| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Kamden Line
Lightbringer's Sanctuary
RAZOR Alliance
71
   |
Posted - 2013.01.17 09:48:00 -
[61] - Quote
Ok, listen. Planets in EVE do actually orbit. However, they orbit at absurdly slow speeds. Jita IV-IV moon orbits at like 1 km per day? someone measured it out for me once, but it was absurdly slow. |
Elistea
BLUE Regiment.
180
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:09:00 -
[62] - Quote
RomeStar wrote:Why dont planets in Eve Orbit stars? I know this is EVE but this is one mechanic I think should have some sort of realistic aspect to it.
I would love to create a bookmark and 6moths later come back and its nowhere near any planets or stations. I wish they would bring back warping to specific coordinates so we can create bookmarks alittle easier.
As a Nightmare pilot i strongly dissagree for one simple reason. Any and all planets or moons align and move faster than my ship => since stations orbit moons i wouldn't be able to dock EWAR AGAIN!!! |
ctx2007
Wychwood and Wells
Beer needs you
265
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:34:00 -
[63] - Quote
Oh just pretend the planets are orbiting. Simple.
You only-árealise you life has been a waste of time, when you wake up dead. |
Di Mulle
89
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:35:00 -
[64] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD9OV1Zrs4IStar gates would connect systems depending on proximity and other random goodness. With the inner core of the galaxy spinning fastest and the outer stars on the slowest cycle, it would create some interesting situations. Granted the rate of the galaxy spiral should be slow, but fast enough to have a few new connections per day. Maybe in another ten years something of this magnitude and scope will be seen for EVE. Food for thought.
It is very bad food for thought. The simulation you linked is going on scales simply incomparable to EVE's universe both in space and time. EVE's world is actually a very small star cluster, a minuscule part of the galaxy. And galactic movement is noticeable on the time scale of millions of years. I wish all the best for EVE, but I do not think it will last that long.
Of course, stars in galaxies have their own individual movement and their relative positions to each other are constantly changing. But then again, it would produce not a "few new connections per day", but rather one change in a few thousand years at best.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>> |
Palovana
Inner Fire Inc.
314
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 11:29:00 -
[65] - Quote
Would it be cool? Yes!
Is it practical to do? No!
If you make planets orbit the star, then you have to make moons orbit the planets.
Other objects such as stargates, stations and asteroid belts which are relative to a planet or moon then have to be moved along with the planets and moons (not necessarily with asteroids, if they are changed to a "scan to find" type of system).
There can be over 200 of these now-moving objects in a system, and there are thousands of systems, possibly a million total objects to move.
Suddenly the TQ cluster is requiring 1.21GW of power for moving all of these objects continuously.
Or if they're moved at DT every day, we're back to 60-minute downtimes or worse.
Please support: export of settings in editable format
Your stuff goes here. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 11:43:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:Tippia wrote:Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain. To expand on that, what would be the gain? Can't say, some people just believe it's cool when their favourite game has the best possible physics simulation possible.
On another note, that would create some problems for bookmarks, since POSes are anchored to moons and moons orbit planets, any bookmark placed on a POS would lead to quite empty space a few hours or even minutes after it's creation since the Moon/Planet in question would've moved away. Someone in this thread said Planets are slow... well, compared to space ships with a warp drive maybe... but, Earth for example moves at a speed of 29.8 km per second, Venus is a little bit faster with round about 35km per second and I once read that for example Alpha Centauri has planets that orbit their star in approx. 3.2 days... Alpha Centauri is quite a bit bigger than our sun, so it's safe to say, that thing is FAST.
So if You really wanted planets orbiting the systems central star, You'd need gravity wells so that ships warping to a planet or in our case a POS wouldn't be left behind in empty space and actual gravity wells would open up a whole new host of new problems regarding it's physics engine. Eve would need a near complete overhaul to adapt to those changes.
Not saying it wouldn't be cool, but I imagine it'd be quite a lot of work.
There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
230
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 12:34:00 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:Tippia wrote:Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain. To expand on that, what would be the gain?
Immersion, but I've noticed it's not on the priority list for EVE.
|
MainDrain
7th Deepari Defence Armada
106
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 12:37:00 -
[68] - Quote
Kamden Line wrote:Ok, listen. Planets in EVE do actually orbit. However, they orbit at absurdly slow speeds. Jita IV-IV moon orbits at like 1 km per day? someone measured it out for me once, but it was absurdly slow.
They lied to you.
The devs have said they dont move, thats good enough for me |
Yeovilty
The Scope
Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:20:00 -
[69] - Quote
Jiska Ensa wrote:After all, Eve isn't about "Why?", it's about "Why not?" :)
+1
EDIT
MainDrain wrote:Kamden Line wrote:Ok, listen. Planets in EVE do actually orbit. However, they orbit at absurdly slow speeds. Jita IV-IV moon orbits at like 1 km per day? someone measured it out for me once, but it was absurdly slow. They lied to you. The devs have said they dont move, thats good enough for me
I made a safe-undock spot for Jita a long time ago, it was 200 km out. Now when I warp to it, it's around 1000 km out. I'm interested as to why this is, if planets don't move. |
Jiska Ensa
Unour Heavy Industries
118
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:The "loss" would be a lot of systems would have to rewritten to support a dynamic grid system and then that dynamic grid system would have to be explained to players. A lot of the thing you mention above we did to add to the immersion in the world but not at the cost of complicating game play. Rotating planets might complicate game play.
OK I guess when you put it that way...But please do us a favour, and keep it in mind, and if you ever re-do the grid systems, maybe consider it then? :) |
Marlona Sky
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
2900
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:24:00 -
[71] - Quote
Di Mulle wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD9OV1Zrs4IStar gates would connect systems depending on proximity and other random goodness. With the inner core of the galaxy spinning fastest and the outer stars on the slowest cycle, it would create some interesting situations. Granted the rate of the galaxy spiral should be slow, but fast enough to have a few new connections per day. Maybe in another ten years something of this magnitude and scope will be seen for EVE. Food for thought. It is very bad food for thought. The simulation you linked is going on scales simply incomparable to EVE's universe both in space and time. EVE's world is actually a very small star cluster, a minuscule part of the galaxy. And galactic movement is noticeable on the time scale of millions of years. I wish all the best for EVE, but I do not think it will last that long. Of course, stars in galaxies have their own individual movement and their relative positions to each other are constantly changing. But then again, it would produce not a "few new connections per day", but rather one change in a few thousand years at best.
I'm not talking about real time rotation to a real galaxy. lol
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Di Mulle
89
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:34:00 -
[72] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:
I'm not talking about real time rotation to a real galaxy. lol
Then you are talking about the reshuffling of the EVE map , a call for this appears all the time. Whether it is needed or not, you do not need to implement a complicated simulation of celestial movement. Game designer just changing gate connections here and there will be way more effective.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>> |
EdwardNardella
Capital Construction Research
Pioneer Alliance
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 18:54:00 -
[73] - Quote
Yeovilty wrote:I made a safe-undock spot for Jita a long time ago, it was 200 km out. Now when I warp to it, it's around 1000 km out. I'm interested as to why this is, if planets don't move.
The station was moved a while back for the release of an expansion to change the sense of scale when compared to the moon. |
Yeovilty
The Scope
Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 19:15:00 -
[74] - Quote
EdwardNardella wrote:Yeovilty wrote:I made a safe-undock spot for Jita a long time ago, it was 200 km out. Now when I warp to it, it's around 1000 km out. I'm interested as to why this is, if planets don't move. The station was moved a while back for the release of an expansion to change the sense of scale when compared to the moon.
This explains it! :D
Least now I know! |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
1586
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 19:26:00 -
[75] - Quote
Sounds like OP is tired of being defeated by enemies using 7 year old bookmarks...
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
7172
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 19:56:00 -
[76] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain.
But I want orbits.... 
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
7172
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 20:01:00 -
[77] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:Jiska Ensa wrote:Gain?
Why did you make new turrets? Why do missiles now launch from launchers instead of the middle of the ship?
Why do drones have models when few people ever zoom in on them?
Why did you make new nebula backgrounds? Why do we have 4 different Captain's Quarters? Why did you redo the character creator? Why V3 (or V-anything) the ships? Why does Eve have music? Why do POS shields have that weird pulse effect? Why is there a glorified acid-trip when our ships are in warp? Why did you add a brand new effect for jump drives?
The "gain" would be "it looks cool" or "adds realism/emersion."
And honestly is it really that hard to have everything operate in an rotational reference frame relative to the nearest celestial body? How hard is it to have all structures, ships, bookmarks, drones, wrecks, hell just the entire GRID, orbit around a moon/planet/star? All bookmarks/anchor points out to a certain distance from a moon/planet could be written as a function of radial distance, and angle in two dimensions, and then when someone warps to it a grid is created at the appropriate location based on the current position of that rotational reference frame. Or something. I used to know this stuff but it's amazing how much math one can forget.
After all, Eve isn't about "Why?", it's about "Why not?" :) The "loss" would be a lot of systems would have to rewritten to support a dynamic grid system and then that dynamic grid system would have to be explained to players. A lot of the thing you mention above we did to add to the immersion in the world but not at the cost of complicating game play. Rotating planets might complicate game play.
*geek sigh*
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Rawthorm
The Establishment
Establishment.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 22:57:00 -
[78] - Quote
More to the point, don't you think any civilization advanced enough to travel between the stars, could have their "bookmarking" system compensate for things like stellar drift, and planetary orbit? 
I recall a game called Darkspace using orbiting planets for a time, tho in that game it made sense. Warping across a vast solar system took extensive time and having planets pass closer or further from strategic points as time progressed shook a long game up nicely.
Don't think eve would see any benefit other than to raise the running cost of eve and annoy anyone who has bookmarks near gates / planets |
Unkind Omen
Stone circle
W-Space
9
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 12:41:00 -
[79] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:
The "loss" would be a lot of systems would have to rewritten to support a dynamic grid system and then that dynamic grid system would have to be explained to players. A lot of the thing you mention above we did to add to the immersion in the world but not at the cost of complicating game play. Rotating planets might complicate game play.
Well, as I am not aware of how bad is the current code design in terms of adding anything new to it I am unable to state that would be an easy task. However the conflicts can be partially solved just by performing rotations of planets and moons and grids withing their corresponding SOI during the downtime when no actual actions performed by players. The actual rotation of the grid's coordinate system is not even the desired behavior (I understand that rotating structures on POSes around the POS grid may cause big big troubles). Just make planets move around the sun bit by bit and may be someday the actual rotation of everything will become a number one issues to solve for the sake of creating a beutifull universe. |
Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
168
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 13:03:00 -
[80] - Quote
Inducing real Celestrial Mechanics would force the server to chew gum and walk at the same time we all know thats not possible.
New Player retention is important to our community. |
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
125
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 13:09:00 -
[81] - Quote
There is man who doesn't think it's impossible, and so he will make impossible happen.
Inside mining barge, true story |
Ammzi
Infinite Covenant
Tribal Band
1296
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 13:57:00 -
[82] - Quote
Earth moves with relative speed of several thousand km/s.
You will land on a station anchored around a planet and in 10 seconds that station would be in warp range again.
quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
Spurty
V0LTA
Verge of Collapse
746
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 14:05:00 -
[83] - Quote
I demand pos's hurtling around their moons in geostationary orbit doing so many 1000s of m/s
---
I used to be indecisive but now I am not quite sure. |
Havegun Willtravel
Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
61
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 14:23:00 -
[84] - Quote
" To expand on that, what would be the gain? "
Quite simply, unpredictability. Something the game is sorely lacking at the moment.
With the exception of a few gates which were re-aligned, and a handful of new celestial's seeded, bookmarks from 10 years ago are still valid today.
While the ships and mods we use have undergone significant transformations since beta, the environment we interact with hasn't.
This in many ways has made the game static and predictable and reduced rather than enhanced the quality and type of decisions and choices we as players make in game.
The argument against change is that it's overly complex and gives back little. Why however, is it necessary to change everything at once ? A random number generator picking 15 systems a week to be shuffled in the deck would after 6 months have effected @ 360 systems. A '' crap '' system that previously only had 3 belts could be shuffled to have 11 and see it's popularity and utility rise greatly. Reshuffling gate connections would alter traffic flows and potentially create new conflict generators in the process. Once the dev's had some practice with it, it should become a simple cut and paste process that could be expanded to include moon minerals, asteroids, gate connections, and even the faction of rats.
You would never again be able to log off and know for certain that the EVE you left was the exact same predictable one you logged into.
If once a week we needed to tolerate a single 60 min downtime in order to shake 10 years of dust off of EVE then i'd say it's a small price to pay to bring a gust of fresh air to a tired and overly familiar environment. Familiarity breeds contempt, or in our case complacency.
Wake up Explorer, it's time for a change.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
4840
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 14:36:00 -
[85] - Quote
Aston Martin DB5 wrote:Tippia wrote:Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain. Spoken like a true dev alt. And your opinion regarding animated turrets?
Cool turrets don't break bookmarks. |
Pandora Barzane
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 19:25:00 -
[86] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Aston Martin DB5 wrote:Tippia wrote:Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain. Spoken like a true dev alt. And your opinion regarding animated turrets? Cool turrets don't break bookmarks.
how about adding some complexity to the game? oh I know you want easymode so you dont have to scan your safes each time. well HTFU and all that.
|
Rebecha Pucontis
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 19:35:00 -
[87] - Quote
I want completely realistic newtonian physics. Ships should travel non stop until acted upon by another force, trajectories should be effected by the gravity of surrounding planets, ships should be pulled towards the sun towards impending doom if they stray to close, projectiles should have unlimited range, planets should orbit their sun, solar systems should orbit around their galaxy. That would be awesome, and was also originally the intention of eve. Unfortunately this will never happen now though in the Eve universe. We wIll have to wait for another game which implements this level of realism. |
Pandora Barzane
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 19:57:00 -
[88] - Quote
I think true newtonian physics would be a bit too much. Ive played evochron mercenary, and combat is horrible in this game. But orbiting planets/moons would at least add the notion youre in a dynamic galaxy instead of the static backdrop it is now. |
Whitehound
408
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 21:06:00 -
[89] - Quote
Rebecha Pucontis wrote:I want completely realistic newtonian physics. Ships should travel non stop until acted upon by another force, trajectories should be effected by the gravity of surrounding planets, ships should be pulled towards the sun towards impending doom if they stray to close, projectiles should have unlimited range, planets should orbit their sun, solar systems should orbit around their galaxy. That would be awesome, and was also originally the intention of eve. Unfortunately this will never happen now though in the Eve universe. We wIll have to wait for another game which implements this level of realism.
This is possibly where Star Citizen will shine over EVE Online. If or when it is being released can we see how much it adds to a game, or if it is just another complication like CCP Explorer says. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
7260
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 21:14:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:Tippia wrote:Because it would create an awful lot of hassle for little to no gain. To expand on that, what would be the gain?
EVE is real, but not real enough.
When I was a humble noob, I was really disappointed that the planets and moons didn't move. Quite a few of the planets should have done a few orbits by now.
PS you can make it much easier by moving the grid (and any bookmarks on it) along with the planet
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |