test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Space Combat Revamp Discussion

2»

Comments

  • jam3s1701jam3s1701 Member Posts: 1,825 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I would rather they sorted out ground 1st tbh its painful to say the least
    JtaDmwW.png
  • grazyc2#7847 grazyc2 Member Posts: 1,988 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    jam3s1701 wrote: »
    I would rather they sorted out ground 1st tbh its painful to say the least

    They allready revampd ground combat and space zero times so I sugest first space and then a better system for ground, I do agree however I would go for a ground revamp however make it more chanlenging but they realy have to take care space !!!
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
  • mustrumridcully0mustrumridcully0 Member Posts: 12,963 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    While I can see a lot of ways to make space combat different, and I know there are tons of balane issues.. I am not convinced that changing space combat is neccessary. I wouldn't be surprised if it actually were to hurt the game - people like space combat well enough. Yes, there are complains, not absolutely everyone likes it and no one might say it's the best thing since sliced bread, but I think it's engaging and satisfying.
    Changing it will definitely alienate people simply because it's different, it would be a lot of risk with little reward.

    I might look more on things that are off aesthetically, even if it plays into mechanics. Like the aforementioned issue with you passing by your own torpedoes because torpedo speed is independent of your speed.

    ---
    But If I were to make a grand revamp, I might make shields and weapons symmetrical in that you have an energy weapon bank that stores power for weapons and shields that store their shield points (by facing). That sounds like a better starting point to balance offense vs defense, since shields and weapons are directly matched now by the points you have available for them.

    I would not have shield power or weapon power affect damage output, just how fast the respectively pools replenish. Escorts that focus on burst could install their dual cannons for massive burst damage - but they deplete their weapon bank as they deplete the enemy shields.

    I am not entirely sure how to apply these energy pools to engines. Maybe it would be the only part that didn't have a pool.
    Auxillary Power would also fill a pool of reserve power.
    Powers that are not directly combat would deplete that pool, including Emergency Powers (that means there is no EPtAux anymore), which transfer power from auxillary to the system in question.

    Extend Shield could be a power that transfers shield points from you to the target ship (with a rider effect that makes the effort worth it), Transfer Shield Strength could do the same but from auxillary.


    I probably also would change how weapon slots work. I probably give every ship one, maybe two energy and projectile slots in total, which alter the weapons installed on your ship, (So if you use a Tri-Cobalt on a Galaxy Class, it's fore and aft launcher can also fire Tri-Cobalts), focusing on recreating canonical look (with leeway for energy types and projectile types). You woud probably not need Beam Banks, Dual Beam Banks, Dual Cannons and so on anymore. The Defiant couldn't be turned into a "beam" escort but in turn, an Akira might be a beam escort and they would be both equally powerful, assuming you took similar items of similar rarity and mark. (And they might both have only a 45° firing arc with their weapons ,if that is what is necessary to balance escort firepower.)
    Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
  • jbmonroejbmonroe Member Posts: 809 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    thecosmic1 wrote: »
    If people were really having fun then there would not be constant threads about how to change it. :)

    Without actual statistics that's not really a sustainable conclusion. In any event, it's possible to find people who are unhappy with just about anything. There are some people who don't know how to have fun with a puppy--and that would be their problem, not the puppy's.
    boldly-watched.png
  • jbmonroejbmonroe Member Posts: 809 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    thecosmic1 wrote: »
    Why do people want to fight from the bridge?

    I've never been able to answer that question.

    The problem with 3D-on-2D is that you have no real peripheral vision and it's difficult to have proper situational awareness. Throwing a bunch of ersatz, abstract "sensor screens" onto the UI doesn't make it vastly better (while it would tell you something was behind you, it wouldn't tell you what direction it was facing, and integrating an actual 3d relative position from a pair of 2D displays is not easy). Further restricting the view to a small percentage of the available screen real estate is not an improvement.
    boldly-watched.png
  • szerontzurszerontzur Member Posts: 2,724 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    jam3s1701 wrote: »
    I would rather they sorted out ground 1st tbh its painful to say the least

    Personally, the only issue I still have with the ground game is the general lack of interface responsiveness(not just the GUI, but the way the system itself responds to input).

    Trying to use a hypo in an emergency is like trying to wrestle with a greased up Vulcan. You push a button and it does nothing unless you're absolutely not doing anything else(which includes getting jostled about by enemy attacks). Odds are by the chance the game thinks you're 'available' enough to perform an action, you (or your entire away team) are most likely dead.


    Otherwise, I do think ground combat has a good amount of depth and I've used a wide variety of tactics rather successfully - from grenades to melee to bunker fabrication and artillery to medical science to the deadly science offensive abilities that would make any fantasy wizard smile with glee. (Seriously, if you have a Science Captain, you owe it to yourself to give Exothermic Radiation a go at least once.) Crouching, fine aim, expose, exploit, flanking, and knockdown are all excellent mechanics that keep ground combat quite interesting and engaging.
  • edited February 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • firestorm10491firestorm10491 Member Posts: 109 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Space combat has always been mediocre to me, Its click and shoot with no real maneuvering or tactics except in the STFs or elite fleet actions. Ground combat has very little immersion as there is not much ability to hide, climb or do anything than just tool around on a map. For decent ground combat I would have loved the way ST Elite Force II and DS9 the fallen were done, but back to the topic at hand.

    It is unfortunate but redesigning space combat doesn't really seem possible as every space map would have to be updated not something I am sure that Cryptic is capable of. The option of slugfests with possible outcomes that don't include destruction with more ship micromanagement. Reduce the enemies and prolong the combat with a single ship much like it was in the shows would be the way I would love to see it go but just don't think Cryptic sees any real profit in it.

    People liked Bridge Commander and like to play from the bridge because it adds drama and immersion to the gaming experience. Although Cryptic has never liked the idea because it would reduce player interaction in places like sector space and it would not seem like space was all that big. Although if they had that system like BC with the ability to do things inside the ship they would have a lot less load problems but that would take a redesign to accomplish and that's another reason they have denied it. I do think that Perpetual was trying to design it like Bridge Commander originally but with the rush that CBS put on this game and we have what we have... If CBS would let developers do things properly without a huge rush then we might actually have had something better than the mediocrity STO is.
  • just123mejust123me Member Posts: 20 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    Well, you are the captain you're basically not firing the weapons yourself but you give the order to do so. It's your job to analyze the situation around you while your crew attacks the target until you decide otherwise (ESC key). My dream is still a multiplayer bridge where your friends bring different toons (eng, sci and tac) to your ship and use their best stuff on my ship. Only the captain can steer the others have to time their abilities with the captains actions. Your tac might say (on voice) May i recommend attacking the other target first, i can take it out quickly with my alpha 3 can rapid fire 2 or something. the engineer might shout "captain get us out all heals on cooldown" while the sci tries to debuff the TRIBBLE out of the ships headed for us. I see alot of multiplayer fun in that maybe reserved for special scenarios.
  • feiqafeiqa Member Posts: 2,410 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    How would I revamp space combat.

    First make Science ships the base line vessel in damage versus absorption. As well as speed and turning. Then give them their special abilities.
    Make effect like Gravity Well target an area instead of the ship you just focused on. This way Sci captains/ships can alter the direction of attacks. Thus controlling the crowds better.
    ((Making NPCs want to avoid areas with a rift or gw would be good here.))

    Now that you have that base line.
    Escorts.
    Smaller than Science vessels, with less armour but comparible shields. No aft weapons so they focus all their fire power forward. Keep the current weapon arcs for cannons. Now limit the number of those weapons to five maximum.
    This will make the escort a glass cannon.

    Cruisers.
    Bigger than Science vessels. Same armour but heavier shields. Can mount greater numbers of weapons. But concentrating the firing arcs is a problem. Only ship that would have side mounted weapons. restrict arcs to 135 degrees so side weapons cannot fire due forward or aft, but have a purpose. Also left and right facings.

    4
    2 2
    4

    As a layout example for a very large cruiser.


    Carriers would not be battlestars. They would be restricted to one or two antiship weapons and a battery of anti fighter weapons. Their arsenal and skills are from the small craft they carry.
    Carrier commands may include sending a squadron of workerbees to repair allied vessels. Or sending bombers to harass other ships. This makes carriers a specialized large science vessel.
    Allow 4 slotted small craft types. But only two groups may be in use at a time. Thus a carrier could launch combat craft, recall them, then launch repair ships.

    Player ships do not automatically detonate and then have a timer for respawn. They are adrift during the countdown. When it reaches zero they detonate and may respawn. This is to allow friendly players the chance to restore the ship to operation.

    Originally Posted by pwlaughingtrendy
    Network engineers are not ship designers.
    Nor should they be. Their ships would look weird.
  • grazyc2#7847 grazyc2 Member Posts: 1,988 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    This is what you want right ???

    1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bPD5o78_TM&hd=1

    2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RC4q-63yu-0&hd=1

    3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6VA9bDy-es&list=PL9aFkg1PDBS6-qeaALqM8IIJKU-VuL6dm&hd=1

    4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP7r3o8KETI&hd=1

    Have Fun but maybe sto would look like this in the future !!! Cmon Devs I know you love this !!!!. Last link lik 4 I would pay gold if space combat would be like this, bigger ships better power etc etc. We build the mod don't tell it can't be done in STO ???
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
  • grazyc2#7847 grazyc2 Member Posts: 1,988 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    O yes before I forget these are modded versions of bridge commander people follow instructions on youtube if you like them !!!

    Greets
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
  • groomofweirdgroomofweird Member Posts: 1,045 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    I would love to see ventral and dorsal sheilding on ships, I get that its been mentioned and probably not doable. it would still be nice.
    As a previous poster mentioned early on, a ”bridge commander” sort of view that one could choose when in combat or even in sector space. Though again on some ships without a viewscreen (jem dread for example) this could be problematic.
    But those are things I can muse about in my own mind :)
    Nimoysig1_zpsr79joxz3.jpg
    "If this will be our end, then I will have them make SUCH an end as to be worthy of rememberance! Out of torpedos you say?! Find me the ferengi!".
  • edited February 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • grazyc2#7847 grazyc2 Member Posts: 1,988 Arc User
    edited February 2014
    unikon wrote: »
    Can we get a Ground revamp first?

    AGAIN ? Ground has been revamped so why ? :eek:
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

    "Coffee: the finest organic suspension ever devised. It's got me through the worst of the last three years. I beat the Borg with it."
Sign In or Register to comment.