Topic: Ruleset and other game play Specifics  (Read 79434 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #80 on: July 03, 2014, 07:08:28 pm »
the damage from a torpedo did more hull damage, but phasers seemed to be the weapon of choice.   sounds like some unrevealed limiting factor.



The only limiting factor was range. Sometimes they stated that it was too close to use photons.

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #81 on: July 03, 2014, 07:13:22 pm »
I never heard of it, have you played it?

Not yet, but the YouTube video are up.  It's another RTSish game, but it's got some stealable interface ideas.
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline Lieutenant_Q

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1669
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #82 on: July 03, 2014, 11:16:53 pm »
Disruptors are NOT heavy weapons.  I don't know what the idiot at ADB was smoking the night he watched Elaan of Troyus (The only TOS episode to show Klingons firing weapons until the remastereds came out) but it is very clear that they were NEVER supposed to be heavy weapons.  The encounter with the Klingon Ship went a lot like the old Soviet/USA Buzz jobs that fighter pilots would do in neutral/disputed areas (typically over ocean areas not claimed by either) a pilot would buzz another pilot in an attempt to provoke an incident, the side that fired first would have to face the wrath of the United Nations... condemnation from all the non-aligned nations... etc...  When the Klingon Ship buzzed the Enterprise, it was an attempt to get the Enterprise to go to Battle Stations and make a move to defend itself.  Which, because of the sabotage, would have destroyed the Enterprise.  The destruction of the Enterprise at that point could be laid at the feet of sloppy maintenance, under-supply, a drunk engineer, a whole slew of things, Klingon Sabotage would have been quite a ways down the list.  When that failed, and it was clear that the sabotage was detected, "Captain Surrender" moved in to do some damage control, but because of the Organian Treaty couldn't outright destroy the Enterprise.  The destruction of the Enterprise at that point would have been solely to blame on "Captain Surrender" and the Klingon Empire would have suffered the consequences of such action. Therefore his goal was to disable the Enterprise further, so he could board it, and dispose of the evidence of sabotage.  You do not fire heavy weapons at a ship you are trying to disable, you might accidentally destroy it, especially since the sabotage was to the Enterprise's main power systems, with her weakened shields, a single heavy weapon would have probably destroyed her.

Why there needs to be limited Heavies:  Supply.  D2s campaigns without supply rules degenerated into checkerboard matches with people grabbing whatever hexes they needed to grab, the only use for bases was to repair at, and if you flipped a planet hex, that suddenly became an instant repair/reload source.  You could make a hard code rule that a ship that is OOS would suffer some arbitrary 15-20% reduction in combat efficiency, but I don't like that because a ship just cut off from supply (or a player logging in for the evening after work finding him/her self suddenly behind lines) is suddenly much easier to kill.  It also limits the ability of deepstriking, someone leaving a border base, as soon as they cross into enemy space and slip through the perimeter, they suddenly lose combat ability?  Limited Heavies makes it so you can still have supply rules without inflicting arbitrary penalties for being OOS.  Once you've used all your Heavies, you've reduced your own combat ability.  If you're careful with your heavies, you could go on for weeks without a resupply.

Now... I answered my own question as to why you can't replicate Torpedo Casings earlier this morning.  If a replicator was capable of creating a Torpedo Casing, all it takes is a warp powered ship, and every Tom, Klank, and Harry would have the ability to make as many of the 2nd (3rd once the Quantum Torpedo was invented) most power conventional weapon in the known galaxy as they had fuel for.  No way would anyone want that, not even a Ferengi.  So they make it out of something that can't be replicated, and you have to stop off at your local certified arms dealers to reload your Photons, a small price to pay to not have everyone running around with a thousand of them.
"Your mighty GDI forces have been emasculated, and you yourself are a killer of children.  Now of course it's not true.  But the world only believes what the media tells them to believe.  And I tell the media what to believe, its really quite simple." - Kane (Joe Kucan) Command & Conquer Tiberium Dawn (1995)

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #83 on: July 03, 2014, 11:31:30 pm »
I don't know what the idiot at ADB was smoking the night he watched Elaan of Troyus (The only TOS episode to show Klingons firing weapons until the remastereds came out)

Not entirely true. They did show Klingon fire on the Enterprise in "Errand of Mercy", but they never showed the ship.They were not green blobs, they were small spheres, rather indistinct.

ADB's decision to place Disruptors as heavies had more to do with their desire to give everyone phasers as light weapons more than anything else.

Offline FPF-Tobin Dax

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #84 on: July 04, 2014, 07:59:27 am »
On top of killing of your player base with limited photons or heavy weapons. You are looking at unbalancing years of work and play to try and keep things even among the races.

If disruptors are not heavy weapons, then the races that have then don't get phasers as well. You want to talk tv or canon? I never saw a Klingon ship use phasers, nor their crew use phasers as hand weapons. It always surprised me that every race had phasers in sfc/sfb.

Back to photons and game play, especially pvp. I'm playing against a Fed. I'm going to saber dance or plasma ballet outside of normal photon range and count to 100. Most players can count that high after all. Only then when I have the clear advantage will I seriously engage and then crush the helpless Smurf. Limited heavies is a killer.

I'm telling you in no uncertain terms that this is a bad idea and that if you insist on neutering the Feds/photons, you will wind up with a single player game at best.  Only the unsuspecting will try this thing and multiplayer will die fast. This is a waste of time and effort.
Suspected leader of Prime Industries, #1 Pirate Cartel

Offline Javora

  • America for Americans first.
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 3002
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #85 on: July 04, 2014, 08:25:45 am »
I agree with Dax on that one, lets not reinvent the wheel here.

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #86 on: July 04, 2014, 09:52:33 am »
It always surprised me that every race had phasers in sfc/sfb.

Phasers were the great equalizer. You knew what you were getting and what you were fighting. It allowed them to create a "base" game platform that all other weapons could be compared to. I used this basis to help Captain Adam convert phasers to disruptors in his mod. Was I correct? Only game play will tell, but at least I had a solid starting point.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2014, 10:08:47 am by Corbomite »

Offline FPF-Tobin Dax

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #87 on: July 04, 2014, 10:10:14 am »
It always surprised me that every race had phasers in sfc/sfb.

Phasers were the great equalizer. You knew what you were getting and what you were fighting. It alllowed them to create a "base" game platform that all other weapons could be compared to. I used this basis to help Captain Adam convert phasers to disruptors in his mod. Was I correct? Only game play will tell, but at least I had a solid starting point.

That's nice but drifting off topic a little? We are currently talking here about Lieutenant Q and Exeter wanting to greatly unbalance the game that is the point we have been, and still are here for, by limiting initially photons and possibly all heavy weapons. If they are determined to do so, then cut us loose and good luck finding a player base beyond themselves. Most if any of the old gang won't bother.
Suspected leader of Prime Industries, #1 Pirate Cartel

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #88 on: July 04, 2014, 10:20:00 am »
It always surprised me that every race had phasers in sfc/sfb.

Phasers were the great equalizer. You knew what you were getting and what you were fighting. It alllowed them to create a "base" game platform that all other weapons could be compared to. I used this basis to help Captain Adam convert phasers to disruptors in his mod. Was I correct? Only game play will tell, but at least I had a solid starting point.

That's nice but drifting off topic a little? We are currently talking here about Lieutenant Q and Exeter wanting to greatly unbalance the game that is the point we have been, and still are here for, by limiting initially photons and possibly all heavy weapons. If they are determined to do so, then cut us loose and good luck finding a player base beyond themselves. Most if any of the old gang won't bother.


First off, you brought it up so it's fair game. Also, we are  talking about balance and playability and I was describing how ADB went about that for their game which we cannot use for SFC4, but would like to emulate.


Second, I proposed a perfectly good solution to this issue.


Third, this is minutiae that could be literally changed with a keystroke. We should be worrying about getting a running game before we tank it with talk of just precisely how we are going to limit weapons fire.

Offline FPF-DieHard

  • DDO Junkie
  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 9461
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #89 on: July 04, 2014, 10:43:44 am »

That's nice but drifting off topic a little? We are currently talking here about Lieutenant Q and Exeter wanting to greatly unbalance the game that is the point we have been, and still are here for, by limiting initially photons and possibly all heavy weapons. If they are determined to do so, then cut us loose and good luck finding a player base beyond themselves. Most if any of the old gang won't bother.

I don't think this game can be based on SFB.

Just leave it open enough that I can mod it back to being so.    ;)

SFB/SFC worked because phasers were the great equalizers.

Oh . .  and in the many years of attempted SGO modding (most of the strange sh*t never even saw a test server) and we tried using Photons on many Klingon ships . . . they just don't work.  It just doesn't fit their tactical doctrine, even SFC 3 had the "Klingon Photon" which was for all intents and purposes a Disrupter. 

It's like how Taldren made them a Fighter Race instead of a PF one, it just didn't work.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2014, 11:00:20 am by FPF-DieHard »
Who'd thunk that Star-castling was the root of all evil . . .


Offline FPF-Tobin Dax

  • D.Net VIP
  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2719
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #90 on: July 04, 2014, 10:47:43 am »
ok fine.
Suspected leader of Prime Industries, #1 Pirate Cartel

Offline Tulwar

  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1333
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #91 on: July 04, 2014, 12:57:07 pm »
ADB took the weapon systems for the K D-7 directly from the copy of the blueprints that the ST production team gave AMT to produce the Klingon Battle Cruiser model.  The studio model was actually made from the wooden patterns created in the kit making process.

These blueprints designate "disruptors" on the front of each warp nacelle, and 9 circles are designated as "phasers," that perfectly match the spots ADB puts their phasers.  The blueprints also show a "drone" in the hanger bay.  There is text that refers to it as a multi functional device.  The hole in the nose is marked as "sensor."

The original Enterprise blueprints showed only 6 phasers, 2 top left, 2 top right, and 2 bottom front.  ADB got this stuff from the blueprints the creators signed off on.  Well, they did just stuck phasers on the Romulan Warbird.  The blueprints had it with just the giant torpedo.

As far as weapon storage goes, there is just about infinite room to work with.  If you've read TOS material, the laundry didn't just wash your uniform, but reconstructed it on the molecular level.  Starships carry bulk matter, ready to be transformed into whatever you need.  I dare say that not just photon torpedo casings, but missiles and even shuttlecraft could be replicated in transit.  That all takes energy.

A ship in a combat theater is not like a ship serving in peace.  Your 5 year mission gets cut pretty short after a few engagements.  Running the power plant flat out, depolarizing the shield generators, replacing phaser coils, and the like will have you running back to stardock, even if you don't have holes blasted in your ship.
Cannon (can' nun) n.  An istrument used to rectify national boundries.  Ambrois Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

Offline Captain Adam

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 750
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #92 on: July 04, 2014, 11:01:26 pm »
.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 02:57:50 pm by Captain Adam »

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #93 on: July 05, 2014, 10:06:50 am »
I'll try this one more time.

ADB does not own the code or the UI's. Even if Exeter thinks that the graphics are old and need updating, their basic format can be copied over, saving design time and argument. Some things can be updated/upgraded. New 3D graphics are a given.

ADB does not have proprietary rights to many of the terms used in their game. What they do have rights to are their weapons charts and specific race/weapons names and terminology. The tactical engine can remain mostly intact, with some name and range/damage adjustments and maybe a few functional changes. What we need new things of are the strategic and fleeting aspects of the game, better comm systems and a more fluid way of addressing the transition from tactical to strategic layers.

We need to determine just how "Star Trek" this is going to get. At some point it will step on someone's toes. So, do we make up our own stuff a la SFB or do we try to sneak in as much has we can under the radar? Also, since everyone is insistant on making it into their own personal nerd Nirvana, why not just make a mod-able basic game platform instead? If we can make a bullet proof platform, it can be sold as a generic game that any space navy combat simulator can be graphed onto.

Offline Captain Adam

  • Lt.
  • *
  • Posts: 750
  • Gender: Male
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #94 on: July 05, 2014, 10:39:01 am »
.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2016, 02:57:45 pm by Captain Adam »

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #95 on: July 05, 2014, 10:51:27 am »
The SFB ruleset is not readily available in the code.  For practical reason extracting code and reusing it is not really feasible.

The hard part of the graphics or models is getting them.

My original plan was generic and a mod to make it trek.  Frey has an idea to get the ok for trek bases.  Anything we can devise on our own or pull from trek (Not ADB) is fair game.


Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #96 on: July 05, 2014, 10:57:23 am »
I'm not talking about reusing the code. I'm talking about reusing the format the code creates. Of course it needs to be rewritten, but your guide book is right there even if you can't read the actual code. We can help you with the specifics. I thought that's what this is all about. If you just want to do it all yourself, why are you asking for help?

Offline [UFP]Exeter

  • Moderator
  • Lt. Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 1080
  • SFC4 Lead Developer
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #97 on: July 05, 2014, 11:34:14 am »
I need and want the help, and appreciate the help.  Whar is written hre will be incorporated the bet I can. 

Offline Corbomite

  • Commander
  • *
  • Posts: 2939
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #98 on: July 05, 2014, 12:49:39 pm »
The hard part of the graphics or models is getting them.


Can't you start by using what we have, old and unappealing as they might be? Realistically, UI looks and graphics are they last thing that need polish and attention. We can use what we have to get the code working well because that seems to be the part no one wants to do except you. After the game is pretty well in the beta stage and we get people to try it out and they start complaining about how bad the stuff looks you will have floods of people making pretty stuff for you. It worked before.

Offline Nemesis

  • Captain Kayn
  • Global Moderator
  • Commodore
  • *
  • Posts: 13067
Re: Ruleset and other game play Specifics
« Reply #99 on: July 05, 2014, 12:56:17 pm »
Some of the technology names can be used as they are neither Trek nor SFB specific.  Others can be changed to something similar but more generic (Phaser to Laser an obvious example). 

There have been at least a couple of threads touching this topic.

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163389719.0/all.html

http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163383813.msg1122920697.html#msg1122920697
Do unto others as Frey has done unto you.
Seti Team    Free Software
I believe truth and principle do matter. If you have to sacrifice them to get the results you want, then the results aren't worth it.
 FoaS_XC : "Take great pains to distinguish a criticism vs. an attack. A person reading a post should never be able to confuse the two."