First off, let me say that I enjoy the space combat in STO. But one thing has been bugging me since the first time I tried moving around: ships in STO do not move in true 3D.
What I mean, specifically, is that I cannot fly straight up/down, or do rolls/flips (whether as an evasive maneuver, or in normal flight). Maneuvers like these are canon (Viewable in
this video around 4:41 - 4:53, and
this video around 0:30 - 0:55).
Allowing us to fly in 3D motion would be great for battle, and make it easier to just fly around, period.
-edit-
I did find a couple places where the developers mentioned things such as "more like trek" or "didn't look good."
However, reference the videos I linked above. The argument of "more like trek" is now made invalid against allowing ships to do loops or fly vertically, since both are used in "canon" trek. I can understand the desire to avoid disorientation, but in-system space combat is 3D. Not to mention that auto-adjusting the pitch of the ship is already in place and works fine.
I would also note (in reference to a post about ventral/dorsal shields) that Ventral and Dorsal shielding are also canon, as seen in several battles, and shown on a graphical display in the Nemesis space battle. I do understand that it would take extra programming to add two extra planes, not to mention the keybindings and GUI changes needed. However, that's not my goal.
In the end, my goal is simply to increase the inclementation to no less than 90 degree variation from horizontal. I would prefer full 3D movement, but 90 degrees would solve at least one problem.
(Also, please note: I am aware of what the "devs have said" in the past. This post was originally made prior to that knowledge, but now contains my arguments in favor of the topic.)
Comments
devs have already said no multiplied by infinity.
they are adjusting the climb and dive angle but its only going to be a little more.
And as stated above the devs have also said no
Really? 'cause I haven't seen a post to that effect. And yes, I did search for it.
Don't really care what your opinion is on the subject. It's canon, it's realistic, and it makes more sense than limiting to a set angle.
As to the devs, still haven't seen anything about it, so if you could provide a link instead of stating opinion, that'd be great.
the average MMO player would be lost with 3d flight. Don't get me wrong, it would be awesome, just not in a MMO platform.
Also, protip: this is a game first, canon second. It'd take days or months for our ships to travel from system to system. It's canon, it's realistic, but there's no way it's going to be implemented.
Maybe someday in the future they'll continue to increase our pitch rate, add more advanced maneuvers, and maybe one day we'll have much more free roaming space, but it's not going to be anytime soon, period.
Thanks, I was starting to wonder if such a post actually existed.
Even so, I stand by my suggestion. I agree that this isn't a flight simulator, but STO does have space combat, so we should be able to fly in space. What we have now, I wouldn't consider flight.
There are actually several issues that arise from this that are easy to overlook:
1) Would it control more like a fighter jet or like tallships (how it is now)? How do you control the ship's roll vs yaw? Would it make sense with a keyboard/mouse interface?
2) Dorsal and ventral shielding and firing arcs. How would they be handled and how would they be interfaced in the UI?
3) Altering the map/radar UI to incorporate 3D relative positioning?
4) What methods and/or UI would be implemented to assist players in maintaining their bearings (which way is "up"?)
These I just threw off the top of my head. Point is, these and others would have to be addressed, and be done so such that mainstream, non-flight-sim oriented players can still pick up and play the game without being intimidated/overwhelmed and still have enjoyable gameplay?
These are rhetorical questions by the way, I just want to point out the implications of a flight-sim based space combat system.
they can always do ground. space combat isnt for the fainthearted. gimme my rolls
I do agree, I would also like at least ESCORT, RUNABOUT and RAIDER class ships to be possible to do the more Maneuverable and sometimes insane maneuvering. Even if it is just a button that gives you some sort of a defense bonus while the ship does the maneuver, it would be better then what we have currently.
I wholeheartedly support as much 3-d maneuvering as possible.
I will say this however, those of you who want it and have never gamed in such an arena should seriously reconsider your view. Try to play Shattered Horizon for a few months and see if your head can wrap around 3-d combat, some can, some can not.
It is my hope that STO will have more degrees of freedom, but I also see, everyday, in PvP, very poor play with the game as is. Adding another factor to master would be daunting for some people (particularly a certain 'blue' faction).
It would be something unique that STO could bring to starship combat, as of yet it has not reach nor surpassed past PC games dealing with starship combat, like SFC 1,2,3. Additionally, if the devs would look at the rule-sets for the FASA system and Starfleet Battles, a great many problems would evaporate. I would toss the entire MMO culture (TRIBBLE) of DPS, Healer etc. Starship combat should deal with things that exist in its own special sphere of combat modalities and not try to fit into a framework that is foreign, and sometime antagonistic, to a proper depiction of its exigencies.
So while I heartily support 3-d and a full 6 degrees of freedom, I can not imagine the community being able to utilize it, and it would give those of us who are already (some, quite far) ahead in PvP an even greater advantage.
Yours in Z+ Plasma,
Star*Dagger
50 degrees/sec turn rate doesn't cut it?
All hail the BoP
No, but I've seen rumors before, and I've learned the hard way to get proof rather than trust everything.
Those are good points, but there's one fact you left out. This game already has 3D space, so your points are moot since you can already be attacked from above/below. Think about all the times you've been fighting a ship in front or beside you, only to have an enemy ship start attacking you from above.
Starbase 24 is a really good example, since the Klingon ships are all over the map. Now think about how much easier it would be to counterattack if you didn't have to spiral around the map a couple times just to attack directly if they're straight above you. It's not as big a deal for cruisers, but escorts and a lot of science abilities require a forward arc, which is a lot more challenging when you can't fly straight at the enemy who's right above you.
And that's my whole point. I'm not asking for a flight-simulator (although it'd be cool). Halo Reach did a good job of incorporating space flight into an FPS, but that doesn't mean Cryptic should try to do it with a Star Trek MMO. I agree with you there. What I am asking for is a larger arc that allows me to attack people that are above/below me.
On a side note, Cryptic claimed they limited angles because they want to make it more like the shows, but let's be honest...the shows have several scenes where ships are flying straight up or performing combat maneuvers (see the links I posted at the beginning of the thread). That doesn't mean it happened all the time, but it did happen, and they could to it.
What about my other arguments? How do you propose to resolve the user interface issues? Are you suggesting that they are mooted simply because the current state/engine of the game requires that full 3D and its interfacing methods be implemented regardless?
And yes, let's be honest about how the shows are portrayed. Give me a list of every combat/space interaction sequence from the shows that could be portrayed in the current engine and method of flight, and a second list with all the times where ships are flying straight up or performing specialized combat manoeuvers that could not be portrayed in the current engine and flight system.
I'll wait, knock yourself out. Sure it could happen, but you need to balance that with the fact that this is a game. Weigh the benefit/risk ratio, weigh the risk/reward. Again, I'll wait, knock yourself out.
Tribble is upping the pitch rate to 60 degrees, so while such cases may still occur, this should help alleviate the corkscrew-pain or completely eliminate some cases altogether.
Regardless of how often it happens, it does happen. If the Borg only attacked once, how many times do they need to attack again before the Federation begins to develop defenses against them?
As to the "top" and "bottom", the game already has auto-reorientation that's built-in (note that when you stop turning left or right, you reorient to horizontal). Should be simple enough to use the same system to flip the ship over if you're upside-down.
I realize that an issue, though I will reference this video around 0:30. I'm not proposing a change to the GUI, although that would make it more "trek" (since that's what the Devs are pushing for these days).
Again, it doesn't matter how often it happens. If every system was designed based on the frequency of use, we would never have developed certain technologies. Having the option, especially for escorts, is reason in and of itself.
Not to mention, most of the reason ships did not perform complex maneuvers in TOS and TNG was limitations with the props. CGI allowed DS9, Voy, etc to perform much more complex maneuvers, which they did. Not every single show, but they did do it.
You'll find that 3D flighting isnt all that bad when they is nothing to crash into...like the ground. Just point your nose where you want to go and thats it...and if you really get confused with your orientation after(or even during) a fight, just auto-level to get your bearings....but during the fight, just keep swinging your nose around to point at your target...its not like beams and turrets will care all that much anyway.
Its really for Escorts, BoPs and some canon boats that it becomes more challenging, and thats oly against other escorts, BoPs and fighters...but thats where the survivability of the Escort and BoP is made up. One can actually out maneuver an opponent and reposition themselves for the attack after turnin the tables...or they can use it to evade.
You can't count how many times I've had to engage a single or series of Large, Heavy ships in my BoP and was pi$$ed because I couldnt maneuver my ship in a way to avoid the inevitable HYT salvo from its fore or aft tubes....all because I was limited in my maneuvering and could get into a beneficial position to minimize my exposure to such heavy attaks in my thin hulled ship.
I should be able to dive in on the dorsal or ventral portion of a ship and operate in and out of its Z-axis to use my supposed, inherit, major advantage to my benefit...instead, its stripped from me and Im forced to fight engagements my ship was not designed or tasked for.
I think that if they are going to do a 3D part of the game, they would have to find a way of getting people back to level (in terms of starting) and they would have to work with weapons setup.
I do like this type of game but like other have say, a full 3D space combat game will make many people drop because it's not everyone cup of coffee. If they never played a game like that before not only must they learn how to fly but also to evade in 3D...
You can not also have both in the same game. You must chose and that mean 3D for everyone or like we have now but with a greater angle of attack.
That being said, yes, I do agree that some auto-reorientation would be worthwhile (likely required).
Dude, it's a game. By that measure, why do we have to do our own crafting? Can't we just order Ensign Redshirt to do all our crafting for us? Why do first-person-shooters have artificial boundaries to their levels? Gameplay restrictions are put in place for a reason, to ensure gameplay is simplified enough to be fun and to not open a ridiculous can of worms for the developers. How often do we see players complain that in their favourite FPS they can't climb stuff they would be able to normally in real life? "If only I could climb over that computer mainframe I would have been saved from the grenade!" Sure if the developers had an infinite amount of resources to apply to the game, I'm sure we'd see every single feature under the sun implemented in the most brilliant, perfect way.
But that's not the way the world works. Yes, sometimes there's that corner case scenario that MUST be overcome because the consequences of not doing so are severe enough to warrant doing so. "Let us redefine progress to mean that just because we can do a thing, it does not necessarily mean we must do that thing." The developers and player community shouldn't be "so preoccupied with whether or not they could, that they didn't stop to think if they should."
If Cryptic were to stay 100% true to canon, if they were to implement every single feature (that despite their own playtesting they decided was not a good feature), would we even have a game to play right now? Would the game be playable? Would the game be good? Should the game cater to 100,000 people or 5,000?
I guess what I'm really arguing here is to truly weigh the benefits and costs of implementing (and even demanding) such a system. Is this really worthwhile? Would this cause more issues than it solves? (see below for an example of a "new issue" that would have players demand to revert the system)
It doesn't go both ways. Don't claim "It's canon! Look at the shows!" but then say, "eh, maybe the shows aren't canon enough". Also note, that pretty much every time you saw these amazing special effects, they were there for the jaw dropping "WOW" factor. It was a cinematic experience, not a gameplay experience. (this goes for cocoa-jin's newly added examples to the opening post)
cocoa-jin, I appreciate trying to find solutions to those questions, but they were rhetorical. I wasn't saying that a solution did not exist, I was just expressing that implementing "True 3D" is a lot more complicated than just "omfg full 3D flight is canon in 2% of cases GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO"
With regards to your solution to the control scheme, I don't feel that your examples are not compatible with the current method of gameplay. Firstly, Star Trek ship movement greatly follows airplane banking, especially in STO. That is, when you see ships turn left/right, they bank. So in STO, what would we do? Roll left/right and the ships would turn automatically (IN SPACE!) -- also, how would you then roll without the ship turning? Would it be more like fighter jets in which you roll (without turning), then pitch up/down to follow your target? Do we add keys to manage this? How to we make it accessible for players to easily track their targets, maintain their orientation, and fire off abilities? And how do we do it such that there are a few ways players can do this (players can currently use various combinations of mouse and keyboard commands to achieve similar results)?
Your solution for shields is fine (pretty much what would be expected), except in addition to the keyboard shortcuts we need the GUI to depict their status (both in our 2D interactive GUI and in the 3D with the shield rings) and give us GUI buttons to reinforce them.
Again, I still think that the very existence of these questions, resistance (from both players AND the developers) requires a good, hard look at should this be done. Here's my very unscientific anecdote: I tried to get my fiance to play (who is also a Star Trek fan), but guess what? She could not even finish the tutorial. Do you know why? She had too much trouble keeping her bearings in space and navigating it. She could not even complete first space section where you fly to the damaged ships to treat injured personnel. And you guys want to make space combat more complicated?
I should also note, that I cannot remember any 3D flight game (space, under water, or airborne) that had full 3D flight, that also let you fire and target in any direction. They all fired forward. The only exception that comes to mind is Homeworld, an RTS that neither the camera, nor ships rolled, was a much slower paced game, and certainly didn't have you managing and firing off 30 powers all the time. I'm not saying that this cannot be achieved, but I'm saying there's a good reason games do not even attempt it.
So let's take your example of your frustration, and say the devs implement full 3D (or even 90 degree pitching):
You can't count how many times I've had to engage a single or series of fast escort ships in my Galaxy and was pi$$ed because I couldn't maneuver my ship in a way to fire my HYT torpedoes from either my fore or aft tubes... all because he was unlimited in his maneuvering and could stay in a beneficial vertical position to minimize his exposure to such heavy attacks.
But what would you expect? If YOU can fly vertical, so can the enemy cruisers. Do you think they shouldn't turn to point at you coming from above? Then you're in the exact same boat you're in now anyway. High yield torpedoes, FTW! ----EDIT: actually, you're in a worse position if the pitch angles are locked to 90 degrees. Could you imagine that you're flying straight down at the enemy, and they're flying straight up at you. You can only pitch back up (so say that would make you fly along the ships dorsal side), the enemy would only be able to pitch back down (so he would fly along your ventral). You guys have no other choice. Of course, it's a bit worse. (the actual result of you flying over his dorsal and him under your ventral is arbitrary depending on your initial orientation to each other -- it may be vice-versa, or you both to the same dorsal/ventral, or even a combination of port/starboard)----
Also, I think you're to strongly applying the escort's canon design to the game design. I don't like the idea of complaining that you can't avoid attacks. Firstly: it's a game. Secondly: it's a game. Canon is not king. Gameplay balance is king. If they open up too much manoeuvrability (even "just" to pitch to 90 degrees), they'll likely have to greatly rebalance space gameplay, especially for PvP. And for the most part, you can avoid torpedo attacks, you just need to operate on an enemies X-axis instead of Z. HURRAH. Seriously, adding the Z axis (especially if it's limited to pitching to 90 degrees and not pitching past it, which in practice is very annoying) will not do anything to alleviate you avoiding fire.
In my opinion, it would solve your one "problem" then cause half-a-dozen more.
Perhaps we should just see how the 60 degrees changes things, then decided how much cookie we want now that the developers gave us a crumb.
This was argued to death during beta - and if you read the Season 3 patch notes (just posted this evening) the upped the amount of incline a ship can have - but as has been stated DStal gave a firm " Full 3d free flight (and actually only the U.S.S. Defiant has ever been show doing Barrel Rolls, etc. - he mentioned this in response the the "It's canon" crowd) Not going to happen in STO, ever."
The fact is (again with the exception of the Defiant - and one Episode of ENT involving the NX-02) no Star Trek series has show controlled capital ship s inverted to one nother; or doing fancy/acrobatics - Star Trek has always kept display shilps on the same general plane; and always in the same orientation relative to each other.
So, again, is 3D flight possible with the game engine? Yes. Will it be fullty implemented in STO? No.
Perhaps, but beam boats can already do that. Also, if you look at the video, the shields were pretty much in a configuration like (=), where the forward/aft shields overlapped the top a little. But game-wise, I'd agree cocoa that anything over a certain angle would hit the top shields (if they were added). However, as I said before, the situation already exists in game, regardless of how rare it might be.
You're right, it is a game. I'm not asking for a complete redesign of the game. I'm asking for something that's been in other Star Trek games, and has been implemented successfully numerous times. The only valid reason I've seen was asthetic, and that's a matter of opinion, not "progress."
Fair enough, except for two things.
First, I never complained that a cruiser could face me head on. In your example, the cruiser is firing straight up at me. He can already do that if he has beams, whereas I'm limited as an escort. The problem has never been what ships with beams (usually cruisers) can do. The problem is that I can't maneuver my cannons into place.
Second, It's never really been about avoiding attacks for me (although that would be nice). It's all about bringing weapons to bear. Someone mentioned that only the Defiant has ever been seen making "complex" maneuvers. Except that's exactly what I'm flying, and that's exactly my point. Escorts are designed to move fast and be maneuverable. And really, what designer in his right mind is going to limit a 24th-century ship to a 45 (or 60, now) degree vertical change? He's not, which is the exact reason that you see the Defiant maneuver like it does. It's not just for the "Wow" factor, it's because it makes sense.
Can the Enterprise do that? yes. Does it ever do it? no, and why should it? The Enterprise has phaser arrays that let it shoot anything without even moving. Escorts (in the shows) do not have that luxury, and thus must maneuver. The same holds true in the game, which is my entire point. By limiting all ships to a 60-degree arc, the only ships you're really hurting....are escorts (and their KDF equivalents, of course)
It has all to do with the fact that we are, in fact, used at reasoning on "two planes", since we can't really float around; Even in an airplane, the controls are "limited 3D" since even high performance jest can't really fly vertically for long times.
True, but I tried to show it to a fiend who is a "soft trekkie"; He liked the DS9 series and was curious about the idea of a Star Trek game. Well, he found the game to be confusing and it even caused him some motion sickness, so he opted to play SFC3 in the end...
Since STO is an MMO, by nature it tries to attract the widest playerbase possible, having space combat on a fixed plane or "limited 3D" makes a lot of sense.
Yeah, I'm with you on the page that you shouldn't be in a position where you can't fight back. Of course, as a manoeuvrable escort with cannons, maintaining good positioning is a by-design limitation and part of the game. Additionally, by "corkscrewing" down to your target you'll never be able to fire your guns until you're almost level with them. But if instead you just flew out a kilometre or two, then you could angle down and attack them as you approach their horizontal plane. This is even easier now that you can do it at 60 degrees. Punch evasive manoeuvres and it becomes a joke. Sloth-like Cruisers with their beams need to be able to shoot vertically because this option isn't nearly as viable for them. Isn't this a much easier solution to the "problem" than introducing 90 degree pitch angles and adding all the other real problems associated with that?
Escorts already are much more manoeuvrable than other ships in the game (especially the T4 equivalent Galaxy) and as such can easily use their powerful canons to turn my shields and hull to swiss cheese.
Again, this is a game. By the same reasoning, why can't I create an ionic pulse and reset a defective plasma coil? Why can't I pull off a Picard Manoeuvre? Why do I have unlimited photon torpedoes? Why can't I beam a photon torpedo onto an enemy's bridge when their shields are down?
Perhaps Cryptic can add some special skills like "Evasive Pattern Delta" that makes your ship do a predefined loop or barrel roll or some other jazz. IIRC, I think Cryptic even mentioned that as a possibility in the future.
I still gotta be honest with you, I don't see them "hurting" at all by not having full vertical flight. There are always solutions and there shouldn't be an "easy mode" at the expense of introducing new additional issues or sacrificing gameplay accessibility and consistency.