test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
Arenaes and "Spiraling Out of Control"
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
One thing I do not like about Arena fights is that a lot of the combat is happening at the edges - typically the upper edge. The reason is that people tend to move higher and higher over time, leading to the odd spiraling movement upwards.
I think there is at least one contributing factor that - the current flight angles and turn rates create a "blind spot" for dual cannon users where they cannot fire a target above them. As I say in my signature, we would not have to go "full 3d" to avoid that - we just need to add a few degrees to the maximin flight angle to avoid that.
The spiraling to the top is annoying due to the tediousness of moving up all the distance (in a spiraling pattern too boot), but it is also sad because there is so much interesting geometry scattered through the rest of the map, and it's barely used. There is not much Hide and Seek going on in the asteroid belts, and I don't think I've ever seen a ship damanged from metreon gas clouds in an arena.
I think Arena maps could use a redesign, or at least future designs should take this into account. Capture & Hold maps can avoid the issue mostly (but not all), simply because you have to be near those "interesting geometries" to win.
I think there should be incentives to use the elements in the map. Maybe a PvP related mission or accolade like "Win an Arena match and destroy 5 Metreon Clouds" or some such. Alternatively, there might be mechanical penalties to fly to the edges of the map, like a power drain or a dangerous geometry at the edges...
Maybe kills between the asteroids count extra, or kills outside a certain radius don't count at all.
I think there is at least one contributing factor that - the current flight angles and turn rates create a "blind spot" for dual cannon users where they cannot fire a target above them. As I say in my signature, we would not have to go "full 3d" to avoid that - we just need to add a few degrees to the maximin flight angle to avoid that.
The spiraling to the top is annoying due to the tediousness of moving up all the distance (in a spiraling pattern too boot), but it is also sad because there is so much interesting geometry scattered through the rest of the map, and it's barely used. There is not much Hide and Seek going on in the asteroid belts, and I don't think I've ever seen a ship damanged from metreon gas clouds in an arena.
I think Arena maps could use a redesign, or at least future designs should take this into account. Capture & Hold maps can avoid the issue mostly (but not all), simply because you have to be near those "interesting geometries" to win.
I think there should be incentives to use the elements in the map. Maybe a PvP related mission or accolade like "Win an Arena match and destroy 5 Metreon Clouds" or some such. Alternatively, there might be mechanical penalties to fly to the edges of the map, like a power drain or a dangerous geometry at the edges...
Maybe kills between the asteroids count extra, or kills outside a certain radius don't count at all.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Also, even 360° angles won't make people utlize the asteroids, bases and nebulas more. Stopping the mechanical benefits of spiraling up is just the first thing to do in a long line of things.
But we know that's not going to happen. They have no desire to ensure that there will be a balance between Cannons and Beams. (the ironic thing is on a linear plane it works out fine... )
But everyone knows the Cone is so narrow that they avoid it. Heck I've seen cruisers mounting EPTE just to get above Escorts. If that's not a thorough demonstration of the game's poor 3d mechanics nothing is.
Full 3D movement IS confusing. It would be yet another thing to keep an eye on. There are just too many BOFF and captain powers you need to keep an eye on for keeping your ship rotated the correct way.
This game is actually quite enjoyable for the reason that it doesn't have unlimited 3D movement. In the show ships were generally portrayed as flying around in the same plane, so why not here? Cryptic has a winning formula with the space combat and is one of the main reasons a lot of people play STO. I would like an increased movement angle, but certainly not full 3d movement. Besides, if you introduced full 3D movement, would that mean that air resistance would have to be removed as well (meaning you would have to reverse the ship in order to stop moving)?
Not necessarily. Some off-screen information (e.g. not "real" canon but close enough that it might be considered) suggest that 24th century vessels do not really use conventional thrust-based propulsion anymore, and instead use low-level subspace fields, basically a less power-draining sublight use of warp. That was the rationale used to explain why the Nebula has no visible impulse engines, and it was stated in the technical manual of the Enterprise D. (I am not sure which of the two came first - Nebula rationale or manual).
That would suggest to slow down, you just lower the strength of the warp field or something like that, you don' have to turn around.
Also, on screen statements suggest that impulse engines have thrust reversers, so they might be able to be directed forward and aft with similar effectiveness, requiring no actual turning.
A realistic, 360° flight model would look nothing like Startrek. There are very few games that actually had that. Even the X-Wing series of games from Lucas Games did not have that. They had 360°, but still had pseudo-friction and general airplane-like movements. The first game I know to have this done "realistically" was Independence War.
But we're veering off-topic.
Nobody would expect a full blown Newtonian physics flight model, a simple roll/pitch system is sufficient. For me, I can easily picture it within the current game. But oh well.
Regardless, increased pitch angle would be welcomed by all I would think. I mean, who hasn't been peeved at least once by a ship you couldn't shoot either right above or below you.
But my suggestion would not be to ajust the flight angle a few degrees, just of increase the vertical firing angle of cannons from now 45° to 60° (i would even suggest 70°).
This change would make it easier to avoid cannons by horizontal moving, than by spiraling up. That somehow forces people to more maneuver in the horizontal plane, which as we know from the devs is the plane where STOs space combat should be primarily focused.
That would cause a whole load of balance issues, which would mean that the DPS output of cannons would have to be reduced. It would change the mechanics of the game too much to be feasible. Changing the flight angle is a simple, yet effective solution.
I don't see alot of balancing issues when the firing angle is only increased in the vertical.
I think the decision is up to the devs which changes fits there idea for STOs space combat better. From what they posted so far and the even smaller vertical flight angle after release i get the impression that STOs combat should mainly be in the horizontal. From that viewpoint any further increase in flight angle would be a step away from this concept.
Unfortunately cryptic seems to consider PVP players to be a minority, so don't expect anything to happen, because ai ships don't fly up out of cannon arcs PVE fanbois aren't affected so nothing will change.
My bigget issue is that there are no fun dogfights between the asteroids. No one wants to go there, everyone wants to explore the ceiling and get the annoying message box ...
And I think "just" fixing the spiraling thing would just move the combat closer to the spawn points. Not necessarily into the asteroid fields.
Maybe that is actually a solution - position the spawn points inside some "points of interest", or reasonably close to. The current circle of spawn gates is boring anyway.
Firing arcs are always spherical in nature. (cone shape for cannons and DBBs, sphere with a chunk taken out for beam arrays) That means if they increase the firing arc of cannons in one direction, they increase the firing arc in all directions. Yes the game is designed to be played in plane, but then again, it's set in space. It would help with the arena issue, and for any PvEers it would help with gathering data samples that always end up being directly above or below you. Anyway, 67 degrees isn't all that far off what we have now.
That's because fighting between all that junk is seriously annoying, especially when you get stuck in an asteroid trying to run away from focus fire. There needs to be some incentive to be there. At the moment there isn't any.
Target lock loss and Floating Attack intervention need to be added to make Asteroid combat fun. Though collision damage may be needed as well.
An affect like you can't attack/heal but can be attacked/healed by a player up to the line of demarcation. Of course, it would have to be a visible color and warning change as you get closer that way it is noticeable. Yet, not a safe zone to hover into and out of....as long as a player is 44900m his weapons will fire 10k into the "safe zone".
This way players couldn't abuse crossing over, they have to go real far in. So at the same time as you get close to the border you get "read out" saying how close you are letting you know you have to take the fight back down or risk losing out on being able to attack or heal.
Certainly it will change how teams have to fight, but it gives the same advantage to both sides. How? When you are 50k-90k up from teh spawn point it takes 20-30 seconds of full flight to get back in and at the 'proper' angle to aide your team. So spiraling up all the time to keep dead players from entering back into the fight quickly will not be such a big advantage of numbers and attrition. Having a ceiling that keeps you being part of the team effort is akin to distance required to travel back to be part of the team effort.
Since beam weapons can fire just as well up as they can down, you now have a new dynamic to keep your teams edge just as you would fighting in and around objects that block firing arcs.
just my idea,
One way to draw a fight to the points of interest is to provide "king of the hill" style game mechanics, especially if the hill moves to a new point of interest after each capture.
As an additional plus, this game style allows for a team that has lost a few members to regroup to assault the next point rather than just racing back to support their team in the furball.
-snix
if your ship is flying within x distance of an asteroid or other space structure you ge a defense bonus?
this could perhaps give reason to fly very close to asteroids in order to dodge being shot maybe?
"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking ..."
- Spock
I absolutely wouldn't want full 360 degree movement, but I completely agree with others here that an increase of a few degrees to the z-axis would help things a lot. Currently it's far too easy for a ship to spiral upwards and completely mitigate the offensive capability of a cannon-escort, thus the propensity of many matches is to float upwards to exploit this disadvantage. Considering the huge size of the maps themselves, it's depressing how often you can find a furball hitting the upper map edge.
Also Snix's idea for a true king-of-the-hill type minigame is win.
Implemented or not. It's good to see a (former) developer at least chime in on ideas and suggestions with the community. Rock on, y'all.
Yeah, they should hire that guy.
I and many others have asked for a King of the Hill type of match since beta.
Another one that could be fun is a capture the flag match. Put the flag in the center of the map and both teams have to go get it and take it back to their base. The bases could be the respawn points or form a baseball diamond with the 2 respawn points. Some interesting things could be down with the map's geography to prevent direct flight paths between all the key locations. To show which player has the flag, a big icon could float above them and cloak disabled while carrying the flag, to help ensure the rest of your team focuses more on keeping the flag barer alive and so the enemy can find them to try to stop them.
I try to force the combat down in the roids whenever I play Badlands in particular. But all it takes is once persistent jerkwad constantly zooming upwards to force the whole furball up vertically all game.
Comes down how to complex and differentiated the cone design is, if its just a one factor cone design agreed. If the design already allows elliptical cones i.e. with a horizontal and a vertical factor (angle). But honestly i don't know how Cryptic set up the firing arcs, so its up to them.
What puzzles me with the discussion is that prior to the 60° flight angle the issue was even worse with a much larger "dead zone" for DC/DHC users above and below. But i don't remember such a heated discussion.
I also think the problem didn't use to be quite as noticeable. And that might frankly be fault of the 60° angles. It takes longer to reach the edge of space if you have only 45° flight angles.