Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Nerogk Shorn
Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 00:55:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Rutoo No,
You people make me sick sometimes,
Your Ships all have shields... Right? Newton's third law.
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So just pretend that the ship bumping you is really bumping the shields of your ship, not causing any damage at all.
We don't need anymore stupid ideas entered into the game that will just cause lag and cause even more people to be killed in empire. Why? i see it now.
Battleship Rams Hauler in HighSec at 10km sec, hauler blows up, BS stays alive cause it's not an aggression to bump.
blah
When railgunn and projectile rounds impact your shields they reduce the total hitpoints of your shield. You take damage. So why should you not take damage to your shields and the rest of your ship when another ship impacts your shields? It doesn't matter if both ships have shields, because they are both stopping the momentum of the other ship, and the shields of both will still be damaged.
Bulbasaur Wizard
D-F-A-A-B-A-A-S |
Neon Genesis
Gallente The Landed Gentry
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 01:43:00 -
[62]
Maximum speed is also a joke, lets make ships just accelerate forever!
|
Calebes
Gallente The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 02:02:00 -
[63]
Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot.
Signed.
Full newtonian physics in the game when not engaging warp drive. Please? Tyvm.
|
SilentBladez
Imperial Knights The Crimson Federation
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 02:34:00 -
[64]
Battleships were never meant to go faster then an interceptor in this case there is a flaw and it should be fixed. This will solve nanophoon/domi/etc and bumpage. |
Thor Xian
Vertigo One E.A.R.T.H. Federation
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 03:33:00 -
[65]
To everyone saying fleets would suffer...FORMATIONS. _________________________ ~Thor Xian, Star Commander
Got Corp? |
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 08:21:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Neon Genesis Maximum speed is also a joke, lets make ships just accelerate forever!
If I may, another misconception (afaik). Propulsion (chemical or ion) as we know it today do not allow for endless acceleration. Depending on various factors there is a maximum velocity, usually way below the speed of light, which in itself is a barrier to endless classical acceleration.
But we are straying (again).
My problem is not so much with the actual bouncing or the introduction of a bounce-damage model. I would be happy if bouncing would no longer keep you from warping/aligining or from docking only scramblers or bubbles (or similar devices) should be able to do that.
And I agree with many of the previous posters that the tactical use of bouncing is bordering on an exploit (unintended gameplay) and should be adressed by whatever means the devs see fit.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE FREGE Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 10:11:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Originally by: Neon Genesis Maximum speed is also a joke, lets make ships just accelerate forever!
If I may, another misconception (afaik). Propulsion (chemical or ion) as we know it today do not allow for endless acceleration. Depending on various factors there is a maximum velocity, usually way below the speed of light, which in itself is a barrier to endless classical acceleration.
But we are straying (again).
My problem is not so much with the actual bouncing or the introduction of a bounce-damage model. I would be happy if bouncing would no longer keep you from warping/aligining or from docking only scramblers or bubbles (or similar devices) should be able to do that.
And I agree with many of the previous posters that the tactical use of bouncing is bordering on an exploit (unintended gameplay) and should be adressed by whatever means the devs see fit.
without bouncing.. how do you kill a mothership? Or a loged in Titan?
What you ask can only be acomplished when there are no imune to EW ships.
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 10:15:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Xipe Totec
Originally by: Neon Genesis Maximum speed is also a joke, lets make ships just accelerate forever!
If I may, another misconception (afaik). Propulsion (chemical or ion) as we know it today do not allow for endless acceleration. Depending on various factors there is a maximum velocity, usually way below the speed of light, which in itself is a barrier to endless classical acceleration.
Er, no this is wrong. In an atmosphere there is a limit to the maximum obtainable speed because you increase the force due to drag the faster you go, and it takes proportionally more power to overcome that.
In space, you are only limited by fuel. In EVE we have infinite fuel, so we should be able to accelerate forever upto light speed. EVE space instead though, behaves more like a fluid.
|
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 11:05:00 -
[69]
bump
"If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor." -Albert Einstein
Member of the [UTSFAH] corp.
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 11:21:00 -
[70]
[Leaving the topic completely for a second]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
This is how it works in reality ^^
[Returning to the topic]
|
|
Erim Solfara
Amarr Tarlos INC
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 17:16:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Erim Solfara on 14/03/2007 17:13:20
Originally by: Gamesguy Edited by: Gamesguy on 13/03/2007 23:00:21
Originally by: Erim Solfara
e=1/2mv^2 Carbonized lead shell, 1kg (from ID), velocity what? According to wikipedia, 1,800 m/s is about the limit with chemical propellants, but that's with air resistance. So call it 3000m/s to be generous? 1/2 x 1 x 3000 x 3000 4,500,000J
Horribly flawed premise. The Schwerer Gustav was an rl 80cm(800mm) artillery piece that fired a shell weighted in at 7 tons, thats 7000kgs. Since mass increases exponentially with radius, doubling the radius will likely result in an 8 fold increase in mass. So the 1400mm probably fires a shell weighting 40000kgs.
Velcity is 250km/s, since thats how long it takes a projectile to travel that distance in eve.
In addition you got the math and the units wrong as well.
So the actual kinetic energy is 40000*(250000/2)^2=6.25*10^14J, or 156.25 megatons of tnt.
Quote: battleship 107500000 kg (Apoc), 300m/s 1/2 x 107500000 x 300 x 300 4,837,500,000,000J
That said, a shell would have to travel at 1,555,233m/s to match the kinetic energy of the battleship travelling at a mere 300m/s. That's over one and a half thousand kilometres a second...
actual math:
107500000*(300/2)^2=2.4*10^12j, less than 1/200th the energy of the 1400mm shell.
...I took the mass value from the official item database. Perhaps it's inaccurate, but it's the official figure from the game, so that's why I used it.
New ship class |
Harry Paratesteas
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 18:29:00 -
[72]
If you really want bumping damage. All I would do is sit outside the docking point of a station. Wait for everyone to undock and let them blow each other up. Now do you still want bumping damage?
Harry Paratesteas War Correspondent
|
Rabbitual Ferrier
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 18:36:00 -
[73]
An arguement for bouncing off - Its the dual force of two shields that create the effect.
Given that these shields are essentially skins on the craft that have a near 0 physical form, and are immobile (ie they do not move so much as remain, or are projected, a set distance from the craft) the effect of two ships bumping is actually an opposite reaction of the shields.
So in essence whilst the speed of the ships may be immense, the mass of the fields is infitesimally small (less than a speck of dust), so the effect would be similar to a large gale (ie force without physicality) - ie pushing you away.
Of course this means you move, but its like being blown backwards rather than a two trucks colliding (they have high mass and velocity).
An arguement about collision and fields...
The other option is that fields don't interact, and then the incoming ship (presumably the faster one say) and the two ships then collide on the others shields. However as missiles do not penetrate a shield, we can simply take for read that a small ship simply vapourises on the larger shield (captial ship missiles - very large in size - presumably work by infront of the shield with a directive force - this is because excess damage travels through the shield, rather than around it, or out wards). So the important thing becomes how far your shield is projected from the armour. If the ramming ship hits the targets ship shield, before its shield connects with the targets physical form, the it damages the shield (and then absorbs the energy disapated by the shied of its velocity), but takes damage to its armour/Hull.
Theres also the danger of course that the force of impact of the ship who hits the shield first is like an explosion in a confined space (exploding inside your shields could simply create a horrible backwash inside your own shield effect.
If were the case that shields did not however perform the current accepted 'bounce effect' but collision damage to the target ship, then missiles would be fitted with shields, so that they by passed the targets shields, and just did armour damage....
In Game Its problematic.
Firstly the suicide gank. Cheap MWD, overdrive and bam one insurable high speed missile. And how do you determine aggro when two moving players collide? You can't, so no security loss.
Second - If you undock in Rens, you'll be in you pod briefly, before you're podded by someone else undocking.
Third - Griefing with mines was bad... However Imagine, a transporter is parked up directly in front of the exit to rens station, shield tank running. Even another transport undocking will experience the worst of the collision.
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 08:14:00 -
[74]
I dont mind if bumping were to remain in game.
All that needs to be fixed is the docking/warping/cloaking inhibition that comes with it.
|
Valan
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 09:48:00 -
[75]
I seem to remember a Dev post stating that they originally intended to have collison damage but the lag was horrendous due to the calculations needed. I think thats why the Geddon looks the way it does.
Anyway bumping is the only way to stop station huggers in carriers reaping havoc and then tanking until they can dock. /start sig I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game three years' when I know their account has been sold on. /end sig |
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 10:23:00 -
[76]
This may entirely be the case, however, I dont think that this was intended gameplay ...
|
Ashaz
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 10:29:00 -
[77]
and FINALY the ram on the incursus would have some cool use!
ram it in there, get stuck and keep the mwd running to put the target into a spin ^^
|
Ashaz
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 10:42:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Xipe Totec [Leaving the topic completely for a second]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
This is how it works in reality ^^
[Returning to the topic]
ugah. that was alot of formulas. could not be arsed to read it all. but as some funnylooking guy once said: Speed is relative. The explosion that accelerates your ship will always happen in a position and velocity relative to your ships reactor, since that's what's initializing it. In space there is no drag. an object that is pushed away will in theory keep that speed forever. so in practice, a rocket engine with unlimited fuel will indeed accelerate forever.
Unless perhaps at some extreme velocity, something odd would happen that makes solar wind and stuff create drag.
ok ok. get back on topic
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 10:54:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Xipe Totec [Leaving the topic completely for a second]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
This is how it works in reality ^^
[Returning to the topic]
Ok, I think you've misunderstood that. That equation deals with diminishing returns from a rocket propelled by ejecting physical mass (essentially what a rocket does) and concerns itself with how much delta-V change you can expect to get for a given interaction of mass-ejected, total mass of rocket (including fuel) and rocket exhaust velocity.
It in fact is implicitely dependant on the fact though, that any given spacecraft can accelerate indefinitely if one assumes it can somehow continuously apply force to itself - this is the case in EVE, though obviously back in reality at some point you run out of fuel.
|
James Duar
Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 10:54:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Xipe Totec [Leaving the topic completely for a second]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
This is how it works in reality ^^
[Returning to the topic]
Ok, I think you've misunderstood that. That equation deals with diminishing returns from a rocket propelled by ejecting physical mass (essentially what a rocket does) and concerns itself with how much delta-V change you can expect to get for a given interaction of mass-ejected, total mass of rocket (including fuel) and rocket exhaust velocity.
It in fact is implicitely dependant on the fact though, that any given spacecraft can accelerate indefinitely if one assumes it can somehow continuously apply force to itself - this is the case in EVE, though obviously back in reality at some point you run out of fuel.
|
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 10:57:00 -
[81]
exactly my point
Now back to the topic, hurry
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 10:57:00 -
[82]
exactly my point
Now back to the topic, hurry
|
Rabbitual Ferrier
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 10:59:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Nerogk Shorn
Originally by: Rutoo No,
You people make me sick sometimes,
Your Ships all have shields... Right? Newton's third law.
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So just pretend that the ship bumping you is really bumping the shields of your ship, not causing any damage at all.
We don't need anymore stupid ideas entered into the game that will just cause lag and cause even more people to be killed in empire. Why? i see it now.
Battleship Rams Hauler in HighSec at 10km sec, hauler blows up, BS stays alive cause it's not an aggression to bump.
blah
When railgunn and projectile rounds impact your shields they reduce the total hitpoints of your shield. You take damage. So why should you not take damage to your shields and the rest of your ship when another ship impacts your shields? It doesn't matter if both ships have shields, because they are both stopping the momentum of the other ship, and the shields of both will still be damaged.
Bulbasaur Wizard
The difference is that the projectile has no shield, so exists as mass and velocity approch a engery wave. No because its an energy field, it cannot stop mass, but it can effect energy, so the most likely event would be the shield converts the energy of the round (ie its velocity) rather than being impacted, and the resultant conversion destroys the round. The damage is mearly the 'engery flashed off', that the ship must then regenerate from its power source. However certain rounds produce specific types of energy that is designed to further damage the shield (ie thermal, emp, kinetic or explosive).
Or something.
However two fields connecting would of course create a problem in that theres no mass to convert (well above the minor atomic level) so the two fields simply have the velocity to deal with. So the shields connection would create a equal and opposite reaction that pushed on each field.
Alternatively the shields could simply negate effects and pass one another, but then missiles should be fitted with shields, and then players with shield tanks would winge about Nerftastic
|
Rabbitual Ferrier
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 10:59:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Nerogk Shorn
Originally by: Rutoo No,
You people make me sick sometimes,
Your Ships all have shields... Right? Newton's third law.
III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
So just pretend that the ship bumping you is really bumping the shields of your ship, not causing any damage at all.
We don't need anymore stupid ideas entered into the game that will just cause lag and cause even more people to be killed in empire. Why? i see it now.
Battleship Rams Hauler in HighSec at 10km sec, hauler blows up, BS stays alive cause it's not an aggression to bump.
blah
When railgunn and projectile rounds impact your shields they reduce the total hitpoints of your shield. You take damage. So why should you not take damage to your shields and the rest of your ship when another ship impacts your shields? It doesn't matter if both ships have shields, because they are both stopping the momentum of the other ship, and the shields of both will still be damaged.
Bulbasaur Wizard
The difference is that the projectile has no shield, so exists as mass and velocity approch a engery wave. No because its an energy field, it cannot stop mass, but it can effect energy, so the most likely event would be the shield converts the energy of the round (ie its velocity) rather than being impacted, and the resultant conversion destroys the round. The damage is mearly the 'engery flashed off', that the ship must then regenerate from its power source. However certain rounds produce specific types of energy that is designed to further damage the shield (ie thermal, emp, kinetic or explosive).
Or something.
However two fields connecting would of course create a problem in that theres no mass to convert (well above the minor atomic level) so the two fields simply have the velocity to deal with. So the shields connection would create a equal and opposite reaction that pushed on each field.
Alternatively the shields could simply negate effects and pass one another, but then missiles should be fitted with shields, and then players with shield tanks would winge about Nerftastic
|
Atreides Horza
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 11:00:00 -
[85]
Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot.
As opposed to a battleship thousands of metres long hugging a station and disappearing into the warm and safe belly of the station in a split second, which is ofc VERY realistic...
I might be wrong in your case, m8, but it seems to me that most people only cry for realism whenever they've been victim of whatever catches them with their pants down...
|
Atreides Horza
Infinitus Odium
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 11:00:00 -
[86]
Originally by: SilentBladez Seriously , if you take a truck and ram another truck from behind at full speed , the first thing that happens to you is you die! you don't bump the other truck out of the way and keep rolling on. It would be more interesting having the person bumping you at greater velocity with severe damage and smoking out the port holes. Bumping others should make those people explode and for us to collect the loot.
As opposed to a battleship thousands of metres long hugging a station and disappearing into the warm and safe belly of the station in a split second, which is ofc VERY realistic...
I might be wrong in your case, m8, but it seems to me that most people only cry for realism whenever they've been victim of whatever catches them with their pants down...
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 11:10:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Xipe Totec on 15/03/2007 11:07:38 The question remains however if the massive tactical use of bumping happening these days is intended gameplay or not ...
... similar to the tactical use of "local" debate. Similar to other corrections implemented in the past or debated today.
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 11:10:00 -
[88]
Edited by: Xipe Totec on 15/03/2007 11:07:38 The question remains however if the massive tactical use of bumping happening these days is intended gameplay or not ...
... similar to the tactical use of "local" debate. Similar to other corrections implemented in the past or debated today.
|
Rabbitual Ferrier
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 12:00:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Xipe Totec Edited by: Xipe Totec on 15/03/2007 11:07:38 The question remains however if the massive tactical use of bumping happening these days is intended gameplay or not ...
... similar to the tactical use of "local" debate. Similar to other corrections implemented in the past or debated today.
I think it is acceptable, if a bit dishonourable (even slight deviation would require extensive recalculation of the warp)
|
Xipe Totec
|
Posted - 2007.03.15 12:17:00 -
[90]
Something that should not really take up any discernable calculation time with the advanced computing power of the distant eve-future ...
... I still think it is unintended gameplay.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |