test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Unshackle us from 2D please...

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
OK...of the three critical ways of turning your craft in space, only two are even partially implemented.

Pitch: We are limited to a 90 degree angle up or down
Yaw: This is the only one that actually works.
Roll: Only implemented graphically. Has no actual effect otherwise.

I propose that you add a "dorsal" and "Ventral" shield (hit if the attack is coming in from more than 45 degrees up or down) and give us full control on all 3 axes of movement, and have the camera roll, pitch, and yaw with the ship.

This would restore space to it's actual "Up? There is no "up!" condition, and add to the tactical maneuvering options of player captains. Currently we're stuck with basically 2 dimentional movment with "altituce" like flying over a planet's surface, and not true 3D movement.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Hope you mean 90 as in 45 degrees up and 45 degrees down (I suspect its more like 60-70 each way, but I cannot fly my ship straight up and down, that's all I want.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Its fine the way it is, adding more hit zones would massively increase server load.
    I have np problems flying around.
    And devs have already said it isnt going to happen
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I wouldn't mind if they implemented a fully 3d flight system which allowed you to move in all three dimensions completely, but force the ship to reorient itself to the "galactic plane" so all ships are facing the same direction once the maneuver is complete. That way, you have your cake (people won't easily get confused) and eat it too (you can still face your weapons to the enemy, or at least head towards them).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    RedwoodElf wrote: »
    OK...of the three critical ways of turning your craft in space, only two are even partially implemented.

    Pitch: We are limited to a 90 degree angle up or down
    Yaw: This is the only one that actually works.
    Roll: Only implemented graphically. Has no actual effect otherwise.

    I propose that you add a "dorsal" and "Ventral" shield (hit if the attack is coming in from more than 45 degrees up or down) and give us full control on all 3 axes of movement, and have the camera roll, pitch, and yaw with the ship.

    This would restore space to it's actual "Up? There is no "up!" condition, and add to the tactical maneuvering options of player captains. Currently we're stuck with basically 2 dimentional movment with "altituce" like flying over a planet's surface, and not true 3D movement.

    Already stated by Cryptic that it's not going to happen. Though we might like 360 on all axis, it isn't coming.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Kassidus wrote: »
    Its fine the way it is, adding more hit zones would massively increase server load.
    I have np problems flying around.
    And devs have already said it isnt going to happen

    ,... though they have also stated that they are talking about steepening the angle somewhat.

    :cool:
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I bugged my game out last night after I ran into an asteroid while turning hard under full impulse power and evasive action and suddenly had greater freedom of movement than usual. It was strange, though, since I could aim up and down, I'd sill move slow to aim in the direction I wanted, but the background would rotate the rest of the way, so I could go in a full circle in effect.

    Long story short: The game engine can apparently handle it and is set to block you from doing this kind of thing. Also, it was very disorienting. Seriously disorienting. Not totally sure I'd want to play like that normally.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    The option is under "options"/ "Video". It is called "If you want to be unshackeled from 2D" and it is a Yes/No option.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I still want this too.

    And im not going to stop asking until they admit its not because ppl are to stupid to think 3D but because they are too stupid to program 3D. :D
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Who cares? And why? Realism is irrelevant here, as in the ST shows and movies. What does it bring to the game in terms of fun? Nothing, in fact it reduces tactics.

    Shield going down? "Do a barrel roll!"
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    It's fine as is, for now. There are bigger fish to fry.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Naevius wrote:
    Who cares?

    I do.

    Frankly for me it has nothing to do with combat.

    I just want to be able to fly straight up or down for convenience sake and it "feels" better to be able to do it.

    We don't need any more shield angles, we can already attack each other from above or below.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    2D implies we cant move up or down.

    But we can.

    In my experiences it feels like they have adjusted Up/Down angles somewhat since OB.

    I rarely have to corkscrew now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Again, and again, and again y'all keep bring up the same issue over, and over and over again.

    It's been said frelling umpteenth times already by the devs over and over and over again:

    It.Is.Not.Going.To.Change.Ever.

    Besides, as somebody already said, this issue (if that's one) is unimportant. There's bigger fish to fry right now!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Naevius wrote:
    Who cares? And why? Realism is irrelevant here, as in the ST shows and movies. What does it bring to the game in terms of fun? Nothing, in fact it reduces tactics.

    Shield going down? "Do a barrel roll!"

    Not even close to the point. It's more a case of "oh, the mobs are 20km above us. Everyone slowly bank for 5 minutes".
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Well i find this limitation more annoying then the fact that 4 out of 6 fleet actions are broken.
    I mean its such a obvious flaw.
    Its also one of the main reasons a lot of people hated ST:Legacy.
    And stayed with ST:Bridge Commander, a 8 year old game, with full 3D.

    But at least in Legacy you could go straight up and down, you cant even do that here.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    NinetyNine wrote:
    Not even close to the point. It's more a case of "oh, the mobs are 20km above us. Everyone slowly bank for 5 minutes".

    change 5 mins to 10 secs and i would believe you ;)
    20 secs if your a cruiser.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    badbal wrote: »
    change 5 mins to 10 secs and i would believe you ;)
    20 secs if your a cruiser.

    You are obviously an escort man, amirite?

    Because I know you aren't flying a cruiser...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    badbal wrote: »
    change 5 mins to 10 secs and i would believe you ;)
    20 secs if your a cruiser.

    20km? thats at least 1 minute corkscrewing.

    Edit: with my escort
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    NinetyNine wrote:
    You are obviously an escort man, amirite?

    Because I know you aren't flying a cruiser...

    Eng/Cruiser fed man :D - Tac/Escort Klingy side.

    Its really not that bad. But i do understand the complaints.

    It felt worse in OB. But maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.
    20km? thats at least 1 minute corkscrewing.

    Edit: with my escort

    using Full Impulse?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    badbal wrote: »
    Eng/Cruiser fed man :D - Tac/Escort Klingy side.

    Its really not that bad. But i do understand the complaints.

    It felt worse in OB. But maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.

    Or maybe you just got used to it. ;)

    I can completely understand the limitations on movements so people don't get lost completely (because that happened to me a LOT on Bridge Commander, probably mostly due to lack of practice), but I know I've seen games implement a move however you want control scheme but balance that against an automatic reorientation to the "ground" so all the ships aren't caddywhompus to each other once the maneuver is completed. Or maybe not. At least I want to be able to head towards that Klingon ship that's directly overhead.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    badbal wrote: »
    Eng/Cruiser fed man :D - Tac/Escort Klingy side.

    Its really not that bad. But i do understand the complaints.

    It felt worse in OB. But maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.



    using Full Impulse?

    You can't use full impulse and corkscrew in a cruiser due to the turn radius. You will end up in another system that way.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Please let Cryptic finish with their game their way before trying to make your game your way. :)

    In other words let them finish building the Alfa-Romeo before you ask for ejection seats, machine guns behind the headlights, flipping license plates or airplane wings from the roof. We will still be able to get to the grocery store even tho it'll take longer to move thru traffic that we can't just blow up or fly over. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    The existing flight model in STO is really not that dissimilar from the series or movies. In fact, I can think of only one or two occasions where a ship performed a maneuver beyond the scope of what we're able to perform.

    From an RP perspective, call it limitations of the inertial dampeners. You don't want Earl Grey all over yourself do you?

    Also never heard anyone cry out 'divert power to our uh...top shields! or...uh, bottom shields!!' Nope. It's always been, forward, aft, starboard and port. Just like we have.

    Now the firing arc issues with having to spiral down etc, yeah - some of those are a bit weird but based on what I understand about this engine design, changing the physics model to the extent where 'true' space physics were in place would be well outside scope - and not foreseeable.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I still want this too.

    And im not going to stop asking until they admit its not because ppl are to stupid to think 3D but because they are too stupid to program 3D. :D

    Cryptic has admitted - repeatedly - that it's due to server and engine limitations. What else do you want?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I did not mind it until I hit a mission where everything was straight down. I had to corkscrew through the entire mission of like 5 waves of enemies. If they do not allow us to go straight down it does not bother me but do not make a mission that is nothing but straight down.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Blackavaar wrote: »
    ,... though they have also stated that they are talking about steepening the angle somewhat.

    :cool:

    This is all I want, just a pain trying to get cannons on target when the target is above or below you.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Cryptic has admitted - repeatedly - that it's due to server and engine limitations. What else do you want?

    This compromise -->
    malize wrote: »
    1) Use the ship class and engine turn-rate as cool-off factors.

    2) Allow a button-mash (say, the "Z" key) for an Immelmann

    -OR EVEN BETTER -

    3) Allow a loop directional

    Shift-W = Immelmann turn
    Shift-S = Split-S / Reverse Immelmann
    Shift-D = Chandelle Right
    Shift-S = Chandelle Left

    Each directional would have an "exposed" shield facing for the turn, if that is a programmatic concern.

    Support here.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    I can appreciate that cryptic lacks the competence to achieve a "real" flight engine. It doesn't lessen the disappointment felt by those of us who would like to see a full implementation of a combat engine that supported 3D modalities.

    Someone mentioned that this wouldn't effect tactics. To believe that would imply a very short sighted perspective of the potential of 3D combat.

    There are a couple of references to ventral and dorsal shields as well, but I acquiesce again to the failure of Cryptic to figure out how to achieve what many of us feel is an obvious requirement of a space based combat system.

    I hold out hope that they can continue to improve the game. I'll be happy if they could actually produce a decent set of documentation. The best docs I've seen so far are from the players.

    I wanted to chime in though and offer my support to the cause of a 3D engine.

    I also expect that it will never happen, but it is assured to not happen if we don't step up and request it...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    Kassidus wrote: »
    Its fine the way it is, adding more hit zones would massively increase server load.
    I have np problems flying around.
    And devs have already said it isnt going to happen

    This is a spurrious argument. the "top" and "bottom" areas for ships are ALREADY defined, as you woulld know if you'd ever had an enemy fly above "or below" you to the front in an escort...all of a suddon, though he is most definitely "in front of" you, your cannons stop working, because the actual arc is 45 degrees from the forward centerline of the ship, both from side to side AND up and down.

    If the game engine deciding the target is outside your firing arc vertically doesn't cause "server load" than applying damage coming from such targets to a "topside" or "bottomside" shield wouldn't either.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited February 2010
    xinphinity wrote: »
    Also never heard anyone cry out 'divert power to our uh...top shields! or...uh, bottom shields!!' Nope. It's always been, forward, aft, starboard and port. Just like we have.

    Just because I like stirring the pot:

    ST: Nemesis:
    INT. ENTERPRISE - BRIDGE - FOLLOWING

    The bridge SHAKES violently under the ruthless attack--

    DATA
    We are losing dorsal shields --

    PICARD
    Full axis rotation to port! Fire
    all ventral phasers!

    EXT. THE RIFT - SPACE

    The Enterprise instantly complies -- Rolling completely over
    to the left, firing phasers up as Shinzon's invisible ship
    streaks above it --

    A few lucky phaser shots from the bottom of the Enterprise --
    now shooting upward -- manage to momentarily illuminate the
    bottom shields of the Scimitar as it sweeps past above.
    (source: http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Star-Trek-Nemesis.html
Sign In or Register to comment.