So why, oh why, can I not flip my ship completely around. It's like playing the alien in the original AvP 2 game - just let go of you sense of up and down and live with the fact that there is no effing ground. Seriously, as long as the camera rotates with the ship it doesn't matter whether my up is the same as the guy next to me.
So just release whatever lock you guys have on my ship's movement and let me rotate around like I want. Puking is my problem, not yours.
Because the game is based on Star Trek and not the other way around... also cruisers and sci ships are fraking huge... you cant flip something upside down like that even in zero-g... Escorts perhaps.
As I see it, Cryptic made the right decision from a game design standpoint. The real issue here is shield configuration. The shield arcs are only meaningful in two dimensions, so ship movement has to be similarly constrained.
In my opinion, players have more tactical opportunities when movement is restricted to a plane, in large part because shield facing becomes more significant. If you allow totally free movement, it becomes too easy to protect a down shield, while also making shield management less intuitive.
Okay, but I often just hang out under other ships and blast them from beneath with my full phaser banks, so I'm already not hitting any particular side of the shiled but in fact am hitting the bottom, so whatever issues that evolve aorund that have been solved at least to a certain extent otherwise I couldn't do that.
Also, why should combat be that incredibly simple? Full tactical movement would add a new interesting element to the game that would A, make combat take longer possibly as two experienced players hit each each other, and B, allow for skill to come more into play which is always better than a die roll.
I'm sorry, but if I can out think you I don't see why I should concede an easy victory just because I've been reduced to playing at your level for the sake of a false equality.
Because the game is based on Star Trek and not the other way around... also cruisers and sci ships are fraking huge... you cant flip something upside down like that even in zero-g... Escorts perhaps.
There is no upside down, it's space, as for being based on Star Trek, Khan's problem was that he was thinking two dimensionally just like we are forced to do.
I have NEVER seen a starship on Star Trek corkscrew or orbit a planet in a wierd way, they simply rotate the camera to make it look like the ship is the right way up but in battles the ships go every which way.
"Sorry captain, it's going to take us 20 minutes to get to the satellite, someone placed it directly above us" isn't something I recall hearing in any episode.
Yea it's less then realistic but other things are are far worse. Such as the whole ships can only go so fast and accelerate quickly to that speed, ships have a turning radius independent of acceleratoin, etc. Weapon range is 10 km and if I read the scales right, it translates into planets being no more then a few hundred km in diameter (as opposed to the somewhat over 12000 km for the Earth). None of this follows basic physics.
But so what? Star Trek (the TV and movies) has a long history of ignoring such realities when they're inconvenient. As was pointed out above, by restricting movement somewhat they're able to add more tactics to the starship combat which I consider one of it's strong points. Considering this is Star Trek, and a game not trying too hard for fidelity with the real world (and very very few sci fi games give more then a token nod to the way things really work), I just don't see the reason to get worked up over it.
If they'd tried for greater fidelity with the way things really work, it wouldn't be Star Trek.
If you want ultra realism don't look for ANY Star Trek based games (or Star Wars for that matter).
Wrath of Khan is really the only instance of z axis movement. Pretty much every other time they act like planes.
While flips and rolls would be nice it would also massively increase the complexity and difficulty. I would like to be able to at least go up and down instead of the stupid cork TRIBBLE.
Because the game is based on Star Trek and not the other way around... also cruisers and sci ships are fraking huge... you cant flip something upside down like that even in zero-g... Escorts perhaps.
There is no "upside-down" in space. If there were some sort of gravity generators on a spaceship, it would still make no difference which way you rotated. And Star Trek did not limit ships to the same orientation.
Did any of you ever play the old arcade game Asteroids? It was done with a black & white vector graphics (stroke) monitor. You flew a little triangular ship around and shot at moving asteroids. Well, even then, the ship was quick to move, quick to maneuver, and had inertia. It took some skill to control, but the combat was more intense than this game and that was only 2D black & white. This game should be like that in 3D. The battleships in Battlefield 1942 turn faster than these starships.
* remembers big battles in bridge commander, tons of chaos, ships turning every which way and that, the upside down ships just giving me a head ache. Ah the times*
I have NEVER seen a starship on Star Trek corkscrew or orbit a planet in a wierd way, they simply rotate the camera to make it look like the ship is the right way up but in battles the ships go every which way
There was a couple of second of footage in the new Star Trek movie with the Enterprise going "upside" down towards a planet.
Because the game is based on Star Trek and not the other way around... also cruisers and sci ships are fraking huge... you cant flip something upside down like that even in zero-g... Escorts perhaps.
Sorry to say but this is one of the stupidest comments I have read in quite some time. Exactly what in space defines 'upside down' or 'right side up'? There is no gravity, no up or down. And what does the size of the ship have to do with that either?
As for the IP and 3D movement - check the vids below - there are PLENTY of examples in all the TV shows and movies of no magical barrier stopping you from going more than 45 degrees pitch angle. It is pointless and stupid that the limit exists and it ruins gameplay.
Because the game is based on Star Trek and not the other way around... also cruisers and sci ships are fraking huge... you cant flip something upside down like that even in zero-g... Escorts perhaps.
I don't think the 'is based on Star Trek' is a very good arguement.
First of all it's arguable if star trek is based on 2d space. And secondly the game ignores a lot of other star trek aspects, so it won't make much sense to sudenly find the need to stick to this (debateble) star trek trade.
Except ofcourse they just wanted the easy/cheap way out.
I think it's a shame. More realistic movements... and more realistic star systems for that matter would have made at least the space part of this game a lot more fun.
There was a couple of second of footage in the new Star Trek movie with the Enterprise going "upside" down towards a planet.
I meant orbiting a planet along the axis of the rings when the rings are @ a 60 degree incline and the ship is unable to simple orbit with the rings ie - it has to go up or down in weird ways to try and stay with the rings
There are a few times I've seen them approach earth and the view of earth hasn't been the typical 'right way up' we're used to seeing on maps. I don't remember the scene in the new movie but I remember there generally being a lot more chaos to everything which I really liked.
to put it simply they coded the games engine with trigonometry based math that cant handle the vertices of full 3d flight, if theyld used calculus it could have been added, as it was done they simply run out of options. aside from making the ship go straight up and down thereld be calculations on rotation and strafing, its not a decent style geam (not decent but the game title Decent, it was awesome in the 90s, look it up)
the way the game is coded theyld have to throw it out and rewrite it with far more complex math capabilities to let the ships track in 3d instead of 2d with a dive and climb option, rolling and looping would also require work, as it stands now.
Not true - champions as movement on all three axis - up/down, right/left, and forward/back. they might not be able or willing to allow rolls but they could absolutely remove the restriction on pitch angle, they have even said in interviews that they experimented early without it so it is possible.
to put it simply they coded the games engine with trigonometry based math that cant handle the vertices of full 3d flight, if theyld used calculus it could have been added, as it was done they simply run out of options. aside from making the ship go straight up and down thereld be calculations on rotation and strafing, its not a decent style geam (not decent but the game title Decent, it was awesome in the 90s, look it up)
If cryptic wanted to allow full movement, they could just swap the order in which the rotation matrices are multiplied. That's been part of the directx sdk for years. You know this, of course... you're posting just to elicit some math geek rage, and here I am, falling into your trap. Sigh.
Comments
In my opinion, players have more tactical opportunities when movement is restricted to a plane, in large part because shield facing becomes more significant. If you allow totally free movement, it becomes too easy to protect a down shield, while also making shield management less intuitive.
Also, why should combat be that incredibly simple? Full tactical movement would add a new interesting element to the game that would A, make combat take longer possibly as two experienced players hit each each other, and B, allow for skill to come more into play which is always better than a die roll.
I'm sorry, but if I can out think you I don't see why I should concede an easy victory just because I've been reduced to playing at your level for the sake of a false equality.
There is no upside down, it's space, as for being based on Star Trek, Khan's problem was that he was thinking two dimensionally just like we are forced to do.
I have NEVER seen a starship on Star Trek corkscrew or orbit a planet in a wierd way, they simply rotate the camera to make it look like the ship is the right way up but in battles the ships go every which way.
"Sorry captain, it's going to take us 20 minutes to get to the satellite, someone placed it directly above us" isn't something I recall hearing in any episode.
But so what? Star Trek (the TV and movies) has a long history of ignoring such realities when they're inconvenient. As was pointed out above, by restricting movement somewhat they're able to add more tactics to the starship combat which I consider one of it's strong points. Considering this is Star Trek, and a game not trying too hard for fidelity with the real world (and very very few sci fi games give more then a token nod to the way things really work), I just don't see the reason to get worked up over it.
If they'd tried for greater fidelity with the way things really work, it wouldn't be Star Trek.
If you want ultra realism don't look for ANY Star Trek based games (or Star Wars for that matter).
While flips and rolls would be nice it would also massively increase the complexity and difficulty. I would like to be able to at least go up and down instead of the stupid cork TRIBBLE.
Did any of you ever play the old arcade game Asteroids? It was done with a black & white vector graphics (stroke) monitor. You flew a little triangular ship around and shot at moving asteroids. Well, even then, the ship was quick to move, quick to maneuver, and had inertia. It took some skill to control, but the combat was more intense than this game and that was only 2D black & white. This game should be like that in 3D. The battleships in Battlefield 1942 turn faster than these starships.
My 2-cents...
There was a couple of second of footage in the new Star Trek movie with the Enterprise going "upside" down towards a planet.
Sorry to say but this is one of the stupidest comments I have read in quite some time. Exactly what in space defines 'upside down' or 'right side up'? There is no gravity, no up or down. And what does the size of the ship have to do with that either?
As for the IP and 3D movement - check the vids below - there are PLENTY of examples in all the TV shows and movies of no magical barrier stopping you from going more than 45 degrees pitch angle. It is pointless and stupid that the limit exists and it ruins gameplay.
Enterprise doing a full loop.
Movement on the Z axis.
Rolls and other full on 3D movement.
Enterprise heading down Z axis taking on Klingons.
warp 5+, 180 roll by Columbia (sister ship to Enterprise) about 4:20 in.
I don't think the 'is based on Star Trek' is a very good arguement.
First of all it's arguable if star trek is based on 2d space. And secondly the game ignores a lot of other star trek aspects, so it won't make much sense to sudenly find the need to stick to this (debateble) star trek trade.
Except ofcourse they just wanted the easy/cheap way out.
I think it's a shame. More realistic movements... and more realistic star systems for that matter would have made at least the space part of this game a lot more fun.
I meant orbiting a planet along the axis of the rings when the rings are @ a 60 degree incline and the ship is unable to simple orbit with the rings ie - it has to go up or down in weird ways to try and stay with the rings
There are a few times I've seen them approach earth and the view of earth hasn't been the typical 'right way up' we're used to seeing on maps. I don't remember the scene in the new movie but I remember there generally being a lot more chaos to everything which I really liked.
the way the game is coded theyld have to throw it out and rewrite it with far more complex math capabilities to let the ships track in 3d instead of 2d with a dive and climb option, rolling and looping would also require work, as it stands now.
If cryptic wanted to allow full movement, they could just swap the order in which the rotation matrices are multiplied. That's been part of the directx sdk for years. You know this, of course... you're posting just to elicit some math geek rage, and here I am, falling into your trap. Sigh.