Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
wopolusa
The Southern Legion Final Resolution.
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 12:35:00 -
[1] - Quote
So firstly, before any jimmies get rustled, EVE may work like it does purely due to engine limitations and if that is the case then so be it.
Problem(though it's more of a missed opportunity than a problem) So currently everything about EVE is created to give a sense of up and down. stations, acceleration gates and even your ships are positioned to give us a sense of direction as we play. But as you know space is quite the opposite to our Earth-based assumptions that everything must have an up and down. And it's not that it doesn't work like it is. But I feel there's that lack of immersion and confusion that space brings. Everything can feel a bit flattened out at times. At least for me.
Solution: -Hence I'd suggesting, for a start, removing the camera limitations. The camera should be able to be flipped and spun beyond the 180 degree (or more like 175) arc that it currently can in any 'direction'. -And Beyond that Changing a lot of the entities like stations to not all sit in this 'correct' vertical position would add to give a bit less of a sense of direction to players. -Finally, and the most controversial of all would be to give ships pitch and roll, beyond their automatic settings as they are now. Even if it was as basic as automatically associating the top of the ship to face the direction you are turning.
Questions? Improvements? Hate? Am I missing something awfully obvious? Lets hear it |
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
2374
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 12:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Why? "Confirming EVE is hot, batshit crazy, and puts out." -Omar Alharazaad "CAKE CANNOT HOLD UP TO BEING A CHARACTER DAMNIT." --áUnsuccessful At Everything |
Grobalobobob Bob
Hedion University Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 12:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
175
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 12:44:00 -
[4] - Quote
Yes, yes, yes, SHIP ROLL!
This will fix most of it, even if the camera stays the same.
Sorry for caps, was too excited - need to clean the desk now . Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
6969
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 13:12:00 -
[5] - Quote
Grobalobobob Bob wrote:+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down.
'Science fiction space' does have an up and down. EVE has an up and down because disorienting your video game players would be a stupid business decision lol. EVE is a game, but not a simulation.
|
Komi Toran
Perkone Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 13:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:'Science fiction space' does have an up and down. Only if there's an enemy gate.
Jenn aSide wrote: EVE has an up and down because disorienting your video game players would be a stupid business decision lol. Disorienting? Wha? I have to question as to whether you've ever played a space sim game. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
177
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 13:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:'Science fiction space' does have an up and down. EVE has an up and down because disorienting your video game players would be a stupid business decision lol. EVE is a game, but not a simulation.
=False, it is what you make of it. One day it might even be simulating space correctly, your objections won't and luckily, so far, there are none.
There is no need for up and down besides the tactical and the internal orientation, where does it say the player gets disoriented, spinning eternally 360 on the xy plane is already possible, why not in the 3rd dimension. Rolling a ship into the opposite direction is less dizzying then station spinning with 3600rpm. It takes nothign and adds a lot.
From teh roleplaying aspect, Id love to roll the 'undamaged' side into the fire, protecting the burned one while trying to escape or tank with my hull trying to get my opponent first.
I really do not understand your reservations. Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Bohneik Itohn
Amarrian Salvage Gnomes and Associates
431
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 13:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Simple compromise to make everyone happy: Make it so it can be toggled.
Add another button to the camera radial menu that unlocks the camera and removes the ship's desire to orient itself to zero point alignment.
Everyone is happy, no significant mechanics changes need to be made. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
wopolusa
The Southern Legion Final Resolution.
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 13:53:00 -
[9] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote:Simple compromise to make everyone happy: Make it so it can be toggled.
Add another button to the camera radial menu that unlocks the camera and removes the ship's desire to orient itself to zero point alignment.
Everyone is happy, no significant mechanics changes need to be made.
This is definitely an option that could work. After all it wont make any major changes to a fight or to pve/mining you name it. The only situation I can see it being limiting is that full rotation would be quicker in situations where currently if you try 'somersault' your ship it tries to make your ship roll and then continue dropping the nose rather than flipping entirely.
|
Bohneik Itohn
Amarrian Salvage Gnomes and Associates
432
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 14:04:00 -
[10] - Quote
The only thing it changes is that you would be able to align to an object and stop your ship while still being aligned when you start moving again. This is something that has needed to be done for a very, very long time because having to fly towards an object to maintain alignment is just stupid, and causes a lot of awkward moments in fleets. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
|
Lan Wang
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
21
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 14:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Grobalobobob Bob wrote:+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down.
Space has no pirates and jump portals either |
wopolusa
The Southern Legion Final Resolution.
8
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 14:08:00 -
[12] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Grobalobobob Bob wrote:+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down. Space has no pirates and jump portals either
Yet ;)
|
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
178
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 14:14:00 -
[13] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Grobalobobob Bob wrote:+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down. Space has no pirates and jump portals either
As you are aware of Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
1151
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 14:28:00 -
[14] - Quote
it would actuall look cool if the stations "down" would face the planet/ moon it is circling and not the side that is down on the system map. Stupidity should be a bannable offense.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
Bohneik Itohn
Amarrian Salvage Gnomes and Associates
432
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 14:36:00 -
[15] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:it would actuall look cool if the stations "down" would face the planet/ moon it is circling and not the side that is down on the system map.
This has always bothered me. The stations should be oriented by the relation of their center of mass to the body they are orbiting, unless they are located within a Lagrangian point in which case it would make sense from an engineering standpoint to orient the dock towards the stargate with the heaviest amount of traffic for convenience and safety. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
178
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 14:39:00 -
[16] - Quote
Debora Tsung wrote:it would actuall look cool if the stations "down" would face the planet/ moon it is circling and not the side that is down on the system map. There is not particular reason for why a station should have a down (besides that some models look like it like some Gallente and others don't like Amarr) and if or if it is not oriented to the center of the planetoid. I believe they can orient themselves however they want or rather what makes engineeringly sense. They are not extensions of the planetoid like space elevators, they just 'orbit'. And in regards to other object, they usually orbit or cricle with their top or side (depending on how menauvering and propulsion works) I have never witnessed (reality and scifi) such thing with the 'aft' or 'belly' towards the orbited object.
Just saying, they can, they do not have to. Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
810
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 14:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
seriously? With all the things that could be fixed and/or added you want the devs to spend the time to unpick the code just so you can spin your ship in the third axis and reposition all space based structures so they either have "down" pointing at the nearest gravity well or just have everything randomly positioned?
Really?
Jees. I'm just glad you have next to no input into what CCP actually do for their customers.
It's a "nice" idea in theory but would give almost no practical use. Every time this has been discussed in the past the conclusion has been that it's way too much old code unscrambling and that at some point, when they have other more useful reasons to unpick the code, this would eventually get done but hell, purposing devs purely to do this would just be plain dumb.
The list of things that are more productive for CCP to do for the game is a very long list indeed.
That said, don't let me stop you discussing how cool it would be. |
Bohneik Itohn
Amarrian Salvage Gnomes and Associates
432
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 14:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Debora Tsung wrote:it would actuall look cool if the stations "down" would face the planet/ moon it is circling and not the side that is down on the system map. There is not particular reason for why a station should have a down (besides that some models look like it like some Gallente and others don't like Amarr) and if or if it is not oriented to the center of the planetoid. I believe they can orient themselves however they want or rather what makes engineeringly sense. They are not extensions of the planetoid like space elevators, they just 'orbit'. And in regards to other object, they usually orbit or cricle with their top or side (depending on how menauvering and propulsion works) I have never witnessed (reality and scifi) such thing with the 'aft' or 'belly' towards the orbited object. Just saying, they can, they do not have to.
They can, but in order to maintain an orientation against the gravitational bias of the station extra equipment would be needed and the ability to fuel or propel the equipment.
Equipment fails and causes problems, and problems are bad enough when they aren't in space. Fuel costs add up over time and it quickly becomes more expensive to keep the station oriented against the gravitational bias than it does to originally place it or move it to a gravitationally neutral position
Tchulen wrote: *Ranty Snip*
Yep, really.
OP has been deemed a useful suggestion, and would be pretty damn easy from a coding standpoint. So don't try to act like it's a waste of time.
The rest of this is born out of the fact that there is no discussion to be had on what the OP suggested. It just needs to be done. If you don't have enough of a neckbeard to contribute to the discussion of station orientation feel free to not contribute in any way at all. The rest of us would appreciate it. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
wopolusa
The Southern Legion Final Resolution.
9
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 15:10:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tchulen, you know fair enough. While I'm sure a lot of players will notice/use this. There's more important things that can be implemented quicker and by all means they should take priority but at some point this could become a feature worth implementation.
What I enjoy in this game is authenticity and growing trust among other players, other's are interested in competitiveness, making the most isk or just outright trolling others.
So it seems silly to you. But to me something like this is kind of a big deal, though that's not to say you can't argue it's stupid. One to their own. |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
810
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 15:16:00 -
[20] - Quote
Bohneik Itohn wrote:OP has been deemed a useful suggestion, and would be pretty damn easy from a coding standpoint. So don't try to act like it's a waste of time. Seeing as how you have no idea what their code looks like you simply can't state that it's "pretty damned easy". As I said, from all the discussions in the past, with plenty of coders taking part in the discussions, the conclusions have generally been that this was probably badly coded in the first place and they don't want to touch it as it's probably a mine field. If it were "pretty damned easy" they would have already done it, n'est-ce pas? Also, you have deemed the OP's suggestion as useful. I don't. Matter of opinion. Personally, because I actually play the game and understand the concept of limited resources I don't consider this as any form of priority. That doesn't stop you from discussing it.
Bohneik Itohn wrote:The rest of this is born out of the fact that there is no discussion to be had on what the OP suggested. It just needs to be done. If you don't have enough of a neckbeard to contribute to the discussion of station orientation feel free to not contribute in any way at all. The rest of us would appreciate it. Actually I've got an enormous neck beard. As I said, don't let me stop you discussing it. I'm just amazed that people think this should be a priority. I'm not stopping you discussing it in any way. You've posted your opinion on the subject, I've posted mine. You have no more right to post than I do. For future reference, if you don't want someone to post on a topic, don't answer their posts. I would have just moved on if I'd not been replied to but hell, if I get a rise. |
|
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
810
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 15:25:00 -
[21] - Quote
wopolusa wrote:Tchulen, you know fair enough. While I'm sure a lot of players will notice/use this. There's more important things that can be implemented quicker and by all means they should take priority but at some point this could become a feature worth implementation.
What I enjoy in this game is authenticity and growing trust among other players, other's are interested in competitiveness, making the most isk or just outright trolling others.
So it seems silly to you. But to me something like this is kind of a big deal, though that's not to say you can't argue it's stupid. One to their own. Ah, ok, definite misunderstanding. I don't consider it silly in itself, just that people are getting overly excited about this as though it's all important to the game. If CCP had unlimited resources I would consider it an improvement (as long as there were methods to artificially create a horizon for those with orientation issues).
I respect that you've got an opinion and also, believe it or not, what you want to get out of the game. I obviously came across harsher than I intended. EVE needs more people like you, if I'm honest.
So yeah, I've voiced my opinion regarding priorities so as long as I don't need to answer any more posts directed at me I'll leave you guys to your discussion.
For your sake, I do hope CCP manages to unpick their code and do this at some point.... just not till all the other glaring issues get fixed
|
Fer'isam K'ahn
None Of One
178
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 15:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
Well, I think Tchulen mixed up the Feature & Ideas Discussion forum with the Tech Issue Forum, otherwise I cant explain the misunderstanding of priorities, playing with ideas and rage about missed opportunities.
Unless... he works for CCP and the boss just told him: "Today is the day! You are finally going to fix afk cloak! So go forth and discuss it on the forum!"
Than I could get that mood Are you sure your issues aren't elsewhere ?! |
Bohneik Itohn
Amarrian Salvage Gnomes and Associates
433
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 15:54:00 -
[23] - Quote
Well lets see. I'll concede that I don't know jack about coding, and that I haven't tried to mod Eve. Yet. However, basic knowledge tells me that most source codes all have the same basic functions for making the code work and one of those is an omission function:
Typically standard or repetitive actions done by objects in a program are controlled by a smaller script that executes within the engine. When the requirements are met the script is activated, it plays out it's role, and then is deactivated.
Let's say you drop out of warp. Once you do so the script for warping, when it finishes, points the executable to the script for deceleration which then starts and continues until it is either interrupted (you change direction and set a velocity, say by double clicking) or the script finishes. At the end of the deceleration script the executable would find another pointer directing it to the idle orientation script/function as the next step in that process, and begin it's execution.
Now, I'm not saying it's this easy because I've never been paid a dime to code anything in my life, but from my very basic understanding derived from simple modding of various games I've done over the years for personal amusement, the change needed to prevent the orientation script could possibly be something as simple as what I've done many times in the past.
You write a simple script attached to a function (the new button in the camera radial menu) that injects a modification in the other script, so that at the beginning of the pointer that would redirect the executable to the orientation script an omission marker is placed, meaning that that part of the script is ignored and the executable moves on to the next step.
So something like this: (Had to change this from a decent example to something unrecognizable, because the forum thought I was trying to include HTML in my post?... I have no idea what's going on)
48. %include (orient.ccp)
Becomes:
48. !%include (orient.ccp)
Again. I haven't bothered to try and mod Eve yet, because in order to do so I'd have to set up a server in order to get the full capability of doing so and that's a righteous pain in the ass that could take weeks, not a bit of rollicky fun which best describes what I usually do. But even if it isn't as simple as that, it isn't far removed, because the injection of changes and omission marks are fundamental and necessary parts of any piece of code. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation Liandri Covenant
133
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 17:40:00 -
[24] - Quote
wopolusa wrote:So firstly, before any jimmies get rustled, EVE may work like it does purely due to engine limitations and if that is the case then so be it. Problem(though it's more of a missed opportunity than a problem)So currently everything about EVE is created to give a sense of up and down. stations, acceleration gates and even your ships are positioned to give us a sense of direction as we play. But as you know space is quite the opposite to our Earth-based assumptions that everything must have an up and down. And it's not that it doesn't work like it is. But I feel there's that lack of immersion and confusion that space brings. Everything can feel a bit flattened out at times. At least for me. Solution:-Hence I'd suggesting, for a start, removing the camera limitations. The camera should be able to be flipped and spun beyond the 180 degree (or more like 175) arc that it currently can in any 'direction'. -And Beyond that Changing a lot of the entities like stations to not all sit in this 'correct' vertical position would add to give a bit less of a sense of direction to players. -Finally, and the most controversial of all would be to give ships pitch and roll, beyond their automatic settings as they are now. Even if it was as basic as automatically associating the top of the ship to face the direction you are turning. Questions ? Improvements ? Hate ? Am I missing something awfully obvious ? Lets hear it
Unfortunately due to limitations of the Engine, Physics and Control System providing a non-planar design with a full Six-Degrees of movement would actually require a considerably massive rewrite of many of the underlying game mechanics for a features that would remove what is more of an 'annoyance' to immersion.
Keep in mind while they have made great strides in introducing more simulation and immersion to EVE over the years it is for the most part still heavily tied to the original "Action RPG" core mechanics from '03 (and likely all the way back to '99 when the game first started development) given the heavy inspiration from Diablo in Space with more than a generous helping of Elite thrown in.
...
This said, rather than providing a change to 'gameplay' functionality what would be easier to implement and to a degree would be just as good in terms of breaking the concept that everything is still working on a Planar X-Z base; would be to adapt the Camera system so that Gimbal Lock was removed from it's range of motion. Throw in Ships coming to rest on their last Delta Vector and that would greatly help; just like when the Stargates were re-orientated.
Stations, Outposts and Starbase (Structures) are a bit more of a difficult challenge as whatever happens orientation would always be compensated for; and in the case of Starbase where you need an origin and base plane to work from in order to place the modules on a grid ... it's just far too important that such aspects remain for gameplay purposes.
As I said, with some minor changes to the camera / ship orientation - it wouldn't be that difficult to 'fake' what you're asking for. |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
85
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 17:54:00 -
[25] - Quote
Lan Wang wrote:Grobalobobob Bob wrote:+1 makes sense.. Space has no up, nor down. Space has no pirates and jump portals either
How do you know that for a fact? "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
85
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 18:05:00 -
[26] - Quote
+1 for any low hanging fruit immersion improvements...
I remember my first warp, where I was near a station and the animation took me straight through the station and the next planet, and feeling somehow disappointed to realize the oversimplification for a space related game...
The new warp animation has solved this to some extent, but I think immersion is important for the first days of play where a player decides to stick with the game or not... Even if I chose to stick with Eve, how many don't ? "surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope http://turamarths-evelife.blogspot.com/2014/05/ok-now-im-betting-man.html |
Tchulen
Trumpets and Bookmarks The Volition Cult
811
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 18:10:00 -
[27] - Quote
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:Well, I think Tchulen mixed up the Feature & Ideas Discussion forum with the Tech Issue Forum, otherwise I cant explain the misunderstanding of priorities, playing with ideas and rage about missed opportunities. Technical limitations are an intrinsic part of the ideas/features discussion. I'm not saying that people shouldn't discuss low priority or impossible things however. People are free to discuss what they're like and input what opinions they feel like submitting.
Bohneik Itohn wrote:I'll concede that I don't know jack about coding This is the most pertinant part of your post. I've tried to think of a way of saying that which couldn't be taken as an offence and I can't think of one. I'm not trying to be offensive though.
Bohneik Itohn wrote: and that I haven't tried to mod Eve I'm pretty sure (yet can't be bothered to check) that modding the EVE client is massively against CCP's rules and carries a potential ban if you're caught doing it.
Bohneik Itohn wrote:Again. I haven't bothered to try and mod Eve yet, because in order to do so I'd have to set up a server in order to get the full capability of doing so and that's a righteous pain in the ass that could take weeks, not a bit of rollicky fun which best describes what I usually do. I suspect CCP won't give you the server code to mess with anyway. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1403
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 18:25:00 -
[28] - Quote
This is a coding thing. In the EVE engine ships are represented by Spheres with only a vector. There is no actual facing of the ship in the engine. So the way your ship is pointing is rendered by the local engine on your computer by using the vector it is travelling on. This is why big ships can warp sideways or backwards when webbed, because the GPU renders them in a direction when stationary then turning at a certain rate, but the engine says they had no facing so are immediately travelling the other way.
At least that's how it was explained and certainly seems true. |
Bohneik Itohn
Amarrian Salvage Gnomes and Associates
435
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 18:40:00 -
[29] - Quote
Quote:Bohneik Itohn wrote: and that I haven't tried to mod Eve I'm pretty sure (yet can't be bothered to check) that modding the EVE client is massively against CCP's rules and carries a potential ban if you're caught doing it. Bohneik Itohn wrote:Again. I haven't bothered to try and mod Eve yet, because in order to do so I'd have to set up a server in order to get the full capability of doing so and that's a righteous pain in the ass that could take weeks, not a bit of rollicky fun which best describes what I usually do. I suspect CCP won't give you the server code to mess with anyway.
Caught modifying the way my client communicates with the server? Banned. Caught sniffing data that isn't communicated to the player via the interface? Likely ban. And there are a few other obvious things, but otherwise there are plenty of mods/3rd party programs out there for Eve that are 100% acceptable because they don't monkey with the code in any way important or advantageous to the player.
The server code is available, it's just an outdated clusterf*ck of nonsense. It's not illegal to use it, it's just illegal to apply it in a way that CCP loses income or you gain income.
GNU Public License makes this possible.
It's the twits that abuse the concept of that license to try and slip under the radar that CCP is worried about. Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!-á - Freyya
Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help. |
Netan MalDoran
Yumping Amok Circle-Of-Two
30
|
Posted - 2014.07.01 20:22:00 -
[30] - Quote
From a programmers perspective, just try and code that (While you're at it, rewrite the physics engine for us all por favor) "Your security status has been lowered." - Hell yeah it was! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |