test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Star Trek Online General Discussion

manuvering

ender357ender357 Member Posts: 26 Arc User
edited June 2014 in Star Trek Online General Discussion
so.....i dont know if this has been answered before....

but why cant we flip out ships upside down? why cant we go straight down? or straight up?

is it a control issue?
Post edited by ender357 on
«13

Comments

  • groomofweirdgroomofweird Member Posts: 1,045 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Yeah its been mentioned a ton of times.
    Some have said it is not within the game engine,
    Some have said it is within the capabilities of the engine but would be confusing for players,
    Some have said that it is because seeing a galaxy flying upside down would just look wrong (bridge commander).
    Personally I think its probably some way between the three.
    Nimoysig1_zpsr79joxz3.jpg
    "If this will be our end, then I will have them make SUCH an end as to be worthy of rememberance! Out of torpedos you say?! Find me the ferengi!".
  • aloishammeraloishammer Member Posts: 3,294 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    ender357 wrote: »
    but why cant we flip out ships upside down? why cant we go straight down? or straight up?

    Because Cryptic.
  • capnmanxcapnmanx Member Posts: 1,452 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    No, it was just a design decision. The Defiant aside, ships in Star Trek usually faced each other more or less on the same plane and the same way up; the devs felt that STO should reflect that.
    My old (and now mostly obsolete) exploration suggestions thread. Give it a read. :)
  • fmgtorres1979fmgtorres1979 Member Posts: 1,327 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    The part of being confusing is true. But like anything else is a matter of getting used to it.
  • erei1erei1 Member Posts: 4,081 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    aloishammer wrote: »
    Because Cryptic.
    The correct answer was "Because Iconians".


    I remember a dev saying a long time ago it was because the player was disturbed, and had difficulties to follow the fight.
    So we have to do the spiral of death everytime an enemy is above/under us.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • fmgtorres1979fmgtorres1979 Member Posts: 1,327 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    erei1 wrote: »
    The correct answer was "Because Iconians".


    I remember a dev saying a long time ago it was because the player was disturbed, and had difficulties to follow the fight.
    So we have to do the spiral of death everytime an enemy is above/under us.



    Right...
    So games like X-wing vs TIE fighter, X3, etc... are unplayable...

    Yes it's confusing. Yes, it forces you to stop thinking in 2D and start considering one other dimension, but in time you learn. Also, if you implement a 3d map, navigatin in 3d isn't all that difficult. It is without any referrence points, but not if you have them.
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited June 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • groomofweirdgroomofweird Member Posts: 1,045 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    I agree tighter manuvering on smaller craft such as escorts and fighters with more advanced manuvering moves would be cool. But not for bigger craft, I think I'd fall off my chair if I saw a scimitar do a barrel roll.
    I've played other space combat games with simillar principles for larger and smaller ships and you simply don't play a small vessel if you don't like spinning and looping.
    Nimoysig1_zpsr79joxz3.jpg
    "If this will be our end, then I will have them make SUCH an end as to be worthy of rememberance! Out of torpedos you say?! Find me the ferengi!".
  • ender357ender357 Member Posts: 26 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    groomofweird wrote: »
    I agree tighter manuvering on smaller craft such as escorts and fighters with more advanced manuvering moves would be cool. But not for bigger craft, I think I'd fall off my chair if I saw a scimitar do a barrel roll.
    I've played other space combat games with simillar principles for larger and smaller ships and you simply don't play a small vessel if you don't like spinning and looping.

    lol...well some ships just couldnt do it due to their mass....but there is no reason why escorts and science vessels about the size of voyager couldnt do it, i mean in the shows it depicts voyager doing some pretty crazy manuvers, same with the prometheus and the defiant. hell even nebula class ships can be seen doing some questionable manuvers.


    id honestly be fine with having these manuvers relegated to the attack patterns, it would be interesting to use attack pattern omega that way
  • tekehdtekehd Member Posts: 2,032 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    ender357 wrote: »
    so.....i dont know if this has been answered before....

    but why cant we flip out ships upside down? why cant we go straight down? or straight up?

    is it a control issue?

    For the same reason you see vessel on the show bank during high speed turns.
  • fmgtorres1979fmgtorres1979 Member Posts: 1,327 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Size and mass don't inhibit anything. The planet Earth is massive and it spins. Size and mass influence in how easily (or hardly) you do it and in which terms, not if you can do it or not. So long as the energy produced for motion is enough to move a given object, it will.


    Also, don't forget it's a matter of perspective. What one sees as "upside down" is not what the other one experiences. It's only upside down in relation to that observer.
  • shadowwraith77shadowwraith77 Member Posts: 6,395 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    groomofweird wrote: »
    I agree tighter manuvering on smaller craft such as escorts and fighters with more advanced manuvering moves would be cool. But not for bigger craft, I think I'd fall off my chair if I saw a scimitar do a barrel roll.
    I've played other space combat games with simillar principles for larger and smaller ships and you simply don't play a small vessel if you don't like spinning and looping.
    ender357 wrote: »
    lol...well some ships just couldnt do it due to their mass....but there is no reason why escorts and science vessels about the size of voyager couldnt do it, i mean in the shows it depicts voyager doing some pretty crazy manuvers, same with the prometheus and the defiant. hell even nebula class ships can be seen doing some questionable manuvers.


    id honestly be fine with having these manuvers relegated to the attack patterns, it would be interesting to use attack pattern omega that way
    tekehd wrote: »
    For the same reason you see vessel on the show bank during high speed turns.

    For all those naysayer's watch closely, as the Enterprise twice maneuvers full axis rotation to port side (IOW left half rotation barrel roll), and also watch how easily the ships particularly the Scimitar defies inertia, as it leaves warp speed to impulse, and completes a full emergency stop.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQK8ZAQ5usE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDJ_K56lbGw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTPdWYo9zhQ
    tumblr_nq9ec3BSAy1qj6sk2o2_500_zpspkqw0mmk.gif


    Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!

  • catliketypingcatliketyping Member Posts: 611
    edited June 2014
    Well, the data on the B'rel Retrofit is inaccurate.

    I just happened to see the B'rel do a 4g inverted dive.
    Nessia (KDF Sci)
    IKS Korrasami (Fleet B'rel Bird of Prey Retrofit T5-U)
  • adverberoadverbero Member Posts: 2,045 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    I think perhaps one reason is because the game has 2 dimensional shield facings, If we could roll and go full vertical, then we would need dorsal shield facings as shown in Nemesis
    solar_approach_by_chaos_sandwhich-d74kjft.png


    These are the Voyages on the STO forum, the final frontier. Our continuing mission: to explore Pretentious Posts, to seek out new Overreactions and Misinformation , to boldly experience Cynicism like no man has before.......
  • talonxvtalonxv Member Posts: 4,257 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    catliketyping wrote: »
    Well, the data on the B'rel Retrofit is inaccurate.

    I just happened to see the B'rel do a 4g inverted dive.

    You were in a 4g inverted dive with a B'rel? At what range?
    afMSv4g.jpg
    Star Trek Battles member. Want to roll with a good group of people regardless of fleets and not have to worry about DPS while doing STFs? Come join the channel and join in the fun!

    http://forum.arcgames.com/startrekonline/discussion/1145998/star-trek-battles-channel-got-canon/p1
  • catliketypingcatliketyping Member Posts: 611
    edited June 2014
    catliketyping wrote: »
    Well, the data on the B'rel Retrofit is inaccurate.

    I just happened to see the B'rel do a 4g inverted dive.
    talonxv wrote: »
    You were in a 4g inverted dive with a B'rel? At what range?

    Um, about two meters.

    Actually, it was about one and a half. I've got a great tricorder scan of it. He's like right there. Must be one and a half.
    Nessia (KDF Sci)
    IKS Korrasami (Fleet B'rel Bird of Prey Retrofit T5-U)
  • dracounguisdracounguis Member Posts: 5,358 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    ender357 wrote: »
    so.....i dont know if this has been answered before....

    but why cant we flip out ships upside down? why cant we go straight down? or straight up?

    is it a control issue?

    Cause programming is hard.
  • somebobsomebob Member Posts: 556 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    groomofweird wrote: »
    Some have said it is within the capabilities of the engine but would be confusing for players,
    Some have said that it is because seeing a galaxy flying upside down would just look wrong (bridge commander).

    These two right here as the Cryptic Engine can perfectly support three-dimensional movement in every direction including directly up and down (see Champions Online).
    Owner and Lead Moderator for the Primus Database. Post your Hero today!
    Razira's Primus Database Page
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • shadowwraith77shadowwraith77 Member Posts: 6,395 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    They probably went with this system, as to make it easier for the average to new player to handle flight.
    tumblr_nq9ec3BSAy1qj6sk2o2_500_zpspkqw0mmk.gif


    Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!

  • shadowwraith77shadowwraith77 Member Posts: 6,395 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    adverbero wrote: »
    I think perhaps one reason is because the game has 2 dimensional shield facings, If we could roll and go full vertical, then we would need dorsal shield facings as shown in Nemesis

    They could do it, other flight sims have used similar technology.

    They would need implement something to this effect.

    http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/13/dec/elite2.jpg

    https://scifiinterfaces.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/prometheus-096.png Better yet.

    They would implement a form of 3d ship ui perspective for shields, like surrounding a ship ui in a shield globe like effect.
    tumblr_nq9ec3BSAy1qj6sk2o2_500_zpspkqw0mmk.gif


    Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!

  • seriousdaveseriousdave Member Posts: 2,777 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    somebob wrote: »
    These two right here as the Cryptic Engine can perfectly support three-dimensional movement in every direction including directly up and down (see Champions Online).

    This.

    But I guess its really more of a aesthetic choice done by cryptic. I would welcome that kind of movement but on the other hand when I remember some of the slightly weird angles the battles in Bridge Commander took place I can't really balme Cryptic for not doing so.

    And for those who say it's not possible cause of mass etc. It's in SPACE. There are no outside forces that hinder any kind of movement. Turning upside down on a planet (like earth) would be complicated (to say at least) because of gravity, air resistance and stuff like that, but in space there's literally nothing to hinder you.

    The only thing that could be complicated would be the hit-area of the shields and the weapon arcs.
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited June 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • wildmousexwildmousex Member Posts: 0 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    Cryptic wasn't the first company to have this game, the first was Perpetual Entertainment. When it became apparent that they were doing nothing with developing the game besides creating and releasing promotional artwork, Atari gave it to Cryptic with little over a year to make from scratch - furthermore, Cryptic was only given a few months notice that J.J. was going to blow up Romulus, and they had to scrap their whole storyline and create a Fed vs. klink storyline on the fly.

    Right after Atari flubbed the hell out of the launch, they pulled out (worst launch in history, until Sim City came out). Just a couple of months after that, the game was left with barely enough sub's to maintain the servers and fix bugs. Once PWE got into the picture, Cryptic then had to work in the whole lock box, F2P model that all PWE games have... without them however we never would have gotten LoR, or be where we are today - and many of us old schoolers are grateful to them for that.

    While I think player confusion is a part of it, they did have very very little time to modify the engine they had in place for champions, and create all of the assets they needed in order to get a complete game together.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Me playing UT2k4 (red guy) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz0DnP7wXnU
  • ender357ender357 Member Posts: 26 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    well....momentum and inertia would be a problem


    oh wait....inertial dampners

    lol physics...TRIBBLE it all
  • flyingshoeboxflyingshoebox Member Posts: 123 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    From what I remember seeing posts by devs on and off it was both a design decision and because some people could not handle it that well.

    The design part had to do with making the ships feel like naval ships at sea. Slow turn broadsiding battle ships and faster attack destroyers and the likes.

    The 3d not handled well I don’t get to well myself, but I’ve played a lot of flight sims and space games over the years so it would not be a big hurtle. If all you ever played was a few mmos or no games at all you’d have a lot harder time. Basic it was raise the cost of entry for the game and I don’t think they wanted it to put people off. You have to remember star trek has a huge audience and they wanted to reach as much of it as possible.

    As much as I would have liked to have no gimble lock in space combat I do for the most part like the space combat in the game and think they did a good job of making it fun and engaging.

    Something I’d like to see tried and maybe it was in house and just never talked about is letting the shuttles not have a gimble lock. That way you’d wind up with something more along the line of ww2 navel style battles where the ships would act the way they do now and the shuttle would be more like planes buzzing around and dive bombing them.
  • tekehdtekehd Member Posts: 2,032 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    shadowwraith77 wrote: »
    For all those naysayer's watch closely, as the Enterprise twice maneuvers full axis rotation to port side (IOW left half rotation barrel roll), and also watch how easily the ships particularly the Scimitar defies inertia, as it leaves warp speed to impulse, and completes a full emergency stop.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQK8ZAQ5usE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDJ_K56lbGw

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTPdWYo9zhQ

    Inertia was not the reason I was alluding to.
  • UnknownUnknown
    edited June 2014
    This content has been removed.
  • shadowwraith77shadowwraith77 Member Posts: 6,395 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    colonelmarik wrote: »
    A thing to remember (and yes, I've seen Nemesis) is that these are SHIPS, not fighters. They're meant to simulate NAVAL action, and I've never seen an Iowa class battleship do a barrel roll.

    Just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it couldn't happen.
    tumblr_nq9ec3BSAy1qj6sk2o2_500_zpspkqw0mmk.gif


    Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!

  • fmgtorres1979fmgtorres1979 Member Posts: 1,327 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    colonelmarik wrote: »
    A thing to remember (and yes, I've seen Nemesis) is that these are SHIPS, not fighters. They're meant to simulate NAVAL action, and I've never seen an Iowa class battleship do a barrel roll.

    And how many Iowa class battleships have you seen in space?
  • originalspockoriginalspock Member Posts: 809 Arc User
    edited June 2014
    OP I will tell you exactly why. Wrath of Kahn. What was one of the number one things that made Wrath of Kahn the top rated Startrek Movie of all time? Submarine Combat.
Sign In or Register to comment.