test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
The Wings
System
Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
OK I never really piped up much when the wing animations came in. I thought ok this is new... I can live with it.
I recently loaded up one of my BOP toons that I hadn't played in awhile... OHHHH MY what an UGLY mechanic this is.
So HERE it is PLEASE PLEASE Cryptic. Give me the option to disable the wing animations.
My goodness... my ship looks like its going to do a belly flop on some pavement..... not very honourable.
Thanks.
I recently loaded up one of my BOP toons that I hadn't played in awhile... OHHHH MY what an UGLY mechanic this is.
So HERE it is PLEASE PLEASE Cryptic. Give me the option to disable the wing animations.
My goodness... my ship looks like its going to do a belly flop on some pavement..... not very honourable.
Thanks.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Also, from the last Ask Cryptic:
I can't ****ing wait. They're horrible and they ruined my ship for me for a long time.
Captain: Raise wings, engage cruise mode, engage cloaking device!
Nav Officer: The enemy is 11 kellicams away, we are nearly within weapons range! If we stay in attack mode-
Captain: Didn't you see?! I turned the red lights and sirens OFF! That means we RAISE THE WINGS! If I tell you again it will be as I throw you out the airlock, petaQ!
Going into cruise mode seems fine for Full Impulse and Sector Space travel. But in missions in space you're seconds away from your next fight about 95% of the time.
Yes it is true that the 'flapping' seems a little silly... as many game mechanics seem when used repetitively. I think it's silly to have the ability to use a gravity well every 30 seconds... but hey, thats just me!
"Captain, we are 10km from 3 enemy ships, what are your orders?"
"Tear a hole in the fabric of reality right in the center of the group. The gravitational forces will shred their hull!"
"But captain, tearing holes in the fabric of space... doesn't that seem a little wreckless?"
"Don't question my orders, now RIP A HOLE IN SPACE TIME!!"
"Okay captain, all three ships are being pulled in!"
"Great, now in 30 seconds... do it again." :eek:
I digress... the repeated flapping is silly, BUT SO COOL. I love it every time it happens, it's like Bruce Lee tearing off his shirt. It symbolizes... "Your about to get served". I just justify it by saying that your full impulse wont work unless the wings are up. Almost as if the way a BoP was designed required the wings to go up to provide a stable structural integrity during increased hull stress at those speeds. Then when you attack, in order to provide a more accurate firing arc, the wings must go down...
Thats how I see it anyway. I LOVE the freakin wings moving. The best thing to happen to BoPs since universal bridge slots!
...Now if I can just convince cryptic to add one more freakin weapon slot, we would be in business.
Wahaha, awesome.
Anyway, I, personally, like the animation, though I have to agree that moving the wings every 10 seconds seems a bit pointless (it looks cool, though). Apart from adding a trigger to turn off the whole animation once and for all, they could also add a manual trigger to move the wings whenever we want.
I think the best way to solve this would be either one of these options:
A
- wings go down when entering combat or cloak, and they stay down
- wings go up again only before warping out of a map
B
- wing configuration can be toggled by "switching stances", which is actually canon
-- "cruise mode": wings up, bonus to speed (hull shape optimized for travel at high impulse)
-- "attack mode": wings down, bonus to defense (wings protect a weak spot at the ship's belly)
C
- wing configuration is dependent on base energy settings
-- 50-100% Engines: wings up
-- 25% Engines: wings down
D
- simply include a button to change wings (cheap-TRIBBLE solution compared to the other options, but better than what we have now)
I mostly want to see A. That'd mean that the wings would be up in Sector Space by default if that method was observed. Also with the addition, wings go to Combat mode when Cloak is engaged. In effect this means when you go into a map, your wings are up until you are in combat or cloak. The purpose is, and I think I am quoting from Star Trek V here, "If my people are cloaked, they intend to fire."
Something like that I (and others) suggestet as a K'Vort abiliy, very close to the nausican ships "siege mode". Making it a general BoP ability i thing would change the BoPs balance to much; so for the "regular one" I'd just prefer to have a "turn on/off" button in my hotbar.
But honestly.... I do not understand why that is so hard to develop; I mean.... the ships where without animation... then the animation was addet.... why should it be so hard (and thake longer then 20 seconds) to programm an "on/off" switch?
p.s.: Dear Cryptic if you ever consider to make a workover of the BoPs, please consider to re-add the "old" Hegh'ta model. I dont want f**** windows on my Bird of Prey and I HATE the wing canons the way they look now, LOVED the old ones.
You're right about the balancing concerns, though. Perhaps instead of a bonus the stances could simply trigger an appropriate debuff?
- Wings Up: "Exposed Belly" debuff (-20 all energy/kinetic resistance)
- Wings Down: "Heavy-Handed" debuff (-10 engine power, -20% turn rate)
numbers more or less arbitrary and just for demonstration purposes
That'd effectively change nothing in terms of efficiency, it would just mean that players would have to look out to use the correct stance. An added bit of difficulty for BoP pilots, perhaps.
Woah woah woah... STOP RIGHT THERE!!!
Lets back the f*** up just a second...
Have you flown a BoP in PvP?
No disrespect, but arent they difficult ENOUGH? The 'mosquito' tactic works fine and all... but eventually you get SWATTED. It's really not a question of IF you do, but WHEN you do. An added 'bit of difficulty'... no no no, I am pretty sure an added 'bit of a buff' would be better. LOL
When you add a bit of difficulty, that doesn't mean there was no difficulty to begin with!
It'd just be another thing to keep in mind. Situational, depending on whether you want to attack or pursue. You don't even have to keep it in mind or can outright ignore the differences if you prefer one wing stance over the other, it's just that there actually is a reason to select the right configuration.
And remember what we have as BoP Captains.
We have battle Cloak, we have Universal stations.... and... gimik or not, mnoving wings. Of course we pay a price and of course its not as easy as many feds like to think, but lets face it: We already have the most unique ship class! Its not very fair to give us even MORE special stuff. If I'm looking at my Defaint.... or my Souvereign... like them too but they have static hulls with a more or less static bo setup. And I hate it when I accidently try to battlecloak with my defaint and then recognize "oops, wrong ship".
Im talking about balance here or saying "the bop is stronger", I'm just talking abut the fun factor. And here the BoP is superior to EVERY other ship in STO, including cariers.
More unique additions to that class in general... no, the only thing that would cause is everybody else whining.
And further, since it would be a special ability in every way, we would have to give something up for it again.... Hull for example. I didnt even switch to the B'rel because that "Small" price for cloak fire was to much for me, I like my BoP the way it is (just beside that F***** season 1 change on the wing cannons!!!!!)
My preference is a lack of any stat change at all.
This is a cosmetic change, and thus it should have zero affect on gameplay.
If it would be purely cosmetic the Klingons wouldn't have wasted resources to build this feature into the ship, anyways. There's got to be some reason, and soft canon delivered - backed up by the hard canon fact that starship shapes do have an effect on how they perform even in space.
In the end it's about encouraging people to prefer the correct stance above the wrong one, like it would be in-universe as well. I think it'd be a neat feature and implement a sense of IC realism.
You mentioned that several times; beside the fact that I hate the word "soft canon" I'd really like to hear that explanation^^
Well I personally thing that you miss the point how "canon" works, you made a similar, in my opinion simply wrong argument about the K'Vort.
Canon is what happens onscreen, the production background does not count at all. I it where otherwise... well a few examples:
Our beloved Bird of Prey was completly designed as a Romulan ship (it still looks more Romulan then Klingon). Its origins just were changed because of a short termed Screenplay change (a bad one if you ask me, the Original STIII Screenplay was MUCH better).
Does that mean that Ship is a Romulan? Not at all, it appeared as a Klingon ship, and it is nothing else (And yes there ARE people who still consider ist Canon that this is a Romulan Ship).
In that TOS Episode with the Cloaking device (dont know the english title) the Romulans used D7s, because they couldn't efford to design another romulan ship for that episode. Does that mean they used Romulan ships in that Episode? No, we saw Klingon ships so that ARE Klingon ships used by Romulans (and that caused the "legend" of the Romulan/Klingon technology exchange wich is, although many people do not want to believe that, non canon).
Or another example: The Transporter was inventet because it was to expensive to film Shutle landing sequenzes in TOS; if the production backround would effect the canon that would mean we can not beam at all.
Here I agree. Also, if you look at the ship model (ignoring the fact that i Bird shaped ship does not make much sense), the construction wouldnt make sense without wine movement. I mean look at that what called "mission pod" in STO, that thing clearly shows that wings can move on the ship.
But that doesnt mean it HAS to have a purpose. That would be, of course, nice, but I still thing that would change the way the BoP works now to much.
With wings up, the ship creates a more stable warpfield, which in turn allows it to travel faster and/or spend less power on its structural integrity field. Basically the same reason for Voyager's "variable geometry pylons" that moved up every time the ship went to warp. This wing position also improves atmospheric flight capability. I'm not sure if it has any effect on impulse speed though (would have to dig through technobabble but I guess it's possible).
However, the Bird-of-Prey also has a vulnerable spot on its underbelly, either due to critical systems or a slightly weaker armour plating. Moving down the wings in combat provides additional cover. Additionally, the wings also house the deflector grid emitters, so this (speculation from here on again) might influence the shield bubble too.
That's the gist of it, they point it out in a couple sourcebooks and I've rolled with it as I thought it was a somewhat believable explanation for something that started out as a purely visual gimmick but would have to get a proper explanation in-universe.
No. You misinterpreted my position:
I am not saying that off-screen overrules on-screen, I am saying that off-screen needs to be considered when on-screen clearly contradicts itself (example: a 100% identical BoP having five different sizes). Likewise I am dismissing off-screen or soft canon when it doesn't make sense compared to what we have seen on-screen (example: B'rel supposedly being smaller than the K'vort which is in direct contradiction to hard canon).
I'm pretty sure that is actually soft canon by now, I remember having read about it several times.
That one episode you refer to, 'The Enterprise Incident', is not the only thing that leads us to believe the Romulans and Klingons formed an Alliance. There are a number of other things which support that. http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Romulan-Klingon_Alliance
I have never gotten a good answer to why that weakness exists.
Though my favorite was, " Simply so the we (klingons) will have a weakness and not be able to take over the universe. Twas the last spiteful joke on us for killing our Gods."
Certainly not true, but very Klingon.
Considering how Klingon science and engineering works I'm pretty sure it went something like this:
Klingon #1: "And it's going to have cannons here and here! Big cannons!"
Klingon #2: "Love it! What about this part, though? Do you really think that's enough armour?"
Klingon #1: "Hey, if anything gets through it'll just decompress the cargo hold."
Klingon #2: "Aaand what's right above the cargo hold?"
Klingon #1: "Oh sh*t, I totally forgot about the reactor! Okay, you think she can take a couple more plates?"
Klingon #2: "That'll totally shift the center of gravity. Do you know how this beast will handle if you do this?"
Klingon #1: "F**k that, let's just make it so that the wings move down."
You know, kinda like the development of the Bradley tank as retold in the movie Pentagon Wars.
By the way, the BoP having a weak underbelly is also supposed to be stated in DS9s "Return to Grace", which would make that part hard canon.
From Memory Alpha:
The most vulnerable spot on a Klingon Bird-of-Prey was located the underside of the ship's hull. While weak, this section was able to withstand sustained phaser fire from a Cardassian Groumall-type freighter with the shields down. This area was, however, unable to withstand a shot from a system-5 disruptor, which was capable of breaching the hull within two shots.
Well it makes sense, but I ask myself then why SOME BoPs (dont want to argue wich ones) fight with wings up (I also would love to have BOTH variations)
I couldnt disagree more. If that were that way, where is the line to draw? Actually that is what I like about Star Trek, it is basicy CLEAR what canon is. Production background has no meaning at all for what is canon.
Our etarnal big-small-BoP topic is a perfect example: YOU decide that there is just one BoP size because... it doesnt make sense for you.
For thousands of other people, including myself it actually MAKES sense. And within 5 series and 10 movies (yes yes eleven :mad:) there is more then enough stuff to discuss that doesnt make sense and "need" interpretation, so usually ESPECIALLY in Star Trek there is no need to discuss some things, those which are simply canon because they simply were seen on screen, like the diffrent sized Birds.
Even if it includes things like the Borg queen or... well everything happening in that Abrahams movie.... things I hate... are canon if I like it or not. Its not question if we thing its logical. The question is just "was it seen/said/mentioned" or not.
There might be other indications, but it is NOT canon. Thats beside the legend the Akira were "in canon" a carrier, the most discussed topic where people simply dont want to understand the nice simplicity of canon.
However, when you want to go more in depth into the setting, especially if writing a story or creating a game based in that setting, it is necessary to consider far more than simply "what was on the screen," though that of course does take -precedence.-
It is also necessary to determine what is the true canon situation when two things on screen contradict each other. One of the first sources to go to in such a situation is the production information. The reasons why certain things were presented in certain ways.
One great example of this is the Warp 10 barrier. In TOS, they frequently fly past Warp 10. In TNG and onward, Warp 10 is the maximum possible speed and equates to infinite velocity. We know -why- this is because we can look at the production information. Gene Roddenberry hated how high the numbers kept getting in TOS, so he created a new Warp Factor scale that stopped at 10, with 10 being equal to infinite velocity, and applied that at the start of TNG. Thus, sometime between the time period of TOS and the time period of TNG, the Warp Factor Scale used by the Federation was changed. This is canon. This is canon that is utilizing production information.
The reason some things from production are referred to as "soft canon" is because they are not "set in stone" (not that anything actually seen on screen necessarily is either, when it comes down to it) and may be changed/given a different/better explanation at a later date in an actual on-screen instance. An example here is the changes in Klingon foreheads between the 22nd century and 24th century. We could only look at production information to formulate any kind of reasoning for the change until the episodes in ENT that gave us a canon in-setting reason for the changes.
If you can find me a simple rule for what is canon, please do tell. Till then you are sounding a bit condescending. I admit that the Akira being a carrier isn't canon, the makers of the ship wanted it to be. But the Romulan-Klingon Alliance is able to be understood through the words of the characters in the show. I am not sure how much more of a canon source you want.
Other reasonable options (excuses) that I could come up with now are that the wing actuators on the ships in question were damage in-universe, or that they were a refit of the old Bird-of-Prey that "fixed" the weak spot whilst retaining the wing motors it already had. Not likely, but possible.
You're aware that this would equalize the B'rel and K'vort in size, effectively negating the soft canon sources stating their sizes, then?
Sadly, Star Trek has contradicted itself time and time again, as Katrina already pointed out, so canon in Trek sadly isn't quite as clear as one might believe. Which is exactly why we are left with so much discussion. There is no Holocron for Trek where the creators give us a definite answer, we just see lots of inconsistencies - and that's even before we take the soft canon books into consideration.
And so we fans are left with lots of debates and speculation.
And there are a lot of things in canon that I don't like but I simply have to accept. When I see so much obscurity and contradiction that I believe I can maneuver, however, then I will do so.
Oh, I'm not alone in this. Check the ship database of Starfleet Command III if you don't believe me.
This is by far not the only canon I am discussing! It should seem logical, however, that I focus on areas I deem important due to personal interest. I enjoy the Klingons and I love the BoP - more specifically, I fell in love with how I've grown to see it, and this is a perspective that I will defend. I do believe that the same can be said about the K'vort-cruiser-fans, for this difference is the very reason why they've become what they are, is it not?