Whats the biggest limitation that is coming back to bite us? Probably that the whole engine assumes each player is in exactly one place and on exactly one map. This sounds like a pretty sane assumption when making a game, but alas, once a player is both a ship and a person it becomes inconvenient. Hmm, what else. It would be really nice to have a more complete HTML parser/renderer in the engine. Our custom UI language works really nicely for building stuff like a game HUD, but for a simple dialog HTML would be far easier.
This is probably prohibitive from a server load perspective but as someone who did a lot of MUSH/MUD/MOO coding, those engines had the same limitation in theory but there were ways around it.
One of which would be to have an NPC dummy which acts as a placeholder.
For example:
Go to shipmode and an NPC of your Captain spawns on your ship interior map.
Go to your ship interior and an NPC dummy of your ship spawns in sector space.
These act as placeholder tokens and can be used for establishing relative position/damage/etc.
For example, the com system would cause the captain to inherit whatever area channels the ship NPC token is in.
Likewise, "setting a course" from the bridge would input movement instructions to the ship NPC.
If you've played Warcraft, it's the same thing that happens when you mount or dismount from a vehicle, I think. There's an NPC object vehicle unit that is replaced by a player shapeshifted into the form of their character driving the vehicle. Then when they "dismount", the player shapeshifts back into a player and the NPC vehicle respawns.
That is probably trickier when the NPC occupies a different map/instance than the player but since communication across maps is possible via chat, it seems to me that it is possible to have the NPC AI be influenced bu actions in a different instance.
In fact, this is the basis for some of my wackier MUD coding.
Create a chat channel. Restrict players from having access. Place objects on the channel listening. Send streams of data over the channel.
For example:
- You have a conn officer NPC and a ship exterior NPC.
- Player relays order to conn officer.
- Conn officer is on a channel dedicated to NPCs that is invisible to the player.
- Conn officer transmits a message like this: PlayerLeviathan99 Moveship 125 125 267
- Ship NPC for Leviathan99 (the one in Sector Space) is also on the chat channel, listening for anything with the header "PlayerLeviathan99". It registers the command "Moveship 125 125 267" and executes a script to start moving to those coordinates.
- When I go to tactical view, my ship form looks for the coordinates of my ship NPC and spawns there.
I've done it with channels, with whispers between objects, sometimes with a master unit on a channel that verifies the validity of the instructions before sending them on (although this shouldn't be an issue if the channel is locked and invisible).
Like I say, this type of thing was my specialty in MUSH Code.
You can have STFs that split people between space and ground. Someone fires on an enemy ship with shields down and a corridor for people on the ship map collapses.
You can have "incredible journey" type boss fights that involve a group shrinking down into a boss while the other group fights the boss from the outside. The interior group disables the boss' arm and suddenly the group on the outside sees the boss no longer using certain attacks as the boss' arm goes limp.
You can have missions/instances where one group is on a tower and the other group is standing outside. The group outside distracts a dragon to keep it from appearing on top of the tower.
You can allow bridge navigation.
You can limit transports by proximity of ships.
You can link up two bridges via working viewscreens. (Each viewscreen is a transparent wall, on the other side of which is loaded a scaled up cutaway of the Captain's Chair and anything in proximity to it with the scaled up NPCs mimicking what's happening on the other bridge.)
This has advantages for CO, STO and other games as well.
It could also theoretically allow for cross-game visual communication or shared areas between games for people who have multiple Cryptic games installed, if you wanted to put the effort into it. This could allow for crazy things like Champions characters crossing over into whatever MMO comes next.
This would still require an understanding of a client that is linked to a player (is his bridge) but isn't the player itself. And then we are right back to the same routing problem of one player can't be in two places. It isn't unsolvable, but it is far from trivial.
Still a fair bit of work to get the network connections sent to the right places, but not that hard, is it? Much easier than trying to process the bridge on the space map server (which is pretty impossible for a bunch of reasons you already listed). Client connects to bridge map server, bridge map server connects as a client to space map server. All commands to the space map server are sent by the bridge map server; map and team updates from the space map server go to the bridge map server, which (for the sake of simplicity, since it needed to receive them anyway) encapsulates and forwards them to the game client - so the game client only ever talks to the bridge map, and the space map only ever talks to the bridge map. Only the authentication and management stuff (and the client) really needs to be aware that the player's using two map servers. Most of the system just treats it as two distinct clients, and the fact that things on one of them affects the other is just emergent behaviour.
Great Ideas, I would love to spend time on my ship instead of in sector space, and I really dont care if when I look out a window all I see is a star field passing by.
Building onto the idea of traveling between systems while inside your ship, encounters could actually somewhat work. Say perhaps while traveling, you have a random chance of coming into range of an enemy contact, your comm officer could notify you of an enemy contact nearby, approaching you, at which point you could be given 2 options just like when engaging an already engaged signal contact - Attempt to evade enemy, or Engage. If you attempt to evade the enemy, it could do a roll, and if you get above a certain number, you evade, any lower, you are caught and must fight (Kind of like the team looting idea, if multiple people hit need or greed, it does a "roll", highest number gets the loot). Certain sectors, like the Sirius and Regulus blocks could have a much lower chance of running into one then say, gamma orionis.
I think the "pretend" autotravel solution is more likely to work in the long term than trying to juggle map states and input through multiple layers and over process boundaries.
Some things to keep things working: Auto travel is only between end points, much like flight paths in WoW. So like Earth SB, DS9,Memory Alpha, k7, etc. can be traveled between. To explore, you need to use sector space. Maybe while autotraveling, you have X% chance to encounter a random event, such as a DSE or a trade ship (or new missions like distress signals)
While in sector space, have 2 views: The standard one we have now, and then a variation of the "zoomed in" first person view we can go to. It would be overlayed onto the forward viewscreen.
The bridge would be staticly loaded as a sort of "cockpit" view, like it works in SWG. You still control the ship directly, you just see an overlay of your bridge model. You might see your officers, but they aren't real NPCs. You could even have a camera toggle, where you relinquish control of the ship for a mouselook mode.
Its not quite how it worked in Bridge Commander, but it would look better. You'd still only be updating one map (sector space) and its contained PCs and NPCs. You'd need to drop out of tactical view (as we do now) to interact with your ship interior.
The question becomes whether having the new stuff loaded for the cockpit overlay would be too intensive.
A while back I offered an idea internally for how to be on the bridge while flying in sector space. I didn't have much luck getting anything started but the idea is workable. When some new tech goes in that I am waiting for I plan to re-propose it.
Without going into too much detail it basically works this way. You go to sector space and turn on auto pilot to a system or just go forward. Map move to your bridge. The code stores your auto pilot info and spawns a critter in sector space that looks like you that will follow those auto pilot instructions. Since you know from your auto pilot settings how long it will take to get to your destination your bridge officer will tell you that you have arrived after a certain amount of time has passed.
Without going into too much detail it basically works this way. You go to sector space and turn on auto pilot to a system or just go forward. Map move to your bridge. The code stores your auto pilot info and spawns a pet in sector space that looks like you that will follow those auto pilot instructions. Since you know from your auto pilot settings how long it will take to get to your destination your bridge officer will tell you that you have arrived after a certain amount of time has passed.
Thanks for the input jransom. This seems like the most simple solution. How would it affect players who set an autopilot with a friend (PC) on their bridge?
A while back I offered an idea internally for how to be on the bridge while flying in sector space. I didn't have much luck getting anything started but the idea is workable. When some new tech goes in that I am waiting for I plan to re-propose it.
Without going into too much detail it basically works this way. You go to sector space and turn on auto pilot to a system or just go forward. Map move to your bridge. The code stores your auto pilot info and spawns a pet in sector space that looks like you that will follow those auto pilot instructions. Since you know from your auto pilot settings how long it will take to get to your destination your bridge officer will tell you that you have arrived after a certain amount of time has passed.
A while back I offered an idea internally for how to be on the bridge while flying in sector space. I didn't have much luck getting anything started but the idea is workable. When some new tech goes in that I am waiting for I plan to re-propose it.
Without going into too much detail it basically works this way. You go to sector space and turn on auto pilot to a system or just go forward. Map move to your bridge. The code stores your auto pilot info and spawns a pet in sector space that looks like you that will follow those auto pilot instructions. Since you know from your auto pilot settings how long it will take to get to your destination your bridge officer will tell you that you have arrived after a certain amount of time has passed.
Great minds think alike.
However... With the idea of a super-secret chat channel that NPCs use to communicate, triggering scripts on eachother, I still argue that there's at least a dozen applications of that tech that would be useful in all Cryptic games as well as bridge control.
To clarify, my use of autotravel isn't mobving through sector space via auto-pilot, but works like the transwarp "home bind" where you teleport from one map to another. You just code in a time delay spent "inside" your ship where you might encounter random events.
But it would only be between endpoints like major stations or whatever. exploring sectors, going to missions, etc would still require sector space navigation (which is where the static bridge overlay would come in. or not.)
Its not my idea, its been tossed around a lot, but I think it'd be pretty swell. (esp. the auto-travel.)
However... With the idea of a super-secret chat channel that NPCs use to communicate, triggering scripts on eachother, I still argue that there's at least a dozen applications of that tech that would be useful in all Cryptic games as well as bridge control.
Message passing between servers themselves is relatively easy, since solves the problem of realtime updates. Granted it then opens about 6 other problems, but thats always how it goes :-)
A while back I offered an idea internally for how to be on the bridge while flying in sector space. I didn't have much luck getting anything started but the idea is workable. When some new tech goes in that I am waiting for I plan to re-propose it.
Without going into too much detail it basically works this way. You go to sector space and turn on auto pilot to a system or just go forward. Map move to your bridge. The code stores your auto pilot info and spawns a critter in sector space that looks like you that will follow those auto pilot instructions. Since you know from your auto pilot settings how long it will take to get to your destination your bridge officer will tell you that you have arrived after a certain amount of time has passed.
That's probably the best take on this I've heard - and I'm extra glad to hear that it's not impossible to implement.
A while back I offered an idea internally for how to be on the bridge while flying in sector space. I didn't have much luck getting anything started but the idea is workable. When some new tech goes in that I am waiting for I plan to re-propose it.
Without going into too much detail it basically works this way. You go to sector space and turn on auto pilot to a system or just go forward. Map move to your bridge. The code stores your auto pilot info and spawns a critter in sector space that looks like you that will follow those auto pilot instructions. Since you know from your auto pilot settings how long it will take to get to your destination your bridge officer will tell you that you have arrived after a certain amount of time has passed.
Great idea, would add so much more immersion and functionality to the bridge and ship.
So the vertical-axis stuff has nothing to do with the engine itself
DO YOU HAVE IT CODED IN THE ENGINE SO WE CAN NOT USE THE Z-AXIS FULLY?
Duh, guess what? That makes it THE ENGINE!!!!!!!
though we would need a new input and motion control mode if we wanted to do handle dogfighter-style controls
How about just realistic space controls? Never said dogfighting.
Most of that "restriction" is by choice and has been explained a thousand times over.
Yeah, you think we are TOO STUPID to be able to handle it. Thanks.
Free the effing Z already. We are not as weak as your testers, we can handle 360 degree movement. Or do you deny that the reason you have this "locked" is because, and I quote
"It is too confusing"
Again, thank you for letting us know how stupid we are when it comes to playing games. And lastly, thank you for showing them that the Z IS LOCKED!
DO YOU HAVE IT CODED IN THE ENGINE SO WE CAN NOT USE THE Z-AXIS FULLY?
Duh, guess what? That makes it THE ENGINE!!!!!!!
The engine can handle.
In fact, if they found during testing that most people got nauseated/didn't like flying inverted, deductive logic would say it was part of the game at some point.
How about just realistic space controls? Never said dogfighting.
Maybe not pitch/yaw but allowing full rotation on z-axis would be reminiscent of many "arcade style" combat flight sims.
Yeah, you think we are TOO STUPID to be able to handle it. Thanks.
Free the effing Z already. We are not as weak as your testers, we can handle 360 degree movement. Or do you deny that the reason you have this "locked" is because, and I quote
"It is too confusing"
Again, thank you for letting us know how stupid we are when it comes to playing games. And lastly, thank you for showing them that the Z IS LOCKED!
Not everyone is as good as you or I. Remember the game isn't designed for just a few - it's designed for many. It's not that your stupid - it's that any people feel uncomfortable or nauseated by the controls.
I'm fine with it (being a pro at Tie-Fighter on the PC) but some aren't.
If it were designed for a few the game might have one or more of the following:
fully open pvp (go anywhere, kill anything)
perma-death
only diplomatic missions on the federation side
no credits - just replicate as much as you want
no weapon/ship progression - just fly/shoot whatever you want.
Some of those may sound great but they exclude quite a sizable portion of the community.
DO YOU HAVE IT CODED IN THE ENGINE SO WE CAN NOT USE THE Z-AXIS FULLY?
No, actually, they don't. You can see the same engine used in CO with free movement in all directions. The odd movement system in STO space combat is a game-specific configuration thing.
Guys, you're wasting your breath. He's going to use the broadest possible definition of "engine" to prove his point.
So I'll be blunt:
They disabled full turns along the Z axies ON PURPOSE. Its done for obvious reasons: To keep the ships on the same "plane" while still allowing some movement up and down. Its the same reason the ship auto-levels when you stop turning. To maintain orientation
Quite frankly, I much prefer it the way it is over how it worked in Bridge Commander.
I would like to be able to fly up at a sharper angle to make moving in 3 dimensions easier, but permanent, 3-axis movement?
Not going to happen.
And it IS realistic space navigation, Star Trek style. trek ships ALWAYS did the same thing; they returned their orientation to a standard "plane" that all large ships seemed to follow (and even shuttles did unless under combat maneuvers)
A few examples of Starships going "z-minus" doesn't mean that full 3-axis motion is correct, or feasible.
So you can spam all you want. The answer has been a firm NO thus far, and I am Glad.
I hate to burst your bubble, but the only ship I've seen to move directly upwards or downwards was the shuttle in Enterprise and Voyager when landing on a planet. Both of these are not ingame in any form, so technically, the engine is fine.
In Trek canon, maneuvering thrusters allow any ship to move in just about any direction without having to point in that direction. You saw the Enterprise move in the Z axis in the Battle of Mutara Nebula in Star Trek II.
I don't really like the flight model in STO. It's like a cross between a flight sim and an FPS shooter.
A while back I offered an idea internally for how to be on the bridge while flying in sector space. I didn't have much luck getting anything started but the idea is workable. When some new tech goes in that I am waiting for I plan to re-propose it.
Without going into too much detail it basically works this way. You go to sector space and turn on auto pilot to a system or just go forward. Map move to your bridge. The code stores your auto pilot info and spawns a critter in sector space that looks like you that will follow those auto pilot instructions. Since you know from your auto pilot settings how long it will take to get to your destination your bridge officer will tell you that you have arrived after a certain amount of time has passed.
I love it! That gets around the one-avatar in two places issue nicely.
The only down-side that I can see is that travel in sector space may be too quick to really get anything done while you're "in" your ship. Of course, there should be no rule that says that you *have* to return to Tac view at that time... it sounds like a good way to make it work.
Considering how lame movement is in EVE with its click-nightmare-system, I much prefer STO.
Its a nice balance between the Starfleet Command style movement and what you expect from an MMO.
I would totally support thrusters to move up and down in the Z-axis as needed, but not full dogfighting with loops and barrelrolls. THAT belongs on Star Wars.
If the Devs disabled the full use of the Z, then we don't have full use of the Z.
What is hard to understand about this:
If the Devs have code (in the engine) that limits the Z, then THEN ENGINE IS LIMITING THE Z.
There is no "broad definition", there is code directly tied to the engine limiting our use of the Z axis. Period.
Incidentally, I have been saying this since my FIRST post.
The engine can handle.
In fact, if they found during testing that most people got nauseated/didn't like flying inverted, deductive logic would say it was part of the game at some point.
Dear god....
I NEVER SAID IT COULDN'T HANDLE IT.
Do people even read anymore?
I said, that there is a LIMIT to my usage of the Z axis. Since this limit is CODED INTO THE ENGINE, the engine is limiting my use of the Z axis BY PROXY!!!!!!!
And again, thank you for letting me know how well I can play games. Just because you guys can't handle realistic space flight, doesn't mean everyone can't. Which is why I suggested, back in beta, an optional Z axis. Where one could turn it off or on depending on playstyle. That way you could play your way, and I could play mine.
Please, read my posts before responding. The engine can handle it, obviously, since my ground character can jump. They have a code that keeps the engine from using the Z for the ship, THAT IS A FLAW.
flaw
1 /flɔ/ Show Spelled[flaw] Show IPA
noun
1.
a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault: beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan.
Or do you deny that in real space we wouldn't have full control of the Z axis of our ships? Well then, guess what, Trek's space is imperfect because of...wait for it...wait for it...A FLAW!!!!!!
What does the engine LIMIT. IE: What flaw in its design is holding back the game?
The Z-Axis is NOT A DESIGN FLAW, its a decision made by the developer.
This thread is ABOUT WHAT TECHNICAL LIMITS THE ENGINE HAS.
Your Z-axis rant is not related. We've explained this for pages now.
Edit: Fine. Star Trek is flawed because ships don't utilize the full Z-axis in combat. Go write an angry letter and put it on Gene Roddenberry's grave. I'm sure he'll care.
It's fine to have passionate discussions about the game, and ways we can make it better, however, those conversations need to remain calm, and respectful. If they don't, we'll end those discussions.
If the Z axis problem is an engine limitation then the following things are engine limitations as well:
- The limited number of ship and personal HP
- The cooldown time on powers
- The MkI stuff dealing less damage than MkX
- Limited speed
- The chat window
etc ...
Practically everything, you see in the game, is an engine limitation.
It's fine to have passionate discussions about the game, and ways we can make it better, however, those conversations need to remain calm, and respectful. If they don't, we'll end those discussions.
Please don't make us end this one.
Thanks,
Stormshade
:rolleyes:
I am so tired of these Mods, you don't want us to talk about something so you lock it. How is that for a flaw?
You have no leg to stand on, so deflect the discussion!!
It is a FLAW WITH THE ENGINE, remeber the OT?
Now that I have shown that it limits the game, you do this. HA!
How exactly the limit in the z-axis limits the game? I can't stress enought how ugly the game would look if all ships could do full loops.
Sector space already looks dumb enought with all the silly names. Imagine how silly it would look if someone with one fourth of a brain decided to keep on doing loops and barrel-rolls in one spot. Because you can be sure people would do that
We already don't feel much like we're commanding >600m spaceships.. if the z-axis is unlocked, it will feel like we are all 10 again playing with keychain toys and doing sounds with our mouths.
Z axis I don't care much about. But having to corkscrew to space anomalies all the time is EXTREMELY annoying. If any devs are reading this, please enable auto-pilot to anomalies just like you have for enemies. It would be great to double click an anomaly and have the ship auto corkscrew to them.
As for traveling in space from the bridge. This feature is very much needed. Nearly every episode of Star Trek in every series and movie shows travel from the bridge. In my opinion, it was short sighted to not plan for the engine to be capable of this. I for one hope Cryptic bites the bullet and invests in whatever technology needed to make this happen. It's a mistake that needs to be corrected.
Comments
This is probably prohibitive from a server load perspective but as someone who did a lot of MUSH/MUD/MOO coding, those engines had the same limitation in theory but there were ways around it.
One of which would be to have an NPC dummy which acts as a placeholder.
For example:
Go to shipmode and an NPC of your Captain spawns on your ship interior map.
Go to your ship interior and an NPC dummy of your ship spawns in sector space.
These act as placeholder tokens and can be used for establishing relative position/damage/etc.
For example, the com system would cause the captain to inherit whatever area channels the ship NPC token is in.
Likewise, "setting a course" from the bridge would input movement instructions to the ship NPC.
If you've played Warcraft, it's the same thing that happens when you mount or dismount from a vehicle, I think. There's an NPC object vehicle unit that is replaced by a player shapeshifted into the form of their character driving the vehicle. Then when they "dismount", the player shapeshifts back into a player and the NPC vehicle respawns.
That is probably trickier when the NPC occupies a different map/instance than the player but since communication across maps is possible via chat, it seems to me that it is possible to have the NPC AI be influenced bu actions in a different instance.
In fact, this is the basis for some of my wackier MUD coding.
Create a chat channel. Restrict players from having access. Place objects on the channel listening. Send streams of data over the channel.
For example:
- You have a conn officer NPC and a ship exterior NPC.
- Player relays order to conn officer.
- Conn officer is on a channel dedicated to NPCs that is invisible to the player.
- Conn officer transmits a message like this: PlayerLeviathan99 Moveship 125 125 267
- Ship NPC for Leviathan99 (the one in Sector Space) is also on the chat channel, listening for anything with the header "PlayerLeviathan99". It registers the command "Moveship 125 125 267" and executes a script to start moving to those coordinates.
- When I go to tactical view, my ship form looks for the coordinates of my ship NPC and spawns there.
I've done it with channels, with whispers between objects, sometimes with a master unit on a channel that verifies the validity of the instructions before sending them on (although this shouldn't be an issue if the channel is locked and invisible).
Like I say, this type of thing was my specialty in MUSH Code.
You can have STFs that split people between space and ground. Someone fires on an enemy ship with shields down and a corridor for people on the ship map collapses.
You can have "incredible journey" type boss fights that involve a group shrinking down into a boss while the other group fights the boss from the outside. The interior group disables the boss' arm and suddenly the group on the outside sees the boss no longer using certain attacks as the boss' arm goes limp.
You can have missions/instances where one group is on a tower and the other group is standing outside. The group outside distracts a dragon to keep it from appearing on top of the tower.
You can allow bridge navigation.
You can limit transports by proximity of ships.
You can link up two bridges via working viewscreens. (Each viewscreen is a transparent wall, on the other side of which is loaded a scaled up cutaway of the Captain's Chair and anything in proximity to it with the scaled up NPCs mimicking what's happening on the other bridge.)
This has advantages for CO, STO and other games as well.
It could also theoretically allow for cross-game visual communication or shared areas between games for people who have multiple Cryptic games installed, if you wanted to put the effort into it. This could allow for crazy things like Champions characters crossing over into whatever MMO comes next.
Still a fair bit of work to get the network connections sent to the right places, but not that hard, is it? Much easier than trying to process the bridge on the space map server (which is pretty impossible for a bunch of reasons you already listed). Client connects to bridge map server, bridge map server connects as a client to space map server. All commands to the space map server are sent by the bridge map server; map and team updates from the space map server go to the bridge map server, which (for the sake of simplicity, since it needed to receive them anyway) encapsulates and forwards them to the game client - so the game client only ever talks to the bridge map, and the space map only ever talks to the bridge map. Only the authentication and management stuff (and the client) really needs to be aware that the player's using two map servers. Most of the system just treats it as two distinct clients, and the fact that things on one of them affects the other is just emergent behaviour.
Some things to keep things working: Auto travel is only between end points, much like flight paths in WoW. So like Earth SB, DS9,Memory Alpha, k7, etc. can be traveled between. To explore, you need to use sector space. Maybe while autotraveling, you have X% chance to encounter a random event, such as a DSE or a trade ship (or new missions like distress signals)
While in sector space, have 2 views: The standard one we have now, and then a variation of the "zoomed in" first person view we can go to. It would be overlayed onto the forward viewscreen.
The bridge would be staticly loaded as a sort of "cockpit" view, like it works in SWG. You still control the ship directly, you just see an overlay of your bridge model. You might see your officers, but they aren't real NPCs. You could even have a camera toggle, where you relinquish control of the ship for a mouselook mode.
Its not quite how it worked in Bridge Commander, but it would look better. You'd still only be updating one map (sector space) and its contained PCs and NPCs. You'd need to drop out of tactical view (as we do now) to interact with your ship interior.
The question becomes whether having the new stuff loaded for the cockpit overlay would be too intensive.
Without going into too much detail it basically works this way. You go to sector space and turn on auto pilot to a system or just go forward. Map move to your bridge. The code stores your auto pilot info and spawns a critter in sector space that looks like you that will follow those auto pilot instructions. Since you know from your auto pilot settings how long it will take to get to your destination your bridge officer will tell you that you have arrived after a certain amount of time has passed.
Thanks for the input jransom. This seems like the most simple solution. How would it affect players who set an autopilot with a friend (PC) on their bridge?
YES!!
DO THAT!!!!!
Great minds think alike.
However... With the idea of a super-secret chat channel that NPCs use to communicate, triggering scripts on eachother, I still argue that there's at least a dozen applications of that tech that would be useful in all Cryptic games as well as bridge control.
But it would only be between endpoints like major stations or whatever. exploring sectors, going to missions, etc would still require sector space navigation (which is where the static bridge overlay would come in. or not.)
Its not my idea, its been tossed around a lot, but I think it'd be pretty swell. (esp. the auto-travel.)
That's probably the best take on this I've heard - and I'm extra glad to hear that it's not impossible to implement.
Great idea, would add so much more immersion and functionality to the bridge and ship.
Duh, guess what? That makes it THE ENGINE!!!!!!!
How about just realistic space controls? Never said dogfighting.
Yeah, you think we are TOO STUPID to be able to handle it. Thanks.
Free the effing Z already. We are not as weak as your testers, we can handle 360 degree movement. Or do you deny that the reason you have this "locked" is because, and I quote
"It is too confusing"
Again, thank you for letting us know how stupid we are when it comes to playing games. And lastly, thank you for showing them that the Z IS LOCKED!
I love being right.
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines ~Stormshade
(I win, I so win!)
Easier to edit my posts, than answer my question stormy?
In fact, if they found during testing that most people got nauseated/didn't like flying inverted, deductive logic would say it was part of the game at some point.
Maybe not pitch/yaw but allowing full rotation on z-axis would be reminiscent of many "arcade style" combat flight sims.
Not everyone is as good as you or I. Remember the game isn't designed for just a few - it's designed for many. It's not that your stupid - it's that any people feel uncomfortable or nauseated by the controls.
I'm fine with it (being a pro at Tie-Fighter on the PC) but some aren't.
If it were designed for a few the game might have one or more of the following:
- fully open pvp (go anywhere, kill anything)
- perma-death
- only diplomatic missions on the federation side
- no credits - just replicate as much as you want
- no weapon/ship progression - just fly/shoot whatever you want.
Some of those may sound great but they exclude quite a sizable portion of the community.No, actually, they don't. You can see the same engine used in CO with free movement in all directions. The odd movement system in STO space combat is a game-specific configuration thing.
So I'll be blunt:
They disabled full turns along the Z axies ON PURPOSE. Its done for obvious reasons: To keep the ships on the same "plane" while still allowing some movement up and down. Its the same reason the ship auto-levels when you stop turning. To maintain orientation
Quite frankly, I much prefer it the way it is over how it worked in Bridge Commander.
I would like to be able to fly up at a sharper angle to make moving in 3 dimensions easier, but permanent, 3-axis movement?
Not going to happen.
And it IS realistic space navigation, Star Trek style. trek ships ALWAYS did the same thing; they returned their orientation to a standard "plane" that all large ships seemed to follow (and even shuttles did unless under combat maneuvers)
A few examples of Starships going "z-minus" doesn't mean that full 3-axis motion is correct, or feasible.
So you can spam all you want. The answer has been a firm NO thus far, and I am Glad.
In Trek canon, maneuvering thrusters allow any ship to move in just about any direction without having to point in that direction. You saw the Enterprise move in the Z axis in the Battle of Mutara Nebula in Star Trek II.
I don't really like the flight model in STO. It's like a cross between a flight sim and an FPS shooter.
I love it! That gets around the one-avatar in two places issue nicely.
The only down-side that I can see is that travel in sector space may be too quick to really get anything done while you're "in" your ship. Of course, there should be no rule that says that you *have* to return to Tac view at that time... it sounds like a good way to make it work.
Considering how lame movement is in EVE with its click-nightmare-system, I much prefer STO.
Its a nice balance between the Starfleet Command style movement and what you expect from an MMO.
I would totally support thrusters to move up and down in the Z-axis as needed, but not full dogfighting with loops and barrelrolls. THAT belongs on Star Wars.
If the Devs disabled the full use of the Z, then we don't have full use of the Z.
What is hard to understand about this:
If the Devs have code (in the engine) that limits the Z, then THEN ENGINE IS LIMITING THE Z.
There is no "broad definition", there is code directly tied to the engine limiting our use of the Z axis. Period.
Incidentally, I have been saying this since my FIRST post.
Dear god....
I NEVER SAID IT COULDN'T HANDLE IT.
Do people even read anymore?
I said, that there is a LIMIT to my usage of the Z axis. Since this limit is CODED INTO THE ENGINE, the engine is limiting my use of the Z axis BY PROXY!!!!!!!
And again, thank you for letting me know how well I can play games. Just because you guys can't handle realistic space flight, doesn't mean everyone can't. Which is why I suggested, back in beta, an optional Z axis. Where one could turn it off or on depending on playstyle. That way you could play your way, and I could play mine.
Please, read my posts before responding. The engine can handle it, obviously, since my ground character can jump. They have a code that keeps the engine from using the Z for the ship, THAT IS A FLAW.
Or do you deny that in real space we wouldn't have full control of the Z axis of our ships? Well then, guess what, Trek's space is imperfect because of...wait for it...wait for it...A FLAW!!!!!!
Read the title of the thread.
What does the engine LIMIT. IE: What flaw in its design is holding back the game?
The Z-Axis is NOT A DESIGN FLAW, its a decision made by the developer.
This thread is ABOUT WHAT TECHNICAL LIMITS THE ENGINE HAS.
Your Z-axis rant is not related. We've explained this for pages now.
Edit: Fine. Star Trek is flawed because ships don't utilize the full Z-axis in combat. Go write an angry letter and put it on Gene Roddenberry's grave. I'm sure he'll care.
You still won't get the Z-axis unlocked.
I love it, thanks for this!!
You have no leg to stand on, so deflect the discussion!!
It is a FLAW WITH THE ENGINE, remeber the OT?
Now that I have shown that it limits the game, you do this. HA!
It's fine to have passionate discussions about the game, and ways we can make it better, however, those conversations need to remain calm, and respectful. If they don't, we'll end those discussions.
Please don't make us end this one.
Thanks,
Stormshade
- The limited number of ship and personal HP
- The cooldown time on powers
- The MkI stuff dealing less damage than MkX
- Limited speed
- The chat window
etc ...
Practically everything, you see in the game, is an engine limitation.
:rolleyes:
I am so tired of these Mods, you don't want us to talk about something so you lock it. How is that for a flaw?
How exactly the limit in the z-axis limits the game? I can't stress enought how ugly the game would look if all ships could do full loops.
Sector space already looks dumb enought with all the silly names. Imagine how silly it would look if someone with one fourth of a brain decided to keep on doing loops and barrel-rolls in one spot. Because you can be sure people would do that
We already don't feel much like we're commanding >600m spaceships.. if the z-axis is unlocked, it will feel like we are all 10 again playing with keychain toys and doing sounds with our mouths.
Correction, when they don't want us to talk about something in certain "tones of conversation" they lock it
So because of your precious eyes, my play style must be limited?
Arrogance? Looks like it to me.
Cosmetics doesn't disprove/discount the flaw of "no" Z-axis in space. *cue semantics*
As for traveling in space from the bridge. This feature is very much needed. Nearly every episode of Star Trek in every series and movie shows travel from the bridge. In my opinion, it was short sighted to not plan for the engine to be capable of this. I for one hope Cryptic bites the bullet and invests in whatever technology needed to make this happen. It's a mistake that needs to be corrected.