Reality Check for Ship Size and COMBAT

[JacobFlowers]

People have made mention in other threads ( like here (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14586)) of their ideas for ship combat, balance, and assertion regarding how STO should be played out. I am indeed a trekkie, but I can not give the Vulcan greeting and speak no Klingon. Nevertheless, I feel very strong that staying true to the Star Trek Universe is a way to make ST Fans really happy.

I of course want a fun game, but MORE THAN ANYTHING... I don't want something that is ridiculously unfaithful to the star trek universe. Perhaps more than anything, and please disagree with me if you have a counter point of view, but I think most trekkies would prefer a Universe that is as close to what we grew up with and were influenced by as possible. I don't want it to be put as "yea, star trek online is good, but the tv shows and movies were better". Authenticity and something finally true to the name would be very honoring.

With regard to ship tactics and such, some people think that smaller ships should go faster, big ships always miss their targets or "graze the shields of smaller ships", this that and the other. Here are two copper:

1) Big Ships and Slow Phasers = NO. We are not in some other universe (like EVE or Battlestar Galactica). The targeting computers on a starship in ST are far more advanced than any other sci fi series. They fire... they hit... (usually). We have ALL seen the Enterprise D shoot down fast, small moving objects (even torpedos). If its a big ship, it has a potential higher energy yield than smaller vessels, but targeting remains the same.

2) Ship Movement and Ship Size: Impulse speeds in Star Trek are uniform 1/4, 1/2, Full impulse. There is NO indication that a ship is faster than another at sublight speeds. What we do know from canon is that smaller ships have more agility. A galaxy class ship as we have seen is not some large lumbering tank wanderng throough space. BUt we do see ships such as the defiant able to possess a more agile turning and maneuvering capability.

3) Ships and Power: Easy. The larger the ship, the larger the power output. This means greater shield strengh. Again, we have no indication within starfleet that ships have varying degrees of hull strength (there are special exceptions like Voyager's non-standard ablative hull plating). I think ship hull strength should be uniform, however witht he possibility of upgrades. With this in mind... normal hull strength CAN vary from race to race however.

4) Skill based advantages: This was a good suggestion someone made and I'll elaborate on it a bit more. The higher skill your engineer has, the faster repairs or made, or a stronger output for weapons or propulsion. Perhaps we could even have classifications for our engineers, such as "Average" or "Exceptional" or "Top of their class" or "Legendary" or "Miracle Worker", etc. An engineer with a Miracle Worker status could possess special boons that could get the ship out of impossibly difficult circumstances, etc. Something similar to this was implemented in another star trek game, but I can't remember which one.


Thoughts?

[Varrangian]

2) Ship Movement and Ship Size: Impulse speeds in Star Trek are uniform 1/4, 1/2, Full impulse. There is NO indication that a ship is faster than another at sublight speeds. What we do know from canon is that smaller ships have more agility. A galaxy class ship as we have seen is not some large lumbering tank wanderng throough space. BUt we do see ships such as the defiant able to possess a more agile turning and maneuvering capability.

I'll just deal with this one as I've looked into some of the physics. A smaller ship would not be "faster" in speed, but it would accelerate faster because mass is a portion of the acceleration equation, even with no gravity acting on an object mass is part of the calculations for how fast something goes from the speed X to the speed Y.

[JacobFlowers]

I'll just deal with this one as I've looked into some of the physics. A smaller ship would not be "faster" in speed, but it would accelerate faster because mass is a portion of the acceleration equation, even with no gravity acting on an object mass is part of the calculations for how fast something goes from the speed X to the speed Y.

Smaller Ship, faster Acceleration... perfectly acceptable. That's officer thinking Varrangian ;)

[SirReginaldo]

Yah it makes sense. Shields would be the variation, mainly, but you have to agree that a bigger ship could have thicker polarized hull. Just saying that a Brel and a Negvhar(not sure if I spelt that right) would have varying hull, and capacity to take damage. Maybe ships should deal a certain damage, and the "stats" of crew members cause changes in the ships abilities and the modifications obtained through game play. Like if you can add those pulse laser like phasers on the defiant to another ship or something like that. Good point Jacob.:D

I guess in the end it wont matter what ship you chose(hopefully) as long as you like it:D

[SIMONLEV]

I'll just deal with this one as I've looked into some of the physics. A smaller ship would not be "faster" in speed, but it would accelerate faster because mass is a portion of the acceleration equation, even with no gravity acting on an object mass is part of the calculations for how fast something goes from the speed X to the speed Y.


Ahhh interesting. "Stop, increase speed, reverse direction" (Ruler of Omecron Perci 8)

[Interdictor]

As much as I appreciate you liking my idea regarding character skill :D - I think you really didn't need to start a whole new thread when you cross-posted the exact same thing in the original one (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14586). It just tends to clutter the boards is all.

[SirReginaldo]

And I guess the mass of an object and the gravitational effects of a solarsystems bodies could effect the ability of ships of different size (total mass) to have different turning capacities that are either dwindled or enhanced by gravitational effects. Say you can slingshot through gravity like the nova did in voyager (sexy manuever), it would be interesting to see how it would effect say, the intrepid class. Could the nova last longer, because of the smaller, sleeker design? :D

[Sullen]

While ships may be able to reach the same speed, smaller ships are still more maneuverable. For instance, the Defiant can weave in and out of ship formations without hitting things (and because it's smaller it can change directions faster).

[LordDave]

I'll just deal with this one as I've looked into some of the physics. A smaller ship would not be "faster" in speed, but it would accelerate faster because mass is a portion of the acceleration equation, even with no gravity acting on an object mass is part of the calculations for how fast something goes from the speed X to the speed Y.

I also want to add that larger ships require more power to move and while they generate more power, a power increase to the engines of equal energy would give the smaller ship a greater speed then a larger one simply because the energy required to make it go faster is less for the smaller ship.

Also, we've seen MANY times where ships have either overtaken or outrun other ships. What isn't mentioned is that impulse is not a defined speed. Half impulse for a runabout isn't the same speed as half impulse for a galaxy class. Half is just that, half the speed of the engine. It's like saying "half horse power" for your car. Each car has a different horse power so the "half" mark is going to be different.

[JacobFlowers]

Yah it makes sense. Shields would be the variation, mainly, but you have to agree that a bigger ship could have thicker polarized hull. Just saying that a Brel and a Negvhar(not sure if I spelt that right) would have varying hull, and capacity to take damage. Maybe ships should deal a certain damage, and the "stats" of crew members cause changes in the ships abilities and the modifications obtained through game play. Like if you can add those pulse laser like phasers on the defiant to another ship or something like that. Good point Jacob.:D

I guess in the end it wont matter what ship you chose(hopefully) as long as you like it:D

As far as for Klingon ships ship armor amount may indeed be a factor since that race is particularly aggressive, they aim their ships more toward combat and away from science and exploration. So yes, if you have a high amount of honor in the Klingon Empire it would make sense to have access to something with more amount of weapons stronger shields, and maybe even armor thickness.

What we know from the federation however is that they never refer to ships "armor" but rather structural integrity. And we also know that this structural integrity can be supported by some sort of field by diverting extra power to it "divert auxillary power to structural integrity". The reason for this may be that the federation was never geared towards aggression.

HOWEVER... in all of the written materials and even in the movies, ST ships do indeed have military classifications. For example: The Enterprise A is a Constitution Class which is referred to as a "Heavy Cruiser" by the Klingons in I forget which ST TOS Movie.

Since the Federation has had super uber advancement in alloys and metals and such, I think that Armor ratings for the Federation at least should be the same across the board except into the higher levels. Since the Federation is going to war, they will have to develop ships classes that are specifically geared toward warfare, and so we will begin to see ships such as:

Command Cruisers
Battlecuisers
Battleships
Dreadnaughts
Escort Carriers
Light Carriers
Carriers
MOTHERSHIPS ???

For starting out, I think it would be great to have nooBs start out in ships that are geared more toward exploration and not battle oriented (of course they will have weapons). My reason is that i feel these would be excellent stepping stones to learn all the various ins and outs of STO. Then as you progress you prepare for war, and then have the options of an entirely different line of ships specifically designed for war.

[USS_ARROW]

More advance ships should have the advantage, but I hope much of the fighting relies on pilot skill.

[Urantia]

I also want to add that larger ships require more power to move and while they generate more power, a power increase to the engines of equal energy would give the smaller ship a greater speed then a larger one simply because the energy required to make it go faster is less for the smaller ship.

Also, we've seen MANY times where ships have either overtaken or outrun other ships. What isn't mentioned is that impulse is not a defined speed. Half impulse for a runabout isn't the same speed as half impulse for a galaxy class. Half is just that, half the speed of the engine. It's like saying "half horse power" for your car. Each car has a different horse power so the "half" mark is going to be different.

Aye..Varrangian was just presenting a simplistic explaination. The use of the word "speed" instead of velocity showed that. I was going to write a more complicated reply, but when I found myself explaining how velocity and acceleration were derived I stopped. I doubt anyone here cares to learn elementary Calculus this evening. :) Anyways I found Varrangian's reply sufficient and compliant with general intuition.

[Varrangian]

Aye..Varrangian was just presenting a simplistic explaination. The use of the word "speed" instead of velocity showed that. I was going to write a more complicated reply, but when I found myself explaining how velocity and acceleration were derived I stopped. I doubt anyone here cares to learn elementary Calculus this evening. :) Anyways I found Varrangian's reply sufficient and compliant with general intuition.

Yeah I didn't even want to get into the fact that acceleration is actually the change in velocity over time because of the vector nature of velocity... on top of the fact that I'm a historian and while I enjoyed math Calc was a long time ago.

[Urantia]

Yeah I didn't even want to get into the fact that acceleration is actually the change in velocity over time because of the vector nature of velocity... on top of the fact that I'm a historian and while I enjoyed math Calc was a long time ago.

Totally...simplest is best here anyways. Besides you remembered well enough...though I sort of wish it were easier here to type out mathematics (another reason I did not bother). But again it would be for not, and lost on most.

[cocoa-jin]

you guys talking abount intergrals and stuff?

or

vectors being speed & direction and the changing of either?

[Urantia]

you guys talking abount intergrals and stuff?

or

vectors being speed & direction and the changing of either?

Velocity is the vector that is the rate of change of a position vector...and represents speed and direction. So basic derivatives not integrals. We would apply integrals (integration) to find velocity from acceleration. So aye something like that cocoa.

[cocoa-jin]

Velocity is the vector that is the rate of change of a position vector...and represents speed and direction. So basic derivatives not integrals. We would apply integrals (integration) to find velocity from acceleration. So aye something like that cocoa.

I like your brain

[Urantia]

I like your brain

Many thanks my friend...I appreciate your point(s) of view(s) as well.

[cocoa-jin]

So should we hope to see ship acceleration have an impact on weakened hull integrities? So if we damage a ship's structural integrity enough, deminish its inertial damper systems and the captain,if capable, makes use of a tight/high G maneuver should it cause additional structural damage?

I say yes

[JacobFlowers]

So should we hope to see ship acceleration have an impact on weakened hull integrities? So if we damage a ship's structural integrity enough, deminish its inertial damper systems and the captain,if capable, makes use of a tight/high G maneuver should it cause additional structural damage?

I say yes

I say yes too. ;)

[Quatok]

For starting out, I think it would be great to have nooBs start out in ships that are geared more toward exploration and not battle oriented (of course they will have weapons). My reason is that i feel these would be excellent stepping stones to learn all the various ins and outs of STO. Then as you progress you prepare for war, and then have the options of an entirely different line of ships specifically designed for war.

So, what are you suggesting? We all take a test and those with the higher scores get to play with warships and the rest get exploration vessels?? I disagree, IMO if you want to PvP and whether you are good or not you should be able to PvP. If you want to explore, then you should have the choice to use the ship you'd like (at your appropriate size level of course). We know that there will be those who find the cheats to advance quicker or get God Codes and all, but the point to this game is to have fun.

We shouldn't seperate Veterans from Noobs, if the Noob wants it...let him come get some. Finally, people who have played ST games before or MMOs before are somehow EXPERTs in STO??? When it comes out, we'll all be Noobs until people figure out the controls and how Cryptic has set things up.


From a Newbie. And I choose to explore, but also to allow others to have fun in whatever they want to do.

[Varrangian]

So should we hope to see ship acceleration have an impact on weakened hull integrities? So if we damage a ship's structural integrity enough, deminish its inertial damper systems and the captain,if capable, makes use of a tight/high G maneuver should it cause additional structural damage?

I say yes

Depends... can it be implemented in a way that makes the players understanding of the situation intuitive?

People use the term "dumbed down" often when describing MMO's, but they fail to recognize that gaming has to be intuitive to at least a minimal degree. You are at best dealing with a person using a keyboard, mouse and monitor, the game mechanics have to utilize these peripherals in a fluid way. Some people love making keymaps and such, but the average gamer (and yes the game needs to be built for them because there are more of them than any other potential customer group) wants something that feels natural and does not require too much of an effort to master the basics.

[osena]

In a ship to ship battel you not gonna get a good shot going at full Impulse power so id save going one 1/4Impulse would be best during ship battel and i don't like nothing flash like the picard move is gonn work i have no idea whit the picard move is but form whit i wounder standing it inovles warping alot but am geting off topic in ship battel is not gonn be fast its going to be slow and your gonn have to think about each move you make mange your power and ship speed and shields its gonn be slow that is all am gonn say cos they said ship battel would play out like Pirates of the burning sea

[JacobFlowers]

So, what are you suggesting? We all take a test and those with the higher scores get to play with warships and the rest get exploration vessels?? I disagree, IMO if you want to PvP and whether you are good or not you should be able to PvP. If you want to explore, then you should have the choice to use the ship you'd like (at your appropriate size level of course). We know that there will be those who find the cheats to advance quicker or get God Codes and all, but the point to this game is to have fun.

We shouldn't seperate Veterans from Noobs, if the Noob wants it...let him come get some. Finally, people who have played ST games before or MMOs before are somehow EXPERTs in STO??? When it comes out, we'll all be Noobs until people figure out the controls and how Cryptic has set things up.


From a Newbie. And I choose to explore, but also to allow others to have fun in whatever they want to do.

No, not a test. But an advancement or progression that naturally leads to players being able to handle more complicated ships.

And it appears we have differing opinions. Because in the ST Universe, you can not have whatever you want. You have to earn it. I would rather this game stay closer to ST canon, than to make some whimsical game mechanics that allow everyone to do whatever they want. Where is the reward or prestige in that if everyone gets to command a Sovereign class vessel starting out?

[JacobFlowers]

In a ship to ship battel you not gonna get a good shot going at full Impulse power so id save going one 1/4Impulse would be best during ship battel and i don't like nothing flash like the picard move is gonn work i have no idea whit the picard move is but form whit i wounder standing it inovles warping alot but am geting off topic in ship battel is not gonn be fast its going to be slow and your gonn have to think about each move you make mange your power and ship speed and shields its gonn be slow that is all am gonna say cos they said ship battel would play out like Pirates of the burning sea

The speed you are going at in sublight speeds should not affect your targeting computer. The only way in which I rememebr speed affecting weapon's systems in Star Trek was a cautionary given by one of the bridge crew of i think TNG that they should not fire Torpedos while at warp.

[Urantia]

So should we hope to see ship acceleration have an impact on weakened hull integrities? So if we damage a ship's structural integrity enough, deminish its inertial damper systems and the captain,if capable, makes use of a tight/high G maneuver should it cause additional structural damage?

I say yes

I agree with Varrangian on this....after all while gravity permeates all normal space (and beyond due to gravitons being massless according to quantum field theory) G force would be weak in most cases and have little effect on structural integrity (unless there was a massive body, or other external force acting on the vessel). Now if you were damaged, I suppose a loss of some of the ships mass would come into play, but that depends on how beat up it is...but we are assuming it is still able to move...so unlikely to effect acceleration to any major degree.

Then we would have to ask are we capable of controlling our engines and thrusters (etc) in such a way they them themselves do not rip the ship apart. Your question can become as complex as you like, but I sincerely doubt G forces would be an issue in open space (unlike vehicles on Earth). Now if we were talking about a jet fighter or the like that was damaged then I would concur that a tight turn might cause more damage.

As Varrangian stated...intuitive is probably the best way to deal with it. We want to "feel" and see what we expect (which may be a "yes" to your question) without getting all caught up in the complex field mechanics that supposedly govern starships. As far as the game goes I suspect you will be able to move about virtually the same as long as your engines are not damaged....guess we will have to see how complex the devs make it. I know I never expect to see what I consider intuitive...but like anything intuition is relative.

[osena]

No, not a test. But an advancement or progression that naturally leads to players being able to handle more complicated ships.

And it appears we have differing opinions. Because in the ST Universe, you can not have whatever you want. You have to earn it. I would rather this game stay closer to ST canon, than to make some whimsical game mechanics that allow everyone to do whatever they want. Where is the reward or prestige in that if everyone gets to command a Sovereign class vessel starting out?

Canon holds no true place in a mmorpg cos if we fallow canon in a star trek mmorpg we would only see a limted number of star ships like Galaxy class sovereign intrepid there was only few ships made of those class's so in a mmorpg it makes no sense to fallow canon to the letter in player run economy

[cocoa-jin]

Depends... can it be implemented in a way that makes the players understanding of the situation intuitive?

People use the term "dumbed down" often when describing MMO's, but they fail to recognize that gaming has to be intuitive to at least a minimal degree. You are at best dealing with a person using a keyboard, mouse and monitor, the game mechanics have to utilize these peripherals in a fluid way. Some people love making keymaps and such, but the average gamer (and yes the game needs to be built for them because there are more of them than any other potential customer group) wants something that feels natural and does not require too much of an effort to master the basics.

You figure the game will likly have some outline of the ship in some corner of the screen to indicate damage. As you pull Gs it could have an outline that goes from green to yellow to maybe orange, to red. Maybe each escalation in maneuvering stress not only changes the color of the outline, but also increases the number of outlines(outlines over outlines, so green has a single outline, red has 3 or 4). Also, a senior officer can report when the ship is reaching critical levels(orange) and also report when damage is taken(red or during sustained orange).

"Captain, we cant keep this up...the ship, she's falling apart!"...."Captain!, hull breach decks 24-26...structural integrity fields and the hull are failing on the right warp nacelle"

[cocoa-jin]

I agree with Varrangian on this....after all while gravity permeates all normal space (and beyond due to gravitons being massless according to quantum field theory) G force would be weak in most cases and have little effect on structural integrity (unless there was a massive body, or other external force acting on the vessel). Now if you were damaged, I suppose a loss of some of the ships mass would come into play, but that depends on how beat up it is...but we are assuming it is still able to move...so unlikely to effect acceleration to any major degree.

Then we would have to ask are we capable of controlling our engines and thrusters (etc) in such a way they them themselves do not rip the ship apart. Your question can become as complex as you like, but I sincerely doubt G forces would be an issue in open space (unlike vehicles on Earth). Now if we were talking about a jet fighter or the like that was damaged then I would concur that a tight turn might cause more damage.

As Varrangian stated...intuitive is probably the best way to deal with it. We want to "feel" and see what we expect (which may be a "yes" to your question) without getting all caught up in the complex field mechanics that supposedly govern starships. As far as the game goes I suspect you will be able to move about virtually the same as long as your engines are not damaged....guess we will have to see how complex the devs make it. I know I never expect to see what I consider intuitive...but like anything intuition is relative.


Not G forces due to gravity, but momentum/inertia/centrifugal/acceleration/loading forces applied to the hull due to changes in direction...I only use G sense forces are ambigous, but at least one could relate the force applied to a known relativity...gravity. Since gravity is an acceleration, one could apply it as an easy way of rating the load imposed on the hull.

So 1G would mean the hull is accelerating through a maneuver(change of direction) or linearly(speed), and being stressed/loaded by a force equal to the ships weight on earth. This force lineraly opposes the direction the ship is going if its accelerating in a straight line, or centrifugal(outside of the turn) if its changing direction. 2Gs means the hull is being stressed by a force twice that of the ship's weight on earth....honestly the use of weight as a unit of measure is irrelevant...for the player, just know that each G is a multiple of stress applied to the hull and the ship's ability to resist that stress can be applied as a multiple of G at any time for ease of interpretation and application.

So at full strength the critical limit maybe 12Gs...but with damage it decreases and it maybe only 4.3Gs at the time you pull off a hard maneuver. But we dont even need to know what our G limit is or how many Gs we are pulling...just have it translated and related to us through the green through red indicator. When its green or yellow you are fine, when its orange or red reduce the aggressivness of the maneuver until its yellow or green again...and thats how hard you can safely crank her around.

[Azurian]

Small ships have manuverabililty and speed on their side.

Larger ships have the firepower and the durability.

I also want to add that larger ships require more power to move and while they generate more power, a power increase to the engines of equal energy would give the smaller ship a greater speed then a larger one simply because the energy required to make it go faster is less for the smaller ship.

Also, we've seen MANY times where ships have either overtaken or outrun other ships. What isn't mentioned is that impulse is not a defined speed. Half impulse for a runabout isn't the same speed as half impulse for a galaxy class. Half is just that, half the speed of the engine. It's like saying "half horse power" for your car. Each car has a different horse power so the "half" mark is going to be different.

By Definition that's true Dave. Unfortunately in Star Trek, Full Impulse is always going to equate to 1/4th the Speed of Light. (Sure ships could go faster than 1/4th, but then you get into relativistic effects, which obviously isn't going to happen in STO). So a Sabre at Full Impulse is going to be as fast as a Heavily Armed Sovereign at Full Impulse.

What we know from the federation however is that they never refer to ships "armor" but rather structural integrity. And we also know that this structural integrity can be supported by some sort of field by diverting extra power to it "divert auxillary power to structural integrity". The reason for this may be that the federation was never geared towards aggression.

Starfleet doesn't refer to armor? Guess you never heard of Ablative Armor. :p

And Structural Integrity isn't armor, it's reinforcement of the hull superstructure to allow for increased stresses. Which means if theres a hull breach, it's going to compensate for superstructure that was destroyed and compensate for the stress load.

HOWEVER... in all of the written materials and even in the movies, ST ships do indeed have military classifications. For example: The Enterprise A is a Constitution Class which is referred to as a "Heavy Cruiser" by the Klingons in I forget which ST TOS Movie.

That's not military classification, that's called a hull-type.

And we have a thread for this. But the STO Deves decided to cut out the controversy and just call ships Escorts, Cruisers, Carriers, and Science / Exploration.

For starting out, I think it would be great to have nooBs start out in ships that are geared more toward exploration and not battle oriented (of course they will have weapons). My reason is that i feel these would be excellent stepping stones to learn all the various ins and outs of STO. Then as you progress you prepare for war, and then have the options of an entirely different line of ships specifically designed for war.

Sorry, but everyones going to have the freedom to choose what they want to be and not have science and exploration shoved in their faces. Not everyone likes that stuff.

And the best way to prepare for war is to actually learn how to fight and experience combat, and not by scanning nebulas all day long.

[Gul_Marritza]

No, not a test. But an advancement or progression that naturally leads to players being able to handle more complicated ships.

And it appears we have differing opinions. Because in the ST Universe, you can not have whatever you want. You have to earn it. I would rather this game stay closer to ST canon, than to make some whimsical game mechanics that allow everyone to do whatever they want. Where is the reward or prestige in that if everyone gets to command a Sovereign class vessel starting out?

Maybe what he is saying is that since we are all starting at size one ships, than players should choose what they like within the size 1 ships...and when they advance to be able to choose size 2 ships, they shouldn't be limited to exploration ships...they should choose from the size 2 ships that they want to play with. He didn't say that players should be free to choose a size 5 from the get go..but your previous comment somehow identifies the new players and limits them no matter what size ship. None of us disagree with your opinion that people have to earn the advancements, but don't limit their choices because they are new.

[Urantia]

Not G forces due to gravity, but momentum/inertia/centrifugal/acceleration/loading forces applied to the hull due to changes in direction...I only use G sense forces are ambigous, but at least one could relate the force applied to a known relativity...gravity. Since gravity is an acceleration, one could apply it as an easy way of rating the load imposed on the hull.

So 1G would mean the hull is accelerating through a maneuver(change of direction) or linearly(speed), and being stressed/loaded by a force equal to the ships weight on earth. This force lineraly opposes the direction the ship is going if its accelerating in a straight line, or centrifugal(outside of the turn) if its changing direction. 2Gs means the hull is being stressed by a force twice that of the ship's weight on earth....honestly the use of weight as a unit of measure is irrelevant...for the player, just know that each G is a multiple of stress applied to the hull and the ship's ability to resist that stress can be applied as a multiple of G at any time for ease of interpretation and application.

So at full strength the critical limit maybe 12Gs...but with damage it decreases and it maybe only 4.3Gs at the time you pull off a hard maneuver. But we dont even need to know what our G limit is or how many Gs we are pulling...just have it translated and related to us through the green through red indicator. When its green or yellow you are fine, when its orange or red reduce the aggressivness of the maneuver until its yellow or green again...and thats how hard you can safely crank her around.

Okay then...do tell then what natural external forces would be acting on the ship aside from gravity (which as I described would be weak in open space)? Obviously there is no wind resistance or the like...the only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be forces from thrusters (firing in orthogonal directions due to a malfunction). Maybe a tractor beam or other massive body (maybe a gravity well)...else I am not seeing what you mean.

In general the vessel will have nothing resisting it...nothing worth mention aside from its own thrusters.

[cocoa-jin]

Okay then...do tell then what natural external forces would be acting on the ship aside from gravity (which as I described would be weak in open space)? Obviously there is no wind resistance or the like...the only thing I can think of off the top of my head would be forces from thrusters (firing in orthogonal directions due to a malfunction). Maybe a tractor beam or other massive body (maybe a gravity well)...else I am not seeing what you mean.

In general the vessel will have nothing resisting it...nothing worth mention aside from its own thrusters.

Get a massive vessel...apply all the force required to accelerated to some velocity. Now all that energy is pinned up in the vessel in one direction. Now rapidly change the direction of the ship...like with a evasive combat maneuver...lets say a hard break turn. The force required to crank that massive vessel which is in motion in straight line and will tend to stay in motion in that straight line unless acted upon by another force, will be accelerated(change in velocity...in this case direction) as its nose moves out of plane(because they dont drift to change direction, they whip the nose around like fighter aircraft). That radial acceleration will induce a massive amount of centrifugal force on the vessel's hull in the opposite direction during a hard turn(high radial velocity as the nose moves out of the 2D plane of original travel when it was moving in a straight line)...that force can be measured relative to, or in, multiples of gravity(what is it 9.8m/s/s?).

Take the ship's mass, multiply it by the acceleration induced in the maneuver and you get the equalvelent of weight imposed on the hull in the opposite direction of travel. It'll cause compression and expansion fatigue, shear forces, etc within the hull.

That rapid acceleration would damage a ship's hull just like a rapid acceleration in a rocket seat or coming to a sudden stop puts stress on the human body.

The force thats resisting the vessel is momentum, inertia, all the force applied to get that mass moving in a given direction at high speed...resisting the rapid changing of direction or speed of the vessel.

Granted, normal maneuvers could be done at a rate that maintains minimal acceleration forces by keeping them subtle, wide arcing, etc...but in combat, such maneuvers are pointless.






*edit*
now you got me second guessing myself...I hope I didnt write all this for nothing.

[MajorD]

Also, we've seen MANY times where ships have either overtaken or outrun other ships. What isn't mentioned is that impulse is not a defined speed. Half impulse for a runabout isn't the same speed as half impulse for a galaxy class. Half is just that, half the speed of the engine. It's like saying "half horse power" for your car. Each car has a different horse power so the "half" mark is going to be different.
In the Enterprise episode "Shuttlepod One", the shuttlepods are specifically mentioned to be capable of only 1/4 impulse. Not 1/4 the speed of the NX-01, but 1/4 impulse. That means the values aren't relative, otherwise the shuttlepod would have been capable of full impulse at 1/4 the NX-01's maximum speed. Ships may overtake other ships, but when the universe has a slower than light speed limit that everyone with a starship can reach, what matters is acceleration.

The speed you are going at in sublight speeds should not affect your targeting computer. The only way in which I rememebr speed affecting weapon's systems in Star Trek was a cautionary given by one of the bridge crew of i think TNG that they should not fire Torpedos while at warp.
Probably the TNG episode "Q Who?", where Riker, or Worf, says that at this range we'll be hit by the explosion. That was while they were running at warp from the Borg cube, and he was either refering to the torpedoes or the cube exploding. I think they got a bit rocked by the torpedoes exploding but they didn't get damaged, or they didn't take too much damage.
Canon holds no true place in a mmorpg cos if we fallow canon in a star trek mmorpg we would only see a limted number of star ships like Galaxy class sovereign intrepid there was only few ships made of those class's so in a mmorpg it makes no sense to fallow canon to the letter in player run economy
Canon is the basis of everything in the game, yet the game takes place thirty years in the future of canon. So, it gets to expand tremendously upon canon, while being able to stick to canon at the same time, and it's not as if canon is omnipresent, so there is plenty of blank space to expand into laterally.
Unfortunately in Star Trek, Full Impulse is always going to equate to 1/4th the Speed of Light. (Sure ships could go faster than 1/4th, but then you get into relativistic effects, which obviously isn't going to happen in STO). So a Sabre at Full Impulse is going to be as fast as a Heavily Armed Sovereign at Full Impulse.
That's from the Technical Manual and it's completely wrong on that point. Ships in Star Trek have gone far faster than just a quarter the speed of light. Most notably in "Best of Both Worlds pt 2", the Enterprise-D goes from Jupiter to Earth in about 40 minutes, after dropping from warp. The Enterprise-D would have had to go .92c. If they made an exceptional comment about exceeding full impulse then there would be some reason to believe what the Technical Manual says on that point. But they didn't call for anything special, the just say they dropped to warp and that's that.

[edit] Once the Borg reached Jupiter it would take 27 minutes for them to reach Earth, and it was gong to take the E-D 42 minutes to intercept. When the E-D dropped to impulse at Jupiter, they were 23 minutes 14 seconds from catching up to the Borg cube.




So at full strength the critical limit maybe 12Gs...but with damage it decreases and it maybe only 4.3Gs at the time you pull off a hard maneuver. But we dont even need to know what our G limit is or how many Gs we are pulling...just have it translated and related to us through the green through red indicator. When its green or yellow you are fine, when its orange or red reduce the aggressivness of the maneuver until its yellow or green again...and thats how hard you can safely crank her around.
Or, they can just make the ship accelerate slower in straight line and turning as it takes more damage. That way there is less to monitor. It takes some control away but I rather that than have to worry about ripping my ship apart just because I want to get to my maximum turn speed a little faster.

[cocoa-jin]

Or, they can just make the ship accelerate slower in straight line and turning as it takes more damage. That way there is less to monitor. It takes some control away but I rather that than have to worry about ripping my ship apart just because I want to get to my maximum turn speed a little faster.

Oh but you miss an important part of it. Structural failure isnt so black and white or scripted. Its common practice to add 10-50% above posted limites. So just because your red or orange doesnt mean you get instant damage. Getting in the red and orange is a gamble that could be your saving grace...or worst nightmare. Its riding that threshold and rolling the dice to squeeze out every ounce of performance and then let up before failure. Sometimes it comes instantly, sometimes quickly, sometimes a bit later and sometimes surprisingly longer than you'd ever expect.

The ability to take control and push that grey area of performance and failure thats not very quantifiable, or computable...but sits in the realm of feel and intuition....with a dash of luck is whats sets organic from computer, legendary captain from the uninspired captain.

so yeah, let the computer play it safe for you if you want, but let there be away to over-ride it and push that old girl to limits that seperate the men from boys...got away from almost survived...legend from Borg civil servant!

[JacobFlowers]

Small ships have manuverabililty and speed on their side.

Larger ships have the firepower and the durability.



By Definition that's true Dave. Unfortunately in Star Trek, Full Impulse is always going to equate to 1/4th the Speed of Light. (Sure ships could go faster than 1/4th, but then you get into relativistic effects, which obviously isn't going to happen in STO). So a Sabre at Full Impulse is going to be as fast as a Heavily Armed Sovereign at Full Impulse.



Starfleet doesn't refer to armor? Guess you never heard of Ablative Armor. :p

And Structural Integrity isn't armor, it's reinforcement of the hull superstructure to allow for increased stresses. Which means if theres a hull breach, it's going to compensate for superstructure that was destroyed and compensate for the stress load.



That's not military classification, that's called a hull-type.

And we have a thread for this. But the STO Deves decided to cut out the controversy and just call ships Escorts, Cruisers, Carriers, and Science / Exploration.



Sorry, but everyones going to have the freedom to choose what they want to be and not have science and exploration shoved in their faces. Not everyone likes that stuff.

And the best way to prepare for war is to actually learn how to fight and experience combat, and not by scanning nebulas all day long.


I have heard of ablative hull plating, and even mentioned it in my original post. :-P Please kindly remember that Ablative hull plating was NOT STARFLEET STANDARD but was an provisional adaptation Janeway chose to make while in the delta quadrant. Thank you very much.

An exploration geared ship generally has abilities balanced in multiple facets such as science, medicine, transport, combat, etc etc. I was not referring to only scanning nebulas all day.

[MajorD]

I have heard of ablative hull plating, and even mentioned it in my original post. :-P Please kindly remember that Ablative hull plating was NOT STARFLEET STANDARD but was an provisional adaptation Janeway chose to make while in the delta quadrant. Thank you very much.

An exploration geared ship generally has abilities balanced in multiple facets such as science, medicine, transport, combat, etc etc. I was not referring to only scanning nebulas all day.

Ablative armor was something the Defiant and Prometheus both had. Ablative hull plating is something different, I'm not sure I want to see that specific technology since we never saw it after the end of Voyager.

[Urantia]

Get a massive vessel...apply all the force required to accelerated to some velocity. Now all that energy is pinned up in the vessel in one direction. Now rapidly change the direction of the ship...like with a evasive combat maneuver...lets say a hard break turn. The force required to crank that massive vessel which is in motion in straight line and will tend to stay in motion in that straight line unless acted upon by another force, will be accelerated(change in velocity...in this case direction) as its nose moves out of plane(because they dont drift to change direction, they whip the nose around like fighter aircraft). That radial acceleration will induce a massive amount of centrifugal force on the vessel's hull in the opposite direction during a hard turn(high radial velocity as the nose moves out of the 2D plane of original travel when it was moving in a straight line)...that force can be measured relative to, or in, multiples of gravity(what is it 9.8m/s/s?).

Take the ship's mass, multiply it by the acceleration induced in the maneuver and you get the equalvelent of weight imposed on the hull in the opposite direction of travel. It'll cause compression and expansion fatigue, shear forces, etc within the hull.

That rapid acceleration would damage a ship's hull just like a rapid acceleration in a rocket seat or coming to a sudden stop puts stress on the human body.

The force thats resisting the vessel is momentum, inertia, all the force applied to get that mass moving in a given direction at high speed...resisting the rapid changing of direction or speed of the vessel.

Granted, normal maneuvers could be done at a rate that maintains minimal acceleration forces by keeping them subtle, wide arcing, etc...but in combat, such maneuvers are pointless.

Okay...I suppose if you purposely tried to tear your ship apart (a damaged ship as you originally described), assuming the trusters could be rigged to do this, it may add stress on the hull. But as you well know (in theory) these ships are designed such that this would not be possible. I still cannot help but think in your mind you are factoring in forces that would not exist in space (specifically open space and away from a strong source of gravity).

For example, in your rocket example where a person would feel it accelerate...this would not happen in space. External gravity (in large quantities) is required for such effects as centrifugal force and the like. I think the biggest threat a ship with integrity issues may face in space is decompression...but even starfleet vessels are built to handle this....unless there are several compressed and decompressed areas competing with one another (a force unto itself).

Now I admit I may be confusing real science with ST science, but I cannot recall an episode where a ship tore itself apart unless it was trying to haul another ship too fast or go faster than it was designed. Believe me when I say i know what you are getting at, but most of the forces you described do not exist in weak gravity...nor am I saying it would be impossible for a captain to try and tear their ship apart under its own power on purpose.

As far as the game is concerned I sincerely doubt we will see senarios where if we turn too fast we will take damage...as I suspect we will only be allowed to turn as fast as the ships design allows. I do see what you are saying in general though.....a ship is in motion then suddenly blasts a thruster ( or thrusters) at full power in a different direction (preferably at right angles to its path) in a dmaged ship might aggitate the integrity further. Just understand that virtually all Earth bound analogies do not apply.

[cocoa-jin]

Okay...I suppose if you purposely tried to tear your ship apart (a damaged ship as you originally described), assuming the trusters could be rigged to do this, it may add stress on the hull. But as you well know (in theory) these ships are designed such that this would not be possible. I still cannot help but think in your mind you are factoring in forces that would not exist in space (specifically open space and away from a strong source of gravity).

For example, in your rocket example where a person would feel it accelerate...this would not happen in space. External gravity (in large quantities) is required for such effects as centrifugal force and the like. I think the biggest threat a ship with integrity issues may face in space is decompression...but even starfleet vessels are built to handle this....unless there are several compressed and decompressed areas competing with one another (a force unto itself).

Now I admit I may be confusing real science with ST science, but I cannot recall an episode where a ship tore itself apart unless it was trying to haul another ship too fast or go faster than it was designed. Believe me when I say i know what you are getting at, but most of the forces you described do not exist in weak gravity...nor am I saying it would be impossible for a captain to try and tear their ship apart under its own power on purpose.

As far as the game is concerned I sincerely doubt we will see senarios where if we turn too fast we will take damage...as I suspect we will only be allowed to turn as fast as the ships design allows. I do see what you are saying in general though.....a ship is in motion then suddenly blasts a thruster ( or thrusters) at full power in a different direction (preferably at right angles to its path) in a dmaged ship might aggitate the integrity further. Just understand that virtually all Earth bound analogies do not apply.


You'd be surprised how frequently vessels/units, etc are designed to be able to damage themselves in extreme operations. Now for normal ops, I doubt the vessel would exert forces sufficient to damage the itself. Thats why I quantified it all with a combat manuever on a damaged vessel with deminished structural integrity fields. I'd assume the computer would make use of a safety protocol and minimize stress on the hull through maneuvers by restricting teh aggressiveness of the maneuver...but sometimes that just means you walk to your death instead of pushing the envelope and possibly saving your hide...or darting to your death if you push it too much.

*Disclaimer*
This is meant to be condescending...its my honest attempt to convey how I understand the physics behind all this. Im a teach of sorts(certainly not a physics teacher), so I'll explain it as such...If Im wrong, fill free to stick it to me:D

But lets look at this. If I took a starship model and placed it on the table, it'll likly just sit their no problem...we assume the struture is such that it can support its own weight(a force). Even if we put it in a vacuum, that force would remain due to gravity. That weight becomes a problem on the table because the table will resist the acceleration of model "down" due to gravity. So you have a upward force from the table on the model, you have a force coming down on the model from the brick. If you drew out those vectors, imagined the table gone and the ship mid-way through a pull up maneuver from a nose dive in zero gravity, you'd see the brick's force of weight could be replaced by inertia and/or centrifugal force(assuming the orginal direction of travel was "down"...in the direction of the brick's vector, and the force applied to the ship through its impulse thrusters was equal to the brick's vector also) and the vector from the table would be due to manuevuering thrusters...or maybe even another means of inducing maneuvers(I'll post that idea next).

The crushing forces and stresses applied on that ship at that mid way point in the maneuver would be similar to the stress as if it was on that table with the brick on it...though likly deminished(i assume since it doesnt just snap in to its new plane of travel...it like follows an arch and not a true arc). The tighter the radius of the pull up...or a break turn(imagine that whole set up of vectors but put the set up on its side), the worse it'll be.

Now we can assume this plastic model can support lets say a brick...some places might, but not all...Im thinking the nacelles and a few other locations that would cause failure somewhere along its support points...like a rapid force applied up or down on the saucer sections forward tip causing stress at the saucer section's connection with the "neck" of the drive section, etc, etc.

inertia has to be an issue, or why else add inertial dampers on the vessel? Its not just for rapid accelerations in and out of warp...or at least it doesnt have to be.

[cocoa-jin]

Ok, my idea for non-maneuvering thruster type mobility.

We never really see an maneuvering thrusters on these ships, they have em, but it seems to be more of a docking, low velocity thing.

We never see the Defiant or any other starship blast out any inert gases from thrusters during reasonable impulse speeds or have the big glowing maneuvering thrusters mounted about the ship in order to accomplish what their maneuvers would suggest.

So i thought of this...what if manuevering thrusters were just for low speed maneuvers like docking. But higher speed operational and combat maneuvers utilized the warp nacelles. It seems these things are so important during combat, not just for warping out, but perhaps also for maneuvering....when was the last time you saw a starship with severly damaged or inoperable warp nacelle(s) cut a rug in a combat manuever?

What if the ship creates a low powered warp field that it can distort in order to use sub-space like an inclined raceway to make turns...like a bob-sled uses the inclined walls of the track...or a water skier digs into the water to whip around the corner.

Im thinking if we can ride a wave of sub-space for straight line, faster than light travels, we could use a lesser variant of that technique and bend the warp bubble to induce a turn through space at less than light speeds. The manuevering thrusters would likly still be benefical for the execution of the maneuver(just like turning the wheels or skies is still useful in the above examples to affect the manuever), but the manuever itself couldnt be executed by the thrusters alone.

[HyorD]

I'm glad the devs talk so much about being able to issue commands and reroute energy and so forth to get an edge in battle; tactical without relying too much on "twitch". Of course, time will tell how much we see of that, but City of Heroes had some fun combat, so my hopes are rather high.I'll just deal with this one as I've looked into some of the physics. A smaller ship would not be "faster" in speed, but it would accelerate faster because mass is a portion of the acceleration equation, even with no gravity acting on an object mass is part of the calculations for how fast something goes from the speed X to the speed Y.That assumed equal force; if the ratio between the forces used to accelerate the ships is equal to the ratio between their speeds, the acceleration will be the same (this is assuming that things function more or less as they do in classic mechanics; I know impulse engines interact with subspace, but the relationships probably more or less hold). That being said, a ship built for maneuverability could very well have a higher engine output to mass ratio than, say, large Science vessels.
And I guess the mass of an object and the gravitational effects of a solarsystems bodies could effect the ability of ships of different size (total mass) to have different turning capacities that are either dwindled or enhanced by gravitational effects. Say you can slingshot through gravity like the nova did in voyager (sexy manuever), it would be interesting to see how it would effect say, the intrepid class. Could the nova last longer, because of the smaller, sleeker design? :DNot much, as (Newtonian) gravitational force is directly proportional to an object's mass and acceleration is inversely proportional to mass, so the effects cancel out. That is, at least as long as you're not really close to a very dense object.
Get a massive vessel...apply all the force required to accelerated to some velocity. Now all that energy is pinned up in the vessel in one direction. Now rapidly change the direction of the ship...like with a evasive combat maneuver...lets say a hard break turn. The force required to crank that massive vessel which is in motion in straight line and will tend to stay in motion in that straight line unless acted upon by another force, will be accelerated(change in velocity...in this case direction) as its nose moves out of plane(because they dont drift to change direction, they whip the nose around like fighter aircraft). That radial acceleration will induce a massive amount of centrifugal force on the vessel's hull in the opposite direction during a hard turn(high radial velocity as the nose moves out of the 2D plane of original travel when it was moving in a straight line)...that force can be measured relative to, or in, multiples of gravity(what is it 9.8m/s/s?).

Take the ship's mass, multiply it by the acceleration induced in the maneuver and you get the equalvelent of weight imposed on the hull in the opposite direction of travel. It'll cause compression and expansion fatigue, shear forces, etc within the hull.

That rapid acceleration would damage a ship's hull just like a rapid acceleration in a rocket seat or coming to a sudden stop puts stress on the human body.

The force thats resisting the vessel is momentum, inertia, all the force applied to get that mass moving in a given direction at high speed...resisting the rapid changing of direction or speed of the vessel.

Granted, normal maneuvers could be done at a rate that maintains minimal acceleration forces by keeping them subtle, wide arcing, etc...but in combat, such maneuvers are pointless.Isn't that what inertial dampeners are for? Dampening the effects of change in motion so that you feel as though you're in a proper inertial system?

[Azurian]

I have heard of ablative hull plating, and even mentioned it in my original post. :-P Please kindly remember that Ablative hull plating was NOT STARFLEET STANDARD but was an provisional adaptation Janeway chose to make while in the delta quadrant. Thank you very much.

An exploration geared ship generally has abilities balanced in multiple facets such as science, medicine, transport, combat, etc etc. I was not referring to only scanning nebulas all day.

No, Janeway's was an Ablative Hull Generator, it's not the same as Ablative Hull Plating (Armor).

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Ablative_generator

Ablative Hull Plating/Armor was introduced with the U.S.S. Defiant during research to counter the Borg Threat. And since has become standard with Starfleet vessels: The Sovereign-class, the Prometheus-class, Defiant, Norway, Sabre, and even the new NX-91000)

http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Ablative_armor

That's from the Technical Manual and it's completely wrong on that point. Ships in Star Trek have gone far faster than just a quarter the speed of light. Most notably in "Best of Both Worlds pt 2", the Enterprise-D goes from Jupiter to Earth in about 40 minutes, after dropping from warp. The Enterprise-D would have had to go .92c. If they made an exceptional comment about exceeding full impulse then there would be some reason to believe what the Technical Manual says on that point. But they didn't call for anything special, the just say they dropped to warp and that's that.

[edit] Once the Borg reached Jupiter it would take 27 minutes for them to reach Earth, and it was gong to take the E-D 42 minutes to intercept. When the E-D dropped to impulse at Jupiter, they were 23 minutes 14 seconds from catching up to the Borg cube.

Did you not read my previous post? I said that ships could travel faster than 1/4c, but going faster means you start getting into relativistic issues. (Which effectively begins around 1/2 the speed of light).

Anyhow, I find your arguement silly when the Speed Charts that were made by Okuda (which are even used in the new Star Trek movie), were created with help of NASA scientists. You however are citing the script where obviously numbers were tossed around for dramatic purposes.

To state my point, it takes it takes 47 minutes for light to travel between the Sun and Jupiter, and roughly 37 minutes between Earth and Jupiter. So they are obviously going faster than .92c. In fact they had to travel at 1.61c. And there is NO WAY Impulse Engines can do that, because they would've had such relativisitc issues, by the time they arrived at Earth, it would've been the year 3000. So they had to have entered Low Warp, and the script writer put down the wrong thing.

[cocoa-jin]

Isn't that what inertial dampeners are for? Dampening the effects of change in motion so that you feel as though you're in a proper inertial system?

What if they are damaged in combat...they are a system too...so they can fail or be deminished.

[HyorD]

To state my point, it takes it takes 47 minutes for light to travel between the Sun and Jupiter, and roughly 37 minutes between Earth and Jupiter. So they are obviously going faster than .92c. In fact they had to travel at 1.61c. And there is NO WAY Impulse Engines can do that, because they would've had such relativisitc issues, by the time they arrived at Earth, it would've been the year 3000. So they had to have entered Low Warp, and the script writer put down the wrong thing.Actually, at 1.61c they'd be going back in time, not forward, unless they're in warp. Also, the "relativistic issues" you're citing would allow them to make that trip in 27 minutes in their own time frame; if they were traveling at 0.8c, special relativistic effects (time dilation or length conraction; take your pick) would have shortened the trip down sufficiently. Whatever full impulse normally is, the gravity of this situation may have required them to exceed it.What if [inertial dampers] are damaged in combat...they are a system too...so they can fail or be deminished.Oh yeah, sure; I'm guessing this would dramatically increase the amount of damage your ship takes, as well as preventing you from using high-energy turns or going to warp.

[MajorD]

Did you not read my previous post? I said that ships could travel faster than 1/4c, but going faster means you start getting into relativistic issues. (Which effectively begins around 1/2 the speed of light).

Anyhow, I find your arguement silly when the Speed Charts that were made by Okuda (which are even used in the new Star Trek movie), were created with help of NASA scientists. You however are citing the script where obviously numbers were tossed around for dramatic purposes.

To state my point, it takes it takes 47 minutes for light to travel between the Sun and Jupiter, and roughly 37 minutes between Earth and Jupiter. So they are obviously going faster than .92c. In fact they had to travel at 1.61c. And there is NO WAY Impulse Engines can do that, because they would've had such relativisitc issues, by the time they arrived at Earth, it would've been the year 3000. So they had to have entered Low Warp, and the script writer put down the wrong thing.
You said they travel at 1/4c at full impulse, I pointed out that they don't. If you apply time dilation to your calculation you'll see that it matches rather closely to the sublight value I provided. Also, the timing I mentioned is straight out of the episode, and Jupiter isn't a fixed distance from Earth, it changes greatly year to year. Use Celestia to find the average distance for the year Best of Both Worlds takes place.

Finally, that's not how relativistic travel works. If they were traveling 3000 lightyears it might take 3000 years for them to arrive, however, If the Enterprise were to go the speed of light to cover 20 light minutes, then it will take them 20 minutes from the perspective of Earth, and zero time, from the Enterprise-D perspective. Since they are slightly below true light speed, there is a perceptible passage of time, although brief. So, from the Enterprise-D's perspective, the Enterprise-D is going slightly faster than light, and from Earth they look like they are moving very near the speed of light. Thus, no 3000 year travel times for anyone.

[Azurian]

Actually, at 1.61c they'd be going back in time, not forward, unless they're in warp. Also, the "relativistic issues" you're citing would allow them to make that trip in 27 minutes in their own time frame; if they were traveling at 0.8c, special relativistic effects (time dilation or length conraction; take your pick) would have shortened the trip down sufficiently. Whatever full impulse normally is, the gravity of this situation may have required them to exceed it.Oh yeah, sure; I'm guessing this would dramatically increase the amount of damage your ship takes, as well as preventing you from using high-energy turns or going to warp.

Where in the hell did you get that load of nonsense? :eek:

You can't travel back in time under realtivistic effects. I suggest you look up the Twin Paradox, where you got two twins (one on Earth, the other in a starship. When the starship travels closer to the speed of light, the slower time progresses onboard the starship, and by the time it's back in real time, the twin on the Earth has aged, while the one on the starship hasn't aged a day.

But why got to the Speed of Light under Impulse engines (which I doubt they even have the power to pull it off), when you got Warp Engines?

You said they travel at 1/4c at full impulse, I pointed out that they don't. If you apply time dilation to your calculation you'll see that it matches rather closely to the sublight value I provided.

If you applied time dilation effects, the Borg would've taken over the Earth, not the Enterprise-D catching up to the Borg. (See the Twin Paradox).

Also, the timing I mentioned is straight out of the episode, and Jupiter isn't a fixed distance from Earth, it changes greatly year to year.

I know Jupiter isn't in a fixed place, that's why I said "around" 37 Minutes.

Use Celestia to find the average distance for the year Best of Both Worlds takes place.

Please, tell me you just didn't ask me to use a realistic astronomical program to prove science fiction show? /facepalm

Finally, that's not how relativistic travel works. If they were traveling 3000 lightyears it might take 3000 years for them to arrive, however, If the Enterprise were to go the speed of light to cover 20 light minutes, then it will take them 20 minutes from the perspective of Earth, and zero time, from the Enterprise-D perspective. Since they are slightly below true light speed, there is a perceptible passage of time, although brief. So, from the Enterprise-D's perspective, the Enterprise-D is going slightly faster than light, and from Earth they look like they are moving very near the speed of light. Thus, no 3000 year travel times for anyone.

OMG, what is with you people taking everything so literally? I was stating an example, not going through formulas to get the exact time requirements. /facepalm

As I said, the script writers pulled numbers out of their ass for dramatic reasons. You can go through the numbers if you want, but I gurantee you that if the Enterprise-D was going that fact (.92c or 1.62c via impulse) they would've missed the Borg and by the time they got to Earth, it would've been assimilated. So it should've said they did an inter-system Warp instead.

[HyorD]

Where in the hell did you get that load of nonsense? :eek:

You can't travel back in time under realtivistic effects. I suggest you look up the Twin Paradox, where you got two twins (one on Earth, the other in a starship. When the starship travels closer to the speed of light, the slower time progresses onboard the starship, and by the time it's back in real time, the twin on the Earth has aged, while the one on the starship hasn't aged a day.This "nonsense" is Einstein's special theory of relativity; time travels at different paces in different inertial systems. It's true, they couldn't have traversed 37 light-minutes in 27 minutes at sublight speeds in the Sun's inertial system, but at a speed of about 0.8c this distance would have been "contracted" to a distance they could traverse in 27 minutes (in their inertial system).
It should be pointed out that the Twin Paradox is actually not a paradox; it's just a thought experiment that illustrated how the truth described by relativity theory can contradict our intuition about spacetime.

But why got to the Speed of Light under Impulse engines (which I doubt they even have the power to pull it off), when you got Warp Engines?Oh, I agree, but I'm just talking about the physics, not Riker's strategical sense.OMG, what is with you people taking everything so literally? I was stating an example, not going through formulas to get the exact time requirements. /facepalmYou were trying to use math/physics to prove your point; we're just pointing out a couple of holes in your logic. It should be pointed out that I'm not taking any side in the whole "What is maximum impulse?" debate, and I don't know what would have happened if their trip took more than 27 minutes in their time frame; it just seems that you're very confused about relativity theory, and I want to help clear things up as much as I can.

[DanSeale]

I also want to add that larger ships require more power to move and while they generate more power, a power increase to the engines of equal energy would give the smaller ship a greater speed then a larger one simply because the energy required to make it go faster is less for the smaller ship.

Also, we've seen MANY times where ships have either overtaken or outrun other ships. What isn't mentioned is that impulse is not a defined speed. Half impulse for a runabout isn't the same speed as half impulse for a galaxy class. Half is just that, half the speed of the engine. It's like saying "half horse power" for your car. Each car has a different horse power so the "half" mark is going to be different.

just one minor point to consider:

1. even in RL today the real Enterprise can and would out run smaller ships with it massive reactors. (My Uncle used to server as Chief Petty Officer on board the Enterprise).
2. thus larger ships are not always slower.

Larger ships ARE however less maneuverable .. on that point we can all agree.

I would like to see a certain amount of power management available.

[Urantia]

*Disclaimer*
This is meant to be condescending...its my honest attempt to convey how I understand the physics behind all this. Im a teach of sorts(certainly not a physics teacher), so I'll explain it as such...If Im wrong, fill free to stick it to me:D

Nor is this meant to be condescending....I have no doubt you understand basic physics in an Earth bound lab setting.

But lets look at this. If I took a starship model and placed it on the table, it'll likly just sit their no problem...we assume the struture is such that it can support its own weight(a force). Even if we put it in a vacuum, that force would remain due to gravity. That weight becomes a problem on the table because the table will resist the acceleration of model "down" due to gravity. So you have a upward force from the table on the model, you have a force coming down on the model from the brick. If you drew out those vectors, imagined the table gone and the ship mid-way through a pull up maneuver from a nose dive in zero gravity, you'd see the brick's force of weight could be replaced by inertia and/or centrifugal force(assuming the orginal direction of travel was "down"...in the direction of the brick's vector, and the force applied to the ship through its impulse thrusters was equal to the brick's vector also) and the vector from the table would be due to manuevuering thrusters...or maybe even another means of inducing maneuvers(I'll post that idea next).

There was no need to explain this my friend....I understood you all along. But was merely trying to point out that some of your examples were clearly derived from your experiences on Earth (a gravity rich environment compared to open space where gravity can be less a factor)...and your kinetic memory in general.

You could have as easily just used a starship moving along at impulse and replaced the "brick" with a stray asteroid (that some how magically the ship did not see coming). In short my friend there was no need for an elementary physics lesson to show what you were trying to explain...I understood you.

inertia has to be an issue, or why else add inertial dampers on the vessel? Its not just for rapid accelerations in and out of warp...or at least it doesnt have to be.

It was my understanding that this technology was merely to keep the ship stable against potential outside forces (possible gravity included). For example, if something hit the hull like an asteroid (not big enough to destroy the vessel) or certain weapons fire (or out going fire)...the dampenders would keep the ship stable (mainly so you could return fire and not expose sections of the hull by rolling out of control). Without them when you fired a weapon...or got hit the ship would begin listing.

Beyond all this my friend there is no further need to explain what you mean (to me that is)...I totally get what you are trying to say. I was merely disagreeing with all the forces you were using....mainly because I detected your descriptions were influenced by Earth bound kinetic intuition that does not always apply in open space away from strong gravity.

Moreover, do not feel bad I am no physicist either....though I am not far off as a mathematician, but I always hated physics in my early years. I was the type of student in a "physic w/calculus" course that actually used calculus. I can still remember one lab I had where I was given a problem to solve in front of the class...to solve it I derived a general differential equation (which solved the problem for all time t)...it took me 6 mins or so...my then professor stood up and solved the problem in less than a minute using some lame finite table (that I never would have conceived) to get the same answer. This is where mathematics and physics often differ...not always, but often these days.

[cocoa-jin]

Nor is this meant to be condescending....I have no doubt you understand basic physics in an Earth bound lab setting.



There was no need to explain this my friend....I understood you all along. But was merely trying to point out that some of your examples were clearly derived from your experiences on Earth (a gravity rich environment compared to open space where gravity can be less a factor)...and your kinetic memory in general.

You could have as easily just used a starship moving along at impulse and replaced the "brick" with a stray asteroid (that some how magically the ship did not see coming). In short my friend there was no need for an elementary physics lesson to show what you were trying to explain...I understood you.



It was my understanding that this technology was merely to keep the ship stable against potential outside forces (possible gravity included). For example, if something hit the hull like an asteroid (not big enough to destroy the vessel) or certain weapons fire (or out going fire)...the dampenders would keep the ship stable (mainly so you could return fire and not expose sections of the hull by rolling out of control). Without them when you fired a weapon...or got hit the ship would begin listing.

Beyond all this my friend there is no further need to explain what you mean (to me that is)...I totally get what you are trying to say. I was merely disagreeing with all the forces you were using....mainly because I detected your descriptions were influenced by Earth bound kinetic intuition that does not always apply in open space away from strong gravity.

Moreover, do not feel bad I am no physicist either....though I am not far off as a mathematician, but I always hated physics in my early years. I was the type of student in a "physic w/calculus" course that actually used calculus. I can still remember one lab I had where I was given a problem to solve in front of the class...to solve it I derived a general differential equation (which solved the problem for all time t)...it took me 6 mins or so...my then professor stood up and solved the problem in less than a minute using some lame finite table (that I never would have conceived) to get the same answer. This is where mathematics and physics often differ...not always, but often these days.


Im the exact opposite...Im the conceptual guy, the relationships guy...the math kicked my tail because i had a horrible algebra base to start from. Calculus I got... its the algebra inbetween that killed me.

And your right, I take my experience in aviation and aerodynamics...I take the relationships there pick it apart as best I can to get the core relations, seperate out the stuff that is applicable from non-applicable and extrapolate it into other areas.

Honestly, part of my goal in explain it all out was in the hopes of exposing any weakness I had on the subject so i can re-work my understanding.

[cocoa-jin]

I just want to say to all you nerds on the last couple of pages...you guys rock!

Carry on!

I need to get a grasp of all this relativist stuff with speeds near and above the speed of light and its affect on time from various perspectives.

It'll help me build a conceptual picture of whats going on.

[Osirisren]

Here is my 2 cents on this topic. From what I have read you are all talking about reality and the effects of gravity and other physical forces on the ships in the game. But what I think that you are all forgetting is that Star trek Online is a Game, it will be hard enough for the programmers to get everything to work right with out taking in the effect of the mass of a ship related to it velocity. What they will most likely do is make each ship have ratings, like in grand trismo, X2: the threat or X3: the reunion or other game where you have to by different vehicles. But most likely larger and more experience ships will be faster in a strait line than smaller ships, but smaller ships will be more maneuverable. It’s the easiest way to make the game work and be a bit realistic. Also larger ships will have stronger armor, it’s just a fact that a larger ship will be able to take more damage than a smaller ship simply because of the massive size difference. Also the federation doesn’t use the same hull plating thickness for every ship, large ship will have thicker hull plates which make then able to take more of a hit. So what the programmers will do to make the game as real as they can is give each ship a hull rating and a shield rating. Say a defiant class ship will have a shield rating of 500 and a hull rating of 400, where a Galaxy class vessel will have a shield rating of 1200 and a hull rating of 800 or something like that. Its easy to program and it will keep gamers happy.

lol, that’s my rant on this subject...any thoughts?

[Than]

hmm well just a little cannon stuff.
If you watch TNG relic and listen to the conversation about 30 min into the episode you will hear laforge talk about the shuttle doing circles at full impulse speed around the enterprise.

So my 2 cent on the speed matter is as simple as the old steam ships.
ahead quart = .25% power output from the engine and so forth.

So unless there is actual speedgauges used in canon material on topspeed, i would say the laws of physics apply.
Larger ships= heavy weapons and shield, faster at high warp
smaller ships=agile and faster at sublight speed, slower at high warp


However in some episodes and movies they dump all the power they have from the reactor in the impulse drive (which is basically a exhaust output of plasma accellrated by magnetic coils along the ceramic alloy walls (using DS9 as referrence on engine interior) and since we know the entire ship is powered by EPS which is in fact power drawn from either the magnetic field of plasma or some advance waterboiler consept and from VOY we learned that the EPS is actually powered party by the warp core leftover waste (waste recycling of hazardous materials from the reactor)
So it means you can icrease max impulse quite a bit if you dump all your plasma into the matter stream output.

So while Enterprise might have a powerfull reactor, it has still size to consider and matter does follow the laws of physics, so even though you can lift 10 tons in space with one arm, it dont mean it dont wight 10 tons.

anyway just my 2 cent and yes, i can ofc be wrong :)

and edit for completing a point ;)

[Desterion]

If a big ship and a small one are both going warp 9.1, the speed is the same.

[Than]

If a big ship and a small one are both going warp 9.1, the speed is the same.

that is correct :)

edit for trying to type a proper language.

[cocoa-jin]

Here is my 2 cents on this topic. From what I have read you are all talking about reality and the effects of gravity and other physical forces on the ships in the game. But what I think that you are all forgetting is that Star trek Online is a Game, it will be hard enough for the programmers to get everything to work right with out taking in the effect of the mass of a ship related to it velocity. What they will most likely do is make each ship have ratings, like in grand trismo, X2: the threat or X3: the reunion or other game where you have to by different vehicles. But most likely larger and more experience ships will be faster in a strait line than smaller ships, but smaller ships will be more maneuverable. It’s the easiest way to make the game work and be a bit realistic. Also larger ships will have stronger armor, it’s just a fact that a larger ship will be able to take more damage than a smaller ship simply because of the massive size difference. Also the federation doesn’t use the same hull plating thickness for every ship, large ship will have thicker hull plates which make then able to take more of a hit. So what the programmers will do to make the game as real as they can is give each ship a hull rating and a shield rating. Say a defiant class ship will have a shield rating of 500 and a hull rating of 400, where a Galaxy class vessel will have a shield rating of 1200 and a hull rating of 800 or something like that. Its easy to program and it will keep gamers happy.

lol, that’s my rant on this subject...any thoughts?

Ah man, thats to simple...I dont think you give the devs, the potential and possibilities of modern gaming models enough credit. There is no reason to assume they cant or that it would be to difficult to model and balance masses, power output, velocities, accelerations and gravitational forces, and have it processed client side. Your computer does the few calculations and then it only sends across the net your positional and orientation packets to the server. Honestly you'd only be dealing with 1, sometimes 2 and rarely 3, dominant sources of gravity at a time, the system's star, the planet and or moon(s) you are in proximity to and thats it. If you arent near a planet the star dominates the gravitational forces(so calculate graviational forces from it only)...if you are by a planet, the planet dominates the gravitational forces(so calculate gravity forces from it only) and if you are very close to a moon, it dominates the gravitational forces(so calculate gravity forces from it only). There can be a transition area between planet to moon or planet to sun that you might calculate 2 dominant sources...but even thats not really required...just have a threshold at which you stop calcualtingto the nearest dominant source and then calcualte nothing until you reach the threshol dof another dominant source...ideally the more massive source has a threshold that goes out farther than smaller ones.

Lets not sell ourselves short on what we expect devs to produce, especially whenits possible, already done and just requires a little thought and creativity. If we keep treating devs like uninspired under-achievers, they keep producing as such.

[MajorD]

Where in the hell did you get that load of nonsense? :eek:

You can't travel back in time under realtivistic effects. I suggest you look up the Twin Paradox, where you got two twins (one on Earth, the other in a starship. When the starship travels closer to the speed of light, the slower time progresses onboard the starship, and by the time it's back in real time, the twin on the Earth has aged, while the one on the starship hasn't aged a day.
I don't think you understand the Twin Paradox. Long story short, from the ship's perspective, the ship will appear to go faster than light because less time is being perceived to pass (they stay younger), while from an outside perspective, the ship can only ever reach the speed of light (everything else ages normally). It's like the slowed perception of a cold turtle, with cars zipping by so fast they can't be seen. Then the turtle warms up and can see the cars clearly and that they aren't going so fast, and can see them fine. Just as with the universe appearing slow to the eagle who has super fast perception and can see the droplets form as a drop hits a larger body of water.

If you actually go the speed of light, time would freeze for your and from your perspective no time will have passed, you will have traveled infinitely fast, even though light does not travel infinitely fast based on 'stationary' observation. Lets say you traveled 100,000 light years that way, away and back to Earth, then 100,000 years will pass on Earth, no more or less. So, the closer you are to the speed of light the faster the ship thinks it is going but from the outside it is only going so fast. You could go so fast that it appears a single day passes to cover the 100,000 ly, and you will feel as if you traveled many times the speed of light, but everyone outside will say that 110,000 years passed for themselves for you to travel those 100,000 light years.

But why got to the Speed of Light under Impulse engines (which I doubt they even have the power to pull it off), when you got Warp Engines?
Ask Riker. At warp he could have easily overtaken the cube and have left more time from his perspective.

If you applied time dilation effects, the Borg would've taken over the Earth, not the Enterprise-D catching up to the Borg. (See the Twin Paradox).
From the outside observer (Earth) it's all the same, there would be no gigantic time delay between the Borg and Enterprise-D arrivals, just a the few minutes difference they kept mentioning, since they were covering only a few light minutes at impulse.

Please, tell me you just didn't ask me to use a realistic astronomical program to prove science fiction show? /facepalm
You're the one using real math, if you don't want real math I won't offer real tools.

[Teejo08]

1) Yeah i agree with this one.

2) As has beeen mentioned before "Half Impulse" is half of that particular engines speed. Defiant half impulse is quicker than a galaxy classes half impulse simply because it is a faster ship due to its size. The power required to move a galaxy is much greater than to move a defiant therefore if you give them the same engine power the defiant WILL go faster than the galaxy. Although IMO its unlikely the galaxy and defiant have the same impulse drive system.

3) Ships and Power: Easy. Obviously the bigger the ship the bigger the power output. You can fit a much bigger warp core in a Galaxy than a Defiant. On Hull strength it should not be uniform. Armour strength maybe but not hull strength. A Galaxy class can absorb more damage than say an Intrepid because it is bigger and inevitably tougher. Armour strength would be uniform because if you fit ablative armour to a Defiant it will be exactly the same on a Galaxy except for the fact you'd need more arour to cover a larger ship.

4) Skill based advantages: Yeah i like that idea. A better Engineer will have the ship working beyond its specs and would be able to keep it that way barring some unfortunate circumstances.

[JacobFlowers]

1) Yeah i agree with this one.

2) As has beeen mentioned before "Half Impulse" is half of that particular engines speed. Defiant half impulse is quicker than a galaxy classes half impulse simply because it is a faster ship due to its size. The power required to move a galaxy is much greater than to move a defiant therefore if you give them the same engine power the defiant WILL go faster than the galaxy. Although IMO its unlikely the galaxy and defiant have the same impulse drive system.

3) Ships and Power: Easy. Obviously the bigger the ship the bigger the power output. You can fit a much bigger warp core in a Galaxy than a Defiant. On Hull strength it should not be uniform. Armour strength maybe but not hull strength. A Galaxy class can absorb more damage than say an Intrepid because it is bigger and inevitably tougher. Armour strength would be uniform because if you fit ablative armour to a Defiant it will be exactly the same on a Galaxy except for the fact you'd need more arour to cover a larger ship.

4) Skill based advantages: Yeah i like that idea. A better Engineer will have the ship working beyond its specs and would be able to keep it that way barring some unfortunate circumstances.

I don't understand your number 1.

You're number two, I am not entirely sure if it is in agreement with Canon. You see, EVERYWHERE in Star Trek we have references made to sublight speeds only in terms of 1/4, /12, 3/4, and full impulse. Whether a command given on a star ship, or a science officer reporting "that ship is currently traveling at 1/2 impulse"

The problem here is that 1) This may be in reference to a universally accepted speed system (as in 1/2 impulse equals ____k/s for all starships or 2) It may refer to the relative maximum speed output of one ship (as in, if spock says a bird of prey is at 1/2 impulse, he is referring to the speed that the enterprise is capable of at 1/2 impulse).

I THINK my preference would be to keep a universal speed for all ships (since it would seem to fit canon more easily) and simply have differentials in acceleration.

But if it went the other way... i MAY be okay with that as long as they don't nerf Galaxy class or Sovereign class ships to be lumbering tanks. Do we all recall That battle in which the Enterprise E was at the battle of sector 001 in "First Contact"... she seemed to be moving with great agility, response times, and SPEEDS as the other smaller vessels... so it would trouble me if that class of ship was nerfed to being a slow poke ship. This would too closely follow EVE's mechanics.

Your # 3. I agreee with. (already my sentiments as I posted earlier) ;)

Your #4 I agree with. (already my sentiments as I posted earlier) ;)

[Osirisren]

"I THINK my preference would be to keep a universal speed for all ships (since it would seem to fit canon more easily) and simply have differentials in acceleration."

I agree, i think that that would be the best way to lay it out.

[Father_Origin]

People have made mention in other threads ( like here (http://forums.startrekonline.com/showthread.php?t=14586)) of their ideas for ship combat, balance, and assertion regarding how STO should be played out. I am indeed a trekkie, but I can not give the Vulcan greeting and speak no Klingon. Nevertheless, I feel very strong that staying true to the Star Trek Universe is a way to make ST Fans really happy.

I of course want a fun game, but MORE THAN ANYTHING... I don't want something that is ridiculously unfaithful to the star trek universe. Perhaps more than anything, and please disagree with me if you have a counter point of view, but I think most trekkies would prefer a Universe that is as close to what we grew up with and were influenced by as possible. I don't want it to be put as "yea, star trek online is good, but the tv shows and movies were better". Authenticity and something finally true to the name would be very honoring.

With regard to ship tactics and such, some people think that smaller ships should go faster, big ships always miss their targets or "graze the shields of smaller ships", this that and the other. Here are two copper:

1) Big Ships and Slow Phasers = NO. We are not in some other universe (like EVE or Battlestar Galactica). The targeting computers on a starship in ST are far more advanced than any other sci fi series. They fire... they hit... (usually). We have ALL seen the Enterprise D shoot down fast, small moving objects (even torpedos). If its a big ship, it has a potential higher energy yield than smaller vessels, but targeting remains the same.

2) Ship Movement and Ship Size: Impulse speeds in Star Trek are uniform 1/4, 1/2, Full impulse. There is NO indication that a ship is faster than another at sublight speeds. What we do know from canon is that smaller ships have more agility. A galaxy class ship as we have seen is not some large lumbering tank wanderng throough space. BUt we do see ships such as the defiant able to possess a more agile turning and maneuvering capability.

3) Ships and Power: Easy. The larger the ship, the larger the power output. This means greater shield strengh. Again, we have no indication within starfleet that ships have varying degrees of hull strength (there are special exceptions like Voyager's non-standard ablative hull plating). I think ship hull strength should be uniform, however witht he possibility of upgrades. With this in mind... normal hull strength CAN vary from race to race however.

4) Skill based advantages: This was a good suggestion someone made and I'll elaborate on it a bit more. The higher skill your engineer has, the faster repairs or made, or a stronger output for weapons or propulsion. Perhaps we could even have classifications for our engineers, such as "Average" or "Exceptional" or "Top of their class" or "Legendary" or "Miracle Worker", etc. An engineer with a Miracle Worker status could possess special boons that could get the ship out of impossibly difficult circumstances, etc. Something similar to this was implemented in another star trek game, but I can't remember which one.


Thoughts?

small erratically moving ship....harder to hit

however...a larger ship might find the tiny ship hard to hit, it does sport more phasers

so in the great galactic balance..you might be harder to hit, but them big ship got more stuff to shot at you

should larger ships be slower...no, require larger turning radius...yes
example...is an aircraft carrier slow?..no, can it turn quickly?...no

is it easier for a small ship to hit a larger ship?..yes...will the larger ship care? prob not.

:-P