The ones that complain that the game isnt enough like star trek... and then complain that you caint fly a ship 360 degrees... how many times did you see a ship in start trek flying straight up and down? 1.... maybe 2 times over the last 50+ years.
Yea, you're possibly right. I myself think its fine.
But I dont think starting another thread on the issue is going to make it stop or anything. I mean, I dont recall seeing much of that issue brought up today, and Ive been on the forums most of the day. Until now that is.
Yea, you're possibly right. I myself think its fine.
But I dont think starting another thread on the issue is going to make it stop or anything. I mean, I dont recall seeing much of that issue brought up today, and Ive been on the forums most of the day. Until now that is.
The ones that complain that the game isnt enough like star trek... and then complain that you caint fly a ship 360 degrees... how many times did you see a ship in start trek flying straight up and down? 1.... maybe 2 times over the last 50+ years.
these people = FAIL!
If we're talking about the those "players" that expected STO to be some sort of perfect trek nerdvana where they'd spend their days buried deep in their tech manuals arguing the canon implications of TNG episode 124 and how phaser beams being the precise color is integral to the fundamental "Star Trek Experience" the game should be... Ya, I do tend to find that kind'a annoying.
But if we're talking about those players that have been asking valid questions, making game play suggestions... Then no, I don't think it fair to say they should just shut up and play.
It's all about context. There's line between "constructive" and "destructive", and whether it's "whining" or a"Critical analysis" that gets fuzzy in public forums.
full 360 degree movement simply wasnt in the shows for the most part, definately not till later shows, and only with smaller ships.
i for one dont want to see Galaxy class ships doing loop the loops around sol.. its just.... WRONG
but you see it in so many complaints about the game.. "no true 360 movement, no this, no that. in conclusion, its not trek"
its little things, like people spelling sisko's name cisco (ooh thats a pet peeve alright, he's a starfleet captain, not a dataserver!) or who seem to completely miss the little references in the game... searching for remnants of Omega particles but not told why or what it is.. finding areas touched by the T'Kon Empire.. or the graves of the D'Arsay race.
had a mission earlier with the devidians in it..
there's so much trek in here its crazy. sure game could use some more diplomacy, non-lethal options and maybe a buxom ships counselor on every bridge.. but to say its NOT trek? baffles me every time.
full 360 degree movement simply wasnt in the shows for the most part, definately not till later shows, and only with smaller ships.
i for one dont want to see Galaxy class ships doing loop the loops around sol.. its just.... WRONG
but you see it in so many complaints about the game.. "no true 360 movement, no this, no that. in conclusion, its not trek"
its little things, like people spelling sisko's name cisco (ooh thats a pet peeve alright, he's a starfleet captain, not a dataserver!) or who seem to completely miss the little references in the game... searching for remnants of Omega particles but not told why or what it is.. finding areas touched by the T'Kon Empire.. or the graves of the D'Arsay race.
had a mission earlier with the devidians in it..
there's so much trek in here its crazy. sure game could use some more diplomacy, non-lethal options and maybe a buxom ships counselor on every bridge.. but to say its NOT trek? baffles me every time.
Its not that im saying its trek or not. just poiunting out how funny it is that most of the ones that complain that the game isnt trek, or the ones that want things that was never in trek.
1. Star Terk is sci-fi, that would be science fiction, not reality, so be careful about taking it too literaly to match only what your eyes tell you.
2. Are you really assuming that everytime you saw a Star Trek ship that they are all oriented to some sort of universal true north?
3. Do you not realize that even though these sci-fi ships are being shown to look upright on your television screen, that is not always the case nor could it even be if you think about it?
4. Ships can be orientated in any direction to one another in any kind of orbit.
5. If the show producers showed the viewpoint being upside down, or anything then from being upright, nobody would have the stomach to watch it. Wouldn't make for a very good sci-fi show right?
6. Remember this is sci-fi, made for TV entertainment.
7. Wouldn't you feel silly if you found out that real spaceships maintain all sorts of maneuvering degrees?
8. Have you ever watched NASA Tv? Try it sometime, you will notice the lack of upright spacecraft.
9. Prepare to feel silly.....
10. It is your perception that is =fail. The ships were never upright. That's what the producers showed you. You came to your own assumptions on only pieces of information. And to rain even harder on your parade, the shows were fake in the first place.
And to rain even harder on your parade, the shows were fake in the first place.
It was a show written by people. And those people expressed many ideas at many levels. So while it is a sci fi show, it is also a comment on society, and creates many moral and thinking dilemas for the minds of people to explore.
It was a show written by people. And those people expressed many ideas at many levels. So while it is a sci fi show, it is also a comment on society, and creates many moral and thinking dilemas for the minds of people to explore.
Have you been reading Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes? They do the same thing..... :eek:
It's a flat out lie to say 3D movement/comabt is not a part of Star Trek canon.
The sky is blue.
And the sun is hot.
What will people think of next? Words on paper? The wonders never cease to amaze my simple mind
1. Star Terk is sci-fi, that would be science fiction, not reality, so be careful about taking it too literaly to match only what your eyes tell you.
2. Are you really assuming that everytime you saw a Star Trek ship that they are all oriented to some sort of universal true north?
3. Do you not realize that even though these sci-fi ships are being shown to look upright on your television screen, that is not always the case nor could it even be if you think about it?
4. Ships can be orientated in any direction to one another in any kind of orbit.
5. If the show producers showed the viewpoint being upside down, or anything then from being upright, nobody would have the stomach to watch it. Wouldn't make for a very good sci-fi show right?
6. Remember this is sci-fi, made for TV entertainment.
7. Wouldn't you feel silly if you found out that real spaceships maintain all sorts of maneuvering degrees?
8. Have you ever watched NASA Tv? Try it sometime, you will notice the lack of upright spacecraft.
9. Prepare to feel silly.....
10. It is your perception that is =fail. The ships were never upright. That's what the producers showed you. You came to your own assumptions on only pieces of information. And to rain even harder on your parade, the shows were fake in the first place.
Your post,sir makes too much sense, and the logic is astoundingly simple as though you'd think you were talking to simpletons.
There is really no good reason a ST ship should not be able to do a loop...in fact there is no good real reason they have to follow an aircraft propulsion flight model in regards to the actual orientation of the craft relative to its absolute vector in space.
Face it, the reality is that whatever technobabble you invent to explain why the Trek ships don't have to flip-ship to apply reverse thrust is the same technobabble that would pretty much demand that the ships be able to make complete loops in any fashion you would want (i.e., "Set heading 355 mark 90"...which every good Trek fan knows is a relative heading based off two 360 circles, the first horizontal the second vertical.)
There is a lot of complex physics that Cryptic basically arcades out because this is suppose to be a fun game...not an experiment in real life space travel. However, having said that...the ships should at least be able to perform vertical loops.
I had read Cryptic left out 360 because it felt would alienate part of their player base... basically making it a hard game to play because they think players would get disoriented and frustrated because of it. They wanted to make sure the game appealed to as large an audience as they could.
I see their point, but don't agree with it. Of course I'm a vet of XvT.... so having 360 degrees doesn't bother me.. but it would make the game unplayable for my wife.
Actually, the real reason you see ship fights on singular planes, and all ships upright is not only due to the way the producers of the show made it, but also due to human visual senses. Human beings perceive the world in 3 dimensions, however when it comes to stressful, or quick decisions, Humans are most comfortable thinking in 2 dimensions. Thus, for combat situations, it is natural to forget that third dimension, height.
For an example, watch how you actually engage in combat. Even if you were to start at a height advantage, against a non player since the computer AI is built in and may be compromising to the example, the natural tendency is to tilt downward, while your opponent tilts upward. Thus, you are currently seeing a 2 dimension plane (a slanted one). As the ships get closer and closer, each eventually being to swoop around each other, until the dogfight tilts the original plane into a strait horizontal plane. A very natural way in which humans perceive the fights.
Same again with upright ships. Once again, the natural tendency for humans is to perceive things in its natural state. Thus, it is again natural for humans to want to view objects as they would be see in stationary position. Thus, if you do see a ship sideways, or upside down, it is natural human tendency to want to take that and "fix" it so that it is the correct way of looking at the object. Thus, you turn your own ship to match theirs, such that each ship is the same direction, and thus can be perceived both at the same orientation.
I'm pretty sure it was pointed out somewhere that they didn't do it 360 because of combat, firing arcs and all that business?
I like the way it plays, it's simple. Over complicate it and as Dreugan said, you'll alienate some of the playerbase. The devs know what they're doing, it's all for a reason.
As for the "it's not Trek", there are so many little things to notice, it's astounding what you'd see if you actually stopped to play the game and not worry about storming through the levels.
1. Star Terk is sci-fi, that would be science fiction, not reality, so be careful about taking it too literaly to match only what your eyes tell you.
2. Are you really assuming that everytime you saw a Star Trek ship that they are all oriented to some sort of universal true north?
3. Do you not realize that even though these sci-fi ships are being shown to look upright on your television screen, that is not always the case nor could it even be if you think about it?
4. Ships can be orientated in any direction to one another in any kind of orbit.
5. If the show producers showed the viewpoint being upside down, or anything then from being upright, nobody would have the stomach to watch it. Wouldn't make for a very good sci-fi show right?
6. Remember this is sci-fi, made for TV entertainment.
7. Wouldn't you feel silly if you found out that real spaceships maintain all sorts of maneuvering degrees?
8. Have you ever watched NASA Tv? Try it sometime, you will notice the lack of upright spacecraft.
9. Prepare to feel silly.....
10. It is your perception that is =fail. The ships were never upright. That's what the producers showed you. You came to your own assumptions on only pieces of information. And to rain even harder on your parade, the shows were fake in the first place.
OH EM GEE!!! they altered perception of actual physics to make sense in a TV show?
MY MIND IS BLOWN APART!!!
.....
prepare to feel silly.....
you talk about how its science fiction, how its all make believe and how short cuts and tricks are used to make a more presentable show, THEN you go on about real ships in a 3D enviroment and how they would act.
so... please, inform us unenlightened masses with your omnipotent wisdom.. which one should we apply to a game based on the TV show?
do please say, because us simpletons are dying to know, we hang on every word of your judgement you know..
(btw, considering how you post, your avatar is pretty much spot on for attitude)
OH EM GEE!!! they altered perception of actual physics to make sense in a TV show?
MY MIND IS BLOWN APART!!!
.....
prepare to feel silly.....
you talk about how its science fiction, how its all make believe and how short cuts and tricks are used to make a more presentable show, THEN you go on about real ships in a 3D enviroment and how they would act.
so... please, inform us unenlightened masses with your omnipotent wisdom.. which one should we apply to a game based on the TV show?
do please say, because us simpletons are dying to know, we hang on every word of your judgement you know..
(btw, considering how you post, your avatar is pretty much spot on for attitude)
Now I rarely say that, but in this particular issue: I don't care about canon, physics, sci-fi or even Okuda's opinion.
Fact is, when there is an enemy ship directly above or under me, I can't face it and shoot. It's as if my ship was limited by some kind of invisible 45° plane barrier. This is wrong. Because then I have to tack my way up or down, facing aft or sides half the time of the procedure. How much more stupid can I feel in command of my almighty Sol Class?
We don't need loops or rolls (both of which would put our ventral side on the upside, it would be hard to manage), but just to increase the vertical angle limit to at least 80° and at most 90° (so all players have the same "down" and "up").
This is a gamer's opinion, totally unrelated to Star Trek.
And don't start me on Trek's science, because there is no way to justify such a limitation. This detrimental lack of capability of our STO ships comes from Cryptic's engine (which was not designed for space combat), certainly not from Trek writers.
The ones that complain that the game isnt enough like star trek... and then complain that you caint fly a ship 360 degrees... how many times did you see a ship in start trek flying straight up and down? 1.... maybe 2 times over the last 50+ years.
these people = FAIL!
Yeah, their ALMOST as bad as the people who post threads complaining ABOUT them
full 360 degree movement simply wasnt in the shows for the most part, definately not till later shows, and only with smaller ships.
i for one dont want to see Galaxy class ships doing loop the loops around sol.. its just.... WRONG
but you see it in so many complaints about the game.. "no true 360 movement, no this, no that. in conclusion, its not trek"
its little things, like people spelling sisko's name cisco (ooh thats a pet peeve alright, he's a starfleet captain, not a dataserver!) or who seem to completely miss the little references in the game... searching for remnants of Omega particles but not told why or what it is.. finding areas touched by the T'Kon Empire.. or the graves of the D'Arsay race.
had a mission earlier with the devidians in it..
there's so much trek in here its crazy. sure game could use some more diplomacy, non-lethal options and maybe a buxom ships counselor on every bridge.. but to say its NOT trek? baffles me every time.
Borg wasnt in TOS, lets get rid of them, lets get rid of the intrepid too, that didnt come out till very late in the franchise, might aswel get rid of ds9 too, that was only seen late in the franchise...
and not being able to do 360 in space, is pants...lol
having to hit reverse and slowly back up cos the enemy fleet is either 9 clicks above or below you is in my opinion patheitc game play....
The ones that complain that the game isnt enough like star trek... and then complain that you caint fly a ship 360 degrees... how many times did you see a ship in start trek flying straight up and down? 1.... maybe 2 times over the last 50+ years.
these people = FAIL!
I guess that makes me == FAIL then.
I'll tentatively agree with your observation though; for a show set in space, ST does always seem to find two ships oriented to the same local vertical when they meet. I'm sure this can be attributed to the realities of filming with models in some way.
On the other hand, one of the (generally agreed to be) best movies from our canon contains this exchange:
I'll tentatively agree with your observation though; for a show set in space, ST does always seem to find two ships oriented to the same local vertical when they meet. I'm sure this can be attributed to the realities of filming with models in some way.
On the other hand, one of the (generally agreed to be) best movies from our canon contains this exchange:
Decending means they move downward? not turn the ship straight down and go. lmao
"Yeah, their ALMOST as bad as the people who post threads complaining ABOUT them "
Your posted this thread, not me. I worded it the way I did for a reason
I did read what you said, a post and a thread isnt really that much different, so yea i guess you "almost" as bad also.
least i have a valid point, your point is...... nothing, so act liek your better all you want, your worse than the ones im complaining about, least they also have something real to talk about.
Comments
But I dont think starting another thread on the issue is going to make it stop or anything. I mean, I dont recall seeing much of that issue brought up today, and Ive been on the forums most of the day. Until now that is.
There is a thread on the first page about it.....
Oh.....well....I stand corrected. You tell em Erichamby! And again, I agree.
lol thanks mate
If we're talking about the those "players" that expected STO to be some sort of perfect trek nerdvana where they'd spend their days buried deep in their tech manuals arguing the canon implications of TNG episode 124 and how phaser beams being the precise color is integral to the fundamental "Star Trek Experience" the game should be... Ya, I do tend to find that kind'a annoying.
But if we're talking about those players that have been asking valid questions, making game play suggestions... Then no, I don't think it fair to say they should just shut up and play.
It's all about context. There's line between "constructive" and "destructive", and whether it's "whining" or a"Critical analysis" that gets fuzzy in public forums.
full 360 degree movement simply wasnt in the shows for the most part, definately not till later shows, and only with smaller ships.
i for one dont want to see Galaxy class ships doing loop the loops around sol.. its just.... WRONG
but you see it in so many complaints about the game.. "no true 360 movement, no this, no that. in conclusion, its not trek"
its little things, like people spelling sisko's name cisco (ooh thats a pet peeve alright, he's a starfleet captain, not a dataserver!) or who seem to completely miss the little references in the game... searching for remnants of Omega particles but not told why or what it is.. finding areas touched by the T'Kon Empire.. or the graves of the D'Arsay race.
had a mission earlier with the devidians in it..
there's so much trek in here its crazy. sure game could use some more diplomacy, non-lethal options and maybe a buxom ships counselor on every bridge.. but to say its NOT trek? baffles me every time.
Its not that im saying its trek or not. just poiunting out how funny it is that most of the ones that complain that the game isnt trek, or the ones that want things that was never in trek.
2. Are you really assuming that everytime you saw a Star Trek ship that they are all oriented to some sort of universal true north?
3. Do you not realize that even though these sci-fi ships are being shown to look upright on your television screen, that is not always the case nor could it even be if you think about it?
4. Ships can be orientated in any direction to one another in any kind of orbit.
5. If the show producers showed the viewpoint being upside down, or anything then from being upright, nobody would have the stomach to watch it. Wouldn't make for a very good sci-fi show right?
6. Remember this is sci-fi, made for TV entertainment.
7. Wouldn't you feel silly if you found out that real spaceships maintain all sorts of maneuvering degrees?
8. Have you ever watched NASA Tv? Try it sometime, you will notice the lack of upright spacecraft.
9. Prepare to feel silly.....
10. It is your perception that is =fail. The ships were never upright. That's what the producers showed you. You came to your own assumptions on only pieces of information. And to rain even harder on your parade, the shows were fake in the first place.
It was a show written by people. And those people expressed many ideas at many levels. So while it is a sci fi show, it is also a comment on society, and creates many moral and thinking dilemas for the minds of people to explore.
WHAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!!!!!!!1111one!1one!!11
Have you been reading Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes? They do the same thing..... :eek:
It's a flat out lie to say 3D movement/comabt is not a part of Star Trek canon.
The sky is blue.
And the sun is hot.
What will people think of next? Words on paper? The wonders never cease to amaze my simple mind
And TheStreaker is right, just because you didn't see the ship on series pointing straight up or down doesn't mean it wasn't doing that on the Z-axis.
When it orbits a planet - don't you think at some point to the population below it was pointing straight up perpindicular to them??
But as you pointed out , there were a few instances of the Ship going straight up which means its possible.
I would love 360 flying, but not gonna spill my milk and get red-faced because I can't. My wife has enough children to deal with
Although it is not a game stopping issue for me.
Your post,sir makes too much sense, and the logic is astoundingly simple as though you'd think you were talking to simpletons.
Face it, the reality is that whatever technobabble you invent to explain why the Trek ships don't have to flip-ship to apply reverse thrust is the same technobabble that would pretty much demand that the ships be able to make complete loops in any fashion you would want (i.e., "Set heading 355 mark 90"...which every good Trek fan knows is a relative heading based off two 360 circles, the first horizontal the second vertical.)
There is a lot of complex physics that Cryptic basically arcades out because this is suppose to be a fun game...not an experiment in real life space travel. However, having said that...the ships should at least be able to perform vertical loops.
I see their point, but don't agree with it. Of course I'm a vet of XvT.... so having 360 degrees doesn't bother me.. but it would make the game unplayable for my wife.
For an example, watch how you actually engage in combat. Even if you were to start at a height advantage, against a non player since the computer AI is built in and may be compromising to the example, the natural tendency is to tilt downward, while your opponent tilts upward. Thus, you are currently seeing a 2 dimension plane (a slanted one). As the ships get closer and closer, each eventually being to swoop around each other, until the dogfight tilts the original plane into a strait horizontal plane. A very natural way in which humans perceive the fights.
Same again with upright ships. Once again, the natural tendency for humans is to perceive things in its natural state. Thus, it is again natural for humans to want to view objects as they would be see in stationary position. Thus, if you do see a ship sideways, or upside down, it is natural human tendency to want to take that and "fix" it so that it is the correct way of looking at the object. Thus, you turn your own ship to match theirs, such that each ship is the same direction, and thus can be perceived both at the same orientation.
I like the way it plays, it's simple. Over complicate it and as Dreugan said, you'll alienate some of the playerbase. The devs know what they're doing, it's all for a reason.
As for the "it's not Trek", there are so many little things to notice, it's astounding what you'd see if you actually stopped to play the game and not worry about storming through the levels.
OH EM GEE!!! they altered perception of actual physics to make sense in a TV show?
MY MIND IS BLOWN APART!!!
.....
prepare to feel silly.....
you talk about how its science fiction, how its all make believe and how short cuts and tricks are used to make a more presentable show, THEN you go on about real ships in a 3D enviroment and how they would act.
so... please, inform us unenlightened masses with your omnipotent wisdom.. which one should we apply to a game based on the TV show?
do please say, because us simpletons are dying to know, we hang on every word of your judgement you know..
(btw, considering how you post, your avatar is pretty much spot on for attitude)
/ThisGetsMyVote
Fact is, when there is an enemy ship directly above or under me, I can't face it and shoot. It's as if my ship was limited by some kind of invisible 45° plane barrier.
This is wrong. Because then I have to tack my way up or down, facing aft or sides half the time of the procedure. How much more stupid can I feel in command of my almighty Sol Class?
We don't need loops or rolls (both of which would put our ventral side on the upside, it would be hard to manage), but just to increase the vertical angle limit to at least 80° and at most 90° (so all players have the same "down" and "up").
This is a gamer's opinion, totally unrelated to Star Trek.
And don't start me on Trek's science, because there is no way to justify such a limitation. This detrimental lack of capability of our STO ships comes from Cryptic's engine (which was not designed for space combat), certainly not from Trek writers.
/FailOnEpicLevel
Yeah, their ALMOST as bad as the people who post threads complaining ABOUT them
Borg wasnt in TOS, lets get rid of them, lets get rid of the intrepid too, that didnt come out till very late in the franchise, might aswel get rid of ds9 too, that was only seen late in the franchise...
and not being able to do 360 in space, is pants...lol
having to hit reverse and slowly back up cos the enemy fleet is either 9 clicks above or below you is in my opinion patheitc game play....
I guess that makes me == FAIL then.
I'll tentatively agree with your observation though; for a show set in space, ST does always seem to find two ships oriented to the same local vertical when they meet. I'm sure this can be attributed to the realities of filming with models in some way.
On the other hand, one of the (generally agreed to be) best movies from our canon contains this exchange:
Like you just did
Decending means they move downward? not turn the ship straight down and go. lmao
Wrong! Read what I said again:
"Yeah, their ALMOST as bad as the people who post threads complaining ABOUT them
Your posted this thread, not me. I worded it the way I did for a reason
I did read what you said, a post and a thread isnt really that much different, so yea i guess you "almost" as bad also.
least i have a valid point, your point is...... nothing, so act liek your better all you want, your worse than the ones im complaining about, least they also have something real to talk about.