Topic: Ruleset and other game play Specifics

[Tulwar]

Wow, simple movement isn't that simple, when you get down to game mechanics.

While we want to build the game around startships, first and foremost, there are some things that travel faster.  We need to describe those objects, so that we can derive the speed limit of the game engine.

Beam weapons should be instantaneous, as if there was some kind of quantum entanglement with the target.  It's not realistic, but it's what everyone expects.
Direct fire torpedoes, like the photon should travel about 2 to 5x the max speed of a ship.  This will force players to gauge the turn-rate of the target.

Seeking weapons will have to be variable, but slow enough that running away helps.  The original SFB 'slow' drone seems like a utility device drafted into becoming a weapon system.  You'd think they would have sped them up before putting designing ships around slinging them.  SFC has 'missiles' which connontates something that goes pretty fast.

This leaves administrative shuttles, which should probably go faster than SFB allows.

Fighters never translated to SFC very well.  Maybe we can experiment with giving them greater top speeds than ships can achieve.  PFs work well, so I see no need to differentiate them from ships.

[Javora]

Just a couple of things.  First, I was wrong about ship movement lets make the changes based on what we know and go from there.  I don't want this to bog down the progress that we are making here.  It's obvious I don't know a whole lot about ship movement and rocket science.

Second, I've already laid out the damage charts and adjustments for range a few posts ago.  If someone wants to give me a list of all the weapons in SFC OP I can come up with a damage chart list.  The good thing about this game system is the weapon damage to shield/hull strength is 1 to 1.  From there it's just a matter of balance adjustment.

That system denotes that their is only one shield at one strength level and that you are only powering it up just so much, like a light bulb only using 60w when it is rated for 100w. The color system is SFC denotes a particular strength rating. Some ships start with all red shields and that is their 100%.

It doesn't have to be a one shield system.  I was actually thinking about a six shield system but with shield strength uniform across all six shields.  But even this can be adjusted if need be, for instance a Battleship might have 80% front shield strength but only 75% rear shield strength.  The one thing I would suggest (if coding isn't an issue here) is that when one shield is hit that the adjacent shields mitigate some of the damage from an enemy weapon fire.  I like to think of this as shield overlap, and it kind of fits what we see in TNG.  Again it's just a suggestion, not something expected to be set in stone by any means.

Edit:  For horrible spelling.
 

[[UFP]Exeter]

what if limitations are based on energy allocation.  A battleship with 80% on all Shields may not be able to do much else.

[Corbomite]

what if limitations are based on energy allocation.  A battleship with 80% on all Shields may not be able to do much else.

Already in the game. I will explain at our UI meeting.

[Javora]

what if limitations are based on energy allocation.  A battleship with 80% on all Shields may not be able to do much else.

I understand there maybe balancing issues which is why I suggested what I did in my previous post.  In my defense, I was trying to distance myself from SFB/SFC a little bit.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I am just trying to understand

[Corbomite]

I am just trying to understand

You will. Give us time to explain. This is massively complicated.

[Javora]

Nope, I reject that.  Two drunk college kids can't come up with anything complicated.  Just doesn't happen lol.

Seriously though complicated was the one thing we were trying to avoid.  Sorry if that is how it ended up.

[Corbomite]

What you guys need to understand is that Exeter never really played EAW or OP. He came into this from SFC3 and saw the limitations it had and then got interested in the SFB type style the others represented. He doesn't know a lot of this stuff like the back of his hand like some of us and needs basic ideas and systems explained to him. This is why I keep trying to move the discussion to simpler topics until he can grasp the enormity of what he is attempting.

[[UFP]Exeter]

What I do know like the back of my hand is programming and physics.  I own OP, EAW and enjoyed SFC3.  I

[Corbomite]

Which is why this is worth attempting. If we can convey it properly, it is definitely code-able.

[Captain Adam]

.

[Tulwar]

What you guys need to understand is that Exeter never really played EAW or OP. He came into this from SFC3 and saw the limitations it had and then got interested in the SFB type style the others represented. He doesn't know a lot of this stuff like the back of his hand like some of us and needs basic ideas and systems explained to him. This is why I keep trying to move the discussion to simpler topics until he can grasp the enormity of what he is attempting.

Ah, then he doesn't have any idea how intensely many of us loathe SFC3, and why I blow a fuse at the mere mention of 'ship customization.'

My fault, going to have to go out and get another 10 Amp....

[Javora]

Just for the record in case I haven't stated it before, I own SFC II, SFC OP (loved OP), and own SFC III.  I have never played SFB in my life, never even cracked open an SFB book.  I did play AD&D 1st edition extensively.  In case anyone asks any legal questions I can get that part out of the way now.

[Corbomite]

What you guys need to understand is that Exeter never really played EAW or OP. He came into this from SFC3 and saw the limitations it had and then got interested in the SFB type style the others represented. He doesn't know a lot of this stuff like the back of his hand like some of us and needs basic ideas and systems explained to him. This is why I keep trying to move the discussion to simpler topics until he can grasp the enormity of what he is attempting.

Ah, then he doesn't have any idea how intensely many of us loathe SFC3, and why I blow a fuse at the mere mention of 'ship customization.'

There will be no personal ship customization. There will be the ability to change the shiplist just like in EAW/OP, but two people flying the same "ship" with a different weapons config? No. Drone loadouts and other supplies will still, of course, be player optionals.

We have an organizational plan now and will keep people updated on progress and the need for ideas as they arise. I can't comment on just what exactly will make it in as that depends on many things. Just remember that Exeter is one guy and has limited time and resources to work on this. So, slow and steady wins the race is our credo here. Short cuts will just kill us if they don't work out.

[[UFP]Exeter]

Features like Ship Customization my be in a mod set later.  I personally like the idea but for the stock game no.  The goal i to get the stock game working then make changes we need to.  Highly customizable so some features can be added by customization.

[Corbomite]

Highly customizable so some features can be added by customization.

That is the part that I mentioned was "set in stone" as it were. We can realize just about anything here, but some of it will be only accessable to someone with the source code, which for the foreseeable future will be Exeter.

[[UFP]Exeter]

I have set a nondisclosure agreement.

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163393954.0.html

[[UFP]Exeter]

Tried to loD nd run OP on WIN 8.1, does not let me enter CD KEY.  Will try virtual box to run it

[Corbomite]

It doesn't accept it or you can't access the field at all?