Ok, nothing I could do would make the sample third generation SSD into a postable format, so I created another one. You can see just exactly how many minutes it took me to do, but of course, I'm SURE I did not do it in a format that Paul could use, as I have no idea how to do a live box. But it would look like this:



Which is every bit as functional as what you have, avoid hunting for that other battery, and you don't have to count anything as it's counted for you.

Frankly, if you don't like this, I'm ready to see SFBOL shut down as nothing will make you happy except ADB filing bankruptcy.

By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:03 pm: Edit

Steve. I like it!

Gregg

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:05 pm: Edit

Loving it alot.

By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:08 pm: Edit

That looks like it will be easier to make definitions, actually. Once you get used to it, it will be as functional, if less aesthetically appealing.

Let me ask a few questions. Some for you and some for Paul.

1. Is the simplified outline just part of the mock up or can we expect to have a more traditional SFB ship silhouette? In fact, with the SSD being less cluttered, could we have enhanced Fed Com style silhouettes?

2. Does this new directive apply to Fed Com as well?

3. Does it apply to the tournament ships (which are freely downloadable at the ADB site anyway)?

4. [To Paul] How will H&R be done now, since there are no longer distinct boxes for, for example, tractors?

5. [To Paul] Same question re: firing, since there is no longer Phaser-1 #1 (FH), Phaser-1 #2 (FH), etc?

Thanks.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:08 pm: Edit

That seems totally usable to me. I thought there would be no ship outline at all which I would have missed, but this is good.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:18 pm: Edit

Would it be possible to maintain the current graphical SSD format for the tournament cruisers on SFBOL? These are currently available as freely available PDF downloads from ADB anyway. And the coding for displaying them is all completed - and tournament "rooms" are segregated from generic SFB games in SFBOL. I'd be willing to pay a premium just to maintain that. It is difficult for me to schedule time away from my family/work to set up a FTF game. SFBOL has let me re-create a facsimile of the FTF experience; indeed a nostalgic journey back to my twenties; in a sense because it does look so much like the pencil and paper version.

With regards to the new format Steve has shown in general "SFB" or "SFB Campaign Rooms", I'd think by not including R information; or master annex info on the SSD, you'd pretty much exclude the table top players using SFBOL to print useable SSDs.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:22 pm: Edit

Guys, guys, guys...

this isn't my format or my idea, so I'm just guessing.

1. I'm ok with anything from this up.

2. Let's talk about FC later. I can only slay one giant at a time.

3. Not worried about tournament ships.

4/5. I think a protocol can be worked out.

No ship outline at all: Are you crazy? Do you think I am? Pashaw.

DZ: see #3 above.

By Shawn Hantke (Shantke) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:27 pm: Edit

I will play devils advocate here...

Why wouldn't the pirates just steal the new ones and play the game with these new SSDs?

I think they would be good enough to play with on the client.

These SSDs are different enough from the standard SSDs I would buy printed and e23 books of them for reference to play on SFB Online. The numbered boxes would be good for comparing SSDs and ships anyway. Maybe printing/selling them as some sort of SFB Online reference manuals corresponding to the SSD books. (SFB Basic Set Online reference SSD book, SFB R12 Online Reference SSD book etc) having printed versions for reference would make the Online library conversions easier anyway. Also two could fit on a page, making the ref books cheaper than full SSD books and it would make up for the lost pirate sales.

By David Zimdars (Zimdarsdavid) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:33 pm: Edit

With regards to Paul's question #5, perhaps you could maintain the complete list of weapons in the "weapon status" tables, for example Photon A, B, C, D, Phaser 3 #11, etc. You'd have to look at that table to see which weapon actually was destroyed of the 4 photons, for example. Thats a bit less graphically convenient; but if you had the Photon [4] box subtitled as A, B, C, D a pen and paper person could just check those off. But perhaps SVC could consider whether that is effectively ugly enough that a tabletop player wouldn't want to bother.

* * *

Is it possible for the program to limit you to accessing no more than 32 SSDs of any type? This could be tracked on the server? Then if you want to access another 32, you'd have to pay more? And pay more than just buying the books etc.? Just accessing an SSD and browsing it graphically would count as one you used. This way no body could screen capture the whole library without paying through the nose.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:34 pm: Edit

You can't really play tabletop SFB with them because you have no checkboxes to check.

DZ; Not sure you loyal good customers would WANT to pay through the nose, but a system where every month you got access to 8 more might be workable. Any member in good standing could be grandfathered back a year. Or something. You're into Paul's area.

I don't know if what I did would be something that Paul could use that would speed things up but I could do one a day. There are only so many.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:37 pm: Edit

In answer to Paul Scott's question #1

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:37 pm: Edit

They definatly would be playable on the client. There are a few little missing bits like sensor, scanner, dam con and excess damage tracks of some sort. Also het, Breakdown, UIM, Cloak hit and run etc. But its a good start and if it does what ADB hopes its certainly not a big deal for us to accept.

Those of us who have to play online depend on this fixing the problem for ADB, or we will be looking for a new game to play, because either ADB going bankrupt or SFBOL shutting down ends our gaming.

I for one dont want either to happen.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:37 pm: Edit

And I'm not promising Paul could or would do this but I thought it was cool....

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:39 pm: Edit

"missing bits like sensor, scanner, dam con and excess damage tracks"

I started from an FC card which doesn't have those, but they're easy to add. And no, I'm not going to add them now.

By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:54 pm: Edit

1. I love it! This actually has me excited for the change to go through. I'd personally do the tournament ships in your FC hybrid format. I really love it.

2. There are some technical issues to overcome, so hopefully Paul hope Paul will give some input soon. In addition to addition to those I mentioned, there is also how to handle partial repairs.

Really looking forward to this. Paul,please tell us how we can help make this happen.
Rally

By Xander Fulton (Dderidex) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 08:59 pm: Edit

I see it's noted above, but, yeah...you'd really think doing it this way will actually make adding new ships to SFBOL *faster*, as there is no concern over placement and aligning of blocks of squares - is it 2 x 10 or 4 x 5, etc. Just a simple number.

This is definitely very acceptable to my way of thinking!

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 09:09 pm: Edit

Honestly, I thought you guys had seen the sample a year ago. That's why I could not understand the resistance.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 09:24 pm: Edit

I have never seen them, this topic was inactive for nearly a year.

Im sure glad the subject came up again because these do look fantastic, really going to be a pleasure to use them. I think they will be alot easier on my eyes.

I think the fear was that it would be a spreadsheet type view.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 09:39 pm: Edit

SVC,

Thanks for posting the SSDs. With the nice silhouette, I see the online product as being superior in some ways. Thanks also for considering the premimum idea. I identified the same technical issues as Paul Scott, but I imagine that Paul Franz can work those out.

Paul Scott and Paul Franz: Another technical issue for the new SSD format is down-repairs. For example, there should be some way of indicating that a phaser 1 has been down-repaired as a ph-3. It may be that notes on the EAF will be required, but at least give it some thought.

By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 09:44 pm: Edit

Ted,
That is what I meant by "partial repair."

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Those Fed-Com styled ones are definitely cool.

By Paul Scott (The_Rock) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 09:54 pm: Edit

"I think the fear was that it would be a spreadsheet type view."

Exactly. See, for those using SFBOL for a long time, we all remember the "generic unit" - which was a fantastic option to have at the start when there were not many definitions. I will tell you that I assumed we would be getting something like that, which is very much "spreadsheet-like."

The Fed Com style SSDs Steve posted (both of them, though I really love the color one), however, are not just acceptable, they are exceptionally cool and I think quite a bit better than the standard SFB SSDs currently available.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 10:19 pm: Edit

If the numbers are dynamic then they might not print out (or could be made to not print out). So the only way to get a functional SSD would be to do a screen capture. (Assuming one would consider this a functional SSD for table top play. One could simply make tick marks on scratch paper... ick.)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 10:48 pm: Edit

Even a screen capture isn't an issue so far as I'm concerned. (Please stop trying to find problems that would make me halt this.)

I think I need to also make it very clear that I'm not complaining about Paul Franz. He knows the technical issues, but I want to encourage him to make a start. The momentum will build on it's own.

By Fred J. Kreller (Kreller1) on Tuesday, August 28, 2012 - 10:59 pm: Edit

I really like the last example you posted, Steve, and it certainly voids the fear I had of something far, far uglier replacing the current SSD and ship cards.