Nothing about..... rolling, spinning, and flips implies.... "dog-fight". It simplies SPACE... a frictionless environment with no significant gravity (or where the vehicles moving through them can easly overcome what gravity exists). It's an environment where the physics that exist are significantly different then earth's oceans.
It's pretty much a no brainer that a space vehicle should have a pitch, yaw and roll controls. Without it you are significantly limiting the combat manuvers a ship can do. The fact that they don't even really recognize it means they haven't reall put much thought into the dynamics of how space combat would work. Basicaly all they have is Yaw and an elevator function...pretty lame.
Even more telling is how they describe side to side and backwards movement as "straffing" and "kitting". Thier mindset REALLY does seem to be "WOW in SPACE".... and just replace the characters with ships.
Backwards movement for a ship is not "kiting".... HELLO it's called REVERSE Gear.... Even naval vessels on earth's oceans have it..... and moving sideways would simply be using directional thrusters.
Now, MAYBE you shouldn't be able to move FAST in reverse or by using thrusters (depends on how they envision sublight movement being achieved) but reverse and latteral motion to some degree should certainly be possible.
In fact, in space you SHOULD, theoriticaly, be able to move in one direct... cut your engines... use directional thruster to spin the ship....and keep moving the direction you had been... REGARDLESS of your current facing ( You guys do remember INERTIA from physics class in school...right?)
I never saw the enterprise roll, flip, or strafe. When you're dealing with vessels that large, it's just not something that comes in to play. This talk of 'ignoring the fanbase' is just ridiculous. If anything, they are staying true to the fanbase. I've always found it slightly humorous that whenever two ships meet up in Star Trek they are always approaching on the same plane, not coming at each other from crazy angles. That's what we'll have hear. 2.5D is more than enough for the game.
Watch the final season of Deep Space 9. In one of the major battles, the Fed fleet forms a wall with the smaller "fighter" ships coming in at angles to makes holes in the dominion fleet. Then near the end of the battle, the Klingons enter from above the dominion fleet and slice thru them.
Then in Star Trek 2: Wrath of Kahn, they enter the nebula and to trick Kahn, who is thinking in a 2d way, they move the ship to be below Kahn and to get in behind. I could cite many more instances of a 3d engagement, but this is enough.
So, there is precedent for a 3d movement, but its early and they can still change thier minds, if enough people ask for it in the right way.
But your examples still represent a small minority of the engagements that have taken place in the star trek universe. They're not going to waste their time catering to this small minority, nor the small minority of whiners.
I cited evidence that there is 3d movement in Star Trek. If they(the ships moving in a 3d way) are a small minority, show me some proof. I want to see you analysis of this to prove your point.
Also, in a Next Generation episode, the enterprise is stuck in a trap and cant use impulse engines to move. They did a move that I can describe as a spin. They kept the nose of the ship pointed at a asteroid then "spun" the backend around to get a slingshot effect to kept up the momentum.
Mosrt of this will be moot if thier is no collision detection in STO. But if thier is, this will be a game of turrets just spinning in 1 spot shooting at another turret. With a 3d enviroment, that will open up the combat to accomadate the smaller ships better manuverability.
Actually with the exception of your last example, what you've given are examples of the 2.5D that they talked about in the dev post. Change height (angling up or down), 'sink' below Khan etc.... Your last example with the Ent. swinging it's back around (strafing) is the type of 3D they're not going to support.
There are a number of TV show examples of the smaller ships flying like fighter aircraft with rolls, looks etc... so yes there is precedence, but they don't want to support that.
One problem here is that what the Dev's are calling 2.5D movement IS REALLY 3D movement. Anytime you introduce a height element into a back / forward / turn setup it's 3D. So yes Lugal there is 3D in the TV shows and yes there will be 3D in the game, just not a 100% anything goes type.
You are correct.
I hope they do something for the smaller ships, like the shuttles or Defiant size ships that alows some of the more 3d movement. It would be easy to implement something based on the mass of a ship. A large ship like a Warbird wont be doing barrel rolls without losing some parts of its hull. Plus a ship that big, a barrel roll is useless as nobody(or computer) is gonna miss. But a small ship with increased manuverability ship have some 3d movement. Alowing it to fly close to a large ship and making targeting harder.
All of this speculation is pretty meaningless untill we see how they implement this stuff and if they have collision detection or not.
Roses are red Violets are blue The reviewer has a mishapen head Which means his opinion is skewed ...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
I agree. Star Trek Bridge Command was not a 'dog fighter', but allowed the freedom of movement one would expect in 'space'.
If turning left 180' is not a 'dog fighter', how is making that same turn Up, suddenly a dog fighter move? It is not. Turning in space is the same in any direction.
The sad point for me, is that they kept saying their combat system was all about position, but then they nerf Space movement - and it appears 'Shield facing' as well - which reduces the importance on position. And as someone else pointed out, if they are already choosing to cut corners, what else will they 'cut corners' on.
Again, contrary to opinion, the simple fact is that most MMORPGs fail, regardless if you think its 'nerd rage' or not. People are not spending $$$ on most MMORPGs. Perhaps part of that reason is because people are too complacient during development, rather than demanding quality?
I understand what you mean and I partly agree with you. The problem is that there is a disease in the MMORPG market now and it is called WoWification. With WoW everything became easy and casual and because of the enormous hit that game was MMORPG devs seem to be under the impression that is what us gamers want so they tend to make everything easy and dumbified.
However in this game I think it is more than enough to have four directional shields and semi-3D movement because this game should not be so much about simulating how a ship moves in space but rather how the combat was in the Star Trek universe. And the impression I got from there is that advanced 3D movements wasnt really that big but it was more about transfering power between different components, such as shield, engines and so on.
And as for them saying combat was all about position; where did you see that? Not saying it is not true but it does sound weird seeing as combat in Star Trek is usually on a 2D plane and rarely full 3D.
More than likely, because this is an MMORPG, there will be various special attacks you'll get that have cooldown timers. These might include barrel rolls and the like, but only as part of the special attack. This was the direction that PE was taking the game, and I'd be inclined to think that Cryptic would continue in that direction (as they seem to be doing with everything else.)
I never saw the enterprise roll, flip, or strafe. When you're dealing with vessels that large, it's just not something that comes in to play. This talk of 'ignoring the fanbase' is just ridiculous. If anything, they are staying true to the fanbase. I've always found it slightly humorous that whenever two ships meet up in Star Trek they are always approaching on the same plane, not coming at each other from crazy angles. That's what we'll have hear. 2.5D is more than enough for the game.
Watch the final season of Deep Space 9. In one of the major battles, the Fed fleet forms a wall with the smaller "fighter" ships coming in at angles to makes holes in the dominion fleet. Then near the end of the battle, the Klingons enter from above the dominion fleet and slice thru them.
Then in Star Trek 2: Wrath of Kahn, they enter the nebula and to trick Kahn, who is thinking in a 2d way, they move the ship to be below Kahn and to get in behind. I could cite many more instances of a 3d engagement, but this is enough.
So, there is precedent for a 3d movement, but its early and they can still change thier minds, if enough people ask for it in the right way.
But your examples still represent a small minority of the engagements that have taken place in the star trek universe. They're not going to waste their time catering to this small minority, nor the small minority of whiners.
Nonetheless you're original statements were proven wrong. On behalf of the MMORPG community, I accept your apology.
Cryptic is going with the fun-arcade approach for the mass market. Space Combat needs to be simple and fun. Rolling to compensate for shield or hull damage? Hell no, that's complex and not really fun. In terms of the mass market that is.
While gamers who seek those added levels of detail or complexity will be dissappointed. Which is why this game is pretty much off of my list.
To add in another example of 3D combat in Star Trek (And thanks for the person bringing up that Slingshot example!) is in the final episode of, "All Good Things." The triple engine Enterprise makes a belly attack against a Klingon formation, destroying one cruiser in the processes. True 3D combat at work, firing from a position in which the enemy cannot engage with their weapons.
If a ship has had its port side weapons disabled, would it not make sense to "strafe and slide" on the enemy's damaged port side? Would it then make sense for the enemy to roll and turn towards the other to train its starboard weapons? Oh but that requires thinking and tactics... and thus it must not be fun.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
Regardless of your personal opinion, that is not a 'good' reaction for a pending game in this struggling market.
It could very well be a good thing. It brings those people with ridiculously unrealistic expectations down to earth. I understand your mentality of 'grab every one you can' but when you try to please everyone it's very rare that you please anyone.
"When Craig said no one missed rolls, he meant it. No one on the team emerged from a combat situation and said, “Wow, if only I could’ve rolled my ship, I’d have won.” Much of this has to do with the way we allow players to shift power to their different shields. If you start getting hammered on your left side, you can press a button and instantly transfer shield power from one side of your ship to the other. This particular approach makes rolls and loops aesthetic rather than functional."
Seems more than reasonable.
yes, it is a reasonable explanation. but aesthetics, or 'fluff', and function dont have to be mutually exclusive. anything that can spice up combat, and make it less repetitive should be added. just because the testers didnt miss being able to do a roll or spin, does that means the people who will at some point be playing on a daily basis wont want it? having the option to do it, even if it isnt entirely needed, is nice (and fun).
at the fluff end of it, showing off your ship, just having fun flying around, etc., many people enjoy fluff elements. almost every mmo i have played has had a variety of fluff items, abilities, quest rewards, that people enjoy, but have no functionality.
part of the charm of star trek was how they would use ingenuity to resolve a situation, often tossing aside convention and taking a serious risk. it wasnt just about rigid functionality...dynamic thinking is what won the day. not having something that adds to the overall dynamic properties of combat and ship command takes away from the players ability think dynamically.
Space combat in Star Trek has always been depicted as 2D, very similiar to naval combat. The few exceptions when third dimension manuevers came into play (USS Defiant, STWOK) was to illustrate a unique situation or ability. It was not standard convention.
part of me is glad cryptic is " ignoring" the " fanbase". Perpetual spet an inordinate amount of time trying to pacify whom they thought would in the end play the game and it killed them. I think in all actuality cryptic is maiing a mistake discussing game mechanics at this point with anyone. I don't have high hopes for the game in general but I have a positive vibe given cryptics track record. As long as ship combat feels immersive I don't care about the overall mechanics
Don't try to blame the "fanbase" for Perpertual Entertainments failure. The fact they were inept, shady, and lawsuit ridden was their downfall.
maybe it was just like the DEV's said.. they ask the team to go at it.. and they did.. and not one felt like..OMG if I could have just rolled or looped my ship I would have won. Maybe it was just that.. none of this crap.. cutting corners.. not listenting to fans.. blah blah..
And most know they CANT listen to fans. Think about it.. which FANS? The ones that cry the loudest? The DEVS have to go with what they wanted.. and work from there.
And its something that CAN be put in. I love Star trek and rolling and looping.. just was not something that happen alot..
Cryptic is going with the fun-arcade approach for the mass market. Space Combat needs to be simple and fun. Rolling to compensate for shield or hull damage? Hell no, that's complex and not really fun. In terms of the mass market that is.
While gamers who seek those added levels of detail or complexity will be dissappointed. Which is why this game is pretty much off of my list.
To add in another example of 3D combat in Star Trek (And thanks for the person bringing up that Slingshot example!) is in the final episode of, "All Good Things." The triple engine Enterprise makes a belly attack against a Klingon formation, destroying one cruiser in the processes. True 3D combat at work, firing from a position in which the enemy cannot engage with their weapons. If a ship has had its port side weapons disabled, would it not make sense to "strafe and slide" on the enemy's damaged port side? Would it then make sense for the enemy to roll and turn towards the other to train its starboard weapons? Oh but that requires thinking and tactics... and thus it must not be fun.
Quite true. I guess they thought it would be too difficult for the average joe/jill gamer. And maybe it is.
However, as you say, it is just not true there is no tactics in the TV shows. The Enterprise of Picard often, when one side shield was down, made maneuvers to keep another side to the enemy. The Enterprise does strafe and slide, in a sense. The reason we see that rarely overall in the TV show is, that Star Trek isnt so much about constant space fighting, but a lot about exploring, diplomacy, first contacts, inter-crew experiences ("Data's Day") and space combat actually is a very tiny part of Star Trek. That is the root of why STO feels so absurd to me, as it is designed now.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Well, if what you said is true then it would mean it would be a flat map?
That cant be possible, there has to be some kind of freedom of movement, I mean you cant just... go to ds9 like a ship going to dock, you should be able to approach it from whereever, the map cant be flat, then eve online would even be better, they have freedom..
I agree that barrelrolls arent needed, this isnt a jet fight game, this is Star Trek. Starships do not roll or strafe. I have never seen a starship kite before either. But we SHOULD be able to do a loop, in order to get behind the enemy.
If we cant do a loop then the person who is behind the player engaged would automatically win, considering starships have better weapons on the front than on the back of the ship.
People really need to learn to read a little better. I don't know how people can take what Craig has said as "no 3D movement" as that simply isn't true. What he has stated is large ships will move like large ships and not aerobatic biplanes. I think you all need to read this line again and pay close attention to the part I've underlined:
<CrypticZinc> There's no rolling or looping in STO now. There's pretty signifigant up and down movement, but no barrel rolls or looping.
There is indeed 3D movement in STO. He has stated so right in the first line the OP quoted. Up and down movement equates to movement on the Z axis as well as movement on the X and Y axis. X,Y and Z movement equals 3D movement. I swear sometimes people here just make stuff up so they can have something to bitch about. This whole thread is pointless as the OP is obviously dead wrong.
Exactly how is a large ship "supposed" to move in SPACE ????
Given that it's an almost frictionless and zero gravity environment.... shouldn't it be pretty much the same as how a small ship moves???
I mean this is SPACE we are talking about...not the ocean.... not atmosphere. Are you trying to tell me that a vehicle capable of space travel is not "supposed" to have Roll and Pitch controls?
So what happens when you want to navigate to a destination that is off your current Z axis ??? Elevator up to that elevation, brake your intertia, and then use YAW to set a course and go???
Somehow don't you think the designers of a space ship would figure out a way to allow it to travel in a straight line between 2 points....and to have to break it's inertia only once rather then twice??
Bren, Exactly how is a large ship "supposed" to move in SPACE ???? Given that it's an almost frictionless and zero gravity environment.... shouldn't it be pretty much the same as how a small ship moves??? I mean this is SPACE we are talking about...not the ocean.... not atmosphere. Are you trying to tell me that a vehicle capable of space travel is not "supposed" to have Roll and Pitch controls? So what happens when you want to navigate to a destination that is off your current Z axis ??? Elevator up to that elevation, brake your intertia, and then use YAW to set a course and go??? Somehow don't you think the designers of a space ship would figure out a way to allow it to travel in a straight line between 2 points....and to have to break it's inertia only once rather then twice??
How exactly has Star Trek ever resembled actual Newtonian Physics? Are you really trying to justify your argument by comparing actual space flight dynamics to some science fiction fairy tale? Star Trek ships move just like we saw them move in the shows and movies... I mean come on... ships in Star Trek actually bank when they turn. Do you know how many superfluous thrusters a ship would have to have just to do that? This is Science Fiction... not actual science. I never once saw the Enterprise do a roll or a loop in any show or movie so why should you have to do it in the game? The answer is simple... you shouldn't as it serves no purpose in the Star Trek fictional universe what-so-ever.
Edit: Besides the actual topic of this thread is whether or not STO has 3D movement which it obviously does have. This whole thread is a pointless attempt to troll this forum and try to stir up discontent over issues that aren't even issues to begin with.
Second Edit: Also where exactly has it ever been stated that you wouldn't have pitch controls? If there is up and down movement like Craig has stated it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you would have to have pitch control to do this. STO will have pitch control but the ships won't fly like aerobatic biplanes so if you try to loop expect it to be long and pointless in anything the size of a frigate or larger. Remember this is a fictional universe where capital ships turn fairly slow on any axis. Actual space flight dynamics have absolutely nothing to do with how ships move in the Star Trek universe.
Bren, Exactly how is a large ship "supposed" to move in SPACE ???? Given that it's an almost frictionless and zero gravity environment.... shouldn't it be pretty much the same as how a small ship moves??? I mean this is SPACE we are talking about...not the ocean.... not atmosphere. Are you trying to tell me that a vehicle capable of space travel is not "supposed" to have Roll and Pitch controls? So what happens when you want to navigate to a destination that is off your current Z axis ??? Elevator up to that elevation, brake your intertia, and then use YAW to set a course and go??? Somehow don't you think the designers of a space ship would figure out a way to allow it to travel in a straight line between 2 points....and to have to break it's inertia only once rather then twice??
Actually a "large" ship in space wouldnt move like a "small" ship in space. Just because space is almost frictionless and a zero G enviroment doesnt mean that the ship wouldnt require some kinda of force to get moving, and since the larger ship would have more mass than a smaller ship, it would inturn require more force. Also since space isnt entirely frictionless the larger ship would require more of a constant force to keep moving at the same speed.
Now about being able to move on the z axis without breaking. If your going along on the x axis in a straight line and for whatever reason you decide to go up, not left or right cause that would be the y axis, all you need to do is pitch up. You would still be going on the x axis but you would also be on the z axis up untill u stop going up and become level, then your back on just the x axis.
Now if when you were pitching up and u then wanted to travel on the y axis thus going left or right u would YAW left or right, and you would be traveling on all 3 axes(not shure if thats plural or not?) X, Forward. Y, Left. Z, Up.
There certainly WERE episodes in Trek where ships engaged in rolls, pitching and REVERSE movement. It's a no brainer that ships should have PITCH, YAW and ROLL controls.... it goes with the territory of a vehicle functioning in space..... no ones asking for hyper-realism here..... just things that would make a modicum of logical sense. What they are doing is about as logical as making a submarine game where all the hatches are screen doors...
Furthermore, I read the same article as you....it very clearly implied that you COULD NOT do Loops or Rolls (along with no REVERSE or Lateral Motion). If a vehicle has PITCH and ROLL controls then it very clearly HAS the capacity to do a Loop or Roll..... it may not be a particulary tight one.... that's another issue.... but it should have the capacity to do it. Everything about that article implied that ships in STO have a fixed attitude (which is completely illogical for a space vehicle)....which if there is any up/down movement... which they said there was..... can only mean an elevator function. That's lame.
Furthermore, don't pretend they are even making the attempt to have ships move like they did in the series or movies.... They stated there will be no backwards movement (what they described as "kiting" which tells you where there mindset is)..... how many times in an episode or movie have you heard the words "Full Reverse!" or "Fire Directional Thrusters" spoken?
On to the realistic stuff.....large ships have more mass then small ships, meaning they require more energy to gain or reduce velocity (note that lacking significant resistance....once an object is moving in space at a particular velocity, inertia will keep it moving at pretty much the same velocity and direction indefinately.....maybe it slows minutely over millenia, due to the tiny resistances it might face....lacking some other force acting on it. It's why our space program is able to work..... you only need to fire your engines on take-off, on breaking or for course corrections.... other then that you DON'T need to apply constant force to keep going..... once you've broken free of atmosphere and gravity and attained the velocity you want....inertia handles the rest).
Note, this all pertains to sub-light travel.... as the same article quoted that STO won't do combat at warp.... any discussion as to how manuvering might work at those speeds is moot.
as far as i know, this game isnt a fps or any other version of a shooter. so doing barrel rolls to avoid getting torpedo or laser blasted would be pointless anyway (auto target lock).
It sounds like the game will be about strategy, where to allocate power to which shield, etc. Which Im 100% fine with.
If STO was a game where i had to constantly keep my cursor mouse on a target, do barrel rolls of my own, somehow manage to use my 3rd hand to fire off my specials, and maintain shields, etc I would immediately cancel and toss the game in the trash.
I got to experience a little of that crap in WoW pvp. horde rogue loves to spin in circles so theyre always behind you. So you spin to try and get them in front to hit them. Two idiots spinning clockwise or counter-clockwise to try and hit or avoid being hit by each other. very lame....
besides star trek ship battles werent about which ship could maneuver the best. it was more about who's shields could penetrate the enemies shields first. (the exception being the defiant)
There certainly WERE episodes in Trek where ships engaged in rolls, pitching and REVERSE movement. It's a no brainer that ships should have PITCH, YAW and ROLL controls.... it goes with the territory of a vehicle functioning in space..... no ones asking for hyper-realism here..... just things that would make a modicum of logical sense. What they are doing is about as logical as making a submarine game where all the hatches are screen doors... Furthermore, I read the same article as you....it very clearly implied that you COULD NOT do Loops or Rolls (along with no REVERSE or Lateral Motion). If a vehicle has PITCH and ROLL controls then it very clearly HAS the capacity to do a Loop or Roll..... it may not be a particulary tight one.... that's another issue.... but it should have the capacity to do it. Everything about that article implied that ships in STO have a fixed attitude (which is completely illogical for a space vehicle)....which if there is any up/down movement... which they said there was..... can only mean an elevator function. That's lame. Furthermore, don't pretend they are even making the attempt to have ships move like they did in the series or movies.... They stated there will be no backwards movement (what they described as "kiting" which tells you where there mindset is)..... how many times in an episode or movie have you heard the words "Full Reverse!" or "Fire Directional Thrusters" spoken?
On to the realistic stuff.....large ships have more mass then small ships, meaning they require more energy to gain or reduce velocity (note that lacking significant resistance....once an object is moving in space at a particular velocity, inertia will keep it moving at pretty much the same velocity and direction indefinately.....maybe it slows minutely over millenia, due to the tiny resistances it might face....lacking some other force acting on it. It's why our space program is able to work..... you only need to fire your engines on take-off, on breaking or for course corrections.... other then that you DON'T need to apply constant force to keep going..... once you've broken free of atmosphere and gravity and attained the velocity you want....inertia handles the rest). Note, this all pertains to sub-light travel.... as the same article quoted that STO won't do combat at warp.... any discussion as to how manuvering might work at those speeds is moot.
<CrypticZinc> There's no rolling or looping in STO now. There's pretty signifigant up and down movement, but no barrel rolls or looping.
<CrypticZinc> However, you do always move in the direction that you're pointing.
The fact that Craig is speaking of vertical movement just before the line in bold above implies that he was still speaking on that subject. This also implies that he is stating that if you pitch your ship up or down you will move in that direction. This is a hell of a lot more proof that there are pitch controls in STO than any of you have that there aren't. You are right about one thing... It would be illogical for them to make a space game without pitch control that is why they aren't doing anything of the kind. Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension skills a little or are you only reading into it what you want to hear? Either way your dead wrong... end of story.
I hope that I am wrong....but from what I read it certainly doesn't sound that way. In any event...it'll be easy enough to verify when the game comes out.... and we'll be able to see who's reading comprehension is faulty then. If the game comes out and I am correct, I'll be expecting a basket of cookies in the mail by way of apology.
AdmRiker4,
Nothing about pitch and roll controls necessitates "twitch" based FPS gameplay. In fact, I remember playing an old, old TURN BASED game (Computer Air Combat) that had them.
What it implies is strategy. Simple example - You are facing an enemy ship, your ship's main weapons are on aft and forward firing arcs. So you reinforce those shield facings (aft and forward). You move toward the enemy ship until you are in range of your forward weapons. You fire your weapons and then perform an Immleman (Roll 180 degrees and then pitch upwards 180 degrees until you have reversed direction), placing the enemy on your aft facing.... where you can now fire your aft weapons and present a reinforced shield to accept return fire. The difference between that and using YAW to simply turn 180 would be that with the latter you would be turning through a side shield facing which may not be reinforced, may not have any bearing weapons...and might present a larger siloute to the enemy (putting you broadside to them)..... all of which might place you at a disadvantage. None of that has to happen at a twitch based pace.... it could take 30 seconds to a minute to execute such a manuver.... heck you could even do it with a Turn based combat system.
What is described above IS strategy..... far more so then spamming "specials" (which I'm not even sure SHOULD be in ship based game). Throughout history Manuver & Positioning was a HUGE part of ship based combat (whether with naval vessels or aircraft). In fact, it could probably be described as the ESSENCE of ship based combat..... and THAT certainly was reflected in Star Trek movies and series.
With making shield facings irrelevent, no possibility of reverse or lateral motion and no possibility of 3d manuvers like Immlemans, loops and rolls..... I'm not sure what is actualy LEFT in terms of strategy to keep in the game. "My gun is bigger then your gun" is not very involving in terms of strategy nor is "I'm higher level then you so I win".
What seems pretty clear to me, is that the Dev's aren't spending much thought on designing a system that reflects how ships might fight and engage each other in space.... and the tactics and strategies involved in that which would fit the feel of the genre and be entertaining toward the player. Instead their heads seem to be stuck in the mode of how mobs fight and engage each other in standard fantasy MMO's such as Warcraft or Everquest (which to my mind can be pretty brainless). The very fact that they are using terns like "kiting" and "strafing" to desrcibe reverse and lateral motion and consider those a bad thing I find particularly telling (along with not seeming to care much about facing). In fact.... when you are using "strafing" in terms of ship combat...it should mean something entirely different ( A run at and passed an enemy at high speeds while firing) and should be a fairly routine (and acceptable) tactic.
Now, I could be wrong about where their heads are at....I certainly hope I am.... but it CERTAINLY doesn't sound that way from the language that they are using....the concepts that they are expressing......and what little they've described as being in or not in the game so far.
Space combat between ships should be an ENTIRELY different paradigm then what combat is like in a typical fantasy MMO.
What I was really hoping to see was something that had the FEEL of the old FASA games, but which took full advantage of the possibilities offered by a computer to make 3D possible. Eveything that I am hearing so far SCREAMS of WOW is space....with Paladins and Druids simply being replaced by mobs that have skins that look like spaceships...but functionaly don't work much differently.
Now I truely HOPE I am wrong on this..... and they haven't released alot of details yet...... but everything they've released so far really seems to reinforce my fears of the direction they are going with this. Ultimately, we'll all get to see what the case is when they release the game. However, I've been burned too many times by developers spinning that a game will taste like an apple when the systems they build clearly make it an orange...... and at the same time marketing to people who like oranges as tasting like an orange. There are certain styles and directions that are mutualy exclusive....and cannot satisfy audiences that have vastly different tastes.
If I'm wrong and you're right I'll gladly give you 2 baskets of cookies Mel. But when the game comes out and we see who is right... Well lets just say that I really like Chocolate Chip for future reference.
Comments
Nothing about..... rolling, spinning, and flips implies.... "dog-fight". It simplies SPACE... a frictionless environment with no significant gravity (or where the vehicles moving through them can easly overcome what gravity exists). It's an environment where the physics that exist are significantly different then earth's oceans.
It's pretty much a no brainer that a space vehicle should have a pitch, yaw and roll controls. Without it you are significantly limiting the combat manuvers a ship can do. The fact that they don't even really recognize it means they haven't reall put much thought into the dynamics of how space combat would work. Basicaly all they have is Yaw and an elevator function...pretty lame.
Even more telling is how they describe side to side and backwards movement as "straffing" and "kitting". Thier mindset REALLY does seem to be "WOW in SPACE".... and just replace the characters with ships.
Backwards movement for a ship is not "kiting".... HELLO it's called REVERSE Gear.... Even naval vessels on earth's oceans have it..... and moving sideways would simply be using directional thrusters.
Now, MAYBE you shouldn't be able to move FAST in reverse or by using thrusters (depends on how they envision sublight movement being achieved) but reverse and latteral motion to some degree should certainly be possible.
In fact, in space you SHOULD, theoriticaly, be able to move in one direct... cut your engines... use directional thruster to spin the ship....and keep moving the direction you had been... REGARDLESS of your current facing ( You guys do remember INERTIA from physics class in school...right?)
Watch the final season of Deep Space 9. In one of the major battles, the Fed fleet forms a wall with the smaller "fighter" ships coming in at angles to makes holes in the dominion fleet. Then near the end of the battle, the Klingons enter from above the dominion fleet and slice thru them.
Then in Star Trek 2: Wrath of Kahn, they enter the nebula and to trick Kahn, who is thinking in a 2d way, they move the ship to be below Kahn and to get in behind. I could cite many more instances of a 3d engagement, but this is enough.
So, there is precedent for a 3d movement, but its early and they can still change thier minds, if enough people ask for it in the right way.
But your examples still represent a small minority of the engagements that have taken place in the star trek universe. They're not going to waste their time catering to this small minority, nor the small minority of whiners.
I cited evidence that there is 3d movement in Star Trek. If they(the ships moving in a 3d way) are a small minority, show me some proof. I want to see you analysis of this to prove your point.
Also, in a Next Generation episode, the enterprise is stuck in a trap and cant use impulse engines to move. They did a move that I can describe as a spin. They kept the nose of the ship pointed at a asteroid then "spun" the backend around to get a slingshot effect to kept up the momentum.
Mosrt of this will be moot if thier is no collision detection in STO. But if thier is, this will be a game of turrets just spinning in 1 spot shooting at another turret. With a 3d enviroment, that will open up the combat to accomadate the smaller ships better manuverability.
Actually with the exception of your last example, what you've given are examples of the 2.5D that they talked about in the dev post. Change height (angling up or down), 'sink' below Khan etc.... Your last example with the Ent. swinging it's back around (strafing) is the type of 3D they're not going to support.
There are a number of TV show examples of the smaller ships flying like fighter aircraft with rolls, looks etc... so yes there is precedence, but they don't want to support that.
One problem here is that what the Dev's are calling 2.5D movement IS REALLY 3D movement. Anytime you introduce a height element into a back / forward / turn setup it's 3D. So yes Lugal there is 3D in the TV shows and yes there will be 3D in the game, just not a 100% anything goes type.
You are correct.
I hope they do something for the smaller ships, like the shuttles or Defiant size ships that alows some of the more 3d movement. It would be easy to implement something based on the mass of a ship. A large ship like a Warbird wont be doing barrel rolls without losing some parts of its hull. Plus a ship that big, a barrel roll is useless as nobody(or computer) is gonna miss. But a small ship with increased manuverability ship have some 3d movement. Alowing it to fly close to a large ship and making targeting harder.
All of this speculation is pretty meaningless untill we see how they implement this stuff and if they have collision detection or not.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
The reviewer has a mishapen head
Which means his opinion is skewed
...Aldous.MF'n.Huxley
I understand what you mean and I partly agree with you. The problem is that there is a disease in the MMORPG market now and it is called WoWification. With WoW everything became easy and casual and because of the enormous hit that game was MMORPG devs seem to be under the impression that is what us gamers want so they tend to make everything easy and dumbified.
However in this game I think it is more than enough to have four directional shields and semi-3D movement because this game should not be so much about simulating how a ship moves in space but rather how the combat was in the Star Trek universe. And the impression I got from there is that advanced 3D movements wasnt really that big but it was more about transfering power between different components, such as shield, engines and so on.
And as for them saying combat was all about position; where did you see that? Not saying it is not true but it does sound weird seeing as combat in Star Trek is usually on a 2D plane and rarely full 3D.
My gaming blog
More than likely, because this is an MMORPG, there will be various special attacks you'll get that have cooldown timers. These might include barrel rolls and the like, but only as part of the special attack. This was the direction that PE was taking the game, and I'd be inclined to think that Cryptic would continue in that direction (as they seem to be doing with everything else.)
Watch the final season of Deep Space 9. In one of the major battles, the Fed fleet forms a wall with the smaller "fighter" ships coming in at angles to makes holes in the dominion fleet. Then near the end of the battle, the Klingons enter from above the dominion fleet and slice thru them.
Then in Star Trek 2: Wrath of Kahn, they enter the nebula and to trick Kahn, who is thinking in a 2d way, they move the ship to be below Kahn and to get in behind. I could cite many more instances of a 3d engagement, but this is enough.
So, there is precedent for a 3d movement, but its early and they can still change thier minds, if enough people ask for it in the right way.
But your examples still represent a small minority of the engagements that have taken place in the star trek universe. They're not going to waste their time catering to this small minority, nor the small minority of whiners.
Nonetheless you're original statements were proven wrong. On behalf of the MMORPG community, I accept your apology.
This does not surprise me.
Cryptic is going with the fun-arcade approach for the mass market. Space Combat needs to be simple and fun. Rolling to compensate for shield or hull damage? Hell no, that's complex and not really fun. In terms of the mass market that is.
While gamers who seek those added levels of detail or complexity will be dissappointed. Which is why this game is pretty much off of my list.
To add in another example of 3D combat in Star Trek (And thanks for the person bringing up that Slingshot example!) is in the final episode of, "All Good Things." The triple engine Enterprise makes a belly attack against a Klingon formation, destroying one cruiser in the processes. True 3D combat at work, firing from a position in which the enemy cannot engage with their weapons.
If a ship has had its port side weapons disabled, would it not make sense to "strafe and slide" on the enemy's damaged port side? Would it then make sense for the enemy to roll and turn towards the other to train its starboard weapons? Oh but that requires thinking and tactics... and thus it must not be fun.
And that is why...
Conservatives' pessimism is conducive to their happiness in three ways. First, they are rarely surprised -- they are right more often than not about the course of events. Second, when they are wrong they are happy to be so. Third, because pessimistic conservatives put not their faith in princes -- government -- they accept that happiness is a function of fending for oneself. They believe that happiness is an activity -- it is inseparable from the pursuit of happiness.
It could very well be a good thing. It brings those people with ridiculously unrealistic expectations down to earth. I understand your mentality of 'grab every one you can' but when you try to please everyone it's very rare that you please anyone.
"When Craig said no one missed rolls, he meant it. No one on the team emerged from a combat situation and said, “Wow, if only I could’ve rolled my ship, I’d have won.” Much of this has to do with the way we allow players to shift power to their different shields. If you start getting hammered on your left side, you can press a button and instantly transfer shield power from one side of your ship to the other. This particular approach makes rolls and loops aesthetic rather than functional."
Seems more than reasonable.
yes, it is a reasonable explanation. but aesthetics, or 'fluff', and function dont have to be mutually exclusive. anything that can spice up combat, and make it less repetitive should be added. just because the testers didnt miss being able to do a roll or spin, does that means the people who will at some point be playing on a daily basis wont want it? having the option to do it, even if it isnt entirely needed, is nice (and fun).
at the fluff end of it, showing off your ship, just having fun flying around, etc., many people enjoy fluff elements. almost every mmo i have played has had a variety of fluff items, abilities, quest rewards, that people enjoy, but have no functionality.
part of the charm of star trek was how they would use ingenuity to resolve a situation, often tossing aside convention and taking a serious risk. it wasnt just about rigid functionality...dynamic thinking is what won the day. not having something that adds to the overall dynamic properties of combat and ship command takes away from the players ability think dynamically.
^ What this person said ^
Big deal
You are playing a video game. By definition that means you are not hardcore.
Space combat in Star Trek has always been depicted as 2D, very similiar to naval combat. The few exceptions when third dimension manuevers came into play (USS Defiant, STWOK) was to illustrate a unique situation or ability. It was not standard convention.
There is no loss to Star Trek combat.
Don't try to blame the "fanbase" for Perpertual Entertainments failure. The fact they were inept, shady, and lawsuit ridden was their downfall.
maybe it was just like the DEV's said.. they ask the team to go at it.. and they did.. and not one felt like..OMG if I could have just rolled or looped my ship I would have won. Maybe it was just that.. none of this crap.. cutting corners.. not listenting to fans.. blah blah..
And most know they CANT listen to fans. Think about it.. which FANS? The ones that cry the loudest? The DEVS have to go with what they wanted.. and work from there.
And its something that CAN be put in. I love Star trek and rolling and looping.. just was not something that happen alot..
Quite true. I guess they thought it would be too difficult for the average joe/jill gamer. And maybe it is.
However, as you say, it is just not true there is no tactics in the TV shows. The Enterprise of Picard often, when one side shield was down, made maneuvers to keep another side to the enemy. The Enterprise does strafe and slide, in a sense. The reason we see that rarely overall in the TV show is, that Star Trek isnt so much about constant space fighting, but a lot about exploring, diplomacy, first contacts, inter-crew experiences ("Data's Day") and space combat actually is a very tiny part of Star Trek. That is the root of why STO feels so absurd to me, as it is designed now.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Well, if what you said is true then it would mean it would be a flat map?
That cant be possible, there has to be some kind of freedom of movement, I mean you cant just... go to ds9 like a ship going to dock, you should be able to approach it from whereever, the map cant be flat, then eve online would even be better, they have freedom..
I agree that barrelrolls arent needed, this isnt a jet fight game, this is Star Trek. Starships do not roll or strafe. I have never seen a starship kite before either. But we SHOULD be able to do a loop, in order to get behind the enemy.
If we cant do a loop then the person who is behind the player engaged would automatically win, considering starships have better weapons on the front than on the back of the ship.
Hmm, I guess we will see.
People really need to learn to read a little better. I don't know how people can take what Craig has said as "no 3D movement" as that simply isn't true. What he has stated is large ships will move like large ships and not aerobatic biplanes. I think you all need to read this line again and pay close attention to the part I've underlined:
<CrypticZinc> There's no rolling or looping in STO now. There's pretty signifigant up and down movement, but no barrel rolls or looping.
There is indeed 3D movement in STO. He has stated so right in the first line the OP quoted. Up and down movement equates to movement on the Z axis as well as movement on the X and Y axis. X,Y and Z movement equals 3D movement. I swear sometimes people here just make stuff up so they can have something to bitch about. This whole thread is pointless as the OP is obviously dead wrong.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Submarine movement is in 3D. Rotation around an axis doesn't change the dimensions of movement. Another "doom" post and blatantly ignorant.
--------
"Chemistry: 'We do stuff in lab that would be a felony in your garage.'"
The most awesomest after school special T-shirt:
Front: UNO Chemistry Club
Back: /\OH --> Bad Decisions
Bren,
Exactly how is a large ship "supposed" to move in SPACE ????
Given that it's an almost frictionless and zero gravity environment.... shouldn't it be pretty much the same as how a small ship moves???
I mean this is SPACE we are talking about...not the ocean.... not atmosphere. Are you trying to tell me that a vehicle capable of space travel is not "supposed" to have Roll and Pitch controls?
So what happens when you want to navigate to a destination that is off your current Z axis ??? Elevator up to that elevation, brake your intertia, and then use YAW to set a course and go???
Somehow don't you think the designers of a space ship would figure out a way to allow it to travel in a straight line between 2 points....and to have to break it's inertia only once rather then twice??
How exactly has Star Trek ever resembled actual Newtonian Physics? Are you really trying to justify your argument by comparing actual space flight dynamics to some science fiction fairy tale? Star Trek ships move just like we saw them move in the shows and movies... I mean come on... ships in Star Trek actually bank when they turn. Do you know how many superfluous thrusters a ship would have to have just to do that? This is Science Fiction... not actual science. I never once saw the Enterprise do a roll or a loop in any show or movie so why should you have to do it in the game? The answer is simple... you shouldn't as it serves no purpose in the Star Trek fictional universe what-so-ever.
Edit: Besides the actual topic of this thread is whether or not STO has 3D movement which it obviously does have. This whole thread is a pointless attempt to troll this forum and try to stir up discontent over issues that aren't even issues to begin with.
Second Edit: Also where exactly has it ever been stated that you wouldn't have pitch controls? If there is up and down movement like Craig has stated it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you would have to have pitch control to do this. STO will have pitch control but the ships won't fly like aerobatic biplanes so if you try to loop expect it to be long and pointless in anything the size of a frigate or larger. Remember this is a fictional universe where capital ships turn fairly slow on any axis. Actual space flight dynamics have absolutely nothing to do with how ships move in the Star Trek universe.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Actually a "large" ship in space wouldnt move like a "small" ship in space. Just because space is almost frictionless and a zero G enviroment doesnt mean that the ship wouldnt require some kinda of force to get moving, and since the larger ship would have more mass than a smaller ship, it would inturn require more force. Also since space isnt entirely frictionless the larger ship would require more of a constant force to keep moving at the same speed.
Now about being able to move on the z axis without breaking. If your going along on the x axis in a straight line and for whatever reason you decide to go up, not left or right cause that would be the y axis, all you need to do is pitch up. You would still be going on the x axis but you would also be on the z axis up untill u stop going up and become level, then your back on just the x axis.
Now if when you were pitching up and u then wanted to travel on the y axis thus going left or right u would YAW left or right, and you would be traveling on all 3 axes(not shure if thats plural or not?) X, Forward. Y, Left. Z, Up.
(im pretty shure thats all right.)
There certainly WERE episodes in Trek where ships engaged in rolls, pitching and REVERSE movement. It's a no brainer that ships should have PITCH, YAW and ROLL controls.... it goes with the territory of a vehicle functioning in space..... no ones asking for hyper-realism here..... just things that would make a modicum of logical sense. What they are doing is about as logical as making a submarine game where all the hatches are screen doors...
Furthermore, I read the same article as you....it very clearly implied that you COULD NOT do Loops or Rolls (along with no REVERSE or Lateral Motion). If a vehicle has PITCH and ROLL controls then it very clearly HAS the capacity to do a Loop or Roll..... it may not be a particulary tight one.... that's another issue.... but it should have the capacity to do it. Everything about that article implied that ships in STO have a fixed attitude (which is completely illogical for a space vehicle)....which if there is any up/down movement... which they said there was..... can only mean an elevator function. That's lame.
Furthermore, don't pretend they are even making the attempt to have ships move like they did in the series or movies.... They stated there will be no backwards movement (what they described as "kiting" which tells you where there mindset is)..... how many times in an episode or movie have you heard the words "Full Reverse!" or "Fire Directional Thrusters" spoken?
On to the realistic stuff.....large ships have more mass then small ships, meaning they require more energy to gain or reduce velocity (note that lacking significant resistance....once an object is moving in space at a particular velocity, inertia will keep it moving at pretty much the same velocity and direction indefinately.....maybe it slows minutely over millenia, due to the tiny resistances it might face....lacking some other force acting on it. It's why our space program is able to work..... you only need to fire your engines on take-off, on breaking or for course corrections.... other then that you DON'T need to apply constant force to keep going..... once you've broken free of atmosphere and gravity and attained the velocity you want....inertia handles the rest).
Note, this all pertains to sub-light travel.... as the same article quoted that STO won't do combat at warp.... any discussion as to how manuvering might work at those speeds is moot.
as far as i know, this game isnt a fps or any other version of a shooter. so doing barrel rolls to avoid getting torpedo or laser blasted would be pointless anyway (auto target lock).
It sounds like the game will be about strategy, where to allocate power to which shield, etc. Which Im 100% fine with.
If STO was a game where i had to constantly keep my cursor mouse on a target, do barrel rolls of my own, somehow manage to use my 3rd hand to fire off my specials, and maintain shields, etc I would immediately cancel and toss the game in the trash.
I got to experience a little of that crap in WoW pvp. horde rogue loves to spin in circles so theyre always behind you. So you spin to try and get them in front to hit them. Two idiots spinning clockwise or counter-clockwise to try and hit or avoid being hit by each other. very lame....
besides star trek ship battles werent about which ship could maneuver the best. it was more about who's shields could penetrate the enemies shields first. (the exception being the defiant)
<CrypticZinc> There's no rolling or looping in STO now. There's pretty signifigant up and down movement, but no barrel rolls or looping.
<CrypticZinc> However, you do always move in the direction that you're pointing.
The fact that Craig is speaking of vertical movement just before the line in bold above implies that he was still speaking on that subject. This also implies that he is stating that if you pitch your ship up or down you will move in that direction. This is a hell of a lot more proof that there are pitch controls in STO than any of you have that there aren't. You are right about one thing... It would be illogical for them to make a space game without pitch control that is why they aren't doing anything of the kind. Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension skills a little or are you only reading into it what you want to hear? Either way your dead wrong... end of story.
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
Bren,
I hope that I am wrong....but from what I read it certainly doesn't sound that way. In any event...it'll be easy enough to verify when the game comes out.... and we'll be able to see who's reading comprehension is faulty then. If the game comes out and I am correct, I'll be expecting a basket of cookies in the mail by way of apology.
AdmRiker4,
Nothing about pitch and roll controls necessitates "twitch" based FPS gameplay. In fact, I remember playing an old, old TURN BASED game (Computer Air Combat) that had them.
What it implies is strategy. Simple example - You are facing an enemy ship, your ship's main weapons are on aft and forward firing arcs. So you reinforce those shield facings (aft and forward). You move toward the enemy ship until you are in range of your forward weapons. You fire your weapons and then perform an Immleman (Roll 180 degrees and then pitch upwards 180 degrees until you have reversed direction), placing the enemy on your aft facing.... where you can now fire your aft weapons and present a reinforced shield to accept return fire. The difference between that and using YAW to simply turn 180 would be that with the latter you would be turning through a side shield facing which may not be reinforced, may not have any bearing weapons...and might present a larger siloute to the enemy (putting you broadside to them)..... all of which might place you at a disadvantage. None of that has to happen at a twitch based pace.... it could take 30 seconds to a minute to execute such a manuver.... heck you could even do it with a Turn based combat system.
What is described above IS strategy..... far more so then spamming "specials" (which I'm not even sure SHOULD be in ship based game). Throughout history Manuver & Positioning was a HUGE part of ship based combat (whether with naval vessels or aircraft). In fact, it could probably be described as the ESSENCE of ship based combat..... and THAT certainly was reflected in Star Trek movies and series.
With making shield facings irrelevent, no possibility of reverse or lateral motion and no possibility of 3d manuvers like Immlemans, loops and rolls..... I'm not sure what is actualy LEFT in terms of strategy to keep in the game. "My gun is bigger then your gun" is not very involving in terms of strategy nor is "I'm higher level then you so I win".
What seems pretty clear to me, is that the Dev's aren't spending much thought on designing a system that reflects how ships might fight and engage each other in space.... and the tactics and strategies involved in that which would fit the feel of the genre and be entertaining toward the player. Instead their heads seem to be stuck in the mode of how mobs fight and engage each other in standard fantasy MMO's such as Warcraft or Everquest (which to my mind can be pretty brainless). The very fact that they are using terns like "kiting" and "strafing" to desrcibe reverse and lateral motion and consider those a bad thing I find particularly telling (along with not seeming to care much about facing). In fact.... when you are using "strafing" in terms of ship combat...it should mean something entirely different ( A run at and passed an enemy at high speeds while firing) and should be a fairly routine (and acceptable) tactic.
Now, I could be wrong about where their heads are at....I certainly hope I am.... but it CERTAINLY doesn't sound that way from the language that they are using....the concepts that they are expressing......and what little they've described as being in or not in the game so far.
Space combat between ships should be an ENTIRELY different paradigm then what combat is like in a typical fantasy MMO.
What I was really hoping to see was something that had the FEEL of the old FASA games, but which took full advantage of the possibilities offered by a computer to make 3D possible. Eveything that I am hearing so far SCREAMS of WOW is space....with Paladins and Druids simply being replaced by mobs that have skins that look like spaceships...but functionaly don't work much differently.
Now I truely HOPE I am wrong on this..... and they haven't released alot of details yet...... but everything they've released so far really seems to reinforce my fears of the direction they are going with this. Ultimately, we'll all get to see what the case is when they release the game. However, I've been burned too many times by developers spinning that a game will taste like an apple when the systems they build clearly make it an orange...... and at the same time marketing to people who like oranges as tasting like an orange. There are certain styles and directions that are mutualy exclusive....and cannot satisfy audiences that have vastly different tastes.
Rolls and hoops? Oh, come on. At least when you speak to developers ask some relevant stuff. Like...
Can I take off my shirt to reveal my hairy breast to women? If I can't do that, it would be a game breaker to me.
Rolls and hoops...
"The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."
If I'm wrong and you're right I'll gladly give you 2 baskets of cookies Mel.
But when the game comes out and we see who is right... Well lets just say that I really like Chocolate Chip for future reference. 
Bren
while(horse==dead)
{
beat();
}
We will see when this game is released. So far im looking forward to it.
Have No Fear Cohas is here!!!
