Star Trek

Quote (Texeagle432 @ Dec. 08 2005, 4:20 pm)

After a few expansions on this game are made they may include 3D movement idk but right now it would make the game way too complex and less casual gamers would play. I want 3D movement but I understand the Devs' decisions and it is probably for the best...

i am not a casual gamer, so believe me when i say that if STO goes 2D, i won't be a part of it. you are not going to get hardly any casual gamers to play a game that takes a step backwards and not forward with today's technology. and this is a game thats not due for at least another two years. i can't even begin to think what new games will be out around the same time as this one.

don't try and pick the devs. mind on this issue. you may end up guessing wrong as to their real intentions or lack there of.

well i only read the first page.....and i rarely post....but i would say 3-D is the way to go...2-D is kinda pointless in a 'space" environment.

My 2 cents

PE has said that combat will be 3D, there will be 'out of plane manoeuvres', that's 3D.  NAVIGATION will be flattened into a 2D model.

Hmmm.. well I guess the Devs are part of Khan's people.

If memory serves, Kirk outsmarted Khan by moving down the Z-axis since Spock said "He's intelligent but not experienced. His maneuvers indicate 2-dimensional thinking...."

You devs might want to re-watch the ending of STII.    

ah...good quote. Devs comon rethink this, it is not hard to control a 3d moving space ship, I think almost every space game for years (at least the good ones) have had 3d movement.

Quote (steve2001 @ Dec. 08 2005, 9:14 pm)

PE has said that combat will be 3D, there will be 'out of plane manoeuvres', that's 3D. NAVIGATION will be flattened into a 2D model.

I suggest you reread the development log about
space combat. It clearly states that;

Quote

What Daron was referring to was 2D movement. This is indeed our baseline for movement - it's the starting point from which players can diverge when they need to. This means that players will be able to steer the ship without having to take three dimensions into account, in general.

Many in these forums has expressed their disagreement with this "feature". I for one don't think that making 2D spacecombat will open up a broader marked. If you cannot handle the 3d, stay out of the helms chair. There will be plenty of things to do on the ship that doesn't have to be done in a 3d movement way.

Quote (TookyG @ Oct. 27 2005, 7:57 am)

Yeah this is pretty much the first piece of news that makes me NOT want to buy this game. ...I can't believe I'm saying that.

well I agree! :0

Quote (Ellessar @ Dec. 08 2005, 12:04 pm)

Quote

Well how about "cough cough" SFC III?  That didn't seem like a thinking man's game to me.  More like run about in circles and the victory going to whom ever had the ship with the smaller turning circle.

ST:O's combat model will come down to who can turn faster or who has a smaller turning radius. "out of plane maneuvers" is a joke. This will turn what should be the MOST exciting part of the game to just plain weak ... 'nuff said.

Look this is EXACTLY what SoE did to SWG with the fricking CU and NGE. Its screwing the game up and making it dumber, for the average 13 year old, who will only play the gam efor a fricking month

i say we take a page from microsoft and copy Freelancers space combat a bit, modify it to larger heavily armored ships, and lets go

for those of you who dont know, Freelancer is a space combat game which i thought was out right amazing, full 3d combat, every direction possible, huge array of weapons, small ships all the way up to huge battle cruisers, altho the cruisers were slow as hell and couldnt manuver they carried more weps then i could imagine...just a good baseline tho

Picture this - you're a Klingon B.O.P. pummeling a hapless Romulan freighter. Right as you are about to come around for the final volley, a Warbird decloaks atop the crippled freighter - and comes down in front of it to stare you right in the face.

After your crew has finished soiling themselves, you make a hasty retreat.

2D combat denies us moments like this....

Contrary to popular vote, I actually liked Bridge Commander's combat. Sure, it needed fine tuning......but it was a heckuva lot funner than the SFC series where it's:

1: Faster turn radius wins
2: Your phasers may miss, or hit, depending what the PC feels like...even from 5 feet away.

That about sums it up. SFC2 wasn't too bad, but 3 was dumbed down greatly.

Bridge commander lets you:

1: Ram in to ships, whereas a Romulan Warbird can run over a bird of prey and not suffer much damage. (Due to the immense size) To balance out the ramming power of the Warbird, it was slow as molassis. It also had a pants load of firepower, but could only deliver a massive punishment from bow-side. It was very balanced.

2: Move in THREE DIRECTIONS. This isn't a 1980's home game console.


Hopefully they make the ground combat more like a FPS so we don't get......

"Click x to attack."
You deal 2 points of damage.
"You died."
"Level up"
"Click x to attack."
You deal 3 points of damage.

There is a difference between who is better at combat and who has more time on their hands for repetitive leveling drivel. Not to mention the random damage the pc decides to inflict. (Or have you frequently miss from point-blank range)


Summary:

Ship to ship combat should be a more in-depth and massively fine-tuned Bridge Commander. (Shuttles/fighters, transporters, sub system targeting, scanning, ship to ship fighting, overloading their computers, etc)

Ground combat should be like Elite Force 1, with objectives obviously during ship assaults. (Disable/destroy ships, storm the bridge, etc)

yeah that drives me nuts in rpgs, you swing, the animation moves right threw the target, in real life you would have ripped him in half, in this rpg, you missed horrifically

Atani freelancer is basicaly a ripoff of origins work. Maybe becasue origin stoped producing space games and the origianl developers went ot digital anvil wich was then bought by microsoft.
So as far as I feel I can't call freelancer a microsoft game.
At best I can say Digital Anvil.

The style is known from elite, wingocmander, priavteer, x, freelancer,...
I wouldn't say this is the best way to pilot a big ship but is certainly better then a in plae fight with some 3d manoeuvres.

Quote

This means that players will be able to steer the ship without having to take three dimensions into account, in general. I love how this statement is put together, as if 3 dimensions is such a pain for players to HAVE to deal with.

This was taken out of context.  3D movement is planned, as this quote shows:

"What Daron was referring to was 2D movement. This is indeed our baseline for movement - it's the starting point from which players can diverge when they need to."

Quote

This is because Star Trek battles are not about dog-fighting and outmaneuvering. Uhm, seriously watch the last 3 seasons of DS9. Or how about any Defiant battle sequence ... any ST movie!

Again, taken out of context.  Properly quoted:

"This is because Star Trek battles are not about dog-fighting and outmaneuvering. They're about strategy and outthinking one's opponent."

The Defiant is an exception.  It's a very small, agile ship.  More like a large fighter, in all honesty.  If you watched DS9, you'll remember when its design was discussed and how it was made to be very compact and maneuverable.

The fact of the matter is... Starships are closer to the Spruce Goose than a Tomcat.  Personally, if I saw the Spruce Goose in a game dogfighting, I'd think it was ridiculous.  The same holds true for starships.  The definition of a dogfight is "An aerial battle between fighter planes."  Ergo, starships do not dogfight.  It's about strategy and outthinking one's opponent, much like a battle between naval vessels.

To show you what I mean, look at the first battle in Star Trek: First Contact when the Enterprise makes its pass at the cube.  Yes, it's going quite fast... However, top speed does not make a ship maneuverable.  Look at how wide her turn is.  That's what they're trying to make STO's battles feel like.  Go play Bridge Commander if you need another example.

Quote

The entire bridge crew should have an equal part in determining the fate of the vessel. Exactly, so how about instead of limiting certain aspects of play for one group of individuals, you actually conentrate on developing ways for all groups to take equal part in it?! Give them ALL interesting things to do. Instead you are just given all of them virutally nothing really to do.

I'd be very interested in your source of that little tidbit.  Nothing has been said, officially or otherwise, as to what activities non-pilots can perform, and yet here you are saying they've taken away 3D movement (which, as I showed above, they haven't) and virtually everything else.

Quote

In fact, just the opposite: by simplifying the everyday angle calculation, we free up the crew to do the really interesting things that actually win battles. How fun will it be for helsmen to use only 2 arrow keys? Thinking to themselves... theres a ship coming at me should I go left or right? Wow now that sounds like fun to me. Again how does this free up the crew to do anything they wouldn't be able to if the helmsmen could move on the vertical axis? You're comparing apples and oranges here.

This doesn't free the crew up to do other things.  It frees the pilot up to handle other aspects of piloting.  There's more to piloting than turning, as I'm sure you're well aware, despite your two arrow keys comment.

You're the one comparing apples and oranges.  I think you should take your two arrow keys and reread the article.

Quote

We're still evolving our plans for space combat (as well as just about everything else), so we're open to change. I so wish this was true.

If the game were in its completed state right now, it'd be tabletop D&D with Star Trek characters.

But, in all seriousness, the game is far from complete.  At this point where the team is still being assembled, they most likely have little more than a raw game engine, if that.  I'd hardly call that too late to change something, assuming a total rework of the combat they've discussed is even necessary.

Quote (Karl1982 @ Dec. 11 2005, 3:10 am)

I'd be very interested in your source of that little tidbit. Nothing has been said, officially or otherwise, as to what activities non-pilots can perform, and yet here you are saying they've taken away 3D movement (which, as I showed above, they haven't) and virtually everything else.

No you havn't proved that they havn't taken away 3D.

Quote (Karl1982 @ Dec. 11 2005, 3:10 am)

"What Daron was referring to was 2D movement. This is indeed our baseline for movement - it's the starting point from which players can diverge when they need to."

Or do you think that with "players can diverge when they need to" means that we will have full 3D control. I personaly don't see this as planig for 3D movement. At best out of plane meneuers. But this is far from 3D movment.

Then you say that we rarely see 3D in action in space fights.

Quote (Karl1982 @ Dec. 11 2005, 3:10 am)

How about you check out the first half of DS9 and every other Star Trek series and movie? The term he used was "rarely," and he was correct.

Well I do agree that we rarely see strange hading for the ships but then agina seing ships on different planes is a thing we see quite often. And in DS9 batle we did see quite a lot of non perpendicula heding. Especialy in the big battles.

Quote (Karl1982 @ Dec. 11 2005, 3:10 am)

To show you what I mean, look at the first battle in Star Trek: First Contact when the Enterprise makes its pass at the cube. Yes, it's going quite fast... However, top speed does not make a ship maneuverable. Look at how wide her turn is. That's what they're trying to make STO's battles feel like. Go play Bridge Commander if you need another example.

Funny that you mention First conatc as form what I remember the first battle there were quite some out of plane headings. like when the enterprise saved worf.

Quote (Karl1982 @ Dec. 11 2005, 3:10 am)

This doesn't free the crew up to do other things. It frees the pilot up to handle other aspects of piloting. There's more to piloting than turning, as I'm sure you're well aware, despite your two arrow keys comment.

Btw how much more things does a helmsmen has to do in a batle then directing the ship heading and facing ?

Oh well mybe I just don't have enough imaginations.