EVE Search - Collision Detection

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Collision Detection

» 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 - 1 post(s)
darius mclever	Posted - 2009.11.04 16:11:00 - [31] please no. to quote myself Originally by: myself ships are solid too, aren't they? so i see two corps having a fight on a gate in empire. so i fly back and forth and back and forth. leaving out the cpu load problem that would mostlikely happen. your proposal has too many ways to harass people. warping into a mission and orbiting the mission runner. would be another one. i am just glad that you didn't suggest firing should be blocked by solid objects aswell.
Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles	Posted - 2009.11.04 16:22:00 - [32] Ships are not ethereal. The server already detects collisions (and has trouble when lots of ships are bumping into each other on the same grid) - it just doesn't apply damage. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule
Taedrin Gallente Tactical Command Sector	Posted - 2009.11.04 16:33:00 - [33] Edited by: Taedrin on 04/11/2009 16:35:40 Edited by: Taedrin on 04/11/2009 16:35:17 Originally by: Davich MacGregor Want to make combat more then prime target push button bore me to death? Introduce collision detection. Now you have friendly fire, manuever, hiding behind roids or big ships, actully having to think (), and formations will matter. PvP would become so much more fun. I don't understand why what little there was got taken out in the first place. While line of sight tracing is possible, it would only reduce the performance of the servers in fleet fights. Think about it, if you added this, it would be like doubling the number of collidable objects in any engagement (presuming each ship in the engagement has ALL weapons in a single group. EDIT: Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Ships are not ethereal. The server already detects collisions (and has trouble when lots of ships are bumping into each other on the same grid) - it just doesn't apply damage. Read the OP a bit closer - he's not requesting normal collision detection (which EVE already has). He wants line-of-sight computations to detect friendly fire and etc... It could be done easily enough, it would just place extra work on the servers. ---------- There is always a choice. The choice might not be easy, nor simple, nor the options be what you desire - but, nevertheless, the choice is there to be made.
DiDGE	Posted - 2009.11.04 16:39:00 - [34] Originally by: Ealiom They should implement graphical differences for shots missed etc. A laser beam refracting off a shield. An artillery shell slung off the ships bow. Definately should have this!
Jekyl Eraser	Posted - 2009.11.04 17:28:00 - [35] Edited by: Jekyl Eraser on 04/11/2009 17:35:15 Originally by: Lork Niffle you cannot host more than 32-64 players in any grid snip... and sounds just perfect. doesn't it seriously. it would just add so much depth to the combat if you could atleast use asteroids as a cover. You could do it so that it wouldn't add much lag. If you'd rightclick an asteroid and choose "use as cover" only additional server checks that would be added are those shots you made or made against you.
Drakarin Gallente The Abyssmal Spire Independent Faction	Posted - 2009.11.04 19:06:00 - [36] Originally by: Lork Niffle Once you bring anything more than relative and angular velocity to EVE you cannot host more than 32-64 players in any grid interacting with each other. Seriously you try and ensure every player has a 50mb SDSL line. Actually as far as I understand it, as long as everyone has at least DSL or preferably a cable connection, there wouldn't be any issue. The problem comes in when people learn that they can abuse their connection to gain an advantage. I quite like the idea, but the implementation, though most likely possible, would take a long time and would fundamentally alter the combat in EvE. Perhaps only smaller vessels should gain this new control scheme.
Kweel Nakashyn shadow and cloaking Mordus Angels	Posted - 2009.11.04 20:23:00 - [37] Originally by: Cadde Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Because of cheaters, CCP won't do that. The guy also stated that if one client disagrees with the other it's probably de-synced and thus has it's result discarded. A cheater would therefore be discarded all the time unless he is cheating against himself with one client saying it should be killed and the other saying it should kill. What's the gain there??? Nice, but who would be discarded ? The honest guy or the cheater ? Also what if I'm at 400 kilometers from you, shooting on my alt, and both of my client say I shoot you ? ~ Beer > Eve ? Eve > Beer ?
Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2009.11.04 21:53:00 - [38] Both parties involved perform the calculations and both send the result - if they agree then the server accepts the result, if they disagree then the server performs the calculation itself. The server is still fully capable of doing line of sight calculations, it just doesn't need to as long as the clients are agreeing. Now, this 2 man voting puts trust on the clients, and in a pvp game it works because the attacker and defender both have different goals, a hacked client on the attacker's side wants to increase hit rate, a hacked client on the defenders side wants to decrease hit rate. If however the same LOS rules were to apply to beneficial effects such as RR the server couldn't trust the motives of both involved parties and would have to do it itself. If there are a large number of other parties on grid then the protocol can be extended to asking multiple uninvolved parties to perform the calculation too. Also, this doesn't work for attacks involving NPCs, those still need to happen server side, although if you're hacking your Eve client to pwn NPC's you need to get a life. There are a whole ton of papers on how to perform useful work with large numbers of untrusted clients, this is just an example of how EVE would use those. Besides technologicly it's an easy problem to solve, the questions I have are gameplay issues.... What happens when another ship gets in your way, do you stop shooting or can you override this? What about missed shots continuing on, can I get someone concorded if some of their shots miss me and hit someone behind me?
Taki Kenirou	Posted - 2009.11.04 23:25:00 - [39] I would think there is a problem that some people are looking over in the argument about lag or no lag here. Yes xyz coordinates are already calculated for the ship shooting and being shot. however when you fire a round, there are other calculations that go into determining weather or not it hits or how much it hits for. speed size, angular velocity ect. now if there is a collision in the way for an asteroid it doesn't matter, but another ship well now you need to calculate a random second target that would not already be there. I do not know much on the basis of code, but unless everything was preplanned out the server wouldn't know there was going to be a collision until their was. I would have to think that there would be at least some time for it to load the damage, / hit script up, when it normally would not have if it detected a collision before hitting the target. at the same time, given that we can now have 500 people in a system with only a few seconds of lag, if that, its something to start working on. since at one point connection speed would be irrelevant anyway.
Soden Rah Gallente Rapier Industry and Technology	Posted - 2009.11.05 01:07:00 - [40] In addition to this: Originally by: Besides technologicly it's an easy problem to solve, the questions I have are gameplay issues.... What happens when another ship gets in your way, do you stop shooting or can you override this? What about missed shots continuing on, can I get someone concorded if some of their shots miss me and hit someone behind me? [/quote New greifing tactic; if shots that don't hit their target continue on till there 'max' range or untill they hit another ship, you can't have this be a concordable offence otherwise combat in highsec would become way to risky, however if its not a concordable offence you simple get a frig to orbit around the person (hulk) you want to kill and then shoot at the frig from a BS with long range guns from close enought that you can't track the frig well, do it from enough bs's and the dps on the target (hulk) is enough to toast it, and they never get the chance to shoot back (or if it isn't a concord event but they do get agro on you they are still stuffed as as soon as they shoot you they can be targetted directly and tackled) this would allow for the killing of players with no risk of concord/shiploss. I am all for more realistic physics, I would like for example to see stuff move at more realistic speeds (space ships mooving at barely more than 100m/s.... come on) and operate at more realistic ranges, but as fun as it would be to allow line of sight effects, the added server load makes this totaly unfeasable for the forseable future. There will come a time (if the game lasts that long) when the cheeply available computing power makes this kind of stuff realistic, but its not here yet. Note: even if you put most of the calculations onto the client you still up the server load (and risk lagging clients), and all the solutuion checking would increase the required bandwidth, and when 1000+ ships fire at the same time the servers going to have to compare 2000+ fireing solutions against each other before giving the goahead for them to happen... you guess what happens then ;-)
RS Murphy League of Gentlemen Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2009.11.05 17:13:00 - [41] Donuts > Waffles > Pancakes > Pie > Cake
Avoida	Posted - 2009.11.05 17:36:00 - [42] Eclairs > Donuts > Waffles > Pancakes > Pie > Cake
Kweel Nakashyn shadow and cloaking Mordus Angels	Posted - 2009.11.05 21:39:00 - [43] Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 05/11/2009 21:44:11 Originally by: Illectroculus Defined can I get someone concorded if some of their shots miss me and hit someone behind me? Concord still have to shoot the attacker. Shooting occlusion could be used as a griefing tactic : You shoot on a fleet member (so no concordokken) and those two guys manage to orbit a freighter, for example. If concord aggroes, what if during an Empire war somebody use uncorped alt to be in the middle of a fight... Then the server would have to raise more flags on orbitting a shooting player for example. That's a lot of CPU power. :( Or make this only in low-sec and null, where the 1000 men fleets are. ~ Beer > Eve ? Eve > Beer ?
hmmv50cal Caldari	Posted - 2009.11.05 23:01:00 - [44] Originally by: Illectroculus Defined You don't even need to do most of the collision detection on the server side - have the clients - both the attacker and the target - if they agree on the results, great, if they disagree then the server steps in and does the intersection calculation. (and if a client keeps disagreeing with everyone else then it's probably desynched and should be forced to reload the grid). I built p2p systems which used similar client side calculation and voting techniques to move load off the server. Hey guys, lets do this and let the memory editor hackers start making Godmode ships in EVE!

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.