Lord Valwyn Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 Pete, Any chance you would consider farming out some of this workload to help get the game completed? I understand that some things are sensitive and would be GM only of course but something like revamping the rulebook could easily be handled by many of us (a committee perhaps?). This would tremendously improve the game and be a big help for potential new players IMHO and you would still have creative control over any rulebook edits.. Despite what might be perceived as "slamming RTG" by Locklyn or others with very legitimate complaints, the loyalty of your current player base should be something you can appreciate and build upon. Everyone playing that I know or speak with thinks a lot of you and Russ and loves the potential of Supernova. The complaints about the game may occassionally by disheartening but they also represent opportunities for improvement. I would think you are much better off with loyal players who openly "complain" such as Lars than with those who just silently drop never to return? I realize this is a sore subject and that perhaps you feel like you can't win in some cases but many of these complaints really are much more than pettiness. Fact is there is a contingent of players out there intentionally pushing the envelope to take advantage of code issues and they are not penalized or discouraged from doing so. It is infair for any to suggest that these players have your tacit support in doing this but the fact that these types of occurences continue hurts the games credibility. I know you spend a lot of your time correcting mistakes during turn sequences and your available time to complete unfinished modules of the game or debug code is limited but any potential solutions that could help alleviate this issue are well worth exploring. I propose creating a player committe of sorts of to address some of these issues. Such a committee could do the following: 1. Be given responsibility for a comprehensive update of the rulebook. 2. Create and maintain a known bug list and help determine priority in getting them fixed based upon how important they are to the player community. 3. Serve as a "first point of contact" for new players who need access to player utilities, indoctrination into the turn flow (this game can be overwhelming to the uninitiated), and general advice. they could create and maintain an FAQ for instance. Sort of a "mentor team". 4. Field suggestions on game improvements, upgrades and add-ons and catalogue them as a "growth plan" of things for you to consider as the game evolves. They could weed out duplicate suggestions, combine similar ideas into a single idea, and assess the potential usefuleness of such a suggestion. 5. Oversee the creation and maintenance of an official newsletter (SN READER). I cannot see any downside to such an idea other than the potential for player sniping about who is on the committee, disagreements amongst the committe and the committee members access to new players as potential recruits in alliances but if such an idea can be *truly* killed over such pettiness then this game is in a far more dire state than some perceive it. Getting the player base involved in these types of activities ultimately would re-energize the player base and provide better growth potential, as well as a more positive outlook on the state of the game. If all of us still playing truly care about improving the game then the potential issues with such a committee are resolvable and can be overcome with some good ol' fashioned "give a shit". Nothing such a committee does would be binding to RTG so no creative control would be lost. They would be an advisory panel with the capability of acting as liaisons between RTG and the player community. This would *have* to free up some of Pete's time from the ridiculous amount of phone time he is burdened with. I just cannot understand why those things in the game that are more easily fixable (ie the rulebook for one) cannot be addressed by those willing to pay our hard earned cash to see the game survive. Those of us still around have proven our loyalty to RTG, especially the Locklyn's out there who continue to support the game despite their complaints. I hope this idea can truly be given some serious consideration rather than be dismissed out of hand... Mark/Lord Valwyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locklyn Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 Pete, Any chance you would consider farming out some of this workload to help get the game completed? I understand that some things are sensitive and would be GM only of course but something like revamping the rulebook could easily be handled by many of us (a committee perhaps?). This would tremendously improve the game and be a big help for potential new players IMHO and you would still have creative control over any rulebook edits.. Mark/Lord Valwyn Oii, What my mate said! And I do think I do a whole less lot of "slamming" than I used to right? I think it would be easier to sell this game to friends and enemies if I didn't have to edit the rulebook they read first with notes, errors, stricken passages and addendas like turn notes... Cheers Valwyn! /Locklyn Oh and further... I just looked at how much I have spent pure dollarwise on the game during these years, it is the most I have EVER spent on any game EVER and that doesn't event start to figure in the time spent, well most of that was at work but still so despite being a mote in your eye Pete, I do love ya and this child of yours that you have us all rampaging about in...just so you know... /Lars Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Uriel Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 I think this is a good idea, with one qualifier. I believe it should start very simply, with the idea of rewriting the rule book (which is not an easy task). This task should take some time, and if it's accomplished with a degree of success, then the group (I hate committees) might be able to move on to other tasks. Just my two cents. Pete, I don't recall an accurate explanation from you about what deployment location qualifies as short, medium, long, and standoff ranges. I understand that it might be fairly easy to guess, but player guesses can be wrong, or deceptive. Nothing like facts. Speaking of deployment locations. I have 5 orbitals in deployment location 0. Is that possible? Lord Uriel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laserwolf Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 And we could call this committee... wait for it.... The PAN-GALACTIC SENATE!!! Comittee: We could take it in turns to be a sort of executive officer for the week... Pete: Yes... Comittee: ...but all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting... Pete: Yes I see... Comittee: ...by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs... Pete: Be quiet! Comittee: ...but by a two thirds majority in the case of... Pete: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet! Comittee: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakarissa Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 Well, I do agree that things need to be fixed in the game. There are too many to list. I'm even willing to let the game be suspended for a few months to allow RTG the time to actually work on the code. As long as the game is running, they won't have near enough time to work on the code, fix the existing bugs, and add in the stuff that should have been in the game in the first place. I foresee about a 4-6 month suspension to give them enough time to massage the code into a truly finished product. The downside? I don't think the player base would agree to that long a suspension. An argument could be made that if we did suspend the game for needed maintenance that we should just start the whole thing over from Turn 0. Yes, I know you guys will hate this option but it does offer the greatest chance for RTG to actually finish Supernova. I'm not trying to flame anyone, especially RTG. It takes a lot of work to develop, run, and maintain a game like this. I don't really think they have the manpower to fix Supernova while it's still running. The downside for them is that they lose the revenue stream from the game during the downtime. Honestly, I don't think there is a good acceptable solution for all parties. Sakarissa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Uriel Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 Well, I do agree that things need to be fixed in the game. There are too many to list. I'm even willing to let the game be suspended for a few months to allow RTG the time to actually work on the code. As long as the game is running, they won't have near enough time to work on the code, fix the existing bugs, and add in the stuff that should have been in the game in the first place. I foresee about a 4-6 month suspension to give them enough time to massage the code into a truly finished product. The downside? I don't think the player base would agree to that long a suspension. An argument could be made that if we did suspend the game for needed maintenance that we should just start the whole thing over from Turn 0. Yes, I know you guys will hate this option but it does offer the greatest chance for RTG to actually finish Supernova. I'm not trying to flame anyone, especially RTG. It takes a lot of work to develop, run, and maintain a game like this. I don't really think they have the manpower to fix Supernova while it's still running. The downside for them is that they lose the revenue stream from the game during the downtime. Honestly, I don't think there is a good acceptable solution for all parties. Sakarissa Honestly, my first thought was that I might be able to break my addiction after 6 months of going cold turkey. Imagine, I could afford to pay for gasoline at $3.67 and drive all I want if I simply stopped playing. I would stop buying excel help books and pay more attention to wife instead of thinking of a better ship design. While I think you've hit the nail on the head for this issue, ie: time, I don't believe the player base would survive a hiatus that long. Tempting though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGRuss Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 (edited) Hi Guys, We've kicked it around a bit on this end and think that Mark's suggestions have a great deal of merit - this is a pretty good community we've got here for SuperNova (when they are not blasting each other into atoms ) There is already quite a bit of help that goes out behind the scenes and we've got obvious examples like Cestvels' great utility (used by everyone I imagine ) that really do make the game better for a lot of folks. Any additional help that we could get would definitely be appreciated by us and the entire SN community. Keep in mind that SuperNova is still a pretty good game - it has its flaws like any other and sometimes those flaws get a lot of attention but the game still has run on schedule for several years now without any game killing problems. That's not bad in and of itself and even with its flaws it continues to support a good sized player community with an obvious interest in seeing it do well and continue A complete rework or a substantial interruption for development work is not something that is in the cards. There are issues with the game that we are working on as time permits and there are some issues that are simply going to have to wait for the next game (some things you just can't redo or introduce once a game is up and running). Our financial situation precludes some efforts, available manpower precludes others and in many cases the current system either works fine or is something that it is better not to tinker with at this stage of the game. Lord Uriel's comment about taking on a single project on to start with makes good sense to me. The rulebook and supplements could definitely use an upgrade and it is a time intensive project that we've just never seemed to be able to get to ourselves. I can set up a special forum here on this site for the project - to keep it separate from the main game forums so that those who are not interested in the project aren't distracted by it(but it is still available to anyone who wants to contribute or just see what is going on). The end product - rules updates, player tips, FAQ, etc. - is something that would be made available in the Rule & Mechanics forum and/or via our main website of course but these projects will probably take some time and the comments, rough drafts, etc. are probably better discussed in a seperate forum. The further mechanics of how this is all works is something I'll let you guys kick around a bit in the new forum. One thought from this end is that this project or any other needs to be as transparent as possible - particularly when it involves either Pete or myself. Comments from either one of us, answers to questions, rules clarifications, etc. should be in a public forum so that all players have access to them - both for informational purposes (keep the playing field as level as possible) and so that they can add in their own .02 if so desired. Thanks again for the input guys - I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes get defensive about criticism, even if clearly deserved, but Pete and I both appreciate that behind the criticism is a desire to make the game better. Take care and good gaming! Russ P.S. Ok - I've set up a "Project SuperNova" forum under an overall "Game Development" section (we'll do this with other games if it seems to work out well) so scroll down and you should see the new forum (I've got an introductory post to start it off). If you can't see the forum just let me know - I may have to tweak the permissions settings a little more, etc. Edited May 23, 2007 by RTGRuss Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octagon999 Posted May 23, 2007 Report Share Posted May 23, 2007 If someone is flying around ground fortresses, then how can that be anything other than an exploit? I think one problem is that I have yet to hear of any player sanctioned for obvious exploits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WKE235 Posted May 24, 2007 Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 If someone is flying around ground fortresses, then how can that be anything other than an exploit? I think one problem is that I have yet to hear of any player sanctioned for obvious exploits. Well, Pete does react well when this is seen and you point it out to Pete. Any battles that resulted are corrected and ships restored, with the immobile items moved back to where they belong. And the ships can't go through WP's (unless they've found a WP exploit). Since it is limited to in their own home system, it's probably regarded as a minor item, something on the list of things to do. It's more annoying than anything. There are ways someone could try to use it. For example, lets say your HW forces get defeated. Of course anything being built that turn appears in the production phase. So maybe next turn you move those ships somewhere else, hoping the are not noticed and you avoid a battle they would lose. Your plan is to move them back on a later turn when more ships are built, as you try to retake your skies. Of course this is easily countered by having all points in the system covered by a screen ship, so any such chicanery is countered by your detecting the move (and calling on Pete to correct). Again, it's more annoying than anything. It does more to say things about the player doing this than actually effect the game. The final point is for this to come into play, it means enemies are actively engaged in your home system, or over the Homeworld. So the player will probably soon face the ultimate game sanction anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Carpenter Posted May 24, 2007 Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 I think this is a good idea, with one qualifier. I believe it should start very simply, with the idea of rewriting the rule book (which is not an easy task). This task should take some time, and if it's accomplished with a degree of success, then the group (I hate committees) might be able to move on to other tasks. Just my two cents. Pete, I don't recall an accurate explanation from you about what deployment location qualifies as short, medium, long, and standoff ranges. I understand that it might be fairly easy to guess, but player guesses can be wrong, or deceptive. Nothing like facts. Speaking of deployment locations. I have 5 orbitals in deployment location 0. Is that possible? Lord Uriel I think this is a good idea, with one qualifier. I believe it should start very simply, with the idea of rewriting the rule book (which is not an easy task). This task should take some time, and if it's accomplished with a degree of success, then the group (I hate committees) might be able to move on to other tasks. Just my two cents. Pete, I don't recall an accurate explanation from you about what deployment location qualifies as short, medium, long, and standoff ranges. I understand that it might be fairly easy to guess, but player guesses can be wrong, or deceptive. Nothing like facts. Speaking of deployment locations. I have 5 orbitals in deployment location 0. Is that possible? Lord Uriel Rewritting the Rule book? What a waste of time. The I always figured the rule book was only to give u a general idea of what was going on, which it does, not every tiny detail about everything, which it appears is what everyone wants. you take a powerful tractor beam, lock it on tyhe fortress, rip it out of the ground, tow it to the warp point, Make the hole into a new public swimming pool. Sounds possible to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cestvel Posted May 24, 2007 Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 you take a powerful tractor beam, lock it on tyhe fortress, rip it out of the ground, tow it to the warp point, Make the hole into a new public swimming pool. Sounds possible to me. Well, obviously no tractor beam or engine is required by these flying fortesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Uriel Posted May 24, 2007 Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 I think this is a good idea, with one qualifier. I believe it should start very simply, with the idea of rewriting the rule book (which is not an easy task). This task should take some time, and if it's accomplished with a degree of success, then the group (I hate committees) might be able to move on to other tasks. Just my two cents. Pete, I don't recall an accurate explanation from you about what deployment location qualifies as short, medium, long, and standoff ranges. I understand that it might be fairly easy to guess, but player guesses can be wrong, or deceptive. Nothing like facts. Speaking of deployment locations. I have 5 orbitals in deployment location 0. Is that possible? Lord Uriel I think this is a good idea, with one qualifier. I believe it should start very simply, with the idea of rewriting the rule book (which is not an easy task). This task should take some time, and if it's accomplished with a degree of success, then the group (I hate committees) might be able to move on to other tasks. Just my two cents. Pete, I don't recall an accurate explanation from you about what deployment location qualifies as short, medium, long, and standoff ranges. I understand that it might be fairly easy to guess, but player guesses can be wrong, or deceptive. Nothing like facts. Speaking of deployment locations. I have 5 orbitals in deployment location 0. Is that possible? Lord Uriel Rewritting the Rule book? What a waste of time. The I always figured the rule book was only to give u a general idea of what was going on, which it does, not every tiny detail about everything, which it appears is what everyone wants. you take a powerful tractor beam, lock it on tyhe fortress, rip it out of the ground, tow it to the warp point, Make the hole into a new public swimming pool. Sounds possible to me. Sure, for many of the older or more active newer players a rulebook rewrite may be a waste of time. My thought is that player generated written material containing a rulebook rewrite (which sounds easy, but won't be), would be the easiest way to test if player group was able to collectively work together with a common goal. If it works, great; the player base was successful and perhaps another task can be worked on. If it doesn't work or crawls along at a snail pace due to everyone's real world concerns then a more active player involvement wasn't a realistic idea. Which is certainly on the minds of the GMs. If other players have better ideas feel free. We just have to keep in mind that while we support the game, it isn't ours. Any player assistance is at the whim of it's owners. Lord Uriel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Octus Imperium Posted May 24, 2007 Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 I think this is a good idea, with one qualifier. I believe it should start very simply, with the idea of rewriting the rule book (which is not an easy task). This task should take some time, and if it's accomplished with a degree of success, then the group (I hate committees) might be able to move on to other tasks. Just my two cents. Pete, I don't recall an accurate explanation from you about what deployment location qualifies as short, medium, long, and standoff ranges. I understand that it might be fairly easy to guess, but player guesses can be wrong, or deceptive. Nothing like facts. Speaking of deployment locations. I have 5 orbitals in deployment location 0. Is that possible? Lord Uriel I think this is a good idea, with one qualifier. I believe it should start very simply, with the idea of rewriting the rule book (which is not an easy task). This task should take some time, and if it's accomplished with a degree of success, then the group (I hate committees) might be able to move on to other tasks. Just my two cents. Pete, I don't recall an accurate explanation from you about what deployment location qualifies as short, medium, long, and standoff ranges. I understand that it might be fairly easy to guess, but player guesses can be wrong, or deceptive. Nothing like facts. Speaking of deployment locations. I have 5 orbitals in deployment location 0. Is that possible? Lord Uriel Rewritting the Rule book? What a waste of time. The I always figured the rule book was only to give u a general idea of what was going on, which it does, not every tiny detail about everything, which it appears is what everyone wants. you take a powerful tractor beam, lock it on tyhe fortress, rip it out of the ground, tow it to the warp point, Make the hole into a new public swimming pool. Sounds possible to me. Sure, for many of the older or more active newer players a rulebook rewrite may be a waste of time. My thought is that player generated written material containing a rulebook rewrite (which sounds easy, but won't be), would be the easiest way to test if player group was able to collectively work together with a common goal. If it works, great; the player base was successful and perhaps another task can be worked on. If it doesn't work or crawls along at a snail pace due to everyone's real world concerns then a more active player involvement wasn't a realistic idea. Which is certainly on the minds of the GMs. If other players have better ideas feel free. We just have to keep in mind that while we support the game, it isn't ours. Any player assistance is at the whim of it's owners. Lord Uriel Lord Uriel is right on the money in my book. A small project is never as small when you get into it. And a test case with a rule book rewrite would provide value (Does everyone understand every rule in every situation?) to even the experienced players. It has the added benefit of supporting new players (good for everyone) and is not very 'threatening' to the GM's. If transparency is assured, then this is an excellent idea. Transparency is important because the needed back and forth with Pete and Russ could generate subtle hints about methods/techniques that may not make the rules but would help those who are informed. I applaud the originators of this idea and everyone who's feeding into it. I also think RTG should be applauded for being interested in this player generated enhancement. Commercial ventures tend to do better when their customers are 'involved' in the business and not just debit card consumers! Octus Imperium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurassier Posted May 24, 2007 Report Share Posted May 24, 2007 Rulebook? There's a rulebook? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Carpenter Posted May 25, 2007 Report Share Posted May 25, 2007 I think this is a good idea, with one qualifier. I believe it should start very simply, with the idea of rewriting the rule book (which is not an easy task). This task should take some time, and if it's accomplished with a degree of success, then the group (I hate committees) might be able to move on to other tasks. Just my two cents. Pete, I don't recall an accurate explanation from you about what deployment location qualifies as short, medium, long, and standoff ranges. I understand that it might be fairly easy to guess, but player guesses can be wrong, or deceptive. Nothing like facts. Speaking of deployment locations. I have 5 orbitals in deployment location 0. Is that possible? Lord Uriel I think this is a good idea, with one qualifier. I believe it should start very simply, with the idea of rewriting the rule book (which is not an easy task). This task should take some time, and if it's accomplished with a degree of success, then the group (I hate committees) might be able to move on to other tasks. Just my two cents. Pete, I don't recall an accurate explanation from you about what deployment location qualifies as short, medium, long, and standoff ranges. I understand that it might be fairly easy to guess, but player guesses can be wrong, or deceptive. Nothing like facts. Speaking of deployment locations. I have 5 orbitals in deployment location 0. Is that possible? Lord Uriel Rewritting the Rule book? What a waste of time. The I always figured the rule book was only to give u a general idea of what was going on, which it does, not every tiny detail about everything, which it appears is what everyone wants. you take a powerful tractor beam, lock it on tyhe fortress, rip it out of the ground, tow it to the warp point, Make the hole into a new public swimming pool. Sounds possible to me. Sure, for many of the older or more active newer players a rulebook rewrite may be a waste of time. My thought is that player generated written material containing a rulebook rewrite (which sounds easy, but won't be), would be the easiest way to test if player group was able to collectively work together with a common goal. If it works, great; the player base was successful and perhaps another task can be worked on. If it doesn't work or crawls along at a snail pace due to everyone's real world concerns then a more active player involvement wasn't a realistic idea. Which is certainly on the minds of the GMs. If other players have better ideas feel free. We just have to keep in mind that while we support the game, it isn't ours. Any player assistance is at the whim of it's owners. Lord Uriel Lord Uriel is right on the money in my book. A small project is never as small when you get into it. And a test case with a rule book rewrite would provide value (Does everyone understand every rule in every situation?) to even the experienced players. It has the added benefit of supporting new players (good for everyone) and is not very 'threatening' to the GM's. If transparency is assured, then this is an excellent idea. Transparency is important because the needed back and forth with Pete and Russ could generate subtle hints about methods/techniques that may not make the rules but would help those who are informed. I applaud the originators of this idea and everyone who's feeding into it. I also think RTG should be applauded for being interested in this player generated enhancement. Commercial ventures tend to do better when their customers are 'involved' in the business and not just debit card consumers! Octus Imperium So a group of players would get the info needed to cover every situation, and Eventually produce an updated rulebook. Say 6 months to a year after they get the info, Gee, Ill do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.