Topic: Opinion for Gaming

[[UFP]Exeter]

The physics is straightforward.  We will consider mass and inertia and more vessel characteristics. 

It is interesting as in another thread individuals want a SFB type game, including 2D.

[Starfox1701]

Yes but between ADB and Activision that is an IP fight I personally don't want to pick. I personally have not seen another game that matches SFC for style. It may just be to unique a game mechanic and that means a copyright fight or license deal; neither of which look like they would go our way right now.

[[UFP]Exeter]

it becomes a mess with copyrights.  CBS currently owns Star Trek.   ADB has SFB and is licensed by CBS.   Activision owns some SFC and must have license from ADB and CBS, not sure.

A quote from US copyright law:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

        the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
        the nature of the copyrighted work;
        the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
        the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[2]

So it seems if the game is non commercial we are ok.   And there have been court cases to validate this.  But if we can get permission to use, especially if we can increasse the revenue stream of the copyright owner.

All remains to be seen.

[TAnimaL]

And this permission is the real sticking point. Historically, in regards to Trek, CBS/Viacom/Paramount etc has been very lenient in letting fans get away with making & selling things that violate "fair usage" (critique, teaching, criticism, commentary, research). From t-shirts, blueprints and fanzines to fan-made episodes and movies, the owners of "Star Trek" have turned a blind eye to the money made by individuals, since it doesn't amount to much money.

Historically, ADB has not. Adamantly so. If ADB is not paid for use of their copyrighted material, they will block it.

That's why the SFC:CE model can work; no real money exchanging hands, and done by fans in support of a defunct game. Once a new game is made, it might take more that just saying "it's non-commercial."

As a caveat, I'm not against a new "SFC" game - I'm really hoping it happens, but copyright law is more complex that just that quote above and it depends on how the copyright owned reacts. We here in Trek have it sooo much easier than, say, those fans of Star Wars and how Lucas acted (when in control of SW). Steve Cole is like Lucas - if a game goes up for sale based on material copyrighted by ADB without compensation, expect a cease-and-desist order ar warp speed.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Which is why nothing from ADB will be even looked at without permission to use.  Cannot copy something you have not seen in over 20 years

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Yes and personally I do not think it is worth it.  A few reasons:
   1.  The network system is out of date and has serious issues, it really needs to be ripped out and replaced with stabler one.  Raknet is basically free.
   2.  Th graphics would need to be updated to at least DirectX 9.  But enough has changed that this is not an easy task,.  And for the future it should be DX 11, which is a big changed.
   3.  The current CE code base does many things that are considered bad practice and creates memory leaks.

This is only my opinion.  But not to be arrogant, I have been a professional developer and a lead.  So I do know what I am talking about.   

Can it be fixed, yes, and I even suggested how.  but the CE code is owned by XenoCorp so they would have to give the direction.

But to be blunt, the new game we are calling SFC 4, is something I want to do.  I will do it either as SFC4 or a different name.  But that is what my intent is.  I am not going to make the old code base relevant for now and the future.  Like taking a rusty VW and trying to make a new Cadillac

[Strat]

As far as I know, the only thing you gain from the original series is the SFB rule set. It falls under a 'gandfather clause' of legal inheritance.. so it does not suffer any issues from SFB, or Paramount (Star Trek), etc and patenting..

[Captain Adam]

.

[knightstorm]

Personally, I'd prefer a 2d game.  I think 3D would limit the level of micromanagement that could be put into the game simply because it forces the player to maintain situational awareness from another axis.  I also feel that 3d starship combat games are pretty much a dime a dozen, and the 2d style of SFC is part of what makes it unique.  That said, the real deciding factor should be whichever you can get released the fastest.

[Captain Adam]

.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Strat does have a point, a refit of the CE game would be legal as it was already a legal license to base on the SFB code.

A new game would not.

And true there are a dime a dozen 3D games, but look at them?  They are arcade style, no real physics.  Ships move the same except maybe in speed.  I really believe if we put in proper Newtonian physics, it will make a big difference.  A fighter would run circles around a battleship.  Does less damage when a fighter hits the shields of a battleship.  And the fighter is harder to hit.  A battleship would slow to turn.  SFC3, the physics was close enough that there appeared to be some realism.   Id the 3D does not work, then we have to change it. 

One other point, my research indicates in most games, programmers either but a physics engine and learn to use it or they lean enough physics to do a reasonable level.  One advantage for us,  I am a physicist turned programming.  A real rocket scientist if you will.

I honesly believe proper physics will make a big difference. 

[[UFP]Exeter]

Let me add, I read every post and I have gotten some ideas and changes to put into the design.  So this is profitable.  And this is what I think we need.  At some point very soon the design will be frozen.  That means ideas, changes and improvements will be documented for a patch or future release.   

So I like the discussions, and it does make me think.  I see how many like the SFB concepts and the 2D approach so i will keep that in mind.

[Captain Adam]

.

[d4v1ks]

the 3D environment is done, the 2D will take a huge undertaking...

That's not true.
You can see examples of that everyday.
We live in a 3D world.
Playing SFC4 in 2D would be like driving a car in a road. The only thing that not changes is the height.

Either way i like the ideia of a game in pure 3D. But it can turn out to be more complex that we think.
Imagine for example how the IA will be. It will have to take in account the same laws of physic when it moves, turns, or changes speed. Also, it will have to take in account the movement of other objects, to avoid collisions. Path finding in 3D is more time comsuming and will have to be updated every moment.

You will see ships flying around, turned upsidedown or on its side also. Doesnt look so pretty.




Also, don't forget that in the Star Trek universe exists something called «Inertial dampeners» (they have in that time a more advanced knowledge of laws of physics that we have today).
That technology is used on Star Trek to prevent starship occupants from experiencing inertial effects of the ship.

A second set of forcefield generators is used to create a field which absorbs the inertial stress created when the ship accelerates to high impulse or warp drive. (Otherwise the high gee-forces would instantly crush our crew beyond recognition.)

So i supose ships have a mean of control that mass, inertia problem when they are ok. But, of course, we can imagine that a damaged ship will not have control on that. Just something i remembered.

I'm not trying to point anything. I'm just imagining and thinking about how the game will look and trying to remember some possible issues.

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Perfect SFC:CE and get people playing again what they loved or wait how long for this SFC4, which may be too different to recapture their interest? 
 
The longer this takes the more I see the old and potentially new fans splitting their interest. Is sfc 4 going to be TOS-TMP based? TNG? Or will it be the JJ-verse? SFC-3 which was TNG did not appeal well to the original crowd and the new crowd only lasted a few years in any notable size. Your newest potential SFC4 players, if this takes a few years will likely want a JJ-verse.

The longer it takes with either CE or 4, the more you will fracture the interest of the player base.  Wake me up when you folks have decided and have something and hopefully I will not be in a wheelchair yet like many of the dynasaurs who embraced this game for the better part of a decade.

[Starfox1701]

I honestly think you guys need to step back and give 3d a chance. This is not going to be the SFC of days gone by but lets be honest that might not be a bad thing. We have the opportunity to oversee the development of this game. That is not something most fans get a chance to do. We have a person of skill willing to do the heavy code lifting. We need to take our time and be open minded so that we can find the best solutions to the problems that will rise in the future. In my memory a true 3d tactical strategy game has never been done so this would be as ground braking as SFC was 20 years ago.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I agree with StarFox.  And if we make a wrong choice we will step back, and fix it. 

[Age]

I like the phaser fire in a 3D eviroment as well as disruptor.

Star Trek Legacy - Firestorm (Part One)

Star Trek Legacy - Omega (Part One)

I just miss the dyna map for a campaign.

[[UFP]Exeter]

The dyna map may be something we use, but I do not have the knowledge nor the code to be able to look at any changes.   We will have to investigate this later