1) It's canon. Yes, there are a handful of times in the shows/movies where ships did crazy 3d movements. 99% of the rest of the show, any ships that met in space, were sitting on the same invisible plane, with both of their respective 'ups' pointed in the same direction. This is Star Trek, in Star Trek there IS an up in space.
2) Full 3D flight, without the benefit of huge landmarks like, say, the ground, can get very disorienting. Don't get me wrong, I love a full 3d Space Sim as much as the next guy (gah! Bring back Freelancer! and Tie Fighter!), but it DOES get confusing, even to me. A newbie, who's only here for the trek, and doesn't have a lot of experience in other space games, can already get overwhelmed in combat as it stands today. Add full 3d movement to that, and you've lost a customer.
Oh, and btw, Quaternions TRIBBLE with my head constantly. Our sky system uses them for sun movement, and it takes me forever to get something into the position I want it to be.
I understand the need for the system thats in game, i understand why you went with that choice. What i dont understand is why you never considered (or if you did why you discounted) the option to have full 3D Movement with a self righting system.
1) Babylon 5 - They asked NASA n Scientists for info on how to Keep it as "Real" as Possible.
2) In Star Wars there are several moments where you see a ship "not right side up" through out it. Heck Han dives between two Stardestoyers that are flying one upside down the other right side up, they nearly collide during Empire Strikes Back.
3) Reason STO won't go "Real" is CBS, the Space Ships must Always be right side up, as if we sailing on the ocean or something. They're also why we have turn rates like there is "resistance" in space, doesn't match up with physics, but meh it's a Game. There is no "Up" in space, unless you play STO.
4) As Tacofangs said they try to keep it super Simple for the kids.
CBS isn't the reason at all... That is misinformation...
DStahl has told us several times that it was an Internal Decision when They were first designing the game...
He also said that the engine could handle it if They were to add the appropriate coding...,
but..., It IS NOT Something that They are planning to ever do.
Again, using all the examples from other Shows/Movies doesn't mean a hill-of-beans...
Star Trek portrayed 99% of it's ship flight/battles with the antagonists on the same plane...
So that is what STO does also.
STO Member since February 2009. I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born! Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
[QUOTE=krell83sto;47011111) Babylon 5 - They asked NASA n Scientists for info on how to Keep it as "Real" as Possible.
2) In StarWars there are several moments where you see a ship "not right side up" through out it. Heck Han dives between two Stardestoyers that are flying one upside down the other right side up, they nearly collide during Empire Strikes Back.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, huh.
And on Babylon 5, how many times did they show ships "flying upside down" for any extended period of screen time? How often did they portray a true zero gravity environment?
And yes, Star Wars ships do all kinds of crazy maneuvers. But do they cinematically portray any of those ships flying "upside down" outside of dramatic battle scenes?
Talk to me about the rule, not the exceptions.
The movies and TV shows mostly conformed to the normal human expectation of "up" and "down" because most people's brains can't deal with the discrepancy... and an unpleasant viewing experience affects ratings. I can only imagine what it would do to STO's bottom line.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
1) It's canon. Yes, there are a handful of times in the shows/movies where ships did crazy 3d movements. 99% of the rest of the show, any ships that met in space, were sitting on the same invisible plane, with both of their respective 'ups' pointed in the same direction. This is Star Trek, in Star Trek there IS an up in space.
2) Full 3D flight, without the benefit of huge landmarks like, say, the ground, can get very disorienting. Don't get me wrong, I love a full 3d Space Sim as much as the next guy (gah! Bring back Freelancer! and Tie Fighter!), but it DOES get confusing, even to me. A newbie, who's only here for the trek, and doesn't have a lot of experience in other space games, can already get overwhelmed in combat as it stands today. Add full 3d movement to that, and you've lost a customer.
Oh, and btw, Quaternions TRIBBLE with my head constantly. Our sky system uses them for sun movement, and it takes me forever to get something into the position I want it to be.
People keep asking for other space shows that showed true space flight. The new series of Battlestar Gallactica came pretty close. I never got disorientated with that. In fact I thought it helped to add to the authentisity and dramaticness of the show.
Perhaps Cryptic should start running some polls on controversial opinions like this. People keep asking for it but the forums arnt always the best place to see what people think of an idea as not everyone posts.
People keep asking for other space shows that showed true space flight. The new series of Battlestar Gallacta came pretty close. I never got disorientated with that. In fact I thought it helped to add to the authentisity and dramaticness of the show.
Perhaps Cryptic should start running some polls on controversial opinions like this. People keep asking for it but the forums arnt always the best place to see what people think of an idea as not everyone posts.
Polls would mean that their opinion is at risk of becoming void. They always hide between "what the players want"... If a poll is about something, that what they think is what the players want, and it turns out different, and they would loose face...
They HATE loosing face... especially when caught red-handed.
Don't look silly... Don't call it the "Z-Store/Zen Store"...
I'd be pretty happy if thy would adjust the angle you can go up/down enough so that at maximum up/down angle Dual Heavy cannons can hit a target directly above you.
1) It's canon. Yes, there are a handful of times in the shows/movies where ships did crazy 3d movements. 99% of the rest of the show, any ships that met in space, were sitting on the same invisible plane, with both of their respective 'ups' pointed in the same direction. This is Star Trek, in Star Trek there IS an up in space.
2) Full 3D flight, without the benefit of huge landmarks like, say, the ground, can get very disorienting. Don't get me wrong, I love a full 3d Space Sim as much as the next guy (gah! Bring back Freelancer! and Tie Fighter!), but it DOES get confusing, even to me. A newbie, who's only here for the trek, and doesn't have a lot of experience in other space games, can already get overwhelmed in combat as it stands today. Add full 3d movement to that, and you've lost a customer.
Oh, and btw, Quaternions TRIBBLE with my head constantly. Our sky system uses them for sun movement, and it takes me forever to get something into the position I want it to be.
For balance reasons (yes, really), we need a slightly bigger maximum flight angle as now, though. A common phenomen in PvP is that everyone spirals up - ther eason is that this is the best way to evade dual (heavy) cannon attacks. 45? firing arc + 60? flight angle means that the best angle a dual cannon can reach upwards is 60 + 45/2 = 82.5. That means there is an angle where no matter how maneuverably your ship is, you cannot fire at with DCs.
Even without this fix, I don't think the spiraling will go away entirely. Up and Down are the only "special" directions in the game where your movement is limited, and that can always give you a smalla dvantage - and if only that it's much harder to get from the respawn if you're 50 km above the spawn point then when you're 50 km in any horizontal direction.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
And on Babylon 5, how many times did they show ships "flying upside down" for any extended period of screen time? How often did they portray a true zero gravity environment?
And yes, Star Wars ships do all kinds of crazy maneuvers. But do they cinematically portray any of those ships flying "upside down" outside of dramatic battle scenes?
Talk to me about the rule, not the exceptions.
The movies and TV shows mostly conformed to the normal human expectation of "up" and "down" because most people's brains can't deal with the discrepancy... and an unpleasant viewing experience affects ratings. I can only imagine what it would do to STO's bottom line.
Well, that just seems to suggest we should be able to flip a switch and say "Dramatic Battle Scene Reenactment" and enable 360 degree flight angle then. And wouldn't you want your space combat to be dramatic?
We could call the switch "Red Alert".
Mustrum "But I really just want that higher flight angle, 75 degrees or so would be entirely sufficient - actually more than necessary" Ridcully
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Well I for one want to fly like a real starship, not like some hot-air balloon with engines and lack of altitude adjustment abilities.
Edit: Ok, so I should have said zeppelin, it'd save me a lot of typing. But still, lacks any ability to adjust its altitude except by pointing the engines in a direction, and apparently can't point them straight up or down.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
1) It's canon. Yes, there are a handful of times in the shows/movies where ships did crazy 3d movements. 99% of the rest of the show, any ships that met in space, were sitting on the same invisible plane, with both of their respective 'ups' pointed in the same direction. This is Star Trek, in Star Trek there IS an up in space.
2) Full 3D flight, without the benefit of huge landmarks like, say, the ground, can get very disorienting. Don't get me wrong, I love a full 3d Space Sim as much as the next guy (gah! Bring back Freelancer! and Tie Fighter!), but it DOES get confusing, even to me. A newbie, who's only here for the trek, and doesn't have a lot of experience in other space games, can already get overwhelmed in combat as it stands today. Add full 3d movement to that, and you've lost a customer.
Oh, and btw, Quaternions TRIBBLE with my head constantly. Our sky system uses them for sun movement, and it takes me forever to get something into the position I want it to be.
imho all that is needed for orientation in 3D space is a 3D Radar, worked fine in Wing Commander and so on.
A 2D Mini Map like STO has it is obviously is not up to the task of giving you 3D information.
Anyway it's to late in the life of the game now to turn this into a Full 3D flight game.
I don't buy the *get's confusing* argument, and i counter you with the "gets boring and is unbelievable"-argument
also the "it's trek" argument... you are aware that you are talking about a TV show that had the bulk of it's episodes made with Pre-CGI Model Shots?
As soon as they had the Tech, they started to make scenes like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x38EH0PcxQ#t=1m47s
but the matter of the fact is that this game is build around a 2D Map system on hundreds of maps now, and it is just to late to turn this boat around now.
you should try "Black Prophecy" its free full 3d space mmo... first 10-15 levels are VERY confusing before your brain teach orientation in it... but after that its fun and rewarding
DStahl has told us several times that it was an Internal Decision when They were first designing the game...
He also said that the engine could handle it if They were to add the appropriate coding...,
Actually they would have to REMOVE code to give full 3-d flight ability. When you code a base 3-d flight simulator, you get full 3-d movment and camera rotation. Cryptic had to ADD code to limits on the pitch of the ship and the pictch movment of the camera
don't we already have 360 degree flight in the ability to rotate along the plane of flight (and most ships angle in tandem with this turn? plus depending on your ship class an additional arc above and below in the forward/aft direction that to alter the plane of flight. Are you asking for an addition axis of rotation to allow us to spin or upside down or roll in flight?
Firefly... and on that note, if they made an online game based in that universe, it would probably end up being the best MMO ever created
Captain_Conrad
Join Date: October 2009
STO Start Date: March 2010
June 2012, assimilated into the PWE collective. Resistance is futile.
i think as a previous poster suggested, a 75-80 deg up down limit would be wonderful, it would decrease the need to corkscrew a bunch, and add to realism without confusing simple minded folks
I hope Cryptic will never decide to implement full 3d movement, simply because this game isnt an pure space-action-shooter like x-wing/tie-fighter ( and i really loved this games ). The difference to me is we have a third-person-tactical-space-combat here in STO thats a completely different thing than sitting in a first -person cockpit.
I cant imagine anyone ( and iam sure someone will come up and tell he/she would love to move a cruiser in full 3d ) who wants to command a cruiser in full 3d, this can just be a idea of some players in hyper-agile tactical ships.
BUT i wouldn't have any plea against implementing skills with special 3d maneuvers (with cooldowns) driven & executed by the engine itself.
As mentioned earlier in the thread, I believe Cryptic said that they do have the ability to change it to full 3D flight without too much trouble. They just decided against it in the beginning because it didn't look right. I think with the some of the changes since the beginning and a few modifications the game would be great with a full 3D space flight option.
As for the dead horses someone mentioned, a load of things that have already been brought up by Cryptic for implementation.
T5 connie - CBS wont allow it.
Seemless sector space - They are looking at it for a future season.
Lockboxes - They are looking at changing them.
Mobile App - Looking for future development
More like trying to close (mess with) the stable doors after the horses have bolted.
The ideas are already out there and decisions have been made as to what will happen with them.
People are just trying to either let them out when they're already out or shut them in when they're already out.
As for 3D flight, that horse hasn't bolted yet. It's tied up in the stable by Cryptic because THEY don't think it's a good idea no matter what anyone else thinks. There is still a chance to change their mind as it's not like CBS have said yet that it's not allowed.
I hope Cryptic will never decide to implement full 3d movement, simply because this game isnt an pure space-action-shooter like x-wing/tie-fighter ( and i really loved this games ). The difference to me is we have a third-person-tactical-space-combat here in STO thats a completely different thing than sitting in a first -person cockpit.
I cant imagine anyone ( and iam sure someone will come up and tell he/she would love to move a cruiser in full 3d ) who wants to command a cruiser in full 3d, this can just be a idea of some players in hyper-agile tactical ships.
BUT i wouldn't have any plea against implementing skills with special 3d maneuvers (with cooldowns) driven & executed by the engine itself.
Cheers,
Maledicus.
As a matter of fact, I -will- fly a cruiser like that if that's what it takes. In fact, I got some ships that are widely regarded as flying whales in my reserves - Odyssey (free), Bortas, Vo'Quv. In fact, I even fly the Vo'Quv and love it and would like nothing better than to fly my Vo'Quv and my Luna and my Defiant just like the Defiant is -supposed- to be flying, and that means like a fighter. (Okay, so the Vo'Quv is a bit too big to fly like that, but it can still fly 3D, and I've pretty much fitted the Luna so that it turns on a dime)
Edit: Also, have you ever TRIED flying TPS 3D? I did, and it was in fact better than FPS due to actually SEEING what was going on around my ship rather than just in front of it. In fact, I even mastered such flight with ships that actually DO realistically turn around (stated the required SWBF2 mod in an earlier post).
Re-edit: And for that matter, some SWBF1 maps also have enough room to maneuver, despite the awkward fact that SWBF1 starfighters, unlike their later SWBF2 incarnations, have no automated maneuvers - no speed burst, no 180 degree turn maneuver, no quick evasive maneuvers (a quick rolling maneuver, sending you left or right)
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
1) It's canon. Yes, there are a handful of times in the shows/movies where ships did crazy 3d movements. 99% of the rest of the show, any ships that met in space, were sitting on the same invisible plane, with both of their respective 'ups' pointed in the same direction. This is Star Trek, in Star Trek there IS an up in space.
2) Full 3D flight, without the benefit of huge landmarks like, say, the ground, can get very disorienting. Don't get me wrong, I love a full 3d Space Sim as much as the next guy (gah! Bring back Freelancer! and Tie Fighter!), but it DOES get confusing, even to me. A newbie, who's only here for the trek, and doesn't have a lot of experience in other space games, can already get overwhelmed in combat as it stands today. Add full 3d movement to that, and you've lost a customer.
Oh, and btw, Quaternions TRIBBLE with my head constantly. Our sky system uses them for sun movement, and it takes me forever to get something into the position I want it to be.
What about 180 degree flight? I remember they had that in Star Trek Legacy and it worked well. You couldn't roll or do anything super crazy, but the ability to fly vertically "up" and "down" made for some interesting gameplay. This would also kill the advantage for quicker ships that tend to park "above" players and blow them away with the "higher" ground advantage. Instead if someone tries that, just point strait "up." This would also prevent the escort tactic of parking behind a large cruiser and blowing it away.
I'm saying this because for this game it's completely doable and would satisfy enough of us that the matter wouldn't be brought up again for a while
Captain_Conrad
Join Date: October 2009
STO Start Date: March 2010
June 2012, assimilated into the PWE collective. Resistance is futile.
This is something that is necessary in the game as this is a 3d game .
-There are allot of player that would say you cant make a loop with a 1000m long ship , but they forger Structural Integrity Fields that holds ships together when accelerating/decelerating from warp .
-Then you have the players saying it will be disorienting : we have now autolevel on beam and pitch axes , that means that when you release the controls the ship will autolevel to XY plane at you current z location (height).
- To have better emotes you could add an option to disable autolevel (bu this will not affect gameplay at all .)
- to have 6 quadrants to the shields will be a bit triky and harder to implement because of 2 things ( please corect me if i am wrong ) : 1 most ships that i have seen in StarTrek had 4 shields quadrants ( the front extended over the ventral side and the back extended over the dorsal side of the ship ) , 2: is will be harder to control the shields and might requier new tech .
Adding the full 3d flight would help this game in allowing players to naturally attack from every direction , and breaking some of the existing PVP tactics , and , adding much more .
As for those worrying about a Oddy or any large ship doing it will be unwise because the will lose weaponds bearing on some of the ships , and it will take too long , and it will be unwise .
I am telling you... Cryptic dosent know how to do it.
Oh, Anazonda, please never leave the sto forums.
Consider it in the way that Star Trek has always been nautical. They've usually been more similar to this style, where two large ships pull alongside each other and start blasting each other. And in the sea, there is an up and a down. I'm not saying for a second its realistic, its just how Star trek has tended to be done, with exception from small, light craft like the Defiant or fighters.
Even in Star Wars, the large ships all face off against each other. In fact, in episode 3, all the ships pull alongside each other and start blasting each other with cannons. Its largely done because its easier to comprehend as it is a perspective that is easier to relate to.
Comments
I understand the need for the system thats in game, i understand why you went with that choice. What i dont understand is why you never considered (or if you did why you discounted) the option to have full 3D Movement with a self righting system.
If you really want to get your point across..., Don't use Red Font...
It's damn near impossible for most folks to read on a black background.
CBS isn't the reason at all... That is misinformation...
DStahl has told us several times that it was an Internal Decision when They were first designing the game...
He also said that the engine could handle it if They were to add the appropriate coding...,
but..., It IS NOT Something that They are planning to ever do.
Again, using all the examples from other Shows/Movies doesn't mean a hill-of-beans...
Star Trek portrayed 99% of it's ship flight/battles with the antagonists on the same plane...
So that is what STO does also.
I Was A Trekkie Before It Was Cool ... Sept. 8th, 1966 ... Not To Mention Before Most Folks Around Here Were Born!
Forever a STO Veteran-Minion
That was January-Feburarys series that i watched.
Wouldn't it have been more constructive to provide an example?
2) In StarWars there are several moments where you see a ship "not right side up" through out it. Heck Han dives between two Stardestoyers that are flying one upside down the other right side up, they nearly collide during Empire Strikes Back.
[/QUOTE]
Uh, huh.
And on Babylon 5, how many times did they show ships "flying upside down" for any extended period of screen time? How often did they portray a true zero gravity environment?
And yes, Star Wars ships do all kinds of crazy maneuvers. But do they cinematically portray any of those ships flying "upside down" outside of dramatic battle scenes?
Talk to me about the rule, not the exceptions.
The movies and TV shows mostly conformed to the normal human expectation of "up" and "down" because most people's brains can't deal with the discrepancy... and an unpleasant viewing experience affects ratings. I can only imagine what it would do to STO's bottom line.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I miss playing Descent.
Perhaps Cryptic should start running some polls on controversial opinions like this. People keep asking for it but the forums arnt always the best place to see what people think of an idea as not everyone posts.
Polls would mean that their opinion is at risk of becoming void. They always hide between "what the players want"... If a poll is about something, that what they think is what the players want, and it turns out different, and they would loose face...
They HATE loosing face... especially when caught red-handed.
For balance reasons (yes, really), we need a slightly bigger maximum flight angle as now, though. A common phenomen in PvP is that everyone spirals up - ther eason is that this is the best way to evade dual (heavy) cannon attacks. 45? firing arc + 60? flight angle means that the best angle a dual cannon can reach upwards is 60 + 45/2 = 82.5. That means there is an angle where no matter how maneuverably your ship is, you cannot fire at with DCs.
Even without this fix, I don't think the spiraling will go away entirely. Up and Down are the only "special" directions in the game where your movement is limited, and that can always give you a smalla dvantage - and if only that it's much harder to get from the respawn if you're 50 km above the spawn point then when you're 50 km in any horizontal direction.
We could call the switch "Red Alert".
Mustrum "But I really just want that higher flight angle, 75 degrees or so would be entirely sufficient - actually more than necessary" Ridcully
Edit: Ok, so I should have said zeppelin, it'd save me a lot of typing. But still, lacks any ability to adjust its altitude except by pointing the engines in a direction, and apparently can't point them straight up or down.
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
T5 Connie?
Seamless Sector Space?
Quarks bar as a separate instance?
I'm sure I am forgeting some really well-beaten ones.
Oh...
game cluttered with 100 year old ships?
Lockbox rage?
Any other pointless threads we can dredge back up? I got tons of time and love a good, slow forum meltdown.
Me with the foundry?
Mobile App?
Klingon UI?
Want some more?
imho all that is needed for orientation in 3D space is a 3D Radar, worked fine in Wing Commander and so on.
A 2D Mini Map like STO has it is obviously is not up to the task of giving you 3D information.
Anyway it's to late in the life of the game now to turn this into a Full 3D flight game.
I don't buy the *get's confusing* argument, and i counter you with the "gets boring and is unbelievable"-argument
also the "it's trek" argument... you are aware that you are talking about a TV show that had the bulk of it's episodes made with Pre-CGI Model Shots?
As soon as they had the Tech, they started to make scenes like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8x38EH0PcxQ#t=1m47s
but the matter of the fact is that this game is build around a 2D Map system on hundreds of maps now, and it is just to late to turn this boat around now.
Maybe in STO 2 ...
You forgot the T5 Akira. Even though we eventualy got it that horse cant be any more dead.
Looooooooooooooved Babylon 5
Actually they would have to REMOVE code to give full 3-d flight ability. When you code a base 3-d flight simulator, you get full 3-d movment and camera rotation. Cryptic had to ADD code to limits on the pitch of the ship and the pictch movment of the camera
Firefly... and on that note, if they made an online game based in that universe, it would probably end up being the best MMO ever created
Join Date: October 2009
STO Start Date: March 2010
June 2012, assimilated into the PWE collective. Resistance is futile.
The engine is not designed in a way to alloy this to happen. In order for this to be implemented an entirely new engine needs to be built/installed.
THis would cost a substantial amount of money and time. Both of which PWE is unwilling to invest for a control change.
join date: Jan. 2012
I cant imagine anyone ( and iam sure someone will come up and tell he/she would love to move a cruiser in full 3d ) who wants to command a cruiser in full 3d, this can just be a idea of some players in hyper-agile tactical ships.
BUT i wouldn't have any plea against implementing skills with special 3d maneuvers (with cooldowns) driven & executed by the engine itself.
Cheers,
Maledicus.
T5 connie - CBS wont allow it.
Seemless sector space - They are looking at it for a future season.
Lockboxes - They are looking at changing them.
Mobile App - Looking for future development
More like trying to close (mess with) the stable doors after the horses have bolted.
The ideas are already out there and decisions have been made as to what will happen with them.
People are just trying to either let them out when they're already out or shut them in when they're already out.
As for 3D flight, that horse hasn't bolted yet. It's tied up in the stable by Cryptic because THEY don't think it's a good idea no matter what anyone else thinks. There is still a chance to change their mind as it's not like CBS have said yet that it's not allowed.
As a matter of fact, I -will- fly a cruiser like that if that's what it takes. In fact, I got some ships that are widely regarded as flying whales in my reserves - Odyssey (free), Bortas, Vo'Quv. In fact, I even fly the Vo'Quv and love it and would like nothing better than to fly my Vo'Quv and my Luna and my Defiant just like the Defiant is -supposed- to be flying, and that means like a fighter. (Okay, so the Vo'Quv is a bit too big to fly like that, but it can still fly 3D, and I've pretty much fitted the Luna so that it turns on a dime)
Edit: Also, have you ever TRIED flying TPS 3D? I did, and it was in fact better than FPS due to actually SEEING what was going on around my ship rather than just in front of it. In fact, I even mastered such flight with ships that actually DO realistically turn around (stated the required SWBF2 mod in an earlier post).
Re-edit: And for that matter, some SWBF1 maps also have enough room to maneuver, despite the awkward fact that SWBF1 starfighters, unlike their later SWBF2 incarnations, have no automated maneuvers - no speed burst, no 180 degree turn maneuver, no quick evasive maneuvers (a quick rolling maneuver, sending you left or right)
Infinite possibilities have implications that could not be completely understood if you turned this entire universe into a giant supercomputer.
And when they would introduce it in the futur, I hope with Up and Down shields. Then it would make much more sense to turn a cruiser around.
I support the idea, beacuse you can use much more tactics and strategies to atack the enemies!
What about 180 degree flight? I remember they had that in Star Trek Legacy and it worked well. You couldn't roll or do anything super crazy, but the ability to fly vertically "up" and "down" made for some interesting gameplay. This would also kill the advantage for quicker ships that tend to park "above" players and blow them away with the "higher" ground advantage. Instead if someone tries that, just point strait "up." This would also prevent the escort tactic of parking behind a large cruiser and blowing it away.
I'm saying this because for this game it's completely doable and would satisfy enough of us that the matter wouldn't be brought up again for a while
Join Date: October 2009
STO Start Date: March 2010
June 2012, assimilated into the PWE collective. Resistance is futile.
-There are allot of player that would say you cant make a loop with a 1000m long ship , but they forger Structural Integrity Fields that holds ships together when accelerating/decelerating from warp .
-Then you have the players saying it will be disorienting : we have now autolevel on beam and pitch axes , that means that when you release the controls the ship will autolevel to XY plane at you current z location (height).
- To have better emotes you could add an option to disable autolevel (bu this will not affect gameplay at all .)
- to have 6 quadrants to the shields will be a bit triky and harder to implement because of 2 things ( please corect me if i am wrong ) : 1 most ships that i have seen in StarTrek had 4 shields quadrants ( the front extended over the ventral side and the back extended over the dorsal side of the ship ) , 2: is will be harder to control the shields and might requier new tech .
Adding the full 3d flight would help this game in allowing players to naturally attack from every direction , and breaking some of the existing PVP tactics , and , adding much more .
As for those worrying about a Oddy or any large ship doing it will be unwise because the will lose weaponds bearing on some of the ships , and it will take too long , and it will be unwise .
Oh, Anazonda, please never leave the sto forums.
Consider it in the way that Star Trek has always been nautical. They've usually been more similar to this style, where two large ships pull alongside each other and start blasting each other. And in the sea, there is an up and a down. I'm not saying for a second its realistic, its just how Star trek has tended to be done, with exception from small, light craft like the Defiant or fighters.
Even in Star Wars, the large ships all face off against each other. In fact, in episode 3, all the ships pull alongside each other and start blasting each other with cannons. Its largely done because its easier to comprehend as it is a perspective that is easier to relate to.