test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Petition for full 3D space flight

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
yes i know there are threads bout this and i have read them but have decided to start a petition for the playerbase to see if we can get them to make it so by seein the numbers of who want it.

so i for one would love to have this included and i hope that one dev that did not want to do it on the first place will change his mind :p:D
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Did you ever see an upside down ship in Star Trek?

    I rest my case.

    Let cryptic concentrate on what actually matters ...bugs and content.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    This *could* actually come to light when joystick support hits. If they disable the auto-leveling on roll and the pitch limitation. We'll just have to wait and see, but joystick support is already in the works (confirmed by one of the devs on Tribble a few weeks back).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    gmacd wrote: »
    Did you ever see an upside down ship in Star Trek?

    I rest my case.

    Let cryptic concentrate on what actually matters ...bugs and content.

    have you watched wrath of khan and seen the enterprise use true Z axis to get behind the ship.. and yes im aware thats not "rolling" a ship, i just want Z axis flight at the minimum, esp if they add more missions that require vertical battles.

    and yes let them worry bout the current issues, this is just a petition for them to see how many players want it added in either season 3 or later.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I don't know how many ways this can be stated.....NO FREAKIN LOOP DE LOOPS. YOU'RE NOT THE RED BARON, NOBODY CARES. I read all these posts about what people want to make the game better then there's this TRIBBLE. NO NO FREAKIN NO.

    /anger switch disengaged

    Seriously stop with the loops stuff. Not gonna happen, way too WW I ish
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Patrochlus wrote:
    I don't know how many ways this can be stated.....NO FREAKIN LOOP DE LOOPS. YOU'RE NOT THE RED BARON, NOBODY CARES. I read all these posts about what people want to make the game better then there's this TRIBBLE. NO NO FREAKIN NO.

    /anger switch disengaged

    Seriously stop with the loops stuff. Not gonna happen, way too WW I ish

    lmao let the escorts to loops i got a cruiser i just want to beable to get to a battle thats goin on either on the higher plane or lower without corckscrewing from where im at :p
    if you want to do loops right now, just getin a runnabout put power to engines and put on evasive.


    and please leave the flamming and trolling out the door.. nothin good comes outta it, if you aint got anything constructive then don't post.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Heh, well technically there is no "up" or "down" in space. It's all relevant to your point of reference (or perhaps that of the planer orbit of a given system).
    have you watched wrath of khan and seen the enterprise use true Z axis to get behind the ship.. and yes im aware thats not "rolling" a ship, i just want Z axis flight at the minimum, esp if they add more missions that require vertical battles.

    I also seem to recall Riker taking the Enterprise vertical for an attack in the episode where the three timeline Enterprises met.

    Just sayin'

    ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Yes, I would like for the ship control scheme to be more like how it was in Bridge Commander.

    I do however understand why Cryptic made the game the way it is and acknowledge thier stout refusal to change it. Even though I don't like it.

    I can like with Starfleet Command-esque perspective. It's just sadly not as good as it might have had been in my eyes if we had true 3d navigation at our disposal.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    lmao let the escorts to loops i got a cruiser i just want to beable to get to a battle thats goin on either on the higher plane or lower without corckscrewing from where im at :p
    if you want to do loops right now, just getin a runnabout put power to engines and put on evasive.


    and please leave the flamming and trolling out the door.. nothin good comes outta it, if you aint got anything constructive then don't post.

    I paid my sub in full, don't presume to tell me what to do. If you don't like what I have to say, take it with a grain of salt and go on.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Heh, well technically there is no "up" or "down" in space. It's all relevant to your point of reference (or perhaps that of the planer orbit of a given system).



    I also seem to recall Riker taking the Enterprise vertical for an attack in the episode where the three timeline Enterprises met.

    Just sayin'

    ;)

    BANG! I lose. You got me there. I didn't remember that one. I'd just like to see the cruiser drift gone. Its funny for like a day then it gets old.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Patrochlus wrote:
    I paid my sub in full, don't presume to tell me what to do. If you don't like what I have to say, take it with a grain of salt and go on.

    hold on there relax, take a deep breath and look closer that i was not "telling" you what to do, it was mearly a sarcastic reamrark that if you WANT to have more fun and challage your self go for a runabout every once in a while. so don't presume anything from me either mate.

    and i was trying to be polite about it, so if you want to be aggressive to me then PM me directly or leave it outta here.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Patrochlus wrote:
    BANG! I lose. You got me there. I didn't remember that one. I'd just like to see the cruiser drift gone. Its funny for like a day then it gets old.

    i know it gets old for some but, thats called the inertia of a ship, in space, anything that moves in one direction will stop if it hits something or is slowed with equal force :p
    when in maps just use full stop when in full impulse to stop on the spot, i personally like using my inerta to postition my ship after using full impulse when goin to a battle adds to the fun.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Yeah I know what it is. Paid attention in science class....I have great distaste for your attempted reprimand Don't do it again in open forum.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    /signed

    I don't care about bing able to go inverted, but it would be nice if the limit to z-axis flight was moved closer to vertical, say within 5-10 degrees instead of the 45 it is now. Having to corkscrew, as another poster put it, is extremely annoying. Space has no preferred frame of reference, but I can understand that to appeal to the casual gamer you want to limit the amount of perspective shifting required, since not everyone is comfortable with thinking "the enemy's gate is down". The extreme limitation on vertical flight does prevent a large amount of tactical gameplay, especially in PvP situations.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Signed.

    For example in The Enterprise series was a scene when NX 01 and her sister ship was flying one to above another like in this quote Mr. Angelous wrote.
    [QUOTE=Angelous]As much as I would love to fly upside down and prefer the realism of ships all flying different ways up (after all there is no up, down or right way up in space). Pretty much every Star Trek game ever has the no flying at 85° + rule. And of course in actual Star Trek all the ships fly the same way up (execpt that one Enterprise where the Columbia was flying opposite to Enterprise, but they were only doing that for power transfer/shield reasons).[/QUOTE]

    It would by fine to fly around like in BC (bridge commander).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I wouldn't mind a higher up/down angle. Full 3D seems to be too much for many players to handle well, and you could quickly end up with a gameplay that doesn't look anything like Startrek typically did.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I saw the making of a typical TNG Star Trek hosted by Lamar and the Enterprise was a physical model mounted to a table. The camera was also on the table, upside down. They could have made a barrel roll, but didn't have the time or money to do that one special effect. I mean in some cases the artists who did this stuff had to come up with something out of plastic junk in about 2 days.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    gmacd wrote: »
    Did you ever see an upside down ship in Star Trek?

    I rest my case.

    Let cryptic concentrate on what actually matters ...bugs and content.

    ok yes we've never seen an upside down ship an ST another problem in ST is the lack of budget so what?
    as an example in Star Trek (2009) movie there was a lot more movement thant the original series where the ship didn't move at all but only the space around it...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    This was a feature that was asked for in beta and the end results was it is not going to happen because the game engine is not designed for this type of ship controls.

    The game engine would have to be completely redesigned to add this feature.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Half Life was not designed to handle full aerobatics it but I added it anyway. It is no big deal, really. So I don't buy, the "engine can't handle it" thing.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Pendra37 wrote: »
    Half Life was not designed to handle full aerobatics it but I added it anyway. It is no big deal, really. So I don't buy, the "engine can't handle it" thing.

    I agree, and the reasoning for not having a full fluid control, I believe, is it was an aesthetics reason.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    would be cool if ya have a higher angle or full 3d movement. its not cool if a enemy is above ya and you cant shoot your cannons ^^
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    stormiv wrote: »
    would be cool if ya have a higher angle or full 3d movement. its not cool if a enemy is above ya and you cant shoot your cannons ^^

    I guess we're just supposed to accept it as normal and fair gameplay. hm..
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I would like to see 3D flight like in Star Trek Final Unity.

    the had several maneuvers that could be performed in space battle and vertical and horizontal movements were not restricted. What I hate is I use the nav map and the object I go to in above or below me and I have to circle around and come back? That is not starship movement?

    I would also like to point out the movement on the galaxy class in not canon. and should not suffer from slipping in space. All cruiser ship movements should be as good as a vesper.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    The argument is a pretty simple one...

    If you are going to have firing arcs especially as tight as you do on those dual cannons... you have got to be able to turn the ship to fire!!!

    There is nothing more annoying than not being able to get the right angle to shoot something and having to waste time corkscrewing... or dropping into a deep space battle to find your the only ship and have landed next to the enemy flagship.

    Rightly or wrongly these guy's have placed an awful lot of weight behind space combat... so if you are going to do it please, please do it right... whilst there is much StarTrek-esque content I generally find it a little to much click click click and not enough thinking. I could probably forgive them for not including much in the way of problem solving (click click click is not problem solving) if they at least got this sort of thing right. They have designed the game with space combat being a key element, but space combat without proper manoeuvrability is like trying to make a fried breakfast without using any oil/butter… its just not right… it has to be one of the biggest failures of the game.

    This is even more true if you are an "escort" class ship, where manoeuvrability is even more crucial.

    Wrath of Khan is the best film ever and the issue of the 3D nature of space battle (which has also featured in many episodes in TOS, TNG, DS9 and Voyager – even if not always specifically referred to) could not be clearer… perhaps the designers are plagued with the same limitations as Khan was. It would be a real shame if they could not find a way to overcome this.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    Could compromise and add the ability to move strictly along the Z axis. Instead of pitching to fly straight up or down, the ship remains horizontal to whatever plane they're using now, but move straight up and down, similar to how Kirk came up right behind Khan in ST II
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    The least this game MUST have is 90 degree pitch up and down.
    The current corkscrewing we are forced to do is just plain dumb.

    Oh yes, and FYI, there is nothing with the engine that limits flight controls.
    Its perfectly capable of handling full space movement, as recently stated by coderanger.
    http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=164074&page=6
    coderanger wrote:
    So the vertical-axis stuff has nothing to do with the engine itself, though we would need a new input and motion control mode if we wanted to do handle dogfighter-style controls, but neither is too terribly hard. Most of that "restriction" is by choice and has been explained a thousand times over. The internals can all handle whatever you throw at them, give or take the accuracy limitations of IEEE 754.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I'll sign, I would love to see full 3d space flight control of my ship. Make it easier to pull off the maneuvers that I want to pul off.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    I'll add my vote for 3D

    If you want cannon, watch a movie. I am looking for a fun game to play.

    The pitch limitation is artificial and frustrating. Simply add a pitch arrow in the hud and players will have no trouble at all reorienting themselves.

    For those players who can't hack 3D, let them disable 3D combat in their options.

    Ship inertial is interesting and looks kind of cool. I don't generally fly cruisers, but it would be a cool maneuver to disable the inertial dampers and allow the ship to turn on axis while moving in flight - asteroids style.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    /signed

    there are more then enough examples in Trek to support this. (Defiant doing Barrel rolls etc.)

    Also 2.5D Spacecombat was the MOST hated thing in Star Trek Legacy if you ask anybody that played it so better get rid of it.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited June 2010
    /signed

    I wanted this back in beta and I still want it. What's space combat without being able to manoeuvre in 3D?
This discussion has been closed.