Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Spoilz
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:04:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Spoilz on 18/06/2007 10:03:45 Edited by: Spoilz on 18/06/2007 10:03:23 I'm sorry to hear you say that Jinx, as I thought I could ad a humourous twist to the initial post.
Point taken, I'll try to be more serious, and less crude with my rebute.
Yet, I've still yet to hear a decent argument..
|
Spoilz
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:09:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Spoilz on 18/06/2007 10:09:13 Cl_Exploit 1
|
D3N3R0TH
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:13:00 -
[33]
And before you start Ranting on that space stations have stabilization boosters to hold it in Orbit.... A Maelstrom has boosters to stop it from spinning out which firing a broadside of 1400mm Rounds ..... why dont my 1400 mmm rounds traveling at supersonic speeds knock your BS away ... or fling your frigate to the next solar system . Bumping ships like this is an Exploit of the games Physics ....
And whoever it was having a cry about having to get a physics card .. maybe you should stop spending your life on eve and get a job .... then you might be able to afford one .
Shame on yo @$$!!
|
Ling Xiao
Prism Project Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:16:00 -
[34]
Bumping should be modified to take into account ship class, as well as mass and velocity.
Think of it as larger ships having more powerful onboard inertia stabilisers - the same reason ships level off in space instead of staying at an angle. A battleship is gonna have some heavy hardware inside dedicated to keeping it in the position the pilot wants it in. It shouldn't be bumped off course because a shuttle comes in front of it. __________ If you think the game is rigged, why are you still playing? |
Naerok Dekot
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:16:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Jinx Barker
As such, I think the guy has spoiled his arguments and credibility by low brow and crude approach to the whole thing. Plainly put, the guy is a horse's arse - and not worth talking to.
Too bad we do not have legal executions for having a bad taste, perhaps we have to vote that in?
lol @ uptight people. OP is one of the most original and literate posters ive seen on these forums.
as for RL physics: who gives a ****
|
Spoilz
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:18:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Spoilz on 18/06/2007 10:17:25 Lol, physics cars are for nubs who don't know which way to plug in a CPU.
The phsyics card was dead from day one. The 8800 can do the same job. Way to buy yourself into brittney.
Save for ghost recon, which does not take into consideration the phsyics engine over multiplayer anyway.
Who's counting?
Nubkaek.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:19:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Spoilz "Sheilds are energy barriers, they emit energy, obviously the kind of energy capable of "...
OMG this thread delivers!
It is soooooooooo funny to read some guy explaining us the physics in eve and how everything works and especially SHOULD work.
Maybe you can come up with some formulas and prove us that this and that is real while other things can in no way be real and therefore CANNOT EXIST?
Realize that EVE IS FICTION! You don't like that ficton? Bad luck. But stop using some pseudo-scientify babbling just because you don't like certain aspects.
Don't say that it should be impossible because of some pseudo-physics you just come up with. Be honest and say you don't like it because you think it is unfair to you and just annoys you.
|
Onnawa
Minmatar Alcohol Fueled Brutality X-PACT
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:22:00 -
[38]
Open seas argument doesn't hold water (no pun intended.) Completely different physics. Space lacks friction, which is integral in atmospheric or oceanic physics.
Besides which....Theory of Relativity. Energy is directly proportional to mass. More mass means more potential energy, but lower mass at higher speed means more kinetic energy. So...interceptor doing 9000 m/s hits battleship doing 100 m/s, interceptor wins because it's kinetic energy is higher. That, and the collision prevention function of the navcom sees it as a huge threat to ship and crew and really wants to get the hell out of the way. Think car crashes...which is more deadly, head on, or side impact? Head on wins a cookie, because you have two large amounts of kinetic energy moving in diametrically opposite vectors, attempting to cancel each other out. Side impact? Perpendicular vectors, which, depending on speed, will either give a third vector at approximately a 45 degree angle between the thrusts of the two vectors (at lower speeds) or a centrifugal effect on both vehicles due to the vectors wishing to continue but other forces intervening (ergo the two cars slamming side-by-side to each other because of the inertia being forced around a central fulcrum.) Next example...rear ended. Which is worse...stationary or moving? Stationary gets the cookie. Stationary objects like to stay where they are due to inertia, and the jerk that hit you wants to keep moving for the exact same fact. So, you absorb all his kinetic energy and take the brunt of the damage. Take the same hit while moving, and his engine is in his lap. Why? You're already in motion, which means you absorb his kinetic energy and convert it directly into motion. You might spin out, but the damage will be minimal. Their car, on the other hand, crumples like an accordion. Why? Well, the back of his vehicle is still moving, while the front has been forced to stop (even if it is just for a few milliseconds.) That means his front end has to re-absorb kinetic energy to re-attain motion, and matter doesn't like large amounts of energy transfered.
Where am I going with this? Let's go back to 'ceptor v. battleship. Navcom makes battleship move for two reasons; to avoid the collision if at all possible, and to lessen the damage if not. Space has tons of inertia, but little to no friction. That means if two ships collide, forward momentum continues along the original vector. If there's only one vector, it dictates direction. So, ship starts moving so that in the event the deflection system can't compensate and actual collision still occurs, both ships are moving in away from each other.
Get it yet?
_____________________________________ I'm not a Pirate. I just have anger management issues.......and kleptomania. |
Spoilz
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:25:00 -
[39]
Yeah who cares about physics,
Why the hell are we playing EVE when we could be playing pacman...
Woot!
It's got **** all to do with the level of immersion your brain experiences.
Which is why your adrenaline pumps when you see 4 Wartargets jump your mining rig.
Not.
Oh, and why the deliberatly make eve have real life consequence...
Please don't argue that point, it's a one of their marketing tools...
But wait, realism is crap, huh?
|
Spoilz
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:29:00 -
[40]
If you are going to argue that a ship on the open seas is less susceptable to being thrown around when rammed by another vessel the one in space,
Then please argue the point why several large calibre shells hitting the hull of another ship in space do not alter it's course.
Also please use the theory of relativity to say that in space two object MASS SUDDENLY ALTER, hence a stone can throw an asteroid of course?
DO THEY?
NO.
Back to school you go.
|
|
Pan Crastus
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:33:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
To illustrate, taking 1.000.000kg as inty mass and 100.000.000kg as mega mass, and the inty moving at 5km/s, in a fully plastic collision, the Mega and the Inty should be moving at about 497.5m/s after the collision.
That's wrong, but feel free to post about how you arrived at this result. To see your mistake (well one of them), just calculate the energy required to move 100.000.000kg at 497.5m/s and compare with the energy contained in the 5km/s inty.
The actual velocities after the collision depend on many things. In a perfect elastic collision in one dimension with the BS not moving initially, assuming no friction etc. ... The BS should move at 50m/s afterwards while the Inty will not be moving. But since EVE has friction, there should not be a perfect elastic collision, also it won't be in one dimension only, so the Inty will likely bounce off to some direction and not transfer all its kinetic energy to the BS.
As far as I can tell, EVE does it right in some cases, but has some object properties set wrong in others:
- when moveable objects are not moving, they will stop anything (even moving objects with huge mass moving at slow speeds) and not even bounce away like they should (e.g. shuttle stopping a freighter). This may be an effect of simplistic calculations for rotational velocity/momentum/inertia, i.e. the shuttle causes the freighter to turn but does not get bounced away properly...
- perfectly elastic collisions and friction in space are a contradiction, there should be some loss of kinetic energy at collisions or at least the smaller object should obtain a higher velocity after the collision (it should not transfer all its kinetic energy to the target).
|
D3N3R0TH
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:34:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Onnawa Open seas argument doesn't hold water (no pun intended.) Completely different physics. Space lacks friction, which is integral in atmospheric or oceanic physics.
Besides which....Theory of Relativity. Energy is directly proportional to mass. More mass means more potential energy, but lower mass at higher speed means more kinetic energy. So...interceptor doing 9000 m/s hits battleship doing 100 m/s, interceptor wins because it's kinetic energy is higher. That, and the collision prevention function of the navcom sees it as a huge threat to ship and crew and really wants to get the hell out of the way. Think car crashes...which is more deadly, head on, or side impact? Head on wins a cookie, because you have two large amounts of kinetic energy moving in diametrically opposite vectors, attempting to cancel each other out. Side impact? Perpendicular vectors, which, depending on speed, will either give a third vector at approximately a 45 degree angle between the thrusts of the two vectors (at lower speeds) or a centrifugal effect on both vehicles due to the vectors wishing to continue but other forces intervening (ergo the two cars slamming side-by-side to each other because of the inertia being forced around a central fulcrum.) Next example...rear ended. Which is worse...stationary or moving? Stationary gets the cookie. Stationary objects like to stay where they are due to inertia, and the jerk that hit you wants to keep moving for the exact same fact. So, you absorb all his kinetic energy and take the brunt of the damage. Take the same hit while moving, and his engine is in his lap. Why? You're already in motion, which means you absorb his kinetic energy and convert it directly into motion. You might spin out, but the damage will be minimal. Their car, on the other hand, crumples like an accordion. Why? Well, the back of his vehicle is still moving, while the front has been forced to stop (even if it is just for a few milliseconds.) That means his front end has to re-absorb kinetic energy to re-attain motion, and matter doesn't like large amounts of energy transfered.
Where am I going with this? Let's go back to 'ceptor v. battleship. Navcom makes battleship move for two reasons; to avoid the collision if at all possible, and to lessen the damage if not. Space has tons of inertia, but little to no friction. That means if two ships collide, forward momentum continues along the original vector. If there's only one vector, it dictates direction. So, ship starts moving so that in the event the deflection system can't compensate and actual collision still occurs, both ships are moving in away from each other.
Get it yet?
Oh yes .. your explanation was fantastic ..
This still doesn't answer my question of why 8x 1400mm rounds do knock BS/Cruisers/BC's or anything for that matter for six ..... Although your explanation does prove what im stating is totally correct. 8x 1400mm Rounds traveling at super sonic speeds ( a hell of a lot faster then a cepter) would spin any ship into the sun .. The Kinetic energy behind that would be massive . What if i had 87% Kinetic resistance though? does that mean it would fire you cepter traveling at 9000ms away ? ....
.... People stop Blaggin Spoilz .. cos he has a good point ( just from a drunken angry perspective )
|
Onnawa
Minmatar Alcohol Fueled Brutality X-PACT
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:35:00 -
[43]
That's just it...EVE is about as real as CCP can make it without giving others an undue advantage or being the company being forced to quadruple it's server size to handle every knick-knacking little detail. It's less a matter of physics and more a matter of common sense, anyway. Commercial airliners now have systems that automatically make planes bank away from each other above certain altitudes to prevent mid-air collisions.....why wouldn't spaceships do the same, especially in bottleneck areas such as stations and stargates where dozens (if not hundreds) of people will be in any given 10 minute span? As soon as they can figure out how to do it, cars will have them to prevent pileups on the freeways. What's simpler? Writing a complex code into a chip that's prone to failure to turn said system on and off in space (where you don't have a hard deck), or just leaving the damn thing on?
_____________________________________ I'm not a Pirate. I just have anger management issues.......and kleptomania. |
Spoilz
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:39:00 -
[44]
Onnawa
Because it's war. That's why I tell my sheilds to go proactive and eat any enemy ship in 0.0 - 0.4 space.
|
Spoilz
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:41:00 -
[45]
Good point Onnawa, and more to it.
So why didn't CCP let you turn your sheilds on, or maybe ( like so many other, kidddy features ) let them make it so your sheilds would be offensive once you hit unsecured space?? If we are talking in terms of being able to make them an offensive weapon, without being concorded at every station??
You can still open fire on ships in 1.0
Why cant you make your sheilds offensive weapons too??
|
Dark Flare
Caldari Corpus PCG The State
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:42:00 -
[46]
WTS: Clue.
Do you have any idea how broken the game would be with the changes you want?
Also, see that word I used there, "game"?
Kinda implies that it doesn't have to obey the laws of Physics if the developers don't think it would make the game experience better.
If the OP isn't an alt making a joke, I begin to severely worry about the population of this planet. Dark Flare - Corpus PCG |
D3N3R0TH
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:47:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Spoilz Good point Onnawa, and more to it.
So why didn't CCP let you turn your sheilds on, or maybe ( like so many other, kidddy features ) let them make it so your sheilds would be offensive once you hit unsecured space?? If we are talking in terms of being able to make them an offensive weapon, without being concorded at every station??
You can still open fire on ships in 1.0
Why cant you make your sheilds offensive weapons too??
Spoilz ... your starting to stray form the point .... Shields shouldnt be offensive weapons . ships of similar size should be able to bump each other ... Maybe not fling each other away at 600M/s like they do at the moment .... but lets face it .. a frig should not be able to bump and BS .. without SERIOUS consequences .
I liked this post much better before it got all serious .. Prum Prum
|
Valan
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:48:00 -
[48]
Well if people didn't hug stations instead of fighting then there would be no need for bumping. /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 |
D3N3R0TH
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:51:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Dark Flare WTS: Clue.
Do you have any idea how broken the game would be with the changes you want?
Also, see that word I used there, "game"?
Kinda implies that it doesn't have to obey the laws of Physics if the developers don't think it would make the game experience better.
If the OP isn't an alt making a joke, I begin to severely worry about the population of this planet.
Yea its a Game .. a bloody fantastic one too ! But what the original topic was about is an exploit to the game ... as is also ... flying a Titan through your POS's shield bubble and knocking all the ships out the other side... Didnt bounce the Titan away into space ... DIdnt bounce the POS away into space .
WTF man ... come on
|
Onnawa
Minmatar Alcohol Fueled Brutality X-PACT
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:51:00 -
[50]
From an earlier post...
"That's not how a shield works at all. It isn't some magical means of frying anything that comes near you, it's a deflection system. It redirects items coming at you back off into space, be it shells, energy, shock waves, whatever. And it uses it's own energy to do it...thus the decrease in shield capacity when you take a hit. Shields are in the business of turning away hazards, not destroying them."
1400mm shells don't push ships in space because they don't contact the ship. Even when you've hit armor, you still have a measure of shield recharge going on that the shield has to deal through first (besides the fact that shells hitting don't have the mass to move the ship, nor the velocity...they explode against the ship itself, and equal and opposite reaction throws all the bits and pieces and molten globules back your direction instead of moving the ship, and after that, internal structure doesn't have the beef to be pushed anywhere other than out into space as superheated plasma and fragments.
As to naval ships, I'm not saying they take less damage....i'm saying they take more. Friction adds more energy to the mix, and things tear apart faster under that. Combine in gravity as an added anchor, and you have...and let me say this very plainly... TWO sunken ships.
Shields becoming offensive? Why would you bother? What does common sense tell you in that respect? Build two shield systems on one ship when one works just fine? Constantly expend energy to fry things that aren't there? Which is easier in an offensive sense...using bug spray and swatting the mosquitoes you notice, or waiving your arms frantically at all times in the hopes of killing them all before any get close enough to land and bite?
Even in EVE, energy is finite. Why waste it?
_____________________________________ I'm not a Pirate. I just have anger management issues.......and kleptomania. |
|
D3N3R0TH
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:51:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Valan Well if people didn't hug stations instead of fighting then there would be no need for bumping.
Well put :))
\o/
|
Spoilz
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:52:00 -
[52]
Tardimius maximus, this one is for you.
Firstly : Im only asking that CCP start taking into account the real mass and collisional consequence in space when it comes to vessles colliding and using this pretty damn obvious exploit.
I.e, bug vs windsheild.
Secondly : I don't know who OP is, I don't care who OP is, and funnily enough.
I don't give a damn for your unsubstantiated opinion either.
|
The Snowman
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:55:00 -
[53]
Physics isnt the issue here.. bumping is.
Which I agree, desperatly needs to be addressed!
not only for the sense of realism but the general improvment of gameplay. It would be far better to just turn it off completly, I would much rather be able to 'fly through' objects.
Coming out of a station and getting stuck while trying to warp is most infuriating.
|
Spoilz
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:57:00 -
[54]
Deneroth,
All im saying is that you should be able to turn your sheild off kiddy bounce bounce bumper cars take granny to the fair and watch me on the merry go round mode to..
Evil ass yes these are full of energy, will eat torpedos, rails, laster blasts, and your exploiting little ass in a friggate mode, for the big boys...
I spend my time in 0.0
I wouldn't hesitate to make my sheilds proactive.
Exploitive little match box flying pilots looking to bump the deathstar off the gate beware..
|
Pan Crastus
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:58:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Spoilz Tardimius maximus, this one is for you.
Firstly : Im only asking that CCP start taking into account the real mass and collisional consequence in space when it comes to vessles colliding and using this pretty damn obvious exploit.
I.e, bug vs windsheild.
A simple fix for this would be to transfer less kinetic energy from a small object to a bigger object than is the case now (in-game explanation: a larger shield absorbs kinetic energy better or something ;-P).
It won't be more realistic though, just more intuitive...
this is a free post provided to you by a member of the EVE community.
|
Dark Flare
Caldari Corpus PCG The State
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 10:59:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Spoilz Deneroth,
All im saying is that you should be able to turn your sheild off kiddy bounce bounce bumper cars take granny to the fair and watch me on the merry go round mode to..
Evil ass yes these are full of energy, will eat torpedos, rails, laster blasts, and your exploiting little ass in a friggate mode, for the big boys...
I spend my time in 0.0
I wouldn't hesitate to make my sheilds proactive.
Exploitive little match box flying pilots looking to bump the deathstar off the gate beware..
Because this wouldn't cause huge problems at all...
Fleet fights?
Drones?
Accidental friendly bumping?
Hello lag!? Dark Flare - Corpus PCG |
Alrich
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 11:01:00 -
[57]
to be able to utilize almost-real-life-physics EvE would have to have their whole cluster used at full capasity for a single 1v1. even then i doubt it would be without lag.
I do some computer simulations of a few hundred particles, and how they behave when under some simplified influence. even these simplified calculations takes weeks to do (but i dont have access to tranqvity sized clusters).
The game would be quite unplayable if you want real life physics. the game seems to be quite unable to handle big fleets as it is (I have no experience there) and i dont think that more calculations is the way to solve that
|
Atreides Horza
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 11:02:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Atreides Horza on 18/06/2007 11:02:59 Bumping is currently the only means of getting to the avrge stab-wearing Joe Schmo who smacks local from docking range for hours.
Out of curiosity, what's your take on the realism involved in a ship hundreds of metres long and with a crew of thousands warping straight into the dock of a station without any sort of anchoring process or time of vulnerability whatsoever? Try parking your car in your garage doing 120 mph and see how that pans out...
If getting rid of bumping, would you be willing to go along with a docking delay (during which you can receive damage) dependant on the size of the ship?
Selective realism 4tL...
|
Onnawa
Minmatar Alcohol Fueled Brutality X-PACT
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 11:03:00 -
[59]
Please Spoilz, praytell which orifice you plan to pull all the energy out of to run your proactive shield? Or is that CCP's problem as long as you get what you want?
I'd be all for shield modules that fit in high slots, take powergrid and cpu, and use capacitor. Oh, and you get your sec hit in 0.4-0.1 as well.
A weapon is a weapon, after all...whether you intended to run them over or not.
_____________________________________ I'm not a Pirate. I just have anger management issues.......and kleptomania. |
Cpt Branko
Partisan Warfare Ltd.
|
Posted - 2007.06.18 11:04:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 18/06/2007 11:03:48
Originally by: Pan Crastus
Originally by: Cpt Branko
To illustrate, taking 1.000.000kg as inty mass and 100.000.000kg as mega mass, and the inty moving at 5km/s, in a fully plastic collision, the Mega and the Inty should be moving at about 497.5m/s after the collision.
That's wrong, but feel free to post about how you arrived at this result. To see your mistake (well one of them), just calculate the energy required to move 100.000.000kg at 497.5m/s and compare with the energy contained in the 5km/s inty.
I said, fully plastic collision, so it makes calculations easier.
Anyway, 1 inty (1.000.000kg, 5000m/s, 12.5 TJ energy) has equal kinetic energy as 1 inty+1mega(total 101.000.000kg, 497.5m/s, about 12.5TJ energy).
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |