EVE Search - Coolest feature ever, let piloted ships dock into other ships

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Coolest feature ever, let piloted ships dock into other ships

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Marcus Gideon Gallente The NightClub	Posted - 2009.07.15 18:38:00 - [31] So let me see if I have this right... You have a Carrier, or perhaps any Capital since they're all pretty f'ing big. You dock with it, and get moved over to a "dock environment" instance inside. So long as there are ships inside, the Cap is unable to dock or warp out if the pilot d/c's. I foresee a couple possibilities. 1) Players would have to be forcefully Undocked if the Cap pilot d/c's. 2) The ship remains, but no one can interact with it further. Only the ships inside can leave, and once empty it will autowarp. 3) The ship remains, and can still be used. Ships inside and out can travel freely between, making it a portable station of sorts. Now while #1 sounds the least attractive, it is the safest. #2 and #3 both allow for a corp spy to dock and wait until the owner leaves. Then the ship is defenseless when an enemy comes to blow it out of the sky.
Ardetia Caldari The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2009.07.15 18:40:00 - [32] Originally by: Flapkonijn IMHO bad idea.. would unbalance the game to much. Imagine a small fleet probing down a carrier and found one with one cruisers next to it. A small tactical fleet jumps in... 5 secs later 5 BS's 2 Command ships undock from carrier...overpowered would be my say on it. but thats me... then how about you do the same? unless... you dont have one?
shady trader	Posted - 2009.07.15 19:01:00 - [33] From that I have read its to do with one "player object" being owned by another player object. It causes the why objects are managed to go wrong and it gets locked into a loot as it has to check that the first player object is not containing a second player object. There is a thread out there were a Dev explained it (think is about 2 years ago maybe more) that is hiding among the other threads about this. Macrointel, the place were the nature order of the universe does not hold sway. Pirates and ore thief's are congratulated by carebears for the actions.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.07.15 19:06:00 - [34] Originally by: shady trader From that I have read its to do with one "player object" being owned by another player object. It causes the why objects are managed to go wrong and it gets locked into a loot as it has to check that the first player object is not containing a second player object. There is a thread out there were a Dev explained it (think is about 2 years ago maybe more) that is hiding among the other threads about this. So they tried to have the same ship being 'piloted' by the pilot and the occupants as "virtual" pilots and the database threw up over that mess? No surprise really. They should try again with a separate Dock Environment instance so the database won't be confused who's piloting the ship. -------- Ideas for: Mining
sakura okami	Posted - 2009.07.15 20:14:00 - [35] i agree you should be able to dock in carriers etc. BUT you should have a camera drone orbiting the carrier, as if you were using the look at function, you should be able to undock at will, and dock at will, while outside station, or inside. you should be in your ship, not in a pod. otherwise, good idea
Dristra Amarr Idle Haven	Posted - 2009.07.15 21:57:00 - [36] Quote: So they tried to have the same ship being 'piloted' by the pilot and the occupants as "virtual" pilots and the database threw up over that mess? No surprise really. Hmm, no wonder that would create problems, where there any need to create such a extremely complex solution in the first place? Of course, ownership might be an issue here, but then again just creating a "dock for transport" function that simply creates a instanced space for the docked pilots as long as the carrier is online would remove any ownership issues, right? as for disconnecting players, a player that disconnect will be ejected and emergency warp as usual. A disconnecting carrier simply blows out the contents of the hold and emergency warps. "dock for transport" is the key here.
TRD 2371	Posted - 2009.07.15 22:26:00 - [37] id love to dock with a frig in megathron
Darkdood	Posted - 2009.07.16 00:00:00 - [38] I think this is a great idea. Someone above said something about a carrier spawning 5 BS's in an ambush and that just isn't how it works. All carriers have a 1 mil ship bay. That is max of 2 BS's or 3-4 BC's. Sure you could have 50 Frigates which would be annoying but still its not going to be some outrageous number of big ships. What this would really do is allow a fleet to take its support ships with them. Frankly it would make moms worth using. They have a 2.5 mil bay which is quite a bit better than a carriers 1 mil. It would also give a slightly better punch to the titans DD. Warp in 5 titans. 5 DD's boom boom boom boom boom... Then launch 40-60 BC/BS's from their bays... Swarm in on a weakened enemy. To me this is what capital ship should be about. Titans and moms carry BS's and carriers carry BC'c and cruisers. Every capital is actually 4-8 people. As far as the technical problem its sounds to me like the devs ether did a really poor job of coding or they are simply trying to hard. I admit I have no idea how they have it setup but seems simple to me. Don't try and merg the object or whatever. When you dock with a capital you have a choice of two views on your screen... the docking hangar which would look like a smaller tighter station hangar or you see the other persons ship in a read only mode. Meaning your view is centered on the Thanatos your docked with but all the buttons are grayed out. Don't tell me you can't do this cause I know you can. It's the little eyeball button view object. The only action you can do is to undock or stay. This would include if they dock in a station you see the station hangar when you "look out the window". If you undock while the carrier is docked you go into the station hangar? Personally I think the bigger problem is what was said before that is what you do with docked ships if the carrier logged out. I'm sure that can be figured out.
Mahn AlNouhm The Bastards The Bastards.	Posted - 2009.07.16 00:10:00 - [39] Edited by: Mahn AlNouhm on 16/07/2009 00:14:24 Edited by: Mahn AlNouhm on 16/07/2009 00:12:04 I love this idea. The way I look at it, a carrier could field either fighter drones or an equal number of cruiser class ships. Ships docked in a carrier would be the property of the carrier pilot until he decides to launch them. When launched, the ships would be immediately transferred over the previous owner of the ship, and the owner would take control as long as he's online and the carrier hasn't been destroyed. No need, imo, for a docking bay proper inside carriers. Outfitting, the like, should be done at a station. If the problem is that 2 pilots can't occupy the same ship at the same time, why not simply have them "flying" in cloaked pods attached in some way to the carrier on the outside or something? On sisi, during the tourney, etc, moderators have the ability to move people from system to system at will. Maybe that function could be granted in a limited way by pilots who train up a new skill or something, so that pilots who are "docked" in the carrier could be automatically moved to a destination with the carrier. I don't know if any of these ideas would work, I'm just trying to think in terms of pre-existing game mechanics. Quote: This would include if they dock in a station you see the station hangar when you "look out the window". If you undock while the carrier is docked you go into the station hangar? Personally I think the bigger problem is what was said before that is what you do with docked ships if the carrier logged out. I'm sure that can be figured out. IMO, no need to even have people dock with the carrier. If a carrier docks, the cloaked pods are uncloaked and player control is restored outside the station. If you dock your ship with a carrier, IMO, it belongs to a carrier pilot. Which means, you really, really, really need to trust your carrier pilot. . . .
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.16 03:48:00 - [40] Edited by: Pringlescan on 16/07/2009 03:48:19 Just to reiterate my main point, if CCP can't let us travel with our ships that are docked in a sma of another ship by putting both of us in the carrier at the same time due to database issues, there are plenty of ways to workaround it. For example ccp has already proven that they can teleport ships, jump drive ships are an example of this and so is them moving players for the tournament. So i realize this is a workaround but it would get the job done. Step 1, player docks in another ship Step 2, the server teleports the player into a special temporary system with no name, into a station named "So and So's docking bay" Step 3, The docked player waits in this station while being transported which dosn't violate any database rules. Step 4, The carrier either in space or in a station clicks on the "eject docked player -" button and the server teleports the docked player next to the carrier. This way the data base server is happy because all of the ships involved have their own specific place at each time and while it isn't as elegant as what ccp wanted to do originally it would at least work. Also they last looked into this like 4 years ago and I bet the new generation of devs would like another look at it.
Steve Thomas	Posted - 2009.07.16 04:23:00 - [41] Originally by: Pringlescan Originally by: shady trader Being able to dock with a capital ship was planned. The original design of Titans was mobile stations, however then CCP tried it there were major problems. The way player objects are defined in eve caused a problem then you place one inside another. There is a dev post somewhere explaining the details. CCP had to abandon this idea due to the problems it caused with the database. I know but this game has come a long way since titans were introduced, and it is certianly possible to at least move pods from station to station via carrier if not actually let you hotdrop on the battlefield and deploy interceptors ala BSG. We aren't asking for the seven-layer cake here we would be happy just to have the plain vanilla ice cream. the game may have come a long way, but the database is still the same old database. **. . . . . . . .** Stop freaking worrying about why things the developerd did 5 years and more ago no longer make sence.
Abulurd Boniface Gallente Mercantile Exchange for Mining And Exploration	Posted - 2009.07.16 16:30:00 - [42] Originally by: Pringlescan Edited by: Pringlescan on 16/07/2009 03:48:19 Just to reiterate my main point, if CCP can't let us travel with our ships that are docked in a sma of another ship by putting both of us in the carrier at the same time due to database issues, there are plenty of ways to workaround it. For example ccp has already proven that they can teleport ships, jump drive ships are an example of this and so is them moving players for the tournament. So i realize this is a workaround but it would get the job done. Step 1, player docks in another ship Step 2, the server teleports the player into a special temporary system with no name, into a station named "So and So's docking bay" Step 3, The docked player waits in this station while being transported which dosn't violate any database rules. Step 4, The carrier either in space or in a station clicks on the "eject docked player -" button and the server teleports the docked player next to the carrier. This way the data base server is happy because all of the ships involved have their own specific place at each time and while it isn't as elegant as what ccp wanted to do originally it would at least work. Also they last looked into this like 4 years ago and I bet the new generation of devs would like another look at it. I like the idea because it would make a carrier live up to its name. The Carrier becomes a container, like a station is a container for ships. The Carrier must be allowed to dock at any time and the service cannot be an inconvenience for either the Carrier driver or the boat that's parked in it. The Carrier driver can eject ships at any time, save during warp, the docked ship can undock at any time, save during warp. Both ships have a mechanic that allows the docked ship to leave. Both have a door handle so to speak. While in flight, the docked ship sees: En route to destination [destination.name]; n jumps; ETA: x minutes. There is an interface to call an in-game mini-game [something silly, doesn't take a lot of resources]. I can see where the database problem would be because the capsuleer docking is a construct assigned to a construct [another capsuleer] which has not been possible [or implemented] before. Tricky business, lots of potential to go horribly wrong. It's a great idea because it uses the environment as it's supposed to be used. Supported. Abulurd Boniface ME ME CEO For good to survive it suffices for evil to acquire a deadly, incapacitating disease.
0racle Galactic Rangers Galactic-Rangers	Posted - 2009.07.16 16:34:00 - [43] They tried this with Titans before, and it failed, unfortunately.
Bevil Smyth Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.16 16:41:00 - [44] I love the concept, i'd definately love CCP to give it another try. Its certainly been something thats been missing from the game almost glaringly. Perhaps if carriers cant do it then it can be something for motherships to give them a reason to exist. ============================ 2003 and still alive!
Scary McFear	Posted - 2009.07.16 20:10:00 - [45] Obligatory bump for an actual good idea from a goon, who'd have thought Seriously this has my brain pumping with how awesome it would be. rarrgh /foams
Nub Sauce	Posted - 2009.07.16 21:40:00 - [46] Originally by: XDSKIRBYKIA Originally by: shady trader Being able to dock with a capital ship was planned. The original design of Titans was mobile stations, however then CCP tried it there were major problems. The way player objects are defined in eve caused a problem then you place one inside another. There is a dev post somewhere explaining the details. CCP had to abandon this idea due to the problems it caused with the database. Lmfao..... EVE Programers + DB Engineers = Fail. Can't is not a word..... If you "CAN'T" it is becuase you didnt try hard enough!. Couldn't have said it better,myself.
xOm3gAx Caldari Stain of Mind	Posted - 2009.07.16 21:52:00 - [47] IIRC the reason ships cannot dock in titans right now is because of the havoc it wreaked on the database. Originally when titans were fist invisioned back before bs were even released this was the plan. Eg: Pre castor lol this is a time when the instruction book had frigs, cruisers bs and titans in it but only frigs and cruisers were ingame =) Originally by: CCP Abraxas Her boyfriend's way hot, too; tall and tanned. And I say this as a very hetero male who doesn't ever dream of the man on cold, dark nights.
Vertinox	Posted - 2009.07.16 22:12:00 - [48] Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: shady trader From that I have read its to do with one "player object" being owned by another player object. It causes the why objects are managed to go wrong and it gets locked into a loot as it has to check that the first player object is not containing a second player object. There is a thread out there were a Dev explained it (think is about 2 years ago maybe more) that is hiding among the other threads about this. So they tried to have the same ship being 'piloted' by the pilot and the occupants as "virtual" pilots and the database threw up over that mess? No surprise really. They should try again with a separate Dock Environment instance so the database won't be confused who's piloting the ship. Why not simply stick the baby ship to the outside of the mother ship and make the model invisible and un-targetable. Then that ship moves around at the same speed as the mother ship and simply follows it around like a /follow command you see in other games like with an autopilot. When the player hits undocks the sip appears like it was coming out of a clocking field and no longer matches speed and destination of the mother ship. You aren't technically inside the ship code wise but it would achieve the same affect.
4THELULZ	Posted - 2009.07.16 23:23:00 - [49] Originally by: Vertinox Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: shady trader From that I have read its to do with one "player object" being owned by another player object. It causes the why objects are managed to go wrong and it gets locked into a loot as it has to check that the first player object is not containing a second player object. There is a thread out there were a Dev explained it (think is about 2 years ago maybe more) that is hiding among the other threads about this. So they tried to have the same ship being 'piloted' by the pilot and the occupants as "virtual" pilots and the database threw up over that mess? No surprise really. They should try again with a separate Dock Environment instance so the database won't be confused who's piloting the ship. Why not simply stick the baby ship to the outside of the mother ship and make the model invisible and un-targetable. Then that ship moves around at the same speed as the mother ship and simply follows it around like a /follow command you see in other games like with an autopilot. When the player hits undocks the sip appears like it was coming out of a clocking field and no longer matches speed and destination of the mother ship. You aren't technically inside the ship code wise but it would achieve the same affect. An excellent idea. Would probably need some extra tweaking so it copes with the bigger ship cynoing around but a decent solution. Well that and it'd have to be immune to AOE effects.
Abulurd Boniface Gallente Mercantile Exchange for Mining And Exploration	Posted - 2009.07.17 00:19:00 - [50] Edited by: Abulurd Boniface on 17/07/2009 00:25:08 Edited by: Abulurd Boniface on 17/07/2009 00:20:13 Originally by: Vertinox You aren't technically inside the ship code wise but it would achieve the same affect. This is the clue to the whole solution. What we need is not better coding, what we need is better thinking. We're stuck on the idea of "docking". I say: we do no such thing. No docking with the parent ship of any kind. What happens is this: at the time the ships start the docking interaction, the docked ship is placed in an instance, it effectively goes to deadspace. It just looks a little different. We put the ship in limbo. Nothing happens with the ship as long as the travel interaction takes place. We give the capsuleer a mini-game and we give them the "current location", number of jumps out, ETA, yada yada, but that's all in the mind. The Carrier does not have the "docked" ships physically on board, because it doesn't need them. That solves the problem of putting pilots inside other ships. Now, there are going to be interactions. The hitch hiker will want to disembark. They can do that. They are moved from deadspace to where their ship would be if it had actually ejected. The Carrier driver sees an entire interface that lets them control the deadspace where the ship is contained. It does not interact with itself, it interacts with the deadspace. What if the Carrier comes under attack or starts the attack? If it gets destroyed, the ships it "carries" are treated as if they were in the cataclysm. They may be destroyed too [that's going to be a real nice computation]. When the Carrier deploys ships from within itself, it effectively controls the deadspace complex where each carried ship resides and releases the ship just outside itself. When a hull is removed from an Orca, it appears close to the ship in space. There is no reason why the deadspace complex could not resolve to place the evacuated ship just outside the hull of the Carrier. By the same token, when docked in station, we'd see the same interaction as when a ship performs an actual docking: the ejected ship finds itself on a perch in station, free to do as it pleases. It would -look- and feel as if there was real interaction with the ships involved, but it would not require actual ships docking in ships. We're just seeing funny pixels on screen as we fly anyway, it's not real, there's no reason why the docking should be real. It's just a matter of creating a deadspace construct that makes you believe you're docked in a Carrier. Its' all done with mirrors, remember? It's all cinema, just play the movie already. This: - solves the problem of how ships dock in each other [you don't need them to] - adds realism to the game by adding an extra dimension [Carriers acutally carry] - can be implemented using existing game mechanics, with a slight adjustment [by which I don't mean to say this effort would be trivial, far from it] - leaves all the parties involved free to disengage, you just have to collapse the deadspace room When push comes to shove and something really horrible goes wrong, the deadspace complex collapses, both [or more] capsuleers wake up in their clone and the game puts all the wrecks where they would be if they had in fact gone Guy Fawkes in the same place. I think this is an implementable idea. You may disagree. I prefer a good argument, but you should not feel obliged to provide one. Abulurd Boniface ME ME CEO For good to survive it suffices for evil to acquire a deadly, incapacitating disease.
Whitehound	Posted - 2009.07.17 00:34:00 - [51] Originally by: Pringlescan I don't even care how this gets done ... lean back, and be transported with their ship to their destination without any of those hassles. I agree, but it needs ambulation to make it work. No pilot ever will dock at a capital ship and endure long flight times without access to a mini-bar. -- "Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast." - Ace Rimmer
Sherpard2 Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.17 06:27:00 - [52] Originally by: Flapkonijn IMHO bad idea.. would unbalance the game to much. Imagine a small fleet probing down a carrier and found one with one cruisers next to it. A small tactical fleet jumps in... 5 secs later 5 BS's 2 Command ships undock from carrier...overpowered would be my say on it. but thats me... carrier barely can fit 2 bs inside, so no way 5 bs 2 command etc come out from it, btw. its a nice idea, carriers should carry ships, with the pilot inside lol, arent ships assambled? then, po space inside ship is free, so they should be able to stay there... about the programming trouble, just set it as an station, and when carrier dies, just even kill them or just drop them out of carrier.
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.07.17 09:23:00 - [53] I love this idea. Carriers (and moms/titans ofc) should be the tools to move fleets around. That deadspace thing sounds like a reasonably simple idea to make, since you don't actually do anything there it shouldn't require any significant computational power either serverside. The problems would of course be when the carrying ship gets blown up what happens to the carried ships? (my opinion would be they pop as well) Another issue is that the ability to get large fleets past gatecamps would significantly be increased. Jump in a cov ops, light the cyno and presto you can have basically any number of capitals with a large supporting fleet there. This can still be done as it is now using the clone vat bay but rather inefficiently it seems. So space might feel even smaller than it does sometimes. Still I think they should do this if at all possible and tweek what can be carried (perhaps by changing the fuel requirements depending on cargo?).
Mephesto Nizal Best Path Inc. Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2009.07.17 11:55:00 - [54] Originally by: Flapkonijn IMHO bad idea.. would unbalance the game to much. Imagine a small fleet probing down a carrier and found one with one cruisers next to it. A small tactical fleet jumps in... 5 secs later 5 BS's 2 Command ships undock from carrier...overpowered would be my say on it. but thats me... No, not at the least. People have simply assumed that....OOOh, carrier/mothership on scan! Quick, let's hopdrop a helpless little CAPITAL ship.
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.17 18:45:00 - [55] It is kind of silly that we can move whole assembled ships in carriers but a teeny little pod oh no.
Internet Online GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.18 09:25:00 - [56] I, too, have always dreamed of this being implemented and would like to see a CCP post clarifying whether any of these new alternatives are feasible. I've always wanted a lot of people inside me. I mean, in my carrier. Crap!
Bruce Ironstaunch GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.18 23:56:00 - [57] Supporting this
Netochka Nezvanova	Posted - 2009.07.19 00:00:00 - [58] i like yoru idea pringlescan <:-}
Ryousan	Posted - 2009.07.19 17:33:00 - [59] Bump
Pringlescan GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.20 02:40:00 - [60] Originally by: Internet Online I, too, have always dreamed of this being implemented and would like to see a CCP post clarifying whether any of these new alternatives are feasible. I've always wanted a lot of people inside me. I mean, in my carrier. Crap! I too would love to see a ccp comment on the alternatives, especially one saying we love these ideas and will put them into the next patch.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.