Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 21
04-09-2012, 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chillee View Post
And SFB has nothing to do with canon, Trek on-film or TV... let alone STO.

Bleck
Except STO combat plays live a very simplfied version of Starfleet Command, which was based on SFB.

Also, it shows that in other Star Trek games there's usually some kind of drawback going in reverse, that it's not just STO 'shafting' players for no apparent reason.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 22
04-09-2012, 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kile_Morgan
Well, which Enterprise?
If you just wish one.
Kirk went full reverse to get away from the Romulan plasma torpedo in their first encounter with it. Where they learned it dissipated over distance.-Balance of Terror.(thanks to Google for the name)
Good point, and that was an *evasive* maneuver. Kirk wasn't firing weapons or otherwise engaging the Bird of Prey. Which again, points to what I said in that there are *some* situations to go in reverse, but not use that tactic all the time.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 23
04-09-2012, 06:21 PM
not all ships can turn fast that have forward weapon arcs, dbb, dc, torps, and dhc's, not to mention some consoles and abilities have narrow arcs. and the klingon side suffers heavily because of this kind of stupidity.

i made a point in my first post, i'll make it again since some people don't get it. if there's a reverse power drain (which is idiotic itself) then there should be one while stationary...and at 1/4, 1/2. 2/3rds impulse with zero drain at full impulse.

quite simply there is no logical reason whatsoever to have reverse power drain, the bussards are an aux power supply, not the primary, and would be easily rendered ineffective during combat regardless of which direction the ship is moving. exotic energies flying everywhere, particles filling the vicinity of the ship..not to mention SHIELDS...which would block any incoming hydrogen in any case. that's their job, to block.

thinking it's 'canon' is bs. it isn't. it was an unnecessary nerf. a way to force people to play the way the game designer thinks the game should be played...they limit strategic options enough as it is excluding true space flight from the game. this is rapidly becoming nothing more than a garden path style mmo. you do things one way and only one way. and doesn't do the game any good at all except with the minority of fanboys who eat, sleep, breath trek.

ex: i know of 30 people already...who started this...claimed they loved the game...and i haven't seen any of them in 3 weeks. some hit 50, saw there was nothing left and quit...some never even made it that far. why? because the game is bloody limited. and all the devs do is figure out more ways to narrow down choice.

gg
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 24
04-09-2012, 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destinii
Good point, and that was an *evasive* maneuver. Kirk wasn't firing weapons or otherwise engaging the Bird of Prey. Which again, points to what I said in that there are *some* situations to go in reverse, but not use that tactic all the time.
Also, IIRC, he almost destroyed the engines to do so. Thus the reverse power drain makes a LOT of sense here.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 25
04-09-2012, 06:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadspacex64
not all ships can turn fast that have forward weapon arcs, dbb, dc, torps, and dhc's, not to mention some consoles and abilities have narrow arcs. and the klingon side suffers heavily because of this kind of stupidity.

i made a point in my first post, i'll make it again since some people don't get it. if there's a reverse power drain (which is idiotic itself) then there should be one while stationary...and at 1/4, 1/2. 2/3rds impulse with zero drain at full impulse.

quite simply there is no logical reason whatsoever to have reverse power drain, the bussards are an aux power supply, not the primary, and would be easily rendered ineffective during combat regardless of which direction the ship is moving. exotic energies flying everywhere, particles filling the vicinity of the ship..not to mention SHIELDS...which would block any incoming hydrogen in any case. that's their job, to block.

thinking it's 'canon' is bs. it isn't. it was an unnecessary nerf. a way to force people to play the way the game designer thinks the game should be played...they limit strategic options enough as it is excluding true space flight from the game. this is rapidly becoming nothing more than a garden path style mmo. you do things one way and only one way. and doesn't do the game any good at all except with the minority of fanboys who eat, sleep, breath trek.

ex: i know of 30 people already...who started this...claimed they loved the game...and i haven't seen any of them in 3 weeks. some hit 50, saw there was nothing left and quit...some never even made it that far. why? because the game is bloody limited. and all the devs do is figure out more ways to narrow down choice.

gg
Name a real naval battle or Sci-Fi naval/starship battle in which one side went in reverse for the majority of the battle. While there may be one or two in fiction, there are no historical battles I can think of where one side went in reverse the whole time while fighting. Ships aren't designed to go in reverse for a long time, especially in battle conditions.

However Star Trek ships are built, even *they* are designed to go *forward* in battle, not in reverse. Whether it's warp field stress, something with the Inertial dampening fields, whatever, ships are built to *go forward*.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 26
04-09-2012, 06:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destinii
Name a real naval battle or Sci-Fi naval/starship battle in which one side went in reverse for the majority of the battle. While there may be one or two in fiction, there are no historical battles I can think of where one side went in reverse the whole time while fighting. Ships aren't designed to go in reverse for a long time, especially in battle conditions.

However Star Trek ships are built, even *they* are designed to go *forward* in battle, not in reverse. Whether it's warp field stress, something with the Inertial dampening fields, whatever, ships are built to *go forward*.
now you're just making stuff up, they're slower in reverse...that's it. and if ships even naval ships were meant to always go forward,,,they wouldn't have something called 'full astern' ships are designed to maneuver to allow their commanders to perform what ever necessary to win a battle. that's canon. even the space shuttle, can move backwards. and that's ancient tech compared to star treks time period.

by your analogy, no method of warfare allows reverse motion...so tanks, soldiers, ships, etc always must move forward eh? any idea how silly that sounds? or how unrealistic it is? even restricting it to powered vehicles...

there should be no reverse power drain. there is no 'warp field stress' there's no warp field...star trek ships don't fight at warp...did you even watch the shows? inertial dampeners are to prevent ships motion from transferring to the crew and other internal structures. real world terms, if cars had inertial dampeners...you wouldn't get slammed into the seat from acceleration, nor slammed forward by sudden deceleration.

no reason for it to exist at all. none logical, none in the fictional star trek universe...none.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 27
04-09-2012, 06:49 PM
Real life vessels go slower in reverse.

ANYTHING with a transmission has several speeds going forwards and only usually one relatively slow speed going in reverse.

Airplanes CAN'T fly backwards.

Naval warships can go backwards, but "full astern" is usually used to slow the ship rapidly. Ships have horrible drag while going backwards and are thus very slow.

there are actually several types of real life watercraft that either CAN'T go in reverse or barely move in reverse. Examples: Airboats, Jet Skis, and anything with a hydroplane.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 28
04-09-2012, 06:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadspacex64
not all ships can turn fast that have forward weapon arcs, dbb, dc, torps, and dhc's, not to mention some consoles and abilities have narrow arcs. and the klingon side suffers heavily because of this kind of stupidity.
I played KDF, before and after reverse power drain. It didn't "suffer heavily," especially back in the PvP-only days where turretting would get you killed. Besides, there's a trick to avoid the penalty... said trick being mentioned several times in this thread already.

Quote:
i made a point in my first post, i'll make it again since some people don't get it. if there's a reverse power drain (which is idiotic itself) then there should be one while stationary...and at 1/4, 1/2. 2/3rds impulse with zero drain at full impulse.
Your point makes no more sense than having reverse power drain by itself, bussard collectors or no.

Quote:
it was an unnecessary nerf. a way to force people to play the way the game designer thinks the game should be played...
Contradiction. Game designers by definition get to say how the game should be played. If players are doing something that contradicts the designers' intentions in a way that the designers don't like (such as, oh, say, rotating fast ships in-place) then a fix is necessary. The designers are well within their rights to try to change unintended behaviors.

It's fair to discuss whether there's a better fix. It's fair to argue why players should be able to do something the game doesn't currently allow. But it's the designers' prerogative to decide what they want or don't want in the game they design.

Quote:
ex: i know of 30 people already...who started this...claimed they loved the game...and i haven't seen any of them in 3 weeks. some hit 50, saw there was nothing left and quit...some never even made it that far. why? because the game is bloody limited. and all the devs do is figure out more ways to narrow down choice.

gg
Did any of them quit because they couldn't permanently fly in reverse?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 29
04-09-2012, 07:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deadspacex64
now you're just making stuff up, they're slower in reverse...that's it. and if ships even naval ships were meant to always go forward,,,they wouldn't have something called 'full astern' ships are designed to maneuver to allow their commanders to perform what ever necessary to win a battle. that's canon. even the space shuttle, can move backwards. and that's ancient tech compared to star treks time period.

by your analogy, no method of warfare allows reverse motion...so tanks, soldiers, ships, etc always must move forward eh? any idea how silly that sounds? or how unrealistic it is? even restricting it to powered vehicles...

there should be no reverse power drain. there is no 'warp field stress' there's no warp field...star trek ships don't fight at warp...did you even watch the shows? inertial dampeners are to prevent ships motion from transferring to the crew and other internal structures. real world terms, if cars had inertial dampeners...you wouldn't get slammed into the seat from acceleration, nor slammed forward by sudden deceleration.

no reason for it to exist at all. none logical, none in the fictional star trek universe...none.
Do *you* even watch the shows? "Journey to Babel" certainly has a ship making attack passes at warp speed. In "Balance of Terror", the Enterprise risks engine damage (if the previous post was correct) by going in reverse in combat...

Also, how many starships have you designed? If I'm 'making things up' by saying there's some reason they can't fight well in reverse, you're most certainly doing the same by saying there's no reason they can't. In fact, in this case, the burden of proof is on you to find some reason why a starship *could* work and fight just as well 'in reverse' as while going forward - because everything in real life is saying that most ships will fight much worse in reverse than going forward, and even Sci-Fi has to have *some* basis in reality.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 30
04-09-2012, 07:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destinii
Good point, and that was an *evasive* maneuver. Kirk wasn't firing weapons or otherwise engaging the Bird of Prey. Which again, points to what I said in that there are *some* situations to go in reverse, but not use that tactic all the time.
Ok.
But.
I did not reply to you stating any of that. You asked a question which I gave you an answer to.
I'm not sure if you are suggesting semantics in saying evasive. The sum of the engagement was. Romulan decloaks. Romulan gives the California howdy to the Federation and fires the plasma. Kirk says WTH and crys for....calmly orders emergency reverse. Romulans *chuckle* and cloak. The enterprise outruns the torp, Kirk orders a change of pants. Orders his chair cleaned. Goes back to his game of Sub Hunt.
Reply

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 03:39 PM.