Star Trek

"Never tell the captain when you think it's gonna be done, just tell him it's set back a bit."

Scotty could learn PE a great deal, IMO.

Btw, anyone got any 2D-space battle pics for us to see? We could show PE they're wrong through examples.

=/\= -Dexz. =/\=

Quote (Captain_Samurai @ Sep. 08 2005, 11:13 pm)

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.

Yeah, my thoughts entirely - I'm dithering between pilot and engineer but 2D would make up my mind for me as engineer- wher's the excitemnt in 2D driving?

Quote (KatherineVee @ Nov. 16 2005, 6:31 am)

I bet though that people will still go out and play this game once it is released.

i can bet your money as well as mine that if STO ship combat turns out to be 2D based that i won't be investing in it.

Full 3D is the ONLY way to go, especially if you want to fly a Defiant class ship like Nog does in DS9.

Quote (KatherineVee @ Nov. 16 2005, 3:31 am)

Also, if development for this game is going to change so much on the outcry from the fan base of this forum do people in here REALLY beleive that this game will be released in 2007 with a beta test in 2006?  It hasn't got a hope in hell of being released before 2008 the way things are going.

Hey, I've got no problem whatsoever with a 2008 release as long as they do it right. Some things are worth waiting for.

Yup, a really bad initial release is much worse than a delayed launch date.

All I ask is that PE be realistic about their release schedule. If anything they should give a later-than-expected release date and then surprise everyone with an early release rather than have to delay countless times, or even worse, release a rushed, sub-par product.

3D space battles and movement all the way.  If you want a good startrek game a major and essential part of it is 3D space battles. With this kind of mobility a captain can tell the helsman to get under the enemy ship to let their ship's weapons pound away at the enemy's weak shields to get at the hull!

If you want to see how 2d battle sucks go play STCommandIII...think thats what its called. Anyway, most of the time i was chasing the enemy in a circle. Comon devs, over a hundred people have voted for 3d instead of 2d which as 4 ppl. i didnt even know there were 126 ppl on this forum lol.

Quote (STOCaptain01 @ Nov. 19 2005, 9:05 am)

If you want to see how 2d battle sucks go play STCommandIII...think thats what its called. Anyway, most of the time i was chasing the enemy in a circle. Comon devs, over a hundred people have voted for 3d instead of 2d which as 4 ppl. i didnt even know there were 126 ppl on this forum lol.

[QUOTE]

Starfleet Command III is the game you are thinking of.  I agree though that game devolved into players running circles around each other hoping their ship had the better turning circle because most ships had either poor or zero rear firing weaponary.  The tactics were somewhat limited because of the 2d plane.

Well we will have to see what they do.  Its been about one month since their last dev blog and I would imagine they will be putting a new one out shortly.  Lets wait and see wait they are planning now at this point.  The last dev blog about combat being 2D received such an extreme negative response that perhaps they will be rethinking their plans.  

Personally I would prefer 3D combat, but I could live with 2D combat if it came down to it.  Though I don't imagine a lot of other community memebers feel the same way, so I think PE would be wise to alter their 2D plans.  If anything we have seen that Trek fans are extremely fickle and will boycott in large numbers anything they think violates the spirit of Star Trek.

Its not just that, when was the last succesful space game that had 2d combat? 3d space combat has been around since I can remember. Maybe if space was a very minor part of the game, but it is like an organ to the game lol. The devs need 3d. Whew....im loosing my vocab when im this tired....wheres that coffee.

I say give the people what they want even if it takes an extra year to make an excellent spaceflight physics engine. I know I can wait and most people don't even know this game exists yet. The way I see it, PE can go ahead on schedule and take shortcuts such as this one or they can take the time to do it right. Hell, most people will see that it's a Star Trek game and right off the bat think it's going to suck. Why not take the time and put in the extra effort to prove them wrong?

I've been reading alot of the posts on this thread. It is clearly apparant that there is an INTENSE need and desire for a 3D gaming environment.

I am Co-Founder/Co-Leader of a clan that began its roots in Bridge Commander. BC has lost a lot of its fanbase.. but it is still one of the best 3D space combat games out there.

I've also played SFCIII and Armadas I and II. The 2D plane in these type games were sufficient at best. There was a bit of an X plane (X,Y,Z,). But you could really only tell if collisions were turned off.

I read and understand the difficulties that are involved in creating such a universe with those type properties. So, I believe that if this isn't an option that can be properly integrated that they allow the cieling and floor to be expanded to allow the desired manuevers.

They say they would like this game to have a cinematic effect. Just as if you were in the movies or series. But i don't see how that could be with a limited ceiling and floor. In fleet battles such as in DS9, ships weren't lined up in a flat plane. They most definately had 3D positioning. When you look at some of the movies NEVER did the ships comes straight at you all the time. There are GREAT tactical advantages to one's position-in-space versus an opponents.

For example: The Defiant class starship can cripple much larger ships with its ability to fit into tight spaces. Manueverability should play a crucial role in one ships tactical advantage over another. If the ability to manuever is retarded with limits such as cieling and floor, the combat success would depend largely on each ships weapon and shield strengths (hitpoints).

If you look at it from its own story-line, Starfleet created smaller, more-powerfull, more manueverable ships rather than larger ones.  They take less resources and are more tactically sound versus a large enemy.  If you take away from their designed abilities, the experience of being onboard one of those ships will be greatly comprimised.  And in doing so, may also comprimise their own fan base.

In order to have a true cinematic experience, and realistic tactical scenarios, an expanded 2D plane must exist. It may not be true 3D... but more of a 3D like plane.

How many games do you here know who USE 3 dimensions for free travel? how many mmos? maybe only eve, and its stripped for so much else exept the ships.

I trust perpetual have an reason behind the 2D descision, both for gameplay and for hardware limitations as servers.

I have to admit that they are more versed in the specifics that I.  I was troubled when they compared it directly to SFCIII.  In order to gain the cinematic effects they desire, it will have to be much better than that.