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

Devs: Community wants 3D space combat!

ElevenThirtyOne

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 77

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 5:50 pm

In a recent poll nearly 90% of future ST:O players want 3D spacial combat and navigation over 2D flat plane (Starfleet Command). Now I'm not sure how official this poll is + / - but if we convert this to a more conservative figure we can easily say that at least 75% or 3/4 of the playerbase wants 3D.

Now you may be thinking ... How can Perpetual ingore such a major issue and while doing so antagonize the very same playerbase that will ultimately make or break this game?

The Perpetual dev team has stated "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."

Now my question to Perpetual ... is this decision for 2D what's BEST for the game or easiest (cheaper - whatever) programmatically speaking.

Now none of us pro-3d'ers are making a guess on what would be best ... we've all played enough Star Trek games as well as space combat games to know for certain what is more fun.

Ask anyone who has played Star Fleet Command I, II or III and they will all tell you the same thing: great game but the lack of 3D combat / navigation takes away alot of the overall game experience.

For those of us who were there in the early SWG days numerous changes were made based on community involvement, petitions and discussion. And many of us saw decision being made that we knew would become problematic, which they did.

My challenge to this community is to push on this issue and voice your support for this petition.

JazH

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1849

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 6:10 pm

Jonus

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 69

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 6:16 pm

Has the time of petitions already begun? *rolleyes*

I cannot exaclty tell which kind of navigation is better. It is highly dependent on the situation. A admiral for example who want's to plan the next attack strike for a sector will probably like to have a 2d grid to make his moves. I captain of a ship on the other hand probably want to take cover behind a moon and needs the 3d dimension to do so. A pilot probaly want's direct control of the ship for such a reasonable thing like to warp out of a space station.

In the end it's a question of detail and if that detail is wanted/required.

And i want to add the term "effective degrees of freedom" to the discussion.

TLV

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 22

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 6:24 pm

can someone plaese explain to people who dont understand what's the different between 3d space to 2d (like me)?

TLV

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 22

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 6:31 pm

oh ok i just raed in the other post "2d or 3d space battle" what's that mean.. well... this game mast be in 3d!!! both navigation and battle!! i hate BC but i more hate SFC.. this game mast be much more better then BC..

ElevenThirtyOne

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 77

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 6:39 pm

Everyone should have a clear preference one way or another. There have been countless Star Trek and space games either employing 2D or 3D navigation / combat. Go play a few then make your choice.

If you don't have concept of what the difference is ...

2D
Navigation and combat is on a flat plane. You can move on the X and Y axis (forward, back, right, left) but not on the Z-axis up or down. Neither real space nor real life employ this type or restricted movement. Even the Trek movies and countless episodes make specific reference to changing pitch or attacking on a vector angle. Game references: StarFleet Command, Star Trek Armada, Dominion Wars etc.

3D
Navigation is on a full 3 Dimension multi-plane, where you can move above or below objects. The most impersive, impressive, realistic and I'd argue most successful games employ this type of gameplay. Game references: BridgeCommander, HomeWorld, StarWars Galaxies etc.

Chaldean

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 726

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 6:53 pm

Perpetual has stated "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"

Like it or not, there are two separate issues:

1) 3D Navigation
2) 3D Combat

Your petition separates everyone into pro-3Ders, or anti-3Ders.  This is a divisive way of looking at it and ignores the other permutations.

PE is pitching out-of-plane maneouvres, which imply some form of 3D, at least in combat; potentially in navigation as well.  Jonus made an excellent point with "effective degrees of freedom".  Eventually, if you go far enough, there will be an end to the playable area in all axes.  

Look at our solar system.  It is 3D (duh), but most of the planets seem to have lined up nicely in a 2D plane.  The planets can be mapped fairly accurately on a 2D map, and you don't need a lot of space in the z-axis to accurately graph them in 3D.

How much 'altitude' (z-axis degrees of freedom) do you need in the game though?  Three Sectors?  Less than one?  20 Galaxy-class ship widths?  Sure we see 3D fights on the movies and episodes, but we never really see the ships get very far away from each other in the performance of tactical manoeuvres.

Submarines operate in a form of (limited) 3D.  For that matter, so do fighter jets.

Give Perpetual a chance to elaborate before accusing them of "antagoniz[ing] the... playerbase".

My preference is for 3D combat, and I'm pretty convinced that PE agrees. Starship navigation...well we haven't heard a whole lot there yet, so I will reserve judgement.

flibble1701

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 480

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 8:09 pm

this is a difficult argument i do want total 3D control but chaldean did make a very good point about navigation and combat being seperate

lets look at it in a realistic way, i think a system like homeworld could work very well in a combat situation you get enough leeway in any direction but there are boundaries mainly for the purpose of stopping people getting lost, so in a combat situation, yes im kinda leaning towards a restricted 3D enviroment a bubble so to speak this is simply to stop people losing there foe etc and keeping ppl from running away obviously the choice to run away should be there if possible ie warp out but not just at impulse.

lets break it down as well starships are massive and even when travelling at speed there manouverability is lacking at best

lets compare a F15 to a boeing 777 i shouldnt have to point out which is more responsive quite simply how far do you really need to move a cruiser in a battle situation you provide cover for your fighters and take on the capital ships no fighter is going to leave the safe area of the cover fire from its mothership it would be suicidal  in essence to keep a fight interesting i think we need to be forced to stay in relatively close proximity to our foe.

navigation should be 3D total freedom to go where we please from the galaxy core to the great barrier but the title was headed combat not navigation so ill leave that :)

Keogh

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 602

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 8:27 pm

....signed

In favor of completely 3D movement during combat/travel in space.

:cool:

GBJackson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 299

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 8:49 pm

/nosign

I don't want space combat and travel in STO to look or feel like anything less than what is seen 90% of the time in the TV shows.

ElevenThirtyOne

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 77

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 9:28 pm

I don't make seperation between combat and navigation.

They are the same thing. There isn't a "combat mode" and "normal mode" ... you fly around in space and while doing so fire weapons. Simple as that.

We can hope that even with a 2D scheme that the "out-of-plane maneouvres" allow for some effective degrees of freedom but honestly it won't.

Perpetual has clearly stated that they are at this stage going with a limited 2D combat system similar to StarFleet Command which is IMHO a poor choice ... hell they were going to have Klingons in StarFleet until they got feedback on that.

The community has a vaste ammount of gaming experince both on stanfard and MMOGs games ... Perpetual should be looking to us for guidance on what we want cuz we're the ones that are going to pay $20+ per month.

There is no point to "giving Perpetual a chance to ellaborate before making judments" ... cuz they are in the design phase and will be more a while. If we are to make any community petitions or desires known now is that time not after they've already decided and started development.

All us pro3Ders want is 3Dcombat/navigation with system spanning degree of freedom ... like a massive box. Just like EVERY OTHER GAME. It's not about going anywhere and everywhere... But give us a taste of what true space travel is like.

If we "wait and see" this will turn out just like SWG ... great potential that turned into well you know. :sick:

ElevenThirtyOne

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 77

Report this Sep. 18 2005, 9:42 pm

Quote (GBJackson @ Sep. 18 2005, 5:49 pm)
/nosign

I don't want space combat and travel in STO to look or feel like anything less than what is seen 90% of the time in the TV shows.

It's probably more like 50% to 50% of what you've seen on TV. Almost all of DS9 ship sequences are on multi-vector. Any big dominion war sequence has 100s of ships above and below. On a 2D plane it would look like a massive collection of ships (assuming there is no collision in ST:O).

You may no think that Star Trek is very multiAxis but it is... whenever someone states a course it's always a bunch of number MARK a few more numbers.

Chaldean

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 726

Report this Sep. 19 2005, 3:00 am

Quote (ElevenThirtyOne @ Sep. 17 2005, 7:28 pm)
I don't make seperation between combat and navigation.

Okay then...but you still haven't answered my question.  How much depth will be required for you to consider it "fully 3D"?  A cube, a sphere, a linked network of wormholes to mini-sphere sectors?  Please elaborate.

On your other comment, I didn't condemn the thread or the discussion.  I said that it is not right to accuse Perpetual Entertainment of intentionally "antagonizing" or "ignoring" the fans.  Say what you want from the game, but don't convict the developers on the basis of their unrealized, undeveloped ideas.

Chaldean

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 726

Report this Sep. 19 2005, 3:14 am

Quote (ElevenThirtyOne @ Sep. 17 2005, 7:28 pm)
We can hope that even with a 2D scheme that the "out-of-plane maneouvres" allow for some effective degrees of freedom but honestly it won't.

Wow, your tenth post and already you are predicting the future!  Amazing.   :eyesroll:


Quote (ElevenThirtyOne @ Sep. 17 2005, 7:28 pm)
Perpetual has clearly stated that they are at this stage going with a limited 2D combat system similar to StarFleet Command which is IMHO a poor choice ...

They have "clearly stated" no such thing.  They have indicated where their current preferences lie.

-------

Check your facts and qualify your arguments if you want to be taken seriously.

ElevenThirtyOne

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 77

Report this Sep. 19 2005, 10:06 am

Quote
They have "clearly stated" no such thing. They have indicated where their current preferences lie.

Uhm... read their interview transcript

Here is an EXACT quote: "there's a clear preference for 2D oriented navigation with the possibility of out-of-plane maneuvers."

With all due respect stop thread bashin' and insulting me cuz I only have 10 posts written ... thats such BS.

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: miklamar

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