It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Seems to me that the graphic engine being used can't support 3D space. Otherwise whats the big deal in this age to have 3D space movement in a game.
Saying that you don't need to spin and roll in space because of the size of the ships is simply a cop out.
Talk about destroying mimersion! I have not seen what their game looks like yet but if you can't move in any direction in space then i feel the immersion will suffer.
My thoughts are that the Star Trek ip is bigger than Cryptic and this will end up bringing the Star Trek game down to their level.
Star Trek deserves a graphic engine dedicated to it not borrowed from Champions online!
I think this is a reasonable compromize to keep space combat functional while limiting the complexity full 3d would make on controlling the game..
One thing I'm really glad they didn't do was make space combat like airplaines in space. This is something most space games do and to me is even worse then having things in 2.5 space.
If they were going to really have full 3d they would need to do it with real physics and consider the characteristics of real ships. IE ships are designed ot mainly go forward turning would be kinda slow for most large ships. Things like moving up or down or sideways wouldn't really be possible except at very slow speeds. Mostly ships would be able to only accelerate forward and use manuever thrusters to rotate the ship as needed to set a new vector for thrust to change the direction of the ship.
Originally posted by VultureSkull Star Trek deserves a graphic engine dedicated to it not borrowed from Champions online!
Some of us have waiting for this game since 2004 but what the heck... lets delay it another 2 1/2 years while they build a game engine from scratch tailored to STO. Sure, sign me up for that...
Originally posted by Brenelael Originally posted by mrroboto40 The fact that Cryptic is cutting corners on ALL aspects of this game is why I will not EVER play this game.My best experience with a Star Trek game was Bridge Commander, and the fact that this game will not be anything remotely close, means I will not ever play it.
Did BC or SC have huge tracks of open space to explore? Did they have 100's of planets, Space stations and other exotic locals that you could get out of your fancy bridge and explore? Did they have crafting? Did they have a player market? Recreational activities? The ability to play with thousands of friends and strangers all at the same time? A player advancement system? A ship advancement system? Huge PvP battles involving more than 10 ships? Discoverable planets, anomalies and other space oddities? Advanced Character customization? Advanced ship customization? Anything other than small scripted battles that involve nothing but combat?
You people can't seem to grasp the aspect that this isn't some single player game. This is a MMO and is a completely different type of game. This game already has 5-10 times the content of most other MMOs and your crying and whining about pitch and roll? This game will be epic in the MMO genre when it releases with the promised features. This is a MMO and not some single player or limited multiplayer space flight sim. You guys are so blinded by one or two missing features that your totally ignoring the fact that this game will have 1000 times the content of BC and SC combined with the ability to play with thousands of other players. Talk about not being able to see the forest through the trees.
Oh Please, let's not kid ourselves here. I'm not one to be cynical about games, but this is just exaggerating this MMO's features to the extreme.100's of planets? Spore had millions and it still sucked. You know what cryptic is doing to make these worlds? Procedural generation. That's right, every planet you find has just been generated randomly by the engine. Random mixes of terrain and features to make each unique. But as with all procedural generation, there are limitations. It only generates things based upon certain parameters entered into the code. So there will be "set pieces" like an asteroid field, or rings, that will randomly be chosen for each solar system. Like, a 5% chance for one of 4 "Asteroid belt set piece's". Eventually, all systems will blend together as you notice the generic elements popping up repititiously.
As for missions on planets? Same deal. Randomly generated terrain that will be mostly empty or have one of 20 random "city backdrops" that you cant actually explore. To save development time, levels on non-main planets will have generic buildings and sets but switched around to make it feel unique everytime. There might be themes, like "Klingon theme" or "Federation theme" but beyond that itl be generic buildings with different flags hanging depending upon the species. These planets will be empty. (There will be exceptions of course, mainly the "main" planets like Earth or Qu'onos. These will likely just serve as mission hubs, however. And social Gathering areas. The bulk of worlds will be generated during exploration.)
And space itself is going to be quite empty as well. Besides the generic set pieces, you actually spend most of your time in space staring at a map. Not seeing any actual space until you enter a system or start a mission. Each system will likely have boundries, though in the emptiness of space you'll have little reason to keep wandering off into the void of space. We'll have asteroid belts, random nebulae, and the occasion 1 of 20 different generic space stations. Oh yeah. Go take a look At Eve if you want to see just how generic and repititous space can get. (though i do love eve. But its not an "I'm gonna go explore! game". Going from planet to planet and randomly generated generiv building set to etc. is going to get old, fast. Just like walking from Anchorhead to Wayfar on Tantooine before speeders came out. And then speeding there until ITV's came out. And then not caring at all anymore.
As for the crafting and other elements? Well dur dee dur. That's generic stuff right there. Hell, they may very well carry over an altered form of Champions model, but made to work in space. Hell, they already said that they cut the "Fleet resources" and "fleet shipyards" taking out a huge portion of the planned resource model. Dont expect anything riveting. The only real unqiue thing about this MMO was going to be its particular brand of space combat, (dressed up in Star Trek, of course). But not even that is measuring up to its counterparts. In the one area where this game could pull itself out of the mundane standardness and generic nature of MMO's like this, it half-asses it. But whatever, maybe jousting and spinning in circles horizontally while cycling weapon arcs will be done well in this game. Just dont expect battles to look....not gay.
Originally posted by Zyrious Originally posted by Brenelael Originally posted by mrroboto40 The fact that Cryptic is cutting corners on ALL aspects of this game is why I will not EVER play this game.My best experience with a Star Trek game was Bridge Commander, and the fact that this game will not be anything remotely close, means I will not ever play it.
Oh please yourself. Everything I've stated comes directly from the features listed in the game's Faq. Everything you're trying to state comes directly from your imagination. Who's exaggerating? Most of what you're stating you couldn't possibly know without actually playing the game. Neither of us have played this game yet but at least I have some form of evidence to back up my claims(Features listed on the game's website). You on the other hand are 100% speculating based on how you "feel" the game will be like.
Edit: Besides, the gist of my post is how all of the single player(or limited multiplayer) games people are raving about in this thread(BC and SC mostly) had nothing like any of those features. For such a long reply you managed to totally avoid the point I was trying to make. Even if I was exaggerating a little this game will still have tons more content than any Star Trek game that came before. Nice job at trying to tap dance around the issue though.
I am sure Cryptic will take as many shortcuts as they can, focus on a high addiction level for the first 10-20 hours of the game, and then rely on their cash shop, shallow gameplay, and tedious grinds to make up for the lack of passion and soul they put into the title.
It's how they roll these days.
Originally posted by Brenelael Originally posted by Zyrious Originally posted by Brenelael Originally posted by mrroboto40 The fact that Cryptic is cutting corners on ALL aspects of this game is why I will not EVER play this game.My best experience with a Star Trek game was Bridge Commander, and the fact that this game will not be anything remotely close, means I will not ever play it.
Me dancing around the issue? I addressed it, try reading it again. I said it will have standard MMO features, and thus their focus of trying to depart STO from the medium as its own entity should have been on its space combat, as that's what would make it different from other MMO's. Certainly they've spent as much money and time on combat as any singleplayer game (MMO's have larger budgets and longer development cycles, and larger dev teams). And in that regaurd they are failing.
And no, i'm not making it up. Believe it or not, i read Cryptic interviews and dont just stick to FAQ's that dont get constantly updated by the dev's. They've stated Faction shipyards and resources have been cut. They've stated all of the "exploration" planets are procedurally generated (and thus, we know the limits of procedural generation, thus my extrapolation from that). You can get a pretty good idea of the game mechanics without the devs spelling it out for you. You embelished the features of this MMO to make it something great and new (and thus try to excuse cutting corners on combat), but its just standard MMO fare, and what could have been a more defining feature, the space combat, is as of now falling short. And please, how many features this MMO has is really besides the point, Combat can easily measure up to the SIMPLE mechanics of BC in conjunction to its MMO mechanics without needing some form of inordinate amount of development time.
They're cutting corners, that's the simple fact. If i were to make a wager, i'd say they're banking longevity on Champions, and just hoping to cash in on the IP for STO.
Cryptic is in trouble here and everything coming out from them is saying help. Not sure what there gonna do.
What Cryptic has described sounds a lot like Earth and Beyond.
Perhaps they are all closet EnB fans and decided to bring it back?
What the 2.5D relates to is there will be a "ceiling" and a "floor" that you will not be able to cross making the zone a 3 dimensional surface. making it more manageable.
As for all the references to the TV show combat etc was done like that as it was easy and it made setting up the models etc easy.
Babylon5 on the other hand as that used CGI ships was a lot more "free" as they didn't have to use models.
Originally posted by Zyrious Originally posted by Brenelael Originally posted by Zyrious Originally posted by Brenelael Originally posted by mrroboto40 The fact that Cryptic is cutting corners on ALL aspects of this game is why I will not EVER play this game.My best experience with a Star Trek game was Bridge Commander, and the fact that this game will not be anything remotely close, means I will not ever play it.
Ive read all of the Interviews, Devblogs and posts by the devs on the official site as well so I know very well what will or will not be in the game. You seem hung up on things I've never even mentioned as I know they have been cut(hence why I didn't mention them). You are extrapolating a lot from what very little information is available. All that I mentioned in my original post are features that at this time are confirmed by the devs to be in the game. As for what you claim you yourself admit freely that you are just guessing about what you're saying based on your experience with other games. As I said before neither one of us has played STO yet so my claims come from what information the devs have given us and yours... well lets just say I would think your ass would be sore after all you've been pulling out of it the last couple of posts.
With shields being able to be transfered with the push of a button makes strafing all that much more crucial.
Imagine for a sec...**insert wavy lines of a cut scene**
You and your squad of ships (3 ships) approaches 3 others, you all engage your primary target who then puts his shields to the front, one of your ships strafes to the side, and he now has the choice of getting raped on the weaker side, or dividing his shields.
With out strafing, hitting shield weak spots is going to be a bitch, not to mention, rather clunky movements. Hell I remember having Afterburner slides back in the early 90's in wing commander, hit the after burners to max, approach at an angle turn hard left and your ship continues to move in the direction of your AB, however, you are now sideways, strafing, and unloading hell upon your opponent, as you reach his aft section, another ab burst and you correct and can strafe the other side.
As for no warp in combat...I guess he hasnt seen the TNG episode where picard uses it to close range... shame.
For space combat to be fun, you definitely need a Z axis... with out it, the game is going to be rather ... strange.
there is no air in space so you shouldn't expect dogfight style battles like planes do but nevertheless it is strange that a spacegame would be a 2d concept... or 2.5 d concept. what could potentially make or break the whole space flying experience is what this .5 allows.
i don't see a real need for very spectacular maneuvering but it would be a disappointment if you can't even fly over or under an ennemy as part of a tactic. no rolls? well ok the truth is that engines would have to be in a weird position to be able to do this anyway (you don't have flaps on a spaceship normally and there's no friction with the air) but the question is how far this can go without feeling unrealistically -which is something else than really being realistic-. if for example a ship doesn't even shake during an impact (which does involve some limited tilt movements) then the feeling of flying a 'ship' will be gone.
on the other hand navigation and steering to the fullest in 3D is quite complicated, will be more demanding on graphics and is more a thing for some airplane fight simulator than for a large spaceship with a full crew where you're giving orders during battle rather than just playing with a joystick.
so i don't see this as a gamebreaker just yet.
i am more worried to see this payment for a closed beta test though. such things usually don't promise much good because the reason why so many games eventually fail is blind greed from designers & publishers.
To all the toolbags complaining that STO won't have 3D ship combat, please go buy yourself a clue. Star Trek ship combat is about tactics, targeting and energy manipulation, not barrel rolls and immelmanns. Star Trek ships are massive capital ships, not WW2 planes. STO ship combat is going to be tactical combat, not fast action combat. The ship combat in STO will be like the Starfleet Command games, which, for those who remember them know, are the best Star Trek ship combat games ever made.
Originally posted by Loekii Well, no 3D movement in STO. Is Basically just 2.5 D (Think Submarine Warfare). Here are some comments from the STO Site:<CrypticZinc> There's no rolling or looping in STO now. There's pretty signifigant up and down movement, but no barrel rolls or looping.<CrypticZinc> However, you do always move in the direction that you're pointing.<CrypticZinc> There’s no strafing, no moving backwards and shooting (kiting).<CrypticZinc> No. No warp in combat. Combat in STO takes place at subwarp speeds.[COLOR="Yellow"][RANT].<CrypticZinc> There are a lot of mechanics and features to the game that we at Cryptic imagined when we first started the STO project.<CrypticZinc> Rolling, fuel - things like that.<CrypticZinc> Once we got the game up and running, and more people got on the team, and we started playing it more...<CrypticZinc> there were things that we just didn't _miss_ from the original ideas that we had.<CrypticZinc> things that the game didn't demand that we put in to make it a richer experience.<CrypticZinc> Nobody internally has asked for the ability to do rolls or loops.<CrypticZinc> It's not that we didn't have time to put it in - it's that the gameplay didn't merit that we do it. : )[/RANT] ***taken from Dev chat about movement*****Rekhan (Community Rep): Whoa, obviously you guys have some very strong feeling on combat maneuvers within the game. The team has read your posts and taken all of them to heart, but at this stage in the game’s design we’re not adding rolls or loops into your ship’s bag of tricks.When Craig said no one missed rolls, he meant it. No one on the team emerged from a combat situation and said, “Wow, if only I could’ve rolled my ship, I’d have won.” Much of this has to do with the way we allow players to shift power to their different shields. If you start getting hammered on your left side, you can press a button and instantly transfer shield power from one side of your ship to the other. This particular approach makes rolls and loops aesthetic rather than functional.We’ve approached ship movement in a very certain way, and adding anything we haven’t deemed critical to that system at this stage in design would have a great chance of fouling up the works of numerous systems that we’ve implemented, tested and discovered were quite a bit of fun. All I ask is that you reserve judgment until you see the game in action.
We tried adding rolls, and assumed it would be pretty cool. However after an extremely buggy and over-budget prototype, we costed full implementation to be prohibitively high, and we never got it to feel right with the controls and GUI. So, we said screw it because we realized even if we did implement it, our designers couldn't quite figure out how to make it tactically valuable. It would just end up being greatly confusing fleet manuevers
Originally posted by Bureyku I am sure Cryptic will take as many shortcuts as they can, focus on a high addiction level for the first 10-20 hours of the game, and then rely on their cash shop, shallow gameplay, and tedious grinds to make up for the lack of passion and soul they put into the title.It's how they roll these days.
I am coming to the conclusion that the entire industry is creatively and ethically bankrupt.
The games take too much money to produce for the devs to either take chances or be honest with their customers.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Originally posted by Dracus This does not surprise me.Cryptic is going with the fun-arcade approach for the mass market. Space Combat needs to be simple and fun. Rolling to compensate for shield or hull damage? Hell no, that's complex and not really fun. In terms of the mass market that is.While gamers who seek those added levels of detail or complexity will be dissappointed. Which is why this game is pretty much off of my list.To add in another example of 3D combat in Star Trek (And thanks for the person bringing up that Slingshot example!) is in the final episode of, "All Good Things." The triple engine Enterprise makes a belly attack against a Klingon formation, destroying one cruiser in the processes. True 3D combat at work, firing from a position in which the enemy cannot engage with their weapons.If a ship has had its port side weapons disabled, would it not make sense to "strafe and slide" on the enemy's damaged port side? Would it then make sense for the enemy to roll and turn towards the other to train its starboard weapons? Oh but that requires thinking and tactics... and thus it must not be fun.
Excellent post. MMOs are not made for smart people. Just like feature films.
I think the space combat will be quite simple, and I want more than that.
Video footage of STO ship combat.
Just like I said, it's like Star Fleet Command, the best Star Trek ship combat game ever made. This is tactical ship to ship combat, not a flight sim.
Originally posted by LethalBurst Video footage of STO ship combat. Just like I said, it's like Star Fleet Command, the best Star Trek ship combat game ever made. This is tactical ship to ship combat, not a flight sim.
It doesn't look bad, though travel is slow. That's a real issue I have with space games (even Homeworld) in general. The interface reminds me a bit of 'Rules of Engagement' which I loved.
If it didn't do such injustice to the Trek IP, and have RMTs, I might well try it.
Clearly movement in space takes place in 3 dimensions (at a minimum) so 2d space movement is undeniably a dumbing down (or simplifying) of a significant part of the Star Trek IP. That however doesn't mean the game won't be fun.
Given however other parts of the Star Trek IP that are also left out of the game I still say its possible the game will be fun, but other than naming conventions and graphics, it doesn't seem to me like it will be delivering a satisfying Star Trek expereince.
Oh well, thats what free trials are for.
Edit: To be more precise, it may deliver a satisfying Star Trek video game experience, but not necessarily a satisfying Star Trek MMO experience.
Originally posted by razerblade29Originally posted by GrumpyMel2 ...Given that it's an almost frictionless and zero gravity environment.... shouldn't it be pretty much the same as how a small ship moves???... Actually a "large" ship in space wouldnt move like a "small" ship in space. Just because space is almost frictionless and a zero G enviroment doesnt mean that the ship wouldnt require some kinda of force to get moving, and since the larger ship would have more mass than a smaller ship, it would inturn require more force. Also since space isnt entirely frictionless the larger ship would require more of a constant force to keep moving at the same speed.....
Actually no, with no forces acting against the ship such as friction, gravity or another object; no matter the size and weight of the ship if you got it up to 5 MPH it would go 5 MPH for eternity. That's first day physics. It would however, take more force to get a 500000 ton object to 5 mph in the same amount of time as a 1 ton object. Or it would take more time with the same force. However, if you assume larger ships have proportionally larger 'engines' than both ships would accelerate at the same rate and could accelerate until they reached right before the speed of light, supplies, fuel, and strength of the ship not with standing.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.