Agility, an important factor?

[Arcticfrost]

In every Star Trek game I’ve played it always says that destroyers and cursers have some advantage over battle ships because they are faster and more agile. However never in my experience the agility of an enemy ship has never played kept me from winning and never has the agility of my own ship kept me from losing.

So don’t you think that the importance of agility has been over emphasized in STO.

[Sumoben]

In every Star Trek game I’ve played it always says that destroyers and cursers have some advantage over battle ships because they are faster and more agile. However never in my experience the agility of an enemy ship has never played kept me from winning and never has the agility of my own ship kept me from losing.

So don’t you think that the importance of agility has been over emphasized in STO.

No, I believe that it is one of the most important factors in STO. Using its immersive combat system, much of it is going to be, how fast can you duck behind that asteroid with your small ship, or, how fast can you turn to avoid that incoming torpedo and throw off its navigation sensors, or the enemy tactical officer?

[jbarker82]

Indeed the agility of a Starship will probably be one of the most important aspects if you are a smaller ship against a larger foe. Ducking and dodging could be all that comes between a phaser or disrupter hit on your critical systems blowing you to smithereens. :)

[Trsmash]

Agility will be a big thing when it comes to success in STO.

[Arcticfrost]

Indeed the agility of a Starship will probably be one of the most important aspects if you are a smaller ship against a larger foe. Ducking and dodging could be all that comes between a phaser or disrupter hit on your critical systems blowing you to smithereens. :)

nah, I think you two have misjudged its use

[Sumoben]

nah, I think you two have misjudged its use

No, I think you undervalue its use.

[Arcticfrost]

No, I think you undervalue its use.

Why do you think that though, in every star trek game the manual talks about agility and in every game it turns out to be useless.

[Sumoben]

Why do you think that though, in every star trek game the manual talks about agility and in every game it turns out to be useless.

You obviously have not played Tournament SFC3 then, I take it. Agility, and how you use that agility played a huge factor in if you won or not.

[Arcticfrost]

You obviously have not played Tournament SFC3 then, I take it. Agility, and how you use that agility played a huge factor in if you won or not.

Where talking about enormous star ships even when you’re a destroyer or light curser, you can’t simply stop all at once so taking cover behind asteroids would be extremely difficult without crashing into them. Even in star trek shattered universe where you where an actual dog fighter you couldn’t duck behind asteroids.

[Sumoben]

Where talking about enormous star ships even when you’re a destroyer or light curser, you can’t simply stop all at once so taking cover behind asteroids would be extremely difficult without crashing into them. Even in star trek shattered universe where you where an actual dog fighter you couldn’t duck behind asteroids.

You keep looking back at older games. This is a totally NEW game, with a new engine developed by a different company. Just because a game is labeled Star Trek doesn't mean they were all developed by, Paramount, or Activision.. or In STO's case, Cryptic.

[Arcticfrost]

You keep looking back at older games. This is a totally NEW game, with a new engine developed by a different company. Just because a game is labeled Star Trek doesn't mean they were all developed by, Paramount, or Activision.. or In STO's case, Cryptic.

Why dose everyone think agility will be a factor, the game play so far looks like it will be almost exactly like legacy just better graphics and maybe slightly faster game play. It doesn’t make sense as to why agility would make a difference if almost all large ships have forward and aft phasers.

[Sumoben]

Why dose everyone think agility will be a factor, the game play so far looks like it will be almost exactly like legacy just better graphics and maybe slightly faster game play. It doesn’t make sense as to why agility would make a difference if almost all large ships have forward and aft phasers.

Then you might as well sit there and get shot then.

[BreachAndClear]

Depends. Agility matters offensively for Klingon and Romulan ships, and defensively for Federation ships.

For instance, in ST: Legacy:

A Klingon ship like the Negh'Var has pretty much all of its weapons forward facing, and so it was hard to destroy a small maneuverable ship because it could always stay out of the firing arc of the forward disruptors and phasers. A ship like the Defiant might get pummeled if it slips up and enters the forward firing arc of the Negh'Var, but a skilled Captain that maneuvers the ship behind a Negh'Var can gradually wear down the enemy without being exposed to any sort of substantial fire.

Most, if not all of the Klingon ships were like that, favoring a forward head on attack, and having limited or no armament to deal with a rear attack. So, Klingons ideally need a maneuverable ship to keep enemies in front of them, and Federation ships need maneuverable ships to stay behind Klingons and Romulans with armament biased for a frontal assault.

It's true that Federation ships can pretty much hit a ship positioned just about anywhere in relation to it with it's phasers, but by approaching a Federation ship from the side a Klingon ship can have a distinct advantage, as the Klingons have strong forward armament while the Fed ship has moderate phaser cover, but is not able to achieve a photon lock at such an angle.

[Arcticfrost]

Then you might as well sit there and get shot then.

Exactly simply flying around your opponent in some fast ship like the defiant won’t do anything because the person in the battle ship can simply move there ship up or down slightly to get a firing line much faster than a ship can fly around an entire ship.

[Arcticfrost]

Depends. Agility matters offensively for Klingon and Romulan ships, and defensively for Federation ships.

For instance, in ST: Legacy:

A Klingon ship like the Negh'Var has pretty much all of its weapons forward facing, and so it was hard to destroy a small maneuverable ship because it could always stay out of the firing arc of the forward disruptors and phasers.

Most, if not all of the Klingon ships were like that, favoring a forward head on attack, and having limited or no armament to deal with a rear attack. So, Klingons ideally need a maneuverable ship to keep enemies in front of them, and Federation ships need maneuverable ships to stay behind Klingons and Romulans with armament biased for a frontal assault.

It's true that Federation ships can pretty much hit a ship positioned just about anywhere in relation to it with it's phasers, but by approaching a Federation ship from the side a Klingon ship can have a distinct advantage, as the Klingons have strong forward armament while the Fed ship has moderate phaser cover, but is not able to achieve a photon lock at such an angle.

Nah dud any ship that’s maneuverable shields and hull are too weak to with stand even the aft phasers and torpedoes

[Sumoben]

Depends. Agility matters offensively for Klingon and Romulan ships, and defensively for Federation ships.

For instance, in ST: Legacy:

A Klingon ship like the Negh'Var has pretty much all of its weapons forward facing, and so it was hard to destroy a small maneuverable ship because it could always stay out of the firing arc of the forward disruptors and phasers.

Most, if not all of the Klingon ships were like that, favoring a forward head on attack, and having limited or no armament to deal with a rear attack. So, Klingons ideally need a maneuverable ship to keep enemies in front of them, and Federation ships need maneuverable ships to stay behind Klingons and Romulans with armament biased for a frontal assault.

It's true that Federation ships can pretty much hit a ship positioned just about anywhere in relation to it with it's phasers, but by approaching a Federation ship from the side a Klingon ship can have a distinct advantage, as the Klingons have strong forward armament while the Fed ship has moderate phaser cover, but is not able to achieve a photon lock at such an angle.

QFT. Seriously.

[Arcticfrost]

Now I guess agility can play a factor between destroyer vs. destroyer with only forward facing weapons. But the idea that you can go against a battleship with your fast little destroyer is wishful thinking.

[Sumoben]

Nah dud any ship that’s maneuverable shields and hull are too weak to with stand even the aft phasers and torpedoes

Thats not true, and why would you fly directly behind the ship anyway? You're always going to be ducking and weaving, side to side, making erratic turns as to confuse your enemy. Thats the whole point of Attack Patterns and Evasive Maneuver patterns.

[Arcticfrost]

Also if battles could be won with cheaper destroyers why even make battle ships.

[Sumoben]

Now I guess agility can play a factor between destroyer vs. destroyer with only forward facing weapons. But the idea that you can go against a battleship with your fast little destroyer is wishful thinking.

Nobody said anything about using a destroyer against a battleship, but in packs, small fast attack craft can take down a battleship, it may take time, but it will happen eventually. A swarm of say, four or five Raptors can take down a Sovvie, sure, you may damage one or two, but in the end, small and fast will win, maybe not in direct combat, but with certain tactics.

[Sumoben]

Also if battles could be won with cheaper destroyers why even make battle ships.

Because Battleships induce shock and awe, with pure firepower and or size.

[Arcticfrost]

Thats not true, and why would you fly directly behind the ship anyway? You're always going to be ducking and weaving, side to side, making erratic turns as to confuse your enemy. Thats the whole point of Attack Patterns and Evasive Maneuver patterns.

I know is sounds good in theory but it doesn’t work attacking from the side you opponent can just turn in place so once your attack is over a ships forward facing guns will be ready to shoot you in the back

[Arcticfrost]

Because Battleships induce shock and awe, with pure firepower and or size.

That's not why they make them

[Sumoben]

I know is sounds good in theory but it doesn’t work attacking from the side you opponent can just turn in place so once your attack is over a ships forward facing guns will be ready to shoot you in the back

You forget that agile ships can turn much faster no matter what speed you are going.

[Mjoellnir]

Maneuverability was extremely important in Starfleet Academy. In Chekov's Lost Missions was a mission with a Miranda where you had to destroy a pirate station and after that came across a Constitution class whose crew went mad. While most of the 60 torpedoes you had went into the destruction of the station (where you always had to evade their weapons) the battle with the Constitution was only winnable with the two phaser banks the Miranda has in that game if you managed to use your maneuverability to stay always behind the Consitution and then fired 5 minutes or longer phasers......:D

I hope maneuverability will play a big enough role in STO to counter the weaknesses maneuverable ships have in armor and shielding.

[Sumoben]

That's not why they make them

Yes it is, why do you think for example that the USAF, built overpriced and unneeded F-22s instead of the capable, cheaper F-16s? Cause the technology scares the crap out of other countries, sure you could argue that its top of the line, but there will always be something new, and better.

[Sumoben]

Maneuverability was extremely important in Starfleet Academy. In Chekov's Lost Missions was a mission with a Miranda where you had to destroy a pirate station and after that came across a Constitution class whose crew went mad. While most of the 60 torpedoes you had went into the destruction of the station (where you always had to evade their weapons) the battle with the Constitution was only winnable with the two phaser banks the Miranda has in that game if you managed to use your maneuverability to stay always behind the Consitution and then fired 5 minutes or longer phasers......:D

I hope maneuverability will play a big enough role in STO to counter the weaknesses maneuverable ships have in armor and shielding.

Not to mention, distribution of damage between shield grids. Maneuverable ships can focus their fire on a specific shield grid while distributing the damage they take to the strongest shields they have.

[Arcticfrost]

You forget that agile ships can turn much faster no matter what speed you are going.

Nah, star trek games are not like the TV shows where a single phaser blast can critically damage or destroy a ship. It’s takes probably takes 10 or more just to bring down the shields of a large ship and then 5 or 6 photon torpedoes and several more phaser blasts to take to destroy it.

[Sumoben]

Nah, star trek games are not like the TV shows where a single phaser blast can critically damage or destroy a ship. It’s takes probably takes 10 or more just to bring down the shields of a large ship and then 5 or 6 photon torpedoes and several more phaser blasts to take to destroy it.

A single phaser blast in the series hasn't critically damaged or has destroyed a ship, unless it outclassed that ship by far. Not to mention, no matter what ship you fire a photon torpedo from, it will always have the same yield, if it has the same class warhead. A Sabre can be just as effective as say, a Galaxy, if they fired one torpedo each. Sure, they might not be able to fire as many torpedoes, or as fast, however it still has a large enough compliment of torpedoes to take down a ship that is larger than itself.

[Arcticfrost]

Yes it is, why do you think for example that the USAF, built overpriced and unneeded F-22s instead of the capable, cheaper F-16s? Cause the technology scares the crap out of other countries, sure you could argue that its top of the line, but there will always be something new, and better.

Again that’s different the reason those where made is so someone could make money and Northrop Grumman would have something to do.

As for the star trek universe the reason they have battle ships is because there more effective.

[Sumoben]

Again that’s different the reason those where made is so someone could make money and Northrop Grumman would have something to do.

As for the star trek universe the reason they have battle ships is because there more effective.

No, they're not more effective, they're more durable and reliable as transports, or have more room for science equipment if anything.

And seriously, do you honestly think that the US bought F-22s just so the people at a manufacturer could keep their jobs? I highly doubt it. Then again, we had Bush in the top seat.

[Arcticfrost]

A single phaser blast in the series hasn't critically damaged or has destroyed a ship, unless it outclassed that ship by far. Not to mention, no matter what ship you fire a photon torpedo from, it will always have the same yield, if it has the same class warhead. A Sabre can be just as effective as say, a Galaxy, if they fired one torpedo each. Sure, they might not be able to fire as many torpedoes, or as fast, however it still has a large enough compliment of torpedoes to take down a ship that is larger than itself.

In the episode where Q is making Captain Picard travel through time, in the future admiral Riker destroys a Klingon battle curser with only one shot.

[Sumoben]

In the episode where Q is making Captain Picard travel through time, in the future admiral Riker destroys a Klingon battle curser with only one shot.

That was something that Q did.. Everything Q does is exaggerated.

[Arcticfrost]

What Q had nothing to do with it

[Arcticfrost]

No, they're not more effective, they're more durable and reliable as transports, or have more room for science equipment if anything.

And seriously, do you honestly think that the US bought F-22s just so the people at a manufacturer could keep their jobs? I highly doubt it. Then again, we had Bush in the top seat.

O come on are you seriously going to argue that a destroyer is better than a battle ship, I think that STO fans are hoping that with superior skills there going to be able to take down some fanatic player with some big galaxy class ship.

[Sumoben]

What Q had nothing to do with it

Q has been known to exaggerate things, and I'm pretty sure that, that specific time line was a fabrication by Q.

[Sumoben]

O come on are you seriously going to argue that a destroyer is better than a battle ship, I think that STO fans are hoping that with superior skills there going to be able to take down some fanatic player with some big galaxy class ship.

Realistically, with good officers and ingenuity, a destroyer can very well take down a Galaxy class. It doesn't take very much for someone to decloak right on top of you and disable your shield generators. In a ingame application, I bet you, that most players won't even know what is going on by the time they're disabled.

[Arcticfrost]

Realistically, with good officers and ingenuity, a destroyer can very well take down a Galaxy class. It doesn't take very much for someone to decloak right on top of you and disable your shield generators. In a ingame application, I bet you, that most players won't even know what is going on by the time they're disabled.

lol ok then, when STO comes out I await destroying you destroyer.

[Arcticfrost]

Realistically, with good officers and ingenuity, a destroyer can very well take down a Galaxy class. It doesn't take very much for someone to decloak right on top of you and disable your shield generators. In a ingame application, I bet you, that most players won't even know what is going on by the time they're disabled.

And again it’s like I said before you can’t take someone’s shield generator out with one or two shots it’s not like TV, I’m sorry.

[Sumoben]

And again it’s like I said before you can’t take someone’s shield generator out with one or two shots it’s not like TV, I’m sorry.

Sure you can, with the shields down, one good torpedo could blow your nacelle off.

[Arcticfrost]

Sure you can, with the shields down, one good torpedo could blow your nacelle off.

nah, dosn't work like that Deflators are still to strong, and depending on how the game runs you could just have you shields up constantly like in every other star trek game.

[Sumoben]

nah, dosn't work like that Deflators are still to strong, and depending on how the game runs you could just have you shields up constantly like in every other star trek game.

No, the deflectors are not strong enough to contain a torpedo's explosion. Also, having the shields up constantly would be a drain on your ship's energy reserves. The game is supposed to be fairly realistic, so I doubt that you can have your shields up constantly without it being a drain on resources.

[MagnusTyrel]

I would like to refer everyone to ds9 during the Dominion war, When Sisco and his fleet engaged the Domion/Cardasain fleet in order to retake ds9 he sent out waves of fighters to attak the cardasian lines to make an opening, the fighters in groups took heavy damage but with there superior agility managed to dodge phaser blasts whilst pelting the larger ship with concentrated fire and destroying some of them...

Although obviously outclassed the smaller ships proved there worth to size and firepower ratio one fighter couldnt hope to beat a cardasian destroyer but a attack wing of 3 to 5 fighters with combined firepower equal to the cardasian destroyer may loose 2 to 3 ships lost in the resulting battle...

[Arcticfrost]

I would like to refer everyone to ds9 during the Dominion war, When Sisco and his fleet engaged the Domion/Cardasain fleet in order to retake ds9 he sent out waves of fighters to attak the cardasian lines to make an opening, the fighters in groups took heavy damage but with there superior agility managed to dodge phaser blasts whilst pelting the larger ship with concentrated fire and destroying some of them...

Although obviously outclassed the smaller ships proved there worth to size and firepower ratio one fighter couldnt hope to beat a cardasian destroyer but a attack wing of 3 to 5 fighters with combined firepower equal to the cardasian destroyer may loose 2 to 3 ships lost in the resulting battle...

Again that’s TV

[Arcticfrost]

No, the deflectors are not strong enough to contain a torpedo's explosion. Also, having the shields up constantly would be a drain on your ship's energy reserves. The game is supposed to be fairly realistic, so I doubt that you can have your shields up constantly without it being a drain on resources.

Play any recent star trek game and you’ll see how the hull is often times stronger than the shields, second you keep taking as if it’s like TV it’s not.

[Sumoben]

Play any recent star trek game and you’ll see how the hull is often times stronger than the shields, second you keep taking as if it’s like TV it’s not.

Like I said before. This is a New Game, with a new developer. Older games do not apply.

[Arcticfrost]

Like I said before. This is a New Game, with a new developer. Older games do not apply.

Nor does the TV show, and all the various game developers end up using the same basic format I don’t see why Cryptic would be any different.

[Sumoben]

Nor does the TV show, and all the various game developers end up using the same basic format I don’t see why Cryptic would be any different.

Many of those space combat Star Trek games were made by Activision, there is no "basic format" except the one they followed themselves.

[Arcticfrost]

Many of those space combat Star Trek games were made by Activision, there is no "basic format" except the one they followed themselves.

Legacy, the newest one was made by Bethesda

[Sumoben]

Legacy, the newest one was made by Bethesda

Read what I said again, I said Many, not All.

[Arcticfrost]

Read what I said again, I said Many, not All.

I know that what I am saying is that many other companies have made star trek games and they too have been the same.

[Vuk]

People are forgetting that this game is suppose to be played in space . So saying that the laws of physics apply. Size is irrelevant in an open space battle . In wide open space with no celestial bodies in the area the only factor becomes thrust , how fast you can apply it . The response of the propulsion system is the only factor . This calculation becomes much more complex as you start to add gravitational fields and bodies that can excert gravitaional fields . Smaller vessels will be much affected by gravitional fields that larger . So saying that a small ship will have the same turning speed as a big ship as well as movement speed . The disadvantage will be how much time will it require to bring its weapons to bear and what kind of punch can it deliver ?

[Mjoellnir]

Oh man, people not that argument again. It's not "easy" to destroy a Battleship with a Destroyer it's "possible" depending on the competence of the captains and some other factors. A Defiant (although it's an escort I argue with it because the other ships don't have a hard classifications) can outmaneuver a Vor'cha but will still need a lot of time to bring it down, time the Klingon can use for methods to counter the maneuverability, and there will certainly be ways to do that. And the Defiant can take a lot for her size, but she's not a Galaxy. So they are relatively evenly matched. The Defiant makes her lack of size and armor up by maneuverability while the Vor'cha has better shields and more hull armor the Defiant has to go through. I always see battlecruisers as Warriors and escorts etc. as rogues. A rogue can never match a warrior in hitpoints or armor, but he makes up for it with the ability to evade strikes, and playing tricks on his opponent.

[Arcticfrost]

Oh man, people not that argument again. It's not "easy" to destroy a Battleship with a Destroyer it's "possible" depending on the competence of the captains and some other factors. A Defiant (although it's an escort I argue with it because the other ships don't have a hard classifications) can outmaneuver a Vor'cha but will still need a lot of time to bring it down, time the Klingon can use for methods to counter the maneuverability, and there will certainly be ways to do that. And the Defiant can take a lot for her size, but she's not a Galaxy. So they are relatively evenly matched. The Defiant makes her lack of size and armor up by maneuverability while the Vor'cha has better shields and more hull armor the Defiant has to go through. I always see battlecruisers as Warriors and escorts etc. as rogues. A rogue can never match a warrior in hitpoints or armor, but he makes up for it with the ability to evade strikes, and playing tricks on his opponent.

That’s a good point and I suppose this is a good way to end the argument, I guess we will just have to wait and see once the game is released.

[LordDave]

People are forgetting that this game is suppose to be played in space . So saying that the laws of physics apply. Size is irrelevant in an open space battle . In wide open space with no celestial bodies in the area the only factor becomes thrust , how fast you can apply it . The response of the propulsion system is the only factor . This calculation becomes much more complex as you start to add gravitational fields and bodies that can excert gravitaional fields . Smaller vessels will be much affected by gravitional fields that larger . So saying that a small ship will have the same turning speed as a big ship as well as movement speed . The disadvantage will be how much time will it require to bring its weapons to bear and what kind of punch can it deliver ?

Incorrect.
In space, ground, anywhere, you have to apply enough thrust to overcome inertia. Inertia is a function of mass, not weight or gravity. On Earth, you also have to worry about friction as well as the force of gravity, if you're applying a force that works opposite gravity. This is why the space shuttle isn't moved by spray cans, but large engines and thrusters.

Now in Star Trek, they still have mass issues at sublight speeds.

Now, in any game, you have the game's physics and turning speed and such. In Bridge Commander, the turning speed and radius for a sovy was much slower then for a bird of prey. This was great for me since I could fly in from behind, hit them a few times, do a loop around, and hit them again at the rear. Sure they could turn, but the larger the ship, the longer it took them to turn 180 degrees.

But this all boils down to play style.
Some people like to hit as hard as they can and take as much damage as possible. Others like to avoid damage, but hit more often and more accurately.

Granted, one on one is almost a suicide mission since the odds of being able to avoid the enemie's fire (as a small but fast ship) long enough to destroy it, is very low compared to the odds that the big ship will score a hit.
However, 3 small ships, all hitting the same spot repeatedly, able to move around faster then you can move to shield the area they're attacking, is a tough fight indeed.

[Flatfingers]

Agility can be seen playing a role in episodes of Star Trek, and it makes a kind of real-world sense that a smaller vessel should be more agile than a big one. So for both those reasons, I was glad to hear Cryptic say that ship-vs-ship combat would reflect that understanding.

It sounds like combat between large ships (anything from a light cruiser on up, I'd expect) will not be like a quick fistfight -- instead, it'll take time (perhaps a few minutes) to resolve, with shield facings and weapon arcs playing a meaningful role. (Just as long as they stop calling that "strategic" combat!)

Having shields that point in only one direction relative to our ship and weapons that don't magically span a firing arc of 360 degrees that means maneuverability (or "agility" as we're calling it here) will matter. We'll need to be able to turn to face or avoid opponents, and being able to turn faster than our opponents will confer a tactical advantage.

So what determines the maneuverability of a space-faring vessel? In the world of Star Trek, that seems to be a function of two things: size and engine count. More specifically, the agility of a vessel looks like a product of the mass of that vessel and the number (and power) of impulse drives it has. Impulse drives are normally about how fast you can go, but in the Star Trek universe they also appear to control maneuverability.

Note: There are also the Reaction Control System (RCS) thrusters, but those seem to have been used more for very fine control in non-combat maneuvering situations.

So: take a small craft (120 meters or less) and mount two or more high-power impulse drives to it, and you should be able to run circles around any large vessel. The Defiant and the Delta Flyer were examples of this.

On the other hand, if you're a big ship with a lot of mass, but you can only afford to mount one impulse drive, chances are good that you're going to have the turn rate of a garbage scow. My advice: invest heavily in shields and shield reinforcements. :) (Most cargo ships and freighters should probably follow this model, but it might be fun to occasionally encounter some fast freighters.)

It'll be interesting to see if Cryptic follows this design philosophy for starships. How many big impulse drives will we be allowed to stick onto a massive hull? It might be fun to take a few less weapons and shields if that means having four impulse drives, allowing even a large ship to be unexpectedly nimble....

--Flatfingers

[Loekii]

Depends. Agility matters offensively for Klingon and Romulan ships, and defensively for Federation ships.

For instance, in ST: Legacy:

A Klingon ship like the Negh'Var has pretty much all of its weapons forward facing, and so it was hard to destroy a small maneuverable ship because it could always stay out of the firing arc of the forward disruptors and phasers. A ship like the Defiant might get pummeled if it slips up and enters the forward firing arc of the Negh'Var, but a skilled Captain that maneuvers the ship behind a Negh'Var can gradually wear down the enemy without being exposed to any sort of substantial fire.

I agree.

The 'agility' of a ship is not its ability to 'dodge' phaser fire, but rather its ability to out turn other ships, thus gaining positional advantage -- ie avoiding deadly weapons arcs, sticking to a weakened shield, etc.

If I recall correctly, PotBs frigates moved fast and out turned the galleons, but they never 'dodged' shots if they got caught in a rake.

[Vuk]

Incorrect.
In space, ground, anywhere, you have to apply enough thrust to overcome inertia. Inertia is a function of mass, not weight or gravity. On Earth, you also have to worry about friction as well as the force of gravity, if you're applying a force that works opposite gravity. This is why the space shuttle isn't moved by spray cans, but large engines and thrusters.
.

Weight is irrelevant in zero gravity . How large ( area wise) a ship is the only factor in this scenerio really , and how the weapons are dispersed on a vessel.

[LordDave]

Weight is irrelevant in zero gravity . How large ( area wise) a ship is the only factor in this scenerio really , and how the weapons are dispersed on a vessel.

Yes, wieght is irrelevant in zero gravity. Weight = Mass * Gravity.
Which is why I said that inertia is a function of mass. Mass is not weight.

Also, surface area is irrelevant in a frictionless environment (or vacuum). A sphere with a size of the moon, but a mass of the space shuttle will take the same amount of energy to move as a sphere the size of a tennis ball, but the mass of the space shuttle.

[Sumoben]

Weight is irrelevant in zero gravity . How large ( area wise) a ship is the only factor in this scenerio really , and how the weapons are dispersed on a vessel.

You forget that in space, there is "space dust" kind of like, Air, invisible, but still there, and denser than air, and your ship has to push against it. The larger your ship, the more surface you have to push against this "space dust" and the more power you need from the engines. Some parts of space have more "space dust" than others.

[The.Grand.Nagus]

I think ambiguity is much more important :o

[LordDave]

You forget that in space, there is "space dust" kind of like, Air, invisible, but still there, and denser than air, and your ship has to push against it. The larger your ship, the more surface you have to push against this "space dust" and the more power you need from the engines. Some parts of space have more "space dust" than others.

While that is a factor, it's almost negligible.

Intertia is an object's tendancy to stay in it's current state of motion.
ie. At rest or Moving in direction X

Newton's first law of motion states:
An Object at rest stays at rest until acted on by an outside force.
An object in motion stays in motion until acted on by an outside force.

[Sumoben]

While that is a factor, it's almost negligible.

Intertia is an object's tendancy to stay in it's current state of motion.
ie. At rest or Moving in direction X

Newton's first law of motion states:
An Object at rest stays at rest until acted on by an outside force.
An object in motion stays in motion until acted on by an outside force.

Well I was trying to put it into laymens terms, for people who do not understand the complexity of mass and inertia. :rolleyes:

[LordDave]

Well I was trying to put it into laymens terms, for people who do not understand the complexity of mass and inertia. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry. It looked like you were talking about friction rather then inertia.

[Flatfingers]

I'm sorry. It looked like you were talking about friction rather then inertia.

I got a little confused by the "space dust," too....

[has the word "heliopause" cued up for deployment if conditions warrant]

--Flatfingers

[Sumoben]

I'm sorry. It looked like you were talking about friction rather then inertia.

Well, you could look at it that way as well, however, I put "space dust" in quote just so like, theres an invisible force that you must push against and theres more surface area on larger ships so you must have more powerful engines to push against it.

[LordDave]

... so like, theres an invisible force that you must push against ...

Is it bad that I immediately thought "The Force?"

[Sumoben]

Is it bad that I immediately thought "The Force?"

No, I like people keeping open minds. Other than the fact that you had to go to Star Wars for it :D

[LordDave]

No, I like people keeping open minds. Other than the fact that you had to go to Star Wars for it :D

lol.
Well I like to think of myself as open minded. I don't discriminate against SW. lol.

[Sumoben]

lol.
Well I like to think of myself as open minded. I don't discriminate against SW. lol.

I don't either, but SW people seem to be SOOO biased against ST it seems. I don't stoop to their level but, to a point.

[Shakari]

I don't either, but SW people seem to be SOOO biased against ST it seems. I don't stoop to their level but, to a point.

Well, I like both equally (I don't count SW 1, 2, and 3 (except backstroke of the west), just the originals). Does that make me odd, then?

[Sumoben]

Well, I like both equally (I don't count SW 1, 2, and 3 (except backstroke of the west), just the originals). Does that make me odd, then?

No.. What made you think that?

[Shakari]

Lol, I ment it half-heartedly. But, do you think that combat will be EvE like (orbit, orbit, orbit) or closer to SWG (complete control with a joystick)? I could see a mix going on, but agility is also how fast a ship can turn.

Fast-small ship = low turn radius ; big-clunky galaxy = large turn radius.

[Vuk]

Lol, I ment it half-heartedly. But, do you think that combat will be EvE like (orbit, orbit, orbit) or closer to SWG (complete control with a joystick)? I could see a mix going on, but agility is also how fast a ship can turn.

Fast-small ship = low turn radius ; big-clunky galaxy = large turn radius.

Kinda like a system that requires a bit of anticipation and fore thought , as well as some reactionary speed . SFC III was fun that way , I'd be interested to play that modified system in 3 demensions .

[LordDave]

Lol, I ment it half-heartedly. But, do you think that combat will be EvE like (orbit, orbit, orbit) or closer to SWG (complete control with a joystick)? I could see a mix going on, but agility is also how fast a ship can turn.

Fast-small ship = low turn radius ; big-clunky galaxy = large turn radius.

I think combat will be more like Bridge Commander.

[DanSeale]

For some it DEFINATELY will be ... for some of us however ...

ummmm

trying to find a politically correct way of saying that we're old and it wont make a dimes worth of difference !

:eek:

[Sumoben]

For some it DEFINATELY will be ... for some of us however ...

ummmm

trying to find a politically correct way of saying that we're old and it wont make a dimes worth of difference !

:eek:

some of us however ... are OlBuzzard (s) =D?

And then theres some of us who are... LilBuzzard (s)? :eek:

[Sumoben]

I think combat will be more like Bridge Commander.

I hope so...........

[MooseOfWoe]

I think combat will be more like Bridge Commander.

I pray that it is. BC had some flaws to be sure, but remains high and above better than every other ST space combat engine combined.

I can tell you agility and clever maneuvering DID matter a great deal in that one - you could take out even the most powerful ships IE: Romulan Warbird with nothing but, say, a Bird of Prey. However, it took forever if you didn't want to get pummeled in to oblivion or RAMMED in the process.

Believe it or not...the space combat was actually for the most part *GASP* balanced as opposed to IR ONE OF FOUR UBER SHIPS = auto win.

Again, maneuvering and choosing the right target (positioning at the right angle, of course) were the keys to success in smaller ships.



Some will argue BC lacked some of the depth akin to the likes of SFC2..although I feel the exact opposite.
BC left less up to chance/random rolls and took luck pretty much out of the equasion in favor of proper maneuvering. Also, it shouldn't have to be said but 3D space combat > 2D space combat. Still, even being proper 3D wasn't enough to save the steaming pile of excrement known as Legacy.

Combat in SFC2 was passable...but still limited. A dumbed down successor SF3, Legacy, and pretty much EVERY-SINGLE-OTHER-ST space combat engine are embarassments and I hope the devs keep faaaaaaaaaar away from such simplistic designs.

[Shakari]

I never did play BC, but I will praise Freelancer till I die. And lately, Legacy.

... Do you think we will be stuck in 3rd person, or rotate, or be stuck inside the bridge, and have to change the view on the main viewer?

[KirksOtherSon]

I never did play BC, but I will praise Freelancer till I die. And lately, Legacy.

... Do you think we will be stuck in 3rd person, or rotate, or be stuck inside the bridge, and have to change the view on the main viewer?

From what's been said, space combat and space travel will all be handled from an exterior view -- at least at game launch.

As far as Bridge Commander goes, try it if you can find a used copy. I hear _rumors_ from certain Ferengi traders (cough cough) that there are copies available out on the internets. Not that I would know anything about bitorrents. No, not me.

KOS