Movement during space combat... 2D or 3D?

[dturne10]

So the Star Trek we all know and love has space battles in three dimensions. But most of the Star Trek games I've played before were 2-D (SFC, Dominion Wars, Armada...) while the only space combat Trek games I've played in 3-D were...the ps1 game (can't remember the name)... and the Star Trek 25th anniversary DOS game (which was amazing!...).

So I guess I really want to know... is the space combat in STO going to be two-dimensional or three-dimensional? And how will it be controlled?

It's probably a silly question... but it seems like a lot of the screenshots we've seen thus far are contained in the same more or less horizontal plane. So are we going to get to play around with the Z axis when plotting courses? Or will we even be plotting courses? Are we going to be navigating via WASD like in other MMOs?

(and by 3D, i mean 3 dimensions of movement, not limited to one plane)

[IpsoFacto88]

I got a feeling it's going to be like legacy instead of somthing like bridgecommander

[whatinblueblazes]

Looking at the trailer footage, it looked like at least some depth of 3-D motion to me.

[Kirky]

I got a feeling it's going to be like legacy instead of somthing like bridgecommander

Both were 3D, so what exactly do you mean?

[Toaster87]

U mean crap instead of somehting good?

3D and hopefully the maneuvers wont be basic

[thefrayl]

I'm pretty sure we'll be able to navigate around objects, and battle in full 3-Dimensional space. But I'll bet you plotting courses on the map will be very 2-Dimensional in nature. Galaxies are believed and understood to be enormous spinning "Discs" of mass, after all.

[Toaster87]

Why go through an astroide field when u cna go above it lol

[IpsoFacto88]

Both were 3D, so what exactly do you mean?

I Meant in terms of movement in legacy the ships could only move on one plane eg they could not roll where as bc you could upside down and at differnt angles relative to another ship

[Kirky]

To answer your question, as far as I know there has been no explicit mention of whether the combat will be 3D or not however, I believe Cryptic is going down the 3D route. I suppose they're going to use some form of 3D 'box' as a solar system, allowing players to move in any direction inside this box. I have no idea as to how this would work, as I have a very limited knowledge of scripting, and programming in general.

[TruthSeer]

Looking at the trailer footage, it looked like at least some depth of 3-D motion to me.

He's right watch the trailer:

http://www.startrekonline.com/videos

watch the part with the borg battle, you can see the Federation ships traveling on a 3D plane.

[Toaster87]

Well on the ingame trailer the ships are moving u and down past the cubes....

[Kirky]

I Meant in terms of movement in legacy the ships could only move on one plane eg they could not roll where as bc you could upside down and at differnt angles relative to another ship

Ahhh, so that's it. Well I hope they take more of their inspiration from Bridge Commander, as it's one of the finest space combat sims I've ever had the pleasure to play, and some of the mods for it are simply incredible.

[BreachAndClear]

I have no problem with the Legacy type of system, so long as it is more refined and not as buggy. Subsystem targeting should be made more user friendly, and entering gravitational fields and colliding with another ship should result in damage.

[whatinblueblazes]

I think that if the devs were to borrow any concept from Legacy's combat engine, it'd likely be the way that ships automatically orient themselves along the same plane, regardless of their position in a three-dimensional space. If you look at the trailer, while ships move up and down in a three-dimensional space, you don't ever see them 'upside down' or at right angles relative to one another.

While this doesn't make very much sense from the perspective of gameplay or actual space physics, it does duplicate the way most battles in Star Trek were shown on-screen -- even in the massive fleet battles in Deep Space Nine, ships were basically all aligned the same way. In the context of big fleet engagements, it looked much better this way.

I'm not really advocating for this approach, as I think that other space simulators have worked really well without this feature -- notably Klingon Academy and Bridge Commander. I personally could go either way.

[wingnutf22]

The same plane idea, works and prevents you from getting lost. I would like it to be you could manuever how you pleased in three dimensions but when you clicked, a key tapped a stick whatever, it auto orients you to the galactic plane.

[whatinblueblazes]

The same plane idea, works and prevents you from getting lost. I would like it to be you could manuever how you pleased in three dimensions but when you clicked, a key tapped a stick whatever, it auto orients you to the galactic plane.

I really like that idea as a compromise between the two systems.

[wingnutf22]

I like it because if you get disoriented after performing a roll or some such you can quicly orientate yourself and figure out where everything is, I don't want to be warping up instead of down when one leads to open space and the other a star.

[ivan50265]

Yeah I'm seeing 3d in the trailer. It may not be soper realisitc but it does open the possibility of some cool maneuvers in combat.

[Urantia]

He's right watch the trailer:

http://www.startrekonline.com/videos

watch the part with the borg battle, you can see the Federation ships traveling on a 3D plane.

I get your meaning, but there is no such thing as a 3D plane...planes are 2D [Euclidian Geometry]. But aye...I sincerely hope we can move in any vector r = <x, y, z>. Granted it will be an illusion either way.

[Urantia]

I'm pretty sure we'll be able to navigate around objects, and battle in full 3-Dimensional space. But I'll bet you plotting courses on the map will be very 2-Dimensional in nature. Galaxies are believed and understood to be enormous spinning "Discs" of mass, after all.

Yes in grade school.

[dturne10]

Granted it will be an illusion either way.

Wellll yeah. At the end of the day, it's still just a graphical representation on a flat screen =)

But thanks for the reassurance. As much as I loved SFC, I was really looking forward to some cool maneuvering in three dimensions in STO. I'm glad to see you guys agree.

[Toaster87]

In Bridge Commander u cna fly through a Romulan warbird in a small ship like a maquis raider, delta flyer etc etc if you do it just right and it feels good after u do it lol

[GozerTC]

Well thanks to Eve online we know space combat CAN be done in full "3D" realitivly well. I also don't mind the "re-orienting" method of 3D space combat. Though I would like to be able to take damage on my "Upper" and "Lower" sheilds thus making them worth while.

[weirdguy]

Full 3D space doesn't get you anything of a tactical advantage.

The term I prefer to use is 2-1/2 D space combat. You will be able to pitch up and down, but it looks to me like your ship will always be wings level with the world. If you turn while in a steep climb, you just corkscrew around the Z axis.

Sort of like using the Flying power in City of Heroes. Hell, it might even be the same computer code!

And I whole heartedly think that is the way to go. I don't like losing situational awareness. I want a radar map that is top down, all the time, and be done with it. All the other space combat games (Bridge Commander included, and I love that game) always fall flat when it comes to a decent radar display. 2-1/2 D combat would solve that.

[Itsbeenalongroad]

As long as the ship has enough movement that top and bottom shields can be struck I'm happy. 2d seems very unacceptable though. I mean look at the picture at the top of this website, the 3 fed ships are all oriented differently. That's how a space battle should be, chaotic yet strategic.

[weirdguy]

Your assuming we will even have top and bottom shields.

I prefer to just have four shieilds myself. Six shields just seems redundant, and makes for a shiled indicator on the user interface that gets clunky. The games in the past with six shields either trys to also use the display to show battle damaged systems, and thus puts the top and bottom shields in the corner of the display where you don't see it (Klingon Academy), or they overlay them over your ship display (Bridge Commander). Both systems aren't really that intuitive.

I just would go with four. That is plenty, and gets rid of some nitpicky issues that you don't need.

[Toaster87]

So what happens when you get hit on the ventral side? what shield goes down?

[Teleon]

Your assuming we will even have top and bottom shields.

I prefer to just have four shieilds myself. Six shields just seems redundant, and makes for a shiled indicator on the user interface that gets clunky. The games in the past with six shields either trys to also use the display to show battle damaged systems, and thus puts the top and bottom shields in the corner of the display where you don't see it (Klingon Academy), or they overlay them over your ship display (Bridge Commander). Both systems aren't really that intuitive.

I just would go with four. That is plenty, and gets rid of some nitpicky issues that you don't need.

I full-heartedly disagree! I think six shield sections, Ventral, Dorsal, Port, Aft, Starboard and forward are a necessity in this style game. Cryptic said the games Starship combat is going to be slower paced… much like naval combat. This is actually a wonderful blessing as such a style certainly gives the player time to notice that his/her ventral shields are taking a beating and that you need to rotate your ship on its X or Y axis.

Now, I do understand your concern about the display. Thus, my suggestion to relic is to show a top and a side view of your ship. Not all at once. They can create a toggle button between the two views. Top/Side. In this way from the Top view you can see you aft, forward, port and starboard shields along with sub-systems and main systems damage. From the side view you would be able to see your Dorsal and Ventral shield conditions along with sub-systems and main systems that are difficult to see from the top view. Do you understand the image I have described?

[Itsbeenalongroad]

I agree with teleon, just because other games didn't have a great system implemented doesn't mean we should give up on it. Space is 3d, that's simply a fact, if this game exist on a 2d scale where my ship is basically a piece of paper with no top or bottom then I'm going to be pretty sad. In nemesis there are many times where the enterprise had to adjust it's manuevers so the reman warbird couldn't attack the ventral shields. Or there is also the time when the scimitar ploys one of the romulan ships into passing over it and the scimitar unleashes an awesome barrage ripping through the bottom shields and disabling the ship. These extra details would add so much to the game and enhance the immersion.

[Urantia]

Wellll yeah. At the end of the day, it's still just a graphical representation on a flat screen =)

But thanks for the reassurance. As much as I loved SFC, I was really looking forward to some cool maneuvering in three dimensions in STO. I'm glad to see you guys agree.

Aye my friend...the "Illusion" comment could not have been anymore "stating the obvious." I just like throwing that word about as it is the only reality lol. Find one place there is no illusion and I will make you rich (literally).

[dturne10]

Aye my friend...the "Illusion" comment could not have been anymore "stating the obvious." I just like throwing that word about as it is the only reality lol. Find one place there is no illusion and I will make you rich (literally).

Many people much smarter than me have tried... and failed. I'm gonna learn from their mistakes and just roll with it.

I agree with those in favor of having six different shields. Four just doesn't seem right... and only four shields would make for some wonky (if not arbitrary) methods of dispersing damage during a 3D space fight. And I guess six is also the more canon appropriate configuration.

I'm kind of curious about how adding the extra dimension will affect weapon arcs though. Once again drawing on my SFC days, you could always just fire your heavy weapons to the front of your ship... never had to worry about a torpedo smacking into your own saucer section, or anything like that. I'm wondering though, if the added dimension will allow for players to make use of heavy weapon blind spots, particularly when smaller, more maneuverable ships go up against the opposing faction's battlecruisers/dreadnoughts.

[evan.is.weyoun]

The way most games go, it'll be 3d limited. I hope it's not, though, EVE is 3d limited. Basically this means you can move up, down, whichever way but it's like water, meaning there is a programmed "up" and "down" so that you're always top-side up unless you're going somewhere at an angle, but once you get there you move back to top-side up. I want a space game that'll be like real space: you can pretty much be aligned any way. In space, you could look upside to another player and they look upside down to you. There is no up or down, and I think it would be really cool if Cryptic could do something like that.

[weirdguy]

LImited 3D (or what I called 2-1/2D) is what you saw in the trailer borg fight.

As much as people like full 3D, I don't. I think the user interfaces for every 3D game I've played, from Wing commander, to TIE fighter, to Klingon Academy, to Bridge commander have not yet ever figured out a good user interface for it. That rotating radar sphere of dots with altitude lines is usually what people go with, and that ends up not working out that well.

Or they go with two hemisphers, front and back. But then you can't tell how far away something is.

If notbody has figured out that problem by now, I don't see Cryptic making an obvious break through either.

No, the top down, map view style of radar display has always worked best, and that will be easier to use if your ship is automatically kept so that up is up, and down is down.

However, with a limited 3D, I would still like to be able to loop my ship in an Imellman or Split-S turn. Hitting a "stop" when pitched up 89 degrees is not funny.

[Teleon]

If your concern is about the radar, the solution is a 3d grid displaying the immediate levels to your dorsal, ventral, aft, port, starboard and forward positions. Think of it as a cube.

What Cryptic can do is simply layer the cube by a 9 by 9 user rotatable cube with the middle cubit = to your Star ship. Again, this 3D cube is rotatable by the user with the port, aft, dorsal, ventral, starboard and forward positions of your ship labeled and affixed so that you can know the orientation of your ship.

Now, for locating enemy vessels. You place a red dot in any of the cubes outside of the middle cubit. You now have the direction of approach. How do you then get the distance? You simply draw a red line to a number displaying the KM or M. Done. You now have a real representation. How hard was that again? Not hard my friend, not that hard at all. Please pass this information onto Cryptic.

BTW, I'm a 3D environment artist. I know from experience that this type of radar is doable.

[thefrayl]

Yes in grade school.

Ok then. :confused:

[Starrider543]

i think that impulse ship movement should be 3d while warp movement would be generally 2d (like spore)

[Starrider543]

as for navigation, i think you would be able to program flight and attack patterns to hotkeys that your npc helmsman would fly for you or you could fly yourself.

for warp flight, you should see a star map and plot a course for your helmsman to follow.

[Starrider543]

LImited 3D (or what I called 2-1/2D) is what you saw in the trailer borg fight.

As much as people like full 3D, I don't. I think the user interfaces for every 3D game I've played, from Wing commander, to TIE fighter, to Klingon Academy, to Bridge commander have not yet ever figured out a good user interface for it. That rotating radar sphere of dots with altitude lines is usually what people go with, and that ends up not working out that well.

Or they go with two hemisphers, front and back. But then you can't tell how far away something is.

If notbody has figured out that problem by now, I don't see Cryptic making an obvious break through either.

No, the top down, map view style of radar display has always worked best, and that will be easier to use if your ship is automatically kept so that up is up, and down is down.

However, with a limited 3D, I would still like to be able to loop my ship in an Imellman or Split-S turn. Hitting a "stop" when pitched up 89 degrees is not funny.

what is limited 3d?

[Urantia]

Ok then. :confused:

It was nothing personal....I just never dealt well with over simplifications (though I got your meaning). I am sure you see the Galaxy far more complex than you stated. Imagination is probably the best way to model it in all good humor....but naturally, and truly, it is far more complex (and beautiful) than most realize...or care to.

Forgive me if I am a tad "sappy" but I have been awake for several days so I am less reserved.

[Urantia]

[QUOTE=dturne10;343033]Many people much smarter than me have tried... and failed. I'm gonna learn from their mistakes and just roll with it.

I agree with those in favor of having six different shields. Four just doesn't seem right... and only four shields would make for some wonky (if not arbitrary) methods of dispersing damage during a 3D space fight. And I guess six is also the more canon appropriate configuration.

I'm kind of curious about how adding the extra dimension will affect weapon arcs though. Once again drawing on my SFC days, you could always just fire your heavy weapons to the front of your ship... never had to worry about a torpedo smacking into your own saucer section, or anything like that. I'm wondering though, if the added dimension will allow for players to make use of heavy weapon blind spots, particularly when smaller, more maneuverable ships go up against the opposing faction's battlecruisers/dreadnoughts.[/[QUOTE].

It would be a safe guess too assume that it would make for a more realisitic feel...as opposed to bobbing up and down, banking, et cetera (like in SFC). In short, just fool our brains better. But aye, the whole "big" versus "small," blind spots and so one would be really nice touches. Just as you imagined it would I presume.

[thefrayl]

It was nothing personal....I just never dealt well with over simplifications (though I got your meaning). I am sure you see the Galaxy far more complex than you stated. Imagination is probably the best way to model it in all good humor....but naturally, and truly, it is far more complex (and beautiful) than most realize...or care to.

Forgive me if I am a tad "sappy" but I have been awake for several days so I am less reserved.

The real truth is that the universe is far more complex than we lowly humans can even grasp at our current state. I have a great interest in the universe, and I love reading and watching material pertaining to it. And while it's fascinating to learn about theories, it's also humorous in a way, because ultimately, we don't have a clue. It's a culmination of our race's best guesses.

I just prefer not to attempt to write a small book explaining humankind's scientific theories on how it all works. Essentially, we see large swirling discs when we look at other galaxies. That might not do it justice, but I believe that sums it up nicely.

Have a bottle of nyquil! :)

But, back to the matter at hand, I think we'll see warp navigation handled somewhat similar to Mass Effect's "Star Map". I would be happy with that, just with far more destinations therein, of course.

[Xidane]

Personally I'm hoping the ship combat plays like Star Trek Bridge Commander,
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ynk_ooOgR0w&feature=related (You might want to mute the annoying music)

As for boarding enemy ships, and away mission I hope it play out like these

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=qmHBQK...eature=related (Ship/station boarding parties)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWeiT...eature=related (Melee combat, just picture a Bat'leth doing this)

[Urantia]

The real truth is that the universe is far more complex than we lowly humans can even grasp at our current state. I have a great interest in the universe, and I love reading and watching material pertaining to it. And while it's fascinating to learn about theories, it's also humorous in a way, because ultimately, we don't have a clue. It's a culmination of our race's best guesses.

I just prefer not to attempt to write a small book explaining humankind's scientific theories on how it all works. Essentially, we see large swirling discs when we look at other galaxies. That might not do it justice, but I believe that sums it up nicely.

Have a bottle of nyquil! :)

But, back to the matter at hand, I think we'll see warp navigation handled somewhat similar to Mass Effect's "Star Map". I would be happy with that, just with far more destinations therein, of course.

Hehe....I do not want to sedate myself....I am awake this long on purpose. Sleep deprivation and I make strange bed fellows :).

[wingnutf22]

Many people much smarter than me have tried... and failed. I'm gonna learn from their mistakes and just roll with it.

I agree with those in favor of having six different shields. Four just doesn't seem right... and only four shields would make for some wonky (if not arbitrary) methods of dispersing damage during a 3D space fight. And I guess six is also the more canon appropriate configuration.

I'm kind of curious about how adding the extra dimension will affect weapon arcs though. Once again drawing on my SFC days, you could always just fire your heavy weapons to the front of your ship... never had to worry about a torpedo smacking into your own saucer section, or anything like that. I'm wondering though, if the added dimension will allow for players to make use of heavy weapon blind spots, particularly when smaller, more maneuverable ships go up against the opposing faction's battlecruisers/dreadnoughts.

I could see a hit to the upper or lower shields being evenly distributed to the other shields on the vessel, the distribution would be even and would be equal to one quarter the total damage on each shield. Makes it un-appealing to show your belly to the enemy.

[Itsbeenalongroad]

I could see a hit to the upper or lower shields being evenly distributed to the other shields on the vessel, the distribution would be even and would be equal to one quarter the total damage on each shield. Makes it un-appealing to show your belly to the enemy.

Are you talking about if we only had 4 shields? Because if we have 6 I think the top and bottom should be affected like all the rest, on their own. Not distributed among the others. Enterprise never lost all their shields at once in a fight (except to odd circumstances) the enemy almost always targeted one set and brought them down that way. Except for voyager who seemed to have a sphere while even the sovereign in nemesis had seperate ones. Kind of odd but whatever I guess lol.

[Cryptic_Fan_101]

I'm hoping for something akin to a cross between EVE Online and an RTS game (like Relic's Homeworld).

Basically, you'd determine your ship's goal destination and flight characteristics, while the computer would micromanage evasive & aggressive maneuvers. Of course you'd be able to override/alter this behavior at your discretion, but it would be more of a tactical distinction, rather than something resembling a "twitch" sim.

Ideally, in combat, you'd be able to prioritize what part(s) of your ship you'd like to protect from your opponent's line of fire, as well as what part(s) of their ship(s) you'd like to keep in your line of fire.

Edit: In short, I'd rather play chess than dodge ball. :D

[weirdguy]

I think this whole thread can be summed up by one simple question.

Is there a permanent "up" to outer space in this game?

I think we've all pretty much agreed from watching the trailer that it seems the answer is yes.

Now we're just making glue out of that poor, poor, very dead horse.

But, Cryptic Fan 101, I tend to doubt very much we will see and autopilot like you just describe. I get the impression it will be like other games and you just fly around using WASD keys.

[Itsbeenalongroad]

I'm hoping for something akin to a cross between EVE Online and an RTS game (like Relic's Homeworld).

Basically, you'd determine your ship's goal destination and flight characteristics, while the computer would micromanage evasive & aggressive maneuvers. Of course you'd be able to override/alter this behavior at your discretion, but it would be more of a tactical distinction, rather than something resembling a "twitch" sim.

Ideally, in combat, you'd be able to prioritize what part(s) of your ship you'd like to protect from your opponent's line of fire, as well as what part(s) of their ship(s) you'd like to keep in your line of fire.

Edit: In short, I'd rather play chess than dodge ball. :D

At first glance I thought I would really disagree with you when I was reading that..........but I really like that idea. As long as it is something more in depth than EvE's system, I think I would really like that a lot better than a twitch system. I mean we are playing this game to be a Captain of our own ship, not the helmsman. I mean the option could still obviously be there like you said, but that sounds like a really cool way to do it.

I really want something (along these lines would be cool) that makes it feel like all those old ship battles you see in movies llike master and commander, or the pirates movies. Those ships weren't zooming past one another, they were moving skillfully into posistion and releasing everything they had at the right moment. That just screams cool.

[Tranchera]

I just hope you can use the WASD and numbers to control directly instead of clicking like in EVE. That was another thing that turned me off it; I couldn't freakin' control my ship!

[Urantia]

I think this whole thread can be summed up by one simple question.

Is there a permanent "up" to outer space in this game?

I think we've all pretty much agreed from watching the trailer that it seems the answer is yes.

Now we're just making glue out of that poor, poor, very dead horse.

But, Cryptic Fan 101, I tend to doubt very much we will see and autopilot like you just describe. I get the impression it will be like other games and you just fly around using WASD keys.

Get used to it...we make a lot of glue around here. It is polite to make glue :).

[Itsbeenalongroad]

I just hope you can use the WASD and numbers to control directly instead of clicking like in EVE. That was another thing that turned me off it; I couldn't freakin' control my ship!

I think both systems should be in. WASD with numbers for during when you are just flying around, and a HIGHLYYYYYYYY improved system that RESEMBLES the one in EvE but draws more from strategy like cryptic fan discussed. The latter would be used during combat, or could I should say.

[weirdguy]

I always love the user interface that comes with games developed outside the USA, like EVE Online made in Iceland.

You see, the story I have been told is that they try to be more mouse controlled, and less keyboard so they can have one hand free for cigarette smoking while they play.

No joke!

[Cryptic_Fan_101]

As long as it is something more in depth than EvE's system...

Oh heck yeah. I don't intend to beat up on EVE — I know there are folks who really enjoy their system and are quite adept at it. But personally, I found it less than ideal. In that game, you essentially either try to orbit your opponent at an optimal distance (which can very greatly depending on the situation) to minimize your risk and maximize your effect, or you just kite. In PvE combat, it's mind-numbingly dull. In PvP combat, it's often awkward as best, and/or so fast-paced it leaves little margin for error.

What I'm hoping for is something that's rich in strategy (and eye candy), but very intuitive. Something much more akin to tall ship battles, with the game's AI choreographing all the "finesse", twitch-like maneuvers. More Knights of the Old Republic, than Jade Empire.

I want to tell my helmsman, "attack pattern delta two" or "evasive pattern gamma four" instead of trying to execute an Immelman myself with the WASD keys and mouse (though if someone's into that, more power to them).