Ship manouverability

[Tranchera]

One of the things I loved about Bridge Commander was the fact that the ships were very slow and cumbersome, it felt like a naval battle (where it took a proper effort to protect particular parts of your ship and use your undrained phaser strips during battle).

I hope the ships don't move too fast in this game. Obviously when you're just goin' from place to place exploring it's not as important, but in battle I don't want my Nebula to be able to spin around on a whim.

[Sevenblade]

In before someone posts the Game Informer article ;)

[jayrelo]

In before someone posts the Game Informer article ;)

dang, was i close?


and who ned da spelll chckeer? :p

[bannik]

One of the things I loved about Bridge Commander was the fact that the ships were very slow and cumbersome, it felt like a naval battle (where it took a proper effort to protect particular parts of your ship and use your undrained phaser strips during battle).

I hope the ships don't move too fast in this game. Obviously when you're just goin' from place to place exploring it's not as important, but in battle I don't want my Nebula to be able to spin around on a whim.

I agree I dont want too see people doing loops in space like in freelancer, I think the ships movements should be AI based, when flying its slow and usually goes in straight lines or get a space map and navigate to the location.
BUT in battles i think it would be best to just have prewritten AI movements i.e attacking formation, defensive formation, escort formation..etc... these can be prewritten into the game (the better navigator/pilot you have the more choices you have) plus being able too make your own movements....

this could also make battles better by allowing a rock paper scissor style battles, each movement has advantages and disadvatages i.e (attacking formation cicles the ship around most vital points better for attacking but you miss the non vital points, defensive formation allows the ship to protect the most vital parts and ignore weak parts etc...) you have control but limited because of the size of the ships...

make this a thinking game dont ruin it by giving everyone full movement controls

[Azurian]

One of the things I loved about Bridge Commander was the fact that the ships were very slow and cumbersome, it felt like a naval battle (where it took a proper effort to protect particular parts of your ship and use your undrained phaser strips during battle).

I hope the ships don't move too fast in this game. Obviously when you're just goin' from place to place exploring it's not as important, but in battle I don't want my Nebula to be able to spin around on a whim.

Devs already said that ship-to-ship battles will be similar to Bridge Commander in being slow and give time for tactics to be implemented.

[THORN74]

One of the things I loved about Bridge Commander was the fact that the ships were very slow and cumbersome, it felt like a naval battle (where it took a proper effort to protect particular parts of your ship and use your undrained phaser strips during battle).

I hope the ships don't move too fast in this game. Obviously when you're just goin' from place to place exploring it's not as important, but in battle I don't want my Nebula to be able to spin around on a whim.

im not sure if this game uses havok physics or something similar, but a good physics engine along with the proper mass/thrust data would allow for pretty realistic ship movements. allowing smaller ships to out manuver larger ones (i believe this has been eluded too)

[LordNoctis]

I think the turning speed should depend on the ship. For example, a Galaxy or Soveriegn class ship might be slow and cumbersome, and take some ime to turn all the way. But something smaller, like an intrepid, Akira, or ven Defiant class starships should be fast and more manuverable.

So basicly, the smaller the ship the more manuverable, and vice versa.

[jer08k2]

Well you have to put in that sure a lot of federation ships are slow but what about the definate or bird of prays. Like in DS9 you can see with the battles that the definate could go in and out very fast to destroy its enemy. The bird of prays would be useless if they couldn't move fast. They need to make it so certain ships move the speed you see in star trek.

And yes I did like bridge commander playing as the galaxy class but they made it a little to slow and you couldn't do nice manuvers.:)

[Sevenblade]

Well, I thought someone would post the Game Informer article in about 5 seconds, but apparently Varrangian is right; everyone has forgotten about it.

Back to the OP's question, the Game Informer article stated that Cryptic doesn't plan space battles to be quick dogfights, but rather slower, steady tactical maneuvering, similar to battles during the age of sail (obviously it won't be as crude as lining a row of cannons up next to each other and slugging away). You are in control of numerous variables, especially how much power goes to each system. That way, you can choose where to concentrate your shields, draw power from the phasers to strengthen them, or vice versa. Or you could put all energy to your engines and quickly retreat, etc, etc. So it'll be more planned out and strategic than most starship piloting games. I think it'll be to your preference more, Tranchera.

[Debaser]

I think there will also be pre-programmed attack/defense patterns. After all, how many times have we heard something along the lines of "Evasive manoeuvres, pattern delta-6"? At any rate, it would help alot with "steering" during battles, when you could just plug in a few offense/defense patterns and then concentrate on other things, such as power allocation.

[THORN74]

I think there will also be pre-programmed attack/defense patterns. After all, how many times have we heard something along the lines of "Evasive manoeuvres, pattern delta-6"? At any rate, it would help alot with "steering" during battles, when you could just plug in a few offense/defense patterns and then concentrate on other things, such as power allocation.

thats sounds like a good idea to me. there is plenty of presidence for attack/defence patterns.

Seven: nobody has forgotten the GI article. Im sure most of us still scour it for info all the time. And that article's notion of slower "sea battle" type combat would still very much allow for ships of smaller mass to have more manuverabillity than ships of larger mass.

so in the end we all have Nick Meyer (director of ST:WOK) to thank for Horatio Hornblower in space!

[Sevenblade]

thats sounds like a good idea to me. there is plenty of presidence for attack/defence patterns.

Seven: nobody has forgotten the GI article. Im sure most of us still scour it for info all the time. And that article's notion of slower "sea battle" type combat would still very much allow for ships of smaller mass to have more manuverabillity than ships of larger mass.

so in the end we all have Nick Meyer (director of ST:WOK) to thank for Horatio Hornblower in space!

...Thorn, I told you already in another thread that I'm done with the bickering. If you keep it up and single me out just to be contentious, I'm sorry, but I will not hesitate to put you on my ignore list. I respect your opinions, but not in the manner you are presenting them.

I wasn't accusing anyone of a serious crime, simply pointing out something that Varrangian mentioned in this thread: http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=11881
You'd be surprised how many people need to be reminded about things that have been established by that article a long time ago. The OP was asking a question that had been answered by the GI article, and since I could tell they hadn't heard about or read it, I was referencing it to answer their question.

I never said you couldn't have maneuverability in smaller ships. In fact, the Game Informer article also somewhat supported it. It's just that the OP was asking about something different (if similar). The rest of the thread that discussing smaller ships having maneuverability is completely valid, I was just trying to answer the OP's original question, which most people were somewhat ignoring.

I'll ask you for the last time to stop putting words in my mouth and/or twisting what I say. You're out of warnings. If you can't act mature, I'm ignoring you.

[Saladin_Class]

I hope the ships don't move too fast in this game.

We destoyer captains are sure hoping for lots of speed

[cocoa-jin]

We destoyer captains are sure hoping for lots of speed

I agree...not all ships in Star Trek were slow...just the large hulking ones most people seem to be fixated with.

I dont want other people's Galaxy and Soveriegn class wet-dreams of combat and tactics to be forced acrossed the board upon my light class vessels.

Let the heavies fight their way, let us zoomies fight our way....thats where tactical variety and balance comes from....speed and maneurvabilty is all we have.


Lastly, Im fine with pre-programmed maneuvers, but provide the option for a robust manual control of ships also....especially the small ones.

[Varrangian]

Seven: nobody has forgotten the GI article. Im sure most of us still scour it for info all the time. And that article's notion of slower "sea battle" type combat would still very much allow for ships of smaller mass to have more manuverabillity than ships of larger mass.

so in the end we all have Nick Meyer (director of ST:WOK) to thank for Horatio Hornblower in space!

I never said you couldn't have maneuverability in smaller ships. In fact, the Game Informer article also somewhat supported it. It's just that the OP was asking about something different (if similar). The rest of the thread that discussing smaller ships having maneuverability is completely valid, I was just trying to answer the OP's original question, which most people were somewhat ignoring.

I'll be honest I haven't read the whole thread, but when I saw my name I did have to start paying more attention :p

Stop you're both right! :p Yes the GI article says space combat will be "a focused tactical affair" as well as saying that escorts and raiders will be "fast and maneuverable".

As I said I haven't read the whole thread so I'm not sure what the argument is, but I will say that having small fast ships is not mutually exclusive from having tactical space battles. To use tall ships as an example a sloop would be a smaller, faster, more maneuverable ship compared to a Galleon. Each had a purpose and each had pros and cons. Again it gets back to what I think is part of the dev teams principles of design asymmetrical strategy.

[Sevenblade]

I'll be honest I haven't read the whole thread, but when I saw my name I did have to start paying more attention :p

Stop you're both right! :p Yes the GI article says space combat will be "a focused tactical affair" as well as saying that escorts and raiders will be "fast and maneuverable".

As I said I haven't read the whole thread so I'm not sure what the argument is, but I will say that having small fast ships is not mutually exclusive from having tactical space battles. To use tall ships as an example a sloop would be a smaller, faster, more maneuverable ship compared to a Galleon. Each had a purpose and each had pros and cons. Again it gets back to what I think is part of the dev teams principles of design asymmetrical strategy.

It's nothing. It's an attempt at a flaming that spilled over from another thread. I'm trying to end it. If you ignore it with me, that'd be much appreciated. I have no desire to unwittingly start a flame war and ruin the discussion for everyone simply because a few people can't be mature. I'm officially ending it now, and hopefully he'll take the high road and drop it, as well.

[THORN74]

wow arent we touchy. there is no argument here.

sevenblade i wasnt trying to start anything with you in this thread. u need to chill out man. take a valium (sp) or something:D

[Sevenblade]

wow arent we touchy. there is no argument here.

sevenblade i wasnt trying to start anything with you in this thread. u need to chill out man. take a valium (sp) or something:D

*sigh* You're not paying attention to a word I said, and exaggerating my tone, but I don't even care anymore, so I guess I'll take that as an agreement finally from you to stop the pointless bickering. Now let's just keep it civil from now on, like I was initially trying to.

[iceman22503]

Ok, I think we are all thinking about this a little too simplistically . Everything is relative. Obviously I don't think we will be seeing the Sovereign pull an outside loop or a split S, but the ships will move faster or slower relative to whatever ship they are facing in combat. In Bridge Commander and ST in general the Galaxy class was one of the biggest starships for the Federation. Sure, it wasn't all that fast compared to the akira or Defiant, but compared to a warbird, it could fly circles around it. You put 15 Galaxy class ships against a tactical cube, and it will seem like it's pulling impossible feats, because the cube is so much bigger and moves slower. At the same time ths Galaxy could also fly circles around the connie refit. Why? Because compared to the Galaxy, the connie is underpowered. Everything is relative, whether it be in STO, WoW, or, dare I say, even EVE. I'm sure that this has been taken into consideration by cryptic.

I am a big fan of naval style battles. My favorite ST movie is Wrath of Kahn. But why was it naval style? The had virtually no sensors to speak of, couldn't see really well, and had to rely on instinct. The main reason it was a naval style battle was because both ships were relatively the same size. Now, you replace the 1701 with 1701-D in that battle, and the miranda would be outgunned, out powered and outclassed in everyway, except that the miranda is more maneuverable. Everything is relative. Now you replace the miranda with defiant. The defiant would have a big margin for success. It's smaller, overpowered and even though it doesn't have as many weapons, the weapons it does have are equal to if not more powerful than a Galaxy class. Relatively speaking, the defiant could fly circles around the Galaxy.

As far as making pre-programmed maneuvers, I could see that to a point. Cryptic could and should put in all the attack/defensive patters that starships have, but to limit them to pre-designated general maneuvers would hinder gameplay, as in space, all ships can peform the same maeuvers as there is no gravity holding them back from performing them. Is it possible a galaxy will be able to pull a lomchevak? Yes. Is it plausible? No. It's simple physics, if you have a bigger vessel, you need more power to make it maneuver. This holds true to an extent in space as well, up until the point where the bigger vessels attain the same speed, because nothing is holding it back from doing anything. Could I make the Galaxy class reach the same speed on the longitudinal axis as a defiant class? Yes I could. Would it take longer, yes. When both are rolling at the same speed which looks like it's going faster? The defiant, why? Because relative to the Galaxy class it is smaller and takes less inertia to make it roll relative to the Galaxy.

I'm sure all will be revealed when Cryptic releases more to us, but as far as simple physics go, I think we should let them handle that aspect. Most game companies have physics down to a science now when it comes to making them realistic in computer generated environments.

[Sevenblade]

Well, for pre-programmed ship maneuvers, I could see them being used as specific attacks chosen on an overhead bar in the HUD, much like specific attacks or spells are used in other MMO's. That way, you're not trying to physically pull this maneuver off yourself, but you learn and attain new ones that are executed when you click on that command. Of course, I'm not saying just by clicking on them that you automatically do the move infallibly.

This is also a way you could incorporate MVAM for the Prometheus class that many people had an issue over. Rather than try and control three separate parts for a battle, the ship splits apart, flies around the enemy in a tactical strike, and does extra damage because of the concentration of the fire. Then the ship reassembles itself after the maneuver is performed, so it's not a constant state.

Starting out, we could have basic maneuvers like "Attack Pattern Alpha", which is something like charged straight ahead, phasers blasting. As we 'level' up and gain skills and experience, we can attain new maneuvers and add them to our repertoire. Hey, maybe the Picard Maneuver can be an Admiral rank maneuver/attack :D

[bannik]

now the problem is, with all the pre designed manuvers what happens when lots of people fight on the same map arent we going too see lots of ship flying into each other? cause if i attack using attack formation delta 6 and the everyone else uses a unique one as well how well would they all work in the same battle space

(i.e the borg battle in the screenshots, how can EVERYONE move the way they want without bumping into each other)

[iceman22503]

Collision avoidance would be nice. To be honest though, I am really hoping that it will not be all pre-programmed movements in combat and they allow you to manually control your ship both in and out of combat.

[Freejack]

One feature I enjoyed in my short trial of EVE was the orbital command. You could lock onto a target, set the range, and your ship would approach and attempt to get no closer or no farther than the set range allowing you to concentrate on weapons or shields, etc. Of course, the target might be doing maneuvers that would force your ship's computer to adjust heading to compensate and maintain range, and your range would vary while it was trying to maintain range while still orbiting the target. The ship's AI should have a delay to the movements of the target so that it is NOT always say 1,500 meters away; in other words, swift and unpredictable maneuver patterns could get you out of an enemy's weapon's lock and hopefully get you into a dominant position to counter-strike or flee.

To clarify, if you locked on to a ship that was dead in space, you could set orbital range at, let's say transporter range is 500 meters. Since the target is virtually motionless with respect to its vector (its direction and velocity), your ship's computer could calculate and maintain an accurate orbital range. But if the target is live and unpredictable, your ship would try to maintain that preset orbital distance but it would have to compensate for any fluctuations in the target's course and speed.

Now imagine two sentient ships locking targets on each other. Both ships will simultaneously try to maintain the preset orbital range with each other, but then each player could initiate tactical maneuvers to try and 'confuse' the other ship's AI. Now both ships are trying to match the other's movements, basically just to stay in the preset range, until somebody gains an advantage and strikes a hit against a vital system. This is where distress calls, flee maneuvers, or other tactical maneuvers could come into play.

It's all very hard to explain in text, but when you see it in space it all becomes very elegant. It's the unpredictable and "not always PERFECT" element that we all experience with computers, and it adds that uncertainty in battle that we all seek when we root for an underdog.
:cool:

[Silverspar]

Devs already said that ship-to-ship battles will be similar to Bridge Commander in being slow and give time for tactics to be implemented.

Devs said that space combat would be slower paced and more tactics oriented versus ground combat, which will be more twitch based. They did not say it would be slow. I think the ship type will play a large role in the end, they've already said ships like explorers would be slower, designed more for tanking, while escorts will be faster, designed for DPS but can't take much of a beating.