I've read some threads about this and am yet to see a response to this question: How is it logical that using a warp disruptor raises a criminal flag but preventing someone from warping by bumping into their ship endlessly does not?

I understand bumping is not in itself an exploit, and it would be tough to place flags as how does one determine when it is appropriate to do so?

None the less this issue needs to be looked at. I don't fly freighters or do much that requires such transportation so I don't think I'm (too) biased when it comes to this. Can't ignore the faulty logic.
RRing criminals flags you. Why? You are helping criminals. So... what's the bumper doing?

CCP should sit down and come up with a solution. There should be something "between" a yellow and orange flag for this and they need to find an effective way for it to exist within the game.

I've read some threads about this and am yet to see a response to this question: How is it logical that using a warp disruptor raises a criminal flag but preventing someone from warping by bumping into their ship endlessly does not?

I understand bumping is not in itself an exploit, and it would be tough to place flags as how does one determine when it is appropriate to do so?

None the less this issue needs to be looked at. I don't fly freighters or do much that requires such transportation so I don't think I'm (too) biased when it comes to this. Can't ignore the faulty logic.
RRing criminals flags you. Why? You are helping criminals. So... what's the bumper doing?

CCP should sit down and come up with a solution. There should be something "between" a yellow and orange flag for this and they need to find an effective way for it to exist within the game.

CCP is, at least, consistent about this, in that their explanation about what provokes a criminal flag is the use of a module. Of course, that wouldn't be the case with bumping - no modules are involved.

I've read some threads about this and am yet to see a response to this question: How is it logical that using a warp disruptor raises a criminal flag but preventing someone from warping by bumping into their ship endlessly does not?

I understand bumping is not in itself an exploit, and it would be tough to place flags as how does one determine when it is appropriate to do so?

None the less this issue needs to be looked at. I don't fly freighters or do much that requires such transportation so I don't think I'm (too) biased when it comes to this. Can't ignore the faulty logic.
RRing criminals flags you. Why? You are helping criminals. So... what's the bumper doing?

CCP should sit down and come up with a solution. There should be something "between" a yellow and orange flag for this and they need to find an effective way for it to exist within the game.

No.

If bumping were any form of attack, then I would sit on the undock in Jita and get people blown up endlessly. The reason is not in any way shape or form an act that flags you is because it can, and much of the time is done accidentally. Make it a hostile act and you've opened up a can of worms you really don't want the smart, mean people in this game to have access to.

Just have someone double-web your ship to cut your time to warp. It's beyond easy.

Its very easy for the server to tell the difference between deliberate bumping and accidental bumping.

Deliberate -

Ship is moving at great speed.
Ship is repeatedly colliding with the bumped ship while moving at great speed in a forward direction.
Ship is moving away at high speed to get range for next bump.
vs

Undocking

Ship is moving at slow speed
Ship is bumping another ship at slow speed while moving up down, sideways.
Ship is not moving away at high speed to get range for next bump.

Simple.

Its very easy for the server to tell the difference between deliberate bumping and accidental bumping.

Deliberate -

Ship is moving at great speed.
Ship is repeatedly colliding with the bumped ship while moving at great speed in a forward direction.
Ship is moving away at high speed to get range for next bump.
Ship is using MWD.

vs

Undocking

Ship is moving at slow speed
Ship is bumping another ship at slow speed while moving up down, sideways.
Ship is not moving away at high speed to get range for next bump.
Ship is not using MWD.

Simple.

I agree that it should be possible to code a proper "bumper detection method" if the devs want that ... but checking for the usuage of a MWD is not a good idea as anyone could legally activate that mod on undock.

Ok, great. Now the second you tell me how to code that in a decade-old 3-dimensional underwater simulation model that was conscripted into use as a spaceship game for whom none of the original programmers still work for the company, we can get started.

Lets say two soccer balls are rolling down the streat, and hit each other head on. Absent any other information, can you determine which one hit the other?

That's how the server sees you, as a bunch of different sized balls bouncing around a grid. If you can derive "intent to bump" out of just that, more power to you.

Don't forget, a computer cannot judge intent. Anything you get to protect yourself, I get to use too. Lets say CCP makes "Faster moving ship=bumper". Well, I'll just take a speedy interceptor, park it at a dead stop in front of your barge/freighter/orca, and wait for CONCORD to do the killing work for me, when you trigger the bumping flag.


CCP has an excellent system in place, that protects both sides. Bumpers can bump, till it's shown they are going out of their way to target one person. To invoke that rule, the bumpee has to make an effort to escape being bumped (the current definition we use for escape is "Move far enough away that the bumpers must use locator agents to find you."

Pretty easy

CollisionCnt = 0

On Collision

If ship1.LastCollision - Timer = 0 then ship1.CollisionCnt = 0

IF ship1.speed > SpeedLimit AND ship2.speed < SpeedLimit AND Ship1.MwdActive = TRUE THEN Ship1.CollisionCnt = Ship1.CollisionCnt + 1

If CollisionCnt > MaxCollisionsAllowed then Ship1.SuspectFlag = TRUE


How many times have you ever collided repeatedly with a ship at speed while your microwarpdrive was active??

You are reading more into my post than I wrote and if you believe that you can not code a method to deal with bumping - if you want such a method - you are plain wrong.

They've outright said in the past that they are having trouble trying to fix POS'es because the guys who coded the game back then are long gone from the company, the code is ludicrously complicated, and they didn't leave notes.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Oh, and I love how many wannabe programmers there are, who think you can just wave a sparkly magic wand and your programmers can accomplish whatever your little heart desires.

Not sure what your problem is.
All I said is that you CAN code a method to detect bumping if you want that. I didn't say it would be easy nor did I say that it should be done. And while we're at it, there are already ideas in this thread that might work. All I say is that it's POSSIBLE if you really want such a method.

It's also possible that Paraguay might fund the next moon landing. It's possible I might get run over by a semi in the city park.

But, they've not only said that they consider bumping to be fine and an example of emergent gameplay, they also referenced several times, that because the original programmers are all gone that there isn't much they can do to change the engine.

Why else do you think the most complicated code they've added to the game in a long time is loot spew? Otherwise most of what they change are ship stats, which aside from the artwork are little more than several reference tables (as EFT has shown us). Valkyrie is a good example of that as well. Some of their guys working in their spare time can build an engine from the ground up more easily and more quickly than they can develop changes for the existing one.

It's also possible that Paraguay might fund the next moon landing. It's possible I might get run over by a semi in the city park.

But, they've not only said that they consider bumping to be fine and an example of emergent gameplay, they also referenced several times, that because the original programmers are all gone that there isn't much they can do to change the engine.

Why else do you think the most complicated code they've added to the game in a long time is loot spew? Otherwise most of what they change are ship stats, which aside from the artwork are little more than several reference tables (as EFT has shown us). Valkyrie is a good example of that as well. Some of their guys working in their spare time can build an engine from the ground up more easily and more quickly than they can develop changes for the existing one.

To answer your question, while undocking I have done it plenty of times. You ever been to Jita? Seen the traffic in that station during peak times? I could rack up a killboard so green you could see it from space if bumping could flag someone.

Secondly, oh, wonderful, I see that EVE runs on basic IF>THEN statements!. Praise be to Infinity Ziona, who has saved us all from the vagaries of 3D representative modeling code and fluidic physics engines!

You really are an idiot, you know that, right? Did you expect me to believe that tripe?

Honestly, when I saw that I almost swallowed my tongue laughing at you. You have just proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Amusingly, every programmer I've known who work on games, the absolute core rule has been "Don't touch the physics engine unless you absolutely must!" I expect CCP is the same, and since CCP has a system they're satisfied with....


It's always people who've never been near the industry who scream "Code, fix it, it's EASY do it!" Normally followed by a rant about wasting "dev time" when the art team makes something new.

Firstly you are saying that you have accidentally and repeatedly collided with the same ship at MWD speed over and over again while undocking? I say you haven't.

Secondly, that is not BASIC code lol, that's psudocode, I program in C, C++, Visual C, Visual Basic and BASIC. I was actually a teacher for 10 years at TAFE here in Australia and taught it. The code above is more OOP C like code than BASIC though.

Its not the physics engine at all. The physics don't need to change. Its a detection method for bumping which has nothing to do with the EvE physics.

So, when I am burning to a gate, in my inty and a freighter lands in front of me, I should get flagged?

Also, I have repeatedly bumped freighters off the undock in my freighter, its a common occurrence at a congested station, so, red flags all round?

Firstly you are saying that you have accidentally and repeatedly collided with the same ship at MWD speed over and over again while undocking? I say you haven't.

Secondly, that is not BASIC code lol, that's psudocode, I program in C, C++, Visual C, Visual Basic and BASIC. I was actually a teacher for 10 years at TAFE here in Australia and taught it. The code above is more OOP C like code than BASIC though.

:)

EVE while drunk. It's a whole other game.



I didn't say code, I said statement. Mouth, meet foot.

Secondly, I also didn't say "Basic" the code. Basic, as in, introductory.




"This just in, collision detection is decoupled from the physics engine, and the sky is actually red."

How is it logical that using a warp disruptor raises a criminal flag but preventing someone from warping by bumping into their ship endlessly does not?

CCP should sit down and come up with a solution.

OK, so we implement the "MWD=bumping" code. Bumpers promptly come up with a system using plates and overdrives. Might be a little slower, but hey, we just replace that with numbers.


How bout if I just shut down the MWD before the actual collision? Also, where are we getting the extra clock cycles from, to do these interacting physics to active module checks. Tis a little more complex than the current system. No, the current system doesn't check for active modules when it comes to bumping. Activating a MWD changes stats on the ship, which is much easier to do the compares on. In fact, from my own poking, I don't think there's any direct checks from physics model to modules. The modules change a DB entry for ship stats, that the physics engine looks at when needed. "When needed" is lots easier on a DB system than "real-time".

Plates and overdrives won't work like a MWD'ing Mach.

Its not like there will be more thousands of people bumping lol. I'm sure the cluster can handle a few checks when ships collide. They already do. Even at peak hour there's probably 50 people bumping at undock in Jita. If you consider 50 people bumping, that's 100 tasks for the server.

If you consider one person entering system, that's (lets say there are 2000 people in local) the server has to do 2000 tasks just to update everyone with the new person. Every message in local 2000 tasks and so on. Every time a person undocks, everyone on grid needs to see them, all overviews need to see them and so on. Its miniscule in comparison.

Its not anything to do with the physics model. Its collision detection. I don't how EvE does it and you don't either but I doubt the collision detection is intertwined with the physics code itself.

It would be more likely that when a collision detection function detects a collision, the function generates a call to the physics engine to update it so that it changes velocity, applies whatever friction it needs, changes the angle of the ships travel.

Programming is modular. Its all divided into functions. The functions usually are as independent of each other as possible which is called loose coupling. Its like that so you can change a function, say collision detection, and you get as little carry over to other functions as possible.

what is not logical is that somthing the size of a interceptor can fly at 5k mps and slab into the size of something the size of a freighter and take no damage. That's like saying right i have a speed boat i am going to crash into the side of this oil tanker to move it. speed boat would just go pop.

Step one, it isn't the cluster handling the bumps, it's that single shard running the system. Jits is on it's own speshul system, so using that as a comparison is right out.

Collision detection *IS* the physics model. I mean, that's the PRIME job of a physics engine, is to work out collisions.

Also, again IIRC, there is no friction in EVE collision. Someone worked out the math long ago, but the rebound is simply done via a percent comparison based off of mass and velocity. This is why MWD works so well for bumping, it adds both.

Yes, programming is modular in a perfect world, in brand new code straight off the CVS. Now add ten years of patches, hacks hooks, and "just make it works".

You've still danced around exactly what I proposed. Rather than a simple DB call and compare at the (as you put it yourself) the rare instance of intentional collision, you want to install an overarching real-time module to physics engine check that does not currently exist. We're also doing this when the vast majority of the EVE playerbase, and CCP itself is happy with the current system of human evaluation of intent, if-when needed.



Anyway, lets say we install your system. After X MWD in Y timeframe, CONCORD shows up and kills the bumpers. No problem. I'll only bump in Y+1 time, and bring enough buddies to fill in the time. Make 5 minutes your timeframe, sure. I'll bring 25 buddies to bump (not hard at all). That's a bump per 15 seconds.

Any code fix you try to employ, is a fix I can work around. The only way to stop bumping is to ban it, and...CCP likes bumping. They've coined it as the "poor man's point" and toss it up as an example of unplanned emergent gameplay.

You're not quite understanding. A physics engine (I don't know EvE's so I'm being general) only handles physics. It shouldn't care about MWD. It doesn't care about collisions.

If I was programming a very simple program that dealt with this stuff I would have the graphics engine (only handles graphics), a physics engine (only handles pure physics), a collision detection model (only handles collisions), a flagging system (only handles flagging).

If in my program a ship collided it would be detected by my collision detection model. The collision detection system (CDS) would call the flagging system (FS) with the ships object id (ship1, ship2), the flagging system would examine ship1 and ship2 data and do its stuff. The CDS would then call the physics engine (FE) with the same id's. The FE would examine the ship1 and ship 2 data and do its stuff. It doesn't even know that a MWD exists, it exists just to handle physics so it does it stuff based on ship1 and ship2 data. The CDS doesn't call the graphics system because that's handled by the main system which called the CDS.

As for your only bumping x number of times well true but that's infinitely better then as many times as you like.

Its not anything to do with the physics model. Its collision detection. I don't how EvE does it and you don't either but I doubt the collision detection is intertwined with the physics code itself.

You're re - tar - ded.

You're re - tar - ded.

I think I hurt its feelings.

Not at all. I have given my point of view, explained my reasoning politely and you have responded with a one line comment attacking me and also tried to bypass the filter. Therefore I have reported you.

If you would like to explain why you think I'm ******** for saying the collision detection is separate from the physics engine then please do so. If no you're simply trolling and being offensive.

Not at all. I have given my point of view, explained my reasoning politely and you have responded with a one line comment attacking me and also tried to bypass the filter. Therefore I have reported you.

If you would like to explain why you think I'm ******** for saying the collision detection is separate from the physics engine then please do so. If no you're simply trolling and being offensive.

If you would like to explain why you think I'm ******** for saying the collision detection is separate from the physics engine then please do so. If no you're simply trolling and being offensive.

Here, I'll do it by stealing a line from the Havok (a physics engine) website.

"Havok Physics offers the fastest, most robust collision detection and physical simulation technology available, which is why it has become the gold standard within the games industry and has been used by leading game developers in over 400 launched titles and many more in development. - See more at: http://www.havok.com/products/physics#sthash.W21KFwkG.dpuf"


Here's a second one just in case. Bullet:
Bullet is a Collision Detection and Rigid Body Dynamics Library. The Library is Open Source and free for commercial use, under the zlib [LICENSE].



Duder, if a physics engine company itself says it's system does collision detection, that's good enough for me.

because you don't want collision detection occurring when you don't have collisions.

TL; DR:

Infinity Ziona remains convinced that collision has nothing to with physics.

phys-+ics (fzks)
n.
1. (used with a sing. verb) The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

mechanics plural of me-+chan-+ics (Noun)
Noun
The branch of applied mathematics dealing with motion and forces producing motion.

col-+li-+sion
/k+Ö-êliZH+Ön/
Noun
An instance of one moving object or person striking violently against another.

A physics engine does physics.

Its not the physics engine at all. ... Its a detection method for bumping which has nothing to do with the EvE physics.

I found some really good quotes. I want to save Infinity Ziona from his infinite stupidity.







And the best quote of all time.

if you didn't know what 'physics engine' meant in computer games you can just say so and move on you know

I know what it means. Its an engine that handles the physics of the game. It could be a simple function or a complex group of functions but it does not handle collision detection. It handles the physics associated with collisions.

Let me ask you again, if you were simulating a ship floating in space, and you had nothing to collide with as you don't in space, would you or would you not need a physics engine to deal with forces being generated by the ships engines. Would it need collision detection function in such an instance?

The answer is no. The absence of a collision detection component does not make that physics engine not a physics engine therefore a physics engine does not have collision detection. If it does its an additional component and not part of the physics engine.

Oh and if it is integrated into the physics engine code then the programmers are stupid. It needs to be modular so it can be easily unplugged and updated.

Incorrect, as usual. If *I* were simulating a ship floating in space, I'd render it all with something like Maya, because including a whole physics engine when unneeded is insane.

If there's no interaction with anything in space, and you want interactivity, you could just code in texture translation and movement to simulate motion. No need to include a physics engine, if there's no collision detection needed.

or try to bludgeon your way through this completely irrelevant point instead of just bowing out w/e it's not me who's the fool

lmao. Really so an engine producing thrust (motion) with fuel (energy) and moving a ship (mass) does not require physics. We should tell NASA they could save a bunch by firing all their physicists :)

I know what it means. Its an engine that handles the physics of the game.

Let me ask you again, if you were simulating a ship floating in space, and you had nothing to collide with as you don't in space, would you or would you not need a physics engine to deal with forces being generated by the ships engines. Would it need collision detection function in such an instance?

The absence of a collision detection component does not make that physics engine not a physics engine therefore a physics engine does not have collision detection.

Really so an engine producing thrust (motion) with fuel (energy) and moving a ship (mass) does not require physics.

GǪincluding collisions.

You would need a physics engine if you intend to apply forces to it and you need collisions detection (usually as part of that physics engine) to detect of any collisions are occurring so you can apply even more forces.

Non sequitur. You're confusing sufficient and necessary. Just because you can have a physics engine without collision detection does not mean that physics engines do not deal with collision detection.

GǪexcept of course that he said nothing of the sort.

THat's really...out there. OK.

We're discussing video games here. Yes, if there's no need for collision, we can simulate all movement needed by translating and transforming textures, to simulate movement. The simple example, Mickey mouse doesn't actually move when he walks down the hallway, he stays in place while the background scrolls behind him.

This is basic programming and game design 101 stuff, and waaaaaay off topic to the discussion.

Just to TL;DR the thread before it locks. Infinity Ziona really doesn't like mean EVE people, bumping is working as intended, and a nurse knows more about programming than a 10 year professor.

A ship in space when producing thrust is using energy to move mass since producing any thrust in zero g will produce movement. That's physics. The game would still need a physics engine to determine how much thrust, its vector, how that thrust and vector act on the mass to cause that mass to move. There doesn't need to be any collisions for that mass to move. Just mass, thrust. That requires a physics engine.

No not including collisions.

At the function level which is where we were, there would be ZERO collision detection inside the physics function, it would be separated by functions.

Even on a macro level, the physics engine would exist apart from the collision detection system.

You would not need collision detection AT ALL if you there was no reason to have collision detection so a physics engine does not have collision detection. It does physics.

He said exactly that. No collisions no need for a physics engine.

As I said, no, it doesn't. Game design 101. If there's no interaction with game elements, I'm not going to include a whole physics engine w/ collision detection. I'm just going to simulate all movement using texture transforms.

No need for a physics engine then, just the math required to do the geometry transforms My "ship" object stays static. All the textures around it transform to simulate thrust, vector, how thrust/vector act together, all that fun stuff you explained.


In your example, you'll include an entire Havok engine to make a spaceship fly towards a planet in 3-d.

In my example, I transform the planet texture from 100% size to 200% size, in order to simulate ship thrust.

No but what if you want to have realistic physics.

No but what if you want to have realistic physics. You can't just make them up you need a physics engine to calculate how much of that thrust is converted into motion based on the amount of thrust, the mass you are moving, the location of the thrusters. If one of your thrusters was damaged or you reduce the thrust on deliberately, then you need to calculate how that affects the mass, if one thruster is producing thrust at a different level then another you need to calculate how that will affect the mass, will it spin the mass, will it slow down the mass down, if so how much, etc etc.

except that DESTINY (same as many other physics engines) does exactly that, so yes, including collisions.

GǪand the point you are missing is that the detection of collisions is handled by the physics engine, so the code you're creating to detect bumping (i.e. collisions) would feed right off of that engine. Since you're trying to infer some kind of intent, you need more data than just a+b GÇö data that is handled deep within that engine.

GÇ£WouldGÇ¥? Perhaps. GÇ£Actually doesGÇ¥, no. They're part of the same simulation.

GǪincluding collisions, which have to be detected (or, more accurately, predicted in the case of EVE).

No. He said that the primary job of the EVE physics engine is to detect collisions. And it kind of is, for an expanded definition of GÇ£collisionGÇ¥ GÇö its primary job is to detect, filter, and sort intersections between probable interactions of all kinds.

Luckily, this is EVE, so you don't.
And the point remains: no, you don't need a physics engine to simulate movement. Just because you can do it the excessively hard and convoluted way doesn't mean you have to. In fact, in many cases it means you really shouldn't.

I dont' care what DESTINY as a whole system does. Someone said they would have to change the whole physics engine. I said they wouldn't they would only need to change collision detection (the function or functions that handle collision detection).

No the code that handles collision detection would logically call the physics engine to handle the changed state when a collision occurs. The physics engine wouldn't' call the collision detection system otherwise it would be the collision detection system.

So you're saying the collision detection system in destiny is hard coded right into the functions that handle the physics in EvE and don't exist as separate functions? That's insane.

You're talking macro I'm talking function level

And no he didn't say EvE at all.

No, I'm saying that one of the functions in the overall Destiny engine GÇö EVE's physics engine GÇö is the collision detection.


Context is a just a strangely put-together string of random letters to you, isn't it?

If you didn't exist, this thread wouldn't have been derailed.

But I do exist.

You wouldn't have to change "the whole physics engine" you would only have to modify that function.

And no, we were talking in the context that he was designing his OWN game.

Tippia, even EvE has a particular physics model. It may not simulate real physics but it is a physics that translates to all ships, involving mass and thrust and other variables. So yes even EvE has a physics engine to simulate movement, if it didn't and just made it up then all our ships even when they're exactly the same, would behave completely differently to each other. They do not.

Dragging this again, screaming, right back to the silly topic it is....


When you can derive intent from two spheres colliding with each other, we can then discuss implementing "bumping flagging" in EVE.

EVE ships are simply spheres with a direction and speed, in the physics system. The physics system is what handles collision detection. In doing this, please do not add any more load on a node system that quickly gets overloaded as-is.

GǪwhich means modifying the physics engine GÇö possibly very large parts of it to ensure the right data is available everywhere it's needed GÇö which they're loath to do because it's such a brittle and critical system. You would also have to make it interact with completely new systems that now have to fight for processing time, which could prove to be a bad thing.

In that particular post, he said that there was no need for a physics engine because there was no point in having one to simulate movement. So no, he said that if there is no physics, then there's no need for physics engine to simulate those effects GÇö maybe one would be needed if collisions were involvedGǪ

Earlier, he said GÇö talking about an actual physics engine GÇö that GÇ£collision detection *IS* the physics model. [GǪ] that's the PRIME job of a physics engine, is to work out collisions.GÇ¥, which was in the context of EVE, as shown by the paragraphs surrounding it.


GǪexcept that that's not a certain outcome. Just because movement is all made up doesn't mean that ships of the same type would move differently. In fact, having it all made up tends to ensure that they move more the same than if it was all run through a (fuzzy-precision and possibly non-deterministic) simulation. If you ever saw a multiplayer game with gameplay-irrelevant physics modelling, you will have noticed how physics objects have a nasty tendency not to act the same for different players.

Go play a good old side-scroller GÇö I like Silkworm, personally. It has no physics engine. It has parallax scrolling to simulate constant movement of the player's ship. It has fixed x- and y-movement to simulate (momentarily) slowing down or speeding up in relation to that constant movement. It has a few dozen different enemies that move across the screen in pre-determined patterns at pre-determined times to simulate stuff coming at you or flying/driving away from you or you flying (and driving) towards them. A jump is simulated by following a pre-determined path along the y axis GÇö no physics is used to determine either height or length of the jump.

All of it is made up. All of it simulates movement of various kinds. All of it is also highly consistent and predictable (which is where the skill is supposed to come in GÇö timing your movement with the frames of animation of the enemies).

1. Never land a freighter at the most popular station. Dock at the least popular station.

[etc]

I don't see how you have that sort of information unless you yourself are or were an EvE developer. Its hardly likely they would have let you have a look at the code if you were not.

In EvE ships seem to all work exactly the same. You fit a module to two ships of the same type and they move exactly the same. They don't appear to be randomly assigned different attributes.

I can solve this problem. Really.

This was a fantastic and well-reasoned post by someone who obviously understands how to mitigate many potential risks while operating a freighter in high security space.

Sadly, I fully expect that it will receive the same treatment from other freighter captains as all such posts do: It will be railed against as being impractical or outright wrong, and ignored.

That's fine by me. I don't relish tears from griefing people.

I do admit to enjoying tears shed by the willfully ignorant. Freighter ganking is completely appropriate in this game because there are ways of avoiding it.

I've never gotten why victims will so willfully fuel the tear machine with whinging and crying after a gank.

I've been gotten on my industrial alt a few times. Rather than sending pages full of "OMG U SUX GO DIAF", I just say "Hey, good gank, caught me napping. Next time you won't be so lucky!"


Some people just invest entirely too much emotional clutter into a video game.

Bumping wouldn't be so bad if the physics were more realistic. Small ships bumping large objects shouldn't happen. Its like moving a stationary bullet proof car with a bullet.

Bumping wouldn't be so bad if the physics were more realistic. Small ships bumping large objects shouldn't happen. Its like moving a stationary bullet proof car with a bullet.

Tugboat, small ship used for changing the direction of, and propelling, much larger ones via pushing (bumping) and pulling.

Hi sec gates should have a traffic control system. Any ship within a 15 km sphere around it is tracked and if a ship comes within collision course of another one massive tractor beams installed on a gate guide the ship gently away, while traffic control send a stern warning to the bumper. Maybe a fine of 10 million isk too for energy expenditure and maintenance on those tractor beams.

Nah.

Agreed, sounds not very appealing.

Still, bumping as a mechanic, will be revisited by CCP sooner or later... if anything, then because of all the discussions it provokes. Would be interesting to see how the game would change if it would be changed/removed completely...

They have literally nerfed suicide ganking so many times we are onto bumping ships, a thing as old as the game itself that have never been an issue.

While that simple fact alone, should be a tell tale sign for what CCP really thinks about that "game practice".

and still people are defending it as a valid form of "pvp"

While that simple fact alone, should be a tell tale sign for what CCP really thinks about that "game practice"... I mean, reducing it to a base game mechnanic that is not as easily (if at all) changed, and still people are defending it as a valid form of "pvp"... I'm not quite sure who is "rightfully whining" here...

Still... said people seam to enjoy it. vOv

Hi sec gates should have a traffic control system. Any ship within a 15 km sphere around it is tracked and if a ship comes within collision course of another one massive tractor beams installed on a gate guide the ship gently away, while traffic control send a stern warning to the bumper. Maybe a fine of 10 million isk too for energy expenditure and maintenance on those tractor beams.

Indeed it does. Instead of simply turning things off, they keep struggling to keep it in the game and designing more and more mechanics around it.

Why wouldn't they?

That's one possible conclusion.

They don't want to anger either side too much... and have hit a colder sack as far as possible mechanics go... or soon will.

Indeed, why?

That's one possible conclusion... another, in my oprinion much more realistic one, would be: They don't want to anger either side too much... and have hit a colder sack as far as possible mechanics go... or soon will.

Hm... ok, it seams I stand corrected then... on the other hand, given CCP's recents changes in management...

...let's just say, I get a different message. Times are a changing, that's especially true for game companies... just don't be too suprised if "your" way of playing the game is suddenly deemed undesirable one day.

Hm... ok, it seams I stand corrected then... on the other hand, given CCP's recents changes in management...

...let's just say, I get a different message. Times are a changing, that's especially true for game companies... just don't be too suprised if "your" way of playing the game is suddenly deemed undesirable one day.

As long as PvP remains the most popular activity in the game...

The day that happens is the day EVE stops being EVE and it will go the same way as all the other MMOs have.

This discussion (and all others along those lines) never have been about PvP in EVE in general, and you know it.

You'd think all the dead "themepark" consensual pvp game swoulda gave them a hint, but that's asking too much lol.

Were I do agree though: That minority of "impotent flailers" will not change the game...

...but the demands of a changing industry might.

CCP is, at least, consistent about this, in that their explanation about what provokes a criminal flag is the use of a module. Of course, that wouldn't be the case with bumping - no modules are involved.

The good news is that EVE never catered to that part of the industry to begin with, and didn't need to chase to get on the whole GÇ£difficult gameGÇ¥ bandwagon GÇö it was already sitting way up front.

...as it was never thinkable that WoW will go f2p one day. Things change.

@ Tardbar: That's why low hanging fruit "PvP" with maximised risk/reward is so fervently defended by the players.

I've never gotten why victims will so willfully fuel the tear machine with whinging and crying after a gank.

I've been gotten on my industrial alt a few times. Rather than sending pages full of "OMG U SUX GO DIAF", I just say "Hey, good gank, caught me napping. Next time you won't be so lucky!"


Some people just invest entirely too much emotional clutter into a video game.

Hm... ok, it seams I stand corrected then... on the other hand, given CCP's recents changes in management...

...let's just say, I get a different message. Times are a changing, that's especially true for game companies... just don't be too suprised if "your" way of playing the game is suddenly deemed undesirable one day.

The risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (in fact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP).

So basically, you're wrong about pretty much everything. That's actually pretty impressive.

I know, right!?

Seriously though... throwing around random quotes as a way to give yourself a sense of security, and to be "right" of course, is... adorable... but doesn't nullify the possibility that CCP might change the whole bumping mechanics on a whim, if they should deem it necessary...

Um, ships are moving at maximum speed when they undock.

The simple solution would be that once a warp drive is activated and begins spooling up the ship is surrounded by a warp bubble and no longer a "collidable" object. The physics of the game has ships in warp passing through planets, stations, asteroids, all kinds of stuff because while in Warp you are not "physically" in the universe. At that point the only way to prevent the ship from warping away is to use a warp disruptor. If the ship doesn't have it's warp drive active then it can interact with the objects around it and be bumped.

top of the line capital ship to fly

killed by a group of newb alts in newb 2 million isk dessies with newb t1 weapons in under 30 seconds

You just killed bumping as a thing to fix something that isnt broken.

This thread is about that singular concept and addressing the perceived "lifelike" physics of mass in space, based on several limitations. It needs to change because it is not "lifelike" enough.

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but:

wouldn't it be more realistic if it was harder to bump a ship with more mass than the one you are flying? So for example if ship a) with a mass of 10kk kg woulb be able to bump a ship with 5kk kg, but not a ship with 20kk kg?
Seems logical that a bumping frigate would just be crushed against the hull of a freighter, and therefore be the one that is bumped if it tries.

Baltec - the adage "if it ain't broke then don't fix it" is what you are applying to this situation, then I have to say, that thinking is flawed. A design or concept when created is not perfect - never has been. Change of time, uses and people require modification of everything so the adage should be "If it don't change, don't fix it" and you apply that, will find that everything must evolve as everything changes.

Applying that concept to this game - everything will change because it can - and you know it can. There is no law to say it can't and as CCP has given the players a voice and an input into game evolution, then we say it will be changed and they will bow to player pressure - or not, as it is their decision at the end of the day.

This thread is about that singular concept and addressing the perceived "lifelike" physics of mass in space, based on several limitations. It needs to change because it is not "lifelike" enough.

Endof

CCP is, at least, consistent about this, in that their explanation about what provokes a criminal flag is the use of a module. Of course, that wouldn't be the case with bumping - no modules are involved.

MWD's increase ship mass. I'm sure your rental agreement doesn't say anything about being allowed to badpost on the forums.

I'm talking about the size of the ship. There's no reason a large ship should do evasive maneuvers for a small sized ship. RL example: Large 16 wheel truck vs a Ford Ka.
If anchor +F1 "leet pvp" goons can badpost, I can too.

You seem to not understand the difference between size & mass (mass is more important). I don't anchor + F1, now stop posting & get back to making money for us.

I'm just going to point to what Fey Ivory said.

(oh and this is not my main. I know we anchor + F1. )

So if I throw a small rock at a stationary rock three times bigger in space the big rock is not going to move?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=199310&find=unread
dont know if this was linked in here already...thats the official view of bumping.

"However, persistent targeting of a player with bumping by following them around after they have made an effort to move on to another location can be classified as harassment, and this will be judged on a case by case basis."
...and that's actually all one should have to say about that.

So don't follow them from system to system.

This raises a really good question; "How many Calories are in human tears, and will that make me fatter than dipping my Oreo's in skim milk"?

Ok, great. Now the second you tell me how to code that in a decade-old 3-dimensional underwater simulation model that was conscripted into use as a spaceship game for whom none of the original programmers still work for the company, we can get started.

So if I throw a small rock at a stationary rock three times bigger in space the big rock is not going to move?

And if your frigate flies with afterburner into a titan, it shouldent go splat ?, of two less brilliant things, wich is less brilliant ? ;P

And if your frigate flies with afterburner into a titan, it shouldent go splat ?, of two less brilliant things, wich is less brilliant ? ;P

This raises a really good question; "How many Calories are in human tears, and will that make me fatter than dipping my Oreo's in skim milk"?

Or don't follow them to another belt... or even 10 km on the same grid... all's relative.

...but the definition of "bumping as a form of harassment" wasn't really the subject here to begin with.

If only our ships in space had some kind of shield...

Go find that one GM and ask him for some help

Why should I? I have no issue with gankers... never had.

...I just don't like bullies. vOv

Go on, I'll be waiting.

Why should I? I have no issue with gankers... never had.

...I just don't like bullies. vOv

On shields: I doubt that shields would be of much use against the force of one ship colliding with another one... they are there to absorb certain forms of energy... the kinetic force a small, fast ship would have to withstand when colliding with a much larger vessel would melt it's shield in milliseconds. On the other hand... a frigate ramming a dreadnought wouldn't do much more harm then a missile would to said frigate.

CCP is only willing to use a certain amount of processor power dealing with the collisions that happen all the time in EVE, so until things get rewritten to allow the GPU to shoulder that load via Tessellation things aren't likely to change much in the short term.

CCP is only willing to use a certain amount of processor power dealing with the collisions that happen all the time in EVE, so until things get rewritten to allow the GPU to shoulder that load via Tessellation things aren't likely to change much in the short term.

CCP is, at least, consistent about this, in that their explanation about what provokes a criminal flag is the use of a module. Of course, that wouldn't be the case with bumping - no modules are involved.

Jita 4-4 will no longer be a market if you added consequences on bumping

Its very easy for the server to tell the difference between deliberate bumping and accidental bumping.

Deliberate -

Ship is moving at great speed.
Ship is repeatedly colliding with the bumped ship while moving at great speed in a forward direction.
Ship is moving away at high speed to get range for next bump.
Ship is using MWD.

vs

Undocking

Ship is moving at slow speed
Ship is bumping another ship at slow speed while moving up down, sideways.
Ship is not moving away at high speed to get range for next bump.
Ship is not using MWD.

Simple.

Thread:

OP: "HOW TO SHOT WEB?!?!?"

ZIONA: "SOK I WILL CODE WEBSHOOTING CODES FOR UUUU" *if.player1=meanie then.ruleschange1 ruleschange1=evehowIwantit

EVERYONE ELSE: Actually, you are wrong. *inserts proof*

ZIONA: I AM ALWAYS RIGHT FORUMS REVOLVE AROUND ME LISTEN TO MEEEEEE I KNOW HOW TO SHOT WEB NO REALLY...oh by the way freighters should be totally safe in hi-sec because :time investment:

EVE: *facepalm

CCP's policy for a long time now has been that you can not repeatedly bump a freighter to stop it from warping if you're not ganking it. If someone does this then file a GM ticket. Otherwise it's game mechanics working as intended.

If you're referring to other cases of bumping then it comes under the Harassment policy where you should first attempt to move systems and if the person follows you then you can report them.

Thread:

OP: "HOW TO SHOT WEB?!?!?"

ZIONA: "SOK I WILL CODE WEBSHOOTING CODES FOR UUUU" *if.player1=meanie then.ruleschange1 ruleschange1=evehowIwantit

EVERYONE ELSE: Actually, you are wrong. *inserts proof*

ZIONA: I AM ALWAYS RIGHT FORUMS REVOLVE AROUND ME LISTEN TO MEEEEEE I KNOW HOW TO SHOT WEB NO REALLY...oh by the way freighters should be totally safe in hi-sec because :time investment:

EVE: *facepalm

You owe me a keyboard because mine is now soiled with coffee. I will accept 3 plex in lieu of keyboard.

I've read some threads about this and am yet to see a response to this question: How is it logical that using a warp disruptor raises a criminal flag but preventing someone from warping by bumping into their ship endlessly does not?

I understand bumping is not in itself an exploit, and it would be tough to place flags as how does one determine when it is appropriate to do so?

None the less this issue needs to be looked at. I don't fly freighters or do much that requires such transportation so I don't think I'm (too) biased when it comes to this. Can't ignore the faulty logic.
RRing criminals flags you. Why? You are helping criminals. So... what's the bumper doing?

CCP should sit down and come up with a solution. There should be something "between" a yellow and orange flag for this and they need to find an effective way for it to exist within the game.

Its very easy for the server to tell the difference between deliberate bumping and accidental bumping.

Deliberate -

Ship is moving at great speed.
Ship is repeatedly colliding with the bumped ship while moving at great speed in a forward direction.
Ship is moving away at high speed to get range for next bump.
Ship is using MWD.

vs

Undocking

Ship is moving at slow speed
Ship is bumping another ship at slow speed while moving up down, sideways.
Ship is not moving away at high speed to get range for next bump.
Ship is not using MWD.

Simple.

what is not logical is that somthing the size of a interceptor can fly at 5k mps and slab into the size of something the size of a freighter and take no damage. That's like saying right i have a speed boat i am going to crash into the side of this oil tanker to move it. speed boat would just go pop.

You're not quite understanding. A physics engine (I don't know EvE's so I'm being general) only handles physics. It shouldn't care about MWD. It doesn't care about collisions.

If I was programming a very simple program that dealt with this stuff I would have the graphics engine (only handles graphics), a physics engine (only handles pure physics), a collision detection model (only handles collisions), a flagging system (only handles flagging).

If in my program a ship collided it would be detected by my collision detection model. The collision detection system (CDS) would call the flagging system (FS) with the ships object id (ship1, ship2), the flagging system would examine ship1 and ship2 data and do its stuff. The CDS would then call the physics engine (PE) with the same id's. The PE would examine the ship1 and ship 2 data and do its stuff. It doesn't even know that a MWD exists, it exists just to handle physics so it does it stuff based on ship1 and ship2 data. The CDS doesn't call the graphics system because that's handled by the main system which called the CDS.

As for your only bumping x number of times well true but that's infinitely better then as many times as you like.

So if I created a space game with no planets, nothing that a ship could collide with, lets say its in interstellar space, I wouldn't need a physics engine because there are no collisions :)

Oh and therefore no physics?

lmao. Really so an engine producing thrust (motion) with fuel (energy) and moving a ship (mass) does not require physics. We should tell NASA they could save a bunch by firing all their physicists :)

I've read some threads about this and am yet to see a response to this question: How is it logical that using a warp disruptor raises a criminal flag but preventing someone from warping by bumping into their ship endlessly does not?

I understand bumping is not in itself an exploit, and it would be tough to place flags as how does one determine when it is appropriate to do so?

None the less this issue needs to be looked at. I don't fly freighters or do much that requires such transportation so I don't think I'm (too) biased when it comes to this. Can't ignore the faulty logic.
RRing criminals flags you. Why? You are helping criminals. So... what's the bumper doing?

CCP should sit down and come up with a solution. There should be something "between" a yellow and orange flag for this and they need to find an effective way for it to exist within the game.

What engine and what thrust?

We are talking about a supposed video game with nothing in it to collide with, and since you don't have walls in this game... you're movement is like hanging a pencil from the ceiling and using your hands to manipulate the paper to draw a picture.

That's what is cool about "simulations" is that they aren't real.

If youre repeatedly bumped, simply log off, and the would be gankers will shed tears of their own as your ship vanishes within 1 min, come back in hour and play again ;)

The engine in the ship that's floating is space. The ship produces thrust using energy from fuel. The thrust moves the ship which the engine is attached too. "Simulations" simulate something, usually reality.

We covered this at length, but just in case, short memory and all:

If there are no collisions, there's no need for a physics engine. Everything that would require a physics engine can be done via texture transforms. This has been a standard way to code movement in video games, when collisions don't need to be factored.

Being a ten year teacher of programming, you should be well aware of this fact.

PHYSICS ENGINE

Microsoft Space Simulator uses Newton laws of motion but takes account of relativistic effects by decreasing a spacecraft's acceleration as its speed approaches the speed of light. It does not take account of time dilation.
Atmospheric flight GÇö atmosphere is not modeled
Surface GÇö all planetary surfaces are treated as flat spheres. No collision detection is implemented.