Cover System

[Calistah]

Over the last weekend I got to see and play STO a bit, and one of the things that struck me as very odd was the player combat. Not the ship combat mind you, but the away team stuff.

It seemed very strange to me to have a group of people armed with phaser rifles standing out in the open just firing away and getting shot in the process.

Are there any plans for a sort of cover system that would add a defensive bonus and make the combat a little less silly looking?

[jblancato]

We've already got a cover system in place. Check out the most recent Ask Cryptic (http://www.startrekonline.com/node/363):

First, you need line of sight to shoot a target, so you can run for cover behind a rock or something and not be shot. But more specifically, your personal shields on the ground regenerate quickly if you haven’t been shot – we call it a shield pop. So if you start getting in trouble, you want to run behind a corner really quickly, and your shields regenerate so you can rejoin the battle. We actually have a number of force field devices you can drop in the ground, which will provide cover for you to dodge behind.

It’s not a context-sensitive mechanic, where you push a button and go into a special cover mode with a defense buff or anything. The system is designed to keep you moving, not hiding behind things and watching your Bridge Officers fight.

If your Bridge Officers weren't trying to get behind something, it's likely because their shields were holding up.

[TruthSeer]

My only question about combat is if, like in the videos we've seen, we'll be seeing the AI firing at each other from two feet away.

[Mavrixx]

This is a concern of mine too. It seems very un-military and un-treklike to have 2 guys standing still blasting away at each other.

[Tamgros]

My only question about combat is if, like in the videos we've seen, we'll be seeing the AI firing at each other from two feet away.

That's kind of hard to prevent in any game. Even SWTOR with their highly touted reaction animations have this, and it looks just as silly as it does in STO (just watch SWTOR demo:))

That isn't to say there isn't anything STO can do. I too would like to see a bit more than just a LOS system. If I'm standing behind an object, I should get a %increase in either evading the shot if I'm behind a solid object or a %damage decrease if I'm behind a tree or bush (something that would more deflect shots).

The LOS system they have in place is pretty solid though. I was testing it out a bunch and I was hard pressed to get a shot to go through a wall, and the animations for shots hitting the walls is pretty cool :)

[Calistah]

Whatever the mechanic, it looked extremely silly and not reminiscent of any phaser fight I've seen.

[Mavrixx]

Whatever the mechanic, it looked extremely silly and not reminiscent of any phaser fight I've seen.



Should add sticks with flags coming out of the phasers saying "ZAAP!!!" like on the old TV shows.

[Loekii]

We've already got a cover system in place. Check out the most recent Ask Cryptic (http://www.startrekonline.com/node/363):

If your Bridge Officers weren't trying to get behind something, it's likely because their shields were holding up.

Imo, I think that the idea of 'Shields' replacing cover = not fun.

Standing there just 'pew pew pewing' because I have a 'Shield', just seems very unfullfilling.

I would rather see ground combat do more.

Imo, I think part of the reason Ground Combat seems 'stale/boring', is because it is too static, and shields take away from the fun of combat. I mean basically, it looks like you can just sit there an spam hotbar buttons - with not much worry about getting hit.

I think Combat would be improved, if there were greater motivations to not just stand there shooting, but rather seeking cover before your Shield goes down.

[Loekii]

My only question about combat is if, like in the videos we've seen, we'll be seeing the AI firing at each other from two feet away.

I agree. There is no reason we should see that. Infact, AI programming should specifically avoid it, imo.

IIRC, WoW's range user Mobs did not have this issue.

[Tamgros]

Imo, I think that the idea of 'Shields' replacing cover = not fun.

Standing there just 'pew pew pewing' because I have a 'Shield', just seems very unfullfilling.

I would rather see ground combat do more.

Imo, I think part of the reason Ground Combat seems 'stale/boring', is because it is too static, and shields take away from the fun of combat. I mean basically, it looks like you can just sit there an spam hotbar buttons - with not much worry about getting hit.

I think Combat would be improved, if there were greater motivations to not just stand there shooting, but rather seeking cover before your Shield goes down.


To further this, just because I have shielding left, doesn't mean I should have no reaction. I mean, it's obvious what's going to happen after the shields go down, why wait?

If you put some sort of % cover system in place, that would give players/NPCs an incentive to find cover against the incoming fire. This actually encourages movement. To prevent people from being stagnant behind one object, just make maps where flanking and stuff are very real possibilities. This would make battles active and tactical.

If you want a point of reference, I'm thinking one of those pro paintball matches.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c01Nt7QWJLk&feature=fvw

[Sunborn]

While I'm not sure it is a cover system that is needed. I do agree that the run and gun nature of the ground battles seems off. Some of those enemies were taking some 6-7 shots to put down. In the shows and movies, Very rarely have I seen it take more then 2 or 3 shots to put down a strong opponent with a phaser, and more often then not 1 is enough. I'm not entirely sure making these characters more resilient to phaser fire is the answer to combat as Cryptic has done.

[williams.blaine]

<keep in mind I haven't played the game, yet>

It sounds like what would help ground combat a lot is if BOs were programmed to seek cover before their shields go down and to slightly reduce the efficiency of shields to make cover a bigger part of ground-play.

[ransomwk]

To further this, just because I have shielding left, doesn't mean I should have no reaction. I mean, it's obvious what's going to happen after the shields go down, why wait?

If you put some sort of % cover system in place, that would give players/NPCs an incentive to find cover against the incoming fire. This actually encourages movement. To prevent people from being stagnant behind one object, just make maps where flanking and stuff are very real possibilities. This would make battles active and tactical.

If you want a point of reference, I'm thinking one of those pro paintball matches.

Indeed, a good cover system almost forces movement, if your target is sitting behind something but can still hit you, then you need to get around to a different angle to flush them out. That or apply some explosives :D

[Loekii]

If you want a point of reference, I'm thinking one of those pro paintball matches.

It is what I have envisioned.

Basically, they need to take the current system and move it up a notch:

Increase Aggro -- when you have a weapon that has a range of 100', you probably should aggro on LOS within 100'.
Ranged NPCS stay at long range - Don't run up to 10' and shoot. Stay at 90' shooting at your target.
Player Lethality - Players shields should take fewer shots like the NPCs.
Implement some DEFENSIVE STANCE/COVER bonuses - if your target is behind a crate, its 30% harder to hit, etc.


Ground combat just looked too 'mindless' to me. The players group just simply 'mowed' through the enemy, without any real thought to tactics, approach, number, etc.

I enjoy that it is quicker pace than space, but I hate the appearance that my 5 year old nephew could probably get just as far as Tamgros and the others did in the videos. :(

[cipher_nemo]

Yeah, the 3-foot/1-meter up close combat with phasers seems a little silly, but meh. This is an MMO, not an FPS. I understand the technical difficulties of trying to make phase fire fights more like the shows/movies.

All in all, I'd say that if you're in a ground combat scenario/instance, and you stay back, the enemies will fire at long range too (unless they're Klingon and want to get in a Bat'leth swing or two). If you take your character running up to within melee range, the combat might seem a little silly at that point for phaser fire. For the most part, MMO ground combat is going to be what you make of it.

[Sunborn]

Actually the more I think about it the more I am of the opinion that the problem may stem, or at least be aggravated, from being able to take so many hits. Rarely do you see out in the open fights because one hit was usually enough to put be put down.

An away team like Riker, Data, Worf, and Geordie never just ran into an open room and started firing. They very carefully used cover to move through the area and get the drop on the enemy, usually from behind defended position. In almost every single Star Trek phaser fight I can think of this is how it was handled. Lots of careful planning, some stealth, get the drop and take them out, or get into a defensive position that forces the enemy out into the open and take them out.

[Loekii]

Actually the more I think about it the more I am of the opinion that the problem may stem, or at least be aggravated, from being able to take so many hits. Rarely do you see out in the open fights because one hit was usually enough to put be put down.

An away team like Riker, Data, Worf, and Geordie never just ran into an open room and started firing. They very carefully used cover to move through the area and get the drop on the enemy, usually from behind defended position. In almost every single Star Trek phaser fight I can think of this is how it was handled. Lots of careful planning, some stealth, get the drop and take them out, or get into a defensive position that forces the enemy out into the open and take them out.

I have long been opposed to the idea of 'Tanking' damage (taking multiple hits), and I agree this is part of the 'result' we see with such a system.

The system, and Rekhan's response, seems to indicate too much of a dependence around the 'Personal shield' system.

While I can appreciate the shield system, I think it does need to be reduced a bit -- replace one or two shield hits, with Dodge/Evade/Cover.

Basically, the idea of standing in an open field 'Pew-Pew-Pew', is not fun and should not be the foundation of the system -- ie you can do it because we have given you uber shielding.

Rather, if my team is ambushed in an field, we should be diving for cover of some sort, rather than turning like BORG, and firing with a thought about cover or defense.

[knightofhyrule730]

iie. No. nien.

Do no like non cover combat. standing behind a rock to break LOS is not cover. its boring and dumb.

and usually i agree with the devs. This is a horrible idea that i will complain and request modifications to all throughout beta about (assuming i ever get an email).

[eqfan592]

The problem with reducing the number of hits is that you starting getting to that area where you are sacrificing fun in the name of realism. For your average player, a situation where they are dropped within a few moments of a fight because they simply weren't fast enough to find cover is a game breaking mechanic. If they wanted to play a game like that, they'd be playing Call of Duty or something like that (this will be the statement made by that group of players).

Ultimately, ground combat has enough of a Trek feel to it to satisfy me at this point (at least from watching the videos). Is it perfect? No. But that sort of combat in an MMO is difficult at best to perfect without pushing away a big chunk of the audiance due to twitch style gameplay mechanics. My hope is for ground combat to be entertaining and have a solid trek feel, and so far it appears that they are on the right track for that.

This is just my humble oppionion, and I'm not saying that the rest of you are wrong at all, I'm just stating what I personally feel to be the reality of the situaiton, and that I'm OK with that reality.

[Sunborn]

The problem with reducing the number of hits is that you starting getting to that area where you are sacrificing fun in the name of realism. For your average player, a situation where they are dropped within a few moments of a fight because they simply weren't fast enough to find cover is a game breaking mechanic. If they wanted to play a game like that, they'd be playing Call of Duty or something like that (this will be the statement made by that group of players).

Ultimately, ground combat has enough of a Trek feel to it to satisfy me at this point (at least from watching the videos). Is it perfect? No. But that sort of combat in an MMO is difficult at best to perfect without pushing away a big chunk of the audiance due to twitch style gameplay mechanics. My hope is for ground combat to be entertaining and have a solid trek feel, and so far it appears that they are on the right track for that.

This is just my humble oppionion, and I'm not saying that the rest of you are wrong at all, I'm just stating what I personally feel to be the reality of the situaiton, and that I'm OK with that reality.

I understand what you are saying. I'm not advocating twitch style game play myself. I think what I'm advocating is a little more emphasis on planning and stealth, as well as more of a need for cover, which can be achieved by making the battles a little more dangerous.

Lets say it takes 6 hits to take down one of your bridge officers. I don't want that to be reduced to 2. But I would like to see the number of hits reduced, and/or I would like to see it become every more important for that bridge officer to get out of the open with each hit.

As for making the battles more dangerous it's not like there is a penalty for dieing anyway. You start back at the last 'check point' anyway.

[Avantos]

While I'm not sure it is a cover system that is needed. I do agree that the run and gun nature of the ground battles seems off. Some of those enemies were taking some 6-7 shots to put down. In the shows and movies, Very rarely have I seen it take more then 2 or 3 shots to put down a strong opponent with a phaser, and more often then not 1 is enough. I'm not entirely sure making these characters more resilient to phaser fire is the answer to combat as Cryptic has done.

The only "problem" with this is, well, consider this. Your away team of 5 beams down to the planet, there are 15 enemies that you have to go through to reach your target. 5 of them target you. If you can only take 3 shots, max, before you go down, that'll make the mission very difficult to beat. Or if 4 Klingons rush you, you take 3 of them out, but the last one's Bat'leth gets to know your head VERY closely :)

While we may not really *like* the idea of personal shields, you've got to admit it'd be more fun to get in a serious firefight that you have a good chance of surviving with personal shields, than to get into a serious firefight, and - ZAP - 2 hits and you're out, need to respawn and start the mission over again (assuming that's how they handle when you're beat). And the Dev team has always said they will go the route that leads to fun rather than adhering strictly to what we see in the shows. Personaly I'd rather stick with what is fun, rather than adhering to canon and running into some frustrating situations....

[Griffin]

Remember guys, this is FUN!... right?

I mean, all that matters is that it's fun, screw realism, who needs cover? pfft, it's not as fun as running around like a headless chicken blasting the hell out of critters.


But seriously, I know you guys have dropped realism in space to make the game more playable and fun, but don;t turn ground combat into some kiddiefest, please. We can live without rolls and flips in space, but you need cover, you need dangerous enemies, you need aggro, different stances, different ranges, LESS INVINCIBLE MODE shielding and well scaled healthpoints. Ground combat needs some realism, more than you have now... A LOT more.

[Esgar]

While I'm not sure it is a cover system that is needed. I do agree that the run and gun nature of the ground battles seems off. Some of those enemies were taking some 6-7 shots to put down. In the shows and movies, Very rarely have I seen it take more then 2 or 3 shots to put down a strong opponent with a phaser, and more often then not 1 is enough. I'm not entirely sure making these characters more resilient to phaser fire is the answer to combat as Cryptic has done.

In the shows, everyone and their mother didn't have personal forcefields ;) (though I will admit the phaser fights in STO are reminisicent for me. I can never forget seeing security officers planting their feet firmly in the ground in the middle of a hallway and firing at their opponents, lol).


While I am in the bot of "Cover should do more" (that 'civil war style' line-up-and-shoot-at-their-line from one of the vids made me sadface) I do take it with a grain of salt however, as shields might very well play into it more as we advance and fight enemies with much deadlier weapons.

[eqfan592]

I understand what you are saying. I'm not advocating twitch style game play myself. I think what I'm advocating is a little more emphasis on planning and stealth, as well as more of a need for cover, which can be achieved by making the battles a little more dangerous.

Lets say it takes 6 hits to take down one of your bridge officers. I don't want that to be reduced to 2. But I would like to see the number of hits reduced, and/or I would like to see it become every more important for that bridge officer to get out of the open with each hit.

As for making the battles more dangerous it's not like there is a penalty for dieing anyway. You start back at the last 'check point' anyway.

Hmm, I do see what you're saying a bit more. I have a feeling that this is something that's going to get worked on once we go into beta and the devs start getting a lot more direct feedback from the players.

As for dying, while you are correct that dying isn't the end of the world and it doesn't set you back a whole ton, there still comes a point for a player where you die so many times that it's just an exercise in frustration, and that should be avoided when possible.

[Loekii]

The problem with reducing the number of hits is that you starting getting to that area where you are sacrificing fun in the name of realism. For your average player, a situation where they are dropped within a few moments of a fight because they simply weren't fast enough to find cover is a game breaking mechanic. If they wanted to play a game like that, they'd be playing Call of Duty or something like that (this will be the statement made by that group of players).

Ultimately, ground combat has enough of a Trek feel to it to satisfy me at this point (at least from watching the videos). Is it perfect? No. But that sort of combat in an MMO is difficult at best to perfect without pushing away a big chunk of the audiance due to twitch style gameplay mechanics. My hope is for ground combat to be entertaining and have a solid trek feel, and so far it appears that they are on the right track for that.

This is just my humble oppionion, and I'm not saying that the rest of you are wrong at all, I'm just stating what I personally feel to be the reality of the situaiton, and that I'm OK with that reality.

I agree that Fun trumps realism.

For me, it is not fun to have a combat system so simplistic that my 5 year old nephew can 'Pwnz' Klingons -- but that doesn't mean that player should be destroyed in 1 second either.

Watching the gameplay video, the thing I noticed is that the NPCs were dropping at almost 2/3 the rate of players (no players even dropped iirc). This difference was not because the players were not getting hit, but rather tha they were 'Tanking' so much more damage, that it basically looks very boring and rather unenjoyable --- basically like farming Greys for materials.

Ground combat needs to be dynamic enough that it is fun and interesting, but, yes, should not be '1 shot kills'.

I think there is a lot of room between what they have now, and the dreaded '1 shot kills'.

[Loekii]

I understand what you are saying. I'm not advocating twitch style game play myself. I think what I'm advocating is a little more emphasis on planning and stealth, as well as more of a need for cover, which can be achieved by making the battles a little more dangerous.

Lets say it takes 6 hits to take down one of your bridge officers. I don't want that to be reduced to 2. But I would like to see the number of hits reduced, and/or I would like to see it become every more important for that bridge officer to get out of the open with each hit.

As for making the battles more dangerous it's not like there is a penalty for dieing anyway. You start back at the last 'check point' anyway.


I agree. If you currently can take 10 shots, it should be reduced to say 7 shots, and bonuses added for COVER/Defensive postures.

Right now, there does not seem to be much skill or challenge in the gameplay. You basically just 'mow' through your opponents, like you are farming Grey Mobs (trivial difficulty).

I mean, how many Player casualties did we see in the video? I saw zero. I don't think I even saw someone in any danger of dying.

[eqfan592]

I agree that Fun trumps realism.

For me, it is not fun to have a combat system so simplistic that my 5 year old nephew can 'Pwnz' Klingons -- but that doesn't mean that player should be destroyed in 1 second either.

Watching the gameplay video, the thing I noticed is that the NPCs were dropping at almost 2/3 the rate of players (no players even dropped iirc). This difference was not because the players were not getting hit, but rather tha they were 'Tanking' so much more damage, that it basically looks very boring and rather unenjoyable --- basically like farming Greys for materials.

Ground combat needs to be dynamic enough that it is fun and interesting, but, yes, should not be '1 shot kills'.

I think there is a lot of room between what they have now, and the dreaded '1 shot kills'.


I agree with what you're saying here. But something to keep in mind is that the videos we have been seeing are from a demo of the game where players were made MUCH harder to kill so they would have more of a chance to actually play the game and explore how it all works. Or at least, that was my understanding of how the demo's were set up. I'd like to see a regular running version of ground combat before I got too worked up.

But I do agree that it at the very least it shouldn't be as easy as it was in the game play demo's given at PAX.

[ransomwk]

I agree that Fun trumps realism.

For me, it is not fun to have a combat system so simplistic that my 5 year old nephew can 'Pwnz' Klingons -- but that doesn't mean that player should be destroyed in 1 second either.

Watching the gameplay video, the thing I noticed is that the NPCs were dropping at almost 2/3 the rate of players (no players even dropped iirc). This difference was not because the players were not getting hit, but rather tha they were 'Tanking' so much more damage, that it basically looks very boring and rather unenjoyable --- basically like farming Greys for materials.

Ground combat needs to be dynamic enough that it is fun and interesting, but, yes, should not be '1 shot kills'.

I think there is a lot of room between what they have now, and the dreaded '1 shot kills'.


Perhaps (I hope), what we've seen so far is just the beginner combat. Hopefully, as characters progress, weapon damage will increase faster than shield absorption, thus making LOS progressively more important to survival.

[Commander_Nate]

Haven't they said that there will be some kind of bleed-over effect with personal shields? Maybe as your shields get lower, more damage will bleed through, thus encouraging you or the AI to find cover.

I think that's about as real as you can expect from an RPG.

[Loekii]

Haven't they said that there will be some kind of bleed-over effect with personal shields? Maybe as your shields get lower, more damage will bleed through, thus encouraging you or the AI to find cover.

I think that's about as real as you can expect from an RPG.


However, unlike space, Ground combat is a faster pace.

I would hope that in ground combat, you don't really have the time to casually estimate how many hits you can absorb with your PDS, and when you have to find cover -- ie well I still can take another 7 hits, which gives me another 30 seconds of standing here like a scarecrow shooting.

Imo, finding cover or taking up defensive positions should be the Priority -- be your ambushed, or you are setting up an ambush.

Standing in the open, should be about as tactically effective as a WoW Healing Priest standing at melee with the Tank, casting their spells.

[Pdt_the_confused]

Umm...

as far as I am aware, players (both space and ground) were buffed (for the purposes of the demo - so everyone wouldnt get killed) beyond what one would normally experience in game.


Personally, I feel those who want a TOR style cover mechanic can go away. I very much dislike what I saw in that particular demo.

I would however find it interesting for a partial, variable, adaptive cover mechanic, but I think this would currently cause processor problems (on either server or client side).

Mayhap when they toss in subsystem targetting they can adjust it so we can do spot targetting on the ground too. but until we can target a portion of a npc/player, I dont see how this would work well.


yeah I am out of LoS but they still have a 5% chance to hit me? :eek:
no, it should work like this: hmm I cannot shoot him directly, but his hand is sticking out, let me target that and fire. (dont think it can be done that detailed though)

[Commander_Nate]

However, unlike space, Ground combat is a faster pace.

I would hope that in ground combat, you don't really have the time to casually estimate how many hits you can absorb with your PDS, and when you have to find cover -- ie well I still can take another 7 hits, which gives me another 30 seconds of standing here like a scarecrow shooting.

Imo, finding cover or taking up defensive positions should be the Priority -- be your ambushed, or you are setting up an ambush.

Standing in the open, should be about as tactically effective as a WoW Healing Priest standing at melee with the Tank, casting their spells.


Well, I think the demos we've seen have been buffed a bit.

I'm guessing a 10 second snap-shot of a ground battle would be something like this:

Start firing, get hit, Shields drop 25% with damage bleed through.

Get hit again, 20% shield drop, more damage bleed through.

Get hit a 3rd time, more damage gets through than blocked, find cover for a few sec for shields to recharge and possibly get medical treatment.

[jblancato]

I agree with what you're saying here. But something to keep in mind is that the videos we have been seeing are from a demo of the game where players were made MUCH harder to kill so they would have more of a chance to actually play the game and explore how it all works. Or at least, that was my understanding of how the demo's were set up. I'd like to see a regular running version of ground combat before I got too worked up.

But I do agree that it at the very least it shouldn't be as easy as it was in the game play demo's given at PAX.

This. We tweaked some stuff to eliminate a lot of the danger in both space and ground so we could get people through the demo more easily. For example, my Champs counterpart, Daeke, dies all the time on ground, whereas I'm practically invincible due to my superior tactical knowledge.

[SelorKiith]

Poor Daeke... :(

[The_Padre]

This. We tweaked some stuff to eliminate a lot of the danger in both space and ground so we could get people through the demo more easily. For example, my Champs counterpart, Daeke, dies all the time on ground, whereas I'm practically invincible due to my superior tactical knowledge.

Wasn't Daeke also the one who wasn't that good at space combat as well. or am I thinking of someone else?

[Commander_Nate]

I wonder if we'll be able to challenge Rekhan, in the form of a Gorn, to a hand-to-hand duel on Cestus III. That would be an interesting episode.

[Loekii]

This. We tweaked some stuff to eliminate a lot of the danger in both space and ground so we could get people through the demo more easily. For example, my Champs counterpart, Daeke, dies all the time on ground, whereas I'm practically invincible due to my superior tactical knowledge.

Translation:

Rekhan just has not told Daeke that you throw the grenade, not the pin. :p

[Esgar]

This. We tweaked some stuff to eliminate a lot of the danger in both space and ground so we could get people through the demo more easily. For example, my Champs counterpart, Daeke, dies all the time on ground, whereas I'm practically invincible due to my superior tactical knowledge.

Thanks for the clairification Rekhan. I hope we'll get to see some representative stuff soon :)

[Banar]

Translation:

Rekhan just has not told Daeke that you throw the grenade, not the pin. :p

Bingo. :D Well played sir, well played!

[knightofhyrule730]

Wasn't Daeke also the one who wasn't that good at space combat as well. or am I thinking of someone else?

Awen was pretty bad at space combat a few months ago. who knows how shes doing now (probably the same since she was shifted over to Champs)

[jblancato]

I wonder if we'll be able to challenge Rekhan, in the form of a Gorn, to a hand-to-hand duel on Cestus III. That would be an interesting episode.

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8741/lirpa06.jpg

Like Donkey Kong.

[Commander_Nate]

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8741/lirpa06.jpg

Like Donkey Kong.

Hahaha, nice! :D

[vobedarkelf]

This. We tweaked some stuff to eliminate a lot of the danger in both space and ground so we could get people through the demo more easily. For example, my Champs counterpart, Daeke, dies all the time on ground, whereas I'm practically invincible due to my superior tactical knowledge.

So... You stand behind him? Awsome cover system!

[Sunborn]

This. We tweaked some stuff to eliminate a lot of the danger in both space and ground so we could get people through the demo more easily. For example, my Champs counterpart, Daeke, dies all the time on ground, whereas I'm practically invincible due to my superior tactical knowledge.

Thank you for clarifying that for the community. Hopefully more dangerous ground combat will cause people to play more tactically. We were told after all that it would be tactical ground combat and not run and gun shooting.

[Mavrixx]

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8741/lirpa06.jpg

Like Donkey Kong.

Oh man i ROFLD hard.

[billybob442]

I wonder if we'll be able to challenge Rekhan, in the form of a Gorn, to a hand-to-hand duel on Cestus III. That would be an interesting episode.

So long as I can get my hands on Coke and Pop Rocks I think I could create some form of primitive weapon.

This. We tweaked some stuff to eliminate a lot of the danger in both space and ground so we could get people through the demo more easily. For example, my Champs counterpart, Daeke, dies all the time on ground, whereas I'm practically invincible due to my superior tactical knowledge.

So basically we haven't really seen what any of the combat looks like yet.

Rekhan, could we get a video of ground combat without all the safeties on?
I think that would really clear some things up for us out here in forum-land.

[jblancato]

So basically we haven't really seen what any of the combat looks like yet.

Rekhan, could we get a video of ground combat without all the safeties on?
I think that would really clear some things up for us out here in forum-land.

What you've seen is indicative of how it works. We've always said ground combat would be more visceral and fast-paced than space combat.

Part of what I think is causing some animosity is the environments in which ground combat occurred during the PAX demo. If you look at some of the videos that have been posted, three fights went down:

1) The fight between your five-man crew and the two Klingons in the first corridor. In this, your BOs typically spread out around you, the tactical guys moved forward, the engineering guys jockyed for position, and the science officers hung back. In a five-on-two fight, cover's just not super important, but the BO AI was doing its thing.

2) The fight between the group of Klingons in the hallway/back room. This was going to be a close-range fight, due to the way the rooms were designed. The Klingons would charge, switch to Bat'leths and force the Fed player to either back away or try to push them back using melee attacks. The science officer was a popular melee target. What was also cool during this fight was the BOs would break off from the Captain and engage Klingons individually or in smaller groups, which made it feel more like a skirmish, at least to me.

3) The ambush in front of the Guardian of Forever. Players usually had the Klingons beam in on top of them, which made the fight a lot more close-range than it normally would be outside.

That may cover some of the "no one's going for cover" stuff. It's also an evolving system, which will get better as we move forward :)

[cipher_nemo]

3) The ambush in front of the Guardian of Forever. Players usually had the Klingons beam in on top of them, which made the fight a lot more close-range than it normally would be outside.

That may cover some of the "no one's going for cover" stuff. It's also an evolving system, which will get better as we move forward :)

Thanks for this explanation. :) It helps put it into perspective.

[iTod1960]

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/8741/lirpa06.jpg

Like Donkey Kong.

Shouldn't that be Donkey Khan?

[scottmana]

We've already got a cover system in place. Check out the most recent Ask Cryptic (http://www.startrekonline.com/node/363):



If your Bridge Officers weren't trying to get behind something, it's likely because their shields were holding up.

Perhaps you should add something to the AI. Like a [Find cover] and [Use cover]. Even with shields, we can assume that ppl have a fear that their shield will get shot down and they will be without cover.

So when they enter combat mode, your team automatically seeks cover. They do not hide behind it (use cover) they just stand close to it. When their shields go down, they then use cover.

[scottmana]

What you've seen is indicative of how it works. We've always said ground combat would be more visceral and fast-paced than space combat.

....

That may cover some of the "no one's going for cover" stuff. It's also an evolving system, which will get better as we move forward :)

Oh, I c. sounds good. :cool:

[mwood1387]

So long as I can get my hands on Coke and Pop Rocks I think I could create some form of primitive weapon.


I'll see your coke and pop rocks and raise you a bag of peeps and a microwave. :D


On the topic at hand, a cover system seems like an expendable part of combat considering personal shielding and officers with healing abilities. Adding a cover system to that would make ground combat take forever.

[billybob442]

I'll see your coke and pop rocks and raise you a bag of peeps and a microwave. :D


On the topic at hand, a cover system seems like an expendable part of combat considering personal shielding and officers with healing abilities. Adding a cover system to that would make ground combat take forever.

Not necessarily. It would all depend on how weapon damage compares to the strength of the personal shields. If your shields, without all the "safeties" that were added in the demo, can only take about 3 shots it wouldn't be that different from modern combat with present day body armor, and cover is pretty important in that.

Of course personal shields should be able to TAKE a LOT more damage than modern body armor, but then again 25th century rifles are going to INFLICT a LOT more damage than modern assault rifles. So you have the endless race between weapons and armor that's been going on since Cain whacked Abel.

[Calistah]

It was something that really killed the immersion for me. It's not so much that people can take several phaser hits, I kinda expected that with any game.

It was more just seeing people fight 3 feet away from each other firing phasers into their chests like some sort of futuristic civil war reenactement where everyone lines up and marches towards each other firing away as they walked.

Adding a little more tactical feel to the ground combat would go a long way.

[andrewprofit]

Over the last weekend I got to see and play STO a bit, and one of the things that struck me as very odd was the player combat. Not the ship combat mind you, but the away team stuff.

It seemed very strange to me to have a group of people armed with phaser rifles standing out in the open just firing away and getting shot in the process.

Are there any plans for a sort of cover system that would add a defensive bonus and make the combat a little less silly looking?

I agree it is odd but it is the future and if the borg can have personal shields then why not the feds and klingons. Still if someone is shooting at you your first instinct other than returning fire should be to take cover. I mean what if the enemy has a weapon more powerful than your shield and you die on the first shot?

[mirkrim]

I agree it is odd but it is the future and if the borg can have personal shields then why not the feds and klingons. Still if someone is shooting at you your first instinct other than returning fire should be to take cover. I mean what if the enemy has a weapon more powerful than your shield and you die on the first shot?

Which is why I think personal shields should be weak, maybe able to absorb 3-4 shots at most. Players should be forced to take cover as quickly as possible. If the possibility exists for standing casually out in the open while your shield protects you, it will look incredibly lame. Also, shields should not be able to block melee attacks in any way. Even the borg didn't have this ability.

[cipher_nemo]

If the possibility exists for standing casually out in the open while your shield protects you, it will look incredibly lame. Also, shields should not be able to block melee attacks in any way. Even the borg didn't have this ability.

Yeah, it always strikes me as looking quite a bit off. I really hope Cryptic invests more time here in the future. It's ok for launch, but will need some love during its next update. The ground combat looks much more MMO style than Star Trek style, and the personal shields are just a cover for the lack of cover (no pun intended).

I don't expect FPS, but I hope line-of-sight and cover plays a bigger part than the demos we've seen.

[vitali]

Which is why I think personal shields should be weak, maybe able to absorb 3-4 shots at most. Players should be forced to take cover as quickly as possible. If the possibility exists for standing casually out in the open while your shield protects you, it will look incredibly lame. Also, shields should not be able to block melee attacks in any way. Even the borg didn't have this ability.

Yes, that would be a nice idea and would go well with a exceptional cover system, which they probably do not have right now... It was quite comical how they were standing one feet apart from each other and firing phasers till someone died. Not quite the visceral and fast I had in mind :P

I'm sure they'll make tons of modifications before the release, but right now, I find the game is lacking only in ground combat, and lacking by much.

On another note, old republic has a very nice cover system :P

[majicebe]

...your BOs typically spread out around you...

That's what Targ of a ***** said!

Oh man, I've been working too hard lately... ;P

[Lendosan]

Awesome. Just wanted to add that in the TV show you sometimes see point blank volley fire, especially during DS9 and the Dominion War. Also its the future in STO, PDS might be a common hand out to away teams, meaning, you and your BO's.

As for just standing there and shooting? Well I know the last thing I want to do is sit 100 meters away taking the odd pot shot because it satifies your method of how it should work. I want my combats to be over in 30 seconds to 2 minutes against standard guys, not 20-30 minutes because it takes that long to get through to someone. Also making it easier to counter that will not make sense.

Lets just see what Cryptic can do when the beta/release game comes out heh :)

[Drexxus3d]

Personally i like my covers to have really high threadcounts and be pink with frilly edges.:p

But yeah on a more serious note, i think it's already been covered here but I think they said shields specifically recharge quick but high low hitpoints so you dart in and out of cover.