I guess this also depends on what kind of ships or experiences you want your gamers to have. If you are going for high octane fast-action nimble starfighters that are able to circle each other for more close-ranged combat or hide behind asteroids to ambush unsuspecting targets, then a traditional FPS control scheme with WASD controlling movement on the ground plane would probably fit that more. If you are going for something more "spacey" or "flighty" with continuous flight times from point A to point B which sounds much like your trader game, as well as longer-ranged dogfighting-style fights (where guns cannot rotate like a turret - you have to point your entire ship at the target to shoot your guns) then WASD controlling movement on the screen plane would make more sense.

Personally, since we don't see a lot of the first type of starfighter game, I would definitely enjoy seeing that on shelves. I would say such a game could gain lots of popularity because 1) it contains instant fast action, and who doesn't like instant fast action? and, 2) it uses traditional familiar FPS control schemes to which allows more nimble (but shorter ranged) fighting, especially good for multiplayer fragfests.

You know the first type of starfighter game (WASD for ground plane) also brings to mind those Gundam anime shows about giant humanoid robots engaging in deep-space melee - their fights are usually more close-ranged thus a FPS control scheme (WASD for ground plane) would allow that to happen much more effectively.

-

So I guess what I am trying to say is this: what your WASD should control will determine what plane of movement will have the most interaction in your game. If you are going to stop and go very frequently, then have WASD control movement on the ground plane (like a traditional FPS) would make more sense. If you are going to dodge and weave in between asteroids/shots more frequently than you will move forward/reverse, then have WASD control movement on the screen plane would be more effective for that activity.

[Edited by - Tangireon on July 13, 2008 4:30:46 PM]

Descent was definitely a game that was more fit to have FPS controls (WASD for ground-plane movement) because you weren't really constantly in flight from point A to point B such as when compared to Wing Commander or Freelancer, but you were more like a floating first-person shooter in tight quarters (close-quarters combat in mine tunnels) where you had to stop and go frequently as well as encircle enemies using sliding. For that game I used Shift and Space Bar for slide up and down (pinkie and thumb).

Starfox and similar type games would then be examples of games that require screen-plane WASD movement (probably because in Starfox you are constantly moving foward). Personally I thought Starfox was much more simpler and more "pick-upable" to control than Descent or Wing Commander (the market target audience for Starfox was definitely a lot more general and less niche).

If you want to make a similar 3-D starship game, you could simply allocate a key that does a simple "Go!" and "Stop!", because you won't be doing a lot of stopping or breaking during your trade runs. Or, you could just make forward movement all automated like in Starfox, thus freeing up your WASD for you to slide your ship up-down-left-right to dodge asteroids, space junk, and things. Automated "railroad" forward movement could also make for some interesting gameplay, and you could use some sci-fi concepts to explain this such as your setting using slipstream "highways" as a primary mode of distant interstellar travel, etc.

And if you really are going to model after Starfox, I would advise locking the targeting cursor in the center of the screen so that when you turn/rotate your ship, it will seem as though only the environment will change around your crosshair, ship, and camera. In this way you could aim a lot better (I always had a hard time with coping with the depth of perception when aiming in Starfox).

[Edited by - Tangireon on July 14, 2008 6:00:31 PM]

I think this might be very similar to Homeworld, but:

Here's another control scheme I just thought of, which combines FPS controls with Starfox. So in this control scheme the camera will follow right behind your ship at a fixed angle like in Starfox, while your ship can't turn away from its automated course (due to Slipstream, or etc), but it can turn around and go in reverse, as well as strafe to anywhere in the slipstream. Your ship's aiming crosshairs will then instead be a line that reaches to a certain depth, thus touching whatever it is that your shot would meet. The longer ranged your weapons are, the longer this line will be.

Strafe Up-Down-Left-Right (Mouse Movement)
Accelerate/Decelerate (hold W, S)
Roll Counterclock/Clockwise (hold A, D)
U-Turn (X)

To provide variable acceleration speeds, you could make it so that the longer you hold down 'W', the faster you will go up to your top speed. Similarly with 'S', the more you will decelerate, eventually reaching full stop.

The U-Turn would enable you to turn back in the direction you originally came from.

[Edited by - Tangireon on July 15, 2008 2:53:36 AM]

Thanks for the great replies. I've been exploring some of the suggestions here and I'm still considering this.

One important thing I neglected to mention: Turning battles. The whole point of having an orbit camera (besides eye candy) was to shift the focus from the traditional endless turning battles that plague almost every space game. Fixed guns work for fighters, but not so much for cap ships and freighters with turrets and dropped munitions. And even for fighters, I don't see a missile can't drop from it's hardpoint, reorient, and fire in whatever direction you choose (I may even make wing mounted guns turrets by default).

I'm also experimenting with a "swing shield," a small barrier ships can deploy strategically in any direction (it was fun in my 2d proto, going to see if it works in 3d).


I'll definitely support remappable controls. My main concern was default controls and what you experience "out of the box." I like WASD, but I also like (envy?) the interface simplicity of games like Diablo, where you can click and just get things moving.