The future of Starfire: Questionnaire

[Cralis]

I have a couple questions for everyone that I'm curious about. While I've been sitting at the university twiddling my thumbs between classes I've been thinking about how I'm going to work on the TSU stuff. But I'm not sure what people are looking for.

I'm obviously asking with Ultra Starfire in mind, but Cosmic Starfire is also being worked on by Fred. I'm sure he'd be interested in the answer to one or two of these questions.


Question #1: Are you more interested in the history stories or scenario products?

I mean lets be real - I can just write a story line and forget about matching it with real campaign data. But then scenarios would be more difficult, and like some classic products, may not work as designed. However, if I run through the campaign stuff first then I will have a multitude of information that can be directly turned into scenarios and products. But it takes more time. Which would you prefer?


Question #2: Would you prefer to see the rules re-written (in whole or part) with fluff material from the stories?

This is no guarantee, but a valid question. Some people have expressed the opinion that the rules seem a little bland without fluff material from the history. The rules are already pretty large and "inscribed in stone", but some provisions may eventually be made to "fluff the rules" with history references...probably a few years from now.


Question #3: Would you be interested in the return of some form of newsletter? And would you prefer it to be a document (PDF) or a dedicated sub-forum with downloadable materials?

A. PDF document.
B. Dedicated forum with downloads.


The next two questions are more about how we negotiate the future. We know that some form of assistant programs are necessary, but we have some questions about form.

Question #4: Would you be more interested in having assistance software built in pieces, or in whole?

By this I mean would you be interested in having smaller chunks built independently: system generation, npr generation, etc. The programs could be provided a bit quicker because they would be smaller then a larger project where they are all combined into a single assistant program. Or would you rather wait for a more fully integrated product?

A. Smaller independent programs to solve single problems, provided a little faster.
B. Single large assistant program, but will take much longer to build.


Question #5: Would you prefer online assistant program(s) or stand-alone programs? Why?



Thanks you for your answers. I'm hoping to get a better grasp on what you guys would like to see.

[Xveers]

Question #1: Are you more interested in the history stories or scenario products?

I'm torn on this, but personally I'd much rather have scenarios than just history stories. The grognard in me prefers more crunchy stuff like ships that served, loadouts etc

Question #2: Would you prefer to see the rules re-written (in whole or part) with fluff material from the stories?

Yeah, they're bland atm but I think that's the better of two options, otherwise you're fishing through stories AND rules to find something.

Question #3: Would you be interested in the return of some form of newsletter? And would you prefer it to be a document (PDF) or a dedicated sub-forum with downloadable materials?

Ideally the whole thing would get a seperate sub forum (Like how Fiction has one, or ULTRA) with a single thread per issue.

Question #4: Would you be more interested in having assistance software built in pieces, or in whole?

A. Smaller independent programs to solve single problems, provided a little faster.

This also gives modularity for design, maintenence and troubleshooting. A good intermediary to tie them together might have some kind of standaridzed .txt file to parse for input, perhaps. But overall I'd prefer smaller independant programs.

Question #5: Would you prefer online assistant program(s) or stand-alone programs? Why?

Overall, standalone. Not everyone has access to the net at all times, and there's the added issue of maintaining uptime for the forseeable future. Standalone products can be maintained and used even if SDS gets hit by an asteroid and put offline, whereas when the server is pulled it is lost from the community, perhaps forever.

[dazrand]

Q1: Personally I like the stories and without a dedicated local group to play with the scenarios wouldn't offer me very much.

Q2: Fluff doesn't do much for me, but the rules should be looked at and some areas simplified. Have Marvin talk to me, there is a way to do fluff and non-fluff rules.

Q3: Newsletter would be great. Distributed form such as PDF is preferred.

Q4: Pieces, those would be released earlier and can eventually be combined into a single program. I'd suggest a transport mechanism between the singular programs. If you went with XML, then other people could use the data (if they know XML). Drop me a line and I can show you a couple of schemas I've developed.

Q5: Standalone. I don't always have access to the net and sometimes just want to doodle with ship designs and don't want to have to login for that. Also avoids server downtime and keeps the cost to a one-time payment. I would also add any such system should be in Java to reach the widest number of platforms (I'm on a Mac).

[LesMasters]

Question 1

I am not that worried either way, although scenarios would probably do it form me better than the history. (For much the same reason as Xveers.) I know Starfire derived from a "historical" persepctive, because I got into it at the 1st generation, and Nexus and the like. But I thought some elements of 3rd Gen and ISF actually suffered from the "historical" perspective - particularly things like R&D. For instance, if I remember rightly, the Force Beam only became available at an unusually high Tech Level because that was the level at which it was first encountered by the TFN. Just what you want if you are playing a historical scenario, not so much so if you are making your own history. That kind of problem was "sorted" in GSF, Elite & Ultra. Indeed, I would say that the R&D rules since GSF actually run counter to a historical context. If there has to be such a context for Ultra, it should certainly be subordinate to the game as a whole, not its driving force.

Question 2. I think the above gives my answer here. No fluff please.

Question 3. Yes to a newsletter. Probably as a sub-forum with downloads. In any case, a newsletter is likely to generate activity on this forum anyway.

Question 4. Pieces, for much the same reasons as given by others.

Question 5. Standalone. Ditto

Les Masters

[krenshala]

Q1: Is "Yes" an option? Personally, I like the scenario side, but I also like reading the stories. Being able to tie one to the other make both better, IMNSHO.

Q2: I'd have to agree with Xveers. Having to skim through story fluff to find rules could make things more difficult that it is now for players to find what they are looking for. I wouldn't complain if the rules were rewritten to include the "story fluff", however.

Q3: PDF or forum section both work equally well for me.

Q4: Smaller independent programs that can talk to each other as needed is my preference (I blame the UNIX design paradigm that I like so much:)).

Q5: Um ... yes? Standalone is better from a longevity standpoint, however, having some kind of online capability would help people play together even if they aren't close enough to be in the same room.

[Crucis]

While Matt actually knows my opinion on the above questions, I thought that I'd write up a post as well to answer the first two ...


1. Stories vs. Scenarios:

Personally, I actually rarely ever played scenarios from the scenario books. However, I still loved the scenario books because in a way they were "stories" of a sort. You usually had an opening prelude, a number of between-scenario interludes, and a closing post-script. And the actual scenarios were the orders of battle. (Of course, to be playable, the scenarios would also include various details that went beyond raw "orders of battle".)

Another thing that I always enjoyed were the ship design listings of the various navies. Not just for the raw control sheets, since frankly those could be somewhat boring. What I specifically enjoyed was the little historical blurbs that came with many designs that gave a historical context to those classes.

Of course, one thing about scenarios is that if one is going to produce them, they really should be able to be played to get the historical result. Another issue is that there are some underlying competing interests in scenario design. For the sake of playability and player enjoyability, it helps for them to be somewhat balanced, since not everyone is interested in playing a side that's seriously over-matched, even if the scenario's victory conditions are designed to account for the relative imbalance of naval strength. However, strategically speaking, admirals aren't looking for "fair fights"... they're trying to produce situations strategically where their side has the advantage. So, it can be a challenge to balance those competing "interests".


2. Fluff in the rules?

Actually, I would word this a bit differently. The tactical and strategic RULES shouldn't have fluff in them, but any examples (like a movement example or a combat example) certainly can (and IMHO, should) use references to TFN or KON ship names or familiar star system names, such as Aklumar or Home Hive 4 or Thebes.

However, I would also expand upon this to say that the rules sections on tech systems ought to have some fluff in them. But strictly speaking, any fluff should not be in the verbiage that describes the in-game functionality of the tech systems. Rather, the fluff should be used to introduce some systems. Also note that in this instance (tech systems), there are two types of "fluff". There's technical fluff, wherein one roughly describes how the technology works, and there's historical fluff, wherein one describes, perhaps, who first introduced the system or when it was first seen in battle.

I am all for both technical and historical fluff for tech systems, though as was the case in 3e, it's not necessary to include historical fluff for every single system. I feel that a nice smattering of historical fluff adds a great deal of flavor to the game.

[eilar]

Hi all I'm new here so take what I say with a grain of salt
You could say this is coming from someone new to the game ( though I played years and years ago)

Question #1: Are you more interested in the history stories or scenario products? [/b]

I like history stories but having a scenario once in a while that corresponds to the history would be cool.
But some histories obviously couldn't be played out as sometimes sories cannot be foolowed and be even close to being fightable.

Question #2: Would you prefer to see the rules re-written (in whole or part) with fluff material from the stories?

I like the idea of rules being rewritten with fluff included so as to make it more palatable to newbies
maybe put a colored background on fluff so people that just want rules can ignore it.
- Also including more examples or even doing things like ive seen some complex games do is a special set of rules that explain things step by step(Though i personally enjoy the challenge of figuring out complex rules - my friends think I'm weird i know)

Question #3: Would you be interested in the return of some form of newsletter? And would you prefer it to be a document (PDF) or a dedicated sub-forum with downloadable materials?

A. PDF document.
B. Dedicated forum with downloads.

I love the idea of a newsletter. I like the idea of a PDF as i could download it to an ebook and read it when i cant get online. Kindles ect are becoming the wave of the future.

Question #4: Would you be more interested in having assistance software built in pieces, or in whole?

A. Smaller independent programs to solve single problems, provided a little faster.
B. Single large assistant program, but will take much longer to build.

I think built in pieces that can interrelate would be great for players though harder to sell later. One big program is usually easier to sell though the time to design and write it as one piece might put people off.

Question #5: Would you prefer online assistant program(s) or stand-alone programs? Why?

Stand Alone program

Though The hero games way is also a possibility ie you by a contract and gain all the upgrades during that period free. Once the contract period is over you can still download the version you paid up to but can no longer get new stuff.

[mavikfelna]

Question #1: Are you more interested in the history stories or scenario products?

The David Weber interludes were why I bought the scenario books. If i ever get around to finishing my scenario book, I hope to include a similar format.
I like just plain stories as well, but being able to bring out parts of them or looking at events not covered in the original story but associated to it in a scenario product is very appealing to me.

Question #2: Would you prefer to see the rules re-written (in whole or part) with fluff material from the stories?

I agree completely with Cruicis here. Fluff doesn't belong in the rules but it does belong in the examples. And "historical" blurbs about different tech systems is always fun but I'd rather not have to guess what is fluff and what is rules, especially in that section.

Question #3: Would you be interested in the return of some form of newsletter? And would you prefer it to be a document (PDF) or a dedicated sub-forum with downloadable materials?

PDF for sure. Would love to see EC come back.

Question #4: Would you be more interested in having assistance software built in pieces, or in whole?

I prefer whole, but as long as the parts are designed to be integrated I could probably live with separate until they are merged.

Question #5: Would you prefer online assistant program(s) or stand-alone programs? Why?

I prefer online for games I'm playing with other folks and stand alone for personal stuff. Though if the stand alone could upload an online program that would be even better. Mostly I like stand alone stuff so I can experiment and try different things and play out my own games without having to log on somewhere. But for group play, online is best because it would be easier for everyone to have a central place to upload and handle group discussions and similar things. Probably more secure for the SM to control as well, rather than passing around a database or something.

--Mav

[Crucis]

Question #2: Would you prefer to see the rules re-written (in whole or part) with fluff material from the stories?

I agree completely with Crucis here. Fluff doesn't belong in the rules but it does belong in the examples. And "historical" blurbs about different tech systems is always fun but I'd rather not have to guess what is fluff and what is rules, especially in that section.

Mav, the key for including fluff with tech systems is to not to mix the historical and technical fluff verbiage with a tech system's actual rules' verbiage. On the most basic level, just don't mix the fluff and the rules in the same paragraph ...

[Cralis]

One thing I should probably mention:

There have been lots of great suggestions. But I don't want anyone to be disappointed if a particular suggestion, file format, or platform isn't capitalized on first. Right now we had some ideas and we want to try and fit our ideas with what our loyal customer base would like. The goal here is to see if our ideas conflict with what you want.

So far, we agree on a number of things. I see lots of commonalities here and that is great. I was afraid we'd have more disagreements then we do so I'm more encouraged then I expected to be.

EDIT: I didn't ask the question I had intended to. About the Fluff, does it matter much if the technologies and stuff in the rules are explained in the storyline?