Josh: While your last post was very calm and reasonable, your rant does deserve a point by point answer.

As you requested that your rant be deleted, my reply to it is no longer relevant.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 02:03 pm: Edit

Paul Scott: I never imagined I'd thank you for being "the voice of reason" but thanks.

I am hardly misguided. I'm an engineer, and fuzzy vague maybe things are the realm of marketing. I deal in hard numbers.

I've seen the SFBOL library re-uploaded on pirate sites and counted the number of downloads. HARD NUMBER.

I've seen the drop in sales of new SFB modules during the time they were appearing on SFBOL. HARD NUMBER.

I've seen people on this and other BBS systems advising others to "buy one month of SFBOL to get everything for free" and "rejoin twice a year to get all the new SSDs". That's a FACT.

No, I'm not misguided. You're just wishing the facts were not what they are. I wish they were otherwise myself.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 02:08 pm: Edit

Ted: The fee idea is one we have discussed. It's tricky to implement, and would probably have to be paid directly to ADB, and would probably be a very serious fraction of the retail cost of the product, and would be an alternative to buying it from the cart, but that has been considered.

A lot of ideas have been kicked around. Some of them might work, most won't. Some kind of "your first month you can only get 24 SSDs unlocked, then so many a month" would cut down on the guys doing free product downloads, but seriously, if we go to Third Generation (which you'd all love even if there was no discussion of anything we've discussed) that point becomes irrelevant and I'd hate to make Paul do the extra work.

I really need Paul to talk to me but he seems out of pocket at the moment. We're all hoping he wasn't in an automobile accident, or kidnapped by aliens. (I can negotiate with the aliens to get him back but I don't want to call them if he's .)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 02:13 pm: Edit

Just for note, I'm so tickled by the new PC Leanna bought me (so I don't have to go down the hall to see 70% of the internet) that it's going to be very hard to antagonize me.

Seriously, the problems here are solvable (by third generation and a product purchase system). the new SSDs are so superior that if we did them to stop the free downloads you'd think we were doing them to improve customer service (which they will). The second generation SSDs have to be taken down as soon as possible, which is why movement needed to begin months ago on third generation. I'm not promising we can get every second generation SSD replaced instantly, and there may come a time that some of them have to go and be replaced at a short later interval, but we can all manage that. It would perhaps be a case of prioritizing the replacement of ships you guys want to use as opposed to those you'd vaguely like to know are there but you probably won't use.

The panic is not helping.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 02:16 pm: Edit

I know I answered this but the post isn't there. I know that they tech guys are messing with the connections getting VALKYRIE up and running so maybe one of my posts got lost. anyway...

"Then how does that small fraction of users account for the drop in sales of Modules? Is it possible that the drop in sales have factors other than the switch in SFB Online SSDs to second generation. Did other things happen and SFB Online is talking all the blame?"

Two issues here.

The number of people playing a new product on line is X. The number of people who are downloading the new product is much much bigger.

The drop is sales matches precisely the time that the free downloads started. So those who abused SFBOL are getting exactly the share of blame they deserve.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 02:32 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

Ted: The fee idea is one we have discussed. It's tricky to implement, and would probably have to be paid directly to ADB, and would probably be a very serious fraction of the retail cost of the product, and would be an alternative to buying it from the cart, but that has been considered.

---

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 02:45 pm: Edit

I don't think there's a way to have the cart automatically notify Paul. That's a drawback, but waiting for Leanna to come in the next morning is a small delay to tolerate.

I'm not sure it really helps the brick and mortar stores. May in fact be worse for them than the current system, as someone who would normally buy there can now get an "online discount store" version of the product for less money. Retailers HATE that, which is why that isn't currently locked in as part of the overall plan.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 02:55 pm: Edit

SVC, OK.

By the way, the only reason I suggested (if feasible) the auto-email to Paul F is not because of delay for the player to access SFBOL products, but rather to ease workload on Leanna - or whoever is tasked with notifying Paul.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 02:58 pm: Edit

I had to go check something (*), but it does appear that a certain "factor" has made it not necessary to delete the 2nd generation in the near term, so long as we see a continuing stream of them replaced by third generation starting fairly soon.

(*)I didn't want to promise no quick deletions until I had that factor confirmed. Sorry that my deliberate vagueness on this point made some think it was a loophole for me to pull the plug tomorrow. There was never any possibility of "today" or "this week" deletions, but they should all be replaced in a small number of months.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Ted: that workload is fairly trivial. But as someone who now and then buy's a month of membership to some cool website, having to wait to the next morning for the owner's wife to show up for work would be really annoying.

By Josh Driscol (Gfb) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 03:43 pm: Edit

Fear of losing the only hobby I really enjoy stirred up alot of anger in me.

You and Jean took the time to respond to me point by point even though I was very upset, and I feel that does show you care about your individual players. That makes me feel like you do care about both tournament players and non tournament players, and those who like a little bit of both. Im in one of those groups and I feel much better knowing that you really do care about us as customers.

You invented this game around the time of my birth, I very much hope Star Fleet Battles outlives all of us. Its had a huge impact on me for about 20 years, and I really do care about this game you created. Dont think for one moment that you thinking me a blathering fool doesnt sting, It does and probably will keep stinging for a long time.

If you look back a couple days in this topic I was offering to help with an SSD converion project because it was my understanding that they needed changed to a new format or new ships would never be made available on SFBOL. I had no idea that bringing the topic up would stir up days and days of fierce debate and fears that SFBOL would be shut down.

I started to feel like I had opened Pandora's box and the end result would be the end of my favorite hobby. Not because of what pirates have done but because I sometimes dont know when to zip my trap. You have no idea how horrible I would feel knowing that I caused SFBOL to cease to exist when I love the place and the game.

I would still love to help with the SSD conversions, but im not sure my help is even wanted at this point.

I want to apologize to SVC for my inflamatory statements, I dont think I can respond point by point at this time, but the players and game designer deserve an apology for making a bad situation worse.

I can't make it all go away or I would, my hope is that someday it will be purged from the BBS as part of the natural cleaning process Jean does. I responded in anger to statements I did not understand and now I feel like a blathering idiot.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 04:01 pm: Edit

Yes, all help is wanted. Lots of SSDs need done.

We'll talk about new products after we get some momentum going.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 04:34 pm: Edit

Josh, we all make mistakes and sometimes react in a mixture of fear and anger. What you need to remember is that it takes a good man to admit his error and apologize.

That makes you a good man. Take that away with you, too.

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 04:39 pm: Edit

I haven't seen it mentioned before, but for new products bought at B&M stores, could the player not clip and mail off to ADB the barcode from the cover, or a "proof of purchase" tab that is printed on the cover? The proof of purchase tab could have a spot to fill in your SFBOL account info, and when ADB (or Paul?) gets it that content can then be activated? This way you have more difficulty falsely duplicating something (like photographing the thing in the store). I guess someone could try to print one on cardstock, but I think it would be hard to match the actual product with basic inkjet/laser printers.

By Kenneth Jones (Kludge) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 05:11 pm: Edit

I've only been able to scan this topic so if this has been covered I apologize.

There are only two SFB modules that I haven't purchased over the years. Module M and the new Andro's since I haven't gotten around to them yet.

The barcodes etc etc are fiscally useless to me since most of that material has been tossed as irrelevant. How would I provide "Proof" that i owned the modules? I mean a lot of them are pretty darn beat up etc etc

I can tell you right now if I have to repurchase material I'll simply wave bye bye and go on my merry way since there is about as much chance of me spending that much money on something I already own as I have of spontaneously combusting.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 05:16 pm: Edit

Kenneth, we aren't going to require proof for most of the older modules -- the ones already on SFBOL.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 05:19 pm: Edit

Yes, Kenneth, you didn't read the topic.

YOu won't have to repurchase old stuff.

We may have a technical problem with something relatively new (eg. borak) which isn't on SFBOL but isn't totally new. If we print C6 then you'll be good with that when you buy it. Stuff like AdvMis we're not going to try to make people prove they own. The gray spot is products already out but never on SFBOL. If you bought those from ADB you're good. Otherwise, that's a problem to be solved.

The proof of purchase thing isn't really that workable as you could get one from somebody who isn't on SFBOL. Other companies have found people at Origins and Gencon actively trading unused proof of purchase codes and stuff.

By A. David Merritt (Adm) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 05:40 pm: Edit

SVC's last post raises an interesting question re: unused codes.

Quote:
"The proof of purchase thing isn't really that workable as you could get one from somebody who isn't on SFBOL. Other companies have found people at Origins and Gencon actively trading unused proof of purchase codes and stuff. "

IF a given code can only be used once, does it really matter if the original buyer decides to resell it, if he has no use for it?

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 05:45 pm: Edit

It's true that the majority of games played on SFBOL are tournament-style games. There are a few reasons for this. First, those games play faster and more importantly, set up instantly. Setting up a scenario on SFBOL takes an hour or so (just like setting up a tabletop scenario). You also have to agree on which scenario since most people don't really like BPV battles, and even those take time to set up. Second, SFBOL's heritage was tournament-only and so, for better or worse, the "default" game (in the minds of the players, not the client, which is neutral on the issue) is tournament-style.

There are some players who play only tournament-style games, but certainly not 90%.

Of the players who play both styles, I think most prefer the non-tournament style, it's just that it's harder to get a game going.

--------

In reality, there are only a few dozen players that actually are impacted by the availability of online SSDs. Hopefully, Paul will send out an email to the entire subscriber base advising everyone to buy things through the online store if they want to use them on SFBOL. Proof of purchase systems can wait until it is proven that there are real customers having problems.

Here is the thing. My proposals as well as most of the others are based on tackling the problem where there are a lot of impacted people. My whole job revolves around this stuff so I do know what I am talking about. No system is 100% perfect so the goal of proof of purchase systems is to solve 90% of it (although the latest online-only games are approaching 100% in piracy prevention). However, with only a small number of people affected and most of them knowing what to do to avoid the problem, there will probably (hopefully) only ever be maybe half a dozen people who have trouble. ADB can handle them offline.

It would be great if 90% of the people buying the modules were playing on SFBOL (and I honestly do not understand why they are not, because SFBOL is so much better than the tabletop game). In a case like that unique codes would work great and cover clippings would work reasonably well. But as it is, SFBOL players are, what, 10% of the total? There would be too many codes/clippings/whatever floating around. There are other options I haven't mentioned, but it is starting to strike me as over-engineering for a relatively small problem. But I don't have to handle ADB's customer service, either. I am happy to revisit the issue if and when it is necessary.

This also goes for buying SFBOL access separately from the actual product. It does not compete with retailers: The online access can't be used to play tabletop (no text and only 3rd generation SSDs), and the product sold by retailers can't be used to play online. So there is no overlap. But it is probably just not needed for now.

--------

Captain's Logs do include new ships. Since new ships are not the primary focus, maybe those could go online without "proof of purchase" - or maybe not, it's up to ADB.

--------

Does the current SFBOL software actually even support 3rd generation SSDs? I have never seen one. We will need to actually play some games with them to figure out what needs to be fixed before we can do the full scale conversion project. As mentioned, I am willing to write a program to do the conversion (or most of the conversion) if Paul tells me how to write the new format.

Fighter SSDs need to be completely redone anyway, so I won't convert those (it's also not clear if they need to be converted - the master fighter chart already contains all the information that goes on a fighter SSD).

Paul will have to add the access control capability before any new products can be put online anyway.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, August 30, 2012 - 05:54 pm: Edit

The problem with the proof of purchase resale thing is that it is training customers to lie and cheat. That's just offensive.

The problem with separate online access is this. It's either cheap enough that it becomes a money losing alternative to us actually selling the products, or it is expensive enough to cause players who want both to become really upset.

Captain's Log SSDs. Yeah, that's one we're gonna have to think about. Now, if my sneaky plan was to eliminate all retailers, that would be cool, but it's not, so it isn't.

Yes, there is much to be done but sooner started is sooner finished.

By William T Wilson (Sheap) on Friday, August 31, 2012 - 12:58 am: Edit

So, some leftovers from the talkshoe call regarding SSD definitions...

Overall a good talk. Authentication issue is postponed indefinitely. Generation-3 SSDs seem to have a consensus and a lot of people want to do them with FC-style backgrounds instead of plain outlines, which is mostly a question of doing more work vs. having not-as-pretty SSDs. But there are some implementation questions around the new SSDs.

The fact is that systems still have to be tracked at a per-box level. I tried to discuss this on the call but Paul would not listen. There are a lot of players who have expressed worries.

If the SSDs don't work or can't be used to play the game properly, no one will want to make new SSDs or use them and this project will not succeed. So this has to be done right.

Here is a partial list of things that require individual box level tracking and will not work otherwise: Hasty repairs, shuttlebays (or rather their contents), guards on all systems not covered in D7.837, weapons of all types, tractor beams (technically any system that is individually activated, but tractors are most important) - effectively, almost everything on the ship except armor, shields, hull, control spaces, excess damage, and as a trivial exception, anything there's only one of on the ship. Even labs and cargo get guarded occasionally depending on the scenario. Even with D7.837, engines need box-level tracking, because they are so frequently the subject of hasty repairs. Sensor/scanner/damcon too. Numbers not at the top of damcon are required for EDR. Sensor/scanner come up less frequently, ship separation being the only rule coming to mind where they matter, but players will still want to know if their sensors are going to fall apart with the next hit or not.

To prevent the SSDs from being copied and used tabletop, it's necessary to condense the DISPLAY of the SSD boxes, but not the REPRESENTATION of the SSD boxes. The game rules, most of them, must operate on individual boxes.

So to fix that, you make the game display the summary version of the boxes, but actually track state of the individual boxes. The client doesn't actually display the individual boxes (at least not most of the time and certainly not all at once), so even by taking screenshots, you can't convert the new-style SSD into a traditional SSD.

Each box on the ship is then assigned to a "box group." There could be more than one box group for a given type of system, for instance, phasers with different arcs, ships with multiple shuttlebays, or Klingons with security stations in both the boom and main hull. The box group with the summary information that has already been discussed is what is actually displayed on the SSD.

When you click on a box group, you get a popup that displays the boxes in their original/actual configuration (please don't make the popup one of the ones that reorders all the windows). This popup can then be used for H&Rs, looking at damage in detail, repairs or anything where individual boxes matter. You can only have one such popup open at a time (I, actually, would not make it a popup at all, but rather a lightweight Swing child of the SSD panel, so it can't wander out of the SSD window).

As always whenever there is a new feature needing to be implemented, I volunteer to help write the code.

By Randy Blair (Randyblair) on Friday, August 31, 2012 - 09:52 am: Edit

Ok, so does all that mean we're ready to get started?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 31, 2012 - 11:19 am: Edit

On the contrary, Paul listened quite well and the issues will be addressed. We were aware of them ahead of time, and there are ways to handle them. Frankly, way too much sturm and drang is going into a tiny piece of rule that is rarely used and easily handled.

You don't need little boxes to note guards as you don't note them there anyway. How are guards done in SFB tabletop? with a little chart that says "things I guarded". Sheesh, this is not an issue.

Partial repairs just need a notation system that in effect creates a new phaser-3 box or APR or whatever.

By Stephen McCann (Moose) on Friday, August 31, 2012 - 01:01 pm: Edit

SVC,
Actually, in SFBOL you do note the guard assignments on your SSD. This enable the system to automatically resolve hit and run raids. Just an FYI.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, August 31, 2012 - 01:13 pm: Edit

And it can just as easily be done the other way.

You're just not going to have individual SSD boxes on third generation, and don't need them.