Archive through May 13, 2014
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Federation & Empire: F&E COMPUTER PROJECTS:
F&E Computer Development:
Archive through May 13, 2014
Go Randy!
Actually do it, Randy, and I'll market it for you and we'll split the money. But (again) you cannot sell it or even give it away without violating my IP.
Cool.
I just dropped about $2,500 for schooling to learn how, so I'm pretty serious about it.
SVC, you do know that my Apocalypse Part 2 campaign is based on F&E, uses the official map, OOB, has a website (http://www.apocalypse2.com) that Jean is a member of, right? Because we did talk about this before I dropped the cash to make that happen.
I plan on using that as a prototype. Nobody sees it except Jean, and the players participating in it.
You're still cool with that?
P.S. You won't find too many people more vicious in protecting your IP than me.
So SVC, if I just go write some PC game in the SFB universe, pay you licensing, its viable?
I kinda didn't think so, but if it is, I may take another look at a real time SFB port I started tinkering with 10+ years ago (kinda like starfleet command, but closer to SFB).
I didn't think there was any possibility of a PC game at all in the SFB universe.
I wish you the best of luck Randy, and would be happy to help you with any issues you encounter. However, I have seen hundreds of people attempt just that and never finish. Its far more complicated than non-experienced people realize to write computer programs.
Eric,
I'm saying this in love, brother, and not as a personal attack.
I don't, historically, surround myself with people who tell me it can't be done, or who otherwise throw wet blankets on things I try to accomplish.
I think the technology is out there HTML5/CSS3/Javasript/JQuery/etc. to make this happen, and the project is reachable.
I do have experience with the game, and I'm not trying to build the Titanic overnight. It takes time and dedication to make any project work, and you won't find a better group of people than right here on this forum who will tell you straight what you're doing right and what you're doing wrong.
SVC and his team didn't create the SFU overnight, and likewise, this won't happen overnight.
But truthfully, I don't need negativity weighing me down, because like I said, I'm a positive person and really don't tolerate negativity very well.
I just wish someone would do it.
The thing that gets me is that many think that this effort MUST take an all or nothing approach and/or enforce many of the rules and/or calculate econ. I'd be very happy with a building block approach something like this:
If version N takes a "CB-like" environment and JUST allows multiple player/owners to add, remove, and see movement of pieces in realtime on their screens worldwide or be observed worldwide- good.
...then if version N+1 allows me to click or hover over stack and displays a pop-up quick summary box of #ships, #fighters, #PFs, SEQs, etc. If I click on a hex - a sidebar opens with a formal hex summary of the counters in the hex. Cool.
Version N+2 could allow for players to build, name, and fill separate and multiple fleets/squadron counters in a hex. Nice.
Version N+3 allows the owner to privately click a stack to build and designate carrier and escort groups, select and display ships for a battle force, calculate battle force compot as the player adds or removes a unit, calculates or the players inputs a damage amount, allows player to click and assign damage.
I think you see what I'm getting at…
The whole point here is that you build a piece of the game at a time and continually improve that piece as you go along. In the meantime the players get to use version N whilst you are building version N+1.
Chuck - EXACTLY!
I agree with Chuck and Randy. I don't have the skills to build this, but I think it can be done and it can be done a piece at a time.
I wonder if this is even something worthy of kickstarter, but I don't know much about that.
But we do need someone with a strong commitment to make it happen and it seems to me that Randy has it.
So, Randy, any way I can help, please let me know.
Well good luck Randy, can't wait to see what you make (your website looks great). The whole module V thing has long been an interesting direction, and by you using your own rules it'll prevent many obstacles compared to trying to do just F&E.
Thing is about making something in steps like that is the architecture behind it. It would be like starting with the space shuttle in anticipation of it becoming a Galaxy class starship. The add-on approach will hit serious issues constantly when not designed as a Galaxy starship from ground up. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but its extremely problematic, far more difficult, and the end result far less stable, harder to maintain, and typically harder to use. You really just need a good solid foundation an design before writing 1 line of code. Any seasoned developer knows this.
It is best to design as much as possible up front, then new features become trivial instead of constantly rewriting large chunks of code to incorporate some new thing.
I see lots of people here, with little if any development experience, talking about how easy it is or how to do such a project. In the last 6 years I have been the only one to produce anything at all, and in the the last 10 years I've produced more in 7 weeks of dev than anybody has before me before I backed off. The F&E community doesn't appear to be getting any bigger (hopefully I'm wrong, maybe sales don't represent that), and I just don't see anything F&E more than Cyberboard coming out unless I do it. Yet somehow, I sure get told a lot that I don't know what I'm talking about 
Fact is, current F&E rules cannot be converted 100% to computer. A similar project is possible, but that would of course have to go through ADB, and wouldn't be F&E.
Step 1, before any coding, is getting the rules and SIT data clarified. Until that is done (by SVC or folks he delegates that authority to as I doubt F&E is a big money maker) any other attempts will simply die after a few screenshots and progress reports. This was about 20% of the reason I stopped (and 50% due to rules that simply made no logical sense, and 30% due to extremely not-nice comments made on the scenario update thread).
Quote:and 30% due to extremely not-nice comments made on the scenario update thread).
If I remember correctly, you were Alliance and Ted was Coalition, and you had gotten to about T15 or so, right? (If this isn't true, then ignore what follows.)
I wasn't watching the board very closely and read that scenario thread after the fact. So, I never got the chance to comment in real time.
But it didn't seem to me that people weren't being nice. They were trying to teach you something about directed damage, something that takes many new players a little while to learn.
Nearly every Alliance player at some point does the calculation and says "if I let these 24 damage points fall, he's just going to cripple 2 D5 and 2 F5, and then repair them all next turn for 5 EP. However, if I instead kill a D7, he's down a unit that costs 8EP, and even with salvage is down a SE, and down 5.6 EP. (Or down 6 EP if it's a Lyran CA.)
Therefore, it must be better to direct.
And once you've made that conclusion, and it is firmly in your mind as "the way things are" then what you were saying about the D6M providing an extra 10 points of damage per turn were very reasonable and natural. If directed damage is always used, and the coalition is so much more efficient with it, then the game is tilted horribly in their favor, and the alliance has no chance to win.
To which people were saying (in effect) "exactly right."
If The Alliance uses directed damage all the time, they have no chance to win.
There are some times where it makes sense for the Alliance to use directed damage. But most of the time, especially when fighting over a SB or a capital, it's far better to just let the damage fall and let the repair bills climb. (Yes, that means even if you do enough damage to burn a D5V/AD5/F5E group over Hydrax, that might not be the best thing to do.)
But it would be far better to see this in action to properly appreciate the effect. I think you would be surprised how hard it becomes to maintain an offensive as the Coalition if you can only fight 3 rounds before your entire in-range repair capacity is filled up. Having a D7 cruiser blown up is nothing. It's only one ship out of action. But having 4 ships crippled, and using 5/6 of the repair capacity of a FRD, now that's going to be a little harder to deal with.
Pete - you have already helped out by being a Romulan in the campaign. All I ask is for honest feedback. It's true I won't have anything substantial built until at least August or September, to even comment on. But every day I'm picking at it.
For any who care, I've been in the infrastructure (PC/peripherals all the way to worldwide networks - I work for a major telecom company and helped design and build the hardware structure of the internet) business of IT (information technology) since 1984. Undergrad in Computer Engineering, minor in Math, Physics, and Chemistry.
I couldn't have passed my many computer classes if I didn't learn how to program. And I did do a bit of programming back in the y2k days (and made truckloads of money doing it, by the way), and the usual Access/Excel VBA stuff that everybody in IT has to learn at some point.
I don't say any of that to elevate myself or to brag about anything, because if I've learned anything in life, is that there's plenty more to learn.
Chuck has put down a very nice list of expectations, and I'm going to roll with that, because a lot of that heavy lifting is done already.
Counters? Check. Cyberboard has 'em.
Map? Check. It doesn't change.
Peer to peer interaction over the internet? Check. I can throw a rock and hit a dozen open source (read: already coded) hooks without even trying.
So, I think "N" is possible. "N+1" is even easier. I HAVE to do "N+2" for my campaign anyway (double-blind and Module V). "N+3" will be interesting after putting the SITs in a database (sans modifying them) which is easy because they already are in PDF form and can be converted to MySQL.
Just like SFBOL, you MUST have the rules to play. There's no way around it. I don't think we're talking about making an "intelligent" F&E online game here, are we? Because SFBOL isn't "intelligent" by any means, nor is it really intended to be.
I would love to see a double blind game of F&E. Would dramatically change playing styles and likely make them closer to "reality". Not know what the other guy has 6 hexes away will make you think about what you're doing.
Without getting too deeply into contracts...
ADB cannot license you to do a trek thing, or even an SFU thing.
What we can do is sell it for you and mail you a check for your share.
I don't get it then Steve.
I write a new 1st person shooter for marines boarding starships, all set in the SFU. 100% done, ready to launch.
ADB cannot license it, paramount or whoever will not license it.
So how can ADB sell it for me and mail me the royalty checks?
If I do an ADB computer game, that you like, your saying that you can't license it as its on the PC, but could sell it. So does that mean the ADB licensing for its trek stuff not extend into cyberspace?
I kinda thought that was why you didn't want me telling folks about my online SIT, or is that simply an IP thing and even if you did like it you could still never license somebody else to do it?
Eric, we cannot license an outside person to do SFU things. We can "do" it and send the outside developer a check for what he is due each month.
We have joint ventures with companies such as Mongoose and Majestic 12. We don't license them to produce SFU things. They get a check each month.
Do you see the difference? It has to do with who is in control of the product and ADB must be.
I didn't mean to sound so negative about it last night, I was merely trying to convey what it actually takes to produce a game the quality of what people think of as top-notch computer game that might succeed with the general gaming public. Once you start talking about AI in a game this massive and complex you are talking about a major project.
I have no doubt that Randy and/or Eric can make a fine multiplayer only F&E game that works exactly like F&E for F&E players to use online. Chuck, Richard, and I are all talking about exactly the same thing. CB is an editor, you use it to play a game by continuing to edit. It isn't really a game. Something like CB designed as a multiplayer only game specifically for F&E, using moderns standards and conventions for interface and control would be a 1000x improvement over CB.
After sleeping on it, I realized that I hadn't fully thought things through last night when talking about getting a "AAA title translation of F&E to the computer". I realized that SVC seems very supportive of this. Eric can't get that funded, Randy can't either. Either can I, which I know for a fact because I actually tried to do it once. But SVC can. Getting funding for a project like that is all about reputation. You need a business plan, and a core group of experienced people with reputations in the game industry.
With an experienced producer, lead programmer, and lead artist who all have previous AAA titles under their belts as the core software dev group, and SVC as president using the ADB name... that would be a group of people who could fairly easily find funding (if the producer were Jon Van Canaghem funding would be automatic). SVC has the reputation and credability to put a team together that could then rather easily find funding, and by doing it this way SVC would remain the final authority and the games could be made more true the SFU than any other arrangement would do.
I'm not putting this on SVC and saying blame him because their is no game. It would be a lot of work to try and put together and no guarentee you would get funding (unless Jon Van Canaghem were involved, then it would be guarenteed). All I am saying is that 99.9% of people would have no chance of makings something like this happen, but SVC actually could if he could put together a core group of game dev people to do it. He already knows a lot of these people, too.
Something tells me Steve isn't all that interested in starting a computer game company at this point in his career, but he is one of the few people on earth who could start their own independent game dev company if he wanted to.
That's why once you submit a rule, empire, weapon, ship, fiction, scenario or anything SFU it becomes ADB property to market/sell (or not) as they see fit. And they are VERY good about paying people and giving recognition for their contribution.
I'm not sure what a "AAA title translation of F&E to the computer" is, but my guess is that's not what people are looking for.
This is F&E not World of Warcraft.
By the way, if I can get funding for multi-million dollar apartment and commercial properties, I'm sure I can do it for a game.
The thing is, there aren't enough F&E players to justify millions in cash to develop. Heck, I'm alright with doing my part for free, but I am not an idiot...I'm not going to turn away a check that SVC writes if ADB can market/sell it.
Ryan - Originally, I was going to make it so that operational movement orders were sent to me as the moderator of the campaign, but then I realized that I can use a WebRTC data channel to link two clients for an interactive session instead.
You can make that double blind as well.
Just so you know, I ran the last Apocalypse campaign F2F and it was double blind, which produced very interesting results. That, and tacintel rules for the subsequent SFB scenarios made the whole experience like looking through a set of binoculars out of focus, then slowly in focus.
Objects in the mirror are larger than they appear, said everyone who met the B10 for the first time.
What I mean by that is a full blown F&E computer game that would succeed with the general gaming public. A very good game could be made, but it would be a translation of F&E to the computer and not a straight translation of the board game. All space strategy games are pretty much the same game with a different story, F&E translated to the computer could be a very unique and one-of-a-kind game. I've thought about it for many years, actually.
Getting a game funded is not anything like real estate. Most game projects fail. If it's not an FPS, RTS, or RPG you can pretty much forget it. Getting a unique strategy game like F&E funded would be nearly impossible through a publisher, which is why I said SVC would have to start his own independant dev company to make it. That's the only way, no major publisher would touch it even with SVC's name attached too it and a top notch team. Games are much more risky than real estate, and funding is much harder to get.
Like Birth of the Federation or MOO2?
MOO essentially is an F&E game, it is a blending of concepts from F&E and Civilization. I gave Sid Meier their copy of F&E in 1990. Sid Meier can get any game he wants made, he's Sid Meier. Those games are also very old, you could get a strategy game made in the mid-1990s. Today it is nearly impossible to find funding for anything other than the proven genres of FPS, RTS, or RPG.
This is one reason I mentioned Jon Van Canaghem. He is a legend in the computer game industry that has been retired for like 15 years. If he were to come out of the woodwork with a buisness plan and a core team saying he wanted to make a game they would throw as much money at him as he asked for and let him make any game he wanted. He is one of only a handful of people on this planet who can do that.
Getting funding to make a game is almost entirely about the reputation of those involved. It is a very risky business and past reputation is all investors really have to go by.
Still confused Jean 
So if I wrote Doom in Starfleet battles, emailed you the app, you could then sell it but I could not. Is that right? That would make sense on the whole SIT thing of mine.
Getting MOO2 or BoTF funded like 15 years ago was simple.
Today, nobody (few enough to equal nobody to a publisher) plays those games. SFC was HUGE, but even its darned old. PC games that sell now are games like COD and Angry Birds, not so much War in the East or any of the Matrix titles.
I seriously doubt a faithful F&E recreation would ever see a million in sales. You'll be hard pressed to find developers and artists that will work for under $50K (and that is just because they love games, in real jobs they would often see 50% more than that). Take 5 developers and an office, the hardware, software licensing, benefits, etc, and you'll be hard pressed to stay under $1M before they could ever finish. Maybe if it could sell for $500 or something
But there are a LOT of folks out there that learn a bit of programming, tell the world they are going to "go write a game", only to find out its always MUCH harder than it appears. The vast majority (but not all by any means) fail, or produce something so horrible nobody wants to play with it anyway. For every game like Minecraft there was tens of thousands of games started that never even got finished.
And this one has the horribly negative aspect of trying to mirror something on the PC that is in english writing. While things like MOO/BoTF can have their physics defined and adjusted during programming, F&E is already static, and luxuries like changing A to make B work simply aren't an option... unless you drop the faithful to the board game part.
Now I'm wondering if I can make my SIT standalone so ADB can distribute/sell it, but still allow certain people to update it and eventually knock out a huge chunk of work for anybody wanting to do a PC game like that in the future (as well as answer many not-yet-asked questions).
If finishing my digital version of F&E could see distribution for a few bucks on ADB servers and a kickback check, even though I doubt it'd ever be more than a grand or two, that could motivate me to actually finish it much faster.
A faithful recreation of the board game would only appeal to F&E players, it would have no chance of succeeeding with casual gamers. It would just be a board game on the computer. F&E could translate to a computer game very well. It would be totally unlike all other space strategy games, which are all themselves alike. It would be very unique and a one-of-a-kind game that could find great success as a strategy game if done right. But it would not be F&E as far as F&E players are concerned, it would be a game that was remeniscient of F&E. Like F&E in many ways but very different in others. It could be a great computer game and one of Civilization's only true rivals. But it would not the F&E you know.
Some things could remain very much like F&E, like the concept of Operational, Reaction, Retrograde, Strategic movement. But others, like the combat system, are too simple for a computer game and would have to be replaced with something more dynamic. More ships would have to die, so more would have to be built. A version of F&E meant for the mass gaming audience would necessarily be a translation of F&E to computer game and not just the board game on computer. But this is a $12-$20 million effort.
What can be done without millions of dollars is a better CB meant for F&E using modern command and interface conventions. Basically a full blown faithful F&E board game done as a modern computer game with no AI. This is something the F&E community can just achieve on it's own, a full blown "AAA title" computer game that would remain faithful to the SFU can really only be done by SVC creating his own dev company and self-funding the game. You wouldn't even want the version were a publisher had the final say during the dev process, that would wind up being a disaster.
I think Marc/Eric are talking about something way beyond what anyone else is. Chuck has spoken on it, and I'm willing to move forward based on that input.
Thoughts?