So I discovered today that STO is not an FPS. Even though there is a shooter mode it is something you should never use! You would be wasting your time and there are more features available in RP mode. I have to say this is a disappointment for me. I have great FPS skills but that means nothing in STO. It makes sense since STO was designed to be a console game. Shooter mode is ok for PvE but you will flat-out loose every time to an RP player in PvP.
It is more than useless. Its aiming is poor in comparison. I can target someone behind a target that is in the front. you cannot do that with shooter mode. If they made the Aim mode an exclusive feature of shooter mode then it might be different but RPG mode by far more advance.
1: STO was not build for Consoles... It was build for PC's, indicated by its obvious lack of console support (at least I have yet to see a single copy of STO or champs for that matter designed to run on a console)
2: The Shooter mode is NOT a FPS mode, its a mode to allow for free fire, allowing faster target swtiching, and more effective use of spray weapons such as the minigun.
it's ok that you dont see a use for it, but calling it useless is just useless. It works fine for me.
i enjoy shooter mode. Its a lot easier to play in rpg but i find it fun to switch between the two from time to time.
its not and was never meant to be a true FPS. it was bolted on about 6 months ago after as an added option. rpg was always the original mode for attacking.
A pure FPS and widely considered to be one of the best Star Trek games ever made.
This... Both EF1 and EF2 were some of the most sold ST games ever, and alot of us even hoped for somthing similar to how EF was played rather than the current "The fallen" style gameplay.
But hey... it's fine if you don't want to use Shooter mode. It's not like it is forced on you... You have the choice to not activate it.
Simply unbind the key and you will never see it again. It ain't really that difficult.
if it is just some attempt at getting shootermode removed, I can happily tell you that you've already failed before you posted... A developer dosen't spend moths re-designing a feature, just to toss it out the window... Especially not a feature that was so hghly requested as this one.
(Last paragraph was a general statement, not aimed at anyone in particular)
Shooter mode has its issues like aiming sometimes is a little off (I seem to miss knock back victims on the floor with shooter on ) etc but it is more fun. It also has a lot of potential hopefully they will add more features to it in the next year+
And as someone pointed out, if you don't want to use it.. then don't? Tr
Before I start, I'd like to say that I switch in and out of shooter mode a lot. It depends on the situation. I find melee, grenades, and AOE to be a lot easier to handle in shooter mode. Neither method is 100% perfect for all situations. Refusing to use one or the other only reduces your overall combat effectiveness.
Can anyone present a rational argument for why anyone would think that the IP would lend itself well to being a FPS in the first place?
If so, I'm sure it would be an entertaining read.
Ok, first of all, I'd like to address the inappropriate terminology here. The term you guys are looking for is third person shooter, not first person shooter. TPS not FPS.
Now to address Searcher-Soldier's question. What you're doing there is begging the question. This is a logical fallacy, and you're doing it while asking for a rational argument? Oh how you drip with irony right now. You can't very well pretend to be rational when you're begging the question.
But I'll answer it. First of all, there's no reason for the IP to not lend itself to being an FPS. Star Trek has had everything from full on, geeked out ship bridge operation simulation to roleplaying games, to real time strategy games, click through CD ROM adventures in the style of Sierra Online's old games and LucasArts' SCUMM games (same style, not the same engines or companies). There's even been *gasp* a first person shooter based on Star Trek: Voyager.
What's more, the game was SO successful, it that ... Oh my gods, will you look at that? It's A SEQUEL! Infact, not only was the game so successful that it warranted a sequel, but the sequal was set aboard Enterprise and they hired the TNG actors to reprise their roles. Do you have any idea how much more expensive those guys are than the other crews? About the only ones you can get on short notice for any kind of lengthy role on a budget are Frakes and Sirtis.
So a rational argument that it would lend itself? I just gave cold, hard, concrete evidence. Here's where you go and dismiss it and say you didn't like Elite Force and nitpick the game despite its financial success. Of course you're free to do just that. Just keep in mind that no argument you can make to try to dismiss the Elite Force franchise can come close to rationally explaining how a financially successful game, for an IP that traditionally doesn't fare well at all as video games, is in any way the same thing as a bad game.
Personally, I get a 'disconnect' from having to use a keyboard to fire a weapon, as STO is one of only very few forays I've made in to RPGs, let alone MMOs. I enjoy having the freedom to aim where I want, which I do not get from the (lock target) (push button) (change target) functionality of a keyboard. Being able to aim a weapon where I like, and shoot what I like is part of the immersion for me.
I've used it to great success in PVP, Elite STFs, what-have-you, so it's far from useless.
I think the shooter mode is just as hard to use as the common RPG mode. The true benefits get obvious if you use them together and switch where it makes sense. For example:
The spread shooting mode of the minigun is much more efficient in shootermode since you can actually sweap the weapon left and right and catch a much further arc. It also saves valuable seconds to switch to a different target when your current targets died. You can also direct it to a point where it hits multiple targets with one spread while they usually would be out of the arc if you select one or the other.
Healing is also easier since you can kinda 'mouseover' heal in shooter mode which is very enjoyable in small teams.
In bigger fleet actions and stuff like that, I use the RPG mode much more. You can simply switch your first attack to auto attack and take your time to click player portraits for healing while your character keeps picking off targets.
I think the solution of implementing both control sets with the ability to change them on the fly is very well elaborated and highly useful (to me at least). I personally can't wait to have the same for space action and make your ship controllable with mouse movement.
Can anyone present a rational argument for why anyone would think that the IP would lend itself well to being a FPS in the first place?
If so, I'm sure it would be an entertaining read.
Firefights in Trek have always been shown in a way that suggest a cover-based mechanic ala Mass Effect or Gears of War. Nearly any time an extended firefight takes place, everyone is jumping behind cover and/or quickly darting from piece of cover to piece of cover. The instances of firefights that don't involve cover only serve to enforce why cover is necessary, as most, if not all, end after one clean shot.
Based on this, it is reasonable to conclude that to provide the most canon STO ground combat experience, the best method would be to make it a First- or Third-Person Shooter highly reliant on cover.
Firefights in Trek have always been shown in a way that suggest a cover-based mechanic ala Mass Effect or Gears of War. Nearly any time an extended firefight takes place, everyone is jumping behind cover and/or quickly darting from piece of cover to piece of cover. The instances of firefights that don't involve cover only serve to enforce why cover is necessary, as most, if not all, end after one clean shot.
Based on this, it is reasonable to conclude that to provide the most canon STO ground combat experience, the best method would be to make it a First- or Third-Person Shooter highly reliant on cover.
People have been wanting Gears like combat since beta. Personally i would love it. This game could use a cover mechanic, especially seeing how cheap the STFs are with the one shots lol plus as it was said earlier could ad a good trek feel to combat, especially in the fights that take place on ship corridors.
Another thing that would be nice and validate shooter mode is targetable areas of the body which have the different modifiers: Body shots Could be a chance of shield penetration and knockback, legs shots could slow movement and knock down rather than knock back, Head shots (best with sniper rifles) could have high crit damage, and arm shots could cause weapon/aim debuffs or "Disarm" the guy making him only able to melee attack for a short while.
for those wanting a more first person feel to ground you can head to the following thread: First Person View ground mode hack
*note: its not a hack in the sense of third party or making codeside changes but a adjustment to bindings and hud within the avaliable options ingame.
I personly only use the camera trick for when im broadcasting events for a "camera man" effect
1: STO was not build for Consoles... It was build for PC's, indicated by its obvious lack of console support (at least I have yet to see a single copy of STO or champs for that matter designed to run on a console)
Except it actually was. At least originally. As far as I know the console development was ditched at some point during development for both games. But they were partially designed with consoles in mind.
Firefights in Trek have always been shown in a way that suggest a cover-based mechanic ala Mass Effect or Gears of War. Nearly any time an extended firefight takes place, everyone is jumping behind cover and/or quickly darting from piece of cover to piece of cover. The instances of firefights that don't involve cover only serve to enforce why cover is necessary, as most, if not all, end after one clean shot.
Based on this, it is reasonable to conclude that to provide the most canon STO ground combat experience, the best method would be to make it a First- or Third-Person Shooter highly reliant on cover.
To be fair, I always hoped that when shooter mode was added it would be a cover based shooter mechanic. I can't think that I was the only one to make that mistake.
In an unrelated note I always liked The Fallen, but that had more to do with the epicness of some of the locations, like the downed Miranda class, then the combat.
Also, I seriously, seriously did not mean to necro an old thread, I'm sorry, please don't kill me. >.<
Comments
2: The Shooter mode is NOT a FPS mode, its a mode to allow for free fire, allowing faster target swtiching, and more effective use of spray weapons such as the minigun.
it's ok that you dont see a use for it, but calling it useless is just useless. It works fine for me.
its not and was never meant to be a true FPS. it was bolted on about 6 months ago after as an added option. rpg was always the original mode for attacking.
It happens... I find it most enjoyable
If so, I'm sure it would be an entertaining read.
Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force
A pure FPS and widely considered to be one of the best Star Trek games ever made.
This... Both EF1 and EF2 were some of the most sold ST games ever, and alot of us even hoped for somthing similar to how EF was played rather than the current "The fallen" style gameplay.
But hey... it's fine if you don't want to use Shooter mode. It's not like it is forced on you... You have the choice to not activate it.
Simply unbind the key and you will never see it again. It ain't really that difficult.
if it is just some attempt at getting shootermode removed, I can happily tell you that you've already failed before you posted... A developer dosen't spend moths re-designing a feature, just to toss it out the window... Especially not a feature that was so hghly requested as this one.
(Last paragraph was a general statement, not aimed at anyone in particular)
And as someone pointed out, if you don't want to use it.. then don't? Tr
Ok, first of all, I'd like to address the inappropriate terminology here. The term you guys are looking for is third person shooter, not first person shooter. TPS not FPS.
Now to address Searcher-Soldier's question. What you're doing there is begging the question. This is a logical fallacy, and you're doing it while asking for a rational argument? Oh how you drip with irony right now. You can't very well pretend to be rational when you're begging the question.
But I'll answer it. First of all, there's no reason for the IP to not lend itself to being an FPS. Star Trek has had everything from full on, geeked out ship bridge operation simulation to roleplaying games, to real time strategy games, click through CD ROM adventures in the style of Sierra Online's old games and LucasArts' SCUMM games (same style, not the same engines or companies). There's even been *gasp* a first person shooter based on Star Trek: Voyager.
What's more, the game was SO successful, it that ... Oh my gods, will you look at that? It's A SEQUEL! Infact, not only was the game so successful that it warranted a sequel, but the sequal was set aboard Enterprise and they hired the TNG actors to reprise their roles. Do you have any idea how much more expensive those guys are than the other crews? About the only ones you can get on short notice for any kind of lengthy role on a budget are Frakes and Sirtis.
So a rational argument that it would lend itself? I just gave cold, hard, concrete evidence. Here's where you go and dismiss it and say you didn't like Elite Force and nitpick the game despite its financial success. Of course you're free to do just that. Just keep in mind that no argument you can make to try to dismiss the Elite Force franchise can come close to rationally explaining how a financially successful game, for an IP that traditionally doesn't fare well at all as video games, is in any way the same thing as a bad game.
Well.. At least we can be somewhat sure that he knows it is not a FPS mode by now xD
Personally, I get a 'disconnect' from having to use a keyboard to fire a weapon, as STO is one of only very few forays I've made in to RPGs, let alone MMOs. I enjoy having the freedom to aim where I want, which I do not get from the (lock target) (push button) (change target) functionality of a keyboard. Being able to aim a weapon where I like, and shoot what I like is part of the immersion for me.
I've used it to great success in PVP, Elite STFs, what-have-you, so it's far from useless.
The spread shooting mode of the minigun is much more efficient in shootermode since you can actually sweap the weapon left and right and catch a much further arc. It also saves valuable seconds to switch to a different target when your current targets died. You can also direct it to a point where it hits multiple targets with one spread while they usually would be out of the arc if you select one or the other.
Healing is also easier since you can kinda 'mouseover' heal in shooter mode which is very enjoyable in small teams.
In bigger fleet actions and stuff like that, I use the RPG mode much more. You can simply switch your first attack to auto attack and take your time to click player portraits for healing while your character keeps picking off targets.
I think the solution of implementing both control sets with the ability to change them on the fly is very well elaborated and highly useful (to me at least). I personally can't wait to have the same for space action and make your ship controllable with mouse movement.
Firefights in Trek have always been shown in a way that suggest a cover-based mechanic ala Mass Effect or Gears of War. Nearly any time an extended firefight takes place, everyone is jumping behind cover and/or quickly darting from piece of cover to piece of cover. The instances of firefights that don't involve cover only serve to enforce why cover is necessary, as most, if not all, end after one clean shot.
Based on this, it is reasonable to conclude that to provide the most canon STO ground combat experience, the best method would be to make it a First- or Third-Person Shooter highly reliant on cover.
Best... Explaination... EVER
Another thing that would be nice and validate shooter mode is targetable areas of the body which have the different modifiers: Body shots Could be a chance of shield penetration and knockback, legs shots could slow movement and knock down rather than knock back, Head shots (best with sniper rifles) could have high crit damage, and arm shots could cause weapon/aim debuffs or "Disarm" the guy making him only able to melee attack for a short while.
*note: its not a hack in the sense of third party or making codeside changes but a adjustment to bindings and hud within the avaliable options ingame.
I personly only use the camera trick for when im broadcasting events for a "camera man" effect
It changes your crossfire Tribble's effect, other than that...
Except it actually was. At least originally. As far as I know the console development was ditched at some point during development for both games. But they were partially designed with consoles in mind.
To be fair, I always hoped that when shooter mode was added it would be a cover based shooter mechanic. I can't think that I was the only one to make that mistake.
In an unrelated note I always liked The Fallen, but that had more to do with the epicness of some of the locations, like the downed Miranda class, then the combat.
Also, I seriously, seriously did not mean to necro an old thread, I'm sorry, please don't kill me. >.<