Topic: Some changes

[[UFP]Exeter]

what about two fold. system  A system of research, but takes credits to build the facilities.  but the research can advance tech
takes credits to get new ships or upgrade.

The details to be worked out.

Honestly if somebody or a group want to work it out I can use it.    I have so much that other things to do, to have others work out the mechanics for me to code is easier.

[Corbomite]

I've been mulling it over and will post my idea for a reward based ship deployment system when I work out a few kinks.

[knightstorm]

I wouldn't support the idea of radical alteration either as that would take a FRD at least.  But changes that are non structural like a D7 using Fed targeting devices to upgrade some or all of their PhII to PhI or using alien tech to upgrade the glass rear shields are more in line with what I was thinking.

Yeah, that'd be great, but why would it be limited to your own ship alone? You'd share this tech with your empire to let them develop and deploy it wouldn't you?

But if the empire could only acquire/produce/install a limited amount of these devices per year, not every ship would get them.

Hence the need for a performance based system to reward ships to the most deserving and giving the rest something to strive for.

Like prestige points?

[Javora]

Like prestige points?

Well it is currently called SFC IV after all.  lol.

[Corbomite]

Like prestige points?

Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

[knightstorm]

Like prestige points?

Well it is currently called SFC IV after all.  lol.

All I'm saying is that the SFC 3 customization system isn't as unrealistic some might claim.  In a real fleet, there can be significant variation between ships of a class.  Especially during wartime where the most advanced weapons and electronics are all in demand.  And Starfleet ships have been shown to be much more modular in canon than current naval vessels.  While I think the game might benefit from something a bit more restrictive, like the SFC 1 refit system, I don't consider SFC 3 to be "pimp my ride".

[knightstorm]

Like prestige points?

Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Maybe, but if you make it too tough to earn upgrades, you'll only discourage people from playing.

[Corbomite]

Like prestige points?

Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Maybe, but if you make it too tough to earn upgrades, you'll only discourage people from playing.

I wasn't thinking of making it tough per se, but I was thinking of taking a page from other MMO's and offering two ways to advance. One way would be by grinding out wins against the AI for less points, but it will get you there if you work at it. The other way is by achievement against humans or some greater odds which garners more rewards. Right now I'm trying to make the system complex, but not complicated, and there are a few sticking points I'm trying to work out before I suggest it.

[knightstorm]

Like prestige points?

Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Maybe, but if you make it too tough to earn upgrades, you'll only discourage people from playing.

I wasn't thinking of making it tough per se, but I was thinking of taking a page from other MMO's and offering two ways to advance. One way would be by grinding out wins against the AI for less points, but it will get you there if you work at it. The other way is by achievement against humans or some greater odds which garners more rewards. Right now I'm trying to make the system complex, but not complicated, and there are a few sticking points I'm trying to work out before I suggest it.

Isn't that how the PP system works.  If you win in PvP, you get alot more PP than against the AI.  What you really want would be to make upgrades more expensive.

[Corbomite]

Like prestige points?

Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Maybe, but if you make it too tough to earn upgrades, you'll only discourage people from playing.

I wasn't thinking of making it tough per se, but I was thinking of taking a page from other MMO's and offering two ways to advance. One way would be by grinding out wins against the AI for less points, but it will get you there if you work at it. The other way is by achievement against humans or some greater odds which garners more rewards. Right now I'm trying to make the system complex, but not complicated, and there are a few sticking points I'm trying to work out before I suggest it.

Isn't that how the PP system works.  If you win in PvP, you get alot more PP than against the AI.  What you really want would be to make upgrades more expensive.

No, not really. It all depends on the scripts. Besides, the way you get points is rather unimportant compared to how you can use them. That's where D2 failed badly. Shipyards like shopping malls with auctions is just stupid. Having a selection to choose from based on your merits and record and being offered to you by the computer acting as your government is more what I had in mind. Winning against humans would be worth more based on the theory that humans are better than the AI (A debatable point as I have discovered that the AI in SFC is actually very good at combat, EW and using systems effectively if given enough power to do it all. What it sucks at is power management) and would garner more fame and clout with your empire. D2 tried to do this with prestige, but with no actual tie to the eco-political engine it meant nothing.

[knightstorm]

Like prestige points?

Oh God no! That was the worst system ever.

Maybe, but if you make it too tough to earn upgrades, you'll only discourage people from playing.

I wasn't thinking of making it tough per se, but I was thinking of taking a page from other MMO's and offering two ways to advance. One way would be by grinding out wins against the AI for less points, but it will get you there if you work at it. The other way is by achievement against humans or some greater odds which garners more rewards. Right now I'm trying to make the system complex, but not complicated, and there are a few sticking points I'm trying to work out before I suggest it.

Isn't that how the PP system works.  If you win in PvP, you get alot more PP than against the AI.  What you really want would be to make upgrades more expensive.

No, not really. It all depends on the scripts. Besides, the way you get points is rather unimportant compared to how you can use them. That's where D2 failed badly. Shipyards like shopping malls with auctions is just stupid. Having a selection to choose from based on your merits and record and being offered to you by the computer acting as your government is more what I had in mind. Winning against humans would be worth more based on the theory that humans are better than the AI (A debatable point as I have discovered that the AI in SFC is actually very good at combat, EW and using systems effectively if given enough power to do it all. What it sucks at is power management) and would garner more fame and clout with your empire. D2 tried to do this with prestige, but with no actual tie to the eco-political engine it meant nothing.

And therein lies the eternal debate.  How do you make the ships and technology accessible enough to not drive off the new blood the community desperately needs, but at the same time satisfy the more hardcore players who want things to better reflect performance on the battlefield.

[Corbomite]

And therein lies the eternal debate.  How do you make the ships and technology accessible enough to not drive off the new blood the community desperately needs, but at the same time satisfy the more hardcore players who want things to better reflect performance on the battlefield.

I'm working on it. Can't say that I'll succeed, but then again I have found that some will dog a system that is fair to everyone simply because it is fair to everyone.

[knightstorm]

And therein lies the eternal debate.  How do you make the ships and technology accessible enough to not drive off the new blood the community desperately needs, but at the same time satisfy the more hardcore players who want things to better reflect performance on the battlefield.

I'm working on it. Can't say that I'll succeed, but then again I have found that some will dog a system that is fair to everyone simply because it is fair to everyone.

The problem is that fair to everyone is a relative concept.  A system that places heavy emphasis on PvP might seem very fair if you're a killing machine, but to everyone else its very unfair.  Lead tracking might seem fair to a plasma pilot, but to a fed/klink who's having enough trouble scoring enough damage to the plasma ship to make the match more than prolonging the inevitable its completely unfair.

[Corbomite]

Well, that's what I'm trying to balance: How to make everyone's contributions worthwhile.

There will always be players that live on a game and believe that their "hard work and time investment" should equate to a better experience for them and they are not entirely wrong to feel that way. On the other hand, you have people that love that game just as much, but due to life, time and other demands can only log on for a little while each night or even each week. They often end up feeling marginalized and end up playing a sort of singleplayer-multiplayer game where they don't have much contact with humans at all. Some will shy away from PvP because they know they aren't up to the caliber they will be facing and don't want to be a liability. Others will think PvP is the only worthwhile pursuit and form hunting packs to go out and cause mayhem with little regard for the bigger picture.

How do you make all of these types feel that they are getting their money's worth (figuratively speaking) and still have a fair, fun system? IDK yet. It might not be possible and it might be too much of a pain to code if it is.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Split the issues and create methods to address them all rather than one system to address everything.

1.  Build a selectable game balancing.  To allow a player with lesser gear to play with players with better gear.  Similar to what LOTRO does.  It increases damage done, and reduces tamage taken.  We can scale to the level of the other players in a team for mltiplayer.  And even PVP

2.  A game where u spend hours controlling planetary development gets old fast.  BotF and Supremacy are like this, but we use a system like Masters of Orion, where there is research and building system improvements, but much simplified.  Then this creates research and it can be applied to different areas.  This tech is what allows the player to learn technology for better ships.  And tech can be obtained thru combat (winning systems or space battles (less likely)

3.  Ships purchase and refit cost credit, and require the appropriate technology.  Again from Masters of Orion, but ships can be refit but it is not instant.  Cheaper and faster that a new ship.

For example ear;u tech level may be unable to build a battleship but make a cruiser.  But as tech advances the cruiser is out of date.  So you send it to a system that has built a shipyard to upgrade it.


Just some thoughts.

[Corbomite]

Split the issues and create methods to address them all rather than one system to address everything.

1.  Build a selectable game balancing.  To allow a player with lesser gear to play with players with better gear.  Similar to what LOTRO does.  It increases damage done, and reduces tamage taken.  We can scale to the level of the other players in a team for mltiplayer.  And even PVP

What "gear" exactly? You are all part of the same race with the same "gear" or tech. Ship size or role would be the things that differentiate players. If you scale everything to be equal all of time there is no player skill involved and it begins to sound a lot like EVE Online where you go in and press a bunch of buttons and there is no real control at all.

2.  A game where u spend hours controlling planetary development gets old fast.  BotF and Supremacy are like this, but we use a system like Masters of Orion, where there is research and building system improvements, but much simplified.  Then this creates research and it can be applied to different areas.  This tech is what allows the player to learn technology for better ships.  And tech can be obtained thru combat (winning systems or space battles (less likely)

The computer should handle all of that automatically, assuming the focus of the game is starship combat.

3.  Ships purchase and refit cost credit, and require the appropriate technology.  Again from Masters of Orion, but ships can be refit but it is not instant.  Cheaper and faster that a new ship.

For example ear;u tech level may be unable to build a battleship but make a cruiser.  But as tech advances the cruiser is out of date.  So you send it to a system that has built a shipyard to upgrade it.

Again, all of this should happen under the hood. How much nitty-gritty detail do you want the players to have to parse through?

[FPF-DieHard]

You got screenshots or anything of what's in progress?

[[UFP]Exeter]

What "gear" exactly? You are all part of the same race with the same "gear" or tech. Ship size or role would be the things that differentiate players. If you scale everything to be equal all of time there is no player skill involved and it begins to sound a lot like EVE Online where you go in and press a bunch of buttons and there is no real control at all.

Gear in a generic sense.  A cruiser would have a standard layout for example.  The idea is for a player who does not have the best ships to get involved.  This is not making a cruiser into a battlehip but make the cruiser equitable as far as tech level.  Aan option for multiplayer only.  If two friends want to play together and one has high tech and the other lower, this will bring some parity and allow them to play together.

The computer should handle all of that automatically, assuming the focus of the game is starship combat.

But player directed.   From masters of Orion, the teck research can be focused on shields first and give greater shields.  This does allow differences in player shp capability.

Again, all of this should happen under the hood. How much nitty-gritty detail do you want the players to have to parse through?

A player may not want to upgrade all ships.  And the order cruisers or battleships first?


These are just suggestions.  bu the idea is a workable solution.

assuming the focus of the game is starship combat.

More like a merger.  I find bridge commander over and over to be boring.  I like some thought and higher level strategy.  But I dislike the simplified combat.  I am thinking of higher level strategy but the combat may be resolved with player controlled starship combat.  The discussion is how to manage and allow shipd to upgrade/refit for some variation.  For now.  A future expansion will be to expand the ship upgrades, characters etc.

And further into the future a server controlled map that allows all games to integrate and control a universe.  I worked on this before but integration of existing games was not something I could do.

Again my thoughts bur I am taking the overall goal and adding to it them splitting into chewavbe pieces.

[Corbomite]

Gear in a generic sense.  A cruiser would have a standard layout for example.  The idea is for a player who does not have the best ships to get involved.  This is not making a cruiser into a battlehip but make the cruiser equitable as far as tech level.  Aan option for multiplayer only.  If two friends want to play together and one has high tech and the other lower, this will bring some parity and allow them to play together.

I don't see anything stopping players from getting involved at any ship level. If I'm flying a heavy cruiser and my wing wants to fly a destroyer I don't see a problem with that. What you need is a smart drafting system that doesn't even allow huge differences in fleet combat value. That way people could make the fleet combo's they wanted and only be matched by fairly equal odds. Let's be realistic, if you were flying a frigate and were engaged by a dreadnought you'd just try and leave the area, so there would be no battle anyway. You could give a message to the drafted frigate that they were being engaged by superior forces and a choice to stay or leave. That way small ships can't hold up larger ones unless that is their intention. You might even code in a chance for an ambush.

 

But player directed.   From masters of Orion, the teck research can be focused on shields first and give greater shields.  This does allow differences in player shp capability.

But who's in charge? Who decides the direction the empire wants to go? There will be many fleets competeing within a single empire just like we had with SFC and people don't always get along or agree. Are you going to allow rogue states to form and create their own freeholds or are players confined to the empire vs empire model? Coming up with a fair way for all of the powers to be run by the computer would cut down on exploitation and other problems with allowing players to set the parameters.

A player may not want to upgrade all ships.  And the order cruisers or battleships first?

I don't see how you can have a multiplayer game with everyone running the show. Someone or something rather impartial with the needs and goals of the empire in mind has to do that.

[FPF-DieHard]

Build the tactical game first (modable of course, so we can make it "Space Navy Control" without getting sued) and then worry about the Strategic game.

All I can say is please for the love of all that is holy no Hexx-Flipping!