Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Spurty
Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:41:00 -
[31]
Hi, I'm completely mad as well.
I vote CCP removes local AND the overview.
What could be BAD about that in a Universe of 'BLACKNESS' with ships that do not emit any 'LIGHT' bright enough to be seen further than 30km away? (assuming all ships have portable LIGHT HOUSES fitted to their roofs).
Get over yourself needing this, you are IN the game, not watching Starwars / Startrek or whatever Sci-fi TV show.
If you want to see ships, go play R-Type
Originally by: Hurley I WAS NOT QUITTING SoT AND WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT JOINING IT. PL/SoT MADE A MISTAKE AND ARE NOT MAN ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT OR FIX IT.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:45:00 -
[32]
If you reduce the field of view, the little dots in the distance suddenly become visually exciting ships. You can't see the whole field of battle of course, but you can get a nice cinematic experience of your tackler frigate zipping around the huge bulk of that battleship.
[Aussie players: join channel ANZAC] |
Captain Futur3
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:48:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Spurty Hi, I'm completely mad as well.
I vote CCP removes local AND the overview.
What could be BAD about that in a Universe of 'BLACKNESS' with ships that do not emit any 'LIGHT' bright enough to be seen further than 30km away? (assuming all ships have portable LIGHT HOUSES fitted to their roofs).
Get over yourself needing this, you are IN the game, not watching Starwars / Startrek or whatever Sci-fi TV show.
If you want to see ships, go play R-Type
The typical response of a fanboy defendig his precious As said, if CCP yould have made it in the first release, you would say something similar when i would suggest to make it the way we have it now.
|
Kolo Matoska
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:50:00 -
[34]
The argument that ranges should be longer because theres nothing to stop your weapons is flawed. You can shoot at something no matter how far away it is, provided you can target it. The thing is, your ship's computer can't accurately predict the object's course beyond a certain range, usually a few km beyond your optimal. So you miss. Obviously, with missiles, they simply run out of fuel before they reach the target. In the real world, these dead missiles would still be dangerous, but writing that into a game would be extremely difficult and make missiles overpowered.
Other than wasting ammo, there is nothing stopping you from shooting at things as soon as they're in targeting range.
|
Genya Arikaido
|
Posted - 2009.11.30 23:56:00 -
[35]
How about a simple graphics trick....give the players the option to use oversized ship models at a certain range instead of the little crosses?
|
Sandman Contra
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 00:06:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Spurty Hi, I'm completely mad as well.
I vote CCP removes local AND the overview.
What could be BAD about that in a Universe of 'BLACKNESS' with ships that do not emit any 'LIGHT' bright enough to be seen further than 30km away? (assuming all ships have portable LIGHT HOUSES fitted to their roofs).
Get over yourself needing this, you are IN the game, not watching Starwars / Startrek or whatever Sci-fi TV show.
If you want to see ships, go play R-Type
Hahaha. I loved the R-Type part.
I agree. You're IN game. A hollywood movie is different than doing something. There are plenty of arcade simulators with big spaceships out there. Eve is not it.
That's like comparing Ace Combat to a Jane's game like JSF Fighter. One is almost a near simulation and one is an arcade style airplane game. Two different purposes for two different audiences.
|
Captain Futur3
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 00:23:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Captain Futur3 on 01/12/2009 00:24:30 maybe, but still its cool. And even when you dont think so, there are so many areas in the game which are not possible or completely unrealistic, that argueing on that level makes you look a bit strange. Its like if you are saying that its unrealistic that all species in star wars can speak "humanish" while you are ignoring thousand of other, way more unrealistic, parts like traveling with over light speed or the "force". I can understand that you dont want it for some reason, but your arguements are still fail because the whole range ssystem is flawed anyway. Every weapon would be able to shoot a static target even out of thousands of kilometers and drones wouldnt be able to shoot at a target anyway, because if you look at them, the projectile is coming 90 degrees out of the barrel. Man i could tell you so many areas which are more broken than reducing the range number, that you wouldnt touch eve any more if you are really that fixed in your "everything must be realistic world".
|
Sandman Contra
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 00:32:00 -
[38]
Eve is not a simulator, but there is logic behind a lot of the science. If you read some of the backstory and all it explains how the faster than light travel is possible and it breaks it down into something believable actually. It's not just thrown together.
While it's not a simulator, it does a decent job at explaining itself as to why things work the way they do. I don't think my argument "fails". Lot of physics are involved that can get pretty complex when you look at the calculations. Compare this with someone's wish to make Eve a playable Hollywood movie and you tell me who fails.
|
Captain Futur3
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 00:36:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Sandman Contra Eve is not a simulator, but there is logic behind a lot of the science. If you read some of the backstory and all it explains how the faster than light travel is possible and it breaks it down into something believable actually. It's not just thrown together.
While it's not a simulator, it does a decent job at explaining itself as to why things work the way they do. I don't think my argument "fails". Lot of physics are involved that can get pretty complex when you look at the calculations. Compare this with someone's wish to make Eve a playable Hollywood movie and you tell me who fails.
My point is that you are fixed to a number inside the game set by some game developers and you argueing that these numbers are written in stone by god and his physics and that reducing these numbers for some cool graphical changes will make the whole game stupid. How comes that you know that the CCP values are correct in terms of physics? Are the values tested in space? Thats my point. Nothing more.
|
Makar Kravchenko
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 13:00:00 -
[40]
CCP Seem to have captured the ability to render 3d scenes in seperate windows, layered one on top of the other. The idea of adding 3d realtime target icons (customizable size? option on or off.) is actually pretty neat, and feasible. |
|
|
CCP StevieSG
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 13:02:00 -
[41]
Moved to Features and Ideas from EVE General.
|
|
Gordon Fell
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 13:15:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Gordon Fell on 01/12/2009 13:16:06
Originally by: Rumba Purring Edited by: Rumba Purring on 30/11/2009 20:49:44 I agree this is a 'gap' in EVE gaming experience, and here's my idea to address it. (I guess this thread may now be moved to 'Features' section.)
When you acquire target lock on enemy ships, in stead of getting a small static icon, have a little larger window pop up that show a live image of the targeted ship at appropriate zoom. So for example, if you have 4 ships targeted, you'd get 4 little windows, each showing live image of one of 4 ships acquired by targeting system cameras.
This way, you can tell which direction yours target ships are flying with respect to your ship, what weapons they are firing, and even how they are configured if they are T3 ships, etc.
This would put extra burden on CPU/GPU, and yes, it would work best if you have a large monitor.
But it would be awesome.
Yeah, I've seen this work well in e.g. the Tie Fighter games, but to be honest the distance in that game was already pretty short under most circumstances.
|
OzDeaDMeaT
Gallente The Goodies
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 13:19:00 -
[43]
I'd settle for a flight data recorder that you could play back later with a free motion camera. Would be WAY easier for us players to show off how freaking awesome this game looks and plays. Eve-au.com News Reporter |
Dr Karsun
Gallente HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 13:30:00 -
[44]
No, I think tht the balance is perfect as it is.
The battleships are the right size, it's just that the smaller class ships like frugs and cruisers appear really tiny compared to the bs, it's hard to spot those even if you'r in a bc, not to mention a bs.
I enjoy really nice battles my self, I turn all brackets off, use only the overview with enemies marked, nothing more. Great effects.
The problem is that there are a lot of dark, dark system, on that kind of background it's amazingly hard to spot a black ship. If you visit brighter systems (some wh systems for example) it's not a problem to spot a lot of models. It's not the size, range or speed problem, it's the background.
But supposedly new backgrounds will be introduced now, so maybe, just maybe it'll be good :)
Keep the sizes as they are, they are perfect. A frig should be smaller than a bs thruster, keep it that way. If you want more eye contact, fly frigs, then the bs seem so... huge :)
Making custom signatures and banners - check my in-game bio for details!
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 15:50:00 -
[45]
animated icons representing ships you have lock to would solve the problem - maybe deactivateable by a game setting. Make them bigger(variable via setting maybe) and render the targets in the boxes, where only the ship icons currently are.
|
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 15:53:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Morgals
I want to see my target(not with look at) and myself exchanging blows. I want to visually ID that battle ship rahter than it being a big cross.
Play WOW?
Really, space is huge, I really like that about EVE, at long distances you only see dots and combat tactical overlays.
Making ships HUGE so you can see them visally form 100 000 m is kind of stupid thing to do. You can see ships close up if you actually fly very close, and thats good.
Seeing ships from many many km away makles no sense. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Cordith D'Salah
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 16:18:00 -
[47]
You all realize that before any of the size issues can be addressed you'd have to fix the speed issues.. The ships in EVE move HORRIBLY slow even for our current aircraft speeds.
Converting to EVE speeds, a 747(the airliner) cruises at about 254m/s sooo, a plane full of tourists can outrun the cruisers in this game.... and the space shuttle orbits at 7800 m/s.. And that Battleship you put around in at a blazing 90m/s is slower than a delimited BMW M5 (with optional baby seat)...
So I don't think you can fix the size issue without fixing a lot of things. Maybe have a free floating camera that you can zoom (think battlestar galactica).
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 16:24:00 -
[48]
lol yes, you're right. A BS slower than a family car is really an issue. The fact ships drop speed after an AB boost is even more an issue!
|
Esiel
Renegade Serenity
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 16:51:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Esiel on 01/12/2009 16:51:52 For those of you asking for 'bigger' ships I don't think you realize how big the ships you are flying really are. I did a ship comparison and it blew my mind at their size. After that I thought the ships were too big as it was, look how big a frigate is and it only gets larger from there.
Ship size is not the issue, and the problem is more than just range. There are no dogfights or frigates skimming over the surface of a dreadnaught for many reasons.
☼ - We don't use a twitch based combat system. So we don't fly around chasing each other we just orbit.
☼ - Fired shots just pass through every other ship and obstacle except the one you are targeting.
☼ - You can't take out strategic points (aka star wars, flying across the death star shooting up crap on the surface with your x-wing) So its just target lock and shoot.
So if you want the weaving in and out you will have to change the way the system works.
...
Beat the dead horse |
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:00:00 -
[50]
I think the wrong perception of sizes is because of - the sick camera FOV in eve, where cruisers look as big as motherships - lack of inertia. Its just looks horrible when a BS bounces other objects like a rubber toy.
Add much more inertia and change the FOV in order to fix the bad feeling for eve spaceships.
|
|
Bomberlocks
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:24:00 -
[51]
Actually, I would like an EVE client that has no graphics at all, just the brackets, and symbols. Pros: Much, less confusing stuff and you would be able to play Eve on your smartphone. You also won't have to look at the eyesore camo patterns on the Navy ships. Cons: No ships that you never see anyway.
- Amarr-online: The game that CCP really wants you to play. |
Larinioides cornutus
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 17:46:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Bomberlocks Actually, I would like an EVE client that has no graphics at all, just the brackets, and symbols. Pros: Much, less confusing stuff and you would be able to play Eve on your smartphone. You also won't have to look at the eyesore camo patterns on the Navy ships. Cons: No ships that you never see anyway.
You know just like how I really want for this idea to come through, the best lite client of all, I simply know that CCP, which's so proud of their graphics that they refuse to admit their new sebo effect is foobar, shall never let this go through. Think about it, after you play for like a month or if you begin to pvp you'd start using this client. That mean they'd realize that 399 out of 400 employees they have dont really make much useful contents. Thus this idea shall never reach a decision maker of CCP who most likely never play eve to begin with and will readily fire redundant ppl and what not.
|
Captain Futur3
|
Posted - 2009.12.01 18:02:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Dr Karsun No, I think tht the balance is perfect as it is.
The battleships are the right size, it's just that the smaller class ships like frugs and cruisers appear really tiny compared to the bs, it's hard to spot those even if you'r in a bc, not to mention a bs.
I enjoy really nice battles my self, I turn all brackets off, use only the overview with enemies marked, nothing more. Great effects.
The problem is that there are a lot of dark, dark system, on that kind of background it's amazingly hard to spot a black ship. If you visit brighter systems (some wh systems for example) it's not a problem to spot a lot of models. It's not the size, range or speed problem, it's the background.
But supposedly new backgrounds will be introduced now, so maybe, just maybe it'll be good :)
Keep the sizes as they are, they are perfect. A frig should be smaller than a bs thruster, keep it that way. If you want more eye contact, fly frigs, then the bs seem so... huge :)
This is only true for their maximum speed. In close combat (speaking of a distance of several km) the ships will never reach high speeds or they would become absolutely unmaneuverable. Its like if you try to move a skysk****r in an area of lets say 50km in each side with a high speed. I really think that the speeds are quite fast for the big ships in eve. Maybe not the maximum speeds, but for them, i think the warp is what you are looking for.
Maybe one solution for cool dogfights would be to make short range weapons more useful. For missions for example, they are totally crap in comparison for long range weapons. A strong buff on close range weapons would maybe help out (short range <= 10km). I one day, calculated the dps of weapons of the same kind (railgun for example) and i came to the conclusion, that the dps is way better on the long range version. The same for the blasters too.
|
Pesets
The Hunt Club
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 15:28:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Pesets on 02/12/2009 15:35:46 Having the target so far away you can barely see it gives the unique feel of scale in space, and Eve is the only game i know that gets it right. That's one thing i personally seriously love about it. Besides, you can get visual contact in game, if you fight in close range. It isn't terribly hard, especially in missions where you can easily outrun the rats even with afterburning battleship.
Yea, and simply making the models twice as big won't help much. You'd have to make them at least ten times bigger if you want it to start looking like Homeworld. At that point the models will cut into each other during a close-range fight. Hell, a group of ships sufficiently close to each other will start shooting through each other. It will look pretty ugly, and get old quite fast too.
It would definitely be cool to have a real-time rendered target icons though.
Originally by: Captain Futur3 Maybe one solution for cool dogfights would be to make short range weapons more useful. For missions for example, they are totally crap in comparison for long range weapons. A strong buff on close range weapons would maybe help out (short range <= 10km). I one day, calculated the dps of weapons of the same kind (railgun for example) and i came to the conclusion, that the dps is way better on the long range version. The same for the blasters too.
Did you take the rate of fire into account? Because the dps (the average damage over time) is always higher for close-range weapon systems in Eve, and significantly so (except with rockets, which are broken atm).
|
Vincent Gaines
Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 15:30:00 -
[55]
I'd like to see instead of the static picture of what you are targetting, to have a shot of it as if a camera drone was looking at it. The window might ahve to be made slightly larger but would look great.
|
Captain Futur3
|
Posted - 2009.12.02 15:38:00 -
[56]
Quote: Did you take the rate of fire into account? Because the dps (the average damage over time) is always higher for close-range weapon systems in Eve, and significantly so except with rockets, which are broken atm.
sure i did, and the damage of a 250mm railgun is much higher than a 150mm railgun. The dps of a blaster is higher than a railgun, but a long range blaster has higher damage than a short range blaster. Just take a calculator and do it yourself (at least i did it for blasters and railguns, no idea if its different for other weaponsystems). Conclusion: i would be an idiot if i would fit my ship for close range combat.
|
Pesets
The Hunt Club
|
Posted - 2009.12.04 06:34:00 -
[57]
Blasters do more damage than railguns, and are sufficiently close-range that you can see the enemy ships (even if you're using the "long range" blasters). They also use less fitting. Lighter blasters give up some range and damage, in exchange for better tracking and even easier fitting, and still do nearly twice as much damage as the heaviest railguns. I'm not sure what your point is.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |