Topic: Can I Have GAW Now?....Continued.

[Mr. Hypergol]

I thought AJTK's "Can I Have GAW Now?" thread from the old forum ought to be brought over to these new forums because it contained some of the best "future game" dialog between the fans, Taldren, and Activision we've seen to date.  

Here's a link to the full thread on the old forum:

http://208.57.228.3/ubb/Forum1/HTML/020017.html

Here's some excepts from that thread

Quote:

I will try to explain my previous point a little bit more. Let's just say we created a GaW using the SFB ruleset and the code-base of TNG from an engine point of view, but the fundamental UI of EAW - okay? In that scenario I would not hesitate for a fraction of a second to license SFB for that game. However, to do this we need to have a lot of confidence that 300,000 people will buy it near the full price. By the time you tally up all of the needed people to make the game: Paramount, Activision, Taldren, QA, Audio, Voice Actors, Musicians, SFX, tools, vendors, lawyers, accountants, leases, rents, etc. We need 300,000 buyers. So is it possible? Certainly! Is it probable? At this moment it is very unclear.

The best thing we know how to do is do a good patch for SFC3 and D3, and do strong post-release support along multiple avenues to keep the sales of SFC3 strong. If we reach 300,000 units of SFC3 (or projects to 300,000 in the reasonable near term) then Activision will have a meeting with itself something along the lines: "Gee, that made money, let's do that again!" :-)

So then they will scratch their heads and think for a bit and call us up and call up Harry and all of us would sit around a table and offer the sketch of what would it take to sell 300,000 units again.

I have some ideas that it would be inappropriate for me to announce here.

But think along those lines. Currently a quick and dirty of OP with Andros and Tholians with new missions and billed as GaW would fetch less than 300,000 I predict with some confidence. We would have to do some other Great Things to get people to come back and play the game.

So, if you recall on SFC1 we tried to just get the basic game.

On SFC2 we added D2 ;-)

On OP our aim was a lot of flexiblity and choice.

On SFC3 we went for TNG and for a much more stable game (and on that I think everyone would have to agree we are much better).

As for the next real-time space-based tactical sim from Taldren - ? I dunno - but it is *always* worth your while to post what you want to see. Every post we see we multiply by like 10 or 100 to get an idea of what people want to see happen.

Thanks,
-Erik

The thread got hot with great dialog and then Erik posted his poll:

Quote:

Hi :-)
Some questions for you folks...

Please rate the following items along this scale:
1: most important
2: important
3: expected
4: nice to have
5: doesn't matter to me

For a hypothetical future offering from Taldren:

1) The game be set in the Star Trek TOS setting

2) The game be set in the Star Trek TNG setting

3) The game be set in the SFB setting

4) The game have a deep strategic metagame with planets sourcing and sinking supplies, staged ship production, more use of strategic elements

5) The game set in a original universe designed by Taldren

6) The game be fully modifiable, models, missions, weapons, server controls

7) The game's online feature set be as robust as the highest the industry has achieved

8) The game feature a single player campaign

9) The game have a detailed grognard type manual

10) The manual be printed

11) Available in a store to be purchased

12) A demo available to play

13) Be able to purchase online

14) Be able to email a Taldren technical support person

15) Be able to talk to a Taldren technical support person

16) Have dockable, transparent UI windows

17) Have seemless in-game flow from 'mission' to mission without going to a menu

18) What is your number of reasonable playable races?

19) What amount of money would you be willing to pay for such a game at retail as a product?

20) What amount of money would you be willing to pay as a monthly service?

21) How long would you guess you would likely play assuming a monthly subscription with say 2 new models and 2 new missions and a new weapon per month?

22) How would you feel about purchasing an online service like this from Taldren as opposed to buying something from a larger, more established company?

23) How many people do you personally know that if the game was reasonably robust, and addictively fun would you pass the demo to?

24) What fraction of those people would you suppose would buy the game?

25) Would you be able to handle a server that had users chatting in different languages or do you need segragation?

26) How important is a live orchestra compared to an electronic recording to you (SFC1 vs. SFC3)

27) How important to you is the release of backrgound material such as backstory, weapon information and ship history published on a website?

28) How many other players would you like to see as a reasonable limit in a single 'encounter'?

If you find these questions interesting, feel free to drop links to this set of questions to others in this forum or similar places.

Thanks,
-Erik

After quite a few pages of poll responses Erik made these very interesting comments:

Quote:

On fan created material. I have actually been thinking very hard about this for a while. We have had tremendous support from our fan base, James King, Artic Fire, Eagle Eye, Chris Jones, and many many more.
We have had fans make scripts for SFC2, and we have had fans make models for SFC2. In bothe cases the folks did good work, but the process was complicated by the game engine being in production, so significant maintainence work we needed to perform (more so in the mission scripts than the models).

However, I very much recognize that we are a community together - the fans and teh developer. And I have always felt our job is to create games (stuff people do not need) for you.

We have a modelling contest going on right now and there are some cool new prizes we are going to announce from some of our industry partners and yes we recognize that the work the fans produce is an amazing resource.

Here are my current thoughts:

1) Go to fans for ship models, only AFTER the game engine specification is complete and there is an art style guide.

2) Go to the fans for mission scripts, only AFTER the scripting interface is frozen (because of the upcomming patch we have not yet released the scripting API for SFC3 as we did not want to create incompatibilties).

3) Quality. We are a fine judge of quality, but it some ways the group of fans are an even better set of quality. For example in a future game where we wanted to ship say 50 missions. It would be interesting to commit our internal resources to creating 25, and have 25 come from the fan base. Then have an open or closed beta for the game, where people could submit their missions, and take the top 25 as judged by the fan base. Perhaps the same for the models. The models and missions not selected are still good they just wouldn't ship with the game and be considered official.

4) Compensation - we have in the past paid fized-prices for missions and models, and may do so in the future. But it would be interesting to have some sort of modet profit sharing scheme where modelers, scripters and even campaign hosts would be able to share some profit (incidently if we went to a subscription model it is not incompatible with fan-run campaigns).

5) What the game might be. Here is my conclusion from the above poll: That the most desirable setting is SFB, with strong support for TNG, TOS, and TAL (Short for Taldren orginal).
The key point is that all of you enjoy the deep complexity of the SFC series and like it on the deep and complex side. That eliding numbers was a mistake in SFC3 (again we were trying to make the game cleaner and more appealing to a wide audience).
At the same time you hunger for the game to be 'completed' from a strategic point of view. Believe me, I have played MOO, Elite, and many other strategic board games - strategy games are my favorite. I think it would be very interesting.
You would like D2/D3 to just plain work. We do too! :-) To do this we believe we can no longer work under a stanard development contract for the simple reason is that the games need to be supported after release. We need an income stream to do what Battle.net does (and more). I have no problem with offering a game $19 retail and say $9 online (with a free demo) and then have people pay $10 a month for as long as they like.
As to the setting, probably in no other place than this forum have you folks received as much straight information from Harry, Dan, Taldren and myself about the business model of making games. Since 1998 I have had my salary paid for by Starfleet Command projects and I have enjoyed it immensely. We have had fantastic partners first Interplay then Activision and all along Paramount and ADB. We have been extremely fortunate.
However I worry about over milking the cow. We have released four SFC products and that feels like a lot to me. Perhaps the SFC3 sales will merit an expansion featuring the Cardassians, Ferengi, and more... We do not know yet - in January we will know. As for Galaxies at War with the Andros and Tholians - I understand very clearly that this would make SFC complete and I would like to see that happen as well. Here is my gut opinion on that - if SFC3 outsells expectations - then ATVI/Paramount/Taldren will look for other ways to capitalize on SFC and GAW would probably be it.
The thing I have been beating around the bush is that we have had the concept for a wholly new sci-fi setting for a naval-style strategic & tactical game. Just a few concepts: roughly 2500-2700 and humans hae dispersed through 200-300 lightyears of space. There is hyper-gate style travel between major star systems, and there is a slower FTL drive for exploration and for visiting the backwaters. Combat ships vary in size from 1-man fighters, through 10-person police cutters, 100-person frigates, to 5000 person battleships. Beyond are world ships containing at least 10,000 settlers or ground troops. I would use all of the real stars in the sky, and a program like ACCRETE to generate reasonable accurate planets for these stars.
The humans would not be all nice like in ST. There would be significant balkanization of the human race and very heavy genetic modifications. Trade is very important between the planets as there would be about 30 distict tradable resources. There would be no absolutely fixed political alliances. Political units could be as small as a planet. We would create about 8 playable races - but we would create a 'race kit' where a group of fans would be able to introduce a wholly new race (after some QA).
This would be a very deep and complex game - but we would challenge ourselves to keep the UI as clean, layered and useful as possible. A thin manual and thick manual would be available. A network of websites would be setup to detail the worlds, history, politics and economics. You could use a webrowser to see what is going on in the world, and if you had a starbase it could be configured to instant message you if it was under attack (or call your cell)...
I am very confident that we could create a much more tightly designed and self-cosnsistent game of this sort as it would be designed for online PC from the start.

Those are some ideas....

-Erik

If anyone has not responded to Erik's poll questions go ahead and do it in this new thread.  I think it's important to get as much data as we can.

It would also be nice to keep the dialog going too.
       

[FatherTed]

All I can say is that if they come out with an SFB based GaW with Andros and Tholians, I'll be one of the first in line to buy it. But I would ask that they please fix the Gorn models. I hate the "Flying Stapler".    

[Cleaven]

You know something. I have now decided that what I really want is SFB on the PC, with hex maps, power allocation and impulse charts. Captain's edition rules with basic and advanced but no optionals (save for later, same for the modules), but all the rules are built in the system so you don't need to know the rule books by heart. Instead the allowable moves and actions are displayed for you. If it's not there, you can't do it. Of course if you do happen to know the rules by heart then you have a speed of play advantage but not much else. No more rules lawyers and no more forgetting the proper procedure for regaining lock. The AI of course would be very hard to do but I never played against the AI with SFB, just make it multiplayer and stable for 10 players in one battle.

As for the strategic game, I don't know. F&E is special but it's not the way to keep more than half a dozen people amused at once.
   

[FatherTed]

Cleaven, I haven't been there in a couple of years, but SFBOnline was a start in that direction. It was pretty basic, with tournament ships and rules, but it was a beginning. And I agree, true SFB on the net would be great.    

[Cleaven]

Sure SFB Online was a start, but you still had to know the rules and do all the hard work yourself.

Also I forgot to mention that all the SFB scenarios had to be included. I never was a great fan of the tournament.  

[Alidar Jarok]

Should I put this into a poll?

It requires more than one post.

EDIT: Hooray, post 500!

Lt. Commander Alidar Jarok reporting for duty

[quarterwit]

Since an online port of SFB would bring with it countless license issues, it might be preferable to create an open-ended tactical simulation, allowing players to define the properties of all weapons and components.  You could duplicate all of the weapons in SFB (more or less), but since the game wouldn't ship with them, they would qualify as user-created content (which no one profits from directly).

Setting aside the issue of user-created models, it would be interesting to define the "physics" of all components -- shields, beams, missiles, cannons, engines, etc.  A player could create their own beam weapon, if they wanted to delve into the engineering portion of the game, or they could simply take pre-built models and customize their ships in a fashion similar to what we see in SFC3.  The idea would be to build modding into the game for those who WANT to publish white papers analyzing the vector plots that guide seeking weapons, but not to penalize those who don't want to memorize spreadsheets.  I agree that Taldren should have given us more information about the mechanics of SFC3, but let's not forget about the graphical firing arcs on the mini-map (something that I didn't even notice until after I'd shot off my first complaint about the missing charts).  If we had a graphical depiction of a weapons properties we could intuitively use almost any configuration -- how much damage does a beam do at what distance, what chance does a projective have to hit at what distance, what is velocity, fuel, and decay rate of seeking weapon.  If I can see these graphs for my ship AND my opponent, then I can face any configuration of weapon and know, fairly quickly, which distance to seek and how which blind spots to exploit.

But what I'd really like to see is a game than supports user-created models directly.  You would assemble ships IN GAME from a gallery of components, and these components determine the properties of every part of the ship.  A beam whose properties are defined by range, damage, recharge rate, and accuracy might have four sub-components, which on the model are represented by four progressive meshes.

People who want to build ships will love this system.  People who don't want to come near the ship building SDK will enjoy the fact that every ship is comprised of 40-80 individual components, each of which can be targetted and damaged on its own (a hole in a ship isn't just a different texture wrapped around the same mesh, it's the hole where a functioning component used to be).  Use progressive meshes and add L.O.D. to the user settings and you've got a game that looks fantastic on high end machines and runs fine (albeit with rather blocky models) on slow machines.

OK -- I'll stop ranting now.

I only mention this because it sounds rather similar to earlier messages in this thread (i.e. instead of beating a dead horse, it might be better to create stem-cells that can be engineered into dead horses, or any other species of rhetorical carcas that a player might want to club).


 

[ghostcamel]

Goddamit. I really wanna reply to this, but its really late. All ill say tonight is Great ideas, Good to see its still alive, Godspeed Taldren and....

BUMP.
 

[Tulmahk]

I'm sticking to my philosophy that GaW and SFC can coexist in seperate product lines.

We've been approaching this debate as if it's an either / or situation, when really there's room for both.  GaW for all the SFB Old Guard, and SFC for those wanting pure Trek.

Coexistance is, I believe, the future.

So yes, you can have your GaW, and I can have my SFC, and the two need never intersect.  

[theRomulan]

I'm not that hardcore about SFB myself.  I would never be able to get my pencil and duke it out turn for turn.  I liked SFC because it relied heavily on SFB, and it was evident that a 20 year old rulebook was really the way to go; tried, tested, true.  Of course, amedments had to be made, but a lot of balance issues, or just tactical flavor was just waiting for the taking.  Pure SFB on a computer would be fun for some people, I'm sure.  

GaW would truly complete the PC masterpiece in my opinion.  Taldren has the good practice with SFC3's D3.  It's a really good system despite some negative remarks.

If it had to come down to an all-eras kind of trek, my only suggestion would be to REMAIN in the SFB realm of things.  I don't know if that's exactly possible, but yeah, keeping the core SFB is of the upmost importance.  The customization of SFC3 was interesting and fun, but unfortunately there is always a collective of gamers that buy the game and play to win.  I like to win as well, but unfortunately I am also hindered by some 'honor' code that prevents me from using antimatter mines as my primary heavy weapon, etc.  Customization, while certainly fun, will always ultimately lead to creating ships that are better than others. SFB of course does have better ships, etc., but in this game it is expected.  Also, how much better ships are isn't as significant.  I can have a CA or a CAI; of course the CAI is a big step up, but it is also quite limited in how much of a step that is.  Having the 200 ships and then creating a shiplist that provided good ships very rarely is superior.  SFB will be a little deeper and more complicated for some players, but I think it will keep the 'play to win' players in check.  Also, with all the alien races, worrying about creating heavy weapons and racial flavor would not be too difficult.

Also, if it were to be all eras, you would be able to use the multitude of races and give them a TNG feel.  You could even have some races 'progress' into other races.  Example, Intersteller Concordium starts out, does their war, etc. etc., gets pushed out of the Alpha Quadrant, lada lada, oops, they've been assimilated, we get to TNG era, now it's the Borg coming in from the same area, and while the ships are different, the weapon systems can be oddly familiar with a twist.  That's a really big stretch of course, but it could be done.  

I'm no business man or great inventor.  GaW would just be an incredible game.  We've already got the play experience wisdom, Taldren's expertise in the designing, it would be a challenging, yet familiar venture into finishing something.  I'd buy that game in a heart beat.  I didn't even know what SFC or SFB was when I first saw SFC2 in the stores, but when I looked at the box, felt the heavy manual inside, looked and saw that there were more than four races, that everyone had special weapon designs and tactics, I was hooked.  I didn't even play the game right away because I was too busy making sure I remembered the manual.  

[Scipio_66]

Quote:
Originally posted by Erik Bethke

What the game might be. Here is my conclusion from the above poll: That the most desirable setting is SFB...

The key point is that all of you enjoy the deep complexity of the SFC series and like it on the deep and complex side ... At the same time you hunger for the game to be 'completed' from a strategic point of view....You would like D2/D3 to just plain work. We do too! :-) ...

... We have had fantastic partners first Interplay then Activision and all along Paramount and ADB. We have been extremely fortunate.  However I worry about over milking the cow. We have released four SFC products and that feels like a lot to me .... As for Galaxies at War with the Andros and Tholians - I understand very clearly that this would make SFC complete and I would like to see that happen as well. Here is my gut opinion on that - if SFC3 outsells expectations - then ATVI/Paramount/Taldren will look for other ways to capitalize on SFC and GAW would probably be it.

I wouldn't worry about overmilking the cow.  It really feels like there have been two SFC products rather than four.  SFC3 was a completely different game so it doesn't add to the total, and OP was so close to EAW it was really the same thing.  Besides, 25 years later I'm still shelling out big bucks every year for SFB products.  Quality sells.  

Adding Tholians and Andros would be nice and I'd love to see them, but what I really hope you do with a new SFC game is flesh out the Dynaverse.  New races only add new ships to an existing game.  Upgrading the Dynaverse makes the new game an entirely new product worthy of excitement.  Minimize production efforts on GSA features, and make the entire point of the product a fully-realized dynaverse.   Connection issues are paramount, but what I'd like to see in the way of new features is:

1) Allow the server admins to set fixed shipyard production schedules as they see fit. (Allow some ships to even be set to "unique")  Avoid all use of random production selection, unless the server admin *wants* it random.
2) Fix it so that construction of starbases requires building and upgrading of mobile bases, then base stations, then battlestations before being converted into starbases.
3) Change the way the map interacts with the missions so that bases are removed from the map if and only if the hex changes color.
4) Make the AI much, much smarter.  Especially with regard to how it engages seeking weapons and when it cloaks.  Putting up a pre-emptive anti-tractor or recalling fighters to rearm them should not be impossible for the AI.
5) Allow admins to control when and who gets drones/fighters and how many of them are available for each individual race.  *Include an easy to use dynaverse mission scriptor (in addition to the API) so that people can fix problematic scripts, like the basic patrol mission that still kills D2 campaigns even  today.
6) Allow attacks on Convoy routes to affect the economics of the owning race.
7) Allow the economics of cut-off areas of your empire to feed that lonely sector, but not be able to be added to your empires general fund.
8) Allow events within the game to alter tension ratings up or down.  Make all those settings in the silly gf files that I struggle with on my server actually *do* somthing.  
9) Allow us to add or at least swap out races in the game. (Currently, the name of the race that owns a hex in the dynaverse apparantly can't be changed from default strings, though names in news reports and tension levels can.)
10) Add the ability to use the Cloak Damage Reduction chart, and single internals.  (Oops!  Those aren't strictly D2 issues.....)
11) Fix the patrol bug.

I'd buy that in a heartbeat.  Of course, adding Tholians and Andros would only make me buy it even faster.  I'm gauranteed to buy several copies of any (faithfully) SFB-based software.

-S'Cipio    

[RogueJedi_XC]

I missed this before, so I'll answer the poll now...and before I read any further in the thread.

Quote:

1) The game be set in the Star Trek TOS setting

Important. TOS is the most interesting era, IMO.

Quote:

2) The game be set in the Star Trek TNG setting

Doesn't matter to me. I don't really care for TNG.

Quote:

3) The game be set in the SFB setting

Important. Let's face it, we moved away from the SFB ruleset and the game just does not have the same depth or flavor. It just isn't as good.

Quote:

4) The game have a deep strategic metagame with planets sourcing and sinking supplies, staged ship production, more use of strategic elements

Expected. This is an absolute must, IMO. Starships just popping out of nothingness is silly. It's also silly to have an empire down to one measly low-econ planet still able to produce DN's, BB's, and CV's.

Quote:

5) The game set in a original universe designed by Taldren

Nice to have. This could be interesting.

Quote:

6) The game be fully modifiable, models, missions, weapons, server controls

Important. What good is a game that has you follow a set script in a set path with set units/tools? Modability is the top reason the SFC series is as popular as it is.

Quote:

7) The game's online feature set be as robust as the highest the industry has achieved

Most important. Servers that crash and burn every 2 hours are not fun! (especially for the admin...)

Quote:

8) The game feature a single player campaign

Expected. Gotta do something during those times when I can't play online.

Quote:

9) The game have a detailed grognard type manual

Important. The SFC1 manual is the template to follow...

Quote:

10) The manual be printed

Most Important. Gotta have something to read while taking a, um, nature break.

Quote:

11) Available in a store to be purchased

Most important. Not everyone can purchase online. Failing to offer a game in retail would be a sure way to guarantee less than 300,000 sales.  

Quote:

12) A demo available to play

Important, with the caveat that the download be reasonable at 56K speeds. I.e., a 50MB to 80Mb download would be on the high-side of too-long, even if it is a bit limited in content.

Quote:

13) Be able to purchase online

Nice to have, but not really necessary. It would be a great way to get money directly to you guys at Taldren, bypassing all those other money-grubbers.

Quote:

14) Be able to email a Taldren technical support person

Important. The best support for this game has come from you guys, not Interplay or Activision. I'd like to see that continue.

Quote:

15) Be able to talk to a Taldren technical support person

Nice to have. See above.

Quote:

16) Have dockable, transparent UI windows

Doesn't matter to me. I find transparent/opaque windows to be an annoyance (I feel I can't really see anything). Maybe I'm in the minority...

Quote:

17) Have seemless in-game flow from 'mission' to mission without going to a menu

Nice to have. It would give the game more of a real-time feel, as well as increase player immersion. Any time you can do away with down-time is a good thing.

Quote:

18) What is your number of reasonable playable races?

Impor..uh, wait. This doesn't fit the pattern! No fair!  
Between 6 and 8. 16 (in OP) was just too many, the player base was dilluted too much. A race with an overall population of 2 (howdy, Lyrans!   ) just isn't fun to play.

Quote:

19) What amount of money would you be willing to pay for such a game at retail as a product?

$45 to $55. I will not pay $60 for any game. I don't care if the CDs are labeled in 24k gold.

Quote:

20) What amount of money would you be willing to pay as a monthly service?

$12.95/mo. is becoming standard for online games. I'd pay that, and probably up to $15/mo.

Quote:

21) How long would you guess you would likely play assuming a monthly subscription with say 2 new models and 2 new missions and a new weapon per month?

Depends on how good the game is at it's core. If it's anything like SFC 1 & 2, indeffinitely. If it's like OP* or SFC3**, about 2 weeks.

* X-Ships, 'nuff said.
** TNG, non-SFB, retard-proofed, um, er, I mean simplified interface.

Quote:

22) How would you feel about purchasing an online service like this from Taldren as opposed to buying something from a larger, more established company?

None. It may even be better to have a small company running the show, rather than a multi-national conglomerate whose top brass wouldn't know your game from a hole in the wall.

Quote:

23) How many people do you personally know that if the game was reasonably robust, and addictively fun would you pass the demo to?

I don't know that many people. Maybe 3?

Quote:

24) What fraction of those people would you suppose would buy the game?

One for certain, 'cause I'd just buy it for him.

Quote:

25) Would you be able to handle a server that had users chatting in different languages or do you need segragation?

Limit the language mixing. It would be very confusing to see English, Spanish, German, and/or Rigelian all mixed together. It would be impossible to follow.

Quote:

26) How important is a live orchestra compared to an electronic recording to you (SFC1 vs. SFC3)

Nice to have. A live orchastra adds to the ambiance of the game, whereas electronic recordings get the job done but don't count towards "atmosphere".
IMO, at any rate...

Quote:

27) How important to you is the release of backrgound material such as backstory, weapon information and ship history published on a website?

Most important. I'm a pseudo-role player. I like to be immersed in a story and feel I'm a part of it. Backstory and history help to do that.

Quote:

28) How many other players would you like to see as a reasonable limit in a single 'encounter'?

More than 1?  
Upwards of 100 people ought to be able to get into a single "encounter", IMO.
       

[Demandred]

Quote:

More than 1?  
Upwards of 100 people ought to be able to get into a single "encounter", IMO.
       

Taldren must also provide the T1 lines required for a 100 ship battle.  

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Absolutely. I went back and fired up OP (with Firesouls big SFB shiplist, hoot!) and played it for the first time since 11-22-03. Wow, real, MEANINGFUL energy allocation.
The ability to reinforce more than one shield.
PHASER ARCS seem like cheese compared to the horrific arcs in SFC3.
MANY, MANY more weapons.
MANY, MANY MORE RACES.
FIGHTERS
P-F's
MONSTERS
Having ships in your fleet that will not simply up and leave for no reason.
Not having warp is a bit irritating when you have to close the distance, but oh boy does it make you remember how to keep your distance from that rom ship with a PL-R or from that Kizinti with 7 drone racks.

SO much more control.
SO much more depth.
SO much more like a starship simulator and so much less like wingcommander.

I had forgotten just how GOOD original SFC IS!

Taldren, you boys take your time with the patch, Im having FUN, lol!

Have a nice day!  
 

[MarianoDT]

I don´t know anything about GAW, but i hope the next SFC game (if they ever made other) will have a "real" 3D (not D3   ) scenario.
This is definitely a must.

 

[3dot14]

Quote:
...
Coexistance is, I believe, the future.

So yes, you can have your GaW, and I can have my SFC, and the two need never intersect.  

I belive Harry Lang of Paramount already shot down this idea. (separate product lines)

A all-generation is interesting, but ONLY if the eras are PROPERLY isolated/quarantined from each other. and unfortuantely, that's the same as doing two separate games...
Moreover. there is no telling what kind of game an all-generation is: would it be SFB adapted fro TNG? or SFC3 adpated for Archer's Enterprise?

[RogueJedi_XC]

Yep. I got fed up with TNG's lack of depth fairly quickly. I went back to playing EAW and haven't looked back since. I just wish I could play online. I miss getting my ass wooped up on by KATFluff.    

[Mr. Hypergol]

Quote:
A all-generation is interesting, but ONLY if the eras are PROPERLY isolated/quarantined from each other. and unfortuantely, that's the same as doing two separate games...

I envisioned something more like letting history flow with availability being based on a "year of play" selected.

For example, ship classes would become available by a certain date and phased out by another.  This would also be the case with technology, weapons, and systems.  So, if you selected the year 2230 for example you would have access to the Constitution class CA, but not something like an Ambassador class or a Galaxy class.  2230 would also mean that the old Daedalus class was not avalable anymore.  There would be cases of overlap where a TOS ship might still be available when a TNG ship had just been introduced.

Doing the "year of play" selection method, instead of broad but distinct eras, would provide a lot of flavor to the game because the particular gameplay dynamics would change from year to year.  For example, in 2230 the Constitution Class might be king of the hill but by 2235 it has to contend with the new and shiny Klingon D7 becoming available.  But then a few years later a refit becomes available that changes the dynamic again......and on and on.  Some ships like the Texas-Class CL from SFB or the Excelsior class (the B-52's of Star Trek ships) would exist for long periods while others might only be in production during war periods.

I would love to see the evolution of the empires over time.  The map would also be defined by year.  Perhaps some empires get conquered by a certain date, or merge with other empires.  Maps could combine cannon and SFB based elements.  I love the Star Trek Star Charts book I got for christmas but it seems that it would be hard to balance those canon maps strategicly because some empires are so much bigger and more powerful than others.  However, since there is a lot of unused space on those maps, you could add SFB races like the Hydrans or Kzinti to the canon maps and adjust the size of other races to help balance things for good F&E-like strategic play.

As I have stated before I think an all-eras game can be done using SFB based rules as it's core.  There is no reason to make 2 separate games.  You can adapt and derive SFB rules for even TNG, i.e. maybe missle get phased out after the Andromedan  War.  This guy did it:

http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/index.html

And I think he did it very well.

Again, I think an "all eras", SFB derived, GAW, in the format of the Total War series with equally deep strategic and tactical gameplay, that focuses on the history of wars and the evolution of the empires from Enterprise to Nemesis.......<breath> .......will sell the 300,000 copies that Taldren and Activision say they need.
     

[James Formo]

If I sound ignorant here , well its because I am.  Please enlighten me-what does GAW stand for?

[Rod O'neal]

I believe one problem with an all era SFC based on SFB is that Paramount never allowed ADB to do it. ADB's license only applied to TOS. I believe they "got away" with using stuff from the 1st movie because Paramount didn't enforce the licensing limitation on them at the time the movie came out. I'm not 100% sure about all of this, it's just what I can remember from a while ago. So, with that said, it might present a problem with Paramount/Activision/Taldren to stretch the SFB ruleset beyond what ADB was allowed to do by Paramount. It could be a double standard if they took the SFB ruleset and applied it to the TNG era when they wouldn't let ADB do it. I hope I'm explaining this well enough to get the point I'm trying to make across I'm not a lawyer, it just seems that it *could* work this way. I wouldn't mind if someone could clarify this for me lol.  

[Teck]

Quote:
If I sound ignorant here , well its because I am.  Please enlighten me-what does GAW stand for?  

Galaxies At War

[SirWilliam]

Quote:
You can adapt and derive SFB rules for even TNG, i.e. maybe missle get phased out after the Andromedan  War.  This guy did it:

http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/index.html

And I think he did it very well.

Never seen anything of SFB before, but just looking at that makes my head hurt.  It now seems that making a working video game of this would be quite the Herculean task.

Back to my 'puter... besides I don't even know where to buy those funky dice any more...  

[Mr. Hypergol]

Quote:
If I sound ignorant here , well its because I am. Please enlighten me-what does GAW stand for?

GAW = Starfleet Command: Galaxies at War.

Over 2.5 years ago prior to the release of Empires at War there was a wishlist thread on the old forums for what people wanted in a future SFC game.  The concept of a Galaxies at War type game was born from that thread.  Galaxies at War became Taldren working title for a sequel to Empires at War that wraps up the cliff hanger at the end of the single player story campaign of EAW.  The end of the campaign had the Organians destroyed by a race from SFB called the Andromedan Invaders.  Also the game would add the Tholians from SFB.  GAW would cover the Andromedan War from SFB and also focus on various races conflicts with the Tholians...especially the Klingons.  The name GALAXIES at War was derived from the fact that both the new races were not native to the Miltky Way but invaded from outside our galaxy.  It just expands on the name Empires at War and was never ment to be a creative or official game title.

Most thought GAW would be what SFC3 would turned out to be.  Unfortunately Interplay went under and when Activision took over they took SFC away from it's SFB roots.  So everything changed.

Since then, there has been an ongoing campaign by many on the forum to persaude Activision to make a GAW.

Things have continued to evolve and now it looks like the idea of GAW could expand into an "all eras" game since Activision has all the Star Trek liscenses and the legal ability to do an "all eras" game.  GAW would hopefully move back closer to the SFB based ruleset even using SFB derived rules for the TNG eras.

Hope that answers your question.  

[James Formo]

Quote:

Quote:
If I sound ignorant here , well its because I am. Please enlighten me-what does GAW stand for?

Things have continued to evolve and now it looks like the idea of GAW could expand into an "all eras" game since Activision has all the Star Trek liscenses and the legal ability to do an "all eras" game.  GAW would hopefully move back closer to the SFB based ruleset even using SFB derived rules for the TNG eras.

Hope that answers your question.    

Yea it did. I feel like the lightbulb just went on. Thanks

Oh and I would buy this game in a second. Sounds like the ultimate ST game.

[Mr. Hypergol]

Quote:
 I believe one problem with an all era SFC based on SFB is that Paramount never allowed ADB to do it. ADB's license only applied to TOS. I believe they "got away" with using stuff from the 1st movie because Paramount didn't enforce the licensing limitation on them at the time the movie came out. I'm not 100% sure about all of this, it's just what I can remember from a while ago. So, with that said, it might present a problem with Paramount/Activision/Taldren to stretch the SFB ruleset beyond what ADB was allowed to do by Paramount. It could be a double standard if they took the SFB ruleset and applied it to the TNG era when they wouldn't let ADB do it.  

Based on Erik Bethke's comments I don't think this is an issue.  ADB would only have a say in the use of the SFB ruleset and the races they invented, i.e. Hydrans.   ADB I am sure would have no problem with allowing SFB to be used again because it helps their sales by introducing people to their board game.

Paramount can do what they want with the rest and ADB has no say.  In a way SFC3 is already using SFB derived rules and it doesn't seem to be a legal problem.

As far as Paramount not letting ADB expand SFB, well that gets into who controls the franchise.  ADB should just be happy that they are getting some economic benefit from the SFC series because.....when it comes down to it.......they are lucky Paramount allows them to even exist.  

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Quote:
If I sound ignorant here , well its because I am.  Please enlighten me-what does GAW stand for?  

Forum short hand for "Gallaxies at War" a community named version of SFC using the OP engine including Tholians and Andro's and a new scattering of other lesser played races.......community requested features....working scout functions...more drone types...plasma bolts....Better control for server admins....mission population increased to 8 or 10 players.....option mounts for pirates and heavy war destroyers...options for hidden cloak/detection....

Hell..the list go on and on.....

No one ever said it was going to be that way.....we just kinda assumed it ...well ...we was wrong......out came the SFC3 concept of TNG.......something we all kinda figured would be SFC4.....

So what might be termed the next or final chapter of SFB based SFC didnt happen....they skipped it and moved on due to several reasons too numerous to list....but making a payroll was one of them....

So...we bump...we ask again and again.....we try to remind them by waving cash around....

Several ideas have been floated to hold production costs down...such as purchase by download or even mailed disk.....maybe with a gold boxed set of SFC...etc etc....

Other ideas included having Taldren only work on the core of the game and have the communities best do the art work and missions.....

Ah well...many people have simply given up hope of ever seeing such a game.....others see Eriks poll as a hope for the future...

Hehe...wearing black robes, dancing around bonfires, wacking their foreheads with boards....the Taldrenites fed dirt to their idol Erik and yelled MOOOOOO! NEENER NEENER MOOOOOO! WE WILL HAVE OUR PATCH SOON!....with that...the fire was doused by recycled beer....Robed figures melt into the woods.....one of them tripping and cursing loudly...."OUCH!...@#$%.....MAY YOUR JINN HIT AN ASTERIOD!!!!"

<hooded figure 2>"asteroids?.....what about the Klingons?"

<hooded figure1>"WHAT?....WHAT KLINGONS!?!"

<hooded figure 2>"THE KLINGONS ON YOUR URANUS!"

*much juvenile laughter*  

[JayBee]

If they make a GAW I would buy it in a second!

I have never had so much fun with a game as I have with SFC1 & 2.  Memories I hold close to my heart.
In EAW there was battles that was epic. I mean I had to do everything I knew about the game to pull the win out, and still have to take a few chances here and there. EAW in my opinion is the best game ever made.  SFC3 is a solid game, it just wasnt like the 2 before.

Make a GAW so I can stop calling EAW the best game ever.
 

[Sethan]

Hmm.  I missed the original poll.  Haven't hung out in the General Forums since I became unemployed.  I always said I would buy a copy of SFC3 when I got a job again just to support Taldren, but never really had an interest in the concept.

That said, GaW is a concept I  do have an interest in.  To Erik's poll:

For a hypothetical future offering from Taldren:

1) The game be set in the Star Trek TOS setting

  5: doesn't matter to me - but see answer to question 3

2) The game be set in the Star Trek TNG setting

  5: doesn't matter to me - but see answer to question 3

3) The game be set in the SFB setting

2: important   SFB lent a lot to the game that has been missing from most other Trek games.  There is a rich and detailed history.  I recognize however, that SFB has a limited fan base - even after the SFC series.  Because of that, I would very much like to see an 'all eras' game that has something for everyone.  Advanced Era in OP was the tip of the iceberg with regard to that - but more work needs to be done in terms of figuring out how to transition from one era to another in the game more smoothly.  SFB/SFC1 style refits would go a long way toward fixing that problem.  If the only way that the game can be made is to get away from Trek entirely, I would say that this is not important at all - as long as the game is sufficiently moddable that the players can make the setting they want.  Make a game set in Weber's Honor Harrington universe, and I'll turn cartwheels.

4) The game have a deep strategic metagame with planets sourcing and sinking supplies, staged ship production, more use of strategic elements

1: most important  This is what keeps people's interest when they get tired of blowing up 500 enemy ships in one-on-one contests that have no larger strategic import.

5) The game set in a original universe designed by Taldren

 5: doesn't matter to me - as long as the game is moddable enough that we can create our own universes

6) The game be fully modifiable, models, missions, weapons, server controls

  1: most important - This is what kept SFC2 going long after many people would have given up if the stock version of the game was all there was.  Gameplay evolves over time, and if the game cannot evolve with it, it becomes boring.  The more moddable the game is, the longer interest will continue to be high.

7) The game's online feature set be as robust as the highest the industry has achieved

 2: important - As with question 4 - online play is what keeps people's interest when they tire of playing the AI.  By 'online feature set' I am not sure what is meant - but the game needs to maintain connections as best it can, and have procedures for dealing with a dropped connection in a mission - procedures that do not involve the person who didn't drop being penalized by not getting credit for the mission.

8) The game feature a single player campaign

  2: important - many people still do not have internet connections - or don't have ones stable enough to game on.  Single player is what lets these people buy and enjoy the game.

9) The game have a detailed grognard type manual

  2: important - even if the grognard parts are in electronic format only.  Understanding how the game is supposed to work is important to being able to play well - and to figuring out whether the problems you are experiencing are a result of the game behaving as designed or a bug.  A detailed manual (at least in electronic format) is particularly important from the server setup side of things.

10) The manual be printed

  4: nice to have - but not required.  A printed quickstart guide with a detailed manual in electronic format would work fine.

11) Available in a store to be purchased

  1: most important - if you expect to get 300,000 units sold, it must be in stores.

12) A demo available to play

 2: important - the game industry being what it is, many consumers are getting smarter about what they buy - and will not buy a game they have not tried.

13) Be able to purchase online

  4: nice to have - to make some money for Taldren directly, but game must be in stores if it is to sell big.

14) Be able to email a Taldren technical support person

 5: doesn't matter to me - these forums have worked well for support.

15) Be able to talk to a Taldren technical support person

 5: doesn't matter to me - these forums have worked well for support.

16) Have dockable, transparent UI windows

 5: doesn't matter to me - I have no experience with this, so have no opinion.

17) Have seemless in-game flow from 'mission' to mission without going to a menu

 4: nice to have - might be nice.  Would have to see how well it worked.

18) What is your number of reasonable playable races?

 20 or so - with a caveat.  Allow servers to be set up with a high number of possible player races - but only some of them active at any given time.  Example:  Allow the Paravians,  ISC, and Borg to be playable races on the same server - but in different eras - this allows server admins to set up as many (or as few) playable races as they want at any point in the server timeline, without restricting themselves (I only allowed 6 races, and now I want to add Borg and can't without removing one of the other races)

19) What amount of money would you be willing to pay for such a game at retail as a product?

 $50 seems to be the standard price for games right now - if you want to charge more than that, you will have to sell people on why it is worth more - and many people will not buy regardless.  I'd probably pay up to $80 - once I have a job again - but I am a loon.

20) What amount of money would you be willing to pay as a monthly service?

  $0 - I don't do monthly services (even when I had money) because I never know when I will be able to play.  If I were playing regularly, and I had money - $5 to $10.  That is probably as much as I could justify to the wife - if I had money. It would have to be on a pay as you go basis too - no long term contract.

21) How long would you guess you would likely play assuming a monthly subscription with say 2 new models and 2 new missions and a new weapon per month?

 The new models, missions, and weapon would not be an enticement for me - a well run server with an interesting long-term campaign is.  Given that, years.  

22) How would you feel about purchasing an online service like this from Taldren as opposed to buying something from a larger, more established company?

 No problem - Taldren has always gone the extra mile to support its end users.  Even if they were to go out of business, I am confident that a way would be found to allow continued play.

23) How many people do you personally know that if the game was reasonably robust, and addictively fun would you pass the demo to?

  5

24) What fraction of those people would you suppose would buy the game?

  Any of them that did not buy it would get it as a gift from me, so all of them.

25) Would you be able to handle a server that had users chatting in different languages or do you need segragation?

 Different languages is fine.  

26) How important is a live orchestra compared to an electronic recording to you (SFC1 vs. SFC3)

 5: doesn't matter to me

27) How important to you is the release of backrgound material such as backstory, weapon information and ship history published on a website?

 4: nice to have
 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think I want to re-do my previous answersince I've changed a few answers since last time.

Please rate the following items along this scale:
1: most important
2: important
3: expected
4: nice to have
5: doesn't matter to me

Quote:
For a hypothetical future offering from Taldren:
1) The game be set in the Star Trek TOS setting 4
2) The game be set in the Star Trek TNG setting 4
3) The game be set in the SFB setting 4
4) The game have a deep strategic metagame with planets sourcing and sinking supplies, staged ship production, more use of strategic elements 1
5) The game set in a original universe designed by Taldren 2
6) The game be fully modifiable, models, missions, weapons, server controls 2, don't forget the option to add races
7) The game's online feature set be as robust as the highest the industry has achieved 2
8) The game feature a single player campaign 1
9) The game have a detailed grognard type manual 2
10) The manual be printed 3
11) Available in a store to be purchased 1
12) A demo available to play 3
13) Be able to purchase online 5
14) Be able to email a Taldren technical support person 3
15) Be able to talk to a Taldren technical support person 3, but it doesn't matter for either, as long as we can complain on these forums
16) Have dockable, transparent UI windows 5
17) Have seemless in-game flow from 'mission' to mission without going to a menu 4, I kind of like Dynaverse, it allows more strategy
18) What is your number of reasonable playable races? Depends on what the game will be, but probably at least 6
19) What amount of money would you be willing to pay for such a game at retail as a product? $40 would be an ideal price, but I might pay $50
20) What amount of money would you be willing to pay as a monthly service? $5-$15 a month
21) How long would you guess you would likely play assuming a monthly subscription with say 2 new models and 2 new missions and a new weapon per month? I would rather have reduced services and reduced price, but for a service like that, I would pay until I couldn't afford it
22) How would you feel about purchasing an online service like this from Taldren as opposed to buying something from a larger, more established company? doesn't matter either way
23) How many people do you personally know that if the game was reasonably robust, and addictively fun would you pass the demo to? Not many, more if its non-Trek
24) What fraction of those people would you suppose would buy the game? I have no idea
25) Would you be able to handle a server that had users chatting in different languages or do you need segragation? I could handle it, as long as I'm not the only English-speaking player
26) How important is a live orchestra compared to an electronic recording to you (SFC1 vs. SFC3): I would rather have a live orchestra. The music in SFC3 didn't impress me
27) How important to you is the release of backrgound material such as backstory, weapon information and ship history published on a website? fairly important. Its always interesting
28) How many other players would you like to see as a reasonable limit in a single 'encounter'? 10 would be nice, but 1000 is still preferable  

 Hope this is still helpful.

Have a nice Day        

[Praxis]

I'll do it too  

Please rate the following items along this scale:
1: most important
2: important
3: expected
4: nice to have
5: doesn't matter to me

Quote:
For a hypothetical future offering from Taldren:
1) The game be set in the Star Trek TOS setting 4
2) The game be set in the Star Trek TNG setting 3
3) The game be set in the SFB setting 4
4) The game have a deep strategic metagame with planets sourcing and sinking supplies, staged ship production, more use of strategic elements 1
5) The game set in a original universe designed by Taldren 5
6) The game be fully modifiable, models, missions, weapons, server controls 1, MAKE RACES ADDABLE!  It's tough enough doing mods when theres no room to add races!
7) The game's online feature set be as robust as the highest the industry has achieved 2
8) The game feature a single player campaign 2
9) The game have a detailed grognard type manual 2
10) The manual be printed 3
11) Available in a store to be purchased 1
12) A demo available to play 3
13) Be able to purchase online 4
14) Be able to email a Taldren technical support person 4
15) Be able to talk to a Taldren technical support person 4
16) Have dockable, transparent UI windows 4
17) Have seemless in-game flow from 'mission' to mission without going to a menu 5
18) What is your number of reasonable playable races? Minimum of 6, but i'd perfer more.  I think that the next SFC should have a VERY large choice of ships, not just 5 or 6 per race like in SFC3 with only 4 races.  I'd perfer having even 8 races, but if Taldren made a dozen or two models per race, it could get rather difficult to do 8 races.
19) What amount of money would you be willing to pay for such a game at retail as a product? $30-40 (otherwise i'll just hover around Pawn Shops for weeks since I'm a cheapskate )
20) What amount of money would you be willing to pay as a monthly service? Monthly service? GET SERIOUS!  Don't try to copy Star Wars Galaxies...I'm not buying that game.
21) How long would you guess you would likely play assuming a monthly subscription with say 2 new models and 2 new missions and a new weapon per month? Services? Meh.  I'll download custom models.
22) How would you feel about purchasing an online service like this from Taldren as opposed to buying something from a larger, more established company? Taldren makes better quality, more fun games- i love SFC.  And i wouldn't but a subscription either way.
23) How many people do you personally know that if the game was reasonably robust, and addictively fun would you pass the demo to? All the Trekkies i know if its trek, otherwise probably not many.
24) What fraction of those people would you suppose would buy the game? Dunno
25) Would you be able to handle a server that had users chatting in different languages or do you need segragation? I speak English (main language), io parla italiano (but i don't spell well in it), en ik spreek een beetje nederlands, but it gets REAL annoying when you have people from other languages playing with you and you can't tell them stuff.
26) How important is a live orchestra compared to an electronic recording to you (SFC1 vs. SFC3): Both!  Was there a difference between SFC1 and 3 with the music? I didn't notice, lol.
27) How important to you is the release of backrgound material such as backstory, weapon information and ship history published on a website? 2, I like the story the most.  Even when i create custom maps for games such as Age of Empires for MYSELF i always make up a story behind it.  A game where the story is, "This Galaxy declared war on that Galaxy, go blow them up," would be rather stupid.
28) How many other players would you like to see as a reasonable limit in a single 'encounter'? Depends on the stability.  If the game crashes with a few players, make it low, but if the game is stable, i really like big battles with many players.  I know!  Make it a moddable part of the dynaverse server, the player limit per encounter.  That way if a patch makes the game more stable, it can be increased!

         

[Holocat]

Quote:
 The end of the campaign had the Organians destroyed by a race from SFB called the Andromedan Invaders.  Also the game would add the Tholians from SFB.  GAW would cover the Andromedan War from SFB and also focus on various races conflicts with the Tholians...especially the Klingons.    

Now the andromedeans are powerful, but powerful enough to destroy the semi-god creature Organians?

Then again, I bet the SFBer's around here would go, "Yeah, they're *that* cheezy."  


More cheeze than a triple layer thin crust from Pizza Hut,

Holocat.

[Maxillius]

Quote:

Quote:
 The end of the campaign had the Organians destroyed by a race from SFB called the Andromedan Invaders.  Also the game would add the Tholians from SFB.  GAW would cover the Andromedan War from SFB and also focus on various races conflicts with the Tholians...especially the Klingons.    

Now the andromedeans are powerful, but powerful enough to destroy the semi-god creature Organians?

Then again, I bet the SFBer's around here would go, "Yeah, they're *that* cheezy."  


More cheeze than a triple layer thin crust from Pizza Hut,

Holocat.  

Does the entire cheese export of Wisconsin mean anything to you?

[Scipio_66]

Quote:

Now the andromedeans are powerful, but powerful enough to destroy the semi-god creature Organians?


Holocat.  

The reason you couldn't board an Andro ship is that they used Power Absorption panels rather than shields.  Your boarding
party (while energy in the transport beam) would get absorbed, channeled through the batteries, and then used to power the weapons
on the Andro ship.  Ouchie.

You ever see what happens when an energy being as powerful as an Organian tries to board an Andro ship?  Suddenly
all the Andro weapons find new overload settings.  The poor Organians never had a chance.  <sob>

Oh, the humanity!

-S'Cipio

[Rod O'neal]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
 The end of the campaign had the Organians destroyed by a race from SFB called the Andromedan Invaders.  Also the game would add the Tholians from SFB.  GAW would cover the Andromedan War from SFB and also focus on various races conflicts with the Tholians...especially the Klingons.    

Now the andromedeans are powerful, but powerful enough to destroy the semi-god creature Organians?

Then again, I bet the SFBer's around here would go, "Yeah, they're *that* cheezy."  


More cheeze than a triple layer thin crust from Pizza Hut,

Holocat.  

Does the entire cheese export of Wisconsin mean anything to you?  

It took the combined forces from every race in the Galaxy to mount a successfull attack against a single Andromedan starbase, Operation Unity. Admittedly, is was a very well reinforced starbase, but all the havoc raised by the Andros in our galaxy was generated from a single starbase. That kinda cheez just hasn't been invented yet.

[Maxillius]

and a very far-flung starbase at that

[Mr. Hypergol]

I thought AJTK's "Can I Have GAW Now?" thread from the old forum ought to be brought over to these new forums because it contained some of the best "future game" dialog between the fans, Taldren, and Activision we've seen to date.  

Here's a link to the full thread on the old forum:

http://208.57.228.3/ubb/Forum1/HTML/020017.html

Here's some excepts from that thread

Quote:

I will try to explain my previous point a little bit more. Let's just say we created a GaW using the SFB ruleset and the code-base of TNG from an engine point of view, but the fundamental UI of EAW - okay? In that scenario I would not hesitate for a fraction of a second to license SFB for that game. However, to do this we need to have a lot of confidence that 300,000 people will buy it near the full price. By the time you tally up all of the needed people to make the game: Paramount, Activision, Taldren, QA, Audio, Voice Actors, Musicians, SFX, tools, vendors, lawyers, accountants, leases, rents, etc. We need 300,000 buyers. So is it possible? Certainly! Is it probable? At this moment it is very unclear.

The best thing we know how to do is do a good patch for SFC3 and D3, and do strong post-release support along multiple avenues to keep the sales of SFC3 strong. If we reach 300,000 units of SFC3 (or projects to 300,000 in the reasonable near term) then Activision will have a meeting with itself something along the lines: "Gee, that made money, let's do that again!" :-)

So then they will scratch their heads and think for a bit and call us up and call up Harry and all of us would sit around a table and offer the sketch of what would it take to sell 300,000 units again.

I have some ideas that it would be inappropriate for me to announce here.

But think along those lines. Currently a quick and dirty of OP with Andros and Tholians with new missions and billed as GaW would fetch less than 300,000 I predict with some confidence. We would have to do some other Great Things to get people to come back and play the game.

So, if you recall on SFC1 we tried to just get the basic game.

On SFC2 we added D2 ;-)

On OP our aim was a lot of flexiblity and choice.

On SFC3 we went for TNG and for a much more stable game (and on that I think everyone would have to agree we are much better).

As for the next real-time space-based tactical sim from Taldren - ? I dunno - but it is *always* worth your while to post what you want to see. Every post we see we multiply by like 10 or 100 to get an idea of what people want to see happen.

Thanks,
-Erik

The thread got hot with great dialog and then Erik posted his poll:

Quote:

Hi :-)
Some questions for you folks...

Please rate the following items along this scale:
1: most important
2: important
3: expected
4: nice to have
5: doesn't matter to me

For a hypothetical future offering from Taldren:

1) The game be set in the Star Trek TOS setting

2) The game be set in the Star Trek TNG setting

3) The game be set in the SFB setting

4) The game have a deep strategic metagame with planets sourcing and sinking supplies, staged ship production, more use of strategic elements

5) The game set in a original universe designed by Taldren

6) The game be fully modifiable, models, missions, weapons, server controls

7) The game's online feature set be as robust as the highest the industry has achieved

8) The game feature a single player campaign

9) The game have a detailed grognard type manual

10) The manual be printed

11) Available in a store to be purchased

12) A demo available to play

13) Be able to purchase online

14) Be able to email a Taldren technical support person

15) Be able to talk to a Taldren technical support person

16) Have dockable, transparent UI windows

17) Have seemless in-game flow from 'mission' to mission without going to a menu

18) What is your number of reasonable playable races?

19) What amount of money would you be willing to pay for such a game at retail as a product?

20) What amount of money would you be willing to pay as a monthly service?

21) How long would you guess you would likely play assuming a monthly subscription with say 2 new models and 2 new missions and a new weapon per month?

22) How would you feel about purchasing an online service like this from Taldren as opposed to buying something from a larger, more established company?

23) How many people do you personally know that if the game was reasonably robust, and addictively fun would you pass the demo to?

24) What fraction of those people would you suppose would buy the game?

25) Would you be able to handle a server that had users chatting in different languages or do you need segragation?

26) How important is a live orchestra compared to an electronic recording to you (SFC1 vs. SFC3)

27) How important to you is the release of backrgound material such as backstory, weapon information and ship history published on a website?

28) How many other players would you like to see as a reasonable limit in a single 'encounter'?

If you find these questions interesting, feel free to drop links to this set of questions to others in this forum or similar places.

Thanks,
-Erik

After quite a few pages of poll responses Erik made these very interesting comments:

Quote:

On fan created material. I have actually been thinking very hard about this for a while. We have had tremendous support from our fan base, James King, Artic Fire, Eagle Eye, Chris Jones, and many many more.
We have had fans make scripts for SFC2, and we have had fans make models for SFC2. In bothe cases the folks did good work, but the process was complicated by the game engine being in production, so significant maintainence work we needed to perform (more so in the mission scripts than the models).

However, I very much recognize that we are a community together - the fans and teh developer. And I have always felt our job is to create games (stuff people do not need) for you.

We have a modelling contest going on right now and there are some cool new prizes we are going to announce from some of our industry partners and yes we recognize that the work the fans produce is an amazing resource.

Here are my current thoughts:

1) Go to fans for ship models, only AFTER the game engine specification is complete and there is an art style guide.

2) Go to the fans for mission scripts, only AFTER the scripting interface is frozen (because of the upcomming patch we have not yet released the scripting API for SFC3 as we did not want to create incompatibilties).

3) Quality. We are a fine judge of quality, but it some ways the group of fans are an even better set of quality. For example in a future game where we wanted to ship say 50 missions. It would be interesting to commit our internal resources to creating 25, and have 25 come from the fan base. Then have an open or closed beta for the game, where people could submit their missions, and take the top 25 as judged by the fan base. Perhaps the same for the models. The models and missions not selected are still good they just wouldn't ship with the game and be considered official.

4) Compensation - we have in the past paid fized-prices for missions and models, and may do so in the future. But it would be interesting to have some sort of modet profit sharing scheme where modelers, scripters and even campaign hosts would be able to share some profit (incidently if we went to a subscription model it is not incompatible with fan-run campaigns).

5) What the game might be. Here is my conclusion from the above poll: That the most desirable setting is SFB, with strong support for TNG, TOS, and TAL (Short for Taldren orginal).
The key point is that all of you enjoy the deep complexity of the SFC series and like it on the deep and complex side. That eliding numbers was a mistake in SFC3 (again we were trying to make the game cleaner and more appealing to a wide audience).
At the same time you hunger for the game to be 'completed' from a strategic point of view. Believe me, I have played MOO, Elite, and many other strategic board games - strategy games are my favorite. I think it would be very interesting.
You would like D2/D3 to just plain work. We do too! :-) To do this we believe we can no longer work under a stanard development contract for the simple reason is that the games need to be supported after release. We need an income stream to do what Battle.net does (and more). I have no problem with offering a game $19 retail and say $9 online (with a free demo) and then have people pay $10 a month for as long as they like.
As to the setting, probably in no other place than this forum have you folks received as much straight information from Harry, Dan, Taldren and myself about the business model of making games. Since 1998 I have had my salary paid for by Starfleet Command projects and I have enjoyed it immensely. We have had fantastic partners first Interplay then Activision and all along Paramount and ADB. We have been extremely fortunate.
However I worry about over milking the cow. We have released four SFC products and that feels like a lot to me. Perhaps the SFC3 sales will merit an expansion featuring the Cardassians, Ferengi, and more... We do not know yet - in January we will know. As for Galaxies at War with the Andros and Tholians - I understand very clearly that this would make SFC complete and I would like to see that happen as well. Here is my gut opinion on that - if SFC3 outsells expectations - then ATVI/Paramount/Taldren will look for other ways to capitalize on SFC and GAW would probably be it.
The thing I have been beating around the bush is that we have had the concept for a wholly new sci-fi setting for a naval-style strategic & tactical game. Just a few concepts: roughly 2500-2700 and humans hae dispersed through 200-300 lightyears of space. There is hyper-gate style travel between major star systems, and there is a slower FTL drive for exploration and for visiting the backwaters. Combat ships vary in size from 1-man fighters, through 10-person police cutters, 100-person frigates, to 5000 person battleships. Beyond are world ships containing at least 10,000 settlers or ground troops. I would use all of the real stars in the sky, and a program like ACCRETE to generate reasonable accurate planets for these stars.
The humans would not be all nice like in ST. There would be significant balkanization of the human race and very heavy genetic modifications. Trade is very important between the planets as there would be about 30 distict tradable resources. There would be no absolutely fixed political alliances. Political units could be as small as a planet. We would create about 8 playable races - but we would create a 'race kit' where a group of fans would be able to introduce a wholly new race (after some QA).
This would be a very deep and complex game - but we would challenge ourselves to keep the UI as clean, layered and useful as possible. A thin manual and thick manual would be available. A network of websites would be setup to detail the worlds, history, politics and economics. You could use a webrowser to see what is going on in the world, and if you had a starbase it could be configured to instant message you if it was under attack (or call your cell)...
I am very confident that we could create a much more tightly designed and self-cosnsistent game of this sort as it would be designed for online PC from the start.

Those are some ideas....

-Erik

If anyone has not responded to Erik's poll questions go ahead and do it in this new thread.  I think it's important to get as much data as we can.

It would also be nice to keep the dialog going too.
       

[FatherTed]

All I can say is that if they come out with an SFB based GaW with Andros and Tholians, I'll be one of the first in line to buy it. But I would ask that they please fix the Gorn models. I hate the "Flying Stapler".    

[Cleaven]

You know something. I have now decided that what I really want is SFB on the PC, with hex maps, power allocation and impulse charts. Captain's edition rules with basic and advanced but no optionals (save for later, same for the modules), but all the rules are built in the system so you don't need to know the rule books by heart. Instead the allowable moves and actions are displayed for you. If it's not there, you can't do it. Of course if you do happen to know the rules by heart then you have a speed of play advantage but not much else. No more rules lawyers and no more forgetting the proper procedure for regaining lock. The AI of course would be very hard to do but I never played against the AI with SFB, just make it multiplayer and stable for 10 players in one battle.

As for the strategic game, I don't know. F&E is special but it's not the way to keep more than half a dozen people amused at once.
   

[FatherTed]

Cleaven, I haven't been there in a couple of years, but SFBOnline was a start in that direction. It was pretty basic, with tournament ships and rules, but it was a beginning. And I agree, true SFB on the net would be great.    

[Cleaven]

Sure SFB Online was a start, but you still had to know the rules and do all the hard work yourself.

Also I forgot to mention that all the SFB scenarios had to be included. I never was a great fan of the tournament.  

[Alidar Jarok]

Should I put this into a poll?

It requires more than one post.

EDIT: Hooray, post 500!

Lt. Commander Alidar Jarok reporting for duty

[quarterwit]

Since an online port of SFB would bring with it countless license issues, it might be preferable to create an open-ended tactical simulation, allowing players to define the properties of all weapons and components.  You could duplicate all of the weapons in SFB (more or less), but since the game wouldn't ship with them, they would qualify as user-created content (which no one profits from directly).

Setting aside the issue of user-created models, it would be interesting to define the "physics" of all components -- shields, beams, missiles, cannons, engines, etc.  A player could create their own beam weapon, if they wanted to delve into the engineering portion of the game, or they could simply take pre-built models and customize their ships in a fashion similar to what we see in SFC3.  The idea would be to build modding into the game for those who WANT to publish white papers analyzing the vector plots that guide seeking weapons, but not to penalize those who don't want to memorize spreadsheets.  I agree that Taldren should have given us more information about the mechanics of SFC3, but let's not forget about the graphical firing arcs on the mini-map (something that I didn't even notice until after I'd shot off my first complaint about the missing charts).  If we had a graphical depiction of a weapons properties we could intuitively use almost any configuration -- how much damage does a beam do at what distance, what chance does a projective have to hit at what distance, what is velocity, fuel, and decay rate of seeking weapon.  If I can see these graphs for my ship AND my opponent, then I can face any configuration of weapon and know, fairly quickly, which distance to seek and how which blind spots to exploit.

But what I'd really like to see is a game than supports user-created models directly.  You would assemble ships IN GAME from a gallery of components, and these components determine the properties of every part of the ship.  A beam whose properties are defined by range, damage, recharge rate, and accuracy might have four sub-components, which on the model are represented by four progressive meshes.

People who want to build ships will love this system.  People who don't want to come near the ship building SDK will enjoy the fact that every ship is comprised of 40-80 individual components, each of which can be targetted and damaged on its own (a hole in a ship isn't just a different texture wrapped around the same mesh, it's the hole where a functioning component used to be).  Use progressive meshes and add L.O.D. to the user settings and you've got a game that looks fantastic on high end machines and runs fine (albeit with rather blocky models) on slow machines.

OK -- I'll stop ranting now.

I only mention this because it sounds rather similar to earlier messages in this thread (i.e. instead of beating a dead horse, it might be better to create stem-cells that can be engineered into dead horses, or any other species of rhetorical carcas that a player might want to club).


 

[ghostcamel]

Goddamit. I really wanna reply to this, but its really late. All ill say tonight is Great ideas, Good to see its still alive, Godspeed Taldren and....

BUMP.
 

[Tulmahk]

I'm sticking to my philosophy that GaW and SFC can coexist in seperate product lines.

We've been approaching this debate as if it's an either / or situation, when really there's room for both.  GaW for all the SFB Old Guard, and SFC for those wanting pure Trek.

Coexistance is, I believe, the future.

So yes, you can have your GaW, and I can have my SFC, and the two need never intersect.  

[theRomulan]

I'm not that hardcore about SFB myself.  I would never be able to get my pencil and duke it out turn for turn.  I liked SFC because it relied heavily on SFB, and it was evident that a 20 year old rulebook was really the way to go; tried, tested, true.  Of course, amedments had to be made, but a lot of balance issues, or just tactical flavor was just waiting for the taking.  Pure SFB on a computer would be fun for some people, I'm sure.  

GaW would truly complete the PC masterpiece in my opinion.  Taldren has the good practice with SFC3's D3.  It's a really good system despite some negative remarks.

If it had to come down to an all-eras kind of trek, my only suggestion would be to REMAIN in the SFB realm of things.  I don't know if that's exactly possible, but yeah, keeping the core SFB is of the upmost importance.  The customization of SFC3 was interesting and fun, but unfortunately there is always a collective of gamers that buy the game and play to win.  I like to win as well, but unfortunately I am also hindered by some 'honor' code that prevents me from using antimatter mines as my primary heavy weapon, etc.  Customization, while certainly fun, will always ultimately lead to creating ships that are better than others. SFB of course does have better ships, etc., but in this game it is expected.  Also, how much better ships are isn't as significant.  I can have a CA or a CAI; of course the CAI is a big step up, but it is also quite limited in how much of a step that is.  Having the 200 ships and then creating a shiplist that provided good ships very rarely is superior.  SFB will be a little deeper and more complicated for some players, but I think it will keep the 'play to win' players in check.  Also, with all the alien races, worrying about creating heavy weapons and racial flavor would not be too difficult.

Also, if it were to be all eras, you would be able to use the multitude of races and give them a TNG feel.  You could even have some races 'progress' into other races.  Example, Intersteller Concordium starts out, does their war, etc. etc., gets pushed out of the Alpha Quadrant, lada lada, oops, they've been assimilated, we get to TNG era, now it's the Borg coming in from the same area, and while the ships are different, the weapon systems can be oddly familiar with a twist.  That's a really big stretch of course, but it could be done.  

I'm no business man or great inventor.  GaW would just be an incredible game.  We've already got the play experience wisdom, Taldren's expertise in the designing, it would be a challenging, yet familiar venture into finishing something.  I'd buy that game in a heart beat.  I didn't even know what SFC or SFB was when I first saw SFC2 in the stores, but when I looked at the box, felt the heavy manual inside, looked and saw that there were more than four races, that everyone had special weapon designs and tactics, I was hooked.  I didn't even play the game right away because I was too busy making sure I remembered the manual.  

[Scipio_66]

Quote:
Originally posted by Erik Bethke

What the game might be. Here is my conclusion from the above poll: That the most desirable setting is SFB...

The key point is that all of you enjoy the deep complexity of the SFC series and like it on the deep and complex side ... At the same time you hunger for the game to be 'completed' from a strategic point of view....You would like D2/D3 to just plain work. We do too! :-) ...

... We have had fantastic partners first Interplay then Activision and all along Paramount and ADB. We have been extremely fortunate.  However I worry about over milking the cow. We have released four SFC products and that feels like a lot to me .... As for Galaxies at War with the Andros and Tholians - I understand very clearly that this would make SFC complete and I would like to see that happen as well. Here is my gut opinion on that - if SFC3 outsells expectations - then ATVI/Paramount/Taldren will look for other ways to capitalize on SFC and GAW would probably be it.

I wouldn't worry about overmilking the cow.  It really feels like there have been two SFC products rather than four.  SFC3 was a completely different game so it doesn't add to the total, and OP was so close to EAW it was really the same thing.  Besides, 25 years later I'm still shelling out big bucks every year for SFB products.  Quality sells.  

Adding Tholians and Andros would be nice and I'd love to see them, but what I really hope you do with a new SFC game is flesh out the Dynaverse.  New races only add new ships to an existing game.  Upgrading the Dynaverse makes the new game an entirely new product worthy of excitement.  Minimize production efforts on GSA features, and make the entire point of the product a fully-realized dynaverse.   Connection issues are paramount, but what I'd like to see in the way of new features is:

1) Allow the server admins to set fixed shipyard production schedules as they see fit. (Allow some ships to even be set to "unique")  Avoid all use of random production selection, unless the server admin *wants* it random.
2) Fix it so that construction of starbases requires building and upgrading of mobile bases, then base stations, then battlestations before being converted into starbases.
3) Change the way the map interacts with the missions so that bases are removed from the map if and only if the hex changes color.
4) Make the AI much, much smarter.  Especially with regard to how it engages seeking weapons and when it cloaks.  Putting up a pre-emptive anti-tractor or recalling fighters to rearm them should not be impossible for the AI.
5) Allow admins to control when and who gets drones/fighters and how many of them are available for each individual race.  *Include an easy to use dynaverse mission scriptor (in addition to the API) so that people can fix problematic scripts, like the basic patrol mission that still kills D2 campaigns even  today.
6) Allow attacks on Convoy routes to affect the economics of the owning race.
7) Allow the economics of cut-off areas of your empire to feed that lonely sector, but not be able to be added to your empires general fund.
8) Allow events within the game to alter tension ratings up or down.  Make all those settings in the silly gf files that I struggle with on my server actually *do* somthing.  
9) Allow us to add or at least swap out races in the game. (Currently, the name of the race that owns a hex in the dynaverse apparantly can't be changed from default strings, though names in news reports and tension levels can.)
10) Add the ability to use the Cloak Damage Reduction chart, and single internals.  (Oops!  Those aren't strictly D2 issues.....)
11) Fix the patrol bug.

I'd buy that in a heartbeat.  Of course, adding Tholians and Andros would only make me buy it even faster.  I'm gauranteed to buy several copies of any (faithfully) SFB-based software.

-S'Cipio    

[RogueJedi_XC]

I missed this before, so I'll answer the poll now...and before I read any further in the thread.

Quote:

1) The game be set in the Star Trek TOS setting

Important. TOS is the most interesting era, IMO.

Quote:

2) The game be set in the Star Trek TNG setting

Doesn't matter to me. I don't really care for TNG.

Quote:

3) The game be set in the SFB setting

Important. Let's face it, we moved away from the SFB ruleset and the game just does not have the same depth or flavor. It just isn't as good.

Quote:

4) The game have a deep strategic metagame with planets sourcing and sinking supplies, staged ship production, more use of strategic elements

Expected. This is an absolute must, IMO. Starships just popping out of nothingness is silly. It's also silly to have an empire down to one measly low-econ planet still able to produce DN's, BB's, and CV's.

Quote:

5) The game set in a original universe designed by Taldren

Nice to have. This could be interesting.

Quote:

6) The game be fully modifiable, models, missions, weapons, server controls

Important. What good is a game that has you follow a set script in a set path with set units/tools? Modability is the top reason the SFC series is as popular as it is.

Quote:

7) The game's online feature set be as robust as the highest the industry has achieved

Most important. Servers that crash and burn every 2 hours are not fun! (especially for the admin...)

Quote:

8) The game feature a single player campaign

Expected. Gotta do something during those times when I can't play online.

Quote:

9) The game have a detailed grognard type manual

Important. The SFC1 manual is the template to follow...

Quote:

10) The manual be printed

Most Important. Gotta have something to read while taking a, um, nature break.

Quote:

11) Available in a store to be purchased

Most important. Not everyone can purchase online. Failing to offer a game in retail would be a sure way to guarantee less than 300,000 sales.  

Quote:

12) A demo available to play

Important, with the caveat that the download be reasonable at 56K speeds. I.e., a 50MB to 80Mb download would be on the high-side of too-long, even if it is a bit limited in content.

Quote:

13) Be able to purchase online

Nice to have, but not really necessary. It would be a great way to get money directly to you guys at Taldren, bypassing all those other money-grubbers.

Quote:

14) Be able to email a Taldren technical support person

Important. The best support for this game has come from you guys, not Interplay or Activision. I'd like to see that continue.

Quote:

15) Be able to talk to a Taldren technical support person

Nice to have. See above.

Quote:

16) Have dockable, transparent UI windows

Doesn't matter to me. I find transparent/opaque windows to be an annoyance (I feel I can't really see anything). Maybe I'm in the minority...

Quote:

17) Have seemless in-game flow from 'mission' to mission without going to a menu

Nice to have. It would give the game more of a real-time feel, as well as increase player immersion. Any time you can do away with down-time is a good thing.

Quote:

18) What is your number of reasonable playable races?

Impor..uh, wait. This doesn't fit the pattern! No fair!  
Between 6 and 8. 16 (in OP) was just too many, the player base was dilluted too much. A race with an overall population of 2 (howdy, Lyrans!   ) just isn't fun to play.

Quote:

19) What amount of money would you be willing to pay for such a game at retail as a product?

$45 to $55. I will not pay $60 for any game. I don't care if the CDs are labeled in 24k gold.

Quote:

20) What amount of money would you be willing to pay as a monthly service?

$12.95/mo. is becoming standard for online games. I'd pay that, and probably up to $15/mo.

Quote:

21) How long would you guess you would likely play assuming a monthly subscription with say 2 new models and 2 new missions and a new weapon per month?

Depends on how good the game is at it's core. If it's anything like SFC 1 & 2, indeffinitely. If it's like OP* or SFC3**, about 2 weeks.

* X-Ships, 'nuff said.
** TNG, non-SFB, retard-proofed, um, er, I mean simplified interface.

Quote:

22) How would you feel about purchasing an online service like this from Taldren as opposed to buying something from a larger, more established company?

None. It may even be better to have a small company running the show, rather than a multi-national conglomerate whose top brass wouldn't know your game from a hole in the wall.

Quote:

23) How many people do you personally know that if the game was reasonably robust, and addictively fun would you pass the demo to?

I don't know that many people. Maybe 3?

Quote:

24) What fraction of those people would you suppose would buy the game?

One for certain, 'cause I'd just buy it for him.

Quote:

25) Would you be able to handle a server that had users chatting in different languages or do you need segragation?

Limit the language mixing. It would be very confusing to see English, Spanish, German, and/or Rigelian all mixed together. It would be impossible to follow.

Quote:

26) How important is a live orchestra compared to an electronic recording to you (SFC1 vs. SFC3)

Nice to have. A live orchastra adds to the ambiance of the game, whereas electronic recordings get the job done but don't count towards "atmosphere".
IMO, at any rate...

Quote:

27) How important to you is the release of backrgound material such as backstory, weapon information and ship history published on a website?

Most important. I'm a pseudo-role player. I like to be immersed in a story and feel I'm a part of it. Backstory and history help to do that.

Quote:

28) How many other players would you like to see as a reasonable limit in a single 'encounter'?

More than 1?  
Upwards of 100 people ought to be able to get into a single "encounter", IMO.
       

[Demandred]

Quote:

More than 1?  
Upwards of 100 people ought to be able to get into a single "encounter", IMO.
       

Taldren must also provide the T1 lines required for a 100 ship battle.  

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Absolutely. I went back and fired up OP (with Firesouls big SFB shiplist, hoot!) and played it for the first time since 11-22-03. Wow, real, MEANINGFUL energy allocation.
The ability to reinforce more than one shield.
PHASER ARCS seem like cheese compared to the horrific arcs in SFC3.
MANY, MANY more weapons.
MANY, MANY MORE RACES.
FIGHTERS
P-F's
MONSTERS
Having ships in your fleet that will not simply up and leave for no reason.
Not having warp is a bit irritating when you have to close the distance, but oh boy does it make you remember how to keep your distance from that rom ship with a PL-R or from that Kizinti with 7 drone racks.

SO much more control.
SO much more depth.
SO much more like a starship simulator and so much less like wingcommander.

I had forgotten just how GOOD original SFC IS!

Taldren, you boys take your time with the patch, Im having FUN, lol!

Have a nice day!  
 

[MarianoDT]

I don´t know anything about GAW, but i hope the next SFC game (if they ever made other) will have a "real" 3D (not D3   ) scenario.
This is definitely a must.

 

[3dot14]

Quote:
...
Coexistance is, I believe, the future.

So yes, you can have your GaW, and I can have my SFC, and the two need never intersect.  

I belive Harry Lang of Paramount already shot down this idea. (separate product lines)

A all-generation is interesting, but ONLY if the eras are PROPERLY isolated/quarantined from each other. and unfortuantely, that's the same as doing two separate games...
Moreover. there is no telling what kind of game an all-generation is: would it be SFB adapted fro TNG? or SFC3 adpated for Archer's Enterprise?

[RogueJedi_XC]

Yep. I got fed up with TNG's lack of depth fairly quickly. I went back to playing EAW and haven't looked back since. I just wish I could play online. I miss getting my ass wooped up on by KATFluff.    

[Mr. Hypergol]

Quote:
A all-generation is interesting, but ONLY if the eras are PROPERLY isolated/quarantined from each other. and unfortuantely, that's the same as doing two separate games...

I envisioned something more like letting history flow with availability being based on a "year of play" selected.

For example, ship classes would become available by a certain date and phased out by another.  This would also be the case with technology, weapons, and systems.  So, if you selected the year 2230 for example you would have access to the Constitution class CA, but not something like an Ambassador class or a Galaxy class.  2230 would also mean that the old Daedalus class was not avalable anymore.  There would be cases of overlap where a TOS ship might still be available when a TNG ship had just been introduced.

Doing the "year of play" selection method, instead of broad but distinct eras, would provide a lot of flavor to the game because the particular gameplay dynamics would change from year to year.  For example, in 2230 the Constitution Class might be king of the hill but by 2235 it has to contend with the new and shiny Klingon D7 becoming available.  But then a few years later a refit becomes available that changes the dynamic again......and on and on.  Some ships like the Texas-Class CL from SFB or the Excelsior class (the B-52's of Star Trek ships) would exist for long periods while others might only be in production during war periods.

I would love to see the evolution of the empires over time.  The map would also be defined by year.  Perhaps some empires get conquered by a certain date, or merge with other empires.  Maps could combine cannon and SFB based elements.  I love the Star Trek Star Charts book I got for christmas but it seems that it would be hard to balance those canon maps strategicly because some empires are so much bigger and more powerful than others.  However, since there is a lot of unused space on those maps, you could add SFB races like the Hydrans or Kzinti to the canon maps and adjust the size of other races to help balance things for good F&E-like strategic play.

As I have stated before I think an all-eras game can be done using SFB based rules as it's core.  There is no reason to make 2 separate games.  You can adapt and derive SFB rules for even TNG, i.e. maybe missle get phased out after the Andromedan  War.  This guy did it:

http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/index.html

And I think he did it very well.

Again, I think an "all eras", SFB derived, GAW, in the format of the Total War series with equally deep strategic and tactical gameplay, that focuses on the history of wars and the evolution of the empires from Enterprise to Nemesis.......<breath> .......will sell the 300,000 copies that Taldren and Activision say they need.
     

[James Formo]

If I sound ignorant here , well its because I am.  Please enlighten me-what does GAW stand for?

[Rod O'neal]

I believe one problem with an all era SFC based on SFB is that Paramount never allowed ADB to do it. ADB's license only applied to TOS. I believe they "got away" with using stuff from the 1st movie because Paramount didn't enforce the licensing limitation on them at the time the movie came out. I'm not 100% sure about all of this, it's just what I can remember from a while ago. So, with that said, it might present a problem with Paramount/Activision/Taldren to stretch the SFB ruleset beyond what ADB was allowed to do by Paramount. It could be a double standard if they took the SFB ruleset and applied it to the TNG era when they wouldn't let ADB do it. I hope I'm explaining this well enough to get the point I'm trying to make across I'm not a lawyer, it just seems that it *could* work this way. I wouldn't mind if someone could clarify this for me lol.  

[Teck]

Quote:
If I sound ignorant here , well its because I am.  Please enlighten me-what does GAW stand for?  

Galaxies At War

[SirWilliam]

Quote:
You can adapt and derive SFB rules for even TNG, i.e. maybe missle get phased out after the Andromedan  War.  This guy did it:

http://www.smileylich.com/sfb/index.html

And I think he did it very well.

Never seen anything of SFB before, but just looking at that makes my head hurt.  It now seems that making a working video game of this would be quite the Herculean task.

Back to my 'puter... besides I don't even know where to buy those funky dice any more...  

[Mr. Hypergol]

Quote:
If I sound ignorant here , well its because I am. Please enlighten me-what does GAW stand for?

GAW = Starfleet Command: Galaxies at War.

Over 2.5 years ago prior to the release of Empires at War there was a wishlist thread on the old forums for what people wanted in a future SFC game.  The concept of a Galaxies at War type game was born from that thread.  Galaxies at War became Taldren working title for a sequel to Empires at War that wraps up the cliff hanger at the end of the single player story campaign of EAW.  The end of the campaign had the Organians destroyed by a race from SFB called the Andromedan Invaders.  Also the game would add the Tholians from SFB.  GAW would cover the Andromedan War from SFB and also focus on various races conflicts with the Tholians...especially the Klingons.  The name GALAXIES at War was derived from the fact that both the new races were not native to the Miltky Way but invaded from outside our galaxy.  It just expands on the name Empires at War and was never ment to be a creative or official game title.

Most thought GAW would be what SFC3 would turned out to be.  Unfortunately Interplay went under and when Activision took over they took SFC away from it's SFB roots.  So everything changed.

Since then, there has been an ongoing campaign by many on the forum to persaude Activision to make a GAW.

Things have continued to evolve and now it looks like the idea of GAW could expand into an "all eras" game since Activision has all the Star Trek liscenses and the legal ability to do an "all eras" game.  GAW would hopefully move back closer to the SFB based ruleset even using SFB derived rules for the TNG eras.

Hope that answers your question.  

[James Formo]

Quote:

Quote:
If I sound ignorant here , well its because I am. Please enlighten me-what does GAW stand for?

Things have continued to evolve and now it looks like the idea of GAW could expand into an "all eras" game since Activision has all the Star Trek liscenses and the legal ability to do an "all eras" game.  GAW would hopefully move back closer to the SFB based ruleset even using SFB derived rules for the TNG eras.

Hope that answers your question.    

Yea it did. I feel like the lightbulb just went on. Thanks

Oh and I would buy this game in a second. Sounds like the ultimate ST game.

[Mr. Hypergol]

Quote:
 I believe one problem with an all era SFC based on SFB is that Paramount never allowed ADB to do it. ADB's license only applied to TOS. I believe they "got away" with using stuff from the 1st movie because Paramount didn't enforce the licensing limitation on them at the time the movie came out. I'm not 100% sure about all of this, it's just what I can remember from a while ago. So, with that said, it might present a problem with Paramount/Activision/Taldren to stretch the SFB ruleset beyond what ADB was allowed to do by Paramount. It could be a double standard if they took the SFB ruleset and applied it to the TNG era when they wouldn't let ADB do it.  

Based on Erik Bethke's comments I don't think this is an issue.  ADB would only have a say in the use of the SFB ruleset and the races they invented, i.e. Hydrans.   ADB I am sure would have no problem with allowing SFB to be used again because it helps their sales by introducing people to their board game.

Paramount can do what they want with the rest and ADB has no say.  In a way SFC3 is already using SFB derived rules and it doesn't seem to be a legal problem.

As far as Paramount not letting ADB expand SFB, well that gets into who controls the franchise.  ADB should just be happy that they are getting some economic benefit from the SFC series because.....when it comes down to it.......they are lucky Paramount allows them to even exist.  

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Quote:
If I sound ignorant here , well its because I am.  Please enlighten me-what does GAW stand for?  

Forum short hand for "Gallaxies at War" a community named version of SFC using the OP engine including Tholians and Andro's and a new scattering of other lesser played races.......community requested features....working scout functions...more drone types...plasma bolts....Better control for server admins....mission population increased to 8 or 10 players.....option mounts for pirates and heavy war destroyers...options for hidden cloak/detection....

Hell..the list go on and on.....

No one ever said it was going to be that way.....we just kinda assumed it ...well ...we was wrong......out came the SFC3 concept of TNG.......something we all kinda figured would be SFC4.....

So what might be termed the next or final chapter of SFB based SFC didnt happen....they skipped it and moved on due to several reasons too numerous to list....but making a payroll was one of them....

So...we bump...we ask again and again.....we try to remind them by waving cash around....

Several ideas have been floated to hold production costs down...such as purchase by download or even mailed disk.....maybe with a gold boxed set of SFC...etc etc....

Other ideas included having Taldren only work on the core of the game and have the communities best do the art work and missions.....

Ah well...many people have simply given up hope of ever seeing such a game.....others see Eriks poll as a hope for the future...

Hehe...wearing black robes, dancing around bonfires, wacking their foreheads with boards....the Taldrenites fed dirt to their idol Erik and yelled MOOOOOO! NEENER NEENER MOOOOOO! WE WILL HAVE OUR PATCH SOON!....with that...the fire was doused by recycled beer....Robed figures melt into the woods.....one of them tripping and cursing loudly...."OUCH!...@#$%.....MAY YOUR JINN HIT AN ASTERIOD!!!!"

<hooded figure 2>"asteroids?.....what about the Klingons?"

<hooded figure1>"WHAT?....WHAT KLINGONS!?!"

<hooded figure 2>"THE KLINGONS ON YOUR URANUS!"

*much juvenile laughter*  

[JayBee]

If they make a GAW I would buy it in a second!

I have never had so much fun with a game as I have with SFC1 & 2.  Memories I hold close to my heart.
In EAW there was battles that was epic. I mean I had to do everything I knew about the game to pull the win out, and still have to take a few chances here and there. EAW in my opinion is the best game ever made.  SFC3 is a solid game, it just wasnt like the 2 before.

Make a GAW so I can stop calling EAW the best game ever.
 

[Sethan]

Hmm.  I missed the original poll.  Haven't hung out in the General Forums since I became unemployed.  I always said I would buy a copy of SFC3 when I got a job again just to support Taldren, but never really had an interest in the concept.

That said, GaW is a concept I  do have an interest in.  To Erik's poll:

For a hypothetical future offering from Taldren:

1) The game be set in the Star Trek TOS setting

  5: doesn't matter to me - but see answer to question 3

2) The game be set in the Star Trek TNG setting

  5: doesn't matter to me - but see answer to question 3

3) The game be set in the SFB setting

2: important   SFB lent a lot to the game that has been missing from most other Trek games.  There is a rich and detailed history.  I recognize however, that SFB has a limited fan base - even after the SFC series.  Because of that, I would very much like to see an 'all eras' game that has something for everyone.  Advanced Era in OP was the tip of the iceberg with regard to that - but more work needs to be done in terms of figuring out how to transition from one era to another in the game more smoothly.  SFB/SFC1 style refits would go a long way toward fixing that problem.  If the only way that the game can be made is to get away from Trek entirely, I would say that this is not important at all - as long as the game is sufficiently moddable that the players can make the setting they want.  Make a game set in Weber's Honor Harrington universe, and I'll turn cartwheels.

4) The game have a deep strategic metagame with planets sourcing and sinking supplies, staged ship production, more use of strategic elements

1: most important  This is what keeps people's interest when they get tired of blowing up 500 enemy ships in one-on-one contests that have no larger strategic import.

5) The game set in a original universe designed by Taldren

 5: doesn't matter to me - as long as the game is moddable enough that we can create our own universes

6) The game be fully modifiable, models, missions, weapons, server controls

  1: most important - This is what kept SFC2 going long after many people would have given up if the stock version of the game was all there was.  Gameplay evolves over time, and if the game cannot evolve with it, it becomes boring.  The more moddable the game is, the longer interest will continue to be high.

7) The game's online feature set be as robust as the highest the industry has achieved

 2: important - As with question 4 - online play is what keeps people's interest when they tire of playing the AI.  By 'online feature set' I am not sure what is meant - but the game needs to maintain connections as best it can, and have procedures for dealing with a dropped connection in a mission - procedures that do not involve the person who didn't drop being penalized by not getting credit for the mission.

8) The game feature a single player campaign

  2: important - many people still do not have internet connections - or don't have ones stable enough to game on.  Single player is what lets these people buy and enjoy the game.

9) The game have a detailed grognard type manual

  2: important - even if the grognard parts are in electronic format only.  Understanding how the game is supposed to work is important to being able to play well - and to figuring out whether the problems you are experiencing are a result of the game behaving as designed or a bug.  A detailed manual (at least in electronic format) is particularly important from the server setup side of things.

10) The manual be printed

  4: nice to have - but not required.  A printed quickstart guide with a detailed manual in electronic format would work fine.

11) Available in a store to be purchased

  1: most important - if you expect to get 300,000 units sold, it must be in stores.

12) A demo available to play

 2: important - the game industry being what it is, many consumers are getting smarter about what they buy - and will not buy a game they have not tried.

13) Be able to purchase online

  4: nice to have - to make some money for Taldren directly, but game must be in stores if it is to sell big.

14) Be able to email a Taldren technical support person

 5: doesn't matter to me - these forums have worked well for support.

15) Be able to talk to a Taldren technical support person

 5: doesn't matter to me - these forums have worked well for support.

16) Have dockable, transparent UI windows

 5: doesn't matter to me - I have no experience with this, so have no opinion.

17) Have seemless in-game flow from 'mission' to mission without going to a menu

 4: nice to have - might be nice.  Would have to see how well it worked.

18) What is your number of reasonable playable races?

 20 or so - with a caveat.  Allow servers to be set up with a high number of possible player races - but only some of them active at any given time.  Example:  Allow the Paravians,  ISC, and Borg to be playable races on the same server - but in different eras - this allows server admins to set up as many (or as few) playable races as they want at any point in the server timeline, without restricting themselves (I only allowed 6 races, and now I want to add Borg and can't without removing one of the other races)

19) What amount of money would you be willing to pay for such a game at retail as a product?

 $50 seems to be the standard price for games right now - if you want to charge more than that, you will have to sell people on why it is worth more - and many people will not buy regardless.  I'd probably pay up to $80 - once I have a job again - but I am a loon.

20) What amount of money would you be willing to pay as a monthly service?

  $0 - I don't do monthly services (even when I had money) because I never know when I will be able to play.  If I were playing regularly, and I had money - $5 to $10.  That is probably as much as I could justify to the wife - if I had money. It would have to be on a pay as you go basis too - no long term contract.

21) How long would you guess you would likely play assuming a monthly subscription with say 2 new models and 2 new missions and a new weapon per month?

 The new models, missions, and weapon would not be an enticement for me - a well run server with an interesting long-term campaign is.  Given that, years.  

22) How would you feel about purchasing an online service like this from Taldren as opposed to buying something from a larger, more established company?

 No problem - Taldren has always gone the extra mile to support its end users.  Even if they were to go out of business, I am confident that a way would be found to allow continued play.

23) How many people do you personally know that if the game was reasonably robust, and addictively fun would you pass the demo to?

  5

24) What fraction of those people would you suppose would buy the game?

  Any of them that did not buy it would get it as a gift from me, so all of them.

25) Would you be able to handle a server that had users chatting in different languages or do you need segragation?

 Different languages is fine.  

26) How important is a live orchestra compared to an electronic recording to you (SFC1 vs. SFC3)

 5: doesn't matter to me

27) How important to you is the release of backrgound material such as backstory, weapon information and ship history published on a website?

 4: nice to have
 

[Alidar Jarok]

I think I want to re-do my previous answersince I've changed a few answers since last time.

Please rate the following items along this scale:
1: most important
2: important
3: expected
4: nice to have
5: doesn't matter to me

Quote:
For a hypothetical future offering from Taldren:
1) The game be set in the Star Trek TOS setting 4
2) The game be set in the Star Trek TNG setting 4
3) The game be set in the SFB setting 4
4) The game have a deep strategic metagame with planets sourcing and sinking supplies, staged ship production, more use of strategic elements 1
5) The game set in a original universe designed by Taldren 2
6) The game be fully modifiable, models, missions, weapons, server controls 2, don't forget the option to add races
7) The game's online feature set be as robust as the highest the industry has achieved 2
8) The game feature a single player campaign 1
9) The game have a detailed grognard type manual 2
10) The manual be printed 3
11) Available in a store to be purchased 1
12) A demo available to play 3
13) Be able to purchase online 5
14) Be able to email a Taldren technical support person 3
15) Be able to talk to a Taldren technical support person 3, but it doesn't matter for either, as long as we can complain on these forums
16) Have dockable, transparent UI windows 5
17) Have seemless in-game flow from 'mission' to mission without going to a menu 4, I kind of like Dynaverse, it allows more strategy
18) What is your number of reasonable playable races? Depends on what the game will be, but probably at least 6
19) What amount of money would you be willing to pay for such a game at retail as a product? $40 would be an ideal price, but I might pay $50
20) What amount of money would you be willing to pay as a monthly service? $5-$15 a month
21) How long would you guess you would likely play assuming a monthly subscription with say 2 new models and 2 new missions and a new weapon per month? I would rather have reduced services and reduced price, but for a service like that, I would pay until I couldn't afford it
22) How would you feel about purchasing an online service like this from Taldren as opposed to buying something from a larger, more established company? doesn't matter either way
23) How many people do you personally know that if the game was reasonably robust, and addictively fun would you pass the demo to? Not many, more if its non-Trek
24) What fraction of those people would you suppose would buy the game? I have no idea
25) Would you be able to handle a server that had users chatting in different languages or do you need segragation? I could handle it, as long as I'm not the only English-speaking player
26) How important is a live orchestra compared to an electronic recording to you (SFC1 vs. SFC3): I would rather have a live orchestra. The music in SFC3 didn't impress me
27) How important to you is the release of backrgound material such as backstory, weapon information and ship history published on a website? fairly important. Its always interesting
28) How many other players would you like to see as a reasonable limit in a single 'encounter'? 10 would be nice, but 1000 is still preferable  

 Hope this is still helpful.

Have a nice Day        

[Praxis]

I'll do it too  

Please rate the following items along this scale:
1: most important
2: important
3: expected
4: nice to have
5: doesn't matter to me

Quote:
For a hypothetical future offering from Taldren:
1) The game be set in the Star Trek TOS setting 4
2) The game be set in the Star Trek TNG setting 3
3) The game be set in the SFB setting 4
4) The game have a deep strategic metagame with planets sourcing and sinking supplies, staged ship production, more use of strategic elements 1
5) The game set in a original universe designed by Taldren 5
6) The game be fully modifiable, models, missions, weapons, server controls 1, MAKE RACES ADDABLE!  It's tough enough doing mods when theres no room to add races!
7) The game's online feature set be as robust as the highest the industry has achieved 2
8) The game feature a single player campaign 2
9) The game have a detailed grognard type manual 2
10) The manual be printed 3
11) Available in a store to be purchased 1
12) A demo available to play 3
13) Be able to purchase online 4
14) Be able to email a Taldren technical support person 4
15) Be able to talk to a Taldren technical support person 4
16) Have dockable, transparent UI windows 4
17) Have seemless in-game flow from 'mission' to mission without going to a menu 5
18) What is your number of reasonable playable races? Minimum of 6, but i'd perfer more.  I think that the next SFC should have a VERY large choice of ships, not just 5 or 6 per race like in SFC3 with only 4 races.  I'd perfer having even 8 races, but if Taldren made a dozen or two models per race, it could get rather difficult to do 8 races.
19) What amount of money would you be willing to pay for such a game at retail as a product? $30-40 (otherwise i'll just hover around Pawn Shops for weeks since I'm a cheapskate )
20) What amount of money would you be willing to pay as a monthly service? Monthly service? GET SERIOUS!  Don't try to copy Star Wars Galaxies...I'm not buying that game.
21) How long would you guess you would likely play assuming a monthly subscription with say 2 new models and 2 new missions and a new weapon per month? Services? Meh.  I'll download custom models.
22) How would you feel about purchasing an online service like this from Taldren as opposed to buying something from a larger, more established company? Taldren makes better quality, more fun games- i love SFC.  And i wouldn't but a subscription either way.
23) How many people do you personally know that if the game was reasonably robust, and addictively fun would you pass the demo to? All the Trekkies i know if its trek, otherwise probably not many.
24) What fraction of those people would you suppose would buy the game? Dunno
25) Would you be able to handle a server that had users chatting in different languages or do you need segragation? I speak English (main language), io parla italiano (but i don't spell well in it), en ik spreek een beetje nederlands, but it gets REAL annoying when you have people from other languages playing with you and you can't tell them stuff.
26) How important is a live orchestra compared to an electronic recording to you (SFC1 vs. SFC3): Both!  Was there a difference between SFC1 and 3 with the music? I didn't notice, lol.
27) How important to you is the release of backrgound material such as backstory, weapon information and ship history published on a website? 2, I like the story the most.  Even when i create custom maps for games such as Age of Empires for MYSELF i always make up a story behind it.  A game where the story is, "This Galaxy declared war on that Galaxy, go blow them up," would be rather stupid.
28) How many other players would you like to see as a reasonable limit in a single 'encounter'? Depends on the stability.  If the game crashes with a few players, make it low, but if the game is stable, i really like big battles with many players.  I know!  Make it a moddable part of the dynaverse server, the player limit per encounter.  That way if a patch makes the game more stable, it can be increased!

         

[Holocat]

Quote:
 The end of the campaign had the Organians destroyed by a race from SFB called the Andromedan Invaders.  Also the game would add the Tholians from SFB.  GAW would cover the Andromedan War from SFB and also focus on various races conflicts with the Tholians...especially the Klingons.    

Now the andromedeans are powerful, but powerful enough to destroy the semi-god creature Organians?

Then again, I bet the SFBer's around here would go, "Yeah, they're *that* cheezy."  


More cheeze than a triple layer thin crust from Pizza Hut,

Holocat.

[Maxillius]

Quote:

Quote:
 The end of the campaign had the Organians destroyed by a race from SFB called the Andromedan Invaders.  Also the game would add the Tholians from SFB.  GAW would cover the Andromedan War from SFB and also focus on various races conflicts with the Tholians...especially the Klingons.    

Now the andromedeans are powerful, but powerful enough to destroy the semi-god creature Organians?

Then again, I bet the SFBer's around here would go, "Yeah, they're *that* cheezy."  


More cheeze than a triple layer thin crust from Pizza Hut,

Holocat.  

Does the entire cheese export of Wisconsin mean anything to you?

[Scipio_66]

Quote:

Now the andromedeans are powerful, but powerful enough to destroy the semi-god creature Organians?


Holocat.  

The reason you couldn't board an Andro ship is that they used Power Absorption panels rather than shields.  Your boarding
party (while energy in the transport beam) would get absorbed, channeled through the batteries, and then used to power the weapons
on the Andro ship.  Ouchie.

You ever see what happens when an energy being as powerful as an Organian tries to board an Andro ship?  Suddenly
all the Andro weapons find new overload settings.  The poor Organians never had a chance.  <sob>

Oh, the humanity!

-S'Cipio

[Rod O'neal]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
 The end of the campaign had the Organians destroyed by a race from SFB called the Andromedan Invaders.  Also the game would add the Tholians from SFB.  GAW would cover the Andromedan War from SFB and also focus on various races conflicts with the Tholians...especially the Klingons.    

Now the andromedeans are powerful, but powerful enough to destroy the semi-god creature Organians?

Then again, I bet the SFBer's around here would go, "Yeah, they're *that* cheezy."  


More cheeze than a triple layer thin crust from Pizza Hut,

Holocat.  

Does the entire cheese export of Wisconsin mean anything to you?  

It took the combined forces from every race in the Galaxy to mount a successfull attack against a single Andromedan starbase, Operation Unity. Admittedly, is was a very well reinforced starbase, but all the havoc raised by the Andros in our galaxy was generated from a single starbase. That kinda cheez just hasn't been invented yet.

[Maxillius]

and a very far-flung starbase at that