Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Maximillian Bonaparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2012.09.13 22:59:00 -
[1] - Quote
The thing that struck be about Eve when I first began to play is that the distances between celestial is actually correct - everything measures in AU's, all that stuff is really great for immersion.
If there were one thing that I would really like to see changed, one easy little thing, is to have asteroids rotate. In RL all asteroids rotate - some fast, some slow, ALL natural or derelict objects rotate in space.
Perhaps the same scripts that make ship debris rotate (at things like magnetotronic sites) can be applied asteroids.
I would also propose that the destroyed player ship debris clouds are sized to correspond with the ship size, and expand over time.
Finally, and here is the big one...you may or may not noticed that planets do not rotate, stations do not orbit moons, moons do not orbit planets, and planets do not orbit suns. I get the same view in my 'home station' a day from now, a year from now, and 2 years from now!
I have heard some argue that it would be a coding nightmare...well perhaps. Perhaps the celestials can change position during downtime. BUT for gates and stations there are these areas in solar systems called LaGrange points, where the gravitational pull is neutral...certainly this RL mechanic could be used in some way in the game.
I feel that if the game is to evolve eventually celestial orbits will need to be addressed.
Now there is one other issue, and I would appreciate the input. But are the backdrops realistic? Perhaps there ARE areas of space where its just lit up like crazy! We've seen such pictures from the hubble telescope - perhaps this is more of an intellectual discussion rather than a proposal for CCP to change the backdrops in any way. |
Michael MitchellM
Facepunch Industries
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 00:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
I see were you are coming form...
I do not agree that planets and moons should rotate as it would not have any signifigant effect on the game.
However, I do think that Planets and Moons should orbit the sun and so forth. This would make is so people would have to change bookmarks often, and if they are adding the ability to place POSes anywhere in space, it would be interesting if you could put it in orbit around the sun as a planet does.
I dunno, but I do believe that adteriods do actually orbit and move in mining belts... I think that to have moons and planets rotate is a bit meh, but having them acually orbit would be cool. |
Obsidiana
White-Noise
186
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 00:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
The static state of EVE is an old mechanic from a 2003 game. Things should move. Large object lightly at down time. Belts, except for 1.0 and maybe 0.9 space, should be discovered. That spot you saved for mining should expire. Logistics for PI shouldn't be static. Nor should trade routes. Extra long jumps shouldn't always be there, nor should extra short ones. |
Maximillian Bonaparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 01:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hmm extra long jumps vs extra short ones? You mean from solar system to system? Or within system? Or are you talking about some kind of 'stellar drift' that changes how a gate may work? |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
517
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 16:14:00 -
[5] - Quote
While I would like the realism of moving planets, I don't see the need. And even moreso, I really FEAR the implementation...
The thing I fear most, is my BM collection getting very messed up... I spent many, many, many hours creating bookmarks in regions of space I regularly visit, and I know a lot of other people that have too. I use bookmarks to safely move between gates, to rat in asteroid belts, to hide by POS's, for Jump Bridges, to dock, to undock, to safely collect PI, for safespots, for obnoxious safespots, for .... I could go on, but I have thousands of BM's (mostly in null) that I have spent a lot of time making, and they are something I use regularly. I'd be very unhappy if suddenly these all became worthless because someone thought it would be cool to rotate the planetary positions within the solar system. |
Maximillian Bonaparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
47
|
Posted - 2012.09.14 17:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I'd be very unhappy if suddenly these all became worthless because someone thought it would be cool to rotate the planetary positions within the solar system.
Most amusing!
Implementing such a mechanic may result in the loss of less bookmarks than you might think. Esp if every bookmark is anchored relative to any given celestial or station.
The bookmarks in empty space (between gates) could stay where they are. Many gates could stay where they are if they are on stationary Lagrange points. Those gates that are in orbit around planets would have to be consistent with the mechanic though. The gates that do change position would have to be re-oriented to face the proper direction.
Perhaps when you drop a bookmark one could choose between anchoring it to a celestial or dropping it 'free floating'.
You may or may not be aware that station positioning is going to be changed up by CCP sometime in the next year - no anchoring is what I heard. You may loose your bookmarks anyway.
If you follow the principles of gravity then all objects in a solar system are affected by other objects in some way - they all orbit or are affected by orbits.
Anyway - asteroids SHOULD rotate! lol |
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
722
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 00:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
eve is another universe/dimension n which space has the same properties as water. Therefore, eventually, things stop spinning. |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 10:53:00 -
[8] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote: I'd be very unhappy if suddenly these all became worthless because someone thought it would be cool to rotate the planetary positions within the solar system.
Most amusing! Implementing such a mechanic may result in the loss of less bookmarks than you might think. Esp if every bookmark is anchored relative to any given celestial or station.
If its anchored relative to a celestial, its a null change and there is little point. BMs that are created near a non-celestial orbiting object, would expire almost immediately because something orbiting a celestial is moving as many km/s relative to the celestial. That change would effectively mean you couldn't use bookmarks at gates or stations or a pos, if the orbits followed keplers laws. So you would have to have bookmarks relative to *any* object - which in turn makes it a null change to gameplay.
The aesthetic value would be quite nice, its odd that undocking from a station always presents the celestials in the same place. Undocking from Balginia I have always had the sun directly in my eyes, day after day, year after year. It would also mean that inter-gate distances changed with time - which would be cool.
The change applied to asteroid belts (no BM relative to a belt) would be good, and making all belts have to be scanned would improve gameplay, hurt bots, and add a much needed dimension to mining.
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.15 16:09:00 -
[9] - Quote
betoli wrote: BMs that are created near a non-celestial orbiting object, would expire almost immediately because something orbiting a celestial is moving as many km/s relative to the celestial. That change would effectively mean you couldn't use bookmarks at gates or stations or a pos, if the orbits followed keplers laws. So you would have to have bookmarks relative to *any* object - which in turn makes it a null change to gameplay.
Ok, if I am following you correctly I think you mean that since all bookmarks are anchored relative to a station, moon, pos, etc, then it really makes no difference to gameplay after implementation. Yes I think those bookmarks can be saved. Its the ones that are out in the middle of nowhere that cannot (logically) last since they are relative to, well nothing. So safes far away from anything, they might get all jacked up for this.
betoli wrote: The change applied to asteroid belts (no BM relative to a belt) would be good, and making all belts have to be scanned would improve gameplay, hurt bots, and add a much needed dimension to mining.
It sure would hurt bots! However I can already hear the miners screaming bloody murder - plus all their cargo cans might get lost unless they are 'anchored to the field'. |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.16 09:41:00 -
[10] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:
It sure would hurt bots! However I can already hear the miners screaming bloody murder - plus all their cargo cans might get lost unless they are 'anchored to the field'.
oh noes. :-)
Hold on they scream anyway....
|
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2399
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 15:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
The grid system wouldn't fare well with moving celestials. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2399
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 15:48:00 -
[12] - Quote
Obsidiana wrote:That spot you saved for mining should expire.
Why? In 2012 we can predict the orbital paths of most objects within meters. Are you suggesting that our computer couldn't automatically compensate for normal celestial motion in the 17th millenium? The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Maximillian Bonaparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.17 22:11:00 -
[13] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:The grid system wouldn't fare well with moving celestials.
Each grid or bubble near celestials, asteroid fields, and bases would have to move every day.
To be sure it would be a pretty interesting puzzle of trigonometry. A system would go in effect for each celestial object and bookmarks would have to be set on coordinates based on this.
For example, Amarr V, Moon 4 has a bookmark at 21.2 km from its origin at 123.29 by 184.6 degrees. So if moon 4 moves, the bookmark is still on vector(?) 123.29 by 184.6 degrees at 21.2 km.
Same would apply to undocks on stations etc. I would suspect that a 'safe' in the middle of nowhere would have to use the sun as a reference, unless perhaps specified differently by the player.
Maybe Interplanetary Navigation or anchoring should be a skill associated with bookmarking at some level. Earth bookmarked without being anchored would be correct only once a year! |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1310
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 02:08:00 -
[14] - Quote
Technically, all BMs are relative to the local gravitational field.
How CCP would implement such a mechanic I have no idea. The hamsters would not be pleased. |
ugh zug
52
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 05:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
you know what else is missing from eve? rogue planets and systems that are void of an active sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_planet
hard to find inrl but they are there... think i read somewhere that its estimated that there is 2 rogue planets for every star system we have in the galaxy. I'd love to see these planets and sunless systems added into EVE. it's been theorized that the best way to find such systems would be to send out drones that can reproduce themselves to continue the search en mass... basically shots in the dark, when they hit something they broadcast back through the drone chain it's coords. if added to eve, lore wise this could be the origin of rogue drones... deep dark space drone exploration, returning from the dark after eon's of searching. Want me to shut up?-á Send me ISK and i'll stop giving suggestions to CCP that make sense. Remove content from my post, 15 bil. Remove my content from a thread I have started 30bil. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
905
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 08:20:00 -
[16] - Quote
ugh zug wrote:you know what else is missing from eve? rogue planets and systems that are void of an active sun.
... (snip)...
lore wise this could be the origin of rogue drones... deep dark space drone exploration, returning from the dark after eon's of searching. Ummmm... we already have lore regarding Rogue Drones. The Gallente created them by accident (in their efforts to create an automated drone defense fleet) and they broke all efforts the contain them. Laws were then passed to prevent it from happening again.
This also explains why automation on ships is limited.
/digression
Carry on. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 11:32:00 -
[17] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Technically, all BMs are relative to the local gravitational field.
there is no such thing as a 'local gravitational field'. |
Maximillian Bonaparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 16:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
The idea of rogue planets is an interesting one. Even more-so though, that for every star you can see in the sky there are about 4 red dwarf stars that you cannot see! These red dwarf stars are also the oldest of all the stars. Drake himself (you know Drake equation) beleives that there is at least (if not more) as much chances of life existing in these red dwarf systems as any other.
Ok one other thing that gets me and just slightly bothers me...In RL from the orbit of Neptune, and Pluto, our sun looks like a really bright yellow star.
In Eve, when you fly to the outer edges of a system the sun is always the same size and brightness, unless you fly right up to it when its big. What gives? |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 00:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:
How CCP would implement such a mechanic I have no idea. The hamsters would not be pleased.
I dount the hamsters would mind.
I presume currently a bookmark is an absolute coordinate (3 numbers) and a reference system.
With localised bookmarks you would still have 3 numbers, and a reference celestial object. Its only when you need to use the book mark that the fact its a relative coordinate becomes relevent, and you have to add the relative coordinates of the nested orbital system
so for a book mark off station you might have;
absolute_location = location_planet + location_moon + location_station + location_bookmark
The problem arises because a book mark relative to a station moves between you hitting warp-to and actually getting there.... probably by around 1000 KM or so, you actually need to warp to the point that the station *will be*.
The good thing about this new system is that it would prevent station games. As soon as you undock the station would whiz off into the distance far faster than your frigate can fly :-)
tl;dr either it has no game play effect, or all of eves physics needs fixing.
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 03:02:00 -
[20] - Quote
So the guests on the DJ BigCountry show (on Eve-Radio) say that asteroids DO rotate.....uhummm, all of them? |
|
Maximillian Bonaparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 15:11:00 -
[21] - Quote
betoli wrote:[quote=Corina Jarr]
The good thing about this new system is that it would prevent station games. As soon as you undock the station would whiz off into the distance far faster than your frigate can fly :-)
No sir! In RL this doesnt happen because of physics. In Eve the way to get around that is to incrementally change the location of objects during downtime. |
Cyprus Black
Perkone Caldari State
352
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 03:34:00 -
[22] - Quote
Having celestial bodies orbit the sun would be a nice touch, but lets be realistic. The game coding for such a minor change would be incredibly difficult and the game would gain little if anything from such a massive effort.
Excessive bookmarks have been known to be a problem in the past. Implementing such a thing would only exacerbate that. Hijinks of a highsec pirate http://cyprusblack.blogspot.com/ |
Maximillian Bonaparte
The Scope Gallente Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 05:11:00 -
[23] - Quote
Cyprus Black wrote:Having celestial bodies orbit the sun would be a nice touch, but lets be realistic. The game coding for such a minor change would be incredibly difficult and the game would gain little if anything from such a massive effort.
Excessive bookmarks have been known to be a problem in the past. Implementing such a thing would only exacerbate that.
I disagree about excessive bookmarks - especially if it takes some skill to mark them. HOWEVER, the thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of existing bookmarks would be...a challenge?
|
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 17:31:00 -
[24] - Quote
Maximillian Bonaparte wrote:Cyprus Black wrote:Having celestial bodies orbit the sun would be a nice touch, but lets be realistic. The game coding for such a minor change would be incredibly difficult and the game would gain little if anything from such a massive effort.
Excessive bookmarks have been known to be a problem in the past. Implementing such a thing would only exacerbate that. I disagree about excessive bookmarks - especially if it takes some skill to mark them. HOWEVER, the thousands, or maybe tens of thousands, of existing bookmarks would be...a challenge?
probably 10's of millions. Fortunately computers are good at this sort of thing and should be able to crank it in about 30 minutes.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |