Supreme Cmdr

If didn't only happen on the first mission, nobody would have been able to progress past the first ACM mission.

Tac, I'm not talking about the internal structure, I am talking about 'layout' of the files themselves! The Wraith one is clear and easy to read and digest. Most of the others are err on the side of clarity. William, I just looked at your revised version, looks good!! Even though Tac has a graphic image for his structure, you guys don't need to do that if you don't want to. But, it does make it look a lot nicer (at least in the .DOC version, no need for graphics in the HTML version). Again, Tac's is by far the best so far. Imagine that, after all, this is Tac we're talking about - notorious for breaking every rule he can think of. And Tac, yes, you're right about the sort of feedback that an open beta will give, but, regardless, you guys in the beta testing team (and some hard working guys here, Parias, his crew of misfits etc), will have to be GameMasters on the servers (free access, ability to kick people etc) because the dev team won't be around all the time to police the open beta. So, if some of these guys can't get a simple fleet structure organized, how can I trust them to organize anything, let alone a multiplayer entity? See my problem? I didn't pick you guys to be on my beta team, have access to my web server etc, for your looks. I did that because of the responsiblity that you guys have displayed and because I know that in my absence, someone has my back. But, I am dismayed that in two months, some have not been able to get this simple task, sorted out. [This message has been edited by Supreme Cmdr (edited 03-31-2000).]

I am not at all happy with this stuff. Is it so hard for you guys to come up with a common layout? Though I had repeatedly asked you guys to use a universal layout, such as the Wraith format (the best so far), I still see a mass of convoluted, bad formatted and organized structures. If this is not sorted out a week from today, the following will occur. And this time, I'm not screwing around, nor am I going to grant an extension. So, I suggest that you guys get together with Tac and sort this out. Also, in addition to .doc files, I need .html versions of all files. This will be for the Fleet page. I will fire all fleet leaders, disband all fleets and start from scratch. I will order the closure of all fleet websites. I will take control of these fleets, bring them inhouse and appoint my own internal people who I know that I can trust, to handle this. Rattler, Tac etc, to name a couple. I will close the proposed upcoming open multiplayer beta and nobody outside of my dev and beta teams, will be able to participate. I am uploading all the files to this link below and the upload should be completed 15 mins from the date stamp of this post. www.bc3000ad.com/fleets/fleets.zip 2.5MB

LOL!, if you get him off your ship, you won't have command & control anymore. Besides, you can't get him off your ship. After all, he is the SC for crying out loud -do you want to get court-martialed?

Have fun Rattler! Send me what you have before you leave and Andergum can pick up the slack next week when he gets around to it. Gummy, I guess you would be the one to update the pzones.doc file (since you're the original creator anyway) next week. Thanks!

quote: I would ask the higher powers to convert this zone to terran/mil and place a Wraith starbase there (zone 134, 432S 940W). Galcom would then have 2 starbases and a starstation in that solar system... a powerful force to combat the insurgency. OK, I think I see the problem. Anyway, I am not going to add any new zones. However, I have no problems changing the race/caste alliances, if the reason is a good one - such as Tac's request. Since it is logical to have zones in the region where your station is located, I have given access to some in Lyrius as well. If anyone else (Blades?) has similar requests, and have a good reason, let me know. I can change the race/caste alliance of existing zones but I cannot create new ones. In my on-going play balancing checks, I may also re-assign MZ at will. This means that you guys may get more MZ assets. I can also add/remove objects, with ease. This means that each of these MZs, will have a functional starbase in addition to what is already there. Those starbases, like stations, will be launch points in multiplayer. Rattler, I would need you to ensure that any MZ that is to be re-assigned, be flagged with the following text assignment pending in the submitted fleet structure; so that I remember to update the game database as well as the pzones.doc/pdf file when I'm doing the BCM manuals. It would also be nice if you could, in the pzones.doc file you have, tally up all the race/caste ownerships (including any re-assignments) for me and add to a new table at the top of the file. This way, I can have an at a glance look at the balancing and count of all MZ assets. So, eg, I can take one look at the second table and see how many Terran/Military Mission Zones there are. So, Tac, you can have the following zones to pick from. Terran/Military MZ pending assignments 95, 99, 102, 134, 131, 134, [This message has been edited by Supreme Cmdr (edited 03-29-2000).]

As much as I hate to do this, here is what happens when the developers sort out their own squads if they don't want the fan base screwing around with it for months end. Perhaps this is what I should have done? It doesn't seem as if you guys are ever going to sort this mess out finally. I can only hope. www.starlancer.org/squads/

Read the FAQ!! You shouldn't be running bc3k.bat directly. You should be running the BC3K 3DFX icon that was created by the install program. Install the Voodoo3 drivers on the downloads page.

OK, I'll give you guys a couple more days to mull it over before I make it final and implement it in my code base.

rejected. You guys need to go back and read the game's history, particularly where it involves Terrans, Empirians, Vesperons. And while you're at it, read the descriptions of some of the ACM scenarios in BC3K v2.0x. Also, I don't need a story for the timeline because I won't use it. I am not interested in using public material for my commercial property storyline - even it comes from the fan base. All I need to know is: ...why would the Vesperons allow the Insurgents to build another station in Frellis? It couldn't be any simpler, so I don't have a clue where all these paragraphs came from. Confusing, contradictory and not even close to my existing history. Of note, the Insurgents will have GALCOM, EarthCOM and the Empirians to deal with, if in fact that is any such Vesperon-Insurgent alliance. Having New America in Midae (a region that the Vesperons don't care enough about anyway, since they don't have any assets there), but yet another in Frellis, which would subject that Vesperon region to direct attacks by GALCOM and Empirian forces, stiffling the Vesperons operation to build jump gate tech into Polaris. Besides, regardless of all this, the Vesperons are members of GALCOM. Further, there is no way to hide a station such as New America and the notion is ludicrous to say the least. So, with New America, being a military station, already in Midae, even if Destiny were an Insurgent trading outpost, it would still take some explaining. I have taken into consideration the current diplomatic makeup and my future plans (I won't be adding a new galaxy until BC Online) - and, it would seem that Uranus (or any other region in Sol) or Treas, would be the best bet. Treas will no doubt raise some eyebrows at the UFN, especially since the Empirians and Terrans are very friendly. The only explanation that I can think of, is that Destiny will be a trading outpost for the Insurgents (like the one in Alpha Canis) and as long as it does not become a springboard for attacking UFN assets in Sol, the Empirians sanctioned its construction. Of course, the UFN won't like it one bit, but if they don't want the Insurgents back on Earth, they can't exactly keep pushing them back. Of course the Insurgents will most likely end up using it as a supply depot for for military forces, but they'd have to explain that to the Empirians. And if they help the Empirians with their Sla'ti problem, they may just turn a blind eye - as long as there are no orchestrated strikes against UFN assets, from there. They could also build it in Nevuela so that UFN forces, on their way to/from Syrion territory, don't get a direct path. Sure, they could still attack it from Centris, but that would show intent - as opposed to Treas, which is the direct path. Neveula isn't, it is a jump away from the main Sol-Tau Ceti-Alpha Majora route. So, you have a choice: Treas or Nevuela. Let me worry about the storyline justification. [This message has been edited by Supreme Cmdr (edited 03-27-2000).]

Frellis?? Oh boy, I can't wait to hear this explanation. The Vesperons are scumbags anyway.

I have DF2 as well and played it a bit. If you guys get the GALCOM squad going, count me in.

LOL!, someone's been playing too much Delta Force 2.

Create about 8 waypoints, over a heavily populated mission zone. Launch the interceptor with those waypoints and then launch a second interceptor to escort the first (the second does not need waypoints). Then, once the 1st one is over the zone, view it from any preferable F10 view and see how it navigates around that mission zone. If you cleverly spaced out the waypoints as well as put some that take it between and around buildings, you'll see some pretty cool stuff, especially if you have trails at max.

Yes, that loophole was plugged several revisions ago. But, we were talking about the current version - not a prior version.

Debris fields are dynamically generated.

The last few posts have been very constructive and informative - just the way I like it. So, I have an idea - I'll butt out and let the Insurgents decide where they want Destiny to move to. If it is going to be in Capella, all I need to know is how to explain it to the Mandorians. Again, I have no problems moving it and altering the timeline and storyline. I just need something logical and consistent and which also takes not only the political makeup of the galaxy into account, but also multiplayer. As far as multiplayer goes, SpcFx is right. At any rate, when you die, you will spawn from your last station/base location if it is still operational. If not, you will spawn at another - if any. If there aren't any, well, you will be at the lobby until one is repaired and goes online. Just wanted to make sure everyone understood this. [This message has been edited by Supreme Cmdr (edited 03-25-2000).]

Violations don't get decreased Undetectable cargo in shuttles that are launched, is not a loop hole. If you don't dock with the shuttle, how will they know? Where's the loophole? It works as designed.

What's them porting other games (which I am aware of), got to do with me making my code, available? Besides, I already said no. Thus ends the discussion.

quote: Having the Insurgents so close to Galcom space will make it an easy expliot in multiplayer. Once Destiny is taken, choking the Jupiter/Pluto jumppoints would make a recapture attempt unlikely. Perhaps. Then again, thats Rattler's problem to ensure that the station doesn't fall - as it is GALCOM's problem to ensure that, eg, Starpath doesn't fall. Gallion makes some good points - but please refrain from using RPG storylines/logic when discussing the game's timeline. I have already made an exception, regarding this whole convoluted Wraith affair that Tac started when he decided to up and move. Had I become aware of the GWII RPG, I wouldn't have even moved the station, knowing that I would be subjected to this ongoing dialogue. I asked for it quote: Insurgency rebuilds and occupies the former Wraith SS in Rinaal with Mandorian blessing. Why? quote: They also allow the Insurgency to build another SS at Capella. Why? quote: After losing so many resources (ships, warriors, etc.) during GW2 the Gammulans wouldnÔÇÖt be able to amass a large fleet for sometime. Like I said, don't inject RPG elements into the storyline premise.

I just connected and it seems to be working fine.

Yes, thats what I said. BCM and my console game, will probably be the last single-player BC3K title that I do. I'm sorry, but the few people who don't have proper internet access or who are afraid to pay for usage over the net (you can always send in a check or money order, like most people do with online transactions), don't pay the bills that keep BC3K going. And considering the amount of time it takes to do a SP game these days, coupled with the fact that it is now a hit or miss industry, as a small development house, I can't afford to take risks anymore. Yes, its not good news, but unfortunately, thats how it is.

Giving my code to a third party is never an option.

Like I said, I don't mind moving Destiny - if its logical. So far, none of the reasons I've seen, are logical. For one thing, if the Insurgents want take Earth, they'd be hard pressed to do it from clean, clear across the galaxy - where they've been (with Spectre being the closest) for over twenty or so years. So, putting it in Uranus, is a somewhat logical, if not seemingly foolish, location. Capella seems fine, but I question the validity of having a station in Antis, Rinaal and Capella. The Gammulans would have a field day - not to mention CIOPS. Apart from that, I know for a fact that the Mandorians won't let Insurgents build two stations in their region because it signifies domination of that region. Besides, in multiplayer, Insurgents are going to be fighting half way across the galaxy (from any station) to get near any GALCOM asset - and the same applies to GALCOM - which is probably not such a bad thing. But, with 16 players max in BCM, players could get bored having to fly vast distances to wage a war - die - and have to fly half a galaxy again to continue engaging (after respawn). In BC Online, it won't be such a big deal because 1000 players per server will always find someone to beat up on.

The BC universe is not about domination - its about survival of the fittest. This premise will never change.