Does anybody else find it "cheesy" you can only pitch your ship 50deg up or down playing on a 2D platform?
Would it be too hard for players to comprehend 3D space flight? It would definately make space combat way more fun and interesting.
Or is Cryptic just lazy with the programming?
Don't think it's laziness, but rather man hour and cash intensive to do so. Don't think they have either at this point.
Plus, I can't imagine how much coding would be involved in order to create a 3d environment that also incorporates 1st person view perspectives. (i.e. Unless another ship, planet or whatever happens to be on your X axis plane, they will appear to your perspective as vertical, upside down, etc...)
Well the way you are always on the same plane is good. It keeps all ships aligned with one another, just like they are in Star Trek. But they need to flying at greater angles
'Don't fix it if it isn't broken'. Good words to live by. Is 2d space realistic...ofcourse not. But there are two spheres of gameplay in STO: space and ground. At this point in time, space gameplay is better than ground, therefore they should put resources toward developing the ground game until it is as equally enjoyable as space.
Also, fundamentally revamping space might consume a lot of resources in time and money, which could be better spent adding content and missing features.
But if they could somehow increase the pitch to 80 degrees with minimal effort, that wouldn't be a bad thing in my book.
I heard / read somewhere that it's to do with 'impulse engines' and 'manouvering thrusters'. Impulse = main directional and more powerfull 'pushing' craft forward - like a boat on water (2D). Thrusters = affect the other directions - pushing craft in relation to central axis (3D) - comparable to a submarine maybe.
Following that reasoning, straight up or down in realtion to the centre point would be slow - a bit like current reverse. Though I do not see why we could not 'roll' as in ship customisation - we already 'yaw' and have (limited) 'pitch'.
I'm not suggesting that any of this is correct - just taken from what I have seen / heard so far!
It is full 3D in STOL the only thing is you can't move 90 degree upwards or downwards.
I think this is a limitation of their graphiics engine but am not sure.
Anyway it is not bad and much better than the Star fleet Command games that were on a 2D platform.
well homeworld 1/2 was too much for some RTS guys.
But I loved it.
Anyways: 3d won't happen. Remember STO being created upon the CO engine, it simply won't allow true 3d. That's why we got 2d Shields and 2d movement and that will never ever change
I think the game is set up without rolling effects because of the difficulty this would add to navigating. First off, it's a lot easier to program the AI for enemy ships to use this method, as you aren't having to program in the extra Roll Left and Roll Right maneuvers and making those work with the rest.
I don't think a lot of the usual players would enjoy 3D space, because it would be too disorienting. Some of us would love such a game, because our minds can operate spatially in 3D but I don't think we're the majority.
This is a "maximum playability for all players" call, I believe, regardless of existing limitations in the engine. And I have to say, I do at times feel limited by the inability to fly straight up or straight down, but in almost every instance, it is just as easy to fly down at an angle to the target or target group, then level out and head in.
But this is all just game mechanics. A much more important reason to maintain this system is that this is how Star Trek has always moved and navigated. Vessels in Star Trek almost exclusively behave according to a 2D plane.
There were exceptional times in the series, such as the fleet conflicts at the end of DS9 where a few ships rolled over, or the moment in ST:Insurrection when the Enterprise rolled over and hit the So'na ship on its underbelly, or Admiral Riker flying vertically upwards as it sliced through the Klingon cruiser at the end of TNG's All Good Things... but these are exceptions.
Star Trek was never about realistic 3D axis motion or Newtonian spaceflight. It's about naval vessels on the "sea" of space. And STO should be as well.
Just for a bit of education, as soon as you can move 1 degree up or down, it becomes "3D", so space is 3D in STO. Just because you can't go 90 degrees straight up doesn't make it 2D.
Something to remember so you don't make yourself look dumb around your peers if you ever say something like this in real life.
Comments
Don't think it's laziness, but rather man hour and cash intensive to do so. Don't think they have either at this point.
Plus, I can't imagine how much coding would be involved in order to create a 3d environment that also incorporates 1st person view perspectives. (i.e. Unless another ship, planet or whatever happens to be on your X axis plane, they will appear to your perspective as vertical, upside down, etc...)
Also, fundamentally revamping space might consume a lot of resources in time and money, which could be better spent adding content and missing features.
But if they could somehow increase the pitch to 80 degrees with minimal effort, that wouldn't be a bad thing in my book.
I heard / read somewhere that it's to do with 'impulse engines' and 'manouvering thrusters'. Impulse = main directional and more powerfull 'pushing' craft forward - like a boat on water (2D). Thrusters = affect the other directions - pushing craft in relation to central axis (3D) - comparable to a submarine maybe.
Following that reasoning, straight up or down in realtion to the centre point would be slow - a bit like current reverse. Though I do not see why we could not 'roll' as in ship customisation - we already 'yaw' and have (limited) 'pitch'.
I'm not suggesting that any of this is correct - just taken from what I have seen / heard so far!
I think this is a limitation of their graphiics engine but am not sure.
Anyway it is not bad and much better than the Star fleet Command games that were on a 2D platform.
But I loved it.
Anyways: 3d won't happen. Remember STO being created upon the CO engine, it simply won't allow true 3d. That's why we got 2d Shields and 2d movement and that will never ever change
I don't think a lot of the usual players would enjoy 3D space, because it would be too disorienting. Some of us would love such a game, because our minds can operate spatially in 3D but I don't think we're the majority.
This is a "maximum playability for all players" call, I believe, regardless of existing limitations in the engine. And I have to say, I do at times feel limited by the inability to fly straight up or straight down, but in almost every instance, it is just as easy to fly down at an angle to the target or target group, then level out and head in.
But this is all just game mechanics. A much more important reason to maintain this system is that this is how Star Trek has always moved and navigated. Vessels in Star Trek almost exclusively behave according to a 2D plane.
There were exceptional times in the series, such as the fleet conflicts at the end of DS9 where a few ships rolled over, or the moment in ST:Insurrection when the Enterprise rolled over and hit the So'na ship on its underbelly, or Admiral Riker flying vertically upwards as it sliced through the Klingon cruiser at the end of TNG's All Good Things... but these are exceptions.
Star Trek was never about realistic 3D axis motion or Newtonian spaceflight. It's about naval vessels on the "sea" of space. And STO should be as well.
We fly our ships like we do because that's how they fly IN THE STAR TREK MATERIAL.
It isn't engine limitations.
It isn't because they're lazy.
It isn't because they think it would be hard to navigate.
It isn't because we're stupid.
It is BECAUSE they did it on purpose so that flying in a ship feels natural to the IP.
Something to remember so you don't make yourself look dumb around your peers if you ever say something like this in real life.