Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Nuela
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:04:00 -
[1]
Not a slam on Eve, love this game.
However, why did CCP have the physics of this game be like submarines and not spaceships? In Eve, space has 'resistance' much like a submarine going through water.
There is a top speed wich implies that space is resisting the ship and top speed means the highest output of the engine cannot make more headway against the water. In space, there is no 'top speed'.
When your engine stops, you slow down quite dramatically. In space you would continue on at a constant speed.
Curious as to if this was deliberate for game play reasons or if no science types work at CCP :)
|
Messoroz
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:07:00 -
[2]
Quote: In space, there is no 'top speed'.
Speed of light.
|
Admiral Perimeter
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:07:00 -
[3]
Image Eve with real life physics.
It would not work.
This is obviously a purely balance based design decision.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:09:00 -
[4]
Probably because submarine/airship physics are what many people intuitively expect in a space game.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Nuela
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:11:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Nuela on 15/07/2010 21:11:55
Originally by: Messoroz
Quote: In space, there is no 'top speed'.
Speed of light.
NOt really. I can hop in a ship and fly to a star 4 light years away and make it there in a week. Looks to me like I'm moving pretty damn fast. Of course it looks like I took 4 years/speed of light to the people I left behind...unless they try catching up to me...
I agree with Admiral though, you think this game is hard with submarine physics...with real physics it would be a mess.
|
Darth Kilth
Minmatar M. Corp Academy
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:12:00 -
[6]
It's more like jello physics....
Originally by: CCP Capslock OH GOD THE TESTING
|
DuKackBoon
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:15:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Nuela Not a slam on Eve, love this game.
However, why did CCP have the physics of this game be like submarines and not spaceships? In Eve, space has 'resistance' much like a submarine going through water.
There is a top speed wich implies that space is resisting the ship and top speed means the highest output of the engine cannot make more headway against the water. In space, there is no 'top speed'.
When your engine stops, you slow down quite dramatically. In space you would continue on at a constant speed.
Curious as to if this was deliberate for game play reasons or if no science types work at CCP :)
It was deliberate, because it's easier to code, and in the end, the handling and orientation is much easier.
|
Takashi Halamoto
No Limit Productions Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:18:00 -
[8]
and if they went real space physics it would be hell complicated with acceleration and deceleration and you know someone would want to play merry hell with relativistic effects Me? im just sitting here,
|
Julius Rigel
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:19:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Nuela In Eve, space has 'resistance' much like a submarine going through water.
That's called drag.
Originally by: Nuela There is a top speed wich implies that space is resisting the ship and top speed means the highest output of the engine cannot make more headway against the water. In space, there is no 'top speed'.
Jello physics were implemented otherwise people would log on and travel at infinity velocity and the server would explode.
|
Ascendic
Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:32:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Ascendic on 15/07/2010 21:36:13
Originally by: Nuela Edited by: Nuela on 15/07/2010 21:11:55
Originally by: Messoroz
Quote: In space, there is no 'top speed'.
Speed of light.
NOt really. I can hop in a ship and fly to a star 4 light years away and make it there in a week. Looks to me like I'm moving pretty damn fast. Of course it looks like I took 4 years/speed of light to the people I left behind...unless they try catching up to me...
I agree with Admiral though, you think this game is hard with submarine physics...with real physics it would be a mess.
No. That is not how it works. Time is a perception. For you 4 years still pass when traveling at the speed of light. The difference would be that when you arrive at your destination for every year you were in flight at 99% the speed of light 1300 earth years would have passed. But thanks for coming out to inject your lack of knowledge of physics and relativity into this forum.
|
|
el Sabor
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:33:00 -
[11]
Edited by: el Sabor on 15/07/2010 21:35:22
Originally by: Nuela
Curious as to if this was deliberate for game play reasons or if no science types work at CCP :)
A lot of other people will state several game play reasons so I won't bother! I will simply state that with space physics the game would probably be crappy.
I've known very few space sims that use real physics. (edit: correct me if I'm wrong. Would be quite interested in giving one a try!)
|
Stitcher
Caldari Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:38:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Stitcher on 15/07/2010 21:39:42
I can only think of one game that ever made use of real Newtonian physics in a space setting, and it was by all accounts ludicrously difficult.
No, for the purposes of a game, the way EVE (and most other successful genres like X or Homeworld) do things is much better. It's more intuitive and easy to control, lends itself far better to game balance, and doesn't actually look that bad to anybody who isn't excessively pedantic.
The "fluff" reason for it all is that warp engines take forever to bring on-line and shut down safely, and it can't actually be done safely in space - it needs to be done in the controlled conditions of a space station or shipyard. So, from the moment the ship is first assembled to the moment it's decommissioned (or violently decommissioned), its warp engine is forever online (even when it's packaged or when it's not actually warping anywhere).
This is just as well, because the warp engines also compensate for inertia, allowing the ship to perform manoeuvres that would otherwise be fatal to the crew - for instance, a kilometre-long battleship turning 180 degrees in three seconds would cause crushing centripetal force at the bow and stern without inertial compensation.
An active warp field interacts with the fabric of local space-time to create a "drag anchor" effect which slows the engine as if experiencing friction. By extension, anything attached to that engine - such as the ship - also experiences drag and has to exert constant thrust in order to maintain a steady speed. Seeing as moving at the kind of speeds a ship moving at Newtonian velocities could attain wouldn't be that ideal for an EVE ship with their comparatively slow tracking and short ranged weapons anyway, it's a fair trade-off.
Oh, and drones and missiles are fitted with MWDs, which have the same effect. -
- Verin "Stitcher" Hakatain.
|
ThisIsNotMyAlt
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:40:00 -
[13]
it is because our knowledge of space is all wrong and space is actually the way it is in eve. |
Jada Maroo
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:46:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Stitcher Edited by: Stitcher on 15/07/2010 21:39:42
I can only think of one game that ever made use of real Newtonian physics in a space setting, and it was by all accounts ludicrously difficult.
If you're thinking of I-WAR, it was also awesome.
But yeah, won't work for Eve.
|
Aldor Fisax
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:46:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Aldor Fisax on 15/07/2010 21:46:17
Originally by: el Sabor Edited by: el Sabor on 15/07/2010 21:35:22 I've known very few space sims that use real physics. (edit: correct me if I'm wrong. Would be quite interested in giving one a try!)
You could try I-War (and I-War 2) which have pretty good space physics. Unfortunately, they're also quite old.
Boo, person above me beat me. I hate you!
|
Takashi Halamoto
No Limit Productions Looney Toons.
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:46:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Takashi Halamoto on 15/07/2010 21:49:26 Elite 2 with its space physics could get crazy
dog fights were ,,,,,, tricky
and get your vectors wrong you slammed into the other guy unforgivably fast
ooh yes iwar another good example though also proves that with real space physics combat gets woogy and the pilots will really want control of roll pitch and yaw to make full use of the physics Me? im just sitting here,
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 21:59:00 -
[17]
Originally by: el Sabor Edited by: el Sabor on 15/07/2010 21:35:22
Originally by: Nuela
Curious as to if this was deliberate for game play reasons or if no science types work at CCP :)
A lot of other people will state several game play reasons so I won't bother! I will simply state that with space physics the game would probably be crappy.
I've known very few space sims that use real physics. (edit: correct me if I'm wrong. Would be quite interested in giving one a try!)
Try Orbiter, and realize why no one uses RL space physics for video games - it's just easier and levels out the mighty learning cliff somewhat. People get submarine/aircraft physics pretty intuitively, things like orbital mechanics less so. _____________________ Horrors! Demons in the deep! |
Jerry Attrick
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 22:03:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Nuela
Curious as to if this was deliberate for game play reasons or if no science types work at CCP :)
I remember reading an interview with this chap in E-ON a few years ago - dug this out from a CCP Fanfest info document 2007.
Kjartan Pierre Emilsson, Managing Director, CCP Asia
Dr. Kjartan Pierre Emilsson has been Managing Director of CCP Asia since March 2006, but was previously Lead Game Designer at CCP since 2001, where he led the design as well as taking part in the programming of the massively multiplayer title called EVE Online, successfully launched in 2003.
blah blah blah
He holds a Ph.D. degree in Mathematical Physics from the University of Nice - Sophia Antipolis
I think that qualifies him as a 'Science Type'
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 22:25:00 -
[19]
anyone who ever played Frontier will know why realistic physics are um.. not the best idea
- Malyutka (The Virus) - |
Ressiv
Cooperative Freelance Navigators Association
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 22:34:00 -
[20]
... while there is something to say for some of the arguments about it not realy working that well .... evochron does quite a nice job with a 1-man dev 'team' at implementing 'newtonian' physics and making it work. ========================== Nothing is true, everything is permitted. ========================== |
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 22:41:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina anyone who ever played Elite 2 or 3 will know why realistic physics are um.. not the best idea
Well, it "kind of" works if you have time acceleration control Without it, not so much. And since you can't really have time acceleration in a multiplayer game, let alone a MMO... yeah.
Oh, I keep forgetting the "Independence War" series. That's one of the very few examples of implementation of (mostly) Newtonian physics that actually works almost fine enough to use in a MMO. The LDS would be the equivalent of the EVE warp.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Ryhss
Caldari Ominous Corp
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 22:46:00 -
[22]
I really wish people would stop trying to apply real world physics into a game.
Originally by: Abrazzar I don't know what's going on but I am terribly upset about it.
|
Corin Nebulon
eXceed Inc. HYDRA RELOADED
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 22:47:00 -
[23]
and anybody who played Independence war or I-War 2 - Edge of Chaos, knows that realistic physics are pretty much win.
The problem with realistic physics is, that they eat up a lot of server resources. And the EVE Server Cluster isn't capable to use a technology like CUDA to help with the calculations that would be needed.
Nevertheless some more physically correct movement would be nice. The "move forward and turn nose" style of movement in eve is pretty much what was possible in 1990. At least moving backwards and "sliding" left, right up and down would be nice. An intresting compromise of realistic movement and gameplay needs was imho Nexus: The Jupiter Incident. In that game there was still a speed cap, yet most movements in low-speed (i.e. not lightspeed) where very realistic. Up to large ships starting to "roll" so smaller crafts have a harder time attacking the subsystems.
But for EVE this would be a VERY far way to go. Lots of changes and rebalancing needed.
|
Mathias Black
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 22:51:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Ascendic Edited by: Ascendic on 15/07/2010 21:36:13
Originally by: Nuela Edited by: Nuela on 15/07/2010 21:11:55
Originally by: Messoroz
Quote: In space, there is no 'top speed'.
Speed of light.
NOt really. I can hop in a ship and fly to a star 4 light years away and make it there in a week. Looks to me like I'm moving pretty damn fast. Of course it looks like I took 4 years/speed of light to the people I left behind...unless they try catching up to me...
I agree with Admiral though, you think this game is hard with submarine physics...with real physics it would be a mess.
No. That is not how it works. Time is a perception. For you 4 years still pass when traveling at the speed of light. The difference would be that when you arrive at your destination for every year you were in flight at 99% the speed of light 1300 earth years would have passed. But thanks for coming out to inject your lack of knowledge of physics and relativity into this forum.
Ha! No, he is right, and you are wrong. I guess this is a good example of why they don't have realistic physics in the game, as it's pretty unintuitive to most people. If a ship travels 4 light years at the near the speed of light it appears to take 4 years from the point of view of a stationary observer. That's why it's called a lightyear, it's the length of time light travels in a year from our "stationary" point of view. Time moves slower in the traveler's frame of reference. Traveling doesn't make everything else's time speed up.
|
Tyriana McLoren
Caldari The Republic of Free Trade
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 23:56:00 -
[25]
You ever play the old Asteroids game? You remember how terribly horrible it was to stabilize your ship from spinning or keep flying in one direction? Would you really want that in EvE?
|
Messoroz
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 00:01:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tyriana McLoren You ever play the old Asteroids game? You remember how terribly horrible it was to stabilize your ship from spinning or keep flying in one direction? Would you really want that in EvE?
/me imagines a Titan colliding into a planet.
|
Gavjack Bunk
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 00:20:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Rawr Cristina anyone who ever played Frontier will know why realistic physics are um.. not the best idea
Or the very best idea...
|
Terminal Insanity
Minmatar U-208
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 00:26:00 -
[28]
Eve is based on Silent Service
~ ° ° ° ~ Non-Gameplay Enhancements! |
Ascendic
Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 01:30:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Ascendic on 16/07/2010 01:31:46
Originally by: Mathias Black
Ha! No, he is right, and you are wrong. I guess this is a good example of why they don't have realistic physics in the game, as it's pretty unintuitive to most people. If a ship travels 4 light years at the near the speed of light it appears to take 4 years from the point of view of a stationary observer. That's why it's called a lightyear, it's the distance light travels in a year, and anything moving near the speed of light travels the same distance in a year from a "stationary" point of view. Time moves slower in the traveler's frame of reference. Traveling doesn't make everything else's time speed up.
No he is still wrong. While in terms of a star "4 light years away" taking 4 light years from a stand still yes this is right, but completely not what I said if you would read my damn post. He specifically said he was travelling very fast and to him he arrived there quickly which is wrong. Time is always relative to the observer. Time passes differently for both parties but they both experience 'time' passing at a normal rate. If it was "4 light years" from earth then 4/5200 years would have passed for the person traveling. No where did I say it sped up time I said that it passes at different rates. And I am completely right in that 4 years at the speed of light (for the traveler) is ~ 1300 years on earth.
|
Gavin Nordoff
|
Posted - 2010.07.16 02:43:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Gavjack Bunk
Originally by: Rawr Cristina anyone who ever played Frontier will know why realistic physics are um.. not the best idea
Or the very best idea...
+1
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |