Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 1 POLL: Starship Movement System.
04-28-2010, 10:21 AM

Greetings to everyone here in the "Star Trek Online Discussion" forum!

This poll is here to determine exactly which type of Starship movement system you would really like to be using in Star Trek Online.

Forget everything you have ever heard the Devs or anyone else say about the Starship movement, and pretend this is one of the official polls, as Cryptic won't make one to link into the launcher to get accurate results.

Also, the poll is not about guessing, presuming, speculating or thinking about the consequences of programming or anything else, and if you think it will never happen, just stop thinking, then refer to the question which is a simple question that asks which Starship movement system would you like to use in STO.

So please click on the above link and answer the question as truthfully as possible, while considering everything you know about space, about Star Trek, about STO and your own ability to navigate a 3D environment.


Question:

Which Starship movement system would you like to use in Star Trek Online?
  1. 3D movement, including thrusters, Auto-plane correction at full stop out of combat, Ventral & Dorsal Shields as well as preset auto maneuvers allowing "rolls", "loops", etc.

  2. 3D movement, including thrusters, Auto-plane correction at full stop out of combat, as well as Ventral & Dorsal Shields.

  3. 3D movement, including thrusters & Auto-plane correction at full stop out of combat.

  4. 3D movement ,including Auto-plane correction at full stop out of combat.

  5. 2D movement, including thrusters, with pitch angle to 85 & preset auto maneuvers allowing "rolls", "loops", etc.

  6. 2D movement, including thrusters, with pitch angle to 85.

  7. 2D movement, including thrusters.

  8. 2D movement (No Changes).

Please Note:
  • You can click on the link at the top of this post to vote so we can all give accurate feedback to the Devs, and once you have voted, please also post your feedback in the thread as well as why you voted for the movement system you have chosen.

  • Ventral (Bottom) is the belly of the Starship and Dorsal (Top) is the back of the Starship.

  • To counter the Dev Teams concern of Starships being inverted in STO I have suggested a feature included in the poll which is referred to as "Auto-plane correction at full stop out of combat" which would automatically correct the players Starship alignment when at a full stop out of combat and dstahl has stated that a similar feature is already in the game. This feature would allow player to stop and regain there Navigational Bearing if disorientated.

YouTube Video Examples:
Question for Cryptic:

Cryptic, is the following proposal possible?
  • Normal Difficulty Setting - Add No Changes to Starship movement.

  • Advanced Difficulty Setting - Add Cryptics proposed changes to the Starship movement.

  • Elite Difficulty Setting - Add 3D Starship movement.


Thank you for your time and attention!

Qapla'
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2 Freedom Fighters!
04-28-2010, 10:22 AM
The following is quoted from the "This game is missing an important flight control system" thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
To reiterate -

It was a purposful aesthetic decision to keep starships at the same orientation and not allow inverted flight, not because it was a tech limitation but because in Star Trek, starships never face off inverted to one another. It is an artistic distinction that makes space combat in Star Trek look like tall ships combat.

We have discussed options for more pitch or even z axis movement - but it is a firm decision that we will not allow inverted flight for Star Trek Starships (although we reserve the right to change this for specific situations where your ship may be out of control).
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shard-Warrior View Post
I believe the objection people have for greater mobility in STO is a fear that everyone will be flying around "upside down" and it will look silly (and it would). However, that could easily be prevented by an auto-roll to the correct galactic plane.
Auto-plane correction is already in the game - when you bank and release control - it auto-corrects. Allowing starships to fly inverted is not going to happen in STO - this has been discussed since before Beta - and we have plenty of reasons why allowing players to purposly fly inverted is not happening.

Does that mean we're not listening? Sure we are - and we hope you are listening too.

We are looking into different ideas such as those I mentioend - maneauvers such as immelmans, rolls, etc that you click and execute (ie you do not fly the immelman - you click a button and it does it) - or even the possibility of allowing you to come to a stop and use thrusters to do a straight up or down Z axis move.

We spent a lot of time on space combat mechanics and we are happy with where they are at - they give space combat the feel we were shooting for.

So in the future - yes - we may allow some sort of pre-set maneuaver - or possibly greater pitch range - so focus ideas in those areas instead of focusing on allowing inverted flight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forjo View Post
You've gone light-years to build credibility for your team as one who listens to the community.

Don't ruin that by being stubborn on this issue.
-Forjo
I hear you. This goes both ways. We have considered inverted flight since before Beta and strongly decided against it for many reasons. There is a difference between being stubborn and players not accepting decisions and repeatedly asking for something we have stated we were not going to do.

Is it possible players are being stubborn in repeatedly asking us to allow inverted flight?

So where does that leave us?

Things we don't want to do:
- Allow players to pilot their starship into an inverted plane

Things we are considering based on feedback:
- increasing pitch angle to 85%
- allowing players to stop and use "thrusters" to move slowly in any axis - including z axis up down
- creating specific maneuvers such as "rolls", "immelmans", and "loops" which can be executed


If we did the three things above - it may net you a ton more maneuverability - without allowing inverted flight. Is that not a fair compromise?

I'm curious if I'm coming across stubborn or not. I'm trying to state - this is what where we're at and be realistic about what we can and can't do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bekkyboo
Oh yes, PLEASE. This would fix most if not all the issues with vertical movement.

These would be nice too, but the first point is the absolute *MUST HAVE*.
Increasing pitch to 85ish degress is the change we are most likely to try and the one that would cause the least issues from the back end perspective.

the other 2 suggestions - while interesting have their own set of challenges to overcome to make the work properly in the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dstahl View Post
ok -

2 final comments before I'm off to other tasks

1) Looks like increasing pitch is the big win compromise and something I'm starting the ball rolling with.
2) We still are considering the possibility of adding controller support - even though I thought it would be unlikely with the cancellation of porting STO to consoles.

No ETA yet on when or if either of these will happen yet.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
04-28-2010, 10:27 AM
i'm not sure i see the need for this thread.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
04-28-2010, 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavilier210 View Post
i'm not sure i see the need for this thread.
I see the need.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
04-28-2010, 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popkornn
I see the need.
There's already a ton of threads on this topic.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
04-29-2010, 05:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by USS-Andromeda View Post
There's already a ton of threads on this topic.
And the OP started most of them.

He is going to burst a blood vessel over this game, due to him taking himself way to seriously.


He even got a dev response telling him exactly what they are willing to do and what they absolutely won't do, and he just refuses to except any answer but the one he wants.

He wants them to completely overhaul the game, it doesn't matter if it takes all the developers time for the next year even if it means they won't be able to add any content or updates.


You have to give him credit, he is like a snapping turtle that bites and won't let go, even if it means that the person he has bitten will soon smash his shell to pieces.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
04-30-2010, 03:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popkornn
I see the need.
As do I...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
04-30-2010, 04:13 AM
Keep the 2D system. These are capital ships, not tie fighters. This campaign will do nothing but take a good ship flight system, that actually captures the feel a star trek, and move STO away from what it strives to be.

/not signed
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9 The need for this thread.
04-28-2010, 10:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavilier210 View Post
i'm not sure i see the need for this thread.
The reason this thread exists is to determine which Starship movement system the majority of players would like to use in Star Trek Online, it's very simple as well as very fair to everyone, and Cryptic will not create a poll, so I have.

All you have to do as a player is answer the question as truthfully as possible, just thinking of yourself and no one else.

I have to go do some painting now, but I'll be back in about an hour, and everyone is entitled to voice their opinions and make a choice, so everyone is entitled to take part in the poll, which will hopefully result in accurate feedback.

Regards,

Alecto
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
04-29-2010, 05:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alecto View Post
The reason this thread exists is to determine which Starship movement system the majority of players would like to use in Star Trek Online, it's very simple as well as very fair to everyone, and Cryptic will not create a poll, so I have.

All you have to do as a player is answer the question as truthfully as possible, just thinking of yourself and no one else.

I have to go do some painting now, but I'll be back in about an hour, and everyone is entitled to voice their opinions and make a choice, so everyone is entitled to take part in the poll, which will hopefully result in accurate feedback.

Regards,

Alecto
I understand why this tread has been started but I also accept the that Cryptic has said they are not going to change the space system any time soon, if at all. Pushing the issue only serves as an aggravation. They will let this thread ride as they have your ranking thread. That and this will do no harm but that does not mean it will get any point across to them they will take action on.

The movement system will stand as it is. It is considered working as intended. It is ST flavored with exception to a handful of instances. To redesign the movement system also means a redesign of the targeting system and the shield system (adding several new shield arks to compensate/take in account new angels of attack). That represents a fundamental change in the entire engine. there are more important items on the development table that will take years to clear up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alecto View Post
The STO Engine is not technically limited to 2D or 2.5D, and is fully capable of allowing Starships to utilise full 3D Starship movement. The Dev Team have done it before, briefly tested it without the aid of the majority and can easily allow for it again.

3D Starship movement would not require a complete overhaul of STO, or any kind of overhaul what so ever, that is very far from the truth and putting any effort into making it so would not slow down or restrict any other content.
Sir, you need to take care in making assumptions and statements you cannot back with fact. What you say here is actually quite opposite of what devs have said in the past. I would like to see proof of this supposed test. I was in CB through to OB and never encountered this. If you are talking about a QA test then the fact that it did n't pass QA should speak worlds of why it is not in. QA = quality assurance. Apparently it fractured game quality.

speak from your actual tangible knowledge and expired. It will strengthen your argument.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:50 AM.