Concerning the star map: was the amount of fuel you had at that point in time gained through normal play? If so, how long does it take to obtain enough fuel to travel such distances?
[quote who="Rhonin_the_wizard" reply="402" id="3710184"]Are you saying that Stardock should not use a trademark which they legally bought? [/quote] ...What? You're being unnecessarily defensive. He wasn't even talking about what Stardock should or shouldn't do, but rather what Lars would like them to do.
My point is that it's cynical of you to define what makes a Star Control game. Y'know, not having actually played any game in the franchise. You put yourself in the same group ("most of us", etc.) as the old fans who have played the games, but you're not really in it. SC:O will be your first Star Control experience... That isn't to say that there aren't possibly any Star Control fans who would agree with you, just that I don't think your own opinion of what makes Star Control Star Con
[quote who="Larsenex" reply="396" id="3710160"] I disagree. What makes it a 'Star Control' Game is the adventure aspect. If you never knew about Star Control (and most of us are dying off mind you), then this game is Star Control to the many thousands who will see it for the first time. You and I are old and make up less then 1% of the target audience. If the continuation of the story is all you care about then perhaps you can ask F&P to write you a story and that will be enough?<br
Lol at you guys... seriously... Watching part 1: "This is a pretty good video. This guy seems balanced and takes great care not to let any opinions get in his way" Watching part 2: "Wow this guy is a paid shill, I bet he makes a living from F&P's PR firm's donations" [e digicons]XD[/e]
These posts are now so off-topic, you should probably take them elsewhere.
[quote who="SirPrimalform" reply="238" id="3707797"] Wow ok, I've just seen P&F's latest blog post and I'm very much interested in hearing Stardock's side. Please tell me their interpretation of the settlement terms isn't correct, because some of the things you're apparently asking for are completely ridiculous. [/quote] Is this question directed at the so-called moustache-twirling villain? ;)
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="218" id="3706005"]I've seen several of P&F's fans claim there's some sort of "fair use" here when, obviously, no, that's not what fair use is.[/quote] I'm pretty sure P&F themselves conceded that it wasn't fair use when they edited their original post and added recognition of Stardock's trademark ownership...
Yeah, their game's title never included the Star Control trademark, which is what SirPrimalform is talking about. They did call it a direct sequel to Star Control, they did say it's from the creators of Star Control, but the game never had Star Control in the title in their announcement . Other sites may have wrongfully used it as part of the title.
[quote who="Kermamorjens" reply="163" id="3705527"] I remember reading somewhere that the rights revert pack to Paul and Fred under certain conditions, one being that Accolade stops existing, which it did in late 90s. But as Greg said, this all depends on the contract P&F had with Accolade, which none of us have seen [/quote] The Accolade agreement is Exhibit A (pg. 30) in P&F's <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4385486-2635-000-P-2018-02-22-17-Counter
[quote who="Kavik_Kang" reply="134" id="3705285"] Creator, Designer, Writer... they are all just titles. [...] that "work product" belongs to the company, not you.[/quote] Nobody disputes that. But Creator isn't just a title - it holds a specific meaning. The claim that Fred & Paul aren't the creators of Star Control would be like Konami claiming that Kojima isn't the creator of Metal Gear, except here it's worse because Stardock wasn't involved in any way in the creati
That's a very weak argument and also one that I believe to be dishonest. We know what creator means. It's not what you're saying it means. Hideo Kojima is the creator of Metal Gear. Nobody thinks this means that Kojima is whatever you claim a creator to technically be. People know there's a whole company behind the franchise, yet he's still commonly labelled as its creator. Similarly, Kojima can't make a Metal Gear now, although he's its creator. Regardless, I find it hard to
StarControl Forums
I think it's fair to include the option of auto-scavenging, similar to the philosophy of the auto-battle option in SCII. People who don't enjoy planet exploration could use it for getting materials, but players who bother manually landing on planets would be rewarded by being able to get better resources. So let's say a planet has on its surface what amounts to 100 RUs worth. A thorough expedition to the planet could potentially yield that. However, by using auto-scavenge, you get a r
Cool ideas! But I thought we were calling it Fleet Battles now?
Thanks for your honesty. I can imagine how crappy this has all been for you, and I truly appreciate the approach you have taken with this (for the most part). I wish there was something the fans could do. I strongly hope that the saga will end now, although I feel that this may make them close up even more. :/
[quote who="XenialJesse" reply="37" id="3697458"] Have they? Their blog refers to it as a direct sequel to The Ur-Quan Masters and I wonder if that's a difference that matters. [/quote] That was actually edited in later. The original post did mention Star Control by name. You can see the original post here .
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="67" id="3693824"] With regards to sending emails to everyone: We release vault updates pretty much the same day each month and have for a long time. But mainly, my point is that it's not really fair when someone argues that we aren't listening to feedback when someone provides feedback long after it could change. [/quote] You are definitely listening to feedback, I just wish there would have been more of it. It may be too late now
You do realize a there doesn't have to be a correlation between an art style an a game's target age group? Is South Park targeted at kids because it's a cartoon? I mean, I have no problem with preferences, but this is just silly... Also, I believe SC:O is targeted at neither of those groups. It's definitely for adults, but not just for the, what, thousand 30-50 year old gamers who played SC1/2 when they were young AND care enough and have the time to play SC:O today . I think you need
[quote who="Kavik_Kang" reply="3" id="3694156"] the threat of the map shrinking will make them want to engage and destroy the enemy before the map begins to steadily shrink down into a boxing ring. [/quote] This is the primary reason why I was rooting for something like this. Long matches suck in SC:O, and they sucked in SCII, in my opinion. Encouraging both players to engage each other and making the game more action oriented is something positive.
StarControl Forums
So I was too lazy to post my suggestions on the forum, but instead ended up discussing them at length with cuore, and I'm really excited for what this race is shaping up to be. bley, your SM suggestion makes a lot of sense. It's like it's not even combat for them, they're just there to disable enemy hostilities so they can be salvaged; "Why are you making this more difficult than it has to be?" A very cool implementation would be a ship that evolves throughout the battle. It s
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="64" id="3693783"] I suppose my main advice would be to keep up with the Vault entries. The Commander wasn't sprung on anyone. She was in vault updates for a very long time. [/quote] Protip: You should probably make their releases public founder knowledge by sending an email notification. There probably would have been a critical mass of founders with reasonable criticism months ago if more than ... 10%? (and that's a rough estimate, I am wi
So many good points I hadn't considered or noticed. Great feedback, I pretty much agree on everything. I also believe that a HUD-like GUI would be more fitting. I wish I knew anything about what I'm talking about here ([e digicons]^_^'[/e] ) so I could offer mock ups or more concise suggestions. I do have an eye for noticing flawed design but I find it hard to articulate what exactly is wrong. So thanks a lot for doing much of that for me. P.S. I'm hoping this has been brough
I believe the UI to currently be the weakest link in SC:O's presentation. Let me start from the end: I am strongly hoping for a complete redesign of the UI into something a lot less flat looking. I'll use several examples to demonstrate what I like and don't like about it. First, the screen I feel most comfortable with: <img src="https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/297466021173002241/366007446298427392/
[quote who="andy330" reply="4" id="3693264"] Quick feedback after playing 4 rounds against the Challenging AI. 3. The lack of screenwrap is annoying and leads to lots of situations where the AI runs and you can't catch him or go back the opposite direction to change the fight up. I've seen some threads about this, can't say I agree with most of the suggestions other than... just give us screenwrap. 6. The ship editor was immediately frustrating and I gave up fairly quickl
[quote quoting="post"] Currently we have 2 modes. Ranken and Unranked. With ranked being scores and restricted to official ships only. 1) I really think we are missing unranked option with official ships only. With current setup, what will happen is that hardcode SM players will play ranked, making it less accessible for beginners (exactly my experience with Starcraft, long time ago), while unranked will be hot mess with bunch of custom creations, u