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

[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 donīt 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.