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.
Topic: SFC4: Galaxies at War....crap or get off the pot... (Read 29985 times)