Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
We need help deciding
Poll: Choose a Map (37 member(s) have cast votes) Which map should we use for STN: TFF? Map 1 (15 votes [40.54%]) Percentage of vote: 40.54% Map 2 (10 votes [27.03%]) Percentage of vote: 27.03% Release both maps (6 votes [16.22%]) Percentage of vote: 16.22% Not Sure (4 votes [10.81%]) Percentage of vote: 10.81% Other idea... (2 votes [5.41%]) Percentage of vote: 5.41%
Which of these two maps should we use for STN: The Final Frontier, or do you think we should release both as an option... All the systems will be the same in each map, but the placements are different.
Map 1
Map 2
This post has been edited by Highway of Life : 25 March 2006 - 06:04 PM
The link says that I don't have permission to view the files... maybe you should upload them at this forum?
Yeah... just found out... sorry... fixing it.
Alright, fixed... you may now view the maps.
This post has been edited by Highway of Life : 24 March 2006 - 10:16 PM
@highway-of-life, on Mar 24 2006, 10:15 PM, said in Vote for the map to use for STN: The Final Frontier:
Thanks. I'm liking Map 1 a lot.
Here's a radicle thought; how about using the official ST star-charts? Crazy, I know...
I'll let you guess which map incorporated those.
My point being, I don't understand why you're even asking us to vote on this. Surely the decision is a no-brainer.
After pouring through hundreds of canon references, it's pretty difficult to make a perfectly canon map. Especially since: 1) The writers did not always get it right on (i.e. how do you make it from Earth to Q'ornos at warp 5 in 5 days?!?) 2) We have to put 3D space on a 2D map. This is never easy. 3) No ST reference contains EVERY SINGLE Star Trek system, or it's correct placement.
...did I say that getting it right would be easy?
No... but I do understand what you are saying Hudson.
Hey now Everyone. Map 2 has been "improved" visually. If the improvement influences your vote. Just post.
I better like the 1st one. Seems more prone to nasty encounters...
And once again: Wow. I mean.. this is a lot of systems.. :mellow
This post has been edited by Mumbling Psycho : 25 March 2006 - 08:46 PM
haha! Yeah... wait till you see all the nasty encounters this TC will have. Oh... there will be more systems also, this only shows some of the Alpha/Beta Quadrant. There is (not shown) Delta and Gamma Quadrant systems.
I have to add tons of disclaimers: I know nothing about Star Trek, don't know your story line, can't tell what different features of the maps might mean for game play, etc.
But I like aspects of each.
Map one is more interesting visually and seems to be better laid out in detail. The system layout of Federation and Klingon space is interesting with the elongated outline of federation borders and the two horns of Klingon space. It suggests plot features and political variety. On a level of smaller detail it also has variety, for instance in Cardassian space which in map 1 seems to have two regions, one densely clustered and inhabited, the other more sparsely laid out and less populated. There are some questions that come to mind. SW Federation space, for example, is only a couple of systems wide. Knowing nothing about Star Trek I don't know if the Tholians are hostile, but if they are that border seems difficult to sustain. It seems a bit arbitrary in any case, but then, borders are arbitrary, even when they're justified historically. So this map suggests things about history and political boundaries.
Map 2 is less interesting visually, more similar to the shape of other maps for EVX that we've seen before. However I like the sense that some places don't directly abut each other. The Breen, Children of Tama, and the Son'a take a little bit of traveling to reach, and that creates a sense of inaccessibility and detachment that's suggestive. It gives me the sense of a galaxy that isn't fully colonized and in which some areas remain to explore. The disconnected systems in Breen space are also intriguing. Also the way that the Gorn and Tholian borders interpenetrate the Federation border suggests something as well, either conflict or great trust or something else. Some history, anyway. And the Typhon expanse seems to be going somewhere. It looks as if you might enter it and continue to another area entirely.
But in my opinion you and your team have to talk it over and decide which of the aspects of your galaxy suggested by these two maps you want to incorporate in your game. Really, you're trying to take an easy way out by asking us. We don't know anything about what you're planning.
And of course, you shouldn't try to design two versions of the game with two different maps.
But then again, you don't know me at all, so there's no reason for you trust my judgment...
Bubbles
This post has been edited by Bubbles : 25 March 2006 - 09:37 PM
That's an excellent analysis Bubbles. As the team was discussing the maps, it became apparent that we would not be able to decide which map to use. Most of the team was divided, or undecided.
I had the idea of using an either-or option since all the systems will be identical except for their placements on the map, this would make it interesting, say if the player had played the entire game and explored everything... which, I might add, would take quite a while, and would be quite a feat. But nonetheless, I thought by giving the player an option to load up another Galaxy would prove to be an additional challenge the players might enjoy if they have already conquered the game the first time. Almost as if entering another Galaxy altogether.
I can tell you now, by the recent discussions with the team, and the votes cast throughout three forums. I am fairly confident the final galaxy will look more like map 1. But it will have some modifications made to it. We want to keep the final layout somewhat of a secret.
In the end, of course, the team will have the final say which map is chosen, but it's always a good idea to get other players' input and suggestions.
Thank you bubble, I anticipate that your analysis will be most helpful to the two map builders on our team.
- Highway
This post has been edited by Highway of Life : 25 March 2006 - 09:36 PM
I voted for map 2. I like map 1, except for the part of the Federation that is seperated from the rest. That makes no sense. But I've seen it before. It is in the star charts and it is in the other Star Trek TC. Map 2 is different. It is laid out with the same basic positioning of powers but it does not conform to what everyone else says the Star Trek universe should look like and I like that.
I think you should do something different than every other Star Trek game and resource insists on and use map 2.
...and then it'll stop being 'A Star Trek TC' in any meaningful way. You can't alter something as fundamental to ST as the star charts, just because it doesn't suite you. If you're going to produce a body of work set in someone else's created universe - particularly in the case of a universe as rich and well developed as ST's - you should at least try ...scratch that, I believe you're obliged to remain as true as you can to the original as the engine will allow. Otherwise you might as well rip the arse out of anything and everything you find difficult to deal with...
This post has been edited by Hudson : 27 March 2006 - 03:45 PM
@hudson, on Mar 27 2006, 07:31 PM, said in Vote for the map to use for STN: The Final Frontier:
I believe you're obliged to remain as true as you can to the original
If only Rick Berman and Brannon Braga had felt the same way.
You know what makes creating a Star chart so difficult? Is that they (the writers) never did get it the same every single time, the Star Trek universe seemed to change every episode. It's not like Star Wars where there is a set universe outlined ahead of time. We are talking about 40+ years of Star Trek charts made up on the spot. That's pretty difficult to stay canon with. And don't forget, space is 3D. EV Nova is NOT! We will try to stay as canon as possible, that is, infact the best anyone can hope for with a 2D game, with a limiting game engine.
If I was completely canon with ship size, a shuttle would be the size of a small spec about the size of a pen dot on a paper. And the Borg Cube would take up your entire monitor... not to mention the fact that the game engine won't allow this. (trust me, I tried)
So I would just say, leave us some space to put some artistic license into it. It will turn out much more fun, trust me.
@highway-of-life, on Mar 27 2006, 10:50 PM, said in Vote for the map to use for STN: The Final Frontier:
**This has been a great debate thus far, and I thought I would weigh in on my thoughts about it.
Continuity, as Hudson has argued vehemently in favor of, is indeed important. But I don't think it ought to be the end-all for your creative design. And, as you have argued, there is no way any officially released Star Trek map represents every detail of every episode of every show accurately. Not even close, if I'd have to guess, but not being a (recent) Star Trek fan, it's impossible to know for certain.
I like Map 2 because it reminds me of the previous EV games, clean and neat. It's also the reason I prefer Map 1. Map 1 is so much more dynamic and interesting. Let's face it, what are the chances that the entire Federation wouldn't have a few more isolated pockets of planets? In fact, in 'reality' its more likely that your map actually understates how uneven an amorphous cross-species alliance of planets would look. With that in mind, Map 2 makes very little sense. Think of the better creative opportunities the first allows you with all the uneven borders and distant worlds. I've always thought of adapting certain stories or ideas as your own re-imagination of them; in this way you create something that is new and unique in the mold of something that is proven and interesting itself; if you simply mean to duplicate your model then all you're really doing is re-hashing someone else's work in another medium.
Just my thoughts, take what you will from them.
_bomb
**
Even if the details change, it's my understanding that the fundamentals of such things as boarder-lines have remained pretty stable. And it's those kinds of details that I'm talking about.
With regards to the whole representation of three dimensional space in the nova; that's only really an issue if you've never looked at ST star charts. For the most part, inhabited planets are fairly evenly spread horizontally through the body of our galaxy.
And as for the comparison between accurate representation of star charts, and accurate representation of scaled ships in game; there's a very real difference between making changes because the engine forces you to, and making changes on a point of personal preference. You have to alter the scale of ships in game otherwise the game would be unplayable. Where-as the changes you're talking about making to the star charts seam to based on nothing more than a lack of concern.
This post has been edited by Hudson : 28 March 2006 - 01:56 AM