| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Cael Autumn
e X i l e
The Initiative.
19
   |
Posted - 2013.11.03 01:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Currently, every turret is another variety of Lock-F1-Damage, with miniscule mechanical differences other than range, tracking, capacitor use, and cycle time.
Lasers -- These should lose their 'cycle' mechanic, and become remote-projection of negative recharge. Whatever the mechanic is to calculate shield recharge, apply that in a negative amount to simulate a constant energy weapon 'burning' damage into the target. This would eliminate waste and 'overkill' on targets. Volatility on advanced crystals could be re-calculated by simply using burn time instead of cycles.
From a graphical standpoint, the laser effect would need to be constant, and follow smoothly whether it is currently tracking or not.
Artillery -- Should travel according to their muzzle velocity. Travel approximately 100km/s. Graphics should just barely show the projectile in motion, and maybe including a nicer hit explosion/effect would improve immersion. These howitzer shells are basically 'instance-propelled missiles' and the slower muzzle velocity than railguns and autocannons is to keep the payload in tact. Most of the damage here is from that payload, not the impact.
hybrids - these remain largely unchanged. I wouldn't mind graphical updates, but they would remain as the instant-application, single-impact damage platform.
Also, turrets have various damage types built into the ammo directly, with lasers', the longer range ammo filters out the thermal damge. Well, what if that was done automatically, instead of by the ammo just doing 80% em 20% thermal at all ranges, have an ammo with 100 damage of EM with 100km falloff, and 100 damage of thermal with 20 falloff.
Railguns work much the same way, what if instead of long range ammo 'just doing more' kinetic than thermal, the shell 'cools' as it travels through space, dealing less thermal damage. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1762
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 02:27:00 -
[2] - Quote
Damage types are in no way a reflection of real world physics.
And thus real would physics should not apply to damage application.
Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Arya Regnar
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
323
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 06:05:00 -
[3] - Quote
Should I point out that eve is spaceships submerged into liquid?
Yeah I know... Warp drive creating drag effect...
Just saying. 
OP it's about fun, go play something else if you want realism.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Cael Autumn
e X i l e
The Initiative.
19
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 07:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
Just because there are real-life comparisons doesn't mean this post is about 'realism' -- it's about monotony, about adding flavor.
Currently I believe turrets are too similar to each other, and this would give at least a hint of extra flavor to each one. |
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
166
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 08:33:00 -
[5] - Quote
No to "realism" yes to different Weapon behaviors |
SpaceSaft
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
4
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 09:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
This is mostly a technical issue. Having one damage application per cycle gives the server time to process it. Having a constant damage application with lasers would require a lot more traffic and calculation. So while I'm in favor of the idea, it's never going to happen.
Besides that I also hold the oppinion that CCP should make a PC version for Dust 514. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
159
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 10:31:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lasers like that would be awesome. Couldn't care less whether that makes it more realistic or not.
I always get annoyed in games how lasers are so often just a pulse, rather than a solid beam. IIRC FEAR used to have an awesome laser that was like this. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
479
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 11:25:00 -
[8] - Quote
SpaceSaft wrote:This is mostly a technical issue. Having one damage application per cycle gives the server time to process it. Having a constant damage application with lasers would require a lot more traffic and calculation. So while I'm in favor of the idea, it's never going to happen.
Constant damage would just be a cycle time of 1s. I'm sure thats not significantly faster than Small fast firing weapons already can get to. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
812
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 11:33:00 -
[9] - Quote
just imagine ur lasers missing out on several volleys of fire between targets due to lag :(
and with arties acting like missiles, thats a lot more lag
There are no vets in EVE. Only varying levels of Noobery. |
Cael Autumn
e X i l e
The Initiative.
20
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 14:19:00 -
[10] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:just imagine ur lasers missing out on several volleys of fire between targets due to lag :(
and with arties acting like missiles, thats a lot more lag
They wouldn't have calculable travel time. they could simply act like turrets, with damage calculated on activation, and applied a bit later.
This is largely optional, because even at the max range this travel time would only realistically be 2-3 seconds. Hardly noticable.
I'd much more be interested in better bullet trails. Maybe offset the damage of the cycle (like armor reps land at the end) to 2-3 seconds in, and include the firing animation right from the start. Absolutely zero extra server volume, same effect.
And I think that this poster was correct- "Constant damage would just be a cycle time of 1s. I'm sure thats not significantly faster than Small fast firing weapons already can get to. "
1 second is the smallest time the server calculates things, so this would only involve re-calculating tracking (based off of a zealot fleet) - 2.16 (pulse) - or 2.47 (beam) times as often.
Honestly, I wouldn't even mind if they left the cycle times as they were, If they could spread the damage out over the entire cycle. |
Cael Autumn
e X i l e
The Initiative.
20
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 14:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Cael Autumn wrote:
And I think that this poster was correct- "Constant damage would just be a cycle time of 1s. I'm sure thats not significantly faster than Small fast firing weapons already can get to. "
1 second is the smallest time the server calculates things, so this would only involve re-calculating tracking (based off of a zealot fleet) - 2.16 (pulse) - or 2.47 (beam) times as often.
Honestly, I wouldn't even mind if they left the cycle times as they were, If they could spread the damage out over the entire cycle.
Actually, I prefer this to the method stated in the OP -- because this takes into account Rate of fire skills, modules and implants. |
DemonsDawn Elder
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 18:10:00 -
[12] - Quote
i very much agree continuous laser fire would be better if not cooler and more fun(because lasers), much like the way mining lasers function.
this way of firing would also pull away from the somewhat stale periodic damage rate which the other turrets have, and maybe giving a slight edge in some situations over the other turrets.
one issue that arises however is the difference between beam and pulse if this were to get implemented, would pulse just have a less powerful beam with a faster tracking speed? or maybe these continues beams would still actually pulse a little, where pulse lasers would have many smaller pulses(so the visual effects would actually seem to "pulse") while beam lasers have slower more powerful pulses(with a strong continues beam with big pulses)
for the projectile turrets, personally i never liked them. the artillery should realistically have some sort of delay but it doesn't bother me to much. the small turrets however i cant get over the fact that they are also just artillery with a faster firing rate and less range.
and about the visual aspect, i have no clue how they are able to track fairly small shells over a few KMs of range in the pitch blackness of space. i want to see them shoot some tracer rounds with their normal shells. |
Jason Itiner
Sectatores Pax
23
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 18:20:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ah, damage-over-time for beam lasers (and only beam ones, not the pulse lasers). How I wait for the day this happens  |
Bischopt
Arbitrary Repossession
356
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 18:24:00 -
[14] - Quote
Not sure if this would be better than the current system but it would certainly be interesting. |
Cael Autumn
e X i l e
The Initiative.
21
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 20:41:00 -
[15] - Quote
Updating to reflect current consensus:
 Lasers: Keep their current cycle time, but get damage-per tick mechanics similar to mining lasers. The graphical effects of pulse lasers becomes a series of pulse, and beam lasers a steady beam. This more accurately reflects the flavor of lasers 'burning' damage over time.
Damage applied and tracking can be calculated exactly as it is now, per-cycle, so no mechanical or coding changes are needed except for when the damage is applied. (Divide applied damage by ticks, apply it each time)
Artillery Gets a couple second delay built in to impact. Shells cannot travel instantly or the warheads would be destroyed on fire, so inherently there must be a travel time. Tracking, damage application, etc. are all unchanged, damage is just applied 2-3 seconds into the cycle.
.// additional : armor repairing. On the topic of constant-effects instead of single-action, armor repairing should reflect nanites rebuilding the armor over time, not an instant plate of armor appearing out of nowhere. It would be interesting if the capacitor use would also be spread out over time, but it could be justified that a 'batch' of nanites needs to be energized before being applied to the armor. |
Kaerakh
Rope Trick Pony
Kiki's Delivery Service.
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 21:03:00 -
[16] - Quote
Because the servers need more variables to calculate in massive fleet fights and more variables that could possibly desync. |
Cael Autumn
e X i l e
The Initiative.
21
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 21:11:00 -
[17] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:Because the servers need more variables to calculate in massive fleet fights and more variables that could possibly desync.
Because not-reading the discussion and posting rubbish anyway is pretty fun.
As this has progressed, we're worked out a way to make this effect work, in theory, without changing architecture much. |
Kaerakh
Rope Trick Pony
Kiki's Delivery Service.
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 21:17:00 -
[18] - Quote
Cael Autumn wrote:Kaerakh wrote:Because the servers need more variables to calculate in massive fleet fights and more variables that could possibly desync. Because not-reading the discussion and posting rubbish anyway is pretty fun. As this has progressed, we're worked out a way to make this effect work, in theory, without changing architecture much.
Because you're the very model of a modern major programmer, and have information CCP, Carbon, and DX11? |
DemonsDawn Elder
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 22:22:00 -
[19] - Quote
load wise i doubt there will be to much of an issue, depending on how "realistic" they want it to be. the coding can either be tick based or pre-calculated, the latter being just a little extra data added to every package and a visual update while nothing gets changed in tracking, but the former would tenfold the amount of ticks and tracking/damage calculation on every laser turret, which might cause some issues.
i am however going to assume coders have tricks to make these kinds of systems work better.
on the armor repair thing, i would say yes. but i could also see them make that another module all together (like passive/active shield tanking) |
Cael Autumn
e X i l e
The Initiative.
23
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 22:39:00 -
[20] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:Cael Autumn wrote:Kaerakh wrote:Because the servers need more variables to calculate in massive fleet fights and more variables that could possibly desync. Because not-reading the discussion and posting rubbish anyway is pretty fun. As this has progressed, we're worked out a way to make this effect work, in theory, without changing architecture much. Because you're the very model of a modern major programmer, and have information CCP, Carbon, and DX11?
Let's not get hostile here m8. I understand you're just a forum troll, but seriously.
I'm not a CCP programmer, nor actually employed as a programmer, but I do have a bachelor's of computer science and coding is a side hobby for me.
I have a fairly good understanding of the mechanisms in place for the game, and your discrediting it is completely baseless and without evidence. It goes even further to show your lack of understanding that you quote otherwise unrelated technologies on this simple damage application problem. Changing the way a turret deals its damage contains no changes to the stackless IO or method in which the effect is rendered. DX11 has nothing to do with it. It's not that big of a change.
It seems like the vast majority of replies here are in favor of this change. And maybe one or two like my armor rep idea ^^ |
Kaerakh
Rope Trick Pony
Kiki's Delivery Service.
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.03 23:21:00 -
[21] - Quote
Cael Autumn wrote:Let's not get hostile here m8. I understand you're just a forum troll, but seriously.
Two rights make a wrong then. You tried to troll me back. o7 Anyways, bottom line is I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about and this is a waste of time overhauling a system that's been overhauled 3 times already.
Two examples being that you glaze over hybrid systems showing a complete lack of understanding as to how they work considering that strictly speaking they too fire a projectile, and you make statements about how many development resources this would take when in reality you have no idea from a speculative standpoint. |
Cael Autumn
e X i l e
The Initiative.
23
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 00:32:00 -
[22] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:Cael Autumn wrote:Let's not get hostile here m8. I understand you're just a forum troll, but seriously. Two rights make a wrong then. You tried to troll me back. o7 Anyways, bottom line is I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about and this is a waste of time overhauling a system that's been overhauled 3 times already. Two examples being that you glaze over hybrid systems showing a complete lack of understanding as to how they work considering that strictly speaking they too fire a projectile, and you make statements about how many development resources this would take when in reality you have no idea from a speculative standpoint.
Only one variant of hybrids launches a projectile, that is railguns; but due to the incredible speed at which railguns launch their projectile, most of their damage is from the charge hitting at that speed, not so projectiles, who's damage comes from the warheads.
Blasters, if you read the wiki, do not launch a projectile, but the casing for the charge is removed and they fire the charged contents in a electromagnetic containment field.
There isn't much flavor that could change the way hybrids operate.
That's just my reasoning on the matter.
and finally, I do actually have a clue as to the way software is developed. This suggestion isn't "DEVS, DROP EVERYTHING AND DO THIS CHANGE" -- everything is taken as a discussion "oh, if this feature is going to get some work done anyway, let's look at these ideas Cael suggested" and maybe they can be worked in. |
Kaerakh
Rope Trick Pony
Kiki's Delivery Service.
10
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 04:31:00 -
[23] - Quote
Are you high? Come back and talk to me when you realize there's kinetic damage in hybrid weapons. E r g o there's mass to convey the kinetic force. E r g o there's an object being fired. E r g o there's a projectile. A projectile doesn't have to be a bullet. Also railguns don't instantly hit something. The projectile has travel time like everything else.
And clearly you don't have any idea how software is developed and think that because you've seen a couple of development vids in the youtube channel you're qualified to make comments on the development process. |
Me ofcourse
nul-li-fy
Nulli Secunda
96
|
Posted - 2013.11.04 06:17:00 -
[24] - Quote
Kaerakh wrote:Because the servers need more variables to calculate in massive fleet fights and more variables that could possibly desync.
this guy does have a point here, what the current consensus is, the lasers will apply damage based on server tick's until the server ticks gets faster then one tick per second this will require the server to process more then it is now, by a significant amount.
small gang warfare wont exactly notice much difference, however once your getting to fleet size's above 100 people the server is going to melt, as it stands now, once there's a battle of over 1000 people in a system the battle turn's into an unplayable brawl. there have been occasions in which FC's have convo'd each other and told the both fleets to stop firing and log off, not to escape being killed, but simply because no side is able to play/ conduct any operation.
TLDR; until the server is upgraded and the game's framework is upgraded, this idea is not as good as you would think |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |