Archive through February 07, 2019

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Star Fleet Battles Online: Tournaments: RAT48/RA18Q2: Archive through February 07, 2019
By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Sunday, February 03, 2019 - 10:41 pm: Edit

Marc,
1) Ron was not complaining about the interface. He was complaining (at least in the above) that people sign up and never play their game. I understand how that happens. So improving SFBOL will not change that.
2) Re-creating SFB to give a person a more in-person experience is not easy. There are a lot of things that are not simple. If you know of tools that I am unaware of that will help do it, please tell me. (Note: Things like the Unity engine don't count. I have looked at Unity and it is not designed for board games, where there are set positions and it is designed for single person play)
3) SFB has never had a game timer when played. There is are guidelines in tournament play. Like the game needs to be completed in 3 hours and it is stopped after that an adjudicated. But there are no time limits on EA and impulse. Now, I agree that this would help speed up play. But it would need to be agreed to by the players. (Note: I think this would only work in duel situation, multi-ship gets way too complicated to try to put time limits on the EA.
4) Having modern online tools is only the first step to being able to play. You need to have people to be able to find the game and there is the issue on genre. Tactics games used to be most popular games when they came out. Most games today are not tactical board games. And most of the people I interact with don't play them. They want board games like Through The Ages or card games.

I am not sure what the "Neo-SFBOL" is.

Are you talking what would be available in this new version SFBOL that you are imagining?

That is the "Academy Version" of SFBOL where you could play the Cadet Version of SFB. Tournament for playing SFB tournaments with some of the scenarios from the T Module. So people are not tied to just playing tournament game. And then have an "Ultimate version" where people have additional tools for playing using EW, fighters, PFs and the like.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Sunday, February 03, 2019 - 11:12 pm: Edit

For the Tactical board gamers out there SFBOL is good.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 01:50 am: Edit

Paul, it would just be "virtual SFB". A table with a map, dice, play aids, etc, all there as if you were sitting at a table and playing SFB. All of SFB is simply the "content" that those "game components" use to play the game at that "virtual table". That is what "Neo-SFBOL" is.

It would best be done in Unity, but there are far more simple "Game Maker" editors out their like GameTable that could also do lesser versions of it.

A chess clock would be optional and a nice option to have, and I knew people who played SFB with a chess clock in the 1980's. The person who taught me did.

You have done a great job on SFBOL, and it was and still is fine for already established hardcore SFB players. But even old school players like me see it as too primitive too be worth trying to learn, why I haven't even tried in until I am planning too now. But I grew up with primitive games, so it is just an inconvenience too me.

The SFU is not "accessible" too modern gamers. They won't even look at SFBOL and yet something like it is what the SFU needs to become if it wants to survive into the future. That is the gateway, and really primary playing location of the future. First with TC Only and some B&P scenarios, then start adding the full game matching the PDF product line.

The other alternative is that the SFU freezes in time as a legacy game and all that survives of it is what SVC and ADB can leave behind in PDF format before they close their doors.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 01:53 am: Edit

A big deal with a "Neo-SFBOL" and similar F&E "game" is that it is not at all the same thing as a "computer game" and my guess is that ADB would have no problem at all getting Paramount to agree to those types of "tools for playing the board game online".

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 01:57 am: Edit

Here's a good example...

SFB players who don't use SFBOL, raise your hands if you would play it if it was as simple as a "virtual table" you sat down at and you already knew how to play because it was just the SFB play aids you already know laid out on a virtual table?

How about you total non-computer game types... Chuck Strong? Petrick???

By Brian Evans (Romwe) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 09:10 am: Edit

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to describe, but the SFBOL client is exactly what you are describing. The SFBOL client is not a "computer game" at all.

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 12:32 pm: Edit

Yeah, I'm not really sure what is going on in this discussion.

SFBOL is exactly what Marc seems to be looking for (yo can, ya know, go and download the client, log into a demo account, and see exactly what SFBOL is and how it works; it is 100% just an interface for playing SFB on a computer, and works very much like playing at the table).

That being said, what Ron (and Seth) are discussing here is not the client. It is that, well, we have probably crossed the line into a situation where the number of people who are willing to play SFB on SFBOL is small, and a significant proportion of the people still willing to play online tend to be *incredibly* slow, and incredibly unlikely to show up at any given time that they agree to show up ahead of time. And as such, nothing ever happens.

Games on SFBOL have become, more than anything else, a situation of "I can play this game as slowly as I want, as we can always save it and play again later", which makes it kind of terrible. Yes. SFBOL does give you the ability to play super analytically, due to the lack of time actual time constraints (assuming both players are willing to play a game where you spend an hour playing 8 impulses, and then someone has to leave, and the game is saved, and then you arrange to play again, and then someone doesn't show up, and then you finally get back together online, and then spend anther hour playing another 8 impulses, and then someone has to leave again, etc., etc., etc.).

Like, games that are:

-Impulse 1: We are 20+ hexes apart. I move (ship moves). You move. (a minute passes. Someone moves something). "Thinking". (Another minute passes). "Ready".

-Impulse 2: I move (ship moves). You move. (a minute passes. Someone moves something). "Thinking". (Another minute passes). "Ready".

Etc. are a nightmare. And really, probably what most of the SFBOL games I have played in the last couple years have been (not all of them, certainly, but a lot of them).

This is a problem. And as can be seen from Ron and Seth above, probably the death knell of the game online. And as one can see from these last two tournaments, there are just too many people (of the small number of people left playing online) who will sign up, never agree to play a game, vanish, not tell anyone, we find a replacement, the replacement is all "I can play!", and then the other player from the match has given up and let their account lapse, etc.

I have no idea what a solution is. But is is definitely a problem.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 12:51 pm: Edit

Solutions to no-shows and slow games are simple. No-shows lose the game. Slow games are solved by imposing clocks and enforcing them, even if people moan about them.

However, that's not the real problem. The real problem is that *competitive* SFB tourney is a dying breed: a continually shrinking pool of old-timer sharks. Because we have trouble sometimes getting a decent number of people in the tournament, we don't want to lose members of a shrinking pool of players. So, organizers will bend over backwards to grant more time, extensions, etc.

It is what it is. Not having data I will not speculate about SFB as a *whole*, except by noting that ADB is still in business and able to employ several people, so the SFU is "alive" and "viable". However, I can observe what happens on this BBS and on the only tourney play I see happening (which is mentioned here on the BBS - I just don't see much in the way of SFB at conventions any more).

Now, if you're willing to tolerate loss of players who get mad because they are booted from a tourney because they are a no-show due to a real life issue, or if you're willing to tolerate a 1 hour long fire decision, then these things will keep happening.

However, now we're facing players who *do* show and *will get games done* getting mad and not wanting to play.

Frankly, the latter problem is worse in my opinion. It's better to have quick tourneys that are resolved fast.


As for solutions to lack of players... Honestly there's only one: "Evangalization". If we want to increase online tourney play we have to get back into the gaming stores, play SFB face to face, and get new players into the game. Hanging out among on a BBS and a SFB client where only people who know about the BBS and the SFB client will come play is a sure-fire way to watch everything decline slowly.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 12:55 pm: Edit

In my own personal opinion, I would like to see the return of the "weekend" tournament online. People show up and play their games on strict 3 hour clocks, with 5-10 minute impulse decisions, just like at FTF conventions.

Sure some players won't show. Big deal. Have more tournaments per year. Maybe even once per month or per two months, or whatever.

Frankly, an Ace card should be awarded to any winner of such a tourney. With only a few sharks left in the field anyway, anyone who can win an on-line tourney these days deserves a card, no matter how few people show up (well, minimum 2-4).

And if no one signs up? Great, cancel the tourney and reschedule for the next month.

Personally, I would like to see a tourney resolved fast.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 02:12 pm: Edit

It's a matter of "accessibility". SFBOL is functional for those willing to learn it, and those who grew up with DOS and spread sheet programs.

I don't know them well, but we've seen each other a few times over the years and they are here and can speak up for themselves if they want, so I will use them as examples. Chuck and SPP have little to no interest or experienve in computer games. Primitive spreadsheet/DOS-like SFBOL is like a puzzle too them. They aren't even going to try it unless they get VERY motivated too for some reason... right guys?

https://store.steampowered.com/app/468727/Tabletop_Simulator__Mr_Game/

But if Chuck and SPP could just "pull up a chair" to a "virtual table" and play with all of the exact play aids they already know... they might try it. They have nothing to learn, they can decide to set a time and play for the first time this weekend and easily make it through their first game on instinct alone and know how to play it online from then on.

For the new players, and there is a growing interest in table top games and a waning interest in computer games taking place for the first time ever right now, they can easily learn SFB through "Neo-SFBOL" and buying PDF SFB products to play through it.

SFBOL is not SFB, it doesn't look or feel like SFB. So much so that Chuck FREAKING Strong and Steven "Chief of Staff" Petrick can't just sit down and play it. It would take them both all afternoon just to figure it out, right?

"Accessibility"...

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 02:24 pm: Edit

I am not putting down SFBOL. I played "spreadsheet games" back in the day and could certainly play an SFB version. But new modern gamers won't, something like SFBOL needs too be the gateway too them if SFB is going to survive the end of it's development (presumably with SVC's retirement), and Paramount is only likely to allow one to exist at a time... but also I am sure fully willing to allow ADB to have "tools for playing their board games online" for any and all of their games with little to no involvement/inteferance from them.

SFBOL, F&EOL, & SFMOL would be the key to a continuing future with modern gamers for the SFU. This universe and SVC have been very influential on modern games and some day the interest of the modern gaming world is going to look back on Avalon Hill, TSR, ADB and their contemporaries again. If the SFU is in the right position to meet them... "If you build it, they will come".

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 02:29 pm: Edit

And I should add that none of this impacts potential SFU computer games which I know nothing about. It's no big secret that I have been wanting to make SFU computer games my whole life and have made several attempts at doing that in the past. None of this is related to SFU computer games, this is something that Paramount will see more as a part of the board games and separate from computer games that only SVC and they even know the "rules" of. None of this impacts any potential "real" computer games that SVC and Paramount might agree too, and I know SVC knows that already.

Also, I am not currently attempting to make SFU computer games and don't plan too in the future. I would if it came up, by my three attempts at that in the past were my last at trying to make it happen myself.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 02:53 pm: Edit

Folks, this speculation is less than productive as SVC is still recovering from surgery.

First things first. It appears that we need a new judge for this tournament. Are there any takers.

Regarding the tournament rules, you may want to reach out to Steven Petrick to see if they need some tweaking to keep things moving in an online environment.

By Andrew J Koch (Droid) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 04:46 pm: Edit

I still enjoy playing ftf. And I remember fondly all the good times on SFBOl.
But like sands through the hourglass, so are the days of our lives....

By Peter Bakija (Bakija) on Monday, February 04, 2019 - 05:34 pm: Edit

Marc wrote:
>>It's a matter of "accessibility". SFBOL is functional for those willing to learn it, and those who grew up with DOS and spread sheet programs. >>

I don't really know what you are describing here. There is nothing "spreadsheet-y" or "DOS-y" about SFBOL.

There is a hex map (a thing in SFB). Counters (from SFB). SSDs (the tournament ones are identical to SFB; the non tournament ones are a little different, but more graphical and reasonably functionally the same). There is a EA form, which is pretty much identical to the one you use in real life in SFB. I mean, like, the EA does look like a spread sheet, but it does in real life too. And it doesn't have anything automated, other than, ya know, basic math. There are the same charts and tables from SFB. There is an automated dice roller. And a conversational text box, as, well, the internet.

So I'm really not remotely seeing what you are talking about here.

By Glenn Hoepfner (Ikabar) on Tuesday, February 05, 2019 - 12:16 am: Edit

I agree with Peter. It's the game board, pieces, everything at your fingertips. I haven't played too many games on SFBOL but I'll say the only hard part about it is knowing where to click to do something specific (either in pre-game setup or during actual play). But is that any different than learning any new computer program? The more you play on SFBOL, the faster you learn. My first game was dreadfully slow. My second game took a quarter of the time.

By wayne douglas power (Wayne) on Tuesday, February 05, 2019 - 12:28 am: Edit

I agree, and we perhaps should talk no more about it here.

By Paul Franz (Andromedan) on Wednesday, February 06, 2019 - 07:04 pm: Edit

A couple things:

About the Neo-SFBOL that Marc envisioned, I think it would make playing SFB harder. Yes it would be more approachable because it would look and feel like play a table top version of SFB. But I think using controls designed for more counters is better than moving individual pieces.

About the speed of play, I agree that I need to add a timer into the client to enable this.

By Gregg Dieckhaus (Gdieck) on Wednesday, February 06, 2019 - 10:18 pm: Edit

I dont understand what the compaint about sfbol is, and dont see how you keep calling it spreadsheety or dos-y.

I dont see what you mean about accessibilty... I mean maybe its difficult to pull the library of ships or something?

Or are you wantng miniatures on hexes and the table ahead of you shown in "3d"?

You had mentioned that build it and everyone will buy it. I know for a fact that is not true! So many people clammered for SFB Online, and once they had it, wanted to know why it wasnt free.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 01:51 pm: Edit

What a blast from the past name, Hi Gregg! Back when I was actually active on the staff you, Tony Z and I were the most prolific posters on GEnie.

SFBOL is a spreadsheet game. Too ancient of a style of presentation for modern gamers to even look at. As soon as they see the spreadsheet format they move on to looking at something else. It is a dead format that modern gamers won't even consider playing.

Not just SFU games, but the future of the entire board game business is in "Online Playing Tool" that are a "virtual table" where players "sit down and play the same exact game, in the same exact way, with the same exact 'virtual components'".

For the first time ever, interest in computer games is waning and interest in the table top games is surging. Now is the time that those who see the future will pull out ahead in name recognition.

In the near future, no major board game will be made without it's associated "virtual table top version" and most players will be playing the virtual version. Buying the board game will come with a disk that has the virtual version on it, or a key to download it from their web site. I think ADB should do this now.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 01:54 pm: Edit

ADB can do this in a big way, just like D&D can. TC only at first. Then a BS/AM release. Then C1, C2, etc... the expansion of SFBOL would match the existing SFB product lineup and be sold the same way.

PDF format releases = SFBOL expansions.

And, yes Gregg, it would definitely be 3D and have miniatures... look at the editors I showed that could do this. "Virtual Table Top Games". EA, Impulse Chart, Reverse Impulse Chart, Record Keeping Forms, etc, all laid out on the table to just click on... no different than playing face-to-face... something SVC & SPP might take one look at and decide to try because they understand it at first glance.

With all the effects for weapon fire, tractors, transporters, shuttle launch, WW explosion, etc... the virtual version would be BETTER than playing face-to-face!

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 02:04 pm: Edit

This really is very easy to do these days...

...and the idea here is that the virtual version is free. That is the "gateway" into your gaming universe/company too modern online gamers. They find your free "virtual board game", in the SFU's case a version of Academy. The original "full version" is TC only but gets expanded little by little from there too be the entire game. Each PDF product is also an expansion for SFBOL. SFBOL is the "gateway" through which modern gamers find ADB, and buy their PDF products/SFBOL expansions.

As you can see, it all revolves around your free gateway "Online Playing Tool" for your game. F&E could also do this, and SFM could become more like ASL than it currently is as a "Sci-Fi ASL Online" and if ASL never does this then ADB just takes that crown as well. This is the format of the future of board games.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 02:09 pm: Edit

I seriously don't see how you can't have some kind of spreadsheet for SFB. You have to do energy allocation. That means a spreadhseet.

By Marc Michalik (Kavik_Kang) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 02:14 pm: Edit

Right, but it's an EA Form on a virtual table to click on to use as if picking it up from the table... not a menu option under the "File" heading on the Menu Bar.

This really does make all the difference in the world to modern gamers and non-gamers like SVC or Chuck.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, February 07, 2019 - 02:14 pm: Edit

In fact, that was one of my main complaints on the old "star fleet battles" video game. It did everything on the fly and it *just did not* feel like playing SFB. It was a different game.

Now, maybe you could do something like what you're saying with Fed Commander - but not SFB. Not if you want the game to actually look and play like SFB.

Honestly, SFBOL does a good job. It could have better art (prettier looking ships, 3D models instead of pictures of chits, etc.). Frankly, I hate the 3rd gen SSDs - and I'd pay a premium to be able to use full SSDs in SFBOL (yes, I know the problem with pirates of the Web, but I really hate 3rd gen SSDs and would like to have full ones). I think the energy allocation form could use an update.

However, overall, SFBOL is an *excellent* system for playing SFB. If you change it too much it just isn't SFB any more.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation