Post by: Whiplash on January 18, 2003, 01:14:32 am
We were getting a lot of good opinions after the holy wars died down a bit.
Seems to be about evenly split between SFC2 and 3, seemingly along the lines of whether you prefer the game over the other one.
To me that says that customization may work no better than the many-variants approach, as implemented. At least, it doesn't seem to be a big reason to love or hate the game.
W.
Post by: Hertston on January 18, 2003, 05:04:01 am
Both are also appropriate for the games themselves The "Star Fleet" based SFC 2 needed more races , more ships, and more race-specific weapons (just a shame Taldren couldn't finish the job with GaW before being TNGed). SFC3 is unavoidably stuck with "Star Trek", so the customisation route was possible the best one to give variety from the number of races involved. Some would say to that, "why not include the Cardassians and Dominion for more races then ?" - the more cynical would reply "so what's left for the stand-alone (ahem) expansion then ?"
As to the "better game", SFC 2 without a doubt. I suspect much support for SFC3 comes from those with the lower post counts (i.e who never actually played SFC 2). That said though, having had SFC3 a short while now, I'm glad it's different, and not a straight TNG port of SFC2. It's feel , skills and tactics are very different, it is nice to play in the TNG universe for a change, and this way there are two games I will be playing, not just the one.
Post by: ActiveX on January 18, 2003, 06:36:18 am
Post by: Aenigma on January 18, 2003, 08:40:11 am
Oh, and where did the Griffin-class go? And the Steamrunner? And the Nova-class? And the Shadow-class? And so on........Iwo Jima-class anyone? They would make nice additions to the fleets.
I know, I'm probably asking too much.
Aenigma
Romulus will prevail!
Post by: Firestorm on January 18, 2003, 09:24:18 am
Most people will come up with one ship that best fits their playing style for a particular BPV and stick with that ship.
The advantage with SFC3 customization would be, you can tweek a varient to exactly what you want(within the refit rules, of course).
With SFC2, you had to find a varient that best fit your styles and refine your tactics to best fit that ship.
Both are valid, just different, but total number of varients doesn't matter since most people will stick with only a couple of ships they really like.
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on January 18, 2003, 10:04:12 am
Quote:
SFC3's vessel customization or SFC:OP's purs numbers variety
There should have been a third choice....
"SFC2: EAW and its highly dedicated player base."
And I dont mean to say that SFC3 players arent dedicated.....just that the players who still play SFC2 are the cream of the crop....and that is a major factor in the decision to continue play it.
There ARE more to these games than ships and numbers.
Let me put it this way......During Attack of the Kitties...I didnt have to wonder if my opponent would Alt-f4 out of the game if the battle turned against them...or if they would warp off the map when a shield turned red.....as a matter of fact.....almost EVERY battle was a pure fight...and usually to the death(mine;))
Post by: FatherTed on January 18, 2003, 09:18:38 pm
Quote:Quote:
SFC3's vessel customization or SFC:OP's purs numbers variety
There should have been a third choice....
"SFC2: EAW and its highly dedicated player base."
And I dont mean to say that SFC3 players arent dedicated.....just that the players who still play SFC2 are the cream of the crop....and that is a major factor in the decision to continue play it.
There ARE more to these games than ships and numbers.
Let me put it this way......During Attack of the Kitties...I didnt have to wonder if my opponent would Alt-f4 out of the game if the battle turned against them...or if they would warp off the map when a shield turned red.....as a matter of fact.....almost EVERY battle was a pure fight...and usually to the death(mine;))
Amen to that. IDSL was, IMHO, the ultimate campaign. When you fight for several weeks, yet the outcome isn't decided until the last few hours(I collapsed from exhaustion about 2 hours before it ended), that's serious fun. I can't wait for RDSL.
Post by: Tulmahk on January 18, 2003, 09:30:37 pm
Quote:
Some would say to that, "why not include the Cardassians and Dominion for more races then ?" - the more cynical would reply "so what's left for the stand-alone (ahem) expansion then ?"
As to the "better game", SFC 2 without a doubt. I suspect much support for SFC3 comes from those with the lower post counts (i.e who never actually played SFC 2). That said though, having had SFC3 a short while now, I'm glad it's different, and not a straight TNG port of SFC2. It's feel , skills and tactics are very different, it is nice to play in the TNG universe for a change, and this way there are two games I will be playing, not just the one.
Well, I played SFC2 from the day it came out. And behold my post count (not that post counts mean anything at all; not that the SFB Old Guard will ever realise that). And oh yeah, I played SFC1 from the day it came out, too. AND I played SFB back in the '80s.
IMHO, we won't see a stand-alone 'expansion' for SFC3, due to the fact that Taldren tried that with the ill-fated Orion Pirates. Orion Pirates, from what I've heard (I was one of the vast majority who didn't buy it), was just too similar to SFC2 for the price that was initially charged for it ($30-$50 IIRC), despite the variety of new things that were included with it.
Again IMHO, Taldren will make an expansion for SFC3 that will work with the current game. And if they price it right, it will be in the $15-$20 range.
SFC2 had the better overall ship variety, due to the fact that they had many more ship models. For whatever reason, the Romulans and Klingons were cheated in SFC3, each having only a fraction of the number of hulls available that the Feds have (Borg's lack of ship variety is simply a racial triat. They just don't use that great a variety of ships). So SFC2 wins this catagory.
However, when it comes to variants-per-race, SFC3 wins with one of its best features: ship customisability. The reason SFC2 failed here was due to the fact that only a handful of ships were ever used (compared to the number of variants available). This problem was at its worst in D2 play, where you had Feds actually preferring the lowly missle over their supposed favorite the photon torpedo. When all you see form your opponent is drone boats, what does that say about a game's alleged variety of tactics? In the most recent months of D2, most encounters were down to using the same handful of proven tactics, as dictated by the uber-weapon of that game, the heavy fast missle. One word: boring.
To sum up, I actually think it's a push. Both games had their strong and weak points when it comes to ship variety.
Post by: FatherTed on January 18, 2003, 10:07:51 pm
Feds, like the rest, have a natural progression. To begin in early era, we are usually stuck in the DD, a deathtrap. As soon as possible, we trade in for either a FFG, or if we have the prestige, a CC+. But sometimes, when the situation is really desperate, we sometimes take a long look at that CL sitting in the yard(if that's not desperate, I don't know what is
), CA's and CC's are slightly better than the DD when it comes to fighting a live opponent. As we move into late early, early middle era(i.e. 2268), you'll begin to see a lot of Feds flying around in a light cruiser. Why? The NCL has come out. This is the best ship, next to the CC+, that we have in the inventory. Fast forward to about 2272 and the NCL+ is out. Now we're starting to have fun. Also around this time, the CVA, CVS, and DN+ come out. At this point, only RM's and a few others can afford, or are allowed, to fly the heavies, and the CVS has it's own problems(no power). Let's skip ahead to 2275-76 and then you'll begin to see the ships that most Feds will trade in for: the CB and CLC come out. A few others are released as well, but they're seldom used. Move forward another couple of years, and it's Fed heaven. The BCG and BCF are released. Most of us will finally get our hands on one of these, and we'll stay there for the rest of the campaign. Why? Because they are fun ships to fly. There a few others that are popular with some of the regular pilots, like the GSC+, NVS, and a couple of others, but the ships I mentioned above are flown by about 90% of the Feds on a regular basis. Photons can be infuriating when they miss, but there's nothing like batting 4 for 4 with OL's.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 18, 2003, 10:39:46 pm
Quote:
The reason SFC2 failed here was due to the fact that only a handful of ships were ever used (compared to the number of variants available). This problem was at its worst in D2 play, where you had Feds actually preferring the lowly missle over their supposed favorite the photon torpedo. When all you see form your opponent is drone boats, what does that say about a game's alleged variety of tactics? In the most recent months of D2, most encounters were down to using the same handful of proven tactics, as dictated by the uber-weapon of that game, the heavy fast missle. One word: boring.
This was my biggest pet pieve with the previous SFC's. In SFB, special varients like the F-CAD, R-Sph-J, or Z-DF for example were ment to be very limited in number. SFC did not impose these limits so of course you saw a million of these in combat. Taldren dropped the ball here in my opinion. There should have been a way to control how many of these special varients were available to the players in each game.
I do not think that this is a reason to say SFC2 was worse than SFC3 though. I still prefer SFC2 and I want my GAW.
Post by: Cleaven on January 18, 2003, 11:27:23 pm
Post by: EE on January 19, 2003, 12:39:44 am
Post by: CptSavage on January 19, 2003, 02:05:57 am
Post by: Hertston on January 19, 2003, 04:34:55 am
Quote:
IMHO, we won't see a stand-alone 'expansion' for SFC3, due to the fact that Taldren tried that with the ill-fated Orion Pirates. Orion Pirates, from what I've heard (I was one of the vast majority who didn't buy it), was just too similar to SFC2 for the price that was initially charged for it ($30-$50 IIRC), despite the variety of new things that were included with it.
Again IMHO, Taldren will make an expansion for SFC3 that will work with the current game. And if they price it right, it will be in the $15-$20 range.
Hmmm... accounting for currency translation (I'm in th UK), I've never seen any expansion for anything at that price. I just can't see a "box" release making any profit at that price .
No offence on the "post count" thing, m8 - obviously number of posts here has no connection with experience (or time spent) in playing the games - including SFB. That said, there are a lot of new folks here (that's a GOOD thing, BTW) who have come to the series with SFC3 , who tend to "back" the game they are playing at the expense of one they havn't - "3" must be better than "2". Especially if you don't have "2"
Human nature.
Post by: Tulmahk on January 19, 2003, 09:12:29 pm
Quote:
I would beg to differ with you a bit. Nearly all regular Feds dislike flying drone boats. AOTK was an exception, in that we were kind of forced into them just to keep pace with the Coalition. Given our drothers, we'd fly photon chuckers every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But I do agree that a lot of the ships in the EAW inventory collect dust...
FatherTed, all your points are very well taken. It was a peculiarity of lack of ship customisation that doomed most variants to AI captains alone. The real irony here was that many of those ships would've gotten played if only the player was allowed to customise 1 or 2 things about it (on Fed ships, warp power all the way).
Of course in SFC3, with the missle not even an option, Feds are 'forced' back into their photon/quantum boats. And that's as it should be. May the missle never see the light of day again!
We stand in agreement.
Post by: Tulmahk on January 19, 2003, 09:23:08 pm
Quote:
I do not think that this is a reason to say SFC2 was worse than SFC3 though. I still prefer SFC2 and I want my GAW.
You make very good points, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
My dirty little secret is that I want you to have your GaW, too. I just don't want it coming at the expense of my purely Star Trek based SFC3. There is room, I think, for both. GaW can and should be its own product line. IMHO, there isn't nearly the audience for it that purely Trek game have (how many gamers have ever heard of SFB? Not that many compared to the number of people playing computer games). However, that being said, it does deserve a chance. And who knows? It could end up being the favorite. Anything is possible.
I say: GaW and SFC
Post by: Tulmahk on January 19, 2003, 09:27:11 pm
Quote:
Hey Tulmahk, Nice to see another Inland Empire player.
Hell has frozen over. Someone is actually glad to see me on these fora!
Nice to see another SoCaler for me, too EE. I guess Taldren only sold 2 copies in this area?
Post by: Tulmahk on January 19, 2003, 09:29:40 pm
Quote:
It's activisions fault All of this is activisions fault. They came upon Taldren after purchasing all the gaming licenses and said "You are going to make this based on your previous hits and remove some features to make it more 'Action.' With that done, release it. Now we will control it, thank you and GET OUT." Thats basically my theory.
Well, if Activision practiced that much control there would be zombies in the game.
Activision just loves zombies...
Post by: FatherTed on January 19, 2003, 09:58:37 pm
Post by: SghnDubh on January 19, 2003, 10:09:43 pm
We will soon see the "average" soldier be able to quickly adapt his/her equipment to a variety of tactical situations, given lightweight alloys, increased use of electronics, and good old fashion human ingenuity.
It shouldn't be any different in the simulated 24th century. Loadouts add interest and a strategic element.
Post by: Cleaven on January 19, 2003, 10:39:51 pm
FatherTed, all your points are very well taken. It was a peculiarity of lack of ship customisation that doomed most variants to AI captains alone. The real irony here was that many of those ships would've gotten played if only the player was allowed to customise 1 or 2 things about it (on Fed ships, warp power all the way).
Of course in SFC3, with the missle not even an option, Feds are 'forced' back into their photon/quantum boats. And that's as it should be. May the missle never see the light of day again!
We stand in agreement.
Your comment about what is irony misses the concept that the available ships are supposed to represent a space navy that has some sort of design philosophy which matches a tactical doctrine. In this (EAW) instance players have to choose between fighting the oh-so-dumb AI, and other players. The AI can't fight drones so players use drones against them.
But back to the point of a regular navy and tactical doctrine, each captain can't turn up and rearrange the machine space in the engine room to his own ideals (it upsets the engineers). A new captain can't turn up and remove have the turrents off a destroyer just because he prefers to use mines, lots of mines.
People are already hurting from the issue of Feds or Romulans who want to fly like Klingons so they set themselves like a Klingon ship, to be used with Klingon tactics. Why not fly Klingon? Or just give everybody the same hulls and weapons and just change the paintwork. The style of the empires, as reflected in tactical doctrine and design may as well not exist. Instead you just make it up as you go along, ignoring any concepts of military design and administration philosophy. This is where you cross from a future simulation to a future fantasy concept where anything goes.
And that's when you end up with BattleTech.
Post by: Cleaven on January 19, 2003, 11:20:01 pm
Quote:
No disrespect intended, FatherTed, but "standard issue" is the starting point, not the ending point. Even GI's of WWII "customized" their equipment -- welding plows onto tanks to take down hedgerows, as an example.
We will soon see the "average" soldier be able to quickly adapt his/her equipment to a variety of tactical situations, given lightweight alloys, increased use of electronics, and good old fashion human ingenuity.
It shouldn't be any different in the simulated 24th century. Loadouts add interest and a strategic element.
Actually the trend is towards common multi-purpose equipment, which already has the required functions without "illegal" modification. This simplifies supply and administration which is essential when dealing with "high-tech" sealed equipment. You don't rewire your image intensification unit for infrared, you change modules on your headset. Combat vehicles are made with general purpose fittings for the connection of specialist equipment if it becomes available for use. Lessons have been learnt from previous wars and adaption is being built in to equipment. This doesn't apply to core components though. MBT's don't come with an APC option where the main gun is changed to a 25mm and passenger seating is installed (Kangaroos have been and gone).
What also doesn't happen is each soldier carrying around all the options. Instead they are assigned by a command unit. You are able to request laser rangefinding gear or pop-up toasters, but if the brigade commander says that all men will use toasting sticks and train to determine range by eye, then that's the way it is. Sometimes you will get what you want, but I've found that generally there is always another company which has greater priortiy than mine, so I'll only get half of what I need.
Post by: Tannhauser on January 19, 2003, 11:55:49 pm
Starfleet comes out with new technology, and who do you think gets it first? The Sovereign-class patrolling the borders, or the Sovereign-class USS Enterprise? You may say it's because the Enterprise is the Federation Flagship, but isn't that also an example of prestige? Sisko got the Defiant and all of its experimental technology (of course, he did oversee its development). The first Runabouts ever built went to DS9. Admiral Kirk got to take command of the Enterprise from Decker, and Kirk even got a brand new Enterprise after destroying the old one, ticking off the Klingons (and almost starting a war with them), and getting demoted by a court martial. Admiral Leyton personally had an Excelsior-class refitted with Quantum Torpedoes and other modern weaponry. It has even been stated that Admirals basically get to pick their own ship.
And there's also the fact that game takesplace in a time of war. Near the end of the Dominion War, Starfleet was using any ship it could get its hands on. They were fielding decommissioned, obsolete, and even incomplete ships. If it had power, shields, weapons, and warp nacelles, they would stick a skeleton crew on it and send it out to at least patrol systems, if not take part in full fleet actions. Even an important objective like AR-558 where Starfleet was holding a Dominion communication array, Starfleet didn't have the resources to fully defend it at first, despite its importance. In Treachery, Faith, and the Great River, we saw how difficult it could be to obtain replacement parts to fix even the Defiant.
Basically, it all represents the fact that Captain Picard can be certain his Enterprise will have the best of everything, while Captain Nobody will be lucky just to get all of his phasers operational and maybe partially upgraded before he has to fly off into battle again, hoping that his next visit to a starbase will have those upgraded phasers for him, unless Captain Somebody got his name on the Quartermaster's list first.
Post by: Cleaven on January 20, 2003, 12:27:50 am
Of course I would prefer the "you are a line captain and you will do as you are told" option.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 20, 2003, 12:41:02 am
Quote:
The customization thing is what bugs me about SFC3. When you're in the Army, you are issued an M16. The caliber is 5.56mm. You cannot customize it to 7.62mm. Nor can you add a rear torpedo tube to your 688 SSN. Likewise, rear-firing Sidewinders are out for the F-15. In any regular military, you are given standard issue equipment, and you use it. Customization should be limited to Orions, who scavenge weapons where they can get them. Part of the fun of EAW is making do with a ship that's not everything you want it to be.
AMEN BROTHER!!!!! This is exactly how I feel. Couldn't have said it any better.
Post by: Credo Narth on January 20, 2003, 05:44:01 am
Essentially, whenever I get me Defiant/ Akira/ Galaxy/ Sovereign (which are the only ships I'll use), I'll end up loading them out in exactly the same way I loaded them out the time before. If I were in SFC2, it would have been a variant that I would have been going for, like the CLC/ BCF/ DNH. At the end of the day, it doesn't make any difference that I can bung in some new weapons and come up with a new variant, I'll stick with what I've got.
I've also decided that SFc2 is simply too good to be ignored for SFC3. The Gameraiders review said it all for me, really. So I'll be reinstalling the old game this week... Which leads me to ask what the best D2 servers there are out there. Anyone?
Post by: Aenigma on January 20, 2003, 07:52:27 am
)Aenigma,
In The Service of The Empire
Post by: Robb Stark on January 20, 2003, 08:17:27 am
Quote:
The customization thing is what bugs me about SFC3. When you're in the Army, you are issued an M16. The caliber is 5.56mm. You cannot customize it to 7.62mm. Nor can you add a rear torpedo tube to your 688 SSN. Likewise, rear-firing Sidewinders are out for the F-15. In any regular military, you are given standard issue equipment, and you use it. Customization should be limited to Orions, who scavenge weapons where they can get them. Part of the fun of EAW is making do with a ship that's not everything you want it to be.
And I reject the notion that the various fleets in the Star Trek universe should somehow directly mirror the modern military in their procedures and operations. First of all, the difference in technology is such that it's silly to assume an equivalent. This is something I already discussed with Hypergol on the last iteration of this thread, previous forum.
But secondly, since when does the U.S. Military "explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldy go where no one has gone before?" Is that part of the armed forces mandate that I missed somewhere? U.S. naval captains do not have the same kind of autonomy that Kirk and Picard did. How many warships have a "science officer?" Much less a science officer that is the second in command. And so forth.
Starfleet is not the U.S. Navy. It's mission is far broader and its goals a great deal more multifaceted. As a result, its ships and crews have to be more flexible and adaptable. To me, customization fits in perfectly with that vision. A captain given the responsibility to execute such a diverse variety of missions has the leeway to customize their ship as they see fit.
Post by: theRomulan on January 20, 2003, 11:35:39 am
Secondly, I think everyone is just on a 'hail SFC2' drug trip. I remember this forum would be filled with nothing but flames for SFC2 for at least two years. Magic Photons, plasma overpowered, some romulan ship that can fly speed 31, charge all weapons AND reinforce shields, etc etc. Now SFC3 comes out, has a change in atmosphere, and the board's attitude does a complete 180. Seems like everyone is hopping the bandwagon to me.
Also, the idea that everyone liked being force to fly a ship not of their choosing is also kind of shallow. In the end, when you saw your best ship in the ship yard, you went and got it. That was the end of it. Yes, in SFC3 you will encounter moments where you will probably outfit your ship to the exact specifications that you desire, all the time. However, keep in mind that the D3 servers are nowhere near the level of development of the D2 servers right now. D2 servers, through all the pain and bugs and crashes, has finally stabilized a bit, the alt f4 teenagers are gone, and you've got some mature, dedicated players on there. You get to FEEL like you're flying a ship that you don't quite want but have to have because the servers are set so that all the optimal equipment is extremely difficult to obtain, etc. Most, if not all of the D3 servers are basically set to run standard mode, meaning it's chump change trying to get new technology. The funny thing is, the D2 servers, when they finally became stable, were exactly the same way. Yeah, there were 180 ships, but I guarentee you that more than half the Dynaverse players were in that F-DDG of some kind, and I guarentee that everyone was in F-BCF or K-C7, or a KCR within moments. There was almost NEVER a situation where someone was captaining a ship they just HAD to deal with, at least not for prolonged periods. I remember going on to servers where people had battleships, and in SFC2, fighting a battleship is quite boring. I find that the battleships of SFC3, while certainly powerful, are not quite as boring as fighting in anything from SFC2.
Give SFC3 a few months. The patch will fix some issues (hopefully we can see mizia fire return in its effectiveness, the reinforcment setup for 1.00 pretty much forces everyone to alpha strike), and over time we'll get some dedicated people running their own D3 servers who will setup campaigns that will not simply give you your precious defiant hull, etc. Just like the D2 servers that are still up right now. So don't bang on SFC3 as if it's incredibly shallow and there's no such thing as difference, because D2 was pretty much the same. What made D2 even sadder was the fact that it would have not 9 hulls, but 180 some odd hulls, and out of all those, we saw about 10 make up the entire D2 population.
If anything, Starfleet Command games are something that just take time. You have to allow everyone to play the game, let the teenagers get bored and leave, let the patches filter out all the game option limiting crap, and then allow the dedicated players to create servers that are more than just a constant slug fest, something has a deep atmosphere. D2 has that now, but it most certainly didn't a few months ago. D3 does not have it quite yet, but we'll see it. Finally, if you really want a ship that you "have to fly but don't want to", SFC3 has that too. It's called controlling yourself when you refit. Use your imagination, and don't give your ship everything you want. Heck, you can go ahead and take weapons off your ship if you like. Sure, no one else is doing it, but no one was flying a crappy ship in the D2 either. They'd just keep their frigate and fly endless AI missions until they had enough money to bypass all the crappy ships. Anyway, I have a feeling that over time there will be a D3 server that isn't run of the mill, something that has rules and settings that forces players to play with "what you got or what you can get". Cheers.
Post by: Aenigma on January 20, 2003, 11:51:36 am
And by the way, i am a teenager still
( in 17 days i won't be anymore )Aenigma,
In The Service of The Empire
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 20, 2003, 12:49:42 pm
Quote:
Okay okay people. First off, this is a video game that is about 'Starfleet'; any argument that says this imaginary space fleet should mirror our modern day or any previous military is kind of pointless.
There it is again.....that damn "this is a video game so who cares about realism" line.
I agreed in the previous forum that my "realism" argument will always fall to this logic. And I admit it....so put that sentence away please.......I consider it an atrocious use of "Arguments of Mass Destruction" and not fair in this debate.;)
This debate all comes down to what you prefer in gaming.....realistic simulations or fantasy.
I prefer realism for SFC because I see Star Trek as a vision of what humanity's future could be like. Fantasy is fun for other genres like Tolkien or Star Wars. It all depends on the setting of the game for me.
Post by: theRomulan on January 20, 2003, 01:25:42 pm
However, I don't feel that SFC2, with all of its ship types, has really provided that military realism mainly because of its player base. You and I might appreciate the idea that there are ships out there that are not exactly tactically sound on the dynaverse, but a majority of the players do not, and will do whatever it takes (and it usually isn't much) to avoid the vessels that are definitely more adapted for science than war (the federation is full of these). On the other end of the argument however, it would make sense for the any starfleet like organization to allow a captain with high prestige to outfit his ship according to his tactical preferences ofr a situation. Unfortunately, we also get in a situation where people outfit their vessel entirely with antimatter mines for heavy weapons, and configure their ship to go extremely fast to drop them. Cool concept if this were used in a fleet, but So far the D3 sees very little mass group stradegy and coordination, and therefore limited strategic fleet action. However, I also believe that the configurations are not too heavily abused... a lot of players are loaded out with logical, somewhat standard forms. I usually fly romulan, but I love the K'Tinga class from the klingons. I flew the K D7T all the time in SFC2 purely for the love of having photon torpedoes instead of disruptors. In SFC3, the load out of my ship isn't exactly the same, but the design is very similar. The only big change I put on my ship was that I got rid of a rear photon torpedo tube in favor of carrying bigger disruptors in the front. Photon torpedoes fully loaded in the front. I dont' go for radical designs. I try to make my designs as close as I am used to them being on SFC2.
Hopefully, after the patch, someone will pay some attention to details in terms of the atmosphere in the D3 and we'll have big coordinated attacks, fleet commanders, etc. And it will feel at least a little more 'real'.
Post by: KNF-Merlin on January 20, 2003, 01:26:05 pm
Quote:
let the teenagers get bored and leave
why is every one always bashing teenagers? i am 16 and have been playing since the week SFC1 came out.
Post by: theRomulan on January 20, 2003, 05:04:21 pm
When i say 'teenager' however, i speak of the typical crowd this game attracts: someone looking to fly a super powerful federation vessel with torpedoes that never miss, or the crowd that likes to get to f4 out of every dynaverse game for fear of losing their prized ship. I can understand not wanting to lose your best ship, but the dynaverse wasnt' meant to be a game where you play by yourself trying to get cool ships, and then fight against flies.
I'm sure you don't fit the typical mold if you've been playing since SFC1. My apologies.
Post by: Aves on January 20, 2003, 08:08:42 pm
(however I still hate it when the last Klingon or Lyran Planet is guarded by 9 DNs and all freighter fleets are protected by 2 BBs even though the evil empires only each control one planet and no additional space GRRR)
I do prefer the SFC3 ships varient structure BUT
I would like to see more hulls
at least 2 more races
eras (early middle late)
some real racial flavor beyond cloaks
and some REAL variety in weapons beyond plasmas
When all is said and done SFC3 COULD have more variety
BUT
SFC2 does have more for now.
Post by: Whiplash on January 20, 2003, 10:50:25 pm
As wilder (and less likely) wishing, I wonder if it would work to have them to go all the way back to the Kirk days and give us some of those ships in the low end. I'd also like to see the Enterprise-C style ship. Maybe the uber ships of the future we say in the series finale. I wonder if they could do anything special with time ships from the far future?
W.
Post by: SL-Punisher on January 21, 2003, 03:50:35 am
Trek, and specifically SFB, creates a universe with its own rules, limitations, and methods of play. So one could argue, that based on those rules, a given situation might or might not be "Realistic".
With all the material out there (Stories, models, hell ive seen spock underwear) there is plenty to create a viable universe, all based on human exploits in the future. This is where the "Non-realistic" arguement fails. You see we understand it isn't real, but just because its imagined dosen't mean there aren't rules that govern our little fantasy universe. Who has fun in a universe that changes constantly with no real physics? If your a fan of Allice in Wonderland perhaps. For the rest of us we enjoy this universe because, in many ways, it is plausable.
So any arguements made on the basis of realism are made based not on real life, but on our little universe we've created here.
And why not? ::pulls out phaser set to kill:: Do you have a problem with that?!?!
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 21, 2003, 03:34:53 pm
Quote:
Trek, and specifically SFB, creates a universe with its own rules, limitations, and methods of play. So one could argue, that based on those rules, a given situation might or might not be "Realistic".
With all the material out there (Stories, models, hell ive seen spock underwear) there is plenty to create a viable universe, all based on human exploits in the future. This is where the "Non-realistic" arguement fails. You see we understand it isn't real, but just because its imagined dosen't mean there aren't rules that govern our little fantasy universe. Who has fun in a universe that changes constantly with no real physics? If your a fan of Allice in Wonderland perhaps. For the rest of us we enjoy this universe because, in many ways, it is plausable.
So any arguements made on the basis of realism are made based not on real life, but on our little universe we've created here.
These are great points. Realism is still important even in a fictional setting.
Good gaming requires strict limitations. If it's easy to win there's no challenge and winning means nothing. Star Fleet Battles and the previous SFC's are great games because they put lots of limitations on players. It's my opinion that full customization in SFC3 diminishes this element. That's why I think SFC2's system of refitted varients was better. You often had to deal with a less than perfect ship. This was more challenging and a better simulation of what a starship captain would likely face.
Post by: EmeraldEdge on January 21, 2003, 03:54:24 pm
Post by: Argos65987 on January 21, 2003, 05:28:46 pm
Quote:
First of all I like SFC3, and love SFC2
(however I still hate it when the last Klingon or Lyran Planet is guarded by 9 DNs and all freighter fleets are protected by 2 BBs even though the evil empires only each control one planet and no additional space GRRR)
I do prefer the SFC3 ships varient structure BUT
I would like to see more hulls
at least 2 more races
eras (early middle late)
some real racial flavor beyond cloaks
and some REAL variety in weapons beyond plasmas
When all is said and done SFC3 COULD have more variety
BUT
SFC2 does have more for now.
Very well said. Except I liked the SFC2 varients over SFC3 customizing. I really don't think that one version is better than another, it is just my opinion on the subject.
Post by: Whiplash on January 21, 2003, 06:07:41 pm
W.
Post by: ragamer on January 22, 2003, 06:20:29 am
(either by customization or by variants) is needed?. Some ppl talked about real Navy... That's interesting,
real Navy needs to be successfull in REAL MISSIONS. I think that the real problems of BOTH SFC2 and SFC3 are
related to the victory conditions of their missions (both Dyna and Solo). I think that 'Mission Simplicity'
problem is very frustating in SFC because single mission's lack of strategic impact on Dyna. Actually, the UBER
ship concept is that ship which can ELIMINATE the oposition most efficiently, because in Dyna is the only
strategic impact that you can have... Reducing enemy Navy.
If you want a specialized Navy you need to have different strategic 'winning conditions' or tasks.
I work as a programmer and I know that actual Dyna3 is designed to be a low-load server, that's why it is so simple
to run (compared with the hardware needed to run Commercial MMOG) but I think that with a few changes the Dyna
experience could be greatly enchanced (the following ideas are based on SFC3, which Dyna implementation is much
better than Dyna2 IMHO):
- Add a component called AUTONOMY that allow a ship to reach a number of hexes FROM THE NEAREST ALLIED BASE,
(Autonomy I (1 hex) and so on. This component could be included sacrifying ANY other weight pool. So if an empire
wish to make deep raids on enemy territory It should have LONG RANGE variants/models that sacrify some features to
be able to attack far hexes. If a Ship is in a prohibited hex (due to base destruction or whatever) it could be
instantly transported back to the nearest valid hex, destroyed or more interesting, forced to move at slow speeds.
- Make REAL scan missions where a enemy Ship/Structure can only be visible in Dyna (an arbitrary amount of server's
turns) if an allied ship performs a successfull Scan Mission on it. Maybe you can have a variant on this where your
passive structures can only detect enemy contacts and to have Specific info on size/type/load you need to perform a
Scan Mission.
- I think that's an error to have diferent independent weight pools in the customization model. Component control
should be implemented by component functionality and requirements. I mean if you have an actual hull with 4 pools
of 5000 each one, I should allow a big single pool of 20000 with ALL the components substracting from it. This of
course could allow potentially EXTREME customizations but if the components have real functionality then is up to
the user to decide how he want to play. Of couse to have this, a number of extreme changes should be made:
* Sensors Should Appear in two variants: Long range (for detecting presence of enemy), and Targeting (to
achieve weapon's fire solutions). Long range sensors should increase the detection power as they increase
in size and power requirements, while targeting sensors should increase aiming efficiency (and maybe
allowing or not subsystem targeting).
* Cloaking should be more deadly. I mean, allowing shooting while cloaked and things like that. But should be
more energy stressing. In that way, oposing fleets should always have at least a Good Recon Ship to have a
chance against a cloaked enemy. Cloaking systems simply decrease the detection distance as they increase in
size and power (of course, Enemy Long range sensors should increase that distance). Of course a cloaked ship
outside it's detection range SHOULD BE TOTALLY UNDETECTABLE but its shots NOT. Also a cloaked captain SHOULD
know when is detected (or at least targeted with fire sensors).
* Transporters should increase the transporting range as they increase in size and power. If you want to have
multiple transporters, then you have to include multiple ones, period.
* Tractor beams should increase capture range as they increase in size and power. If you want to have a
stronger grip, then equip multiple beams and target ALL of them to the same target.
* Warp Core should be divided in two subcomponents: Warp Engine (Increases warp speed or decreases warp
engaging time) and Warp Reactor (increases power output).
- Heavy weapons should have a 'prefered target' design. I mean each Heavy weapon should be more efficient
based on the kind of target it is fired at. Actually Torpedoes (plasma and photon) seem to have preference for static
targets but I'm not so convinced thet they are more energy efficient than phaser/disruptors. In that way you could
have the tactic variety of SFC2 and their specialized Heavies. Examples of kind of targets could be: Static
Structures, Shielded Targets, Unshielded Targets. And they should have SPECIAL effects beyond damage (let your
imagination fly.. Its SciFi :-)).
- The borg... Though subject. I think that they should remain THE ULTIMATE ENEMY but to balance them, a single step
needs to be done... As they are a really different culture, why they gain prestige as the others. Borg captains should
gain prestige ONLY from ASSIMILATED (aka captured) ships and from successfull assimilation missions. In that way,
the same mission will be harder for a borg because he will have to achieve a mayor degree of success and take more
risks to achieve the same prestige reward. On top of that, their production scheme is invasive, so planets hold by the
borg should decrease their production over time to force the borg to conquest (see below Construction Points Flow
Model).
- Include a Construction Points Flow Model. The actual economic system is simple but limits the players' impact on it.
I think that another simple model could be better. Each planet produces a number of production points per turn also
some harvestable hexes produce them if the correct Structure is built into it. That production points are spent on
maintaining the defensive structures, repairing and refiting the navy, and building new ships and structures. But
the funny thing is that production points need to travel from one place to another in convoys. Each structure have
a number of construction points to spend (so it could be posible that a starbase could no longer repair a ship due to
lack of building points). The ideal situation could be controlling each convoy as a Dyna entity but to decrease server
load this could be modeled as transport lanes (special hex property, amount of building points transported through
this hex per turn). So if a pirate successfully raids that hex or destroys that convoy, the receiving facility will
start to loose building points. To prevent variable overflows and things like that you could include limits on the
store capacity. If a facility that requires maintenance lack the necesary points, it could appear in the missions
damaged or even disabled (the same that could happen with a player ship that is in a starbase without enough building
points to perform a full repair or modification).
Well all of this can be in short expressed as: "If you always do the same job, you always use the same tool".
As usual, excuse me for the length and for my barbaric english.
Post by: Whiplash on January 22, 2003, 11:00:47 pm
W.
Post by: Whiplash on January 22, 2003, 11:12:32 pm
I want complete SFB on the computer, in the form of SFC:GAW, with all the missing parts added in, and staying as reasonably true to SFB/SFC as you can. No warping around or any such nonsense. If it has a campaign mode, it should function much like F&E.
I also want a Next Generation-like persistent universe where my month online behaves somewhat like a season of TNG, and is a cross between Bridge Commander and SFC3. Heavy on the combat, with SFC-like combat, but with mystery scenarios and storylines unfolding, and real-world maintenance issues. I want to be able to warp out and explore new star systems, resupply at DS9, get my ship beat up in the Badlands while hunting Maquis raiders, and run out of my supply of photon torpedoes. I want to be told I can get a brand new state-of-the-art tractor beam that turns out to be a turkey, and be told the parts to repair my phasers up to full strength won't be available for 2 weeks. I'll have to make do with an older fire-control system until then.
Yeah, it'd be very cool.
I think I'm just daydreaming. I don't know how a universe like that could be persistent and coordinated over thousands of players playing at different times and number of hours each day, and sometimes not even logging in for a week.
W.
Post by: Whiplash on January 18, 2003, 01:14:32 am
We were getting a lot of good opinions after the holy wars died down a bit.
Seems to be about evenly split between SFC2 and 3, seemingly along the lines of whether you prefer the game over the other one.
To me that says that customization may work no better than the many-variants approach, as implemented. At least, it doesn't seem to be a big reason to love or hate the game.
W.
Post by: Hertston on January 18, 2003, 05:04:01 am
Both are also appropriate for the games themselves The "Star Fleet" based SFC 2 needed more races , more ships, and more race-specific weapons (just a shame Taldren couldn't finish the job with GaW before being TNGed). SFC3 is unavoidably stuck with "Star Trek", so the customisation route was possible the best one to give variety from the number of races involved. Some would say to that, "why not include the Cardassians and Dominion for more races then ?" - the more cynical would reply "so what's left for the stand-alone (ahem) expansion then ?"
As to the "better game", SFC 2 without a doubt. I suspect much support for SFC3 comes from those with the lower post counts (i.e who never actually played SFC 2). That said though, having had SFC3 a short while now, I'm glad it's different, and not a straight TNG port of SFC2. It's feel , skills and tactics are very different, it is nice to play in the TNG universe for a change, and this way there are two games I will be playing, not just the one.
Post by: ActiveX on January 18, 2003, 06:36:18 am
Post by: Aenigma on January 18, 2003, 08:40:11 am
Oh, and where did the Griffin-class go? And the Steamrunner? And the Nova-class? And the Shadow-class? And so on........Iwo Jima-class anyone? They would make nice additions to the fleets.
I know, I'm probably asking too much.
Aenigma
Romulus will prevail!
Post by: Firestorm on January 18, 2003, 09:24:18 am
Most people will come up with one ship that best fits their playing style for a particular BPV and stick with that ship.
The advantage with SFC3 customization would be, you can tweek a varient to exactly what you want(within the refit rules, of course).
With SFC2, you had to find a varient that best fit your styles and refine your tactics to best fit that ship.
Both are valid, just different, but total number of varients doesn't matter since most people will stick with only a couple of ships they really like.
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on January 18, 2003, 10:04:12 am
Quote:
SFC3's vessel customization or SFC:OP's purs numbers variety
There should have been a third choice....
"SFC2: EAW and its highly dedicated player base."
And I dont mean to say that SFC3 players arent dedicated.....just that the players who still play SFC2 are the cream of the crop....and that is a major factor in the decision to continue play it.
There ARE more to these games than ships and numbers.
Let me put it this way......During Attack of the Kitties...I didnt have to wonder if my opponent would Alt-f4 out of the game if the battle turned against them...or if they would warp off the map when a shield turned red.....as a matter of fact.....almost EVERY battle was a pure fight...and usually to the death(mine;))
Post by: FatherTed on January 18, 2003, 09:18:38 pm
Quote:Quote:
SFC3's vessel customization or SFC:OP's purs numbers variety
There should have been a third choice....
"SFC2: EAW and its highly dedicated player base."
And I dont mean to say that SFC3 players arent dedicated.....just that the players who still play SFC2 are the cream of the crop....and that is a major factor in the decision to continue play it.
There ARE more to these games than ships and numbers.
Let me put it this way......During Attack of the Kitties...I didnt have to wonder if my opponent would Alt-f4 out of the game if the battle turned against them...or if they would warp off the map when a shield turned red.....as a matter of fact.....almost EVERY battle was a pure fight...and usually to the death(mine;))
Amen to that. IDSL was, IMHO, the ultimate campaign. When you fight for several weeks, yet the outcome isn't decided until the last few hours(I collapsed from exhaustion about 2 hours before it ended), that's serious fun. I can't wait for RDSL.
Post by: Tulmahk on January 18, 2003, 09:30:37 pm
Quote:
Some would say to that, "why not include the Cardassians and Dominion for more races then ?" - the more cynical would reply "so what's left for the stand-alone (ahem) expansion then ?"
As to the "better game", SFC 2 without a doubt. I suspect much support for SFC3 comes from those with the lower post counts (i.e who never actually played SFC 2). That said though, having had SFC3 a short while now, I'm glad it's different, and not a straight TNG port of SFC2. It's feel , skills and tactics are very different, it is nice to play in the TNG universe for a change, and this way there are two games I will be playing, not just the one.
Well, I played SFC2 from the day it came out. And behold my post count (not that post counts mean anything at all; not that the SFB Old Guard will ever realise that). And oh yeah, I played SFC1 from the day it came out, too. AND I played SFB back in the '80s.
IMHO, we won't see a stand-alone 'expansion' for SFC3, due to the fact that Taldren tried that with the ill-fated Orion Pirates. Orion Pirates, from what I've heard (I was one of the vast majority who didn't buy it), was just too similar to SFC2 for the price that was initially charged for it ($30-$50 IIRC), despite the variety of new things that were included with it.
Again IMHO, Taldren will make an expansion for SFC3 that will work with the current game. And if they price it right, it will be in the $15-$20 range.
SFC2 had the better overall ship variety, due to the fact that they had many more ship models. For whatever reason, the Romulans and Klingons were cheated in SFC3, each having only a fraction of the number of hulls available that the Feds have (Borg's lack of ship variety is simply a racial triat. They just don't use that great a variety of ships). So SFC2 wins this catagory.
However, when it comes to variants-per-race, SFC3 wins with one of its best features: ship customisability. The reason SFC2 failed here was due to the fact that only a handful of ships were ever used (compared to the number of variants available). This problem was at its worst in D2 play, where you had Feds actually preferring the lowly missle over their supposed favorite the photon torpedo. When all you see form your opponent is drone boats, what does that say about a game's alleged variety of tactics? In the most recent months of D2, most encounters were down to using the same handful of proven tactics, as dictated by the uber-weapon of that game, the heavy fast missle. One word: boring.
To sum up, I actually think it's a push. Both games had their strong and weak points when it comes to ship variety.
Post by: FatherTed on January 18, 2003, 10:07:51 pm
Feds, like the rest, have a natural progression. To begin in early era, we are usually stuck in the DD, a deathtrap. As soon as possible, we trade in for either a FFG, or if we have the prestige, a CC+. But sometimes, when the situation is really desperate, we sometimes take a long look at that CL sitting in the yard(if that's not desperate, I don't know what is
), CA's and CC's are slightly better than the DD when it comes to fighting a live opponent. As we move into late early, early middle era(i.e. 2268), you'll begin to see a lot of Feds flying around in a light cruiser. Why? The NCL has come out. This is the best ship, next to the CC+, that we have in the inventory. Fast forward to about 2272 and the NCL+ is out. Now we're starting to have fun. Also around this time, the CVA, CVS, and DN+ come out. At this point, only RM's and a few others can afford, or are allowed, to fly the heavies, and the CVS has it's own problems(no power). Let's skip ahead to 2275-76 and then you'll begin to see the ships that most Feds will trade in for: the CB and CLC come out. A few others are released as well, but they're seldom used. Move forward another couple of years, and it's Fed heaven. The BCG and BCF are released. Most of us will finally get our hands on one of these, and we'll stay there for the rest of the campaign. Why? Because they are fun ships to fly. There a few others that are popular with some of the regular pilots, like the GSC+, NVS, and a couple of others, but the ships I mentioned above are flown by about 90% of the Feds on a regular basis. Photons can be infuriating when they miss, but there's nothing like batting 4 for 4 with OL's.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 18, 2003, 10:39:46 pm
Quote:
The reason SFC2 failed here was due to the fact that only a handful of ships were ever used (compared to the number of variants available). This problem was at its worst in D2 play, where you had Feds actually preferring the lowly missle over their supposed favorite the photon torpedo. When all you see form your opponent is drone boats, what does that say about a game's alleged variety of tactics? In the most recent months of D2, most encounters were down to using the same handful of proven tactics, as dictated by the uber-weapon of that game, the heavy fast missle. One word: boring.
This was my biggest pet pieve with the previous SFC's. In SFB, special varients like the F-CAD, R-Sph-J, or Z-DF for example were ment to be very limited in number. SFC did not impose these limits so of course you saw a million of these in combat. Taldren dropped the ball here in my opinion. There should have been a way to control how many of these special varients were available to the players in each game.
I do not think that this is a reason to say SFC2 was worse than SFC3 though. I still prefer SFC2 and I want my GAW.
Post by: Cleaven on January 18, 2003, 11:27:23 pm
Post by: EE on January 19, 2003, 12:39:44 am
Post by: CptSavage on January 19, 2003, 02:05:57 am
Post by: Hertston on January 19, 2003, 04:34:55 am
Quote:
IMHO, we won't see a stand-alone 'expansion' for SFC3, due to the fact that Taldren tried that with the ill-fated Orion Pirates. Orion Pirates, from what I've heard (I was one of the vast majority who didn't buy it), was just too similar to SFC2 for the price that was initially charged for it ($30-$50 IIRC), despite the variety of new things that were included with it.
Again IMHO, Taldren will make an expansion for SFC3 that will work with the current game. And if they price it right, it will be in the $15-$20 range.
Hmmm... accounting for currency translation (I'm in th UK), I've never seen any expansion for anything at that price. I just can't see a "box" release making any profit at that price .
No offence on the "post count" thing, m8 - obviously number of posts here has no connection with experience (or time spent) in playing the games - including SFB. That said, there are a lot of new folks here (that's a GOOD thing, BTW) who have come to the series with SFC3 , who tend to "back" the game they are playing at the expense of one they havn't - "3" must be better than "2". Especially if you don't have "2"
Human nature.
Post by: Tulmahk on January 19, 2003, 09:12:29 pm
Quote:
I would beg to differ with you a bit. Nearly all regular Feds dislike flying drone boats. AOTK was an exception, in that we were kind of forced into them just to keep pace with the Coalition. Given our drothers, we'd fly photon chuckers every day of the week and twice on Sunday. But I do agree that a lot of the ships in the EAW inventory collect dust...
FatherTed, all your points are very well taken. It was a peculiarity of lack of ship customisation that doomed most variants to AI captains alone. The real irony here was that many of those ships would've gotten played if only the player was allowed to customise 1 or 2 things about it (on Fed ships, warp power all the way).
Of course in SFC3, with the missle not even an option, Feds are 'forced' back into their photon/quantum boats. And that's as it should be. May the missle never see the light of day again!
We stand in agreement.
Post by: Tulmahk on January 19, 2003, 09:23:08 pm
Quote:
I do not think that this is a reason to say SFC2 was worse than SFC3 though. I still prefer SFC2 and I want my GAW.
You make very good points, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
My dirty little secret is that I want you to have your GaW, too. I just don't want it coming at the expense of my purely Star Trek based SFC3. There is room, I think, for both. GaW can and should be its own product line. IMHO, there isn't nearly the audience for it that purely Trek game have (how many gamers have ever heard of SFB? Not that many compared to the number of people playing computer games). However, that being said, it does deserve a chance. And who knows? It could end up being the favorite. Anything is possible.
I say: GaW and SFC
Post by: Tulmahk on January 19, 2003, 09:27:11 pm
Quote:
Hey Tulmahk, Nice to see another Inland Empire player.
Hell has frozen over. Someone is actually glad to see me on these fora!
Nice to see another SoCaler for me, too EE. I guess Taldren only sold 2 copies in this area?
Post by: Tulmahk on January 19, 2003, 09:29:40 pm
Quote:
It's activisions fault All of this is activisions fault. They came upon Taldren after purchasing all the gaming licenses and said "You are going to make this based on your previous hits and remove some features to make it more 'Action.' With that done, release it. Now we will control it, thank you and GET OUT." Thats basically my theory.
Well, if Activision practiced that much control there would be zombies in the game.
Activision just loves zombies...
Post by: FatherTed on January 19, 2003, 09:58:37 pm
Post by: SghnDubh on January 19, 2003, 10:09:43 pm
We will soon see the "average" soldier be able to quickly adapt his/her equipment to a variety of tactical situations, given lightweight alloys, increased use of electronics, and good old fashion human ingenuity.
It shouldn't be any different in the simulated 24th century. Loadouts add interest and a strategic element.
Post by: Cleaven on January 19, 2003, 10:39:51 pm
FatherTed, all your points are very well taken. It was a peculiarity of lack of ship customisation that doomed most variants to AI captains alone. The real irony here was that many of those ships would've gotten played if only the player was allowed to customise 1 or 2 things about it (on Fed ships, warp power all the way).
Of course in SFC3, with the missle not even an option, Feds are 'forced' back into their photon/quantum boats. And that's as it should be. May the missle never see the light of day again!
We stand in agreement.
Your comment about what is irony misses the concept that the available ships are supposed to represent a space navy that has some sort of design philosophy which matches a tactical doctrine. In this (EAW) instance players have to choose between fighting the oh-so-dumb AI, and other players. The AI can't fight drones so players use drones against them.
But back to the point of a regular navy and tactical doctrine, each captain can't turn up and rearrange the machine space in the engine room to his own ideals (it upsets the engineers). A new captain can't turn up and remove have the turrents off a destroyer just because he prefers to use mines, lots of mines.
People are already hurting from the issue of Feds or Romulans who want to fly like Klingons so they set themselves like a Klingon ship, to be used with Klingon tactics. Why not fly Klingon? Or just give everybody the same hulls and weapons and just change the paintwork. The style of the empires, as reflected in tactical doctrine and design may as well not exist. Instead you just make it up as you go along, ignoring any concepts of military design and administration philosophy. This is where you cross from a future simulation to a future fantasy concept where anything goes.
And that's when you end up with BattleTech.
Post by: Cleaven on January 19, 2003, 11:20:01 pm
Quote:
No disrespect intended, FatherTed, but "standard issue" is the starting point, not the ending point. Even GI's of WWII "customized" their equipment -- welding plows onto tanks to take down hedgerows, as an example.
We will soon see the "average" soldier be able to quickly adapt his/her equipment to a variety of tactical situations, given lightweight alloys, increased use of electronics, and good old fashion human ingenuity.
It shouldn't be any different in the simulated 24th century. Loadouts add interest and a strategic element.
Actually the trend is towards common multi-purpose equipment, which already has the required functions without "illegal" modification. This simplifies supply and administration which is essential when dealing with "high-tech" sealed equipment. You don't rewire your image intensification unit for infrared, you change modules on your headset. Combat vehicles are made with general purpose fittings for the connection of specialist equipment if it becomes available for use. Lessons have been learnt from previous wars and adaption is being built in to equipment. This doesn't apply to core components though. MBT's don't come with an APC option where the main gun is changed to a 25mm and passenger seating is installed (Kangaroos have been and gone).
What also doesn't happen is each soldier carrying around all the options. Instead they are assigned by a command unit. You are able to request laser rangefinding gear or pop-up toasters, but if the brigade commander says that all men will use toasting sticks and train to determine range by eye, then that's the way it is. Sometimes you will get what you want, but I've found that generally there is always another company which has greater priortiy than mine, so I'll only get half of what I need.
Post by: Tannhauser on January 19, 2003, 11:55:49 pm
Starfleet comes out with new technology, and who do you think gets it first? The Sovereign-class patrolling the borders, or the Sovereign-class USS Enterprise? You may say it's because the Enterprise is the Federation Flagship, but isn't that also an example of prestige? Sisko got the Defiant and all of its experimental technology (of course, he did oversee its development). The first Runabouts ever built went to DS9. Admiral Kirk got to take command of the Enterprise from Decker, and Kirk even got a brand new Enterprise after destroying the old one, ticking off the Klingons (and almost starting a war with them), and getting demoted by a court martial. Admiral Leyton personally had an Excelsior-class refitted with Quantum Torpedoes and other modern weaponry. It has even been stated that Admirals basically get to pick their own ship.
And there's also the fact that game takesplace in a time of war. Near the end of the Dominion War, Starfleet was using any ship it could get its hands on. They were fielding decommissioned, obsolete, and even incomplete ships. If it had power, shields, weapons, and warp nacelles, they would stick a skeleton crew on it and send it out to at least patrol systems, if not take part in full fleet actions. Even an important objective like AR-558 where Starfleet was holding a Dominion communication array, Starfleet didn't have the resources to fully defend it at first, despite its importance. In Treachery, Faith, and the Great River, we saw how difficult it could be to obtain replacement parts to fix even the Defiant.
Basically, it all represents the fact that Captain Picard can be certain his Enterprise will have the best of everything, while Captain Nobody will be lucky just to get all of his phasers operational and maybe partially upgraded before he has to fly off into battle again, hoping that his next visit to a starbase will have those upgraded phasers for him, unless Captain Somebody got his name on the Quartermaster's list first.
Post by: Cleaven on January 20, 2003, 12:27:50 am
Of course I would prefer the "you are a line captain and you will do as you are told" option.
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 20, 2003, 12:41:02 am
Quote:
The customization thing is what bugs me about SFC3. When you're in the Army, you are issued an M16. The caliber is 5.56mm. You cannot customize it to 7.62mm. Nor can you add a rear torpedo tube to your 688 SSN. Likewise, rear-firing Sidewinders are out for the F-15. In any regular military, you are given standard issue equipment, and you use it. Customization should be limited to Orions, who scavenge weapons where they can get them. Part of the fun of EAW is making do with a ship that's not everything you want it to be.
AMEN BROTHER!!!!! This is exactly how I feel. Couldn't have said it any better.
Post by: Credo Narth on January 20, 2003, 05:44:01 am
Essentially, whenever I get me Defiant/ Akira/ Galaxy/ Sovereign (which are the only ships I'll use), I'll end up loading them out in exactly the same way I loaded them out the time before. If I were in SFC2, it would have been a variant that I would have been going for, like the CLC/ BCF/ DNH. At the end of the day, it doesn't make any difference that I can bung in some new weapons and come up with a new variant, I'll stick with what I've got.
I've also decided that SFc2 is simply too good to be ignored for SFC3. The Gameraiders review said it all for me, really. So I'll be reinstalling the old game this week... Which leads me to ask what the best D2 servers there are out there. Anyone?
Post by: Aenigma on January 20, 2003, 07:52:27 am
)Aenigma,
In The Service of The Empire
Post by: Robb Stark on January 20, 2003, 08:17:27 am
Quote:
The customization thing is what bugs me about SFC3. When you're in the Army, you are issued an M16. The caliber is 5.56mm. You cannot customize it to 7.62mm. Nor can you add a rear torpedo tube to your 688 SSN. Likewise, rear-firing Sidewinders are out for the F-15. In any regular military, you are given standard issue equipment, and you use it. Customization should be limited to Orions, who scavenge weapons where they can get them. Part of the fun of EAW is making do with a ship that's not everything you want it to be.
And I reject the notion that the various fleets in the Star Trek universe should somehow directly mirror the modern military in their procedures and operations. First of all, the difference in technology is such that it's silly to assume an equivalent. This is something I already discussed with Hypergol on the last iteration of this thread, previous forum.
But secondly, since when does the U.S. Military "explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations, and boldy go where no one has gone before?" Is that part of the armed forces mandate that I missed somewhere? U.S. naval captains do not have the same kind of autonomy that Kirk and Picard did. How many warships have a "science officer?" Much less a science officer that is the second in command. And so forth.
Starfleet is not the U.S. Navy. It's mission is far broader and its goals a great deal more multifaceted. As a result, its ships and crews have to be more flexible and adaptable. To me, customization fits in perfectly with that vision. A captain given the responsibility to execute such a diverse variety of missions has the leeway to customize their ship as they see fit.
Post by: theRomulan on January 20, 2003, 11:35:39 am
Secondly, I think everyone is just on a 'hail SFC2' drug trip. I remember this forum would be filled with nothing but flames for SFC2 for at least two years. Magic Photons, plasma overpowered, some romulan ship that can fly speed 31, charge all weapons AND reinforce shields, etc etc. Now SFC3 comes out, has a change in atmosphere, and the board's attitude does a complete 180. Seems like everyone is hopping the bandwagon to me.
Also, the idea that everyone liked being force to fly a ship not of their choosing is also kind of shallow. In the end, when you saw your best ship in the ship yard, you went and got it. That was the end of it. Yes, in SFC3 you will encounter moments where you will probably outfit your ship to the exact specifications that you desire, all the time. However, keep in mind that the D3 servers are nowhere near the level of development of the D2 servers right now. D2 servers, through all the pain and bugs and crashes, has finally stabilized a bit, the alt f4 teenagers are gone, and you've got some mature, dedicated players on there. You get to FEEL like you're flying a ship that you don't quite want but have to have because the servers are set so that all the optimal equipment is extremely difficult to obtain, etc. Most, if not all of the D3 servers are basically set to run standard mode, meaning it's chump change trying to get new technology. The funny thing is, the D2 servers, when they finally became stable, were exactly the same way. Yeah, there were 180 ships, but I guarentee you that more than half the Dynaverse players were in that F-DDG of some kind, and I guarentee that everyone was in F-BCF or K-C7, or a KCR within moments. There was almost NEVER a situation where someone was captaining a ship they just HAD to deal with, at least not for prolonged periods. I remember going on to servers where people had battleships, and in SFC2, fighting a battleship is quite boring. I find that the battleships of SFC3, while certainly powerful, are not quite as boring as fighting in anything from SFC2.
Give SFC3 a few months. The patch will fix some issues (hopefully we can see mizia fire return in its effectiveness, the reinforcment setup for 1.00 pretty much forces everyone to alpha strike), and over time we'll get some dedicated people running their own D3 servers who will setup campaigns that will not simply give you your precious defiant hull, etc. Just like the D2 servers that are still up right now. So don't bang on SFC3 as if it's incredibly shallow and there's no such thing as difference, because D2 was pretty much the same. What made D2 even sadder was the fact that it would have not 9 hulls, but 180 some odd hulls, and out of all those, we saw about 10 make up the entire D2 population.
If anything, Starfleet Command games are something that just take time. You have to allow everyone to play the game, let the teenagers get bored and leave, let the patches filter out all the game option limiting crap, and then allow the dedicated players to create servers that are more than just a constant slug fest, something has a deep atmosphere. D2 has that now, but it most certainly didn't a few months ago. D3 does not have it quite yet, but we'll see it. Finally, if you really want a ship that you "have to fly but don't want to", SFC3 has that too. It's called controlling yourself when you refit. Use your imagination, and don't give your ship everything you want. Heck, you can go ahead and take weapons off your ship if you like. Sure, no one else is doing it, but no one was flying a crappy ship in the D2 either. They'd just keep their frigate and fly endless AI missions until they had enough money to bypass all the crappy ships. Anyway, I have a feeling that over time there will be a D3 server that isn't run of the mill, something that has rules and settings that forces players to play with "what you got or what you can get". Cheers.
Post by: Aenigma on January 20, 2003, 11:51:36 am
And by the way, i am a teenager still
( in 17 days i won't be anymore )Aenigma,
In The Service of The Empire
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 20, 2003, 12:49:42 pm
Quote:
Okay okay people. First off, this is a video game that is about 'Starfleet'; any argument that says this imaginary space fleet should mirror our modern day or any previous military is kind of pointless.
There it is again.....that damn "this is a video game so who cares about realism" line.
I agreed in the previous forum that my "realism" argument will always fall to this logic. And I admit it....so put that sentence away please.......I consider it an atrocious use of "Arguments of Mass Destruction" and not fair in this debate.;)
This debate all comes down to what you prefer in gaming.....realistic simulations or fantasy.
I prefer realism for SFC because I see Star Trek as a vision of what humanity's future could be like. Fantasy is fun for other genres like Tolkien or Star Wars. It all depends on the setting of the game for me.
Post by: theRomulan on January 20, 2003, 01:25:42 pm
However, I don't feel that SFC2, with all of its ship types, has really provided that military realism mainly because of its player base. You and I might appreciate the idea that there are ships out there that are not exactly tactically sound on the dynaverse, but a majority of the players do not, and will do whatever it takes (and it usually isn't much) to avoid the vessels that are definitely more adapted for science than war (the federation is full of these). On the other end of the argument however, it would make sense for the any starfleet like organization to allow a captain with high prestige to outfit his ship according to his tactical preferences ofr a situation. Unfortunately, we also get in a situation where people outfit their vessel entirely with antimatter mines for heavy weapons, and configure their ship to go extremely fast to drop them. Cool concept if this were used in a fleet, but So far the D3 sees very little mass group stradegy and coordination, and therefore limited strategic fleet action. However, I also believe that the configurations are not too heavily abused... a lot of players are loaded out with logical, somewhat standard forms. I usually fly romulan, but I love the K'Tinga class from the klingons. I flew the K D7T all the time in SFC2 purely for the love of having photon torpedoes instead of disruptors. In SFC3, the load out of my ship isn't exactly the same, but the design is very similar. The only big change I put on my ship was that I got rid of a rear photon torpedo tube in favor of carrying bigger disruptors in the front. Photon torpedoes fully loaded in the front. I dont' go for radical designs. I try to make my designs as close as I am used to them being on SFC2.
Hopefully, after the patch, someone will pay some attention to details in terms of the atmosphere in the D3 and we'll have big coordinated attacks, fleet commanders, etc. And it will feel at least a little more 'real'.
Post by: KNF-Merlin on January 20, 2003, 01:26:05 pm
Quote:
let the teenagers get bored and leave
why is every one always bashing teenagers? i am 16 and have been playing since the week SFC1 came out.
Post by: theRomulan on January 20, 2003, 05:04:21 pm
When i say 'teenager' however, i speak of the typical crowd this game attracts: someone looking to fly a super powerful federation vessel with torpedoes that never miss, or the crowd that likes to get to f4 out of every dynaverse game for fear of losing their prized ship. I can understand not wanting to lose your best ship, but the dynaverse wasnt' meant to be a game where you play by yourself trying to get cool ships, and then fight against flies.
I'm sure you don't fit the typical mold if you've been playing since SFC1. My apologies.
Post by: Aves on January 20, 2003, 08:08:42 pm
(however I still hate it when the last Klingon or Lyran Planet is guarded by 9 DNs and all freighter fleets are protected by 2 BBs even though the evil empires only each control one planet and no additional space GRRR)
I do prefer the SFC3 ships varient structure BUT
I would like to see more hulls
at least 2 more races
eras (early middle late)
some real racial flavor beyond cloaks
and some REAL variety in weapons beyond plasmas
When all is said and done SFC3 COULD have more variety
BUT
SFC2 does have more for now.
Post by: Whiplash on January 20, 2003, 10:50:25 pm
As wilder (and less likely) wishing, I wonder if it would work to have them to go all the way back to the Kirk days and give us some of those ships in the low end. I'd also like to see the Enterprise-C style ship. Maybe the uber ships of the future we say in the series finale. I wonder if they could do anything special with time ships from the far future?
W.
Post by: SL-Punisher on January 21, 2003, 03:50:35 am
Trek, and specifically SFB, creates a universe with its own rules, limitations, and methods of play. So one could argue, that based on those rules, a given situation might or might not be "Realistic".
With all the material out there (Stories, models, hell ive seen spock underwear) there is plenty to create a viable universe, all based on human exploits in the future. This is where the "Non-realistic" arguement fails. You see we understand it isn't real, but just because its imagined dosen't mean there aren't rules that govern our little fantasy universe. Who has fun in a universe that changes constantly with no real physics? If your a fan of Allice in Wonderland perhaps. For the rest of us we enjoy this universe because, in many ways, it is plausable.
So any arguements made on the basis of realism are made based not on real life, but on our little universe we've created here.
And why not? ::pulls out phaser set to kill:: Do you have a problem with that?!?!
Post by: Mr. Hypergol on January 21, 2003, 03:34:53 pm
Quote:
Trek, and specifically SFB, creates a universe with its own rules, limitations, and methods of play. So one could argue, that based on those rules, a given situation might or might not be "Realistic".
With all the material out there (Stories, models, hell ive seen spock underwear) there is plenty to create a viable universe, all based on human exploits in the future. This is where the "Non-realistic" arguement fails. You see we understand it isn't real, but just because its imagined dosen't mean there aren't rules that govern our little fantasy universe. Who has fun in a universe that changes constantly with no real physics? If your a fan of Allice in Wonderland perhaps. For the rest of us we enjoy this universe because, in many ways, it is plausable.
So any arguements made on the basis of realism are made based not on real life, but on our little universe we've created here.
These are great points. Realism is still important even in a fictional setting.
Good gaming requires strict limitations. If it's easy to win there's no challenge and winning means nothing. Star Fleet Battles and the previous SFC's are great games because they put lots of limitations on players. It's my opinion that full customization in SFC3 diminishes this element. That's why I think SFC2's system of refitted varients was better. You often had to deal with a less than perfect ship. This was more challenging and a better simulation of what a starship captain would likely face.
Post by: EmeraldEdge on January 21, 2003, 03:54:24 pm
Post by: Argos65987 on January 21, 2003, 05:28:46 pm
Quote:
First of all I like SFC3, and love SFC2
(however I still hate it when the last Klingon or Lyran Planet is guarded by 9 DNs and all freighter fleets are protected by 2 BBs even though the evil empires only each control one planet and no additional space GRRR)
I do prefer the SFC3 ships varient structure BUT
I would like to see more hulls
at least 2 more races
eras (early middle late)
some real racial flavor beyond cloaks
and some REAL variety in weapons beyond plasmas
When all is said and done SFC3 COULD have more variety
BUT
SFC2 does have more for now.
Very well said. Except I liked the SFC2 varients over SFC3 customizing. I really don't think that one version is better than another, it is just my opinion on the subject.
Post by: Whiplash on January 21, 2003, 06:07:41 pm
W.
Post by: ragamer on January 22, 2003, 06:20:29 am
(either by customization or by variants) is needed?. Some ppl talked about real Navy... That's interesting,
real Navy needs to be successfull in REAL MISSIONS. I think that the real problems of BOTH SFC2 and SFC3 are
related to the victory conditions of their missions (both Dyna and Solo). I think that 'Mission Simplicity'
problem is very frustating in SFC because single mission's lack of strategic impact on Dyna. Actually, the UBER
ship concept is that ship which can ELIMINATE the oposition most efficiently, because in Dyna is the only
strategic impact that you can have... Reducing enemy Navy.
If you want a specialized Navy you need to have different strategic 'winning conditions' or tasks.
I work as a programmer and I know that actual Dyna3 is designed to be a low-load server, that's why it is so simple
to run (compared with the hardware needed to run Commercial MMOG) but I think that with a few changes the Dyna
experience could be greatly enchanced (the following ideas are based on SFC3, which Dyna implementation is much
better than Dyna2 IMHO):
- Add a component called AUTONOMY that allow a ship to reach a number of hexes FROM THE NEAREST ALLIED BASE,
(Autonomy I (1 hex) and so on. This component could be included sacrifying ANY other weight pool. So if an empire
wish to make deep raids on enemy territory It should have LONG RANGE variants/models that sacrify some features to
be able to attack far hexes. If a Ship is in a prohibited hex (due to base destruction or whatever) it could be
instantly transported back to the nearest valid hex, destroyed or more interesting, forced to move at slow speeds.
- Make REAL scan missions where a enemy Ship/Structure can only be visible in Dyna (an arbitrary amount of server's
turns) if an allied ship performs a successfull Scan Mission on it. Maybe you can have a variant on this where your
passive structures can only detect enemy contacts and to have Specific info on size/type/load you need to perform a
Scan Mission.
- I think that's an error to have diferent independent weight pools in the customization model. Component control
should be implemented by component functionality and requirements. I mean if you have an actual hull with 4 pools
of 5000 each one, I should allow a big single pool of 20000 with ALL the components substracting from it. This of
course could allow potentially EXTREME customizations but if the components have real functionality then is up to
the user to decide how he want to play. Of couse to have this, a number of extreme changes should be made:
* Sensors Should Appear in two variants: Long range (for detecting presence of enemy), and Targeting (to
achieve weapon's fire solutions). Long range sensors should increase the detection power as they increase
in size and power requirements, while targeting sensors should increase aiming efficiency (and maybe
allowing or not subsystem targeting).
* Cloaking should be more deadly. I mean, allowing shooting while cloaked and things like that. But should be
more energy stressing. In that way, oposing fleets should always have at least a Good Recon Ship to have a
chance against a cloaked enemy. Cloaking systems simply decrease the detection distance as they increase in
size and power (of course, Enemy Long range sensors should increase that distance). Of course a cloaked ship
outside it's detection range SHOULD BE TOTALLY UNDETECTABLE but its shots NOT. Also a cloaked captain SHOULD
know when is detected (or at least targeted with fire sensors).
* Transporters should increase the transporting range as they increase in size and power. If you want to have
multiple transporters, then you have to include multiple ones, period.
* Tractor beams should increase capture range as they increase in size and power. If you want to have a
stronger grip, then equip multiple beams and target ALL of them to the same target.
* Warp Core should be divided in two subcomponents: Warp Engine (Increases warp speed or decreases warp
engaging time) and Warp Reactor (increases power output).
- Heavy weapons should have a 'prefered target' design. I mean each Heavy weapon should be more efficient
based on the kind of target it is fired at. Actually Torpedoes (plasma and photon) seem to have preference for static
targets but I'm not so convinced thet they are more energy efficient than phaser/disruptors. In that way you could
have the tactic variety of SFC2 and their specialized Heavies. Examples of kind of targets could be: Static
Structures, Shielded Targets, Unshielded Targets. And they should have SPECIAL effects beyond damage (let your
imagination fly.. Its SciFi :-)).
- The borg... Though subject. I think that they should remain THE ULTIMATE ENEMY but to balance them, a single step
needs to be done... As they are a really different culture, why they gain prestige as the others. Borg captains should
gain prestige ONLY from ASSIMILATED (aka captured) ships and from successfull assimilation missions. In that way,
the same mission will be harder for a borg because he will have to achieve a mayor degree of success and take more
risks to achieve the same prestige reward. On top of that, their production scheme is invasive, so planets hold by the
borg should decrease their production over time to force the borg to conquest (see below Construction Points Flow
Model).
- Include a Construction Points Flow Model. The actual economic system is simple but limits the players' impact on it.
I think that another simple model could be better. Each planet produces a number of production points per turn also
some harvestable hexes produce them if the correct Structure is built into it. That production points are spent on
maintaining the defensive structures, repairing and refiting the navy, and building new ships and structures. But
the funny thing is that production points need to travel from one place to another in convoys. Each structure have
a number of construction points to spend (so it could be posible that a starbase could no longer repair a ship due to
lack of building points). The ideal situation could be controlling each convoy as a Dyna entity but to decrease server
load this could be modeled as transport lanes (special hex property, amount of building points transported through
this hex per turn). So if a pirate successfully raids that hex or destroys that convoy, the receiving facility will
start to loose building points. To prevent variable overflows and things like that you could include limits on the
store capacity. If a facility that requires maintenance lack the necesary points, it could appear in the missions
damaged or even disabled (the same that could happen with a player ship that is in a starbase without enough building
points to perform a full repair or modification).
Well all of this can be in short expressed as: "If you always do the same job, you always use the same tool".
As usual, excuse me for the length and for my barbaric english.
Post by: Whiplash on January 22, 2003, 11:00:47 pm
W.
Post by: Whiplash on January 22, 2003, 11:12:32 pm
I want complete SFB on the computer, in the form of SFC:GAW, with all the missing parts added in, and staying as reasonably true to SFB/SFC as you can. No warping around or any such nonsense. If it has a campaign mode, it should function much like F&E.
I also want a Next Generation-like persistent universe where my month online behaves somewhat like a season of TNG, and is a cross between Bridge Commander and SFC3. Heavy on the combat, with SFC-like combat, but with mystery scenarios and storylines unfolding, and real-world maintenance issues. I want to be able to warp out and explore new star systems, resupply at DS9, get my ship beat up in the Badlands while hunting Maquis raiders, and run out of my supply of photon torpedoes. I want to be told I can get a brand new state-of-the-art tractor beam that turns out to be a turkey, and be told the parts to repair my phasers up to full strength won't be available for 2 weeks. I'll have to make do with an older fire-control system until then.
Yeah, it'd be very cool.
I think I'm just daydreaming. I don't know how a universe like that could be persistent and coordinated over thousands of players playing at different times and number of hours each day, and sometimes not even logging in for a week.
W.