Go Back   Star Trek Online > Support > Gameplay Bug Reports
Login

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
04-20-2010, 02:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidheadjax View Post
You find corkscrewing and backtracking through clear space entertaining?

Occasionally, yes. Although there are a few other approaches than the ones you mentioned as well.

The point is - more often than not the majority of our "maneuvering" a starship consists of flying in a straight line towards an enemy which is nearly on the same level as we are, open fire and with any luck obliterate or at least heavily damage the target on our first pass. Should the target survive this, all it usually takes is to fly away a few kilometers, come about and fire a second barrage. Boom.

While some "thinking ahead" and clever positioning does have it's positive pay-offs in battle, almost all fights can be won by simply following the "fly-straight-at-it" pattern described above.

Now, I'm not complaining about this, as I don't always want to pull stunts in order to kill my target. But here and there it's actually nice when you REALLY have to maneuver cleverly.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
04-20-2010, 05:37 AM
I cant remember where, but it was also posted that 360 flight was rejected due to people getting vertigo and disoriented too easily.

Still, I am with you, it is more disorienting to "feel" there is a floor and a ceiling. In space, there is neither. Yet when I bank and the screen tilts ever so slightly I tend to get more nauseous and craning my neck, from that then if it were 360 flight.

Also if they did go with 360, they would have to add two new shields to ships, Dorsel (Top) and Ventral (Bottom).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
04-20-2010, 08:26 AM
Those is the reasons in a nutshell. Most people have troubles working in a true 3-D environment. (And for those player can handle 3-D, congradulations: You aren't "Most poeple"). It's true we have a 3-D world, but people exists in a 2.5-D world. We al work on a common plane. and there is a common up orientation. When one or more of those things away people can get disoriented and at worse vertigo inducing. I can handle 3-D movment most of the time, but even I got disoriented once in while unless I can fixate on a reference. And I can even experience vertigo under the right circumstance (for example in City of Heroes using Super Leap and angleing camera towards the ground.) Even just thinking about turns my stomach a bit.

What the did in STO was to use the 2.5-D mode in space combat. It made the game a lot plable by a wider audience. Yes. I do miss a true 3-D environment or even a +/- 90 pitch ability. But I enjoy the game as is. It's does feel like Star Trek in that regard. (weel to me at least).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
04-20-2010, 11:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM_Litana
No, it's simply that this forum is dedicated to identifying and discussing Gameplay Bugs, as the name suggests. A discussion of different game mechanics should go to another forum. This is not the place to discuss them.
However this thread is not in a bug forum, and we still have gotten what appears to be a "company line" and no engaged discussion.

So I ask again, why the unwillingness to revisit this?

-Forjo
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
04-20-2010, 11:42 AM
I responded in the other thread about the up/down thing.

For what its worth here, I agree that it does not seem to be a bug, rather something designed intentionally that simply illistrates the weekness of the partial 3d environment and is difficult to orient (control your ships movement in relationship to the enemy) yourself at the same time.

If these types of missions are present it would be better to orient them on a flat plane rather than at an angle.

I agree the first time I got into one of these I thought my ship had spawned into the system the wrong way.

I also thought that it was kinda neat to see the universe from a different perspective, then again sometimes I stand on furniture just to see what the room looks like from there, and upsde down to, guess that says something about me, but I am not sure what it is.
Takiwa
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
04-20-2010, 12:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Forjo View Post
However this thread is not in a bug forum, and we still have gotten what appears to be a "company line" and no engaged discussion.

So I ask again, why the unwillingness to revisit this?

-Forjo

You already got a theory on this from me AND an official reply. But to sum it up once more for you: no changes are planned regarding flight movement.

And believe it or not, Cryptic does not have to explain their every move in detail to you or anyone else in here.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
04-20-2010, 12:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DK-Starfire
Occasionally, yes. Although there are a few other approaches than the ones you mentioned as well.

The point is - more often than not the majority of our "maneuvering" a starship consists of flying in a straight line towards an enemy which is nearly on the same level as we are, open fire and with any luck obliterate or at least heavily damage the target on our first pass. Should the target survive this, all it usually takes is to fly away a few kilometers, come about and fire a second barrage. Boom.

While some "thinking ahead" and clever positioning does have it's positive pay-offs in battle, almost all fights can be won by simply following the "fly-straight-at-it" pattern described above.

Now, I'm not complaining about this, as I don't always want to pull stunts in order to kill my target. But here and there it's actually nice when you REALLY have to maneuver cleverly.
True, but the ability to maneuver cleverly (the one good thing about all the space trash...) is different from the need to maneuver awkwardly and nonsensically because of the angling of a mission space.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
04-20-2010, 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GM_Litana
There were very extensive discussions on 360 degree/flight simulation-style flight, all throughout beta. It was carefully (and vocally) considered both on the forums and internally. Many pros and cons were weighed, including the level of immersion, the accessibility of a game with 360 degree flight, and how "Star Trek" such flight would be.

While I do not have the precise arguments for and against, and this is not the place to rehash them, the short version is that this is not something we'll be implementing.


YES BUT.. are you doing something about not being able to fly down in these systems that have an X axis that is equal too or exceeding limits of flight imposed on us??

i'm not trying to open a 360 degrre flight thread... .the systems need to be adjusted, or if you guys don't want to go through and fix hte systems because it tedious or whatever.. then flight angles need to be adjusted.. ok lets not go 360.. how about 80-89degrees??? .. for other reasons too, like i put in my other later replies about cannons and such...

.. PS.. if the limit is because of disorientation then just add a self leveling key command.. mech and tank games use it for turrets/torso's.. and you already have an auto pilot built in.. just add it to the auto pilot code.. pushing "X key" levels ship to 0degree on X axis... it's simple to do.. about 20 lines of code.. i even volunteer my services (but i doubt you'll take them) .. i just want a game that's not tedious to play, and i know others do to.. please start fixing the systems one by one in your free time they don't all have to be done at once.. a few a patch is fine, because that way they'll eventually get fixed.. even just tilt the systems back 5 degrees, to keep the look and feel you were going for when you did it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
04-20-2010, 08:31 PM
as for the comment i hear about having to add a new shield top and bottom.. umm no... the shields all meet at the top and bottom... you already have people firing from directly above and below ships now... the same as if it went 90 or 360 degrees... nothing in that department would change, so no new shiields are needed.


why do people keep thinking and saying that?!?! i'm confused by it.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
04-20-2010, 09:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Verhey View Post
as for the comment i hear about having to add a new shield top and bottom.. umm no... the shields all meet at the top and bottom... you already have people firing from directly above and below ships now... the same as if it went 90 or 360 degrees... nothing in that department would change, so no new shiields are needed.


why do people keep thinking and saying that?!?! i'm confused by it.
Well. Having cubic rather than square-derived sensor facings seems more natural to some in a 3-D world. I would prefer having them but not so strongly that I think it's an issue.
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 09:36 PM.