Go Back   Star Trek Online > Feedback > PvP Gameplay
Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
One thing I do not like about Arena fights is that a lot of the combat is happening at the edges - typically the upper edge. The reason is that people tend to move higher and higher over time, leading to the odd spiraling movement upwards.

I think there is at least one contributing factor that - the current flight angles and turn rates create a "blind spot" for dual cannon users where they cannot fire a target above them. As I say in my signature, we would not have to go "full 3d" to avoid that - we just need to add a few degrees to the maximin flight angle to avoid that.

The spiraling to the top is annoying due to the tediousness of moving up all the distance (in a spiraling pattern too boot), but it is also sad because there is so much interesting geometry scattered through the rest of the map, and it's barely used. There is not much Hide and Seek going on in the asteroid belts, and I don't think I've ever seen a ship damanged from metreon gas clouds in an arena.

I think Arena maps could use a redesign, or at least future designs should take this into account. Capture & Hold maps can avoid the issue mostly (but not all), simply because you have to be near those "interesting geometries" to win.

I think there should be incentives to use the elements in the map. Maybe a PvP related mission or accolade like "Win an Arena match and destroy 5 Metreon Clouds" or some such. Alternatively, there might be mechanical penalties to fly to the edges of the map, like a power drain or a dangerous geometry at the edges...

Maybe kills between the asteroids count extra, or kills outside a certain radius don't count at all.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
03-17-2011, 05:54 AM
The ascend/descent angle restrictions are ridiculous IMO. This is space for crying out loud. WW1 Bi-Planes in atmosphere have more manueverability than these spaceships. 3D movement is not complex, people's brains won't overload and explode with the extra freedom. But if Cryptic thinks people couldn't handle 3D movement, at least let us go straight up and down, 85-90 degree pitch. As it is right now, wide arc attacks exploit this vertical limitation against low arc attacks. We have to use some piloting skill to keep targets in horizontal arc, but we're artificially restricted from getting vertical arc. You gotta fly off yonder to get a higher horizontal plane, then turn around all while the ship on top of you is raining down beam fire on you. It's kinda like we're in submarines.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
03-17-2011, 06:01 AM
I agree too many beamboats like to exploit the mechanic, they can fire down at 90 degrees cannons cannot fire at 90 degrees. Also is it just me but it seems cannons have a 45 degree left to right firing arc and like 5 degree up and down, sans turrets.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
03-17-2011, 06:13 AM
Just a fair reminder of previous discussion. We will never ever have 360 flight models. So I wouldn't ask for it - it just leads to more resistance by the Devs. I hope they'll eventually increase the flight angles to 67.5 or even 70. I'd be happy for that, and there are at least balance concerns why it would need to be done. But asking more is futile. There are no balance concerns to argue for that, and there seems to be enough data for Cryptic suggesting that no matter how much a vocal minority wants 360 flight, a majority doesn't handle it well. And it also seems as if the franchise holder (CBS) doesn't want it. it's part of the image of the franchise. (IMO, they should have thought about that before they introduced Carriers, but hey, everyone makes mistakes.)

Also, even 360 angles won't make people utlize the asteroids, bases and nebulas more. Stopping the mechanical benefits of spiraling up is just the first thing to do in a long line of things.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
03-17-2011, 06:53 AM
Yeah the 67.5 (I would rather it be 70 though just to have an even number) would be nice.

But we know that's not going to happen. They have no desire to ensure that there will be a balance between Cannons and Beams. (the ironic thing is on a linear plane it works out fine... )

But everyone knows the Cone is so narrow that they avoid it. Heck I've seen cruisers mounting EPTE just to get above Escorts. If that's not a thorough demonstration of the game's poor 3d mechanics nothing is.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
03-17-2011, 07:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock_Monster View Post
The ascend/descent angle restrictions are ridiculous IMO. This is space for crying out loud. WW1 Bi-Planes in atmosphere have more manueverability than these spaceships. 3D movement is not complex, people's brains won't overload and explode with the extra freedom. But if Cryptic thinks people couldn't handle 3D movement, at least let us go straight up and down, 85-90 degree pitch. As it is right now, wide arc attacks exploit this vertical limitation against low arc attacks. We have to use some piloting skill to keep targets in horizontal arc, but we're artificially restricted from getting vertical arc. You gotta fly off yonder to get a higher horizontal plane, then turn around all while the ship on top of you is raining down beam fire on you. It's kinda like we're in submarines.
Full 3D movement IS confusing. It would be yet another thing to keep an eye on. There are just too many BOFF and captain powers you need to keep an eye on for keeping your ship rotated the correct way.

This game is actually quite enjoyable for the reason that it doesn't have unlimited 3D movement. In the show ships were generally portrayed as flying around in the same plane, so why not here? Cryptic has a winning formula with the space combat and is one of the main reasons a lot of people play STO. I would like an increased movement angle, but certainly not full 3d movement. Besides, if you introduced full 3D movement, would that mean that air resistance would have to be removed as well (meaning you would have to reverse the ship in order to stop moving)?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
03-17-2011, 07:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quetzaal
This game is actually quite enjoyable for the reason that it doesn't have unlimited 3D movement. In the show ships were generally portrayed as flying around in the same plane, so why not here? I would like an increased movement angle, but certainly not full 3d movement. Besides, if you introduced full 3D movement, would that mean that air resistance would have to be removed as well (meaning you would have to reverse the ship in order to stop moving)?
Not necessarily. Some off-screen information (e.g. not "real" canon but close enough that it might be considered) suggest that 24th century vessels do not really use conventional thrust-based propulsion anymore, and instead use low-level subspace fields, basically a less power-draining sublight use of warp. That was the rationale used to explain why the Nebula has no visible impulse engines, and it was stated in the technical manual of the Enterprise D. (I am not sure which of the two came first - Nebula rationale or manual).

That would suggest to slow down, you just lower the strength of the warp field or something like that, you don' have to turn around.
Also, on screen statements suggest that impulse engines have thrust reversers, so they might be able to be directed forward and aft with similar effectiveness, requiring no actual turning.

A realistic, 360 flight model would look nothing like Startrek. There are very few games that actually had that. Even the X-Wing series of games from Lucas Games did not have that. They had 360, but still had pseudo-friction and general airplane-like movements. The first game I know to have this done "realistically" was Independence War.

But we're veering off-topic.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
03-17-2011, 07:30 AM
Star Trek Bridge Commander had a full 3D flight model. And it was good, very good.

Nobody would expect a full blown Newtonian physics flight model, a simple roll/pitch system is sufficient. For me, I can easily picture it within the current game. But oh well.

Regardless, increased pitch angle would be welcomed by all I would think. I mean, who hasn't been peeved at least once by a ship you couldn't shoot either right above or below you.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
03-17-2011, 07:33 AM
90 degrees please!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
03-17-2011, 07:57 AM
Yes this is really annoying.

But my suggestion would not be to ajust the flight angle a few degrees, just of increase the vertical firing angle of cannons from now 45 to 60 (i would even suggest 70).

This change would make it easier to avoid cannons by horizontal moving, than by spiraling up. That somehow forces people to more maneuver in the horizontal plane, which as we know from the devs is the plane where STOs space combat should be primarily focused.
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 08:14 AM.