Commander
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 374
# 91
03-26-2013, 06:32 AM
i want combats to be longer.. way longer. dont like to rip through enemy waves within seconds. i should be happy about that fact but that drastically reduces the time i need for missions and space combat is what i am here for.
What ? Calaway.
Captain
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,941
# 92
03-26-2013, 06:04 PM
A more Star Trek feeling combat would have you fighting an extended battle against a single powerful enemy that is very hard to kill, not the multispawn hairy furballs coming in waves that we currently have.
Ensign
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 3
# 93 You'd Need Turn-Based Play
03-28-2013, 12:27 AM
Turn-Based Play.

It's the only way to skip between bridge sequences that actually matter (shouting orders, healing BOFFs with their heads exploding from c-4 embedded consols...

The coolest part would be jumping into the engineers and frantically running up collapsing ladders, and shutting in those poor crewman on the wrong side of the emergency containment field in a hull breach. Crawling desparately through jeffries tubes.

All of this would have to be a 'repair' phase each side was entitled to between combat rounds.

And I very much there's much support for altering the game in that way, even if it could be done.

Second coolest benefit from this idea: Your BOFFs can suggest last-minute plans that give you one-use temporary moves you've never heard of before!

Amd perhaps your captian would be the morale medic, more or less, using an 'inspiring' abillity both to recuperate injured BOFFs, but also to inspire them with confidence before an important volley.

Anyway, that's the only way you I can think of to make it matter.

MAAAAAYBE a compromise where the walls of the bridge become transparent, which was an idea made explicit on Jem Hardar ships with those wierd eye pieces...
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 49
# 94
03-30-2013, 09:46 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Starships (regardless of class) should be relatively easy to damage and difficult to destroy. Engineering teams should gradually repair hull and subsystems. Once a ship is disabled, the victor should have the option of attampting to board the enemy ship or blowing it away completely.

Boarding tiggers a Pvp capture map based on the interior of the defending player's vessel.

The loser (either through being captured or being blown away) will respawn in sector space with significant damage to either their subsystems (which need to be repaired) or their crew (duty officers) which will need to be replenished or at the very least spend time recovering in sickbay, or YES even both dedending on how the battles went.

This blow up, respawn without penalty and repeat system is lame and clearly designed to cater to those who hate suffering any kind of penalty for poor tactics.
Ensign
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1
# 95
04-06-2013, 01:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxvitor View Post
...the only reason you can't go straight up or roll and invert is because of an arbitrary limit set on that degree of motion for the ships, not because the engine can't support it.... starships don't need to flit around like fighter jets, in fact it's less realistic if they do, but they could at least remove the limit on pitch angle so that ship can rise or dive without having to waste movement to get at targets above or below them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by misterde3 View Post
in STO, when a ship can orient itself 45 degrees "up", another 45 or 90 shouldn't be a problem since there's no gravity or aerodynamic stress
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeratk View Post
Why should it be necessary for a Spaceship to fly up in circles like in a parking deck, to get up there.
This, this, and this. If they just changed the maximum incline/decline angle to 90, or even 89, without changing any other aspect of the controls, it would be a great improvement, and still avoid the issue of seeing upside-down ships or becoming disoriented. It's not simply a matter of being "like Star Trek" or "realistic" at all, it boils down to the fact that they are giving you a 3-D arena in which to fly, the arena has as much vertical span as it has horizontal, and therefore the next ship you want to target can in fact be directly above you, but in order for you to set your sights on it, you have to either fly in a silly looking upward spiral, or fly straight forward and upward for a while, until you think you've covered half the vertical distance, then turn around and climb the rest of the way flying back toward your target. It just feels extremely clunky.

"Captain, target sighted! Range: 40 km, bearing: 70 degrees Zulu."
"Prepare to fire."
"Sir, our impulse engines are only capable of a maximum angle of 60 degrees relative to the galactic plate. The only way we're going to be able to so much as ignite their warp exhaust is if we utilize either a serpentine attack vector, or a Paris Turn."
"Blast, I knew I never should have trusted that Ferengi shipyard dealer!"
Starfleet Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 800
# 96
04-06-2013, 02:50 PM
Very simply to me improving space combat at least one step would be NOT EVERY SHIP HAS TO HAVE A WARP CORE BREACH... Can we not just disable one? Why do we have to exterminate thousands of lives a day. Kirk and Picard never did that day in day out, we shouldn't either.

Yes blow some to hell and back, but others just cripple them. That would improve it a step for me.

***Disenchanted***
Real Join Date: Monday, 17 May 2010
Captain
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 844
# 97
04-06-2013, 06:20 PM
Here is an idea we have already in the game the ability to disable some sub systems by targeting them with our beam arrays.
If they used those abilities somehow to slowly disable an oppenent Such as disable weapons . shields engines etc etc.
since the ability is ingame already why not just make it where you have the option to either slowly disable a ship then board it Or just blow it to kingdom come.
The capture option would be a little more time consuming but it would add more of a trek feel to combat aswell.
They could utulize the exisitng starship interiors maps and use them for PvP or PvE boarding party battles.

Anyways
Career Officer
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,132
# 98
04-11-2013, 05:08 AM
The maximum up and down angle was said to exist to not confuse too many people. Of course that is just an excuse, STO is basically a 2 dimensional game with 3 dimensional graphics. There is virtually nothing in the game that requires a change in the Z axis, its much easier to create 2D missions, maps and anything else rather than realistic situations.

The biggest problem will always be enemies are mindless space fotter and we are super charged killing machines, its not trek in the slightest.
Delirium Tremens
Completed Starbase, Embassy, Mine, Spire and No Win Scenario
Nothing to do anymore.
http://dtfleet.com/
Visit our Youtube channel
Empire Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 959
# 99
04-11-2013, 12:28 PM
The most Trek-like combat was in SFC (StarFleet Command) which was a direct port from the boardgame SFB (StarFleet Battles).

And most people didn't like it.

Combat was strategic and slow, and required you to plan ahead quite a bit. Not exactly what most MMO players look for.
_________________________________________________
[Kluless][Kold][Steel Heels][Snagtooth]
[Louis Cipher][Outta Gum][Thysa Kymbo][Spanner][Frakk]
[D'Mented][D'Licious]
Joined October 2009. READ BEFORE POSTING
Community Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 4,454
# 100
04-11-2013, 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by naevius View Post
The most Trek-like combat was in SFC (StarFleet Command) which was a direct port from the boardgame SFB (StarFleet Battles).

And most people didn't like it.

Combat was strategic and slow, and required you to plan ahead quite a bit. Not exactly what most MMO players look for.
This.

Don't get me wrong, loved Star Fleet Battles back in the day.

Not much interested in Star Fleet Battles Online, though.
Volunteer Community Moderator for the Star Trek Online forums -- My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. If you wish to speak to someone on the community team, file a "forums and website" support ticket here, as we are not able to respond to PMs regarding moderation inquiries.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
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 Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:44 AM.