Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 15:09:00 -
[31]
Too hard to balance IMO. You're going to have to give base hulls insane speed to make it work out which would result in cruisers carrying frig gear and doing 1km/s on AB and crazy stuff like that.
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 15:11:00 -
[32]
but only by nerfing their damage and tank
so y not use a frigate, that would go faster anyway, fit the same modules, and get bonuses to those modules
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 15:22:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Okoru I like the idea proposed by HippoKing. Would make a lot of sense imo, it also would help deal with the oversized plates issue. :D
-
What issue? That people sacrifice a ****load of grid and cpu for something which in many situations dosn't help? (Frex, a Claw and Ares killed 2 plated Ruptures...)
Removing them would, again, utterly nerf the viability of many ships and further reduce the viable setups. I'm tired of seeing the number of viable setups nerfed.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 15:23:00 -
[34]
Originally by: HippoKing can't u guys give the science and rest, and think about the GAMEplay implications of my suggestion?
Yea.
I have no wish spending 2 hours with a calculator working out setups. Sorry.
"Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted." |
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 16:00:00 -
[35]
Quote: Speed=(propulsion strength/mass) x 10^(something that makes it come out at the same speeds as now)
Can't be done dynamically, really. Also, drones weigh about one five-hundredth of a frigate.
However this idea do hold considerable amount of water when you consider it in a static implementation. This means that the ship is assigned a mass value and a base speed much like an indy is assigned a "dynamic" cargohold. I do like it that way. Weight reduction modules: Nano Fibers Inertia Stabilizers Overdrive Injectors (actually, they increase propulsion, not decrease weight)
Notable weight increasers: 1600mm Plates Expanded Cargoholds (increases percentually) Webbifiers
I like the idea, but I dislike strongly that it is to be anywhere near an incentive to run setups with empty slots. EVE ships aren't rigged for that to begin with. --
I'm in to murder, arson, and pillaging. I differe from a soldier in nothing but name and allegience. |
Baldeschwiler
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 16:14:00 -
[36]
You know what I never understood about this.... Aren't things weightless in space? I understand things have mass, but who cares. If it weighs nothing then shouldn't you be able to send it as fast as you want.
|
HippoKing
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 16:17:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Baldeschwiler You know what I never understood about this.... Aren't things weightless in space? I understand things have mass, but who cares. If it weighs nothing then shouldn't you be able to send it as fast as you want.
we already had the page on science. leave it out
|
O'Sirius
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 21:32:00 -
[38]
Weight has no meaning in space, the mass however determines how hard it is to accelarate the object and how hard its going to be to stop it once its accelarated. The top speed is going to be governed by how much resistance the space you're traveling through offers. Despite popular belief, space does have bunch of atoms flying around in it, and those do slow you down. The faster you go, the harder they hit you, the more energy you need to be able to overcome their strengh and go even faster. Not quite sure why the light speed is a constant you cannot go faster then though ( or can in EVE ). Anyway, since we can never go faster then light speed and the nearest star to the Solar System is 4 light years away, we are all DOOMED.
PS: Sorry to talk about science, but a game thats totally unrealistic is no fun. Fortinatly EVE is currently realistic enough, I'ld rather not see anymore fantasy in it.
|
Roche Pso
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 22:47:00 -
[39]
To the people who have said a few km/s is way too fast to cope with hitting dust etc...
You might want to consider the shuttle orbits at 35,000 km/h or 9.7 km/s, and geostationary orbit requires 11,000 km/h or 3 km/s.
|
Malacore
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 22:56:00 -
[40]
It seems overly complicated for simple movement.
|
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 23:08:00 -
[41]
Originally by: O'Sirius Not quite sure why the light speed is a constant you cannot go faster then though
E=MC^2, basically :P Not sure how the derivation works from first principles but the effect is that the faster you go the more energy you have, and the more energy you have the more mass you have. The more mass you have the harder it is to accelerate. With a massed particle, at the point where you hit light speed you have infinite mass, which is impossible to achieve; more to the point, to get from the point just before light speed to light speed itself, you have very nearly infinite mass and require very nearly infinite energy to accelerate any further.
|
Dimitri Forgroth
|
Posted - 2005.09.10 23:18:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Dimitri Forgroth on 10/09/2005 23:22:19 And if you *did* reach the speed of light, erm, well, it gets kinda odd. Basically you'd stop experiencing time, and would only feel time again until you left that speed. You could go across the universe in a second of time for you, but for earth, billions of years would have passed.
But the thing is, as you experience no time, there would be no way to escape from that speed. So the only way you'd escape that speed is hitting something? I think. And if you hit something, at the speed of light.. that's a lot of energy. Boom.
My random addition to off topic talk for the night.
Don't be a bad loser | DPS Spreadsheet |
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2005.09.11 00:16:00 -
[43]
we're talking a few hundred miles/hour for cruisers in the game. That seems a bit off.. whatever.
Look at the size of these ships. Can you imagine moving ships this big with our current technology at these rates of accelerations? Nevermind the unlimited fuel.
It's simple. Non-warp drives work just like warp-drives.. you have some kinda something that bends space around you, moving you forward. The trails from your engines are exhaust from this system caused by your ship .. uh.. moving forward that makes it look like jet engine trails. Doing this you could say that volume is the key factor in deciding just how fast your ship is moving.. or I'm sure some creative person can figure out some reason why mass would make it hard to move your ship
otherwise the rate of acceleration shouldn't change. Battleships could reach hundreds of thousands of KM/s in little time. It just wouldn't work..
can you imagine the energy required to turn a ship as large as a battleship at full speed? the amount of fuel required to move it? it would be nearly impossible..
anyways, i like the idea the original poster had. ________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
O'Sirius
|
Posted - 2005.09.11 00:23:00 -
[44]
Well, nuclear and fusion reactions can release amazing amounts of energy, so I don't think moving battleships at their current speeds is as hard as bending spacetime as needed by warpdrives.
|
YoMammas Pants
|
Posted - 2005.09.11 04:20:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Dimitri Forgroth Edited by: Dimitri Forgroth on 10/09/2005 23:22:19 And if you *did* reach the speed of light, erm, well, it gets kinda odd. Basically you'd stop experiencing time, and would only feel time again until you left that speed. You could go across the universe in a second of time for you, but for earth, billions of years would have passed.
Yay special relativity!
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.09.11 15:25:00 -
[46]
Eve warpdrives don't use spatial distortion, they use rarified vacuum or something - see Backstory
|
Jerod Nox
|
Posted - 2005.09.16 12:09:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Hllaxiu
Originally by: Jerod Nox
The ships in eve already exceed any reasonable safe speed.
You might want to tell NASA that, escape velocity for Earth relative to Earth is about 11km/sec - under current eve propulsion rules I do not believe that speed is possible. If Voyager 1 and 2 can do it then even the most uh, Minmatar of the Minmatar ships can handle those speeds just fine.
Anyways, you think that something can take a hit from a very large callibre antimatter round travelling at over .9c and that a little spec of dust not even travelling .0001c is going to make a dent?
First, I knew this would be brought up...
Several problems with this arguement spring to mind.. first is that NASA does not infact fire things off the planet at escape velocity.. we use rockets, not projectiles. Any sort of constant acceleration higher than 10 meters per second will defeat gravity and get you off this rock.
Second, NASA does not put up large spacecraft. The danger (ie, probability of ramming into space gravel) is inversely proportional to the volume of space that you sweep.
If the Amarr Executioner's volume (28100 m3) was shaped like a sphere then that sphere would have a diameter of about 38 meters. The volume of space such a sphere would sweep when traveling at 5km/second is approximately 5.7 million cubic meters per second, 20.5 billion cubic meters per hour, or 180 trillion cubic meters per year.
Imagine a cubic area of space 2.7km long on each side. The 5km/sec spherical executioner is gambling that within this cube not a single bit of matter exists that is massive enough to punch a hole through its hull at that velocity. Its taking this gamble every single hour that its in flight at that speed.
The life expectancy of even small probes launched from earth intent on traveling quickly to other parts of the solar system is rather grim in practice. I can think of 5 probes in the last decade that, for lack of a better explanation, met the fate of which I speak.
Nox - Superior technology is superior choice.
|
Rakshaza
|
Posted - 2005.09.16 12:32:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Joerd Toastius Eve warpdrives don't use spatial distortion, they use rarified vacuum or something - see Backstory
oooh yea, Liquid Vacuum 4tw.
|
Mangus Thermopyle
|
Posted - 2005.09.16 12:35:00 -
[49]
Originally by: HippoKing My suggestion is this: change the way speed is caculated.
At the moment, speed is a set value, and only the effect of MWD/AB is affected by mass.
Personally, i would rather have a "propulsion strength" statistic (this already exists, but use it now ). Each ship has a mass and a propulstion strength.
Speed=(propulsion strength/mass) x 10^(something that makes it come out at the same speeds as now) _____
ok - that makes no real difference at the moment, but wait: theres more!
give modules a mass. each module you fit increases your mass (except some, like nanos) this mass is a set value, not a %.
this would give a bigger advantage to fitter smaller guns (more speeeeed) and make setups with EMPTY slots viable.
finally, imagine what would happen when you tried to fit a huge armor plate... u would become hard, but SLOOOOOOOOOOW (thats what 1.6m of reinforced steel does to you)
You forget one thing: you need some resistance, or else the topspeed will be unlimited.
Check out this thread for how you could get real physics and maintain the gameplay issues.
That thread also has some ideas for new features based on the improved physics (space could with altered physics, space debris missiles, etc).
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |