EVE Search - Making Space Dangerous? With comments on object size.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Making Space Dangerous? With comments on object size.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kraythe	Posted - 2004.10.20 17:30:00 - [1] I was just flying near a gas giant and I have to say that I wasnt impressed. At 12,000 km away, It should fill the whole screen at the very least. As it is, it is a little tiny thing. In addition, the stars are also hopelessly small. This got me thinking abotu the dangers of space, we are all accustomed to flying right through asteroids, planets, etc without a scratch and this seems a little weird to me. Now if you are warping you can make the case that you arent in normal space so you can go through an item. But in normal space, large objects should have gravity. Not only that but if you are so daft as to hit one, you should loose your ship. You can even have scenarios where you go into a real space orbit around a planet (meaning you accelerate into its gravity well and have the speed to keep orbiting.) Now I know some might object to what would happen if they got too close. You would be start to be pulled in of course. But if you have the Cap, you can simply execute a warp and jump away. Otherwise you can try to get away on normal engines. You might even make it so that at some gravity influence, the ship cant enter warp properly. At this point you would be basically destroyed. However, your pod would always have the power to escape because it is so small. Now some might object that they could get killed by this and my answer would be to not crash into planets. Additionally I dont think it would add much server load since we arent calculating colisions with ships. In fact I dont support collisions with ships or cargo containers for this very reason (not to mention griefing). I also feel that colisions with asteroids and space stations should happen (though not if you are auto docking). Finally, the stars should be balls the size of a real star. Some might be small and others would be HUGE!. The benefit of this is that it adds realism to the space without making it too bad. After all, in space you would have to really TRY or mess up badly to actually hit one.It would also be cool for the stars to give off the majority of light in the system and the shadows to be calculated based on that. The increased realism would be really interesting and add an element to the game. -- Kraythe
Kraythe	Posted - 2004.10.20 17:30:00 - [2] I was just flying near a gas giant and I have to say that I wasnt impressed. At 12,000 km away, It should fill the whole screen at the very least. As it is, it is a little tiny thing. In addition, the stars are also hopelessly small. This got me thinking abotu the dangers of space, we are all accustomed to flying right through asteroids, planets, etc without a scratch and this seems a little weird to me. Now if you are warping you can make the case that you arent in normal space so you can go through an item. But in normal space, large objects should have gravity. Not only that but if you are so daft as to hit one, you should loose your ship. You can even have scenarios where you go into a real space orbit around a planet (meaning you accelerate into its gravity well and have the speed to keep orbiting.) Now I know some might object to what would happen if they got too close. You would be start to be pulled in of course. But if you have the Cap, you can simply execute a warp and jump away. Otherwise you can try to get away on normal engines. You might even make it so that at some gravity influence, the ship cant enter warp properly. At this point you would be basically destroyed. However, your pod would always have the power to escape because it is so small. Now some might object that they could get killed by this and my answer would be to not crash into planets. Additionally I dont think it would add much server load since we arent calculating colisions with ships. In fact I dont support collisions with ships or cargo containers for this very reason (not to mention griefing). I also feel that colisions with asteroids and space stations should happen (though not if you are auto docking). Finally, the stars should be balls the size of a real star. Some might be small and others would be HUGE!. The benefit of this is that it adds realism to the space without making it too bad. After all, in space you would have to really TRY or mess up badly to actually hit one.It would also be cool for the stars to give off the majority of light in the system and the shadows to be calculated based on that. The increased realism would be really interesting and add an element to the game. -- Kraythe
Seto Mazzarotto	Posted - 2004.10.20 17:35:00 - [3] Environmental damage is apparently on the list. Don't know if it's going to be released with Shiva, but it'll be within a few months. ----------- Fighting for the ideals of freespace, posthuman ethics, and rock & roll.
Seto Mazzarotto	Posted - 2004.10.20 17:35:00 - [4] Environmental damage is apparently on the list. Don't know if it's going to be released with Shiva, but it'll be within a few months. ----------- Fighting for the ideals of freespace, posthuman ethics, and rock & roll.
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.10.20 17:37:00 - [5] Very little about the physics of Eve is anywhere near realistic but this page may answer some of your queries. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.10.20 17:37:00 - [6] Very little about the physics of Eve is anywhere near realistic but this page may answer some of your queries. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Matthias Dete	Posted - 2004.10.20 17:40:00 - [7] The thing is... just where do you draw the line between realism and fun? IF you want things more realistic, we could have 1hr waiting times for a ship to dock. We could have 'you cannot undock now because of traffic control' messages. We could have Newtownian physics where newbs like yourself would endlessly crash into the side of other peoples ships. We could have ships with no top-speed barrier, but that spontaneously explode when they reach a certain velocity. Personally, Kraythe, i'd love to see you yelling in local that you are stuck in an asteroid belt, sandwiched between 2 roids with no hope of getting out. While i would like to see more variety in the environments, i'd much rather that the devs spend their precious time making this GAME more FUN, rather than making all the stars bigger.
Matthias Dete	Posted - 2004.10.20 17:40:00 - [8] The thing is... just where do you draw the line between realism and fun? IF you want things more realistic, we could have 1hr waiting times for a ship to dock. We could have 'you cannot undock now because of traffic control' messages. We could have Newtownian physics where newbs like yourself would endlessly crash into the side of other peoples ships. We could have ships with no top-speed barrier, but that spontaneously explode when they reach a certain velocity. Personally, Kraythe, i'd love to see you yelling in local that you are stuck in an asteroid belt, sandwiched between 2 roids with no hope of getting out. While i would like to see more variety in the environments, i'd much rather that the devs spend their precious time making this GAME more FUN, rather than making all the stars bigger.
Kraythe	Posted - 2004.10.20 17:54:00 - [9] Edited by: Kraythe on 20/10/2004 17:59:48 Wait .... let me understand you metaphorically. You can either be in london or LA but nowhere in between? WHy is it that whenever someone suggests someting someone else has to say that they are suggesting something radical and stupid. Its like suggesting you would want a bicycle and having your parents say "oh no! ... because next you will want a tank and a 100 ton locamotive to drive to school" So patently rediculous. Can we sttick to what WAS sugested and not this fanciful stuff pls ? What exactly in the proposal is "too much" realism to you? Not being able to fly through a planet? Additionally, I dont mine. However, if i did, I wouldnt be daft enough to get myself sandwiched between 2 asteroids. -- Kraythe
Kraythe	Posted - 2004.10.20 17:54:00 - [10] Edited by: Kraythe on 20/10/2004 17:59:48 Wait .... let me understand you metaphorically. You can either be in london or LA but nowhere in between? WHy is it that whenever someone suggests someting someone else has to say that they are suggesting something radical and stupid. Its like suggesting you would want a bicycle and having your parents say "oh no! ... because next you will want a tank and a 100 ton locamotive to drive to school" So patently rediculous. Can we sttick to what WAS sugested and not this fanciful stuff pls ? What exactly in the proposal is "too much" realism to you? Not being able to fly through a planet? Additionally, I dont mine. However, if i did, I wouldnt be daft enough to get myself sandwiched between 2 asteroids. -- Kraythe
Amthrianius	Posted - 2004.10.20 18:29:00 - [11] kraythe, there is a special place for all your idea's you spam 10 of a day its called the idea's lab ---------------
Amthrianius	Posted - 2004.10.20 18:29:00 - [12] kraythe, there is a special place for all your idea's you spam 10 of a day its called the idea's lab ---------------
Frank Horrigan	Posted - 2004.10.20 18:44:00 - [13] Ladies and gentelmen, I present to you, A even MORE stupid Idea. Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Bhaal What has turned out better than expected? Everything. Remember, we're from Iceland. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This i
Frank Horrigan	Posted - 2004.10.20 18:44:00 - [14] Ladies and gentelmen, I present to you, A even MORE stupid Idea. Originally by: Oveur Originally by: Bhaal What has turned out better than expected? Everything. Remember, we're from Iceland. (\_/) (O.o) (> <) This i
markol	Posted - 2004.10.20 19:10:00 - [15] I would be all for colidable objects that destroy your ship. Under one condition. You give me full control of my ship with a joystick. I want full 3-axis directional thrust if I choose to have it. The current double clicking interface for giving your ship direction is simply insufficient for the sort of maneuverability you are asking for. What would the miners do that are stuck in a roid field? What about frigates and drones that are always zipping around in large battles? A couple of sicide frigate pilots can take down a BS just by runing into it? Can you say WWII kamikazee tactics?
markol	Posted - 2004.10.20 19:10:00 - [16] I would be all for colidable objects that destroy your ship. Under one condition. You give me full control of my ship with a joystick. I want full 3-axis directional thrust if I choose to have it. The current double clicking interface for giving your ship direction is simply insufficient for the sort of maneuverability you are asking for. What would the miners do that are stuck in a roid field? What about frigates and drones that are always zipping around in large battles? A couple of sicide frigate pilots can take down a BS just by runing into it? Can you say WWII kamikazee tactics?
DeFood	Posted - 2004.10.20 20:03:00 - [17] 1. Collidable objects make no ***** sense. We dont fly our own ships - the computers do. Crashing and burning because the computer was being stupid makes no sense. 2. It also makes no sense that we can fly through . Ive posted about this already. Lag, and an indirect control model preclude destructive collisions as a viable solution. A smarter physics model however, coupled with a smarter navigation computer would however be damned nice. Imagine a EVE where the computer navigates AROUND planets. And choose a warp vector that does not cause it to bump into, and stinck onto space stations. Imagine an EVE where industrials launching from Minmatar stations didnt get stuck someplace inside them, and be forced to spend tens of minutes navigating them at 20m/s! Imagine an EVE where battleships wernt knocked around like skittles by *** mining drones! And, lastly, imnagine the forums if I never posted while drunk with too many s in my posts. burp*
DeFood	Posted - 2004.10.20 20:03:00 - [18] 1. Collidable objects make no ***** sense. We dont fly our own ships - the computers do. Crashing and burning because the computer was being stupid makes no sense. 2. It also makes no sense that we can fly through . Ive posted about this already. Lag, and an indirect control model preclude destructive collisions as a viable solution. A smarter physics model however, coupled with a smarter navigation computer would however be damned nice. Imagine a EVE where the computer navigates AROUND planets. And choose a warp vector that does not cause it to bump into, and stinck onto space stations. Imagine an EVE where industrials launching from Minmatar stations didnt get stuck someplace inside them, and be forced to spend tens of minutes navigating them at 20m/s! Imagine an EVE where battleships wernt knocked around like skittles by *** mining drones! And, lastly, imnagine the forums if I never posted while drunk with too many s in my posts. burp*
Commander Jones	Posted - 2004.10.20 21:46:00 - [19] Originally by: Matthias Dete The thing is... just where do you draw the line between realism and fun? IF you want things more realistic, we could have 1hr waiting times for a ship to dock. We could have 'you cannot undock now because of traffic control' messages. We could have Newtownian physics where newbs like yourself would endlessly crash into the side of other peoples ships. We could have ships with no top-speed barrier, but that spontaneously explode when they reach a certain velocity. Personally, Kraythe, i'd love to see you yelling in local that you are stuck in an asteroid belt, sandwiched between 2 roids with no hope of getting out. While i would like to see more variety in the environments, i'd much rather that the devs spend their precious time making this GAME more FUN, rather than making all the stars bigger. I couldn't have said it better "You end up paying good money for the sort of treatment you ancestors spent their short, brutal lives trying to avoid. That's progress"
Commander Jones	Posted - 2004.10.20 21:46:00 - [20] Originally by: Matthias Dete The thing is... just where do you draw the line between realism and fun? IF you want things more realistic, we could have 1hr waiting times for a ship to dock. We could have 'you cannot undock now because of traffic control' messages. We could have Newtownian physics where newbs like yourself would endlessly crash into the side of other peoples ships. We could have ships with no top-speed barrier, but that spontaneously explode when they reach a certain velocity. Personally, Kraythe, i'd love to see you yelling in local that you are stuck in an asteroid belt, sandwiched between 2 roids with no hope of getting out. While i would like to see more variety in the environments, i'd much rather that the devs spend their precious time making this GAME more FUN, rather than making all the stars bigger. I couldn't have said it better "You end up paying good money for the sort of treatment you ancestors spent their short, brutal lives trying to avoid. That's progress"
Tuwile Naldai	Posted - 2004.10.21 00:28:00 - [21] Originally by: Amthrianius kraythe, there is a special place for all your idea's you spam 10 of a day its called the idea's lab agree
Tuwile Naldai	Posted - 2004.10.21 00:28:00 - [22] Originally by: Amthrianius kraythe, there is a special place for all your idea's you spam 10 of a day its called the idea's lab agree
Korvis RuffleSleeve	Posted - 2004.10.21 01:33:00 - [23] Originally by: Tuwile Naldai Originally by: Amthrianius kraythe, there is a special place for all your idea's you spam 10 of a day its called the idea's lab agree I think he just likes to see his own posts, one of those people.
Korvis RuffleSleeve	Posted - 2004.10.21 01:33:00 - [24] Originally by: Tuwile Naldai Originally by: Amthrianius kraythe, there is a special place for all your idea's you spam 10 of a day its called the idea's lab agree I think he just likes to see his own posts, one of those people.
Ogmodius	Posted - 2004.10.24 09:54:00 - [25] Originally by: Kraythe Edited by: Kraythe on 20/10/2004 17:59:48 Wait .... let me understand you metaphorically. You can either be in london or LA but nowhere in between? WHy is it that whenever someone suggests someting someone else has to say that they are suggesting something radical and stupid. Its like suggesting you would want a bicycle and having your parents say "oh no! ... because next you will want a tank and a 100 ton locamotive to drive to school" So patently rediculous. Can we sttick to what WAS sugested and not this fanciful stuff pls ? What exactly in the proposal is "too much" realism to you? Not being able to fly through a planet? Additionally, I dont mine. However, if i did, I wouldnt be daft enough to get myself sandwiched between 2 asteroids. Because our little machines have limits. However if you subscribe to Moore's Law maybe in the next 5-10 you can have your big stars and collision detection. Or maybe you can develop the first MMORPG for the NEC Super Computer. And instead of bit maps you can have it scale all the way down to the quarks. Because lets face it, this game is boring without having an accurate physics model and being able to be a part of the Space-Time Continuum. When I warp I still age at the same rate as my friends that don't play the game! I call shenangins!
Ogmodius	Posted - 2004.10.24 09:54:00 - [26] Originally by: Kraythe Edited by: Kraythe on 20/10/2004 17:59:48 Wait .... let me understand you metaphorically. You can either be in london or LA but nowhere in between? WHy is it that whenever someone suggests someting someone else has to say that they are suggesting something radical and stupid. Its like suggesting you would want a bicycle and having your parents say "oh no! ... because next you will want a tank and a 100 ton locamotive to drive to school" So patently rediculous. Can we sttick to what WAS sugested and not this fanciful stuff pls ? What exactly in the proposal is "too much" realism to you? Not being able to fly through a planet? Additionally, I dont mine. However, if i did, I wouldnt be daft enough to get myself sandwiched between 2 asteroids. Because our little machines have limits. However if you subscribe to Moore's Law maybe in the next 5-10 you can have your big stars and collision detection. Or maybe you can develop the first MMORPG for the NEC Super Computer. And instead of bit maps you can have it scale all the way down to the quarks. Because lets face it, this game is boring without having an accurate physics model and being able to be a part of the Space-Time Continuum. When I warp I still age at the same rate as my friends that don't play the game! I call shenangins!
Danton Marcellus	Posted - 2004.10.24 12:11:00 - [27] Told you to pace yourself or you'll burn out young... Convert Stations
Danton Marcellus	Posted - 2004.10.24 12:11:00 - [28] Told you to pace yourself or you'll burn out young... Convert Stations
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.10.24 12:16:00 - [29] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Told you to pace yourself or you'll burn out young... He should learn from a master. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!
Joshua Calvert	Posted - 2004.10.24 12:16:00 - [30] Originally by: Danton Marcellus Told you to pace yourself or you'll burn out young... He should learn from a master. LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.