Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 11,100
# 21
01-21-2013, 01:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippiejon View Post
The things listed in the OP are terribly insignificant to a majority of players.
Not to say that it isn't important to someone (obviously) , just that I'd much rather see DEVs are work on issues that actually affect game play.
It affects MY gameplay! I'm trapeezing around the Galaxy in a gimped ship! I want my Galaxy to be as pretty as it was on the show damnabits!
http://i1151.photobucket.com/albums/o633/centersolace/189cux9khvl6ojpg_zpsca7ccff0.jpg

So inhumane superweapons, mass murder, and canon nonsense is okay, but speedos are too much for some people.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 119
# 22
01-21-2013, 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippiejon View Post
The things listed in the OP are terribly insignificant to a majority of players.
Not to say that it isn't important to someone (obviously) , just that I'd much rather see DEVs are work on issues that actually affect game play.
IMMERSION, is by and far the defining characteristic for most players of STO not the numbers or the various ways to blow things up. Being able to look, see and be part of this creative and significantly visual world makes the look of and/or need to correct a ship a high priority issue that affects game play in a rather major way.
"Lets see what this button does..."
Career Officer
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,416
# 23
01-21-2013, 02:52 PM
My point is not that "immersion" isn't important. the point is that there are MANY other things in this game that need fixing, that actually have an impact on how the game plays, not just how it looks.

That's what I mean by game play.
The UI bug that prevents people in both PVE and PVP content to not have powers fire when they are clicked. That affects game play.
The shuttle / ship UI bug. That affects anyone trying to do elite content in the game.

Immersion is indeed important, and IF the Devs have the time to fix MINOR visual glitches that a majority of the player base doesn't even notice, then YES, they should.

BUT , no , I cannot agree that they should dedicate Dev time to fixing these things BEFORE they fix actual game play issues.

I get that to you the immersion is everything. That's cool. But what you are all discussing here is appearance. The fact that your right primary buffer panel is offset 2 degrees on the model does not have any effect in the way the game plays. Only how it looks.

Plain and simple.
I agree. There is some really sloppy visual work in this game.
It would be nice if they had time to fix it.

BUT, I would rather that they actually fix things in the engine that are not working than the way that something looks.

I am sorry, but these very minor gripes about visual detail SHOULD , in my opinion, NEVER take precedent over actually fixing the way that the game plays.
Rihannsu
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 119
# 24
01-21-2013, 03:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippiejon View Post
My point is not that "immersion" isn't important. the point is that there are MANY other things in this game that need fixing, that actually have an impact on how the game plays, not just how it looks.

That's what I mean by game play.
The UI bug that prevents people in both PVE and PVP content to not have powers fire when they are clicked. That affects game play.
The shuttle / ship UI bug. That affects anyone trying to do elite content in the game.
Ok fair enough, though might I suggest your argument/opinion would probably have better reception if it was made in one the 8+ forum sections dedicated to gameplay and its various "bugs/features"? This is after all the Art section of the forums and 99.999% of the proceedings here are going to be about exactly that.
"Lets see what this button does..."
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,263
# 25
01-21-2013, 03:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hippiejon View Post
Sorry.

But with all the many other "errors" and broken stuff in the game that they should be fixing, the tiny artistic problems on these ships are totally minor, and honestly have no impact on a normal player's game play experience.

This is honestly the last thing that Cryptic should be dedicating anyone to fix. I'd rather see their current ship artists working on new and exciting things, than revisiting designs on ships that work.

I honestly never even noticed the things mentioned in the OP.


"This is an "obsessive Star Trek nerd" parody thread, right?"

I thought the same thing.
No one can be this obsessive about the placement of where the spinal lance is on a ship, or the shape of a deflector.
But then I realized.
This is a Star Trek fan.
We're all crazy about some aspect of the franchise.


But seriously, this kind of crap is the last thing a DEV should be worried about when so many other things about their game are not exactly "working as intended".

The things listed in the OP are terribly insignificant to a majority of players.

Not to say that it isn't important to someone (obviously) , just that I'd much rather see DEVs are work on issues that actually affect game play.
I don't know if it's just me, but I found that line quite offensive. No one is any more "Normal" than anyone else.

And I'd rather have a few good quality ships running around this game then an armada of poor quality, inaccurate and flawed ships. Take Star Trek Bridge Commander as an example - in the original game when it was released, they had only a few types of Federation ships, but each one looked great! I'd rather have quality over quantity.

It's the fact that Cryptic screwed up blatantly that is the issue here - and it's not just one mistake, it's a lot of them, spread out over different ships. And as I stated before, Trek is about technical consistency and quality, and that's what anyone should expect when they are involved with anything Star Trek.

I'm glad you agree that the ship models are crap, but they should be somewhere high on the Dev fix-it list. Granted, yes, the shuttle issue, UI problems, etc etc etc should be fixed first, I understand that. I just want these sloppy errors fixed sometime in the foreseeable future, not when I'm fifty.

And they are not "terribly insignificant". Look at the above posts before you comment - people do care.

I should also add the point that we, as players, are not all here to do mainly PVP or combat. Some of us do different things - Dil runs, Roleplaying, you name it. And the ships' appearances are important when you're alone and not fighting, since the one thing you see on the screen when you're flying around is - you guessed it - your ship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by hippiejon
But, no, I cannot agree that they should dedicate Dev time to fixing these things BEFORE they fix actual game play issues.

I get that to you the immersion is everything. That's cool. But what you are all discussing here is appearance. The fact that your right primary buffer panel is offset 2 degrees on the model does not have any effect in the way the game plays. Only how it looks.
You're exaggerating, and the assumption that people like myself are here to technically pull the poor ships apart is wrong. If I really wanted to, I could list EVERY single flaw in every ship model. But I couldn't care less about where this gidgitty-gadgetty thing goes where. However, when there are blatant flaws (not artistic discretion), they should be addressed. Looks are equally as important as the story, the gameplay, essentially, the experience of Star Trek Online.

stardestroyer001, VA Explorers Fury | Retired STO Player
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More! | My Forum Gripes
PvP: PvP Boot Camp, the best newbie oriented training initiative in STO!

Last edited by stardestroyer001; 01-21-2013 at 03:33 PM.
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 14
# 26
01-21-2013, 03:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post
I just wanted to throw this out there. I already sent a complaint to PWE CS, but their response was to post something here, so here I am.

I realize that any recreation of a CGI model made for a television show or movie will be flawed. That's to be expected (unless you are a Star Trek: Bridge Commander modeler).

However, I've noticed a slew of errors, some that are careless and easily corrected, and some which are bad interpretations of a CGI or actual model. I've posted my annotations to each image with problems. Note that this is by no means a complete list, there are numerous ships in STO with similar problems, but these are the most apparent or the sloppiest errors.

Let's get Cryptic to fix these sloppy errors. They're easily fixed, and don't require as much time to fix as, say, the STF leaver penalty code or other Season 7 mishaps.
... this game has bigger problems to deal with then some grafix-issue u need a magniyfying glass to even notice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stardestroyer001 View Post
I know what I meant to write. Thanks for the suggestion, but I stand by what I said. Technical consistency is one of the expectations when any person or group is involved with anything Trek. Obsessive is a subjective term..
You cannot know about my expectations or that of all the other players - how would you? Do not try to sound as if you would speak for the majority, you hardly get anyone agreeing to your viewpoint in your thread here... doesn't seem like many people share your ideas

I see that you are bothered with it a great deal - notice that you are just one of a very small minority with that issue.

Also calling the models 'terrible' is just LOL and makes it quite hard to even take you serious.

Regards
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,263
# 27
01-21-2013, 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marylenedrake View Post
... this game has bigger problems to deal with then some grafix-issue u need a magniyfying glass to even notice.


No magnifying glass required. It's quite obvious.



Quote:
Originally Posted by marylenedrake View Post
You cannot know about my expectations or that of all the other players - how would you? Do not try to sound as if you would speak for the majority, you hardly get anyone agreeing to your viewpoint in your thread here... doesn't seem like many people share your ideas

I see that you are bothered with it a great deal - notice that you are just one of a very small minority with that issue.


Also calling the models 'terrible' is just LOL and makes it quite hard to even take you serious.

Regards
I'm not speaking for a majority here, and I never expected to - but to clarify, I am not speaking for a majority; I am bringing to Cryptic the attention that these disfigured ships deserve.

And, like kirahotomi stated...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirahitomi
...might I suggest your argument/opinion would probably have better reception if it was made in one the 8+ forum sections dedicated to gameplay and its various "bugs/features"? This is after all the Art section of the forums and 99.999% of the proceedings here are going to be about exactly that.
I agree with kirahitomi, this forum section is dedicated to alerting Cryptic about their artistic creations in this game, whether they be criticisms or compliments.

In this forum, I am hardly a minority. And as history has proven, minorities do get the attention of majorities.

And whatever problems you have with my wording is entirely not my responsibility or my doing. I don't have the power to make you consider these issues seriously, only you can do that.

Apparently though, it's serious enough for you to bother leaving a post. However, I'm not a troll, and I'm not interested in starting flame wars. Feel free to contribute your own ship flaws to this thread, I'm sure there are more ships out there needing attention. Eventually you'll see my point, and a lot of the ships in this game have quite obvious flaws that detract from the quality of this Star Trek game.

stardestroyer001, VA Explorers Fury | Retired STO Player
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More! | My Forum Gripes
PvP: PvP Boot Camp, the best newbie oriented training initiative in STO!
Survivor of Romulus
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,462
# 28
01-23-2013, 04:29 PM
I'm not too sure about what the flaws themselves really are, but as soon as I started playing back in feb 2012 one thing that jumped out at me was that the ship meshes just seemed a bit crap. Not terrible, but hardly as good as they could be.
That said, I'm a wee bit spoiled in the mesh department having come from bridge commander myself (Captain_Obvious on BC-Central).
I must say though, quite a few of those guys on the above forum are players of STO. I haven't spoken to any of them, but I'm sure at least some of them would be willing to discuss the possibility of seeing their work in this game.
Not all the meshes produced by those guys are uber high poly and even the lower poly ones look rather better than many in STO. Heck, there are meshes we were using in BC back in 2004 that look better than some of the ones in STO

I've been thinking and saying this for a while, this game could use some better meshes. Note that I say "better" and not "higher poly". Many of the meshes in this game just look off for want of a better term. I hate to say it, but the new ambassador doesn't look right to me.

Also, an FYI for you guys who play BC. BCFILES isn't really used as much these days due to it's flakiness as of late. BC-CENTRAL is where it's happening now.


EDIT

One thing that just occurred to me. The meshes for BC are all made using a *very* old version of max which afaik is the only version that can output meshes in the correct manner for BC. This may cause issues with conversion if it were ever to happen.
There was a sig here, but I gave up. Thanks {REDACTED}

Last edited by captainoblivous; 01-23-2013 at 04:32 PM. Reason: Addendum and a few typo fixes.
Captain
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,263
# 29
01-23-2013, 05:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by captainoblivous View Post
I'm not too sure about what the flaws themselves really are, but as soon as I started playing back in feb 2012 one thing that jumped out at me was that the ship meshes just seemed a bit crap. Not terrible, but hardly as good as they could be.
That said, I'm a wee bit spoiled in the mesh department having come from bridge commander myself (Captain_Obvious on BC-Central).
I must say though, quite a few of those guys on the above forum are players of STO. I haven't spoken to any of them, but I'm sure at least some of them would be willing to discuss the possibility of seeing their work in this game.
Not all the meshes produced by those guys are uber high poly and even the lower poly ones look rather better than many in STO. Heck, there are meshes we were using in BC back in 2004 that look better than some of the ones in STO

I've been thinking and saying this for a while, this game could use some better meshes. Note that I say "better" and not "higher poly". Many of the meshes in this game just look off for want of a better term. I hate to say it, but the new ambassador doesn't look right to me.

Also, an FYI for you guys who play BC. BCFILES isn't really used as much these days due to it's flakiness as of late. BC-CENTRAL is where it's happening now.


EDIT

One thing that just occurred to me. The meshes for BC are all made using a *very* old version of max which afaik is the only version that can output meshes in the correct manner for BC. This may cause issues with conversion if it were ever to happen.
Nice to see another STBC modder out here.

(I wonder if Sovvie plays this game...)

And I agree wholeheartedly. The ships in this game look okay, but something looks kinda wrong on each model I've come across. (I've only highlighted the major issues in the ships I own. I'm sure there's many more worth mentioning, such as the Intrepid Class).

Hopefully, someone is paying close attention and bumps up the ship models in the fix-it list.

And "BC-Central"? Is that BCS-TNG? It's been a while since I reinstalled my copy of STBC and got Kobayashi Maru for it, so I haven't been prowling the BC sites lately.

stardestroyer001, VA Explorers Fury | Retired STO Player
My Useful List of STO Forum Threads, Ship Builds & More! | My Forum Gripes
PvP: PvP Boot Camp, the best newbie oriented training initiative in STO!

Last edited by stardestroyer001; 01-23-2013 at 05:51 PM. Reason: Fixing relevancy
Captain
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,760
# 30
01-23-2013, 05:58 PM
I am not one of those trekie types that pores over ship schematics or anything but I agree with the op that the Galaxy has noticable flaws and I noticed something was wrong with it almost immediately after I purchased one. It is a ship that is on tv every day only the constitution gets as much screen time so people know what it is supposed to look like. It is also one of the most beloved ships and deserves more love.
Play more STO Foundry! (You can thank me later.)

A TIME TO SEARCH: ENTER MY FOUNDRY MISSION at the RISA SYSTEM in the SIRIUS SECTOR

Last edited by lincolninspace; 01-25-2013 at 06:51 PM.
Reply

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 On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:53 PM.