I can tell you (being that there are a lot of orginal SFC team members at QS) that there is a lot of love for the first SFC game here at QS.

Translation:...they KNOW SFC3 sucked...This has been talked about allready...and we would do another SFB based title(just like SFC1) if we get the chance...because we LOVE it just the way it was....

Now...if you dolts wish to opine the finer points of why we'll never see such a product...you get exactly what you wish for...nothing...

IF..on the other hand....you'd really like to see another SFB based Title...and see it done with all new code by the guys who ORIGINALLY did SFC....

Then by all means join me in my quest...

The worst that can happen is that it doesnt happen...and we have what we have....the best that can happen is that it happens...and we get a NEW game...

Why all the grief?

It's a beautiful tank.

[KBF-Crim]

WTF r u all talking about? OP still doesnt work right and now you are thinking that if you write a few letters it will make it all work? I think I missed your platform here. What's it called, glass?

WTF are YOU talking about?

Did you even read the post?

Did you follow the link?

Did you comprehend the implications of an all new coded SFB based title?

Would you STFU until you have done so?

[Bonk]

Will a DUEL ruleset product sell better than OP or SFC3?

You bet your ass it will...

I don't like where this is going at all... next it will be no seeking weapons...  Do you propose a duels based dynaverse for it? No wait lemme guess, the only ship class available will be the battleship and if you lose a game you have to go hide in the backyard for three days without food and never login again... 

[Bonk]

Will a pure SFB based SFC sell as well?

Nope...I have no delusions of such...

Again, which is why the product we want, must be not-for-profit, ADB approved,  NON-TREK and developed by us. Then profits will have absolutley no bearing on the quality of gameplay. It is the only acceptable solution.

[Bonk]

I have a better suggestion:

I'll buy three copies of whatever tripe they choose to produce (lets say Britney Spears and Paris Hilton nude mud wrestling with a 50 Cent soundtrack) if they'll authorise the release of the SFC:OP source, or even the Q3 engine... knowing that the sprites file components are runlen compressed is not enough, there are innumerable ways to runlen compress something...

[EmeraldEdge]

Ok, a lot of folks talk about "can't be SFB based, only Paramount canon", but what is Paramount canon really?  For many it's just phasers, photons, disruptors, and sometimes plasma.  zzzzz.  When you really look at Trek, though, you find so much more.  We've been down the road before.  Trek has shown that fighters exist, drones, etc.  it pretty much goes on down the line of what's available in SFB, except for a couple of races like the Lyrans and ISC who have nothing to stand on canon wise for their weaponry, I don't believe, but then the race themselves don't really (ok, the Lyrans have a little bit, but I keep hearing because they weren't in live action that it doesn't count as canon).  Really though, they encounter small "race of the week" races that have had far more fantastic technology that differs from theirs.  Why is it so abhorrent because someone happened to put it in a table top game first?

So now we all know that these things have appeared on the screen (even if just in a minor, minor role.  Some still want to deny it though) after having done the research.  Now let's take a look at all the other Trek games that people have loved over the years.  Hmmmm.   They all seem to invent stuff that didn't exist in Trek.  The special weapons that certain ship classes have (I flash back to Armada sometimes) sometimes have no ground to stand on as far as canon I dont' believe do they?  What about Elite force?  Why does is it so bad to others when an SFB ruleset is used as the base (not even firmly adhered to) of a game rather than someone just throwing stuff together and pulling it out of where the sun don't shine?  Beats me, but I wonder if a game like SFC was released and the fact that it was officially SFB based had been kept secret (yeah, there would be those who would see it on the outside, but if officially it wasn't so) then I wonder how the "other side" would have cried? 

Anyhow, I was also thinking about the comment:

Like DUH....if these two games are flops....nothing we may say to Bethesda will influence another title

Is that really true though?  Let's look at the fact that Bethesda has probably ponied up a fairly large sum of money to secure the rights to all Trek eras on all platforms. (yeah, we know the history of things like that.  I thought they said they were going to divide things differently so they didn't run into that wall again, but that's life I guess)  So, if these games don't do well, are they just going to say "well, I guess we'll take a loss on the millions we paid for the license rights" or are they going to try to find a way to make some money off of it?  Now, I'm not saying that folks shouldn't buy the game.  TA looks interesting to me and if I had a hand held I would probably buy it unseen.  I'd wait to see more before I bought for someone else (there were those burned by the SFCIII experience and I wouldn't want to taint them further before a good version of that kind of gameplay came out) though.  That's just me.  I would think that if they are aware of the problem that occurred with watering down SFCIII and a simple hand held game didn't cut they mustered then they might still be willing to look at doing a more complex PC version.  You know, realizing that making an imitation just doesn't cutting it, and then finally biting the bullet and making the real thing.   Anyhow, I would think that they would try to make something of the license even if these two games fail (but like I said I'd buy TA if I had a hand held, and I kind of like the name TA).


I have to agree with what Crim is saying though.  The guys from Quicksilver did say some important things (or at least allude to them).  There still appears to be interest in doing another SFC title.  They did say they had folks from the SFC1 era (I don't think we need to talk about how good that title was) who still had affection for that game.  We could certainly do a lot worse than getting the guys who made the most immersive SFC title of all, to do a new one.  That, however is up to Bethesda.  I would think that an organized campaign on Bethesda is warranted.  We gather as much information as we can about past titles in case asked about it, but we start slow and build, peaking about the time TA comes out.  That way it doesn't appear as though we have a lot of folks who quickly lose interest, but if we peak at release it will be at the height of sales (hopefully) and they will be in a joy zone more condusive to saying "Yeah, let's do something bigger!"   Heck, I'm serious about even doing a rally and holding up signs outside Bethesda (get what press you can there to cover it, of course) and rally for a new SFC.  Then, if they actually ever do agree we absolutely have to put our money where our mouth is and make sure lots of people buy it (and those who buy it buy lots of it, although that could backfire on a sequel which may not do as well if people don't buy as many multiple copies ) and get the real machine working to publicize it and get the word out.

Hey, maybe we should have a separate forum to discuss the movement, maybe "SFC: Operation Bethesda"

[762_XC]

Paramount canon is whatever some half-assed writer du jour comes up with. In otherwords, anything you want it to be.

How many tactical ST games have been put on the market, and how many of those have been successful from a gameplay standpoint?

The answers are too many and one, respectively. The reason the one has been successful is that it's based on tactically deep boardgame which has withstood the test of time.

The reason the others have sucked is because they are based on Paramount canon, with no substantial gameplay to back it up.

[Herr Burt]

Will a DUEL ruleset product sell better than OP or SFC3?

You bet your ass it will...

I don't like where this is going at all... next it will be no seeking weapons...  Do you propose a duels based dynaverse for it? No wait lemme guess, the only ship class available will be the battleship and if you lose a game you have to go hide in the backyard for three days without food and never login again... 

Not to worry:  he meant dual, not duel.

-S'Cipio

[KBF-Crim]

Will a DUEL ruleset product sell better than OP or SFC3?

You bet your ass it will...

I don't like where this is going at all... next it will be no seeking weapons...  Do you propose a duels based dynaverse for it? No wait lemme guess, the only ship class available will be the battleship and if you lose a game you have to go hide in the backyard for three days without food and never login again... 

Not to worry:  he meant dual, not duel.

-S'Cipio

Thank you....

[KBF-Crim]

Will a pure SFB based SFC sell as well?

Nope...I have no delusions of such...

Again, which is why the product we want, must be not-for-profit, ADB approved,  NON-TREK and developed by us. Then profits will have absolutley no bearing on the quality of gameplay. It is the only acceptable solution.

#1) If it's not for profit....how do you intend to compensate Steve Cole for his endorsment/premission/license?

#2) If it's non trek.....why would he even consider it....(remember anything SFB is considered a derivative product of his original license IIRC..it all exists within the Starfleet universe)

#3) again...if it's not for profit...WHO will do all this work?...and in what kind of time frame?

#4) and most important in my view.....since you've announced to all of us and the public at large that your full intent would be to circumvent copywrite law by creation of a clearly derivative product, and the back door use of Paramounts AND steve Coles intellectual property...who in their right mind would join you in such a clearly risky venture?

Profit or no profit...use of another's Intellectual property to create an unlicensed game is a complete no no around here....I dont see a change in policy just because you'd be the one doing it...

I'm sure Frey isnt about to risk our entire community getting shut down just to get a questionable, unlicensed game, done in maybe 5 years, that no one will be able to legally host, or be able to legally download...

Paramount shut down an entire community before...for doing the same exact thing...

Not trying to yank yer chain....just pointing out the completely obvious...

[GDA-S'Cipio]

#4) and most important in my view.....since you've announced to all of us and the public at large that your full intent would be to circumvent copywrite law by creation of a clearly derivative product, and the back door use of Paramounts AND steve Coles intellectual property...who in their right mind would join you in such a clearly risky venture?

In Bonk's defense, he did say "ADB approved", so he is not talking about theft.  The rest of your points are likely all true -- if it's not for profit then neither ADB nor the Trek license holder would be interested in giving us permission -- but he wasn't suggesting going around the law.

-S'Cipio

[Dizzy]

Why cant we just make OP work the way we want it?

[Bonk]

Profit or no profit...use of another's Intellectual property to create an unlicensed game is a complete no no around here....I dont see a change in policy just because you'd be the one doing it...

I'm sure Frey isnt about to risk our entire community getting shut down just to get a questionable, unlicensed game, done in maybe 5 years, that no one will be able to legally host, or be able to legally download...

Paramount shut down an entire community before...for doing the same exact thing...

Not trying to yank yer chain....just pointing out the completely obvious...

I suggested no such thing. Note I said ADB approval, if we didnt get that then it would not be an option. I'm a little insulted that you think I'm that simple. 

[Dizzy]

Bonk you're as simple as the parts needed to keep the shuttle flying. 

[KBF MalaK]

Profit or no profit...use of another's Intellectual property to create an unlicensed game is a complete no no around here....I dont see a change in policy just because you'd be the one doing it...

I'm sure Frey isnt about to risk our entire community getting shut down just to get a questionable, unlicensed game, done in maybe 5 years, that no one will be able to legally host, or be able to legally download...

Paramount shut down an entire community before...for doing the same exact thing...

Not trying to yank yer chain....just pointing out the completely obvious...

I suggested no such thing. Note I said ADB approval, if we didnt get that then it would not be an option. I'm a little insulted that you think I'm that simple. 

I would tend to believe that ADB is a licensee of Paramount's intellectual property so I don't believe that ADB would have any legal right to approve the project unless Paramount gave it's OK first.

I have a better suggestion:

I'll buy three copies of whatever tripe they choose to produce (lets say Britney Spears and Paris Hilton nude mud wrestling with a 50 Cent soundtrack) if they'll authorise the release of the SFC:OP source, or even the Q3 engine... knowing that the sprites file components are runlen compressed is not enough, there are innumerable ways to runlen compress something...

Without hesitation I would do the same, but I WILL NOT buy another Trek game just to show the companies that there is a market for Trek games, and eventually they'll make what we want. I already have the Trek games I can't live without, a half dozen MORE that really suck, and when all else fails- 'the original'  StarFleet Battles.

And to quote Dizzy

Play or don't play

I prefer to play, but not the ones I don't want to just to convince someone to make one I WANT to play.

Why would they when there's an army that WILL buy crap games ?

[KBF-Crim]

Profit or no profit...use of another's Intellectual property to create an unlicensed game is a complete no no around here....I dont see a change in policy just because you'd be the one doing it...

I'm sure Frey isnt about to risk our entire community getting shut down just to get a questionable, unlicensed game, done in maybe 5 years, that no one will be able to legally host, or be able to legally download...

Paramount shut down an entire community before...for doing the same exact thing...

Not trying to yank yer chain....just pointing out the completely obvious...

I suggested no such thing. Note I said ADB approval, if we didnt get that then it would not be an option. I'm a little insulted that you think I'm that simple. 

I dont think you are simple...in fact you are very complex..like most humans...

But the solution you propose while simplistic on its face...is fraught with complexities...

I understand you said ADB approved...but as we allready know from many conversations with Both Steve and Harry...ADB is forbiden from doing computer games on their own...they CANT give their approval for what you want to do...

The instant you add trek to it(which you have every intention of doing or else it simply wouldnt BE SFC)...you need a license from Viacom/CBS/Paramount or whom ever owns Trek...and those rights are allready exclusive to bethesda...

It doesnt matter if the product produces revenue or not...and Bestheda isnt going to sit quietly by while we use intellectual property that they most likey paid dearly for...

I understand your desire to construct the game as you have envisioned...

I also understand that Paramount/CBS/Viacom has a whole legal division with nothing to do but protect their Intellectual Property...I'm quite certain that Bethesda's contract ensures that P/C/V wont allow anyone else to use Trel in any type of venture that would endanger revenues to bethesda....

A free startrek game would most definately cut into potential revenues.....and P/C/V could be contractually forced to shut us down...or be in breach of contract...

I'm sorry...but the simplest way to get SFC4 done is to approach those legally entitled to produce the game and get them to see it our way....

[KBF-Crim]

#4) and most important in my view.....since you've announced to all of us and the public at large that your full intent would be to circumvent copywrite law by creation of a clearly derivative product, and the back door use of Paramounts AND steve Coles intellectual property...who in their right mind would join you in such a clearly risky venture?

In Bonk's defense, he did say "ADB approved", so he is not talking about theft.  The rest of your points are likely all true -- if it's not for profit then neither ADB nor the Trek license holder would be interested in giving us permission -- but he wasn't suggesting going around the law.

-S'Cipio

In my own defense..I was quite clear on points 1 and 2...

And I wasnt accusing Bonk of anything...just pointing out the obvious flaws with his plan....and I'm not even a lawyer...

from: Bonk on Yesterday at 07:32:17 AM

Will a pure SFB based SFC sell as well?

Nope...I have no delusions of such...

Again, which is why the product we want, must be not-for-profit, ADB approved,  NON-TREK and developed by us. Then profits will have absolutley no bearing on the quality of gameplay. It is the only acceptable solution.

#1) If it's not for profit....how do you intend to compensate Steve Cole for his endorsment/permission/license?

#2) If it's non trek.....why would he even consider it....(remember anything SFB is considered a derivative product of his original license IIRC..it all exists within the Starfleet universe)

#3) again...if it's not for profit...WHO will do all this work?...and in what kind of time frame?

#4) and most important in my view.....since you've announced to all of us and the public at large that your full intent would be to circumvent copywrite law by creation of a clearly derivative product, and the back door use of Paramounts AND steve Coles intellectual property...who in their right mind would join you in such a clearly risky venture?

Profit or no profit...use of another's Intellectual property to create an unlicensed game is a complete no no around here....I dont see a change in policy just because you'd be the one doing it...

I'm sure Frey isnt about to risk our entire community getting shut down just to get a questionable, unlicensed game, done in maybe 5 years, that no one will be able to legally host, or be able to legally download...

Paramount shut down an entire community before...for doing the same exact thing...

Not trying to yank yer chain....just pointing out the completely obvious... Wink

----------------------------------------------------------------

There is no getting around the fact that he fully intends to "turn it into" SFC....everyone reading the thread understands that....if it's not "trek" what would even be the point?

[Bonk]

I understand you said ADB approved...but as we allready know from many conversations with Both Steve and Harry...ADB is forbiden from doing computer games on their own...they CANT give their approval for what you want to do...

The instant you add trek to it(which you have every intention of doing or else it simply wouldnt BE SFC)...you need a license from Viacom/CBS/Paramount or whom ever owns Trek...and those rights are allready exclusive to bethesda...

It doesnt matter if the product produces revenue or not...and Bestheda isnt going to sit quietly by while we use intellectual property that they most likey paid dearly for...

I explicitly said, (very aware of the meaning) ADB approved and non-trek. Sigh...

Hypothetically speaking, lets say ADB made a RPG video game based on the Kzinti... (not that they actually would). You're telling me that Paramaount/CBS has a say in that? I think not... Larry Niven does, but the money grubbing hollywoodites can't say a damn thing.

All I'm saying, that the conditions I suggested are the only way we'll get the product we want. (Or by the release of the SFC:OP source).

We are continually modding and improving SFC:OP here as much as we can, but we cannot ask for money for it (nor do we want to), "Its All About The Game". By your definitions we are already guilty of heinous crimes against hollywood and should be shut down and locked up forever.

In any case, it is silly to argue over this, it only serves to create bad feelings when we both really want very nearly the same thing.

I understand your evangilism, but this:

Profit or no profit...use of another's Intellectual property to create an unlicensed game is a complete no no around here....I dont see a change in policy just because you'd be the one doing it...

Is uncalled for. I still did not suggest what you are accusing me of. Please slow down and ensure your reading comprehension is at 100%. I understand your passion, but please refrain from insulting my intelligence repeatedly. It will not help anyone here.

"Not-for-profit, ADB approved and non-trek", does not imply the unauthorised or illegal use of another's intellectual property by any stretch of the imagination.

Please retract your repeated accusations.

[Dizzy]

wtf is the matter with u peeps? Why cant we just keep modding OP till we get it where we want it?

[Bonk]

wtf is the matter with u peeps? Why cant we just keep modding OP till we get it where we want it?

Yes, that is what I have been working on.  (got that PvPHexhealtresetratio implemented... running another MySQL server load test probably this sunday based on votes...)

Edit: but we are limited by not having access to the client source...

[Dizzy]

Why cant we hack the weapons stats and make our own?

[Bonk]

Why cant we hack the weapons stats and make our own?

Have you opened the StarFleetOP.exe in a hex editor or decompiled it to assembly? It would be a very difficult undertaking and not legal to do so anyway.

[Dizzy]

What's the difference between me telling everyone on a server that my BCE is gonna have a 2x shuttle launch rate and having a displacement device work thru the .exe than thru a script? Do I have permission to hack and recompile the shiplist or am I breaking the law there too?

[Bonk]

What's the difference between me telling everyone on a server that my BCE is gonna have a 2x shuttle launch rate and having a displacement device work thru the .exe than thru a script? Do I have permission to hack and recompile the shiplist or am I breaking the law there too?

Oh, I kinda thought you might have meant that, but I was thinking you meant to modify the weapons (add, modify tables etc, which would require hacking the exe or the client source).

As far as I know we're allowed to mod shiplists and script missions to our heart's content!

[Dizzy]

Well, what are sprites?

[Bonk]

Well, what are sprites?

Sprites are the bulk of the 2-D graphics assets of the game contained in the sprites.q3 file. Quicksilver has implicitly given us approval to modify the file by providing information (albeit incomplete) on the file's structure. The executable is another matter however.

From the OP 2.5.5.2 Readme.txt:

--------------
15 Legal Stuff
--------------

Copyright 2001 by Interplay Entertainment Corp.  All Rights Reserved. Portions copyright 2000 Amarillo Design Bureau.  Some elements based upon the board games created by Amarillo Design Bureau.

 Star Trek Starfleet Command(R) :Orion Pirates(TM) Copyright 2001 Interplay Entertainment Corp.  All Rights Reserved.  Registered and Copyright 2000 Paramount Pictures.  All Rights Reserved.  Star Trek is a registered trademark of Paramount Pictures and Starfleet Command and related marks are trademarks of Paramount Pictures.  All Rights Reserved.  Interplay, the Interplay logo, "By Gamers, For Gamers", 14 East and the 14 East logo are trademarks of Interplay Entertainment Corp.  Taldren and the Taldren logo are trademarks of Taldren, Inc.  Exclusively licensed and distributed by Interplay Entertainment Corp.  All other trademarks and copyrights are the property of their respective owners.

SOFTWARE USE LIMITATIONS AND LIMITED LICENSE

General Product License.  This copy of  Star Trek Starfleet Command(R) :Orion Pirates(TM) (the "Software") is intended solely for your personal non-commercial home entertainment use.  You may not decompile, reverse engineer, or disassemble the Software, except as permitted by law.  Interplay Entertainment Corp. and its licensors retain all right, title and interest in the Software including all intellectual property rights embodied therein and derivatives thereof.  The Software, including, without limitation, all code, data structures, characters, images, sounds, text, screens, game play, derivative works and all other  elements of the Software may not be copied, resold, rented, leased, distributed (electronically or otherwise), used on a pay-per-play, coin-op or other for-charge basis, or for any commercial purpose.  Any permissions granted herein are provided on a temporary basis and can be withdrawn by Interplay Entertainment Corp. at any time.  All rights not expressly granted are reserved.

Modem and Network Play.  If the Software contains modem or network play, you may play the Software via modem transmission with another person or persons directly without transmission through a third party service or indirectly through a third party service only if such service is an authorized licensee of Interplay.  For the purpose of this license, a "third party service" refers to any third party service which provides a connection between two or more users of the Software, manages, organizes, or facilitates game play, translates protocols, or otherwise provides a service which commercially exploits the Software, but does not include a third party service which merely provides a telephonic connection (and nothing more) for modem or network play.  Authorized licensee services are listed on the Interplay Entertainment Corp. World Wide Web Site located at http://www.interplay.com.  This limited right to transmit the Software expressly excludes any transmission of the Software of any data streams thereof on a commercial basis, including, without limitation, transmitting the Software by way of a commercial service (excepting those specific commercial services licensed by Interplay) which translates the protocols or manages or organizes game play sessions.

Acceptance of License Terms.  By acquiring and retaining this Software, you assent to the terms and restrictions of this limited license.  If you do not accept the terms of this limited license, you must return the Software together with all packaging, manuals and other material contained therein to the store where you acquired the Software for a full refund.

And in contrast, the License.rtf from SFC3... (note the complete absence of any mention of ADB and the claim to ALL IP rights... I wonder what Mr. Cole has to say about that! ):

SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT

IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY: YOUR USE OF THIS SOFTWARE (THE “PROGRAM”) IS SUBJECT TO THE SOFTWARE LICENSE TERMS SET FORTH BELOW. THE “PROGRAM” INCLUDES ALL SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH THIS AGREEMENT, THE ASSOCIATED MEDIA, ANY PRINTED MATERIALS, AND ANY ON-LINE OR ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTATION, AND ANY AND ALL COPIES OF SUCH SOFTWARE AND MATERIALS. BY OPENING THIS PACKAGE, INSTALLING, AND/OR USING THE PROGRAM AND ANY SOFTWARE PROGRAMS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROGRAM, YOU ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE WITH ACTIVISION, INC. (“ACTIVISION”).

LIMITED USE LICENSE: Subject to the conditions described below, Activision grants you the non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to install and use one copy of the Program solely and exclusively for your personal use. All rights not specifically granted under this Agreement are reserved by Activision and, as applicable, Activision’s licensors. The Program is licensed, not sold, for your use. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Program and should not be construed as a sale of any rights in the Program. All rights not specifically granted under this Agreement are reserved by Activision and, as applicable, its licensors.

LICENSE CONDITIONS
You agree not to:
•   Exploit the Program or any of its parts commercially, including but not limited to use at a cyber cafe, computer gaming center or any other location-based site. Activision may offer a separate Site License Agreement to permit you to make the Program available for commercial use; see the contact information below.
•   Sell, rent, lease, license, distribute or otherwise transfer this Program, or any copies of this Program, without the express prior written consent of Activision.
•   Use the Program, or permit use of the Program, in a network, multi-user arrangement or remote access arrangement, including any on-line use, except as otherwise specifically provided by the Program.
•   Use the Program, or permit use of the Program, on more than one computer, computer terminal, or workstation at the same time.
•   Make copies of the Program or any part thereof, except for back up or archival purposes, or make copies of the materials accompanying the Program.
•   Copy the Program onto a hard drive or other storage device; you must run the Program from the included CD-ROM (although the Program itself may automatically copy a portion of the Program onto your hard drive during installation in order to run more efficiently).
•   Reverse engineer, derive source code, modify, decompile, or disassemble the Program, in whole or in part.
•   Remove, disable or circumvent any proprietary notices or labels contained on or within the Program.
•   Export or re-export the Program or any copy or adaptation thereof in violation of any applicable laws or regulations.

OWNERSHIP: All title, ownership rights and intellectual property rights in and to the Program and any and all copies thereof are owned by Activision or its licensors. The Program is protected by the copyright laws of the United States, international copyright treaties and conventions and other laws. The Program contains certain licensed materials and Activision’s licensors may protect their rights in the event of any violation of this Agreement. You agree not to remove, disable or circumvent any proprietary notices or labels contained on or within the Program.

THE PROGRAM UTILITIES: The Program contains certain design, programming and processing utilities, tools, assets and other resources (“the Program Utilities”) for use with the Program that allow you to create customized new game levels and other related game materials for personal use in connection with the Program (“New Game Materials”). The use of the Program Utilities is subject to the following additional license restrictions:
•   You agree that, as a condition to your using the Program Utilities, you will not use or allow third parties to use the Program Utilities and the New Game Materials created by you for any commercial purposes, including but not limited to selling, renting, leasing, licensing, distributing, or otherwise transferring the ownership of such New Game Materials, whether on a stand alone basis or packaged in combination with the New Game Materials created by others, through any and all distribution channels, including, without limitation, retail sales and on-line electronic distribution. You agree not to solicit, initiate or encourage any proposal or offer from any person or entity to create any New Game Materials for commercial distribution. You agree to promptly inform Activision in writing of any instances of your receipt of any such proposal or offer.
•   If you decide to make available the use of the New Game Materials created by you to other gamers, you agree to do so solely without charge.
•   New Game Materials shall not contain modifications to any COM, EXE or DLL files or to any other executable Product files.
•   New Game Materials may be created only if such New Game Materials can be used exclusively in combination with the retail version of the Program. New Game Materials may not be designed to be used as a stand-alone product.
•   New Game Materials must not contain any illegal, obscene or defamatory materials, materials that infringe rights of privacy and publicity of third parties or (without appropriate irrevocable licenses granted specifically for that purpose) any trademarks, copyright-protected works or other properties of third parties.
•   All New Game Materials must contain prominent identification at least in any on-line description and with reasonable duration on the opening screen: (a) the name and E-mail address of the New Game Materials’ creator(s) and (b) the words “THIS MATERIAL IS NOT MADE OR SUPPORTED BY ACTIVISION.”

LIMITED WARRANTY: Activision warrants to the original consumer purchaser of the Program that the recording medium on which the Program is recorded will be free from defects in material and workmanship for 90 days from the date of purchase. If the recording medium is found defective within 90 days of original purchase, Activision agrees to replace, free of charge, any product discovered to be defective within such period upon its receipt of the Product, postage paid, with proof of the date of purchase, as long as the Program is still being manufactured by Activision. In the event that the Program is no longer available, Activision retains the right to substitute a similar program of equal or greater value. This warranty is limited to the recording medium containing the Program as originally provided by Activision and is not applicable to normal wear and tear. This warranty shall not be applicable and shall be void if the defect has arisen through abuse, mistreatment, or neglect. Any implied warranties prescribed by statute are expressly limited to the 90-day period described above.
EXCEPT AS SET FORTH ABOVE, THIS WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, WHETHER ORAL OR WRITTEN, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, AND NO OTHER REPRESENTATIONS OR CLAIMS OF ANY KIND SHALL BE BINDING ON OR OBLIGATE ACTIVISION.
When returning the Program for warranty replacement please send the original product disks only in protective packaging and include: (1) a photocopy of your dated sales receipt; (2) your name and return address typed or clearly printed; (3) a brief note describing the defect, the problem(s) you are encountered and the system on which you are running the Program; (4) if you are returning the Program after the 90-day warranty period, but within one year after the date of purchase, please include check or money order for $10 U.S. (A$19 for Australia, or £10.00 for Europe) currency per CD or floppy disk replacement. Note: Certified mail recommended.
In the U.S. send to:

Warranty Replacements
Activision, Inc.
P.O. Box 67713
Los Angeles, California 90067

In Europe send to:

WARRANTY REPLACEMENTS
ACTIVISION (UK) Ltd., Parliament House, St Laurence Way, Slough, Berkshire, SL1 2BW, United Kingdom.
Disc Replacement: +44 (0) 8705 143 525

In Australia send to:

Warranty Replacements
Activision
Level 5, 51 Rawson Street
EPPING  NSW  2121
AUSTRALIA

LIMITATION ON DAMAGES: IN NO EVENT WILL ACTIVISION BE LIABLE FOR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES RESULTING FROM POSSESSION, USE OR MALFUNCTION OF THE PROGRAM, INCLUDING DAMAGES TO PROPERTY, LOSS OF GOODWILL, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION AND, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, DAMAGES FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, EVEN IF ACTIVISION HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. ACTIVISION’S LIABILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED THE ACTUAL PRICE PAID FOR THE LICENSE TO USE THIS PROGRAM. SOME STATES/COUNTRIES DO NOT ALLOW LIMITATIONS ON HOW LONG AN IMPLIED WARRANTY LASTS AND/OR THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, SO THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS AND/OR EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU. THIS WARRANTY GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LEGAL RIGHTS, AND YOU MAY HAVE OTHER RIGHTS WHICH VARY FROM JURISDICTION TO JURISDICTION.
TERMINATION: Without prejudice to any other rights of Activision, this Agreement will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with its terms and conditions. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the Program and all of its component parts.

U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS: the Program and documentation have been developed entirely at private expense and are provided as “Commercial Computer Software” or “restricted computer software.” Use, duplication or disclosure by the U.S. Government or a U.S. Government subcontractor is subject to the restrictions set forth in subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clauses in DFARS 252.227-7013 or as set forth in subparagraph (c)(1) and (2) of the Commercial Computer Software Restricted Rights clauses at FAR 52.227-19, as applicable. The Contractor/Manufacturer is Activision, Inc., 3100 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, California 90405.

INJUNCTION: Because Activision would be irreparably damaged if the terms of this Agreement were not specifically enforced, you agree that Activision shall be entitled, without bond, other security or proof of damages, to appropriate equitable remedies with respect to breaches of this Agreement, in addition to such other remedies as Activision may otherwise have under applicable laws.

INDEMNITY: You agree to indemnify, defend and hold Activision, its partners, licensors, affiliates, contractors, officers, directors, employees and agents harmless from all damages, losses and expenses arising directly or indirectly from your acts and omissions to act in using the Product pursuant to the terms of this Agreement

MISCELLANEOUS: This Agreement represents the complete agreement concerning this license between the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and representations between them. It may be amended only by a writing executed by both parties. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be unenforceable for any reason, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable and the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall not be affected. This Agreement shall be construed under California law as such law is applied to agreements between California residents entered into and to be performed within California, except as governed by federal law and you consent to the exclusive jurisdiction of the state and federal courts in Los Angeles, California.

If you have any questions concerning this license, you may contact Activision at 3100 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, California 90405, USA, (310) 255-2000, Attn. Business and Legal Affairs, legal@activision.com.

Granted, they do mention "licensors".



And from the OP serverkit source access that I have handled responsibly:

//   <Legal>   Copyright (c)  by Taldren, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
//   This document contains CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY, TRADE SECRET information
//   belonging to Taldren, Inc. and may not be reproduced, in whole
//   or in part, without prior written permission from Taldren, Inc.

You'd think I was some kind of irresponsible malicious twit the way you guys are grilling me... sheesh!

[S31-Riptide]

OMG you must be the first person in history to read the license agreements on, not 1 but 2 different games Bonk!!! DOH!

As to all the talk about Non-Profit... non-profit does not = free!  it just means that the company does not make more money then it takes to operate... hence you can pay your staff and pay for production but you can't make a buck!   

[Dizzy]

I still say we hack it. We dont need to tell anyone.... muhahahahaha

[KBF-Crim]

I understand you said ADB approved...but as we allready know from many conversations with Both Steve and Harry...ADB is forbiden from doing computer games on their own...they CANT give their approval for what you want to do...

The instant you add trek to it(which you have every intention of doing or else it simply wouldnt BE SFC)...you need a license from Viacom/CBS/Paramount or whom ever owns Trek...and those rights are allready exclusive to bethesda...

It doesnt matter if the product produces revenue or not...and Bestheda isnt going to sit quietly by while we use intellectual property that they most likey paid dearly for...

I explicitly said, (very aware of the meaning) ADB approved and non-trek. Sigh...

Hypothetically speaking, lets say ADB made a RPG video game based on the Kzinti... (not that they actually would). You're telling me that Paramaount/CBS has a say in that? I think not... Larry Niven does, but the money grubbing hollywoodites can't say a damn thing.

All I'm saying, that the conditions I suggested are the only way we'll get the product we want. (Or by the release of the SFC:OP source).

We are continually modding and improving SFC:OP here as much as we can, but we cannot ask for money for it (nor do we want to), "Its All About The Game". By your definitions we are already guilty of heinous crimes against hollywood and should be shut down and locked up forever.

In any case, it is silly to argue over this, it only serves to create bad feelings when we both really want very nearly the same thing.

I understand your evangilism, but this:

Profit or no profit...use of another's Intellectual property to create an unlicensed game is a complete no no around here....I dont see a change in policy just because you'd be the one doing it...

Is uncalled for. I still did not suggest what you are accusing me of. Please slow down and ensure your reading comprehension is at 100%. I understand your passion, but please refrain from insulting my intelligence repeatedly. It will not help anyone here.

"Not-for-profit, ADB approved and non-trek", does not imply the unauthorised or illegal use of another's intellectual property by any stretch of the imagination.

Please retract your repeated accusations.

Bonk...this is a discussion...not an inquisition...

I have said twice now that I have made no accusations....and I'll say it third time...

Again..what you clearly said..:

Again, which is why the product we want,

meaning SFC4 yes? ...because we want feds and klinks rommies and gorny toads and all the rest

 must be not-for-profit,

doesnt matter if it's for profit or not

 ADB approved,  NON-TREK and developed by us.

ADB CANT approve any game  Steve Cole has stated this several times ...his words...not mine...they barely got away with doing SFB online...and only because of they way it is set up

 Then profits will have absolutley no bearing on the quality of gameplay. It is the only acceptable solution.

again....for it to be SFC...it must have federation , klingon , romulan ,gorn , at least ...and as soon as you add that....yes...like it or not...you will be violating Paramounts copywrite....whether they choose to excersize those rights is another matter

--------------------------------------------------------------

Look...I said I understand your desire to do it that way...

but after thousands of hours of reading relevent discussions concerning all parties in the matter...I also understand why we CANT do it your way...

So YES....technically speaking....ANY time we modify the game in any way...we have created a "derivative product"....even something as simple as getting the scource code and fixing one bug...or fixing the server kit....

All this came up during the relevent dicussions on release of source code....

Just because Paramount is being gracious enough not to hammer us for it.....doesnt mean they will allow us to do another game with the clear intent to mod Feds and klinks back into it...

I cant retract something I didnt say....and I wont retract what is the plain truth...

I didnt accuss you of doing anything....I'm saying that we CANT do it that way for various listed reasons....all of which are valid...

I have to go to work....but I'll be home at 3am eastern and I'll take the time to pluck the relevent posts and put them here for you...

PS...it isnt evangelism....I'm not evangelical...

I'm a Taldrenite.....this is Taldrenism...

[Bonk]

Against my better judgement, I'll continue this...

ADB CANT approve any game  Steve Cole has stated this several times ...his words...not mine...they barely got away with doing SFB online...and only because of they way it is set up

Explain this to me then:

Copyright 2001 by Interplay Entertainment Corp.  All Rights Reserved. Portions copyright 2000 Amarillo Design Bureau.  Some elements based upon the board games created by Amarillo Design Bureau.

It does not have to be trek, what I said is still perfectly valid. I get the feeling you're trying to make me look bad here.

There is absolutly no reason that ADB cannot approve an SFB based, non-trek game. Or are you telling me that ADB does not own SFB, but Paramount does?

A game does not have to be trek to be SFB based.

I have half a mind to cut a deal with Mr. Cole just to prove my point. You do not speak for ADB.

I have said twice now that I have made no accusations....and I'll say it third time...

What is this then?:

#4) and most important in my view.....since you've announced to all of us and the public at large that your full intent would be to circumvent copywrite law by creation of a clearly derivative product, and the back door use of Paramounts AND steve Coles intellectual property...who in their right mind would join you in such a clearly risky venture?

Profit or no profit...use of another's Intellectual property to create an unlicensed game is a complete no no around here....I dont see a change in policy just because you'd be the one doing it...

I'm sure Frey isnt about to risk our entire community getting shut down just to get a questionable, unlicensed game, done in maybe 5 years, that no one will be able to legally host, or be able to legally download...

Again, I ask you to retract these accusations and admit the possibility that you might be wrong.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

There is absolutly no reason that ADB cannot approve an SFB based, non-trek game.

Hmmm......  I've never bought any of the Omega Quadrant modules, or any of the Megallanic Cloud modules.  I know they have some really unique races and weapons out there.  Do they all also use weapons that couldn't exist without Trek?   (Are they still all armed with phasers?)

These regions did not exist when Steve Cole first wrote his treatise on "Why we can't make a computer game even though we know it would sell, unless someting changes at Paramount."

I wonder if ADB could legally market an "Omega Quadrant only" computer game?

Of course, the reason I never bought any of those products was because those races were completely isolated from the Feds, Roms, and Gorn, so I wans't much interested.  So I'm not sure how well the game would sell.

-S'Cipio

[EmeraldEdge]

Here's a thought ADB using all of their tables, etc. and just giving them different looks and names.  All of a sudden it's not Trek, because really the only thing in SFB that is Trek is the names and images.  The damage tables, and every other table under the sun, doesn't really represent anything "paramount canon" because there is no set standard for said canon, as it's always made up so they can pull out a magic photon at the last minute and be done with the problem.  Thus, they could probably do anything they want as long as the images and names have been changed.  Then, of course, after the game is released, modders could do whatever they want with it right?  They could make it into a Battlestar game, or a B5 game, or maybe even a Trek game.  Right?

Now I'm not necessarily advocating this approach, I'd much rather see an official game, but in the absence of that I suppose something like that could suffice.

[KBF-Crim]

Against my better judgement, I'll continue this...

Ok...

ADB CANT approve any game  Steve Cole has stated this several times ...his words...not mine...they barely got away with doing SFB online...and only because of they way it is set up

Explain this to me then:

Copyright 2001 by Interplay Entertainment Corp.  All Rights Reserved. Portions copyright 2000 Amarillo Design Bureau.  Some elements based upon the board games created by Amarillo Design Bureau.

Ok....I'll try.....I may have it bassackards....but here is the ADB published policy:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

STAR FLEET BATTLES     

FAQs
Frequently Asked Questions
   STAR FLEET BATTLES LOOKS A LOT LIKE STAR TREK. IS IT?

    Star Fleet Battles and the other games of the Star Fleet Universe are based on (but have expanded vastly beyond) the original 1966-69 Star Trek television show and use that material under a special contract with Paramount Pictures Corporation. We are not authorized to use Next Generation, Voyager, or Deep Space Nine, and we cannot use names of characters. You'll find Vulcans here, but not one named "Spock". Star Fleet Battles was created in 1975 and first published in 1979. Before the movies, we had already expanded the universe, adding many new races, ships, classes, and concepts. In that regard, Star Fleet Universe and Star Trek Universe diverged from a common origin.

   WHY ISN'T THERE AN SFB COMPUTER GAME? OR AT LEAST PLAY AID SOFTWARE?

    ADB, Inc. has contracted with Interplay to produce STAR FLEET COMMAND, which will have many aspects of Star Fleet Battles. Play-aid software may follow in future pending resolution of some questions between ADB, Inc., and Paramount. Until that happens, NO ONE can do computer software specifically for SFB. You can do your own and use it yourself, but you cannot sell it and you cannot even upload it or give it away for free (since that would cost us sales when we can finally do legal software).

   What new products are in development?

This is explained on our product schedule.
 
   I INVENTED THIS NEW RACE. CAN I SEND IT IN?

    Yes, but you should know a couple of points. New historical races are all but impossible to publish as they cannot be accounted for in the existing history. If you think you know a way around that, send us an email with a brief outline of your idea.
    The new Stellar Shadow product line will produce many new races in the Sargasso Sector products and in the Stellar Shadow Journal line. However, these will not be a part of the real SFB universe but part of alternative dimensions and timelines. (So if you want your race to conquer the Klingons in Y155 and fight the General War against the Feds, go right ahead.) We are no longer requiring people to pay for publishing of Stellar Shadows material.
    Now, if you want to go into business published your own SFB-compatible galaxy, we can offer you a galaxy license. This will involve paying us a chunk of change up front and royalties on your products, but we can offer you use of some or our material (Seltorians, Neo-Tholians, Andromedans) and a spot in Captain's Log. If you have new races for the Omega sector, you need to send them to Bruce Graw at Agents of Gaming. If Bruce rejects your idea you can send it to us and we'll see if we can work something out.

   CAN I PUT STUFF TAKEN FROM THE SFB WEB PAGE ON MY OWN WEB PAGE?

Sorry, but the answer is a polite but firm "no". Much of what we have would require getting permission from Paramount, a slow and expensive process that usually involves paying for the privilege. While some items could be authorized by ADB (which owns everything related to SFB that Paramount doesn't) alone, doing so would simply confuse the players and detract from the official SFB web page. Keeping track of who had been given permission to do what would require more accounting than the rest of running the business does. Sorry, just too difficult. Nothing from this web page can be placed on ANY other web page or BBS, with the exception of certain press releases which are clearly marked. We are considering a plan to provide some material for such use under certain conditions. When we have this concept worked out, we'll let everyone know.

   CAN YOU SEND ME SOME PLAYTEST STUFF?

Yes, but about 90% of the people we send playtest stuff never report on it and we can't afford the time to send stuff out without getting reports in return. If you want to playtest, get stuff from Module P6 or Star Fleet Times or the library here and report on THAT. After you show you can and will do the job, we'll give you all you want. We are aware that we did not adequately stock the playtest library in past but this is changing.

 
   I'VE ALWAYS INTENDED TO WRITE IN, BUT SOMEONE I MET AT A CONVENTION SAID THAT THE PEOPLE AT ADB WERE REALLY RUDE TO THEM. AND I HEARD THAT STEVE COLE DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING BUT PRAISE.

Don't worry about it. We're only rude to people who are rude to us first. And many people regard not accepting their submissions (no matter how ridiculous) as "rude" but we don't. Steve Cole hears praise all the time, and regards it as confirming the sales figures. Criticism is welcome if constructive and civil. By all means, if you don't like the way something is going, say so. If enough people agree with you, we'll go another way, but we wouldn't be going the way we're going if a lot of people hadn't said they wanted us to.

 
   IF I UPLOAD SOMETHING OR PARTICIPATE IN THE MAIL LISTS, DO MY IDEAS BECOME THE PROPERTY OF AMARILLO DESIGN BUREAU?

Yes, under the standard terms published in most SFB products, that is indeed the case. (And yes, this policy is completely legal in all 50 states and under the international copyright conventions.) If you don't want that to happen, don't submit it without first getting a waiver from ADB (which isn't easy to get and is never given for such things as proposed ships, rules, articles, term papers, scenarios, stories, etc.). There is another side to the coin, however. All submissions which are published are credited to the author (to the extent of his original submission) and the author receives compensation such as a free copy of the product for minor things and cash for some larger items at $15 per page. All submissions are subject to review and playtesting which may require changes to some extent.

   WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT MINIATURES?

We have over 100 ships in production for all of the SFB races with more appearing almost every month. During 2004 we released fleet boxes for the Lyrans, Orions, and Andros, and we released ships for the Feds, Gorns, and Hydrans.

   WHAT SFB MATERIAL CAN I POST ON MY OWN WEB SITE?

See our web policy document, but in summary:
1. Your personal gaming experiences or reviews are your business, not ours.
2. You cannot post anything from an official product. If you think that something should be on internet, convince us to put it on the official site. We can authorize you to use some art and images but you have to ask first.
3. Your proposals or new races, ships, etc. can be posted under the Web policy; see it for details.
 
   What happened to the old Prime Directive role playing game?

This was not done by ADB Inc. and did not sell well. We still have copies of these old products in stock but we have launched a new RPG using the GURPS engine.
 
   Will you ever do a D20 based RPG?

Yes! Click here for information on Prime Directive D20.
 
   Is the new Star Fleet Battle Force card game a warmed over version of the old Star Fleet Missions card game?

Not at all! SFBF is a new design based on the popular 'naval war' concept but with many new twists.
 

 
Copyright © 1991,1998-2005 Amarillo Design Bureau, All Rights Reserved    

Updated 3

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Bonk:

It does not have to be trek, what I said is still perfectly valid.

Not the way I read it...

I get the feeling you're trying to make me look bad here.

I could say something smartarsed....but no Bonk...I'm not...I'm trying to understand how I have it wrong and most likely not saying it right...

There is absolutly no reason that ADB cannot approve an SFB based, non-trek game. Or are you telling me that ADB does not own SFB, but Paramount does?

Again..I refer to the policy....maybe Steve has a different personal opinion...I dont know....From what I've seen posted it all depends on paramount...

A game does not have to be trek to be SFB based.

No.....but if it's not....why would anyone be interested?( I mean specifically this crowd) unless you intend to mod it later...

I have half a mind to cut a deal with Mr. Cole just to prove my point.

Go right ahead....I really hope you could swing one....He's been kind enough to reply to a couple e-mails.....E-mail him...it cant hurt to ask...*shrug*

I'm trying to get Mr Cole with Bethesda , Quicksilver,( or my grandma if it would get us another SFC  ) to cut a deal that will generate him alot of revenue...

Put want we want upfront....include a canon (moddable ruleset)....

Involve the community in the actual Game development (even quite a few modelers have said they would donate content for simple credit...)

And illustrate that such a product for a bigger market (because we will also be part of it) will be profitable to all parties...

I simply want them to all have the same conversation, at the same time, about the same thing...and think it's a good idea...

That's all...

I'm trying to get everyone else to help...

I didnt think it was a secret...

You do not speak for ADB.

No doubt....nor do I intend to...I also dont speak for Bethesda,Quicksilver, Paramount , Dynaverse.net,the modeling, scripting , or prgraming groups....not even SFC players...or especially *rubs head*....my wife...

I can speak for myself just fine...if fact...it often gets me in trouble *rubs head*...

I'm only telling you ...what Steve(ADB), Billfisher(Quicksilver), Harry(Paramount) allready told us all before when the topic of SFC4 got brought up way back on Taldren....

And continued here:

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163343938.0.html

It's not like we havent allready begged, groveled, swore our fist borns, or cried for SFC4.....

It's ten page thread....bring a snack..

I have said twice now that I have made no accusations....and I'll say it third time...

What is this then?:

1) A vain attempt to clearly express my point without being a complete Klingon?

B) Me somehow starting another flame war becuase of my big fat fingers?

R)Me trying to relate what I forsee as possible consequences?

10) Me trying to understand how I have it wrong after really really trying to pay attention.....( I hope I dont retain all this useless trivia crap in my head for nothing)

#4) and most important in my view.....since you've announced to all of us and the public at large that your full intent would be to circumvent copywrite law by creation of a clearly derivative product, and the back door use of Paramounts AND steve Coles intellectual property...who in their right mind would join you in such a clearly risky venture?

Profit or no profit...use of another's Intellectual property to create an unlicensed game is a complete no no around here....I dont see a change in policy just because you'd be the one doing it...

I'm sure Frey isnt about to risk our entire community getting shut down just to get a questionable, unlicensed game, done in maybe 5 years, that no one will be able to legally host, or be able to legally download...

Again, I ask you to retract these accusations and admit the possibility that you might be wrong.

Or what?...I dont get no SFC4?!? *sniff*

OK..SHEESH....I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of doing anything other than offereng a possible solution...

I admit I might be wrong....I mean it....I might be wrong...

Also...as  red green Fan...I also admit that:

I'm a man....but I can change.....if I have to...I guess....

I'm really sorry  if you took what I said the wrong way....I'm really  sorry If I releated my concerns the wrong way...

I only question your plan...not your integrity...

I mean no offense....

[Bonk]

OK..SHEESH....I'm sorry if you thought I was accusing you of doing anything other than offereng a possible solution...

I admit I might be wrong....I mean it....I might be wrong...

...

I'm really sorry  if you took what I said the wrong way....I'm really  sorry If I releated my concerns the wrong way...

I only question your plan...not your integrity... Wink

I mean no offense....

Thank you very much, it means a lot. I was just kind of upset that you'd think I would do anything to endanger the future of Dynaverse.Net after all the work I have put into it.

Regarding:

    ADB, Inc. has contracted with Interplay to produce STAR FLEET COMMAND, which will have many aspects of Star Fleet Battles. Play-aid software may follow in future pending resolution of some questions between ADB, Inc., and Paramount. Until that happens, NO ONE can do computer software specifically for SFB. You can do your own and use it yourself, but you cannot sell it and you cannot even upload it or give it away for free (since that would cost us sales when we can finally do legal software).

I have ideas that I believe have not occurred to ADB to circumvent these concerns. I'm quite sure I could come up with an acceptable proposal. But currently I am too busy with the OP serverkit and Dynaverse website to actually put it together. Once we have the OP serverkit stabilised on MySQL and a basic "Omniverse" implemented, I will return to these ideas.

Thanks again and carry on, I approve of your goal quite heartily. (but there is just no way I'll buy another SFC3 type product though, I still feel ripped off..)

[Dizzy]

I could say something smartarsed....but no Bonk...I'm not...I'm trying to understand how I have it wrong and most likely not saying it right...

oNLY THING i COULD RELATE TO THERE, CRIM. oops caps. 

sh*t wouldnt stick to Bonk if he was toilet paper.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

Sorry, but the answer is a polite but firm "no". Much of what we have would require getting permission from Paramount, a slow and expensive process that usually involves paying for the privilege. While some items could be authorized by ADB (which owns everything related to SFB that Paramount doesn't) alone, doing so would simply confuse the players and detract from the official SFB web page.

Totally off topic, and should probably get my own thread.   (Maybe even on ADB's bulliten board rather than here.)

The above quote is the part of SVC's post that grabs my attention.   As everyone who's branched out into different races in SFC will tell you, SFB is a good game even if you don't play as Fed, Rom, or Klingon.

I wonder if ADB has ever thought of licensing an Omega Sector only computer game?  You'd get the excellent SFB ruleset, you'd get the years of boardgame experience, and you'd avoid bumping into any paramount property.  (I don't think any of the Omega Sector races use plasma, disruptors, or photons.  Phasers might be a problem.)

The real problem is that you'd have nothing familiar to tie it to Trek.   That's why I've never bought any of the Omega Sector modules.  But lots of successful Sci Fi computer games have no ties to Trek so there is no reason that should be a killer.

-S'Cipio

[gplana]

I think it's pretty safe to say that ADB is not interested in doing a computer game themselves; the Steves are essentially board game designers. I also think that if some company (Bethesda, Quicksilver, or whoever) approached them and asked for a license, they could probably negotiate something that would make both parties happy.

There is one important point  to understand: ADB does not have the right to grant any other company the right to publish a Star Trek game, or to use any of Paramount's intellectual property (Paramount or whoever currently holds the rights to Star Trek).  As an insider, I am very certain about this point!

All ADB can do is license someone to use the SFB ruleset as the basis for a gaming engine which would be part of a Star Trek game ala SFC-SFC2-SFCEAW-SFCOP. Any company that wanted to publish a Star Trek computer game would still have to get a separate license from Paramount.

No SIG, sorry.

[EmeraldEdge]

But they could license someone to use the SFB ruleset as the basis for a gaming engine which would not be part of a Star Trek game either, right?

[GDA-S'Cipio]

I think it's pretty safe to say that ADB is not interested in doing a computer game themselves; the Steves are essentially board game designers. I also think that if some company (Bethesda, Quicksilver, or whoever) approached them and asked for a license, they could probably negotiate something that would make both parties happy.

There is one important point  to understand: ADB does not have the right to grant any other company the right to publish a Star Trek game, or to use any of Paramount's intellectual property (Paramount or whoever currently holds the rights to Star Trek).  As an insider, I am very certain about this point!

Hiya, Mr. Insider.   Very good to see you here!

Have no fear, I think everyone knows that an SFB game would have to be licensed by ADB for someone else to build, and that any Star Trek input would have to have Paramount's OK.  I'm still shocked it happened the first tiime, and can't wait for it to happen again.

And don't worry about not having a fancy sig.  Just add a big text picture that says, "Gorn is Good" and you'll be all set.  (You don't want anyone to mistake you for one of the "lesser" races.)

-S'Cipio

[gplana]

EmeraldEdge: ADB could, theoretically. But what you're suggesting (if I'm reading you correctly) is an attempt to circumvent having to get a license from Paramount. Doing that would p*** Paramount off royally, and maybe risk losing ADB's license? That would shut them down permanantly. So, it's just not going to happen, you can't possibly offer ADB anything that would be worth the risk. Sorry if I'm being too blunt, but that's my opinion.

S'Cipio: don't worry, I agree with you. Gorn's are good, especially with that BBQ sauce that has a lot of vinegar in it

(Did I mention that I wrote the Racial Background on the Paravians?)

-- Gary

[KBF-Crim]

Thanks Gary for putting that baby to bed....

Now...since that is settled....

We need to find out who to bug at Bethesda...

[Bonk]

So paramount effectively owns the SFB ruleset... bummer.    I was pretty sure that paramount had nothing to do with the Kzinti, or Seltorians or the other non-trek SFB races, but it appears they have complete control over ADB's future, that's a real shame.

[KBF-Crim]

So paramount effectively owns the SFB ruleset... bummer.

No...just the "trek" part of it...

I was pretty sure that paramount had nothing to do with the Kzinti, or Seltorians or the other non-trek SFB races,

They Dont...and Gary said so....but ADB has made a bussiness decision to not separate their product into devisions that will confuse their customer base...or Risk pissing paramount off...(at least from what I have read)

but it appears they have complete control over ADB's future,

Not at all...only the aspects that would directly compete with other aspects of paramounts licensing...like Trek based video games...

that's a real shame.

Nah...it's just the reality of the situation...

Once that reality is understood....then a clear plan of action can be initiated based on that reality....

Clearly....SFC was licensed to Interplay by both Paramount AND ADB...and quicksilver and 14east developed it...

It happened once..it can happen again....

Paramount has licensed Bethesda ....bethesda has hired Quicksilver to do tactical assault....

The only thing lacking is for Bethesda to purchase licensing rights for SFB....

We have seven months or more to convince them why this would be a profitable idea....

All I'm asking for is 3 words and an abbreviation....

" I would buy SFC4"

 

[EmeraldEdge]

gplana, no need to worry about being blunt.  That's how I like it anyway.  Besides, what you said has been said before, I believe.   I certainly wouldn't want to tempt the fates that have been lording over SFB for a long time.  You could, however use the SFB ruleset as a guidline to create an ADB specific universe.  A rough translation of the rules could just carry over to a new porperty, right?  Then, you would be free to make a pc game of it.  Heck, for my taste, it wouldn't have to be too fixed on SFB's rules, but the fact of the matter is that it's the type of game that a lot of folks here like, I think.  Yeah, SFB (and Trek in general) is important to them, but if an alternate universe were presented that had the depth of play, I think many would follow, as long as it had the depth and balance that a well established rule set offers, which is why I never understood so many people's aversion to SFB rules being implemented in a trek game.  They have been tested for a long time, as opposed to somebody haveing to pull an entire set of rules and mechanics out of thin air and then program it in one short period of time.  When basing something on a product like SFB, a lot of the work has already been done for you, imo.  Frankly I think that anyone making a Trek game based on starship combat is crazy if they don't take a long hard look at SFB.

[GDA-S'Cipio]

(Did I mention that I wrote the Racial Background on the Paravians?)

-- Gary

I especially liked the "extinction" part at the end.  Very nice work.  I wonder who could have tempted that sunsnake into their star?  <whistles innocently>

-S'Cipio

[Bonk]

So paramount effectively owns the SFB ruleset... bummer.

No...just the "trek" part of it...

I was pretty sure that paramount had nothing to do with the Kzinti, or Seltorians or the other non-trek SFB races,

They Dont...and Gary said so....but ADB has made a bussiness decision to not separate their product into devisions that will confuse their customer base...or Risk pissing paramount off...(at least from what I have read)

but it appears they have complete control over ADB's future,

Not at all...only the aspects that would directly compete with other aspects of paramounts licensing...like Trek based video games...

Translation; Paramount effctively owns the SFB ruleset and has full control over the future of ADB gaming. If I want to be real stubborn about this I guess I could confront paramount with this, ask them if they would shut down ADB if they approved or produced non-trek games... I'm betting they wouldn't, that would be horrible business practice and really bad PR for paramount, possibly even illegal?

All I'm asking for is 3 words and an abbreviation....

" I would buy SFC4"

I would buy SFC4, if it is SFB based, for the PC and in the spirit of OP, but even closer to SFB; more ships per fleet, more players, stasis feild generators, web casters, dis devs, still including seeking weapons and fighters, fighters and PFs for all races to put an end to this shiplist donation stuff, ditch the double layer map... put the cartels on the empire map, allow for working option mounts... etc, etc...

edit: ... better fleet controls, much smarter AI, a fully documented, stable "non-black-box" SQL capable Dynaverse serverkit with economics and shipyards that make sense and can be controlled, a fully documented mission scripting API ...

edit#2: non-reliant on third party code... (no gamespy, no WON, no smartheap, no Q3 engine...), more thorough firewall detection...

edit#3: non-directx and *nix compatible would be nice too...

[Julin Eurthyr]

From what I understand:

SFB is purely ADB's property.  Nobody else owns any rights etc. (unless SVC grants it a-la SFC).
However, because SFB has a lot of Star Trek in it (Fed, Klink, Rom, Gorn, Tholian, Orions to start with), Viacom (IIRC, the true owner of the Star Trek name, which until recently was a sub-division of Paramount), has a large say in what happens to the Trek-related portions of the game.

Therefore, a "non-Trek" Alpha-quadrant game, for now, consists of:
ISC, Hydrans, Lyrans, Vudar, Paravians, Andromedans, Seltorians.  A rename handles the Pirates, Neo-Tholians, Gorn, as their fleets bear no resemblance to any shown on TV Trek "canon".

Now, I could see an Omega Quadrant game being marketed, however, the audience would be small-ish, and, knowing lawyers well, there can be no modding so that there's little to no ability to make the SFB: Omega Quadrant game into a "backdoor SFC"

[Bonk]

What you say makes perfect sense, however, Mr. Plana has indicated that this will never happen for fear of offending paramount, thus paramount indirectly has complete control over ADB and all they do. (I'm playing devil's advocate here just to explore the logic presented). Given this, I'm suprised that paramount has allowed ADB to use non-trek races at all in SFB... It just irks the heck out of me that paramount can comandeer the entire SFB ruleset. If I were a developer at ADB I'd be quite offended that paramaount can lay claim to every weapon system, probablilty, HET rules, CnC etc.. though they did not put one drop of creative effort into it themselves.

[Julin Eurthyr]

It's a very, very complicated American legal web involving SFB there Bonk...

To try to detail it in the condensed version... :roll:

In 1973, Franz Joseph was "commissioned" to build Star-Trek related technical materials (the Trek Tech Manual / Deck plans).  As Mr. Joseph copywrighted these works in his name before presenting them to Gene Roddenberry, issues resulted, whether or not Mr. Joseph planned to essentially sign all rights over to Roddenberry / Viacom (Paramount).

Hence, while the manuals etc. were printed, the Trek Powers-that-be denied anything contained therein.

SVC approached Mr. Joseph, after the Animated series was over and Trek's future was uncertain, for rights to build a game based on the materials in his books.  Mr. Joseph granted those rights.

Hence SFB was born.

When the movies were coming out and Trek was reviving, Paramount (at the time Viacom's owner) proceeded to chase down SVC because of his "unlicensed use" of Trek materials (Connie, D7, Warbird hulls, racial names, etc.).  The ruling was, since SVC had a license to use the materials from Franz Joseph, Paramount couldn't shut him down.  So, SVC and Paramount made a separate "compromize" license arraingement, which allowed SVC to legally trace his materials back to the Trek source (hence the blurb "may contain some elements from the Star Trek TV show" on his products), and sent a small royalty back to Paramount.  Paramount also "protected" their standing in this process, preventing SVC from taking anything else from Star Trek that wasn't ennumerated in the Tech manuals etc., and specifically locking down "SFB-related" computer software.

So, ADB still owns all SFB material not drawn from the Franz Joseph & Paramount licenses.  That is why both ADB and Paramount's permissions were sought (required) for SFC, all the rules (HET, 90% of the hulls, extra races, etc.) are allowed in this game by ADB's license, and the "Trek" name, the movie-era Fed/Klink/Rommie ships, etc. were granted by Paramount.

Thusly, in theory, ADB could use the SFB ruleset, and 100% ADB-created materials (such as Omega Quadrant, ISC, Hydrans, Lyrans, Neo-Tholians under a different name, Seltorians, etc.) in a non-Trek-Related / referencing computer game.  In the meantime, I'm fairly certain that the first time someome released a mod that turned this game into "SFB" as we know it, with "Trek Related" components, someone's getting sued.  As that someone "might" be SVC, as it could be cited that he "circumvented" the agreement / restrictions in making that game, we understand his reluctance to market anything tying SFB and computers together without all the appropriate agreements (a-la SFC) made.

[gplana]

A few comments on the comments ...

While the background re Franz Joseph is more or less accurate, when TFG ceased operations some years ago ADB went to Paramount and got a license direct from them. Every product since CL18 has been published by ADB, Inc. and produced under that license. This has been public info for years.

ADB itself is never going to market a computer game of any sort; that's been said by them any number of times. These guys are board gamers, not computer gamers.

IMHO, the only way we're going to see SFC4 is either (1) the source code for SFC-OP gets released into the public domain, or (2) some company gets two licenses, one from Paramount and one from ADB.

[Riskyllama]

ok. Just to throw a wrench into part of this argument, the where does SFB Online fit into all of this? It's a computer game, with SFB rules, that has both Trek and ADB stuff in it, at least as far as i can tell.

[Lepton]

ADB is more interested in selling Federation Commander than killing the golden goose.  While I am sure they would come across with the permissions if approached since of course money would be forthcoming, ADB has its own computerized service as just mentioned.  I am sure they would rather sell subscriptions to that, than give away leave for someone else to do what they cannot do for some odd reason.

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

My two cents:

I concur that the Franz Joseph thingie is how ADB has been able to publish SFB all these years.  I also remember them nixing TMP versions of their ships, mentioning Paramount saying something or other (which is why the 'Ktinga' klinks are not currently official SFB canon, even though they briefly existed in Designer's edition Expansion 1, and promptly disappeared after that).

Also, can ADB do a computer game not involving the trek-based races?  Absolutely?  Would they want to?  Probably not, as most people who got into their game recognized the D7 and Constitution class, and the original series uniform artwork, etc.  90-95% of those of us that play(ed) SFB got into it BECAUSE it was a trek sim, and incidentally got to play (arguably) the best spaceship combat boardgame sim made to date.

ADB loves trek.  We love trek.  So I'd recommend directing your efforts to convincing Paramount/CBS/Viacom/Quicksilver and whomever else that:
1) Another SFC series game based on Starfleet Battles is wanted by the community
2) That there are enough of us in the community to justify doing the product
3) Get those ideas ready for cool, rpg-ish campaigns (I miss accumulating those officers in SFC1) to make the game more interesting.  I love SFC combat, but wish the campaigns were more compelling.  Having a more compelling storyline helps games sell better, and it'd be cool if you captain was an actual game entity with issues rather than an abstraction... Heck, Kirk is a very storied character, and it'd be neat if your Captain ended up having his own storyline (outside of Dyna RPG threads that is). 

Of course, most campaigns currently end up being the same for everyone, but RPG's are good at 'you made this decision so now you can't go down that other path', and I'm sure there are ways to script such options into SFC, if the programmers put the work in to allow it...

My goal would be to make SFC 1/2/OP more compelling to the average customer.  AND I'd even suggest that a 'SFC lite' option be part of the game (minus all the confusing stuff that us veterans enjoy so much), so that newbies don't get overwhelmed.  They can always play the 'advanced' version of said game later once the 'tactical challenge' bug has bit them.

Play level: Easy (no drones, boarding parties, etc.)
Play level: Medium (introduce some of the harder stuff)
Play level: Full (all SFB-ish nuances come into play)

Paramount and Quicksilver want a product that the most people are willing to buy, so they can make the most bucks, pure and simple.  So lets make our case that people ARE willing to play an SFB based SFC (if designed properly), and that the game will be the coolest thing ever!!!

I want Tholians and Andromedans dammit!

BTW, I am still lamenting the sucky, waaay less than 56k dialup connection I'm supposed to have, that makes dyna play effectively impossible for me..., but the threads here keep me entertained in the meantime!!!

[EmeraldEdge]

You know, I was thinking about the difficulty level, and personally I think that the way Bridgecommander handled it was kind of cool.  yeah, I know.  Folks here hate BC, but here's the thing.  You could take full control of the ship, if you wanted to, micromanaging everything, or you could just give your weapons officer the orders to fire at will (or a couple other types I think) and other officers would do their jobs, and you could play at a much lighter level.  I think that would be a good way to still have all the content but alleviate some of the supposed difficulty of a game like this.

I think that asking for a dual ruleset is deadly, imo.  It's like asking a company to make two games for the price of one, essentially.  They still have to develop and test both sets, and we all know how difficult it is to test and balance even one group of rules.  I just don't see the dual thing happening, but I could see computer assisted play.  Officers that take control of systems if you allow them to (set as on by default so the folks wanting an easy game don't have to jump through hoops in order to get a fun experience, but you can change it to off all the time if you want).  Now, I know some will complain that "Hey, I can't compete against someone that controls everything and really knows the game well."  Well, that's the way the world works.  If you ever see someone that plays an FPS competitively then you know that some guy who just bounces into a game on the weekend doesn't stand a chance.  He knows his weapons and maps better than most folks.  That just the way it is.  I think the problem is that a community for a game like this is smaller than your standard largely publicized FPS and but we have more hard core players per capita than the other, so the folks in for a weekend game tend to feel a little overwhelmed if they are bothered by folks that are better at the game.  Personally I look at it as a challenge no matter what kind of game I play, but maybe that's just me.

[KBF-Crim]

So paramount effectively owns the SFB ruleset... bummer.

No...just the "trek" part of it...

I was pretty sure that paramount had nothing to do with the Kzinti, or Seltorians or the other non-trek SFB races,

They Dont...and Gary said so....but ADB has made a bussiness decision to not separate their product into devisions that will confuse their customer base...or Risk pissing paramount off...(at least from what I have read)

but it appears they have complete control over ADB's future,

Not at all...only the aspects that would directly compete with other aspects of paramounts licensing...like Trek based video games...

Translation; Paramount effctively owns the SFB ruleset and has full control over the future of ADB gaming. If I want to be real stubborn about this I guess I could confront paramount with this, ask them if they would shut down ADB if they approved or produced non-trek games... I'm betting they wouldn't, that would be horrible business practice and really bad PR for paramount, possibly even illegal?

All I'm asking for is 3 words and an abbreviation....

" I would buy SFC4"

I would buy SFC4, if it is SFB based, for the PC and in the spirit of OP, but even closer to SFB; more ships per fleet, more players, stasis feild generators, web casters, dis devs, still including seeking weapons and fighters, fighters and PFs for all races to put an end to this shiplist donation stuff, ditch the double layer map... put the cartels on the empire map, allow for working option mounts... etc, etc...

edit: ... better fleet controls, much smarter AI, a fully documented, stable "non-black-box" SQL capable Dynaverse serverkit with economics and shipyards that make sense and can be controlled, a fully documented mission scripting API ...

edit#2: non-reliant on third party code... (no gamespy, no WON, no smartheap, no Q3 engine...), more thorough firewall detection...

edit#3: non-directx and *nix compatible would be nice too...

Ok...now you're on the same page...

I'd buy that too...

[KBF-Crim]

ok. Just to throw a wrench into part of this argument, the where does SFB Online fit into all of this? It's a computer game, with SFB rules, that has both Trek and ADB stuff in it, at least as far as i can tell.

IIRC...to play SFB online you still have to purchase all the SFB materials you intend to play with...

SFB online is only a system to play against others online...not a game unto itself...

[KBF-Crim]

You know, I was thinking about the difficulty level, and personally I think that the way Bridgecommander handled it was kind of cool.  yeah, I know.  Folks here hate BC, but here's the thing.  You could take full control of the ship, if you wanted to, micromanaging everything, or you could just give your weapons officer the orders to fire at will (or a couple other types I think) and other officers would do their jobs, and you could play at a much lighter level.  I think that would be a good way to still have all the content but alleviate some of the supposed difficulty of a game like this.

I think that asking for a dual ruleset is deadly, imo.  It's like asking a company to make two games for the price of one, essentially.  They still have to develop and test both sets, and we all know how difficult it is to test and balance even one group of rules.  I just don't see the dual thing happening, but I could see computer assisted play.  Officers that take control of systems if you allow them to (set as on by default so the folks wanting an easy game don't have to jump through hoops in order to get a fun experience, but you can change it to off all the time if you want).  Now, I know some will complain that "Hey, I can't compete against someone that controls everything and really knows the game well."  Well, that's the way the world works.  If you ever see someone that plays an FPS competitively then you know that some guy who just bounces into a game on the weekend doesn't stand a chance.  He knows his weapons and maps better than most folks.  That just the way it is.  I think the problem is that a community for a game like this is smaller than your standard largely publicized FPS and but we have more hard core players per capita than the other, so the folks in for a weekend game tend to feel a little overwhelmed if they are bothered by folks that are better at the game.  Personally I look at it as a challenge no matter what kind of game I play, but maybe that's just me.

An all SFB product will probably not be considered....it's allready been done...

IMHO...asking for the duel rule set is the only way to get any SFB in it at all...

They are allready licensed to do anything Canon they wish...

Call it SFC4 : Strategic Assault...

They will allready have done Tactical assault...and have developed a ruleset for it..and will most likely being looking to port it into a PC game...

I'd like to see them add another layer of complexity...by using other tables of data from the SFB ruleset...

Is it two games in one?.....yes...it is...but that is the beauty of my proposal.....it widens the market for such a Game....

Our community wont make or break thier product....we can surely help promote it...and help increase sales...

And while it wont interest us if it has no SFB...it will most likely not interest others if it is only SFB...

[KBF-Crim]

My two cents:

I concur that the Franz Joseph thingie is how ADB has been able to publish SFB all these years.  I also remember them nixing TMP versions of their ships, mentioning Paramount saying something or other (which is why the 'Ktinga' klinks are not currently official SFB canon, even though they briefly existed in Designer's edition Expansion 1, and promptly disappeared after that).

Also, can ADB do a computer game not involving the trek-based races?  Absolutely?  Would they want to?  Probably not, as most people who got into their game recognized the D7 and Constitution class, and the original series uniform artwork, etc.  90-95% of those of us that play(ed) SFB got into it BECAUSE it was a trek sim, and incidentally got to play (arguably) the best spaceship combat boardgame sim made to date.

ADB loves trek.  We love trek.  So I'd recommend directing your efforts to convincing Paramount/CBS/Viacom/Quicksilver and whomever else that:
1) Another SFC series game based on Starfleet Battles is wanted by the community
2) That there are enough of us in the community to justify doing the product
3) Get those ideas ready for cool, rpg-ish campaigns (I miss accumulating those officers in SFC1) to make the game more interesting.  I love SFC combat, but wish the campaigns were more compelling.  Having a more compelling storyline helps games sell better, and it'd be cool if you captain was an actual game entity with issues rather than an abstraction... Heck, Kirk is a very storied character, and it'd be neat if your Captain ended up having his own storyline (outside of Dyna RPG threads that is). 

Of course, most campaigns currently end up being the same for everyone, but RPG's are good at 'you made this decision so now you can't go down that other path', and I'm sure there are ways to script such options into SFC, if the programmers put the work in to allow it...

My goal would be to make SFC 1/2/OP more compelling to the average customer.  AND I'd even suggest that a 'SFC lite' option be part of the game (minus all the confusing stuff that us veterans enjoy so much), so that newbies don't get overwhelmed.  They can always play the 'advanced' version of said game later once the 'tactical challenge' bug has bit them.

Play level: Easy (no drones, boarding parties, etc.)
Play level: Medium (introduce some of the harder stuff)
Play level: Full (all SFB-ish nuances come into play)

Paramount and Quicksilver want a product that the most people are willing to buy, so they can make the most bucks, pure and simple.  So lets make our case that people ARE willing to play an SFB based SFC (if designed properly), and that the game will be the coolest thing ever!!!

I want Tholians and Andromedans dammit!

BTW, I am still lamenting the sucky, waaay less than 56k dialup connection I'm supposed to have, that makes dyna play effectively impossible for me..., but the threads here keep me entertained in the meantime!!!

I play on dial up just fine...

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

BTW, I am still lamenting the sucky, waaay less than 56k dialup connection I'm supposed to have, that makes dyna play effectively impossible for me..., but the threads here keep me entertained in the meantime!!!

I play on dial up just fine...

What that I had YOUR dialup connection. It took about 90 seconds just to get this forum to display the posting window to reply to your quote!  My entire internet experience runs about that fast.

I used to have really fast internet at my old job, but they frowned on people playing computer games at work for some reason.

Fast internet.  It's a dream I have... In the meantime, the cable/phone companies haven't got off their asses to get it to where I live.

So, it's single player campaigns for me for the time being!  Oh, and following the Hexx/J'inn/Dizzy you bastard saga!

[Dfly]

I used to have dial-up until finally cable became available in my area.  It ran at 57.6   3 years ago so those using dial-up still, listen up.  If your speed is below the 44-48 range, or even at that range, go to the modem(internal or external, does not matter) website and download the latest drivers, then: contact your ISP and ask for the latest initialization strings.  Doing these 2 simple things should increase your speed dramatically. 
These are free. 

[EmeraldEdge]

I still think a dual ruleset is too much to ask for.  It doesn't really solve the 'too complicated' problem, unless they go out and make different ui's, etc. either, so really you're at two games there.  I am fairly sure that an all ADB product isn't going to be given the go, but SFC3 had a license from ADB didn't it?  Seems like I recall seeing that in the legal stuff somewhere.  So, if it's got even a little bit, and could be modded to be SFB complient (which the game has an SFB license so it's not like going behind ADB's back) wouldn't that be more appealing to a developer than calling for two completely different rules (and in the end, two different games)?  Plus, if the game was successful, and the complete SFB mod was had the most players, the powers that be would likely take a look at that for future products, wouldn't they?  For me personally, I'm not so married to SFB that I have to have only that.  What I do realize, though, is that SFB offers such a tried and true base, and anything else that is invented for the game (especially a whole new set of rules) wouldn't likely have a chance at offering the kind of depth.  I think asking for moddability, in the end, gives you a much better chance of getting what you want than asking for 2 games to be made.

You would need to have an in game mod chooser, of course.  The way things are handled in SFC currently is not very user friendly.  Personally I like the idea of a sliding scale for weapons degredation.  However, even if they did have such a system, and made it moddable, you could easily make it SFB compliant.  For instance, say you have a scale that degrades from A to B to C, etc.  You would mearly need to keep A and B on the same level up to a certain range, then slide the C marker directly underneath the B marker.  Sort of like working with envelopes in audio software (I'm sure someone could come up with a fan made UI for editing weapons in that regard).  Problem solved.  The best of both worlds are worked right into the system.  As long as you have enough edit points to make all the weapons, then you are golden. 

The up side is that you get a little SFB in there already, but enough of it taken out for those that are on a holy war against SFB to be moderately happy.  The rest can be modded in, and the SFB haters can mod the rest out if they really want to.  I would guess that fans of SFC would want an added level of modability to the game compared to what we currently have anyway.

[KBF-Crim]

I still think a dual ruleset is too much to ask for.

I dont.

It doesn't really solve the 'too complicated' problem, unless they go out and make different ui's, etc. either, so really you're at two games there.

Gee...two screens for each ship class in each race?....way too much work....forget it....(yes I'm being a smart ass)

Remember...part of the base Idea is to have fans do alot/ most/ or all the art and graphics...there are guys on here that could do 16 really sweet screens in one night....

I dont see multiple UI's as a problem...

I am fairly sure that an all ADB product isn't going to be given the go,

Then we agree...

but SFC3 had a license from ADB didn't it?

IIRC....ADB credit only appears in the spash screen of the Beta version not the commercial release (I'd have to boot both versions to check)

Seems like I recall seeing that in the legal stuff somewhere.

Possibly...bust most likely..because SFC3 is built on OP code....and there are leftovers still included in the game code

  So, if it's got even a little bit, and could be modded to be SFB complient (which the game has an SFB license so it's not like going behind ADB's back) wouldn't that be more appealing to a developer than calling for two completely different rules (and in the end, two different games)?

Again...IIRC...Activision never purchased any rights to SFB...nor TOS for SFC3...only rights to OP code...which contained reminents of SFB data...

I really dont know what all was stripped out of OP  and added for SFC3...

But I seriously doubt Bethesda or Quicksilver is going to call activision and ask...

The way to do this is with all new code anyways...IMHO...

Plus, if the game was successful, and the complete SFB mod was had the most players, the powers that be would likely take a look at that for future products, wouldn't they?

Chicken and egg....we allready know how successful each game in the series was....SFC1 was way more successful than SFC3 IIRC...

  For me personally, I'm not so married to SFB that I have to have only that.

That's cool.....but for many...it's a deal breaker either way....some people dont want ANY SFB content...some people want ONLY SFB content...

Why not please both crowds in one title for increased sales?

  What I do realize, though, is that SFB offers such a tried and true base, and anything else that is invented for the game (especially a whole new set of rules) wouldn't likely have a chance at offering the kind of depth.

We tried to tell activision that...they scoffed at us (some of us visioneers)

I think asking for moddability, in the end, gives you a much better chance of getting what you want than asking for 2 games to be made.

Possibly...I think asking for what we want, and showing it will be profitable, in the first place is a better proposition....

You would need to have an in game mod chooser, of course.

Wouldnt this be sorta like saying "we dont like your game and are only supporting it so we can change it"

  The way things are handled in SFC currently is not very user friendly.

Luckey for us there are some great modders.....like firesoul...

  Personally I like the idea of a sliding scale for weapons degredation.  However, even if they did have such a system, and made it moddable, you could easily make it SFB compliant.  For instance, say you have a scale that degrades from A to B to C, etc.  You would mearly need to keep A and B on the same level up to a certain range, then slide the C marker directly underneath the B marker.  Sort of like working with envelopes in audio software (I'm sure someone could come up with a fan made UI for editing weapons in that regard).

And you think a dual ruleset is too complicated?

Problem solved.  The best of both worlds are worked right into the system.  As long as you have enough edit points to make all the weapons, then you are golden.

So what happens when you want to join a server?....or host one?... 

The up side is that you get a little SFB in there already, but enough of it taken out for those that are on a holy war against SFB to be moderately happy.

I dont want a little....I want it all...

Screw the rest of those people....they can play any host of Trek games and avoid the dreaded SFB...

OR...we can share a product by having it use two tables for everything...one canon...and one SFB...

The canon setup can also disable or delet weapons types all together...

  The rest can be modded in, and the SFB haters can mod the rest out if they really want to.

Why go all half assed?....you say testing two disctinct systems would be a head ache?...what about a blended system...how the hell do you even start to decide what is balanced and what is not?

The biggest issue with balance in SFC was that SFC didnt have ALL the systems working....the more SFB compliant it became (thanks to Taldren and Khoromag) the MORE balanced it became...

  I would guess that fans of SFC would want an added level of modability to the game compared to what we currently have anyway.

Frankly...moddability is what fragmented and drove the stake in the heart of the SFC3 community...to many different set ups...some peeps like this...some like that...we dont like this...they dont like that....we flame this mod...they flame that one...

BLEH!

Poof....instant fragmentation...

What I want..is a good, solid,relatively balanced,and solidly playtested ruleset instead....

[EmeraldEdge]

Heh, mods killed SFC3?  Ok, I tend to think it was the game itself.   Still, if there had been an in game mod chooser, or better yet, the ability for the game to just load up the selected (previously downloaded) mod upon entry to the server, then a lot of the fragmentation thing might have been solved.  Nothing is more annoying than having to load up a game, see that nobody's on the server you want to play on, you see another so you have to log out and reload.  It just takes a few extra steps out.  Also, where would OP be without mods?  Would have of the few remaining players still be here?  Mods are the lifesblood of long term gaming.  The prolem with SFC3 was that the core game was so bad that it required mods immediately (how long was it before SFC2 came up with majore meaningful mods?) and there were several groups vying for control.  The core game was the problem, the rapid influx of mods only made matters worse as people were trying to find a place to play.

I agree that the more SFB you can put into the game the more balanced it becomes, and that most problems with the game come from not having all the systems in.  I'd love to see a full SFB compliant game, but the problem arises in that there are a large number of SFB haters out there.  They shout and yell about how it's not Trek (even though folks have taken the time to show where all the various elements those people cry about are actually in Trek episodes).  The people looking at making a game are working with Paramount, who are also said to want to drift away from SFB.  So, you've got a vocal section of the community (unfortunately) and some of the power structure who is opposed to an SFB game.  I would rather have half a meal than no meal at all, especially if that meal could be augmented after purchase into a full meal.

Plenty of games have a mod chooser in game, or at least allow for you to join a server that you already have a mod downloaded for (and show which mod is being run in the server list).  I doubt all the developers who made these games put it in because they were looking to be insulted by people who didn't like their game and wanted to do something different.  I think in today's gaming market it's almost understood that any really good game will have people who want to take it to that next level, and I'm grateful that some developers realize this and make it easier for people to do this and get people into the game.

As far as a blended system, it would be just as easy as coming up with your own, except that you already have elements created for you.  Sure, not all elements, but part of the work is already done (I find a lot of Trek game creators have a problem with creativity anyway).  If you want them to code, test and balance the SFB stuff, then create, code, test and balance the non-Trek stuff.  That appears to me to be a lot harder than a 'blended' system.  You're doing twice the work, the second half of which (new rules) you would have to create from scratch, as opposed to a blended system where you only do half the rules.  You would still have to test the blend and the new either way.  No more work there

Here's the thing I would see, though.  I would personally take a lot of the Fed ships and make them more "Paramount".  Take out the drones and plasma.  I might also run some variant Klingons on a shiplist to appease the Paramounties.  I don't think there would be much need to actually rewrite everything as far as weapons and systems.  I think that's where a lot of the complaining comes from.  "I never saw a Fed ship fire a drone.  Why would they need such an archaic system?"  (they don't take into account that sometimes they use a shuttle to get down to the surface too, instead of the transporters.  Why would they use such an archaic form of transportation? heh).  Personally I think that a lot of the Paramount fans don't value real 'balance' as much as they want their Fed ships to blow up the enemy really easily.   Still, they are a force in the overall Trek community and anyone making a game is going to want to appease them.

I know that SFC1 was the best (although I've heard plenty of people say that SFC3 outsold them all.) and it should prove that an SFB based game can and does perform and can have a long life.  Anyone who logged into Mplayer could see how many people played that game.

I guess in short, I'll say that I would rather have a partially SFB complient game that has the ability to be made into a fully made version, than none at all (or a non-SFB only version).  We could sit around and lobby for an SFB based game, but the suits are going to want to maximize the games appeal (which we all see how that went, but they'll want to do it anyway).  I could see someone willing to make a full or half SFB, but one SFB, one Non, I just see as creating two games for the price of one.  I would think such a game would, in the end, deliver fewer features than the single moded alternative.  I would love to say "Screw everyone else, they can go play every other Trek game out there."  The reality is that they won't, they'll sit around and whine (like they always have) that this game is based on SFB and why can't it not be.  I don't think the financiers will take to that view, though.  I could say we could try, but as you said, you don't even believe an full SFB game is going to be made, and I don't think they will create two games in a genre that has somewhat questionable appeal to an audience the size that a lot of the other genre's get. 

[KBF-Crim]

Heh, mods killed SFC3?  Ok, I tend to think it was the game itself.

Helped kill...

And as a point of reference...If Non SFB was such a draw....it would have more players than OP does...

  Still, if there had been an in game mod chooser, or better yet, the ability for the game to just load up the selected (previously downloaded) mod upon entry to the server, then a lot of the fragmentation thing might have been solved.

On the other hand..it might have been even worse..instead of two or three camps...there could have been fifty...all with three players on who wont play the other mods...

Might as well make it single player..

  Nothing is more annoying than having to load up a game, see that nobody's on the server you want to play on, you see another so you have to log out and reload.  It just takes a few extra steps out.

But then again....we OP players are allready so small that doesnt come into play much...

  Also, where would OP be without mods?  Would have of the few remaining players still be here?  Mods are the lifesblood of long term gaming.

Yes..and no...the biggest Mod (which is SFB based) is now the "baseline".....IMHO...it should have been the baseline allready by being part of the game...

  The prolem with SFC3 was that the core game was so bad that it required mods immediately (how long was it before SFC2 came up with majore meaningful mods?) and there were several groups vying for control.  The core game was the problem, the rapid influx of mods only made matters worse as people were trying to find a place to play.

And a built in mod chooser would negate this how?

Or would it make matters even worse?

I agree that the more SFB you can put into the game the more balanced it becomes, and that most problems with the game come from not having all the systems in.

Agreed...

  I'd love to see a full SFB compliant game, but the problem arises in that there are a large number of SFB haters out there.  They shout and yell about how it's not Trek (even though folks have taken the time to show where all the various elements those people cry about are actually in Trek episodes).

I've never been one to let people who dont like what I like dictate what I like...

The people looking at making a game are working with Paramount, who are also said to want to drift away from SFB.

Hmmm...got a link...I'd like to read that...

  So, you've got a vocal section of the community (unfortunately) and some of the power structure who is opposed to an SFB game.

Only one person I can think of...and he had a big influence on SFC3...

I would rather have half a meal than no meal at all,

I'd rather eat what's in my pantry...than be forced to eat what I dont want...

I dont go to resturants that dont serve what I like....and I dont choose resturants based on others dislikes...

especially if that meal could be augmented after purchase into a full meal.

Why not purchase a full meal in the first place?

Plenty of games have a mod chooser in game, or at least allow for you to join a server that you already have a mod downloaded for (and show which mod is being run in the server list).  I doubt all the developers who made these games put it in because they were looking to be insulted by people who didn't like their game and wanted to do something different.  I think in today's gaming market it's almost understood that any really good game will have people who want to take it to that next level, and I'm grateful that some developers realize this and make it easier for people to do this and get people into the game.

Ok...how about this....mod 6 shields into SFC3...oh wait...you cant....what about seeking weapons?...nope...etc etc...

Making something moddable is no garantee that you be able to mod what you actually want to...

As far as a blended system, it would be just as easy as coming up with your own, except that you already have elements created for you.  Sure, not all elements, but part of the work is already done (I find a lot of Trek game creators have a problem with creativity anyway).

I dont want a blended system...I want two systems...one for grognards...one for trekkies...

I fail to see why one type of fan should be discriminated against...

  If you want them to code, test and balance the SFB stuff, then create, code, test and balance the non-Trek stuff.

NO!...I want them to use the same tested system for Tactical assualt...and I want them to use the same tested system for SFC....I wont them in one title...

That appears to me to be a lot harder than a 'blended' system.  You're doing twice the work, the second half of which (new rules) you would have to create from scratch, as opposed to a blended system where you only do half the rules.  You would still have to test the blend and the new either way.  No more work there

You are in a paradigm....a blended system will take TWICE as much work to playtest and balance....if balance is really even an issue by that time...it will just be another SFC3...with a couple extra weapons tables....

Here's the thing I would see, though.  I would personally take a lot of the Fed ships and make them more "Paramount".  Take out the drones and plasma.  I might also run some variant Klingons on a shiplist to appease the Paramounties.  I don't think there would be much need to actually rewrite everything as far as weapons and systems.  I think that's where a lot of the complaining comes from.  "I never saw a Fed ship fire a drone.  Why would they need such an archaic system?"  (they don't take into account that sometimes they use a shuttle to get down to the surface too, instead of the transporters.  Why would they use such an archaic form of transportation? heh).  Personally I think that a lot of the Paramount fans don't value real 'balance' as much as they want their Fed ships to blow up the enemy really easily.   Still, they are a force in the overall Trek community and anyone making a game is going to want to appease them.

ISNT THAT EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING FROM THE VERY FIRST POST?...er sorry...

And that is exactly what you going to get.....another canon DUD of a game that isnt worthy of being called a "wargame"...

I know that SFC1 was the best (although I've heard plenty of people say that SFC3 outsold them all.) and it should prove that an SFB based game can and does perform and can have a long life.  Anyone who logged into Mplayer could see how many people played that game.

Then WHY for the love of Taldren...would you accept ANYTHING less?

I guess in short, I'll say that I would rather have a partially SFB complient game that has the ability to be made into a fully made version, than none at all (or a non-SFB only version).

I'd rather play OP and not spend a dime...

  We could sit around and lobby for an SFB based game, but the suits are going to want to maximize the games appeal (which we all see how that went, but they'll want to do it anyway).

Again...that's what I've been saying all along...

  I could see someone willing to make a full or half SFB, but one SFB, one Non, I just see as creating two games for the price of one.

Again...a paradigm...it's ONE GAME with two rulesets...

  I would think such a game would, in the end, deliver fewer features than the single moded alternative.

IF the devs had to do it all alone...YES....but that isnt the idea I have put forward...is it...

  I would love to say "Screw everyone else, they can go play every other Trek game out there."  The reality is that they won't, they'll sit around and whine (like they always have) that this game is based on SFB and why can't it not be.

If that was all that mattered...there would BE no SFC at all...

I don't think the financiers will take to that view, though.

And who is it that we are putting this idea up to?....the SFB haters?...or the Game developers?

  I could say we could try, but as you said, you don't even believe an full SFB game is going to be made, and I don't think they will create two games in a genre that has somewhat questionable appeal to an audience the size that a lot of the other genre's get. 

*Sigh*.....1/2 + 1/2 = 1....yes?.....why sell ONE game to 1/2 when you can sell ONE game to the whole?

I fail to see WHY we cannot come up with a product that will please BOTH crowds and SELL very well...

Call me a dreamer...but I'm not going to ask for half a loaf while others are being served a full corse meal...

I'm not a half of loaf type of guy...I'll just eat the stale bread I allready have...

[EmeraldEdge]

Ok, the whole point about modding is that they would make is so that you COULD mod in the stuff that's not there.  I know you can't do it to the previous versions, so a new version is necessary in order that the dream may come to fruition.

As far as the food analogy, you don't really have a pantry.  You've got an old plate of food at home, that doesn't fulfill all of your needs (otherwise you wouldn't need a new, more SFB based SFC, right?).  All the other food is locked up by some mean farmer guy.  Now, he's willing to give out a full meal, but you really only like half of what's on the plate.  He has told you that you can have the other items you really want, though, if you're willing to wash some dishes and maybe go out into the fields and pick for a while.  So, that's your option.  Nothing (unless you happen to have that old half satisfying plate at home) or the half a good meal with the promise of a full satisfying meal if you're willing to do a little work.  The whole point, wich I think I covered above is that people want more maddability and a new game should deliver on that.

I ask you this.  Since mods were a necessary thing from the start on SFC3, in order to make it somewhat enjoyable (to some at least) did mods really kill it?  Would more people be playing that overly simplified arcade sludge now, if the mods hadn't been there?  Nobody knows for sure, but I would be willing to bet that the already smaller number of folks who were interested in continuing to play SFC3 would have dropped off very fast if there had been no mods at all. 

Um, 1/2 +1/2 = 1.  Hmmm, so you're only asking for half of the SFB stuff you want, and for the Paramount folks to only get half a game.  I put it to you that asking for full dual rule sets is actually asking for 1+1=2 for the retail price of 1.  I think you can see where the producers might have a problem with that, can't you?  Now let's say you can double up on some things.  You're still over the top.  1 + 1 - 1/2 (for overlapped development) = 1 and 1/2.  Still more than any producer would think about on a genre that doesn't bring in the huge numbers, I would think.

As far as others getting the full course meal.  Let's say the Farmer distributes to a restaurant.  Now the Farmer doesn't like certain food combinations, so he really only wants the restaurant to serve certain combos.  The combo platter that is available to all doesn't really fully please you, but it's the plate taht the restaurant owner believes keeps his costs down the most while pleasing the most people (again his perception) and still following the guidlines set forth by the farmer for platter combinations.  Now you go to the restaurant manager (not the owner) and would really like to have a different plate.  He looks at the options.  He believes that the plate you ask for is too costly and not only wouldn't please the restaurant owner, but wouldn't please enough people to make it a full menu item.  He has the ingredients in the back, so he will allow you that meal, but you will have to go in the back and cook the parts of it that aren't part of the main menu, yourself.  You still get the meal you want, because the restaurant manager is allowing for more moddability than others might, and the restaurant owner doesn't tick off the Farmer by offering too much of a certain combination, all while giving what he believes is the meal that the most people will not only pay for, but will enjoy and come back for more.

I would put it to you that it may be more likely that lobbying for a pure SFB game might be more appealing than asking for a dual ruleset game.

Now let's talk about being forced to eat what you don't want.  Hmmm, that sounds a lot like what caused a lot of the anti-OP movement.  "Yeah, it's got a lot more SFB in it, but I hate X-ships.  Especially since they aren't SFB x-ships.".   So?  Don't eat them, then (which was even easier to do as they came on a plate later in the meal and would be easier to avoid than things that were on the main plate).  You're still getting more of what you wanted than you had, and would have had otherwise.  Did anyone really want eight pirate cartels?  I don't think so.  I know people wanted to fly pirate, but eight cartels with their own map?  Doubtful.  Solution?  People didn't eat the pirate cartels, they left them on the plate, all while still eating up all the rest of the extra SFB goodness.  Of course the cartel's were originally slathered all over the rest of the meal making eating much of anything difficult at best, but the cooks eventually took care of a lot of that problem.

Now:

  The prolem with SFC3 was that the core game was so bad that it required mods immediately (how long was it before SFC2 came up with majore meaningful mods?) and there were several groups vying for control.  The core game was the problem, the rapid influx of mods only made matters worse as people were trying to find a place to play.

And a built in mod chooser would negate this how?

Or would it make matters even worse?

Well, first it would facilitate people to find the version they liked the most.  Sometimes if they have to boot up a bunch of times, switch over files, etc. people figure they might just as well go play something that doesn't take so much work to get going.  Now, you talk about how a mod chooser negates the problems of a sucky game.  Um, I think the desire here is that the game isn't sucky, and the player base is much larger than OP currently enjoys.  We aren't talking about doing a port of OP with a new graphics engine afterall, are we?  We want more, right?  So, things when things die down, you probably still want to have an easy option to play.  Will there be 50 servers with 3 people on each?  Doubtful, as people want to play with eachother.  Even when there were a lot more servers on EAW or OP there were a couple of standards and folks would go there to play, because that's where the people and the action were.

I don't think the financiers will take to that view, though.

And who is it that we are putting this idea up to?....the SFB haters?...or the Game developers?

Um, we aren't technically putting it up to either of those two parties.  The push for the game should go to Bethesda, who is not the developer but the publisher.  We would hope, of course (or at least probably), the Quicksilver would be involved in the actual development because of their association with SFC1, but the money and the mandate comes from the publisher, which is Bethesda at this point, if you want to get any Trek game made (with the exception of the MMO which is under development).  So, despite the fact that those in Quicksilver may have an affection for SFB still, they aren't the ones to convince.  It's the money men at Bethesda, who have to operate within the guidlines set forth in their licensing agreement with Paramount (which I don't believe we know what in contained in that document do we?).

I would love to say "Screw everyone else, they can go play every other Trek game out there."  The reality is that they won't, they'll sit around and whine (like they always have) that this game is based on SFB and why can't it not be.

If that was all that mattered...there would BE no SFC at all...

If SFB was all that mattered, you'd be playing a turn based game and filling out allocations forms, and clicking a button for the computer to roll the dice.  Sure it would be better than SFB in a way because it would calc out the allocation forms, and there wouldn't (hopefully) be any cheating of numbers, but that's SFB.  SFC is a lot of SFB and then some other stuff.  You take a look at what you want, then at what others are willing to offer and then try and strike a deal for what you think you can get.  I personally would go for no less SFB than is in OP (if I could get it), and actually go for more (if I could get it), but I might add in some other elements (weapons) to flesh things out for those who want a more "paramount" view.  Maybe a couple of torpedo types for the Feds to replace the loss of the drones and plasma, and so forth.  Leave the other elements in the game, but arrange them in a manner that the most people get what they want (even if they have to work a little to get it).  Again, this requires that the game be made more moddable than any SFC before it, which I would call for personally.  Things are supposed to move forward with a new game, not stay the same or move backward.  Just because certain types of modding isn't possible with a current title doesn't mean that future titles will never be. 

When I say that a pure SFB game is unlikely I believe that, but I do believe that a game that is much more SFB than not and contains more SFB materials than OP is still possible.  You may not get the full meal you want but I would you could get a good 3/4 out of the box, as long as there are elements (which you could easily slide off of your plate) to appease the other side too.  Afterall, SFB is based on Trek, so many things could technically overlap.

I know that SFC1 was the best (although I've heard plenty of people say that SFC3 outsold them all.) and it should prove that an SFB based game can and does perform and can have a long life.  Anyone who logged into Mplayer could see how many people played that game.

Then WHY for the love of Taldren...would you accept ANYTHING less?

Um, sometimes people don't look at things the same way.  Just because I think it proves the point, someone else may have a different decoder ring that says that it doesn't point to anything at all.  We as a community can try to make the point, but then again they thought they had a better way with SFC3 too.  Now we do have the relative failure of SFC3 (although there are those who still claim it was a huge success that eclipsed the previous versions(with the possible exception of SFC1), so opinions vary) Again, Yes.  I would love the full meal deal, but when I don't have hardly any food, and someone else owns it all, and would honor a request to give me a good portion of the stuff I like as long as I take some other stuff with it.  I guess I'll take that other stuff, rather than say "All or nothing" and walk away empty handed to my half loaf of bread and glass of water at home (again we have already established that OP doesn't give it all or we wouldn't want another, right?)  For the record if OP is bread and water (at least at this point in it's life) then the one that followed is something unimaginable that you wouldn't want to put in youre mouth.

[KBF-Crim]

Ok, the whole point about modding is that they would make is so that you COULD mod in the stuff that's not there.  I know you can't do it to the previous versions, so a new version is necessary in order that the dream may come to fruition.

And why would they do all the extra work to allow things to be modded?

Exrta work is extra work...

Taldren went out of their way to make SFC moddable to throw us a bone....

As far as the food analogy, you don't really have a pantry.  You've got an old plate of food at home, that doesn't fulfill all of your needs (otherwise you wouldn't need a new, more SFB based SFC, right?).  All the other food is locked up by some mean farmer guy.  Now, he's willing to give out a full meal, but you really only like half of what's on the plate.  He has told you that you can have the other items you really want, though, if you're willing to wash some dishes and maybe go out into the fields and pick for a while.  So, that's your option.  Nothing (unless you happen to have that old half satisfying plate at home) or the half a good meal with the promise of a full satisfying meal if you're willing to do a little work.  The whole point, wich I think I covered above is that people want more maddability and a new game should deliver on that.

You're getting way too deep on the anology...I would have allready kicked his ass and ate what I wanted...

I ask you this.  Since mods were a necessary thing from the start on SFC3, in order to make it somewhat enjoyable (to some at least) did mods really kill it?

Did Mods kill SFC3?

Not all by themselves....

what mods DID do...was to splinter an allready reletively small community into different factions who all disliked the other factions...

Mods in the case of OP have bound us together...

Different crowd...different demographic...different mind set..

Would more people be playing that overly simplified arcade sludge now, if the mods hadn't been there?  Nobody knows for sure, but I would be willing to bet that the already smaller number of folks who were interested in continuing to play SFC3 would have dropped off very fast if there had been no mods at all. 

probably so....but then again...if SFC3 would have had the content it lacked in the first place...there would have been little NEED for mods....they would have been done by fewer groups..

Um, 1/2 +1/2 = 1.  Hmmm, so you're only asking for half of the SFB stuff you want, and for the Paramount folks to only get half a game.  I put it to you that asking for full dual rule sets is actually asking for 1+1=2 for the retail price of 1.  I think you can see where the producers might have a problem with that, can't you?  Now let's say you can double up on some things.  You're still over the top.  1 + 1 - 1/2 (for overlapped development) = 1 and 1/2.  Still more than any producer would think about on a genre that doesn't bring in the huge numbers, I would think.

ARGH..... 1/2 of a community + 1/2 of a community = a whole community.......BREAK the paradigm! I said nothing about half a rule set...it's stuck in your mind!

I said why sell a product to only half the community when you could sell the product to the whole...

Forget what YOU would do.....YOU are not a game developer...

As far as others getting the full course meal.  Let's say the Farmer distributes to a restaurant.  Now the Farmer doesn't like certain food combinations, so he really only wants the restaurant to serve certain combos.  The combo platter that is available to all doesn't really fully please you, but it's the plate taht the restaurant owner believes keeps his costs down the most while pleasing the most people (again his perception) and still following the guidlines set forth by the farmer for platter combinations.  Now you go to the restaurant manager (not the owner) and would really like to have a different plate.  He looks at the options.  He believes that the plate you ask for is too costly and not only wouldn't please the restaurant owner, but wouldn't please enough people to make it a full menu item.  He has the ingredients in the back, so he will allow you that meal, but you will have to go in the back and cook the parts of it that aren't part of the main menu, yourself.  You still get the meal you want, because the restaurant manager is allowing for more moddability than others might, and the restaurant owner doesn't tick off the Farmer by offering too much of a certain combination, all while giving what he believes is the meal that the most people will not only pay for, but will enjoy and come back for more.

No more food anologies....if it aint what I want...I aint buying it...

I would put it to you that it may be more likely that lobbying for a pure SFB game might be more appealing than asking for a dual ruleset game.

Then I put it to you to get off your duff and go lobby them yourself instead of telling me what I should ask for....

Now let's talk about being forced to eat what you don't want.  Hmmm, that sounds a lot like what caused a lot of the anti-OP movement.  "Yeah, it's got a lot more SFB in it, but I hate X-ships.  Especially since they aren't SFB x-ships.".   So?  Don't eat them, then (which was even easier to do as they came on a plate later in the meal and would be easier to avoid than things that were on the main plate).  You're still getting more of what you wanted than you had, and would have had otherwise.  Did anyone really want eight pirate cartels?  I don't think so.  I know people wanted to fly pirate, but eight cartels with their own map?  Doubtful.  Solution?  People didn't eat the pirate cartels, they left them on the plate, all while still eating up all the rest of the extra SFB goodness.  Of course the cartel's were originally slathered all over the rest of the meal making eating much of anything difficult at best, but the cooks eventually took care of a lot of that problem.

MYTH...what caused the loudest backlash against OP was the decision to sell it as a "stand alone" expansion....

And a built in mod chooser would negate this how?

Or would it make matters even worse?

Well, first it would facilitate people to find the version they liked the most.  Sometimes if they have to boot up a bunch of times, switch over files, etc. people figure they might just as well go play something that doesn't take so much work to get going.  Now, you talk about how a mod chooser negates the problems of a sucky game.  Um, I think the desire here is that the game isn't sucky, and the player base is much larger than OP currently enjoys.  We aren't talking about doing a port of OP with a new graphics engine afterall, are we?  We want more, right?  So, things when things die down, you probably still want to have an easy option to play.  Will there be 50 servers with 3 people on each?  Doubtful, as people want to play with eachother.  Even when there were a lot more servers on EAW or OP there were a couple of standards and folks would go there to play, because that's where the people and the action were.

What I want...is SFC4...

I don't think the financiers will take to that view, though.

And who is it that we are putting this idea up to?....the SFB haters?...or the Game developers?

Um, we aren't technically putting it up to either of those two parties.  The push for the game should go to Bethesda, who is not the developer but the publisher.  We would hope, of course (or at least probably), the Quicksilver would be involved in the actual development because of their association with SFC1, but the money and the mandate comes from the publisher, which is Bethesda at this point, if you want to get any Trek game made (with the exception of the MMO which is under development).  So, despite the fact that those in Quicksilver may have an affection for SFB still, they aren't the ones to convince.  It's the money men at Bethesda, who have to operate within the guidlines set forth in their licensing agreement with Paramount (which I don't believe we know what in contained in that document do we?).

Interplay had the trek license BEFORE SFC...IIRC...

What I want ..is SFC4...

I would love to say "Screw everyone else, they can go play every other Trek game out there."  The reality is that they won't, they'll sit around and whine (like they always have) that this game is based on SFB and why can't it not be.

If that was all that mattered...there would BE no SFC at all...

If SFB was all that mattered, you'd be playing a turn based game and filling out allocations forms, and clicking a button for the computer to roll the dice.  Sure it would be better than SFB in a way because it would calc out the allocation forms, and there wouldn't (hopefully) be any cheating of numbers, but that's SFB.  SFC is a lot of SFB and then some other stuff.

SFC is not SFB...it is a simulation of SFB...and that's what I want it to stay...the more SFB the better...

  You take a look at what you want, then at what others are willing to offer and then try and strike a deal for what you think you can get.

We gee...we dont yet know what the other are willing to offer...and you are allready willing to settle for less...

  I personally would go for no less SFB than is in OP (if I could get it), and actually go for more (if I could get it),

Then WHY are we having this pointless discussion about asking for half of that???????

but I might add in some other elements (weapons) to flesh things out for those who want a more "paramount" view.  Maybe a couple of torpedo types for the Feds to replace the loss of the drones and plasma, and so forth.  Leave the other elements in the game, but arrange them in a manner that the most people get what they want (even if they have to work a little to get it).  Again, this requires that the game be made more moddable than any SFC before it, which I would call for personally.

Then by all means...do so...but keep the canon crap OUT of one of the rulesets...

Things are supposed to move forward with a new game, not stay the same or move backward.  Just because certain types of modding isn't possible with a current title doesn't mean that future titles will never be.

And hoping certain things will be moddable doesnt mean they will ever be... 

When I say that a pure SFB game is unlikely I believe that, but I do believe that a game that is much more SFB than not and contains more SFB materials than OP is still possible.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHHEEEEEEEEEESH!

  You may not get the full meal you want but I would you could get a good 3/4 out of the box, as long as there are elements (which you could easily slide off of your plate) to appease the other side too.  Afterall, SFB is based on Trek, so many things could technically overlap.

What I want..is SFC4....without the canon crap...

I know that SFC1 was the best (although I've heard plenty of people say that SFC3 outsold them all.) and it should prove that an SFB based game can and does perform and can have a long life.  Anyone who logged into Mplayer could see how many people played that game.
 
Then WHY for the love of Taldren...would you accept ANYTHING less?

Um, sometimes people don't look at things the same way.  Just because I think it proves the point, someone else may have a different decoder ring that says that it doesn't point to anything at all.  We as a community can try to make the point, but then again they thought they had a better way with SFC3 too.  Now we do have the relative failure of SFC3 (although there are those who still claim it was a huge success that eclipsed the previous versions(with the possible exception of SFC1), so opinions vary)

Sale of copies dont vary....look them up...SFC1 was 500,000 copies.....SFC3 wasnt even close...

Again, Yes.  I would love the full meal deal, but when I don't have hardly any food, and someone else owns it all, and would honor a request to give me a good portion of the stuff I like as long as I take some other stuff with it.  I guess I'll take that other stuff, rather than say "All or nothing" and walk away empty handed to my half loaf of bread and glass of water at home (again we have already established that OP doesn't give it all or we wouldn't want another, right?)  For the record if OP is bread and water (at least at this point in it's life) then the one that followed is something unimaginable that you wouldn't want to put in youre mouth.

This seems like a useless discussion at this point..you seem to be purposfully ignoring what I am going to ask for...and why...

You ask for half a loaf and that's what you'll get..if you are luckey...

What I want...(in case you missed it)...is SFC4...NOT SFC 3.5

I'm not going to start out by asking for half of what I want..in the hopes of getting even half of that......that would be insane....

I will ask for what I want....it's not "all or nothing"....it's "SFC4...or I'll save my money and play OP"....OP is NOT nothing...

The worst they can say is no...I'm not going to be meek about what the game should contain...

I dont see any logical reason why they would pay for an ADB license and only use half of it...or why they would alienate half the potential customers by making it all SFB..or ALL canon when it could easily be both...

If you feel different..you are free to ask for something different....it's a free internet...

[gplana]

What I would like to see in SFC4 would probably make everyone happy. Which is why I want it but it also allows everyone their favorite playgrounds. In SFC-OP, you have four time periods: Early, Middle, Late, and Advanced. What happens is that we heavily redefine this.

Early period ship classes would be up to and including the TOS Constitution class, D7B, and so forth. Ship classes and races seen on ENTERPRISE. Main enemy races would be Orions and the SFB races that died out early, like Paravians, Carnivons, etc. Everything in SFB excluding X-ships.

Middle period ships would be ENTERPRISE-A, Ktinga, and all of the other early movie ships, and seen-on-TV classes up to AMBASSADOR class (in other words, everything pre-TNG). Enemy races would include a number of independants popping up like the LDR, Vudar, WYN, Andromedans, and a few others. SFB X-ships and SFC-OP X-weapons. The ISC would first appear in this period as they played no real part in galactic affairs before now.

Late period ships would be GALAXY, DEFIANT, and most everything else we've seen or heard on TNG, DS9, Voyager, and so forth. Enemy ships would include the Borg. Quantum Torps and other serious advanced weapons enter service, including some of the SFC3 stuff that's worth keeping.

Advanced period would be the playground for all the modders out there who have introduced goodies that split from either Paramount canon or SFB canon.

One key point is that as each new period occurs, the map becomes larger (or the size of the empires shrinks a bit) to allow space for the new arrivals.

This is only an outline, it needs a LOT of work and fine-tuning, but it could be made to work without too much effort. Other people have made much the same suggestions, here and there, but this is one approach to the game's background that would accomodate both the SFB purists with the people who never got into SFB and grew up believing TNG and DS9 were the only way to go.

Anyhow, that's my two cents worth.

[EmeraldEdge]

First off, I'm guessin' nobody from the companies involved is paying attention to this thread.  I guess I could be wrong on that.  So really it's just a discussion.  I'm also not telling you what to do, but rather giving my opinion on how the community should proceed.  I have absolutely no way of enforcing my opinion, so there's no reason to get upset.

Let me ask you this.   If it's "Screw the other guys, give me my SFB" then why ask for two sets of rules at all?  That's personally what I would think would be the biggest turn off of all.  Go and ask for SFB, but if they slap a little non-sfb in there don't walk away from the table and kill any chance of what you wanted from the beginning.  Afterall, OP has non-SFB stuff. 

You're kidding yourself if you don't think X-ships were a major deterrent for some crowds.  But that, just like the stand alone arguement, are complete nonsense.  Who cares if it boots up on it's own.  Yeah, it would have been nicer if you could have booted up one game and had access to all servers EAW and OP or whatever, but who cares?  In the end, it should have bolstered the community numbers (had it worked properly) but people crying about this and that and then saying they won't go over to the new is what hurt it.  X-ships were a big part of the crying (also balance issues, map interactions that were never fixed, etc.).  You know when you are on gamespy and there's a big room full of EAW players and no OP players to speak of, and you go and ask some to switch over so you can play with the new goodies like the boom arcs, and they won't because of the x-ships, then that's a problem.

When I say that a pure SFB game is unlikely I believe that, but I do believe that a game that is much more SFB than not and contains more SFB materials than OP is still possible.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHHEEEEEEEEEESH!

Um, no it's not.  You're asking for SFB only, no 'canon crap'.  As it says in my comment, you're likely to get something that is more SFB than not, but you know they are going to put some other stuff in there.

More work to put mod stuff in, especially compared to creating a dual set of rules?  Hmmm, I don't know, but it seems to me that they have to edit the weapons and everything else as they balance it during development.  If they create the tools to do it easier at that point, it can speed things up later in the game, imo.  Then they just have to release them when the game comes out.

As far as ignoring you, I'm not, but when I say

When I say that a pure SFB game is unlikely I believe that, but I do believe that a game that is much more SFB than not and contains more SFB materials than OP is still possible.

Then you say

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHHEEEEEEEEEESH!

And then your very next comment is

What I want..is SFC4....without the canon crap...

and you talk about only asking for what you want, I think you can see where some confusion might seep in, as the two comments oppose eachother.  If a game is more SFB than not, that means that what's left of the game is not SFB.  You have stated that you absolutely do not want that and would walk away from the product if it was such.

I think you confuse my stand here.  I want SFB in the game.  I want more SFB than OP.  I probably want a lot of the same stuff you want, but that's a lot.  I don't see a game that encompasses all of SFB, being made, though.  What I don't see is someone coding all of what I want, then going back and starting all over again and coding an entirely different set of rules.  It's like making two different games, and then selling it for the price of one.  Yeah, it might appeal to more people, but at some point you are losing ground.  There are those who would switch between the two groups, so the numbers of people you are getting by appeasing both don't match the cost and effort of just appeasing one with a single game then appeasing another with a different game.  I'm with you on the fact that if they don't like SFB they can play any other Trek game on the face of the planet and not have SFB, but when you deal with money people they don't always see things that way.  They are looking to maximize the returns.  I don't think of it as asking for half of what I want.  I think of it as realizing that I will not get only what I want.  There's will, most likely, be something that isn't SFB (afterall, it's not an exact port of the game).  By saying that if there is anything non-SFB you'll walk away, that doesn't look good to the money men.  It means you are too finicky and are an investment risk.  If you can, instead, present what you want, give the reasons why it would be better to have it your way, but that you are willing to work with them and support their decisions then you are more likely get what you want, and since you are working with them instead of against them, you can help influence them to make it so that those extra things can be cast aside if desired.  We've all seen how much an individual can work with the devs to influence the outcome of things (or so some would say).  It's the whole catching flies with honey as opposed to telling the flies that if they don't fall into your non-baited trap exactly the way you want them to, then you're just going to walk away and deal with having flies around all the time.

You are correct, OP is not nothing.  I don't believe I said it was in my analogy.  I did say it in reference to the all or nothing comments.  But we all have OP (or at least should) that's a given at this point.  We have consumed it, and the numbers have dwindled greatly.  A new game is needed to bring people back, and suck in new folks.  Sure you can just sit around playing OP but for how long?  Eventually you'll have to have an extra machine around, as the new ones won't play something that old.  There will be almost nobody to play with either.  How many play now?  I think it's time for something new, and if I have to have a little paramount in with my SFB base then I'll take it, especially if it can be edited out after the fact.  Frankly though, if someone could come up with a system that was as deep as SFB I'd get that too.  Is it likely?  Not even close, at least not without a couple of decades of development time.   I just went and read an interview about III and they were talking about how they thought they had improved over SFB and that if SFC fans would just give it a chance they would see how deep it is.  Heh.  Somebody was living in lala land there, but that's the kind of folks you're dealing with.  You'd probably have to trick them (aided by the few people in power who share your vision) into giving you what you want.

Where do I look up the sales of SFC?  I've looked around and couldn't find any real solid numbers (I know there were some posted on the old Taldren forums, but Taldrens numbers were somewhat questionable at times) but numbers can be fudged to look like what you want them too, as well.  Take for instance if you published the opening numbers for something.  It may not tell the whole story, as the numbers may drop off dramatically when people find out what it's about.  If you don't publish the results of the falloff and only the strong start then it can make it look like you had a really good thing going.

I think that I would do some research and get as much info on Trek and what appeared, and draw correlations to SFB.  What is a runabout if not a PF?  What are certain shuttle types if not fighters?  Drones were used by several races (I think Feringi, but I know there was reference to a big Cardassian drone).  Heck didn't they have one lodged into the hull of the Enterprise at one point that didn't go off?  If you can prove your point that SFB is Paramount compiant, that would go a long way to getting you what we want as well (and then have them publish the info on the web to support their use of the weapons).As far as why they would do the extra work to make things moddable, well, why does anyone?  A lot of games have mod tools released for them, so you can make new items to put into the game.  If you're creating tools to manage your assets anyway, how much extra work is it to put them out there?  I would guess it would be a lot less than creating a whole different game to tack onto another and sell for the price of one.  Say, for instance you have three groups.  1 is the SFB group.  All or nothing.  1 is the Paramount group.  Absolutely no SFB.  Then you have the 1 in the middle who don't care as much.  They'll buy either.  If you make an SFB game you appease 2 groups for the price of one game.  If you make a Paramount game, you appease 2 groups for the price one game.  Now if you try and tack it all together in one you either appease 3 groups for the price of 2 games (notice you haven't doubled your appeal) or, more likely, you appease nobody because the quality of either section isn't up to snuff.  If you want to appease everyone make 2 games.  One that appeals to 2 groups another that appeals to 2 groups, and you get to sell them each for the price of a full game.  Assuming the publisher (who doles out the cash for the projects) believes each group combination is large enough to warrant a game.  If one fails, then the problem is solved and the survivor comes out on top.  Now this is a little simplified but I hope the point comes across, as far as the dual ruleset's possible appeal to a publisher.

Yes, it's a free internet.  But it's always better to come to a relative concensus when you are asking for something.  Otherwise those with the power will just see a bunch of fragmented people who all want different things.  I don't think what we want is really that different, but the way we ask for it differs.  I don't see asking for only what in my game (or I walk) and then asking to slap another version for the other people on for the same price as a plausible approach to getting the game made.  If you do, that's fine.  I'm not trying to force you into anything, just expressing my opinion.  I want a deep wargame mostly based on SFB, but if I have to take a little on the side to get what I want, then so be it.  It's not like there's a monitor sitting over my shoulders forcing me to play with those parts (assuming they are separate like the x-ships and pirate layer)

gplana,

     Truthfully, I'm not sure that would make everyone happy, though.  As you can see, there is an all or nothing thing going on with some.  You mention "including some of the SFC3 stuff that's worth keeping".  What would that include then?  For many here there isn't much worth keeping at all (translated as nothing, except for possibly a few features of the D3).  How do you manage a longterm dyna campaign where some players don't get to start when everyone else does, because their empire doesn't show up until a later era?  Wouldn't they just go to a server that already has that race in play and play there?  Seems like a major divider of numbers there.  Why limit modding to advanced?  If you allow mods, then why not allow them for all eras?  Unless you are proposing that all eras are moddable, but there is an era with no content tacked on at the end so that modders could create their own weapons and combinations to fill it up if they desire.  It also doesn't accomodate the SFB purists, because it includes TNG, DS9, Voyager all of which would not follow an SFB paradigm (or more than likely).  Now, I could see that if they follow the weapons table it might be a little more accpetable, but a true purist isn't going to go along with anything but SFB.   Also, how do you make a paramount purist's view of TOS sit in the same era with an SFB purists version?

Now, I would love to see the ability to add and remove races from play and mod them, especially mid-campaign.  Say you are playing along and a group of lyrans wants to form their own republic.  Then you could do that, and it might be cool.  Afterall, many of the custom d2 campaigns haven't followed the SFB storyline, but the SFB storyline is what a lot of folks want from the get go in the core project, I believe.  What you would have to do is have a little button at the beginning of the game, where you select "Enterprise, TOS, TNG, or SFB" and then it loads up the version of the game that appeals to the individual.  Possible I suppose, but like I said, that's a whole lot of work to make a wide range of weapons and systems, and if those eras are actually to interact with one another, then you're dealing with a whole lot more work.  A photon in Enterprise era or TOS (according to Paramount canon) isn't nearly as powerful as those in TNG, I don't believe.  They are different models.  Thus you would need to do all the various models of weapons for all the races for every era.  As cool as that would be, how much of a headache would that be, if SFB alone is thought to be too much of a headache to put all of it in.  Imagine doing it for 4 or 5 other eras.  Hey, if someone's willing to do it, more power to them, I'd like to see that kind of diversity, but the problem is that SFB has had such a long development period, that when others try to create a "newer, better" system in a couple of months, they fall far shy of the mark.  I think SFB proved that.  The OP X-ships helps to prove that as well.  So, trying to create the same thing for eras that are Paramount canon, and merge them with SFB canon and hopeing that they will work well together is asking a lot.  There is, afterall, more to SFB than the names of weapons, races, and the appearance of their ships.  That is kind of where Paramount is, when you think about it though.  The writers just write in the weapons effects to fit the story.  In a game like this, what is a Paramount purist?  Is there any officially published and adhered to standard for the level of shields, or the damage of a photon?  Heck, Trek games invent races all the time, why then are SFB races so hated by the Paramount canon guys?  Are they saying that the SFB races absolutely couldn't exist in Trek, but they are willing to accept another race that's pulled out of a game dev's hat?   Personally, I think the Paramount purist guys are even more irrational than the SFB purists.  At least SFB has a rule book.  It has set standards, a historical timeline, etc.  As we saw with Enterprise, Paramount has no set standard for anything at all.  History is up for grabs for whatever the writers want to come up with, to heck with what another episode said.  I've just never understood why those folks couldn't accept SFB stuff in one little game, especially when they have all the other games that walk all over the board and have no set standard.

[KBF-Crim]

First off, I'm guessin' nobody from the companies involved is paying attention to this thread.  I guess I could be wrong on that.

We'll...Gary is here...he counts in an unofficial advisory position in my book..

  So really it's just a discussion.

Tis true...

I'm also not telling you what to do, but rather giving my opinion on how the community should proceed.  I have absolutely no way of enforcing my opinion, so there's no reason to get upset.

I'm not upset...I'm frustrated...a slight difference...

You seem to really want to tell me why this or that wont work or is a bad idea...while at the same time saying you want the same thing I do...

Let me ask you this.   If it's "Screw the other guys, give me my SFB" then why ask for two sets of rules at all?  That's personally what I would think would be the biggest turn off of all.  Go and ask for SFB, but if they slap a little non-sfb in there don't walk away from the table and kill any chance of what you wanted from the beginning.  Afterall, OP has non-SFB stuff.

*sigh* 

I'm not even AT the table yet....and I'm not going to adjust my request for a dual relset until someone in power shuts it down....and even then not until a long drawn out discussion on the merits and possiblities of it...

You're kidding yourself if you don't think X-ships were a major deterrent for some crowds.

What crowds?...got any names?

yeah...a couple people griped about it...

but what REALLY kept the community from crossing over to OP was the bugs...(which have since been fixed)

what effected SALES...was the stand alone concept...

  But that, just like the stand alone arguement, are complete nonsense.

I was there....I was one of the ones complaining...so did I imagine that too?

  Who cares if it boots up on it's own.  Yeah, it would have been nicer if you could have booted up one game and had access to all servers EAW and OP or whatever, but who cares?  In the end, it should have bolstered the community numbers (had it worked properly) but people crying about this and that and then saying they won't go over to the new is what hurt it.  X-ships were a big part of the crying (also balance issues, map interactions that were never fixed, etc.).  You know when you are on gamespy and there's a big room full of EAW players and no OP players to speak of, and you go and ask some to switch over so you can play with the new goodies like the boom arcs, and they won't because of the x-ships, then that's a problem.

And yet OP is the standard now...point is moot...

When I say that a pure SFB game is unlikely I believe that, but I do believe that a game that is much more SFB than not and contains more SFB materials than OP is still possible.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHHEEEEEEEEEESH!

Um, no it's not.  You're asking for SFB only, no 'canon crap'.  As it says in my comment, you're likely to get something that is more SFB than not, but you know they are going to put some other stuff in there.

GEEZ.....I'm asking for two distinct rulesets...how many times must I say it?

More work to put mod stuff in, especially compared to creating a dual set of rules?  Hmmm, I don't know, but it seems to me that they have to edit the weapons and everything else as they balance it during development.  If they create the tools to do it easier at that point, it can speed things up later in the game, imo.  Then they just have to release them when the game comes out.

That seems like alot of speculation to me....and since you arent the one who has to approve such a venture...I'm going to stick to my guns until someone WHO HAS THE FINAL SAY tells me otherwise...

As far as ignoring you, I'm not, but when I say "When I say that a pure SFB game is unlikely I believe that, but I do believe that a game that is much more SFB than not and contains more SFB materials than OP is still possible."

Then you say "THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING FOR DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHHEEEEEEEEEESH!"

And then your very next comment is "What I want..is SFC4....without the canon crap..." and you talk about only asking for what you want, I think you can see where some confusion might seep in, as the two comments oppose eachother.  If a game is more SFB than not, that means that what's left of the game is not SFB.  You have stated that you absolutely do not want that and would walk away from the product if it was such.

Now your playing word games...it's should be very clear what I want...another damn SFC title...

But the only way we are going to get one licensed for SFB is to make SFB the after thought...AKA..a second ruleset...

I think you confuse my stand here.  I want SFB in the game.  I want more SFB than OP.  I probably want a lot of the same stuff you want, but that's a lot.

a positive attitude...

I don't see a game that encompasses all of SFB, being made, though.

The negative...stow that please until such point as someone actually shoots us down...

  What I don't see is someone coding all of what I want, then going back and starting all over again and coding an entirely different set of rules.  It's like making two different games, and then selling it for the price of one.

Again with the paradigm....break away from the bonds that hold you back...you are overlaying YOUR opinion on what you think the answer might be...

Stop it...

  Yeah, it might appeal to more people, but at some point you are losing ground.

More a question for the money men...yes?

  There are those who would switch between the two groups, so the numbers of people you are getting by appeasing both don't match the cost and effort of just appeasing one with a single game then appeasing another with a different game.

two birds...one stone...more money...

  I'm with you on the fact that if they don't like SFB they can play any other Trek game on the face of the planet and not have SFB, but when you deal with money people they don't always see things that way.

THAT is why a dual ruleset product can UNITE both SFB fans AND Trek fans to clamor for such a game...

  They are looking to maximize the returns.

So am I...I've even gone to the trouble of asking people if they would DONATE content to help the effort...

I don't think of it as asking for half of what I want.

I DO.....

  I think of it as realizing that I will not get only what I want.

Then you will get EXACTLY that...and nothing more...

  There's will, most likely, be something that isn't SFB (afterall, it's not an exact port of the game).  By saying that if there is anything non-SFB you'll walk away, that doesn't look good to the money men.

Never bought a new car or home?

I'm saying "if you dont make what I want...I wont buy it"....that has a great effect on money men who see money walking away...

  It means you are too finicky and are an investment risk.

No...it means I'm a consumer who knows what I want...and I wont be bought off with a bait and switch...

  If you can, instead, present what you want, give the reasons why it would be better to have it your way, but that you are willing to work with them and support their decisions then you are more likely get what you want, and since you are working with them instead of against them, you can help influence them to make it so that those extra things can be cast aside if desired.

There is NO talk as of yet....at least not with money men...(still working on that)...

So far...Steve is willing to talk....quicksilver is showing interest....and you are telling me why it wont work...

We've all seen how much an individual can work with the devs to influence the outcome of things (or so some would say).  It's the whole catching flies with honey as opposed to telling the flies that if they don't fall into your non-baited trap exactly the way you want them to, then you're just going to walk away and deal with having flies around all the time.

I dont even know if they will consider it yet....much less have time to reach for the honey pot...

But, I'm still not going to ask for half a loaf...

You are correct, OP is not nothing.  I don't believe I said it was in my analogy.  I did say it in reference to the all or nothing comments.

Uh...ok...

  But we all have OP (or at least should) that's a given at this point.  We have consumed it, and the numbers have dwindled greatly.  A new game is needed to bring people back, and suck in new folks.

And until last week..(when I brought it up)...there wasnt even a glimmer of hope for another SFC...now there is a slim chance...

  Sure you can just sit around playing OP but for how long?

Till the cows come home brother....MOOOOOOOOOOO!

  Eventually you'll have to have an extra machine around, as the new ones won't play something that old.

Please...I have atari games on my PC....NES games on my PC...my machine even runs a commador emulator....not worried....not for a long time...

And basiclly....SFC IS the only reason I'm even online...when it dont work no more...I'll drop off....no biggie...

  There will be almost nobody to play with either.  How many play now?

A couple hundred....

I think it's time for something new, and if I have to have a little paramount in with my SFB base then I'll take it, especially if it can be edited out after the fact.

Me too....but if it isnt as good as OP, with AT LEAST as much content, I wont buy it...period....

  Frankly though, if someone could come up with a system that was as deep as SFB I'd get that too.  Is it likely?  Not even close, at least not without a couple of decades of development time.

Then it's a moot point...

I just went and read an interview about III and they were talking about how they thought they had improved over SFB and that if SFC fans would just give it a chance they would see how deep it is.  Heh.  Somebody was living in lala land there, but that's the kind of folks you're dealing with.  You'd probably have to trick them (aided by the few people in power who share your vision) into giving you what you want.

*reaches for duct tape to keep head from exploding*

Dont you think that's what I'm doing?

Where do I look up the sales of SFC?  I've looked around and couldn't find any real solid numbers (I know there were some posted on the old Taldren forums, but Taldrens numbers were somewhat questionable at times) but numbers can be fudged to look like what you want them too, as well.  Take for instance if you published the opening numbers for something.  It may not tell the whole story, as the numbers may drop off dramatically when people find out what it's about.  If you don't publish the results of the falloff and only the strong start then it can make it look like you had a really good thing going.

Not certain...did a cursery seach

Hey ...look who i found...

http://www.webomator.com/bws/data/resume/resume.html

I'll did around an get back to you on that...

I think that I would do some research and get as much info on Trek and what appeared, and draw correlations to SFB.  What is a runabout if not a PF?  What are certain shuttle types if not fighters?  Drones were used by several races (I think Feringi, but I know there was reference to a big Cardassian drone).  Heck didn't they have one lodged into the hull of the Enterprise at one point that didn't go off?  If you can prove your point that SFB is Paramount compiant, that would go a long way to getting you what we want as well (and then have them publish the info on the web to support their use of the weapons).

Bah...I dont have that much time to worry about such things...might as well try and prove that god exists for all the good it will do...

As far as why they would do the extra work to make things moddable, well, why does anyone?  A lot of games have mod tools released for them, so you can make new items to put into the game.  If you're creating tools to manage your assets anyway, how much extra work is it to put them out there?  I would guess it would be a lot less than creating a whole different game to tack onto another and sell for the price of one.  Say, for instance you have three groups.  1 is the SFB group.  All or nothing.  1 is the Paramount group.  Absolutely no SFB.  Then you have the 1 in the middle who don't care as much.  They'll buy either.  If you make an SFB game you appease 2 groups for the price of one game.  If you make a Paramount game, you appease 2 groups for the price one game.  Now if you try and tack it all together in one you either appease 3 groups for the price of 2 games (notice you haven't doubled your appeal) or, more likely, you appease nobody because the quality of either section isn't up to snuff.  If you want to appease everyone make 2 games.  One that appeals to 2 groups another that appeals to 2 groups, and you get to sell them each for the price of a full game.  Assuming the publisher (who doles out the cash for the projects) believes each group combination is large enough to warrant a game.  If one fails, then the problem is solved and the survivor comes out on top.  Now this is a little simplified but I hope the point comes across, as far as the dual ruleset's possible appeal to a publisher.

See...this part I'm going to put on ignore....I dont care...I will not be disuaded from asking for the whole loaf...I'm not interested in why it wont work...I'm interested in why it WILL...

I'm not willing to accept some frankenstien version of SFC...half this...half that...

Much better to please both crowds with a dual ruleset...(which is really ONE GAME with two sets of tables....GRRRR)

Yes, it's a free internet.  But it's always better to come to a relative concensus when you are asking for something.

*looks around*....so far it's just me doing the asking... hasnt been a post on that thread for days...

From the obvious lack of interest....I doubt if they even consider it...

In fact...I expect nanner to jump in any minute and start trashing the idea of even haveing any SFB content...

  Otherwise those with the power will just see a bunch of fragmented people who all want different things.

Well..so far...it seems it's just you and me pal...(and a couple others) 

  I don't think what we want is really that different, but the way we ask for it differs.  I don't see asking for only what in my game (or I walk) and then asking to slap another version for the other people on for the same price as a plausible approach to getting the game made.

I'm asking for a game that pleases both crowds...the only way I see to do that is to have two rulesets...

It's actually the other way around....I'm asking them to do another SFC...and asking them to include a ruleset for US...

Call it my paradigm...

  If you do, that's fine.  I'm not trying to force you into anything, just expressing my opinion.

Alrighty then...so no more "this wont work" stuff...ok...

  I want a deep wargame mostly based on SFB,

I want SFC4: Galaxies at War

but if I have to take a little on the side to get what I want, then so be it.

Depends on what that means....it could be a deal breaker...I'd point out that Tactical assault allready uses 6 shields instead of 4  *wink*

  It's not like there's a monitor sitting over my shoulders forcing me to play with those parts (assuming they are separate like the x-ships and pirate layer)

True....but at the same time...no amount of modding could get you to play SFC3...

That is my worry....asking for a blended game with one ruleset will just get us SFC 3.5...and please no one...and flop...

[gplana]

EmeraldEdge, I did say that my concept needed a lot of work. Quite frankly, I don't know the answers to many of the questions you ask. Many of those points never occured to me as I rarely play online.

One I can answer is that I have no idea what bits of SFC3 are worth keeping, because I played SFC3 once, for about ten minutes. It took me that long to realize that ships only had four shields, and that they had trashed about half of the rest of the rules from SFB. 

[EmeraldEdge]

Yeah, Gary's here.  I had written the first half of it before he posted and figured he'd dropped out after the first page like a lot of dev/producer types do.   Thanks for sticking around!

Ok, short and simple.   Here's how I see it.  I don't think creating two different sets of rules, physics, universes, etc. would appeal to a producer, knowing that they would sell it in the same box for the price of a single game.  The money people are the people who ultimately have to give the OK on a project and hire someone to make it (again hopefully they would get someone from quicksilver because of their involvement in SFC1).  Apparently you think they will.  OK.

As far as the unnamed one goes, he's popped his head in over at STGU on the TA and SFB subject already.   I found Bradley's resume doing the same search, ealier too.  Thought it was kind of funny that it should pop up.

I noticed over at STGU, though, you pointed out the fun time we had testing SFC3 and the headaches of testing and balancing even a simple system that's created from scratch.  Given the amount of time that an SFC type game has been given in the past, don't you think that doing so would take away from the time they have to create the SFB elements?  I suppose of the retail price were higher.

Anyhow, If you really think a dual set would appeal to them, I'd say write up a request.  I'd probably sign my name to a petition.

I would like an SFB game, and it's not like I would want a hodgepodge, but realize that sometimes you have to take a little of something you don't want to get more of what you do want (i.e. Orion Pirates).  I wouldn't sing the praises of a game that was SFCIII all over again.  That's for certain.  I don't think it's as much that I'm asking for a blended game, just that I would be willing to accept some elements as a necessary evil, should they be put in (and they usually are), in order to get the rest of what I want (especially if it can be cast aside if I don't like it).

Just out of curiosity.  You really see it as one game with two sets of tables?  When folks go "paramount canon" they will strip all the varying systems out of the game.  You end up with photons, phasers, disruptors, and sometimes plasma (usually direct fire plasma which is more or less just a different colored photon).  When you strip that much out, clearly something else must be put in to replace it (as we begged them to for SFCIII).  In SFCIII they had tactical warp, which apparently was popular (heck, I enjoyed it during testing for a while).  When you start adding elements like that, it becomes more than just a couple of number changes on a weapons table, though.  You're coding in new elements, new physics for a different universe.

Anyhow, if you really think it's the way to go (I'd just propose a full on SFB game, personally) I'll support you in you're quest, should you choose to take it on.  Like I said, I'll take a little of what I don't want in order to get what I do want and a dual rules game would probably be just that.  As far as the small number of people who have shown interest, I think once a rallying cry came forth, you would see more people joining the battle (and you know who, running in to make sure SFB didn't touch any of it )

On the TA subject.  I wonder how much of SFB is going to be in it.  I know they said it will have a different set of rules, but 6 shields...  I wonder how close to the sun that is SFB they will dare fly? lol.  I'm not going to poo-poo it before I see it though (although i probably won't see it, but it will probably get really high ratings and be lauded because it's not as 'hard' as early SFC was).  Although I think it unlikely that a new set of rules would come close to the depth that one that's been in development for decades can provide, I'm also a believer that most things are possible if you can find the right people.  Now, I know you're saying "So, why poo-poo the dual rules thing".  I guess because I find a dual rules game less likely than an all SFB game.  But again, it's all about the right people with the right motivation, being given the right amount of time and funding to make it happen.  It it can happen, then heck.  I might even get two games that I like.  maybe.

Also, another note on the lack of reponse at the STGU TA forums.  STGU isn't a game specific forum like this one.  A forum like this maintains it's life because folks are actively playing a game, or have for a long time, and have created a community.  A general forum like STGU, I would imagine, would have a really hard time getting traffic during a time period where Trek gaming in general has been in a coma.  There hasn't been a whole lot of traffic there in a long time, just a couple of folks every so often digging up what little information there is available on the future (which is a good thing, actually).  Lurkers, I would imagine, but very few posters.  I believe that once there is a better sign of what is in store for Trek gaming (like an actual release, and then seeing the quality of said release) things will pick up and more SFC people will return.  Like I said, if you want to get a proposal/request going, I'd probably throw my support behind it.  I don't have the contacts in the community that I used to.  I've lost track of many of the Romulan pilots, but every so often they drop in and let me know what they are doing, and I still have a few other folks I have contact with.  I'm sure I could get them to swing by and give their support as well.


Gary,

 Yeah, I know you said that it needed fleshing I was just wondering what you thought was worth keeping since you mentioned keeping some of it.  I can see that you were about as thrilled with the game as a lot of us were.  I hope I don't come off as too antagonistic.  I'm just interested in discussing and mulling over options and expressing my opinion, as well as hearing others opinions.  I'm just glad there are others of a like mind still around these parts with which to have a conversation on the topic.

[KBF-Crim]

Yeah, Gary's here.  I had written the first half of it before he posted and figured he'd dropped out after the first page like a lot of dev/producer types do.   Thanks for sticking around!

Ok, short and simple.   Here's how I see it.  I don't think creating two different sets of rules, physics, universes, etc. would appeal to a producer, knowing that they would sell it in the same box for the price of a single game.  The money people are the people who ultimately have to give the OK on a project and hire someone to make it (again hopefully they would get someone from quicksilver because of their involvement in SFC1).  Apparently you think they will.  OK.

Consider it plan A....if they dont go for it...we fall back to groveling for what ever we can get...plans B-Z

As far as the unnamed one goes, he's popped his head in over at STGU on the TA and SFB subject already.   I found Bradley's resume doing the same search, ealier too.  Thought it was kind of funny that it should pop up.

  yeah..I couldnt resist kicking him for it too...

I noticed over at STGU, though, you pointed out the fun time we had testing SFC3 and the headaches of testing and balancing even a simple system that's created from scratch.  Given the amount of time that an SFC type game has been given in the past, don't you think that doing so would take away from the time they have to create the SFB elements?  I suppose of the retail price were higher.

Well..part of the head ache was them withholding weapons info and such...hard to test what you cannot check for errors

Anyhow, If you really think a dual set would appeal to them, I'd say write up a request.  I'd probably sign my name to a petition.

It's only a proposal.....as soon as I find out who to bug ....I'll bug em...

Right now the only goal is to get it on the radar....simply to get them to entertain the thought....

Details will be MUCH later...

I would like an SFB game, and it's not like I would want a hodgepodge, but realize that sometimes you have to take a little of something you don't want to get more of what you do want (i.e. Orion Pirates).  I wouldn't sing the praises of a game that was SFCIII all over again.  That's for certain.  I don't think it's as much that I'm asking for a blended game, just that I would be willing to accept some elements as a necessary evil, should they be put in (and they usually are), in order to get the rest of what I want (especially if it can be cast aside if I don't like it).

I understand...SFC isnt really SFB anyways...but rather a simulation of it...close enough for most of us due to the real time nature of it...

Just out of curiosity.  You really see it as one game with two sets of tables?

I see ALL things as possible...until proven otherwise..

  When folks go "paramount canon" they will strip all the varying systems out of the game.

Their loss....

  You end up with photons, phasers, disruptors, and sometimes plasma (usually direct fire plasma which is more or less just a different colored photon).  When you strip that much out, clearly something else must be put in to replace it (as we begged them to for SFCIII).  In SFCIII they had tactical warp, which apparently was popular (heck, I enjoyed it during testing for a while).  When you start adding elements like that, it becomes more than just a couple of number changes on a weapons table, though.  You're coding in new elements, new physics for a different universe.

I'll leave that for the programers to figure out...

Anyhow, if you really think it's the way to go (I'd just propose a full on SFB game, personally) I'll support you in you're quest, should you choose to take it on.

Actually..I'm leaning twords your idea....hit em with what we really want first...

  Like I said, I'll take a little of what I don't want in order to get what I do want and a dual rules game would probably be just that.  As far as the small number of people who have shown interest, I think once a rallying cry came forth, you would see more people joining the battle (and you know who, running in to make sure SFB didn't touch any of it )

I understand...and yes...I'm still expect that too...

On the TA subject.  I wonder how much of SFB is going to be in it.

None....they arent licensed to use anything...

  I know they said it will have a different set of rules, but 6 shields...  I wonder how close to the sun that is SFB they will dare fly? lol.

The screen shots I've seen show 6 shield quadrants...

  I'm not going to poo-poo it before I see it though (although i probably won't see it, but it will probably get really high ratings and be lauded because it's not as 'hard' as early SFC was).  Although I think it unlikely that a new set of rules would come close to the depth that one that's been in development for decades can provide, I'm also a believer that most things are possible if you can find the right people.  Now, I know you're saying "So, why poo-poo the dual rules thing".  I guess because I find a dual rules game less likely than an all SFB game.  But again, it's all about the right people with the right motivation, being given the right amount of time and funding to make it happen.  It it can happen, then heck.  I might even get two games that I like.  maybe.

Who knows...I'm hoping their ruleset is pretty well done by the time they think about a PC game...

Also, another note on the lack of reponse at the STGU TA forums.  STGU isn't a game specific forum like this one.  A forum like this maintains it's life because folks are actively playing a game, or have for a long time, and have created a community.  A general forum like STGU, I would imagine, would have a really hard time getting traffic during a time period where Trek gaming in general has been in a coma.  There hasn't been a whole lot of traffic there in a long time, just a couple of folks every so often digging up what little information there is available on the future (which is a good thing, actually).  Lurkers, I would imagine, but very few posters.  I believe that once there is a better sign of what is in store for Trek gaming (like an actual release, and then seeing the quality of said release) things will pick up and more SFC people will return.  Like I said, if you want to get a proposal/request going, I'd probably throw my support behind it.  I don't have the contacts in the community that I used to.  I've lost track of many of the Romulan pilots, but every so often they drop in and let me know what they are doing, and I still have a few other folks I have contact with.  I'm sure I could get them to swing by and give their support as well.

I concure....I posted at STGU first to get the attention of Quicksilver....mission accomplished...

I bounced the Idea off Steve to see how receptive he would be....he said he'd at least consider it...mission accomplished

floated the idea of fan donated content in the models forum...recieved positive replies...mission accomplished...

Now I need to track down the right person at Bethesda to put the bug in their ear...mission ongoing..

As I said...this is only an idea...

But in my view....the planets have once again aligned and the possiblity of another SFC ,although very slim...still exists...

Thanks for the frank discussion...it has really helped to hone my proposal...such as it is...

[Lepton]

You know, at this point, I am half-tempted to say to everyone that wants SFC4 or the computerized SFB equivalent to just go play SFB.  Seriously, one is never going to cram all of SFB into one game and that would lead any SFB/SFC product to be merely an implementation of part of SFB just as we have now.  What is enough SFB to satisfy and will that amount satisfy everyone?  I think one would find a host of divergent answers to that question.

There is already SFBOnline.  I'd say go pressure ADB to make it something worth subscribing to and you are set. 

Now if it's a question of getting more of SFB into something SFC-like, I think that is highly unlikely, because I can tell you how the release of such a product would go.  First title in the series would be just roms, feds, and klinks, maybe kzin.  Second title would add something like gorns, lyran, hydran, maybe kzin.  By third title, we are sort of back where we started.  Sales are falling off, etc, etc and still no Thols, no Andros, or maybe even no ISC.  No company is going to release a game with all the races we want in the first title.  I have never seen it happen and it certainly won't happen here.  That puts us on a path of waiting another 3 to 5 years for races that will never come.

What's the point?  You want SFB?  It is right there for the taking.  It just doesn't come in such a pleasant form as SFC.

[EmeraldEdge]

Ah, but what about those who really just want a deep and complex tactical (and possibly strategic) Trek game based on ship to ship combat?  Nobody has come close in their attempts, imo.  SFB provides a base.  When they go "Paramount", basically it ends up being a shallow arcade style game.  It's not necessarily their fault.  Just think about the amount of time SFB has had to pull things together.  They didn't have nearly what they have now when they started out.  I won't deny that I very much enjoyed SFB, but I'm open to other alternatives for the same style of gaming.  It's just that nobody has been able to deliver, that I've seen.  I guess where the fualt lies is in several places.

1) Paramount.  They have no set standard for anything beyond visuals and names(and sometimes not even then).  As time goes by they seem to have less and less interest in solving this problem, in fact they seem to be more interested in making it worse.  Although, with the departure of certain elements and change of structures, I guess it could be in a wait and see pattern.  Without it, it creates so much more work for a dev to do (and weakens their property since it doesn't even follow itself)

2) Vanity/Pride of Devs - Bless them for trying, and I'm not saying it's impossible, but do they really think they can, in a couple of months (assuming they even have that long to create it) they can come up with something that competes with something that's been in development for decades?  And then there are those who would even laud the effort as surpassing SFB on complexity and ease of use at the same time.  Hmmmm.  When they don't feel they have the time, or money to create an adequate game engine they (many developers) license one from someone else who's already done the work, so that they can focus on making a better game with the time and money alotted.  They get plenty of subcontractors to do things, but the thought of doing that for the base of the game system is out of the question I guess.

Now there are more places than that to look as well, but those are some fairly large factors. 

[KBF-Crim]

That's why I think the solution lies in a dual ruleset...

Most game now come with at least two settings...

Arcade....Simulation

Everyone of those games has at least two rulesets...

[Bonk]

I stayed out of this since my suggestion was shutdown (which I still think is viable, I doubt that paramount is really that evil).

A few observations since I caught up on this thread:
- Crim is the quotemeister!
- EmeraldEdge is one long winded bugger.
- Mr. Plana shares my view of / disappointment in SFC3
- Lepton is still that loveable grumpy old cynic.

But I feel obliged to comment on the following:

You know, at this point, I am half-tempted to say to everyone that wants SFC4 or the computerized SFB equivalent to just go play SFB.  Seriously, one is never going to cram all of SFB into one game and that would lead any SFB/SFC product to be merely an implementation of part of SFB just as we have now.  What is enough SFB to satisfy and will that amount satisfy everyone?  I think one would find a host of divergent answers to that question.

There is already SFBOnline.  I'd say go pressure ADB to make it something worth subscribing to and you are set. 

Now if it's a question of getting more of SFB into something SFC-like, I think that is highly unlikely, because I can tell you how the release of such a product would go.  First title in the series would be just roms, feds, and klinks, maybe kzin.  Second title would add something like gorns, lyran, hydran, maybe kzin.  By third title, we are sort of back where we started.  Sales are falling off, etc, etc and still no Thols, no Andros, or maybe even no ISC.  No company is going to release a game with all the races we want in the first title.  I have never seen it happen and it certainly won't happen here.  That puts us on a path of waiting another 3 to 5 years for races that will never come.

What's the point?  You want SFB?  It is right there for the taking.  It just doesn't come in such a pleasant form as SFC.

SFC1 sold well because it was closely based on SFB. SFC3 in comparison was not, and I believe the lackluster sales performance was due to this alone.

Why do we want a game true to SFB, a la SFC?

- It is pretty damn close to what we all dreamed of while playing SFB.
- SFB battles took all day to resolve, campaigns took months.
- SFC just needs a better fleet interface (more ships) as well as the crtitque I made earlier in the thread.
- an SFC that is true to SFC lets us relive those Halcyon days of our youth with people all over the world (as friends are known to scatter). You can join in and play at your leisure, for only an hour or two if you desire.
- SFB sets, like hockey cards have gone by the wayside lost in attics and basements over the years.
- My old groups SFB set filled a hockey bag, it wasn't exactly portable.

I put forth pretty much the exact opposite of your theory. If an improved SFC is released, truer to SFB and more complete than ever it wil outsell all previous versions. I am confident of it. A ruleset that has been playtested for decades is an excellent base for a computer game and cannot be matched by compromising the game to try and hit more than one market.

It is what we have wanted for years. Moving even further away from SFB would only result in a product that will perform even worse than SFC3 and will alienate even more players.

THere is no sense in making an SFC that is not SFC based, there are already a number of games well entrenched in that market that would be very difficult to compete with. If I did not want an SFB based game I'd go play Eve or Nexus or Homeworld.

This thought is not complete and I have not expressed it very well, but I hope you can see my point.

[Mog]

The more ships in a battle, the quicker ships get destroyed from massed, concentrated fire. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

[FPF-DieHard]

The more ships in a battle, the quicker ships get destroyed from massed, concentrated fire. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

Not fo everyfight, bu 5v5 even 10v10 would be very col once in a while   

PBR rulez

[762_XC]

Large fleets make you really appreciate what command ships do, beyond the extra pair of Ph-1 they carry.

And PBR does rule.

[FPF-DieHard]

Large fleets make you really appreciate what command ships do, beyond the extra pair of Ph-1 they carry.

And PBR does rule.

Don't forget scouts, something has to protect the Capital ships with EW.   40 disrupter/Photons fired at once will tear anything appart in 1-2 volleys without a crap-load.

Who knows, Moggy might be right that it will get old quick.

[gplana]

You guys might want to read Steve Cole's post re FEDERATION COMMANDER here on Dynaverse: http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php?topic=163360385.msg1122685315;topicseen#msg1122685315

(And if anyone here that is an admin or sysop here needs verification, yes, that postwas made by the "real" Steve Cole.)

[KBF-Crim]

You guys might want to read Steve Cole's post re FEDERATION COMMANDER here on Dynaverse: http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php?topic=163360385.msg1122685315;topicseen#msg1122685315

(And if anyone here that is an admin or sysop here needs verification, yes, that postwas made by the "real" Steve Cole.)

No problem Gary...we're allways honored when Steve stops by...in fact..we're honored that you stopped by...

SFC is the replacement for those of use who simply dont have the time, or the play group, to actually play SFB...

In fact..I never bought any SFB materials until I started playing SFC...I just bought Captians log #30 just for the SFC article by Luc..

[Bonk]

The more ships in a battle, the quicker ships get destroyed from massed, concentrated fire. Doesn't sound like fun to me.

Large fleets make you really appreciate what command ships do, beyond the extra pair of Ph-1 they carry.

And PBR does rule.

Don't forget scouts, something has to protect the Capital ships with EW.   40 disrupter/Photons fired at once will tear anything appart in 1-2 volleys without a crap-load.

Who knows, Moggy might be right that it will get old quick.

I find exactly the opposite.

I think endless leader variant duels (in flagrant violation of SFB CnC) are quite tiresome. <yawn>

What we need are fleets large enough to support real SFB CnC rules, this will pretty much end all cheese debates.

The way I see it if you want to fly that D5L or D5C, it damn well better the the leader of a proper squadron of three. (only one leader or command variant or bombardment ship per squadron...) If you want to fly that BB then you better have a full fleet of nine ships including escorts (or whatever the CnC rule was...)

See where I'm going with this?

[Bonk]

... to continue the thought...

Said CnC rules should be built into the server/client such that you cannot buy the leader/command variant until you meet the required number of line ships. (so folks like us don't have to remember the detailed CnC rules ).

Additionally to counter your gang-up theory; a good fleet formation prevents this, remember the dynamic of a Fed Carrier group or ISC eschelon on the SFB hexmap? You couldn't just rush one ship, it took careful planning, use of terrain and maneuver to isolate a ship from the fleet.

Of course as I mentioned earlier, this would require a much more effective and functional fleet command interface and of course much improved AI. Particularly AI that can handle seeking weapons offense/defense stratagems.

I have always wanted to see a proper ISC eschelon in action in SFC. Or better yet a Fed/Klingon carrier group battle without the stacks of fighters and drones requiring hours of deft manipulations and sideslips that were often never fully resolved, hell sometimes we got as far as setting it all up and realised we'd never be able to resolve it and went straight to the beer fridge... (God forbid if the cat ran over the table while you were on lunch break... )

[EmeraldEdge]

Yeah, I would say that CnC would have to be built in.  No way are folks going to go around memorizing rules and adhering to it (especially new people).  I would, however, slip a toggle switch in, so you could get those 'fantasy' matchups if you wanted to.

[Mog]

.snip

Additionally to counter your gang-up theory; a good fleet formation prevents this, remember the dynamic of a Fed Carrier group or ISC eschelon on the SFB hexmap? You couldn't just rush one ship, it took careful planning, use of terrain and maneuver to isolate a ship from the fleet.

snip

Back in the 80s, I played in a homemade F&E type campign using SFB for battle resolution. We had fleets of up to 15 ships each. I was playing Coalition, and on one of the early moves, one of my Klingon fleets met a Fed fleet as it pushed into Fed territory.

There was no need to isolate and rush any of the opposing ships - I just got to range 15 and opened fire with 60 disruptors, resulting in 2 gutted cruisers. Next turn, 2 more gutted cruisers. I lost a couple of ships (some lucky/unlucky dice rolls   ) - the Fed fleet managed to disengage 2 ships, the rest were lost or captured. Sure wasn't fun for the Fed player.

Look at EVE - it has massed fleet battles - you get called primary and poof - few seconds later, your battleship is gone.

Large fleet battles favour direct-fire races too much.

Edit: btw, sorry for diverting the course of the discussion; felt compelled to respond to someone's soapbox

[KBF MalaK]

I have more fun in SFB battling monsters, and convoy escort missions. I've been playing SFB since 1980 and the thought of another long weekend sitting around an 8 foot map directing 10 ships makes me sick.

Anyhow, if ADB can make a SFB game for my computer, I'll buy 2 copies !!!

[KBF-Crim]

Anyhow, if ADB can make a SFB game for my computer, I'll buy 2 copies !!!

Oy....

[Bonk]

.snip

Additionally to counter your gang-up theory; a good fleet formation prevents this, remember the dynamic of a Fed Carrier group or ISC eschelon on the SFB hexmap? You couldn't just rush one ship, it took careful planning, use of terrain and maneuver to isolate a ship from the fleet.

snip

Back in the 80s, I played in a homemade F&E type campign using SFB for battle resolution. We had fleets of up to 15 ships each. I was playing Coalition, and on one of the early moves, one of my Klingon fleets met a Fed fleet as it pushed into Fed territory.

There was no need to isolate and rush any of the opposing ships - I just got to range 15 and opened fire with 60 disruptors, resulting in 2 gutted cruisers. Next turn, 2 more gutted cruisers. I lost a couple of ships (some lucky/unlucky dice rolls   ) - the Fed fleet managed to disengage 2 ships, the rest were lost or captured. Sure wasn't fun for the Fed player.

Look at EVE - it has massed fleet battles - you get called primary and poof - few seconds later, your battleship is gone.

Large fleet battles favour direct-fire races too much.

Edit: btw, sorry for diverting the course of the discussion; felt compelled to respond to someone's soapbox

To continue the digression...

Yes that occurred to me after I posted, particularly with ISC fleets, a few dozen PPDs at long range are devastating.
However, that is where the fighters come in. Most huge fleet battles I played always had a carrier group in them to prevent exactly what you describe from dominating the battle, and to draw such fire.

I still find such battles more entertaining than leader variant duels adnauseum.

[Dfly]

in fleet battles for the ISC Eschelon it would take dozens of ships to get a dozen PPDs.  If you check the formations used for the ISC in SFB, there would be like a max of 6 PPD for a 9 ship fleet.  Granted 6 PPD will really hurt a ship at a good range, so would 9 Fed ships with an average total of some 30 Photons fired at range.  It is all relative.

[RazalYllib]

I go away a few days to build and new computer and all this happens....such energy in a thread is quite interesting...

My PoV...

I want SFB based SFC4-GaW with all the bells and whistles enumerated in such detail above as a standalone and fully modable product as a base, complete with FnE based economic system which also is fully modable. Did I also mention a give away server kit complete with fully functional sql out of the box? I would purchase several copies as well as encourage my buddies to purchase as well. With the advances in video processing tech it could be a feature set that animates damage as it is applied, different for each affected system, a transporter hit would be different from a APR, use your imagination.

[KBF MalaK]

I go away a few days to build and new computer and all this happens....such energy in a thread is quite interesting...

My PoV...

I want SFB based SFC4-GaW with all the bells and whistles enumerated in such detail above as a standalone and fully modable product as a base, complete with FnE based economic system which also is fully modable. Did I also mention a give away server kit complete with fully functional sql out of the box? I would purchase several copies as well as encourage my buddies to purchase as well. With the advances in video processing tech it could be a feature set that animates damage as it is applied, different for each affected system, a transporter hit would be different from a APR, use your imagination.

Oh yeaaa, baby.. And a career mode where I can fly a captured ship throughout my career.

GIMMEEE!!!!

[EmeraldEdge]

heh.  I doubt the folks at Starfleet Command (or whatever organization) would let you keep that ship for very long.  They'd probably take it back to intel and turn it inside out, or give it to you (assuming you were lucky enough to pull the duty) for a covert ops mission before demanding you turn it in.

[FPF-DieHard]

in fleet battles for the ISC Eschelon it would take dozens of ships to get a dozen PPDs.  If you check the formations used for the ISC in SFB, there would be like a max of 6 PPD for a 9 ship fleet.  Granted 6 PPD will really hurt a ship at a good range, so would 9 Fed ships with an average total of some 30 Photons fired at range.  It is all relative.

There are rulles preventing all PPD fleets for this reason.

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

R.E. fleet engagements

This is why F&E limits fleets to around 10 ships with DN/BB/CVA command ships (and, as I remember, spending a command point could bump this to 11).  Running a sixteen ship fleet WILL result in a lot of one shot-one kill situations, and should NOT be encouraged!

In SFC, I think I'd suggest limiting fleets to 9 (3x3), with the limitation that one size class 4 (DD/FF) ship is required for every larger ship, and one size class 3 or 4 (CA/DD/FF) ship be required for every size class 2 (BB/DN) ship (so you could have a BB, CVA, 2 cruisers, four DD/FF and a size class 4 scout).

And if someone wanted a fleet of 8 frigates with a CC, more power to them!  In the 'yard' interface, the command ship you bought would dictate how many smaller ships you can have.  The only time this would get tricky is if someone shot your CC out from under you and you had 8 leaderless DD/FF's.  My guess is that the game interface would 'refund' you for the lost ships (perhaps with you picking which ships to send down the road) until you met your reduced command limits.  Or, you could simply say that 9 ship fleets are always allowed (to save headaches).

Are the size class 4 ships effectively popcorn?  Absolutely!  But that's the whole point in fleet play.  You shouldn't concerned so much about losing ships as much as winning engagements (by making the opponent lose more ships than you do).

Of course, scouts would also need to be properly implemented, which begs the question: how can you easily tell an AI-run scout in your fleet that you want EW lended to certain ships, use 'x' number of channels to break lock-ons of drones targetted on certain ships, etc.?

I think that you will find that seeking weapons tend to be a LOT more devastating in fleet play.  It's easy enough for one ship to peel off when targetted, but wheeling an entire fleet around is another story...

Assigning ships to formation spots probably wouldn't be that hard actually.  As the 'mission start up' screen pops up, you would take a minute to choose your formation (eschelon, line abreast, or whatever).  Each formation would assign a number to given spots (the command ship being in the #1 spot, in the rear of the formation for example), and other ships would be assigned a spot in the formation.  As formation spots become empty, the next ship down fills that spot (i.e. if you lose your #4 ship in a 9 ship formation, ship #5 goes to 4, ship #6 goes to 5, etc.).  Changing ship assignments during a battle would be distracting (i.e. go to fleet interface, click on ship #4 and reassign it to #7 or whatever), which incidentally simulates the chaos of such occurences...  The SFC fleet interface already does this to a degree, but this would need to be upgraded for the nine ship fleets.

Regardless, I think it would be best to limit battles to 18 ships (9 per side), barring special cases, which incidentally are the current SFC OP limits. i.e. six players, 3 ships each, minus the larger formation options.

I'd also envision in that interface an option to 'lock' the point of a given formation on the command ship of the opposing formation, so that a formation would wheel to face the enemy, keeping the rear of the formation away from the enemy.  I'd also envision options to break formation and scatter, attack at will, etc., should such be required.  If you are hopelessly outnumbered, breaking up and running in multiple directions might at least save some ships in your fleet.

In the interest of those prefering 'loner' play, you could have the mission selection screen offer different options for fleets and skirmishers, i.e. loners get a lot of 'convoy raid' and similar missions, while fleets tend to draw starbase assaults and such.  And I'd think that fleet missions should affect hex DV's more than skirmisher missions would.  And you could introduce an additional mission selection group for 3 ship fleets, so that they aren't always drawing larger fleets (unless they so choose).

I'd also envision a starbase assault mission, which has live players on each side, assigning additional AI ships (equal to the starbase) to the attacker's fleet, which would be incorporated into the attacker's fleet in some manner.  This would reflect the F&E command point rule (the fleet admiral has assigned additional assets to take out the base).

The main question in all this is: can the 'data packets' that SFC sends back and forth handle such large fleets, or will online play bog down?  Also, I'd think that in the interest of actually allowing players to run their fleet, that fleet engagements would run at lower game speeds (example: speed 8-9 for single ship, speed 7-8 for three ship fleets, speed 5-6 for 9 ship fleets). That way you can actually direct your fleet somewhat rather than simply hoping the AI does what you want.

Some 'hey fleet target this ship and fire', 'concentrate on fleet point defense', 'everybody go evasive', etc. buttons would also be nice...

Three way fleet engagements are bad, and probably shouldn't be allowed, in the interest of game stability.  36 ships in a single engagement would be interesting to watch but no fun to be in the middle of, especially if three opposing fleets simultaneously decide your fleet has to go...

Hmmm, I wonder if you could tweak the method of mission assignment so those desiring to patrol a single hex all the time could ask for missions without having to leave the hex?  Or for those desiring the fun of running a starbase, allowing them to do so (click on mission interface, and you get to choose between sabotage, cargo inpection, merchant pirate soldier spy, etc. missions.).

Also, you could introduce two new variables into the game for fleets: Special Weapon limits and Special ship limits.  Hellbores, PPD's, etc. would have a number of points assigned to them, and your fleet couldn't exceed this point limit (i.e. the interface would tell you "this ship exceeds current weapon limits" and you'd have to buy another instead).  Special ships could also be similarly limited, such as drone frigates (i.e. no more than 3 DF's in a 9 ship fleet).  And the limits could scale to the size of the fleet.  Example: you earn 10 'weapon points' for every ship in the fleet.  PPD's cost 11 weapon points each, so a 9 ship fleet can have 8 PPD's (88 weapon points, 90 allowed), while a 5 ship fleet can only have 4 PPD's...  You could also write some exception into the code, so that you can always take one ship that would otherwise exceed the limits, as long as no other ship in the fleet can pack special weapons, i.e. a 4 PPD DN is worth 44 'weapon points', so if it is flown in a four ship fleet, it would normally exceed weapon limits (40). But, since it would be the only PPD-armed ship in said smaller fleet, it is allowed.

[ModelsPlease]

What I would like to see in SFC4 would probably make everyone happy. Which is why I want it but it also allows everyone their favorite playgrounds. In SFC-OP, you have four time periods: Early, Middle, Late, and Advanced. What happens is that we heavily redefine this.

Early period ship classes would be up to and including the TOS Constitution class, D7B, and so forth. Ship classes and races seen on ENTERPRISE. Main enemy races would be Orions and the SFB races that died out early, like Paravians, Carnivons, etc. Everything in SFB excluding X-ships.

Middle period ships would be ENTERPRISE-A, Ktinga, and all of the other early movie ships, and seen-on-TV classes up to AMBASSADOR class (in other words, everything pre-TNG). Enemy races would include a number of independants popping up like the LDR, Vudar, WYN, Andromedans, and a few others. SFB X-ships and SFC-OP X-weapons. The ISC would first appear in this period as they played no real part in galactic affairs before now.

Late period ships would be GALAXY, DEFIANT, and most everything else we've seen or heard on TNG, DS9, Voyager, and so forth. Enemy ships would include the Borg. Quantum Torps and other serious advanced weapons enter service, including some of the SFC3 stuff that's worth keeping.

Advanced period would be the playground for all the modders out there who have introduced goodies that split from either Paramount canon or SFB canon.

One key point is that as each new period occurs, the map becomes larger (or the size of the empires shrinks a bit) to allow space for the new arrivals.

This is only an outline, it needs a LOT of work and fine-tuning, but it could be made to work without too much effort. Other people have made much the same suggestions, here and there, but this is one approach to the game's background that would accomodate both the SFB purists with the people who never got into SFB and grew up believing TNG and DS9 were the only way to go.

Anyhow, that's my two cents worth.

I LUV this idea  . I'd be very happy with a game like this, as long as it has the same or more modability then OP.Preferably more  . More weapons, actually ALL SFB and Canon Trek weapons would be nice. The ability to customize your ship when in dock based on weapon availabilty of the era you're currently in would be nice as well. That would free up many ship spaces if for example you're using the FCA. Availible weapons/shields etc should be available for puchase in dock. That way you wouldn't need to sell an FCA to then get FCAD or whatever. The Base class would be it, and then the player purchases whatever  refit pack they want ( FNCA,FCAD,FCA+,FCS,etc...) for their own ship, then customize it ala SFC 3. Just a thought. Each refit pack would contain the proper weapons,shield strength,shuttles, drones etc...... for that particular design. And I like the duel rule set idea as well. More acurate solar systems. The ability for large scale planetary invasions would be fun as well. Definative declarations of war. The ability to pick and choose treaties/alliances. All that good stuff that was part off Birth of the Federation.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

No thanks to bringing in "enterprise" era into an sfb/sfc game. While I liked some aspects of the show, continuity was a joke and would be so gamewise as well with sfb/sfc. Cloaking warp driven romulans in "enterprise" era and d-7s just for example. Nothing before TOS thank you very much.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Some considerations:

With the increases in processing power since SFC I came out, I could see an SFC IV with the ability to handle a full 11-ship fleet engagement.  If you're counting on "proper" human play, that's maybe a 4th player per side.  With the "proper" multi-player code inserted, that should be no problem, as many FPS games can run with 64 humans at once...  on a lot more detailed maps with characters having, IIRC, as many polies as a typical medium-polied SFC ship...

By coding in all the SFB S8 rules and other fleet rules, that takes care of the problems with the various weapons.  Per SFB, the ISC is limited to 1 PPD bearing ship per every 3 ships in the fleet, and are limited to something like 8 PPDs total, which is coincidentally the most you can get anyway (4 from the DN / BB, 2 from the CC, 2 from the CS, with a HSC, CL, 3xDD-hull (one being DDL) and 3xFF hull (maybe swapping an FFL for the DDL, as you can't have a 4th command boat in this formation), rounding out the Echelon.

The only other HW with a "weapons restriction" on it is the Webcaster.  Otherwise, all other HWs are unrestricted, primarily because they rely on luck and/or have counters (ie, an all-hellbore fleet doesn't have the fighter coverage of a mixed fleet or the in-close threat.)  Also, these weapons are fairly balanced against each other (ie, firing every hellbore on a fleet does about as much damage as every photon in a fleet).

To me, SFC IV should be as close to SFB as possible, not because I'm a bible-pumping SFB-ite, but because a number of problems that have existed since SFC I are due to differences in the rulesets.  Ships fly faster because they don't have to pay for EDR repairs or shield regneration, which messes up seeking weapons.  Auto-shield regneration messes up saber-dancing.  Nobody says the rules have to be exactly SFB (ie, the "EDR" magic screws can be figured by taking 2/3rd the number of systems that EDR could theoretically repair and making it 4 power per turn to repair the system instead of 3, or shield regerneration is factored by how much power is set aside to regeneration, ie 2 power = 1 point on each shield facing every third turn, while 12 power = 1 point on every shield facing each turn).

[FPF-DieHard]

And remove the Magic-Photon bonuse     That gets silly enough with 3 ships.

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

And remove the Magic-Photon bonuse     That gets silly enough with 3 ships.

Either that or give every other heavy weapon the appropriate increase in range!  Photons in SFB have a 30 range max, which meant that feds got to wait out that range 40 disruptor shot from the Klink DN's, or ISC PPDs before coasting into range 30 and showing everyone the glory of prox photons!

Kaufman Retrograding with range 55 prox photons would simply be ugly for game balance... talk about uber!

I don't mind range 55 photons, as long as disruptors, hellbores, PPD's, Web Casters, etc. all get a similar increase (and appropriate 'to hit' adjustment).

Oh, and while you are at it, there is always the option of increasing the range on plasmas too.  I wouldn't mind seeing an R plasma reaching out and touching someone (for 1 point of damage) at 55...

So yeah, let's get some better parity at the longer ranges!

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

Some considerations:

With the increases in processing power since SFC I came out, I could see an SFC IV with the ability to handle a full 11-ship fleet engagement.  If you're counting on "proper" human play, that's maybe a 4th player per side.  With the "proper" multi-player code inserted, that should be no problem, as many FPS games can run with 64 humans at once...  on a lot more detailed maps with characters having, IIRC, as many polies as a typical medium-polied SFC ship...

By coding in all the SFB S8 rules and other fleet rules, that takes care of the problems with the various weapons.  Per SFB, the ISC is limited to 1 PPD bearing ship per every 3 ships in the fleet, and are limited to something like 8 PPDs total, which is coincidentally the most you can get anyway (4 from the DN / BB, 2 from the CC, 2 from the CS, with a HSC, CL, 3xDD-hull (one being DDL) and 3xFF hull (maybe swapping an FFL for the DDL, as you can't have a 4th command boat in this formation), rounding out the Echelon.

The only other HW with a "weapons restriction" on it is the Webcaster.  Otherwise, all other HWs are unrestricted, primarily because they rely on luck and/or have counters (ie, an all-hellbore fleet doesn't have the fighter coverage of a mixed fleet or the in-close threat.)  Also, these weapons are fairly balanced against each other (ie, firing every hellbore on a fleet does about as much damage as every photon in a fleet).

To me, SFC IV should be as close to SFB as possible, not because I'm a bible-pumping SFB-ite, but because a number of problems that have existed since SFC I are due to differences in the rulesets.  Ships fly faster because they don't have to pay for EDR repairs or shield regneration, which messes up seeking weapons.  Auto-shield regneration messes up saber-dancing.  Nobody says the rules have to be exactly SFB (ie, the "EDR" magic screws can be figured by taking 2/3rd the number of systems that EDR could theoretically repair and making it 4 power per turn to repair the system instead of 3, or shield regerneration is factored by how much power is set aside to regeneration, ie 2 power = 1 point on each shield facing every third turn, while 12 power = 1 point on every shield facing each turn).

Hellbore fighters also had restrictions, as did various fed fighters, which the game should also restrict somehow.

One thing I think was a mistake was evening out the power curve for plasmas.  the 2/2/5 arming cost for the R plasma (and other plasma arming costs) did interesting things to ship speeds, i.e. you could rearm at higher speeds, helping you avoid counterstrikes.  But when it came time to finish arming, your speed would drop a bit, and you had the decision 'do I fire now or wait until the holding costs kick in?'.  Now your speed is constant so that little tactical nuance is gone.

As for EDR, etc. I have an observation.  When you were gathered around the table for hours on end, and a half hour or more passed between volleys, how damage was handled was OK.

In SFC, where engagements can be over in 2-3 minutes under the CURRENT rules, I'm sure the designers realized that leaving damage at SFB levels resulted in ships dying waaay too quickly!  If your ship always disappears with the first volley, well the game won't be as much fun frankly.  I for one think that doubled internals is a good thing, as it allows the game to play out longer, and keeps weapons on board longer, so players are able to fight back more effectively after a crushing volley.

As for SFC damage repairs, everybody gets similar benefits from it.  You can argue that some weapons are hurt more than others, but the way it works now does make the game more appealing to newbies.  As it stands now, you can stay in the fray while doing repairs.  By assigning an energy cost to repairs, this encourages people to break off to do repairs (which I used to do in SFB), resulting in stern chases, etc, hence MUCH longer games.  And we've heard enough people complain about how long plasma ballets can take...

As for shield regeneration rates, I again think they are a good thing, as long as they aren't too uber for any given race.  The reason disruptors have difficulty versus the feds isn't so much the fact that the shields are regenerating, but rather the fact that they are regenerating faster than 2 points per turn on cruisers (3-4 per turn for DN's and BBs), as they would in SFB with damage control rates.  I think having labs dictate how fast shields regenerate has been a recipe for game inbalance.  I'd rather see system repair rates tied to the number of labs onboard, to sorta kinda reflect that EDR thing.  Feds had more labs, so they could make repairs more certain than klinks with their measly 4-6 labs.  this also reflects design philosophies: Klink designs focus on taking you out quickly (better firing arcs), while feds are designed to soak up damage a little better. So,  I think that shield regeneration rates should strictly be a functiion of your damage control rating.

And then there was CDR (continuous damage repair) as well, which took a while but didn't cost any power.  4 repair points a turn could get you a phaser 2 back in one turn as I remember... which the Taldren system sorta kinda reflects (minus the part where you could only repair up to your damage control rating).  Perhaps to meet you halfway you could have a 'repair' energy category to speed up repairs (to reflect charging up your labs), and the amount of power you could assign would be a function of how many labs you have.

As for spare parts, I think that what people carry around in any given battle is probably too high.  I think I'd rather see this tied to your damage control rating (and perhaps labs), with a small 'spare part' regeneration rate between engagements, instead of packing around 20-30 parts in a given engagement.  This would reflect supply freighters, pirates, etc. that you rendesvous with between battles.  Perhaps 2x your damage control rating plus 1 per lab onboard?  And possibly replenish them at a rate of 1/2 your damage control rating when in home space?  This would make raiding the parts stocks on enemy ships a little more important when in enemy territory...

Batteries need to be implemented much better than they are.  At the very least, I think a check box or something which automatically drains batteries (for specific shield reinforcement) if you are about to take internals would be something... What would be an idea would be to have some way to assign batteries to specific energy uses (i.e. I want to dump batteries into weapons only, but not ECM, shield reinforcement, or whatever).  Again, this would be a check box on the energy distribution panel, so when you flip batteries on, they would be split between the categories that are checked.

It would also be nice to have a 'sixth' energy category for regcharging batteries.  That way, you could, say, have movement at priority #1, battery recharge at #2, weapons at #3, and so on.  This would really make batteries a lot more useful, as they were in SFB.

It would also be nice to be able to repair batteries.  And perhaps hull, lab, and other systems as well...

I don't think that game imbalance in SFC is really all that bad, as the player distribution fits the pattern.  We have a lot of feds, because they are the feds after all.  We also have a lot of klinks, and the other races, while having less players, are more or less distributed somewhat equally.

I'd argue that droners have more fans though (Mirakzinti), what with the KOTH, KAT, and other fleets.  Suprisingly, we don't seem to have a lot of ISC players though (I could be wrong), which is odd since everyone seems to consider their ships more uber than everyone elses...

If anything, the faster missiles in SFC are much scarier than the SFB drones...  when was the last time you took a speed 8 drone seriously (outside of an anchor situation)?

Cloak needs some tweaking though... this is obvious based on the low numbers of people that still play Rom.  As for plasmas, well many of us said a long time ago 'give us direct fire plasmas and they will be fixed'.

[Bonk]

Kaufman Retrograding

   I'd love to see this in SFC. (plus saucer and boom separation - all desperate measures but fun stuff)

[Bonk]

As for spare parts, I think that what people carry around in any given battle is probably too high.  I think I'd rather see this tied to your damage control rating (and perhaps labs), with a small 'spare part' regeneration rate between engagements, instead of packing around 20-30 parts in a given engagement. 

It is tied to DCR, DieHard developed a standard formula to apply to the DCR column in the shiplist that provides reasonable numbers of spares. (2-10) This has been applied to almost all dynaverse servers over the last few years.

As for plasmas, well many of us said a long time ago 'give us direct fire plasmas and they will be fixed'.

Down that road lies SFC3...

[762_XC]

Why stop there EoJ? If batteries are going to be improved we should have a full reserve power system, with the ability to instant-arm one turn weapons such as dizzies and fusions, and instant-overload others. ECM yo-yo would also be nice.

Regarding fighter CnC, we already do this on D2 via server rules.

Retrogrades are a bad idea imho (sorry AJTK). Seeking weapons would become even more useless vs DF. I think the idea of open space battles on the whole is kind of silly from a strategic standpoint. Nobody attacks an open sector of space; there should always be a fixed or slow-moving asset (such as a base or convoy) to attack/defend. In that type of scenario retrograde is not an option. Play F&E for 5 minutes and you will see how many battles actually get fought over nothing.

[Dfly]

My suggestion for Plasmas is simple.  Since ships in SFB travel mostly slower than the ones in SFC and plasmas most times can catch them quicker, I suggest upping the speed of the plasmas in the SFC to say 40?  Most people choose ships that have the ability to go faster than the enemy in most situations and those ships nearly all do 31 loaded.  At worst, a weapon or 2 get turned off and 31 is there.  With slightly faster plasmas you no longer need an R to hit enemy who you are chasing if you are 3 away. 

As it stands you can get chased by a plasma race ship and if you can stay 4 or more away(usually not hard to do) you know his Plasma S cant hit you while you are both moving speed 31.

This idea probably should not be implemented in Early or Mid(as we now know it) but only for Late Advanced Eras.

[Mog]

Why stop there EoJ? If batteries are going to be improved we should have a full reserve power system, with the ability to instant-arm one turn weapons such as dizzies and fusions, and instant-overload others. ECM yo-yo would also be nice.

Regarding fighter CnC, we already do this on D2 via server rules.

Retrogrades are a bad idea imho (sorry AJTK). Seeking weapons would become even more useless vs DF. I think the idea of open space battles on the whole is kind of silly from a strategic standpoint. Nobody attacks an open sector of space; there should always be a fixed or slow-moving asset (such as a base or convoy) to attack/defend. In that type of scenario retrograde is not an option. Play F&E for 5 minutes and you will see how many battles actually get fought over nothing.

A rare moment - I fully agree with you 

[Lieutenant_Q]

I'd like to see a slightly more intelligent AI when it comes to Transporter uses.  I love seeing an AI ally drop his shield to Hit and Run, which happens to open his shield up to a G or S Torp.  Or how about when he drops a decoy then a split second later decides to nullify the decoy with a T-Bomb...seconds later he's hit with 2 Rs.  And just now I watched a Gorn CC drop a shield to H&R a R-FRD when the Gorn ship had no marines left!  Of course the FRD put his F-Torp into bare hull.

And who uses Photons beyond range 30 anyway? a 1 ECM shift and you're just wasting energy.

[KBF-Crim]

As for plasmas, well many of us said a long time ago 'give us direct fire plasmas and they will be fixed'.

Down that road lies SFC3...

Mags figured out how to do plasma bolts a long time ago........didnt even need new artwork......got shot down....ask him about it...

[EschelonOfJudgemnt]

As for plasmas, well many of us said a long time ago 'give us direct fire plasmas and they will be fixed'.

Down that road lies SFC3...

Mags figured out how to do plasma bolts a long time ago........didnt even need new artwork......got shot down....ask him about it...

Yeah I remember.  Twas a sad day, seeing it was such an elegant solution.

[Bonk]

Plasma bolts as per SFB are another matter entirely, yes it would be great to have them as an option. 

I'm just still ticked about SFC3 removing seeking weapons as a way to deal with inadequate AI. Which is my assesment of the reason they were removed, as there were too many fights about droners and hex flipping, so instead of fixing the AI to be able to cope with seeking weapons (a daunting task mind you) they just removed them. 

[762_XC]

Look at it this way Bonk.

I'm grateful Taldren made a game that would sell (read: dumbed down) and make them enough to stay in business long enough to patch up OP to where it is today.

SFC3 sucks, but its existence breathed some new life into OP.

GAW would have been nice, but face it - we are a niche market.

[Julin Eurthyr]

Took me a while to come up with this phrasing...

I'm not complaining about double internals.  Yet...   I do realize that they probably need to stay in SFC no matter what.  A single-internals option would be nice, though not necessary.

Demon Fly hit one of the biggest problems since SFC I right on the head:

Most people choose ships that have the ability to go faster than the enemy in most situations and those ships nearly all do 31 loaded.

What happens if, with the new (EDR / Regen needs power) rules implemented, the player insists on flying speed 31 the entire fight?  To think of right off the top of my head:
Even the 4xPH-1 on a R-WE will eventually chip away and drop the rear shield.  Each internal scored will be "permanent", eventually slowing the target down enough to where the R-torp will hit and do significant (fatal) damage.  Other ships (all DF-races) will, obviously, do this damage quicker than envisioned by the WE, so the "long, drawn out battle" bit won't be an issue.

Don't forget, I'm just mentioning a "part" of the wishlist.  Many things (Dro-G & AMD linking, plasma bolts, fixing the "magic photon", offensive & properly linked Pl-D, smarter fighters, fighters and PFs for all, fixing the deck-crew / fighter regeneration, better cloak) that help out balance have earned permanent homes in the Equine Graveyard 3 years ago.  There's other things that should be added too, and obviously, things would have to be "tweaked" to fit into the real-time nature of the game.  Like I said, I'm for a "closer to SFB interpretation" because that's what all the balances were written for, there's always the option of trying to rebalance everything we don't change (I, for one, don't think the SFB-mandated Klingon mutiny is needed, and do we really want UIM-burnout or 30 Disruptor charts?)

[RazalYllib]

Additionally, a Federation and Empire style economic/ship prodution port, would naturally restrict the "cheese", making the campaign enviroment more generic off the shelf hulls.  One thing I would like to see is a "programable or learning AI", I understand there was some work done some years ago on this for games. The games AI "remembered" how you played and tried to keep you past behavior in mind as it plotted moves ... sounded interesting.

The above ideas about the RPGness in a campaign would also be a marketable feature. Instead of lvls, you have Command Ratings. As you play...you eventually will get the opportunity to "bid" w/ your fleetmates, for the limited pool of hire CR rated ships. The other restriction that should be lifted is the total # of missions that can be loaded. Gives the player base more content to experience, especially if more things can be done with the engine and there is more RPGness. Multi ship engagements were a staple of the "historical" sfb general war. Most ships were too valuable to risk off by them selves, though small squadrens 3-5 do have their uses in pinning situations in FnE.

A more robust "Campaign Front End" would also be desired, a way for players to move/manage AI assets (at the cost of the expendature of prestige or the equivalent. Would go a long way in giving the players a more immersive experience. 

[KBF MalaK]

  Like I said, I'm for a "closer to SFB interpretation" because that's what all the balances were written for, there's always the option of trying to rebalance everything we don't change (I, for one, don't think the SFB-mandated Klingon mutiny is needed, and do we really want UIM-burnout or 30 Disruptor charts?)

That part is absolutely necessary to reflect the Klingon social order, where the weaker follow the stronger (under penealty of death).

[Age]

And remove the Magic-Photon bonuse     That gets silly enough with 3 ships.

Actually can we give it +3 in ecm shift Like Capt. Kirk would. 

[Bonk]

Look at it this way Bonk.

I'm grateful Taldren made a game that would sell (read: dumbed down) and make them enough to stay in business long enough to patch up OP to where it is today.

SFC3 sucks, but its existence breathed some new life into OP.

GAW would have been nice, but face it - we are a niche market.

Good point. We still owe Mr. Ferrell a thousand thank yous for his efforts on patching OP.   I hope he is doing well in his current endeavours.

However, my main point was that to be true to SFB any new SFC will require thousands of hours of AI coding and testing by someone who is initmately familiar with all SFB tactics. If the AI was smart enough, innumerable problems with the previous versions would be solved. (mainly seeking weapons smarts)

And remove the Magic-Photon bonuse     That gets silly enough with 3 ships.

Actually can we give it +3 in ecm shift Like Capt. Kirk would. 

Regarding the magik photons: I think setting photon damage charts to what they are in SFB would go a long way to reducing the blue plague, as it would take true finesse to do significant damage with them. I cannot count how many times I was pre-empted by Klingon disruptors and phasers or Romulan plasma in SFB duels. Basically, don't fire photons unless you're inside range three, or have at least a dozen of them to run proxies, but fighting klingons the best you could do was one or two rounds of proxies before you were outmaneuvered by the superior turn modes and power curve to support the EW battle. If you were lucky you could knock down a sheild or two and then eat the preemptive strike at range 5 and hope you had some overloads left for the overrun on a down sheild.

[Doctor Lazarus]

Take away the magic photon bonus is fine if you want to go to sfb single internals where it was worth for the Fed to close to 2.99...

[RazalYllib]

I'll take the single internal option for $500 alex...but seriously folks, I like the idea of single internals...though game speed would have to be turned down...that one mistake, extra mouse click etc....could be fatal...I like it