Space combat is crap, you play as a ship not a crew member, Star trek the films and series is all about life on a ship, engineering, bridge, sick bay, Holodeck etc. STO has none of that at all other than pointless views. Star Trek should also be about away missions......
STO Away missions consist of beaming down to a lifeless flat rectangle that they dare to call a planet, they are about the size of a football pitch and devoid of any native life.
I was going to go on about rooms and other stuff but cba. STO sux it's horrible, terrible and a disgrace to ST.
Also, this game will naturally pick up more critisism anyway simply because its a game based on an established IP. Not only will you have game fans/critics, but you will also have the franchise fans/critics. Combine the two and what you get is a pretty big shit storm if something isnt done right.
This is not unique to STO,and it will happen to any game made after an established IP.
Just to show that its just not us here on the forums on this site that think the game has problems.. heres a link to a thread over on the STO forums where they give their input on the matter.
This guys post (superchum) seems pretty accurate. ( <---- Up until a month or so ago the biggest Fanboi on the forums. He's slowly turning against Cryptic )
1- Be playable.
2- Fix the bugs that make it unplayable, or frustrating to bother playing.
3- Be playable by teams of people, so people can actually interact during gameplay. Thus attracting more star trek fans into the gaming experience.
Showstopper bugs have gone live. And aren't getting fixed. Basic gameplay is hampered. And that makes STO feel nothing like Star Trek. And everything like a short trip to the uninstall menu.
Have you read a single thing that they are saying about season 3?
The problem is ... we're months and months away from season 3, and season 2's bugs are still making a lot of the game unplayable.
Crash to desktop.
Broken anomalies.
Unable to team properly.
Empty Exploration missions.
Maps breaking and sending you to different maps.
All known bugs. All bugs not fixed.
You saying you want to wait for season 3 to get that fixed? I'd rather it get fixed long before season 2.1 patch gets released.
and also one by the well known perrigrine falcon ( <------ Probably one of the expectionally forthright and objective people on the boards . Her other post aren't that complementary of Cryptic. DarkOrion69 is the biggest Cryptic kiss up i've had the pleasure to witness on the boards. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkOrion69
Yeah I do read the Dev Statements, but if we see a dozen more C-Store Items launch before Season 3 launches, and the same old bugs remain, will you agree then that bugs are not Cryptic's primary concern?
I agree that bug fixes should be Cryptic's primary concern, but I don't believe that they are.
Some of you may remember that I maintained a 'Known Bugs' thread for awhile. I had to quit because the bugs were multiplying faster than I could keep track of them and I had run out of room in which to post them.
I don't expect every bug to get fixed, but how about fixing the ones that make the game completely unplayable? I really don't want to have to wait several months until Season 3 for the game breaking bugs to get fixed.
If I had my car towed to the mechanic's shop one day, and then a week later I went in and asked the mechanic, "So did you fix the engine? Can I drive my car now?" And he said, "Well, no. But I did and some neat chrome rims and a flashy paint job." My response would be, "Hey that's great! You're adding cool new stuff that I can't use to a car that's broken because you haven't fixed the engine! How much sense does that make?!?"
Same thing. How much sense does it make for Cryptic to keep adding new content to a game that many people can't even play because it's broken?
I find it particularly telling that, alone of all pay to play MMOs, Star Trek Online does not have a customer service phone number. WoW supposedly has something like 11 million customers, but they have a customer service phone number. City of Heroes has the same customer service phone number that they had when the game launched over six years ago. STO? Nope. No way to just call customer service to get things quickly straightened out.
Cryptic's customer service used to have a phone number, but then one day it was disconnected and it quietly disappeared from the website. We've asked why a great many times but it's like that question is mysteriously invisible, they've never acknowledged that it even happened, much less explained why.
I would wonder why it happened, except that I think we all know why.
It appears... that things are not as well in STO land as others would want you to believe.
They haven't been since release , and got worse after the 45 d . Especially as more and more C-Store items started appearing . I've watched a great many Cryptic defenders slowly turning on them as each patch goes by . It's fascinating to watch the tones of posts change. lmao.
They haven't been since release , and got worse after the 45 d . Especially as more and more C-Store items started appearing . I've watched a great many Cryptic defenders slowly turning on them as each patch goes by . It's fascinating to watch the tones of posts change. lmao.
morbid would be a better word for it than fascinating imo.
as ive said before its like driving by a car crash... do you really need to look/watch... NO.
but some of us do.
how does cryptic fix this...STOP CRASHING THE CAR EVERY TIME YOU LEAVE THE DRIVEWAY
IF THE ONLY DEFENCE FOR CRITICISM OF A GAME IS CALLING SOMEONE A TROLL OR HATER, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME
morbid would be a better word for it than fascinating imo.
as ive said before its like driving by a car crash... do you really need to look/watch... NO.
but some of us do.
how does cryptic fix this...STOP CRASHING THE CAR EVERY TIME YOU LEAVE THE DRIVEWAY
Do they even have enough people to adequately test the game anymore? I'm not talking about players on a test server, which should always be the final line of testing, but internal QA testers on the STO team? At the rate they break things, I'm beginning to suspect that they have the same number of QA testers that Vanguard had during its development: One.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
Sometimes, when designers check things into the game, they check in multiple things at a time.
So, the designer who was working on the new PvP queue UI, may also have been the designer working on this button. If all of those things were a part of the same file check in, this would create what we call a "dependency". Meaning, that we can't take one thing, but not the other.
When this happens, and we find out that there is a bug, with a part of the checkin, we need to make a call based on several different questions.
1) What is the severity of the bug?
2) How important is the rest of the check in?
3) Does the bug devalue the rest of the check in to make it not worthwhile to take the check in?
So, in a case like this, production may very well have been faced with leaving PvP Queues non-functional for a longer period of time, or publishing a bug for a new UI element.
I did check in with the UI team, and they said they are working on a fix for the issue, so it should be fixed soon.
Thanks,
Stormshade
1 hour later also from storm shade
I want to point out that I don't know for certain if this was caused by a dependency issue or not. I used words very specifically meant to convey that this was a possible situation, not a factual one.
I don't actually speak in code, nor do I wish too. However I do understand some of how designing a video game works.
One rule with any software release however, is simply going to be that bugs happen. When they happen, our designers and programmers have to work very hard to fix them. Is it unfortunate that the new button simply doesn't work right now? Yes.
Is it game breaking? Hardly.
as ive said before, cryptic employees seem to say what seems good at the time. maybe they could try something new... like figuring out what they are talking about and posting an honest answer. its little wonder that cryptic supporters come here and post things that they get called on as inaccurate and misleading when the information they get from cryptic employees is " a possible situation, not a factual one."
IF THE ONLY DEFENCE FOR CRITICISM OF A GAME IS CALLING SOMEONE A TROLL OR HATER, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME
One rule with any software release however, is simply going to be that bugs happen. When they happen, our designers and programmers have to work very hard to fix them. Is it unfortunate that the new button simply doesn't work right now? Yes.
Yes, bugs do happen and they are inevitable in programs of this size. However that is why QA exists; to help minimize both the number and severity of bugs. How many times have we heard from STO players (either here or on the official forums) who complained that update X had a bunch of horrible, game-breaking bugs, those bugs were reported to Cryptic, and the update launched anyway?
I wonder if there is a suit higher up (either in marketing or a Cryptic/Atari executive) who is pushing release dates for these updates, no matter if they are ready or not?
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
One rule with any software release however, is simply going to be that bugs happen. When they happen, our designers and programmers have to work very hard to fix them. Is it unfortunate that the new button simply doesn't work right now? Yes.
Yes, bugs do happen and they are inevitable in programs of this size. However that is why QA exists; to help minimize both the number and severity of bugs. How many times have we heard from STO players (either here or on the official forums) who complained that update X had a bunch of horrible, game-breaking bugs, those bugs were reported to Cryptic, and the update launched anyway?
I wonder if there is a suit higher up (either in marketing or a Cryptic/Atari executive) who is pushing release dates for these updates, no matter if they are ready or not?
Here's the kicker to me . Read the Tribble forums , they point out the bugs or issues , and they still release the update. I don't get the purpose of having a test server if you don't listen to the feedback. Either they are inept or are tied to schedules and really don't care and will comeback to it , if severe enough. More likely the later.
Wasn't that around the same time they were claiming they HAD to put asteroid fields in every system because players got too disoriented, and some got motion sickness? I think they used the same arguement to explain why sector space made every system look like a giant lollipop. I remember people thinking that doing rolls would mean the enterprise would be dog fighting in space though.
I do believe that was the reason given for all the asteroid fields. As for the dogfighting, people were confusing that all the time, even though detailed descriptions (from myself and others) were given. Cryptic didn't help matters either, trying to make it sound like that was what people were wanting.
How is the space combat now not a dog fight? So what did Cryptic actually accomplish ? Ship v Ship was always going to end up a dog fight , that's what people failed to realize. PvP is dog fighting , period. It's not ballet, it is about positioning oneself and knocking the stuffing out of the other guy . It didn't matter if it was ground or space.
Actually, if a starship is large and heavy enough it would be more like naval combat with tall ships rather than like a dog fight. Often STO's space combat feels much like Pirates of the Burning Sea's tall ship combat (the same 2D movement!) Which makes sense in a Star Trek setting because sometimes starship combat was depicted like tall ship navel combat (like in Star Trek II) and sometimes like dog fighting (with the small and nimble Defiant in many episodes of DS9.) There's even one episode of DS9 with a larger Excelsior class ship standing still while the Defiant flies circles around it, so I guess that would be a mix of dog fighting and tall ship navel combat.
next cryptic post is stromshade closing the thread 8 days later
think the only really good point i saw in there (and i never thought of it this way before but its accurate) is that space combat due to the lack of 3 d movement, mean that you might as well be driving a car.
you cant really go up or down (except on a slight incline) and you have 4 sides to your vehicle (ship). you really have no "top or bottom" to your ship. (that seems realisitic for a space game)
WOW... sto is autoassault in space. (and in hindsight, having played both games, that does seem kind of accurate)
That was the post I was talking about when he said the shields would recharge instantly; they had to retract that statement later in another thread. The thing is, this is only one of the many threads on rolls/loops that were made, and those dev comments are scattered all over the place. In fact, just a couple weeks ago I saw a post on the official STO forums where someone mentioned this again, and a dev made a post stating how tired they were getting of the topic.
I'm planning on harping on and on on this subject on the official forums. I cancelled my account, but they never cancelled my forum account, which is fortunate for me. The devs need to have this pounded into their heads until they "get it."
Wasn't that around the same time they were claiming they HAD to put asteroid fields in every system because players got too disoriented, and some got motion sickness? I think they used the same arguement to explain why sector space made every system look like a giant lollipop. I remember people thinking that doing rolls would mean the enterprise would be dog fighting in space though.
I do believe that was the reason given for all the asteroid fields. As for the dogfighting, people were confusing that all the time, even though detailed descriptions (from myself and others) were given. Cryptic didn't help matters either, trying to make it sound like that was what people were wanting.
How is the space combat now not a dog fight? So what did Cryptic actually accomplish ? Ship v Ship was always going to end up a dog fight , that's what people failed to realize. PvP is dog fighting , period. It's not ballet, it is about positioning oneself and knocking the stuffing out of the other guy . It didn't matter if it was ground or space.
Actually, if a starship is large and heavy enough it would be more like naval combat with tall ships rather than like a dog fight. Often STO's space combat feels much like Pirates of the Burning Sea's tall ship combat (the same 2D movement!) Which makes sense in a Star Trek setting because sometimes starship combat was depicted like tall ship navel combat (like in Star Trek II) and sometimes like dog fighting (with the small and nimble Defiant in many episodes of DS9.) There's even one episode of DS9 with a larger Excelsior class ship standing still while the Defiant flies circles around it, so I guess that would be a mix of dog fighting and tall ship navel combat.
See but what you're doing is confusing a particluar style of fighting jets or WW I or WWII aircraft and holding that up as an example. What i'm saying is the ships in STO , regardless of what you precieve dogfighting to mean, behave in this manner. Albeit a slower pace it is still dogfighting.
Definition of DOGFIGHT
1
: a fight between dogs; broadly: a fiercely disputed contest
2
: a fight between two or more fighter planes usually at close quarters
Fighter planes are a creation of the 20 th century . It could also apply to ships of the line from the 19th , as in PotBS , as you pointed out. Size is irrelavent. It's like saying a German Shepard v Daschund isn't a dog fight , when it is. We just know the outcome more or less. An He117 v B-17 is a dogfight , just not very exciting or fast paced , they are heavy wieghts , just like in boxing. Try being less myopic in your definition.
Fighter planes are a creation of the 20 th century . It could also apply to ships of the line from the 19th , as in PotBS , as you pointed out. Size is irrelavent. It's like saying a German Shepard v Daschund isn't a dog fight , when it is. We just know the outcome more or less. An He117 v B-17 is a dogfight , just not very exciting or fast paced , they are heavy wieghts , just like in boxing. Try being less myopic in your definition.
Nice try with the dictionary quote, but like a lot of dictionary entries it doesn't tell the full story; dogfighting in either of those definitions also implies more than just getting close and pounding on each other. The ship to ship (or rather plane to plane, when the term first came about) version of dogfighting takes its name from the canine version. In the canine version, the dogs don't just position themselves and then stand there; they are constantly rolling around, attacking. Sure there's the initial positioning, but there is almost constant maneuvering (such as rolling around, which gives rise to the term a nasty furball in aviation combat) as well as attacking.
On the other hand tall ship combat has initial positioning, and then the ships start hammering each other. Sure there is some slow movement from each ship, but really after the initial engagement in tall ship combat, the ships try to keep as many weapons aimed towards the enemy and hammer each other until one is destroyed or withdraws. Sounds just like STO combat, doesn't it? When was the last time you heard of a naval ship engagement referred to as a dogfight? Never; the ships (even frigates and destroyers) lack the speed and manueverability. Naval aviation battles on the other hand? Quite a lot. That is why combat jets in an engagement are generally referred to as dogfighting, while surface ship combat is a battle or engagement.
To use your example of the B-17 and HE-111, no it is most definately NOT a dogfight; neither bomber is fast or agile enough to be constantly looping, rolling, and doing other high speed maneuvers (Immelmans, split-S manuevers, etc.) around each other; all they can do is fly at angles to each other, turn slowly, and hammer each other with their weapons until one (or both) is shot down or disengages. Try taking your own advice: "Try being less myopic in your definition."
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
I think you both are missing the point of a Dog Fight, it is a fierce battle between two or more opponents who are aware of eachothers position. STO only thing that could possible resemble a dogfight would be an Escort and BOP, since there are no rolls or loops possable for position it usually ends up being a slug fest with both ships circiling around each other and the guy who puts out the most rounds wins, more like 18th-19th century ship of the lines broadsides. so actualy the guy who said POTBS was correct on space combat within STO. but hay, what do I know, I am only a 7 year old who is on his 7th Admiral or LTGen.
I think you both are missing the point of a Dog Fight, it is a fierce battle between two or more opponents who are aware of eachothers position. STO only thing that could possible resemble a dogfight would be an Escort and BOP, since there are no rolls or loops possable for position it usually ends up being a slug fest with both ships circiling around each other and the guy who puts out the most rounds wins, more like 18th-19th century ship of the lines broadsides. so actualy the guy who said POTBS was correct on space combat within STO. but hay, what do I know, I am only a 7 year old who is on his 7th Admiral or LTGen.
Actually, that was the point another and I were making.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
Wasn't that around the same time they were claiming they HAD to put asteroid fields in every system because players got too disoriented, and some got motion sickness? I think they used the same arguement to explain why sector space made every system look like a giant lollipop. I remember people thinking that doing rolls would mean the enterprise would be dog fighting in space though.
I do believe that was the reason given for all the asteroid fields. As for the dogfighting, people were confusing that all the time, even though detailed descriptions (from myself and others) were given. Cryptic didn't help matters either, trying to make it sound like that was what people were wanting.
How is the space combat now not a dog fight? So what did Cryptic actually accomplish ? Ship v Ship was always going to end up a dog fight , that's what people failed to realize. PvP is dog fighting , period. It's not ballet, it is about positioning oneself and knocking the stuffing out of the other guy . It didn't matter if it was ground or space.
Actually, if a starship is large and heavy enough it would be more like naval combat with tall ships rather than like a dog fight. Often STO's space combat feels much like Pirates of the Burning Sea's tall ship combat (the same 2D movement!) Which makes sense in a Star Trek setting because sometimes starship combat was depicted like tall ship navel combat (like in Star Trek II) and sometimes like dog fighting (with the small and nimble Defiant in many episodes of DS9.) There's even one episode of DS9 with a larger Excelsior class ship standing still while the Defiant flies circles around it, so I guess that would be a mix of dog fighting and tall ship navel combat.
See but what you're doing is confusing a particluar style of fighting jets or WW I or WWII aircraft and holding that up as an example. What i'm saying is the ships in STO , regardless of what you precieve dogfighting to mean, behave in this manner. Albeit a slower pace it is still dogfighting.
Definition of DOGFIGHT
1
: a fight between dogs; broadly: a fiercely disputed contest
2
: a fight between two or more fighter planes usually at close quarters
Fighter planes are a creation of the 20 th century . It could also apply to ships of the line from the 19th , as in PotBS , as you pointed out. Size is irrelavent. It's like saying a German Shepard v Daschund isn't a dog fight , when it is. We just know the outcome more or less. An He117 v B-17 is a dogfight , just not very exciting or fast paced , they are heavy wieghts , just like in boxing. Try being less myopic in your definition.
That's a pretty broad definition, and inaccurate in this context. Dog fighting implies fast, manoeuvrable, acrobatic combat. Have you ever seen a big dog fight? They're still incredibly fast, manoeuvrable and agile at large sizes, this is why "dogfighting" was first applied to airplanes during the First World War. They don't call it "bearfighting" or "elephantfighting" for a very good reason.
No matter what your definition says, the term "dogfighting" does not apply to Man o' Wars who would line up to the enemy ship and hit them in the broadsides of cannon fire. A Man o' War is an incredibly huge First Rate ship of the line that would probably take 20 minutes to turn around. A starship with enough tonnage would act the very same way, it would not, in any conceivable measure be able to "dogfight." Thinking it can is just silly.
A small, light, nimble craft can dogfight because it is small, turns on a dime, and can run circles around a larger craft and spar equally with another smaller craft. By the way, I've never, ever heard the term "dogfight" applied to a bomber. It sounds silly quite frankly. Bombers generally have fighter escorts that take out other fighters because a bomber would be a sitting duck if it ever fought a fighter.
Have you ever seen two elephants butting heads and heard someone comment "yep, them elephants are dogfighting?" Of course not because elephants are much too large and slow to dogfight. The same applies to large capital ships, whether they be tall ships or starships.
By the way, the term "dogfighting" doesn't apply to navel combat at all. Ships are just too slow and unweildly to be able to fight anything like dogs, even in your definition the term applies to airplanes.
I think you both are missing the point of a Dog Fight, it is a fierce battle between two or more opponents who are aware of eachothers position. STO only thing that could possible resemble a dogfight would be an Escort and BOP, since there are no rolls or loops possable for position it usually ends up being a slug fest with both ships circiling around each other and the guy who puts out the most rounds wins, more like 18th-19th century ship of the lines broadsides. so actualy the guy who said POTBS was correct on space combat within STO. but hay, what do I know, I am only a 7 year old who is on his 7th Admiral or LTGen.
That's the point we're trying to make though: fighting in STO feels like navel combat in Pirates of the Burning Sea. But with certain classes of ships, like the Defiant or Bird of Prey it shouldn't. A Defiant or a Bird of Prey should be able to dogfight and perform stunts at high speeds because we saw them do so in Star Trek all the time.
In First Contact the Defiant fought the Borg Cube by nimbly dodging between wrecked ships and getting into good positions to fire. The massive Sovereign-class Enterprise looked and acted like a giant space whale in comparison. This is because the Defiant is a small, quick, manoeuvrable craft, it is very agile when compared to the capital ship Enterprise. They even make the point of saying that the Defiant has huge engines for a ship of her size on DS9.
Cryptic either doesn't know these facts, or they simply don't give two shits.
Edit: Bah, now I'm just repeating everything Din says on the subject...
OK. I now see what you mean and you are correct. STO is lacking too many final touches that should of been at launch but the Devs seem to figure that the lack of these things ae not game breakers and so don't worry about them. It is like buying a BMW just to find out that it only has a 3 cyl engine, one wiper blade missing, no stero and you are missing two break pads. Sure the BMW runs, but you paid for a BMW and got a YUGO engine, sure it stops, it just takes a longer to come to a full stop, so the car is operational, nothing that is missing stops the car from being driven so there is nothing that is a game breaker,,In the Devs thought process the car is ready for the show room. To quote one of my favorite responces by Cryptic " We just don't get it."
OK. I now see what you mean and you are correct. STO is lacking too many final touches that should of been at launch but the Devs seem to figure that the lack of these things ae not game breakers and so don't worry about them. It is like buying a BMW just to find out that it only has a 3 cyl engine, one wiper blade missing, no stero and you are missing two break pads. Sure the BMW runs, but you paid for a BMW and got a YUGO engine, sure it stops, it just takes a longer to come to a full stop, so the car is operational, nothing that is missing stops the car from being driven so there is nothing that is a game breaker,,In the Devs thought process the car is ready for the show room. To quote one of my favorite responces by Cryptic " We just don't get it."
Yeah STO and 90% of other MMOs released in the past 7 years.
Din the reason it was called dogfighting is , because it was to the death . Early 1900 Europeans still had dog fights and it was to the death as a sport. Hence these early air jousts were to the death since an error/skill/luck in combat usually led to this. It has nothing to do with maneuvers , agility etc... if combat is to the death it's a dogfight . STO combat is of such poor quality it's the majority of the time to the death. The mechanic that avoids friendly fire is the main contributor to this , IMHO. It just happens that the animal chosen to signify a duel to the death was the dog.
And while I agree the smaller ships are and should behave better in combat . The way the combat mechanics are set up , it seems you never miss .
Din the reason it was called dogfighting is , because it was to the death . Early 1900 Europeans still had dog fights and it was to the death as a sport. Hence these early air jousts were to the death since an error/skill/luck in combat usually led to this. It has nothing to do with maneuvers , agility etc... if combat is to the death it's a dogfight . STO combat is of such poor quality it's the majority of the time to the death. The mechanic that avoids friendly fire is the main contributor to this , IMHO. It just happens that the animal chosen to signify a duel to the death was the dog.
And while I agree the smaller ships are and should behave better in combat . The way the combat mechanics are set up , it seems you never miss .
Talk to actual combat pilots and see what they say on the subject, because it's clear you're not going to listen to anyone who is saying STO combat is tall-ship combat and not dogfighting. A few people now have tried to explain it, but if you wish to keep insisting STO combat is dogfighting then go ahead; just don't expect others to change the definition because you wish it to be so.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
Din the reason it was called dogfighting is , because it was to the death . Early 1900 Europeans still had dog fights and it was to the death as a sport. Hence these early air jousts were to the death since an error/skill/luck in combat usually led to this. It has nothing to do with maneuvers , agility etc... if combat is to the death it's a dogfight . STO combat is of such poor quality it's the majority of the time to the death. The mechanic that avoids friendly fire is the main contributor to this , IMHO. It just happens that the animal chosen to signify a duel to the death was the dog.
And while I agree the smaller ships are and should behave better in combat . The way the combat mechanics are set up , it seems you never miss .
Talk to actual combat pilots and see what they say on the subject, because it's clear you're not going to listen to anyone who is saying STO combat is tall-ship combat and not dogfighting. A few people now have tried to explain it, but if you wish to keep insisting STO combat is dogfighting then go ahead; just don't expect others to change the definition because you wish it to be so.
It's got nothing to do with what i want or don't want the name of the action evolved from animals thrown into a ring , specifically dogs , to fight to the death . In early WW I , it usually involved two aircraft , before anything was classifed as fighters or bombers, there were no names for maneuvers etc.. It was who got luck and got the best shot in , similar to jousting.
Din the reason it was called dogfighting is , because it was to the death . Early 1900 Europeans still had dog fights and it was to the death as a sport. Hence these early air jousts were to the death since an error/skill/luck in combat usually led to this. It has nothing to do with maneuvers , agility etc... if combat is to the death it's a dogfight . STO combat is of such poor quality it's the majority of the time to the death. The mechanic that avoids friendly fire is the main contributor to this , IMHO. It just happens that the animal chosen to signify a duel to the death was the dog.
And while I agree the smaller ships are and should behave better in combat . The way the combat mechanics are set up , it seems you never miss .
Dogfighting when applied to war and armed combat has always applied to small airplanes. It has never applied to tall-ships, navel vessels, bombers or anything of that sort.
Din the reason it was called dogfighting is , because it was to the death . Early 1900 Europeans still had dog fights and it was to the death as a sport. Hence these early air jousts were to the death since an error/skill/luck in combat usually led to this. It has nothing to do with maneuvers , agility etc... if combat is to the death it's a dogfight . STO combat is of such poor quality it's the majority of the time to the death. The mechanic that avoids friendly fire is the main contributor to this , IMHO. It just happens that the animal chosen to signify a duel to the death was the dog.
And while I agree the smaller ships are and should behave better in combat . The way the combat mechanics are set up , it seems you never miss .
Dogfighting when applied to war and armed combat has always applied to small airplanes. It has never applied to tall-ships, navel vessels, bombers or anything of that sort.
This is the only thing you have to know.
guys ridiculous argument, there space ships, that by the cryptics system dont have tops or bottoms. your arguing about a system that is essentially cars in space.
doesnt matter if its dogfightning or not, you cant even shoot at the bottom or top of a ship... which would work on land or sea... but in air or space? its not possible to call it dogfighting when there is only front/back and sides to your ships because its not 3d combat to begin with.
if they reskinned the game with cars/tanks as opposed to space ships... they really wouldnt have to change much.
argue if you want about what the definition of dogfighting is.... whatever definition you come too will not fit the sto engine, as any dogfighting includes above and below.
IF THE ONLY DEFENCE FOR CRITICISM OF A GAME IS CALLING SOMEONE A TROLL OR HATER, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME
Comments
Space combat is crap, you play as a ship not a crew member, Star trek the films and series is all about life on a ship, engineering, bridge, sick bay, Holodeck etc. STO has none of that at all other than pointless views. Star Trek should also be about away missions......
STO Away missions consist of beaming down to a lifeless flat rectangle that they dare to call a planet, they are about the size of a football pitch and devoid of any native life.
I was going to go on about rooms and other stuff but cba. STO sux it's horrible, terrible and a disgrace to ST.
They haven't been since release , and got worse after the 45 d . Especially as more and more C-Store items started appearing . I've watched a great many Cryptic defenders slowly turning on them as each patch goes by . It's fascinating to watch the tones of posts change. lmao.
morbid would be a better word for it than fascinating imo.
as ive said before its like driving by a car crash... do you really need to look/watch... NO.
but some of us do.
how does cryptic fix this...STOP CRASHING THE CAR EVERY TIME YOU LEAVE THE DRIVEWAY
IF THE ONLY DEFENCE FOR CRITICISM OF A GAME IS CALLING SOMEONE A TROLL OR HATER, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME
ill pass
Do they even have enough people to adequately test the game anymore? I'm not talking about players on a test server, which should always be the final line of testing, but internal QA testers on the STO team? At the rate they break things, I'm beginning to suspect that they have the same number of QA testers that Vanguard had during its development: One.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
Sometimes, when designers check things into the game, they check in multiple things at a time.
So, the designer who was working on the new PvP queue UI, may also have been the designer working on this button. If all of those things were a part of the same file check in, this would create what we call a "dependency". Meaning, that we can't take one thing, but not the other.
When this happens, and we find out that there is a bug, with a part of the checkin, we need to make a call based on several different questions.
1) What is the severity of the bug?
2) How important is the rest of the check in?
3) Does the bug devalue the rest of the check in to make it not worthwhile to take the check in?
So, in a case like this, production may very well have been faced with leaving PvP Queues non-functional for a longer period of time, or publishing a bug for a new UI element.
I did check in with the UI team, and they said they are working on a fix for the issue, so it should be fixed soon.
Thanks,
Stormshade
1 hour later also from storm shade
I want to point out that I don't know for certain if this was caused by a dependency issue or not. I used words very specifically meant to convey that this was a possible situation, not a factual one.
I don't actually speak in code, nor do I wish too. However I do understand some of how designing a video game works.
One rule with any software release however, is simply going to be that bugs happen. When they happen, our designers and programmers have to work very hard to fix them. Is it unfortunate that the new button simply doesn't work right now? Yes.
Is it game breaking? Hardly.
as ive said before, cryptic employees seem to say what seems good at the time. maybe they could try something new... like figuring out what they are talking about and posting an honest answer. its little wonder that cryptic supporters come here and post things that they get called on as inaccurate and misleading when the information they get from cryptic employees is " a possible situation, not a factual one."
IF THE ONLY DEFENCE FOR CRITICISM OF A GAME IS CALLING SOMEONE A TROLL OR HATER, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME
Yes, bugs do happen and they are inevitable in programs of this size. However that is why QA exists; to help minimize both the number and severity of bugs. How many times have we heard from STO players (either here or on the official forums) who complained that update X had a bunch of horrible, game-breaking bugs, those bugs were reported to Cryptic, and the update launched anyway?
I wonder if there is a suit higher up (either in marketing or a Cryptic/Atari executive) who is pushing release dates for these updates, no matter if they are ready or not?
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
Here's the kicker to me . Read the Tribble forums , they point out the bugs or issues , and they still release the update. I don't get the purpose of having a test server if you don't listen to the feedback. Either they are inept or are tied to schedules and really don't care and will comeback to it , if severe enough. More likely the later.
Actually, if a starship is large and heavy enough it would be more like naval combat with tall ships rather than like a dog fight. Often STO's space combat feels much like Pirates of the Burning Sea's tall ship combat (the same 2D movement!) Which makes sense in a Star Trek setting because sometimes starship combat was depicted like tall ship navel combat (like in Star Trek II) and sometimes like dog fighting (with the small and nimble Defiant in many episodes of DS9.) There's even one episode of DS9 with a larger Excelsior class ship standing still while the Defiant flies circles around it, so I guess that would be a mix of dog fighting and tall ship navel combat.
nope dont want to come and play. Sorry, But I will have to pass on this lemming. but hey, if you enjoy it, go nuts. don't let me stop you.
3.4ghz Phenom II X4 965, 8GB PC12800 DDR3 GSKILL, EVGA 560GTX 2GB OC, 640GB HD SATA II, BFG 1000WATT PSU. MSI NF980-G65 TRI-SLI MOBO.
I'm planning on harping on and on on this subject on the official forums. I cancelled my account, but they never cancelled my forum account, which is fortunate for me. The devs need to have this pounded into their heads until they "get it."
See but what you're doing is confusing a particluar style of fighting jets or WW I or WWII aircraft and holding that up as an example. What i'm saying is the ships in STO , regardless of what you precieve dogfighting to mean, behave in this manner. Albeit a slower pace it is still dogfighting.
Definition of DOGFIGHT
1
: a fight between dogs; broadly : a fiercely disputed contest
2
: a fight between two or more fighter planes usually at close quarters
Fighter planes are a creation of the 20 th century . It could also apply to ships of the line from the 19th , as in PotBS , as you pointed out. Size is irrelavent. It's like saying a German Shepard v Daschund isn't a dog fight , when it is. We just know the outcome more or less. An He117 v B-17 is a dogfight , just not very exciting or fast paced , they are heavy wieghts , just like in boxing. Try being less myopic in your definition.
Nice try with the dictionary quote, but like a lot of dictionary entries it doesn't tell the full story; dogfighting in either of those definitions also implies more than just getting close and pounding on each other. The ship to ship (or rather plane to plane, when the term first came about) version of dogfighting takes its name from the canine version. In the canine version, the dogs don't just position themselves and then stand there; they are constantly rolling around, attacking. Sure there's the initial positioning, but there is almost constant maneuvering (such as rolling around, which gives rise to the term a nasty furball in aviation combat) as well as attacking.
On the other hand tall ship combat has initial positioning, and then the ships start hammering each other. Sure there is some slow movement from each ship, but really after the initial engagement in tall ship combat, the ships try to keep as many weapons aimed towards the enemy and hammer each other until one is destroyed or withdraws. Sounds just like STO combat, doesn't it? When was the last time you heard of a naval ship engagement referred to as a dogfight? Never; the ships (even frigates and destroyers) lack the speed and manueverability. Naval aviation battles on the other hand? Quite a lot. That is why combat jets in an engagement are generally referred to as dogfighting, while surface ship combat is a battle or engagement.
To use your example of the B-17 and HE-111, no it is most definately NOT a dogfight; neither bomber is fast or agile enough to be constantly looping, rolling, and doing other high speed maneuvers (Immelmans, split-S manuevers, etc.) around each other; all they can do is fly at angles to each other, turn slowly, and hammer each other with their weapons until one (or both) is shot down or disengages. Try taking your own advice: "Try being less myopic in your definition."
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
I think you both are missing the point of a Dog Fight, it is a fierce battle between two or more opponents who are aware of eachothers position. STO only thing that could possible resemble a dogfight would be an Escort and BOP, since there are no rolls or loops possable for position it usually ends up being a slug fest with both ships circiling around each other and the guy who puts out the most rounds wins, more like 18th-19th century ship of the lines broadsides. so actualy the guy who said POTBS was correct on space combat within STO. but hay, what do I know, I am only a 7 year old who is on his 7th Admiral or LTGen.
Actually, that was the point another and I were making.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
That's a pretty broad definition, and inaccurate in this context. Dog fighting implies fast, manoeuvrable, acrobatic combat. Have you ever seen a big dog fight? They're still incredibly fast, manoeuvrable and agile at large sizes, this is why "dogfighting" was first applied to airplanes during the First World War. They don't call it "bearfighting" or "elephantfighting" for a very good reason.
No matter what your definition says, the term "dogfighting" does not apply to Man o' Wars who would line up to the enemy ship and hit them in the broadsides of cannon fire. A Man o' War is an incredibly huge First Rate ship of the line that would probably take 20 minutes to turn around. A starship with enough tonnage would act the very same way, it would not, in any conceivable measure be able to "dogfight." Thinking it can is just silly.
A small, light, nimble craft can dogfight because it is small, turns on a dime, and can run circles around a larger craft and spar equally with another smaller craft. By the way, I've never, ever heard the term "dogfight" applied to a bomber. It sounds silly quite frankly. Bombers generally have fighter escorts that take out other fighters because a bomber would be a sitting duck if it ever fought a fighter.
Have you ever seen two elephants butting heads and heard someone comment "yep, them elephants are dogfighting?" Of course not because elephants are much too large and slow to dogfight. The same applies to large capital ships, whether they be tall ships or starships.
By the way, the term "dogfighting" doesn't apply to navel combat at all. Ships are just too slow and unweildly to be able to fight anything like dogs, even in your definition the term applies to airplanes.
That's the point we're trying to make though: fighting in STO feels like navel combat in Pirates of the Burning Sea. But with certain classes of ships, like the Defiant or Bird of Prey it shouldn't. A Defiant or a Bird of Prey should be able to dogfight and perform stunts at high speeds because we saw them do so in Star Trek all the time.
In First Contact the Defiant fought the Borg Cube by nimbly dodging between wrecked ships and getting into good positions to fire. The massive Sovereign-class Enterprise looked and acted like a giant space whale in comparison. This is because the Defiant is a small, quick, manoeuvrable craft, it is very agile when compared to the capital ship Enterprise. They even make the point of saying that the Defiant has huge engines for a ship of her size on DS9.
Cryptic either doesn't know these facts, or they simply don't give two shits.
Edit: Bah, now I'm just repeating everything Din says on the subject...
OK. I now see what you mean and you are correct. STO is lacking too many final touches that should of been at launch but the Devs seem to figure that the lack of these things ae not game breakers and so don't worry about them. It is like buying a BMW just to find out that it only has a 3 cyl engine, one wiper blade missing, no stero and you are missing two break pads. Sure the BMW runs, but you paid for a BMW and got a YUGO engine, sure it stops, it just takes a longer to come to a full stop, so the car is operational, nothing that is missing stops the car from being driven so there is nothing that is a game breaker,,In the Devs thought process the car is ready for the show room. To quote one of my favorite responces by Cryptic " We just don't get it."
Yeah STO and 90% of other MMOs released in the past 7 years.
Din the reason it was called dogfighting is , because it was to the death . Early 1900 Europeans still had dog fights and it was to the death as a sport. Hence these early air jousts were to the death since an error/skill/luck in combat usually led to this. It has nothing to do with maneuvers , agility etc... if combat is to the death it's a dogfight . STO combat is of such poor quality it's the majority of the time to the death. The mechanic that avoids friendly fire is the main contributor to this , IMHO. It just happens that the animal chosen to signify a duel to the death was the dog.
And while I agree the smaller ships are and should behave better in combat . The way the combat mechanics are set up , it seems you never miss .
Talk to actual combat pilots and see what they say on the subject, because it's clear you're not going to listen to anyone who is saying STO combat is tall-ship combat and not dogfighting. A few people now have tried to explain it, but if you wish to keep insisting STO combat is dogfighting then go ahead; just don't expect others to change the definition because you wish it to be so.
"Oh my, how horrible, someone is criticizing a MMO. Oh yeah, that is what a forum is about, looking at both sides. You rather have to be critical of anything in this genre as of late because the track record of these major studios has just been appalling." -Ozmodan
It's got nothing to do with what i want or don't want the name of the action evolved from animals thrown into a ring , specifically dogs , to fight to the death . In early WW I , it usually involved two aircraft , before anything was classifed as fighters or bombers, there were no names for maneuvers etc.. It was who got luck and got the best shot in , similar to jousting.
QFT
This is why I won't play STO. They butched Star Trek. It's just space combat with Star Trek skins.
Corporation, n: An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Dogfighting when applied to war and armed combat has always applied to small airplanes. It has never applied to tall-ships, navel vessels, bombers or anything of that sort.
This is the only thing you have to know.
guys ridiculous argument, there space ships, that by the cryptics system dont have tops or bottoms. your arguing about a system that is essentially cars in space.
doesnt matter if its dogfightning or not, you cant even shoot at the bottom or top of a ship... which would work on land or sea... but in air or space? its not possible to call it dogfighting when there is only front/back and sides to your ships because its not 3d combat to begin with.
if they reskinned the game with cars/tanks as opposed to space ships... they really wouldnt have to change much.
argue if you want about what the definition of dogfighting is.... whatever definition you come too will not fit the sto engine, as any dogfighting includes above and below.
IF THE ONLY DEFENCE FOR CRITICISM OF A GAME IS CALLING SOMEONE A TROLL OR HATER, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME