test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Submarines or Spaceships???

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
Am I the only one irritated on the lack of REAL maneuverability of spaceships?

Rotation should be complete and not limited to having to turn the entire way around.

When getting hit at one facing you should not have rotate through 2 facings to get the opposite shield facing the enemy.

This is a particular problem with left and right attacks. Right hits ....rotate ship to FLIP the ship so the left shield is facing the enemy. ALSO, this would allow your forward and Rear firing Phasers to maintain "lock" on the enemy and allow continuous fire.

This is the WEAKEST link in STO.
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Narruth wrote:
    Am I the only one irritated on the lack of REAL maneuverability of spaceships?

    Rotation should be complete and not limited to having to turn the entire way around.

    When getting hit at one facing you should not have rotate through 2 facings to get the opposite shield facing the enemy.

    This is a particular problem with left and right attacks. Right hits ....rotate ship to FLIP the ship so the left shield is facing the enemy. ALSO, this would allow your forward and Rear firing Phasers to maintain "lock" on the enemy and allow continuous fire.

    This is the WEAKEST link in STO.

    "Do a barrel roll!!!"

    It is entirely true, how can you be in such a technologicly advanced ship with computers capable of god knows how many calculations per nanosecond and it cant even pull of a simple twist, i think it would be brilliant if you could do this!
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Think about how advanced you'd have to be to pull off a banking turn in space and there you have your answer.

    The ships move like they really do in Star Trek. End of story.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Have you played any reasonable space sim ever? because if you have you would know that ships of the scale that they are in star trek are bigger and ARNT starfighters. They are big(ish)/and arnt very manuverable when it comes down to it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Not that Star Trek ships maneuver like any real space craft actually would.

    Almost any battle you watch in Star Trek, the ships fly around in relatively 2-D patterns shooting at eachother.

    The battle between teh Enterprise and Reliant

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAAl2zfk684

    Wolf 359 (Seen thru DS9)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHdp3idfpFI

    Sector 001

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEh2N8sV7cE

    Any of the DS9 Dominion War battles

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWi-pJLO2m4

    Nemesis

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeYrkdyW2Cw&feature=fvw

    Ships doing flips and barrel rolls would feel excessively un-Trek-like. The game doesn't need anything else to make it feel any less like Star Trek, since you know..it is supposed to be a Star Trek game...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Agreed. Star Trek is more along the lines of naval combat. Working as intended.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I realize that I am posting in what must be the 8 gazillionth thread about this topic, but I don't mind the ship movement at all. Not because it's iconic or because there's some logical explanation for it all, but because it's a game and there's always something that will be a compromise to real life.

    Frankly space ships like Star Wars that are zooming around with perfect aerodynamics where there's no air bug me too. I'm willing to suspend certain disbelief and accept that the ships work the way they work.

    I also don't see much point in complaining since it seems impossibly unlikely it will change any time soon and I'm not sure I would want it to. Star Trek always felt like, for the most part, the ships moved like old naval vessels, and I am fine with that. Actually, I'm not sure why people get so upset about it, it's not like they just changed the engine last week to fly like this, it's been like that forever.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Fact- "Balance of Terror" - what they ripped off for "Wrath of Kahn" in good part
    -sub vs destroyer- one of the best epsiodes and the best movie

    Fact- Khan's ship in the tv episode. looks like a sub.

    Fact- romulan and later klingon cloaking= sub like

    Fact- low engine things look predatory, high engine things look bird like
    above or below

    the evidence is clear. too bad it wasn't really like subs in space
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    In reality these ships could move like whales.

    Whales can do barrel rolls.

    I want realistic movement.

    There are incidents of it in the shows.

    Remember guys, there isn't friction in space. Or gravity. A single molecular stream could flip a ship...it would take a long time...but it can be done. For all intents and purposes size doesn't matter unless inertia is involved. And of course we all know we have inertial dampeners so....
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Similar thread discussing this here, but some things I wanted to add....

    http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?p=2589624#post2589624

    The problem is one of inference. The DEVS of STO have inferred from the movies and shows that they have watched that ships in Star Trek don't manuever that way because with limited exxception they are not shown to.
    Rather than to look at this from a simplicity standpoint of design on a television show where it's easier with models and a blue screen to show things on the same plane.
    The movies looking at the same monetary constraints and the same process though with better models, had the same issue and showed this in a similar fashion. They skirted the issue in Wrath of Khan, by being in the nebula and not showing much of the flight sequence, more static display screen was show, and when motion was show it was rising and turning all things you can easily do with a model on strings in front of a blue screen.

    The newest Star trek film, and I will grant you it was an alternate reality, but it used CGI and they did not have a problem showing a much greater range of starship movement in this film. Now I did hear that some people felt sick watching the motion, to that I say I am sorry for your motion sickness however, the majority of people out there do not suffer from that and if your playing this game the majority of game players certainly do not have that issue.
    Anyone playing a game that takes place in SPACE should, and I think would, resonably expect a 3d experience, not a 2.5d and I think 2.5 is giving something there in regards to STO.

    The second major point after a production one would be that Roddenberry and his vision were never militaristic nor heavily tactical, anyone who is militaristic and/or somewhat tactically minded saw this.

    Those reasons however pale to the overall realization that the ships might orient themselves to the direction of each individual system they entered to make it easier to navigate in that system, but they still retained full
    3d controls.

    Again I am not saying this is a necesity in STO but raising the limits of vertical ascent and descent would go a long way in achieving a better feel without crossing that upside down ship barrier the DEVS seem not to want crossed.

    Previous post in the thread above but its appropriate for the discussion.

    I don't think this truly mimics subs though I can see the corralation. especially in the angles, yes a sub can go to higher and lower angles but they dont routinely because they don't have artificial gravity on the ship like Star trek ships do. Because of this they limit the acesnt and descent angles in routine moves to save the dishes, and everything else... though as I understand it there isnt anything from keeping them from rolling the sub or doing undersea acrobatics if they really felt so inclined. Maybe some sub-mariners can add light to this.

    Either way I am positive that if a submariner did have artificial gravity on his ship and had the capability to move equally well on all axis that he would do so if it ment that the ship and crew were victorious in combat.
    I as the captain of my ship in STO feel compelled to offer that same thing to my crew aboard all of my ships. And if championing the issue on the forums gets me the ability to manuever better and fight my ship to a higher degree I will do so. Though the issue at least from the Devs seems dead enough not to dwell on.
    Takiwa
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Yeah, that would be so cool if you could meet the enemy when you're upside down, and hes right side up.. err.... hes upside down and you're right side up err. I love that episode where there was a huge space battle and all the ships in the cardassian battle line where upside down and right side up. It was called the TRIBBLE echelon formation! Wait a second.. what is a formation? I thought space battles were just a blob of ships firing indescriminantly at another blob of ships with no strategy what so ever.

    hmm.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Shaolinll wrote:
    "Do a barrel roll!!!"

    It is entirely true, how can you be in such a technologicly advanced ship with computers capable of god knows how many calculations per nanosecond and it cant even pull of a simple twist, i think it would be brilliant if you could do this!

    LOL! Imagine Peppy Hare being captain of a starship.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    ramp4ge wrote: »
    Think about how advanced you'd have to be to pull off a banking turn in space and there you have your answer.

    The ships move like they really do in Star Trek. End of story.

    Our current Space Shuttle orbiter can do those banking turns in space right now, so obviously not very "advanced".

    You obviously don't watch a lot of Star Trek either as ships move in 3D all the time in films and on the TV series.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Our current Space Shuttle orbiter can do those banking turns in space right now, so obviously not very "advanced".

    No it can't..It'd run out of propellant in it's RCS thrusters long before it completed a banking turn..


    But even if it could, it never would, because a banking turn in space would be a massive waste of energy in a ship propelled by thrust-based engines/thrusters/reaction systems. So, the turns the orbiter does are axial rotations, and not banking turns.

    To sustain energy thru a banking turn in space would require an extremely advanced propulsion system. Which Star Trek has, since all of their propulsion is field-based.
    You obviously don't watch a lot of Star Trek either as ships move in 3D all the time in films and on the TV series.

    No they don't. Look at those links I posted. The only ship in those videos to pull a maneuver that can't be pulled in this game was the Defiant..Once when it rolls onto it's back, and another when it does a loop. Everything else in all of those links is your average 2D Star Trek space combat that we've grown accustomed to.

    The game's current space flight feels like Star Trek. The game does not need anything else to make it feel any less Star Trek like then it already does.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Submarines or Spaceships?

    How about submarships?
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Why do people keep calling it submarines? It is silly in my opinion.

    A submarine can go up and down WITHOUT having to go forward or backward and WITHOUT having to tilt up or down. So this is NOTHING like submarines in space.

    Now and Autogyro can ONLY go up or down by going forwards and has to tilt to do so...

    ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I always liked how Star Trek was designed to expand people's thoughts on morality, physics, culture, and life. But I bet one of the main reasons the TV series rarely included inverted ships on the scene is because it would be a less iconic image and they had to ensure ratings through some levels of redundancy and tying it in with WWII naval combat realities.

    I say keep with the Star Trek spirit and not the icon by progressing past this hollow iconic theme and expand our perceptual understanding of space dimensions like in the book Ender's Game. Arguing for the sake of keeping the current dimensions shows the attachment to icon, and this game has a lot of that with the music, sound effects, images, and will have more with the upcoming changes to exploration missions. Besides "The Old Republic" will be a likely contender for space loving MMORPG players; their game will be "newer" and one of the ways of keeping up with and surpassing Newness is with novel design.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    As of yet, nobody's even sure if "The Old Republic" is going to have space flight\combat at all. Almost everything I've read states that it's going to be 100% ground-based.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Submarines or Spaceships???
    Spaceships are built like submarines in reverse. Instead of keeping water pressure out of the vehicle, htey keep air pressure inside the vehicle. So the structural engineering is completely different :p

    That being said, even though there's no water friction in space, you still have to worry about Newtonian physics of mass, force, and inertia. True, once inertia is built up without friction, a ship should never stop, even if the engines are turned off, unless an equal force is applied in an opposite direction. So in this sense, STO propulsion doesn't match up to true space physics.

    But if you think about it that way, would you really want to spin your ship around 180 degrees every time you wanted to stop? Certainly, ships have thrusters, but the thrusters certainly don't produce as much force as impulse engines, which could mean you'd be overshooting a lot as your ship slowed down.

    Barrel rolls? Possible, but the speed of such a maneuver would depend on the power produced by thrusters and the size of the ship. Just like currently, smaller escorts would be able to perform them more nimbly than larger cruisers if they both used thrusters of the same power.

    But those maneuvers StarFuries in Babylon 5 can do? They're much smaller ships. Capital ships were much harder to maneuver, if you recall. Star Trek ships are somewhere in the middle, but bigger than White Stars (except perhaps Escorts), so not as easy to wheel around.

    I just assume Star Trek ships have computers that help with course corrections (so when I stop pressing the D key, reverse thrusters keep the ship from turning more). True Newtonian physics are a harsh mistress. Just look at Jumpgate.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Star Trek propulsion is field-based. The impulse engines envelop the ship in a subspace field that mitigates the mass, thus allowing it to perform maneuvers that we'd see today and think "Impossible!"..Which is why you get wide, banking turns, weaving in and out of targets, etc..

    The TNG tech manual actually explains impulse drive pretty well. ST ships don't ignore newtonian physics, they just found a way around them by "reducing" the mass of the ship in a subspace field.

    Whitestar's about the same size as the Defiant, and like most Minbari designs, is propelled by a field-based system based on gravity.

    That's why Nials were always so much more maneuverable then Starfuries, even tho they didn't "take advantage" of Newtonian physics as most would think.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Fact- as a klingon in the bird of prey i use duel disruptor beams and fly way low in pvp
    displaying a lazer light show if you get it angled right - you have 5 beams aiming upwards

    Fact- as a fed in the light cruisor using phasers i fly way high

    but the ship movement and the ship art and the art in general is great on this game

    i made a fed and klink character and really worked them - used "aged 4"

    After playing a few levels, i turned up the video resolution and "aged 4" was like this grandpa looking, dawn of the dead thing

    turn up the resolution and ...illumination?.. shadows? who knows i played around with all the settings)

    oh yeah , subs. I agree with the guy that said they move like star trek ships. its kinda the point
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Asakara wrote:
    Why do people keep calling it submarines? It is silly in my opinion.

    A submarine can go up and down WITHOUT having to go forward or backward and WITHOUT having to tilt up or down. So this is NOTHING like submarines in space.

    Now and Autogyro can ONLY go up or down by going forwards and has to tilt to do so...

    ;)

    ROFL!

    You are SO right about that. Subs are really a poor analogy.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    ramp4ge wrote: »
    Star Trek propulsion is field-based. The impulse engines envelop the ship in a subspace field that mitigates the mass, thus allowing it to perform maneuvers that we'd see today and think "Impossible!"..Which is why you get wide, banking turns, weaving in and out of targets, etc..

    The TNG tech manual actually explains impulse drive pretty well. ST ships don't ignore newtonian physics, they just found a way around them by "reducing" the mass of the ship in a subspace field.

    Whitestar's about the same size as the Defiant, and like most Minbari designs, is propelled by a field-based system based on gravity.

    That's why Nials were always so much more maneuverable then Starfuries, even tho they didn't "take advantage" of Newtonian physics as most would think.
    My Geek Card has just been pulled. Time to retire for the weekend :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    My Geek Card has just been pulled. Time to retire for the weekend

    What can I say? I love technical discussions. :p
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    ok then

    the "Botany Bay" is a Dy 100 class- but the Dy 500 used Yoyodyne pulse fusion

    They look like subs

    really look like subs

    they should add them in for people that want to play a freightor captian

    have them slow but since they are a freightor they have wierd weapons they traded for and the like

    unless Yoyodyne pulse fusion is any good
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Navigating in 3d space without a plane of orientation would drive away 75% of the population, if not more.

    You think it'd be cool. It wouldn't. Few people could play the game in such a way...

    Just my two cents.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Obsidius wrote: »
    Spaceships are built like submarines in reverse. Instead of keeping water pressure out of the vehicle, htey keep air pressure inside the vehicle. So the structural engineering is completely different :p

    That being said, even though there's no water friction in space, you still have to worry about Newtonian physics of mass, force, and inertia. True, once inertia is built up without friction, a ship should never stop, even if the engines are turned off, unless an equal force is applied in an opposite direction. So in this sense, STO propulsion doesn't match up to true space physics.

    But if you think about it that way, would you really want to spin your ship around 180 degrees every time you wanted to stop? Certainly, ships have thrusters, but the thrusters certainly don't produce as much force as impulse engines, which could mean you'd be overshooting a lot as your ship slowed down.

    Barrel rolls? Possible, but the speed of such a maneuver would depend on the power produced by thrusters and the size of the ship. Just like currently, smaller escorts would be able to perform them more nimbly than larger cruisers if they both used thrusters of the same power.

    But those maneuvers StarFuries in Babylon 5 can do? They're much smaller ships. Capital ships were much harder to maneuver, if you recall. Star Trek ships are somewhere in the middle, but bigger than White Stars (except perhaps Escorts), so not as easy to wheel around.

    I just assume Star Trek ships have computers that help with course corrections (so when I stop pressing the D key, reverse thrusters keep the ship from turning more). True Newtonian physics are a harsh mistress. Just look at Jumpgate.
    dacatchman wrote: »
    Navigating in 3d space without a plane of orientation would drive away 75% of the population, if not more.

    You think it'd be cool. It wouldn't. Few people could play the game in such a way...

    Just my two cents.
    I agree. I think there are lot of things in STO that were done poorly, but the navigation and orientation is not one of them. The current combat works as intended: it's fun, it's simple, and it's tactical. It's not true to actual physics, but it is true to Star Trek, and that's the way it should be.

    If they did add full 3D motion, they would have top and bottom shields too, adding more complication to the game. Plus, as stated already, the majority of players would get lost/confused. Granted, if maps were designed with full 3D motion in mind, this problem would be greatly alleviated, but that would require a re-design of pretty much every mission and instance in the game (for something that's not even worth it).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    With the current state of this game I think that the game it self will turn away 75% of the population, it looks like it already is, the only reason I play it is because it has Star Trek in the title.


    That being said, 3D movement and Star Trek, it's not just the Defiant that can do it, Voyager has rolled a couple of times; in Star Trek VI, Qo'nos One as it comes along side of the Enterprise roles to orient it self to the Enterprise; in Nemesis the big E roles in battle with the Scimitar and in the new movie as some one has already said the Enterprise roles to avoid a collision. So ships in Star Trek do occasionally move in 3D it's just cheaper and easier when it was done with models to have them always facing "up" the same way.


    And if we are to go by what we saw on screen most of the time then you could use the argument that the Galaxy class should almost never move in Combat. Because in almost every battle it got in on TNG the Enterprise just sat there nose to nose with the enemy ship while Picard ordered "Target their weapons array" or "Target their engines". Voyager too, to a lesser extent did that but then they switched to CGI and started doing more advanced manoeuvres, like the occasional barrel role.


    Now I know that this game isn't a space flight sim, it is supposed to be an MMORPG (except that every thing is instanced and if you can find other players to team up with you can only have a maximum of 5, unless it is a fleet action or something) so it wont be a Bridge Commander or Klingon Academy or even a Star Trek Legacy (if any one else played that game) and any attempt to make it like those games would require a huge rework of the game engine. However the space flight in this game is very similar to Legacy's, with one noticeable exception, while Legacy has no ability to role the ship you have no limit to the minim or maximum pitch for the ship. However Legacy still doesn’t have ships going upside down inverted, because once the ship has gone past straight up or down it roles itself over to keep it self orientated right side up to the galactic plane. I don't know why Cryptic didn't do this as well, it's just one more decision on their part that prevented this game from being good.


    By the way an example of ships attacking from above is the Klingon reinforcements from DS9's Sacrifice of Angles, and from below, the future Enterprise attacking the Klingons in TNG's All good things, in fact as she is coming up from underneath the Klingon ships she is doing a slow barrel role in the process.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Narruth wrote:
    Am I the only one irritated on the lack of REAL maneuverability of spaceships?

    Rotation should be complete and not limited to having to turn the entire way around.
    Have you ever even watched a single Star Trek episode or movie? Ever?

    Ships in Star Trek do not use Newtonian Movement. They never have. Ever.

    The developers have already said that they designed the movement of the ships in STO to mimic the way ships moved in the IP.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    MrJ wrote:
    With the current state of this game I think that the game it self will turn away 75% of the population, it looks like it already is, the only reason I play it is because it has Star Trek in the title.
    I agree... I am dissatisfied with a lot in this game, but most of it revolves around shallow RPG elements. There is no worthwhile equipment to work towards, almost no socialization, poor balance between weapon types, but I'll rant on in a different thread.:D

    Other than the glass ceiling with equipment, I think space combat is done very well in this game, as far as actually playing it goes.
    MrJ wrote:
    That being said, 3D movement and Star Trek, it's not just the Defiant that can do it, Voyager has rolled a couple of times; in Star Trek VI, Qo'nos One as it comes along side of the Enterprise roles to orient it self to the Enterprise; in Nemesis the big E roles in battle with the Scimitar and in the new movie as some one has already said the Enterprise roles to avoid a collision. So ships in Star Trek do occasionally move in 3D it's just cheaper and easier when it was done with models to have them always facing "up" the same way.

    And if we are to go by what we saw on screen most of the time then you could use the argument that the Galaxy class should almost never move in Combat. Because in almost every battle it got in on TNG the Enterprise just sat there nose to nose with the enemy ship while Picard ordered "Target their weapons array" or "Target their engines". Voyager too, to a lesser extent did that but then they switched to CGI and started doing more advanced manoeuvres, like the occasional barrel role.

    Now I know that this game isn't a space flight sim, it is supposed to be an MMORPG (except that every thing is instanced and if you can find other players to team up with you can only have a maximum of 5, unless it is a fleet action or something) so it wont be a Bridge Commander or Klingon Academy or even a Star Trek Legacy (if any one else played that game) and any attempt to make it like those games would require a huge rework of the game engine. However the space flight in this game is very similar to Legacy's, with one noticeable exception, while Legacy has no ability to role the ship you have no limit to the minim or maximum pitch for the ship. However Legacy still doesn’t have ships going upside down inverted, because once the ship has gone past straight up or down it roles itself over to keep it self orientated right side up to the galactic plane. I don't know why Cryptic didn't do this as well, it's just one more decision on their part that prevented this game from being good.


    By the way an example of ships attacking from above is the Klingon reinforcements from DS9's Sacrifice of Angles, and from below, the future Enterprise attacking the Klingons in TNG's All good things, in fact as she is coming up from underneath the Klingon ships she is doing a slow barrel role in the process.
    The game already has being able to attack from above or below, although I do think barrel rolls are cool. A good compromise is if they added a tactical or universal captain skill that allows you to barrel roll, kind of like how evasive maneuvers lets you just book it. That way, it doesn't involve changing almost everything with navigation, but still allows barrel rolls.

    Making normal flight full 3D would involve changing too much, as well as adding unnecessary complication to a system that already works very well - if it ain't broke, why fix it? It's kind of like why Cryptic omitted the Kaufman Inversion (where your ship flies forward, then turns around with thrusters), because when they actually tested it, everyone was just always flying backwards shooting at each other, and not doing anything else... not fun. For certain things like barrel rolls, I can just see everyone just barrel rolling all the time, as it's a great way to change facing shields... and it doesn't sound like much fun to me.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Something I just noticed as I was playing. When you are at the bottom of the map and try to fly up your bow points up but the ship travels forward stuck to the bottom, it kind of looks like a submarine stuck in the seaweed and mud. I must say it doesn't look very Star Trek-ish.
Sign In or Register to comment.