From: mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.netrek
Subject: Re: SFB netrek
Date: 27 Jan 1993 21:41:38 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas - Austin
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jim McCoy)
NNTP-Posting-Host: tramp.cc.utexas.edu
Originator: mccoy@tramp.cc.utexas.edu


In article <C1InzK.A77@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, ahabig@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Alec Habig) writes:
> >books@fsunuc.physics.fsu.edu (Roger Books) writes:
> 
> >Orions - have weaker plasmas than Roms and have weaker torps than feds.
> >	 Might have a double shields ability which would cost a set amount
> >	of fuel.  They could be replaced with Kzinti.  (Plasma type
> >	weapon that does smaller damage but can have multiple on the screen.)
> 
> My sugestions for Kzinti in a netrek variant - drones are treated as small,
> slow plasma, but you can launch a bundle (4?) of them at a time.  These
> blow up when hit by phasers (as netrek plasmas do), where SFB/netrek
> plasmas (the Rom's) merely lose some damage, and also lose damage with
> range. 
> 
> As for the Disruptor/Photon problem, remember that photorps and
> disruptors are both torpedo like weapons, which in SFB are resolved as
> direct fire.  If photorps made the transition to netrek by becoming little
> flying dots, so can disruptors (it's make things easier, too).  The
> difference between the two weapon systems could be exactly like it is in
> SFB - photons do 2x the damage of disruptors, but you can only fire them
> 1/2 as often. 

So far this sounds like an interesting project.  Thinking about how to make
a netrek variant that is a little more like SFB I came up with a few
suggestions/comments:

1) Energy

	In SFB a significant portion of the tactics of the game relate to
	energy allocation, while in netrek energy is basically one big lump
	of fuel you carry with you.  To get closer to the SFB idea of
	energy allocation I would suggest upping the fuel usage for all
	activities a significant amount and having the fuel regeration rate
	increase as well.  The fuel tank number would represent the maximum
	energy production ability of the ship, and as a ship takes damage
	its fuel regeneration rate diminishes to simulate damage to a
	ship's ability to produce energy (a rough way to do it, but I don't
	think you want to get into keeping track of each ship's SSD).  Each
	set of X updates could be considered a SFB "turn" and the base fuel
	regen rate would be whatever rate fills the "tank" in X updates.
	It might even make sense to have damage to a ship cause a small
	loss of existing fuel to represent damage to batteries with reserve
	power and loss of unallocated power.

	Energy costs for current netrek actions would be increased to
	represent the "per turn" aspect of SFB energy usage.  A Fed CC, for
	example, could have a tank of 10000 and regen of 333 per second (1
	"turn" every 30 secs).  Phasers could cost 300 per shot (longer
	recycle time than netrek though) and photons more.  Movement costs
	would be scaled to this general scheme.

2) Direct-fire weapons

	Phasers would need a longer recycle time in general, but the
	recycle rate could be determined by ship-type (number of phaser-Is
	a ship has is the number of phaser shots per 30 second turn).
	Phasers should also  miss every now and then, as per SFB.  I guess
	in general I would think that shots from direct-fire weapons would
	need to be tweaked in a manner that would make most netrek
	affecionados puke: make the cursor a target selection device only
	and have the phaser fire be automatic.  The pilot uses the cursor
	to select his target and then the server runs the shot, determining
	a hit based upon range.

	To simulate point-defense phasers you could have a pilot-set range
	at which the phaser fires, the longer the range the less chance to
	hit a target (point-defense phasers fire at anything getting into
	the kill-zone) but also more time to react to a miss and perhaps
	use a phaser-I to get another shot off.

	Photons and disruptors would be a problem.  If you make them direct
	fire weapons then the game will seem a little less interesting
	(netrek without torps is not as fun....), but if you make them
	pseudo-indirect weapons you will have to make a lot of mods.  I
	guess you would need to change the speed of torps to me very, very
	fast and make them seeking weapons.  The torp "reload rate" depend
	on energy regeneration rate and each ship could have as many torps
	on screen as it does torp tubes.  I doubt you would want to add
	torp overloading, but perhaps...  Ditto with bolting plasmas...

3) Indirect fire weapons

	Indirect fire weapons like drones and plasmas would be easier to do
	because you would basically only need to grab the seeking torp code
	others have added to various netrek-variant servers out there.  I
	am not sure how you would set up ships that had more than one type
	of plasma though, perhaps each ship would have X number of plasma
	tubes and the longer a torp is held charging in the tube the
	stronger it gets, up to the tubes max rating (i.e. DD would only
	get type-F plasmas, but a CC would be able to fire a type-G if it
	held the tube long enough)

	Drones would be relatively easy, as they would basically be seeking
	torps like regular netrek torps except they would not cost energy.
	The maxtorps currently in netrek could be the control channels a
	drone ship has a drone ship would get a set number of torps until
	it reloaded.

4) Misc

	Shields:  break the shields into 60 degree arcs of varying
	strengths? Have repair of shields actually be the allocation of
	energy from the energy regen to shield reinforcement (general and
	perhaps shield-specific reinforcement?)  Haven't thought about this
	one much.

	Cloaking:  only roms can do it, but that doesn't mean they can't be
	hit... This shouldn't be too hard to do really, just don't make the
	?? jump around and put it on the tactical as well.

	Ship regeneration:  Ships are not disposable commodities in SFB.
	The time to wait between death and reentry should be much longer,
	or perhaps you would only get one ship and when it dies you are
	kicked out and have to re-enter the queue.  Ships themselves would
	be "stronger" but repair would be slower.
	
	Game speed:  The game would have to be a little slower than current
	netrek.  Ship would all be able to move at the same max speeds, but
	big ships running fast would eat up a ton of fuel and turn like
	bricks.  Basically, it seems that an SFB variant would add a lot
	more emphasis on energy usage and maneuvering; they key in SFB is
	not to fire everything you have as often as you can, but to
	maneuver to get the good shot and to make that shot count.
	

In general these would make the game be something of a completely different
character.  Maneuvering and energy usage would become important, much more
important than how fast you can hit the torp key or how well you can phaser
cloakers.  Not bad, just different.  It could be done and it would be neat
to see, but I am not sure if it would not just make more sense to create a
SFB server that actually runs real games....


jim
-- 
Jim McCoy                |  PGP 2.0 Key md5 hash:
mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu |  61323c49024cb089337c78a05aafe8c6
j-mccoy@nwu.edu          |  finger mccoy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu for public key