test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Ship Interiors / Bridge Combat - seriously?

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
It was the the top two requested items in their survey. Yet we can't get any information about the projected time frame for either of these items? The 2nd episode is "scheduled", using the term lightly, for what the July time frame? Six months planned out and we still can't get a hint of the content that we said would keep us playing this game?

This is NOT a "doom post" or a "i quit" post. This is a post asking the serious question about where are the things we wanted the most.

Look, I've read what everyone else here has read. There some things they wish to keep "secret". But really, when it comes to the top items we have requested don't you think they should be the top items on their list to keep us informed on.

I've bought the year subscription from the beginning. I'm in this for the year. Had I thought I could have backed out of it without spending the same amount of money, in my time and effort ,on the phone I probably would have about a week ago. However I decided I would ride it out and continue to hope for the best.

I had big hopes when I saw the calender idea and the engineering reports. But Cryptic please look again at the survey you gave us. Look at what we asked for in that survey. This is what we want a time frame for and this is what we want to see Cryptic post about. Not the "fluff" that so many have pointed out being projected for the coming months.

I've seen great ideas from Cryptic over the past month or so - just think those ideas need to be better utilized!

Thanks
Val
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I'm guessing some things which may look easy for us players, might be damned hard to implement, and vice versa.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I made a thread earlier suggesting implementation of bridge view.

    http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=131078
    We had some decent ideas in here.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    well the interview with Jack Emmert, he said that the second update is 100% results form the survey, so if you are right and the top two were what you said (I think ur right), then I would assume they would be adding ship interiors and functionality, but I'm not sure about Bridge Combat.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Summit wrote: »
    well the interview with Jack Emmert, he said that the second update is 100% results form the survey, so if you are right and the top two were what you said (I think ur right), then I would assume they would be adding ship interiors and functionality, but I'm not sure about Bridge Combat.

    100% results from the survey != update is 100% of the survey.

    I'm guessing that bridge combat, if they ever do it, will not be a quick fix. The entire game is centered around your ability to swing the camera 360 degrees to target stuff while still having some sense of what your bearing is to everything else. A flat screen will break that and there will need to be workarounds.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    NinetyNine wrote:
    100% results from the survey != update is 100% of the survey.

    I'm guessing that bridge combat, if they ever do it, will not be a quick fix. The entire game is centered around your ability to swing the camera 360 degrees to target stuff while still having some sense of what your bearing is to everything else. A flat screen will break that and there will need to be workarounds.

    Again see my post, we suggested a way to cycle cameras or w/e for the viewscreen. Click and drag like normal to change viewscreen view, or have a key that cycles views left or right. Bridge combat isn't my number 1 concern, its bridge functionality. I want a reason to go there more often, or a reason to see my bridge regularly.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Again see my post, we suggested a way to cycle cameras or w/e for the viewscreen. Click and drag like normal to change viewscreen view, or have a key that cycles views left or right. Bridge combat isn't my number 1 concern, its bridge functionality. I want a reason to go there more often, or a reason to see my bridge regularly.

    I'm not disagreeing with any of what you're requesting, as bridge combat is my #1 request. I'm just saying that there are probably issues that will delay it. I'm speaking from experience when people as for simple changes that turn out to catastrophically affect seemingly unrelated things and then workarounds have to be found.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Gotcha, yeah look at the Red Matter fiasco.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Craig said in an interview that they would be working on Ship Interiors and Functionality for Season 2, scheduled for release in July.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Valmar wrote: »
    It was the the top two requested items in their survey. Yet we can't get any information about the projected time frame for either of these items? The 2nd episode is "scheduled", using the term lightly, for what the July time frame? Six months planned out and we still can't get a hint of the content that we said would keep us playing this game?

    This is NOT a "doom post" or a "i quit" post. This is a post asking the serious question about where are the things we wanted the most.

    Look, I've read what everyone else here has read. There some things they wish to keep "secret". But really, when it comes to the top items we have requested don't you think they should be the top items on their list to keep us informed on.

    I've bought the year subscription from the beginning. I'm in this for the year. Had I thought I could have backed out of it without spending the same amount of money, in my time and effort ,on the phone I probably would have about a week ago. However I decided I would ride it out and continue to hope for the best.

    I had big hopes when I saw the calender idea and the engineering reports. But Cryptic please look again at the survey you gave us. Look at what we asked for in that survey. This is what we want a time frame for and this is what we want to see Cryptic post about. Not the "fluff" that so many have pointed out being projected for the coming months.

    I've seen great ideas from Cryptic over the past month or so - just think those ideas need to be better utilized!

    Thanks
    Val

    full agree..

    it is a REAL SERIUOUS QUESTION ...also in the newest engineer report...not a word for ship interiors...
    that is real disappointing...crypt you use instanzing for technical reasons...also you can implement things faster...so where is the problem to add 2-3 new rooms ?

    a clear statemant of this question (ship interior) is real serious for much people here ingame...!!!!!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Tannagra wrote: »
    I'm guessing some things which may look easy for us players, might be damned hard to implement, and vice versa.

    nonesense. Have them send me the code. I'll even make a Linux native version while I'm at it. Most programmers are like Scotty, they want to appear to be miracle workers so they over estimate the amount of time something actually takes.

    If you want to see how long coding really takes, check the changelog/timetable on an Open Source project like FireFox or most distributions of Linux.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    NinetyNine wrote:
    I'm guessing that bridge combat, if they ever do it, will not be a quick fix. The entire game is centered around your ability to swing the camera 360 degrees to target stuff while still having some sense of what your bearing is to everything else. A flat screen will break that and there will need to be workarounds.

    I doubt it is a quick fix as well. "Flat screen" bridge combat can be done.

    Bridge Commander had your tactical officer manuevering the ship to keep automatically to keep the main weapons / strongest shields on target. They'd have to do something similar here.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    There's the thing, to implement Bridge combat you'd have to give control of your ship to your officers and you'd just micromanage the boff skills. You wouldn't maneuver, you wouldn't fire, you wouldn't even switch targets.. you'd give orders.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    ...so where is the problem to add 2-3 new rooms ?

    Rooms I've seen several times in missions. It's not like they don't have the artifacts sitting around ready to be plunked into the game engine as player interiors. Most everything is there already and slight cosmetic changes are all that are really needed after the initial instance build.
    I think they are on this as it is actually alot easier to do than they let on. The problem is the functionality/battle part. We may never actually see that as we envision it. But, I could be wrong.

    Edit: It could just be me mind you, but I think the consoles on my bridge, and i wish I could remember which one it is, seem to be slightly different. Where there was once a simple pattern of blinking parts, there is now seperate chunks that have cycles of text that rotate 4 screens. One other rotates a graphic of some sort. They are distinct from the othe "blinky" boxes next to them.
    Is this new or did I just not notice it before?

    There is also the center panel on the rear wall of the "prototype" bridge option for Captain lvl Cruiders. That panel is different and doesn't even fit the space. It is different from the "classic" bridge rear wall console displays and looks to be a placeholder. Again, I may be reading way to much into this.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The main problem now with bridge combat isn't just the logistics of the screen. It's also the fact that when you are on the bridge, you are no longer represented as a ship in the space you formerly occupied. There is no persistance here. The engine would have to be changed to allow for two seperate instances of you on the bridge connected to a "you" in space as a ship that others see. Both of these instances must be concurent and real time.
    I'm not a game designer, but that sounds like a hard nut to me.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The main problem now with bridge combat isn't just the logistics of the screen. It's also the fact that when you are on the bridge, you are no longer represented as a ship in the space you formerly occupied. There is no persistance here. The engine would have to be changed to allow for two seperate instances of you on the bridge connected to a "you" in space as a ship that others see. Both of these instances must be concurent and real time.
    I'm not a game designer, but that sounds like a hard nut to me.

    Agreed but I think it's a worthy nut to crack for completely unrelated reasons.

    There is a formula for Star Trek plots.

    A Plot + B Plot = Resolution. Often, time permitting, one problem is ship based and one is human based, whether aboard the ship or on the ground.

    My favorite example of this is STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT but the average series episode does this and it dates back to restrictions that were imposed on the original STAR TREK. "City on the Edge of Forever" went through some painful rewrites because the network demanded that there be a plot centering on the ship being in peril. FC did a good job of this with Picard's ship-based plot and Riker's ground-based plot, which intersect when Data fires on the Phoenix. The tone of FC is arguably not very Trek but the plot structure is a pitch perfect execution of a standard Star Trek-style plot structure.

    I think this game would feel considerably more Trek and emphasize teaming a great deal more if they had plots which split people up between ship combat and away missions, with actions on each side synched to the other, effectively through buffs and server-side scripts.

    You know... Introduce 10 man raids where 5 people engage a Borg Cube while 5 people sabotage it from within, with each half affecting the other in real time, at least at various "synch points".

    Or have 2 mans where one person controls a ship while their partner fights off a boarding party inside the first player's ship, again, with each encounter influencing the other by activating scripts and applying buffs/debuffs.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    The main problem now with bridge combat isn't just the logistics of the screen. It's also the fact that when you are on the bridge, you are no longer represented as a ship in the space you formerly occupied. There is no persistance here. The engine would have to be changed to allow for two seperate instances of you on the bridge connected to a "you" in space as a ship that others see. Both of these instances must be concurent and real time.
    I'm not a game designer, but that sounds like a hard nut to me.

    As hard as it might be, if the devs commit to it they can pull it off. Just remember that no matter what level of transparency there is, they will never tell you that STO was released as it was because of the release window of 2 years that they had. From now on, they can take their time to make polished stuff.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Again see my post, we suggested a way to cycle cameras or w/e for the viewscreen. Click and drag like normal to change viewscreen view, or have a key that cycles views left or right. Bridge combat isn't my number 1 concern, its bridge functionality. I want a reason to go there more often, or a reason to see my bridge regularly.

    " Me to".:cool:
    Edit: It could just be me mind you, but I think the consoles on my bridge, and i wish I could remember which one it is, seem to be slightly different. Where there was once a simple pattern of blinking parts, there is now seperate chunks that have cycles of text that rotate 4 screens. One other rotates a graphic of some sort. They are distinct from the othe "blinky" boxes next to them.
    Is this new or did I just not notice it before?

    There is also the center panel on the rear wall of the "prototype" bridge option for Captain lvl Cruiders. That panel is different and doesn't even fit the space. It is different from the "classic" bridge rear wall console displays and looks to be a placeholder. Again, I may be reading way to much into this.

    im curious ... since theirs * no Bridge combat * what they will have the consoles do for us ?

    maybe a few spots on the ship in * interiors * we can go so we dont have to go to a starbase...or
    on the bridge ,
    engineer, tact , science station's lets you adjust settings for when you are in battle afterward's ,
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Agreed but I think it's a worthy nut to crack for completely unrelated reasons...
    I agree with everything you posted and love the ideas. Hope some of them get a serious look.
    im curious ... since theirs * no Bridge combat * what they will have the consoles do for us ?

    maybe a few spots on the ship in * interiors * we can go so we dont have to go to a starbase...or
    on the bridge ,
    engineer, tact , science station's lets you adjust settings for when you are in battle afterward's ,
    I dunno, I'm thinking maybe a panel that shows the console item you presently have equiped in that catagory. Or, maybe even a graphic representation of what the consoles do. Like the EPS conduit showing the power fluctuations it controls in real time. Just blueskying here.

    I dunno about access to the bank and exchange as those places are normally restricted to main social hubs to force more advanced players to visit them.
    I like the "adjustment" possiblities though. It could be a bridge version of your power sliders when you are in space mode.
    How about a computer panel that acts as a ships library? Fill it with Trek stuff that would make all the lore folks pee there pants with glee. And make it say "working" when you access it.:) Or, even add mission specific and char specific info to it as well.

    Edit: I like this last part. I can see it being like the "armory" website that WoW uses. You access the computer to look up players characters and what they presently have accomplished. Like Picard looking up another Starfleet Officers career. This would allow another layer of sorely needed social awareness as well.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    when they do put in "bridge combat" i think it'll need to be in first person, tho i dunno if that can be done with STOs particular engine
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I just want to point out that just because you want something per a poll provided by the development team that you may not get it. I would also point out that those things on the poll are only items which the dev team will look at and not particularly implement.

    Another thing comes to mind here as well. Be careful what you ask for. Enough said.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    There is a formula for Star Trek plots.

    A Plot + B Plot = Resolution. Often, time permitting, one problem is ship based and one is human based, whether aboard the ship or on the ground.
    I wanted to comment further on this as it is very important. Sorry, I know I am long winded guys, so bear with me.

    You have pretty much summed up the exact Star Trek story framework. It is almost always a duel plot that instigates conflict. Berman started ruining this framework when he started using mostly soap opera sub plots, but that's another post.

    The "found missions" they spoke of could support this very important Star Trek story structure. You are flying through sector space to do a mission in a system there. You get hailed that colonists are dying in an ajoining system and your tesponse to that hail is timed and will fail if you ignore it. What will you do? Do you continue on or change course and make the original mission (which should now be also time flagged) wait.

    That is pure Trek and much more immersive than the hails we get now and can completely ignore.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    I wanted to comment further on this as it is very important. Sorry, I know I am long winded guys, so bear with me.

    You have pretty much summed up the exact Star Trek story framework. It is almost always a duel plot that instigates conflict. Berman started ruining this framework when he started using mostly soap opera sub plots, but that's another post.

    The "found missions" they spoke of could support this very important Star Trek story structure. You are flying through sector space to do a mission in a system there. You get hailed that colonists are dying in an ajoining system and your tesponse to that hail is timed and will fail if you ignore it. What will you do? Do you continue on or change course and make the original mission (which should now be also time flagged) wait.

    That is pure Trek and much more immersive than the hails we get now and can completely ignore.

    That could be interesting for a handful of missions but it would get annoying if it was too regular an occurrence.

    In general, what I'm talking about is concurrent plots as the timing of the two plots almost always perfectly synced up to create the resolution.

    Actually, I'd throw in the idea of playable BOs (the ability to take control of a BO during a mission) and have it work like this:

    1. On one of these missions, you can play as your Captain and your First Officer (they're adding first officers as a way of distinguishing one BO soon). You alternate between their two story arcs, playing missions in alternating sequence.

    - Mission 1a: Captain deals with problem on the planet.

    - Mission 1b: First Officer deals with problem on the ship.

    - Mission 2a: Captain deals with consequences on the planet.

    - Mission 2b: Back to playing the First Officer on the ship.

    - Mission 3: First Officer and Captain are reunited and deal with their two problems together.

    2. If you team up with another player, you can do the two sides at once instead of alternating. The mission owner takes one half. Their friend takes the other. This promotes teaming. A good episode will have a couple of "team-up" points and points where each person works alone on half of the problem.

    If you have more than two players, they choose which side to work on. If one side finishes their half up early, they have an option to beam down/up and help their friend.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    OpenSorce wrote: »
    Most programmers are like Scotty, they want to appear to be miracle workers so they over estimate the amount of time something actually takes.

    This man speak Truth.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Krenn wrote: »
    when they do put in "bridge combat" i think it'll need to be in first person, tho i dunno if that can be done with STOs particular engine

    IMO Bridge Commander accomplished this reasonably well. You could either have "Bridge View" where the Officers pretty much did their thing and you would give orders, like to change targets or manuevers, allocate power etc. Or you could switch to "Tactical View" and do everything yourself, essentially like you do now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    It has been said by a dev -- sorry, no link at hand -- that implementing this sort of thing -- being on your bridge and looking out into space, and being able to perform combat from there -- is not easy, and not a matter of cameras. It's a matter of entity types in a given area. Ground-action entities cannot exist in space-action areas, and vice versa. (The well-known bug in OB was texture/model respawn lag.) They have different sets of qualities and properties that are incompatible. Being able to watch a battle from your bridge would involve a serious reworking of the space-side code at *least.*

    I'm not saying it can't happen; it's a cool idea, and I'd like to see it. It's extremely immersive, and cinematic. I'm just pointing out that a dev said that as coding goes it went beyond 'nontrivial' and into 'engine rewrite' territory.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited March 2010
    Valmar wrote: »
    It was the the top two requested items in their survey. Yet we can't get any information about the projected time frame for either of these items? The 2nd episode is "scheduled", using the term lightly, for what the July time frame? Six months planned out and we still can't get a hint of the content that we said would keep us playing this game?

    This is NOT a "doom post" or a "i quit" post. This is a post asking the serious question about where are the things we wanted the most.

    Look, I've read what everyone else here has read. There some things they wish to keep "secret". But really, when it comes to the top items we have requested don't you think they should be the top items on their list to keep us informed on.

    I've bought the year subscription from the beginning. I'm in this for the year. Had I thought I could have backed out of it without spending the same amount of money, in my time and effort ,on the phone I probably would have about a week ago. However I decided I would ride it out and continue to hope for the best.

    I had big hopes when I saw the calender idea and the engineering reports. But Cryptic please look again at the survey you gave us. Look at what we asked for in that survey. This is what we want a time frame for and this is what we want to see Cryptic post about. Not the "fluff" that so many have pointed out being projected for the coming months.

    I've seen great ideas from Cryptic over the past month or so - just think those ideas need to be better utilized!

    Thanks
    Val

    i think the devs are purposely keeping things secret now after the huge uproar everybody caused when the new patch wasn't released on the 18th... also past exsperience with coh, the devs like to keep things hush hush incase they change something a little bit from when they first intended it to be or incase it's a little late... that way nobody can complain about it if they don't know about it.
    until them, the closest you'll get to "bridge" combat will be the assimilated cruisier
Sign In or Register to comment.