test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

STO is NOT an FPS

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
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.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    shooter mode is rather useless and has no difference between RPG and its self other than locking mouse look and slightly different controls.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    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.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    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.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    anazonda so do you PvP in Shooter mode?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    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.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    Pug01 wrote:
    anazonda so do you PvP in Shooter mode?

    It happens... I find it most enjoyable
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    Not to mention that it allows you to throw grenades without a target. Which means over walls, all while keeping you safly shielded.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    No STO is not an FPS, its a TPS.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    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.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    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.

    Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force

    A pure FPS and widely considered to be one of the best Star Trek games ever made.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    Alexraptor wrote: »
    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)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    I always use shooter mode. It creates a much more enjoyable experience for me.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited December 2011
    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
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    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.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    I was under the impression, on those rare times I go into shooter mode, it was a 3rd Person Shooter :p:D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    Here is where reading previous posts come into play...

    Well.. At least we can be somewhat sure that he knows it is not a FPS mode by now xD
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    Don't like it, don't use it.

    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.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    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.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    Shooter mode has the benefit of being a thousand times more fun.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    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.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    Jexsam wrote: »
    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
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    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.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    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 ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited January 2012
    Kieshdor wrote: »
    shooter mode is rather useless and has no difference between RPG and its self other than locking mouse look and slightly different controls.

    It changes your crossfire Tribble's effect, other than that...
    anazonda wrote: »
    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.
    Jexsam wrote: »
    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. >.<
Sign In or Register to comment.