ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Poll: 2D or 3D Space Battles

CannonFodder

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 124

Report this Sep. 08 2005, 10:48 pm

in light of HL's post about a recent interview with P.E., a question asked was:

Quote (Star Trek Gamers @ Sep. 07 2005)
9: Ship's will obviously be a part of the game as people can crew them later on. Will ship to ship battles be on a 2d plane (like the old SFC series) or will they be on a 3d plane like Bridge Commander and HOmeworld?

answered as follows:

Quote (Daron Stinnett-Executive Producer for Star Trek Online @ Sep. 07 2005)
Creating compelling capital ship combat is a challenging design problem that has been getting a lot of attention from the design team lately. After wrestling with a variety of different schemes we've landed on one that we are pleased with and they are now working through the details. At this point, there are no firm plans regarding ship movement in local space. Though in the few brief discussions we've had on the topic, there's a clear preference for 2D oriented navigation with the possibility of out-of-plane maneuvers. Our general feeling is that capitol ship should be more like battleship or submarine warfare than fighter jets.

i am very distrubed by this one. so much that this one will be the deal breaker with me and STO. while i am willing to compromise on most gameplay issues, this is not one of them. i firmly believe that P.E. should not even consider 2D because its the easy way to solve a development problem. i want to see numerous camera angles that can capture every essence of the ship and space which provides some of the most beautiful eye-candy. i want to see not only realistic space battles, but realistic space travel too. i can't see one without the other. sorry, but thats just me. the only 2D feature that i would tolorate should be restricted to ship movement on my hud screen. Bridge Commander has spoiled a lot of people with its 3D space simulation battles, and its probably spoiled me the worst. with all the mods avaliable for that game, you almost can go where no one has gone before. i think it will be a huge mistake if this game is not based around 3D. i don't want to hear that crap about how its not possible given the time restrictions, or more crap about just wait and see what P.E. decides to do officially. im saying this now so that it will not be no surprises later on down the road to release.

Captain_Samurai

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 845

Report this Sep. 08 2005, 11:30 pm

As I've said before on these forums and the STO.net forums:
Quote
:/ I'm not too happy with 2D navigation in local space. Looking at a galactic map and picking a system I can see placing everything in two demensions, but when doing combat, its not just left right forward backward, its up and down. Now I know that when we all start none of us will be experienced, but as a Starfleet officer (especially helmsman) one would want to be able to roll under a ship and take out the ventral phasers then pull up behind and make targeted attacks along the dorsal surface of a ship.

In terms of the battleship vs. fighter plane warfare, the thing is that starships are like fighter planes, huge slow moving fighter planes, but the tactics carry over. You aren't going to fight. If you look at any of the star trek battles, the ships aren't floating by each other firing off cannons or making vertical ascents and decents. They roll and angle around objects. Now I'm not saying that means that the huge capital ships can turn on a dime (though in real space they could, just slowly, and I'm not referring to movement on a plane but just manuverability as a spacecraft using aircraft physics) but they aren't floating on a plane.

I'm most definately more of a Bridge Commander (heavily modded of course ) type of navigation. I like rolling and banking and all that good stuff. Of course its harder on huge ships but they can still do the same manuvers but it takes a lot more to turn a 800m long starship than the Defiant. I mean look at the Enterprise-E, she didn't act like a battleship (though the firepower is the same), she flies like an airplane. If Star Trek were real, ships of any size could turn and all that like an aircraft, as long as the engine is big enough. If the federation designed ships that acted like actual naval vessels, it probably wouldn't be around long enough to change, or they would meet all the other warp-capable species that used aircraft dynamics for their starships.

Another thing I don't agree with is the whole naval classification thing (whether a ship is a heavy cruiser, or a destroyer, etc.), but I won't start on that one because its more than slightly off topic.


Just because Starfleet is considered a navy doesn't mean it has to abide by the rules of a ship floating on a plane. They are spacecraft that can do almost any manuver that an aircraft, because they are suspended in space. As I said in my quoted post I play my heavily modded version of bridge commander. I didn't like SFC for the very reason that it was on a 2D plane and you couldn't perform the same manuvers that a starship could. If its going to be 2D navigation and combat, I'm going to start having second thoughts about this game...especially since I wanted to start out as a helmsman.

Tal_Shiar_Officer

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1652

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 12:23 am

I voted that I really don't care. As a human being, I am trained to live in a primarily two dimensional world. Why do I say two dimensional instead of three? As humans, we find ourselves generally going in the x and y directions, and not going up or down in the z direction. When we do change in the z direction, it is more of a plane shift than anything else. In any case, I personally believe that fully three dimensional space would be too confusing for the human mind. I see no problem with a primarily 2D approach with the ability to go up or down enough for combat situations. In my mind, the z axis will add about as much depth as it did in Star Trek Armada 2. It will just add unnecessary complexity.

I could live with either, though. Doesn't make a big deal to me.

Captain_Samurai

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 845

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 1:13 am

In the following response I am being neither sarcastic or disrestpectful but:

Have you played Bridge Commander before?
That was 3D combat. I personally didn't find it that confusing, I actually found it rather interesting and exciting because of the stuff you could do with it. I understand that there are people who may find this confusing, but are they planning to be a pilot? I am, and I never found the 2D plane combat and navigation that inticing. I think most people who want to be pilots are going to want to pull manuvers and all of that sort of stuff.

Tal_Shiar_Officer

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1652

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 1:38 am

I played Bridge Commander, but I was so bad at it that I often relied on the AI tactical officer. In any case, Bridge Commander has a small scale Z axis, like what I see Perpetual suggesting. There is room for tactical movement, but in general, the game is X/Y based versus Z based. No 3D starmaps or anything like that. On the small scale, Bridge Commander is good. On the large scale? No.

Chaldean

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 726

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 1:57 am

Bridge commander had 'point-to-point' navigation in a 2D plane, with the possibility of 'out-of-plane' tactical manoeuvres.  Sounds familiar.

TorakSolar

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 2:00 am

I played SWG and done spacecombat there. And in a Star Wars (SW) game 3D is essential. Cause in SW its Doggfights.

My answer in this poll is neutral (2D or 3D) as the speed and agility of the ships are more like huge Navy ships then fighters. For a combat to work in Star Trek it would need to be slow and lumbering rather then twitch based... since you have multiple roles in the bridge that needs to follow the flow of the combat not only helm. So for the playability of the game a slow spacecombat system would be more true to the Star Trek feeling.

For me the fact of it being 2D or 3D is less important then that it will acctually work to have a good teamwork in the bridge in a spacebattle situation. For me it is more important that you are limited to see what you can see from your post on the bridge and not have a view where you see the ship in a third-person view in space (like SWG). So follow cameras on the ships would bring the experience down alot for me.

Well what say you?

mirkrim

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 132

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 3:12 am

I'm pretty sure it'll turn out similar to Bridge Commander.  Only space battles need to be 3D, and they will probably be instanced; regular navigation will be 2D.  I can see how a 3D gameworld such as EVE Online makes more physics sense, but it's unnecessary for ST:O and is non-canon anyway.  (You never see ships pitch 90 degrees up when changing course, after all)

CannonFodder

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 124

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 7:09 pm

Quote (Chaldean @ Sep. 09 2005, 1:57 am)
Bridge commander had 'point-to-point' navigation in a 2D plane, with the possibility of 'out-of-plane' tactical manoeuvres. Sounds familiar.

no sir. there was nothing 2D about bridge commander at all.

while there is point-to-point navigation, whenever course corrections (nav points, planets, other ships, etc.) is used, ships will used a 3D plane when plotting the new course. if the object of the course correction should change locations, the ship will alter course to match instantly. and this is speaking from an A.I. perspective. if the player is controlling the ship then they have full control to pilot the ship however and where ever they choose to, left, right, forward, backwards, rolling right or left, turning right or left, and pitching UP and DOWN.

while all these manuvers are necessary in ship to ship battles, i can not see them restricted when it comes to ships traveling through local space. if your out exploring the galaxy, you will not always be traveling at warp speeds and you will not always travel point-to-point. what will happen when are crusing about at impulse and decide to make a minor course correction? with 2D, you are restricted to either turning left or right, and if your lucky, you may even get the chance to roll the ship. of course you will be able to move forward and sometimes backwards, but you will not be able to go up and down. to me, this is unacceptable. even while traveling at warp speeds, you can still make minor course corrections. i too will want to become a helmsman at some point and time in my STO career and be able to pilot my most favorite ships. i do not want any 2D restrictions placed on my gaming experience when it comes to any part of ship movements. as i have said before, i am willing to compromise with most other development issues that may arise, but this is not one of them. i stand firm on 3D or bridge commander ship movements becoming a reality in STO, no exceptions. it think SciFiSamurai said it best. its time that people stop thinking about starships as ocean-liners on water.

MigueIitoSan

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1018

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 7:26 pm

It should turn out to be like Bridge commander. No Question. If it's 2D then Gamestop, and other reviews will laugh at it, and it will go down as another flub in the history of trek gaming.

heh, sorry if that was a little strong.

Captain_Samurai

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 845

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 7:40 pm

I'm not saying that navigation from system to system in warp should be in three dimensions (though I enjoyed it in Nexus: The Jupiter Incident, and the 3D galactic map will be put into some of the new sci-fi strategy games). I am saying that when ships are moving at sublight speeds, it should be in three dimensions. When you look at a starmap, I won't mind so much if it is in 2D, when I'm in combat especially, I want to be able to roll around ships, dive in front, even play chicken with my enemies (not that the AI will be that advanced but I do it all the time in BC). When you see the game from a prospective helmsmans point of view, you want all of the manuvering possibilities available, and in real space, nearly any manuver can be done by even the largest of starships. As I've said before, starships are not the not the naval ships we know of, they are huge aircraft suspended in space with the use of X,Y, and Z axis, not a ship floating on a plane. Again, those that plan on being helmsman probably understand me more in this, and those who are planning on another department should try and put themselves in our shoes. Just as much as an engineer wants to be able to tweak and modify everything in a complicated mess that I wouldn't want to understand, I want to have the freedom to do what I want to do with my decided profession.

CarlR

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 10:46 pm

CannonFodder, and SciFiSamurai.

I Agree with you both 100%, i was outraged when i learned they were even considering a 2D combat system. i was actualy going to put a poll and severly protest this, but looks like you beat me to it :)

i'll try not to repeat what's allready been said, but PE, i really hope you are watching this topic, because i'm telling you now, you will lose a good portion of gamers if you go 2D on space combat and movement. I would tolerate restrictions or cut-backs in other areas of this game, i'm ok with a 2D map... but this is not somthing that I will sit by and watch happen to what could be the Best Star Trek gane yet! As CannonFodder said before, perhaps Bridge Commander spoiled us with ship combat, but then again, they set the mark and new expectations for future games. I stated earlyer that i plan on being a helmsman, and as SciFiSamura said we want our Career choice to offer us what we expect of it.

PE, it is obvious that we dont want a 2D game, and it'll be a long time before i consider playing this if it goes 2D. And i think i can speak for most of us Pilots when i say, were gonna be giving extra thought on playing this game if it's 2D space control's.

flibble1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 480

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 11:14 pm

3D all the way homeworld is a prime example of 3d space combat and i enjoyed it hell of a lot.
Also ive been playing the battlefield games for over 3 years now so im very good at spacial awareness, its a realism factor, combat will be quite dull especially if they do decide to introduce fighters hell even the runabouts or peregrine class which are designed for maneouverability and speed wont be much fun, seeing a ship appear from miles away when its better they can sneak above or below you

remember wrath of kahn ? in the nebula ? kirk would have been screwed if he was subjected to 2d ;) i know i know its only a game but this is a generally important feature id like this bit of realism in the game

CarlR

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 43

Report this Sep. 09 2005, 11:20 pm

i just realized somthin the the Question to PE on 2D-3D

Quote
Will ship to ship battles be on a 2d plane (like the old SFC series) or will they be on a 3d plane like Bridge Commander and HOmeworld?


Homeworld is not a 3D controled game, well.. not quite in what i think he wanted to reffered it to.  Homeworld is more of a 2D plane with what we mentioned before with the Z axis of up and down applied, only 3D to it, is it has a 3D camera.

for those of you who have played HW 1&2 i think you can understand where i'm coming from. i dont think we are looking for that style of ship control..

just noticed that now, and wanted to share it.

mirkrim

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 132

Report this Sep. 10 2005, 3:22 am

Yeah there appears to be a misunderstanding.  True 3D actually has infinite planes, meaning that ships would always be facing 'forward' no matter how they turn.  Games like Bridge Commander are pseudo-3D, or in PE-terms, "2D oriented navigation with the possibility of out-of-plane maneuvers."  You can bank and roll, thereby vertically shifting your plane of movement, but you can't actually tilt 90 degrees up and travel like that.

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum