Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Andy Landen
Sub--Zero Catastrophic Uprising
451
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 20:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
The lamest mechanic in Eve, as far I am concerned, is 0 damage ship bumping. It is time for this stupid mechanic to end. When a frigate hits a Titan at full speed, it should look like a bug hitting the windshield of a train: splat. The frigate pops and the Titan has a scratch on the paint job.
Collisions should involve damage to the colliding ships. A frigate hits a battleship at 3km/s straight on and bounces off, both the frigate and the battleship should incur 3k damage to kinetic damage. A collision of the same ships at 300 m/s should yield 300 damage to each. The damage calculation could take into account the masses and changes in velocities of each object involved in the collision.
Since it gets a little complicated in high sec with Concording, kill rights, and pve ganking, etc, collisions in high sec could continue to have 0 damage for players without aggression. Also, collisions with asteroids, stargates, and stations can continue to have zero damage until mechanics are put into place to avoid warping inside a station or avoiding collisions with stationary, non-combat objects. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
33
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 20:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
I'm sure CCP has long thought about this, and probably wanted it even at the earliest beginnings of EvE. The problem is, there is no collision avoidance mechanisms in eve, so there would be far to many incidental damage problems. Undock in a damaged ship from a busy station and you're likely not to survive.
Years ago, collisions were much more problematic (everything generated a collision - cans, billboards, etc). They could have solved it one of two ways. The hard way was to have route management collision avoidance. The other was to remove collision from most in-space objects... they chose the easy way. In a game where the servers are already crying when a bunch of ships are on the same grid, calculating collision avoidance methods would bring it to a stand-still. |
Andy Landen
Sub--Zero Catastrophic Uprising
451
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 21:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
Clansworth wrote:I'm sure CCP has long thought about this, and probably wanted it even at the earliest beginnings of EvE. The problem is, there is no collision avoidance mechanisms in eve, so there would be far to many incidental damage problems. Undock in a damaged ship from a busy station and you're likely not to survive.
Years ago, collisions were much more problematic (everything generated a collision - cans, billboards, etc). They could have solved it one of two ways. The hard way was to have route management collision avoidance. The other was to remove collision from most in-space objects... they chose the easy way. In a game where the servers are already crying when a bunch of ships are on the same grid, calculating collision avoidance methods would bring it to a stand-still.
Collision avoidance is a great idea too, but damage for collisions is a must so that we can end the 0 damage bumping tactics which are an embarrassment to Eve in their stupidity. The local machines can handle the computational work, instead of the servers.
Where an object appears to be on a collision course, if the collision safety is switched on, the ship will simply change direction to least amount possible to minimize the collision speed. Larger ships may opt to leave the system off knowing that the impact of smaller ships will not affect them much damage wise and will result in the popping of the smaller ship.
The warp mechanic can include a little change to remove all points for dropping out of warp which result in a collision, if the system is on. The system could have a toggle for being engaged for warp, for normal movement, for neither, or for both.
The damage may encourage battleships "bowling" or ramming, but with their lower speeds it would not be as effective.
Maybe CCP has thought of this like they have thought of poses, which subject is still getting flogged for the longest time, but perhaps they don't realize how much this mechanic hurts their game in sheer stupidity. Computers have evolved enough to handle these calculations quite easily and it is about time for damage from collisions. Intentionally ramming a ship should have substantial consequences on both sides. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
Hesod Adee
Kiwis In Space
213
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 22:02:00 -
[4] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:Computers have evolved enough to handle these calculations quite easily and it is about time for damage from collisions. Intentionally ramming a ship should have substantial consequences on both sides. You're still asking CCP to add more strain to the servers. Servers which already have problems keeping up with their current load. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
15847
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 22:03:00 -
[5] - Quote
There's already a topic on this Andy. Here.
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
3809
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 22:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
Quote:Collision avoidance is a great idea too, but damage for collisions is a must so that we can end the 0 damage bumping tactics which are an embarrassment to Eve in their stupidity. The local machines can handle the computational work, instead of the servers.
1a. Since you made an exception for bumping not causing damage without aggression the "bumping tactics" used will not be affected by your change. 1b. If you include a new rule set that causes aggression when bumped a certain number of times then gankers will use it to their advantage to blow up people.
2. To ensure the integrity of a game you NEVER let local computers handle anything "sensitive" aside from basic input and output (see: aggression rules, damage calculations, location in space, etc) for obvious reasons. And no matter how illegal you make it, or the amount of security you install into a client, or how many times you ban... people WILL break into the code and use it to their advantage (because that much of an advantage over others is too tempting to ignore). Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Aquila Sagitta
Blue-Fire
120
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 22:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
Everyone undocking from jita gets concorded
Nice mechanic Blue-Fire Best Fire |
Grenn Putubi
Swag Co. SWAG Co
49
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 22:24:00 -
[8] - Quote
I don't mind 0 damage from collisions as much as I do the hilarity of the current bumping mechanics.
A 1mil kg frigate should not be able to bounce a 100+mil kg battleship the way they can. It's like throwing a can of soup at a car...it's not gonna move it...
If you insist on damage being a factor though I'd suggest some sort of threshold for the damage to be applied. Say if a ship is going more than 200% of it's base max velocity (ie max speed with an AB or MWD going) you take damage according to how much faster than your base max velocity you're traveling. That way damage from bumping couldn't occur if you're not fit with a prop mod and have it turned on. You'd probably have to account for undocking in some way, not many ships undock at +200% max speed, but I can think of a few that do so there'd have to be considerations made for that. Sure accidental bump damage could still occur, but it would be a consequence of not paying attention while you've got your prop mod turned on. Don't use Approach and your chances of taking collision damage are almost nil with a threshold like that. |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2333
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 22:30:00 -
[9] - Quote
Did you lose your crane to some good bumping? Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
724
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 22:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Did you lose your crane to some good bumping?
To be fair, it was a bustard. |
|
Spl4sh
Coherent Light
0
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 23:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Hi,
finally came around to look for a bumping thread, cause tbh.. all this brainless pseudo roleplay behaviour by the bumpers in common mining systems starts making me sick :(
here's an idea, which even might satisfy the physics/technology fans:
what if ccp would come to the conclusion, that the way mining lasers and harvesters work is actually based on gravimetrics.. i mean.. how would a laser be at all technically useful for mining if not by breaking the raw asteroid's structure, which then finds ist way to the mining ship by the fact that the harvesting module technically increases the ships mass by a huge factor by manipulating the gravimetric behaviour of the vessel. it would be like a huge drainage mechanism.
technically, any activated harvesting module should increase the ships mass by a factor of.. say 10x or even higher. as a side effect, mining ships would be almost immobile just like certain other ships when their respective modules (siege, bastion etc.) are active. the boring and awful bumping game would stop working with anything that hasnt a huge mass on its own. Ships needing to move for any reason would have to deactivate the harvesting modules, first.
really, what other method would be as convenient and still technically explainable? and how convenient is the fact that eve already uses almost exactly the same mechanism to immobilize certain ships.
so, ccp.. think about it.. and please get rid off this lame griefing mechanism by simply adding a simple mass Multiplier Attribute to harvesting modules when activated, making eve a much better place to be.
dont get me wrong.. im not mining, i havent mined in years even on my older toons, but bumping pseudo roleplaying griefers everywhere and all day long really are annoying as hell.
lets see if anyone responsible in eve considers such an idea... surprise me, cpp... even if its the first time in 10 years addiction to this game ;)
cyas
|
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2027
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 23:19:00 -
[12] - Quote
So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense? |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2335
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 23:39:00 -
[13] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense?
So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Andy Landen
Sub--Zero Catastrophic Uprising
457
|
Posted - 2013.12.18 23:46:00 -
[14] - Quote
Mag's wrote:There's already a topic on this Andy. Here. Good point. I didn't see that. So let's send this thread the other way then regarding the momentum equation and the effects of bumping, which still naturally follows the title of this thtread. Let the other thread discuss the damage aspect, which I like.
Let's talk about using the good old conservation of momentum equation m*v = m*v to govern the effects of bumping. Mass of frigate is 1 million kg. Mass of carrier is 1.1 bil kg. So the maximum change in velocity is less than 1/1000, so a collision at 4000 m/s will only slow the carrier down by 4 m/s. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
Andy Landen
Sub--Zero Catastrophic Uprising
458
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 00:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Danika Princip wrote:So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense? So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why. Because as a Physicist, it really bothers me that the Laws of Momentum (motion) and of Kinetic Energy (damage) are so blatantly violated in the 0 damage bumping mechanism. I can look past a lot of technology in Science Fiction, but technology cannot change the fundamental laws of Physics. At the very least, we should honor the Law of Momentum. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
Miasmos
Aliastra Gallente Federation
32
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 00:41:00 -
[16] - Quote
Just remove the collision mechanism. Come up with a better pvp solution to replace it.
+ server load lessened + unimmersive force fields off objects
-/+ ships stacking visually, not a downgrade from the clusterballs of today though |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
2029
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 00:58:00 -
[17] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Danika Princip wrote:So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense? So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why. Because as a Physicist, it really bothers me that the Laws of Momentum (motion) and of Kinetic Energy (damage) are so blatantly violated in the 0 damage bumping mechanism. I can look past a lot of technology in Science Fiction, but technology cannot change the fundamental laws of Physics. At the very least, we should honor the Law of Momentum.
So you want us to slam 1600 plated, MWDing stabbers into literally everything, right? |
Astroniomix
Cryptic Meta-4
724
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 01:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Andy Landen wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Danika Princip wrote:So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense? So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why. Because as a Physicist, it really bothers me that the Laws of Momentum (motion) and of Kinetic Energy (damage) are so blatantly violated in the 0 damage bumping mechanism. I can look past a lot of technology in Science Fiction, but technology cannot change the fundamental laws of Physics. At the very least, we should honor the Law of Momentum. So you want us to slam 1600 plated, MWDing stabbers into literally everything, right? 100mn 1600 plated vagabonds everywhere. |
Andy Landen
Sub--Zero Catastrophic Uprising
463
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 01:27:00 -
[19] - Quote
Astroniomix wrote: 100mn 1600 plated vagabonds everywhere.
Crap, you are right about the MWD mechanic messing it all up with the MWD blowing up the mass (what happened to the Conservation of Mass, anyone?). No wonder CCP turns their head when they see issues like the violation of Conservation of Momentum. Before they know it many of their other mechanics become so obviously bad. And if you are in a mini-warp using the MWD, then collision should be impossible. Probably the easiest way to deal with MWD is to make the ship a ghost to collisions. Could ships stack up that way? Yes, yes, they could, but they are in micro-warp, so that seems reasonable enough. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
Dato Koppla
PillowFighters Inc Stealth Wear Inc.
411
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 01:48:00 -
[20] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Danika Princip wrote:So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense? So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why. Because as a Physicist, it really bothers me that the Laws of Momentum (motion) and of Kinetic Energy (damage) are so blatantly violated in the 0 damage bumping mechanism. I can look past a lot of technology in Science Fiction, but technology cannot change the fundamental laws of Physics. At the very least, we should honor the Law of Momentum.
Okay now I know you're trolling. If you're looking for mechanics accurate to real science, don't play online games and expect to get it. I'm pretty sure Eve is riddled with scientific inaccuracies, so I highly doubt you want this particular mechanic changed because of "Laws of Momentum and Kinetic Energy" |
|
Andy Landen
Sub--Zero Catastrophic Uprising
463
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 02:13:00 -
[21] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:Andy Landen wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Danika Princip wrote:So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense? So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why. Because as a Physicist, it really bothers me that the Laws of Momentum (motion) and of Kinetic Energy (damage) are so blatantly violated in the 0 damage bumping mechanism. I can look past a lot of technology in Science Fiction, but technology cannot change the fundamental laws of Physics. At the very least, we should honor the Law of Momentum. Okay now I know you're trolling. If you're looking for mechanics accurate to real science, don't play online games and expect to get it. I'm pretty sure Eve is riddled with scientific inaccuracies, so I highly doubt you want this particular mechanic changed because of "Laws of Momentum and Kinetic Energy" You are right that there are other parts that really bother me about Eve, like the space gel. Ships engage their thrusters but their acceleration is limited by a maximum speed. If the thrusters are on, the ship should be accelerating. But in this thread, I want to focus on one aspect: 0 damage bumping. Others have made threads on space gel; almost like you are in a ship on the high seas with the water increasing resistance to acceleration as your speed increases. Other things I can look past, like giving CCP "artistic license" or "suspension of doubt" for wormholes and for instant damage for projectile turrets to name a couple of things. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
264
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 09:10:00 -
[22] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:Clansworth wrote:I'm sure CCP has long thought about this, and probably wanted it even at the earliest beginnings of EvE. The problem is, there is no collision avoidance mechanisms in eve, so there would be far to many incidental damage problems. Undock in a damaged ship from a busy station and you're likely not to survive.
Years ago, collisions were much more problematic (everything generated a collision - cans, billboards, etc). They could have solved it one of two ways. The hard way was to have route management collision avoidance. The other was to remove collision from most in-space objects... they chose the easy way. In a game where the servers are already crying when a bunch of ships are on the same grid, calculating collision avoidance methods would bring it to a stand-still. Collision avoidance is a great idea too, but damage for collisions is a must so that we can end the 0 damage bumping tactics which are an embarrassment by their sheer stupidity to Eve Online. The local machines can handle the computational work, instead of the servers. Where an object appears to be on a collision course, if the collision safety is switched on, the ship will simply change direction to least amount possible to minimize the collision speed. Larger ships may opt to leave the system off knowing that the impact of smaller ships will not affect them much damage wise and will result in the popping of the smaller ship. The warp mechanic can include a little change to remove all points for dropping out of warp which result in a collision, if the system is on. The system could have a toggle for being engaged for warp, for normal movement, for neither, or for both. The damage may encourage battleships "bowling" or ramming, but with their lower speeds it would not be as effective. Maybe CCP has thought of this like they have thought of poses, which subject is still getting flogged for the longest time, but perhaps they don't realize how much this mechanic hurts their game in sheer stupidity. Computers have evolved enough to handle these calculations quite easily and it is about time for damage from collisions. Intentionally ramming a ship should have substantial consequences on both sides. good luck undocking from jita or any hub then....
aside of the bumping thingy, wich i myself like, this would make the game unplaybale.
undock from jita, get bumped to deth instantly by 200ppl, but wait, there is the trick, the damaged you where they have no right to => concord => no more player would ever undock |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
143
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 09:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
Good luck undocking in Jita or Amarr or mass undocking from an outpost in 00, or jumping your Dread/Carrier/SC-fleet, BS-fleet through a cyno. You are dead on arrival. Let alone the node/server itself, which is going to melt. Would be perfect for CFC, though.
If collision detection and damage application upon collision was ever implemented, so many more things would need to be changed: station undocks needed to be multiplied and undock mechanisms changed to find a free undock port, cyno spheres needed to be enlarged, the very mechanisms to detect the ship's/objects position needed to be improved a lot, gate approach lanes needed to be multiplied so that not every ship lands on the same spot and then approaches the gate on the same single lane and bump everyone else out of the lane who's slower, etc pp. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
941
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 10:20:00 -
[24] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:The lamest mechanic in Eve, as far I am concerned, is 0 damage ship bumping. It is time for this stupid mechanic to end. When a frigate hits a Titan at full speed, it should look like a bug hitting the windshield of a train: splat. The frigate pops and the Titan has a scratch on the paint job. Already a thread on collision damage so let's talk about conservation of momentum; momentum before = momentum after or p1=p2, where p=mv; momentum equals mass times velocity [Archiving: Collisions should involve damage to the colliding ships. A frigate hits a battleship at 3km/s straight on and bounces off, both the frigate and the battleship should incur 3k damage to kinetic damage. A collision of the same ships at 300 m/s should yield 300 damage to each. The damage calculation could take into account the masses and changes in velocities of each object involved in the collision. Since it gets a little complicated in high sec with Concording, kill rights, and pve ganking, etc, collisions in high sec could continue to have 0 damage for players without aggression. Also, collisions with asteroids, stargates, and stations can continue to have zero damage until mechanics are put into place to avoid warping inside a station or avoiding collisions with stationary, non-combat objects.]The change in velocity of an object must follow the conservation of momentum. m1v1 + m2v2 = m1v3 + m2v4 when v4=0 becomes change in v1 = m2/m1 * v2 which is to say that if all of ship B's momentum is transferred to ship A and ship B ends at rest then ship A changes its velocity only by the ratio of masses of Ship B divided by Ship A times the initial velocity of Ship B.
Want to us elogic? Then your argument fails compeltely. A frigate is much larger than a naglfar class projectile. And moves far faster since it can go to near relativistic speeds when exist and enterign warp stil on grid.
Udner these circuynstances a frigate exiting warp upon a capital ship should blow it up completely.
That or the capital ship weapons should be unable to hurt a capital ship. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Claud Tiberius
The Loathsome Lions
3
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 12:37:00 -
[25] - Quote
The collision reaction (bump) could be priortised so that, the smaller ship will always be the ship that bounces because it is hitting a larger ship - the larger ship will maintain is current velocity/ trajectory. The beauty of this is, the tactic isn't easily transitive. It is not easy for a large ship to bump a smaller ship, because the smaller ship is more often faster and maneuverable.
At least that would stop the bumping issue for most pilots. Adding Damage however is a huge task, I don't think the current EVE could ever handle or design it in such a way that it is fair and stable. |
Jake Sake
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
28
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 13:23:00 -
[26] - Quote
Hesod Adee wrote:Andy Landen wrote:Computers have evolved enough to handle these calculations quite easily and it is about time for damage from collisions. Intentionally ramming a ship should have substantial consequences on both sides. You're still asking CCP to add more strain to the servers. Servers which already have problems keeping up with their current load. This hardly is an excuse to not implement it. They redid missile lunching and flight, aren't they? Like that was very needed... it just made game little more prettier. But I'd get a realistic collision between objects/ships over realistic missile lunch from ships anytime. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
944
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 13:54:00 -
[27] - Quote
Claud Tiberius wrote:The collision reaction (bump) could be priortised so that, the smaller ship will always be the ship that bounces because it is hitting a larger ship - the larger ship will maintain is current velocity/ trajectory. The beauty of this is, the tactic isn't easily transitive. It is not easy for a large ship to bump a smaller ship, because the smaller ship is more often faster and maneuverable.
At least that would stop the bumping issue for most pilots. Adding Damage however is a huge task, I don't think the current EVE could ever handle or design it in such a way that it is fair and stable.
It already is like that. The smaller ship will suffer more form the bumping. But in space, without support the large one will be affected as well.
Eve implements the basic physics of a a collision. Do the math yourself. Its pretty much what we have in game that you would get when the object are not supported by attrition on a surface . "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Andy Landen
Sub--Zero Catastrophic Uprising
465
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 18:16:00 -
[28] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Andy Landen wrote:... The change in velocity of an object must follow the conservation of momentum. m1v1 + m2v2 = m1v3 + m2v4 when v4=0 becomes change in v1 = m2/m1 * v2 which is to say that if all of ship B's momentum is transferred to ship A and ship B ends at rest then ship A changes its velocity only by the ratio of masses of Ship B divided by Ship A times the initial velocity of Ship B. Want to us elogic? Then your argument fails compeltely. A frigate is much larger than a naglfar class projectile. And moves far faster since it can go to near relativistic speeds when exist and enterign warp stil on grid. Udner these circuynstances a frigate exiting warp upon a capital ship should blow it up completely. That or the capital ship weapons should be unable to hurt a capital ship. Warp is moving through warped space, not through normal space. The ship isn't moving faster, it is just moving through a shorter distance (having warped the space). Collisions should be impossible until after it exits warp and is traveling still at normal speeds but now through normal, unwarped space. But since we already have a thread for collision damage, I'll refer further discussion of that to that link. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
2347
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 18:17:00 -
[29] - Quote
Andy Landen wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Danika Princip wrote:So...why introduce bumping damage, but ONLY outside of highsec? How does that even make sense? So people wont have to lose ships at low sec gates anymore, that is why. Because as a Physicist, it really bothers me that the Laws of Momentum (motion) and of Kinetic Energy (damage) are so blatantly violated in the 0 damage bumping mechanism. I can look past a lot of technology in Science Fiction, but technology cannot change the fundamental laws of Physics. At the very least, we should honor the Law of Momentum.
Right, in all the years you have been playing it hasn't been an issue. Now, that the mechanic has been used against you, you suddenly make a post.
What an amazing coincidence.
Edit: BTW, how come my ship has to turn so slow in space...why does it behave like something in a liquid...when in a vacuum?
We going to be changing that too?
You do realize that certain mechanics are in the game and don't match up with reality so that we can...you know...play the game. Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence So Local Chat vanished, now what? |
Andy Landen
Sub--Zero Catastrophic Uprising
465
|
Posted - 2013.12.19 18:21:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:.. Eve implements the basic physics of a a collision. Do the math yourself. Its pretty much what we have in game that you would get when the object are not supported by attrition on a surface . If Eve did the basic physics right according to p1 + p2 = p3 + p4, then a T1 frigate at 3000 m/s hitting a carrier should only change its velocity by 3 m/s. We know that the carrier's velocity is changed much, much more than that currently. Also, use of the MWD should preclude collisions because you are in micro warp, which means that you are traveling through warped space and not through normal space. "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |