Originally posted by hanshotfirst

 

---

Have you played City of Heroes?

 

Have you played Champions Online?

 

No i have not. However i fail to see the relevance really, when i have both played games with and without "HT".
Besides, as i said above i will reserve FINAL judgement until i have actually played STO.

If I cripple your ability to cloak, to warp, or fire torpedos... what is that if not a debuff?

Um... damage i think, sub-system/specific damge too.

A "debuff" is something different than "damage". mainly a debuff is a more or less temporary reduction of my offensive abilities and a "buff" is something that "ups" your offensive or defensiveabilities.
As in: you can do stuff you cannot without that "buff".

Using a skill/ability to for example boost your gun damage is perhaps comparable to a buff, but still the WORD "buff" is inappropriate imo.
As i said above:
Wording is important. "Buff" gives the impression (at least to me and seemingly to others too) that you have a dedicated "buffer" that can boost your abilities.
So i have gathered that you have a science ship that can "buff" your tanking galaxy class or whatever.
That is a completely different concept than using your OWN crew/ship/abilities to achieve the same result, and in cases where you have more than one ship: several ships using their individual abilities in some sort of teamwork.

I hear buff and "tank" and such i think stuff like (basing it on EQ)):
"Ranger buffing ATK, Cleric buffing HPs and resists, Warrior tanking the mob/keeping it occupied so the Wizard can do the damage".
This would, from what has been SAID (on the forums, in interviews) translate into:
"Science_ship1 strengthening the escort's guns and science_ship2 (or ship1 too perhaps) strengthening the galaxy-class' shields, while the galaxy class positions itself so that the opponent fires on it while the escort does the damage and destroys it"
something like that.

Remember i said "wording is important".

It would sound completely different if it it were more like:
"Science ship uses it's ability to fool enemy sensors while the galaxy class uses it's large size to position itself in such a way that it creates a large "lee area" where the DPS can approach effective gun range safely, moving away just as the escort is ready to deliver it's crippling barrage of Phasers/Torps."

That scenario/wording is effectively the same perhaps, but a lot more appropriate to Sci-Fi and also take special note that none of the ships uses any ability ON another friendly ship (no "buffing", but that all 3 work as a TEAM.

On the min/maxing:
It is right, i did not play the games you named, and it MIGHT be that Cryptic's combat system is so totally different from anything i know/have seen that i am completely off-track.
On the other hand, it could also be that i am not so off-track after all.
And if you have "grouping content" that is balanced such that it can be done by "any" group omposition, isn't it then kind of logical to assume that an "optimal group setup" would cut through that same content as a hot knife through butter?
i.e. that the content would become rather boring rather quickly to a group of min/maxers?

That is currently my worry for STO and combat/grouping:
That it's either being the HT-like "EQ in space" or the "boring content to a dedicaed group of hardcore players" type of thing.

Besides, it's - again judging from the forums and interviews - missing a lot of features/content that i am expecting from a Sci-Fi game in general, and a ST setting specifically:
*exploration, colonization, economy (all of which i kind of came to expect from a Sci-Fi game) and
*Missions/PvE content that is or at least CAN be "resolved" peacefully, i.e. with diplomacy/using non-violent skills over combat.
In the interviews and other released material STO so far seems far too combat oriented to be "ST" for a real fan.

ST was NEVER about combat in the first place, it was always about resolving conflict with as little violence as possible, at least in the Federation's case.

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

You just described combat in STO. Congratulations.

Cool, if his description fits then my worries would be unfounded.

However, note he did not use terms like "buff" or "tank", nor did one ship use it's abilities to "buff" or "repair" (heal) or even just "transfer energy" to another in his statement.
But in an interview or article of some sort they at least made it sound like that's what a science ship would be doing.

And THAT's the source/reason for people like me being worried about "HT" in STO.

..why are they trying to make failed version of EVE..?

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Cryptic has developed two games: City of Heroes and Champions Online.

Although some might object to classifying either as traditional "fantasy" games, that's neither here nor there. What's more to the point, and unfortunately most here seem to be either ignorant of or are purposefully omitting, is NEITHER promote the "holy trinity" as the preferred or predominant group play dynamic. Perhaps most ironically, this is something they've frequently been criticized for by those who PREFER the "holy trinity" paradigm.

You see, this is a cool reply, something i can work with.

As i said above, i do not know either game and i gathered from reading the forums that CO especially does not work the "HT" way.
All the more important is the wording to me, and the description of the combat system.

The point aside that - from what info was released so far - i think it's too combat-focused anyways,
i want a system where your skill - or your group's teamwork - make the difference, not the "proper" (optimal) skill/group setup.

Also, as said repeatedly above, i think that "buffing" your allies and "debuffing" your enemies are not exactly fitting terms (nor actions) for a space game, as it reeks too much of "snare the enemy and kite it while the DPS does it's job" for example.
And kiting for example WAS - iirc - a term being used by the Dev's in some interview/statement.

Extremely leading terms, and if they led my thinking in wrong directions i will correct myself after i have first-hand witnessed how it "really" works.

Originally posted by Morrok

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

You just described combat in STO. Congratulations.

Cool, if his description fits then my worries would be unfounded.

However, note he did not use terms like "buff" or "tank", nor did one ship use it's abilities to "buff" or "repair" (heal) or even just "transfer energy" to another in his statement.
But in an interview or article of some sort they at least made it sound like that's what a science ship would be doing.

And THAT's the source/reason for people like me being worried about "HT" in STO.

I have him on ignore, so I looked that up.  What I described DOES NOT fit what they've said about the game's combat system.  There are similarities, but those are superficial.
 

In STO combat, Cruisers can put shields on ally ships (I assume this will be instead of taunting).  They do more damage than Science Vessels, but less than Escorts.  They have the most more room for engineering mods and officers than other ships ( those are tanking abilities and bonuses such as taking less damage).  Science slots and Tactical slots provide some flexibility, but the Science Vessels does science better and the escorts do damage better (that's what tactical stuff is about).  Escorts do a lot of damage, but are fairly weak (glass cannon-like).  Science Vessels repair and heal other ships from a distance, and have a native ability to debuff with attacks by targeting enemy systems (other ships don't have this ability natively, but they can spend their officer customizing "slots" on this).  In short, STO is a tank, healer, DPS system.  Like WoW, the tanks, healers, and DPS will split debuffing and other jobs among them due to the flexibility in character customization, but in the end it is a tank-healer-dps system.  Yes, you can reconfigure ships somewhat, probably you'll be able to put a healing deflector on a Cruiser, but the Science Ship would have more room for science officers and mods, so it would do its specialized job better, from what I see.  In any case, even if such things work out, you are still stuck with the 3 HT roles.

As for shields, it doesn't seem like you can make one shield arc more powerful than another.  Instead you can transfer power to all shields or away from all shields, but this takes time to do (for what it is worth).  Seems likely this will encourage the traditional roles as the Cruiser will have tons of power into the shields, shield friendly ships, and the escorts can put most of their power into their weapons -- that looks like it will be the most effective way to go from what they've said.  In any case, there is going to be little reason to try to attack an enemy ship in more than one shield arc.  You are going to want to move around so you can focus on that one arc -- whereas I think it would have been better if you could transfer a greater percentage of your shield power to one arc, hence making more incentive for the enemy to try to outmaneuver you...that isn't the case in STO though.

I'd note that unlike their other games where things were slightly more complicated (you could possibly have a Controller instead of a Tank and some other stuff in CoH), there are only 3 roles here and even officers and modifications are split into these 3 categories.

Originally posted by hanshotfirst
...

Here's a bit more of an extensive breakdown...

Energy Weapons > Shields > Kinetic Weapons > Hull > Energy Weapons 

Energy Weapons (Phasers/Disruptors) = little to no cool-down, wide firing arc (up to 270°), strong against shields, weak against hull plating

Kinetic Weapons (Torpedos) = moderate to long cool-down, narrow firing arc (45° or less), strong against hull plating, weak against shields

Shields are divided into four sections: port, starboard, bow and aft (left, right, front & rear). Shields regenerate over time, and can either be equally distributed between all four sections or focused on one particular section. (Hull plating can also be repaired over time, albeit it's typically much, much slower; repair speed is relative to the size/condition of your crew.)

Additionally, you're able to distribute power from your warp core between four essential ship systems: weapons, shields, engines, and auxiliary (the latter influences aspects such as maneuverability and handling). As with shield distribution, emphasizing one system comes at the expense of the others.

The basic tactics are: 1) disable your target's shield, 2) attack the exposed/vulnerable section of their hull, 3) watch pretty explosion. Of course, your opponent(s) will simultaneously be attempting to return the favor.

Ok.
Thanks for the description.

This sounds (and it confirms what i have been thinking from reading the foums) as if combat were 2D.
Needless to say, i would expect 3D combat in a space game, much like i'd expect it from an Air-Combat-Sim, or a Submarine-Sim.
But ok, i can probably live with a 2D system - don't particularly like it nor think it's fitting for a space game, but i think i could live with it..

Next is the offensive/defensive capabilities you describe.
Nothing wrong with those, makes sense and all.

So after this, what would be important to me is how the individual ships move on the map (in "space" ) and how positioning would work.
(in a 2D setting, it should be pretty much impossible for the DPS to stand "behind" the Tank and shoot "through" it for example)
And how the "roles" work out.

It's a huge difference if a ship is "healed" by another friendly dring combat or if that 2nd ship merely helps the other with painting targets the other cannot see or by placing a minefield to slow down the progress of the opponents.
i.e. the "buffing" that was refered to still bothers me at this moment.
The only "buff" i would think of as being appropriate would be the transfer of the 2nd ship's crew onto the 1st ship to help repel a boarding party for example.
But for this example, the word "buff" would be wrong imo, as it is not anything similar to a "buff" as you have them in games like EQ/WoW and similar.

Also, i would at least expect that positioning matters, even on 2D settings, along the following example (based on a hex-board a la Battletech and using a turn-based vocabulary for ease of keeping track of timed actions):
The Galaxy class would transfer all power to the front (and possibly left) arc and position itself either straight facing the enemy (only presenting front arc) or being turned one hex to the right (presenting two front hex-sides and the left hex side to the enemy, but being in a position to quicker turn/move to the right next turn.

The support would be 2hexes behind the galaxy class and use it's electronics suite as was described above by someone (jamming the missiles or whatever in a 3hex radius, thus covering the Galaxy-class by "debuffing" the enemy missiles to-hit probability as they have to pass through that field to hit the galaxy class.

The Escort would be even behind that, or beside the Support, waiting for the enemy to either turn left or right (in an attempt to bypass the Galaxy-class' strengthened shields) and then speed up and fire it's torps at close-range at either front or aft of the enemy. (it's speed, i.e. hexes traveled,  adding a damage bonus to the torps when they hit or reducing the effectiveness of the enemies' Anti-missile guns)

In order for the enemy to hit the Support, it would have to move into a hex where it had LoS to the support (i.e. LoS were not to move "through" the hex occupied by the Galaxy-.class) etc.
Likewise, neither the Support nor the escort could fire on the enemy as long as they remain in the Galaxy-class' lee.

The Galaxy-class would use it's movement points primarily to change facing, perhaps move a hex or two.
The Support would use it's movement points to remain in the Galaxy-Class' lee, while the escort would use it's movement points to either out-flank or hit the enemy head-on, depending on the situation, while staying in the Galaxy-Class' lee as often/long as possible.

Combat taking place like this is what i would consider "ok" for a space game with a 2D engine.
Still, even the AoE effect of the support is not a "buff" to the Galaxy in the way i understand it (if the either the galaxy or the support were to move much, increasing their distance, the "buff" would be gone).
Ofc i know there won't be turns and all, but movement costs for turning and acceleratin/deceleration etc can translate nicely into turn-rates and max speed, acceleration rates etc in a real-time combat too, for discussion purposes.

Such combat would require coordinated movement (of the Galaxy class and the support for example) and overall one could speak of tactics and teamwork instead of "just out-heal and/or out-DPS the enemy" as is implied when i hear "HT".

---

Energy Weapons > Shields > Kinetic Weapons > Hull > Energy Weapons  

---

I'd note that this boils down to: Use energy weapons until the shields are down, then use torpedoes. It adds very little tactical depth (usually none).

Originally posted by Drachasor

I have him on ignore, so I looked that up.  What I described DOES NOT fit what they've said about the game's combat system.  There are similarities, but those are superficial.
 

In STO combat, Cruisers can put shields on ally ships (I assume this will be instead of taunting).  They do more damage than Science Vessels, but less than Escorts.  They have the most more room for engineering mods and officers than other ships ( those are tanking abilities and bonuses such as taking less damage).  Science slots and Tactical slots provide some flexibility, but the Science Vessels does science better and the escorts do damage better (that's what tactical stuff is about).  Escorts do a lot of damage, but are fairly weak (glass cannon-like).  Science Vessels repair and heal other ships from a distance, and have a native ability to debuff with attacks by targeting enemy systems (other ships don't have this ability natively, but they can spend their officer customizing "slots" on this).  In short, STO is a tank, healer, DPS system.  Like WoW, the tanks, healers, and DPS will split debuffing and other jobs among them due to the flexibility in character customization, but in the end it is a tank-healer-dps system.  Yes, you can reconfigure ships somewhat, probably you'll be able to put a healing deflector on a Cruiser, but the Science Ship would have more room for science officers and mods, so it would do its specialized job better, from what I see.  In any case, even if such things work out, you are still stuck with the 3 HT roles.

As for shields, it doesn't seem like you can make one shield arc more powerful than another.  Instead you can transfer power to all shields or away from all shields, but this takes time to do (for what it is worth).  Seems likely this will encourage the traditional roles as the Cruiser will have tons of power into the shields, shield friendly ships, and the escorts can put most of their power into their weapons -- that looks like it will be the most effective way to go from what they've said.  In any case, there is going to be little reason to try to attack an enemy ship in more than one shield arc.  You are going to want to move around so you can focus on that one arc -- whereas I think it would have been better if you could transfer a greater percentage of your shield power to one arc, hence making more incentive for the enemy to try to outmaneuver you...that isn't the case in STO though.

I'd note that unlike their other games where things were slightly more complicated (you could possibly have a Controller instead of a Tank and some other stuff in CoH), there are only 3 roles here and even officers and modifications are split into these 3 categories.

And this is exactly what i am worried about.

Based on my example with turn-based and hexes above, this would perhaps translate into a scenario as this:
The galaxy-Class would sit in the center hex, expand it's shields one hex out, having all power transfered to shields (only minimal to movenet, to be able to turn).
The Escort would be in the adjacent hex, dropping it's shields (or only leaving a minimum up for spash damage that is NOt going to be absorbed by the Galaxy's shields) and the support were directly behind it, also being protected by the galaxy's shields and having transfered all power to the deflector to "heal" the other two ships as needed and/or produce AoE buffs/debuffs).
The escort and the Support would ajust their speed to the Galaxy's, so that they remain inside that 1hex range and stay protected by the shields.

A setup like this would inevitably lead to min/maxing as i said above, as the Galaxy would mount all systems/mods/stations and use NPCs that augment power generation and projected shield strength, perhaps add some range to the extension too to allow minor maneuvering errors.
The Support would use all mods to increase the "heal" abilities and/or buff/debuff range, as it would not need to do damage nor withstand a lot of damage (if any).
The escorts finally would focus purely on DPS (think EQ rogues or wizards) since the Galaxy would protect them.

"optimal group" would still be dependant on the mission-requirements, but it would generally be at least one galaxy-class to provide the shields, one support for whatever "buffs" they have and 2 or 3 escorts geared towards pure DPS.

Of course, ANY group-setup would be able to master the missions, they would be (at least initially) balanced towards a "balanced" group. But the "optimized" group would rip through that content like a hot knife through butter.

 

Originally posted by Raltar

http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14270158/star-trek-online/videos/startrekonline_trl_starshiptacticspt2_111909.html

30 second into that video it says this:

"Respurceful Captains will also be able to recognize and utilize the different classes of starships. Cruisers as tanks, science vessles as support and escorts for lighting strikes."

And now we know. In the mind of a Cryptic developer all MMOs must follow the trinity of TANK, SPELLCASTER, DPS. An original or flexable combat system is obviously beyond their skills.

Sad... just sad.

OMG!!!

Call out the MARINES!

Trivia - did you know in this thing called real life, ships have roles also?

Originally posted by Torak

Originally posted by Raltar

http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14270158/star-trek-online/videos/startrekonline_trl_starshiptacticspt2_111909.html

30 second into that video it says this:

"Respurceful Captains will also be able to recognize and utilize the different classes of starships. Cruisers as tanks, science vessles as support and escorts for lighting strikes."

And now we know. In the mind of a Cryptic developer all MMOs must follow the trinity of TANK, SPELLCASTER, DPS. An original or flexable combat system is obviously beyond their skills.

Sad... just sad.

 

OMG!!!

Call out the MARINES!

Trivia - did you know in this thing called real life, ships have roles also?

Not as in-combat healers and tanks - as defined by MMORPGs.

Originally posted by Torak

Originally posted by Raltar

http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/14270158/star-trek-online/videos/startrekonline_trl_starshiptacticspt2_111909.html

30 second into that video it says this:

"Respurceful Captains will also be able to recognize and utilize the different classes of starships. Cruisers as tanks, science vessles as support and escorts for lighting strikes."

And now we know. In the mind of a Cryptic developer all MMOs must follow the trinity of TANK, SPELLCASTER, DPS. An original or flexable combat system is obviously beyond their skills.

Sad... just sad.

 

OMG!!!

Call out the MARINES!

Trivia - did you know in this thing called real life, ships have roles also?

It's apparently hard for some people to understand this, but while the HT system requires roles, roles do NOT require the HT system.  A modern navy is an example where there are roles but it isn't HT.  Same with our ground or air-based forces.
 

Heck, a modern high-class kitchen for a restaurant is an example where there are roles, but there is no HT system.  Hopefully that makes the point clear enough.  Yours is about the 10th+ time or more someone has said that in this thread.

Originally posted by Morrok

This sounds (and it confirms what i have been thinking from reading the foums) as if combat were 2D.
Needless to say, i would expect 3D combat in a space game, much like i'd expect it from an Air-Combat-Sim, or a Submarine-Sim.

Rest assured the game is 3D, and fully supports movement/combat along the Z axis. For better or worse, they've merely simplified shield facing to four sections only (port, starboard, bow & aft) instead of six (port, starboard, bow, aft, ventral and dorsal).

That said, "up" and "down" are constants. Though you'll be able to dive below or ascend above your opponent's bow, you cannot maintain a rotation along the X or Y axis more than about 70°. In other words, you will not be doing barrel rolls, Immelmanns, or loop de loops in your Sovereign. This isn't an Anakin Skywalker simulator.

Originally posted by Drachasor

 

---

Energy Weapons > Shields > Kinetic Weapons > Hull > Energy Weapons  

---

 

I'd note that this boils down to: Use energy weapons until the shields are down, then use torpedoes. It adds very little tactical depth (usually none).

If shields weren't divided into four sections, and speed/maneuverability were the same for every ship, you might have a point. However they aren't.

Opponents will turn away from the source of attack in order to protect damaged shield facings. In other words, if you just spent the last few minutes broadsiding a Bird of Prey's port shields (a highly maneuverable ship) with your Galaxy-class starship's phaser arrays (a significantly less-than highly maneuverable ship), don't assume that port side will remain exposed by the time you've turned to fire your forward torpedo bays. And here's yet another wrinkle: high-yield torpedos not only have a much slower velocity than energy weapons, but also can be shot down. Don't expect to "kite" targets with torpedos from 10k away and accomplish much.

Originally posted by Drachasor

...Heck, a modern high-class kitchen for a restaurant is an example where there are roles, but there is no HT system.

If you're hell-bent on allusion, yes, even that example will suffice:

Maître d'/waitstaff = tank
Chef = dps
Dishwasher = support

Originally posted by Drachasor

If the combat is very tactical and involves movement, then I do think you'd see it.  But the ships aren't moving much at all (particularly relative to each other -- movement doesn't mean much if relative positions don't change).  I find that a bit strange.
 

How maneuverable do I think ships in Star Trek are?  Enough so that even a Galaxy Class ships has meaningful evasive maneuvers.  That's how it is in the shows and movies anyhow.  I guess you disagree with this.

I concede it is hard to tell from 5-10 second clips.  Like I said though, that doesn't make me feel better about it.  Why'd they only assemble clips that short if the combat is really tactical and interesting?  Either the combat isn't what they are claiming it is or they are too incompetent to put together a proper combat video.

Again like I said, the ships looked like they were moving pretty well to me.  Perhaps even though you complain about things not being realistic enough in other areas, now you're complaining about them being too realistic. A galaxy class starship's "evasive maneuvers" are quite different from a fighter jet's evasive maneuvers. Have you ever played a naval combat game? Or watched a naval combat movie? Watch the movies and shows of star trek again and compare them to the videos again. They don't just take a battleship and do barrel rolls or stuff like that. You also probably weren't looking that closely otherwise you'd see the ranges changing pretty quickly, closing kilometers in seconds. When they're not doing that, they're obviously circling the other ship for a better tactical position. Honestly if the ships don't look like they're "really moving in relation to eachother" then you're clearly just exaggerating.

As anyone with a bit of media knowledge will tell you, very likely the reason they put those short clips in is so they could show the combat, but focus on the "ooh" "ahh" parts of all the different things they're talking about. If you want an actual combat trailer, go check on youtube. Those are actually pretty tactical and movement is quite smooth and fluid.

But of course, I won't be surprised if you've simply ignored this stuff. It's been my experience from your recent posts that you're really just looking for any chance to bash the game that you can get. Enough so to be grasping at straws and making weak arguments about how they put together a video that wasn't exactly to your liking the way you would have directed it. Sorry if they're not coming to you for advice on how to design/run/promote their game, I'm sure you have much better qualifications at this sorta thing than they do.

Originally posted by Drachasor

It's apparently hard for some people to understand this, but while the HT system requires roles, roles do NOT require the HT system.  A modern navy is an example where there are roles but it isn't HT.  Same with our ground or air-based forces.
 

Heck, a modern high-class kitchen for a restaurant is an example where there are roles, but there is no HT system.  Hopefully that makes the point clear enough.  Yours is about the 10th+ time or more someone has said that in this thread.

And yet, you still have no actual knowledge of how extensive, or even if the HT system is in the game.

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Rest assured the game is 3D, and fully supports movement/combat along the Z axis. For better or worse, they've merely simplified shield facing to four sections only (port, starboard, bow & aft) instead of six (port, starboard, bow, aft, ventral and dorsal).

That said, "up" and "down" are constants. Though you'll be able to dive below or ascend above your opponent's bow, you cannot maintain a rotation along the X or Y axis more than about 70°. In other words, you will not be doing barrel rolls, Immelmanns, or loop de loops in your Sovereign. This isn't an Anakin Skywalker simulator.

Ok.
So not 2D, but not (truly) 3D either.
I'll have to wait and see how it plays, if for example there is a "ceiling" similar to BF2 where you can pass through an invisible "barrier" beyond which you effectively leave the battlefield..

The reference to SW is a bit inappropriate imo.
I do not want "SW" either (i think i was pretty straight-forward on that issue in previous posts), but "true 3D" is nothing that is exclusively tied to SW, or anything setting SW apart from anything else or even just a "feature" of SW - instead it is (or at least should be) the norm when talking about a space game (at least when there are claims it's 3D).

"up" and "down" being constants...
Well, i would ofc have no issue with the travel between starsystems taking place in a "trimmed" state, but during combat doing a roll or pulling up until you present your back shields to the enemy should indeed be possible imo.
And again, this has nothing to do with SW or any other game, simply with general "logic" when talking about "space" or "air" environments.

Still, thanks for the clarification.
Now, if you could also perhaps address the above examples i have made (kind of bad i know since i used a) turnbased and b) a hexboard to set the scene)...
Because there is still the issue with the "tank","DPS","Support" ideas and "buffs" and how they do so NOT fit my personal idea of Sci-Fi and Space-games.

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

If the combat is very tactical and involves movement, then I do think you'd see it.  But the ships aren't moving much at all (particularly relative to each other -- movement doesn't mean much if relative positions don't change).  I find that a bit strange.
 

How maneuverable do I think ships in Star Trek are?  Enough so that even a Galaxy Class ships has meaningful evasive maneuvers.  That's how it is in the shows and movies anyhow.  I guess you disagree with this.

I concede it is hard to tell from 5-10 second clips.  Like I said though, that doesn't make me feel better about it.  Why'd they only assemble clips that short if the combat is really tactical and interesting?  Either the combat isn't what they are claiming it is or they are too incompetent to put together a proper combat video.

 

Again like I said, the ships looked like they were moving pretty well to me.  Perhaps even though you complain about things not being realistic enough in other areas, now you're complaining about them being too realistic. A galaxy class starship's "evasive maneuvers" are quite different from a fighter jet's evasive maneuvers. Have you ever played a naval combat game? Or watched a naval combat movie? Watch the movies and shows of star trek again and compare them to the videos again. They don't just take a battleship and do barrel rolls or stuff like that. You also probably weren't looking that closely otherwise you'd see the ranges changing pretty quickly, closing kilometers in seconds. When they're not doing that, they're obviously circling the other ship for a better tactical position. Honestly if the ships don't look like they're "really moving in relation to eachother" then you're clearly just exaggerating.

As anyone with a bit of media knowledge will tell you, very likely the reason they put those short clips in is so they could show the combat, but focus on the "ooh" "ahh" parts of all the different things they're talking about. If you want an actual combat trailer, go check on youtube. Those are actually pretty tactical and movement is quite smooth and fluid.

But of course, I won't be surprised if you've simply ignored this stuff. It's been my experience from your recent posts that you're really just looking for any chance to bash the game that you can get. Enough so to be grasping at straws and making weak arguments about how they put together a video that wasn't exactly to your liking the way you would have directed it. Sorry if they're not coming to you for advice on how to design/run/promote their game, I'm sure you have much better qualifications at this sorta thing than they do.

I've watched Star Trek.  TNG had evasive maneuvers for the Enterprise and they worked (of course, I suppose it doesn't help that STO combat represent 2 dimensional thinking).  Maybe your opinion is colored by all these other combat videos you have watched.  I looked at the official combat videos yet again, but I did look at them specifically for combat movement twice and I didn't see much.  There is some closing of distance, but that's really it.  What I said before was a bit of an exaggeration, but even so that doesn't mean there is tactical depth -- I do not think it was a tremendous exaggeration.  Also, there really isn't much incentive IN the combat system to have significant movement.  You want to shoot the weakened shield and that's about it.  They could have made it better than this (as I have stated before and gave an example how).
 

The circling bit is exactly my point, btw.  It seems like both ships circle (with a bit of closing in), so their relative positions don't change that much.  This even applies in group situations.  Looks pretty dry to me, overall.  I'm loading some combat videos at the moment btw.  Saw about 5 minutes or so of ground combat.  That looked mighty unimpressive so far.  Space combat is loading, I'll see what I think after I see that (seen a little against a Borg cube, that wasn't impressive so far, internet connection is slow, so I'll post later).  Despite what you think, I do test my opinion and reevaluate.  I've also defended some of what the game as done, such as everyone being a captain.

Anyhow, if I was going to make snarky comments about you, I'd probably say something about how you seem intent on supporting everything the game does the way it does it and when people object you say they have to be wrong even when at best neither party can be certain of being right.  Well, I am sure I could do worse than that, but I don't really find it that productive, so I try to avoid it (occasionally I have lapsed when I've been under a lot of stress).

Originally posted by Blurr

Originally posted by Drachasor

It's apparently hard for some people to understand this, but while the HT system requires roles, roles do NOT require the HT system.  A modern navy is an example where there are roles but it isn't HT.  Same with our ground or air-based forces.
 

Heck, a modern high-class kitchen for a restaurant is an example where there are roles, but there is no HT system.  Hopefully that makes the point clear enough.  Yours is about the 10th+ time or more someone has said that in this thread.

 

And yet, you still have no actual knowledge of how extensive, or even if the HT system is in the game.

Hard to take this seriously when the Devs have game trailers where they ONLY talk about these 3 roles, and there are 3 classes in the game (each one suited particularly well for one of those roles and not the other two), 3 ships classes (each one especially suited to one of the roles), 3 types of modications for a ship (each one particularly suited to one of those roles), etc.  Yeah, I am sure something magically different is going to pop out of that.  Too bad no one can even begin to describe what that is, eh?
 

Originally posted by hanshotfirst

Originally posted by Morrok

This sounds (and it confirms what i have been thinking from reading the foums) as if combat were 2D.
Needless to say, i would expect 3D combat in a space game, much like i'd expect it from an Air-Combat-Sim, or a Submarine-Sim.

 

Rest assured the game is 3D, and fully supports movement/combat along the Z axis. For better or worse, they've merely simplified shield facing to four sections only (port, starboard, bow & aft) instead of six (port, starboard, bow, aft, ventral and dorsal).

That said, "up" and "down" are constants. Though you'll be able to dive below or ascend above your opponent's bow, you cannot maintain a rotation along the X or Y axis more than about 70°. In other words, you will not be doing barrel rolls, Immelmanns, or loop de loops in your Sovereign. This isn't an Anakin Skywalker simulator.

Given the lack of Gravity & Friction in SPACE there really is no logical reason for that other then the fact thier engine can't handle that.  I mean, even if the ships weren't moving quickly (aka fighter style) doesn't mean that they would be incapable of performing a loop or immleman anymore then they are incapable of coming about.  Combine that with the vertical axis making no difference to shield or weapon facing and the Z axis ends up making little FUNCTIONAL difference in the game.