Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 421
12-18-2010, 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FizixMan View Post
EDIT: piwright42, I definitely see where you're coming from. But it was those pioneering filming techniques that created the entire look and feel of what Star Trek actually is. That depiction, regardless of how inaccurate it is, of how stylized or surreal it is, is what Star Trek is. Even the latest Star Trek 2009 movie continued that trend. It looked, and felt like Star Trek. It's not about what they can do in the industry now, but what they should do to make Star Trek. So that same look and feel is what we play in this game. I think most players come here to play a Star Trek game, not a Babylon 5 or Earth & Beyond, or whatever.

Hell, remember how players complained about how ships would drag or "power drift" with turns (lol Galaxy)? That was the closest thing to realistic physics we've seen in the game and Star Trek and it felt stupid to a host of players and the devs because it didn't feel like Star Trek. You can still get it in the game, but it's greatly diminished now that rarely anyone complains about it.
Aww how I miss sector drift. I've figured out how to do it in system but it's just not the same.

Reality is I agree with you to a degree. The flight system should be kept simple because that makes it accessible to the widest field of players. If it keeps the severs on I can indeed cope with a simplified system, especially if they can give us 85 degrees of pitch. As it is the current Z-axis is unfriendly to cannons and gives beams an unfair advantage if they can achieve superior Z-axis positioning.

Would be nice if they lets us have a few special maneuvers as well. Perhaps with a double click like the somersault in ground combat. We have seen the occasional barrel roll and loop in canon, (I don't want a loop though a half loop with an auto correct to horizon would be more advantageous as I could then do an Immelman), but just as in canon it should be very rare especially for the larger ships. If you don't mind me expanding on my point, these things did happen in canon after the digital revolution around the time of DS9.

The way impulse maneuvers were explained to me, back when TNG was fresh and new, was that the sub-spatial distortion that allowed for impulse propulsion could be directed around the ship in any direction. That would allow any ship to do advanced aerobatics with only mass and inertia to limit the space required to do the maneuver. That the Defiant and NX were shown doing these things on the rare occasion supports my notion.

Does this mean that we should be able to fly like in Independence War or Tachyon? Not at all. Most players would quit the first time their cruiser took a Port to Starboard strafing run from a always faced to them loaded for bear escort. That and Thrustmaster, nor anyone else, does not make true HOTAS, (Hands On Throttle And Stick), controls anymore. At least last I checked. The moment they realized how difficult it is to program control maps the old Thrustmaster F-16 setup, if they got their hands on a full set, they would bemoan the realities of true 3D flight.

Would I enjoy it? Yes. But given my experience with trying to get my former roomates interested in the independence War title showed that they preferred the more casual friendly X-wing vs Tie Fighter, which we could lan party, where Independence War could not. That and my old HOTAS setup is broken from continual moves and bad storage on my part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliskin View Post
Its actually sort of clear that you don't know the differences between how impulse works in star trek, and a real impulse drive.

(namely, the mass reduction capabilities of a driver coil in a Trek impulse engine).

Basically, the in-universe explanation for why Star Trek ships act the way they do, is there. This is why newtonian physics were never applied in later series, because the way the technology works in trek (namely, the ability to alter the effective mass of the ship via a warp field), solves the issue.

This has, of course, been explained numerous times in this very thread. Namely, Trek ships act like they do and have an in-universe reason for it. To ignore that is questionable at best, especially with emulating the very series such dynamics are showcased in.

Umm Pliskin you do realize that we are not in warp while we are in in system combat right?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 422
12-19-2010, 05:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by squidheadjax View Post
o_0 That's the first time I've heard Freelancer counted as an MMO proper. There were a few persistent-world mods though.
The game was set up so Servers could be either, PVP or not. Most I played on were PVP. Numbers of Players on each server was governed by the Equipment provided by the server operator. I saw ranges on those from 5 to 250.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 423
12-19-2010, 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by piwright42 View Post
Umm Pliskin you do realize that we are not in warp while we are in in system combat right?
You do realize that all Trek impulse engines are fitted with a subspace driver coil, that functions in very much the same manner as a low quality subspace bubble, right?

Hence, ships in trek can attain velocities at significant fractions of C, stop on a dime, and accelerate like a bat out of hell using an extremely primative impulse drive system?

From Memory Alpha...

Quote:
The impulse drive was a propulsion system used for sublight speeds. In Federation starships, the impulse drive was essentially an augmented fusion rocket, usually consisting of one or more fusion reactors, an accelerator-generator, a driver coil assembly, and a vectored thrust nozzle to direct the plasma exhaust. The fusion reaction generated a highly energized plasma. This plasma, ("electro-plasma") could be employed for propulsion, or could be diverted through the EPS to the power transfer grid, via EPS conduits, so as to supply other systems. The accelerated plasma was passed through the driver coils, thereby generating a subspace field which improved the propulsive effect.
Emphasis mine.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 424
12-19-2010, 11:37 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliskin View Post
You do realize that all Trek impulse engines are fitted with a subspace driver coil, that functions in very much the same manner as a low quality subspace bubble, right?

Hence, ships in trek can attain velocities at significant fractions of C, stop on a dime, and accelerate like a bat out of hell using an extremely primative impulse drive system?

From Memory Alpha...

The impulse drive was a propulsion system used for sublight speeds. In Federation starships, the impulse drive was essentially an augmented fusion rocket, usually consisting of one or more fusion reactors, an accelerator-generator, a driver coil assembly, and a vectored thrust nozzle to direct the plasma exhaust. The fusion reaction generated a highly energized plasma. This plasma, ("electro-plasma") could be employed for propulsion, or could be diverted through the EPS to the power transfer grid, via EPS conduits, so as to supply other systems. The accelerated plasma was passed through the driver coils, thereby generating a subspace field which improved the propulsive effect.

Emphasis mine.
Touche good sir. I stand corrected and and still stand by the notion that a Star Trek star ship can perform maneuvers that would make a helicopter or Harrier jump jet jealous.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 425
01-10-2011, 07:34 AM
I am split on this one metric, on one hand, I would like to be able to pilot and orient the ship in 3D.
On the other hand, I know I would revert to the familiar, that is I would revert to what feels like Star Trek
which would be to face off on the same plane as my opponent.

That said, I would need 3D movement to achieve this without exposing my ship to unwarranted risk.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 426
01-10-2011, 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZSteel
That said, I would need 3D movement to achieve this without exposing my ship to unwarranted risk.
Not countering or disputing what you've said, I'm just not sure I follow your meaning. You need 3D movement to achieve what exactly? And what unwarranted risk are you exposing your ship to?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 427
01-10-2011, 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FizixMan View Post
Not countering or disputing what you've said, I'm just not sure I follow your meaning. You need 3D movement to achieve what exactly? And what unwarranted risk are you exposing your ship to?
In those instances where the "target" is above or below me. With movement as it is now, I have to "spiral" to attain proper aim and achieve a weapons lock. For an Escort taking advantage of cannon weapons, this means
nearly 20 seconds of taking fire without really being able to return any.

That is a disadvantage exposing my ship to risk.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 428
01-10-2011, 09:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZSteel
In those instances where the "target" is above or below me. With movement as it is now, I have to "spiral" to attain proper aim and achieve a weapons lock. For an Escort taking advantage of cannon weapons, this means
nearly 20 seconds of taking fire without really being able to return any.

That is a disadvantage exposing my ship to risk.
I have to agree with this, I LOVED it when it was announced in patch notes that the max angle that we can fly our ships at increased by fifteen degrees. Even that tiny amount makes a difference. That said in the spirit of "More of this, less of that" help for the devs I'd like to see an even larger increase, maybe up to 80/85 degrees? that would be fantastic if it could happen.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 429
01-10-2011, 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZSteel
In those instances where the "target" is above or below me. With movement as it is now, I have to "spiral" to attain proper aim and achieve a weapons lock. For an Escort taking advantage of cannon weapons, this means
nearly 20 seconds of taking fire without really being able to return any.

That is a disadvantage exposing my ship to risk.
If you don't corkscrew you can fire upon them faster. Instead fly horizontally (counter-intuitive, I know!) away from the ship. Assuming the worst-case scenario where your opponent is 10km directly above you, you only need to fly 1.31km before you can shoot at him. (if you're lucky, traveling that distance will put you out of weapons range too until you can turn your guns to him!)

If the enemy is only 5km directly above you then you only need to travel 0.66km. Again, these assume a worst-case-scenario that the enemy is directly 90 degrees above you; there is only a 6.5 degree window above/below you where you cannot fire. If the enemy ship is off by this same amount (or more), you can already fire at them. This was certainly a bigger issue when before the 60 degree pitch patch the dead-zone was 21.5 degrees.

If you employ this method of repositioning in this case, do you think it will help to mitigate this issue?

I'm not entirely against increasing the pitch angle (probably gradually, maybe to 70/75 next) though at 80-90 degrees we might have other UI issues as the camera currently locks to the 90 degree vertical, or how we'll increase the frequency of vertical shield hits & weapon arcs (especially for the 180 degree single cannons). Those might need to be addressed, hopefully they won't be as big of an issue.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 430
01-10-2011, 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FizixMan View Post
If you don't corkscrew you can fire upon them faster. Instead fly horizontally (counter-intuitive, I know!) away from the ship. Assuming the worst-case scenario where your opponent is 10km directly above you, you only need to fly 1.31km before you can shoot at him. (if you're lucky, traveling that distance will put you out of weapons range too until you can turn your guns to him!)

If the enemy is only 5km directly above you then you only need to travel 0.66km. Again, these assume a worst-case-scenario that the enemy is directly 90 degrees above you; there is only a 6.5 degree window above/below you where you cannot fire. If the enemy ship is off by this same amount (or more), you can already fire at them. This was certainly a bigger issue when before the 60 degree pitch patch the dead-zone was 21.5 degrees.

If you employ this method of repositioning in this case, do you think it will help to mitigate this issue?

I'm not entirely against increasing the pitch angle (probably gradually, maybe to 70/75 next) though at 80-90 degrees we might have other UI issues as the camera currently locks to the 90 degree vertical, or how we'll increase the frequency of vertical shield hits & weapon arcs (especially for the 180 degree single cannons). Those might need to be addressed, hopefully they won't be as big of an issue.
I have yet to see my cannon weapons behave like some torpedoes, fire and then turn to follow after the target. Sure, my cannon volley will drift to hit a target but turn nearly 90 degrees to go up or down?

I'll try it next time (heck, I can recreate it with an NPC ship) and see what happens.
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:52 AM.